Lewis And Clark Expedition

Imagine having to make a decision that would not only determine the fate of your own life but that of many others as well. How would you go about reaching a conclusion and how could you convince others to trust in your choice? In early June of 1805, Lewis and Clark were faced with such a problem. As the Corps of Discovery ventured up the Missouri River, they arrived at a junction of streams: one leading northwest and the other taking a turn for the south. Selecting the wrong path would have been disastrous for the party, potentially bringing the expedition to an untimely end. However, Lewis and Clark stay constant in their pursuit of the west coast and confidently decide to sail down the left-hand fork, which proves itself to be the correct
choice. By examining Lewis and Clark’s process in selecting the left fork, we can see the precise, logical reasoning that exemplified the two captains as well respected leaders able to gain the trust of and successfully lead the Corps of Discovery throughout the expedition. The way Lewis described the predicament in his journal lends key insight into the process by which the captains made their decision, establishing the troop morale as the highest priority. He stressed the extreme importance of the fork selection, primarily its impact on the attitude of the troops. On a long and arduous journey such as the on the Corps of Discovery undertook, the motivation of the entire group must be maintained or else the whole expedition could be in jeopardy. Lewis recognized that the fork of rivers represented a pivotal moment that would determine the fate of the Corps. If the captains selected the wrong path, the Corps “would not only loose…the whole of [the] season but would probably dishearten the party that it might defeat the expedition altogether.” Thus, the degradation of the party’s motivation from an incorrect path would be more destructive than the lost time or supplies. Lewis’s apt recognition of troop morale as the most important factor in selecting a fork demonstrates his effectiveness as a leader able to accurately assess the problem at hand. The situation before the two captains presented an interesting question and only through Lewis and Clark’s systematic approach of examining evidence could they confidently reach a decision. They carefully observed the characteristics of the two branching rivers and combined the presented facts with their existing knowledge of the desired direction to select a path. Lewis and Clark described the contrast between the two rivers after deciding “an investigation of both streams was the first thing to be done,” rather than hastily jumping to a conclusion (247). The right fork, which branched north, had characteristics very similar to those of the Missouri River on which they had been venturing for the majority of the journey. The water of the right fork was deeper and wider than that of the left fork with a less swift current, so it would be easier to navigate. Moreover, the consistency and color of the water were nearly identical the Missouri. The waters ran “in the same boiling and roling manner which had formly characterized the Missouri” and “it’s waters [were] of a whitish brown colour very thick and terbid, also characteristic of the Missouri” (248). The river was so similar to the Missouri that the majority of the troops quickly pronounced that the right fork was the correct path. However, Lewis did not immediately assume the right fork is the correct path despite its initial similarities and continued to examine the left fork. The left river turned south at the junction and was far different from the accustomed Missouri River. The water was cool and transparent, running far more rapid than the right fork and would thus be more difficult to navigate. Additionally, the south fork’s bottom “composed of round and flat smooth stones like most rivers issuing from a mountainous country” (248). Lewis and Clark’s deliberate collection of evidence put them in a position to make a well-informed decision. After the calculated study of the two forks, Lewis and Clark synthesized their observations with their existing knowledge to establish an initial guess of which path to take. Lewis and Clark built their first decision on the foundation of two conditions: the eventual goal was to reach the west coast and they had to traverse a mountain range. Extending these conditions, Lewis is inclined to take the left fork that branched south. The cool transparency and rapidity of the water indicated that the south fork arose in a mountainous area with melting snow contributing to the characteristics of the south fork. The smooth stones that were present at the bottom of the river further supported Lewis’s hypothesis. Examining the right fork, Lewis was able to predict the terrain in which the river arose. The Corps had been passing through a relatively flat area in the previous portions of their journey and thus since the waters of the right fork were similar to that of the Missouri, Lewis assumed that the fork continued through similar terrain. This fact led him to be confident that the right fork “[rose] in and [passed] a great distance through an open plain country,” which was the not the terrain through which the Corps wished to proceed (248). Lewis believed that “if it penetrated the Rocky Mountains…it’s waters would be clearer,” lending more weight to the south fork as the correct choice (248). Despite being fairly confident in their initial choice of the south fork, Lewis and Clark demonstrated restraint characteristic of skilled leaders and decided to perform short explorations of each fork to amass more data, recognizing that they could not afford to make the slightest mistake.
The two captains send scouting parties up each fork but the evidence collected by the men was not satisfactory. Thus, Lewis and Clark took it upon themselves to personally venture up each fork and record their own observations. Lewis departed up the right-hand fork, while Clark sailed down the left-hand fork. Lewis’s exploration was initially easier than Clark’s; the right fork was not as swift and therefore was more navigable. Lewis continued up the fork until he was confident that it would not be the desired path. The river turned too far north to make any substantial westward progress and the water showed no signs of becoming more characteristic of mountainous waters. Similarly, Clark continued his journey down the other fork until he was able to obtain enough directional information. Clark confidently concluded that the fork ran “west of South a long distance, and [had] a Strong rapid Current,” resulting in more difficult navigation due to snow which most likely came from the Rocky Mountains the Corps wished to reach (259). After sufficiently predicting the future path and characteristics of both forks, Lewis and Clark returned to the junction to share their findings. Lewis and
Clark’s insistence to personally explore both forks demonstrated how committed the captains were to collecting as much data as possible in accordance with their systematic decision process. After reuniting, Lewis and Clark analyzed the observations they had carefully collected so that they could confidently select the left fork branching south as the supposed path, which later proved to the correct choice.
It was Lewis and Clark’s exemplary leadership and decision-making skills that made this choice possible. The two captains not only recognized the extreme weight of the decision in relation to troop morale but also took logical steps to solve the problem. They exhibited restraint and did not immediately assume the fork similar to the Missouri River was the correct path to venture
down. The process by which Lewis and Clark clearly shows that the two men possessed the necessary insight and rationale to effectively reach conclusions, and it is these qualities that made the rest of the troops wholeheartedly trust their captains. Lewis and Clark’s ability as leaders allowed them to make the monumental decision that could potentially doom the entire expedition and still be confident that the rest of the men would follow them, despite holding an opinion directly opposite. Without total devotion, the troops would not have been able to maintain the motivation required to continue on the journey, and Lewis and Clark were keen to this fact. The two captains made sure to establish themselves as well respected leaders that could be trusted, seen through the systematic steps of data collection performed by Lewis and Clark. With lesser leaders, the troops likely would have mutinied or turned back, but Lewis and Clark’s priority of maintaining Corps morale and exemplary decision making allowed them to successfully command the men without negation. Through such admirable traits and effective skills, Lewis and Clark gained the utmost loyalty of the troops, which was a key asset in keeping the troops motivated for the harsh journey ahead.