Whitman Legend: History and Memorial in Marcus and Narcissa Whitman

The Whitman Legend: The Intertwining of History and Memorial in the Narrative of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in History. 2017 ________________________ ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... v Abstract ..........................................................................................................................vii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. viii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 The Waiilatpu Mission: 1836-1847 ............................................................................... 12 Context: The Second Great Awakening .................................................................... 15 The Four “Flathead” Indians ...................................................................................... 16 Marcus and Narcissa Apply to the ABCFM .............................................................. 18 Arrival and Settlement at Waiilatpu .......................................................................... 20 Alice Clarissa Whitman ............................................................................................. 22 Relationship with the Cayuse..................................................................................... 23 Marcus Whitman’s Ride of 1842 ............................................................................... 24 Great Migration of 1843 ............................................................................................ 26 Tragedy at Waiilatpu.................................................................................................. 28 Attack ......................................................................................................................... 32 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 34 The Whitman Controversy: 1865-1909 ......................................................................... 37 The Two Sides ........................................................................................................... 39 Academic? No. Authority? Maybe: Oliver W. Nixon ............................................... 42 Beginning the Controversy: Edward G. Bourne ........................................................ 43 Thorough Denial: William I. Marshall ...................................................................... 48 Defended Until the End: Myron Eells ....................................................................... 53 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 57 “To Pay Homage to a Pioneer Hero:” The Community Memorials of 1897-1936 ....... 60 Early Memorial Efforts .............................................................................................. 61 Stephen B.L. Penrose and Whitman College ............................................................. 67 Seventy-Fifth Anniversary and The Pioneer Pageant, 1922-24................................. 70 1936 Centennial Celebration...................................................................................... 77 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 79 The Creation of Public History: The Whitman Mission National Historic Site ............ 81 Creating a National Monument .................................................................................. 84 Enabling Legislation .................................................................................................. 88 Whitman National Monument, 1936-1962 ................................................................ 90 Becoming the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, 1963.................................. 98 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 104 Memorialist Historian?: The Influential Work of Clifford M. Drury .......................... 107 Clifford M. Drury: Historian? .................................................................................. 109 Drury’s Historical View........................................................................................... 112 Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon, 1973 .................. 115 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 123 A Changing Tide: New Historical Outlets at the End of the Twentieth Century ........ 125 Julie Roy Jeffrey and Narcissa Whitman ................................................................. 126 Tamástslikt Cultural Institute ................................................................................... 129 iii Whitman College Sesquicentennial of 1997 ............................................................ 131 Regional Significance .............................................................................................. 136 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 137 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 139 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 147 iv Acknowledgements v narratives that are told about our past. When historical conflicts have vastly different meanings to those on opposite sides, the narrative we chose to tell has a lasting impact on our identity and understanding of ourselves. To both Ferguson and Kelman, I am incredibly grateful for the spark you provided in my mind, and I hope this scholarship serves to inspire some as you both inspired me. vi Abstract The history of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman as known by modern historians is not the same history known and deeply held as true by the community built around their place of work. While modern historians usually see the work of the missionaries and their ultimate death as a rather small event on the grander historical plane—two failed missionaries who were killed by the people they were trying to save—the local community of Walla Walla has kept the story deeply ingrained in the hearts and public histories of the area. This project seeks to tell the history of how the Whitmans have been commemorated, and how their story has been told by historians, retold by public officials, and memorialized by the Walla Walla community since the 1847 Tragedy. The way this narrative has been shaped and changed has had a significant impact on the Walla Walla community, and as such the narrative itself needs to have its history told. vii List of Figures Figure 1: Whitman Monument....................................................................................... 63 Figure 2 The Pioneer Pageant Program ......................................................................... 75 Figure 3 Whitman Mission National Historic Site Grounds.......................................... 94 Figure 4 Whitman Mission NHS Mission House .......................................................... 95 Figure 5 Whitman Mission NHS, Farming Sign ......................................................... 104 Figure 6 Whitman Mission NHS, Mission House Sign ............................................... 105 Figure 7 Whitman Mission NHS, Tragedy Sign .......................................................... 106 Figure 8 Whitman College, Prentiss Hall Memorial ................................................... 139 Figure 9 Treaty Rock ................................................................................................... 141 viii Introduction The Whitman Mission National Historic Site lies on the grounds of the Waiilatpu mission run by Marcus and Narcissa Whitman from 1836-1847. Killed by the Indians they had come to “save,” the Whitmans became martyrs to the cause of western expansion and civilization. Hailed as heroes of the wild west throughout the twentieth century, the grounds of the National Historic Site are today littered with remnants of several eras of out of date historical interpretation. What is most striking are the signs that line the grounds themselves, tracing the edge of the mission site. These signs are clearly out of the 1970s in artistic style and content. The post by the Whitmans’ home marks it as “an island of civilization in a wild land.” Downtown Walla Walla, six miles from the mission site, offers other celebratory fragments from an earlier time. The city claims the Whitmans as their own. Streets are named “Marcus” and “Whitman,” the Marcus Whitman hotel stands as the tallest building in the city, and Whitman College, built in honor of the missionaries, lies prominently on the edge of downtown. The marker dividing city from college is a massive statue of Marcus Whitman himself, a copy of the very statue that represents the state of Washington in statuary hall in the United States Capitol Building. Dressed in buckskin clothing and a coonskin cap, Marcus is depicted as a pioneer hero, the only indication of his missionary work being the book in his hand representing a bible. Emblazoned underneath his feet is a quote from the man himself: “My plans require time and distance.” The Whitmans are ever-present in modern Walla Walla, their legacy permanently imprinted on the everyday lives of all who live in the community. However, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman were arguably failures as missionaries. They did not convert any of the Indians with whom they came to work, and they cultivated such a bad relationship with the tribe that they were killed by a small band of its members. So why were they commemorated so thoroughly in the century following their deaths? The answer lies in what the Whitmans are remembered for. The Whitmans’ local importance does not come from their work as missionaries but from their work as “pioneers.” While the Whitmans appear unsuccessful as missionaries, they were very successful as settlers of the frontier and assistants to western expansion. From the outset, the Cayuse people, with whom the Whitmans were attempting to work, did not take interest in the strict religious demands of the missionaries. After the their first few years at Waiilatpu, more and more American settlers began coming through the region on the Oregon Trail, stopping by the mission to receive medical treatment from Dr. Whitman or temporary lodging at the mission house. In 1842, Marcus journeyed back east on business. On his return trip, he assisted the Great Migration of 1843, the largest group of immigrants at that point, bringing around one thousand people west and the first large number of wagons to the Oregon Territory. At this time, having failed to convert any Cayuse and having built a generally poor relationship with the tribe, the missionaries turned their attentions more fully to helping white settlers move west. By November 29, 1847, the date the Whitmans were killed, thousands of settlers had come through the Walla Walla valley on their way to conquer the west. As such, Whitmans have entered the history of the American West as pioneers rather than missionaries. Depictions of the Whitmans usually portray Marcus in cliché 2 buckskin garb, signifying his status as a pioneer, and the couple are often shown in front of a covered wagon. Their memorials are almost always attached to western settlement, scattering Walla Walla with such monuments as Pioneer Middle School, Pioneer Park, and the “Frontier Days” State Fair each fall. In 1936, the city held a Centennial Celebration honoring the Whitmans’ arrival in the Walla Walla Valley, at which the main event was an elaborate pageant titled “Wagons West!” Multiple books about the Whitmans refer to them as pioneers rather than missionaries. The Whitmans remained significant in the memories of Walla Walla citizens because they were an integral part of white settlement in the area. This is the same reason the missionaries are such a painful subject with the descendants of the Cayuse and other local tribes, relegated by an 1855 Treaty to a joint reservation under the name the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). The long-term legacy of the Whitmans does not only line the streets of Walla Walla. The history of the missionaries was first written in the months following their deaths. Newspaper articles quickly informed Americans back east of the martyrs to the cause of civilizing the west. By 1883, Myron Eells, son of missionary and founder of the Whitman Seminary Cushing Eells, published a book about Marcus and his role in “saving Oregon to the United States.” Similar narratives were written by others who either knew the missionaries or who were living in the place they had helped settle. They were experiencing and helping to plan the memorial events thrown by the city of Walla Walla. These “histories,” far from the caliber of work expected in the field today, influenced curation in the early days of the National Historic Site, then the Whitman Monument, as well the as authors who wrote about the Whitmans later into 3 the twentieth century. Clifford M. Drury, whose 1973 book Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon is still treated as a comprehensive and authoritative book on the missionaries, was present for and researching during the planning of the 1936 Centennial Celebration. While much of the history written in the early- to mid-twentieth century was of the “great man” variety, and therefore celebratory overtones are not uncommon throughout these texts, the connections between overtly and deliberately celebratory memorials continues to affect historiography and public history to this day. Meanwhile, the first debates about the Whitmans’ history took place as early as the 1890s, when “scientific historians” demanded hard evidence for historical narratives and labeled celebratory stories “myths.” In more recent decades, historians have largely shaken the work of Drury and other like historians from their minds, opting for a more critical view of the Whitmans and including more perspectives in their story. In the introduction to her 1991 book Converting the West: A Biography of Narcissa Whitman, Julie Roy Jeffrey noted that, “For much of the twentieth century…historians have avoided studying in the missionary movement, finding it a naïve and embarrassing failure.”1 Nonetheless, the celebratory histories of the past still live in the public history today. With limited funds, the National Historic Site is not able to drastically change the infrastructure put in place decades ago, when Drury’s work was new. While recent histories have shifted focus to tell a less glorifying story of the Whitmans, this interpretation has not been able to make it into the public historical narrative. Julie Roy Jeffrey, Converting the West: A Biography of Narcissa Whitman (University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), xii. 1 4 Although the Walla Walla community has forgone the grand celebrations of the early twentieth century, it is easy to see that this history is a part of local identity. The monuments to the Whitmans which line the streets, though put up long ago, are certainly in no danger of being torn down any time soon. In 2016, Whitman College announced it was changing its mascot from the Fighting Missionaries to the Blues, in honor of the mountain range which lines the valley. Voices in the local community quickly reacted, calling the change an act of liberal political correctness and historical revisionism.2 While the Whitmans are not receiving new monuments, the community is clearly attached to the old ones. The history of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman as known by modern historians is not the same history known and deeply held as true by the community built around their place of work. While modern historians usually see the work of the missionaries and their ultimate death as a rather small event on the grander historical plane, the local community has kept the story deeply ingrained in the hearts and public histories of the area. This project seeks to tell the history of how the Whitmans have been memorialized and how their story has been told by historians, retold by public officials, and memorialized by the Walla Walla community since the 1847 Tragedy. The way this narrative has been shaped and changed has had a significant impact on the Walla Walla community, and as such the narrative itself needs to have its history told. 2 A number of Letters to the Editor were published in the Walla Walla Union Bulletin following the decision to change the missionary mascot. One titled, “Missionaries and pioneers part of our history” (published April 18, 2016) is indicative of the sentiment shared throughout these letters, though others, like “Drop Whitman, call it Politically Correct College” (published April 17, 2016), show the anger that was also present in many of the responses. 5 This thesis will work through the last hundred seventy years of commemoration and history of the Whitmans roughly chronologically. The first chapter sketches the life and work of the Whitmans themselves, spanning the time from roughly 1820 through 1847. The goal of this section is not to reveal any new insights into the lives of the missionaries, but to offer a point of reference with which to compare the narratives put forth by the historiography, memorials, and museums. It is not the contention of this research that any single point about the Whitmans has been consistently or glaringly left out of former narratives, only that older narratives have had clear sympathies for the missionaries that affected the way historical events were portrayed. The research for this section will come from work in the Northwest Archives at Whitman College with primary documents from the Whitmans and their contemporaries, as well as from secondary sources like the work of Clifford M. Drury, Julie Roy Jeffrey, and sources from the CTUIR. The website of the CTUIR and their book, Wiyaxayxt / Wiyaakaa'awn / As Days Go By: Our History, Our Land, Our People-The Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla, were instrumental to including a Native American perspective in this chapter and this research overall.3 The second chapter of this thesis examines the early historical debates that arose following the Tragedy of 1847, spanning roughly from the 1860s to 1909. So contentious that it became known as the “Whitman Controversy,” debate unfurled through books, articles, and letters over the so-called “Whitman Myth.” At the time the Whitmans were working, the Oregon Territory was effectively “shared” by the United While this research in no way speaks for the tribe or tries to represent their feelings the subject, it was very important to me to ensure a tribal perspective, as presented in their own museum, books, and literature, was included, as it has so often been omitted in other writings on the Whitmans. 3 6 States and Great Britain. The myth stated that Marcus Whitman rode east in 1842 to convince President Tyler to send Americans to settle in the Oregon Territory, and his success in this endeavor effectively “saved” Oregon for the United States. Proponents of the legend, whom I will call memorialists, insisted Whitman noticed an influx of British settlers and wanted to preserve the territory for Americans. They also posit that Marcus Whitman’s role in the Migration of 1843 was more than simply guiding the wagon train on the overland trail, and that he in fact helped to gather and encourage settlers. While the historical community unequivocally refuted these claims, the narrative of the memorialists lived on throughout the twentieth century. The Whitman Controversy is important as the first major historical debate on the legacy of the Whitmans, as well as its role in determining the central narrative about the missionaries for the next several decades. The third chapter delves into the onslaught of memorials to the Whitmans at the beginning of the twentieth century. It will touch briefly on establishment of the Whitman Seminary (now Whitman College) and the first memorial in 1897, and discuss each major memorial event through the 1936 Centennial Celebration. Many documents from the planning of these events, as well as souvenirs from the events themselves, were donated to the Northwest Archives and will serve as the basis for this section of analysis. Particularly fascinating is the script for the pageant “Wagons West!” The original form of the production was written by Whitman College president Stephen L. Penrose and performed in 1923 and 1924. The span of the show encompasses the entire history of time, through the events at Waiilatpu, and through a 7 contemporary graduation from Whitman College. This pageant is the pinnacle of celebratory memorialization and exemplifies the inspiration for this research. The funds raised in the 1936 celebration were used to purchase the grounds of the Waiilatpu mission to create a “permanent memorial” to the Whitmans. This land is now the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, a branch of the National Park Service. The fourth chapter analyzes the establishment of the National Historic Site as a continuation of the memorials of the early twentieth century. The site is representative of the public historical portrayal of the Whitmans, as it is the only museum dedicated to their work and is run by the National Park Service, funded and run by the federal government. The glorifying history of the mid-twentieth century can still be seen in the infrastructure of the site today, as modern curators and site directors struggle to move away from their own celebratory past. Chapter Five turns to the historical work of Clifford M. Drury, particularly his extensive two-volume book Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon. As stated above, this book remains a definitive authority on the Whitmans, primarily due to Drury’s exhaustive examination of the sources. The author was clearly sympathetic to the missionaries, as befits his role as a church historian, and his bias has affected the way the history of the Whitmans has been portrayed and understood during the remainder of the twentieth century. Drury’s work exemplifies the close entanglement of history and memorial that inspired this research. The sixth and final chapter of this thesis analyzes the memorial and public historical developments of the end of the twentieth century. This begins with a discussion of the historiographical shift made by Julie Roy Jeffrey’s 1991 book 8 Converting the West: A Biography of Narcissa Whitman. Jeffrey’s book takes a drastically different view on the traditional Whitman narrative, focusing her story on Narcissa rather than Marcus and incorporating character flaws of the missionaries in her analysis. This historiographical shift was mirrored by an addition to the public history in the establishment of Tamástslikt Cultural Institute, the museum of the CTUIR in Pendleton, Oregon, which was designed to be a counterpoint to the overtly celebratory National Historic Site. Finally, this chapter discusses the most recent Whitman memorial, the conference held in 1997 by Whitman College to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Whitman Tragedy. The conclusion of this thesis turns to more modern issues surrounding the Whitmans, such as the Whitman Mission National Historic Site’s work to collaborate with Tamástslikt Cultural Institute and the CTUIR in general. It also connects the regionally specific history of the Whitmans to larger issues of local identity and nationalism across the United States. Language is an incredibly important aspect of the narrative of the Whitmans, as the event that made them famous was what has been known as the Whitman Massacre. The term massacre has been used historically suggest unprovoked violence and either justify or encourage retribution against the perpetrators.4 As this story is vastly more complicated than the term suggests, massacre is not the appropriate word to describe these events, and as such it will not be used in this thesis. The term will only be used in For example, the Boston Massacre. The events in Boston of March 5, 1770 were complicated (as can be seen in John Adams’ representation of the British troops in the court case against them), yet it was transcribed into history as a horrific attack on innocent Americans, a clear example of British tyranny. Patriots famously publicized the event as a massacre to rile up support for Independence and rebellion against the British. I believe a similar intention was behind the labelling of the Whitman Massacre. 4 9 reference to the choice by the majority of historians, writers, and memorializers of the 19th and 20th centuries to call the event a massacre. A shift in language began in the 1990s as historians recognized the implications of the term “massacre,” and thus sought to recategorize the event. Following their example, the name “Tragedy at Waiilatpu” will be used to discuss the attack of November 29, 1847. A similar issue arises regarding the discussion of Native American tribes with whom the Whitmans interacted during their time in the northwest. Many tribes across North America have been labeled by the names given to them by the Europeans who encountered them rather than by the names with which they themselves identify. This is true for the tribes of the Plateau, such as the Weyíiletpuu (known as the Cayuse) and Walúulapam (known as the Walla Walla). To remain consistent with the historiography, I will use the European names for the tribes, Cayuse and Walla Walla. As the CTUIR uses both names throughout their own writing on the subject, I believe that this is the best choice. Furthermore, the use of the term “Indian” to address tribal communities in the United States has been controversial in the last few decades. However, as the CTUIR uses the term to refer to themselves throughout their own literature, I will also be using the term throughout my discussion of missionary interactions with the tribes of the Plateau region. The case of the Whitmans’ legacy in Walla Walla is not a unique story. Many communities across the United States have similar origin narratives to which the people in the area cling. These stories inform our identities; they explain how and why we got to where we are today. When they are questioned or slandered, it can feel like we ourselves are being criticized. One of the goals of this project is to promote 10 empathy between those who have been hurt or offended by past portrayals of the Whitmans and those who want to preserve the heroic story that has reigned for the past century. Both sides want a story that validates their own experience. While it may be difficult to find a singular narrative that serves everyone, by learning more about the Whitmans’ legacy, we can understand both sides, and why the stakes are so high for each. 11 The Waiilatpu Mission: 1836-1847 Marcus and Narcissa Whitmans’ short time in the Pacific Northwest had a lasting effect on the region. When they arrived in the Oregon Territory in 1836, Narcissa was hailed as one of the first two white American women to travel to the region overland. In order to travel west, the Whitmans had to obtain permits from the Department of War to live in a foreign land, and they had very little connection to the world they left behind when they arrived. The 1840s brought waves of white settlers to the region, carving the Oregon Trail into the ground through wagon trains. By 1855, Oregon was an official territory of the United States, thousands of white settlers had worked their way through the region, and the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla tribes were removed from their native land and sent to live on a reservation in Pendleton, Oregon. The Whitmans and other missionaries living and working in the Oregon Territory were part of the first trickle of a great wave of change in the region, which in turn had a permanent and horrible effect on the native people living there. The goal of this chapter is to discuss that change. While, as outlined in the introduction, the aim is not to provide a new or revised history of the events at Waiilatpu from 1836 to 1847, it is necessary to clarify this historian’s own narrative. There are very few comprehensive texts on the Whitmans that are untainted by clear and present bias towards the missionaries and their work. An extremely detailed account of the Whitmans’ can be found in the work of Clifford M. Drury, but his books are laced with narrative points that are highly flattering to the missionaries.5 While the As was discussed in the introduction to this thesis, while Drury’s work is incredibly biased towards the Whitmans, his work with the sources is by far the most comprehensive and complete of any author. As 5 12 extent of his research and his intent to relay as many facts as found in the documents as possible, a discerning eye is necessary to use Drury’s work to gain an contextual understanding of this history. A more nuanced account can be found in the excellent work of Julie Roy Jeffrey on Narcissa Whitman, but her work is more specifically questioning the role of Narcissa as a woman of the west. The volume As Days Go By, compiled by Jennifer Karson of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), offers a native perspective on the events at Waiilatpu, placing the Whitmans into a much larger narrative spanning the history of people in the region. The aim of this chapter is to provide a synthesis of the narratives presented through the published historiography to give a contextual history of the Waiilatpu Mission.6 It is difficult to write a narrative of the Whitmans without falling into the various traps that ensnared historians over the past century and a half; after all, their work is the scope of this research. In order to protect this work from the same difficulties, I seek to be explicit with my arguments about the significance of the Whitmans. The Whitmans were important figures in the history of western expansion and the Oregon Territory. Their location near the route of the Oregon Trail along with Marcus’ medical training primed them to help immigrants on their journey west. Their deaths were also major contributing factors to the way in which the Oregon Territory was annexed in 1848. However, they were not singularly responsible for western migration, the annexation of the Oregon Territory, or the success of the Oregon Trail. such, his work will be cited in this chapter, as he did provide an encyclopedia of sorts on the Whitmans. His work will be discussed in depth in the fifth chapter of this thesis. 6 This narrative is also constructed from an exploration of the primary sources about the Whitmans provided by the Whitman College Northwest Archives. The sources provided will largely be secondary, to give accessibility to those unable to visit Walla Walla themselves. However, all pieces of this narrative were clarified against primary sources. 13 Without the Whitmans, white Americans would still have moved west. Protestant missionaries would still have worked in the Oregon Territory. Oregon, Washington, and Idaho would still be states. The true significance of the Whitmans lies in their location and interaction with the Cayuse and other local tribes. Again, their placement along the Oregon Trail facilitated their choice to focus a great deal of attention on incoming settlers and prioritize their needs over the Cayuse when their missionary work was failing. This part of their work funneled large numbers of settlers directly through the homeland of Plateau peoples. These settlers were a major factor leading to the attack of November 29, 1847, after the disease the settlers brought devastated the Cayuse tribe. The attack itself sparked further conflict in the region and culminated in the removal of northwest tribes in 1855. Just as the Whitmans were not solely responsible for the annexation of Oregon, they are not solely responsible for the removal of the tribes who now make up the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). However, to say the Whitmans are not important figures in the history of the northwest, or to ignore their role in the white settlement of the region, is to erase the historical trauma that still affects the people who no longer live in their own homeland. The tribes of the Pacific Northwest would most likely have still been removed from their land had the Whitmans never come west, but the missionaries and the settlers they enabled still linger in the minds of the people they displaced as critically important points in their own history. In addition to providing important context for the rest of this thesis, it is 14 my hope that this narrative conveys the lasting effect the Whitmans had on the northwest and its people. Context: The Second Great Awakening During the first half of the nineteenth century, the east coast of the United States was littered with various religious revivals. The Second Great Awakening, as the time has become known, was a time of great and passionate Christian conversions, which usually took place at meetings set up on the outskirts of towns by preachers who traveled the country. These meetings were known for spurring on dramatic religious experiences, such as speaking in tongues, healing the sick, and seeing visions. The Christianity preached by the traveling religious leaders put forth that the world was inherently sinful, and that good Christians needed both to live strict, pure lives as well as to help others do the same. This mentality inspired people to serve as missionaries, giving birth to such organizations as the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), which sent “good,” white, American Protestants to serve in “heathen” parts of the world. By the 1830s, this included the western half of North America among Native Americans. It was into this world that Marcus Whitman and Narcissa Prentiss were born. Marcus wanted to become a minister, but was deterred by financial and familial restraints.7 He instead trained as a doctor, first studying under Rushville’s Dr. Ira 7 Clifford M. Drury, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon, Volume I (Glendale: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1973), 71, and Julie Roy Jeffrey, Converting the West: A Biography of Narcissa Whitman (University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 49. For ease of understanding, hereafter any citation listing simply “Drury” will be in reference to Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon. It will note the volume (either V1 or V2) and page number. If another work is consulted, the title will be included in the citation. 