Cartography As an Expession of Empire: Mapping Colonial North

Home , 42nd parallel north, Mitchell Map, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Samuel Augustus Mitchell

CARTOGRAPHY AS AN EXPESSION OF EMPIRE: MAPPING COLONIAL NORTH

AMERICA AND THE YOUNG AMERICAN REPUBLIC

William Karl Martin

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of History

The University of Utah

STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL

The dissertation of William Karl Martin has been approved by the following supervisory committee members:

Eric A. Hinderaker Chair 4/11/2014 Date Approved

L. Ray Gunn Member 4/11/2014 Date Approved

Edward J. Davies II Member 4/11/2014 Date Approved

Winthrop L. Adams Member 4/11/2014 Date Approved

Mark Button Member 4/11/2014 Date Approved

and by Isabel Moreira Chair/Dean of the Department/College/School o f ______History and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT

During the last third of the twentieth century, the history of cartography caught the interest of more than a few historians who would have otherwise viewed maps as interesting, but not entirely essential to the focus of their chosen research. Since the pioneering work of J. B. Harley, David Woodward, and others, it has become more apparent that a closer inspection of the nature of maps, and cartography’s part in any historical narrative, will offer information that the historian might otherwise overlook.

This is especially true regarding the role that cartography plays in building and sustaining early modern empires. This dissertation explores and defines the elements of the cartographical representations in the North American imperial experience from its early colonial period to the middle of the nineteenth century. The work proceeds chronologically from the early English, French, Dutch, and Spanish territorial claims and acquisitions, to the United States’ expansion of its continental holdings at the close of the

Mexican War. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... Ill

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... v

INTRODUCTION: IDEOLOGY AND OVERVIEW...... 1

Chapter

I. CLAIMS ON NORTH AMERICA IN THE FIRST IMPERIAL CENTURY...... 14

II. BRITISH AND FRENCH IMPERIAL MAPPING: 1700-1763...... 62

III. THE BRITISH IMPERIAL FAILURE AND THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC...... 115

IV. GREAT BRITAIN, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE OREGON QUESTION...... 165

V. THE TEXAS QUESTION AND AMERICA’S CONTINENTAL ENDGAME...... 234

EPILOGUE: EMORY AND THE U.S. BOUNDARY COMMISSION...... 279

CONCLUSION: SOME FINAL COMMENTS...... 286

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 292 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This has been an interesting experience. I turned to the study of American history late in my education. I mention this simply to stress my thanks and debt to the members of my PhD committee: Eric Hinderaker, L. Ray Gunn, Ed Davies, Mark Button, and W. Lindsay Adams.

That they agreed to supervise my doctoral work given my limited background in the subject is quite amazing. The five of them basically have taken me through a typical undergraduate and graduate course of study, assigned the critical readings, and then have very patiently attended to my progress. It has been about five years since we first started. The result of this wonderful experience is, in part, the work that follows. I have very much appreciated their forbearance and their association.

As I have looked over the map images used in this work, I am especially indebted to those libraries and repositories for collecting, preserving, and publishing this great material. My trips to the Library of Congress were a real pleasure - a special nod to Ed Redmond in the

Geography and Map Division. Another notable contributor is David Rumsey. His fine collection, soon to be donated to Stanford University, took me into areas that I would not have before considered.

I would also like to thank James L. Hall, II, my former business partner, who without his actions I doubt I would have had the desire or motivation to focus so well and so consistently on the task.

Finally, thanks to my children: Brigham, Bryce, Alexis, Douglas, Sara, and Abigail, who were, seeming with great interest, always checking to see how my latest draft was progressing. INTRODUCTION: IDEOLOGY AND OVERVIEW

Before we present the matters of fact, it is fit to offer to your view the Stage whereon they were acted, for as Geography without History seemeth a carcass without motion, so History without Geography wandreth as a Vagrant without a certain habitation. John Smith (1624)

In 2012, the question of sovereignty over eight small islands located in the East

China Sea threatened a diplomatic crisis between contending claimants. The total area of the islands, named Senkaku or Diaoyu/Tiaoyu, is less than three square miles and they were claimed by Japan and China. After six months of posturing and debate over their ownership, China presented what it considered incontrovertible evidence of possession.

According to the state-owned China Radio International (CRI), Zheng Hailin, a Chinese scholar studying in Japan acquired an 1876 map that “doesn’t have the Diaoyu Islands on it.”1 Zheng stated that the map was published by Japan’s Army Staff Bureau; thus, the account says, “According to international law, a country’s official map has legal effect over its territorial claims, and Zheng’s map clearly denies all claims that the Diaoyu

Islands are Japan’s territory.” Whether or not this is a correct interpretation of official maps and international law, it is doubtful that the introduction of this map will end the

Japan-China dispute over the sovereignty of these islands. This event illustrates one ideological function of cartographical representations in the activities of the state functions that have been evident from history’s early modern period to the present day.

1 Beijing International, the Official Website o f the Beijing Government, www.ebeijing.gov.cn/Beijing Information/BeijingNewsUpdate/t1238135.html (January 10, 2013). CRI is the propaganda radio station for the People’s Republic of China. Founded in 1941, it is quite similar in service and function to another cold war version, Radio Free Europe; both are still active though the latter is now named Radio Liberty. 2

Imperial maps empower their makers, users, and readers to construct a space that suits their real or imagined world by defining two-dimensional space. In this manner, maps point the way; legitimize authority; justify governmental or nongovernmental actions or ambitions; control population and territories; normalize governing force; and absorb, in the abstract, peripheral and ethnic communities. Maps and empires to this end are mutually dependent, even mutually constitutive. By studying the relationship between maps (as two-dimensional demonstrations of geography) and the activities of empire building, we can visualize the way they lay out a course of action or at least the possibility of action, toward a desired outcome. The word itself, i.e., to map and its synonyms, underscores the connection between maps and imperial desires: to plot, to plan, to chart.2 Jean Baudrillard, French sociologist, philosopher, and cultural theorist, put it well when he wrote, “The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it.

Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory.”3 It follows that one of the first acts in communicating an empire’s desired authority, control, influence, and supremacy is to map. Without such focus, these imperial goals would be not only ephemeral but also perhaps unachievable.

J.B. Harley was the pioneer in looking at maps as something more than an effort

2 Matthew H. Edney, “The Irony of Imperial Mapping,” The Imperial Map: Cartography and the Mastery o f Empire, ed. James R. Akerman (Chicago, 2009), 48. 3 Jean Baudrillard, “Simulacra and Simulations,” Selected Writings, ed. Mark Poster (Stanford, 1988), 166-184. Alfred Korzybski first offered the phrase “the map is not the territory” in a paper delivered in 1931, “A Non-Aristotelian System and its Necessity for Rigour in Mathematics and Physics,” Science and Sanity (1933), 747-761. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (1991), 173, quotes Thongchai Winichakul, “Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of Siam,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Sidney (1988), 310: “A map anticipated spatial reality, not vice versa. In other words, a map was a model for, rather than a model of, what it purported to represent.. .A map was now necessary for the new administrative mechanism and for the troops to back up their claims.. ..The discourse of mapping was the paradigm which both administrative and military operations worked within and served.” 3 to offer accurate representations of geography. Since his seminal article in 1968, “The

Evaluation of Early Maps: Toward a Methodology,” a number of scholars have contributed to defining what has been termed a “cartographical ideology” - that is, a set of ideas about, or a comprehensive vision of what maps communicate for their producers to their readers.4 Matthew Edney has argued “that the construction, normalization, and naturalization of ‘states’ and ‘empires’ depend neither on the content of maps nor on the cartographic technologies but rather on how they are deployed with spatial discourses.”5

Further, he says, “The idea of ‘state’ is a creation of cartographic discourses whose participants inhabit, or at least own, the lands being mapped; such discourses underpin the eventual formation of the ‘imagined community’ of the nation.” If maps were so critical in reinforcing the creation of the “imagined nation,” are we to suppose that empires would be illusory without these cartographic discourses? Edney says yes: “We might therefore conclude that an empire is an empire not because it possesses certain formal attributes but because it has been discursively mapped as an empire.” The plausibility of Edney’s position is one of the subjects of this work. Not surprisingly, this study will show that the absence of “formal attributes” of empire - for example, a population base and a military to support imperial claims - will certainly make the

4 J.B. Harley, “The Evaluation of Early Maps: Towards a Methodology,” Imago Mundi, Vol. 22 (1968), 62-74; “Silences and Secrecy: The Hidden Agenda of Cartography in Early Modern Europe,” Imago Mundi , Vol. 40 (1988), 57-76; and The New Nature o f Maps: Essays in the History o f Cartography, edited by Paul Laxton (Baltimore: 2001), a collection of his earlier essays which serve as an introduction to the theoretical issues in the history of cartography. Other scholars and their works include David Buisseret, Monarchs, Ministers, and Maps: The Emergence o f Cartography as a Tool o f Government in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: 1992); Denis Wood, with John Fels, The Power o f Maps (New York, 1992); Matthew H. Edney, Mapping an Empire the Geographical Construction o f British India, 1765-1843 (Chicago: 1997); James R. Akerman, ed., The Imperial Map: Cartography and the Mastery of Empire (Chicago: 2009). 5 Edney, “Imperial Mapping,” (2009), 12-13. 4 realization of imperial goals and strategies hollow. The claims made by the imperial map are confirmed only by the strength of the political voice espousing these claims.

Empires have existed for twenty-five hundred years and it is notable that the first world maps of record, variously orbis terrarum, imago mundi, or mappa mundi, also appeared at this time.6 While it is tempting to argue an “imperial cartographical ideology” going back over two millennia, these maps were not specific to empires, and if any imperial map existed prior to the sixteenth century, there is no evidence of such in the historical record. This is a problem for any argument in favor of an “essential” connection between maps and empires, an argument that, though somewhat inviting, is not entirely sustainable. Consequently, this connection must be understood in light of a major difference between the earlier and even ancient empires and those of the early modern period.7 The rulers of European and Asian political states simply did not have clear boundaries of their territorial possessions before the seventeenth century; it was only with the increasing contacts of the 1600s, this second century of the age of discovery, that boundaries began to be marked by negotiation and treaties.8 The “imperial map,” then,

6 E.g., the earliest of these maps, the Babylonian Imago Mundi and the map of Anaximander, were both dated around 600 BC. The Marcus Agrippa map in the first century of the Roman Empire was another map of the world and did not delineate imperial territories. 7 In addition to the European based empires, the early modern period saw the formation of the Mughal (1526-1857), Safavid (1501-1722), Ottoman (1301-1918), Russian (1462-1917), Ming (1368-1644), and Qing (1644-1912) empire/states. The earliest non-European imperial maps included the Complete Map o f the Unified and Eternal Great Qing dated 1767. 8 Peter C. Perdue, “Boundaries, Maps, and Movement: Chinese, Russian, and Mongolian Empires in Early Modern Central Eurasia,” The International History Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), 264-65. Perdue states “the modern bordered state was invented during the seventeenth century on the frontiers between the giant Eurasian empires.” Of the ancient empires, the Roman Empire might be the exception to this rule. O.A.W. Dike, “Cartography in the Ancient World: A Conclusion,” The History o f Cartography, Vol. I, J.B. Harley and David Woodward, eds. (Chicago: 1987), 278, observed “Yet it is perhaps in the importance accorded the map as a permanent record of ownership or rights over property - whether held by the state or by individual - that Roman large-scale mapping most clearly anticipated the modern world.” 5 must be considered an early modern construct in a time when marked territorial possessions or sovereignty gained a new importance as an essential element in imperial activities.9 This period of early European nation and empire building, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was also the exact time in European history that the earlier printing revolution made it possible for maps to be seen and read by a far greater number of people. In one historian’s estimation, the maps of this period “possessed an all but unique power to give the elusive idea of the state concrete form,” to those outside the borders as well as to those living within.10 So, in addition to other reasons for mapping a state or nation, the national map gave the inhabitants of the territory a sense of completion, connection, and homogeneity which belied the apparent differences within the boundaries. It was a time in European history when a cross-boundary traveler was asked who he was, rather than responding “I am a Catholic from Provence” he might well say instead “I am a Frenchman.” Edney’s position, that is, the primacy of the map above all other imperial elements, must then be in regard to modern empires rather than ancient ones.

In asserting that the construction of empires depends on “how [the maps] are deployed with spatial discourses,” Edney reminds us that the imperial maps played a decisive role in the different conversations and debates which attended empire building.

The participants in these “imperial cartographical conversations” were those who made

9 Some of the more helpful works on understanding the dynamics of empires, ancient and modern, include: Michael W. Doyle, Empires (Ithaca, N.Y.: 1986), David Armitage, Theories of Empire, 1450-1800 (Aldershot [England]: 1998), Susan E. Alcock, Empires (New York: 2001), and Charles S. Maier, Among Empires: American Ascendancy and it Predecessors (Cambridge: 2006). 10 Denis Wood, Rethinking the Power of Maps (New York: 2010), 31. 6 and published the maps; the ministries of imperial governments that used the maps in their efforts to expand and manage the empire; the imperialists and anti-imperialists who incorporated the maps in arguing for or against imperial activities; and the public who were persuaded to one end or another by these visual demonstrations of empire or, of equal importance, were able to point to a map in support of their own imperial arguments.

Historians of the national and imperial map have turned to these instruments to demonstrate this cartographical ideology. Their focus, however, has typically been on a specific map and its relationship to a historical moment, or to a variety of maps at different moments illustrating different spaces. Of late, the benefit of the contemporary map as a critical tool in illuminating the historical narrative has become increasingly more apparent to other historians not specifically interested in the history of cartography.

An excellent example of this is in a recent work by Bernard Bailyn. In The Barbarous

Years: The Peopling of British North America: The Conflict o f Civilizations, 1600-1675

(2012), he includes Herrman’s 1673 map of Virginia and Maryland to illustrate the portage route that tobacco smugglers used from the upper Chesapeake Bay to the

Delaware River and references Herrman’s insert regarding the swampy terrain.11

Concluding this portion of his history, Bailyn says,

But the map is not only a meticulous portrayal of the Chesapeake terrain and an example of advanced cartography. In its carefully defined details, its meticulous tracings of the twists and turns of coastlines, riverways, and land routes, it reflects Herrman’s profound personal engagement with this exotic land and the excitements of discovery. The map is the visual expression of the same zest and enthusiasm, the same sense of wonderment and entrepreneurial optimism, that underlay the details of Adreaen van der Donck’s Description o f New Netherland. Both documents, by the former leaders of the commonalty, the one verbal, the other visual, transcended the abrasive turmoils that had engrossed their authors, to

11 Bernard Bailyn, The Barbarous Years: The Peopling of British North America: the Conflict of Civilizations, 1600-1675 (New York: 2012), 239-241. 7

convey a greater meaning of their endeavors, based on their shared fascination with the land and their expectations of its future.12

Bailyn’s chapter, “The Dutch Farrago,” is enriched by the incorporation of the contemporary sources of which the Herrman map was a chief element. Surprisingly, as effective as the map was, it was the only visual use of a contemporary map as a historical source in the six-hundred page book. The near-dozen other maps Bailyn used in the narrative were modern renditions, and though helpful to the reader, they hardly communicated the difficulties or the cartographical resources available to New World immigrants in considering their prospects. Did these settlers not take advantage of existing two-dimensional geographic representations? And if they did, what did they look like? And what did these maps mean to them? It is surprising that Bailyn did not weave into his “peopling” narrative more of these key instruments. Chapter I of this present work will show how early colonial maps were used in these “barbarous years” and how they reflected the current colonial policies toward the Native Americans in the first century conflicts.

Just as maps are erroneously taken at face value, as if they simply depict an accurate territory in two dimensions with little thought to their propaganda value or the private or public agendas which prompted their creation, there is also the tendency to focus solely on the geographic elements of a given map. There are parts of a map - e.g., the font types, the cartouche, the borders, the coloring, and the mapmaker’s notes - which might seem ancillary or inessential in a map’s historical appraisal. Inattention to the cartographical presentation as a whole, where all its parts contribute to the imperial

12 Bailyn, Barbarous Years (2012), 241. 8 message, would do great damage to a careful criticism of these maps. This is perhaps an understandable tendency for scholars in the different chronological periods covered in this work. It is unfortunately a tendency which is apparent even in some students of cartography. G.N.G. Clarke addresses this problem:

When, for example, A.H. Robinson suggests that “fancy borders, ornamental cartouches [and] curvaceous lettering” may be a “source of pleasure” but do not “add to the functional quality of a map” and “may actually detract from it,” he denies (and simplifies) the complex textuality held with the look [Clarke’s stress] of a map. Such a view not only fails to give the map its necessary cultural status; it ignores the subtle relationship between the scientific and decorative; it fails to see them, in other words, as a series of interrelated indexes which bind the map within a series of ideological assumptions as to the way the land is viewed.13

There is very little on a map, especially so in the maps covered in this work, which might be considered objective or neutral in its representation. Though the apparent purpose of a map may be to give a scientific measurement of a territory’s surface, Clarke would recommend to the viewer that the map be seen as a “cultural text” near to its “ideological context.” In this view, he argues, the parts of an entire cartographical presentation are

“collective images of the way in which cultures seek to ‘impose’ themselves ‘upon space.’”14 It follows, then, that images or texts discussed in this work may appear to be unrelated to the above thesis, but these images or texts will indeed prove critical in evaluating a specific map as to its imperial purpose.

Jean Baudrillard’s above assumption, that the map precedes the territory, has remarkable application to the cartographic practices of the American imperial experience.

In this study, the maps themselves are the chief objects of inspection along with the

13 G.N.G. Clarke, “Taking Possession: The Cartouche as Cultural Text in Eighteenth-Century American Maps” Work & Image, Vol. 4, No. 2 (April-June 1988), 455, quoting A.H. Robinson, The Look o f Maps (Madison, Wisc.: 1952), 17. 14 Clarke, “Taking Possession” (1988), 455. 9 imperial conversations that accompany them. The time period of this study is from the earliest moments of European settlement of North America to the middle of the nineteenth century, culminating in the completion of the United States’ acquisition of the territories making up its contiguous holdings. Focused on a specific land mass, North

America, and on a specific period, the early colonial period to the mid-nineteenth century, this work will address the above ideological elements of the imperial map and will illustrate the map’s evolving use to suit changing imperial goals. The shifting

“spatial discourses” which attend the maps will also illustrate the roles that the various participants play in the imperial conversations and the critical roles of these maps in the hisorical narrative. Together, the maps and the conversations which they elicit will better express the motives of the mapmakers, the participatory voices from the popular culture, and the actions of the ministries of England, France, Spain, the early Mexican Republic, and the young United States. This work illustrates the importance of including maps in the historical narrative. As Captain John Smith observed in 1624, “History without

Geography wandreth as a Vagrant.” This work also recognizes that the stories of these maps, even map biographies, can hardly be explained without sufficient attention to the historical moments that attend and precede the maps’ creations and publications -

“Geography without History seemeth a carcass.”15 Consequently, in order to fully appreciate the maps and their attending cartographical conversations, it is necessary to include more than a historical gloss and at times, it will be required to include a rather detailed explanation of the near and distant political, economic, and social milieu.

15 Captaine John Smith, The Generall Historie o f Virginia, New-England and the Summer Isles (London: 1624), 169. 10

Chapter I, “Cartography and the First North American Empires,” examines the mapping of the first century of the European colonial activities in the service of staking out New World territories. These maps illustrate colonial policy toward indigenous populations; policies which were meant to civilize, to co-exist peacefully, or to eliminate.

Colonial relations with the Native Americans were, for the most part, dictated by the strength of the colony. The maps of this period will also support another imperial necessitity, that of communicating new lands available for settlement. It is in this first century of North American of territorial competition that the map is enlisted as an instrument in staking out imperial postionions, specifically between the English and the

Dutch. The conflict between the English and the Dutch will also give the first opportunity to address Edney’s assertion that “an empire is an empire not because it possesses certain formal attributes but because it has been discursively mapped as an empire.”

Chapter II, “British and French Mapping: 1700-1763,” will briefly revisit the early seventeeth century French colonial experience along the major waterways of North

America and their somewhat different engagement with the Indians. The chapter will then demonstrate how the British and French imperial maps were used as instruments in the contest for the disputed spaces of their desired spheres of influence or control. The cartographical presentations, at first useful tools in the geopolitical posturing between the two imperial ministries, soon included the popular response to the degree that cartographic images were becoming readily available in print. This introduced the moment of government attempts to manipulate public opinion with the map and conversely, the popular culture’s use of the map in persuading public policy. 11

Chapter III, “British Imperial Failure and the Early American Republic,” will look at the British maps in the empire’s failing efforts to cross what has been termed the

“Augustan Threshold,” that is, to successfully shift from imperial expansion to consolidation. The chapter will directly address Edney’s assertion regarding the relationship between the imperial maps and empires, and will show that in the absence of political and military control even the best cartographical representations of empire are for nought. This chapter closes with an examination of the first map of the new nation published in the United States. It is from this point that the new republic will embrace the ideological elements of imperial mapping and will soon be the dominant voice in North

American imperial cartographical conversations.

Chapter IV, “Great Britain, the United States, and the Oregon Question,” opens with the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase. The chapter explains how the successful cartographical manipulations of the young Republic, along with the belated efforts by the

British, played a major role in securing American sovereignty of the new Northwest

Territories. Key in this successful transcontinental expansion will be the role of maps in creating a national identity and sanctioning the imperialistic goals and dreams of

America’s people and finally the policies and actions of its leaders.

Chapter V, “The Texas Question and America’s Continental Endgame,” considers the cartographical battles between the United States and Spain, and the cartographical manipulations of Stephen Austin in dealing with the new state of Mexico - the territorial debates of which were only settled with the Mexican War.

The “Epilogue: Emory and the U.S. Boundary Commission” is a final comment on the role of William H. Emory and the Boundary Commission in not only drawing lines 12 on the land but also the rather disturbing observations of America’s chief mapmaker as he considered the new territory’s imperial uses and requirements.

The historical moments covered in these chapters are the key periods in North

America’s imperial story: the early colonial founding, the British and French struggle for empire, the internecine conflict between imperial Britain and her American colonies, the young republic’s great expansion northwest, and finally the acquisition of Texas and the

American southwest. Certainly other moments could have been investigated relative to the impact of role of imperial cartography, such as the “Florida Question,” the “Maine

Boundary Question,” and, of course, attention to more specific cartographical representations regarding California. This work, however, is not comprehensive to the end that it set out to investigate all occasions where the imperial map played a role in

North American imperial debates. The chapter topics are sufficient in measure in showing how imperial maps were used to chart continental courses of imperial action, formulate imperial positions, publish imperial claims, and elicit support for these actions and positions.

Finally, this study will demonstrate that the imperial map is no less an important resource in telling history than other primary sources used by historians. A few years before Bailyn’s publication, the French scholar, Christian Jacob, said of his work: “If The

Sovereign Map may claim a very small merit, it is not because it brought new ideas about maps, but rather because it took maps seriously as objects of thought, of questions, of inquiry.”16 As indicated, both the limits and the breadth of this study are well-suited to

16 Christian Jacob, The Sovereign Map: Theoretical Approaches in Cartography throughout History (Chicago: 2006), xvi. 13 identify the application and soundness of an imperial cartographical ideology. Equally important, this study also reflects an appreciation for Professor Jacob’s goal. CHAPTER I

CLAIMS ON NORTH AMERICA IN THE FIRST IMPERIAL CENTURY

Many good religious devout men have made it a great question, as a matter in conscience, by what warrant they might go to possess those Countries, which are none of theirs, but the poor Savages... for a copper kettle and a few toys, as beads and hatchets, they will sell you a whole Country; and for a small matter, their houses and the ground they dwell upon but those of the Massachusetts have resigned theirs freely. John Smith (1631)

It is a bit of a stretch to call the North American 1600s “the first imperial century.”1 For the most part, the governments of the nation-states that participated in settling the territories, England, France, and the Netherlands, did not initiate the “imperial expansion” to these new lands. The most important element that a state needed in order to undertake expansionist outreach was political stability; weak political states do not expand. Even with a strong political center, colonizing is a difficult undertaking for states without the financial means. For example, while Isabel did not have to hock the crown jewels to finance Columbus, the money was not available and had to be borrowed. It was only after riches were discovered was Spain able to consolidate its American holdings and become the first transatlantic empire. Though political control in their new

1 Additionally, as David Armitage, “Literature and Empire,” The Oxford History o f the British Empire: The Origins of Empire, Nicholas P. Canny and Alaine M. Low, eds. (Oxford: 1998), 102, notes, “[T]he impress of Empire upon English literature in the early-modern period was minimal, and mostly critical where it was discernible at all, while contemporaries understood literature and empire, what Bacon called res literaria and imperium, in terms far different from those adopted by modern scholars[. . . . T]o apply modern models of the relationship between culture and imperialism to early-modern literature and Empire demands indifference to context and inevitably courts anachronism.” At the risk of being anachronistic, this work will refer to the colonial experiences in the Americas as “imperial” in the sense that these efforts emanated from a metropole to an acquired territorial periphery. 15 acquisitions was, from Spain’s first contact, in the office of the crown-appointed governors, after forty years of ever-increasing wealth coming out of the Mexican and

Peruvian mines, the crown took a greater interest and created the office of the viceroy answerable directly to the crown. To be sure, this political change was made in order to guarantee the crown’s cut. Portugal’s American empire was accidental due to an understandable miscalculation in the world division between Spanish and Portuguese interests in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas. When the Portuguese arrived in Brazil around

1500, likely surprised to discover lands of the New World under their papal-awarded domain, their American colonial activities took a back seat to their lucrative eastern trade well into the seventeenth century, by which time they had developed the first global empire. The North American empires were quite a different experience. England and

France were slower to develop stable regimes, and the Dutch did not win their independence from the Spanish Hapsburgs until 1609.2 Importantly, the financial burden of these early adventures, especially the English, rested on the resources and shoulders of private companies or individuals.

The main focus of this chapter will be with the English and Dutch colonial experiences in the New World. There will be some attention to the French activities, but these activities will be addressed more fully in the next chapter with closer inspection of the maps regarding the British and French territorial conflict leading up to the French and

Indian War. Likewise, Spain and Mexico’s North American cartographical experience will be more completely joined in the final chapter in their struggle with the young

2 1609 was the beginning of the “Twelve Year Truce” with Spain which marked the first stage in Dutch independence, giving the de facto recognition to the United Provinces. The Dutch received complete independence in 1648. 16

United States as the republic embarked and concluded its continental acquisitions. The maps illustrating the claims of this “first imperial century” will force investigation on how these early European settlers dealt with the moral and ethical conflicts of acquiring territory that was already inhabited by the Native Americans. To better understand the territorial encounters between the first people and the new arrivals, the utility of settler maps in their incorporation or dismissal of an indigenous presence will be addressed. As noted in the Introduction, the subsequent conflict between the English and the Dutch will also begin to answer whether or not an empire is an empire simply because, as Edney insists “it has been discursively mapped as an empire.”

As England, France, and the Netherlands gained the political stability needed to look west, it is beneficial to look at their actual instruments of colonization and be mindful that the “imperial” maps of the 1600s, to a great degree, reflected “private” holdings advertised to encourage migration and at the same time communicate favorable impressions of success to the metropole ministry and to those ministries abroad. At the turn of the new century there was limited, if any, presence of these states in North

America. In 1601, Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas published a historiography of the

Americas, including some of the first of Spain’s few printed maps of its holdings, of which Descripcion De Las Yndias Ocidentales (1601) was certainly an accurate portrayal of the spheres of influence at the time (Fig. 1.1).3 The map also reflects Spain’s early disinterest in most of the northern continent. This should not indicate that Spain had written off their claims to the north of Mexico; and Spain had high interest in Florida and

St. Augustine is the oldest and continuously occupied settlement in North America; to the other

3 Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, Historia General de las Indias Ocidentales d de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Oceano (Madrid: 1601). DESCRjpCiON Z>E L A S YND1AS OCiDENTALES ■ t

moficoiw

cdkttio

Fig. 1.1. Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, Historia General de las Indias Ocidentales d de los Hechos de I os Castellanos en las Islasy Tierra Firme del Mar Oceano (Madrid: 1601). Image courtesy of the British Libraiy. 18 side of the continent, Santa Fe is the same for what later would be the American southwest.4 The other European powers rejected the presumption of the 1494 treaty illustrated on the map and over the first fifty years of the seventeenth century, the political landscape north of

Spain’s actual holdings would change as each of these other maturing powers staked out their own territorial claims, real or imagined.

Very briefly, the Netherlands instrument of expansion was initially the New

Netherland Company (1602) whose interest on the American continent was focused on locating a passage to eastern markets. The Englishman Henry Hudson was commissioned by the company in 1609; he failed to discover a northwest passage, but his explorations expanded Dutch interests in the territory north from the mouth of the river that bears his name. By 1621, a new company was formed, the Dutch West India Company, and a couple of years later, New Netherland was recognized a colonial province. Motivated by the possible wealth to the state, within three years commerce and industry in the colony had become profitable. By the mid-1620s, the States General had made the “very first official, public investments in America.”5 By the mid-1650s, the provincial population was as high as thirty-five hundred; ten years later, at the time of its surrender to the

English, it was close to nine thousand.6 More will be said about the New Netherlands experience.

Let it be sufficient at this point simply to note that the French experience was also funded with private monies with the most important task being a return on investment.

4 Spain’s interest in North America and their arguments supporting their claims will be covered in this work’s final chapter. 5 Benjamin Schmidt, Innocence Abroad: the Dutch Imagination and the New World, 1570-1670 (Cambridge, UK: 2001), 194-197. 6 Edwin G. Burrows, and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History o f New York City to 1898 (New York: 1999), 50. 19

The investments were successfully achieved because of European demands for American fur, abundantly available along the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi waterways. To this end, there was little interest in promoting expanded French settlements as long as riches were extracted from the continent. The crown took over the settlements in the 1660s, motivated largely because of the apparent growth in population in the English colonies, and the threat that a healthy English presence would jeopardize

French expectations and goals. The French (from the private and the public sectors) had experienced mixed results in fostering immigration. As will be shown in the next chapter, though maps communicate goals of imperialism, population levels will make or break the imperial reality.7

Sustained English interest in the continent started well before that of the French and Dutch. Of the approximately seventy geography or travel books published in England in the last twenty years of the sixteenth century, a dozen were authored, edited, or translated by Richard Hakluyt (1553-1616).8 An Anglican minister and an avid nationalist, he was the leading promoter of English exploration and settlement in North

America during these twenty years and an active voice to the end of his life. The history of English trans-Atlantic expansion is undeniably connected to his vacational work. He was professionally and politically connected with many individuals associated with

England’s early attempts to gain a foothold on the continent: Francis Drake (ca. 1540

1596), Walter Ralegh (1552-1618), Humphrey Gilbert (1539-1583), and Martin Frobisher

7 W. J. Eccles, “Sovereignty-Association, 1500-1783,” Canadian Historical Review LXV, no. 4 (North York, Ontario: 1984), 475-510, explains the difficulties that the French faced during this period. 8 George Bruner Parks, “A List of English Books of Travel Overseas and Geographical Description to 1600,” Richard Hakluyt and the English Voyages (New York: 1961), 270-76. 20

(ca. 1535-1594), among the late sixteenth-century adventurers, Francis Walsingham

(1532-1590), William Cecil (1521-1598), and his brother, Robert (1563-1612), all members of the Elizabethan court and patrons of Hakluyt. By the time of the Jamestown founding in 1607, Hakluyt was considered the leading authority on America, even though his travels took him no further from England than across the Channel to France.9

Hakluyt’s research and publishing efforts, for the time, were expansionist in the extreme. He had felt that from the American explorations of John Cabot (ca. 1450-ca.

1499) and his son Sebastian (1477-1577) in the years after Columbus’s discovery, the

English had missed a grand opportunity to expand their holdings abroad. He also noted that the future source of strength and of the nation lay in settlement of North America not already occupied by Spain.10 In his Principal Navigations dedication to Walsingham in

1599 he stated,

I both heard in speech, and read in books other nations miraculously extolled for their discoveries and notable enterprises by sea, but the English of all others for their sluggish security, and continual neglect of the like attempts especially in so long and a happy time of peace, either ignominiously reported, or exceedingly condemned.11

As proof of this position he quoted a French author on the subject:

This made me inquire into the reasons which prevent the English, who have sufficient intelligence, means, and courage to acquire great honor amongst all Christians, from shining more on the element which is and ought to be more natural to them than to other nations, who must needs yield to them in the building, fitting out, and management of ships, as I have myself often witnessed

9 The definitive biography of Richard Hakluyt and his times is Peter C. Mancall, Hakluyt's Promise: An Elizabethan's Obsession for an English America (New Haven: 2007). 10 J.H. Parry, “Hakluyt’s View of British History, The Hakluyt Handbook, David B Quinn, ed. (London: 1974), 3. 11 Richard Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries o f the English Nation: Made by Sea or Ouer-Land to the Remote and Farthest Distant Quarters of the Earth, at Any Time Within the Compasse o f These 1600 Years: Diuided into Three Seuerall Volumes, According to the Positions of the Regions (London: 1599), 5. 21

when among them.12

The sluggishness, Hakluyt made clear, neither applied to the recent explorations of

Gilbert and Frobisher on the east coast of the Americas, nor to the adventures of Drake on the west. It appeared to Hakluyt that England was primed for action and he unceasingly did his best to instigate crown and national interest in the New World.

Moreover, he had advised Ralegh in the preparations of the Roanoke settlement attempts of 1585-1587, and stated that the Discourse (1584) was written “at the request and direction of the right worshipful Mr. Walter Ralegh.”13 The Discourse explains the colonial and geopolitical ideas in promoting exploration, claiming territories, and settlement, ideas which Ralegh and Hakluyt shared.14

Connected with Ralegh’s mapmakers, it was apparent to Hakluyt that maps would be a big part in selling America to the English. For his Discourse, Hakluyt incorporated the works of other cartographers.15 Three years after its publication, Hakluyt translated into Latin an earlier work by Peter Martyr (1457-1526). Hakluyt’s edition of Decades

(1587) included a map of the western hemisphere (Fig. 1.2).16 The map, De Orbe Novo, based on Martyr’s original, included some notations Hakluyt added to remind and to emphasize English participation in the North American: Frobisher’s northwestern

12 Translation by Edmund Goldsmid in his edition of The Principal Navigations (Edinburgh: 1884). 13 David B. Quinn, “North America,” The Hakluyt Handbook, David B. Quinn, ed., (London: 1974), 246. 14 Richard Hakluyt, David Beers Quinn and Alison M. Quinn. A Particulier Discourse Concerning the Greate Necessitie andManifolde Commodyties That Are Like to Growe to This Realme of Englande by the Westerne Discoueries Lately Attempted, Written in the Yere 1584 by Richarde Hackluyt of Oxforde ; Known As Discourse of Western Planting (London: 1993). 15 R.A. Skelton, “Hakluyt’s Maps,” The Hakluyt Handbook, David B. Quinn, ed., (London: 1974), 49. 16 Petrus Martyr Anglerius, De Orbe Nouo Petri Martyris Anglerii Mediolanensis Protonotarii et Caroli Quinti Senatoris Decades Octo, Diligenti Temporum Observatione et Utilissinis Annotationibus Illustrate Richard Hakluyt, ed. (Paris: 1587). Fig. 1.2. Peter Martyr and Richard Hakluyt, De Orbe Novo (Paris: 1587) ("detail). Image courtesy of Brigham Young University. 23 voyages, Drake’s circumnavigation with the announcements of the “1580” founding of

“Nova Albion” in the American northwest, and Ralegh’s “1584” colony of “Virginea,” the first time Virginia appeared on a printed map.17 Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598), the great Flemish cartographer and geographer and considered the originator of the modern world atlas, noted an advertisement for Hakluyt’s new edition of Martyr’s Decades and wondered at the possible motives for its publication: “Has he added nothing of his own?

And what is the reason for this edition by Hakluyt?”18 Hakluyt had his own agenda, one that Ortelius would have missed without looking at the work itself but would have surmised had he seen Hakluyt’s rendition of Martyr’s De Orbe Novo. It is notable that

Hakluyt had the Latin edition published in Paris; the French had been making incursions on the northern coast and into the interior (also noted on the map). With this new edition,

Hakluyt publicized to her immediate territorial rival England’s interests in the continent.

Hakluyt’s chief purpose and motivation was to communicate to the elites of France and to all nations including Spain that England had valid claims on the continent and intended to pursue them.

Hakluyt stated in 1589, in an earlier version of the first volume of the 1599

Principal Navigations, that the work would not concern itself with the explorations and discoveries of other nations - enough had been written regarding these, unfortunately at the expense or in complete ignorance of English activities. He said simply to the

“reader”: “Moreover, I meddle in this work with the Navigations only of our own nation.”19 Hakluyt wrote over a million and a half words promoting the entrance of

17 Skelton, “Hakluyt’s Maps,” (1974), 65. 18 Quote from Mancall, Hakluyt's Promise, 174. 19 Richard Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, (1599), 10. 24

England as a transatlantic and global power and recognition by other nations of her rising position.20 It mattered little to Hakluyt at the time of his edit of the Decades and De Orbe

Novo that there was no English presence in the American northwest, which he labeled

“Nova Albion” or that in the year before its publication, he was aware that Roanoke settlement was in desperate conditions. The reality depicted on Hakluyt’s imperial map was less important than the message. His amended De Orbe Novo was the first of the

North American maps that could be considered “imperial cartography,” the first to embrace a plotting and planning ideology rather than communicating actual circumstances.

To this time, English activity with any degree of success had been limited to the fishing activities in the waters surrounding Newfoundland. Not surprisingly, Hakluyt had voiced his concern regarding this area also, complaining that the English were not forceful enough to protect their interests against “the French, Britaynes, Baskes, and

Biskaines.” “These,” he said, “do yearly return from the said parts; while we this long time have stood still and have been idle lookers on, making courtesy who should give the first adventure, or once being given, who should continue or prosecute the same.”21 By the end of the century, attention to Newfoundland would take a secondary position to revived interests in the more southern opportunities.

That the Tordesillas map of 1601 illustrates lack of Spanish interest in North

America is only apparent. By the end of the sixteenth century, Spain’s occupation of

Florida was to a great extent the result of a sustained attempt to limit foreign interference with her treasure ships coasting along the North American shores on their return to

20 Parks, English Voyages (1961), 227, fn. 10. 21 Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, Goldsmid, ed. (1889), VTTT.ii .59. 25

Europe.22 The Roanoke settlement had moved Spain to action with plans to destroy any permanent English settlement in the Americas. It is an irony that while Spain’s attempt to invade England kept England from sending relief to the colony, it also prevented Spanish action in the Chesapeake and perhaps settling the area herself.23 The later settlement of

Jamestown proved to be, with difficulty, the first English colony that would endure on the continent and the chartering of the Virginia Company in April 1606 was a pivotal moment in the English approach to the Americas. From this point, all the colonial adventures would be chartered by the crown, rather than the heretofore patents.24 A charter, to a great degree, committed England and the crown to a successful migration and settlement. Though there was little royal oversight, there was the implicit assurance that the crown would support the Virginia endeavor, if not with direct financial assistance at least as an instrument of national prestige. The charter also communicated a commitment that the new colony would definitely not be left on its own against Spanish

22 Jerald T. Milanich, Laboring in the Fields of the Lord: Spanish Missions and Southeastern Indians (Washington, D.C.: 1999), 78, has shown that as early as the 1560s, the Spanish had attempted to settle as far north as the Chesapeake. 23 David B. Quinn, England and the Discovery o f America, 1481-1620, From the Bristol Voyages of the Fifteenth Century to the Pilgrim Settlement at Plymouth: the Exploration, Exploitation, and Trial-and-Error Colonization o f North America by the English (New York: 1974), 264-67, 279, 281; 24 The one exception to this, of course, would be the separatist Pilgrims who migrated to Plymouth in 1620 without the benefit of a charter. Regarding patents and charters, patents, such as those given to Gilbert and Ralegh, were general rights awarded by the crown. Mary C. Fuller, Voyages in Print (Cambridge: 1995), 16, quotes from the patents Henry VII awarded permitting voyages to “to conquer, occupy and possess.” The ones awarded a century later, to “discover, find, search out.. .and the same to have, hold, and occupy and enjoy to him, his heirs and assignees forever.” Another patent was awarded to locate a Northwest Passage. Louise Phelps Kellogg, The American Colonial Charter (Washington: 1904), 194, quotes Hobbes, “Charters are donations of the sovereign, and not laws, but exemptions from the law.” Charters not only identified the area to be planted, but were more defined than patents which gave indeterminate rights to colonize. Kellogg notes, “each [chartered] company had full authority to nominate officers for its colony, to ordain its law, to pardon, govern and rule all subjects who should adventure there, so that the laws ordained be not ‘contrarie to the Lawes of this our realm of England’.” 26 intrusions.

John Smith’s (1580-1631) impact on the Jamestown Colony has been well rehearsed, from his famous dicta that “he that will not work shall not eat” to his relationship with the great Chesapeake chief, Powhatan.25 Smith was a member of the initial landing group and governor of the colony from 1608-09. In addition to the charter, the colony received a letter of instructions from the company. Hakluyt was a member of the council and though the document does not indicate its author the “Letter of

Instructions” has his ideological stamp, including the need to map the settlement and its surrounding areas as much as possible.26 After discovering “as far up the river as you mean to plant,” they were to take a compass “and write down how far they go upon every point.”27 Within a week of landing at Jamestown in May 1607, an exploration was sent up the James River and continuous exploration over the next couple of years, most of which under the personal direction of Smith, charted the Chesapeake environs. Smith left

Virginia in 1609. Three years later his Virginia (1612) (Fig. 1.3) was published; the same year it was included in his A Map o f Virginia With a Description (1612).28

Mindful that this first sustained settlement was at the expense of its prior inhabitants it is poignant how the Indians participated in this first cartographical

25 One of the more interesting studies of this relationship, including the use of a map, is William Boelhower, “Mapping the Gift Path: Exchange and Rivalry in John Smith's A True Relation,” American Literary History, 15, no. 4 (2003), 655-682. 26 Mancall, Promise (2007), 262. 27 Edward D. Neill, History of the Virginia Company of London With Letters to and from the First Colony, Never Before Printed (Albany, N.Y.: 1869), 10. A primary reason for exploring and mapping the territory was to determine if “the river on which you plant doth spring out of.. .any lake,” and from there to a passage leading to the “East India Sea.” 28 John Smith, A Map of Virginia: With a Description o f the Countrey, the Commodities, People, Government and Religion (Oxford: 1612). This 1612 tract was republished in his The Generall Historie o f Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles With the Names of the Adventurers, Planters, and Governours from Their First Beginning, Ano. 1584 to This Present 1624; Divided into Sice Bookes (London: 1624). u 4 " i * oo

sp?i*i»/ 1 A vj ^ T-'vy 5y> y \5£v ~*r— ?r"

■ •Yi - . , ' iV ° ,r^K>___ __ - . .VvY „ ,• -^ v e \ Tia )V ' i-f? ) ) ’} W R ) { " ? > - . • _ JJ.'* r/~^2, ~ -^i , 3il > A Nr '

If Fig. 1.3. John Smith, Virginia (London: 1612). Map reproduction courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 28 conversation that would set into motion the events leading to their ultimate territorial dispossession. In the right hand corner of the map is the notation, “Signification of these markes, To the crosses have bin discovered[,] what beyond is by relation I#.” There are twenty-seven of “these markes” on Smith’s map; illustrated here are four at the northern limits of the Chesapeake (Fig. 1.4). To these marks, then, the map was based on the actual settler investigations; anything represented beyond was obtained from the Indians.

Smith explained this more fully in the Description, “as far as you see the little Crosses on rivers, mountains, or other places have been discovered; the rest was had by information of the Savages, and are set down according to their instructions.”29 If a perimeter is connected from one cross to another it is quickly evident that nearly half of the map was based on information obtained from the natives.

The Native Americans understandably had a complete knowledge of the territory and were tied to their territory as much as the English would be to their newly acquired territories.30 John Lawson, surveyor general for North Carolina, would remark a hundred years later:

They will draw maps very exactly of all the Rivers, Towns, Mountains, and Roads, or what you shall require of them, which you may draw by their Directions, and come to a small matter of Latitude, reckoning by their Days Journeys. These Maps they will draw in the Ashes of the Fire, and sometimes upon a Mat or Piece of Bark. I have put a Pen and ink into a Savage’s Hand, and he has drawn me the Rivers, Bays, and other Parts of a country, which afterwards I have found to agree with a great deal of Nicety.31

Edward Winslow, writing on the state of affairs of the New England plantations in the

1620s included in his remarks regarding the social and political order of the Native

29 Smith, Description (1612), 11. 30 Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant o f Conquest (Chapel Hill: 1975), 70. 31 John Lawson, A New Voyage to Carolina (London: 1709), 205. Fig. 1.4. John Smith, Virginia (London: 1612) (detail). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division.

Americans these observations on their knowledge of the land:

Every Sachim knows how far the bounds and limits of his own Country extends, and that is his own proper inheritance, out of that if any of his men desire land to set their corn, he gives them as much as they can use, and sets them their bounds. In this circuit whosoever hunt, if they kill any venison, bring him his fee, which is the foreparts of the same, if it be killed on the land, but if in the water, then the skin thereof.32

Nearly the entire paragraph has been quoted here to allow that perhaps Winslow’s

English sense of property (and liability for that matter) may have interfered with a less than accurate appraisal. But to make clear that the Indians had a precise “geographic” discernment, the next line repeats the first, “The great Sachims or Kings, know their own bounds or limits of land, as well as the rest.” Indian maps, whether drawn on skins, sketched in ashes, or transferred from the native to the European cartographer, contained accurate geographical detail.

The main function of maps for Native Americans was to portray social and political relationships. This is hardly different than the function of many of the European maps discussed in this paper. However, in many cases the distances on an Indian map would often reflect a scale relative to the social or political “distances” from the tribe of the Indian drawing the map to neighboring communities rather than the actual scale of distance measured on European maps.33 This is a peculiarity in some Indian maps that

European explorers and discovers would have to take into account. That is, if the relationship between Indian communities were amicable, then the distance shown on a

32 Edward Winslow, GoodNewes from New England (London: 1624), 57. 33 Gregory A. Waselkov, “Indian Maps of the Colonial Southeast,” Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians of the Colonial Southeast, Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley, eds. (Lincoln: 1989), 300. Waselkov studied the maps of one tribe and noted “distance scale and orientation to cardinal points vary continuously as one moves from place to place with each map.” 31 map could be closer than that to another community (at the same actual distance) between which there were less than amicable social or political relationships.34 The differences in

Indian/European perceptions of what the land was or the ways in mapping it, in the first place, and what exactly was represented on a colonial map, in the second, were striking.

The focus of the Jamestown colonists was land; the instrument used to communicate possession of the land was the map. Powhatan would have been alarmed had he seen and understood Smith’s finished map of Virginia.

After a sojourn in England upon his return from Virginia and at the invitation of four London merchants, Smith set out in March 1614 to the coast of north Virginia, as

New England was known at the time. The purpose of the trip was to fish and collect furs; the result of the trip proved to be what is considered the foundation map of New England cartography (Fig. 1.5).35 A good three-fifths of the map is a rendering of the (unnamed)

Atlantic and a large part of what would have been empty spaces on the map, due to ignorance of the land, is taken up by a large illustration of Smith, the crown’s coat of arms, notations, and other flourishing. The map, New England (1616), is a limited if exceptional depiction of the coast. In his Generall Historie he explained that he had named the region as a whole and asked the crown prince to offer place names for the various landmarks: “I presented this Discourse with the map, to our most gracious Prince

34 These cartographical representations based on the degree of relationship rather than on the measure of linear distance are evidently not unique to the American Indian. Christine Lin, “Maps and the Chinese Imperial Word View,” Epoch Times (March 25, 2013), observes, “Quite different from our modern conception of maps, the Complete Map o f the Everlasting Unified Qing Empire [1800] bends scale and distance to show the various levels of administration in the empire’s vast tax base...[for example,] England and Holland appear in the far left corner as tiny islands, insignificant to the throne since they do not constitute part of the tax base.” 35 Smith, Generall Historie (1624), VI.204-05. The map illustrated here is a later state of the 1616 map. N e w En g l a n d

Imoulh

,re th' 1 tut*-* '• •• //.(.t Mi *1.lCC.hu:. ' //lit /At iv Ol'ilCC and if lor I', brighter h /1dQ,’ /"'/S.lh’iigcs.much ''t-Oijcournes CivtllxzcL an.1 f o m It t - O thee— v e r t l r t w jiu jljh e w thy Sj>irit;jn.l m it G lory (\Vyn- S.’.r/i.'u Art Bra/sc without, lu t (icicle. Wtthm.

llnijic ,toc je jt Smiths c -tch tv I-CJ'C, thy. r me,a nule Jii.ip'c Steele out wearc, u flU art V,ruM, Soutkn'amvton .

Cuth^ Vullertrn lit. [ iv e r C h a r l e s

Chtuvot hilli

Fig. 1.5. John Smith, New England (London: 1616). Image courtesy of Boston Rare Maps.

UJ NJ 33

Charles, humbly intreating his Highness [that] he would please to change their barbarous name for such English, as posterity might say Prince Charles was their Godfather.”36 The prince offered more than two dozen new English names in the place of the “barbarous” ones. Only a few remained permanent, including Cambridge, Boston, and the Charles

River. Interestingly, Cape Cod named by another English explorer did not make the change successfully to Cape James, likely renamed because “cod” did not sufficiently connect with the metropole. Without exception all of the names on the map are English derived - the entire map has not one Native American name on it. Just as the name “New

England” gave the map authority and possession, naming the parts made clearer its custody.

