Talk:Toledo War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge with Toledo Strip?

Should this article be merged with Toledo Strip?--Inonit 20:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be best merged, since the information overlaps, and some of the timeline in the Toledo Strip article would be useful to this article. Hotstreets 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the only thing anyone paid attention to in my Michigan history classes back in middle school

recent edits

1. Land in Indiana did not play any role in the "Toledo War". Additional land was transfered from Michigan Territory to Indiana many years before this conflict took place. And as can be seen by the slight difference in northern borders between Ohio and Indiana, the land used different survey lines which were done independently.
2. The J.Q. Adams quote is out of place. I don't doubt that he said something like that, but he was most definitely not a representative at the time of the conflict. The quote needs to be better contextualized for it to be of use here.

older≠wiser 11:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

---

Moved from User talk:Bkonrad

Your edits on the Toledo War are mindboggling. You need to take a moment to read John Quincy Adams' bio. When is it you think he was a member of Congress, and where are you finding this information? (Do share your source here.) His quote on the matter is one of the most compelling comments on the War.

I'd suggest you contact a historical society in the area if you truly believe your changes to be correct and warranted; any will have ample information on the War. I have done this myself--thus my confidence in reverting to the last edit on 01:58, Oct 25, 2004.

And be careful when you edit not to introduce syntax errors.

John Quincy Adams represented Massachusetts in Congress from March 4, 1803, until June 8, 1808. The Toledo War took place in 1835-1836. You tell me how he can be called a member of Congress at the time. Now, disputes over the boundary predates the actual "war" by many decades--since the time that Ohio became a state in 1803. Perhaps Adams' comment is from that period, but there is insufficient context provided to tell.

I am quite familiar with many different accounts of this conflict. If you'd like to discuss something specific, please do so. If you simply revert my changes, I will also revert unless you can provide some better evidence here. Your edits about Indiana are completely off. older≠wiser 12:20, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fine then, we'll take it one fact at a time.

From John Quincy Adams: Rather than retire, Adams would go on to win election as a Democratic-Republican to the House of Representatives beginning with the 22nd Congress, serving from March 4, 1831, until his death. John Quincy Adams (July 11, 1767–February 23, 1848)

Again, your contradictory source is?

And have you contacted a historical society to check your assertions? What sources are you drawing upon?

My apologies on the JQA quote, I neglected to read further down for his second period in Congress. Although the quote still needs some better contextualization. As for contacting a historical society, what, specifically, are you referring to? older≠wiser 12:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Military Conflict Infobox

I'm not entirely sure that this isn't overkill, but when I added to the introduction, I also added the military infobox since this was, in a way, a military conflict, complete with militias, and it resulted in territory changes. Any opinions? Hotstreets 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the box is grand. It should stay. Fishal 05:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional issues

The US Constitution says, "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." It says nothing about a US Territory's right to declare war. It always seemed to me that Michigan took advantage of this loophole. Is there any research on this? Fishal 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no "declaration" of war (at least I've not come across any mention). The "war" consisted of the two governors mobilizing militias (essentially an irregular police force) to occupy the area (or at least making some pretense of doing so as the area was pretty vast in comparison to the number of militia, with the anecdotal story of the militias wandering lost through the swamp). older ≠ wiser 13:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Move/Redirect with Toledo Strip

(from Toledo Strip talk page) How about have the majority of the "Toledo Strip" (the timeline specifically) article be moved to a separate "Timeline of the Toledo War" article and then have Toledo Strip redirect to Toledo War. The information that doesn't fit the timeline can be merged into the Toledo War article. In my opinion, the Toledo Strip and Toledo War are one and the same. The "creation" of the strip is already mentioned and described in the Toledo War article, and most of the information in this article outside of the timeline is already in the Toledo War article as well. If nobody objects, I think I'll do this... Hotstreets 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It looks like that was suggested months ago but nobody's done it yet. Fishal 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New Body Text, Image(s)

Along with the merge/split of the Toledo Strip article into this one and a timeline article, I have also been working on new text to update and replace the current body. Since most of the current article is un-cited, I have rewritten the material, excluding what cannot be cited. Currently, this text is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hotstreets/Sandbox#Toledo_War_Article. I figured since there is a significant amount of change involved, I'd post it here before actually putting it in the article. If there are no objections, after one more proofread, I'll move this into the article up until the "War" section, replacing the "Background" section. It can always be further tweaked later.

