My former colleague, Susan Schulten, whose history of geography in the United States is both fantastic and still the industry standard, recently completed an essay for a new edited collection about the history of cartography. Susan’s piece opens with a discussion of the above image: Francis Bichnell Carpenter’s First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln. (It’s not snowing in the original, I don’t think. But having never seen it in person, I can’t say for certain.)
If you click on this link (I urge you to do so), you’ll be transported to the University of Chicago Press website, where you’ll be able to mess around with the map that appears on the right in Carpenter’s painting. The “slave map” is an amazing document, which, Susan suggests, “organized information in fundamentally new ways.” If people are interested in how, perhaps I can convince Susan to explain a bit more in the comments. Or, you can buy the book and read what she has to say. In the meantime, I’ll borrow some of the text from the Chicago Press’s site:
Edwin Hergesheimer’s map of Southern slavery was printed in September of 1861 and sold to raise money for sick and wounded Union soldiers. It identified the percentage of the population enslaved in each county, and the total number of slaves—four million, up from 700,000 in 1790—was a figure that could not have gone unnoticed by Americans living through such violent upheaval. By using this relatively new “choropleth” technique of shading, Hergesheimer showed Americans their country through the lens of slavery.
The “slave map” was of particular interest to President Abraham Lincoln, as illustrated in a painting by Francis Bichnell Carpenter, First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln. The artist spent six months living at the White House in order to complete this work, and in that time repeatedly observed Lincoln studying the map. To master the detail on the map for his painting, Carpenter surreptitiously borrowed it; and when the president visited the artist in his White House studio a few days later he remarked, “You have appropriated my map, have you? I have been looking all around for it.” According to Carpenter, Lincoln was once again instantly absorbed by the map and used it to trace the recent progress of Union troops through Virginia. It gave Lincoln happy news, for the areas conquered by the Union just that week were densely populated with slaves. Thus Hergesheimer’s map appears in the corner of Carpenter’s painting, a detail as meticulously chosen as the artist’s arrangement of Lincoln’s cabinet: those sympathetic to emancipation appear on the president’s right, while the more conservative members are placed at his left. The map also appealed to Carpenter for its elegant organization of information. By just a glance, one could see the proportion of blacks to whites in the Southern states, which made it impossible to deny that slavery was at the heart of the rebellion.
Susan wrote to me that: “I’m not sure this tells us anything to resolve the blog debate over the war; it certainly establishes Lincoln’s preoccupation with slavery and the military strategy behind emancipation. The more interesting (to me) story is what it says about the production of knowledge.” All of that fascinates me. But I’m especially intrigued by the way that Hergesheimer’s map grapically depicts the centrality of slavery, particularly in the so-called Black Belt, but really throughout most of the South. In an era in which maps were expensive, and access to them comparatively rare, this one must have caused quite a sensation. It certainly captured Lincoln’s fancy. My highly professional takeaway: maps rock.
Update: Eric has turned off the snow in the blog, perhaps because the map in the sidebar indicates that we’re located in Davis, California. Snow is quite rare here.
23 comments
December 27, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Charles
The campaign down the Mississippi cut through one of the denser slave regions of the south. The Virginia Campaign also cut through a dense section of slavery. What struck me on the maps is that Sherman’s march to the sea also cut through dense slave territory.
This visual shows me that slavery and the economic engines of the south were linked tightly. Sherman and Grant’s total warfare made the South feel the price of war, not only by destroying there major economic centers, but by taking a good proportion of the human capital–slaves.
Anyone done any research into whether there was a militarily strategic recognition of the importance of the slave belt? Or were the generals only concerned with destroying southern power centers?
December 27, 2007 at 7:19 pm
ari
“Anyone done any research into whether there was a militarily strategic recognition of the importance of the slave belt?”
I was wondering the same thing when I looked at the map. Given Lincoln’s apparent fascination with its contents, he surely must have been considering the issue at the time, particularly as he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, there must have been some sense that moving the Union armies through areas densely populated by slaves would lead to more African-Americans crossing the lines. At least I’d think so.
December 27, 2007 at 9:56 pm
paul
Thanks for turning off the snow: it was making the pages really slow to navigate.
As a resident of the Pacific Northwest who lived for 14 years in the South (Atlanta), the lingering debate over the causes of the Civil War is surprising. I can certainly understand the reluctance to admit that one’s ancestors were slave-owners and committed treason to continue to do so. But wishing it away or obfuscating it with other theories doesn’t change anything.
What I have become aware of with distance is the dissonance that stems from displaying the symbols of a secessionist movement — traitors, in plain terms — in everyday life. The stars and bars are common, as components of state flags or flown with the current state flags. Does any other nation honor or tolerate the insignia of a secessionist group, especially one whose sole reason for existing was to preserve chattel slavery? If I had my druthers, I’d ban all of it. The horse is out of the barn at this point, but I have known many people who, if asked to choose between this country or the Old South, would follow Lee.
This really is fascinating stuff you’re doing, and not just the civil war content.
December 28, 2007 at 6:03 am
eric
This really is fascinating stuff you’re doing, and not just the civil war content.
Thanks, paul — hope you’ll stick around.
December 28, 2007 at 6:36 am
ari
Let me second what Eric says, Paul: thanks, that’s very nice of you. And, as an added incentive to keep you around, I’m thinking about avoiding the Civil War for a little while. I was going to post on Calhoun’s resignation today, but I kept getting sucked backed into Nullifcation. So now I’m considering other topics.
December 28, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Punning Pundit
Hmph. I attended Davis. I minored in History. How is it that I missed taking classes from either of you? Perhaps I ought to have dropped that second minor in religion, and taken more history classes.
Just found your blog today. It kind of rocks. My boss is not going to be happy about the amount of productivity you are killing…
December 28, 2007 at 3:57 pm
eric
I attended Davis. I minored in History. How is it that I missed taking classes from either of you?
Possibly you’re too young?
It kind of rocks.
Many thanks — please keep coming back. And tell your friends!
December 28, 2007 at 4:19 pm
ari
Kill two birds with one stone; have your boss look at the blog.
December 28, 2007 at 4:21 pm
eric
have your boss look at the blog
Yeeeaaahhh… I’m going to go ahead and need you to work on something for the weekend, Pundit.
December 28, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Punning Pundit
When did you gentlemen show up? I graduated in March of ’06. And I’m nearly 30. I helped found the Friends Urging Campus Etc. party. (the name was over my objections and lobbying…)
Also: can someone please explain to me why the American Civil War (a 4 year conflict), Early 20th Century European history (50 years), and History of China (10,000 years) all get the same 10 weeks of class time? This seems a bit unfair…
December 28, 2007 at 7:23 pm
genesiawilliams
I will not pretend to know a detailed timeline of history, fully equipped with red white and blue points of interest, conflict, and deliniations…
but is it an error to have understood that Lincoln did not really care about the Slaves so much as he care about the fact that government big wigs were talking about the possible expansion of slavery or a version of it to include the poor? People that would have fit the description of his parents. Because I can believe that.
Most of the problems we have here are first about class and second about color or creed.
It is just that certain groups have found it harder to not find themselves judged by the first criteria and pigeonholed by the second.
It seems that if a whole country went for 400 some odd years without noticing the slaves in their literall and figurative backyards and taking them as part of the landscape, that one politician (President or not) would not have the prescence of mind to want to risk a war simply to alleviate a problem no one but those subjected seemed to be having.
If it were me as Lincoln it simply would not be important enough.
The founding Father’s did it so why should things continue on, as they had been.
But when considering inclusion of the WHITE and POOR it would become a big issue for me too.
December 29, 2007 at 9:44 pm
genesiawilliams
ps. I enjoy your blog.
and ————-”but is it an error to have understood that Lincoln did not really care about the Slaves so much as he care about the fact that government big wigs were talking about the possible expansion of slavery or a version of it to include the poor?”———————————– is a real question I have so if anyone can answer it that would be great.
December 30, 2007 at 3:58 am
ari
Here’s my multi-part answer to that excellent two-part question.
Throughout the 1860 campaign and into the beginning of the Civil War, I think it’s fair to say that Lincoln “did not really care about the slaves.” But I want to be careful here, as such a statement depends what we mean by “really” and “care.” Lincoln, like most white Northerners at the time, had little personal experience interacting with slaves. Still, he believed that African-Americans were inferior to whites. Around the time of his famed debates with Stephen Douglas*, Lincoln summed up his own views on the subject, writing: “Negro equality! Fudge!” And, in his ideal scenario, he hoped that after slavery ended, gradually and without bloodshed, emancipated black people would be sent back to Africa. Integrating the freed people into the mainstream of American society, he believed, would be bad for both white and black people. He remained consistent on that point even after the war started, saying, before Congress in 1862, “I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization.”** All of this likely fits the bill for not really caring about the slaves themselves. At least by our more englightened standards.
