|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
the fart bit is basically germany right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
That's Dutch Limburg. So yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:the fart bit is basically germany right? Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Limburgers love a nice big cheesy fart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
'Black Arab Dutch Fart' is pretty much my impression of Dutch politics, especially since the alt-Right types started getting airtime.  Whorelord posted:the fart bit is basically germany right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
I honestly had no idea that Iowa was entirely covered by railways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
I think that's just the land grants, and then the railroad companies sold or leased any land that wasn't used for tracks to farmers. At a tidy profit of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think that's just the land grants, and then the railroad companies sold or leased any land that wasn't used for tracks to farmers. At a tidy profit of course. And was one of the major points of contention for western Populists in the 1880s and '90s, as well. So much so that there were calls to nationalize the railroads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think that's just the land grants, and then the railroad companies sold or leased any land that wasn't used for tracks to farmers. At a tidy profit of course. That's exactly what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Looks like the railroads didn't mess with Texas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
dublish posted:Looks like the railroads didn't mess with Texas. Because Texas held the land rights to its land, not the Feds, since it was annexed as sovereign territory. It's one reason UT has a larger endowment than everyone but Yale and Harvard. All that west Texas ranch land that normally would have been BLM land actually produces profits for the state that have been earmarked for UT's coffers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Because Texas held the land rights to its land, not the Feds, since it was annexed as sovereign territory. It's one reason UT has a larger endowment than everyone but Yale and Harvard. All that west Texas ranch land that normally would have been BLM land actually produces profits for the state that have been earmarked for UT's coffers. Actually the story behind that is pretty funny. The University of Texas was designated as a land grant school (due to a bunch of fuckery we end up with A&M and UT as separate schools, but that's another story). Because it's a land grant school, it's entitled to "university lands" that they can control and do business on and whatever. Because the university's location hadn't been set, the legislature decided to fulfill that obligation by giving the university seemingly worthless land in West Texas. This was in the early 1880s. In the 1920s, they discovered oil there. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
My favorite part about the landgrants is the fact that most railroads will keep loving with large cities even today using them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:My favorite part about the landgrants is the fact that most railroads will keep loving with large cities even today using them. You can't just drop a nugget like that without a link...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
"British Possessions".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Small decorated tea sets and such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:"British Possessions". "lower california"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:"lower california" Yes, that's the english translation of the spanish name, Baja California?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Baja California is the lower part of California, Canada was a British possession, if there's any part that does deserve the quotemarks in the 1880s it's "Indian Territory"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Baja California is the lower part of California, Canada was a British possession, if there's any part that does deserve the quotemarks in the 1880s it's "Indian Territory" That was the actual (if mostly technically informal) name of that region. Unorganized territories were supposed to be set aside for Indians, and as that shrank, the last unorganized territory was called Indian Territory; I don't recall if the name was ever official, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Whoever made this map also jumped the gun a little bit. With the Florida panhandle being annexed to Alabama, despite that deal never actually getting resolved by the two states' legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think that's just the land grants, and then the railroad companies sold or leased any land that wasn't used for tracks to farmers. At a tidy profit of course. According to that map the entirety of my home city in Michigan and my ancestor's farms were part of a land grant to the railroad companies in 1884. Which seems unlikely given that the city was founded in 1830. I suspect that either the remaining public lands in those gray areas were allotted to the railroad companies (which could mean any amount in total), or the map-maker just colored in big swathes of gray willy-nilly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
At least some of them are fully covering areas which had a formal land grant system in place even if the specific locations are not land-grant. A lot of Nevada, for example, was granted in a checkerboard fashion in order to force the railroads to have a profitable stake in development if something were to be found.  Some areas it extended 20 miles from the railroad, some more, some less. I'm not sure about how it was done every state, I know that the transcontinental railroad grants in northern Nevada were done as 20 miles from the railroad in 1 mile x 1 mile squares in a checkerboard fashion. When a city became worth developing they usually started selling off their lands to finance setting up infrastructure to service those lands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:Whoever made this map also jumped the gun a little bit. With the Florida panhandle being annexed to Alabama, despite that deal never actually getting resolved by the two states' legislatures. Sorry to be a killjoy, but the darkest lines are rivers. It was a bit weird at first to see, for example, Arizona Territory include southeast Nevada. (Also, was that actually a thing? Got a link?) Golbez fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Golbez posted:That was the actual (if mostly technically informal) name of that region. Unorganized territories were supposed to be set aside for Indians, and as that shrank, the last unorganized territory was called Indian Territory; I don't recall if the name was ever official, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
