National Geographic Historical Atlas of the United States

Rating:
Summary: Historical it may be, this ain't no atlas.
Review: This atlas hardly does National Geographic credit. Far better is Hammond's American history atlas, a slim 8 ½" x 11" paper- (cardboard-) bound edition. Better than either is the 1966 American Heritage atlas, a splendid maroon slipcased hardbound volume. It features superbly realized maps of all eras. Important wars - especially the Revolution and the Slaveholders' Rebellion ("Civil War") - are illustrated by clear maps as well as panoramic representations of major battles. The maps are accompanied by brief informative texts, rather an innovation for the time. This first-rate production (The American Heritage Pictorial Atlas of United States History) isn't easy to find nowadays.

The National Geographic Society atlas isn't worth taking up shelf space, much less throwing money at. Allegedly an atlas, it has few maps - only a piddly 81 in 240 pages. By comparison, the American Heritage atlas has 424 smaller pages (including text) and 278 maps.

The maps themselves are minimally useful. That illustrating the Slaveholders' Rebellion, for instance, shows the Unorganized Territory (now Oklahoma) and the New Mexico Territory (now Arizona and New Mexico) as loyal. In fact, for much or most of the war, they were held by rebel forces in whole or part. The progress of the war is shown only by lines indicating major campaigns. These give no feeling of the development of the war nor the gradual defeat of the Southern treason.

Another problem endemic to these maps is poor use of color. The book uses mostly pastels, often almost indistinguishable colors, making its maps weak in impact and difficult to read.

There are no maps covering the North American colonial system in the 17th Century. New Netherlands, New Sweden, the New England Federation, Plymouth Colony, and others have disappeared. Coverage for 1700-1800 is spotty at best. Coverage here of World War I and the rise of the Bolshevik empire contains no hint of the American military intervention at Arkhangel'sk and in Siberia. The growth of the U.S. colonial empire in the Pacific (and elsewhere) receives no coverage, although some U.S. colonies appear on some maps. Et cetera.

The choice of textual sections is puzzling. Many are relevant to an atlas, even if nobody bothered to do a map. But others ... well, take a gander at some of the titles: ** Capturing America on Film ** Pictures That Talk ** The Superheroes: Comic Books Take Flight (!!!) ** Integrating Sports ** The Small Screen ** The Internet Takes Off ** Relevant as these may be to an appreciation of American history, their relevance to a Historical Atlas is dubious, to say the least.

This atlas has only 1 map showing Presidential election returns (for 2000). The Hammond atlas rejoices in a complete set from 1790. National Geographic provides an index all of 2 (two!) pages short. American Heritage's index comes to 54!

If you want a GOOD atlas of U.S. history, get the latest edition of the Hammond. That also has a few maps relating to Latin American and Canadian history. The highly useful American Heritage is no doubt available if you can locate one. The new National Geographic entry isn't worth a well-worn farthing, much less what you're actually expected to pay.