Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Todo suggestions

I don't know how you feel about others editing the #Todo list for a complete rewrite above, so I'm mentioning here a few items which seem to be missing there.

• July 1, 1902: Philippine Organic Act enacted, making the Philippines an organized unincorporated territory.
• August 29, 1916: Jones Law enacted as a new organic act for the Philippines, containing the first formal and official declaration of the United States Federal Government's commitment to grant independence to the Philippines.
• March 24, 1934: Tydings–McDuffie Act enacted, providing for Filipino independence from the United States after a period of ten years.
• November 15, 1935: Commonwealth of the Philippines established as an unincorporated organized territory.
• October 14, 1943: Japan, after invading the Philippines, decreed the dissolution the Commonwealth of the Philippines and established the Philippine Executive Commission as a caretaker government under Japanese control. The Commonwealth government continued during Japanese occupation as a government in exile.
• August 17, 1945: The Japanese controlled government in the Philippines was formally dissolved by its President, José P. Laurel. The Commonwealth government under President Sergio Osmeña reestablished control.
• July 4, 1946: U.S. relinquished sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and recognized the Republic of the Philippines as a sovereign nation.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely better to add things here, since I'm working my way backwards up that list, so lower things would be missed. But my rewrite [linked above] already handles most of the Philippines, except the organic acts, but those are being skipped for now until later until I figure out the best way to handle them. --Golbez (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the 1925 Lake of the Woods shuffling include mention of the two water enclaves that the US ceded to Canada as a result of one of the main outcomes of the 1925 treaty -- the redefinition of the famous Northwesternmost point of the Lake of the Woods.

In addition, the treaty with Great Britain that modified the boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay is, I believe, the same treaty that altered the border in Lake Erie such that the enclave of Horseshoe Reef that had been created in 1850 switched from Canadian waters to US waters (i.e., was de-enclaved).

Also suggezted is to note the give-back of Canal Zone land in 1923 and 1950 that de-enclaved the Panamanian cities of Panama City and Colon, respectively.

Jeff in CA (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sourcing on this? --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For Panama there are 5 citations from atlases of the time period down below. Sourcing on the Lake of the Woods is at the article that is linked. I'm still looking for the Lake Erie citation. Jeff in CA (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, didn't see them down there. I'll review those, thank you! --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a reference for Colon (the give-back was what the author called a corridor "tube" because there remained a road within U.S. sovereignty over which passed a bridge within Panamanian sovereignty -- a tube) and the Colon Convention: Jeff in CA (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I have so far on Canal Zone:

• 1903: [1] Ten mile zone, excluding Colon and its harbor and Panama City and its harbor. Also grants use of water as needed.
• Feb 11, 1915: [2] Article II seems to reaffirm the 'use of water' but specifically for Gatun Lake, so I might add Gatun Lake to Canal Zone in this map. The rest just seems to codify the borders with Panama City and Colon.
• May 26, 1947: [3] Colon Corridor. I'm unsure if this is ceding the Colon Corridor to Panama or simply saying "you're allowed to use this".
• May 24, 1950: [4] mentions this, as do others, but i haven't found the text yet. I think this refines Colon Corridor.
• Jan 25, 1955: Remon-Eisenhower Treaty, I can't find the text of it (come on, government) but our article states "The United States gave back Panamanian jurisdiction of the lands in "Punta Paitilla". It also gave back the lands of "Nuevo Cristobal", "Playa de Colon", and the Lesseps area.".

None of these yet specify the Panama City corridor being ceded. But it obviously happened at some point. --Golbez (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So an analysis of the maps on that helpful site has given me this:

• 1920: Panama City enclaved; lakes not included. [5]
• 1922: Panama City NOT enclaved. [6]
• 1924: Panama City NOT enclaved. [http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~201863~3000739:Central-America-?sort=date%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no&qvq=w4s:/where/Panama;sort:date%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=56&trs=66
• 1930: Panama City NOT enclaved. [7]
• 1939: Gatun Lake included. [8]
• 1948: Punta Paitilla was an exclave of Canal Zone. [9] But Panama City was not enclaved.
• 1960: Punta Paitilla not exclaved.
• 1967: Punta Paitilla shown as part of Canal Zone but I'm thinking this is an anomaly in the map.

So, I would love to know what document de-enclaved Panama City, since none of the foundational documents were done in the 1920s, and what the extent of the Colon Corridor was and how to map it. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Former US Unincorporated territories

I perused the rewrite subpage and found some information is missing regarding several unincorporated territories, some of which were inhabited. Besides the Corn islands, the others were guano islands claims. They appear in state department lists of islands the US claimed soviereignty over (ie the claims were bonded and certified).

• Swan Islands - claimed by the US in 1863 , Ceded to Honduras in 1972. Inhabited.
• Corn Islands - ceded by Nicaragua to US in 1914 for a period of 99 years, returned to Nicaragua on April 25, 1971. Inhabited
• Roncador Bank, Serrana Bank, and Quita Sueño Bank - Serrana claimed in 1868 other two in 1869, Roncador and Serrana ceded to colombia in 1981, Quito Sueno was declared to be non emergent by the US (and thus not subject to a sovereignty claim under international law) and the claim abandoned in 1981.
• Alacrans Keys Arenas Key, Western Triangles - claimed in 1879, Mexican sovereignty acknowledged 1894.
• Pedro Keys - Claimed in 1869, Claim abandoned/dormant in favor of United Kingdom 1882
• Morant Keys - Claimed in 1869, British ejected Americans in 1878, claim subsequently fell dormant.

