![necessities of the hour, which was Protection without Reconstruction, and it sends
back another which is Reconstruction without Protection.” Concurrence was
refused, and a committee of conference asked. The Senate insisting, and declining
the proposed conference, the House proceeded alone, supplementing the
Reconstruction provisions with others guarding against Rebel domination,[234]
and
crowning their work with the emphatic vote of 128 Yeas to 46 Nays. To this vote
the Senate yielded, by a concurrent vote of Yeas 35, Nays 7,—with “the effect,” as
announced, “of passing the bill.” Mr. Sumner, hailing these amendments as what
he had required, of course voted with the Yeas,—and his name so stands on both
of the official registers, in immediate conjunction with Mr. Trumbull’s.[235]
This was
on the 20th of February. The vote consequent upon the Veto was ten days later,
when his name was again recorded with the Yeas.[236]
These two were the only
votes in the Senate on the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, in the
completeness of its provisions, as it appears in the Statute-Book.[237]
February 10th, 1870, the bill for the admission of Mississippi having come up for
consideration in the Senate, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, availed himself of the
opportunity to reopen the personal controversy with Mr. Sumner, in an acrimonious
speech denying his claim to the authorship of the provision for colored suffrage in
the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and ascribing it to Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, a
member of the other House,—quoting Mr. Sumner’s opening declaration on this
point, but resisting the reading of what followed in explanation and support of that
declaration, under the plea that “he did not want it printed as part of his own
speech.”[238]
On the conclusion of Mr. Stewart’s speech, Mr. Sumner answered as follows:—
Mr. President,—You will bear witness that I am no volunteer now. I
have been no volunteer on any of these recurring occasions when I
have been assailed in this Chamber. I have begun no question. I
began no question with the Senator from Nevada. I began no
question with the other Senator on my right [Mr. Trumbull]. I began
no question yesterday with the Senator from New York [Mr.
Conkling].[239]
I began no question, either, with the Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. Carpenter].[240]
But I am here to answer; and I begin
by asking to have read at the desk what I did say, and what the
Senator from Nevada was unwilling, as he declared, to have
incorporated in his speech. I can understand that he was very
unwilling. I send the passage to the Chair.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-51-320.jpg)
![The passage referred to, embracing the first three paragraphs of Mr. Sumner’s
statement in answer to Mr. Trumbull, January 21st,[241]
having been read, he
proceeded:—
That statement is to the effect that on my motion that important
proposition was put into the bill. Does anybody question it? Has the
impeachment of the Senator to-day impaired that statement by a
hair’s-breadth? He shows that in another part of this Capitol patriot
Representatives were striving in the same direction. All honor to
them! God forbid that I should ever grudge to any of my associates
in this great controversy any of the fame that belongs to them!
There is enough for all, provided we have been faithful. Sir, it is not
in my nature to take from any one credit, character, fame, to which
he is justly entitled. The world is wide enough for all. Let each enjoy
what he has earned. I ask nothing for myself. I asked nothing the
other day; what I said was only in reply to the impeachment, the
arraignment let me call it, by the Senator from Illinois.
I then simply said it was on my motion that this identical
requirement went into the bill. The Senator, in reply, seeks to show
that in the other Chamber a similar proposition was brought forward;
but it did not become a part of the bill. He shows that it was brought
forward in this Chamber, but did not become a part of the bill. It was
on my motion that it did become a part of the bill. It was not
unnatural, perhaps, that I should go further, as I did, and say that in
making this motion I only acted in harmony with my life and best
exertions for years. I have the whole record here. Shall I open it? I
hesitate. In doing so I break a vow with myself. And yet it cannot be
necessary. You know me in this Chamber; you know how I have
devoted myself from the beginning to this idea, how constantly I
have maintained it and urged it from the earliest date.
The first stage in this series—you [Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, in
the chair] remember it; you were here; the Senator from Nevada](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-52-320.jpg)
![was not here—goes to February 11, 1862, when
“Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions declaratory of the
relations between the United States and the territory
once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by
pretended governments without constitutional or legal
right.”
In these resolutions it is declared, that, after an act of secession
followed by war,
“The territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of
Congress, as other territory, and the State becomes,
according to the language of the law, felo de se.”
The resolutions conclude as follows:—
“And that, in pursuance of this duty cast upon
Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution,
Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such
vacated territory where such unconstitutional and
illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to
establish therein republican forms of government
under the Constitution, and, in the execution of this
trust, will provide carefully for the protection of all the
inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the
organization of labor, the encouragement of industry,
and the welfare of society, and will in every way
discharge the duties of a just, merciful, and paternal
government.”[242]
Sir, there was the beginning of Reconstruction in this Chamber.
That was its earliest expression.
On the 8th of February, 1864, it appears that
“Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions defining the
character of the national contest, and protesting](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-53-320.jpg)
![against any premature restoration of Rebel States
without proper guaranties and safeguards against
Slavery and for the protection of freedmen.”[243]
And on the same day it appears that he submitted the following
Amendment to the Constitution, which, had it been adopted then,
would have cured many of the difficulties that have since occurred,
entitled—
“Amendment of the Constitution, securing Equality
before the Law and the Abolition of Slavery.”
It is as follows:—
“All persons are equal before the law, so that no
person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress
shall have power to make all laws necessary and
proper to carry this declaration into effect everywhere
within the United States and the jurisdiction
thereof.”[244]
There, Sir, was the beginning of Civil-Rights Bills and Political-
Rights Bills. On the same day it appears that Mr. Sumner introduced
into the Senate “A bill to secure equality before the law in the courts
of the United States.”[245]
The debate went on. On the 25th of February, 1865, a resolution
of the Judiciary Committee was pending, recognizing the State
Government of Louisiana. Mr. Sumner on that day introduced
resolutions thus entitled:—
“Resolutions declaring the duty of the United States
to guaranty Republican Governments in the Rebel
States on the basis of the Declaration of
Independence, so that the new governments”—
that is, the reconstructed governments—](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-54-320.jpg)
![“shall be founded on the consent of the governed and
the equality of all persons before the law.”
Of this series of resolutions I will read two.
“That the path of justice is also the path of peace;
and that for the sake of peace it is better to obey the
Constitution, and, in conformity with its requirements,
in the performance of the guaranty, to reëstablish
State governments on the consent of the governed
and the equality of all persons before the law, to the
end that the foundations thereof may be permanent,
and that no loyal majorities may be again overthrown
or ruled by any oligarchical class.”
Then comes another resolution:—
“That considerations of expediency are in harmony
with the requirements of the Constitution and the
dictates of justice and reason, especially now, when
colored soldiers have shown their military value; that,
as their muskets are needed for the national defence
against Rebels in the field, so are their ballots yet more
needed against the subtle enemies of the Union at
home; and that without their support at the ballot-box
the cause of Human Rights and of the Union itself will
be in constant peril.”[246]
On the resolution reported by the Senator from Illinois for the
admission of Louisiana without Equal Rights, I had the honor of
moving the very proposition now in question, under date of February
25, 1865:—
“Provided, That this shall not take effect, except
upon the fundamental condition that within the State
there shall be no denial of the electoral franchise or of
any other rights on account of color or race, but all
persons shall be equal before the law.”[247]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-55-320.jpg)
![Here was the first motion in this Chamber for equality of suffrage
as a measure of Reconstruction. I entitled it at the time “the corner-
stone of Reconstruction.” But here, Sir, it was my misfortune to
encounter the strenuous opposition of the Senator from Illinois. I
allude to this with reluctance; I have not opened this debate; and I
quote what I do now simply in reply to the Senator from Nevada.
Replying on that occasion to the Senator from Illinois, I said:—
“The United States are bound by the Constitution to
‘guaranty to every State in this Union a republican
form of government.’ Now, when called to perform this
guaranty, it is proposed to recognize an oligarchy of
the skin. The pretended State government in Louisiana
is utterly indefensible, whether you look at its origin or
its character. To describe it, I must use plain language.
It is a mere seven-months’ abortion, begotten by the
bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of Caste,
and born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished,
whose continued existence will be a burden, a
reproach, and a wrong. That is the whole case; and
yet the Senator from Illinois now presses it upon the
Senate at this moment, to the exclusion of the
important public business of the country.”[248]
The Louisiana Bill, though pressed by the Senator from Illinois,
was defeated; and the equal rights of the colored race were happily
vindicated. His opposition was strenuous.
But, Sir, I did not content myself with action in this Chamber. Our
good President was assassinated. The Vice-President succeeded to
his place. Being here in Washington, I entered at once into relations
with him,—hoping to bring, if possible, his great influence in favor of
this measure of Reconstruction; and here is a record, made shortly
afterward, which I will read.
“During this period I saw the President frequently,—
sometimes at the private house he then occupied, and](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-56-320.jpg)
![sometimes at his office in the Treasury. On these
occasions the constant topic was ‘Reconstruction,’
which was considered in every variety of aspect. More
than once I ventured to press upon him the duty and
the renown of carrying out the principles of the
Declaration of Independence, and of founding the new
governments in the Rebel States on the consent of the
governed, without any distinction of color. To this
earnest appeal he replied, on one occasion, as I sat
with him alone, in words which I can never forget: ‘On
this question, Mr. Sumner, there is no difference
between us: you and I are alike.’ Need I say that I was
touched to the heart by this annunciation, which
seemed to promise a victory without a battle?
Accustomed to controversy, I saw clearly, that, if the
President declared himself in favor of the Equal Rights
of All, the good cause must prevail without
controversy.”[249]
Then followed another incident:—
“On another occasion, during the same period, the
case of Tennessee was discussed. I expressed the
hope most earnestly that the President would use his
influence directly for the establishment of impartial
suffrage in that State,—saying, that, in this way,
Tennessee would be put at the head of the returning
column, and be made an example,—in one word, that
all the other States would be obliged to dress on
Tennessee. The President replied, that, if he were at
Nashville, he would see that this was accomplished. I
could not help rejoining promptly, that he need not be
at Nashville, for at Washington his hand was on the
long end of the lever, with which he could easily move
all Tennessee,—referring, of course, to the powerful,
but legitimate, influence which the President might](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-57-320.jpg)
![exercise in his own State by the expression of his
desires.”[250]
Then, again, as I was about to leave on my return home to
Massachusetts, in an interview with him I ventured to express my
desires and aspirations as follows: this was in May, 1865:—
“After remarking that the Rebel region was still in
military occupation, and that it was the plain duty of
the President to use his temporary power for the
establishment of correct principles, I proceeded to say:
‘First, see to it that no newspaper is allowed which is
not thoroughly loyal and does not speak well of the
National Government and of Equal Rights’; and here I
reminded him of the saying of the Duke of Wellington,
that in a place under martial law an unlicensed press
was as impossible as on the deck of a ship of war.
‘Secondly, let the officers that you send as military
governors or otherwise be known for their devotion to
Equal Rights, so that their names alone will be a
proclamation, while their simple presence will help
educate the people’; and here I mentioned Major-
General Carl Schurz, who still held his commission in
the Army, as such a person. ‘Thirdly, encourage the
population to resume the profitable labors of
agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, without
delay,—but for the present to avoid politics. Fourthly,
keep the whole Rebel region under these good
influences, and at the proper moment hand over the
subject of Reconstruction, with the great question of
Equal Rights, to the judgment of Congress, where it
belongs.’ All this the President received at the time
with perfect kindness; and I mention this with the
more readiness because I remember to have seen in
the papers a very different statement.”[251]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-58-320.jpg)
![Before I left Washington, and in the midst of my interviews with
the President, I was honored by a communication from colored
citizens of North Carolina, asking my counsel with regard to their
rights, especially the right to vote. I will not read their letter,—it was
published in the papers of the time, and much commented upon,—
but I will read my reply.[252]
“Washington, May 13, 1865.
“Gentlemen,—I am glad that the colored citizens of
North Carolina are ready to take part in the
organization of Government. It is unquestionably their
right and duty.
“I see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any
Rebel State, unless the rights of all are recognized,
without distinction of color. On this foundation we must
build.
“The article on Reconstruction to which you call my
attention proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that
persons with a white skin are the only ‘citizens.’ This is
a mistake.
“As you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand
for you to make, I have no hesitation in replying that
you must insist on all the rights and privileges of a
citizen. They belong to you; they are yours; and
whoever undertakes to rob you of them is a usurper
and impostor.
“Of course you will take part in any primary
meetings for political organization open to citizens
generally, and will not miss any opportunity to show
your loyalty and fidelity.
“Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,
faithfully yours,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-59-320.jpg)
![“Charles Sumner.”
Such was my earnestness in this work, that, when invited by the
municipality of Boston, where I was born and have always lived, to
address my fellow-citizens in commemoration of the late President, I
deemed it my duty to dedicate the day mainly to a vindication of
Equal Rights as represented by him. I hold in my hand the address
on that occasion, from which I will read one passage. This was on
the 1st of June, 1865.
“The argument for Colored Suffrage is
overwhelming. It springs from the necessity of the
case, as well as from the Rights of Man. This suffrage
is needed for the security of the colored people, for
the stability of the local government, and for the
strength of the Union. Without it there is nothing but
insecurity for the colored people, instability for the
local government, and weakness for the Union,
involving of course the national credit.”[253]
This was followed by a letter, dated Boston, July 8, 1865,
addressed to the colored people of Savannah, who had done me the
honor of forwarding to me a petition asking for the right to vote,
with the request that I would present it to the President. After
saying, that, had I been at Washington, I should have had great
pleasure in presenting the petition personally, but that I was obliged
to content myself with another method, I proceeded in this way:—
“Allow me to add, that you must not be impatient.
You have borne the heavier burdens of Slavery; and as
these are now removed, believe the others surely will
be also. This enfranchised Republic, setting an
example to mankind, cannot continue to sanction an
odious oligarchy whose single distinctive element is
color. I have no doubt that you will be admitted to the
privileges of citizens.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-60-320.jpg)
![“It is impossible to suppose that Congress will
sanction governments in the Rebel States which are
not founded on ‘the consent of the governed.’ This is
the corner-stone of republican institutions. Of course,
by the ‘governed’ is meant all the loyal citizens,
without distinction of color. Anything else is mockery.
“Never neglect your work; but, meanwhile, prepare
yourselves for the privileges of citizens. They are yours
of right, and I do not doubt that they will be yours
soon in reality. The prejudice of Caste and a false
interpretation of the Constitution cannot prevail
against justice and common sense, both of which are
on your side,—and I may add, the Constitution also,
which, when properly interpreted, is clearly on your
side.
“Accept my best wishes, and believe me, fellow-
citizens, faithfully yours,
“Charles Sumner.”[254]
This was followed by an elaborate speech before the Republican
State Convention at Worcester, September 14, 1865, entitled “The
National Security and the National Faith: Guaranties for the National
Freedman and the National Creditor,”—where I insisted that national
peace and tranquillity could be had only from impartial suffrage; and
I believe that it was on this occasion that this phrase, which has
since become a formula of politics, was first publicly employed. My
language was as follows:—
“As the national peace and tranquillity depend
essentially upon the overthrow of monopoly and
tyranny, here is another occasion for special guaranty
against the whole pretension of color. No Rebel State
can be readmitted with this controversy still raging and
ready to break forth.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-61-320.jpg)
![Mark the words, if you please.
“So long as it continues, the land will be barren,
agriculture and business of all kinds will be uncertain,
and the country will be handed over to a fearful
struggle, with the terrors of San Domingo to darken
the prospect. In shutting out the freedman from his
equal rights at the ballot-box, you open the doors of
discontent and insurrection. Cavaignac, the patriotic
President of the French Republic, met the present
case, when, speaking for France, he said: ‘I do not
believe repose possible, either in the present or the
future, except so far as you found your political
condition on universal suffrage, loyally, sincerely,
completely accepted and observed.’”[255]
I then proceeded,—not adopting the term “universal suffrage,”
employed by the eminent Frenchman,—as follows:—
“It is impartial suffrage that I claim, without
distinction of color, so that there shall be one equal
rule for all men. And this, too, must be placed under
the safeguard of Constitutional Law.”[256]
I followed up this effort by a communication to that powerful and
extensively circulated paper, the New York “Independent,” under
date of Boston, October 29, 1865, where I expressed myself as
follows:—
“For the sake of the whole country, which suffers
from weakness in any part,—for the sake of the States
lately distracted by war, which above all things need
security and repose,—for the sake of agriculture, which
is neglected there,—for the sake of commerce, which
has fled,—for the sake of the national creditor, whose
generous trust is exposed to repudiation,—and, finally,
for the sake of reconciliation, which can be complete](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-62-320.jpg)
![only when justice prevails, we must insist upon Equal
Rights as the condition of the new order of things.”
Mark, if you please, Sir, “as the condition of the new order of
things,”—or, as I called it on other occasions, the corner-stone of
Reconstruction.
“So long as this question remains unsettled, there
can be no true peace. Therefore I would say to the
merchant who wishes to open trade with this region,
to the capitalist who would send his money there, to
the emigrant who seeks to find a home there, Begin by
assuring justice to all men. This is the one essential
condition of prosperity, of credit, and of tranquillity.
Without this, mercantile houses, banks, and emigration
societies having anything to do with this region must
all fail, or at least suffer in business and resources. To
Congress we must look as guardian, under the
Constitution, of the national safety.”[257]
Meanwhile the President adopted a policy of reaction. I was at
home in Massachusetts, and from Boston, under date of November
12, 1865, I addressed him a telegraphic dispatch, as follows:—
“To the President of the United States, Washington.
“As a faithful friend and supporter of your
administration, I most respectfully petition you to
suspend for the present your policy towards the Rebel
States. I should not present this prayer, if I were not
painfully convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain
any reasonable guaranties for that security in the
future which is essential to peace and reconciliation. To
my mind, it abandons the freedmen to the control of
their ancient masters, and leaves the national debt
exposed to repudiation by returning Rebels. The
Declaration of Independence asserts the equality of all](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-63-320.jpg)
![men, and that rightful government can be founded
only on the consent of the governed. I see small
chance of peace, unless these great principles are
practically established. Without this the house will
continue divided against itself.
“Charles Sumner,
“Senator of the United States.”[258]
Not content with these efforts, in an article more literary than
political in its character, which found a place in the “Atlantic Monthly”
for December, 1865, entitled, “Clemency and Common Sense: a
Curiosity of Literature, with a Moral,” I again returned to this same
question. I will quote only a brief passage.
“Again, we are told gravely that the national power
which decreed Emancipation cannot maintain it by
assuring universal enfranchisement, because an
imperial government must be discountenanced,—as if
the whole suggestion of ‘Imperialism’ or ‘Centralism’
were not out of place, until the national security is
established, and our debts, whether to the national
freedman or the national creditor, are placed where
they cannot be repudiated. A phantom is created, and,
to avoid this phantom, we drive towards concession
and compromise, as from Charybdis to Scylla.”[259]
The session of Congress opened December 4, 1865, and you will
find that on the first day I introduced two distinct measures of
Reconstruction, with Equality before the Law as their corner-stone.
The first was a bill in the following terms:—
“A Bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican
form of government in the Constitution of the United
States.
“Whereas it is declared in the Constitution that the
United States shall guaranty to every State in this](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-64-320.jpg)
![Union a republican form of government; and whereas
certain States have allowed their governments to be
subverted by rebellion, so that the duty is now cast
upon Congress of executing this guaranty: Now,
therefore,
“Be it enacted, c., That in all States lately declared
to be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy invested
with peculiar privileges and powers, and there shall be
no denial of rights, civil or political, on account of race
or color; but all persons shall be equal before the law,
whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box. And
this statute, made in pursuance of the Constitution,
shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any such State to the contrary
notwithstanding.”[260]
The second was “A Bill to enforce the guaranty of a republican
form of government in certain States whose governments have been
usurped or overthrown.”[261]
Read this bill, if you please, Sir. I
challenge criticism of it at this date, in the light of all our present
experience. It is in twelve sections, and you will find in it the very
proposition which is now in question,—being the requirement of
Equal Rights for All in the reconstruction of the Rebel States.
“Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the
delegates”—
that is, the delegates to the Convention for the reëstablishment of a
State government—
“shall be elected by the loyal male citizens of the
United States, of the age of twenty-one years, and
resident at the time in the county, parish, or district in
which they shall offer to vote, and enrolled as
aforesaid, or absent in the military service of the
United States.”[262]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-65-320.jpg)
![And then the bill proceeds to provide,—
“Sec. 8. … That the Convention shall declare, on
behalf of the people of the State, their submission to
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and
shall adopt the following provisions, hereby prescribed
by the United States in the execution of the
constitutional duty to guaranty a republican form of
government to every State, and incorporate them in
the Constitution of the State: that is to say:—”
After one—two—three—four provisions, the section proceeds as
follows:—
“Fifthly, There shall be no distinction among the
inhabitants of this State founded on race, former
condition, or color. Every such inhabitant shall be
entitled to all the privileges before the law enjoyed by
the most favored class of such inhabitants.”
And the section concludes:—
“Sixthly, These provisions shall be perpetual, not to
be abolished or changed hereafter.”[263]
Nor is this all. On the same day I introduced “A Bill supplying
appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to the Constitution
prohibiting Slavery,”[264]
of which I will read the third section:—
“That, in further enforcement of the provision of the
Constitution prohibiting Slavery, and in order to
remove all relics of this wrong from the States where
this constitutional prohibition takes effect, it is hereby
declared that all laws or customs in such States,
establishing any oligarchical privileges, and any
distinction of rights on account of race or color, are
hereby annulled, and all persons in such States are
recognized as equal before the law; and the penalties](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-66-320.jpg)
![provided in the last section are hereby made applicable
to any violation of this provision, which is made in
pursuance of the Constitution of the United States.”[265]
Still further, on the same day I introduced “Resolutions declaratory
of the duty of Congress in respect to guaranties of the national
security and the national faith in the Rebel States.” One of these
guaranties which I proposed to establish was as follows:—
“The complete suppression of all oligarchical
pretensions, and the complete enfranchisement of all
citizens, so that there shall be no denial of rights on
account of color or race; but justice shall be impartial,
and all shall be equal before the law.”
I added also a provision which I was unable to carry,—it was lost
by a tie vote,—as follows:—
“The organization of an educational system for the
equal benefit of all, without distinction of color or
race.”[266]
Such, Sir, were the measures which I had the honor of bringing
forward at the very beginning of the session. During the same
session, in an elaborate effort which occupied two days, February 5
and 6, 1866, and is entitled “The Equal Rights of All: the great
Guaranty and present Necessity, for the sake of Security, and to
maintain a Republican Government,” I vindicated the necessity of the
colored suffrage in order to obtain peace and reconciliation, and I
placed it on the foundations of Constitutional Law as well as natural
justice. Here is a passage from this speech:—
“And here, after this long review, I am brought back
to more general considerations, and end as I began,
by showing the necessity of Enfranchisement for the
sake of public security and public faith. I plead now for
the ballot, as the great guaranty, and the only
sufficient guaranty,—being in itself peacemaker,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-67-320.jpg)
![reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector,—to which we
are bound by every necessity and every reason; and I
speak also for the good of the States lately in rebellion,
as well as for the glory and safety of the Republic, that
it may be an example to mankind.”
The speech closed as follows:—
“The Roman Cato, after declaring his belief in the
immortality of the soul, added, that, if this were an
error, it was an error he loved. And now, declaring my
belief in Liberty and Equality as the God-given
birthright of all men, let me say, in the same spirit, if
this be an error, it is an error I love,—if this be a fault,
it is a fault I shall be slow to renounce,—if this be an
illusion, it is an illusion which I pray may wrap the
world in its angelic forms.”[267]
The discussion still proceeded, and only a month later, March 7,
1866, I made another elaborate effort with the same object, from
which I read my constant testimony:—
“I do not stop to exhibit the elective franchise as
essential to the security of the freedman, without
which he will be the prey of Slavery in some new form,
and cannot rise to the stature of manhood. In opening
this debate I presented the argument fully. Suffice it to
say that Emancipation will fail in beneficence, if you do
not assure to the former slave all the rights of the
citizen. Until you do this, your work will be only half
done, and the freedman only half a man.”
This speech closed as follows:—
“Recall the precious words of the early English
writer, who, describing ‘the Good Sea-Captain,’ tells us
that he ‘counts the image of God nevertheless His
image, cut in ebony, as if done in ivory.’[268]
The good](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-68-320.jpg)
![statesman must be like the good sea-captain. His ship
is the State, which he keeps safe on its track. He, too,
must see the image of God in all his fellow-men, and,
in the discharge of his responsible duties, must set his
face forever against any recognition of inequality in
human rights. Other things you may do, but this you
must not do.”[269]
I do not quote other efforts, other speeches, but pass to the next
session of Congress, when, at the beginning, under date of
December 5, 1866, I introduced resolutions thus entitled:—
“Resolutions declaring the true principles of
Reconstruction, the jurisdiction of Congress over the
whole subject, the illegality of existing governments in
the Rebel States, and the exclusion of such States with
such illegal governments from representation in
Congress and from voting on Constitutional
Amendments.”
Of these resolutions the fourth is as follows:—
“That, in determining what is a republican form of
government, Congress must follow implicitly the
definition supplied by the Declaration of
Independence, and, in the practical application of this
definition, it must, after excluding all disloyal persons,
take care that new governments are founded on the
two fundamental truths therein contained: first, that all
men are equal in rights; and, secondly, that all just
government stands only on the consent of the
governed.”[270]
Meanwhile the subject of Reconstruction was practically discussed
in both Houses of Congress. In this Chamber a bill was introduced
by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Williams], providing a military
government. In the House there was another bill, and on that bill](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-69-320.jpg)
![use too strong language, when he said that then and there, in that
small room, in that caucus, was decided the greatest pending
question on the North American Continent. I remember his delight,
his ecstasy, at the result. I remember other language that he
employed on that occasion, which I do not quote. I know he was
elevated by the triumph; and yet it was carried only by two votes.
There are Senators who were present at that caucus according to
whose recollection it was carried only by one vote. The Postmaster-
General, in conversing with me on this subject lately, told me that he
had often, in addressing his constituents, alluded to this result as
illustrating the importance of one vote in deciding a great question.
The Postmaster-General was in error. It was not by one vote, but by
two votes, that it was carried.
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, following with personal recollections concerning the
provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, said it was his
“impression” that the motion for its adoption “in caucus” was made by “the
Senator’s colleague [Mr. Wilson],” “but undoubtedly the other Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] made it in committee, and advocated it,”—adding,
however, “Neither the Senator from Massachusetts nor any other Senator can
claim any great merit in voting for universal suffrage in February or March, 1867.
His record was made long before that.” In reference to the latter Mr. Sherman
remarked:—
“The Senator from Massachusetts needs no defender of his
course on the question of universal suffrage. No man can deny
that from the first, and I think the very first, he has advocated
and maintained the necessity of giving to the colored people of
the Southern States the right to vote.… Early and late he has
repeated to us the necessity of conferring suffrage upon the
colored people of the South as the basis of Reconstruction. I
think, therefore, that he is justified in stating that he was the first
to propose it in this body; and why should the Senator deem it
necessary to spend one hour of our valuable time now to prove
this fact? In my judgment it would be just as well for George
Washington to defend himself against the charge of disloyalty to
the American Colonies, for whom he was fighting, as for the
honorable Senator to defend his record on this question.”
After further remarks by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Trumbull, of the same character as
the first, Mr. Wilson rose and addressed the Chair; but a previous motion for](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-71-320.jpg)
![FOOTNOTES
[1] Wordsworth, The Excursion, Book IV. 1293-5.
[2] Speech on the Bill for the Admission of Nebraska, January
15, 1867: Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 478.
[3] “Non hoc præcipuum amicorum munus est, prosequi
defunctum ignavo questu, sed quæ voluerit meminisse, quæ
mandaverit exsequi.”—Tacitus, Annalia, Lib. II. cap. 71.
[4] Senate Reports, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 128.
[5] Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 3.
[6] Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 7.
[7] Letter to Mr. Hammond, May 29, 1792: Writings, Vol. III. p.
369.
[8] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 9, § 168.
[9] Law of Nations, pp. 138, 139.
[10] Coleridge, The Piccolomini, Act I. Scene 4.
[11] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 18, §§ 293-5.
[12] Prize Cases: 2 Black, R., 674.
[13] Mrs. Alexander’s Cotton: 2 Wallace, R., 419.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 15, § 232.
[16] Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,)
pp. 305-6.
[17] Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,)
p. 304.
[18] Secretary Marcy to General Taylor, Sept. 22, 1846:
Executive Documents, 30th Cong. 1st Sess., Senate. No. 1, p.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-73-320.jpg)
![564.
[19] International Law, Ch. XIX. § 17.
[20] Vol. XI. p. 169, note.
[21] Alison, History of Europe, (Edinburgh, 1843,) Vol. IX. p.
880.
[22] Letter to Lieut. Gen. Sir John Hope, Oct. 8, 1813:
Dispatches, Vol. XI. pp. 169-170.
[23] Sabine, Loyalists of the American Revolution, (Boston,
1864,) Vol. I. p. 112.
[24] Debate in the House of Commons, on the Compensation
to the American Loyalists, June 6, 1788: Hansard’s Parliamentary
History, Vol. XXVII. col. 610.
[25] Ibid., col. 614.
[26] Ibid., col. 616.
[27] Ibid., col. 617.
[28] American State Papers: Claims, p. 198.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid., p. 199.
[31] House Reports, 1830-1, No. 68; 1831-2, No. 88; 1832-3,
No. 11. Act, March 2, 1833: Private Laws, p. 546.
[32] American State Papers: Claims, p. 446. Act, March 1,
1815: Private Laws, p. 151.
[33] American State Papers: Claims, p. 444. Act, February 27,
1815: Private Laws, p. 150.
[34] American State Papers: Claims, p. 462.
[35] American State Papers: Claims, p. 521. Acts, March 3,
1817: Private Laws, pp. 194, 187.
[36] American State Papers: Claims, pp. 521, 522. Annals of
Congress, 14th Cong. 2d Sess., coll. 215, 1036.
[37] American State Papers: Claims, p. 835. Annals of
Congress, 17th Cong. 1st Sess., col. 311.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-74-320.jpg)
![[38] Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. 263.
[39] American State Papers: Claims, p. 590.
[40] Ibid.
[41] January 14th, Mr. Wilson moved, as an amendment to the
pending bill, a substitute providing for the appointment of
“commissioners to examine and report all claims for
quartermasters’ stores and subsistence supplies furnished the
military forces of the United States, during the late civil war, by
loyal persons in the States lately in rebellion.”—Congressional
Globe, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 359.
[42] Speech in the House of Commons, January 14, 1766:
Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XVI. col. 104.
[43] Speeches in the Senate on “Political Equality without
Distinction of Color,” March 7, 1866, and the “Validity and
Necessity of Fundamental Conditions on States,” June 10, 1868:
Ante, Vol. XIII. pp. 307-9; Vol. XVI. pp. 246-9.
[44] Chap. XXV., Title.
[45] Chap. XXIX.
[46] Speech in the Senate, February 5 and 6, 1866: Ante, Vol.
X. p. 184.
[47] The Federalist, No. LIV., by Alexander Hamilton.—
Concerning the authorship of this paper, see the Historical Notice,
by J. C. Hamilton, pp. xcv-cvi, and cxix-cxxvii, prefixed to his
edition of the Federalist (Philadelphia, 1864).
[48] Elliot’s Debates, (2d edit.,) Vol. III. p. 367.
