Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

TX proposes "free-for-all brawl" with NM over land

Expand Messages
  • Lowell G. McManus
    The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas has proposed a free-for-all brawl between the Senates of the two states over the lost land
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas has proposed a
      "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two states over the lost land
      that New Mexico is griping about.

      See the third of three subtopics in the article at
      http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .

      Lowell G. McManus
      Leesville, Louisiana, USA
    • Roger_Rowlett
      I have an article with several links on my americasroof blog on this: http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-texas/ The upshot is that
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 13, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I have an article with several links on my americasroof blog on this:
        http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-texas/

        The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis of this bill to
        claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the 103rd meridian
        would probably be considered frivolous since the Courts have ruled
        that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long course of years"
        then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted New Mexico to
        enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the claim.
        Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas tripoint jogs in to
        the meridian.


        --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
        <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
        > The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas
        has proposed a
        > "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two states over the
        lost land
        > that New Mexico is griping about.
        >
        > See the third of three subtopics in the article at
        > http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
        >
        > Lowell G. McManus
        > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
      • Lowell G. McManus
        By even considering any suit on this issue, New Mexico is engaging in a total waste of time, money, and breath. The reasons go far beyond the doctrine that
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 13, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          By even considering any suit on this issue, New Mexico is engaging in a total
          waste of time, money, and breath. The reasons go far beyond the doctrine that
          long-unchallenged boundaries usually stand.

          The State of Texas sold the land west and north of its current boundaries to the
          United States in 1850, and surveys were done by John H. Clark in 1859 and 1860.
          His work was officially accepted by both Texas and the feds. Since that was
          long before the existence of New Mexico, that settles it. Furthermore, a joint
          resolution of the Congress dated February 16, 1911, proclaimed "these boundary
          lines as run and marked by John H. Clark in 1859-60 shall remain the true
          boundary lines of Texas and New Mexico." Another joint resolution of August 21,
          1911, required the proposed state of New Mexico to accept these Texas
          boundaries. When New Mexico's statehood was effective January 6, 1912, it got
          the land to which it was entitled. The federal government had no land east and
          south of Clark's lines to give it.

          Lowell G. McManus
          Leesville, Louisiana, USA


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Roger_Rowlett" <roger.rowlett@...>
          To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:40 PM
          Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl" with NM over land


          >
          >
          > I have an article with several links on my americasroof blog on this:
          > http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-texas/
          >
          > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis of this bill to
          > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the 103rd meridian
          > would probably be considered frivolous since the Courts have ruled
          > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long course of years"
          > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted New Mexico to
          > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the claim.
          > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas tripoint jogs in to
          > the meridian.
          >
          >
          > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
          > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
          >> The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas
          > has proposed a
          >> "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two states over the
          > lost land
          >> that New Mexico is griping about.
          >>
          >> See the third of three subtopics in the article at
          >> http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
          >>
          >> Lowell G. McManus
          >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • aletheia kallos
          thanx roger & thats a great site you have there too i would only add about nmoktx that it is indeed much closer to the 103rd meridian than txnw is & may well
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            thanx roger
            & thats a great site you have there too

            i would only add about nmoktx that it is indeed much
            closer to the 103rd meridian than txnw is
            & may well have been intended to fall precisely on
            that meridian
            yet the tripoint as we know it still falls west of
            longitude 103
            i believe
            by about 8 seconds
            or several hundred feet

            also
            back to the supposedly meridional nmtx sector
            any apparent 2 or 3 minute westward drift in many 19th
            century survey lines such as this one was owing more
            to the use of the similarly offset washington meridian
            on which they were based than to any survey error

            survey error by that period was usually measurable in
            seconds rather than minutes
            just as the abovementioned drift of meridional nmok
            actually is


            & about these nmtx follies generally
            of course all our state line imbroglios are even more
            ridiculous than the international ones
            but it is nice to see something as real as hydraulics
            underlying at least one of these too
            for your links do clearly identify water as the
            madness behind the method in this case as well

            funniest & craziest of all tho is the fact that if nm
            ever were to prevail legally about some historical
            shift of the rio grande determining who other than
            texas really owns el paso
            well in that case el paso would revert not to new
            mexico at all but to chihuahua

            only if the 32nd parallel sector of nmtx westward of
            longitude 103 were adjusted much farther to the south
            for which there is no possible reason nor even any
            cockamamie excuse
            could el paso fall into a thereby enlarged new mexico

            so the more you look at this one
            the more hilarious it only gets


            but your site reminds me to ask you &or any other
            highpointers whether you have any news
            or any data at all for that matter
            on any country highpoints that may also serve
            simultaneously as tricountry points

            we are aware of numerous tricountry points that are
            situated on summits of locally supreme peaks
            but have not yet been able to establish which if any
            of these might also be a highpoint of a country


