How the States Got Their Shapes

This book is most interesting for those of us who enjoy maps along with history.

I would recommend reading it.

The contents of this book are well described in other reviews. My only addition is to say that, as a total geography buff with low tolerance for chintzy illustrations in books that purport to be on that topic, I was not disappointed at all. There are 179 illustrations (i.e., maps), showing the "geographic" development of each state. The maps contain just enough detail; any more would have expanded the size of the book beyond usefulness as a 50-state overview. Some reviewers have criticized the alphabetical organization of the book, which necessitates a fair amount of cross referencing to other chapters (e.g., "See Figure 153 in SOUTH DAKOTA"), and suggested that it be organized instead by region (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, etc.). This is a fair criticism, but in the end I think it boils down to personal taste. A regional organization probably would have required reading lengthy exegeses of regional developments, which would have turned this into a history book. As it is, it is a complete, concise, and copious survey of the topic -- and a delightful read.

I agree the book has some interesting ideas in it, just not done very well. I could not even identify a thesis.

First, the book has no footnotes, no in text quotations from primary sources, and explanations are very, very brief. Each state gets about a page of typed material. The maps are small and lack the few details that are referenced in the text. For example, if the coal fields of north west Georgia explain the western border of Georgia, show us a map of the coal fields. If the Appalachain Mountains influenced Alabama, Georigia, and the Carolins, show us a map of the Appalachian Mountains. An elementary principle of writing books about maps: if you refer to something in the text as geographically significant, you better put a map in showing why. Maps are pictures, and writing about maps means using pictures as well as words.

Second, the book is poorly structured. While it may make sense to organize the states from A to W with each state given individual treatment, a reader can't easily grasp themes and concepts that guide one state's development with another. An example: Mississippi and Alabama and Florida. All these states's histories are bound up with each other, but to get the picture you have to flip through the book and maybe you can get an idea of what happened. A more logical structure would be to create sections (the Colonies, The Nortwest Territories, The Plains, The South, The West, The Pacific Coast with Alaska and Hawai'i) and then the reader can easily understand the forces at work. The states didn't develop in alphabetical order; why does this book?

Third: The book makes use of many implicit assumptions about why borders "should be" one way yet are not explained. While mentioned, it is never fully explained why Congress used equality as the basis for creating states. Equality of territory, population, access, ??? Since this idea makes up a substantial portion of the book, it needs to be developed fully with references, quotations from statutes, floor debates, etc.; more than a bibilography at the end. And the frequent assumption that it's "normal" to use rivers for borders or straight lines is not supported at all. Are these assumptions warranted?

The idea of the book is interesting, yet the execution leaves much to be desired. It has so much potential to show how economics, culture, and movement interact with geography to define political spaces. It is so lacking in support and important detail as to make it worthless for serious use.

I gave it two stars and not one because the author is, after all, a playwright and not a serious historian, and so I forgive the "History Channel" syle treatment of the material. The editors and publishers are to blame for the book's inadequacies. They should know what a history book is supposed to look like!

I won't try to compete with the detailed review above. I just want to add that I have been wondering about the odd shapes of the states for years, and wishing for info on this topic.

I was thrilled to see that this book was finally available.

The book has surpassed my expectations. The details are fabulous. The ample maps fully illustrate the narrative.

Each state is explained. For example, why does Rhode Island have "island" in it's name? Buy the book and find out.

When I lived in Mobile, I puzzled for years over Alabama's "tab" at the south. My guess was that it had something to do with giving the state a gulf shoreline. (Maybe for condos?) I was wrong. It's all Florida's fault.

In short, this book is fascinating! Even if you think you're not interested, you will be. The arcane knowledge you learn will make you the star of any party, or a total bore.

I love it!

For two generations after its founding as a state in 1848, Wisconsin politicians praised the state for "preserving the Union" through its generous contributions of land to Michigan and Illinos. Under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Wisconsin was much larger than the relatively small "mitten" that actually joined the Union.

The entire Upper Peninsula was taken from Wisconsin Territory and given to Michigan by Congress as compensation for Michigan giving Ohio access to the Great Lakes. Wisconsin Territory's southern border originally ran east/west from the tip of Lake Michigan; the border was moved north in order to move Chicago into Illinois and counter-balance southern sympathies -- otherwise "Illinois would have been a Confederate Dagger driven into the heart of the Union."

Mark Stein's book demonstrates that there is a great deal of history hidden in many of the state borders. His basic question is "Why put the line there?" Heart felt orations by Wisconsin politicos demonstrate that "the line" often made a major difference to people.

Altogether, I found this an interesting book -- I'll never look at the map of the United States in the same way again.

Robert C. Ross 2008