hi teegate,happy thanksgiving!!!could you tell me what is the mean distance between the keith and lawrence lines?
lawrence and keith lines
- Thread starter james ungehajer
- Start date
If by saying "mean distance" you mean the "average distance" I don't know how to answer that. If you want to know where they are the closest to each other than that would be the beginning where they both started...the beach at Little Egg Harbor.
Keith's line went too far west and is now the eastern edge of the Burlington County Border. Lawrence's went more to the east so as they leave the beginning they go off on a tangent.
If you want to visit the Lawrence Marker #5 which is the lowest number known to survive (I have not looked for 1 thru 4) you can drive down route 9 in West Creek and see it and the sign they erected. It is a replacement sign since the original was stolen.
Did I answer your question? If not please post back. Does anyone disagree?
Guy
Keith's line went too far west and is now the eastern edge of the Burlington County Border. Lawrence's went more to the east so as they leave the beginning they go off on a tangent.
If you want to visit the Lawrence Marker #5 which is the lowest number known to survive (I have not looked for 1 thru 4) you can drive down route 9 in West Creek and see it and the sign they erected. It is a replacement sign since the original was stolen.
Did I answer your question? If not please post back. Does anyone disagree?
Guy
keith and lawrence lines
hi,i keep my boat at capt mikes marina on great bay boulevard across from the fish factory(stink house)in little egg harbor,would this be in the general area,or more toward southern long beach island at holgate.i get my boat serviced at west creek mercury in west creek,and i will look for that marker next time i am down there ,which will probably be saturday afternoon.to generalize a little more i was looking at the separation at howardsville,i should have been more specific. thanks
hi,i keep my boat at capt mikes marina on great bay boulevard across from the fish factory(stink house)in little egg harbor,would this be in the general area,or more toward southern long beach island at holgate.i get my boat serviced at west creek mercury in west creek,and i will look for that marker next time i am down there ,which will probably be saturday afternoon.to generalize a little more i was looking at the separation at howardsville,i should have been more specific.
thanksFrom what I've read, the Lawrence Line was drawn to give the Proprietors of West Jersey more territory, however it was never officially accepted...
Guy, do you know what angle the Lawrence Line makes in reference to the older Keith Line? I have, as yet, not found an answer, and attempting to ascertain the value with a protractor and a map seems to be much too imprecise...
ebsi
Guy, do you know what angle the Lawrence Line makes in reference to the older Keith Line? I have, as yet, not found an answer, and attempting to ascertain the value with a protractor and a map seems to be much too imprecise...
ebsi
The Keith line was never accepted but Lawrence's was. He had a few errors which were corrected by 1750 by James Alexander the Surveyor General of both East and West Jersey.
Basically Lawrence did a good job. In 1815 the southern 40 miles were resurveyed by Thomas Gordon and Francis Brinley. That resurvey produced a map showing the mile points, land features, and land owners along the line.
For example in the Howardsville area up to marker 21 it is mentioned that Clayton Newbold owned much of the land that previously was unowned. It also mentioned around marker 21 there was a mill called "White Mill". You may remember some of my previous posts mentioning his "CN" stones that were present in 1959 but are now history.
And in the Webb's mill area it is mentioned that the Webb family had several residences between marker 22 and 24. The maps I posted showing them confirm that.
In the Howardsville area the distance from the county line is about 2.5 miles.
Guy
Basically Lawrence did a good job. In 1815 the southern 40 miles were resurveyed by Thomas Gordon and Francis Brinley. That resurvey produced a map showing the mile points, land features, and land owners along the line.
For example in the Howardsville area up to marker 21 it is mentioned that Clayton Newbold owned much of the land that previously was unowned. It also mentioned around marker 21 there was a mill called "White Mill". You may remember some of my previous posts mentioning his "CN" stones that were present in 1959 but are now history.
And in the Webb's mill area it is mentioned that the Webb family had several residences between marker 22 and 24. The maps I posted showing them confirm that.
In the Howardsville area the distance from the county line is about 2.5 miles.
Guy
Ebsi,
I am not going to mention the bearings of the line, but I have found that it is not what many of the surveyors have it ascertained at. I have found inconsistencies in even the 1959 Greenwood survey.
Using a GPX track with the Mac program I use here, I can put in the exact coordinates of all of the known stones from 5 to 40 and run a line between them. If I use any of the bearings from any of the survey maps I have here the locations they say they should be are not on the line. I have come up with my own bearing and can place a point 20 miles away directly on that line so I know my calculations are correct.
Stone # 15 is not in the proper location, and the 18.82 cement monument placed there in 1959 by the Greenwood survey is also not on the line. This has caused me to not be able to find some of the Greenwood monuments that I have looked for numerous times. They put them flush with the ground and without precision equipment or specific maps I have not acquired, I can't find them.
The Greenwood Forest area has caused me considerable problems and a massive amount of time because of the above mentioned. If I find just one of the monuments it will go a long way towards finding the rest.
Guy
teegate,is it possible that markers 1-4 if still existing would lie in the marshes going from west creek out to little egg harbor bay,then the last one would be somewhere on long beach island between beach haven and holgate.
Yes.... but I doubt most of them would be there. I don't think I will be trying to look for them.
Guy
Yes it does. There was once a stone along Cedar Bridge road but that is also gone. It was there in 1959 for sure. I have the exact state plane coordinates for it and use them to search for stones in Howardsville along with others.
Guy
Folks:
The Keith Line-Lawrence Line disagreement has been a long-standing debate between the East and West Jersey Proprietors. In reality Keith shot his line on an incorrect trajectory, which is why he ended his line at the South Branch of the Raritan near what, today, is Three Bridges. Absentee Governor Daniel Coxe recognized the inequity of the Keith Line and he and Governor Robert Barclay of East Jersey worked out a compromise boundary line between the end of the Keith Line to the Hudson River. This line was officially accepted as the Province Line dividing East and West Jersey until after the reunification of New Jersey as a royal colony in 1702.
The discrepancy between the 1687 Keith Line, the 1688 Compromise Boundary, and the 1676 Quintipartite Deed continued as a source of annoyance. In July 1719, the Colony of New York, and the East and West Jersey Proprietors all signed a TriPartite Deed establishing a point at 41 degrees 40 minutes on the east side of the Fishkill Branch of the Delaware River as the northwestern point that would divide East and West Jersey and as the western point for establishing a boundary between New Jersey and New York. Although the West Jersey Proprietors declared they would have a new line surveyed, it was actually the East Jersey Proprietors that funded John Lawrence's survey in 1743.
For many years West Jersey would not officially recognize the Lawrence Line. With the survey of a new north point for the New York-New Jersey border in 1769, the West Jersey Proprietors unsuccessfully attempted to have a new line run. Finally all accepted the Lawrence Line, which caused some transferrence of land titles that had been surveyed originally along the Keith Line as the division point.
Best regards,
Jerseyman
The Keith Line-Lawrence Line disagreement has been a long-standing debate between the East and West Jersey Proprietors. In reality Keith shot his line on an incorrect trajectory, which is why he ended his line at the South Branch of the Raritan near what, today, is Three Bridges. Absentee Governor Daniel Coxe recognized the inequity of the Keith Line and he and Governor Robert Barclay of East Jersey worked out a compromise boundary line between the end of the Keith Line to the Hudson River. This line was officially accepted as the Province Line dividing East and West Jersey until after the reunification of New Jersey as a royal colony in 1702.
The discrepancy between the 1687 Keith Line, the 1688 Compromise Boundary, and the 1676 Quintipartite Deed continued as a source of annoyance. In July 1719, the Colony of New York, and the East and West Jersey Proprietors all signed a TriPartite Deed establishing a point at 41 degrees 40 minutes on the east side of the Fishkill Branch of the Delaware River as the northwestern point that would divide East and West Jersey and as the western point for establishing a boundary between New Jersey and New York. Although the West Jersey Proprietors declared they would have a new line surveyed, it was actually the East Jersey Proprietors that funded John Lawrence's survey in 1743.
For many years West Jersey would not officially recognize the Lawrence Line. With the survey of a new north point for the New York-New Jersey border in 1769, the West Jersey Proprietors unsuccessfully attempted to have a new line run. Finally all accepted the Lawrence Line, which caused some transferrence of land titles that had been surveyed originally along the Keith Line as the division point.
