Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States/Archive 6

Current California-Oregon border dispute
Should we mention the California-Oregon border dispute that gets discussed from time to time? Here are a few descriptions/illustrations:
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1985-05-19/news/mn-9232_1_border-dispute
 * California-Oregon Dispute : Border Fight Has Townfolk on Edge
 * May 19, 1985|JEFF BARNARD | Associated Press
 * "Preliminary studies indicate that, as the result of an 1870 surveying error, Oregon has about 31,000 acres of California, while California has about 20,000 acres of Oregon."


 * http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/24/us/sea-riches-spur-feud-on-border.html
 * SEA RICHES SPUR FEUD ON BORDER
 * by WALLACE TURNER
 * Published: March 24, 1985
 * "The border should follow the 42d parallel straight west from the 120th meridian to the Pacific. Instead it zigzags, and only one of the many surveyor's markers put down in 1868 actually is on the 42d parallel."


 * https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2013/jun/14/will-north-coast-marine-protected-areas-lead-war-o/
 * Hank Sims / Friday, June 14, 2013 @ 2:38 p.m. / Sacramento
 * Will the North Coast Marine Protected Areas Spark a War With Oregon?
 * "So everyone has known for many years that the de facto line between Oregon and California has been off, even if, for California at least, it remains de jure at the 42nd parallel."


 * https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/marine/mpas/network/northern-california#27023457-pyramid-point-state-marine-conservation-area
 * http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117182 (PDF)
 * Pyramid Point State Marine Conservation Area
 * citation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Map: Pyramid Point State Marine Conservation Area (PDF). California Department of Fish and Wildlife; 3/1/2016. Available from: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117182
 * Title:	Map: Pyramid Point State Marine Conservation Area (PDF)
 * Author:	California Department of Fish and Wildlife
 * Publisher:	California Department of Fish and Wildlife
 * Publish Date:	3/1/2016

Jeff in CA (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What Happened?
Can someone explain to me what happened? Why does the map make no mention of northwest territory? And what do the two columns mean. It has become indecipherable. I'm very confused. Broncosman12 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It... does mention Northwest Territory? Extensively? --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Awesome and informative article
Just wanted to say thanks for a very informative article, which gives an excellent overview of the territorial development of the US, something I've not found elsewhere. If I have to make any complaint/suggestion for improvement, it's the island maps, where it's sometimes not clear what area is shown - some frame of reference would be useful here e.g. a zoomed out inset box showing which region is concerned. 80.197.107.218 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Both the Caribbean and Pacific maps have continents for reference, the Caribbean with Central and South America, and the Pacific with Australia and Asia. In fact, the area shown in the Pacific maps is many times larger than the area shown in the central North America map, so it would be odd to have a zoomed out inset for that but not the lower 48. :) I did consider something like that when starting, but IMO the payoff is minimal, since the descriptions for the maps state they're in the Caribbean Sea or the Pacific Ocean. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New maps - confusing
Hi - I'm new to this talk page. I used to visit the Wikipedia article a lot and recently revisited it for the first time in ages, and I noticed the changes. Nice work. I have some thoughts, though. I hope my perspective as someone coming to this afresh will be helpful, as most people visiting the page will be visiting afresh as well.

1. It's a bit confusing at first why there are two map columns, but I can see the reasons. I'd suggest switching them, though - putting the change on the left, and the end result on the right. That makes more sense chronologically and would be less confusing. (The change occurs, and then you see the result.)

2. Also, I don't understand why some maps include the state and territory boundaries/colors, and other maps just include a big yellow outline of the whole US. For example, August 5, 1835; March 2, 1836; and December 28, 1836, don't include the internal boundaries, and they look odd surrounded by adjacent maps that do include the internal boundaries. It's easier to visually process the changes if there are no unnecessary differences between adjacent maps.

3. It also seems like the double Civil War secession maps are unnecessary - one for seceding, and one for leaving Congress? Why?

Hope this is helpful in some way. Tinmanic (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The US government did not recognize the legality of seccession, so loyalist congressional districts in secessionist states were in some cases still represented in congress for a time after their state governments had succeeded.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1: Yeah, I originally created the layout when I thought the map frame was more important than the change frame, but multiple people have indicated that the change frame is more important, and I've come to agree with that.
 * 2: The international dispute maps don't include the internal boundaries because they're irrelevant to the international dispute.
 * 3: The Civil War was a tough pickle, but there are both domestic and international dispute changes there. For example, Virginia secedes from the Union, creating an international dispute. However, part of it remains represented in Congress, meaning that I have to show that somehow. It was the best method to avoid, for example, having to choose between not showing Missouri's status in the Confederacy at all, and showing it as a fully-fledged seceded state. Likewise, West Virginia: After its formation, it's a full state in the union, but it's still claimed by the CSA. So the area of "seceded states" is different from area of "disputed states". --Golbez (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. I guess the international vs. national dispute distinction explains the weirdness. Personally, I think it's unnecessary to make that distinction and that the maps work better without it. But thanks for explaining. Tinmanic (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The legend at the start of the table, as suggested by CMD above on 6 July 2016, might help in this regard. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * i.e., "there's a lot of colours, and they're used consistently, but the only one I can see explained is the red colour. A visual legend would be helpful in addition to a textual one. ... one in the notes section or at the start of the table would suffice. Coloured boxes such as in the description of File:World Map FIFA.svg for example? CMD 6 July 2016" ... Like this:


