yikes lowell
my question now as always is indeed just about the
tripoint
& i am often amazed & amused at how you keep losing
track of or overlooking or forgetting or neglecting or
belittling & thus ultimately denying that the
multipointing & trypointing are the actual point of bp
while all the other stuff is just the background for
that
or less
& your sudden abandonment now of your former authority
nardini in favor of your newfound authority haggard is
not without its difficulties for you too
for haggard at least plainly states right up front
that the boundaries of the neutral ground have never
been officially described & that as a matter of fact
only the sabine river & arroyo hondo were mentioned in
the herrera wilkinson agreement
& he admits all the rest of what he says about these
boundaries
including the map he ultimately reconstructs & or
adopts
cannot be said to be accurate
& if you are really in agreement with haggard then you
must realize this too
nor does his or anyones supposedly finding the lost
bayou pierre settlement in bayou pierre lake make any
difference to the actual delineation of the neutral
ground boundary
nor consequently to the identification of the latex
tripoint
so to that extent i agree we have made great progress
here
but i still think all we can say with any assurance is
that our latex tripoint if any is still somewhere
north
or actually rather somewhere west
& only perhaps somewhere northwest
of the arroyo hondo source
on or near the sabine red watershed line
in fact i might go so far as to suggest now
directly across the grain of all conventional wisdom
that there is no basis in fact for extending the line
north at all from arroyo hondo
but only west
& thus no better tripointing stretch or stitch to be
made with any authority than that of nlat 31d47m30s
directly to the sabine red watershed line
but it is just a suggestion in any case
for my actual belief is still that this tripoint cant
really be said to have ever existed in fact
--- "Lowell G. McManus" <
lgm@...> wrote:---
In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<lgm@...> wrote:
>
> I think that we are making great progress here.
Please see my
> insertions below.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
> To: <boundarypoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:12 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: stretching the quest
for a real stretchable
> latex tripoint to stretch
>
>
> > well ok i am very glad i asked then
> > even if i seem to you driven when i am only mildly
&
> > playfully curious
> > & might never have thought of this long forgotten
> > quest again if the cleanup hadnt been called for
in
> > this mornings news
> > & glad again even if you did feel forced to clean
up &
> > or answer for yourself
> > which of course you werent
> >
> > & may i say again
> > it again seems to me you still havent yet really
begun
> > to answer the question i actually asked & meant
>
>
> I'm lost as to what you have "asked and meant"
(other than for a
> tripoint). If I haven't answered your question by
the end of my
> insertions, please plainly state it. I will gladly
try to answer it.
>
>
> > while admittedly offering or reoffering yet
another
> > titillating diversion
> >
> > & out in the sabine river yet this time rather
than up
> > the calcasieu
>
>
> As I suppose you know, the source of the Calcasieu
River is in
> north-central Vernon Parish. From there northward,
the Neutral Ground
> boundary (as generally understood) wanders a bit,
following various
> streams here and there.
>
>
> > but in looking again at your earlier map
> > i do see more clearly now where the area of my
> > uncertainty is focussed
>
>
> My map (the one in the BP Files section) is based on
the description of
> the boundary in the book by Louis R. Nardini, Sr.
cited earlier. This
> book is a local history of the Natchitoches area.
Nardini was know as
> not the most careful historian, but this particular
book is primarily a
> collection of what purport to be original sources.
For the boundaries
> of the Neutral Ground, Nardini quotes from a letter
by Peter Samuel
> Davenport to Governor Claiborne in "the archives at
Natchitoches." I
> have searched in vain at the courthouse and the
historical library at
> Natchitoches for any such letter, so I have just had
to take Nardini's
> word. He gives the boundary from the mouth of the
Calcasieu River to
> the source of Arroyo Hondo as seems to be widely
accepted. From there
> he seems to go due north a short distance to Bayou
Pierre and up it to
> the 32nd parallel, then west along it to the Sabine,
then down to the
> Gulf of Mexico. This description, however, is not
perfectly rendered in
> Nardini's book. The book presents one particular
line of type twice,
> and I have always wondered if another line that
should have been
> included was left out or if there were other
scramblings. Being unable
> to find the original document, I had to go with what
I had.
>
> Now that you have shown us the J. Villasana Haggard
article in
> SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL QUARTERLY, which I have
never before seen, it is
> my opinion that the description at the beginning of
Haggard's seventh
> paragraph is the correct version of what Nardini so
poorly rendered.
> (It matches, right down to the phrase about Arroyo
Hondo fading into
> Sibley's Marsh.) The critical difference that
seems to have been
> deleted in Nardini's confused typography is the
ascent of Bayou Pierre,
> not to the 32nd parallel, but to the west bank of
Bayou Pierre Lake at
> Bayou Pierre Settlement. Haggard, in his ninth
paragraph, then goes in
> a straight diagonal line from the settlement to the
confluence of the
> 32rd parallel and the 94th meridian on the Sabine
(near modern
> Logansport). I will henceforth countenance Haggard
and not Nardini!
>
> If you will abandon the Google cache of Haggard's
article and go to the
> July 1945 issue of the SHQ at
http://tinyurl.com/ffqm9 (scrolling down
> about one-third of the long page), you will find
that you can roll your
> mouse over the blue footnote reference numbers in
the text and get a box
> with the source. Haggard's source for the eastern
boundary at footnote
> reference 7 is a letter of September 18, 1806, by
Salcedo [Spanish
> military officer] to Claiborne [Governor of the
Territory of Orleans]
> found in Volume 200, pages 134-141 of Hacket's
transcriptions of the
> Archivo General Indias, Provincias Internas.
Obviously, Davenport (as
> quoted by Nardini) and Salcedo (as quoted by
Haggard) were singing off
> the same page in their respective letters to
Governor Claiborne.
>
>
> > for i find i am not really even able to follow you
as
> > far north as the 32nd parallel yet
> > whether by the route you show on that map
ascending
> > bayou pierre
> > as it seems from this distance
> > or by the slightly more westerly route you seem to
> > favor in todays analysis
> > ascending the sabine red drainage divide
>
>
> My route north of the source of Arroyo Hondo (which
you correctly show
> in your TopoZone link below) goes due north to Bayou
Pierre (the stream)
> and then up the bayou. This was my understanding of
this part of the
> limits of the Neutral Ground when I made the map and
it is today. The
> "slightly more westerly route" on the divide, of
which I wrote Friday,
> is the historic boundary of the French claim to
Louisiana as the land
> drained by the Mississippi River. This divide would
be the historic
> boundary beyond wherever the northern limit of the
Neutral Ground
> happened to be. That is the only context in which I
intended to put
> forward the divide. It was not one of the limits of
the Neutral Ground.
>
>
> > & really almost no matter by which route
> > if indeed either
> >
> > for my more pressing questions really are
> > on what authority do you deliberately place the
> > northeast corner of the neutral ground anywhere on
the
> > 32nd parallel
>
>
> Nardini's now-known-to-be-flawed typography! The
northeast corner
> should be about nine miles farther northwestward up
the bayou at the
> Bayou Pierre Settlement on Bayou Pierre Lake.
>
>
> > & on what authority then proceed to extend its
> > northern limit westward along that parallel as far
> > west as the sabine & or 94th meridian
>
>
> In this latter respect, I am now in agreement with
Haggard that the
> northern limit of the Neutral Ground runs diagonally
from Bayou Pierre
> Settlement to the specified geocord confluence near
Logansport on the
> Sabine.
>
>
> > for that really is the bigger part of the entire
> > question of
> > how exactly do you get the neutral ground from the
> > natchitoches adaes area to the logansport area
>
>
> Answered in insertions above.
>
>
> > let alone beyond
> >
> > for i assume the little horned proruption at your
> > northwest corner is a slip of the pen rather than
> > anything deliberate
>
>
> You assume correctly, except that it was a slip of
the computer mouse.
> The drawing was done digitally.
>
>
> > but that everything up to that point is quite
> > deliberate
>
>
> It was, but it now stands to be corrected in light
of Haggard in lieu of
> Nardini.
>
>
> > or is it
> >
> >
> > here is how someone else gets there
> > http://www.enlou.com/maps/1805territorymap.htm
> > following the area outlined in black & labeled
neutral
> > ground
> > but i have no more confidence in this map than in
> > yours much beyond arroyo hondo
>
>
> Beyond Arroyo Hondo, that map seems to follow Bayou
Pierre, but it never
> knows where to stop doing so. It follows the
eastern and northern
> boundaries of De Soto Parish all the way to Texas.
That parish boundary
> dates from 1843, so it is of no consequence to the
present discussion.
>
>
> > for i do see the source of arroyo hondo here at
around
> > 31d47m30s
> >
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.79261&lon=-93.19231&s=500&size=l&u=6&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> > as stipulated by some unknown authority toward the
end
> > here
> > http://www.enlou.com/places/neutralground.htm
> > but i dont know what is meant there by the bayou
> > pierre settlement
>
>
> Haggard's source describes the Bayou Pierre
Settlement as being on Bayou
> Pierre Lake (really a swamp) shown here:
http://tinyurl.com/h6e2g .
>
>
> > & i could just as easily imagine stopping the
> > specified due north line where it first reaches
bayou
> > pierre in about nlat 31d49m17s here
> >
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.82148&lon=-93.19291&s=500&size=l&u=6&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> > or where it reaches the red river at about nlat
> > 31d53m20s here
> >
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.88885&lon=-93.19413&s=500&size=l&u=6&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> > as stipulated by some other unknown authority in
> > footnote 7 here
> >
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:xgWTjE0DeCAJ:www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v049/n1/contrib_DIVL798.html+%22bayou+pierre+settlement%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari
> > or else
> > running it as shown in the equally questionable
but at
> > least historical map at the very end of the above
link
>
>
> That map is an accurate depiction of the limits of
the Neutral Ground as
> Haggard has reconstructed them from his historic
sources.
>
>
> > etc
> > etc
> > because there must be other versions of the
northern
> > reaches of the neutral ground available too
> >
> >
> > & beyond that
> > i do see bus&ss at least appearing to favor the
> > drainage divide on the louisiana state historical
> > diagram & the louisiana purchase diagram
> > while mentioning in text that spain still didnt
> > recognize the american claim west of the
mississippi
> > river til 1819
> > which i trust is just a misstatement for
> > west of the red river til 1819
> > or west of the sabine red drainage divide til 1819
> > or west of a line running parallel to the red but
a
> > few miles west of it
> > etc
> > yikes
> >
> > but in any case i do understand there was some
> > consensus about the sabine red drainage divide
> > at least approximately
> > in those latitudes during those years
> >
> > so i suppose i am prepared to accept some point
upon
> > or near that divide as the answer to my question
>
>
> The divide would intersect Haggard's diagonal
northern boundary of the
> Neutral Ground approximately three miles
west-northwest of downtown
> Mansfield. I would nominate that as your tripoint.
>
>
> > but i dont undertand how the 32nd parallel could
have
> > come into play
> > except as someones rationalization & sidestepping
of
> > the apparent
> > f a c t
> > that the neutral ground actually had no northern
limit
> > nor perhaps even any eastern limit much beyond
arroyo
> > hondo
>
>
> See Haggard's sixth paragraph.
> [End of insertions.]
>
>
> > or i am deceived
> >
> > & for this reason i see not even any stretchable
latex
> > tripoint yet but just a void
> >
> >
> > now you may say
> > well isnt that silly & pointless
> >
> > but i say
> > yes it certainly is
> > &
> > for lack of a real closing line & a real tripoint
the
> > whole idea of a neutral ground or of any territory
or
> > zone of any kind is lost at a certain point
> >
> > so it is actually rather important as well as
rather
> > silly to stretch this latex tripoint & this quest
for
> > it
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > McManus" <lgm@> wrote:
> >>
> >> The map that I promised was a map of the
1806-1819
> > de facto Neutral
> >> Ground, worked out as a practical solution
between
> > the American and
> >> Spanish military officers in the field (quite
> > independent of their
> >> political bosses higher up). It is found in the
BP
> > Files section with
> >> the name neutral.jpg and is explained in the last
> > two paragraphs of BP
> >> post 14285 at your third link below.
> >>
> >> I did not indicate any tripoint between the
Neutral
> > Ground and the
> >> remainders of American Louisiana and Spanish
Texas
> > because of
> >> uncertainty in the location of the international
> > boundary north of the
> >> Neutral Ground. Indeed, it was that same
> > uncertainty that necessitated
> >> both the Neutral Ground in the first instance and
> > the Adams-de Onís
> >> treaty that would replace it with a de jure
boundary
> > in the second. The
> >> only reason that the de facto Neutral Ground was
not
> > erected farther
> >> north was that the land north of the 32nd
parallel
> > was not yet the
> >> subject of much interest (navigation on the Red
> > River being blocked by
> >> the "Great Raft," a 150-mile log jam that was
> > removed by 1839).
> >>
> >> However, if you are driven to find a tripoint
(which
> > you undoubtedly
> >> are), I, as a resident of the former Neutral
Ground,
> > can offer some
> >> analysis that might be helpful.
> >>
> >> In the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the USA bought
> > from France the French
> >> claim to Louisiana, without specifying any
western
> > boundary. Most
> >> strictly, that could be interpreted historically
as
> > the land west of the
> >> Mississippi River that drained into the same.
This
> > means that the
> >> drainage divide between the basins of the Red and
> > Sabine rivers would
> >> have been the boundary. The USA was desirous of
the
> > most liberal
> >> (western) interpretation of the boundary of
> > Louisiana as it could put
> >> over on the Spanish. Thus, the 1804 creation of
the
> > Territory of
> >> Orleans was "to extend west to the western
boundary
> > of the said
> >> cession." In 1812 when Louisiana was admitted to
> > the Union, its western
> >> boundary was specified at the middle of the
Sabine
> > River to the 32nd
> >> parallel, and from there due north. Note that
this
> > was in the midst of
> >> the life span of the de facto military Neutral
> > Ground and was seven
> >> years before the 1819 Adams-de Onís treaty would
> > place the de jure
> >> US-Spanish boundary on the west bank of the
Sabine
> > River to the 32nd
> >> parallel and thence northward. So, it is clear
> > that, in 1812, the
> >> Congress was admitting into the Union
prospectively
> > the western fringes
> >> of Louisiana that it hoped eventually to obtain
de
> > jure. The US waited
> >> until after the 1819 treaty was fully ratified in
> > 1821 before it
> >> occupied the erstwhile Neutral Ground militarily
> > with the establishment
> >> of Fort Jesup in 1822.
> >>
> >> So, if you forced me to draw you a tripoint at
the
> > northern end of the
> >> Neutral Ground, I would place it in De Soto
Parish
> > at the intersection
> >> of the Sabine-Red drainage divide with the 32nd
> > parallel, centered
> >> roughly six miles southeast of Mansfield.
Actually,
> > the complexity of
> >> the drainage divide in that vicinity seems that
it
> > would produce three
> >> tripoints, with a Spanish exclave surrounded by
the
> > USA and the Neutral
> >> Ground. Of course, it never came to that.
> >>
> >> Of more fascination to me is the anomaly that
> > existed in the western
> >> half of the Sabine River. Since the 1812
admission
> > of Louisiana had
> >> prematurely placed its western boundary at the
> > middle of the river, and
> >> the 1819 treaty placed the international boundary
on
> > the west bank, that
> >> left the western half of the Sabine as
unorganized
> > territory of the
> >> United States until 1848. That's when the
Congress
> > authorized the State
> >> of Texas (annexed three years earlier) to extend
its
> > jurisdiction to the
> >> middle of Sabine Pass, Sabine Lake, and the
Sabine
> > River to the 32nd
> >> parallel. That narrow part of the State of
Texas,
> > in which I swam three
> >> weeks ago, was never part of the Republic of
Texas!
> >>
> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@>
> >> To: <boundarypoint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] stretching the quest for
a
> > real stretchable
> >> latex tripoint to stretch
> >>
> >>
> >> > this fresh news item about an imminent neutral
> > ground
> >> > cleanup party
> >> >
> >
http://www.2theadvocate.com/features/travel/4201376.html
> >> > jogged my memory back to this excellent golden
> > oldie
> >> >
> >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/14259
> >> > which you may also recall
> >> > along with its equally illustrious second shoe
> >> > dropping
> >> >
> >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/14285
> >> >
> >> > but which still left one guessing & reaching &
> >> > stretching for any handle at all on the elusive
> > but
> >> > allegedly real
> >> > de facto latex neutral ground tripoint
> >> > which actually lived
> >> > or else was really stillborn
> >> > if thats not stretching it in this case too
> >> > during the first decades of the 19th century
> >> >
> >> > my guess is
> >> > the quest got stretched into an unresolved
> > sawanabori
> >> > of the calcasieu
> >> > which however interesting & possibly even
> > contributory
> >> > to an ultimate resolution of this supposed
> > lalatxtx
> >> > tripoint
> >> > came to a dead stop there in any case
> >> > like a snapped elastic band
> >> >
> >> > but all efforts to pin la latex tex down thus
far
> >> > reported here
> >> > i believe
> >> > & all my subsequent efforts too
> >> > have resulted only in establishing a vague
triarea
> > &
> >> > triline at the farthest reaches of the lalatxtx
> > condo
> >> > or nondo
> >> > extending perhaps all the way from about zwolle
to
> >> > about logansport
> >> > & thus perhaps comprising several hundreds of
> > square
> >> > miles of 1806lalatx1819 territorial uncertainty
> > too
> >> > rather than any specific & exact
1806lalatxtx1819
> >> > tripoint
> >> >
> >> > like say very roughly all the sabine riverfront
on
> >> > this map
> >> >
> >
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=31.93501&lon=-93.93668&s=250&size=l&u=4&datum=nad27&layer=DRG
> >> > or better yet if zoomed out once or twice
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > but did i miss the promised tripoint treasure
map
> >> > or hasnt it surfaced yet
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com