Combat Studies Institute Press

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Donald L. Carr
The portraits of Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and William Clark 

on the cover are from the US National Park Service. The graphic at the bottom, from the National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center, is from a painting, “Loading the Supplies,” by Keith Rocco of Tradition Studios.
Into the Unknown:

The Logistics Preparation of the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition

Donald L. Carr, MAJ, USA 

Combat Studies Institute Press,

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Carr, Donald L., 1968-

 Into the unknown : the logistics preparation of the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition / by Donald L. Carr, Maj, 

USA.

 p. cm.

 Includes bibliographical references.

1. Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804-1806)--Planning. 

2. Logistics--History--19th century. I. Title. 

F592.7.C356 2004

917.804’2--dc22

 

 2004019196

CSI Press publications cover a variety of military history topics. 

The views expressed in this CSI Press publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Department of the Army or the 

Department of Defense.

A full list of Combat Studies Institute/CGSC Press publications, 

many of them available for downloading, can be found at <http:

www.cgsc.army.mil/csi>.
iii

Foreword

Two hundred years ago, a 30-man US Army party—the “Corps 

of Discovery”—ascended the Missouri River and conducted the most 

extensive exploration yet attempted of the North American continent’s 

interior. Their accomplishments in the two-year journey were remarkable, 

and bear testimony to the leadership acumen of Captains Meriwether 

Lewis and William Clark. The results were also a testament to the courage 

and fortitude of the soldiers they led. No successful operation, however, 

occurs in a vacuum. Detailed planning and preparation are often key 

elements in the eventual overall conclusion. In that vein, the preparations 

for the Lewis and Clark expedition were exhaustive. President Thomas 

Jefferson, father of the expedition, ensured Lewis was well prepared for 

his task by coaching, mentoring, and teaching the young officer for two 

years. Lewis and Clark then spent the better part of a third year planning 

and organizing for the journey. As a result, they had plans for almost every 

contingency imaginable. In addition, their mental preparation and agility 

enabled them to react to and take advantage of unforeseen circumstances.

Major Donald Carr’s Into the Unknown: The Logistics Preparation 

of the Lewis and Clark Expedition is a valuable study examining the key 

logistics components and considerations in the planning and execution 

of the mission. Modern logisticians will find themes in transportation, 

civilian contracting, indigenous (host nation) support, and others that still 

resonate today. Major Carr clearly demonstrates that Captains Lewis and 

Clark, in facing the daunting tasks of the great expedition, rose to the 

challenges and met them with ingenuity, detailed planning, discipline, 

leadership, and resolution—hallmarks worthy of reflection by today’s 

junior leaders. 

 Thomas T. Smith

Lieutenant Colonel, Infantry 

Director of Combat Studies 

v

Preface

Captain Meriwether Lewis’ task was to equip and man a party to 

traverse the unmapped middle third of the United States. Most studies of 

the expedition begin with the party’s departure from Camp Dubois in the 

spring of 1804. This starting point ignores the important logistics planning, 

preparation, and training that commenced with Lewis’ appointment as 

personal secretary to President Thomas Jefferson in the spring of 1801. 

Under President Jefferson’s watchful eye, Lewis conducted extensive 

preparations at Washington, DC; Harper’s Ferry, Virginia; Philadelphia; 

Pittsburgh; and St. Louis.

Expedition journals, personal correspondence, and equipment receipts 

are used to provide insight into the effectiveness of the endeavor’s logistics 

support plan. The study concludes by identifying four themes evident 

in the expedition’s planning and execution that are useful to modern 

logisticians: the value of innovation, the significance of support received 

from indigenous peoples, the employment of civilian contractors, and the 

seemingly obligatory discovery that transportation capabilities rarely meet 

requirements. 

vii

Contents

Page

Foreword.................................................................................................. iii

Preface.......................................................................................................v

Illustrations .............................................................................................viii

Chapter

 1. Introduction ...................................................................................1

 2. Logistics Planning......................................................................... 7

3. Harper’s Ferry ............................................................................. 17

4. Pennsylvania ............................................................................... 27

5. Down the Ohio to Camp Dubois................................................. 55

 6. Conclusion.... .............................................................................. 65

Appendix

A. Jefferson’s Instructions to Lewis.................................................71

B. Lewis’ List of Requirements.......................................................77 

C. Items Obtained in Philadelphia..................................................85

D. Rush’s Rules of Health................................................................91

E. Rush’s Questions.........................................................................93

F. Medicines of the Lewis and Clark Expedition............................95

G. Roster of Personnel.....................................................................99

H. Supplies Obtained in St. Louis and Final Inventory...................103

I. Cache Details..............................................................................105

Bibliography ....... ...................................................................................109
viii

Illustrations

 Figure Page

 1. Lewis and Clark Expedition Trail .................................................1

 2. 1802 Map of North America ....................................................... 3

 3. President Thomas Jefferson.......................................................... 7

 4. Meriwether Lewis....................................................................... 11

 5. William Clark ............................................................................. 12

 6. Harper’s Ferry Arsenal, Circa 1803 ..................................17

 7. Pennsylvania (Kentucky) Rifle................................................... 18

 8. Reproduction 1792 Militia Rifle................................................. 21

 9. Reproduction of Iron Canoe Frame............................................ 23

10. Corps of Discovery Compass and Carrying Case ...................... 37

11. Dr. Benjamin Rush ..................................................................... 45

12. Keelboat Reproduction............................................................... 50

13. Red Pirogue Reproduction ........................................................ 56
1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Nearly all examinations of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark’s 

expedition begin with presupposition that America’s favorite explorers 

commenced their journey from St. Louis in the spring of 1804 (See Figure 

1). In actuality, preparation for the expedition began more than a year earlier. 

Rarely do historians pause to consider the value of logistics preparation. 

Thus, logisticians have become accustomed to reading history devoid of 

the toils of their predecessors. This study is different. As both an Army 

logistician and a fledgling historian, I will review the expedition’s foundation 

to identify issues and themes that might be useful to modern logisticians.

Lewis, as the expedition’s primary logistics planner, collected supplies 

and equipment in Virginia (including the area that would become West 

Virginia) and Pennsylvania in 1803. After departing Pittsburgh, Lewis, with 

a small transitory crew, traveled down the Ohio River, meeting Clark and 

several men he recruited near Louisville. At the junction of the Ohio and 

the Mississippi Rivers, the growing crew turned north en route to St. Louis, 

where yet more men and equipment were acquired. Expedition members 

built Camp Dubois across the river from Spanish-controlled St. Louis to pass 

Figure 1. Lewis and Clark Expedition Trail

Center of Military History
2 

the winter of 1803-1804. This critical phase of the expedition, preparations 

undertaken from Virginia to Camp Dubois, is the focus of this study. 

The logistics questions confronting Meriwether Lewis and 

William Clark are essentially the same questions that confront today’s 

logistics planners. The primary question to be answered is: How does a 

logistician prepare to venture into the unknown? Secondary questions 

include:

1. How was Lewis’ logistics plan derived? 

2. Was his plan adequate? 

3. If his plan fell short, how did expedition members compensate?

4. What mix of men and equipment was required? 

5. Was civilian contractor support anticipated? 

6. To what extent was support from native peoples anticipated? 

7. Why did Lewis choose his former commanding officer, William 

Clark, to accompany him? 

8. How would medical care be provided?

The answers to these questions will be obtained from expedition 

journals and from correspondence between participants and 

supporters. The questions outlined above will be analyzed in 

light of four of 11 of the US Army’s current logistics functions: 

transportation, supply, combat health support (medical support), and 

human resource support. By analyzing expedition preparations in this 

manner, it is hoped that new insights, useful to modern planners, will 

be discovered.

Background

By the close of the 17th century, Spain had firmly established footholds 

in the area that now comprises Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Within 

an additional 100 years, Spanish explorers, while engaged in a search 

for a water route from Spain through North America to India, extended 

their holdings and influence to include southern California.1 Seafaring 

explorers from Spain, Britain, Russia, and America had developed limited 

trade relationships with native peoples and had mapped the Pacific coast, 

but had not journeyed significantly inland. Most important, the Pacific 

Northwest was not definitively claimed by European powers. As the 18th 

century came to a close, the majority of the North American continent 

remained uncharted by American and European explorers. 

France and Spain, also seeking a water route connecting New Orleans 

with the Pacific Northwest, alternately controlled the huge center swath of 

territory west of the Mississippi and east of the Rocky Mountains. Both 
3

nations constructed a series of fortifications and fur trading outposts beside 

the Missouri River, stretching from St. Louis to the Mandan Villages, 

located in the vicinity of modern-day Bismarck, North Dakota.2 Travel 

west of the Mississippi was limited to fur traders and other adventurers. 

Areas north and west of the Mandan Villages were uncharted territory. 

Figure 2 illustrates just how little was known about the continent’s 

geography. Note that the western two-thirds of the modern United States is 

depicted as blank space.

Americans of the period thought of the lands west of the Appalachian 

Mountains as the untamed frontier. The overwhelming majority of citizens 

would never travel farther than 50 miles inland from the Atlantic. It is in 

this context that Lewis was solicited to design an expedition to discover 

a water route to the Pacific. He spent from January 1803 to May 1804, 

a full 16 months, formally pondering and planning the optimal mix of 

men, equipment, and provisions. This immense planning effort continued 

even while President Jefferson waited impatiently for the expedition’s 

departure.3

Figure 2. 1802 map by Aaron Arrowsmith, 

with text boxes added.

Library of Congress
4 

Jefferson’s Guidance

President Thomas Jefferson’s vision was of an American nation 

stretching unbroken from the Atlantic to the Pacific.4 He was of the 

opinion that the United States would be far better off if the citizens on 

the western banks of the Mississippi were American citizens rather than 

subjects of Britain, France, or Spain. He also recognized that if America 

could discover a water route from the east to the Pacific Ocean, the fabled 

Northwest Passage, trade and American domination of North America 

would be accelerated. 

The expedition had its official genesis in the winter of 1803, 

when President Thomas Jefferson confidentially sought approval from 

Congress on 18 January 1803. Jefferson communicated his tentative 

plan: 

An intelligent officer with ten or twelve chosen men, fit for 

the enterprise and willing to undertake it, taken from our 

posts, where they may be spared without inconvenience, 

might explore the whole line, even to the western ocean, 

have conferences with the natives on the subject of 

commercial intercourse, get admission among them for 

our traders as others are admitted, agree on convenient 

deposits for interchange of articles, and return with the 

information acquired in the course of two summers.5 

Jefferson sought approval from Congress for two reasons. First, as is 

the case today, he needed financial backing for the operation. Based on a 

figure provided by Lewis, the president sought $2,500. Second, he thought 

that the support of the Congress might discourage rival powers from 

obstructing the expedition’s mission.6 Although at this point the expedition 

was essentially a secret mission, President Jefferson communicated his 

intent to explore the lands west of the Mississippi to the governments of 

France, England, and Spain. His correspondence with foreign governments 

stressed his desire to further science and literature; privately he spoke of 

commerce and trade.7

Jefferson’s short-term objective was trade with the dozens of Indian 

tribes known to inhabit the uncharted lands west of the Mississippi River. 

His secondary mission was the advancement of science. In addition to 

serving as president of the United States, Jefferson also served as president 

of the American Philosophical Society, headquartered in Philadelphia. 

The American Philosophical Society was the home of nearly all serious 

scientific thought for the fledgling nation. Much of Meriwether Lewis’ 
5

logistics and scientific preparation was conducted in Philadelphia and 

assisted by Jefferson’s philosophical society colleagues.

Jefferson had a lifelong interest in exploration and science. He was 

influenced by the accomplishments of British maritime explorers during 

the latter half of the 18th century. Jefferson undoubtedly developed his 

appreciation for science and exploration from a world dominated by 

James Cook. During the 1760s, Cook, a British naval officer, explored and 

surveyed the waters off Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. “His 

outstanding work on those surveys made Cook the prime candidate to lead 

what would be three epic voyages of discovery to the Pacific.” His final 

voyage had the same objective as the Lewis and Clark expedition—to find 

the Northwest Passage.8

During the spring of 1801, Jefferson was captivated by a recently 

published account of Alexander Mackenzie. Mackenzie was a fur trader 

and explorer employed by the North West Company who, 10 years after 

the fact, published a volume titled Voyages from Montreal, on the River 

St. Lawrence Through the Continent of North America, to the Frozen and 

Pacific Oceans in the Years 1789 and 1793. It has been speculated that 

Mackenzie’s book was among the fewer than a dozen books carried to the 

West Coast by Lewis and Clark.9 While Mackenzie’s book related a daring 

journey, it offered little to quench Jefferson’s thirst for hard scientific data. 

Jefferson, eager to counter the encroachment of European nations on 

the North American continent, while at the same time hoping to further 

science, made three unsuccessful attempts to send explorers westward. 

While a member of Congress in 1783, he attempted to recruit William 

Clark’s older brother and Revolutionary War hero, George Rogers Clark, 

to lead an expedition. Citing poor health and other commitments, George 

Clark rejected the offer.10 In 1792, Jefferson, while serving as secretary 

of state, sought to enlist physician and botanist Dr. Moses Marshall in a 

voyage up the Missouri River with the intent of discovering a route to the 

South Sea. Apparently Marshall also declined.11 In 1793, on behalf of the 

American Philosophical Society, “Jefferson sponsored a more promising 

effort by André Michaux, a French botanist.” Michaux’s task was to “find 

the shortest and most convenient route of communication between the 

U.S. & the Pacific ocean, within the temperate latitudes, & to learn such 

particulars as can be obtained of the country through which it passes, it’s 

productions, inhabitants & other interesting circumstances.” Michaux’s 

exploration attempt failed to penetrate the Mississippi River but succeeded 

in providing Jefferson with the “basic outline” for the Lewis and Clark 

expedition.12
6 

It should be noted that a 19-year-old family acquaintance, Meriwether 

Lewis, also volunteered to command Jefferson’s 1793 endeavor. It is 

likely that Jefferson was impressed with the nerve demonstrated by the 

young Lewis. It is widely acknowledged that after monitoring Lewis’ 

Army career, Jefferson selected him to serve as his personal secretary to 

harness his passion for exploration demonstrated nearly a decade earlier. 

Thus, Lewis had the benefit of planning alongside the president from the 

summer of 1801 through the summer of 1803. Lewis and Clark planned 

and prepared collaboratively from August 1803 to May 1804. Rarely are 

logisticians afforded the luxury of focusing on a single plan for such a 

significant length of time, nor is it common to receive meticulous guidance 

directly from the president of the United States. But this was no ordinary 

mission.

Notes

 1. Reuben Gold Thwaites, Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition (New York: DSI Digital Reproduction, 2001), 1:xviii–xix.

 2. Ibid., 1:xxxii.

 3. Ibid., 1:43–44.

 4. Donald Jackson, ed. Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with 

Related documents: 1783-1854, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois 

Press, 1978), 2:654.

 5. Ibid., 1:12.

 6. Ibid., 1:13.

 7. Ibid., 1:10-13.

 8. James P. Ronda, “‘Knowledge of Distant Parts,’ The Shaping of the Lewis 

and Clark Expedition,” Montana The Magazine of Western History (Autumn 

1991), 6.

 9. Jackson, 1:56.

10. Moulton, Gary E., ed. The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, 11 

vols. (University of Nebraska Press, 2002-2003), 2:1.

11. Moulton, 2:2.

12. Ibid.
7

Chapter 2

Logistics Planning

Jefferson’s Instructions

As already discussed, President Jefferson had been planning the exploration of the western half of the continent for his entire adult life. On 7 

April 1805, upon departing his wintering site for his final push west, Lewis 

romantically described the expedition as a “da[r]ling project of mine 

for the last ten years” and likened his “six small canoes, and two large 

pirogues” to the fleets of Columbus and Cook.1 By spring 1803 Lewis had 

been Jefferson’s secretary for almost two years. The pair had probably 

spent many hours considering the mission’s complexities. Together they 

crafted the instructions that would guide the mission’s execution. While 

Jefferson’s final guidance to Lewis was not published until late June 1803, 

there is little doubt Lewis understood the president’s intent while he gathered supplies and equipment during the preceding months.

The president sought suggestions from his cabinet regarding the expedition’s instructions. Albert Gallatin, the Treasury secretary, in his response dated 13 April 1803, 

stressed the importance of carrying out a thorough geographic survey of the lands that 

were to be settled by the people of the United States. Gallatin also outlined a concept 

that foreshadowed nearly exactly the strategy selected when he suggested that Lewis: 

Figure 3. President Thomas Jefferson

National Park Service
8 

ought to take, on the Spanish side of the Illinois settlement, 

some person who had navigated the Missouri as high as 

possible & it might not be amiss to try to winter with the 

traders from that quarter who go to the farthest tribe of 

Indians in the proper direction. A boat or canoe might 

be hired there (at the Illinois) to carry up to that spot a 

sufficient quantity of flour to enable him to winter there 

with comfort so that his band should be fresh & in good 

spirits in the spring.2

Jefferson also incorporated suggestions provided by Levi Lincoln, his 

attorney general. Lincoln was concerned with the political implications of 

the expedition’s failure or destruction. If the endeavor failed, he predicted 

that Jefferson’s political enemies might use the president’s personal 

involvement in the project to inflict political damage. He suggested that 

Jefferson imbue the project with the goal of providing western religion to 

native peoples along the route.3 Lincoln further argued that if the mission 

failed while attempting to “improve” Indian religion and morality, 

conservative New Englanders would have to temper their criticism. 

Jefferson penned Lewis’ formal instructions only two weeks prior to 

Lewis’ departure from Washington, the majority of logistics preparation 

having already been concluded at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia. His 55-foot keelboat, in which he would 

lug the expedition’s equipment and rations to a wintering location west of 

the Spanish settlement of St. Louis, was (he thought) near completion in 

Pittsburgh. For sure, Lewis was not surprised by anything in Jefferson’s 

final instructions. 

Jefferson recognized the importance of the expedition’s mission and 

the influence it would have on future generations. By providing detailed 

instructions he hoped to communicate his broad vision while ensuring that 

certain specific tasks were accomplished. A transcription of Jefferson’s 

instructions is provided at Appendix A.

The military character of the expedition is prominently depicted in the 

document’s salutation, “To Captain Meriwether Lewis esq. Capt. Of the 

1st regimt. of Infantry of the U.S. of A.” What follows is a military order 

from the commander in chief to a mission commander. The document’s 

second paragraph outlines the logistics preparation that had largely already taken place.

Instruments for ascertaining, by celestial observations, 

the geography of the country through which you will 

pass, have been already provided. Light articles for barter 
9

and presents among the Indians, arms for your attendants, 

say for from 10. to 12. men, boats, tents, & other 

traveling apparatus, with ammunition, medicine, surgical 

instruments and provisions you will have prepared 

with such aids as the Secretary at War can yield in his 

department; & from him also you will receive authority 

to engage among our troops, by voluntary agreement, the 

number of attendants above mentioned, over whom you, 

as their commanding officer, are invested with all the 

powers the laws give in such a case.4 

Jefferson also states that the nature of the mission has been “communicated” to the governments of France, Spain, and Great Britain. This 

declaration was probably intended to deflect the political impact of the 

expedition’s potential interdiction by foreign agents. 

The primary purpose of the expedition being the establishment of new 

trade routes, Jefferson specified that Lewis’ mission was to “explore the 

Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by it’s course & communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, may offer the most direct & 

practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes 

of commerce.”5 Since the prospect of future trade required the willing 

participation of native peoples, Lewis was instructed to “treat them in the 

most friendly & conciliatory manner which their own conduct will admit. 

. . .”6 Jefferson further directed Lewis to identify merchandise desired by 

the Indians to assist future traders. In his most interesting pair of proposals Jefferson instructs Lewis to extend an offer to raise and educate Indian 

children and to offer influential chiefs an opportunity to visit Washington. 

The latter Lewis manages to achieve. 

Jefferson’s vision of the expedition was of a dozen or so men, much 

like the successful Mackenzie expedition across the Canadian Rockies discussed earlier. Not wanting the expedition to appear too extravagant, Jefferson specified a small defensive force made up of soldiers already on the 

government’s payroll. His instructions stated that the expedition’s 10 to 12 

men would be “sufficient to secure you against the unauthorized opposition of individuals or of small parties: but if a superior force, authorized, or 

not authorized, by a nation, should be arrayed against your further passage, 

and inflexibly determined to arrest it, you must decline it’s farther pursuit, 

and return.” It would appear that Jefferson was concerned for the safety of 

the expedition participants. In actuality it is probable that Jefferson was 

interested in safeguarding the information contained in expedition journals 
10 

more than the lives of the participants.7 However, Jefferson did exhibit 

genuine concern for expedition participants and the natives they would 

encounter by directing Lewis to ensure that “some matter of the kinepox”8

be carried to inoculate members against smallpox, an ailment that “for 

centuries had been a great killer of the white man.”9

Jefferson desired to receive the expedition journals rapidly. He specified that 

once on the West Coast, Lewis was to locate a vessel of any nation and attempt 

to return two “trusty people” with a copy of the journals. He also authorized a 

return of the entire party by sea by way of “cape horn or the cape of good hope” 

if it was deemed too dangerous to return over land. To pay for passage, as well as 

to replace worn-out equipment and clothing, Jefferson offered an open letter of 

credit authorizing foreign governments and American agents around the globe 

to seek reimbursement for aid rendered to expedition members.10

The final portion of the instructions relates to succession of command. Clark 

is not mentioned in the document; however it can be assumed that Jefferson approved of his participation since Lewis’ invitation to Clark was penned the previous day. Jefferson authorized Lewis to name his successor “by any instrument 

signed & written” in his hand from his party demonstrating “superior fitness.”11 

Lewis’ Logistics Plan

Lewis’ support plan was altered as the mission evolved. Much can be 

gleaned from the items Lewis sought prior to his departure, however. A list of 

supplies and equipment Lewis requested from facilities in Virginia and Pennsylvania is located at Appendix B. A listing of equipment and supplies received 

from facilities in Virginia and Pennsylvania is found at Appendices C and F. A 

listing of equipment and supplies acquired during Lewis and Clark’s trip down 

the Ohio and at their wintering site of 1803-1804 is provided at Appendix H.

One must select a moment in time to begin the process of analysis. I 

have selected 19 June 1803 because, as discussed earlier in this chapter, 

Jefferson’s instructions were only hours from completion and Lewis was 

in the process of drafting perhaps the most remarkable invitation in American history. By this date Lewis (see Figure 4) had already spent two years 

working closely with the president refining equipment lists. As his westward departure drew near, Lewis began to experience some apprehension 

about the depth of responsibility he was about to undertake. 

He recognized that the mission required an additional officer, one 

whose skills and attributes would complement his own. Lewis’ first choice 

was William Clark. We remain unsure as to whether Clark knew of a pending invitation. In his letter of acceptance, dated 18 July 1803, he declares, 

“the enterprise &c. Is Such as I have long anticipated.”12
11

This statement leaves to the imagination the possible conversations 

that he and Lewis might have had while serving together on the frontier. 

One point is clear—Jefferson may have approved Lewis’ request for a 

second officer, but he had little to do with selecting Clark (see Figure 5). 

Lewis’ letter of invitation is charged with enthusiasm. In his dramatic style 

he outlines the mission’s purpose and provides a status of his logistics 

preparations. This letter, when considered along with the various lists of 

supplies and equipment, provides a reliable means of ascertaining Lewis’ 

interpretation of Jefferson’s intent and his plan to achieve it. Lewis’ letter 

to Clark is only half as long as Jefferson’s instructions, but it manages to 

capture the essence of the operation as well as his concept for supporting 

the anticipated 18-month voyage. Only the concept for providing medical 

support was omitted. This omission was probably not an oversight. An 

expedition consisting of two officers and 10 to 12 men implied medical 

self-sufficiency. The lack of a physician would not be considered odd at the 

time when one Army physician attended approximately 450 men.13

Figure 4. Meriwether Lewis

National Park Service
12 

Figure 5. William Clark

Lewis communicated that he had been managing logistics preparations in Lancaster and Philadelphia since early March and that preparations were almost complete. He named Pittsburgh as his point of embarkation and stated that he plans to depart Washington for Pittsburgh at the end 

of June with the intent of arriving at Clark’s location of Clarksville (named 

for his brother George and located in Indiana) by 10 August 1803.14

Personnel

Lewis communicated to Clark his belief that Jefferson, with congressional approval, would grant Clark a permanent captain’s commission. 

Lewis then made an extraordinary offer to his longtime friend. He proposed to Clark that if he agreed to join the party that his “situation . . . in 

this mission will in all respects be precisely such as my own.”15 In essence 

he was offering his friend co-command of the expedition. The depth of 

friendship between these two men is remarkable. Lewis’ intense respect 

and trust is illustrated by his invitation’s closing remark, “if therefore there 

is anything under those circumstances, in this enterprise, which would 

induce you to participate with me in it’s fatiegues, it’s dangers and it’s National Park Service
13

honors, believe me there is no man on earth with whom I should feel equal 

pleasure in sharing them as with yourself.”16

In his letter Lewis repeats the now-familiar expedition personnel authorization of “noncommissioned officers and privates not exceeding 12, 

who may be disposed voluntarily to enter into this service.” He then goes 

on to add that he is “also authorized to engage any other men not soldiers 

that [he] may think useful in promoting the objects or success of this expedition.”17 In his instructions Jefferson authorizes payment to “consuls, 

agents, merchants, or citizens of any nation” that render aid to the expedition.18 But Jefferson’s statement is in the context of aid rendered in the 

form of sea transportation from the Pacific back to Washington. Thus, the 

basis of Lewis’ impression that he had unlimited authorization to hire nonsoldiers is not directly attributable to Jefferson’s instructions. 

During his trip down the Ohio, Lewis communicated to Clark that it 

was his intention to “engage some good hunters, stout, healthy, unmarried 

men, accustomed to the woods, and capable of bearing bodily fatigue in a 

pretty considerable degree.”19 Using his questionable authorization to hire 

civilian contractors, Lewis also planned to “engage some French traders at 

Illinois to attend me to my wintering ground with a sufficient quantity of 

flour, pork, &c. To serve them plentifully during the winter, and thus be 

enabled to set out in the Spring with a healthy and vigorous party.”20

Lewis’ personnel estimate, in addition to causing him to determine 

the need for another officer, required two distinct groups of enlisted men 

to facilitate the mission. The first group would be quickly assembled for 

the purpose of transiting the Ohio River. The second group, or permanent 

party, would be hand selected from the forts on the frontier and would 

accompany him to the Pacific. Civilians with skills deemed essential, such 

as guides and interpreters, would be hired as necessary in accordance with 

Lewis’ interpretation of Jefferson’s instructions.

Supply

Lewis noted to Clark that he had secured letters of credit to obtain 

supplies.21 As noted earlier, the letter of credit was intended for use in 

emergencies and for securing sea transportation from trade vessels around 

the “summer or the beginning of Autumn” of 1804.22 This estimate would 

prove overly optimistic since the party would be forced by political concerns and shortening days to spend the winter of 1803-1804 across the 

river from St. Louis, where Lewis planned to acquire a stock of “flour, 

pork, &c. to serve them plentifully during the winter,” which would enable his party to set out the following spring “with a healthy and vigorous
14 

party.”23 During the long winter Lewis would teach Clark how to operate 

the scientific equipment acquired in Philadelphia. 

Ironically, the scientific aspect of the expedition, featured prominently 

in Jefferson’s instructions, is saved for Lewis’ closing paragraphs where 

he states, “the other objects of this mission are scientific”24 and that he 

intends to “collect the best possible information relative to whatever the 

country may afford as a tribute to general science.”25 He goes on to state 

that his “instruments for celestial observation are an excellent set and my 

supply of Indian presents is sufficiently ample.”26

Lewis grouped his supplies into nine categories: Mathematical Instruments, Arms and Accoutrements, Ammunition, Clothing, Camp Equipage, 

Provisions and Means of Subsistence, Indian Presents, Means of Transportation, and Medicine. A complete list of the supplies requested and 

received at Harper’s Ferry, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh can be found in 

Appendices B, C, and F.

Transportation

Lewis’ transportation plan appears simple enough. He would embark 

from Pittsburgh on a 55-foot keelboat, descending the Ohio River until it 

met the Mississippi. He would then turn north toward St. Louis and the 

mouth of the Missouri River. Next he would ascend the Missouri several 

thousand miles against the current. Once the keelboat became impractical, 

due to its size and draft, it would be discarded in favor of “canoes of bark 

or raw-hides.” At the base of the Rockies, expedition members would portage necessary supplies and equipment “to the waters of the Columbia or 

Origan River and by descending it reach the Western Ocean.” 27 It should 

be noted that based on secondhand information received from natives and 

traders during the winter of 1804-1805, Lewis and Clark believed that 

“there might yet be an easy passage to the Columbia.”28

Lewis was aware that the mouth of the Columbia was situated approximately 140 miles south of Nootka Sound, a sizeable European trading post where he anticipated that it would be “easy to obtain a passage to 

the United States by way of the East-Indies in some of the trading vessels 

that visit . . . annually.”29 In the unlikely event that the expedition failed 

to make contact with European traders, Lewis planned to retrace the route 

that had led him to the West Coast.30

The only hints we have that Lewis expected to make use of horses 

are a single line on a shipping manifest detailing the movement of “Capt. 

M. Lewis’ Goods” 31 from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in the spring of 1803 

and a single sentence in a letter from Jefferson to Lewis relating to the 
15

shipment of a saddle from Washington to Pittsburgh in July 1803. The 

treasury was billed only one dollar for the transportation of the single box 

of “Horsemans Cloths.” The fee to transport Lewis’ horseman’s clothes 

was less than any of the remaining 34 boxes in the same shipment. Lewis 

apparently viewed the operation as primarily a waterborne endeavor. 

Medical

Jefferson and Lewis both appreciated the dangers expedition members 

would be exposed to. In the early 19th century, injury and disease often 

resulted in death at an early age. Hence, relatively insignificant wounds 

by today’s standards would likely prove life threatening to Lewis and his 

men. 

Arguably the best medical mind in the United States in 1803, Dr. 

Benjamin Rush, was recruited by Jefferson to provide training and advice. 

Lewis “would serve the shortest medical apprenticeship in American history—about two weeks.”32 Lewis received his medical training and assembled his medical kit while in Philadelphia during the last two weeks of 

May 1803. 

Lewis would begin gathering his equipment soon after the president 

received congressional authorization to conduct the expedition in February 

1803. His first stop would be the new arsenal at Harper’s Ferry.

Notes

 1. Gary E. Moulton, ed., The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, 11 vols. 

(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002-2003), 4:10.

 2. Donald Jackson, ed., Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with 

Related Documents: 1783-1854, 2 vols., 2nd ed (Urbana: University of Illinois, 

1978), 1:131.

 3. Jackson, 35.

 4. Ibid., 61.

 5. Ibid.

 6. Ibid., 64.

 7. Ibid.

 8. Ibid.

 9. Eldon G. Chuinard, Only One Man Died: The Medical Aspects of the 

Lewis & Clark Expedition (Fairfield, WA: Ye Galleon Press, 1998), 102.

10. Jackson, 1:65.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid., 110 –111.

13. Chuinard, 47.

14. Jackson, 1:57. 
16 

15. Ibid., 60.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid., 58.

18. Ibid., 65.

19. Ibid., 58.

20. Ibid., 59.

21. Ibid., 57.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., 59.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid., 60.

27. Ibid., 58.

28. Moulton, 5:1.

29. Jackson, 1:58.

30. Ibid., 59.

31. Ibid., 92.

32. David J. Peck, Or Perish in the Attempt: Wilderness Medicine in the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition, (Helena, MT: Farcountry press, 2002), 47.
17

Chapter 3

Harper’s Ferry

On 14 March 1803, roughly two months before Jefferson completed 

his final instructions, Lewis departed Washington for the newly established Harper’s Ferry Armory (See Figure 6). He was armed with a letter 

from Henry Dearborn, Jefferson’s secretary of war, addressed to Joseph 

Perkins, the armory’s superintendent. The short letter directed Perkins 

to “make such arms & Iron work, as requested by the Bearer Captain 

Meriwether Lewis and to have them completed with the least possible 

delay.”1 Located at the juncture of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, approximately 40 miles northwest of Washington, the armory was 

a logical first destination for Lewis for two reasons. First, his estimate 

called for the fabrication of a collapsible iron boat frame that he expected would take armory craftsmen some time to construct. This collapsible boat, fondly referred to by historians as the Experiment, will be 

discussed later.2 Second, he wanted to provide the resident arms makers 

with adequate time to complete their work on the 15 rifles he planned to 

supply to newly enlisted expedition participants. His request for 15 rifles 

is roughly in line with the 13 participants, “an intelligent officer with 

ten or twelve chosen men,” called for in Jefferson’s request for appropriation of 18 January 1803. It can be assumed that at this point Lewis 

planned the additional two rifles as spares or as weapons intended for 

civilian contractors engaged along his route. 

“By 1801 the Harper’s Ferry Armory was producing its first weapons. 

At that time the workmen were skilled artisans drawn from the Philadelphia 

Figure 6. Harper’s Ferry Arsenal, circa 1803

National Park Service
18 

area. Their specialty was individual piecework, but the armory was able 

to begin mass production of rifles shortly after Lewis’ visit.”3

Rifle Debate

For students of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, there is no more 

controversial topic than that of the type of rifle procured by Lewis at 

Harper’s Ferry. It is generally assumed that Lewis procured 15 Harper’s 

Ferry Model 1803 rifles, America’s first regulation US Army rifle. After 

all, Harper’s Ferry prepared 15 rifles for Lewis in the spring of 1803. It 

has been very neat for historians to accept the coincidence. Others believe 

that Lewis did not draw Model 1803 rifles, although he might have unwittingly helped to inspire them. The type of rifles acquired by Lewis was 

introduced and perfected in Pennsylvania but is more commonly identified 

as belonging to the family known as Kentucky Rifles (see Figure 7). 

Figure 7. Pennsylvania (Kentucky) Rifle, c. 1803

On 20 April 1803, Lewis wrote to Jefferson from Lancaster, Pennsylvania to report that he had just completed four and a half weeks’ work at 

Harper’s Ferry seeing to the preparation of 15 rifles and to the construction 

of his iron canoe. Over a month later, on 25 May, Secretary of War Dearborn sent the following letter to Joseph Perkins:

There being a deficiency of rifles in the public Arsenels, 

and those on hand not being as well calculated for actual 

service as could be wished. It is considered advisable to 

have a suitable number of judiciously constructed Rifles 

manufactured at the Armory under Your direction. You will 

therefore take the necessary measures for commencing the 

manufactory as Soon as may be after completing the Muskits 

now in hand. The Barrels of the Rifles should not exceed 

two feet nine inches in length and should be calculated for 

carrying a ball of one thirtieth of a pound weight.

Clearly this letter directed the development of what would become 

the Model 1803, while noting that the armory was currently engaged in 

producing the Harper’s Ferry 1795 musket.4 In his book Harper’s Ferry 

National Park Service
19

and the New Technology, Merritt Roe Smith establishes that “a small 

quantity of full-stocked rifles may have been made at Harper’s Ferry on an 

experimental basis in 1800 or 1801, but the War Department did not issue 

an official directive for the preparation of arms of that type until May 25, 

1803.”5 Model 1803 rifles are half-stocked weapons. When using the term 

“experimental,” Smith implies that the weapons on hand were there for 

routine repairs to test newly acquired armory equipment and to validate armory procedures rather than to create prototypes of a rifle that had not yet 

been directed. Smith goes on to point out that the armory submitted “several patterns” to the war department for approval in November 1803. He 

further argues that because of the rural culture that existed in the Harper’s 

Ferry region in the early 19th-century change came slowly. In fact, Smith 

states that armory workers were “sadly deficient” in a “social milieu” 

adaptable to change and regimentation. Workers considered themselves 

artists and labored according to their own timelines, normally structured 

around maintaining their farms.6 Most of the armory’s less than two dozen 

gunsmiths had been trained in the Lancaster-Philadelphia area, where the 

Pennsylvania (Kentucky) rifle was born.7 The gunsmiths probably owned 

and hunted with Pennsylvania rifles. The highly regarded Flayderman’s 

Guide to Antique American Firearms and their values solicits readers to 

“note Kentucky rifle influence on most parts” of the Model 1803.8 Harper’s 

Ferry possessed a skilled but traditional work force. It is highly unlikely 

that, in one month’s time, armory gunsmiths managed to hastily create a 

prototype Model 1803 in a facility that had yet to produce its own rifles (to 

Dearborn’s specifications) before being directed to do so.

In his latest edition of his aptly named Definitive Journals of Lewis 

and Clark, Gary Moulton states in a footnote that Lewis received:

at least fifteen of the new Model 1803 rifles, the first ones 

issued; this weapon, the first rifle specifically designed for 

the U.S. Army, was about .54 caliber with a thirty-threeinch barrel, but the expedition version may have been a 

predecessor or prototype differing in some respects from 

the standard issue. The captains sometimes referred to 

them as short rifles, because they were considerably shorter 

than the civilian Kentucky long rifles of the period.9

Stephen Ambrose, in his book Undaunted Courage, states that Lewis 

received “U.S. Model 1803, the first rifle specifically designed for the 

U.S. Army, .54-caliber, with a thirty-three-inch barrel.”10 In Carl Russell’s 

much-quoted work Guns of the Early Frontiers, in referring to the Harper’s Ferry Model 1803, states that “it is known also that in 1803 the Lewis 

and Clark party obtained a few pieces of this model.”11
20 

Ambrose and Russell are wrong on this point. The Lewis and Clark 

Expedition did not employ Harper’s Ferry Model 1803 rifles. Russell 

manages to quote the actual correspondence from Secretary of War Dearborn that directs the model’s initial development but omits the fact that 

the letter was penned after Lewis had already reported that “My Rifles, 

Tomahawks & knives are already in a state of forwardness that leaves me 

little doubt of their being in readiness in due time.”12

Only Moulton, after stating that the expedition received Model 1803 

rifles from Harper’s Ferry, acknowledges the debate by adding that the 

weapons may have been prototypes of the 1803. An argument that has 

been used in favor of the use of Model 1803 rifles is the following journal 

entry written by Clark on 20 March 1806 as it appears in the 1893 Coues 

edition of the expedition’s journals:

Finding that the guns of both Drewyer and Sergeant 

Pryor were out of order, the first was fitted with a new 

lock, and the broken tumbler of the latter was replaced 

by a duplicate, which had been made at Harper’s Ferry, 

where the gun itself had been manufactured [emphasis 

added]. But for our precaution in bringing extra locks, 

and duplicate parts of the locks, most of our guns would 

be now useless, in spite of the skill and ingenuity of John 

Shields in repairing them. Fortunately, as it is, we are able 

to record here that they are all in good order.13

In Moulton’s edition of the journals, the same passage appears this way:

The Guns of Sergt. Pryor & Drewyer were both out 

of order. the first had a Cock screw broken which was 

replaced by a duplicate which had been prepared for the 

Locks at Harper’s Ferry [emphasis added]; the Second 

repared with a new Lock, the old one becoming unfit for 

use. but for the precaution taken in bringing on those 

extra locks, and parts of locks, in addition to the ingenuity 

of John Shields, most of our guns would at this moment 

been entirely unfit for use; but fortunate for us I have it in 

my power here to record that they are in good order, and 

Complete in every respect.”14

Apparently Elliot Coues significantly edited Clark’s notes, incorporating his bias in favor of Model 1803 rifles. Flayderman’s Guide points out 

that the “Model 1803 is best known as an issue weapon for the Lewis & 

Clark Expedition” and then notes that the 1803 possesses “graceful lines 
21

and Kentucky rifle styling,” which are important factors in the model’s 

popularity with collectors.15 As we will see, Lewis’ rifles were Kentucky 

rifles modified in such a manner as to pose striking resemblance to future 

Model 1803 rifles.

