1 / 212
The Daily Render

by

A Digital Scrapbook for the Past, Present, and Future

| FRONT PAGE | GEOSPATIAL ART | DC HISTORY / TIMELINE | NEWS | COLONIST | FOUND MAPS | FRACTALS |
| PHOTOGRAPHY | ANTIQUE | DESIGN | VIDEO | RANDOM | CONTACT |

Calvert Cliffs Quilt
|| 4/10/2011 || 3:37 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Calvert Cliffs Quilt by Nikolas Schiller

I’m not a fan nuclear power. While it happens to be one of the cheapest fuel that is known to man, its also the most deadly. Years ago I made my first map of a U.S. nuclear reactor, Enrico Fermi Nuclear Reactor Quilt, and then followed it up with “Terra Fermi,” an interactive Google Earth Globe, to highlight this intrinsic danger. Given the ease in which the imagery of nuclear power plants can be obtained, I intend to make more maps of nuclear reactors to highlight their fragile existence.

View the Google Map of Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.


: detail :
Detail of Calvert Cliffs Quilt by Nikolas Schiller

View the rest of the details:

+ MORE



EARLY SECESSION DAYS – The Washington Times, August 12, 1900
|| 7/22/2010 || 2:53 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

EARLY SECESSION DAYS - The Washington Times, August 12, 1900


The Sentiment Had No Bearing on the National Union.


Efforts of Alexandria and Georgetown to Be Release From Their Association With the City of Washington- Appeals to the Maryland and Virginia Legislatures.


The exclusive jurisdiction of the United States was extended over the District of Columbia on the 27th of February, 1801, and almost immediately plans were proposed for a change in the District bounds, or for its entire abolition. The act of March 3, 1791, which provided that nothing therein should authorize the erection of public buildings on the Virginia side of the river had created dissatisfaction there before the United States took control, and at the third session which Congress held in Washington Mr. Bacon, of New York [actually Massachusetts], introduced a bill to cede back to Maryland and Virginia the land and jurisdiction which made the District of Columbia. On the 9th of February, 1803, the vote was taken on this proposal, and it was found to have only twenty-two supporters in the House of Representatives. In 1804 the attempt to disestablish the District of Columbia was again made by Mr. Bacon [actually it was made by John Dawson, of Virginia]. This time his proposal to re-cede to Maryland and Virginia all the territory except the city of Washington. These attempts seem, from the records, to have been abandoned after 1806 for many years. On both these occasions Mr. G. W. P. Custis of Arlington was an active opponent of retrocession.

However, talk on the subject did not cease. It was claimed on the one hand that the constitution of Maryland had been violated by the cession without a vote upon the act having been taken at two successive sessions of the Maryland Legislature. In Virginia some talkers alleged that the prohibition on the Virginia side of the river was a violation of the terms of cession, and made it void. Mr. Bacon and those of his opinion asserted that Congress was authorized to be “the seat of government,” and that, inasmuch as Georgetown, Alexandria, and the other territory outside the city of Washington were not the seat of government, the retention of that territory was unconstitutional.

In 1818 another proposal for the disintegration of the District of Columbia came to the front, and a town meeting in Alexandria was called by the mayor. Dr. E. C. Dick presided and Jacob Hoffman was secretary. At this meeting a protest against retrocession was adopted. It was not, however, until 1834 that a general movement outside of Washington was made for retrocession. It had been proposed in Congress to establish a Legislature for the District of Columbia. The two little cities, Georgetown and Alexandria, feared the overwhelming influence of the continually growing city of Washington, which might deprive them of the home rule which existed in their municipalities. Georgetown this time took the lead, and made a strong appeal to the State of Maryland for help, while Alexandria made an appeal to the Congressional delegation from Virginia.

In the House of Representatives, on the 19th of February [1838], Mr. Wise of Virginia introduced a resolution that the committee on the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the expediency of receding, under proper restrictions and reservations, and with the consent of the people this District and the States of Maryland and Virginia, the said District to the said States.

