How did that come about, historically? It seems like it would be a better geographical fit with Wisconsin.
Because Toledo is part of Ohio.
Well, we don’t want it. Too damn cold, way too “Up north-ty”.
Interesting read. But the trade sucked. We got Toledo and Michigan got all the minerals, etc.
But we didn’t trade. Ohio never had a claim to the UP. The UP would have been part of Indiana and part of Wisconsin. They are the ones who “lost” in the deal.
Now, whether or not Ohio considers itself to have “lost” by winning the dispute is a whole nother matter. 
The Wisconsin Territory included the U.P. and many other states. They whittled it down over time, before Wisconsin gained statehood. I don’t plain on covering reasons they took off the different chunks. Somebody else is welcome to elaborate if you have the material available.
What we were taught in Michigan history was this; OH & MI went to ‘war’ over the Toledo Port. MI wanted it, OH had it, MI claimed it belonged to MI as an extension of the Detroit River, shenanigans ensued. After the militias taunted each other and no shots were fired, OH traded the ‘useless’ UP land for full rights to Toledo Port and MI was granted statehood in the bargain to make it feel better for getting this crappy land in the cold wilderness. Then all the lovely copper and iron showed up and OH was all ‘Boo-hoo’ and MI was all ‘Yay! Suckas!’.
The End.
I wonder how it’s characterized in OH history classes?
I heard most of this, but not the “trade” part, because Ohio couldn’t trade us the UP, since they never had claim to it.
The story I heard in school is that the federal government stepped in, brokered peace, gave MI the UP and gave OH Toledo.
I didn’t read the link in post 2, so I don’t know how close the story I heard is to that.
Perhaps they had to receive something attractive to compensate for Detroit.
Sigh.
The “war” resulted from sloppy surveys, which created conflicting claims.
The resolution involved handing Michigan compensation from federal territory in return for Michigan’s agreement to accept the already established (by federal law - the act admitting Ohio to the union) claim of Ohio to the land in question.
And it should be noted that Michigan already was going to get the eastern third of the Upper Peninsula anyway. It’s the part to the west, from roughly Newberry west, that was granted to them. Maps seem to show it as having been intended, at least in part, for Indiana, nominally.
They might want to revise their history lessons in Michigan. :rolleyes: 
When I was going through public school in Ohio in the 1970s, we had a required Ohio history course in eighth grade. I don’t think the Toledo/UP controversy was even mentioned. And yes, I think Michigan got the better part of the deal. ISTR that Michigan is the only state with two official governor’s residences - one in Lansing, and a nice summer place in the UP.
In our Ohio history course in 7th grade in the early 1980s, the Toledo War was mentioned. It was pretty straightforwardly presented – both states wanted Toledo and there were threats of military action until the federal government stepped in and gave Michigan the Upper Peninsula in exchange for letting Ohio have Toledo.
nitpick The summer one is on Mackinac Island, smack dab between the P’s.
What other state(s) have a non-contiguous, non-island hunk? I can think of at least two more.
Virginia is one; no idea what the other is
Kentucky, I think.
Maryland he means, maybe?
Points on the Eastern Shore are separated from the rest of Maryland by either the Chesapeake Bay or the Susquehanna River. (You have to cross one of those.)
Kentucky is one.
Washington - Point Roberts, since you are clearly accepting states that are still connected to their non-contiguous pieces by bodies of water that still lie within the state boundaries, as is the case with Michigan. That bit isolated by the New Madrid bend in KY is connected by neither land or water, though. A better wiki link to the feature in question:
Oh, I know!
Oh, wait, non-island.