The halt and the hunt

All five narrators agree on the day’s purpose and weather, but the bookkeeping varies. Clark fixes the latitude at

46° 48′ 28″

and tallies the hunters’ return at

4 deer a Beaver & 3 Grouse

. Gass, writing more impressionistically, records only

2 deer

killed at midday and

two cranes

on the move — and notably has the party traveling roughly twenty miles down the creek, not halting in camp. This is the day’s sharpest disagreement: Gass describes movement while Lewis, Clark, Ordway, and Whitehouse all describe a stationary camp. Either Gass has conflated this entry with an adjacent day, or his sense of the halt was looser than the captains’.

Ordway and Whitehouse, who frequently track one another closely, agree on

4 Deer a faun and Several ducks and geese

, a tally that diverges from Clark’s beaver-and-grouse count. Whitehouse adds botanical detail neither captain bothers with:

considerable of cotton timber on this creek the choke cherries abound on its bottoms. the natives has lately gethered an amence quantities of them here for food

. He alone registers the recent Indigenous presence on the ground itself — evidence of seasonal harvest the captains pass over.

Colter’s encounter, told five ways

The arrival of the three Flathead riders is the day’s narrative center, and the variation across accounts is instructive. Ordway and Whitehouse give nearly identical sequences — the hunter laying down his gun, the Indians approaching

in a friendly manner

, the ride

verry fast

back to camp — confirming again the Ordway-Whitehouse textual relationship, with Whitehouse expanding rather than rewriting.

Clark alone names the hunter:

one of the hunters Colter, met with 3 Tushapaw Indians

. He also alone records the diplomatic exchange of goods —

we gave them a ring fish hook & tied a pece of ribin in the hare of each

and Lewis’s gift of

a Steel & a little Powder to make fire

. Lewis, who one might expect to record his own gift, omits it and instead supplies ethnographic generalization: the Flatheads

have a great abundance

of horses,

each man in the nation possesses from 20 to a hundred head

, and are

a very light coloured people of large stature and comely form

.

The number of stolen horses migrates across the entries: Ordway says 2, Whitehouse 22, Lewis 23, Clark 21. The Ordway figure is almost certainly a transcription slip; the captains’ numbers bracket a real but uncertain count. Small evidence of how oral information, conveyed by signs, hardened differently in each notebook.

Geography by hearsay

Lewis uses the day to speculate at length about western hydrography, naming the eastern fork the

Valley plain river

and theorizing it joins the

Tacootchetessee

— the Fraser, in Mackenzie’s nomenclature. Whitehouse independently records the guide’s claim that

these waters runs in to Mackinzees River as near as they can give an account

, a striking convergence suggesting this geographical theory circulated in camp, not just in Lewis’s head.

Lewis alone preserves the new guide’s tantalizing report: that some of his relations

were at the sea last fall and saw an old whiteman who resided there by himself

and gave them handkerchiefs. Five sleeps, six days’ travel, to reach the relations on the Columbia. The figure would prove optimistic — the Bitterroot crossing lay ahead — but on the evening of September 10, the Pacific had, for the first time, a concrete human informant attached to it.

The post A Day’s Rest at Travelers’ Rest, and Three Riders from the West appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

Source: Ordway’s manuscript, printed in Quaife, The Journals of Captain Meriwether Lewis and Sergeant John Ordway (Wisconsin Historical Society, 1916). Public domain.

The post John Ordway: August 20, 1804 appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

The paper reconstructs the return party (Sheheke, or Big White, and his family; the Pierre Chouteau–led Osage delegation; Clark’s man York; privates Labiche and Frazier; and sergeants Gass and Ordway), the post roads they followed, and the long history of the Gap from Walker’s 1750 sighting through Daniel Boone’s Wilderness Road. It is a window onto Lewis the trained surveyor still at work, weeks after the journey west was over.

This summary is provided for reference on the Lewis and Clark Research archive; the full article by Lorna Hainesworth is available at the source link.

The post Meriwether Lewis’s Survey at Cumberland Gap appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

Framing the sketches is a concise narrative of the war’s origins — from the embargo years through the treaties of 1815 — along with an appendix on the presidents involved. It is a useful group portrait of where the expedition’s people landed in the decade after the journey home.

This summary is provided for reference on the Lewis and Clark Research archive; the full compilation by Lorna Hainesworth is available at the source link.

The post The Corps in the War of 1812 appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

Compression Versus Expansion

Gass condenses the entire day into a single sentence:

early. Ina short time we killed a fine large elk; at 11 o’clock passed the Kanzon river, and encamped at sunset.

Three events—elk, river mouth, camp—frame the whole. Gass’s spelling of “Kanzon” preserves a phonetic rendering distinct from Ordway’s “Kanzas” and Clark’s “Kanzas,” suggesting Gass either heard the name differently or did not consult the captains’ notebooks before recording.

Ordway’s entry, by contrast, is observationally dense. He notes the headwind “as usal,” specifies that the elk was “a buck” shot “from their canoe on the lower point of an Isld,” and adds a second buck shot from a canoe later in the day. Ordway is also the only narrator to give a count of game seen but not taken—”about 20 deer on the shores this day”—and the only one to record the rattlesnake episode at the pawpaw grove:

an emence Site of pappaws & as the men were gathering them Saw a number of rattle Snakes and killed one of them and saved the skin.

Clark mentions the pawpaw stop in passing—”we landed one time only to let the men geather Pappaws or the Custard apple of which this Country abounds, and the men are very fond of”—but says nothing of snakes. The detail is Ordway’s alone, consistent with his pattern throughout the return voyage of recording incidents involving the enlisted men that the captains either omit or generalize.

Clark the Surveyor and Climatologist

Where Ordway counts and Gass compresses, Clark interprets. His entry is the longest of the three and is structured around two extended digressions that have no parallel in the other journals. The first is a reconnaissance of military terrain:

about a mile below we landed and Capt Lewis and my Self assended a hill which appeared to have a Commanding Situation for a fort, the Shore is bold and rocky imediately at the foot of the hill, from the top of the hill you have a perfect Command of the river

Neither Gass nor Ordway records this ascent, though it occupied both captains and presumably required the boats to wait. The omission is telling: the hill’s strategic value was a captains’ concern, not a sergeant’s, and the enlisted journalists had no reason to log it.

Clark’s second digression is climatological. He observes that the party is no longer “tormented by the Musquetors” as it had been above the Platte, and offers a meteorological explanation for the discomfort the men feel in the lower river:

Comeing out of a northern Country open and Cool between the Latd. Of 46° and 49° North in which we had been for nearly two years, rapidly decending into a woody Country in a wormer Climate between the Latds. 38°& 39° North is probably the Cause of our experiencing the heat much more Senceable than those who have Continued within the parralel of Latitude.

This is Clark in scientific mode, framing bodily sensation as a problem of latitude and acclimatization. Ordway registers the same general fact—the wind is “a head as usal”—but offers no analysis. Gass says nothing of weather at all.

Convergences and a Missing Scene

The three accounts agree on the essentials: an early start, the Kansas River passed at 11, an elk killed, sunset camp. Clark and Ordway agree the elk was a buck and that it was taken on an island; Clark names the hunters as “the 2 fields and Shannon,” a specificity Ordway lacks. Gass alone calls the animal “a fine large elk” without naming hunters or location.

Notably, the editorial footnote attached to Ordway’s entry reports that Clark elsewhere placed the camp on an island and noted the men “received a dram and Sung Songs untill 11 oClock at night in the greatest harmoney.” That convivial scene appears in none of the three entries transcribed here—a reminder that any single day in the expedition’s record is assembled from overlapping but incomplete fragments, and that the cheerful camp on the lower Missouri survives only because one narrator, on one occasion, chose to write it down.

The post Pawpaws, an Elk, and a Commanding Hill: Three Views of the Kansas River Mouth appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

A Shared Itinerary, Three Registers

All three accounts agree on the basic sequence: an early start, a morning meeting with a pirogue bound for the Pawnees on the Platte, a second meeting near midday with a keelboat and two canoes, and an evening camp on an island. Patrick Gass, characteristically terse, compresses the entire day into five sentences:

ceeded on early, and at 9 o’clock met a large periogue with eight men, going to trade with the Ponis nation of Indians on the river Platte about seventy or eighty miles from its mouth. At 11 we met a batteaux and two canoes going up to the Kanowas nation, who live on a river of the same name.

Gass supplies useful geographic detail — the distance of the Pawnee trading destination from the mouth of the Platte — but suppresses every diplomatic and political dimension of the encounter. For Gass, these are simply boats met and passed.

John Ordway and William Clark, by contrast, both linger over the second meeting. Ordway names the proprietor as “Mr Reubode of Su1d57 Louis” and notes that the keelboat “was under the charge of Mr Reubados Son.” Clark identifies him as “young Mr. Bobidoux” — both narrators are wrestling with the surname Robidoux. Ordway’s count of “about 20 frenchman in Company” gives the encounter a scale that Clark omits.

The Passport Problem

The most revealing convergence between Ordway and Clark concerns the captains’ inspection of the trader’s license, an episode Gass entirely ignores. Clark, writing in the register of a commanding officer assessing legal documents, expresses pointed skepticism:

the licenes of this young man was to trade with the Panias Mahars and ottoes reather an extroadanary a license for young a man and without the Seal of the teritory anexed, as Genl. Wilkensons Signeture was not to this instrement we were Somewhat doubtfull of it. Mr. Browns Signeture we were not acquainted with without the Teritorial Seal.

Clark’s concerns are procedural and bureaucratic: the breadth of the license, the missing territorial seal, the unfamiliar signature of “Mr Brown” in place of General Wilkinson’s. Ordway preserves the diplomatic content of the captains’ response — the substance of the warning delivered to the young trader:

our officers gave instructions to this trador after reading his passport directing them not to speak against the government of the United States to the Indians as his brothers did to the Zotoes last winter

Clark echoes this in slightly softer language, recording that the captains “Cautioned him against prosueing the Steps of his brother in attempting to degrade the American Charector in the eyes of the Indians.” The two accounts reinforce one another: Ordway, the sergeant, captures the directive as instruction (“directing them not to speak against the government”); Clark, the officer who delivered it, frames it as caution against degrading “the American Charector.” Both versions point to a recent incident the previous winter involving Robidoux’s brother and the Otoes — a piece of intelligence the Corps had evidently absorbed during its westward journey or its winter at Fort Mandan.

Heat, Distance, and What Each Man Notices

Beyond the trading encounters, each journalist preserves details the others omit. Clark alone tabulates the day’s mileage (“haveing Came 52 miles only to day”) and locates the evening camp by reference to an earlier outbound campsite (“a little above our encampment of the 16th & 17th of June 1804”) — a navigational habit that distinguishes the captains’ journals from the enlisted men’s. Clark and Ordway both register the oppressive heat; Ordway notes “the day verry warm indeed,” while Clark elaborates that “the men rowed but little” because of it.

Ordway alone records two further encounters: a meeting with two French hunters whose canoe came out to the boats, bringing word that “an american Boat was on their way coming up Some distance below,” and a glimpse of “a black bear which run [into] a thicket of bushes.” These details suggest Ordway’s journal-keeping practice on this date was the most attentive to incidental observation, while Gass economized ruthlessly and Clark prioritized the official and the navigational.

The post Three Boats on the Homeward River: Traders, Licenses, and a Suspect Passport appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

Three Registers, One Encounter

William Clark’s entry is by far the most elaborate, running to a paragraph-length précis of McClallen’s commercial design. Clark identifies the man as late a Capt. of Artily of the U States Army and an acquaintance of my friend Capt. Lewis — a personal connection that opened the conversation and kept the two parties talking untill near mid night. Clark’s account alone names Governor Wilkinson as the source of McClallen’s introductory Speach to the Pawnees and Otoes, and only Clark records the geopolitical nuance that the trader hoped to draw Spanish merchants into Louisiana Territory rather than crossing into New Mexico himself.

Sergeant John Ordway, by contrast, captures the commercial logic in plainer mercantile language: the Spaniards are full of money and no goods among them of any account. Ordway also looks ahead with a touch of national optimism, predicting that if Mr McLanen has Success this voiage no doubt but that trade will be advantageous to the United States hereafter. Where Clark describes diplomatic stagecraft — McClallen appearing in a stile calculated to atract the Spanish government — Ordway reduces the matter to horses, silver, and goods exchanged.

Patrick Gass, working from notes that would later be polished by his editor David McKeehan, gives the briefest version. He correctly identifies the captain, the fifteen hands, an interpreter and a black, and the plan to discharge the men on this side of the mountain and recruit Ponis to accompany the trader to Santa Fe. Gass alone among the three mentions a Black member of McClallen’s crew — a detail Ordway and Clark omit.

Sergeants in Parallel

The Gass and Ordway entries share a striking structural parallelism that suggests the two sergeants compared notes or drew on a common conversational source. Both open with the previous night’s catfish — Gass calling it a large catfish, supposed to weigh 100 pounds and Ordway recording a fish which is judfg]ed to weigh a hundred weight. Both then describe the dangerous sawyer-choked passage, both fix the meeting at about two in the afternoon or about 2 oClock P. M., and both close with the dispatch of hunters ahead in two small canoes and McClallen’s gift of whiskey and biscuit. Their phrasing for the gift is nearly identical: Gass writes that McClallen gave all our party as much whiskey as they could drink, and a bag of biscuit, while Ordway records that he gave our party as much whiskey as they would drink and a bag of Buiscuit.

Clark’s account of the same exchange is materially different. He notes that the Corps received Buisquit, Chocolate Sugar & whiskey — adding chocolate and sugar to the inventory — and uniquely records the reciprocity: for which we made a return of a barrel of corn. The sergeants saw the gifts; the captain saw the trade.

The Bad Passage and What Each Man Names

The morning’s hazardous river stretch also reveals differing geographic vocabularies. Clark places the danger at the Island of the little Osage Village, which he reports the river’s navigators consider the worst place in it, and he describes the hydrology in detail: a narrow channel for more than 2 miles which is crouded with Snags in maney places quite across. Ordway names riffle Isld and petzaw Island — toponyms absent from Clark’s entry — while Gass offers no place-name at all, only that it was so filled with sawyers that we could hardly find room to pass through safe.

Read together, the three entries map a familiar hierarchy. Clark records politics, personalities, and reciprocal exchange; Ordway frames commerce and national interest; Gass — or his editor — distills the day into incident and atmosphere. McClallen’s later fate on the upper Missouri would prove the speculative venture far more dangerous than any of them suspected, but on this September evening the meeting brought news from a country that, as McClallen told them, had almost forgotton the expedition.

The post Meeting Captain McClallen: Three Accounts of a Speculative Encounter appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

Parallel Sergeants, Diverging Captain

Ordway and Gass produce nearly interchangeable entries. Ordway writes that the party

Set out eairly and proceeded on Soon passd the Mouth of Grand river. Soon after we overtook our hunters they had killed nothing So we procd on all day without detaining to hunt Saw a fiew Turkeys gathered Some pappaws which the party in general are fond of. in the evening we Camped on an Island.

Gass’s version follows the same armature almost beat for beat:

passed the mouth of the river Grand, and soon after overtook the hunters, who had not killed any thing. We continued our voyage all day without waiting to hunt; gathering some papaws on the shores, and in the evening encamped on an island.

The shared sequence — Grand River, hunters with nothing, no delay, pawpaws, island camp — and even shared phrasing (“overtook,” “without [waiting/detaining] to hunt”) suggest the kind of cross-pollination long suspected among the enlisted journalists, whether through shared evening conversation or direct consultation. Notably, Gass’s published version smooths Ordway’s manuscript orthography (“detaining” becomes “waiting”; “pappaws” becomes “papaws”) in keeping with David McKeehan’s 1807 editorial polish.

Where the sergeants summarize, Clark expands. His entry alone preserves the texture of the day: the 7 A.M. timing of the Grand River passage, the 10 o’clock halt to gather food, the “charming Oake bottom” above the two Chariton rivers, and a precise mileage of fifty-two.

Hunger Hidden and Hunger Recorded

The most striking divergence concerns the party’s provisions. Ordway notes only that the men are “fond of” pawpaws. Gass mentions the fruit in passing. Clark, by contrast, makes scarcity the central subject of the entry:

we have nothing but a fiew Buisquit to eate and are partly compelled to eate poppows which we find in great quantities on the Shores… our party entirely out of provisions Subsisting on poppaws. we divide the buiskit which amounted to nearly one buisket per man, this in addition to the poppaws is to last is down to the Settlement’s which is 150 miles

The contrast is instructive. The sergeants’ framing — pawpaws as a pleasant gathering, the men “fond” of them — domesticates a situation Clark records as compulsion. Whether the sergeants downplayed hardship out of habit, morale, or the conventions of their genre, Clark’s command perspective registers the arithmetic of hunger: one biscuit per man, 150 miles to go.

