Talk:Lewis and Clark Expedition/Archive 2

Grammatical mistake
Sorry I'm just reporting it here. I don't have an account and this seems the only way to report it. There's an incomplete sentence in the Sakagawea section. Not anything major. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.183.104 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing major just that When oregon and colorado are brought up it is spellled wrong... like i said nothing major .... thanx

All those statues
Is it just me, or do all those statues leave other people cold, too. They just make the subject feel like a museum piece, or worse yet, a high school textbook-- sterile and "heroic", in the overused, grandiose sense of the work, like the overblown inspirational music they're always using in the background of documentaries on such stories. The story itself is gritty, and I suspect it didn't feel at all heroic day by day. Anyway, if it were up to me, I'd move them all to a gallery at the end. Anyone feel the same about them? -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Corps Of Discovery
It is also beleived that Sacajawea was captured by Indians, but no one can be really sure. I am not sure but I do beleive that the Indians called Clark "the redheaded chief" because of his red hair. It was very unusual for Indians to see red hair so of course they thought it was speical. The expedition is known to be called the corps of discovery, pronounced the cores of discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.70.7 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Official"
I replaced the word "official" with "recorded" because it's not clear what "Official" means. Presumably it has something to do with government sponsorship, in which case, it should say so. Or if the idea is to distinguish haphazard tranists by wanderers of which we have no historical record, then I hope "recorded" conveys that. I don't think we should call transits authorized by the US Government, whose title rested on conquest, as being more official than transits by the Native Americans who, after all, lived there first. rewinn (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Members of the expedition
The list of expedition members requires some corrections: 1. Jean-Baptiste Lepage, who joined the ‘Corps of Discovery’ as a replacement for Newman (No. 24; expelled from the permanent party on Oct. 13, 1804) on November 3, 1804, is missing. He was in one of the earlier versions but then deleted for some unfathomable reason. 2. Instead the list contains one ‘Howard Tunn’, who is pure invention - he isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Journals. Obviously he was brought into this world by some joker on March 19, 2006.

In addition it might be a good idea to organize the list a bit: (see section below)


 * Hi there, in regard to your semi-protected edit request;


 * I note that the current section was entirely unreferenced; therefore, I have removed it for now. This is merely procedure, as Wikipedia cannot assert unreferenced facts.


 * I, or another user processing SPER requests in the future, will be happy to reinstate the section as per your suggestin in the following section, as long as you can support the facts with a suitable reliable, verifiable reference - such as a book (with ISBN if possible).


 * Best regards,  Chzz  ►  09:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The 33 members of the Permanent Party

 * 1) Captain Meriwether Lewis—private secretary to President Thomas Jefferson and leader of the Expedition.
 * 2) Lieutenant William Clark—shared command of the Expedition, although technically second in command.
 * 3) York—Clark's slave (often referred to in Clark's journal as a "servant").
 * 4) Sergeant John Ordway—responsible for issuing provisions, appointing guard duties and keeping records for the Expedition, and leader of the 3rd squad; third in command
 * 5) Sergeant Nathaniel Hale Pryor—leader of the 1st Squad; he presided over the court martial of privates John Collins and Hugh Hall.
 * 6) Sergeant Patrick Gass—chief carpenter, promoted from Private to Sergeant after Floyd's death; leader of the 2nd squad.
 * 7) Private William E. Bratton—served as hunter and blacksmith.
 * 8) Private John Collins—had frequent disciplinary problems; he was court-martialed for stealing whiskey which he had been assigned to guard.
 * 9) Private John Colter—charged with mutiny early in the trip, he later proved useful as a hunter; he earned his fame after the journey as an explorer in his own right.
 * 10) Private Pierre Cruzatte—a one-eyed French fiddle-player and a skilled boatman.
 * 11) Private Joseph Field—a woodsman and skilled hunter, brother of Reubin.
 * 12) Private Reubin Field—a woodsman and skilled hunter, brother of Joseph.
 * 13) Private Robert Frazer—kept a journal that was never published; originally of the Return Party but then transferred to the Permanent Party on October 8, 1804, to replace Moses Reed.
 * 14) Private George Gibson—a fiddle-player and a good hunter; he served as an interpreter (probably via sign language).
 * 15) Private Silas Goodrich—the main fisherman of the expedition.
 * 16) Private Hugh Hall—court-martialed with John Collins for stealing whiskey.
 * 17) Private Thomas Proctor Howard—court-martialed for setting a "pernicious example" to the Indians by showing them that the wall at Fort Mandan was easily scaled.
 * 18) Private François Labiche—French fur trader who served as an interpreter and boatman.
 * 19) Private Jean-Baptiste Lepage—a Frenchman living with the Mandans; after Cruzatte and Labiche the third Frenchman to actually enlist, unlike Drouillard and Charbonneau (and numerous French ‘Engagés’ who joined the expedition only for a short time, usually as boatmen or interpreters); joined on November 3, 1804 as a replacement for Newman.
 * 20) Private Hugh McNeal—the first white explorer to stand astride the headwaters of the Missouri River on the Continental Divide.
 * 21) Private John Potts—German immigrant and a miller.
 * 22) Private George Shannon—was lost twice during the expedition, once for sixteen days. Youngest member of expedition at 19.
 * 23) Private John Shields—blacksmith, gunsmith, and a skilled carpenter; with John Colter, he was court-martialed for mutiny.
 * 24) Private John B. Thompson—may have had some experience as a surveyor.
 * 25) Private Peter M. Weiser—had some minor disciplinary problems at River Dubois, but still made a permanent member of the party.
 * 26) Private William Werner—convicted of being absent without leave at St. Charles, Missouri, at the start of the expedition.
 * 27) Private Joseph Whitehouse—often acted as a tailor for the other men; he kept a journal which extended the Expedition narrative by almost five months.
 * 28) Private Alexander Hamilton Willard—blacksmith; assisted John Shields. He was attacked in July 1805 by a White Bear on portage around Missouri River Falls and rescued by Clark and three others.
 * 29) Private Richard Windsor—often assigned duty as a hunter.
 * 30) Interpreter George Drouillard—skilled with Indian sign language; the best hunter on the expedition.
 * 31) Interpreter Toussaint Charbonneau—Sacagawea's husband; served as a translator and often as a cook.
 * 32) Interpreter Sacagawea—Charbonneau's wife; translated Shoshone to Hidatsa for Charbonneau and was a valued member of the expedition.
 * 33) Jean Baptiste Charbonneau—Son of Charbonneau and Sacagawea, born February 11, 1805, nicknamed ‘Pomp’ by Clark; his presence helped dispel any notion that the expedition was a war party, smoothing the way in Indian lands.
 * "Seaman", Lewis' large black Newfoundland dog.

