Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that isn't in a State?
Date: Aug 03, 2004 @ 17:59
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that isn't in a
State?
> Ok reading your and Dave's responses, I realize I may
> not have been clear.
>
> I completely agree with the fact that the 1925 treaty
> changed the Eastern section from the 49th parallel to
> great circle arcs. This really can't be reasonably
> questioned. But my question is only about the area
> West of the Rockies, and whether or not this was great
> circle arcs as of 1908 (we are all assuming it was).
>
> In the 1908 treaty, the border is defined as "the line
> so laid down" on the charts. It is here where there
> is no mention of the word straight. A line doesn't
> necessarily have to be straight - look at the language
> IBC uses in the quote Dave just brought up:
> "...changed from a slightly curved line between
> monuments to a series of straight lines." (This talks
> of the Eastern section, but my use of the quote is
> just to show "line" can mean curved line.)
>
> Also - if the difference is indistinguishable on the
> charts of the sections west of the Rockies, then we
> would not know if the line was meant to be curved
> following the 49th or straight. I mean if you Meant
> to draw a line following the curve, it would appear
> straight.
>
> Now to me, the biggest piece of evidence that the 1908
> west of the Rockies section DID consist of great
> circle arcs is that the 1925 treaty changed Only the
> eastern section saying that following the curve of the
> parallel was impractical. Ok, so obviously we should
> then assume that since only the Eastern part was
> changed to something better, the Western part must
> already have been that same something better,
> otherwise it would have changed too. This is a very
> reasonable assumption but the way I see it it is only
> circumstantial evidence.
>
> And though circumstantial evidence is good, absolute
> certainty is always much better.
>
> --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
>
> > It is the 1925 treaty that specifies "a series of
> > right or straight lines
> > joining adjacent monuments ... in lieu of the
> > definition ... quoted in Article
> > VI of the said Treaty of 1908, that in the intervals
> > between the monuments the
> > line has the curvature of the parallel of 49ยบ north
> > latitude."
> >
> > I don't know what kind of maps they used, but the
> > lines were straight on the
> > ground, whereas the 49th parallel would sag
> > southward between monuments. If the
> > maximum sag was 1.8 feet, as the 1925 treaty says,
> > then the difference would
> > have been indistinguishable on any map showing the
> > intervisible monuments.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have
> > land in USA that isn't in a
> > State?
> >
> >
> > > The "line so laid down" has to do with what is
> > marked
> > > on the charts and agreed to by the commissioners.
> > Ok,
> > > borderline nitpicking here but it never says
> > "straight
> > > lines." (though I don't see why they would draw
> > them
> > > any other way) And even assuming straight lines,
> > if
> > > these charts are of Mercator-type, then straight
> > lines
> > > would follow the curve of the 49th. Don't know
> > what
> > > the standards of a century ago were in terms of
> > what
> > > type of map projection the commisioners used, but
> > that
> > > fact would seem to be vital to the determination
> > of
> > > the boundary.
> > >
> > > Article VII
> > >
> >
> http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1908.299.en.html
> > >
> > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have found the 1908 treaty since writing my
> > > > message below. It is at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1908.299.en.html
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > All "Canado-american" boundary treaties are
> > on-line
> > > > at
> > > > http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/s_13_en.html
> > .
> > > > All agreements on "boundary waters" are at
> > > > http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/s_6_en.html
> > .
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy!
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 8:46 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have
> > land
> > > > in USA that isn't in a State?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell
> > G.
> > > > McManus"
> > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > The original documents almost always clarify
> > the
> > > > > commentaries.
> > > > >
> > > > > good point
> > > > >
> > > > > & why consult the bible if you can read god
> > > > >
> > > > > so can you dish up the 1908 text like that too
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other
> > providers!
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>