Map of the states of North & South Carolina. (with) Plan of Charleston. London, published June 1 by I.T. Hinton & Simpkin & Marshall. Engraved & printed by Fenner Sears & Co. (1832)

On a trip to Asheville, North Carolina I was keen to come back with a map as a souvenier, but couldn't find anywhere in town that sold them. My wife and I therefore embarked on a bit of a goose (map) chase to out of the way antique shops on back roads 'till we came across a barn full of antiques. None of it was really interesting to me, and some of it fell into the category of "who would buy that"? Somehow, however, tucked in a corner, on a wall on the barn I found this fascinating specimen which I have since learned is properly titled: "Map of the states of North & South Carolina. (with) Plan of Charleston. London, published June 1 by I.T. Hinton & Simpkin & Marshall. Engraved & printed by Fenner Sears & Co. (1832)"

As always, a much higher quality, zoomable image of the map is available through Rumsey, but the one on that site is coloured, while mine is not.

The map comes from an atlas, as is clear from looking at it on Rumsey. The copy I have shows some interesting signs of that. There are a few small tears in it, where the binding must have been. It was framed when I bought it, so I have not been able to examine what's on its reverse, but close inspection shows that it must have been in a closed atlas for a long time before anyone ever opened it up. Each side of the page is slightly stained with an image of the opposite side. Look at these examples:

 

You may need to look quite closely, but there is definitely some staining to the paper from having likely been closed in a book, and possibly under pressure, for an extended period.

There are a few other elements of this map I find interesting. The Outer Banks, today a highly popular tourist destination, is very low on detail in this map. With an important exception, Roanoke Island. 

There's not much on or around Roanoke Island at this time to merit a mention, especially when other smaller islands nearby have nothing on them. Roanoke, however, is the site of the lost colony, and would likely have been of interest to Americans and British (the map was published in London) alike. The Island still presents mysteries to historians and holds an important place in American, British and North American history, so its inclusion is logical.

Another place that is in the Outer Banks and which also plays an important historical role but which is absent from this map, is Kitty Hawk, site of the first powered flight in 1903. Even today it's not a big town, and at the time, may simply not have existed at all, but it's impossible to imagine any map showing the Outer Banks after 1903 not at least indicating it's location.

I also find the inset plan of Charleston to be quite curious.

Obviously, Charleston of today is much larger, but this inset is interesting because it lacks so much detail. Two rivers are named, but there are no street names, so sites of interest, no names for the inlets or canals, the harbour, nothing. It's not even clear if the city ends at the northernmost east-west street, or if it just fades out of sight because of the size of the inset. The inset gives the view a sense of the size of the city, but otherwise, tells very little about it. I'm not sure why that is. Similarly missing is Fort Sumter, whose role in the history of the U.S. Civil War would likely guarantee its inclusion on any maps after 1860. In doing some research on this map I have found that this plan of Charleston predates any to appear in any American published atlas, which makes it somewhat unique.

Another point: I tend to research my maps as much as I can to get a sense of whether there are others out there and how much they sell for. I have only found one vendor of this map. It gives me the sense that what I have is quite scarce and perhaps a real treasure. It makes it that much more interesting to own, and I'm honored to be able to have it and care for it.

Mitchell's 1867 Plan of Boston

On a trip to Boston I stopped in at Ward Maps (as always, no affiliation) which is a nice, neat, well organized map shop selling antiques, and I think also reproductions. I couldn't decide between two maps: one of, or perhaps the, first Boston public transit map ever produced or the one I actually bought. In the end, I think my choice was made purely based on aesthetics. The map I bought was simply more attractive. It's an 1867 Mitchell titled "Plan of Boston" with a beautifully coloured inset of the Boston region.

There are elements of this map that seem, to me at least, to scream that it's a Mitchell. For one, the border of the map, and something about the style, that I can't quite put my finger on, all seem to say that it's a Mitchell.

It's also a map that shows a Boston that's profoundly changed since the map was made. According to the general history of the city on Wikipedia, the mid 19th century, when this map was made, was an important time for the city. Boston was receiving many new immigrants and was growing. Neighborhoods were becoming little ethnic enclaves and the city needed more space. 

Compare the map above, to the boston of today:

 A number of differences stand out, including the absence of a "South Boston Bay", and some more subtle changes that are hard to see without more of a close-up. Many of these land reclamation projects were due to the growth of the city.