Kirk Olson, the owner of a potentially authentic Lewis and Clark 

Pennsylvania rifle and author of A Lewis and Clark Rifle?, argues that 

the “15 rifles made for Lewis were not prototypes or patterns of the 

Model 1803 but were instead predecessors in the evolution of the 1803 

rifle.”16 Olson states that in addition to the rifle he owns, he is also aware 

of an authenticated full-stock Harper’s Ferry Pennsylvania-style rifle 

dated 1803 that has a brass patch, both almost identical to that of the 

Model 1803. He then asserts that both rifles were modified 1792 contract 

rifles (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Reproduction 1792 Militia Rifle

In 1792 the United States had not yet begun to produce its own arms, 

and rifles were procured from private gun manufacturers. In the same year 

the president established a “battalion of riflemen, consisting of four companies, each company composed of eighty two privates. Arms for arming 

these riflemen were purchased from well known makers of the ‘Kentucky 

Rifle’ in Pennsylvania.”17 Olson drives his argument home by directing 

the reader to three photos and descriptions of 1792 contract rifles in the 

National Park Service
22 

Flayderman’s Guide. Three different manufacturers produced the rifles, 

and all three are full-stocked, yet they each display remarkable similarities 

to the Model 1803.18

When Lewis went to Harper’s Ferry looking for 15 rifles, he was 

not seeking to create a new rifle type, nor would it be logical to do so. 

Expedition members would rely on their weapons for sustenance as 

well as self-defense. Lewis required spare locks so that repairs could 

be made along his route without specialized tools. According to Olson, 

Lewis sought to avoid filling and drilling while in the field. The solution 

provided by Harper’s Ferry gunsmiths was duplicate locks and an assortment of spare parts. 

Hence, Lewis headed west with 15 1792 contract Pennsylvania rifles 

with shortened barrels to facilitate use in rough terrain and on watercraft. 

He had spare locks, capable of being swapped out without filling or 

drilling, that would prove to be reparable by a single skilled private, the 

expedition’s gunsmith, John Shields.

Lewis’ Experiment

Lewis intended to spend about one week at Harper’s Ferry communicating his requirements and then proceeding to Lancaster for scientific 

training scheduled by Jefferson. On 20 April 1803, he wrote a letter to Jefferson to explain why he was behind schedule.

My detention at Harper’s Ferry was unavoidable for one 

month, a period much greater than could reasonably have 

been calculated on; my greatest difficulty was the frame 

of the canoe, which could not be completed without my 

personal attention to such portions of it as would enable 

the workmen to understand the design perfectly.19

Lewis was convinced of the utility of having a collapsible boat (see 

Figure 9) capable of being easily portaged around the “falls of the Missouri situated five hundred miles above Fort Mandan” and the Rocky 

Mountains.20 Because of inaccurate information received from the Mandans and traders, Lewis and Clark grossly misjudged the enormity of the 

obstacles in their path. In a letter to his mother, penned at Fort Mandan, 

Lewis shared his belief that the portage from the Missouri’s source to 

the south fork of the Columbia River is “a distance not exceeding half a 

days march.”21

The iron boat was to see its first use after completing a grueling 18-

mile, month-long portage over rough terrain around the Great Falls of 
23

Figure 9. Reproduction of a section of the collapsible iron boat frame

Montana. While Clark searched for a suitable portage route, Lewis managed other preparations for the portage. He had men hunt elk with the 

intent of both stockpiling and drying meat, and for obtaining the more than 

two dozen hides necessary to cover his boat’s frame. On 16 June Lewis assigned six soldiers the task of constructing primitive carts to haul supplies 

over the portage route.22

The portage route proved too difficult to allow the men to transport 

the expedition’s heavier equipment on their backs. The captains decided 

to emplace their second cache of the journey near the base of the falls. 

Presumably to be recovered on the return trip, food, weapons, powder, and 

tools were buried (a listing of cached items, locations and recovery dates is 

located at Appendix I).23 Ironically, the only discussion of employing horses during this period can be found in Lewis’ journal entry dated 16 June. 

The entry contemplates the expedition’s ability to acquire horses from the 

Shoshone Indians to cross the larger-than-anticipated, snow-tipped Bitterroot Mountains looming to the southwest. The party’s “Indian woman” 

(Sacagawea) was ill. Lewis speculates that Sacagawea, being a Shoshone, 

is the expedition’s “only dependence for a friendly negociation with the 

Snake Indians [Shoshone] on whom we depend for horses to assist us in 

our portage from the Missouri to the Columbia River.”24

Lewis and Clark had now observed the series of five falls that make up 

Montana’s Great Falls. They realized that the veracity of the information received 

during the winter of 1804-1805 caused them to significantly underestimate the National Park Service
24 

difficulty of the portage. They knew that they had also received their information 

regarding the Rockies from the same sources. Lewis had undoubtedly gained a 

greater appreciation for the necessity of Shoshone guides and horses to support 

the expedition’s crossing of the Rocky Mountains. To meet the Shoshone they 

would first have to negotiate the Great Falls.

Lewis’ iron boat, weighing approximately 100 pounds,25 was hauled 

to the far side of the falls, most likely on the carts previously mentioned, 

and assembled between 18 June and 8 July 1805. Lewis was unable to find 

appropriate pine tar to seal the boat’s seams formed where animal skins 

were sewn together. He also lamented the method selected to sew the skins 

together because tears developed as the skins dried. Prior to use, most of 

the skins were scraped clean of fur. After the boat was almost complete, 

Lewis realized that the lack of fur hampered the use of a substitute for pine 

tar made from charcoal, beeswax, and buffalo tallow. 

When the craft was finally launched on 9 July 1803, according to 

Lewis, “she leaked in such a manner that she would not answer.”26 Upon 

conceding the boat’s failure, he ordered that it be sunk to recover the skins 

used in its construction for other uses. After the skins were recovered, the 

iron frame was cached because as Lewis lamented, it “ could probably be 

of no further service to us.”27

The failure of the iron boat created an additional challenge. The captains now had to find a way to “convey the stores and baggage which we 

had purposed carrying in the boat.”28 Between 9 July and 14 July, a work 

party led by Clark constructed two additional canoes required to carry the 

equipment that was to be transported by the iron boat. On the morning of 

15 July 1805, the expedition, with 33 personnel and baggage, continued its 

journey westward in eight canoes.

After squandering a month of prime traveling weather supervising the 

fabrication of the frame at Harper’s Ferry in the summer of 1803 and then 

wasting an additional month attempting to get his experiment to float at 

the conclusion of an arduous portage around the Great Falls, Lewis was 

mortified at his boat’s performance.

The captains would now scrutinize the assumptions made during their 

stay at Fort Mandan and Camp Dubois. The expedition did not anticipate 

the need for horses to facilitate their portage of the Great Falls. Had they 

done so it would have made possible an earlier, and significantly less 

treacherous, crossing of the Bitterroot Mountains. In this chapter we have 

discussed Lewis’ preparations at Harper’s Ferry; now it is time to turn our 

attention to the locale that facilitated Lewis’ scientific and medical training 

and provided the bulk of the expedition’s equipment, Pennsylvania. 
25

Notes

 1. Donald Jackson, ed., Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with 

Related Documents: 1783-1854, 2 vols., 2nd ed (Urbana: University of Illinois, 

1978), 1:76.

 2. Jackson, 1:39.

 3. Joseph D. Jeffrey, “Meriwether Lewis at Harper’s Ferry,” We Proceeded 

On, vol. 20, no. 4 (November 1994): 16.

 4. Norm Flayderman, Flayderman’s Guide to Antique American Firearms 

and their values (DBI Books, 1994), 434. 

 5. Merritt R. Smith, Harper’s Ferry Armory and New Technology (Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), 53.

 6. Smith, 33-35.

 7. Ibid., 57.

 8. Flayderman, 440.

 9. Gary E. Moulton, ed., The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, 11 vols. 

(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002-2003), 2:213.

10. Stephen E. Ambrose, Undaunted Courage-Meriwether Lewis, Thomas 

Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West (New York: Simon and Schuster, 

1997), 85.

11. Carl P. Russell, Guns On The Early Frontiers: A History of Firearms 

From Colonial Times Through The Years of the Western Fur Trade (University of 

California Press, 1957), 177.

12. Jackson, 1:40.

13. Elliot Coues, ed., The History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition (New 

York: Francis P. Harper, 1883), 2:818-819.

14. Moulton, 6:442.

15. Flayderman, 440-41.

16. Kirk Olson, “A Lewis and Clark Rifle?,” American Rifleman (May 1985), 

24.

17. James E. Hicks, U.S. Military Firearms 1776-1956 (La Canada, CA: 

James E. Hicks & Son, 1962), 14.

18. Flayderman, 497.

19. Jackson, 1:38-39.

20. Moulton, 3:349.

21. Jackson, 1:225.

22. Moulton, 4:300.

23. Ibid., 334.

24. Ibid., 299.

25. Jackson, 1:39.

26. Moulton, 4:369.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

27

Chapter 4

Pennsylvania

Lancaster

After more than a month of preparations at Harper’s Ferry, Lewis 

next traveled to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, arriving on 19 April 1803. He 

sought training from Andrew Ellicott, best known for conducting the initial survey for the establishment of Washington, DC, regarding the use of 

a sextant and chronometer. Mastering these scientific instruments would 

facilitate navigation and mapping.1 Lewis’ scientific training at Lancaster 

lasted for almost three weeks. Jefferson stated in his memoir of Lewis that 

he also attended to “the fabrication of the arms” while at Lancaster.2 Jefferson is probably in error on this point. He might have transposed Harper’s 

Ferry, the place where Lewis’ weapons were being prepared, with the 

place where the weapons were originally constructed. If this is the case, 

Jefferson has unwittingly divulged the source of the contract rifles being 

modified at Harper’s Ferry. The fact remains that no documents have been 

found, excluding Jefferson’s memoir of Lewis, pointing to Lancaster as a 

source of weapons in addition to the 15 that were, by mid April 1803, being prepared at Harper’s Ferry.

From Lancaster, Lewis reported to Jefferson that he had sent a flurry 

of letters to individuals residing on the frontier and in Philadelphia to 

make arrangements. One of these letters was addressed to an Indian 

interpreter Lewis sought to hire. Others provided the commanders of 

military posts along the Ohio and the Mississippi with his itinerary and 

requested their assistance in obtaining volunteers for his mission. Lewis, 

seeking to ensure the correct mix of skills among his men, made certain 

that volunteers were “to be engaged conditionally, or subject to [his] approval.”3

 To get the construction of his keelboat under way, Lewis contacted William Dickson, a member of the House of Representatives from 

Nashville, Tennessee, to contract a boat builder on his behalf to “prepare 

a boat . . . as soon as possible, and to purchase a large light wooden 

canoe.”4 Finally, he wrote to General William Irvine, superintendent of 

military stores headquartered at Philadelphia, to assist him in procuring 

items “difficult to obtain, or may take the greates[t] length of time in 

their prepareation.”5

On 7 May 1803, Ellicott wrote a letter to be carried by Lewis to Philadelphia for presentation to Robert Patterson, a professor of mathematics 

at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of the American 

Philosophical Society, who would provide Lewis additional advice and 
28 

instruction regarding scientific instruments.6 Lewis departed Lancaster 

sometime between 7 May and 14 May, setting off on a 10-hour trip over 

“the first extensive broken-stone highway in America, this original gravel 

road, 62 1/4 miles long, between Lancaster and Philadelphia, having been 

completed in 1795 at a cost of $465,000.”7

Philadelphia

One historian has referred to Israel Whelan, America’s purveyor of 

public supplies, as “the busiest man in Philadelphia” during Lewis’ quest 

for supplies. Before Lewis arrived in Philadelphia, Whelan had received 

a directive and a draft for $1,000 from the secretary of war requesting his 

assistance in outfitting the expedition.8 “From early May until mid-June, 

Whelan worked overtime, visiting retail and wholesale establishments 

where he purchased, from a list supplied by Lewis, a total of more than 

200 different articles.”9 Lewis would also rely heavily on the equipment 

stores of the Schuylkill Arsenal commanded by General Irvine, whom 

Lewis had already forwarded a list of critical supplies. Armed with his 

recent scientific training, the support of the secretary of war, and the aid of 

Whelan, Lewis would scour local businesses and the arsenal in search of 

the items on his list. 

The following sections provide brief discussions regarding the supplies obtained by Lewis. Items are categorized according to Lewis’ List 

of Requirements (found at Appendix B) and a recapitulation of supplies 

actually obtained in Philadelphia (found at Appendix C). The medical aspects of the expedition are amplified in Appendices D, E, and F. Since the 

success of the expedition would ultimately depend on the establishment of 

friendly relations with the natives encountered along the route, it is appropriate to focus our attention on items intended for native consumption.

Indian Presents

Diplomacy with native tribes was predictably an essential aspect of 

the expedition. Jefferson, whose long-term goal was western expansion, 

recognized that the strategy most likely to achieve this aim was trade. 

Through gifts of diplomacy Lewis would display the quality and quantity 

of trade goods available from the United States. While doing so he hoped 

to thwart British and Spanish influence in the region by offering the potential for a steady supply of superior trade goods. Jefferson’s vision included 

a network of trading posts radiating westward from the Mississippi. To 

support his vision he directed Lewis to confer with Indians on “the points 

most convenient” for these “emporiums” as well as “the articles of most 

desirable interchange for them and us.”10
29

By the dawn of the 19th century, it had become an accepted and expected part of Indian diplomacy to “exchange gifts at each meeting.”11

French and English forest diplomats learned . . . to offer 

goods of substance and quality. While some Europeans 

may have perceived those gifts as bribes to ensure 

compliance with treaty terms, heaps of blankets, pots, and 

guns meant something else to the Indians. In the act of 

reciprocal gift giving, different peoples symbolized their 

concern for each other. Neglecting to give gifts meant 

failure to ‘brighten the chain of friendship’ that bound 

Europeans and Indians.12

Lewis, while aware of the president’s long-term strategy, realized that 

a robust supply of trade goods would permit bartering for provisions, information, and means of transport from natives. He undoubtedly devoted 

a significant amount of time attempting to discern the mix of trade goods 

that would offer the best potential for bartering his group out of incalculable predicaments. 

The sheer quantity of items is impressive. Of the eight categories of 

supplies assembled at Philadelphia, he paid out nearly a third of the almost 

$2,200 expended there on Indian presents. The final list of Indian presents 

included such items as almost 5,000 assorted needles; 3,000 fishhooks; 

5,000 pocket looking glasses; 43 nesting brass kettles; and 10 pounds of 

nails. The list was designed to show off the array of trade goods available 

from American merchants. While Lewis’ store of trade goods included 

many ornamental brooches and other luxury items, it also contained a large 

collection of items intended to improve native quality of life by making 

routine laborious tasks easier. 

Two types of Indian presents, usually offered to Indian chiefs, are 

noticeably absent from Lewis’ list. This is probably due to the fact that 

peace medallions and American flags were acquired in Washington before 

departing for Pennsylvania. Additional flags would be purchased at St. 

Louis. “The custom of presenting medals bearing the reigning sovereign’s 

image to Indian chiefs was one long followed by European powers. United 

States medals bore the portrait of the current president. Jefferson medals 

came in three sizes with the same basic design; 105 mm (the largest ever 

issued), 76 mm, and 55 mm.”13 Lewis had two other varieties of medals 

in his possession as he headed west: a supply of medals bearing George 

Washington’s portrait that measured 45 mm in diameter, which had been 

ordered during Washington’s administration but received during Adams’, 
30 

and an often-overlooked stock of American Dollar coins configured to 

be presented as medals. Clark records on 29 October 1804: presented a 

“Cheaf [with] a Dollar of the American Coin as a Meadel with which he 

was much pleased.”14 Both flags and medals were offered to influential 

chiefs to establish a link between them and the United States government. 

An additional benefit of providing these symbols was that they conveyed 

a powerful admonition to European traders.

While the captains did trade with the Mandans and Hidatsas and other local tribes (mostly in the form of peace medals, flags, and tobacco) 

during their winter at Fort Mandan, they had little reason to dig deeply 

into their store of Indian presents. Lewis reported to Jefferson that he 

and his men had been able to subsist principally on meat obtained with 

their firearms and had maintained a large stock of the parched meal, as 

well as “portable soup, and a considerable proportion of pork and flour, 

which [he] intended for the more difficult parts of [their] voyage.”15

Clark, in undated field notes penned prior to departure up the Missouri in 

the spring of 1805, noted “We by the aide of our Black smiths procured 

Corn Sufficient for the party during the winter and about 70 or so bushels 

to Carry with us.”16

By the time Lewis arrived in the vicinity of the Shoshones, he was 

prepared to open his stores to secure much-needed horses to traverse the 

Rockies. What the Shoshones desired most were guns, a commodity that 

the expedition was not in the position to trade. The Shoshones had previously dealt with Spanish traders and possessed horses with Spanish brands. 

Their predicament was that the “Spanish followed a fairly consistent policy 

of refusing to trade guns to Indians, in contrast to the French, English, and 

Americans. Having no direct contact with the Canadian or Missouri River 

trade systems, the Shoshones were at a great disadvantage, compared to 

their Blackfeet, Atsina, and Hidatsa enemies in obtaining firearms.”17

Lewis and Clark opted to display the variety of trade goods in their 

possession, while promising that if their journey was successful that 

American traders would provide them with firearms. On 17 August 1805, 

Lewis recorded the following presentations to Shoshone chiefs:

We gave the 1st Chief an uniform coat shi[rt] a pair 

of scarlet leggings a carrot of tobacco and some small 

articles to each of the others we gave a shi[r]t legging 

handkerchief a knife some tobacco and a few small 

articles we also distributed a good quantity paint 

mockerson awls knives beads lookingglasses &c among 

the other Indians.18
31

On 29 August 1805, Clark, seeking to build rapport with the Shoshones by demonstrating his commitment to providing his tribe with firearms, 

offered his Horseman’s Pistol with ammunition in trade. The following day 

one of the men traded his musket for an additional horse. 19 The captains’ 

diplomacy was successful; in addition to obtaining the approximately 40 

desperately needed horses, they had also gained valuable allies. Lewis 

aptly summed up his feelings regarding the relationship when he noted on 

17 August 1805 that “the chief thanked us for friendship towards himself 

and nation & declared his wish to serve us in every rispect; that he was 

sorry to find that it must yet be some time before they could be furnished 

with firearms but said they could live as they had done heretofore until we 

brought them as we had promised.”20

After exiting the Rockies with the majority of its members undernourished and ill, the expedition’s stock of trade goods would again be vital to 

securing much-needed provisions. On 11 October 1805, the party “halted 

at an Indian Lodge, to purchase provisions,” which consisted of roots, 

“five dogs and a few fish dried.”21 By the expedition’s arrival at the Pacific, 

expedition members would trade for more than 100 dogs to augment their 

diet.

On 19 January 1806, on the return trip, Lewis expended the last of his 

blue beads. While preparing for the expedition in Philadelphia, he noted on 

his list of requirements that blue beads are “far more valued than the white 

beads of the same manufacture and answers all the purposes of money.”22 

Lewis would regret underestimating the quantity of blue beads he would 

need. While among the Chopunnish in May 1806 and running low on trade 

goods, Lewis noted that “blue beads however may form an exception to 

this remark; this article among all the nations of this country may be justly 

compared to goald or silver among civilized nations.”23 To show their good 

will and to once again secure the required number of horses required to cross 

the Rockies, Lewis presented the Chopunnish chief, Twisted Hair, a vial of 

“eye water” and “one gun and a hundred balls and 2 lbs. of powder in part for 

his attention to our horses and promised the other gun and a similar quantity 

of powder and lead when we received the balance of our horses.”24 Lewis 

did not, however, share with the chief that he had purchased the low-quality 

weapon from natives below on the river for two elk skins. 

By the first days of June 1806, the expedition’s supply of trade items 

was nearly exhausted. “High prices, accidents, and continued poor hunting 

made business With the Nez Perces increasingly difficult and jeopardized 

the explorers along the Lolo Trail.”25 By Clark’s own admission the party had 

resorted to “every Subterfuge to prepare in the most ample manner in our 
32 

power to meet that wretched portion of our journey, the Rocky Mountains.”26 To overcome their shortage of trade goods, the captains and their 

men began to improvise. In anticipation of the return crossing of the Rocky 

Mountains, the party traded buttons cut from the officers’ coats, bits of 

metal fashioned into trinkets, and several medicinal concoctions to obtain 

a much-needed supply of roots and bread. On 6 June 1806, Clark declared 

victory by noting “The men who accompanied me obtained a good Store 

of roots and bread in exchange for a number of little notions, using the 

Yanke phrase, with which their own enginuiety had principally furnished 

them. On examonation we find our whole party have a Sufficient Store of 

bread and roots for our Voyage. A Circumstance not unpleasing.”27

Lewis’ relatively accurate estimate of necessary Indian presents enabled 

the expedition to gain rapport with the tribes along its westward route of 

travel and helped to secure provisions during the more arduous phases of 

the journey. The success of Lewis and Clark’s frontier diplomacy on the 

westward journey enabled the acquisition of needed items from native tribes 

at reduced rates during the expeditions return trip, when the party’s supplies 

were dwindling. If an urgent situation arose, the expedition possessed a large 

quantity of camp equipment that could also be used for barter.

