Map of U.S. States North of Canada

If you have no idea how you got here, back up to the previous page.

If you do, I think these are the 27 U.S. states at least partly north of the southernmost part of Canada.
  

I think the southernmost point of Canada is on a now-uninhabited island called Middle Island, which is part of Pelee Township, Ontario, which should not be confused with the nearby Middle Bass Island, which is part of Ohio.

Although always a part of Canada, Middle Island was until 2000 owned by an Ohio car dealer who bought it as a pleasure island for his family.  After his death his heirs sold it by outcry auction.  A non-profit agency called The Canadian Nature Conservancy, which had publicly raised funds for the purpose, bought it for roughly U$867,000 and then deeded it to Canada.  You can read more HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.  HERE is a commercial site on the same subject.

The southernmost point of Middle Island, Ontario, Canada,
is located, I think, at 41 degrees north, 41 minutes, 17 seconds.

(If you have any reason at all for even remotely, possibly, maybe thinking that I might even remotely possibly may be wrong about this exact point, please immediately.)

As you can see from examining the map above and the table below, exactly 27 U.S. states are at least partly north of Canada's 41 41 17 latitude.  So, for that matter, is Rome, Italy.

And I think I can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

By looking at the map above you can see that no U.S. state not listed below is even remotely close to being controversially close.  Indeed, I probably needn't have included Nebraska (90.59 miles north) and Missouri (73.98 miles south) at all, but I want there to be no doubt.

The table below lists, according to my research, the distance south in statute miles from each of the nine latitudes in question to every other.  For example, the distance south from the northernmost point of Indiana to the southernmost point of Canada is 4.92 statute miles, and the distance north (a negative number) from the northernmost point of New Jersey to Canada is 22.86 statute miles.

The links in the first column are to Mapquest.com using the degrees, minutes, seconds format (DDMMSS).  The corresponding headings in the top row link to the equivalent maps in the decimal degrees format.

Obviously it is essential that all of the latitudes alleged above be reasonably accurate.  In the table below are explanations whence those nine latitude figures came.