There were two myths in the English colonization; one attached to the idea of

America itself and the other to the Indian. Both myths were necessary elements to successful settlement and both were included in the messages of the map. The myth of the “virgin land” was chiefly accomplished through place-naming rather than actual settlement; the Indian was depicted on the map dramatically, as part of an “inventory” of the new lands, but in the end the “Indian” image was raised/reduced to allegory.37 As indicated, the Native Americans were critical participants in the European mapping of the colonial territories, though without any notion of the finished product. Rather, the primary object of communication of these maps was to the metropole, which

36 Smith, Generall Historie (1624), VI.205. Jeanette D. Black, “Mapping the English Colonies in North America: The Beginnings,” The Compleat Plattmaker: Essays on Chart, Map, and Globe Making in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Norman J.W. Thrower, ed., (Berkeley: 1978), 109, comments on the possibility of the fifteen year old prince actually offering these names. 37 William Boelhower, “Inventing America: The Culture of the Map,” Revue Frangaise D'etudes Americaines, No. 36 (April 1988), 214, 219-220. 34 cartographical representations, among other elements, enforced the coming to America and emphasized the cultural contrasts in the New World to the great disadvantage of the natives.

For the Indians, the best map was most often the territory itself. Before representing the land on a two-dimensional surface, the land needed to be known by means of first-hand experience, often the opposite to European appropriations which first called for drawing the territory and then firming possession by naming it.38 The place- names that Indians assigned to the landscape either described the site based on its physical appearance, the types of animals or plants in the location, or a name significant to its historical or spiritual character.39 Territory or landmark naming served the purpose of enforcing knowledge of one’s surroundings, much like getting to know the neighborhood.

Smith named New England, eschewing a previous appellation “Norumbega,” doubtless to promote English interest in settlement. The same can be said for “New

Amsterdam,” and “New France.” Smith’s reputed application to the Prince of Wales to name landmarks created an additional barrier between the future migrant and existing indigenous populations.40 This was the obvious step beyond the broad naming of the colonial territory. The English toponyms were arbitrarily assigned, unless they were, for

38 Peter Nabokov, “Orientations from Their Side: Dimension of Native American Cartographic Discourse,” Cartographic Encounters: Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use, G. Malcolm Lewis, ed., (Chicago: 1998), 242. 39 Margaret Wickens Pearce, “Native Mapping in Southern New England Indian Deeds,” Cartographic Encounters: Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use, G. Malcolm Lewis, ed., (Chicago: 1998), 159. 40 J.B. Harley, “New England Cartography and the Native Americans,” American Beginnings: Exploration, Culture, and Cartography in the Land of Norumbega, Emerson W. Baker, ed., (Lincoln: 1994), 298, 301. 35 example, based on ownership or residence of an individual. The names on Smith’s New

England (1616) encouraged an English familiarity to a land even before the first settlers attempted the voyage to the New World. They would not be travelling to a forbidden land, but to a “new England” already given friendly and oftentimes familiar labels and markers.41 All of this encouraged the myth of America being a “virgin land” - a land that had existed untouched and unsettled to any degree of civilization, and thus unnamed. The

English naming and mapping of the land was the first step in the civilizing process.

It is remarkable that the Europeans, in particular the English, could hold fast to the myth that America was a “virgin land” but at the same time one inhabited by an indigenous population. It is the nature of what accounts for civilization that allows for this otherwise difficult premise, and the early European images of the indigenous populations go a long way to resolve any paradox. Some of the first Indian images of the

North American Indian were by the hand of John White (ca. 1540-ca.1593). White had served as Ralegh’s governor of the Roanoke colony and returned to England in 1587 in the failed effort to obtain supplies for the destitute settlement; he also returned with a number of watercolor paintings, including those of the Indians. White’s paintings illustrated the Indian in work and play and showed an overall appreciation of the native connection with the environment. The paintings depicted aspects of this world: hunting, agriculture, family, community and their culture in general.42 Thomas Harriot (c. 1560

41 Though not found on the map, Smith had applied the most obvious native toponym, Massachuset, to the Boston basin and its environs. Justin Winsor, “The Earliest Maps of Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor,’ Memorial History o f Boston, 4 vols., Justin Windsor, ed., (Boston: 1882), I.53. See also, Arthur J. Krim, “Acculturation of the New England Landscape: Native and English Toponym of Eastern Massachusetts,” New England Prospect: Maps, Place Names, and the Historical Landscape, Peter Benes, ed., (Boston: 1980), 72. 42 Gary B. Nash, “The Image of the Indian in the Southern Colonial Mind,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 29, no. 2 (April, 1972), 208. 36

1621) accompanied White to and from the Roanoke and in 1588 he published his experience in A Briefe and True Report o f the New Found Land o f Virginia431 At Richard

Hakluyt’s suggestion Theodor de Bry (1528-1598), the Flemish engraver, included

White’s images in his 1590 publication of Harriot’s book. Hakluyt translated White’s original Latin captions for the English edition.44 Published in four languages, Latin,

German, French, and English, it had a wide audience. The volume was a remarkable publication with wide distribution and with considerable impact. Included was an interesting section illustrating early Picts and Britons. The text reads in part,

Some picture, of the Picts which in the old time did inhabit on part of the great Britain. The painter of whom I have had the first of the Inhabitants of Virginia, gave me also these 5 .to show how that the Inhabitants of the great Britain have been in times past as savage as those of Virginia.45

Side by side (Fig. 1.6), the similarity is clear.46 Harriot and Hakluyt both considered that it would only be a matter of time, with English association and trade, before the natives would be civilized just as the original inhabitants of the British Isles.47 The image of the

Indian in Smith’s Virginia (1612) two decades later was adapted directly from the de Bry engravings of the Picts, this at a time when there was optimism, at least in the metropole, of the malleability of the character of the natives.48 The images, however, allowed a

43 Thomas Harriot, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia (Frankfurt: 1588). 44 Mancall, Hakluyt’s Promise, 195-96. 45 Paul H. Hulton, America 1585: The Complete Drawing o f John White (North Carolina: 1984), 17-18, explains, however, the images in the section of Picts and Ancient Britons were likely the work of Jacques Le Moyne. Hinton remarks, “De Bry may well have taken away drawing of Picts by both artists in 1588 and, without realising his error, attributed Le Moyne’s figures to White.” Whatever the source, the visual communication was still the same. 46 Harriot, Briefe and True Report, 41, 69. 47 Mancall, Hakluyt’s Promise, 200-03. 48 John Rolfe’s 1614 marriage to Pocahontas, the daughter of Powhatan, helped keep the peace in the Chesapeake. Two years later Rolfe, Pocahontas, and about a dozen other Native Americans sailed to England. Their presence was as much a social event as it was proof that the Indian could be civilized. Fig. 1.6. John White, “A weroan or great Lorde of Viginia” (1) (detail) and “Atrvve picture of one Picte” (r), in Thomas Harriot, A Briefe and True Report (1590). Image courtesy of the British Museum. 'vjUJ 38 comparison of the current English efforts to “civilize” the Irish and conversely projected the ability of English colonists to subdue the natives with force if peaceful relations were not possible, just as force was used against the Irish.

Relationships with the Chesapeake Indians took a turn after Powhatan’s death in

1618. The Indian attacked the colony in 1622 killing two-thirds of the 1200 settlers, after which colonist Edward Waterhouse remarked that because of the Indians’ “treachery and cruelty.. .this must needs be for the good of the Plantation.” This is a strange observation, but for Waterhouse and other colonists the attack resolved a troubling moral dilemma.

Any question of conscience in colonial dealings with the native was now put to rest. One survivor of the attack reasoned,

[O]ur hands which before were tied with gentleness and fair usage, are now set at liberty by the treacherous violence of the Savages, not untying the Knot, but cutting it: So that we, who hitherto have had possession of no more ground then their waste, and our purchase at a valuable consideration to their own contentment, gained; may now by right of War, and law of Nations, invade the Country, and destroy them who sought to destroy us: whereby we shall enjoy their cultivated places, turning the laborious Mattock into the victorious Sword (wherein there is more both ease, benefit, and glory) and possessing the fruits of others labours. Now their cleared grounds in all their villages (which are situate in the fruitfullest places of the land) shall be inhabited by vs, whereas heretofore the grubbing of woods was the greatest labour.49

From this point, any image of the Indian as an element of Virginia cartography would serve as a reminder of ongoing warfare between the colonists, and perhaps worrying would-be settlers from the metropole. Thus, the native image disappeared on the area maps only to be revived decades later in the impersonal, dispassionate, and safe image of a type, an allegorical representation of America rather than a people, and certainly not as

49 Edward Waterhouse, A Declaration o f the State o f the Colony and Affaires in Virginia. With a Relation o f the Barbarous Massacre in the Time of Peace and League. Treacherously Executed by the Natiue Infidels vpon the English, the 22 o f March last..., (London: 1622), 22-24. See also Nash, “Image of the Indian,” 218. 39 an individual.

A decade later, John Smith published in London a book promoting migration to

New England, Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters ofNew-England, or Any

Where. Or, The Path-Way to Experience to Erect a Plantation (1631). For Puritans travelling to America it was a timely and fortunate publication. Prominent in the forty- odd page work was a large fold-out of a later state of his New England (1616) “allowed by our Royal King Charles.”50 The map enabled its readers to locate place as they read the text descriptions. He stated in the dedication to the Archbishop of Canterbury his purpose “for the increase of Gods Church, converting Savages, and enlarging the Kings

Dominions.” Smith also addressed the old concern: “Many good religious devout men have made it a great question, as a matter in conscience, by what warrant they might go to possess those Countries, which are none of theirs, but the poor Salvages.” He repeated familiar arguments and claimed that in America there “is more land than all the people in

Christendom can manure, and yet more to spare than all the natives of those Countries can use and culturate.”51

Despite this seeming ease in acquiring native lands, Smith made it clear from the very first line in the pamphlet that it was his participation in “The Wars in Europe, Asia, and Africa, taught me how to subdue the wild Savages in Virginia and New-England, in

America.” The publication pointed to the difficulties that immigrants will encounter but with hard work and perseverance the colonist would find a good life and land to support what “he hath extraordinarily deserved, by itself to him and his heirs forever.”52 This

50 John Smith, Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New-England, or Any Where. Or, The Path-Way to Experience to Erect a Plantation (London: 1631). 51 Smith, Advertisements (1631), 1, 10. 52 Smith, Advertisements (1631), 23. 40 sense of entitlement, what the settler “extraordinarily deserved,” was and would be a golden thread running through the story of European and later American expansion for the next two hundred years. The seventeenth century maps reflect this idea of entitlement and Smith’s motto on his coat of arms, included on both the Virginia and New England maps, accurately spoke to the English attitude in inhabiting America: Vincere est Vivere -

“to conquer is to live.”

The 1630s was the decade of the “Great Migration” to Puritan New England and resulted in a world of extended New England townships beyond the bay.53 Three years after Smith’s Advertisements, William Wood (ca. 1605-1639) published New Englands

Prospect (1634).54 Wood indicated that he had journeyed to New England perhaps as early as 1629 and returned to England four years later still in his mid-twenties.55 Wood’s text goes beyond Smith’s in describing the land and its resources. The first part of the book explained the area’s geography and biology, current settlements, and gave advice to prospective migrants. The second part described the most significant native tribes, the people and their political and social customs. In all, Wood’s general treatment of the

Indians is positive: “To enter into serious discourse concerning the natural conditions of these Indians, might procure admiration from the people of any civilized nations, in regard of their civility and good natures.”56

53 Bailyn, Barbarous Years (2012), 165-166, notes the distinctive consequences of this relatively small number, 20,000, to the social and political environment of the Bay Colony. By the end of the sixteenth century approximately 400,000 people would emigrate from Britain to the American colonies. 54 William Wood, New Englands Prospect (London: 1634). 55 Alden T. Vaughan, in his “Introduction,” to William Wood, New Englands Prospect (Amherst, MA: 1977), 4-5, surmises that Wood was likely a member of an advance party to Winthrop who were not necessarily Puritans. 56 Wood, Prospect (1634), 69. 41

Included in New Englands Prospects was a most detailed map to date, The South part of New-England, as it is Planted thisyeare, 1634 (Fig. 1.7). It is not nearly as ornate as Smith’s Virginia or New England and it has no cartouche or notations other than place names. Most of the place names are in English but a large minority of the toponyms are native. The map notes about a dozen and a half English settlements, from as south as

Narragansett Bay to the Merrimack River in the north, all designated with a circle topped by a cross. Indian settlements are noted with triangles in three or four localized areas and their indicated settlement numbers are significantly less than the English communities.

Only a handful of native names, “Pacanokick,” “Chicatabat,” “Mattacomen,” and

“Pifsaconowa,” are noted. The back of the book includes an appendix which lists over two-hundred-fifty terms, “because many have desired to hear some of the Native languages.” New Englands Prospects communicated optimism in English-Indian relationship; the map communicated a well-protected inner harbor with other areas suitable for settlement, and plenty of waterways for travel. The text and its cartographical representation together convey possibilities for immigrants to New England to a fine land inhabited with welcoming natives. The book evidently had a wide audience and references to it are found in two other contemporary works, Judocus Hondy, Historia

Mundi or Mercator’s Atlas (1635) and Thomas Morton, New English Canaan (1637).57

Positive response to Prospects and New England possibilities could be due to the

57 Publications o f the Colonial Society o f Massachusetts, Volume XIII, (Boston: 1932), 227, notes an interesting borrowing in the notation on one of the later states of Smith’s New England (Fig. 1.5). The line is almost identical to Hondy’s approval of Wood’s Prospects which he included in his Historia: “He that desires to know more of the Estate of new England let him read a new Book of the prospects of new England & there he shall have Satisfaction.” The 1614 date is kept on the Smith plate, but this state of the map followed Wood’s publication in 1634. The publisher of Smith’s map is also recommending Prospects. 42

Fig. 1.7. William Wood, The South part o f New-England, as it is Planted this yeare, 1634 (1634). Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library. 43 favorable park-like setting of the available land on the map illustrated with scattered clumps of trees. Forty years later, in 1677, this particular pastoral vision was still present on New England maps. John Foster’s A Map of New-England (Fig. 1.8) is also strewn with trees and includes a couple of hunters trekking back home, a frisky fox, and a lone bear. The bay is bustling with maritime activity and the first impression is one of tranquility and social order which the map, as noted, “doth.. .sufficiently show the

Situation of the Country, and conveniently well the distance of Places.” There are no

Indian settlements and no indication that the natives enjoy any social or political presence; Indian existence is nearly erased from the map. The myth of empty spaces to the frontier and beyond was a necessary element in the cartography of the northern colonies. On the map there are more than fifty colonial village place names that have numbers appended. Below the map title Foster explains “The figures that are joined with the Names of Places are to distinguish such as have been assaulted by the Indians from others.” The peaceful image of the map, without reading too closely, is rather one illustrating the aftermath of hostilities with the natives and the victory of the settlers.

The map is a fold-out to William Hubbard’s A Narrative o f the Troubles with the

Indians in New-England From the First Planting Thereof in the Year 1607 to This

Present Year 1677; but Chiefly of the Late Troubles in the Two Last Years, 1675 and

1676; to Which Is Added a Discourse About the Warre with the Pequods in the Year 1637

(1677).58 The text recounts the wars with the natives from the Pequot War of 1637-1638 to King Philip’s War of 1675-1678. Hubbard’s final observation reflects the confidence of those in the service of the “Sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth.” As for the natives,

58 William Hubbard, A Narrative o f the Troubles with the Indians in New-England (Boston: 1677). Fig. 1.8. John Foster, A Map o f New-England (1677). Image courtesy of Boston Rare Maps. 45 he says,

For though great number that are implacable and embittered against us in their Spirits, may be for the sake of our Religion found hardened to their own destruction, yet a Remnant may be reserved, and afterward called forth, by the power of the Gospel, to give glory to the God of all the Earth.59

It is clear then, as in Edward Waterhouse’s observation after the Virginia uprising, that the Indians will either be civilized or they will be destroyed.60 Reliance on providential history is the texture of the text; in the same paragraph Hubbard notes that “God who is able to graft in again the unbelieving Jews, is able also of these stones [the natives] to raise up Children unto Abraham.” Historians of cartography have noted the remarkable similarity of the early Puritan New England maps to the style and format of the maps found in Calvinist Bibles of the same period.61 The Foster map of New England is an excellent example. These Bibles, which were likely in possession of every congregationalist family, contained maps illustrating moments in biblical history such as the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Exodus, and the settling of Canaan. The

Foster map, in turn, would reinforce the association with God’s chosen from millennia before.62 Moreover, the crosses atop the New England settlements in Foster’s map illustrate the godly outposts of the Puritans in this “New Zion,” much like the image of the Jerusalem Temple in the Calvinist Bibles.

Finally, on the map there is the notation “Pequid Country,” in addition to

59 Hubbard, Narrative (1677), 88. 60 Daniel R. Mandell, King Philip's War: Colonial Expansion, Native Resistance, and the End of Indian Sovereignty (Baltimore: 2010), 134-135, states that over six hundred colonists and three thousand Native Americans died in the 1675-1678 war. The Indian share of the New England population dropped from 30% to 15%. 61 Harley, “New England Cartography” (1994), 304. 62 See Catherine Delano-Smith and Elizabeth Morley Ingram, Maps in Bibles, 1500-1600: An Illustrated Catalogue (Geneva: 1991). 46 references to the “Narragansetts” (in what will be Rhode Island) and the “Pemaquids” (in the future Maine). The New England colonists forty years earlier had taken measures to eradicate Pequot existence. As a result of the Pequot War (1634-1638) the northern colonies formed the short lived United Colonies of New England, a confederation for defense against the Native Americans. One of the first acts by the commissioners of this body dealt with the losers of the war: “the remnant of that nation should not be suffered.. .either to be a distinct people, or retain the name of Pequatt, or to settle in the

Pequatt country.”63 This would also include designations on maps, from which time the name “Pequatt,” or a derivative, disappeared from New England cartography until the

Foster map of 1677. Since the map and the book were both printed in Boston, the only reason for including a reference to the Pequot (and the other two tribes) must have been because the subject of map and the book was the history of the New England wars with the Indians. To include names on maps gives proof of endurance just as deleting the names erases existence. The 1677 “Pequatt” inclusion was for a reminder of Puritan subjugation of the Indians after which recognition Indian settlements rarely appeared on

“civilized” territories. This would in effect erase their historical and cartographical existence, and make it easier for the New England colonists to eradicate remnants of the native population.

The English were not the only new arrivals along the Atlantic seaboard of North

America in the first half of the seventeenth century. The French were active along the St.

Lawrence in the north and the Dutch, and to a lesser extent the Swedish, had staked out

63 New Plymouth Colony, Nathaniel Bradstreet Shurtleff, and David Pulsifer, Records o f the Colony of New Plymouth in New England: Printed by Order o f the Legislature o f the Commonwealth o f Massachusetts (New York: 1968), 100-101. 47 territory between New England and the Chesapeake. With the expanding settlements in

North America, mapping purposes begin to shift from claiming “virgin” lands to marking possessions in the face of competing European states. Though the competition in the next century would be between the British and the French, for most of the seventeenth century the cartographical argument was between the English and the Dutch, centered on their mid-Atlantic continental claims. Between the time of the Pilgrim settlement in 1620 and the first Puritan migration in 1630 the Dutch had settled along the Hudson River. Like the

English and French companies that took the task of forming their initial colonies, Dutch activity was originally under the auspices of the United New Netherland Company (1614) and the later West India Company (1621). Both were chartered by the States General to further Dutch efforts in America and as a tool in achieving independence from Hapsburg

Spain; of equal weight was the two-fold charge of the West India Company to make money through traffic in the pelt trade and to make war on Spanish ships.64

Adriaen Block (c. 1567-1627), a Dutch captain after his fourth trip to the

Americas, authored the initial Dutch cartographical representations of the northeast seaboard. Block prepared to map the territory in a somewhat unusual way. Cornelius

Doetsz (fl. 1589), a Dutch cartographer, outlined for Block the coast based on elements of Samuel de Champlain’s earlier work Voyages (1613).65 Block then put on the map his discoveries and additional information he received from the natives.66 Presented to the

64 Burrows and Wallace, Gotham (1999), 17-19. 65 Champlain’s cartography is more suitably treated in the following chapter, which deals with the cartographical and imperial conflicts between the English and the French. 66 David Y. Allen, The Mapping o f New York State: A Study in the History o f Cartography (New York [State?]: 2011), , Chapter 1. Regarding Doetsz’s connection in Block’s preparation, Allen cites Kees Zandvliet, “Een Ouderwetse Kaart van Nieuw Nederland door Cornelis Dootz.en Willem Jansz.Blaeu,” Caert thresoor, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1982), 57-60. 48

States General of the Netherlands in 1614, the Carte Figurative (Fig. 1.9), otherwise known as Map of New Netherland, the “Adrian Block Chart, ” depicts the coast from

Virginia to New France.67 “Nieu Nederlandt” is bound on the north by the St. Lawrence

River, renamed “De Groote Riviere van nieu Nederlandt.” As with Smith’s Virginia

(1612) and New England (1616), Block did not hesitate to communicate possession of these lands by the use of national toponyms. Block did not explore the St. Lawrence, but thanks to Champlain’s map he knew generally its course. For Block, the river was a natural demarcation between the Dutch and French claims and it made perfect sense to give the river a new Dutch name. Likely published around the same time as Smith’s New

England, the two would be competing cartographical voices.68 For example, Block’s

“Staten haeck” is Smith’s “Cape James” (Cape Cod), Block’s “Staten bay,” just south of the greater “De Noord Zee,” is Smith’s “Stuards Bay,” and the outcropping of “Cape

Anna,” evident on Smith’s map is absent on Block’s because that land was not shown on the one drawn by Champlain. Nonetheless, Dutch place names sprinkle the map, mostly from Nantucket Sound, named “Zuyder Zee” to present-day Maine, French territory named “Novae Franciae Pars.”

It is important to keep in mind that imperial maps showing political control or presence will often have no connection with reality. The mapmakers or printers, though

67 E.B. O’Callaghan and B. Fernow, eds., and trans., “Description of the Boundaries of New Netherland,” Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State o f New York, 15 vols. (Albany: 1853-1887) 1:12-13, include a copy of the map between these two pages and the “Memorial of Gerrit Jacobsen Wisten and others. Read 18th August, 1616,” includes reference to the map, “as is more fully to be seen by the Figurative Map hereunto annexed” (13). (Hereafter cited N.Y. Col. Docs.) 68 Charles H. Levermore, “Pilgrim and Knickerbocker in the Connecticut Valley,” The New England Monthly, Vol. 1, New Series (Sep 1889- Feb 1890), 174, explains that the map was presented twice to the States General, in October 1614 and again in August 1616. 49

Fig. 1.9. Adriaen Block, Carte Figurative (1614). Image courtesy of the American Geographical Society. 50 in most cases not in the government’s employ, were informal agents of the metropole and embraced its nationalist inclinations. In the case of this pair of maps, side by side Block and Smith both include communication of territories from south of the Cape to northern reaches, and they both give the impression of settled and populated territories. Neither is accurate in this “human” description - looking at the maps the viewer might easily assume a “civilized” reality that is simply not there. Additionally, the viewer’s nationality would determine comfort or discomfort depending which map he/she was looking at.

Level of comfort in the proposed area of settlement would necessarily be a chief consideration in undertaking a long, dangerous travel to the New World. For their respective audiences these two maps served the same purpose, to visually communicate a settlement-friendly territory, though the friendly toponyms belie the fact that there are neither Dutch nor English populations to welcome the new immigrants. The migrants might vaguely understand that there are no such populations in place, but that knowledge will not entirely diminish the welcoming nomenclature of a “New England” or “Nieu

Nederlandt.” Further, the popular dissemination of a map communicating, for example, a

Dutch enclave (real or unreal) on the mid-Atlantic coast would moderate interest in that territory for would-be English migrants.

Twenty years beyond these maps, the Pilgrims and Puritans settled for good in lands from west of the Cape up to New France and the Dutch strengthened their position along the Hudson with a durable colonizing anchor on the Island of Manhattan. Included in Willem Blaeu’s (1571-1638) atlas Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1635) is his Nova

Beligica et Anglia Nova (Fig. 1.10). The presence of a now realized New England is not Fig. 1.10. Willem J. Blaeu, Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova, in Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1635). Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library. 52 ignored.69 A comparison between this map and Wood’s The South Part of New-England from the year before shows that the Dutch were fair in their cartographical rendering of the territory that the English had claimed. What should also be apparent is the quality of the two maps. Though it may be argued that the Wood map is simply a sketch serving a purpose to help explain the aftermath of an Indian war, and that Blaeu’s map is included in his more expensive publication, any comparisons of Dutch maps to English maps of the time will show that the Dutch far surpassed the English (or the French or Spanish) in the quality of cartographical presentations. It will become clear that this cartographical discourse between the English and the Dutch introduced the map in its key role to strengthen North American imperial claims against those of competing states.70

Boundary issues between New Netherland and the New England colonies had been cause for concern as early as 1627.71 By 1650, after the Puritan “Great Migration” of the prior decades, New England’s population was about 30,000, while the Dutch colony perhaps a tenth of that number. The inability of the Dutch to populate areas on the map labeled “New Netherland,” would in the end result in the failure of their American colonization. For example, the Dutch claims on the Connecticut River, a small trading fort erected in 1638, were being overtaken by the rising New Haven colony population.

69 Willem Janszoon Blaeu and Joan Blaeu. Theatrum orbis terrarum, sive Atlas novus (Amsterdam: 1635). Belgium was, until the nineteenth century, a major part of the United Provinces; Dutch cartographers used the name interchangeably or in the same instance with that of “Netherland.” On Blaeu’s map “Nova Belgica” is in the title and “Niev Nederlandt” is on the map just below the smaller font “Novvm Belgivm.” 70 J. B. Harley and David Woodward, “Concluding Remarks,” The History o f Cartography. Vol. 1, Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean (Chicago: 1987), 506, observed, “[M]apmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy, and codified.” 71 Ronald D. Cohen, “The Hartford Treaty of 1650: Anglo-Dutch Cooperation in the Seventeenth Century,” New-YorkHistorical Society Quarterly, Vol. 53 (1969), 313. 53

Peter Stuyvesant (ca. 1612-1672), named the Dutch Director-General of the colony of

New Netherlands in 1647, relied on the cartographical argument in the absence of substantial Dutch population. He submitted a “Description of the Boundaries of New

Netherland” to the States General, a report likely drawn up sometime in 1649 and finally communicated to The Hague in February 1651.72 Making a case for Dutch possession

“long before any of the English visited that coast,” he argued that the Dutch position “can be demonstrated by old maps whereon the islands, bays and rivers stand recorded by

Dutch names.” Stuyvesant does not name the maps, apparently appended to his report, but good candidates would be the 1635 Blaeu map and/or the older 1614 Block map.

Anxious to come to amicable terms with the New England colonies and having neither the excess population to sufficiently settle the Connecticut Valley nor the military resources to defend the Dutch position, Stuyvesant arranged to meet with representatives of the New England Confederation.73 In 1650 Stuyvesant travelled to Hartford in the

Connecticut colony to firm up the boundaries between the ever-expanding New England colonies and New Netherlands. The Treaty of Hartford (1650), which surrendered Dutch claims to the valley, was agreed upon by the colonial parties and with some difficulty it held fast until the surrender of New Netherland to the English in 1664.74

72 Benjamin Schmidt, “Mapping an Empire: Cartographic and Colonial Rivalry in Seventeenth-Century Dutch and English North America,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., Vol. 54, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), 550-551; “Description of the Boundaries of New Netherland,” N.Y. Co l. Docs., 1:542-46, notes the likelihood of Stuyvesant authorship. 73 The New England Confederation was a loose military alliance of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven colonies. It was formed in 1643 to defend the English colonies against Native Americans and Dutch incursions into claimed territory. Cohen, “Hartford Treaty” (1969), 320, notes “the New England Confederation was not a monolithic union of the four member colonies but in reality was an extremely fragile structure wherein the confederates disagreed about as frequently as they agreed.” 74 Cohen, “Hartford Treaty” (1969), 321, says that the treaty made New Netherland “essentially inviolate for another fourteen years.” 54

In January 1656 the States General received yet another report regarding the situation between New Netherland and the adjacent English colonies, “Memoir of the

English Encroachments on New Netherland.”75 The memoir is not signed, though it is likely authored by Stuyvesant. And once again, the Dutch claims to American holdings were supported by discovery, toponyms, and their cartographically argued boundaries.76

The document explains

New Netherland is situate on the North coast of America.. .being bounded on the Northeast by the countries now called New England, and on the Southwest by Virginia.. .That this country was first of all discovered and found out by Netherlanders, appears also from the fact that all the islands, bays, harbors, rivers and places, even a great way on either side of Cape Cod, called by our people New Holland, have Dutch names which were given by Dutch navigators and traders.”77

The author points out that English “insufferable usurpations.. .are in every part a violation of the law of nations, and consequently ought not and cannot be long endured, unless by wantonly abandoning and giving up this Noble Province of New Netherland.” He trusts

“that their High Mightinesses will maintain the Company in their good right, and moreover take care that a mutual Boundary between the nations in those parts shall at once be concluded and determined.” His concern is that this territorial crisis be immediately addressed, “ere the rupture become irremediable.”78

In less than ten years the Dutch territorial crisis ended with their surrender of their

75 [Peter Stuyvesant], “Memoir of the English Encroachments on New Netherland,” (1656) N.Y. Col. Docs, 1:564-567. 76 Discovery became more critical in justifying primacy between European powers than it did for these same powers in their Indian relations. For a thorough explanation of what became known as the “Doctrine of Discovery,” see Robert J. Miller and Elizabeth Furse, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny (Westport, Conn: 2006). 77 [Stuyvesant], “English Encroachments,” (1656), 1:564. 78 [Stuyvesant], “English Encroachments,” (1656), 1:566. 55

North American holdings. Before and during that time Dutch cartographers continued to publish maps celebrating their overseas empire. The North American Jansson-Visscher maps between 1650 and 1656 illustrate the commanding position that the Dutch had in the seventeenth century cartographical world and specifically in these colonial debates.

Jan Jansson (1596-1664) and Nicolaes Visscher (1587-1652) belonged to great publishing families in the golden age of Dutch cartography and their series of North

American maps borrowed heavily from those of Willem Blaeu. Nicolaes Janz Visscher

(1618-1679), son of Nicolaes Visscher, copied Jansson’s Belgii Novi, Angliae Navae

(1651) as the basis for his own Novi Belgii Navaeque Angliae nec non partis Virginiae tabula (1655) (Fig. 1.11).79 Striking in the colorized version of the map are the sharp boundaries between the different colonial interests. The light blue, at the mouth of the

Delaware, is a nod to the short-lived Swedish colony which at the very moment of the map’s publication was being seized by New Netherland and incorporated into the Dutch colony.80

The Dutch maps also offer an interesting contrast to the English map in recognizing the presence of the Native Americans. Notable on all of the Dutch maps are native toponyms and images of Indian life. Block’s 1614 map includes “Mahicans” along the Hudson, “Peqvats” to the east, and “Manhates” along the insular Manhattan. In addition to images of Indian canoes off of Manhattan Island and plentiful wildlife,

Blaeu’s 1635 map incorporates derivations of the de Bry/White engraving of Indian

79 Tony Campbell, “New Light on the Jansson-Visscher Maps of New England,” The Map Collectors, Circle, Vol. 3, No. 24 (1965), 9-10. 80 Sweden, after the Peace of Westphalia (1648), had emerged as a major European power. It immediately warred with other powers and the Dutch took advantage of Swedish distraction in Europe to take possession of their American colony which had been first settled in 1638. http:/ftnapmakef rutgers edu Fig. 1.11. Nicolas Jansz Visscher, Novi Belgii Novaeque Angliae nee non partis Virginiae tabula (1655). Image courtesy of the University of Virginia Library, Special Collections. C7>Ln 57 villages published in Harriot’s A Briefe and True and Report (1590). Lake Champlain (as named on the Frenchman’s 1612 map) is “Lacus Irocoifienfis ofle Meer der Irocoisen.”

The 1655 Visscher map is even more complete in acknowledging Indian presence. The de

Bry/White villages are repeated as are the canoes with notations explaining their construction, “Navis ex arboris trunco.” Wildlife is again ubiquitous and the cartouche illustration of “Nieuw Amsterdam” is held in place by an Indian male on the right, armed with bow and arrows, and a bare-breasted Indian female opposite on the left. By this time the Indian image had disappeared from the English colonial maps. The picture of New

Amsterdam, likely drawn sometime between 1650 and 1653, includes another manned

Indian canoe close to a commercial ship and two smaller Dutch vessels.81 There are literally hundreds of Indian place names on the map, including those in Virginia, New

England, and New France. The map, its flourishes, and the cartouche communicate a thriving European presence in America sharing the land comfortably with the native inhabitants. Certainly this friendly co-existence with the natives promoted a welcoming destination for immigrants and investments, the reality again not quite the ideal. With the small population size the Dutch had no choice but to seek accommodation with the

Indians and the maps reflect this. It is only conjecture what future Dutch policies or maps would have shown.

New Netherland was founded by a growing military and marine power. The

Netherlands fought four wars with England over commercial and maritime supremacy and during that time and was a substantial presence in the Atlantic. It had the financial ability to sustain the American colonial enterprise and if maps are essential to building

81 Campbell, “Visscher-Jansson Maps” (1965), 10. 58 and sustaining empires, certainly the Dutch were the master cartographers of the age. The

Dutch failure to survive, however, questions Edney’s cartographical ideology laid out earlier. It is not a supportable premise that imperial maps are the chief essential to empire building, as the Dutch experience well illustrates. In 1650, fourteen years before the surrender of New Amsterdam, another appraisal of Dutch colonial affairs was sent to the

States General which will demonstrate the basic necessities for North American empire building, the lack of which will doom the colony.82

Adriaen van der Donk was a young officer with substantial connections in the metropole. He immigrated to New Netherland in 1641, rose to some prominence, and apparently intended to settle permanently in America.83 His 1650 work, The

Representation of New Netherland, was the first work of its kind to give a broad account of the colony. Van der Donk’s purpose, clear from the title of the first part, “Location,

Productiveness, and Poor Condition,” was to point out to the States General what he considered the mismanagement by the West India Company and the different colonial administrations.84 Early in the work he regards the impending loss of Connecticut River

Valley to the New England colonies, in the same year of his writing, due to like reasons stated by Stuyvesant in his 1649 “Description of the Boundaries of New Netherland.”

Van der Donck says of the early Connecticut settlement, “everything was done that could be done except that the country was not all actually occupied.”85 This is a constant theme

82 New Netherland was lost to the English in 1664. The Dutch regained the colony in 1673 during the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-1674) and lost it again with the Second Treaty of Westminster (1674). 83 Thomas F. O’Donnell, ed., “Introduction,” Adriaen van der Donck, A Description o f New Netherlands (1656) (Syracuse: 1968), xii-xv. 84 [Adriaen van der Donck], The Representation o f the New Netherland (1650), Henry C. Murphy, ed. (New York: 1849), 11. 85 van der Donck, Representation (1650), 27. 59 in his sixty-thousand word polemic. He decries the West India Company expenditures for

“unnecessary thing[s],” stating that it had been better if they had “sought population” from the beginning; he says, “Had the same money been used in bringing people and importing cattle, the country would now have been of great value.”86 This would have greatly improved the settlement:

[A] good population would be the consequence of a good government. We believe it would then prosper, especially as good privileges and exemptions, which we regard as the mother of population, would encourage the inhabitants. Everyone would be allured hither by the pleasantness, situation, salubrity and fruitfulness of the country, if protection were secured with the already established boundaries.87

The protection of which van der Donck speaks was two-fold, protection against English and Swedes, and protection from and ultimate subjugation of the Indians. Van der Donck held and managed vast van Renssellaer holdings up the Hudson River Valley; he was not in favor of “lenity” with the natives, whom he termed as “mischievous” and who only dealt with the Dutch in “the guise of friendship.”88 As van der Donck saw the solution, it would only be with a large population and attendant military strength that the Dutch position in the Americas could be secure.

Van der Donck’s appraisal of the possibilities in New Netherland and Indian relations was not so much different that the English colonists in the Chesapeake or in

New England. The English colonist to the north and the south first attempted to live peaceably with the natives, certainly motivated in this regard because of their tenuous foothold. With increased population and desire for more land, relations exacerbated and the English, with sufficient men under arms, proceeded with a policy of dominating and

86 van der Donck, Representation (1650), 38-39. 87 van der Donck, Representation (1650), 70. 88 van der Donck, Representation (1650), 31. 60 subjecting the native population, and in the process abandoning any moral qualms in taking Indian lands. The Dutch had neither the men under arms nor a sufficient population in support to undertake a like policy; in fact, after the Kieft War (1643-1645) fought between the nascent colony and the native Lenape people, the Dutch population decreased. This was not simply because of loss of life, but because there ensued a significant migration out of New Netherland back to the metropole. The population of

New Amsterdam after the war was less than eight hundred souls, and this remnant forced to shelter in makeshift huts.89

Imperial cartographical instruments alone, then, do not make empires. The

English maps of the Chesapeake and New England, as fine as the Smith maps or as rudimentary as Wood’s and Foster’s, did not secure the health or life of those colonies.

They advertised, calmed anxieties, and promoted colonial habitation. But the life of the

English colonies was guaranteed only with steady migration from the metropole to these peripheries. The Dutch won the cartographical debate with their English competitors, but without the population and military force to defend an “imagined” territory, the colonial holdings for which they argued so effectively on their maps were as unachievable as arguably an early modern empire was without a map. Accurate, colorful, and finely executed two-dimensional demonstrations of Dutch ownership and control could not overcome the inability to put men in arms to defend claims made on fine paper. The

English won the continental conquest over the Dutch because of their numbers - a sufficient population, and a military to secure the political imaginings of the imperial map. However, even with the Dutch failure, it is hardly surprising that imperial

89 Burrows and Wallace, Gotham (1999), 42. 61 cartography would continue to play a critical role in securing imperial claims.

This tri-parte connection of cartography, population and military, was not lost upon the English; to a great degree they had recognized this from the earliest days of colonization. The first task they took in hand upon reaching the Chesapeake was to map.

Mapping and place-naming New England was a task taken even before landfall. The

Dutch did the same in their North American efforts, but to no avail because of the absence of populations and men at arms. In the end, the English were successful, and in the process they learned a number of cartographical lessons from the Dutch in this first imperial century; as a result, the British would master the art of imperial cartographical communication, even manipulation, in dealing with the French in the first half of the second imperial century. CHAPTER II

BRITISH AND FRENCH IMPERIAL MAPPING: 1700-1763

Were there nothing at Stake between the Crown of Great Britain & France but the Lands on the Ohio, we may reckon it as great a Prize as had ever been contended for between two Nations. For this Country is of that vast Extent Westward, as to exceed in good Land all the European Dominions of Great Britain [,] France & Spain, and which are almost destitude of Inhabitants. It is impossible to conceive that had his Majesty been made acquainted with its Value & Great Importance, +the large Strides the French have been making for several Years past in their Incroachments on his Dominions, that his Majesty would Sacrifice one of the best Gems in his Crown to their Usurpation & boundless Ambition. Robert Sayer (1750)

As with all maps, those of the North American imperial first century participated in cartographical conversations. To foster a sense of ownership in lands so far removed from these centers of power, these communications were important in order to secure success in the various colonial enterprises. At the same time, the maps promoted the public’s interest and helped lessen the anxieties of migrants who made the decision to settle the North American coast. Announcement, advertisement, and persuasion were the cartographical tasks at hand. It was later during the period that staking out claims in the face of immediate colonial incursions by other imperial powers began to expand the purpose of the maps. The Anglo-Dutch cartographical competition of the seventeenth century presaged a greater competition between the British and the French during the first two-thirds of the next century.

This chapter will review France’s earlier activities in the New World and how its maps reflected a different emphasis than those of the English representations, especially 63 regarding Indian relations and commerce. Finally, to a greater degree than the

Dutch/English rivalry in the seventeenth century, this chapter will offer a close examination of the imperial map’s service to the various voices regarding the

French/British rivalry. It is at this moment in the history of America that cartographical conversations became more complex and more multifaceted: in addition to the mapmaker and the metropole, and the geopolitical posturing between imperial ministries, the map- driven conversations will include public opinion. The public voice of the eighteenth century was most readily found in the growing number of publications of the day in both the metropole and the periphery. Public opinion influenced mapmakers to include less- than-objective scientific elements on the surface of the imperial maps and most often private and ministerial interests used these same elements to garner public support.

Historians recognized the period of American history covered in this chapter as the great moment in colonial imperial cartography.

Samuel de Champlain (1574-1635) completed the first detailed mapping of New

France. His initial trip to the New World was as a member of an expedition to the St.

Lawrence River in 1603, after which in 1607 he was employed by the French Crown to explore further into that river valley in search of the elusive Northwest Passage. In the process he established the settlement of Quebec, mapped the interior to the eastern Great

Lakes and then with new orders, he mapped the Atlantic coast down to Nantucket Sound.

The result of this work was published in his Les Voyages in 1613.1 The most important map to come out of his efforts was Carte Geographique de la Nouvelle France (Fig. 2.1).

Most of his cartographical work was near the shore and, as with John Smith’s

1 Samuel de Champlain, Le Voyages Du Sieur De Champlain (Paris: 1613). V M l l - A i N 4 M N T TOVGOIS r A l W . M N t OMI>JS'All\fc |V,\i< U 'ROY LN I .'\ MAlllW

Fig. 2.1. Samuel de Champlain, Carte Geogi'aphique de la Nouvelle France (Paris: 1612). Image courtesy of the Library and Archives Canada/A1 exander E. MacDonald Canadian Collection..

CTl -P=. 65

Chesapeake experience at the same moment, Champlain depended on Indian maps and verbal accounts to fill in what would have been blank spaces. He states almost immediately that in the 1603 visit, with the aid of an interpreter, he queried local Indians about the geography of the interior. By the time his party had reached the rapids just south of present day Montreal the Native Americans were drawing maps for him. The

Indian maps were so accurate that in his later explorations down the coast to

Massachusetts Bay he wrote, “I recognized in this bay everything the Indians at Island

Cape had drawn for me.”2

For the next two centuries, the Native Americans would assist in relinquishing their lands to the Europeans and later the Americans - who, without the help of the

Indians, would have had difficulty in mapping out the lands and subsequently taking control of the geography. The majority of the toponyms which punctuate Carte

Geographique (1612) are either descriptive or named after people or saints; twenty-one of these names are given in the rather large inset at the bottom of the map. In the rest of the map, those that refer to Native American tribes or nations, account for less than ten- per-cent of the total.3 That the majority of the names on Champlain’s map are French, which affirmed in the French imagination possession of the territory. Giving names to a space or point on a map constitutes an essential stage in the imperial process; keeping the indigenous toponyms on his map, Champlain would have explicitly recognized the

Native American right to possession, thus, as with John Smith in the same century,

2 Quoted in Conrad E. Heidenreich and Edward H. Daul, “Samuel de Champlain’s Cartography, 1603-1632,” Champlain: The Birth of French America, Raymonde Litalien, et al., eds. (Montreal: 2004), 330. 3 Christian Morissonneau, “Champlain’s Place-Names,” Champlain: The Birth o f French America, Raymonde Litalien, et al., eds. (Montreal: 2004), 218. 66

French names replaced Native American names. Indian presence, however, was impossible to ignore, but this presence was illustrated culturally rather than politically.

The natives were part of a territory soon to be “New France.” Included on the map is a distinct “figure des sauvages,” showing two couples from different tribes. The men are dressed for the hunt or war, and the women are holding articles of domesticity, including a suckling infant. The map features canoes manned by Indians and precise drawings of edible plants either cultivated or wild in the new land. The Indians on Champlain’s map were just another part of the map’s description the New World’s flora and fauna.

Like Smith’s map of New England(1612), Champlain’s second major map created from his earlier sketches but published in 1632, Carte de la Nouvelle France (Fig.

2.2) does not include any representations of Native Americans or their culture. This map still retains Indian toponyms in minority but the map includes more places named after powerful individuals rather than for saints, such as Ile d’Orleans, Cap de Richelieu,

Riviere Jeannin, Mont du Gas, Riviere du Pont, Cap de Chate, Lac de Medicis, and Lac de Soissons.4 It would be the living powerful, rather than the dead saints that would bring their influence to bear in making the French colonial experience viable. The title of this map, not immediately obvious, stretches from just above Grand Lac (Lake Superior) in the west to the St. Lawrence River in the east. The map covers the northern reaches of eastern North America to the Chesapeake. Champlain recognized English settlements and included the place names of Virginia, C. Charles, and C. Henry. However, the prominent geographical areas of the Massachusetts Bay have French names in the place of the

English names on Smith’s New England: Beauport (Gloucester), Baye des Isles (Boston),

4 Morissonneau, “Place Names” (2008), 223. IPtfid'ic'Jt • y j!! aaiWiaA'aA’

Fig. 2.2. Samuel de Champlain, Carte de laNouvelle France (Paris: 1632). Image courtesy of the Library and Archives Canada/Alexander E. MacDonald Canadian Collection.

CD 68

Port S. Louis (Plymouth Harbor), and Cap Blanc (Cape Cod).

This is the first instance in French-American cartography pointing to the coming imperial contest in the next century. Champlain had earlier realized from his first trip that mapping and naming a territory is not the same as possessing and controlling it. In 1617 he petitioned the Louis XIII to consider a major undertaking to colonize New France.

Holding out the possibility of a Northwest Passage in his petition to the Crown, he worried that unless steps were taken, either the Dutch or the English would forcibly take control of the St. Lawrence and the extended territories Champlain had claimed for the

France. Any fears that Champlain had regarding colonial intrusion from the south were at the moment minimal; the Chesapeake population numbered only a few hundred and the settlement of New England would not begin until the next decade. Champlain recognized that to secure France’s position in America it would take more that maps. However, the four hundred families to settle Quebec and three hundred soldiers to protect them, which

Champlain requested, were not forthcoming.5

By the end of the seventeenth century it was the English anxieties that were raised due the territorial claims of the French to the north and west, and those of the Spanish to the south. Along their narrow coastal strip the English felt a rapid sense of encirclement.6

Decades earlier, Nicholas Sanson (1600-1667) published a map of French holdings that would influence imperial cartography on the continent for the next one hundred years.

His 1656 Le Canada ou Nouvelle France (Fig. 2.3) was the first map to communicate

French claims hard against the English coastal colonies. The map shows New Sweden

5 W. J. Eccles, France in America, (New York: 1972) 23-24. 6 William Thomas Morgan, “English Fear of ‘Encirclement’ in the Seventeenth Century,” Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1929), 4-22. N ouvje.a u D a

V F, MA ECO C'h r i s t l a x e

E S T O T I L A N T ) t f e l l ! . !

ORADOR

O U V E L L t

C AKADA

Eu^^uuu VAT

Cni\*jji*ivfc; Banc. • OfcitaWo •

y ie Canada,™

NOUVF.L-LE. FRA N C!; & c . Cc i^ul r.«‘l lc plus asJvanrc ■vex.' 1 r Scptc ntnoil f l l Ul' Jc ill ver lr.i R rlalh’n* ill ' ic Mldy lei CosVji Tinur,)it . Pur A’ J'av.iVjv J.lAlh't'dh GiCtfxtyht wJiiuin. Ju. Fey ■ . A P a ri.< Mif-iettc H ut.)''h.ju/ j Ii/j'tran.-.- ^ j/fiVy fl'imlrj.- Ju H09 , pi'H*' - Ans ,

Fig. 2.3. Nicholas Sanson, Le Canada, ou Nouvelle France (Paris: 1656). Image courtesy of Michigan State

University. CTl

French establishment of colonial territories in North America, a practice that would continue. Sanson’s map predicts that with more geographical information the French would naturally expand their territorial claims southward along the soon to be discovered northern reaches of the Mississippi River and its great eastern tributary, the Ohio River; both rivers are absent on Sanson’s map.7

The struggle for empire, which by this time was demanding more attention from the European governments, was paralleled, supported and even portended by geographers and mapmakers of the early eighteenth century. In 1703 Gualliame d’Lisle (1675-1726) published his Carte du Mexique et de la Floride, (Fig. 2.4), which map again restricted

English possessions to the east of the Appalachians. D’Lisle noticeably incorporated the

1673 explorations of Louis Jolliet (1645-1700) and Jacques Marquette (1637-1675) into the interior, but disregarded the further 1682 explorations, and claims, of Robert La Salle

(1643-1687). On the map, Spanish Florida extends just north of the Ohio River and westward to connect with Nouveau Mexique. Fifteen years later he “corrected” this

800,000 square mile oversight. He took for the French all of the Mississippi River basin, all of Spanish Florida, and pushed the English further to the coast; for good measure he

7 In 1673, Louis Jolliet (1645-1700) and Jacques Marquette (1637-1675) discovered the confluence of the two rivers and explored the upper Mississippi. Robert La Salle (1643-1687) completed the “encirclement” of the English in 1682, canoeing down to Mississippi River to the Gulf. He claimed the entire river basin for France and named the new territory “La Louisiane,” in honor of Louis XIV. Fig. 2.4. Gualliame d’Lisle, Carte du Mexique et de laFroride (Paris: 1703). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 72 claimed for the French possession of the Engilsh Carolinas. I would seem that d’Lisle gave no thought to the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which recognized British control of

Newfoundland, Acadia and coastal lands southward. A notation on his 1718 Carte de la

Louisiane et du Cours du Mississipi (Fig. 2.5) reads: “Carolina, so named in honor of

Charles IX of the French, which when discovered was taken and established in the year

15— .”8

It is not surprising that effrontery of D’Lisle’ map would raise an outcry from the

British. Two years after the map’s publication, newly appointed Governor William

Burnet (1688-1729) of New York penned an angry letter to the Lords Commissioners.

I observe in the last mapp published at Paris with privilege du Roy par Mr. De Lisle in 1718 of Louisiana and part of Canada, that they are making new encroachments on the King[’s] territories, from what they pretended to in a former map, published by the same author of 1703 of North America, particularly all Carolina is in this new map taken into the french country, and in the words there said to belong to them, and about 50 leagues all along the edge of Pensilvania and this province taken into Canada more than ever was their former map.9

Burnet had a point; the combined population of the Carolinas at the time of the map’s publication was close to 30,000.10 The d’Lisle maps demanded an immediate British cartographical response.

