Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: stretching the quest for a real stretchable latex tripoint to stretch
Date: Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:13
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>Please see my
> I think that we are making great progress here.
> insertions below.for a real stretchable
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
> To: <boundarypoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:12 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: stretching the quest
> latex tripoint to stretch&
>
>
> > well ok i am very glad i asked then
> > even if i seem to you driven when i am only mildly
> > playfully curiousin
> > & might never have thought of this long forgotten
> > quest again if the cleanup hadnt been called for
> > this mornings newsup &
> > & glad again even if you did feel forced to clean
> > or answer for yourselfbegun
> > which of course you werent
> >
> > & may i say again
> > it again seems to me you still havent yet really
> > to answer the question i actually asked & meant(other than for a
>
>
> I'm lost as to what you have "asked and meant"
> tripoint). If I haven't answered your question bythe end of my
> insertions, please plainly state it. I will gladlytry to answer it.
>another
>
> > while admittedly offering or reoffering yet
> > titillating diversionthan up
> >
> > & out in the sabine river yet this time rather
> > the calcasieuRiver is in
>
>
> As I suppose you know, the source of the Calcasieu
> north-central Vernon Parish. From there northward,the Neutral Ground
> boundary (as generally understood) wanders a bit,following various
> streams here and there.the description of
>
>
> > but in looking again at your earlier map
> > i do see more clearly now where the area of my
> > uncertainty is focussed
>
>
> My map (the one in the BP Files section) is based on
> the boundary in the book by Louis R. Nardini, Sr.cited earlier. This
> book is a local history of the Natchitoches area.Nardini was know as
> not the most careful historian, but this particularbook is primarily a
> collection of what purport to be original sources.For the boundaries
> of the Neutral Ground, Nardini quotes from a letterby Peter Samuel
> Davenport to Governor Claiborne in "the archives atNatchitoches." I
> have searched in vain at the courthouse and thehistorical library at
> Natchitoches for any such letter, so I have just hadto take Nardini's
> word. He gives the boundary from the mouth of theCalcasieu River to
> the source of Arroyo Hondo as seems to be widelyaccepted. From there
> he seems to go due north a short distance to BayouPierre and up it to
> the 32nd parallel, then west along it to the Sabine,then down to the
> Gulf of Mexico. This description, however, is notperfectly rendered in
> Nardini's book. The book presents one particularline of type twice,
> and I have always wondered if another line thatshould have been
> included was left out or if there were otherscramblings. Being unable
> to find the original document, I had to go with whatI had.
>article in
> Now that you have shown us the J. Villasana Haggard
> SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL QUARTERLY, which I havenever before seen, it is
> my opinion that the description at the beginning ofHaggard's seventh
> paragraph is the correct version of what Nardini sopoorly rendered.
> (It matches, right down to the phrase about ArroyoHondo fading into
> Sibley's Marsh.) The critical difference thatseems to have been
> deleted in Nardini's confused typography is theascent of Bayou Pierre,
> not to the 32nd parallel, but to the west bank ofBayou Pierre Lake at
> Bayou Pierre Settlement. Haggard, in his ninthparagraph, then goes in
> a straight diagonal line from the settlement to theconfluence of the
> 32rd parallel and the 94th meridian on the Sabine(near modern
> Logansport). I will henceforth countenance Haggardand not Nardini!
>article and go to the
> If you will abandon the Google cache of Haggard's
> July 1945 issue of the SHQ athttp://tinyurl.com/ffqm9 (scrolling down
> about one-third of the long page), you will findthat you can roll your
> mouse over the blue footnote reference numbers inthe text and get a box
> with the source. Haggard's source for the easternboundary at footnote
> reference 7 is a letter of September 18, 1806, bySalcedo [Spanish
> military officer] to Claiborne [Governor of theTerritory of Orleans]
> found in Volume 200, pages 134-141 of Hacket'stranscriptions of the
> Archivo General Indias, Provincias Internas.Obviously, Davenport (as
> quoted by Nardini) and Salcedo (as quoted byHaggard) were singing off
> the same page in their respective letters toGovernor Claiborne.