In Georgetown a series of popular movements in favor of a return to Maryland were initiated, and, after some preliminary proceedings, a mass meeting of the voters of Georgetown was called. The meeting was held on the 12th of February at the North Lancasterian school room, and the “Potomac Advocate” states that it was “one of the largest and most respectable ever held within our town.” Mr. John Kuntz occupied the chair and Thomas Turner was the secretary. Mr. S. McKenney introduced a resolution that “without reference to the political advantages to accrue to that portion of the county of Washington which lies west of Rock Creek, including Georgetown, from a retrocession thereof to Maryland, provided that it can be effected on such terms as shall secure from Congress the reimbursement from Congress of the debt created in the improvement of the harbor and the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, will, in the opinion of the his meeting, promote the pecuniary interests and general prosperity of the citizens.” The meeting requested the mayor to order a vote of the citizens of the territory affected on the 14th of February, and if such vote was favorable to retrocession to unite with the common council of Georgetown in bringing the subject before the Maryland Legislature.

The Georgetown committee went to Annapolis to seek help from the Legislature of Maryland, and action on the subject was begun in April, just before the time fixed for adjournment. A committee reported a series of resolutions on the subject, the most important being this one:

“Resolved, That the General Assembly of Maryland do assent to the recession of Georgetown and that portion of the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, lying west of Rock Creek formerly included within the limits of Montgomery County; provided the Congress of the United States do agree to yield its exclusive jurisdiction over the same; and in such event the said territory shall thereupon be held and deemed a portion of the domain of Maryland, and that the citizens thereof be entitled to all the immunities and privileges of citizens of the State, and the corporate powers which may have been granted by the Congress of the United States.”

On that occasion Mr. Cottman, of Somerset, submitted an additional resolution, as follows:

“And whereas the Constitution of the United States has provided that Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases over such district as may by the cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the United States; and

“Whereas the territory north of the Potomac, a portion of the domain of Maryland, has been apparently and ostensibly ceded to the United States by an act of the Legislature of Maryland which was not ratified and confirmed by a succeeding Legislature, and this ostensible cession of the domain being such a modification of the Constitution as requires the action of two successive Legislatures in the mode provided by the constitution of Maryland; therefore

“Resolved, That the territory aforesaid was not ceded in conformity with the constitution of this State, and now is, and of right ought to be, part of the territory of Maryland.”

The Legislature of Maryland, however, adjourned too soon for final action on the subject, and the recession of Georgetown never again assumed formidable proportions.

The assistance given by Congress in securing the release of the Holland loan when it was said that the District cities “were sold to the Dutch” quieted for a while the popular unrest at the “want of a vote” that long galled the young men of the District; but the entente cordiale between the District cities was at an end forever when the corporation of Georgetown passed resolutions protesting against Congress giving aid in the construction of the Aqueduct and the Alexandria Canal, which continued to Alexandria the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. And although Congress gave Alexandria $300,000 for that work, yet the desire to be with Virginia was not allayed, and when a Democratic Congress refused to re-charter the Alexandria banks the moneyed interests fell in with and even led the people, and then began an agitation which finally severed the District which Washington had made. Then, too, the Van Buren Administration was Democratic, or “loco-foco,” as was the Alexandrian term, and the town of Alexandria was intensely Whig. The Harrison banner of 1840 bore on its reverse the picture of the “Sic semper” woman bending over a shackled maiden in tears, and the legend read: “Our Revolutionary fathers intended us to be free. Sons of Virginia, will you see us slaves?”

At first as the retrocession was so vehemently championed by the Whigs, the “loco-focos” opposed it. The partisans of Van Buren were few in town, but very numerous in the county, and during Tyler’s Administration the Democratic leaders began to see that if Alexandria was turned over to Democratic Virginia it would give the Democrats a more extensive influence; and so, when Polk came in, the Congress which completed the annexation of Texas divided the District of Columbia, and Congress passed a law, which President Polk approved, declaring that “all that portion of the District of Columbia ceded to the United States by Virginia, and all right and jurisdiction, be hereby ceded and forever relinquished to the State of Virginia, in full and absolute right and jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside therein.” So by this act of July 9, 1846, the District of Columbia, which came into being February 27, 1801, ceased to exist south of the river Potomac.


This newspaper article was transcribed from a scan of the original newspaper article on Chronicling America. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.



