Talk:United States territory

Request
Can anyone provide a complete listing of all places that are considered "territories" of the United States? Thank you.
 * This is now done in Organized incorporated territories of the United States. --BlueMoonlet

United States Territory misdirected by chance ?
Why does typing "United States Territory" in the little search box not lead here, but rather to "United_States_Northwest_Territory" ? Is it a mistaken redirect somewhere ? -- ll
 * More likely the search function is placing a high priority on capitalization in the absence of an actual redirect. - Hephaestos 15:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Article Title
I prefer Political divisions of the United States. Move it back! --Jiang
 * I'd prefer to use the most common and logical title ...
 * It's commonly refered to as "United States territory" than the less general "Political divisions of the United States".
 * google hits [literal string : nonliteral string]
 * "Political divisions of the United States" = 71 : 1,600,000
 * "United States territory" = 11,300 : 3,170,000
 * This was the requested articles title also (and almost all the wlinks from articles point here (except for the United States article) .. so most editor think this is common, also) ... it seem logical to use the territory ... but mention the "Political divisions" thing in the intro...
 * Sincerely, JDR
 * I think Pol. Div. is better. That's where it is listed under United States and "territory" has very specific meanings, specifically now-defunct territories such as the former "United States territory" known as Michigan Territory, as well as overseas territories that are not states, for example "United States overseas territory" American Samoa. I think what "territory" here is supposed to imply is "land controlled by the United States" which is just as big a mouthful as "territory." I'd like to put it to a vote. jengod 08:40, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Political divisions of the United States is not common. Wikipedia uses the common names (ex., Mark Twain). The convention is to use the most common name of a thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. (see Naming conventions (common names)) JDR
 * Not all areas mentioned are formally "territories". Puerto Rico is a "commonwealth associated with the US", Washington, DC is a "federal district". States are not territories.--Jiang 09:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article should probably be about the legal concept of a "territory" in the history of the United States. Jengod recently filled out a lot of the articles on historical territories, and I pitched in a little and found the lack of an article legally defining a territory to be a missing part of Wikipedia. -- Decumanus 16:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Ha. Says Mr. I Map Make Maps for *My* Articles. :) jengod 18:28, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

The legal terminology would be "States of the United States". However the United States (federal corporation) is also the government of insular possessions, territories, etc. Richard Fuselier)

Article Title Vote
United States territory:
 * JDR (It's MOST commonly refered to as "United States territory" than the less general "Political divisions of the United States"; The naming convention is to use the most common name).
 * Yes, but that doesn't preclude being correct and specfic. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is more common than Gabriel García Márquez, but the latter is correct. jengod 18:55, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * "The United States territory includes any points of extended spatial location under the control of the United States of America federal government.". JDR (Also, Samuel Langhorne Clemens would be correct and specfic.)

Political divisions of the United States:
 * Jengod
 * Decumanus
 * Tuf-Kat
 * Jiang

Moved "United States territory" to "Political divisions of the United States." Vote 4-1. If count changes at later date we can reconsider. jengod 01:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I mv'eds it back. "United States territory" fits the most wiki standards and is most accurate. JDR 12:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) [PS. not to mention that some of the items in the article are not political divisions of the United States (ex: occupied territory)] [PPS. I transfered "political division" content to the Political divisions of the United States article]

Crosslisting stuff is a very bad idea. Please dont do it. As we've explained, not everything under the control of the US is its "territory." Until we write an article on a U.S. territory, this should stay as a redirect. "occupied territory" is stretching it, but it beats crosslisting.--Jiang 06:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I second that. This page is quickly sinking into the mud of ambiguity. -- Decumanus 06:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Iraq Status--Not an Occupied Country
Just to be clear as far as my political intentions, I am fully AGAINST the invasion of Iraq, and I oppose president Bush's foreign policy in general.

That said, with the removal of the dictator Saddam Hussein from power, the only legitimate government of Iraq is the Interim government which seeks to enfranchise the Iraqi people by way of democratic elections.