Herman Moll (1607-1732), a rabid Dutch Anglophile, entered the cartographical debate in the same year as Burnet’s letter to Board. On his A New Map of the North Parts

8 The British colony of Carolina was, of course, founded by the English in 1629 and named for Charles I (r. 1625-1649). 9 “Governor Burnet to the Council of Trade and Plantations” (November 26, 1720), Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 32: March, 1720 to December 1721, Cecil Headlam, ed. (London: 1933), 203 (item 302). 10 United States Bureau of the Census, A Century o f Population Growth: From the First Census o f the United States to the Twelfth; 1700 - 1900 (Washington, DC: 1909), 7. For the purposes of this current work, this number is interpolated from the charts on the page noted. Secondary sources vary widely and this population figure is as good as any and probably better than most. Even so, the Bureau report acknowledges that its colonial figures are no more than estimates. Carte dk i a 1 o ih si an k t; r iju C n w i s d u .vns.sissrp] D lk'/ftC U WUl ' f/rVtfrtwiiKfrtftnnt ’"ym rti,) J,- JI'h-Jfiim-JW

iSjOL'VKU^I

a n o r c a s

SOI

J,,, CAK.TE XoilVHIXEf-il?. r* AHTJ C mr.Kr.

AVE r. iut RtviK S LniiH e t h e la ManrLn

Fig. 2.5. Gualliame d’Lisle, Carte le la Louisiane etdu Cours du Mississipi (1718). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. UJ 74 o f America (1720) (Fig. 2.6) Moll inserts an explanation that the map was in specific response to D ’Lisle:

NB [sic] The French Divisions are inserted on purpose, that those Noblemen, Gentlemen, Merchants &c. are interested in our Plantations in those Parts, may observe whether they agree with their Proprieties, or do not justly deserve the Name of Incroachments; and this is the more to be observed, because they do thereby Comprehend within their Limits the Charakeys and Iroquois, by much the most powerful of all the Neighboring Indian Nations, the old Friends and Allies of the English, whoever esteemed them to be the Bulwark and Security of all their Plantations in North America.

Regarding d’Lisle’s Carolina assertions, Moll says that the English claim goes back to

Cabot’s discoveries in 1498, and to Charles II “who Granted a Patent to diverse Persons to plant” these territories in the 1663 charter. Indeed, a younger generation from the sugar-rich colony of Barbados, the “Barbadian Adventurers,” did finally succeed in their plantations to the point that when the d’Lisle 1718 map was published the Carolinas were prosperous British colonies. The colonial white population would wonder with Moll at the affront any French claims on the Carolinas.

Frontier traders, missionaries, and colonists seeking more land were conducting the contest for empire - all of whom rarely had the ability or the time for accurate representations. By the early 1700s European crowns were giving mapping greater consideration and cartographers were regularly enlisted in service of government policies. The French were especially active in this regard with their increased explorations through the Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys. Moll admitted that he relied on French maps regarding the territory west of the Appalachians; British geographies freely used maps which came from other countries. One such geography, John Senex’s

New General Atlas published in 1721, included d’Lisle’s map of 1718. This inclusion prompted a sharp letter of complaint to the Board of Trade from Patrick Gordon (ca. Fig. 2.6. Herman Moll, A New Map of the North Parts of America (London: 1720). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 76

1644-1736), the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania.11 Gordon was astonished that a

British atlas, available and studied by the British population, would include a propaganda piece for French imperial claims. He repeated many of Moll’s objections adding that the

“French in their said maps.. .leave to Pensylvania a breadth of only about 60 Eng. Miles.”

But what proved exasperating in the extreme to Gordon was that the publication of Senex’s atlas was possible only due to “the Nobility and great Officers of Britain” and the significant numbers of their subscriptions (advance sales). As a result, he complains, this gave implicit agreement that the book and the maps it contained, “without any alteration or restriction,” presented “the proper description of that country.” He warned that this thoughtless ministerial acceptance of French imperial cartographical representations, communicated to the British public, would

give up to the French all their exorbitant claims to the greater part of these British Dominions, which whether it may deserve the notice of your Honourable Board is humbly submitted, but it cannot but give those who have considered the mistake and have any concern for the honour and interest of the Crown of Great Britain a very just resentment.

This letter from Lieutenant Governor Gordon only reinforced long-held concerns that the

Board of Trade and Plantations had regarding the strength of the French position and demanded a more decisive cartographical response.

In the early decades of the eighteenth century, cartography was becoming acutely important in communicating imperial goals and claims. The imperial map was the only form of communication that could effectively express precise territorial assertions. To other nations competing over the same territories, the boundaries on the map were

11 “Lt. Patrick Gordon to Council of Trade and Plantations” (March 15, 1731), Calendar o f State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 38: 1731, Cecil Headlam, ed. (London: 1938), 59 (item 18). 77 descriptive in establishing spatial order in the face of foreign intrusion.12 These maps were so powerful in their visual claims that if one colonial power’s declarations of ownership were not immediately addressed those damaging cartographical declarations could possibly be judged as de facto evidence of accord. This was Burnet’s concern regarding the d’Lisle map in 1720 and Gordon’s concern regarding the same map more than a decade later. It was becoming obvious that if the British claims to the west were to be logically demonstrated and established, an English made and published map would be necessary and even vital. French cartographical representations had evidently alarmed the

Board of Trade prompting it to repeatedly request maps from the various colonial governments. By 1730 the Privy Council was issuing instructions to the colonial governors to “Transmit unto us and to our Commissioners for Trade and Plantations by the first opportunity a map with the exact descriptions of the whole Province under your

Government.”13 This increased interest in having accurate maps of imperial continental holdings, or at least accurate designs, in the face of the French representations led directly to the 1733 publication of Henry Popple’s map of North America.

Henry Popple (d. 1743) served as an assistant clerk to the Lords of Trade and

Plantations from April to August 1727. His grandfather and father served in succession as secretary to the Board of Trade. His brother, William Popple (1638-1708), succeeded their father; it was due to the family service that Henry obtained his position. At this time the Board was considering a boundary dispute between New Hampshire and

12 Boelhower, “Inventing America” (1988), 212. 13 For example, “H.M. Instructions to Robert Johnson, Governor of S. Carolina” (June 9, 1730), Calendar o f State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 37: 1730, Cecil Headlam, ed. (London: 1937), 143 (item 281.ii). 78

Massachusetts Bay and Popple drafted a manuscript map to assist the commissioners.14

After his departure from the Board, likely due to the increased interest in a new map of the British imperial holdings in America (and profits from a new map), Popple reworked his draft and published A Map of the British Empire in America with the French and

Spanish Settlements adjacent thereto (1733) (Fig. 2.7).

The 1733 map was a profound statement of British designs for dominance of the

North American Continent.15 The ministries of state had no cartographic department to supply urgently required accurate maps and therefore the government depended entirely on private individuals and the commercial map publishing trade. Henry Popple’s map of the continental holdings was one such effort, but to give the map a sense of authority the cartouche of the map included an annotation regarding his bona fides (Fig. 2.8):

Mr. POPPLE undertook this MAP with the Approbation of the Right Honourable the LORDS COMMISSIONERS of TRADE and PLANTATIONS; and great Care has been taken by comparing all the Maps, Charts and Observations that could be found, especially the Authentick Records and Actual Surveys transmitted to their LORDSHIPS, by the Governors of the British Plantations, and Others, to correct the many Errors committed in former Maps.

This note would later prove problematic to British commissioners in boundary negotiations with the French. Nonetheless, whatever the Board’s influence or assumed imprimatur on the final publication of the map, by the end of the year the Board recommended to the Lords of the Treasury that copies of the map be immediately sent out to all the colonies.

Mr. Henry Popple having with great care and Diligence drawn a Map of the British Empire in America, which, from the assistance he has had. from the best Charts and actual Surveys, is rendered infinitely more complete than any other

14 Mark Babinski, Henry Popple's 1733 Map o f the British Empire in America (Garwood, N.J.: 1998)5. 15 The map was a massive, twenty sheet presentation - each sheet 26 x 19.2 inches. 79

Fig. 2.7. Henry Popple, A Map o f the British Empire in America with the French and Spanish Settlement adjacent thereto (London: 1733). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. Porto Bello

Fig. 2.8. Henry Popple, A Map o f the British Empire in America (London: 1733) (detail). Note that this detail is from an atlas edition of Popple’s map, Henry Popple, W.H. Toms, Richard William Seale, C. Lempriere, and Bernard Baron, A Map o f the British Empire in America with the French and Spanish Settlements Adjacent Thereto (London: 1733). The insert was included on the original issue and all subsequent editions. Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 81

now extant; We are of Opinion it might be for His Majesty's Service, that one of the said Maps should be sent to each of the Governments in America, and therefore We beg leave to propose to your Lordships, that We may be impowered to make so necessary an Expence.16

Popple responded to d’Lisle in greatly expanding the British holdings in America, including those territories into Nova Scotia and to the west; attention to which might have been specifically prompted with information from his brother regarding Patrick Gordon’s angry letter read to the Board just two years before the map’s publication. On Popple’s map, Pennsylvania and indeed all of the colonies extend their boundaries further to west than do those on Moll’s. Popple’s map included in dotted lines the passages across the

Great Lakes and others down the Mississippi. The map communicated far-reaching

British territorial counterclaims to those of the French, and embraced the reunited

Carolinas.

The map was dedicated to Queen Caroline and included a testimonial from the astronomer Edmund Halley (1756-1842). But even with this and the “approbation” of the

Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantation the map did not escape criticism. Popple had been forced to use French sources extensively for the continent’s interior and this was disturbing to imperialists who felt that the map might be interpreted in other quarters as supporting French territorial claims. Most of the maps in this period were not colorized. Popple’s map was printed without color and quite often the private colorists illustrated boundaries that did nothing to mitigate the notion that interior regions were under French domination (Fig. 2.9).17

Popple’s map also caused difficulties for the British in a boundary dispute with

16 Board of Trade, “Letter to the Lords of the Treasury, 1733 Decemb. 18.” 17 Ulla Ehrensvard, “Color in Cartography: A Historical Survey,” Art and Cartography, David Woodward, ed. (Chicago: 1987), 124. 82

Fig. 2.9. Henry Popple, A Map o f the British Empire in America with the French and Spanish Settlement adjacent thereto (London: 1733). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 83 the French regarding the sovereign authority over British Nova Scotia, or Acadia for the

French. The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle returned North America to the status quo ante bellum after the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748). The problem regarding the North American territory was what exactly was the status quo? The Anglo-

French Commission met in Paris from 1750 to 1753 to negotiate a peaceful settlement and commissioners continued to exchange memorials. A full two dozen maps were rolled out in the course of the meetings to support claims or as instruments of legal possession.18

Addressing the ability of mapmakers to reflect government whims or desires one

Englishman wrote to a London paper,

The King of France has always ten or a Dozen Geographers, devoted to his Ministers, who are continually contriving how to corrupt and cook up their maps most to the Advantage of their own Nation and Prejudice of the English. This all the Maps can testify which have appeared at Paris since the Peace of Utrecht, when Mr. De L’isle, the King’s Premier Geographer, began to curtail the British Dominions in that Continent more than ever, and reduced Nova Scotia to less than the Peninsula, which is hardly a Third Part of the whole.19

For d’Lisle and his thirty-six year old map, the writer had one final concluding thought:

“Was not he a pretty Tool, to strike the country of New Albion, the Property of

England.?” Among the maps used in the negotiations of the disputed territory was

Popple’s map with particular attention to the inscribed support of the Board of Trade and

Halley’s recommendation.

It was the French, accordingly, who effectively used the map to their benefit. So much so that the English commissioners soon distanced themselves from Popple’s work.

As to Mr. Popple’s Map, the French Commissaries have no other Authority from any Circumstances attending the Publication of that Map, for supposing that it

18 Mary Pedley, “Map Wars: The Role of Maps in the Nova Scotia/Acadia boundary Disputes of 1750,” Imago Mundi, Vol. 50 (1998), 104. Pedley lists in an appendix all the maps that each side used. 19 Read’s Weekly Journal, February 11, 1755, quoted in Pedley (1998), 99. 84

was made under the Inspection or Patronage of the Board of Trade, or for representing Mr. Popple as a Person whose Situation should give additional Credit to it; than that Mr. Popple has said in the margin of his Map, that he undertook that Work with the Approbation of the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, who might very well approve of such an Undertaking, his Map was framed according to his own particular Notions; he published it upon his own single Authority; the Board of Trade at the Time gave it no extraordinary Sanction. It is inconsistent with the very Records it pretends to have copied; it came into the World as the Performance of a single Person; it has ever been thought in Great Britain to be a very incorrect Map, and has never in any Negociation between the two Crowns been appealed to by Great Britain as being correct, or a Map of any Authority.20

This illustrates another interesting dynamic of the imperial map. The benefits to the ministries of empire of private enterprise creating the bulk of cartographic representations were two-fold: the British, as in the case of Popple’s map, could rely on the private sector to take up the substantial cost of publishing a useful map (that is, one serving the crown’s purpose) and at the same time hold in reserve the notion that the map was not official, that it did not speak for the government, and thereby remove the government’s connection from maps with which it found problems. In the end it became obvious to the boundary commissioners on both sides that the use of political maps, from any source, risked unforeseen consequences due to cartographical errors and especially because of the predisposition of the propaganda inherent in all imperial maps.21 The Popple map illustrates the importance of accurately drawing the lines on a map; and though upon first inspection, a map may look to embrace effectively a general imperial goal or plan, the particulars more often than not will cause imperial grief long after the map’s favored and even enthusiastic publication.

20 Thomas Jefferys, and John Green, Explanation for the New Map o f Nova Scotia and Cape Britain With the Adjacent Parts o f New England and Canada (London: 1755), 227. 21 Pedley (1998), 98, explains that during these negotiations the French used two other English map to support their claims, the British in turn cited four French maps. 85

The influence of the imperial map, nonetheless, cannot not to be ignored or discounted in light of the mid-century colonial events. There are scores of references to maps in the Board of Trade records of the period; maps upon which the crown’s ministers depended upon in their imperial decisions and posturing. The number of participants in these cartographical conversations was soon to expand much to the irritation of those that held to the notion that imperial policy was the purview of rank and privilege. The increased availability of North American maps of the first half of the eighteenth century proved to be an exacerbating element in provoking what has been considered the most decisive war in history, The Seven Years War (1756-1763), or in the colonies, the French and Indian War (1754-1763).22 Just as Moll’s 1720 map included inserts to give additional cartographical information that might not have been apparent to the less than discerning viewer, maps of this type became more prevalent in addressing the increasing diplomatic crisis in the colonies.

The presence of writing on a map can roughly be reduced to two types: the “silent map” which limits it writing to toponyms, or place names, and the “written map” on which empty parts on the map (or even parts that have been erased) are filled with extended text.23 The silent map expects that the viewer will recover essential information.

This information is susceptible to misinterpretation, in other words, information or conclusions removed from the mapmaker or the publisher’s agenda; the information is made clearer when the map included didactic notes or text. Robert Sayer’s (1725-1794) A

New Map of North America (Fig. 2.10) is an excellent example of a written map. The

22 Paul E. Cohen, Mapping the West: America’s Westward Movement 1524-1890 (New York: 2002), 58. 23 Jacob, Sovereign Map (2006), 191-192. Fig. 2.10. Robert Sayer, A New Map o f North America (London: 1750). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 00 CT) 87 political lines on the map, especially those copies which have added color, illustrate a commanding British position on territories from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes and the

Mississippi River. The territorial ownership, in this case just as imagined as on the

Popple map of 1733, but it is much more definite. To make the “silent” elements even more instructive, Sayer filled his map with written explanations. Notes placed in the

Atlantic rehearse Britain’s claims to Nova Scotia, territories around the Great Lakes, and the eastern portion of the Mississippi River Basin. Noted on the map are points of discovery with dates and explorer names, including one note situated in the Great Plains recognizing Sir Francis Drake in debunking the “California/Island” myth during his

1698-1701 voyage to America’s western coast. For a more systematic accounting of imperial claims, Sayer included a chart just below the cartouche identifying each

European power’s continental and island titles.

A most interesting note on the map is the one just below the line which designates

“The Arctick Circle.”24 In about a hundred words Sayer explains what is at stake between

Britain and France in their conflict over the lands on the Ohio River. He characterizes the contest as one for the greatest prize for which two powers ever vied. The tone of the note invites the reader to agree to an obvious conclusion: the French are trying to wrest away a one of the best “gems” in the royal crown, it is “impossible to conceive” that the ministers to the crown have not communicated this dangerous situation, therefore it is equally impossible to imagine that the king would give in to France’s “boundless ambition.” It is a masterful statement in its tact and discretion. In explaining what is at stake between the two powers, Sayer indicts neither the king nor his ministers for

24 The full text of this note is the quotation that introduces this chapter. 88 inaction or dereliction, but leaves the reader wondering the answer to the implicit questions: when is the government going to resolve this matter and by what means? In the face of one power’s “boundless ambition,” the opposing power’s response is also implicit. The map, with its unambiguous boundary lines and strongly worded text to reinforce the image, informs and persuades the reader. It not so much to persuade the crown or the ministry, which would be an affront to the royal prerogative though the government certainly took note, as it would concern the ministry regarding the public’s participation in the debate.

It was during 1775, the “year of the great maps,” that John Mitchell (1711-1768) published what has been considered the most important map in American history, his

Map of the British Dominions in North America (Fig. 2.11).25 Mitchell was born in

Virginia in April 1711 to a merchant/planter family who had the financial resources to send him to Edinburgh for his education. Though he did not complete his degree, upon returning to the colonies he practiced medicine until 1745 when he retired to London. An amateur botanist, he soon gained a reputation as an expert and was in demand by the amateur gardeners of the British upper classes.26 One such elite, the Earl of Halifax

(1716-1771), First Lord Commissioner of Trade and Plantations, soon made use of

Mitchell as an expert on colonial affairs. At this time Mitchell was constructing a map of the British colonies to companion a work in progress on North American natural history.

Halifax in turn was embroiled in the debates over the expansionist policies of the British and French in North America, heightened with the boundary conflict over Nova Scotia.

25 Lawrence Martin, “John Mitchell, ” Dictionary o f American Biography, Dumas Malone, ed. (New York: 1934), 13:50-51. 26 Edmund Berkeley and Dorothy Smith Berkeley, Dr. John Mitchell: the Man Who Made the Map o f North America (Chapel Hill: 1974), 157-174, 176. Fig. 2.11. John Mitchell, Map o f the British Dominions in North America (1755). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 00 90

The connection between an amateur mapmaker and a powerful British imperialist was timely. The Board of Trade retained Mitchell in 1750 to redraw his map as a more exact cartographical aid for its American concerns.27 Within the next few years events in

America made moot any boundary disagreements and the imperial maps contributed to these events.

In early 1755, the British government was in its seventh year of negotiations with the French regarding a diplomatic settlement in North America on those points not covered in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle which ended the War of the Austrian

Succession (1740-1748). The negotiations were even more difficult due to the fallout from George Washington’s excursion the year before into the Ohio territory and the resulting armed conflict at Ft. Necessity.28 Lord Halifax was alarmed at the territorial concessions the commissioners were offering and chose this moment to publish

Mitchell’s map.29 The imperial designs of Halifax and the effect of the cartographic representations in the imperial dialogue are evident in the following remarks by the Earl of Hardwicke, the British Lord Chancellor:

I find the Board of Trade are just publishing, or encouraging the publication of, this Map; &, if not stopped, it will be out forthwith, I fear very inconvenient Consequences from it, for it carries the Limits of the British Colonies as far, or farther than any other, which I have seen. If it should come out just at this juncture with [ . ] the Sanction of the Board of Trade, it may fill people’s heads with so strong an opinion of our strict Rights, as may tend to obstruct an Accommodation, if attainable, on the foot of Convenience, & make what may be

27 Berkeley and Berkeley, Mitchell (1974), 159, 176-188. 28 Theodore Calvin Pease, Anglo-French Boundary Disputes in the West, 1749-1763 (Springfield, 1ll: 1936), xx-xxi, xli-lxi. Pease gives an excellent account of the diplomatic thrusts and parries between Halifax and Hardwicke. 29 The definitive scholarship on this map is Matthew H. Edney, "John Mitchell’s Map of North America (1755): A Study of the Use and Publication of Official Maps in Eighteenth-Century Britain,” ImagoMundi, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan 2008), 63-85. 91

necessary to be done to avoid the fatal Evil of a War, the Subject of great Clamour.30

The map did come out and the war that Hardwicke feared escalated worldwide, with popular support. It was finally brought to an end with the Treaty of Paris in 1763.31

Like the Popple map, Mitchell’s included an approval, but this time the insert was signed by John Pownall (1720-1795), Secretary of the Board of Trade.

This MAP was Undertaken with the Approbation and at the request of the Lords Commissioners for the Trade and Plantations; is Chiefly composed from Draughts, Charts and Actual Surveys of different parts of His Magesties Colonies & Plantations in America; Great part of which have been lately taken by their Lordships Orders, and transmitted to this Office by the Governors of the said colonies and others.

Though the map is dated February 13, 1755, the publication was held up until late March or early April.32 The map was composed of eight sheets for a total spread of over four feet by six feet and the delay was likely due to the time needed to print and color enough copies for the expected demand.33

Striking in the map’s presentation are the colonial boundaries, outlined in color, which extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific (which is off the map). The colorized second impression of the map’s first edition, also issued in 1755, made even plainer the map’s imperial message (Fig. 2.12). The northern French holdings, colored in green, are

30 “The Earl of Hardwicke to the Duke of Newcastle, 16 Feb 1755,” in Anglo-French Boundary Disputes in the West, 1749-1763, ed. Theodore Calvin Pease (Springfield, 1ll.: 1936), 115. 31 The map was published in France under the title Amerique Septentrionale...Limites et Etablissements Francois et Angloi (1756); “John Mitchell’s Map of the British and French Dominions in North America,” compiled and edited by Walter W. Ristow from various published works of Lawrence Martin, in Walter W. Ristow, A La Carte: Selected Papers on Maps and Atlases (Washington: 1972), 110. 32 Whitehall Evening Post or London Intelligencer (London, England), April 3, 1755 - April 5, 1755, announced “This Day was published, On Eight Sheets of Imperial Paper, Price One Guinea, or a Guinea and half on superfine double Elephant Paper and neatly colour’d, A MAP of the BRITISH and FRENCH DOMINIONS in NORTH AMERICA...” 33 Matthew Edney, “A Publishing History of John Mitchell’s Map of North America, 1755-1775,” Cartographic Perspectives, Vol. 58 (2008), 8. Fig. 2.12. John Mitchell, Map of the British Dominions in North America (1755) Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. NJID 93 severely limited to territory north of the St. Lawrence River, bounded to the north by the

Hudson’s Bay Company lands, no frontage along the Great Lakes until the northwestern tip of Lake Huron, encompassing Lake Superior, and limited to the western shores of

Lake Michigan, southerly down to the 40th parallel, which inscription on the line explains

“Bounds of Virginia and New-England by Charters, May 23, 1609 and Novr. 3. 1620, extending from Sea to Sea, out of which our other Colonies were granted.” The 48th parallel has a small peculiar note which limits the northern bounds of New England by the 1620 charter “extending to the South Sea’s [sic].”

What is easily missed in the breadth of Mitchell’s imperial statement are other notations which he inserts to underscore the map’s political purpose of delimiting French claims and holdings. Most of the map’s notations, interestingly enough, identify land in relationship to Indian nations, either Indian territories sold to the British, or territories where the Indian tribes were in “alliance” or “subjection” to the British Crown. It was to

Mitchell and Halifax’s purpose to illustrate French incursions into Indian territories as an infringement on the peace. In various places, for example, the map argues for Iroquois control: “they have been in Possession of about 100 Years,” “ever since which time

[1650] they have been in Possession of this Country,” and “upwards of 100 years ago, ever since which time they have been in Possession of L. Erie.” Nowhere does the map cite peaceful French associations with the Iroquois or any other Indian tribes; the only reference to French-Indian relations is one small notation in middle of the colony of

Georgia, just east of the Mississippi along it tributary “River of the Yasous.” It reads

“The Indians on this River were in Alliance with the English, for which they have been destroyed by the French.” It is clear that the map’s consistent scheme of coloring and the 94 notations emphasizing Anglo-Indian alliances, included in all the impressions of this first edition, that Britain’s territorial claims - at least in the minds of Halifax and Mitchell - should illustrate a seeming insurmountable political statement and imperial assertion. The

British claims in North American were not only to the coastal strip or some proximate penetration beyond the Appalachians, but deep into the continent.

Into the first few decades of the eighteenth century maps commissioned by the

British government moved easily from official to private discourse simply because administrators considered their working papers to be as much as their own property as government property. As a result, some official maps ended up being copied and commercially published. The Mitchell map was the most significant map that moved directly from a government source to popular publication. There was no official policy on cartographic secrecy, if one could have been enforced anyway, yet ministers had little interest in having government-use maps published for public consumption, concerns amply illustrated in Hardwicke’s letter.

The publication of Mitchell’s map did not introduce the popular culture into cartographical conversations, but it, along with its less expensive derivatives, played a major part in giving credibility to a writer’s opinion when all he had to do is reference

“the map” as an instrument of authority. Henceforth the map was a tool used to manipulate the public and used by the public as a bona fide in forming its own opinions.

As early as 1747 an opinion piece to a London paper may include “I never look on a Map of that Part of America, but I consider...,” or “But let us consider a little further: If we examine the whole map of America a little closely.,” or “when the enquirer has found it in the Map, he wonders what can tempt us to dispute.” Any distinction between the 95 two-dimensional imperial map on a 100,000:1 scale and the imperial territory itself is irrelevant in the question, “Why, what would you conquer - the map of America?” The ever-increasing availability of the maps at the end of this period is apparent in one letter which included the question, “had they no map?” Or in another London newspaper article: “I take it for granted, that every body has or may have a map of the seat of war in this country, and therefore have not given it here.”34 The cartographical public manipulation feared by Hardwicke and recognized by Halifax would now go both ways.

The government might attempt to sway the public with imperially driven cartographical representations, but the public’s access to these images gave it the opportunity to use these same images to authoritatively voice its own opinion on public and ministerial policy.

The purchase of Mitchell’s map, especially those printings elaborately colored, was certainly out of reach to those other than the elite who could afford the expense of such a luxury item and members of whom debated these matters in the government halls.35 The cost of the colored printing on fine paper was initially advertised at “One

Guinea, or a Guinea and a half on superfine double Elephant Paper and neatly colour’d,” which might be two months income to the average worker.36 However, as with most of the maps of the early eighteenth century, Mitchell’s map was the source of derivative publications. Some of these derivatives found their way into the popular press, such as

34 Westminster Journal or New Weekly Miscellany (London, England), Saturday, April 18, 1747; London Evening Post (London, England), January 14, 1755 - January 16, 1755; Universal Chronicle or Weekly Gazette (London, England), September 23, 1758 - September 30, 1758; London Chronicle (London, England), May 31, 1777 - June 3, 1777; Public Ledger (London, England), Thursday, June 9, 1774; London Courant and Westminster Chronicle (London, England), Wednesday, June 27, 1781. 35 Edney, “Publishing,” (2008), 9. 36 Whitehall Evening Post (London), April 3, 1755-April 5, 1755. 96

John Lodge’s (fl. 1754-1796) A Map o f the British and French Settlements in North

America (Fig. 2.13) published in the July 1755 issue of the Gentleman’s Magazine. To offer some idea of the number of interested parties these less expensive reproductions would reach, the magazine offers a hint. Speaking of an earlier map in 1740, the editor notes that “soon after the war broke out with Spain, a map was published in our

Magazine, of the West-Indies, and the countries adjacent, as they were then likely to be the chief seat of naval contention.” The map, he says, “was so well received that near

20,000 were sold in less than 12 months. In our present quarrel, therefore, with France, a like map of the country in question has been thou’t the most acceptable present we could make the public.”37 There are no records to show how many people subscribed to the magazine’s “present” of the Lodge map, but given the given the interest in American affairs during the course of the war, and the map’s low cost, it is not unlikely that it reached a five or ten-fold circulation number of the earlier map.

The magazine explained the benefits of the map: “Wherever any considerable action shall happen, the account may, by the help of this map, be perfectly understood.”

Additionally, “no map exhibits so distinct a view of our just claims, and the encroachements of the French; all that of right belongs to Great Britain... [T]hose who are the least conversant in geographical descriptions may comprehend it with the utmost clearness.” Appropriately, in the same issue that the magazine explains in detail how the map will inform the public regarding British claims in America, the article just prior reviews the causes of the current conflict and another report describes General

37 “Observations on the Map of America in the present Magazine,” Gentleman’s Magazine (July 1755), 296. CT) uoisiaiq clT3[/\i put? Aqdm§03£) ‘ss3J§uo3 j o A_reaqiq aq; j o Asaynoo 3§eur[ '(SSZ. [) vouauiy quoj\[ ui suidiudjud^ LfDUd.i.i pun qsifug sift fo dvjA[ y ‘3§poq uqof 'i\ 'z 'S i j 98

Braddock’s departure and route to Fort Duquesne.38 Along with the magazine’s explanation of the map’s worth to its reading public, the articles and reports continued to enforce upon its readers that in order to understand and form opinions regarding the present imperial conflict, readily available cartographical representations were essential.

Nearly all the derivative maps took wholesale Mitchell’s work with adjustments to support or reject imperial claims. They were priced such that they were more available to the public and in the end raised the energy of the cartographical conversations, at least in the public sphere, to a greater degree than the costly original would have been able. The concerns that Lord Hardwicke had regarding the publication of the Mitchell map likely did not anticipate the number of imitations that would energize the cartographically driven conversations with the prospect of war in the balance. Three of these Mitchell derivatives illustrate the extremes in communicating the imperial positions. The French varied somewhat in their reception of the Mitchell map and this is apparent in the cartographical response of the first two.

Robert de Vaugondy (1688-1766) printed in Paris one of the first derivatives,

Partie de I'Amerique septentrionale (1755) (Fig. 2.14), better known by its shorter title,

Cours de I ’Ohio. Mitchell’s map justified the British imperial position; de Vaugondy’s revised appropriation of a portion of that map did the same for the French. The map charts the course of the Ohio River from headwaters at the very edge of the delimited

New York colony to the Mississippi River. The British colonies are reduced severely in territory from their northern reaches following the Alleganies to the Carolinas. Though

38 “Account of the British Settlements in N. America,” Gentleman’s Magazine (July 1755), 291 294; “Historical Chronicle, July 1755,” Gentleman’s Magazine (July 1755), 327. Fig. 2.14. Gilles Robert de Vaugondy, Partie de VAmerique Septentrionale (Paris: 1755). Included in Gilles Robert de Vaugondy and Didier Robert de Vaugondy, Atlas Universe1 (Paris: 1757). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 100 the names of the Virginia and Carolina colonies extend beyond their western limits, it is clear that de Vaugondy’s presentation restricts the British holdings to a small coastal strip. It is dated 1755 and later appeared in his Atlas Universel in 1757, three yeas after the beginning of hostilities in North America, but early enough to communicate to the

French people the unjustified British position.

Jean Palairet (1697-1774), who had served as French language tutor to the children of George II, published the second Mitchell derivative of note. His map was completed by the time he served as the current agent in Britain representing the commercial affairs for the States General of the United Provinces. His 1755 map, Carte des Possessions Angloises & Frangoises du Continent de l'Amerique Septentrionale (Fig.

2.15), stakes out the middle ground between Mitchell and de Vaugondy, likely because of his association with crown and British business interests. He also published a pamplet, A

Consise Description of the English and French Possessions in North-America (1755),

“for the better explaining of the map published with that Title.”39 In the pamphlet’s preface he says that the map was included in his recently published atlas and he barely gives reason for the map’s separate publication: “I had no manner of Design at first to have given it separately, but have been abliged to do so for particular Reasons.” As to what his particular reasons were is a matter of conjecture. Perhaps he was prompted to publish the map as a matter of compromise in support of the Lord Hardwicke’s political circle; or it may have simply been that the increased public attention to the British-French impasse was demanding yet another map of North America explaining their relative imperial positions.

39 Jean Palairet, A Concise Description of the English and French Possessions in North-America (London: 1755). C a r t e des possessions ANGI.OISKS i- FRANCOISES m Continent he EAMERIQTj E SE I'TEN TRION ALE

KAART v a n b e ENCEl.SCHE e s FRANSCHE Bezittincen IN IIET vast i: L a n d v a n N o URI) AMERICA, 17-.-, * A m flrnlatn Cl>r* K ri .f O tT E N <5, Gr.-.yrniilw*

Fig. 2.15. Jean Palairet, Carte des Possessions Angloises & Francoises du Continent de VAmerque Septentrionale (London and Paris: 1755). Image courtesy of the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Georgia. 102

The pamphlet sold in London for one shilling, easily affordable to anyone interested. Whatever the case, Palairet offers a remarkable contrast to Mitchell. He continued in his preface:

The Method in which I have coloured it, will easily discover the English and French Possessions, as well the Countries that are now the Subject of Litigation between those two Nations, as the Forts which the French have built, or taken in the Midst of the English Colonies, and in the Countries claimed by the English. The Red Line which is drawn through New York, New England and New Scotland, or Nova Scotia, shews what France takes to be her Property to the North of those Provinces. The three Yellow Lines drawn horizontally shew the Claims of the Colonies from East to West, viz. from the North-Sea to the South-Sea, according to the Terms of the Charters, granted by the Kings of England, to the first English Proprietors. There remains nothing more, in order that this Map may be clearly understood, but to give a Geographical and Historical Account.40

The rest of the pamphlet, which ran seventy-one pages, is a recounting of the English and

French settling of North America, which Palairet says he has done with “Impartiality.”

The pamphlet, as also his map, has none of the visual jingoism of the Mitchell map.

Disputes over territory are noted matter-of-factly and in one case he pointed, hopefully, to former disputes which had been settled by treaty.41 The disputes are many, he numberd more than a dozen, but the whole tone of the tract is that these imperial conflicts could be negotiated. That Palairet was optimistic that a peaceful course would be taken may be evidenced in that the map and the pamphlet were published simultaneously in London and Paris, communicating a middle ground to both sides of the debate.

There were segments of the British public that eschewed any middle ground in the conflict. The “Society of Anti-Gallicans” published in December 1755 one of the most remarkable derivatives of the Mitchell Map. This society was founded in 1745 as one of

40 Palairet and Mitchell, as did John Smith two hundred fifty years before, understood the efficacy of maps would suffer without attending historical explanation. 41 Palairet, Possessions (1765) 9. 103 the many dining clubs of the time connected with a special interest.42 As is evident by its

Antigallicans is so called from the Endeavours of its Members to Promote the British

Manufacturies, to extend the Commerce of England, and discourage the introducing of

French Modes, and oppose the Importation of French Comodoties.”43 Membership was limited to those “Gentlemen of the best Character, and Address, none being admitted but

Persons of Reputation and Loyalty.”44 To offer some idea of their level of patriotism, the book from which these quotes are taken, The Antigallican Privateer, is an account of a warship privately financed, fitted, and manned by members of the society to seize

“French Ships of War and Merchantmen upon the open Seas.” The ship was commissioned in 1757, two years after the Society had appropriated Mitchell’s map and published their own contribution to the imperial cartographical conversation.45

The full title of the published map is A New and Accurate Map of the English

Empire in North America: Representing their Rightful Claim as confirm’d by Charters, and the formal Surrender o f their Indian Friends; Likewise the Encroachments o f the

French, with the several Forts they have unjustly erected therein. By a Society of Anti-

Gallicans (Fig. 2.16). There are two notations, one of which repeats the claims in the title and together they explain the map’s color scheme: “The several Provinces of the English

Empire in N. America are distingushed by Red, Blue, Green and Yallow according to

42 To date there has been very little scholarship done on the Anti-Gallicans. Most historians of the period will make a brief reference to the group. Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707 1837 (New Haven: 1992), 88-90, noting the society’s motto, “For our country,” characterizes the club as “shadowy” and “paranoid.” D.G.C. Allan, “The Laudable Association of Antigallicans,” RSA Journal, Vol. 137, No. 5398 (September 1989), 623-628, offers a bit more detail. 43 Gentleman just arrived from Cadiz, The Antigallican Privateer (London: 1757), 4. 44 Privateer (1757), 4. 45 Library of Congress and Philip Lee Phillips. A List o f Maps o f America in the Library of Congress (Washington: 1901), 575. Fig. 2.16. Society of Anti-Gallicans, A New and Accurate Map o f the English Empire in North America (London: 1755). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 104 105 their respective Jurisdictions. The Spanish by Brown; but the French Possessions and

Encroachments are without any Colour.” A brief comparison of the Mitchell map and the

Society’s map shows how much more the latter reduced the French imperial territory.

The Anti-Gallicans limited French holdings to north of the St. Lawrence River, removed their holdings a significant distance from the Great Lakes and the Hudson Bay territories in the north, and a finally reconstituted a greater British Labradorto the east. This cartigraphical reduction of French imperial lands was certainly more than Halifax had hoped to presume, but the map was an entry into the popular conversation that undoubtedly served his and the Board of Trade’s purpose.

In the months following the completion of Mitchell’s map, and responding to the possible incendiary effects of its publication, the French minister to Britain met with

George III a number of times “about the Nature of the Differences between France and

England, respecting the Affairs of America.”46 During one of these meetings the minister, according to a correspondent to the London Evening Post, presented to the king a map drawn by Jean Baptiste d’Anville (1696-1782), published in November 1755. Canada,

Louisiane et Terres Angloises (Fig. 2.17) was not a Mitchell derivative. It is unique in its time for the lack of any lines illustrating political boundaries; there are name designations, such as “Canada ou Nouvelle France,” “Iroquois,” and the names of the

British colonies, but nothing to otherwise indicate imperial claims. Printings of the d’Anville map were rarely colorized and when they were, they were typically in one color and again without any hint of territorial possession.

The French minister presented d’Anville’s map to George III, perhaps in an effort

46 London Evening Post, April 17, 1755-April 19, 1755. Fig. 2.17. Jean Baptiste d’Anville, Canada, Luisiane, et Terres Angloises (Paris: 1755). Image

courtesy of the New York Public Library. 106 107 to prompt a resolution to the North American conflict and mitigate the disagreements, in a similar effort as the Palairet map of the same year. A correspondent to the London

Evening Post states,

By this Map, which is drawn up by M. d’Anville, Geographer to the Most Christian King, it appears that the Territories in Litigation conflict of vast Plains, uncultivated Lands, spacious Lakes, and Rivers not very navigable; so that from the whole it would be very difficult to reap in many Years wherewithal to defray half the Expence of one Campaign, with by Sea or Land.

Whatever were the expectations of the French minister, the writer’s conclusion was that the disputed territories were not worth fighting for, the vastness of country allowed for both empires. He determined, “Therefore Humanity alone, abstracting from any Motives of Interest, induces us to wish for a Reconciliation between two Powers so considerable.”

The Post editor offered a singular response that the correspondent simply did not

“understand the Consequences of France’s Claims in America.”

D’Anville’s map and its part in the imperial conversation did not end here. A few months later, Britain’s own royal geographer, Thomas Jefferys (ca. 1719-1771), made a presentation to the court with a map and memoir regarding Nova Scotia, parts of New

England and Canada.47 It may be that during this visit he was shown a copy of d’Anville’s map, for soon after Jefferys published his own map in 1755, North America

(Fig. 2.18). The full title gives attribution to d’Anville but Jefferys states he has

“improved” the map showing “the back settlements of Virginia,” revealing that the territory was not quite as uninhabited as d’Anville suggested. The title also indicates that the map is “illustrated with geographic and historical remarks.” In the upper left corner of the map is an insert of “French Incroachments,” about five hundred words in length but

47 London Evening Post, June 21, 1755. 108

Fig. 2.18. Thomas Jefferys, North America, From the French o f Mr D ’Anville (1755). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 109 the chief argument is that “since the Peace of Utrecht [1713] they have daily encroached” into English territory. The map’s second insert, twice in length, “English Title to their

Settlements on the Continent,” repeats many of the arguments that Mitchell included on his map, starting with Cabot in 1497 and concluding with an explanation of the British alliance and friendship with the Iroquois. It is this relationship with the Iroquois that the

British repeatedly lay claim to western territories: “They [the Iroquois] are acknowledg’d by the Utrecht Treaty to be Subjects of Great Britain; which claims to settle all the

Country West to the Mississipi.. .besides the Lands of their Friends, whom the French agreed not to molest.” Jefferys has one last thought that had not been in any of the previous maps: the Iroquois, he says, “can raise 1500 fighting Men and are Allies of the

English, who call them Brethren.” The war which these imperial maps promoted or alternatively tried to prevent ended with the Peace of Paris in February 1763. France lost all of her North American holdings to the British, excepting Louisiana west of the

Mississippi which she had secretly ceded to the Spanish Crown the year before.

There is a shift at this point, at least from the colonial perspective, in the imperial cartographical conversation. Edney stated that the “the idea of ‘empire’ is constructed through cartographic discourses that represent a territory for the benefit of one group but that exclude the inhabitants of the territories represented.”48 The “one group” in Edney’s statement is that which is located from where the empire springs - the metropole. Edney is correct in that the American indigenes, while included in the earliest colonial maps, were usually ignorant of their place in the imperial plans illustrated on the European maps. However, the population and prosperity of Anglo-American colonial experience

48 Edney, “Imperial Mapping,” (2009), 13. 110 introduces a new dynamic in Edney’s observation. In the decades leading up to war the

British American colonials considered themselves as part of imperial Britain; the maps of the times were not strictly for the metropole’s benefit, but also for themselves as the inhabitants of these imperial territories. Indeed, the colonials considered themselves as much a part of the British Empire as those residing in Britain. Colonial patriotism for the empire was at its peak at the end of the Seven Years’ War. If there was any competition in the colonies it was to be more “British” than one’s neighbors. Benign or salutary neglect, however, which was starting to wane in the first few decades of the century, was in full retreat by the end of the war it. As a result of the massive national debt to which the Pitt and the government subscribed in order to prosecute the war, and with the cost to maintain the empire’s new acquisitions, metropole relations with the colonies changed.

At this point the “one group” still resided at the source of the empire, the metropole, but the “inhabitants of the territories” applied less to the indigenes and more to the British

American colonials, many of whom, in due course, became to consider themselves simply “Americans.”

The imperial maps, which heretofore were embraced with equal ownership by the colonies and the metropole, after the war illustrated Edney’s distinction between the “one group” and “the inhabitants of the territories.” To this point the North American imperial maps communicated holdings not only for the empire as a whole but also for the benefit of the colonists. The colonial inhabitants were at least as interested with what was presented on the maps as were those residing in the trans-Atlantic centers of empire. The

American colonists paid the human cost in discovering, exploring, building up, and populating the New World; the Anglo-American colonists invested more of these 111 imperial essentials in building up the British imperial position than any other colonizing state in North America. The increase in territory claimed on British maps and the restrictions of their lands on the French maps were perhaps of greater interest to those residing in the American periphery than to the bulk of those in the metropole; this was certainly the case after the war.

With the expulsion of the French from their continental position, the focus of the maps shifted from communicating real or imagined sovereignty between rival states to one of reaffirming the crown’s commitment to and consolidation of its colonial holdings.

At this point, these new maps gave to the metropole a sense that the empire was in good shape and that the sacrifices of the metropolitan population were worth the price to achieve these costly and hard won imperial designs and goals. The subsequent British maps of the continent spoke to the crown’s control of its territorial acquisitions, with their primary audience residing in the metropole. The colonials started to interpret the maps as representations of imperial restrictions.

The first imperial map to illustrate this shift came out immediately after the Peace.

In October 1763 the crown issued a Royal Proclamation which laid out its plan for organizing the greatly expanded British Empire in North America. Maps serve to communicate order and structure that as has been shown is quite often not present. The

October issue of The Gentlemen’s Magazine included for its readers an efficient cartographical rendition of the British management of its continental territories, The

British Government in Nth. America (Fig. 2.19).49 The popular response, at least in the metropole, may have been that the government had the current and newly acquired

49The Gentlemen’s Magazine (Oct 1763), between pgs. 476-77. 112

Fig. 2.19. J. Gibson, The British Governments in Nth. America Laid Down Agreeable to the Proclamation o f Octr. 7, 1763 (London: 1763). Image courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum. 113 territories well in hand. “Agreeable to the Proclamation,” the lands west of the

Appalachians are inscribed “Land Reserved for the Indians.” The American colonists must have wondered that if the war was fought over western territory, how was it that they were now restricted from its use? Despite of the political serenity, and even confidence, illustrated on this and future maps, colonial difficulties in dealing with the imperial metropole would lead to revolution within another next decade.

As with John Smith’s maps, the Native Americans aided Champlain in firming

France’s position on the continent. The maps promoted the idea of the French presence in this new land through the use of French toponyms. Chaplain was unable to convince the crown that cartographical representations were one thing, but without the population and military support to maintain the claims the French position would be tenable and vulnerable. This was not so critical during the early French experience, but by the second half of the seventeenth century the English colonial populations were increasing and New

France, still lightly populated, was starting to take notice. The influential Sanson map illustrated Champlain’s concerns when his map portrayed the dangerously close proximity of French claims against the English. D’Lisle’s maps in the first two decades of the new century restricted British colonies and prompted British outrage. Moll, Popple, and Sayer responded to the French claims and in turn made significant contributions to shift the cartographical debate in Britain’s favor. The British-made and published

Mitchell map was the definitive argument for British claims and along with the derivative representations sparked a public interest. The inexpensive and plentiful Lodge derivative helped educate the readers of the Gentleman’s Magazine and from this point the public’s voice regarding the territorial assertions on the continent was a constant participant in the 114 imperial cartographical conversations. Both British and French mapmakers appropriated

Mitchell’s work in their derivative offerings: The Anti-Gallicans used it to energetically support Britain’s position, de Vaugondy used the map to reduce British claims, and

Palairet redrew the lines on the same map to bring about a conciliation between the two powers. However it was used, the Mitchell map energized public understanding and opinion regarding the conflict. From this point the imperial map increased in importance as an element in territorial expansion. Sometimes it was effective, other times it was not; but it was always present in the imperial conversation. CHAPTER III

THE BRITISH IMPERIAL FAILURE AND THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC

But if the Bounds prescribed by the Proclamation of 1763 is to be understood as a System of bounding not particular provinces but our American Settlements in general, it seems founded on a contracted Policy amounting to little less than an Attempt to set Limits to the Encrease of our People and the Extension of our Dominions; besides that, it is impracticable to prevent along such a Frontier, the taking Possession of unoccupied Lands and resisting a general Inclination of Settlement by means of any Force whatever.. .If anything can tend to keep up the Dependency & prevent a separation of the Colonies from the Mother country, it must be a Facility for the rising Generation to extend themselves still further into the unsettled Continent. Lord Shelburne (1767)

Massive territorial expansion introduces the events and the period covered in this chapter. The 1763 Peace of Paris resulted in the French cession to the British all of

French Canada and its holdings east of the Mississippi River. The year earlier, not publicized until after the war, the French had ceded to their Spanish ally all their other lands west of the Mississippi. As a result of a Bonaparte sight-of-hand known as the

Treaty of San Ildefonso, the French reacquired these western lands in 1800, only to sell these same lands to the young American republic exactly forty years after the 1763 peace.

This chapter will examine the British and American attempts to consolidate their substantial imperial acquisitions after the peace. The cartographical evidences from the

1763 peace to the beginnings of a new American state will illustrate British futility in utilizing cartographical imagery in its imperial consolidation. The events covered at the end of this chapter, namely American independence, will illustrate America’s immediate recognition of the map’s prominence in publicizing and securing the bounds of a new 116

North American empire.

American patriotism for the Mother country was at its highest measure in the immediate aftermath of the French and Indian War (1754-1763).1 If there was any competition in the colonies, it was to be more British than one’s neighbor; extended travel was more often to the metropole than it was to neighboring colonies. Thus, it is a historical irony that in the wake of such colonial devotion to crown and empire that those relations strained and broke within a decade of the great victory over the French. It is sufficient here to say only that the pressures on the crown were considerable. The outstanding war debt was in excess of £120M, service of the debt amounted to

£4.5M/year, and the additional expense to maintain Britain’s new colonial acquisitions was £200,000/year.2 Additionally, while the British defeated the French, the French

Indian allies were not included in the Peace and in the spring following that agreement, a loose confederation of Native tribes went to war against the British and their policies.3

Confined primarily to the Great Lakes region from Detroit to western Pennsylvania, the central reason for the conflict was the Indian concern that their lands were less secure under British “sovereignty” than the lands were under the limited and restrained French

1 The Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) in its August 25, 1763 issue included news from Boston earlier that month celebrating the peace. The article described the activities and the toasts of the day. One was to the “Prosperity to the British Empire in North America, and may it be well peopled to its utmost bounds.” 2 To give some idea of the revenues, borrowings, and expenses of the war, Fred Anderson, Crucible o f War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754 1766. (New York: 2000), 309, illustrates that the British budget for 1759 was nearly £13M; over half of this sum would be borrowed, and over half of the anticipated tax revenues for the year would be used to pay the interest on increasing public debt. Subsequent revenue plans for the colonies never anticipated more than £40,000 per year income. 3 The first Indians to rise up were Ottawas under Pontiac at Detroit. As a war leader, he had no preeminent status; nonetheless, the war which lasted from 1763-1766 is referred to as “Pontiac’s War” or “Pontiac’s Conspiracy.” 117 policies.4 This Indian war would last another three years and impress even more upon the

British the sensitivity required in dealing with various tribes under the new imperial power.