15 Bryant and then attending the medical training course at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Western District of New York at Fairfield.8 Marcus practiced medicine in Wheeler, New York for three years before joining the ABCFM. Narcissa was born to a well-off family in the town of Prattsburg, New York. Her mother, Clarissa Prentiss, was a fiercely religious woman who saw her purpose as a mother “as ordering home life to bring about salvation.”9 At the young age of eleven, Narcissa converted “in the midst of Prattsburg’s first revival in 1819.”10 As missionary work was one of the few ways women could live a “useful Christian life” during the nineteenth century, Narcissa was interested in becoming a missionary from childhood, when she was a member of Prattsburg’s Youth Missionary Society.11 While both Marcus and Narcissa would face challenges on their way towards becoming missionaries, their passion for the work arose early in life. The Four “Flathead” Indians In 1831, an article in the Christian Advocate reported the journey of four western Native Americans to St. Louis in search of information on the “white man’s religion.” At the time, the group was mistakenly identified as from the Flathead tribe (as one member of the delegation was part Flathead). In fact, the group was comprised of members of various northwest tribes,12 including the Nez Perce, the tribe that Marcus Whitman himself would come in contact with at the Green River Rendezvous Drury, V1, 75 and Jeffrey, Converting the West, 50. Jeffrey, Converting the West, 15. 10 Jeffrey, Converting the West, 18. 11 Jeffrey, Converting the West, 17. 12 Jennifer Karson, Wiyaxayxt / Wiyaakaa'awn / As Days Go By: Our History, Our Land, Our PeopleThe Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006), 49. 8 9 16 in 1835, and with whom Henry Spalding would later work.13 This visit and request by the northwest Indians is significant, because it sparked interest in formal missionary work in the west among Native American tribes. As Drury framed the visit, “Never before had a delegation visited the United States from a non-Christian land or people, then referred to as ‘pagan’ or ‘heathen,’ asking for missionaries and the Bible.”14 The idea that Indians from the west were coming to request Christian religion is an important part of the missionary narrative. In this view, the Whitmans and other northwest missionaries were simply responding to a request by moving west to teach Native Americans. However—if indeed this party did travel to St. Louis, as there is speculation about the merits to this account—four men cannot be seen to represent the wishes of the many tribal nations that inhabited the northwest. The Nez Perce were also most likely asking for Catholic missionaries, as they learned about the religion from various traders who had been in the region before. Narcissa Whitman wrote in her diary of the religion practiced by both the Cayuse and the Nez Perce in 1837, explaining that they “are very strict in attending to their worship which they have regularly…They sing & repeat a form of prayers very devoutly after which the Chief gives them a talk. The tunes & prayers were taught them by a Roman Catholic trader. Indeed their worship was commenced by him.”15 Considering the vehement rivalry between the Protestants and Catholics at the time, Narcissa would not have been satisfied with their conversion. Drury, V1, 37. Drury, V1, 49. 15 As quoted in Drury, V1, 45. 13 14 17 The first church to send a missionary west was the Methodist Church, who sent Jason Lee to a site on the Willamette River near where it meets the Columbia.16 Reverend Samuel Parker first volunteered to go west to create a mission among the Native Americans in 1833, but his application was rejected by the ABCFM. Parker was eventually approved to assist in the building of missions among the Indians, and helped to establish a site in Missouri among the Pawnee in 1834.17 Parker then began working to move further west. In 1836, the Whitmans and Spaldings became the first Presbyterian missionaries to establish missions west of the Rocky Mountains. Marcus and Narcissa Apply to the ABCFM Marcus and Narcissa Whitman were married in order to become missionaries.18 Although Narcissa Prentiss was influenced by religion from an early age, a single woman was not allowed to become a missionary of the American Board, and her early applications were denied. Marcus, too, was initially denied a commission due to health problems early in life. When Samuel Parker spoke at Whitman’s church in Wheeler, New York, seeking volunteers to join him on a trip west to the Rockies to establish missions, Marcus saw a chance to reapply. This time, seeing that Whitman’s health had improved, the board approved him to join Parker on his trip to the Rockies. In his letter announcing the commission to Whitman, Secretary of the ABCFM David Greene advised Marcus that “nothing but an unquenchable desire to do good to the souls of the Drury, V1, 53. Drury, V1, 92. 18 For an excellent history of particularly Narcissa’s early life in Prattsburg, New York, see Julie Roy Jeffrey’s Converting the West. 16 17 18 Indians, originating and cherished by a supreme love to Christ and firm faith in the promises, can sustain you and carry you through” the missionary task.19 Narcissa responded to Parker’s call herself when he visited Prattsburg, though again she was refused as a single woman. When Parker and Whitman met to discuss their journey west, Parker suggested that Whitman propose to Narcissa, as she had also expressed interest in being a missionary among Native Americans.20 Marcus and Narcissa seem to have met a few years earlier when they had lived in neighboring towns. Marcus knew the pastor of the Prattsburg church, which Narcissa and the rest of the Prentiss family attended, and had even been to a prayer meeting at the Prentiss home.21 Even so, the two were not well acquainted. It seems clear that their marriage was one of convenience and mutual goals, as Marcus wanted to marry before settling in the west and Narcissa needed to marry in order to become a missionary. Personal histories note that Henry Spalding, who became the Whitmans’ companion on their journey west, also had proposed to Narcissa when he attended school in Prattsburg. Their relationship has been characterized as contentious, and Spalding has been called jealous and vengeful towards the Whitmans. The two couples spent an incredible amount of time in very close quarters on their journey east, and relied on each other’s assistance while in Oregon, so regardless of any tension, all four missionaries seem to have found ways to work together. As this is not a significant aspect of the rest of the research to be presented here, it will not be analyzed further. As quoted in Drury, V1, 94. Drury, V1, 110. 21 Drury, V1, 88 and Jeffrey, Converting the West, 53. 19 20 19 Arrival and Settlement at Waiilatpu The party that traveled west together included the two Whitmans, two Spaldings, and William H. Gray, a “cabinet maker and house-joiner”22 who was appointed by the ABCFM to join the other missionaries. The missionary party arrived at Fort Vancouver in the Oregon Territory September 12, 1836.23 While there, Marcus Whitman and Henry Spalding decided to set up separate mission sites, among the Cayuse and Nez Perce respectively. In early October, Whitman, Spalding, Gray, and Pierre Pambrun, the French-Canadian in charge of the Hudson Bay Company’s Fort Walla Walla, scouted locations around the Walla Walla river for a suitable site for the mission. Waiilatpu was chosen for its proximity to both the Walla Walla river and its tributary, now known as Mill Creek.24 The site lay approximately twenty-five miles east of Fort Walla Walla. The people among whom the Whitmans settled were the Weyíiletpuu, or Cayuse, as they had been called by Europeans. As noted in the introduction to this thesis, the historiography has generally addressed the tribe as Cayuse, and as such that is the name this research will employ. The Cayuse traveled each season to reach the site that best suited their agricultural and hunting needs. Commander Charles Wilkes wrote in 1845 that, “The Indians of the territory are not a wandering race, as some have asserted, but change for food only, and each successive season will generally find them in their old haunts, seeking it.”25 This way of life was frustrating to the Whitmans, who Drury, V1, 173. Drury, V1, 211. 24 Drury, V1 225. 25 As quoted in Karson, As Days Go By, 29. 22 23 20 believed the Cayuse must live settled, agricultural lives as determined by European customs in order to be saved. Land is important to the Cayuse. They believe that “As long as there have been humans here, they have drawn strength and power from the land.”26 Though the tribe traveled seasonally, the entirety of their territory was and remains sacred to the Cayuse. According to tradition, “Those who lived, died, and are buried…are central to [the land] and have continued meaning to the nation.”27 Likewise, “human communities and biocultural landscape are a continuum that cannot be severed by time or place.”28 As such, the fact that the Whitmans claimed land as their own and then implemented specific rules for its use and Cayuse presence on the land was incredibly significant and culturally nonsensical to the tribe. With the assistance of two Hawaiians whom Pambrun sent to assist, Marcus Whitman began to build a house at the new mission site while Narcissa remained at Fort Walla Walla. While there, she taught Maria, Pambrun’s daughter, English. Pambrun’s wife Catherine was a native woman who had learned French but no English.29 Maria later went to stay at Waiilatpu to assist with the Whitmans’ daughter, Alice Clarissa. Meanwhile, the Spaldings went north to Lapwai with the Nez Perce, isolating Narcissa and Eliza from each other for almost a year.30 Gray traveled between the sites to help construct the buildings for the missions.31 26 “Draft Foundation Document for Review,” page 8, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, July 2016. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Jeffrey, Converting the West, 101. 30 Drury, V1, 231. 31 Drury, V1, 227. 21 Alice Clarissa Whitman March 14, 1837, Narcissa gave birth to a daughter. Alice Clarissa Whitman is known as the first white daughter born to American parents in the Oregon Territory. The quality of her race as a “purely” white child, in contrast to the many children born to white trappers and native women, has often been invoked as a sign of the “civilizing” of Oregon. Alice in many ways served as a bridge between the Cayuse and the Whitmans. Many Cayuse were immediately enchanted by the child, and she grew up speaking both English and Nez Perce, a language spoken by the Cayuse.32 A letter of Narcissa’s tells us that Tiloukaikt (a member of the Cayuse who was later implicated in the tragedy) called Alice a “Cayuse Te-mi” or “Cayuse girl.”33 While relations between the Cayuse and the Whitmans were never truly warm, they were most collegial in relation to the young girl. Alice also served as an important connection for Narcissa. Lonely without family in the Oregon Territory, the young girl was “her mother’s constant companion.”34 In a letter to her parents, Narcissa wrote, “Dear child, she is a great solace & comfort to her mother in her lonely hours.”35 A young woman attempting to “make a home” like the one she left in a completely new land, Narcissa was facing an emotionally difficult time. Alice was an immediate joy to her. Tragically, on June 23, 1839, Alice Clarissa Whitman drowned in the Walla Walla River. Marcus and Narcissa were devastated. The Spaldings and other nearby acquaintances traveled to Waiilatpu for the funeral. After the death of her only child, Jeffrey, Converting the West, 129. As quoted by Drury, V1, 246. 34 As quoted by Drury, V1, 350. 35 As quoted by Drury, V1, 350. 32 33 22 Narcissa grew colder and more distant; her behavior towards the Indians was reported to be cruel and unfeeling. The bridge between the groups had broken, and Narcissa was once again alone in the west. In 1844, the Whitmans would adopt the Sager Orphans, seven children who lost both their parents on the Oregon Trail. The Sagers were instrumental in preserving the legacy of the Whitmans, and their adoption is often highlighted in early histories of the missionaries as an example of their benevolence. Relationship with the Cayuse The Whitmans never truly got along with the Cayuse. While a few individual relationships were formed over the eleven years of the mission at Waiilatpu, the strict expectations the Whitmans had for potential converts along with overt cultural misunderstandings led to an overall distant relationship. The Whitmans felt the Cayuse had to fundamentally change their way of life to be saved. Understandably, the Cayuse did not want to go to such effort for a religion they were not particularly interested in to begin with. Among other cultural changes, the Whitmans tried to teach the Cayuse to farm to keep the semi-nomadic people in one location. An agrarian lifestyle would keep them in one, permanent location, rather than having them travel seasonally, and help “civilize” the Indians—necessary for Christian conversion. Presbyterian missionaries were known for their strict religious expectations as well, not allowing any aspect of native spirituality into the understanding of Christianity. When introduced to European religion, many native peoples across North America sought to combine Christianity with their own spiritual practices. This had been happening successfully in the northwest for many years through interactions with Christian trappers and traders. The 23 fact that the Whitmans would not allow this hybridity also prevented the Cayuse from wanting to work with them. Perhaps the most striking example of the Whitmans’ coldness was the fact that Narcissa would not let Cayuse people into her home, fearing they would make it dirty or bring in fleas. This clearly increased friction with the Indians. Overall, the Whitmans proved to be uncompromising people with firm requirements for the people with whom they worked. This prevented cultural exchange and led to an unfriendly relationship between the missionaries and those they sought to convert. Marcus Whitman’s Ride of 1842 In 1842, after receiving reports of conflict between the various Oregon Missions, the ABCFM made the decision to close most missions in the Oregon Territory. The exact order recalled Spalding, Gray, and Asa Smith (who had arrived with other missionaries in 1838), and moved the Whitmans to Tshimakain.36 Upon hearing this news, the leaders of the Oregon Missions met together to decide how to respond. Marcus Whitman proposed the idea of going to Boston himself to convince the board to rescind its order. Knowing that a wagon train was set to move west in 1843, he knew that if he left immediately, he could cross the mountains before winter and return with the immigrants. Upon agreement from the other missionaries, Whitman asked Asa Lawrence Lovejoy, who had come over with the 1842 Emigration, to accompany him on his ride east. 36 Drury, V1, 446. 24 There is no doubt about the Whitmans’ enthusiasm for American immigration west and increasing the population of Americans in the Oregon Territory, especially those Americans who were Protestant. Increasing the population of Christian families around the missions would help the Whitmans and others in various ways, such as assisting with labor around the site, providing cultural homogeneity to model Christianity to the Indians, and taking over the teaching of farming and other “civilized” skills. The recent arrival of Catholic missionaries in Oregon also worried Marcus and Narcissa, so an increase in Protestants near Waiilatpu would, in their minds, secure a hold on the area. Despite this known interest in increasing American immigration, there is no evidence indicating that Marcus Whitman rode east with any purpose other than preserving his mission. Whitman and Lovejoy took a more southern route east than the usual Oregon Trail due to the time of year. They arrived in St. Louis in March of 1843. While east, Whitman visited Washington D.C., Boston, and New York, to see his and Narcissa’s families. While in Washington, it seems that Whitman met with a few government officials, such as the Secretary of War, the Hon. John C. Spencer, with whom he was likely acquainted, as they both lived and worked in northern New York.37 In these meetings, it is certain that Whitman discussed the Oregon Territory and his work there, though despite later claims of "saving" the territories, there is no reason to believe that this was a primary purpose of his trip. Later, friends of Whitman and historians who 37 Drury, V2, 49. 25 supported him would claim his eastward journey in 1842 was to save the Oregon Territory from being traded to the British. This was simply not the case.38 The ride of 1842 is perhaps most significant because it became the fuel for the Whitman Myth, which will be explored further in the next chapter. Essentially, the myth states that Whitman travelled east in 1842 with the sole purpose of preserving U.S. control over the Oregon Territory, an ultimately patriotic endeavor because supposedly treaty negotiations might cede it to Britain. As can be seen, this was not what motivated Whitman’s ride, and there is no evidence the territory was in play. While he promoted immigration to Oregon, it was ultimately in relation to his missionary work. After his time in Washington, Whitman traveled to New York to visit his and Narcissa’s families. While there, he saw his recently widowed brother, Samuel Whitman, who was now the sole parent of four children. The eldest, Perrin Whitman, asked to go west with his uncle, and joined Marcus on the journey west. Following this, Marcus traveled to Boston to fight for his mission. After convincing the American Board to rescind their order, he prepared to accompany new immigrants west. Great Migration of 1843 Whitman met the 1843 wagon train in St. Louis. This group, the largest yet to travel west from the United States, became known as the Great Migration of 1843.39 These reports include a meeting with President Tyler, which Drury verifies in his Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon. His evidence here is entirely based on sources involved in the Whitman Controversy (to be discussed in the next chapter), such as Myron Eells, and therefore is not compelling enough for me to report such a meeting definitely took place. 39 Renee Rusler, “Traveling Home with the Great Migration,” February 2011, https://www.nps.gov/whmi/learn/historyculture/traveling-home-with-the-great-migration.htm. 38 26 Estimates put the total number of immigrants at around one thousand people.40 It was also the first large to utilize covered wagons throughout their entire journey, bringing around 200 wagons across the mountains. This feat was important, as it allowed more people to bring more items with them on their journey west, easing the transition. As such, the Great Migration of 1843 is thought to have opened the “Wagon Road to Oregon.”41 Whitman served as both a guide and doctor for the group. The 1843 migration is also important for its connection to the Whitman Myth. Marcus Whitman’s assistance to the train and therefore assistance to American immigration west is connected to his “patriotic” ride east to “save” Oregon. In some iterations of the myth, Whitman is said to have single-handedly organized the migration, a feat that would have been impossible for one person since the group was so large and had been assembled before Whitman left Waiilatpu. Whitman did encourage Americans he met while east to immigrate to Oregon, and he of course assisted with the 1843 journey, guiding wagons across the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. However, none of this was framed in terms of keeping the Oregon Territory for the United States. For many historians, because of the large size and use of covered wagons, this journey marked the beginning of mass immigration to the Oregon Territory. As such, 1843 also marks a turning point for the Indian tribes of the Oregon Territory. Native peoples now had to deal with a large number of settlers who sought to permanently take over land. These people also brought with them disease which decimated native populations, including the Cayuse. The Waiilatpu mission became an important site on 40 41 Ibid. Drury, V2, 85. 27 the Oregon trail as one of the few places immigrants could receive medical assistance on that leg of the journey. Those who were not able to continue their journey immediately due to weather or lack of supplies often stayed with the Whitmans at their mission. The Whitmans turned their attention to the immigrants, who needed them, and away from the Cayuse, who did not. Over several years, each of these factors escalated tensions between the missionaries and the Cayuse. Tragedy at Waiilatpu The attack of November 29, 1847 was motivated by several trends. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, which includes the Cayuse and Walla Walla tribes, states on their website that “reasons for this attack are many and varied but included:      Non-payment for property taken by the mission; Increasing immigrations; Whitman’s encroachment on Indian trade; Fear of Whitman himself, whom the Indians believed had poisoned them; and The constant outbreaks of disease introduced by the Whitmans and other non-Indians which had reduced the tribe’s population by half.”42 Each of these motivations will be explored briefly here. Non-Payment for Property Like the majority of American immigrants, the Whitmans did not purchase the land on which they built their home and mission. The Cayuse were not “paid for use of the land or resources by the mission, as had been promised.”43 The book As Days Go 42 “History of CTUIR,” Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, accessed May 7, 2017, http://ctuir.org/history-culture/history-ctuir. 43 “Draft Foundation Document for Review,” page 8, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, July 2016. 28 By, compiled by the CTUIR, explains that Samuel Parker, on his 1835 visit to the tribe, told the Cayuse, “…I do not plan to take your lands for nothing. After the doctor is come there will come every year a big ship loaded with goods to be divided among the Indians. Those goods will not be sold but given to you.”44 Later on, the Whitmans received permission to build their mission on Cayuse land from Hiyuumtipin, headman of the tribe.45 In exchange, “the missionaries promised annual presents would be made to Hiyuumtipin’s band. However, these gifts were not forthcoming, according to the Indian people.”46 In many cases, the United States government signed land over to settlers that was already used and/or lived on by Native Americans. In few cases, very small payments were made for the land. Many native traditions dictate that land is not owned by an individual but shared by the tribe, so the idea of a settler owning a piece of land was not considered by those to whom the land belonged. This led to conflict, as Indians often felt they had rights to land that settlers had “claimed.” Another sacred Cayuse belief is that material wealth should be shared with others. That the Whitmans would not share tools, food, or resources with the tribe without payment went against this central tenant of tribal life. According to As Days Go By, it is an “unforgiveable mistake and disgrace” to be “stingy, [to] hoard for oneself what another needs, [to] withhold from another what one can give.”47 Members of the tribe would come by the mission to take food from the garden or tools for their own use and then face punishment from the Whitmans. What the missionaries saw as Karson, As Days Go By, 49. “Tribal History,” Whitman Mission National Historic Site, accessed May 7, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/whmi/learn/historyculture/place-of-sunflower.htm. 46 Ibid. 47 Karson, As Days Go By, 42. 44 45 29 stealing, the Cayuse saw as partaking in communal wealth. Ultimately, these differences in understanding led to conflict and tragedy. Increasing Immigrations The Great Migration of 1843, which Marcus Whitman assisted across the Plains and to the Oregon Territory, was the largest migration to that date. By 1849, it is estimated that 12,287 immigrants made their way through native land.48 Settlers took resources and land that had traditionally been used by Indians and brought with them diseases to which native peoples had no immunity. According to the CTUIR, “Indian tribes were willing to live with the newcomers until relations were strained by continual immigration into their land, loss of resources, disease and other pressures.”49 At first, despite cultural differences, there was “diplomacy, communication, and consideration”50 between American immigrants and Indians. However, the U.S. government selling land that it did not own to settlers caused major issues with the tribes.51 The massive increase in immigration to the Oregon Territory put enormous pressure on native land and resources and led to major conflict. Whitman’s Encroachment on Indian Trade For hundreds of years, the Cayuse and other native peoples in North America traded with other tribes, fur trappers and traders, and, eventually, settlers. The influx of immigrants in the 1840s was initially a new market for Indians to trade their goods and resources for new materials. However, the Whitmans sold goods to immigrants coming “History of CTUIR” Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 48 49 30 through on the Oregon trail and provided food and lodging for those who stayed with them at the mission, which severely hurt the Cayuse and other native tribes’ abilities to trade. Fear of Whitman Himself The Cayuse fear that Marcus Whitman was poisoning them stemmed from multiple incidents. A well-known example is that of a watermelon that had been poisoned which was eaten by a group of Cayuse. The watermelon had been poisoned with an ultimately-harmless-though-unpleasant emetic by William Gray, who believed Cayuse were stealing the melons. This incident again boils down to a difference in understanding of personal property. The Cayuse believed that the melons were communal, as all food in their culture was. They did not think they were committing what Gray believed to be a crime. A similar example is the time Marcus Whitman poisoned some meat in order to kill a wolf. A group of Cayuse found the meat and ate it, again getting sick and believing the poisoning to be intentional. An important figure in these incidents is Joe Lewis, a half-native man from farther east who had recently come to live with the tribe. Lewis is reported to have stirred up a lot of trouble among the Cayuse and convinced them of the wickedness of the Whitmans. The most relevant case is that which took place immediately before the tragedy. The Cayuse tribe had been completely overwhelmed by an outbreak of measles from the settlers who had recently come through the area. The medicine given to sick Indians by Dr. Whitman did not work for many, because the Cayuse did not have the same immunity to the disease as sick white settlers. When the Cayuse saw the medicine 31 work for white immigrants but not for Indians, many believed Whitman was actually poisoning the tribe. Disease As mentioned above, 1847 had been a particularly rough year on the Cayuse due to an outbreak of measles which killed half of the tribe. It was not the first outbreak of disease the tribe had experienced since the influx of white settlers. Dr. Whitman had little success treating sick Indians, and many believed he was intentionally letting them die. Cayuse tradition dictated that someone whose family member had died after unsuccessful treatment had a right to kill the medicine man. Attack On November 29, 1847, a small band of Cayuse, along with a few Umatilla and Nez Perce allies,52 attacked the Whitman Mission. Two Cayuse approached Dr. Whitman requesting medicine, and while one distracted him the other struck the missionary’s head with a tomahawk. By the end of the day, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman had been killed along with eleven others. Narcissa was the only woman killed. Forty-seven people, all settlers taking shelter at the mission, were taken hostage by the tribe and held captive for a month until ransomed by the Hudson Bay Company. After the recovery of the hostages at Waiilatpu, the Provisional Government of Oregon approved the assembly of a militia to pursue the attackers. This became known 52 Ibid. 32 as the Cayuse War, one of many Indian Wars that took place throughout the nineteenth century between Native American tribes and the U.S. government. The “war” itself truly only “consisted of minor skirmishes with Cayuse-led war parties against the territorial militia and responses by the Oregon Territorial Malitia [sic] massacring any unfortunate Indian they stumbled across.”53 Incredible violence was perpetrated by the American militia against all native and native-looking people in retaliation for the acts of a few men with no official connection to any tribe. In 1850, five Cayuse men “sacrificed themselves to stop the violence and injustice toward their people.”54 They were hanged in Oregon City, mainly to “appease non-Indian concerns and fears.”55 The bodies of these men were never returned to the Cayuse, an important part of the spiritual recovery of the tribe. This is a significant historical trauma which still is recognized and felt by the CTUIR today.56 In March of 1848, Joe Meek was commissioned as the special envoy of the Provisional Government of Oregon to carry the news of the attack to Washington D.C.57 He was the first to bring the news to the United States. Meek was a cousin of President Polk’s wife, and therefore had access to the White House.58 On May 29th, President Polk sent the news of the attack to Congress “with the recommendation that immediate favorable action be taken” in the course to extending protection to the Ibid. Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 “Draft Foundation Document for Review,” Whitman Mission National Historic Site, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, July 2016. 57 Drury, V2, 314. 58 Drury, V2, 317. 53 54 33 territory.59 August 2, 1848, Oregon officially became a territory of the United States of America. In 1854, the Indian Department declared that no settlements could be established east of the Cascades until the Indian tribes were removed to reservations. In July of that year, Congress approved funds to organize the purchase of Indian land and movement of the tribes. Governor Isaac Stevens of the newly established Washington Territory was put in charge of negotiations with the tribes. Stevens and Palmer each were named Superintendent of Indian Affairs of their territories in addition to being governor. Representatives from the Nez Perces, Cayuse, Walla Walla, Yakamas, and Palouses were present. These meetings established the Yakima, Nez Perce, and Umatilla Reservations. The CTUIR ceded 6.4 million acres of land to the U.S. in exchange for 510,000 acres, reserving the rights to fish, hunt, gather food and medicine, and pasturing livestock.60 The Umatilla Reservation is near Pendleton, Oregon. Conclusion Marcus and Narcissa Whitman were well-meaning people who believed in the good of their work, to the exclusion of compromise or modification. They built their mission on land effectively stolen from the Cayuse people. Over their eleven years at Waiilatpu, they fundamentally did not understand the native culture in which they were living, which lead to many cultural misinterpretations and clashes. Their lives were 59 60 Drury, V2, 317. “History of CTUIR” 34 difficult and they experienced tragedy, namely the death of their only daughter, Alice Clarissa Whitman. In 1842, Marcus Whitman rode east to the United States in response to news that the ABCFM was closing his mission and with the purpose of convincing the board to rescind that decision. While east, he visited Washington D.C, New York, and Boston. He sought to encourage more American settlement in Oregon in order to increase the population of American protestants around Waiilatpu, but this was not a primary goal of his work. Upon his return to Oregon, Whitman led and assisted the Great Migration of 1843 which in many ways paved the road for western expansion. After this, as American immigration to the Oregon territory increased, the Whitmans turned their attention primarily towards settlers rather than the Cayuse with whom they were supposed to be working. The increase in immigration led to high rates of disease and conflict over territory and resources between white settlers and the Cayuse, along with other local tribes. Marcus Whitman was not able to cure the rampant course of measles which decimated half the Cayuse population. In accordance with tribal tradition and in response to several factors, a small band of Indians attacked the mission and killed thirteen people, including Marcus and Narcissa Whitman. This attack led to conflict in the territory, leading to increased violence against Indians and culminating in the hanging of five Cayuse men. In 1848, Oregon became an official territory of the United States. In 1855, the Indian tribes of what is now eastern Washington State were removed to reservations. 35 The Whitmans had a direct impact on western expansion and Indian removal in the Pacific Northwest. Their initial journey with the Spaldings in 1836 showed that white women could make the journey to the Oregon Territory, and their missions proved that it was possible to build a suitable, white, American home in the “wild west.” The Waiilatpu Mission became an important point on the Oregon Trail, providing medical assistance and shelter to American immigrants. The Tragedy at Waiilatpu in 1847 encouraged the annexation of the Oregon Territory by the United States, which further increased immigration. This resulted in the removal of Pacific Northwest tribes to reservations, where they remain today. These points are only part of the lingering legacy of the Whitman missionaries, though. The Whitmans became symbols of the pioneer spirit and noble patriotism in the Oregon territory and lived on within the region as emblems of conquering the west. This narrative has had a major impact on the Walla Walla region and history of the Oregon territory, as will be explored in the following chapters. 36 The Whitman Controversy: 1865-1909 In the years following the deaths of the Whitmans, their legacy was primarily dictated by those who knew them personally, specifically fellow northwest missionaries such as Henry Spalding, William H. Gray, and Cushing Eells. These accounts were largely celebratory, honoring the Whitmans for their martyrdom at the hands of those they were trying to “save.” However, as time went on, and the west became flooded with more and more Americans, the adventure of the frontier faded. In 1890, the U.S. Census Bureau declared the frontier to be closed, as there was no longer a clear line delineating “settled” territory from “unsettled” frontier.61 This prompted historian Frederick Jackson Turner to give his frontier thesis in 1893, in which he declared the “conquering of the west” to be a defining factor to American character. Like Turner, many historians began turning to the west to try to understand its formation over the nineteenth century. As historians began to look towards the west, narratives regarding figures like the Whitmans came under scrutiny. Overtly celebratory tales of their patriotism and heroism were questioned for historical accuracy. This is especially true of what became known as the Whitman Myth or Whitman Legend, the story that Marcus Whitman “Saved Oregon for the United States.” The story stated that Marcus Whitman rode east in 1842 with the sole purpose of going to Washington to ask the President to send more settlers to Oregon and not to let the British take over the territory. It also stated that the Oregon Territory would have been traded or given to the British without Whitman’s 61 Defined by a population of less than 2 people per square mile. 37 ride.62 Therefore, as a result of Whitman’s patriotic work, Oregon was “saved” for the United States. This story was told primarily by those who knew Whitman personally and/or worked with him in the Oregon Territory, but was shared in publications that circulated around the country. As historians began turning to the west to understand its recent past, many took issue with the overt glorification of this narrative. Books such as Oliver W. Nixon’s How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon: A True Romance of Patriotic Heroism, Christian Devotion and Final Martyrdom clashed directly with William I. Marshall’s History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story. The purpose of this chapter is to illuminate early debates within the historical community over the legacy and narrative of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman, and to show how those debates ultimately did not change the way the Whitmans were commemorated in both public memorials and public history. Specifically, this chapter will address what is known as the “Whitman Controversy,” the debate over the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. While the historical community seems to have concluded early on that the story was a fallacy, it lived on throughout the twentieth century in various depictions of the missionaries, including newspaper articles and historical fiction. Though most accounts of the Whitmans acknowledge the myth (usually with some language akin to, “…the long-debunked Whitman myth…,”), many still go on to perpetuate the spirit of the legend by describing Whitman’s patriotism and 62 As was outlined in the previous chapter, this is not the case. Whitman did visit Washington on his trip east, he did encourage people to move west to Oregon, and he did assist the major wagon train of 1843 on his return to Waiilatpu. However, the motivation for his trip east seems to have been to visit the offices of the ABCFM in order to plead the case of his mission, which had been ordered to be closed. More importantly, his visit east had no substantial impact on U.S. policy regarding the Oregon Territory, as the region was not at risk of being traded to the British. 38 heroism. In this way, the conclusions of the greater historical community were not accepted by the general public, who continued to perpetuate the narrative that suited their memorials.63 The Two Sides Following the tragedy at Waiilatpu and the subsequent war with the Cayuse, many of the people who knew the Whitmans and worked in Oregon wrote about the work of the missionaries. In 1865, Henry Spalding wrote about Marcus Whitman, explaining that he went east in 1842 to recruit immigrants to go west and to urge President Tyler to make efforts to secure the Oregon Territory. Spalding proclaimed that Whitman’s ride had a direct result on Tyler’s policy towards the Oregon Territory. This story was repeated by W. H. Gray in his History of Oregon, in which he emphasized the Whitman’s patriotic intent for traveling east. This narrative was supported by Myron Eells, son of Oregon missionary, Reverend Cushing Eells, in his books Marcus Whitman, M.D. and Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, as well as by Dr. William A. Mowry in his book Marcus Whitman and the Early Days of Oregon. Each of these texts tell the story of Whitman’s ride east as a patriotic and heroic endeavor in which he made a great sacrifice for his country and ultimately affected the U.S. claim on Oregon. The Whitman Controversy consisted of a debate—argued mainly through books, essays, and letters—regarding this narrative. The above men each told and advocated for the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. Each of them, besides Mowry, lived 39 in the Oregon Territory and worked as missionaries themselves. While each individually stressed different aspects of the narrative in their own writings, they each believed and advocated that Whitman’s ride east in 1842 convinced President Tyler to maintain control of the Oregon Territory. As such, their version of the narrative will be referred to throughout the rest of this chapter as the “Whitman Saved Oregon Story,” to avoid the implication of the word “myth.” The promoters of this narrative will be referred to as “memorialists,” as they were each keen to celebrate and commemorate Whitman’s legacy. The two most prominent criticisms of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story came from Professor Edward G. Bourne of Yale University and William I. Marshall, Principal of the William E Gladstone School in Chicago and member of the American Historical Association.64 Bourne, a professor of history, was clearly respected by his peers, as can be seen in various reviews of his work as well as in his frequent publication in journals such as the American Historical Review and The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society. He also published his essay on what he called “The Legend of Marcus Whitman” in various forms, indicating its success at the time. Marshall also published his work in journals, where his books on Whitman were well reviewed. Marshall and Myron Eells were considered the “two principal participants” in the Whitman debate. His final book on the subject, Acquisition of Oregon and the Long Suppressed Evidence about Marcus Whitman, was published posthumously in 1911. Bourne and Marshall were each dedicated to supporting their historical narrative It is important to note that criticism and defense of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story began immediately after its first publication by Spalding. Bourne and Marshall are the most prominent critics of the story, and their work remains the most easily accessible, so their work will be used as hallmarks of the controversy, though not the entirety of it. 64 40 with evidence, usually in the form of written documentation, and will therefore be referred to as evidentiary historians. The entire debate begs the question, why did they all care so much? The evidentiary historians continually stressed the importance of “truth” throughout their work. Their writing contains the essence of betrayal throughout, as if they cannot believe that people would have the audacity to lie to the public like they believed the memorialists had. Overall, though, it seems the historians set out to do what historians throughout time have sought to do: understand and share the past. The memorialists, on the other hand, were dedicated to communicating a specific narrative that portrayed a particular, patriotic picture of Marcus Whitman. Why this story? Why did people have to know? While one can only speculate about their motivations, it seems important that the majority of the memorialists were missionaries themselves in the Oregon Territory. Considering the Whitmans’ failures as missionaries, ensuring that one of their own was remembered in a positive, important light would validate their own work as well. If Marcus Whitman saved Oregon, maybe it could make up for the fact that he never saved the Cayuse. When confronted with the evidence provided by Bourne and Marshall, they bristled at the accusation that they, men of God, could be liars. The combination of time (the fifty plus years between the Tragedy at Waiilatpu and the Controversy), a need for validation, and defensiveness led to stark, unquivering devotion to this narrative. They never thought their story was a myth; they believed it—they had to believe it—to their very core. 41 Academic? No. Authority? Maybe: Oliver W. Nixon Oliver W. Nixon was a teacher in the Oregon territory in the 1850s. He wrote How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon: A True Romance of Patriotic Heroism, Christian Devotion and Final Martyrdom in 1895. In his preface to the book, he wrote, This little volume is not intended to be a history of Oregon missions or even a complete biography of Dr. Whitman. Its aim is simply to bring out…the heroism and Christian patriotism of the man who rendered great and distinguished service to his country, which has never been fully appreciated or recognized.65 He continued on to admit, “I expect some of my critics will ask…’Who is your authority for this fact and that?’ I only answer, I don’t know unless I am authority [sic].”66 Therefore, it is easy to say that Nixon was not an historian. However, he did seem to believe that his time in Oregon immediately following the Tragedy at Waiilatpu and his experience with missionaries qualified him as an authority on the Whitmans. Since his book was referenced by many in the Whitman Controversy, it is important to include this work here. With regards to Whitman’s ride of 1842, Nixon referenced Reverend Cushing Eells, who knew Whitman and was present at the meeting at which he decided to ride east. Eells was quoted as follows: “The purpose of Dr. Whitman was fixed. In his estimation the saving of Oregon to the United States was of paramount importance, and he would make the attempt to do so, even if he had to withdraw from the Mission in order to accomplish his purpose.”67 True to his explanation in the preface, Nixon did 65 Oliver Nixon, How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon: A True Romance of Patriotic Heroism, Christian Devotion and Final Martyrdom, with Sketches of Life on the Plains and Mountains in Pioneer Days (Chicago: Star Pub. Co., 1895), 5. 66 Nixon, How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon, 5. 67 Nixon, How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon, 103. 42 not provide a source for this quotation, merely attributing it to an “account of [the 1842] conference.”68 There is no way to know what kind of account Nixon was quoting, if Eells said the quotation at all, or, if he did, when the quotation was given. As Eells died in 1893, it is very possible that, had the quote actually come from him, it came decades after the meeting itself, after Spalding had begun circulating the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. Therefore the quote has no verifiable authority on the 1842 meeting. Later in the book, when discussing the events that took place when Whitman reached Washington D.C., Nixon emphasized that there is “no recorded account of the interview between the President, his Secretary of State and Whitman.”69 As such, the discussion that took place during this meeting can only be imagined by those who wish to claim it as proof of Whitman’s work, such as Nixon, who himself proceeded to imagine what happened during the supposed meeting. This is important, as Nixon is often cited by other proponents of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, such as Mowry and Eells, yet Nixon had no solid evidence in support of his claims. He wrote his narrative solely based on the words of others and the stories he heard. While he did not originate the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, Nixon, clearly far from an historian, was instrumental in spreading the story across the country. Beginning the Controversy: Edward G. Bourne The first published affront to the Whitman Saved Oregon Story was a paper by Professor Edward G. Bourne of Yale University titled “The Legend of Marcus 68 69 Ibid. Nixon, How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon , 124. 43 Whitman.” It was originally published as an article in the American Historical Review, and then as a part of a book titled Essays in Historical Criticism in 1902. Bourne’s attack of the “myth” was clearly the highlight of the collection, as was noted by J. Franklin Jameson in the American Historical Review. Jameson wrote, “The Whitman Legend is fatally damaged, so far as any use of it by trained historical students is concerned.”70 The essay was then published in The Morning Oregonian in March of 1903, and its success led Bourne to print a shorter version of the article in its own booklet, at the urging of the editor of the S.S. Times in Philadelphia.71 Published alongside Bourne’s article was an editorial by Harvey W. Scott of The Oregonian which addressed the article “Strange Treatment of Original Sources” by William I. Marshall, the other primary evidentiary historian in the Whitman Controversy. The biography at the beginning of the booklet indicated that Essays in Historical Criticism was “considered authoritative by historical students as to the subject under discussion,”72 as well as assured the reader that Bourne’s “views [were] generally endorsed by the members of the American Historical Association with which he [was] prominently connected.” It is clear that on several occasions, it was emphasized by members of the historical community that historians could no longer validate the Whitman Saved Oregon Story following Bourne’s work. 70 J. Franklin Jameson, “Review: Essays in Historical Criticism by Edward Gaylord Bourne,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, (1902): 746, accessed May 7, 2017, http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.whitman.edu/stable/pdf/1834572.pdf. 71 Edward G. Bourne and H.W. Scott, “The Whitman Myth,” Reprinted from The Morning Oregonian of March 29, 1903, 1, Box 5, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 72 Ibid. 44 The booklet begins with the inflammatory declaration, “Published in the Interests of the Truth of History.”73 It then goes on to affirm that Bourne’s “criticism is of those who exaggerate and amplify events of history, and not of Dr. Whitman as a man or of his record as a pioneer and a missionary.”74 Bourne, like most critics of the story, worked to assure the reader that the author did not wish to slander Marcus or Narcissa Whitman, but simply wanted to get closer to the historical truth. This desire is reflected in the way in which Bourne went about making his argument. The article as printed in the pamphlet is almost entirely made up of evidence found in letters from the Whitmans and their contemporaries that directly contrasts the claims of memorialists. This a stark contrast from the work of Nixon, who again only worked from the accounts and memories of others. No attempt was made throughout the booklet to say anything against the character of either of the Whitmans, simply the character of the memorialists and the integrity of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. Bourne first addressed the idea that Oregon would have been lost to the United States “through the ignorance or indifference of the Government authorities”75 had Whitman not gone to Washington. To refute the claim, Bourne cited a letter from President Tyler to his son in which he wrote, “I looked exclusively to an adjustment by the forty-ninth degree, and never dreamed for a moment of surrendering the free navigation of the Columbia….I never dreamed of ceding this country…”76 Bourne also referenced the Linn bill of 1841, which he explained extended the laws of the United Ibid. Ibid. 75 Bourne, “The Whitman Myth,” 2. 76 As quoted by Bourne, “The Whitman Myth,” 2. 73 74 45 States to the Oregon Territory.77 With this, Bourne concluded that “It is clear from these facts that a treaty surrendering the southern half of the territory was not in any danger of being ratified in 1843, if Marcus Whitman had not come east.”78 Bourne then went on to address the intention of Whitman himself, using letters from both Marcus and Narcissa as well as other Oregon missionaries to show that the goal of his trip east was to meet with the ABCFM and deter the order of 1842 which was to close the Waiilatpu branch of the Oregon missions. He explained that Whitman had no reason to think that the U.S. government was going to forgo the Oregon Territory, as sub-Indian agent Dr. Elijah White had recently visited Waiilatpu, after assisting the 1842 migration, and conveyed Washington D.C.’s continuing interest in Oregon. In each of the letters cited by Bourne, the writer wrote about Whitman’s drive to “do the work of God,” which in Bourne’s view referred solely to saving the mission, rather than any patriotic goal. The professor carefully detailed and analyzed primary evidence refuting the story, as any claim not backed by evidence did not qualify as valid in his view. Bourne concluded his essay without question: These extracts from the absolutely contemporary written records show clearly that there was no danger in 1842-43 that that part of the old Oregon territory which is now in the United States would be lost to the Union if Marcus Whitman had not come east; that the people in the present state of Oregon were officially informed, in September, 1842, by an agent of the Government, who was fresh from Washington, that the Government intended to occupy the country; and that the reason of Marcus Whitman’s journey east was to induce the American Board not to abandon, but to re-enforce, his mission station, and that the reason for his great haste was his desire to get to St. Louis before winter set in.79 Bourne, “The Whitman Myth,” 3. Ibid. 79 Bourne, “The Whitman Myth,” 10. 77 78 46 Bourne argued clearly the exact points of contention he had with the story and referred to primary sources to affirm his points. His essay is an excellent, if dry, example of thorough historical research, which earned him the admiration of his peers in the historical community. Bourne’s conclusions seem plausible to the modern historical eye. What is most convincing is the insistence that politicians in Washington D.C. were certainly not thinking of trading away Oregon by the 1840s, as interest in the territory was consistent throughout the middle of the nineteenth century. As much would have certainly been communicated by White, as Bourne discussed, during his visit to Waiilatpu. If Whitman was nervous about encroaching Europeans, he would have been far more worried about the nearby Catholic missions than any British settlers, who had occupied the area before Whitman himself. What is unclear about Bourne’s argument is his references to the Linn Bill. Bourne seems to be referring here to the bill first introduced by Senator Lewis Linn of Missouri in 1841 that would grant land to white settlers and “half-breed Indians” who immigrated to the Oregon Territory.80 However, the bill was not voted on until after Whitman’s ride in 1842 and did not pass Congress until 1850, when it was known as the Donation Land Act. It did not extend U.S. law to the Oregon Territory, as Bourne explained. However, the Linn bill did have a substantial impact on western immigration, prompting Americans to go west even without passing through Congress.81 80 “First Emigrants on the Oregon Trail: Beginning the Great Migration to Oregon,” Oregon California Trails Association, accessed May 7, 2017, http://www.octa-trails.org/articles/first-emigrants-on-theoregon-trail. 81 Jeffrey, Converting the West, 172. 47 Thorough Denial: William I. Marshall While Bourne published his work on the Whitman Saved Oregon Story prior to Marshall, it is easy to trace Marshall’s interest in the story back to 1877. In a review of his final book, Acquisition of Oregon and the Long Suppressed Evidence about Marcus Whitman, Charles W. Smith traced the work of Marshall (who had recently passed away) on the Whitman story. Marshall had met with Mowry in 1877, who first told him about the tale. This conversation convinced Marshall that Whitman had in fact saved Oregon for the United States.82 Traveling to Oregon in 1882 to learn about Whitman for himself, Marshall began discovering documents refuting Mowry’s claims. According to Smith, “he became further convinced that this evidence had been purposely kept in the background and that a definite effort was being made to extend a belief of the indebtedness of the United States to Whitman.”83 Marshall worked to change school textbooks and the minds of the historical community against the glorification of Whitman. He gave lectures in Chicago on what he called the myth, and in 1884 in a lecture at the Peabody Institute in Baltimore, Marshall declared that “Whitman’s ride, though a brave deed, had nothing to do with saving any part of Oregon, had no political purpose nor result, but was undertaken solely on missionary business, and if Marcus Whitman had never been born our line would have been 49 degrees to the Pacific, precisely as it is to-day.”84 Charles W. Smith, “Review: Acquisition of Oregon and the Long Suppressed Evidence about Marcus Whitman by William I. Marshall,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 17. No. 2 (Jan. 1912): 385, accessed May 7, 2017, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1833022.pdf. 83 Ibid. 84 William I. Marshall, “A Discussion of Professor Bourne’s Paper,” published in History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story (Chicago: Blakely Printing Co., 1904), 222. 82 48 The most fascinating part of the Whitman Controversy can be found in the letters from Marshall to various authors regarding their work on the story, specifically Dr. William A. Mowry.85 They wrote extensively to each other throughout the 1890s, Marshall critiquing Mowry’s work and Mowry defending it. The thoroughness with which they address each other’s work is fascinating to see, highlighting every point of contention and defending their arguments line by line. They even accuse each other of misquoting previously exchanged letters, ensuring that their points are accurately represented. The harsh words Marshall used to tear apart the story are in direct contrast with the way he addresses his opponent: “Friend Mowry.” Marshall was incredibly forthright in his criticism of the story and its supporters. In his letter to Mowry dated November 10, 1898, he reported that when Mowry read his criticism of the story (totaling 180 pages), he “[would] not know at which to be the most amazed; [his] credulity in continuing to endorse the myth, or the audacious mendacity of Gray, Spalding, and Eells in fabricating it.”86 In one of his more passionate declarations, Marshall went on to claim that, “One half of the matter in my possession will not merely shatter the Whitman Saved Oregon Myth into fragments, but will grind it to impalpabel [sic] powder, whose existence will only be manifest by the strong sulphurous [sic] odor it will exhale from the amount of unscrupulous lying used to bolster it up.”87 Many of these letters can be found in the “Whitman Controversy: Various Letters” file in Box 5 of the Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection (WCMss105) in the Northwest Archives at Whitman College. 86 William I. Marshall to William A. Mowry, November 10, 1898, The Whitman Controversy, Various Letters, Box 5, The Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College Northwest Archives. 87 Ibid. 85 49 Marshall’s first book, published in 1904, was similarly scathing. Titled audaciously History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story, he indicated from the start his intention to show “history,” here to be understood as “facts” or the “reality of what happened,” as inherently antagonistic to the story. Marshall began by directly calling out those who perpetuated the story, claiming that he “decided to issue a limited edition of these three essays,” specifically for, …the information of some writers whose study of the long struggle for nearly one-twelfth of all our domain on this continent has been so exceedingly superficial, that they are willing to accept such aggregations of blunders as Dr. Mowry’s ‘Marcus Whitman,’ and Rev. Dr. Eells’ ‘Reply to Professor Bourne,’ and Barrows’ ‘Oregon,’ and Nixon’s ‘How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon,’ and Craighead’s ‘Story of Marcus Whitman,’ as trustworthy historical authorities.88 The book then goes on to address Mowry and Myron Eells’ work specifically, with chapters on each detailing the individual issues Marshall took with each author’s argument. It seems that Marshall was personally offended by the story and those who continued to spread it in the face of evidence. In his book’s introduction, he wrote that “The simplest test of the value of any historical writing is to examine the honesty and accuracy of its quotations and its summaries of documents too long to quote, and any writer who does not quote accurately and summarize fairly and impartially is wholly unworthy of credence.”89 This was addressing specific authors, but can be seen as applying to all those who ignore evidence contrary to their ideas. One of Marshall’s William I. Marshall, History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story: Three Essays Towards a True History of the Acquisition of the Old Oregon Territory (Being Nearly One-Twelfth of all Our Domain on this Continent), Which was the Longest, the Most Remarkable--and when Truthfully Told--the Most Interesting Struggle We Have Ever Made for Territory (Chicago: Press of the Blakely Printing Co., 1904), 3. 89 Marshall, History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story, 5. 88 50 main contentions, and one in which he differs from Bourne, was that Gray, Spalding, and Cushing Eells, who originated and spread the story, must have known that they were lying and crafting a fallacy. He wrote to Mowry, “the circumstances leading up to that Winter’s journey were of such a peculiar nature, had been active so many years, and so closely affected the fortunes and the lives of the members of the Oregon Mission, that it is impossible that Gray, Spalding, and C. Eells could ever forget them.”90 Marshall uses this insistence to indicate that the three contemporaries of Whitman must have remembered the causes of the ride east clearly and therefore had to knowingly fabricate the “myth.” As was noted above, this does not seem to be the case. It is known that Spalding’s mind faded in the years following the tragedy, so his initial telling of the story was most likely a well-intentioned but mistaken account of what he only partially remembered. The others who told the story with such vigor were most likely similarly wrapped up in a mixture of fuzzy recollection and emotional memory. The strict adherence to the story matches the tenacity of those who feel their life’s work and meaning is under attack. Another one of Marshall’s key arguments is that the evidence refuting the patriotic nature of Marcus Whitman’s ride east was intentionally hidden from the public by those wishing to glorify his memory. This can be seen in the introduction to History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story where Marshall laid out his evidence. In detailing the substantiation to come, Marshall listed the following examples of sources he would bring to light: William I. Marshall to William A. Mowry, November 10, 1898, The Whitman Controversy, Various Letters, Box 5, The Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College Northwest Archives. 90 51 The Long-Suppressed Evidence About the Origin and Purpose of Whitman’s Ride…All the letters Whitman ever wrote making claims that the establishment of his mission and his ride had been of benefit to the nation. Most of this has been heretofore suppressed…The LongSuppressed Evidence as to the Rapid Decadence of the WhitmanSpalding-Eells-Walker Mission after 1839-40, and especially after 1843…The True Causes of the Whitman Massacre, with the Conclusive Proof—some hitherto suppressed and the rest difficult of access—of the total falsity of the accusation that the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Catholics instigated or were in any way responsible for that perfectly natural outburst of Indian ferocity.91 There are several important implications in the passage above. The “decadence” of the missions to which Marshall refers is confusing, but is perhaps in reference to the Whitmans’ change in focus from the Cayuse to the incoming white settlers. No other evidentiary historian made a similar claim. The reference to the “true causes of the Whitman Massacre” is especially interesting, as it is one of the earliest examples I have found of someone appearing to defend the Cayuse in the Whitman Tragedy. While it is difficult to parse out whether Marshall means that the attack was “a perfectly natural outburst” because he empathized with the Cayuse or if he meant that “Indian ferocity” of any kind was natural, he nonetheless seems to be acquitting the attackers of some of their guilt. Marshall’s discussion of Native Americans is interesting in other places as well. For instance, on page 7 of his letter to Mowry of November 10, 1898, he explained that it was ridiculous for Barrow to claim that the four Flathead Indians who visited St. Louis were in search of a bible, as “to these wandering savages, whose language had not been reduced to writing, would have been as useless as a consignment of grand pianos or typewriters to the wandering Esquimaux [Eskimo] in Northern Greenland.” The 91 Marshall, History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story, 4. 