WI: Individual County Chronologies

John H. Long, Editor; Peggy Tuck Sinko, Associate Editor; Gordon DenBoer, Historical Compiler; Douglas Knox, Book Digitizing Director; Emily Kelley, Research Associate; Laura Rico-Beck, GIS Specialist and Digital Compiler; Peter Siczewicz, ArcIMS Interactive Map Designer; Robert Will, Cartographic Assistant

ADAMS created by Wisconsin Territory from PORTAGE; ADAMS not fully organized, attached to SAUK "for all purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 168-169)

ADAMS became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

ADAMS gained from PORTAGE, lost to SAUK, and lost to creation of Non-County Area 10. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

ADAMS gained part of Non-County Area 10; Non-County Area 10 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1849, ch. 2, secs. 2, 24, 26/pp. 51, 56-57 and ch. 157, sec. 1/p. 747)

ADAMS gained from SAUK. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 29, sec. 1/p. 26)

ADAMS fully organized, detached from SAUK. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 30, secs. 1, 6/pp. 26-28)

ADAMS lost to creation of JUNEAU. (HRS Wis., Origin, 100; Wis. Laws 1855, gen., ch. 28, secs. 1-4/pp. 28-29; Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 130, secs. 1-3, 7/pp. 233-234)

ASHLAND created from LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD). (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 211, secs. 1-3, 7/pp. 184-185)

ASHLAND lost to BAYFIELD. (Wis. Laws 1866, gen., ch. 146, secs. 1-3/p. 189)

ASHLAND attached to BAYFIELD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1866, priv. and loc., ch. 481, secs. 1, 6/pp. 1191-1192)

ASHLAND lost to BAYFIELD. (Wis. Laws 1869, gen., ch. 116, secs. 1-2/pp. 114-115)

ASHLAND fully organized, detached from BAYFIELD. (Wis. Laws 1873, ch. 106, secs. 1-2/p. 210)

ASHLAND lost to creation of SAWYER; SAWYER not fully organized, attached to ASHLAND "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 47, secs. 1-3, 15/pp. 41, 45)

ASHLAND gained from LINCOLN. (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 74, secs. 1, 8/pp. 60, 62)

SAWYER fully organized, detached from ASHLAND. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 38, sec. 1/p. 31)

ASHLAND lost to creation of IRON. (Wis. Laws 1893, ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 11-12, 16)

ASHLAND boundaries clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1903, ch. 303/pp. 474-475)

DALLAS (now BARRON) created from POLK; DALLAS not fully organized, attached to POLK "for all purposes civil and judicial." (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 191, secs. 1-2, 4/pp. 214-215)

DALLAS (now BARRON) detached from POLK, attached to DUNN "for all purposes civil and judicial." (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 33, secs. 1-2/p. 34)

DALLAS (now BARRON) gained from CHIPPEWA. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 235, secs. 1, 6/pp. 212-213)

DALLAS (now BARRON) lost to POLK. (Wis. Laws 1862, gen., ch. 387, secs. 1-4/pp. 241-242; Wis. Laws 1863, gen., ch. 106, secs. 1-3/p. 136)

DALLAS (now BARRON) fully organized, detached from DUNN. (Wis. Laws 1868, gen., ch. 55, secs. 1, 3, 6/pp. 54-55)

DALLAS (now BARRON) re-attached to DUNN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1868, gen., ch. 69, secs. 1, 8/pp. 70-72)

DALLAS renamed BARRON. (Wis. Laws 1869, gen., ch. 75, secs. 1-2/p. 73)

BARRON lost to BURNETT. (Wis. Laws 1869, gen., ch. 162, secs. 1-2/p. 217)

BARRON gained from BURNETT. (Wis. Laws 1872, priv. and loc., ch. 18, secs. 1-2/p. 88)

BARRON fully organized, detached from DUNN. (Wis. Laws 1873, ch. 84, secs. 1-2/pp. 106-107)

BARRON lost to BURNETT. (Wis. Laws 1874, ch. 248, secs. 1-2/pp. 575-576)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) created by Wisconsin Territory from ST. CROIX; LA POINTE included territory in present Wisconsin and Minnesota. LA POINTE not fully organized, attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, pp. 52-53)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) lost territory when the state of Wisconsin was created from Wisconsin Territory; LA POINTE eliminated from present Minnesota. LA POINTE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) exchanged with CHIPPEWA, lost to ST. CROIX. An overlap (Overlap Area 3) was created between LA POINTE and ST. CROIX when both counties were assigned the same area. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) detached from CRAWFORD, attached to ST. CROIX "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 53, secs. 1, 3/p. 31)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) gained undisputed jurisdiction of Overlap Area 3 that was also claimed by ST. CROIX since 8 March 1849; Overlap Area 3 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1849, ch. 2, secs. 2, 24, 26/pp. 51, 56-57 and ch. 157, sec. 1/p. 747)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) fully organized, detached from ST. CROIX. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 156, secs. 1-2/p. 126)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) lost to creation of DOUGLAS; DOUGLAS not fully organized, attached to LA POINTE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 10, secs. 1-5/pp. 14-15)

DOUGLAS fully organized, detached from LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD). (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 10, sec. 5/p. 15)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) lost to creation of ASHLAND. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 211, secs. 1-3, 7/pp. 184-185)

LA POINTE gained from ASHLAND; LA POINTE renamed BAYFIELD. (Wis. Laws 1866, gen., ch. 146, secs. 1-3/p. 189)

ASHLAND attached to BAYFIELD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1866, priv. and loc., ch. 481, secs. 1, 6/pp. 1191-1192)

BAYFIELD gained from ASHLAND. (Wis. Laws 1869, gen., ch. 116, secs. 1-2/pp. 114-115)

ASHLAND fully organized, detached from BAYFIELD. (Wis. Laws 1873, ch. 106, secs. 1-2/p. 210)

BENTON (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa); BENTON not fully organized, attached to JACKSON (Iowa) "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 10-11/p. 135)

BENTON (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; BENTON (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

BOND (Ill.) created by Illinois Territory from MADISON (Ill.); included part of present Wisconsin. (Ill. Terr. Laws, 254-256)

BOND (Ill.) eliminated from present Wisconsin when the state of Illinois was created from Illinois Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:803; U.S. Stat., vol. 3, ch. 67 [1818], sec. 7/p. 431, and res. 1 [1818]/p. 536)

BROWN created by Michigan Territory from non-county area in present Michigan and Wisconsin. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:803-804)

BROWN exchanged with CRAWFORD, lost to creation of MILWAUKEE. MILWAUKEE not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Mich. Terr. Laws, 3:1325)

MILWAUKEE fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 4:136-137)

BROWN became a county in Wisconsin Territory when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory; BROWN exchanged with Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

BROWN lost to creation of CALUMET, DODGE, FOND DU LAC, MANITOWOC, MARQUETTE, PORTAGE, SHEBOYGAN, WASHINGTON, Non-County Area 3, and Non-County Area 4. CALUMET, FOND DU LAC, MANITOWOC, MARQUETTE, PORTAGE, and SHEBOYGAN not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 5-12, 14/pp. 93-94)

MANITOWOC and SHEBOYGAN organized "for all the purposes of county government;" MANITOWOC and SHEBOYGAN remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 5, secs. 1, 4, 5/pp. 9-10)

FOND DU LAC organized "for the purposes of county government;" FOND DU LAC remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 56, secs. 5-6/p. 129)

BROWN lost to creation of WINNEBAGO; WINNEBAGO not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 8-10/pp. 18-20; Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

CALUMET organized "for all purposes of county government;" CALUMET remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 1-7/pp. 18-20)

CALUMET's 2 March 1840 organization for county purposes was repealed; CALUMET re-attached to BROWN for all county and judicial purposes. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840, spec. sess., ch. 40, secs. 13-17/pp. 78-79)

BROWN gained from CRAWFORD and MARQUETTE, lost to PORTAGE. PORTAGE detached from BROWN, attached to DANE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 1-3, 12/pp. 73-75)

CALUMET's organization "for all purposes of county government" was reenacted; CALUMET remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." WINNEBAGO organized "for all purposes of county government;" WINNEBAGO remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

FOND DU LAC fully organized, detached from BROWN. CALUMET detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." MARQUETTE organized "for county purposes;" MARQUETTE detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 8-11)

WINNEBAGO detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." (Harney, 120-121; Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 10-11)

SHEBOYGAN fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 74-75)

MANITOWOC fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 47-48)

BROWN became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

BROWN lost to MARQUETTE. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 73, sec. 1/p. 44)

BROWN lost to WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 79, secs. 1-2/p. 49; Wis. Rev. Stat., 1849, ch. 2, secs. 3, 30/pp. 51, 57-58)

BROWN lost to MANITOWOC. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 166, secs. 1-2/p. 138)

BROWN lost to creation of OCONTO; OCONTO not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 44, sec. 1/pp. 31-32)

BROWN lost to creation of DOOR. (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 66, sec. 1/p. 50)

BROWN lost to creation of OUTAGAMIE and WAUPACA; OUTAGAMIE not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, chs. 78, 83/pp. 57, 60-61)

OUTAGAMIE organized "for the purposes of county government;" OUTAGAMIE remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 83, secs. 2, 6/pp. 60-61)

OUTAGAMIE fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 123, secs. 1-2, 5/pp. 210-211)

OCONTO fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 14, secs. 1, 7/pp. 21-22)

OCONTO re-attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1855, gen., ch. 11, sec. 2/p. 14)

DOOR detached from MANITOWOC, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1855, priv. and loc., ch. 397, secs. 1, 7/pp. 597-598)

OCONTO fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1857, priv. and loc., ch. 309, secs. 1, 4/pp. 805-806)

DOOR fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 236, sec. 1/p. 212)

BROWN gained small areas from OCONTO and SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1919, reg. sess., ch. 96, secs. 1, 6/pp. 104, 106; ch. 617, secs. 1-2/pp. 1085-1086; ch. 702/pp. 1343-1344)

BROWN boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1943, ch. 177/pp. 253-255)

BROWN gained small area from SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1965, ch. 267, sec. 1/pp. 494-495)

BROWN lost small area to SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1967, ch. 243, sec. 1/p. 648)

BUCHANAN (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa); BUCHANAN not fully organized, attached to DUBUQUE "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 5-6/p. 134)

BUCHANAN (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; BUCHANAN (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

BUFFALO created from JACKSON; BUFFALO not fully organized, attached to JACKSON "for judicial purposes." BUFFALO was implicitly attached to LA CROSSE, through JACKSON, until 1 September 1853. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1-3/pp. 98-99)

JACKSON fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE. BUFFALO remained attached to JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 5-6/pp. 7-8)

BUFFALO fully organized, detached from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1-3/pp. 98-99)

BUFFALO gained from CHIPPEWA. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 1, secs. 1-2/p. 7)

BUFFALO lost to creation of TREMPEALEAU. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 2, secs. 1-3, 6, 8/pp. 8-9)

BUFFALO gained from LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 35, secs. 1-3/pp. 43-44)

Boundary between BUFFALO and TREMPEALEAU was redefined [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1857, gen., ch. 16, secs. 1-2/pp. 21-22)

BUFFALO lost Island Number 72 to Minnesota when Wisconsin and Minnesota exchanged islands in the Mississippi River [not mapped]. (Wis. Laws 1917, reg. sess., ch. 64, secs. 1-4/pp. 171-172; Wis. Laws 1937, reg. sess., ch. 186, secs. 1-2/p. 311; Van Zandt, 131)

BURNETT created from DOUGLAS and POLK; BURNETT not fully organized, attached to POLK "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 94, sec. 1/pp. 98-99)

BURNETT gained all of Non-County Area 12; Non-County Area 12 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1858, ch. 2, secs. 6, 35, 46/pp. 61, 68, 71)

BURNETT gained from CHIPPEWA, exchanged with DOUGLAS. (Wis. Laws 1864, gen., ch. 462, secs. 1-3/p. 519; ch. 466, secs. 1-3/p. 521 and ch. 479, secs. 1-3/p. 534)

BURNETT fully organized, detached from POLK. (Wis. Laws 1864, gen., ch. 74, secs. 1, 3, 6/pp. 84-85)

BURNETT gained from POLK. (Wis. Laws 1866, priv. and loc., ch. 466, secs. 1-2/p. 1103)

BURNETT re-attached to POLK "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1866, priv. and loc., ch. 480, sec. 1/p. 1189; Wis. Laws 1867, gen., ch. 104, sec. 1/p. 96; Wis. Laws 1868, gen., ch. 40, sec. 1/p. 41; Wis. Laws 1869, gen., ch. 173, secs. 1-2/pp. 228-229)

BURNETT gained from BARRON. (Wis. Laws 1869, gen., ch. 162, secs. 1-2/p. 217)

BURNETT fully organized, detached from POLK. (History of Northern Wisconsin, 171; Wis. Laws 1871, gen., ch. 83, secs. 1, 6/pp. 114-116)

BURNETT lost to BARRON. (Wis. Laws 1872, priv. and loc., ch. 18, secs. 1-2/p. 88)

BURNETT gained from BARRON. (Wis. Laws 1874, ch. 248, secs. 1-2/pp. 575-576)

BURNETT lost to creation of WASHBURN. (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 172, secs. 1-2, 11/pp. 138-141)

CALUMET created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN; CALUMET not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 10, 14/p. 94)

CALUMET lost to FOND DU LAC and lost to creation of WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 8-10/pp. 18-20; Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

CALUMET organized "for all purposes of county government;" remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 1-7/pp. 18-20)

CALUMET's organization "for all purposes of county government" was reenacted; CALUMET remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

CALUMET lost to FOND DU LAC. CALUMET detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 8-11)

CALUMET lost to FOND DU LAC. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 79-80)

CALUMET became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

CALUMET fully organized, detached from FOND DU LAC. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 84, secs. 1-2, 11/pp. 52-53; Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 278, sec. 1/p. 423)

Legislature authorized OUTAGAMIE to gain part of township 20 north, range 18 east from CALUMET, dependent upon local referendum that failed [no change]. (Appleton Crescent, 17 Apr. 1858; Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 28, secs. 1-8/pp. 30-31)

CEDAR (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa). JOHNSON (Iowa) and KEOKUK (Iowa) attached to CEDAR "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, sec. 13/p. 135)

CEDAR (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; CEDAR (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

CHIPPEWA (Mich.) created by Michigan Territory from MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.); included parts of present Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 2:295-296)

CHIPPEWA (Mich.) eliminated from present Wisconsin when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

CHIPPEWA created by Wisconsin Territory from CRAWFORD; CHIPPEWA not fully organized, attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, p. 35)

CHIPPEWA organized "for all purposes of county government;" CHIPPEWA remained attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, p. 35)

CHIPPEWA gained from CRAWFORD. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, p. 38)

CHIPPEWA became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

CHIPPEWA exchanged with LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) and ST. CROIX. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

CHIPPEWA detached from CRAWFORD, attached to LA CROSSE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 131, sec. 6/p. 106)

CHIPPEWA fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 49, secs. 1, 3, 7/pp. 48-49)

CHIPPEWA lost to BUFFALO. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 1, secs. 1-2/p. 7)

CHIPPEWA lost to creation of TREMPEALEAU. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 2, secs. 1-3, 6, 8/pp. 8-9)

CHIPPEWA lost to creation of DUNN; DUNN not fully organized, attached to CHIPPEWA "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 7, secs. 1-2/pp. 12-13)

CHIPPEWA lost to CLARK and JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1, 4, 6/pp. 143-144)

DUNN fully organized, detached from CHIPPEWA. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 91, secs. 1-2, 7/pp. 95-96)

CHIPPEWA lost to creation of EAU CLAIRE. (History of Northern Wisconsin, 295-296; Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 114, secs. 1-3, 6/pp. 134-135)

CHIPPEWA lost to DALLAS (now BARRON). (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 235, secs. 1, 6/pp. 212-213)

CHIPPEWA lost to BURNETT. (Wis. Laws 1864, gen., ch. 462, secs. 1-3/p. 519; ch. 466, secs. 1-3/p. 521; and ch. 479, secs. 1-3/p. 534)

CHIPPEWA lost to creation of TAYLOR. (Wis. Laws 1875, ch. 178, secs. 1-3, 11/pp. 297-300)

CHIPPEWA lost to creation of PRICE. (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 103, secs. 1-3, 19/pp. 99-105)

CHIPPEWA lost to creation of SAWYER. (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 47, secs. 1-3, 15/pp. 41, 45)

CHIPPEWA lost to creation of GATES (now RUSK). (Wis. Laws 1901, ch. 469, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 696-697, 701)

CHIPPEWA boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1911, ch. 538/pp. 652-654)

CLARK created from JACKSON; CLARK not fully organized, attached to JACKSON "for judicial purposes." CLARK was implicitly attached to LA CROSSE, through JACKSON, until 1 September 1853. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1-3/pp. 98-99)

JACKSON fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE. CLARK remained attached to JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 5-6/pp. 7-8)

CLARK fully organized, detached from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1-3/pp. 98-99)

CLARK gained from CHIPPEWA and JACKSON; CLARK re-attached to JACKSON "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1, 4, 6/pp. 143-144)

CLARK fully organized, detached from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 96, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 101-102)

CLARK lost to creation of TAYLOR. (Wis. Laws 1875, ch. 178, secs. 1-3, 11/pp. 297-300)

CLAYTON (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa). FAYETTE (Iowa) attached to CLAYTON "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, sec. 1/p. 133)

CLAYTON (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; CLAYTON (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

CLINTON (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa); CLINTON not fully organized, attached to SCOTT (Iowa) "until otherwise directed by law." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 12, 21/pp. 135, 137)

CLINTON (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; CLINTON (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

COLUMBIA created by Wisconsin Territory from PORTAGE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 76-77)

COLUMBIA became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

COLUMBIA gained from PORTAGE. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

COOK (Iowa, extinct) created by Wisconsin Territory from DES MOINES (Iowa); COOK not fully organized, attached to MUSCATINE (Iowa) "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, secs. 7, 9/pp. 77-78)

COOK (Iowa, extinct) lost to creation of JOHNSON (Iowa) and SCOTT (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 14, 16-19/pp. 135-137)

COOK (Iowa, extinct) lost all territory to MUSCATINE (Iowa); COOK eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

CRAWFORD (Ill.) created by Illinois Territory from EDWARDS (Ill.); included part of present Wisconsin. (Ill. Terr. Laws, 247-249)

CRAWFORD (Ill.) eliminated from present Wisconsin when the state of Illinois was created from Illinois Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:803; U.S. Stat., vol. 3, ch. 67 [1818], sec. 7/p. 431, and res. 1 [1818]/p. 536)

CRAWFORD created by Michigan Territory from non-county area in present Minnesota and Wisconsin. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:803-804)

CRAWFORD lost to creation of IOWA. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 2:714-715)

CRAWFORD exchanged with BROWN. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 3:1325)

CRAWFORD became a county in Wisconsin Territory when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory; CRAWFORD lost small area to Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

CRAWFORD lost to creation of DANE and PORTAGE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 4, 5, 14/pp. 93-94)

CRAWFORD lost to PORTAGE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 39, sec. 1/pp. 217-218)

Non-County Area 1 in northern Wisconsin Territory was attached to CRAWFORD "for all judicial purposes." (Kellogg, "Organization," 187; Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 104, sec. 1/p. 517)

CRAWFORD lost to creation of SAUK. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 23, secs. 1-3/p. 32)

CRAWFORD lost to creation of ST. CROIX and lost part of attached Non-County Area 1 to creation of ST. CROIX. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 20, sec. 1/pp. 25-26)

CRAWFORD lost to BROWN and PORTAGE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 1-3, 12/pp. 73-75)

CRAWFORD lost to creation of RICHLAND. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 42)

ST. CROIX attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1842-1843, pp. 56-57)

CRAWFORD lost to creation of CHIPPEWA; CHIPPEWA not fully organized, attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, p. 35)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, pp. 52-53)

CHIPPEWA organized "for all purposes of county government;" CHIPPEWA remained attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, p. 35)

CRAWFORD lost to CHIPPEWA. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, p. 38)

CRAWFORD became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

ST. CROIX fully organized, detached from CRAWFORD; LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) detached from CRAWFORD, attached to ST. CROIX "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 53, secs. 1, 3/p. 31)

CRAWFORD lost to creation of BAD AX (now VERNON) and LA CROSSE; CHIPPEWA detached from CRAWFORD, attached to LA CROSSE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 131, secs. 2, 6/pp. 105-106 and ch. 132, secs. 1-2/pp. 107-108)

DANE created by Wisconsin Territory from CRAWFORD, IOWA, and MILWAUKEE; DANE not fully organized, attached to IOWA "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 4, 14/pp. 93-94)

DANE fully organized, detached from IOWA. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 56, secs. 1-2, 9/pp. 128-130)

DANE lost to creation of SAUK; SAUK not fully organized, attached to DANE "for all county and judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 23, secs. 1-3/p. 32)

PORTAGE detached from BROWN, attached to DANE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 1-3, 12/pp. 73-75)

PORTAGE organized "for all purposes of county government;" PORTAGE remained attached to DANE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 2-3/p. 74)

SAUK fully organized, detached from DANE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 26-27)

PORTAGE fully organized, detached from DANE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, p. 4)

DANE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

DELAWARE (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa); DELAWARE not fully organized, attached to DUBUQUE "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 4, 6/pp. 135, 137)

DELAWARE (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; DELAWARE (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

DELTA (Mich.) implicitly overlapped DOOR when Michigan took its 1909 boundary dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope by claiming more of the waters and islands of Green Bay. Wisconsin claimed the old, established line and never lost control of the disputed area. DELTA (Mich.) claimed Washington, Rock, Chambers, Plum, and smaller islands in Green Bay. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

DELTA (Mich.) claimed overlap of Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the boundary dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

DELTA (Mich.) appeared to lose islands north of the Rock Island Passage to DOOR when the U.S. Supreme Court decreed the precise course of the Michigan-Wisconsin boundary through Lake Michigan and Green Bay and introduced some unintentional errors. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 143-145, 158; Paullin, 86, pl. 101)

DELTA (Mich.) regained full control of the area overlapped with DOOR; dispute with Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decreed the precise course of the revised Michigan-Wisconsin boundary through Green Bay and Lake Michigan, restoring to DELTA (Mich.) the area it appeared to lose in 1926. (Martin, "Second Wisconsin-Michigan," 86, 118-121)

DES MOINES (Iowa) became a county in Wisconsin Territory when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory. DES MOINES was created by Michigan Territory on 1 October 1834. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

DES MOINES (Iowa) lost to creation of COOK (Iowa, extinct), HENRY (Iowa), LEE (Iowa), LOUISA (Iowa), MUSCATINE (Iowa), VAN BUREN (Iowa), and Non-County Area 5. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, secs. 7, 9/pp. 77-78)

