KENTUCKY TENNESSEE BOUNDARY

Transcription

1 KENTUCKY TENNESSEE BOUNDARY The foundation for what was to become the boundary between Kentucky and Tennessee was laid on June 30, 1677 when King Charles II of England granted a charter to Clarendon & Company. This charter established the common boundary between the Colonies of Virginia and Carolina. The line begins at the coast and follows the thirty-six and thirty minutes of north latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the south sea. The colonies named joint commissions to establish and mark this common boundary line. The first of these efforts was made in 1728 when Col. William Byrd and others acting under royal authority ran the line westward to a point on the upper waters of the Dan River. In 1749, the line was continued westward by Fry & Jefferson another 90 miles to a point on Steep Rock Creek. This point was approximately 329 miles from the coast. The call for this boundary to follow the line of North Latitude was further documented in the constitution of Virginia when that state was formed on the 5 th day of July of The location was reaffirmed in Article 25 of the North Carolina Bill of Rights when that state was formed on December 18, 1776.

2 Walker Line In 1779, Virginia and North Carolina established a joint commission to extend the line that had ended at Steep Rock Creek in 1749 west to the Tennessee River. Virginia selected Dr. Thomas Walker and Daniel Smith as their commissioners. North Carolina selected Col. Richard Henderson and William B. Smith to represent that state. When the commissioners met at Steep Rock Creek in early September of 1779, they were accompanied by a military escort to assure their safety. After being unable to find the markings left by Fry & Jefferson thirty (30) years earlier, the party conducted astronomical observations and determined they were approximately one mile north of the north latitude. After running south to the correct latitude, the party turned west along the boundary. This effort only progressed about 45 miles when a disagreement arose between the commissioners with Col. Henderson of North Carolina believing the line was too far south by approximately two (2) miles. The commissioners then proceeded to run separate lines westward to the Cumberland Gap area at which point, the North Carolina commissioners declined to continue. Dr. Walker and the Virginia party continued their efforts westward while Henderson and a few of the North Carolina delegation followed the survey party and observed their progress. While the line has been given Walker s name, it is generally accepted that his assistant Daniel Smith actually ran most of the line. Subsequent surveys have demonstrated that the Walker 2

3 Line continued to deflect to the north as it proceeded westward. When Walker s Line first crossed the Cumberland River, it did so at approximately 36 north latitude, some nine (9) miles too far north. Another problem with the Walker Line is that it left a large part of the boundary unsurveyed. The most significant of these lies from Clear Fork in what is now Bell County, Kentucky and Claiborne County, Tennessee to the first crossing of the Cumberland River north of what is now Celina Tennessee. From there, the line was surveyed to the west ultimately stopping at the Tennessee River. As Walker and Smith were returning home, they were met with order from His Excellency, the Governor. Their instructions were to proceed to the Mississippi River and mark the point where the boundary of Virginia struck the Mississippi or Ohio. The party traveled down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to a location they determined by observation to be in the north latitude. This additional assignment was completed in late May of 1780, approximately eight (8) months after beginning their efforts over five hundred (500) miles to the east. While the Walker Line or something that approximates it has come to be held as the dividing line between Kentucky & Tennessee, much doubt and controversy remained for nearly a century before these states would finally resolve their common boundary. 3

4 The 1802 Compromise The first step toward reconciling the state boundaries did not involve Kentucky. You will recall that in 1779, Walker and Henderson had run only a short distance from their starting point on Steep Rock Creek when a conflict arose over the accuracy of their placement of the latitude. This had resulted in two lines being run. The northern most line was run by Henderson of North Carolina while Walker ran the more southerly line. As one would imagine, the existence of two conflicting lines caused confusion among the incredible numbers of people who were moving west. By 1802, it was estimated that nearly 900,000 people were inhabiting the lands west of the Allegheny Mountains. To resolve this dilemma, Virginia and Tennessee appointed a joint commission to determine the true boundary between them. Governor Archibald Roane appointed Moses Fisk, John Sevier and George Rutledge to represent Tennessee. Virginia was represented by Joseph Martin, Creed Taylor and Peter Johnston. Bear in mind that the commissioners were not the surveyors; they served to represent the interest of their respective states. The surveyors for this effort were Brice Martin and Nathaniel B. Markland. Near the first of October in 1802, the commissioners began their observations to determine the proper latitude of the Walker Line and the Henderson Line. These observation and discussions continued for several weeks with the commissioners ultimately deciding to split the difference and place the boundary of the states midway between the Walker and 4

