Why are some US states "squarish" in shape?

[paperbackwriter]

@acsenray

@paperbackwriter

Which pretty much describes the US east of the Mississippi.

No, the vast majority of the boundaries you list are colonialist line-drawing exercises, not boundaries that sprung up naturally from human settlement patterns. The few instances in U.S. history when boundaries were formed naturally include New Netherlands and New Sweden, both of which straddled major rivers, not bound by them.

Does that strike you as not using rivers as default boundaries?

No, it strikes me as artificial line-drawing exercises, which is what colonialists did throughout North America and Africa. Very few if any of these constitute natural boundaries.

You are factually incorrect. The colonialist line-drawing exercises were the borders like Virginia’s southern border - nice straight lines that derive from royal charters drawn up in London without regard to local geography. The first two colonies chartered, which eventually became the states of Virginia and Massachusetts, were given such borders. Other states were given charters (and hence boundaries) boundaries after settlement had already occurred.

A good example of this is Rhode Island. Roger Williams was banished form the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 and settled at the head of Narragansett Bay at Providence. Soon afterwards, other religious dissenters settled Portsmouth and Newport on Aquidneck Island. In 1642 Warwick was founded on the west shore of Narragansett Bay. Each settlement was separate and Warwick was the only chartered one, with ill-defined boundaries. It wasn’t until 1663 that they were chartered as a single colony and given boundaries.

That charter makes extensive use of natural water features, and only draws straight lines where such features were lacking:

@King Charles II

that part of our dominions in New-England, in America, containing the Nahantick and Nanhyganset Bay, and countries and parts adjacent, bounded on the west, or westerly, to the middle or channel of a river there, commonly called and known by the name of Pawcatuck, alias Pawcawtuck river, and sob along the said river, as the greater or middle stream thereof reaches or lies up into the north country, northward, unto the head thereof, and from thence, by a straight line drawn due north, until it meets with the south line of the Massachusetts Colony; and on the north, or northerly, by the aforesaid south or southerly line of the Massachusetts Colony or Plantation, and extending towards the east, or eastwardly, three English miles to the east and north-east of the most eastern and north-eastern parts of the aforesaid Narragansett Bay, as the said bay lays or extends itself from the ocean on the south, or southwardly, unto the mouth of the river which runs towards the town of Providence, and from thence along the eastwardly side or bank of the said river (higher called by the name of Seacunck river),** up to the falls called Patuckett falls,** being the most westwardly line of Plymouth Colony, and sob from the said falls, in a straight line, due north, until it meet with the aforesaid line of the Massachusetts Colony; and bounded on the south by the ocean

(Emphasis added where appropriate.)

If that’s not evidence of a preference towards using waterways as natural boundaries, I don’t know what would convince you.

[Acsenray]

@paperbackwriter

That charter makes extensive use of natural water features, and only draws straight lines where such features were lacking:

A charter from King Charles II setting forth the boundaries of a colony is a colonialist line-drawing exercise. The choice of rivers or other waterways is exactly as artificial and arbitrary as a straight line.

If that’s not evidence of a preference towards using waterways as natural boundaries, I don’t know what would convince you.

What exactly are you arguing? Yes, governments without interest in the social, economic, or political disposition of an “uninhabited” area prefer arbitrary boundaries such as rivers and straight lines.

That’s not the only circumstance in which boundaries are established. Organic formation of boundaries happens after the human settlement and social/political/economic development of an area. They grow where the edges of a social, economic, ethnic, linguistic or other natural grouping is found.

[cjepson]

@acsenray

@paperbackwriter

That charter makes extensive use of natural water features, and only draws straight lines where such features were lacking:

A charter from King Charles II setting forth the boundaries of a colony is a colonialist line-drawing exercise. The choice of rivers or other waterways is exactly as artificial and arbitrary as a straight line.

If that’s not evidence of a preference towards using waterways as natural boundaries, I don’t know what would convince you.

What exactly are you arguing? Yes, governments without interest in the social, economic, or political disposition of an “uninhabited” area prefer arbitrary boundaries such as rivers and straight lines.

That’s not the only circumstance in which boundaries are established. Organic formation of boundaries happens after the human settlement and social/political/economic development of an area. They grow where the edges of a social, economic, ethnic, linguistic or other natural grouping is found.

Ummmm… am I missing something, or are you two getting into a protracted argument over semantics? Paperbackwriter seems to be using the word “natural” to mean “occurring in nature”, and thus rivers are by definition natural because they occur in nature. Acsenray is simply using a different definition of “natural”. That’s the only thing you’re actually disagreeing about.

[paperbackwriter]

I am also now puzzled in the light of ascenray’s latest post. At first, I understood his position to be that rivers weren’t preferred as boundaries. I think I have shown they were.

Now, however, it seems he’s saying that rivers are as arbitrary as any other boundary. If that is indeed the case, then I suppose so, but by that definition any boundary is “unnatural”, no matter where or how drawn.

(Note that I’m not saying ascenray moved the goalposts, just that my understanding of his original position has changed.)

[lowtide]

The Hudson isn’t the border between Massachusetts and New York because the Berkshire Mountains come first, creating a natural barrier.