 * {{legend|#ffb6c1|AFC – Asian Football Confederation in Asia and Australia}}
 * {{legend|#deb887|CAF – Confédération Africaine de Football in Africa except Western Sahara}}
 * {{legend|#db7093|CONCACAF – Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football in North, Central and South America}}
 * {{legend|#8fbc8f|CONMEBOL – Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol in South America}}
 * {{legend|#ffd700|OFC – Oceania Football Confederation in Oceania}}
 * {{legend|#4682b4|UEFA – Union of European Football Associations in Europe and Asia}}


 * Jeff in CA (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should be adding a key, so everyone can understand it. I'm sorry, as someone who loved the original, this one makes hardly any sense. It's very difficult for a normal person to get. And there seems to be several mistakes on the maps, themselves. Sorry of this is harsh, but not a fan of this change. Actually, I'm gonna amend what I said. I realized what the map is saying, but I think we should switch the columns around. Put change first, then the new map after the change, second. Broncosman12 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been a few months and I still don't like the new page. Having two columns is confusing. I say ether list the changes on the left and the final result on the right, or put everything back as one column as it used to be. The page is indecipherable now. Tinmanic (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Tinmanic and Broncosman12, please let us know your thoughts, comparing the last two versions: (1) the version with the map columns switched and (2) the present version with one column. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I really like the present version with one column. Tinmanic (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

re Jeff's switch
Honestly, I'd been thinking about dropping the Map column altogether, but I haven't quite figured out the best method; right now I'm thinking of hiding the map link in the date, or adding a small "(map)" link under the date. So no complaint from me; hope it wasn't too much work though! --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I just killed the maps. The changes are more important, and a commons category link (once they're categorized) will suffice for the maps themselves, I think. --Golbez (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

JMBurch1 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Do you anticipate a new page with the maps on it to show the overall map of the United States at any given time? I know that I used this page regularly to pull up a map of the United States at any given time (say Dec. 15 1836). I was not looking for any given changes, but rather what the map looked like at that exact time in history. Thank you. JMBurch1 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I plan to categorize the maps on Commons and give a link to that category; that's probably the best solution. The maps aren't gone, just not immediately here. --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Miller County removal
I removed Miller County from the international disputes maps because, well, it's not *technically* a dispute between the U.S. and another country. It's a dispute between Arkansas Territory/Arkansas and the U.S., but as far as the United States considers its own borders, it's not infringing on Spain/Mexico/Texas. So it's been moved to a wholly domestic dispute. --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Tokelau
I understand that we don't normally reference subunits of countries in the international section of this article. However, in the case of the 1980 treaty between the United States and New Zealand, New Zealand was very clear that it was acting on behalf of, and with the consent of, the people of its non-self-governing territory Tokelau. Although Tokelau is not sovereign and does not have treaty-making powers (as the Cook Islands were recognized to have in their own treaty the same year), as a non-self-governing territory it is separate and distinct from New Zealand, and the islands in question were recognized to be part of Tokelau, not of New Zealand proper. Article V of the actual treaty, whose text can be found here, provides that "[t]he United States recognises that sovereignty over the islands of Atafu, Nukunonu and Fakaofo, together comprising Tokelau is vested in the people of Tokelau and is exercised on their behalf by the Government of New Zealand pending an act of self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." That is why I mentioned Tokelau specifically in addition to New Zealand in this instance. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; when I was redoing it I did notice the treaty title specifically named Tokelau and not New Zealand. --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on the article on Tokelau, the situation with the territory is a bit more complex. The British ceded the administration, but not the sovereignty, of Tokelau to New Zealand in 1925. Sovereignty was ceded to New Zealand in 1949. All formerly British subjects on the island were granted New Zealand citizenship and are officially considered New Zealanders.

New Zealand appoints administrators for the territory, but its government is headed by local politicians who are members of the Council for the Ongoing Government of Tokelau. Tokelau has its own legislative body and its own laws. The United Nations has as part of its agenda to turn Tokelau "to a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand", as an effort of decolonization. However local voters have twice rejected the proposal in referendums and seem to prefer to stay under New Zealand control. This is rather unsurprising as Tokelau has a rather problematic economy, "the smallest economy of any country in the world", and constant budget deficits. The entire territory depends financially on subsidies from New Zealand. Also as New Zealand citizens, the people have the right to migrate to New Zealand, and many of them choose to do so for financial reasons.

