Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: American ghost tripoints<br/>
Date: Feb 07, 2004 @ 22:38<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="13090.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="13098.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic12992.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="13096.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="13098.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-772052507">Mike wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; to begin with<br/>
&gt; de jure tripunctivity is what we are primarily after here<br/>
&gt; isnt it<br/>
&gt; ...<br/>
&gt; so anyway de facto is fine<br/>
&gt; but i say bring on the de jure truth in all its convolution<br/>
&gt; because that is a primary objective in all our try pointing<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>That&#39;s fine with me.  To each his own.  If those are your standards, then it was<br/>
a tripoint.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; i realize it is a difference in our point of view<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but i also think you are being a little unrealistic to think in terms<br/>
&gt; of actual de facto tripoints when even the actual de facto borders are<br/>
&gt; so elusive & ephemeral & arbitrary thruout this area & period<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>That they were!  I&#39;m just a bit hesitant to ordain a spot as an unqualified<br/>
tripoint when only two of the three parties agree as to its location.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; so our hastily claimed starting corner<br/>
&gt; of 31st & miss between 1783 & 1803<br/>
&gt; proves to be both<br/>
&gt; esgbus1783 for an unknown number of days<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>The pertinent dates of the treaties were November 30, 1782, and September 3,<br/>
1783.  That comes to 277 days.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; whattt<br/>
&gt; thats the freakin ellicott line<br/>
&gt; & many of the mounds are still recoverable<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>Okay!  Thanks.  I will confess that I know Andrew Ellicott only in general terms<br/>
by his high reputation.  Looking for him in the index, I have now found BUS&SS&#39;s<br/>
account of his survey of the 31st parallel from the Mississippi River eastward,<br/>
but it&#39;s located in the section on Georgia!<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; whoa<br/>
&gt; perhaps for esgbus1783 i might agree<br/>
&gt; but not for 1800esfrus1803 as thats post ellicott<br/>
&gt; ...<br/>
&gt; but we do have ellicotts 1799 map<br/>
&gt; ...<br/>
&gt; we need to cut direct to ellicott<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>Yes, I fully agree--now that Ellicot&#39;s work has sprung to my knowledge from its<br/>
exile in Georgia.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; do you mean what state has more gall than louisiana<br/>
&gt; ...<br/>
&gt; could you rephrase the question<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>Never mind.  It was a rhetorical question intended to point out the brazen<br/>
unneighborliness of locating a penitentiary against the boundary of another<br/>
state.<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA</div>