--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > You asked:
> >
> > > or can anyone say if this rio source or metasource point was
> perhaps
> > > specified in the mxtx1836 treaty as the summit of canby mtn
> > >
> > > rather than the point to which the mainstream could be traced
> > > experimentally
> > > even above its headspring
> > > to the crest
> >
> > The May 14, 1836 MXTX agreements called the "Treaties of Velasco"
> specified
> > little as to boundaries. They did provide for the withdrawal of
> the Mexican
> > army beyond the Rio Grande, and the Mexican dictator promised to
> work toward a
> > treaty of limits to provide that Texas would not lie south of the
> Rio Grande.
>
> but youve done it again maestro
>
> for besides ruling canby summit out
> you have confirmed we need to begin from the rio source
> whether
> the natural sawanabori headspring source
> or
> the meta sawanabori thalweg point on the physical crest line
> somewhere still unknown above the headspring source
>
> i am still not sure which of these 2 probabilities is correct
> but i do think it is correctly either one or the other
>
> but that is already an enormous help
> & confirms my first topozone swatch was correct
> for showing both the rio headspring point
> at least according to this the most detailed available usgs topo
> & undoubtedly also the alternative point based on it
>
> & it also confirms texas could only lie generally northward but not
> southward anywhere on the right bank
>
> hence
> the north line to the limit of mexico at nlat 42
> hence the stovepipe
> & its nw corner
> the confirmed 1836mxtxus1845
>
>
> for you have also confirmed all this was both de facto in 1836 &
> projected to become de jure by both parties since 1836
>
>
> & again my time is almost up
> but i am deliberately going slow this time
> & there is much more of interest here
> so i will have to continue this in probably several more steps
>
> so again thanx for bearing with me
ok
back again
thanx
the only other point i would like to continue in this sequel message
before going on to other stuff
since at least this much of the original context is still uncut
is
if you or anyone else can actually provide any alternative theses for
the true headspring
with maps or other data
it would be most wonderful to see these data before we proceed with
the physical sawanabori
since the point of highest common agreement among all the theses will
naturally be the beginning point from which we will endeavor to
ascend the mainstream experientially
of course there is no guarantee that the sawanabori resultant of
today would have been the sawanabori resultant of 1836
in fact i think it is practically guaranteed that the resultant point
on 2 successive days in august 2004
when i propose to try it
would differ at least a bit
& possibly quite a bit
but i believe such a 2phase try
first with all available maps
& then with feet
may well yield the best available truth
& should be carefully pursued
unless some more official or exact historical data or better
methodology present themselves in the meantime
& in the 3 hours that remain before the big pine library closes
irrevocably until tuesday afternoon
i will be seriously considering condescending directly from paradise
to the top of cream hill
where i understand they could use a ground hog
& where i should also be able to continue scribbling with greater
care & at greater length & leisure
but oops i must yield the machine again now
>
> > These "treaties" were never made official by either party. See
> >
>
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/TT/mgt5.html
> .
> >
> > The Texas claim to the Rio Grande as the boundary was formalized
in
> a statute
> > passed by the Congress of the Republic on December 19, 1936,
which
> declared the
> > boundary to be the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source, and
> from there
> > northward to the 1819 treaty line, etc.
> >
> > So, that is the basis for the MXTXUS tripoint of 1836-1845
> somewhere in modern
> > Wyoming.
> >
> > As to which of the several tributaries in eastern San Juan
County,
> Colorado, is
> > the true source of the Rio Grande, I have no firm opinion. Every
> time I've
> > found a detailed map naming one of them "Rio Grande," I find
> another map naming
> > the same as some creek or other and a different one as "Rio
> Grande." Not even
> > all USGS maps agree.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA