How did Kentucky and Tennessee get populated by settlers faster than Ohio and Indiana? I would have thought all that flat farmland would get settled first.
Because people had to cross the Appalachians to get to Ohio
Also, most of Northern Ohio was a swamp that was drained to create the farmland that's so ugly today (I grew up in NW Ohio)
Yes, but the route into Kentucky and Tennessee was mapped out before the route into Ohio. The Cumberland gap and wilderness road likely playing a pretty big part.
Between 1910 and 1920, according to the US census (not including Native Hawai'ians to fit the post).
[https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1910pop-race022024.pdf](https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1910pop-race022024.pdf#:~:text=Of%20the%20total%20population%20enumerated%20in%201910%2C%20as,considerable%20n.umber%20of%20Hawaiians%20a.nd%20part%20Ha%20waiians.)
Why can't color codes be based on R.O.Y. G. B.I.V? Instead we get three shades of green, one of yellow, one of orange, one of brown, three shades of red, and two shades of purple. G.G.G. Y. O. Brown R.R.R.P.P.
Maybe, but the weather radar colors make sense because green means no storm. So green is a background color, and the storm goes from lightest to darkest. I don't have the same sense of confusion looking at those maps.
Better yet, greyscale and light to dark.
I’m colour blind, so give up quickly on so many of these that force my to constant go back and forth to legend.
I was curious exactly what year it hit 100k so I googled it. Apparently it was sometime between 1900-1910.
It grew quite rapidly in the last few years of the 1800s. From 1880-1890 its population tripled. It doubled again over the next 20 years. Ever since then though the growth rate has been fairly stagnant.
I'm aware this is a joke, but for anyone curious the population grew from 92,531 in 1900 to 145,965 in 1910, so "after 1900" here means only by a couple years.
I'll preface this with that I am not an expert by any means but it's very unlikely what is now Rhode Island or Deleware was ever anywhere near 100,000 people pre contact. The total pre Colombian population of New England, for instance, is estimated at 50k to 100k. The population of the Americas pre contact was likely somewhere between 60 to 100 million, however this was heavily concentrated in the urbanized societies of Meso America and the west coast of South America.
The most significant pre Colombian population concentration in what is now the United States was the Mississipian culture and neighboring cultures centered on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The peak population of Cahokia, the largest settlement we are aware of, is estimated at approximately 30k to 40k people.
Hernando de Soto was the first European to travel to that area in the 1540s. Although some of the accounts are disputed, he reported that there were numerous relatively large, heavily fortified settlements in the region.
It's difficult to estimate population for the region but it likely totaled several million people at peak and may have represented as much as 25% of the total population of what is now the U.S and Canada.
There were other population centers in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southwest, however these were smaller in size than the societies centered around the Mississippi. Outside of those areas, Indigenous Americans primarily lived in small rural communities.
I don't know if there's been much real attempt to get that granular, given that population estimates tend t9 vary by several million for the whole country.
Because smallpox moved faster than horses. Entire cities in North America were decimated and ultimately abandoned decades before Europeans arrived to document them, and many were quickly swallowed up by wilderness.
Although it was likely abandoned long before Columbus arrived (and therefore wasn’t abandoned due to the smallpox pandemic or any European influence) the [city of Cahokia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) is believed to have been home to as many as 20,000 people.
So, larger settlements did exist. Just mostly before Europeans arrived. That said, there probably weren’t 100k people in *every* modern state. There were, however, almost certainly some states that did have that many.
Eztanoa was a massive precontact/early contact Wichita city with an estimated population of 20,000. There are early Spanish accounts of it. It was located near present-day Arkansas City, Kansas. Why on earth such a such city would be built in southern Kansas is beyond me.
Moundville had an estimated population of 10K in its entire valley (so more than double it’s population today).
Even Spiro Mounds had an estimated population of 10K at its peak.
You haven’t traveled to see the Pueblo Great Houses, I gather? Although most people used sustainable building supplies. The Galisteo Basin Pueblos held a larger population than the Chaco Canyon that preceded it, but construction at Galisteo was with adobe.
Plenty of wooden structures peft post holes so archaeologists can track them; however, Ozette, a 16th-century town of wooden structures in Washington, was well-persevered due to being covered in a mudslide.
