Lewis & Clark
Meriwether Lewis and William Clark
September 23, 2024
By: Paul Grant Truesdell, The Elder
In 1806, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, American explorers, completed their historic expedition by returning to St. Louis after traveling from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Coast and back. This significant journey, lasting more than two years, was commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Jefferson aimed to map the newly acquired western territories, find a practical route across the continent, and establish an American presence before European powers attempted further colonization.
Two hundred and eighteen years later, it’s time for a small group in the nation to successfully influence the majority of the weak. Read on to understand what this means.
The expedition, known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition or the Corps of Discovery, comprised around 33 individuals, including soldiers, guides, and interpreters. A crucial figure on this journey was Sacagawea, a Shoshone woman who joined the expedition along with her husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian trapper. Sacagawea played an essential role in the success of the expedition by serving as an interpreter, guide, and symbol of peace as the explorers encountered various Native American tribes along the way.
Sacagawea's knowledge of the land and her ability to communicate with other Native American groups helped the expedition navigate challenging terrains, secure supplies, and maintain peaceful relations with indigenous peoples. Her contributions were particularly significant when the group reached her Shoshone tribe, where her brother was a chief. This connection allowed the explorers to acquire horses crucial for crossing the Rocky Mountains.
The Lewis and Clark expedition provided invaluable information about the geography, biology, and ethnography of the western United States and paved the way for westward expansion. Sacagawea’s role in this endeavor has since been celebrated as an example of resilience, leadership, and the vital contributions of Native American women in American history.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition, while centered around its two famous leaders, also involved many other important yet lesser-known participants. Here are five of many members who contributed to the expedition's success:
York
York was an enslaved African American owned by William Clark, and he played a significant role in the expedition. As the only African American on the journey, York was valued for his strength, wilderness skills, and ability to communicate with Native American tribes, many of whom had never seen a Black man before. York's presence often intrigued Native tribes, fostering curiosity and aiding diplomatic relations. After the expedition, York’s life was less celebrated, and his desire for freedom was met with resistance by Clark, who granted it years later after much hardship. A man who absolutely fits the needs of today’s vocal revisionist minority.
Toussaint Charbonneau
The French-Canadian fur trader and husband of Sacagawea joined the expedition as an interpreter. While his contributions were somewhat overshadowed by his wife’s skills and knowledge, Charbonneau assisted in translation with French-speaking Native tribes. After the expedition, Charbonneau worked as a guide and trapper for the U.S. government but did not gain lasting recognition deserved.
George Drouillard
Drouillard, the son of a French-Canadian father and a Shawnee mother, served as a hunter and interpreter. His skills in tracking and sign language made him invaluable in negotiations with Native American tribes. Drouillard remained a frontiersman after the expedition and became involved in the fur trade, but he was killed in a skirmish with Blackfoot warriors in 1810. Interesting that his birth and death does not fit the narrative sought by the vocal minority of today.
John Colter
Colter was a skilled hunter and scout during the expedition, and his experiences in the wilderness helped the Corps of Discovery survive harsh conditions. After the expedition, Colter became a legendary mountain man, famed for his exploration of what is now Yellowstone National Park. He is particularly remembered for “Colter’s Run,” in which he reportedly escaped from Blackfoot warriors on foot, running several miles barefoot. Again, another individual who does not fit the needs of today’s vocal minority.
Patrick Gass
Gass served as a sergeant after Charles Floyd, the only member to die during the journey, passed away early in the expedition. Gass was responsible for keeping a detailed journal of the expedition, which became the first account of the journey to be published, even before Lewis and Clark’s official narrative. Afterward, Gass continued his service in the military, fighting in the War of 1812. Gass is another who has yet to receive recognition for his contribution.
What Lewis and Clark Did After the Expedition
Meriwether Lewis
Following the successful completion of the expedition, Lewis was appointed governor of the Louisiana Territory in 1807. Unfortunately, his time as governor was marred by financial difficulties and political struggles. Lewis was known to have suffered from depression, and his life ended tragically in 1809 when he died under mysterious circumstances, with most historians concluding it was likely suicide.
William Clark
Clark fared better in his post-expedition life, becoming the governor of the Missouri Territory in 1813, a position he held until 1820. He was later appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs, a role in which he was heavily involved in the forced relocation of Native American tribes, including overseeing treaties and land negotiations. Clark remained a prominent figure in U.S. frontier affairs and politics until his death in 1838.
While Lewis and Clark are rightfully celebrated for their roles in the exploration of the American West, the expedition’s success relied on the collective efforts of many participants, some of whom, like York and Drouillard, made significant contributions that remain underappreciated in popular history.
Retrospective Payback
In recent years, there have been growing calls to reassess the legacies of historical figures like Meriwether Lewis and William Clark due to their involvement in the institution of slavery and their roles in Native American displacement. These calls stem from revisionist history movements, said to be seeking to critically examine how the actions of prominent figures in American history have contributed to systems of oppression, particularly in relation to slavery and the treatment of Indigenous peoples. However, these groups are opportunistic and divisive during a time of poor political leadership by both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Lewis and Clark's Involvement in Slavery
While Meriwether Lewis did not personally own slaves, William Clark’s connection to slavery is more direct and substantial. Clark owned several enslaved individuals, including York, who accompanied him on the famed expedition. Despite York’s crucial role in the success of the journey, Clark treated him as property, and after the expedition, refused to grant York the freedom he had requested. For years after their return, York was punished for seeking autonomy, and only after much hardship was, he eventually freed. Revisionists argue that this history should not be overlooked when discussing Clark’s legacy, and thus, Lewis and Clark should be scrubbed from the history books.
Impact on Native Americans and Clark's Later Role
The Lewis and Clark Expedition is often seen as the beginning of the U.S. government’s westward expansion, which brought devastation to Native American communities. While the Corps of Discovery’s primary goal was to explore and map the new territory and establish relations with Native tribes, their work ultimately paved the way for colonization, land seizures, and the forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands.
William Clark's later role as Superintendent of Indian Affairs made him a direct participant in policies that led to the displacement of Native American tribes. Clark was involved in negotiating treaties that often resulted in Native Americans losing their land, and he oversaw efforts that contributed to their forced relocation, a precursor to the infamous “Trail of Tears.” His participation in these policies has drawn criticism from those who argue that honoring Clark without acknowledging his role in the subjugation of Native Americans presents an incomplete and problematic historical narrative, requiring non-attendance tribunal and conviction.
Calls for Removal and Reassessment
Two hundred and eighteen years later, as fewer people recognize and celebrate the historical accomplishment of the expedition, calls to remove statues of figures like Lewis and Clark continue with success. Critics argue that while the explorers' contributions to American history are nice to improbable, their roles in upholding and benefiting from systems of racial inequality cannot be ignored.
Does the erasing figures like Lewis and Clark from the public eye risks losing an understanding of their contributions to early American exploration? Yes. For some, a small compromise is to add small plaques or creating exhibits that highlight negative aspects of their legacies.
The debate over how to remember Lewis and Clark is part of a larger national conversation about how a small but growing segment of poorly read Americans are unschooled in history and legacies of slavery and Indigenous dispossession in context of the time.
Rewriting History
Rewriting history to align with a current political agenda presents significant dangers, both to our understanding of the past and to the integrity of education and scholarship. While reassessing history through the lens of modern values can help highlight previously marginalized voices and correct omissions, manipulating or selectively interpreting history for contemporary political purposes risks distorting the truth and undermining the lessons history offers.
Loss of Historical Integrity
One of the greatest dangers of rewriting history is the potential loss of historical accuracy. History, when properly studied, is a complex and multifaceted record of human actions, motivations, and consequences. If historical events or figures are reinterpreted solely to fit current political narratives, the nuances and complexities of those events can be oversimplified or distorted. Instead of fostering understanding, this can lead to the perpetuation of myths or falsehoods that obscure the real causes and effects of historical events.
For instance, if we reframe certain historical figures solely as villains based on their participation in systems like slavery, we risk losing an understanding of their broader contributions or the context in which they lived.
Historical Amnesia
Rewriting history according to present-day political agendas can also result in “historical amnesia,” where the darker or more uncomfortable aspects of the past are forgotten or deliberately ignored. This selective memory prevents society from learning from its mistakes. One of the key functions of studying history is to understand both the achievements and the failures of the past, providing insights that help avoid the repetition of past wrongs. When history is rewritten to suit a particular ideology, it can shield people from recognizing the consequences of certain policies, ideologies, or behaviors that have proven harmful in the past.
For example, the history of colonization and empire-building can offer valuable lessons about the dangers of unchecked power and the consequences of oppression. However, if historical narratives are altered to downplay the advancements of those who have overwhelmingly contributed to the greater global good are forgotten. Western civilization has been far more beneficial than that of others, and the facts are the facts.