52 classification of native people as “savages” was not unusual for the time at which Marshall was writing, but it does add an interesting lens through which his seeming defense of the Cayuse’s actions can be viewed. The most important aspect of Marshall’s evidence is the insistence that evidence regarding the Whitman Saved Oregon Story was intentionally suppressed by memorialists who sought to craft their own, glorified narrative of the Whitmans. The same sentiment is obvious in his final book, titled Acquisition of Oregon and the Long Suppressed Evidence about Marcus Whitman. Marshall clearly believed that memorializations of the Whitmans were interfering with historical work, and claimed that those who sought to honor the missionaries were going so far as to “suppress” evidence of their flaws. This is especially interesting, considering, as will be addressed later, the memorialist narrative is surely the more enduring of the two within the controversy. Defended Until the End: Myron Eells Myron Eells’ final book, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, was eventually published in 1909, following his death in 1907. It is a detailed chronical of Marcus’s life, seemingly dedicated to ensuring every bit of documented information is put on paper. Eells was the son of Cushing and Myra Eells who had come to Waiilatpu with the 1838 reinforcement of missionaries to the Oregon Territory. They worked among the Spokane Indians at Tshimakain, in what is now northern Washington state until the Tragedy in 1847, when they moved to the Willamette Valley. Myron Eells also served as a missionary in the Pacific Northwest and wrote several books on the founding of the Oregon Territory. Mowry hoped Pathfinder and Patriot would be the 53 “last word” on the subject of the Whitman Controversy, as Eells would “make it so full, so complete, so authoritative, that no one can afterward object.”92 The book is presented mostly chronologically, placing Eells’ discussion of the 1842 ride right in the middle of the text. The context provided is the Joint Occupancy of Oregon as established by the 1818 treaty with Great Britain. Eells firmly established that Great Britain was attempting to claim the territory for itself, describing the efforts of the Hudson’s Bay Company and other such groups to bring settlements of British citizens to the area.93 The situation is presented as quite dire, with Whitman receiving information from the 1842 immigration of the immediate risk of Oregon. Eells wrote that Whitman “called a meeting of the mission to discuss various subjects, the most important one being that a purpose of his to go East immediately to do what he could to save Oregon to the United States be approved.”94 This seems to be referring to the meeting of the various Oregon missions in September of that year to discuss the ABCFM’s decision to close several sites. Eells portrayed Whitman as the sole organizer of the meeting with the express purpose of discussing a patriotic trip east. The trip itself was described as a harrowing journey, accompanied by a picture of Whitman kneeling in deep snow, eyes towards the sky, seemingly asking God for assistance.95 Eells pointed out that while in St. Louis, Whitman stayed in the home of Dr. Edward Hale, who lived with William Barrows, another famous proponent of the Myron Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot (Seattle: The Alice Harriman Company, 1909), Preface. 93 Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, 148. 94 Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, 155. 95 Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, 156. 92 54 Whitman Saved Oregon Story.96 Throughout his description of the ride, Eells cites other works on the story, such as Nixon’s How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon. Eells’ descriptions of Whitman’s time in the east are confusing. He begins by noting that Whitman’s first “visit on record” was with Reverend Samuel Parker, with whom he had traveled west in 1835. This does not match records that I have found, as Whitman went to New York, where Parker lived, after his time in Washington. Then Eells moves to Whitman’s time in Washington. Again, his descriptions do not match records, and Eells provided no citations for his claims. He wrote that Whitman met with Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, through his acquaintance with Secretary of War, James M. Porter. This much is supported by sources. But according to Eells, Webster “received [Whitman] very coolly, and told him it was too late, as far as he was concerned” to save Oregon, “for he had considered it, decided it, and turned it over to the President, who could sign Oregon away or refuse to do so.”97 There was no legislation at the time that would have done anything like what Eells described, so Webster would have had no reason to claim this. Eells then explained that Whitman went to President Tyler directly, with whom he “for some time…talked about Oregon.”98 In this supposed discussion, Eells claims that “the objection was made that wagons could never be taken to Oregon and that consequently the country could never be peopled overland by emigrants, while the distance around Cape Horn was too great to think of taking settlers to the country in that way.”99 In response, Eells explained that Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, 159. Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, 160. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 96 97 55 “Dr. Whitman told of the great value of the country and of his plans to lead an emigration through with their wagons the next summer.”100 The story continues that Whitman detailed his success in bringing wagons over the Rockies. Eells explained that “the President then said he would wait, before carrying the negotiations any further, until he could hear whether Dr. Whitman should succeed, and if he should there would be no more thought of trading off Oregon.”101 To a modern historian, these claims contrast starkly with the sources available. Whitman did plan to return to Waiilatpu with the Wagon Train of 1843, but he did not serve as more than a guide to the group and did not organize it in any way. President Tyler would have been aware the plans for the journey, as large migrations of Americans to western territories would have been of great interest to the President during such an expansionist era. The supposed promise from President Tyler to wait until he hears of Whitman’s success is unlikely and unsubstantiated, as there were no plans to trade away Oregon at this time. Eells also dedicated an entire chapter to rebutting claims against the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, namely the idea that there was no danger of losing Oregon. He provided only one clear example against this, that in 1827 a resolution had been introduced to Congress asking “to exchange Oregon for Upper Canada.”102 This bill had been introduced seven years before missionary work began in the territory and 15 years before large-scale American immigration to the territory truly began, and as it clearly did not lead to any actual territorial discussion. It also did not pass. Regardless Ibid. Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, 161. 102 Eells, Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot, 195. 100 101 56 of the rather flimsy condition of this rebuttal, Eells’ claims held up over the years, as his narrative lived on in performances and public memorials. Overall, Eells’ work represents the antithesis to the analyses of Bourne and Marshall. Where the evidentiary historians used sources to support their claims, Eells relied mainly on anecdotes and stories. If he did have concrete evidence in support of his narrative, he did not provide them to the reader. It is then significant that Eells’ work was matched so closely by later tellings of the Whitman story, along with the accounts of other memorialists, while Bourne, Marshall, and other evidentiary historians’ work faded away following the controversy. Conclusion The final publications of Myron Eells and William I. Marshall traditionally mark the end of the Whitman Controversy, but the debate lived on through others. In 1916, four years after the death of Marshall and the end to the controversy, William Denison Lyman, Professor of History at Whitman College and friend to Whitman College President and true believer in the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, Stephen B.L. Penrose, published an article in the Washington Historical Quarterly. Titled, “Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question,” Lyman admittedly reopened the long “quiescent” controversy in order to give memorialists what he deemed a “fair hearing.”103 103 W. D. Lyman, “Some Observations upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question,” The Washington Historical Quarterly 7, no. 2 (1916): http://www.jstor.org/stable/40474605. 57 Like Marshall, Lyman attributed his work to a devotion to “certain principles which I think should govern the investigator and the writer in the acquisition of data, and the serious, even sacred, responsibility of presenting them to the world.”104 He insists that despite the fact that “many readers East and West considered [the books of Bourne and Marshall] final adverse settlement of the case,” and the “considerable acceptance” of the opinion that “the Whitman ‘myth’ might be considered exploded for good…there is now a decided swinging of the pendulum the other way.”105 Lyman here is referring to the enduring popularity of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story through memorials and honorary writing outside of the historical community. Interestingly, as a Professor of History at an academic institution, Lyman accused Bourne’s writing to be too “supercilious and academic” in his writing of history,106 and praised the work of non-historians such as Eells for their “fairness, candor, and dignity,” as well as their lack of “’scientific’ abuse and misinterpretation.”107 In other words, Lyman thought Bourne and Marshall were too devoted to evidence in their historical pursuits, eager to tear this story from “some missionaries and college builders in a distant state” who “seem to take much comfort in [this] example of heroism and patriotism.”108 Though seemingly a representative of the historical community, as a Professor of History publishing in an historical journal, Lyman was firmly aligning himself with the memorialists. Historians often take opposite sides in debates, but Lyman’s position Ibid. Lyman, “Some Observations,” 100. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Lyman, “Some Observations,” 101. 104 105 58 is indicative of the outcome of the Whitman Controversy. Despite a thorough investigation of the sources, the Walla Walla community, historical and otherwise, maintained their belief in and perpetuation of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. The Whitman Controversy is significant because it shows that multiple narratives about the Whitmans were put forth at the end of the nineteenth century, one from the historical community, one from memorialists. Naturally, those who sought to commemorate the missionaries chose the narrative that best suited their memorials. However, as memorials were a primary source of historical understanding for the Walla Walla community, the celebratory narrative was the one remembered and perpetuated for decades following the end of the debate. This choice of narrative had long-lasting ramifications on the curation of public history, which will be discussed in the fourth chapter of this thesis. 59 “To Pay Homage to a Pioneer Hero:” The Community Memorials of 1897-1936 The community of Walla Walla put together several celebrations of and memorials to the Whitman missionaries throughout the twentieth century. These events created and perpetuated narratives about the Whitmans that shaped the understanding of local history in the community. The purpose of this chapter is to trace Walla Walla community memorials of the Whitmans, analyze the historical narratives they told, and examine how those narratives shaped the history that was told in other venues. Though memorials often put forth an historical narrative of the event they commemorate, in many cases, community events are coordinated without consulting academic or public historians. The case of memorializations of the Whitmans are an exception to this trend, as both historians and coordinators of public history in the area were involved in early community commemorative efforts. As such, these events are important aspects of the missionaries’ historiography, as they put forth narratives that significantly affected all forms of historical work in this field. Two clear aspects of the Whitmans’ identity were stressed in each of these memorial events: the heroic and patriotic nature of Marcus Whitman as told through the Whitman Saved Oregon Story,109 and the symbol of white, Christian motherhood represented by Narcissa. These two narratives are connected, as Marcus’ “saving of As explained in Chapter 2, the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, or Whitman Myth, stated that Marcus Whitman’s ride east in 1842 was in the sole purpose of preserving American claim on the Oregon Territory and to promote immigration west. The error of the myth lies in the motivation, not the result, of Whitman’s ride. As noted in the previous chapter, the myth was “long-debunked” in the academic community but continued to live on in public celebrations. This is especially true in community memorials, which tended to highlight the patriotic nature of the Whitmans’ history and celebrate the missionaries as martyrs for both their faith and their country. 109 60 Oregon” would not have been effective had Narcissa not been able to create a “proper” home in the “Wild West.” These memorial events highlighted the presence of the Whitman’s at Waiilatpu as central contributions to American settlement in the west. The narratives told through these events focused on the Whitmans’ role as pioneers rather than their work as missionaries. Large-scale memorial efforts to the Whitmans began in 1897 with the fiftieth anniversary of their death, when a monument was erected at the mission site. Memorials were then organized by the community for each significant anniversary over the next several decades. In 1936, the centennial of the missionaries’ arrival in the Walla Walla valley, an even larger celebration was coordinated by the community to both honor the Whitmans and raise funds to purchase the mission grounds. The proceeds from the celebration were used to buy the land of the Waiilatpu Mission in order to create a national monument through the National Parks Service, where the Whitman Mission National Historic Site now stands. In this way, these memorial celebrations were directly connected to the public history and portrayal of the Whitmans. Early Memorial Efforts Following the Treaty of 1855, settlement in the Oregon Territory steadily increased. In 1880, the population of the Pacific Northwest (including the modern states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) was 283,000.110 The completion of the 110“Lesson Fourteen: Industrialization, Technology, and Environment in Washington,” Center for the Study of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington, accessed May 7, 2017, http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Classroom%20Materials/Pacific%20Northwe st%20History/Lessons/Lesson%2014/14.html. It is not noted who this figure includes, but it most likely does not include Indian populations. 61 Transcontinental Railroad in 1883 then greatly increased access to the west, creating a surge in population. By the 1890s, the great “wilderness” of the west was largely “tamed” by white, American settlement. By 1910, the same area maintained a population of 2 million residents.111 Work to memorialize the Whitmans began in the years immediately following the 1847 tragedy. As was discussed in the previous chapter, newspaper articles and other publications were written by those who knew the missionaries and many in the Presbyterian community to commemorate the “martyrs.” The first official memorial to the Whitmans was the establishment of the Whitman Seminary in 1859 by the Reverend Cushing Eells who knew the Whitmans and also worked as a missionary in the Pacific Northwest. Eells wanted “to erect a befitting monument to the memory of our martyred missionary colaborers in the form of a school of high moral character."112 By the 1870s, William Gray, who had come over with the Whitmans and Spaldings on their initial trip west, began efforts to commemorate the missionaries at the mission site. Gray assembled the Whitman Monument Association to raise funds for a permanent monument, but his overly elaborate designs along with a lack of agreement about monument location caused the project to fail.113 After Gray’s death in 1889, efforts to erect a proper monument resurged when the Presbyterian Ministers’ Association of Portland recognized the lack of care given to the mass grave at the mission site. The Monument Association was revived in order to raise funds for a monument as well as a “suitable celebration at the half century mark” of the tragedy to Ibid. Again, no explanation is made of who was counted for this figure. As quoted in G. Thomas Edwards, The Triumph of Tradition: The Emergence of Whitman College, 1859-1924 (Walla Walla: Whitman College, 1992), 4. 113 Jenifer Crabtree, Administrative History, Whitman Mission National Historic Site (1988), 8. 111 112 62 take place in 1897.114 The result of these efforts was the memorial obelisk that still stands at the top of the hill at the National Historic Site today (Figure 1). Figure 1: Whitman Monument Following this initial memorial in 1897, commemorations took place for each significant anniversary for the next few decades.115 An article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer detailed the sixtieth anniversary memorial in 1907.116 According to the article, “Hundreds” came to “pay homage to a pioneer hero.”117 The majority of the Crabtree, Administrative History, 10. It is important to note that the first several memorials were in honor of the deaths of the Whitmans and others at Waiilatpu in what was known at the time as the Whitman Massacre. This changed in 1936, when focus shifted to celebrating the arrival of the missionaries in the valley. Interestingly, the 1997 memorial event hosted by Whitman College, which will be discussed in a later chapter of this work, marked the sesquicentennial of the tragedy, again marking the death of the Whitmans rather than their lives. 116 This is one of very few remaining sources regarding the 1907 memorial, so its detail has been incredibly helpful in understanding early memorial efforts. While the speeches given at the event cannot be found in their entirety in the Northwest Archives, the PI article quoted the speeches at length. 117 “Hundreds Pay Homage to a Pioneer Hero,” Seattle Post Intelligencer, November 30, 1907, Box 11, The Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 114 115 63 article was dedicated to quoting and summarizing the various speeches given at the event, allowing those who could not travel to Walla Walla the opportunity to experience the memorial vicariously. Governor Mead of Washington State gave an address in which he honored the Whitmans for their work, stating that visitors were gathered “to pay homage to the memory of those pioneer missionaries who died martyrs to their cause, slain by the cruel and ungrateful hands of those whom they were endeavoring to assist.”118 Mead emphasized the Whitmans’ status as pioneers ahead of their missionary work, yet stressed their morality and honor, continuing on to say that it was a privilege to be permitted to pay a tribute to those brave and devoted Christian men and women who, inspired by the purest motives and urged on by the highest purpose, turned their backs on the comforts and the security of home and civilization and struck out boldly and fearlessly into the wilderness to carry the blessings of religion to a benighted and savage people.119 Throughout his speech, Mead underscored the Christianity of the Whitmans in addition to their part in bringing Americans to the Oregon Territory. After detailing how Marcus’ life was an “ennobling example of the high type of manhood and the fearless, devoted and self-sacrificing Christianity” required of those “who undertook the formidable task of enlightening the savage people of this Coast,”120 Mead noted that “We today are indebted to them for the great heritage which we now enjoy in the magnificent states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.”121 Ibid. Ibid. 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid. 118 119 64 Mead’s final point relates to the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. By saying that the people of the northwest are indebted to Marcus Whitman for the states listed, Mead referred directly to the subject of the Whitman Controversy that was still very fresh in the minds of memorialists and historians alike.122 Mead seems to have clearly credited Whitman with at least part of the task of “saving Oregon for the United States.” While he does not refer to the “Whitman Myth” directly, those who were invested in the legacy of the Whitmans, like those who would have planned and attended such a memorial, would have been familiar with the controversy and therefore would connect Meads conviction to the debate. Another notable speaker at the sixtieth anniversary memorial was none other than Edwin Eells, son of the Rev. Cushing Eells and older brother to Myron, recently deceased perpetuator of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. Unsurprisingly, Eells took a similar tone as Mead in his emphasis in Whitmans’ patriotism and active role in the acquisition of Oregon. Eells even connected the story directly to the journey of the four Nez Perce to St. Louis in 1831 in search of the “white man’s black book,” positing that those were “the words that saved old Oregon and the Pacific Northwest to the government of the United States,”123 as the journey of those men were part of what inspired Marcus Whitman, and indeed many others, to become missionaries in western North America. Eells continued on to address the Whitman Controversy rather explicitly: “I would not wish to give [Marcus Whitman] undo praise. He was mortal, like all of us. He had his faults and his failings…Between the Myron Eells’ final book had been published posthumously that same year, which is credited as the final say in the “Whitman Controversy.” 123 “Hundreds Pay Homage to a Pioneer Hero,” Seattle Post Intelligencer, November 30, 1907, Box 11, The Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 122 65 hero worshippers, on the one side, and the historical iconoclasts on the other, the true name and fame of Dr. Whitman have unfortunately been misrepresented…Others have proclaimed far and wide that Whitman saved Oregon, while still others deny this, and ascribe great credit to Rev. Lee. They all saved Oregon. Each in his place did what he or she could, and each was most important.”124 Here, Eells was specifically referencing the debate in order to qualify his words and, by means of proactive rebuttal, defend himself against attack. His comments can also be taken as an effort to mend the ties within the community which may have been severed or damaged by the Whitman Controversy. These attempts were successful enough to ensure that the story as put forth by Myron Eells and supported here by his brother was the story that endured through memorials to the missionaries. An interesting aspect of Eells’ speech was his discussion of the tragedy itself. Firstly, he qualified the Whitmans’ success as missionaries, explaining that they were “successful,” but only “as far as circumstances beyond their control would permit.”125 He then went on to discuss the Cayuse themselves in a surprisingly generous tone for one who was a contemporary to the attack. Eells described those involved in the tragedy as “a small band of renegade Indians of a proud and arrogant tribe under adverse influences.” While using the typical language of the time to unfairly characterize the Cayuse as a whole as “arrogant,” Eells clearly states that it was a small group from the tribe, not the entire group, and that they were both “renegade” and “under adverse influences,” most likely referring to the manipulation of Joe Lewis. Eells elaborated on this influence, detailing that the men who attacked the mission were “under the mistaken idea that [the white settlers] were coming to deprive 124 125 Ibid. Ibid. 66 them of their country, and that Dr. Whitman having been active in assisting them to come here was their worst enemy.”126 This is a rather messy statement to unpack, as Eells claimed the Cayuse “rose up and murdered all the white Americans in this part of the country,” which of course was not the case. On the other hand, the Cayuse’s fear that white settlers were going to take their land was completely founded. It is difficult to argue that the Whitmans were responsible for the acquisition of the Oregon Territory for the United States while simultaneously claiming the native inhabitants of the area were wrong in believing their land was at risk. Still, it is significant that Eells both rationalized the reaction of the Cayuse who participated in the attack and separated the small group from the whole of the tribe. The final paragraph of the article described that visitors had “chipped off pieces of the monument as souvenirs,” so a fence was to be built around the obelisk. This fence is still in place today. Stephen B.L. Penrose and Whitman College The seventieth anniversary of the tragedy at the Whitman Mission, celebrated in November of 1917, followed a similar program as the sixtieth anniversary. However, this event was coordinated by “the people of Walla Walla and Whitman College.”127 The college’s involvement was related to the fact that the event was presided over by Whitman College President Dr. Stephen B.L. Penrose, a key figure in community memorials from this point through the centennial in 1936. In fact, both Whitman College and Penrose were involved in each of the other memorials events described in Ibid. “Seventieth Anniversary of the Whitman Massacre, 1917,” Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 126 127 67 this chapter. Penrose was a true supporter of Whitman and his legacy, He wrote extensively about the Whitmans and was consistent in both praise and defense of the missionaries. Penrose was born in 1864 in Pennsylvania. He moved to Dayton, Washington, about twenty-five miles from Walla Walla, in 1890 as a part of the American Home Mission Society to be a minister in the small town.128 While working in Dayton he got to know many at Whitman College, and in 1892 he was elected to the board of trustees. After leaving his Dayton church to travel preaching, Penrose was offered the presidency of Whitman College in 1894. His fundraising efforts, which included heavily spreading the Whitman Saved Oregon Story around the eastern U.S. in order to encourage enrollment and donations,129 effectively made the school a modern, scholarly institution and set up the college for its current position.130 He served as President of Whitman College until his retirement in 1934. In addition to Whitman College’s involvement in the Seventieth Anniversary, more survivors of the attack attended the 1917 memorial than had ten years previous, and many spoke at the event. As was recounted in a newspaper article titled, “Whitman Massacre Commemorated in Special Service,” from November 29, 1917, Oscar Canfield, the “oldest of the clan,” recalled a memory of an interaction with Marcus Whitman as he “looked over [the Walla Walla] valley and saw the prosperity and Edwards, The Triumph of Tradition, 125. Edwards, 144. According to G. Thomas Edward’s account of the history of the college, “appeals based on Whitman’s patriotism brought money ‘without which Whitman would surely have perished….That many believed that Marcus Whitman saved Oregon made an enormous difference to Whitman College.’ Marcus Whitman, in other words, may not actually have saved Oregon, but the Whitman myth saved the college.” (Edwards, 145) 130 For more information on Penrose’s work as Whitman College president, consult G. Thomas Edwards’ The Triumph of Tradition: The Emergence of Whitman College 1859-1924, Chapters 4 and 5. 128 129 68 growth that [had] occurred.”131 According to the story, Whitman had told Canfield’s father, who worked as a blacksmith at the mission, to “stay here with me” because “this country is better than the Willamette valley and someday it is going to be thickly populated.”132 Canfield’s story implied that Whitman had foreseen the boon of Western Expansion to come to the Oregon Territory. He went on to explicitly perpetuate the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, explaining that “Marcus Whitman was a great man and crossed back over the plains to save this country for the United States and if it had not been for his ride we would have lost this country to the union.”133 He then continued to directly address the controversy, stating that “a great many have said Whitman had nothing to do with bringing immigrants here. This is not so for he directed many here from Fort Hall.”134 In direct support of Canfield’s claims regarding the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, Penrose “remarked that Mr. Canfield was then a boy of ten and that he then formed impressions on the tablets of memory that are not easily erased.”135 While the memories of children are now often seen to be fickle and unreliable, Penrose pointed to the recollection as undeniable proof of the purpose of Whitman’s ride. The survivors spoke at the “historical service” in the Whitman College Chapel on the first day of the memorial. This was followed by an address from William Denison Lyman, Professor of History at Whitman College and longtime friend of Penrose.136 Here, the historical community as represented by Lyman directly participated in the public memorial effort. Lyman spoke about “some of the important “Whitman Massacre Commemorated in Special Service, November 29, 1917,” Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. 136 Edwards, The Triumph of Tradition, 130. 