Talk:United States territorial acquisitions

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjjjang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing important information

I tried to find, and the article does not make it clear, when exactly the United States was the largest, was it 1898, 1940 (as one website suggests)? It should say as this is a interesting and important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.131.64 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriousness of this Article

This article is very serious and needs to be handled carefully. It is important that contributors not make spurious claims which could be misinterpreted. The article also needs to be cleaned up a bit. -CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode

Should Cuba

Should Cuba,of the U.S. Additional ones would be The Phillipines, the Panama Canal Zone, Okinawa...

There also is no mention on this page of the territorial acquisition of northern Maine, which historically has been included in textbooks concerning the growth of the U.S. I think it should be added.--Firsfron 06:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Help request

I'm working on a page which explains the western land claims surrended by the original Thirteen Colonies in the early years of the American republic. As I've researched, it's become clear to me that there would be no better way to do this than to have a map. Is there anyone out there who knows how to do this, has software which is helpful, digs cartography or knows where I can find a public domain version of this material? I've found several examples on the web. My vomit draft of the page--did I mention it was a vomit draft?--is at User:Jengod/State_cessions. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

• State claims 1
• State claims 2
• State claims 3
• State claims 4
• State claims 5
• State claims 6

Causes of the Mexican American War

It is true that Santa Anna said that the annexation of Texas would be the same as declaring war. BUT the annexation of Texas was NOT the cause of the Mexican-American War. It was a dispute concerning the borders of the new state of Texas that caused it. According to the Mexicans it was the Nueces River, according to the Americans it was the Rio Grande (south of Nueces). When the American army moved south into what Mexicans considered their territory, they attacked them. This event sparked the Mexican-American War.

Not only is this true, but the area outlined as the Texas Annexation is probably overstated as well. The Rio Grande was the claimed boundary of the Republic of Texas, but Mexico's claim -- which corresponded much more realistically to the reality on the ground -- was the Neuces River. I should say I'm not trying to say which party was "right", just explain what each side actually controlled. For instance, Santa Fe, which the capital of the Mexican state of New Mexico and under Mexican control from Texas independence to the Mexican-American War, is to the east of the Rio Grande and thus part of the "Texas Annexation" on this map.

In practice, since the Mexican-American War followed almost immediately on the heels of the Texas Annexation, there isn't too much potential for confusion in terms of when areas were annexed to the United States, but it does misrepresent how much land Texas actually controlled. --Jfruh 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this claim. --Dúnadan (formerly Alonso) 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Central Colorado

The jist of what happened is this: The Louisiana Purchase granted the US all lands drained by the Mississippi River. What was and was not drained by the Mississippi was not precisisely mapped out in all areas, even many years after the land was aquired in 1803. In 1819 when Florida was acquired, the US and Spain signed a treaty creating a clear boundary between their possesions, since the Mississippi basin was still not precisly defined. The US ceded a portion of the Louisiana Purchase to Spain along this new boundary. However, the tiny area of Colorado in question later was proven NOT to be drained by the Mississippi, yet it fell on the US side of the new boundary with Spain. So the central question is this: Did Spain have any claim to that land before the 1819 treaty? If so, then the creation of the new boundary could be construed as Spain granting that land to the US, and it should probably be listed in lands acquired in the 1819 Florida treaty, and not seprately. However, if Spain did not have any claim to that piece of Colorado, then it was never theirs to grant the US...which would mean the US just assumed the land. My guess is that anything west of Louisiana was Spain by default...but I am not certain if this.

Thank you muchly for this information. Have you considered adding it to the Louisiana Purchase article? Until I saw that map, I'd never known there was a "missing" piece of the puzzle, although, considering how vague some of the treaties were and how unreliable surveying could be, it's a miracle there aren't more. jengod 22:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The relevant passage from the Adam-Onis Treaty of 1919 for the Colorado portion is as follows:

"...thence, following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas, to its source, in latitude 42 north; and thence, by that parallel of latitude, to the South Sea. The whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818. But if the source of the Arkansas River shall be found to fall north or south of latitude 42, then the line shall run from the said source due south or north, as the case may be, till it meets the said parallel of latitude 42, and thence, along the said parallel, to the South Sea:"

In other words, the treaty was drawn up using a map that was inaccurate. The source of the Arkansas River is not at 42 degrees north, therefore the proper boundary would be to draw a line from the Arkansas River source, due north to 42 degrees north, then due west to the Pacific ocean. Spain ceeded everything north and east of that line, while the United States ceeded everything south and west. Hence, the mystery of the acquisition of central Colorado is solved. The relevant section in the article should be changed to reflect this formal acquisition through the Adams-Onis treaty. --Kbrooks 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra "Original" Territory

How did the U.S. obtain the territory other than the 13 colonies that now make up the original U.S. land area?