The politics of the war, whether one is for or against, fail to negate, one way or the other, the legitimacy of the United States' restoration of full sovereignty to the present Iraqi government. That devolution should be recognized not necessarily out of support for the invasion, but as the moral and ethical obligation of the US as the invading power.

The argument, that the restoration of full sovereignty as declared by the US government is illegitimate on account of it having been declared by an illegal invader does not follow. One (for the sake of argument) illegitimate act, the invasion, does not remove the subsequent moral obligation to restore a functioning government.

And as a matter of simple logic, there is no other way for the United States to return sovereignty to Iraq, at least not any other legitimate means. Merely abandoning the country without a stable government in place would not constitute a restoration of sovereignty, but just the opposite, it would be the creation of an Anarchy, and a violation of the Geneva Convention.

One must ask, what else could the US do, hypothetically speaking, that would constitute a "legitimate" act of devolution? Arguably, if one follows the reasoning "US recognition of a sovereign Iraqi government is illegitimate by extension of the invasion's illegality," then hypothetically, Iraq could never regain its sovereignty ad infinitum, because at some point it would always depend on a US recognition of sovereignty. It's basically a Catch-22.

It must be concluded that inclusion of Iraq on the list of "occupied" territories is politically slanted and inaccurate. At present, US military forces are fighting in Iraq, perhaps immorally, perhaps for an originally illegitimate/illegal reason, perhaps whatnot, but they technically do not "occupy" the country now because they recognize the sovereignty of the Interim Iraqi government, and are protecting that legitimate institution from rebel forces, while said government prepares to enfranchise the Iraqi people, who will themselves designate the most legally legitimate government possible, regardless of whether the war was predicated upon just or unjust causes.

Revision
By taking the United States of America out of the discussion and leaving the United States the article matches existing law and definitions. The next link also makes sense and is in the correct context. Think about it...it is what makes you a slave to government. Then read the Preamble in the new context...starts to make sense. Richard Fuselier 05/17/05

I removed the following section today:
 * ==United States vs United States of America=
 * The signing of the Declaration of Independence created an organic republic called the United States of America. This is the people acting as a soverign entity.  These people then created seperate civil law "states" for the purpose of governing. These states had the police power, power to make war, etc.  These were many of the same powers exercised by the King - except these new states were not "sovereign" due to the fact they could be sued at commonlaw.  The King could not - therefore the change of government.   The creation of a central authority created another "civil law state" called the United States.   This was done by surrending certain powers to the central authority.   The Consitution gave the central authority much more power (the previous confederation did not work).   The United States is defined as the "Federal Corporation" in Title 28 Section 3002.   The United States of America is defined in Bouviers and common law court decisions.  The United States does not have "soverign power" over the vast majority of this country.   This soverign power is called "exclusive jurisdiction".   This is a limited power that must be shared with civil law states, the people, common law states (if they are ever organized again) equitable entites, indian nations, etc.

There are a few inaccuracies, or, at the least, some contestable points in this (and much unclear writing). The Declaration of Independence did not establish the United States as an "organic republic". That did not occur until adoption of the Constitution. The USA as a form of government could be dated from the Articles of Confederation, but for all practical purposes, the United States of America, recognizable as a federal republic did not come into existence until the Constitution. Secondly, the states preceded the USA as independent civil governments. In the articles of confederation the individual states ceded relatively few of their sovereign powers to the central government. With the constitution, they ceded considerably more sovereignty,  in order to form a more perfect union. The independent colonies which became states were indeed sovereign entities (and in some respects they still retain some degree of sovereignty). Apart from the inaccuracies (replete with misspellings), I'm not sure what is in the section that is not adequately described already in other sections. older ≠ wiser 01:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The signing of the Declaration of Independence created the organic republic called the "United States of America" (the United States did not exist at this exact moment in history). See Bouviers Law Dictionary under United States of America: "The republic whose organic law is the constitution adopted by the people of the thirteen states which declared their independence of the government of Great Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776." The United States is the government of the United States of America. The "federal corporation" as defined in Title 28. The government has various entities - "states of the United States", United States District Court, "United States Post Office", etc. Title 28 United States code Section 3002(15) states in part: "'United States' means - (A) Federal Corporation".

