Many times over the last two centuries, the United States has acquired land. A lot of the land was sparsely inhabited, but some contained cities. Name the city that was the most populous at the time of its acquisition.
(If the city became part of a Territory when it was acquired, and then part of a State, I'm counting the population at the time it became part of a Territory. Let's include for purposes of the question the land the U.S. "acquired" at the time it was created. And let's exclude land — such as Germany or Japan after World War II — that the U.S. merely ruled as a self-consciously temporary occupation. People who like to bring legal disputes even into geography problems should note that I'm assuming, together with Lincoln, that the seceding South never actually became foreign land, and thus wasn't reacquired in 1865.)
Here I don't have the precise statistics, but I'm pretty sure I know the right answer. I thought that, rather than just giving it, I'd ask people to post their thoughts on the Comments; naturally, if you have authoritative sources handy — or, better yet, linkable — you should post those. Later on (probably tomorrow), I'll post the right answer, together with an admission if it turns out that I got the answer wrong myself -- though as it happens, I've already posted my guess.
But since I'm not one, I'll agree with the above: Manila.
Always go with the first guess; unless it's wrong. Then try the second.
SMG
Manila could have been larger, I dunno.
Above guesses made without recourse to research materal and are probably wrong. Ain't the blogosphere great?
I have no idea. If you don't know what you mean, I'm not going to tell you. (c:
However, I do think you've telegraphed the answer with this sentence: Let's include for purposes of the question the land the U.S. "acquired" at the time it was created.
Assuming the US was created in 1787, the answer would by New York City with a population of about 33k.
www.census.gov
(Note: this time I cheated by using Google.)
Oh, I read this wrong. I thought you'd said excluding that.
So basically, the question is: "Did the U.S. acquire any city larger than 33K in the 200 plus years since its founding?"
Ah, but not so fast! The last letters of each sentence spell out "dsnydn5res." This is an obvious anagram of "Dry 'n' sends 5." Now, it's pretty clear that "dry 'n' sends" must refer to the water-based commerce that's historically associated with New Orleans. Well, what about the "5"? I got it! That's a reference to the 5th Circuit, which is headquartered in that city.
Way to straddle the issue, Volokh!
Dan
Dan
KW: Havana doesn't qualify under the ground rules set by Prof. Volokh, because we expected from the get-go that we would just hold Cuba for long enough to put it on its feet and give it independence (as in the cases of Germany and Japan). (The Philippines were quite another matter. We didn't reconcile ourselves to Philippine independence until the mid-30s.)
The U.S. did a census of the Philippines in 1903, at which time Manila had a population of 219,000 (http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/philippt.htm). Presumably the population was not much lower in 1898-99. That beats New Orleans in 1803, Honolulu in 1898, San Francisco in 1848, and New York or Philadelphia in 1776 hands down.
I'd morbidly guess that it was higher, given the amount of bloodshed in the Philippines in the interim.
New Orleans, but not when it was purchased from the French. Rather, when it reconquered during the Civil War. Population was 168,675 in 1860, 191,418 in 1870. (source).
But suppose we restrict ourselves to territories that the U.S. still controls, for the sake of argument. As far as I can tell, of those two it's either Honolulu or San Juan, and I'm having trouble finding reliable historical population figures for the latter.
...-- though as it happens, I've already posted my guess.
Preceding that admission, in the article we see:
...I'm assuming, together with Lincoln, that the seceding South never actually became foreign land, ...
Therefore the answer is: Lincoln, in the Nebraska Compromise Purchase of 1849.
-- Duckson Runz
I'm pretty much convinced it's Manila, as its population in 1887 was 176,777 and was 219,928 in 1903, so even if the population increase between 1887 and 1903 was mostly after 1898, it still beats anything else offered.
Even if we count the restoration of US soveriegnity over the Confederacy as "acquisition", it's close between New Orleans and Manila - New Orleans' population in 1870 was 191,418, while Manila's was 219,928 in 1903, also five years after acquisition.
So I'm going to bet on a long shot and say the ten mile strip of territory surrounding the Panama Canal :-)
Treaty of Paris (1989)
"Article II. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.
Article III. Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands . . . ."
After cheating by checking internet data on census records, I vote: Manila, I found data showing a pop. of 154,000 in 1887. (here's the reference) What bothers me is Eugene says he was incorrect. My Boston thought was way off and Manila beats the entire state of New York at the Revolution (it also beats the State of California at the gold rush).
William Jennings Bryan endorsed the peace treaty that included the annexation just to end the war with Spain, with the understanding that the U.S. could then grant the Phillipines independence anyway. And McKinley's First Philippine (Schurman) Commission recommended merely an indefinite occupation, with Phillipine independence to be granted in the future. So the treaty that included the annexation only passed with the support of those opposed to annexing the Phillipines, and many of the supporters of annexation supported it as merely a temporary measure.
On the other hand, there were definitely permanent-annexationists who voted for the annexation as well, and there was nothing adopted at the time to guarantee eventual independence.