Student Life Archives

ÿ

Lara Marks

Prof. David Konig

Hewlett Final Paper

May 3, 1999

A Preface to the “Second Edition” of

Stephen Ambrose’s Undaunted Courage

ÿ

When the phrase “history book” comes to mind, what do you think of?ÿ Something boring and long. At the same time, a history book is something accurate, something that is going to teach you, in great, accurate detail about the period of history that you are reading.ÿ Stephen E. Ambrose’s Undaunted Courage is not a history book. It is an adventure tale – full of dramatic, exciting events, amazing descriptions and life-or-death situations.ÿ For the most part, Undaunted Courage is historically accurate.ÿ But Undaunted Courage cannot be viewed as the end-all, be-all of Lewis and Clark scholarship.ÿ Ambrose is a twentieth-century historian appealing to a modern, twentieth-century audience. This book is meant to appeal to the Barnes and Noble shopper, the teenager with the short attention span, the American in love with America and its heroes, and the person looking to learn a bit about history in an entertaining way. Ambrose’s historical society and his book are products of today’s American media-centered culture.

It is entirely acceptable that Ambrose did not write a history book. It is unacceptable that he neglected to inform his readers that they were not reading a history book. A disclaimer, similar to ones in other secondary sources on Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, is needed.ÿ For example, in the preface to his revised edition of the Lewis and Clark journals, Bernard DeVoto begins by stating that, “This condensation of the Lewis and Clark journals cannot be used instead of the original edition for the purposes of scholarship. It has been edited for the general reader.”^[1] Stephen Ambrose’s adventure story rendering of Lewis and Clark’s voyage, Undaunted Courage requires a similar disclaimer.

This preface will act as a disclaimer in many senses of the term. It will explain Ambrose’s deep personal connection to Meriwether Lewis, and how Ambrose can go so far as to write as if Lewis is a brother or best friend.ÿ It will also explore the inaccuracies and exaggerations that either Ambrose’s excitement or laziness blinded him to. The question will remain as to why did Ambrose not see a disclaimer to his own book necessary when even he, in his own forward to DeVoto’s book said “[DeVoto] was right” to open with a disclaimer.^[2]

Undaunted Courage is not a book that was written to be above all things accurate or present a definitive account of Lewis and Clark’s expedition. Ambrose wrote Undaunted Courage to be a bestseller, for the general reader, to play like a movie.ÿ “Overall, Ambrose gets it right and he knows how to reach a larger audience.”^[3] Ambrose uses romanticism, American ideals, a bit of fudging of history, and clever literary techniques to create dramatic, history-changing cliffhangers.

In the preface to James P. Ronda’s book, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, Ronda also has a disclaimer about his work. He states that, “This book is not a retelling of the familiar Lewis and Clark adventure. That story has been told with grace and skill by Bernard DeVoto and in the magnificent photographs of Ingvard Eide and David Muench.”^[4] Ambrose, however, makes no such disclaimer at the start of Undaunted Courage. He believes that he has accurately related the expedition. It is retold in a new way, but includes his own biases, loves, and romanticized views of his American heroes.ÿ

“Ambrose’s most useful contributions precede and follow the expedition narrative.”^[5] While Ambrose draws heavily upon other accounts of Lewis and Clark’s voyage, he offers little new to Lewis and Clark scholarship.ÿ He successfully places Lewis and Clark in a larger historical context, however, the “historical context” section of the book, the beginning and end, are relatively dry and boring compared to the excitement of which Ambrose practically screams to his reader during the actual expedition.ÿ He recites the beginning and the end to Lewis’s life and an idea of what America was like during the 1800’s. While this information is not new to a learned historian, it is new to his audience.ÿ While Ambrose offers no great new knowledge in regards to the realm of Lewis and Clark scholarship, he offers to Lewis and Clark scholarship a new audience, eager to learn more about Lewis and Clark and their time. He is able to get a new type of person interested in American history and the study of Lewis and Clark’s voyage. Ambrose is teaching his own version of history, history from the bestseller’s list.ÿ Ambrose’s audience of quasi-historians does not demand historical accuracy or an unbiased viewpoint, but excitement and energy and expects their stereotypes and preconceptions of the West to come alive. Sentences such asÿ “It was always cold. Often brutally cold, sometimes so cold a man’s penis would freeze if he wasn’t quick about it,” wouldn’t have made it through the first draft of a real history book.^[6]

Stephen Ambrose is deeply involved, on a personal level, in the story of Lewis and Clark. His emotional attachment appeals in his retelling of the expedition as evidenced in the introduction to Undaunted Courage.^[7] He describes how he has camped along the Lewis and Clark trail and how much of the story he is about to tell has affected his whole family. At some points he seems almost in love with Meriwether Lewis, writing, “I would want Meriwether Lewis for my leader.”^[8]