>as
>
> > for i find i am not really even able to follow you
> > far north as the 32nd parallel yetascending
> > whether by the route you show on that map
> > bayou pierreyou correctly show
> > as it seems from this distance
> > or by the slightly more westerly route you seem to
> > favor in todays analysis
> > ascending the sabine red drainage divide
>
>
> My route north of the source of Arroyo Hondo (which
> in your TopoZone link below) goes due north to BayouPierre (the stream)
> and then up the bayou. This was my understanding ofthis part of the
> limits of the Neutral Ground when I made the map andit is today. The
> "slightly more westerly route" on the divide, ofwhich I wrote Friday,
> is the historic boundary of the French claim toLouisiana as the land
> drained by the Mississippi River. This divide wouldbe the historic
> boundary beyond wherever the northern limit of theNeutral Ground
> happened to be. That is the only context in which Iintended to put
> forward the divide. It was not one of the limits ofthe Neutral Ground.
>the
>
> > & really almost no matter by which route
> > if indeed either
> >
> > for my more pressing questions really are
> > on what authority do you deliberately place the
> > northeast corner of the neutral ground anywhere on
> > 32nd parallelnortheast corner
>
>
> Nardini's now-known-to-be-flawed typography! The
> should be about nine miles farther northwestward upthe bayou at the
> Bayou Pierre Settlement on Bayou Pierre Lake.Haggard that the
>
>
> > & on what authority then proceed to extend its
> > northern limit westward along that parallel as far
> > west as the sabine & or 94th meridian
>
>
> In this latter respect, I am now in agreement with
> northern limit of the Neutral Ground runs diagonallyfrom Bayou Pierre
> Settlement to the specified geocord confluence nearLogansport on the
> Sabine.the computer mouse.
>
>
> > for that really is the bigger part of the entire
> > question of
> > how exactly do you get the neutral ground from the
> > natchitoches adaes area to the logansport area
>
>
> Answered in insertions above.
>
>
> > let alone beyond
> >
> > for i assume the little horned proruption at your
> > northwest corner is a slip of the pen rather than
> > anything deliberate
>
>
> You assume correctly, except that it was a slip of
> The drawing was done digitally.of Haggard in lieu of
>
>
> > but that everything up to that point is quite
> > deliberate
>
>
> It was, but it now stands to be corrected in light
> Nardini.neutral
>
>
> > or is it
> >
> >
> > here is how someone else gets there
> > http://www.enlou.com/maps/1805territorymap.htm
> > following the area outlined in black & labeled
> > groundPierre, but it never
> > but i have no more confidence in this map than in
> > yours much beyond arroyo hondo
>
>
> Beyond Arroyo Hondo, that map seems to follow Bayou
> knows where to stop doing so. It follows theeastern and northern
> boundaries of De Soto Parish all the way to Texas.That parish boundary
> dates from 1843, so it is of no consequence to thepresent discussion.
>around
>
> > for i do see the source of arroyo hondo here at
> > 31d47m30shttp://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.79261&lon=-93.19231&s=500&size=l&u=6&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> >
> > as stipulated by some unknown authority toward theend
> > hereSettlement as being on Bayou
> > http://www.enlou.com/places/neutralground.htm
> > but i dont know what is meant there by the bayou
> > pierre settlement
>
>
> Haggard's source describes the Bayou Pierre
> Pierre Lake (really a swamp) shown here:http://tinyurl.com/h6e2g .
>bayou
>
> > & i could just as easily imagine stopping the
> > specified due north line where it first reaches
> > pierre in about nlat 31d49m17s herehttp://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.82148&lon=-93.19291&s=500&size=l&u=6&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> >
> > or where it reaches the red river at about nlathttp://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.88885&lon=-93.19413&s=500&size=l&u=6&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> > 31d53m20s here
> >
> > as stipulated by some other unknown authority inhttp://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:xgWTjE0DeCAJ:www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v049/n1/contrib_DIVL798.html+%22bayou+pierre+settlement%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari
> > footnote 7 here
> >
> > or elsebut at
> > running it as shown in the equally questionable
> > least historical map at the very end of the abovelink
>the Neutral Ground as
>
> That map is an accurate depiction of the limits of
> Haggard has reconstructed them from his historicsources.