131 69 phases of history leading up to the acquisition of this Northwestern country,”137 further tying the Whitmans to western expansion, which would have resonated to many in the audience as support of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. The broad narrative put forth by Lyman included the journey of Lewis and Clark, the four Nez Perce in St. Louis, and the California gold rush in addition to the Whitmans. Lyman noted that “as both patriotism and Christian service characterized the settling of this country, the services were doubly commemoration of the country and the church of Jesus Christ.”138 In this statement, Lyman emphasized the importance of the Whitmans for their work as both missionaries and pioneers. Seventy-Fifth Anniversary and The Pioneer Pageant, 1922-24 The memorial of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the tragedy in 1922 marked a change from the previous two events. First, it took place only five years after the previous memorial rather than ten. While seventy-fifth anniversaries are often seen as significant, it is telling that the community felt another event so soon following the seventieth anniversary would still be popular. Second, the program was extended to include more performative events. A service was put together by Whitman College which included the singing of hymns, a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, the responsive reading of Psalms, and a Benediction. Reverend William T. McElveen of Portland, Oregon was supposed to give an Address of Commemoration entitled “The Pioneer Spirit,” but due to the illness of his wife, Dr. Penrose spoke instead. The hymn Rex Regum was led by John Stainer. The middle stanza reads, “Whitman Massacre Commemorated in Special Service, November 29, 1917,” Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 138 Ibid. 137 70 Our bounds of empire Thou hast spread out to the farthest west, Where o’er the stately Golden Gate the sun sinks down to rest; To make another Promised Land for all the tribes of earth, Where man is man, and right is might, and life is more than birth.139 The inclusion of this hymn clearly connects to the belief of Manifest Destiny, as can be seen in the first line’s implication that God “spread out to the farthest west” the American empire. The end of the program for the service shared that “a further service in honor of the great pioneers will be held this evening in the High School Auditorium” where “the Whitman Choral Society of one hundred voices will sing Mendelssohn’s ‘Hymn of Praise.’”140 This musical performance connects to the next development in memorials to the Whitmans: The Pioneer Pageant. Written by Dr. Stephen Penrose of Whitman College, the pageant was directed by Percy Jewett Burrell, who went on to direct numerous patriotic pageants across the country. According to Penrose, the show was originally intended to be performed as a part of the seventy-fifth anniversary memorial in 1922, but “the season of the year rendered an out-of-doors Pageant impracticable, and the character of the history to be portrayed forbade an indoors performance.”141 As such, the “project…was eagerly taken up by the community through various civic organizations and the Walla Walla Chamber of Commerce, and was generously underwritten by citizens before the Pageant itself had been written.”142 Penrose “Whitman College Service in commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Whitman Massacre, November 29, 1922,” Whitman Massacre--Seventy-fifth anniversary 1922, Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 140 Ibid. 141 “How the West Was Won: Program and Story, May 28, 29, 1924,” Introduction, Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 142 Ibid. 139 71 concluded that “How the West Was Won,” the name of the pageant, was “a community enterprise, financed and managed by the people of Walla Walla.”143 Penrose defined the pageant as “historical in its endeavor to represent with accuracy…some of the dramatic events of northwestern history, particularly of the Walla Walla Valley.”144 He went on to explain that the production “is a lesson in Americanism, designed to teach boys and girls the virtues of their ancestors as well as the thrilling history of the West.”145 Penrose also stated that as a “community enterprise,” the “character” of the pageant “was changed from that originally contemplated” with “the history of the Walla Walla Valley…taken as the theme, with the Whitman Mission and the heroic figures of Dr. and Mrs. Whitman incidental to it.”146 While Penrose took the time to explain that the Whitmans were merely “incidental” to the history of the region, their story accounts for two “episodes” of the production, the majority of the first movement.147 The cast included five “Symbolic Characters” representing the Voice of the Valley, the Spirit of the Mountain Top, and three boys representing an American Youth, and Italian Youth, and a Russian Youth. These characters narrated the story and provided transitions for the various episodes and movements. Within the action of the show, historical actors were represented by several different members of the community. The prelude to the pageant included a song titled How the West Was Won with words by Mrs. Edith Huntington. The final verse read, Ibid. Ibid. 145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 147 The pageant consisted of four movements, each representing a different stage of “winning the West”: “The Coming of the White Men,” portraying 1805-1847; “The Indian Wars,” portraying 1847-1858; “The Building of Walla Walla,” portraying 1859-1875; and “The Coming Day.” 143 144 72 With purpose clear, to the last frontier To the Land of the Setting Sun, With courage strong and faith in God, That’s “How the West Was Won.148 Additional patriotic songs, such as My Country Tis of Thee, were sung by the audience throughout the production during transitional moments. The episodes portraying the Whitmans were the third and fourth sections of the first movement. The third, titled “The Missionary and the Pioneer: Wagon Train of ’43,” begins with the Voice of the Valley telling the three youths about the arrival of the missionaries, explaining how “Where woman goes, Peace and the gentler arts of human kind Go too…where a woman goes, women, and men, shall follow.”149 This emphasizes that the ability of Narcissa and Eliza Spalding to make the journey across the Rocky Mountains showed other immigrants that the trip was possible, and that it was possible to build a “civilized” American home in the west. At a time when “proper” and “Christian” womanhood was considered part of the foundation of American society, this statement of Narcissa’s idyllic femininity added even more to her heroic status. The description of both her femininity and her whiteness was meant to emphasize their civilized and civilizing nature. These aspects of white femininity can still be seen in monuments honoring Narcissa. This episode also clearly perpetuated the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. In the prologue, the American Youth asks, “Shall we not see the Doctor, Doctor Whitman? I heard that he had saved this land of ours.”150 The Voice of the Valley responds, “How the West Was Won: Program and Story, May 28, 29, 1924,” page 8, Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 149 “How the West Was Won: Program and Story, May 28, 29, 1924,” page 17, Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 150 Ibid. 148 73 Seven years the balance wavers, and the fate Of Oregon is hanging in suspense. A rumor reaches the good Doctor’s ears, The rumor of a treaty to be signed Which shall abandon Oregon to England, And, like a swift hawk launching on its flight, He speeds him east and rides to Washington Through winter snows to let the truth be known. Oh there was dauntless courage, and the stuff Of heroes! Was there ever ride so great To save an empire being thrown away? This is a direct recitation of the story, with explicit reference to easily refutable claims, such as the fictional treaty to “abandon Oregon to England.” This allowed Whitman to be presented as a hero of the west, the great savior of “an empire being thrown away.” The action of the episode continues to extend the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. It begins with the arrival of the 1843 wagon train at Waiilatpu, where Narcissa is waiting with open arms to welcome the new settlers. Upon meeting Narcissa, Jesse Applegate, a leader of the wagon train, says “that to no other individual are the emigrants of 1843 so much indebted for the successful conclusion of their journey as to Dr. Marcus Whitman.”151 The Sager Orphans are momentarily introduced in this episode as well, though seemingly, due to their brief appearance, only to morally characterize Marcus and Narcissa, neither of whom hesitate a moment before offering to adopt the children. The fourth episode symbolically portrays the tragedy itself through dance. The treatment of the Whitman Myth in this pageant is significant for two reasons. One, it again shows how pervasive the Whitman Saved Oregon Story was in the community, regardless of its denial by historians. Two, it shows the narrative heard “How the West Was Won: Program and Story, May 28, 29, 1924,” page 20, Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 151 74 by thousands of performers and audience members who participated in and attended the pageant over its numerous performances over several years. It is also important to note that, as a product of the work of President Penrose, the pageant signalled the approval of Whitman College, an academic institution. Though the historical community did not give merit to the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, the college did. Figure 2 The Pioneer Pageant Program The pageant was originally performed in June of 1923, and its “overwhelming success” led to another performance in May of 1924. Along with the second production, a program including the script was published for sale. Its cover featured a picture of an older Native American man in a large feathered headdress with a serious look on his face (Figure 2). There is no written description or explanation of who the 75 man is or why he is portrayed. To the right of his face are the title, How the West Was Won: Program and Story. This program included an introduction from Penrose and a letter “To the People of The Pageant” by Burrell. Burrell’s letter described the purpose of pageantry itself as a patriotic duty. He wrote that pageantry “is recognized as possessing a combined charm and authority in the development of community solidarity and communal art.”152 He went on to question his audience: Are you cultivating imagination in the student-mind? Are you widening the vision of your church? Are you promoting some social or civic cause? Would you honor the heroic dead, and venerate the historic past? Have you at heart the cultural growth of your town? Such are questions that any American of our day may rightfully expect to be put to him. If his answer be “Yes” he will doubtless anticipate another question, “How are you doing it?” And in more cases than the average citizen might think, the answer is, “Our people put on a Pageant.153 In other words, Burrell claimed that pageants were central to the patriotic duty of Americans and were becoming a central part of community involvement across the country. It is difficult to understand this mentality in the modern world, as pageants, especially of the grandiose sort as The Pioneer Pageant, are no longer nearly as common as they used to be. However, it is clear that the Walla Walla community saw their participation in and support of The Pioneer Pageant as a necessary part of commemoration and historical work. “How the West Was Won: Program and Story, May 28, 29, 1924,” page 5, Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 153 Ibid. 152 76 1936 Centennial Celebration In 1935, the Walla Walla Chamber of Commerce assembled a committee to “inquire into the desirability of having a Centennial Celebration to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the coming of Dr. Marcus Whitman and his party to Waiilatpu."154 Finding the community in favor of the endeavor, the Whitman Centennial Incorporated was established to coordinate a celebration in honor of the Whitmans’ arrival in Walla Walla, an event designed to raise funds to create a permanent memorial to the missionaries at the Waiilatpu site. These efforts culminated in the largest celebration of the Whitmans yet. The Centennial Celebration took place over four days, each dedicated to a different aspect of commemoration, and sought to involve the entire Walla Walla community. The first day of the celebration was called “Doctor’s Day,” in honor of Marcus Whitman and his work as the “first American doctor to practice medicine west of the Rocky Mountains.”155 Speakers and exhibits were sponsored by the American Medical Association. The National Women’s Societies, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the American Association of University Women, and the General Federation of Women’s Clubs collaborated in sponsoring the second day of the celebration, called “Mother’s Day.” It was dedicated to “honoring Mrs. Whitman as the first American home-maker and mother west of the Rocky Mountains.”156 Here, as in The Pioneer Pageant, Narcissa’s status as a “civilized” white woman making a home in As quoted by Crabtree, Administrative History, 13. Stephen B.L. Penrose, “The National Significance of Waiilatpu and of The Whitman Centennial Celebration, August 13-16, 1936,” xiii, Available at the Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives 156 Ibid. 154 155 77 the “savage” west was emphasized and celebrated for showing other American families they could survive immigration. An article in the Walla Walla Union Bulletin about the event stressed similar aspects of Narcissa’s legacy, describing her as “the mother of the first American white child born in the Northwest…and the home [Narcissa] made for Dr. Marcus Whitman at Waiilatpu mission was the first American white home in the Oregon Country.”157 Day three was called “Historians’ Day,” and was sponsored by the Oregon Trail Memorial Association of New York City. This day was dedicated to “the Historical Significance of the Whitman Mission.”158 The topics of discussion were a “Tribute to Whitman Pioneers,” by Professor Howard R. Driggs, president of the Oregon Trail Memorial Association, a “Pictorial Interpretation” by W. H. Jackson of New York City, and a discussion from Herbert G. West, president of the Whitman Centennial Inc, on the status of the mission site.159 It is important to note that all of the historical accounts presented on this day were honoring the Whitmans and their work as pioneers. The fourth and final day, called “Religious Day,” was put together by representatives of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the General Council of Congregational and Christian Churches, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, and was dedicated to commemorating the Whitmans as missionaries. Taking place on Sunday, August 16th, the day included church services along with memorial activities. “Visitors expected to come from all parts of country,” Walla Walla Union Bulletin, 1936, Box 12, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 158 Penrose, “National Significance,” xiii. 159 “Whitman Centennial Celebration, 1936, Program of Events,” page 3, Box 12, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College and Northwest Archives. 157 78 The Celebration also included a pageant called Wagons West!, also by Dr. Stephen B.L. Penrose of Whitman College. Similar in both style and substance to How the West Was Won, the pageant began at the Dawn of Time and Continued through to a modern graduation from Whitman College. Incredibly teleological in nature, this pageant is an embodiment of the Manifest Destiny mentality. The whole course of history, beginning with the Dawn of Time, was leading to the Whitmans at Waiilatpu, the expansion of the United States to the West, and ending in modernity, with the hallmarks of civilization in a college graduation. All proceeds from the Centennial Celebration went to purchase the land on which the Waiilatpu mission stood in order to create a National Monument to the Whitmans. The event succeeded in raising the necessary funds, and the site was purchased by Whitman Centennial Inc. The land was then donated to the United States Department of the Interior to become a National Park. This is how the current National Historic site came into being. This process will be explored in depth in the next chapter. Conclusion The memorials that took place in Walla Walla throughout the beginning of the twentieth century tell a larger story about the Whitmans’ legacy in the community that grew around their deaths. As can be seen throughout each of the memorials, the Whitmans’ status as pioneers was celebrated far and above their work as missionaries. Their contribution to western expansion was emphasized at every available point, and the Whitman Myth was perpetuated at each event by numerous speakers. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story was even repeated by historians from the academic community 79 within Walla Walla, as can be seen in the speeches made by professors and other historians at memorial events. Despite agreement among evidentiary historians elsewhere on the falsity of the Whitman Myth, the narrative put forth by those intent on memorializing the Whitmans won out in the voices of both public history and historians. This trend continued throughout the twentieth century, as will be explored in the fifth chapter of this thesis. 80 The Creation of Public History: The Whitman Mission National Historic Site The Whitman Mission National Historic Site (NHS) is an important signifier of the public history of the Whitmans. It houses the sole museum dedicated to the missionaries and is located on the land of the Waiilatpu mission. As it is a branch of the National Park Service, its funding is dictated by federal sources and the interpretation at the site is guided by its enabling legislation. The site is an important tourist attraction in the region and serves as regular field trip spot for local schools. Walking paths wind around the old mission grounds and up to the top of a nearby hill, which houses the 1897 Whitman Monument, and serve as regular trails for locals and their canine companions. Looking around the site and museum today, many aspects of its interpretation seem out of date to the modern historical community, adding to the site’s odd symbolic place between memorial and history. As explored in the previous chapter, the 1936 Whitman Centennial Celebration served as a fundraiser to purchase the land of the Waiilatpu mission to specifically create a permanent memorial to Marcus and Narcissa Whitman. The Whitman National Monument was established under the National Parks Service in 1936, and in 1962, the site’s name changed to the Whitman Mission National Historic Site. In the 1980s, the Parks Service stated that “early memorial efforts” for the Whitmans, such as the Centennial Celebration and other community events, “deserve recognition, as they laid the foundation for the present-day national historic site.”160 As can be seen throughout 160 Crabtree, Administrative History, 7. 81 Park Administrator’s descriptions of their work, the Walla Walla community has been extremely invested in the way the NHS tells the story of the Whitmans and curates the site. In fact, a 1988 description of the establishment of the site as a part of the National Parks Service stated, “in return” for the community turning the site over to the NPS, Park Service representatives…respected local citizens’ ideas and, although they did not promise to implement each suggestion, they regularly informed the public of development plans. By working closely with local experts in this manner, the National Parks Service gained valuable information and ensured cooperative and friendly relations with Walla Walla citizens…the Whitman National Monument represented…nearly a century of community involvement at the Whitman Mission.161 The NHS, as a federally run operation, gives a government-sanctioned history of the Waiilatpu Mission. This history was influenced by the opinions of the Walla Walla community in both the establishment and later curation of the site. As such, the interpretive history of the Whitman Mission NHS is vital to understanding the way the Whitman Story has been told throughout the twentieth century. In 1988, the NHS compiled an Administrative History of the site “to explain why and how the Whitman Mission National Historic Site developed.”162 The history details every memorial related to the site, the beginning of the park’s federal history in 1936, and follows every programmatic and administrative decision through the work’s completion in 1988. In this Administrative History, the site begins its own history with various community memorials, explored in earlier chapters of this work, starting with Crabtree, Administrative History, 20. Written in 1988, it can be assumed that the Administrative History is referring to collaboration between the community and the site beginning in 1897 and lasting through to the modern day. 162 Crabtree, Administrative History, 1. The effort was initiated by Robert C. Amdor, Superintendent of the NHS from 1980-1987, and ultimately compiled by Jennifer Crabtree. 161 82 the original work of William H. Gray who raised funds “to improve the common grave of the massacre victims” as early as 1874,163 and working through the 1897 Monument Association up to the Whitman Centennial Incorporated efforts of 1936.164 As noted above, the National Park Service’s recognition of the Whitman Mission NHS’s connection with earlier memorial efforts directly connects the site’s history throughout the 20th century to overtly celebratory memorials. This connection is a primary factor leading to the rather celebratory interpretive frame of the NHS’s narrative of the Whitmans through recent years.165 This Administrative History also gives an account of every park Superintendent and their policies and work at the site. As such, the document gives an excellent indication of interpretation and narrative at the site over its first fifty years. In its section on “The Interpretive Program” of the site, the 1988 History began, “While the events that occurred from 1836-1847 do not change with time, interpretation of those events changes as perspectives change.”166 Yet, the site’s interpretive infrastructure has changed only slowly over the decades, due to a combination of direction, lack of funding, and legislative obligations. The Administrative History went on to explain that “all of Whitman Mission’s interpretive programs, no matter how distinct, were guided by the same document— ‘An Act to Provide for the Establishment of the Whitman National Monument.’”167 This document will be analyzed further later in this chapter, but the History emphasizes that “the most Crabtree, Administrative History, 7. Crabtree, Administrative History, 13. 165 There was a notable effort at major interpretive change in 2013, when direction of the park was taken over by Timothy Nitz. These new changes to the park’s interpretation will be discussed in the conclusion of this research. 166 Crabtree, Administrative History, 127. 167 Ibid. 163 164 83 important word in [the] legislation is the word ‘memorial.’ Each administration had to interpret this word first, before they could interpret the Whitman story.”168 The history of the NHS is full of specific narratives and legislative limitations that dictate the interpretation of the park to this day. Tracing the public history as told by the park over time gives an important indication of public thought regarding the Whitmans as well as the “official history” that was put forth. Creating a National Monument In order to become a National Monument, the Waiilatpu site had to be inspected by a member of the National Parks Service. This inspection was done by Olaf T. Hagen, Acting Chief of the Western Division of the National Park Service. According to the first page of Hagen’s report, “through arrangements made with Mr. Alfred McVay, Secretary of the Walla Walla Chamber of Commerce,”169 Hagen visited the site on April 17 and 18, 1936.170 The report works through several preliminary points, such as the location of the proposed monument (“embracing the site of the Waiilatpu Mission…about six miles west of Walla Walla, Washington”171), ownership of the property, “Organizations sponsoring the Proposed Monument,” and “Historical Significance” of the monument. The last two sections are of particular interest to this research. The first ties the National Monument, which eventually became the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, directly to the 1936 Centennial Celebration through documents from the Department of the Interior. The second section gives a clear Ibid. Olaf T. Hagen, “Report on the Preliminary Investigation of the Proposed Whitman National Monument,” available at the Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives, 1. 170 The document used for this research was revised on May 11, 1936. 171 Hagen, “Report,” 2. 168 169 84 example of how the National Parks Service viewed the historical significance of the Whitmans in 1936. In the section titled “Organizations Sponsoring the Proposed Monument,” the report stated that “the objectives of the Whitman Centennial organization transcend those of less organized efforts of the past and embody new aims.”172 While past memorial efforts, such as the initial installation of the monument on the hill in 1897, focused solely on “commemorating the deeds of Marcus Whitman and Naricssa Prentiss Whitman,”173 the 1936 centennial had higher goals. In fact, Hagen wrote that his investigation “unquestionably reveal[ed] that…the Whitman Monument supporters…successfully solicited and enlisted the most widespread national support”174 of any of the regional pioneer and/or missionary memorials. In addition to “perpetuating [the Whitmans’] memory by a centennial celebration of their arrival in the Pacific Northwest, the organization desires to secure further national recognition for their project through the establishment of a national monument at the site of the Waiilatpu Mission.”175 Hagen further stipulated that the site “should be one of historical educational value as well as one possessing the more purely sentimental and inspirational values of shrines and memorials.”176 This indicates that the originating documents of the National Monument recommended teaching about the Whitmans, not simply celebrating them. However, the history the site chose to tell was celebratory in itself. Hagen, “Report,” 4. Ibid. 174 Hagen, “Report,” 6. 175 Hagen, “Report,” 4. 176 Ibid. 172 173 85 Even from this 1936 report, the section on “Historical Significance” of the Waiilatpu Mission portrayed the missionaries in a generous light and the indigenous people they worked with in a harsh one. For instance, Hagen wrote that “Whitman’s success in the religious field was not promising as the Cayuse Indians among whom he worked were haughty and proud and many of them were not disposed to accept the teachings of Christianity.”177 The statement that they Cayuse were “not disposed” to Christianity implies that they were not civilized or refined enough to learn the ways of white men. Moreover, describing the Cayuse as “haughty and proud” villainizes them, making them and their fate unsympathetic. Ultimately, the introduction of Hagen’s report concludes that the site “combines the features of a historical site, a shrine and a memorial. Furthermore, the controversy over the ‘Whitman Legend’ and the connection of the site with the Oregon Trail have given it a widespread publicity that will invite both historians and laymen to the national monument.”178 This reference to the “Whitman Legend” is clearly acknowledging the Whitman Myth and Controversy, as discussed in the second chapter of this thesis. Hagen reported that, “Before my trip of inspection, a copy of ‘The Whitman Myth’179 was received in an envelope postmarked Walla Walla. The sender who did not give his name or address could scarcely have had any other motive than to discredit the project.”180 His report advises the National Monument to stay away from Hagen, “Report,” 6. Hagen, “Report,” 9. 179 This is most likely referring to “The Whitman Myth,” the essay written by Professor Bourne in his compilation of Essays in Historical Criticism, discussed in the second chapter of this thesis. 180 Hagen, “Report,” 5. 177 178 86 any perpetuation of the Whitman Controversy. In the final section of the introduction to the report, Hagen wrote at length about the damage the Whitman Myth had done: The actual contributions of Dr. Whitman to our national development has been the subject of historical controversy. Much of the voluminous literature found on this subject is definitely propagandist and not nearly so objective as history can be. In this controversy over the ‘Whitman Legend’ books and essays have been written by reputable historians and others to refute the extravagant claims of Whitman’s followers who appropriated for their hero political influence historically unfounded. Unfortunately this controversy over the ‘Whitman Legend’ has obscured less striking but more genuine accomplishments of the pioneer missionary and his wife.181 As can be seen in this passage, Hagen sought to stress the falsity of the Whitman Myth in order to preserve the “genuine accomplishments” of the Whitmans, unsullied by the half-century-long controversy over the legend. Late in the introduction, Hagen gave temporal context to this work with a few words at the beginning of a sentence. In describing the Tragedy of 1847, he wrote, “The Whitman Massacre has been attributed to a number of causes almost as varied as those given for our recent aconomic [sic] difficulties.”182 It can be assumed that Hagen is referring to the Great Depression. It is important to contextualize the 1936 Centennial Celebration and concurrent raising of funds for the National Monument with such national crises. In 1936, the United States was in the heart of the Great Depression, an economic catastrophe that affected every American. At the same time, the US was in the midst of the Dust Bowl, which drove farmers out of the Midwest and out to the coast, and abroad the world was taking note of the rising power of Adolf Hitler in Germany. Looking towards the goals of the Monument, it is not hard to 181 182 Hagen, “Report,” 7-8. Hagen, “Report,” 7. 87 realize why some would want to remember great expansion and American glory at such times. Honoring “great Americans” who helped the country reach its Manifest Destiny would surely reassure those questioning the United States’ glory. Enabling Legislation On June 29, 1936, the United States Congress approved an act “To provide for the establishment of the Whitman National Monument”.183 Accompanying the proposed act was a report from Mr. Benson184 of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys recommending the bill. The committee chose to endorse the bill because “these two heroic Americans are well known for their patriotic and Christian contribution to the settlement of the Oregon Territory, and for their administration to the physical and spiritual needs of the Indians in that territory.”185 This line indicates that there was a widespread acknowledgment at the time that Marcus Whitman was a key factor in the settlement of Oregon and that this involvement was to be celebrated. The other reason for recommendation given was the fact that the Whitmans “established the first American home in the Pacific Northwest.”186 This statement again emphasizes the missionaries’ role in settling the Oregon Territory, as they were the first white Americans to build a home in the area, a physical sign of expansion and civilization. It also highlights the subject of Narcissa’s white motherhood, as a woman who was able to make a home in the wilderness. An Act To provide for the establishment of the Whitman National Monument, H.R. 7736, 74th Congress. (1936). 184 This is most likely Elmer Austin Benson, Senator from Minnesota who went on to become Governor of the same state. 185 Benson, “Report to accompany H.R. 7736,” Senate Report No. 1937. 186 Ibid. 183 88 The act itself stated “that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to acquire, on behalf of the United States, by gift, the site of the Indian mission established in 1836 by Marcus Whitman on the Walla Walla River.”187 It is important to note that the mission is not referred to as Waiilatpu in the enabling legislation, but rather simply the “Indian mission.” In Section 2 of the act, the intent of the site is established: The property acquired…shall constitute the Whitman National Monument and shall be a public national memorial to Marcus Whitman and his wife, Narcissa Prentiss Whitman, who here established their Indian mission and school, and ministered to the physical and spiritual needs of the Indians until massacred with twelve others persons [sic] in 1847.188 The language used in this directive is significant. First, the act declared that the site should be a National Monument, a specific designation within the NPS, and that the site should serve as a memorial to the Whitmans. It did not specify that the site should in any way serve a historic or educational purpose. The emphasis on the good work of the Whitmans at their “Indian mission and school “and how they addressed the “needs of the Indians” obviously portrays the missionaries in a flattering, innocent light. By following those declarations with the “massacre” of the Whitmans and “twelve others,” the act clearly and deliberately set out a positive view of the missionaries, portraying them as martyrs. It is also necessary to note that the Cayuse people were not mentioned directly anywhere in this legislation, and where “Indians” are mentioned, the language used was passive and gave no agency to the indigenous people. An Act To provide for the establishment of the Whitman National Monument, H.R. 7736, 74th Congress. (1936). 188 Ibid. 187 89 It makes sense that the language used in the enabling legislation for the site matches in tone and historical understanding the language and narrative of memorials from the same time. After all, as has been made clear, the enabling legislation was directly influenced by the organizers of the 1936 Centennial Celebration. This overtly celebratory language is what crafted the initial interpretation at the site, and, importantly, remains as directive today. The 1988 History of the National Historic Site confirms that “the purpose of the Whitman Mission National Historic Site was outlined”189 by the 1936 legislation. After quoting the bill, Crabtree went on to state that the “purpose of [the site] is clear: to be a ‘memorial to Marcus Whitman and his wife.’ The National Park Service…must determine what manner of memorialization is ‘for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States.’”190 These determinations are made through “management statements, interpretive policies, and by individual management decisions.”191 Each of these choices, as made by administrators of the park, “strive to ensure that the goals, as outlined in [the 1936] enabling legislation, are achieved.”192 Whitman National Monument, 1936-1962 While the land containing the mission grounds was purchased by the Whitman Centennial Inc. in 1936 with the proceeds from the Centennial Celebration, it took several years to officially deed the land in its entirety to the U.S. government.193 As Crabtree, Administrative History, 5. Ibid. 191 Ibid. 192 Ibid. 193 An account of the various delays and transactions of the land can be found in the Administrative History, Chapter 2: Events Leading to the Establishment of the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, pages 13-20. 189 190 90 such, the Monument did not officially begin operations until 1941.194 Initially, the NPS prioritized an archeological investigation to prepare the site for further development. Thomas R. Garth, an historical archeologist, was thus hired as Custodian of the site in its early years, from 1941 through 1950.195 The primary work of the 1940s at the National Monument was excavation of the mission grounds to prepare for development.196 In 1941, Olaf T. Hagen, then Regional Supervisor of Historic Sites, wrote the first Interpretive Prospectus for the site. This report “outlined the Whitmans’ triumphs,” and “overall…emphasized the Whitman’s contribution to northwest expansion and the common struggle of all…pioneers.”197 Supervisor of Historic Sites Ronald F. Lee eventually “reduced this initial draft to just six paragraphs, emphasizing the Whitmans’ aid to settlement only.”198 According to Crabtree, the author of the 1988 Administrative History, “this change is understandable…given that past proliferation of the ‘Whitman Saved Oregon’ myth had discredited the Whitmans’ role in helping settlers.”199 She went on to explain that Lee “wanted to prevent further misconceptions of this type so he emphasized that, regardless of past myths, the Whitmans’ aid to pioneer settlement ‘deserve[s] recognition as making important precedents for the subsequent history of the Oregon Trail…”200 Crabtree concluded that “the monument’s first Interpretive Prospectus was organized to effectively dispel the ‘Whitman This is where the Administrative History begins its description of administration of the park. The park was run in tandem with Mt. Rainier National Park and was therefore under the official direction of its Superintendent, Major Owen. A. Tomlinson until July 1941 and then John C. Preston through 1952. 