That act of self-determination mentioned above? I think the referendums indicated that full independence is not what the people of Tokelau want and this may not change for the foreseeable future. Note that the entire population of Tokelau was estimated to 1,411 people in the latest census. As an independent state, they are unlikely to rise to regional power status. The only current sovereign state with a smaller population is Vatican City (842 citizens). Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quite right that Tokelau is unlikely to attain independence. The expected outcome of the self-determination process was expected to be entry into free association with New Zealand, with the same status as the Cook Islands and Niue, but the referenda failed to attain a sufficient majority. Nonetheless, as a matter of law and practice Tokelau is politically separate from New Zealand, and this is recognized in the treaty. You'd be right to say that this is a matter of relatively minor importance to all but about 1,411 people ... but then again, many entries throughout this article memorialize relatively minor changes and anomalies; that's part of the page's charm, and I don't think we should want it any other way. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"too small to map"
I'm thinking there might be a use to making an "official" limit for this. It came to mind looking at the last entry of Nov 24 2009, with six islands and two bancos ceded, and it's marked "too small to map". But, the change of Sept 13 1918 includes a map despite being two islands. Looking at them, it looks like the total area of those two islands is roughly half a square mile. The changes of Nov 24 2009 total 170 acres, with is a quarter of a square mile.

I'm thinking that if the change is not otherwise notable, a limit of a square mile per mapped change should be instituted. This would lead to the removal of the maps for:
 * Sept 13 1918: two likely-unpopulated islands being traded between states; since then they each seem to have gotten a marina)
 * Dec 9 1850: "less than one acre of underwater rock" honestly, shouldn't have gotten mapped in the first place)
 * July 24 1897: Island appears to be roughly a square mile, but is otherwise unpopulated and uninteresting.

Ones I don't want to remove:
 * Jan 11 1855: I think it's roughly a square mile, but even if not, it's interesting.
 * July 6 1859: It's weird enough and undocumented enough that I think it makes sense to keep.
 * Feb 9 1871: Appears to be roughly 2 sq mi.
 * Feb 10 1905: I think this is about a quarter of a square mile, but it seems to be an interesting shift in a populated area.
 * Aug 20 1910: Popes Folly Island resolved a dispute, and is interesting.
 * June 30 1921: Oh heck yes the Wedge stays.
 * Aug 3 1950: Maybe. I can't tell how big these areas are, but seem like they're probably a couple of square miles.
 * Jan 14 1964: Obviously the Chamizal is important.
 * May 26 1977: The Horcon Tract is probably notable enough to get mapped, but the other changes are likely not. I'm very open to discussion on this though.
 * Obviously this only applies to the central NA map, as some Pacific islands could be that small.
 * Likewise, disputes are inherently notable, so things like Machias Seal Island stay.

Any thoughts before I carry out this change?


 * If I had my druthers I would include a map with every single entry (of course, I haven't been creating the maps). I think it is the map that makes each entry interesting. I don't think there needs to be a cut-off point of any kind. If a map already exists (which you went to the trouble to make), let's just leave it there. I myself find that the tiniest parcels of land pique my interest the most. If I understand correctly, you are proposing to delete three maps. As it's only three, then based on the above, I lean heavily to keeping them in. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Territorial evolution of the United States. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=7779
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921142232/http://www.parliament.gov.ki/content/constitution-kiribati to http://www.parliament.gov.ki/content/constitution-kiribati

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) 10:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Territorial evolution of the United States. 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/20060825042901/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/br-1842.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/br-1842.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) 14:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S.A. created on March 1, 1781?
It is absurd to say "The United States of America was created on March 1, 1781". User:Golbez objects to replacing this with the statement "The United States of America became organized under a federal government on March 1, 1781". The latter statement takes no position on the merits of the strange statement that The United States of America was not created until 1781. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article titled Benjamin Franklin states that he served as United States Minister to France during the period September 14, 1778 – May 17, 1785. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and France was signed on February 6, 1778. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article titled Hôtel de Crillon says this:"On 6 February 1778, the building was used as the venue for the official signing of the first treaties between the newly founded United States and France." Michael Hardy (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that you've graced the talk page, we can actually resolve this. I'll review this and respond later. --Golbez (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I spent the evening writing down the changes needed if we go back to 1776, thankfully not many. So then we get to the meat of the question: Was it a declared country in 1776, or just an alliance of independent states that joined into one with the Articles of Confederation? My understanding was they were 13 independent countries in a military alliance. On the other hand, I see the logic behind "declaration of independence = declaration of country", since, from the beginning, they all clearly intended to become one, what with the Continental Congress, the Articles being worked on as early as a week after the declaration, etc. So I'm leaning towards agreeing with you, that is a declaration of independence for 13 countries that then immediately became one. (wait, see below - I've revised this) I'm trying to think of an analogue in history of multiple entities declaring independence simultaneously and I can't; the breakup of the Soviet Union comes closest but they never coordinated like this. Same with Mexico under Santa Ana. Maybe Donetsk and Luhansk, becoming New Russia? Except that situation is ... well, not exactly drawn with sharp lines.