[49] 19 Howard, R., 476.
[50] M’Culloch v. State of Maryland: 4 Wheaton, R., 408-21.
[51] For the full text of the Convention, see Parliamentary
Papers, 1868-9, Vol. LXIII.,—North America, No. 1, pp. 36-38;
Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 11,—
Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III.
pp. 752-5.
[52] A term applied in England to the Ashburton Treaty,—and
Lord Palmerston thought “most properly.”—Debate in the House](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-75-320.jpg)
![of Commons, February 2, 1843: Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. LXVI. coll.
87, 121, 127.
[53] Stapleton’s Political Life of Canning, (London, 1831,) Vol.
II. p. 408. Speech of Lord John Russell in the House of Commons,
May 6, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol.
CLXII. col. 1566.
[54] Speech in the House of Lords, May 16, 1861: Hansard’s
Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 2084.
[55] On Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals,
(London, 1859,) p. 75. See also pp. 59, 65-67.
[56] Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain,
Vol. I. pp. 21-22: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 1st Sess.,
Senate, No. 11.
[57] Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations
Neutres, (2ème Édit., Paris, 1858,) Tit. IX. chap. 7. Parliamentary
Papers, 1837, Vol. LIV.; 1837-8, Vol. LII.
[58] Le Droit International Public de l’Europe, (Berlin et Paris,
1857,) §§ 112, 121.
[59] Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, July 24, 1862: Correspondence
concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 26, 29.
[60] Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, March 27, 1863: Parliamentary
Papers, 1864, Vol. LXII.,—North America, No. I. pp. 2, 3. Speech
in the House of Lords, February 16, 1864: Hansard’s
Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXIII. coll. 632, 633.
[61] Deposition of William Passmore, July 21, 1862,—in Note of
Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, July 22, 1862: Correspondence
concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 25-26.
[62] Schedule annexed to Deposition of John Latham, in Note
of Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, January 13, 1864: Ibid., Vol. III. pp.
213-16.
[63] Speech in the House of Commons, March 27, 1863:
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXX. coll. 71-72;
The Times (London), March 28, 1863.
[64] Circular of May 11, 1841,—inclosing Circular to British
functionaries abroad, dated May 8, 1841, together with a](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/62172-250413030653-930bdcda/85/Systems-Mapping-How-to-build-and-use-causal-models-of-systems-Pete-Barbrook-Johnson-76-320.jpg)
Systems Mapping, How to build and use causal models of systems Pete Barbrook-Johnson
- 1. Download the full version and explore a variety of ebooks or textbooks at https://ebookmass.com Systems Mapping, How to build and use causal models of systems Pete Barbrook-Johnson _____ Follow the link below to get your download now _____ https://ebookmass.com/product/systems-mapping-how-to-build- and-use-causal-models-of-systems-pete-barbrook-johnson/ Access ebookmass.com now to download high-quality ebooks or textbooks
- 2. Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to download, or explore more at ebookmass.com Quantitative systems pharmacology : models and model-based systems with applications Davide Manca https://ebookmass.com/product/quantitative-systems-pharmacology- models-and-model-based-systems-with-applications-davide-manca/ System Architecture and Complexity Vol. 2: Contribution of Systems of Systems to Systems Thinking Printz https://ebookmass.com/product/system-architecture-and-complexity- vol-2-contribution-of-systems-of-systems-to-systems-thinking-printz/ Next Level Sales Coaching: How to Build a Sales Team That Stays, Sells, and Succeeds Steve Johnson https://ebookmass.com/product/next-level-sales-coaching-how-to-build- a-sales-team-that-stays-sells-and-succeeds-steve-johnson/ Securing Systems: Applied Security Architecture and Threat Models – Ebook PDF Version https://ebookmass.com/product/securing-systems-applied-security- architecture-and-threat-models-ebook-pdf-version/
- 3. Classification Made Relevant: How Scientists Build and Use Classifications and Ontologies 1st Edition Jules J. Berman https://ebookmass.com/product/classification-made-relevant-how- scientists-build-and-use-classifications-and-ontologies-1st-edition- jules-j-berman/ Intelligent Data Mining and Analysis in Power and Energy Systems : Models and Applications for Smarter Efficient Power Systems 1st Edition Zita A. Vale https://ebookmass.com/product/intelligent-data-mining-and-analysis-in- power-and-energy-systems-models-and-applications-for-smarter- efficient-power-systems-1st-edition-zita-a-vale/ Computational Frameworks. Systems, Models and Applications 1st Edition Edition Mamadou Kaba Traore (Eds.) https://ebookmass.com/product/computational-frameworks-systems-models- and-applications-1st-edition-edition-mamadou-kaba-traore-eds/ The Systems Work of Social Change : How to Harness Connection, Context, and Power to Cultivate Deep and Enduring Change Cynthia Rayner https://ebookmass.com/product/the-systems-work-of-social-change-how- to-harness-connection-context-and-power-to-cultivate-deep-and- enduring-change-cynthia-rayner/ Soil Mapping and Process Modeling for Sustainable Land Use Management 1st Edition Edition Paulo Pereira https://ebookmass.com/product/soil-mapping-and-process-modeling-for- sustainable-land-use-management-1st-edition-edition-paulo-pereira/
- 5. Systems Mapping How to build and use causal models of systems Pete Barbrook-Johnson Alexandra S. Penn
- 6. “Just about everywhere you look there are examples of interconnected networks of nodes, whether they be causal factors, people, organisms, or actors. The dynamic relationships between these define everything from how ecosystems function to political, social and financial networks. They are the stuff of both Nature and Society, and they often display complex, non-linear behaviour. If we are ever to be able to constructively manage these systems, we first need to be able to define their state and this involves a process of system mapping. This book is a welcome practi- cal guide to the ways in which it is possible to map systems. Anybody who manages systems—and that involves almost all of us—will benefit from the insights pro- vided in this book.” —Professor Sir Ian Boyd FRS, Professor of Biology (University of St Andrews) and former Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra “Those of us engaged with the complexity frame of reference in science have long recognized the need for the development of methods which put it to work. This is not just or even primarily for scientific investigation but even more importantly for addressing the interwoven social and environmental challenges facing us—crises is not too strong a word—and developing policy and practice to get things that have to be done, done. Systems mapping is a developing set of techniques, participa- tory/co-production in character, which provide ways of doing just that. The authors of this book, drawing on a long experience of practice informed by com- plexity thinking, give us what is not only a well thought out account of the approaches but also a practical manual for using them. Systems mapping is a com- bination of science, art and practical skill. It has enormous potential and this book will play an important part in getting people to use it and use it well.” —Professor David Byrne FAcSS, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Applied Social Science (Durham University) “I thought I knew a thing or two about system diagrams … I now know an awful lot more. More importantly, I know I’m in safe hands when authors write about their own experiences so openly and freely. So it is here in this excellent, accessible, practical, readable and comprehensive book. I felt like I was being taken on a jour- ney with a really committed and experienced set of tour guides.” —Bob Williams; Author of System Diagrams; a Practical Guide. https://gum.co/systemdiagrams Systems Mapping
- 7. “‘Systems Mapping: how to build and use causal models of systems’ says it all. If you want to understand, in very pragmatic and practical ways, what this approach is all about and how to use it, then this is the book for you. Written by two of the leading experts in the field, Systems Mapping is based on the valuable lessons they have learned over the years—including which techniques work (or do not work) for a given situa- tion and how and why, which is massively helpful. While systems mapping tools are easy to run, co-producing a system map in practical, actionable, and participatory ways can be challenging at times, and rightly so—their purpose is to help us, as stakeholders, come to some agreement on how best to understand and improve the complex sys- tems problems we presently face, from the environment and economy to government and public policy. I highly recommend this book and will use it in my classes and policy evaluation workshops, as it offers a powerful approach for making sense of today’s complexity, but in a way that differs from and yet adds to the existing repertoire of computational, statistical, historical, and qualitative methods.” —Professor Brian Castellani, PhD, FAcSS, Director of the Durham Research Methods Centre and Co-Director of the Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing, Durham University “Pete Barbrook-Johnson and Alex Penn have written the right book at the right time; finding their moment as the demand grows for making sense of pervasive complexity. The book is intensely pragmatic, informed by practitioners who have been ‘swimming in shark-infested waters’ as they describe it. The reader is eased in with welcome clarity and honesty, teeing up seven accessible method-specific chap- ters. Three further cross-cutting issues chapters treat the reader to wholly prag- matic insights on data and evidence; running a mapping process; and comparing, choosing and combining methods to suit the situation. Throughout the book, the authors make clear that systems mapping must, above all, be useful. This book clearly achieves that standard and will create durable value.” —Gary Kass, Deputy Chief Scientist, Natural England; Visiting Professor, Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey; Vice-President, Institution of Environmental Sciences “Over the last few decades, there has been a major shift in policy thinking towards accepting that the social and economic world is not like a machine following a predictable path, but is complex, with feedback, tipping points and adaptation. With this has come an increasing need for better ways to understand social, eco- nomic and political systems as a whole. One of these ways is system mapping, but until now there has not been a comprehensive and easily understood guide about how to do it. This book is pioneering in bringing together a wide range of system mapping techniques, explaining with great clarity how they can be used and where each of them is appropriate. I congratulate the authors on writing a book that will be an invaluable guide for everyone interested in understanding a complex world.” —Professor Nigel Gilbert CBE, ScD, FREng, FAcSS, Professor of Sociology, University of Surrey. Director of the Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN)
- 8. Pete Barbrook-Johnson • Alexandra S. Penn Systems Mapping How to build and use causal models of systems
- 9. ISBN 978-3-031-01833-6 ISBN 978-3-031-01919-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01919-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Pete Barbrook-Johnson School of Geography and the Environment University of Oxford Oxford, UK Alexandra S. Penn Department of Sociology University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey, UK
- 10. v Pete would like to thank colleagues at CECAN and the University of Surrey, especially Alex, for the intellectual encouragement, stimulus, and support to pursue research on and using systems mapping. He would also like to thank colleagues at the Institute for New Economic Thinking and the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford for the encouragement and freedom to continue this line of research and for time to work on this book. Finally, he would like to thank Jen, Billy, Mart, and Doug for their love and support, and dedicates his part of this book to them. Alex would like to thank all colleagues, especially project partners and workshop participants, who have helped to develop our thinking on PSM and system mapping in general within the discipline of practice. In par- ticular, Martha Bicket, Jean Davies, Adam Hejnowicz, Caitlin Jones, Verena Knerich, Chris Knight, Fran Rowe, Helen Wilkinson, Anna Rios- Wilks, and Beth Wills. Particular thanks also go to Kasper Kok for intro- ducing Alex to system mapping, being such a generous collaborator, and exemplifying the participatory spirit! Thanks go to Colin for humour, sup- port, and wise advice. And most particularly to Pete for his enthusiasm, energy, intellect, and friendship over not just this project but many years of collaboration. We would both like to thank CECAN Ltd (www.cecan.co.uk), the consultancy- arm of CECAN, and especially Nigel Gilbert, for generous financial support towards producing this book. Finally, we would like to thank Dione Hills and Helen Wilkinson (ToC), Philippe Vandenbroeck (CLD), Simon Henderson and Stuart Acknowledgements
- 11. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Astill (BBN), Stephen Morse (RP), Kasper Kok (FCM), and Birgit Kopainsky (SD) specifically for the illuminating conversations they held with us about the methods in this book. We hope to release these conver- sations as podcasts/interviews via CECAN in the coming months. They all gave their time, expertise, and experience so generously. This book would not have been possible without them. Their openness stands as a real testament to the values and worldview which underpin participatory modelling approaches.
- 12. vii There is a growing need in a range of social, environmental, and policy challenges for a richer more nuanced, yet actionable and participatory, understanding of the world. Complexity science and systems thinking offer us hope in meeting this need, but in the past have often only offered either (i) highly technical ‘black-box’ modelling, (ii) appealing metaphors and language which don’t directly lead to action, or (iii) overwhelming and paralysing complexity. Systems mapping is a front runner in meeting this need, providing a key starting point and general-purpose resource for understanding complex adaptive systems in practical, actionable, and participatory ways. However, there is confusion about terms and methods, an underappreciation of the value they can bring, and a fundamental underestimation of the differ- ences between approaches and the resulting outputs of mapping processes and analysis. This book explores a range of new and older systems mapping methods focused on representing causal relationships in systems. In a practical man- ner, it describes the methods and considers the differences between them; describes how to use them yourself; describes how to choose between and combine them; considers the role of data, evidence, and stakeholder opin- ion; and describes how they can be useful in a range of policy and research settings. The book focuses on practical insights for causal systems mapping in real-world contexts, with tips from experienced practitioners, and a detailed guide on the realities and challenges of building and using these types of system maps. About the Book
- 13. ix Contents 1 Introduction 1 Why Did We Write This Book and Who Is It For? 2 What Is Systems Mapping? 3 What Systems Mapping Methods Are in This Book? 5 How Do These Methods Relate to One Another? 7 What Methods Are Not in This Book? 8 How Can Systems Mapping Be Useful? 14 Why Think About Systems Mapping Now? 16 What’s in the Rest of This Book? 18 References 18 2 Rich Pictures 21 What Are Rich Pictures? 22 How Do You Do Rich Pictures? 25 Common Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ 27 What Are Rich Pictures Good and Bad At? 29 A Brief History of Rich Pictures 30 Getting Started with Rich Pictures 31 References 32 3 Theory of Change Diagrams 33 What Is Theory of Change Mapping? 34 How Do You Create Theory of Change Diagrams? 38 Common Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ 41
- 14. x Contents What Are Theory of Change Diagrams Good and Bad At? 43 A Brief History of Theory of Change 43 Getting Started with Theory of Change Mapping 44 References 45 4 Causal Loop Diagrams 47 What Is a Causal Loop Diagram? 48 How Do You Create Causal Loop Diagrams? 51 Commons Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ 54 What Are Causal Loop Diagrams Good and Bad At? 55 A Brief History of Causal Loop Diagrams 56 Getting Started with Causal Loop Diagrams 57 References 58 5 Participatory Systems Mapping 61 What Is Participatory Systems Mapping? 62 How Do You Do Participatory Systems Mapping? 68 Common Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ 71 What Is Participatory Systems Mapping Good and Bad At? 73 A Brief History of Participatory Systems Mapping 74 Getting Started with Participatory Systems Mapping Yourself 75 References 77 6 Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping 79 What Is Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping? 80 How Do You Do Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping? 87 Common Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ 90 What Is Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping Good and Bad At? 92 A Brief History of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping 92 Getting Started with Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping Yourself 93 References 94 7 Bayesian Belief Networks 97 What Are Bayesian Belief Networks? 98 How Do You Use Bayesian Belief Networks? 103 Common Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ 107
- 15. xi Contents What Are Bayesian Belief Networks Good and Bad At? 108 A Brief History of Bayesian Belief Networks 109 Getting Started with Bayesian Belief Networks 110 References 112 8 System Dynamics113 What Is System Dynamics? 114 How Do You Do System Dynamics? 120 Common Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ 123 What Is System Dynamics Good and Bad At? 124 A Brief History of System Dynamics 125 Getting Started with System Dynamics 126 References 127 9 What Data and Evidence Can You Build System Maps From?129 Defending the Use of a Participatory Process to Build and Use Your Map 130 Using Qualitative Data to Build Your Map 133 Using Existing Evidence to Build Your Map 136 Using Quantitative Data to Build Your Map 137 Using Different Types of Data and Evidence in Practice 140 References 141 10 Running Systems Mapping Workshops145 Planning Workshops 146 Venue, Materials, and Technology for Workshops 147 Facilitating Discussion 149 Capturing and Recording Workshops 151 Post-workshop 152 Common Issues 152 Running Online Workshops 155 Getting Started Yourself 158 References 158
- 16. xii Contents 11 Comparing, Choosing, and Combining Systems Mapping Methods161 Comparing Systems Mapping Methods 163 Choosing Systems Mapping Methods 169 Combining Systems Mapping Methods 172 Getting Started with Choosing and Combining Methods 175 References 176 12 Conclusion179 What Have We Learnt Writing This Book? 180 Our Final Take-Home Messages 180 Final Thoughts 182 Index183
- 17. xiii Pete Barbrook-Johnson is Departmental Research Lecturer in the Economics of Environmental Change in the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) and the Smith School for Enterprise and the Environment, both in the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford. He is also a member of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford and a research associate at St Catherine’s College. Pete’s core research interests sit at the crossroads of social science and economics, complexity science, and environmental and energy policy. He uses a range of methods in his research including agent-based modelling, network analysis, and systems mapping. He regularly uses these, and other methods, to explore applied social, economic, and policy questions, and to support complexity-appropriate policy evaluation, but is equally interested in more theoretical aspects of complex adaptive systems. Pete teaches on a range of undergraduate and masters’ courses across the School of Geography and the Environment, specialising in the eco- nomics of environmental change, and the use of complexity and systems sciences in environmental issues. He has conducted research with and for the likes of UK government departments/agencies such as Defra, BEIS, the Environment Agency, and the Health and Safety Executive, and businesses such as Anglian Water and Mott Macdonald. Internationally, he has collaborated with research insti- tutes and government in China, South Africa, Italy, and Ethiopia. Pete is also a member of the Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN) and a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Research in Social Simulation (CRESS) and Department of Sociology at About the Authors
- 18. xiv ABOUT THE AUTHORS the University of Surrey. He sits on the editorial boards of both the International Journal of Social Research Methodology and Humanities and Social Science Communications. Previously, Pete was a UKRI-ESRC Innovation Fellow and senior research fellow working on public-private partnerships and collaboration, a ‘Knowledge Integrator’ in CECAN, a research fellow at the Policy Studies Institute, and a PhD student and then research fellow at CRESS. Prior to his PhD, Pete studied Economics at the University of East Anglia, before completing his MSc in Environmental Technology (specialising in Environmental Economics and Policy) at Imperial College London. Pete is on twitter @bapeterj and his personal website is https://www. barbrookjohnson.com/ Alexandra S. Penn is a complexity scientist working on combining par- ticipatory methodologies and mathematical models to create tools for stakeholders to understand and ‘steer’ their complex human ecosystems. As a senior research fellow at the University of Surrey, she has developed participatory complexity science methodologies for decision makers to explore interdependencies between social, ecological, economic, and political factors in ‘industrial ecosystems’, in particular, looking at the transition to bio-based economy in a region of heavy industry and fossil fuel energy generation in the Humber Estuary, UK. She is a principal member of CECAN, a collaboration between academics, policy profes- sionals, and the UK government to generate novel, cutting- edge methods for evaluating policy for complex systems. Alex has an academic background in physics and evolutionary ecology, training at Sussex University and as a junior fellow at the Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, followed by a Life Sciences Interface fellowship in the Science and Engineering of Natural Systems Group, University of Southampton. She is also a strong inter-disciplinarian, with a track record of working across disciplines, with a broad variety of stakeholders from policymakers to industrialists and with members of the public as a science communicator. She was made a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts for her work in the novel application of whole-systems design to bacterial communities, is a frequent visiting researcher at ELSI, the Institute for Earth and Life Sciences at Tokyo Tech University, and is Societal Impact Editor of the Journal of Artificial Life and Associate Editor of the Journal of Adaptive Behaviour.