In fact the United States only has "exclusive" jurisdiction (soverign power) over controversies between two or more states as stated in Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1251 "The Supreme Court shall have orginal and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States". That means someone else has some power in all other actions. This is a very limited "soverign power".

The preamble in this context "We the people of the United States (federal government), in order to form a more perfect union, ....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America(the people of the organic republic)."

This would seem to imply...the United States existed prior to the Consitution being written as this is a preamble leading to the Consititution. The Articles of Confederation created the first "federal corporation" - the purpose of the Constitution was to ..."form a more perfect union" (not a perfect union). The purpose of the discussion is show the seperation of the "federal civil law state(the federal corporation)" from the "common law state(the organic republic of the United States of America - this is the people and rights reserved in Amendment IX.)".

Thus when you entitle an article "United States" you are talking about goverment in a very clear context. When you say USA (referring to government) you are creating a document "without any basis in law". That means you cannot support your statement with either a legal cite or a civil law statute. The article becomes jumbled and doesn't make sense when you use USA where you are meaning the Federal government. See the revisions under Common Law. When you are talking or explaining law it must be in "context". The article is out of context unless you use "United States". The primary reason that people do not understand law is that they fail to use legal definitions when reading the documents. A jurist would not make that mistake. See Revisions under Common Law.

...and maybe you shouldn't be so rude - try being "civil". ask for quotes, case cites, statutes, etc. This stuff is called documentation in litigation and is used as evidence to support a legal argument(do you guys have similar rules are do you just argue without evidence?). Richard Fuselier May 19, 2005.
 * I'm sorry if you found my comments rude. I did not intend them as a personal affront. I merely questioned both the accuracy(you are saying that I misquote the law? Title 28 is very plain and easy to find - copy it and post it up here) and the quality of the writing(are you saying that using exact word meanings is not sufficient quality?). And (is this qualtiy writing to begin a sentence with "and") to be honest(have you looked up the law on this or is this just an opinion), nothing you have written (I was simply quoting existing law) here to expand on it has done much to change my opinion(but your opinion is contrary to law, statute and legalese).
 * Nothing you(I simply quoted a legal dictionary and court cases - this is not my opinion - the way I designate this is by using "marks like this" - those are called quotation marks) presented is convincing evidence that 'The signing of the Declaration of Independence created an organic republic called the United States of America. Your quote from Bouviers merely asserts that the people of the thirteen states declared independence on July 4, 1776 and that the constitution later adopted by these people formed the organic law of the republic.(actually called the United States of America to be in correct context - you seem to leave out words when it doesn't match your belief system).
 * I believe that you also misinterpret the preamble: The preamble in this context "We the people of the United States (federal government - again you left out the law that defines this entity as the "Federal Corporation)), in order to form a more perfect union, ....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America(the people of the organic republic)." The first "United States" does NOT refer to the federal government, but rather to the several states; and, in fact, the second "United States of America" actually refers to the new republic being organized by the constitution.(and your basis in law is....?)
 * You wrote: Thus when you title an article "United States" you are talking about goverment in a very clear context. When you say USA (referring to government) you are creating a document "without any basis in law". I'm sorry, but this is gobbledygook cloaked in pretentious legalese (that legalese is called the United States Code - Title 28). older ≠ wiser 00:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

However you did not address the "basis in law" - the "legalese". In the United States and the United States of America - disputes are resolved by legal proceedings. The legal proceedings result in codification. The codification is called a statute. Civil men use this law to govern their disputes and society. Therefore we do not have to argue endlessly about irrevelant things (and use guns to resolve arguments, etc). One such topic is "United States". My point was that it has been litigated hundreds of times...this has resulted in what is called "statute" or civil code or laws or what you call "legalese". This law controls our society. It is called a "civil society" controlled by a civil code. I was using law (legalese) by looking up the statute and posting here and then looking up the case law(as research) - you want to use something else (your opinion). I opened up your discussion page and see you trying to change the meaning of law within your system...so I say you are operating "without a basis in law". Your post lack any true meaning when they are contrary to existing law. I was simply trying to tell you this without pointing out each person's mistake in each post. Note how easy it is to go back to your post and point out your mistakes -but it is rude to do this. Try a new code to see if the government thinks you are right: Try researching Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1746. This is the manner of determining if judges agree with you and if you consider law important...if you don't ...you obviously don't need any input from me. All I can do is add a little legalese (law) to your works. Richard Fuselier May 20, 2005

Maybe I can use that user name (legalese). Does it have any meaning? Here is what I found:

Legalese "language containg an excessive amount of legal terminology..."

I guess this means to post with opinions instead of law. That concept would make it easier to argue - however the post would then be "without a basis in law". I would rather pass on the opportunity or argue law without using law. Sorry I interferred with this non legalese stuff. Maybe we could have a jury trial on that. Richard Fuselier May 20, 2005
 * Do you have a point? I have no idea what you are going on about. My complaint about "legalese" is that I find your writing to be rather unintelligible. Perhaps I'm just too dense to comprehend your brilliant prose. But from my perspective, you have posted no evidence in support of your revision aside from mistaken readings of some crucial texts and some ramblings about civil law. older ≠ wiser 22:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

What About the Office of Insular Affairs
This just came to mind. What about the Office of Insular Affairs?

Land occupied by the United States
Here is an excert from the article:-

Quote:

Land occupied by the United States

Historically, all of the United States of America was originally the territory of a multitude of Native American Indian tribes/nations. However, the source of this situation goes back several centuries, and includes land taken from Native Americans by the Spanish, French, Russians, Dutch, Danish and British.

The current United States government was obviously not responsible for all of these cessions, since many took place under British rule.

Unquote

Questions, from a casual and non-American observer:

(1) was all of the US originally Native American Indian out of interest ? This presumably regards Hawaiians as American Indians - is this a "correct" designation, as regarded in the US ? (2) Whilst the 13 states were British there was certainly land taken from American Indians historical areas, but does this, under US law, mean that the current US government has no responsibility ? Certainly an argument could be made for "moral responsibility" but more interestingly is there an argument to be made for legal responsibility ? Most governments taking over areas of land that were previously governed by someone else ( I refer to the US government taking over land from the British crown ) continue to inherit obligations of the past governments of those lands. The 13 states were never integrally part of the Kingdom of Great Britain at the time, so there is no longer any government of the 13 colonies retaining responsibility, their having ( presumably ) been dissolved at the time of the US revolution. For example, Russia currently services some of the Soviet Unions debt, even though it is widely understood that the current Russian government is demonstrably a government of a different country to the last Soviet government. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but I think it is interesting to know whether it is true or not that the US government inherited any legal rights and obligations from the previous colonial governments, related to American Indians land rights or not ?

Another issue is that the original 13 states were based in the north-east. So to claim it seems a bit unfair to claim it all happened under British rule. Also by still enforcing the occupancy would the US government not be just as responsible as the European nations which took the land in the first place? Finally, the use of the word 'obviously' here makes the statement sound very biased, especially as there is no citation to back up the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Areas
Shouldn't this article actually address the areas of the territory? What I'd propose is defining several terms such as:
 * land area
 * inland water area
 * border waters area (e.g. St Lawrence midline)
 * coastal water area
 * territorial waters (to 12 nautical mile limit)
 * exclusive economic zone
 * to continental shelf
 * disputed areas
 * named
 * defined
 * amounts of area disputed

I would further suggest that clarity is needed w.r.t. sea level reference used.

