The New Yorker: Why Abraham Lincoln Loved Infographics

A (too) short, intriguing piece on the early history of infographics and data mapping:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/why-abraham-lincoln-loved-infographics.html

As a consequence of the way our brains perceive our surroundings, we humans are visual creatures with a knack for finding patterns (sometimes even where they don't exist, hence conspiracy theories!). It's easy to see why infographics would appeal to those of us trying to make sense of large amounts of information, like leaders considering their constituencies and commanders looking over battlefields. I'd wager that infographics first came about in the late 1700s not because of any lack of interest in the format, but rather because it was significantly more difficult to gather the data necessary to populate them! Once there were more reliable and timely reports of populations, troop movements, &c., it seems inevitable that somebody would have had the notion to display the information in a visually succinct fashion.

The Civil War, by virtue of its chronological place in history, was the first major American engagement after the advent of proper infographics; it stands to reason that Lincoln would have been delighted with this useful new instrument at his disposal. It's also worthwhile to note that the Union Army would have been leaps and bounds ahead of the Confederates in its ability to gather the type of data best suited to infographics. Not only did the North have access to decades of records, it also had by far more extensive postal and transportation systems. Lincoln's maps and charts would have been significantly more comprehensive than what Jefferson Davis had.

Lincoln's extremely detailed slave population map

These days, we have precisely the opposite problem. Information is much easier to come by -- so much so that we're constantly inundated by facts and figures in the news. Infographics have become, rather than a tool for aggregation, a tool for selection and analysis. (This is, of course, aided by technologies unfathomable in Lincoln's time.) We like charts and graphs because they speak to that ancient part of our brains that latches onto patterns, turning the night sky into constellations and the landscape into mythology. They shape a flood of information into a cohesive narrative -- and narrative is essential to how humans define who we are and how we fit into this universe.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Washington Post: Interactive Civil War Map

The Washington Post posted a bunch of articles and things about the American Civil War, in honor of the 150th anniversary of the war. This is one of the coolest of the lot:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/lifestyle/special/civil-war-interactive/civil-war-battles-and-casualties-interactive-map/

The design of the thing is sheer brilliance. Hit the play button to really get a sense of the progression of the war. Even though the map doesn't show them, you can sort of follow troop movements based on the shifting locations of major battles. I wish it had a way of indicating the generals involved on each side, but that would probably make the thing a little too complicated and unwieldy.

NYTimes: Disunion (A Blog Series)

Every so often, The New York Times runs an extended blog series on a particular subject, usually something very interesting and slightly off the beaten track. I recently found this one, and I think it's brilliant:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/disunion/ 

It's about the American Civil War, it's wonderfully written and analyzed, and of course, I would find it interesting. I'm more of a European history person than an American one, generally, but I'm enough of a history buff not to be choosy. The Civil War is one of my favorite periods in US history; I think I've been interested in it ever since I read The Killer Angels almost a decade ago. (It's a really great book; if you haven't read it, you should.) I think the Civil War (and that book) is probably the conflict that really taught me about shades of grey (Robert E. Lee, tragic antihero, for certain definitions of the term, and possibly my favorite American general of all time), a concept I've applied to literary analysis ever since.

And then, several years back, I read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, another truly excellent book, and the one which cemented Lincoln in my mind as my favorite US president ever (yes, I have favorite US presidents -- and so?). It's on my Kindle, and I still reread parts of it from time to time. Especially Lincoln's speeches; I have those bookmarked. The man was a genius, I tell you.

Anyhow, read the blog; it's quite good.

NYTimes: Centuries-Old Rifles See Use in Afghanistan

Apologies for disappearing for a week; finals happened. Anyhow...

I've always had a certain fascination with antique weaponry. My area of interest lies more in pre-modern weaponry (before guns, or at least, not much later than the arquebus), but this is pretty interesting:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/rifles-of-advanced-age-remain-in-use-in-afghanistan

They're using Civil War-era rifles! And they still work!

And the Martini-Henries! I'm sad, though not especially surprised, that they've fallen into such disrepair, though. Old rifles (of the Civil War era) tend to be finicky to maintain, I've heard, if they actually see use.

And the comment at the end about firearms and ammunition being a system is very true -- you see it in ballistae and their bolts, too, though of course, ballistae bolts are easier to modify to fit.