Nebraska	The straight part of Nebraska's northern border is defined to be exactly 43 degrees north latitude, according to Boundaries of the United States and the Several States, Geological Survey Professional Paper 909, by Franklin K. Van Zandt, published in 1976 by the U.S. Government Printing Office (hereafter referred to as USGS Paper 909). The rest of the border, at the east side, drops south to follow the Missouri River and is clearly altogether south of 43 degrees.
California, Nevada, Utah	The entirety of the northern borders of these three states is defined to be exactly 42 degrees north latitude, according to USGS Paper 909.
Ohio	I estimated Ohio's northernmost point using Mapquest.  And I used TOPOZONE to confirm it to within 438 inches. Ohio's northernmost point is surely not south of 41 58 00, so it is at least 16 statute miles north of Canada.
Rome	I estimated Rome's center point using Mapquest.  If you have reason to think I chose a point too far north, please let me know. Note that I should have used the northernmost point, but, unlike with Canada and the U.S. states, I wasn't able to establish any of Rome's border.  No matter what, though, the latitude that I did choose, 41.90 degrees, is south of Vatican City, which is entirely within Rome, so at least some part of Rome is north of Canada's southernmost point by at least 14 statute miles.
Indiana	The figure of 41.75929199 degrees north latitude (41 45 33.451164) for Indiana comes from Everett Root, an employee of the state of Michigan.  Why Michigan?  Because Michigan's south border is Indiana's north border.  His e-mail of January 29, 2003: Apparently the Michigan/Indiana boundary is not on an exact Latitude.  Our best determination based on USGS Topo maps is the boundary is at 41.75929199 degrees latitude.  I did find historical evidence as to how the boundary was determined which explains why it is not at an exact latitude.  The original southern boundary of Michigan was at the southern tip of Lake Michigan.  When Indiana became a State they wanted access to Lake Michigan so the southern boundary of Michigan was moved North by a certain number of miles (my source doesn't know exactly how many) to it's present position. --, Manager Geo-Data Services, State of Michigan, Department of Information Technology, Michigan Center for Geographic Information (CGI); PH 517-373-7910, FAX 517-373-293 I received the e-mail below on February 3, 2003, but since the figure given is north of the one Mr. Root gives, I chose to use the more conservative location.  However, it does answer Mr. Root's question. In reply to your inquiry, the northern boundary of Indiana was defined in the enabling act under which it became a state as a line ten miles north of an east and west line through the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. No latitude was specified. We telephoned the Geology Library at Indiana University and were given the location of 41 degrees, 45 minutes and 35 seconds north. --, Reference Librarian, Indiana Division (41DD 45MM 35SS translates to 41.75972222 degrees decimal.) Unless Canada acquires an even more southerly piece of land, Indiana is the U.S. state that comes closest to changing the list of 27 states. According to my estimate using Topozone, Indiana's northern BORDER is even farther north, at 41 45 36 = 41.7600, -84 48 21 = -84.8058, which is 4.97 statute miles north of Canada, not the 4.92 that results from using Root's figure.
Canada	I estimated Canada's southernmost point, at 41 41 17 (41.688055556) using MAPQUEST. Obviously this is a crucial factor affecting whether there are exactly 27 U.S. states north of Canada, and I have not been able to find any sufficiently official confirmation for the exact point I chose and the latitude I derived from it.  However, as you'll see below, I'm willing to bet real, big money it's close enough. (If you know of any official or unofficial source that posits Canada's southernmost point in terms of latitude to within one second or four decimal places decimal, please .) Update of May 21, 2003  Here's a direct scan of part of a large poster and map titled "Canada: A Land of Superlatives" published by an organization called National Atlas Information Service--Canada and kindly supplied to me by a Canadian government agency called Natural Resources Canada. In case you can't read it the caption says, MIddle Island, in Lake Erie, Ont., is the MOST SOUTHERLY POINT in Canada, at 41° 40'  57" S. The stated latitude is too far south by a whopping 5,756 miles.  Indeed, this latitude is more than 472 miles south of the southern tip of AFRICA.  But let's assume they meant 41° 40' 57" N. Even so, this statement is clearly unclear, at least for our purposes.  It is different from saying, The most southerly point in Canada is on Middle Island in Lake Erie, Ont., at 41° 40'  57" N. Specifically, it is unclear whether 41°  40'  57" north latitude is supposed to be the latitude of the southernmost point of Middle Island or, as stated, merely the latitude of Middle Island, whatever that means.  If it's the latter, then the given latitude may be the middlemost point of Middle Island, or even the northernmost! In any case, 41°  40'  57" N is only (and, for that matter, exactly) one third of a decimal minute (which is less than 0.39 miles, or roughly 676 yards) south of the point I chose, so the list of 27 states certainly would not change. Depending on how far off my estimate of Canada's southernmost point is, it might be that Indiana isn't or that New Jersey is on the list, but I really will pay you a thousand dollars if you can prove it.
New Jersey	New Jersey is the state closest to being partly north of Canada's southernmost point without being so.  I estimated New Jersey's northernmost point using Mapquest and confirmed it using TOPOZONE to within 163 feet.  If you think New Jersey is north of where I think it is, please . And here's a funny e-mail I received on January 23, 2003, from an official spokeshuman for New Jersey: Hello.  In response to your email, the northernmost point of New Jersey is High Point.  For more information regarding latitude, try the U.S. Geological Survey within the Department of Interior.  Thank you.  -- Just so you'll know, it turns out High Point is not  the northernmost point of New Jersey.  High Point is 2.48 statute miles south.  Ms. Hudnett thought I meant the highest point, which High Point is, but in later e-mails she refused, despite my cordial urging, to admit her original mistake.  People like this -- people who refuse to admit their mistakes when slapped in the face with them -- should be identified with some sort of brand on their foreheads and some sort of special string in their e-mails so the rest of us can spot 'em right off the bat.
Colorado	Colorado's northern border in its entirety is defined to be exactly 41 degrees north latitude, according to USGS Paper 909.
Missouri	Missouri's northern border is not a straight line of latitude but rather what appears to be an arc the center of the circle of which is to the north, except at the extreme east end, where it drops south to follow the Des Moines River, a tributary of the Mississippi. I estimated Missouri's northernmost point using Mapquest.  It is certainly no more north than 40 degrees 37 minutes, so it too is certainly not among the states north of Canada.  Per Topozone the northernmost point is HERE, which is even farther south:  40 36 49 =  40.61361111 -91 43 44 = -91.728888 Update of March 11 and 27, 2003  Here are excerpts from two e-mails from , PLS, Program Director, Land Survey Program [of Missouri]: The north line is not on a parallel of latitude.  It was ran [sic] with compasses and a chain with few observations of latitude.  Therefore it somewhat follows a line with numerous bends.  It is well-monumented and can be retraced with modern surveying methods, but it would not be ran as a geodetic (curved) line. This office has recovered a number of the original cast iron monuments that were set during the second and third surveys of the line.  Listed below are the coordinates for a few of them. The monument at the northeast corner of the state of Missouri is the northernmost point of the entire northern boundary of Missouri [emphasis mine]. -- Northwest corner (near the Missouri River)  40° 34' 48" -- Old northwest corner (NE corner of the Platte Purchase)  40° 34' 16" -- Northeast corner (on the Des Moines River)  40° 36' 48" So, this is about as official as it gets.  Even if 40º 36' 48" has been rounded down from 40º 36' 48.9999", no part of Missouri is north of any part of Canada.  There's more more official information on Missouri's borders HERE, dated August 28, 2004.