For a good source regarding guano island claims see here [[10]], note that only claims that were bonded were considered by the State Department to be subject to sovereignty claims. I've also seen references to a claim to the French Frigate Shoals in the 1850's, but i don't see it listed on the two state department lists (its possible the islands are referred to via a different name on the lists.XavierGreen (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to make a decision as to which guano islands to include, since many just kind of quietly disappeared from care, and they would clutter up the list with little benefit, just like the bancos. My conclusion was, only those that ended up being presently claimed or were otherwise geopolitically important would be included. You will note, also, that for the ones that the U.S. did keep, I use the 'formally claimed' date, i.e. when the federal government took ownership, rather than the 'claimed under act', when appropriate; this was done in part because I had poor documentation of when the initial claims were made, and also in many cases the claims lapsed or were dormant for decades. However, I could easily see a separate list - like for the bancos - of the guano islands that didn't qualify for the main list. Such maps should be global/ocean view, rather than insets, though.

All that said - I could see a possible inclusion of some of these, like the Corn Islands and Roncador and Serrana Banks. However, with the Corn Islands, it states it was a lease... which makes it sound more like Guantanamo Bay than Canal Zone, which was not a lease. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The treaty which ceded the corn islands to the United States explicitly ceded the sovereignty of the islands to the United States which was exactly akin to the legal status of the canal Canal Zone, except that the canal zone was an indefinite lease. Unlike the Canal Zone and the Corn Islands, the treaty granting the US jurisdiction over Guantanamo explicitly stated that sovereignty was to remain with Cuba. I also note that the Swan Islands were considered important enough to be regularly included in the United States Census up to the time they were ceded, since they were inhabited and had an important naval communication station based there. If your going to include Wake, Midway, Johnson, ect then the Swan Islands should be included as well.XavierGreen (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Okay, I can work with that. I'd love to know any others that I missed. As for the Guano Islands... are you suggesting only the ones you listed? Or are you suggesting adding all of them? To clarify my earlier statement, I only wanted to add them if they were lasting concerns, and to use the date they were actually taken possession of by the US, by being placed under the jurisdiction of the DOI or DOD. It seems ahistoric to, for example, mark the US as claiming a bunch of islands that ended up in Kiribati for a century even though the US hadn't done anything with them in ages and ceded them purely, I think, as a bookkeeping measure. Like, "oh, we claimed that? sure, we'll say it's yours, even though you've been there for decades and we haven't touched it since the guano dried up". --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose i should first explain how the process worked. First an individual would "occupy" an island in order to establish their "rights through discovery" to the territory. Then they would file their claim with the state department. The state department would review the claim, if they found no evidence of active foriegn occupation and control over an island they would approve the claim and the claimant would file a bond. Once the bond was certified, the island was considered by the state department to be subject to united states sovereignty. Thus while many many islands had claims filed, only those that were bonded were actually claimed by the US government as being subject to US soveriegnty.

The Caribbean islands i mentioned above were bonded, and actively occupied and controlled by the United States between the dates mentioned. Each of them was subject to particular notable international disputes at the time with associated court cases / treaties. In regards to the pacific islands that were claimed, many of them were actively occupied and controlled by the United States in the mid to late 1800's but were subsequently physically abandoned after guano mining operations ended. Several of the Phoenix actively occupied and under American sovereignty from the 1850's to the 1870's, but were subsequently physically abandoned after the guano reserves were depeleted or were ejected by british authorities. The Line islands saw less American activity. The american government never abandoned its claims to these islands and attempted to defend its citizens interests in them (for example in the early 1880's the British began forcing Americans using the islands to purchase use permits, which the American government protested as in its view the islands were its sovereign property). I am rather unfamiliar with the history of the american claims in tokelau, but it seems unlikely to me that they were ever under American control since the islands there were inhabited.XavierGreen (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

On a related note - would you happen to know when Colombia began claiming and also began administering Serranilla and Bajo Nuevono The map is necessarily vague on this point and it'd be nice to tie it down. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I've done extensive research on that particular dispute (even to the point of contacting the State Department and the CIA for their viewpoints on the dispute). Basically the Colombian's have claimed the entire region since the independence of Gran Colombia as several nearby islands (such as San Andres were administered by Spain as part of the Viceroyalty of New Granada (the spanish claim in essence derived from the treaty of tordesillas which claimed the entire continent of north america for spain, though the spanish never occupied any of the islands in question). The Columbians never explicitly claimed or controlled many of the minor islands nearby and so under international law they were considered terra nullis. In particular Roncador, Serrana, Quito Sueno, Serranilla, and Bajo Nuevo were considered by the the US government to be terra nullis and thus were bonded and certified. The treaty with colombia in 1981 specifically only ceded Roncador and Serrana as well as officially abandoned the claim to quito sueno, while retaining a fishing concession over those areas. One of the provisions of the treaty specifically states that no other island is to be considered affected by the treaty, despite that the colombian government insists that the islands were ceded by the treaty while the United States government's position is that the treaty did not affect its claims to Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. A 1928 diplomatic note between the US and Colombia acknowledges American sovereignty over the islands but allows Colombian use over the waters.XavierGreen (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to say that, at this point, the guano islands are better served by a separate list. Here's why:

1. We don't have specific dates for some of them, thus negating the "day-to-day snapshot" view of the United States being provided.
2. Many were not lasting concerns; an American claimed them, they scooped up the poop, they left, and the U.S. government, apart from some paperwork, never really cared.
3. It kind of shifts the onus of territorial expansion away from the federal government and towards ship captains, which is odd.
4. I think that a separate mapping system, showing the oceans rather than just using insets, is better.

That said, things like the Corn Islands and Swan Islands definitely seem like they qualify, as perhaps do some of the other islands where the U.S. surrendered a legitimate, substantive claim. So if you have any that are like those, please share them! :) --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well what do you mean by a legitimate, substative claim? In the eyes of the US government all of the bonded claims were legitimate, and the claims that were not bonded were not legitimate and thus not certified. Roncador, Serrana, and Quito Sueno were in essence siezed from their proprietary owner (who was bonded under the act) by the federal government in 1919. Lighthouses were subsequently built and maintained by the US government on the islands, until they were transfered to Colombia in the 1981 treaty.XavierGreen (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess by that I mean... it existed for more than a glorified septic tank. If there was any real dispute over an island, or if it was inhabited by people other than guano miners, or what not. --Golbez (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Another way to put it: The only things I want to include in the main map are those parts of the country which either had a civil government or were under federal administration. Being noted by the State Department doesn't really mean the feds exercised any control over an island. Note that right now, in the rewrite, for many of the islands I use the date when the federal government took formal ownership under the Departments of War or Interior. --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Serrana and Quito Sueno Banks were placed under federal administration on February 25, 1919, Roncador was placed under federal administration on June 5, 1919. [[11]].XavierGreen (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Aditionally several of the claimed islands in the pacific were occupied by the united states military during world war two, most notably at Christmas Island (Kirimati) where american forces maintained control until 1948, sporadically returning throughout the 1950's and 1960's.[[12]]See also here [[13]]XavierGreen (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also on a different note, Spain actually ceded the Philippines to the United States in two parts. The bulk of it in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, and then a smaller portion in 1900 in the Treaty_of_Washington (1900). Additionally, the netherlands had claimed the Palmas Island in the Philippines before the Spanish had ceded it to the United States. The United States ceded the island to the Netherlands in 1928, see Island of Palmas Case.XavierGreen (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Now this is good stuff. --Golbez (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally per a 1930 treaty with the United Kingdom, the UK ceded to the United States soveriegnty over the Turtle Islands and Mangsee Islands. Both island groups had previously been part of British Borneo.[[14]].XavierGreen (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the Dept of Interior, the Corn Islands "never were a U.S. insular area, that is, under the sovereignty of the United States" --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Per [15]. I've just added a cite of that to the Corn Islands article. Wtmitchell (talk) <the small>(earlier Boracay Bill) 21:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The treaty leased sovereignty to the US for a period of 99 years. In effect it was a concession, similar to that of the New Territories of Hong Kong, Port Arthur, Panama Canal Zone ect. The treaty itself clearly and explicitly states that the soveriegnty over the territories being leased belongs to the United States during the duration of the lease. See article two of the treaty, [[16]]XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This also relates to this edit of the Corn Islands article. Since you've commented here, I'll put my two cents worth in here. While disclaiming that I am not a topical expert, I see a distinction between Sovereignty and Sovereign authority. The Sovereignty article describes that term as "designating supreme authority over some polity". To my mind, sovereignty as described there includes the right to dispose of the territory included in the polity as the power holding sovereignty sees fit. My understanding is that the treaty did not give the U.S. that right -- but that is WP:OR as it is my own unpublished and unreliable interpretation of that primary source. It seems to me that it is a stretch to assert that the U.S. had "sovereignty" over the Corn islands during the lease period. It seems to me that the treaty gives the U.S. "sovereign authority" to apply U.S. laws in the islands during the lease period. BTW, thanks for linking this source in the Corn Island article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree, as the treaty specifically states, "subject to the laws and sovereign authority of the united states". Given that the words "laws" and "sovereign" are both mentioned, they clearly have independent meaning within the treaty (one of the basic canons of statutory interpretation is "rule against surplusage", basically words should not be interpreted as having a redundant meaning. Furthermore their is nothing in the treaty that prohibits the United States from disposing of the territory as they see fit, ie if it wanted to it could cede the corn islands to any third power there is nothing in the treaty prohibiting it from doing so. (As opposed to the Guantanamo treaty which clearly states that the United States cannot transfer the base to a third country).XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. Rather than supply my own interpretation, though, I'd rely on an RS. Two sources I looked at ([17] and [18]) seem to say that the term "sovereign authority" refers to an entity or body whose actions have legal force. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And who exercises sovereign authority? The polity possesing sovereignty over the entity in question (the sovereign). [19]XavierGreen (talk)

Your assertion that the US exercised sovereignty over the Corn Islands and, as Sovereign, could have disposed of the islands seems like a stretch to me. I'm not a lawyer though. Even if I were a lawyer, I wouldn't want to argue here based on my own unsupported opinion. Digging around a bit further, I came up with Franklin K. Van Zandt; Edward Morehouse Douglas (1966). Boundaries of the United States and the several states. p. 66. The Corn Islands are not considered possessions of the United States. Although by terms of the convention they are subject exclusively to the laws and sovereign authority of the United States during the term of the lease and any renewal thereof, in fact the Nicaraguan Government has continued in the local administration of the islands, with the acquiescence of the United States. The right to the use of the islands remains unimpaired. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On a separate unrelated note, the American government officially abandoned its claims to Alacrans Keys Arenas Key, Western Triangles on November 21, 1894. See Digest of International Law (Hackworth 1940) page 505.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, you say above that the British expelled the Americans from Morant Keys in 1878... but the digest of international law states they weren't bonded until 1879.

Yes, the HMS Blanche ejected american guano miners based their in 1878 [[20]], a claim was filed by James Jennett in 1869, but according to the digest they were not bonded until 1879. Whether the miners were from Jennett's company or a different one i have not been able to discover as of yet. In 1885 some americans attempted to regain control over the islands creating an international incident, i havent been able to find out much about it yet though.XavierGreen (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This source [[21]] states that American claims to Pedro and Morant cays were abandoned in 1882. I haven't found any official US government treaty, note, or protocol that ended the claims. Given the various state department document's i have seen, such an absence would mean that the claims are still in effect but dormant and not actively defended by the US government. Case law states that all bonded claims that have not been disposed of are to be considered as appertaining to the united states.XavierGreen (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also it appears Samarang is considered by the government to refer to Palmyra, [[22]]XavierGreen (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting re Samarang. That alternative name is also mentioned along with other info in David Neal Leff (1940). Uncle Sam's Pacific Islets. Stanford University Press. pp. 29–34. ISBN 978-0-8047-3724-1. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lake Erie and Horseshoe Reef

Here is the relevant Article IV of the Treaty of 1908 about de-enclaving Horseshoe Reef and converting the Lake Erie boundary from a curvy line to straight lines:

"The High Contracting Parties agree that the existing International Waterways Commission, constituted by concurrent action of the United States and the Dominion of Canada and composed of three Commissioners on the part of the United States and three Commissioners on the part of the Dominion of Canada, is hereby authorized and empowered to ascertain and reestablish accurately the location of the international boundary line beginning at the point of its intersection with the St. Lawrence River near the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, as determined under Articles I and VI of the Treaty of August 9, 1842, between the United States and Great Britain, and thence through the Great Lakes and communicating waterways to the mouth of Pigeon River, at the western shore of Lake Superior, in accordance with the description of such line in Article II of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain, dated September 3, 1783, and of a portion of such line in Article II of the Treaty of August 9, 1842, aforesaid, and as described in the joint report dated June 18, 1822, of the Commissioners appointed under Article VI of the Treaty of December 24, 1814, between the United States and Great Britain, with respect to a portion of said line and as marked on charts prepared by them and filed with said report, and with respect to the remaining portion of said line as marked on the charts adopted as treaty charts of the boundary under the provisions of Article II of the Treaty of 1842, above mentioned, with such deviation from said line, however, as may be required on account of the cession by Great Britain to the United States of the portion of Horse Shoe Reef in the Niagara River necessary for the light-house erected there by the United States in accordance with the terms of the protocol of a conference held at the British Foreign Office December 9, 1850, between the representatives of the two Governments and signed by them agreeing upon such cession; and it is agreed that wherever the boundary is shown on said charts by a curved line along the water the Commissioners are authorized in their discretion to adopt, in place of such curved line, a series of connecting straight lines defined by distances and courses and following generally the course of such curved line, but conforming strictly to the description of the boundary in the existing treaty provisions, and the geographical coordinates of the turning points of such line shall be stated by said Commissioners so as to conform to the system of latitudes and longitudes of the charts mentioned below, and the said Commissioners shall so far as practicable mark the course of the entire boundary line located and defined as aforesaid, by buoys and monuments in the waterways and by permanent range marks established on the adjacent shores or islands, and by such other boundary marks and at such points as in the judgment of the Commissioners it is desirable that the boundary should be so marked; and the line of the boundary defined and located as aforesaid shall be laid down by said Commissioners on accurate modern charts prepared or adopted by them for that purpose, in quadruplicate sets, certified and signed by the Commissioners, two duplicate originals of which shall be filed by them with each Government ; and the Commissioners shall also prepare in duplicate and file with each Government a joint report or reports describing in detail the course of said line and the range marks and buoys marking it, and the character and location of each boundary mark. The majority of the Commissioners shall have power to render a decision.

"The line so defined and laid down shall be taken and deemed to be the international boundary as defined and established by treaty provisions and the proceedings thereunder as aforesaid from its intersection with the St. Lawrence River to the mouth of Pigeon River."

Jeff in CA (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, in 1896, a proposed House Resolution (H. Res. 41) would have created a commission to ascertain the boundary between Canada and the United States in Lakes Ontario, Erie, St. Clair, Huron, and Superior. The State Department prepared a report requested by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, dated February 21, 1896, containing recommendations. With respect to the boundary through the Great Lakes the report stated,

" … The [existing treaty] maps [based on surveys performed following the 1814 Treaty of Ghent], however, are far from being accurate as to contours or dimensions. That of Lake Ontario, upon comparison with the most recent maps executed after exhaustive triangulations, is found to be reasonably accurate. …

"The Ghent map of Lake Erie is extraordinarily imperfect in contour and inaccurate in dimensions as to all that part lying between the entrance to the Niagara River and Port Pelee. … That the Commissioners were misled in their estimate of the accuracy of the sources from which their map was compiled is evident upon simple measurement. … This circumstance alone makes the exact determination of the charted treaty boundary in Lake Erie entirely impossible for the greater part of its length. …

"In the application of this treaty boundary to actual facts and circumstances difficulty is found, for two reasons. The first is that the maps surveyed or copied by the Commissioners are not always accurate as to contours or distances. … While this difficulty is lessened in the narrow connecting waters, and the approaches thereto, it becomes insuperable, as has been shown, in respect to Lake Erie, and the same difficulty exists in less degree as to the other Great Lakes.

