Community Chat

[Oznell]

This is so interesting.  As you know, at the time of the revolution, the American colonies did not represent a big chunk of the world.  But this map shows how very sparse a population we were.  The whole area of Maine, according to this, fell UNDER the category of 2 to 15 people per square mile!   Huge swatches of New York were the same.

To me, it makes it all the more remarkable that the slim belt of (relatively) higher density nascent Americans was able to spark the events that led to the formation of a country unique among nations.

https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Population-Density-American-Colonies-1775//1

Note to moderators--  Apologies for posting the link of American history timelines.  I should have been more diligent.  There is no excuse, but these sites can be so cluttered with extraneous things and offers, etc. it is hard, for me at least, to tell if they are offering actual competing commercial links.

I will try to screen better in future.

[Cakers3]

I could deal with 1-15 people per square mile.  No problem.

[sunshine45]

@Oznell

do you know if this map also included native americans as part of the population?

[Cakers3]

---

@sunshine45 wrote:

@Oznell

do you know if this map also included native americans as part of the population?

---

@sunshine45  From what I just researched Native Americans were not included in population counts until 1860.

[sunshine45]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@sunshine45 wrote:

@Oznell

do you know if this map also included native americans as part of the population?

---

@sunshine45  From what I just researched Native Americans were not included in population counts until 1860.

---

so then it would be pretty inaccurate without counting a portion of the population that lived in these areas.  thanks @Cakers3.

[just bee]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

I could deal with 1-15 people per square mile.  No problem.

---

@Cakers3

Have you considered Wyoming?

[Oznell]

That was a great question, Sunshine45. You are a sharp thinker. Before I could even research it, our Cakers was on the job! Thank you, Cakers. Sadly, for purposes of this map, I think they were only including the colonists. The Native Americans, except for those individual ones who allied themselves with the interests of the colonists, would justifiably not have wanted to join a movement that would have resulted in a new country imposed on the continent, I believe.

[Cakers3]

---

@sunshine45 wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@sunshine45 wrote:

@Oznell

do you know if this map also included native americans as part of the population?

---

@sunshine45  From what I just researched Native Americans were not included in population counts until 1860.

---

so then it would be pretty inaccurate without counting a portion of the population that lived in these areas.  thanks @Cakers3.

---

@sunshine45  It would be but remember our Native Americans were not living in the cities/towns that were sprouting up at that time, too.  Although even if they were I would not be surprised if they still would have been excluded.

[Oznell]

Yeah, Wyoming is still a homesteader's fantasy of green unpopulated meadows and mountains!   But what about all the ritzy tourist spillover from Jackson Hole and environs?

[Oznell]

Hey, one of my posts went to a smaller font, then popped back to a normal size.  I don't get it.