            --- Roger_Rowlett <roger.rowlett@...>
            wrote:

            >
            > I have an article with several links on my
            > americasroof blog on this:
            >
            http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-texas/
            >
            > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis
            > of this bill to
            > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the
            > 103rd meridian
            > would probably be considered frivolous since the
            > Courts have ruled
            > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long
            > course of years"
            > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted
            > New Mexico to
            > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the
            > claim.
            > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas
            > tripoint jogs in to
            > the meridian.
            >
            >
            > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
            > McManus"
            > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
            > > The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the
            > State of Texas
            > has proposed a
            > > "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the
            > two states over the
            > lost land
            > > that New Mexico is griping about.
            > >
            > > See the third of three subtopics in the article at
            > > http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
            > >
            > > Lowell G. McManus
            > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
            >
            >
            >
            >





            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
            http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
          • Flynn, Kevin
            The reason nmtx then turns east at the northern line of tx for three miles until it reaches the ok n/s line is that north of tx, the 103rd meridian is the ok
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              The reason nmtx then turns east at the northern line of tx for three miles
              until it reaches the ok n/s line is that north of tx, the 103rd meridian is
              the ok panhandle west line. Yes?

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Lowell G. McManus [mailto:mcmanus71496@...]
              > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:31 PM
              > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl" with
              > NM over land
              >
              >
              >
              > By even considering any suit on this issue, New Mexico is
              > engaging in a total
              > waste of time, money, and breath. The reasons go far beyond
              > the doctrine that
              > long-unchallenged boundaries usually stand.
              >
              > The State of Texas sold the land west and north of its
              > current boundaries to the
              > United States in 1850, and surveys were done by John H. Clark
              > in 1859 and 1860.
              > His work was officially accepted by both Texas and the feds.
              > Since that was
              > long before the existence of New Mexico, that settles it.
              > Furthermore, a joint
              > resolution of the Congress dated February 16, 1911,
              > proclaimed "these boundary
              > lines as run and marked by John H. Clark in 1859-60 shall
              > remain the true
              > boundary lines of Texas and New Mexico." Another joint
              > resolution of August 21,
              > 1911, required the proposed state of New Mexico to accept these Texas
              > boundaries. When New Mexico's statehood was effective
              > January 6, 1912, it got
              > the land to which it was entitled. The federal government
              > had no land east and
              > south of Clark's lines to give it.
              >
              > Lowell G. McManus
              > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Roger_Rowlett" <roger.rowlett@...>
              > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:40 PM
              > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl"
              > with NM over land
              >
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > I have an article with several links on my americasroof
              > blog on this:
              > >
              > http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-texas/
              > >
              > > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis of this bill to
              > > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the 103rd meridian
              > > would probably be considered frivolous since the Courts have ruled
              > > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long course
              > of years"
              > > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted New Mexico to
              > > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the claim.
              > > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas tripoint
              > jogs in to
              > > the meridian.
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
              > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
              > >> The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas
              > > has proposed a
              > >> "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two states over the
              > > lost land
              > >> that New Mexico is griping about.
              > >>
              > >> See the third of three subtopics in the article at
              > >> http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
              > >>
              > >> Lowell G. McManus
              > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > --------------------~-->
              > Give the gift of life to a sick child.
              > Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/WkiolB/TM
              > --------------------------------------------------------------
              > ------~->
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Roger_Rowlett
              Kevin: The Oklahoma panhandle is more or less the 103rd meredian (although the tristate marker is off by a few feet as Altheia noted). The photos on my page
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Kevin:
                The Oklahoma panhandle is more or less the 103rd meredian (although
                the tristate marker is off by a few feet as Altheia noted). The
                photos on my page are from a trip with Jack Parsell taken during the
                2002 Highpointers Convention. There's a whole bunch of benchmarks
                nearby (including one I believe further west at the meredian). I
                should have taken more pictures but I didn't realize how interesting
                this topic would become. This topic may have been discussed in this
                group earlier but I couldn't easily find it since Yahoo has limited
                the search capability.