>northern
>
> > etc
> > etc
> > because there must be other versions of the
> > reaches of the neutral ground available toomississippi
> >
> >
> > & beyond that
> > i do see bus&ss at least appearing to favor the
> > drainage divide on the louisiana state historical
> > diagram & the louisiana purchase diagram
> > while mentioning in text that spain still didnt
> > recognize the american claim west of the
> > river til 1819a
> > which i trust is just a misstatement for
> > west of the red river til 1819
> > or west of the sabine red drainage divide til 1819
> > or west of a line running parallel to the red but
> > few miles west of itupon
> > etc
> > yikes
> >
> > but in any case i do understand there was some
> > consensus about the sabine red drainage divide
> > at least approximately
> > in those latitudes during those years
> >
> > so i suppose i am prepared to accept some point
> > or near that divide as the answer to my questionnorthern boundary of the
>
>
> The divide would intersect Haggard's diagonal
> Neutral Ground approximately three mileswest-northwest of downtown
> Mansfield. I would nominate that as your tripoint.have
>
>
> > but i dont undertand how the 32nd parallel could
> > come into playof
> > except as someones rationalization & sidestepping
> > the apparentlimit
> > f a c t
> > that the neutral ground actually had no northern
> > nor perhaps even any eastern limit much beyondarroyo
> > hondolatex
>
>
> See Haggard's sixth paragraph.
> [End of insertions.]
>
>
> > or i am deceived
> >
> > & for this reason i see not even any stretchable
> > tripoint yet but just a voidthe
> >
> >
> > now you may say
> > well isnt that silly & pointless
> >
> > but i say
> > yes it certainly is
> > &
> > for lack of a real closing line & a real tripoint
> > whole idea of a neutral ground or of any territoryor
> > zone of any kind is lost at a certain pointrather
> >
> > so it is actually rather important as well as
> > silly to stretch this latex tripoint & this questfor
> > it1806-1819
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > McManus" <lgm@> wrote:
> >>
> >> The map that I promised was a map of the
> > de facto Neutralbetween
> >> Ground, worked out as a practical solution
> > the American andBP
> >> Spanish military officers in the field (quite
> > independent of their
> >> political bosses higher up). It is found in the
> > Files section withNeutral
> >> the name neutral.jpg and is explained in the last
> > two paragraphs of BP
> >> post 14285 at your third link below.
> >>
> >> I did not indicate any tripoint between the
> > Ground and theTexas
> >> remainders of American Louisiana and Spanish
> > because ofboundary
> >> uncertainty in the location of the international
> > boundary north of the
> >> Neutral Ground. Indeed, it was that same
> > uncertainty that necessitated
> >> both the Neutral Ground in the first instance and
> > the Adams-de Onís
> >> treaty that would replace it with a de jure
> > in the second. Thenot
> >> only reason that the de facto Neutral Ground was
> > erected fartherparallel
> >> north was that the land north of the 32nd
> > was not yet the(which
> >> subject of much interest (navigation on the Red
> > River being blocked by
> >> the "Great Raft," a 150-mile log jam that was
> > removed by 1839).
> >>
> >> However, if you are driven to find a tripoint
> > you undoubtedlyGround,
> >> are), I, as a resident of the former Neutral
> > can offer somewestern
> >> analysis that might be helpful.
> >>
> >> In the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the USA bought
> > from France the French
> >> claim to Louisiana, without specifying any
> > boundary. Mostas
> >> strictly, that could be interpreted historically
> > the land west of theThis
> >> Mississippi River that drained into the same.