Camp Equipage

Under the heading of “Camp Equipage,” Lewis listed items such as 

tents, bags to move and store tools and equipment, cookware and eating 

utensils, sealing wax, and, arguably his most important items—six inkstands, six papers of ink powder, and 100 quills. Surely Lewis anticipated 

that only the most durable items of equipment would survive the journey. 

In his instructions Jefferson stated that upon reaching the Pacific, expedition members “will be without money, clothes or provisions” and suggested the use of credit to obtain replacements.28

In June 1803, while in Philadelphia, Lewis directed the fabrication of 

oiled linen cloth that could be used alternatively as tents, sails, or boat covers. He requisitioned shelter sections 5 feet wide and “rather more than 14 

feet in length.” When completed the shelter halves measured only 10 feet by 

5 feet but apparently served their purpose. Two sections could be fastened 

together “to form two half faced Tents or Shelters Contrived in such manner 

their parts may be taken to pieces & again connected.”29 In conjunction with 

the order to fabricate the tent halves, Lewis also ordered the fabrication of 

45 bags constructed of oiled linen. Each bag was numbered to allow for ease

of inventory. The bags and the tent sections were made out of oiled linen 

to protect their contents from moisture. In addition to Lewis’ custom-made 

tents, he received one common tent from Army stores. 
33

It appears that Lewis’ tents held up well east of the Rockies. On Saturday, 17 August 1805, he noted that after unloading their canoes and arranging their baggage on shore, the men “formed a canopy of one of our 

large sails and planted some willow brush in the ground to form a shade 

for the Indians to set under while we spoke to them.”30 By November, after 

traversing the mountains and enduring nonstop rain on the Pacific coast, 

Clark bleakly reported that he and the entire party “are all wet bedding and 

Stores, having nothing to keep our Selves or Stores dry, our [Indian] Lodge 

nearly worn out, and the pieces of Sales & tents So full of holes & rotten 

that they will not keep any thing dry.”31

Prior to departing Camp Dubois, the expedition’s permanent party, 

those who would travel to the Pacific and back, were organized into three 

squads. Each squad was further divided into two messes, groups that cook 

and share meals together. On 1 April 1804, Clark ordered that cooking and 

eating utensils be evenly distributed among the squads.32 This system of 

messing remained in place for the duration of the expedition. No shortage of cookware or utensils is noted in the journals. However, due to the 

necessity of having to resort to using squad cookware as trade goods, and 

due to some petty theft by natives demonstrating a particular keenness for 

spoons, equipment must have been redistributed.

Lewis also correctly predicted the need to defend against mosquitoes, 

although he perceived them to be more of a nuisance than a potential disease vector. He thoughtfully acquired 11 mosquito curtains and ensured 

an ample supply of hog’s lard. When smeared on the skin, the lard was 

supposed to ward off mosquitoes.33 Much like today’s insect repellant, it 

proved remarkably ineffective. Expedition journalists regularly concluded 

their daily entries by noting that “musquitors [were] verry troublesome 

this evening.”34 Lewis’ mosquito nets and hog’s lard may have missed the 

mark, but he compensated for it with his selection of tools.

The multiplicity of tools selected for the expedition is surprising considering their weight and the fact that Lewis’ plan did not include the use of the 

keelboat beyond the Mandan Villages. While a significant quantity of tools 

was cached at the base of the Great Falls (a complete list of caches is found at 

Appendix I), many of the expedition’s saws, shears, chisels, and adzes were 

transported by dugout canoe to the Pacific and back again. Expedition tools, 

in the hands of skilled, specially selected soldiers, enabled the construction 

of two fairly complex forts and more than a dozen canoes carved from logs. 

To the historian, three items on Lewis’ “Camp Equipage” receipt outshine the others. Lewis’ 100 quills, six inkstands and six “papers” of ink 
34 

powder enabled the party’s busy pens to create the region’s first accurate 

maps and to record “descriptions and precise illustrations of 122 species 

and subspecies of vertebrate animals and of 178 plants never previously 

described.”35 Without an adequate supply of these three relatively simple 

items, obtained from government stores, we would not have the American 

masterpiece assembled from nearly two million words recorded in expedition journals. 36

Provisions &c

Many times during the journey, the Corps of Discovery went hungry 

for lack of adequate game or forage.37 After painstakingly collecting the 

40 horses required to haul their baggage westward over the grossly underestimated obstacle presented by the Rocky Mountains, the party set 

off. Lacking game and without the ability to barter with natives, Lewis’ 

portable soup rapidly surpassed arms and ammunition in importance. On 

16 September 1805, Sergeant Gass, one of the party’s three noncommissioned officers, logged the fact that the expedition departed its camp early 

“and proceeded over the most terrible mountains” he had ever seen. During this daunting phase of the operation, Lewis’ portable soup and their 

horses were their only source of food. 

In his book Only One Man Died: The Medical Aspects of the Lewis 

and Clark Expedition, Dr. Eldon G. Chuinard asserts that “the most reliable experts of his time convinced him [Lewis] that portable soup, what 

we would call canned soup today, was the most reliable and nourishing 

article, as necessary for the success of the expedition as life itself.”38 It 

is produced by “long boiling evaporated the most cutrescent parts of the 

meat, [it] is reduced to the consistency of a glue, which in effect it is, 

and will like other glues, in a dry place, keep sound for years together.”39

Not a very appetizing description. It is obvious from the journals that the 

captains and their men did not relish their soup. On 16 September 1805, 

Sergeant Ordway recorded “we all being hungry and nothing to eat except a little portable soup which kept us verry weak, we killed another 

colt & eat half of it.”40 On 18 September 1805, Clark made a remarkably similar journal entry: “We dined & supped on a slant proportion of 

portable soupe, a few canesters of which, a little bears oil and about 20 

lbs. Of candles form our stock of provision, the only recources being our 

guns & packhorses.”41

Many historians misinterpret Clark’s allusion to the expedition’s 20 

pounds of candles to infer that they were reduced to eating candles. While 

a dramatic touch, it is simply not true. None of the party’s half-dozen journalists report the consumption of candles. Ordway and Clark both mention 
35

the slaughtering of colts to subsist. Ordway’s entry implies that they only 

consumed half of the colt killed that day. While not intending to make light 

of the hunger endured during this most difficult phase of the expedition, 

it is far more likely that their hunger was induced by the miserable living 

conditions caused by an early winter storm, coupled with their desire to 

complete the passage as quickly as possible. Probably the best proof that 

the corps did not approach starvation at any time during the expedition 

can be found in Lewis’ 24 May 1806 journal entry: “We are at a loss what 

to do for this unfortunate man [an ill native]. We gave him a few drops of 

Laudanum and a little portable soup.”42 It should be noted that this entry 

was made during their return trip, months after their westward crossing of 

the Rockies and after enduring a cold damp winter at Fort Clatsop, where 

at times game also proved scarce. 

In addition to Lewis’ portable soup, we find a number of other items 

under the heading of “Provisions &c” required to outfit 15 men. Thirty gallons of wine, (for medicinal purposes of course), shirts and “coatees” were 

purchased from local merchants. Lewis also obtained items regularly issued to Army soldiers and units from public stores, including watch coats, 

frocks, wool overalls, still more shirts and shoes.

The “coatees,” made by Philadelphia tailor Francis Brown, offer another example of innovation and illustrate the nonstandard nature of the 

expedition’s mission. On 6 June 1803, Lewis delivered material and presumably “verbally described the sort of thing he had in mind.”43 It appears 

that he intended to provide a sturdy jacket to expedition participants who 

had not previously served in the Army. In his pamphlet “Uniforms of the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition,” Stephen Allie points out that “the pattern for 

the standard coat of the time would not fit on the allotted cloth. Nor would 

the pattern for a shorter coatee that was in design at the time and adopted in 

1804. What could be cut was a double-breasted jacket of the sort referred 

to in the period as a roundabout.”44

The recruit coatees were made from super fine milled 

drab cloth. Super fine was a very high quality woolen 

cloth with a tight weave and heavily felted surface nap. 

The goods were so tight that exposed cut edges could be 

used without risk that the material would unravel. It was 

used for the very best civilian coats and officers’ uniform 

coats. As such it was much superior to the woolen cloth 

used for enlisted men’s coats by the Army. The term drab 

refers to a range of color between light gray and medium 

brown.45
36 

Allie also provides insight into the selection of the 15 watch coats. 

“Every man of the 1st Infantry [Lewis’ regiment] was provided with a 

blanket coat per the regimental standing orders of 1802.”46 However, 

Lewis expected that individuals recruited to join the expedition, not already serving in the Army, would benefit from the heavy watch coats that 

were “made of drab melton wool and were cut to restrict movement and 

maximize warmth.”47

The journals offer many examples of members of the Corps of Discovery constructing clothing of hide to replace garments shredded by heavy 

labor or rotted by constant dampness. However, it is entirely likely that the 

captains possessed an adequate supply of even their most formal uniforms 

to “make a good showing to those that they might meet while in a diplomatic role.”48 

Mathematical Instruments

Jefferson’s instructions specified that beginning at the mouth of the 

Missouri Lewis was to “take observations of latitude & longitude with 

great pains & accuracy, to be entered distinctly & intelligibly for others 

as well as yourself, to comprehend all the elements necessary.”49 The task 

of obtaining these observations required an array of scientific instruments. 

Having already spent three weeks training to use the sextant and the 

chronometer with Andrew Ellicott in Lancaster and receiving additional 

scientific training from Jefferson’s associates, Robert Patterson and Dr. 

Benjamin Smith Barton, he possessed the knowledge necessary to purchase his instruments.

Upon reaching Philadelphia, Lewis immediately set out to obtain the 

instruments on his list of requirements. If price can be used as a measure 

of relative importance, the scientific equipment acquired in Philadelphia 

was the second most important category of supply. Two Philadelphia merchants received a total of $412.95 for a chronometer, sextant, quadrant, 

six compasses (see Figure 10), and other ancillary equipment required to 

obtain accurate celestial observations. Of these instruments, the most important were the chronometer, sextant, quadrant, three artificial horizons, 

and a circumferentor.50

At over $250, the chronometer was the most expensive item purchased 

for the expedition, except possibly the expedition’s keelboat, for which no receipt has been found. A chronometer is a “clock of unusually fine construction, 

designed for extreme accuracy and dependability and built to withstand shock, 

vibration, and variations of temperature.”51 Without the ability to correlate an 

accurate time, provided by a chronometer, to a sighting of a celestial body, 
37

taken with a sextant or quadrant, it would be impossible to accurately track 

the expedition’s westward progress, or longitude. In fact, for centuries it was 

exceptionally difficult for seafarers to accurately fix their east-west location on 

the earth’s network of meridians and parallels for want of accurate timepieces. 

Thus, the simplest method of determining longitude requires a sextant or quadrant and a chronometer set to Greenwich time.52

Figure 10. Corps of Discovery compass and carrying case

After purchasing the chronometer, Lewis sent it to his instructor, Andrew 

Elliot, in Lancaster to examine and adjust. He enclosed the following note: 

I have at length been enabled to procure a Chronometer 

which you will receive by the hands of Mr. Barton who 

has been so obliging as take charge of her, you will also 

receive with her a screw driver and kee, the in[n]er 

cases of the Chronometer are confined by a screw. She 

is wound up and the works are stoped by inscerting a 

hog’s bristle which you will discover by examineation. 

She has been cleaned by Mr. Voit, and her rate of going 

ascertained by observation to be 14” too slow in 24 h.53 

The fact that the instrument proved to be 14 seconds slow during a 24-

hour period proved to be of less consequence than the fact that both Lewis 

and Clark frequently forgot to wind it.54

National Park Service
38 

Two instruments for sighting celestial bodies, a sextant and a quadrant, were also purchased in Philadelphia. Lewis and Clark, however, 

frequently refer to their octant as a “tangent screw quadrant.” In any 

event, a sextant and an octant perform principally the same function. The 

difference between the two is that an octant, consisting of one-eighth of 

a circle, is capable of measuring 90 degrees of elevation, while a sextant, 

consisting of one-sixth of a circle, is capable of measuring 120 degrees 

of elevation. Coincidently, a quadrant, invented in 1711 and a precursor 

of the octant, is also capable of determining 90 degrees of elevation.55

The additional elevation, or altitude attainable by a sextant, makes it ideal for lunar distance observations, while the octant “is ideally suited for 

observations of celestial bodies above the horizon.”56 Lewis’ sextant was 

made of metal and came with three eyepieces. By sighting the horizon 

through the instrument’s eyepiece while aligning it with a celestial body, 

he could measure the body’s altitude by doubling the reading provided 

on the instrument’s graduated arm. 

On 22 July 1804, Lewis reported proudly that the “sun’s altitude at 

noon has been too great to be reached with my sextant, for this purpose 

I have therefore employed the Octant by the back observation.”57 As previously stated, the maximum altitude measurable with a sextant is 120 

degrees. This is accomplished by simply obtaining a maximum reading of 

60 degrees on the graduated arm and doubling it. However, when the sun’s 

angle above the horizon in the vicinity of Camp Dubois in July exceeded 

60 degrees, doubling this measurement would exceed the capability of a 

sextant. Luckily, Lewis and his mentors anticipated this limitation and ensured that the expedition was armed with an octant configured to perform 

back observations. Lewis explains the technique used to obtain a back 

observation this way:

The sun’s altitude by the back observation express only 

the angle given by the graduated limb of the instrument 

at the time of observation, and are the complyment of the 

double Altitude of the sun’s observed limb; if therefore the 

angle recorded be taken from 180° the remainder will be 

the double altitude of the observed object, or that which 

would be given by the fore observation with a reflecting 

surface.58 

Lewis was also trained to employ three types of artificial horizon for 

use when the true horizon is obscured, as is often the case when navigating on land. The simplest form of artificial horizon proved to be Lewis’ 
39

favorite. It used water as a reflecting surface when there was sufficient 

sunlight. The second consisted of a flat plane of glass “cemented” to a 

wooden ball. The third, formed out of a sextant mirror, was preferred when 

conducting night observations.59

One of the six compasses acquired by Lewis in Philadelphia was a 

circumferentor. The circumferentor was 6 inches in diameter and was used 

in conjunction with a level “to determine bearings and courses in mapping 

and to find ‘the magnetic azimuth of the sun and pole star.’”60

Lewis’ initial list of requirements included several items that are noticeably absent from the list of scientific equipment acquired in Philadelphia. The missing equipment includes three thermometers, a brass scale, 

two hydrometers, a theodolite, and a set of planispheres. 

We know that Lewis acquired thermometers prior to departing from 

Pittsburgh because of the regular journal entries noting air and water 

temperature readings. These readings ended on 3 September 1805, when 

Clark reported a “great misfortune” in that their last thermometer was 

broken in an accident.61 The brass scale was procured in Philadelphia 

and is accounted for under the heading of Camp Equipage. The hydrometers were apparently deemed to be unnecessary, for their use is not 

mentioned in the journals, nor is their absence lamented at any time during the journey. The “requisite [scientific] tables” might have included 

the planispheres, a device with which celestial bodies and dates can be 

correlated to create a representation of the night sky for a given date, or 

might have substituted for them. After consultation with his scientific 

mentors, Lewis reported to President Jefferson that Mr. Patterson and 

Mr. Ellicott both 

disapprove of the Theodolite as applicable to my 

purposes; they think it a delicate instrument, difficult of 

transportation, and one that would be very liable to get 

out of order; they also state that in it’s application to any 

observations for obtaining the Longitude, it would be 

liable to many objections, and to much more inaccuracy 

than the Sextant.62

Lewis’ only regret, in regard to scientific equipment, was the loss of 

his most fragile pieces of equipment, his thermometers. All measurements 

and observations requested by Jefferson, Patterson, and Ellicott were noted 

in the expedition’s journals. However, the accuracy of the expedition’s 

celestial observations was considerably degraded by Lewis and Clark’s 

failure to wind the chronometer.
40 

Arms & Accoutrements & Ammunition

While Lewis’ 15 1792 contract rifles were being modified to his specifications at Harper’s Ferry, he sought additional arms, as well as ammunition, in Philadelphia. On 18 May 1803, Lewis acquired two “Horseman’s 

Pistols” from the Philadelphia Arsenal. Historians generally agree that 

the weapons provided were U.S. Model 1799 Flintlock Pistols that were 

patterned after France’s Model 1777. Lewis’ plan was to provide himself 

and the expedition’s other officer (Clark’s letter of acceptance had yet to 

be received) with “the convenience and ‘insurance’ provided by a small 

pocket weapon.”63 Model 1799 Flintlock Pistols were manufactured between 1799 and 1802 in Berlin, Connecticut.64 They were .69 caliber, had a 

smoothbore 8 1⁄2-inch barrel, and an overall length of 14 1/2 inches.65 While 

the weapon’s overall length seems large by modern standards, Lewis carried the weapon as part of his daily uniform. Although the Horseman’s 

Pistols are sparingly mentioned in the expedition’s journals, two entries 

support the contention that Lewis routinely carried his Horseman’s Pistol 

during the entire expedition. 

On 27 July 1806, while the expedition was on its return trip and was 

split into two separate parties, one led by Lewis exploring the Marias 

River, the other led by Clark exploring the Yellowstone River, Lewis drew 

his pistol in anger. After having been betrayed by a party of Blackfeet 

Indians he had been cautiously sharing a camp with, Lewis and his men 

were attacked. As he and his men grappled with the Indians for control of 

their guns, Lewis states that he “drew a pistol from my holster and terning 

myself about saw the Indian making off with my gun I ran at him with my 

pistol and bid him lay down my gun.”66 

Approximately two weeks later, Lewis again relied on his pistol for 

security. On 11 August 1806, he was accidentally shot by one of his men 

while hunting. In the initial confusion Lewis thought he was under attack by natives, which is entirely understandable considering his earlier 

confrontation with the Blackfeet. After hobbling back to a pirogue with a 

painful thigh wound, Lewis recorded that he prepared himself with a pistol, a rifle, and his air gun “being determined as a retreat was impracticable 

to sell my life as deerly as possible.”67

Clark, on the other hand, was less attached to his Horseman’s Pistol 

and retained it only until the fall of 1805. On 16 November 1804, while 

enduring a well-provisioned winter at the Mandan Villages, Clark was 

approached by “an old man [who] came looking for a pistol in return for 

some corn and four buffalo robes.”68 Clark rejected the offer because, having just completed what he anticipated as the easiest leg of their journey
41

to the Pacific, he perceived the trade to be lopsided. It would not be until 

August 1805, when the Rockies loomed large and the expedition critically 

needed to win over the Shoshone to secure the horses and guides required 

to cross the mountains, did Clark note in his journal, “I purchased a horse 

for which I gave my Pistol 100 Balls Powder & a Knife.”69

In addition to the Horseman’s Pistols, on 7 June 1803, Lewis secured 

an additional pair of pistols for $10.00 from Philadelphia merchant Robert 

Barnhill. Little is known about this second pair of pocket pistols. They were 

apparently smaller than the Horseman’s Pistols, and the fact that they had 

“secret triggers” implies that their small size required some type of nonstandard trigger mechanism. Only a single journal entry mentions their potential 

use. On 30 March 1804, Clark wrote, in a particularly illegible journal entry, 

that he has loaded “a small pair of pistols” in anticipation of “inforcing our 

regulation.” It would appear that Clark expected “some trouble with the 

men, either over the announcement of the verdict of the court-martial or over 

the stealing of goods from the supplies due to be delivered that evening.”70

Trouble failed to materialize and the pistols were not required.

One of Lewis’ most interesting innovations related to the storage of 

two critical commodities, lead and powder. Lewis’ challenge was to craft a 

means of transporting the 176 pounds of powder and 420 pounds of lead, 

obtained in Philadelphia, over rough terrain and varied weather conditions 

that would be encountered on the journey. 