Does Virginia Own Alexandria County? – The Washington Herald, January 18, 1910
|| 12/11/2009 || 11:56 am || 2 Comments Rendered || ||

I found this article absolutely fascinating. I’ve blogged about the two acts of Congress that are referenced throughout this article [H.R. 259 – An act to retrocede the county of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the State of Virginia & An Act for establishing the Temporary and Permanent seat of the Government of the United States], but until today I had not thoroughly read a legal opinion on the topic of Virginia’s retrocession of Alexandria County (now present-day Arlington County). My original contention was that the Act of 1846 was illegal because the text of the Act specified that retrocession was possible only with the approval of both the city *and* the county of Alexandria, and only the city voted in favor retrocession. The argument presented in this article below speaks to the larger issue of how the “permanent” seat of government was created out of a legal covenant that involved four parties: the Federal Government, Virginia, Maryland, and the original 19 property owners of the District. A very compelling case is made that through the passage of the Act of 1846 the original covenant was unconstitutionally broken. 99 years later, I thoroughly agree with the logic outlined in the article below and would like to have the District of Columbia return to its original size. While I don’t see it happening any time soon, history shows that change is constant.

Map of the portion of the District of Columbia ceded back to Virginia

The Washington Herald, January 18th, 1910

DOES VIRGINIA OWN ALEXANDRIA COUNTY?


Hon. Harris Taylor, in Elaborate Opinion, Holds the Retrocession Was Clearly Illegal and Unconstitutional.


Was the act of July 9, 1846, under which the County of Alexandria, then in the District of Columbia, was re-ceded to the State of Virginia unconstitutional?

Hon. Hannis Taylor, former Minister to Spain, and a constitutional lawyer of distinction, has prepared an elaborae opinon on this subject, which was presented to the Senate yesterday, in which he holds that the retrocession was clearly illegal and unconstitutional.

“If retrocession to Virginia is to stand,” he says, “then the land underlying the Capitol, the White House, and the Treasury belongs either to Maryland or the local proprietors whom it was granted. The nation can only be protected against that result by a judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring the act of retrocession of 1846 to be null and void.”

Complete Answer Found.

What is the remedy?
“The complete answer,” he says, “is to be found in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of The United States vs. Texas (143 U.S.,621-649), in which it was held that the Supreme Court can, under the Constitution, take cognizance of an original suit brought by the United States against a State to determine the boundary between one of the Territories and such State; that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine a disputed question of boundary between the United States and a State; that a suit in equity begun in the Supreme Court is appropriate for determining a boundary between the United States and one of the States.”

He quotes the opinion rendered in this case, and says it solves every problem that can possibly arise in an original suit between the United States and Virginia as to the boundaries of the District of Columbia.

Act of 1846.

His opinion as to the unconstitutionality of the retrocession is based upon the contention that the act of 1846 broke a quadrilateral contract entered into on the one hand by the United States and on the other by Virginia, Maryland, and the nineteen local property-owners in Washington.

The United States, through the act of Congress of July 10, 1790, passed under the constitutional mandate, agreed that “the District so defined, limited, and located, shall be deemed the District accepted by this act, for the permanent seat of the government of the United States.”

Each of the three grantors, in consideration of that stipulation, made for the benefit of each, through which alone title to the whole could be made perfect, entered into the quadrilateral contract in question.

“It is elementary in the law of contracts,” he says, “that when two or more instruments are recorded at the same time or at different times which relate to the same subject matter, and one refers to the other, either tacitly or expressly, they will be taken together and construed as one instrument.

Maryland’s Right.

“Maryland,” he says, “has a perfect right to claim of the United States, by reason of the recision of the original quadrilateral agreement, the return of every foot of land ceded by her and now embraced within the present limits of the District.

“That right Maryland can enforce in an original suit against the United States in the Supreme Court under the authority laid down in the case of the United States vs. Texas.

“That great case,” he says, “refuted most emphatically the contention made by Senator Hoar in the Senate on April 11, 1902, that retrocession was a political and not a judicial question, and was settled by the political authorities, alone competent to decide it.

“The Supreme Court in the case in question decided that ‘it cannot with propriety be said that a question of boundary between a Territory of the United States and one of the States of the Union is of a political nature and non susceptible of judicial determination by a court having jurisdiction of such a controversy.

Constitutional Mandate.

“The constitutional mandate that requires the President to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ compels him to ascertain and determine the limits of territory over which they are to be enforced.”

And in conclusion he says:
In determining all question all questions of boundary, whether foreign or domestic, the initiative in this country is vested in the Executive acting alone. While he may advise with Congress as to the steps he may take in ascertaining boundaries, while executing the laws within the same, the President cannot surrender his exclusive power to ascertain what they are.