DES MOINES (Iowa) gained from LOUISA (Iowa), exchanged with HENRY (Iowa) and LEE (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

DES MOINES (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; DES MOINES (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

DODGE created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN and MILWAUKEE; DODGE overlapped the eastern part of PORTAGE (Overlap Area 1), creating a dispute that was not settled until 12 January 1838. DODGE not fully organized, attached to MILWAUKEE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 6, 14/pp. 93-94)

DODGE gained undisputed jurisdiction of the area overlapped with PORTAGE since 7 December 1836; Overlap Area 1 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 39, sec. 1/pp. 217-218)

DODGE organized "for all purposes of county government;" DODGE detached from MILWAUKEE, attached to JEFFERSON "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 42, secs. 1, 5-6/pp. 50-51)

DODGE fully organized, detached from JEFFERSON. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 11-13)

Legislature authorized creation of a new, unnamed county from DODGE and JEFFERSON, dependent on local referendum that failed; county was never created. (HRS Wis., Origin, 99; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 48-49)

DODGE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

Legislature authorized JEFFERSON to gain ranges 13-17 in township 9 north from DODGE, dependent upon a local referendum. Referendum was never held [no change]. (Abram Smith, 17-27; History of Dodge, 360; Swart, 22; Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 27, secs. 1-2/pp. 30-31; Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 90, secs. 1-2/p. 104)

DOOR created from BROWN; DOOR not fully organized, attached to MANITOWOC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 66, sec. 1/p. 50)

DOOR lost to creation of KEWAUNEE. (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 363, secs. 1-2/pp. 549-551)

DOOR detached from MANITOWOC, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1855, priv. and loc., ch. 397, secs. 1, 7/pp. 597-598)

DOOR fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 236, sec. 1/p. 212)

Michigan's implicit overlap of DOOR ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the boundary dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

DOOR appeared to gain islands north of the Rock Island Passage from DELTA (Mich.) [Overlap Area 6] when the U.S. Supreme Court decreed the precise course of the Michigan-Wisconsin boundary through Lake Michigan and Green Bay and introduced some unintentional errors. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 143-145, 158; Paullin, 86, pl. 101)

DOOR lost control of the area overlapped with DELTA (Mich.) [Overlap Area 6]; dispute with Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decreed the precise course of the revised Michigan-Wisconsin boundary through Green Bay and Lake Michigan, restoring to DELTA (Mich.) the area it appeared to lose in 1926. (Martin, "Second Wisconsin-Michigan," 86, 118-121)

DOUGLAS created from LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD); DOUGLAS not fully organized, attached to LA POINTE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 10, secs. 1-5/pp. 14-15)

DOUGLAS fully organized, detached from LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD). (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 10, sec. 5/p. 15)

DOUGLAS lost to creation of BURNETT and to creation of Non-County Area 12. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 94, sec. 1/pp. 98-99)

DOUGLAS exchanged with BURNETT. (Wis. Laws 1864, gen., ch. 462, secs. 1-3/p. 519; ch. 466, secs. 1-3/p. 521; and ch. 479, secs. 1-3/p. 534)

DUBUQUE (Iowa) became a county in Wisconsin Territory when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory. DUBUQUE was created by Michigan Territory on 1 October 1834. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

DUBUQUE (Iowa) lost to creation of BENTON (Iowa), BUCHANAN (Iowa), CEDAR (Iowa), CLAYTON (Iowa), CLINTON (Iowa), DELAWARE (Iowa), FAYETTE (Iowa), JACKSON (Iowa), JOHNSON (Iowa), JONES (Iowa), KEOKUK (Iowa), LINN (Iowa), SCOTT (Iowa), and Non-County Area 6. BUCHANAN and DELAWARE not fully organized, attached to DUBUQUE "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, pp. 133-137)

DUBUQUE (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; DUBUQUE (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

DUNN created from CHIPPEWA; DUNN not fully organized, attached to CHIPPEWA "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 7, secs. 1-2/pp. 12-13)

DUNN fully organized, detached from CHIPPEWA. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 91, secs. 1-2, 7/pp. 95-96)

DUNN lost to creation of PEPIN. (Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 15, secs. 1-2, 6/p. 14)

DALLAS (now BARRON) detached from POLK, attached to DUNN "for all purposes civil and judicial." (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 33, secs. 1-2/p. 34)

Legislature authorized PEPIN to gain township 26 north, ranges 11 and 12 west from DUNN, dependent on local referendum that failed [no change]. (HRS Wis., Pepin, 5; Wis. Laws 1868, gen., ch. 133, secs. 1-2, 4/pp. 147-148)

DALLAS (now BARRON) fully organized, detached from DUNN. (Wis. Laws 1868, gen., ch. 55, secs. 1, 3, 6/pp. 54-55)

DALLAS (now BARRON) re-attached to DUNN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1868, gen., ch. 69, secs. 1, 8/pp. 70-72)

BARRON fully organized, detached from DUNN. (Wis. Laws 1873, ch. 84, secs. 1-2/pp. 106-107)

EAU CLAIRE created from CHIPPEWA. (History of Northern Wisconsin, 295-296; Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 114, secs. 1-3, 6/pp. 134-135)

EDWARDS (Ill.) created by Illinois Territory from GALLATIN (Ill.) and MADISON (Ill.); included part of present Wisconsin. (Ill. Terr. Laws, 128-130)

EDWARDS (Ill.) exchanged with the state of Indiana; area within present Wisconsin was unchanged. (U.S. Stat., vol. 3, ch. 57 [1816], secs. 1-2/pp. 289-291, and res. 1 [1816], p. 399; Van Zandt, 115)

EDWARDS (Ill.) lost to creation of CRAWFORD (Ill.); EDWARDS (Ill.) eliminated from present Wisconsin. (Ill. Terr. Laws, 247-249)

FAYETTE (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa); FAYETTE included territory in present Iowa, Minnesota, and North and South Dakota. FAYETTE not fully organized, attached to CLAYTON (Iowa) "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, sec. 2/p. 133)

FAYETTE (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; FAYETTE (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

FLORENCE created from MARINETTE; creation included the part of OCONTO that was transferred to MARINETTE on this same day. (Wis. Laws 1882, ch. 165, secs. 1-3, 13/pp. 488-489, 491)

FOND DU LAC created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN; FOND DU LAC overlapped the eastern part of MARQUETTE (Overlap Area 2), creating a dispute that was not settled until 6 March 1848. FOND DU LAC not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 9,14/pp. 93-94)

FOND DU LAC organized "for the purposes of county government;" FOND DU LAC remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 56, secs. 5-6/p. 129)

FOND DU LAC gained from CALUMET, lost to creation of WINNEBAGO (including the northern part of Overlap Area 2 jointly claimed by FOND DU LAC and MARQUETTE). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 8-10/pp. 18-20; Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

FOND DU LAC gained from CALUMET, WINNEBAGO, and gained all of Non-County Area 3. FOND DU LAC fully organized, detached from BROWN. CALUMET and MARQUETTE detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 8-11)

WINNEBAGO detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." (Harney, 120-121; Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 10-11)

WINNEBAGO fully organized, detached from FOND DU LAC. (Harney, 121; Wis. Terr. Laws 1847, reg. sess., p. 96)

FOND DU LAC gained from CALUMET and gained all of Non-County Area 4, lost to WINNEBAGO. FOND DU LAC also gained undisputed jurisdiction of the overlap area between FOND DU LAC and MARQUETTE (Overlap Area 2), ending dispute dating from 7 December 1836. Non-County Area 4 and Overlap Area 2 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 79-80)

FOND DU LAC became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

MARQUETTE fully organized, detached from FOND DU LAC. (Wis. Laws 1848, p. 43)

CALUMET fully organized, detached from FOND DU LAC. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 84, secs. 1-2, 11/pp. 52-53; Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 278, sec. 1/p. 423)

Legislature authorized GREEN LAKE to gain township 16 north, range 14 east [city of Ripon] from FOND DU LAC, dependent on local referendum that failed [no change]. (McKenna, I, 391; Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 69, secs. 1-5/pp. 75-76)

FOREST created from LANGLADE. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 436, secs. 1-3, 15/pp. 426-427, 430)

FOREST gained from OCONTO. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 436, secs. 14-15/p. 430)

FOREST gained from ONEIDA. (Wis. Laws 1893, ch. 275, secs. 1, 4/pp. 368-369)

FOREST lost to ONEIDA and VILAS. (Wis. Laws 1897, reg. sess., ch. 278, secs. 1-2, 13/pp. 547, 550)

FOREST lost to VILAS. (Wis. Laws 1905, reg. sess., ch. 202, secs. 1, 8/pp. 291-292)

FOREST boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1913, ch. 65/pp. 71-73)

IRON (Mich.) implicitly overlapped FOREST when Michigan took its 1909 boundary dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope by claiming more territory on the Upper Peninsula and more of the waters and islands of Green Bay. Wisconsin claimed the old, established line and never lost control of the disputed area. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

Michigan's implicit overlap of FOREST ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the boundary dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

GOGEBIC (Mich.) implicitly overlapped Wisconsin when the new Michigan constitution redefined part of the interstate boundary with Wisconsin across the Upper Peninsula; Wisconsin kept control of the disputed area. (Swindler, 5:249)

GOGEBIC (Mich.) implicitly overlapped Wisconsin (IRON and VILAS Counties) when Michigan took its 1909 dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope by claiming more territory on the Upper Peninsula and more of the waters and islands of Green Bay. Wisconsin claimed the old, established line and never lost control of the disputed area. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

GOGEBIC (Mich.) claimed overlap of Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the boundary dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

GRANT created by Wisconsin Territory from IOWA. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 31, secs. 1-2, 4-6, 9/pp. 97-99)

GRANT became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

GREEN created by Wisconsin Territory from IOWA and Non-County Area 2. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 31, secs. 1-2, 4-6, 9/pp. 97-99)

GREEN became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

GREEN LAKE created from MARQUETTE. (HRS Wis., Origin, 127; Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 17, secs. 1-2, 16/pp. 15-17, 20 and ch. 85, secs. 1-3, 10, 17/pp. 88-90, 94)

GREEN LAKE gained from MARQUETTE. The boundary was demarcated later in 1860 and although it deviates in two small places from the legal description, the demarcated line is the modern boundary. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 143, secs. 1-2/pp. 126-127)

Legislature authorized GREEN LAKE and MARQUETTE to exchange small areas, dependent on local referendum that failed [no change]. (HRS Wis., Origin, 127; Wis. Laws 1862, gen., ch. 23, secs. 1-2, 4-5/pp. 18-20)

Legislature authorized GREEN LAKE to gain parts of townships 14 and 15 in range 10 east from MARQUETTE, dependent on local referendum that failed [no change]. (Kellogg, "Organization," 196; Wis. Laws 1865, gen., ch. 191, secs. 1, 3-4/pp. 172-173)

HENRY (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DES MOINES (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, sec. 4/pp. 76-78)

HENRY (Iowa) gained from LOUISA (Iowa), exchanged with DES MOINES (Iowa), lost to creation of SLAUGHTER (now WASHINGTON, Iowa) and Non-County Area 8, and lost to LEE (Iowa) and VAN BUREN (Iowa). Non-County Area 8 attached to HENRY "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

HENRY (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; HENRY (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

ILLINOIS County (Va., extinct) created by Virginia to encompass all territory north and west of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River claimed by Virginia on the basis of its 1609 charter; ILLINOIS County including all of present Wisconsin. (Hening, 9:552-555, 10:303-304; Robinson, 55)