The goal of what I've done is to expand the War part of the article along with incorporating information about the Strip and its formation, since they are now one article. I will continue working on the "War" section and everything afterwards, but it may be harder to complete. Currently, none of the Timeline article is cited, and I cannot find much of the equivalent information online, especially regarding early April 1835, a crucial part of the War (and article). Once I can verify and sort out several sources, I will start on the conclusion of the article.

In addition, I've found an image of the "Mitchell Map" of the late 1700s, and have added it to the article, but it is commented out, pending my addition of the new text. Any opinions, additions, or subtractions? Hotstreets 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved in the new text... I will continue to tweak the grammar here and there, but I think it's an improvement on what was there (and it's all cited now). Hotstreets 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have re-read and looked at the source regarding Cass and Lucas. Upon re-checking, it appears I may have misread it. I'm not exactly sure about this, but in the meantime, I will remove the offending information, and replace it with similar information from another source (the part about Lucas refusing to negotiate... that is well-documented). If I can find a source confirming the bad info (or a similar interaction between Cass and the Ohio governor at the time), I will re-add it. I apologize, once again, I thought the way it was worded was strange, and it's my fault that I forgot to check the dates that would've tipped me off. Thanks. Hotstreets 17:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I agree that Lucas' rejection of any compromise is clear. I've not elsewhere seen any mention of Cass attempting to negotiate away the mouth of the Maumee. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The direct quote from the MSU source was: "Michigan’s Governor Cass tried to negotiate a compromise with Ohio that would permit that state to retain the mouth of the Maumee while conceding to Michigan additional territory elsewhere in northwestern Ohio, but the effort came to naught." Now I have only seen this here, not at any other source. Eventually, in the next week or two, I plan on getting some literature to use, when I get a little more spare time. This will help me when I start trying to expand the "War" section. Hotstreets 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"War" section text

I have the first subsection of the "War" section ready for review, entitled "Presidential Intervention". Once again, it is located at User:Hotstreets/Sandbox. This is considerably harder to write since several things were going on at once, and many of the sources seem to be slightly ambiguous as to specific dates. Therefore, it will take me longer to finish this section, and put it in a correct flow/order. If it's alright, I'll move these few paragraphs in my Sandbox into the main article in the next day or two. Please let me know what you think. Hotstreets 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

After making edits as suggested by Bkonrad, I am inserting the first subsection of "War", entitled "Presidential Intervention". It isn't too much, but it is a beginning. Still to come are the remainder of the "War" section, and the "Aftermath" section. Thanks Bkonrad for all of the new sources, they're making my self-appointed task much easier.

Also, I wasn't sure about the ability to use the Maumee River photo that contains the following license: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the photographer is credited." Does this mean that we must credit the photographer, even in the caption on this page? I have added a photo credit for now, but if I'm overreacting or it isn't needed, please feel free to remove it. Hotstreets 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, regarding the picture, there is no source given, so it is hard to verify exactly what restrictions the copyright owner may have placed on usage. Assuming that the uploader accurately represented the copyrightholder, then it should generally be sufficient to note the name on the Image page with the source and license info. But, the picture is from Grand Rapids, Ohio, which is some 20 or 30 miles south of the southern boundary of the strip. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Though only indirectly related to the Toledo War, I collected several links pertaining to civil government in the area as under Michigan Territory at Talk:Vistula, Michigan. older ≠ wiser 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have added the "Battle of Phillips Corners" text to the article. Much of the information recently added is in the wrong spot in the timeline of the article, so part has found its way in here, and part will find its way into the next section, tentatively titled "Summer of 1835, Bloodshed". I should be able to finish this one soon, as it is becoming straightforward again, especially with all the new sources found. Please let me know what you think, and I'll keep plugging. Hotstreets 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolverene Sighting

Although of little relevence, wolverines are not extinct in Michigan. That last wolverene sighting was in 2004. Here is a link to the last sighting I could find [1] Bcruss 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I actually didn't know that. When I get that far down, I will edit that to make it more accurate. Right now I'm working my way from the top down. Next is the "War" section. Thanks. Hotstreets 22:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Text Complete

Well, I think the main text and the body of the article is complete and in place. In addition to the copyediting, tweaking, and polishing that has been going on, I am now going through the article and correcting/adding wiki links to other pages.