- 19. xv Fig. 1.1 The methods in this book placed on a ‘system focus— intervention focus’ axis (i.e. does the method emphasise more focus on the whole system or on an intervention), and a ‘qualitative—quantitative’ axis. Source: authors’ creation 7 Fig. 1.2 The methods in this book placed on an ‘emphasis on participation’ spectrum, and an ‘intuitive, easy to start— formal, harder to start’ spectrum. Source: authors’ creation 8 Fig. 1.3 The methods in this book positioned in a Venn diagram by the types of outputs and analysis they produce. Source: authors’ creation9 Fig. 2.1 A Rich Picture of the National Health Service in the UK (Source: Bell and Morse, 2013a) 23 Fig. 2.2 A Rich Picture of the influence of indicators on sustainable development in Slovakia (Source: Bell and Morse, 2013a) 24 Fig. 3.1 Theory of Change diagram for a child support grant programme in South Africa. Source: DSD, SASSA, and UNICEF (2012) 35 Fig. 3.2 Theory of Change diagram for an education improvement programme in Ethiopia. Source: Vogel and Stephenson (2012) 36 Fig. 4.1 A Causal Loop Diagram of the tensions between business activity and social action in a social enterprise. Note, double bar (//) symbols indicate a time delay. Three feedback loops are emphasised (B1, R1, and R2). Source: Moizer and Tracey (2010)50 List of Figures
- 20. xvi List of Figures Fig. 4.2 A Causal Loop Diagram of the obesity system in the UK. Source: Produced by ShiftN for Government Office for Science (2007). The core feedback loops are emphasised in the centre51 Fig. 5.1 Participatory System Map of the water and agricultural system in a river catchment in north-east England. Green nodes are system functions, blue nodes are policies, green arrows are positive causal connections, red arrows are negative causal connections, and blue arrows are complex or unclear causal connections. Source: Authors’ creation based on Bromwich et al. (2020) 63 Fig. 5.2 Ways to generate a submap from a starting point. In each network, a submap is created starting from the node A using the mode annotated above each network. Nodes and edges in red are those that will be included in the submap, those in black will be removed/hidden. Source: Authors’ creation 65 Fig. 6.1 Fuzzy Cognitive Map of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. (Source: Kok (2009)) 83 Fig. 6.2 Fuzzy Cognitive Map of the UK Humber region bio-based economy. (Source: Penn et al. (2013)) 84 Fig. 6.3 Example outputs from an FCM dynamic analysis. (Source Kok (2009)) 85 Fig. 7.1 An example simple BBN. (Source: Bromley (2005)) 99 Fig. 7.2 An example BBN, now with nodes states and probability distributions. (Source: Bromley (2005)) 100 Fig. 7.3 An example dynamic BBN with a feedback between ‘wood extraction’ and ‘wood stored’. (Source: Authors’ creation based on an example in Landuyt et al. (2013)) 105 Fig. 8.1 A System Dynamics stock and flow diagram of pollution and tourism in the Maldives. (Source: Kapmeier and Gonçalves (2018))115 Fig. 8.2 Number of tourists under different policy scenarios. (Source: Kapmeier and Gonçalves (2018)) 118 Fig. 9.1 Types of information for building system maps, and their overlaps. Source: authors’ creation 130 Fig. 11.1 Influences on the choice of most appropriate method. (Source: Authors’ creation, inspired by Stern et al. (2012) and Befani (2020)) 170 Fig. 11.2 Some of the potential sequential combinations of systems mapping methods. (Source: Authors’ creation) 173
- 21. xvii Table 1.1 Different terminologies for the methods covered in this book 10 Table 1.2 Methods often referred to as systems mapping which are not in this book 11 Table 5.1 Analysis starting points for Participatory Systems Mapping. Source: Authors’ creation 66 Table 5.2 Software options for PSM. Source: Authors’ creation. 75 Table 6.1 Comparing the ‘causal’ and ‘dynamical’ approaches to analysing FCMs 82 Table 7.1 An example conditional probability table based on the reservoir storage node in the BBN in Figs. 7.1 and 7.2 100 Table 7.2 Simple hypothetical conditional probability table for two interventions and an outcome 102 Table 7.3 BBN software overview 111 Table 11.1 Overview comparison of systems mapping methods in this book164 Table 11.2 Most appropriate methods given different project and system properties171 Table 11.3 Non-exhaustive list of potential hybridised elements of methods174 List of Tables
- 22. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Abstract This chapter introduces the book and the topic of systems mapping. We explain our motivation for writing the book, what ‘systems mapping’ means to us, our focus on causal approaches, and what methods are included, and which are not, in the book. We also explore how these methods are related to one another. We begin to consider how systems mapping can be useful in research and practice, before making the case for why we believe it is worth thinking about now. Keywords Systems mapping • Modelling • Complexity • Policy • Systems This book introduces systems mapping and outlines seven methods that allow us to develop causal models of systems. We focus on the practical realities of how and when to use these methods and consider wider issues such as what types of evidence and data to use in their construction, how to run workshops, and how to compare, choose, and combine methods. We do not cover all types of systems mapping, we almost entirely ignore those which do not focus on cause and influence in systems, nor do we delve into the deeper philosophical ideas underpinning their use. Writing this book feels a bit like swimming in shark-infested waters. Not least because several people have told us that is indeed what we are © The Author(s) 2022 P. Barbrook-Johnson, A. S. Penn, Systems Mapping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01919-7_1
- 23. 2 doing! Some of these systems mapping methods, and the underlying ideas, have been around for some time and there are many people with strong views on them. Despite this, we believe there is much confusion around these methods. There is an underappreciation of their value, but also the large differences between methods. We do not wish to attempt to declare for once and for all what should or should not be called ‘systems map- ping’, nor offer the definitive definition of any specific method. But we do hope to make the landscape of methods clearer, to help people find, understand, and use these methods more easily. Our paths to systems mapping were not straightforward, neither were they similar. Pete was looking to broaden his methodological expertise after spending nearly six years using agent-based modelling in academic research; he wanted to find methods which were more accessible and usable in a range of contexts, that were less reliant on lots of data for vali- dation, or lots of time or money to do. Whereas, Alex, moving from the natural to the social sciences, but with experience in participatory systems design, was looking for participatory methods that could be used in proj- ects taking a complex systems approach. She was also looking for approaches that could work quickly under the pressure of expectant proj- ectpartners,withoutempiricaldata,andwithalargemulti-disciplinaryteam. Our relationships with systems mapping since have also not been sim- ple. We have become frustrated at times, but we have always found our- selves drawn back, either through our own intellectual curiosity (or inertia!), or through the needs of stakeholders and research users. What has been consistent throughout is the ability of systems mapping approaches to provide us with academically stimulating ideas and to do this in an intuitive way which generates usable and timely insights, and value to the people we work with. Why Did We Write This Book and Who Is It For? At times, it has been hard to work with systems mapping. Some people see it as one simple method and miss the wealth of different approaches and what they can do. Others see the detail of one or two approaches and go deep into only those. Systems mapping is also often subsumed into the world of ‘systems thinking’, somewhat hidden by that wider philosophy on how to understand, be, and act in the world. Put simply, systems mapping is a hard space to navigate. As we learnt and applied our knowledge, we often felt a little lost, without the right P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 24. 3 tools to guide us. This book is an attempt to solve that. In one sense, it is written for our former selves; it is what might have helped us accelerate our learning and practice more quickly. It is also hopefully for you. For people who are thinking that systems mapping might be useful in their work but who are not sure where to start. Or people who want to use a particular method but need to ground this in a wider context, need some help to get started, and don’t want to miss any opportunities to do it well. It is also for those who are familiar with one method but who would like an overview of what others exist or might be useful in different problem contexts. Or for those who have heard about systems mapping and would like to get a sense of what it is about. This book is intentionally practical and pragmatic. We are not preach- ing from the ‘High-Church of systems mapping’ but pounding the streets. We are looking for ways forward, trying to shine some light on dark alleys, looking for ways to improve ourselves. This introductory chapter asks, ‘what is systems mapping?’ and ‘why look at it now?’ and tries to be honest about the breadth and noise in the answers to these questions. From here, we embark on seven mini-adventures, exploring systems mapping meth- ods in detail. What Is Systems Mapping? Let’s be honest, systems mapping means lots of different things; it is broad and ill-defined. We are not going to ‘fix’ that here (if we even think it needs fixing). We support inclusive and broad definitions in general, and think they are inevitable when it comes to systems mapping. But that breadth and inclusivity should not come at the cost of clarity. We still need to know where we are at, and what is on either side of us. In time-honoured academic fashion, let’s start by breaking this down into its component parts, and first asking what is a ‘system’? There is no simple answer to this question. We regularly see arguments about whether something is a system or not, whether a system mapping exercise has taken enough care thinking about what the system it is mapping, or even whether we should be mapping problems not systems at all. While these concerns are important, it is possible to define almost anything as a system with enough mental gymnastics. Moreover, what the ‘right’ system definition for you is will always be context dependent. This means we would rather proceed with thinking about what your system is, rather than dwelling on 1 INTRODUCTION
- 25. 4 what a system is. Your system might be the system you are part of, and you wish to understand, or the system which you are going to map, hopefully with some purpose in mind. Nonetheless, given that others have considered what a system is, it’s worth looking at a couple of our favourite definitions. Williams and Hummelbrunner (2011) suggest that there are a few distinctions we can all agree on: (i) that systems are made up of some set of elements; (ii) that systems also constitute the links between elements, whether they are pro- cesses or interrelationships; and (iii) that systems have some boundary, and this is central to their definition. They accept, as we do, that this set of distinctions could mean almost anything, so they suggest focusing on what is distinctive about seeing the world with a systems lens, rather than dwelling on definitions. Meadows (2008) takes this definition one step further, bringing in the ideas of purpose and organisation, suggesting a system is an ‘intercon- nected set of elements that is coherently organised in a way that achieves something’ (pg. 11). The idea of a system purpose, and using it to help define your system, and perhaps your mapping exercise, is useful but slip- pery. It will likely require you to have a broad definition of a purpose, to include functions, services, or value that a system may provide. The second component of ‘systems mapping’ is ‘mapping’. So, what is a ‘map’? Here we bump into an unfortunate historical quirk of terminol- ogy. In the systems mapping world, ‘map’ is used synonymously with ‘model’. They are both reasonably intuitive words, but there has been a lot of thought about what a model is, and separately, what a map is, some of which has ideas in common, but plenty which does not. Maps are nor- mally thought of in the cartographic, geographic sense, a representation of a physical space. There is fascinating literature on considering what these types of maps are and how they shape our thinking. Some of this is useful when thinking about models and system maps, but some of it is a distraction. More useful, we think, is the history of thought on modelling and, within this, asking ‘what is a model?’ As with systems, there are many defi- nitions and types of model, but there is a little more consistency and a settled general definition. We would characterise this definition as this: a model is a purposeful simplification of some aspect or perception of reality. ‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’ (Box and Draper, 1987) is the modelling cliché to end all modelling clichés, but it is instructive. The simplifications a model makes in its representation of reality mean it is P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 26. 5 inherently ‘wrong’ (i.e. it is not reality), but if these simplifications serve some purpose, then there is a decent chance that they are useful. So now we know what a system is, and what a map is. Do we know what a system map is? Not quite. We should stop talking in the abstract and show you with examples, but first we need to introduce a few com- mon components of systems maps: • Network: in its simplest sense, a network is a set of boxes connected by lines. In system maps, these lines are often directed, that is, they are arrows from one box to another. • Nodes: the ‘boxes’ in a network are normally referred to as nodes. • Edges: the connections, lines, or arrows between boxes are normally referred to as edges. All except one of the methods in this book always have a network of nodes and edges, representing cause and influence between factors in a system, at their core. These networks of cause and influence are the model (i.e. the map) of the system. What Systems Mapping Methods Are in This Book? There are seven systems mapping methods that we go into detail on; they all focus on, or at least allow us to consider, causal patterns. In alphabetical order, here are brief introductory descriptions of each: 1. Bayesian Belief Networks: a network of variables representing their conditional dependencies (i.e. the likelihood of the variable taking different states depending on the states of the variables that influence them). The networks follow a strict acyclic structure (i.e. no feedbacks), and nodes tend to be restricted to maximum two incoming arrows. These maps are analysed using the conditional probabilities to compute the potential impact of changes to certain variables, or the influence of certain variables given an observed out- come. These maps can look relatively simple, but they have numbers in, and if you don’t like probability, you might not like them. 2. Causal Loop Diagrams: networks of variables and causal influ- ences, which normally focus on feedback loops of different lengths and are built around a ‘core system engine’. Maps vary in their com- plexity and size and are not typically exposed to any formal analysis 1 INTRODUCTION
- 27. 6 but are often the first stage in a System Dynamics model. These are popular, and you have likely seen one before. 3. Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping: networks of factors and their causal connections. They are especially suited to participatory con- texts, and often multiple versions are created to capture diverse mental models of a system. Described as ‘semi-quantitative’, fac- tors and connections are usually given values, and the impacts of changes in a factor value on the rest of the map are computed in different ways. 4. Participatory Systems Mapping: a network of factors and their causal connections, annotated with salient information from stake- holders (e.g. what is important, what might change). Maps tend to be large and complex. Analysed using network analysis and infor- mation from stakeholders to extract noteworthy submaps and narratives. 5. Rich Pictures: a free-form drawing approach in which participants are asked to draw the situation or system under consideration as they wish, with no or only a handful or gentle prompts. This method is part of the wider group of Soft Systems Methodologies. 6. System Dynamics: a network of stocks (numeric values for key vari- ables) and flows (changes in a stock usually represented by a differ- ential equation), and the factors that influence these. Normally, these maps are fully specified quantitatively and used to simulate future dynamics. This is a popular method with a well-established community. 7. Theory of Change maps: networks of concepts usually following a flow from inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes to final impacts. Maps vary in their complexity and how narrowly they focus on one intervention and its logic, but they are always built around some intervention or action. Maps are often annotated and focused on unearthing assumptions in the impact of interventions. This is not an exhaustive list of system mapping methods—far from it. This list reflects our preferences and biases, and our intention of exploring methods which represent causality and influence in a system, and methods which can be used in a participatory way. Below, we list some of the meth- ods which we do not include in this book, but which are nonetheless potentially useful and relevant for you. P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 28. 7 How Do These Methods Relate to One Another? Let us now consider some of the broad characteristics of the methods that we focus on and how they fit together. To do this, we use three related conceptual spaces in Figs. 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 and position the methods within these; one on their overall focus and nature (Fig. 1.1), second on their mode and ease of use (Fig. 1.2), and third on the outputs and analy- sis they produce (Fig. 1.3). It is important to note that these placements are debatable and could misrepresent individual projects’ use of a method. However, we believe they give a rough sense of where these methods sit in relation to one another, and more importantly, what some of the most important axes on which to differentiate them are. Participatory systems mapping Fuzzy cognitive mapping System focus Intervention focus Qual Quant Bayesian belief networks Causal loop diagrams System dynamics Theory of Change Rich Pictures Fig. 1.1 The methods in this book placed on a ‘system focus—intervention focus’ axis (i.e. does the method emphasise more focus on the whole system or on an intervention), and a ‘qualitative—quantitative’ axis. Source: authors’ creation 1 INTRODUCTION
