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

Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all brawl" with NM over land

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.