I do not know the precise status of the property as to land ownership or to the
UN's tenure upon it, but its political status is somewhat analogous to that of a
foreign embassy.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "raedwulf16" <raedwulf16@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:26 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that isn't in a State?
> What exactly is the political status of the UN.Has the land alloted
> it in NYC been "surrendered" to the UN as an entity separate from
> the USA..or is the space merely--- being rented ???? In
> BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > BUS&SS says, of the "Treaty with Great Britain, 1925":
> >
> > "Article II of the treaty made the lines between monuments
> established under the
> > treaty of 1908 on the 49th parallel east of the Rocky Mountains
> straight lines,
> > not following the curve of the parallel. The United States gained
> between 30
> > and 35 acres of land by this change."
> >
> > "Straight lines" are, by purest definition, arcs of the great
> circle. The idea
> > here is line-of-sight between intervisible monuments, and those
> are indeed great
> > circle arcs.
> >
> > The segment west of the Rocky Mountains had been furnished with
> intervisible
> > monuments for the first time as of 1907, and the 1908 treaty
> said "The line so
> > defined and laid down shall be taken and deemed to be the
> international
> > boundary."
> >
> > Another quote from BUS&SS:
> >
> > "Boundary monuments along the 49th parallel may vary in latitude
> by as much as a
> > second or more, because many of them were astronomic stations. It
> was not
> > thought practical to move these to the true parallel, and the
> boundary is
> > defined as the line joining successive stations."
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that
> isn't in a
> > State?
> >
> >
> > > but is the boundary defined as straight line great
> > > circle arcs or straight lines on flat maps. great
> > > circle arcs mean the tripoint would be north of the
> > > latitude of the 2 CA-US monuments. (and on a flat map
> > > the border should arc up between each CA-US monument.)
> > >
> > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > I agree that no non-state land was created when the
> > > > CAUS boundary was moved from
> > > > the theoretical 49th parallel to straight line
> > > > segments between intervisible
> > > > monuments. If the northern boundary of Idaho, for
> > > > instance, had been specified
> > > > as the parallel, then there might be a problem, but
> > > > Idaho's northern boundary
> > > > was specified upon its 1890 admission to the Union
> > > > as "the boundary line between
> > > > the United States and the British Possessions."
> > > > Thus, if CAUS moves, so does
> > > > the state boundary.
> > > >
> > > > The same is true along MXUS when the Rio Grande and
> > > > the Colorado River accrete
> > > > and avulse. If the US grows, so do the affected
> > > > states.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land
> > > > in USA that isn't in a State?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > very interesting
> > > > >
> > > > > i dont think any stateless land is actually
> > > > created by it tho
> > > > >
> > > > > rather i believe idwa must continue effectively
> > > > due north the extra
> > > > > half inch or so beyond the 1909 terminal marker
> > > > vertex
> > > > > until it reaches the caus sight line at true
> > > > bcidwa
> > > > >
> > > > > this point is reached probably while still on the
> > > > marker disk
> > > > > but just north of its center point
> > > > > if i understand you correctly
> > > > >
> > > > > & if that is right
> > > > > then you have made & reported here the first
> > > > monumental class
> > > > > b visit in history
> > > > >
> > > > > which is a curious contradiction in terms
> > > > > since class b was invented for unmarked points
> > > > >
> > > > > but i believe your novel findings have
> > > > demonstrated that true
> > > > > bcidwa is indeed an unmarked point upon the idwa
> > > > terminal
> > > > > marker
> > > > >
> > > > > & have done so with almost acupunctural precision
> > > > to boot
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Patton
> > > > [DCP]"
> > > > > <dpatton@c...> wrote:
> > > > > > This is a theoretical question, just out of
> > > > curiosity,
> > > > > > but may not be hypothetical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By treaty, the Cananda/USA border along the 49th
> > > > parallel
> > > > > > is defined by straight lines between border
> > > > monuments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's my understanding that boundaries between US
> > > > states,
> > > > > > such as between Wahington and Idaho, are defined
> > > > by
> > > > > > the locations of monuments along those borders.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apparently, the monument that defines the
> > > > intersection
> > > > > > of the Washington/Idaho border with the
> > > > Canada/USA border
> > > > > > was incorrectly placed by the USGS in 1909,
> > > > because they
> > > > > > placed in on the parallel, which is a line with
> > > > a slight
> > > > > > southward curve, rather than placing it on the
> > > > straight
> > > > > > line between the two adjacent Canada/USA border
> > > > > monuments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The difference is apparently very small -
> > > > perhaps on the
> > > > > > order of 1/2 an inch, but, at least
> > > > theoretically, doesn't
> > > > > > this create a small piece of land that is south
> > > > of the
> > > > > > Canada/USA border, and therefore is in the USA,
> > > > but which
> > > > > > is located north of both Washinton and Idaho?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dave Patton
> > > > > > Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
> > > > > > http://www.confluence.org/
> > > > > > My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> > > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>