- 29. 8 Participatory systems mapping Fuzzy cognitive mapping Emphasis on participation Neutral on participation Intuitive, easy to start Formal, harder to start Bayesian belief networks Causal loop diagrams System dynamics Theory of Change Rich Pictures Fig. 1.2 The methods in this book placed on an ‘emphasis on participation’ spectrum, and an ‘intuitive, easy to start—formal, harder to start’ spectrum. Source: authors’ creation Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 give us a quick sense of where the methods sit, but it is possible to elaborate on this further; in Table 11.1 on comparing, choosing, and combining methods, we do this by describing these distinc- tions, and a few more, in further detail. What Methods Are Not in This Book? Because of our focus on methods that consider causality in a system, there are many methods which can be classed as ‘systems mapping’ which we do not include. This does not mean they are not important, or that we do not value them. Below we attempt to outline those we are aware of and point you in the direction of useful resources. P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 30. 9 Simulate Plots and numbers Network analysis Diagrams Assess contribution to outcomes System dynamics Bayesian belief networks Theory of Change Rich Pictures Causal loop diagrams Participatory systems mapping Fuzzy cognitive mapping Fig. 1.3 The methods in this book positioned in a Venn diagram by the types of outputs and analysis they produce. Source: authors’ creation Before that, it is worth pointing out some of the different terminology and names that are used elsewhere for methods that are in this book; a selection is listed in Table 1.1. You might find yourself looking for these in this book and being disappointed not to find them—fear not, they are here, just under a different name. There are also a few terms, similar to ‘systems mapping’, that get used in a loose way and can refer to almost any of the methods in this book, such as ‘mind mapping’, ‘cognitive map- ping’, ‘causal mapping’, or ‘causal diagram’. We dare not try to unpick the various uses and history of these terms in detail; suffice to say, when you read them elsewhere, make sure to check what they are referring to. Now let’s turn to the methods not included in this book. Table 1.2 overviews these with a brief description, explanation of why they did not meet our criteria, and where you can find more information. Beyond individual methods or suites of methods, there are several over- arching schools of practice, or research sub-disciplines, which offer poten- tial value for systems mapping. We do not cover these in this book because they are covered well elsewhere and they are entire ways of understanding and acting in their own right, not specific mapping methods. Nonetheless, they contain many techniques, tools, and approaches with much in 1 INTRODUCTION
- 31. 10 Table 1.1 Different terminology for the methods covered in this book Name used in the book Other terms sometimes used to refer to the method (note, there is an overlap between these and, in fact, many of the terms are also separate methods in their own right) Bayesian Belief Networks Bayesian networks, probability networks, dependency models, influence diagrams, directed graphical models, causal probabilistic models, and Theory of Change maps. Causal Loop Diagrams Influence diagrams, system maps, sign graphs, Participatory Systems Mapping. You may also see these referred to as System Dynamics models because of their use in the early stages of building System Dynamics models. Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping None. Participatory Systems Mapping None, though there are approaches based on Causal Loop Diagrams that are sometimes referred to as Participatory Systems Mapping. Rich Pictures None, though Rich Pictures is part of Soft Systems Methodology, so you may see this used. System Dynamics None. Theory of Change maps Programme theory, intervention theory, logic mapping, logic models, results chain, and outcome mapping. common with systems mapping, so you may find them useful to explore for inspiration, both on individual methods and on wider philosophy. They include the following: • Participatory (action) research: there are large literature on partici- patory research and ‘participatory action research’ that foreground the participation and co-production of research with communities and stakeholder groups. These contain many dozens of workshop and focus group methods and techniques, many of which are quick and easy to use, which may be of value to you. They also provide the wider framing, philosophy, and motivation on why it is worthwhile approaching topics from a participatory angle. See Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) or McIntyre (2007) for more. • Design thinking and methods: similarly, there is a large literature and practice around design principles, thinking and methods, and applying these to policy issues and other problems beyond the com- mon understandings of product or industrial design. These approaches include numerous methods for structuring thinking and bring peoples’ views to bear on an issue. See the UK Policy Lab P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 35. 14 (https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/) and their Open Policy Making Toolkit for more. • Permaculture/systems design: related to design thinking above are specific schools of thought which focus on the participatory design and management of whole complex systems, their components, and interactions between them for sustainability. Although these approaches are most often applied to the design of geographically located systems, in particular socio-ecological systems with an emphasis on agroecology, they include many useful generalisable tools. The design philosophy of working with systems and the design cycle and process and systems mapping methods used within are par- ticularly useful and have inspired our thinking. See Holmgren (2002) and https://knowledgebase.permaculture.org.uk/design How Can Systems Mapping Be Useful? The range of systems mapping methods, from those which are infinitely flexible to those which emphasise participation, those which discipline thinking, and those which allow calculation and simulation, hints at the plethora of ways in which systems mapping can be useful. There is no generic quick answer as to why you would use systems mapping, how it would generate value, and be useful to you. Rather, there is a long list of answers which depend on the context of the system or issue you are work- ing on—your goals, needs, skills and capacity—and whether you are gen- erating value from the process of mapping, from just the end product, or both. This list tends to revolve around five broad types of use, which also apply to most types of modelling or analysis. They are: 1. Helping us think: system maps of all types force us to be more specific about our assumptions, beliefs, and understanding of a sys- tem. At the very least they force us to ‘put it down on paper’. Many types of systems mapping also force us to structure our ideas using some set of rules or symbols (i.e. creating boxes and lines to repre- sent concepts and their relationships). This will introduce simplifica- tions and abstractions, but it will also make explicit our mental models. This, often simple, process disciplines our thinking and exposes it to scrutiny, even if it is only the scrutiny of our own reflec- tions and the structure imposed by the method. Helping us to think P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 36. 15 is the most fundamental value systems mapping brings. You basically cannot avoid having it do this to you! 2. Helping us orient ourselves: a systems mapping process will often also help us orient ourselves to a system or issue. This is where the word ‘map’ is particularly apt. Whether a map helps us see our, and others’, positions in the system, or whether it helps us quickly develop a fuller understanding of an issue, we will be better oriented to it. This helps people navigate the system better, be aware of what else to think about when considering one part of a map, or know who is affected and so should be included in discussions. 3. Helping us synthesise and connect information: the more flexi- ble types of mapping are particularly good at bringing together dif- ferent types of data, evidence, and information. They can all be used to inform the development of a map, making connections that would not otherwise be possible. Different types of visualisation, hyperlinking, and map structure can also be used to help people return to the information underlying a map. 4. Helping us communicate: whether we build maps in groups, or alone, and then share them, all system maps should help us com- municate our mental models and representations of systems. This is an often-underestimated benefit of mapping in groups; the process of mapping with others, and the discussions it generates, unearths a multitude of assumptions which can then also be challenged and unpicked. The richness and depth of discussion, while maintaining structure and focus, is often a surprise to first-time participants. The end product of a mapping process can also help us communicate our ideas about a system. Maps can become repositories for our knowl- edge which can be accessed again and again by others, and updated, becoming a living document. However, it is worth noting that sys- tem maps are sometimes referred to as ‘horrendograms’, and much worse (!), when they show us the complexity of a system in an unfil- tered manner. People think in different ways, and there are many people who prefer to use more structure or simplification to com- municate or learn. There are cases in which system maps can be unhelpful communication tools if used naively. We say ‘naively’ because there are many ways, within each method, to avoid this, and to help people ‘enter’ a map, build understanding, and navigate a potentially overwhelming systems map. 1 INTRODUCTION
- 37. 16 5. Helping us extrapolate from assumptions to implications: sys- tems mapping approaches which can be turned into simulations, or which can be analysed in a formal way, also allow us to follow through from the assumptions we have embedded in them, to their implications. The most obvious example is System Dynamics, which allows us to simulate the dynamics of a system. In effect, this allows us to attempt to look forward, to see how the structure and assumptions we have created play out over time. Using models in this way, to ‘predict’ or ‘forecast’, is generally well understood, but people sometimes think of systems mapping as more static and are unable to do this. In a related but different way, Bayesian Belief Networks allow us to follow through the implications of the many conditional dependencies we embed in them, to consider what impact a change might bring, or what contributed to an observed outcome. Other approaches provide ways to consolidate and sense check the combined and often contradictory effects of multiple influences on distal factors. Whether by computing numerical val- ues representing potential combined effects of change on out- comes in relative terms (e.g. Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping), or by visualising causal pathways between a changed factor and out- comes, allowing us to think through the multiple indirect effects (e.g. Participatory Systems Mapping). Why Think About Systems Mapping Now? The systems and complexity sciences have been around since at least the mid twentieth century, arguably longer, and many of the methods in this book have also been around a decent while. Interest in these ideas and approaches, and attempts to apply them to real-world concerns, has come in waves over the last seventy or so years. There has been notable success but also false dawns, and plenty of scholars and practitioners have been sceptical about their value. In the past, the complexity and systems sci- ences have sometimes offered either highly technical ‘black-box’ model- ling, appealing metaphors, and language which don’t directly lead to action and are often misapplied, or overwhelming and paralysing com- plexity. These are serious problems, which many are now seeking to address, including us. Despite these issues (and though we may be biased and myopic), we have observed a renewed interest in the last ten years or so and noted P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 38. 17 many others making similar observations. It does not feel too outlandish to claim that we are at a high point of interest currently. We bump into fewer and fewer people who have not heard about these ideas, and more and more people actually approach us about them. This is the time of greatest opportunity but also the point at which failure to deliver, or fail- ure to move beyond previous high-water marks, or past pitfalls, may see interest decline rapidly. There is still plenty of confusion and varied use of terminology, arguments over concepts, and underwhelming applications of methods, which can trip us up. In the context of this current interest in systems thinking and complex- ity, systems mapping approaches, particularly causal mapping, are particu- larly useful ‘gateway’ tools. They can relatively quickly and straightforwardly capture some of the features of complex systems that matter on the ground when trying to understand and manage these systems. In particular, multi- causality, indirect effects, the uncertain boundaries of open systems, feed- backs, and multiple stakeholder perspectives. However, other important complex system characteristics, such as emergent effects, need other mod- elling approaches. Systems mapping methods are highly usable, useful, and relatively intuitive ways to start engaging with real-world complex systems. This book represents an attempt to help open up and organise (causal) systems mapping, such that people finding themselves carried along on this wave of interest have something solid to grasp onto and build from. To abuse the metaphor a bit more, we hope when the wave inevitably recedes, more of these ideas and methods, and most importantly the peo- ple who believe in them, have got a foothold on the beach and so are not dragged back. We also hope the book helps readers ensure the quality of their use and critique of these methods, so that we see fewer misguided, naïve, or poorly framed applications, and more innovation and combina- tion in their use. Finally, we hope the book will help users of these methods to navigate one of the biggest headwinds to their success; the increasingly fast-paced nature of work, research, and policy, and the increasing attention deficit of stakeholders and users. It used to be the case that you could organise a workshop over two days, and muddle your way through more easily, learn- ing and adapting a method as you went. Now, if you are lucky, you get a half day of people’s time, and since the pandemic, you may only have people’s attendance virtually. This puts more pressure on these methods, and this means we need to be better prepared and more efficient at using them. 1 INTRODUCTION
- 39. 18 What’s in the Rest of This Book? Chapters 2 through to 8 cover the seven methods we dive into real detail on, they are roughly in order of the most qualitative through to the most quantitative. We try to build detailed but clear descriptions of what they are and how you can use them, but also reflect on what they are good and bad at, and how things can go wrong. Each of these chapters can be taken on its own, ignoring the rest of the book. The three chapters after these are more cross-cutting. Chapter 9 con- siders how and what different types of knowledge and evidence can be used in systems mapping. Chapter 10 dives into the nuts-and-bolts practi- calities of running workshops. Chapter 11 considers how we can compare, choose, and combine the methods in this book. Finally, Chap. 12 con- cludes, with a few final take-home messages, and our reflections on what we have learnt writing this book. We hope you enjoy it and find it useful. We’re always happy to talk systems mapping and get feedback, so feel free to get in touch. References Ackermann, F., Alexander, J. (2016). Researching complex projects: Using causal mappingtotakeasystemsperspective.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement, 34(6), 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.001 Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton Legacy Library. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hard- cover/9780691644165/structure-of-decision Buzan, T. (2006). Mind mapping. Pearson Education. Corbett, J. (2009). Good practices in participatory mapping: A review prepared for the International Fund for Agricultural Development. International Fund for Agricultural Development. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search. do?recordID=GB2013201933 Cornwall, A., Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95) 00127-S Foot, K. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011 Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainabil- ity. Holmgren Design Services. Kane, M., Trochim, W. M. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evalua- tion. Sage Publications. P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 40. 19 Knoke, D., Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Sage. Laukkanen, M., Wang, M. (2015). Comparative causal mapping: The CMAP3 method. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Comparative-Causal- Mapping-The-CMAP3-Method/Laukkanen-Wang/p/book/9780 367879655 Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. McIntyre, A. (2007). Participatory action research. Sage. https://us.sagepub. com/en-us/nam/participatory-action-research/book230910 Williams, B. (2021). Systems diagrams: A practical guide.. https://bobwilliams. gumroad.com/l/systemdiagrams Williams, B., Hummelbrunner, R. (2011). Systems concepts in action: A practi- tioner’s toolkit. Stanford Business Books. Wright, S. (1934). The Method of Path Coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161–215. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copy- right holder. 1 INTRODUCTION
- 41. 21 CHAPTER 2 Rich Pictures Abstract This chapter introduces readers to Rich Pictures and briefly to Soft Systems Methodology, the broader approach from which Rich Pictures emerged. It overviews what Rich Pictures are, how to use them and the steps in doing so, and the common issues and tricks and tips to overcome them. We also consider what Rich Pictures are good and bad at, give a brief overview of their history, and highlight resources and ways to get started. Keywords Rich Pictures • Soft Systems Methodology Humans have likely been drawing pictures for as long as we have existed. Free-form visual representation of things, ideas, and processes are univer- sal in human culture and feel like one of the most natural and intuitive ways of expressing ourselves. We draw before we write. It is thus not sur- prising that drawing pictures can be a useful way of describing, sharing understanding of, and analysing systems. In this chapter we describe and explore the use of ‘Rich Pictures’ as a systems mapping method. There is a slight tension in our focus on Rich Pictures. The method comes from the wider approach known as ‘Soft System Methodology’. While we will discuss Soft Systems Methodology briefly, our focus is on Rich Pictures alone. Some researchers and practitioners that use Soft Systems Methodology may feel it is inappropriate to take this approach. © The Author(s) 2022 P. Barbrook-Johnson, A. S. Penn, Systems Mapping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01919-7_2
