Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that isn't in a State?
Date: Jul 30, 2004 @ 05:02
Author: Michael Kaufman (Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> BUS&SS says, of the "Treaty with Great Britain,http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
> 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@...>
> 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@...>
> 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@...>
> > > 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!
> >
>
> >__________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>