Ambrose makes his own personal heroes the heroes responsible for modern America. He takes Meriwether Lewis out of history, makes him famous, and makes him a hero. In an editorial that appeared in The Denver Post, he wrote of himself and his search for heroes: “I am an unabashed triumphalist. I believe that this is the best and greatest country that ever was. But this country became the best and greatest country that ever was not by accident. This wasn’t foreordained. God had nothing to do with it. It was people that made it and especially heroes.”^[9]

A bias such as being an “unabashed triumphalist” affects nearly all of Ambrose’s writing because he approaches a historical personage not with a critical eye, but with rose-colored glasses on, perhaps thinking to himself, “How can I make this person into the next American hero?” “Lewis, Clark, and their fellow travelers did indeed perform an extraordinary feat,” However, “The historian’s challenge is to explain and contextualize their success.”^[10]ÿ Ambrose approaches history and Lewis and Clark expedition from a twentieth-century point of view. He pulls Lewis and Clark out of their time and drags their lives and their stories through a magic time warp.ÿ

ÿTo Ambrose, any man or woman who could have helped, even in the least bit, make America what it is today is a hero. Ambrose has written other bestsellers before Undaunted Courage: books on the men of D-Day, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon, always “in search of American heroes.”^[11]ÿ Why must every man be a hero or a villain? A columnist, reacting to Ambrose’s approach to history, wrote that, “We can transform the noun ‘hero’ into adjective ‘heroic’’ and then direct the public attention to the appreciation ofÿ heroic moments rather than to the fruitless pursuit of pure and consistent heroes.”^[12]ÿ

Lewis and Clark probably didn’t think of themselves as heroes that were making history, as Ambrose refers to them so often as doing. Ambrose nearly defines Lewis and Clark, not to mention, Thomas Jefferson, as perfect nineteenth-century renaissance men.ÿ Ambrose does not even seem to realize that he does this.ÿ He does not deal with the issue of heroism and history head-on. Speculating about the meeting of Lewis, Clark, and Jefferson, Ambrose writes, “These were the two would-be heroes with the authentic older hero, all three Virginians, all three soldiers, all three Republicans, all three great talkers. . .”^[13] Ambrose would have one think that these three men had in mind everything they were going to do and the fact that they had America’s future in their hands. In reality, these three men were just men, acting for themselves and in the jobs that they had chosen for themselves.

Oftentimes, Ambrose’s love for a good story pushes him towards hyperbole and exaggeration.^[14] An example of his unbridled enthusiasm: “It was a dramatic moment. Had Lewis cried ‘Fire!’ and touched his lighted taper to the fuse of the swivel gun, the whole history of North America might have changed.”^[15] Nothing, and this merits repeating, nothing, that occurred on the Lewis and Clark expedition could have altered the entire history of North America.ÿ Ambrose is being overly dramatic, extremely simplistic, and not portraying this scene in a realistic light.

If Ambrose contributes very little to the study of Lewis and Clark, what sort of research did he do? He tends to rely heavily on the works of others and their secondary sources.ÿÿ He does give credit to the Lewis and Clark scholars, and actually incorporates their books and works into the overall picture of Lewis and Clark’s history. He writes, “Biddle, Thwaites, Jackson, and Moulton make the rock on which all Lewis and Clark scholarship stands.”^[16] On one page, Ambrose seems to be thanking these men for what they have done to promote Lewis and Clark’s story, but on the next page, it could be said that Ambrose is blatantly plagiarizing the same sources.ÿ What follows are some examples of this too-close-for-comfort paraphrasing:

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Malone: “In a country without large settlements and where plantation seats were far apart, riding was not a matter of occasional diversion but of necessity, and good horsemanship was taken for granted among the gentry.”^[17]

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Ambrose: “In a country of vast estates, without cities or public transportation of any kind, with plantation seats far apart, riding was not a matter of sport or diversion but of necessity, Planters spent much if not most of every working day on the back of a horse. Good horsemanship was taken for granted among the gentry.”^[18]

ÿ

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Jackson: “Instead, his job involved long hours at the writing desk, performing menial tasks. For example, he drew up a list of all U.S. Postmasters, with their locations and compensation, totaling twenty pages.”^[19]

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Ambrose: “Beyond his active role in the reduction of the army, Lewis’s duties were varied and not particularly exciting.ÿ He spent long hours at the writing desk, performing menial tasks, such as drawing up a list of all U.S. postmasters, with their locations and compensation, as total of twenty pages.” ^[20]

ÿ

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Jackson: “A band of Sauks, say, rode twice a year through a tract as big as a couple of eastern states and claimed it as their own.”^[21]

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Ambrose: “A band of Sauks rode twice a year through a territory as big as an eastern state and claimed it as their own.”^[22]

ÿ

A historian is supposed to be credible, believable, trustworthy. What kind of historian is Ambrose if he makes this kind of mistake – or blatantly plagiarizes others’ work?ÿ For some readers, the knowledge that Ambrose does this could make some readers not want to read or buy his book. What does what Ambrose has done make historians think of him?