Virginia ceded to the United States its charter claims to territory "northwestward of the river Ohio;" ILLINOIS County (Va.) eliminated. (Cappon, Petchenik, and Long, 62, 130-131; Hening, 11:571-575)

The United States created Illinois Territory from Indiana Territory; included all of present Illinois (except 2 small areas along the Wabash River), most of present Wisconsin, parts of present Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and a small area of present Indiana along the Wabash River. Map depicts non-county area in Illinois Territory located in present Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 13 [1809], sec. 1/pp. 514-515)

ST. CLAIR (Ill.) gained non-county area along the west side of Lake Michigan (remnant of Indiana Territory now in Illinois Territory); eliminated non-county area in Illinois Territory located in present Wisconsin. (Ill. Terr. Recs., 3-4; Terr. Papers U.S., 17:620-621)

The United States created Indiana Territory from the Northwest Territory. Map depicts non-county area of Indiana Territory in present Wisconsin. (Terr. Papers U.S., 3:86-88; U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 41 [1800]/pp. 58-59)

Indiana Territory lost all non-county area in present Wisconsin to ST. CLAIR (Ill.). (Ind. Terr., Exec. Journal, 98-100)

Indiana Territory lost to creation of Michigan Territory; the eastern part of present Wisconsin that had been part of WAYNE (Indiana Territory, extinct) became non-county area in Indiana Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:5-7; U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 5 [1805]/pp. 309-310)

Indiana Territory lost to creation of Illinois Territory. A small remnant of Indiana Territory remained in the eastern portion of present Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 13 [1809], sec. 1/pp. 514-515)

The United States created the state of Indiana from Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan Territories; that part of Indiana Territory in present Wisconsin became unorganized federal territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 3, ch. 57 [1816], secs. 1-2/pp. 289-291, and res. 1 [1816], p. 399; Van Zandt, 115)

IOWA created by Michigan Territory from CRAWFORD. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 2:714-715)

IOWA lost to creation of MILWAUKEE. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 3:1325)

IOWA became a county in Wisconsin Territory when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

IOWA lost to creation of DANE and PORTAGE; DANE not fully organized, attached to IOWA "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 4, 5, 14/pp. 93-94)

IOWA lost to creation of GRANT and GREEN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 31, secs. 1-2, 4-6, 9/pp. 97-99)

DANE fully organized, detached from IOWA. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 56, secs. 1-2, 9/pp. 128-130)

RICHLAND not fully organized, attached to IOWA "for all county and judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 42)

Legislature authorized creation of LAFAYETTE and MONTGOMERY (proposed) from IOWA, dependent upon local referendums and legislative implementation. LAFAYETTE was created 1 May 1847; MONTGOMERY referendum passed, but legislative implementation did not, and the creation of MONTGOMERY did not take place. (Kellogg, "Organization," 189; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 41-43)

IOWA lost to creation of LAFAYETTE. (Kellogg, "Organization," 201-202; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 41-43; Wis. Terr. Laws 1847, reg. sess., pp. 57-63)

IOWA became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

RICHLAND fully organized, detached from IOWA. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 92, secs. 1-3/p. 60)

IRON created from ASHLAND. (Wis. Laws 1893, ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 11-12, 16)

IRON gained from ONEIDA. (Wis. Laws 1893, ch. 150, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 175-177, 181)

IRON boundaries clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1903, ch. 303/p. 475)

Michigan implicitly overlapped IRON when Michigan's new state constitution redefined the interstate boundary with Wisconsin across the Upper Peninsula; IRON kept control of the disputed area. (Swindler, 5:249)

Michigan implicitly overlapped IRON when Michigan took its 1909 boundary dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope by claiming more territory on the Upper Peninsula and more of the waters and islands of Green Bay. Wisconsin claimed the old, established line and never lost control of the disputed area. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

Michigan's implicit overlap of IRON ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the boundary dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

IRON (Mich.) implicitly overlapped Wisconsin (FOREST and VILAS Counties) when Michigan took its 1909 boundary dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope by claiming more territory on the Upper Peninsula and more of the waters and islands of Green Bay. Wisconsin claimed the old, established line and never lost control of the disputed area. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

IRON (Mich.) claimed overlap of Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the boundary dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

JACKSON (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa). BENTON (Iowa), JONES (Iowa), and LINN (Iowa) attached to JACKSON "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, sec. 7/p. 134)

JACKSON (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; JACKSON (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

JACKSON created from LA CROSSE; JACKSON not fully organized, attached to LA CROSSE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 7-9)

JACKSON lost to creation of BUFFALO and CLARK; BUFFALO and CLARK not fully organized, both attached to JACKSON "for judicial purposes." BUFFALO and CLARK were implicitly attached to LA CROSSE, through JACKSON, until 1 September 1853. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1-3/pp. 98-99)

JACKSON fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE. BUFFALO and CLARK remained attached to JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 5-6/pp. 7-8)

BUFFALO and CLARK fully organized, detached from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1-3/pp. 98-99)

JACKSON lost to creation of TREMPEALEAU. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 2, secs. 1-3, 6, 8/pp. 8-9)

JACKSON gained from CHIPPEWA, lost to CLARK; CLARK re-attached to JACKSON "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1, 4, 6/pp. 143-144)

JACKSON lost to LA CROSSE and MONROE. (Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 145, secs. 1-3/p. 269)

CLARK fully organized, detached from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 96, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 101-102)

JACKSON lost to LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1857, gen., ch. 17, secs. 1-2/p. 22)

JACKSON gained from LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1857, gen., ch. 42, secs. 1-2/pp. 43-44)

JACKSON lost to WOOD. (Wis. Laws 1870, priv. and loc., ch. 40, secs. 1, 3/p. 94)

JACKSON gained from WOOD. (Wis. Laws 1870, priv. and loc., ch. 41, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 94-96)

JACKSON lost to WOOD. (Wis. Laws 1872, priv. and loc., ch. 33, secs. 1, 5/pp. 124-125)

JACKSON lost to MONROE. (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 194, secs. 1, 3/p. 152)

JACKSON exchanged small areas with MONROE along the Black River. (Wis. Laws 1999, ch. 25/pp. 807-808)

JEFFERSON created by Wisconsin Territory from MILWAUKEE; JEFFERSON not fully organized, attached to MILWAUKEE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 3, 14/pp. 93-94)

JEFFERSON fully organized, detached from MILWAUKEE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 35, sec. 1/p. 63)

DODGE detached from MILWAUKEE, attached to JEFFERSON "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 42, secs. 1, 5-6/pp. 50-51)

DODGE fully organized, detached from JEFFERSON. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 11-13)

Legislature authorized creation of a new, unnamed county from JEFFERSON and DODGE, dependent on local referendum that failed; county was never created. (HRS Wis., Origin, 99; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 48-49)

JEFFERSON became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

JOHNSON (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from COOK (Iowa, extinct), DUBUQUE (Iowa), MUSCATINE (Iowa), and Non-County Area 5; JOHNSON not fully organized, attached to CEDAR (Iowa) "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 14, 16/p. 135-136)

JOHNSON (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; JOHNSON (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

JONES (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa); JONES not fully organized, attached to JACKSON (Iowa) "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 8, 11/p. 134-135)

JONES (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; JONES (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

JUNEAU created from ADAMS. (HRS Wis., Origin, 100; Wis. Laws 1855, gen., ch. 28, secs. 1-4/pp. 28-29; Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 130, secs. 1-3, 7/pp. 233-234)

KENOSHA created from RACINE. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 39, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 25-27)

KEOKUK (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa) and Non-County Area 5; KEOKUK not fully organized, attached to CEDAR (Iowa) "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 15-16/p. 136)

KEOKUK (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; KEOKUK (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

KEWAUNEE created from DOOR; KEWAUNEE not fully organized, attached to MANITOWOC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 363, secs. 1-2/pp. 549-551)

KEWAUNEE fully organized, detached from MANITOWOC. (Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 74, secs. 1-2, 7/pp. 76-77)

KNOX (Ind.) created by the Northwest Territory from non-county area; included parts of present Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. (Terr. Papers U.S., 3:313)

KNOX (Ind.) eliminated from present Wisconsin when WAYNE (Northwest Territory, extinct) was created by the Northwest Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 2:567-568, 3:447)

LA CROSSE created from CRAWFORD. CHIPPEWA detached from CRAWFORD, attached to LA CROSSE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 131, secs. 2, 6/pp. 105-106 and ch. 132, secs. 1-2/pp. 107-108)

LA CROSSE lost to creation of JACKSON; JACKSON not fully organized, attached to LA CROSSE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 7-9)

BUFFALO and CLARK created from JACKSON and implicitly attached to LA CROSSE, through JACKSON, until 1 September 1853. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 100, secs. 1-3/pp. 98-99)

JACKSON fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE; implicit attachment of BUFFALO and CLARK to LA CROSSE ended. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2, 5-6/pp. 7-8)

CHIPPEWA fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 49, secs. 1, 3, 7/pp. 48-49)

LA CROSSE lost to creation of TREMPEALEAU; LA CROSSE was divided into two parts by this creation. TREMPEALEAU not fully organized, attached to LA CROSSE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 2, secs. 1-3, 6, 8/pp. 8-9)

LA CROSSE lost to creation of MONROE and lost to BUFFALO; LA CROSSE no longer divided into two parts. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 35, secs. 1-3/pp. 43-44)

TREMPEALEAU fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 2, sec. 6/p. 9)

LA CROSSE gained from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 145, secs. 1-3/p. 269)

LA CROSSE gained from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1857, gen., ch. 17, secs. 1-2/p. 22)

LA CROSSE gained from TREMPEALEAU, lost to JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1857, gen., ch. 42, secs. 1-2/pp. 43-44)

LA CROSSE gained Baron's Island from Minnesota when Wisconsin and Minnesota exchanged islands in the Mississippi River [not mapped]. (Wis. Laws 1917, reg. sess., ch. 64, secs. 1-4/pp. 171-172; Wis. Laws 1937, reg. sess., ch. 186, secs. 1-2/p. 311; Van Zandt, 131)

Legislature authorized creation of LAFAYETTE from IOWA, dependent upon a local referendum (that passed) and legislative implementation [see 1 May 1847]. (Kellogg, "Organization," 189; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 41-43)

LAFAYETTE created by Wisconsin Territory from IOWA. (Kellogg, "Organization," 201-202; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 41-43; Wis. Terr. Laws 1847, reg. sess., pp. 57-63)

LAFAYETTE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

NEW (now LANGLADE) created from OCONTO; mistake in description corrected 15 March 1880. NEW not fully organized, attached to SHAWANO "for all county and judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 114, secs. 2-3, 12-13, 17/pp. 113-118)

NEW renamed LANGLADE. (Wis. Laws 1880, ch. 19, secs. 1-2/p. 23)

LANGLADE boundaries clarified to correct mistake of 3 March 1879 [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1880, ch. 247/p. 285)

LANGLADE exchanged with SHAWANO; LANGLADE fully organized, detached from SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1881, ch. 7, secs. 1-3, 8, 13/pp. 11, 13-14)

Legislature authorized LANGLADE to gain from SHAWANO, dependent on local referendum that was never held [no change]. (HRS Wis., Shawano, 4-5; Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 303, secs. 1, 6-7/pp. 251-252)

LANGLADE gained from SHAWANO (enacted change authorized on 17 April 1883 that never took effect). (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 137, sec. 1/pp. 113-114)

LANGLADE gained from LINCOLN, lost to creation of FOREST. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 436, secs. 1-3, 15/pp. 426-427, 430)

