Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States

"Decolonization" header

It can't be removed, so what should it be replaced with? The majority of entries in that block are of the US recognizing other sovereigns for land they've claimed for decades, so "decolonization" seemed most relevant. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Decolonization" (and "imperialism") could be politically controversial words in the context of the United States, if that's what you're asking. It could also inspire confusion with the American Revolution period. So avoiding it would be ideal. But, like you said, it's hard to think of a better word that suits the context of this article. Columbianmammoth (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thirteen Colonies (1607-1776)

I appreciate the fact that Territorial evolution of Australia starts with the First Fleet (1787) and not Federation (1901). By contrast, Territorial evolution of the United States starts with the Declaration of Independence (1776) and not Jamestown (1607). The Thirteen Colonies (1607-1776) are commonly discussed in the United States as American history and not as foreign history. That said, the age of our country is always counted starting in 1776. (See Centennial Exposition, Sesquicentennial Exposition, United States Bicentennial, and the planned United states Semiquincentennial.) Thus, I could see the argument for including 1607-1776 in this article going either way. Keep up the good work! Columbianmammoth (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the concern with extending United States territorial evolution before 1776 is the question of how to deal with expansion into the territory of pre-existing states. Should territorial changes to Spanish, French, and Mexican territory that later became part of the U.S. be considered in scope? Should the Dutch era of New York? Canada also expanded into British territory, so its territorial evolution page starts at federation rather than at colonial foundation, and I think that's the right model to follow. Astrofreak92 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That's been one of my main concerns, yes. If I go back before 1776, I suddenly have to care about, among other things: The massively conflicting sea-to-sea claims, especially between Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Bay; the question of the other North American British colonies, which had a similar and perhaps identical relationship to Great Britain as did the thirteen colonies; and, simply put, they weren't the United States. "Territorial evolution of Australia" includes the colonies for two main reasons: One, "Australia" can be construed as the name of the continent, rather than just a country (but that brings in its own bag of worms); and, primarily, the colonies were very contained. They didn't claim vastly more than what they currently hold. It's also why I've considered including colonies in Canada, but then I ran into the same logical problem as including the colonies here - at a certain point I'm forced to ignore things of equal status just because they didn't become states later.

What I have been doing is, working on and off for years, on a "Territorial evolution of the British Empire" map in general, and of the British Empire in North America in specific. That way we can get all the colonies and I don't have to worry about future changes. However, then we run into the final and biggest problem: It's difficult. It's difficult to figure out all of the conflicting claims. I'm trying, but it's a slow, painful process, not aided by the fact that the British have not been nearly as diligent as publishing their laws online as the Americans. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does is say Porto Rico that's a crazy obvious error It's Puerto 104.62.41.81 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rico was Porto Rico from 1898 to 1931, detailed explanation available in Puerto Rico. Kmusser (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Perdido Key

The border between Florida and Alabama on Perdido Key is subject to the locations of the old Perdido Pass and the new Perdido Pass, three miles to the west of old Perdido Pass. The new Perdido Pass was created by a hurricane in 1906, after which the old Perdido Pass became silted in. Was the de jure pre-1906 border specified and legally defined as the location of old Perdido Pass? While the border apparently was accepted by the population as de facto having moved to the new Perdido Pass location, did the de jure border remain unchanged (similar to the Horcon Tract situation with Mexico)? Was the 1953 legal agreement between the two states for the purpose of clarifying that what was previously de jure, having not legally changed, was still de jure?

The following two accounts seem to differ on that interpretation.

Account #1 (excerpts)

https://www.obawebsite.com/gateway-to-the-gulf-perdido-pass-a-brief-history

"If there is one thing from the history of Orange Beach that people can point to today as a key to how this area developed, it’s Perdido Pass.

"A pass from Perdido Bay to the Gulf of Mexico has always been vital to the fishing business in Orange Beach. But its first location was close to where the Flora-Bama Lounge and Package Store is today.

"According to “Orange Beach, Alabama, the Best Place to Be” by Margaret Childress Long and Michael D. Shipler, that first pass dates back to at least the 1830s. When Pleasure and Ono Islands were still part of the mainland.

"After several incidents including a waterspout waylaying a boat, the Ellen C, while in the pass and injuring town forefather Amel Callaway’s wife, Mildred, locals began searching for an alternative.

"In 1906, Herman Callaway led the effort to dig a shallow ditch across the dunes at the current location of Perdido Pass. There was a basic cut established and then on Sept. 27, 1906 a major hurricane blew open the pass with its tidal surge. But it was anything but safe.

"At one point, according to Long, there was an effort to have the state line moved from its present location to Perdido Pass to try and get the state of Florida to help fund a bridge over the pass.

" 'The line was never moved from where the Flora-Bama [restaurant] is because in 1953 when my daddy and others owned Ono, they told Florida officials if you help the State of Alabama build the bridge, we will move the line to the pass,' Long said. 'They said no, so Alabama started on the first bridge in 1959 and it was opened in May of 1962.' "

Photo of historical plaque states: "Before 1906, Perdido Pass was located three miles east of today's Pass. ... On May 29, 1953, the State of Alabama and Florida settled a border dispute that permanently established the state line at the site of the old pass. The dredging of Perdido Pass began that same year."

Account #2 (excerpt)

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2017/06/how_alabama_got_cheated_out_of.html

"In his excellent book, The Rise and Decline of the Redneck Riviera, Harvey Jackson details the final change to the borders of Alabama and Florida, a change that came in the late 1950s. Part of using the Perdido River as the dividing line between states meant that Perdido Pass, the spot where the river and its bay drained into the Gulf, had always been considered the border. That changed when Alabama and Florida agreed to build the first bridge over the pass. Initially, it was to be a joint project, with both states paying half. But an engineering study showed that Perdido Pass had moved three miles to the west since Florida became a state, meaning that Florida had essentially gained three miles of Alabama's coastline.

"The case went to court, and ultimately Alabama won back its three miles of beach and the state line was relocated three miles east. But that meant the bridge over the pass would be entirely Alabama's to pay for. So, basically for the price of a bridge, Alabama expanded its coastal territory for the first time since 1819 and claimed a tiny portion of Florida's panhandle."

Jeff in CA (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So what happened was, I've been working on a side project offline of the details of every border for every state, compared to their legal definitions. And since Alabama is first alphabetically, it always gets the most attention from me. The border with Florida is defined simply as "The Perdido River". So I was surprised when I zoomed in and found that it actually started on land. That led me down a rabbit hole where I initially was incorrect, hence my first edit. I thought that the border had gone around the island, and Florida ceded the west part when Alabama built the bridge. But there was no cession. A combination of island splits and formations simply changed where the river went, so they had to define it. So the border still follows the original course of the river.

My interpretation: De jure is largely the same now as it was then, it's just defined as actual coordinates rather than "the mouth of the perdido river". Another way of putting this is: In 1817, the border was set at the mouth of the Perdido River. The border still starts at the "mouth of the Perdido River as it was in 1817". --Golbez (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)