The discrepancies between Lewis and Clark’s original journal entries and Ambrose’s retelling is rather interesting.ÿ Why would Ambrose choose to obviously change the wording of an original source?

The Buffalo Dance:

ÿ

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ The Moulton Journals:ÿ “. . . the young men who have their wives back of the circle go to one of the old men with a whining tone and request the old man to take his wife (who presents [herself] necked except a robe) and – (or sleeps with him) The Girl then takes the Old man (who verry often can Scercely walk) and leades him to a convenient place for the business, after which they return to the lodge.”^[23]

úÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Ambrose: “As the drumbeat became more insistent and the chanting swelled, one of the youngsters would approach an old man and beg him to take his wife, who in her turn would appear naked before the elder. She would lead him by the hand – and but let Clark tell it, as only he can: “he Girl then takes the Old man (who verry often can Screcely walk) and leades him to a Convenient place for the business, after which they return to the lodge.”^[24]

ÿ

Ambrose wants to make it seem as if all the Indians were stereotypical. He is playing into “conventional wisdom,” and giving his audience a twisted version of the truth that he thinks they want because it present Indians as naked savages and dirty sexual beasts. Again, Ambrose is a twentieth-century historian appealing to a twentieth century audience. Only he would change what actually is history to make a point and to entertain.

Only once does Ambrose suggest to readers to go to the journals for the real, unbiased story. “The richness of detail can only be hinted at here; interested readers are urged to go to the original journals for the full account.”^[25] We can wonder if Ambrose practiced what he preached. Although Ambrose gives credit to his sources (despite “paraphrasing” them),ÿ he never really gives his most important source the credit he deserves: William Clark.ÿ Lewis is the star of Ambrose’s book, but it was not Lewis that got the handwritten journals to the presses. The credit for their publication goes to Clark. Ambrose treats Lewis’s failure in this respect as an unexplainable, unimaginable catastrophe. But he never does thank Clark for his contributions. Ambrose does give an explanation for his lack of attention to Clark, the fact that James Ronda is writing a biography of William Clark, but still one thank you to Clark isn’t too much to ask.

Compare Ambrose’s statement, “Official Washington meanwhile, wanted to honor the captains in a more immediate way, that would allow the politicians to be seen with and talk to the young heroes,” (Ambrose 422) with the National Intelligencer’s announcement of Lewis’s return.

“We have the high satisfaction of informing our readers of the arrival of captain MERIWETHER LEWIS at this place: after an absentee of nearly three years and a half, which have been extensively and actively employed in exploring the western country under the direction of the President of the U.S. Having already stated an outline of the route pursued by Capt. Lewis and his party, we shall wave at present any for their notice of the subject, under the expedition of being soon [favored?] with an ampler detail of his labors. At a meeting of a number of Citizens of Washington,ÿÿ Robert Benet, Esquire, in the chair, it was determined to give a public DINNER to Capt. MERIWETHER LEWIS, evincive of the high sense and affection esteem they entertain for him.”^[26]

ÿ

Ambrose romanticizes everything that Lewis and Clark did, insisting that despite the mistakes that they made, they did everything right, in essence, that they were heroes. “Although written in haste, with critical material missing, it was a model of how to write a report that disposes of the bad news first, then draws attention to the good.”^[27] “Lewis’s suicide has hurt his reputation.”^[28] Only a modern-day historian would be concerned with a historical character’s reputation.

