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

Re: [borderpoint] USA/ Canada

Expand Messages
  • Len Nadybal
    Have we ever discussed the Canadian geographical opposite to Pt. Roberts at St. Regis, Quebec? That straight line across that peninsula certainly couldn t
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 20, 2012
    Have we ever discussed the Canadian geographical opposite to Pt. Roberts
    at St. Regis, Quebec? That straight line across that peninsula
    certainly couldn't have been drawn before anyone had settled there.
    Len


    Lowell G. McManus wrote:
    >
    >
    > This boundary, between two similar and civilized sovereigns, was
    > decided antecedent to settlement. If it were otherwise, settlement
    > would have tended to follow physical features instead of an imaginary
    > line of latitude, and there would have been a much greater potential
    > for conflict. As for Point Roberts, nobody knew that it such a
    > peninsula existed when the treaty was made.
    >
    > Lowell G. McManus
    > Eagle Pass, Texas, USA
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > *From:* Roger McCutcheon <mailto:rogerdwmac@...>
    > *To:* Borderpoint <mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
    > *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2012 4:59 AM
    > *Subject:* Re: [borderpoint] USA/ Canada
    >
    > This topic causes me to wonder afresh why it is that so much of
    > this border
    > is defined by the imaginary line of latitude rather than by any
    > natural
    > feature. At the time this was decided it must have been much more
    > difficult
    > to locate the position. That Point Roberts should thus have become an
    > exclave of Washington State instead of a part of its natural
    > hinterland of
    > British Columbia seems particularly illogical. The same applies to
    > the end
    > of that long spit of land, Wislana, which like the rest of what
    > was East
    > Prussia is divided between Poland and the Russian exclave of
    > Kaliningrad by
    > virtue of the border line being extended across the bay. The
    > closest named
    > location I can find in Google Earth is Krynica Morska in Poland.
    > Roger &
    > out.
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------------------------
    >
    > Yahoo! Groups Links
    >
    >
    > borderpoint-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
    > <mailto:borderpoint-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________________
    > Unlimited Disk, Data Transfer, PHP/MySQL Domain Hosting
    > http://www.doteasy.com
  • R Novacovschi
    +1. I feel the military argument is pointless anyway, whether the neighbours are in friendly terms (no need to defend, then) or not. In war borders are not
    Message 32 of 32 , Feb 24, 2012

      +1.

       

      I feel the military argument is pointless anyway, whether the neighbours are in friendly terms (no need to defend, then) or not. In war borders are not respected anyway – invasion, the de facto gain of territory is one of the main objectives of ground military operations, and strategic retreat is also an important concept. I don’t think anyone could suggest Britain give up sovereignty over the Channel Islands because they could not prevent their invasion by Germany during the war.

       

      In peace you still have sovereignty, whether you fortify the over-the-water piece of land or not. You can still exercise effective sovereignty regardless how poorly defended the area is, as the other side would have to go to war / commit an act of aggression to impede you. Furthermore, you may be equally unsafe in other, contiguous parts of your territory, so cessation of land on account of it not being defensible is hardly ever a major argument.

       

      Razvan

       

      From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lowell G. McManus
      Sent: 24 February 2012 16-40
      To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [borderpoint] USA/ Canada

       

       

      Shoulda, coulda, woulda.  Fact is, though, that they didn't.  So, what you see is what you get.  It's too late to fix it now.

       

      Lowell G. McManus
      Eagle Pass, Texas, USA

       

       

      ----- Original Message -----

      Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:25 AM

      Subject: Re: [borderpoint] USA/ Canada

       

      I think we were talking about "way back when" - the treaties referred to
      when this thread started were to end a war.  My suggestion was to insert
      a provision in the treaty "way back then", that said, "at variance from
      the straight meridian line, if a small (indefensible) places would be
      created on the "wrong sides" of rivers or lakes, that the border should,
      as an exception, follow the shore rather than the named meridian or
      other straight line around those places (like St. Regis, Canada).  That
      would have essentially "given" St. Regis to the US, and eliminated the
      defense (and cross-water administrative) problems (such as a need for a
      corridor through the other nation to get access).    Someone else then
      wrote nobody knew Pr. Roberts existed - which was immaterial - because
      the provision I'd suggested would have been something insertable "just
      in case" some weirdness like that turned out to exist once explorations
      had taken place.
      LN



      Lowell G. McManus wrote:
      >
      >
      > Defend?  Against whom?  Canada is our closest friend.

      > Lowell G. McManus
      > Eagle Pass, Texas, USA



      > ----- Original Message -----
      >
      >     *From:* David Kendall <mailto:dhkendall@...>
      >     *To:* borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
      >     <mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
      >     *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:48 PM
      >     *Subject:* Re: [borderpoint] USA/ Canada
      >
      >
      >     On 02/20/2012, at 12:13 PM, Len Nadybal wrote:
      >
      >     > I agree they were probably concerned very little with the
      >     locals.  I
      >     > think they would have been worried about defendable borders.
      >
      >     I would think actually an exclave like Point Roberts, NW Angle,
      >     and others are harder to defend, and would be easier to just give
      >     to the other country.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _______________________________________________________
      > Unlimited Disk, Data Transfer, PHP/MySQL Domain Hosting
      > http://www.doteasy.com



      _______________________________________________________
      Unlimited Disk, Data Transfer, PHP/MySQL Domain Hosting
                    http://www.doteasy.com


      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/borderpoint/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/borderpoint/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          borderpoint-digest@yahoogroups.com
          borderpoint-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          borderpoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.