LANGLADE boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1913, ch. 773/pp. 1321-1322)

LEE (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DES MOINES (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, sec. 1/pp. 76-78)

LEE (Iowa) gained from HENRY (Iowa), exchanged with DES MOINES (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

LEE (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; LEE (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

LINCOLN created from MARATHON; LINCOLN not fully organized, attached to MARATHON "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1874, ch. 128, secs. 1-2, 5/pp. 256-258)

LINCOLN lost to creation of TAYLOR. (Wis. Laws 1875, ch. 178, secs. 1-3, 11/pp. 297-300)

LINCOLN fully organized, detached from MARATHON. (Wis. Laws 1875, ch. 60, secs. 1, 5/pp. 138-139)

LINCOLN lost to creation of PRICE. (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 103, secs. 1-3, 19/pp. 99-105)

LINCOLN lost to ASHLAND. (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 74, secs. 1, 8/pp. 60, 62)

LINCOLN lost to LANGLADE. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 436, secs. 1-3, 15/pp. 426-427, 430)

LINCOLN lost to creation of ONEIDA. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 411, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 394-395, 399)

LINN (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa); LINN not fully organized, attached to JACKSON (Iowa) "for temporary purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 9, 11/pp. 134-135)

LINN (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; LINN (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

LOUISA (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DES MOINES (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, sec. 5/pp. 77-78)

LOUISA (Iowa) gained from MUSCATINE (Iowa), lost to DES MOINES (Iowa), HENRY (Iowa), and to the creation of SLAUGHTER (now WASHINGTON, Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

LOUISA (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; LOUISA (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

MADISON (Ill.) created by Illinois Territory from RANDOLPH (Ill.) and ST. CLAIR (Ill.); included most of present Wisconsin. (Ill. Terr. Recs., 26; Terr. Papers U.S., 17:643)

MADISON (Ill.) lost to creation of EDWARDS (Ill.). (Ill. Terr. Laws, 128-130)

MADISON (Ill.) lost to creation of BOND (Ill.). (Ill. Terr. Laws, 254-256)

MADISON (Ill.) eliminated from present Wisconsin when the state of Illinois was created from Illinois Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:803; U.S. Stat., vol. 3, ch. 67 [1818], sec. 7/p. 431, and res. 1 [1818]/p. 536)

MANITOWOC created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN; MANITOWOC not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 11, 14/p. 94)

MANITOWOC organized "for all the purposes of county government;" MANITOWOC remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 5, secs. 1, 4, 5/pp. 9-10)

MANITOWOC fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 47-48)

MANITOWOC became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

MANITOWOC gained from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 166, secs. 1-2/p. 138)

DOOR not fully organized, attached to MANITOWOC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 66, sec. 1/p. 50)

KEWAUNEE attached to MANITOWOC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 363, secs. 1-2/pp. 549-551)

DOOR detached from MANITOWOC, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1855, priv. and loc., ch. 397, secs. 1, 7/pp. 597-598)

KEWAUNEE fully organized, detached from MANITOWOC. (Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 74, secs. 1-2, 7/pp. 76-77)

MARATHON created from PORTAGE. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 226, secs. 1-2, 14/pp. 180-181)

MARATHON gained from OCONTO and SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 120, secs. 1-2/p. 107)

MARATHON lost to creation of LINCOLN; LINCOLN not fully organized, attached to MARATHON "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1874, ch. 128, secs. 1-2, 5/pp. 256-258)

MARATHON lost to creation of TAYLOR. (Wis. Laws 1875, ch. 178, secs. 1-3, 11/pp. 297-300)

LINCOLN fully organized, detached from MARATHON. (Wis. Laws 1875, ch. 60, secs. 1, 5/pp. 138-139)

MARINETTE created from OCONTO. (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 114, secs. 2-3, 12-13, 17/pp. 113-118)

MARINETTE lost to creation of FLORENCE; loss included the part of OCONTO that was transferred to MARINETTE on the same day. (Wis. Laws 1882, ch. 165, secs. 1-3, 13/pp. 488-489, 491)

MARQUETTE created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN. MARQUETTE overlapped the western part of FOND DU LAC (Overlap Area 2), creating a dispute that was not settled until 6 March 1848. MARQUETTE not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 12, 14/p. 94)

MARQUETTE lost the northern part of the area jointly claimed by MARQUETTE and FOND DU LAC (Overlap Area 2) to creation of WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 8-10/pp. 18-20; Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

MARQUETTE lost to BROWN and PORTAGE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 1-3, 12/pp. 73-75)

MARQUETTE organized "for county purposes;" MARQUETTE detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 8-11)

MARQUETTE lost jurisdiction of Overlap Area 2 to FOND DU LAC, ending dispute dating from 7 December 1836. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 79-80)

MARQUETTE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

MARQUETTE fully organized, detached from FOND DU LAC. (Wis. Laws 1848, p. 43)

MARQUETTE gained from BROWN and PORTAGE. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 73, sec. 1/p. 44)

MARQUETTE lost to creation of WAUSHARA; WAUSHARA not fully organized, attached to MARQUETTE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 77, secs. 1, 5/pp. 56-57)

WAUSHARA fully organized, detached from MARQUETTE. (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 34, secs. 1, 4/p. 44)

MARQUETTE lost to creation of GREEN LAKE. (HRS Wis., Origin, 127; Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 17, secs. 1-2, 16/pp. 15-17, 20 and ch. 85, secs. 1-3, 10, 17/pp. 88-90, 94)

MARQUETTE lost to GREEN LAKE. The boundary was demarcated later in 1860 and although it deviates in two small places from the legal description, the demarcated line is the modern boundary. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 143, secs. 1-2/pp. 126-127)

MENOMINEE created from OCONTO and SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1959, ch. 259, secs. 1, 3, 30, 42/pp. 300-301, 310, 314)

MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.) created by Michigan Territory from WAYNE (Mich.), non-county area in Michigan Territory, unorganized federal territory, and former parts of BOND (Ill.), CRAWFORD (Ill.), and MADISON (Ill.). Included parts of present Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:802)

MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.) lost to non-county area in present Michigan; area within present Wisconsin was unchanged. (Terr. Papers U.S., 11:132)

MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.) lost to non-county area (territory acquired from the Indians by the 1821 Treaty at Chicago); area within present Wisconsin was unchanged. (Terr. Papers U.S., 11:308-313)

MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.) lost to creation of CHIPPEWA (Mich.). (Mich. Terr. Laws, 2:295-296)

MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.) lost to creation of IONIA (Mich.), ISABELLA (Mich.), KENT (Mich.), MONTCALM (Mich.), OCEANA (Mich.), and OTTAWA (Mich.). MICHILIMACKINAC's area within present Wisconsin was unchanged. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 3:871-873)

MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.) eliminated from present Wisconsin when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

MILWAUKEE created by Michigan Territory from BROWN and IOWA; MILWAUKEE not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Mich. Terr. Laws, 3:1325)

MILWAUKEE fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Mich. Terr. Laws, 4:136-137)

MILWAUKEE became a county in Wisconsin Territory when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

MILWAUKEE lost to creation of DANE, DODGE, JEFFERSON, PORTAGE, RACINE, ROCK, WALWORTH, WASHINGTON, and Non-County Area 2. DODGE, JEFFERSON, and WASHINGTON not fully organized, attached to MILWAUKEE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 1-7, 13-14/pp. 92-94)

JEFFERSON fully organized, detached from MILWAUKEE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 35, sec. 1/p. 63)

DODGE detached from MILWAUKEE, attached to JEFFERSON "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 42, secs. 1, 5-6/pp. 50-51)

WASHINGTON organized "for county purposes;" WASHINGTON remained attached to MILWAUKEE "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840, spec. sess., ch. 40, secs. 1-2/pp. 76-77)

WASHINGTON fully organized, detached from MILWAUKEE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, pp. 32-33)

MILWAUKEE lost to creation of WAUKESHA. (History of Waukesha, 358-359; Milwaukee Sentinel, 9 Apr. 1846; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 22-23)

MILWAUKEE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

MONROE created from LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 35, secs. 1-3/pp. 43-44)

MONROE gained from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 145, secs. 1-3/p. 269)

MONROE gained from JACKSON. (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 194, secs. 1, 3/p. 152)

MONROE lost small area to VERNON. (Wis. Laws 1939, ch. 192, secs. 1, 6/pp. 327-328)

MONROE boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1943, ch. 177/pp. 253-255)

MONROE exchanged small areas with JACKSON along the Black River. (Wis. Laws 1999, ch. 25/pp. 807-808)

Legislature authorized creation of MONTGOMERY (proposed) from IOWA, dependent upon local referendum and legislative implementation. The referendum passed, but the enabling legislation did not; creation did not take effect. (Kellogg, "Organization," 189; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 41-43)

MUSCATINE (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DES MOINES (Iowa). COOK (Iowa, extinct) not fully organized, attached to MUSCATINE "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, sec. 6/pp. 77-78)

MUSCATINE (Iowa) lost to creation of JOHNSON (Iowa) and SCOTT (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6/pp. 133-137)

MUSCATINE (Iowa) gained all of COOK (Iowa, extinct) and all of Non-County Area 6, lost to LOUISA (Iowa) and lost to creation of SLAUGHTER (now WASHINGTON, Iowa); COOK and Non-County Area 6 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

MUSCATINE (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; MUSCATINE (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

That portion of present Wisconsin and Minnesota that had been in CHIPPEWA (Mich.) and MICHILIMACKINAC (now MACKINAC, Mich.) became Non-County Area 1 when Wisconsin Territory was created from Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 27:41-52; U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 54 [1836]/pp. 10-16)

Non-County Area 1 in northern Wisconsin Territory was attached to CRAWFORD "for all judicial purposes." (Kellogg, "Organization," 187; Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 104, sec. 1/p. 517)

Non-County Area 1 attached to CRAWFORD lost to creation of ST. CROIX. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 20, sec. 1/pp. 25-26)

Non-County Area 1 lost all territory to PORTAGE and ST. CROIX; Non-County Area 1 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 1-3, 12/pp. 73-75)

Non-County Area 2 created in Wisconsin Territory from MILWAUKEE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 1-7, 13-14/pp. 92-94)

Non-County Area 2 lost to creation of GREEN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 31, secs. 1-2, 4-6, 9/pp. 97-99)

Non-County Area 2 lost all territory to ROCK; Non-County Area 2 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838, spec. sess., no. 5, sec. 1/p. 539)

Non-County Area 3 (southern end of Lake Winnebago) created in Wisconsin Territory from BROWN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 5-12, 14/pp. 93-94)

Non-County Area 3 lost all territory to FOND DU LAC; Non-County Area 3 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 8-11)

Non-County Area 4 created in Wisconsin Territory from BROWN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 5-12, 14/pp. 93-94)

Non-County Area 4 lost all territory to FOND DU LAC; Non-County Area 4 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 79-80)

Non-County Area 5 created in Wisconsin Territory from DES MOINES (Iowa). Non-County Area 5 was located entirely within present Iowa. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, secs. 7, 9/pp. 77-78)

Non-County Area 5 lost to creation of JOHNSON (Iowa) and KEOKUK (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 15-16/p. 136)

Non-County Area 5 lost to VAN BUREN (Iowa) and lost to creation of SLAUGHTER (now WASHINGTON, Iowa), and Non-County Areas 7, 8, and 9; Non-County Area 5 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

Non-County Area 6 created in Wisconsin Territory from DUBUQUE (Iowa). Non-County Area 6 was located entirely within present Iowa. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6/pp. 133-137)

