Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rolling_stone

Here is the text of Article from the treaty where it defines the boundary. I challenge you to show me where I am wrong.

ARTICLE V

The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.

The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled “Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell,” of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.

In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.

The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution.


247 posted on 04/11/2014 12:07:01 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]


To: taxcontrol

the land was “annexed” subject to existing property holders, (yes I know article 10 was not ratified)not listed as purchased but ceded by Mexico. Yes the border was set, but many persons in the area retained their property rights.....which have been subject to many disputes since 1848 and a claim of racism towards Mexican/American owners.

the treaty has been the subject of many changes and additions, see Treaty of Mesilla, Protocol of Querétaro, Gasden Purchase etc.


248 posted on 04/11/2014 12:29:45 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]

To: taxcontrol

recent land court battle in California goes back before treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo..

.......The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso’s land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso’s ownership in 1859.

All that complicated history led Buchwald to a basic conclusion: The nation’s high court exempted this property from the full reach of California law.

“What the Supreme Court was saying was that a claim exactly like the one being made here now was extinguished,” Buchwald said. “And it doesn’t matter that the claim is being made all these years later.”............

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-khosla-wins-key-martins-beach-battle

EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW THIS VIDEO FOR BACKGROUND ON NEVADA LAND AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?314028-1/federal-land-rights-nevada


300 posted on 04/11/2014 11:11:50 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson