ok lowell thanx
thats what i thought you thought
& this odd number thesis of yours
whether of a single or threefold
or for that matter why not even quintuple etc
1849camxnm multipoint
coincides completely with one of my 4 theses
the other 3 comprise a crossclave thesis
involving a double such multipoint
at the middle of the colorado both times
as detailed earlier & attached below
i will also insert a few comments
within your analysis below
the 3 subsets of this thesis that i was still considering as of
yesterday are of californian
or mexican
or new mexican ownership of the left bank parcel north of the geodesic
but i am beginning to think it could not have been mexican
or why draw the line in the first place
but it still is a tossup in my mind between new mexican or
californian ownership of this alternative theoretical parcel
more below
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Only the records of the 1849 survey would tell us just exactly
where in the
> confluence of the Gila and the Colorado that the initial point of
the geodesic
> line was placed. My notion that it was not in the middle of the
Colorado 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 when
they surveyed
> the geodesic.
>
> First, the treaty gives a description of the whole boundary, then
it more
> carefully describes the geodesic "in order to preclude all
difficulty in tracing
> upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California."
>
> Before I quote these descriptions, please realize that they were
written in a
> suburb of Mexico City by people who had never been to Yuma. The
Gila was
> envisioned as an east-west river, and the Colorado as a north-south
river. Also
> realize that the Colorado was not being made a boundary of any kind
in this
> treaty. The MXUS boundary would consist of the middle of the Gila
and the
> geodesic to the Pacific.
>
> The treaty describes the boundary from the Gulf of Mexico and
eventually comes
> 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 Pacific
Ocean."
excellent analysis
but here i understand the text to also possibly say the boundary is
to enter & cross the colorado at the point where the middle of the
gila reaches it
& i think it would have to try to cross per the specs
but because of the unanticipated geographical situation could only go
halfway across
where the gila ceases to be
before finally having to turn geodesic per the specs
>
> In the more precise description of the geodesic, intended to assist
the
> surveyors in finding it, the treaty specifies "a straight line
drawn from the
> middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a
point on the
> coast of the Pacific Ocean..."
>
> In no part of the treaty is the "middle" of the Colorado
mentioned. If the
> Colorado were being made a boundary, then it would be reasonable
for the middle
> of the Gila to join onto its middle. However, the boundary comes
down the
> middle of the Gila until it "empties into" or "unites with" the
Colorado, then
> becomes a geodesic that runs "across" the Colorado and on to the
Pacific.
yes
as i say
this is one of the 2 possible readings
& of the several possible theses
most of which continue to call for an 1849camxnm tripoint essentially
coincident with modern azbcca mxn
but perhaps there is some record or map that would settle this
meantime
in the few minutes i have remaining here at the library
since the university is closed today
let me just report i have moved into the smugglers spa
& have made myself much more comfortable here in my clave
tho it is a 40 mile commute to the internet
have been sharing the pool & my weed there with a gorgeous lady from
texas who may help smuggle my stuff out for a share next week
she looks like a very straight nice old lady
i cant do it myself because i look too much like the zigzag man &
they do culturally profile you there
& besides have been in border jail several times
briefly of course
but am permanently on their computer
running out of time
more of this story to come
This
> is why I think that the geodesic began, or should have begun, in
the middle of
> the mouth of the Gila, regardless of the location of the middle of
the Colorado.
>
> When applied to the landscape, we find that the Gila intersected
the Colorado at
> some now indefinite point on a great looping meander of the latter
(not the
> counter-clockwise one that skirts Yuma to the north, but the
clockwise one that
> occupied the bottoms northeast of Yuma before the river was
channelized).
> Depending on the orientation at the time of the two rivers within
those bottoms,
> a geodesic from within the mouth of the Gila could have crossed the
middle of
> the Colorado once or thrice on its way toward the Pacific. If
once, then the
> portion of the New Mexico Territory (once formed in 1850) that was
north 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 the
Colorado (with
> only one CAMXNM). If thrice, then it would have been an enclave of
the New
> Mexico Territory surrounded by California along the Colorado and
Mexico along
> the geodesic (and there would have been three CAMXNM's).
California's
> boundaries at admission in 1850 were simply the middle of the
Colorado and the
> portion of the geodesic west thereof.
>
> 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
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
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/