What Lincoln did care about, even before the war began, was the impact of slavery on the United States. Again, like many other whites at the time, he viewed slavery as something of a cancer: a disease likely to rot the nation from within. This perspective emerged both from his politics — the Republican Party began as an explicitly anti-slavery (not to be confused with abolitionist) political organization — and the intellectual culture of the day. By that I mean the anti-slavery currents that flowed throughout the North in the late-antebellum period. This distaste for the Peculiar Insititution was what made Lincoln so resolute when it came to the question of slavery’s expansion into the West. He would not allow the cancer to metastasize; if you’ll pardon me for extending my earlier (borrowed) metaphor.
Now, here’s where things get even more complicated. After the war started, something changed. Lincoln became even more committed to ending slavery — he moved from favoring gradual emancipation to embracing something closer to immediate abolition — and also, in limited way at least, to extending some rights to African-Americans. Much ink has been spilled about the shortcomings of the Emancipation Proclamation, which, as critics have rightly noted, didn’t have teeth. It was very much a political document, intended to placate some interests (the fickle Border States) while helping the war effort (encouraging slaves to cross Union lines). But the Proclamation still offers us a measure of how Lincoln’s views changed in the crucible of war (yuck). He clearly believed that the nation could no longer restore, after the conflict’s end, the antebellum social order. The United States would have to be remade.
And as the war dragged on, into its third and fourth years, Lincoln became more committed to this position. Why? Well, since this comment is getting VERY long, I think the key issues were the performance of African-American troops in the Union Army and the ongoing intransigence of the Confederacy. Did he ever get around to really caring about the slaves themselves? I don’t know how to answer that precisely. But I will say that Lincoln was consistent in that he valued the Union above all else. Over time, though, he began to express genuine respect for African-Americans, both slaves and freed people. This evolution, if you will, is one of the many remarkable things about the man.
I hope that helps. If you want more on the subject, please let me know.
* I can’t promise I’ve got the timing right here, as my books are thousands of miles away right now. But I do think I’m not too terribly far off in thinking that Lincoln wrote this in 1858.
** Some scholars argue that this was a political move, a way of protecting himself and the Republican Party from Democratic charges of favoring African-Americans over white working people.
December 30, 2007 at 1:29 pm
genesiawilliams
Thank you…. I am ever a student to well versed people, and those who take accuracy seriously…
with that I had to get my dictionary out for a few phrases (I’ve been out of the literal classroom for quite a while) but I found your response insightful and complete and to be a bit poetic pretty wonderful.
So, I’ll be back for more….
December 30, 2007 at 1:47 pm
ari
My pleasure. Have a wonderful end of your weekend.
December 30, 2007 at 1:57 pm
genesiawilliams
thank you!
January 1, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Stuart Buck
The fascinating thing is how closely that map mirrors where black people live (or don’t live) today in the South — e.g., the heavy presence of blacks in the Black Belt and the Delta region, and their absence in the northern mountainous counties in Arkansas, Georgia, and up through Appalachia — notwithstanding the Great Migrations of the 20th century. Compare the 2000 map here.
January 1, 2008 at 7:43 pm
ari
Thanks, Stuart. That’s an excellent comment and a fascinating comparison.
January 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Stuart Buck
I expand on that same thought here.
January 17, 2008 at 11:11 pm
John B.
I am slow in acknowledging indebtedness, but your recent linking to a post of mine stirs in me the desire to amend my life. Apologies for awakening a dormant comments thread.
I found the map via Matthew Yglesias’ link to it and used it to speculate a bit regarding Huckleberry Finn in this post.
January 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm
ari
We’re just glad that you’ve stopped by to visit. And nice post.
January 17, 2008 at 11:19 pm
ari
And not to be a self-referential jerk, but if you’re interested in the flow of the Mississippi River, you might want to take a look at my book. Wow, now that it’s on my screen, I simply can’t believe I wrote that. Too late to delete now. Anyway, I’d be happy to send you a copy. I’ve got a big stack in my office. It’s what the remainder bin would look like if my parents ran a bookstore.
January 17, 2008 at 11:27 pm
John B.
Thank you, sir. I’ll be in touch.