"In the second place, the charted treaty line is an arbitrary curve traced upon the maps prepared by the Commissioners, apparently by a somewhat tremulous hand, so that the curve is by no means regular, and the impossibility of locating any point upon such a curve by courses or distances or by range marks on shore is evident. …

"This boundary is defined under treaty conventions, and the line … is traced on charts; … and the charts themselves, in their measurements and courses, are inaccurate, with the exception of the chart of Lake Ontario. … A practical difficulty will be presented in marking an arbitrary curved line on the face of the waterways, as indicated on the charts, and it has been suggested that courses, distances, and ranges should be substituted for the imperfect line now drawn on the Ghent maps."

Article IV of the Treaty of 1908 was promulgated to accomplish that suggestion. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• The map that shows Horseshoe Reef from the report prepared for the 1908 treaty can be seen at https://www.scribd.com/doc/282773953/StLawrenceRiver-GreatLakes-12. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Another U.S.-Mexico maritime treaty

Fairly recently in the 1990s, as permitted by UNCLOS, a continental shelf treaty between Mexico and the US divided between them an area of enclaved high seas in the western Gulf of Mexico and added it to their EEZs (see List of enclaves and exclaves). Jeff in CA (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Jay Treaty Forts

On June 1 1796, per the terms of the Jay Treaty the UK turned over various forts, the town of Detroit, and Mackinac Island over to the US. These areas were under British control since prior to the Revolutionary War. How should we address these British occupied areas in the rewrite?XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article and the text of the treaty... my lay interpretation is that the British were occupying those areas but not necessarily claiming. And according to the rules I have so far (only include occupation if entire political unit, or declaration of independence, or annexation by another power), that occupation would not be noted in the map. I can, however, easily put in a mention in the list. --Golbez (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah but what was the "political" unit of Detroit prior to the organic act creating Northwest Territory? Detroit was pretty much the only organized (non-native american) settlement in the lower peninsula of michigan, and the british effectively controlled all of what is now michigan. While they may not have had control over an entire political unit, the land the British were occupying was quite large and was not organized under any political unit prior to 1787.XavierGreen (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

By "political unit" I mean an entire region I can shade as 'occupied'. (like Guam, versus Attu Island) Otherwise it has to be a declaration of independence, formal annexation, or disputed border, none of which apply here. (Note that I'm not saying this to say "my rules no matter what", I'm saying what my rules are so they can be potentially changed. :)) That way I avoid having to run day-to-day military movements. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Territorial waters

I'd like to see in the article some discussion of the territorial waters of the US as they changed in consequence of legal developments. Maybe a place to start is [23]. trespassers william (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

For my rewrite, I've been mostly ignoring changes to water borders. When possible, they get mentioned, but not mapped. The only time they do get mapped is when it is immediately relevant for a bit of land, like Popes Folly Island. As for a paragraph on territorial waters, I'd like to see what you could come up with, I'm not terribly versed in it all. --Golbez (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Michigan Territory

During the war of 1812, virtually all of michigan territory was occupied/controlled by the British and allied indian forces. For consistancy it should be marked as occupied along the lines of the Philippines and Guam in WWII.XavierGreen (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

For Guam and the Philippines, I date the occupation from the day of surrender, and it doesn't sound like Michigan Territory surrendered. So if I did this, what would the date be? Would I date it from the fall of the capital of the territory (Detroit)? --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article on the territory, looks like civil government did indeed cease on April 16, 1812, and while there may not have been a formal surrender, there was no government. So I'm inclined to possibly treat it the same as Guam. When would it end, though? At the Battle of Lake Erie, or the Battle of the Thames? --Golbez (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would use the fall of the capital of any particular jurisdiction as they key date. In this case, Detroit (the capital of Michigan Territory), was recovered by the American government in 1813.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And actually, there's an additional way of handling this. While keeping the map changes for Guam and Philippines to the date of surrender, I could add a text entry noting the absolute extreme end of fighting in any given territory - like "The battle of the Philippines began on this date, and would culminate in the surrender on X date" but would not change the color of the map until the formal surrender. That allows me to include mentions of the battles of Pearl Harbor, Attu, Wake, Fort Sumter, First Mesilla, etc. Now, this isn't discounting the possibility of coloring Michigan Territory, I'm just saying I'll do this as well. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, i don't think the mere fact that battles were ongoing in any particular area is exactly relevant to the concept of territorial evolution, and i imagine that is beyond the scope of this article. Rather, instead we should make a note as to when a foriegn power began occupation of american territory, for example Pearl Harbor would not be relevent as there was no occupation, while the Japanese invasion of Attu would since it did involve occupation. What may be relevent are occupations of American land by foreign powers. I think it is important to note where foreign powers have occupied american territory (federal case law for purposes of determining citizenship at birth actually goes so far as to say that American territory occupied by foriegn powers is not to be considered "American territory" in determining if an individual was born on american soil.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase

In 1810, James Madison proclaimed:

"Whereas the territory south of the Mississippi Territory and eastward of the river Mississippi, and extending to the river Perdido, of which possession was not delivered to the United States in pursuance of the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th April, 1803, has at all times, as is well known, been considered and claimed by them as being within the colony of Louisiana conveyed by the said treaty in the same extent that it had in the hands of Spain and that it had when France originally possessed it;"