- 42. 22 However, we believe that Rich Pictures, although an outlier in this space, are worthy of discussion as a systems mapping method in their own right. While Soft Systems Methodology as a whole is something much larger which does not easily fit into our definition of what can be considered systems mapping. The primary reason we chose to include Rich Pictures was that they complete our spectrum of systems mapping methods, from the most for- mal and quantitative, through more flexible, semi-quantitative, and quali- tative approaches, to Rich Pictures, an almost completely free-form approach, with the most flexibility, and which puts all the power and deci- sions in stakeholders’ hands. We felt it was important to have this option in our systems mapping armoury/sewing kit. Rest assured, just because this method is one of the most flexible and free form, it does not mean there are no guidelines for its use and fierce methodological debate around how it should be used. As in other chapters, we use a simple and practical structure to describe Rich Pictures, starting with as clear and jargon-free description of what the method is, as we can muster. We then describe how to do it, common issues, and tricks of the trade. Next, we step back and consider what the method is good and bad at, before closing with a discussion of the history of the method and pointing out some useful resources for getting started. What Are Rich Pictures? Rich Pictures are a drawing, a picture, of a system or ‘situation’. They are almost always produced together in groups in workshop settings, with large pieces of paper (though some scholars have suggested they can be used as individual analytic tools, e.g. Bell and Morse, 2013a). They are intended to be a shared representation of the system; the value they gener- ate is often mostly in the process and discussions this generates rather than the picture itself as an output. What the picture should contain is often left completely up to the participants; very few, if any, prompts are given by facilitators beyond asking them to ‘draw the system’. However, some guidance on the method does suggest that using the prompts, ‘structures’, ‘processes’, ‘climate’, ‘people’, ‘issues expressed by people’, and ‘conflict’, as things to consider putting in the picture can be helpful. Another com- mon prompt for groups who are struggling to start is to suggest they draw themselves in the system. Participants are normally discouraged from using text or words as much as possible, though this is not always the P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 43. 23 case—some Rich Pictures contain a lot of text. Though not used as a prompt, most facilitators also don’t intend participants to produce a dia- gram which looks like a Theory of Change map or flow diagram. The aim is to avoid the constraints such diagram types introduce. However, Rich Pictures can contain arrows and represent causal relationships. In sum, Rich Pictures are flexible, can contain almost anything, and emphasise let- ting participants do what they want above all else. Once a Rich Picture is produced, it can be analysed by participants and researchers as part of the process of using the method, though it is often the process of drawing and discussing that is the most important element. Let’s look at some examples. Figure 2.1 shows an ‘archetypal-if-poor’ Rich Picture of the National Health Service in the UK from Bell and Morse (2013a). We can see the participants who drew the picture in the centre, surrounded by different elements of the system, such as patients and staff (the figures on the right), and concepts such as bureaucracy and Fig. 2.1 A Rich Picture of the National Health Service in the UK (Source: Bell and Morse, 2013a) 2 RICH PICTURES
- 44. 24 measurement/targets (the abacus and paperwork top left). Bell and Morse describe the picture as being relatively poor in terms of its visual content but suggest that this did not diminish its value as a discussion tool. Another example can be seen in Fig. 2.2, again from Bell and Morse (2013a). This example benefits from some more skilled drawing perhaps (e.g. the ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ monkey) and uses no text, except for the ‘WB’ to denote ‘World Bank’. There is inevitably a huge variety in Rich Pictures, so we strongly sug- gest you look for more examples to fully appreciate the range in what they Fig. 2.2 A Rich Picture of the influence of indicators on sustainable develop- ment in Slovakia (Source: Bell and Morse, 2013a) P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 45. 25 can look like. A simple search engine image search can help with this, or Bell et al. (2016a) includes many examples. Beyond the variety in what participants might produce, there is also variety in the practice of using Rich Pictures. As we acknowledged in our introduction, some practitio- ners will only use them as part of a wider process, rather than a standalone systems mapping method. This will affect the way in which they are used, the emphasis put on iterating and returning to the pictures, and the amount of time spent focusing on them alone. There is also variety in the prompts and facilitation given to partici- pants. Most Rich Pictures will be developed with minimal prompts and will not be developed beyond a simple drawing on paper. However, some will be drawn with stronger guidance on what to include, and maybe use rules such as ‘no text’. The pictures may also go through some digitisation and refinement, even with the help of an artist or graphic designer, with the aim being to produce something more lasting which can be shared as a communication tool. Lastly, we have observed no variety in the termi- nology used to describe Rich Pictures, but it is worth noting that many participatory approaches will involve drawing and sketching of different types, and they will have much in common with Rich Pictures, even if they are not formally coming from a systems perspective or intended to ‘map’ a system in some way. Rich Pictures emerged from and are part of a wider approach to study- ing and acting in systems, called Soft Systems Methodology. We do not intend to go into any depth on this approach in this chapter but do outline some of its history and aims in the ‘brief history’ section below. How Do You Do Rich Pictures? The steps in using Rich Pictures are relatively obvious and intuitive. Though they can be tailored to different project’s needs, they will typically include the following stages. • Planning: you will need to decide who to invite to a Rich Picture workshop(s) and how to structure the sessions. You may want to do some pre-workshop work on deciding the focus or definition of what system will be looked at. If you are working with a particular client or project partner, they will be key in making decisions at this stage. • Workshop: an individual workshop can be done quite quickly, in as little as thirty minutes if needed, but more commonly around two 2 RICH PICTURES
- 46. 26 hours. The number of participants at a workshop can be relatively large, perhaps as many as twenty per facilitator, and with whole groups as large as fifty. However, each group drawing a picture should be smaller, around three to six people. As the facilitator you will need to decide what prompts, if any, you want to use with par- ticipants. This will depend on your own preferences and style but also the purpose of the process and anything specific you intend to do by way of analysing the pictures. Common decisions include (i) whether to ban or discourage the use of text; (ii) whether to mention the list of prompts—structures, processes, climate, people, issues expressed by people, and conflict; and (iii) whether to encourage participants to draw themselves in the picture. In contrast with some of the other methods in this book, we would suggest taking as mini- mal a role as possible. The method works best when participants are comfortable, and it is likely that too much guidance will disrupt their creativity and expression. Some practitioners even advocate leaving the room during the main drawing time, to avoid the chances of participants asking for help they don’t really need, or the temptation for you to hover over those drawing. The final element of the work- shop will involve reporting back to the whole group what small groups have drawn. Ideally, this should not just be a short section tagged on the end of a workshop, but should involve at least one cycle of groups sharing what they have done, hearing from others, and then going back to their Rich Picture, updating it, and then sharing again. The discussion within small groups, and between them, as they share their approach and views, is likely to be equally important, if not more important, than the picture itself. You can be creative in designing the process of drawing, discussing, drawing new pictures, or updating existing ones to suit your needs. Ideally, some fieldnotes should be made of the discussions, so that you have a record. It is often impractical to record discussions with an audio recording device, and it may inhibit participants from speaking freely. More likely to be of value would be asking participants to take some notes, or have some observers take notes. A choice will need to be made about whether to take fieldnotes of all discussions or only the full group. • Analysis: although not always done, it is common to do some form of analysis on the pictures generated. This can be started during the workshop discussions, and then continued by the practitioner or P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 47. 27 researcher afterwards. The purpose and nature of the analysis will depend on the purpose of the project, but it can range from simple narrative and thematic analysis and comparison of the pictures (including reference to discussions during the workshop) through to more formal aesthetic analysis of the images and what this might convey (e.g. as in Bell and Morse 2013a), or structured content anal- ysis of the pictures (see Bell et al. 2016b), using the types of social research methods used for analysing documents. Common Issues and ‘Tricks of the Trade’ During a workshop there are two common issues that can arise which we would like to highlight. Firstly, participants can think that drawing is child- ish in some way or not valuable and can thus be hesitant to contribute or be sceptical about the method/process. This can be a particular issue for Rich Pictures, compared to other methods in this book, because they do not have the immediate ‘feel’ of being a practical tool, or a scientific mod- elling method. Often, any scepticism is overcome with a little time and the influence of positive engagement of others. However, users of the method should think ahead about how they might assuage concerns along these lines. As a facilitator you want to have enough legitimacy and credibility that people want to take part, but not so much that participants think you should have all the answers or are afraid to express ideas in front of you. Secondly, power dynamics or dominant individuals can influence the picture and its content strongly. Individuals can force a group to draw only their view, or others may be too nervous or fearful to contribute. Because the method is so free-form and flexible, and we normally avoid prompting too much, there is little scope for using the excuse of ‘the method says we should do X or should include person(s) Y more’ with Rich Pictures. Thus, consideration and management of power dynamics and dominant individuals can only be done in the planning and inviting stages. Once we have some Rich Pictures and are carrying out some analysis, it is common for those new to the method to struggle to develop rich analy- ses. People can feel unsure of what analytical tools to use, what can and can’t be inferred or said, or how to connect the pictures to other parts of a project. This is normal, and developing rich nuanced and sensitive analy- sis is difficult and takes time, both within one project and across multiple projects—you will learn and improve a lot in the analysis you do as you do more. 2 RICH PICTURES
- 48. 28 Finally, we do sometimes observe quite serious ‘research fatigue’ in par- ticipants who have taken part in participatory research in the past and not seen tangible results, or those who have simply been involved in many projects. This is a very real issue for any participatory method or project but can be more acute with Rich Pictures because the method is open and flexible. It does not impose a structure on people which may make them feel this is a ‘new’ or different process, without an immediate instrumental value, and it empowers participants meaning that they can express their fatigue more quickly. There are a range of useful tips and tricks to deal with these issues and others. Some of the most useful we have come across include: • Use icebreakers: it is a good idea to have a handful of icebreaking suggestions to help participants get through blocks related to scepti- cism, feeling drawing is childish, feeling they cannot draw well, etc. For any block you think participants might have, arm yourself with an icebreaker. One of the most used for people who are struggling to start (for any reason) is to ask them to draw themselves first (this can induce much laughter, quite literally breaking a static atmosphere) and then build from there. For sceptical participants, open an honest discussion about the use and value of what you are doing, and show them you have their concerns in mind and are not naïve about what is useful or what is a sensible use of their time. • Give power to the participants: do everything and anything you can to hand over your power as the facilitator to the participants. Encourage them and emphasise the value of their opinions and knowledge. Leave the room entirely during the drawing stage (if you need to stay, avoid hovering nearby, explain that you don’t want to inhibit them if needed). Make sure they describe their picture first before you or others comment on it. Giving away your power here takes courage as facilitator but is vital to this method. • Don’t try to force-fix issues during a session: it can be tempting to try to ‘fix’ group issues as they emerge by more strongly facilitat- ing group dynamics or what is being drawn. This is almost always a bad idea with Rich Pictures. People will understand that the method is about flexibility and may interpret your attempts as critiques that what they are doing is wrong in some way. Aim to adapt the overall process in planning stages rather than let knee-jerk reactions during a workshop drive your management of the process. P. BARBROOK-JOHNSON AND A. S. PENN
- 49. 29 What Are Rich Pictures Good and Bad At? We hope it is clear from our description thus far, Rich Pictures’ strength lies in its flexibility and openness, meaning a process can evolve in almost any direction, and that the method can be bent to almost any purpose. Indeed, the method can easily be bent to the will of participants, it does not constrain them or force them to adopt a modelling framework, mean- ing it can focus on what is important to them. The method is excellent at quickly opening lively discussions, drawing on humour and expression to help participants develop richer shared understandings of an issue. Visual metaphors (such as the puppet master example in Fig. 2.2) are powerful and quick ways to communicate these understandings. It excels at captur- ing different perspectives, values, and perceptions often crucial in deter- mining what happens on the ground in social systems, but extremely difficult to capture with formal modelling methods. Rich Picture’s flexibil- ity mean they have the potential to allow people to offer whole systems views without constraints or simplifying assumptions. This is a strength, but equally, we should be conscious that they do not enforce or directly encourage a whole systems view, so this does not always emerge. Rich Pictures are an easy method to start using, there are few resources needed, and though analysis can be difficult to develop quickly, the method itself is not intimidating or technically challenging to use. This means that the barrier to stakeholder participation and engagement is correspond- ingly low, and most people would be able to contribute their perspectives, including those who might feel intimidated by other methods. It can be used in situations in which participants are not literate, where there are language barriers, or with participants who are unaccustomed to network- type representations. It is also worth noting, Rich Pictures processes rarely fail. Even in a tricky process, or a group the facilitator feels did not work well together, there is still something to work with, some learning to be had, from the discussion and the picture (however simple). Other meth- ods in this book are more likely to fail because of certain essential elements that must be collected or addressed; this is not the case with Rich Pictures. The flipside of these strengths is the ‘weaknesses’ of Rich Pictures. We use inverted commas here because these are not really weaknesses, rather just things Rich Pictures will never do because it prizes freedom and expression so highly. The method will not help us formalise knowledge in any precise way, rather it will tend to create discursive and rich descriptions of issues, rather than neater or simplified ones. It will not provide direct inputs into more formal modelling approaches, including those in this 2 RICH PICTURES
- 50. Other documents randomly have different content
- 51. necessities of the hour, which was Protection without Reconstruction, and it sends back another which is Reconstruction without Protection.” Concurrence was refused, and a committee of conference asked. The Senate insisting, and declining the proposed conference, the House proceeded alone, supplementing the Reconstruction provisions with others guarding against Rebel domination,[234] and crowning their work with the emphatic vote of 128 Yeas to 46 Nays. To this vote the Senate yielded, by a concurrent vote of Yeas 35, Nays 7,—with “the effect,” as announced, “of passing the bill.” Mr. Sumner, hailing these amendments as what he had required, of course voted with the Yeas,—and his name so stands on both of the official registers, in immediate conjunction with Mr. Trumbull’s.[235] This was on the 20th of February. The vote consequent upon the Veto was ten days later, when his name was again recorded with the Yeas.[236] These two were the only votes in the Senate on the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, in the completeness of its provisions, as it appears in the Statute-Book.[237] February 10th, 1870, the bill for the admission of Mississippi having come up for consideration in the Senate, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, availed himself of the opportunity to reopen the personal controversy with Mr. Sumner, in an acrimonious speech denying his claim to the authorship of the provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and ascribing it to Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, a member of the other House,—quoting Mr. Sumner’s opening declaration on this point, but resisting the reading of what followed in explanation and support of that declaration, under the plea that “he did not want it printed as part of his own speech.”[238] On the conclusion of Mr. Stewart’s speech, Mr. Sumner answered as follows:— Mr. President,—You will bear witness that I am no volunteer now. I have been no volunteer on any of these recurring occasions when I have been assailed in this Chamber. I have begun no question. I began no question with the Senator from Nevada. I began no question with the other Senator on my right [Mr. Trumbull]. I began no question yesterday with the Senator from New York [Mr. Conkling].[239] I began no question, either, with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Carpenter].[240] But I am here to answer; and I begin by asking to have read at the desk what I did say, and what the Senator from Nevada was unwilling, as he declared, to have incorporated in his speech. I can understand that he was very unwilling. I send the passage to the Chair.