The United States article relies on the CIA World Factbook which is very convenient but not really a LeadSongDog (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Embassies?
Aren't US Embassies located in foreign countries "part of" the US also? (Also, foreign embassies in the US are "part of" their own native countries) ? If this is true it should be mentioned in the article. I recall reading that an attack on a US Embassy anywhere in the world is an attack on the US itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.168.203 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that US Embassies are "part of" the US since, for example, children born to foreign nationals inside an embassy aren't granted citizenship (Department of State policy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.200.163 (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Embassies located in a foreign country's capital are part of the territory of the receiving state, although the building and people closely tied to it are exempt from most local laws. Check out the embassy article for details. Ngchen (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What portions are inaccurate or unbalanced?
Please state the specific parts [perferably with quotes] or the tag will be removed. J. D. Redding 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What portions requires cleanup?
Please state the specific parts [perferably with quotes] or the tag will be removed. J. D. Redding 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What portions need citations for verification?
Please state the specific parts [perferably with quotes] or the tag will be removed. J. D. Redding 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding places in UK and France
The articel now states that ''The John F. Kennedy Memorial built at Runnymede in the UK is part of the U.S. territory. 13 Hectares around the Pointe du Hoc in Normandy, France are also U.S. territory.'' As I understand it, those areas are owned by the U.S. government, but that doesn't, in itself, mean that they are a part of the United States. So, can I guess that those two areas follow UK/French law and therefore still are part of UK/France? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the page on Enclave and exclave backs this up. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is poorly titled.
IF English was the only language the world spoke, this page would be all right... However, it isn't and therefore this page is somewhat broken. You see, 'United States' isn't exclusive to the USA.. Believe it or not, Mexico is, in actually, the United States of Mexico... See where I'm going with this? What do we do to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstubes (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Map area, “Territory of the Original Thirteen States (Ceded by Great Britain) 1783,” is inaccurate
One of the maps in Section 2.2 contains a boundary line for the “Territory of the Original Thirteen States (Ceded by Great Britain) 1783.” However, the map is inaccurate in this regard. (One of the adjacent maps is accurate in these details.)

(1) Vermont was not part of the territory of the original 13 states, even though New York and New Hampshire had claims. It was not one of the "13 colonies" and was independent as the Vermont Republic from 1777 (after its own declaration of independence from Britain) to 1791, when it became a state.

(2) The territory of West Florida came under British rule in 1763. Britain enlarged the territory by moving its northern border further north into existing British territory, so as to re-align a large part of the current area of Mississippi and Alabama. Britain ceded West Florida to Spain in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Spain insisted on the British boundary; the U.S. and Georgia claimed the boundary should be the old pre-1763 boundary. With the implementation of Pinckney's Treaty between Spain and the U.S. in 1795, this extended area north of the old 1763 boundary of West Florida became undisputed territory of the U.S. The point is that, at the very least, in 1783 this area was in dispute about whether it was part of the territory of the original 13 states.

(3) The Treaty of Paris in 1783 left the northern boundary of Maine with Quebec/New Brunswick in dispute, with Great Britain claiming the northern part of Maine. Also, the border between New Hampshire and Quebec was imprecisely defined. The New Hampshire ambiguity led to the self-declared independence of the small Republic of Indian Stream in the 1830s. Finally both of these disputes were settled by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842. The point is that a large area of Maine claimed by the U.S. in 1783 did not end up as Maine, and the disputed area was not a definite part of the territory of the original 13 states in 1783.

In addition, I do not believe that the Kingdom of Hawaii was ever named the Republic of Hawaii. After the Americans overthrew the queen, it was.

Jeff in CA 18:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence and definition of US Territory
The first clause of the article's lead sentence says

The second sentence adds a proviso by implicattion that territorial status also requires US sovereignty. The second sentence could also be read as saying that the US exercises sovereignty rights wherever it has jurisdiction, but that's not the way I read it. My reading is supported by §374 on p.438 of the cited supporting source, and it squares with the lack of past US territorial status for Cuba in 1898 to 1902 and for components of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands between 1947 and 1986. How about clarifying this by saying

in the first clause of the lead sentence? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Having seen neither discussion nor objection, I've made the change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United States territory. 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/20110510095936/http://puertoricoadvancement.org/Documents/Consejo%20De%20Salud%20Playa%20De%20Ponce%20V.%20Johnny%20Rullan%20-%20Secretary%20of%20Health%20of%20the%20Commonwealth%20of%20Puerto%20Rico.pdf to http://puertoricoadvancement.org/Documents/Consejo%20De%20Salud%20Playa%20De%20Ponce%20V.%20Johnny%20Rullan%20-%20Secretary%20of%20Health%20of%20the%20Commonwealth%20of%20Puerto%20Rico.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034923/http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm to http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)