Four Corners

[SportsFan68]

It's my understanding from RadioDude that the original declaration would be about where the red dot is, except on the CO-NM border.

[littlebeast13]

It's my understanding from RadioDude that the original declaration would be about where the red dot is, except on the CO-NM border.

So how far away is ES from your front door?

lb13

[MarleysGh0st]

It's my understanding from RadioDude that the original declaration would be about where the red dot is, except on the CO-NM border.

So how far away is ES from your front door?

lb13

Found it.

[SportsFan68]

It's my understanding from RadioDude that the original declaration would be about where the red dot is, except on the CO-NM border.

So how far away is ES from your front door?

lb13

LOL! MBRS is within an easy quarter-day's drive.

ES is imagining that he's there -- that's WAY too close for the restraining order.

[littlebeast13]

It's my understanding from RadioDude that the original declaration would be about where the red dot is, except on the CO-NM border.

So how far away is ES from your front door?

lb13

LOL! MBRS is within an easy quarter-day's drive.

ES is imagining that he's there -- that's WAY too close for the restraining order.

But he is standing in Arizona! Only his tail is in Colorado proper (Or improper.... Utah got jipted!)

lb13

[Rafferbee]

I would recommend How the States Got Their Shapes for anyone interested in why the borders are the way they are. Now I know why Maryland is such an odd shape. Basically we lost every territory dispute we ever had. Delaware should have been ours, darn it!

http://www.amazon.com/How-States-Got-Th ... 0061431389

[SportsFan68]

But he is standing in Arizona! Only his tail is in Colorado proper (Or improper.... Utah got jipted!)

lb13

That's too close. ES is probably in Norman someplace while MBRS takes a nice Santa Fe-style vacation without him. That pictorial representation of him right across the border is a figment of somebody's imagination.

[silverscreenselect]

There's still more to the story, according to Wikipedia. When the Colorado territory was established in 1861, its western boundary was defined as the 32nd meridian west from the naval observatory in Washington DC. That boundary was also used to set the borders for the Arizona territory when it was established in 1864. The same boundaries were kept when all four territories involved became states. Congress abandoned using the Washington meridian as a standard measurement in the late 1860s when technology improved to the point where it was possible to more accurately determine distances from the prime meridian in Greenwich. The Washington meridian has an offset error from the Prime meridian approximately the same as the error in the Four Corners measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_merid ... Washington

Also, in 1925, a Supreme Court case decided that the currently recognized N/S boundary between New Mexico and Colorado is in fact the legal boundary, in large part because both states had recognized it as such for the previous 50+ years.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/267/30/case.html

[SportsFan68]

There's still more to the story, according to Wikipedia. When the Colorado territory was established in 1861, its western boundary was defined as the 32nd meridian west from Washington DC. That boundary was also used to set the borders for the Arizona territory when it was established in 1864. The same boundaries were kept when all four territories involved became states. Congress abandoned using the Washington meridian as a standard measurement in the late 1860s when technology improved to the point where it was possible to more accurately determine distances from the prime meridian in Greenwich. The Washington meridian has an offset error from the Prime meridian approximately the same as the error in the Four Corners measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_merid ... Washington

Also, in 1925, a Supreme Court case decided that the currently recognized N/S boundary between New Mexico and Colorado is in fact the legal boundary, in large part because both states had recognized it as such for the previous 50+ years.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/267/30/case.html

i had no idea that the Supreme Court was ever involved. When I took Colorado History, the prof said that the boundaries for Colorado Territory were set by Congress, then kept intact when we became a state. Close enough, I guess -- part of that 50+ year history.

[silverscreenselect]

i had no idea that the Supreme Court was ever involved.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (meaning it acts as a trial court) for disputes between states, and this has frequently involved border disputes over the years. Many of them involved rivers changing course and exactly where the border should be when that happens.

[Appa23]

This reminds me of the boundary problems experienced by Nebraska and Iowa. The boundary between Nebraska and Iowa was set as being the Missouri River, as stated in the 1892 US S.Ct. case between the states. However, the Misosuri River tended to wander. The Court declared that the boundary switched with the River, unless the switch was by avulsion, rather than accretion, for example. Of course, there then were issues with whether the river mopved because of accretion or avulsion. Then, Congress ordered the Corps of Engineers to tame the "wild, meandering river" through channelization in the 1930s and 1940s. Then, through an Interstate Compact, the states agreed that the boundary would then be the mid-point of the too-be-completed channel, except that Carter Lake would remain in Iowa, despite being on the Nebraska side of the river.