I was wondering, especially Bkonrad, if this would be a good article to eventually nominate for Featured Article status. I have never done this before, and I was wondering if it were a good article, what needs to be done to bring it to an even better level? I know there are peer reviews, but I wasn't sure when in the editing cycle this would be appropriate.

Also, even if this wouldn't make a good Featured Article, what should still be done to it? I'm thinking that the citation of sources should be more standardized, but once again, I haven't done this, and I didn't want to screw anything up. (I've read the Wikipedia Citing Sources page, but I still wasn't 100% sure.) Then, finally, after this is done, I will probably start work on the Timeline article, bringing up to speed. What do you think? Thanks for the feedback. Hotstreets 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This is all a big learning experience for me, so I'm learning as I go. Hotstreets 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is looking fine. I have set some of the footnotes into the reference style. I can probably put the other notes sometime over the weekend. Before you go to FAC, it's highly recommended that you pass the article through peer review. Currently, Detroit, Michigan from WP: Michigan is there and should be moving the FAC within the next couple of weeks. Jtmichcock 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. So only one article from a project at a time can be a Featured Candidate? Hotstreets 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Any number of articles can go through at the same time. I only wanted to point out that the Detroit article is a bit ahead of this one and you may want to see the feedback from Peer review and follow the progress of that article in order to get an idea on how things work. Jtmichcock 19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jtmichcock has much more experience with getting articles through peer review and FAC. I suspect a lot of the references could be cleaned up (many reference the same texts). There's also quite a lot of what I'd consider overlinking (e.g., month or year-only links not needed for date preferences and repeated links to the same articles). But this is looking pretty good. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations done

I have turned the citations from freeline to inline. I have eliminated the duplicate cites and have moved one to a see also. This should be ready for Peer Review within a few days. Jtmichcock 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Many kudos for the considerable work done by Hotstreets, Jtmichcock and Bkonrad to improve this article recently, particularly with citations, images and more detail. Good work!

I think the intro needs work; in particular I think it needs to be made more succinct. Intros should, in general, introduce the fundamental ideas of a topic very briefly and should keep details to a bare minimum, and I don't think this one does that well enough. In particular: First P is too wordy--don't need all the synonyms there. The 2nd P is confusing in that it jumps from 1805 to the time of the conflict abruptly, and basis of Michigan's early claims are stated, but not those of Ohio's. 3rd P contains too much detail not relevant to an intro. Wanted to post this before making changes. Jeeb 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro on your suggestions. Let us know what you think. In terms of Ohio's rationale for wanting the strip, it was essentially the same as Michigans. Both sides perceived a valuable piece of property. As to the justification for disputing the parcel, Ohio's claim is not very solid. The simple political calculus was that it had more members of congress and were willing to leverage their votes against the status quo ante. Remember that Michigan's territorial government had already constructed and governed the area for a number of years. John Quincy Adams' quote pretty well summarizes the equities involved. Jtmichcock 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I made a couple of minor additions (one emphasizing Ohio's political power), but overall, it works very well. Thanks Jeeb for the positive feedback! Hotstreets 04:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better but still too wordy and "paragraphy". I'll propose a revision shortly.