So it would appear that he considered West Florida (to the Perdido River) to be part of the Louisiana Purchase. I can find virtually no maps that indicate this; how should this be portrayed in this list? Should West Florida be marked disputed from 1803 to 1810? Or ignored and simply kept foreign? I understand that territorial ownership way back then could be confusing and poorly demarcated, but West Florida is a pretty easy chunk to figure out if you think you own it or not. --Golbez (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say to ignore Madison's claim and keep it foreign. It officially wasn't ceded to the U.S. by Spain until the 1819 treaty conveying all of Florida, although by then the U.S. had occupied West Florida in stages, in 1810 to the Pearl River, and I believe in 1812 from the Pearl to the Perdido (under a secret law passed by Congress). The U.S. claim to West Florida was very tenuous, attested to by the effort that U.S. negotiator Robert Livingston later expended in France to dig up forensic memories of some of the other negotiators involved. No one on the other side of the negotiations ever thought that West Florida was included in the sale of Louisiana; to the contrary, it is documented in later letters by those on the French side that it was an intention in the negotiations not to include West Florida. I'll have to dig up the references I have that state that. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On my rewrite, I currently consider it a disputed part of Orleans Territory, and then disputed unorganized territory following Louisiana's admittance. This can change of course, just saying what my current method is. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted this new section into the article on the West Florida controversy here. It contains numerous references to the items that I mentioned just above. West Florida must of course be shown as disputed, but primacy should be given to the sovereignty of Spain, with the U.S. as an occupying nation. The title to the province was finally resolved on July 17, 1821, when Colonel Jose Callava, as the Spanish governor, formally delivered West Florida to United States General Andrew Jackson. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My methodology doesn't deal with the primacy (which can be difficult to quantify; in my experience it's more neutral to simply say "claimed by X, administered by Y"), as the thick international border lines disappear when under a disputed region. All that matters is the U.S. appears to have considered it part of the Louisiana Purchase, though the text will make it clear that it was not administered by the U.S. until certain dates. I'll review the linked article. --Golbez (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Amelia Island affair

Has anyone considered the Amelia Island affair? U.S. forces occupied this territory of the Spanish possession of East Florida from March 17, 1812 to May 6, 1813. It seems a Crimea-like occurrence (in the modern sense) that ended with the restoration of control to Spain. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I knew nothing about this. Based on what I see in our articles, it was a military invasion without annexation, and in fact, the U.S. explicitly took it from a French pirate and held it "in trust". Crimea was explicitly annexed by Russia, whereas it appears the U.S. did not have any interest in annexing Amelia Island. --Golbez (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I erred in linking to the description of the 1817 event. I should have linked this section of the Amelia Island article. This describes an earlier "affair" wherein "General Mathews and President Madison had conceived a plan to annex East Florida to the United States, but Congress became alarmed at the possibility of being drawn into war with Spain, and the effort fell apart." Jeff in CA (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Aha. Well still in that case, it may have been a scheme of Madison's, but it never went beyond that. --Golbez (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

An idea for disputed territories

I've been thinking about displaying areas disputed with other countries in their own set of maps. This allows me to have the 'main' set of maps purely be "What does the United States define itself as?", and have a secondary set of maps saying "and what does the rest of the world think?"

They would be placed side-by-side with the current maps, and allow for more complex commentary (like giving control/claim status), while at the same time not needlessly ceding land to foreign countries (like the current practice of marking Missouri and Kentucky as part of the Confederate States).

It also makes it easier to denote partial claims and occupations, like Arizona Territory, British West Florida, and maybe Texas.

A drawback that comes to mind is, right now, for northern Minnesota and Maine before Webster-Ashburton, I'd either have to include the maximal US claim, or blur the line. Or, keep disputed borders in place, because that's different from a dispute in territory when it's because no one knows what the border is. I'll roll with that for now.

Any thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I have been trying to imagine all of this in my mind's eye as the effort has gone along, so I'm anxious for the unveiling in order to really see it. Jeff in CA (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I also think its a good idea. From the point of view of the United States, the areas it claimed were indeed part of the united states despite claims by another country.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's a quick proof-of-concept I whipped up. Late 1862 seemed the most interesting moment for this.

• First, we have the map of the US: File:United_States_Central_map_without_disputes_1862-12-03_to_1863-02-24.png. Here, instead of saying 'claimed by CSA' or what not, I simply use the most USA-POV definition possible: Admission to congress. The areas that have been expelled are red, the few districts in the south that have not remain normal. The accompanying labels explain this. All other claims have been removed - Indian Territory, Missouri, Kentucky, and the San Juan Islands are not shown as disputed.
• Then we have the disputes map here: File:United States Central disputes 1862-12-03.png. I've colored in everything disputed, and explained 'claimed by' vs 'administered by' where relevant. Since I didn't want to get into congressional districts in this, since that's not necessarily a sign of control (since, for example, MO and KY were in the Confederate Congress), I simply said 'generally administered by'. No labels not involved in disputes are here; for that, the reader can consult the main map.