Originally also members of the Permanent Party

 * 1) Sergeant Charles Floyd—the Expedition's quartermaster; died on August 20, 1804, near present Sioux City, Iowa, perhaps of a ruptured appendix He was the one member of the Corps who died during the Expedition.
 * 2) Private Moses B. Reed—attempted to desert in August 1804; convicted of desertion and expelled from the Permanent Party.
 * 3) Private John Newman—court-martialed and confined for "having uttered repeated expressions of a highly criminal and mutinous nature."; consequently expelled from the Permanent Party.

The Return Party
The composition of the return party is anything but clear. The following soldiers are mentioned on different occasions in April and May 1804 as belonging to it, but when it actually left the Permanent Party a year later, on April 7, 1805, the Journals only state that a "barge crew [...] of six soldiers" was dismissed with Corporal Warfington in charge; no other names are specified. If one considers that the party also included Reed and Newman, only four out of the five men mentioned below can have been in it:
 * 1) Corporal Richard Warfington—conducted the return party to St. Louis in 1805; fulfilled his task so ably that Lewis recommended that he receive a bonus beyond his regular pay.
 * 2) Private John Boley—disciplined at Camp Dubois.
 * 3) Private John Dame
 * 4) Private Ebenezer Tuttle—may have been the man sent back on June 12, 1804; otherwise, he was with the return party.
 * 5) Private Isaac White—may have been the man sent back on June 12, 1804; otherwise, he was with the return party.
 * 6) Private John Robertson—member of the Corps for a very short time; mentioned in the Journals on a few occasions (once as ‘Robinson’) and then disappears; may have been the man sent back on June 12, 1804, unless that was Tuttle or White

87.179.237.62 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Were Lewis and Clark homosexuals?
I recently read reports online that Lewis was a homosexual. His wiki article states "Lewis, a happy man, never married." What does that lead us to believe? The fact that Lewis committed suicide around the time that his "partner" Clark married a woman also increases speculation. Does anyone know the answer to this? While I was recently in the Pacific Northwest, home of many Lewis and Clark statues, someone told me this. Anyone want to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSurge1000 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the The Far Horizons (1955) be metioned in the article?
As of 2009, the only feature-length motion picture on the Lewis & Clark expedition is the low-budget 1955 film: The Far Horizons, [although there have been plenty of documentaries on the subject,(including the excellent 1997 PBS Ken Burns' "Lewis & Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery")]. The movie stars Fred MacMurray as Capt. Lewis, Charlton Heston as Lt. Clark, Donna Reed as Sacajawea and Barbara Hale as Julia Hancock (Lt. Clark's wife). It is a film with a great many fictional scenes in it; such as attacks by Native-Americans and a love story between Mr. Heston and Ms. Reed (who isn't married in the film). The short, minor scene where they reach the Pacific Ocean reflects the low-budget of the film. If someone wants to add "The Far Horizons" to the article, that's fine with me, but, it is a lousy movie.204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

A Correction for the reflist
Note 5 refers to an archived version of a site, because the original link to the site does not function. However, the original site (useful to link to in part because of its intellectual authority) does exist, is active, and will continue to be available in the foreseeable future. The original site link should be changed to this: http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=v02.appendix.a.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl -- I am not sure why the note links to the following:  http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/v02.appendix.a.html.

Capitalisation
There seems to me to be no reason why "Expedition" is capitalised in the title. "Lewis" and "Clark" should be, as surnames, but the whole thing is not a proper noun, so I'm proposing moving this article to "Lewis and Clark expedition". Comments please. Rodhull andemu  23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia training, reports
This article has a Philadelphia template, but nothing about Philadelphia in the article. From memory, I believe that there was training in various subjects for members of the expedition, and connections with the reports afterwards, done in Philadelphia. This needs investigation and additions to the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not removed the Philadelphia template, but there is no justification for having it until the article is improved to include relevant Philadelphia information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent sources for the Philadelphia connection
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 16 October 2009 00:47:17 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Dthomsen8
 * Book
 * http://www.lewisandclarkphila.org/philadelphia/philadelphiafrankmuhly.html
 * http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=593

All those statues
Is it just me, or do all those statues leave other people cold, too. They just make the subject feel like a museum piece, or worse yet, a high school textbook-- sterile and "heroic", in the overused, grandiose sense of the work, like the overblown inspirational music they're always using in the background of documentaries on such stories. The story itself is gritty, and I suspect it didn't feel at all heroic day by day. Anyway, if it were up to me, I'd move them all to a gallery at the end. Anyone feel the same about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.88.35 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Native American/Indian
Should we not call them Native Americans.... seeing as how they are Americans... and of no Indian relation..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.6.89 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking this in relation to the wording in this article, or the word usage in general? Katr67 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Native American name controversy. My understanding in brief: In the United States both "Native American" and "Indian" are common and acceptable. In a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia I would only use them for topics restricted to areas now part of the United States, and then start off with a term and link like Native American Indians. Later in the article, once the context is well established, and if a shorter term is desired, using just "Indians" seems acceptable. For areas now part of Canada I would avoid both terms and instead use the term "indigenous peoples", or something similar, like Aboriginal peoples in Canada, or First Nations if appropriate. If the topic area covers both what is now the US and Canada, I would opt for "indigenous" over "Native American". For Mexico and areas south I am not sure. See Native American name controversy, which has suggestions. Finally, I think it is best when possible to avoid these overarching terms altogether and instead use the names of specific tribes and nations, like Lakota, Seneca, etc. This is my approach on the topic both in general and for this article in particular (which I will check over now!). Pfly (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, I made a few changes. The topic is slightly tricky for this article because Lewis and Clark explored land that was not wholly American at the time--Britain had a good claim to much of it, as did Spain. The American claim was rather tenuous. But since the expedition's travels were entirely within what is now the US, I generally went with the Native American Indians style. I replaced a few general terms with specific ones (like changing "Indians" to "Sioux", and removed a number of unnecessary uses of "Indian" (Shoshone Indian wife, Sacajawea). I used the word "indigenous" for the Blackfeet, as they are a tribe that extends into Canada, both back then and today. Naturally I did not edit quotes, such as Jefferson's use of the word "Indians". For the first use of the term in the subsection "Native American relations" I went overboard with the phrase "the indigenous Native American Indians", covering the bases rather thoroughly. The subsection goes on to use both "Native American" and "Indian", so it made sense for the first use to include both. Anyway, lots of articles could use this kind of copyediting, I reckon. Pfly (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hey Pfly, thanks for the thorough explanation. I was planning to delete the anon's question as unrelated chat, however, if s/he didn't reply today that the question pertained to the word usage in this Lewis and Clark article. And then send hiim/her to the reference desk. :) Katr67 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "the indigenous Native American Indians" might be a bit of overkill. I wouldn't sweat the usage of "Indian" too much, as long as the usage of the word is clear, "Native American" is used at least once, and Native Americans in the United States is linked somewhere. We should be as encyclopedic as possible, which means using the academically accepted terminology, but do note that most American Indians just refer to themselves as "Indians". You might go ask about the matter at WP:IPNA. For Canada, First Nations is also acceptable. Katr67 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, feel free to trim it down! I've become rather fond of the term indigenous, especially after learning that "Native American" and "Indian" are much less acceptable in Canada (although apparently not entirely so). But you are probably right my phrase was overkill. First Nations is a little tricky--what would you call an individual? A First Nationer? Plus, doesn't it have a connotation of the modern First Nation governments that might not be quite right for historical descriptions? (I'm not sure) Anyway, the original poster's question might have been unrelated chat, but this article did have a little bit of mixed use, so I figured it might as well be checked. Pfly (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries, it is all very complex. I believe the best practice for individuals, as you noted above, is to refer to a persons' tribal affiliation whenever possible. For the general term for folks whose ancestors lived here long before mine did, I tend to use the term (capital "N") Native, in my personal writing, depending on context, but I don't think that would work on Wikipedia. Katr67 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Information in Section 'Achievements' is repetition in the article
This section has the same information as the last four paragraph of the "Louisiana Purchase and a western expedition".

Shall I go into the article and delete the introduction to the 'Achievements' article. BEFORE deleting I would copy and paste the information to the 'purchase' section, because it is better worded.

Shall I work on making this article more readable, or is someone else working on this? (I haven't read the previous comments, I'm printing them off and will read them now.)

Please let me know. I won't do anything until I receive an answer.

Bettymnz4 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be bold and combine the two.


 * I'm moving this:

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson commissioned the Corps of Discovery as a scientific expedition to explore the newly acquired Louisiana Purchase. The expedition's goal as stated by President Jefferson was "to explore the Missouri River and such principal stream of it as by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado or any other river that may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purpose of commerce". In addition, the expedition was to learn more about the Northwest's natural resources, inhabitants, and possibilities for settlement. Although Lewis and Clark were not the first explorers to travel west and they did not achieve their primary objective of finding a waterway across North America, the significance of the expedition can be measured in other ways.


 * to the end of the Purchase section, I'll then seamlessly combine all the information in the Purchase section


 * I ended up leaving the last sentence in the section it was in; it's a lead to further information in that section.


 * I have finished with what I intended to do, so I don't expect to make anymore changes unless someone asks me to. Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A military expedition.
I have added, as this was a military expendition, with only 4 persons of the initial expedition as civilians. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MeriwetherLewis, 23 June 2010
Please add to further reading: Specht, August J. (2009). Defying Death, Not Duty: Deciphering the Mysteries of Meriwether Lewis. CreateSpace. ISBN 1449512100, 9781449512101.

MeriwetherLewis (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. This book is one of a small number written by Mr. Specht, who doesn't appear to be a historian by training or occupation. Including it under further reading would not benefit the reader or Wikipedia as much as it would the author. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 9 July 2010
The Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806) was the first overland expedition undertaken by the United States to the Pacific coast and back. The expedition team was headed by the United States Army soldiers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark and assisted by Sacajawea and Toussaint Charbonneau. The expedition's goal was to gain an accurate sense of the resources being exchanged in the Louisiana Purchase. The expedition laid much of the groundwork for the westward expansion of the United States.

When a person reads about this article "Lewis and Clark Expedition", in first para there has been mentioned "assisted by Sacajawea and Toussaint Charbonneau.". This is not entirly correct and this is only true to about 5%. In truth, in the entire expedition there was person name George Druillard who was half Shawnee and Half White, who was responsible to do the majority of the interpretation. He was the master of sign language. He was present in all the discussions that had taken place between the Indian Chiefs and Clark & Lewis and helped the entire expedition with providing food as he was great hunter. He was considered as the talking chief, hunting chief by all the indians whom the expedition came across. So i request the text "assisted by Sacajawea and Toussaint Charbonneau." to be corrected by replacing it with "George Druillard". The proof for is the book "Sign Talker" by author "James Alexander Thom". Sacajawea was the Native Indian women from Shoshone indian tribe and was wife of Toussaint Charbonneau who was french trader. She only know Shoshone and sign talk. I kindly request this to be corrected.

Thankee Murali

Mk6701 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The article as it stands appears to be reasonably well-referenced.  Is there good cause for favouring your source over the ones in the article already?  AJ  Cham  07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sculpreneur, 20 November 2010
There are two photographs of the monumental sculpture of Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, Sacagawea, York, and Seaman which do not credit the sculptor. He should be credited in the captions as Eugene Daub. (Source: I am his sculpting partner, but joined after he completed the Kansas City monument.) Sculpreneur (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. JNW (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reliable source being provided here. However, I'm going to collapse this template and let others on the page deal with this, as I have no background in the matter.  elektrik SHOOS  03:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourced now. JNW (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with stated mission
"The expedition's goal was stated by Jefferson in a letter dated June 20, 1803, to Lewis: "to explore the Missouri River and such principal stream of it as by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado or any other river that may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purpose of commerce"."
 * Acctually, the main goal was not to "explore", it was to "discover", which is a legal term to find lands not owned by white Europanns/Americans and claim it. This should be corrected.Ebanony (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the previous text, which was a quote from a Jefferson letter, and replaced it with the analysis of a secondary source contemporary historian. Please note, some historians have claimed this was just about exploring, but such does recent scholarly literature. Nor does it reflect the other letters Jefferson wrote, which made it clear the object was to extend US sovereignity over the area & claim other parts to exclude European powers from American colonies. The changes appear in the Introduction and the "Louisiana purchase and westward expansion" section. One other note, the nature of the Louisiana "purchase" is not correctly described; this was not a legal "purchase" of lands from the indigenous peoples, and they were never consulted on it. They were ignored and were the ones who directly lost everything. Neither Spain nor France had any legal right to those lands, and this is important. Ebanony (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the new text, especially the sentence, The expedition's goal was to gain establish US sovereignity over the triess along the Missouri River, and claim the rights of "discovery" to to Pacific. (btw, what is a "triess"?). By the time of Lewis and Clark and mouth of the Columbia was thoroughly explored, first by Robert Gray, then George Vancouver, then countless maritime fur traders. Vancouver's lieutenant had sailed up the river to about the Cascade Range and had produced superb maps, and had already made a strong claim to the lower river (and of course British-Canadian fur traders/explorers/discoverers were already mapping the uppermost waters of the Columbia, but didn't yet know they were in fact on the Columbia--part of the US's later claims involved dismissing what we now call the upper Columbia main stem as a tributary). Lewis and Clark couldn't much hope to "claim the rights of "discovery" to to Pacific" via the Columbia. But they could discovery and claim an overland passage between the upper Missouri and Columbia basins--ideally, Jefferson hoped, a passage practical for easy travel (they failed on that point). So I tweaked the text to make this point clearer--about the lower Columbia having already been thoroughly "discovered".


 * Also, on the indigenous issue wrt the Louisiana Purchase--certainly it was not a purchase from the natives. It was more akin to a purchase by the US from France of the unilateral right to purchase (or otherwise acquire) indigenous land in Louisiana without (in theory) interference by other Western powers--a "domain of control" recognized by Western powers. Pfly (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a typo (my error) which I was about to fix. Right, the area along the Columbia was explored. But that's separate & often misused. Once the Americans "purchased" Louisiana, they were setting up their sovereignty, hence giving out medals, flags and reading the American "requierimiento", demanding the natives surrender their political independence; but they'd already started doing that! At any rate, they were already going to go to the Pacific long before the expedition began. Lewis and Clark were sent to the mouth of the Columbia because they had to stop there to strengthen the 1792 claim by Gary - it wasn't a firm title to the natives land. Jefferson needed to occupy the colony "within a reasonable time" as "required" under "international law" (note this excluded asking the natives consent). "The Pacific Northwest was always Jefferson's primary reason for the expedition" - ie the Oregon lands & beating out the British to establish "discovery rights" & the "transconnential empire" - or what you call the Pacific Northwest & the Oregon territory. Robert Miller, Stephen Beckham & other respected historians say this. See Native America, Discovered and Conquered Robert Miller pg 108. So I'll correct it accordingly.


 * I should address this: "and claim the rights of "discovery" to upper Missouri and Columbia rivers and, in was hoped, a practical route between them over the mountains." They weren't concerned with a passage or route; Jefferson told Congress that to get funding, hence the commercial aspect of trade, which was secondary. But this wasn't about science or exploring or trade: it was colonial conquest or empire, which would later lead to control of lands and trade (as opposed to the natives or Europeans). Stephen Beckham says Lewis and Clarke "drastically enhanced the US 'discovery rights' to what became the Oregon territory." This is the legal reason for Jefferson's actions, and the very reason they were called "Corps of Discovery". Discovery doesn't mean "explore"; it means claim for white Christians because "savages" and "heathens" - to borrow their terminology - didn't count (still don't in US law). That's very much Jefferson's position & was his goal.Ebanony (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks alright to me. I think Jefferson hoped for the discovery of a practical passage over the Rockies, but yes, the primary thing was to establish "claim by right of discovery" (I've long thought we should have a page on that--something akin to Right of conquest)--or at least a reinforcement of Gray's (rather weak) right of discovery of the mouth of the Columbia. Louisiana aside, I think it's important to remember that the US essentially lost most of their initiative in the Pacific Northwest to Britain until the Oregon Trail and population boom of the 1840s (even then control came only with the threat of war). The Hudson's Bay Company effectively controlled the entire region and kept American interests at less than a fizzle until then. Lewis and Clark were important in the rather abstract world of international diplomacy, helping the US and Britain agree to so-called "joint occupancy". It was in this sense Lewis and Clark "drastically enhanced the US 'discovery rights' to what became the Oregon territory", I think. In practical terms it took the Oregon Trail boom to really undermine HBC control. US histories tend to over-glorify the accomplishment of Lewis and Clark and ought to be taken with a grain of salt, I think. Anyway, just thinking out loud. Pfly (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. These sections need a more in-depth discussion to give the reader some understanding of how racism, colonial competition with the British, Spanish & French & the "divine" right of white Christian conquers to conquer "pagans" and "savages" played a role in this. The "right of conquest" is at the core of their actions.Ebanony (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, I just read more carefully "Lewis and Clark were sent to the mouth of the Columbia because they had to stop there to strengthen the 1792 claim by Gary - it wasn't a firm title to the natives land." That's true. Gray didn't even make a claim. Nor was the mouth of the Columbia unknown--the Spanish had sighted it earlier. Gray just managed to cross the bar, sail up a few miles, get stuck in a tide-flat-surrounded dead-end, trade with the natives a bit, and leave. He was a merchant and apparently not one to conduct a ceremony of possession. His "prior discovery" had weight, but Vancouver and Broughton's subsequent, much more thorough exploration, complete with the proper possession ceremonies, held diplomatic weight (even if Vancouver did Gray the honor of letting the name "Columbia" stand). So yea, Gray's act by itself needed something more. Lewis and Clark provided the reinforcement that counted in diplomacy--barely.