The acquisition of lands between the original thirteen colonies (as defined by the proclamation of 1763) and the Mississippi River is detailed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, Article II. --Kbrooks 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For more info see the State cessions article. --Jfruh 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Taiwan Meet the Criteria to Qualify as an "Overseas Territory of the United States"

Replaced this link: Does Taiwan Meet the Criteria to Qualify as an "Overseas Territory of the United States"? offers a new examination of Taiwan's international legal status as added by user 61.230.110.81

with: http://www.taiwanadvice.com/tw_insular5b.htm, which is a working current link to the same article.

(Disclaimer) I have no opinions on the matter, I'm just correcting the link. :D

~Kylu (u|t) 21:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, I believe that Taiwan (Republic of China) has all the requisite markers and appearances of sovereignty which clearly demonstrate that it is fully independent of the US. Yes, there are issues regarding mainland China but that's certainly a separate matter.

But, if we choose to pursue this notion further, there are no US military bases in Taiwan, and so why not also investigate whether nations with such bases (South Korea, Japan, Spain, Turkey and a host of other fully sovereign nations) are overseas territories?

We don't list the US embassy grounds around the world as US overseas territories either. Nations hosting bases or embassies qualify logically before Taiwan. Ertdfgcvb (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous comment was 3 years 7 months ago and there is no reference in the article now to this (very silly) theory. --JWB (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Webster-Ashburton Treaty

This goes unmentioned in this article: it fixed the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick, and fixed the western border along the 49th Parallel, giving the U.S. what is now northeastern Minnesota, but the treaty isn't mentioned here, and the maps completely ignore it.--Firsfron 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point about the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick. However, the Treaty of 1818 originally fixed the 49th parallel as the boundary from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains. (See Article II of the treaty's text.) The Webster-Ashburton treaty merely reaffirms that boundary in its Article II. ("... thence, according to existing treaties,! due south to its intersection with the 49th parallel of north latitude, and along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains.") --Kbrooks 17:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. But the Maine boundary stuff still needs to be added... --Firsfron 17:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find it mentioned under the very first heading as part of the 1783 Treaty of Paris section. (I misssed it the first time around myself.) Are you suggesting it needs to be in its own section? --Kbrooks 17:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I suggest the maps need to reflect it, and it needs to be mentioned in the acquisitions part. I was surprised the WP map doesn't have it, because all of my college textbooks definitely had maps that showed it.--Firsfron 17:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand. Look at the article under "1783 Treaty of Paris." The Webster-Ashburton Treaty is mentioned there. Do you want that broken out like the Adams-Onis treaty (as an example)? --Kbrooks 17:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a different treaty, from 50+ years later. Imagine us trying to lump in a treaty from, say, the Vietnam War in with the current war in Iraq, and you'll see how ridiculous the idea is.--Firsfron 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my only objection is that all the rest of the sections define acquistion of territory as their main topic. The Webster-Ashburton Treaty merely clarified a boundary dispute. We didn't acquire new territory as much as we clarified existing territory. That said, the Boundary Treaty of 1970 is at the bottom, so we should either make the Webster-Ashburton Treaty its own section, or remove the Boundary Treaty. I'm in favor of removing the Boundary Treaty myself. --Kbrooks 14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as any different than the Oregon Country. Canada had a boundary line, the U.S. had a boundary line. The area in the middle was in dispute. The treaty settled the line.--Firsfron 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the US and Britain explicitly agreed to a "joint occupation" of Oregon in the Anglo-American Convention of 1818. --Jfruh 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and according to our article on the Oregon Country: "In the 1844 U.S. Presidential election, the Democrats called for expansion into both areas. After being elected, however, President James K. Polk supported the 49th parallel as a northern limit for U.S. annexation in Oregon Country. [...] The British government, meanwhile, sought control of all territory north of the Columbia River."