                Roger.

                --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
                wrote:
                > The reason nmtx then turns east at the northern line of tx for
                three miles
                > until it reaches the ok n/s line is that north of tx, the 103rd
                meridian is
                > the ok panhandle west line. Yes?
                >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: Lowell G. McManus [mailto:mcmanus71496@m...]
                > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:31 PM
                > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
                > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl"
                with
                > > NM over land
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > By even considering any suit on this issue, New Mexico is
                > > engaging in a total
                > > waste of time, money, and breath. The reasons go far beyond
                > > the doctrine that
                > > long-unchallenged boundaries usually stand.
                > >
                > > The State of Texas sold the land west and north of its
                > > current boundaries to the
                > > United States in 1850, and surveys were done by John H. Clark
                > > in 1859 and 1860.
                > > His work was officially accepted by both Texas and the feds.
                > > Since that was
                > > long before the existence of New Mexico, that settles it.
                > > Furthermore, a joint
                > > resolution of the Congress dated February 16, 1911,
                > > proclaimed "these boundary
                > > lines as run and marked by John H. Clark in 1859-60 shall
                > > remain the true
                > > boundary lines of Texas and New Mexico." Another joint
                > > resolution of August 21,
                > > 1911, required the proposed state of New Mexico to accept these
                Texas
                > > boundaries. When New Mexico's statehood was effective
                > > January 6, 1912, it got
                > > the land to which it was entitled. The federal government
                > > had no land east and
                > > south of Clark's lines to give it.
                > >
                > > Lowell G. McManus
                > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                > >
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: "Roger_Rowlett" <roger.rowlett@a...>
                > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:40 PM
                > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl"
                > > with NM over land
                > >
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > I have an article with several links on my americasroof
                > > blog on this:
                > > >
                > > http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-
                texas/
                > > >
                > > > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis of this
                bill to
                > > > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the 103rd
                meridian
                > > > would probably be considered frivolous since the Courts have
                ruled
                > > > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long course
                > > of years"
                > > > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted New Mexico
                to
                > > > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the claim.
                > > > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas tripoint
                > > jogs in to
                > > > the meridian.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
                > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
                > > >> The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of
                Texas
                > > > has proposed a
                > > >> "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two states
                over the
                > > > lost land
                > > >> that New Mexico is griping about.
                > > >>
                > > >> See the third of three subtopics in the article at
                > > >> http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
                > > >>
                > > >> Lowell G. McManus
                > > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > > --------------------~-->
                > > Give the gift of life to a sick child.
                > > Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
                > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/WkiolB/TM
                > > --------------------------------------------------------------
                > > ------~->
                > >
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
              • Roger_Rowlett
                Altheia: Thanks for the nice comments. Anyway several years ago I set up a page on the highest points of Europe based on a version of the CIA Factbook and
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Altheia:
                  Thanks for the nice comments.

                  Anyway several years ago I set up a page on the highest points of
                  Europe based on a version of the CIA Factbook and extrapolating the
                  longitude/latitude from expediamaps.

                  I set up a map:
                  http://americasroof.com/europe.shtml

                  The list:
                  http://americasroof.com/world/europe-highest.shtml

                  It seems like there should be a better more devoted list. But I
                  can't find one (and if you know of a better highpoint list let me
                  know!). If you have a specific mountain in mind, a good source is:
                  http://summitpost.org

                  I can't vouch for the accuracy of my information but it might be a
                  start for you.

                  Roger.