Non-County Area 6 lost all territory to MUSCATINE (Iowa); Non-County Area 6 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

Non-County Area 7 created in Wisconsin Territory from Non-County Area 5; Non-County Area 7 attached to SLAUGHTER (now WASHINGTON, Iowa) "for judicial purposes." Non-County Area 7 was located entirely within present Iowa. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

Non-County Area 7 became part of Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; Non-County Area 7 eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

Non-County Area 8 created in Wisconsin Territory from HENRY (Iowa) and Non-County Area 5; Non-County Area 8 attached to HENRY (Iowa) "for judicial purposes." Non-County Area 8 was located entirely within present Iowa. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

Non-County Area 8 became part of Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; Non-County Area 8 eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

Non-County Area 9 created in Wisconsin Territory from VAN BUREN (Iowa) and Non-County Area 5; Non-County Area 9 was located entirely within present Iowa. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

Non-County Area 9 attached to VAN BUREN (Iowa) "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838, spec. sess., no. 7, sec. 5/p. 541)

Non-County Area 9 became part of Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; Non-County Area 9 eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

Non-County Area 10 created from ADAMS and PORTAGE. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

Non-County Area 10 lost all territory to ADAMS and SAUK; Non-County Area 10 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1849, ch. 2, secs. 2, 24, 26/pp. 51, 56-57 and ch. 157, sec. 1/p. 747)

Non-County Area 11 created from PORTAGE. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 54, secs. 1-3, 10/pp. 64-66)

Non-County Area 11 lost all territory to PORTAGE and WOOD; Non-County Area 11 eliminated. (Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 108, secs. 1-2, 4, 9/pp. 110-111)

Non-County Area 12 created along the St. Croix River from DOUGLAS. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 94, sec. 1/pp. 98-99)

Non-County Area 12 lost all territory to BURNETT; Non-County Area 12 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1858, ch. 2, secs. 6, 35, 46/pp. 61, 68, 71)

The United States created the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio (Northwest Territory) from unorganized federal territory to govern all territory west of Pennsylvania, north of the Ohio River, and east of the Mississippi River, to which states had ceded their colonial charter claims. Map depicts non-county area of the Northwest Territory in present Wisconsin. (Terr. Papers U.S., 2:39-50)

The Northwest Territory lost non-county area in the eastern part of present Wisconsin to creation of KNOX (Ind.). (Terr. Papers U.S., 3:313)

The Northwest Territory lost non-county area in present Wisconsin to creation of WAYNE (Northwest Territory, extinct), and gained part of KNOX (Ind.). (Terr. Papers U.S., 2:567-568, 3:447)

The Northwest Territory was eliminated from present Wisconsin when Indiana Territory was created from the Northwest Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 3:86-88; U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 41 [1800]/pp. 58-59)

OCONTO created from BROWN; OCONTO not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 44, sec. 1/pp. 31-32)

OCONTO lost to creation of SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 9, sec. 1/pp. 9-10)

OCONTO lost to SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 23, secs. 1, 3-4/pp. 31-32)

OCONTO fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 14, secs. 1, 7/pp. 21-22)

OCONTO re-attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1855, gen., ch. 11, sec. 2/p. 14)

OCONTO gained from WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 45, secs. 1-4/p. 48)

OCONTO fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1857, priv. and loc., ch. 309, secs. 1, 4/pp. 805-806)

OCONTO gained from SHAWANO. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1858, ch. 2, secs. 6, 35, 46/pp. 61, 68, 71)

OCONTO lost to MARATHON and SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 119, secs. 1-3, 6/p. 106 and ch. 120, secs. 1-2/p. 107)

OCONTO lost to creation of MARINETTE and NEW (now LANGLADE), exchanged with SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 114, secs. 2-3, 12-13, 17/pp. 113-118)

OCONTO lost to SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1881, ch. 7, secs. 1-3, 8, 13/pp. 11, 13-14)

OCONTO lost to MARINETTE. The transferred area became part of FLORENCE, which was created this same day. (Wis. Laws 1882, ch. 165, secs. 1-3, 13/pp. 488-489, 491)

OCONTO lost to FOREST. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 436, secs. 14-15/p. 430)

OCONTO lost small area to BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1919, reg. sess., ch. 96, secs. 1, 6/pp. 104, 106; ch. 617, secs. 1-2/pp. 1085-1086; ch. 702/pp. 1344-1345)

OCONTO lost to creation of MENOMINEE. (Wis. Laws 1959, ch. 259, secs. 1, 3, 30, 42/pp. 300-301, 310, 314)

ONEIDA created from LINCOLN. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 411, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 394-395, 399)

ONEIDA lost to IRON and lost to creation of VILAS. (Wis. Laws 1893, ch. 150, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 175-177, 181)

ONEIDA lost to FOREST. (Wis. Laws 1893, ch. 275, secs. 1, 4/pp. 368-369)

ONEIDA gained from FOREST, lost to VILAS. (Wis. Laws 1897, reg. sess., ch. 278, secs. 1-2, 13/pp. 547, 550)

ONEIDA gained from VILAS. (Wis. Laws 1905, reg. sess., ch. 57, secs. 1, 8/pp. 115-116)

ONEIDA boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1911, ch. 538/pp. 652-654)

OUTAGAMIE created from BROWN and WINNEBAGO; OUTAGAMIE not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 83/pp. 60-61)

OUTAGAMIE organized "for the purposes of county government;" OUTAGAMIE remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 83, secs. 2, 6/pp. 60-61)

OUTAGAMIE boundaries were redefined [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 77, sec. 1/pp. 124-125)

OUTAGAMIE fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 123, secs. 1-2, 5/pp. 210-211)

SHAWANO attached to OUTAGAMIE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 9, sec. 1/pp. 9-10)

SHAWANO fully organized, detached from OUTAGAMIE. (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 68/pp. 74-75; Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 251/pp. 226-227)

Overlap Area 1 was created when DODGE and PORTAGE were both given jurisdiction over the same area. The dispute was not settled until 12 January 1838. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 6, 14/pp. 93-94)

DODGE gained undisputed control of Overlap Area 1 from PORTAGE, ending a dispute dating from 7 December 1836; Overlap Area 1 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 39, sec. 1/pp. 217-218)

Overlap Area 2 was created when FOND DU LAC and MARQUETTE were both given jurisdiction over the same area. The dispute was not settled until 6 March 1848. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 12, 14/p. 94)

Overlap Area 2 lost to creation of WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 8-10/pp. 18-20; Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

FOND DU LAC gained undisputed control of Overlap Area 2, ending a dispute with MARQUETTE dating from 7 December 1836; Overlap Area 2 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 79-80)

Overlap Area 3 was created when ST. CROIX and LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) were both given jurisdiction over the same area. The dispute was not settled until 1 January 1850. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 53, secs. 1, 3/p. 31)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) gained undisputed jurisdiction of Overlap Area 3, ending a dispute with ST. CROIX dating from 8 March 1849; Overlap Area 3 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1849, ch. 2, secs. 2, 24, 26/pp. 51, 56-57 and ch. 157, sec. 1/p. 747)

An overlap (Overlap Area 4) was created between Michigan and Wisconsin (IRON and VILAS Counties) when the new Michigan constitution redefined part of the interstate boundary with Wisconsin across the Upper Peninsula; Wisconsin kept control of the disputed area. (Swindler, 5:249)

GOGEBIC (Mich.) and IRON (Mich.) implicitly overlapped Wisconsin when Michigan took its 1909 dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope; Wisconsin claimed the old, established line and never lost control of the area. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

Michigan's claim to territory in Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin; Overlap Area 4 eliminated. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

An overlap (Overlap Area 5) was created between Michigan and Wisconsin when Michigan took its 1909 boundary dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope by claiming more of the waters and islands of Green Bay. Wisconsin claimed the old established line and never lost control of the disputed area. Michigan claimed Washington, Rock, Chambers, Plum, and smaller islands in Green Bay. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

Michigan's claim to territory in Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin; Overlap Area 5 eliminated. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

An overlap between Michigan and Wisconsin (Overlap Area 6) was created in Green Bay and Lake Michigan when Wisconsin appeared to gain islands north of the Rock Island Passage when the U.S. Supreme Court decreed the precise course of the Michigan-Wisconsin boundary through Lake Michigan and Green Bay and introduced some unintentional errors. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 143-145, 158; Paullin, 86, pl. 101)

Overlap between Michigan and Wisconsin ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decreed the precise course of the revised Michigan-Wisconsin boundary through Green Bay and Lake Michigan, restoring to Michigan the area it appeared to lose in 1926; Overlap Area 6 eliminated. (Martin, "Second Wisconsin-Michigan," 86, 118-121)

OZAUKEE created from WASHINGTON. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 21, secs. 1-2/pp. 18-21)

PEPIN created from DUNN. (Wis. Laws 1858, gen., ch. 15, secs. 1-2, 6/p. 14)

PIERCE created from ST. CROIX; PIERCE not fully organized, attached to ST. CROIX "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 31, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 28-30)

PIERCE fully organized, detached from ST. CROIX. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 31, secs. 1-2, 4-6/pp. 28-29)

PIERCE gained small area from ST. CROIX in section 36, township 28 north, range 19 west; and section 31, township 28 north, range 18 west [change too small to display on interactive map; shapefile users see small_changes 1943_pt. for location]. (Wis. Laws 1943, ch. 13, secs. 1, 5, 7/pp. 15, 18)

POLK created from ST. CROIX; POLK not fully organized, attached to ST. CROIX "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 31, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 28-30)

POLK fully organized, detached from ST. CROIX. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 31, secs. 1-2, 4-6/pp. 28-29)

POLK lost to creation of BURNETT; BURNETT not fully organized, attached to POLK "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 94, sec. 1/pp. 98-99)

POLK lost to creation of DALLAS (now BARRON); DALLAS not fully organized, attached to POLK "for all purposes civil and judicial." (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 191, secs. 1-2, 4/pp. 214-215)

DALLAS (now BARRON) detached from POLK, attached to DUNN "for all purposes civil and judicial." (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 33, secs. 1-2/p. 34)

POLK gained from DALLAS (now BARRON). (Wis. Laws 1862, gen., ch. 387, secs. 1-4/pp. 241-242; Wis. Laws 1863, gen., ch. 106, secs. 1-3/p. 136)

BURNETT fully organized, detached from POLK. (Wis. Laws 1864, gen., ch. 74, secs. 1, 3, 6/pp. 84-85)

POLK lost to BURNETT. (Wis. Laws 1866, priv. and loc., ch. 466, secs. 1-2/p. 1103)

BURNETT fully organized, detached from POLK. (History of Northern Wisconsin, 171; Wis. Laws 1871, gen., ch. 83, secs. 1, 6/pp. 114-116)

PORTAGE created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN, CRAWFORD, IOWA, and MILWAUKEE. PORTAGE overlapped the western part of DODGE, creating a dispute (Overlap Area 1) that was not settled until 12 January 1838. PORTAGE not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 5, 14/pp. 93-94)

PORTAGE gained from CRAWFORD, lost jurisdiction to DODGE of the area overlapped by the two counties since 7 December 1836; Overlap Area 1 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 39, sec. 1/pp. 217-218)

PORTAGE lost to creation of SAUK; PORTAGE was divided into two parts by this creation. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 23, secs. 1-3/p. 32)

PORTAGE gained from BROWN, CRAWFORD, MARQUETTE, ST. CROIX, and Non-County Area 1 attached to CRAWFORD; PORTAGE detached from BROWN, attached to DANE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 1-3, 12/pp. 73-75)

