oops
the important part
thanx to the border guard
i smuggled a joint into mexico
& then back into the usa
more tomorrow
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
wrote:
> 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/