It's not the rationale for wanting the strip (both sides wanted it of course), but the legal/historical basis for each side's claims that I was referring to. I disagree that Ohio's claim is not solid--both sides had legitimate bases for their claims; if anything Ohio's case is stronger as the Mendenhall article argues (see p 166 of). The "origins" section does a good job of explaining these bases but the intro does not reflect this. But the real point is that regardless of how "solid" Ohio's case was, or Michigan's, both should be briefly stated. Jeeb 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jrbouldin: why do you continue to remove mention of the principal players from the lede? Not mentioning Mason in the lede of the Toledo War is akin to not mentioning Nixon in the lede about Watergate. older ≠ wiser 11:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad: Probably for the same reason you continue to put them in, i.e. a difference of opinion on the level of detail relevant in this intro. It's not personal. My only real goal is to see the intro read well and present the most important points as a summary of the article, which is what a lead is supposed to do. I tried to be somewhat ruthless in my editing to make the thing concise, readable and comprehensive. I don't believe the average reader really cares, in the lead, who the governors of OH and MI were at the time. They just want the basic synopsis of what the event was about. If they need more detail about it they can then read on. As for the analogy with Nixon/Watergate: if you really believe that, then I would ask you to asess possible bias on your part towards Mason's importance. Jeeb 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, nothing personal. But without either Lucas or Mason, the events would likely have unfolded very differently. The roles of these persons are inextricably linked to the events. Not mentioning them in the lede seems to me a major lacunae. older ≠ wiser 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Something else I would add: the article is going to Featured Article Candidacy in a few days. The folks there expect a detailed lede that introduces all components, and will reject an article that doesn't comport. I would just as soon be able to present an article that needs trimming rather than one with too little. Jtmichcock 11:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had gone and read the WP:lead to see what policy was (before your post), and I realized that the intro on a long article like this can be somewhat longer, so yes I was being a bit extreme in my paring down. However, there are things I considered important (e.g. the relevance of the Mitchell map) and put in, that others removed. I think there is now room for including additional info, even if ref to Stevens and Lucas remain.

IMO, the most important things are that it read well and be synoptic. The problem with lengthy things is they often don't read well, particularly with many Wikipedia articles. Jeeb 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While we prepare for peer review

Now that the main article is nearly finished, should we work on the timeline article before or after this is submitted for Peer Review? I personally think this would be a great addition to what we've already got, and if there end up being too many images/info on the main article, they would go very well in the Timeline article. Hotstreets 04:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not essential that the daughter article be entirely completed before the parent article is reviewed. I would look for feedback on the main article and use that to improve the timeline. Jtmichcock 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC Submission

Once the current Michigan-Ohio State rivalry issue is resolved, should I submit this to FAC, since the peer review is positive so far? Hotstreets 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I estimate that I would like to get one more fresh-look copyedit done over the coming weekend before it's "there." Typically, peer review lasts 14 days, so it's probably appropriate to submit after 5/30. Jtmichcock 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Another new fact. I'll work on some copyediting too this weekend. I'll have some extra time for doing so. Hotstreets 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, have you considered joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan? The project can always need an extra set of eyes. Just check the membership list and add your name. Jtmichcock 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a copyedit of my own right now, and I will have some more edits that will be posted later today. So far, there are a few rough areas still that need to be fixed before FAC. Hotstreets 14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We are now FAC. Hotstreets 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, evidentally our FAC has failed, and I guess it is back to work. Hotstreets 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

pictures

Some of the pictures on this page seem a little useless. The Maumee river picture looks like any other river so it dosen't really add anything. Also, John Q Adams and Andrew Jackson are well recognizable and not really heavily involved in the conflict so their pictures being included is a little overdoing it.

I do agree with removing at least some of the images. At this point, I feel we are bordering on oversaturing the article with images that are not essential to the article's purpose. I will try removing a couple of images in the near future. Hotstreets 03:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Northwest Territory Map

I am/have replaced the Northwest Territory map with a simpler one modified from the National Park Service. Please let me know what you think. Hotstreets 03:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, this becomes too redundant with the Mitchell Map, so I just made the NW Territory image slightly smaller. Hotstreets 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

After getting some extra time, I have simplified the existing Northwest Territory map and recolored it to match more closely the other maps already on the page. Hotstreets 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Maumee River Picture

I replaced the image of the Maumee River with one from Toledo, Ohio. I think this shows the economic importance much better. Hotstreets 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some copyedits and corrections