                  --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos
                  <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
                  > thanx roger
                  > & thats a great site you have there too
                  >
                  > i would only add about nmoktx that it is indeed much
                  > closer to the 103rd meridian than txnw is
                  > & may well have been intended to fall precisely on
                  > that meridian
                  > yet the tripoint as we know it still falls west of
                  > longitude 103
                  > i believe
                  > by about 8 seconds
                  > or several hundred feet
                  >
                  > also
                  > back to the supposedly meridional nmtx sector
                  > any apparent 2 or 3 minute westward drift in many 19th
                  > century survey lines such as this one was owing more
                  > to the use of the similarly offset washington meridian
                  > on which they were based than to any survey error
                  >
                  > survey error by that period was usually measurable in
                  > seconds rather than minutes
                  > just as the abovementioned drift of meridional nmok
                  > actually is
                  >
                  >
                  > & about these nmtx follies generally
                  > of course all our state line imbroglios are even more
                  > ridiculous than the international ones
                  > but it is nice to see something as real as hydraulics
                  > underlying at least one of these too
                  > for your links do clearly identify water as the
                  > madness behind the method in this case as well
                  >
                  > funniest & craziest of all tho is the fact that if nm
                  > ever were to prevail legally about some historical
                  > shift of the rio grande determining who other than
                  > texas really owns el paso
                  > well in that case el paso would revert not to new
                  > mexico at all but to chihuahua
                  >
                  > only if the 32nd parallel sector of nmtx westward of
                  > longitude 103 were adjusted much farther to the south
                  > for which there is no possible reason nor even any
                  > cockamamie excuse
                  > could el paso fall into a thereby enlarged new mexico
                  >
                  > so the more you look at this one
                  > the more hilarious it only gets
                  >
                  >
                  > but your site reminds me to ask you &or any other
                  > highpointers whether you have any news
                  > or any data at all for that matter
                  > on any country highpoints that may also serve
                  > simultaneously as tricountry points
                  >
                  > we are aware of numerous tricountry points that are
                  > situated on summits of locally supreme peaks
                  > but have not yet been able to establish which if any
                  > of these might also be a highpoint of a country
                  >
                  >
                  > --- Roger_Rowlett <roger.rowlett@a...>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > > I have an article with several links on my
                  > > americasroof blog on this:
                  > >
                  > http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-
                  texas/
                  > >
                  > > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis
                  > > of this bill to
                  > > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the
                  > > 103rd meridian
                  > > would probably be considered frivolous since the
                  > > Courts have ruled
                  > > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long
                  > > course of years"
                  > > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted
                  > > New Mexico to
                  > > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the
                  > > claim.
                  > > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas
                  > > tripoint jogs in to
                  > > the meridian.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
                  > > McManus"
                  > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
                  > > > The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the
                  > > State of Texas
                  > > has proposed a
                  > > > "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the
                  > > two states over the
                  > > lost land
                  > > > that New Mexico is griping about.
                  > > >
                  > > > See the third of three subtopics in the article at
                  > > > http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
                  > > >
                  > > > Lowell G. McManus
                  > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
                  > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
                • Roger_Rowlett
                  Sorry for the correction, I meant to say there is benchmark further east of the tristate marker and closer to the meridian. ... the ... interesting ... this
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sorry for the correction, I meant to say there is benchmark further
                    east of the tristate marker and closer to the meridian.