Innovation was essential because expedition members would find it 

difficult to keep the contents of conventional ammunition containers dry. 

Lewis knew that he and his soldiers would be operating in a continually 

damp environment. He also knew that the canisters routinely provided by 

powder manufacturers were convenient but lacked the durability required 

for a lengthy operation. What he needed was a method to store bulk powder that would prove sturdier than the 6 1⁄4-pound wooden kegs used by 

powder manufacturers.71

Lewis developed a canister constructed out of 8 pounds of lead capable 

of containing 4 pounds of powder. The canisters had narrow mouths that 

were corked, then sealed with wax to limit exposure to moisture. These 

compact containers were designed to refill the individual powder horns 

carried by soldiers. When empty, the containers would then be melted and 

formed into balls. The number of balls formed by an empty canister was 

proportional to the powder dispensed. The general rule of thumb was “3 

grains weight of powder for each 7 grains weight of ball.”72 On 1 February 

1806, while at the expedition’s wintering post and after having completed 

the most difficult part of their journey, Clark recorded:
42 

To day we opened and examined all our Ammunition, 

which has been Secured in leaden Canistirs. we found 

twenty Sevin of the best Rifle powder, 4 of Common 

rifle, 3 of Glaize and one of Musquet powder in good 

order, perfectly as dry as when first put in the Canisters, 

although the whole of it from various accidince have 

been for hours under the water, these Cannisters Contain 

4 pounds of powder each and 8 of Lead. had it not been 

for that happy expedient which Capt Lewis devised of 

Securing the powder by means of the Lead, we Should 

have found great dificuelty in keeping dry powder un till 

this time.73

The 52 leaden canisters that Lewis had fabricated in Philadelphia ensured 

that expedition members would never lack powder or lead. 

Using the 3:7 ratio of powder to ball noted above, the 176 pounds of 

powder and 420 pounds of lead acquired in Philadelphia equates to approximately a 2.93:7 ratio. This ratio would enable expedition weapons 

to fire more than 11,700 rounds, assuming an average weapon caliber of 

.55 at 28 balls per pound of lead. Lewis procured more than four times 

the powder and ball that would have actually been expended by a 15-man 

outfit. Even when the corps expanded to over 30 in the permanent party, 

expedition members still had an ample supply of powder and lead. 

To ensure that they would not want for flints, Lewis picked up 500 

rifle flints and 125 musket flints. Based on the assumption that he based his 

requirement for 500 rifle flints on the anticipated usage of his fifteen rifles 

being prepared at Harper’s Ferry, he apparently expected to have at least 

four muskets along for the journey as well. According to the Ordnance 

Manual of 1841, good quality flints would last approximately 50 firings 

but were issued to soldiers at the rate of one flint for every 20 balls.74 Based 

on the number of flints acquired, and assuming a conservative expenditure 

of one flint per 30 rounds fired, Lewis had the flint capacity to fire approximately 18,750 rounds. Using the even more conservative method of issue 

outlined in the 1841 Ordnance Manual, Lewis could count on the capability to fire 12,500 rounds with the flints in his possession, which is roughly 

in line with the 11,760-round supply of powder and ball cited above. The 

final number of muskets carried with the expedition’s permanent party was 

probably closer to 15. The volunteers that joined from frontier garrisons 

probably arrived with muskets. It is likely that these men arrived with a 

supply of five flints each. It is also possible that additional flints were provided from garrison stocks or purchased in St. Louis.
43

Powder, ball, and flints were never in short supply. In fact, surplus 

powder and lead was cached on both sides of the Rockies (see Appendix 

I). As has been discussed, Lewis’ limiting factor for the number of rounds 

his expedition was capable of firing was lead. He undoubtedly subscribed 

to the belief that the expedition could survive without many of the items 

on his packing list. However, quality weapons, adequate powder and lead, 

and an ample supply of flints were non-negotiable.

Medicines &c

The medical preparations conducted by Lewis in Pennsylvania warrant study, more for historical completeness than for any hope of contemporary relevance of the techniques, tools, and medicines used during 

the journey. In retrospect, little valuable therapy beyond the observation 

that narcotics effectively reduce pain can be learned. Certainly, Lewis 

and Clark built rapport with tribes by providing medical care to injured 

and sick natives. 

One member of the expedition, Sergeant Charles Floyd, became ill and 

died approximately halfway between St. Louis and the Mandan Villages. 

It is generally acknowledged that he suffered a ruptured appendix. This 

condition would have proved fatal even if he were in Philadelphia, since 

the first successful appendectomy would not occur for over 80 years after 

Sergeant Floyd’s illness. Ironically, it was Lewis, the expedition’s trained 

medic, who suffered the most serious wound. On 11 August 1806, while 

leading a hunting party, a nearsighted subordinate shot him through the 

buttocks and thigh. He recorded in his journal that:

A ball struck my left thye about an inch below my hip 

joint, missing the bone it passed through . . . the stroke 

was very severe . . . I took off my clothes and dressed 

my wounds . . . introducing tents of patent lint into the 

ball holes . . . I slept on board . . . the pain I experienced 

excited a high fever.75

His medical training and his supplies probably saved his life. Dr. 

Volney Steel, a pathologist and author of “Lewis and Clark Military Explorers, Scientists, and Physicians,” estimates the expedition’s medical 

capabilities this way:

The two captains were as prepared as any “qualified” 

contemporary doctors to treat most of the common 

medical conditions of the frontier. The more common 

problems they expected to see included “turners” (tumors), 

“biles” (boils), “pox” (syphilis, also called Lues or French 
44 

Disease), “char lick” (colic), and “biliousness.” Lewis and 

Clark had a rudimentary knowledge of surgery at a time 

when surgical procedures were restricted to the external 

surface of the body and the extremities . . . it is doubtful 

that they washed their hands or surgical instruments.76

Very little formal training existed for aspiring physicians in 1803. They 

were trained by means of an inconsistent apprenticeship system. The early 

19th century offered “essentially . . . no opportunity for a medical education, no hospitals as we know them today, and no medical journals.”77 The 

first state to license medical doctors did not do so until 11 years after the 

expedition’s return. 

Having several family members—to include two daughters, his only 

son, and his wife—perish while under the care of physicians of questionable competence, Jefferson developed a skeptical view of doctors.78 His 

general mistrust of medical personnel is illustrated by the following passage penned in June 1807:

One of the most successful physicians I have ever known 

has assured me, that he used more bread pills, drops of 

colored water, and powders of hickory ashes, than of all 

other medicines put together. . . . That the inexperienced 

and presumptuous band of medical tyros let loose upon 

the world, destroys more of human life in one year, than 

all the Robinhoods, Cartouches, and Macheaths do in a 

century.79

Even so, Jefferson contacted his friend and Edinburgh-trained physician, 

Dr. Benjamin Rush (see Figure 11), to secure medical training at 

Philadelphia for Lewis. 

Lewis’ apprenticeship with Rush lasted about two weeks. In keeping 

with his thirst for scientific information, Jefferson requested that Rush 

provide Lewis with a list of questions intended to gain insight into native 

lifestyles. Rush’s questions (the complete list can be found at Appendix 

E) ranged from inquiries about the age at which natives marry, to suicidal 

tendency and motivations.80 Rush also provided Lewis with a list of rules 

to help preserve the health of expedition members during “laborious enterprises & marches” 81 (the complete list is found at Appendix D). His list 

proclaims the usefulness of resting in “a horizontal posture,” the virtue of 

washing one’s cold feet in alcohol, and purging by means of ingesting one 

or more of the expedition’s stock of “Thunderclappers,” pills personally 

formulated by Rush and selflessly sold to Lewis. The “purgative combina-
45

tion” used to concoct Rush’s Thunderclappers “is not used today, and such 

a dosage would be considered quite heroic.”82 Most soldiers would not 

need to be coached to assume a “horizontal posture” after particularly difficult stretches of the journey. The journals record the fact that Lewis and 

Clark freely dispensed Rush’s purging pills. However, it has so far proved 

impossible for historians to locate a single passage dedicated to the usefulness of applying the party’s limited supply of spirits to cold feet!

Figure 11. Dr. Benjamin Rush

With the aid of Israel Whelan, Lewis purchased the expedition’s medical supplies from Philadelphia druggists Gillaspay and Strong. When his 

shopping was complete, Lewis’ new medicine chests were packed with 

cathartics intended to induce purging of intestines, emetics intended to induce vomiting, diuretics to increase production of urine, and lancets to aid 

in the removal of “excess” blood.

There were three major notions regarding the treatment of disease at 

the dawn of the 19th century. The first centered on nervous system stimulation, or lack thereof, as the cause of disease. To combat “excessive nervous 

stimulation,” Lewis obtained a “half pound of the best Turkish opium as 

well as laudanum, an alcoholic tincture containing about 10 percent opium 

and certainly not of least importance wine and a supply of whiskey.”83 The 

second notion asserted that the key to health was maintaining the correct 

balance of bodily fluids. For instance, if a soldier became flushed, had a 

rapid heart beat, and felt weak after hauling a canoe several miles overland, National Park Service
46 

it was probably the result of too much blood in the soldier’s circulatory 

system. The remedy was to employ the medical kit’s “best lancets” to 

remove the surplus blood. It is ironic that, at least initially, the soldier’s 

blood pressure would undoubtedly drop, giving the appearance that excess 

blood was in fact the culprit rather than dehydration or other legitimate 

cause. The third concept hypothesized that “disease was either caused by 

or contributed to by poisons in the intestines.”84 Lewis’ preferred method 

of combating these “poisons” was to liberally dispense one or more of the 

600 Thunderclappers previously discussed.

In his book Or Perish in the Attempt, Wilderness Medicine in the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Dr. David Peck provides an excellent summary 

of some of the other medicines purchased by Lewis:

The list included such herbal cathartics as powdered 

jalap and rhubarb. Other cathartic salts such as sodium 

sulfate, known as “Glauber’s salts,” and magnesia were 

purchased in the unlikely event that the jalap couldn’t do 

the job. Various emetics (which produce vomiting) such 

as ipecacuan, and the antimony-potassium compound 

called tartar emetic were added to the medicine chest. 

Nutmeg, clove and cinnamon were purchased to flavor 

foul-tasting medicines as well as lessening the intestinal 

griping of some of the cathartics. Topical analgesics (pain 

relievers) such as gum camphor, tragacanth, and calamine 

ointment would help with skin problems.85

Peck and Dr. Chuinard are in agreement that the 15 pounds of Peruvian 

bark, the largest quantity and most expensive single item on Lewis’ list of 

medicines (wine is listed under provisions), was one of the few “beneficial 

items Lewis purchased.” The “barks” had been in use since the 17th century 

and were used effectively to combat the fever associated with malaria.86 

Lewis, probably as a result of experience acquired during frontier 

service, assumed that his men would contract venereal disease. Several 

expedition members contracted the disease from Mandan and Clatsop 

women whose company was freely offered to expedition soldiers by their 

husbands. Native men sought to acquire the spiritual power of the white 

men by encouraging extramarital sexual relations with their wives. Such 

unions were also practiced between elderly warriors and the spouses of 

younger warriors.87 Undoubtedly, expedition soldiers shared their spiritual 

power freely, as evidenced by numerous cases of syphilis requiring treatment. The most common treatment mentioned in expedition journals is 

that of the application of an ointment consisting primarily of mercury and 
47

applied directly to the lesion.88 Lewis was also prepared to treat gonorrhea. 

His medicine chests contained four penile syringes designed to “inject 

standard urethral irrigations of the day,” most likely “‘balsam copaiba,” an 

oily and acidic substance obtained from a South American tree.89 

“Eye water” consisting of lead acetate and zinc sulfate, ingredients identified on Lewis’ list of medicines as “Sacchar. Saturn. Opt.” and “”Vitriol Alb.,” 

respectively, was highly sought after by tribes west of the Rockies to soothe 

eyes damaged by constant dust and a poor diet. Administered primarily by 

Clark, the eye water, as previously mentioned, enabled the expedition, dangerously short of trade goods by the spring of 1806, to barter for provisions. 

Lewis also acquired basic dentistry tools, basic surgical tools (probably to 

remove digits and to dress wounds), a grossly overpriced tourniquet and a single 

clyster (enema) syringe.90 Probably in deference to modesty, expedition journals 

do not mention the use of either the penile syringes or the clyster syringe.

While Lewis had the benefit of the best medical advice available, 

“some credit must be given to simple luck. Fortunately, none of the voyagers contracted any of the killer diseases of the era, such as smallpox, 

yellow fever, malaria, cholera, or typhoid.”91 Although the expedition suffered the loss of Sergeant Floyd to a then-untreatable ailment, it is undeniable that Lewis and Clark successfully “treated” their men and scores of 

natives along their route. 

After spending over a month receiving instruction regarding celestial 

navigation, botany, and medicine, as well as spending $2,160.14 on a critical mix of supplies and equipment to be consolidated at Harper’s Ferry, 

Lewis returned to Washington for final preparations before setting off for 

his port of debarkation, Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh

On 10 June 1803, Lewis corresponded with William Linnard, the 

military agent responsible for the transportation of military goods in the 

region, regarding the movement of his supplies from Harper’s Ferry and 

Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Lewis recommended a wagon drawn by a team 

of five horses to move his 3,500 pounds of equipment. On 5 July Lewis 

departed Washington, probably by way of Fredericksburg, Virginia, en 

route to Harper’s Ferry. On 8 July he reported to Jefferson that Linnard’s 

wagoner had arrived at Harper’s Ferry on 28 June but had neglected to 

load the expedition’s gear because “his team was not sufficiently strong to 

take the whole of the articles that had been prepared for me at this place and 

therefore took none of them.”92 After hastily coordinating transportation for 

his cargo, Lewis set off for Pittsburgh, arriving on 15 July. 
48 

He was instructed to meet with Lieutenant Moses Hooke, the commanding officer of Fort Fayette and the region’s assistant military agent. 

During the first week of July, Secretary Dearborn had directed Hooke to 

“give Capt. Lewis every aid” within his power to ensure that his embarkation went smoothly and that the vessel for which Lewis had contracted was 

adequately provisioned to “carry him & his Men to [Fort] Massac.” Fort 

Massac was located at the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and 

would provide several members of the expedition’s permanent party. 

Hooke must have impressed Lewis. Lacking a reply from Clark as to 

whether he would participate in the journey, Lewis, on 26 July, informed 

Jefferson: 

In the event of Mr. Clark’s declining to accompany 

me Lieut. Hooke of this place has engaged to do so, 

if permitted; and I think from his disposition and 

qualifications that I might safely calculate on being as 

ably assisted by him in the execution of the objects of my 

mission, as I could wish, or would be, by any other officer 

in the Army.93

Jefferson and Dearborn apparently endorsed Hooke’s selection, with 

Dearborn directing on 3 August that Hooke get his accounts in order in 

anticipation of relinquishing his position to another officer.94 All of this 

planning was for naught, for Clark on 18 July penned the following enthusiastic response to Lewis’ invitation:

The enterprise &c. is Such as I have long anticipated 

and am much pleased with-and as my situation in life 

will admit of my absence the length of time necessary to 

accomplish such an undertaking I will chearfully join you 

in an ‘official Charrector’ as mentioned in your letter.95

Lewis’ response, dated 3 August, betrays his earlier comment that 

Hooke was as qualified as any officer in the Army to accompany him on 

the expedition:

Be assured I feel myself much gratified with your 

decision; for I could neither hope, wish, or expect from 

a union with any man on earth, more perfect support or 

further aid in the discharge of the several duties of my 

mission, than that, which I am confident I shall derive 

from being associated with yourself. 96

With Clark’s acceptance denying him a prominent place in American 

history, Hooke dutifully aided Lewis’ departure. Dearborn’s initial corre-
49

spondence to Hooke also directed him to provide 18 light axes, items that 

originally appeared on Lewis’ list of requirements under the category of 

Indian presents and were to be received in Tennessee.97

Lewis’ initial plan called for the overland movement of his cargo from 

Pennsylvania to Tennessee. On 20 April 1803, Lewis wrote to Dr. William 

Dickson, a member of the House of Representatives from Tennessee residing in Nashville, requesting that he expeditiously and confidentially contract 

with a boat builder for the construction of a vessel and for the purchase of 

a “large light wooden canoe.”98 By the time Lewis penned his invitation to 

Clark on 19 June, he had switched his point of embarkation to Pittsburgh, 

probably because Dickson was unable to secure a satisfactory contract.

Upon his arrival in Pittsburgh, Lewis reported to Jefferson that “all 

is well” regarding his preparations thus far. He stated that he had not yet 

inquired as to the status of his boat “on the state of which, the time” of his 

departure was dependant.99 On 22 July he wrote to Jefferson to inform him 

that his supplies had arrived safely from Harper’s Ferry and to report his first 

problems with the contractor constructing his boat. The boat was supposed 

to be complete by 20 July. The contractor reported that because of a shortage 

of timber, which he had overcome, he anticipated finishing the vessel by the 

end of the month. Like the savvy logistician he now was, Lewis added a 

week to the boat builder’s estimate and reported to the president that it was 

his belief that the boat would not be ready prior to 5 August. 

Lieutenant Hooke recorded Lewis’ departure from Pittsburgh on 1 September. Lewis undoubtedly could not bring himself to explain his five-week 

delay to the president until his bow was oriented westward. It is impossible 

to more succinctly communicate the depth of Lewis’ frustration with his boat 

contractor than is contained in his letter to Jefferson dated 8 September 1803: 

According to his usual custom he [the contractor] got 

drunk, quarreled with his workmen, and several of 

them left him, nor could they be prevailed on to return: 

I threatened him with the penalty of his contract, and 

exacted a promise of greater sobriety in future which, he 

took care to perform with as little good faith, as he had his 

previous promises with regard to the boat, continuing to 

be constantly either drunk or sick. I spent most of my time 

with the workmen, alternately presuading and threatening, 

but neither threats, persuasion or any other means which I 

could devise were sufficient to procure the completion of 

the work sooner than the 31st of August.100
50 

In addition to a sketch contained in Clark’s field notes, the expedition 

journals contain a considerable amount of information on the keelboat 

(see Figure 12) constructed by Lewis’ less than sober boat contractor. We 

know that “She was 55 feet long with an 8-foot 4-inch beam and a 3-foot 

draft.”101 As the photos of a keelboat reproduction below illustrate, Lewis’ 

boat resembled vessels widely used by the Spanish to patrol trade establishments along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.102

Figure 12. Keelboat reproduction. Source: Dr. Vince Gutowski.

The vessel could be propelled by three means: two sails (one mast 

would eventually be removed), 20 oars, and by a variable number of soldiers equipped with poles. It was not uncommon to employ two or more 

methods simultaneously. 

By the time Lewis set off from Pittsburgh, the Ohio River’s water 

level was so low that he was advised by individuals familiar with “the navigation of the river declared it impracticable to descend it.”103 The Ohio’s 

shallow waters prompted Lewis to hire a pilot, and he opted to send the 

majority of his cargo overland to Wheeling, Virginia.104 When traversing 

exceptionally difficult sections of river, the keelboat also employed oxen, 

horses, and men to tow it over sandbars and obstructions.
51

Although acutely aware of the dwindling season available to him as a 

result of delays at Harper’s Ferry and Pittsburgh, he must have had a sense 

of accomplishment in the mass of supplies and equipment collected. His 

primary concern would now be meeting his dear friend, William Clark, 

near Louisville and the acquisition of the endeavor’s most critical resource, the men that they would lead to the western ocean.

Notes

1. Paul R. Cutright, “Contributions of Philadelphia to Lewis and Clark 

History,” We Proceeded On, supplementary publication no. 6 (July 1982), 2-3.

 2. Elliot Coues, ed. The History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition (New 

York: Dover, 1950), 1:xxii.

 3. Donald Jackson, ed., Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with 

Related Documents: 1783-1854, 2 vols., 2nd ed (Urbana: University of Illinois 

Press, 1978), 1:38.

 4. Ibid.

 5. Ibid.

 6. Cutright, 5-6.

 7. Ibid., 3.

 8. Ibid., 15.

 9. Ibid. 

10. James P. Ronda, Lewis and Clark Among the Indians (Lincoln: University 

of Nebraska Press, 1984), 5.

11. Ronda, 8.

12. Ibid.

13. Gary E. Moulton, ed., The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, 11 

vols. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002-2003), 2: 443.

