Auction status
User login
Catalogue

  Find us on Facebook


Henry S. Tanner and Cartographic Expression of American Expansionism in the 1820s


....

James v. Walker

Henry S. Tanner and Cartographic Expression of American Expansionism in the 1820s

AMERICAN'S CONCEPT of their nation’s sovereignty extending to the Pacific Ocean developed gradually and hesitatingly during the first three decades of the nineteenth century. Rhetoric about American interests in the Pacific Northwest included intermittent but intense international diplomatic conversations, presidential messages, congressional debates, editorial commentary in newspapers and other periodicals, and increasingly interested and opinionated cartographical literature. All these layers of discourse were linked by their focus on a geographical area and by geopolitical events centered on that area. That discourse contributed to a gradually developing image of an American dominion of continental proportions. Diplomats, congressmen, newspaper editors, and mapmakers were all involved in the development of that image but were not bound by similar conventions in the construction and communication of their visions. American commercial mapmakers of the period contributed to the development of a national consciousness of American expansion into the Pacific Northwest — a place still controlled by Native peoples — by both describing and interpreting national and international events.

During the second and third decades of the nineteenth century, the unique contributions of cartographers John Melish and Henry Schenck Tanner helped establish a national identity in ways that were visionary, influential, and powerful. Their maps contained information that was both geographical and geopolitical. In the Pacific Northwest, the main “new” features on updated editions of maps were often boundaries, legends, toponyms, and color codes that reflected the actions of non-Native diplomats and congressmen rather than explorers, topographers, and settlers. The maps graphically represented how American cartographers legitimized the expanding domain of one cultural group and, at the same time, delegitimized the sovereignty of both other imperial nations and Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest.

 

This detail of "A Map of Lewis and Clark’s Track Across the Western Portion of North America", published in 1814, was the most informative map of the Pacific Northwest at the time. Geopolitical events of the following decade resulted in John Melish and Henry Tanner drawing maps that promoted expansion of American sovereignty in the region, despite the presence of large populations of Native Americans. Both cartography and geopolitical rhetoric helped construct an image of a distinct place in the Pacific Northwest called “Oregon.”

 

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the United States, Great Britain, Spain, and Russia all claimed sovereignty to some portion of the Native-controlled lands of the Pacific Northwest. By the middle of the second decade, Americans claimed rights principally on the basis of three historical events: Robert Gray’s discovery and naming of the Columbia River in May 1792; the military sponsored Expedition of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark from 1804 to 1806; and the establishment of the private (but government sanctioned) fur trading enterprise at Astoria in 1811.(2) In the aftermath of the War of 1812, Anglo-American tensions increased regarding several issues, including contested areas of sovereignty in the Pacific Northwest. Still, American diplomatic activity regarding this region was restrained, and there was almost no physical presence of American military or commercial enterprise. Following the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814, formal restitution of Astoria from the British to the United States was delayed until August 1818. 3 The American government sanctioned maritime explorations to the Northwest coast in 1815 and 1816 but aborted them to more pressing needs for naval forces elsewhere.(4) Neither American nor British diplomats attempted treaty-making with any tribes of the region during this time.

In contrast, publisher John Melish, an established and influential mapmaker in Philadelphia, advocated a more overt and opinionated position of American sovereignty in the Pacific Northwest. In 1816, he published his Map of the United States with the contiguous British and Spanish possessions ... (Figure 1). Scholars have widely regarded this map as the first to portray the United States extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean.5 Indeed, in his accompanying Geographical Description, Melish stated: “The map . . . shows at a glance the whole extent of the United States territory from sea to sea.”6On the map, Melish extended the parallel of 49 degrees and 40 minutes across the Rocky Mountains to the Strait of Georgia as an extension of the “Northern Boundary of Louisiana” between American and British dominions. Melish redrew the forty-ninth parallel boundary several different ways as he frequently revised the map’s copperplates from 1816 to 1822. 7

Melish's 1816 interpretation of a forty-ninth parallel boundary extending all the way to the Pacific Ocean caught the attention of many, including Simon McGillivray, who was a principal partner of the British Northwest Company, which had established virtually the only non-Native presence in the Pacific Northwest at that time. In 1817, McGillivray published a pamphlet and map to demonstrate how the forty-ninth parallel boundary on Melish’s map would intersect British access to two important commercial transportation routes to the interior: the Columbia River and a (fictitious) Caledonia River, which his map showed flowing into the Gulf of Georgia below 49 degrees.8 McGillivray’s influence on British diplomatic policy exemplifies the strong, direct connection between British commercial interests and diplomatic activity during boundary negotiations with the United States from 1817; to 1846.


Figure 1: Map scholars have considered John Melish’s 1816 "Map of the United States with the Contiguous British and Spanish Possessions" the earliest map to illustrate the United States extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific.


During the first Anglo-American negotiations in London in 1818, United States plenipotentiary Albert Gallatin acknowledged the apparent veracity of McGillivary’s map.(9) He presented an unofficial modification of the American position (which advocated establishing the forty-ninth parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the sea) by offering to cede territory along Puget Sound and Admiralty Inlet to accommodate British access to the mouth of the Caledonia River (a position to which Gallatin returned during the negotiations of 1826). The negotiations of 1818 ended, however, with an agreement to formally extend the boundary along the forty-ninth parallel from the Lake of the Woods only to the Rocky Mountains. 10 As map scholar and historian Daniel Clayton asserts:“In the negotiations of 1818 cartography and diplomacy, image and assumed reality were tightly bound.”11

During these negotiations, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams was also consulting with Spanish minister Luis de Onís, culminating in the Adams-Onís Treaty of February 1819, which established the forty-second parallel from north of the headwaters of the Arkansas River to the Pacific

Library of Congress

Figure 2: On one of the revised copperplates of 1820, Melish redrew the forty-ninth parallel boundary in a straight line extending to the sea by transecting the lower part of Vancouver Island (see detail at left).

Ocean as a boundary between United States and Spanish territorial possessions. This treaty effectively removed Spain from geopolitical hegemony in the Pacific Northwest and formally legitimized (from the non-Native perspective) an American reach to the Pacific Ocean. Adams and Onís used an 1818 edition of Melish’s Map of the United States during these negotiations, and an April 1819 revised edition of that map was the first to depict the new boundary along the forty-second parallel.12 In 1820, Melish again revised the forty-ninth parallel boundary by extending it in a straight line from the Rocky Mountains across the lower part of Vancouver Island to the ocean (Figure 2). This image of an area of American dominion bounded by the forty-second and forty-ninth parallels and by the Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains reflected the boundary proposed by the United States in the negotiations of 1818 in London. It was also a position of advocacy by Melish, for the boundary had not been agreed on by American and British diplomats at the end of those negotiations.