Clark also alone notes the physical toll of the descent. He records that

J. Potts complains very much of one of his eyes which is burnt by the Sun from exposeing his face without a cover from the Sun. Shannon also complains of his face & eyes &c.

Neither Ordway nor Gass mentions Potts’s or Shannon’s afflictions. The sergeants’ silence on individual suffering, paired with their parallel cheerfulness about pawpaws, reinforces a pattern visible elsewhere in the homeward journey: the enlisted journals tend toward collective, forward-moving narration, while Clark itemizes risks, distances, and the condition of named men.

Morale at the Edge of the Settlements

One detail unites all three narrators in spirit if not in wording: the party’s willingness to press on without hunting. Clark concludes that “the party appear perfectly contented and tell us that they can live very well on the pappaws.” This sentiment — the men choosing speed over a full belly within 150 miles of St. Louis — is precisely what Ordway and Gass capture by omission, treating the pawpaw diet as unremarkable. Gass’s journal, indeed, telescopes the next five days into a single sentence ending with the triumphal arrival on the 23rd “after an absence of two years, four months and ten days.” The sergeants write as men already home; Clark, still in command, counts the biscuits.

The post Pawpaws and Biscuit: Subsistence on the Final Descent appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

Shared Pace, Different Numbers

Both narrators emphasize the party’s reluctance to pause. Ordway notes that the men spotted game but pressed on regardless:

Saw a number of Turkeys but we being anxious to git down do not detain to hunt, gathered Some pappaws which our party are fond of and are a kind of fruit which abound in these bottoms and are now ripe

Clark records the same impulse in more deliberative prose, framing the haste as a calculated plan rather than mere eagerness:

our anxiety as also the wish of the party to proceed on as expeditiously as possible to the Illinois enduce us to continue on without halting to hunt. we Calculate on ariveing at the first Settlements on tomorrow evening which is 140 miles, and objecet of our party is to divide the distance into two days, this day to the Osarge River, and tomorrow to the Charriton

The two accounts agree on the destination — the mouth of the Osage — and on the pawpaw-gathering as the only authorized stop. They diverge, however, on distance traveled. Ordway claims the party made 84 miles; Clark logs 72. Such discrepancies are common in the expedition record, where Clark, the official cartographer, generally produced the more conservative and considered figure. Ordway, writing as a sergeant keeping a personal log, may have rounded generously or estimated by elapsed time rather than river bends. The 12-mile gap is a useful reminder that even within a single command, mileage was a matter of judgment rather than measurement.

What Only Clark Sees

The most striking divergence on this date is not in mileage but in scope of observation. Ordway closes his entry with the camp at the Osage and a deer killed late in the day. Clark, by contrast, devotes the bulk of his entry to a medical puzzle that Ordway does not mention at all:

a very singular disorder is takeing place amongst our party that of the Sore eyes. three of the party have their eyes inflamed and Sweled in Such a manner as to render them extreamly painfull, particularly when exposed to the light, the eye ball is much inflaimed and the lid appears burnt with the Sun

Clark’s role as the expedition’s de facto physician is on display here. He catalogs symptoms with clinical precision — inflammation, swelling, photophobia, the sunburned appearance of the lids — and then ventures a hypothesis:

the cause of this complaint of the eye I can’t account for. from it’s Sudden appearance I am willing to believe it may be owing to the reflection of the Sun on the water

The reasoning is sound for the period. Modern readers might recognize the cluster of symptoms as consistent with photokeratitis (so-called “snow blindness,” though here induced by water glare) or possibly a viral conjunctivitis spreading through close quarters. Clark’s willingness to admit ignorance — “I can’t account for” — and then to reason from sudden onset to environmental cause is characteristic of his observational method.

