It has always been a mystery to me how states wound up with the boundaries that they currently have. Of particular interest was my home state of Arkansas with the notch at the top and bottom corner along with the bent line on its western border with Arkansas. This book finally laid my questions to rest.

Rather than reading the book from front to back, I skipped around to the states I have lived in the past. My current home of Texas made riveting reading as I learned of the wars and disputes that defined the boundary. Particularly, why Oklahoma has a "panhandle".

The history and associated conflicts - especially those of the slave states - makes for a fantastic read. As an example, I enjoyed the way California basically told the federal government what they would and would not do. How things have changed!

The subject may sound a bit mundane to some but I can assure the potential reader that it is very interesting and provides well-researched facts that you will carry with you on your next road trip. Thanks Mark Stein. Michael L. Gooch, SPHR Author of Wingtips with Spurs

This is a book that should be read by everyone. It is not only fascinating with the twists and turns of events that shaped each state, but teaches so much about our history as a growing nation. For me it is especially delightful since no one who was involved those many years ago could have imagined what those shapes would represent in the book The Little Man In the Map: With Clues To Remember All 50 States See how those shapes created by a myriad of forces have now become the simple clues to remember the name, shape and location of the states.

I'm a geographer and cartographer and I endorse this book! My only quibble is that I wish there were more footnotes/bibliography, but what the heck--this book is pure fun!!

I haven't had a chance to read much of the book I ordered but it appears to be very informative and interesting. It will be the type of book I will use for reference for years to come. The book was in perfect condition when it arrived and it came quickly after I ordered it.

How the States Got Their Shapes

It would be easy if oceans and rivers formed all of the boundaries. But they don't, and author Stein provides a captivating and inciteful look into the physical and political forces that forged the shape of each of our 50 states. I expect everyone who picks it up to flip immediately to their home state, followed shortly thereafter by "boy, I didn't know that"! If this text would have been in print when I was learning US history, I might have paid a bit more attention.

My entire family liked this interesting book. Each person could find just which state they wanted to investigate first. As a history teacher, I liked the format and set-up.

I found this book to be very entertaining, although some of the cross-references to other chapters can get confusing at times. The book made me think a new way about the 50 states, and it made me see the borders in a new light. Reading the history of each one of the states gave me some hope that the U.S. Congress (at least at one time) had some forethought going into the decisions they made. The whole idea of state size equality is evident, particularly in the western states. The role slavery paid in the creation of the southern states is pretty fascinating, as well. Overall, this was a terrific history lesson. If you like geography and history, this book would appeal to you. My only complaints are the sheer number of cross-references to other chapters. I also felt some of the citations and references were lacking in an appendix. Overall, a good buy.

This unique book is a nice combination of text and pictures. It describes the curious process of forming state lines, a process which involved the newly organized Americans in democracy in action. Interesting to children and adults as well. Quite a professional piece of work!!

This book describes more boundary quirks than you have probably ever noticed. If nothing else, you'll know the edges of your state better after looking at this research work.

There are overall explanations that account for the bulk of the boundaries such as the original colonial charters from England and other nations, foreign treaties (such as the one ending the French and Indian War), land purchases (such as the ones for Louisiana and Alaska), borders inherited from England and Spain, borders developed by independent nations (Texas and California), borders affected by slavery (including West Virginia seceding from Virginia), and lines that were disputed and resolved among various states.

You'll learn about surveying mistakes, battles over resources, disagreements about which river branch is the main one, and lots of goofy compromises.

In checking out the states where I have lived, I found only one surprise that I didn't know about. So you may not learn as much as you hope about your home area. But you'll probably learn a lot about places where you rarely go.

If you read this book just for two or three states, that's a mistake. The information isn't all that details or well documented. Check it out of the library if that's your intention.

I had always wondered how the states boundaries were established. This book gives many answers. Most are probably true. There may be more to the stories, but the book is interesting and is a starting point for a conversation.

Not nearly as exciting as the promo which enticed me to buy the book in the first place. After checking out the several states in which we've lived, we find that all of them are simply the results of political/greed maneuvering. After the first three or four states, it becomes repetitive/boring. Somehow, though naive, I had expected more.

I cannot recommend the book. It is as interesting as political gyrations can be.

Very informative and entertaining book. Stein explains the reasoning behind all of the straight lines of the states and also of the strange bumps and turns. It was so interesting I read it in two days.