 * Actually, wait, there is a pretty strong analogue: The Confederate States. Individual states seceded, becoming independent nations, and then explicitly formed the CSA a few weeks later, though it didn't have a founding document until a few weeks after that. In the case of the United States, they were never independent nations (even just for the moment to unite), but went straight from "colony" to "part of United States"? (Especially since some colonies declared independence earlier) Do I have this correct? --Golbez (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One of a number of problems with all this is the assumption that something is not a "country" unless it's united under one government or is just one state. Consider this example: The 1777 Constitution of Vermont, written in July of that year, said "person, born in this country, or brought from over sea". At that time, Vermont's politicians considered Vermont an independent republic that was not a part of the United States, and yet the context makes it clear that by "this country" they meant those parts of North America that had been colonized by the British. (See History of slavery in Vermont.)
 * They did go straight from "colony" to part of the United States but the United States was not initially united under a government. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In the Declaration of Independence, the states are all described as declaring independence with the one document, but the document explains that they will exercise their sovereignty separately. Full quote, emphasis mine "That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do". Note also that all uses of "united" are not capitalized. The use of united does not refer to a single Union of the states, but to the unison of their efforts contra the British crown. The Lee Resolution that actually enacted independence says that, subsequent to the Declaration, "That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation". The United States of America as a single sovereign Union was not established until the Articles of Confederation defining the terms of that Union came into force. Astrofreak92 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, at least one of the colonies declared its own independence prior to July 1776. On May 1, 1776 the General Assembly of Massachusetts declared its own independence as the "Government and People of Massechusetts Bay in New England" . If we want to start the map before the actual Confederation in 1781, it might be useful to start there. Astrofreak92 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I found the argument that 1776 was a unifying event compelling, especially considering the fact that they started working on the Articles of Confederation a mere week later. It was a weak union but still a union, with a single military command, single legislature, etc. (And the argument about "united" being lower case doesn't matter much, considering spelling and capitalization weren't exactly sacred back then)
 * Yes, some of the colonies had already declared independence but that's beyond the scope of this article, except perhaps the list of provinces at the start, so is there a list of colonies that declared before July 4? I know MA, RI, and maybe VA? --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone please check the new update. --Golbez (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it. Did you mean to leave the Erie Triangle highlighted orange in the maps that predate the 1782 cession?Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not! An oversight caused by that happening in the first change after confederation. Fixed, and thank you! --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the act of independence of Massachusetts Bay (referenced above)? The cited document is illuminating. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm holding off on that one for the moment, I asked the humanities refdesk, because Rhode Island is oft cited as the first to declare independence, yet theirs was May 4th, so if Massachusetts Bay's was May 1, either common wisdom is wrong, or what Mass Bay did wasn't technically a declaration of independence. I feel unqualified to decide. --Golbez (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a very satisfactory response at Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 16, eh? Jeff in CA (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion! My research into the topic points to the United States being indeed officially created de jure on March 1, 1781. While Benjamin Franklin did indeed serve as United States Minister to France during this period, this was because the sovereign states acted as a de facto Union under the stipulations of Articles of Confederation, though the Articles did not actually enter into force until 1781. This, of course, applies also to the aforementioned treaty. Addtionally, the Articles specify that "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'," clearly illustrating "The United States of America" to be the name of the confederation, which of course was officially established when Maryland ratified the Articles in 1781. As also noted previously, the Declaration of Independence established that the colonies were "Free and Independent States," indicating a collective separation, though not a Union of these states, as that was the purpose of the Articles. While the argument of de jure versus de facto is an intriguing one, it seems more proper to err on the side of caution by using the 1781 date. I have made an edit that is reflective of this, though please correct any errors I may have introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:A00:C170:C012:E781:79ED:B985 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One could just as easily justify erring on the side of caution by going with the 1776 date. In this case, more information seems to be better than less. The intro was made longer due to concerns it was too short for an article of this length. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I see your reasoning in regards to the article length, though I am still reluctant about the dates. I will acquiesce, however, to whatever the consensus may be here.

Grammar: "The United States is/has/was" or "The United States are/have/were?"
Is "the United States" a plural common noun with an adjective or a singular proper noun? I am inclined to the former based on grammatical construction, but what is the general consensus?


 * It's a singular proper noun. I'm kind of shocked that a native English speaker (which you appear to be) would even question it. The citation you gave on my talkpage is from over 120 years ago, I have no clue how you even thought that was a useful citation, especially considering the article United States uses the singular. --Golbez (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel I must apologize, I've been a bit rude in my statements and edit summaries, and rather than edit them I'm being forward about it. However, this really is confusing to me. See . --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you kindly for your apology. I too am sorry if I have been a bother, but I am grateful for your patience nonetheless. I am indeed a native English speaker, and perhaps this plural usage is a regional or familial peculiarity. Your citation appears to favor a singular usage, and, being the more recent example, likely should be the guide. As a matter of fact, I am rather embarrassed by the age of my citation now that you point it out, though I do thank you for doing so. In any case, I of course concede to the consensus, and I am glad simply to be involved in the discussion. Additionally, in regards to any anonymity, I am unable to create an account at this time (for personal reasons), though I thought I may contribute nonetheless.
 * On soccer television broadcasts, I frequently hear TV announcers, particularly British, use the plural construction with team names. For example, "At halftime of this World Cup final, the United States are incredibly leading Germany, 2-0!"  The point being that on a team there are multiple players. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"United States" is a singular and has been for hundreds of years. The same is true with other country names that are plural in form, such as Philippines, Solomon Islands, United Arab Emirates, Seychelles, etc.