All of these issues were re-introduced when Iowa decided to allow riverboat casinos. While in law school, the firm where I clerked represented Harvey's, which was building the first casino in Council Bluffs. The State of Nebraska tried to claim that the land to be used was actually Nebraska land. Then, it argued that it did not have to allow the floating casinos into "Nebraska water", making it pretty hard to comply with the Iowa law that the boats had to actually sail something like once-a-month. (In Missouri, the original law interpreted to mean that the boats had to float on water from the Missouri River or Mississippi River, as I was told. So, the first casino owners in KC built a large pool about a quarter-mile from the river, piped in water from the river, and floated the boats in their basins of river water.)

[Bob78164]

This reminds me of the boundary problems experienced by Nebraska and Iowa. The boundary between Nebraska and Iowa was set as being the Missouri River, as stated in the 1892 US S.Ct. case between the states. However, the Misosuri River tended to wander. The Court declared that the boundary switched with the River, unless the switch was by avulsion, rather than accretion, for example. Of course, there then were issues with whether the river mopved because of accretion or avulsion. Then, Congress ordered the Corps of Engineers to tame the "wild, meandering river" through channelization in the 1930s and 1940s. Then, through an Interstate Compact, the states agreed that the boundary would then be the mid-point of the too-be-completed channel, except that Carter Lake would remain in Iowa, despite being on the Nebraska side of the river.

I think I remember reading a case in law school that turned on this fact. If memory serves, all the lawyers assumed that one of the parties was a Nebraska citizen when in fact, for this reason, that party was an Iowa citizen, destroying diversity. --Bob

[earendel]

This reminds me of the boundary problems experienced by Nebraska and Iowa. The boundary between Nebraska and Iowa was set as being the Missouri River, as stated in the 1892 US S.Ct. case between the states. However, the Misosuri River tended to wander. The Court declared that the boundary switched with the River, unless the switch was by avulsion, rather than accretion, for example. Of course, there then were issues with whether the river mopved because of accretion or avulsion. Then, Congress ordered the Corps of Engineers to tame the "wild, meandering river" through channelization in the 1930s and 1940s. Then, through an Interstate Compact, the states agreed that the boundary would then be the mid-point of the too-be-completed channel, except that Carter Lake would remain in Iowa, despite being on the Nebraska side of the river.

All of these issues were re-introduced when Iowa decided to allow riverboat casinos. While in law school, the firm where I clerked represented Harvey's, which was building the first casino in Council Bluffs. The State of Nebraska tried to claim that the land to be used was actually Nebraska land. Then, it argued that it did not have to allow the floating casinos into "Nebraska water", making it pretty hard to comply with the Iowa law that the boats had to actually sail something like once-a-month. (In Missouri, the original law interpreted to mean that the boats had to float on water from the Missouri River or Mississippi River, as I was told. So, the first casino owners in KC built a large pool about a quarter-mile from the river, piped in water from the river, and floated the boats in their basins of river water.)

Indiana and Kentucky have had similar disputes over the years; evidently the original border was set as the low-water mark of the Ohio River, putting all of the river within Kentucky's boundaries. However the river shifted over the years, so some of the land that is connected to Indiana was said to belong to Kentucky because of where the water line had been drawn. The USSC redrew the boundary line, but a few years ago when Indiana adopted riverboat casino gambling, the boundary issue came up again. The Indiana law required that the boats actually cruise - gambling couldn't start until the boat had left the dock. Unfortunately one of the boats was moored just upriver from Louisville, in an area where, if the boat actually went beyond the breakwater, it would be in Kentucky waters. The commonwealth of Kentucky threatened to have patrol boats standing by to seize the casino boat and arrest the patrons, who would be in violation of Kentucky law. The Indiana law was revised to remove the cruising requirement.

[SportsFan68]

Just an aside -- when I saw MBRS and ES leaning up against the Four Corners post, I thought, "Motorcycle!"

It's already pretty well drawn, just substitute a motorcycle for the snowmobile.

[mcd1400de]

Now I know why Maryland is such an odd shape. Basically we lost every territory dispute we ever had. Delaware should have been ours, darn it!

Suck it, Rafferty!

[ulysses5019]

Has the nitpickers union approved of the content in this thread?