I have been reading Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis Thomas Jefferson and the Opening of the American West
by Stephen Ambrose lately. And I have to admit that it has been a most annoying read.

The main reason is because Meriwether Lewis and Thomas Jefferson are mostly depicted as heros. But if you actually read what they did you cannot come to any other conclusion than that they where power hungry small minded people.

actions of heroes 1:
The send out an expedition to find an all waterway passage from the east to the west coast. This because they wanted more land. Why did they need more land? Because otherwise other countries would claim it and because american agriculture was based on wasting land rather than cultivating land. Indeed, noble motives.

actions of heroes 2:
The preparation of the trip took much longer than expected. And halfway the trip Lewis left behind a great deal of the stuff he had taken with him. He was truly a competent hero.

actions of heroes 3:
When they reached the pacific they let the men vote where they would overwinter. Ambrose describes it as the first voting event on the west coast. My god, how can you even say things like that. He mentions even that it was the first time that a black guy was allowed to vote. It was a military expedition and Lewis and Clark were clearly in charge. The men were all enlisted men who would be punished severly if they broke any rules. And once he consults with the men and it gets written down as a democratic elections. What a farce.

actions of heroes 4:
Lewis thinks of indians as savages. He is especially irritated by the native tribes that drive a hard bargain, or who steal from the expedition. Oh yes, he really doesn't like the indians that steal from them. Guess what? Yes, indeed, he steals regularly from the indians, and he obtains goods mostly for worthless glass beads and then braggs about it. What an asshole.

actions of heroes 5:
He makes promises to indians that he can't keep. He is there solely to impose his own agenda, although he tries to convince the indians that joining the great american empire is for their own good. At the same time he knows that the only way indians could join the american empire is by becoming 'whites', that is, to give up their own culture and identity.
Lewis only wants one thing of the indians. That they fit within a trade economy that is centered upon the needs of the US. The only need he sees for them is that of the fur trade. He therefore basically wants them to stop making war with each other and just collect furs to trade with the US. How nice!

Actions of Heroes 6:
He is often disgusted by the culture of the Natives. He was a very openminded guy.


anyway...there is more but I had enough of Lewis and these other noble americans.

The main reason is because Meriwether Lewis and Thomas Jefferson are mostly depicted as heros. But if you actually read what they did you cannot come to any other conclusion than that they where power hungry small minded people.

I've found that the term "cocksucker" suits them both quite well. Don't forget Clark(e?).


Why did they need more land?

Actually, they already had the land, even though it hadn't really been surveyed. It was garnered by the U.S from France, I believe, when Napoleon decided that he wouldn't try to build a new French Empire in Lousiana. Not sure if I got that one right, though...

Jefferson said that he wanted the land so that Americans could farm it to "the hundredth and thousandth generation." The act of actually purchasing Lousiana may not have been up within the President's power, though.


He mentions even that it was the first time that a black guy was allowed to vote.

Not sure that's true. I think, for a brief time, freed blacks with sufficient property and women were allowed to vote somewhere in the Northeast for a very brief amount of time after the nation was formed (whenever that was).


What an asshole.

No no no...cocksucker.


anyway...there is more but I had enough of Lewis and these other noble americans.

Don't forget, one of them impregnated Sacagewea, who was an invaluable part of the expedition. There was also the black slave...I always, always forget his name for some reason, it's one syllable I believe...anyway, once they got back, those two members of the team were refused any compensation for their efforts. The slave even tried to attain his freedom, but his master (Lewis or Clarke, I don't remember) literally beat him into submission. It's really amazing.

We heard this a million times already. The poor Indian, getting beaten by the whites. Though I'm not a white, I don't think we can really hold it against them. This is really a savage time, and it still it, and this kind of stuff happens all the time, and was considered socially acceptable. What would your reaction be if 200 years later if a more civilized time came along and declared you a cocksucker because you kept animal pets in "slavery"?