PORTAGE organized "for all purposes of county government;" PORTAGE remained attached to DANE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 2-3/p. 74)

PORTAGE fully organized, detached from DANE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, p. 4)

PORTAGE lost to creation of COLUMBIA. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 76-77)

PORTAGE lost to creation of ADAMS. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 168-169)

PORTAGE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

PORTAGE lost to MARQUETTE. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 73, sec. 1/p. 44)

PORTAGE lost to ADAMS and COLUMBIA, and lost to creation of Non-County Area 10. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

PORTAGE lost to creation of MARATHON. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 226, secs. 1-2, 14/pp. 180-181)

PORTAGE gained from WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 114, sec. 1/pp. 96-97)

Legislature authorized WINNEBAGO to hold a referendum on retaining the five townships that were transferred from WINNEBAGO to PORTAGE on 27 February 1851 (townships 21-25 north, range 10 east). No explanation for this apparent oversight has been found, and there is no evidence that the referendum was held [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1855, gen., ch. 51, secs. 1-4/pp. 50-51)

Legislature authorized WAUPACA to gain townships 21-25 in range 10 east that PORTAGE had acquired from WINNEBAGO on 27 February 1851, dependent upon local referendum. The referendum passed, but the change was never implemented [no change]. (Historical Atlas, 246; Wis. Laws 1855, gen., ch. 58, secs. 1-2, 4/p. 57)

PORTAGE lost to creation of WOOD and Non-County Area 11. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 54, secs. 1-3, 10/pp. 64-66)

PORTAGE gained part of Non-County Area 11; Non-County Area 11 eliminated. (Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 108, secs. 1-2, 4, 9/pp. 110-111)

PRICE created from CHIPPEWA and LINCOLN; PRICE not fully organized, attached to TAYLOR "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 103, secs. 1-3, 19/pp. 99-105)

PRICE fully organized, detached from TAYLOR. (Wis. Laws 1882, ch. 34, secs. 1, 6/p. 97)

RACINE created by Wisconsin Territory from MILWAUKEE. ROCK and WALWORTH not fully organized, attached to RACINE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, sec. 2/p. 92)

WALWORTH fully organized, detached from RACINE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 62, secs. 1-2/p. 368; Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 1, sec. 2/p. 3)

ROCK fully organized, detached from RACINE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 22, secs. 1, 4/pp. 25-26)

RACINE became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

RACINE lost to creation of KENOSHA. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 39, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 25-27)

RICHLAND created by Wisconsin Territory from CRAWFORD and SAUK; RICHLAND not fully organized, attached to IOWA "for all county and judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 42)

RICHLAND became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

RICHLAND fully organized, detached from IOWA. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 92, secs. 1-3/p. 60)

ROCK created by Wisconsin Territory from MILWAUKEE; ROCK not fully organized, attached to RACINE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 2, 13/pp. 92, 94)

ROCK gained all of Non-County Area 2; Non-County Area 2 eliminated. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838, spec. sess., no. 5, sec. 1/p. 539)

ROCK fully organized, detached from RACINE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 22, secs. 1, 4/pp. 25-26)

ROCK became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

GATES (now RUSK) created from CHIPPEWA. (Wis. Laws 1901, ch. 469, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 696-697, 701)

GATES renamed RUSK. (Wis. Laws 1905, reg. sess., ch. 463, secs. 1-2/p. 797)

RUSK boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1913, ch. 773/pp. 1321-1322)

As an Indiana Territory county (created in 1790), ST. CLAIR (Ill.) gained non-county area in Indiana Territory, gained from KNOX (Ind.), and lost to RANDOLPH (Ill.). ST. CLAIR (Ill.) included territory in present Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan. (Ind. Terr., Exec. Journal, 98-100)

ST. CLAIR (Ill.) lost to creation of WAYNE (Indiana Territory, extinct). (Ind. Terr., Exec. Journal, 114-115; Pence and Armstrong, 218; U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 40 [1802], secs. 1-3/pp. 173-174; Van Zandt, 112)

ST. CLAIR (Ill.) exchanged with RANDOLPH (Ill.); area within present Wisconsin was unchanged. (Ind. Terr., Exec. Journal, 117-118)

ST. CLAIR (Ill.) became a county in Illinois Territory and continued to function de facto with no new boundaries specified. (U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 13 [1809], sec. 1/pp. 514-515)

ST. CLAIR (Ill.) created by Illinois Territory (effectively continuing the county of the same name that had been created by the Northwest Territory in 1790). ST. CLAIR (Ill.) exchanged with Indiana Territory (gaining the non-county area along the west side of Lake Michigan now in Illinois Territory); included the eastern part of present Wisconsin. ST. CLAIR (Ill.) also lost to RANDOLPH (Ill.). (Ill. Terr. Recs., 3-4; Terr. Papers U.S., 17:620-621)

ST. CLAIR (Ill.) lost to creation of MADISON (Ill.); ST. CLAIR (Ill.) eliminated from present Wisconsin. (Ill. Terr. Recs., 26; Terr. Papers U.S., 17:643)

ST. CROIX created by Wisconsin Territory from CRAWFORD and Non-County Area 1 attached to CRAWFORD; ST. CROIX included territory in present Wisconsin and Minnesota. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 20, sec. 1/pp. 25-26)

ST. CROIX gained small part of Non-County Area 1, lost to PORTAGE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840-1841, no. 38, secs. 1-3, 12/pp. 73-75)

ST. CROIX attached to CRAWFORD "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1842-1843, pp. 56-57)

ST. CROIX lost to creation of LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, pp. 52-53)

ST. CROIX lost territory when the state of Wisconsin was created from Wisconsin Territory; ST. CROIX eliminated from present Minnesota. ST. CROIX became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

ST. CROIX exchanged with CHIPPEWA, gained from LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD). An overlap (Overlap Area 3) was created between ST. CROIX and LA POINTE when both counties were assigned the same area. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

ST. CROIX fully organized, detached from CRAWFORD; LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) detached from CRAWFORD, attached to ST. CROIX "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 53, secs. 1, 3/p. 31; Wis. Laws 1847, pp. 147-148)

ST. CROIX lost jurisdiction of Overlap Area 3 to LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD); both counties had claimed the area since 8 March 1849; Overlap Area 3 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1849, ch. 2, secs. 2, 24, 26/pp. 51, 56-57 and ch. 157, sec. 1/p. 747)

LA POINTE (now BAYFIELD) fully organized, detached from ST. CROIX. (Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 156, secs. 1-2/p. 126)

ST. CROIX lost to creation of PIERCE and POLK; PIERCE and POLK not fully organized, both attached to ST. CROIX "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 31, secs. 1-2, 6/pp. 28-30)

PIERCE and POLK fully organized, detached from ST. CROIX. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 31, secs. 1-2, 4-6/pp. 28-29)

ST. CROIX lost small area to PIERCE in section 36, township 28 north, range 19 west; and section 31, township 28 north, range 18 west [change too small to display on interactive map; shapefile users see small_changes 1943_pt. for location]. (Wis. Laws 1943, ch. 13, secs. 1, 5, 7/pp. 15, 18)

SAUK created by Wisconsin Territory from CRAWFORD, DANE, and PORTAGE; SAUK not fully organized, attached to DANE "for all county and judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 23, secs. 1-3/p. 32)

SAUK lost to creation of RICHLAND. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 42)

SAUK fully organized, detached from DANE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 26-27)

ADAMS not fully organized, attached to SAUK "for all purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 168-169)

SAUK became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

SAUK gained from ADAMS. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 77, secs. 1-6/pp. 47-48)

SAUK gained part of Non-County Area 10; Non-County Area 10 eliminated. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1849, ch. 2, secs. 2, 24, 26/pp. 51, 56-57 and ch. 157, sec. 1/p. 747)

SAUK lost to ADAMS. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 29, sec. 1/p. 26)

ADAMS fully organized, detached from SAUK. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 30, secs. 1, 6/pp. 26-28)

SAWYER created from ASHLAND and CHIPPEWA; SAWYER not fully organized, attached to ASHLAND "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 47, secs. 1-3, 15/pp. 41, 45)

SAWYER fully organized, detached from ASHLAND. (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 38, sec. 1/p. 31)

SCOTT (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from COOK (Iowa, extinct), DUBUQUE (Iowa), and MUSCATINE (Iowa); CLINTON (Iowa) attached to SCOTT "until otherwise directed by law." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 6, secs. 17-19/p. 136-137)

SCOTT (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; SCOTT (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

SHAWANO created from OCONTO, WAUPACA, and WINNEBAGO; SHAWANO not fully organized, attached to OUTAGAMIE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 9, sec. 1/pp. 9-10)

SHAWANO gained from OCONTO and WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 23, secs. 1, 3-4/pp. 31-32)

SHAWANO gained from WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 45, secs. 1-4/p. 48)

SHAWANO lost to OCONTO. (Wis. Rev. Stat. 1858, ch. 2, secs. 6, 35, 46/pp. 61, 68, 71)

SHAWANO lost to WAUPACA. (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2/pp. 11-12)

SHAWANO gained from WAUPACA. (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 76, secs. 1-2/p. 79)

SHAWANO gained from OCONTO, lost to MARATHON. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 119, secs. 1-3, 6/p. 106 and ch. 120, secs. 1-2/p. 107)

SHAWANO lost to WAUPACA. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 217, secs. 1-3/pp. 193-194)

SHAWANO fully organized, detached from OUTAGAMIE. (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 68/pp. 74-75; Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 251/pp. 226-227)

SHAWANO exchanged with OCONTO. NEW (now LANGLADE) attached to SHAWANO "for all county and judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 114, secs. 2-3, 12-13, 17/pp. 113-118)

SHAWANO gained from OCONTO, exchanged with LANGLADE; LANGLADE fully organized, detached from SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1881, ch. 7, secs. 1-3, 8, 13/pp. 11, 13-14)

Legislature authorized LANGLADE to gain from SHAWANO, dependent on local referendum that was never held [no change]. (HRS Wis., Shawano, 4-5; Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 303, secs. 1, 6-7/pp. 251-252)

SHAWANO lost to LANGLADE (enacted change authorized on 17 April 1883 that never took effect). (Wis. Laws 1885, ch. 137, sec. 1/pp. 113-114)

SHAWANO lost small area to BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1919, reg. sess., ch. 96, secs. 1, 6/pp. 104, 106; ch. 617, secs. 1-2/pp. 1085-1086; ch. 702/p. 1345)

SHAWANO lost to creation of MENOMINEE. (Wis. Laws 1959, ch. 259, secs. 1, 3, 30, 42/pp. 300-301, 310, 314)

SHAWANO lost small area to BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1965, ch. 267, sec. 1/pp. 494-495)

SHAWANO gained small area from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1967, ch. 243, sec. 1/p. 648)

SHEBOYGAN created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN; SHEBOYGAN not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 8, 14/pp. 93-94)

SHEBOYGAN organized "for all the purposes of county government;" SHEBOYGAN remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 5, secs. 1, 4, 5/pp. 9-10)

SHEBOYGAN fully organized, detached from BROWN. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 74-75)

SHEBOYGAN became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

SLAUGHTER (now WASHINGTON, Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from HENRY (Iowa), LOUISA (Iowa), MUSCATINE (Iowa), and Non-County Area 5; Non-County Area 7 attached to SLAUGHTER "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

SLAUGHTER (now WASHINGTON, Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; SLAUGHTER (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