In this edit, I made some changes that I want to explain. It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that in the Mitchell map the "southern tip of Lake Michigan is nearly due west of present day Detroit." Detroit is situated at the northern end of the strait connecting Lake St. Clair with Lake Erie. While modern maps show this strait as relatively short, thus perhaps understandably leaving room for some confusion, I don't think it is at all accurate to use the Mitchell map to place Detroit as due west of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. Also, I'm pretty certain that the "territorial boundary" referred to in the Enabling Act of 1802 is the territorial boundary of the United States with Canada--while it does coincide with the Northwest Territorial boundary, I think it does not help to clarify anything to try to relate it to that. older ≠ wiser 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are nice edits. Good work. I'm going to work my way down copy-editing, working on flow and grammar, then rework the intro slightly. Do you think we should try for another Peer Review, or go straight to FAC#2? I'm leaning for Peer Review again, but what do you think? Hotstreets 03:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reworked Intro

Today, I reworked the lead section of the article to try and make it flow better. As you may remember, that was the chief criticism of our FAC, a poorly written lead. Please let me know what you think of it, and what (if anything) needs to be changed. Hotstreets 01:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Sports Rival In History?

"In modern times, conflict between the states is restricted primarily to the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry in American football,[59] an annual game the U.S. Congress declared "the greatest sports rivalry in history."[60]"

The bill referenced in the footnote was never passed. Check the footnote: "Latest Major Action: 1/30/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness." Since it hasn't been passed and it's nearing 2007, I'm removing the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.193.70 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2006

Economic significance

I've always been a little puzzled by this paragraph:

The Strip west of the Toledo area was a prime location for agriculture, due to its well-drained, fertile loam soil. The area has for many years been characterized by high per-acre productivities of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Michigan and Ohio both wanted what seemed strategically and economically destined to become an important port and a prosperous region.

For one, I'm not so sure the region at that time was a "prime location for agriculture" or that it was "well-drained". Just before this, the area is refered to as the "Great Black Swamp". After the swamp was drained, it did indeed become prime agricultural land, but I'm not sure how much of a motivating factor that was in the dispute. The cited source for that paragraph doesn't really lend much support for the statements either (at least not that I can see). older ≠ wiser 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my immediate fix was to change "was" to "is", since it is currently dominated by agricultural land... I'm thinking that may have accidentally been changed during the copy-editing process. I will look into the sources right now. Thanks, Hotstreets 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am putting in a citation that mentions the Black Swamp region as one of Ohio's richest for agriculture. I will continue looking for mention of the crops grown there. Hotstreets 01:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added another citation. I do believe that was a minor mistake, since now there are paragraphs focusing on both the canals and agriculture of the area. While the area was not at the time dominated by agriculture, it at least provides prospective regarding the value of the land now. Hotstreets 01:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The area at that time was dominated neither by swamps nor farms, but mostly by non-swamp forests, including some oak openings, along with some wet prairies. The GBS boundary is uncertain but most likely did not cover most of the Toledo Strip, exceptions being the Maumee Bay area and possibly parts of the Tiffin and Ottawa river corridors. See Katz reference in GBS article. It was the potential, not actual, value of the land for agriculture that would have made it valuable at the time, and which later became an actuality, not to mention any possible value of the timber. Jeeb 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but I still don't think that the potential agricultural value was a significant factor in the dispute -- it was primarily about control of the mouth of the Maumee River and the soon to be built canals, which would have been seen as making Toledo into a major port and hub of commerce (which it did sort of become, though perhaps not to the degree expected since railroads eclipsed canals before the economic benefits of the canals could be fully realized. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