Thus, at the close of the second decade of the nineteenth century, the United States, Great Britain, and Russia all claimed sovereignty in the Pacific Northwest with no mutually agreed-upon northern boundary above 42 degrees. Those nations did not recognize Native sovereignty in the region. The United States had no military presence in the area, and the only American commercial activity centered on a few vessels trading along the coast.13 West of the Continental Divide, only the British were engaged in fur trapping activity.14 There was furthermore little or no public discourse about American expansion to the Pacific Northwest, except for a few vocal exponents such as Thomas Hart Benton, who, as editor of the St. Louis Enquirer, had advocated in a series of editorials in 1818 and 1819 for the establishment of an American presence on the Columbia River.15 Many United States statesmen, including President James Monroe, Secretary of State John Adams, and Albert Gallatin, shared Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an expanded American identity into the Pacific Northwest, whether as part of the Federal Republic or as an independent Republic. Nevertheless, as the distinguished American historian Frederick Merk said, “The conviction that a new republic would come to life in the Pacific West was, however, not a policy,” or at least not a policy government officials strongly articulated to the public.16 In his Annual Messages to Congress from 1819 to 1821, Monroe did not discuss the recent Adams-Onís Treaty with Spain in terms of its geopolitical advantages in the Pacific Northwest. Instead, he expressed concerns about delays to ratification of the treaty in Madrid, the geographical importance of the cession of (East and West) Florida, and of the need to maintain neutrality with respect to civil wars in “Spanish Provinces in this hemisphere.” In his references to the 1818 negotiations with Great Britain, Monroe also had little to say about boundaries, instead focusing on the other articles of the convention dealing with commerce, fishing rights, and restitution for “the carrying away, by British officers, of slaves from the United States” in violation of the Treaty of Ghent.1 During this same period of 1819 to 1821, coverage by the National Intelligencer newspaper reflected these international concerns as well as pressing domestic issues such as the Missouri Compromise and Congress’ ongoing efforts to appropriate Indian territory by treaty, military force, and removal.18

Textual and cartographic literature of the time also reflected little that was either distinctive or consistent in naming areas of the Pacific Northwest. In publications prior to 1822, labels and references to the Pacific Northwest were vague and general: “the northwest coast of the continent” or “the coast contiguous” or “northwest coast of America westward of the Stony Mts.” or “the whole country on the waters of the Columbia River,” and so on. When specific names were used, such toponyms as “New Caledonia” or “Columbia District” or “Western Territories” appeared inconsistently on maps of the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, for most United States citizens, including most members of Congress, geographical knowledge of the Pacific Northwest was rudimentary or simply erroneous.19

In December 1820, House of Representatives member John Floyd of Virginia was appointed head of a committee “to inquire into the situation of the settlements upon the Pacific ocean [sic.], and the expediency of occupying the Columbia River.”20 The report of this committee on January 25, 1821, was accompanied by a bill “authoriz[ing] the occupation of the Columbia River.”21 This legislation was cited by an early twentieth-century historian as a “pioneer report . . . in its expression and embodiment of the ideas and impulses that were to shape the progress of events,” although it was anything but progressive in how it applied to Native Americans in the area.22 Floyd’s lengthy report on the history of exploration, commerce, and right of settlement in the region of the Columbia River included no possibility of recognition of independent Indian sovereignty, and the first section called for “extinguish[ing] the Indian title to a district of country not exceeding — — miles square.”23

Floyd subsequently modified his proposal to include stronger advocacy for extending American jurisdictional sovereignty over territory within the Columbia River drainage area. He did this by introducing a new name for the territory. On January 18, 1822, Floyd issued a new report that included a revised bill in fourteen sections. Section four stipulated that the area settled should be called the “territory of Origon” [sic.] (Figure 3).24 This bill was the first use in text of the toponym “Oregon” applied to a geographical region of the Pacific Northwest instead of to a river. On January 19, the National Intelligencer published Floyd’s bill, accompanied by an editorial, and thereby introduced the public to the new toponym.25 Within four months, Henry Schenck Tanner (186–1858), a prominent Philadelphia-based map publisher, copyrighted his A Map of North America. He borrowed Floyd’s term (with changed spelling), and for the first time on a printed map, the toponym “Oregon Terry.” was applied to a broad region extending east from the Pacific Northwest.

Thus, through both published Congressional debates and cartographic literature, two concepts emerged into public consciousness. The first was the idea of Oregon as a place in the Pacific Northwest, and the second was the idea that this place should become solely an American possession. Within the span of a few months in 1822, a politician and mapmaker introduced the name Oregon in a thoroughly American context, applying it to an area of the continent whose ultimate sovereignty among non-Natives was not to be determined until the Oregon

Figure 3: Section four of Floyd’s bill called for the creation of “territory of Origon” when the population of the area bounded by the forty-second parallel and the Rocky Mountains reached two thousand inhabitants. The bill did not suggest what should constitute a northern boundary of the territory.

Treaty of 1846 between the United States and Great Britain. 26 In subsequent debate, Floyd defended his choice of the name Oregon for a proposed territory in the Pacific Northwest, and at one point, he rejected an amendment changing the name to Columbia. It appears that neither Floyd nor Tanner ever conjectured on possible origins of the name they adopted in 1822.

Recent scholarship, however, has demonstrated the rich and complex linguistic and cultural Native American heritage of the word Oregon. This research has provided further contextualization of a discussion on how the name Oregon on maps came to be identified with one cultural entity, but was originally drawn from another. In 2001, Scott Byram and David Lewis postulated that Oregon was derived from a Chinook Jargon trade word ooligan, the name of a fish from which was rendered a highly valued commodity oil or grease.27 The authors suggested that during extensive trade networking, Chinook speakers of the Pacific Northwest may have introduced the word ooligan, which would have been pronounced “urigan” or“oorigan” by Algonquian speaking Western Cree people east of the Rocky Mountains. The word may then have been introduced to Europeans in the vicinity of the Great Lakes region.

More recently, linguist Ives Goddard and anthropologist Thomas Love theorized that the term wauregan was used by Mohegan Indians of eastern Connecticut to describe the Ohio River as “good or fine or showy.”28 An English transliteration to Ouragon or Ourigan may then have been applied to a conceptualized western-running river, labeled “Belle Riv” or Beautiful River, depicted on a map by Antoine-Simon Le Page Du Pratz and published in 158. In both scenarios, the word Ouragon or Ourigan was first used by British officer Robert Rogers in a 165 written petition to the King of England to underwrite an expedition to find a Northwest Passage, in part by seeking “the river called by the Indians Ouragon.” Rogers subsequently sent one of his former officers, Jonathan Carver, on an expedition into the interior west of Lake Superior in 166 and 167. Carver’s popular account, Travels Through the Interior Parts of North America . . . , was published in London in 178, and over thirty editions of Travels and New Universal Travels were published in several languages.29 The word Oregon first appeared in print in text and on one of the two maps (spelled Origan) in this book, in both cases applied to a conceptualized River of the West.30 The text and maps of Carver’s Travels influenced the cartography of western North America for the next twenty-five years, as the word Oregon became synonymous with the “Great River of the West” and, later, the Columbia River.