The main reason is because Meriwether Lewis and Thomas Jefferson are mostly depicted as heros. But if you actually read what they did you cannot come to any other conclusion than that they where power hungry small minded people.

My question would be "Why are you reading this book if you already have such a bigoted, hateful view of Lewis and Jefferson."

You certainly haven't read much about either one of them if your only conclusion about them is that they were both "power hungry small minded people".

Don't waste the neurons. You've already made your decision. Your prejudiced against them will prevent your from actually learning anything.

For the record, it was one of my favorite books by Ambrose. People were simply tougher back then.

We heard this a million times already. The poor Indian, getting beaten by the whites. Though I'm not a white, I don't think we can really hold it against them. This is really a savage time, and it still it, and this kind of stuff happens all the time, and was considered socially acceptable. What would your reaction be if 200 years later if a more civilized time came along and declared you a cocksucker because you kept animal pets in "slavery"?

Oh no, those poor native americans, they were infinitely peaceful and in touch with nature. No one would have guessed they forced several thousand species to extinction (oops, that's a secret). How dare I say that they might have actually massacred hundreds of white settlers for no reason (sssh, don't tell anyone.) Too bad they were sold out by their own cheifs to gain European technology. Oops, my bad, I'm supposed to feel guilty and slap myself.


I believe, when Napoleon decided that he wouldn't try to build a new French Empire in Lousiana. Not sure if I got that one right, though...

He couldn't afford it with the entire European continent waging war against him.

'You certainly haven't read much about either one of them if your only conclusion about them is that they were both "power hungry small minded people".'

Or maybe you're the one who hasn't read enough, to understand that's who they were?

The send out an expedition to find an all waterway passage from the east to the west coast. This because they wanted more land. Why did they need more land? Because otherwise other countries would claim it and because american agriculture was based on wasting land rather than cultivating land. Indeed, noble motives.

Why did they need more land? With the amount of immigrants coming into the country and land unavailable in the east, there was a steady creep westward. The intent had only been to buy New Orleans to open up the Mississippi R. trade route, but if you had been in Jefferson's position when Napoleon offered it so cheap, wouldn't you have bought it?


When they reached the pacific they let the men vote where they would overwinter. Ambrose describes it as the first voting event on the west coast. My god, how can you even say things like that. He mentions even that it was the first time that a black guy was allowed to vote. It was a military expedition and Lewis and Clark were clearly in charge. The men were all enlisted men who would be punished severly if they broke any rules. And once he consults with the men and it gets written down as a democratic elections. What a farce.

I don't see your point. Ambrose never implied that it was a 'democratic' expedition, simply that a vote was allowed on the coast. Hell, that's one more vote than I ever had in the military.


Lewis thinks of indians as savages.

And? Romans thought that anyone outside their borders were barbarians, Muslims think non-Muslims are infidels, the Chinese think the rest of the world are barbarians, and Native Americans thought the Europeans were savages too.


Guess what? Yes, indeed, he steals regularly from the indians, and he obtains goods mostly for worthless glass beads and then braggs about it. What an asshole.

And for all you know the 'Indians' bragged to other Indians that they had screwed Clark in the trade. They traded furs and such for glass beads, something we might think worthless, but something they might consider of valuable because they were rare. Such worthless trinkets might be of high trading value among other Indians.


He makes promises to indians that he can't keep. He is there solely to impose his own agenda, although he tries to convince the indians that joining the great american empire is for their own good. At the same time he knows that the only way indians could join the american empire is by becoming 'whites', that is, to give up their own culture and identity.

You're getting a little ahead of history. You noted that they were out there partly to establish trade, which is true, but they were not yet trying to push assimilation on to Indians west of the Mississippi. Jeffereson was trying to convince those east of the Mississippi to either assimilate or move west of the river, which would be considered one big reservation until serious westward settlement across the river started in the 1840s.


He is often disgusted by the culture of the Natives. He was a very openminded guy.

And the Indians were disgusted by the Europeans as well. They thought the beards were disgusting, that Europeans smelled, and thought it was insane that white men did women's work in the fields.