                    --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger_Rowlett"
                    <roger.rowlett@a...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Kevin:
                    > The Oklahoma panhandle is more or less the 103rd meredian (although
                    > the tristate marker is off by a few feet as Altheia noted). The
                    > photos on my page are from a trip with Jack Parsell taken during
                    the
                    > 2002 Highpointers Convention. There's a whole bunch of benchmarks
                    > nearby (including one I believe further west at the meredian). I
                    > should have taken more pictures but I didn't realize how
                    interesting
                    > this topic would become. This topic may have been discussed in
                    this
                    > group earlier but I couldn't easily find it since Yahoo has limited
                    > the search capability.
                    >
                    > Roger.
                    >
                    > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > The reason nmtx then turns east at the northern line of tx for
                    > three miles
                    > > until it reaches the ok n/s line is that north of tx, the 103rd
                    > meridian is
                    > > the ok panhandle west line. Yes?
                    > >
                    > > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > > From: Lowell G. McManus [mailto:mcmanus71496@m...]
                    > > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:31 PM
                    > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all
                    brawl"
                    > with
                    > > > NM over land
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > By even considering any suit on this issue, New Mexico is
                    > > > engaging in a total
                    > > > waste of time, money, and breath. The reasons go far beyond
                    > > > the doctrine that
                    > > > long-unchallenged boundaries usually stand.
                    > > >
                    > > > The State of Texas sold the land west and north of its
                    > > > current boundaries to the
                    > > > United States in 1850, and surveys were done by John H. Clark
                    > > > in 1859 and 1860.
                    > > > His work was officially accepted by both Texas and the feds.
                    > > > Since that was
                    > > > long before the existence of New Mexico, that settles it.
                    > > > Furthermore, a joint
                    > > > resolution of the Congress dated February 16, 1911,
                    > > > proclaimed "these boundary
                    > > > lines as run and marked by John H. Clark in 1859-60 shall
                    > > > remain the true
                    > > > boundary lines of Texas and New Mexico." Another joint
                    > > > resolution of August 21,
                    > > > 1911, required the proposed state of New Mexico to accept these
                    > Texas
                    > > > boundaries. When New Mexico's statehood was effective
                    > > > January 6, 1912, it got
                    > > > the land to which it was entitled. The federal government
                    > > > had no land east and
                    > > > south of Clark's lines to give it.
                    > > >
                    > > > Lowell G. McManus
                    > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ----- Original Message -----
                    > > > From: "Roger_Rowlett" <roger.rowlett@a...>
                    > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
                    > > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:40 PM
                    > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl"
                    > > > with NM over land
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I have an article with several links on my americasroof
                    > > > blog on this:
                    > > > >
                    > > > http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-
                    > texas/
                    > > > >
                    > > > > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis of this
                    > bill to
                    > > > > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the 103rd
                    > meridian
                    > > > > would probably be considered frivolous since the Courts have
                    > ruled
                    > > > > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long course
                    > > > of years"
                    > > > > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted New
                    Mexico
                    > to
                    > > > > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the claim.
                    > > > > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas tripoint
                    > > > jogs in to
                    > > > > the meridian.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
                    > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
                    > > > >> The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of
                    > Texas
                    > > > > has proposed a
                    > > > >> "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two states
                    > over the
                    > > > > lost land
                    > > > >> that New Mexico is griping about.
                    > > > >>
                    > > > >> See the third of three subtopics in the article at
                    > > > >> http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
                    > > > >>
                    > > > >> Lowell G. McManus
                    > > > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > > > --------------------~-->
                    > > > Give the gift of life to a sick child.
                    > > > Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks &
                    Giving.'
                    > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/WkiolB/TM
                    > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > > ------~->
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                  • Lowell G. McManus
                    Yes. NMTX is 103° as surveyed by Clark in 1859, and NMOK is the Cimarron Meridian (nominally103°, but still imperfect) as surveyed by Chaney and Smith of
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes. NMTX is 103° as surveyed by Clark in 1859, and NMOK is the Cimarron
                      Meridian (nominally103°, but still imperfect) as surveyed by Chaney and Smith of
                      the US GLO in 1881. (The Public Land Survey in the three counties of the
                      Oklahoma Panhandle is measured from the Cimarron Meridian and its corresponding
                      Base Line, which is the northern boundary of Texas.)

                      Lowell G. McManus
                      Leesville, Louisiana, USA


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>
                      To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 11:11 AM
                      Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl" with NM over
                      land


                      >
                      > The reason nmtx then turns east at the northern line of tx for three miles
                      > until it reaches the ok n/s line is that north of tx, the 103rd meridian is
                      > the ok panhandle west line. Yes?
                    • aletheiak
                      yes right roger & there are indeed several more of the same style due north of the tristate marker along the nmok state line & yes this nmoktx marker & other
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        yes right roger & there are indeed several more of the same style
                        due north of the tristate marker along the nmok state line

                        & yes this nmoktx marker & other nearby markers have been
                        perennial bp favorites
                        as is jacks entire expedition & prize photo of the dog

                        other entertaining messages about the neighborhood are 3724
                        & 3268 & 2908 as well as the second half of 2935

                        & our search engine is capable
                        but just extremely demanding
                        i would submit
                        as befits our especially exacting sort of multidimensional pursuit


