Subject: Re: Northwest Angle of Minnesota<br/>
Date: Nov 04, 2002 @ 11:24<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="7725.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic7710.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="7737.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="7739.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-272165945">--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Arif <br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; First of all, Mike mentioned this at one time, but it<br/>
&gt; seems to have never came up, but the Southeast portion<br/>
&gt; of Alaska in the panhandle is actually separated by<br/>
&gt; rest of Alaska by Tarr Inlet and so it should count in<br/>
&gt; the same category as Nortwest Angle or Point Roberts. <br/>
&gt; The main city is Hyder, so I like to call this tongue<br/>
&gt; Hyder.  I apologize to Mike if I ever accidentally<br/>
&gt; disparaged this discovery of his.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>hahaha<br/>
of course no apology needed my friend<br/>
& you are right about tarr inlet<br/>
as you can see here in this usgs map<br/>
made just before the glacier end finally receded into canada<br/>
thus breaking the panhandle cleanly into two<br/>
& giving canada a new outlet to the sea<br/>
theoretically anyway <br/>
since a calving glacier end is no place for a seaport<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=59.05&lon=-137.1&syms">http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=59.05&lon=-137.1&syms</a><br/>
how=n<br/>
<br/>
& you may also be right about hyder being separated too<br/>
tho i cant confirm that<br/>
<br/>
but anyway i think you have confused 2 things here<br/>
since hyder is on the portland canal way down southeast <br/>
very near ake<br/>
& tarr inlet is way up in the glacier bay area northwest of juneau<br/>
<br/>
but the result could well be 2 breaks rather than only 1 break<br/>
in the continental continuity of the akbc line<br/>
so your point or points are doubly well taken<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; Secondly, as far as I know, the upper peninsula was a<br/>
&gt; consolation prize for not getting Toledo from Ohio.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>partly true<br/>
in fact michigan & ohio almost fought a war over toledo in 1836<br/>
but then michigan agreed to the loss not only of the toledo strip<br/>
but also the loss of all of what later became wisconsin<br/>
in the process of gaining its own statehood in 1837<br/>
within its present boundaries<br/>
<br/>
but the entire upper peninsula had evidently been part of <br/>
michigan territory since 1818<br/>
per bus&ss</div>