248 - Friends, Polypotamians, Countrymen!
No one seems to regret that Thomas Jefferson’s plan for the division of the Northwest Territory into ten new states was shelved. The proposed names were just too silly, writes 19th-century Jefferson-biographer John T. Morse, Jr.:
“The names suggested for these ten States are a peculiar mixture of Latin and Indian, and while a semblance of some of the names still remains in two cases, in all others it is so absolutely forgotten that the very fact has ceased to be known by many close students of American history. Yet, besides this humane and noble piece of statesmanship (the proposed prohibition of slavery in the territory) we have a glimpse of that absurd element in Jefferson’s mind which his admirers sought to excuse by calling him a ‘philosopher’. The matter is small, to be sure, but suggestive. He proposed as names for the several subdivisions of this territory: Sylvania, Michigania, Cheronesus, Assenisippis, Metropotamia, Illinoia, Saratoga, Washington, Polypotamia, and Pelipsia.”
In 1787, the fledgling new republic for the first time expanded beyond the borders of the original 13 states. The area between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers was annexed via the Northwest Ordinance, which also resolved long-simmering rivalries between the original states, most of which had claims to territories out west, by creating new states rather than expanding existing ones.
It did take a while before the states as we now know them took shape. Statehood in the Northwest Territory was gained consecutively by Ohio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (184
and finally Minnesota (1858).
All of which might not have come to pass if the committee, chaired by Thomas Jefferson in 1784, had gotten its way. This committee proposed to divide the Northwest Territory into 10 states of roughly equal size, and even had names ready for them. Names with an antique ring to them, possibly to lend a bit of credibility to the then still precarious business of westward expansion.
• Sylvania would have covered much of present-day Minnesota, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and some of northern Wisconsin.
• Michigania would have incorporated most of Wisconsin, but nothing of Michigan.
• Most of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula would have been the state of Chersonesus, which is simply the Greek word for ‘peninsula’.
• The northern part of modern-day Illinois would have been the state of Assenispia, after the Assenisipi River, also known as the Rock River.
• In between Assenispia and Pennsylvania would be the state of Metropotamia, a name referring to the many rivers originating there.
• The states of Illinoia, Saratoga and Washington would have incorporated large parts of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio respectively.
• Polypotamia (‘Land of Many Rivers’) and Pelisipia would have covered the western and eastern parts of Kentucky, mainly (and therefore are partially outside the Northwest Territory, as it is bounded to the south by the Ohio River, Kentucky’s northern border).
There is some disagreement as to the spelling of some of the states (Chersonesus is sometimes spelled Cherronesus or Cheronesus, Assenispia is sometimes rendered as Assenisippis or Assenisippia) and even on the number of proposed states, with some saying Jefferson had 17 new states in mind (although only 10 are named in his proposal).
Adding to the confusion is the unclear status of the territory south of the Northwest Territory (nowadays the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi), contested between the Spanish, the US and several states with individual claims.
Jordan Penny, who was kind enough to make and provide this map of the ‘Jeffersonian’ Midwest, populates the area south of Kentucky with the states of Equitasia (western Tennessee) and Jefferson (eastern Tennessee), and has three states where there now are two: a more narrow Alabama, a state of Adams in the southern part of Mississippi, which in this version covers only its northern part.
Is anyone able to provide more information on the names of the states and their exact location in Jefferson’s “absurd” plan?


Did Jefferson name one of the States after himself or am I missing something?
Comment by aitorin — February 25, 2008 @
http://www.fictionpress.com/s/2061185/1/
Someone “borrowed” these place-names for his (her?) fiction, it seems
Comment by -rip- — February 25, 2008 @
#1 - I think he named it after somebody else called Jefferson, so as not to seem egotistical.
Comment by commenter — February 25, 2008 @
You’re missing the second-to-last paragraph.
Comment by ghqrehog — February 25, 2008 @
What is the random natural-esque line, as if a river or watershed line, running approximately north-south to the east of the Mississippi, forming the boundary between several states?
It’s as if the person who made up this map just thought “sometimes states have wiggly borders, I better put one in.”