According to D.W. Meinig, Shaping of America, vol. 2, the main issue fought over was Maumee Harbor (Toledo). He points out a contributing factor in why the harbor was so important: The Erie Canal had only just been finished around 1820 and people were flooding into the Midwest via Lake Erie. The existing port of Detroit was a longer way from Buffalo, farther north from the most desired lands of the time, and cut off further by the Great Black Swamp. A port at Maumee Harbor was apparently seen as ideal for settlers coming via the Erie Canal, seeking lands in west Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Sorry if this has already been gone over, I've only just browsed here.. Pfly 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Miami and Erie Canal was begun in 1825 and the Wabash and Erie Canal, which tied into the Miami and Erie, was begun in 1827-28. There was considerable optimism that these canals could emulate the profitability of the Erie Canal, which was a major factor driving the passions in the dispute. Hopes were that Toledo would become a canal boom town town like the New York cities on the Erie Canal. By and large, the area immediately surrounding Toledo was mostly seen as an obstacle that the canal would help penetrate. The agricultural value of the lands was only gradually realized as the swampy lands were drained (which required considerable time and effort on the part of individual farmers). older ≠ wiser 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I just went ahead and added a paragraph with the stuff I just posted here, citing Meinig. Feel free to change, remove, whatever: I am not overly familiar with the Toledo Strip/War. I enjoy learning about these kind of state vs state border disputes, of which there are a surprising number. Most wikipedia pages on them are just stubs, but this one on the Toledo Strip is excellent and detailed! (which makes me hesitant to edit it, but oh well I did anyway). Pfly 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you I went through and copyedited your additions. Nice additions to the article. I did take out a couple of little things just to tighten up the paragraph, and then split it into two. Thanks! Hotstreets 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reasonable argument regarding access to river and control of canals, but regarding agriculture, again, most of the contested area was probably not swamp--the Maumee Bay area being a fairly small portion of the total area. Special drainage wouldn't have been needed in most places west of Toledo, just land clearing. In general, control of land is always desireble, for numerous reasons including those discussed here. Jeeb 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporaneous descriptions of the area uniformly indicate extensive stretches of swamp land and that a fair amount of effort was required to drain it. The PBS documentary indicates The Black Swamp made northwest Ohio an undesirable land and, consequently, it was settled very late (1850-1900) and then settlement was unusually difficult. In any case, most of the area of the Great Black Swamp was not within the contested area of the Toledo Strip and much of the land within the strip was indeed prime agricultural land -- though development was impeded by the presence of the Swamp, which made land access from the east difficult.

To the point of the Great Black Swamp not being within the Toledo Strip, recent edits seem to imply that it was the presence of the Swamp that made Detroit a less desirable site for a canal -- are there specific citations to back this up? If anything, it seems that the proximity of the swamp would have made Toledo the less desirable port. I suspect that the perceived advantage of the Toledo port over the Detroit port was that the Maumee River and the proposed canal systems would connect western Lake Erie with the Ohio and Mississippi rivers more directly than would be possible in Detroit. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Meinig citation I added does mention the Great Black Swamp as one of Detroit's shortcomings compared to Toledo, but not in terms of future canals, rather simply for the immediate need for people and goods to move between Lake Erie / Erie Canal and the farms of Ohio and Indiana. He also mentions Detroit as appearing to have less potential than sites along the south shore of Lake Erie for canals into the Ohio and Indiana farmlands, but not so much due to the swamp as simple distance. Sandusky is mentioned along with Toledo as being seen as ideal places for canals to be built south into the farmlands. Sorry if I worded anything poorly. Pfly 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

References

GA review

The article still meets and exceeds necessary requirements. It just needs to modify the tag of Image:RichardRush.jpeg as it is obsolete. Lincher 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done so. I appreciate the review. Hotstreets 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It says that the war was bloodless, but in the article Bloodless War it says that the Toledo War was not bloodless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.60.1 (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no deaths in the Toledo War (well, no human deaths), but there was bloodshed. Two Stickney (That's Two, not his elder brother One) stabbed Deputy Sheriff Wood with a pen knife. The Bloodless war article defines bloodless war as a conflict that is resolved without death or injury. So, we have three options. 1. Edit this article 2. Edit "Bloodless war" 3. Leave them both alone and let them contradict each other. --Steven J. Anderson 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Toledo War and cabinet counties, and Kent County, Michigan and List of Michigan county name etymologies

Dear Mr. Anderson:

These were the grateful acknowledgments of the Michigan legislature for the outcome of the Toledo War to the administration of Andrew Jackson. I would suggest that you actually LOOK at the internal links before you delete them.

I did not yet put in the Kent County, Michigan link, but it probably should be there.

If you want text that explains this, I'd be happy to oblige. However, I'm sure that once you've read the material, you can do a better job than I of putting it into context of the larger dispute.

