thanxx to both of you for picking this intrinsically interesting nit
regardless of its irrelevancy to multipointing
since
in fairness
something on the order of 30 acres worth of infinitesimal slivers
of land were technically gained by the usa from it
i have to wonder tho if any of these slivers were ever actually
perceived or accurately depicted or actually involved in any other
way in anything real
rather than only imagined for purposes of fascination
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I think that the essential difference between the situations
along the 49th
> parallel east and west of the Rocky Mountains was this:
>
> Pursuant to the Treaty of 1848 that established the 49th as the
boundary west of
> the Rockies, commissioners surveyed and marked the
boundary, their report being
> accepted by the British minister to Washington and the US
Secretary of State in
> 1870. That declaration of acceptance says that the
commissioners had produced
> seven sectional maps of their work along the boundary, "which
boundary has been
> defined by the Commissioners by marks upon the ground."
Thus the boundary as
> demarcated by monuments had been officially accepted, and
no mention was made of
> sagging curves of latitude between the monuments.
>
> The Treaty of 1908, however, harkens back to and quotes an
1876 report by
> different commissioners that it was then agreed to that the
boundary east of the
> Rockies "has the curvature of a parallel" even in the intervals
between the
> monuments. It was this unfortunate situation (which defeats
the practical
> utility of intervisible monuments) that was corrected by the
Treaty of 1925.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> 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@m...> 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@y...>
> > > 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@m...>
> > > 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@y...>
> > > > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >