Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Thanks Bill...
Date: Jul 18, 2000 @ 22:02
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


thanx david & you are absolutely right
i was using these words only in their most crude & indeed ignorant senses
while groping for truer words
yet each new arrival seemed worse than the previous for the same & various
new reasons
hahaha

but how about
curiously satisfying international tongues of land


anyway the canadian one i just visited is at st regis technically quebec
yet avowedly akwesasne mohawk
& attached on dry land only to new york

you can look to nyonqc from its western shore
yet the mohawks seem to me to recognize neither of their component provinces
& only acknowledge their component nations when it is in their interest to
do so

i tried 5 points there & will follow with more info soon
so any more about your interest would help

the 2 remaining american tongue tips are both in the lake champlain area

the larger of these comprising alburg vt & environs is practically spoiled
for having been connected by bridges not only to the rest of vt & but also
to ny

you can look to nyqcvt from its western bridge

as shown at http://docs.unh.edu/VT/salb16nw.jpg & probably confirmed by the
usgs vermont topo index map
directly to the east of this tongue & just across chapman bay of lake
champlain is a much smaller probably nameless tongue also projecting south
into the united states from the same quebec headland as the alburg tongue

this is the one i didnt actually see
yet i too remain curious about it
even while it is the only nontripunctual member of the quintet

m



>
>
>I don't think these should be considered enclaves or exclaves, since the
>political units in question are connected through territorial waters under
>state and county jurisdiction. Whatcom County and the State of Washington
>are not disconnected, only their land areas are. And if disconnection by
>territorial or fresh water "counts" as an exclave, every coastal state
>that has islands has exclaves. Point Roberts is cerainly a geographical
>oddity, but not an exclave or enclave. (I.m.h.o.)
>
>David
>dmark@...
>
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, michael donner wrote:
>
>> & specifically re the pt roberts & nw angle exclaves or enclaves
>>
>> uncannily i chanced to make visits also yesterday within or very close to
>> all 3 of the other international outlands of this sort that occur along the
>> caus boundary
>>
>> similarly 2 of these cases are also comprised of unconnected american
>> territory
>> but the last is a unique reverse instance of a canadian outpost or exclave
>>
>> if anyone would like to find or name or discuss further any of these 3
>> topologically equivalent yet curiously forgotten members of what is
>> actually a caus enclave quintet
>> then 3 clues to them are the following
>>
>> all 3 of these exclaves are like the nw angle cut off by fresh water
>>
>> 2 of them are like both pt roberts & the nw angle closely associated with
>> what could fairly be called major international tripoints
>>
>> & the least of the 3 may not even have a name yet
>>
>> m
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Peter Hering wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bill, thanks for your info on Point Roberts. Actually, I didn't express
>> >>myself properly: I know quite a lot about PR, have been there myself,
>> >>taken a lot of pictures as well - BUT: I'd like to know about the
>> >>background for the decision to put the border quite there: why should the
>> >>southern tip of this peninsula belong to the US - with all the
>> >>difficulties involved..? And why did the southern part of Vancouver
>> >> Island not become American as well - would be logical in my opinion...!
>> >> Any material on this border and the decision made accordingly...?!?
>> >
>> >The basic point is that the European powers often negotiated boundaries
>> >without knowing the local geography. Or when the new USofA negotiated
>> >about the West. (See Barry Smith's "On Drawing Lines on a Map"
>>
>>>(<<http://wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/faculty/smith/articles/drawing.html)> ht
>>tp://wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/faculty/smith/articles/drawing.html)>
>>htt
>> >p://wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/faculty/smith/articles/drawing.html)
>> >for a general treatment but nothing about Point Roberts.)
>> >
>> >Anyway, in the mid 1800s, the United States wanted all territory on the
>> >Pacific Coast up to 54 degrees 40' noth, the S limit of Russian territory.
>> >Britain on the other hand wanted the border to the Columbia River (or was
>> >it 42 latitude?) Anyway, eventually, the compromise was negotiated to be
>> >the 49th parallel of latitude west to the Pacific. Britain was so solidly
>> >settled in to Vancouver Island that they convenced the US to let them
>> >retain control of the Island. The wording of the treaty was something
>> >like, "the 49th parallel west to the ocean, thence through the principle
>> >channel between Vancouver Island and the mainland. There was later
>> >argument about whteher the principle channel was east or west of the San
>> >Juan islands but eventually the US won and the San Juans became US
>> >territory.
>> >
>> >Back to Point Roberts. When the treaty was worded and signed, presumably
>> >no-one realized that the 49th parallel intersects the mainland shoreline
>> >three times! A similar case of drawing lines on maps without knowing the
>> >local geography led to Kentucky having a disconnected piece due to the
>> >fact that the parallel selected for the KY-TN border crosses the
>> >Mississippi 3 times. And a piece of Minnesota (the Northwest Angle)
>> >similarly can be reached by land only through Canada and forms the
>> >northernmost part of the 48 continguous states, is US territory largely
>> >because when the treaty wording was plotted out on the geography, there
>> >were some surprises!
>> >
>> >David
>> >
>> >David Mark
>> >dmark@...
>> ><<http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~dmark/>
>>http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~dmark/>
>><http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~dmark/> http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~dmark/