Georgia has been undergoing a severe drought for several years now, particularly in the Atlanta area: as with Las Vegas, they are running out of water for lawns, fountains, golf courses, etc. So the governor had a well-publicized and very public prayer for rain. This review is not the place to discuss the religious and political implications of why God did not answer the governor's prayers, but it is very relevant about what happened next. The Bible and the 10 Commandments has imprecations about coveting: the State of Georgia turned its covetous eyes on the Tennessee River near Chattanooga. The northern border of Georgia falls about a mile too far south to actually reach the river, and so Georgia has decided to contest its northern border with Tennessee, and to shift the border just far enough so that it can sink its fangs (so to speak) into the river. And you had thought that border disputes between the states was all finished 100-200 years ago!

How the Staes Got Their Shapes describes how the state borders came to be. Much of this is interesting, but some is not quite as exciting. There are states that are nicely squared off--no interesting little wiggles in the borders. The residents of, say, Colorado and Wyoming will probably find more to enjoy in the descriptions of those states than the rest of us. Everything is organized by state, but of course most borders affect other states as well--so there's a great deal of cross-referencing, accompanied by an increasingly tiresome breathless "DON'T SKIP THIS" in full caps. You will get the impression that accidents happen frequently, and that many borders make no sense whatsoever, other than as lasting memorials to the inability of some surveyors to read their instruments carefully.

So it's an interesting book. I also expect that as resources get scarcer (such as the water in the Tennessee River) we may see more attempts by states to challenge borders. As the book notes, in 1998 the Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey's favor about the boundaries of Ellis Island: New York was the loser. You'll see some strange-looking maps, such as the one with the State of Connecticut extending west in a narrow strip to the Pacific Ocean. Maybe Connecticut can dust off a few old rulings and grow a bit! So overall, this is a book that while perhaps a bit dull in some places is a lot of fun in many others.

This book is especially informative for those of us who live on the east coast where so many of the borders seems to make little sense. One of the questions he never answered though was:
-Where is the island of Rhode Island?

It would also have been interesting as to why the states got their names or what they meant:
-Why is Wyoming named after a valley in western Pennsylvania?
-What is a Utah?
-What is an Idaho? Is the state named after the potato or the potato named after the state, or an indian or a river or a ?

It's a pleasant little book of arcane information that's fun to read while sitting on a beach or in an airplane.

Zeb Kantrowitz

I love this book! It is well-written in a straight forward yet interesting manner. I am sort of a map nut/geography/ history fanatic. We carry the book in the car to read when we are driving around and I plan to include the book in the resources for my social studies classes. It's a fun book to keep in a guest room or in the bathroom. The information about the creation of boundries is also useful in genealogy
research. I plan to give the book as a gift to many people.

Driving though Northeastern PA, I often passed a historical marker describing that the area was CT in the mid-18th Century. So, when I saw this book, I purchased it initially so that I could learn more about this intriguing part of history. This book is enjoyable and informative and helps the reader make sense of aspects of American history. It is structured so that you can pick it up now and then and read various state histories when your time and inclination permit. Not only did I learn about PA and CT, Plymouth versus Massachusetts settlements, Jefferson's ideas, and various latitudes, but I was fascinated by the anti-Mormon and pro- silver and gold sentiments that created Nevada; why Alabama and Mississippi look like mirror images; the various notches in state borders, the importance of rivers, and so much more.

This a rather interesting book regarding how the shapes of the states were determined. It would have been nicer though if the author had listed them in cronlogical order rather than alphabetically.

I was unimpressed with the book. The book is divided into sections for each state with very factual details of how each border was formed. As a result of its layout some of the sections are repetitive, with the same information often presented in two or more states. What is missing, however, is the human element of the story. There is no detail about skirmishes, no information on backroom fights or compromises, and no intereste side stories to give the book life. It is a true reference book, fitting in well between my world atlas and dictionary.

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 fascinating and well written 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.

The early states varied in size and shape depending on royal grants and battles between the colonies. Stein points out that Maryland lost "every border dispute in which it engaged," and it now has the contour of a snub nosed squirt-gun.

Starting with the Northwest Territory, "Congress would locate the nation's internal borders with the goal that all states should be created equal." Except when they weren't: "California violated the policy of equality among states because it could.... The United States needed California more than California needed the United States."

Jefferson feared that "[c]onsidering the American character in general, a state of such extent as one hundred and sixty thousand square miles [roughly the size of California] would soon crumble into little ones." Indeed, southern Spanish speaking California did try to break away from the northern portions of the state.

Other interesting points include:

Texas made a deal that it could divide itself into five separate states, but so far of course it hasn't chosen to do so.

Northern Idaho so narrow because the Continental Divide separates Montana and Idaho and because an eastern Idaho Territory politico named Sidney Edgerton "went to Washington with $2,000 in gold packed away." The $2,000 was spent, the border changed and Sidney Edgerton was made territorial governor of Montana.