5 Henderson lines. This was generally accomplished by running a north-south line between the Walker and Henderson lines and then locating the midpoint. This was done at regular intervals with the surveyors then proceeding east or west of this point to establish the state boundary. The commissioners also recommended to their states that the property rights for those people who had settled between the Walker and Henderson lines should not be affected by the agreed boundary. This may be the point in time when survey crews came to expect portal-toportal pay as the commissioners sought to compensate members of the party for the time it would take them to return home after the task had been completed. In addition, you will find a letter from the surveyors, which reports completion of the project, signed Brice Martin, P.S. and Nat. B. Markland, P.S. Was this an acronym for Professional Surveyor? If so, then this title escaped land surveyors for most of the next two hundred years The Tennessee Virginia Compromise of 1802 did not eliminate boundary conflicts for Tennessee. The period between 1802 and 1819 saw the ongoing disagreement between Kentucky and Tennessee regarding the line west of the Cumberland Gap area. The one thing it appears that all parties did agree on was that Walker s Line was well north of the latitude set out in King Charles original charter. It was generally accepted that Walker was some 8-10 miles too far to the north. 5

6 During this period, the two states carried on an almost continuous string of correspondence debating the issue of what should be held as the boundary. While representatives of both states were very eloquent in stating their respective positions, no decision or agreement was reached with respect to a final boundary. Alexander & Munsell 1819 Jackson Purchase Line When the Walker Line was run westward in , Virginia s title went only to the Cherokee River, now known as the Tennessee River. This limit had been negotiated in a treaty with Six Nations at Fort Stanwix in 1769 when the area west of the Tennessee River was allocated to the Chickasaw tribe. In 1818, another treaty was negotiated between the Chickasaw Indians and the United States with the United States being represented by Isaac Shelby and Andrew Jackson. This treaty gave Kentucky the lands between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers. At about the same time, Kentucky repealed all laws related to her southern boundary. This act caused much confusion and dismay in Tennessee, as it appeared that Kentucky might be preparing to exert a claim to the latitude. In February of 1819, the Kentucky legislature ordered a survey of her southern boundary in the newly acquired Jackson Purchase area. While Tennessee was asked to choose commissioners to participate in this survey, there was some delay and Kentucky commissioned Robert Alexander and Luke Munsell to proceed with a survey of the west of the Tennessee River. Language of the 1819 Kentucky act (2/8/1819) authorizing this 6

7 survey seems to imply there had been some cause to anticipate the Tennessee delay. Later in that year, Tennessee responded by passing an act that challenged the title to lands granted by Kentucky and lying south of Walker s Line. This act was passed on 11/3/1819 and was signed by James Fentress, as Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives. While the Alexander Munsell line of 1819 confirmed the Walker Line was several miles north of the cited latitude, it did little to clarify most of the boundary between our states. However, it did raise the attention of both states and may well have proven to be the catalyst that ultimately led to a resolution of this long-standing conflict. Following Kentucky s survey of the Jackson Purchase area, the states fairly quickly began serious discussions aimed at resolving the issue Compromise When the Kentucky legislature began to demand a correction to her southern boundary based on the new proof that Walker had run his line too far to the north, Tennessee responded by naming Felix Grundy and William L. Brown as commissioners for the purpose of traveling to the Kentucky Capitol and convincing the Kentucky General Assembly to hold the Walker Line as the common boundary line of the states. Kentucky responded by naming John J. Crittenden and Robert Trimble to represent its interest. The commissioners proceeded through written exchanges that set out the respective states positions. The Kentucky position was based largely on the well-accepted fact that Walker s line was located too far north. Tennessee 7

8 countered that much of the area in question had already been granted by Tennessee to individuals who considered themselves citizens of that state. The arguments put forth by both states were a unique mixture of emotional and legal positions. In deed, some of the points had their basis in the actions of Virginia and North Carolina prior to the formation of Kentucky and Tennessee. The fact that Walker had failed to survey and mark approximately 109 miles of his line only served to add to the confusion of all those who would seek or administer grants in this no-mans land. In what was a remarkably short period of time, the commissioners of both states issued the 1820 Kentucky-Tennessee Boundary Compact. This agreement set out ten (10) articles aimed at resolving the common boundary; briefly, these are as follows: Article I The boundary agreement held the Walker line from the Cumberland Gap area to the Tennessee River. It then ran up the river to the 1819 Alexander & Munsell line and following said line to the Mississippi River. Article II Any islands in the Tennessee River between the Walker and Alexander & Munsell lines would lie within Kentucky. However, grants made by North Carolina or Tennessee in this area would be considered valid. Article III Establishes the protocol for any future surveys of the common state boundary east of the Tennessee River. This article also addresses cost sharing, etc. 8