Register and Role

The contrast between the two entries illustrates how narrator role shaped narrator content. Ordway, writing in a brisk, event-focused register, gives a sergeant’s log: passed Mine River, gathered pawpaws, killed a deer, camped at the Osage, made 84 miles. The entry is complete on its own terms. Clark, writing as commander, cartographer, and medic, layers planning (the two-day division to the Chariton), historical reference (camping “on the Spot we had encamped on the 1st & 2d of June 1804”), and medical observation onto the same skeletal day.

Neither account appears to be copied from the other; they share the day’s structure because the party shared the day, but the textures are independent. For researchers, the pairing is instructive: Ordway confirms the pace and the pawpaws, while Clark alone preserves the first warning of an outbreak that would shadow the final descent to St. Louis.

The post Racing Downriver: Pawpaws, Mileage, and a Mysterious Affliction appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.

Shared Facts, Divergent Registers

Both Clark and Ordway anchor their entries on the same sequence of events: the abandonment of canoes because of incapacitated rowers, an early start, the meeting with French trappers ascending the river, the arrival at Charette near sunset, the three rounds of gunfire returned by boatsmen, and the eight-dollar transaction for two gallons of whiskey. The factual scaffolding is essentially identical—evidence that Ordway, as sergeant, was either present at or briefed on the same details Clark recorded as co-commander.

Yet the registers differ sharply. Ordway’s prose is compressed and transactional:

our officers got 2 gallons of Whiskey for which they had to pay eight dollars an extorinatable [extortionate] price they got us some pork Beef and flour &C. the french people gave us Some milk &C. &C.

Clark, writing with an eye toward the eventual official narrative, expands the same episode into a scene with named hosts, social courtesies, and political commentary:

we landed and were very politely received by two young Scotch men from Canada one in the employ of Mr. Aird a Mr. ____ and the other Mr. Reed… we purchased of a Citizen two gallons of Whiskey for our party for which we were obliged to give Eight dollars in Cash, an imposition on the part of the Citizen.

Both narrators flag the whiskey price as excessive—Ordway calls it “extorinatable,” Clark an “imposition”—but only Clark distinguishes between the welcoming Scotch traders and the price-gouging “Citizen,” preserving a social hierarchy of blame that Ordway collapses.

What Each Narrator Notices

Ordway, writing from the ranks, registers the men’s perspective: the milk supplied by French villagers, the practical relief of resupply. Clark, by contrast, devotes substantial paragraphs to matters Ordway omits entirely—the riverine geography of the day’s run (the low Osage, the mouth of the Gasconnade), the technical specifications of the Canadian batteaux, and the political grievances of American settlers in the territory:

The American inhabitants express great disgust for the govermt of this Teritory. from what I can lern it arises from a disapmt. of getting all the Spanish Grants Confirmed.

This is the kind of intelligence-gathering Lewis and Clark were instructed to perform, and Clark performs it even on a day of celebration. Ordway has no such reportorial obligation and accordingly skips the political ethnography.

Clark also captures the emotional texture more fully. The sight of cattle on the bank produces “a joyfull Sight to the party and Caused a Shout to be raised for joy”—a small but telling detail Ordway does not record. Clark notes that locals “informed us that we were Supposed to have been lost long Since, and were entirely given out by every person.” The expedition’s reentry into the world of news, it turns out, came with the discovery that they had been mourned.

Gass and the Indexical Trace

The fragment of Gass’s journal available here is an index rather than a daily entry, but its inclusion of “La Charette—first settlement, citizens cheer” as a discrete entry confirms that Gass, in his published 1807 account, treated this as a landmark moment. The indexical phrasing—”citizens cheer”—matches the public, civic register Gass’s editor David McKeehan favored, and contrasts with Ordway’s plainer “fired three rounds and was answered” and Clark’s more ceremonious “3 rounds with a harty Cheer.” Across all three narrators, the gunfire-and-cheer exchange functions as the symbolic threshold of return.

Pattern

Where Ordway records, Clark contextualizes, and Gass (via his editor) monumentalizes. The same moment becomes, respectively, a logistical note, a piece of frontier reportage, and an indexed civic event. Read together, the three accounts show how a single afternoon at a small French village could be inscribed simultaneously into private, official, and public memory.

The post Return to Charette: Three Voices at the Edge of Settlement appeared first on Lewis & Clark Research Database.