My question would be "Why are you reading this book if you already have such a bigoted, hateful view of Lewis and Jefferson."


I had never heard of Lewis before. Or did I ever read anything on Jefferson.

So my view on them was completely blank before I started. I thought it would be an interesting read. It certainly is interesting but not in the way I imagined it.

Ok, so you admit you are completely ignorant about both men. Fair enough.

Read about both of them. They were many things, but small-minded they were not.

Ok, so you admit you are completely ignorant about both men. Fair enough.

Read about both of them. They were many things, but small-minded they were not.

I'm sure they had big ideas, but they were still small minded.

but you apparently cant give any examples of what they were or did or how they did it eh 15? History looks better with a nice coat of white wash anyway.

Why did they need more land? With the amount of immigrants coming into the country and land unavailable in the east, there was a steady creep westward. The intent had only been to buy New Orleans to open up the Mississippi R. trade route, but if you had been in Jefferson's position when Napoleon offered it so cheap, wouldn't you have bought it?


The manner of agriculture demanded land. Labour was not a problem since they had slaves for that. There were some immigrant groups that truly cultivated the land and took care of it in small family groups. But Lewis was one of those many landowners who were in constant need of land because of the way they did agriculture. For instance, one reason to go in the army was to scout out new lands and get concessions on it.




And? Romans thought that anyone outside their borders were barbarians, Muslims think non-Muslims are infidels, the Chinese think the rest of the world are barbarians, and Native Americans thought the Europeans were savages too.


Not every explorer thought of natives as savages.





You're getting a little ahead of history. You noted that they were out there partly to establish trade, which is true, but they were not yet trying to push assimilation on to Indians west of the Mississippi. Jeffereson was trying to convince those east of the Mississippi to either assimilate or move west of the river, which would be considered one big reservation until serious westward settlement across the river started in the 1840s.


Apparently I am not ahead of history since Lewis and Jefferson mention these motives. I read it, I didn't make it up. Lewis had certain orders on how to handle the natives and these orders were made up with a specific goal in mind. Obviously the west wasn't settled yet, but the grand plan of assimilation had already sprung in their minds.





And the Indians were disgusted by the Europeans as well. They thought the beards were disgusting, that Europeans smelled, and thought it was insane that white men did women's work in the fields.
They didn't pretend to be heroes.

I guess they should have tried to pass themselves off as a PhD. That's a truly heroic thing to do.

That someone would suggest either Lewis or Jefferson were small minded, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, regardless of whether or not you agreed with their politics, shows a very limited understanding of the nature of the men.

maybe you could give some arguments?

The manner of agriculture demanded land. Labour was not a problem since they had slaves for that. There were some immigrant groups that truly cultivated the land and took care of it in small family groups. But Lewis was one of those many landowners who were in constant need of land because of the way they did agriculture.

There was no 'manner of agriculture' that demanded more land, any more than European practices or even native practices. The Indians used 'slash and burn' agriclulture, which was not exactly ecologically friendly. Americans were no more ignorant than Europeans since they brought their practices form Europe. Cash crops such as tobacco, were of course, but outside of the Chesapeake area and parts of North Carolina, it wasn't workable. Cotton was as yet heavily grown. Nobody yet understood crop rotation. New Englanders never used all of their fields, but its not because they knew about crop rotation, but because they were leaving legacies for future generations, but by the beginning of the 19th century, those extra lands were taken. But more land was needed not because the Americans were any harder on the land than anyone else, but because there was no more land available on the east coast anymore for native born, much less for the constant flow of immigrants. However. in 1804 there was still hundreds of thousands of acres owned by Indians between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, and that is where Jefferson was trying to get the Indians to assimilate. Settling of the Louisiana territory was still a generation away. L & C may have talked to the Indians out there about assimilating, but that was not their mission. Hell, they were shocked to find out that there were so many nations there. They had expected it to be very sparsely populated.


For instance, one reason to go in the army was to scout out new lands and get concessions on it

Yes, but up until the L&C expedition, that had meant in the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. Other than trappers and a few other independents, their expedition was the first military venture across the river.


Not every explorer thought of natives as savages.

And I doubt seriously every native thought of the Europeans as savages. But does that mean either the Americans or natives that did think that way were 'small-minded', or that the few natives and Americans who didn't were simply more enlightened for their time?


Apparently I am not ahead of history since Lewis and Jefferson mention these motives. I read it, I didn't make it up. Lewis had certain orders on how to handle the natives and these orders were made up with a specific goal in mind. Obviously the west wasn't settled yet, but the grand plan of assimilation had already sprung in their minds.

You're still ahead of history. In 1804 the main goal was still to get the natives east of the Mississippi to either assimilate or move west of the river. L&C's main goals were to survey, explore and map, and see if they could establish some trade. Any real worries about having to assimilate those distance tribes were still minor. If you read more on Jefferson's writings, he didn't really know what to expect from the lands across the river, but in meetings with chieftains of eastern tribes in 1805 he was telling them he was their 'father' and that they must assimilate or move west of the 'Great River'.


They didn't pretend to be heroes.

Lewis and Clark didn't pretend to be heroes either. They barely got any recognition for what they did in their own time. After over two years most people had forgotten them and assumed they were dead. People in St. Louis celebrated their return briefly, then the troop split and each went their own way with little fanfare. Only a few in Washington were immediately aware of what they accomplished and what it meant. History hasn't even painted them as 'heroes', only that what they did was a rather incredible journey and very important in our history. If you examine the character of historical figures you find that they all had flaws, sometimes major one. There's not a single figure in American history who doesn't. That's the purpose of writers like Ambrose; to show us that these were real people with real flaws. But finding out they were real people doesn't detract from the significant contributions they made to our history. If you read biographies and expect to find only saintly characters then you might as well not open a book.

What would your reaction be if 200 years later if a more civilized time came along and declared you a cocksucker because you kept animal pets in "slavery"?

Slavery had been almost entirely abolished in the North and was on its way out in the South. It would have deflated on its own if the cotton gin hadn't been invented.


Oh no, those poor native americans, they were infinitely peaceful and in touch with nature. No one would have guessed they forced several thousand species to extinction (oops, that's a secret). How dare I say that they might have actually massacred hundreds of white settlers for no reason (sssh, don't tell anyone.) Too bad they were sold out by their own cheifs to gain European technology. Oops, my bad, I'm supposed to feel guilty and slap myself.

The Native Americans were not perfect, no one is. They did not impact the environment like the whites did, however. And if they did massacre whites, it was undoubtedly in retaliation for the whites stealing from, lying, and tricking the Native Americans. I never said that it was your fault that they did this, I don't know why you feel that it should be.


And? Romans thought that anyone outside their borders were barbarians, Muslims think non-Muslims are infidels, the Chinese think the rest of the world are barbarians, and Native Americans thought the Europeans were savages too.

Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.

There was no 'manner of agriculture' that demanded more land, any more than European practices or even native practices. The Indians used 'slash and burn' agriclulture, which was not exactly ecologically friendly. Americans were no more ignorant than Europeans since they brought their practices form Europe. Cash crops such as tobacco, were of course, but outside of the Chesapeake area and parts of North Carolina, it wasn't workable. Cotton was as yet heavily grown. Nobody yet understood crop rotation. New Englanders never used all of their fields, but its not because they knew about crop rotation, but because they were leaving legacies for future generations, but by the beginning of the 19th century, those extra lands were taken. But more land was needed not because the Americans were any harder on the land than anyone else, but because there was no more land available on the east coast anymore for native born, much less for the constant flow of immigrants. However. in 1804 there was still hundreds of thousands of acres owned by Indians between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, and that is where Jefferson was trying to get the Indians to assimilate. Settling of the Louisiana territory was still a generation away. L & C may have talked to the Indians out there about assimilating, but that was not their mission. Hell, they were shocked to find out that there were so many nations there. They had expected it to be very sparsely populated.



it is all very interesting that you think that, but I am just referring to what ambrose said. It is not my opinion on how agriculture was done in the US at that time. Ambrose describes it and pushes forward that the need for land was one of the main motives.









You're still ahead of history. In 1804 the main goal was still to get the natives east of the Mississippi to either assimilate or move west of the river. L&C's main goals were to survey, explore and map, and see if they could establish some trade. Any real worries about having to assimilate those distance tribes were still minor. If you read more on Jefferson's writings, he didn't really know what to expect from the lands across the river, but in meetings with chieftains of eastern tribes in 1805 he was telling them he was their 'father' and that they must assimilate or move west of the 'Great River'.

Tell that to Ambrose. And he historical sources he went through. Once again, I am not spewing my personal opinion here. My personal opinion is that they were assholes. But that has nothing to do with Ambrose's interpretation.



Lewis and Clark didn't pretend to be heroes either. They barely got any recognition for what they did in their own time. After over two years most people had forgotten them and assumed they were dead. People in St. Louis celebrated their return briefly, then the troop split and each went their own way with little fanfare. Only a few in Washington were immediately aware of what they accomplished and what it meant. History hasn't even painted them as 'heroes', only that what they did was a rather incredible journey and very important in our history. If you examine the character of historical figures you find that they all had flaws, sometimes major one. There's not a single figure in American history who doesn't. That's the purpose of writers like Ambrose; to show us that these were real people with real flaws. But finding out they were real people doesn't detract from the significant contributions they made to our history. If you read biographies and expect to find only saintly characters then you might as well not open a book.

They are depicted as heroes in the book. If you are not aware of that whilest reading then you must be an american with blinds on. I have no emotional ties with them so I figure I am some position to evaluate them.

And? Romans thought that anyone outside their borders were barbarians, Muslims think non-Muslims are infidels, the Chinese think the rest of the world are barbarians, and Native Americans thought the Europeans were savages too.

Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.

Didn't say it does, only that it the looking down at other cultures is not unique to Americans thinking Native Americans were savages, so it is absurd to call then 'cocksuckers' for thinking that way.


it is all very interesting that you think that, but I am just referring to what ambrose said. It is not my opinion on how agriculture was done in the US at that time. Ambrose describes it and pushes forward that the need for land was one of the main motives.

I've disagreed with Ambrose before.


They are depicted as heroes in the book. If you are not aware of that whilest reading then you must be an american with blinds on. I have no emotional ties with them so I figure I am some position to evaluate them.

Well, I don't think anybody 200 years later can have emotional ties to them. But at any rate, I didn't get the sense he considered them heroes. I did get the sense he greatly admired what they had done, as do I, over 2 years into unknown territory. Very bold men, very brave men, who deserve a lot of admiration, but not heroes. Men who were products of their times, but that doesn't make them 'assholes' either.

The Native Americans were not perfect, no one is. They did not impact the environment like the whites did, however.

True.


And if they did massacre whites, it was undoubtedly in retaliation for the whites stealing from, lying, and tricking the Native Americans. I never said that it was your fault that they did this, I don't know why you feel that it should be.

Don't worry, just playing up the guilt part.

Man has pissed on man since the dawn of time. Man is still pissing now but under the guise of lawful conflict. I would imagine the pissing will continue until the earth has breathed her last.

What happened to the native americans really is the greatest injustice humans have suffered, obviously not the greatest injustice earth has seen or anything when you think of what different species have experienced.
But yeah american indians really got screwed over.
The full story would be darkly comical if it didn't actually happen.
If it was just no holds barred slaughter and annihilation it wouldn't have been as bad, but all the decietfull tricks and breakings of trust were just sad.

I think native american culture was a sign of the potential human beings had to become something great. Wise, profound, humble and in harmony with nature, it could have been greater but they were on the right track.
Then it was snuffed out in the most disturbing fashion.