9 Article IV The section voids any claims lying west of the Tennessee River and north of Alexander & Munsell and which were derived from North Carolina or Tennessee. It also voids those claims lying west of the Tennessee River and south of Alexander & Munsell and which were derived from Virginia or Kentucky. Article V One of the most interesting sections. This article vested title of those vacant lands lying east of the Tennessee River and between the Walker Line and the latitude with Kentucky for the purpose of issuing land grants. The article also sets out certain restrictions on taxation of these lands. While at the time of the compromise, this area was discounted as largely being covered by existing grants, the Jillson Index identifies well over 4000 grants issued by Kentucky for lands within this strip. Article VI Virginia grants for military service that lie within the area east of the Tennessee River and south of Walker s line were to be honored Article VII Grants from Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky & Tennessee that lie within the strip east of the eastern 9

10 crossing of the Cumberland River and south of Walker s line would be considered as having equal weight. Article VIII Established a process for resolution of any disagreements over interpretations of the various articles of the compromise. Article IX An agreement for the two states to pass any laws necessary to carry out the terms of the compromise. Article X The foregoing articles and stipulations, if ratified by the legislature of Kentucky during their present session, shall forever be obligatory and binding on both states, and take effect from this day. In faith whereof, we, the respective commissioners, have signed these articles and have hereunto affixed our seals. Done in duplicate at Frankfort, the second day of February, One thousand eight hundred and twenty. John J. Crittenden Robert Trimble Felix Grundy William J. Brown 10

11 While the 1820 Compromise may have provided a written definition of the line between Kentucky and Tennessee, in most instances, it did not resolve issues regarding the physical location of the line. This is not unlike the situation faced by professional surveyors everyday as they seek to retrace land boundaries in their daily practices while working with vague and poorly written deed descriptions. STEEL & LOONEY LINE 1821 Several gaps were left unmarked in the Walker-Smith Line which had been jointly commissioned by Virginia and North Carolina in The new states of Tennessee and Kentucky had subsequently been established. During the early 1800s, Tennessee found a need to have those portions of the state line re-surveyed. The gaps were a result of difficult terrain and weather conditions. Daniel Smith recorded in his journal that many places along the line were left un-surveyed because of difficult mountainous terrain and extreme cold weather. Tennessee was very happy with the new territory acquisitions from Kentucky based on Walker s Line. Tennessee desired to preserve the new boundary. The first gap, approximately 109 miles long, began at the east crossing of Cumberland River (Lake Barkley) and extended eastwardly to a point just west of the Cumberland Gap. James Sames book reports that the 11

12 imposition of law and order was impossible due to the uncertainty of the state boundary. A survey was jointly commissioned to resurvey only the omissions between the river and the Gap beginning on the opposite side of the river where Walker s old line strikes the Cumberland, on the west side. Absalom Looney was appointed by Tennessee; William Steel was appointed by Kentucky. The survey was completed in July The report of the survey was approved by the respective legislatures: Tennessee - November 13, 1821 Kentucky November 13, 1821 This was the first of many adjustments to be settled concerning the Walker Line. Total Costs $599 50/50 $1.00 per day per survey party member. MATTHEWS LINE 1826 Kentucky gave up 2,500 square miles or 1.6 million acres of land as a result of the 1820 Compromise, which was the land situated between the Walker Line and the parallel. Much of this territory contained land claims granted by Kentucky. The disputed territory became the subject of a board of inquiry whose purpose was to determine if Kentucky could restore 12

13 the common state boundary to the parallel and if Kentucky had the right to dispose of and make grants of said lands. On December 28, 1824, the Kentucky Legislature passed an Act establishing her south boundary as the parallel after much heated discussion. In the interim, Kentucky made provisions for Professor Thomas J. Matthews (Mathematics and Natural Transylvania University / Lexington) to locate and survey the parallel. There was no intent by either state to establish the Matthews Line as the common boundary line. During their 1825 legislative session, Tennessee passed a law to refund all monies to those who had made grant entries under Tennessee actions based on the Matthews Line. The act was to settle and quiet disturbances in that section between the Walker Line and the parallel. In December 1825, Kentucky presented an act to amend the previous decision for sale of the vacant land between the Walker Line and the latitude. Wisely, Tennessee did not reply to Kentucky s request for a cost split. After becoming convinced the Matthew s survey was true and correct, (and after making many astronomical observations) Tennessee recognized and approved that line by act dated December 20,