What is also disconcerting is that there would be so many inaccuracies in Ambrose’s version of events. “It’s misleading to say L&C found the way across the continent, or discovered the West, because it was explored and rediscovered over and over again.”^[29] Ambrose also presents, incorrectly, Thomas Jefferson as a land hungry proponent of manifest destiny. “Jefferson wanted land. He wanted empire.”^[30] But in reality,

“First, Jefferson was not simply seized by power hungry impulses once he assumed the presidency, since in a broad range of other areas he exhibited considerable discipline . . .For Jefferson more than any other major figure in the revolutionary generation, the West was America’s future.”^[31]

ÿ

A lot of Ambrose’s stretches of the truth are related to his attempts to appeal to a broad, modern audience with short attention spans. There is a great influence of today’s mind set. Ambrose knows what will catch people’s attention, and he plugs that for all it is worth. His job as historian is to explain and contextualize people’s successes. Ambrose doesn’t do this, especially at the end of the book when he refers to Lewis as famous, as being a part of history. “The captains held a public auction in which they sold off the public items that had survived their voyage. . . this was a dreadful disgrace.ÿ The artifacts should have been preserved as public treasures rather than sold for a pittance”^[32] Lewis and Clark, in their time, were not heroes, nor yet a part of history, but in Ambrose’s book, one cannot get away from his insistence that Lewis and Clark made history. Only once does he try to put Lewis and Clark directly into the context of their time. Still, here he draws the reader into today.ÿ “In the context of the day, Lewis was an unusually capable naturalist, one with an attitude more consistent with scientists of the twentieth century than with those of his own.”^[33]

Another style of Ambrose’s that results from his emphasis on presentism is how dramatic everything is. Every situation is life or death, fail or succeed. Ambrose writes once, “That sentence linked the continent.”^[34] Also, Ambrose very willingly proclaims everything a “first.” Every action is either the first of a white man, the first west of the Mississippi, or the first of an American.ÿ Some of the “funniest” examples and the ones that most represent Ambrose’s perspective that he takes: “That was the first entry in what became the journals of Lewis and Clark.”^[35] “This was the first election ever held west of the Mississippi.”^[36] “That evening, the first Americans ever to enter Montana, the first ever to see the Yellowstone, the Milk, the Marias, and the Great Falls, the first Americans ever to kill a grizzly, celebrated their nation’s twenty-ninth birthday.”^[37] “This was the first vote ever held in the Pacific Northwest. It was the first time in American history that a black slave had voted, the first time a woman had voted.”^[38] Did Indians never vote?

Ambrose’s main problem is that he tries to do too much. He wants to write a biography of Lewis, a background of Jefferson and of the day, a description of the West, an adventure story, a personal essay, and a military analysis.ÿ It’s hard to criticize Ambrose’s book as a type of book, because it tries to be so many things. As a work of historical fiction, as a personal essay, and as a military analysis it’s decent. A work of history it is not. So I’d like to say that it does a good job for what it wants to be, but honestly, we can’t tell what it’s supposed to be.ÿ

He does leave many questions unanswered, like what becomes of Clark, the other men, and Sacagawea. But the important questions that we are left with is: What advances knowledge more – Stephen Ambrose’s Undaunted Courage or the hard to read, often boring, lengthy journals? One excited a nation and leapt to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. The other lays, collecting dust on the bottom rack of a bookshelf in the corner of Barnes and Noble.

Bibliography

ÿ

—– ÿNational Intelligencer. 31 Dec. 1806.

ÿ

Ambrose, Stephen E. “Perfection isn’t a requirement” The Denver Post. 7 June 1998

ÿ

Ambrose, Stephen E. Undaunted Courage.ÿ New York: Touchstone.1996.

ÿ

Eckberg, Scott B. Journal of the Early Republic, 16 (Winter 1996): 4.

ÿ

DeVoto, Bernard, ed. The Journals of Lewis and Clark. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981.

ÿ

Ellis, Joseph J. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1997.

ÿ

Foley, William F. Missouri Historical review.ÿ 91.3 (1997): 347-8

ÿ

Furtwangler, Albert. Journal of American History, 83 (December 1996): 1007.

ÿ

Goetzmann, William H. Pacific Historical Review.ÿ 66.4 (1997): 588-9

ÿ

Hallock, Thomas. “Cataloguing Discovery” Virginia Quarterly Review 73.1 (1997): 183 -188.

ÿ

Jackson, Donald. Ed., Thomas Jefferson and the Stony Mountains; Exploring the West from ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Monticello.ÿ Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981.

ÿ

Lamar, Howard.ÿ “The search for American Heroes” The Yale Review. 85 (October 1997): 146

ÿ

Limerick, Patricia Nelson “Measure by heroic moments”ÿÿ The Denver Post. 7 June 1998

ÿ

Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time, vol. 1: Jefferson the Virginian Boston: Little, Brown, 1948.

ÿ

McCleskey, Turk. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 105 (Autumn 1997): 475.

ÿ

ÿ

Moulton, Gary E., ed. The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. 1983. v. 3

ÿ

Ronda, James P. Lewis and Clark among the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1984

ÿ

Viola, Herman J. William and Mary Quarterly, 44 (January 1977): 273.

ÿ

This entry was posted on Friday, January 25th, 2002 at 12:00 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.