In fact, as the first few paragraphs of the Toledo War article suggest, the result was publicly played out as a victory for Ohio and a loss for Michigan. In fact, the Michigan legislature thereafter treated this as a victory, with congratulations all around for the outgoing Andrew Jackson administration. It must be noted that the resolution was a negotiated one, where Michigan's New York lawyer (Kent) helped wring out a big piece of relatively uncharted (and very rich) territory in exchange for the loss. While in an encyclopedic article one could never accuse the Michigan legislature of 'shedding crocodile tears', their actions tend to support such an interpretation. The reaction of the legislature should be put into this article, as it gives a meaningful interpretation to the undisputed events. That's my respectful suggestion, anyway.

If you have any questions, you know where to find me.

I trust that you will see the wisdom of my revisions, and the error or your revision.

Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Do you have any sources for the reaction of the legislature that you describe? Nearly every account that I've read on the matter seems to indicate that a large portion of the Michigan population was not at all happy with the outcome (at least at the time). It was seen as agreed to under considerable duress. Michigan was forced to accept the outcome because it faced the loss of considerable financial resources from the federal government -- essentially, the state would have been in extremely dire straits if it did not agree to the "compromise" -- and there was considerable dissatisfaction with the manner in which the second convention was convened. The potential value of the Upper Peninsula was almost completely unknown at the time. The first prominent report of the potential mineral wealth came with Douglas Houghton's report in 1841 and the first commercial operations began in the mid-1840s. Iron and other minerals were not exploited for some years to come.

Also, regarding the naming of the Cabinet Counties -- considering that these counties were created in 1829 -- it is hard to see how they are an acknowledgment of legislature for the outcome of the 1835-1836 Toledo War. older ≠ wiser 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear BK:

You're right. Consequently, I corrected the passage in List of Michigan county name etymologies. Very clearly, the honors came before the admission to statehood.

On the other hand, when was Kent County named? The Toledo War would seem to be a real tie there, or not?

7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Thank you for that explanation, 7&6. I only deleted the link because the reason for inclusion didn't seem obvious to me and I thought deleting was the best way to encourage a discussion here. It's easy enough to re-add it if warranted. Do I gather from this discussion that the consensus is that the link should be left out? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kent County was created in 1831. I've not found any specific details about service that James Kent rendered or even when it was rendered. older ≠ wiser 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Look here, older≠wiser. It's the State of Michigan website and it says that Kent County was organized in 1836. Also, could we all try to indent our posts in a way that makes some logical sense? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is often a difference between the date a county was created and the date that county government was organized. Counties were frequently created and named, but were in effect nothing more than lines drawn on a map. They were attached for administrative purposes to other established counties. Only when the population of a county reached a sufficient threshold would the government be organized, so there is no contradiction between Kent County being created in 1831 and organized in 1836. The source you mention only lists the date of organization. Also, not sure if the indent comment was meant for me, but as I was replying to 7&6=thirteenm I indented my reply accordingly. If I was replying to you, I would have made and additional indentation. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, well this is interesting -- it may be that James Kent is not the correct person after all -- the book indicates that the Kent County was named "in honor of Chancellor Kent, a New York lawyer, who died 19 years previous to the organization of the this county". That would place his death at about 1817. However, this doesn't necessarily mean he was not in some way involved with the Toledo Strip dispute, as it went on for many decades. But I will need to do some digging to find some additional information about the this person. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is veering off-topic for the purposes of this article, I'm moving this continued discussion of the naming of Kent County moved to Talk:Kent County, Michigan. older ≠ wiser 17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Toledo_War#Battle_of_Phillips_Corners

why are there 2 photographs of the ohio historical society marker for the battle of phillips corners?

• Image:Toledowarphillipscorner2.jpg
• Image:Toledowarphilipscorner.jpg

edited badmachine (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to the Upper Peninsula War

Just a little concerned by the similarity of this article to the fictional Upper Peninsula War. [[2]]. I know nothing of North American history, but I just thought I should check this war really did exist. Daniel H Dyer (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, the difference should be obvious. One is pure speculation and the other has a plethora of citations to reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry

The sentence on the football rivalry seems to need some help. First of all, since this is an article about the US, "football" should be used instead of "American football." Second, while the football rivalry is stronger, the basketball rivalry should not be almost explicitly excluded. Agreed?Kdammers (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