As a practical illustration, if in this matter the President believes that Virginia is in lawful possession of that portion of the District described in the act of 1846, it is his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” in that area, regardless of any contrary opinion the legislative department of the government might entertain on the subject. He could hold no other view without abdicating the independence of the executive power in the execution of the laws. It is, however, in my humble judgment, a case in which there should be friendly consultation between the executive and legislative departments, because in the event of a recovery in the Supreme Court Congress would no doubt be called upon to pass such a bill of indemnity as would relieve Virginia of any accountability for revenues derived from the area in question during her de facto occupation.

Goes in the Record.

Senator Carter, in presenting the elaborate brief written at his request by Mr. Taylor, asked and was granted unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record, and also as a Senate document. He said:

The subject is of absorbing interest to the people of the District and will surely challenge the attention of the country with constantly increasing force as the growth of the Federal city and the expanding needs of the government demonstrate more fully the wisdom of President Washington and his co-laborers in fixing the District lines as originally marked.

To the United States government the subject is of
Continued on Page 3, Column 4


DOES VIRGINIA OWN ALEXANDRIA COUNTY


Continued from Page One.

grave concern, for it involves in a technical sense title to the ground upon which this Capitol, the White House, and many other important public buildings stand. If the recession to Virginia stands in law it would seem possible that the Federal government retains jurisdiction over the portion north of the Potomac in derogation of the rights and at the sufferance of the State of Maryland.

Fever-breeding Marsh.

When artistic taste and solicitude for sanitary conditions combined to inspire the movement to reclaim the Potomac Flats, the progress of the work soon revealed the fact that proper treatment of the narrow river and adjacent marshes would always be limited and unsatisfactory while confined to the northern bank alone. A fever-breeding marsh within 7,000 or 8,000 feet of the White House cannot be regarded with indifference, nor can any one fail to observe that the improvement on the north sets forth the unsightliness of the south bank of the river in bold relief. In short, each year more amply justifies the wisdom of Washington and his commission in embracing both sides of the river within the limits of the Federal District.

The Capitol, the White House, and all the public buildings were located near the center in the beginning, but the act of retrocession moved the southern line of the District to within a short distance of the White House grounds. This was not intended by Washington, under whose masterful direction the constitutional design regarding a seat for the Federal government was executed.

Defeat of Intention.

“The act receding two-fifths of the District to Virginia so obviously defeats the intention of the framers of the Constitution in this behalf and so ruthlessly disregards the rights of other parties that I have for years regarded it as null and void on general principles; not withstanding the interesting and important nature of the question, I have not found time to investigate the law and the historical facts bearing upon it. Last year, however, I had the good fortune to mention the matter to Mr. Harris Taylor, known to the bar of the country as one of our leading constitutional lawyers, and the gentleman volunteered to examine the question and to write me his view upon it.

Mr. Taylor’s letter sets forth the constitutional provision in question and all legislation, State and national, in relation to the subject, together with a review of all executive action and contract obligations in pursuance thereof. In fact, the letter is a brief of such rare clearness and ability that I believe it should be made permanently available for reference, and so believing, I renew my request and ask that when printed the commincation be referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia for consideration.

An Exhaustive Opinion.

Mr. Taylor’s opinion, buttressed by historical references and legal citations, is exhaustive and comprehensive. He says, in beginning:

The contemporaneous evidence puts the fact beyond all question that the final definition of a district ten miles square as the seat of our Federal government was in a special sense the personal work of President Washington, whose task involved the acquisition of the title to the tract from three sources- the State of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the nineteen local proprietors who owned that part at the heart of the present city which underlies the Capitol, the White House, and the Treasury. Washington’s task was to induce the three parties who held the title to cede to the Federal government, without any direct pecuniary consideration, the entire area under a quadrilateral contract in which that government was the grantee and beneficiary, and Virginia, Maryland, and nineteen local proprietors the grantors. The real consideration moving to such grantors was the incidental benefits to accrue to them from their joint cession, which, in the language of the act of July 16, 1790, “is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of the government of The United States.” That covenant represented the only consideration moving directly from the Federal government, while the three grantors were bound to each other by the mutual considerations moving from the one to the other under interdependent grants.

Maryland, the last to grant, expressed the idea of mutual benefits to be derived from a common enterprise when her legislature declared that “it appears to this general assembly highly just and expedient that all the lands within the said city should contribute, in due proportion, in the mean which have already greatly enhanced the value of the whole.” Under that quadrilateral contract, supported by the foregoing considerations, the Federal government entered into possession with a perfect title, after the final cession made by Maryland December 19, 1791.

Government in Control.

No one, perhaps, will deny that after the title to the entire area had thus passed from the three grantors into the corporate person of the nation neither the State of Virginia nor the State of Maryland could have, either in law or in equity, any claim to the common heritage superior to that of any other State. Under such considerations the Federal government remained in peaceful possession of the entire area ten miles square, and governed the same under the Constitution for a period of fifty-five years. During that time the original boundaries as designed by Washington were marked by massive stone monuments, while still abide unimpaired.

By the act of retrocession of July 9, 1846, the District was dismembered by a conveyance to Virginia of nearly one-half of the entire area for no pecuniary or property consideration whatever. What was the real motive of the retrocession it is at this time difficult to ascertain.

From a legal standpoint, the fact that the portion reconveyed to Virginia had originally been contributed by her is of no significance whatever. Therefore, before argument begins, the mind wonders upon what constitutional principle such retrocession could have been made. Two distinct parts of the Constitution are involved. First, that part of section 8, Article 1, which provides that Congress shall have power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States;” second, that part of section 10, article 1, which provides that “no State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

During the memorable Senate debate led by Senator Haywood, of North Carolina, who, as chairmen of the District Committee, bitterly assailed the constitutionality of the act of retrocession, the meaning and effect of section 8, Article 1, was fully explored.

I cannot doubt the soundness of the conclusion then reached by many leading statesmen of that day to the effect that, considered in reference to that part of the Constitution alone, the act of retrocession is null and void. What I cannot understand is the fact that any debate, however hastily conducted, the deeper and more obvious argument based on the contract clause of the Constitution (Article 1, section 10), should have been entirely overlooked. And yet the record shows that such was the fact.

It never occurred to any one in 1846, or since that time, to look to the sources of the title in the quadrilateral contract upon which the ownership of the area ten miles square really depends. What is said herein as to that branch of the subject is my personal contribution to the controversy.

Acquirement of Site.

He goes into history to show how the site of the National Capital was discussed and finally acquired, and says:

After prolonged discussion the act of July 16, 1790, was passed, and the site of the District finally located, partly in Prince George and Montgomery counties, in the State of Maryland, and partly in Fairfax County, in the State of Virginia, by proclamation of President George Washington, March 30, 1971, within the following bounds:

“Beginning at Jones Point, being the upper cape of Hunting Creek, in Virginia, and at an angle in the outset of 45 degrees west of the north, and running in a direct line ten miles for the first line; then beginning again at the same Jones Point and running another direct line at a right angle with the ffirst across the Potomac ten miles.”

From the diagram it appears that the “Portion derived from and receded to Virginia” constitutes nearly one-half of the territory of the District as originally defined in the proclamation of March 30, 1791. If the act of July 9, 1846 (9 Stats. 35), entitled “An act to retrocede the County of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the State of Virginia,” is unconstitutional and void, the laws of the United States should now be executed by the President thourghout the “Portion derived from and receded to Virginia.”

Continuing, he says:
After the power to elect the seat of government had been once exercised by Congress, after the cession had been made for that purpose by “particular States,” after the area so ceded had been accepted by Congress under the act of July 16, 1790, declaring “the same is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of government of the United States,” the power of Congress over the subject matter was exhausted. Or, if it was not exhausted, could not again be exercised, because no power remained to transfer the District, as originally created and accepted, of any portion of it to any State. In other words, after a district of ten miles square had once been established and accepted as a permanent seat of government, Congress possessed no power to acquire another territory for another seat of government, without violating the constitutional limitation which confined it to the ten miles square. The Congress, an agent of limited authority, was expressly authorized to receive cessions from States of a limited amount of territory to be held as a permanent seat of government; but it was not authorized, expressly or implicitly, to give any part of such cessions away to any one. Such was the constitutional difficulty which the Hon. R. M. T. Hunter attempted to overcome when the bill in question was up for debate in the House of Representatives May 8, 1846.

Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution when taken as a whole, provides that “the Congress shall have power * * * to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful things.” The delegation of power thus made Congress to acquire a seat of government for the United States, through formal acceptance of cessions to the be made by particular States is a distinct subject matter, entirely separate and apart from the succeeding delegation of power to govern “all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be.” Did the grant of an express power formally to accept cessions from particular States, which were to constitute and “become the seat of government of the United States,” carry with it, as a necessary implication, the right to use the means necessary for the execution of the power? In other words, did the implied power to use such necessary means flow from the express to accomplish the end? In construing that clause which provides that Congress shall have power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” it was held at an early day that the clause in question “confers on Congress the choice of means and does not confine it to what is indispensably necessary.”

Constitutional Mandate.

The express mandate was given by the Constitution to Congress to acquire a seat of government by cessions from particular States, and in no other manner. Congress was powerless to force any State to make a cession; it could not go beyond the limits of the States. It could only persuade; it could not command. Congress did not offer to the ceding States any money consideration whatever for their cessions. The means, and the only means, Congress saw fit to employ to accomplish a vitally important end was the promise, made in the of July 16th, 1790, that the seat of government to be located on the cessions should be “permanent.”

The act expressly declared that “the district so defined, limited, and located shall be deemed the district accepted by this act for the permanent seat of government of the United States.” When Mr. Madison moved in the House of Representatives to strike out the word “permanent” from the act he was voted down, and thus we have a legislative interpretation, practically contemporaneous, to the effect that the Constitution intended to confer upon Congress the power make the seat of government permanent. Contemporary interpretation of the Constitution, practiced and acquiesced in for years, conclusively fixes its construction.

Some years go, when a movement was on foot to remove the Capital to the Valley of the Mississippi, the effect of the action of Congress under section 8, Article 1, was fully discussed. I am informed that it was then universally admitted that by the selection of the present seat of government the power of Congress, under the section in question, had been exhausted.

Virginia made her grant, which was the first grant, December 3 1789. The nineteen local proprietors perfected their grants on or about the 29th of June, 1791. Maryland did not make grant until December 19, 1791. In that grant, embodied in a very elaborate act of thirteen sections, Maryland put the fact beyond all question that the prior grants made by Virginia and the nineteen proprietors were conditions precedent to her grant.

Quotes from Opinions.

He quotes from many opinions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States to show that a grant is a contract, and this quadrilateral contract entered into by the United States on the one hand and Virginia, Maryland, and the nineteen local proprietors on the other, was binding in its operation and effect, and could not be modified without abrogating the contract as a whole.



Related Legislation Entries:



Map Tattoo: The State of Maryland
|| 9/9/2009 || 2:15 am || + Render A Comment || ||

Tattoo in the shape of the State of Maryland

I always try to take photographs of any maps I happen to come across. The other day I was at a friends house and noticed this tattoo of the State of Maryland. View the other two photos:

+ MORE



Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric
|| 8/7/2009 || 6:00 pm || 4 Comments Rendered || ||

Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric

I gave this map to the client Wednesday afternoon, but not before snapping a photograph of the final version of the map. I have to say that seeing a map on my website is a completely different experience than seeing one in person. When you are actually looking at the map, all the details come through, as opposed to viewing them on-line, where the map’s scale is reduced considerably. This map was printed at 60″ x 40″ on polyester fleece and I am quite happy how the printing turned out! I sincerely hope the final recipient enjoys it :-)

As always, send me a message if you interested in purchasing a map or having one commissioned for yourself or as a gift.


[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt


Related Maryland Entries:

+ MORE



[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
|| || 3:35 pm || 3 Comments Rendered || ||

: rendered at 9,000 X 6,000 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

Of the draft maps created for this series, it was the scaled down version of Tessellation Number Three that was ultimately chosen. Up next, a photo of the map printed on fabric :-)

Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Montgomery County, Maryland .

: Close-up Detail of the Sandy Spring Friends School :

View the rest of the map details:

+ MORE



[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
|| 8/3/2009 || 11:44 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

The last two maps I created for this commission feature identical tessellations of the area around the Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland, but shown at two different spatial scales.


: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

Click here to read more about the commissioned map & rendering series here.
Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland.


Related Entries:
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric



[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
|| 8/2/2009 || 12:00 pm || 1 Comment Rendered || ||

: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

These two maps feature identical tessellations of the area around the Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland, but shown at two different spatial scales.


: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

Click here to read more about the commissioned map & rendering series here.
Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland.


Related Entries:
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric



[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
|| 7/29/2009 || 10:23 pm || 5 Comments Rendered || ||

: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

These two maps feature identical tessellations of the area around the Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland, but shown at two different spatial scales and rotate 22.5 degrees.


: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

Click here to read more about the commissioned map & rendering series here.
Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland.


Related Entries:
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric



[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
|| 7/25/2009 || 9:39 pm || 6 Comments Rendered || ||

: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

This map features a different tessellation of the area around the Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland.


Click here to read more about the commissioned map & rendering series here
Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland.


Related Entries:
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric



[Found Maps] License Plate Maps of DC & Maryland at Artomatic 2009
|| 7/23/2009 || 9:15 pm || 1 Comment Rendered || ||

On the last day of Artomatic 2009 I decided to traverse all 9 floors and come up with a Top 100 similar to the one I made last year. While I haven’t posted my Top 100 of Artomatic 2009 yet and frankly I am still debating on whether I’ll go through the task of coding it all, I did, however, find some maps by Ian Bird that I wasn’t expecting.

While there are already other people who make License Plate Maps, I like the nuanced detail of his maps (above). Unlike the other license plate map artists, I sincerely doubt they have made a map that cartographically shows each of the eight wards of Washington, DC as well as each county in the state of Maryland. No matter what, Ian Bird is definitely going into the Top 100 (if I ever post it).


Related Found Maps:

+ MORE



[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
|| 7/21/2009 || 8:50 pm || 6 Comments Rendered || ||

: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

I was recently commissioned by a person who wishes to have me a make a map of Sandy Spring Friends School as a gift for their friend. The person asked explicitly for a map on fabric that uses the Octagon Quilt Projection. This made the process somewhat easier for me because all I needed to do was create different tessellations of the aerial photography around the school. Often the client does not know the map design they desire most, so I have to spend extra time rendering different designs based off of one or two tessellations. This time around I was able to focus on making numerous tessellations for the client to choose from.


Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland.


Below is the same tessellation, but shown at a different scale:

: rendered at 900 X 600 :
Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt by Nikolas R. Schiller

Related Entries:
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric



National Harbor 2006 – A Quicktime Virtual Reality Environment
|| 7/20/2008 || 4:42 pm || Comments Off on National Harbor 2006 – A Quicktime Virtual Reality Environment || ||

76.5mb QTVR showing a 6,000 x 6,000 tessellation of aerial photography featuring the construction site of National Harbor in 2006


This interactive environment was created in late June, but I had forgotten to put it on-line!


On June 21st I was invited to come and check out the new Art Whino gallery in the newly developed plot of land called National Harbor. There is an upcoming new media exhibit and I decided to make this interactive map. More details on the exhibit forthcoming.

There are three different ways to view this map:
1) You can click on the image above and have it load in your browser
2) You can right click on the image above and save the file to your computer
3) Copying the URL above, opening up Quicktime, and pasting the URL into the “Open Url..”

I recommend going with option #2 or #3 because it allows you to resize the window and view more of the map on your computer screen. By going with route #1 you are forced to view it at roughly 320×240 in size (at least using FireFox) which does not full show the size of the map as easily and it also increases the risk of having your browser crash. Route #3 does not permanently save the file on to your hard drive like route #2, but it gives you the same control over the size of the viewing environment.

Since these types of maps are easy to make I think I should start making more of them. I wonder what the largest size I can render is? I shall find out in due time.

Related QTVR:



Featured on-line with the Maps exhibition at the Walters Museum
|| 2/27/2008 || 7:17 am || Comments Off on Featured on-line with the Maps exhibition at the Walters Museum || ||

Screen grab showing a small detail of a Concentric Quilt

Starting in mid-November I’ve been volunteering my time with the Walters Museum‘s upcoming exhibition. They have a small technology center (4 iMacs) in their cafeteria which I was given the opportunity to review. I look forward to going to the opening later this month!!

The Walters Museum has also included a layer for Google Earth that I produced for the exhibit. You can download the layer here or here.



2008 Washington, DC Area Calendar
|| 12/3/2007 || 7:42 am || Comments Off on 2008 Washington, DC Area Calendar || ||

Below are the months of the calendar featuring places around the Washington, DC metropolitan area and links to their respective entries so that you can see the map’s full size. Read more about the other calendars here.

+ MORE



Mount Vernon Quilt #6
|| 11/7/2007 || 11:15 am || Comments Off on Mount Vernon Quilt #6 || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Mount Vernon Quilt #6

Using this portion of Mount Vernon Quilt #5, I created a derivative tessellation to create this fractal map.

This series of maps is one of my more unique endeavors. From #2 onwards, each was a created from a tessellated portion from the previous map. This recursive tessellation process created a more crystalline map with more lines of symmetry. The projection process was octagon, diamond, dodecagon, hexagon, octagon, and finally, a diamond.