Polarization and Division
History can be a unifying force when it is studied and taught in an inclusive and balanced manner. However, when history is rewritten to fit a political agenda, it can deepen divisions and exacerbate polarization within society. In an era when political discourse is increasingly polarized, manipulating history to support one side’s ideological narrative can alienate and antagonize those with differing views, leading to conflict rather than understanding.
This manipulation weaponizes history, turning it into a tool for advancing contemporary political battles. When historical facts are bent to serve modern political purposes, they often become rallying cries for movements seeking to assert dominance or control over the narrative, leading to intensified social divisions. People who feel that their heritage or history is being erased or unfairly judged are more likely to react defensively, perpetuating cycles of distrust and conflict.
Erosion of Critical Thinking
Another danger of rewriting history is the erosion of critical thinking skills. When historical narratives are tailored to fit specific political perspectives, they discourage individuals from engaging with history in a rigorous and reflective way. Rather than encouraging students and citizens to grapple with the complexities and contradictions of historical events, rewriting history can promote passive acceptance of a simplified or one-sided view.
Critical thinking is an essential skill for a functioning democracy, as it enables individuals to analyze information, question assumptions, and evaluate evidence. If historical narratives are rewritten to fit particular ideologies, the ability to critically engage with the past—and, by extension, the present—is diminished. Education, rather than fostering intellectual growth and inquiry, becomes a vehicle for indoctrination.
Undermining True Societal Progress
Rewriting history to fit a political agenda can undermine the very societal progress it seeks to promote. Progress is built on a full understanding of the past—its successes, failures, and lessons. When history is revised to reflect only what aligns with contemporary values, there is a risk of undermining the progress that has already been made. A sanitized or one-sided version of history ignores the real struggles and compromises that shaped the present, reducing our ability to appreciate how far we have come or how much work remains.
Moreover, when history is revised to meet current political goals, it can reduce trust in institutions responsible for preserving historical knowledge, such as schools, universities, and museums. People may begin to question the reliability of historical records, assuming that all accounts of the past are merely products of current political fashion, which could erode public faith in academic research and education.
Indigenous Groups and Native American Advocates
One of the most vocal groups calling for the removal of statues of Lewis and Clark includes Native American advocacy organizations. These groups argue that Lewis and Clark’s expedition marked the beginning of centuries of violence, displacement, and the loss of land for Indigenous peoples. Although the explorers’ mission was largely peaceful, it ultimately facilitated U.S. expansion into Native lands, which led to forced relocations and violations of treaty rights. In this context, honoring Lewis and Clark with statues is seen as glorifying figures whose work indirectly contributed to the decimation of Native cultures and sovereignty.
For example, in Portland, Oregon, a city known for lawlessness and radicalism of recent decades, activists toppled a Lewis and Clark statue in 2020 as part of a larger wave of protests against monuments that were seen as upholding colonialism, systemic racism, and the oppression of Native Americans. Many of these previously arrested protestors with violent arrest records, including Indigenous advocates, argued that public monuments should not celebrate figures associated with the beginning of westward expansion and the violence it brought to Native communities.
Racial Justice Advocates
Some racial justice organizations and activists, who are also involved in the removal of Confederate statues, have included Lewis and Clark in their critiques of public monuments. These groups argue that William Clark's ownership of enslaved people, particularly York, and his treatment of York after the expedition, reflect the systemic racism that figures like Clark perpetuated. The fact that Clark refused to grant York his freedom after his vital contributions to the expedition has been cited as a reason why statues of Clark, in particular, should be reconsidered or removed.
Progressive Political and Community Groups
As previously stated, progressive political organizations and local community groups have also joined the call to take down statues of Lewis and Clark, alongside monuments to Confederate leaders and other figures. These groups often frame their arguments in the broader context of reassessing how historical figures are memorialized in public spaces, especially those with ties to slavery, racism, or colonialism. For these advocates, taking down statues is part of a larger zero tolerance effort to rewrite American history and to reshape public spaces in ways that reflect current values of justice based on their interpretation of right and wrong based on the whims of the moment.
Academics and Historians
Some academics and historians have also called for a reevaluation of the statues honoring Lewis and Clark. Some have suggested that, rather than removing the statues outright, communities could add small plaques or interpretive materials that provide a more balanced account of their legacy, including their role in facilitating U.S. expansion and the subsequent harm done to Native peoples and enslaved individuals.
The removal of the Sacagawea, Lewis, and Clark statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2021 highlighted the fake ire around public monuments and the representation of historical figures. This statue, erected in 1919, is now claimed to be a portrayal of her as cowering beneath Lewis and Clark and a symbol of a broader narrative of marginalization and discrimination against Native Americans and women during the time the statue was erected. This beckons the question: Should George Washington be scrubbed from history for his anti-green chopping down of a cherry tree?
