The process of achieving statehood moved gradually and historically from east to west. I submit that something legal happened in Washington that changed the way the new territories became states. You can see by the line of demarcation that something happened. Is there anyone at FR, a history major, who might fill us in on the legislation that brought this about?
Big election majorities in the state legislatures won this past election by the Republicans is just the chance to accomplish lots of conservative goals.
Unless I’m confused, nothing drastic changed.
In all the states after the original 13 (and TX, VT, ME, HI which were all unique), the federal government acquired title to all land not already privately owned when it acquired the territory.
In the eastern states, most though not all of this land was pretty quickly sold or homesteaded. In western states the vast majority of the land was not economically attractive enough for private owners to appear, so it just stayed in federal ownership. Title wasn’t transferred because there were no buyers.
Starting in the 1890s or thereabouts, the government withdrew increasing amounts of land from the “for sale” group. Reasons usually involved conservation. The process was approximately complete by the mid-20th.
The major thing that “happened,” leading to the difference in the map, is rainfall. Land in much of the West is essentially worthless without water rights, so nobody bought it.
This tendency was aggravated by locals who would buy land at the entrance to a drainage, for instance, into private ownership, and therefore control in practice access to an immensely larger block of land without having to invest capital in buying it. Sometimes they start to think of it as “their land.”
Since the mid-20th the feds have increasingly made land management decisions some of the locals don’t like. But one doesn’t acquire title to land simply because you or your grandparents live next to it.
I agree with you, but I wasn’t a history major.