14. Moulton, 3:210.

15. Jackson, 1:234.

16. Moulton, 3:486.

17. Ibid., 5:95.

18. Ibid., 5:112.

19. Ibid., 5:178.

20. Ibid., 5:111.

21. Ibid., 5:262.

22. Jackson, 1:74.

23. Moulton, 7:252.

24. Ibid., 7:248.

25. Ronda, 229.

26. Moulton, 7:328.

27. Ibid., 7:342.

28. Jackson, 1:65.

29. Ibid., 1:71.

30. Moulton, 5:111.
52 

31. Ibid., 6:91.

32. Ibid., 2:189.

33. David J. Peck, Or Perish in the Attempt: Wilderness Medicine in the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition (Helena, MT: Farcountry Press, 2002), 51.

34. Moulton, 4:418.

35. Volney Steele, “Lewis and Clark: Military Explorers, Scientists, and 

Physicians,” Military History of the West (Fall 2001), 51.

36. Ruben Gold Thwaites, ed., Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition (New York: DSI Digital Reproduction, 2001), 1:xlv; Moulton, 2:40–42.

37. Carol L. MacGregor, ed. The Journals of Patrick Gass: Member of the Lewis and 

Clark Expedition (Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1997), 130.

38. Eldon G. Chuinard, Only One Man Died: The Medical Aspects of the 

Lewis & Clark Expedition (Fairfield, WA: Ye Galleon Press, 1998), 161.

39. Chuinard, 162.

40. Moulton, 9:225.

41. Ibid., 5:211. 

42. Ibid., 7:284.

43. Stephen J. Allie, “The Uniforms of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,” 

Frontier Army Museum. Fort Leavenworth, KS (Summer 2002), 5.

44. Ibid., 5.

45. Ibid., 5-6.

46. Ibid., 4.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid., 2.

49. Jackson, 2:62.

50. Ibid., 1:82-88.

51. Edmond A Gibson, Basic Seamanship and Navigation (New York: 

McGraw- Hill, 1951), 276.

52. Per Collinder, A History of Maritime Navigation (New York: St. Martin’s 

Press, 1955), 138.

53. Cutright, 7.

54. Moulton, 2:87.

55. Peter Ifland, “The History of the Sextant,” Article available on-line. http:

//www.mat.uc.pt/~helios/Mestre/Novemb00/H61iflan.htm. Internet. Accessed 1 

February 2003.

56. Ibid.

57. Moulton, 2:411.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid., 2:412.

60. Ibid., 2:87.

61. Moulton, 5:186.

62. Jackson, 1:48.

63. Carl P. Russell, Guns On The Early Frontiers: A History of Firearms 

From Colonial Times Through The Years of the Western Fur Trade (Berkeley: 

University of California Press, 1957), 84.
53

64. Norm Flayderman, Flayderman’s Guide to Antique American Firearms ... 

and their values (Northbrook, IL: DBI Books, 1994), 286.

65. Flayderman, 286.

66. Moulton, 8:134.

67. Ibid., 8:154.

68. Ronda, 102.

69. Moulton, 5:178.

70. Moulton, 2:183.

71. Russell, 227.

72. Russell, 231.

73. Moulton, 6:272.

74. Russell, 239.

75. Steele, 57.

76. Ibid., 51.

77. Chuinard, 62.

78. Cutright, 8.

79. Chuinard, 416.

80. Drake W. Will, “The Medical and Surgical Practice of the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (Spring 1959), 276.

81. Will, 278.

82. Chuinard, 156.

83. Peck, 49.

84. Ibid., 51.

85. Ibid., 49.

86. Chuinard, 156-57; Peck, 49-50.

87. Moulton, 3:268.

88. Peck, 52.

89. Chuinard, 159.

90. Peck, 51.

91. Steele, 52-53.

92. Jackson, 1:106.

93. Ibid., 114.

94. Ibid., 115.

95. Ibid., 110.

96. Ibid., 115.

97. Ibid., 101.

98. Ibid., 40.

99. Ibid., 110.

100. Ibid., 121-22.

101. Richard C. Boss, “Keelboat, Pirogue, and Canoe: Vessels Used by the 

Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery,” Nautical Research Journal (June 1999), 

69.

102. Russell, 255.

103. Ibid., 122.

104. Ibid., 121-22.

55

Chapter 5

Down the Ohio to Camp Dubois

Transportation

Lewis departed Pittsburgh on 31 August “with a party of 11 hands 7 of 

which are soldiers, a pilot and three young men on trial they having proposed to go with me throughout the voyage.”1

 This small crew, only one 

man short of the number authorized by Congress, manned a pirogue and 

his recently constructed keelboat. 

Lewis first revealed the presence of the pirogue on 4 September. The 

vessel was acquired to lighten the keelboat’s load in hopes of overcoming 

the low water level of the Ohio River. The term pirogue refers to a “dugout canoe which was presumably shaped from a large log.”2

 It is doubtful 

that Lewis was applying the term correctly. As was common at the time, 

the term pirogue was used to describe a “broad range of riverine craft.”3

This is illustrated by the fact that expedition journals alternate between the 

terms canoe and pirogue for any vessel smaller than the keelboat. Lewis 

displays the same flexibility when referring to the keelboat, periodically 

describing it as a boat, keelboat, or bateau. Further evidence that Lewis’ 

pirogue was not a traditional log canoe is contained in Lewis’ journal entry 

of 4 May 1805, in which he remarked, “we were detained this morning 

until about 9 Ock. In order to repare the rudder irons of the red perogue 

which were broken last evening in landing.” And again on 5 May, he noted 

that “the rudder irons of both pirogues broke.”4

It has been speculated that the bateau presents the best “example in 

terms of size, shape, and construction for the pirogues of the Corps of 

Discovery.” 5 The word bateau merely means boat in French and was used 

about as broadly as boat is today. “However, early in the eighteenth century bateau became accepted as a name for a double ended, flat-bottomed, 

chine-built craft used extensively along the St. Lawrence River and on the 

American lakes. Colonial bateaux, used both commercially and militarily, 

were built up to 50 feet long, and were propelled primarily by rowing and 

poling.”6

Even after taking the precaution of sending the majority of cargo by 

wagon to Wheeling, acquiring a pirogue to lighten the keelboat’s load, 

and hiring an experienced river pilot to avoid the river’s obstructions, 

Lewis still encountered great difficulty negotiating the Ohio. At one point 

he was forced to employ a team of oxen to augment the exertions of his 

crew to pass a particularly shallow section of river. On 8 September Lewis 
56 

“purchased a [second] 

perogue and hired a man 

to work her”7 to further 

distribute the weight of 

his heavier cargo loaded 

at Wheeling.

According to notes 

accompanying Clark’s 

sketch of the smaller 

white pirogue, it was 

capable of hauling 

“8 Tuns.” Based on 

complex calculations 

using the mass and dimensions of men and 

supplies, one historian 

estimates that the vessel 

must have been 39 feet 

long and had a beam of 

about 8 1/2 feet.8 The 

red pirogue (see Figure 

13), which “was propelled by only one additional oar . . . could not 

have been much larger.”9

 It has further been 

speculated that this larger pirogue was capable of hauling 9 tons plus 

the vessel’s crew with its 41 1⁄2-foot length and 9-foot beam.10 With the 

addition of the second pirogue, the Corps of Discovery now had the 

capability to haul “29 tons with 12 tons in the keelboat, 9 tons in the 

red pirogue, and 8 tons in the white pirogue.”11 Even after making an 

allowance for the fact that the expedition’s payload would decrease as 

it progressed westward, it still seemed beyond the capability of a mere 

dozen men to manhandle to the Pacific and back.

Personnel

While making final preparations in Washington during the first week 

of July 1803, Lewis consulted with Secretary Dearborn regarding expedition manning. Soon after their discussion Dearborn dispatched letters to 

Lewis and to three frontier commanders, Captains Russell Bissell, Amos 

Figure 13. Red pirogue reproduction

Dr. Vince Gutowski
57

Stoddard, and Daniel Bissell. Dearborn’s letter to Lewis offered Fort Massac, located on the lower Ohio, and Fort Kaskaskia, located on the Mississippi north of the mouth of the Ohio, as sources for expedition personnel. 

Dearborn reiterates to Lewis that he is limited to personnel of which “the 

whole number of non-commissioned officers and privates should not exceed twelve.” 12 You will recall that Lewis’ letter of invitation to Clark 

on 19 June also referenced these installations as a source of manpower. 

In Dearborn’s correspondence to Russell Bissell and Amos Stoddard, we 

find the first reference to a personnel requirement beyond the 10 to 12 already authorized. His letter directed the captains to “furnish one Sergeant 

& Eight good Men who understand rowing a boat to go with Capt. Lewis 

as far up the River as they can go & return with certainty before the Ice 

will obstruct the passage of the river.”13 These nine men were intended to 

accompany the expedition only to the party’s wintering site, presumably 

returning to their posts prior to the onset of winter. The exact mission of 

these troops is not described in the letter, but it appears they were intended 

to provide additional security to the party while negotiating territory controlled by Teton Sioux. It can also be assumed that Lewis, familiar with the 

hazards regularly encountered by traders negotiating Sioux lands, asked 

Dearborn for a security party while in Washington. This fact is significant because it illuminates the fact that Lewis was already experiencing 

misgivings about the small size of his party and begins to explain why 

the number in his party more than tripled its authorized strength prior to 

departing Camp Dubois. 

On 3 August 1803, Lewis, in his letter acknowledging receipt of 

Clark’s acceptance of his offer of co-command, emphasized that the nature of their enterprise depended on the careful selection of the men, “their 

qualifications should be such as perfectly fit them for the service, outherwise they will reather clog than further the objects in view.”14 Although it 

is impossible to precisely determine who of the expedition’s permanent 

party departed Pittsburgh on board the keelboat, several historians propose 

that the expedition’s youngest member, George Shannon, and John Colter 

were the first to demonstrate that they had the right stuff.15 After consuming four difficult weeks hauling the keelboat over the obstacles, then enjoying a week’s sabbatical studying fossil remains at Big Bone Lick at the 

request of President Jefferson, Lewis arrived at Clarksville, Indiana Territory on 15 October.16 Clark doubtlessly greeted his friend warmly. Lewis 

must have been relieved to see that seven able woodsmen accompanied 

him (for a complete list of personnel, see Appendix G). Clark’s seven men 

plus, most probably, Shannon and Colter, would go down in history as the 
58 

“nine young men from Kentucky.”17 But the most important addition to the 

party was William Clark.

As previously discussed, the president authorized Lewis to secure the 

services of an additional officer. With Jefferson’s assistance Lewis sought 

a captain’s commission to reinforce their parity. For reasons almost certainly related to the Army’s significant drawdown of 1802, Clark received 

a lieutenant’s commission in the Corps of Artillerists.18 On having to share 

this awkward revelation with Clark, Lewis exclaimed, “it is not such as I 

wished, or had reason to expect; but so it is—a further explaneation when 

I join you. I think it will be best to let none of our party or any other persons know any thing about the grade, you will observe that the grade has 

no effect upon your compensation, which by G--d, shall be equal to my 

own.”19 Lewis lived up to his promise, selflessly shared his authority and 

gratefully spread the weight of command. Both officers protected Clark’s 

true rank from the men.20 Lewis accurately surmised that Clark’s talents 

and abilities would perfectly complement his own. His depth of emotion 

and unambiguous concern for his men, as well as the Indians, along the 

expedition’s route saturates his prose. It is he who declared “Ocian in 

View!” on 7 November 1805, and “Oh! How Horriable is the Day!” eight 

sodden days later. Combining their efforts the captains would spend the 

next seven months collecting more supplies and searching for additional 

“good hunters, stout, healthy, unmarried men, accustomed to the woods, 

and capable of bearing bodily fatigue in a pretty considerable degree.”21

On 11 November 1803, Lewis and Clark arrived at Fort Massac, located on the Illinois side of the Ohio River. “The post was garrisoned by Captain Daniel Bissell’s company of infantry, on which Lewis was authorized 

to draw volunteers.”22 They would find two suitable soldier volunteers and, 

excluding the captains, the expedition’s most valuable participant, civilian 

interpreter and guide George Drouillard. Drouillard would prove invaluable for the duration of the expedition. Whenever the captains scouted 

ahead of the main body, “Drewyer” normally accompanied them. His service was held in such high regard that at the conclusion of the expedition, 

Lewis sought to provide him an extra $5 a month in addition to his $25 

a month salary, which was already double that of the corps’ noncommissioned officers.23 Lewis and Clark expected to be met at Fort Massac by six 

to eight soldiers from South West Point, Tennessee. When the men failed 

to arrive, Drouillard was dispatched to locate them. 

After turning north at the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, 

the party rowed, poled, and heaved, against the current for the first time, en 

route to the expedition’s next destination. They arrived at Fort Kaskaskia 
59

on 28 November. The fort was also located on the Illinois shore and was 

the home to “Captain Russell Bissell’s infantry company, plus an artillery 

company commanded by Captain Amos Stoddard.”24 From Kaskaskia the 

Corps of Discovery would acquire more than a dozen men. Three weeks 

later Lewis wrote to Jefferson and reported that he had “‘made a selection 

of a sufficient number of men from the troops of that place to complete my 

party.’ He didn’t say how many, but it probably was something more than 

a dozen, including the small-boat escort group plus men for the permanent 

party.”25 It is clear that Lewis and Clark had already decided to disregard 

their guidance to limit the endeavor to 10 to 12 men.

During the first week of December, Lewis sought clearance from 

Spanish officials headquartered at St. Louis for the expedition’s passage up 

the Missouri. Months earlier respective heads of state had already signed 

the Louisiana Purchase, but at St. Louis the local military governor had 

yet to conduct the formal transfer ceremony, scheduled for the following 

spring. To avoid diplomatic wrangling and conceding that the 1803 travel 

season was largely over, Lewis decided to winter on the American side 

of the Mississippi, which would enable the corps to freely draw supplies 

and provisions from local Army units. An additional benefit of the meeting between Lewis and the local Spanish military governor of Louisiana, 

Carlos Dehault Delassus, was that Delassus recorded for future historians 

that Lewis’ delegation now consisted of 25 men.26

It is difficult to determine an accurate head count between December 

1803 and April 1804. The expedition’s number fluctuated almost weekly 

as soldiers were welcomed and others dismissed. 

On December 22, Drouillard arrived at Clark’s Camp Dubois with the eight lost soldiers from South West Point. 

They were a disappointing lot, except Corporal Richard 

Warfington. At some point two local experts on Missouri River travel, Pierre Cruzatte and Francois Labiche, 

agreed to help manage the keelboat. People kept drifting 

out. Four of the sad sacks from South West Point proved 

too sorry to keep. An individual name Leakens, recruited 

from somewhere, was discharged for theft.27

After locating a suitable spot across the river from St. Louis along 

the southern shore of the River Dubois, the party began construction 

of Camp Dubois. In a letter to Clark from Kaskaskia, Lewis noted that 

among the soldiers recruited from South West Point are “a blacksmith 

and House-joiner.”28 Both skills would prove invaluable to the operation. 
60 

Camp Dubois

During the winter, the captains continued to plan. Additional maps 

were acquired and created with the help of local traders. Discipline was 

expected and instilled by means of courts-martial and the subsequent meting out of harsh punishments. Additional supplies were purchased with the 

aid of local merchants, most notably the Chouteau brothers of St. Louis.29

Improvements were made to the keelboat. Clark’s field notes are littered 

with jottings regarding the preparedness of provisions and supplies. Lewis 

and Clark’s winter of 1803-1804 shopping list (a sampling of the supplies 

obtained at St. Louis is located at Appendix H) included items such as: 19 

small flags, 16 additional mosquito nets, 120 gallons of whiskey, 50 kegs 

of pork, 30 half-barrels of flour, 34 bushels of parched meal, two boxes of 

candles, 200 pounds of tallow, and dozens of kegs.30 In addition to these 

supplies, the corps also acquired “a small forge, complete with bellows 

and fueled by charcoal, on which they could work iron and other metals. 

Shields and Willard were the smiths. Besides repairing expedition equipment, they made tomahawk heads and other articles to trade to the Indians 

for food.”31 The mass of goods and provisions purchased confirms the fact 

that the expedition was well on its way to expanding to more than three 

times its authorized strength. 

Expecting an encounter with the Teton Sioux the following summer, 

Clark designed and supervised defensive improvements to the keelboat. 

Clark calculated and recorded the lumber and hardware required to add 

storage lockers to the keelboat’s cargo hold. On 24 February 1804, he 

recorded that “10 pair of hinges” were mounted to the locker tops with 

200 nails sent by Lewis.32 The lockers enabled bulky equipment and 

provisions to be securely stowed while improving the vessel’s defensive 

capability against Indian attacks. The hinged locker tops were sturdy 

enough to be walked on when closed. When the keelboat was threatened, 

the locker tops could be raised to form a solid defensive barricade running the length of the vessel. 33

Presumably at Clark’s urging, a small cannon or “swivel gun” capable 

of firing a 1-pound ball was mounted to the vessel’s bow. The cannon was 

probably “held upon the forks of a Y-shaped mounting . . . the lower projection of the Y-shaped support, or swivel, was placed in a hole bored in the 

gunwale” of the keelboat.34 Also at Clark’s urging, the expedition acquired 

two blunderbusses, which were also mounted on swivels toward the boat’s 

stern.35 Both the cannon and the blunderbusses were formidable area weapons when loaded with a number of lead balls, nails, or even rocks. It is likely 

Clark believed that by having the keelboat display these weapons, the Teton
61

Sioux would be inclined to avoid a fight, having already experienced these 

weapons employed by Spanish forces patrolling the Missouri.36

As the Missouri Company in 1795 extended its trading 

activities into the upper Missouri country, where British 

traders already had a following among the natives, some 

of the Spaniards... advocated a patrol of the river, ‘with 

one or two galliots of small tonnage, flat-bottomed, and 

armed with six two-pound cannons, some swivel guns 

and manned by twenty sailors,’ to be provided by the 

government.37

As previously stated, this expedition’s growth was due to Lewis and 

Clark’s suspicion that natives would attack the party if it did not appear 

sufficiently menacing. Clark noted in his journal that the party’s safety 

“will Depend on the probability of an opposition from roving Parties of 

Bad Indians which it is probable may be on the [river].”38 He later crossed 

out the comment, but the fact remains that Clark was concerned about the 

unit’s ability to survive a confrontation.

On 25 September 1804, Clark’s anxiety regarding the Teton Sioux 

proved correct. For approximately five days the party was extorted and 

threatened by the tribe. An example of the week’s journal entries is provided below:

Three of their young men Seased the Cable of the 

Perogue, the Chiefs Soldr. Huged the mast, and the 2d 

Chief was verry insolent both in words & justures declareing I Should not go on, Stateing he had not recved 

presents Suffient from us, his justures were of Such a personal nature I felt my Self Compeled to Draw my Sword, 

at this motion Capt. Lewis ordered all under arms in the 

boat, those with me also Showed a Disposition to Defend 

themselves and me, the grand Chief then took hold of the 

roop & ordered the young warrers away, I felt my Self 

warm & Spoke in verry positive terms. Most of the warriers appeared to have ther Bows Strung and took out their 

arrows from ther quves.39

Sergeant Ordway noted that the swivel gun was loaded with 16 

balls and that the blunderbusses were loaded with buckshot.40 Clearly 

Clark was right to insist on the additional arms, men, and the improvements to the keelboat’s defenses undertaken during the winter 

of 1803-1804. 
62 

Following the ceremony transferring Louisiana from France to the 

United States, after years of planning and preparation, and after triple 

checking the loading and distribution of their cargo: 

all our provisions goods and equipage on Board of a Boat 

of 22 oars, a large Perogue of 7 oares a Second Perogue of 

6 oars, 2 Complete with Sails &c. &c. men Compe. with 

Powder Cartragies and 100 Balls each, all in health and 

readiness to Set out. Boats and every thing Complete, with 

the necessary Stores of provisions & such articles of merchendize as we thought ourselves autherised to precure--

tho’ not as much as I think necssy for the multitud of lnds. 

tho which we must pass on our road across the Continent 

&. &.41

The expedition set off, commanded by Clark, on 14 May 1804. 

