- That segment of the boundary was first fixed in the Provisional Treaty of 1782 between Great Britain and the United States as ...to the forty-fifth degree ofMessage 1 of 32 , Feb 20, 2012View SourceThat segment of the boundary was first fixed in the Provisional Treaty of 1782 between Great Britain and the United States as "...to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence, by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy [which we know as the St. Lawrence]..." The negotiators in Paris were doing the best they could to establish peace at the close of the American Revolution. They were delimiting, not demarcating. They had no clue exactly where the astronomical sightings of surveyors would eventually place that line. Whether it might snip off two-thirds of a mile of land (north to south) in the fork of the St. Lawrence River and the Rivière St.-Régis was beyond both their concern and their ability to know.Lowell G. McManusEagle Pass, Texas, USA----- Original Message -----From: Len NadybalSent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:35 AMSubject: Re: [borderpoint] USA/ Canada [1 Attachment]<*>[Attachment(s) from Len Nadybal included below]
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.
- +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 notMessage 32 of 32 , Feb 24, 2012View Source
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.
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 -----
From: Len Nadybal
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.
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:* email@example.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
Unlimited Disk, Data Transfer, PHP/MySQL Domain Hosting
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: