Buy How the States Got Their Shapes

After spending days pouring over charters and maps and histories trying to figure out why Massachusetts is shaped the way it is, I was thrilled to find this book at my library: it would save me so much time for figuring out the other states that I have to do for this project!

I was really shocked at how many errors there are.

In the book, he says that Massachusetts' southern border is based on being three miles south of Massachusetts Bay. A quick look at a map will show you that's not true at all! The original 1629 charter of Massachusetts Bay Colony said three miles south of Massachusetts Bay AND three miles south of the southernmost point of the Charles River. Basically, whichever was furthest South: and that would be the Charles. He discusses this further in the Connecticut chapter, again getting it completely wrong. Again he quotes the bit from the MA charter about Mass Bay, but according to him, Connecticut made up the Charles River thing, and Massachusetts went along with it. He apparently didn't read the original charter at all, because the Charles River border is right in the same clause! The charter quite clearly (if you consider this sort of language clear) defines Mass Bay Colony as running from 3 miles north of the Merrimack (the border argument with New Hampshire about this border is also incorrectly described in this book, by the way)

"and a certen other River there, called Charles River, being in the Bottome of a certayne Bay there, comonlie called Massachusetts, alias Mattachusetts, alias Massatusetts Bay, and also all and singuler those Landes and Hereditaments whatsoever, lyeing within the Space of three English Myles on the South Parte of the said Charles River"

The Connecticut chapter doesn't even mention the Yankee-Pennamite War (possible the only border argument with actual battles and a body count), and while the Pennsylvania chapter mentions it, he fails to specify that the Pennsylvania Charter and the Connecticut charter specifically mention the same lands. He makes it sound like it was just one nefarious colony trying to usurp the other.

For Georgia, he blithely says that Georgia ceded her Western lands in the 1780's when all of the other states did, which was not true. Georgia refused, until a series of amazingly corrupt land deals left the state in such a pickle that they were basically forced to cede Mississippi and Alabama to get the problem off their hands.

There were very wrong things said in every chapter that I knew anything about, which makes me sincerely doubt anything else in this book. Part of the problem might be his extremely sparse bibliography: he only lists one or two sources for the vast majority of states. These sources are usually 19th century amateur state histories: the type based on anecdotes. While these sorts of histories offer good quotes and opinions for your history term paper, they are almost never good history.

I couldn't possibly in good conscience recommend this book to anyone, because of the sheer number of errors.Get more detail about How the States Got Their Shapes.