> > means that thethe
> >> drainage divide between the basins of the Red and
> > Sabine rivers would
> >> have been the boundary. The USA was desirous of
> > most liberalthe
> >> (western) interpretation of the boundary of
> > Louisiana as it could put
> >> over on the Spanish. Thus, the 1804 creation of
> > Territory ofboundary
> >> Orleans was "to extend west to the western
> > of the saidSabine
> >> cession." In 1812 when Louisiana was admitted to
> > the Union, its western
> >> boundary was specified at the middle of the
> > River to the 32ndthis
> >> parallel, and from there due north. Note that
> > was in the midst ofSabine
> >> the life span of the de facto military Neutral
> > Ground and was seven
> >> years before the 1819 Adams-de Onís treaty would
> > place the de jure
> >> US-Spanish boundary on the west bank of the
> > River to the 32ndprospectively
> >> parallel and thence northward. So, it is clear
> > that, in 1812, the
> >> Congress was admitting into the Union
> > the western fringesde
> >> of Louisiana that it hoped eventually to obtain
> > jure. The US waitedthe
> >> until after the 1819 treaty was fully ratified in
> > 1821 before it
> >> occupied the erstwhile Neutral Ground militarily
> > with the establishment
> >> of Fort Jesup in 1822.
> >>
> >> So, if you forced me to draw you a tripoint at
> > northern end of theParish
> >> Neutral Ground, I would place it in De Soto
> > at the intersectionActually,
> >> of the Sabine-Red drainage divide with the 32nd
> > parallel, centered
> >> roughly six miles southeast of Mansfield.
> > the complexity ofit
> >> the drainage divide in that vicinity seems that
> > would produce threethe
> >> tripoints, with a Spanish exclave surrounded by
> > USA and the Neutraladmission
> >> Ground. Of course, it never came to that.
> >>
> >> Of more fascination to me is the anomaly that
> > existed in the western
> >> half of the Sabine River. Since the 1812
> > of Louisiana hadon
> >> prematurely placed its western boundary at the
> > middle of the river, and
> >> the 1819 treaty placed the international boundary
> > the west bank, thatunorganized
> >> left the western half of the Sabine as
> > territory of theCongress
> >> United States until 1848. That's when the
> > authorized the Stateits
> >> of Texas (annexed three years earlier) to extend
> > jurisdiction to theSabine
> >> middle of Sabine Pass, Sabine Lake, and the
> > River to the 32ndTexas,
> >> parallel. That narrow part of the State of
> > in which I swam threeTexas!
> >> weeks ago, was never part of the Republic of
> >>a
> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@>
> >> To: <boundarypoint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] stretching the quest for
> > real stretchablehttp://www.2theadvocate.com/features/travel/4201376.html
> >> latex tripoint to stretch
> >>
> >>
> >> > this fresh news item about an imminent neutral
> > ground
> >> > cleanup party
> >> >
> >
> >> > jogged my memory back to this excellent goldenhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/14259
> > oldie
> >> >
> >
> >> > which you may also recallhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/14285
> >> > along with its equally illustrious second shoe
> >> > dropping
> >> >
> >
> >> >far
> >> > but which still left one guessing & reaching &
> >> > stretching for any handle at all on the elusive
> > but
> >> > allegedly real
> >> > de facto latex neutral ground tripoint
> >> > which actually lived
> >> > or else was really stillborn
> >> > if thats not stretching it in this case too
> >> > during the first decades of the 19th century
> >> >
> >> > my guess is
> >> > the quest got stretched into an unresolved
> > sawanabori
> >> > of the calcasieu
> >> > which however interesting & possibly even
> > contributory
> >> > to an ultimate resolution of this supposed
> > lalatxtx
> >> > tripoint
> >> > came to a dead stop there in any case
> >> > like a snapped elastic band
> >> >
> >> > but all efforts to pin la latex tex down thus
> >> > reported heretriarea
> >> > i believe
> >> > & all my subsequent efforts too
> >> > have resulted only in establishing a vague
> > &to
> >> > triline at the farthest reaches of the lalatxtx
> > condo
> >> > or nondo
> >> > extending perhaps all the way from about zwolle
> >> > about logansport1806lalatxtx1819
> >> > & thus perhaps comprising several hundreds of
> > square
> >> > miles of 1806lalatx1819 territorial uncertainty
> > too
> >> > rather than any specific & exact
> >> > tripointon
> >> >
> >> > like say very roughly all the sabine riverfront
> >> > this maphttp://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.93501&lon=-93.93668&s=250&size=l&u=4&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> >> >
> >
> >> > or better yet if zoomed out once or twicemap
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > but did i miss the promised tripoint treasure
> >> > or hasnt it surfaced yet__________________________________________________