In other words, the land claims conflicted, which is what I stated above. As in both cases, the area in question was settled by treaty. A map that includes the Oregon Country as a territorial acquisition should also show the Maine boundary decision, and I've seen it in texts before, and was surprised it was not on the Wikipedia maps, not even mentioned, and our text itself makes only a minor mention of it, incorrectly lumping it in with a treaty from 50 years earlier.--Firsfron 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge - 2006

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was merge

Should we merge History of United States continental expansion into this article? I think we should. Travb (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Travb (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Last chance to vote...then i move it this week...Travb (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• SupportYes, I agree. There doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for having two articles with so much overlap. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think there should be a merge because many students/ameatuer researchers do no know what acquisitions are. If there is to be a merege then the article should be named U.S Continetal Expansion, not territorial acquisitions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindude (talk • contribs)
  • Good point Hindude, but if this article is merged, the link to Continetal Expansion will link to this article, so students/ameatuer researchers will find this article. What merging does is it focuses wikipedian's work and efforts into one place, instead of two, meaning that students/ameatuer researchers will find more information in one place. Hope this helps. best wishesTravb (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• SupportI support the merge. Hindude, you gotta be kidding me. It's a perfectly good word that most educated people know, or ought to. "Continental" shouldn't be the aricle title because some of those acquisitions (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.) weren't on a continent. --Jfruh (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support and rename The combined article should be called History of United States territorial expansion. The word "continental" is not correct, since U.S. territory includes American Samoa, Guam, Hawai'i, etc. Lovelac7 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I said one week

I said I would move it in a week, I will move it soon, unless someone else wants to. Sorry for delay all. Travb (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel and reference tags

Hey all, I added the {{weasel}}, please see WP:AWW. I don't like the {{weasel}} template much, because it isn't necessarily that the weasel words are making the section non-neutral, it simply is making the section sound bad. "One perspective ", "Another perspective " who? Without real experts/historians names, this article is less than encyclopedic. In addition, these historians/experts need to be citied, thus the {{unsourced}} tag. Travb (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've delated the paragraph on American Indians because it really isn't nessacary. Aussie King Pin 11:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section:

• Note that this list primarily concerns land acquired from other nation-states; the numerous territorial acquisitions from American Indians are not listed here.
  • One perspective on this state of affairs is that the land was claimed as the territory of one European colonial power or the other, but it was owned by the Native peoples who resided there, creating a tiered system of possession. (For example, under this standard, Kansa Indians would be considered French nationals pre-1803, and American nationals post-1803.)
  • However, another perspective says that the Native peoples who resided there never actually claimed ownership, but merely stressed their usage rights to the land.
  • For an in-depth exploration of Native American land cessions, researchers may refer to Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1896-1897 by Charles C. Royce, which can be viewed online at the Library of Congress' American Memory Website.
• There is a small section of central Colorado that lies between the Louisiana Purchase lands and the lands acquired in the Texas Annexation. It was either assumed by the U.S. without treaty, or, according to the National Atlas territorial acquisitions map from 2005, was granted to the U.S. under some provision of the 1819 treaty with Spain.{{fact}}

Signed:Travb (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Article has gone downhill

The well-intended merger of the other article into this one has been a disaster. This article was succinct and pretty a few months ago. The new text doesn't enhance the article. Yes, there are new facts. But they are shoved on the top, rambling, cotraversial, weasly, and required a bunch of silly tags at the top of the article to excuse their presence.

All of the information contained in those additions is easily accesable to anyone by linking to the page about the acquisition in question. Repeating it here just makes this article more confusing.

I also disagree with the notion that there doesn't need to be mention of acquisitions from Native Americans. I have shortened that section from its original form, but am returning some of it, as it raises valid issues into the nature of those types of acquisitions, which an inquisitive reader might desire, and is not otherwise linked to.Dr U 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Island articles

Find it suspicious that Aunuu Island and Manu'a Island are redlinked. Is it possible they exist under other names? jengod 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping: Large portion of Overseas expansion of the United States moved here

I moved all of this text from Overseas expansion of the United States to here, Territorial acquisitions of the United States. This information is well written, but it is simply repeating what is already on Territorial acquisitions of the United States. If anyone wants to, they can merge the Overseas expansion of the United States text into this article Territorial acquisitions of the United States.

Tristan da Cunha (1812-1815, used as a naval and piracy base against British shipping in the War of 1812, abandoned and permanently annexed by the British within months) Puerto Rico (1898-, obtained by the 1898 Treaty of Paris with Spain following the Spanish-American War; it has been US commonwealth since 1952) Guam (1898-, obtained by the 1898 Treaty of Paris with Spain following the Spanish-American War) Cuba (1899-1902, 1906-1909, obtained by the 1898 Treaty of Paris with Spain following the Spanish-American War) Now independent; however, Guantanamo Bay remains under the control of the U.S. military Republic of the Philippines (1898-1946, acquired by the 1898 Treaty of Paris with Spain and now independent through the Philippine Independence Act of 1935 American Samoa (1900-) Acquired as colony and established by Treaty U.S. Virgin Islands (1917-, purchased from Denmark) Panama Canal Zone (leased from 1903-1979 and now part of Panama) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1944-1990) (Trusteeship assigned by the UN comprises the modern nations of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, as well the Northern Mariana Islands, a US commonwealth.) Guano islands annexations The Guano Islands Act was federal legislation passed by the U.S. Congress on August 18, 1856 enabling citizens of the United States to take possession of islands containing guano deposits. More than 50 islands were eventually claimed. Of those remaining unquestionably under U.S. control due to this act alone are Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Howland Island, and Johnston Atoll. Other islands could be included, depending on opinion. Some claims have never been relinquished but are not recognized by the US or the party currently claiming control. Others are no longer considered United States territory. Possession of Navassa Island is currently disputed with Haiti. An even more complicated case probably unresolved until now seems to be the Serranilla Bank and the Bajo Nuevo Bank. In 1971, the U.S. and Honduras signed a treaty recognizing Honduran sovereignty over the Swan Islands. Annexation of Hawaii In 1959, 94% of Hawaiians voted to relinquish all land claims (proposition 2) to the United States and become a state. The Kingdom of Hawai'i was long an independent monarchy in the mid-Pacific Ocean. During the 19th century, the first American missionaries and then American business interests began to play major roles in the islands. Most notable were the powerful fruit and sugarcane corporations such as the Hawaiian Pineapple Company, founded by James Dole, and an oligarchy known as the Big Five, which included Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., Amfac and Theo H. Davies & Co.. After a coup financed and directed by American interests, using Marines from the U.S. and with the approval of American Minister John Stevens, overthrew the monarchy's last native Hawaiian leader, isolationist Queen Lili'uokalani. The island became a republic in 1894. In 1898, the American president of the Republic of Hawai'i, Sanford Dole, James Dole's cousin, agreed to the Republic's annexation by the United States. The republic was dissolved in 1900 when the country became a territory of the US. Following voter approval of the Admission of Hawai'i Act, the Territory of Hawaii, on August 21, 1959, became the state of Hawai'i and the 50th state of the United States. Annexation of Spanish Colonies following Spanish-American War Main article: Spanish-American War The Spanish-American War took place in 1898. The Treaty of Paris (1898), ended the Spanish-American war, giving the United States possession of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Cuba. After the war, the United States greatly increased its international power. Post-Spanish-American War map of "Greater America" This era also saw the first scattered protests against American imperialism. Noted Americans such as Mark Twain spoke out forcefully against these ventures. Opponents of the war, including Twain and Andrew Carnegie, organized themselves into the American Anti-Imperialist League. During this same period the American people continued to strongly chastise the European powers for their imperialism. The Second Boer War was especially unpopular in the United States and soured Anglo-American relations. The anti-imperialist press would often draw parallels between America in the Philippines and the British in the Second Boer War.[1] Guam In Guam, settlement by foreign ethnic groups was small at first. After World War II showed the strategic value of the island, construction of a huge military base began along with a large influx of people from other parts of the world. Guam today has a very mixed population of 164,000. The indigenous Chamorros make up 37% of the population. The rest of the population consists mostly of Caucasians and Filipinos, with smaller groups of Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Micronesians, Vietnamese and Indians. Guam today is almost totally Americanized. The situation is somewhat similar to that in Hawaii, but attempts to change Guam's status as an 'unincorporated' U.S. territory have yet to meet with success. Philippines Main article: Philippine-American War In 1898, the United States lent strong support to Emilio Aguinaldo's native liberation movement and helped to defeat Spanish occupation forces. Aguinaldo and his supporters declared independence, but the U.S. reversed its policy and annexed the islands. The natives resisted, and the Philippine-American War ensued. The Philippine-American War (1899 to 1913) is often cited as another instance of United States imperialism. While many Filipinos were initially delighted to be rid of the Spanish rule of the Philippines, the guerrilla fighters soon found that the Americans were not prepared to grant them much more autonomy than Spain had allowed. Thus, for the next 15 years, American forces engaged in a war in the jungles of the Philippines against the Filipino resistance. An estimated 200,000 Filipinos died from war, war induced famine, and conditions in American concentration camps. Some American soldiers participated in war crimes, including torture and killing POWs.[2] The Philippines became a U.S. colony in the fashion of Europe's New Imperialism. The Philippines remained under U.S. or Japanese rule until after World War II. The Filipinos welcomed the American reconquest from Japan in 1944, and gained political independence, for the first time, in 1946. Annexation of American Samoa Germany, the United States, and Britain colonized the Samoan Islands. The nations came into conflict in the Second Samoan Civil War and resolved their issues, establishing American Samoa as per the Treaty of Berlin, 1899. The US took control of its allotted region on June 7, 1900 with the Deed of Cession. American Samoa was under the control of the U.S. Navy from 1900 to 1951. From 1951 until 1977, Territorial Governors were appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Immigration of Americans was never as strong as it was, for instance, in Hawaii; indigenous Samoans make up 89% of the population. The islands have been reluctant to separate from the US in any manner. Annexation of U.S. Virgin Islands In 1917, the United States purchased the former Danish Colony of St. Croix, St. John and St. Thomas, which is now the U.S. Virgin Islands. The United States purchased these islands because they feared that the islands might be seized as a submarine base during World War I. After a few months of negotiations, a sales price of $25 million was agreed. A referendum held in late 1916 confirmed the decision to sell by a wide margin. The deal was thus ratified and finalised on January 17, 1917, when the United States and Denmark exchanged their respective treaty ratifications. The U.S. took possession of the islands on March 31, 1917, when the territory was renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. citizenship was granted to the inhabitants of the islands in 1927. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) was a United Nations trust territory in Micronesia (western Pacific) administered by the United States from July 18, 1947, comprising the former League of Nations Mandate administered by Japan and taken by the U.S. in 1944. On October 21, 1986, the U.S. ended its administration of the Marshall Islands district. These islands are now republics that, in 1986, signed a Compact of Free Association with the U.S.