Historically, "United States" was sometimes used in the plural in the eighteenth century, when "United" was perceived as an adjective modifying "States." The transition in usage from "United States" as a plural to as a singular was a significant step, semantically, in the coalescence of the nation. But that is all long ago at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not have a citation, but I seem to recall that Ken Burns' Civil War included a quote from someone like Shelby Foote to the effect that before the Civil War, the "United States" was plural (e.g., the US were or are). After the Civil War, that changed to the current singular standard (e.g., the US was or is).  DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

land area
Might it be feasible for someone to create a companion table showing the (approximate) land area involved at each stage -- and a plot of the size as it grew over time?

www.u-s-history.com/pages/h986.html includes a table giving population and land area each decade between 1790 and 2000. I do not know how accurate this is, however, in part because in 2000 it was reported to have 3,537,438 square miles (9,161,922 square kilometers, and the Wikipedia article on the United States says that the land area of the US in 2017 is 3,796,742 square miles (9,833,517 square kilometers) -- and I do not know of any event that increased US territory by almost 10 percent during that period. I think the discrepancy may be due to different methods of computing.

If someone can produce geographic shape files for plotting, I might be able to find software [in R (programming language)] to obtain the geographical areas from the shape files. I have not done it, but I believe it can be done.

??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's much beyond my capabilities and desire, especially since - as you say - there's different methods of calculating it. If someone else wants to try, go for it. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

English please
"The Counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, upon Delaware enacted a constitution, renaming itself the Delaware State.[14]" Can someone please rephrase this into a coherent statement? --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The colony known as "The Counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, upon Delaware" enacted a constitution that gave the colony a new name, "the Delaware State". Jeff in CA (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "upon Delaware" still seems odd. Is it supposed to be like Newcastle-upon-Tyne? If so, does it pertain to each of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex separately or to the three as a collectve unit?--Khajidha (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 2, 2018."
At the top of this Talk page, it states, "A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 2, 2018." What is the actual date? Jeff in CA (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * August 2, 2006, which is what the code says - dunno why it's rendering as 2018. --Golbez (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the Confederate States
Let me know what you think. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I like it. At first, I wondered why some of the maps were not the same as the United States Territorial Evolution maps, but then I realized that the premise is the point of view of the Confederate States government. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

April 9, 1872
The article states, "April 9, 1872  Congress approved the newly surveyed Orr and Whitner Line as part of the border between Georgia and Florida." The cited statute states, "CHAP. XCL - - An Act to settle and quiet the Titles to Lands along the Boundary Line between the States of Georgia and Florida. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the titles to all lands lying south of the line dividing the States of Georgia and Florida, known as the Orr and Whitner line, lately established as the true boundary between said States, and north of the line run by Georgia, known as the Watson line, being all the lands lying between said lines, be, and the same are hereby, confirmed, so far as the United States has title thereto, in the present owners deriving titles from the State of Georgia. Approved, April 9,1872." It seems that the subject of the statute is about confirming land titles rather than the boundary itself. Where it says, "lately established as the true boundary," it could be referring to the 1854 U.S. Supreme Court case or any subsequent Congressional approval. After the decision in the 1854 case, would Congressional approval have even been necessary? What are others' thoughts? Jeff in CA (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a point - it does appear to be that way. However, while looking at secondary sources, they all seem to say the same thing:
 * "The Orr-Whitner line was accepted by Florida in 1861 and Georgia in 1866 as their official boundary, although the outbreak of the Civil War (1861-65) delayed the line's approval by the U.S. Congress until 1872."
 * "The Georgia-Florida boundary was thus marked as ratified by Florida[45], Georgia[46], and the United States[47]" Footnote 47 is "17 Stat. 52", which is the cited law in this article."
 * (a Supreme Court case from 1887) "And this agreement thus finally arrived at by the two states was recognized and confirmed by an act of congress approved April 9, 1872, entitled 'An act to settle and quiet the title to lands along the line between the states of Georgia and Florida,' by which it declared 'that the titles to all lands lying south of the line dividing the states of Georgia and Florida, known as the 'Orr and Whitner Line,' lately established as the true boundary between said states, and north of the line run by Georgia, known as the Watson Line,' being all the lands lying between said lines, be, and the same are hereby, confirmed, so far as the United States has title thereto, in the present owners deriving titles from the state of Georgia.'"
 * "This agreement was recognized and confirmed by an Act of Congress, approved April 9th, 1872, which quieted the title so far as the United States was concerned to lands along the several boundary lines as run by Orr and Whitner and Watson so that the controversy which began in 1819 was ended in 1872 and a final definite line agreed upon by the two States, and the suit that was brought by the State of Florida against the State of Georgia was dismissed."