- 52. The passage referred to, embracing the first three paragraphs of Mr. Sumner’s statement in answer to Mr. Trumbull, January 21st,[241] having been read, he proceeded:— That statement is to the effect that on my motion that important proposition was put into the bill. Does anybody question it? Has the impeachment of the Senator to-day impaired that statement by a hair’s-breadth? He shows that in another part of this Capitol patriot Representatives were striving in the same direction. All honor to them! God forbid that I should ever grudge to any of my associates in this great controversy any of the fame that belongs to them! There is enough for all, provided we have been faithful. Sir, it is not in my nature to take from any one credit, character, fame, to which he is justly entitled. The world is wide enough for all. Let each enjoy what he has earned. I ask nothing for myself. I asked nothing the other day; what I said was only in reply to the impeachment, the arraignment let me call it, by the Senator from Illinois. I then simply said it was on my motion that this identical requirement went into the bill. The Senator, in reply, seeks to show that in the other Chamber a similar proposition was brought forward; but it did not become a part of the bill. He shows that it was brought forward in this Chamber, but did not become a part of the bill. It was on my motion that it did become a part of the bill. It was not unnatural, perhaps, that I should go further, as I did, and say that in making this motion I only acted in harmony with my life and best exertions for years. I have the whole record here. Shall I open it? I hesitate. In doing so I break a vow with myself. And yet it cannot be necessary. You know me in this Chamber; you know how I have devoted myself from the beginning to this idea, how constantly I have maintained it and urged it from the earliest date. The first stage in this series—you [Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, in the chair] remember it; you were here; the Senator from Nevada
- 53. was not here—goes to February 11, 1862, when “Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions declaratory of the relations between the United States and the territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended governments without constitutional or legal right.” In these resolutions it is declared, that, after an act of secession followed by war, “The territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, as other territory, and the State becomes, according to the language of the law, felo de se.” The resolutions conclude as follows:— “And that, in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory where such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government under the Constitution, and, in the execution of this trust, will provide carefully for the protection of all the inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the organization of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the welfare of society, and will in every way discharge the duties of a just, merciful, and paternal government.”[242] Sir, there was the beginning of Reconstruction in this Chamber. That was its earliest expression. On the 8th of February, 1864, it appears that “Mr. Sumner submitted resolutions defining the character of the national contest, and protesting
- 54. against any premature restoration of Rebel States without proper guaranties and safeguards against Slavery and for the protection of freedmen.”[243] And on the same day it appears that he submitted the following Amendment to the Constitution, which, had it been adopted then, would have cured many of the difficulties that have since occurred, entitled— “Amendment of the Constitution, securing Equality before the Law and the Abolition of Slavery.” It is as follows:— “All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry this declaration into effect everywhere within the United States and the jurisdiction thereof.”[244] There, Sir, was the beginning of Civil-Rights Bills and Political- Rights Bills. On the same day it appears that Mr. Sumner introduced into the Senate “A bill to secure equality before the law in the courts of the United States.”[245] The debate went on. On the 25th of February, 1865, a resolution of the Judiciary Committee was pending, recognizing the State Government of Louisiana. Mr. Sumner on that day introduced resolutions thus entitled:— “Resolutions declaring the duty of the United States to guaranty Republican Governments in the Rebel States on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, so that the new governments”— that is, the reconstructed governments—
- 55. “shall be founded on the consent of the governed and the equality of all persons before the law.” Of this series of resolutions I will read two. “That the path of justice is also the path of peace; and that for the sake of peace it is better to obey the Constitution, and, in conformity with its requirements, in the performance of the guaranty, to reëstablish State governments on the consent of the governed and the equality of all persons before the law, to the end that the foundations thereof may be permanent, and that no loyal majorities may be again overthrown or ruled by any oligarchical class.” Then comes another resolution:— “That considerations of expediency are in harmony with the requirements of the Constitution and the dictates of justice and reason, especially now, when colored soldiers have shown their military value; that, as their muskets are needed for the national defence against Rebels in the field, so are their ballots yet more needed against the subtle enemies of the Union at home; and that without their support at the ballot-box the cause of Human Rights and of the Union itself will be in constant peril.”[246] On the resolution reported by the Senator from Illinois for the admission of Louisiana without Equal Rights, I had the honor of moving the very proposition now in question, under date of February 25, 1865:— “Provided, That this shall not take effect, except upon the fundamental condition that within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral franchise or of any other rights on account of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before the law.”[247]
- 56. Here was the first motion in this Chamber for equality of suffrage as a measure of Reconstruction. I entitled it at the time “the corner- stone of Reconstruction.” But here, Sir, it was my misfortune to encounter the strenuous opposition of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to this with reluctance; I have not opened this debate; and I quote what I do now simply in reply to the Senator from Nevada. Replying on that occasion to the Senator from Illinois, I said:— “The United States are bound by the Constitution to ‘guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.’ Now, when called to perform this guaranty, it is proposed to recognize an oligarchy of the skin. The pretended State government in Louisiana is utterly indefensible, whether you look at its origin or its character. To describe it, I must use plain language. It is a mere seven-months’ abortion, begotten by the bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of Caste, and born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished, whose continued existence will be a burden, a reproach, and a wrong. That is the whole case; and yet the Senator from Illinois now presses it upon the Senate at this moment, to the exclusion of the important public business of the country.”[248] The Louisiana Bill, though pressed by the Senator from Illinois, was defeated; and the equal rights of the colored race were happily vindicated. His opposition was strenuous. But, Sir, I did not content myself with action in this Chamber. Our good President was assassinated. The Vice-President succeeded to his place. Being here in Washington, I entered at once into relations with him,—hoping to bring, if possible, his great influence in favor of this measure of Reconstruction; and here is a record, made shortly afterward, which I will read. “During this period I saw the President frequently,— sometimes at the private house he then occupied, and
- 57. sometimes at his office in the Treasury. On these occasions the constant topic was ‘Reconstruction,’ which was considered in every variety of aspect. More than once I ventured to press upon him the duty and the renown of carrying out the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and of founding the new governments in the Rebel States on the consent of the governed, without any distinction of color. To this earnest appeal he replied, on one occasion, as I sat with him alone, in words which I can never forget: ‘On this question, Mr. Sumner, there is no difference between us: you and I are alike.’ Need I say that I was touched to the heart by this annunciation, which seemed to promise a victory without a battle? Accustomed to controversy, I saw clearly, that, if the President declared himself in favor of the Equal Rights of All, the good cause must prevail without controversy.”[249] Then followed another incident:— “On another occasion, during the same period, the case of Tennessee was discussed. I expressed the hope most earnestly that the President would use his influence directly for the establishment of impartial suffrage in that State,—saying, that, in this way, Tennessee would be put at the head of the returning column, and be made an example,—in one word, that all the other States would be obliged to dress on Tennessee. The President replied, that, if he were at Nashville, he would see that this was accomplished. I could not help rejoining promptly, that he need not be at Nashville, for at Washington his hand was on the long end of the lever, with which he could easily move all Tennessee,—referring, of course, to the powerful, but legitimate, influence which the President might
- 58. exercise in his own State by the expression of his desires.”[250] Then, again, as I was about to leave on my return home to Massachusetts, in an interview with him I ventured to express my desires and aspirations as follows: this was in May, 1865:— “After remarking that the Rebel region was still in military occupation, and that it was the plain duty of the President to use his temporary power for the establishment of correct principles, I proceeded to say: ‘First, see to it that no newspaper is allowed which is not thoroughly loyal and does not speak well of the National Government and of Equal Rights’; and here I reminded him of the saying of the Duke of Wellington, that in a place under martial law an unlicensed press was as impossible as on the deck of a ship of war. ‘Secondly, let the officers that you send as military governors or otherwise be known for their devotion to Equal Rights, so that their names alone will be a proclamation, while their simple presence will help educate the people’; and here I mentioned Major- General Carl Schurz, who still held his commission in the Army, as such a person. ‘Thirdly, encourage the population to resume the profitable labors of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, without delay,—but for the present to avoid politics. Fourthly, keep the whole Rebel region under these good influences, and at the proper moment hand over the subject of Reconstruction, with the great question of Equal Rights, to the judgment of Congress, where it belongs.’ All this the President received at the time with perfect kindness; and I mention this with the more readiness because I remember to have seen in the papers a very different statement.”[251]
- 59. Before I left Washington, and in the midst of my interviews with the President, I was honored by a communication from colored citizens of North Carolina, asking my counsel with regard to their rights, especially the right to vote. I will not read their letter,—it was published in the papers of the time, and much commented upon,— but I will read my reply.[252] “Washington, May 13, 1865. “Gentlemen,—I am glad that the colored citizens of North Carolina are ready to take part in the organization of Government. It is unquestionably their right and duty. “I see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any Rebel State, unless the rights of all are recognized, without distinction of color. On this foundation we must build. “The article on Reconstruction to which you call my attention proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that persons with a white skin are the only ‘citizens.’ This is a mistake. “As you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand for you to make, I have no hesitation in replying that you must insist on all the rights and privileges of a citizen. They belong to you; they are yours; and whoever undertakes to rob you of them is a usurper and impostor. “Of course you will take part in any primary meetings for political organization open to citizens generally, and will not miss any opportunity to show your loyalty and fidelity. “Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen, faithfully yours,
- 60. “Charles Sumner.” Such was my earnestness in this work, that, when invited by the municipality of Boston, where I was born and have always lived, to address my fellow-citizens in commemoration of the late President, I deemed it my duty to dedicate the day mainly to a vindication of Equal Rights as represented by him. I hold in my hand the address on that occasion, from which I will read one passage. This was on the 1st of June, 1865. “The argument for Colored Suffrage is overwhelming. It springs from the necessity of the case, as well as from the Rights of Man. This suffrage is needed for the security of the colored people, for the stability of the local government, and for the strength of the Union. Without it there is nothing but insecurity for the colored people, instability for the local government, and weakness for the Union, involving of course the national credit.”[253] This was followed by a letter, dated Boston, July 8, 1865, addressed to the colored people of Savannah, who had done me the honor of forwarding to me a petition asking for the right to vote, with the request that I would present it to the President. After saying, that, had I been at Washington, I should have had great pleasure in presenting the petition personally, but that I was obliged to content myself with another method, I proceeded in this way:— “Allow me to add, that you must not be impatient. You have borne the heavier burdens of Slavery; and as these are now removed, believe the others surely will be also. This enfranchised Republic, setting an example to mankind, cannot continue to sanction an odious oligarchy whose single distinctive element is color. I have no doubt that you will be admitted to the privileges of citizens.
- 61. “It is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanction governments in the Rebel States which are not founded on ‘the consent of the governed.’ This is the corner-stone of republican institutions. Of course, by the ‘governed’ is meant all the loyal citizens, without distinction of color. Anything else is mockery. “Never neglect your work; but, meanwhile, prepare yourselves for the privileges of citizens. They are yours of right, and I do not doubt that they will be yours soon in reality. The prejudice of Caste and a false interpretation of the Constitution cannot prevail against justice and common sense, both of which are on your side,—and I may add, the Constitution also, which, when properly interpreted, is clearly on your side. “Accept my best wishes, and believe me, fellow- citizens, faithfully yours, “Charles Sumner.”[254] This was followed by an elaborate speech before the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 14, 1865, entitled “The National Security and the National Faith: Guaranties for the National Freedman and the National Creditor,”—where I insisted that national peace and tranquillity could be had only from impartial suffrage; and I believe that it was on this occasion that this phrase, which has since become a formula of politics, was first publicly employed. My language was as follows:— “As the national peace and tranquillity depend essentially upon the overthrow of monopoly and tyranny, here is another occasion for special guaranty against the whole pretension of color. No Rebel State can be readmitted with this controversy still raging and ready to break forth.”