This was the complex background of the place-name Oregon that was inherited but not recognized by John Floyd and Henry Tanner or by their American and European readership. Nor did any cartographers or readers appreciate the significant irony embedded in that heritage. Oregon was a place-name with undisputed Native American origins, used by British officers to identify a river on a French map, and then adopted by Americans in an openly anti-British context.

the year 1822 ended with an abrupt shift in the map-publishing community’s center of influence. John Melish died in December, and map publisher Andrew Goodrich of New York purchased his copperplates and inventory. Melish’s productivity had been remarkable, and according to map scholar Walter Ristow, “five U.S. presidents are known to have possessed copies of [his] large map of the country.”31 Tanner had been associated with Melish for several years, but by 1822, Tanner was independently successful as an engraver, cartographer, and publisher. With Melish’s death, Tanner’s firm became the preeminent center of United States commercial cartography.

Tanner’s A Map of North America Constructed According to the Latest Information was a large (43-by-58 inches) hand-colored copperplate engraving that was submitted for copyright on May 27, 1822 (Figure 4). It was available to subscribers in late 1822 as the fourth folio of his New American Atlas and was published in full with the fifth and final folio in 1823. 32 The final compilation included a title page, index of all the maps, and a Geographical Memoir of eighteen pages dated by Tanner on September 10, 1823. The title of the complete work is noteworthy because of the sources and authorities Tanner claimed for his map: A New American Atlas Containing Maps of the Several States of the North American Union, Projected and drawn on a Uniform Scale from Documents found in the public Offices of the United States and State Governments, and other Original and Authentic Information. ... No information is available on the number of copies printed.

Figure 4: Tanner’s "A Map of North America" was beautifully colored and greatly detailed. It was printed by William Duffee and was advertised to be sold for ten dollars, which was a considerable sum for an individual map. The bound American Atlas was priced at thirty to forty dollars, depending on the quality of the binding.

 

The Map of North America was rendered in the style and size of two of Tanner’s contemporaries who had recently published updated versions of their maps of North America, Aaron Arrowsmith in 1821 and John Melish in 1822. 33 The title cartouche of Tanner’s map included views of Niagara Falls, the Natural Bridge of Virginia, and several animals, including a beaver, moose, coiled rattlesnake, bear, and eagle, all of which would have been familiar to an American audience (Figure 5). Longitude was based on a Washington D.C. prime meridian, and extensive coloring highlighted jurisdictional areas. A red boundary-line divided possessions of the United States and Spain as established by the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819. That division ran from the Sabine River to the forty-second parallel and then west to the Pacific Ocean. The northern boundary of the map extended along the forty-ninth parallel to the Rocky Mountains (“Boundary of 1818”). Tanner reflected the existing joint-occupation treaty of the United States and Great Britain by not extending the forty-ninth parallel beyond the Rocky Mountains, and he applied a neutral color separating the green “Russian Territories” to the north and the yellow “United States.”

Figure 5: Tanner engraved this elaborate title cartouche with elements that would have been familiar to an American audience. The large maps of the United States and North America by his contemporaries, John Melish and Aaron Arrowsmith, did not contain similar pictorial features.

 

Most unique, however, was Tanner’s designation of “Oregon Terry.,” which he applied to a vast yellow-colored region extending from the Columbia River throughout much of the Pacific Northwest and eastward beyond the Missouri River (Figure 6). “Oregon Terry.” was overlapped by the larger type toponym “United States,” which extended across the entire continent. It would have been very clear to readers that the Oregon Territory and the United States were linked. Another unique toponym was the designation “Oregon or Rocky Mountains” applied to a section of the Rocky Mountains. The U.S. Congress had in 1812 re-organized the area of the country that comprised the Louisiana Purchase (extending westward to the Rocky Mountains) as “Missouri Territory” along with its creation of the state of Louisiana. With formation of the state of Missouri in 1821, the name Missouri Territory was no longer applicable. Tanner took advantage of this opportunity to use a new name to create an image of a new territory extending to the Pacific Ocean. A name is a powerful cartographic tool. Wallace Stegner captured this best: “nothing is comprehended, much less possessed, until it has been given a name.”34 Tanner’s Map of North America bestowed a unique name on a unique region and thus communicated this (toponym) association through the cartographic literature.

It was noteworthy as well that Tanner used the same wash color to unite regions east and west of the Rocky Mountains, as if that formidable “natural [mountainous] barrier,” so often cited by opponents of territorial expansion to the Pacific, was not so daunting. He also combined the same color washes with the toponym “Oregon Terry.” extending to both sides of the Rocky Mountains, thereby creating a visual reference for the idea of right of possession of a territory by contiguity, a principle strongly advocated by American plenipotentiaries in their ongoing dialogue with British counterparts on issues of territorial sovereignty in the Pacific Northwest.35 Tanner did name many Native communities (as did Melish in 1818), such as Clatsop, Chinook, Clackamas, Shoshones, and others.

Tanner located only one non-Native settlement, Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia River, avoiding (as did Melish in earlier versions of his Map of the United States . . . ) use of the British designation “Fort George.” He noted no other non-Native habitations, despite the presence of established trading posts of the Montreal-based North West Company (which merged with the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1821) along rivers of the Pacific Northwest.36

At the fifty-first degree of N. latitude, Tanner inserted a notation, “Boundary as claimed by Russia,” in reference to the recent Ukase of Tsar Alexander I, which became known to the State Department in early 1822 and to the general public shortly thereafter (Figure 7).37
Tanner’s inclusion of this information by May 1822 represented the first and perhaps the only cartographic reference to the proposed boundary.38 It is also likely that this map was the first to record information from Stephen Long’s 1819–1820 expedition to the Rocky Mountains.39 Indeed, Tanner named the Colorado mountain now known as Long’s Peak after the explorer.40

Figure 6: The spread of the toponym “Oregon Terry.” and similar wash color across the Rocky Mountains served to connect the Pacific Northwest with established possessions of the United States east of the mountains.

 

Tanner’s Geographical Memoir included an enumeration of the sources he consulted to compile his Map of North America as well as commentary on each of the maps, atlases, and accounts of voyages and explorations that described the Russian, British, American, and Mexican possessions in North America.41 Specific comments give insight to Tanner’s careful attempt to draw from recent United States diplomatic and Congressional activity and reveal his ideological predispositions. On including the Ukase demarcation, for example, Tanner wrote:

It may perhaps be deemed impolitic . . . to insert any thing relating to this line in an American map, that might be construed into an acknowledgment of those claims, and thus impair the title of the United States to countries embraced by them. But I considered it necessary to a clear illustration of the subject, which could not have been presented in any other manner. I was therefore compelled to leave it unnoticed altogether, or to pursue the course I have adopted, which, if properly considered, cannot be supposed to favour the views of Alexander.42

Figure 7: American diplomatic response to the Russian Ukase of 1821, which claimed sovereignty over territory above the 51st parallel, led to the 1824 Convention between the United States and Russia agreeing to the 54 degree 40 minute boundary. Tanner was the first, and perhaps the only, cartographer to include the Ukase boundary, which he indicated on the 1822 edition of "Map of North America".