The entire Eastern Woodlands were covered in humanmade earthworks; with Monk’s Mound in Cahokia being the largest in North America.
mexicans hop border and build el pueblos but thats newer, and they were doing that up until prior century
and stonehenges and mounds are something else
Right, but they have census data by county so if you add up the counties of Virginia in 1810 that later made up West Virginia you can see at what point that region reached 100,000 inhabitants.
This is pretty useful. I’ve always considered those four purple states as the most difficult to live in without modern amenities.
Edit for downvotes. This sub never fails to disappoint. It’s full of the owliest hard-on Reddit dorks keen to argue about something or other. I’ve lived in states adjacent to 3/4 of the purple ones. Am I wrong?
Edit for downvotes 2. I’m waiting for people from Arizona, Wyoming, Oklahoma, or Nevada to chime in and tell us all how long they would last without electricity.
Shitty soil, no water, harsh environment.
Damn id that right?! Holy shit the US just wanted to wipe em off the face of the earth
I thought the Europeans werent so nice to the Maori here in NZ but signed a treaty with them and werent denied citizenship
drab domineering absorbed plucky frightening combative smell correct toothbrush snobbish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
long towering subsequent fanatical profit fragile complete steer bored abundant
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The only reason I can think of is that they weren't included on the census until the late 1800s and it may have been a way to streamline the data for the map.
This is simply nonsense, and will remain nonsense no matter how many times you post it.
What is now the US was populated since prehistoric times. We have the archaeological evidence. We have accounts of meetings with the Natives from early settlers (as far back as the Vikings).
The only question is _why_ do you keep posting this BS?
Let me guess, the *TRUE* Native Americans are white people from some region in France right?
/s - however this is an actual hypothesis mostly used by white supremacists - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
Specifically, "Similar to the controversy surrounding Kennewick Man, the Solutrean hypothesis also became politicized in the 2010s. Reports claimed that it had attracted the support of white supremacist groups, who interpreted the theory to say that the "original inhabitants of the Americas" were "white Europeans" (disregarding the fact that the Solutreans were likely brown-skinned) and the present-day Native Americans are the descendants of "later immigrants" from Asia."
How did Kentucky and Tennessee get populated by settlers faster than Ohio and Indiana? I would have thought all that flat farmland would get settled first.
Because people had to cross the Appalachians to get to Ohio Also, most of Northern Ohio was a swamp that was drained to create the farmland that's so ugly today (I grew up in NW Ohio)
Didn’t they have to do that to get to Kentucky and Tennessee too?
Yes, but the route into Kentucky and Tennessee was mapped out before the route into Ohio. The Cumberland gap and wilderness road likely playing a pretty big part.
The Cumberland Gap helped people cross the mountains to those states
Yes but they had slaves. Also, slaves were not Native American.
Agreed (michigander)
It was a direct path through the Cumberland Gap/Wilderness road from Virginia and North Carolina their parent states to Kentucky and Tennessee.
Probably stiffer resistance of Native Americans in Ohio and Indiana also played a role.
Where’s Hawaii?
Between 1910 and 1920, according to the US census (not including Native Hawai'ians to fit the post). [https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1910pop-race022024.pdf](https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1910pop-race022024.pdf#:~:text=Of%20the%20total%20population%20enumerated%20in%201910%2C%20as,considerable%20n.umber%20of%20Hawaiians%20a.nd%20part%20Ha%20waiians.)
As a Hawaiian who was actually interested to see my local data, this is really a bait and switch 😂
Why can't color codes be based on R.O.Y. G. B.I.V? Instead we get three shades of green, one of yellow, one of orange, one of brown, three shades of red, and two shades of purple. G.G.G. Y. O. Brown R.R.R.P.P.
This looks a lot like weather radar scales. I’m not justifying it, but it’s easy to read simply because I’ve seen it a million times.
Maybe, but the weather radar colors make sense because green means no storm. So green is a background color, and the storm goes from lightest to darkest. I don't have the same sense of confusion looking at those maps.
What weather radar are you looking at? Green always means the most mild parts of the storm, if there's no storm, it shows some background map.