Examples of Statue Removal Controversies: Confederate Statues
Across the United States, there have been widespread efforts to remove statues of Confederate generals and soldiers, such as those of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, which were also removed in Charlottesville. Despite not being limited to America or the South, all Confederate statutes are seen by the powerful and vocal minority as symbols of white supremacy and the glorification of the Confederacy’s defense of slavery. The key to success is to whitewash the economic factors that were truly at the core of the Civil War.
Christopher Columbus Statues
Statues of Christopher Columbus have been another focal point of debate. Critics argue that Columbus represents the onset of European colonization (naturally), which led to the genocide and exploitation of Indigenous peoples in the Americas (naturally). In response to these critiques, several cities, including Los Angeles (naturally), have removed or replaced Columbus statues with monuments honoring Native Americans or Indigenous heritage.
Theodore Roosevelt Statue
In New York City, the statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside the American Museum of Natural History was removed in 2022. The statue depicted Roosevelt on horseback, flanked by a Native American man and an African man walking beside him, a representation that many criticized as racist and a visual hierarchy that placed Indigenous and African peoples beneath the white explorer. After years of public pressure, the city and museum agreed to remove the statue, acknowledging its troubling symbolism. In addition, the movie “Night at The Museum,” are now deemed racist and played infrequently on streaming channels. Thus the question: Robin Williams played Theodore Roosevelt in the movie, thus Williams is a bad actor?
The polarized reactions to the removals of historically significant figures and events, highlights the divide between those who seek to preserve traditional historical narratives and those who demand a reevaluation based on modern values.
One can only wonder when the day will come when Marine Corps War Memorial depicting the raising of the flag on Iowa Jima will be removed because of the destruction of natural resources. Let there be all things Green for the profit of Mr. Green Jeans (Al Gore). Laugh? Don’t. And beware, the documentation of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, per John 11:38-44, is modern evidence of a crime involving a dead body. The trend is as obvious as the nose on your face. Sadly, the majority won’t blow their nose.
Corruption of Historical Narratives in Politics
In recent years, both the Republican and Democratic parties have been accused of politicizing history to serve contemporary agendas. This manipulation is often seen as a corruption of historical integrity, with individuals within both parties pushing to rewrite history based on current social and political contexts rather than historical accuracy.
Republican Party and Historical Rewriting
Some within the Republican Party argue that efforts to remove or recontextualize statues, such as those of Confederate generals or figures like Theodore Roosevelt, represent an erasure of American history, and that the removal of statues is part of a broader "cultural revolution" aimed at undermining traditional American values. The removal of statues are seen as part of a politically motivated effort to rewrite history and erase the legacies of important American figures. Critics of this viewpoint argue that these stances often downplay or ignore the harmful aspects of these figures' legacies, particularly their involvement in slavery, colonialism, or the oppression of marginalized groups. The majority of Republicans are unaware and tuned into endless babble from Fox News. Truth is the truth.
Democratic Party and Historical Rewriting
On the other hand, some members of the Democratic Party and progressive movements have been accused of pushing for the removal or reinterpretation of historical monuments in a way that prioritizes contemporary social justice concerns over historical context. These efforts, while often aimed at rectifying historical wrongs, are seen by critics as an attempt to impose modern values on the past. For example, the push to remove statues of figures like Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, both of whom were slave owners, has led to accusations that some progressives are seeking to "rewrite" history in a way that erases the complexities of America's founding figures.
Impact of Weak Leadership and Political Agendas
The corruption of historical narratives within both political parties should be viewed as weak leadership and a lack of moral fortitude to address the nation's history honestly. Instead of fostering meaningful discussions about history and its lessons, politicians on both sides often use these debates to score political points or rally their base. This approach leads to a shallow engagement with history, where individuals either defend historical figures uncritically or seek to erase them without acknowledging their broader contributions or the context in which they lived.
This phenomenon is exacerbated by leaders who lack the courage to take principled stands on controversial issues. Rather than encouraging thoughtful discourse, they often cater to the loudest voices within their political factions, contributing to the polarization and divisiveness surrounding historical monuments. This lack of intestinal fortitude—referred to as moral or ethical courage—results in a political landscape where historical truth is sacrificed in favor of appeasing special interest groups or advancing short-term political goals.
The legacy and accomplishment of the Lewis and Clark expedition should be celebrated and remembered in public spaces, books, and today’s conversation.