196 Crabtree, Administrative History, 30. 197 Crabtree, Administrative History, 128. 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid. 194 195 91 Myth.’”201 In the 1940s, the legacy of the Whitman Controversy still lingered in the minds of public historians, who knew the Whitman Saved Oregon Story was tainted with debate. However, the site still sought to tell a celebratory history. This meant specifying the Whitmans’ contributions to western expansion more narrowly, focusing more on their work with settlers at Waiilatpu than Marcus’ 1842 ride or contributions to the Great Migration of 1843. In 1943, the site drew up its first Museum Prospectus to begin official interpretation.202 This differs from Hagen’s Interpretive Prospectus as it dealt specifically with the planned museum at the site, not interpretation for rangers and other staff. In its initial description of the site, the Prospectus emphasized that “Local interest in the Monument is vigorous and has been one of the primary agents in getting the area set aside as a National Monument.”203 When describing the early popularity of the site, the document stated that in “June of 1941 there were over 1200 visitors, a respectable figure considering the undeveloped state of the Monument.”204 It went on to explain that the “interest is expectable since Whitman is a nationally known figure who had much to do with encouraging settlement of Oregon and thereby validating American ownership of Oregon Territory.”205 As in earlier reports, the NHS clearly planned for Whitman’s role in the settlement and annexation of the Oregon Territory to be a key part of the narrative to be told, and that his participation in the immigration of white settlers should be celebrated. Ibid. “Museum Prospectus,” Whitman National Monument, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, (1943), 1. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. 203 Ibid. 204 Ibid. 205 Ibid. 201 202 92 The Prospectus laid out the site’s intended narrative in its section “The Story to be Told.” The segment begins, Playing a major role in the settlement of Oregon and being an important post on the Oregon Trail, the Whitman Mission site offers an ideal opportunity to present the story of Oregon coloniz ation [sic] and the drama of the Oregon Trail. The life of Dr. and Mrs. Marcus Whitman, pioneer missionaries, will be the central theme around which the larger story will be woven.206 The Prospectus emphasized Whitman’s position in Oregon settlement as its primary interpretive theme, and introduced the Whitmans as “pioneer missionaries,” a description that emphasizes their role as settlers and helpers of settlers over their missionary work. This is logical, considering both the site’s aforementioned intent to portray the Whitmans as colonizers of Oregon and their relative failure as missionaries. The section continued, “Basically the story deals with the contact and submersion of a primitive race by an aggressive civilized Caucasian people.”207 An unapologetic story of settlement and victory over the west was enshrined in the authoritative interpretation of the National Site. Installment of the museum was delayed by World War II and “lack of funds.” The site reopened in 1946 and completion of the museum was “rushed for the September 1947 dedication ceremony.”208 When the museum did open, its initial exhibits highlighted artifacts found during the excavations rather than the narratives put forth in the prospectus.209 The museum’s change in focus, though, should not be seen as a change in perspective. According to Crabtree, “[Custodian] Garth’s Interpretive “Museum Prospectus,” (1943), 2. Ibid. 208 Crabtree, Administrative History, 129. 209 Crabtree, Administrative History, 130. 206 207 93 Statement more accurately reflects the interpretive slant of the time” than the museum itself.210 The goal was “to recognize the Whitmans’ place in Old Oregon history…for no other reason than that it was a semi-hospital, orphanage, and revictualizing place on the Oregon Trail the mission site deserves recognition as a national shrine.”211 This perspective “remained the predominant interpretation during the 1950s.”212 Though the site was supported by regional directors and Superintendents through 1956, Robert K. Weldon was instated as the first official Superintendent of the National Monument in 1950. Development and maintenance of the sight became a priority. Interpretation at the site also became a goal during Weldon’s tenure, as the excavation sites were filled in and marked to indicate the location of buildings on the grounds (Figures 3 and 4).213 Figure 3 Whitman Mission National Historic Site Grounds Ibid. As quoted by Crabtree, Administrative History, 130. 212 Ibid. 213 AH, 47 210 211 94 Figure 4 Whitman Mission NHS Mission House In 1952, the first “temporary ranger-historian, Willard Whitman, was hired during the summer’s high tourist season,” while “Whitman College professor Dr. Arthur Rempel” took over the position in 1953.214 During this period, interpreters at the site sought to include information about the Cayuse for the first time. According to Weldon, the initial goal “was to keep it all Whitman at first,” but staff came to see that it “would be better to get a little of the Indian background.”215 This presented a challenge, as Weldon explained the site “ha[d] very little Indian culture references in our own library and notes.”216 However, the difficulty in creating exhibits on the Cayuse for the museum did not matter in the end, as, “partly due to insufficient space and partly because of insufficient funds,” the cases were not completed.217 The 214 Rempel was a professor of biology. Further research might explore his involvement with the mission site. 215 Crabtree, Administrative History, 130. 216 Crabtree, Administrative History, 131. Crabtree does not explain if the site or NPS sought any help from the CTUIR in this regard 217 Ibid. 95 museum’s cases were instead “updated with new artifacts until the visitor center museum was constructed in 1964.”218 In 1958, Congress authorized “fifty additional acres for the Whitman National Monument.”219 Under the supervision of Superintendent Joe Kennedy, the Parks Service purchased nearby Frazier farm.220 The year 1959 saw a new desire to craft park interpretation. Park Historian Jack Farr and Associate Professor of History Robert Whitner created a new Museum Prospectus that year, one that continued the idea that the Whitmans were “instrumental in aiding westward expansion because of their association with the Oregon Trail,” concluding that “the Whitmans were largely responsible for pioneer settlement.”221 It should be noted that the Prospectus also insisted that “the Cayuse should not be shown as ‘murderers’ but as people using their own methods to preserve their way of life.”222 While neither a glowing nor a holistic view of the Cayuse, an intentional direction to portray them culturally indicates a shift towards a more inclusive narrative. Additionally, it should be noted that an “association with the Oregon Trail” is a far departure from the grand heroics of “saving Oregon.” Regional Director Maier took a more political view on interpretation, responding to the new Prospectus with the rebuttal that, while the Whitmans’ did set an example for and offered aid to those immigrating west, there were several factors that Ibid. Crabtree, Administrative History, 53. 220 Ibid. 221 Crabtree, Administrative History, 132. 222 As quoted in Crabtree, Administrative History, 134. 218 219 96 contributed to American settlement in Oregon.223 In his response to the Prospectus, Maier wrote, In our opinion, the significance of the Whitman Mission is something more than its possible influence upon the settlement of the West. Because of the essential honesty and spiritual integrity of the Whitmans, because of the difficulties they experienced in their endeavors to Christianize the Indians, and because of the dramatic circumstances which brought their work to a close, the Whitman Mission must stand as symbolic of the great effort by missionaries of all faiths to Christianize and civilize the Indians.224 Not only does this statement reflect a change in interpretation at the site, but it indicates interesting aspects of the mentality of the time. There is an intent to include a diversity of (some) people by referring to “missionaries of all faiths,” yet then goes on to imply that all faiths were trying to “Christianize” native people. The Whitmans were now seen to be worthy of praise and national remembrance simply because of their struggle and sacrifice to do their Christian duty. These ideological shifts cannot be seen only in the vacuum of an Administrative History, but must also be viewed in the context of the mid-twentieth century. In the midst of the Cold War, the drive to emphasize the Christianity of American Heroes can be seen to reflect an overall drive to differentiate the United States from the “Godless” Soviet Union. This can also be seen in the words of Superintendent Kennedy, who claimed visitors “will gain pride in [their] country and its people”225 by learning about the work of the missionaries. While the Whitmans’ religious work was still seen as second to their efforts to “civilize” and develop the Crabtree, Administrative History, 132. Memorandum from Acting Regional Director, Region four, to Director, Subject: “Museum Prospectus, Whitman National Monument,” April 19, 1960, 2. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. 225 Crabtree, Administrative History, 134. 223 224 97 west, the emphasis on their Christianity is unique to this period of time. Considering their relative failure as missionaries, stories celebrating the Whitmans focused primarily on their work as pioneers up to this point. The light shined on their Christianity during the 1950s was new for the twentieth century, and should be viewed within the context of the time. At the same time, the first efforts to include the Cayuse in the story of the Whitmans as anything other than “savages,” “heathens,” or “murderers” were happening during this period as well. This is perhaps the early stages of later efforts to tell a more inclusive history, which became more manifest in the 1970s and 80s. Becoming the Whitman Mission National Historic Site, 1963 According to Crabtree, “the idea of changing the name of Whitman National Monument was not new.”226 Various directors sought changes to the site’s designation, but it was not until the Marcus Whitman Foundation got involved that an actual change was made. Site Historian Erwin Thompson suggested the name “National Historic Site” in 1960. In November 1961, Allen Reynolds, representative of the Foundation, requested that Senators Magnuson and Jackson introduce legislation to change the name of the site. According to the Administrative History, “the change was recommended, with the full support of the National Park Service, because it would be ‘more descriptive and less confusing’” and would clarify “that the Whitman Mission was not a monument, but a historic site, commemorating a mission and not a memorial shaft.”227 It must be emphasized that the Park Service gave “full credit” to the Marcus 226 227 Crabtree, Administrative History, 25. Ibid. 98 Whitman Foundation “for initiating this project.”228 The involvement of the Walla Walla community in the public history of the Whitmans was clear throughout the early history of the NHS, directly connecting the site and its federally endorsed historical narrative to the celebratory memorials of the community. On January 15, 1962, John A. Carver Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Interior, wrote to Speaker of the House John W. McCormack on behalf of the Department of the Interior. The letter included a “draft of a proposed bill to change the name of Whitman National Monument to Whitman Mission National Historic Site.”229 Carver gave the following as explanation of the bill: Because the Whitman National Monument is in fact an historic site, the place where Dr. and Mrs. Marcus Whitman established a mission and contributed to the westward expansion of our Nation, it would be more appropriate and descriptive to designate this park unit an historic site instead of a national monument. Also, the qualifying word ‘mission’ would give the public a clearer idea of what is presented here and would tend to clarify the occasional misconception that the poet Walt Whitman is commemorated here.230 The change of designation is significant. While there is little to no official difference in purpose between a National Monument and National Historic Site in the National Parks Service,231 the language used in each is alone enough to show a shift in purpose Crabtree, Administrative History, 26. From John A. Carver, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. John W. McCormack, Speaker, House of Representatives, in reference to H.R. 9305, January 15, 1962. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. 230 Ibid. 231 The National Parks Service currently (as of 2016) defines a national monument as follows: "A 228 229 national monument is intended to preserve at least one nationally significant resource. It is usually smaller than a national park and lacks its diversity of attractions." (https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/NPIndex2012-2016.pdf, pg. 9) In the same informational book, National Historic Sites are lumped together with National Military Parks, National Battlefields, etc., none of which are given a specific definition or any requirements for the sites. Wikipedia offers the following definition of a NHS: A National Historic Site (NHS) is a protected area of national historic significance in the United States. An NHS usually contains a single historical feature directly associated with its subject.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Historic_Site_(United_States) as of 1/27/17). 99 at the site. The term “monument” indicates a static memorial while a “Historic Site,” while still a permanent physical feature, offers a role to historical inquiry and work. Though this letter still clearly advocates for an honorific portrayal of the Whitmans, the shift in site designation indicates a desire to tell a history rather than preserve a single image or interpretation. After a recommendation from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress passed a bill proposing the change in designation on May 31, 1962. The act stated as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That effective January 1, 1963, the Whitman National Monument…shall be known as the Whitman Mission National Historic Site.232 The enabling legislation of a National Monument or Historic Site is important as it directs the way the site can be managed by the NPS. As this 1962 act merely dictated the name change of the mission grounds, the National Historic Site is still, to this day, controlled by the 1936 legislation regarding the National Monument. The original intent as established by the legislation is used as the basis for all programming and direction of the park. According to Park Ranger Kate Kunkel-Patterson of the Whitman National Historic Site, “Everything [the park does] has to be justified by the enabling legislation.”233 In 1963, the Visitor Center and park museum were completed. The museum housed twenty-two exhibits in chronological order portraying the history of Europeans in the area, from early trappers and traders through the 1848 establishment of the An Act To change the name of Whitman National Monument to Whitman Mission National Historic Site. H.R. 9305, 87th Congress, (1962). 233 Personal Interview, February 10, 2017 232 100 territorial government.234 The museum emphasized two narratives, “northwest expansion and the Whitmans’ role in it, and…the Whitmans’ religious mission as a noble and admirable commitment, worthy of respect.”235 The lobby displayed a “statement of significance,” which declared that, “So long as men admire unfaltering courage and sacrifice for others, will the story of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman be cherished.”236 While the museum itself did not change again until the 1980s, park staff observed a newfound skepticism in visitors throughout the 1960s and 70s which led to interpretive changes throughout the period. In 1967, Whitman College eliminated its tradition of bringing the first-year class to the mission “due to dwindling interest and open hostility.”237 Chief Park Interpreter Larry Waldron noted, around 1973, “a certain cynicism among some of our visitors, a feeling that the Whitmans were meddling where they didn’t belong and deserved their martyrs fate.”238 The critical view taken by many visitors at the time can be contextualized by the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s and 70s, which brought attention to many minorities, including the American Indian, and the growing opposition to the Vietnam War. Each of these trends, which both led to major protest movements, left many Americans disenchanted with the old glorious tellings of Manifest Destiny and the American West, and invited attention to multiple perspectives. Crabtree, Administrative History, 135. Ibid. 236 As quoted by Crabtree, Administrative History, 136. 237 Ibid. 238 Ibid. 234 235 101 In 1972, the site made an effort to include the Cayuse in the interpretive narrative. The Administrative History noted that there were programs designed “to see the life style of the Indians stressed, hopefully to create empathy between them and the visitors.”239 This statement is interesting, as it implies an expectation that the visitors to the site would be only of non-native descent. Descriptions of these programs, “which included Indian food, dancing, drumming, and lectures,”240 do not indicate any collaboration with the CTUIR or suggest any members of the tribes were consulted or involved. Indeed, these new interpretive themes were paired with a desire to “demonstrate…the inevitability of white expansion into Indian land.”241 The use of the term “inevitable” to describe expansion takes the blame for any violence or wrongdoing away from white settlers, namely the Whitmans. It follows the mentality of Manifest Destiny, that God wanted white Americans to civilize the west and therefore it was right to take the land. The Administrative History indicated that reactions to the programming were positive and led to the development of a new interpretive theme for the site: “Conflict of Two Cultures.” In 1973, a new Prospectus was crafted to update the museum to reflect the new theme. The exhibits were to “show the profound differences between these two cultures,”242 a goal that served to exoticize the Cayuse rather than include them. Differences between the two groups were understood by the white community expected to visit the site, and had been understood by white Americans since initial contact between Europeans and Native Americans. These differences and Crabtree, Administrative History, 138. Ibid. 241 Ibid. 242 As quoted in Crabtree, Administrative History, 139. 239 240 102 exoticizations can be seen in terms like “savage” and “heathen,” as well as “peaceful” and “simple,” all of which were used to describe native groups throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, as well as into the twenty-first. The same exoticization can be found in the fact that many quotes to be used in exhibits were attributed to the Cayuse when in fact they were from members of other tribes.243 By making the differences between Euro-Americans and Native Americans the primary interpretive theme, the site actually presented a generic image of an exotic “savage,” doomed to never reach civilization. Efforts to update the museum with the “Conflicting Cultures” theme were stalled by the standard interpretations of the site’s enabling legislation. The inclusion of Cayuse culture was seen to take away from the memorialization efforts mandated by the 1936 legislation. It was difficult for the site to “balance the Whitmans’ human qualities,” or rather their mistakes, “against an enabling legislation that denoted them as ‘martyrs’ to be ‘memorialized.’”244 Superintendent Kowalkowski also explained the proposed museum’s conflict with community values, noting that “this is a conservative part of the state and the early missionaries and pioneers are admired.”245 This is a clear example of the Walla Walla community affecting historical interpretation at the NHS. The museum would not be successfully updated to include information on the Cayuse until 1987. Conflict over interpretation continued up through the 1980s. As time continued, site administrators have changed their interpretation of the enabling legislation, allowing for inclusion of both Cayuse and Whitman perspectives. However, Crabtree, Administrative History, 140. Crabtree, Administrative History, 142. 245 As quoted in Crabtree, Administrative History, 141. 243 244 103 regardless of a desire to change interpretation and presentation at the site, funding and community restraints continue to prevent any major interpretive overhaul for the time being. Conclusion As you walk around the mission grounds today, you can see the brick outlines of the buildings the Whitmans built in the grass, marked additionally by signs along the path. These signs are quintessentially 1970s in style, with drawings of the Whitmans accompanied by generic images of Cayuse people (Figure 5). The buildings are labeled with information about their purpose on the grounds, along with anecdotes about the Whitmans presented through recordings accompanying some of the signs.246 A pond serves as home to turtles, fish, and the occasional flock of geese during the right season. On a quiet day at the park, the site is idyllic, yet frozen in time. Figure 5 Whitman Mission NHS, Farming Sign 246 These recordings are another incredibly rich source of information on the differing interpretations at the site over the years. They are accessible at the National Historic Site, in their records. 104 Figure 6 Whitman Mission NHS, Mission House Sign The first building you approach on the path is the Whitmans’ home. The sign posted here gives information about when the home was built by Marcus and what different rooms were inside. The house, the first American home in the Oregon Territory, is called “an island of civilization in a wild land” (Figure 6). Another sign nearby is labeled, “November 29, 1847,” and indicates where exactly both Marcus and Narcissa were attacked and died, showing an image of a Cayuse man striking Marcus with a tomahawk while the doctor’s back was turned (Figure 7). The Whitman Mission National Historic Site saw much development from its initial founding as a National Monument in 1936 through its completion of a new museum and interpretive theme in 1987. Its establishment was clearly tied to the 1936 Centennial Celebration of the Whitmans, and the site’s interpretive content was directly affected by community input throughout the twentieth century. As will be seen in the next chapter, the celebratory nature of narratives about the Whitmans lived on in 105 work from the historical community through the 1970s. In fact, Clifford M. Drury, the most influential Whitman scholar of the twentieth century, is “gratefully acknowledge[d]” in the back of the 1988 Administrative History of the site as one of the “farseeing and public-spirited…persons whose efforts and generosity led to the establishment and development of Whitman Mission National Historic Site.”247 Figure 7 Whitman Mission NHS, Tragedy Sign The connections between the public history as shown at the Historic Site, public memorials, and published histories are important, as the site stands as one of the most popular ways the Walla Walla community learns about its own history. The necessary adherence of the site to its enabling legislation binds its interpretation to the desires of the 1936 memorial committee who helped craft the language of the bill. This affects the park to this day. Understanding the history of the National Historic Site helps to explain current understanding of the Whitmans within the Walla Walla community and the subsequent crafting of local identity that accompanies such an understanding. 247 Crabtree, Administrative History, 303. 106 Memorialist Historian?: The Influential Work of Clifford M. Drury It is difficult to trace the historiography of the Whitmans across the entire twentieth century as so many books and articles were written about the missionaries by non-historians. Work about the Whitmans by people such as Myron Eells and the Sager children, both of whom had clearly personal connections to their subjects, were used as objective historical accounts for a very long time. As these narratives were crafted without a clear use of sources or evidence, and outside of a conversation with other historians, their status as historical work is problematic. After first clear historiographical debate about the Whitmans, outlined in the second chapter of this thesis, many articles and books were published throughout the mid-twentieth century (between the hay-day of the 1936 Centennial and the period now under analysis). However, the major scholarly contribution to the Whitman historiography at this time was Clifford M. Drury’s Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon. Published in 1973, no other work has had as significant or lasting an impact on the narrative of the Whitmans in the historical community. Drury was a church historian, and his favor for the Whitmans comes across clearly in his writing. His books are reflective of the time in which he lived and studied, using what now seem to be antiquated assumptions regarding race, civilization, and western expansion as a basis for their arguments. Still, Drury combed through every extant source on the missionaries in order to write his grand opus. Regardless of one’s perspective of the 1973 book, Drury has earned the respect of historians for his exhaustive work with the sources and his commitment to include all available information within the two-volume work. 107 Drury’s book is significant historiographically for reasons other than its rather favorable discussion of Whitman. Its publication in 1973 places it at a turning point in the historical community. In many ways, Drury marks the end of the "great man history" regarding Marcus Whitman, and even then, his work comes late within that historiographical trend. The 1970s were a time of social change in the United States, and that change was reflected in the academic community. The Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s brought many to consider the perspective of the “other” for the first time, leading many to favor the Cayuse perspective over the Whitmans in the story of Waiilatpu, as discussed in the previous chapter on the National Parks Service. Drury published his book in the midst of the Watergate scandal, when many were growing disenchanted with the government and the idea of the monolithic United States. The American Indian Movement was also in full swing, and February of 1973 saw the incident at Wounded Knee between tribal leaders and U.S. Marshalls. Native American rights were coming to the forefront of the American psyche in a major way for the first time since the nineteenth century. Each of these sets of circumstances contributed to a shift in perspective regarding the Whitmans and other historical pioneer figures who for the first time were appearing in a moral grey area in the consciousness of white America. The purpose of this chapter is to situate and analyze the influential work of Clifford M. Drury. While his books may appear to the modern historian to be out of date, they are still recommended by both the Whitman Mission National Historic Site and other points of reference to those wanting to know more about the missionaries. The entirety of Drury's 1973 book is also available digitally through the NHS website, 108 and other articles through the National Park Service all reference Drury nearly exclusively. As such, the narrative put forth in his books is connected to that portrayed by memorialists and the National Historic Site, and his work continues to inform general presentations of the Whitmans’ history as it is so often a recommended text. He is clearly the most referenced and influential historical work on the Whitmans in the last fifty years. For this reason, the narratives put forth by Drury's books are extremely important and relevant to narratives told about the Whitmans today. Clifford M. Drury: Historian? It is important to consider Drury’s background as an historian to fully understand his work and its ramifications. Clifford Merrill Drury was born in Iowa and graduated from Buena Vista College at Storm Lake in 1918 where he had studied science.248 After working as a chemist in World War I, he attended the San Francisco Theological Seminary and eventually received his doctorate from the University of Edinburgh where he studied church history.249 Drury worked as a Presbyterian pastor in Moscow, Idaho from 1928 to 1938, when he moved back to California to be a professor of history at the San Francisco Theological Seminary.250 Drury first became interested in the Whitmans, Spaldings, and other northwest missionaries during his time as a pastor in Idaho, and he wrote his first book about the Whitmans, Marcus Whitman, M.D.: Pioneer and Martyr, while working as a minister, during the time of the 1936 Centennial Celebration. Clifford M. Drury, “Reminiscences of an Historian,” Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 2 (April 1974): 133. 249 Drury, “Reminiscences of an Historian,” 134. 250 Ibid. 248 109 Recognizing Drury’s status as a church historian and his close ties to the church is necessary to fully understanding the impact of his work. As noted, Drury’s book is available in its entirety digitally on the National Parks Service website for the Whitman Mission National Historic Site. The link to the book is located prominently on the site’s homepage. Almost every informational article on the website cites Drury. His work has clearly been used by the NHS as a key source for the past several decades. The public historical site, and in many ways the community, have kept Drury in an authoritative historiographical position. Before addressing some of Drury’s work, I wish to address a claim he made in a 1973 article titled “Reminiscences of a Historian” and published in Western Historical Quarterly along with a review of his new book. In describing his journey to studying the Whitmans, Drury told of his time working with the Nez Perce Presbyterian group in Idaho in the summer 1934. Hearing the hymns they sang in their own language, which had been translated by Henry Spalding, inspired Drury to learn more about the northwest missionaries. Additionally, he wrote, In the course of our conversations, it dawned on me that the centennial of the arrival of the Whitmans and the Spaldings in the Old Oregon country was only two years away…I felt that the Nez Perce should remember the event, and likewise the whole Presbyterian church, as these missionaries were Presbyterian. One suggestion led to another. The states of Washington and Idaho should join in the observance. Indeed the whole nation should be called upon to remember that 1836 two white American women rode horseback through South Pass—the very first to do so—and that this achievement opened the Oregon country for American families.251 251 Drury, “Reminiscences of an Historian,” 135. 110 There are several matters to address in this paragraph. The first and most noteworthy is that Drury seems to have been claiming to have been the source of the idea for the Centennial Celebration in 1936.252 This is extremely unlikely, considering the mass of celebrations and memorials that took place in the decades prior to the centennial, as was explored in the third chapter of this thesis. It is very likely that Drury noted the approaching centennial and discussed that with those around him, but the idea cannot be attributed solely to him.253 Regardless of the facts surrounding this claim, the claim itself is both interesting and significant. Drury felt the need to connect himself, writing as an historian in an historical journal about his career as an historian, to this celebratory memorial event. This is a clear example of the connection between public memorials and historical work. In my research experience for this project, I was tempted on many occasions to disregard Drury as a memorialist outside of the academic realm. However, his book is far too important in this field to ignore for any of its flaws. It is precisely this issue that makes the book so central to this research: Why has this book, which is clearly part of an older school of historical work, maintained such a prominent status at the NHS and within the community? The fact that it has is illustrative about local historical understanding and the rate of interpretive change regarding the Whitmans. While he could be referring to a potential memorial to the Spaldings, the text continues to then discuss the 1936 Centennial Celebration of the Whitmans. This article is also in direct reference to his 1973 book about the Whitmans. Therefore, it seems clear that Drury was here referring to a Whitman memorial. 