As indicated at the end of the previous chapter, the Proclamation map (Fig. 2.19) communicated to the readers of the Gentleman’s Magazine a well-managed, and even placid post-war atmosphere that simply was not there. Though there were ways (legal and illegal) to circumvent the Proclamation’s restrictions it is useful to examine the mapping conversations surrounding the decree. At the close of the war, the British determined it was critical to assure the Indians in the newly won territories that that the crown would safeguard their lands against colonial incursions. To this matter William

Johnson (1715-1754), Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Northern Department, wrote General Thomas Gage (1721-1787), newly appointed commander-in-chief for

North America, in early 1764,

This Proclamation does not relieve their present grievances which are many, being Calculated only to prevent the like hereafter, altho there are numberless Instances of Tracts which Have indeed been purchased, but in the most illegal & fraudulent manner, all which demand redress.5

There are few maps that show the proclamation line as distinctly as the one in October

1763 issue of the Gentleman’s Magazine. The magazine had published another John

Gibson map earlier in the summer. This map, known as the Map of Spanish Louisiana

4 Keith R. Widder, Beyond Pontiac's Shadow: Michilimackinac and the Anglo-Indian War of 1763 (East Lansing, Mich.: 2013), xxii; Gregory Evans Dowd, War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, & the British Empire (Baltimore: 2002), 82. It is important to understand that the British did not consider the Native Americans as “subjects of the Crown. ’ While they lived on land which Britain claimed sovereignty and the King promised them protection, the Natives were not afforded the same rights as British subjects. See Widder, 181 and especially Dowd, 174-212, regarding the status of Indians under British rule. 5 Quoted in Widder, 181; “William Johnson to Thomas Gage, January 27, 1764,” Thomas Gage Papers, American Series, 11. 118 and the American Colonies (Fig. 3.1), was included in the magazine’s June 1763 issue.

Of interest is its illustration of the territorial holdings of Virginia, Carolina and Georgia.

A line marking the Allegany and Appalachia crest is labeled “Formerly the French claim’d all ye Country Westward of this Line.” This magazine map was available to colonial agents in London and to the colonists in America; both the Gentleman’s

Magazine and the London Magazine enjoyed wide circulation among the colonial literate.6 The map included within the colonial boundaries other notations indicating, for example, “Country of the Chicasaws,” or “Caouita Nation.” In all, over dozen Indian tribes are named between the ridges of the eastern mountain ranges and the Mississippi.

The colonists were not likely alarmed by these designations; after all, despite the myth of

“virgin land,” the American colonials recognized that all of their land was once in possession of Native Americans, and over time this western land, too, would come into their possession.

In late 1763, John Entick offered A Compleat History o f the Late War. Entick had published yearly from 1758 the events of the war under the title Annual Register which chronicled the war’s annual “Rise, Progress, and Events.” For all the British cartographical propaganda leading up to the war regarding absolute claims on certain territories, it is disarming in one observation regarding the war’s end and the new boundaries: “Nothing could be more distinct than this boundary. It gave us, in addition to what was properly Canada, a very large tract of territory, which the French used to

6 W.C. Harris, E Pluribus Unum: Nineteenth-Century American Literature & the Constitutional Paradox (Iowa City: 2005), 196-197. Interestingly, the Gentleman’s Magazine introduced many classically uneducated Americans to their future national motto, “E Pluribus Unum” - these words were printed on the blue cover of each issue from its beginnings 1731 into the early nineteenth century. 119

Fig. 3.1. John Gibson, [Map o f Spanish Louisiana and the American Colonies] (London: 1763). Image courtesy of the New York Public Library. 120 include under the name Louisiana; to which our claims were never clearly ascertained, and much less established by any possession” (emphasis added.). This is not only a remarkable admission but it also points to the substance of imperial agenda and propaganda, in this case, mapping’s role in service of a nation or a people’s hunger for territory. Words like this, admitting that this land had been “properly” Canada’s, had never gained much press or popular support in the two decades before, and the claims on the British imperial maps of that time never hinted of anything less than entitlement.

Included with the various maps at the end of Entick’s A Compleat History is a map by John Kitchen, A New Map of the British Dominions in North America with the

Limits of the Governments annexed thereto by the late Treaty of Peace, and settled by

Proclamation, October 7th, 1763 (Fig. 3.2). As is familiar in earlier British maps,

Kitchen’s map illustrates Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia extending to the

Mississippi River. Pennsylvania’s northwest boundary corner is north of Lake Erie and then runs south through the middle of the lake. New York fully embraces the land surrounding Lake Ontario, all of Lake Huron except its northern coast, and then further to the west and then with a due south turn to include in its boundaries half of Lake

Michigan.8 All in all, a massive amount of territory in the New York colony. Again, as with the Gibson map, Indian lands (all west of the mountain ranges) are noted.

Together with the Gibson map, and despite Kitchen’s note that the map included the “limits” stated in the Proclamation, there would be nothing in either of these two maps to disturb the American colonists looking settle these lands. Both maps, especially

7 John Entick, A Compleat History o f the Late War (Dublin: 1763), 548. 8 The latter is only apparent because the “N” of “New York” is place directly below Lake Huron and east of Lake Michigan; there are no other possibilities for the boundary line bisecting Lake Michigan which in its course connects with the Illinois River. rU D S C IV S

M i f . PtKict

N YLiLh'rofti I. /tj/j/A J ' /*W «f

''STL a w k f. w c i P j ^

0 u

;* l£ a ic o u t e u *?

Jlivfi.i/i SfaAt/r AMu

S(Aus NnnMAT of rlT H,e it *-* M p\ ^ B ritish Dominions I jC lia c I t a w * jf WN()KTF1AMERK-a| >/B irM thrlintiboftJif U //C kivpnm iciits annexed thereto | w fy ft* hitrTrrtrtyt>fPM

JinyrMSi/frr fa Hiftoip-- i>f jf/Wor ut A f Ajmiutl Rcgiflrr, W a> I*Plat'st/a./ fa fin t/o /'M f Vtdu/n*/or 1*63 C - 3 3 o o /7 ^ 3 ./(s VQjuSl^ Fig. 3.2. John Kitchin, ^ /Vf w Map o f the British Dominions; with the Limits o f the Governments annexed thereto by the late Treaty o f Peace, and settled by Proclamation, October 7th. 1763 (London: 1763). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography 121 and Map Division. 122

Kitchen’s, reinforce the colonial expectation of expansion to the newly won lands, and the maps appear to sanction this expectation.

There were few maps published during the prior century that could be remotely termed “official.” Most maps were the result of private enterprise and only on rare occasions would the state lend its authority to cartographical representations. This might be in the form of an imprimatur, such as one given to Mitchell’s map in 1755, or the notation that the mapmaker possessed the title “cartographer to the king,” “cartographer to the navy,” etc.9 Surprisingly, there are no “official” maps illustrating the Proclamation line and indeed there are less than a handful of maps which expressly show the line. After the war, his superiors tasked Daniel Paterson (1739-1825), a young army ensign, to map the locations of the British military the continent. Cantonment o f His Majesty’s Forces in

N. America (1766) (Fig. 3.3) is the closest extant map to what might be considered an

“official” map illustrating the Proclamation line.10 It is an update of a 1765 map drawn by

Paterson for the same military purpose.11 Both maps plainly show the Proclamation line starting at the southeast corner of Lake Ontario southward to East Florida. The line itself is not designated on the map as the Proclamation Line, but its placement and coloring make it clear. The boundary lines of the half-dozen colonies that abut this line lose their

9 For example, John Senex (1690-1740), Thomas Jefferys (1710-1771), Thomas Kitchin (1718 84) to the crown of England; Don Tomas Lopez de Vargas Machuca (1730-1802) for Spain; or Nicolas Sanson (1600-1660), Jean d’Anville (1697-1782), and Rigobert Bonne (1727-1795) to the French crown. 10 Great Britain, Fifth Report o f the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London: 1876), 218, notes only “General distribution” for this map. There is no reason to conclude that the British would publish this map illustrating location of military forces for public access. Comparison to Paterson’s 1765 indicates that both versions were hand drawn and colored. The number of identical extant copies (of both versions) also indicates that they were printed reproductions. 11 The earlier map is Cantonment o f the Forces in North America 11th Octr. 1765; it does not include Paterson’s name. Both maps are identical illustrating the Proclamation line and the lands set aside for Indians. 123

Fig. 3.3. Daniel Paterson, Cantonment of His Majesty's Forces in N. America (1766). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 124 boldness immediately upon connecting; though the territories west of the line to the

Mississippi are still designated as colonial lands it is clear that lands to the east and to the west are managed, at least militarily, in a different way.

In the years following the 1763 Peace, the British army was responsible for manning the approximately two dozen former French forts along the Mississippi and

Ohio Rivers, and those near the Great Lakes. The military was also enlisted to aid the customs and tax officials trying to enforce the various revenue actions passed by

Parliament.12 Additionally, one of their primary obligations after the war was to secure the Proclamation Boundary, and as Paterson’s map illustrates, this was considered a serious matter.13 The boldest writings on the map, dwarfing even the map’s title, are the words forming a soft crescent from West Florida northward beyond the Great Lakes to the northwest of Quebec, “Lands Reserved For The Indians.” The phrase is more striking than the one included on the Gibson Gentleman’s Magazine map (1763). The increased emphasis is supported when considering the disposition of armed forces on the map.14

There are no placements removed from the main ports or waterways that have the concentration of troops on the southern border of Pennsylvania, in its close proximity to

Virginia - two colonies that were raucous in voice and action for acquisition of new land,

12 From the 1763 Sugar Act to the Townshend Acts of 1767-1768. 13 Serious enough that the Crown sent directives to both governors of Pennsylvania and Virginia on October 24, 1765: “[I]t hath been represented unto us that several persons from Pennsylvania and the back settlements of Virginia have migrated to the westward of the Alleghany Mountains... in express disobedience to our Proclamation... [E]vacuate those settlements [and]... enforce as far as you are able a more strict obedience to our commands. ” Leonard Woods Labaree, “Evacuation of Back Settlements in Virginia,” Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors, 1670-1676 (New York: 1935), 2.473-472. 14 Below the printed title-piece, which shows the date March 29, 1766, Paterson states that this particular copy of the 1766 edition was updated “in yellow” during the summer of 1767. The increase of troops to the southern border of Pennsylvania is still in proportion to what was originally show on the 1766 map. Also of interest, though in the same month that the Stamp Act was repealed, the map was published before the colonists heard about the repeal of the act. 125 land beyond which line the map unequivocally communicates is off-limits to the colonists. During the period leading up to the Revolutionary War, colonists considered the presence of British military as less one of defense but rather as the chief instrument of control of colonial activities. Paterson’s map, though restricted to the military, would have communicated this same idea to the British commanders assigned to the colonies.

Acting upon the implicit message of the map would have tended to reinforce colonial estrangement from the empire.

Since early history, natural boundaries such as rivers and mountains were commonly used to define political limits. Modern scholars of the ancient empires were the first to recognize that while the Danube, for example, made a neat demarcation between the “civilized” and the “barbarian,” frontiers were and always have been porous.

The frontier is not a line, then, but a “series of overlapping zones.”15 Despite the Crown’s efforts to the contrary the Proclamation Line of 1763 was the more porous; for the colonists it was plain that the war was fought to secure rights to the western territories and British imperial restrictions or maps could not persuade would-be settlers otherwise.16 Even before the war’s end, Colonel Henry Bouquet, the British commanding officer at Fort Pitt, strove with little success to check migration into the Three Rivers area. It was Pontiac who succeeded in driving both the military and the settlers from the area during the spring and summer of 1763. Bouquet returned in 1764 and regained for

15 Hugh Elton, Frontiers o f the Roman Empire (Bloomington: 1996), 4. 16 Not all colonists were dissatisfied with the intent to reserve the land for the Indians. Ray Allen Billington, Western Expansion: A History o f the American Frontier (New York: 1967), 132-134, notes that fur traders considered undisturbed western lands a sure reserve of goods for European markets; mercantilists considered the benefit of the colonies only as a source of raw materials and markets for finished goods - the westward expansion might necessitate colonial alternatives to expensive (due to transportation costs) British goods; and finally, there were those colonials concerned with Native American interests. 126 the British control of the territory. Almost immediately colonial newspapers, despite the

Proclamation, were advertising pocket maps published specifically for travel. One Boston paper advertised such a map illustrating “Waggon Roads up to Pittsburgh.”17

An Historical Account o f the Expedition against the Ohio Indians (1765) was published and advertised in colonial newspapers by the summer of the following year.18

Included in the volume is Thomas Hutchins’s A Map o f the Country on the Ohio &

Mufkingum Rivers (1765) (Fig. 3.4).19 For two years, except for British military and

Indian tribes, Pennsylvania west of the Proclamation Line was inhabited by a few daring settlers. However, the account of Bouquet’s expedition along with Hutchins’s map prompted a new western surge in this area of the frontier. In one of the book’s appendices, “Rout from Philadelphia to Fort-Pitt,” ten major stopping points along with distances are listed and are similarly noted on Hutchins’s map. For those colonials east of the Appalachia, Bouquet’s account calmed anxieties of would-be settlers and Hutchins provided a suitable travel guide in undertaking the trek. On the work’s title page are its bona fides and a simple reason for the effort: “Published, from authentic Documents, by a Lover of his Country.” Another newspaper advertisement for Bouquet’s account included the line “a Method of forming Frontier Settlements; some Account of the Indian

Country, with a List of Nations, Fighting Men, Town, Distances and different Routes.”20

17 Boston Evening Post (Boston, Massachusetts) June 25, 1764. 18 William Smith and Thomas Hutchins, An Historical Account o f the Expedition against the Ohio Indians, in the Year 1764. Under the Command o f Henry Bouquet, Esq: Colonel o f Foot, and Now Brigadier General in America (London: 1765). Hutchins authored the book’s maps. One of the first colonial newspapers to advertise the volume was the Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) in their July 4, 1765 issue, noting that “The whole illustrated with a Map and Copper-plates.” 19 This image is included in Thomas Jefferys, A General Topography o f North America and the West Indies (London: 1788). 20 The New-YorkMercury (New York, New York), Nov. 30, 1767. 127

Fig. 3.4. Thomas Hutchins, A Map of the Ohio & Mufkingum Rivers (London: 1765). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 128

For those interested in settling the area, Bouquet’s account and Hutchins’s map was, by all appearances, and open invitation and would prove to be of great value.

Thus, in spite of the 1763 Proclamation and the evident dangers in settling across the Appalachian range, by 1768 over two thousand colonists were living along banks of the rivers illustrated in the Hutchins map. Considering the numbers of settlers streaming into these “lands reserved for the Indians,” it is understandable that historians would be tempted to consider the Proclamation a failure. A closer look will show that the enforcement of the Proclamation was successful in rejecting organized settlements by any of the dozens of land companies organized precisely to take advantage of the French expulsion. For this period of time the Proclamation line was undisturbed and the land companies were rebuffed in their attempts to acquire and settle land in the trans-

Appalachian region; those that ignored the Appalachian line were settlers made up of daring individuals with or without their families.21 However, the land companies were vigorous in their efforts and a few argued that prior to the war they had already been granted hundreds of thousands of acres to the west. This was the case of Virginia’s Ohio

Company citing that it had received a grant in 1749 as part of a British imperial move to counter French claims in the Ohio Territory.22 Land companies were anxious to organize the territory and reap profits for their shareholders.

The ambivalent and oftentimes confused nature of British imperial policy regarding the western lands is evident in their lack of notice or response to the Kitchen,

Gibson, or Hutchins maps. At the outbreak of the French and Indian War the British

21 Eugene M. Del Papa, “The Royal Proclamation of 1763: Its Effect upon Virginia Land Companies,” The Virginia Magazine o f History and Biography. 83, no. 4 (1975), 407. For a list of the active land companies see Ben F. Dixon, The Great Land Companies o f the 18th Century: A Bibliography o f 75 Titles (Washington, D.C.: 1946). 22 Del Papa, “Proclamation” (1975), 408. 129 government voiced alarms at the imperial message of the 1755 Mitchell map and was anxious as to the public response to the cartographical representations, this in a time of important and tense diplomatic dealings with the French. These maps were published at a time after the Proclamation when dealings with the Native Americans were no less critical and energetic. Yet there is no British censure either from crown officers in the colonies or home ministries. In contrast to the cartographical debates from the decade before, there was no official voice taking exception to the messages of these maps which apparently advertised an unrestricted western settlement and which were contrary to stated government policy. It was one thing dealing with a European power and another dealing with the indigenous peoples in British territory.

By 1768 colonial-imperial relations were disquieting. In its misguided and mismanaged attempts to get the colonies to contribute financially to a just part of the increased cost of empire, Parliament had tried to enforce the 1764 Sugar and Currency

Acts, the 1765 Stamp and Quartering Acts, and the 1767 Townshend Acts. By October

1768 British warships were positioned in Boston harbor and British troops were in residence in Boston city to safeguard customs officials and keep imperial order. The policies surrounding the Proclamation were just another aspect in failed British attempts to consolidate their less than five-year-old imperial victory.

Lord Shelburne’s quotation, at the beginning of this chapter, gives hint that there were some who considered settler occupation of the new lands as a means “to keep up the

Dependency & prevent a separation of the Colonies from the Mother country.” Extending settlements “still further into the unsettled Continent,” he thought, was desirable for consolidation of empire and any attempt to “set Limits to the Encrease of our People” 130 must surely be considered “impracticable.”23 The Earl of Hillsborough (1718-1789) was appointed Secretary of State for the colonies in early 1768 replacing the more conciliatory Shelburne (1737-1805).24 Hillsborough had a familiarity with colonial affairs, serving earlier as First Lord of the Board of Trade, to which position he was appointed in September 1763, just weeks before the Proclamation. Hillsborough took an opposing view of colonial settlement in the west. He saw the western lands as a preserve for the Indians to be plied by colonial traders rather than colonial settlers.25 With the accumulating cost of colonial administration, Hillsborough considered that western expansion would only increase expenses.26 Hillsborough also understood that the

Proclamation Line, arbitrarily drawn, was to a great degree unenforceable especially along the western reaches of the North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York colonies.27 William Johnson had previously urged the Board of Trade to negotiate directly with the tribes in an attempt to diffuse frontier violence and secure additional

23 Clarence Walworth Alvord and Clarence Edwin Carter, Trade and Politics, 1767-1769 (Springfield, 111: 1921), 17, in Collection o f the Illinois State Historical Library, Theodore Calvin Pease, ed., Vol. XVI. Robert Henley, Lord Chancellor from 1761 to 1766, recognized many of the problems with the Proclamation and the difficulties with which successive ministries would have in enforcing it. He characterized it as a “very silly” document, in Memoirs o f the Marquis of Rockingham, 2 vols., George Thomas, ed. (London: 1852), 1.353. 24 Benjamin Franklin resided in London at the time as agent for a number of land companies and represented the interests of various colonies. In a July 2, 1768 letter to Joseph Galloway, he expressed his concerns regarding Hillsborough’s appointment: “If this should take place, or if in any other shape he comes again into power, I fear his sentiments of the Americans, and theirs of him, will occasion such clashings as may be attended with fatal consequences.” Benjamin Franklin and Jared Sparks, The Works o f Benjamin Franklin, Volume 7 (Chicago: 1882), 412. In fact, Hillsborough’s influence in the ministry was well in advance of his Board or Secretary appointment. He had eclipsed others, including Shelburne, before the promulgation of the 1763 Proclamation. Hillsborough served until 1772, a period of four more critical years leading up to the colonies’ War of Independence. 25 Eric Hinderaker, and Peter C. Mancall, At the Edge o f Empire: The Backcountry in British North America (Baltimore: 2003), 126. 26 Leonard J. Sadosky, Revolutionary Negotiations Indians, Empires, and Diplomats in the Founding o f America (Charlottesville: 2009), 55. 27 Hinderaker and Mancall, Edge o f Empire (2003), 145-146. 131 purchases of Indian lands under the authority of the Crown and out of the hands of 28 speculators. Johnson, likely not being entirely forthcoming with the metropole, also envisioned a clear boundary between colonial lands and those under the jurisdiction of the Northern Department, and cession of enough land to satisfy land hungry settlers and speculators. Upon further instructions from Hillsborough, Johnson concluded the Treaty of Fort Stanwix on November 5, 1768.29

The signed treaty significantly departs from the instructions Johnson had received the previous spring from the Board of Trade. Included in these instructions was a report of March 7, 1768, to which the Board appended a map (Fig. 3.5) allowing a more easterly line than that of the Proclamation.30 Disingenuous is Johnson’s response to the limits of the suggested new boundary. In a letter to General Thomas Gage, who held the most important position in the colonies as commander of all British forces in North America,

Johnson observed that the Board would find their proposed line “not so easily agreed to, there being much opposition made to it by some of the Nations, on Acct. of their Tribes living within them Limits.” Despite these initial observations, Johnson says, “I hope to obtain their general agreement to it at the final Settlement of these Matters.”31 The result was a cession of land far beyond what the Board had imagined and despite the concern

28 Hinderaker and Mancall, Edge o f Empire (2003), 127. 29 Billington, Westward Expansion (1967). 156. 30 Many of the original papers of William Johnson were destroyed in the 1911 New York State Library fire, including this map. The image of the map included in this present work is a copy of the map referenced in William Johnson, et al., The Papers o f Sir William Johnson (Albany: 1957), 12:476. The editors’ footnote reads “See Map of the Boundary Line Proposed by the Lords of Trade, in Johnson Papers, 5:286.” There is no other indication as to where the editors acquired this image. This map image is likely a copy of the original, though with an obvious modern emendation. 31 “Sir William Johnson to Thomas Gage, April 23, 1768,” Papers, 12:476. 132

•r-VL 3 4 \s 7 T ' J IV ,_5 pin v Tr ’ ~ V >• 4 3 *r yv-< c w \ fj ^ ...... f r-----V

y * • j[ I

-V 4 j.5^ y r

Fig. 3.5. “Board of Trade Map, March 7, 1768” (1768). See fn. 3.30 for an explanation of the source of this image. 133 that Johnson had communicated to Gage.32 At the treaty meeting held in western New

York, Guy Johnson (ca. 1740-1788) assisted his uncle and drew a map of the boundaries agreed to in the treaty, Map of the Frontiers of the Northern Colonies with the Boundary

Line Established between Them and the Indians at the Treaty Held by S. Will Johnson at

Ft. Stanwix in Novr., 1768 (Fig. 3.6). The final boundary disappointed Hillsborough; he had hoped to limit the western settlement, as shown on the March 7, 1768 map, and to provide a more manageable geography in which to contain expansionist appetites. This treaty went against everything that Hillsborough was expecting.

The 1768 Ft. Stanwix Treaty, however proved to be an agreement less of one defining space than one defining limits. The two might be taken to be identical but they are not. The treaty, in fact, only set the boundary between colonial lands and Indian lands for the Northern Department. The western extent of the boundary ran along the Ohio

River, far beyond the Board of Trade’s map. Guy Johnson’s map, accurately reflecting the treaty, shows the boundary line extending just short of the Mississippi River, to the

“Cherokee,” or present-day Tennessee River. The Board of Trade map terminated its proposed southern line at the mouth of the Great Kanawah River, at which point the colonial lands terminate at the northern boundary of the Southern Department.33

Significantly, the cession of Indian lands south of the Ohio River had, in fact, no defined southern limit. The lack of a southern boundary of the Fort Stanwix Treaty was in part

32 Sadosky, Revolutionary Negotiations (2009), 56, observes, “From 1768 forward, British imperial policy, such as it now was, developed at cross-purposes, with the colonial governments eager to acquire land titles and the Indians superintendents looking to maintain peace and order,” and that the superintendents, rather than supporting imperial policy, facilitated Indian land transfers to colonial governments “tipping the balance” from an empire safeguarding Indian interests to one “in favor of settler colonies.” 33 David L. Preston, The Texture o f Contact European and Indian Settler Communities on the Frontiers o f Iroquoia, 1667-1783 (Lincoln: 2009), 261. Fig. 3.6. Guy Johnson, Map o f the Frontiers o f the Northern Colonies With the Boundary Line Established between Them and the Indians at the Treaty Held by S. Will Johnson at Ft. Statrwix in Novi:, 1768 (1768). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 135 rectified with the Treaty of Hard Labor (October 17, 1768), in which the Cherokee relinquished claims west of the Allegheny Mountains and east of the Ohio River. Two years later with the Treaty of Lochaber (October 18, 1770), the Cherokee released additional claims on eastern North Carolina and Virginia lands.

While the British ministry was not pleased with Johnson’s deviations, given little choice the ministry acquiesced. Word of an agreement to open at least the southern portion of the Ohio River Valley travelled quickly. Correspondence between William

Johnson and those parties with interest in land speculation (as was Johnson himself) commenced within weeks of the boundary treaty and well before ministerial ratification.34 The Ohio Company immediately put forth its claims interrupted by the recent war; merchants who suffered in the Pontiac War lined up; the Mississippi

Company of Virginia, disappointed in its failed attempt in acquiring farther western lands applied; and a newly formed Pennsylvania interest, the Walpole Company, also put forth applications.35 Within three years of the treaty, George Croghan (1720-1782), the Deputy

Superintendent to Johnson, would observe “What number of families has settled.. .to the westward of the high ridge, I cannot pretend to say positively; but last year, I am sure, there were between four and five thousand, and all this spring and summer the roads have been lined with waggons moving to the Ohio.”36

34 For example, see “Henry Moore to Sir William Johnson, November 13, 1768,” Papers, 12:637 638; “Sir William Johnson to Goldbrow Branyar, November 24, 1768,” Papers, 12: 657-658. 35 Clarence Walworth Alvord, “The British Ministry and the Treaty of Fort Stanwix,” Proceedings o f the State Historical Society of Wisconsin at it Fifty-Sixth Annual Meeting (Madison: 1909), 182-183. The Walpole company included in its numbers Benjamin Franklin, William Franklin, his son and as governor of New Jersey a signatory on the Ft. Stanwix Treaty, and treaty’s architect, Sir William Johnson. 36 Samuel Wharton, [Statement for the Petitioners in the Case o f the Walpole Company Grant.] (1771), 19. 136

There were plenty of maps available to facilitate migration to the territories.

During the late 1760s, all major colonial newspapers took advertisements offering maps by Lewis, Green, D’Anville, Kitchen, Thomas Jefferies, Bell and others. The

Pennsylvania Chronicle advertised in November 1769 “A New and accurate MAP of the glorious British empire in that new world, from actual surveys and peregrinations - stipulated and natural boundaries, settled with the natives by his Magesty's agents and superintendents for Indian affairs, in October 1768.... "37 Interestingly, the advertisement did not include the name of the map’s author, the description alone was enough to elicit interest. The demand for maps did not abate into the 1770s. In 1771, Thomas Hutchins advertised in the Pennsylvania Gazette for subscriptions of A Map o f the Interior Part o f

North-America.38 The advertisement stressed his military service as an engineer during the French and Indian War and included words to attract settlers into the area, with

Hutchins’s map in hand. Hutchins sought subscriptions for the project into 1772, but increasing colonial tumult hindered the project, and what might have been a map of great historical interest was never completed.

It is important to note that the British failure to consolidate its imperial holdings after its victory in the French and Indian War can hardly be the result of poor cartographical communication. On their own, imperial maps will not secure a firm grasp on any land or territory. Importantly, they are most effective in their claims when one national entity or empire is pitted against another. But after the victory over the French, the British maps served to deconstruct the imagined imperial order in the colonies, especially regarding the western lands.

37 The Pennsylvania Chronicle (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Nov. 6 to Nov. 13, 1769. 38 The Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Dec. 5, 1771. 137

Additionally, maps serve empires in advertising political realities and aspirations.

That is, the “us” against “them” is a strong motivator in defending and securing cartographical claims - claims which when illustrated on a two dimensional surface seem more real and more authoritative, even when they are not. This was especially the case during the lead up to the French and Indian War. The British dilemma after the war was that the “them” was no longer an element in the cartographical debates. The British maps of the late seventeenth to mid-eighteenth centuries served their purposes. These maps swayed imperial policies, cajoled and convinced the public, and advertised to the colonial populations residing on the narrow strip of the Atlantic coast the “virgin” lands to the west, lands that the British feared would fall under complete French control, and lands that the imperial maps claimed were part of the British Empire. After the war, the British had essential reasons to restrict or control western settlement, e.g., Indian relations and expense. The disposition of these western lands, it must be recognized, was only a small part leading to the British failure.

That failure may be stated simply as a result of differences in the perceived responsibilities and obligations between the imperial metropole and the colonial periphery. Thomas Whately (c.1728-1772), at the time Secretary to the Treasury, wrote one of the first defenses of British colonial policy.39 In his pamphlet, published in 1765, he goes straight to the heart of the imperial/colonial debate, that is, the presumed rights of the colonies going back to their founding documents. Whately states from their beginnings, the colonies

.. .were indisputable under the Authority of Parliament; no other Power can abridge that Authority, or dispense with the Obedience that is due to it: those

39 Thomas Whately and George Grenville, The Regulations Lately Made Concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes Imposed Upon Them, Considered (London: 1765). 138

therefore, to whom the Charters were originally give, could have no Exemption granted to them: and what the Fathers never received, the Children cannot claim as an Inheritance; nor was it ever in Idea that they should; even the charters themselves, so far from allowing guard against the Supposition.40

Whately, and many others in the British imperial ministry, fully embraced the doctrine of eighteenth century mercantilism, a belief that the colonial holdings existed primarily, even solely, for the benefit of the metropole.41 The wealth and the strength of the empire, he says, depends “upon a wise and proper use of the Colonies.”42 He bemoans past imperial policies which effectively were “ignorant of the Importance of the Colonies” but

“happily for this Country” this attitude has shifted and imperial interest in the American colonial affairs “are now preferred to every other Consideration.”43

The colonies had thrived economically under the “benign” or “salutary” neglect of the British Empire. They had also experienced self-government from their earliest colonial assemblies, such as in Virginia’s House of Burgesses (1619) and the

Massachusetts General Court (1630). The change in British policy, which from the beginning of the century was tentative, took on a new energy as a result of the imperial financial requirements in the wake of the Seven Years’ War. From the Stamp Act of 1763 to the Intolerable Acts of 1774, British policy reflected the belief in an empire with its colonial parts in its service to the whole. By 1776, Thomas Paine convinced the hearts and minds of enough colonials to forsake negotiation and compromise and desire only independence. Of the many arguments which might have resonated with his readers, one

40 Whately and Grenville, Regulations (1765), 111. 41 Steve Pincus, “Rethinking Mercantilism: Political Economy, the British Empire, and the Atlantic World in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (January 2012), 3-34, argues that there was no British mercantilist consensus as to political economy. As a result, this led to a British policy that was even more contested and confused. 42 Whately and Grenville, Regulations (1765), 3. 43 Whately and Grenville, Regulations (1765), 3. 139 certainly hit the mark with those familiar with the maps of the day. He might easily have admonished readers to “look at the map,” as newspaper correspondents were quoted in print decades before, when he stated “there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.”44 As is typical when a unified force has defeated an opposition, that same united body over time will disintegrate and reduce once again to an “us” and “them” dynamic. This was case following the imperial and colonial joint victory over the French; within an exceptionally short period of time, each side, the Anglo-American colonial and the British imperial, viewed the other true to this contrary form.

In the same year as the Intolerable Acts, Parliament passed the Quebec Act of

1774. This act included the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church in British Quebec, eligibility of Catholics into that province’s public offices, and the significant extension of

Quebec’s former boundaries. By this act, Quebec reached south to the Ohio River, and followed that river to the Mississippi. During this period of upheaval, there were few published maps illustrating British holdings on the continent. William Faden (1749

1836), royal geographer to King George III, published one of significant historical importance in 1777. The British Colonies in North America (Fig. 3.7) was the first map to include the greater Quebec. Faithful to the act’s description, Quebec takes in a great swath of northern territory, intersecting with the northwest boundary of Pennsylvania,

“until said Boundary strike the Ohio.” The new boundary then travels along the Ohio,

44 Thomas Paine and Isaac Kramnick, Common Sense (Harmondsworth Middlesex, England: 1986), 91. Fig. 3.7. William Faden, The British Colonies in North America (London: 1777). Image courtesy of Maps of Pennsylvania (mapsofpa.com). 141 westward to the Mississippi River, and then north to Hudson’s Bay. It is a massive projection, equal or greater to the existing thirteen colonies.

The “us” and “them” attitude is no better illustrated than in a private sketching of a map regarding the Quebec Act. Blatant specters of danger or images of foreboding are not typically found on the surfaces of maps; these are usually left for the observer to conclude with or without the help of editorial comment or explanation. The imperial map will, however, construct spatial identities in opposition to outside groups which will sometimes emphasize social and cultural differences. A most outstanding example of this was a 1774 map by Ezra Stiles (1727-1795), who at the time was president of Yale

College. His map, The Bloody Church (Fig. 3.8) was a direct response to the Quebec Act of 1774.45 As a Congregationalist minister and theologian, he was concerned that a nominally protestant crown and empire would tender such political power to the province’s Catholic population. In addition to the elimination of many of the colonial western land claims, there was now the threat of a British supported Catholic northern and western dominion. While most of the colonial reaction to this act and the Intolerable

Acts was restricted to verbal and written protest, boycotts and violence, Stiles’ reaction is singular in that he chose a map to express his concerns. The map was not published and it is questionable whether it was shown to any of his intimates. It is, however, part of a cartographical conversation, one which Stiles was having with himself.

Quebec takes up most of the map, stretching from a northern expanse where few

Europeans had trekked, to the more populated areas near the Great Lakes and the St.

Lawrence River, and finally into the Ohio River Valley, the birthplace of previous war,

45 Edney, “Irony of Imperial Mapping” (2009), 34-37, did the first scholarship on Stiles’s map. 142

Fig. 3.8. Ezra Stiles, The Bloody Church (1774). Courtesy of the Ezra Stiles Papers, General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. 143 and the seat of so many colonial aspirations. Its blood red deepens as it nears New

England, colored in the much less aggressive, and even pacific, deep green. Stiles’s map creates the image of a malignant weight on a victimized, oppressed, Protestant New

England. The map is a construction in three parts: an ideological rejection of the British

Crown, a body of Protestant Christians in opposition to Roman Catholicism, and finally a shared New England connection with the southern colonies, set apart in a lighter hue of the same green. The map’s faint text reads: #

The Bloody Church

QUEBEC

Idolatry and the CHVRCH of ROME by act of of [sic] a Protestant Parliament & the Voice of the English Protestant BISHOPS 1774 to restrain & supress the Spreading of the damned [struck out with three lines] Presbytians [sic], as they are politely called.

The most numerous Body of PROTESTANTS, despised by the Parent State, but supported by the true & only Head of the Church, and by him intended to be carried into a triumphant SVPREMACY in America and across the southern colonies, “The CHVRCH of ENGLAND established by the King & the provincial Assemblies. For this the Bishops sold the im[m]ense Northern Territory to the Church of Rome.

Stiles’s map is a powerful image and illustrates but one element of the emotional and ideological underpinnings that led to America’s War of Independence.

During the Revolutionary War, Faden published dozens of maps particular to troop movements and topography, thus giving British readers an accurate picture of the military activities on the continent.46 French cartographers also offered cartographical inspection of the war’s military activities. Le Cavalier Jean de Beaurain served as royal geographer to both Louis XV and XVI. In 1776 he published in Paris, Carte du Porte et

46 Mary Pedley, “Maps, War, and Commerce: Business Correspondence with the London Map Firm of Thomas Jefferys and William Faden,” Imago Mundi 48 (1996), 162. 144

Havre de Boston avec les Cotes adjacentes (Fig. 3.9). The map notes at the bottom of the sheet that it was copied from one sent to the British ministry and published by the British 47 government. What sets de Beaurain’s map apart from those that appeared in the British presses, and makes it peculiar to French consumption, is the addition of the complex cartouche (Fig. 3.10).

To the right of the titled banner are two opposing figures, the one a British regular and the other a colonial patriot. The British soldier has put aside the British imperial standard in order to take hold of the patriot’s colonial standard which depicts a liberty tree, emblematic of the “Pine Tree Flag,” a New England symbol of protest and revolution. The standard is topped with apileus, a brimless felt cap worn by newly manumitted slaves in Greek antiquity; or alternatively, a Phrygian cap, which was associated during the Roman Empire with freedom or liberty. The patriot is struggling to free the standard from the soldier’s grasp, who in turn is defending his grip with a threatening dagger. A fasces, the symbol of government authority lies on the ground, presumably wrested from the patriot to illustrate that the Massachusetts General Court is no longer acknowledged by the Crown, and in the stead of a colonial governor civil authority has been placed under the military - or perhaps the prone fasces simply illustrates the lack government authority and the advent of anarchy. The banner is unfurled and rests upon and nearly covers up an oar and anchor, illustrating another of the

Intolerable Acts, that of closing Boston’s port.

The American Native, to the left of the banner looks on in amazement with his

47 Walter W. Ristow, Cartography o f the Battle o f Bunker Hill (Washington, D.C.: 1979), gives a short (fourteen pages) cartographical explanation of the Battle of Bunker Hill using historical topographical and military maps. He mentions de Beaurain’s offering. Fig. 3.9. Le Cavalier Jean de Beaurain, Carte da Porte etHavre de Boston avec les Cotes adjacentes (Paris: 1776). Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library. 146

Fig. 3.10. Le Cavalier Jean de Beaurain, Carte du Porte et Havre de Boston avec les Cotes adjacentes (Paris: 1776) (detail). Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library. 147 left arm raised and his hand open. He wonders at the conflict between this colonial citizen of the crown and the more militant soldier. The Indian’s bow draws attention to a line inscribed on his shield, which out of environmental context is hanging from a tropical tree (a common image to represent America): “quo scelesti ruitis.” This is the opening line (which in the original repeats “quo”) from one of Horace’s Epodes.48 “Where, where do you rush, wicked ones?” In the epode, Horace is fearful of the civil war between

Octavian Caesar and Marc Antony that ensued after the disintegration of the second triumvirate.49 As geographer to the French crown, de Beaurain dedicated the map to the newly enthroned Louis XVI, this cartouche is likely mixed in its message. The crown welcomed any discomfort the British were having in managing their newly won continental lands, but at the same time eschewed the idea of royal subjects rebelling against divinely appointed monarchs. The look on the American Native’s face is one of shock and his entire body language communicates horror regarding impending acceleration of violence.

By the following year, the French were secretly supplying the American rebels with money and materiel to fight the British. In 1777, de Beaurain published one of the earliest maps of the American colonies during the war. He used Mitchell’s 1755 map as his basis for Carte De L'Amerique Septle. (Fig. 3.11) and the map effectively illustrates the French political shift. Though he updated political boundaries, Quebec is shown in its

48 Horace, Epod. 7.1. 49 Mary Sponberg Pedley, The Commerce of Cartography: Making and Marketing Maps in Eighteenth-Century France and England (Chicago: 2005), 228, is incorrect when she says the Epode 7 was in response to the civil war following Caesar’s assassination. Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC and the civil war between the Second Triumvirate and the Liberators ended in 42 BC. Horace began the Epodes some dozen years later in 30 BC at the conclusion of the war between Octavian and Antony. Fig. 3.11. Le Cavalier Jean de Beaurain, Carte De L ’Amerique Septle. (Paris: 1777). Image courtesy of Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps (www.RareMaps.com). 149 former state. The French were close to an alliance with the newly declared independent

United States and the cartographical propaganda communicated to the British, the

American colonies, and the French nation the crown’s leanings. Fittingly, the cartouche included a winged herald blowing her trumpet announcing the new republic, and a

Roman legionary supported a shield and brandished a torch alighted with, perhaps a stretch, a “flame of liberty.” At the soldier’s feet are reclined royal standards over military and maritime materiel. This element serves to anticipate the French navy assisting the American cause and openly supplying resources the French crown which heretofore had given secretly. The legionary gazes with interest at the herald as both are holding a map insert, which illustrates the Hudson River basin - the water passage where the Continental Army rose up to meet the British army coming down from Canada as the imperial armies attempted to drive a wedge between New England and the rest of the rebellious colonies. By the end of the year, with the American victory over the British at

Saratoga, French confidence in the American insurgency increased and a treaty of alliance was signed on February 6, 1778.

Two other maps and one panoramic image are of interest regarding the near-end of this revolutionary period. Both maps were published shortly after the Battle of

Yorktown. Major Sebastian Bauman (1739-1803) served with some distinction in the

Second Regiment Artillery of the Continental Army. In addition to his artillery duties he was evidently valued as a mapmaker for Washington’s general staff.50 Bauman’s

Investment of York and Gloucester (1782) (Fig. 3.12) is a highly detailed map with

50 Sebastian Beauman [sic] and Mary C. Doll Fairchild, Memoirs o f Colonel Sebastian Beauman and His Descendants: With Selections from His Correspondence (Salt Lake City: 1990), 5. When Major-General John Andre was captured at the time of Benedict Arnold’s attempt to surrender West Point to the British, the maps he carried in his boots were prepared by Bauman for Washington. 150

Fig. 3.12. Sebastian Bauman, To His Excellency Genl. Washington, Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States o f America, this plan o f the investment of York and Gloucester has been surveyed and laid down (Philadelphia: 1782). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 151 extensive commentary regarding the British lines and complete explanation of the disposition of troops bordered in an elaborate frame.51 There is a notation in the lower right corner of the map indicating it was published in Philadelphia, 1782. Copies were likely plentiful since it was the principle cartographic expression of the assembly of

American and French forces at the siege of Yorktown on which other maps of the kind were based.52 Describing the French, the British, and the American deployments, there are two unusual elements on the map. Just to the right of “York River” are two parallel arrows pointing in opposite directions. For a map where the cartographer did not include any extraneous material, it is difficult to understand the purpose for including this Native

American element. Additionally, Washington’s quarters are depicted with an Indian teepee. Washington always used a military field tent when he was not domiciled in a residence or inn. It might be the case that Bauman wanted to subtly underscore the colonial experience on a land once inhabited by natives, settled by colonials that was now occupied by a new American, independent state. Finally, as Bauman indicated on the map, Washington and other officers had requested the work: certainly for the intent to secure the moment for posterity. One purpose of the imperial map is to memorialize an event, usually a battle, as in this case. Of note are the banners and war materiel that frame the map’s explanation at the bottom - this is the first time the American flag was included in a published map.

51 The full title of the chart is To His Excellency Genl. Washington, Commander in Chief of the armies o f the United States o f America, this plan o f the investment o f York and Gloucester has been surveyed and laid down. 52 David Sanders Clark, Index to Maps o f the American Revolution in Books and Periodicals: Illustrating the Revolutionary War and Other Events o f the Period 1763-1789 (Westport, Conn: 1974), 111. 152

The second map celebrates the same event from the French perspective. Published immediately after the battle by the Paris firm of Esnauts et Rapilly, Carte de la partie de la Virginie ou l'armee combinee de France & des Etats-Unis de l'Amerique (Fig. 3.13) effectively illustrates for the French public the key role of the French naval fleet in the

Britain’s defeat. The enthusiasm for the British defeat, and the French part in it, reached exaggerated levels with Louis-Joseph Mondhare’s Reddition de l'Armee angloises commandee par Mylord Comte de Cornwallis aux armees combinees des Etats Unis de l'Amerique et de France (ca. 1781) (Fig. 3.14). The French fleet is prominently shown on the shore facing in the background a fanciful, almost medieval citadel of what is

Yorktown. The American forces are just within sight to the far left, and it is the French

Army that confronts the straight line of British forces streaming out of Yorktown. On the shore in the foreground the scene is closer to one that might be depicted on the grounds of an urban European park: riders are atop prancing horses, men with extended walking sticks, and some ladies with fans in hand, others with arms entwined with their gentlemen escorts. None of this bears resemblance to the actual events, the “map/panorama” serves as glorious reminder of and for French appetites for gentility and the glory of battle, and how the event should be remembered. Just as the imperial map will illustrate cartographical desires at the expense of political reality, commemorative maps of battles will quite often impress upon the participants and viewers how the event should be memorialized.

Though it would take some time to convince George III, when Prime Minister I 'o rn e rf'

'hi/ujotray /.

* R a r r iv e /

WlLLAMSBURG S<

J n u d u H

lin r m e // SJ?' H al/w ay Hou.r?l.

E l i z a b e t h ( \ : ihrcow CARTE

w : A . '/ P A R T I E d e LA VIRG IN IE 'it.rcfiu’tU

L'ARMKK COM BIN KK DE FR A N C E & DES ETATS-UNIS DE L'AMERIQUE a (ait prifonniere 1'Armeb Anglaife ommamlee par LORO CORNWAI.I.IS le 19 Oclb" 1781 A y EC I.E PLAN DE /. 'A T T A Q U E d'York-town ft; do GloceAor eore et dnmiur .ntr UwLieu>r /mrOrilrc de*r()//iaciv Gen. }A Norfolk dc l’Armee Kriui?ai(c & Americana-. l‘.ir 1.1.i JtvKsn.tul>'et/iupi/fo,r u e a / a f i l l * de. Oiubuiee.r ■ j

Fig. 3.13. Esnauts et Rapilly, Carte de lapartie de la Virginie on l’armee combinee de France & des Etats-Unis de l'Amerique (Paris: 1781?). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, 153 Geography and Map Division. Jtedd/tion de Lsfrmee Am j/otseJ CommanJe'e par M ylord Comte deeauce i10005oo ftlateiotsttlatelots 1601C0 (Canons de tout I afibre dorrt 7ode Fonte■ fl Mortters * 40 a east 'rif un ayaeau de 5o Lanorur q u i a. ete-B ru/e n o Contes H a s , C&/our a/amais mernorab/espour /es £tats unis en ce t/uila/Zura de/'initivement\ fa irs independarices C Arm ees jfaujtoure sortant J<- fa pface E yfrrrw<- J'r,ineot,'c Cr ytrmee. nava/ . Lr.r s4rm<\r Sen ennemu paste at Fau'ee, ttc r jlrmee Ameritf tonne H A /V **-

Congress, Geography and Map Division. 154 155

North received the news he cried “O God, it is all over.”53 While the peace would not be agreed to for another two years, by February 1782, the following year, Parliament determined that the offensive war in the colonies was at an end. The British had simply run out of money and will; continued application of the war would also put the empire at risk at the hands of other European powers.

In January 1783, Britain and America agreed on “Preliminary Articles of Peace.”

This is the “peace” which is named on a British map, published a few months later in

April. John Wallis’s (d. 1818) map, The United States of America followed a handful of maps published in Great Britain or France announcing the cartographical endorsement, at least, of the new nation.54 The cartouche on Wallis’s map is exceptional (Fig. 3.15). It is topped with an American flag in sharp red and blue; to the left of the flag is the Greek deity Pheme, or Fame - identified by the wreath in the left hand and the trumpet announcing the birth of the new nation. The title, along with publishing information, is framed by a simple oval which rests on the ground strewn with topical foliage, a symbol of the American continents. To the right of the title frame stands Columbia, leaning forward and pointing to the writings in a book held by the seated archetypal American,

Benjamin Franklin. Standing behind them in the background is Justice, blindfolded to confirm objectivity, holding scales demonstrating fairness and equality in the verdict, and a sword to safeguard legal enforcement. Franklin is looking up from his writings and gazing at the couple on the other side of the frame. Pointing to the map’s title is the

53 Nathaniel William Wraxall and Henry B. Wheatley, The Historical and the Posthumous Memoirs of Sir Nathaniel William Wraxall, 1772-1784; Ed., with Notes and Additional Chapters from the Author's Unpublished Ms (London: 1884), 138-142. 54 Walter W. Ristow, American Maps andMapmakers: Commercial Cartography in the Nineteenth Century (Detroit: 1985), 62-63. 156

Fig. 3.15. John Wallis, The United States o f America (London: 1783) (detail). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 157#

Roman goddess Libertas, or Liberty, and as is becoming ubiquitous, her staff is topped with a cap of liberty. The military officer to her right, dressed in Continental army attire, appears to be leading Liberty. With his guiding left hand and his extended right pointing to the new nation; with liberty in tow he is ready to start a new beginning. In his right hand he holds a scroll; perhaps it is the agreed to “peace” won in the war. This map, and especially the cartouche, is remarkable communication of friendship from a defeated imperial power to its late colonies and a cartographical recognition of their new newly affirmed independence.

The final imperial map of this period introduced a new genre, which would be the standard North American cartographical image. Abel Buell’s (1742-1822) contribution to the North American imperial map is an interesting one. 55 He authored, printed and published only one map, the New and Correct Map of the United States (1784) (Fig.

3.16). Published within a few months after the September 3, 1783 signing of the Treaty of

Paris, it was the first map published in America by an American and the first map copyrighted in the United States of America.

Buell depended heavily on two maps printed in 1755, the Mitchell map of North

America and Lewis Evans’s map of the Middle British Colonies. This was a time when the boundaries of each state were less than established and same lands were claimed by two or three of these new states at a time. Given the freedom which comes from less than

55 See Lawrence C. Wroth, Abel Buell o f Connecticut, Silversmith, Type Founder & Engraver (Middletown: 1958) and Paul E. Cohen, “Abel Buell, of Connecticut, Prints America’s First Map of the United States, 1784,” The New England Quarterly, vol. 86, no. 3 (September 2013), 357 397. Cohen’s article was written in anticipation of the 2013 auction of one of the rare copies of Buell’s map, purchased by philanthropist David M. Rubenstein. Rubenstein subsequently placed it on loan with the Library of Congress. 158

Fig. 3.16. Abel Buell, A New and Correct Map o f the United States o f North America Layd Down from the Latest Observations and Best Authorities Agreeable to the Peace o f 1783 (Hartford: 1784). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 159 definitive knowledge, Buell might be forgiven for some of the excesses or deficiencies in his finished work. Buell applied for the copyright with the new state of Connecticut on

October 28, 1783, less than a month after the signed treaty.56 From Connecticut it is likely that as he interpreted that colony’s charter and others, and it was Connecticut that was given the benefit of territorial confusion and doubt. Connecticut stretches a thousand miles from the eastern coast to the Mississippi River. The territory taken up by the state absorbs a sizable piece of Pennsylvania. Historians have noted that the state of New York is not even labeled.57 This is an odd feature, but it does not detract (except for New

Yorkers) from the imperial message of the map.