Comment by ghqrehog — February 25, 2008 @
I’ll be a little more clear:
Jefferson proposed names for states in (and partially in) the Northwest Territory.
The Northwest Territory was bounded on the south by the Ohio River.
Those on this map south of that - namely Equitasia, Mississippi, Adams, Alabama, and, yes, Jefferson, were just made up by the person who (recently) drew this map.
Comment by ghqrehog — February 25, 2008 @
Chance are, eastern Tennessee would have been called “Franklin” since its residents had already begun to call themselves that before statehood.
Comment by Patrick Sewell — February 25, 2008 @
Sylvania: “Land of Forests”
Comment by Antonio Márquez — February 25, 2008 @
Interesting map.
You can see the classical liberal education underlying the choice of names for some of the regions.
Comment by David Davis — February 25, 2008 @
He missed a golden opportunity to name current Michigan as “Mesolimnia” (between the lakes).
Comment by jacobus — February 25, 2008 @
I love Jefferson, and I can’t deny the noble contributions he had to this country … but Assenisipia is a stupid, stupid name. Yes, a master author at drafting documents against the King of England, but not so good at coming up with state names.
Metropotamia is just as bad, by the way. It’s like it was named by a high schooler who got through the first month of World History class.
Comment by El Santo — February 25, 2008 @
I suppose I should have made my idea clearer, but that’s okay.
My idea was that the people of the area name their state after Jefferson, so as to get on his good side. Much like the other failed state, “Franklin”.
Comment by Jordan — February 25, 2008 @
Am I the only one to think Sylvania a little large? Perhaps it should be split into Cissylvania and… maybe not…
Comment by James — February 25, 2008 @
Don’t forget about the real state of Jefferson, guys! It was the biggest news story of the first week of December, 1941, ’till, well, you know…
Also, would Metropotamia have included Detroit, Toledo, Flint, and Gary? Or are those last two just over the border? At least they’d've gotten, uh, Cleveland, I guess.
Comment by jeff n. — February 25, 2008 @
#14 — Yesss! Metropotamia, America’s most squalid state, hands down! At least we got Sandusky. We’re the roller coaster state, and we’re sticking to it!
Comment by El Santo — February 25, 2008 @
Well, I know some other names - the area that is now West Virginia was variously called Vandalia and Kanawha, the area now known as Kentucky as Transylvania, and of course East Tennessee as Wautaga and Franklin - - - I’m sure there were other “schemes”, but I know those. . .
Comment by Eric D. Smith — February 25, 2008 @
Another piece of Jefferson’s plan had to do with rendering government more democratic. He was devising this in the mid-1780’s, before the Constitution we have today. The Articles of Confederation, the governing the document of the day gave very state–no matter its population–one vote. Jefferson, a resident of Virginia–the most populous state at the time–was certainly bothered that his state of 750,000 had no more power than tiny Delaware’s 60,000. To prevent such inequality in the future, Jefferson hoped that states of roughly equal territory would result in roughly equal populations.
He chose to make a large number of (relatively) small states so that there would be more representatives in government and fewer people would be represented by the same delegate to Congress. To clarify, a modern example:
Today, a single voter in Wyoming wields much more power in choosing two US Senators than any one person in California. The Wyoming voter is 1 out of 500,000 residents, compared to the Californian who is 1 out of 32 million.
Comment by Bob — February 26, 2008 @
Oh, and by the way, the proposed ban on slavery failed by one vote…As Jefferson put it, “Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment!”
Comment by Bob — February 26, 2008 @
[...] Strange Maps shows us Thomas Jefferson’s plan for the Northwest Territories. If this map was approved, [...]
Pingback by Electoral Map Daily Compass: NASCAR Dads for Hillary « The Electoral Map — February 26, 2008 @
first link to look at for this:
http://www.jlindquist.com/OM2images/jefferson.gif
Which either shows how little they knew about how the lands went back then (a pardonable problem) or how stubborn Jefferson was in making the states “equal in size.” Note how many states end up cutting across lakes on this.
Second link I bring you:
http://www.perrycountyindiana.org/history/pelipsia.cfm
Which goes into a bit more detail about the ten states Jefferson suggested.
Finally, a bit of what’s probably folklore:
I remember hearing in school that one of the reasons they went with fewer states in the Northwest Territories was that when they went around Michigan, they saw “not one acre in ten useful for farming.” Obviously they were used to reasonably hilly land that drained well; farmers would drain the greater portion of the Northwest Territories in the following years and decades.
Comment by godozo — February 26, 2008 @
Fascinating! Thanks for your fabulous site and all your hard work. I do hope you publish a book one day, I shall buy it.
Comment by Andrea — February 27, 2008 @
Imagine schoolchildren having to take test questions on all of these extra states: “2. How far is it from Assenisipia to Lake Titicaca?”
They’d never stop snickering.
Comment by Tom T. — February 28, 2008 @
Apart from ‘Jefferson’ on the west coast, have there been any more serious breakaway (or merger) state movements in the 20th century? I know Norman Mailer once ran for mayor of New York on a seccessionist programme.
Comment by john rimmer — February 28, 2008 @
“Washington” state looks a lot like Washington County in Ohio — the county used to cover a lot more ground and then it was carved out.
And I think the Western Reserve (Cleveland) was already carved out by then. Or perhaps not. But the southern boundary of metropotomia looks a lot like the southern boundary of the western reserve.
Comment by charlie — February 28, 2008 @
That Wikipedia article suggests naming hadn’t advanced much by 1941: “A naming contest held by the Siskiyou Daily News in November 1941 considered the possibilities for the would be state: Orofino, Bonanza, Discontent, Jefferson, Del Curiskiyou, and Siscurdelmo.”
Comment by mollymooly — February 28, 2008 @
very strange in deed
Comment by Romani In Spania — March 2, 2008 @
@ 13. James– “Cissylvania and….”
that is AWESOME!!
Comment by stereoisomer — March 3, 2008 @
Familiarity breeds acceptance as much as contempt… I do not find Wisconsin, Oklahoma or Mississipi (sp ?) necessarily less weird or ridiculous than any of Tom’s fanciful suggestions… He had the biggest brain and heart of all US presidents. Handomest of the founding fathers, as well! I particularly like the name Sylvania… But then, what’s in a name…
Comment by Sylvia Valls — March 3, 2008 @
I had no idea…still, this is a fascinating bit of obscure history.
Comment by nwlimited — March 4, 2008 @
[...] historical map shows how a committee, chaired by Thomas Jefferson, proposed to split up the lands of the Northwest [...]
Pingback by What Jefferson would have named Minnesota :: UpNorthica — March 6, 2008 @
If California were to be divided, as is occasionally proposed, the halves could be called Calia (bastard Spanish for ‘hot’
and Fornia (bastard Elvish for ‘north’).
Comment by Anton Sherwood — March 9, 2008 @
[...] Strange Maps via Chicagoist] This was written by Andrew. Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008, at 12:07 [...]
Pingback by CHEAP SHOT: Thomas Jefferson sucked at naming things | The Cheap Shot Posse — March 10, 2008 @
I wonder if Jefferson named one of the states after him?
Comment by Michael — April 2, 2008 @
There is some continuity between the proposed Michigania and the actual Michigan. The Michigan Territoy included Michigania, as well as Sylvania, Chersonesus, and most of Metropotamia and Assenisipia. Two of our first six “organized” counties were in modern-day Wisconsin. (I *think* they would have been in the proposed Michigania, though I’m less sure of that.)
But the distances were too large for the transport of the time (think Voyageurs in canoes), so Michigan shed everything but Chersonesus and parts of Metropotamia.
Unfortunately, the exact boundaries were laid out by a Congress that had never seen the land, so there were some disputes. Ohio vetoed Michigan’s desire for statehood until we yielded a bit more of Metropotamia. (The Toledo strip) As a face-saving measure, we got back most of Sylvania. (Wisconsin wasn’t ready to become a state, and they sure weren’t handing it back to British Canada!)
Comment by JimJJewett — April 18, 2008 @
godozo wrote:
“”"I remember hearing in school that one of the reasons they went with fewer states in the Northwest Territories was that when they went around Michigan, they saw “not one acre in ten useful for farming.” “”"
It would be an Indiana School that reminds us of that.