253 Or, indeed, any individual. There was a clear momentum of memorial celebrations throughout the beginning of the twentieth century, so while some individuals were heavily involved in memorial efforts, no single person was solely responsible. 252 111 Drury’s Historical View In 1972, one year before the publication of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon, a book titled The Cayuse Indians: Imperial Tribesmen of Old Oregon was written by Robert H. Ruby and John A. Brown and published by the University of Oklahoma as a part of their “Civilization of the American Indian” series. The forward of the book was written by none other than Clifford M. Drury. The book was originally published in 1972, just one year before Drury’s major two-volume work on the Whitman’s. Presumably, Drury was asked to write the forward to the book due to his extensive work on the Whitmans and their involvement with the Cayuse people. He was not well-versed in Cayuse culture and did not study the tribe outside of their contact with the missionaries. The introduction is representative of Drury’s treatment of the Cayuse throughout his body of work. While never directly insulting the tribe, he did steer the reader toward believing the tribe’s uncivilized nature led to their own fate. There is a teleological sway to his narrative, and it is clear in the short, two-page forward to this book. He introduced the tribe by characterizing them as “proud and haughty by disposition,”254 automatically leading the reader away from sympathy. The rest of the opening paragraph is spent implying there was no one to blame in the events of 1836 through 1855. Drury wrote, “The involvement of the Cayuses in such events of the Whitman massacre and the Indian wars that followed arose largely out of the accident of their geographical location.”255 By using the word “accident,” Drury automatically 254 Robert H. Ruby and Jonathan A. Brown, The Cayuse Indians: Imperial Tribesmen of Old Oregon (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972), ix. 255 Ibid. Italics mine. 112 undermined the permanence of the Cayuse’s presence at Waiilatpu and implied their residence in the Walla Walla valley at the time was a coincidence and nothing more. The paragraph concluded with the line, “The clash between the culture of the red man and that of the white man was inevitable.”256 The language chosen for this sentence is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is interesting that Drury chose to highlight the “clash of cultures” at Waiilatpu, as that is the same language used by the National Parks Service at the NHS in an interpretive theme designed around the same time. Secondly, the clearly racial delineations of his explanation are indicative not only of the time in which it was written but also the mentality with which Drury wrote. Finally, the use of the word “inevitable,” surely frustrating to any other historian reading this, is problematic. It completely ignores any aspect of historical contingency and implies the events could not have happened any differently had different choices been made. It eliminates any agency belonging to the historical actors. The term also eliminates blame from the tragedy at Waiilatpu, the eventual annexation of the Oregon Territory, and relegation of the CTUIR to a reservation. While the Cayuse are not directly blamed for the tragedy, there is no accountability given to the Whitmans or any of the immigrants who took Cayuse land. This sentence reeks of the mentality of Manifest Destiny. Drury ended his introduction by praising the authors’ “objective study of what happened.”257 While they did “not draw…upon imagination to guess at what the Indians thought or did,” Ruby and Brown “told, in clear, documented accounts, what actually happened when the white men took by force what the Indians felt was 256 257 Ibid. Ruby and Brown, The Cayuse Indians, x. 113 rightfully theirs.”258 While Drury did not concede that the land did rightfully belong to the Cayuse people, he does acknowledge that the tribe believed that it did. This is a significant shift in tone from the chance happenstance of his previous page, as Drury admitted that the Cayuse had reason to conflict with immigrants. Interestingly, Drury went on to write, “After reading this book, every honest inquirer should have strong feelings of sympathy for the Cayuses. The authors have not tried to gloss over the Indians mistakes; but when the full story is revealed, we see that they were more sinned against that sinning.”259 Here, Drury clearly recognized that the Cayuse were treated far worse than they deserved. This is fascinating when compared to the rhetoric with which he discusses the tribe (and others in the Northwest who interacted with the missionaries) in his books about the Whitmans. In fact, by declaring that the tribe was “sinned against,” Drury seems to have admitted that it was the Whitmans themselves who had done the sinning. Granted, the missionaries are in a rather large category with the United States government and white settlers in the Oregon Territory. Still, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman were tied to those sins. Again, this seems to contradict the praise with which Drury described the Whitmans earlier within this introduction and in his other works. While this brief introduction is in no way a comprehensive view of Drury’s historical perspective and writing, it does show the mentality with which he approached the Cayuse and their interactions with the Whitmans. The introduction is significant because Drury was chosen to write it, regardless of his lack of specific expertise. He was clearly considered an expert in the field of northwest missionary 258 259 Ibid. Ibid. 114 history at this time, which deemed him qualified to discuss the culture of one of the groups with whom missionaries worked. This is indicative of the world in which Drury worked, and is telling about his role as an historian. Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon, 1973 In the introduction to the first volume of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon, Drury explained why he felt he needed to write another book on the Whitmans. First, he had been able to work with vastly more sources regarding the Whitmans since his first book’s publication in 1937 and felt he could present a fuller picture of the missionaries. Second, and most significantly, he felt “better qualified to evaluate the services rendered by the Whitmans to the natives, to the immigrants, and to the nation than…before.”260 Drury emphasized that “on the basis of new documentary evidence, I have in this work given more attention to the significant role that Whitman played in the opening of Old Oregon to American settlement.” 261 This new perspective is evident in both the title of the volume as well as the quotation from Marcus Whitman which opens the book: If I never do more than to have been one of the first to take white women across the mountains and prevent the disaster and reaction which would have occurred by the breaking up of the present [1843] emigration, and establishing the first wagon road across to the border of the Columbia River, I am satisfied.262 Drury clearly set out to emphasize the Whitmans’ role as pioneers and in western settlement. Drury, V1, 19. Ibid. 262 Drury, V1, 22. 260 261 115 Drury’s book spanned eight-hundred seventy-seven pages and attempted to encompass the entirety of both Marcus and Narcissa’s lives through the end of the Cayuse war in 1855. The following discussion will comb through three episodes as told by Drury to highlight his historical approach. The first is Whitman and Spalding’s supposed purpose in “civilizing” the native tribes with whom they worked. The second is Drury’s treatment of Alice Clarissa Whitman. The third is of The Whitman Myth, which Drury referred to explicitly throughout the book and claimed to wholeheartedly refute. The majority of Presbyterian missionaries believed that “civilizing” the people with whom they were working through the teaching of white American customs was a necessary step to Christian conversion. Drury addressed this in his introduction. He wrote, “both Whitman and Spalding saw the necessity of inducing the Indians to take up farming and be settled so that a consistent program of education and evangelization could be conducted.”263 He then continued to write, “The missionaries also realized that, with the inevitable coming of the white man into the Old Oregon country, the natives would have to adjust to the new culture which would be thrust upon them or perish.”264 Drury offered no citation for this claim at this point in the text, and it does not seem to have a firm basis in any of the contemporary sources.265 He repeated the point in the tenth chapter, writing Although the Cayuses and the Nez Perces did not sense in 1836 and the years immediately following that their manner of life was destined to be replaced by the white man’s civilization, this both Whitman and Drury, V1, 17. Drury, V1, 17. 265 I have yet to find any reference to this sentiment in any sources from Whitman or Spalding. The claim was also made by G. Thomas Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Whitman College, in a 1997 pamphlet on the history of the missionaries for the sesquicentennial of their deaths. 263 264 116 Spalding realized…Both Whitman and Spalding were one in their commitment to do all within their power to civilize the natives. They were convinced that the Indians would be unable to preserve their old way of life. They would have to adapt themselves to the white man’s ways or perish.266 Again, no citation was offered in explanation of this claim. It is a point echoed by other scholars, and one that seems to fix a problem for fans of the Whitmans. If they knew that Americans were going to come west and spread a homogenous culture across Native American lands, then the Whitmans were simply doing their best to help the Cayuse by encouraging them to adapt their culture before immigrants would force them to. The missionaries were simply trying to save the native people from extinction. Writing in 1973, it is interesting that Drury showcased such a compassionate impulse for the work of the Whitmans. As many at the time were disenchanted with the missionaries due to their lack of cultural understanding and cruelty towards the Cayuse, claiming that the Whitmans wanted to prepare the Indians for the inevitable onslaught of Euro-American culture makes them seem more sympathetic to the 1970s American. This claim is problematic for several reasons. First and most importantly, there is no reference to this in any contemporary sources. Second, this theory requires the Whitmans and Spaldings to have had incredible foresight for the future of the American west. While western expansion was certainly beginning, at the start of their work it was still noteworthy to bring women across the continent. It would not be easy to assume that within a short time enough American families would come to the territory that local culture would be completely 266 Drury, V1, 242. 117 overhauled.267 Third, as has already been established, Presbyterian missionaries believed they had to “civilize” native peoples in order to convert them. This was clearly a primary priority for the Whitmans and Spaldings in their missions, and seems a much more logical motivation for encouraging farming and settlement than a possible future of American cultural hegemony. Drury’s assertion that the missionaries were ultimately benevolent in their goal to help the Cayuse adapt to American culture is problematic for several reasons. This major argument regarding the motivations of the Whitmans in their work is put forth by the NHS and other sources through their endorsement of the book. While Drury’s ideas seem rather innocuous at first glance, their ramifications are far-reaching, and as such must be considered in depth. The second point of Drury’s interpretation of analytical importance is the case of the Whitmans’ daughter. Alice Clarissa Whitman, who drowned in the Walla Walla River at the young age of two, is often used as a point of sympathy in the story of Narcissa. Indeed, it is much easier to understand the harsh nature of Narcissa Whitman after her daughter’s death. She is also often cited as an example of “civilizing the west” as the first white American daughter born west of the Rocky Mountains. Drury’s discussion of Alice was portrayed in a similar light. He emphasized the Cayuse’s interest in the young girl and Narcissa’s joy at having a daughter. Furthermore, if Marcus Whitman was so sure that Americans would soon populate the Oregon Territory, why would he have to ride east to save it? As was noted above and will be further discussed later on, a major goal of Drury’s book was to emphasize the Whitmans’ role in the “opening” of the Oregon Territory. Drury argued that part of Marcus’ motivation in going east in 1842 was to save the region for the United States, as he feared they would lose it. The two assertions do not seem to complement each other. 267 118 An interesting point in Drury’s discussion of Alice was in reference to the practice of some plateau tribes of flattening the heads of children. Drury explained that Narcissa wrote to Mrs. G.P. Judd of the ABCFM’s post in Honolulu on September 1, 1837, …the natives here are much surprised at [Alice’s] size and strength, and her rapid growth, which is very different from their children. He clean, round, natural head, is a striking contrast to their scurfy, ill shapen, flat heads, and they feel it so. It speaks louder than words, against their cruel, murderous system of flattening the heads of their infants…O when will these mothers possess the feelings that belong to their endearing name?268 From this, Drury concluded that “Alice Clarissa’s ‘clean, round, natural head’ was an eloquent and persuasive object lesson for [the Cayuse]. It requires little imagination for us to believe that no Cayuse mother would willingly deform her baby’s head after seeing Alice Clarissa.”269 There is absolutely no reason to believe the sight of Alice Clarissa Whitman would have had any impact on the practices of Cayuse mothers, who had been successfully raising children for generations. This remark is especially interesting when viewed alongside Drury’s aforementioned article in Western Historical Quarterly, in which he advised young historians to “Avoid fictionalizing history. Stay with documented facts. If at times you feel it necessary to build on assumptions, do so after frankly stating what you are doing. Our past is sufficiently thrilling that we do not need the embellishments of imagination to add interest.”270 Drury, V1, 246-7. Drury, V1, 247. 270 Drury, “Reminiscences of an Historian,” 148. 268 269 119 The final aspect of Drury’s book I will discuss is his treatment of the Whitman Myth and discussion of Whitman’s 1842 ride east. In Appendix 3, Drury clearly stated that he wished to draw a clear distinction between his interpretation of Whitman’s contribution to the opening of Old Oregon to American settlement and the consequent influence that this had on the settlement of the boundary question with Great Britain, and the rejected Whitman-Saved Oregon story which was so zealously promulgated by Spalding, Gray, Myron Eells, and others a century ago.271 Essentially, Drury outlined that, while Whitman did ride to Washington, promote immigration, and serve as a key figure in the eventual annexation of Oregon by the United States, “Spalding’s theory was essentially false in that he made claims which historically were not true,”272 such as the idea that Whitman sought to prevent the signing of a (nonexistent) treaty that would trade the Oregon Territory to Great Britain for fishing rights in Newfoundland. To this point, I agree with Drury. Whitman was a key figure in both western expansion and the annexation of Oregon, but he did not ride to Washington with the express purpose of “saving Oregon.” The issue with Drury’s claims regarding the 1842 ride are found in his description of the “Motives for Whitman’s Ride.” He explained that “The subject is complex and the evidence in some particulars conflicting,” but “We,” by which one can infer Drury means the historical community, “can list three apparent motives, but it would be unhistorical to say that any particular one took priority over the other two.”273 The reasons Drury listed were: 1. Mission Business, 2. To Promote Oregon Emigration, and 3. To Counteract the Roman Catholics. Drury noted that by Drury, V2, 375. Ibid. 273 Drury, V1, 466. 271 272 120 acknowledging three different, equally important motivations, he was contradicting conclusions reached his previous books regarding the ride. The second motivation listed by Drury, that Whitman wanted to promote American immigration to Oregon, is not well supported by primary evidence or Drury’s explanation. He wrote that, “by the late spring of 1840, both Marcus and Narcissa realized the importance of Waiilatpu as an outpost on the Oregon Trail.”274 Drury offered no primary evidence in support of this claim. He did provide the writing of Asa Lovejoy, who accompanied Whitman on his ride, as support of Whitman’s purpose, but Lovejoy only wrote several years later, the earliest being 1869, over twenty-five years after the ride itself. This is a problem Drury acknowledged, admitting that “allowances should be made for the fallibility of human memory.”275 Yet he continued to use Lovejoy’s account as the sole support of Whitman’s political motivation. Lovejoy wrote in an 1876 letter to Dr. G. H. Atkinson that “[Marcus Whitman] was alive to the interests of this Coast, and manifested a very warm desire to have it properly represented in Washington.”276 Even if Lovejoy’s account was wholly trustworthy, the simple claim that Whitman seemed to be in support of American control of the Oregon territory is in no way enough to spurn him to make a hasty and dangerous ride east. The third motivation listed by Drury, that Whitman desired to deter the Roman Catholic missionaries in the territory, does seem more likely, but only because antiCatholic sentiment was common among Protestants across the world, missionaries or Drury, V1, 467-8. Drury, V1, 469. 276 Ibid. 274 275 121 otherwise. Therefore, letters from the Whitmans and other contemporary writings are rife with anti-Catholic rhetoric. But again, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to call Whitman’s desires for a Protestant rather than Catholic northwest a motivation for such a dangerous ride east. Drury concluded this section by explicitly outlining his claims. Two questions arise: (1) If the Oregon boundary had been settled…[and such news was carried to] Whitman, would Whitman have made his journey merely on the need to correct the Board’s order [to close Waiilatpu]? In my opinion the answer must be NO! (2) If the Board had never issued its drastic order and if [Whitman had been informed] of pending treaty negotiations which involved the Oregon boundary, would Whitman then have made his ride? Again, in my opinion, the answer would be NO!277 Drury summarizes by declaring a “combination of motives…prompted Whitman to leave for the East, and it is impossible to say which had priority.”278 It is of course likely that a number of motivations ultimately caused Whitman to ride east, but there is not enough contemporary evidence to call either a political or anti-Catholic goal a primary motivation. Drury’s explanation reads to a modern scholar as a thin attempt at a twentieth-century recreation of the Whitman Myth. To conclude, Drury’s affection for the Whitman’s and sympathy to their cause was clear in his writing and ultimately affected the narrative he told. This bias can be seen in his explanation of the Whitman’s behavior, such as positing they wanted to civilize the Cayuse to save them from the inevitable onslaught of white settlers, or in his descriptions of Alice Clarissa. Drury’s partiality can also be seen in his attempts to connect Whitman to patriotic motivations for the 1842 ride. Ultimately, this clear bias 277 278 Drury, V1, 472-3. Drury, V1, 473. 122 in the most exhaustive work on the Whitmans has serious ramifications on the perception and understanding of the missionaries in both the modern historical world and the Pacific Northwest community. As his work continues to be featured prominently in all recommended reading lists regarding the Whitmans, as well as in the bibliographies of articles on the NHS website, Drury’s influence lives on in public historical accounts of the Whitmans. Conclusion In the years following the publication of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon, historians began to analyze the Whitmans in context, recognizing their flaws and analyzing their role in western expansion from the Cayuse perspective. However, Drury’s is the book still widely available and recommended through every source on the Whitmans. Through the Whitman Mission National Historic Site website, those interested can peruse the book itself or the many articles it influenced. As the Historic Site is arguably the most authoritative source for members of the public interested in this history, this is an important endorsement. When I began my research for this project, I asked the person at the front desk in the Northwest Archives at Whitman College for recommendations; he gave me Drury. While none of these examples are complete, whole-hearted endorsements of Drury and his narrative, it is important that he remains so widely-cited as an historical authority on the Whitmans. Members of the Whitman College faculty, the head Archivist of the Northwest Collection, and staff at the NHS all conversationally brushed Drury aside as an antiquated source, but it is his work that continuously appears throughout public historical presentations. 123 In many ways, this is analogous to the work of Myron Eells at the beginning of the twentieth century. Though members of the historical community disregarded his views and work as memorialist, it was Eells’ narrative that lived on through celebrations and the early NPS site. The same seems to be true for Drury. In 1975, Professor of History at Whitman College Robert L. Whitner wrote a review of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon for the American Historical Review. His concerns and conclusions about the text do not differ radically from my own. Of his issues with the book, Whitner wrote, “although Drury acknowledges the conflict of cultures279…little is said of the culture of the ‘uncivilized Cayuse,’ particularly of Indian religious ideas. He is clearly on the side of the whites.”280 He then went on to discuss the issue of the Alice Clarissa head-flattening example I referenced earlier in this chapter. Drury, like Eells, was seen on the outskirts of the academic community—a valuable source of information but far too biased in interpretation for the work of an historian. Yet, both men had their work far surpass their own lives in terms of historiographical significance. At the end of the twentieth century, the entanglement of the memorialist perspective continued to overshadow the work of the historical community in the way the Whitmans were studied and remembered. Here again is this phrase taken directly from the interpretive theme at the NHS during this time. Whitner himself was involved at the mission and likely is explicitly referring to that language here. 280 Robert L. Whitner, “Review: Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon by Clifford M. Drury,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 80, No. 2 (April 1975): 499. 279 124 A Changing Tide: New Historical Outlets at the End of the Twentieth Century The end of the twentieth century saw a dramatic shift in historical work. As was discussed in the previous chapters, world events such as the Civil Rights and Feminist Movements of the 1960s and the American Indian Movement and Vietnam War of the 1970s prompted scholars to move away from traditional “great white man” histories and move towards studying alternative voices. As such, interest in the Whitmans and other missionaries faded as western scholars sought to tell the stories of those whom the Whitmans and other white settlers had done wrong. The heyday of memorial celebrations had passed as people started to see the other side of the missionary story. In 1990, the United States government passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, “to address the rights of lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to Native American cultural items, including human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.”281 This act required museums and other historical institutions to return native artifacts and human remains to the tribes from which they were taken. The passing of NAPGRA is indicative of a new requisite morality in the public historical realm, prioritizing the rights of native peoples for the first time in a rather sundry history of exhibitionism and exoticization. In 1991, Julie Roy Jeffrey published Converting the West: A Biography of Narcissa Whitman, the first large-scale work on the Whitmans since Drury’s 1973 281 “National NAGPRA,” United States Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/ 125 magnum opus, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon. From the outset, Jeffrey’s work is noticeably different than that which came before her. Far from the celebratory prose of Drury, Jeffrey tackled the historical role of the Whitmans through a critical eye, utilizing the newfound lens of women’s history. A few years after Jeffrey published her book, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation opened their own museum, the Tamástslikt Cultural Institute, as a counterpoint to the Whitman Mission. In these ways, the 1990s can be seen as a new era in historical work regarding the Whitmans, attempting to shake off the dust of memorialist entanglements from the decades before. As such, it is remarkably interesting that Whitman College decided to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Tragedy at Waiilatpu in 1997. In collaboration with the National Historic Site and newly founded Tamástslikt Cultural Institute, the college hosted a conference dedicated to northwest history regarding the missionaries and western expansion. While not a celebratory endeavor, the conference was the first major event regarding the Whitmans since the 1936 Centennial Celebration. The event is an excellent final bookmark to this research, as it lies within the same realm as the early community memorials but reflects new feelings within the Walla Walla region and historical community regarding the missionaries and their work. Julie Roy Jeffrey and Narcissa Whitman The most recent monograph on the Whitmans is Julie Roy Jeffrey’s Converting the West: A Biography of Narcissa Whitman. Published in 1991, it is the first book by an historian focusing on the work of Narcissa over that of her husband. Jeffrey’s 126 publisher seems to have been seeking a wider audience than just the academic community, as her book is incredibly readable to a non-academic audience and was published without footnotes.282 Like Drury, Jeffrey too published her book in the midst of an historiographical shift. She finished her Ph.D. in 1972, the same era in which Drury was working and publishing, and her work is very clearly influenced by an effort to shift away from the old school of celebrating the men who made America. Writing in the realm of women’s history by highlighting Narcissa rather than Marcus in the Whitman story, Jeffrey brought a new light to the Waiilatpu story and in many ways brought it into modern scholarship. Her work is extremely aware of that which came before her. In her preface, Jeffrey explained that nineteenth century scholars “heroicized the noble laborers and the work of conversion,” turning “Narcissa Whitman and her husband” into “Protestant martyrs, honored not only by the college named for them but by various other memorials as well.”283 Jeffrey also noted that the Whitmans’ roles as pioneers and Narcissa’s “overland journey and family letters…encouraging family emigration to the Far West”284 was emphasized over their failure as missionaries. Unlike her predecessors in the Whitman field, Jeffrey wrote with a critical eye towards her subject, even going so far as to admit she might be biased against Narcissa. In her preface, Jeffrey admitted, Because of a religious perspective that appears unduly harsh in the twentieth century, it has often been difficult to be sympathetic to Narcissa and her endeavor…Narcissa, like other missionaries, repeatedly told the Cayuse they were headed for eternal damnation. Her words made the Cayuse angry (as they often do the modern researcher). An edition with footnotes can be found in the Northwest Archives at Whitman College. Jeffrey, Converting the West, xii. 284 Ibid. 282 283 127 I have attempted not to blame but to understand Narcissa’s psychological makeup and her cultural context and to appreciate the pervasiveness of her views in evangelical circles and the sincerity of her belief. If I have not always succeeded in avoiding a judgmental tone, my failure illustrates that my own culture and its values and my own inner needs have as powerful a hold on me as Narcissa’s did on her.285 These words mark another important shift in thinking about the Whitmans. In recent years, it seems that the pendulum of perspective on the missionaries has swung from the overtly praising and celebratory era of the early twentieth century to the clearly critical side of seeing the Whitmans for their horrific role in regional Indian removal. Jeffrey is acutely aware of this new bias, as she was working against her own judgmental inclinations in her research. Her caution is a lesson in historical work. Just as historians cannot work while blinded by a love for their historical actors, they cannot work while blinded by hate or judgement. The results are similarly teleological and problematic. Fortunately, Jeffrey succeeded in keeping her own biases against the missionaries out of her narrative, and her book offers an excellent narrative on the experience of Narcissa and the effect she had on western expansion. Oddly, her book does seem to be relegated to a women’s history rather than complete account of the Waiilatpu Mission due to its focus on Narcissa, while books focusing on Marcus are considered all-encompassing. This is unfortunate, as the account tells a nuanced, detailed narrative of the mission, and the book’s readability to the non-historian makes it an excellent bridge between the historical community and the public. Despite this categorization, Jeffrey has clearly made her mark on the historiography of the Whitmans, as her book can be found alongside Drury in the shop at the Whitman 285 Jeffrey, Converting the West, xv. 128 Mission National Historic Site, and she herself appears in the new video shown in the site’s museum. Her work marks an historiographical shift in this field that remains in place today. Tamástslikt Cultural Institute Opened in 1998, the Tamástslikt Cultural Institute (TCI) was built on the Umatilla Indian Reservation, home to the Confederated Tribes—the Umatilla, Cayuse, and Walla Walla—in Pendleton, Oregon. It was designed to be a counterpoint to the Whitman Mission National Historic Site (NHS), giving the tribal perspective to what was presented mainly as a white tragedy for so many years. John Cress, development officer for the TCI, explained in an interview with Oregon.com that, “The exhibit content was developed by experts from the Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Tribes…No outside experts or scholars were used to make sure this was the unfiltered history that was presented.”286 The TCI was the first museum in the area to present a purely Indian perspective on regional history. The museum has remained largely the same as it was upon the institute’s opening twenty years ago.287 The space is divided into three sections, “We Were,” “We Are,” and “We Will Be.” The largest, “We Were,” portrays over ten thousand years of tribal history. Visitors can begin their tour in a replica teepee, where the story of Cayote, the “trickster,” is shown on the walls in the shadow of the “fire” in the center. Cayote then serves as a guide throughout the rest of the museum. The “We Were” section highlights several aspects of tribal culture, from living spaces—such as the Patrick Johnson, “Tamástslikt Cultural Institute,” http://www.oregon.com/attractions/tam%C3%A1stslikt-cultural-institute. 287 This description is made largely based on my August 2016 personal visit to the museum. 