notice
useless enjoyment following
a third & best & perhaps final try for the ghost of the mxus abortion
rock this afternoon has indeed also turned up nothing
tho i combed the blufftop at the exact degminsec quite carefully
just in case the 1851 survey was as good as topozone
& tho i even scoured the entire degmin up & down the river
in case the survey was only that accurate
yet i realized too that it may not have been nearly so fine
& that my try however careful is therefore both speculative &
incomplete
tho frankly
i knew from the start i was sending myself on a fools errand anyway
there were several rushes of near discovery tho
when i thought i saw something i didnt
& it was of course another wonderful outing on another beautiful day
imagining 3 commissioners imagining they were forging a new mxus
in a setting somewhat like this btw
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/firecracker/images/fire-92-sm.jpg
http://www.totacc.com/user/strokesupport/37.gif
best i can do without a camera or a rock to show anyway
& indeed it was particularly lovely to spend some hours on the rio
without any sign or trace or trappings of mxus at all
like it might have been the coasts of nebraska or oregon or something
but just with the backdrop of needle sharp mountains added
but so anyway
was that productive
yes definitely as far as i am concerned
i may even try it again
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, orc@o... wrote:
> first
> the full excerpt from the bible p28
> under
> first mexican cession
> as follows
>
> the most difficult question that came before the 1849 mxus
commission
> for decision concerned the location & extent of the south boundary
of
> new mexico
>
> here unfortunately the disturnell map left room for broad
differences
> of opinion
>
> the town called paso
> now named juarez
> was located on the map more than half a degree too far north &
nearly
> 2 degrees too far east
>
> in the absence of the chief surveyor for the usa
> the 3 other members of the commission agreed to accept the position
> of the south boundary of new mexico as shown by the projection
lines
> on the map
> namely lat 32d22m north
> & to run a line in that latitude 3 degrees west from the rio grande
&
> thence north until a branch of the gila river was intersected
>
> in accordance with this decision
> a durable monument was erected on the bank of the rio grande
> in nlat 32d22m
> & the running of the line westward was begun
> see fig47
>
> after a degree & a half had been run
> the chief surveyor for the usa arrived
> & learned what had been done
> & made a vigorous protest against this interpretation of the map
>
> this protest caused the sudden stoppage of the work of running the
> line
> & the repudiation of the agreement by the usgovt
>
> the usa claimed the boundary should be located with reference to
the
> town of paso
> the only definite point for it named in the treaty
>
> under this claim
> according to later observations
> the south boundary of new mexico would be placed at about nlat
31d52m
> & it would extend west to wlong 109d30m
>
> negotiations followed but no agreement had been reached before 1853
> when the gadsden purchase made further discussion unnecessary
>
> end of quote
>
>
> & secondly
> the deciphered text of the ghost historical marker near dona ana nm
> as follows
>
> bartlett garcia conde initial survey point
>
> on 24 april 1851 john russell bartlett for the usa & pedro garcia
> conde for the republic of mexico erected near here a monument
> designating 32d 22m nlat on the rio grande as the initial point for
> the official survey of usmx
>
> after the gadsden purchase the boundary was moved south
>
> end of text
>
>
> & finally the report that my second & more focussed try to find
this
> durable but bogus & probably no longer existent marker yesterday
> afternoon was again class e
> but i will try again one last time today with the best available
map
> in hand
> because it seems to me that the slight technical inaccuracy or
> omission in the text of the historical marker was not enough to
> warrant someone taking so much trouble to destroy it
>
> there probably had to be a better reason
>
> & the only other reason i can think of is that the local property
> owner may have wanted to discourage visitors
>
> & that is why i have decided not to suspend the try yet
> but to try even harder one last time
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
<barbaria_longa@h...>
> wrote:
> > those of you who have been following the progress of mxus between
> > 1848 & 1853 with us this past week may have noticed the passage
on
> > p28 in the bible
> > under the heading of
> > first mexican session
> > which tells of an abortive first survey of the south boundary of
> new
> > mexico westward from the rio grande along latitude 32d22m
> >
> > this line is shown in fig 47 on p162 too
> >
> >
> > well
> > along my route from the university to the hot springs each night
> > after reading & rereading this & related passages
> > i had been passing an almost completely defaced new mexico
> historical
> > marker near the village of dona ana
> >
> > & since new mexico historical markers
> > & defaced ones in particular
> > are almost always worth a look
> > i finally stopped on saturday to try to decipher this one
> > & lo & behold
> > it says something about the initial point of this very boundary
> > survey being near that very place
> > etc etc
> >
> > & tho it is unclear why someone so carefully obliterated the
entire
> > text of the historical marker almost beyond decipherment
> > it may have been out of a concern for historical authenticity
> > since the survey had after all been invalidated almost as soon as
> it
> > was begun in 1851
> > & its correction finally obviated in 1853 by the gadsden purchase
> >
> > but anyway i scoured the right bank of the rio for about a mile
> near
> > there
> > hoping against hope that i might find the actual relic
> > since i realize erroneous rocks are routinely pulled rather than
> > allowed to stand & cause further confusion
> >
> > & i will look again this afternoon even more carefully
> > exactly where the topo shows this latitude crossing the river
> > with a final careful beating of the bushes
> > just in case the surveyors got that part exactly right
> > & just in case the rock wasnt pulled after all
> >
> > but basically i think this report of a ghost memorial to a ghost
> rock
> > from an abortive 1851 mxus survey is already as complete as it
will
> > ever be