Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] requiem to a busted ghost<br/>
Date: Dec 26, 2002 @ 02:44<br/>
Author: jparsell (&quot;jparsell&quot; &lt;jparsell@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="8446.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8449.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic8446.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="8447.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8449.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1122662699">Yes, the reason there were no surveys on 36d 30&#39;, which was my delemma, was<br/>
as you state below, that line was completely forgotten east of the<br/>
panhandle.<br/>
Thank you for clarifying this confusing mess. I had read the same material<br/>
but did not perceive that Indian country was synonymous with Missouri Terr.<br/>
at least during some of those years.<br/>
<br/>
I am wondering how you date the old stone at AR-MO-OK as being no older than<br/>
1840s? The coordinates given for the 1821 survey&#39;s location of the stone are<br/>
the same as those shown on both NAD27 and NAD83 Topozone within a fraction<br/>
of<br/>
a second. I agree that the present monument may not be exactly on the<br/>
correct spot, but it is very close and the old rock could be the original<br/>
one. Can you<br/>
fill me in on this?<br/>
Jack<br/>
<br/>
-----Original Message-----<br/>
From: m donner [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:maxivan82@...">maxivan82@...</a>]<br/>
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 4:12 PM<br/>
To: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] requiem to a busted ghost<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7662/1890map.html">http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7662/1890map.html</a><br/>
shows in exquisite detail how the indian territory south of kansas<br/>
eventually got filled in by indians & others<br/>
<br/>
many county outlines of the future state of oklahoma can already be seen on<br/>
this 1890 map<br/>
<br/>
but as can also be observed there<br/>
the latitude 36d30m line was already completely forgotten east of the<br/>
panhandle<br/>
<br/>
this line had been prominent on maps since 1819 as the northern limit of<br/>
arkansaw territory<br/>
& pursuant to the missouri compromise of 1820 as the northern limit of<br/>
slavery west of missouri<br/>
<br/>
one reason why it was so quickly obliterated tho<br/>
& why no quadripoint could crystallize at modern armook despite such a<br/>
propitious head start<br/>
is that the cherokees soon began settling within indian country on both<br/>
sides of 36d30m<br/>
as can also be gathered from the map<br/>
<br/>
moreover<br/>
since few if any indians of that period still had any slaves<br/>
this line must soon have become meaningless everywhere within indian country<br/>
<br/>
finally<br/>
according to another source i found<br/>
the reason why the south boundary of kansas was set in 1834 at latitude 37d<br/>
rather than 36d30m<br/>
is that there was already a convenient boundary at 37d then between the<br/>
cherokees & the ottawas<br/>
as also suggested by the above map<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
_________________________________________________________________</div>