Hawaii:  I don't list Hawaii in either table above, but I should have according to this e-mail exchange, listed in reverse choronological order:

February 16, 2003 -- Hey Johnny.  Thanks for replying.  I found myself there because I was looking around to see where I could find accurate measurements of places and I also was curious to see if people thought that New Jersey was one of the 28 states when it is actually not.  Sure, you may quote me if you like, but it was no problem at all.  --Katherine

February 15, 2003 -- Dear Katherine.  Thanks for your kind words about that Web page.  May I ask, how did you find yourself there?  Also, may I quote you about Hawaii?  Thanks.  --Johnny

February 14, 2003 -- Hi Johnny G.  My name's Katherine Dover.  I am a student at the University of Western Ontario in London.  I study Canadian history and geography, and your north_of_canada_map.htm page  [this very page]  is very accurate to my knowledge.

There is indeed just one minor problem though.  That is that you forgot the state of Hawaii.  All of the islands there are over 41 degrees north which allows it to qualify as one of those states that are at least partially north of Canada's most southerly point.  Therefore, this makes your final total actually 28 states.  Feel free to email me back if you have anything to say.  Sincerely.  --Katherine Dover

This is a useful example for showing how to calculate the distance north and south from one given latitude to another.  Assume the northernmost part of Hawaii is at 29 degrees north and Canada's southernmost point is at 41 degrees north, a distance of 12 degrees.  What is that distance?

If you were to look at a map of Hawaii and guess at its northernmost unit degree of latitude, you'd probably say 23 degrees North.  But you'd be wrong.  It turns out that a part of Hawaii exists as far north as 29 degrees, a distance of another 400 miles.  Kure Atoll and the other Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are technically part of the city of Honolulu, even though they're located some 1,300 miles away.  See HERE for more information, and give credit to Dan Haigh for bringing this to my attention.

It turns out that one minute of arc, a sixtieth of a degree, is defined as being equal to 1,852 meters in length.  Said another way, if you travel north (or south) from wherever you are now till you've changed latitude by exactly one single minute, you will have travelled exactly 1,852 meters, or just over a mile.  If you travel a full degree of distance, or 60 minutes, that's simply 1,852 meters times 60 degrees per minute, or exactly 111,120 meters, which is about 69 statute miles.  So if Hawaii is at 29 degrees and Canada is at 41 degrees, dear Katherine was off by well over 800 miles.

Distance converter spreadsheet.  It turns out that deriving many of the facts above is greatly facilitated by the ability to switch latitude measurement formats easily, that is, from degrees minutes seconds to decimal degrees and back.  So I wrote a spreadsheet.  It now does a lot more than that, and I believe it does it all well, better than any others out there that I could find, and, believe me, I looked.

Here are some features of my little latitude distance converter spreadsheet:

• Calculate the distance in decimal format between two latitudes entered in degree minute second format.

• Convert from the degree minute second format to the decimal format.

• Convert from the decimal format to the degree minute second format.

• Convert any distance expressed in units of inches, feet, yards, meters, degree seconds of latitude, kilometers, statute miles, nautical miles, decimal minutes of latitude or decimal degrees of latitude to every other unit.

• And do all of this with extremely high precision, i.e., to many decimal places and without using any estimates or rounded numbers whatsoever.

• Every mathematical alteration is spelled out, which means you can see and completely figure out any conversion formula if you try.  For instance, the formula for converting from statute miles to decimal degrees is shown as ((( X * 0.0254 ) * 63360 ) / 1852 ) / 60 rather than as the easier but less precise version X * 0.0144829374.

If you're interested in this high-precision distance-calculator speadsheet, in Excel 7 format, or go ahead and download it now.

• The ZIPped version is distance_converter_xl43.zip (16,711 bytes).

• The decompressed version is distance_converter44.xls (60,416 bytes).  If your computer is set up to automatically open an Excel file, you may choose Open instead of Save.

• To learn about the well-regarded XNumbers add-in that extends Excel's precision from 15 places to 200 see HERE, or go ahead and download the version I use from here (xnumb24.zip, 904,881 bytes).

Distance: The second matters first, then the meter  All of the discussion about the 27 states involves measurements of distance, or length.  And it turns out that all such measurements are now derived from a single known quantity, and that known quantity defines the universal standard measurement of length, the meter.

Every other unit of length -- yards and knots and hectares and decimal degrees of latitude and so on -- is defined in relation to the meter.  The meter is well-defined, and the definition is agreed upon by all of science.  According to the National Institute of Standards (NIST) and many other reliable sources: 

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458th of a second.

So, if you want to measure out an exact meter, here's all you have to do.

(1) With one hand, turn on a light bulb.  At the same time, with your other hand start a stopwatch.  At the same time, with your other hand hold a stick or something up next to the light bulb.

(2) At the same time, create a vaccuum by sucking in your breath REALLY hard.

(3) Keeping one eye on the stopwatch, stop it after one three-hundred-millionth (1/300,000,000th) of a second has gone by, then at the same time with the other eye visually note the point on the stick where the light got to.  With your other hand make a mark there with your trusty Magic Marker.  From the light bulb to the mark is one meter.

Now, now, I know what you're thinking, and you're right, a meter is actually just a bit longer (0.069% longer, to be almost exact) than that, but you're probably close enough for most practical purposes such as building a bridge or calculating an orbit.

As you can see, defining a meter means first defining a second, and according to NIST:

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of
the radiation corresponding to the transition between
the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom.

I'll let you devise your own method of timing this (Hint: It involves counting really fast), but I think you'll find that the second as defined above is remarkably close to how long it takes you to say, "One Mississippi."

Anyway, with the meter thus defined so precisely, we also have the exact definitions for other metric-system units such as nanometers (divide by a billion) and kilometers (multiply by a thousand).  And we also have the exact definitions for less obvious metric-system units such as a nautical mile and a degree of latitude.

The magic number  But none of this gives us access to the anachronistic world of Imperial units, where it's miles instead of kilometers and yards instead of meters, unless you know the magic number.  The magic number is the inch, which is now defined in terms of the meter.  Once we know exactly what an inch is we also know exactly what feet and yards and statute miles are, because they're all defined in terms of the inch.

Consider the above-mentioned formula for converting from statute miles to decimal degrees:

((( X * 0.0254 ) * 63360) / 1852 ) / 60,  where X = the number of statute miles.

Assume X = 1 statute mile.

First, note that this involves a change from one format to the other, in this case from Imperial units (statute miles) to metric units (decimal degrees of latitude), so we'll start with the magic transition number, 0.0254, that takes us from one to the other.  One inch is defined as 0.0254 meters.  Not 0.0254 meters plus a little more we don't bother to show you, but exactly  0.0254 meters, with no more significant decimal places to the right.

0.0254 = meters in 1 inch

(In case you're wondering what the exact reciprocal of 0.0254 is, which is the number of inches in a meter, the answer can be calculated by dividing 5,000 by 127, the quotient of which is 39.370078740157480314960629921259842519685039, where the 42-digit decimal portion repeats.  In case you're wondering, it's not really true that that the inch is defined that way as it is that the yard is defined as exactly 0.9144 meters and that the inch is defined as 1/36th of a yard, but 0.9144 divided by 36 is still exactly 0.0254 meters to the inch.)

So, multiply the number of meters in an inch by the number of inches in a statute mile.  The number of inches in a statute mile is 12 inches per foot times 5,280 feet per mile (or exactly 63,360 inches).

0.0254 * 63,360 = meters in 1 statute mile

Second, now that we know the number of meters in a statute mile (exactly 1,609.344 meters), we've converted completely from Imperial units to metric.  Which means the rest is easy.

Third, we need to convert from meters to nautical miles.  A nautical mile is defined as being exactly 1,852 meters, so we divide by that number.

( 0.0254 * 63,360 ) / 1852 = nautical miles in 1 statute mile

And fourth, finally, knowing that a nautical mile is the same as a decimal minute, we convert from nautical miles to decimal degrees by dividing by 60.