Best regards,
Jerseyman
keith and lawrence lines
higuys,one last comment from me on the lines,i wonder why the lines were not drawn north to south,for instance from high point state park down to cape may,possibly including the delaware bay side up to port elizabeth east as east new jersey,that to me would have made more sense.it is hard to fathom that from beach haven inlet down to cape may is west jersey!!!!
higuys,one last comment from me on the lines,i wonder why the lines were not drawn north to south,for instance from high point state park down to cape may,possibly including the delaware bay side up to port elizabeth east as east new jersey,that to me would have made more sense.it is hard to fathom that from beach haven inlet down to cape may is west jersey!!!!
James,
I think your space bar key is broken. Your posts are incredibly hard to read without spaces between your punctuation marks.
I think your space bar key is broken. Your posts are incredibly hard to read without spaces between your punctuation marks.
Well, lets look at it differently. The turnpike officially runs north and south, but it doesn't. It runs NE and SW. And route 72 and route 70 run east and west, but at the 4 mile circle they intersect.
So west and east are relative terms, with the line basically there to appease property owners and big wigs at the time.
Guy
So west and east are relative terms, with the line basically there to appease property owners and big wigs at the time.
Guy
James:
While the directional labels can be confusing, remember that the East and West Jersey Proprietors originally intended the line to divide the state into two equitable proprietorships. Hence, they placed the terminal points for the province line with equality in mind. If they had run the line from High Point to Cape May as you suggest, the East Jersey Proprietors would have received the lion's share of the territory--and the West Jersey folks were not about to allow that to happen!!
Best regards,
Jerseyman
hi guy,if you would elaborate,what kindled your interest into looking for the lawrence line stones?
As I have always been interested in finding things in the pines, especially property stones, it was interesting to read an article about the search for the Lawrence Line stones in the mid 90’s by a group of surveyors who wanted to add the line back into modern maps. Since it had been almost 10 years since that had occurred I had my work cut out in trying to get info on it. I made a few educated guesses and with a little luck I was able to contact someone who was directly involved with it. They had all disbanded and gone in different directions. A meeting was set up at his place of business, and arriving early I encounter a company meeting. The secretary informed him I was there, and since he was the boss I believe the meeting ended early much to the delight of the employee’s I think. It was a Friday at 5PM and they wanted to get home it appeared. Just my opinion of course!
Anyway, in the midst of all the company’s work projects we sat at this very large table and I was shown what there was to offer. Along with some serious questions of my intent, and a few interruptions by the few remaining workers, I was told and then given what was available to give and I promised to keep him informed what I found. In the end I found all that had not been stolen, and two others that they did not find 10 years earlier. (6 and 9)
I have been very discouraged in the years since because I have acquired info that shows there is much more to find. But each and every attempt has been an utter failure.
Guy
Anyway, in the midst of all the company’s work projects we sat at this very large table and I was shown what there was to offer. Along with some serious questions of my intent, and a few interruptions by the few remaining workers, I was told and then given what was available to give and I promised to keep him informed what I found. In the end I found all that had not been stolen, and two others that they did not find 10 years earlier. (6 and 9)
I have been very discouraged in the years since because I have acquired info that shows there is much more to find. But each and every attempt has been an utter failure.
Guy
lawrence and keith lines,thornton line
i was searching on the website today and noticed the thornton line,i expanded my search further to wikipedia and answers.com,very informative about the keith line,where it ended,then further extended to the new york state border by coxe and barclay(very irregular),also was drawn in by the line wars between new jersey and new york,but the thornton line is where i am confused,was this line parallel to the lawrence and keith lines,or was it the contested 210,000 acres between the states.(it seems that new york state always won the land disputes between neighboring states.
i was searching on the website today and noticed the thornton line,i expanded my search further to wikipedia and answers.com,very informative about the keith line,where it ended,then further extended to the new york state border by coxe and barclay(very irregular),also was drawn in by the line wars between new jersey and new york,but the thornton line is where i am confused,was this line parallel to the lawrence and keith lines,or was it the contested 210,000 acres between the states.(it seems that new york state always won the land disputes between neighboring states.
I came across both of these lines while researching the alleged Mason-Dixon line markers in NJ (as far as I know, there are none). There was supposed to be a marker on LBI somewhere and even one on the Turnpike. I emailed the Turnpike commission and they said there may be some of the East/West Jersey markers nearby, but they have never heard of Mason-Dixon ones. I'm trying to find out why this story keeps persisting; the M-D officially doesn't even touch the state.