Strange Maps

March 27, 2008

261 – The Civil War and the Death of ‘Horizontalism’

Filed under: Uncategorized — strangemaps @ 2:44 pm

nmcoun-orig.jpg

In 1852, when New Mexico was at its newest, the territory bearing that name was more than double the size of the eponymous present-day state. Of the many changes that were to follow, none was more dramatic – from a cartographic point of view, if you’ll allow – than the creation of the Union Territory of Arizona.

This destroyed a tradition of ‘horizontalism’ in the administrative divisions of the territory, still clearly visible on this map: the east-west-orientation of the counties creates elongated slices of land that are pleasingly improbable to govern. Just imagine being the sheriff of Bernalillo County. Or worse, his horse.

And yet it may not have been practicality, but spite that caused the Union to set up a ‘verticalist’ Arizona Territory, thus thwarting the ‘horizontalist’ Arizona Territory of the Confederacy. Or maybe it was a very practical spite, thus dividing the pro-Confederate south of the New Mexico Territory in two.

All this will make a bit more sense in its chronological context:

1852 – The US territory of New Mexico, acquired as spoils of the Mexican-American War, covers most of what were to become the states of New Mexico and Arizona and southern bits of the future states of Nevada and Colorado.

1853 – The US buys an additional 30,000 square miles (77,000 sq. km) of Mexican territory. This Gadsden Purchase, named after the US Minister to Mexico, cost the US $10 million, and allowed it to construct a southern transcontinental railroad. The original plan was for the purchase area to be much larger, even including all of the Baja California peninsula (and four Mexican states: Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora and Nuevo Leon). This was opposed by the Mexicans and by anti-slavery US politicians, but vehemently regretted by the filibuster William Walker, who marched into Mexico with a small army, and established the short-lived independent Republic of Sonora.

1855 – the Gadsden Purchase officially added to Dona Ana County in the New Mexico Territory.

1861 – After a gold rush, and to secure the area for the Union at the beginning of the Civil War, the Territory of Colorado is established. It replaces the provisional (and unrecognised) Territory of Jefferson, which was a much larger square than Colorado – including an eastern strip of Utah, a southern third of Wyoming and the western protrusion of Nebraska. The Territory of Colorado is made up of far-flung parts of the Territories of Utah, Nebraska, Kansas and New Mexico.

1861 – pro-Confederacy settlers in the southern half of the Territory proclaim the Confederate Territory of Arizona (identical to the areas of the Socorro and Dona Ana Counties on this map), aided by the fact that they are removed from the pro-Union administration in Santa Fe by the Jornada del Muerto (’the journey of the dead man’), a difficult stretch of desert. The CTA links the Confederacy all the way to California.

1863 – Having ousted Confederate forces from the area, the Union creates its own Arizona Territory, but does this by slicing the original New Mexico Territory in eastern and western halves (creating the present state border), rather than northern and southern ones.

1866 – Nevada absorbs the part of the Arizona Territory west of the Colorado River and south of the 37th parallel. The transfer followed a gold rush, with the government judging Nevada would be better suited to manage the influx of migrants.

1912 – In January, New Mexico is the penultimate state of the Lower 48 to receive statehood. In February, Arizona is the very last.

This map was sent in by Brian Fletcher (of Bernalillo County, NM), who found it at this page of the New Mexico Genealogical Society. “All of these counties (mentioned on the map) survive to this day in a different form except for Santa Ana,” he says.


36 Comments »

  1. It seems strange to have a county with the same name as the leader of the country the United States just defeated in war. Maybe it’s not named after the same guy, but still.

    Comment by TheJay — March 27, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

  2. Typical exercise by some civil servant who has never actually seen the place?

    Comment by lordhutton — March 27, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

  3. TheJay – actually, that county wasn’t named after Santa Anna, but for ‘Saint Anne,’ the mother of the virgin Mary. That’s also where the ‘the Santa Ana winds’ and the native American tribe the ‘Santa Ana Pueblo’ get their name.

    Comment by JD Malmquist — March 27, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

  4. Wow..! I think you were right. What a strange map is it.

    Comment by Suhadi — March 27, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

  5. I think you forgot to close your bolding somewhere.

    On a side-question, why does Bernalillo do that? It’s not just a straight channel, but has a large “kink” there.

    Comment by Lurker — March 27, 2008 @ 7:42 pm

  6. This reminds me of old maps of the United States before the area between the Appalachians and the Mississippi was divided into the modern states. Each coastal state laid claim to an area that stretched north-to-south as far as the state did, but as far west as the Mississippi or some other body of water.

    Comment by Andrew — March 27, 2008 @ 7:48 pm

  7. @JD Malmquist

    Thanks! I just thought it seemed weird. I didn’t realize the Mexican leader’s name was spelled differently.

    Comment by TheJay — March 27, 2008 @ 8:56 pm

  8. Lurker: Rio Grande River Basin. That’s right where Albuquerque ended up being. WAG based off my memory of topo maps, I’m guessing that sneaks in just under the Sandias, and then over the top of Los Volcanes.

    Of course, I’m still not sure why they extended it all the way to the edge of the map.

    Comment by perlhaqr — March 27, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

  9. I once saw a map that had a proposal for the territories where New Mexico was a northern horizotnal and Arizona was a souther horizontal.

    Comment by blair — March 28, 2008 @ 2:56 am

  10. “And yet it may not have been practicality, but spite that caused the Union to set up a ‘verticalist’ Arizona Territory”

    Either you meant “despite” that and missed a word before “caused” or that comma does not belong there. I read it three times and looked in the comments to see what it meant. And fix your markup!

    Comment by Name (required) — March 28, 2008 @ 12:43 pm

  11. Utah also has horizontal county lines in the south. Considering the steep mountain ranges and canyons in the southwest these county lines seem unrealistic to someone from the east.

    In the English colonial era it was thought that the Pacific Ocean was not far away and that one or more of the rivers that empty into the Atlantic would afford an easy passage to the Pacific. Companies that planted colonies argued for grants of land that extended westward to the Pacific. After independence coastal states had to be compensated when new territories were created west of the Alleghenies.

    Massachusetts and Connecticut had claims, and settlements, in northeast Ohio called the western reserve.

    Comment by Jim Linnane — March 28, 2008 @ 1:01 pm

  12. I find the “horizontalist” approach more interesting than the vertical. Comments 6 and 11 point to why it was so important. First, because nobody knew what was out west, but nobody wanted to give up a claim to it. Simple solution – draw the lines straight west! A cartographer’s easy way out. Jefferson loved straight lines too!

    Then, during the pre-civil war era, the extension west took on even greater importance as each side, slave and anti-slave, tried to lay claim to what they expected to be future American territory. It was North vs. South, so the land to the West was up for grabs!

    Comment by lichanos — March 28, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

  13. Bernalillo County had something of an earlier analog in the South Carolinian “strip” that later the northern border of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.

    @9: I’m pretty sure that was the Confederate “proposal”/attempt.

    Comment by Lurker — March 28, 2008 @ 1:37 pm

  14. @10 (Name (required)): To put it another way: “What caused the Union to set up a verticalist Arizona Territory might not have been practicality, but spite.” (”Spite” meaning “malicious ill-will”). Comma is required for grammatical correctness (and, if you say either sentence out loud, there would be a natural pause where the comma is).

    And I do agree, the markup needs to be fixed. Looks like a simple bold tag (probably after “chronological context” is missing or incorrect.

    Comment by David — March 29, 2008 @ 12:07 am

  15. Since were stuck in bold text, I’ll make a bold announcement:

    >6 000 000 hits!

    Comment by Lurker — March 29, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

  16. Bernalilio really seems stupid.

    Comment by Cappy — March 30, 2008 @ 9:12 pm

  17. Quote: “Just imagine being the sheriff of Bernalillo County. Or worse, his horse.”

    Yes, that is amazing. Imagine the mentality of creating a county of that shape. Having said that, when politicians divide up land and draw boundaries you do get some strange long straight lines, even today.

    Maybe that’s en exercise for all map lovers. Look at country boundaries. Where they are meandering they have developed over a long period of time, based on different tribes or nations fighting for land.

    When they are a long straight line they are a result of political leaders sitting down and dividing out land between them, usually land they’ve conquered.

    (The exception might be long straigh lines in the desert, where there’s nothing of note for thousands of miles anyway so neighbouring countries can agree.)

    Comment by Breen — March 30, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

  18. While growing up in Arizona, I remember being taught that one of the reasons for the change from horizontal to vertical alignment of the states was the Mexican influence and population. Had the the states been been divided horizontally, Tucson (Arizona) and Santa Fe (New Mexico) would have been the capitals. Both cities with large Hispanic populations. Vertically divided, Santa Fe would still be the capital of New Mexico, But, Prescott and later Phoenix would be the capital of Arizona, both cities with large Caucasian populations.

    Comment by Mike — March 31, 2008 @ 1:43 am

  19. Phoenix is also further from the Mexican border than Tucson. Mexico was in the midst of a nasty civil war at the time Arizona was formed. At the time, though, Tucson was much more populous than Phoenix, and it was also right on the major cross-country highway and rail route.

    I’m not sure how much of the choice was down to race and how much was down to location, though.

    Comment by Charlene — April 1, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

  20. I’m reminded of an anti-gerrymandering idea of mine: define the legislative districts by latitude for one house and by longitude for the other.

    Comment by Anton Sherwood — April 2, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

  21. There’s a notch in this map (and even the contemporary maps) along the eastern (Texas) border which represents a slice of Texan thievery. I think it is due to a surveyor’s “error” (can’t recall the exact detail).

    Anyone else?

    Comment by mpb — April 3, 2008 @ 3:06 am

  22. Anton, how would that be possible while still adhering to the rule that House districts be of as close to equal population as possible?

    As far as horizontalism goes, the easiest example to see on the U.S. map is the outline of Tennessee and Kentucky.

    Comment by Huntington — April 4, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

  23. I used to live in New Mexico, and it is so funny to see what the counties (many of which have the same names as the present) used to look like, extending into Arizona. I just stumbled onto your blog by chance and am finding it fascinating.

    Comment by T.W. — April 7, 2008 @ 5:40 am

  24. Thos horizontal Utah counties used to be even more so. Iron, Beaver, Millard and Juab counties stretched due west all the way across Nevada. Unfortunately, I don’t think I still have that map. It was in the chanber of commerce bruchure for Millard county.

    Comment by Jackson Frishman — April 8, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

  25. Thanks for the history lesson but I’m still trying to figure out that map.

    Comment by cyclepromo — April 9, 2008 @ 1:49 am

  26. [...] April 8, 2008 in History Tags: Arizona, geography, History, map, New Mexico I love maps.  Especially very old maps.  I have always found them facinating and have acquired some antique maps for the “study” room at the house.  For this reason I love the blog Strange Maps.  This particular post about Arizona and New Mexico is particularly interesting.  “The Civil War and the Death of Horizontalism” [...]

    Pingback by Short History of New Mexico and Arizona « FOR THE RECORD — April 9, 2008 @ 3:25 am

  27. Very interesting history and geography info. Thanks for such a great site for us map lovers.

    Comment by Mike — April 10, 2008 @ 3:35 am

  28. Huntington: note that I didn’t say anything about the width of the strips.

    Comment by Anton Sherwood — September 2, 2008 @ 9:06 pm

  29. mpb, the zag could result from a change of baseline.

    Comment by Anton Sherwood — September 2, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

  30. دليل دردشات

    Comment by y22icom — December 14, 2008 @ 5:36 am

  31. thank you

    Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 3:33 am

  32. thanks for this map
    good 
    luck

    ..

    Comment by Solomon — May 11, 2009 @ 8:50 am

  33. merci

    Comment by aspicco . — May 17, 2009 @ 6:38 am

  34. Southern California’s counties still have a problem with horizontalism; because of them, there are vast swaths of desert the size of Arkansas that are not part of the Southland (Greater Los Angeles) in any meaningful sense, yet must be included as such for government purposes.

    Comment by Sam Huddy — July 1, 2009 @ 7:09 am

  35. Vielen Dank

    Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 5:05 am

  36. Muchas gracias

    Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:31 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.