Oklahoma's panhandle came from Texas to keep Texas beneath the Missouri Compromise line of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude; otherwise Texas would have had to free its slaves.

Western states were shaped by size: North and South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, Colorado and Oregon are each seven degrees of longitude wide; Colorado, Wyoming and Montana are each four degrees of latitude high; and Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas are three degrees high.

Exception: Oregon is taller than Washington because otherwise Seattle and Portland would have both been in Washington.

Utah has an L-shape so Wyoming could grow to seven-degrees and perhaps to reduce Mormon influences.

As mentioned earlier, Congress gave Michigan the Upper Peninsula to settle the Toledo War of 1835. There was human drama when Wisconsin lost Chicago; a delegation from the southern Wisconsin Territory arrived in Washington D.C. a day too late to protest being moved into Illinois.

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


Robert C. Ross 2008

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. 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 fascinating and well written 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?" The history of the original colonies comes into play; Stein points out that Maryland lost "every border dispute in which it engaged," and it now has the contour of a snub nosed squirt-gun.

The early states varied in size and shape depending on royal grants and battles between the colonies; thereafter, "Congress would locate the nation's internal borders with the goal that all states should be created equal." Except when they weren't: "California violated the policy of equality among states because it could.... The United States needed California more than California needed the United States."

Jefferson feared that "[c]onsidering the American character in general, a state of such extent as one hundred and sixty thousand square miles [roughly the size of California] would soon crumble into little ones." Indeed, southern Spanish speaking California did try to break away from the northern portions of the state.

Other interesting points include:

Texas made a deal that it could divide itself into five separate states, but so far of course it hasn't chosen to do so.

Northern Idaho so narrow because the Continental Divide separates Montana and Idaho and because an eastern Idaho Territory politico named Sidney Edgerton "went to Washington with $2,000 in gold packed away." The $2,000 was spent, the border changed and Sidney Edgerton was made territorial governor of Montana.

Oklahoma's panhandle came from Texas to keep Texas beneath the Missouri Compromise line of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude; otherwise Texas would have had to free its slaves.

Western states were shaped by size: North and South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, Colorado and Oregon are each seven degrees of longitude wide; Colorado, Wyoming and Montana are each four degrees of latitude high; and Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas are three degrees high.

Exception: Oregon is taller than Washington because otherwise Seattle and Portland would have both been in Washington.

Utah has an L-shape so Wyoming could grow to seven-degrees and perhaps to reduce Mormon influences.

As mentioned earlier, Congress gave Michigan the Upper Peninsula to settle the Toledo War of 1835. There was human drama when Wisconsin lost Chicago; a delegation from the southern Wisconsin Territory arrived in Washington D.C. a day too late to protest being moved into Illinois.

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


Robert C. Ross 2008

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. 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 given to Michigan by Congress as compensation for Michigan giving Ohio access to the Great Lakes. The 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 fascinating and well written 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?" The history of the original colonies comes into play; Stein points out that Maryland lost "every border dispute in which it engaged," and it now has the contour of a snub nosed squirt-gun.

The early states varied in size and shape depending on royal grants and battles between the colonies; thereafter, "Congress would locate the nation's internal borders with the goal that all states should be created equal." Except when they weren't: "California violated the policy of equality among states because it could.... The United States needed California more than California needed the United States."

Jefferson feared that "[c]onsidering the American character in general, a state of such extent as one hundred and sixty thousand square miles [roughly the size of California] would soon crumble into little ones." Indeed, southern Spanish speaking California did try to break away from the northern portions of the state.

Other interesting points include:

Texas made a deal that it could divide itself into five separate states, but so far of course it hasn't chosen to do so.

Northern Idaho so narrow because the Continental Divide separates Montana and Idaho and because an eastern Idaho Territory politico named Sidney Edgerton "went to Washington with $2,000 in gold packed away." The $2,000 was spent, the border changed and Sidney Edgerton was made territorial governor of Montana.

Oklahoma's panhandle came from Texas to keep Texas beneath the Missouri Compromise line of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude; otherwise Texas would have had to free its slaves.

Western states were shaped by size: North and South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, Colorado and Oregon are each seven degrees of longitude wide; Colorado, Wyoming and Montana are each four degrees of latitude high; and Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas are three degrees high.

Exception: Oregon is taller than Washington because otherwise Seattle and Portland would have both been in Washington.

Utah has an L-shape so Wyoming could grow to seven-degrees and perhaps to reduce Mormon influences.

As mentioned earlier, Congress gave Michigan the Upper Peninsula to settle the Toledo War of 1835. There was human drama when Wisconsin lost Chicago; a delegation from the southern Wisconsin Territory arrived in Washington D.C. a day too late to protest being moved into Illinois.

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


Robert C. Ross 2008