Introduction
The fur change on the Upper Missouri River 1823 marked a required length in American history, where financial interests clashed with indigenous populations. The expedition, led with the aid of General William Ashley and Major Andrew Henry, and sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, embarked with the intention of peaceable trade with Native American agencies alongside the Missouri River. However, the expedition ended in violence and conflict. This essay targets to discover the underlying elements that contributed to the expedition’s violent outcome, considering the position of the British presence, management deficiencies, cultural misunderstandings, federal authority’s policies, and the attitudes and outlooks of the expedition members. By examining primary source materials from Appendix A, we can attain insights into the complexities of the fur exchange and the dynamics between the American expedition and Native American businesses during this period.
The Role of the British Presence
The presence of British fur traders, specifically the Hudson’s Bay Company, had an extensive impact on the violent result of the expedition. British merchants had mounted profitable operations in the North American wilderness for over a century, regularly disregarding territorial boundaries. As Secretary of War John C. Calhoun notes in his letter to William Clark, “I beg to leave early to study that it is to be lamented that our army posts could not have been prolonged to the Yellow Stone river certainly it has been decidedly my opinion that an exhibit of troops in that top country, would have a very proper impact in securing, our pleasant relations with the Indians, and producing beneficial assessments on British Traders in that quarter.”[1] This British presence not solely posed a chance to American merchants but also complex relations with Native American tribes in the area. The British North West Traders had recently set up a trading residence close to the Missouri River, encroaching on the territory claimed by the United States. The proximity of the British trading put up to the Mandan tribe, as highlighted by Clark, heightened tensions and probably influenced the conduct of the expedition members. The opposition to fur resources, mixed with the historic contention between the British and Americans, created an unstable environment that contributed to the violent consequence of the expedition.
Leadership Deficiencies of General Ashley
The leadership deficiencies of General William Ashley also played a role in the violent end of the expedition. Despite the using pressure behind the mission, Ashley’s lack of high-quality management and strategic planning undermined the goal of peaceful trade. In his letter to a gentleman in Franklin, Missouri, Ashley acknowledges the expedition’s confrontations with the Arikara Indians. According to Ashley, “I consequently used all the precaution in my energy for some days earlier than I reached their towns; not one of them, however, did I see till my arrival there on May 30, when my boats have been anchored about the center of the river.”[2] This highlights the ill-fated come upon that resulted in the death of two Indians. At the same time, Ashley took prudent measures such as buying horses and trying to enhance family members with Native American chiefs; his incapacity to implement discipline amongst his men and ensure their adherence to his orders proved detrimental. The panic and refusal of the boatmen to weigh anchors and cross ashore when attacked by the Arikara Indians compromised the expedition’s safety and escalated the violence.
Cultural Misunderstandings and Rickaree Grievances
Cultural misunderstandings and grievances from the Rickaree Indians additionally contributed to the expedition’s violent outcome. In his letter to John C. Calhoun, Ashley describes the habits of the Rickaree Indians during the preceding wintry weather as showing an adverse disposition towards Americans. This suggests that underlying tensions and grievances existed before the expedition’s arrival. The request made by the Rickaree chief for Ashley to visit him shows a chance for peaceful dialogue. However, the subsequent killing of Aaron Stephens, one of Ashley’s men, and the assault on the boats display a breakdown in conversation and a misunderstanding of intentions. It is viable that the Rickaree Indians, fueled by previous conflicts or perceived threats, misinterpreted the expedition’s presence and reacted violently as a protection measure. Cultural and linguistic barriers, compounded by previous grievances, hindered the establishment of peaceful exchange and eventually led to tragic outcomes.
Attitudes and Outlooks of the Expedition Members
The expedition members’ attitudes and outlooks performed a significant function in the damaging effect of the mission. The Missouri River fur exchange lured people seeking adventure and wealth, frequently characterized by a rugged and unbiased spirit. This mindset, mixed with the harsh prerequisites and risks of the frontier, probably formed the conduct of the expedition members. The Missouri Republican’s account of the expedition’s departure highlighted the spirit of organization and the expectation of success. According to the Missouri Republican, “They have started out to join the institution commenced by that gentleman closing year, above the mouth of the Yellow Stone, for the functions of looking and trapping.”[3] However, when confronted with unexpected violence from the Arikara Indians, the boatmen exhibited panic and a lack of courage. This response established the individualistic attitudes and lack of cohesion amongst the excursion members, contributing to their vulnerability and incapability to respond efficiently to the situation. Ashley’s efforts to force discipline and execute orders have been met with resistance, as the guys refused to weigh anchors and cross ashore to a safer position.
In conclusion, the violent stop of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company’s expedition on the Upper Missouri River in 1823 can be attributed to an aggregate of factors. The presence of British fur traders, management deficiencies of General Ashley, cultural misunderstandings and grievances from the Rickaree Indians, and the expedition participants’ attitudes and outlooks all played a role in the expedition’s violent outcome. The opposition and tensions created through the presence of British fur merchants in the area set the stage for conflict. General Ashley’s lack of high-quality management and strategic planning undermined the mission’s goal of peaceable exchange and left the expedition susceptible to attack. Cultural misunderstandings and grievances from the Rickaree Indians similarly escalated the violence, as previous conflicts and perceived threats influenced their adversarial disposition. The individualistic attitudes and lack of concord amongst the excursion individuals hindered their potential to respond effectively, exposing them to danger.
By severely inspecting the essential sources from Appendix A, we attain insights into the complexities and dynamics of the fur alternate on the Upper Missouri River in the 1820s. By examining these sources, we can collectively piece together an extra nuanced appreciation of why the expedition ended violently, regardless of the initial intention of peaceable trade. This historic episode serves as a reminder of the challenges confronted during early American enlargement and the interactions with indigenous populations. The conflict of monetary interests, management deficiencies, cultural misunderstandings, and character mindsets contributed to the tragic outcome. By analyzing principal sources and thinking about numerous perspectives, we can illuminate previous activities’ motivations, actions, and penalties and achieve a deeper understanding of this necessary length in American history.
Reference list
John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, to William Clark, Superintendent of Indian Affairs at St. Louis, Washington, July 1, 1822.
[1] John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, to William Clark, Superintendent of Indian Affairs at St. Louis, Washington, July 1, 1822.
[2] John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, to William Clark, Superintendent of Indian Affairs at St. Louis, Washington, July 1, 1822.
[3] John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, to William Clark, Superintendent of Indian Affairs at St. Louis, Washington, July 1, 1822.
write