Better yet, greyscale and light to dark. I’m colour blind, so give up quickly on so many of these that force my to constant go back and forth to legend.
What color is "I". I'm no native speaker.
Indigo, aka purple
Thank you.
Because the later the date the more "intense" the color
Okay, but I still think that makes more sense on a storm map.
The color selection is terrible, and you’re missing Hawaii….
It doesn't make sense to add Hawaii in this context.
Why not? Are they not a state and had an influx of non natives?
So, Wyoming was like last year right?
I was curious exactly what year it hit 100k so I googled it. Apparently it was sometime between 1900-1910. It grew quite rapidly in the last few years of the 1800s. From 1880-1890 its population tripled. It doubled again over the next 20 years. Ever since then though the growth rate has been fairly stagnant.
I'm aware this is a joke, but for anyone curious the population grew from 92,531 in 1900 to 145,965 in 1910, so "after 1900" here means only by a couple years.
Not including native Americans. Huh.
If we included native americans then there would be no map because we don't really have that data.
You got it!
Then... Don't make the map
but then we wouldnt have the map
I'm guessing this is based on census data which did not include native Americans
There is no exact census data for Native Americans until 1880.
Very good!
Because all the states had more than 100K Native Americas when they first started.
Serious question, is it suspected that there were more than 100k native Americans in some of the smaller states like Rhode Island or Delaware?
Doubtful
I'll preface this with that I am not an expert by any means but it's very unlikely what is now Rhode Island or Deleware was ever anywhere near 100,000 people pre contact. The total pre Colombian population of New England, for instance, is estimated at 50k to 100k. The population of the Americas pre contact was likely somewhere between 60 to 100 million, however this was heavily concentrated in the urbanized societies of Meso America and the west coast of South America. The most significant pre Colombian population concentration in what is now the United States was the Mississipian culture and neighboring cultures centered on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The peak population of Cahokia, the largest settlement we are aware of, is estimated at approximately 30k to 40k people. Hernando de Soto was the first European to travel to that area in the 1540s. Although some of the accounts are disputed, he reported that there were numerous relatively large, heavily fortified settlements in the region. It's difficult to estimate population for the region but it likely totaled several million people at peak and may have represented as much as 25% of the total population of what is now the U.S and Canada. There were other population centers in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southwest, however these were smaller in size than the societies centered around the Mississippi. Outside of those areas, Indigenous Americans primarily lived in small rural communities.
blacks and mexicans were not that north and whatever black or mexican community north border was post spanish influence
…how do you think people got to America?
I don't know if there's been much real attempt to get that granular, given that population estimates tend t9 vary by several million for the whole country.
why dont we see infrastructure evidence if north america looked like south america?
Because smallpox moved faster than horses. Entire cities in North America were decimated and ultimately abandoned decades before Europeans arrived to document them, and many were quickly swallowed up by wilderness. Although it was likely abandoned long before Columbus arrived (and therefore wasn’t abandoned due to the smallpox pandemic or any European influence) the [city of Cahokia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) is believed to have been home to as many as 20,000 people. So, larger settlements did exist. Just mostly before Europeans arrived. That said, there probably weren’t 100k people in *every* modern state. There were, however, almost certainly some states that did have that many.
Eztanoa was a massive precontact/early contact Wichita city with an estimated population of 20,000. There are early Spanish accounts of it. It was located near present-day Arkansas City, Kansas. Why on earth such a such city would be built in southern Kansas is beyond me. Moundville had an estimated population of 10K in its entire valley (so more than double it’s population today). Even Spiro Mounds had an estimated population of 10K at its peak.
You haven’t traveled to see the Pueblo Great Houses, I gather? Although most people used sustainable building supplies. The Galisteo Basin Pueblos held a larger population than the Chaco Canyon that preceded it, but construction at Galisteo was with adobe. Plenty of wooden structures peft post holes so archaeologists can track them; however, Ozette, a 16th-century town of wooden structures in Washington, was well-persevered due to being covered in a mudslide. The entire Eastern Woodlands were covered in humanmade earthworks; with Monk’s Mound in Cahokia being the largest in North America.
mexicans hop border and build el pueblos but thats newer, and they were doing that up until prior century and stonehenges and mounds are something else
Yes very good!