Lewis, who had attended the transfer ceremony, would catch up with 

the group on 20 May. “All those who kept journals—Lewis, Clark, 

Gass, Ordway, Floyd, and Whitehouse dutifully record that the total 

number was about forty-five men. They do not all agree on the number, 

but none exceeds forty-five.”42 There very well could have been several 

more. 

They were organized into three groups. The permanent party, those 

designated to make the journey to the Pacific and back, manned the keelboat. The return party set off in the red pirogue and would accompany the 

permanent party as far as the Mandan Villages, returning to St. Louis in 

the keelboat when ordered. The third group consisted of French boatmen 

or engagés. These men would guide the expedition up the river against the 

current to the Mandan Villages. Several engagés would return to St. Louis 

with the return party; others would remain with the Mandans or embark 

on other trade missions.43

The men of the Corps of Discovery had been hand selected by Lewis 

and Clark. They had formed into a solid, disciplined unit during their 

winter at Camp Dubois. Each member had something to offer the cause. 

Among them were carpenters, blacksmiths, a gunsmith, a tailor, musicians, interpreters, navigators, hunters, journalists, and above all, men that 

had bonded in the way only soldiers going into harm’s way can comprehend. All were committed to their quest; all had unquestionable faith in 

their captains.
63

Notes

 1. Gary E. Moulton, ed., The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, 11 

vols. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002-2003), 2:65.

 2. Richard C. Boss, “Keelboat, Pirogue, and Canoe: Vessels Used by the 

Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery,” Nautical Research Journal (June 1999), 

77.

 3. Ibid.

 4. Moulton, 4:108.

 4. Boss, 79-80.

 5. Ibid.

 6. Moulton, 2:75.

 7. Boss, 80.

 8. Ibid.

 9. Ibid., 81.

10. Ibid.

11. Donald Jackson, ed., Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with 

Related Documents: 1783-1854, 2 vols., 2nd ed (Urbana: University of Illinois 

Press, 1978), 1:102-103.

12. Jackson, 1:103.

13. Ibid., 116.

14. Moulton, 2:66. Arlen J. Large, “Additions to the Party: How the 

Expedition Grew and Grew,” We Proceeded On (February 1990), 6.

15. Large, 6.

16. Ibid.

17. Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United 

States Army, From its Organization, September 29, 1789, to March 2, 1903 

(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965), 2:568-69.

18. Jackson, 1:179.

19. Moulton, 2:513.

20. Jackson, 1:58.

21. Large, 7.

22. Jackson, 1:369.

23. Large, 7.

24. Ibid.

25. Jackson, 1:142-43.

26. Large, 7.

27. Jackson, 1:144.

28. William Foley, “The Lewis and Clark Expedition’s Silent Partners: The 

Chouteau Brothers of St. Louis,” Missouri Historical Review (Fall 1983), 136.

29. Moulton, 2:200, 2: 217-18.

30. Ibid., 3:262.

31. Boss, 72.

32. Ibid.
64

33. Carl P. Russell, Guns On The Early Frontiers: A History of Firearms 

From Colonial Times Through The Years of the Western Fur Trade (Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1957), 252.

34. Jackson, 1:175.

35. Russell, 255.

36. Ibid.

37. Large, 7.

38. Moulton, 3:112.

39. Ibid., 9:68.

40. Ibid., 2:214-15.

41. Charles G. Clarke, The Men of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: A 

Biographical Roster of the Fifty-One Members and a Composite Diary of Their 

Activities from All Known Sources (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 

22-23.

42. Moulton, 3:227.
65

Chapter 6

Conclusion

Having invested 10 years pondering the possibilities, Captain 

Meriwether Lewis was perhaps the most qualified officer on the planet 

to develop the expedition’s logistics support plan. His close relationship 

with President Jefferson enabled the pair to craft a politically acceptable 

and militarily plausible plan. Their initial cost estimate was purposely 

low to avoid congressional objections, just as the Louisiana Purchase was 

arguably beyond Jefferson’s constitutional authority. It was apparently 

best to rapidly close the deal and then ask for Congress’s forgiveness. 

It was with this mind-set the president achieved his goal of westward 

exploration. Once Congress authorized the expedition’s initial funding 

($2,500), Jefferson was confident that if the endeavor was successful, 

additional monies would be allocated without objection (the total price 

tag exceeded $39,000).1 Likewise, if unsuccessful, cost overruns would be 

forgiven because of the expedition’s politically shrewd secondary mission 

of “improving” the religion of the natives. 

Jefferson provided Lewis with a letter of credit implying that it 

be used upon arrival at the Pacific to secure provisions, clothes, and 

passage for at least a few expedition members and scientific data. For 

reasons already stated, Jefferson likely verbally authorized his captain to 

purchase goods and services as required to accomplish his mission. Once 

distant from Washington, Lewis and Clark freely exceeded the personnel 

limitations specified by the authorization received from Congress and as 

communicated by the secretary of war. 

Soon after arriving in the vicinity of St. Louis, the expedition’s authorized 

strength had already doubled. Warnings from local traders supported Clark’s 

misgivings about traversing Teton Sioux lands with a small party. By spring 

1804 the party consisted of nearly 50 men. The larger party required the 

purchase of additional equipment and provisions from St. Louis merchants. 

Lewis and Clark freely hired interpreters, guides, and boatmen to facilitate 

their task. As the expedition’s primary logistics planner, Lewis’ foresight 

requires further examination. 

Four themes regarding Lewis’ logistics planning merit further 

discussion, namely the concept of innovation, the employment of 

civilian contractors, the anticipation of support from native tribes (host 

nation support), and difficulty in securing adequate transportation. Only 

the lack of transportation produced significant shortfalls during the 

operation.
66 

Innovation

While Lewis’ iron canoe ultimately failed, it exemplifies the spirit of 

innovation he brought to the enterprise. The inspiration for the canoe was 

probably native canoes made of stretched hides that he had observed on 

the frontier. He sought to improve on what he had seen by making his 

canoe collapsible and portable. Once the craft was covered with animal 

skins, only one easily obtainable item, pine tar, was required to make 

it watertight. The variety of pine tar available at Harper’s Ferry proved 

elusive in Montana. The lesson for the modern logistician is not to assume 

that a critical item, readily available at one location, will be available at 

another.

When Lewis went to Harper’s Ferry looking for 15 rifles, he was not 

seeking to create a new rifle type, nor would it be logical to do so. What 

he sought was 15 rifles with spare firing mechanisms. The concept of 

creating interchangeable parts was probably only acceptable to the artisans 

of the Harper’s Ferry Armory in light of the unique mission at hand. The 

armory’s craftsmen subscribed to the time-honored tradition that each 

weapon produced was a work of art. Acceptance of mass production 

techniques, with their associated reliance on interchangeable parts, would 

be accepted gradually. When Lewis headed west he possessed 15, decadeold contract rifles whose barrels had been shortened. One gunsmith would 

prove capable of keeping the expedition’s weapons operational.

Knowing that he and his soldiers would be operating in a persistently 

damp environment and that the bulk containers provided by powder 

manufacturers were convenient but lacked the durability required for 

a lengthy operation, Lewis designed the expedition’s most important 

innovation. The powder canisters were constructed in Philadelphia from 

8 pounds of lead, had narrow corked mouths to seal out moisture, and 

were intended to refill the powder horns carried by soldiers. When empty, 

the containers would be melted and formed into balls. They performed 

magnificently. Expedition members never lacked an ample supply of dry 

powder or ball.

The revolutionary nature of the numbered storage bags Lewis had 

manufactured in Philadelphia is not immediately apparent. Without a doubt 

the articles were designed to overcome a problem exasperating logisticians 

even now. At issue is the ability to locate important items of equipment 

without searching through an entire load of cargo. The contemporary term 

applied to the concept is In Transit Visibility (ITV). Modern logisticians 

must be able to track supplies and equipment from their points of origin to 

their final destinations, often a distance of thousands of miles. Specialized 
67

tags and labels, able to communicate with various electronic devices, are 

applied to important items to locate them in the mountain of supplies 

at a port or storage location. During Operation Desert Storm, literally 

hundreds of containers arrived at ports with no means of determining their 

contents without opening them and inventorying their contents. To avoid 

the frustration of searching for a single tool in a mountain of equipment, 

Lewis had the foresight to number each of his storage bags, noting its 

contents before the party’s departure from Camp Dubois.

Host Nation Support

Understanding that the expedition’s success ultimately depended 

on establishing and maintaining friendly relations with the Indians 

encountered along the route, Lewis obtained a large supply of trade 

goods in Philadelphia and continued to augment the party’s supply while 

wintering at Camp Dubois. Early in his planning he recognized that 

trade goods could, in addition to furthering purely diplomatic aims, be 

used to reduce shortfalls. The party freely dispensed trade goods along 

the route to obtain provisions, equipment, and services. The single most 

important transaction was with the Shoshone when the captains acquired 

40 urgently needed horses to cross the fantastically underestimated Rocky 

Mountains. The services of several native guides also proved crucial 

to the expedition’s success. Most notably, a native guide enabled the 

corps to locate a navigable route through the Rockies. While the corps 

members did run short on trade goods during their return trip, they used 

their ingenuity to transform remaining items and nonessential equipment 

into desirable trade objects. The host nation support provided by native 

tribes proved indispensable, often providing support at the expedition’s 

most vulnerable moments. Recent military operations in Afghanistan 

have validated the essential nature of host nation support when attempting 

to conduct operations with a limited number of soldier-linguists and 

experienced guides. 

Contractor Support

Modern military operations rely heavily on support from civilian 

contractors. This phenomenon is not new. Contractors contributed 

significantly to America’s early military operations. There has been much 

hand wringing of late regarding the United States military’s reliance 

on contractor support. Most critics of civilian contractors would never 

imagine that the Lewis and Clark Expedition relied heavily on contractor 

support. Lewis anticipated contractor support early in his planning. His 

initial estimate of expenses provided to Jefferson included a sum dedicated 

to hiring contractors.2 Months later Jefferson’s formal instructions for the 
68 

expedition’s conduct included the authority for Lewis to hire contractors. 

However, Jefferson anticipated the majority of Lewis’ contracting support 

to occur upon his arrival at the Pacific.3

Lewis contracted wagon support, the construction of a keelboat, 

the services of a river pilot, and a team of oxen to pull the boat over 

a particularly shallow section of the Ohio. He also contracted for the 

services of two interpreters to accompany the expedition to the Pacific 

and back, as well as French boatmen to accompany the expedition to the 

Mandan Villages, and several native guides along the expedition route. 

One of these interpreters, George Drouillard, commonly referred to as 

“Drewyer” in expedition journals, was probably (excluding the captains) 

the party’s most indispensable member. He was consistently with the 

captains during harrowing experiences and bagged the majority of game, 

often after periods of significant hardship. In the final analysis, Lewis 

contracted for goods and services far in excess of the $2,500 authorized by 

Congress. Lewis and Clark’s experiences with contractors ranged the entire 

spectrum. In the end, Lewis’ utter frustration with his drunken Pittsburgh 

boat contractor was probably offset by the extraordinary contributions of 

interpreter and hunter George Drouillard. It is likely that future generations 

of Americans will look at operations conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq 

and not adequately appreciate the integral role played by contractors.

Transportation

The Lewis and Clark Expedition was primarily a transportation 

exercise. As has been demonstrated, the endeavor was adequately 

provisioned and equipped. The operation’s serious shortfalls regarded 

transportation. Of the 11 logistics functions recognized by the US Army, 

responsive transportation remains the most difficult to achieve. The Army 

regularly succeeds in achieving its operational objectives, but associated 

transportation timelines routinely exceed transportation estimates. 

The captains failed to complete their mission within the two summers 

specified by the president. A month was squandered supervising the 

fabrication of Lewis’ canoe at Harper’s Ferry. An additional two months 

were lost waiting for the keelboat to be completed. These delays, together 

with the low water level of the Ohio River in September 1803, forced 

the expedition to spend the winter of 1803-1804 near St. Louis. After a 

grueling month-long portage of the Great Falls without the aid of horses, 

the party was again delayed when the iron canoe foundered. Lewis and 

Clark failed to anticipate the need for horses to assist their portage of the 

Great Falls. Assuming that these transportation shortfalls could have been

avoided, the corps would have been poised to cross the Rockies in the 
69

spring rather than the fall of 1805. It is likely that a spring crossing would 

have enabled the expedition to arrive at the Pacific and return to St. Louis 

by December 1805, meeting Jefferson’s intent of a two-summer mission. 

In the end, it is likely that Jefferson considered Lewis and Clark’s 

overdue return to be irrelevant and his two-season timeline the result of his 

personal impatience. The transportation challenges encountered by Lewis 

and Clark, although ultimately overcome with great success, illustrate 

that the most conspicuous “friction” encountered by military planners 

relates to the availability of adequate transportation assets. As with most 

challenges faced by the captains, transportation shortfalls were overcome 

by a combination of wit and tenacity.

Endings

Without a doubt the expedition was a success. Diplomatic and trade 

relationships were established with the Mandan, Shoshone, and Nez Perce 

tribes. Lewis provided Jefferson with scores of botanical and zoological 

discoveries. Clark used his notes to create accurate maps of the west. 

Many of the logistics issues that confronted Lewis and Clark are 

very similar to questions that challenge today’s logistics planners. Lewis 

and Clark’s successful conduct of an incredibly complex and physically 

demanding operation has provided new insight as to how a logistician 

should prepare to venture into unknown territory. Groundbreaking missions 

require innovative methods to avoid logistics shortfalls. The movement 

of men and supplies over great distances has historically been the most 

challenging aspect of logistics planning and execution. Either by force or 

by voluntary agreement, host nation support is essential to most military 

operations. By far the most important factor influencing the outcome of a 

military operation is the personnel available to execute it. Lewis and Clark 

had the ability to observe potential expedition members, then handpick 

those deemed to have the skills and temperament for the task at hand.

Several historians have compared Lewis and Clark’s mission to that of 

the Apollo 11, America’s manned flight to the moon. The argument goes that 

Lewis and Clark traveled into the unknown, abandoning all communications 

with their government, while astronauts traveling to the moon remained in 

almost constant contact with ground controllers. Altitude and speed combine 

to provide dangers not easily overcome by communication alone. While 

some parallels exist, the analogy falls short when considering the remarkable 

contributions made by native Americans. Lewis and Clark had time, speed, 

and altitude on their side. Even when deep into lands previously unknown 

to men of European decent, expedition members could rely on their wits, an 
70

adaptable support plan, an ample supply of tools and arms, and the plentiful 

raw materials of our great nation to succeed.

Notes

1. Donald Jackson, ed., Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with 

Related Documents: 1783-1854, 2 vols., 2nd ed (Urbana: University of Illinois 

Press, 1978), 1:431.

2. Jackson, 1:9.

3. Ibid., 65.
71

Appendix A

Jefferson’s Instructions to Lewis

To Meriwether Lewis, esquire, Captain of the 1st regiment of infantry of 

the United States of America. 

Your situation as Secretary of the President of the United States has made 

you acquainted with the objects of my confidential message of Jan. 18, 

1803, to the legislature. You have seen the act they passed, which, tho’ 

expressed in general terms, was meant to sanction those objects, and you 

are appointed to carry them into execution. 

Instruments for ascertaining by celestial observations the geography of 

the country thro’ which you will pass, have been already provided. Light 

articles for barter, & presents among the Indians, arms for your attendants, 

say for from 10 to 12 men, boats, tents, & other travelling apparatus, with 

ammunition, medicine, surgical instruments & provisions you will have 

prepared with such aids as the Secretary at War can yield in his department; 

& from him also you will receive authority to engage among our troops, 

by voluntary agreement, the number of attendants above mentioned, over 

whom you, as their commanding officer, are invested with all the powers 

the laws give in such a case. 

As your movements while within the limits of the U.S. will be better 

directed by occasional communications, adapted to circumstances as 

they arise, they will not be noticed here. What follows will respect your 

proceedings after your departure from the U.S. 

Your mission has been communicated to the Ministers here from France, 

Spain, & Great Britain, and through them to their governments: and such 

assurances given them as to it’s objects as we trust will satisfy them. The 

country of Louisiana having been ceded by Spain to France, the passport 

you have from the Minister of France, the representative of the present 

sovereign of the country, will be a protection with all its subjects: and that 

from the Minister of England will entitle you to the friendly aid of any 

traders of that allegiance with whom you may happen to meet. 

The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, & such 

principal stream of it, as, by it’s course & communication with the 

water of the Pacific ocean may offer the most direct & practicable water 

communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce. 
72 

Beginning at the mouth of the Missouri, you will take observations of 

latitude and longitude at all remarkable points on the river, & especially 

at the mouths of rivers, at rapids, at islands & other places & objects 

distinguished by such natural marks & characters of a durable kind, 

as that they may with certainty be recognized hereafter. The courses 

of the river between these points of observation may be supplied by 

the compass, the log-line & by time, corrected by the observations 

themselves. The variations of the compass too, in different places should 

be noticed. 

The interesting points of the portage between the heads of the Missouri & 

the water offering the best communication with the Pacific ocean should 

be fixed by observation, & the course of that water to the ocean, in the 

same manner as that of the Missouri. 

Your observations are to be taken with great pains & accuracy to be entered 

distinctly, & intelligibly for others as well as yourself, to comprehend 

all the elements necessary, with the aid of the usual tables to fix the 

latitude & longitude of the places at which they were taken, & are to be 

rendered to the war office, for the purpose of having the calculations made 

concurrently by proper persons within the U.S. Several copies of these as 

well as of your other notes, should be made at leisure times, & put into the 

care of the most trustworthy of your attendants, to guard by multiplying 

them against the accidental losses to which they will be exposed. A further 

guard would be that one of these copies be written on the paper of the 

birch, as less liable to injury from damp than common paper. 

The commerce which may be carried on with the people inhabiting the 

line you will pursue, renders a knolege of these people important. You will 

therefore endeavor to make yourself acquainted, as far as a diligent pursuit 

of your journey shall admit, with the names of the nations & their numbers;

 

 the extent & limits of their possessions;

 their relations with other tribes or nations;

 their language, traditions, monuments;

 their ordinary occupations in agriculture, fishing, hunting, war, 

arts, & the 

 implements for these;

 their food, clothing, & domestic accommodations;

 the diseases prevalent among them, & the remedies they use;

 moral and physical circumstance which distinguish them 
73

from the tribes they know; peculiarities in their laws, customs & 

dispositions; and articles of commerce they may need or furnish, & 

to what extent. 

And considering the interest which every nation has in extending & 

strengthening the authority of reason & justice among the people around 

them, it will be useful to acquire what knolege you can of the state of 

morality, religion & information among them, as it may better enable 

those who endeavor to civilize & instruct them, to adapt their measures to 

the existing notions & practises of those on whom they are to operate. 

Other objects worthy of notice will be 

 the soil & face of the country, it’s growth & vegetable productions, 

 especially 

 those not of the U.S. 

 the animals of the country generally, & especially those not known in 

 the U.S. 

 the remains & accounts of any which may be deemed rare or extinct; 

 the mineral productions of every kind; but more particularly metals, 

 limestone, 

 pit coal & saltpetre; salines & mineral waters, noting the temperature 

 of the last

 & such circumstances as may indicate their character; 

 volcanic appearances; 

 climate as characterized by the thermometer, by the proportion of 

 rainy, cloudy

 & clear days, by lightening, hail, snow, ice, by the access & recess of 

 frost, by

 the winds, prevailing at different seasons, the dates at which particular 

 plants put forth lose their flowers, or leaf, times of appearance of 

 particular birds, reptiles or insects. 

Altho’ your route will be along the channel of the Missouri, yet you will 

endeavor to inform yourself, by inquiry, of the character and extent of 

the country watered by its branches, & especially on it’s Southern side. 

The North river or Rio Bravo which runs into the gulph of Mexico, and 

the North river, or Rio colorado which runs into the gulph of California, 

are understood to be the principal streams heading opposite to the waters 

of the Missouri, and running Southwardly. Whether the dividing grounds 

between the Missouri & them are mountains or flatlands, what are their 

distance from the Missouri, the character of the intermediate country, & 
74 

the people inhabiting it, are worthy of particular enquiry. The Northern 

waters of the Missouri are less to be enquired after, because they have 

been ascertained to a considerable degree, and are still in a course of 

ascertainment by English traders & travellers. But if you can learn 

anything certain of the most Northern source of the Mississippi, & of it’s 

position relative to the lake of the woods, it will be interesting to us. Some 

account too of the path of the Canadian traders from the Mississippi, at the 

mouth of the Ouisconsin river, to where it strikes the Missouri, and of the 

soil and rivers in it’s course, is desirable. 