 * On "right of conquest"--seems to me much of the Pacific Northwest was acquired by treaty and cession rather than conquest--which isn't to say the treaties were not at least someone under duress and that there were not examples of conquest. Otherwise I quite agree with you. The situation in BC is even more striking--only recently has the process of treaty land cessions begun to take place! In the US though--and I'm far far from condoning US policy toward Indians even today--I think most of the land was acquired by peaceful treaty, not conquest. Which isn't to say the treaty process was anything close to fair and open, nor that war and conquest was not uncommon. Also, while I agree that racism and the desire to acquire native land was a fundamental driving factor in US history, I'm not sure most Americans wanted to see it done through violent conquest. Not sure about "the "divine" right of white Christian conquers to conquer "pagans" and "savages""--I think a more common attitude was that the "Indian race" was destined to die out, or at best be assimilated. It was just a matter of time--and not much time either. The "divine right" was more along the lines of missionary work and "civilizing" natives, seems to me. None of this is meant to gloss over the many atrocities and bad faith negotiations that took place. Alright, good night. Pfly (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The "right" of conquest by European Christian monarchs goes back to papal bulls: "With this proviso however that none of the islands and mainlands...discovered and to be discovered...[not] in the actual possession of any Christian king..." belong to the Kings and queen of Castile and Aragon regarding Columbus' "discovery". Explicit policy to steal native land, launch a religious crusade and do so with "divine" blessing. This argument was adopted in Supreme Court decisions, and still is the basis for Federal "Indian" law. Pagans, savages, infidels come directly from those ducuments; Jefferson and the expedition used "savages" often. Remember, these were legal justifications, not necessiarly the reasons for what they did.

In terms of Lewis and Clark, I'd suggest reading the sources I cited; the only mission was one of conquest. It started with visits, mapping & claiming territroy & occupying it before the British. This is why Jefferson sent a secret message to Congress; saying publically he wanted to claim the Pacific Northwest would have led to war with European countries. This was "manifest destiny" in action. The US got the lands "by treaty and cession rather than conquest"? Sadly no. Ethnic cleansing and Genocide was how they got those lands.Ebanony (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't argue the point much. The doctrine of Terra nullius might be relevant, although it was not applied much in the US. "Genocide" is too strong a term for my understanding of Pacific Northwest history. Most of the land was acquired by treaties, not conquest. But we don't need agree about it. Pfly (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the jstor article you cited looked intriguing, but unfortunately I can only read the first page, not having access. Might check for it at the library though. Pfly (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You make some good points & have looked into the matter. You mentioned "terra nullius". It's relevant, and that is part of the argument used in the 1823 Supreme Court decision. As for Genocide, that is what they did. The treaties they signed they totally ignored, took more and more land, signed more treaties & forced them off as they went west. That was forced. The expulsions were forced. The resistance was brutally repressed & the people over and over again massacared. The sources I cited specifically discuss "genocidal" wars in the 1850's in some of those areas. So do Stannard, Thorton, Dobys & many other scholars. Where do you think the Germans got their ideas from?Ebanony (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The history is long and complex. I tend to be wary of sweeping generalizations. I'd have agreed with the idea of deliberate ethnic cleansing (as our page says, the "purposeful policy designed ... to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic ... group from certain geographic areas"). But looking at the genocide page just now it does seem that the term is generally correct for at least certain meanings--especially the ICC definition, which reads in part: "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ...(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..." Alright, I can see that. Still, I feel the word is usually meant in a stronger sense than mostly applies in US and colonial history. Gotta run. Pfly (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because the genocide page is not well written, and you get a lot of ideologues on certain pages. At any rate, "terra nullius" means there are no human beings; because the natives weren't Christians, they were just "savages", bot humans. This is dehumanisation to remove their rights. Genocide is not my opinion. The US made treaties it had no intention of keeping: "Well before the end of the nineteenth century, the United States stood in default on virtually every treaty agreement it had made with native people" Ward Churchill, Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Expropriation in Contemporary North America, 1993.


 * The US kept forcing people off land, which was Jefferson's plan all along, and the reason for sending the Lewis & Clark expedition (except for assimilation; but those who assimiated were still forced out ie Cherokees under Jackson). Jefferson supported killing every member of tribe that refused to listen, as did later politicians. "By the mid-19th century, U.S. policymakers and military commanders were stating...that their objective was no less than the 'complete extermination' of any native people who resisted being dispossessed of their lands, subordinated to federal authority, and assimilated into the colonizing culture." They discuss massacares (Lakota at Blue River, Bear River with Shoshone etc) The Demography of Native North America Phil Lane, Lenore Stiffarm, 1992. Stannard discusses the legal definitions like the UN Convention on Genocide in this video, and I recommend it since you're interested in this topic (genocide has many meanings)[] Ebanony (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just reread our discussion here and, especially in light of having just added the subsection American Indian Wars, I take back what I said about "most of the land was acquired by peaceful treaty, not conquest". I suppose it is a technical legal niceity that the US generally took the approach of making sure lands were taken "by treaty" rather than simply "by conquest"--even if the treaties were largely conducted in the aftermath of wars--or in some cases, the wars occurred after the treaties, because although a few high-status chiefs signed something and got medals and money for it, most Indians got less than nothing out of the deal. Interesting how the US seems to have largely taken the lands "technically" by "peaceful treaty" and not conquest--the technicality is very very weak, but perhaps Americans needed to feel good about their "Empire of Freedom". Pfly (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Section break 1
Pfly, what do you think about trying to reconcile the section Louisiana Purchase and western expedition with the one on Native American Relations? Some of it overlaps, but I was thinking both could be more concise & to the point. Some of my edits were on that. The External Links has some policy problems Achievements seems redundant. The Journey is way too long (9 paragraphs?). And many things simply have no citations, which is strange because this is such a well known topic. Your thoughts? By the way, thanks for your recent edits.Ebanony (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a fine idea to me. I agree about the overlap and your other points. The page could be improved in a number of ways. The overall structure and flow could definitely be better. I didn't have a lot of time and so just added my recent edits wherever they seemed to fit best, even though it seemed to increase the overall choppiness. Pfly (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was thinking about this topic today and remembered reading--somewhere--the notion that William Clark had a fairly enlightened view of Indians (for the time anyway), despite his occasional use of terms like squaw, savage, etc. Didn't he later become a sort of "Indian agent", assisting Indians with conflicts, legal and otherwise, with Americans? Or have I absorbed another bit of whitewashed "history"? It wouldn't be the first time. Pfly (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then there're other historians who say very different things. They had no respect for Sakakawea & ignored her until she helped keep them alive. Then they discarded her like trash at the end. The purpose of the mission was to claim title to the natives land, not to "explore" like the mythology teaches people. Sakakawea's people? Reservations to this day. When Clark became "governour" he was involved in "removal" too. [] He brought his slave, York, on the expedition. He remained a slave for another 10 years, and he whipped him (we're not sure he was ever freed). [] Round about pg 20 he says he was no "benevolent slave owner". [] But if you read pg 184, there's the chapter dealing with "Indian Removal" along with Cass and involvement in Black Hawk. He was like Jefferson with "assimilation...Christinisation, individual land ownership" ie making them dependent on the US, and Jackson who just wanted plain removal (193). "it was his duty to oversee removal", which he did under Jackson and Cass to remove numerous tribes (196-7). Clark ordered "an extermination" of some of these peoples (209). This is the mild version I'm citing.


 * I've begun the editing by reducing unecessary information. Some of the pictures crowded the space, so I used one fort reproduction and 1 map. The Journey section is complicated because it's a detailed retracing of the route (without sufficient sources, so it may not be 100% accurate). The part on indigenous nations relations (ie diplomatic relations) could be combinded to include a the relevant statements as the events happened in the Journey, or could be kept separate. For example, they gave "gifts" to the natives (these weren't gifts at all but were symbols of US control over the tribes), and that's why some of the nations didn't want them - it meant surrendering their independence, which is why the expedition made military demonstrations. I covered that in the indigenous section (Native American), but it's less effective there. Also, it says they carved their names in a tree. Yes. But why? To symbolise ownership to other Europeans. That's highly symbolic, and they just skipped explaining it! So the explaination I put on the indigenous section could be moved there. Joining them together (without increasing the size), would avoid overlap and redundancy. Even then, it might be better to split Journey and separate the preparations (not really discussed) and the actual trip. Written accounts and achievements might not need their own sections, but some of that info should be covered. Your thoughts on the edits so far?Ebanony (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pfly, I've tried to keep as much of your edits (as well as mine) as possible whilst making things more concise (let me know if there's an objection). I've still got to add a few sources, but the problem is the renamed paragraph Trip. I reduced its size, but it's still far too long, and doesn't have the necessary sources. The NPOV stuff on indigenous thieves was excised, and its a more neutral tone now.Ebanony (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to include a picture of one of the Jefferson medals, but am not too good at the picture business. This is one of them, and there appear to be some out of copyright ones on the web. The following one has a very interesting story behind it, but it's not in the public doman. [] Can you assist with that?Ebanony (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, been a bit busy and will probably continue to be over the next few weeks. I'll try to work on getting a medal picture up. The one you linked sounds interesting, but yea, seemed to be unuseably copyrighted. Must be others out there. I only just now skimmed the result of your edits. Seems basically fine to me, although if I get the time I might make a few small adjustments. One example that stood out was the statement about Spain, Britain, Russia, and the US sending fur trading vessels to the PNW coast (or some wording of the sort)--might be more accurate to say something like "fur trading and naval exploration vessels", or something like that. Spain, for example, mainly explored the coast via exploration expeditions done by the Spanish Navy. They made a few attempts at tapping the fur trade, but they were few and basically failed--navy expeditions were more important. Britian and Russia also send notable naval expeditions, such as Captain Cook's explorations, which predate British fur trading ventures. The naval expedition of Vancouver was more important, in terms of international diplomacy at least, than were all the British fur trading visits to the coast. Anyway...things like that--if I can find the time. Pfly (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, please make adjustments. That particular sentence has caused me some trouble, though I added a source to it. Not everybody was into the fur trade, so .... Cook was there, and so was Drake (so it seems); they should get a mention. I wasn't sure just how to word it. The Jefferson peace medals seems interesting, though if you think of other topics that should get more mention, then sure. I should probably expand on York (Clark's slave), and not do too much of a bio on Sakakawea (that could be moved to her own main page), though her contributions should be noted.
 * I had to make far more edits than I planned because I didn't realise the extent of the problems with copied text (the whole section renamed Trip is almost verbatim from a documentary). I think focusing on the major events during the trip instead of every little camp site would be better. Ebanony (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll get to it sooner or later (more later than sooner probably, so don't hold your breath). Not sure Drake needs mentioning though. The Spanish voyages to the PNW can be tersely mentioned via some kind of link to Spanish expeditions to the Pacific Northwest. Anyway, will work on this all when I have a block of time and a functioning brain for writing, referencing and so on. Pfly (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Section break 2 with plagiarism
For editors looking at the clean up, and want to know why so many edits have been made, please know several sections were taken directly from two documentaries and from 1 paper without proper attribution. Some of the information in Background (which I reorganised), is from this paper [] The Trip section was taken from these two documentaries (almost the whole timeline of the trip, which still needs to be adjusted) [] and particularly the Ken Burns segment on Sergeant Floyd [] To use documentaries as sources should be avoided; other sources should at least be cited. I've deleted much of the content, but Trip is the most difficult to replace, and hence the reason for a good number of edits.Ebanony (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, there was more; two examples: Some editors have taken information from the documentary "Lewis and Clark Expedition, National Geographic 4/5" (not cited in the article) @09:00 [] "During the journey, the expedition documented 122 species of animals and 178 plants." The numbers were changed, and do not come from Fritz's book The Lewis and Clark Expedition [] (pg 60) though that's what was written in the main article with no page cited. The edit that made the change []


 * 2nd problem is with direct copying & pasting.
 * Over the two year journey, the expedition had made more discoveries of landscapes, rivers, native cultures, zoology, and botany of North America than any scientific expedition.


 * Copied from:
 * "When the group returned more than two years later, in late September of 1806, they had made more discoveries of landscapes, rivers, native cultures, zoology, and botany of our continent than has any North American scientific expedition, before or since." Taken from Lewis and Clark on the Great Plains: a natural history, Paul Johnsgard, pg 3 [] And added with this edit []Ebanony (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Memeboy, 13 December 2010
"conolize" to "colonize" as it is a spelling error.

memeboy 19:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. The error has been corrected. I'd suggest you delete one of your posts since you made this same exact request below .Ebanony (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Groundwork for westward expansion
Currently the lead ends with the sentence, The expedition laid much of the groundwork for the westward expansion of the United States. I'm not so sure about that. My impression was that, apart from high-level US-British diplomacy, Lewis and Clark were little regarded or remembered by most Americans for at least several decades after their trip, and had little effect on westward expansion. They certainly didn't find a practical route over the mountains. I think I have a book around here that describes the lack of effect they had, I'll try to find it. Pfly (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for now I just reworded it. I was thinking "westward expansion" as meaning settlers migrating west en masse, but then the term was linked to United States territorial acquisitions and could be taken to mean westward political/territorial expansion, in which Lewis and Clark did play an important role. Pfly (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found some sources and added a bit about this. Pfly (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)