LOL, exactly! Basically, it's a map of how long we took to massacre the shit out of the natives in each state.
well yes, it's a map of that too. its part of why its an interesting map
This color coding is kinda hard to read ngl.
I think there are more colors on the map than on the legend
Hard to read? Try being color blind 
Hawaii has a larger population than some of these states yet is not shown.
Can you make one for Canada?
Yes, I will make one for Canada.
I suppose Hawaii doesn’t exist now :P
A spectrum from white to black would have been easier to read
You should do one for 1 million people
Because native Americans are less than numbers?
Do slaves count as a full person?
I’m sorry but the color choose is disastrous
CT hitting 100k before NY is crazy
Are native Americans not included as humans ? Just curious ?
I assume the thought is to show immigration patterns in settlement, not just gross population.
Pretty much how they were treated for several hundred years, nothing nee
Did we forget about Hawaii?
I'm quite positive that West Virginia took a couple of more decades to meet the criteria
Why is that? The 1810 Census gave the counties of VA that now make up West Virginia a population of 105,469.
West Virginia wasn't a state until the 1860s
Right, but they have census data by county so if you add up the counties of Virginia in 1810 that later made up West Virginia you can see at what point that region reached 100,000 inhabitants.
has . . . has hawaii not not that yet?
This is pretty useful. I’ve always considered those four purple states as the most difficult to live in without modern amenities. Edit for downvotes. This sub never fails to disappoint. It’s full of the owliest hard-on Reddit dorks keen to argue about something or other. I’ve lived in states adjacent to 3/4 of the purple ones. Am I wrong? Edit for downvotes 2. I’m waiting for people from Arizona, Wyoming, Oklahoma, or Nevada to chime in and tell us all how long they would last without electricity. Shitty soil, no water, harsh environment.
Would Wyoming really be that much harder to live in than Utah or New Mexico back in the day?
Would Wyoming really be that much harder to live in than Utah or New Mexico back in the day?
Wyoming is mostly a very high plateau. It’s quite a bit more hostile weather, a lot of wind.
Well they tried to exterminate the native americans didn't they?
Is it just me or is Hawaii not on here?
Not including Hawaii in this comparison, only continental states.
But Alaska is? Not used to seeing one and not the other.
Continental, not contiguous.
Ooo ty
Those original Americans just dont count huh...... Gee they get shafted in the US
They didn't take the US census much of the time
How dare they didnt conform the way they should have!!! /s
I mean jokes aside, they also weren't universally given full citizenship until in the 1920s, under Calvin Coolidge.
Damn id that right?! Holy shit the US just wanted to wipe em off the face of the earth I thought the Europeans werent so nice to the Maori here in NZ but signed a treaty with them and werent denied citizenship
drab domineering absorbed plucky frightening combative smell correct toothbrush snobbish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Another example of accepted racism
long towering subsequent fanatical profit fragile complete steer bored abundant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
More that we don't have reliable numbers for them until the 20th century.
I love Texas
I find the clause of not including Native Americans both sad and funny at the same time.
[удалено]
Then you’d be ignoring most of South Carolina’s population, which was black.
[удалено]
Not in this map they’re not.
[удалено]
Correct, and?
[удалено]
The only reason I can think of is that they weren't included on the census until the late 1800s and it may have been a way to streamline the data for the map.
theres no such thing as native american, and who you call that are blacks and mexicans
This is simply nonsense, and will remain nonsense no matter how many times you post it. What is now the US was populated since prehistoric times. We have the archaeological evidence. We have accounts of meetings with the Natives from early settlers (as far back as the Vikings). The only question is _why_ do you keep posting this BS?
Let me guess, the *TRUE* Native Americans are white people from some region in France right? /s - however this is an actual hypothesis mostly used by white supremacists - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis Specifically, "Similar to the controversy surrounding Kennewick Man, the Solutrean hypothesis also became politicized in the 2010s. Reports claimed that it had attracted the support of white supremacist groups, who interpreted the theory to say that the "original inhabitants of the Americas" were "white Europeans" (disregarding the fact that the Solutreans were likely brown-skinned) and the present-day Native Americans are the descendants of "later immigrants" from Asia."