Cartographers would also notice immediately the location of the map’s “prime meridian.” A mapmaker’s placement of the prime meridian almost always indicates where he considers the center of authority or importance in national or even world affairs; more often than not it is based on patriotism. The notion of longitude goes back to ancient times and the prime meridian, from the point where all distances to the east and west are determined, is completely arbitrary (as the equator is not). Early English maps often used London as the point through which the prime meridian ran; for the French it was Paris; for the Dutch it was Amsterdam; for China it was Beijing; and so on. A close inspection of the maps illustrated in this work will often give evidence to the cartographer’s national loyalty, or alternatively the place of publication. On Buell’s map

56 Cohen, “Buell” (2013), 362, explains that Connecticut was the only state at the time to have in force any type of copyright legislation. A national copyright legislation was not enacted until January 1790. 57 Cohen, “Buell” (2013), 364, wonders if this was intentional (New York being in competition with Connecticut for western lands) or simply an oversight. In the two later printings of the map, “New York” is carefully engraved. Cohen also notes, “While Buell did his best to reconcile the conflicting claims, he considered his map a work-in-progress and intended to update it periodically...[however] Buell made no changes after 1785” (365). 160 the prime meridian runs through Philadelphia, it is the first map to mark the prime 58 meridian from a point in North America. The map is quite large (approx. 45x50 inches) and makes an impressive cartographical statement for the new nation. The territory of the

United State is outlined (as are the states) in green and stretches from the awkward looking Maine to Spanish held Florida, then to the Mississippi which flows off the map to somewhere in the northwest. “United States” is lightly labeled in proximity to the wide state of Connecticut.

As has been shown, the imperial map is more than a two dimensional communication of space, real or imagined. The imperial map is not a literal measure of land as much as it is a measure of politics.59 The power of maps to communicate is quite often on a level that is less than conscious. In the case of Buell’s map, the cartographical object is the land and its inhabitants. The land has not changed, and the lives of the majority of the people living in the colonies have not changed, but the cultural shift on

Buell’s map is a change of great scale, and it is a cultural shift that becomes “real” as the new cartographical interpretations are realized and supported by succeeding political and cultural changes - which over the sixty to seventy years will be significant. Evident also, using Buell’s as an example, is the supporting role that a cartouche (Fig. 3.17) plays in communicating politics and visually registering the imperial map’s cultural meaning.

Buell gives great attention and care in designing his map’s cartouche.

Other than the brown and green colors for the rest of the map, the very talented

58 John Wallis’s map, The United States o f America (1784), is very similar to Buell’s map and since it is published in Britain, thus it is measured with a London prime meridian. Sebastian Bauman notes only the latitude on his Investment o f York and Gloucester (Fig. 3.12), which alone will not locate a cartographical position. It may have been that while he understood the connotation of the meridian’s placement, he was not able to decide and simply did not include it. 59 G. N. G. Clarke, “Taking Possession” (1988), 444-45. 161

Fig. 3.17. Abel Buell, A New and Correct Map o f the United States o f North America Layd Down from the Latest Observations and Best Authorities Agreeable to the Peace o f 1783 (1784: Hartford) (detail). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 162

Buell used red and blue for the American flag. The eye travels to the flag very quickly when viewing the entire map. It is not a large flag, but definitive, and except for

Bauman’s use of the flag on his Investment o f York and Gloucester, Buell’s map is the first American map to include the national flag. To the left of the flag, again, is Fame, trumpeting the grandeur of the successful revolution; framing the flag to the right is a radiant, even a new sun. The cherub directly below the flag holds the emblem of the

Connecticut coat of arms, another nod to Buell’s home state. To the right of the map’s title is Liberty. Her staff is topped with a cap of liberty in sharp relief with the green foliage of a weathered, but surviving tree, emblematic of the nation surviving the hard struggle. In her left hand, she holds a globe showing on its face the new nation forged out of eight years of war. At her feet is inscribed a scroll announcing the 1776 date of the

Declaration of Independence. To the left of and below the map’s title is a leaf flourish that appears less than verdant as it does finely wrought decorative metal. This solid

“feel,” which communicates to the viewer the strength of the new nation, is supported by the construction of decorative links at the bottom of the cartouche. Buell could have used a simple design to frame the map’s title, but what he has done instead is give the cartouche a solid base and an upper register of pronouncement and celebration.

Regarding the Buell’s work, one historian remarked that the United States was now a

“nation with a map.”60

The British maps of the period communicated an imperial order that was imagined rather than real. Confidence, or lack thereof, of the various cartographical images in the Proclamation gave way to the pragmatic diplomacy of Indian

60 Peter Barber and Tom Harper, Magnificent Maps: Power, Propaganda and Art (London: 2010), 64. 163

Superintendent William Johnson. Britain faced tremendous difficulties in its efforts to consolidate the newly gained territories after the French and Indian War. Just one of these difficulties was the imperial struggle to control western settlement and insure tranquility in previously disputed territories peopled by former indigenous enemies and anxious allies. At the same time, the empire needed to take measures to find additional income to help pay imperial expenses in the colonies, and, most importantly, do all of this with the cooperation of their recently safe-guarded colonial populations.

The 1768 Ft. Stanwix Treaty, along with the map, opened and communicated a great portion of the western lands for colonial settlement. Even before and especially after, other maps advertised these territories with specific directions for travelers.

Colonial migration to western territories was all but inevitable. The British could have published brilliant maps every month illustrating the Proclamation and the stability of their continental holdings, but the maps would not have made any difference in the events leading to revolution. Their policies regarding western expansion were confused and contributed to British failure to consolidate. But once again, if their policies had been rigorous in following the goals of the Proclamation colonial pressures would have only increased along with imperial expenses to enforce. It was impossible to calm Indian anxieties and keep colonial territorial appetites at bay. The subsequent treaties created an outlet for these pressures but as subsequent American history shows, western movement was inexorable. Thus, putting maps into the service of empire in order to effectively control populations can be a futile exercise, which the British did not do, but would have been ineffective anyway. Their policies, territorial and otherwise, only made sure their inability to secure consolidation. This inability - due to the unenforceable measures they 164 took after 1763 - was certainly due to British fixation (with no room for compromise) on the proper role of the metropole and the periphery in the imperial/colonial give-and- take.61 The colonial goodwill for the crown immediately following the war very quickly disintegrated and subsequent British political and economic efforts effectively replaced the colonial emphasis on “we,” to an “us” and “them” environment, very apparent in the

Stiles map, The Bloody Church. The final imperial map of note in this chapter, Abel

Buell’s New and Correct Map of the United States (1784), illustrates the cartographical promise of the American Revolution.

The final two chapters of this work, “Great Britain, the United States, and the

Oregon Question” and “The Texas Question and America’s Continental Endgame,” will show how the young nation learned very well the cartographical lessons from the different European powers as the United States employed the imperial map in service to its trans-continental expansion, viewed by many of its contemporary Americans as a

“manifest destiny.”

61 Voices of moderation in the British government, such as Edmund Burke and Lord Shelburne, were in the minority, and unheeded. CHAPTER IV

GREAT BRITAIN, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE OREGON QUESTION

[T]he Americans are far from being pleased with the irregular figure which the Republic exhibits on the map. This and that corner of the continent must be bought (or conquered if it cannot be bought) in order to give a more handsome sweep to their periphery. [I]n fact, their boundary line is never so exactly round to satisfy the nice eye of an ambitious people; the jagged polygon still need here and there some trimming; but this perfection of the figure is to be effected always by increments, - never by retrenchments.1 Anonymous British writer (1820)

With the Peace of 1763 ending the French and Indian War, Britain and her thirteen colonies began a quarrelsome relationship that would continue beyond another

Peace of Paris in 1783. Real or imagined past grievances fueled ongoing disputes, and timely and almost predictable events continued to exacerbate British-American relations well into the next century. War broke out, declared or undeclared, and at other times barely averted. There was a moment in the summer of 1842, however, when the two countries put their animosities aside through the diplomatic energies of American

Secretary of State Daniel Webster (1782-1852) and the British Special Minister

Alexander Baring, Lord Ashburton (1774-1848). The Webster-Ashburton Treaty of

August 9, 1842 included the settlement of the fatally imperfect international boundary line between United States and Canada. The problems with the boundary went back to the errors in the maps that were used at the time of the Peace of 1783. Mitchell’s Map o f the British Dominions in North America (1755) was the chief cartographical instrument and as good as the map was, its inaccuracies regarding the eastern boundaries between

1 From an anonymous review of John Bristed, America and Her Resources (London: 1818) in The Eclectic Review (July, 1820), 25-26. 166

America and Canada were grounds for contention for over the next half century.2 The two diplomats affirmed the line from the Atlantic, beyond the Great Lakes to the Lake of the

Woods, and then along the 49th parallel to the crest of the Rocky Mountain.3 From that point west to the Pacific they were unable to reach an agreement. The immensity of the problem was too great. Boundary proposals on both sides were unrealistic and rather than descend to imperialistic intransigencies which had historically characterized the two nations’ relationship, Webster and Ashburton submitted to their respective governments what they considered the best possible settlement at the moment.4 The solution to the

Oregon Question was tabled.

This chapter will illustrate to what ends America learned to utilize and then effectively put into service the imperial map in advertising imagined claims and equally imagined control over this western portion of the continent. The historical narrative attending these maps will begin with the Louisiana Purchase and Thomas Jefferson’s pursuit of the ideal of the virtuous landowning republican. American westward expansion met British interests in the first decades of the nineteenth century. Claims of discovery and “possession” for both nations critically informed their arguments and the decades leading up to the final northwest settlement in 1846 were politically boisterous and jingoistic. It was a time reminiscent of the lead-up to the French and Indian War from a century before, with all voices in the imperial cartographical debates taking part: the mapmakers, the ministries and politicians, and especially the public. “Take a look at the

2 The definitive work in this area is Howard Jones, To the Webster-Ashburton Treaty: A Study in Anglo-American Relations, 1783-1843 (Chapel Hill: 1977). 3 The United States and Great Britain had determined the Rocky Mountain terminus in the Treaty of 1818, also known as the London Convention. This treaty allowed for the joint occupation of the northwest territory. 4 Jones, Webster-Ashburton (1977), 159. 167 map” was a common refrain heard in Congress and read in the popular print. Interestingly enough, it was usually a map published in America that was the evidence in support of the argument. It was also the American public, its lawmakers, and the American press that relied heavily on the imperial maps to strengthen their arguments for territorial acquisition. The British, surprisingly, took very little interest the cartographical representations of the American northwest. The United States was a relatively new sovereign nation but one that had taken to heart earlier cartographical lessons learned from other empires. The impact of the imperial map on the Oregon Territory also requires a revisit of an earlier question raised in this work. Matthew Edney supposed “We might therefore conclude that an empire is an empire not because it possesses certain formal attributes but because it has been discursively mapped as an empire.”5 The paucity of population and military presence in the territory, by both the British and Americans, will point to imperial cartography as the chief instrument in the debate over the northwest: something that had not been the case since the early moments of the colonial period.

William McMurray authored the second map of new nation shortly after Abel

Buell published the first. The United States according to the Definitive Treaty of Peace

Signed at Paris Sept. 3d 1783 (Fig. 4.1) was published in 1784, with its prime meridian through Philadelphia. Published within a year of the nation’s independence, it illustrates the country’s immediate interest regarding western settlement. This is in marked contrast to Britain’s imperial policy upon the conclusion of the French and Indian War. The

British effectively ignored immediate colonial desires to settle the newly-won territory

5 Edney, “Imperial Mapping,” (2009), 13. Fig. 4.1. William McMurray, The United States according to the definitive treaty o f peace signed at Paris Sept. 3d. 1783 ([n.p.]: 1784). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 169 with the 1763 Proclamation in prohibiting colonial settlement in the west. This of course placed imperial-colonial relations on edge, and aggravated British efforts to amicably consolidate their gains after the war. McMurray’s map includes ten new territories based on Thomas Jefferson’s 1784 draft of the Northwest Ordinance.6 Future states are neatly marked out in straight lines and rectangles. There is no consideration given to natural boundaries and the lines illustrate an orderly, though idealistic, western possession. In the draft, Jefferson even named proto-states: Illinoia, Michigania, Saratoga, Washington,

Chersonesus, Sylvania, Assenisipia, Metropotamia, Polypotamia, and Pelisipia. There are not many extant maps which include these imagined states.7

In 1786, Henry D. Pursell engraved a map for Bailey’s Pocket Almanac.8 A Map of the United States ofN. America (Fig. 4.2) included Jefferson’s states, though in different measure than McMurray’s. The neatly cornered future states and their naming give to the map reader a sense of territorial control that was not any more real than that which the British advertised with the Proclamation Map two decades before. The map also portends why this territory would later be known as the “old northwest.” Though the map is quite incomplete in depicting territory west of the Mississippi, a close reading of the map forces the viewer to imagine lands not included on the cartographical

6 Eric Hinderaker, Elusive Empires: Constructing Colonialism in the Ohio Valley, 1673-1800 (Cambridge: 1997), 228-231. Thomas Jefferson submitted a draft report of “The Committee appointed to prepare a PLAN for a Temporary Government for the WESTERN TERRITORY” on March 1, 1784. The plan was passed in the Confederation Congress though it never went into effect; a subsequent proposal, based on this earlier work, was passed and adopted in Congress on July 13, 1787. This is the document known as the Northwest Ordinance. Hinderaker cites “Plan for Government in the Western Territory,” The Papers o f Thomas Jefferson (Princeton: 1950- ), 6.581-617. The ordinance outlined and explained the requirements in settling the territory. 7 John Fitch, A Map o f the North West Parts o f the United States (Philadelphia: 1785) is another which shows the proto-states, outlined but unnamed. 8 Benjamin Workman, Philip Morin Freneau, and Henry D. Pursell, Bailey's Pocket Almanac, Being an American Annual Register, for the Year o f Our Lord 1787 (Philadelphia: 1786). 170

Fig. 4.2. H.D. Pursell. A Map of the United States o f N. America in Bailey's Pocket Almanac. (Philadelphia: 1786). Image courtesy of Maps of Pennsylvania (mapsofpa.com). 171 representation. The map points to even further lands that would become the “new northwest.” On the far western edge of Pursell’s map is a tantalizing notation, “Head of the Oregon which runs W. to the Pacific Ocean” (Fig. 4.3). There could not be any basis for this notation other than the age-old wish, faith, or belief in the Northwest Passage which had been sought in the two hundred years prior. Within twenty years the young republic would take definite steps to determine its certainty, and undertake measures to take hold of this land for the republic.

The control of the Mississippi River and lands to the west was the great imperial achievement of Jefferson’s administration, by which he was able to spin a questionable constitutional act into one which would secure the future of his vision of a virtuous republic. His belief in the yeoman citizen is well addressed in a 1785 letter to James

Madison:

The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.. .It is not too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of the state.9

As important as available land was to Jefferson’s idea of an “empire of liberty,” what is most interesting, at least to this paper, is that this greatest of all acquisitions in American imperial expansion did not proceed in the typical forms outlined herein. The maps of the period, for example an American map published by John Luffman (1756-1846) (Fig. 4.4) in 1803, A Map of North America, offer no hint of American designs west of the

Mississippi. The northern reaches of the new Louisiana territory are simply noted “Parts

9 Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785, Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Merrill Peterson, Ed. (New York: 1984), 840. 172

Fig. 4.3. H.D. Pursell. A Map of the United States ofN. America in Bailey’s Pocket Almanac (Philadelphia: 1786) (detail). Image courtesy of Maps of Pennsylvania (mapsofpa.com).

Fig. 4.4. John Luffman, A Map of North America (London: 1803). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 173

Unknown.”10 As if to prove Baudrillard’s rule, in this exceptional case the territory preceded the map. The year before, British cartographer Aaron Arrowsmith (1750-1823) published A Map Exhibiting All the New Discoveries in the Interior Parts of North

America (Fig. 4.5).11 Despite the title, most of the interior of the continent is vacant except for the northern reaches. It is because of the British activities and explorations over the next decades, later enjoined by the Americans, that Webster and Ashburton could not untangle the knot of contention between the two powers during their meetings some forty years after these maps.

In November 1801, Scottish explorer Alexander Mackenzie (1764-1820) published the journals of his western Canada explorations. Thomas Jefferson read

Mackenzie’s Voyages from Montreal through the Continent o f North America the following summer. Mackenzie noted in the book’s preface, “The general map which illustrates this volume, is reduced by Mr. Arrowsmith from his three-sheet map of North

America, with the latest discoveries, which he is about to republish.”12 Mackenzie’s book along with Arrowsmith’s map were decisive in shaping Jefferson’s interest in exploring the continent. On the following January 18, 1803, six months before the Louisiana

Purchase, Jefferson sent a “confidential” message to Congress requesting funds for a proposed expedition west to the Pacific Ocean, into lands that did not belong to the

10 In his book, Mapping Reality (New York: 1996), 18, Geoff King opens one chapter with an OED definition for “off the map”: “out of existence; into (or in) oblivion or an insignificant position; of no account.” A glance at the Luffman map accurately depicts most of the new Louisiana Purchase as “off the map.” 11 The map illustrated here is Arrowsmith’s 1802 revision. 12 Alexander Mackenzie, Voyages from Montreal (London: 1801), xii. Regarding Jefferson’s inspection of Mackenzie’s book, John Logan Allen, “Imagining the West: The View from Monticello,” Thomas Jefferson and the Changing West from Conquest to Conservation, James P. Ronda, ed. (Albuquerque: 1997), 14. 174

Fig. 4.5. A. Arrowsmith, A Map Exhibiting all the New Discoveries in the Interior Parts o f North America (London: [1802]). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 175

United States. Jefferson charged Merriweather Lewis (1774-1809) to make preparations and undertake the expedition of discovery. By May 14, 1804, when Lewis and his chosen co-commander, William Clark (1770-1838), began their trek up the Missouri River to explore the acquisition, the Purchase doubling the size of the nation was settled and ratified.13 Among the maps they took with them were those drawn by Arrowsmith,

Mitchell, Jeffreys, and Hutchins.

In his lengthy June 20, 1803 instruction to Lewis, Jefferson first stresses the importance of “ascertaining” the geography. Jefferson explained that that the mission had been communicated to representatives of France and Great Britain, which purpose he made plain:

The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal streams of it, as, by it’s [sic] course and communication with the waters of the Pacific ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregan, Colorado or any other river may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent for the purposes of commerce.14

Important is not only Jefferson’s dream of a clear water passage to the Pacific, but also his recognition of the foreign powers with whom the United States must deal. The French position would be of no concern within a short time, but a British northwest presence would have to be addressed. Understanding, advertising, and mapping the territory proved to be an exacting but, nonetheless, critical exercise in securing America’s future imperial claims.

Lewis and Clark’s “Corps of Discovery” successfully returned to St. Louis,

Missouri in September 1806, where the company disbanded. Lewis and Clark

13Donald Jackson, Thomas Jefferson & the Stony Mountains: Exploring the West from Monticello (Urbana: 1981), 132-133. 14 Jackson, Jefferson (1981), 140. Jackson includes Jefferson’s complete letter of instructions, 139-144. 176 immediately continued to the nation’s capital to tender their report and to make plans for publishing their account.15 The most influential and impressive map to come out of the early publications was the Map of Lewis and Clark’s Track, Across the Western Portion o f North America (1814) (Fig. 4.6). Lewis and Clark put to rest the dream of a Northwest

Passage water route, confirming the distinct water systems to the east and west of the continental divide. They also explained that the breadth of the Rocky Mountains was far greater and farther removed from the Pacific than had been imagined. The map was more complete and more accurate than any before and became the source of maps that would follow in the next generation of western cartography. The map was included in Nicholas

Biddle’s (1786-1844) edition of the Lewis and Clark journals.16 Published almost ten years after the expedition’s return, the map and the two volume set proved to be of more interest in geographic circles than it was to the American public.17 The first of the publications regarding the expedition had been available as early as 1807,18 and the public was already well-versed about the discoveries. For the moment there was little interest in the territory, much less in settling a portion of the continent so far removed

15 Publishing the Lewis and Clark Journals proved to be a tumultuous affair. Reuben Gold Thwaites, “The Story of Lewis and Clark’s Journals,” American Historical Association Annual Report for the Year, (1903), 58, observed, “The story of the records of the transcontinental exploration of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (1803-1806) is almost as romantic as that of the great discovery itself.” A more definitive collection would have to wait until the University of Nebraska multivolume work, The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Gary E. Moulton, ed. (Lincoln: 1983-2002). 16 Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, History o f the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark, Paul Allen [and Nicholas Biddle], ed[s]. (Philadelphia: 1814). Despite the editorial attribution on the title page of the 1814 edition, it was Nicholas Biddle who, after the Lewis’s death in 1809, was instrumental in collecting and editing the Lewis and Clark papers. 17 Martin Bruckner, Early American Cartographies (Chapel Hill: 2011), 21, fn. 28. 18 Patrick Gass, One of the Persons Employed in the Expedition, A Journal of the Voyage & Travels o f a Corps o f Discovery, Under the Command o f Captain Lewis & Captain Clarke from the Mouth o f the Missouri, Through the Interior Parts o f North America, to the Pacific Ocean, During the Years 1804, 1805, 1806 (Pittsburg: 1807). (IvB&jjof \ L E W IS a n d CLARKS TRACK ( < icrofs the Western Portion of' ( ( J 1’orth ^ m m r i ))

MISSISSIPPI TO TH> PACIFIC OCEAN; Jil/ Order of 'iheH Jhw hi r

Fig. 4.6. Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, Nicholas Biddle, and Paul Allen, Map o f Lewis and Clark's Track, Across the Western Portion o f North America in History of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark, Paul Allen [and Nicholas Biddle], ed[s], (Philadelphia: 1814). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 177 178 from the east and from where available land was more easily acquired.

One of the most significant consequences of the expedition and the mapping of

Lewis and Clark was the impact on the imperial diplomacy regarding the northwest.

Before and after Lewis and Clark, there were other events of discovery and commerce that later became parts of imperial arguments: events that were martialed in the Anglo-

American debates of possession and control of what was soon called the “Oregon

Territory.” So many of these happenings, which likely at their time did not seem to be very important, later proved to be substantial: George Vancouver (1757-1798) missed the mouth of the Columbia as he sailed by in 1788 and again in 1792; less than a month after a ship-to-ship visit with Vancouver in April 1792, the American merchant captain Robert

Gray (1755-1806) chanced off-shore breakers and sailed into the river (which he immediately named after his ship); in 1811 American John Jacob Astor’s (1763-1848)

Pacific Fur Company set up a post at present day Astoria only months before David

Thompson (1770-1857) arrived representing the British North West Company; and very serendipitously, two years later during the War of 1812, instead of relying on the recent sale of Astoria to British concerns, an overly eager British captain insisted on a military panoply in taking possession and performed the exchange of colors, from American to

British.19

By the second decade of the nineteenth century, and following the publication of the findings of the Lewis and Clark explorations, heretofore vague aspirations of

American imperial expansion to the west soon gave way to increased interest. The John

19 The 1814 Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 and included the provision status quo ante bellum; based on this superfluous military ceremony, United States diplomats argued successfully for the return of Astoria. For the most exacting and thorough treatment of this imperial subject, see Frederick Merk, The Oregon Question: Essays in Anglo-American Diplomacy and Politics (Cambridge, MA: 1967). 179

Melish map of 1816, Map of the United States with the Contiguous British and Spanish

Possessions (Fig. 4.7), is distinct for being the first large detailed American made map showing the entire country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. British and Spanish possessions are noted, but the green line which marks the U.S. western territories does not connect. Just west of the Great Lakes and east of the Rockies there is the interesting notation: “The limits of Louisiana in this quarter are undefined.” The map is visually implicit that one end of the boundary line, on its own somewhere in the Rockies, will need to be connected in a westerly trajectory to the other loose end of the same line on the coast of California, completing, at least on the map, America’s acquisition of the entire northwest.

In addition to the map, Melish published a lengthy companion to the map (nearly two hundred pages) in the same year. His Geographical Description of the United States with the map was to aid “in tracing the probable expansion of the human race from east to west,” and in this process he says, “the mind finds an agreeable resting place on its western limits.”20 The northwest is not named in his work, but Melish observes the

“beauty and symmetry of the map,” and concludes that “Part of this territory unquestionably belongs to the United States.”21 He gives a detailed explanation of the resulting confusion over the northern boundary of the United States after the Peace of

1783, and offers his solution to the western portion:

[T]he country never having been settled, the boundary has not been accurately defined. The best course as regards this map, has appeared to be to run the boundary line due west from the north-west corner of the Lake of the Woods to

20 John Melish, A Geographical Description o f the United States, with the Contiguous British and Spanish Possessions Intended as an Accompaniment to Melish's Map o f these Countries (Philadelphia: 1816), 4. 21 Melish, Description (1816), 4. iohn'Jttfhob' )

Fig. 4.7. John Melish, Map o f the United States with the Contiguous British & Spanish Possessions (Philadelphia: ca. 1816). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 180 181

the Gulf of Georgia, and thence along that gulf, and the Straits of Juan de Fuco [sic], to the Pacific Ocean.22

That this is roughly the boundary as it exists today may appear to be only coincidental or an obvious solution. Two years earlier, Mathew Carey (1760-1839), another American mapmaker, published Missouri Territory formerly Louisiana (Fig. 4.8). 23 Noticeable on this colored version are the north and southern boundaries of the territory. These colors are not placed at the whim of the artisan, but follow Carey’s designations and dotted lines: “Probable Northern Boundary of the Missouri Territory” and “Probable Southern

Boundary.” Common with the Melish map is the far northwestern resolution at the Gulf of Georgia and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Another element they have in common is that both Melish and Carey take advantage of the uncertainty of the area to promote their own imperial predispositions, which dispositions were communicated to the American public.

How Carey could have rationally considered the Missouri Territory extending beyond the Continental Divide to the Pacific Ocean is difficult to understand. These imperial cartographical representations, keeping true to form, clearly expressed an imagined ownership and the conversations they elicited were at the time, just as fanciful.

Melish’s “loose end” in the Rockies, however, was connected to the Pacific within three years after his map. Proving Carey’s “the map precedes the territory” assumption, the

Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 (ratified by the Spanish in 1821) established the boundaries of the Spanish and United States continental interests. The United States acquired, along with Spanish Florida, Spanish claims in the northwest, and in exchange, ceded its claims to Texas. Immediately after the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson, in his June 20, 1

22 Melish, Description (1816), 19-20. 23 This map was also included in Carey’s General Atlas (Philadelphia: 1818). 182

Fig. 4.8. Carey, Missouri Territory Formerly Louisiana (Philadelphia: 1814). Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 183

1803 instructions to Meriwether Lewis, noted that the “extent of the country” was 24 bounded on its “Southern side” by the Rio Bravo. America’s southern boundary of the northwest territory, relative to its relations with Spain, was fixed along the forty-second parallel.25

In contrast to the outspoken and exaggerated imperial positions of the Melish and

Carey maps, British cartographical-backed claims to the territory during this decade are unusual in that, as a rule, they tended to ignore any American presence on the continent much west of the Mississippi, as if the Louisiana Purchase never took place. Before looking at a good example of this disregard it is beneficial to look at two other maps, one

American and one British, published shortly after the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Abraham Bradley, Jr. (1767-1838) served for over thirty years as Assistant Postmaster

General for the United States. In this capacity, and with his skills as a cartographer, he published a remarkable map in 1804. His Map of the United States (Fig. 4.9) illustrated the existing post-roads and represented the best map of the country to date. The map is also notable for being the first map to mention the Louisiana Purchase. Inserted just below the “Mississippi Territory” in the small sliver of the Gulf of Mexico, there is a small note, “The French call the country West of the Conecuh River Louisiana & have ceded it to the United States.” The map does not indicate any possession of the territory,

24 Jackson, Jefferson (1981), 140. This debate continued for decades and proved to be the casus belli for the Mexican War (1846-1848). The Adams-Onis Treaty also made provisions for the United States to assume $5M in American claims against Spain which resulted from damages by the Spanish military on American settlements near the Florida boundary. 25 Spanish territorial claims rested primarily on the 1493 Treaty of Tordesillas and Balboa’s claim to all the “South Sea” in 1513. Russia’s imperial claims on the continent rested on their fur trading companies. By the early 1840s, these companies restricted their activities to Alaska. Fort Ross, just north of San Francisco, was abandoned in 1842; see James R. Gibson, Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The Changing Geography o f Supply of Russian America, 1784-1867 (New York: 1976). Fig. 4.9. Abraham Bradley, Jr., Map of the United States (Washington: 1804). Image courtesy of the Library

of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 184 185 late 18th c. - early 19th c.) published the first map, North America (Fig. 4.10), to illustrate the entire Louisiana Purchase. In the chart, “North America Contains,” is the note regarding the territory, “Province: Ceded by France 30 Apr. 1803.” For a major British cartographer to publish this map of the Purchase and acknowledge the cession in his notes, it is the more surprising that many subsequent British cartographical representations of America ignored these holdings and possessions.26

Ten years after Wilkinson’s map, John Pinkerton (1758-1826) included in A 27 Modern Atlas a map of North America (1812) (Fig. 4.11). The divisions on this map are three: British, Spanish, and American. The United States territories are restricted to lands east of the Mississippi. Interestingly, this map illustrates British northwest possession in nearly a straight line from the Lake of the Woods to the San Francisco Bay, indicated on the map as the “Bay of Sr. F. Drake.” Published in the first year of the War of 1812, perhaps Pinkerton thought it appropriate to disregard America’s western expansion.

Nonetheless, it was not a recycled map from the decade before and it is quite similar in its imperial message of the other British maps of the times. These maps are consistent in discounting any western American expansion or claims.28

In 1818, Arrowsmith updated his Map Exhibiting all the New Discoveries (Fig.

4.12). As originally printed, the map showed few political boundaries and none in the continental northwest. This colorized version of the map was included in the 1819 edition

26 American readers of the map would perhaps have been amused how Wilkinson explained the relationship between some of the parts of the country. Vermont is labeled an “Allied State” and Main, Indiana, Kentucky, Franklinia, Tennassee, and the Western Territory are designated “Subject States.” 27 John Pinkerton and Thomas Bensley, A Modern Atlas (London: 1815). 28 For example, S.A. Oddy, North America in Oddy ’s New General Atlas o f the World (London: 1811) and William Darton, North America in Union Atlas (London: 1812). 186

Fig. 4.10. Robert Wilkinson, North America (London: 1804). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. Fig. 4.11. John Pinkerton, North America (London: 1812). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 187 188

Fig. 4.12. A. Arrowsmith, A Map Exhibiting all the New Discoveries in the Interior Parts o f North America (London: 1818). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 189 of Atlas to Thompson’sAlcedo.29 The colors would indicate, just as in Melish’s map, that the loose end at the Lake of the Woods (this time British) should connect in some circuitous route with the other end located at Fort St. Francisco on the California coast, but the colorist backed away from making an explicit statement of possession. The shore, however, is named “Coast of New Albion” as far south as Canal de St. Barbara, which naming was present on other contemporary British maps. Again, there is nothing that hints of an American position in the northwest other than the named Columbia River. In fact, Astoria still retains the name Fort George which the British gave the settlement during the War of 1812. There is no mention of Lewis and Clark in any of the notes though the map includes enough elements of their 1814 Track map to realize that

Arrowsmith had the map available. Perhaps the silence in this regard was due

Arrowsmith’s position as “Royal Hydrogapher to HRH, the Prince of Wales,” which appears under his name, and that his patriotism trumped cartographical accuracy.

The late eighteenth century was the beginning of what could be considered the

“age of American geographies.” These books not only served to show readers the boundaries of the newly formed American states but also the boundaries of the empires in

North America. It would be a mistake to underestimate the impact of these new cartographies on the American public and policy makers.30 Maps and geographies confirmed in two-dimensional representations the otherwise abstract creation of the new country; in addition to serving as the first American “history books,” these geographies

29 Antonio de Alcedo, George Alexander Thompson, and Aaron Arrowsmith, Atlas to Thompson's Alcedo, or, Dictionary o f America & West Indies Collated with all the Most Recent Authorities, and Composed Chiefly from Scarce and Original Documents, for That Work (London: 1819). 30 This was not strictly an American phenomenon; British atlases, which included North America, had been published decades earlier. Other European atlases by the second decade of the next century began to include maps of North America, a couple of which will be noted below. 190 were key instruments in developing an American identity and educating the American youth.31 This emphasis on geography was present from the early republican period.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, and Benjamin Franklin, and others in

America’s political and intellectual elite all endorsed the study.32 For example, in his

Notes on the State o f Virginia (1787), Jefferson proposed that out of every hundred students taught basic reading, writing and arithmetic annually, ten of “superior genius” would then be “well taught in Greek, Latin, Geography, and the higher branches of 33 arithmetic.” Geography held an equal position with the classics and higher mathematics and was the next step in Jefferson’s opinion toward educating a “rising generation” of leading citizens in Virginia and the republic.34

Schools and private tutors took seriously their task in educating the young in geography. The year after Jefferson left the presidency, Frances Bowen, “under the care of her Sister Eliza,” offered her own contribution, A General Atlas (Fig. 4.13). Included in the young girl’s bound atlas is a remarkable, hand-drawn, and colored-ink map of the

United States o f America (Fig. 4.14). It is quite accurate, though Frances illustrates the

United States just prior to the Louisiana Purchase. It also quite apparent that the work was accomplished with meticulous attention and care, and it is hardly a wonder that by the second decade of the new century the study of geography was so entrenched in primary and secondary school curricula that many American colleges eliminated the study of their basic instruction. These same colleges and universities, however, retained a

31 John R. Short, Representing the Republic: Mapping the United States, 1600-1900 (London: 2001), 13. 32 Martin Bruckner, The Geographic Revolution in Early America: Maps, Literacy, and National Identity (Chapel Hill: 2006), 146. 33 Thomas Jefferson, Notes o f the State o f Virginia (Philadelphia: 1801), 286. 34 Dustin A. Gish and Daniel P. Klinghard, “Republican Constitutionalism in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes o f the State o f Virginia,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 74, No. 1 (January 2012), 37. 191

> /- /? < //< nu , ulcu-

V w /tcej ofaeiv,: n

' u-nrftA..' t i n o trt'U c/ ■’’A w c^Lit& i. 'i&Oy*-' A-

t/ « 4 ^ fk /0 ~y

Fig. 4.13. Frances Bowen, Title Page to A General Atlas (1810). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. ( p a m a d a

Mt, HfttlU

Mmuut

OuAtbt iJhu.CulJlu.Cui 11 lAmnwou

Fig. 4.14. Frances Bowen, United States o f America (1810). Image courtesy of the

David Rumsey Map Collection. 192 193 high degree of geographic literacy as a necessary and important element in their entrance examinations.35

After the Louisiana Purchase and in the years following the War of 1812, the interest of mapmakers and readers expanded from the national confines represented on these map to a broader imperial scope, eyeing the country’s margins and neighboring territories.36 Territorial exploration and imaginings, which may be natural reactions of a youth pursuing a map, took hold of the average citizen and the maps of the age promoted these territorial conjurings. As one British writer noted, the average American citizen engaged with maps “ten time more frequent than is found among other people, and have actually, as it were, woven the idea of terrene extension among the very elements of the national character.” Contrasting the European and American cartographical knowledge, the writer continued, “The thoughts of the European farmer range within a circle of twenty miles diameter. The ideas of the American planter familiarly traverse the wide extent between the shores of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The one knows nearly as much of his continent, as the other does of his country.”37

If the British cartographers and atlases were usually silent about America’s presence in the northwest and at the same time reticent in asserting Britain’s position,

American cartographers were more raucous in their imperial claims. Following Melish’s example, Jedidiah Morse (1761-1826), considered the “Father of American Geography,” included in his Atlas to M orse’s School Geography (Boston: 1820) a very simple map of

35 William Warntz, Geography Now and Then: Some Notes on the History of Academic Geography in the United States (New York: 1964), 28. Warntz notes that the study of general geography was again back in American colleges and universities after the Civil War (159). 36 Bruckner, Geographic Revolution (2006), 244. 37 The Eclectic Review (July, 1820), 27. 194

North America (Fig. 4.15). As with Pinkerton’s earlier map, Morse makes a clear statement regarding the territorial interest of the different imperial powers on the continent, but acknowledges America’s western presence. The designation “Mexico or

New Spain” recognizes the ongoing Mexican War of Independence, which at the time of the geography’s publication had another year before its successful conclusion. “Britain

America” and the “United States” are clearly divided in the west along the forty-ninth parallel all the way to the Pacific. Nearly all the principal American geographies and atlases after this time showed America’s possession of the west quite similar to Morse and by all evidences, the year 1820 is a turning point in American imperial cartography.

From this year forward, American geographies were more emphatic in representing

America’s possession of the northwest.38 Mathew Carey’s A New and Accurate Map of

North America (1818) (Fig. 4.16) may be one of the few geography book exceptions prior to 1820.39 Of course Carey had made a cartographical land grab in his earlier Missouri

Territory; this map simply expanded the earlier one to include the entire continent.

The daily presence of these new geographies in the schools, libraries, and private homes educated the American citizenry, especially in regard to the imperial designs effectively and efficiently promoted and advertised in these books. A very interesting and fortunate evidence of this is an expertly drawn map by young student around 1821.

Simply titled “United States” (Fig. 4.17), the map’s script and boundary, river, and mountain renderings are exact and meticulous as those on the maps publishers made

38 For example, Mathew Carey, North America in Carey’s School Atlas (Philadelphia: 1820); William C. Woodbridge, North America in Atlas on a New Plan (Hartford: 1821); James V. Seaman, North America in A New General Atlas (New York: 1821); Henry C. Carey and I. Lea, North America in A Complete Historical, Chronological and Geographical American Atlas (Philadelphia: 1822); and Lucas Fielding, Jr., North America in A General Atlas (Baltimore: 1823). 39 Mathew Carey, Carey’s General Atlas, Improved and Enlarged (Philadelphia: 1818). 195

Fig. 4.15. Jedidiah. Morse, North America (Boston: 1820). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. Fig. 4.16. Mathew Carey, A New and Accurate Map of North America (Philadelphia: 1818). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. Fig. 4.17. Anonymous, “United States,” Manuscript Map (ca. 1821). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. ID 198 available for schools. The map is 51x18 cm. and has a hand-sewn border of silk with silk hooks for hanging. Attention to American geography in American schools along with mapping assignments could only impress young minds with the obvious, even manifest, possibilities of the young republic taking possession of lands from the Atlantic to the

Pacific. To a great degree, it is not surprising that American students, or their parents, took interest in these imperial maps. They were sufficient in number and readily available for study and review. That they were available is not surprising either. American mapmakers were enthusiastic in the prospects of expansion; for one thing, it made for new sales for “new and corrected” maps. Finally, there was the cartographical connecting of one end of the continent to the other, made even closer, it seemed by American acquisitions and explorations. At the same time, American cartographers were publishing never-ending sheets of imperial statements, British cartographers were making few or none regarding America. Other geographers, neither American nor British, were taking part in the cartographical debate.

The Paris firm of Jean Goujon published A Map of Louisiana and Mexico/Carte

La Luisiane et du Mexique (Fig. 4.18) in 1820. For English, American, and French audiences, Pierre Antonine Tardieu (1784-1769) rendered a fair treatment of British and

American northwest claims. Tardieu incorporated the Adam-Onis Treaty agreement of

1819 and northern boundary between United States and British possessions terminated at the Rocky Mountains. The lack of any boundary in the northwest beyond the Rockies recognized the impasse that Webster and Ashburton would experience two decades later.

It is also interesting for a French map that the prime meridian is measured from

Philadelphia. Two years later, Christian G. Reichard (1758-1837) published Neuer Hand- 199

Fig. 4.18. Pierre Antoine Tardieu, A Map of Louisiana and Mexico/Carte La Luisiane et duMexique (Paris: 1820). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 200

Atlas uber alle Theile der Erde (Nuremberg: 1822), which included his NordAmerica

(Fig. 4.19). This map is as much of a pro-United States position as any of the imperial cartographic representations coming from American publishers. The republic takes up a broad swath with the continental wide designation “Vereinigte Staatten”; British territory to the north is inexplicably noted in the same font simply as “Hudsons Bay Lander.”

The question must be asked: Why were the vast majority of British maps silent regarding claims on the northwest territory, especially when their American counterparts were not, and when even European states registered some kind of an cartographical opinion on the squabble? In part, the answer goes back to the original diplomatic solution agreed to in

October 20, 1818. The “Convention of London” supplemented provisions of the Treaty of

Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. The agreement affirmed the America’s Louisiana

Purchase line along the forty-ninth parallel from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky

Mountains. The disputed territory to the west was open to both the British and the

Americans for ten years.40 The joint occupation agreement was renewed indefinitely in

1827 with the proviso that it could be terminated by either party with a twelve month notice. Though the original and subsequent negotiations were oftentimes rancorous, and the British were comfortable that the final resolution to a thorny question could be delayed; America, for its part, also bided its time. America’s chief representative in the

1827 London negotiations, Albert Gallatin (1761-1849), observed in a letter to President

John Quincy Adams,

40 United States and Charles I. Bevans, “Convention of London (1818),” Treaties and Other International Agreements o f the United States o f America, 1776-1949 (Washington, D.C.: 1968), 57-60. Fig. 4.19. C. G. Reichard, Nord America (Nuremberg: 1822). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map

Collection. 201 202

Although all my faculties are exerted.. .in trying to accommodate differences and to remove causes of rupture, it is impossible for me not to see and feel the temper that prevails here towards u s .I think that we must look forward and make those gradual preparations which will make us ready for any emergency, and which may be sufficient to preserve us from the apprehended danger.41

Importantly, neither the British government nor the British public expressed that much interest in events on the western portions of the North American continent. Parliament did not debate the Oregon question at any time prior to 1840 and gave the question hardly any notice thereafter; no parliamentary report on the issue ever appeared. Until the 1840s, the British press similarly ignored the question; public debate or discussion was noticeably absent.42 The “gradual preparations” with which Gallatin was concerned were likely military, which were not pursued. But Americans were already making preparations and its young and old citizenry were thinking more imperialistically, and the cartographical representations of the time were stimulating this interest.

Into the 20th century, it was the prevailing thought that resolution of Oregon

Question was due largely because of the influx of American pioneers into the area.43 This is a myth insofar as the territory north of the Columbia River is concerned. In the year prior to the 1842 Webster-Ashburton meetings, American settlers in the Oregon Territory numbered no more than five hundred, and though the population increased ten-fold in the next five years, all or practically all of these resided south of the Columbia River in the

41 Henry Adams, The Life of Albert Gallatin (Philadelphia: 1879), 621. 42 Merk, The Oregon Question (1967), 139. 43 For example, President Warren G. Harding, addressed residents in Meacham, Oregon in July 1923. He is quoted: “But stern determination triumphed, and the result was conclusive. Americans had settled the country. The country belonged to them because they had taken it; and in the end the boundary settlement was made on the line of the forty-ninth parallel, your great Northwest was saved and a veritable empire was merged in the young Republic.” Henry Commager, “England and Oregon Treaty of 1846,” Oregon Historical Society, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar. 1927), 19, and Merk, The Oregon Question (1967), 236, cite The New York Times, July 4, 1923. 203

Willamette Valley. This part of the Oregon Territory the British had tacitly recognized from as early as 1818.44 Admittedly, this American presence was far greater than the

British during these years and while it strengthened the American argument, it was a bit of a stretch to claim “possession” of the entire Oregon country in the final negotiations some six years later. This is especially true in regard to the territory north of the

Columbia where, in addition to trading enterprises, the British Hudson’s Bay Company held entire sections of land under agriculture and for raising livestock.45 What America could count on, however, was the collective voice of its citizenry and its democratically elected and public-opinion alert politicians in Washington. American maps continued to invigorate ideas regarding continental expansion even in the absence of migrating population or a military presence. A more precise appraisal of America’s triumph of the

“manifest destiny” must conclude that its success was due to the greater levels of interest in the people and the ministries of the United States regarding the northwest than in Great

Britain.

The popular voice of America, for the time being, was not constant or loud regarding America’s northwest. The geographical material educating the American public for the rest of the 1820s and to the final territorial resolution two decades later was not always consistent. But there was enough of the cartographical conversation for map

44 Jones, Webster-Ashburton (1977), 156; Merk, The Oregon Question (1967), 236, speaking to the idea that “possession” was critical in the final negotiated settlement says, “It is a plausible theory. But it collapses at the prick of the fact that in 1846 all or practically all of the American pioneers in Oregon were located in the Willamette Valley, on the south side of the Columbia River - just that part of the Oregon country which ever since 1818 the British government had been willing to concede to the United States. American occupation in other words was of an area that did not need to be won.” 45 Merk, The Oregon Question (1967), 237, observes that by 1837, the Hudson Bay Company trading enterprises north of the Columbia River numbered nearly 5,000 domestic animals, with dairies, mills, and shops run by and giving service to a population close to eight hundred. In this part of the territory, American presence was nil. 204 readers to take what supported their notions and leave the rest. In 1823, Henry S. Tanner

(1786-1858) published an atlas which included A Map of North America (Fig. 4.20).46

Regarding the northwest, he says,

The northern boundary of the United States I have traced on my map agreeably to the account from the commissioners appointed under the sixth article of the treaty of Ghent. The continuation of that line [from Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains] was drawn in strict conformity to the British treaty of 1818. I have inserted [on the map] the above with the view of exposing the impropriety of representing the northern boundary as if extended to the Pacific Ocean. In this particular all our most approved maps are false. There is no passage in the treaty of London, (the only authentic document on the subject), which affords the slightest ground for supposing that its extension west of the Oregon mountains was contemplated by either p arty ..47

Tanner has taken to task other cartographers and map publishers, his competition, regarding their loose and misleading representations of the Pacific Northwest which illustrate an American possession that is neither real nor legal. But notwithstanding these words, the colorist, employed by the H. S. Tanner Company, could hardly present the territory more connected to the United States. Even if Tanner’s words were read, they were likely forgotten or simply put aside in the face of the territorial argument on the map. Tanner’s 1825 edition of the The New American Atlas made few changes; the text explanation of the northern boundary of United States was not changed at all. In this new edition there is another map of North America (Fig. 4.21). At a glance, it is the same map as the 1823 version. East of the Rocky Mountains is the same inserted notation,

“Boundary of 1818.” A close inspection of the northwest and its shared boundary line with Russian Alaska reveals to the viewer an accurate, but perhaps a misleading

46 Henry Schenck Tanner, A New American Atlas Containing Maps o f the Several States o f the North American Union (Philadelphia: 1823). 47 Tanner, New American Atlas (1823), 8. Fig. 4.20. Henry S. Tanner, A Map of North America (Philadelphia: 1823). Image courtesy of the

David Rumsey Map Collection. 205 Fig. 4.21. Henry S. Tanner, A Map of North America (Philadelphia: 1825). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 207 emendation. The 1823 notation, “Boundary as Claimed by Russia” now reads “Boundary of 1824.” In 1824, America negotiated with the Russian Empire in defining their overlapping claims along the southern reaches of Alaska (designated “Russian

Possessions” on the map). It was six years prior to this that Britain and the United States signed their joint-occupancy agreement. The northern limits of American claims were settled with Imperial Russia; America still had to contend with Great Britain. A map reader would be forgiven if reading Tanner’s map notations and making assumptions based on coloring, if he/she concluded that the all territorial conflicts with North

American imperial powers had been settled.

Tanner’s 1825 map communicated to readers that British Canada was effectively cut off from any access to the Pacific. By the end of the decade, secondary school students were receiving material that answered any questions regarding the “Oregon

Territory.” Jesse Olney (1798-1872) published in 1829 a map of North America (Fig.

4.22). Beyond Tanner’s map, the “Boundary determined 1824” notation at the southern tip of Alaska embraces an international line that makes an unbroken southward connection along the Rocky Mountains to the western limits of the forty-ninth parallel line. British possessions reach no further west than the continental range and “United

States” reads on the map from the northwest extremity southeast to Florida. The map leaves no doubt as to imperial claims of possession.

Olney included the map in an 1830 school atlas.48 The atlas was published specifically, as the full title indicates, to accompany Olney’s A Practical System of

Modern Geography. As with many school book publishers of the time, these geography

48 J. Olney, A New and Improved School Atlas: To Accompany The Practical System of Modern Geography (New York: 1830). 208

Fig. 4.22. J. Olney, North America (New York: 1829). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 209

“systems” were published with or without detailed maps. Students would either use maps available or, as was becoming the rule, the publisher would print a separate student atlas.

Olney’s geography book, like those written by Jerimiah Morse and others who came after, educated the student in more than geography. The first paragraph under the entry

United States (which runs seventy-four pages) reads “The United States are the most interesting and important division of the western continent; and are distinguished for the excellence of their government, - the rapid increase of the population, - and for the intelligence, industry, and enterprise of the inhabitants.”49 American exceptionalism was the biding theme of American geographies and in these decades American imperialism was part of the message.50 After a treatment of each of the states, Olney turns to the

American-held territories. Describing each territory in turn, the last treated is the “Oregon

Territory” which, he says, “extends from the Rocky Mountains on the east, to the Pacific on the west: and from the Russian Possessions on the north, to Mexico on the south.”51

“British America,” not surprisingly, extends no further than “to the Rocky mountains on the west.”52 American secondary students were getting a thorough education in the knowledge considered necessary to make valued citizens. At the same time, through the cartographical representations and the helpful explanations, they were acquiring the

49 J. Olney, A Practical System o f Modern Geography, or, A View o f the Present State of the World: Simplified and Adapted to the Capacity o f Youth ... Accompanied by a New and Improved Atlas (Hartford: 1830), 51. 50 Walter Nugent, Habits o f Empire: A History o f American Expansion (New York: 2008), 234 236, speaking on the necessity of the American peoples’ embrace of “manifest destiny,” observes correctly, “Underpinning the democratic imperialistic urge was the conviction that the American people were, in various senses, exceptional in critical, and empowering ways.” Olney’s geography is a striking example of this attitude, and it is evidentiary of how the imperial cartographical representations issuing forth from the republic promoted its continental expansion. 51 Olney, Modern Geography (1830), 119. 52 Olney, Modern Geography (1830), 123. Two pages later (125) under the heading “Lower Canada,” Olney explains that this is the most populated British territory in North America, but that “A large part of it is still a wilderness, inhabited by Indians.” He states “the principal settlements are in the vale of the St. Lawrence.” 210 understanding of America’s physical place in the world and the breadth and politically correct measure of its continental empire.