TAYLOR created from CHIPPEWA, CLARK, LINCOLN, and MARATHON. (Wis. Laws 1875, ch. 178, secs. 1-3, 11/pp. 297-300)

PRICE attached to TAYLOR "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1879, ch. 103, secs. 1-3, 19/pp. 99-105)

PRICE fully organized, detached from TAYLOR. (Wis. Laws 1882, ch. 34, secs. 1, 6/p. 97)

TREMPEALEAU created from BUFFALO, CHIPPEWA, JACKSON, and LA CROSSE; TREMPEALEAU not fully organized, attached to LA CROSSE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 2, secs. 1-3, 6, 8/pp. 8-9)

TREMPEALEAU fully organized, detached from LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 2, sec. 6/p. 9)

Boundary between TREMPEALEAU and BUFFALO was redefined [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1857, gen., ch. 16, secs. 1-2/pp. 21-22)

TREMPEALEAU lost to LA CROSSE. (Wis. Laws 1857, gen., ch. 42, secs. 1-2/pp. 43-44)

Legislature authorized creation of TUSKOLA (proposed) from WASHINGTON, dependent on local referendum that failed; creation never took effect. (Kellogg, "Organization," 193; Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 114, secs. 4-5, 14-15/pp. 75-78)

Virginia ceded to the United States its charter claims to territory "northwestward of the river Ohio." All of present Wisconsin became unorganized federal territory although certain states still claimed parts of the western lands based on their colonial charters. (Cappon, Petchenik, and Long, 62, 130-131; Hening, 11:571-575)

Unorganized federal territory in present Wisconsin became part of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio (Northwest Territory). (Terr. Papers U.S., 2:39-50)

The extreme eastern part of present Wisconsin became unorganized federal territory when the state of Indiana was created. (U.S. Stat., vol. 3, ch. 57 [1816], secs. 1-2/pp. 289-291, and res. 1 [1816], p. 399; Van Zandt, 115)

The unorganized federal territory in present Wisconsin became part of Michigan Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:803; U.S. Stat., vol. 3, ch. 67 [1818], sec. 7/p. 431, and res. 1 [1818]/p. 536)

VAN BUREN (Iowa) created by Wisconsin Territory from DES MOINES (Iowa). (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 21, sec. 2/pp. 76-78)

VAN BUREN (Iowa) gained from HENRY (Iowa) and Non-County Area 5, lost to creation of Non-County Area 9. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 67, secs. 1-7/pp. 381-384)

Non-County Area 9 attached to VAN BUREN (Iowa) "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1838, spec. sess., no. 7, sec. 5/p. 541)

VAN BUREN (Iowa) became a county in Iowa Territory when Iowa Territory was created from Wisconsin Territory; VAN BUREN (Iowa) eliminated from Wisconsin Territory. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 96 [1838]/pp. 235-241)

BAD AX (now VERNON) created from CRAWFORD. (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 131, secs. 2, 6/pp. 105-106 and ch. 132, secs. 1-2/pp. 107-108)

BAD AX renamed VERNON. (Wis. Laws 1862, gen., ch. 137, secs. 1-2/p. 79)

VERNON gained small area from MONROE. (Wis. Laws 1939, ch. 192, secs. 1, 6/pp. 327-328)

VERNON boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1943, ch. 177/pp. 253-255)

VILAS created from ONEIDA. (Wis. Laws 1893, ch. 150, secs. 1-2, 12/pp. 175-177, 181)

VILAS gained from FOREST and ONEIDA. (Wis. Laws 1897, reg. sess., ch. 278, secs. 1-2, 13/pp. 547, 550)

VILAS lost to ONEIDA. (Wis. Laws 1905, reg. sess., ch. 57, secs. 1, 8/pp. 115-116)

VILAS gained from FOREST. (Wis. Laws 1905, reg. sess., ch. 202, secs. 1, 8/pp. 291-292)

Michigan implicitly overlapped VILAS when Michigan's new state constitution redefined the interstate boundary with Wisconsin across the Upper Peninsula; VILAS kept control of the disputed area. (Swindler, 5:249)

VILAS boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1911, ch. 538/pp. 652-654)

VILAS boundaries were clarified [no change]. (Wis. Laws 1913, ch. 65/pp. 71-73)

GOBEGIC (Mich.) and IRON (Mich.) implicitly overlapped VILAS when Michigan took its 1909 boundary dispute with Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court and expanded its scope by claiming more territory on the Upper Peninsula and more of the waters and islands of Green Bay. Wisconsin claimed the old, established line and never lost control of the disputed area. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 116, 118, 132)

Michigan's implicit overlap of VILAS ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the boundary dispute between Michigan and Wisconsin entirely in favor of Wisconsin. (Martin, "Michigan-Wisconsin," 141-143)

WALWORTH created by Wisconsin Territory from MILWAUKEE; WALWORTH not fully organized, attached to RACINE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 1-2/p. 92)

WALWORTH fully organized, detached from RACINE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1837, no. 62, secs. 1-2/p. 368; Wis. Terr. Laws 1838-1839, loc. acts, no. 1, sec. 2/p. 3)

WALWORTH became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

WASHBURN created from BURNETT. (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 172, secs. 1-2, 11/pp. 138-141)

WASHINGTON created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN and MILWAUKEE; WASHINGTON not fully organized, attached to MILWAUKEE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1836, no. 28, secs. 7, 14/pp. 93-94)

WASHINGTON organized "for county purposes;" WASHINGTON remained attached to MILWAUKEE "for all judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1840, spec. sess., ch. 40, secs. 1-2/pp. 76-77)

WASHINGTON fully organized, detached from MILWAUKEE. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1845, pp. 32-33)

WASHINGTON became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

Legislature authorized creation of TUSKOLA (proposed) from WASHINGTON, dependent on local referendum that failed [no change]. (Kellogg, "Organization," 193; Wis. Laws 1850, ch. 114, secs. 4-5, 14-15/pp. 75-78)

WASHINGTON lost to creation of OZAUKEE . (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 21, secs. 1-2/pp. 18-21)

WAUKESHA created by Wisconsin Territory from MILWAUKEE. (History of Waukesha, 358-359; Milwaukee Sentinel, 9 Apr. 1846; Wis. Terr. Laws 1846, pp. 22-23)

WAUKESHA became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

WAUPACA created from BROWN and WINNEBAGO; WAUPACA not fully organized, attached to WINNEBAGO "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 78/p. 57)

WAUPACA lost to creation of SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 9, sec. 1/pp. 9-10)

WAUPACA fully organized, detached from WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 7, sec. 1/pp. 6-7)

WAUPACA gained from SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 8, secs. 1-2/pp. 11-12)

WAUPACA lost to SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1859, gen., ch. 76, secs. 1-2/p. 79)

WAUPACA gained from SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1860, gen., ch. 217, secs. 1-3/pp. 193-194)

WAUSHARA created from MARQUETTE; WAUSHARA not fully organized, attached to MARQUETTE "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 77, secs. 1, 5/pp. 56-57)

WAUSHARA fully organized, detached from MARQUETTE. (Wis. Laws 1852, ch. 34, secs. 1, 4/p. 44)

WAYNE (Northwest Territory, extinct) created by the Northwest Territory from HAMILTON (Ohio), KNOX (Ind.), and non-county area; included parts of present Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. (Terr. Papers U.S., 2:567-568, 3:447)

WAYNE (Northwest Territory, extinct) eliminated from present Wisconsin when Indiana Territory was created from the Northwest Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 3:86-88; U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 41 [1800]/pp. 58-59)

WAYNE (Indiana Territory, extinct) created by Indiana Territory from KNOX (Ind.), ST. CLAIR (Ill.), and WAYNE (Northwest Territory, extinct); included parts of present Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. (Ind. Terr., Exec. Journal, 114-115; Pence and Armstrong, 218; U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 40 [1802], secs. 1-3/pp. 173-174; Van Zandt, 112)

WAYNE (Indiana Territory) eliminated when Michigan Territory was created from Indiana Territory. (Terr. Papers U.S., 10:5-7; U.S. Stat., vol. 2, ch. 5 [1805]/pp. 309-310)

WINNEBAGO created by Wisconsin Territory from BROWN, CALUMET, FOND DU LAC, and the northern part of Overlap Area 2 jointly claimed by FOND DU LAC and MARQUETTE; WINNEBAGO not fully organized, attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1839-1840, no. 12, secs. 8-10/pp. 18-20; Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

WINNEBAGO organized "for all purposes of county government;" remained attached to BROWN "for judicial purposes." (Wis. Terr. Laws 1841-1842, p. 74)

WINNEBAGO lost to FOND DU LAC. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 8-11)

WINNEBAGO detached from BROWN, attached to FOND DU LAC "for judicial purposes." (Harney, 120-121; Wis. Terr. Laws 1843-1844, pp. 10-11)

WINNEBAGO fully organized, detached from FOND DU LAC. (Harney, 121; Wis. Terr. Laws 1847, reg. sess., p. 96)

WINNEBAGO gained from FOND DU LAC. (Wis. Terr. Laws 1848, pp. 79-80)

WINNEBAGO became a county in the state of Wisconsin. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128, 130)

WINNEBAGO gained from BROWN. (Wis. Laws 1849, ch. 79, secs. 1-2/p. 49; Wis. Rev. Stat., 1849, ch. 2, secs. 3, 30/pp. 51, 57-58)

WINNEBAGO lost to creation of OUTAGAMIE and WAUPACA; WAUPACA not fully organized, attached to WINNEBAGO "for judicial purposes." WINNEBAGO was separated into two parts by these creations. (Wis. Laws 1851, chs. 78, 83/pp. 57, 60-61)

WINNEBAGO lost to PORTAGE. (Wis. Laws 1851, ch. 114, sec. 1/pp. 96-97)

WINNEBAGO lost to creation of SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 9, sec. 1/pp. 9-10)

WAUPACA fully organized, detached from WINNEBAGO. (Wis. Laws 1853, gen., ch. 7, sec. 1/pp. 6-7)

WINNEBAGO lost to SHAWANO. (Wis. Laws 1854, gen., ch. 23, secs. 1, 3-4/pp. 31-32)

Legislature authorized WINNEBAGO to hold a referendum on retaining the five townships that were transferred from WINNEBAGO to PORTAGE on 27 February 1851 (townships 21-25 north, range 10 east). No explanation for this apparent oversight has been found, and there is no evidence that the referendum was held [no change; see also 26 April 1855]. (Wis. Laws 1855, gen., ch. 51, secs. 1-4/pp. 50-51)

WINNEBAGO lost to OCONTO and SHAWANO; WINNEBAGO no longer divided into two parts. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 45, secs. 1-4/p. 48)

The state of Wisconsin was created from Wisconsin Territory. The area in present Minnesota between the Mississippi River and the state of Wisconsin continued as de facto Wisconsin Territory until the creation of Minnesota Territory on 3 March 1849. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 89 [1846]/pp. 56-58, and ch. 50 [1848]/pp. 233-235; Van Zandt, 128-130)

The United States created Minnesota Territory from de facto Wisconsin Territory and unorganized federal territory lying north of Iowa; de facto Wisconsin Territory eliminated. (Van Zandt, 130, 133)

WOOD created from PORTAGE. (Wis. Laws 1856, reg. sess., gen., ch. 54, secs. 1-3, 10/pp. 64-66)

WOOD gained part of Non-County Area 11; Non-County Area 11 eliminated. (Wis. Laws 1856, ext. sess., gen., ch. 108, secs. 1-2, 4, 9/pp. 110-111)

Wisconsin: Individual County Chronologies