Talk:List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union

"Crown colony" in "Created from" column
I am about to revert 's change of Province of Pennsylvania and several others to Crown colony. If we follow the logic of this change, we should also change Indiana Territory and Arkansas Territory and almost everything else to the more generic Organized incorporated territory of the United States, which I don't think would be an improvement. Per WP:BRD, (or should it be BDR?)), please discuss this here. YBG (talk) 23:22, 10 January's 2016 (UTC)
 * WCCasey needs to provide some solid RS for his claims. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually,I think the issue is not re RS, but whether we should list a more generic term (as WCCasey thinks) or more specific (as I think). YBG (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well stated YBG. The current (following your 11 Jan '16 revert edit) wording is probably a good way to have the 13 original states listed, unless someone can document (w/a solid RS) some other official designation for each colony in 1775/76. Also, I concur that generic statements like "British colony", "US territory" or even "Sovereign nation" (for Texas) would not be an improvement. Drdpw (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Although it might be nice to list both -- the genetic first, then the specific -- that way the column could be usefully made into a sorted column. YBG (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If I read you correctly, you're suggesting something like—
 * Crown colony of Delaware Crown colony of Pennsylvania and etc.— All 13 colonies were crown colonies in 1775/76. Drdpw (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes YBG (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My main reason for the changes was disagreement with "Province" in the titles of the nine "Province of..." articles. The "Crown colony" article includes more accurate descriptions of each of the British colonies' previous political status. Multiple links to "Crown colony" should cause no confusion - the unambiguous part of the colony names did not change: e.g. New York remained New York. WCCasey (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming by the talk page to address this. They weren't Crown Colonies before ratifying the Constitution in 1787 -- they'd been "free and independent states" since the Declaration of Independence in 1776. I'm not entirely sure what they should be called for the purposes of this list, but I don't think they were colonies at that point. 2601:8D:503:EF59:29F6:9E6C:9ECE:FF82 (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the 13 rebellious British colonies became states upon agreeing to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and were certainly no longer British colonies a decade–plus later, when each ratified the 1787 Constitution. This is stated in the introduction. The table simply acknowledges and attempts to show that the 13 states whose existence predates the Constitution were each "formed from" a British colony (and not another state). The introduction can be refined if need be. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair -- I missed the intro. Most people are probably going to go directly to the list. 2601:8D:503:EF59:29F6:9E6C:9ECE:FF82 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

TN or NJ?
I just reverted the edit by that added the rather questionable link Tennessee Department of State. Probably a typo, but thought it best to let the original editor fix it. YBG (talk)
 * I have undone your edit. It wasn't necessary to undo several edits of mine when the editing error was made in the most recent of those edits. In undoing your revert I corrected my earlier error. Inspite of the confusion, thanks for your vigilance. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! I wasn't paying real close attention and didn't realize I was reverting multiple edits. Thanks for understanding and WP:AGF. YBG (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dates for the 13 Colonies
I believe the dates given in this article for the original 13 are wrong, because the United States of America was created by the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. The 13 states ratified the Articles from 1777 to 1779; see Articles of Confederation. The later ratification was that of a new constitution for the same United States. I modified the current article without changing the list, by adding a sentence that one can say the dates of admission are the dates of ratifying the Articles. I leave it to others to decide whether one date should be preferred; for instance, scholars of the subject can determine what, if any, is the consensus of expert opinion. One solution might be to list the Articles dates in parentheses for the original 13. Zaslav (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Zaslav, while the question, "when did the original 13 states become states", doesn't have a clear black or white answer, the given statehood dates for the original 13 states are correct, as the citations beside each will confirm. Even though each became a state upon declaring independence from Gt. Britain, and became part of the first Union of states upon ratifying the Articles of Confederation, between 1777-81, the statehood date for each has historically been given as the date they ratified the 1787 Constitution, thus joining the 2nd federal Union of states. Thus, adding the date each ratified the AoC to this table would be pointless, as it's irrelevant. Drdpw (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New table added
I've added a second table to the article listing the date each of the original 13 states ratified the Articles of Confederation. I've put the list after the existing table, even though the AoC preceded the Constitution, because the main focus of this article is on when the 50 states joined the present federal Union as established by the 1787 Constitution (making it of secondary importance). Drdpw (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The first thirteen versus the rest
This list misleads the reader by failing to make the list of the first thirteen separate from the rest.

What the first thirteen did by ratifying the Constitution was quite a different thing from what the later ones did. They were individually named in the Constitution as states that could become members by ratifying it. They others had to ask Congress to admit them, and Congress had discretion in the matter, and did not admit all that applied. And the first eight that ratified the Constitution did not thereby become members until nine had ratified it. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference between the original 13 states and the subsequent 37 states regarding statehood is detailed in the introduction. This list is not in any way misleading, in fact, it's formatted the same way as the vast majority of 50-state statehood lists are. Drdpw (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Drdpw You missed his point: "And the first eight that ratified the Constitution did not thereby become members until nine had ratified it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.36.194 (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When the Constitution became established between the states so ratifying the same is a separate matter from when the original 13 states joined the Union. The first eight and the final five of the 13 each became a member on the date of their ratification. Drdpw (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160410130033/http://www.tn.gov/sos/symbols/timeline.htm to http://www.tn.gov/sos/symbols/timeline.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

California
California was not created from "unorganized territory". While true that, due to arguments over slavery, the U.S. itself never formally organized California into a territory prior statehood. California was created from the formerly Mexican province of Alta California. Prior to 1804, Alta California along with the Baja California peninsula had previously comprised the province of Las Californias, but was split off into a separate province until 1804 when New Spain formally established Nueva California. It became Alta California after the Mexican War of Independence. In the 1836 Siete Leyes government reorganization, the two Californias were once again combined into a single departamento. That merge was undone in October 1845, just before the start of the Mexican-American War. Alta California included all of the modern US states of California, Nevada and Utah, and parts of Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. The government of Alta California remained consistent under several military governors of California, starting with Cdre. John Drake Sloat who claimed California for the United States, and was relieved by Cdre. Robert F. Stockton who actually deposed the last Mexican governor Pío Pico, who was followed by Gen. Stephen W. Kearny, Gen. Richard Barnes Mason, Gen. Persifor Frazer Smith, and Gen. Bennet C. Riley, who, following the California Constitutional Convention, was replaced by California's first elected Governor Peter Hardeman Burnett who then became the state of California's first Governor upon California's admission into statehood as part of the Compromise of 1850 where the remainder of Alta California was split into the Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory.

Therefore it is my contention that using the moniker "Unorganized Territory" next to California is de facto incorrect if even de jure correct because no Organic Act was passed by the U.S. Congress. scooteristi (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the U.S. Federal Government never formally organized California into a territory prior statehood, the Mexican Cession region was officially "Unorganized Territory" until September 9 1850, when it was organized: split in to Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory, and one portion was admitted as the state of California. This is why the label "Unorganized Territory" next to California is appropriate next to California. That said, I See your point that the government of the U.S. state of California was a direct successor to the government of the Mexican province of Alta California. Therefore, what I have done is to change the label to state "Unorganized territory / Mexican Cession" and to add a reference-note staring "Most of the region ceded by Mexico to the United States in 1848, following the Mexican–American War, had been the Mexican Department of Alta California. The Act of Congress establishing California as the 31st state was part of the Compromise of 1850." I believe that this represents a good middle ground and hope you do too. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about accuracy of 2nd paragraph
Shouldn't the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph read "They possess all powers not exclusively granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to them by the Constitution of the United States." with the word exclusively added? Several powers are shared by states and the federal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.130.231.222 (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)