One, in particular is the addition of streets north of beacon street, which had been right up against the Charles River. After a major fire in the 1870s, so after this map was made, the debris from burned buildings was pushed into the marshy areas of the river to create new land for the city and creating what is today, Storrow Drive.

I also find the image above charming because of its depiction of the lovley Boston Common. In particular, I find that there's something somehow funny about the drawing of the pond with the note that it is indeed a pond on the common.

Another great aspect of this map is the inset, which also shows changes in the region over time.

This inset of the region around Boston shows how some areas had recently been incorporated into the town, such as South Boston and East Boston. Other areas, which are now part of the city, such as Dorchester, are shown as seperate areas from the city.

All told, this is an attractive map, with some interesting historic details of a great city. I'm pleased with my choice in this case!

Herisson's 1806 Map of South America

I recently blogged about my 1806 map by Herisson titled L'Amerique Septentrionale from the "Atlas du dictionnaire de géographie universelle" purchaced from V & J Duncan (as always, no affiliation). That map came with Herisson's 1806 L'Amerique Meridionale or South America. It had so many fascinating historical elements I felt it deserved it's own post. Here it is:

For the purposes of understanding just how historic this map is, here's a map of South America today:

 The differences are easy to see. Argentina is instead a mix of the Kingdom of La Plata and The lands of Magellan, Paraguay is part of that region. Chile is wider and shorter than it is today. Brazil is but a shadow of its current size, and there is a vast "Land of the Amazons". Peru is just a sliver, and the lands that today include Venezuela and Colombia are a region known as the Kingdom of New Granada.

I do not know very much about the history of South America, and I hope that a reader can provide more information for me, but I did learn quite a bit when researching this blog post.

Among the things that I find interesting is that this map refers to the "Kingdom of New Granada". This is an entity that, according to wikepedia, existed from 1550-1717 before being replaced by the Viceroyalty of New Granada which existed until 1810, four years after this map was published. I'm not certain what accounts for the difference in the names on this map.

Brazil, at the time this map was published, was on the cusp of important historical developments. One year after this map was published, the Portuguese Court would flee Portugal to escape Napoleon and set up in Rio de Janerio. This would effectively make Rio the capital of the Portuguese Empire for the next 15 years.

Another aspect of South American history that has me coming up empty handed is the history of the lands marked as "the lands of Magellan" in what is today Argentina. My cursory searching has not found anything on such a place, and I wonder if I'm translating incorrectly from the French.

I was also only able to find some basic history of the area listed as "pays des Amazones" or the country of the Amazons. Most of this region eventually became part of Brazil, and at the time this map was published, was on the cusp of an influx of non-native people who were after rubber and other natural resources of the area. In the meantime, however, the map suggests a region left largely to the indigenous peoples of the region. The limited resources I've been able to find suggest that the few Europeans in this region were missionaries and perhaps explorers, but not permanent settlers.

It should be clear by now that my knowledge of South American history is sparse, but the map is so interesting because it shows a region that is politically unrecognizable. It would be fascinating to hear more details about these divisions that, though they may persist in some form today, are quite different than what they were in 1806.

Inuit Maps of Greenland

The Inuit in Greenland and Canada's north inhabit a hostile environment. The cold is appalling, the weather is unpredictable, the distances are vast, the terrain unforgiving and the necessities of life may be hard to come by. And yet, these people thrive in this harshest of environments. Indeed, if you want to see one way they've adapted, check out this fascinating, dated, video.

This is a blog about maps though, so I wondered how these people found their way around their regions. There was reliance on innukshuks, man-made landmarks to help with navigation, but what about out on the water, in a kayak?

The needs of a traveler would have been unique. The north is dark 6 months of the year, so it would have to somehow be read easily in the dark. It would need to be able to be handled without taking off mittens if it was too cold and would need to float, if it were dropped in the water. The solution was an ingenious one that I read about here, a tactile map.

When I first saw these I thought: "are they even maps?", but indeed they are. Known as Ammassalik wooden maps, and the images above are of maps which date to around 1885. The maps were tactile. Small enough to fit in your mitten, made of buoyant wood and carved to represent the contours of the coastline of Greenland. My guess, however, is that they would take some practice to learn how to read. Looking at the comparison between them and a more traditional map leaves me somewhat baffled. Map-reading can be a skill. No doubt those who used these maps learned how they worked.

Not many examples of these types of maps exist. The ones shown above were originally taken to Copenhagen, but are now in a museum in Greenland. Over at this blog, I found an image of a politically incorrect newspaper clipping showing some other similar carved maps. If anyone is aware of any other examples of this type of map, I'd be interested in learning more.

Warsaw, 1845 from the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge

I visited Warsaw, Poland, only once and only briefly, but that still qualified it for a map for my collection. I purchased this one somewhere in the United States (I can't remember where, exactly, but I want to say it was in Virginia or the Carolinas), it's an 1845 map of the city.

One of the things I love about this map, is the name of the publisher: the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.

The group was essentially a politically linked organization in the U.K. who made it their aim to provide high-quality educational materials for people with no or limited access to learning materials. It started in the 1820s, and does not seem to have lasted very long, but apparently produced a number of high-quality maps.

The image of the map I posted here is not the best, but as always, David Rumsey has me covered. See here for his high-quality image of the same map.

Warsaw has gone through much destruction since 1845 when this map was published. I find it difficult to compare this antique map with the city today. Not least because of the choice of orientation of the map. For some reason, it shows north as being towards the right. I can't think of a good reason to have done this, other than to have it appear in "landscape" orientation on the page of an atlas more neatly. I don't know enough about its history to comment, so I'll limit myself to the things I find interesting about this map.

One change I will point out is something noticed by another blogger, who does not normally write about maps. This blog notes that one difference in the city was the reclaiming of land from the river Vistula in the early 20th century. It provides a bit more information on Warsaw than I have.

When looking at the image I posted above, the outskirts of the city look a bit blurry. This is not a result of bad photography. This seems to be an intentional visual effect on the map. I find that it has the result of focusing ones attention on the city itself, which is interesting. I don't know if that's what the map-maker was hoping to do with his choice of design, but it has a nice effect.

I also like how the map, though it is itself an antique, notes important historic elements of the city. For example, there is a border of the city from 1762 shown on the map. This older border is well within what appear to be the borders of the city at the time it was published. Perhaps someone out there with a better knowledge of Warsaw's history can explain to me why this was an important date.

The town of Praga, on the east bank of the Vistula, notes that it was burned in 1794 and 1831, just a few years before this map was produced. The 1794 burning was as a result of a Polish uprising against Russian rule over Poland. I'm less clear on the causes of the 1831 burning, but I suspect it may be linked to the battle of Olszynka Grochowska as part of the 1831 "November Uprising" or Polish-Russian war. Again, I hope there are people better versed in Polish history than I am out there who can explain this better to me.

The comparison of important buildings in the city along the bottom of the map is also quite charming. Only a small sample are shown in close-up here, but it's clear that these were well drawn, with attention to detail. They also seem to be presented in a formal sort of way, not as a decorative addition. It's a nice feature to add to a city map.

It's a shame that I don't know more about Poland to be able to write more about this map, but I hope someone out there will be able to read this, comment and provide more information. I look forward to learning more.

As a final point, I notice that the back of the map has a stamp on it that reads Devon & Exeter Institution. This is a library that still operates, and their website is here. It's unusual to know the provenance of an antique map, and so this is sort of interesting to know that at some point in its life, the map belonged to this institution. How it got to a store in the United States I cannot say, but this find has done some travelling to get to my home in Ottawa!

1830 Map of Southern Africa

One of my favorite maps--despite my having not yet framed it to display--is my 1830 Malte-Brun map of Southern Africa. This is one of a couple of maps I've bought from the Pageant Print Shop (who, as always, I have no affiliation with) in New York City. It's the kind of map shop I love. The space is packed in every nook and cranny with maps, generally well organized, but still vague enough that you have to search for the treasure you're looking for. The owners have been in the business for a long time and know what they're talking about and the experience shopping there is really pretty great.

Back to the map! There are many interesting features of this map, but my favorite comes down to two words across the middle of the map. Take a look at the picture and see if you can guess them.

Can you guess? The words are "unknown regions". What's more thrilling than a map that shows vast areas that are simply unknown? What carries more mystery, mystique, adventure and possibility than blanks on a map?!

Indeed, in my mind, one of the greatest things about this map is the contrast between the areas that have considerable detail and the regions that have basically none. For example, Madagascar is quite well detailed as is the Cape Colony, the nucleus of modern day South Africa, but so much else is lacking.

As one may expect, most of the detail is on the coasts. The seeds of some modern day countries are visible, for example Angola, Congo, Somalia and Abyssinia, which is modern day Ethiopia are on this map. The detail about some of the various peoples and their regions is also fascinating, and I think would be even more interesting if one knew more about African history than I do.

I do know enough, however, to know that the Sudan or "Soodan" on this map, does not stretch all the way across Africa and that Guinea is a relatively small country located on the West coast of Africa, not a large region to the north of the Gulf of Guinea. Benin does seem to be in about the right place though. I also know enough to point out that one of the most well known groups in Africa, the Zulu, who had a burgeoning empire at the time this map was made, seem to be nowhere to be found.

Even the very little detail that does exist in the regions marked as unknown seems incorrect or incomplete, which is really no surprise. For example, compare the length of the Congo River, and it's connection to other major rivers in the region to the relatively puny depiction it gets in this map.

The Congo River and rivers it connects with

The map itself does not have original color, but was hand colored by someone after publication. My copy also has a couple of minor stains on it, which diminish its value slightly, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a gorgeous, fascinating map with some amazing detail. I can't wait to get it framed and on the wall.

Johnson's Upper and Lower Canada from 1863

There's a lot to love in these two maps of Upper and Lower Canada, parts of modern Ontario and Quebec, respectively as well as New Brunswick and bits of the United States. The maps come from Johnson's Atlas.

This map is an attractive one. It has a nice border, nice coloring (which I assume was done later and is probably not original), and that wonderful quality of spilling outside its borders. The map I have was taken from an atlas, and you can see the different page numbers and how the maps appeared. It's curious to have shown them this way, since the maps present contiguous regions, and it's not obvious why they wouldn't have been oriented differently to show one map that folds in half. This question becomes even more interesting when you consider that the two maps have only one legend, suggesting that they are meant to be viewed together.


The detail on the map is wonderful too. The counties/townships are noted in great detail, even though these sorts of geographic divisions are rarely used in any significant way in Canada these days. The seller of the map noted in the margin that this map is from 1863, which is before Canadian confederation. It is also just before Ottawa became the capital of Canada (1866) and at a time when Quebec City was the capital. Quebec is noted with a red dot on the map.

   The map shows a number of important rail lines, many canals and has three great insets, one of Montreal, one of the important Welland Canal and another of Wolf Island on the border of the United States. Wolf Island is noted as the start of the St. Lawrence river, and the inset shows a charming collection of buildings on the site of the town of Kingston, Upper Canada, a very important town at the time.

The Welland Canal, which was an important shipping route at the time that helped bypass Niagara Falls also gets its own inset, as does Montreal. Montreal's inset does not show much detail about the city, but identifies important towns on the island, shows the, now scenic, Lachine Canal, the historic Grand Trunk Railway, and has good detail about the surrounding region. At the bottom of the image of the Montreal inset, two different meridians are shown, one from Greenwich, and another from Washington.

 It's also interesting that while today Toronto is not only the largest city in Canada, but one of the top 5 in North America, on this map, it does not merit its own inset, though features which are today much less significant do draw that kind of attention from the map-makers.

The Land of Moriah, or Jerusalem

What place in the world has more meaning to people, or more historical significance than Jerusalem?

I bought this map of Jerusalem at M. Pollak's map store in Tel Aviv. I really like this one and was very excited to buy it.

The map is titled "Land of Moriah or Environs of Jerusalem". The map maker is Thomas Starling, and printed at the bottom is "London, Published for the proprietors. by Mr. Bull, Holles Street Cavendish Square". An inscription on the back from the seller indicates that the original date of publication was 1836. This date, however, does not appear on the map itself.

That's about all I know about the map. Research shows that Starling published a few atlases, including some in the U.S., but I can't figure out which one this would be from.

What I can point out are some of the really unique features of this map, starting with the name, Land of Moriah. The name alone is controversial as it's a biblical name about which scholars disagree. Some say that it refers only to the site in Jerusalem where the Temple of Solomon stood, while others say it may refer to a region, as shown on this map. There are differences based on religious belief as well.

The map is interesting as it shows how the land would have been divided between at least two of the 12 tribes of Israel, here, Judah is in the south and Benjamin in the north. It also has a great little plan of old Jerusalem with certain important sites pointed out.

To really get an appreciation for some of the more interesting details on this small map, one needs to look much more closely.

For example, there's a tiny cross on the Mount Calvary. A structure is simply identified as "the temple" and "the City of David" all appear in the small plan of Jerusalem.

The map also notes the site of at least two biblical battles between the Israelites and the Ammonites and the Philistines.

Bethlehem, and the road between it and Jerusalem are shown on the map, alongside "David's Cistern" and "Solomon's Fountains". All of these, are, of course, biblical sites.

There is also reference to sites of "idol worship" and a number of other specific places found in biblical reference.

This is a small, but attractive map that is meant to show not only a biblical history, but may also reflect an interest in such matters at the time. The effort that went into making such a map, must have some positive correlation to the contemporary demand for such a product.

I only wish I knew a bit more about this map and its origins, and I welcome insights from those who know more about this publisher and this cartographer than I do.

The Wild West: Johnson's Washington and Oregon of 1861

On a trip through the U.S. Pacific northwest, I bought this example of Johnson's Washington and Oregon from 1861.

I wasn't able to get a great image of it because it's framed, but there's a great 'zoomable' photo of the same map here.

I originally bought this map because it was the best one I could find of the region while in the region. I found it quite attractive and interesting, but perhaps a bit plain. The more I study it though, the more I've come to like it.

 The map does have some nice aesthetic features, for example the decorative border, the map spilling out of its border and the textured way in which the mountains are drawn. It also has that somehow strange feature of showing not only the longitude from Greenwich, but also from Washington, D.C.

The map has quite a bit of space with little on it other than lakes, rivers, mountains and the occasional fort. It gives a sense that this is a frontier region. It makes the area on the map feel more vast, more difficult to access and it makes the west coast, which does have more towns indicated, seem like more of a goal to reach. As though it's a slice of civilization across a land-sea of tough wilderness. This is somehow also enhanced by showing a proposed route for a railway line.



More interesting than some of the aesthetic features of the map, I find, are the political elements, and the elements of the map that did not exist in 1861 but that today would not only be present, but would be prominent.

The most obvious is the shape and existence of states and territories. Washington sort of wraps around and embraces Oregon. Idaho is just not there, and instead, Washington borders the Nebraska Territory. Montana is a figment of someone's imagination and is not on this map.

To the south of Oregon, the map does depict California, which borders the Utah Territory and all throughout over areas of otherwise blank map, we see the names of first nations tribes that lived in that territory. Prominent are "Shoshones or Snakes", "Punashly" and "Nez Perces".

Of particular interest to me are the areas that are now Canada, marked only as "British Possessions". This is not meant to be a map of Canada or the British possessions to the north, but there are still some great details there. The blanket label "British Possessions" is alone an interesting historical element. These regions would not even become part of Canada 6 years later during Confederation. They joined the country much later. Another detail I like is that, though there is a Seattle, and a Victoria (now British Columbia) on the map, there is no Vancouver. This is because what is now one of Canada's largest and most prominent cities was not settled until 1862, the year after this map was published.

One more detail about this map that I personally like is the absence of the town of Great Falls, Montana. I've never been to Great Falls, but my late grandmother spent some of her childhood there, and spoke about it fondly. This map shows only that there are falls at the site (just below the "e" in territory of the "Nebraska Territory"), but there's no settlement. The city where my grandmother watched the celebrations for the end of World War One, was not founded until the early 1880's.

Missing Pieces: Mitchell's 1867 Washington, D.C.

For the few years I lived in Washington, D.C., anytime I found myself in Georgetown, I would make a point of trying to stop in at the Old Print Gallery. This was a unique shop. It didn't have that dusty, feeling of some map shops that I love, but instead was clean, sleek and modern feeling. It had row upon row of cases of maps and prints arranged by location, alphabetically, and it had some true

gems, like Bunting's Cloverleaf of the world with Jerusalem at the center.

They also had a beautiful original of the first plans for the city of Washington, D.C. in 1792 by Andrew Ellicott. It was being sold for over US$40,000. Living in Washington, I knew I wanted a map of the city, and the Ellicott was truly the pinnacle of all such maps, but for me, at that price, it may as well have been one million dollars. It was unobtainable.

This image is in far worse condition than the one at the Old Print Gallery

I no longer live in Washington, but I'm disappointed to learn that the shop has closed, and merged with it's sister shop in New York City. It's a shame, because it was such a wonderful place, and I don't know of any other shops in D.C. that were as specialized.

