What Does It Mean?

Interpreting this journal page is a difficult task. This vote has long been heralded as a great moment in the early history of the United States as a democratic nation because of the inclusion of a foreign-born person, a woman and an African-American. Take a moment to review the document and decide for yourself what of this interpretation is true.

Look at the final tally on the journal page. Clark records six votes for returning to Celilo Falls, 10 for going upriver to Sandy River and 12 for heading up the Columbia to look for a suitable site. His list, however, shows that only nine people were in favor of going to Sandy River while 13 wanted to go “up” and “lookout." Clearly, this error did not alter the outcome of the vote but it does make one wonder!

Twenty-nine people are listed in the vote, including two French-Canadian fur traders and York, Clark’s black slave. Only 28 of these votes are counted. One of the French-Canadian fur traders, Toussaint Charbonneau, is listed but does not appear to have voted. Did he choose to abstain, or was he not counted?

Did Sacagawea really vote? She is not listed with the rest of the party on the tally. A postscript records that “Janey,” or Sacagawea, favored a place near “plenty of Potas,” or wapato. In all the cultures of the Columbia River country, women were responsible for gathering roots. Often, when other sources of food failed, dried roots provided sustenance for the people. It is not surprising that this was Sacagawea’s priority.

This postscript also reveals a trait in this young Shoshone woman that is later demonstrated in January of 1806, when she insists upon accompanying a group of men to see a whale on the beach. In both instances, Sacagawea expresses her opinion and is given recognition by the captains. She is not listed with the rest of the party in this vote, nor recorded in the final tally. However, Clark’s note shows us that her opinion was heard and acknowledged.

Two other interesting omissions in the list of names are those of Lewis and Clark themselves. This brings up another question regarding the role that they played in this “democracy.” We know that Lewis and Clark had strong opinions regarding this decision, as expressed in their commentary following the tally of the vote. However, they did not put themselves alongside their party members in this vote. Is this because they didn’t feel it necessary because there was a clear consensus to “cross and examine,” or had they already decided that their votes would overrule the popular vote anyway? The captains did not share their thoughts with us about this and so we are left to put the pieces together as best we can.

Historian Dayton Duncan (2001) points out the excellence in leadership strategy that may have been behind the decision to conduct a vote when no vote was officially required. Lewis and Clark were well aware of the state of mind in their party at this time. Weary from travel, hungry, cold and far from home, they rejoiced at having reached the ocean, but were in no mood to spend a winter in a disagreeable location. The morale of the Expedition as well as its survival depended on the choice at hand. The captains, though tending towards moving on to the coast, knew that the decision to do so would only be well received, and perhaps ultimately successful, if it was made by the group as a whole.