At the end of the nineteenth century, one private school in Topsfield,

Massachusetts held a reunion of former students and teachers. Many of the speakers at the event commented on the curriculum and the life-lessons learned from the rigorous study that the school demanded. Reverend Alfred Noon, from Boston noted, “I remember well, the lessons in geography, at the Academy.. .and what interesting times we had, 53 studying the well remembered [sic] wall maps.” Not surprisingly, the school must have had a long tradition of this type of study. Perhaps decades before Reverend Noon attended the school, Maria Symonds was a student at Topsfield Academy in 1830 and authored her map of the United States (Fig. 4.23). Complete with a cartouche of an eagle holding a ribbon with the words “E Pluribus Unum,” the map very accurately outlines all the current states and territories. The “Oregon Territory” extends north, off the map, but the British holdings, outlined in green, give no hint that its western limits are any further than what Maria has drawn. Less than fifteen years earlier, Melish looked at his map and wistfully concluded that America would acquire a good portion of the northwest. For this

Topsfield student, certainly unaware of any Anglo-American agreements or conflicts, the acquisition was complete.

Within three years of Maria’s map, other secondary students were studying another geography, Rudiments of National Knowledge.54 This text included maps: one of

53 Martin Van Buren Perley and George Francis Dow, History o f the Topsfield Academy (Topsfield, Mass.: 1899), 110. 54 J. Churchman, Rudiments o f National Knowledge: Presented to the Youth o f the United States, and to Enquiring Foreigners (Philadelphia: 1833). Fig. 4.23. Maria Symonds, United States (Topsfield Academy: 1830). Image courtesy of the

David Rumsey Map Collection. 211 212 which, The Eagle Map of the United States (Fig. 4.24), is a remarkable image of the republic’s national symbol (though looking a bit like a pigeon) superimposed on the national map: its head is in New England, the body through the Trans-Appalachian,

Middle and Southern states, its feet and claws rest in Florida, and its open wings stretch from the most western states across the territories toward the Pacific. Apart from its emotional element is the fact that the map was included in a book expressly to be read and perused by the “Youth of the United States.” This was part of the imperial conversations Americans were having among themselves; including the youth who would be the next generation’s western explorers and settlers. Additionally, as the book’s complete title makes clear, it was also a communication “to Enquiring Foreigners,” immigrants of course, but also a communication to the foreign states and empires that the eagle faced. In just over another dozen years, the eagle would be full-bodied across the continent.

The youth of America, and assuredly their parents, were getting their lessons on the national map and the imperial cartographical messages these maps promoted; in contrast, British cartographers and map publishers seemed a bit confused, or at least chaotic, regarding the disputed Oregon Territory. A couple of British maps of note rejected the ambivalence illustrated in other British representations and, inexplicably, are even persuaded to the American side of the argument. An Atlas of Modern Geography was published in London in 1829.55 It included The Map of North America (Fig. 4.25), by

Sidney Hall (1788-1831). The map illustrates the United States and its two major territorial holdings: the “Missouri Territory” extending to the “Stony Ms” and bordered

55 Samuel Butler and Sidney Hall, An Atlas of Modern Geography (London: 1829). 213

Fig. 4.24. Isaac W. Moore and James Churchman, The Eagle Map o f the United States (Philadelphia: 1833). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 214

iii-]iiiiiîiiiii:\)îîiiiiiiiijviiiii

Fig. 4.25. Sidney Hall, North America (London: 1829). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 215 with “British Territory” along the 49th parallel, and the “Western Territory,” from the

42nd parallel north to “Dixon Entrance,” at approximately the 54th parallel. The map allows for a very limited British access to the Pacific. Hall included an international line which runs from the Pacific, due east to the “Stony Ms” and then south along its crest to cartographer, John Crane Dower (1791-1847), included in A General Descriptive Atlas of the Earth (1832), a map of North America (Fig. 4.26) that is almost identical to Hall’s in its imperial lines and colors.56 The map is similar in other respects, but a close look reveals that the two are not identical thus both are independent representations. Both geographies were heavily advertised in British newspapers and both were published by reputable and longstanding firms. Hall and Dower, accordingly, were respected cartographers mapmakers. Public and British government response to these British maps which communicated significant American claims was surprising: there was none. Unlike the public and ministerial outcry that d’Lilse’s map unleashed a hundred years earlier, these and other maps like them entered British consumption without any comment or complaint. It is hard to imagine that American maps, published in America, illustrating complete British control of the northwest would have been received in the same manner.

The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, or SDUK, was devoted to the cause of publishing inexpensive material, texts and maps, for the rapidly expanding

British literate.57 The society was founded in 1826 and lasted until 1848. Between the years 1829-1844, the SDUK published A Series of Maps which in an 1834 issue included

56 W. M. Higgins, A General Descriptive Atlas of the Earth (London and Edinburgh: 1823). 57 Mead T. Cain, “The Maps of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge: A Publishing History,” ImagoMundi, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1994), 151-153. 216

Fig. 4.26. John Crane Dower, North America (Edinburgh: 1832). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 217 a map of British North America (Fig. 4.27).58 Of note on the map is evidence of the

SDUK’s careful appraisal and understanding of the British position in the face of the

American arguments. The colored boundary between the United States and Canada follows a designated printed line, it continues west along the 49th parallel and finally connects with the Columbia River. The British proposed this as a boundary option as early as 1818 in the early stages of negotiations between the two powers; the Americans in turn resolved not to relinquish the north side of the river.59 With variations, this was basically the British position until the final agreement was reached in 1846.60 This SDUK map stands alone representing the British government side of the debate. It was ten years later, in 1844, when war between the powers was a patent possibility, that John

Arrowsmith (1790-1873), the nephew of Aaron, made another contribution, very closely following the SDUK lines - but even then, the colorist for his new British North America

(Fig. 4.28) could not connect the 49th parallel to the Columbia River.61

There was no confusion it seems with American mapmakers or their reading public. Dozens of maps published during the 1830s and 1840s confidently illustrated the

Oregon Territory without any note of joint occupancy between the United States and

Britain. America’s sole possession of the American northwest was cartographically

58 Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, A Series of Maps Modern and Ancient (London: 1834); Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Maps of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 2 Vols. (London: 1844, 1846). The map illustrated here is from volume one of the 1844 publication. 59 Merk, The Oregon Question (1967), 49-51. 60 One variation, for example, what that the British would cede to the United States a section of the the peninsula forming the southern side of the Juan de Fuca Strait. The offer of an enclave was dismissed. 61 John Arrowsmith, The London Atlas of Universal Geography (London: 1844). 218

Fig. 4.27. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, British North America (London: 1834). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. Fig. 4.28. John Arrowsmith, British North America (London: 1844). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey

Map Collection. 219 220

unassailable.62 By 1836, it appears that Henry Tanner was persuaded by the opinion of his

fellow cartographers and the American public. In a new publication, his A New Universal

Atlas, he included a new version of his own North America (Fig. 4.29): this time with

bolder national boundaries following printed international lines and illustrating complete

American possession from the 1819 Adams-Onis line to the 1824 Russian-Alaskan

boundary.63 His earlier objections on how other American cartographers portrayed the

Oregon Territory were forgotten. The New American Atlas which included former

objections was published for the last time just months before his new atlas. To be clear,

since 1824, at the time of the American-Russian Alaska boundary settlement, until the

final resolution in 1846, there were no agreements which defined or changed the

international boundaries of the Oregon Territory. Yet until the question’s final resolution,

cartographical representations were inconsistent: oftentimes, as in the case of Tanner,

changeable by the hand of the same mapmaker. The imperial map of the 1820s, 30s, and

40s was mutable. Territorial uncertainty where possession is at best undefined is fertile

ground for the imperial map.

The Oregon Question did not enter into the British popular press until 1839, and

then only in articles reprinted from American newspapers. Portsmouth’s Hampshire

Telegraph, for example, included unabridged remarks from Philadelphia, “The Oregon

62 For example, John Grigg, United States in Grigg’s American School Atlas (Philadelphia: 1830); Francis Huntington, North America in Atlas, Designed to Illustrate the Malte-Brun School Geography (Philadelphia: 1832); Jeremiah Greenleaf, North America in A New Universal Atlas (New York: 1835); Nathaniel G. Huntington, North America in The Common School Atlas (Hartford: 1836); Thomas T. Smiley, N. America in Smiley’s Atlas, for the Use of Schools and Families (Philadelphia: 1842); and Samuel Augustus Mitchell, A New Universal Atlas (Philadelphia: 1846). 63 H. S. Tanner, A New Universal Atlas Containing maps of the Various Empires, Kingdoms, States and Republics of the World (Philadelphia: 1836). 221

Fig. 4.29. Henry S. Tanner, North America (Philadelphia: 1836). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 222

Question, Pacific Coast is a very grave one between us and Great Britain, if Great Britain persists in her unjust claims.”64 Thus, rather than its country’s position and arguments in the debate, the British reading public were initially educated in the American position. In early 1842 The Cork Examiner printed excerpts of United States Senate debates regarding the question:

[W]hat are we to do? Shall we recede, or stand still, or go on? To recede was not to be thought of at this stage of the questions. There was nothing to be gained from national pusillanimity - we can not purchase present peace at the expense of honour. I would be “sowing the wind, and reaping the whirlwind.” No! He [Lewis Cass] would now repeat what he had expressed heretofore - that is was better to fight for the first inch of Oregon than the last - better to meet the enemy at the threshold, than away his approach at to the hearthstone.65

After the Webster-Ashburton agreement in August 1842 and driven by news of more debates in the Senate during the winter of 1842-1843, British newspapers took a greater interest in the far northwest. The Edinburgh’s Caledonian Mercury observed, “The

Oregon territory question, which, now that the north-eastern boundary one is settled, is likely to become a prominent topic in the United State, had engaged the attention of the

Senate.” The article quotes major sections of a proposed bill before the Senate to occupy the entire territory and extend over it United States law. Quoting the bill, the article’s author says, “The bill assumes that ‘the title of the United States to the territory of

Oregon is certain, and will not be abandoned’.”66 While the newspaper was correct that it would be a “prominent topic in the United States,” it was less so in Britain.

64 Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle (Portsmouth, England), March 25, 1839. 65 “Latest from America,” The Cork Examiner (Cork: Ireland), January 12, 1842. Lewis Cass (1782-1866) was serving as America’s ambassador to France at this time. He had a long political career serving as governor, Secretary of State and Secretary of War, and presidential candidate in the 1860 election. He was an outspoken member of the 1840s “war-party.” 66 “Latest from America,” Caledonian Mercury (Edinburgh: Scotland), January 28, 1943. 223

American newspapers, on the other hand, were quick to present America’s argument and they frequently accompanied their lengthy explanations with maps.67 In contrast, one British newspaper responded to a reader regarding the Oregon Question,

“We are not quite sure. But it is about twelve or fourteen hundred mile long, and seven or eight hundred miles broad. We have no map at hand.”68 British newspapers were, it seems, ambivalent regarding the Oregon Question but at the same time they were quicker to appreciate the complexity of the question. London’s Morning Post published a number of articles on the subject and recorded in its February 13, 1843 issue that “We have spared no pains to place before our readers the most accurate procurable information on the substantial nature of the question.” Though noting the “high-handed” attitudes in the congressional debates and hoping that the dispute would be settled in some terms

“conservant of English dignity and rights,” the writer candidly observed,

In the present state of our intelligence, we have no indisposition to acknowledge it to be utterly impossible for any individual to put his finger on the map, and with certainty and confidence define the proper limits of the American and the British claims to this part of the western coast of North America.69

Even as late as early 1846, another London paper remarked that with map in hand, “it is really difficult, on the first glance.. .to contemplate the dispute respecting the Oregon with the gravity which it certainly deserves.”70 As for American cartographers, and with most of the American press, there was little confusion. A few months after the Morning

Post series had run, the Philadelphia Ledger summed up America’s position in a couple of sentences.

67 For example, The Ohio Statesman, (Columbus: Ohio), March 10, 1843 and The Weekly Herald, (New York: N.Y.), December 28, 1844. 68 The Leeds Times (Leeds: England), January 3, 1846. 69 The Morning Post (London, England), February 13, 1843. 70 Daily News (London: England), February 2, 1846. 224

There is no American citizen where school-boy studies have not taught him that the territory in question is his country’s. There is no American citizen who will not peril all that is dear to him to maintain it. In this country it is no matter for controversy, Great Britain must concede i t . 71

Steeped as the citizen was in his geography assignments in secondary school, it is not surprising that the former school-boy was well-prepared to address the territorial problem at hand and confident in the obvious solution. This imperial education, supported by hours of cartographical exercise and inspection, was a powerful influence on the voice of the American electorate and, in turn, on its elected officials.

American newspapers were constant in impressing the worth of Oregon to the

American republic upon its readers, and usually drawing attention to a map of the area.

As interest increased in the late 1830s, one Washington, D.C. paper explained, “Let any person place before him or her a map of the world, and the incalculable value of Oregon cannot but strike them with great force.”72 British newspapers observed the spiked interest that the American Congress was taking regarding the Oregon Question and the necessity in measuring its deliberations based on maps. One British newspaper noted, “A motion has passed Congress directing the clerk to supply each member with a map of 73 O regon.” Another British newspaper reported that one congressional committee ordered enough maps to be available for interested citizens, “Mr. Allen, from the

Committee on Foreign Relations, reported a resolution that the secretary cause to be prepared for the use of the Senate 10,000 copies of the map of O reg o n .”74 America and its elected representatives were determined to come to a resolution of the Oregon debate,

71 Philadelphia Ledger (Philadelphia: Pa.), July 25, 1843. 72 Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, DC), May 30, 1839. 73 The Aberdeen Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland), February 5, 1845. 74 Freeman's Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser (Dublin, Ireland), March 12, 1846. 225 and all those who had a voice in it were expected to have the indispensable cartographical understanding of the question at hand.

Public and congressional debates addressed the question of whether to send

United States military forces to the Oregon territory. Formal and informal meetings were held to discuss the issue. The best known of these meetings was a convention held at

Cincinnati over three days in July 1843.75 Out of the convention came a lengthy declaration which was published in local newspapers and picked up later in the national print.76 The statement opens, “A declaration of the citizens of the Mississippi Valley, in convention at Cincinnati, July 5, 1843, for the purpose of adopting such measures as may induce the immediate occupation of the Oregon Territory by the Arms and Laws of the

United States of North America.” The following paragraph reaffirms the fifty-four-forty line. Additionally, six commissioners of the convention were tasked with urging

Congress to obtain “favorable action of the National Legislature” for this military occupation. British papers noted with some incredulity the earlier congressional activities is this regard.

The recent accounts from the United States show that the Oregon Boundary question is rapidly swelling into practical importance. A bill was introduced into the Senate to make ample provision for the occupation of the disputed territory. Of course the bill will not be carried; but is it a bad sign when the Senate of the United States, whose peculiar function is to consider and ratify treaties, even so much as entertain such a proposition at all - one of sheer defiance.77

Despite the “saber-rattling” from its citizenry and in its congressional debates, the United

States did not send any military contingent to the Oregon Territory until well after the

75 Proceedings of the Oregon Convention, Held in Cincinnati on the Third, Fourth and Fifth Days of July, 1843 (Columbus: 1844). 76 Daily Chronicle (Cincinnati, Ohio), July 12, 1843. 77 The Bury and Norwich Post, and East Anglian (Bury Saint Edmunds, England), February 08, 1843. 226 final diplomatic settlement.

By the time of the election of 1844, the Oregon Question, along with the annexation of Texas, was the major political topic. The national energy toward the entire possession of the territory is no more evident in the famous election slogan, “fifty-four- forty or fight!” In contrast to the silence of the 1844 Whig Party Platform, the Democrats were vocal in their participation in the national imperial conversation:

Resolved, That our title to the whole of the Territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other power, and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas at the earliest practicable period are great American measures, which this Convention recommends to the cordial support of the Democracy of the Union.78

Riding a wave of American imperialism, dark-horse candidate James K. Polk (1795

1849) defeated the anti-expansionist Whig Henry Clay (1777-1852). Polk’s love affair with America’s Manifest Destiny was obvious in his March 1845 inaugural address:

Our title to the country of Oregon is “clear and unquestionable,” already are our people preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children.. .The jurisdiction of our laws and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they have selected for their homes. 79

Polk entered the presidency with three territorial goals in mind: Texas, Oregon, and

California. The resolution to annex Texas passed Congress before Polk’s presidency, which resolution President John Tyler signed on March 1, 1845, two days before Polk’s inauguration. The immediate imperial objective for the Polk administration was Oregon.

As if taking a cue from Polk’s inaugural address, in 1846, Samuel Augustus

Mitchell (1790-1868) published A New Map of Texas, Oregon and California (Fig. 4.30).

78 Kirk H. Porter and Donald Bruce Johnson, “Democratic Party Platform of 1844,” National Party Platforms, 1840-1964 (Urbana, 1ll.: 1966), 4. 79 “Inaugural Address of James Knox Polk, Tuesday, March 4, 1845,” accessed online, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. 227

Fig. 4.30. S. Augustus Mitchell, A New Map o/'Texas, Oregon and California (Philadelphia: 1846). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 228

Mitchell also published a forty-six page Accompaniment to the map.80 The map presents a bold and energetic statement regarding this western portion of the continent. Each geographical part is well-defined and the printing of “British Possessions,” as well as

“Mexico,” do not intrude into the three geographic subject areas of the map. However, the map on closer inspection does not indicate American possession of “Oregon.”

Mitchell has made some significant notes on the map. He has included the note,

“Boundary of 49O proposed by the U.S.” Additionally, the path of the Columbia River is outlined in a deep red ink, as is the triangular-formed peninsula south of the Straits of

Juan de Fuca. Mitchell has shown the British and American positions argued by their respective representatives in the ongoing boundary diplomacy. These red lines indicate the British offers in the Anglo-American negotiations of the prior year: land south of the

Columbia River, and an American enclave at the straits. American negotiators repeatedly rejected this offer and, supported by the imperial maps and the public and private voices, embraced the “fifty-four forty” position.

In his Accompaniment, Mitchell reviewed the imperial claims of both countries and commented on agriculture, husbandry, commerce and population. The American population in the territory was “about 8,000 in number.”81 Oregon settlement, he noted, while discussed was not without apprehension:

80 S. Augustus Mitchell, Accompaniment to Mitchell’s New Map of Texas, Oregon, and California, with Regions Adjoining (Philadelphia: 1846). 81 Mitchell, Accompaniment (1846), 21. Lester Burrell Shippee, “The Federal Relations of Oregon - VII,” The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Vol. 20, No. 4 ) (Dec., 1919), 346, states, “The stream of migration, started in 1842, continued unabated until the news of gold in California turned the great flood in that direction in 1849 and the years following. Such was the volume of emigrants that in the debates in Congress as early as 1845-46 ten thousand was freely stated as a conservative figure for the population in Oregon... Governor Lane’s census of 1849 showed a population of 8,785 Americans, and at that time the exodus to California had started.” 229

The question of settling Oregon territory, and organizing a government for the security of the inhabitants, created intense interest in the United States, and has been more than once debated in congress. Were such a settlement authorized, and rendered secure by the requisite military establishments, there can be no doubt that it would immediately receive large accessions of settlers; and in the Session of 1844 ’45, a bill passed the House of Representatives for that purpose; but further action in the matter was deferred, until the twelve months’ notice of an intention to take possession of the territory is given to Great Britain, according to the terms of the treaty.82

Polk had asked Congress to pass a resolution giving Great Britain twelve-month notice in

December 1845. After much debate, both houses agreed to a resolution on April 23,

1846. Negotiations accelerated and the territorial compromise along the forty-ninth parallel was agreed to, with ratification in the Senate on June 18, 1846.

As the Oregon Question was finally coming to a conclusion, some British newspapers had been asking its readers to recognize the “diminutive territories [which] lie between the offers of each country.”83 American newspapers discussed Oregon’s

“incalculable value,” other British newspapers would remark, “At present no one in

England cares about Oregon.”84 Regarding the final settlement, The Examiner of London asked its readers to take map in hand, perhaps for the first and last time, and note the long-lasting benefits to the British Empire as a result of the treaty, goods carried to “any parts of the Columbia north of the 49th degree” are less than a tenth of distance to port “as to transport them from the mouth of the Columbia. The free navigation of the Columbia will thus become a dead letter in a very few years...”85 The British public did not care about Oregon and would have had a difficult time locating it on the map had they heard about the territory at all. This British popular disinterest was a major element toward

82 Mitchell, Accompaniment (1846), 17. 83 The Examiner (London, England), December 27, 1845. 84 The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, England), December 13, 1845. 85 The Examiner (London, England), July 4, 1846. 230 settling the dispute.

Population, military presence, and cartography has been argued in this work as the necessary requisites to achieve imperial goals and plans. As important as the imperial map is, alone it will not secure an empire. The imperial map by itself is nothing more than an idea, a goal, a dream, or a desire. The map may come first, as quite often is the case, but population and a sufficient military force to defend or force imperial expansion must shortly follow. All three, together, will effectively secure an expansionist agenda. It is interesting, as the rule’s exception, the resolution to the Oregon Question does not neatly adhere to this expansionist paradigm. This may be the best historical example treated in this work where Edney, arguing for the primacy of the imperial map over that of population and military, is correct.86 It is instructive, in this summary, to address this possibility in respect to the Oregon Question, that is, that America’s imperial expansion was due primarily to the imperial cartographical representations more so than to any noteworthy migratory or military components.

Interest in the western expansion was almost immediate after the turn of the century. This interest was increased in the wake of Louisiana acquisition and discovery.

In the age of geographies and atlases, America became educated and persuaded to imperial possibilities. While American cartographers were quick to take advantage of this interest, inexplicably, the British public showed little concern in these distant events. The

British mapmakers, in turn, were less than definite in supporting through cartographical

86 As a reminder, after Edney observed the difficulty in defining “empire” or “imperialism,” he offered that “the idea of ‘empire’ is constructed through cartographic discourses. ” An empire, he argues then, is not an empire until it has been constructed cartographically. To bring home his point, he says in the final line of his article, “‘Empire’ is a cartographic construction.” See Edney, “Irony of the Imperial Map” (2009), 11-13, 45. 231

representations, government policies and positions. As decades turned, cartographical

education of the American citizenry was turning out a knowledgeable population with

imperial opinions, and who could quickly point to a map for support. With rare

exceptions, American cartographers illustrated a final resolution on the map which agreed

with and promoted the national, imperial perception. It seemed that all that was left to be

done, for those Americans who had an understanding of the territorial arguments, was the

necessary paperwork.

Turning to the imperial elements of population, military, and maps, it is evident

the Oregon experience makes for a better argument, agreeing with Edney, that the

imperial map was the chief element in securing the northwest for the United States. It

cannot be argued that there was any significant American settlement of the Oregon

Territory during in the 1830s up to the final boundary resolution. Certainly it was more

than the British presence at the time, but the numbers were likely not too much greater

than Mitchell’s figure of eight-thousand, and most of these along the Willamette and

Columbia River valleys. This territory, however, the British had tacitly conceded in 1818.

Additionally, United States military presence in the territory was not introduced until

three years after the 1846 treaty and in 1852 Congress was still debating “the construction

of military roads in the Oregon Territory.”87 In the absence of a sizable population or any

military force to buttress America’s imperial arguments north of the Columbia River and

claims that were no stronger than those of the British, the resolution to the country’s

expansionist arguments were successful because of the nation’s popular and political

87 United States and John C. Rives, The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress (Washington, D.C.: 1853), 165; the first U.S. military post in the Oregon Territory was Camp Vancouver, erected in May 1849, just across from British-held Vancouver Island. 232 voices that were energized by the unceasing proliferation of the imperial map. From the

Lewis and Clark expedition to the mid-1840s, America’s citizenry, young and old, had available numberless cartographical representations of the northwest territories. The

American-published maps were not always in agreement, but the substance of the communication was always clear: there was territory a continent away that was ripe for the republican empire’s acquisition. The lack of any significant population was more than compensated by the strength of the popular voice, and accordingly, the absence of a military was met by the threat of American intervention.

From the century’s second decade forward, American imperial cartography educated generations of American schoolchildren, their parents, the citizenry on the whole, and especially members of the national legislature. It is apparent, reading over the print material of the period, that while the British population had little or no interest in the Pacific coast events and arguments, most members of the American public and government had an opinion. It was the imperial map of these three or four decades of the early nineteenth century, which energized America’s interest and belligerence, which pushed Great Britain to a peaceful resolution with the United States over the Oregon

Question. Great Britain gave up far more territory than should have been warranted in the absence of a United States military force in the region or any significant population north of the Columbia River. There was neither. What the United States had in its favor was a sizable citizenry in favor of imperial expansion and home-grown cartographical representations which argued the American imperial case. Because of the deficiency of

British imperial maps and a general ambivalence of its population regarding the debate,

Great Britain suffered a fatal disadvantage in arriving at a more equitable agreement. 233

In the end, Polk was not uncompromising on the fifty-four-forty line, angering many of his constituents and settled for the forty-ninth line, a line that a few American cartographers had assumed in the decade following the Louisiana Purchase. One London paper recognized the reason for the United States settling for less than what was demanded: “The sacrifice of some of their pretensions in Oregon by the United States, was no doubt for the sake of pushing more valuable ones in Mexico.”88 This is likely accurate. After the northwest agreement, what was left on Polk’s imperial agenda was the great southwest. Regarding America’s move against Mexico, the same paper noted,

“With respect to Mexico, however, we fear there is little to be hoped or done.”

88 Daily News (London, England), July 2, 1846. CHAPTER V

THE TEXAS QUESTION AND AMERICA’S CONTINENTAL ENDGAME

To wish, to wait, to act describe the distinctive character of the government and the people of the United States. No nation in the civilized world can equal them in their endless ambition. The object of their heart’s desire having been determined, they lie in wait for the propitious moment, assuming a disinterested and indifferent attitude in the meanwhile which is foreign to their true feelings, until circumstances favor their designs, when they ruthlessly trample everything in the way of their desire. This is a historical truth as clear as the light of day.1 Vicente Filisola (1836)

In 1803, John Luffman illustrated the extent of the great “Parts Unkown” of the continental northwest in A Map of North America (Fig. 4.4.). After the explorations of

Lewis and Clark, second-decade mapmakers advertised to the American public a clearer understanding of the measure of the Louisiana Purchase and the lands beyond which

America would desire, claim, and for which she would finally negotiate a peaceful settlement. Luffman published another map at the end of the second decade, A Map

Sketch o f the United States o f America including the Whole o f the Immense Territory o f

Louisiana (New York: 1819). Beyond the typical American maps of the period, Luffman also included a note which celebrated the new Louisiana acquisition and extolled the virtues of the young republic.

This most invaluable acquisition to the United States, made during the Presidency of Mr. Jefferson, was obtained by purchase from the French in 1803...obtained without one drop of blood being shed. Reflect on this, ye Crowned Murderers and Robbers, ye Defolators of all that is beautiful in nature! Reflect, I say, again.

1 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Ramon Martinez Caro, Vicente Filisola, Jose Urrea, Jose Maria Tomel y Mendivil, and Carlos Eduardo Castaneda. The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution [1836] (Dallas: 1956), 294. 235

Lower your pride, and endeavor to imitate the Virtues of a Republican Government, or tremble on your thrones “for the Wrath to come.”

Most of Luffman’s fellow citizens likely shared his idea that the manner in which the young republic realized the territorial gain correctly illustrated the “Virtues of a

Republican Government.” The United States was measured, apparently, by a different standard than those imperial states of the old world. In less than thirty years, however, it would be clear that there was not much of a contrast between old and new empires in their methods of imperial expansion.

With the Oregon Question answered and Texas annexed immediately upon Polk’s inauguration, the Mexican War of 1846-1848 resulted in the final exercise in the

America’s continental expansion.2 As the conflict neared, it proved to be the American imperial maps that were the most critical in abetting the territorial land-grab. As with the

British cartographers and the northwest land struggle, there was no effective Mexican cartographical response in the southwest. This chapter will examine the mapping conversations regarding the American southwest from the end of the eighteenth-century to America’s successful conclusion in the Mexican War. As with the other chapters in this work, it is important to review earlier cartographical representations in order to fully appreciate the imperial maps of the period examined.

Though maps indicate imperial interest in territorial expansion, they are exercises usually in tandem with new discoveries or explorations. Imperial maps are often drawn in advance of acquisitions, but the mapping activity is seldom delayed for any period of time after expression of imperial interest. Spanish mapping of its imperial claims in the territories north of colonial Mexico, however, is striking in its paucity. Between 1500 and

2 Excepting the United States acquisition of Alaska in 1867 and the earlier 1854 Gadsden Purchase. 236

1700, the greater cartographic emphasis was with Mexico. This is understandable and

Mexico is clearly one of the best mapped areas of the early colonial period for any

European empire. Conversely, in these two hundred years, there are only about sixty

Spanish maps to the north and most of them deal with the Gulf holdings of Florida and coastal Louisiana.3 Spanish attention to its Texas territories was also late. It was only after the New Mexico settlements were abandoned in the wake of the Pueblo uprisings of

1680 that the Spanish crown turned with any significant interest to the lands beyond the

Rio Grande.

During the eighteenth century, Spain had established a few scattered Catholic missions and a handful of towns, chiefly San Antonio, Goliad, and Nacogdoches, but by the middle of the century, the non-Indian population of Texas had only reached about seven hundred-fifty.4 Even when the territory was mapped, these instruments reflected only slight Spanish imperial attention. An 1816 map, Mapa de Toda la Frontera de los

Dominos del Rey en la America Septentrional (Fig. 5.1), was based on a 1771 map of the same name by Nicolas de la Fora (b. ca. 1730). The earlier map, co-authored with Jose de

Urrutia (1739-1803), showed existing presidios in northern Mexico and a few into Texas and what would be the later U.S. southwest. Illustrating some accurate geographic

3 David Woodward, The History of Cartography, Vol. 3, Part 1: Cartography in the European Renaissance (Chicago: 2007), 1143. Florida was held by Spain until the Peace of 1763 at which time it was ceded to the British. The British divided the territory into two colonies East and West. Both colonies were then ceded back to Spain in a separate peace in 1783. Regarding Spain’s geographical ignorance of the North American west, Paul W. Mapp, The Elusive West and the Contest for Empire, 1713-1763 (Chapel Hill: 2011), 30, quotes from a 1755 letter of instructions to a new viceroy of New Spain commenting on “the unknown country lying between our populated provinces and the western extremity of Louisiana.” 4 Henderson K. Yoakum, History of Texas from Its First Settlement in 1685 to Its Annexation to the United States in 1846 (Austin: 1855), 1.93. Fig. 5.1. Jose de Urrutia and Nicolas de la Fora, Mapa de Toda la Frontera de los Dominios del Rey en la America Septentrional [1816], Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 237 238 topography, the 1771 map also represented settlements, missions, mines, Indian settlements, and administrative boundaries. But there was little evidence of any significant activity north of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo on the map). By the turn of the nineteenth century, Texas continued to languish on the northern frontier of the Spanish- held dominions. As the 1816 map illustrates, the only activity in Texas (the map’s only unnamed territory) are scattered “Rancherias de Gentiles,” that is, small settlements consisting of nothing more than a collection of huts inhabited by “heathen Indians.” The absence of Spanish attention gave advantage to other foreign powers.5

For a time, the new American Republic’s attention to the “old southwest” was no more energized than that of the Spanish crown. Into the first decade of the nineteenth century, the fledgling nation’s primary concern was unhindered passage along the

Mississippi and access through the port of New Orleans, especially in light of the increased settlement and activity in the “Old Northwest.” The United States gave hardly any thought to Spanish dominions other than the Floridas. It was only as recent as the last decade of late eighteenth century, with the beginning of the “age of American geographies,” that American cartographers turned their interest to territories west of the

Mississippi River. One of the first geographies to note any Spanish dominions other than the Floridas was Jedidiah Morse’s The American Geography in 1789.6 In the geography, which contained only two maps, he included A Map o f the States o f Virginia, North

Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia Comprehending the Spanish Provinces o f East and West Florida (Fig. 5.2). The map, “as fixed by the later treaty of Peace between the

5 For an excellent treatment of this era and geography, see David J. Weber, The Spanish Frontier in North America (New Haven: 1992). 6 Jedidiah Morse, The American Geography (Elizabeth Town: 1789). 239

Fig. 5.2. Jedidiah Morse, A Map o f the States o f Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia Comprehending the Spanish Provinces of East and West Florida (1789). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 240

in 1803. The Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804-06 and Zebulon M. Pike’s expedition

of 1806-07, the southern complement to the earlier expedition, led to increased American

interest in the territory west of the Mississippi.

The publication of Pike’s account in 1810 included a number of maps, one of

which was a detailed Map of the Internal Provinces of New Spain (Fig. 5.3).7 The map, in

agreement with earlier Spanish maps, illustrates little Spanish activity beyond the Rio del

Norte (Rio Grande) but indicates an abundance of water resources, mountain ranges, and

notations of “Immense herds of wild horses” which augured vast stretches of fertile lands.

This is an element of mapping that goes back to the early colonial maps which held out

promises to would be settlers of lush forests and plentiful wildlife. A few Americans

citizens had been moving into Texas from as early as the last decade of the eighteenth

century, but Pike’s first-hand report regarding the relatively weak Spanish military

presence, the abundance of natural resources, and significantly, the opportunities for trade

and profit with nearby Louisiana, introduced others to these possibilities and to a territory

ready for the taking.8 The finely engraved maps included in the publication of his journals later facilitated travel and American migration to these rich possibilities and to

what he called a “fine land, well watered and timbered; hickory, oak, sugar-tree, etc.”9

The “Texas Question,” that is, what nation had sovereign rights to the territory west of

the Mississippi River, was a matter of a larger debate. Jefferson had taken the position

7 Zebulon Montgomery Pike, An Account of Expeditions to the Sources of the Mississippi, and through the Western Parts of Louisiana... and a Tour through the Interior Parts of New Spain... (Baltimore: [1810]). 8 Tim Blevins, "To Spare No Pains”: Zebulon Montgomery Pike and His 1806-1807 Southwest Expedition : a Bicentennial Commemoration ([Colorado Springs, Colo.]: 2007), 7; Yoakum, History of Texas (1855), 1.136. 9 Pike, Account [1810], 307. 241

Fig. 5.3. Zebulon Montgomery Pike, Map of The Internal Provinces of New Spain (1810). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 242

that the Louisiana Purchase included territory as far south as the Rio Grande.10 Spain’s

position in this conversation can be summarized in two interesting efforts.

In 1817, Don Juan Lopez (1765-1825) published in Madrid the Atlas Universal, o

Coleccion de Mapas Nuevos.11 Identified as the “geografo del roy,” he states the purpose

of his slight offering, which includes twenty-seven maps and one page of narrative, was

to instruct to the youth, merchants, and travelers. Lopez participates in the cartographic

imperial conversations, and by extension do his readers, in a similar manner to most of

the geographies of the times with one interesting departure. To this point in the narrative

of North American imperial cartographic ideology, maps had served to advertise

expansionist desires, claims, or holdings, and played a role, at times significant, in the

effort to secure sovereign reality. Lopez’s Mapa de la America Septentrional and Estados

Unidos de America (Fig. 5.4) are nothing less than cartographic denials of the political

realities in the second decade of the new century. This appraisal of the maps’

contributions to the imperial conversation is not mitigated by the first line in Lopez’s

Advertencia, or, loosely translated, “an opening caution.” He says, “The present work,

started in the year of 1801, and suspended by several occurrences, has continued in these

last three years, finally coming to light for various purposes.”

For Spain, the first fifteen years of the nineteenth century was indeed a time of

“occurrences.” French invasions, Bonaparte’s grab of the Spanish throne, nationalist

uprisings, and finally the return of the Bourbons in 1814; these were all events that raised

10 As noted above, Thomas Jefferson, in his June 20, 1803 instructions to Meriwether Lewis, considered that the “extent of the country,” the Louisiana Purchase, was bounded to the south by the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande). 11 Juan Lopez, Atlas universal o Coleccion de mapas nuevos, que comprehende los principales imperios, reynos y republicas del mundo en general, y de la Europa en particular (Madrid: 1817). 243

Fig. 5.4. Don Juan Lopez, Estados Unidos de America (1817). Image courtesy of the Biblioteca Nacional. 244

havoc with the political stability on the peninsula, concerns certainly greater than

publishing an atlas. Publication delay was understandable, but whenever the map was

prepared, there was more than adequate time to make corrections. Though the royal

geographer evidently did not see the need to correct the political lines on the Mapa de la

America or the Estados Unidos, this should not be assumed to have been due to lack of

attention or a unilateral decision by Lopez. Spain denied the legality of Napoleon’s

acquisition of Spain’s continental territories in the 1800 Treaty of San Ildefonso and 12 loudly objected to America’s right of purchase a few years later. However the maps’

publication may be seen, there is a striking similarity to British maps of the same time

which also ignored America’s Louisiana’s acquisition. In the same respect, Lopez’s

Mapa must certainly be viewed as an ill-conceived cartographic wish to turn the

geopolitical clock back to 1762 when Spain acquired France’s Louisiana territories in the

year before the end of the Seven Years’ War. The explanation that the geography was

“finally coming to light for various purposes” should cause pause. Geographers are quick

to explain the purposes for their publication, as Lopez does when he says his geography

will benefit students, travelers, merchants, etc. In the short Advertencia, Lopez does not

give any hint as what these “various purposes” might be. But Lopez, as cartographer to

the king, has effectively presented the Spanish imperial side of the North American

debate over territorial claims. In Spain’s 1817 territorial claims would soon come under

scrutiny in the boundary negotiations with the United States.

The same year that Lopez published his Atlas Universal, there arrived in Spain a

treatise to aid Spanish negotiators addressing the boundary questions with the United

12 Weber, Spanish Frontier (1992), 291. 245

States. In 1805, the Spanish Crown ordered its officials in America to prepare a report laying out the arguments and the evidences that would be needed to protect the northern

Spanish dominions from American incursions. The result was a Mexican scholar’s thirty- one volume, 5,127 page response.13 In his Treatise on The Limits o f Louisiana and Texas,

Jose Antonio Pichardo (1748-1812) included a number of maps in support of various arguments for Spanish rights to North American holdings. In the last paragraph of the report’s Part I, he summarizes his previous evidences:

Thus far we have proved by most weighty arguments that Spain was the one legitimate and absolute owner of all the land in which the French founded La Louisiana (and we have collected, as the royal order requests, as many documents and historical and geographical notices as have come to our hands, with which we have made our proofs most convincing), and that, consequently, the French acted with much injustice and iniquity in settling it when they discovered it.14

Pichardo, at this point in his treatise, goes beyond the French cession of Louisiana to

Spain in 1762 to the earliest sixteenth and seventeenth Spanish explorations. The northern lands became Spanish dominion by right of discovery, he says, and that later

French settlements south of the Great Lakes, lands they named Louisiana, were nothing more than squatter activities on foreign soil. Pichardo’s service to the Spanish crown exhausts all possible defenses in the face of any opposing argument, including the coerced 1800 Treaty of San Ildefonso which is named in the work’s first sentence.

Like most maps driven by an imperial agenda, Pichardo’s El Nuevo Mexico y

Tierras AdyancentesMapa (Fig. 5.5) is of less value for its geographical content than for its political purposes. The map was compiled from a number of unpublished maps at his

13 Jose Antonio Pichardo, Charles W. Hackett, Charmion Shelby, and Mary Ruth Splawn, Pichardo's Treatise on the Limits of Louisiana and Texas: An Argumentative Historical Treatise with Reference to the Verification of the True Limits of the Provinces of Louisiana and Texas, 4 volumes (Austin: 1931). 14 Pichardo, Treatise on the Limits (1931), 1.288. tSE

/VI- •ft "S,

•/ 't »; <» A > / I v a

SI k ■ ,v5 >v: **'\ \ \ \ \ * ' '« u •,!:»*.< rirMrv***' "■ V . ■i I EI.M KVO MICXHt) L -r i m im \x Ain vein. v r> •rr.s * : i-V / * ^ V-V ■ XKNO MEXlCANO \ m a p a I \ A>

ifi*Kifj|Nliwlv in t^ I'n.'ln ^rJiniifr niif* (i> *J o V ^nft^tllirwrmViwr \ ^ 7 f.f

Fig. 5.5. Jose Antonio Pichardo, El Nuevo Mexico y Tierras Adyancentes Mapa (1811). Image courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California. 246 247 disposal and, as a result, it is filled with obvious geographic inaccuracies. It is, nonetheless, true to the various boundary lines that previous cartographers illustrated in their efforts to demonstrate Spanish territorial claims.15 The map offers no less than five boundaries for the northern and eastern reaches of Spanish territory; the lines, compiled from the several maps, intimate discrete cartographical fallback positions. That is, if the most favorable line of argument shown on the map does not convince, there is the next line, and the next, and so on. The cartographical images and the treatise itself were a massive accomplishment, but most of Pichardo’s arguments, and those of the Spanish

Crown, were of little avail. Voices from the Mexican Republic decades later would make many of the same claims; claims which were finally settled by war.

Spanish control of its three hundred year continental empire was coming to an end with the Latin American revolutions of the 1820s; its last gasp effort in securing any order and imperial safe-keeping in North American was the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819.

Through the diplomatic efforts of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and the Spanish minister to the United States, Luis de Oms, the United States and Spain agreed to “to settle and terminate all their differences and pretensions.”16 Pichardo’s basic arguments resonated within the Spanish ministry, though it is difficult to say how much of his

Treatise de Onis was able to distil and incorporate in the negotiations.17

Negotiations between American and European empires may have centered in the halls of the various ministries, but the question of sovereign territory and international agreements seldom inhibited United States citizens in satisfying their territorial appetites.

15 Jack Jackson, Shooting the Sun: Cartographic Results of Military Activities in Texas, 1689 1829, 2 volumes ([Austin]: 1998), 2.348. 16 Adams-Onis Treaty. 17 Felix Calleja, “Pichardo’s Treatise and the Adams-Onis Treaty,” The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Feb., 1935), 98-99. 248

American filibustering and colonizing activities in Texas started almost immediately after 18 Pike’s publication. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and Napoleon’s invasion of the

Iberian Peninsula in 1807 enabled Americans to take advantage of Spain’s difficulties in

holding on to their domains. Some Americans supported Mexican independence

movements of the next decade while others were specifically motivated in absorbing

Texas into the United States immediately.19 From the Spanish perspective, the Adams-

Onis treaty was meant to be the final settlement of boundaries between the two nations

from the Gulf to the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams

was more interested in a Pacific window to the east than he was in southwest expansion.

Over the objections of American frontiersmen and many southerners, the United States

relinquished its supposed claims to Texas in exchange for Spain’s cession of Florida and

Spain’s claims in the northwest. Within two years of the treaty and after a ten-year

struggle, Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in 1821. Popular American

interest in Texas did not abate with the political changes in the early 1820s, or with

formal agreements, agreements which Mexico optimistically inherited from Spain.

Imperial maps by themselves will not secure territory for an imperial power. They

will focus attention on a coveted or desired piece of land, but without a population to take

possession of the ground or a military force to defend claims, maps will rarely be

sufficient.20 Though Spain discounted the importance of the imperial map as an

instrument to focus attention on its northern holdings, it recognized the difficulties in

18 Richard W. Gronet, "United States and the Invasion of Texas, 1810-1814," The Americas, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1969), 281-306. 19 Robert E. May, “Manifest Destiny’s Filibusters,” Manifest Destiny and Empire: American Antebellum Expansionism, Sam W. Haynes and Robert Walter Johannsen, eds. (College Station, Tex: 2008), 151. 20 The striking exception to this was the “Oregon Question” where the popular voice and the threat of military intervention made up for the lack of an armed population on the ground. 249 holding onto land that was less than sufficiently populated. Spain had very little success convincing its Mexican population to emigrate to its northern dominions. Historically, it had refused foreign immigration into its territories, but in the last decade of the eighteenth century, Spain invited Anglo-Americans to settle the Upper-Louisiana.21 With the Louisiana Purchase and likely prompted by the 1819 Adams-Onis settlement, in 1821,

Spain opened Texas to American colonization. Upon its independence from Spain,

Mexico continued the policy. It seems strange, certainly in retrospect, that Spanish and

Mexican authorities might consider populating Texas with American expatriates, that building up a commercially and agriculturally successful American colony would insure the territory against foreign incursions, particularly from an imperialistic United States.

Spain and Mexico both relied, perhaps naively, on favorable immigration policies and a mandatory oath of fidelity to assure Anglo-American loyalty. In the defense of their policies, neither had any other choice.

Utmost of the crown and republic concerns at this time was not the impact on a

Texas populated by immigrants coming from the United States, but rather a solution to their ongoing Indian problem. Any concerns over future immigrant loyalty were disregarded. For more than two centuries, the Spanish crown had failed repeatedly in its efforts to make the northern settlements safe from Indian violence, which was necessary in developing a healthy economy in the north. By the late 1700s, Spanish resources were still being wasted in the crown’s determination to control imagined dominions, which were in fact controlled by Indians.22 An influx of Anglo-American immigrants into Texas

21 Gilbert C. Din, “Spain's Immigration Policy in Louisiana and the American Penetration, 1792 1803,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Jan., 1973), 255. 22 Brian DeLay, War of a Thousand Deserts: Indian Raids and the U.S.-Mexican War (New Haven: 2008), 9-12. 250 was one way to solve the problem and without the attendant cost to crown or republic.

One of the first to take advantage of the Spanish immigration proposals was

Moses Austin (1761-1821), a Virginian with previous experience in Missouri, and his son

Stephen F. Austin (1793-1836).23 The irritations regarding the United States restrictions on land grants in the west were making Texas immigration more appealing. In 1825, a St.

Louis newspaper noted the contrast, “Mexico does not think of getting rich.. .but by 24 increasing the number and wealth of her citizens.” All in all, the Anglo-American immigrants got what they desired from the new Mexican Republic. The immigration policy in terms of population increase was a success. Of the non-Indian inhabitants in

Texas, in 1821, there were fewer than twenty-five hundred; by 1836 that number had increased to almost forty thousand, of which no more than thirty-five hundred were native Mexican or tejanos, the rest were American settlers and their slaves.25

The strategy of open immigration, with benefits, was not an entirely consensual policy by the Mexican authorities. But despite resistance in some quarters of the government, many officials felt that the benefits of a populated Texas outweighed the dangers of opening the territory up to Anglo-Americans. Jose Francisco Ruiz (1783

1840) served as a member of a government commission assigned to explore areas of

Texas immediately after Mexican independence. After a decade of experience in Texas, he penned a letter to Stephen Austin addressing the question of the need to further

23 Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (New York: 1978), 267, notes that Spain initially offered a headright system to promote settlement and the Mexican Republic continued this assistance along with a six-year civil and ecclesiastical tax exemption. 24 Missouri Advocate (St. Louis) Aug 27, 1825. 25 Weber, Spanish Frontier (1992), 177. Regarding slavery, in 1823 Stephen F. Austin received permission, albeit reluctantly, from the Mexican government to introduce slavery into the territory. See Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865 (Baton Rouge: 1989), 24. 251

populate the territory: “I cannot help seeing advantages, which, to my way of thinking,

would result if we admitted honest, hard-working people, regardless of what country they

come fro m , even hell itself.”26 The advantages apparent to Ruiz and to many other

government officials, conservative or liberal, were many. Immigrants from America

would bring with them the diligence and abilities which would promote economic

growth, the manpower for defense of the province, and would overall improve the society

of a territory that had been the backwater of all of Mexico. With the departure of the

moneyed Spaniards who had left Mexico or had been expelled in the decade following

independence, these Anglo-Americans with their capital and business skills were

essential for the province’s political and economic survival.27

If mapping was an important element in support of territorial claims by empires, it

is also important to understand why the Mexican authorities delayed attention to this

imperial aspect for as long as they did, and when they did turn to cartographical

instruments in reinforcing their claims why the results were so weak. Simply put, the

Mexican treasury did not have the resources to expend on the cost of a thorough mapping

enterprise of its northern holdings. It was not until July 1827 that the government

launched a cartographical expedition into the northern territories. Jose Manuel de Mier y

Teran (1789-1832), a member of the Mexican general military staff as inspector general

of the artillery, was assigned to inspect the boundary as defined in the Adams-Onis

Treaty of 1819 from the eastern reaches to as far west as Santa Fe.28 Nearly four months

26 Francisco Ruiz to Stephen F. Austin, November 26, 1830, in Eugene C. Barker (ed.), The Austin Papers (Vols. I and II, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Years 1919 and 1922, Washington, 1924, 1928; Vol. III, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1926), II, 541. 27 Weber, Spanish Frontier (1992), 159. 28 Ohland Morton, Teran and Texas; A Chapter in Texas-Mexican Relations (Austin: 1948), 52. 252

after Teran received his instructions, Joel Roberts Poinsett (1779-1851), America’s first

minister to Mexico, informed Secretary of State Henry Clay: “The Commission has not

set out on this expedition for want of funds, Congress having appropriated what the

Treasury does not contain at the moment.”29 Teran and his party finally left Mexico City

in November 1827 and arrived at the Presidio de Laredo on the banks of the Rio Bravo in

early February 1828.30

The boundary commission reached San Antonio by March and traveled as far east

as Nacogdoches by early June. Jose Maria Sanchez y Tapia served as Teran’s lieutenant

and as part of the commission. In his diary of the expedition, he notes his reaction to his

first contact with the Anglo-American settlers:

The commerce, which is carried on by foreigners and two or three Mexicans, is very insignificant, but the monopoly of it is very evident. I could cite many instances to prove my assertion, but I do not wish to be accused of ulterior motives... The Americans from the north have taken possession of practically all of the eastern part of Texas, in most cases without the permission of the authorities. They immigrate constantly, finding no one to prevent them, and take possession of the sitio that best suits them without either asking leave or going through any formality other than that of building their homes. Thus the majority of inhabitants in the Department are North American, the Mexican population being reduced.31

Sanchez recognized that as a result the immigration policy Texas would inevitably

become “the prize of the ambitious North Americans.” He was alarmed at the

government’s inattention to the needs of the territory “while our enemies from the North

do not lose a single opportunity of advancing though it be but a step towards their

treacherous design which is well known.” Of course the Teran commission was part of a

shift by the government to give the province needed vigilance and stay United States

29 Joel Poinsett to Henry Clay, October 26, 1827, H. Ex. Docs., 25c, 1s., No. 42, p.24. 30 Morton, Teran and Texas (1948), 56. 31 Jose Maria Sanchez and Carlos E. Castaneda, “A Trip to Texas in 1828,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Apr., 1926), 258, 260. 253 territorial desires but by 1828 the situation was such that Teran’s lieutenant, at least, 32 expected the worse: “Alas, wretched republic!”

