20 Questions

Back again and should available off and on the rest of the day. Sorry for the delays in answering.

5. No, the event itself was not celebratory.

6. No, not about one person.

7. Yes, 19th century event.

8. First half of 19th century.

9. The event itself did not involve a major shift in population or jurisdiction.

Oh, phew. I'm not the only one.

11..Pearl Harbor.....

Thinking very hard here. Also enjoying this a great deal. What can I say, some of us are funny this way.

My understanding of the answers to the questions so far is

....a man-made event (interpreted loosely) so it's not something like Krakatoa or the San Francisco earthquake/fire.

Took place in the first half of the nineteenth century, so not, say, Lee's surrender at Appomattox. (Also not a conflict between two groups.)

Does not involve a change in jurisdiction, so not the Louisiana Purchase, or any territory becoming a state in what was then the United States.

Did not involve the movement of a large number of people, so not the Gold Rush or the Trail of Tears or the Underground Railroad.

(shyly) Did I get that right?

queenmom, thanks for the great summary. Sorry for not responding right away--now it's my turn that my updates where not appearing!!

Yup! That's a good overview of what the "event" is not. HINT: That is not to say that the actual event did not indirectly lead to an item or two from your list following this event.

(snorts of laughter) For background's sake: I grew up in San Francisco.

12b. More specifically, did the event take place at some random dude's sawmill in Nowheresville,Alta California Province, Mexico?

Hahaha. Was not thinking of gold rush.

13. Did it involve Mexico? Good night.

Happy Valentine's Day!!! Hope it is a good day for everyone!!!

13. Did not involve Mexico.

Queenmom, you are asking a very important question and one that I initially had to think about before answering because it is so much a part of the "event." I was answering the first question based on the date of the event not post 1960s United States!!! You've been putting a lot of thought into this, I can see. Which brings us to the answer for your question.

14. Yes, it involved non-oceanic water travel by a discrete group of people.!! I think you know the answer!!

Wow! ML you are amazing.

FF, You think that I'm correct I guess but if that is the case it was all of Queen's hard work that got me there. She is the amazing one!!!

Silly, the last post would not save the full address for the Wikipedia article and then the link did not work. I think I have it fixed now.

ML, and Queenmom, I'll let you work it out who 'wins.' I must admit to having a terrible time asking your questions. Every question had a qualified answer because at the time of the Expedition, Lewis started out in the US in Washington DC, but the actual first encampment was in the Indiana Territory (which actually is now in Illinois), the moved through the Louisiana Territory just as it was being bought from France (yet being disputed by Spain) by the US, then into unclaimed land and ended up in an area along the Pacific coast claimed partially by the British who had by 1805 travelled up the Columbia River. The Expedition itself did not involve mass movement of people, only a couple of dozen, but certainly led to territory becoming states, mass influx of people, etc. I also could not call it a conflict, but there was an encounter which led to the deaths of two native Americans on the return trip. The intent of the journey was to explore, and greet the native tribes.

Yup, she is the Queen. I can see her working as a lawyer the way she "corners" people with her questions