Why didn't the Louisiana Territory receive as much settlement as other parts of the US did?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,186
SoCal
#1
One thing that I find interesting about the US is that while the US's pre-1803 territories and the US's post-1803 territorial acquisitions both received a lot of settlement, the US's territorial acquisition in 1803 in the form of the Louisiana Purchase didn't receive that much settlement over the next 200 years. This can be seen in a map of the number of seats that each US state has in the US House of Representatives nowadays:





The US's pre-1803 territories contain such population heavyweights as New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois and the US's post-1803 territorial acquisitions contain such population heavyweights as Florida, Texas, and California, but among the US states whose territory was a part of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, none of them even have ten seats in the US House of Representatives nowadays.

Why exactly was the Louisiana Purchase territory much less populated (even nowadays) in comparison to both the US's pre-1803 territories and the US's post-1803 territorial acquisitions? Any thoughts on this?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,186
SoCal
#3
Try overlaying a map with a scale for annual rainfall, then draw your own conclusion, perhaps.
The precipitation figures for the eastern part of the Louisiana Purchase territory don't appear to be that bad, though--certainly no worse than eastern Texas or southern California:

 
Dec 2011
4,808
Iowa USA
#4
The precipitation figures for the eastern part of the Louisiana Purchase territory don't appear to be that bad, though--certainly no worse than eastern Texas or southern California:
And in fact if we go to the 1910 or 1920 census you will find that Iowa and Missouri were relatively more populous at the conclusion of Western settlement.

California had aerospace and year-round agriculture, Texas had petroleum (very big attraction for mechanically able men for decades) and of course, both TX and CA had sea ports.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,186
SoCal
#5
And in fact if we go to the 1910 or 1920 census you will find that Iowa and Missouri were relatively more populous at the conclusion of Western settlement.
Yep, Iowa had 11 Representatives in 1913 while Missouri had 16:

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia

California had aerospace and year-round agriculture, Texas had petroleum (very big attraction for mechanically able men for decades) and of course, both TX and CA had sea ports.
Washington state, Arizona, and especially Florida have been growing very well as well. :)
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,186
SoCal
#7
I believe Arizona's congressional delegation is certain to be smaller in 2040, maybe by more than we want to contemplate? You know I spent three summers in Phoenix and I have no idea why people went to that State!
Frankly, I really don't see Arizona's congressional delegation becoming smaller by 2040 due to the fact that it is likely to continue receiving a lot of migration from senior citizens and Latin Americans. Arizona's net domestic migration rate is currently very positive:



Arizona's net international migration rate doesn't appear to be too bad either:



The one thing that I could possibly see significantly changing the situation in regards to this is a severe water crisis. Of course, I don't think that such a crisis is actually likely to occur in the near future--at least not to such a severe extent.
 
May 2017
51
florida
#8
In the first 50 or 60 years after the Louisiana acquisition many of the western states were populated by hostiles and settlers were kept out by the U.S.Army ! Also in The western states land holdings were many times larger than those in Eastern states thus limiting the population . In the East a farm of twenty acres would support a family while in the west a ranch of a thousand acres might be considered small .
 
Likes: Futurist