I was looking at a map recently and noticed that the border between Virginia/North Carolina, Kentucky/Tennessee, Missouri/Arkansas, and the northern panhandle border of Texas all sit at the same parallel, while the Kansas/Oklahoma, Colorado/New Mexico, and Utah/Arizona borders all sit at the same parallel, but slightly north of the first one.



From what I can tell, the first border between Virginia and Carolina was established at the 36th parallel. After the English Civil War, Charles II rewarded (or paid back) some of his Carolina buddies and moved the border up 30 miles to the 36,30' parallel. From there, Kentucky and Tennessee eventually separated from Virginia and Carolina, but kept that same border line.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 added Missouri and prohibited slavery south of this 36,30' line (excluding Missouri). When Texas was annexed, it had to abide by this 36,30' line, thus the reason why the panhandle border sits where it is.

The Missouri Compromise was repealed with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and they set the border between Indian territory and Kansas/Nebraska territory at the 37th parallel.

Why did they choose the 37th parallel? Why not the 36,30'? I suppose there really was no reason to keep it at 36,30 and 37 was simply more logical, but I was curious if there a story there.

Seven Costanza said:

---

I was looking at a map recently and noticed that the border between Virginia/North Carolina, Kentucky/Tennessee, Missouri/Arkansas, and the northern panhandle border of Texas all sit at the same parallel, while the Kansas/Oklahoma, Colorado/New Mexico, and Utah/Arizona borders all sit at the same parallel, but slightly north of the first one.

From what I can tell, the first border between Virginia and Carolina was established at the 36th parallel. After the English Civil War, Charles II rewarded (or paid back) some of his Carolina buddies and moved the border up 30 miles to the 36,30' parallel. From there, Kentucky and Tennessee eventually separated from Virginia and Carolina, but kept that same border line.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 added Missouri and prohibited slavery south of this 36,30' line (excluding Missouri). When Texas was annexed, it had to abide by this 36,30' line, thus the reason why the panhandle border sits where it is.

The Missouri Compromise was repealed with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and they set the border between Indian territory and Kansas/Nebraska territory at the 37th parallel.

Why did they choose the 37th parallel? Why not the 36,30'? I suppose there really was no reason to keep it at 36,30 and 37 was simply more logical, but I was curious if there a story there.

---

From what I can tell, it had to do with the size of the State of Kansas. They adopted 37 in the south and 40 in the north.

https://kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180.

Thanks. This link is broken, though. I'll look into it at some point.

Seven Costanza said:

---

Thanks. This link is broken, though. I'll look into it at some point.

---

RC got a period tacked to the end of the URL.

https://kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180

Another relevant article from the same site:

https://www.kshs.org/p/surveying-the-southern-boundary-line-of-kansas/12540

Quote:

---

Until January, 1854, the parallel 36 30' was the proposed southern boundary of the new territory. This was to enable the territorial government to control the Santa Fe trail. [3] The significance of the line 36 30' in the Missouri compromise also might explain its use in tentative bills for territorial organization drawn up previous to that date; the proposed repeal of the Missouri compromise did away with this significance. [4] A map of Kansas and Nebraska, indorsed August 5, 1854, by George W. Manypenny, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, shows the thirty-seventh parallel as the dividing line between the Osage and Cherokee reservations. [5] This and similar mappings of the territory may have influenced Senator Stephen A.

---