Worst of all, america still mocks them, and even teaches misinformation to its citizens. There's no way around it, american indians got screwed, how people can still try to argue against this is beyond me.
Especially with "indians killed white people for no reason", thats just hilarious.
I mean yeah they did kill white people, often, maybe because they were being invaded and attacked? Some didn't fall for the wool the whites were trying to pull over their eyes(that is when the whites bothered to try and pull wool over their eyes) Good for them, shame they weren't more efficient in their retaliation.

I'm bad with names but maybe you guys can help me, there was some guy who attacked a village of native americans with his army purposefully while there were no men there, just women and children, and mutilated them, cut off their genitals and wore them on their hats as trophies etc.
I know this happened i just can't remember the name of the 'mastermind' behind it.
It was in retaliation to a group of men being found full of arrows but apparently they attacked the wrong tribe anyway.
When I can say human suffering is disgusting you can bet it was pretty bad, this was pretty bad.

Native americans just got royally screwed for no reason, you can't deny that, you could be pro-'them getting screwed' I suppose if you were a sadist but you can't say they were not screwed or deserved what happened to them.
Out of all the human injustices that have occurred throughout history, the one that comes closest in severity and abhorrence to the injustices animals have suffered is the one that befell the native americans, no question.

Really the Native Americans where screwed over the most huh. So the Jews and their trouble doesnt compare to the Indians. Taking blacks as slaves doesn't compare. Past cultures where a commoner is not much above a slave doesn't compare. The Native Americans are only one on a long list. Its all equally bad.

Animals rights. Yeah torture to animals is wrong, but I haven't seen a whole species of animals wiped out in a similiar process. Some animals have been hunted to extinction for the resources gained from them not the same as being destroyed in the act of genocide. You may not see much difference but I do. Is the extinction of a species wrong......what if that extinction wasn't our doing is it still wrong? Life is precious but if that life can't hang survival of the fittest dictates that life ends.

Im sorry that the real world is so bloody and scary but excuse me I'm hungry I'lll go hunt down a deer for dinner. The only reason I would ever stop eating meat is if plants ever do something I really hated. Then I would eat the vegtables as vengeance. later.

P.S. I'll try to kill it quick as i wouldn't want it to suffer.

No I don't think the jews or african slaves copped as raw a deal as the native americans. It wasn't just the people with the native americans, it was america, the land that the indians actually had a respect for taken off them by people who had no respect for it whatsoever. Everything about it just puts a bad taste in your mouth.

What happened to whales was of course far worse, elephants, rhinos. What has and is happening to pigs is truely disgusting. They have always been shat on. If some manage to get away from the cold sterile factories we cram them into we hunt them down and tear them apart with dogs.
Pigs are either kept in tiny cells their whole life or persecuted like outlaws, hunted down with dogs and murdered on the spot, men women children it doesn't matter.
Your generic anti-vegetarian argument is not relevent here, fact is, pigs have had it worse than jews. Thats just the way it is.

Its impressive that you can view an animals suffering as a species to that of us. most only care about ourselves and not pigs. Some animal has to live somewhere and be food for us. Would it be better if we made 5 star hotels for the pigs but still slaughtered them for food? Killing for food and safety is nature.

I agree what the Indian experienced was awful but I still say Jews have had it as bad as indians. They used to have a home. The have been scattered for a long time. We treat our fellow man like dirt its not suprising we do the same to pigs.

And killing a rhino for a horn is cruel Im glad we now have land set aside for these and other endagered animals. Hindsite is always 20/20 and morals are always tuff.

The sanctity of life is so selective.
How should we rate an animals life and the right to kill it?
As a percentage of the existing whole?
The gentleness of the animals death?
The resources gained from its death?
Increased safety of our own kind?
What makes killing an animal right?
what about plants?
These our some tuff question and I ask myself them too. After i think a while on them i'll respond.

the Northwest Passage