 A 1717 map of the German city of Fürth. Yellow means that the houses are subject to the Prince of Ansbach, red is the Dean of the Cathedral in Bamberg, Yellow the Imperial City of Nuremberg and the grey the town itself (which, as a legal body, in turn was subject to Ansbach in temporal and Nuremberg in ecclesiastical matters. I think, it's complicated). "Subject to" means in this context that they not only owned the land the buildings stood on, but also that different laws and rules applied depending on where you lived. In the specific example of Fürth, all three parties hated the gently caress out of each other and were trying to piss each other off at every opportunity. This in turn meant that the people of Fürth had many liberties and opportunities other people of the era hadn't - basically everything could be seen as a political act and make you powerful enemies, but if you played your cards right you could count on the near-unlimited support of your lord as long as whatever you did a) benefitted him and b) (and probably even more importantly) pissed the other lords off. The best-known example of this is the thriving Jewish community in Fürth, which developed because the Princes of Ansbach and the Dean of Bamberg realised that giving Jews permission to settle for money meant that they could earn lots of it, and it would greatly annoy Nuremberg where Jews weren't allowed to live at all, neither in the city itself nor in any of its lands outside of it. The Holy Roman Empire, folks. If towns belonging to three different lords at once who all hate each other is wrong, then I don't want to be right 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Sorry to be a killjoy, but the darkest lines are rivers. It was a bit weird at first to see, for example, Arizona Territory include southeast Nevada. Dammit, you seem to be right(but I think there's still a bit of the modern panhandle added to Alabama). But yeah, it was a very real thing in the 19th century. The residents of the panhandle even voted in favor of it. If Florida had been conquered or bought from the Spanish earlier, the panhandle would probably have been formally part of Alabama. wikipedia posted:The annexation issue was eclipsed by the Civil War and the war's effects on the region, but in 1868, with Pensacola now connected by the Panhandle's sole railroad line to the Alabama cities of Mobile and Montgomery, the issue came to a head again and was finally put to a vote of the people. In that year, the Alabama Legislature approved a joint resolution authorizing their Governor to negotiate with the Governor of Florida about the annexation of West Florida. An offer of one million dollars in Alabama state bonds, paying 8 percent interest for thirty years, was included. Both states appointed commissioners to make detailed recommendations on the matter. Jaramin fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Sorry to be a killjoy, but the darkest lines are rivers. It was a bit weird at first to see, for example, Arizona Territory include southeast Nevada. Nevada wasn't always its current size: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Nevada wasn't always its current size: btw the top of that map is correct - Washington territory did use to extend out to where Idaho is today:  Old maps are cool. My dad has the above one, along with this one: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Nevada wasn't always its current size:
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
fade5 posted:It's weird to think what Nevada would be like without Las Vegas. Another Wyoming, I guess. Funnily enough, even without Clark County, which makes up 70% of the population of the state, Nevada would still have a higher population than Wyoming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
fade5 posted:It's weird to think what Nevada would be like without Las Vegas. Another Wyoming, I guess. As a Renoite, I often forget Las Vegas is part of Nevada. Clark County is kind of its own world down there cut off from the rest of us by empty desert, bombing ranges and secret UFO bases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Texas should have Denver through San Francisco 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Nevada wasn't always its current size: New Mexico and "Arrizona" being split along an east-west line instead of a north-south one is pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:New Mexico and "Arrizona" being split along an east-west line instead of a north-south one is pretty interesting. e: looks like it's a bit further south
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:New Mexico and "Arrizona" being split along an east-west line instead of a north-south one is pretty interesting. That's the original split of the territory - roughly, New Mexico was the part we got in the War of 1848, while Arizona was the Gadsden Purchase.  Arizona seceded and joined the Confederacy, while New Mexico sided with the North. By 1863, Confederate Arizona had been conquered; the territory was reorganized with a north-south split to spite the secessionists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
I'd have thought that a north-south split would be exactly what the secessionists wanted. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
The railroad/land grant map had time zones, which reminded me of the Calder Act, which attempted to standardize them beginning in 1919. I haven't been able to locate a non-crappy version of the map. Very dark lines, such as from Atlanta to Macon, are the splits. Atlanta was central and Macon was eastern. I'm not sure when the entire state went eastern. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:04
|
|
