thanx very much for this detailed analysis
computer time scarce in the desert today so i will respond in more
detail tomorrow
but i wanted to report also that i retried chnmtx this morning with
rose
the lady from texas
& was immediately approached by a border guard as soon as i had parked
very cautiously about a mile above the tripoint too
but when i saw he had the drop on me i of course returned pursuit
with a preemptive question
hey buddy where is the monument sight line etc etc
& he said follow me & led me on a high speed chase over the dusty
gravel to the parking area we all know & love
& said watch out dangerous
i said i am just going down to the river
& he said you cant
i said ok
he split
i went down to the tripoint vicinity in the rio where 3 boys were
bathing in knee deep water
& i was preparing to join them when i spotted the border guard
observing me from a distance defying his orders
& since i was responsible for another person
i knew i had to flee again
& made good our escape before he could catch up with me again
for another so near & yet so far class c peeks
& not a better class c than my previous class c either
but i made the try
& with adams 2 others
today we have our first mxus multi multi day
out of time
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> My odd-number thesis is based on the requirements of reality. The
number could
> not be even. I only mentioned once and thrice because higher
quantities would
> become increasingly unlikely, but not impossible.
>
> This is another of those cases where unanticipated geography
confounds the best
> intentions of treaty editors. You'd think that they would learn!
>
> I believe I understand how you think that the first description
compels the line
> to at least attempt to cross the Colorado at the mouth of the Gila,
but I think
> that the second more precise description puts the beginning of the
geodesic in
> the middle of the Gila without regard to the middle or direction of
the
> Colorado. Of course, the geodesic will cross the Colorado at least
once just as
> soon as the geography will allow.
>
> In any case, I will look for some map, legislation, or decree that
will further
> elucidate the situation.
>
> We know that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo delineated the
boundary in 1848,
> and that the geodesic was demarcated in 1849. At that time, there
were only two
> players, Mexico and the USA. There was not yet any State of
California or New
> Mexico Territory, both of which took existence in 1850.
>
> I agree that the 1850-1853 CAMXNM tripoint (or the western-most of
them if there
> were some odd number greater than one) was essentially identical
with today's
> AZCAMX tripoint.
>
> I will set forth below some reasons why I believe that there was
probably only
> one, which would leave the left bank of the Colorado below the
mouth of the Gila
> as a pene-enclave of NM, joined by half of the width of the
Colorado at the
> mouth of the Gila (the latter entering from the south into a great
loop of the
> former):
>
> The proposed constitution for California was written in 1849 and
used as its
> boundary "...the middle of the channel of the said [Colorado] river
to the
> boundary line between the Unites States and Mexico as established
by the treaty
> of May 30, 1848; thence running west and along said boundary line
to the Pacific
> Ocean..."
>
> If the geodesic MXUS boundary would have crossed the middle of the
Colorado
> multiple times, this description would have included in California
the portion
> of the left bank that is north of the ghost geodesic through
today's northern
> Yuma. If so, then how did California subsequently lose that land?
>
> On September 9, 1850, the same day that the Congress admitted
California with
> these boundaries, it passed legislation providing for the New
Mexico Territory
> and setting its boundaries. Note that this is after the lay of the
land in the
> vicinity of Yuma was known from the previous year's survey of the
geodesic. The
> description begins "at a point in the Colorado River where the
boundary line
> with the Republic of Mexico crosses the same; thence
eastwardly..." After
> circumscribing the entire territory counterclockwise, the
description brings the
> boundary back to the point of beginning by following "the boundary
line of the
> State of California."
>
> Note that this legislation mentions only one point where the MXUS
boundary
> crosses the Colorado River, and that it circumscribes only one body
of land with
> no mention of an enclave north of the geodesic in today's northern
Yuma. If the
> geodesic MXUS had crossed the Colorado thrice creating such an
enclave (or even
> cross-clave), then that clave would not have been part of New
Mexico Territory
> by this description, but we know that it was.
>
> So these are my reasons, but I don't expect anyone to concede other
theories
> until there is some more substantial proof. I will continue to
search for just
> that.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 12:08 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: mxn trip?
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/