286 129 teepee and full-scale tule lodge—language, dress, and traditions. The tribes’ relationship to the horse is highlighted as a prominent aspect of specifically Cayuse life.288 The visitor passes from the first large exhibit space through a narrow hallway, where they find the first signs of European contact. Trade through the Hudson’s Bay Company is shown in a model storefront, where tribal blankets are shown alongside the European goods they were used to trade for. The visitor then approaches a small model church, where missionary contact is presented. While initially innocuous, it quickly becomes clear to the visitor that this is a dark time in tribal history. Passing through the church, where Catholic and Protestant doctrine are shown side by side, emphasizing their ultimate similarity, one is told the story of the Whitmans through native eyes. The increase in American immigration is highlighted, with an emphasis on the disease the immigrants brought with them. The portion showing the events of November 29, 1847 is truly presented as a tragedy, especially as it is immediately followed by a downward ramp lined with the remnants of tribal culture literally shown buried in the dirt, and photographs of the move to the reservation. To the CTUIR, the Whitmans were a clear cause of the loss of their land. The sections “We Are” and “We Will Be” showcase aspects of modern tribal life. As modern native nations are rarely depicted, this is a powerful reminder that the CTUIR are present, alive, and important. White perception often sees the end of the nineteenth century as the end of Indian life in the United States. This is of course not the case, which TCI stresses throughout its latter sections. Modern cultural activities, 288 Karson, As Days Go By, 30. 130 such as annual tribal participation in the Pendleton Round Up, are shown through picture and video. Rotating exhibits are shown in addition to the permanent three. The gift shop sells tribal art and music in addition to history books from the Indian perspective. In recent years, the Whitman Mission National Historic Site has made it a priority to work with TCI and leaders from the CTUIR in order to tell a more balanced narrative than has been shown in years past. As was explained in the chapter about the site, the site’s enabling legislation has limited them severely in accomplishing this goal. TCI is an excellent museum to fill gaps the NHS is not itself able to fill at this time, as well as present the tribal perspective on nineteenth century history. Whitman College Sesquicentennial of 1997 In 1996, Dr. Thomas Edwards, Professor of History at Whitman College, began meetings in regards to a Sesquicentennial Event marking the anniversary of the Tragedy at Waiilatpu. In a request to the Board of Trustees of Whitman College, Edwards explained that “This is not to be a celebration but it is to be a recognition of a great tragedy that had a great impact upon the native Americans and the pioneers.”289 Edwards worked with Larry Dodd, Curator of the Whitman College Library, Jacqueline Cook of the TCI, Dr. William Lang, Director of the Center for the Columbia River, and Dr. Stephanie Toothman of the National Parks Service in the initial stages of planning this event, along with other faculty at Whitman College. From Dr. G. Thomas Edwards to Donald Sampson, October 1, 1996, Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. 289 131 The event was designed to be a conference with the goal to “teach many citizens about the clash of culture played out along the banks of the Walla Walla River, the war that followed, and the massacre of five Cayuse at Oregon City in 1850.”290 It was meant to be a primarily academic occasion with the public invited to attend, in many ways the reverse of the celebratory memorials of the early twentieth century. Calls were put out for papers and speakers to apply to present at the conference. Assistant Professor, Dr. Nina Lerman of the Whitman College history department put the call for papers online, utilizing newer technology to increase awareness of and participation in the conference. It is interesting to note that this event was once again marking the anniversary of the Tragedy at Waiilatpu rather than the arrival of the Whitmans in Walla Walla. The shift towards the more positive memorial occurred with the 1936 Centennial and returned in 1986 and years following. This is a meaningful shift. The first several memorials sought to commemorate the Whitmans as martyrs and focused solely on the events of November 29, 1847. The 1997 Sesquicentennial focused on the greater tragedy brought on by the Waiilatpu Mission, reflecting the greater trend of the past decades towards a more inclusive history, as epitomized by the opening of TCI. The conference was sponsored by both Whitman College and the Whitman Mission National Historic Site. This is a clear example of direct interaction and influence between the historical community and public history. The event was titled, Examining the Collision of Cultures in the Age of Multiculturalism: The Whitman Tragedy, 1847-1997. This title is important. Early in the stages of planning this event, 290 Ibid. 132 Edwards wanted to refer to the events of November 29, 1847 as the Whitman Massacre. This tactic did not encourage involvement from TCI or the CTUIR. Through the collaboration of various Whitman faculty and the campus Intercultural Center, it was decided that the attack should instead be referred to as the Whitman Tragedy, as it was a tragedy for all parties involved. This allowed for much more involvement from the CTUIR and an overall better reception of the event. This title also reflects the interpretive theme coordinated by the NHS during the 1970 and 80s which portrayed the events at Waiilatpu as a “clash of cultures.” In all, thirteen scholars, including Whitman College undergraduate students, spoke at four distinct sessions over two days, in addition to a keynote address titled, Unexpected Troubles: The Whitmans as the American West’s Best Parable by Dr. Patricia Nelson Limerick of the University of Colorado. The four sessions were “Retrospectives of 1847,” “Interaction or Imposition? Cultural Encounters at Waiilatpu,” “The Mission Imperative,” and “Cultural Interactions on the Columbia Plateau.” The conference opened with remarks from Roger Trick of the NHS and Edwards, who gave a speech titled, Marcus Whitman and His World. The conference closed with words from tribal historian from the CTUIR, Ron Pond. A handout from the event titled “Basic Whitman Chronology” gives a clear example of the narrative put forth as a whole by the conference. Despite an intentional focus on cultural interaction in talks given at the conference, the timeline began with the births of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman, detailing their family backgrounds. After explaining Marcus’ medical training, it marked 1835 with Marcus’ appointment to the ABCFM and his trip west with Samuel Parker. It does not refer to Whitman’s medical 133 work at the Green River Rendezvous or his and Parker’s meeting with members of the Nez Perce. The chronology then highlighted the Whitmans’ wedding and journey west as the important moments of 1836, ending the year on December 10 when “Marcus Whitman escorted Narcissa to their new home at Waiilatpu.”291 The description of Alice Clarissa Whitman characterized her as the “first white girl born to American parents in Oregon Country,”292 emphasizing both her race and gender as important points of distinction. Then, the reinforcement of missionaries in 1838 is marked along with the formation of the Columbia Maternal Association, followed by the death of Alice Clarissa, with her exact age documented, and the note that, by 1839, the ABCFM “operated four stations in the Oregon Country: Waiilatpu, Lapwai, Tshimakain, and Kamiah.”293 The outline of the events of 1842 described the order from the American Board to close several Oregon Missions, the arrival of “approximately 112 people” in an immigrant train, and that “Whitman, accompanied by Asa Lovejoy, departed Waiilatpu for east” specifically “to answer closure letter [from the ABCFM].”294 It is important to note that this chronology intentionally noted the purpose of Whitman’s ride, most likely to differentiate it explicitly from the Whitman Saved Oregon Story. In its description of Whitman’s time in the U.S., the document went no further than to indicate that “Whitman visited Washington, D.C., New York, and Boston” where he met with the ABCFM.295 Similarly, it noted that “Whitman joined the 1843 emigrant “Basic Whitman Chronology,” from the 1997 Sesquicentennial, given to me by Professor Rogers Miles of Whitman College from his personal files on the event, August 2016. 292 Ibid. 293 Ibid. 294 Ibid. 295 Ibid. 291 134 train to Oregon Country,”296 again giving no indication of the Whitman Saved Oregon Story, and then marked the 1846 treaty with Great Britain which placed the Oregon Boundary at the 49th parallel. It is significant that this document specifically outlined Whitman’s travel, as this is one of very few written about the Whitmans which does not claim that Marcus had patriotic intent or effect. After the overtly celebratory memorials of the early twentieth century, such documents were not needed outside of the NHS, so very few were produced. This is an important point in the historiography and marks a clear departure from earlier writings and events. The next point in the chronology was 1847, beginning with the fact that “Waiilatpu [was] crowded with emigrants” and that “measles and dysentery [were the] main health problems.”297 It then listed the people killed on November 29th, explaining that the bodies were “buried in [a] mass grave” and that “Peter Skene Ogden, Hudson’s Bay Company employee, obtained [the] release of 47 captives.”298 The event is not called a massacre. Neither the hanging of the five Cayuse for the attack nor the 1855 Treaty are mentioned. The last several points on the chronology marked various memorials to the Whitmans, beginning with 1897 and the “fiftieth anniversary recognition of the death of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and co-workers” as well as the dedication of the Memorial Shaft and Great Grave.299 It should be noted that the description of those killed as “co-workers” of the Whitmans is not entirely accurate, as those living at the mission were mainly white settlers who were staying there temporarily before moving Ibid. Ibid. 298 Ibid. 299 Ibid. 296 297 135 to different land (which was most likely also a part of tribal territory). The next point on the timeline was the official establishment of the Whitman National Monument in 1940. Interestingly, the 1936 Centennial Celebration is not mentioned. Next was the 1953 presentation of a statue of Marcus Whitman as the representative of Washington State in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building. The final point on the timeline is the changing of the Whitman National Monument to the Whitman Mission National Historic Site in 1962. The event as a whole was scholarly in nature, neither overtly celebratory nor critical towards the missionaries. It is an enigmatic event in the history of the Whitman narrative, as it is the first time an event regarding the missionaries was held without a specific memorial purpose. It marks the beginning of a collaborative middle ground between the CTUIR, NHS, and Whitman College, all of whom have an important stake in telling the history of the Waiilatpu Mission. Regional Significance In promotion of the conference, several articles were written in newspapers around Washington State. As this was the first time the Whitmans had been celebrated on such a large scale since 1936, it was a significant event for the whole region, who recognized the Whitmans as important historical figures. Marcus represents the state in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington D.C, and the work of the Whitmans has been covered in regional history courses across the northwest. As such, it made sense to feature such an event in the Walla Walla Union Bulletin as well as the Seattle Times. One article in the Seattle Times by Keiko Morris discussed the controversial nature of the history to be discussed at the conference. Titled, “Uncomfortable History: 136 The Whitman Massacre,” the article connected this event to those memorials that came before it. Morris managed to capture the complicated nature of the academic memorial, acknowledging the different perspectives among the descendants of Pioneers and the descendants of those whom Pioneers moved to reservations. She wrote, “Among whites, the Whitman legacy today elicits apathy, ambivalence, and, some say, wild amnesia. Among Indians, the story, as it was long depicted, left wounds that are still healing.”300 This conflict was felt by those who coordinated the event among the students at Whitman College. Edwards felt the lack of discussion on campus regarding the missionaries was, “however unwittingly,” ignoring “a significant portion of the northwest’s history.”301 Edwards told Morris, “We have to look at how this happened. The truth is that this sort of conflict has been a true part of the American experience, an important thread in the American fabric.”302 Whitman College Professor of Political Science Dr. Bud Kenworthy told Morris, “We always want to draw a line across history. But we as people have to drill holes in that line. We need some kind of rituals that revisit a painful place with honesty. It’s going to help white people get rid of their own amnesia and discomfort around their own history.”303 Conclusion In many ways, the issues surrounding the 1997 Sesquicentennial are the same issues being confronted today on the Whitman College Campus. The idea of a Keiko Morris, “Uncomfortable History: The Whitman Massacre,” The Seattle Times, November 16, 1997, accessed May 7, 2016, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19971116&slug=2572792. 301 Ibid. 302 Ibid. 303 Ibid. 300 137 memorial event of any kind to the Whitmans is immediately thought by some to be overly honorific and giving undue credit to undeserving people. However, letting this history go untold leaves historical wounds open rather than letting them heal. The 1997 Sesquicentennial marked a new age of collaboration between “white history,” as represented by the National Historic Site and Whitman College, and “tribal history,” as represented through collaboration with tribal historians and the opening of TCI. The echoes of this event can be seen in the recent addition to Whitman College’s orientation program for first year students, which collaborated with both the NHS and TCI to bring historians to campus to share the history of the region with those who were inhabiting it for the first time. Hopefully, this collaboration will continue, helping the “white amnesia” surrounding this impactful history fade away. 138 Conclusion As you walk around the Whitman College campus today, you can easily find forgotten monuments to the Whitmans. Hidden in plain sight, these tokens of commemoration remain where past generations deliberately placed them, registering somewhere in the back of the mind of students and faculty, ever-present but everhidden by the phenomenon of looking without seeing. The glorious statue of Marcus on the edge of campus and downtown Walla Walla is most prominent, easily interpreted and internalized by each passerby. Less obvious are the smaller, less elaborate markers. Marcus House and Prentiss Hall, two options for student living on campus, bear the names of Marcus Whitman and Narcissa Prentiss Whitman. A large stone outside the doors to Prentiss Hall commemorates Narcissa as “one of the first two white women to cross the continent” (Figure 8). Figure 8 Whitman College, Prentiss Hall Memorial 139 A massive painting by Danish artist Kay Nielsen entitled “The Whitman Legend” hung outside the president’s office in Memorial Building from its donation in the mid-1950s until it was moved to a classroom in 2007.304 The painting portrays various scenes from the lives of the Whitmans of the myth, each depiction heroic and heavenly. Especially interesting is the scene on the far right of the painting, which shows a small figure on a horse tackling a large mountain on the way to the U.S. Capitol, undoubtedly meant to depict Marcus on his 1842 journey east. Directly through the center of the painting, a beam of light shines on the Great Grave, shown exactly as it appears at the mission grounds. On the very edge of campus, tucked away between Lyman House and the entrance to the outdoor amphitheater, lies Treaty Rock (Figure 9). The plaque on the rock dictates that it is to stand as a memorial to the Treaty Council of 1855, which supposedly convened near that very spot. Here, Governor Isaac I. Stevens of the new Washington territory and Joel Palmer, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, met with representatives from the Cayuse, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Palouse tribes. These negotiations led to the establishment of the Yakama, Nez Perce, and Umatilla Reservations. In 1955, the plaque was presented by “the people of the Yakima, Nez Perce, Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Indian Tribes” to “commemorate the 100th anniversary of the signing by their forefathers of the treaties with the United States of America.” 304 The Whitman Legend now hangs prominently on the wall of Maxey W42. 140 Figure 9 Treaty Rock These fixtures around campus endure through the changing of the mascot and name of the school newspaper.305 They are not emblazoned on t-shirts and stickers sold in the bookstore, nor are they plastered on the masthead of a paper circulated around campus each week. They remain standing in the background as people walk by, able to pass without considering these monuments’ place on campus. I began this project when I visited the Whitman Mission National Historic Site with my parents my junior year at Whitman College. As I walked the mission grounds, I obsessed over the glorified, antiquated portrayal of the missionaries on every sign. I spent half an hour talking with Kate Kunkel-Paterson, a Whitman graduate who now works at the park, about the site’s interpretation and narrative of the missionaries, and 305 In the spring of 2016, Whitman College changed their mascot from the “Fighting Missionaries” to the “Blues” in honor of the mountain range lining the Walla Walla valley. Following suit, the school newspaper changed its name from “The Pioneer” to “The Whitman Wire.” Both changes were made intentionally to remove honorific depictions of the Whitmans and Pioneers from the campus. 141 how that has changed over time and would continue to change in the future. I worried that if new signs were to replace the old, the time when the missionaries were so explicitly honored within the museum would be forgotten. The way we talk about history is important. It shapes our understanding of ourselves and our world. If we forget the problematic thinking of the past, we forget how we became who we are now. This project is the reflection of a desire to ensure that the way this history has been told is not forgotten. It is an attempt to find the cause of the “white amnesia” which blocks this part of history from the consciousness of many white people in the region, and connect them to the historical trauma which is still very present in the lives of the CTUIR. It is necessary that people remember what it is impossible for many to forget. In the past decade, work at the National Historic Site has shifted toward telling a more inclusive narrative. In the mid-2000s, work began to make a new educational film to show in the Visitor Center. It was completed in 2013, and includes interviews with historians, such as Julie Roy Jeffrey, and members of the CTUIR. In 2016, a new Foundation Document for Review was drafted by the site in collaboration with the CTUIR. The document was “based on analysis of the park’s 1936 enabling legislation and rooted in the week-long meeting in October 2015” between representatives of the CTUIR and park staff.306 The document states that “The park and the events that took place here continue to resonate in the lives of descendants, who endeavor to share this history and its ongoing impacts with future generations.”307 The stated goal of both the “Draft Foundation Document for Review,” page 5, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, July 2016. 307 “Draft Foundation Document for Review,” page 6, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, July 2016. 306 142 CTUIR and NPS is to “learn from the site’s past, overcome the associated trauma, and find mutual understanding and respect,” because “Conscious efforts to include multiple voices and perspectives, particularly those of tribal participants and descendants, will foster a more truthful, complex, and relevant portrayal of these early interactions between immigrants from the United States and local native nations.”308 This inclusive interpretation is a far cry from any of the interpretive themes at the site throughout the twentieth century and is indicative of the progress towards inclusive history that has been made in recent years. Historic scholarship on this topic has not grown much in the past two decades. Though few major historical works have been completed on this topic since the 1997 conference, the Whitmans are included in several classes at Whitman College, and in the 2016-2017 school year, several classes specifically about the Whitmans were added to the course catalog. A search through JSTOR shows that a dissertation on the Whitmans or other northwest missionary interactions is written every few years. In 2006, the publication of As Days Go By brought a native perspective in an easily available secondary source, increasing the impact of the Tamástslikt Cultural Institute. Meanwhile, Whitman College is adding a lesson in history and place to its orientation program for incoming students. In collaboration with both the CTUIR and the National Historic Site, the college included for the first time in 2016 a program about the Whitmans and their effect on the CTUIR and Walla Walla. Students walked around campus to meet with different experts from the tribe and the park, learning about different aspects of the history of the place they were now to call their home. “Draft Foundation Document for Review,” page 6, Whitman Mission National Historic Site, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, July 2016. 308 143 This mini-tour included stops at campus sites like Treaty Rock, bringing some of the monuments around campus back into the conscious view of students. This new practice calls back to the college’s former visits to the National Historic Site, which were discontinued due to the site’s overtly celebratory narrative. Now, the Historic Site, CTUIR, and college are collaborating to ensure students understand the history of the place they are choosing to live. As can be seen in the numerous examples of monuments and memorials to the Whitmans in Walla Walla throughout the hundred and seventy years since their death, the missionaries have remained an important aspect of regional history and identity. However, it may be difficult to see how this research is applicable to anyone, scholar or otherwise, outside the Colombia Plateau region. It is important to see this project as a sample case of work that can be conducted across the United States, particularly in the west. The Whitmans are just one example of historical figures turned local legends by memorials and the passage of time. I grew up right next door to Puyallup, Washington. Like Walla Walla, Puyallup is named for an Indian tribe its founders displaced. Also like Walla Walla, Puyallup has its own pioneer history scattered across its street names and celebrations. Ezra Meeker traveled to the Oregon Territory in 1852 with his wife and newborn son. After growing rich from his farming of hops in the Puyallup Valley, he founded the town of Puyallup in 1877. His home, Meeker Mansion, is a popular museum and event venue today. The Meeker Days Arts and Music Festival takes place in the streets of downtown Puyallup every summer. The Western Washington State Fair Grounds are right at the edge of downtown, and each September the fair showcases the remnants of 144 the wild west through covered wagon displays, a large rodeo, and plenty of depictions of Cowboys and Indians. Ezra Meeker is a part of that extremely local identity, connecting the town to a larger narrative of western expansion and pioneer spirit. Thousands of small towns and cities across the United States have Marcus Whitmans or Ezra Meekers with whom they identify. While local citizens may not feel an intimate connection to the historical figures, the small monuments which line streets and government buildings work their ways into the consciousness and identity of the town. In the west, this is often a pioneer figure, linking the town to the conquering of the west proclaimed to be central to the American character by Frederick Jackson Turner in his Frontier Thesis. These connections took place across a century and throughout multiple generations, but they live on in the background, continuing to inform the historical memory of Americans across the country. By delving into these local stories, historians can gain a better understanding of how Americans have understood themselves and their history over the last century and a half. This is intrinsic to the study and curation of public history, which is one of the most central ways Americans learn about the past. Ensuring we build accurate and nuanced public histories is a necessary step to helping Americans understand their own history. These are the narratives that reach people. These are the narratives that shape identity. This is especially important in the western United States, where the conflicts of the nineteenth century between Indians and white settlers still have major ramifications today. The reservations to which Indians were sent during western expansion are the same they live on today, in many cases rich with culture but rife with poverty. 145 Washington Indian tribes still work with the state legislature to protect fishing rights promised in treaties signed in the mid-1800s. The conflict over the Dakota Access Pipeline at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation is, at its core, Indians fighting the United States Government for rights to their own land. It is vital that Americans, particularly the descendants of “pioneers,” understand that they now live on stolen land. This is central to understanding the ongoing conflicts between tribes and the U.S. government today. The influence of the Whitmans is not over. Their work has had a lasting effect on the Walla Walla community and Pacific Northwest as a whole. Marcus and Narcissa live on in the monuments built to them, the memorials held for them, and the histories dedicated to them. The quote scrawled across the bottom of Marcus’ familiar statue in Washington D.C. and downtown Walla Walla is representative of this impression. The line is an interesting choice to represent the “pioneer hero,” as it does not have any specific meaning, nor does it relate to the work he and Narcissa accomplished during their lifetime. However, it does speak volumes to their lasting impact: “My plans require time and distance.” The legacy of the Whitmans has drastically outlived the eleven years they spent at the Waiilatpu Mission. As to how far their legacy will go, only time and distance will tell. 146 Bibliography Archival Materials Whitman College Northwest Archives “Basic Whitman Chronology.” From the 1997 Sesquicentennial, given to me by Professor Rogers Miles of Whitman College from his personal files on the event, August 2016. “How the West Was Won: Program and Story, May 28, 29, 1924.” Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. “Hundreds Pay Homage to a Pioneer Hero.” Seattle Post Intelligencer. November 30, 1907. Box 11, The Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. “Seventieth Anniversary of the Whitman Massacre, 1917.” Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. “Visitors expected to come from all parts of country.” Walla Walla Union Bulletin. 1936. Box 12, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. “Whitman Centennial Celebration, 1936, Program of Events.” Box 12, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. “Whitman College Service in commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the 147 Whitman Massacre, November 29, 1922.” Whitman Massacre--Seventy-fifth anniversary 1922. Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. “Whitman Massacre Commemorated in Special Service, November 29, 1917.” Box 11, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. Bourne, Edward G. and H.W. Scott. “The Whitman Myth.” Reprinted from The Morning Oregonian of March 29, 1903. Box 5, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105. Whitman College and Northwest Archives. Penrose, Stephen B.L. “The National Significance of Waiilatpu and of The Whitman Centennial Celebration, August 13-16, 1936.” Available at the Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. William I. Marshall to William A. Mowry, November 10, 1898, The Whitman Controversy, Various Letters, Box 5, The Marcus and Narcissa Whitman Collection, WCMss105, Whitman College Northwest Archives. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives “Draft Foundation Document for Review,” Whitman Mission National Historic Site, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, July 2016. “Museum Prospectus.” Whitman National Monument, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1943. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. An Act To change the name of Whitman National Monument to Whitman Mission 148 National Historic Site. H.R. 9305. 87th Congress, (1962). An Act To provide for the establishment of the Whitman National Monument. H.R. 7736. 74th Congress. (1936). Benson. “Report to accompany H.R. 7736.” Senate Report No. 1937. Crabtree, Jennifer. Administrative History. Whitman Mission National Historic Site. 1988. G. Thomas Edwards to Donald Sampson. October 1, 1996. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. Hagen, Olaf T. “Report on the Preliminary Investigation of the Proposed Whitman National Monument.” Available at the Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. John A. Carver, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. John W. McCormack, Speaker, House of Representatives. In reference to H.R. 9305. January 15, 1962. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. Kunkel-Patterson, Kate. Park Ranger, Whitman Mission National Historic Site. Interview by Delaney Hanon, February 10, 2017. Memorandum from Acting Regional Director, Region four, to Director. Subject: “Museum Prospectus, Whitman National Monument.” April 19, 1960. Whitman Mission National Historic Site Archives. Published Works Cebula, Larry. Plateau Indians and the quest for spiritual power, 1700-1850. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003. 149 Drury, Clifford M. Marcus and Narcissa Whitman and the Opening of Old Oregon. Glendale: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1973. Drury, Clifford M. Marcus Whitman, M.D., Pioneer and Martyr. Caldwell: The Caxton printers, Ltd, 1937. Drury, Clifford M. “Reminiscences of an Historian.” Western Historical Quarterly. Vol. 5, No. 2. (April 1974): 133-149. Edwards, G. Thomas. The Triumph of Tradition: The Emergence of Whitman College, 1859-1924. Walla Walla: Whitman College, 1992. Eells, Myron. Marcus Whitman, M.D.: Proofs of His Work in Saving Oregon to the United States and in Promoting the Immigration of 1843. Portland: G. H. Himes, 1883. Eells, Myron. Marcus Whitman: Pathfinder and Patriot. Seattle: The Alice Harriman Company, 1909. Faragher, John Mack. Women and Men on the Overland Trail. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Hyde, Anne Farrar. Empires, Nations, and Families: A History of the North American West, 1800-1860. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011. Jameson, J. Franklin. “Review: Essays in Historical Criticism by Edward Gaylord Bourne.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 7, No. 4. (1902): 745-7. Accessed May 7, 2017. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.whitman.edu/stable/pdf/1834572.pdf. Jeffrey, Julie Roy. Converting the West: A Biography of Narcissa Whitman. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. 150 Johnson, Patrick. “Tamástslikt Cultural Institute.” Karson, Jennifer. Wiyaxayxt / Wiyaakaa'awn / As Days Go By: Our History, Our Land, Our People-The Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014K Kelman, Ari. A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling over the Memory of Sand Creek. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013. Lyman, W.D. “Some Observations upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question.” The Washington Historical Quarterly. 7, no. 2. (1916): http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 40474605. Marshall, William I. “A Discussion of Professor Bourne’s Paper.” Published in History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story. Chicago: Blakely Printing Co., 1904. Marshall, William I. History vs. The Whitman Saved Oregon Story: Three Essays Towards a True History of the Acquisition of the Old Oregon Territory (Being Nearly OneTwelfth of all Our Domain on this Continent), Which was the Longest, the Most Remarkable--and when Truthfully Told--the Most Interesting Struggle We Have Ever Made for Territory. Chicago: Press of the Blakely Printing Co., 1904. Morris, Keiko. “Uncomfortable History: The Whitman Massacre.” The Seattle Times. November 16, 1997. Accessed May 7, 2016. http:// community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19971116&slug=2 572792. 151 152 153