Political discord in the capital city was the prevailing condition by the end of the year and anarchy was ever-present. In January 1829, Teran was recalled to resume his obligations as inspector general of artillery.33 Relative to its primary task, the boundary commission’s cartographic results are slight. Teran produced only rough sketches, one of which illustrated the Texas and Louisiana border around the Sabine and the Naches

Rivers. As part of the imperial conversation, Mexico’s effort to strengthen its position through cartographical representation was a failure. For lack of political stability and greater financial resources, Texas consolidation under federal control was unmanageable and woefully inadequate.34

Consequently, the Teran expedition’s importance lay less on its actual or perceived goals than in Teran’s efforts to force the government’s attention to the Texas situation. His reports, however, were the foundation of all Mexican policy affecting the province until the Texas Revolution.35 In an effort to impose stronger central authority, the government passed the “Law of April 6, 1830.” The Mexican Secretary of State

Lucas Alaman (1792-1853), the author of the law, stated at the time, “Texas will be lost for this Republic if adequate measures to save it are not taken.”36 The law established garrisons in Texas, brought settlement contracts under federal control, increased tariffs of

32 Sanchez and Castaneda, “Trip to Texas,” (1926), 260, 261. 33 Morton, Teran and Texas (1948), 78. 34 For a general treatment of Mexico’s finances, see DeLay, War of a Thousand Deserts (2008), 151-154. Delay comments specifically regarding the northern provinces, “Given Mexico’s perpetual fiscal crisis, the frontier would receive national attention and funding only in proportion to the relative absence of events that were considered national crisis” (163). 35 Morton, Teran and Texas (1948), 80. 36 Weber, Spanish Frontier (1992), 170. Weber cites Lucas Alaman, “Inciativa de ley,” in Vicente Filisola, Memoriaspara la historia de la guerra de Tejas (Mexico: 1849), II.603. 254 those goods imported from the United States, introduced provisions to increase coastal trade with Mexico, and included other provisions to prevent the further slave transport into the province. Prior to this law, other than the oath of allegiance to the Mexican state,

Texas had been practically independent in managing its own affairs.37

For Austin and the many American emigres, the most objectionable element of the law was the eleventh article which addressed the question of Texas immigration policies; interestingly enough, it was not a restriction recommended by Teran. The eleventh article read,

In accordance with the right reserved by the general congress in the seventh article of the Law of August 18, 1824, it is prohibited that emigrants from nations bordering on this Republic shall settle in the states or territory adjacent to their own nation. Consequently, all contracts not already completed and not in harmony with this law are suspended.

Though the law in some quarters has been compared to the Stamp Act in the American colonial experience, Austin’s response to the law was to stress its benefits.38 Trade along the coastal routes south would give increase to the Texas markets and the federal military protection along the Texas frontiers would free settlers from the danger and time spent in their militia duties. He ignored the possible constraints that the eleventh article might impose on future Texas settlement.39 Teran had hoped for an adjustment which allowed entry of one Anglo-American for three Mexicans or Europeans; he was not in accord with

37 Alleine Howren, “Causes and Origin of the Decree of April 6, 1830,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Apr., 1913), 378-422; Howren includes the text of the law, 415-17. 38 It should not be surprising that one of the most notable sources of this comparison between the law and Stamp Act is The Texas State Historical Association’s article, “Law of April 6, 1830,” accessed November 15, 2012, www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/ articles/ngl01. 39 Morton, Teran and Texas (1948), 123. 255 the outright prohibition of immigrants from the United States.40 Continued Anglo-

American immigration to Texas was under a serious threat, which, in turn, would put at risk the social and political position that the current settlers enjoyed. Politically adept,

Austin drew a map.

To this point in this work, there are maybe a handful of maps which decisively influenced the making of American history: Captain John Smith’s Virginia (1612) and

New England(1632), Gualliame d’Lisle’s Louisiane et du Course duMississipi (1718),

Henry Popple’s British Empire in America (1733), John Mitchell’s British Dominions in

North America (1755), and Augustus Mitchell’s Texas, Oregon and California (1846).

Stephen F. Austin’s Map o f Texas (1829) (Fig. 5.6) is another. On its own, the map is interesting to Texas history and has typically been used simply to illustrate the empresario land grants. A less critical inspection of the map will likely, for example, pick up on the state-labeled cactus as a straightforward flourish without regard to Austin’s motives for its inclusion. It is impossible to fully appreciate Austin’s map without consideration of the historical climate leading up to its publication. Inherent to understanding the map was Austin’s diplomatic dilemma in persuading American immigration to the Mexican province while at the same time moderating Mexican apprehensions concerning Texas loyalty.

In 1822 and 1823, Austin spent several months in Mexico City in an effort to confirm his father’s colonization grant. As has been noted, this was a turbulent time in

Mexican politics and Austin’s petitions were presented to a successive string of governments that came into power. With each petition, Austin pointed out the need for a

40 Eugene C. Barker, Mexico and Texas, 1821-1835: University of Texas Research Lectures on the Causes of the Texas Revolution (New York: 1965), 59. 256

Fig. 5.6. Stephen F. Austin, Map o f Texas (Philadelphia: 1829). Image courtesy of Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps. 257 good map of Texas and pledged to undertake the task.41 He developed a close association with Teran during the boundary commission’s expedition to Texas in 1828, the result of which was Austin’s increased attention to the cartographical task. Teran and Austin shared their rough sketches and by the summer of 1829 Austin, satisfied with his finished work, arranged to have the H.S. Tanner Company of Philadelphia publish the map. At the same time, he sent a copy of the map to the Mexican government as it was debating the changes that passed into law the following year.

Austin’s Map o f Texas is noteworthy in a number of respects. The map’s subtitle,

“with parts of the adjoining states,” is specific in reference to the contiguous Mexican states, which are labeled “states.” Louisiana to the east is not given that status and the other holdings of the United States to the north are simply noted “Ozark District” and

“Arkansas Territory.” The United States, though bordering Texas on two sides, is not even named. If the map was intended to solely address provincial Texas, much of the lower portion of the map could have been eliminated. But this section was just as critical to Austin’s purpose as was communicating the cartographical representation of the Texas itself: Austin intended the map to reinforce the Texas’s connection with the Mexican

Republic. The cartouche (Fig. 5.7) is capped with the Mexican coat of arms of the eagle devouring a snake perched upon a prickly cactus. As indicated, each pad of the cactus represents a particular state in the Estados Unidos Mexicanos; Texas is included on its pad as “Coahuila y Tejanos.” The cartouche is not a simple requisite flourishing but one designed to emphasize the province’s connection with the federal state and also, for the same reason the map extends further south than Texas territory, to illustrate the

41 His first map, Mapa topografico de la provincia de Texas, was made in 1822. It illustrates the coastal section of the Gulf region from Louisiana to the Nueces River. 258

Fig. 5.7. Stephen F. Austin, Map o f Texas (1829) (detail). Image courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas. 259 province’s internal connection with Coahuila. In this way the map communicates a two fold political association with the Mexican Republic. To be clear, the insert on the left corner of the map addresses Texas’s relationship to northern Mexico, even to the point of discussing the topographical similarities overlapping the territories of Texas and Mexico proper.

Everything about the map, in Spanish for the government copy, reinforces the province’s association with the republic and ignores its geographical and cultural relationship with the United States, and disclaims any separation from the Mexican republic. The boundaries of the empesario lands on the map, much like other imperial maps, illustrated to the Mexican government that Texas was an ordered and organized province. Previous federal policies in controlling the territory were not inadequate; federal concerns and that stronger measures were needed were unfounded; Sanchez’s words that Texas “would be lost to this Republic” were misguided. Austin’s map made clear that Texas was not at any risk, but exactly the opposite, Texas was connected to

Mexico as an integral part and that its chief citizen was loyal to the Mexican Republic.

The empesario land grants shown on the map also served to remind Mexican authorities of the promises previously given to Austin and other immigrating Americans.

In addition to and in spite of the propaganda purposes evident in a historically- centered analysis of the map, there are letters in which Austin more fully explained the map’s role in the imperial conversation. Two of which, dated July 23, 1829, accompanied the map as it made its way to President Vicente Guerrero (1783-1831) through a long chain of recipients from the chief political officer in Bexar, Ramon 260

Musquiz (1797-1867), to the Secretary of the Treasury, Lorenzo de Zavala (1788 42 1836). In the cover letter addressed to Musquiz he says of the map,

My object has been to add to the fund of geographic knowledge of the Mexican territory, and to make our beloved Texas known to the Mexicans and to the world, because it has been immersed in darkness for centuries, and even still very unknown, I take advantage of the occasion... I perform this service to my adopted homeland in deference of the duty of a citizen, and perhaps that his Excellency, the President, may deem it worthy to mandate to record and publish the map, I transfer to the National Government, to the effect, any right to the map which is entitled to me as its author.43

In the letter to de Zavala, Austin rhetorically asks, “How can we save the Rio Grande border and Texas, this precious gem that has been submerged for centuries in the darkness and the hand of entrepreneurial free institutions that are now in the act of giving light?” To which he answers,

There is a way that is true and effective, it is to encourage the emigration of civilized people to Texas in the State of the Mexican Federation, as quickly as is possible. The civic ones of Texas will contain the Indians, and will protect to the whole border of the Rio Grande without costing the government a thing. One glace at the map will satisfy anyone that the security of the States of Chihuahua, Coahuila and Tamaulipas, and even Nuevo Leon and New Mexico depend entirely upon keeping a dense and vigorous population in Texas.44

Austin ignores any “Americanization” concerns that the Mexican government has, and instead emphasizes the benefits of civilization coming to the province because of the past immigration policies, which if continued, will civilize and contain the province for the benefit of the republic. Austin’s missives reinforce the cartographical message of the map: the foremost empresario of the province is loyal to the state and his efforts are but that of a dutiful citizen; this in a time when the Mexican government was concerned

42 Robert S. Martin, “Maps of an Empresario: Austin's Contribution to the Cartography of Texas,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly , Vol. 85, No. 4 (Apr., 1982), 391, 394. 43 Stephen F. Austin to Ramon Musquiz, July 23, 1829, The Austin Papers (Washington: 1928), 2.235-36. 44 Stephen F. Austin to Lorenzo de Zavala, Minister of the Treasury, July 23, 1829, The Austin Papers (1928), 2.238. 261 about the loyalty of the Anglo-American population of Texas, and considering actions to more fully connect the province militarily, economically, and politically with the federal state.

This had become a heated topic in the Mexican ministry from the early receipts of

Teran’s expedition reports and his final recommendations upon his return to the capital.

To de Zavala, Austin addressed directly the government benefits of Anglo-American immigration to Texas and noted that the civilizing process could, and should, be continued, “without costing the government a thing,” an important argument given the sparse means of the Mexican government. Austin is being somewhat disingenuous in raising the specter of Indian activities. In his History o f the Revolution in Texas, published in 1838, the Reverend Chester Newell says, “The leading object of the

Mexican Government in allowing the Colonization of Texas, was undoubtedly the protection of her frontiers from the hostile incursions of the Indians.”45 To a great degree, colonization proved successful in securing peace with the various tribes in Texas. While this was an obvious concern regarding any peaceful settling of Texas, by this time in the ministry’s estimation, the greater threat upon the borders of Mexican province of Texas was not going to come from Native Americans but from uninhibited Anglo-American immigration and increased interest in the territory by the United States. In fact, in this moment most of the Indian problems were south of the Rio Grande rather than to the north of it.46 It was this ministerial concern over immigration and the “Americanization” of the Mexican province of Texas which resulted in the “Law of April 6, 1830.”

45 C. Newell, History of the Revolution in Texas, Particularly of the War of 1835 & '36 (New York: 1838), 14. 46 DeLay, War of a Thousand Deserts (2008), 141, discounted the French naturalist and anthropologist Jean Louis Berlandier (ca. 1805-1851) conclusions that “it is still a very difficult 262

In the wake of the 1830 law, Austin was still waiting for the map’s final publication from the H.S. Tanner Company in Philadelphia. 47 In June 14, 1830, he sent a letter to Thomas F. Leaming, a Philadelphian with power of attorney for the Austin family, asking about the status of the map. In this letter, he gives further explanation of his purpose.48 “My object was not individual profit, it was to bring this country forward into public view, for it has been literally buried in obscurity up to the last year— .” Austin sees the new measures prohibiting Anglo-American immigration as a “striking proof of the necessity of the silent course which I have pursued in bringing forward this settlement.” The “silent course” was the map’s publication. The immigration restrictions demanded this approach, on which he commented,

I have never sent any notices or publications respecting it to be printed in the news papers untill lately, when I first began in 1821 I merely put in a notice in the Orleans papers that I was authorized to settle 300 families and barely said enough to draw attention. last year I found that the Govt. were beginning to become suspicious that this country was of more value than they supposed it was, Genl Teran passed through here, and saw it. I found that something must be done to draw emigration and I determined to have the Map published as the Most effectual means of operating on an intelligent people, and the least dangerous with the Mexicans, for not many of them know any thing about maps.49

Only to an American confidant and agent, then, Austin expressed his candid opinions and motives. Concerned with Mexican apprehensions and the economic survival of the province, the map was two-fold in its purpose. It would advertise Texas in a way that matter to live in peace with the whole people [Indians].” Delay says, “Here, unusually, this inexhaustibly curious reporter had it wrong. Comanches could and did maintain an imperfect peace with Texas from the late 1820s to the Texas rebellion...while warring below the Rio Grande.” Americans would be just as disingenuous as Austin in raising this concern. DeLay observes, “Throughout 1830s and early 1840s, [American] editors, diplomats, congressmen, and administration officials invoked Mexicans’ manifest inability to control Indians in order to denigrate Mexico’s claims to its northern territories, first in Texas and, later, across the whole of Mexican north” (xvii). 47 The map was published in March 1830, the month prior to the law’s passage. 48 Stephen F. Austin to Thomas F. Leaming, June 14, 1830, The Austin Papers (1928), 2.413-417. 49 Austin to Leaming, 2.413-417. 263 would be “least dangerous with the Mexicans,” who in his estimation had little cartographical knowledge anyway. It would also educate more Anglo-Americans about the possibilities in moving to Texas. He desired to increase American immigration with an instrument that would not further alarm the Mexican authorities but would, by all appearances, be construed as a work by a citizen loyal to the government. In both of these communications, written a year apart, Austin is not dissembling; for the sake of peaceful, unrestricted growth, Texas depended on calming Mexican Anglo-American concerns and at the same time increasing immigration of these same Anglo-Americans. He recognized, however, the inherent complications: “I have had two difficult tasks to perform here, one to manage the Govt. and the other to manage the settlers.”50

The Tanner Company, per Austin’s instructions, made the map available in a fold- up form with a leather case to be circulated in the United States and in Europe. Austin wrote descriptions of Texas to accompany the map for sale in the United States and

Europe. The European sale of the map was subsequently offered without the intended pamphlet.51 In the description for American consumption written in August 1828, he says, “The Mexican government with a degree of liberality unequaled have opened this fine and truly desirable country to the enterprising and industrious of all nations: lands are granted to emigrants for almost nothing.”52 The opening line of the unpublished

European pamphlet reads, “The encouragement given by the Mexican government and by

50 Austin to Leaming, 2.413-417. 51 Eugene C. Barker, “Descriptions of Texas by Stephen F. Austin,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Oct., 1924), 98, gives his sources for Austin’s three separate descriptions of Texas (1828, 1830, and 1833). The article is Barker’s transcription of material in the Austin Papers of the University of Texas. The 1828 description, he says, is from “an undated clipping from the Galveston News”; the 1830 description is from Austin’s original manuscript; and the 1833 description is from University of Texas transcripts of documents in the Departmento de Fomento, Mexico City, D.F. 52 Barker, “Descriptions” (1924), 100. 264 the state of Coahuila and Texas to emigrants to Texas from Europe merits the popular 53 attention of those who have a desire to better their fortunes by removal to America.”

Austin penned a third description in August 1833 - his map to Mexican authorities had already been sent four years previously. The description is in support of federal statehood for Texas, separate from Coahuila. The description numbers the population of various municipalities, gives information on Texas’s agriculture and husbandry, and comments on the general progress of the province. He closes with two interesting statements: “Their [Texas citizenry] progress is rapid, even in their present situation; but with a state government to enlarge and protect industry it would be much greater, because then there would be security and confidence, which do not exist.”54

Austin’s description to the federal government says nothing of immigration - the entire message is one of commitment to Mexico and the desire of Texans to be included as a full state in the federal republic. His point about protection of Texas industry is interesting - protection from what or whom? Texas trade was almost exclusively with

American markets. His last line is telling: “Proof that the inhabitants of Texas have confidence in their resources to defend themselves against the Indian savages is to be found in the fact that they have not asked troops nor companies of soldiers or money and they do not need it.”55 In the first two descriptions promoting the benefits of settling in

Texas, both intended to accompany his map, Austin gives a dutiful nod to the hospitality of the Mexican government, certainly designed to give comfort to those leaving familiar lands; in the third description, he offers a self-sufficient and self-sustaining image of

Texas. Though arguing for Mexican statehood, the message could have unsettled

53 Barker, “Descriptions” (1924), 103. 54 Barker, “Descriptions” (1924), 121. 55 Barker, “Descriptions” (1924), 121. 265

Mexican authorities with the sense that Texans, while happy to be part of the Mexican republic, would be happier left alone, without Mexican military or Mexican money

(which the treasury could ill afford anyway). Within a few years, Texans began to bridle under the new government restrictions and talk of independence was becoming common.

A few years after Austin’s map was published, another map of Texas was published in Philadelphia with a strikingly different cartographical message. In 1835, the

Samuel Augustus Mitchell Company of Philadelphia published a New Map o f Texas, with the Contiguous American & Mexican States (Fig. 5.8) by James H. Young (active 1817

1866). To a great degree, it is a departure from the typical imperial cartographical paradigm in that the object of America’s expanding imperial desire, Texas, is not obviously included in the territorial holdings of the United States. This is deceptive. The map is sophisticated in its imperial purpose while eschewing the blatant mapping of pretended territorial control that has been illustrated in the previous chapters and in particular those imperial claims of the American northwest in the maps of the 1820s through the 1840s. It is obvious by the cartouche that while it is Texas that is the named object of Young’s map there are two other political entities given nearly equal weight to each other. “Nearly equal weight” because though Texas is sovereign Mexican territory it is the American position in the map’s title that comes before the Mexican position. It is

Texas’s relationship to the United States that is the map’s primary communication.

Visually, then, the map illustrates three distinct political entities: Texas, America, and

Mexico. The explicit casual representation, the map and the cartouche, communicates that Texas stands apart from and is “contiguous” to two other distinct geographical national bodies. Without the inserts explaining Texas’s connection with Mexico there is Fig. 5 . 8 . J.H. Young, New Map of Texas, with the Contiguous American & Mexican States (Philadelphia: 1835). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. M 267 nothing on the map that would lead one to conclude that Texas was anything but an independent country or state situated between two other sovereign powers.

Though the explanatory inserts make clear that Texas is Mexican territory, the inserts continue the imperial conversation as sophisticated in manipulation as the map itself. The first line of the “Remarks on Texas” insert begins “Cohahuila and Texas, form one state in the Mexican confederacy.” This first line, which states a political connection that is absent from the map itself, is subtle in communicating another political message.

America in its early republic went through its own period of government under the

“Articles of Confederation,” which was put aside in favor of a stronger governing instrument. In their early nineteenth century, common usage “federalist” and

“confederate” were often used interchangeably; but for Americans at the time the map was published, there was certainly an understanding of the subtle distinctions between the two. In the former, the central government interacts directly with its citizens; in the latter, the central government interacts indirectly through its constituent parts, or the states.56

While the first line explains that Texas is part of the Mexican state of Coahuila and Texas

(again, the map does nothing to communicate this connection), contemporary understanding of the line suggests a loose connection that is less than accurate with regard to the Mexican federal constitution. Texas, the reader understands, belongs to a confederacy that is limited in its central governing purpose, not unitary, made up of constituent parts which possess full autonomy, and, as the American experience in the

56 Daniel J. Elazar, “Federalism,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, David L. Sills and Robert King Merton, eds. (New York: 1968), 5.354. See also Daniel Judah Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL: 1987), The Politics of American Federalism (Lexington, MA: 1969); Harry V. Jaffa, The Conditions of Freedom: Essays in Political Philosophy (Baltimore: 1975). 268 coming decades will reveal, which parts arguably have the right to secede from the central government.57

As the “Remarks” continue, the reader is told that it will not be until there is an increase in Texas population that its residents will be represented in state or national assemblies. This might be alarming to the citizens of the young republic to the north and east and especially to those still alive who experienced their own battle for self determination just decades earlier. The truth is, from its entrance into the newly formed

Estados Unido Mexicanos in 1824, each Mexican state or provincial entity had representation in both the local and federal assemblies as laid out by the federal constitution. To the date of the map’s publication, Coahuila and Texas had been continually represented in in the Mexico House of Representatives and Senate since

1824, and those departments which made up Texas by the time of the map’s publication were sending three representatives to the provincial assembly.

Relative to the freedoms enjoyed by the “Anglo Americans, forming the principal portion, of its rapidly increasing population,” the map’s publisher is careful to note,

During the spring of 1834, the legislature of Cohahuila and Texas, passed a law allowing the free exercise of all religions; also a separate judicial code, for the benefit of the people of Texas, which authorizes the adoption of the English language in all legal proceedings; establishes trial by jury: likewise a separate supreme and circuit court, most of the appointments of which have been filled by Americans.

The reader is to understand that the prized freedoms of religion and trial by jury are in place and that the judicial codes and appointments, if not determined by recent American expatriates, are in place because of the Anglo-American presence. Texas at a minimum is immigrant friendly.

57 Frederick M. Wirt, “The Tenacity of Confederacy: Local Service Agreements in the Family of Governments,” Publius, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Autumn, 1982), 111. 269

The Mexican state’s economy and American access to the territory is briefly addressed with just enough information to heighten interest. The second line of

“Remarks” starts with “To the people of the United States, Texas is peculiarly interesting.” Suiting the imperial purpose of the map, there is no further reference to

Mexico or Texas’s connection to the Mexican Republic. Most of the “Remarks” consist of a rehearsal of the Anglo-American immigration to Texas and what new immigrants can expect to find: rich soil, well-timbered woods, a climate proven to grow cotton,

“equal to the finest produced in the United States,” along with “sugar, tobacco, rice, indigo, wheat &c.” In addition, the note continues, Texas is one of the finest stock countries in the world; cattle are raised in great abundance and with but little trouble.

Many of the settlers count their herds by hundreds, and great numbers are annually purchased after driven to New Orleans. The section explains how easy it is for American commercial interests to access the Texas market; again, travel or trade to or from Mexico is ignored. Just so there is no confusion for would-be travelers, the routes to Texas are from the United States, either by sea from New Orleans or by land from Natchitoches.

It is in the “Land Grants” insert that the hopeful immigrant gets the information on how to acquire land. The section reads like a “going out of business sale” advertisement. Up until the year of the map’s publication “the head of a family intending to settle in the country, was entitled to one sitio or league of land 4428 acres. and a single man was in like manner entitled to a quarter of a league.” The insert explains that in 1835 the Mexican government discontinued additional empresario land grants until the current grants were settled. However, available land in the existing grants is still plentiful 270 for those that act upon the opportunity. The insert includes simple and direct instructions as to how the new American immigrant may obtain his own holding:

At present, a person desirous of purchasing public land, goes to the land office in the district where the land is situated; files his petition for sale; and obtains an order of survey. The land is laid off into labors, of 177 acres, and the individual may purchase, at the minimum price of 10 dollars per labor, the purchaser paying the surveyors fees; one third of the money is payable at the time of sale, and the remainder in two annual instalments. Those however; who pay the whole amount at once, perfect their titles immediately. New Settlers are exempted from the payment of the usual taxes, for the term of 10 years.

The total cost on the maximum 4,428 acres could be acquired for as little as $250, or less than $.06/acre. Certainly the contrast between available land in America and Texas, as noted above by the St. Louis newspaper in 1823, must have continued to resonate a decade later with the land-hungry Americans who had no means to succeed in purchasing property in their native country.58

Young’s New Map o f Texas served much of the same purpose as Mitchell’s map a decade later in the Mormon migration from Iowa and Illinois to the Great Salt Lake

Basin.59 The map was not included in any of the current geographies, rather it was published as a pocket map protected in a leather cover. Its audience was particular to those that desired to make the trip from the United States to the Mexican territory. It is a masterful document in the service of the American side of the imperial conversation

58 In an effort to regulate and increase settlement in the west, the United States Congress had passed the 1830 Preemptive Act which made provisions for public land purchase at $1.25/acre, limited to a maximum of 160 acres. With some changes another act was passed in 1841 keeping the same acreage cost. “The Preemption Act of 1841,” 27th Congress, Ch. 16, Stat. 453 (1841). 59 Brigham Young, in his preparation for the Mormon trek to Utah, instructed Joseph A. Stratton in February 1846, “I want you to bring me one half dozen of Mitchell’s new map of Texas, Oregon, and California. .the pocket maps are the best for our use.” Max W. Jamison, "The Annotated 1846 Mitchell Map: Francis Moore Jr.’s Chronicle of the Mormon Exodus, the Mexican War, the Gold Rush, and Texas," mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org, accessed 09.20.2012. Jamison notes that Young’s remark was in a letter discovered by Dale L. Morgan referenced in Carl Wheat, Mapping the Transmississippi West, 1540-1861, Vol. 2: From Lewis and Clark to Fremont, 1804-1845 (San Francisco: 1958), 31. 271 regarding Mexico’s possessions to the southwest and the timing of the map’s publication was remarkable. By the fall of 1835, the year of the map’s publication, the Texas

Revolution was taking life and moving ahead without restraint. The Texas Declaration of

Independence was signed in March 1836. The map now served a more critical purpose than settlement and commerce; it served to facilitate American travel in defense of Texas freedom and self-determination.

For many in the general American population the annexation was a logical conclusion in the history of the Anglo-American settlement of Texas.60 As the American late eighteenth century geographies were critical in forming American identity, the same geographical service is evident in support of American expansionism following Texas independence. The Daniel Burgess Company of Hartford, Connecticut specialized in publishing for the general and the primary school audience. In 1839, the company published Smith's Geography for Schools61 The geography included a double page leaf,

Map o f the United States and Texas (Fig. 5.9). Two years after American recognition of the republic and six year prior to annexation, the map visually educated the American youth and effectively answered the “Texas Question.” While the map indicates both political entities, the smaller size of the “Texas” type font gives hint to the new Texas

Republic’s transitory state while, in contrast, the “Map of Mexico and Guatemala” insert communicates states of equal political sovereignty. At a glance, Texas is colored and presented as already a part of the United States. Unless closely inspected will the faint national boundary line drawn between Texas and America be evident. Additionally, the

60 As early as 1829, the public debate over Texas annexation was present in the popular print. The Daily National Intelligencer, Washington, D.C., published a series of articles (Sept. 26, Oct. 5, 10, 20) quoting many newspapers and their arguments for and against annexation. 61 Daniel Burgess, Smith's Geography for Schools (Hartford, CT: 1839). Fig. 5.9. Daniel Burgess, Map o f the United States and Texas (1839). Image courtesy of the Harold B. Lee Library, 272 273

“Mexico and Guatemala” insert has such a precarious element as to give the impression it might drop off; that would leave the uncovered territory free to be claimed by the bolder colors given the American real or imagined imperial territories, which cartographical representations shown in the previous chapter is exactly what happened.

Taking office in March 1845, President Polk declared that the boundary for the new territory of Texas was the Rio Grande, as stipulated in the Treaties of Velasco signed by Santa Anna in 1836. The year before Polk’s inauguration, First Lieutenant William H.

Emory (1811-1887) submitted to the State Department a Map o f Texas and the Countries

Adjacent (Fig. 5.10); the map makes plain the United States supported Texas in its claims of the Rio Grande as its southern boundary with Mexico. The Mexican government, which had rejected the Velasco treaties as coerced, argued that the boundary of provincial

Texas was never south of the Neuces River and, nonetheless, continued to consider Texas a breakaway province. Though it had been unsuccessful reestablishing its control of

Texas, Mexico began preparing for war with the United States in the first year of the Polk administration. Emory’s map is the United States government map of Texas. Published before annexation, and anticipating the same, the proximity of Texas to America is stressed by the way in which “United States” is written on the map. It could easily have been written in a crescent shape in the northeast section of the map. It is awkward in its placement but purposeful as it encroaches on the Texas panhandle; “Mexico,” on the other hand, is placed on the map well removed from disputed Texas border and its placement does not extend further north in regard to western territories than the approximate line of the peace treaty four years hence. The head of the serpentine design of the “United States” gives indication of the empire’s next acquisition. Fig. 5.10. William H. Emory, Map of Texas and the Countries Adjacent (Washington, D.C.: 1844). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Map Collection. 274 275

By the year’s end, on December 29, 1845, Texas became America’s twenty- eighth state and Mexico terminated its diplomatic relations with the United States. As shown in the previous chapter, the Oregon Question was nearing its peaceful resolution, safeguarding America’s northwest flank and in January 1846 Polk ordered Zachary

Taylor (1784-1850), with an army of four thousand, to secure the disputed territory between the Neuces and the Rio Grande. Mexican forces attempted to expel the

American military from the contested territory in April. This force of arms gave Polk a casus belli and Congress declared war on Mexico the following month. The United States brought the Mexican War to a successful end in February 1848. By the beginning of his last year in office, Polk had achieved more than his stated presidential territorial goals: a peaceful settlement of the Oregon northwest, the incontrovertible annexation of Texas, and an American expansion second only to the Louisiana Purchase.62 The successful culmination of America’s imperial progress across the continent was communicated cartographically to the public - and no better than in the simple, three-color Map of North

America (Fig. 5.11), included in Mitchell’s School and Family Geography (1852).

Of the necessary elements to secure and sustain imperial aspirations, cartographical representations, a population to settle the territorial object, and a military presence to defend against opposition and support the citizenry, Spanish and Mexican efforts were woefully inadequate. Substantial Mexican immigration was never forthcoming, military intervention was too late, and the few cartographical representations were empty arguments in the absence of the former two. Spanish inattention to the imperial north gave the advantage to American interests, especially in

62 The Louisiana Purchase is estimated at 828,000 sq. mi.; the Mexican territory lost as a result of the war (including Texas) is estimated at just less than 800,000 sq. mi. 276

L ■ , ... 'KZ 7 7 F 1 F

& - . \ . / / . < / / % f k ~ W - ■ x\j?ff f f / / ,,*+ *+. v'/bfn i . 5 1

, VA \ / ''■ S r . • - rV Sj. <».f « c 5 Vs i r >i y 5 .# N **

‘ ^ S y

. '•/: .. . ■'-,• •< x l ■■ tegSK '&0* . --..

— .. W rS ^ k ^ r - JjA s, ' :''■ ' ' ■ ' ■' . • - - . ...:• • . . •. ■ tg a ,-* „ ', .\ .•>

------M.VP OF ^<> 5 ^ - V’ ^ - ' V- NOKTH AMERICA ./ >* V1 ^ &- t " i I n_-i-.s..li« lllusii.il* ‘ >*■ - - ' • , «r*^ ‘ - k iv t ‘ • .f f f //i7 .* <,'<•»! " V '•■ i-•>.*//>///A V •. J . ^ *u 1 :' ' £ R \ * 1 ^ .

Fig. 5.11. Samuel Augustus Mitchell, Map of North America, in Mitchell's School and Family Geography (1852). Image courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California. 277 the former’s immigration policies in the Upper Louisiana at the close of the eighteenth century.

Mexico continued welcoming of American colonists, to civilize and commercialize, into the 1830s. Stephen Austin’s success, along with his fellow empresarios, in raising an American colonial bastion in the external province of Texas alarmed some of the more conservative elements in the Mexican Republic. Significantly,

Austin tried to calm Mexican concerns with his 1829 Map o f Texas. The map assisted

Austin in his two-fold purpose, “one to manage the Govt. and the other to manage the settlers.” It is one of the more masterful cartographical representations in the North

American imperial experience: to the Mexican government, along with letters, it communicated American immigrant loyalty; to American (and European) audiences, along with narratives, it advertised a distant but well-organized territory with great possibilities for a new start.

During these early decades Texas was becoming better known, certainly due to annexation debates in the American congress, but maps of the territory were also appearing in more geographies. Interest in immigrating to Texas was high enough to prompt the publication of travel maps like J. H. Young’s 1835 A New Map o f Texas. This current work has always been about the critical importance of cartography’s role in building empires in North America. It is not always easy to determine whether the imperial map is a cause or a response in the process. The Young map can certainly be argued in both ways, especially in consideration of its explanatory notes. It was a timely map, however, in promoting increased immigration to Texas and its subsequent use gave directions to would-be Texas patriots in the provincial revolution. 278

The Texas Question was finally resolved with the Mexican War of 1846-1848, as was the imperial American endgame for its continental “manifest destiny.” The war was a defining moment for both nations, a moment that necessitated new imperial maps. The

American side of the imperial cartographical construct will be covered in the following brief Epilogue. EPILOGUE: EMORY AND THE U.S. BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Throughout Mexico wherever the white race has preserved its integrity, there will be found a race of people very superior in both mental and physical ability; a condition due to the excellence of the climate, which combines all the qualities requisite for the development of the human being in the highest degree. And when the Indians are exterminated.it will be the paradise of Western Texas.1 William H. Emory (1857)

Mapping’s service to the imperial demands of the United States after the Mexican

War introduced new elements into the cartographical dynamic. The activities and final report of United States Boundary Commission of 1848-1850, for the most part under the direction of William H. Emory, addressed not only lines drawn on the land but ideas for the new territory’s imperial use and requirements. In addition to a two-dimensional representation of the territory, the Boundary Commission addressed the type of people that should inhabit the newly won territory and what to do with those who did not fit into this optimum model. The instructions from the Polk administration to the officers of the

American survey underscored these ideas and the final report testifies to their unwavering commitment to the American imperial purpose.

Article V of the Treaty o f Guadalupe Hidalgo (“of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and

Settlement”) states that “In order to designate the boundary line with due precision.. .the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who.. .shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte.” Winning the war was one task, winning the

1 William H. Emory, Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey Made Under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior, Vol. 1 (Washington: 1857), 70. 280 geography was another task altogether. In short, the survey was a mess from the beginning. The Mexican Boundary Survey was riven with party politics, bureaucratic rivalries, and individuals driven by self-interest and self-aggrandizement. Funds were allocated but were either short or late; in an era of an American political “spoil system,” appointments to the commission were based on patronage rather than merit.2 To compound the difficulties of the enterprise, John Disturnell’s Mapa de los Estados de

Mejico (1847) was the named cartographic instrument of the survey, “to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground” the boundary between Upper and Lower California and where to “strike” the boundary of New Mexico. This was the first time a map was attached to a treaty by name. Disturnell’s map was beset with faulty readings and resulted in interminable problems for both the American and Mexican boundary participants.3

William H. Emory was an initial participant in the surveys and his reports introduce a new element in American imperial cartography, the forecast for the practical use of new acquisitions. One modern scholar has observed, “As an agent and representative of the state, Emory is not only mapping its new territory but imposing its

2 Regarding the Boundary Commission assignment, Carl Wheat, Mapping the Transmississippi West, 1540-1861, Vol. 3: From the Mexican War to the Boundary Surveys, 1846-1854 (San Francisco: 1959), 208, in his masterful multi-volume work states: “All this sounds perfectly simple and straightforward in theory, and no doubt it should have been found so in practice, but the power of men and governments to multiply difficulties should never be underestimated, and before the United States got through surveying its southern boundary, many persons involved must have rued the day we ever acquired one acre from Mexico.” 3 Odie B. Faulk, Too Far North, Too Far South (Los Angeles: 1967) is an excellent narrative on the difficulties in the survey and the problems that the Disturnell map caused at the time and the subsequent diplomatic and boundary problems that arose from its use. The above mentioned Melish Map of 1816 was the cartographic instrument relied upon for the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819; its errors had similarly long term consequences to those resulting from the 1848 treaty reliance on Disturnell’s. Not until the later nineteenth century with advances in cartography and the employment of more professional mapmakers did accuracy improve. 281 structures onto that territory.”4 Emory had exact and explicit plans regarding the elimination of non-Anglo-Americans; his recommendations included in his final report, though to a great degree chilling, are not entirely innovative. The early colonial maps reflected Anglo-Americans ideas that current populations would be displaced; for all of

Jefferson’s rhetoric before and after Lewis and Clark, that is, Jefferson’s hope that Native

Americans would gradually assimilate into white American society, imperial gain was always understood to be at the expense of the land’s indigent peoples.

By 1855 Emory, who had served the commission from its formation in 1848, was named the commission’s head. The first volume of the commission’s report was in 1857, volumes two and three in 1859. Besides documenting the new political boundary, it included extensive observations on the future use of the new territory. The treaty required that the commissioners “shall keep journals” and Emory’s account is therefore revealing in the ways in which he calculated how territory was to be made “American.” The three volumes inscribe both the physical results and philosophical ideology of American imperialism in the pre-Civil War United States. The geographic uncertainty of the project gave the commissioner unusual powers, not only to write the cartographical lines, but also to begin and explain the process of Americanizing the region.5 Emory had certain ideas as to how it could be accomplished.

In the newly acquired territory, he felt that space had to be produced and maintained in such a way that it confirmed and defended the superiority of white

4 Alex Hunt, “Mapping the Terrain, Marking the Earth: William Emory and the Writing of the U.S./Mexico Border,” American Literary Geographies: Spatial Practice and Cultural Production, 1500-1900, Martin Bruckner and Hsuan L. Hsu, eds. (Newark: 2007), 129. 5 Hunt, “Emory” (2007), 129. 282

Americans and their institutions.6 On the war’s outset, he had served on a military expedition from Fort Leavenworth, Missouri to San Diego. His mission was to collect scientific, economic, and geographic information about the American Southwest.7 It is important to recognize that Emory was part of the national conversation regarding the expansion of slavery into the western territories. However, included in his report, Notes of a Military Reconoissance (1848), Emory noted that “the profits of labor are too inadequate for the existence of negro slavery.”8 His reservations were essentially a complaint that the southern form of slave labor simply could not compete with the

Mexican peonage system, putting the American institution at a disadvantage. The peonage system, another system of slavery as Emory considered, was so entrenched in the Southwest that the American slave system was disadvantaged. The Mexican slavers, he said, were able “to get the services of the adult while in the prime of life, without the obligation of rearing him in infancy, supporting him in old age, or maintaining his family.”9 In addition to this social-economic problem were two other major drawbacks of

Americanizing the territory.

In Emory’s estimation, the new space acquired after the war was “unsurpassed in salubrity.” There was one major problem: it was too close to Mexico.10 There were two causes that would impede cultural, economic, and social progress in this new territory:

6 Hunt, “Emory” (2007), 143. What follows Hunt argues on 134. 7 L. David Norris, et al., William H. Emory: Soldier-Scientist (1998), 35. 8 William H. Emory, Notes of a Military Reconoissance from Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego in California, Including Parts of the Arkansas, del Norte, and Gila Rivers (Washington: 1848), 98. 9 Emory, Notes (1848), 155. Hunt, “Emory” (2007), 134, says that Emory’s observations regarding “infeasibility of slavery” in the southwest was not “fundamentally based in the climatic difference between humid East and arid West [,] but [in] the cultural contrast from North to South.” 10 Emory, Notes (1848), 126. 283

Indians and Mexican bandits.11 As Emory assessed the failure of Spanish colonization, he did not fault its institutions of church and state. Rather, the Spanish failure was due to the practice of intermarriage between the races; this he said, led to “decline and retroacted march of the population of that entire region.”12 For American colonization to be successful, the region would require white women in the area “which, with proper guards upon morals, results in exterminating or crushing out the inferior races, or placing them in slavery.”13 Despite his former notions that the early European colonials had maltreated the Indians, he finally concluded, “no amount of forbearance or kindness could eradicate or essentially modify the predominant savage element of their character.”14 Dealing with racially inferior people of the Southwest would require like measures. The candor of his reports to the American government regarding the problems with the current Indian population and his solutions is startling. After a close study of the Indians residing in the newly acquired territory, Emory concludes that the humane treatment afforded them by the Spanish and Mexican governments produced no civilizing results and that

“civilization must halt when coming in view of the Indian camp.” The only solution

Emory sees is that the “wild Indians must be exterminated.”15 It is the white race that will secure the wonderful possibilities of the land; it will become a paradise, but only “when the Indians are exterminated.”16

Though the national audience was strongly prejudiced against the ideas of racial mixing, a public policy of genocide was probably too much. It is clear from the

11 Emory, Report (1857), 1.70. 12 Emory, Notes (1848), 65. Hunt, “Emory” (2007), 144. 13 Emory, Report (1857), 1.70. 14 Emory, Report (1857), 1.65. 15 Emory, Report (1857), 1.64. 16 Emory, Report (1857), 1.70. 284 contemporary sources that annihilation or extermination of the indigenous peoples was a topic in the decades before Emory included it in his official government report. The first

Indian Agent in New Mexico, Georgian John S. Calhoun, observed in an 1849 letter to the newly appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Orlando Brown, “The thought of annihilating these Indians cannot be entertained by an American p u b lic.”17 Calhoun’s letter reads in sharp contrast to Emory’s later reports and given its emphatic tone, his appeal for the sake of the native people indicates his voice must have been going against the grain of much of the official and unofficial federal consensus. “These Indians,” he says, “are anxious to have schools established amongst them, and to receive agricultural information, which, if granted on a liberal scale, could not fail to produce marked and beneficial results, not only upon them, but upon all the tribes of the territory.”18

Politically adept, it seems, his warning against Indian extermination appealed also to the greatest fear of the office holders in Washington, voter displeasure.

The United States and Mexican Boundary Survey completed its work in 1855.

Emory not only concluded the penultimate mapping of the last of the North American empires, but defined the space in a way that confirmed and defended the superiority of the white Anglo-American race.19 The imperial map ably supported this racial assertion which began with the early North American colonial experience. Over the next half century and beyond, “American civilization” came to the west, completing the seeming inexorable march from a small strip of Atlantic coast settlements - and to be sure, as it

17 John S. Calhoun to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 29, 1849, Index to Executive Documents Printed by the Order of the Senate of the United States during the First Session of the Thirty-First Congress, 1849-’50 (Washington [D.C.]: 1850), 193. 18 Calhoun, 193. 19 Hunt, “Emory” (2007), 143. 285 did in the two hundred fifty years covered herein, imperial cartography would continue to play a role in the “civilizing” process. CONCLUSION: SOME FINAL COMMENTS

As of the middle of the fifth century B.C., Herodotus realized that the map of the earth could be a circle drawn with a compass, a geometer’s fantasy without any relation to reality. As of the third century B.C., in Alexandria, cartographers and geographers knew that a map could be distorted and might display nonexistent places. It could invent locations and draw imaginary lines. The history of cartography is riddled by this tension or dualism. On the one hand, authority belongs to the image, its author, and to the social consensus concerning the map. On the other, there exists the possibility of manipulations, distortions, stagings, and ideological projections by virtue of which the map is not the territory but a social, political, and cultural image of the territory. But at what step is attention drawn to cartographical manipulations?1 Christian Jacob (2006)

These final remarks are not meant to be a summary of this work. Each of the foregoing chapters is, to a great degree, self-contained; each, with its own conclusions concerning what was illustrated regarding the impact of the imperial map in the time covered. The ideological elements of imperial cartographical representations are not neatly restricted to or introduced at a given moment in this two hundred fifty year look at the imperial North America. None of these elements appears fully formed - there is a maturation process to the imperial map. That is not to say that Smith’s 1612 map of

Virginia is any less sophisticated than Mitchell’s 1755 map of eastern America, or that of another Mitchell in his 1846 map of western America. But as the decades and centuries turned, the ideological benefits of the imperial map, and the power of cartographical representations to persuade became more apparent to their makers and users. When each ideological element of the imperial map made its initial meaningful appearance in the story of imperial cartography, I tried to be mindful in making a point of it. I have covered what I think to be the most important essentials regarding the map in the North American

1 Jacob, Sovereign Map (2006), 369. 287 imperial experience. The purpose of these concluding remarks, then, is to address a few points about this work and make a some final comments regarding the research experience, safe from the tangential restrictions to which I am so inclined to ignore in my writing - I’ve given the reader far too many of these in my footnotes.

The territorial focus and the chronological period of this study offered an opportunity for close inspection of the imperial map that few, if any, places and times would have afforded. That is, imperial cartography came into its own only in the early modern period with the invention of nation and state; North America was the most significant landmass of this period for which different empires were vying; and this period from its earliest colonial experience to the United States’ final acquisition of its continental holdings is relatively short, just over two hundred fifty years. I considered this to be a period and place of imperial give-and-take without parallel on any other place on earth in the age of the imperial map. Imperial cartographical activity was immediate upon landfall in the Chesapeake and did not abate; representations on these imperial maps habitually had an apparent agenda, but if not apparent, an agenda could be revealed upon close inspection; imperial representations most often required another cartographical response; and finally, the place and time gave the historian and the reader a “geography,” so to speak, with which he/she would soon become so familiar, that even the slightest imperial cartographical manipulations would demand attention and recognition as such.

Hence, this study concludes that the North American imperial map was an important means in illustrating and communicating territorial goals and claims, legitimizing authority, justifying ambitions, and articulating control - real or imagined - 288 over peripheral lands, communities and peoples. In this respect, most often the map came first, in very few cases it came later. Regardless of when a specific imperial map was published, what it communicated to the different interested parties in its representation of empire gives evidence that the imperial map of this period was not simply the result of a

“conversation” between the mapmaker and the territory. The nature of imperial cartography is more complicated. Consequently, this work has considered the participants in conversations surrounding the imperial maps of the period: the mapmaker, the publisher, the readers and their responses, the politicians and their motives, and the special interest groups and their agendas. Participants in the imperial debates during these two and a half centuries had interests beyond what started out as simply one individual creating a representation of a territory onto an easily accessible two-dimensional surface.

Casting about for a suitable topic for this dissertation I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar where the speaker made a comment about the hidden agenda of an eighteenth-century map of British colonial Florida. The speaker was nice enough to give me a few basic titles on cartographical ideology. The first article I read on the subject was

Professor Edney’s “The Irony of Imperial Mapping.” The connections he made between empires and cartography excited me - I had just finished my M.A. in ancient history, my thesis touched on the ancient Greek and Roman empires, and who doesn’t like to look at maps?

As many less confident graduate students are, I have found myself inclined (not so much lately I am happy to say) to hold fast to the teachings of the last book I’ve read, or to a professor’s viewpoint in the last class attended. As I have quoted and cited earlier,

Edney closed out his “Irony” article with the line “‘Empire’ is a cartographic 289 construction; modern cartography is the construction of modern imperialism.” Edney’s assertion of the imperative that there is no empire without it having been cartographically represented was as appealing an idea to me as the Sirens’ call was to Odysseus. Certainly it was an absolute, and though we are unceasingly cautioned about their dangers as we in turn caution our students, it was captivating. I immediately considered the possibility of illustrating Edney’s assumption as the centerpiece in my study; and that the two hundred fifty year North American experience would be the perfect bounds of time and territory within which to do it.

Early on in my research, after a work-in-progress talk, a colleague commented that he liked the way I had used Edney as a “straw man.” That was not my intention at the time, though there may be enough evidence in this finished work to convict. In fact, I didn’t realize until much later that my text had argued against Edney’s position. As I considered this seeming disconnect between the arguments I thought I was making regarding cartography and empire and this unexpected compliment, I went back to the library. I pulled out some past familiar works on empires along with others recently recommended by my committee. I spent the next few days collating from these different sources the attributes of early modern empires. As I listed and noted their defining modifiers, I realized I had placed too much emphasis on the imperial map, and I had rejected as necessary those most important imperial elements of population and military.

It was like attending an undergraduate biology class and hearing for the first time Ernst

Haeckel’s “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” only to have the professor explain five minutes later that the nineteenth century biologist, though poetic, was unfortunately mistaken. Edney’s principle, as with Haeckel’s recapitulation theory, was not to be. 290

As a disciple of Edney, I had submitted chapter drafts emphasizing and arguing the primacy of the imperial map in defining what makes an empire. I had become so attached to the simplicity of the idea and encouraged by Edney’s surety that I had missed the obvious. Was it possible that a cartographically illiterate British Regular, posted in

Boston in 1775, did not recognize that he was in service to an empire? Or that a similarly ignorant Bostonian did not understand the long arm of the empire when port activity came to a standstill? The imperial map had nothing to do with either’s sense of empire, their respective place in it, or the reality of the same. So, what was left?