Regarding the northern boundary along the forty-ninth parallel, Tanner noted that he followed the “account from the commissioners appointed under the sixth and seventh articles of the treaty of Ghent. The continuation of that line was drawn in strict conformity to the British treaty of 1818.”43 Tanner then quoted an excerpt from that treaty and concluded with “‘the said line [forty-ninth parallel] shall form the northern boundary of the territories of the United States and the southern boundary of the territories of His Britannic Majesty, from the Lake of the Woods to the Stony’ (Oregon) ‘Mountains’.”44 Here Tanner inserted with parenthesis his own toponym, since the word Oregon did not appear in the language of the text of the final negotiations between the United States and Great Britain in 1818 or in any of the diplomatic correspondence leading up to the final convention. Tanner went on to criticize liberties taken by cartographers of the time who had represented a boundary that had not yet been negotiated,

I have inserted the above [excerpts from the treaty] 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. . . . The existence of errors of such magnitude is the more to be regretted when they originate with authors of celebrity, whose works might become the standards upon which foreign geographers depend for information, and thus be instrumental in diffusing and perpetuating erroneous ideas, which a little research in the outset would probably have obviated.45

It is interesting to speculate about whom Tanner is referring to as “authors of celebrity.” Considering his contemporaries in the United States, one was likely John Melish, who created several editions of Map of the United States. 46 From the first edition of this influential map through the edition of 1820, Melish drew the northern boundary roughly along the parallel of 49 degrees from the Lake of the Woods west to the Gulf of Georgia. On the next edition in 1822, he deleted the boundary line west of the Lake of the Woods and overlaid the toponym “Western Territories” on the region west of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. All of the states of Melish’s map carried the imprint “Engraved by Vallance and Tanner” in the title cartouche. It is possible that Tanner was influential in removing the forty-ninth parallel boundary to the Pacific Ocean on the 1822 Melish map in order to correspond with his own rendering of it on his Map of North America. In terms of where matters stood in international diplomacy in 1822, Tanner’s strong statement in the Geographical Memoir reflected the actual case: at the conclusion of the first United States–Great Britain boundary negotiation in October 1818, both sides formally agreed on the forty-ninth parallel boundary from the Lake of the Woods only to the Rocky Mountains.

Tanner’s New American Atlas and his Map of North America received praise from twentieth-century biographers and reviewers. In his Mapping the Transmississippi West, cartobibliographer Carl Wheat described Tanner’s 1822 Map of North America as a “landmark — a great cartographical achievement” and “the progenitor of a long line of famous maps.”47 Equally significant were the map’s publication as part of a new American atlas and key roles it played both in a developing national consciousness and in cartography per se. It was a clear visual description of an overtly American continental expansion to the Pacific Ocean over an apparently not so insurmountable Rocky Mountain barrier, of expansion to northern latitudes as yet undetermined, of expansion to an area populated by only one non-Native settlement called Astoria, and of expansion to an area now newly designated with a distinctly applied American name,“Oregon Terry.” In 1935, one of America’s leading geographers,W.L.G. Joerg, noted that Tanner’s “keen analysis of the problem of American map representation of American territory, might still well serve as a charter for American cartography after a lapse of considerably more than a century.” In reference to the complete New American Atlas, he stated: “No modern atlas of relatively equal merit is available to the American public today.”48 Walter Ristow — map historian, former Chief of the Map and Geography Division of the Library of Congress, and Tanner’s most complete biographer — said the “New American Atlas set a standard for such publications in the United States,” and its publication “greatly enhanced Henry S. Tanner’s reputation as a geographer and publisher of cartographic works.” 49

Tanner’s New American Atlas and his Map of North America also helped shape thought about “American map representation of American Territory” at the time of its publication. One of the earliest critical literary reviews of Tanner’s map appeared in the North American Review in 1824, written by Jared Sparks, owner and editor of the Review from 1824 to 1830 and future president of Harvard College from 1849 to 1853. 50 Sparks quoted at length from Tanner’s comments in the Geographical Memoir, finding them

strictly accurate in the . . . statement of his labors, and the sources of his information. . . . On the whole, as an American Atlas, we believe Mr. Tanner’s work to hold a rank far above any other, which has been published. The authentic documents to which he had access, the abundance of his materials, the apparent fidelity, with which they are compiled, the accurate construction of his maps, and the elegance with which they are executed, all these afford ample proofs of the high character of the work, of its usefulness as a means of extending the geographical knowledge of our own country, and of its claim of public patronage. 51

Sparks concluded his review of Tanner’s Atlas by calling it a “troph[y] of American enterprise, which it becomes a discerning public to regard with favor, and reward with substantial patronage.”52

Congressional leaders also took note of the New American Atlas. On April 20, 1822, a House of Representatives committee resolved: “That the Clerk of this House be, and he is hereby, authorized to purchase for the use of the House, ten copies of Tanner’s American Atlas.”53 On May 27, 1824, there was a record of a receipt from “Henry Clay Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Thirty eight Dollars in full for one copy “Tanner’s American Atlas” bound in blue Morocco, gilt & the Maps of No. and So. America . . . pr. Subscription.”54 Also in May 1824, a Senate bill proposed “a resolution authorizing the Secretary of State to furnish a copy of Tanner’s American Atlas to each of the Ministers Plenipotentiary and Charges d’ Affaires at foreign Governments.”55 The timing was important, as renewed formal boundary negotiations between the United States and Great Britain were to begin within the next two years. On February 14, 1825, a joint resolution of Congress resolved

That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be directed to purchase —— half bound copies of Tanner’s Atlas, for the use of the members of Congress, under such regulations as the Library Committee may direct; the price of each copy not to exceed thirty-two dollars; and that he agree with Henry S. Tanner to furnish a new sheet for each copy, whenever, in the judgment of the Library Committee, the changes and improvements are of sufficient importance to make it necessary.56

Promotional and editorial endorsements in American newspapers facilitated significant exposure of the reading public to the anticipated publication of the New American Atlas and the Map of North America.A detailed “Proposal for publishing by Subscription a four sheet Map of North America” appeared frequently in newspapers and periodicals from early 1822 onward.57 Reviews followed publication of the Atlas in 1823. On January 3, 1824, for example, the National Intelligencer published a four-column Memoranda that quoted extensively from the Geographical Memoir and elaborately praised the New American Atlas, detailing the sources for many of the maps. The Map of North America, the author of the Memoranda stated,“is the most elaborate and complete and the most satisfactory to the eye and the understanding, with which we are acquainted.”58 He concluded by promoting the quality of the publication as rivaling any produced in Europe, and therefore: “Our motive in detailing and recommending them [Tanner’s efforts] are patriotic as well as literary.”59 This same review was published in January 1824 by the Columbian Star (Washington D.C.).60 On February 24, 1824, the National Intelligencer published an advertisement and announced the services of an agent for purchasing the Atlas, which could be obtained