What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I like it. And this has me thinking about how you would illustrate the partial claims and occupations that you mentioned. I agree that the secondary "disputes map" is the place to locate the commentary, as you have planned. Do you plan to show any indication of those partial claims on the main maps? I think it would be a desirable visual aid on the main maps to incorporate a thin line (like your Greer County representation) showing the border of, for example, the U.S.-occupied territory of West Florida within the Orleans Territory. Then the second map would show and describe it from Spain's perspective. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My current thinking is for the main map to be purely what the U.S. defines itself as. So with regards to West Florida, it would include that, period, after the time of annexation. Then the dispute map would show that area as being claimed by US, generally administered by Spain, or West Florida, or what not. So the only disputes that should show up on the main map are intra-US disputes, and disputed borders due to lack or contradictory knowledge. (because it seems wrong to simply say "The US claims the maximal of Maine". The US *wanted* the maximal of Maine because that was their interpretation of the border, right? So when the border was interpreted and arbitrated by a third party, they accepted it.) --Golbez (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And I do mean "what the U.S. defines". State claims like Miller County would show up in the main map, because that's a dispute between Arkansas' interpretation of the border and the U.S.'s. --Golbez (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of the disputes map; I realized it was folly to include the internal divisions, because 1) they don't really matter for it, 2) they demand it be kept up to date with all internal changes, and 3) the reader can reference the main map. --Golbez (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Taboga and Largo Remo

In regard to the evolution of the boundaries of the Panama Canal Zone, I found a reference to the acquisition of part of Taboga Island and all of another called Largo Remo. It states on page 255, "In 1920, the United States, under its right of expropriation in Article 2 of the canal treaty, required from Panama for the erection of defensive fortifications fifteen hectares of the island of Taboga in Panama Bay and a tract of one hundred and twenty-five hectares called Largo Remo in Las Minas Bay, east of Colón." It cites U.S. For. Rel., 1920, III, 314-322; 1921, II, 616-622. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Isla de Pinos

I did not search through the archived pages to find mention of Isla de Pinos, so I am adding this note here. The Hay-Quesada Treaty, signed in 1904, which recognized Cuban ownership of Isla de Pinos, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 13, 1925, over the objections of some four hundred United States citizens and companies, who owned or controlled about 95% of the land on the island. So the island remained in American hands for several decades after Cuban independence. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

While the island almost entirely owned by American Citizens, the american government itself never claimed soveriegnty over the island. The island was directly administered by the United States during the two American Miltiary Governates that ruled cuba from 1899 to 1902 and 1906-1909. While various political elements in the united states called for its annexation, it was never dejure annexed or even claimed by the United States Government.XavierGreen (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Platt Amendment, which was the legal document which first established the Isle of Pines issue, states the following in this regard: "That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." [[24]] Thus from the dissolution of the American military govornate to the ratification of the 1925 treaty, the island was dejure under the administration of no country, in effect terra nullis. Defacto it was administered by the American corporations and private property owners that owned the island. I am unaware of any American civil or military government administering the island outside of the 1899-1902 and 1906-1909 dates i mentioned above.XavierGreen (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Corn Islands

So, as previously discussed, the United States was given the option of assuming sovereignty over the Corn Islands via lease by the Bryan–Chamorro Treaty. While the united states never assumed its administration of the entire island group, they did seize a small portion of land through the treaty rights for the purpose of building and administering a lighthouse. That particular plot of land was under American sovereignty for until transferred to Costa Rica per an agreement with Costa Rica took effect on April 25, 1971. I am uncertain as to when the United States took possession of the land around the lighthouse, though it appears it was built sometime in 1924.XavierGreen (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Enough quality sources state that the Corn Islands were not a possession of the U.S. that I'm very wary of including them in the maps, or any part of them; I think the best solution is to note them in the text, with proper citations for all views, but not in the maps. Also, do you have a link for that 4/25/71 agreement? I couldn't find it around, despite it having a treaty number. --Golbez (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Bancos

I just wanted to mention that in addition to the bancos exchanged along the rio grande river, in 1927 Mexico ceded two bancos in the Colorado River totaling some 3.4 square miles to the United States. This was along the Arizona border. This is mentioned and cited on the Banco Convention of 1905 page.XavierGreen (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been pulling all my info from that page, so ... and yep I didn't know those would involve Arizona so thanks for the heads up. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you are finding it useful. By the way, that area is about 3.4 square kilometers. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That confounded metric system! lolXavierGreen (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

While we're all here: I've added the bancos to the list, but does anyone think any of them need further commentary? Every mention is very bare bones, but now that you mention the cession around Yuma was 3.4 sqkm - not an insignificant amount - it made me wonder if that one, or any others, deserved more comment. Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we have mapped horseshoe reef, which is less than one acre in area. We don't seem to have a concise floor on how small a piece of land is before it was mapped. Ideally we could map everything, but the issue with that is, do we have sources describing the banco's exchanged so we can map them?XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Horseshoe Reef is interesting, though. It's in a populated area, it was transferred for a specific use, and is of geopolitical interest. By definition as set out in the treaty, none of these apply to bancos. (You note that I map the transfers between the U.S. and Mexico that are interesting - Rio Rico and Chamizal). I don't think adding an amateur map as I would draw it adds any to the knowledge of the subject; the best solution is as it is, with a link to the 1905 convention article, which has links to the areas and could have small maps perhaps. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of the other bancos deserve further commentary. There is only one exchanged banco that was larger than the big one near Yuma. I think three of the following land exchanges (noted in the article United States territorial acquisitions#Mexican_boundary) are more significant:

• The Boundary Treaty of 1970 transferred 823 acres (3.33 km²) of Mexican territory to the U.S., in areas near Presidio and Hidalgo, Texas, to build flood control channels. In exchange, the U.S. ceded 2,177 acres (8.81 km²) to Mexico, including five parcels near Presidio, the Horcon Tract containing the little town of Rio Rico, Texas, and Beaver Island near Roma, Texas. The last of these transfers occurred in 1977.
• On November 24, 2009, the U.S. ceded 6 islands in the Rio Grande to Mexico, totaling 107.81 acres (0.4363 km²). At the same time, Mexico ceded 3 islands and 2 cuts to the U.S., totaling 63.53 acres (0.2571 km²). This transfer, which had been pending for 20 years, was the first application of Article III of the 1970 Boundary Treaty.
• The Chamizal Treaty of 1963, which ended a hundred-year dispute between the two countries near El Paso, Texas, transferred 630 acres (2.5 km²) from the U.S. to Mexico in 1967. In return, Mexico transferred 264 acres (1.07 km²) to the U.S.
• The Rio Grande Rectification Treaty of 1933 straightened and stabilized the 155 miles (249 km) of river boundary through the highly developed El Paso-Juárez Valley. Numerous parcels of land (174) were transferred between the two countries during the construction period, 1935–1938. At the end, each nation had ceded an equal area of land (2,560.5 acres (10.362 km²)) to the other.

