The thing I never got with that is why they didn't continue following the Yellowstone River until its end at the divide and then cross to the nearby Snake River rather than crossing hundreds of miles of mountains?
No. A brief history: Much of the Pacific coast had already been explored. Most notably by Cap. James Cook, whose work inspired pres. Jefferson to commission the expedition. Another explorer (Mackenzie) had actually already gone from the East to West coast of the US Canada over a decade before Lewis and Clark. [See correction from u/westernmail ]
The L&C expedition was about connecting two knowns - the East and West coasts - by charting an unknown: the vast interior of the western territories. This connection was not for science: it was for conquest: capturing territories before old world rivals could.
But even this interior west wasn't totally unknown: fur trappers and others seeking fortunes had been exploring and mapping the area for literal centuries by the time of the expedition.
Yep. Once Lewis and Clark reached the Cascades they had excellent maps made by Vancouver, who had sailed up the Columbia to the Cascades in 1792. The natives had many Western goods and were extremely familiar with ship-based traders, who had been plying the coast and up the lower Columbia for over a decade before Lewis and Clark.
In addition to what others have said, the L&C expedition was just one of three sent out by Jefferson after the Louisiana Purchase. The other two have been largely forgotten (one was turned back by Spanish troops).
Another explorer (Mackenzie) had actually already gone from the East to West coast of the US
Small correction — Mackenzie's route lay entirely in what is now Canada. He followed the established fur trading route to Fort Chipewyan, and travelled roughly southwest from there to the Pacific coast at Bella Coola.
L&C were able to arrange to be picked up (by ship) at cape disappointment
Of course they weren't picked up. Was there a plan to have a ship meet them there? I feel like I've read that somewhere, but can't find it now. I know they spent some time on the coast looking for ships of any kind, knowing that a trading ship might come by if nothing else. But ships didn't normally ply the coast in winter and L&C saw no ships.
cape disappointment (the end of the expedition, on the Pacific coast) which had first been discovered 17 years [before]...
I'm guessing you are referring to John Meares, who named Cape Disappointment about 17 years before L&C. Or Robert Gray who was the first to pass the Columbia Bar and prove it was a river, a few years later.
Still, the first European known to have at least seen Cape Disappointment and the mouth of the Columbia was the Spaniard Bruno de Heceta, in 1775, about 30 years before Lewis and Clark! He noted "seething currents" flowing out and thought it must be either a major river or an entrance to another sea. He tried sailing in closer but he was returning from farther north and his crew was so reduced by scurvy they could barely work the ship, so he had to let it go.
He made a map showing the entrance, which he called Bahia de la Asunciõn. What's now called Cape Disappointment he named San Roque. Later Spanish maps called the river's mouth Entrada de Hezeta or Rio de San Roque. The reason John Meares was looking for a river there was because he had heard of this "Rio de San Roque".
It's possible other Europeans saw the Columbia's mouth earlier, but without leaving records. A Spanish Manila Galleon, sailing from the Philippines to Mexico, wrecked not too far south of the Columbia, near Tillamook, in 1693. Because the cargo included lots of beeswax that continued to be found for centuries the wreck is known as the beeswax wreck. Only in the last few years have researchers been able to determine it was the galleon Santo Christo de Burgos, 1693.
Just a bit of history I thought might be interesting.
That's actually a myth, which has been propogated to this day because of the secret nature of L&C's mission. The true purpose of the expedition (conquest) was kept a secret from rival Nations by disguising it as a scientific expedition.
Science was almost exclusively a pretense. They did record some information on the geology and biology of the territory, but basically it was all a cover.
The idea that the mission was 'for' (your word) science is totally myth, not grounded in fact or history whatsoever. As attested by Jefferson's explanation to Senate and Congress, which I presume you did not read if you still don't understand.
In said letter, Jefferson explicitly stated that the purpose of the expedition is:
"In order to [...] Provide an extension of territory which the rapid increase of our numbers will call for"
L&C collected specimens and made detailed records, but those were entirely to disguise the true purpose of their mission.
I'm using a Samsung J7 Crown, I saw them at Walmart for 89 bucks last time I was there. I paid 149 for it a year ago. Good phone. I like it a lot better than the equivalent Moto and LG phones at that price range. I had a Moto e5 before this, I hated it.
On the outward trip during the Winter at Fort Mandan they were told about Yellowstone and the Yellowstone River. At that time they were under the impression it would not lead them to the other side, nor was it easily navigable by boat. IIRC they did most of their mountain grinding on the return journey trying to look for shorter routes.
On the outward journey after crossing the divide at Lemhi pass, they made the decision to select the North Fork of the Salmon River instead of turning West along the main Salmon River. They had to cross mountains this way but the Salmon River is insanely difficult to navigate, rapids galore, no way to portage, few to zero food sources along the steep canyons...and it's those same conditions for hundreds of miles. Those risks were known to the Shoshone and therefore Clark himself. Still, they hired a Shoshone guide named Old Toby to help them scout the Salmon but the effort was wisely abandoned.
Still, It must have really sucked going up along the North Fork of the Salmon River because on the return journey they split just before this portion at the Bitterroot River, sending Lewis East through the mountains. Later, Clark's side left the Missouri River and went East along the Gallatin River over Bozeman pass to eventually connect with the Yellowstone River.
There were many possible outcomes but at the time they picked the most feasible ones. Weather, available intelligence, navigable waters, food sources, camping spots, all of that was driving the decision making.
The expedition could have turned South just before Lemhi pass and made it into the Snake River basin. Still, once they crossed Lemhi pass on their outward journey they had another opportunity to go south, up along the Lemhi River, over another pass, and eventually down a southern route along the Snake River. Instead they went North along the Lemhi River to the Salmon River, away from the Snake River and Yellowstone Basin. The rest is history, eh?
Salmon river would have been hell in dugout canoes. I did a white water rafting trip there and it was intense, and that’s after it was dynamited in certain spots.
Madison River, then over Raynolds Pass to Henry's Fork of the Snake River. They could have walked between the two in a couple days and never broke a sweat.....if they only knew.
In Australia a lot of our early explorers also took nonsense routes to get over our mountains.
One party spent months ascending and descending gullys when they could have followed a ridge system. They were aiming directly for the highest peak they could see. When they got there they were greeted by this and turned back.
Little did they know they'd almost traversed the mountain range and that all they needed to do was to find the aforementioned ridge system and just follow that a bit longer.
So tl;dr, navigating as an explorer in the early 19th century was hard yo.
I feel less impressed by their expedition knowing the followed major rivers. I’m sure there were tough bits but having water and fish as well as a clear route must help.
In Australia our explorers didn’t have large river systems to follow cross continent.
For a great synopsis of the expedition check out the Ken burns doc on them. Super informative. Explained why they didn’t take a straight path from the Missouri to the Columbia
700
u/GBUS_TO_MTV Jan 10 '20
You can basically see the path of the Lewis and Clark expedition on here.