Page 49 - Early Naturalists of the Black Range

United States and Mexican Boundary Survey - 1848 - In the Black Range 1851

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848) ended the Mexican-American War and, among other things, required that a joint survey be conducted by the two countries to map the exact location of the new boundary between the countries. Article V of the Treaty stated that the boundary (in what is now New Mexico) ran as follows:
“. . . to the point where it strikes the Southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly along the whole Southern Boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso to it's western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then, to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same;) thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river . . .”
The reference document to be used was John Disturnell’s map of 1847, shown at the top of the following page. A detail from the map (bottom of following page) shows how this area was depicted on the map. The San Diego crossing (see later) is shown north of Paso, the Mina de Cobre (Santa Rita Copper Mines) is shown south of Socorro and east of the Sierra de los Mimbres (Black Range), the Burro Mountains are shown in approximately the correct area, and the Florida Mountains are shown east of the Sierra de los Mimbres which continue south.
Although the boundary was clarified a bit more in the treaty, there was clearly work to be done in defining it precisely. This “new boundary” is not the same as the current boundary between the two nations. This “new boundary” followed the course of the Gila River for much of its length. Following the completion of the survey, William H. Emory, who was the U. S. Boundary Commissioner at the end of the survey, published a report of several volumes (see links which follow). The natural history of the border region was described by a cadre of naturalists while the border survey was being conducted. The result of the survey of natural history is captured in several volumes of the report.
The work of the naturalists carrying out the survey was significant. For instance, more than 2,600 plants were collected on the survey. (The Harvard University Herbaria, alone, holds 669 type specimens from the survey.)
When the significant appointments were being made at the beginning of the survey, Weller (and then John Bartlett) was the U. S. Boundary Commissioner. In a letter to Asa Gray, John Torrey described how Bartlett wanted a “full scientific corps”, the general confusion in setting up the staffing, and the possible source of friction between the botanists. In part, that letter reads:
“Bailey has informed me six weeks ago that he had recommended Thurber of Providence as Botanist to the Survey not knowing anything about Parry. Accordingly I at once wrote to Bartlett informing him about Parry’s position and claims to the situation. He replied the appointment had been made. He would retain Parry, as it was his intention to have a full scientific corps. I communicated this to Parry by
next steamer. Afterwards I found that a Dr. Bigelow of Ohio had also been appointed Surgeon and Botanist to the Survey. Bigelow was strongly recommended by Sullivant but I think he is not a Botanist. He and Thurber came here to see me. Neither of them, I believe, have the official title of Botanist. The former is Surgeon, the latter a ‘computer’, but both are expected to do duty as botanists. The commission has left it to themselves to settle the question of botanical rank but Bigelow in his letter writes to Thurber as his assistant. Thurber says he will not play second fiddle to such a poor stick. The commission will certainly have a full staff of Botanists when all three are on the ground.”*
Charles Wright was then added to the mix. To whatever degree Bartlett was making the decisions, they were the right ones. There may have been issues between the survey members, but as a package they accomplished a great deal.
There were a number of personnel changes during the survey, resulting from technical disagreements, political machinations, personal desires, and personal conflicts. Emory is the name usually associated with this survey. He was, after all, the U. S. Boundary Commissioner at the end of the survey, and he did write the history. But, in general, he did not focus on naturalist functions during his tenure. Readers who have a desire to know more about Emory may wish to read (in particular) Volume 1 of the report on the survey, his account of his earlier expeditions in the region (see links earlier in this book), and other sources.
Following early survey work in California, in which the boundary from below San Diego to the confluence of the Gila and Colorado Rivers was mapped, the survey work shifted east and began anew from El Paso. (The boundary between the two countries, east of El Paso/Ciudad Juárez was defined, basically, as the Rio del Norte [Rio Grande].)
John Bartlett became the United States Boundary Commissioner at this point, serving in that position from 1850 to 1853. 1851 was the period in which most of the natural history work was done in this area. And, lest the map lead you astray, the area was inhabited by Mexicans, Anglos, and Indigenous Peoples. It was being crossed on a regular basis. (While the survey was being conducted in California, its members had to offer assistance in the form of water and food to several emigrant parties.)
The inaccuracy of the Disturnell map and its incompatibility with portions of the Treaty led Bartlett and Condé to negotiate an agreement on how the boundary would be determined on the ground. Several Americans (then and later) objected to this agreement. Among those who disagreed was Amiel Weeks Whipple who was Acting Surveyor.
“Whipple had protested against any compromise that would deny the United States the Mesilla Valley to the north of El Paso del Norte. Bartlett, however, felt that the loss of the
____________
*”Dr. John Milton Bigelow, 1804-1878 - An Early Ohio Physician- Botanist”, by A. E. Waller, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1942, Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, Ohio Medical History, 1836-58, p. 325
48