I went back to Edney’s article, and reread others: this time without the comfort a fixed conclusion can afford; this time I read without an inflexibility strong enough to stand up against even the most contrary evidences in the research. I read again, a few lines earlier in Edney’s “Irony” article, another absolute:

All maps serve thoroughly ideological functions in that they allow their users and readers to engage either instrumentally or intellectually with the world. They might do so at a variety of conceptual scales or degrees of resolution, depending on the cartographic mode within which they are produced, circulated, and consumed, but all maps empower their users and readers to discipline the world and to construct territory.2

Taking this as my new beginning I reread my notes, reworked my drafts, but this time with caution and with complete consideration of purpose that this was a thesis yet to be proved. Edney is not perfect, I reminded myself, but I have found the relationship to be rewarding.

In the course of this work, I have probably inspected over three hundred maps of this period. I studied very few that I might question whether or not they met the criteria of the imperial map listed in the opening paragraphs of these concluding remarks. I say

2 Edney, “Irony of Imperial Mapping” (2009), 44. 291 imperial map, but I am comfortable, as is Edney, in making an argument for an ideological function in any early or later modern map. The key of course is how or in what regard the individual looks at a map, and how closely he/she is willing to look. In answer to the question posited by Professor Jacob at the head of this conclusion - “But at what step is attention drawn to cartographical manipulations?” - I have taken the position in this work that the imperial map should never be viewed without due considerations as to its cartographical manipulations. I would say this is especially true for historians. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

The Aberdeen Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland), February 5, 1845.

Anghiera, Pietro Martire d’, and Richard Hakluyt. De orbe nouo Petri Martyris Anglerii Mediolanensis ... Decades octo: diligenti temporum obseruatione, & vtilissimis annotationibus illustratae, suoque nitori restitutae. Paris: Guillelmum Auuray, 1587.

Austin, Moses, Eugene C. Barker, and Stephen F. Austin. “The Austin Papers.” Annual Report o f the American Historical Association. 2: 1-2. Washington: G.P.O., 1924, 1928.

Austin, Stephen F., and Eugene C. Barker. The Austin Papers. Vol. III. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1926.

Eugene C. Barker, “Descriptions of Texas by Stephen F. Austin,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2 (October 1924): 98-121.

Beauman [sic], Sebastian and Mary C. Doll Fairchild, Memoirs o f Colonel Sebastian Beauman and His Descendants: With Selections from His Correspondence (Salt Lake City: 1990).

Beijing International, the Official Website o f the Beijing Government. www.ebeijing.gov.cn/Beijing Information/BeijingNewsUpdate/t1238135.html (January 10, 2013).

Board of Trade, “Letter to the Lords of the Treasury, 1733 Decemb. 18.”

Boston Evening Post (Boston, Massachusetts) June 25, 1764.

The Bury and Norwich Post, and East Anglian (Bury Saint Edmunds, England), February 08, 1843.

Caledonian Mercury. “Latest from America.” (Edinburgh: Scotland), January 28, 1943.

Index to Executive Documents Printed by the Order o f the Senate o f the United States during the First Session o f the Thirty-First Congress, 1849- ’50. Washington, D.C.: Wm. M. Belt, 1850. de Champlain, Samuel. Le Voyages Du Sieur De Champlain (Paris: 1613). 293

The Cork Examiner. “Latest from America.” (Cork: Ireland), January 12, 1842.

Daily Chronicle (Cincinnati, Ohio), July 12, 1843.

The Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, DC), May 30, 1839.

The Daily National Intelligencer, (Washington, D.C.), Sept. 26, Oct. 5, 10, 20, 1829.

Daily News (London: England), February 2, 1846.

Daily News (London, England), July 2, 1846.

“Democratic Party Platform of 1844.” National Party Platforms, 1840-1964. Kirk H. Porter and Donald Bruce Johnson, eds. (Urbana, IL.: 1966), 4.

[van der Donck, Adriaen]. The Representation o f the New Netherland Concerning its Location, Productiveness and Poor Condition. Henry C. Murphy, ed. New York: Bartlett & Welford, 1849.

Calendar o f State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 32: March, 1720 to December 1721, Cecil Headlam, ed. [London]: 1933.

The Eclectic Review. “Review of John Bristed, America and Her Resources. (London: 1818).” (July 1820): 23-45.

Emory, William H. Notes of a Military Reconnoissance from Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego in California, Including Parts o f the Arkansas, del Norte, and Gila Rivers. Washington: Wendell and Van Benthuysen, 1848.

------. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey Made Under the Direction o f the Secretary o f the Interior, Vol. 1. Washington: C. Wendell, printer, 1857.

Entick, John. A Compleat History o f the Late War. Dublin: Printed by John Exshaw, 1763.

The Examiner (London, England), December 27, 1845.

The Examiner (London, England), July 4, 1846.

Franklin, Benjamin and Jared Sparks, The Works o f Benjamin Franklin, Volume 7. Chicago: T. MacCoun, 1882.

Freeman's Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser (Dublin, Ireland), March 12, 1846. 294

Gage, Thomas. Thomas Gage Papers, American Series, 11. William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan.

Gass, Patrick. One of the Persons Employed in the Expedition, A Journal o f the Voyage & Travels o f a Corps o f Discovery, Under the Command o f Captain Lewis & Captain Clarke from the Mouth o f the Missouri, Through the Interior Parts o f North America, to the Pacific Ocean, During the Years 1804, 1805, 1806. Pittsburg: David M'Keehan, 1807.

Gentleman just arrived from Cadiz, The Antigallican Privateer. London: Printed for J. Reason, 1757.

Gentleman’s Magazine. “Account of the British Settlements in N. America,” (July 1755).

Gentleman’s Magazine. “Historical Chronicle, July 1755,” (July 1755).

Gentleman’s Magazine. “Observations on the Map of America in the present Magazine,” (July 1755).

Great Britain. Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. London: printed by George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, printers to the Queen's most excellent Majesty. For Her Majesty's Stationery Office [H.M.S.O.], 1876.

“H.M. Instructions to Robert Johnson, Governor of S. Carolina” (June 9, 1730), Calendar o f State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 37: 1730, Cecil Headlam, ed. London: 1937.

Hakluyt, Richard. The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries o f the English Nation: Made by Sea or Ouer-Land to the Remote and Farthest Distant Quarters o f the Earth, at Any Time Within the Compasse o f These 1600 Years: Diuided into Three Seuerall Volumes, According to the Positions o f the Regions. London: George Bishop and Ralph Newberie, deputies to Christopher Barker, printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie, 1599.

Hakluyt, Richard, David Beers Quinn and Alison M. Quinn. A Particulier Discourse Concerning the Greate Necessitie andManifolde Commodyties That Are Like to Growe to This Realme o f Englande by the Westerne Discoueries Lately Attempted, Written in the Yere 1584 by Richarde Hackluyt o f Oxforde ; Known As Discourse o f Western Planting. London: Hakluyt Society, 1993.

Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle (Portsmouth, England), March 25, 1839.

Harriot, Thomas. A Briefe and True Report o f the New Found Land of Virginia o f the Commodities and of the Nature and Manners of the Naturall Inhabitants: Discouered by the English Colony There Seated by Sir Richard Greinuile in the Yeere 1585. Which Remained Vnder the Gouernement o f Twelue Monethes, at the Speciall Charge and 295

Direction o f the Honourable Sir Walter Raleigh Knight Lord Warden o f the Stanneries Who Therein Hath Beene Fauoured and Authorised by Her Maiestie and Her Letters Patents. Frankfurt: Theodor de Bry, 1590.

de Herrera y Tordesillas, Antonio. Historia General de las Indias Ocidentales d de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Oceano. Madrid: Emplenta Real, 1601.

Hubbard, William. The Present State o f New-England Being a Narrative o f the Troubles with the Indians in New-England, from the First Planting Thereof in the Year 1607, to This Present Year 1677, but Chiefly o f the Late Troubles in the Two Last Years 1675, and 1676 : to Which Is Added a Discourse About the War with the Pequods in the Year 1637. London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1677.

Jefferson, Thomas. Notes o f the State o f Virginia. Newark: Printed by Pennington & Gould, 1801.

------. Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Merrill Peterson, ed. New York: Viking Press, 1984.

Jefferys, Thomas, and John Green. Explanation for the New Map o f Nova Scotia and Cape Britain With the Adjacent Parts o f New England and Canada. London: Printed for T. Jefferys, 1755.

Johnson, William. The Papers o f Sir William Johnson. Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1981.

Johnson, William, Alexander C. Flick, Milton Wheaton Hamilton, and James Sullivan. The Papers o f Sir William Johnson. Prepared for Publication by the Division o f Archives and History James Sullivan, Vol. 4 Ff.: Alexander C. Flick Vol. 12 Vol. 12. Albany: University of the State of New York, 1957.

Lawson, John. A New Voyage to Carolina. London: 1709.

The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, England), December 13, 1845.

The Leeds Times (Leeds: England), January 3, 1846.

Lewis, Meriwether and William Clark, History o f the Expedition under the Command o f Captains Lewis and Clark, Paul Allen [and Nicholas Biddle], ed[s]. Philadelphia: Bradford & Inkeep, 1814.

London Chronicle (London, England), May 31, 1777 - June 3, 1777.

London Courant and Westminster Chronicle (London, England), Wednesday, June 27, 1781. 296

London Evening Post (London, England), April 17, 1755-April 19, 1755.

London Evening Post (London, England), January 14, 1755 - January 16, 1755.

London Evening Post (London, England), June 21, 1755.

Lopez, Juan. Atlas universal o Coleccion de mapas nuevos, que comprehende los principales imperios, reynos y republicas del mundo en general, y de la Europa en particular. Madrid: 1817.

Mackenzie, Alexander. Voyages from Montreal (London: 1801),

Melish, John. A Geographical Description o f the United States, with the Contiguous British and Spanish Possessions Intended as an Accompaniment to Melish's Map of these Countries. Philadelphia: The Author, 1816.

Missouri Advocate (St. Louis) Aug 27, 1825.

Mitchell, S. Augustus. Accompaniment to Mitchell’s New Map o f Texas, Oregon, and California, with Regions Adjoining. Philadelphia: S. A. Mitchell, 1846.

The Morning Post (London, England), February 13, 1843.

Neill, Edward D. History o f the Virginia Company o f London With Letters to and from the First Colony, Never Before Printed. Albany, N.Y.: Joel Munsell, 1869.

Newell, Chester. History o f the Revolution in Texas, Particularly o f the War o f 1835 & ’36. New York: Wiley & Putnam, 1838.

O’Callaghan, E.B. and B. Fernow, eds., and trans. “Description of the Boundaries of New Netherland.” Documents Relative to the Colonial History o f the State o f New York. 15 vols. Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1853-1887.

Olney, J. A Practical System o f Modern Geography, or, A View o f the Present State o f the World: Simplified and Adapted to the Capacity o f Youth ... Accompanied by a New and Improved Atlas. Hartford: D. F. Robinson, 1830.

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia: W. and T. Bradford, 1776.

Palairet, Jean. A Concise Description o f the English and French Possessions in North- America. London: J. Haberkorn, 1755.

The Pennsylvania Chronicle (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Nov. 6 to Nov. 13, 1769.

The Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), August 25, 1763. The Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Dec. 5, 1771. 297

Perley, Martin Van Buren and George Francis Dow. History of the Topsfield Academy Topsfield, MA: Merrill Press, 1899.

Philadelphia Ledger (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), July 25, 1843.

Pichardo, Jose Antonio, Charles W. Hackett, Charmion Shelby, and Mary Ruth Splawn, Pichardo's Treatise on the Limits o f Louisiana and Texas: An Argumentative Historical Treatise with Reference to the Verification o f the True Limits o f the Provinces o f Louisiana and Texas. 4 vols. Austin, Tex: The University of Texas Press, 1931.

Pike, Zebulon Montgomery. An Account o f Expeditions to the Sources o f the Mississippi: And Through the Western Parts o f Louisiana, to the Sources o f the Arkansas, Kans, La Platte, and Pierre Jaun Rivers: Performed by Order o f the Government o f the United States During the Years 1805, 1806, and 1807: and a Tour Through the Interior Parts o f New Spain, When Conducted Through These Provinces, by Order o f the Captain-General in the Year 1807. Philadelphia: C. & A. Conrad & Co, 1810.

Pinkerton, John and Thomas Bensley, A Modern Atlas. London: Printed by T. Bensley for T. Cadell and W. Davies and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, 1815.

Polk, James K., and Milo Milton Quaife. The Diary of James K. Polk during his Presidency, 1845 to 1849. New York: Kraus Reprint. 1970.

Proceedings o f the Oregon Convention, Held in Cincinnati on the Third, Fourth and Fifth Days o f July, 1843. Columbus: S. Medary, State printer, 1844.

Public Ledger (London, England), Thursday, June 9, 1774.

Pulsifer, David and Nathaniel Bradstreet Shurtleff. Records o f the Colony o f New Plymouth in New England. New York: AMS Press, 1968.

Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors, 1670-1676. Leonard Woods Labaree, ed. New York: Appleton-Century, 1935.

Sanchez, Jose Maria, and Carlos E. Castaneda, “A Trip to Texas in 1828,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4 (April 1926): 249-288.

de Santa Anna, Antonio Lopez, Ramon Martinez Caro, Vicente Filisola, Jose Urrea, Jose Maria Tornel y Mendrnl, and Carlos Eduardo Castaneda. The Mexican Side o f the Texan Revolution [1836]. Dallas: P. L. Turner Co., 1956.

Smith, John. Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters ofNew-England, or Any Where, or, The Path-Way to Experience to Erect a Plantation With the Yearely Proceedings o f This Country in Fishing and Planting, Since the Yeare 1614. to the Yeare 1630. and Their Present Estate : Also How to Prevent the Greatest Inconveniences, by Their Proceedings in Virginia, and Other Plantations, by Approved Examples: with the 298

Countries Armes, a Description o f the Coast, Harbours, Habitations, Land-Markes, Latitude and Longitude: with the Map, Allowed by Our Royall King Charles. London: Printed by I. Havilland, 1631.

------. The Generall Historie o f Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles With the Names o f the Adventurers, Planters, and Governours from Their First Beginning, An*: 1584, to This Present 1624. London: Michael Sparkes, 1624.

Smith, John, William Symonds, Thomas Abbay, and William Hole. A Map o f Virginia With a Description o f the Countrey, the Commodities, People, Government and Religion. Written by Captaine Smith, Sometimes Governour o f the Countrey. Whereunto Is Annexed the Proceedings o f Those Colonies, Since Their First Departure from England, with the Discourses, Orations, and Relations o f the Salvages, and the Accidents That Befell Them in All Their Iournies and Discoveries. Taken Faithfully As They Were Written Out o f the Writings o f Doctor Russell. Tho. Studley. Anas Todkill. Ieffra Abot. Richard Wiefin. Will. Phettiplace. Nathaniel Povvell. Richard Pots. And the Relations o f Divers Other Diligent Observers There Present Then, and Now Many o f Them in England. By W. S. Oxford: Printed by Joseph Barnes, 1612.

Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Maps o f the Society for the Diffusion o f Useful Knowledge. 2 vols. London: Chapman and Hall, 1844, 1846.

Tanner, Henry Schenck. A New American Atlas Containing Maps of the Several States of the North American Union. Philadelphia: H. S. Tanner, 1823.

Tanner, H. S. A New Universal Atlas Containing maps o f the Various Empires, Kingdoms, States and Republics o f the World. Philadelphia: H. S. Tanner, 1836.

Tocqueville, Alexis de, and J. P. Mayer. Democracy in America. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969.

“The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo February 2, 1848.” The Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp (September 14, 2012).

United States Bureau of the Census. A Century o f Population Growth: From the First Census o f the United States to the Twelfth; 1700 - 1900. Washington, DC: G.P.O., 1909.

United States, and Charles I. Bevans. Treaties and Other International Agreements o f the United States o f America, 1776-1949. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of State, 1968.

United States and John C. Rives. The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings o f the Second Session o f the Thirty-Second Congress. Washington, D.C.: Blair and Rives, 1853. Universal Chronicle or Weekly Gazette (London, England), September 23, 1758 - September 30, 1758. 299

Waterhouse, Edward, and Henry Briggs. A Declaration o f the State o f the Colony and Affaires in Virginia. With a Relation o f the Barbarous Massacre in the Time o f Peace and League, Treacherously Excuted by the Natiue Infidels Vpon the English, the 22 o f March Last. Together with the Names o f Those That Were Then Massacred; That Their Lawfull Heyres, by This Notice Giuen, May Take Order for the Inheriting o f Their Lands and Estates in Virginia. And a Treatise Annexed. London: Imprinted by G. Eld. for R. Mylbourne, 1622.

Westminster Journal or New Weekly Miscellany (London, England), Saturday, April 18, 1747.

Whately, Thomas and George Grenville. The Regulations Lately Made Concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes Imposed Upon Them, Considered. London: Printed for J. Wilkie, 1765.

Wharton, Samuel. [Statement for the Petitioners in the Case o f the Walpole Company Grant.] 1771.

Whitehall Evening Post or London Intelligencer (London, England), “Advertisement,” April 3, 1755 - April 5, 1755.

Whitehall Evening Post (London), April 3, 1755-April 5, 1755.

Winslow, Edward. GoodNewes from New England. London: William Bladen and John Bellamie, 1624.

Wood, William. New Englands Prospect. London: Printed by Tho. Cotes for John Bellamie, 1634.

Workman, Benjamin, Philip Morin Freneau, and Henry D. Pursell. Bailey's Pocket Almanac, Being an American Annual Register, for the Year o f Our Lord 1787. Philadelphia: Printed and sold by Francis Bailey, 1786.

Wraxall, Nathaniel William and Henry B. Wheatley, The Historical and the Posthumous Memoirs o f Sir Nathaniel William Wraxall, 1772-1784; Ed., with Notes and Additional Chapters from the Author's Unpublished Ms. London: Bickers, 1884.

Secondary Sources:

Adams, Henry. The Life o f Albert Gallatin. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co, 1879.

Akerman, James R. The Imperial Map: Cartography and the Mastery o f Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 300

Alcock, Susan E. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Allen, David Y. The Mapping o f New York State: A Study in the History o f Cartography. Chapter 1. (New York: 2011), http://www.dyasites.com/maps/nysbook/Title. htm>.

Allan, D. G. C. “The Laudable Association of Antigallicans.” RSA Journal, Vol. 137, No. 5398 (September 1989): 623-628.

Allen, H. C. Great Britain and the United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations (1783-1952). New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955.

Allen, John Logan. “Imagining the West: The View from Monticello.” In Thomas Jefferson and the Changing West from Conquest to Conservation. James P. Ronda, ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997.

Alvord, Clarence Walworth. “The British Ministry and the Treaty of Fort Stanwix,” Proceedings o f the State Historical Society o f Wisconsin at it Fifty-Sixth Annual Meeting (Madison: 1909): 182-183

------. The Mississippi Valley in British Politics; A Study o f the Trade, Land Speculation and Experiments in Imperialism Culminating in the American Revolution. New York: Russell & Russell, 1959.

Alvord, Clarence Walworth, and Clarence Edwin Carter. Trade and Politics, 1767-1769. Springfield, IL: Trustees of the Illinois State Historical Library, 1921.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. New York: Verso, 1991.

Anderson, Fred. Crucible o f War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate o f Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000. Armitage, David. The Ideological Origins o f the British Empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Armitage, David. Theories o f Empire, 1450-1800. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998.

------. “Literature and Empire.” In The Oxford History o f the British Empire: The Origins o f Empire. Nicholas P. Canny and Alaine M. Low, eds. Oxford: University Press, 1998.

Babinski, Mark. Henry Popple's 1733 Map o f the British Empire in America. Garwood, NJ: Krinder Peak Pub., 1998. Bachman, Van C. Peltries or Plantations: The Economic Policies of the Dutch West India Company in New Netherland, 1623-1639. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969. 301

Baker, Emerson W. American Beginnings: Exploration, Culture, and Cartography in the Land of Norumbega. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

Barber, Peter, and Tom Harper. Magnificent Maps: Power, Propaganda and Art. London: British Library, 2010.

Barker, Eugene C. The Life o f Stephen F. Austin: Founder o f Texas 1793-1836. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1925.

------. Mexico and Texas, 1821-1835: University o f Texas Research Lectures on the Causes o f the Texas Revolution. New York: Russell & Russell, 1965.

Barker, Hannah. Newspapers, Politics and English Society, 1695-1855. Harlow, UK: Longman, 2000.

------. Newspapers, Politics, and Public Opinion in Late Eighteenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Bailey, Thomas Andrew. A Diplomatic History of the American people. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.

Bailyn, Bernard. The Barbarous Years: The Peopling o f British North America: the Conflict o f Civilizations, 1600-1675. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012.

Bailyn, Bernard, and John B. Hench. The Press & the American Revolution. Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society, 1980.

Bailyn, Bernard, and Barbara DeWolfe. Voyagers to the West. New York: Vintage books, 1988.

Barber, Peter, and Tom Harper. Magnificent Maps: Power, Propaganda and Art. London: British Library, 2010.

Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra and Simulations,” Selected Writings. Mark Poster, ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988, 166-184.

Bemis, Samuel Flagg. A Diplomatic History o f the United States. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

Benes, Peter, and Jane Montague Benes. New England Prospect: Maps, Place Names, and the Historical Landscape. Boston, Mass: Boston University, 1980.

Benson, Guy Meriwether, William R. Irwin, Heather Moore, and John Logan Allen. Lewis and Clark: The Maps o f Exploration, 1507-1814. Charlottesville, VA: Howell Press, 2002. 302

Berkeley, Edmund, and Dorothy Smith Berkeley. Dr. John Mitchell: The Man Who Made the Map o f North America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974.

Billington, Ray Allen. Westward Expansion; A History of the American Frontier. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Black, Jeanette D. “Mapping the English Colonies in North America: The Beginnings.” In The Compleat Plattmaker: Essays on Chart, Map, and Globe Making in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Norman J.W. Thrower, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

Black, Jeremy. 1997. Maps and History: Constructing Images o f the Past. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Black, Jeremy. Maps and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Black, Jeremy. The English Press in the Eighteenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987.

Blevins, Tim. “To Spare No Pains ”: Zebulon Montgomery Pike and His 1806-1807 Southwest Expedition: a Bicentennial Commemoration. [Colorado Springs, CO.]: 2007.

Boelhower, William. “Inventing America: The Culture of the Map.” Revue Frangaise D'etudes Americaines, No. 36 (April 1988): 211-224.

------. “Mapping the Gift Path: Exchange and Rivalry in John Smith's A True Relation,” American Literary History, Vol. 15, No. 4 (2003): 655-682.

Bloom, John Porter. The Treaty o f Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848: Papers o f the Sesquicentennial Symposium, 1848-1998. Las Cruces, NM: Yucca Tree Press, 1999.

Bolton, Herbert Eugene. Guide to Materials for the History o f the United States in the Principal Archives of Mexico. Washington, DC: Carnegie institution of Washington, 1913.

Brack, Gene M. Mexico Views Manifest Destiny, 1821-1846: An Essay on the Origins o f the Mexican War. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1975.

British Cartographic Society. A Directory o f UK Map Collections. [United Kingdom]: British Cartographic Society, 2000. Brooks, Philip Coolidge. Diplomacy and the Borderlands; the Adams-Onis Treaty o f 1819. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1939.

Bross, Kristina. Dry Bones and Indian Sermons: Praying Indians in Colonial America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. 303

Brotton, Jerry. Trading Territories: Mapping the Early Modern World. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Brown, Charles Henry. Agents o f Manifest Destiny: The Lives and Times o f the Filibusters. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980.

Brown, Lloyd A. The Story of Maps. Boston: Little, Brown, 1949.

Bruckner, Martin. Early American Cartographies. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

------. The Geographic Revolution in Early America: Maps, Literacy, and National Identity. Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture by University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Bruckner, Martin, and Hsuan L. Hsu. American Literary Geographies: Spatial Practice and Cultural Production, 1500-1900. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007.

Buisseret, David. The Mapmaker's Quest: Depicting New Worlds in Renaissance Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

------. Monarchs, Ministers, and Maps: The Emergence of Cartography as a Tool of Government in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Burnett, D. Graham. Masters o f All They Surveyed: Exploration, Geography, and a British El Dorado. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Burrows, Edwin G. and Mike Wallace. Gotham: A History o f New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Cain, Mead T. “The Maps of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge: A Publishing History.” ImagoMundi, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1994): 151-167.

Calleja, Felix. “Pichardo’s Treatise and the Adams-Onis Treaty.” The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (February 1935): 94-99.

Campbell, Randolph B. An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821 1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989. Campbell, Tony. New Light on the Jansson-Visscher Maps o f New England. London: Map Collectors' Circle, 1965.

Cannadine, David. Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 304

Canny, Nicholas P., and Alaine Low. The Oxford History o f the British Empire. Vol. 1, The Origins o f Empire : British Overseas Enterprise to the Close o f the Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Carpenter, Charles H. History of American Schoolbooks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963.

Carrera, Magali Marie. Traveling from New Spain to Mexico: Mapping Practices of Nineteenth-Century Mexico. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011.

Carrington, David K., and Richard W. Stephenson. Map Collections in the United States and Canada: A Directory. New York: Special Libraries Association, 1985.

Clarke, G.N.G. “Taking Possession: The Cartouche as Cultural Text in Eighteenth- Century American Maps.” Work & Image. Vol. 4, No. 2 (April-June 1988): 455-474.

Clark, David Sanders. Index to Maps o f the American Revolution in Books and Periodicals: Illustrating the Revolutionary War and Other Events o f the Period 1763 1789. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974.

Cohen, Paul E. “Abel Buell, of Connecticut, Prints America’s First Map of the United States, 1784.” The New England Quarterly. Vol. 86, No. 3 (September 2013): 357-397.

------. Mapping the West: America’s Westward Movement 1524-1890. New York: Rizzoli, 2002.

Cohen, Ronald D. “The Hartford Treaty of 1650: Anglo-Dutch Cooperation in the Seventeenth Century.” New-York Historical Society Quarterly. Vol. 53 (1969): 311-332.

Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Commager, Henry. “England and Oregon Treaty of 1846.” Oregon Historical Society. Vol. 28, No. 1 (March 1927): 18-38.

Copeland, David A. Colonial American Newspapers: Character and Content. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1997.

Cormack, Lesley B. Charting an Empire: Geography at the English Universities, 1580 1620. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Crone, G. R. Maps and Their Makers: An Introduction to the History o f Cartography. Folkestone, UK: W. Dawson, 1978.

Cumming, William Patterson. The Exploration o f North America, 1630-1776. New York: Putnam, 1974. 305

------. British maps of Colonial America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Cumming, William Patterson, and Louis De Vorsey. The Southeast in Early Maps. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Delano-Smith, Catherine and Elizabeth Morley Ingram, Maps in Bibles, 1500-1600: An Illustrated Catalogue. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1991.

DeLay, Brian. War o f a Thousand Deserts: Indian Raids and the U.S.-Mexican War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Del Papa, Eugene M. “The Royal Proclamation of 1763: Its Effect upon Virginia Land Companies.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 83, No. 4 (1975): 406-411.

De Vorsey, Louis. Amerindian Contributions to the Mapping o f North America: A Preliminary View. Kent, England: Imago Mundi Ltd, 1978.

Dike, O.A.W. “Cartography in the Ancient World: A Conclusion.” In The History o f Cartography. J.B. Harley and David Woodward, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Din, Gilbert C. “Spain's Immigration Policy in Louisiana and the American Penetration, 1792-1803.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly. Vol. 76, No. 3 (January 1973): 255 276.

Dixon, Ben F. The Great Land Companies o f the 18th Century: A Bibliography o f 75 Titles. Washington, DC: B.F. Dixon, 1946.

Dowd, Gregory Evans. War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, & the British Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Doyle, Michael W. Empires. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Driver, Felix. Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration and Empire. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

Eccles, W. J. France in America. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1972.

------. “Sovereignty-Association, 1500-1783.” Canadian Historical Review. Vol. 65, No. 4 (1984): 475-510.

Edney, Matthew H. “The Irony of Imperial Mapping.” In The Imperial Map: Cartography and the Mastery o f Empire. James R. Akerman, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 306

------. “John Mitchell’s Map of North America (1755): A Study of the Use and Publication of Official Maps in Eighteenth-Century Britain.” ImagoMundi, Vol. 60, No. 1 (January 2008): 63-85.

------. Mapping an Empire the Geographical Construction o f British India, 1765-1843. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

------. “A Publishing History of John Mitchell’s Map of North America, 1755 1775,” Cartographic Perspectives, Vol. 58 (2007): 1-24.

Ehrensvard, Ulla. “Color in Cartography: A Historical Survey.” In Art and Cartography. David Woodward, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Elazar, Daniel Judah. Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press: 1987.

------. “Federalism.” In International Encyclopedia o f the Social Sciences. Vol. 5. David L. Sills and Robert King Merton, eds. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

------. The Politics of American Federalism. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1969.

Faulk, Odie B. Too Far North, Too Far South. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1967.

Fuller, Mary C. Voyages in Print: English Travel to America, 1576-1624. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Gehring, Charles T. and William A. Starna. “Dutch and Indians in the Hudson Valley: The Early Period.” The Hudson River Valley Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (September 1992): 1 25.

Gibson, James R. Imperial Russia in frontier America: the Changing g\Geography of Supply o f Russian America, 1784-1867. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Gish, Dustin A. and Daniel P. Klinghard, “Republican Constitutionalism in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes o f the State o f Virginia,” The Journal o f Politics, Vol. 74, No. 1 (January 2012): 35-51.

Godlewska, Anne, and Neil Smith. Geography and Empire. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994.

Grant, Alfred. Our American Brethren: A History of Letters in the British Press during the American Revolution, 1775-1781. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1995.

Greene, Jack P. Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities o f the British Empire and the United States, 1607-1788. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986. 307

Griffin, Patrick. American Leviathan: Empire, Nation, and Revolutionary Frontier. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.

Groenveld, Simon. “The English Civil Wars as a Cause of the First Anglo Dutch War, 1640-1652.” The Historical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3 (September 1987): 541-566.

Gronet, Richard W. “United States and the Invasion of Texas, 1810-1814,” The Americas, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1969): 281-306.

Gronim, Sara Stidstone. “Geography and Persuasion: Maps in British Colonial New York.” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2 (2001): 373-402.

Hall, Catherine. Civilising Subjects: Colony andMetropole in the English Imagination, 1830-1867. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Harley, J.B. “The Evaluation of Early Maps: Towards a Methodology,” Imago Mundi, Vol. 22 (1968): 62-74

------. “New England Cartography and the Native Americans.” In American Beginnings: Exploration, Culture, and Cartography in the Land o f Norumbega. Emerson W. Baker, ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994).

------. The New Nature o f Maps: Essays in the History o f Cartography, edited by Paul Laxton. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Harley, J. B. and David Woodward. The History o f Cartography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Harris, Bob. A Patriot Press: National Politics and the London Press in the 1740s. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

------. Politics and the Rise o f the Press: Britain and France, 1620-1800. London: Routledge, 1996.

Harris, Michael, and Alan J. Lee. The Press in English Society from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1986.

Harris, W.C. E Pluribus Unum: Nineteenth-Century American Literature & the Constitutional Paradox. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2005.

Heidenreich, Conrad E. and Edward H. Daul. “Samuel de Champlain’s Cartography, 1603-1632.” In Champlain: The Birth o f French America. Raymonde Litalien, Kathe Roth, and Denis Vaugeois, eds. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004.

Hinderaker, Eric. Elusive Empires: Constructing Colonialism in the Ohio Valley, 1673 1800. New York: Cambridge University Press: 1997. 308

Hinderaker, Eric and Peter C. Mancall. At the Edge o f Empire: The Backcountry in British North America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

Hinkhouse, Fred Junkin. The Preliminaries o f the American Revolution as Seen in the English Press, 1763-1775. New York: Octagon Books, 1969.

Hogan, Michael. The Texas Republic: A Social and Economic History. Austin, Tex: Univ. of Texas Press, 1975.

Howe, Stephen. Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Howren, Alleine. “Causes and Origin of the Decree of April 6, 1830,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (April 1913): 378-422.

Hulton, Paul H. America 1585: The Complete Drawing o f John White. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press: 1984.

Hunt, Alex. “Mapping the Terrain, Marking the Earth: William Emory and the Writing of the U.S./Mexico Border.” In American Literary Geographies: Spatial Practice and Cultural Production, 1500-1900. Martin Bruckner and Hsuan L. Hsu, eds. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007.

Jackson, Donald. Letters o f the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with Related Documents, 1783-1854. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962.

------. Thomas Jefferson & the Stony Mountains: exploring the West from Monticello. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981.

Jacobs, Jaap. The Colony of New Netherland: A Dutch Settlement in Seventeenth-Century America. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Jackson, Jack. Shooting the Sun: Cartographic Results of Military Activities in Texas, 1689-1829, 2 volumes. [Austin]: Book Club of Texas, 1998, 2.348.

Jacob, Christian. The Sovereign Map: Theoretical Approaches in Cartography throughout History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Jaffa, Harry V. The Conditions of Freedom: Essays in Political Philosophy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Jennings, Francis. The Invasion o f America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press, 1975. 309

Jones, Howard. To the Webster-Ashburton Treaty: A Study in Anglo-American Relations, 1783-1843. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977.

Jones, Howard, and Donald A. Rakestraw. Prologue to Manifest Destiny Anglo-American Relations in the 1840s. Wilmington, DE: SR Books, 1997.

Jones, Martin, Rhys Jones, and Michael Woods. An Introduction to Political Geography: Space, Place and Politics. London: Routledge. 2004.

Kastor, Peter J. The Nation's Crucible: The Louisiana Purchase and the Creation o f America. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2004.

Kastor, Peter J., and F ran cis Weil. Empires of the Imagination: Transatlantic Histories of the Louisiana Purchase. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.

Kellogg, Louise Phelps. The American Colonial Charter; A Study of English Administration in Relation Thereto, Chiefly after 1688. New York: Da Capo Press, 1971.

King, H R. Cape Cod and Plymouth Colony in the Seventeenth Century. Lanham: University Press of America, 1994.

King, Geoff. Mapping Reality. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.

Klein, Sabine. “‘They Have Invaded the Whole River’: Boundary Negotiations in Anglo- Dutch Colonial Discourse.” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9.2 (2011): 324-347.

Konvitz, Josef W. Cartography in France, 1660-1848: Science, Engineering, and Statecraft. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Krim, Arthur J. “Acculturation of the New England Landscape: Native and English Toponym of Eastern Massachusetts.” In New England Prospect: Maps, Place Names, and the Historical Landscape. Peter Benes and Jane Montague Benes, eds. Boston, Mass: Boston University, 1980.

Levermore, Charles H. “Pilgrim and Knickerbocker in the Connecticut Valley.” The New England Magazine, Vol. 1, New Series (September 1889- February 1890): 173-182.

Lewis, G. Malcolm. Cartographic Encounters: Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Library of Congress, and Philip Lee Phillips. A List o f Maps o f America in the Library o f Congress: Library o f Congress, Division o f Maps and Charts: Preceded by A List o f Works Relating to Cartography. Washington: Gov. Print. Off, 1901. 310

Library of Congress, and Walter W. Ristow. Guide to the History o f Cartography: An Annotated List o f References on the History o f Maps and Mapmaking. Washington: Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress, 1973.

Lin, Christine. “Maps and the Chinese Imperial Word View.” Epoch Times (March 25, 2013).

Louis, William Roger, Nicholas P. Canny, Alaine M. Low, P. J. Marshall, A. N. Porter, Judith M. Brown, and Robin W. Winks. The Oxford History o f the British Empire. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press, 1998

Lowrie, Samuel Harman. Culture Conflict in Texas, 1821-1835. New York: AMS Press, 1967.

Lowery, Woodbury, and Philip Lee Phillips. The Lowery Collection: A Descriptive List o f Maps o f the Spanish Possessions within the Present Limits o f the United States, 1502 1820. Washington: G.P.O., 1912.

Lutnick, Solomon. The American Revolution and the British press, 1775-1783. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1967.

Lynam, Edward. The Mapmaker’s Art; Essays on the History o f Maps. London: Batchworth Press, 1953.

MacFarlane, Anthony. The British in the Americas: 1480-1815. London: Longman, 1994.

MacMillan, Ken. Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World: The Legal Foundations o f Empire, 1576-1640. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Maier, Charles S. Among Empires: American Ascendancy and it Predecessors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Mancall, Peter C. Envisioning America: English Plans for the Colonization of North America, 1580-1640. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1995.

------. Hakluyt's Promise: An Elizabethan's Obsession for an English America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.

Mandell, Daniel R. King Philip's War: Colonial Expansion, Native Resistance, and the End of Indian Sovereignty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.

Mapp, Paul W. The Elusive West and the Contest for Empire, 1713-1763. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Marshall, P. J. Remaking the British Atlantic: the United States and the British Empire after American Independence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 311

Marshall, Thomas Maitland. A History o f the Western Boundary o f the Louisiana Purchase, 1819-1841. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1914.

Martin, James C., and Robert Sidney Martin. Maps o f Texas and the Southwest, 1513 1900. Albuquerque: Published for the Amon Carter Museum by the University of New Mexico Press, 1984.

Martin, Lawrence. “John Mitchell.” In Dictionary of American Biography. Dumas Malone, ed. New York: Scribner, 1934.

May, Ernest R. American Imperialism; a Speculative Essay. New York: Atheneum, 1968.

May, Robert E. “Manifest Destiny’s Filibusters.” In Manifest Destiny and Empire: American Antebellum Expansionism. Sam W. Haynes and Robert Walter Johannsen, eds. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2008.

Mayhew, Robert J. Enlightenment Geography: The Political Languages o f British Geography, 1650-1850. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.

Martin, Robert S. “Maps of an Empresario: Austin's Contribution to the Cartography of Texas.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 4 (April 1982): 371-400.

McAfee, Ward, and J. Cordell Robinson. Origins o f the Mexican War: A Documentary Source Book. Salisbury, NC: Documentary Publications, 1982.

McCary, Ben C. John Smith’s Map o f Virginia: With a Brief Account o f Its History. Williamsburg, VA: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corp, 1957.

McDonald, Archie P. The Mexican War; Crisis for American Democracy. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1969.

McLeod, Bruce. The Geography o f Empire in English Literature, 1580-1745. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Merk, Frederick. Albert Gallatin and the Oregon problem; a Study in Anglo-American Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950.

------. History of the Westward Movement. New York: Knopf, 1978.

------. The Oregon Question: Essays in Anglo-American Diplomacy and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Merk, Frederick, and Lois Bannister Merk. Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. 312

Merk, Frederick, and Robert J. Walker. Fruits o f Propaganda in the Tyler Administration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Merry, Robert W. A Country o f Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War, and the Conquest o f the American Continent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.

Merwick, Donna. The Shame and the Sorrow: Dutch-Amerindian Encounters in New Netherland. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Morgan, William Thomas. “English Fear of ‘Encirclement’ in the Seventeenth Century,” Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1929): 4-22.

Morissonneau, Christian. “Champlain’s Place-Names.” In Champlain: The Birth o f French America. Raymonde Litalien, Kathe Roth, and Denis Vaugeois, eds. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004.

Morton, Ohland. Teran and Texas; A Chapter in Texas-Mexican Relations. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1948.

Milanich, Jerald T. Laboring in the Fields o f the Lord: Spanish Missions and Southeastern Indians. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1999.

Miller, Robert J., and Elizabeth Furse. Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers, 2006.

Mott, Frank Luther. A History of American Magazines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Muir, Richard. Modern Political Geography. New York: Wiley, 1975.

Mundy, Barbara E. The Mapping of New Spain: Indigenous Cartography and the Maps o f the Relaciones Geograficas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Nash, Gary B. “The Image of the Indian in the Southern Colonial Mind,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2 (April 1972): 198-230.

Nabokov, Peter. “Orientations from Their Side: Dimension of Native American Cartographic Discourse.” In Cartographic Encounters: Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use. G. Malcolm Lewis, ed. (Chicago: 1998).

Nietz, John A. Old textbooks: Spelling, Grammar, Reading, Arithmetic, Geography, American History, Civil Government, Physiology, Penmanship, Art, Music, as Taught in the Common Schools from Colonial Days to 1900. [Pittsburgh]: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1961. 313

Nicolet, Claude. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Norris, L. David, James C. Milligan, and Odie B. Faulk. William H. Emory: Soldier- Scientist. University of Arizona Press, 1998.

Nugent, Walter. Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.

O’Donnell, Thomas F., ed. “Introduction.” In Adriaen van der Donck, A Description of New Netherlands. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1968.

Onuf, Peter S. Statehood and Union: A History o f the Northwest Ordinance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Parks, George Bruner. Richard Hakluyt and the English Voyages. New York: F. Ungar Pub. Co., 1961.

Parry, J.H. “Hakluyt’s View of British History.” In The Hakluyt Handbook. David B Quinn, ed. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1974.

Pearce, Margaret Wickens. “Native Mapping in Southern New England Indian Deeds.” In Cartographic Encounters: Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use. G. Malcolm Lewis, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Pease, Theodore Calvin. Anglo-French Boundary Disputes in the West, 1749-1763. Springfield, IL: The Trustees of the Illinois State Historical Library, 1936.

Pedley, Mary. The Commerce of Cartography: Making and Marketing Maps in Eighteenth-Century France and England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

------. “Maps, War, and Commerce: Business Correspondence with the London Map Firm of Thomas Jefferys and William Faden.” Imago Mundi 48 (1996): 161-173.

------. “Map Wars: The Role of Maps in the Nova Scotia/Acadia boundary Disputes of 1750,” Imago Mundi, Vol. 50 (1998): 96-104.

Perdue, Peter C. “Boundaries, Maps, and Movement: Chinese, Russian, and Mongolian Empires in Early Modern Central Eurasia.” The International History Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (June 1998): 263-286.

Pincus, Steve. “Rethinking Mercantilism: Political Economy, the British Empire, and the Atlantic World in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (January 2012): 3-34. 314

Porter, Kirk H., and Donald Bruce Johnson. National Party Platforms, 1840-1964. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966. Portinaro, Pierluigi, and Franco Knirsch. The Cartography o f North America, 1500-1800. New York, NY: Facts on File, 1987.

Pratt, Julius William. Expansionists of 1812. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1957.

Preston, David L. The Texture o f Contact European and Indian Settler Communities on the Frontiers o f Iroquoia, 1667-1783. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009.

Pritchard, Margaret Beck, and Henry G. Taliaferro. Degrees of Latitude: Mapping Colonial America. Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, in association with H.N. Abrams, 2002.

Publications o f the Colonial Society o f Massachusetts, Volume XIII. Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1932.

Pulsipher, Jenny Hale. Subjects unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

Quinn, David B. England and the Discovery o f America, 1481-1620, From the Bristol Voyages o f the Fifteenth Century to the Pilgrim Settlement at Plymouth: the Exploration, Exploitation, and Trial-and-Error Colonization o f North America by the English. New York: Knopf, 1974. ------. Quinn, David B. ed. The Hakluyt Handbook. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1974.

Reed, Susan Martha. “British Cartography of the Mississippi Valley in the Eighteenth Century.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (September 1915): 213-224.

------. “North America.” In The Hakluyt Handbook. David B. Quinn, ed. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1974.

Remini, Robert Vincent. The Jacksonian Era. Arlington Heights, IL: H. Davidson, 1989.

Ronda, James P. Jefferson’s West: A Journey with Lewis and Clark. [Charlottesville, Va.]: Thomas Jefferson Foundation, 2000.

Richmond, Robert W., and Robert W. Mardock. A Nation Moving West; Readings in the History of the American Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

Rink, Oliver A. Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History of Dutch New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. 315

Ristow, Walter W. A La Carte: Selected Papers on Maps and Atlases. Washington: Library of Congress, 1972.

------. American Maps and Mapmakers: Commercial Cartography in the Nineteenth Century. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1985.

------. Cartography o f the Battle o f Bunker Hill. Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress, 1979.

Sadosky, Leonard J. Revolutionary Negotiations Indians, Empires, and Diplomats in the Founding of America. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.

Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf, 1993.

Sanchez-Saavedra, E. M. A Description o f the Country: Virginia's Cartographers and Their Maps, 1607-1881. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1975.

Sanford, Charles L. Manifest Destiny and the Imperialism Question. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Savelle, Max. “Colonial Origins of American Diplomatic Principles.” Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1934): 334-350.

Schmidt, Benjamin. Innocence Abroad: the Dutch Imagination and the New World, 1570-1670. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

------. “Mapping an Empire: Cartographic and Colonial Rivalry in Seventeenth-Century Dutch and English North America,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., Vol. 54, No. 3 (July 1997): 550-551.

Schwartz, Seymour I., and Ralph E. Ehrenberg. The Mapping of North America. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1980.

Shippee, Lester Burrell. “The Federal Relations of Oregon - VII,” The Quarterly o f the Oregon Historical Society, Vol. 20, No. 4 (December 1919): 35-93.

Short, John R. Cartographic Encounters: Indigenous Peoples and the Exploration o f the New World. London: Reaktion Books, 2009.

------. An Introduction to Political Geography. London: Routledge, 1993.

------. Representing the Republic: Mapping the United States, 1600-1900. London: Reaktion, 2001.

Siegel, Stanley. A Political History o f the Texas Republic, 1836-1845. Austin, Tex: University of Texas Press, 1956. 316

Silbey, Joel H. The Shrine o f Party; Congressional Voting Behavior, 1841-1852. [Pittsburgh]: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.

Singletary, Otis A. The Mexican War. [Chicago]: University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Skelton, R. A. Explorers’ Maps: Chapters in the Cartographic Record of Geographical Discovery. Feltham: Spring Books, 1970.

------. “Hakluyt’s Maps.” In The Hakluyt Handbook. David B. Quinn, ed. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1974.

Slowe, Peter M. Geography and Political Power: The Geography of Nations and States. London: Routledge, 1990.

Stephenson, Richard W., and Marianne M. McKee. Virginia in Maps: Four Centuries o f Settlement, Growth, and Development. Richmond: Library of Virginia, 2000.

Texas State Library, and James M. Day. Maps o f Texas, 1527-1900: The Map Collection o f the Texas State Archives. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Fine Books, 1997.

Thrower, Norman Joseph William. The Compleat Plattmaker: Essays on Chart, Map, and Globe Making in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

Thrower, Norman Joseph William, and Norman Joseph William Thrower. Maps & Civilization: Cartography in Culture and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Thwaites, Reuben Gold. “The Story of Lewis and Clark’s Journals.” American Historical Association Annual Report for the Year 1903, Vol. 1 (1904): 105-129.

Trelease, Allen W. Indian Affairs in Colonial New York: The Seventeenth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1960.

Trudel, Marcel. The Beginnings o f New France, 1524-1663. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1973.

Tyacke, Sarah. English Map-Making, 1500-1650: Historical Essays. London: British Library, 1983.

University of Texas, Thomas E. Cotner, Carlos Eduardo Castaneda, and Charles W. Hackett. Essays in Mexican History. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1972.

Vaughan, Alden T. “Introduction.” In William Wood, New Englands Prospect. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1977. 317

Verlinden, Charles. The Beginnings o f Modern Colonization. Ithaca [N.Y.]: Cornell University Press, 1970.

Wallace, Ernest. Documents o f Texas History. [Austin, Tex.]: Steck Company, 1963.

Walsh, Jim. Maps Contained in the Publications o f the American Bibliography, 1639 1819: An Index and Checklist. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1988.

Ward, Matthew C. Breaking the Backcountry: The Seven Years' War in Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1754-1765. Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003.

Warntz, William. Geography Now and Then: Some Notes on the History o f Academic Geography in the United States. New York: American Geographical Society, 1964.

Waselkov, Gregory A. “Indian Maps of the Colonial Southeast.” In Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians of the Colonial Southeast. Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley, eds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1989.

Weber, David J. The Spanish Frontier in North America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Weddle, Robert S. The French Thorn Rival Explorers in the Spanish Sea, 1682-1762. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1991.

------. Spanish Sea: the Gulf of Mexico in North American Discovery, 1500 1685. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 1985.

Weeks, William Earl. John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1992.

Wheat, Carl. Mapping the Transmississippi West, 1540-1861, Vol. 2: From Lewis and Clark to Fremont, 1804-1845. San Francisco: Institute of Historical Cartography, 1957.

------. Mapping the Transmississippi West, 1540-1861, Vol. 3: From the Mexican War to the Boundary Surveys, 1846-1854. San Francisco: Institute of Historical Cartography, 1959.

Wheat, James Clements, and Christian Brun. Maps and Charts Published in America Before 1800; A Bibliography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.

Widder, Keith R. Beyond Pontiac’s Shadow: Michilimackinac and the Anglo-Indian War o f 1763. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 2013.

Wilford, John Noble. The Mapmakers. New York: Knopf, 1981. 318

Wilson, Kathleen. The Sense o f the People: Politics, Culture, and Imperialism in England, 1715-1785. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Winsor, Justin. “The Earliest Maps of Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor.” Memorial History of Boston, 4 vols. Justin Windsor, ed. Boston: J.R. Osgood and Co., 1882.

Wilson, Kathleen. A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity, and Modernity in Britain and the Empire, 1660-1840. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Wirt, Frederick M. “The Tenacity of Confederacy: Local Service Agreements in the Family of Governments.” Publius, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Autumn 1982): 103-127.

Wood, Denis. Rethinking the Power o f Maps: New York: Guilford Press, 2010.

Wood, Denis with John Fels. The Power o f Maps. New York: Guilford Press, 1992.

Woodward, David. The History o f Cartography, Vol. 3, Part 1: Cartography in the European Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Wroth, Lawrence C. Abel Buell o f Connecticut, Silversmith, Type Founder & Engraver. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1958.

Yoakum, Henderson K. History o f Texas from Its First Settlement in 1685 to Its Annexation to the United States in 1846. Austin: Steck-Vaughn Company, 1855.