Travb (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This was very helpful. I had a report and needed information quick, and as always, can trust Wikipedia ^__^

24.175.254.182 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)IkaZuchi 24.175.254.182 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Sniper_Player.scope@yahoo.com

I'll work on merging this. Chris M. (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana purchase

why isnt the louisiana purchase on here? Isn't that a territorial acquisition, arguably one of the most important?Skhatri2005 05:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is shown on each of the maps and is the second one in the list. Val42 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

um i liike eggs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.82.76 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should move this page: Territorial acquisitions of the United States to Territorial changes of the United States - I think it would be a good idea to match this article to the current format of Territorial changes of Poland and Territorial changes of Germany, and to discuss changes to the United States Territory that weren't additions. --Chris M. (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which changes did you have in mind? Difficult to think of any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Panama Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Okinawa Prefecture, Chamizal, and Rio Rico, Texas (Horcón Tract) as some examples. Chris M. (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Comment. Territorial acquisitions is the common term and best describes the "changes" referred to in the article. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well if the changes included things other then acquisitions (such as the Philippines mentioned below) then the title would become inaccurate. Would you suggest instead a "Territorial losses" page? If so I think inevitably the best course of action would be to merge the two together into a gains and losses type page, such as I suggested. If you'd prefer to have something other then gains in the changes article before it exists then I can work on that. Chris M. (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - no reason not to support: consistency is good. The title is also more accurate if it includes changes in the status of territory/state (as does the map), also we can include overseas losses such as the Philippines and any others, if they exist. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Damn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.255.190 (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Map of "Successor States" Uninformative; Suggestions for Article

The map associated with this article, described as "Map of current US states that are direct successor states of the original Thirteen Colonies . . . ." appears to be simply a map of the present United States with the modern territories of the original Thirteen Colonies in a darker color. It does not show which States were formed from existing States, which were formed from newly-acquired territories, which were settled by migrants from particular States or regions, or any other useful information.