Jeff in CA (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

My general rule now for river border adjustments is:

• If it is simply a resurvey of a river that has gradually shifted, do not map; the specific territory is nearly impossible to find out, and it's not a change in the 'spirit' of the border.
• If it's a cession of specific islands (like Island Seventytwo) then map. If it's a cession moving the border from one part of the river to another, and in the process that moves some islands, then do not map unless those are significant islands (populated or historical).
• If it's a cession of land split from the main state due to a flood, include; these are not guaranteed, since some (like Carter Lake, Iowa) have notably persisted.

Though, the fact that Nebraska challenged Carter Lake makes me wonder if I should color it disputed... which makes me want to reconsider how I handle disputed areas. I think thus far I've erred much too far on the side of inclusiveness, and that an area should only be disputed if there is a change in control. I'd still map them in change frames, but not include the red areas on the main map. Examples would be The Wedge, the 20th century MI/WI disputes, and, well, Carter Lake. But areas like the Honey War or Toledo Strip would count, since there was an actual dispute rather than a paper one. --Golbez (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What you say about resurveys makes sense. For cessions of specific islands, how do you plan to treat a few specific Rio Grande situations?

• First, the most recent exchange of territory in 2009 (the 9 islands (plus 2 cuts) listed on page 5 of the joint report in IBWC Minute 315) is a cession resulting from the border adjustment in the river required by the 1970 Boundary Treaty. The significance is that this last exchange was only 6 years ago.
• Second, the cession by the U.S. to Mexico of Beaver Island (called La Isla de Morteritos by Mexico), just downstream of Roma, Texas, occurred at the same time as the Horcon Tract (Rio Rico). Both are specifically named in the 1970 Boundary Treaty.
• Also, the 3 river- (hence, border-) straightening projects (near El Paso, Presidio-Ojinaga and Hidalgo-Reynosa) created new channels running for 138, 14 and 3 kilometers, respectively, and overall shortened the length of the international border by about 120 km. Do you plan to depict this?

Jeff in CA (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

re Horcon Tract: You note I only map the interesting one, the Horcon Tract, and not any of the others. When it comes to the Rio Grande, I'm generally taking a "don't map anything unless you have to" approach, because the border there is so much more volatile due to the slow river and the fact that it's an international border; it makes much less difference if part of Iowa gets stuck on the other side of the Missouri, but for part of Texas to be south of the Rio Grande makes things very difficult, geopolitically, so they have to transfer these otherwise insignificant bits of dry soil.

Also, I may abandon that plan for mapping specific islands, I dunno. I'm not sure having a little amateur map of where Island Seventytwo vaguely is adds anything to an understanding of the subject. I may pull those.

As for the river-straightening projects, I would like to note them in the text, where can I find info on them? But I have no interest in mapping them, for the same reason that I didn't map the tiny adjustment to the US-Canadian border when it was changed from curve-of-the-earth to straight-lines - it's virtually impossible to know what land changed hands, and the land that did is almost certainly uninteresting.

Note that I still want all of these changes noted in text; but I don't think it helps to map them. --Golbez (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

For the river rectification under the 1933 treaty, the sources for exchanged areas are Minute 144 (page 4 of the pdf) for the first portion to be constructed and Minute 159 for the San Elizario Island portion (page 6 of the pdf). They state the total areas as 1767.41 hectares and 304.98 hectares, respectively, split evenly between the U.S. and Mexico. Adding and converting to acres gives 5121 acres total, or 2560.5 each.

More info on the river-straightening projects:

There is a discussion of the Rio Grande River Rectification project in "Restless River, International Law and the Behavior of the Rio Grande," by Jerry E. Mueller (Texas Western Press, 1975). On page 87 there's a map of the new channel that shows the areas that were cut ("bancos"), which were allocated to both countries following the protocol of the 1905 Banco treaty. That page is within a chapter in Mueller on rectification and flood control.

Also, "Border—The U.S.–Mexico Line," by Leon Metz, states that the construction period was 1934-1941 and under the treaty, affected parcels were divided equally in accordance with the 1905 Banco Treaty. 69 went to the U.S. and 85 to Mexico. The remaining 24 parcels stayed in the floodway channel. So there were 178 total parcels, but only 154 that changed hands. Jeff in CA (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Mueller states that Mexico and the U.S. each received 5120 acres (rather than in total) in the 1930s rectification project. That can be shown to be wrong and the precise wording of the two minutes shown to be correct. By referring to Mueller's map on page 87 of his book and using area measurement tools (such as Daftlogic's online tool with Google Maps or Magellan VantagePoint or Google Earth) to measure the approximate areas of the largest cuts, it is readily apparent that the areas on each side of the channel total about 2500 acres for each country. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)