JQA quotation

The Adams quotation is not grammatical by modern standards. I suspect the source, which is secondary, has a typo which has been continued. Another source, http://annarborchronicle.com/tag/university-of-michigan-football/, has a grammatical version (the word "was" is present). Can some-one check the US government's original entry? Kdammers (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, JQA's memoir includes the "was". [3] older ≠ wiser 12:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I reverted the addition of the UP acquisition to the infobox "territory" field. This is already in the Notes. I don't see the UP as being an outcome of the War itself so much as a consolation prize offered by Congress after Michigan lost. Not trying to suppress this, I just don't see the point of mentioning it twice. Also the formatting is wrong, the source would have to be turned into a proper reference instead of linked inline. Please discuss here before adding any more UP info to the infobox. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This addition to the infobox has been restored again. I just removed it for a second time, and it's been removed once before by Bkonrad. The previous additions were to the caption below the map. That makes 3 editors who have removed it 4 times.

@ChristianOlson0214: please stop reverting other editors to re-insert your proposed addition to the infobox. We have a general informal process called WP:BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. In short, you were Bold for inserting that addition to the caption, you've been Reverted, and now it is time to Discuss the situation. This is the time for you to state a case for including this in the infobox, if not, you're edit warring against an apparent consensus. Such actions can earn you sanctions such as a topic ban from this article, or a block from editing. Imzadi 1979 → 16:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The last removal was reverted earlier today, and then re-removed. ChristianOlson0214, you need to discuss this situation, or someone may recommend you be sanctioned for a slow-moving edit war against consensus to insert your additions to the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume this guy means well but doesn't know how to discuss on the talk page. I've left several notices on his user talk page and pointed him at this article talk page a couple of times, also pointed him at Help:Using talk pages. I finally put a "disrupt" template on his talk page, but don't know what else to do to get him engaged in a discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Great article!

Nice job, guys! 69.118.117.177 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

This article highly interested me a few years ago when I was busy studying for a geography competition. I'm very pleased to see that it's the featured article today! Great job to everyone who worked to promote it! smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indian territory

I've removed this unsourced statement from the lead: "nearly all of the Upper Peninsula was still Indian territory." That's not true, as you can see in this map and as documented at Indian Territory. The part of the UP given to Michigan had been part of Michigan Territory, and was intended to become part of Wisconsin Territory but was instead given to the state of Michigan. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: Most of the UP (as well as much of northern Michigan) had not been ceded by native American tribes in 1834. The largest portion was ceded in the Treaty of Washington (1836) (205 in File:Royce-areas-michigan.jpg). The western portions of the UP were ceded in subsequent treaties. So while it may not have been formally named as "Indian territory", was for all practical purposes Indian territory until it was ceded. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Toledo War. 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/20060509115915/http://www.michigan.gov/formergovernors/0%2C1607%2C7-212--79532--%2C00.html to http://www.michigan.gov/formergovernors/0%2C1607%2C7-212--79532--%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509115902/http://www.michigan.gov/formergovernors/0%2C1607%2C7-212--52864--%2C00.html to http://www.michigan.gov/formergovernors/0%2C1607%2C7-212--52864--%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910112500/http://www.macombcountymi.gov/historicalcommission/pdfs/Holy_Toledo_2007.pdf to http://www.macombcountymi.gov/historicalcommission/pdfs/Holy_Toledo_2007.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) 21:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toledo War. 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/20060929010634/http://www.detroithistorical.org/collections/vewebsite2/exhibit3/e30013a.htm to http://www.detroithistorical.org/collections/vewebsite2/exhibit3/e30013a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151122132125/http://www.remarkableohio.org/index.cfm?action=search_markers.marker_details&marker_id=621 to http://www.remarkableohio.org/index.cfm?action=search_markers.marker_details&marker_id=621

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) 03:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toledo War. 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/20080306040211/http://www.toledowar.com/ to http://www.toledowar.com/

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) 01:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Riot?

I don't see how you can call this a riot, and I don't see any of the reliable sources calling it a riot either. A web search on "Toledo war riot" turns up nothing. I have removed this article from Template:Riots in the United States. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)