Subject: Re: mxn trip?
Date: Dec 13, 2003 @ 18:08
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Mike,where in the
>
> Only the records of the 1849 survey would tell us just exactly
> confluence of the Gila and the Colorado that the initial point ofthe geodesic
> line was placed. My notion that it was not in the middle of theColorado is
> based upon my reading of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848.I can't say
> whether the commissioners on the ground interpreted it my way whenthey surveyed
> the geodesic.it more
>
> First, the treaty gives a description of the whole boundary, then
> carefully describes the geodesic "in order to preclude alldifficulty in tracing
> upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California."written in a
>
> Before I quote these descriptions, please realize that they were
> suburb of Mexico City by people who had never been to Yuma. TheGila was
> envisioned as an east-west river, and the Colorado as a north-southriver. Also
> realize that the Colorado was not being made a boundary of any kindin this
> treaty. The MXUS boundary would consist of the middle of the Gilaand the
> geodesic to the Pacific.eventually comes
>
> The treaty describes the boundary from the Gulf of Mexico and
> to the Gila. "...thence down the middle...of the said [Gila]river, until it
> empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Colorado,following the
> division line between Upper and Lower California, to the PacificOcean."
>the
> In the more precise description of the geodesic, intended to assist
> surveyors in finding it, the treaty specifies "a straight linedrawn from the
> middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to apoint on the
> coast of the Pacific Ocean..."mentioned. If the
>
> In no part of the treaty is the "middle" of the Colorado
> Colorado were being made a boundary, then it would be reasonablefor the middle
> of the Gila to join onto its middle. However, the boundary comesdown the
> middle of the Gila until it "empties into" or "unites with" theColorado, then
> becomes a geodesic that runs "across" the Colorado and on to thePacific.
> is why I think that the geodesic began, or should have begun, inthe middle of
> the mouth of the Gila, regardless of the location of the middle ofthe Colorado.
>the Colorado at
> When applied to the landscape, we find that the Gila intersected
> some now indefinite point on a great looping meander of the latter(not the
> counter-clockwise one that skirts Yuma to the north, but theclockwise one that
> occupied the bottoms northeast of Yuma before the river waschannelized).
> Depending on the orientation at the time of the two rivers withinthose bottoms,
> a geodesic from within the mouth of the Gila could have crossed themiddle of
> the Colorado once or thrice on its way toward the Pacific. Ifonce, then the
> portion of the New Mexico Territory (once formed in 1850) that wasnorth of the
> now- ghost geodesic in today's northern Yuma would have been a pene-enclave
> connected to the rest of the territory by half the width of theColorado (with
> only one CAMXNM). If thrice, then it would have been an enclave ofthe New
> Mexico Territory surrounded by California along the Colorado andMexico along
> the geodesic (and there would have been three CAMXNM's).California's
> boundaries at admission in 1850 were simply the middle of theColorado and the
> portion of the geodesic west thereof.there
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:46 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: mxn trip?
>
>
> ok forget my comments about the thalwegs
> which i have deleted from my question below
> since they wouldnt have applied here in the 19th century in any case
> doh
> but why would the geodesic mxus line not have started from the point
> where the middle of the gila meets the middle of the colorado
> & why would it not therefore have produced a camxnm trijunction
> whatever the actual status of the left bank territory north of thea
> geodesic may have been
>
> dont all the texts consistently refer to the middles of these rivers
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > Adam,
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > > In other words, the line started at the confluence of the two
> > rivers,
> > > > but the border started where that line crossed the Colorado.
> > >
> > > Not exactly. The MXUS boundary 1848-1853 descended the Gila to
> > point at "theof
> > > middle of the Rio Gila where it unites with the Colorado" and
> from
> > that point
> > > took a bee-line for the Pacific below San Diego, crossing the
> > Colorado several
> > > miles downstream at the current AZCAMX tripoint.
> > >
> > > So, the MXUX boundary of 1848 came down the middle of the Gila
> and
> > just touched
> > > the south bank of the Colorado in the mouth of the Gila
>
> this is the detail i am asking about
>
> why do you believe it stopped or turned there at the south bank
> rather than continued down the middle of the gila to the middle of
> the colorado before doing so
>
>
>
>
> , not making
> > tripoint
> > > there with the boundary of California
> >
> > why do you say it just touched the south bank
> >
> > why didnt it reach the middle of the confluence
> > & thus form a new mexico crossclave rather than a mere peneclave
> >
> > i have a message about this still lost in the ether
> > in which i considered the possibility that this left bank area
> might
> > have belonged to california
> > or have fallen back to old mexico til 1853
> >
> > i am still not sure which of these 3 or 4 probabilities might
> > actually have obtained
> > but for starters it would help to know why you rule out a new
> mexico
> > border cross at the 1849 midstream confluence
> >
> >
> > (as admitted in 1850), which was the
> > > middle of the Colorado. Thus, the broad bend in the Colorado
> that
> > now skirts
> > > the northern end of Yuma was a pene-enclave of the New Mexico
> > Territory
> > > (established 1850), joined to the rest of NM only by half the
> width
> > of the
> > > Colorado at the confluence of the Gila. The southern boundary
> > NM wasthe
> > > described as "Beginning at a point in the Colorado River where
> the
> > boundary line
> > > with the Republic of Mexico crosses the same; thence eastwardly
> > with the said
> > > boundary line..." This would have carried it through the
> northern
> > end of
> > > current Yuma on the vestigial cadastral line that we see on
> modern
> > maps and then
> > > up the Gila eastward.
> > >
> > > The Gadsden Purchase of 1853 added to the US the land between
> > MXUS boundaryarea
> > > described above and the current MXUS boundary. This erased the
> > part of MXUS
> > > that is now the ghost line through Yuma, causing MXUS to go down
> > the Colorado
> > > southward from modern AZCAMX to the modern MXUS geodesic segment
> > that you
> > > mention below, thus enlarging the New Mexico Territory.
> > >
> > > > I wonder how the western end of that line was chosen. It seems
> > likely
> > > > that it was just chosen as a location that allowed for the
> > > > around San Diego Bay to be in the USA but not much more. Seemswhere
> odd
> > > > that they didn't set the border on the Pacific at, say, the
> mouth
> > of
> > > > the Tijuana River, which would be a couple miles north of
> > it is.the
> > >
> > > The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 specified "a point on
> > coast of thein
> > > Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the
> > southernmost point of
> > > the port of San Deigo, according to the plan of said port made
> > the year 1782and
> > > by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet,
> > and published
> > > at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the
> > schooners Sutil
> > > and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed,
> > sealed by theroughly
> > > respective plenipotentiaries." [Shades of Mason and Dixon
> hunting
> > the
> > > southernmost point in Philadelphia!]
> > >
> > > > While we're at it, I wonder what the history of the geodetic
> line
> > > > that forms the WNW/ESE southern border of Arizona/Gadsden
> Purchase
> > > > is. How was it chosen? A map of Baja California shows Mexico
> Hwy.
> > 2
> > > > extending for about 15 miles WNW of the azbcso tripoint,
> > > > along the same alignment as the WNW/ESE line in question. Hmm.executive
> > >
> > > The whole purpose of the Gadsden Purchase was for the US to
> acquire
> > a desirable
> > > railroad route. James Gadsden was, in fact, a railroad
> > who washttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > appointed Minister to Mexico for the negotiations. The boundary
> > that finally
> > > emerged was rather arbitrary, designed to enclose the needed
> > railroad route.
> > > The geodesic segment has its eastern terminus at 31°20" N. Lat.
> and
> > 111° W.
> > > Long. It runs "thence in a straight line to a point on the
> > Colorado River
> > > twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado
> > Rivers. It has
> > > no vestige west of the Colorado. Mexico highway 2 roughly
> > parallels the
> > > geodesic segment. After crossing the Colorado, it continues in
> the
> > same
> > > direction, straight across the desert, aimed generally at
> Mexicali.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to