Talk:Traditional Arizona

Sources Issue

I dont have any sources, I come from Traditional Arizona and us historians here use the term regularly. It is a sort of undeclared term but used none the less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Who knows if foreigners would like to test their anti-Arizona, anti-Democratic values and anti-popular sovereignty, federalistic ideology upon us then. No vote on legitimacy if the nay-saying censors don't like it, but they would extract the same request for their own benefit. I have an atlas that depicts proto-territorial Arizona as "Arizona County". If we renamed this article to that, whilst mentioning in the lead that this is the "traditional" sort, then that may be mostly enough compromise. BTW, my source clearly shows Arizona County as ex-Purchase, but also confusingly states that Arizona County was carved out of Dona Ana County. I believe what it is trying to explain, is that Purchase land was governed via Dona Ana until forming its own judicial district and other forms of independent government, not only distinct from Sonora, but also from New Mexico, which only has a tenuous link to Arizona, because the Purchase comes from Sonora and not New Mexico. (This is what all the sources indicate was the major reason why the locals in Tucson and Mesilla voted first for their own territory and then for secession. Consider the parallel in Virginia with West Virginia.) Plus, the original counties of Arizona as its own territory (thus, no longer merely its own county, but a territorial assortment of counties), were to become not only Dona Ana, but also Mesilla, Ewell and Castle Dome. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As an aside...I don't like how some have taken to calling other New Mexico territorial lands as part of Arizona history. Those lands which now comprise the State of Arizona exterior to the Purchase, belong in New Mexico history until Arizona took over chronologically. It really doesn't matter what the Radical Republican fantasists who concocted the Arizona Organic Act thought in forming the first ever Reconstruction government by denying the original, denying history as it was, for their own benefit in the War. Just the same, Las Vegas belongs in New Mexico history until a specific date in which the land became part of Arizona and then Nevada, itself half of Mormon Utah's effectively settled Deseret. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Arizona County

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ARIZONA COUNTY, THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE FIRST AREA OF LAND KNOWN AS ARIZONA AND GOES BACK BEFORE THE LAND WAS PART OF THE US. SO NO THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT NEED TO BE RENAMED. WHEN I CREATED THIS PAGE I SPECIFICALLY NAMED IT. IF YOU WANT TO WRITE AN Arizona County ARTICLE THAN DO SO AND STOP REVERTED MY EDITS.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rio Grande

In this article, it reads that Arizona was meant to extend south of the Rio grande River, the only problem is that the Rio Grand was not by any means south of Traditional Arizona. In some cases it was south of the eastern most portion of Confederate Arizona. But this article is not about Confederate Arizona, it is about the traditional boundaries of the first region named as Arizona. Until someone responds, particularly the one who added this, I will not remove the said text. --Az81964444 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Pierce sent Gadsden to purchase, haggling by different prices and schematic parameters of land in Mexico on the border, but only the form which came down to us is the one which actually became Arizona. In essence, it was merely land speculation and the boundaries were not set until then, for Mexico itself did not have a specified district merely covering the Purchase land. If Gadsden had succeeded in acquiring the most extensive boundaries, then the south side of the Rio Grande would have been called the Gadsden Purchase also (see Spanish Cession), but as to whether or not it would also be called Arizona, is something we'll never know. Since it was all up in the air, there is nothing wrong with mentioning the possible scope of a single land or territory, even if divided into separate areas, such as Texas and New Mexico. The Purchase, if composed of two pieces, would have been similar to the division of India into not only India, but also East and West Pakistan...as we all know, East Pakistan is now Bangladesh. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I should also point out that there are alot of completely irrelevant portions of this article. --Az81964444 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't add flesh for a greater perspective, people will not understand what context Arizona fit into for that time and place of America. As suggested above, the article might better be served by renaming to Arizona County, New Mexico or merged with the Gadsden Purchase. Some of it may be considered anachronistic, tied to either the Sonoran or Territorial days--but Arizona County or the Gadsden Purchase is not best served by isolated presentation as though it were in a laboratory. It had a real existence with connections to what came before and what succeeded it. This is the proper scope of any land which has come and gone, like noting the connections that Ancient Rome had with the Etruscans, but also with the later Gothic kingdom of Italy...such a perspective denotes the centrality of view with which the subject is described. In this particular case, Arizona as its own entity is like the Trojan settlers who founded Rome, on the land of the Etruscans, but neither Gaulish nor Phoenician, as those were their neighbors. I edited for spatial and socioeconomic understanding of the land and period in question. Maybe military engagements are all that appeal to you, but there is a lot more to a land than who captures a flag and what this amounts to. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I highly recommend keeping the parallel or comparison of William Walker's Sonora-California filibuster to the Anglo-Texan settlement and revolution, with the concurrent development of Tex-American Arizona as a county, then confederate or federal territory, because it was happening at the very same time as Gadsden's purchase. Walker's expedition would be included as an American venture on Wikipedia (similar to the State of Franklin) if our present boundaries were defined by the greatest extent which Gadsden bargained for, categorized in Wikipedia among the unrecognized or unofficial territories of the United States article. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)