Claims of Authority (and Uncertainty) in John Mitchell's map

"It is not only the subject itself but the manner in which we have endeavored to treat it, that makes us hope at least, it will be looked upon as a matter of general and public concern, without the least regard to any private views". -John Mitchell (Mitchell)

Through comprehensive detail, rhetoric, use of multiple sources, admission of uncertainty, and endorsements from the likes of John Pownell (Brother of Thomas Pownell), Mitchell established his map as the most authoritative map of North America in the 18th century. Lawrence Martin, head of the Division of Geography and Maps in the Library of Congress called this map "the most important map in American History" (Martin).

Comprehensive Detail: Mitchell's map was the most detailed map of North America available at the time. It included a wealth of information on geography, settlements, and natural resources, surpassing other maps in scope and detail. Mitchell also used his rhetoric, such as the term "impartial hand" to describe himself in the title of the book which accompanied the map.

Use of Multiple Sources: Mitchell compiled his map using a wide range of sources, including earlier maps, explorers' accounts, astronomical sources, and reports from colonial officials and Native Americans. This extensive research helped ensure the accuracy of his map and added to its credibility. By using sources that had already established authority, like distinguished French geographer Guillaume Delisle's maps, and adding official regional information to the framework (Edney, John Mitchell's Map of North America, p. 68), Mitchell adds to his own map's legitimacy.

Political Influence: The map played a significant role in diplomatic negotiations, particularly the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the American Revolutionary War. Its use in these negotiations enhanced its status as "the most authoritative image of North America in the eighteenth century". John Pownall's endorsement and George Montagu-Dunk's support provide additional backing for this map to be authoritative.

Acknowledgment of Uncertainties: Paradoxically, admission of uncertainties likely helped establish Mitchell's map. Mitchell was honest about the limitations of his knowledge. In areas where information was uncertain or disputed, he often included notes indicating these uncertainties. This transparency likely added to the map's credibility, as it showed Mitchell's commitment to accuracy and implied his honesty/integrity.

Distribution and Accessibility: The map was widely distributed in Europe and the colonies, making it accessible to a broad audience. Specifically in colonial America, map trade was distinguished by a "lack of regulation: no trade guilds, church officials or government entities regulated or prescribed the activities of British American Map Vendors" (M. Edney & M. Pedley, p.826). Because of this lack of regulation, it was almost as though the map gained more authority from being pirated. Its availability and use in significant diplomatic and political decisions further established its authority. It didn't hurt that the "The Board of Trade issued copies to each colonial governor in America" (Schneider).

Mitchell's map remained a key reference for boundaries and geography in North America well into the 19th century, largely due to these factors. Its combination of comprehensive detail, use of multiple sources, political significance, acknowledgment of uncertainties, and wide distribution, all contributed to its status as the most authoritative map of North America in the 18th century.

This meticulous explanation- and explanation of the process almost makes this map scientific. What gives science its authority is that the process is described and thus can be tested by others. This same idea is recreated in the form of cartography and continues to help cement Mitchell's map's importance. Including all this information would have increased the cost of the map- which means this was not a whimsical decision but a calculated one. The inclusion of Astronomical observations gives this map scientific authority, the deduced latitudes and longitudes give it a philosophical/rhetorical authority and those simply observed also give it a scientific authority.

Critical thinking: If adding all the details about the source of information is so expensive, why was it included if it doesn't add detail to the map itself? Could this detail be included to prop his map as the most trustworthy map?

John Mitchell's meticulous approach to mapmaking involved not only drawing from prominent existing maps but also supplementing them with additional resources provided by the Board of Trade and Plantations. This method of combining and enhancing sources played a crucial role in the authoritative status of his map, "A Map of the British and French Dominions in North America." Mitchell incorporated information from the new map of Virginia by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson, a significant work in its own right.

Additionally, he used Lewis Evans’s manuscript map of Pennsylvania and its adjoining backcountry. These maps were among the most detailed and reliable sources of geographic information available at the time, covering key areas of the North American continent. Beyond these established maps, Mitchell's work was notably enriched by resources from the Board of Trade and Plantations. This included an array of geographical reports, maps, charts, and journals. These documents provided Mitchell with the latest and most comprehensive data on the British colonies in North America.

By integrating this wealth of information, Mitchell was able to create a map that not only used it's predecessors but w also more up-to-date. His ability to synthesize information from various reliable sources, along with the additional insights from the Board of Trade and Plantations, allowed him to present a map that was both comprehensive and authoritative. This meticulous amalgamation of diverse yet reliable resources was key to establishing Mitchell's map as the definitive image of North America during the 18th century.

Although there are many claims of authority, detail, and accuracy, "his map did not establish the location of any particular place in relation to any other with certainty" (Edelson, p.156). This could be used strategically. As mentioned in his own "The Contest in America", Mitchell shows how he feels about the French around the middle of North America. He writes "French in all parts of America, and of the Fatal effects...to prevent which was the chief design of our endeavouring" (Mitchell), which reveals who the target for his strategic ambiguity may have been.

Mitchell created trust with the addition of diverse detail, however, Lewis Evans's criticism of Mitchell's map inlands: "Nobody pretends to look into them for any place on our borders" shows that Mitchell's use of detail vs. ambiguity was aligned with interests. The general theme is that as the map goes further west, there is less detail with more admission of uncertainty- used in conjunction with charter lines going all the way west, this map is an authoritative claim of British land. In defense of Mitchell's lower quality going westward, however, "The interior settlers were much less Cartographically engaged than the coastal elites" (History of Cartography, M. Edney & M. Pedley, p. 224). Considering Mitchell and the Earl were working with information local governments could produce, it's to be expected that most of the detail would be near the coast.

Use different claims like British settlements for the region between the Atlantic and Appalachian, Native American presence past that, and Charters to back further claims, Mitchell always backs up a claim with some logic- albeit with fallacies (Edney, A Publishing History of John Mitchell’s Map of North America, p.73).

Even though certainty was established in many ways including via uncertainty, some choices like Carolina boundaries westwards were purposefully ambiguous to push claims. "Yet, if the printed map is a valid guide, he probably avoided extending the names of the southern colonies to the west of the Mississippi so as not to impinge completely on French Louisiana, which he recognized with its own expansive toponym" (Edney, A Publishing History of John Mitchell’s Map of North America, p.73). Essentially, Mitchell kept it ambiguous where convenient.

These versions of the Mitchell map, with the one on the left being a 1755 version and the one on the right being a 1756 version, show the incremental improvement of cartography which gave Mitchell so much credibility. The reason for the differences? The differences "stemmed from Mitchell’s incorporation of astronomical observations for latitude and longitude published in Voyage fait par ordre du roi en 1750 et 1751, dans l’Amérique septentrionale (1753) by Joseph-Bernard, marquis de Chabert" (History of Cartography, vol. 4, p. 484). This strive for cartographic and geographic accuracy helped greatly in making Mitchell's vision the gold standard.

Comprehensive Detail and Research: Mitchell's map stood out due to its unprecedented detail, covering geography, settlements, and natural resources more thoroughly than any other map of its time. He used a wide array of sources, including earlier maps, explorers' accounts, and reports from colonial officials and Native Americans, ensuring accuracy and credibility. The incorporation of Native American tribal information, road and water distances, and natural features like fall lines added layers of practical utility and detail to the map, enhancing its authority.

Political Influence and Endorsements: The map's usage in significant events like the Treaty of Paris and endorsements from influential figures like John Pownall and George Montagu-Dunk further solidified its authoritative status during border negotiation for years to come.

Acknowledgment of Uncertainties: Mitchell was transparent about the limitations and uncertainties in his knowledge. For instance, he openly admitted uncertainties in the boundaries of certain colonies like North/South Carolina and included notes on disputed or unclear information. This honesty in acknowledging what was not known paradoxically boosted the map's credibility.

Strategic Ambiguity: Mitchell intentionally left some parts of the map ambiguous, particularly in the western regions. This ambiguity served political purposes, aligning with British territorial claims and interests. For example, the boundaries of southern colonies were extended westwards without clear demarcation to support British land claims.

Incorporation of Scientific Methods: Mitchell's use of astronomical observations for determining latitudes and longitudes lent scientific credibility to his map. He meticulously documented these methods, which mirrored the scientific process's transparency and repeatability, further enhancing the map's authority. If one wanted to challenge his observed claims with data or acquire data for the deduced claims, they could. This repeatability is the ethos of scientific credibility.

Continuous Improvement and Adaptation: Mitchell's commitment to improving his map, as seen in the differences between the 1755 and 1756 editions, demonstrated a dedication to accuracy and relevancy. By constantly updating and refining his map, Mitchell ensured that it remained the most authoritative and up-to-date representation of North America during that period.

In summary, Mitchell established the authority of his map not only through its comprehensive detail and use of diverse sources but also by strategically incorporating uncertainty and ambiguity where it served broader political and territorial interests. His transparent approach in acknowledging unknowns, coupled with the map's practical utility and political significance, cemented its status as a key reference in North American geography and history.

Schwartz Collection at UVA:  https://static.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/onthemap/index.php/themes/18th-century/the-most-important-map-in-american-history/ 

Background on Mitchell Map:  http://oml01.doit.usm.maine.edu/special-map-exhibits/mitchell-map 

 More on the Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia: Jhttps://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/fry-jefferson-map-of-virginia/ 

Read about Lewis Evan's map  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjks5Gw2YeDAxUbIUQIHQRdBpA4ChAWegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdownload%2Flewisevanshismap00stev%2Flewisevanshismap00stev.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3Tfcz2HYAMF9hOmkHqBoXo&opi=89978449