14 Matthews was appointed by Kentucky Governor Desha on March11, Tennessee declined to appoint a representative. Matthews and surveyor Charles Bracken, Assistant Surveyor from Cynthiana, ran the line, submitted their report of survey on December 1, The Kentucky legislature took final action on February 9, 1828, when they ratified and confirmed the line of north, as run by Thomas J. Matthews and authorized owners of land warrants purchased from the state of Kentucky to locate them up to the line ($10.00 per 100 acres). MUNSELL & BRIGHT LINE 1830 Continual land disputes plagued Kentucky and Tennessee in the vicinity of Simpson Co., Kentucky and Summer Co., Tennessee. The two areas contained multiple lines marked by the Virginia Commissioners when they ran the Walker Line in One of the Walker Lines was undoubtedly marked in error; however, there was no easy way for the Walker survey party to remove the markings from the incorrect line. (Walker and Smith did not mention any mistake in their journals or reports except the Simpson County offset.) The erroneous marks remained untouched. Obviously, this caused a unique problem among the citizens who later settled along said boundary. 14

15 Due to disputes and complaints received by the respective governors, the legislators commissioned a re-survey to mark the correct line. In separate actions, Kentucky appointed Luke Munsell and Tennessee appointed James Bright to assemble a party of chain carriers, ax men, and surveyors to proceed with marking the true line. Upon arrival to the area, they found a section of the line forming a triangular offset as originally marked by Walker and Smith, actually forming an island. Those families within the island were uncertain as to their statehood most claimed Kentucky because of common belief within that area. Munsell and Smith eliminated this confusion by allowing all territory within said triangle to remain in Kentucky. Proceeding to a second area of dispute in Walker s Line, they found, to their surprise, a new line which Munsell and Bright determined to be the Walker and Smith Line. Upon inspection and investigation, they found this new line contrary to the line they (Munsell and Bright) had just finished re-marking. It is interesting to note that practical location was an established surveying principle even in those times of land development within the new frontier. 15

16 Tract. NOTE: This triangular area would later include the Middleton Offset NANCE & DUNCAN 1845 Despite many adjustments and corrections to the old Walker Line, other disputes began to arise over the 1819 Jackson Purchase Line in the Reelfoot Lake area. By the 1840s, Alexander & Munsell had established the Purchase Line boundary; however, disputes arose between settlers of the territory. Alexander and Munsell had a difficult time surveying through the lake area due to the natural conditions encountered. Deep waters, swamps, marshes and hot, muggy weather took its toll on the surveyors. The few scrawny saplings were insufficient in quantity and size to perpetuate a useful and lasting survey line. The survey party abandoned it after marking only a handful of objects. In 1845, the Kentucky Legislature made provisions for a new survey of the Jackson Purchase Line. Representatives for the respective states were appointed: Tennessee C.W. Nance and Kentucky Sanford Duncan. The men were charged with the task of surveying the section of the line across the Reelfoot Lake Territory. 16

17 No obvious signs of marks were found upon the survey party s initial reconnaissance. Further inspection resulted in agreement by the surveyors that the site was the exact location of the original boundary as surveyed by Alexander and Munsell in Due to the environs, the Nance & Duncan Survey party encountered similar hardships and challenges in running and marking the line of their predecessors. In actuality, they accomplished very little to improve the old line markers or to establish a new boundary line delineation. Prior to beginning the Reelfoot Line Re-survey, the commissioners proceeded to the Steward/Montgomery counties of Tennessee at the Christian/Trigg counties of Kentucky; east of the Cumberland River (Lake Barkley area). Reluctantly, Tennessee approved the Nance & Duncan Line. Surprisingly, Kentucky never approved the line. No explanation was ever revealed. However, the Kentucky Legislature did authorize the auditor to issue a warrant on the Treasurer of Kentucky to cover the costs of services and expenses of the Commissioners (survey party) for running and remarking a portion of the Kentucky and Tennessee boundary. The payment was authorized by Kentucky on February 20, Running the Nance & 17