Superbly bound in brown or fancy colored calf and gilt with the several sheets of the maps of North and South America joined on tape, as in the Library of Congress for $40.00 with various price reductions for lesser qualities of binding. . . . For the convenience of college and school instructors, the Atlas is divided into six parts, and the Maps of each neatly joined on muslin, varnished, and mounted on rollers, making the whole one small and five very large maps, at $ 45. (61)

Testimonial letters to the editors, perhaps written or commissioned by Tanner, were instructive of the author’s intent to infuse the public consciousness with the idea that the New American Atlas and the Map of North America, in particular, represented not only a superior rendition of the geography but also a uniquely American perspective. Regarding the Map of North America, on February 3, 1824, a letter in the National Intelligencer noted “the vast change and new discoveries which have of late occurred give in its scope an entirely new aspect to a great portion of our country.” Regarding the Atlas, the author continued,“I feel no small degree of patriotic pride [in] its title; for the work is, in every part, American, and unquestionably of such magnitude and intrinsic worth as to convince the world that Geographical Service is now brought to maturity in our own country.”62 Other letters of a promotional nature appeared in January 1825, perhaps anticipating the release of the second edition of Tanner’s Atlas that year.63 Most of these testimonials were written for publication in January or February of the year, apparently to receive the greatest exposure to Congressional readership during active sessions.

Tanner’s Map of North America, and in particular, the unique toponym “Oregon Terry.,” influenced not only the public and government officials but also the cartographic literature of Tanner’s contemporaries. In the same year of publication of Tanner’s New American Atlas (1823), Fielding Lucas of Baltimore published his A General Atlas Containing Distinct Maps of All the Known Countries in the World. 64 The map United States carried the imprint “Drawn & Published by F. Lucas Jr. Baltimore,” but it almost exactly duplicated Tanner’s Map of North America in the region of the Pacific Northwest, including the use and precise location of the toponym “Oregon Terry.” (Figure 8). Ristow notes that some of the maps in Lucas’s General Atlas were taken from his New and Elegant General Atlas, which had been published in 1816. Many of those earlier maps had been engraved by Tanner and his partner John Vallance, but in the General Atlas published in 1823, Lucas removed those engraving credits.65 In the same North American Review cited earlier, Jared Sparks wrote of the Lucas atlas:

if we were to select a single atlas, in which our purpose would be to obtain the greatest amount of matter within the smallest space, presented in a commodious form, and at a comparatively moderate expense, we should not hesitate to choose this in preference to any we have seen.66

Lucas promoted his Atlas through advertisements in three issues of the National Intelligencer in December 1823, including an enumeration of all of its maps.67 Due to the inclusion of many more maps in the General Atlas and to its smaller size and cost, Lucas’s publication likely reached a broader audience than Tanner’s New American Atlas.With respect to “Oregon Terry.,” it therefore carried Tanner’s message to an even wider audience.

Also in 1823, Sidney Morse’s An Atlas of the United States on an Improved Plan included a map of the United States with “Oregon” applied broadly in the vicinity of the Columbia River from the Pacific Ocean to the Rocky Mountains, on the other side of which was an expansive Missouri Territory.68

 

Figure 8: Fielding Lucas’s reduced size United States (above) included many fewer topographical details than did Tanner’s map, but it very closely replicated the toponym “Oregon Terry.” and the wash coloring used by Tanner (see detail, below).

 

The forty-ninth parallel boundary stopped at the Rocky Mountains. In the Preface of the Atlas, Morse credited Tanner and Melish, among others, as sources for his maps.

During every session of the House of Representatives from 1822 to 1824, John Floyd led discussions of his proposal for settlement on the Columbia River, including creation of a “Territory of Origon.” The Russian Ukase of 1821 contributed significantly to President Monroe’s declaration on December 2, 1823, that “the American continents . . . are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for colonization by any European power.”69 In April 1824, Russia and the United States concluded a convention that established a boundary of settlement and commercial activity between the two countries at the latitude of 54 degrees and 40 minutes (54°40').70 Floyd’s bill finally passed the House on December 23, 1824, and in February 1825, debate on the bill ensued in the Senate.71 During every subsequent Congressional session through 1828, a proposal for a territorial settlement on the Columbia or Oregon river was kept alive by Congressmen Floyd, Francis Baylies, Thomas Hart Benton, and others.72

All of this geopolitical activity was widely reported, and the response of mapmakers such as Tanner was assertive. In 1825, he issued a new edition of his New American Atlas, and on the revised Map of North America he deleted the Ukase notation at 51 degrees and inserted a new border at 54°40' over a now greatly expanded “Oregon Terry.” with a notation “Boundary of 1824”(Figure 9). Considering the short time between the April 1824 convention with Russia and the publication date of his revised map, Tanner’s 1825 Map of North America may be the first published map to show a 54°40' boundary. In the accompanying slightly revised Geographical Memoir dated January 1, 1825, he added a new footnote referring to the April 1824 convention between Russia and the United States “by which the former relinquishes all claims to territory on the north-west coast of America, south of the fiftyfourth degree of N. lat.”73

Tanner’s 1825 Map of North America constitutes an excellent example of how mapmakers utilized maps to appropriate territory long before the territory was occupied. The area bounded by the parallels of 42° to 54°40' and reaching from the Pacific Ocean to the Rocky Mountains constituted a land mass of approximately 450,000 square miles that was occupied in 1825 by, perhaps, three hundred British and French Canadian employees of the Hudson’s Bay Company, an undocumented number of Native Americans, and not one American émigré. Nevertheless, adoption of the 54°40' boundary by American commercial mapmakers was rapid. From about 1830 until the Oregon Treaty in 1846, the 54°40' boundary depiction was most often the only boundary that appeared on maps of North America produced by all the important American publishing houses of Tanner, Thomas Bradford, Samuel Augustus Mitchell, Joseph Colton, David Burr, Jesse Olney, and others. With such proliferation of those maps for nearly twenty years, it is not difficult to appreciate their power in shaping an entire generation of American readers’ opinion regarding what geographical identity the nation should assume.Yet, this assumed cartographic reality did not reflect diplomatic reality, since the 54°40' was never advocated by diplomats of either the United States or Great Britain during any of the five boundary negotiations between 1818 and 1845.

 

David Rumsey Map Collection, www.davidrumsey.com

Figure 9: Tanner updated his A Map of North America in 1825 and incorporated information from the most recent convention with Russia in 1824, which established the boundary of dominion between the two countries along the parallel of 54 degrees and 40 minutes (see detail inset at top right).

