The American Quarterly Review, No. 18, June 1831 (Vol 9)Various
History
The American Quarterly Review, No. 18, June 1831 (Vol 9)
Various
Intellectual life -- Periodicals; United States -- Intellectual life -- 19th century -- Periodicals
In the constitution of the former, adopted in 1776, there is an express
recognition of the right of Maryland "to all the territory contained
within its charter;" but the actual boundary was not brought into
negotiation till 1795. New delays then interposed, and though Virginia
named commissioners in the matter in 1801, she restricted their powers
to the adjustment merely of the western line, unwilling to allow even a
discussion of her claim to the territory between the two branches. The
negociation consequently dropped for the time, and Maryland, wearied, it
would seem, with various efforts to reclaim the territory south of the
North Branch, agreed, at length, by an act passed in 1818, to adopt as
the terminus, the most western source of that stream. But a new
obstacle, interposed by Virginia, defeated the adjustment under this
concession. Her commissioners were instructed to commence the boundary
"at a stone, planted by Lord Fairfax on the head waters of the Potomac,"
being thus restricted to the old adjustment between Fairfax and the
crown; those of Maryland were directed to begin at the true or most
western source of the North Branch, be that where it might. Fairfax's
stone, our author says, is not planted in fact at the extreme western
source. The proffer of Maryland, by the act of 1818, to confine herself
to the North Branch, being thus rejected by Virginia, she is remitted
apparently to her original rights, which comprehend the sovereignty of
all the territory between these two streams of the Potomac, and call for
the South Branch as her south-western boundary in that quarter. In a
letter of Mr. Cooke, then a distinguished lawyer of Maryland, and one of
the commissioners named in 1795, to adjust the point, the territory in
contest is stated to contain 462,480 acres; and he remarks, that prior
occupancy gives, in such a case, no title to one party, and no length of
time can bar the claim of the other.
We have thus abridged the author's copious and distinct account of the
territorial wars, which resulted in the defeat of the proprietaries of
Maryland on two parts of their frontier, and have left a legacy of
debate on a third. We must now return to the era of the first grantee
and proprietary, and take up the line of the general events of the
colonial history.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account