It seems to me that the map (or two related maps) ought to show, for instance, that the States of the old Northwest Territory (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) were formed out of the former territory of Virginia (parts of which were also claimed by other States), but were settled mainly by migrants from New England, New York, & Pennsylvania, and, to a lesser extent, from Virginia and Kentucky (the tendency being for pioneers to move westward within the same latitude as their point of origin). The article (or Territorial evolution of the United States) ought to discuss both the legal processes (cession, acquisition, territorial administration, admission to the Union) and the demographic processes (conquest, migration) that produced & populated the new States.

Jdcrutch (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF Overseas expansion of the United States

Overseas expansion of the United States redirects to territorial acquisitions. It should have its own Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.171.227 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Haiti???

The article says... Guano islandsThe Guano Islands Act, passed on August 18, 1856, provided for U.S. claims to unoccupied islands containing guano deposits. More than 50 islands were eventually claimed.

Of those remaining unquestionably under U.S. control due to this act alone are Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Howland Island, Kingman Reef, and Johnston Atoll. Baker Island, Howland Island, and Navassa Island were annexed in under its provisions in 1857. Today ownership of Navassa is disputed between the U.S. and Haiti.

Montalban (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've answered my own question - Navassa is in the Carribean - however the article lists all these other Pacific islands Montalban (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pro-US bias

It is strange, Imperialism in the United States (a negative concept) redirects here, United States territorial acquisitions (a quite neutral concept). But allmost military superpower has a well documented history of punctual violation of Human Rights. Declassification of documents by US government has uncovered many debatable actions of former US goverments, but it is difficult to find concrete examples in Wikipedia. See for example the virtual absence of factual data in United States and state terrorism. We need to face it, there is little place for selfcriticism in most Wikipedia pages. It makes no sense to avoid or deploy of content some negative facts in the previous history of US, I am deeply deceived by most of the articles dealing with this subject, --Davius (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Sounds like you are upset the article lacks an Anti-US bias. 23.240.131.64 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

technical glitch

The time lapse map wigs out if you try to make it go full screen. If anyone knows how to fix this I'd love to be able to show it more clearly to my class! thanks,

---

Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara.koopman (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that same problem. - SantiLak (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States territorial acquisitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080612085448/http://www.thecorpusjuris.com:80/laws/constitutions/9-others/72-philippine-autonomy-act-jones-law.html to http://www.thecorpusjuris.com/laws/constitutions/9-others/72-philippine-autonomy-act-jones-law.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Vermont annexation

vermont was annexed too 03:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Thomasp3864 (talk)

Source? Lipsquid (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States territorial acquisitions. 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/20110511185512/http://www.philaprintshop.com/images/kurzpaceo.jpg to http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54a/051.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

"Native American territorial acquisition not listed here"

Why not? I ask this in a sense of both genuine logic and historical outrage. While the United States government recognizes Tribes not as fully sovereign but as 'domestic, dependent nations' it also guarantees their rights over their land, as early as Chief Justice Marshall's Supreme Court decisions. This has to affect our understanding of Treaties made with the Tribes and our own history of territorial acquisition—not only through conquest but through Treaties, most of them violated at some point by the United States federal government. So, on a page covering the history of United States territorial acquisitions, how is the history of treaties made with Tribes (with at least limited or parallel sovereignty with the US) not covered?

71.211.222.210 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)slp

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States territorial acquisitions. 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/20090208194844/http://dced.state.ak.us/oed/student_info/student.htm to http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/student_info/student.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627104954/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba002.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba002.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627122832/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba001.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114003340/http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm to http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308032837/http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/Minutes/Min144.pdf to http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/Minutes/Min144.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308033025/http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/Minutes/Min158.pdf to http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/Minutes/Min158.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)