The price of the Ellicott map being what it was, I turned to the internet to find myself a nice map of D.C. to add to my collection and came across a shop in Vancouver, British Columbia called Joyce Williams Gallery who had a great selection and very fair prices.

After speaking and corresponding with their friendly owner, I settled on this beautiful, very fine 1867 Augustus Mitchell Jr. map of Washington, D.C.

There's a lot to love about this map. Its wonderful to look at. It has an attractive floral border that somehow just pops out, without taking away from the map itself.

It also shows a number of details which may have been common for the time, but that today we would recognize as archaic, or simply unusual. For example, the White House is referred to on the map as the "President's House", This is a use that may be considered even more unusual because, as wikipedia notes, the place was called the White House as early as 1811, some 56 years before this map was published.

Another wonderful thing about this map is what it doesn't show. Some of the things tourists flock to D.C. for are absent altogether. For example, the Smithsonian is shown on the map, but only one building, not the many large facilities that make up its network. The Library of Congress is not on the map, as it would not be built for another 30 or so years. There's no reflecting pool either, and one may notice that the National Mall is not at its full length.




Most stark, perhaps, was something that actually did not jump at me right away: There's no tidal basin! The famous cherry blossom ringed body of water, the site of the Jefferson Memorial, just did not exist at the time this map was made. I looked at this map for quite some time before I even noticed that! Indeed, apparently, the idea for the basin didn't even originate until the 1880's, almost 15 years after this map.



The Mitchell map certainly lacks the historic value of the Ellicott, but it's a gorgeous piece, and one that I'm very pleased to have in my collection.

Come From Away: Colton's New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island

In the Canadian Maritime and Atlantic provinces, someone who's from any place other than one of those four provinces is known as a CFA, a come from away: because that's where you're from, away.

A few years back, my wife and I went on a fabulous road trip through the Maritime and Atlantic provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador is an Atlantic province, not a Maritime one), had an amazing time, met some wonderful people, saw some great sights, ate some great food, got engaged and I bought a couple of maps!

The map I'll feature in this post is a gorgeous Colton, first published in 1855 of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. I bought this map at an art gallery in Halifax that also sold some maps called Zwicker's Gallery (a place that is itself an institution). They had some other beautiful maps of the region (Including a great one with images of some dogs this part of the world are famous for, notably the Labrador and the Newfoundland Dog), but this was the only one I could afford at the time.

 I love this map! There's so much about it that's appealing.

First, just look at it! The border is gorgeous. It has that wonderful element of spilling outside the border, showing every element of the land. It breaks up the provinces (colonies at the time) into counties, which I don't believe are particularly significant these days, and it's in excellent condition. Even the name plate of the map is appealing.

The way "Colton" is written, the various fonts of the names of the different places...I just find this map very pleasing to look at.

Second, the history represented on this map is wonderful. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were among the first four provinces of Canada which came together for confederation in 1867. Prince Edward Island would only join Canada in 1873 (largely because of heavy debt from having built a railroad on the small island), and Newfoundland joined still later, in 1949, after a much debated referendum.

Third, the detail on this map is impressive. So many of the tiny bays, capes and coves on Newfoundland are named. Some of these places may have been, or were being settled for the first time around when this map was published. Other places, including some of Newfoundland's largest communities today are completely absent from the map, in some cases, like Gander, Newfoundland, because they didn't even exist until around 100 years later.

 A final thing I enjoy about this map, is that it presents another mystery to me. The map clearly says it's a Colton. It also says it was first published in 1855. That doesn't mean that the actual paper map I have is from 1855, it could be more recent. There's an annotation from the seller next to the page number (19) that shows the year 1864. The problem is, when I search, I can't find any Colton atlases published that year. Even when I go through the ever-useful Rumsey website, I can find very similar Colton maps, but none that are on page 19. Perhaps even more strange, there is an almost identical Johnson map that is printed on page 19 from 1865, but it is clearly not the same map I have. All I've been able to find is someone selling the identical map (in rough condition) on ebay. This person claims their map is from 1855, but they may simply be looking at the date of first publication, which could be quite different from the date of actual printing. I'm including a screen capture of the item for sale below.

Once more, another mystery to solve. Anyone with thoughts or insights is encouraged to let me know!