(( 0.0254 * 63,360 ) / 1852 ) / 60 = decimal degrees in a statute mile
= approximately 0.014483

The reciprocal formula -- for the number of statute miles in a decimal degree -- is

((( 1 / 0.0254 ) * 1852 ) / 63360 ) * 60, or approximately 69.

Two formats, one better  You'll remember I mentioned I originally wrote that spreadsheet in order to convert precisely from one latitude-measuring format to the other.  The two formats are Degree Minute Second (DDMMSS) and decimal degrees.  Both formats divide a circle into 360 degrees of latitude (at roughly 69 statute miles each), but it's when you need additional precision that the two formats diverge.

The DDMMSS format divides each of those 360 degrees into 60 minutes, and further divides each of those minutes into 60 seconds.  The symbol for degrees is º , the symbol for minutes is ' , and the symbol for seconds is " .  The degree-minute-second format sucks all day long, but it is old and entrenched.

The decimal degrees format makes more sense.  It simply expresses each degree as a decimal number, with a decimal point and as many places to the right as are necessary.  So, for example, a latitude halfway between the 38th parallel and the 39th would be at 38.5 degrees (as opposed to 38º 30').  Both formats offer unlimited precision, but the decimal format is easier to manipulate mathematically.  For example, the distance south from 41.69 to 41.36 is calculated by simple subtraction: 41.69 - 41.36 = 0.33 decimal degrees.  What could be easier?

But calculating the distance south from 41º 41' 17"N to 41º 21' 25"N is not so easy.  Try doing it, with or without a calculator, and see how long it takes you to arrive at the answer of 19' 52".

I believe we Americans should switch to the metric system.  Gallons and inches and pounds are stupid units of measurement.  The metric system is altogether superior, it will never go away because it's too useful, and it's high time for everyone who hasn't already to switch.

But given that we probably won't in the next few weeks, here's how the two format-conversion formulas work.

To convert a DDMMSS latitude to decimal degrees:  You have to convert each of the three parts -- DDegrees, MMinutes, and SSeconds -- into decimal degrees, then simply add them.

Normal ranges.  The normal range for degrees of north latitude is the integers from 0º (the Equator) to 90º (the North Pole).  The range includes only the integers because any additional precision needed beyond a whole degree is conferred in the minutes and seconds parts.

The normal range for minutes of latitude is the integers from 0' to 59'.  Only the integers are included because any additional precision needed is conferred in the seconds part.

The normal range for seconds of latitude is from 0" to 59".   If precision beyond 1 second is required, you then annex as many decimal places as you need.  For example, 41º 30' 54.01" is .01 seconds larger than 41º 30' 54.00" (just over 12 inches).

Below is the formula, using the example of 41º 30' 54" north latitude.

To convert a decimal latitude to DD MM SS:

Converting from a decimal degree value for north latitude to its equivalent in the DDMMSS format is more complicated than the other way around.  Below is the formula using the example of 41.515 degrees decimal, and below that is a further explanation of each step.

If you want to understand why this formula works, read on.

Step #1  Subtract any decimal portion of the original number, and the difference is the DD value.  For north latitudes this should range from 0º (the Equator) to 90º (the North Pole).  This number will, of course, always be an integer.  In the example, 41.515º - 0.515º = 41º.

Step #2  Multiply the part right of the decimal point by 3600, which results in the total number of seconds in the decimal portion of the original number.  This result, which will always be less than 3600, can have an infinite number of digits, and we need it twice later.

Step #3  Divide the number of degree seconds from Step #2 by 60.  If the quotient is not a whole number, round down to the nearest integer.  In the example above, 1854 divided by 60 is rounded down from 30.9 to 30.  The result is the whole number of minutes in the decimal portion of the original number, the MM value.  The range of this value is the integers from 0 to 59.

To calculate the SS value:

Step #4  Multiply the result from Step #3 by 60.  The product is the whole number of minutes of the decimal portion of the original number expressed in seconds, and it is an interim value we need in the next step.  The range of this value is the integers from 0 minutes to 3,540 minutes (59 X 60).

Step #5  Subtract the product from Step #4 from the result from Step #2.  The difference is the SS value.  If it contains a decimal portion, simply retain it, e.g., 1854.01 minus 1800 = 54.01, or 54.01 seconds.  The range of this value is any non-negative number less than 60.

Step #6  To put it all together, the DDegrees value comes from Step #1, the MMinutes value comes from Step #3, and the SSeconds value comes from Step #5.
 

More here later, including why the bulge of the Earth makes all the above calculations wrong by a metric skosh.