The most important of all the maps was actually the first. From this map I was able to obtain my intended focal point of the mapping process, the Washington Monument of Baltimore. By tessellating that portion, I began the process of narrowing the scope of each subsequent tessellation to the area around the monument. What became clearly evident is the blue rooftop of the Peabody Institute and the unique geometry of the park. The hardest step in the tessellation process became finding the spot on the map that had the most monuments in it. The next time I do a series like this I am going have a set spot on the map that I will tessellate, as opposed to the current method which is a bit more random.

View the Google Map of the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland

: detail :

View the rest of the details:

+ MORE



Mount Vernon Quilt #5
|| 11/4/2007 || 11:47 am || Comments Off on Mount Vernon Quilt #5 || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Mount Vernon Quilt #5

Using this portion of Mount Vernon Quilt #4, I created a derivative tessellation to create this fractal map.

Up next will be the final map of the Mount Vernon series.

View the Google Map of the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland

View Details:

+ MORE



Mount Vernon Quilt #4
|| 10/31/2007 || 12:15 pm || Comments Off on Mount Vernon Quilt #4 || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Mount Vernon Quilt #3

Using this portion of Mount Vernon Quilt #3, I created a derivative tessellation to create this fractal map.

Up next I have another map of Mount Vernon based off of a fourth dervative tessellation created from this map. I believe that the next map will be the most derivatives I’ve created from one source map!

View the Google Map of the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland

View Details:

+ MORE



Mount Vernon Quilt #3
|| 10/30/2007 || 2:15 pm || Comments Off on Mount Vernon Quilt #3 || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Mount Vernon Quilt #3

Using this portion of Mount Vernon Quilt #2, I created a derivative tessellation to create this fractal map. Up next I have another map of Mount Vernon based off of a third dervative tessellation created from this map. The aim is to isolate the area around Baltimore’s Washington Monument.

Unlike previous fractal maps, I have made a slight correction to the source imagery. Earlier this year I discovered how my quilt projection template slightly over-projects the imagery. To combat this, I tried something new with this map. Prior to tessellation, I reduced the source imagery about 10 pixels (or about .003%). I am not sure how much it helped, since I am not exactly sure how much I have over-projected the imagery, but I think I’ll do this from now on.

View the Google Map of the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland

View Details:

+ MORE



Mount Vernon Quilt #2
|| 10/29/2007 || 10:39 am || Comments Off on Mount Vernon Quilt #2 || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :

Using this portion of Mount Vernon Quilt, I created a derivative tessellation to create this fractal map. Up next I have another map of Mount Vernon based off of a second dervative tessellation created from this map.

View the Google Map of the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland

View Details:

+ MORE





The Daily Render By
A Digital Scrapbook for the Past, Present, and Future.

©2004-2017 Nikolas R. Schiller - Colonist of the District of Columbia - Privacy Policy - Fair Use - RSS - Contact



1 / 212

::SUBSCRIBE::


+ Facebook
+ Twitter
+ YouTube
+ MySpace
+ Google
+ Vimeo

::LAST 51 POSTS::

Fair Use


46 queries. 0.910 seconds.
Powered by WordPress

Photo by Charlie McCormick
Nikolas Schiller is a second-class American citizen living in America's last colony, Washington, DC. This blog is my on-line repository of what I have created or found on-line since May of 2004. If you have any questions or comments, please contact:

If you would like to use content found here, please consult my Fair Use page.

::LOCATIONS & CATEGORIES::





thank you,
come again!

::THE QUILT PROJECTION::

Square
Square

Diamond
diamond

Hexagon
hexagon

Octagon
octagon

Dodecagon
Dodecagon

Beyond
beyond

::OTHER PROJECTIONS::

The Lenz Project
Lenz

Mandala Project
Mandala

The Star Series


Abstract Series
abstract

Memory Series
Memory

Mother Earth Series
Mother Earth

Misc Renderings
Misc

::RENDERS BY YEAR::

+ 95 in 2008
+ 305 in 2007
+ 213 in 2006
+ 122 in 2005
+ 106 in 2004

::POPULAR MAPS::

- The Los Angeles Interchanges Series
- The Lost Series
- Terra Fermi
- Antique Map Mashups
- Google StreetView I.E.D.
- LOLmaps
- The Inaugural Map
- The Shanghai Map
- Ball of Destruction
- The Lenz Project - Maps at the Library of Congress
- Winner of the Everywhere Man Award

::ARCHIVES BY YEAR::

+ 2011
+ 2010
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007
+ 2006
+ 2005
+ 2004


::MONTHLY ARCHIVES::

:: LAST VISITORS ::