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 there
whatever the actual status of the left bank territory north of the
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 a
> point at "the
> > 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 of
> NM was
> > 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 the
> MXUS boundary
> > 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 area
> > > around San Diego Bay to be in the USA but not much more. Seems
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 where
> it is.
> >
> > The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 specified "a point on the
> coast of the
> > 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 in
> the year 1782
> > 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, and
> sealed by the
> > 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, roughly
> > > along the same alignment as the WNW/ESE line in question. Hmm.
> >
> > The whole purpose of the Gadsden Purchase was for the US to
acquire
> a desirable
> > railroad route. James Gadsden was, in fact, a railroad executive
> who was
> > 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