In 1825, on Tanner’s A Map of the United States of Mexico, the toponym “Oregon Territory” was again boldly engraved and carried across the Rocky Mountains.74 In 1826, Tanner issued A Map of the United States of America, including “Oregon Terry.”75 Other American cartographers followed suit. The same year, Eleazer Huntington and Asaph Willard published a Map of the United States that was reissued by Willis Thrall in 1828. 76 On that wall map, Oregon extended from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and an imprint at the mouth of the “Oregon or Columbia River” noted “Astoria an American Settlement.” The Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fort Vancouver was not shown. Also in 1826, Samuel Goodrich issued a map, United States, on which he used the toponym “Western or Oregon Terr.” that Wheat considered “apparently a new designation.”77 Other maps utilizing the Oregon toponym followed, including new maps by Tanner himself. As late as 1833, geographer William Darby’s A New Gazetteer of the United States of America used Tanner’s Map of North America as a source in describing the geographical features of Oregon Territory extending to 54°40'.78

French publishers also adopted the Oregon toponym on their maps during the same period. In 1825, Adrien Brué engraved his Carte générale des Etats-Unis, du Canada et d’une partie des pays adjacents . . . (published in 1828) in which “Territoire Oregon” extended from approximately 50 degrees to the Missouri River.79 Also in 1825, Jean A. Buchon published an atlas that included Carte de L’adjonction progressive des divers etats au territoire… The map contained a large “Territoire Oregon,” with its capital noted as Astoria.80 In Belgium in 1825, Philippe Vandermaelen’s Atlas Universel included a key sheet index map of North America that had the toponym “Oregon” running across the Pacific Northwest east to beyond the Rocky Mountains.81 In contrast, I am unaware of a single map produced in England during this time on which the toponym “Oregon” appeared.

tanner’s map of north america and accompanying commentary contributed to the development of a geopolitical identity of the Pacific Northwest that was rooted in constructions familiar to an American audience accustomed to cartographic — and national identity — conventions of European origin. The use of new toponyms such as “Oregon Territory” and “Long’s Peak,” new boundaries (or absence of them), color coding to indicate areas of dominion, and other markers of sovereignty helped fashion an image of the region.Yet, while the map fostered development of a region’s new identity for one population, it also redefined the region’s identity for another — Native American communities.82 Tanner’s map contained the same names and locations of Indian communities that had appeared on the 1814 Lewis and Clark map. He only eliminated on his later map the numbers of“souls” enumerated on the Lewis and Clark map. Indeed, most of the geographical information in the area of the Pacific Northwest on Tanner’s map was little changed from the Lewis and Clark map. What was different was the overlay of geopolitical information that reflected how Tanner constructed the expanding American domain. Essentially, Native communities that were clearly identified on the map had been reframed from a place without specific boundaries to a place within the dominion of an expanding nation-state with its own projected boundaries.83 The imperial nature of this cartographic “appropriation of territory” had long standing precedents, of course. In the Pacific Northwest, maps had been used as “ideological weapons” from the time of the first maritime explorations.84 Mapmakers may have wielded the power of cartographic representation unconsciously, however. There is no evidence that Tanner was intentionally seeking repression of Native Americans, but the publication of his map was linked to contemporary congressional discourse that was certainly more manifest in its intent. Section 1 of Floyd’s bill of 1821–1822 called for “. . . extinguish[ing] the Indian title to a district of country not exceeding 30 miles square . . . ”85 In 1822, Congress abolished the government-subsidized Indian factory system in response to pressure from representatives of private traders such as Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton.86 In 1824, President Monroe proposed to Congress a plan for removal of Indians: “Between the limits of our present states and territories, and the Rocky Mountains and Mexico, there is a vast territory to which they might be invited, with inducements which might be successful.”87 And in February 1825, New Jersey Senator Mahlon Dickerson argued against Floyd’s bill and suggested the region of the Pacific Northwest should be added to regions east of the Rocky Mountains to constitute an even larger reservoir for Indian removal than that proposed by Monroe.88 Clearly, whether implicit or explicit, the dispossession of Native Americans from their territory was facilitated by the linkage of simultaneous discourses of cartographers and statesmen.

Although drawing from congressional and State Department activity, Tanner’s 1822 Map of North America was, of course, a commercial product produced for what he hoped would be a receptive audience. It reflected an opinion not necessarily bound by diplomatic restraints that might have precluded use of terms implying contentious territorial ambitions. Without concerns of “questions of cartographic competency and propaganda,” as historical geographer Daniel Clayton put it in Island of Truth, some of the map’s features were adopted and acclaimed.89 It projected a distinctly different image of the Pacific Northwest — an Americanized image — and Tanner’s adoption of the name Oregon was crucial. The Map of North America was the principal map in a New American Atlas. Advertisements promoted its American genesis and a patriotic rationale for its support. “Oregon Terry.” was a term generated from an American Congressional committee. The map promoted recognition of Astoria and Long’s Peak (American-derived names) and the potential for extension of American sovereignty north of the forty-ninth parallel. It framed expansionism in patriotic terms to an American audience whose own agenda was ideologically congruent with such thinking. The differences between what Tanner was projecting and the boundary reality of the time were examples of Daniel Clayton’s assertion that “the Oregon boundary dispute as a whole shows that distinctions between fact and fiction, truth and error, are made rather than given.”90

In discussing the power of toponyms on maps, map scholar Christian Jacob has asserted:“Mastery of space through its names and attached legends probably constitutes an essential stage in the process of acculturation of the individual in the formation of both a consciousness and a national identity.”91 Tanner’s Map of North America helped construct and fashion the concept and definition of Oregon Territory. It did so both by describing geopolitical events of the early 1820s and by advocating for specific interpretation of these events. On December 27, 1845, when John L. O’Sullivan wrote that the American claim to all of Oregon “is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federative self government entrusted to us,” Oregon was already experiencing a yearly flood of emigrating pioneer settlers along an established thoroughfare and had installed a Provisional Government.92 The word Oregon had become embedded in the national consciousness and was in print everywhere. In 1822, that had been far from the case.

The swirl of geopolitical activity in the first three decades of the nineteenth century was communicated to the public through a variety of media, and herein lies what distinguished map scholar J. Brian Harley has described as “the extent to which political, religious or social power produce the context of cartography.”93 The maps of John Melish and Henry Tanner exemplified Harley’s contention that maps were “an aggressive complement to the rhetoric of speeches, newspapers, and written texts.”94 In this contemporary context, Tanner’s map, in particular, both reflected that rhetorical activity and contributed to it, thus becoming no less a political document than Congressman John Floyd’s bill. Tanner stated on the first page of his Geographical Memoir: “The end proposed to be effected by the publication of the American Atlas was, to exhibit to the citizens of the United States a complete geographical view of their own country.”95 He then carefully delineated the multiple sources for his maps and emphasized the thoroughness of his research and the accuracy of his cartography. These comments may have been intended only to convince his readers of his diligence and intent for conformity to fact. But it was precisely this assertion of presenting a “complete geographical view” that created a position of advocacy that was as expansionist and nationalist in scope as any of those proponents who spoke in Congress. As such, it carried similar imperial implications for both Britain and Native America. Tanner’s cartography constituted an intellectual medium that entered the political debate on continentalism and became part of the expansionist intelligence. Its influence is measured by its dissemination in Congress and among diplomats, and through subsequent publication of cartographic derivatives.

