Portland - Even Cracker Barrel Flees Crime-Saturated City

[27E.G756]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/cracker-barrel-becomes-latest-company-flee-portland-amid-rising-crime-retail-theft

Cracker Barrel becomes latest company to flee Portland amid
rising crime, retail theft

Walmart announced earlier this month it is closing all of
its Portland, Oregon, locations

. . .

Geez ... even Cracker Barrel !!!

There's a tipping point in here somewhere, where
the biz needed to support the other biz in Portland
falls below the critical level and they ALL go down.

Yet the beloved Wokie pols seem to think this is
all just WONDERFUL - and YOU Portland citizens keep
voting for them.

As ye sow ......

Any sensible people there - GET OUT *NOW* !

Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.
It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.

[pyotr filipivich]

"27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:23:53 -0400
typed in alt.survival the following:

>
> Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.

East side.

The western side is already competing with Seattle to be North San
Francisco.

I see Oregon more likely to split into three - "South California
del Norte" along the I5, "Jefferson" south of Eugene and west of the
cascades, and "West Idaho" east of the Cascades.

> It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
> changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
> back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.

There was a lot of shifting of the western reaches as the various
states settled territory claims dating to their foundation as
colonies. Some of which overlapped.
Since then, the only shift of State borders was Virginia in 1861.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

[PaxPerPoten]

On 3/27/2023 10:06 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:23:53 -0400
> typed in alt.survival the following:
>>
>> Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.
>
> East side.
>
> The western side is already competing with Seattle to be North San
> Francisco.
>
> I see Oregon more likely to split into three - "South California
> del Norte" along the I5, "Jefferson" south of Eugene and west of the
> cascades, and "West Idaho" east of the Cascades.
>
>> It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
>> changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
>> back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.
>
> There was a lot of shifting of the western reaches as the various
> states settled territory claims dating to their foundation as
> colonies. Some of which overlapped.
> Since then, the only shift of State borders was Virginia in 1861.

Iowa's northern and western borders

(or, "The Land Between Three Rivers and a Funky Diagonal")

When Florida became a state on March 3, 1845, it created an imbalance
between free and slave states in the Union. Since about the beginning of
the 19th century, free and slave states were admitted to the Union in
pairs, the most notable pair being Maine and Missouri in the Missouri
Compromise. Michigan and Arkansas followed about 15 years later, and
eight years after that it was time for a new round. With Florida's
admission, Iowa was the next candidate for statehood.

At the time, Iowa Territory extended all the way up to the British
Empire, in what today are Manitoba and Saskatchewan, bordered on the
west by the Missouri River and the east by the Mississippi River. It
included eastern South Dakota, three-fourths of North Dakota, and more
than half of Minnesota. But as with most territories, the final
boundaries for a state would be pared down from the original territory.

Many sources put a diagonal in the first state border proposal made in
1845. A line would extend from the mouth of the Big Sioux River at
present-day Sioux City to the mouth of the Blue Earth River just west of
present-day Mankato. From there, the Minnesota River would be the border
up to the Mississippi River, and then the Mississippi would be the
state's eastern border. (Hence, the subtitle above.) In the following
discussion about the borders, I will often refer to present-day sites
and highways, to provide a sense of location. Keep in mind, though, that
had either of these borders been accepted, the history of those cities
and highways would be very different. Maybe they wouldn't exist at all.

Full version of the northern boundary here. Interstates in Minnesota
that would be in "Iowa" are also on this map.

This graphic shows how the diagonal would have cut off Iowa's
northwestern corner. Black dots are in the proposed state of Iowa, gray
dots out. The line seems to go almost directly over the southwestern and
northeastern corners of O'Brien County, which would put half the town of
Primghar inside Iowa and half outside it. (In addition, today's Sioux
City would likely have a really skewed street grid.) The line would also
go right through West Okoboji Lake and near today's west junction of US
71 and IA 9. In retrospect, though this portion of Iowa was virtually
unsettled by whites at the time, such a line would cut off some very
productive farmland.

Prominent dissent: Author Mark Stein includes no mention of this
diagonal proposal. Instead, he says that Territorial Governor Robert
Lucas proposed borders that would include ALL of Minnesota south of the
Minnesota River plus that portion of what is now South Dakota east of
the Big Sioux River to its source with a line east to somewhere
northwest of Big Stone City, SD. (Geographic quirk: The Big Sioux flows
south through western Sioux Falls then turns back north to I-90 before
going east and south again - that would make for a weird border dip!)
This would have given the state a big lobe to the northwest plus, again,
the southern half of what is now the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.

Congress rejected the first proposal, whatever it was - perhaps because
of the diagonal when the township-and-range system was well-established,
but that's only my speculation. It sent back a new one - one that
chopped off about a third of the present state. Sources agree that the
western border was not the Missouri River, and that the proposal went
north into present-day Minnesota, but beyond that, there are
discrepancies that vary enough to be completely confusing. Descriptions
I have seen:

"two counties into Minnesota and no farther west than Des Moines" (1)

"60 miles east of the Missouri River and slightly north of the
current Minnesota border" (2). Depending on where you measure from, this
could be a short distance west of modern-day IA 148 or the same line
mentioned below.

"The western boundary was to be essentially a northern continuation
of Missouri's western boundary (the meridian passing through the mouth
of the Kansas River). Iowa's northern boundary was to be the line of
latitude passing through the confluence of the Minnesota and Blue Earth
rivers." (3) This line marked Missouri's entire western border until
1837, when the northwest corner was officially added to the state, and
in Iowa it passes just to the east of IA 4's route between Emmetsburg
and IA 175; IA 25 would be entirely east of this line. This line would
make sense along the idea that Iowa should be no narrower than Missouri.
A geographic problem with this description is that a whole-number line
of latitude does not pass through the river point. However, 44 degrees
10 minutes is remarkably close, so that may be the intended line.

"Congress presented for the approval of the people of the Territory
a new western boundary which passed from north to south on a line about
forty miles west of Des Moines. The northern boundary was on a line with
the juncture of the Blue Earth and St. Peter's [Minnesota] Rivers, in
Minnesota." (4) But then this description seems to contradict itself:
"Had Congress prevailed, Iowa to-day would be but little more than half
as wide from east to west as it is, and would extend thirty miles
farther north, into Minnesota." A line 40 miles west of Des Moines (the
confluence of the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers) would be somewhere in
the vicinity of Panora - practically right on top of IA 4 in that area.
It's about two-thirds, not half, as wide as the current state, even when
measured from the Burlington area. Des Moines itself is west of the
state's vertical center line. Not only that, but the Blue Earth's mouth
is about 42 miles north of the present-day northern border, not 30, and
44° N is 34.5 miles north.

94 degress West longitude and a line passing through the confluence
of the Minnesota and Blue Earth Rivers. (5) An undetailed map of this
plan, created for an Iowa Public Television documentary, puts the west
and east forks of the Des Moines River just to the west of this line,
southeast of present-day Humboldt. But it also has a problem: It places
the Blue Earth's mouth to the east of the 94-degree line. In reality,
the mouth is about 1.6 miles west of this line. The point of 43°10' N
and 94° W is the intersection of Main and Broad in downtown Mankato -
between 1000 and 2500 feet away from the Minnesota River.

The extension of the former Missouri border as mentioned in the
third bullet point (despite the fact that it had stopped being
Missouri's western border north of Kansas City nearly a decade earlier)
and a line NORTH of the Minnesota/Mississippi confluence that could
quite possibly be 45° N. (6) Today, this line of latitude is
approximately a mile and a half south of the MN 36 expressway through
the suburb of Roseville and on Broadway Street in Minneapolis. Downtown
Minneapolis is about three miles south of this line.

This map draws out the options as best I understand them, with the
exclusion of the last one. A north-south red line labeled "'Platte
Purchase' line extension," the farthest west, is the continuation of the
"meridian passing through the mouth of the Kansas River"; a second red
line is 94° W. A vertical pink line marks the middle option, and a
horizontal pink line shows 44° N. IA 4, US 14 and 169 are drawn in, as
well as I-90, to help illustrate where the state lines would be. Kossuth
County's eastern border and a line of four counties in southern Iowa -
right by the easternmost line on either side - are also drawn for
illustration. Coincidentally (or not), 94° W is also at or near the
dividing line between "P" and "R" county roads.

Given these lines, I think either the Platte Purchase extension or 94° W
would have been the line in question. Trying to negotiate the latter
border after the actual paths of the rivers were found, though, would be
awkward to say the least. Putting a tri-state corner so near but not at
a river, with one state shut out of the riverfront, probably would not
be a good situation for commerce and development. A shift west of even
one minute, to 94°1' W, would solve this problem and give "Iowa" a small
piece of the Minnesota River riverfront, while 94°3' would put the Blue
Earth's mouth in the state. Had either plan been implemented, neither
Burlington (the original territorial capital) nor Iowa City (the second
territorial capital) would have been centered in the state; perhaps
consideration would have been given to the town of Prairie Rapids, which
would later change its name to Waterloo.

Regardless of where the proposed border was actually drawn, when
confronted with this too-much-off-the-back state outline, Iowans said,
"Adopt that? In a pig's eye!" (This is a Minnesota joke: Around the time
Iowa's statehood was being planned, a village was founded on the
Mississippi River across from what would have become Iowa under the
first plan. This village was called Pig's Eye, and is better known today
as St. Paul.) It was back to the drawing board again, and this time,
taking 43°30' N as the northern border for the entire way from the
Mississippi to the Big Sioux was judged as acceptable. The south line
remained in dispute for a few more years - for that, see my page on the
Sullivan Line.

The Minnesota Historical Society, unfortunately, gets its facts wrong in
more places than one.

This map is on a 1992 marker at the US 59/MN 60 Minnesota Welcome
Center, about four miles north of the state line. The relevant text on
the marker says: "When Iowa prepared to join the union in 1844, its
constitutional convention voted to set the new state's northern boundary
along the line [45° N] shown above, including the confluence of the
Minnesota and Mississippi rivers. ... Iowa's northern border was [later]
fixed on the latitude of 43.30, and when Iowa became a state on August
4, 1846, the future state of Minnesota's southern boundary was set even
before the Minnesota Territory was organized."

The only other place that I have seen 45° considered as a line for
Iowa's northern border is in Stein's book, and even there it's not
explicity labeled as such. If 45° had been considered, it would have
been very early in the process, possibly in 1844 as mentioned on the
marker; otherwise, only southeastern Minnesota was even under
consideration. But I DO know that that statehood date is flat out wrong;
Iowa became a state on December 28, 1846.
Sources:
(1) Irwin, Ann and Reida, Bernice. Hawkeye Adventure. Lake Mills, IA:
Graphic Publishing Co. Inc., 1966/1975, p. 202-3. This happened to be my
sixth-grade Iowa History book.
(2) Iowa Public Television, "Iowa Pathways: The Path to Statehood."
Accessed May 20, 2007.
(3) Wikipedia version of "Iowa" as posted on answers.com. Accessed May
20, 2007. In turn, that webpage cites Meining, D.W. The Shaping of
America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 2:
Continental America, 1800-1867. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1993, p. 437-8. This information (as of May 2007) is not on the "Iowa"
page on Wikipedia itself (and had a book not been cited, it would not
have been listed here).
(4) Sabin, Henry and Sabin, Edwin. The Making of Iowa (Chapter 3: The
Birth of a State). Chicago, IL: A. Flanagan Co., 1900, republished
online by the Iowa GenWeb Project.
(5) Iowa Public Television, "Iowa Pathways: The Path to Statehood:
Western Boundary Debate." Same site as source #2, but with a visual aid:
A segment of "The Path to Statehood," The Iowa Heritage: Program #3,
Iowa Public Television, 1978. (RealPlayer) The fact that the same
website has two different border markings shows the confusion here.
(6) Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publishers, 2008, p. 95-100. (Stein discusses the southern
border without using the words "Honey War." What's up with that?)

Page created May 20, 2007; last updated December 26, 2008

To Iowa Highway Ends Annex

To Iowa Highway Ends Index

[Dr. Jade Helm]

On 3/27/2023 9:06 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:23:53 -0400
> typed in alt.survival the following:
>>
>> Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.
>
> East side.
>
> The western side is already competing with Seattle to be North San
> Francisco.
>
> I see Oregon more likely to split into three - "South California
> del Norte" along the I5, "Jefferson" south of Eugene and west of the
> cascades, and "West Idaho" east of the Cascades.
>
>> It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
>> changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
>> back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.
>
> There was a lot of shifting of the western reaches as the various
> states settled territory claims dating to their foundation as
> colonies. Some of which overlapped.
> Since then, the only shift of State borders was Virginia in 1861.

I believe that the Oklahoma panhandle was a no-man's land until oil was
discovered there. Before Oklahoma grabbed it, it was a place for
outlaws, gamblers, and prostitutes to hide out and ply their trades
without fear of breaking any laws.

--
You voted for student loan forgiveness. You got demographic replacement
and World War 3.

"Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to
aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic
transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring
unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to
enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and
abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits
bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States
in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection
1324(a)(3)."

https://www.globalgulag.us

[27E.G756]

On 3/27/23 11:06 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:23:53 -0400
> typed in alt.survival the following:
>>
>> Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.
>
> East side.
>
> The western side is already competing with Seattle to be North San
> Francisco.
>
> I see Oregon more likely to split into three - "South California
> del Norte" along the I5, "Jefferson" south of Eugene and west of the
> cascades, and "West Idaho" east of the Cascades.
>
>> It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
>> changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
>> back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.
>
> There was a lot of shifting of the western reaches as the various
> states settled territory claims dating to their foundation as
> colonies. Some of which overlapped.
> Since then, the only shift of State borders was Virginia in 1861.

Not true.

See this (painfully slow) GIF showing border changes since 1776.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/United_States_evolution_small.gif

Some of the shifts were done for "social" reasons ... like
not wanting to get caught up in gold-mining chaos or sharp
differences in religion or opinions on slavery. There was no
"goal" of having so many states ... local divisions made
it socially/politically necessary to keep the peace.

Well, now we have a case of serious political, and to some
degree "religious" POV problems. The Oregon coast has gone
hyper commie and those to the west can't STAND it anymore.
The reasons of the past for border-shifting still exist.

[27E.G756]

On 3/27/23 4:26 PM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> On 3/27/2023 10:06 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:23:53 -0400
>> typed in alt.survival  the following:
>>>
>>>    Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.
>>
>>     East side.
>>
>>     The western side is already competing with Seattle to be North San
>> Francisco.
>>
>>     I see Oregon more likely to split into three - "South California
>> del Norte" along the I5, "Jefferson" south of Eugene and west of the
>> cascades, and "West Idaho" east of the Cascades.
>>
>>>    It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
>>>    changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
>>>    back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.
>>
>>     There was a lot of shifting of the western reaches as the various
>> states settled territory claims dating to their foundation as
>> colonies.  Some of which overlapped.
>>     Since then, the only shift of State borders was Virginia in 1861.
>

View :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/United_States_evolution_small.gif

Painfully slow, but detailed.

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 18:17:38 -0600, "Dr. Jade Helm" <his...@nym.hush.com> wrote:

>On 3/27/2023 9:06 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:23:53 -0400
>> typed in alt.survival the following:
>>> Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.

>> East side.
>> The western side is already competing with Seattle to be North San
>> Francisco.
>> I see Oregon more likely to split into three - "South California
>> del Norte" along the I5, "Jefferson" south of Eugene and west of the
>> cascades, and "West Idaho" east of the Cascades.

>>> It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
>>> changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
>>> back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.

>> There was a lot of shifting of the western reaches as the various
>> states settled territory claims dating to their foundation as
>> colonies. Some of which overlapped.
>> Since then, the only shift of State borders was Virginia in 1861.

That's the only shift of state borders in US history afaik. There was plenty of shifting
of territorial lines. See below for the shifts of where the OK Panhandle belonged over
its history.

>I believe that the Oklahoma panhandle was a no-man's land until oil was
>discovered there. Before Oklahoma grabbed it, it was a place for
>outlaws, gamblers, and prostitutes to hide out and ply their trades
>without fear of breaking any laws.

I've noticed you posting historical beliefs that are wrong or at best, inaccurate.

Oil was discovered fifty years before Oklahoma became a state - but not in the panhandle.
<https://tinyurl.com/46yhy58p>
<https://www.halff.com/news-insights/insights/10-things-you-may-not-have-known-about-oklahoma-oil-and-gas/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20American%20Oil,before%20Oklahoma%20became%20a%20state.>

When Texas became independent of Mexico, they claimed the land. At that time it was used
mostly by ranchers. The Missouri Compromise forced Texas to give up this strip of land
when it applied for statehood since it was above 36' 30''. At this point the land was
unnattached to any other political entity because, not having been surveyed, it couldn't
be claimed under the Homestead Act.

The land was generally referred to as Public Land Strip or Unassigned Lands. The farmers
and ranchers who settled there began developing their own institutions and regarded it for
a while as "Cimarron Territory". Eventually that was ended and a bill passed Congress
attaching it to Kansas but Grover Cleveland never signed it. In the end, the strip of
three counties was assigned to Oklahoma territory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Panhandle
https://daily.jstor.org/why-oklahoma-has-a-panhandle/

"Around 1885 or 1886 the term "No Man's Land" became widely applied to the Public Land
Strip. True to the plain language of the old West, the nickname referred simply to the
fact that no man could legally own land in the Strip. It had no intended connotations
regarding lawlessness or dangerous conditions, as later writers would imply, to the
chagrin of the Strip's old settlers. To make this clear, residents of the Strip frequently
used the epithet "No Man's Land, but God's Land.""

<https://tinyurl.com/dr74a5dh>
<https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=NO001#:~:text=It%20was%20identified%20on%20most,by%20Comanche%20bands%20and%20allied>

Swill
--
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 21:33:35 -0400, "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> wrote:

>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/United_States_evolution_small.gif

Wow! I learned some stuff today. Thanks for the handy tool!

[pyotr filipivich]

"27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 21:33:35 -0400

typed in alt.survival the following:
>

> Well, now we have a case of serious political, and to some
> degree "religious" POV problems. The Oregon coast has gone
> hyper commie and those to the west can't STAND it anymore.
> The reasons of the past for border-shifting still exist.

What's west of Florence, Newport and Tillamook?

[pyotr filipivich]

I'm "reposting" this because the embedded attachment breaks my news
reader.

PaxPerPoten <P...@Yale.com> on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:26:52 -0500 typed in

[27E.G756]

On 3/28/23 10:28 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Mon, 27 Mar 2023 21:33:35 -0400
> typed in alt.survival the following:
>>
>> Well, now we have a case of serious political, and to some
>> degree "religious" POV problems. The Oregon coast has gone
>> hyper commie and those to the west can't STAND it anymore.
>> The reasons of the past for border-shifting still exist.
>
> What's west of Florence, Newport and Tillamook?

Try Google Maps ....

Oh, and even "dirt" often winds up being very
profitable - all kinds of valuable things in
"dirt" .........

[PaxPerPoten]

On 3/27/2023 7:17 PM, Dr. Jade Helm wrote:
> On 3/27/2023 9:06 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> "27E.G756" <27E....@noq24u.net> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:23:53 -0400
>> typed in alt.survival  the following:
>>>
>>>    Hope the western half of the state DOES join Idaho.
>>
>>     East side.
>>
>>     The western side is already competing with Seattle to be North San
>> Francisco.
>>
>>     I see Oregon more likely to split into three - "South California
>> del Norte" along the I5, "Jefferson" south of Eugene and west of the
>> cascades, and "West Idaho" east of the Cascades.
>>
>>>    It's kind of a survival imperative now. State borders
>>>    changing is not anything new - lots of shifting around
>>>    back in the 1800s for socioeconomic reasons.
>>
>>     There was a lot of shifting of the western reaches as the various
>> states settled territory claims dating to their foundation as
>> colonies.  Some of which overlapped.
>>     Since then, the only shift of State borders was Virginia in 1861.
>
> I believe that the Oklahoma panhandle was a no-man's land until oil was
> discovered there.  Before Oklahoma grabbed it, it was a place for
> outlaws, gamblers, and prostitutes to hide out and ply their trades
> without fear of breaking any laws.

Sounds like Modern Washington DC.
>