 * So, my lay interpretation of the law - "lately established as the true boundary" refers to the survey and subsequent approval by the states, this was just the US congress signing off on it and clearing up the interstate issues of titles. I'll add one of the above as a secondary source to the article, probably the supreme court as that carries certain weight.
 * All that said: I love stuff like this, I hope everyone has questions like yours so we can either clear things up or find even more new things to add. :D --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bonin Islands

 * I was reading our article at Chichijima and it looks like something that might be included, was an American colony from 1853 to 1862 and then again from 1945 to 1968. Kmusser (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon further reading, probably just the 1st period, the post WWII period the islands were in the same boat as the Ryukyu Islands, administered by the U.S., but not really claimed. Kmusser (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was about to say that the second period resembles territorial units that are explicitly not included in this page, like the 1898-1902 occupation of Cuba. The 1853-62 period merits looking into. Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are few (no) good sources supporting the statements in the relevant articles. I'm not sure what quality of source this is, but it is interesting reading and indicates that while the U.S. did exercise some influence, it doesn't appear that there was any official recognition of the earlier claim over the Peel Island colony from Washington (or at the very least, no action was taken to enforce the claim). older ≠ wiser 18:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Somewhat tantalizingly, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan claims in passing that Perry did claim territory on behalf of the U.S., but offers no details. Kmusser (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, found an academic article that discusses it in a bit more detail with additional citations, https://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/e-journal/articles/ruegg.pdf, key portion is pages 125-126 (or PDF pages 18-19) and largely supports what you found. Looks like Perry did claim the islands and urged official annexation, but the U.S. government never acted on it. Kmusser (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooh. This seems like it definitely warrants a mention, since it's on par with the Kearny Code - land claimed by a military commander, though not formally annexed. --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And another source which might muddy the waters, http://mysite.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/boninchol.htm includes a bunch of primary documents, including the deed for the sale the others mention, it sure looks like that sale is to Perry personally, not to the U.S. government; also Perry's appointing Savoy to administer the island on the U.S. behalf, though it's not clear whether he really had the authority to do that, but it did mean there was a U.S. flag waving over the island, even if it was never actually annexed. Kmusser (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Reading the sources, now I'm not sure. Yeah, Perry bought some land, but it was only a small portion of Peel Island, and it doesn't seem to have been a move to annex the whole Colony of Peel Island. And buying land for the purposes of the US government doesn't seem to quite reach the level of inclusion, does it? The US government owns land all over the place. --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several instances in the 1800's and early 1900's of American naval officers claiming newly discovered islands for the United States, in some instances like Midway and Wake Island, the United States Government approved of and recognized the claim and those islands became possessions of the United States. In other instances like Wrangle Island and the De Long Islands, the US Government never formally recognized the claim and thus the islands did not become possessions of the United States. The Bonin Islands from 1853 to 1862 appear to be in the latter category. From 1945 to 1968, the United States administered the Bonin Islands, but did not claim sovereignty over them, with ultimate residual sovereignty being possessed by Japan, akin to the situation in the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924, where the United States administered all facets of governance of the country but did not claim to possess sovereignty over it.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Texas
Anyone have thoughts on this edit? --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am all for including the de facto boundary of the Republic. It seems to me that it should also be the de facto boundary of the state. And I wonder, when the U.S. annexed Texas in 1845, to what extent were the boundaries of the new state specified? If the U.S. claimed that the borders extended to the maximum extant shown in the map, did the U.S. publish an argument in this regard purportedly to address Mexico's objections, or for any other reason? Mexico still had control over their other departments that extended into the large southwestern area, including Nuevo Mexico (at least until Kearny came through in 1846).  Jeff in CA (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Texas claimed everything up to the Rio Grande, and the U.S. simply admitted Texas's claim. Remember, this article doesn't care about de facto claims, only de jure. Mexico claimed the whole of Texas; Texas claimed the whole of Texas; and I don't believe the U.S. ever asked Texas to be specific. :) The law admitting Texas didn't specify extent, just said *Texas*. And Texas' claim was passed by their first congress, "... beginning at the mouth of the Sabine River, and running west along the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande, thence up the principal stream of said river to its source, thence due north to the forty-second degree of north latitude, thence along the boundary line as defined in the treaty between the United States and Spain, to the beginning." --Golbez (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like showing that boundary, but if both Mexico and Texas claimed the whole thing than what is that showing? The de facto line of control? If we're really not caring about de facto claims and that's all that line is then it makes sense to drop it. I don't really like the "commonly depicted as disputed" line as it begs the question of why?  If we keep it I'd change to wording to say that, "Republic of Texas annexed and admitted as Texas; claimed by Mexico" for both sides and lines "controlled by Mexico", "controlled by Texas" or something similar.  Kmusser (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a strange situation, yeah. De jure, the entire thing was claimed by both. However, apparently also de jure, Mexico considered the "Tejas" part of Coahuila y Tejas to consist of the mapped eastern sector, and that's what these maps are based on. And I feel like, since 99.9% of the maps of the Republic of Texas online note that border, that we're probably confusing readers by not at least mentioning it. It would only show up in this one change frame - the rest will simply show the whole unit as disputed. "Controlled by" is difficult, for two reasons: One, the map tries not to handle control issues (hello, Civil War), and two, neither side really controlled the area north of the Rio Grande and outside of Texas proper. I think one thing I should do is change it to a dotted line - it's not a "real" border, but it's one people are very familiar with. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like your plan. I think the mention, either in the text or in the map, should say something like it was the de jure border of Tejas until 1848, when both sides agreed the Mexican entity ceased to exist. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Surveys
I see that you are researching surveys of state lines that were adopted as the demarcated boundaries by the states involved. How would you treat the results of such a survey that made location errors, and one state adopted the boundary as-surveyed but the other state did not? Jeff in CA (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was inspired by the VA/NC (later KY/TN) border. The defined border was a latitude, but the actual surveyed border is famously not, and it seems very incorrect to use the surveyed border before it was, y'know, surveyed. So I had the idea that I would illustrate the borders as intended, the ideal, until the first survey, at which time it solidifies into the border we know. Subsequent surveys are only included if they are notable (like the recent NC/SC one, which gained some press, and goes to illustrate that the Carolina border has been a mess for 300 years). In my research, I would say well over 90% of surveys consist of reaffirming the existing border and repairing monuments, and thus aren't relevant. So, my plan: 1) When change happens, use borders as written in the law/treaty; 2) when they are surveyed, note that, and note any change in the map; 3) but subsequent surveys are ignored unless substantively notable. In my to do, I'm just throwing everything in there and I'll prune it down later if needed. As for "one state adopted, the other didn't," that survey doesn't count, since it would seem that any such action would have to be bilateral. And as for "location errors," that's exactly the point. TN/KY is one huge error.
 * As for "why note the first survey even if it's the same or close to the same as the ideal," it never will be. Even Colorado's box has surveying errors or quirks, and it's well-established that in the legal fight between the ideal border and the surveyed border, the survey always wins. --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've decided to only include notable surveys (like KY/TN, that goes vastly against the letter of the law). The rest will be shunted to detail maps that I intend to start making (you've seen a proof of concept of one of those already) --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Florida
@Golbez, I really think this is mistaken: "brought it into minor conflict with the colonies of Spain which eventually resulted in the acquisition of Spanish Florida." 1. There was no conflict with "the colonies of Spain". Colonies didn't negotiate or fight with foreign countries. The conflict, such as it was, was with Spain. 2. The border conflict with Spain had almost nothing to do with Florida's change of nationality. It was the slavery issue, plus pressure from Anglo settlers. See Republic of East Florida, and that's only those on the east coast. 3. Adding to this that Florida produced nothing the Spanish wanted, and was a drain on their resources. deisenbe (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, fair enough, by 'minor conflict' I think I meant the borders. I'll include some of your wording. --Golbez (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Failed expansion plans
As I see it, mention should be made somewhere of the failed plans to annex British Canada and Québec to the United Ststes, and the Southern desire to add Cuba as a slave state. I'm no expert on the first, but I have references on the Cuban proposal, which was well known, even though it never went anywhere. We shouldn't tell only the successes. deisenbe (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "successes" vs "failures," it's about what happened. We have other articles on that, like 51st state, which is linked. (Also, what would the 'date' be for those? Or are you proposing a new section just of prose? That would largely duplicate what's already at 51st state.) --Golbez (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 51st state, as it says in the first sentence, is about the post-1959 period. I'm talking about early 19th century. What I am proposing, which is a new section of prose, would not duplicate anything in 51st state. deisenbe (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the article though - it clearly goes into the pre-1959 plots, including of Canada and Cuba. --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Maximum territorial extent
Does anyone know a citable source stating when the United States has reached maximum territorial extent? From knowing the history and reading the article, I presume the most recent instance was in 1945 (diminishing territorially since then), but I don't have any citations. 77.125.82.13 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a publication titled Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Secretary of the Interior. I don't know what years it was published, but a bit of googling turned up examples as late as 1922. . Also, there was a 1975 publication titled Bicentennial Edition: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970; Chapter J there looks like it might be useful. There are probably others -- your local librarian could probably help. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

How and when was the United States created?
The article says that the United States was "created" by the Declaration of Independence. I changed this to "announced its existence". This was reverted by @Golbez, asking "then what document or action created it? please discuss".

Declarations, in general, present a state of affairs; they do not create anything. Merriam-Webster says a declaration is "an act of formally or confidently stating something".

The United States did not come into existence at one time or from a single action. It was an amorphous and gradual process. The Revolutionary War is commonly said to have begun in 1775 (American Revolutionary War). Arguably only a country can start a war with another country.

To specify at what point the United States began would get into subtleties of just what constitutes a country and the relationships between the various colonies (states). This was a brand-new question, to my knowledge. There are plenty of prior examples of portions of a country (or empire) breaking off to create or recreate separate countries (the breakup of the Roman Empire, for example), but no previous example of people of the same ethnicity — pretty much the same people, Americans and English — or a colony revolting against the mother country.

Some background is in List of capitals in the United States (a lot of which I wrote).

Arguably the Articles of Confederation (1781) created the United States.

What happened in 1776, according to my course on the American Revolution, was that the need was felt by our founding fathers (sorry, no mothers, to my knowledge) for a formal statement, to make it clear (for diplomatic purposes) to everyone, and especially France, that a new country existed, not just a collection of rebellious colonies. So they wrote a declaration. deisenbe (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I lean towards supporting Golbez on this one as there was a definitely a de facto U.S. government pre-dating the Articles of Confederation in the form of the Continental Congresses. I'd argue that the Congress began acting like a government as early as 1775 when it voted to create an army. You are right in that the Congress operated more or less the same before and after the Declaration of Independence, but part of the significance of the declaration is that is when Congress give itself the name "United States of America". Congress was operating without much in the way of structure before the Articles of Confederation, but considering that the U.S. signed a treaty with France in 1778 I'd say the U.S. existed before that. Using the date they gave themselves that name seems as good as any. Kmusser (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the declaration can be considered a type of performative utterance. Certainly there were quasi-governmental activities before this and the arguably the federal government wasn't really fully operative until the constitution was ratified. But the declaration itself is pretty widely regarded as the point things first coalecsed. older ≠ wiser 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have documentation of the last sentence? I'm skeptical that that is what contemporaries thought. deisenbe (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd have to dig a bit for contemporaneous reception (although I'm not sure that's entirely relevant, since the significance of current events are often not be fully recognized at the time). One notable indication of how it was viewed less than a century later is in the words Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation.... older ≠ wiser 12:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Declaration of Independence did not create the United States. While the Declaration mentions the "thirteen united States," it is clear from the document itself that the word "united" is merely an adjective describing the collective action of the several sovereign states, as indicated by the capitalization of the time. "States" is capitalized as a proper noun, as is "America" (the continent), but neither "thirteen" nor "united" are capitalized, being adjectives.  Before the Articles of Confederation came into force, the states were independent entities, and this clearly is exhibited in the Declaration itself.  For example, the document]'s conclusion reads as follows:


 * "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


 * The Declaration explicitly states that the united colonies had become free and independent states, and it proceeds to use the plural form in regard to the separate states. Notice also how the document uses the term "united Colonies," though it is never claimed that the colonies were united as one entity.  Similarly, in the Declaration of Independence, the term "united States" only is used to demonstrate how the newly independent states were united against Great Britain.  When the document refers to the representatives of the states, it means the representatives of each state to the Continental Congress, which was seen as a diplomatic body between the states.  This is why the name "congress" originally was employed, as congresses were understood at this time to be meeting of delegates or ambassadors from separate sovereign states, whereas internal legislative bodies were "parliaments," "assemblies," or simply a "legislature."


 * The phrase "united States," as used in the Declaration, did not mean the "federal government of the United States", hence the plural to signify the sovereignty of the "Free and Independent States." Each American state was sovereign in the same sense that Great Britain, France, and Spain were sovereign states.  Indeed, the first article of the Treaty of Paris names each state individually and acknowledges their separate sovereignty: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."  The Articles of Confederation explicitly state that "[t]he Stile [sic] of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'."  As a legal document, it is the Articles of Confederation that specifically create the United States of America as a formal institution, where the states first gave up part of their sovereignty to form a federal government.  In fact, the Articles themselves acknowledge the prior sovereign independence of the American states in the second article: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."  It is true that the states did confer in the previous Continental Congresses, but this was as a meeting of independent states, whereas the actual federal government was formed with the Articles, which created the "Confederacy" styled as the United States of America.


 * Thus, while the Declaration of Independence did declare the American states as independent from the British Empire, as acknowledged in the Treaty of Paris, the United States was not established until the Articles of Confederation came into force on March 1, 1781. --2601:547:A00:ADC4:9CFD:CF1E:16D2:77A (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing to add at the moment, just want to link the previous discussion on this, which is what convinced me to actually go back from 1781 to 1776: Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States/Archive_6 --Golbez (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * CAG01 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)I minored in US History when in College. This article needs to be corrected. The United States of America was not formed until ratification of the Articles of Confederation. They were written in 1777 but not ratified until much later after territorial disputes were settled. This finally occurred in 1781 with Maryland finally ratifying the Articles making it the 13th separate state to do so and bringing into effect the Articles of Confederation. However this did not truly create the United States Federal Government as we know it. That was created by the US Constitution in 1783. The Continental Congress was not the formal or federal government of the United States either. There was no United States of America prior to 1871. And all rebellions have been started by groups of peoples, not by nations. The person that wrote that "Arguably only a country can start a war with another country" is totally incorrect and should take a quick trip to Syria and Afghanistan for reinforcement of that fact. NO Rebellion, or Revolution, has EVER been started by a "nation". It has been started by the effected peoples against their own nation, which is why the Colonies of England fought against the British Army, as they were the military of England, the official government for the colonies before independence was declared by "free and separate states". Those colonies (several of which had separately declared independence prior to the declaration) were truly "free and separate states" and the governors of those states were the governments in control until final ratification of the Articles of Confederation, as I mentioned above. This type of incorrect data as represented by this page on the United States of America needs to be corrected. Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States/Archive_6 See Reference Below.


 * Just piping up in case of a future call for consensus. I agree that most sources indicate it's inaccurate to say that the "United States of America" was formed in 1776. Please ping me if this comes up for a vote. I will also watch the page.BudJillett (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"American expansionism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect American expansionism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Western Expansion of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Western Expansion of the United States. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Border Adjustments
Pautah County, California was created in 1852 out of territory which, the state of California assumed, was to be ceded to it by the United States Congress from territory in what is now the state of Nevada. When the cession never occurred, the California State Legislature officially abolished the never-organized county in 1859.[] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FAHansson (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I've found, this would only have taken effect if the land was ceded. "Section 2 of the act provided that it should take effect when the U. S. congress ceded to California the area described above." So it was never a claim by California on the area, nor did it conflict with federal boundaries; they were saying, if this, then that. Very interesting, but I would say slightly outside the scope of this article. --Golbez (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)