Subject: Re: re recent dc & pr questions<br/>
Date: Nov 23, 2001 @ 18:06<br/>
Author: orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)<br/>
<a href="4624.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4628.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4172.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4624.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4626.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-417853771">yes len & major thanx for this & at least another dose of detail here on principal speaking for at least several interested parties present<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
the only second retrocession i am aware of included some potomac pierhead waters which it was technically impossible to retrocede to va since potomac waters never were nor could be va but only md per royal charters since charles ii<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
the intensity of interest in this case arose because the dcmdvas federative tripoint moved a pierheads length into the river from the riparian initial monument point beneath jones point light<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& it has recently been fueled further by the realization of the crazy fact that <br/>
<br/>
except for the pierhead exception <br/>
<br/>
dc reaches the high water mark on the right bank while md doesnt reach beyond the low water mark there<br/>
<br/>
owing to conflicting court opinions<br/>
<br/>
a matter of particular interest in the configuration of the dcmdvan tripoint<br/>
<br/>
tho it evidently doesnt actually displace this upstream twin tp<br/>
<br/>
nor affect at all the previously displaced downstream twin tp<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
so please do elaborate on any of the above & zero in on both of these tripoints in particular<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
thanx<br/>
<br/>
m<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;L. A. Nadybal&quot; &lt;lnadybal@h...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<br/>
&gt; There were two retrocessions one large,  one more recent and really <br/>
<br/>
&gt; small - I have the texts of the laws placing this into effect - if <br/>
<br/>
&gt; anyone wants to see them.  The reasoning is contained in the texts.  I <br/>
<br/>
&gt; work for DC government, and can get anyone who wnts this, details to <br/>
<br/>
&gt; the nth degree about the subject.<br/>
<br/>
&gt; Regards<br/>
<br/>
&gt; LN<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., orc@o... wrote:<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Anton Sherwood &lt;bronto@p...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; m donner wrote:<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; about the retrocession by the usa of rightbank dc to va <br/>
<br/>
&gt; preceding va<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; secession<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; 	[...]<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; it happened in 1846<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; thanks.  and do you know why?<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; i believe it was always a sort of back lot & never really got <br/>
<br/>
&gt; developed anything like the left bank did<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; so eventually congress voted to give it back to virginia in order to <br/>
<br/>
&gt; end the pointless federal responsibility for it<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt;   provided its free white male citizens would agree<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt;     which they did by a vote of 763 to 222<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt;       per bus&ss<br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; m </span></blockquote></div>