18 Duncan lines started October 18, 1845, with the commissioner s report being issued on November 8, COX & PEEPLES 1859 After many jointly commissioned efforts to resolve numerous reports of disputes, disagreements, uncertainty, confusion, conflicts and ambiguous boundary line, Kentucky and Tennessee once again initiated nearly coincidental legislative actions during Both legislatures realized they could not continue to re-mark and re-survey their common boundary by blazing marks on trees. Excessive numbers of settlers who were busy clearing and homesteading the new lands, combined with natural losses of timber, ended this method of marking boundaries. (Early shades of minimum standards corner monuments were on the horizon.) Although both states presented acts during 1857, Kentucky s act to re-survey the state line was not approved until February 17, Specified within those parallel acts, Kentucky and Tennessee agreed to place stone posts (i.e. monuments) at a five-mile spacing along the entire 321 +/- mile uncertain boundary. Each side of the stones was to be plainly 18

19 and clearly marked. The surveyors were directed to set the stone posts in a clearing in order to be obvious and easily accessible. included The technical requirements imposed by the 1858 Kentucky Act To run and re-mark the entire line between the states of Tennessee and Kentucky Beginning on the east bank of the Mississippi River, running thence to the eastern boundary of the state of Kentucky Setting a large stone every five miles When stone or rock cannot be conveniently acquired, post of some durable wood could be substituted The commissioners had full power, duty and authority to employ a field party defined in the act to be made up of one engineer one surveyor one back-sight-man one axe-man such others as necessary. The surveyor and engineer were to be well qualified to make said survey based upon scientific principles. The commissioners were to superintend the work. Kentucky appointed Austin P. Cox; Tennessee appointed Benjamin Peeples. A major point of interest and a continuing element of the various resurveys was the fact that the subsequent surveyors (i.e. after the 1820 Compromise) made adjustments and corrections to the line. All the 19

20 commissioners following the 1820 Compromise were obligated by law to abide to the articles of said Compromise. These surveyors were also directed with the specific charge that no new line was to be run or re-marked, except to correct the inaccuracies and errors in the Walker Line ( ). The findings of the final re-survey are contained in the Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Mark the Boundary Line Between the States of Kentucky and Tennessee (dated 1860) did not mention actual variations run and re-marked. Neither the Kentucky nor the Tennessee commissioners adhered to the articles of the 1820 Compact, nor did they comply with the 1857/1858 acts which re-stated the 1820 articles. Instead, the commissioners/surveyors ran and re-marked their boundary line as if they had complied fully with the acts as charged. In their 1860 report to the legislatures, the commissioners shrewdly did not mention that they had altered several portions of the line to their own satisfaction. Results of the re-survey was that some Kentucky Territory became Tennessee Territory primarily at the famous Middleton Offset. The Middleton Offset, situated in Simpson County, KY / Sumner County, TN, occurred at the Simpson County Triangle. The Munsell & Bright Line (1830) was modified by Cox & Peeples ultimately giving 20

21 Tennessee a disproportionately larger triangular portion from Kentucky s Territory. Tennessee lost a relatively small rectangular parcel ultimately deemed the Middleton Offset. The total of the two areas (i.e. Triangle plus Rectangular offset) is approximately 680 acres as estimated by the Four Steps West accounting. Both states passed and approved the newly marked and altered line. The states boundary lines have not changed since marked during the Cox & Peeples final survey. The Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Mark the Boundary Line between the States of Kentucky and Tennessee documents the fact that Mr. S.W. Stanley of Warren County, Kentucky, contracted to prepare and transport the 5-mile state line markers for a total of $20.00 each. The writings explained this appears a high price ; however, reasons within the writings that when we considered the difficulty of getting these stones at points near or adjacent to their proper places and the mountainous region through which you have to pass to get to them, and the great expense of doing all this, we may arrive at a different conclusion. KAPS TAPS Recovery of State Line Monuments

22 In approximately 1990, the two state associations began a joint effort to find the monuments that had been set during the Cox & Peeples survey of the boundary between our states. This effort resulted in the recovery of forty-five (45) monuments, thirty-eight (38) of the primary five-mile monuments and seven (7) additional monuments that had been set to identify the line at key points along the 321 mile boundary. The plan called for duplicate assignments with each state assigning members to concentrate on a particular section. As the project moved forward, we were continually able to narrow our focus on those remaining areas where recovery was incomplete. These efforts resulted in seventeen (17) face-to-face committee meetings, two (2) day-long work sessions at points on the boundary, and countless hours & miles by individuals from both states. The make up of the group was not limited to licensed professional land surveyors; several people associated with the profession took an active role in both the recovery of monuments and managing the resulting data. A special thanks to Joan Snyder of Bowling Green who participated in every aspect of this effort. While Joan was not licensed at the time of the recovery effort, she has since reached this milestone. Monument #38 The original monument designated as No. 38 was set 195 miles eastward of the 1858 point of beginning described in the 1860 state line survey report as the east bank of the Mississippi River near Compromise, 22