In all your intercourse with the natives treat them in the most friendly 

& conciliatory manner which their own conduct will admit; allay all 

jealousies as to the object of your journey, satisfy them of it’s innocence, 

make them acquainted with the position, extent, character, peaceable & 

commercial dispositions of the U.S., of our wish to be neighborly, friendly 

& useful to them, & of our dispositions to a commercial intercourse 

with them; confer with them on the points most convenient as mutual 

emporiums, & the articles of most desirable interchange for them & us. 

If a few of their influential chiefs, within practicable distance, wish to 

visit us, arrange such a visit with them, and furnish them with authority 

to call on our officers, on their entering the U.S. to have them conveyed 

to this place at the public expense. If any of them should wish to have 

some of their young people brought up with us, & taught such arts as may 

be useful to them, we will receive, instruct & take care of them. Such a 

mission, whether of influential chiefs, or of young people, would give 

some security to your own party. Carry with you some matter of the kine 

pox, inform those of them with whom you may be, of it’s efficacy as a 

preservative from the small pox; and instruct & encourage them in the use 

of it. This may be especially done wherever you may winter. 

As it is impossible for us to foresee in what manner you will be received 

by those people, whether with hospitality or hostility, so is it impossible to 

prescribe the exact degree of perseverance with which you are to pursue 

your journey. We value too much the lives of citizens to offer them to 

probably destruction. Your numbers will be sufficient to secure you against 

the unauthorised opposition of individuals, or of small parties: but if a 

superior force, authorised or not authorised, by a nation, should be arrayed 

against your further passage, & inflexibly determined to arrest it, you must 

decline it’s further pursuit, and return. In the loss of yourselves, we should 

lose also the information you will have acquired. By returning safely with 

that, you may enable us to renew the essay with better calculated means. 
75

To your own discretion therefore must be left the degree of danger you 

may risk, & the point at which you should decline, only saying we wish 

you to err on the side of your safety, & to bring back your party safe, even 

if it be with less information. 

As far up the Missouri as the white settlements extend, an intercourse 

will probably be found to exist between them and the Spanish posts at 

St. Louis, opposite Cahokia, or Ste. Genevieve opposite Kaskaskia. From 

still farther up the river, the traders may furnish a conveyance for letters. 

Beyond that you may perhaps be able to engage Indians to bring letters 

for the government to Cahokia or Kaskaskia, on promising that they shall 

there receive such special compensation as you shall have stipulated with 

them. Avail yourself of these means to communicate to us, at seasonable 

intervals, a copy of your journal, notes & observations of every kind, 

putting into cypher whatever might do injury if betrayed. 

Should you reach the Pacific ocean, inform yourself of the circumstances 

which may decide whether the furs of those parts may not be collected 

as advantageously at the head of the Missouri (convenient as is supposed 

to the waters of the Colorado & Oregon or Columbia) as at Nootka 

sound or any other point of that coast; & that trade be consequently 

conducted through the Missouri & U.S. more beneficially than by the 

circumnavigation now practised. 

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. As you will be without money, clothes or 

provisions, you must endeavor to use the credit of the U.S. to obtain them; 

for which purpose open letters of credit shall be furnished you authorizing 

you to draw on the Executive of the U.S. or any of its officers in any part 

of the world, in which draughts can be disposed of, and to apply with 

our recommendations to the consuls, agents, merchants or citizens of any 

nation with which we have intercourse, assuring them in our name that any 

aids they may furnish you shall be honorably repaid, and on demand. Our 

consuls Thomas Howes at Batavia in Java, William Buchanan of the Isles 

of France and Bourbon, & John Elmslie at the Cape of Good Hope will be 

able to supply your necessities by draughts on us. 
76

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. 

In reentering the U.S. and reaching a place of safety, discharge any of your 

attendants who may desire & deserve it: procuring for them immediate 

paiment of all arrears of pay & cloathing which may have incurred since 

their departure and assure them that they shall be recommended to the 

liberality of the legislature for the grant of a souldier’s portion of land 

each, as proposed in my message to Congress: & repair yourself with your 

papers to the seat of government. 

To provide, on the accident of your death, against anarchy, dispersion & 

the consequent danger to your party, and total failure of the enterprise, you 

are hereby authorised, by any instrument signed & written in your own 

hand, to name the person among them who shall succeed to the command 

on your decease, & by like instruments to change the nomination from 

time to time, as further experience of the characters accompanying you 

shall point out superior fitness: and all the powers & authorities given 

to yourself are, in the event of your death, transferred to & vested in the 

successor so named, with further power to him, & his successors in like 

manner to name each his successor, who, on the death of his predecessor 

shall be invested with all the powers & authorities given to yourself. 

Given under my hand at the city of Washington, this 20th. day of June 1803. 

 Th: J. Pr. U.S. of A.1

Notes

1. Donald Jackson, ed., Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with Related Documents: 

1783-1854, 2 vols., 2nd ed (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), 1:61-66.
77

Appendix B

Lewis’ List of Requirements
78 
79
80 
81
82 
83

85

Appendix C

Items Obtained in Philadelphia
86 
87
88 
89
90
91

Appendix D

Rush’s Rules of Health*

Dr. Rush to Capt. Lewis for preserving his health. 

June 11. 1803.

 1. When you feel the least indisposition, do not attempt to overcome it by 

labour or marching. Rest in a horizontal posture. Also fasting and diluting 

drinks for a day or two will generally prevent an attack of fever. To these 

preventatives of disease may be added a gentle sweat obtained by warm 

drinks, or gently opening the bowels by means of one, two or more of the 

purging pills.

 2. Unusual costiveness is often a sign of approaching disease. When you 

feel it take one or more of the purging pills. 

 3. Want of appetite is likewise a sign of approaching indisposition. It 

should be obviated by the same remedy. 

 4. In difficult & laborious enterprises & marches, eating sparingly will 

enable you to bear them with less fatigue & less danger to your health. 

 5. Flannel should be worn constantly next to the skin, especially in wet 

weather. 

 6. The less spirit you use the better. After being wetted or much fatigued, 

or long exposed to the night air, it should be taken in an undiluted state. 

3 tablespoonfuls taken in this way will be more useful in preventing 

sickness, than half a pint mixed with water. 

 7. Molasses or sugar & water with a few drops of the acid of vitriol will 

make a pleasant & wholesome drink with your meals. 

 8. After having had your feet much chilled, it will be useful to wash them 

with a little spirit. 

 9. Washing the feet every morning in cold water, will conduce very much 

to fortify them against the action of cold. 

10. After long marches, or much fatigue from any cause, you will be more 

refreshed by lying down in a horizontal posture for two hours, than by 

resting a much longer time in any other position of the body. 

11. Shoes made without heels, by affording equal action to all the muscles 

of the legs, will enable you to march with less fatigue, than shoes made in 

the ordinary way.

*David J. Peck, Or Perish in the Attempt: Wilderness Medicine in the Lewis and 

Clark Expedition (Helena, MT: Farcountry Press, 2002), 50.

93

Appendix E

Rush’s Questions*

I. Physical History and Medicine

What are the acute diseases of the Indians? Is the bilious fever attended 

with a black vomit. 

Is Goiture, apoplexy, palsy, Epilepsy, madness . . . ven. Disease known among them? 

What is their state of life as to longevity? 

At what age do the women begin and cease to menstruate? 

At what age do they marry? How long do they suckle the Children? 

What is the provision of their Childrn. After being weaned? 

The state of the pulse as to frequency in the morning, at noon & at 

night-before & after eating? What is its state in childhood. Adult life, 

& old age? The number of strokes counted by the quarter of a minute 

by glass, and multiplied by four. Will give its frequency in a minute. 

What are their Remidies? 

Are artificial discharges of blood ever used among them? 

In what manner do they induce sweating? 

Do they ever use voluntary fasting? 

At what time do they rise-their Baths? 

What is the diet-manner of cooking & times of eating among the Indians? 

How do they preserve their food? 

II. Morals

1. What are their vices? 

2. Is Suicide common among them?-ever from love? 

3. Do they employ any substitute for ardent spirits to promote intoxication? 

4. Is murder common among them, & do they punish it with death? 

III. Religion

1. What Affinity between their religious Ceremonies & those of the 

Jews? 

2. Do they Use animal Sacrifices in their worship? 

3. What are the principal Objects of their worship? 

4. How do they dispose of their dead, and with what Ceremonies do they 

inter them? 

May 17, 1803 

B. Rush

*Excerpted from Eldon G. Chuinard, Only One Man Died: The Medical Aspects of 

the Lewis & Clark Expedition (Fairfield, WA: Ye Galleon Press, 1998), 151-52.

95

Appendix F

Medicines of the Lewis and Clark Expedition*

*Excerpted from David J. Peck, Or Perish in the Attempt: Wilderness Medicine in 

the Lewis and Clark Expedition (Helena, MT: Farcountry Press, 2002), 321-24.

Pharmaceutical Terms

Analgesics. Drugs that produce pain relief. 

Astringents. Drugs that harden or contract tissues. 

Carminatives. Drugs that produce a feeling of comfort in the stomach and 

intestines and relieve the formation of gas. 

Cathartic. Acts on the intestines to stimulate bowel movements. 

Counterirritants. Drugs that act on the skin causing redness. They 

were believed to relieve inflammation in remote organs or tissues. By 

acting on the nerve endings in the skin they also relieve pain in remote 

organs. 

Dermatitis. Inflammation of the skin. 

Diaphoretics. Drugs that produce perspiration. 

Diuretics. Drugs that increase the production of urine in the kidneys. 

Emetics. Drugs that produce vomiting. 

Emollients. Drugs that soften and protect the skin. 

Lavage. The act of washing a tissue with some solution. 

Purgatives. Drugs that stimulate bowel movements, same as cathartic. 

Poultices. Drugs that were applied to the skin to relieve pain or to dilate 

blood vessels on the skin, functioning as a counterirritant. 

Resins. Thick, sticky chemicals from the sap of various trees; many were 

dissolved in alcohol. 

Stimulants. Drugs that stimulate the patient, causing an increased level of 

consciousness, activity. 

Tinctures. Drugs mixed in an alcoholic solution. 

Tonics. Drugs that were thought to increase vigor and health.

Lewis & Clark’s Medicine Chest

Assafoetic. Ill smelling (similar to garlic) Indian spice, used as a 

carminative to lessen abdominal distention, abdominal cramping. No 

documented use during the expedition. 

Balsam copaiba. An oily, resinous substance from the South American 

leguminous tree, genus Copaifera, containing benzoic or cinnamic acid. 

Probably used as a carminative, diuretic, or orally as a treatment for 
96 

gonorrhea. It is possible that this was also used in solution to lavage the 

penile urethra with a penile syringe in treatment of gonorrhea. It can also 

be used to treat contact dermatitis. 

Balsamum traumaticum. This substance contains benzoin (a thickened sap 

from the Peruvian tree Styrax benzoini), aloes, and balsam of tolu, from 

the plant Myroxylon bal-samum (a sticky reddish substance that dissolves 

in alcohol but not in water). Likely used to treat respiratory problems by 

increasing respiratory secretions, and in inflammations of the nose, throat, 

and bronchi. 

Calamine ointment. Mixture of zinc oxide and ferric oxide, used as an 

ointment to reduce skin irritations. 

Calomel. Mercurous chloride, used principally as a purgative. Increases 

bile duct secretion producing dark stools; also a diuretic; given orally, has 

an anti-syphilitic action; ingredient of Dr. Rush’s Bilious Pills. 

Cream of tartar. Derived from the juice of grapes and deposited in wine 

casks together with yeast, a purgative. 

Dr. Rush’s Bilious Pills. A potent combination of calomel and jalap. 

Used for many ills during the expedition. Lewis bought 50 dozen of 

them to take along. 

Epispastric ointment. Used to produce blisters on the skin to act as a 

counterirritant, which was thought to withdraw fluid from deeper tissue 

into the blister, thus competing with tissue excitability elsewhere. The 

active substance is a cantharide, obtained from dried beetles found in 

various temperate climates, especially in Spain and Italy. 

Glauber’s salts. Sodium sulfate, a saline cathartic. 

Gum camphor. When taken internally it is a stimulant and diaphoretic. 

Obtained from the camphor tree, Cinnamomum camphora, a large 

evergreen of the laurel family. Also used on skin diseases as a 

counterirritant, which causes mild skin irritation, a feeling of warmth, and 

analgesia for aches and pains. 

Ipecacuan. From the roots of the Brazilian tree Cephaelis ipecacuanaha. A 

favorite of producing emesis, used sparingly on the expedition. 

Jalap. A drastic cathartic obtained from the Mexican vine Exogonium 

jalapa. Among the ingredients of Dr. Rush’s “Thunderclapper” pills. 

Laudanum. Tincture of opium, about a 10 percent opium solution. First 

concocted in 1510. 

Magnesia. A cathartic magnesium salt. 

Mercury ointment. The mainstay of syphilis treatment. Applied directly to 

the lesion and other areas of the body. The patient was often treated until 

they showed signs of mercury poisoning such as excessive salivation or 

sore gums. 
97

Nutmeg, cloves, and cinnamon. Used to flavor foul-tasting medicines as 

well as lessen the cramping action of cathartics. 

Peruvian bark. The corps took more of this than any other medicine, 15 

pounds in the powdered form. Obtained from the genus Cinchona, a tree 

of Peru; used as a tonic and in many concoctions for fever, snakebites, 

abdominal pain, and just about anything else. Contains quinine, which was 

effective against “ague” or malaria. 

Rhubarb. A purgative, cathartic (powdered). 

Sugar of lead. Lead acetate, used in eye washes. On the return trip, the 

captains traded medical services, especially this treatment, with Indians of 

the Columbia River drainage. 

Tartar emetic. An antimony-potassium compound, with a sweet, metallic 

taste, which produces vomiting. 

Tragacanth. A gummy exudate from the plant Astragalum gummifor, a 

non-greasy lubricant used in lotions, emollients. 

Turkish opium. Obtained from immature capsules of the opium 

poppy, Papaver somniferum, used to relieve pain, and as a sedative 

to lessen nervous excitability. Mixed with alcohol to make 

laudanum. 

White vitriol. Zinc sulfate, used with lead acetate in the captains’ eyewash. 

The corps carried only 4 ounces. 

Wine (30 gallons) and whiskey. Medicinal (of course!), following Dr. 

Rush’s prescription. The expedition ran out of whiskey on the Fourth of 

July 1805. 

Instruments and Other Supplies

Best lancets (3). Used to cut open a vein and get rid of blood. 

Clyster syringe (1). A large syringe used to administer enemas. 

“Emplast. Diach. S.” Lead oleate, a plaster of lead probably used as a 

casting material, or to apply to the skin after it was spread with medication 

on muslin or leather. 

Penis syringes ( 4 ). Likely to administer penile lavages of balsam of 

copaiba to treat gonorrhea. The journals do not mention the use of these 

items. 

Pocket instruments. Likely small surgical instruments. 

Teeth instruments. Dental instruments. 

Tourniquet (1) 

Patent lint. Used to pack wounds, especially Captain Lewis’ gunshot in 

the buttocks.

Various canisters, tincture bottles, all stored in a walnut chest and a pine 

chest.

99

Appendix G

Roster of Personnel
100 
101
102
103

Appendix H

Supplies Obtained in St. Louis and Final Inventory
104
105

Appendix I

Cache Detail
106 
107

109

Bibliography

Books 

Ambrose, Stephen E. Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, 

and the Opening of the American West. New York: Simon and Schuster, 

1997.

Clarke, Charles G. The Men of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: A Biographical 

Roster of the Fifty-One Members and a Composite Diary of Their Activities 

from All Known Sources. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

Chuinard, Eldon G. Only One Man Died: The Medical Aspects of the Lewis & 

Clark Expedition. Fairfield, WA: Ye Galleon Press, 1998.

Collinder, Per. A History of Maritime Navigation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 

1955.

Coues, Elliot, ed. The History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. 3 Vols. New 

York: Francis P. Harper, 1883; Reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 

1950.

Flayderman, Norm. Flayderman’s Guide to Antique American Firearms and 

Their Values. Northbrook, IL: DBI Books, 1994. 

Gibson, Edmond A. Basic Seamanship and Navigation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 

1951.

Heitman, Francis B. Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States 

Army, From Its Organization, September 29, 1789, to March 2, 1903. 2 Vols. 

Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965.

Hicks, James E. U.S. Military Firearms 1776-1956. La Canada, CA: James E. 

Hicks & Son, 1962.

Jackson, Donald, ed. Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with Related 

Documents: 1783-1854. 2 Vols. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 

1978.

MacGregor, Carol L., ed. The Journals of Patrick Gass: Member of the Lewis 

and Clark Expedition. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 

1997.

Moulton, Gary E., ed. The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark. 11 Vols. 

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002-2003. 

Peck, David J. Or Perish in the Attempt: Wilderness Medicine in the Lewis and 

Clark Expedition. Helena, MT: Farcountry Press, 2002.

Ronda, James P. Lewis and Clark Among the Indians. Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press, 1984.
110 

Russell, Carl P. Guns On The Early Frontiers: A History of Firearms From 

Colonial Times Through The Years of the Western Fur Trade. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press, 1957.

Schmidt, Milton O. Fundamentals of Surveying. Urbana: University of Illinois 

Press, 1969.

Smith, Merritt R. Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology, The Challenge 

of Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1977. 

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. 

8 Vols. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1904; New York: DSI Digital 

Reproduction, 2001.

Periodicals

Boss, Richard C. “Keelboat, Pirogue, and Canoe: Vessels Used by the Lewis and 

Clark Corps of Discovery.” Nautical Research Journal (June 1999), 68-87.

Chuinard, Eldon G. “Where Did the Lewis and Clark Expedition Start?” We 

Proceeded On 8 (May 1982), 14-17.

Cutright, Paul R. “Contributions of Philadelphia to Lewis and Clark History.” We 

Proceeded On, supplementary publication no. 6 (June 2000), 1-44.

Foley, William. “The Lewis and Clark Expedition’s Silent Partners: The Chouteau 

Brothers of St. Louis.” Missouri Historical Review, (Spring 1983), 131-46.

Jeffrey, Joseph D. “Meriwether Lewis at Harpers Ferry.” We Proceeded On 20 

(November 1994), 14-21.

Lankiewicz, Donald P. “The Camp on the Wood River: A Winter of Preparation 

for the Lewis and Clark Expedition.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical 

Society 75, no. 2 (1982), 115-20.

Large, Arlen J. “Additions to the Party: How the Expedition Grew and Grew.” We 

Proceeded On 16 (February 1990), 4-11.

Olson, Kirk. “A Lewis and Clark Rifle?” American Rifleman (May 1985), 23-25, 

66-68.

Ronda, James P. “Exploring the Explorers: Great Plains Peoples and the Lewis and 

Clark Expedition.” Great Plains Quarterly 13, no. 2 (1993), 81-90.

_____. “‘A Knowledge of Distant Parts’ The Shaping of the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition.” Montana The Magazine of Western History (Autumn 1991), 

4-19.

Steele, Volney. “Lewis and Clark: Military Explorers, Scientists, and 

Physicians.” Military History of the West 31, no. 1 (2001), 51-65.
111

Will, Drake W. “The Medical and Surgical Practice of the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 14, no. 

3 (1959), 273-97.

Woolworth, Alan R. “New Light on Fort Mandan: A Wintering Post of the Lewis 

and Clark Expedition to the Pacific.” North Dakota History 55, no. 3 (1988), 

3-14.

Other Sources

Allie, Stephen J. “The Uniforms of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.” Frontier 

Army Museum. Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2002.

Ifland, Peter. “The History of the Sextant.”Article available on-line. http://

www.mat.uc. pt/~helios/Mestre/Novemb00/H61iflan.htm. Internet. Accessed 

1 February 2003.

113

About the Author:

Major Donald L. Carr is the Chief of Logistics Readiness for Joint 

Interagency Task Force South located in Key West, Florida. He holds an 

M.M.A.S. (Military History) from the US Army Command and General 

Staff College and a B.A. degree in European History from the State 

University of New York at Albany.