                        & lowell
                        anyone having fun is not wasting time or breath

                        perhaps they are wasting money

                        but thats what politicians are paid to do anyway


                        --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger_Rowlett"
                        <roger.rowlett@a...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Sorry for the correction, I meant to say there is benchmark
                        further
                        > east of the tristate marker and closer to the meridian.
                        >
                        > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger_Rowlett"
                        > <roger.rowlett@a...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Kevin:
                        > > The Oklahoma panhandle is more or less the 103rd
                        meredian (although
                        > > the tristate marker is off by a few feet as Altheia noted). The
                        > > photos on my page are from a trip with Jack Parsell taken
                        during
                        > the
                        > > 2002 Highpointers Convention. There's a whole bunch of
                        benchmarks
                        > > nearby (including one I believe further west at the meredian).
                        I
                        > > should have taken more pictures but I didn't realize how
                        > interesting
                        > > this topic would become. This topic may have been
                        discussed in
                        > this
                        > > group earlier but I couldn't easily find it since Yahoo has
                        limited
                        > > the search capability.
                        > >
                        > > Roger.
                        > >
                        > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
                        <flynnk@r...>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > > The reason nmtx then turns east at the northern line of tx for
                        > > three miles
                        > > > until it reaches the ok n/s line is that north of tx, the 103rd
                        > > meridian is
                        > > > the ok panhandle west line. Yes?
                        > > >
                        > > > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > > > From: Lowell G. McManus [mailto:mcmanus71496@m...]
                        > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:31 PM
                        > > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all
                        > brawl"
                        > > with
                        > > > > NM over land
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > By even considering any suit on this issue, New Mexico is
                        > > > > engaging in a total
                        > > > > waste of time, money, and breath. The reasons go far
                        beyond
                        > > > > the doctrine that
                        > > > > long-unchallenged boundaries usually stand.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > The State of Texas sold the land west and north of its
                        > > > > current boundaries to the
                        > > > > United States in 1850, and surveys were done by John H.
                        Clark
                        > > > > in 1859 and 1860.
                        > > > > His work was officially accepted by both Texas and the
                        feds.
                        > > > > Since that was
                        > > > > long before the existence of New Mexico, that settles it.
                        > > > > Furthermore, a joint
                        > > > > resolution of the Congress dated February 16, 1911,
                        > > > > proclaimed "these boundary
                        > > > > lines as run and marked by John H. Clark in 1859-60
                        shall
                        > > > > remain the true
                        > > > > boundary lines of Texas and New Mexico." Another joint
                        > > > > resolution of August 21,
                        > > > > 1911, required the proposed state of New Mexico to
                        accept these
                        > > Texas
                        > > > > boundaries. When New Mexico's statehood was effective
                        > > > > January 6, 1912, it got
                        > > > > the land to which it was entitled. The federal government
                        > > > > had no land east and
                        > > > > south of Clark's lines to give it.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Lowell G. McManus
                        > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > > > From: "Roger_Rowlett" <roger.rowlett@a...>
                        > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:40 PM
                        > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all
                        brawl"
                        > > > > with NM over land
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > I have an article with several links on my americasroof
                        > > > > blog on this:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-su
                        es-
                        > > texas/
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis of
                        this
                        > > bill to
                        > > > > > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the
                        103rd
                        > > meridian
                        > > > > > would probably be considered frivolous since the
                        Courts have
                        > > ruled
                        > > > > > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long
                        course
                        > > > > of years"
                        > > > > > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted
                        New
                        > Mexico
                        > > to
                        > > > > > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the
                        claim.
                        > > > > > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas
                        tripoint
                        > > > > jogs in to
                        > > > > > the meridian.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
                        McManus"
                        > > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
                        > > > > >> The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the
                        State of
                        > > Texas
                        > > > > > has proposed a
                        > > > > >> "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two
                        states
                        > > over the
                        > > > > > lost land
                        > > > > >> that New Mexico is griping about.
                        > > > > >>
                        > > > > >> See the third of three subtopics in the article at
                        > > > > >> http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
                        > > > > >>
                        > > > > >> Lowell G. McManus
                        > > > > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
                      • aletheia kallos
                        thanx this goes a good ways toward the desired end since i think we can safely rule europe out entirely at least based on your data here & perhaps you could
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 14, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          thanx
                          this goes a good ways toward the desired end
                          since i think we can safely rule europe out entirely
                          at least
                          based on your data here

                          & perhaps you could also see if you recognize any
                          noneuropean country highpoint peak names in the list
                          beginning 2 scroll clicks down in
                          http://egroups.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/770
                          since these account for practically all other
                          potential candidates

                          --- Roger_Rowlett <roger.rowlett@...>
                          wrote:

                          >
                          > Altheia:
                          > Thanks for the nice comments.
                          >
                          > Anyway several years ago I set up a page on the
                          > highest points of
                          > Europe based on a version of the CIA Factbook and
                          > extrapolating the
                          > longitude/latitude from expediamaps.
                          >
                          > I set up a map:
                          > http://americasroof.com/europe.shtml
                          >
                          > The list:
                          > http://americasroof.com/world/europe-highest.shtml
                          >
                          > It seems like there should be a better more devoted
                          > list. But I
                          > can't find one (and if you know of a better
                          > highpoint list let me
                          > know!). If you have a specific mountain in mind, a
                          > good source is:
                          > http://summitpost.org
                          >
                          > I can't vouch for the accuracy of my information but
                          > it might be a
                          > start for you.
                          >
                          > Roger.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia
                          > kallos
                          > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
                          > > thanx roger
                          > > & thats a great site you have there too
                          > >
                          > > i would only add about nmoktx that it is indeed
                          > much
                          > > closer to the 103rd meridian than txnw is
                          > > & may well have been intended to fall precisely on
                          > > that meridian
                          > > yet the tripoint as we know it still falls west of
                          > > longitude 103
                          > > i believe
                          > > by about 8 seconds
                          > > or several hundred feet
                          > >
                          > > also
                          > > back to the supposedly meridional nmtx sector
                          > > any apparent 2 or 3 minute westward drift in many
                          > 19th
                          > > century survey lines such as this one was owing
                          > more
                          > > to the use of the similarly offset washington
                          > meridian
                          > > on which they were based than to any survey error
                          > >
                          > > survey error by that period was usually measurable
                          > in
                          > > seconds rather than minutes
                          > > just as the abovementioned drift of meridional
                          > nmok
                          > > actually is
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > & about these nmtx follies generally
                          > > of course all our state line imbroglios are even
                          > more
                          > > ridiculous than the international ones
                          > > but it is nice to see something as real as
                          > hydraulics
                          > > underlying at least one of these too
                          > > for your links do clearly identify water as the
                          > > madness behind the method in this case as well
                          > >
                          > > funniest & craziest of all tho is the fact that if
                          > nm
                          > > ever were to prevail legally about some historical
                          > > shift of the rio grande determining who other than
                          > > texas really owns el paso
                          > > well in that case el paso would revert not to new
                          > > mexico at all but to chihuahua
                          > >
                          > > only if the 32nd parallel sector of nmtx westward
                          > of
                          > > longitude 103 were adjusted much farther to the
                          > south
                          > > for which there is no possible reason nor even any
                          > > cockamamie excuse
                          > > could el paso fall into a thereby enlarged new
                          > mexico
                          > >
                          > > so the more you look at this one
                          > > the more hilarious it only gets
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > but your site reminds me to ask you &or any other
                          > > highpointers whether you have any news
                          > > or any data at all for that matter
                          > > on any country highpoints that may also serve
                          > > simultaneously as tricountry points
                          > >
                          > > we are aware of numerous tricountry points that
                          > are
                          > > situated on summits of locally supreme peaks
                          > > but have not yet been able to establish which if
                          > any
                          > > of these might also be a highpoint of a country
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- Roger_Rowlett <roger.rowlett@a...>
                          > > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > >
                          > > > I have an article with several links on my
                          > > > americasroof blog on this:
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                          http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-sues-
                          > texas/
                          > > >
                          > > > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal
                          > analysis
                          > > > of this bill to
                          > > > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to
                          > the
                          > > > 103rd meridian
                          > > > would probably be considered frivolous since the
                          > > > Courts have ruled
                          > > > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a
                          > long
                          > > > course of years"
                          > > > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas
                          > permitted
                          > > > New Mexico to
                          > > > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping
                          > the
                          > > > claim.
                          > > > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico,
                          > Texas
                          > > > tripoint jogs in to
                          > > > the meridian.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
                          > > > McManus"
                          > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
                          > > > > The Commissioner of the General Land Office of
                          > the
                          > > > State of Texas
                          > > > has proposed a
                          > > > > "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of
                          > the
                          > > > two states over the
                          > > > lost land
                          > > > > that New Mexico is griping about.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > See the third of three subtopics in the
                          > article at
                          > > > > http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Lowell G. McManus
                          > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.