23 Kentucky. Monument No. 38 was situated on the common boundary line between Allen County, KY and Macon County, TN. In June of 1991 after attending a Committee meeting in Bowling Green, Jimmy Jarvis, an employee who had taken an interest in the project, and I decided to work on a section that had not received any attention. Jimmy and I had a very successful afternoon and were able to locate Monuments #37, #38 and #39. However #38 was not in its original position. It had been removed years earlier during road construction in that area. Thankfully, the construction crew had recognized the significance of the monument and rather than destroying this piece of our history, they had removed the stone monument and placed it at the base of a large black oak out of the construction area. I d like to tell you some tall tale about how our diligent search efforts were able to locate the monument after an exhausting effort, but the truth is that we used an old surveyor s trick to find the stone. We ask a local resident and she was able to simply point to the location from her front porch. After spending some time reflecting on the appropriate disposition of this historical monument, I concluded that the monument should be removed to some secure location. I then recruited Jimmy Jarvis and Ed Manning to assist in retrieving Monument #38. This was only accomplished by plying them with the promise of Dovie s hamburgers from nearby Tompkinsville. Returning to the site, we managed to load the monument in an S-10 pickup, thus beginning a rather unusual odyssey for this monument stone. With my headlights seldom touching the highway, we move the stone to my home in Manchester, Kentucky where it remained for several months. 23

24 Finally but with great difficulty, (these monuments weigh approximately lbs. each) the monument was loaded into Chuck Felts vehicle to be delivered to Jim Riney at a KAPS Board meeting in Frankfort. With the goal of the monument finding a home and place of honor in the museum at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Mr. Riney, being directionally challenged and probably hungry, started west, with Monument #38 first traveling into southern Indiana before finally coming to rest only a few hundred yards south of the Ohio River in Owensboro. For the next several years, the monument lay at the offices of Hale, Riney & Gilmore in Owensboro as efforts to secure a proper place for the boundary stone proved unsuccessful. This delay actually proved to be very positive when Mr. Riney s efforts led to an arrangement for a permanent home and display for Kentucky Tennessee Boundary Monument #38 at a location much closer to its rightful place on the boundary between Kentucky & Tennessee. However, the monument had one additional stop before reaching its newfound home. It first was delivered to the Quarry Hill Monument Company where a granite replica was produced. The craftsmen at Quarry Hill Monument Company have done a superb job of recreating the details of the original monument. The only differences one will see between the original monument and the replica are: (a) the material used (the original is limestone and the replica is granite), and (b) the weathering of the original monument after nearly 150 years exposure to the elements. After Quarry Hill completed their work, Monument #38 was delivered to the South Central Cultural Center in Glasgow, Kentucky where today it rests as the cornerstone of a display appropriate for a monument of such 24

25 historical significance. The monument display was dedicated in a ceremony at Glasgow on April 29, The replica stone and accompanying informational plaque were permanently set in a grassed lawn at the Welcome Center on Interstate 65 (northbound) in the spring of 2005 where it remains on permanent display. The original limestone survey monument, though weathered, remains completely intact as prepared by S.W. Stanley stone cutters and as originally set by the surveyors traversing the state line under the authority of Commissioners Austin P. Cox (KY) and Benjamin Peeples (TN). State Line Monument Location & Referencing In February of 2005, then President Tom Crabtree named Jim Riney to chair a KY-TN State Line GPS Committee. With approximately volunteers, primarily from Kentucky and Tennessee, but also including interested surveyors from North Carolina and Washington, DC, this group has undertaken the task of establishing and perpetuating the positions of the monuments located by the earlier efforts. After establishing guidelines for collecting and reporting the data, these volunteers have begun the process of referencing the original monuments, collecting the data and processing this data into the format 25

26 previously selected. These efforts have now resulted in the work being completed on twenty-two (22) of these historical monuments. Sadly, the GPS crews have reported that three (3) of the original monuments have been destroyed since the 1990 s location efforts, thus highlighting the critical need for the current ongoing efforts to perpetuate the monuments and/or their locations. ****************** 26