Acculturation to the concepts of continental expansion in the United States occurred over decades and encompassed many forms of intellectual discourse, including popular ideologies. Cartographic communication has always been an influential and powerful element of that discourse to the degree of “acquir[ing] the force of law in the landscape.”96
Tanner’s Map of North America is a masterful example of that communication.

notes

I wish to thank the staff of the University of Oregon Knight Library, especially the late Mr. Ted Smith, for assistance in researching this article. I also am very appreciative of the assistance of Dr. James Mohr, Professor of History at the University of Oregon, Dr. William Lang, Professor of History at Portland State University, and Dr. Barbara Walker for reading a draft of this article and providing advice for improvement.

1. See Ken G. Brealey, “Mapping Them ‘Out’: Euro-Canadian Cartography and the Appropriation of the Nuxalk and Ts’ilhqot’in First Nations’ Territories, 193–1916,” The Canadian Geographer 39:2 (June 1995): 140–56; and Daniel W. Clayton, Islands of Truth: The Imperial Fashioning of Vancouver Island (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000).

2. James P. Ronda, Astoria and Empire (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 38–55.

3. Ibid., 310–15.

4. Frederick Merk, The Oregon Question: Essays in Anglo-American Diplomacy and Politics (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967), 11–12.

5. Carl I. Wheat, Mapping the Transmississippi West, 1540-1861, Volume II (San Francisco: The Institute of Historical Cartography, 1958; reprint, Storrs-Mansfield, Conn.: Maurizio Martino Publisher, 2004), 63–64; Walter W. Ristow, American Maps and Mapmakers: Commercial Cartography in the Nineteenth Century (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1985), 184–90.

6. John Melish, A Geographical Description of the United States, with the Contiguous British and Spanish Possessions, Intended as an Accompaniment to Melish’s Map of these Countries (Philadelphia: Published by Author, 1816; reprint, Nashville: The Gazetteer Press, 1972), 4.

7. In discussion of the editions of Melish’s map, I have used the compilation by Walter W. Ristow, “John Melish and His Map of the United States,” in A La Carte: Selected Papers on Maps and Atlases compiled by Walter W. Ristow (Washington: Library of Congress, 1972), 11–82. Ristow lists the editions of Melish based on original studies by Lawrence Martin.

8. Although the pamphlet was published anonymously, McGillivray has been widely acknowledged as the author: Notice Respecting the Boundary Between His Majesty’s Possessions in North America and the United States; with a Map of America…Exhibiting the Principal Trading Stations of the North-West Company . . . (London: B. McMillan , 181); Merk, The Oregon Question, 60–65.

9. Merk, The Oregon Question, 46–71.

10. For the wording of the treaty, see Robert Greenhow, “Memoir, Historical and Political on the Northwest Coast of North America…” 26th Cong., 1st sess., 1840, Sen. Doc. 14, 219.

11. Clayton, Islands of Truth, 208.

12. Ristow, “John Melish and His Map,” 17.

13. E.W. Wright, ed., Lewis & Dryden’s Marine History of the Pacific Northwest (Portland, Ore.: The Lewis & Dryden Printing Company, 1895; reprint New York: Antiquarian Press, 1961), 13.

14. Dale L. Morgan, ed., The West of William H. Ashley (Denver: The Old West Publishing Company, 1964), xlvii–xlviii.

15. Thomas H. Benton, Selections of Editorial Articles from the St. Louis Enquirer on the Subject of Oregon and Texas . . . (St. Louis: Missourian, 1844, on microfilm; Western Americana [Research Publications, inc.]; reel 50, no. 475).

16. Merk, The Oregon Question, 11.

1. James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 17891897, Vol. II (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1896), 54–62, 73–80, 98–109.

18. I reviewed the National Intelligencer from 1821 to 1825 in detail, checking other newspapers at the same time. During this time, the National Intelligencer was the newspaper most closely associated with reporting Congressional activity.

19. Donald W. Meinig, The Shaping of America, Vol.2 Continental America, 18001867 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 11.

20. Floyd’s tireless efforts in Congress related to Columbia River settlement issues are reviewed in Lester B. Shippee, “The Federal Relations of Oregon,” The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society 19:2 (June 1918): 112–33, 189-230, 283-333; Edward G. Bourne, “Aspects of Oregon History Before 1840,” The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society 6:3 (September, 1905): 255–75; Verne Blue,“The Oregon Question-1818–1828,” The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society 23:3 (September 1922): 193–219; Charles H. Carey, General History of Oregon (Portland: Binfords and Mort, 1971), 255–58; and Joseph Schafer, A History of the Pacific Northwest (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1918), 96–101.

21. For the report see note 20 (above) and U.S. Congress. Misc. Doc 497 16th. Cong. 2nd. sess., 1820–1821 and H. Rep. Doc. 45 16th. Cong. 2nd. sess. vol. 57, 1820–1821.

  1. Bourne, “Aspects of Oregon History,” 263.

  2. For the rest of the bill, see “Documents, Occupation of the Columbia River,”

The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society

8:1 (March 1907): 72.

24. For the entire H.R. Bill 47, see Library of Congress American Memory: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=048/llhb048. db&recNum=154.db&recNum=154 (accessed November 2, 2010). For the Report, see U.S. Congress, House, Report of Select Committee, 1th Cong., 1st sess., 1822.,H. Doc. 18; Annals of Congress of the U.S., 1th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 38, 744; and U.S. Congress, House, Journal, 1th Cong., 1st sess., January 18, 1822, 161.

25. National Intelligencer, Washington, D.C., January 19, 1822; Shippee,“The Federal Relations of Oregon,” 131–32; Niles Weekly Register, Washington, D.C., January 26, 1822, 21 American Periodical Series Online, p. 350.

26. Throughout I use the term American as it was used in the literature reviewed for this article — that is, referring to the people or the region of the United States or American Republic as opposed to the entirety of North America.

27. Scott Byram and David G. Lewis, “Ourigan: Wealth of the Northwest Coast,” Oregon Historical Quarterly 102:2 (Summer 2001): 126–57.

  1. Ives Goddard and Thomas Love, “Oregon, the Beautiful,” Oregon Historical Quarterly 105:2 (Summer 2004): 238–59.

  2. Jonathan Carver, Travels Through the Interior Parts of North-America, in the Years 1766, 1767, and 1768 (London: Printed for the Author, Sold by J. Walter, 178).

  3. James V. Walker, “Jonathan Carver and the Map That Introduced Oregon,” Mercator’s World 1:5 (1996): 30–37.

31. Ristow, American Maps, 190.

32. Wheat, Mapping, 82–87. For images of Tanner’s Map of North America, see David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, www. davidrumsey.com; Ristow, American Maps, 191–98; Walter W. Ristow, “Early American Atlases and Their Publishers,” in Images of the World: The Atlas Through History, ed. John A. Wolter and Ronald E. Grim (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996), 307–15; and Philip

L. Phillips, A List of Geographical Atlases in the Library of Congress vol. 34 (Washington:

GPO, 1914), 4462.

33. Both Melish and Arrowsmith incorporated new geographical information into several updated editions of their maps of the United States and North America.

34. Wallace Stegner, introduction to George R. Stewart, Names on the Land: A Historical Account of Placenaming in the United States (San Francisco: Lexikos, 1982), xxviii.

35. Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, July 22, 1823, in United States American State Papers Foreign Relations, vol. 4 (1823), 446; Merk, Oregon Question, 6, 398.

36. Carey, General History of Oregon, 152–55, 184.

37. U. S. House of Representatives, Annals of Congress, 1th Cong., 1st sess., February 1822, vol. 38, 1033–1034; Message from the President of the United States, 1th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 68, Doc. 112, 20–38. For full documents and exchanges of letters, see National Intelligencer, February 14 and February 16, 1822.

  1. James V. Walker, “Mapping of the Northwest Boundary of the United States, 1800–1846: An Historical Context,” Terrae Incognitae 31:1 (1999): 81–82.

  2. Herman R. Friis, “Stephen H. Long’s Unpublished Manuscript Map of the United States Compiled in 1820–1822 (?),” California Geographer 8 (1967): 82–86; Richard G. Wood, Stephen Harriman Long, 17841864: Army Engineer, Explorer, Inventor (Glendale, Cal.: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1966), 118.

40. Howard R. Lamar, introduction to Edwin James, ed., Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, un-der the Command of Major Stephen H. Long (Barre, Mass.: Imprint Society, 1972), xxvi.

41. Henry S. Tanner, “Geographical Memoir,” A New American Atlas . . . (Philadelphia: H.S. Tanner, 1823), reproduced at www.davidrumsey.com.

42. Ibid., 3.

43. Ibid., 8.

44. Ibid., 8–9.

45. Ibid., 9.

46. Ristow “John Melish and His Map,” 11–82; Walker, “Mapping,” 70–78.

47. Wheat, Mapping, 86.

48.Wolfgang L. G. Joerg,“Henry S. Tanner of Philadelphia: His Place in American Geography, 1815–1850,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 24 (1934): 46; Wolfgang L.G. Joerg, in Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936), 18, 296–97.

49. Ristow, “Early American Atlases,” 311–12.

50. Jared Sparks,“A New American Atlas, Containing Maps of the Several States of the North American Union ...,” The North American Review 18 (Boston: O. Everett, 1824): 382–88.

51. Ibid., 386–88.

52. Ibid., 390.

53. U.S. Congress, House, Journal, 1th Cong., 1st sess., April 20, 1822, 472.

54. James F. Hopkins, ed., The Papers of Henry Clay vol. 3 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1959), 766.

55. U.S. Congress, Senate, Journal, 18th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 1824, 456. 56. U.S. Congress, House, Journal, 18th Cong., 2nd sess., February 14, 1825, 233.

57. United States Catholic Miscellany (1822–1835), August 28, 1822, vol. 1, no. 13, 104 and September 4, 1822, vol. 1, no.14, 112, American Periodical Series Online; National Intelligencer, March 1, 1821.

  1. National Intelligencer, January 3, 1824.

  2. Ibid.

60. The Columbian Star (1822–1829), January 24, 1824, vol. 3, no. 4, 14, American Periodical Series Online.

61. National Intelligencer, February 24, 1824.

62. Ibid., February 3, 1824.

63. Ibid., January 22, 1825.

64. Ristow, American Maps, 267–68;

Ristow, Early American Atlases, 31. For excellent images of Lucas’s Atlas and further description, see www.davidrumsey.com; for an image of the map of the United States, see Denis Reinhartz and Charles C. Colley, The Mapping of the American Southwest (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1987), 66.

65. Ristow, American Maps, 267–68.

66. Jared Sparks, “A General Atlas, Containing Distinct Maps of all the Known Countries in the World,” The North American Review 18 (1824): 389–90.

67. National Intelligencer, December 11, 13, 18, 1823.

68. See www.davidrumsey.com for map, atlas, and preface; Reinhartz and Colley, American Southwest, 68.

69. Richardson, A Compilation, 209.

70. For text, see Greenhow, “Memoir,” 220–21.

71. National Intelligencer, December 25, 1824.

72. In 1821, Rep. Francis Baylies of Massachusetts was a member of John Floyd’s Select Committee on settlement on the Columbia or Oregon River. In 1826, he chaired that committee, which continued to agitate for exploration and settlement on the Northwest Coast. See Shippee,“The Federal Relations of Oregon,” 126–27; Bourne, “Aspects of Oregon History,” 268–69; and U.S. Congress, House, Report of Select Committee on Exploration of the Northwest Coast 19th Cong., 1st sess., January 16, 1826, no. 35 and 19th Cong., 1st sess., May 15, 1826, no. 213. Senator Thomas Hart Benton was a longtime proponent of western expansion and a primary influence on John Floyd as early as December 1820. Beginning with his term in the Senate in 1821, he tirelessly advocated for occupancy of the Columbia River country and was an ardent supporter of Floyd’s bill when it finally reached the Senate in February 1825. See Bourne, “Aspects of Oregon History,” 272–75; Blue, “The Oregon Question,” 195; Shippee,“The Federal Relations of Oregon,” 113; and Thomas H. Benton, Thirty Years View (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1854), 13–14.

73. See Tanner, Geographical Memoir, 3.

74. Wheat, Mapping, 89; Rumsey, (second edition of 1825); Lawrence Martin, “John Disturnell’s Map of the United Mexican States,” in Ristow, A La Carte: Selected Papers on Maps and Atlases compiled by Walter W. Ristow (Washington: Library of Congress,

1972), 207–208.

75. Philip L. Phillips, A List of Maps of America in the Library of Congress vol. 1/2 (New York: Burt Franklin), 884.

76. See www.davidrumsey.com.

77. Wheat, Mapping, 91.

78. William Darby and Theodore Dwight, Jr., A New Gazetteer of the United States of America (Hartford, Conn.: Edward Hopkins, 1833), 382–84.

79. See www.davidrumsey.com.

80. Ibid. 81. Ibid.

  1. J.B. Harley, “New England Cartography and the Native Americans,” in The New Nature of Maps: Essays in the History of Cartography, ed. Paul Laxton (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 10–195.

  2. J.B. Harley, “Rereading the Maps of the Columbian Encounter,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82:3 (1992): 522–42.

84. Clayton, Islands of Truth, 233–42; Brealey, “Mapping Them ‘Out’,”142–50.

85. The number thirty was added in

December 1822. 86. Meinig, The Shaping of America, 81. 87. Ibid., 81.

88. Annals of Congress of the United States, 18th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 43, 1824–1826, 689–95.

  1. Clayton, Islands of Truth, 208.

  2. Ibid., 222.

91. Christian Jacob, The Sovereign Map: Theoretical Approaches in Cartography Throughout History (Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 2006), 240.

92. Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History (1963; reprint, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 31–32; Meinig, The Shaping of America, 113–14.

93. J.B. Harley, “Maps, Knowledge, and

Power,” in The New Nature of Maps, 56. 94. Ibid., 57–58.

95. See Tanner, Geographical Memoir (1823), 1.

96. Harley, “Maps, Knowledge and Power,” 59.





Go to Top

Author: Paulus Swaen ©2017
>