I think I heard the same thing, though I think it applied only the the part being surveyed at the time. (The rest may have been worse…
It is true that the UP was considered wasteland at the time, and that Michigan moved our capital from Detroit to Lansing as a sort of “Oh, yeah! See how you like that!” because the places with actual settlement at the time couldn’t agree on much except that Lansing was
(1) centrally located (The North, and particularly the UP, didn’t really count.)
(2) not unfairly close to any existing settlements
(3) such a miserable swamp that it wouldn’t ever really challenge the “big cities” for statewide bragging honors. (Even today, there are several larger cities in Michigan, though they aren’t the same ones.)
Comment by JimJJewett — April 18, 2008 @
JimJ:
Let’s not forget a couple other requirements:
1: Away from Detroit, so that the state capital wouldn’t be vulnerable to immediate invasion from Britain (still a worry in 1947), and
2: North of the Michigan Central railroad, so that SOME attention would be paid to the northern counties.
And just so you know, I may live in Indiana, but I wasn’t born or raised there. The “useful for farming” comment was something I read/heard as a kid in Michigan.
Comment by Don Hargraves — April 21, 2008 @
err…that was 1847 for the Britain Invasion worry comment.
Comment by Don Hargraves — April 21, 2008 @
Some years ago a southern historian, Thomas Alexander, used this proposal in a paper called “The Civil War as Institutional Fulfillment,” in which he pointed out that had Jefferson’s plan prevailed, and the resulting states had had the electoral votes dictated by their hypothetical populations in 1860, Lincoln would not have won. His votes were heavily concentrated in the upper parts of the lower Midwestern states, which could overwhelm the southern parts and capture the entirety of the states’ electoral votes under the winner-take-all practice. Under Jefferson’s scheme, though, he would have lost the electoral votes of the Ohio Valley states, and thus the election.
Comment by David Carlton — April 21, 2008 @
It only seems absurd to us now because it never came to pass. If we had been living with these names for the past 200 years, they would perfectly natural to us now.
Comment by Jonathan in Québec — April 22, 2008 @
interesting how the map, even though it simply follows latitude lines, presages many of the intra-state political battles of our time. Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Milwaukee have long fought with their respective out-states, but would have easy dominance over such smaller states. of course, such huge cities would also have mooted Jefferson’s original point of keeping population somewhat equal.
only Sylvania makes sense as an ecological region: it encompasses the vast north woods.
Comment by paytonc — April 25, 2008 @
I think the population of Metropotamia (including Detoit) would actually be about a third larger than the population of Michigan.[1]
Detroit’s most intense arguments are with its own neighboring cities — places that the rest of the state sees as part of Detroit. And Toledo could probably be more independent than Grand Rapids (the current second largest city and still in Metropotamia).
[1] Based on the congressional maps from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.state.oh.us%2FSOS%2FElectionsVoter%2FOEcongressDist.pdf&ei=jV8jSKKyG4ii8gTg_qCJDA&usg=AFQjCNETAbY51p6xRnaZNa437ilmZ7KZbw&sig2=zOzQ4NZK_koiho87bp1OjA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michigan.gov%2Fdocuments%2FCongress_state_16757_7.pdf&ei=_kojSJPbD6Ci8gSs47iMDA&usg=AFQjCNEDZDSy5AwzsIhNmace6Bbk4bRfxA&sig2=bH-FWLTpxI0dQ1X8U0fO7Q
It looks like Metropotamia would get the entirety of 9 Michigan Congressional District, and much of four others — only two would be entirely in Chersonesus.
Meanwhile, it looks like Metropotamia would pick up about 8 districts from Ohio and parts of 3 from Indiana.
Comment by JimJJewett — May 8, 2008 @
Most of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula would have been the state of Chersonesus, which is simply the Greek word for ‘peninsula’.
I need to chime in and add that the Byzantine empire did have a province called “Chersonesus” (normally written as Cherson), which made up part of the modern-day Crimean peninsula.
Byzantium was way out of fashion in Jefferson’s time, so I’m pretty sure this wasn’t what he was paying homage to, however.
Comment by Constantine — May 10, 2008 @