- 62. Mark the words, if you please. “So long as it continues, the land will be barren, agriculture and business of all kinds will be uncertain, and the country will be handed over to a fearful struggle, with the terrors of San Domingo to darken the prospect. In shutting out the freedman from his equal rights at the ballot-box, you open the doors of discontent and insurrection. Cavaignac, the patriotic President of the French Republic, met the present case, when, speaking for France, he said: ‘I do not believe repose possible, either in the present or the future, except so far as you found your political condition on universal suffrage, loyally, sincerely, completely accepted and observed.’”[255] I then proceeded,—not adopting the term “universal suffrage,” employed by the eminent Frenchman,—as follows:— “It is impartial suffrage that I claim, without distinction of color, so that there shall be one equal rule for all men. And this, too, must be placed under the safeguard of Constitutional Law.”[256] I followed up this effort by a communication to that powerful and extensively circulated paper, the New York “Independent,” under date of Boston, October 29, 1865, where I expressed myself as follows:— “For the sake of the whole country, which suffers from weakness in any part,—for the sake of the States lately distracted by war, which above all things need security and repose,—for the sake of agriculture, which is neglected there,—for the sake of commerce, which has fled,—for the sake of the national creditor, whose generous trust is exposed to repudiation,—and, finally, for the sake of reconciliation, which can be complete
- 63. only when justice prevails, we must insist upon Equal Rights as the condition of the new order of things.” Mark, if you please, Sir, “as the condition of the new order of things,”—or, as I called it on other occasions, the corner-stone of Reconstruction. “So long as this question remains unsettled, there can be no true peace. Therefore I would say to the merchant who wishes to open trade with this region, to the capitalist who would send his money there, to the emigrant who seeks to find a home there, Begin by assuring justice to all men. This is the one essential condition of prosperity, of credit, and of tranquillity. Without this, mercantile houses, banks, and emigration societies having anything to do with this region must all fail, or at least suffer in business and resources. To Congress we must look as guardian, under the Constitution, of the national safety.”[257] Meanwhile the President adopted a policy of reaction. I was at home in Massachusetts, and from Boston, under date of November 12, 1865, I addressed him a telegraphic dispatch, as follows:— “To the President of the United States, Washington. “As a faithful friend and supporter of your administration, I most respectfully petition you to suspend for the present your policy towards the Rebel States. I should not present this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain any reasonable guaranties for that security in the future which is essential to peace and reconciliation. To my mind, it abandons the freedmen to the control of their ancient masters, and leaves the national debt exposed to repudiation by returning Rebels. The Declaration of Independence asserts the equality of all
- 64. men, and that rightful government can be founded only on the consent of the governed. I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are practically established. Without this the house will continue divided against itself. “Charles Sumner, “Senator of the United States.”[258] Not content with these efforts, in an article more literary than political in its character, which found a place in the “Atlantic Monthly” for December, 1865, entitled, “Clemency and Common Sense: a Curiosity of Literature, with a Moral,” I again returned to this same question. I will quote only a brief passage. “Again, we are told gravely that the national power which decreed Emancipation cannot maintain it by assuring universal enfranchisement, because an imperial government must be discountenanced,—as if the whole suggestion of ‘Imperialism’ or ‘Centralism’ were not out of place, until the national security is established, and our debts, whether to the national freedman or the national creditor, are placed where they cannot be repudiated. A phantom is created, and, to avoid this phantom, we drive towards concession and compromise, as from Charybdis to Scylla.”[259] The session of Congress opened December 4, 1865, and you will find that on the first day I introduced two distinct measures of Reconstruction, with Equality before the Law as their corner-stone. The first was a bill in the following terms:— “A Bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican form of government in the Constitution of the United States. “Whereas it is declared in the Constitution that the United States shall guaranty to every State in this
- 65. Union a republican form of government; and whereas certain States have allowed their governments to be subverted by rebellion, so that the duty is now cast upon Congress of executing this guaranty: Now, therefore, “Be it enacted, c., That in all States lately declared to be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy invested with peculiar privileges and powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on account of race or color; but all persons shall be equal before the law, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box. And this statute, made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any such State to the contrary notwithstanding.”[260] The second was “A Bill to enforce the guaranty of a republican form of government in certain States whose governments have been usurped or overthrown.”[261] Read this bill, if you please, Sir. I challenge criticism of it at this date, in the light of all our present experience. It is in twelve sections, and you will find in it the very proposition which is now in question,—being the requirement of Equal Rights for All in the reconstruction of the Rebel States. “Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the delegates”— that is, the delegates to the Convention for the reëstablishment of a State government— “shall be elected by the loyal male citizens of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years, and resident at the time in the county, parish, or district in which they shall offer to vote, and enrolled as aforesaid, or absent in the military service of the United States.”[262]
- 66. And then the bill proceeds to provide,— “Sec. 8. … That the Convention shall declare, on behalf of the people of the State, their submission to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and shall adopt the following provisions, hereby prescribed by the United States in the execution of the constitutional duty to guaranty a republican form of government to every State, and incorporate them in the Constitution of the State: that is to say:—” After one—two—three—four provisions, the section proceeds as follows:— “Fifthly, There shall be no distinction among the inhabitants of this State founded on race, former condition, or color. Every such inhabitant shall be entitled to all the privileges before the law enjoyed by the most favored class of such inhabitants.” And the section concludes:— “Sixthly, These provisions shall be perpetual, not to be abolished or changed hereafter.”[263] Nor is this all. On the same day I introduced “A Bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery,”[264] of which I will read the third section:— “That, in further enforcement of the provision of the Constitution prohibiting Slavery, and in order to remove all relics of this wrong from the States where this constitutional prohibition takes effect, it is hereby declared that all laws or customs in such States, establishing any oligarchical privileges, and any distinction of rights on account of race or color, are hereby annulled, and all persons in such States are recognized as equal before the law; and the penalties
- 67. provided in the last section are hereby made applicable to any violation of this provision, which is made in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States.”[265] Still further, on the same day I introduced “Resolutions declaratory of the duty of Congress in respect to guaranties of the national security and the national faith in the Rebel States.” One of these guaranties which I proposed to establish was as follows:— “The complete suppression of all oligarchical pretensions, and the complete enfranchisement of all citizens, so that there shall be no denial of rights on account of color or race; but justice shall be impartial, and all shall be equal before the law.” I added also a provision which I was unable to carry,—it was lost by a tie vote,—as follows:— “The organization of an educational system for the equal benefit of all, without distinction of color or race.”[266] Such, Sir, were the measures which I had the honor of bringing forward at the very beginning of the session. During the same session, in an elaborate effort which occupied two days, February 5 and 6, 1866, and is entitled “The Equal Rights of All: the great Guaranty and present Necessity, for the sake of Security, and to maintain a Republican Government,” I vindicated the necessity of the colored suffrage in order to obtain peace and reconciliation, and I placed it on the foundations of Constitutional Law as well as natural justice. Here is a passage from this speech:— “And here, after this long review, I am brought back to more general considerations, and end as I began, by showing the necessity of Enfranchisement for the sake of public security and public faith. I plead now for the ballot, as the great guaranty, and the only sufficient guaranty,—being in itself peacemaker,
- 68. reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector,—to which we are bound by every necessity and every reason; and I speak also for the good of the States lately in rebellion, as well as for the glory and safety of the Republic, that it may be an example to mankind.” The speech closed as follows:— “The Roman Cato, after declaring his belief in the immortality of the soul, added, that, if this were an error, it was an error he loved. And now, declaring my belief in Liberty and Equality as the God-given birthright of all men, let me say, in the same spirit, if this be an error, it is an error I love,—if this be a fault, it is a fault I shall be slow to renounce,—if this be an illusion, it is an illusion which I pray may wrap the world in its angelic forms.”[267] The discussion still proceeded, and only a month later, March 7, 1866, I made another elaborate effort with the same object, from which I read my constant testimony:— “I do not stop to exhibit the elective franchise as essential to the security of the freedman, without which he will be the prey of Slavery in some new form, and cannot rise to the stature of manhood. In opening this debate I presented the argument fully. Suffice it to say that Emancipation will fail in beneficence, if you do not assure to the former slave all the rights of the citizen. Until you do this, your work will be only half done, and the freedman only half a man.” This speech closed as follows:— “Recall the precious words of the early English writer, who, describing ‘the Good Sea-Captain,’ tells us that he ‘counts the image of God nevertheless His image, cut in ebony, as if done in ivory.’[268] The good
- 69. statesman must be like the good sea-captain. His ship is the State, which he keeps safe on its track. He, too, must see the image of God in all his fellow-men, and, in the discharge of his responsible duties, must set his face forever against any recognition of inequality in human rights. Other things you may do, but this you must not do.”[269] I do not quote other efforts, other speeches, but pass to the next session of Congress, when, at the beginning, under date of December 5, 1866, I introduced resolutions thus entitled:— “Resolutions declaring the true principles of Reconstruction, the jurisdiction of Congress over the whole subject, the illegality of existing governments in the Rebel States, and the exclusion of such States with such illegal governments from representation in Congress and from voting on Constitutional Amendments.” Of these resolutions the fourth is as follows:— “That, in determining what is a republican form of government, Congress must follow implicitly the definition supplied by the Declaration of Independence, and, in the practical application of this definition, it must, after excluding all disloyal persons, take care that new governments are founded on the two fundamental truths therein contained: first, that all men are equal in rights; and, secondly, that all just government stands only on the consent of the governed.”[270] Meanwhile the subject of Reconstruction was practically discussed in both Houses of Congress. In this Chamber a bill was introduced by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Williams], providing a military government. In the House there was another bill, and on that bill
- 70. good Representatives—to whom be all honor!—sought to ingraft the requirement of colored suffrage. This effort, unhappily, did not prevail. The bill came to this Chamber without it. In this Chamber the same effort was made; but the bill, while it was still immatured, passed into our caucus. The effort which had thus far failed was then renewed by me in the committee, where it again failed. It was then renewed by me in the caucus, where it triumphed. This is the history of that proposition. I claim nothing for myself. I alluded to it the other day only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to it now reluctantly, and only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from Nevada. I regret to be obliged to make any allusion to it. I think there is no occasion for any. I have erred, perhaps, in taking so much time in this explanation; but when the Senator, after days and weeks of interval, came here with his second indictment, I felt that I might without impropriety throw myself upon the indulgence of this Chamber to make the simple explanation that I have made. I have shown that as early as February 25, 1865, I proposed in this Chamber to require the colored suffrage as the corner-stone of Reconstruction. I have shown that in an elaborate bill introduced December 4, 1865, being a bill of Reconstruction, I required the very things which were afterward introduced in the Reconstruction Act of 1867; and I have shown also that here in this Chamber, at home among my constituents, in direct intercourse with the President, and also in communication with colored persons at the South, from the beginning, I insisted upon the colored suffrage as the essential condition of Reconstruction. It so happened that I was a member of the committee appointed by the caucus to consider this question, giving me the opportunity there of moving it again; and then I had another opportunity in the caucus of renewing the effort. I did renew it, and, thank God, it was successful. Had Mr. Bingham or Mr. Blaine, who made a kindred effort in the House, been of our committee, and then of our caucus, I do not doubt they would have done the same thing. My colleague did not
- 71. use too strong language, when he said that then and there, in that small room, in that caucus, was decided the greatest pending question on the North American Continent. I remember his delight, his ecstasy, at the result. I remember other language that he employed on that occasion, which I do not quote. I know he was elevated by the triumph; and yet it was carried only by two votes. There are Senators who were present at that caucus according to whose recollection it was carried only by one vote. The Postmaster- General, in conversing with me on this subject lately, told me that he had often, in addressing his constituents, alluded to this result as illustrating the importance of one vote in deciding a great question. The Postmaster-General was in error. It was not by one vote, but by two votes, that it was carried. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, following with personal recollections concerning the provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, said it was his “impression” that the motion for its adoption “in caucus” was made by “the Senator’s colleague [Mr. Wilson],” “but undoubtedly the other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] made it in committee, and advocated it,”—adding, however, “Neither the Senator from Massachusetts nor any other Senator can claim any great merit in voting for universal suffrage in February or March, 1867. His record was made long before that.” In reference to the latter Mr. Sherman remarked:— “The Senator from Massachusetts needs no defender of his course on the question of universal suffrage. No man can deny that from the first, and I think the very first, he has advocated and maintained the necessity of giving to the colored people of the Southern States the right to vote.… Early and late he has repeated to us the necessity of conferring suffrage upon the colored people of the South as the basis of Reconstruction. I think, therefore, that he is justified in stating that he was the first to propose it in this body; and why should the Senator deem it necessary to spend one hour of our valuable time now to prove this fact? In my judgment it would be just as well for George Washington to defend himself against the charge of disloyalty to the American Colonies, for whom he was fighting, as for the honorable Senator to defend his record on this question.” After further remarks by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Trumbull, of the same character as the first, Mr. Wilson rose and addressed the Chair; but a previous motion for
- 72. adjournment being insisted upon and prevailing, he was cut off, and the matter subsided.
- 73. FOOTNOTES [1] Wordsworth, The Excursion, Book IV. 1293-5. [2] Speech on the Bill for the Admission of Nebraska, January 15, 1867: Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 478. [3] “Non hoc præcipuum amicorum munus est, prosequi defunctum ignavo questu, sed quæ voluerit meminisse, quæ mandaverit exsequi.”—Tacitus, Annalia, Lib. II. cap. 71. [4] Senate Reports, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 128. [5] Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 3. [6] Quæstiones Juris Publici, Lib. I. cap. 7. [7] Letter to Mr. Hammond, May 29, 1792: Writings, Vol. III. p. 369. [8] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 9, § 168. [9] Law of Nations, pp. 138, 139. [10] Coleridge, The Piccolomini, Act I. Scene 4. [11] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 18, §§ 293-5. [12] Prize Cases: 2 Black, R., 674. [13] Mrs. Alexander’s Cotton: 2 Wallace, R., 419. [14] Ibid. [15] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 15, § 232. [16] Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,) pp. 305-6. [17] Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur, (Boston, 1825,) p. 304. [18] Secretary Marcy to General Taylor, Sept. 22, 1846: Executive Documents, 30th Cong. 1st Sess., Senate. No. 1, p.
- 74. 564. [19] International Law, Ch. XIX. § 17. [20] Vol. XI. p. 169, note. [21] Alison, History of Europe, (Edinburgh, 1843,) Vol. IX. p. 880. [22] Letter to Lieut. Gen. Sir John Hope, Oct. 8, 1813: Dispatches, Vol. XI. pp. 169-170. [23] Sabine, Loyalists of the American Revolution, (Boston, 1864,) Vol. I. p. 112. [24] Debate in the House of Commons, on the Compensation to the American Loyalists, June 6, 1788: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXVII. col. 610. [25] Ibid., col. 614. [26] Ibid., col. 616. [27] Ibid., col. 617. [28] American State Papers: Claims, p. 198. [29] Ibid. [30] Ibid., p. 199. [31] House Reports, 1830-1, No. 68; 1831-2, No. 88; 1832-3, No. 11. Act, March 2, 1833: Private Laws, p. 546. [32] American State Papers: Claims, p. 446. Act, March 1, 1815: Private Laws, p. 151. [33] American State Papers: Claims, p. 444. Act, February 27, 1815: Private Laws, p. 150. [34] American State Papers: Claims, p. 462. [35] American State Papers: Claims, p. 521. Acts, March 3, 1817: Private Laws, pp. 194, 187. [36] American State Papers: Claims, pp. 521, 522. Annals of Congress, 14th Cong. 2d Sess., coll. 215, 1036. [37] American State Papers: Claims, p. 835. Annals of Congress, 17th Cong. 1st Sess., col. 311.
- 75. [38] Statutes at Large, Vol. III. p. 263. [39] American State Papers: Claims, p. 590. [40] Ibid. [41] January 14th, Mr. Wilson moved, as an amendment to the pending bill, a substitute providing for the appointment of “commissioners to examine and report all claims for quartermasters’ stores and subsistence supplies furnished the military forces of the United States, during the late civil war, by loyal persons in the States lately in rebellion.”—Congressional Globe, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 359. [42] Speech in the House of Commons, January 14, 1766: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XVI. col. 104. [43] Speeches in the Senate on “Political Equality without Distinction of Color,” March 7, 1866, and the “Validity and Necessity of Fundamental Conditions on States,” June 10, 1868: Ante, Vol. XIII. pp. 307-9; Vol. XVI. pp. 246-9. [44] Chap. XXV., Title. [45] Chap. XXIX. [46] Speech in the Senate, February 5 and 6, 1866: Ante, Vol. X. p. 184. [47] The Federalist, No. LIV., by Alexander Hamilton.— Concerning the authorship of this paper, see the Historical Notice, by J. C. Hamilton, pp. xcv-cvi, and cxix-cxxvii, prefixed to his edition of the Federalist (Philadelphia, 1864). [48] Elliot’s Debates, (2d edit.,) Vol. III. p. 367. [49] 19 Howard, R., 476. [50] M’Culloch v. State of Maryland: 4 Wheaton, R., 408-21. [51] For the full text of the Convention, see Parliamentary Papers, 1868-9, Vol. LXIII.,—North America, No. 1, pp. 36-38; Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 11,— Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 752-5. [52] A term applied in England to the Ashburton Treaty,—and Lord Palmerston thought “most properly.”—Debate in the House
- 76. of Commons, February 2, 1843: Hansard, 3d Ser., Vol. LXVI. coll. 87, 121, 127. [53] Stapleton’s Political Life of Canning, (London, 1831,) Vol. II. p. 408. Speech of Lord John Russell in the House of Commons, May 6, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 1566. [54] Speech in the House of Lords, May 16, 1861: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXII. col. 2084. [55] On Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals, (London, 1859,) p. 75. See also pp. 59, 65-67. [56] Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. I. pp. 21-22: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 11. [57] Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres, (2ème Édit., Paris, 1858,) Tit. IX. chap. 7. Parliamentary Papers, 1837, Vol. LIV.; 1837-8, Vol. LII. [58] Le Droit International Public de l’Europe, (Berlin et Paris, 1857,) §§ 112, 121. [59] Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, July 24, 1862: Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 26, 29. [60] Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, March 27, 1863: Parliamentary Papers, 1864, Vol. LXII.,—North America, No. I. pp. 2, 3. Speech in the House of Lords, February 16, 1864: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXIII. coll. 632, 633. [61] Deposition of William Passmore, July 21, 1862,—in Note of Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, July 22, 1862: Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 25-26. [62] Schedule annexed to Deposition of John Latham, in Note of Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, January 13, 1864: Ibid., Vol. III. pp. 213-16. [63] Speech in the House of Commons, March 27, 1863: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXX. coll. 71-72; The Times (London), March 28, 1863. [64] Circular of May 11, 1841,—inclosing Circular to British functionaries abroad, dated May 8, 1841, together with a
- 77. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookmasss.com