What was the territory of the United States without state status?

rupol2000

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2021
18,215
2,621
138
As I understand it, these are mainly the cowboy regions, the Prairie regions. Were they not subordinate to the government? Did they fight the eastern territories of the British colonists?

1864

USA_Map_1864_including_Civil_War_Divisions.png
 
Territories had territorial governors like Brigham "BYU" Young over in Utah and federal marshalls like Matthew Dillon to help administer the law.
 
Why didn't they join as states?
Congress must approve new states joining and the territories have to ask for it. Usually by a vote. Oklahoma was Indian territory during the civil war and some Cherokee fought for the South, In the territories both sides recruited, Arizona and New Mexico had large southern support. The rest were mostly for the North,
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
He (haw) views all peoples in the US as being from British descent except the indigenous peoples. There's a lot he doesn't understand and never will.
I just do not think so. I have just a topic where I laid out genetics, about 80% of the American population are not Europeans at all. Europeans were only in the New England area. Therefore, I assumed that the cowboys, the native prairie population, had to fight the colonists.
 
I just do not think so. I have just a topic where I laid out genetics, about 80% of the American population are not Europeans at all. Europeans were only in the New England area. Therefore, I assumed that the cowboys, the native prairie population, had to fight the colonists.
You are so wrong that it would not be possible to address your errors here. Read up on some history, particularly the western expansion. I hope you aren't American. Our educational system can't be that abysmal. Or maybe it can.
 
I just do not think so. I have just a topic where I laid out genetics, about 80% of the American population are not Europeans at all. Europeans were only in the New England area. Therefore, I assumed that the cowboys, the native prairie population, had to fight the colonists.
Boy are you clueless. :rofl:
 
You are so wrong that it would not be possible to address your errors here. Read up on some history, particularly the western expansion. I hope you aren't American. Our educational system can't be that abysmal. Or maybe it can.
It is terrible because it is deceitful. These are objective facts
 
No one has been able to provide data on European genetics in the United States. The situation is similar in Mexico, there is almost no Spanish blood
 
In fact, this can be seen in appearance, especially the female part. American women are very different from English women, they are slimmer, darker, they have a more oriental appearance, they look more like Indian women
 
American women are very different from English women, they are slimmer, darker, they have a more oriental appearance, they look more like Indian women
Yeah, especially Elizabeth Warren. Almost a pure Indian in appearance.
 
But men in America are also very differr. I think in America it's hard to find a physique like Tyson Fury, for example. Thin legs, wide hips, and so on. They are mostly cowboys. In national American sports, masculinity and brutality are visible. Americans are more explosive, they have a predisposition to speed-power style. American boxing, for example, was the toughest style; British was playful boxing. Baseball and American football are much more aggressive games than European ones and so on. American temperament and phimsical condition are radically different from European
 
This is the American spirit in sports. It will never go mainstream in England

 
Americans love films with fights and passion, with brutal lonely heroes and romance. Europe produces very few such films. This also characterizes the difference in mentality.

I have no doubt that Americans are not Europeans
 

Forum List

Back
Top