Lewis and Clark’s Return by Sea?
Not their best option
Contributed by Robert Heacock
When the Lewis and Clark Expedition departed for their ‘expedition to the Westward’, they carried instructions from President Thomas Jefferson outlining the scope of their activities. This also included a suggested option for the return of both them and the results of their observations and activities in the form of their journals and maps.
Excerpts from those instructions include the following:
To Meriwether Lewis, esquire, Captain of the 1st regiment of infantry of the United States of America.
On your arrival on that coast, endeavor to learn if there be any port within your reach frequented by the sea-vessels of any nation, and to send two of your trusty people back by sea, in such way as shall appear practicable, with a copy of your notes. And should you be of opinion that the return of your party by the way they went will be eminently dangerous, then ship the whole, & return by sea by way of Cape Horn or the Cape of Good Hope, as you shall be able.
Should you find it safe to return by the way you go, after sending two of your party round by sea, or with your whole party, if no conveyance by sea can be found, do so; making such observations on your return as may serve to supply, correct or confirm those made on your outward journey.
Given under my hand at the city of Washington, this 20th. day of June 1803.”
Th:Jefferson, Pr. U.S. of America.
As the Expedition was approaching the mouth of the Columbia River, they were anxious to determine if any American ships trading for sea otter furs were at the mouth of the river, as was first accomplished by Captain Robert Gray of Boston on May 11, 1792.
Captain William Clark at Dismal Nitch:
November 14th Thursday 1805
Capt Lewis concluded to proceed on by land & find if possible the white people the Indians Say is below and examine if a Bay is Situated near the mouth of this river as laid down by Vancouver in which we expect, if there is white traders to find them &c. at 3 oClock he Set out with 4 men
A safe return for the Lewis and Clark Expedition was a priority, as there was not much point in going to the Pacific Ocean if they were not able to return with their precious maps and journals. Archibald Menzies, the naturalist with the 1791-1795 Expedition of British Captain George Vancouver, compiled a list of twenty-nine vessels that were plying the coast of the Pacific Northwest in 1792. Thomas Jefferson was aware of the large amount of fur trading activity along the Pacific Northwest coast. But the men of the Lewis and Clark Expedition soon found that a return by sea would not be an option for them.
Sergeant John Ordway:
Sunday 17th Nov. 1805.
Capt. Lewis and party returned to Camp also, and informed us that they had been about 30 miles down which took them on the Sea Shore and a verry bad road the most of the way. they Saw the harbour where the vessells had lain but they were all gone.—
Sergeant Patrick Gass:
Sunday 17th. About the same time Capt. Lewis, and his party returned. They had been round the bay, and seen where white people had been in the course of the summer: but they had all sailed away.
The Expedition departed Fort Clatsop March 23, 1806, and fur trading ships do not appear on the Columbia River until April, May or even June. The ship Juno, an American ship charted by the Russian-American Fur Company from New Archangel, now known as Sitka, Alaska was attempting to enter the Columbia River starting on March 14. The Juno was heading to the California coast, and then would return to New Archangel, and probably would not have been able to assist the Expedition in any satisfactory way except possibly to supply them with some trade goods. Juno abandoned the effort to enter the tempestuous Columbia River Bar on April 1 after a two-week effort.
Any ship that the Expedition could have encountered that spring would spend the summer gathering furs and then in October head to the Sandwich Islands, now known as Hawaii, for repairs and provisions. They would then go to Canton, China, to sell their furs in a complicated and tedious process controlled by the buyers. Canton, now known as Guangzhou, was the only port in China that was open to foreign traders. Each of these steps could take weeks or even months. The ship would then pick up a cargo of Asian goods for sale in New York or Boston, which, barring any complications, was itself an extended trip.
If the particular ship Lewis and Clark had dispatched two or more men on was not returning directly to the United States from Canton, then the men would be at the mercy of the schedule of the next ship to come along that could accommodate them. The captains had realized this, as seen in this entry from Lewis:
Tuesday March 18th 1806.
our party are also too small to think of leaving any of them to return to the U’ States by sea, particularly as we shall be necessarily divided into three or four parties on our return in order to accomplish the objects we have in view; [2] and at any rate we shall reach the United States in all human probability much earlier than a man could who must in the event of his being left here depend for his passage to the United States on the traders of the coast who may not return immediately to the U’ States or if they should, might probably spend the next summer in trading with the natives before they would set out on their return.
This same day, Lewis wrote his letter and muster roll and made copies that were distributed to the natives. One of those copies was later given to Captain Samuel Hill of the brig Lydia, who arrived at the Columbia River June 12, 1806, and departed on July 15. Captain Hill arrived at Canton on November 20, and then Boston in May of 1807.
Using the two voyages of Captain Robert Gray on the Columbia Rediviva as an example, the time it took Gray to commence his Pacific coast trading seasons on March 16, 1789, and March 26, 1792, and then to return to Boston via the Sandwich Islands and Canton, China was 17 and 16 months respectively. This does not include his transit time from Boston to the Pacific Northwest. So, the Lewis and Clark Expedition returning to St Louis, Missouri in six months on September 23, 1806, was prior to the date when a fur trading ship may have even been getting ready for an October departure of the Pacific Northwest. Though it was another three months before Lewis arrived in Washington, D.C. on December 28, 1806, a return by land was still a better option. This was accomplished without any additional risks and difficulties of spoiled food, tainted water, delay, illness, scurvy, seizure of the men, maps and journals by a foreign power, conflict with various natives, or storms brought on by a sea voyage. They were also able to maintain the numerical strength of the returning land parties by not sending any men by sea.
One of the biggest threats to the crew of any ship in this era was scurvy. It was the result of a deficiency in Vitamin C but had only recently been recognized by prevailing medical theory. Humans are one of the few animals that do not produce their own Vitamin C, but it is available in land animals. This deficiency results in a breakdown of collagen, the material that is the connective tissue of the body. That leads to breaking bones, loose teeth, swelling of limbs, reopening of old injuries, lethargy and often death.
Both Captain James Cook and Captain George Vancouver recognized that to maintain the health of the men, mandatory cleanliness below decks and a proper diet were important. These two captains had minimal loss of life during their expeditions from 1768 to 1795, and even fewer lost to disease, though they did not know the exact mechanism of disease. Cures for scurvy had been found and then lost several times in this era. It was not until about 1800 that the British Admiralty officially adopted the practice of consuming fresh citrus to maintain the health and readiness of the crews. But the Lewis and Clark expedition with their diet of land animals was able to maintain their health and avoid this threat, which existed even in 1806.
If the Lewis and Clark Expedition had met a ship, the best they could have hoped for was a resupply of trade goods, and possibly some provisions, including alcohol. It is also very possible that any trading ship would be soliciting provisions from the Expedition, likely in the form of fresh elk. This is especially true if a trading ship would have been at sea for many months, as any original provisions would have had limited nutritional value and diminished appeal. This demand may have even taxed the marginal but adequate supply of elk the Expedition used for their own needs. Most ships would have reprovisioned in the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands, but that did not apply to all.
Any return to Washington, D.C., by ship would have been a long and circuitous trip, with the men from the Lewis and Clark Expedition likely pressed into service as crew. In March of 1806 the fur trading season was just beginning, and no ship captain would have been willing to cut their trading trip short to transport a few members of the Expedition.
Thus, the return by land to St Louis, completed in exactly six months, and to Washington D.C. in an additional three months, was certainly the best option, though it had its own risks and arduous events. The hoped-for option of a return by sea, of even a few of the Expedition members, would have been prolonged and impractical and have had its own risks.
Quotes are from The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Dr. Gary Moulton, Editor, University of Nebraska Press (Moulton Journals) Vol VI – 1994.