D2.His.9.9-12: Sources and the Interpretations Made from Them: The Legend of Marcus Whitman

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20 minutes
3. Guided Practice20 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A famous story about your school says that a student once saved the championship game with a last-second shot. Nobody wrote about it at the time; the story first appears in a yearbook article twenty years later, and since then several alumni say they remember it. What would you want to check before you believed it, and why might the alumni's memories not settle the question?"

   Collect answers on two lists: "what to check" (a box score or newspaper from that week, the yearbook writer's own source) and "why memories might not settle it" (they read the yearbook article; they want the story to be true; twenty years is a long time). Tell students that historians faced exactly this problem with a story about the Oregon Trail, and that the argument over it is a model for how sources and interpretations depend on each other.

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   Give the background in two minutes: Marcus Whitman and his wife Narcissa ran a mission of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions at Waiilatpu, near present Walla Walla, from 1836. In October 1842 Whitman rode east across the mountains in winter, and in 1843 he went back west with the large emigration of that year. In November 1847 he, his wife and others at the mission were killed in an attack by Cayuse men (see the teacher note in Closure). Then introduce the Source-Interpretation Map, an SVHS teaching tool.

   The Source-Interpretation Map (an SVHS teaching tool): four relationships between an interpretation and its sources

   Relationship	Question to ask	What to write down
   1. Rests on	Which sources does the claim depend on, and when was each made, relative to the events?	The sources, with dates; whether each is from the time or a later recollection
   2. Reads	Does the interpretation report what those sources actually say?	A quotation from the source next to the interpretation's version
   3. Reaches	Where does the claim go beyond the sources, and how does it fill the gap?	The gap (a silence, a missing motive) and the inference used to fill it
   4. Rebounds	Did the interpretation shape later sources, for example witnesses who had read it?	Dates of publication against dates of testimony

   1The Doctor set about his active preparations, arranging his outfit and seeing that everything was in order. The next day he had a call to see a sick man at old Fort Walla Walla, and as he needed many articles for his journey which could be had there, he went with this double purpose. He found at the Fort a score or more of traders, clerks and leading men of the Hudson Bay Company, assembled there. They were nearly all Englishmen, and the discussion soon turned upon the treaty, and the outlook, and as might be inferred, was not cheering to Whitman. But his object was to gain information and not to argue.

   [...]

   2But while the company were enjoying their repast, an express messenger of the company arrived from Fort Colville, three hundred and fifty miles up the Columbia, and electrified his audience by the announcement that a colony of one hundred and forty Englishmen and Canadians were on the road.

   3In such a company it is easy to see such an announcement was exciting news. One young priest threw his cap in the air and shouted, "Hurrah for Oregon--America is too late, we have got the country."

   4Dr. Whitman carefully concealed all his intentions--in fact, this was enjoined upon all the missionary band, as publicity would likely defeat any hope of good results. Those who will take the pains to read Mrs. Whitman's diary will notice how she avoids saying anything to excite comment regarding the purposes of his winter visit to Washington. In her letter to her father and mother she simply says: "I expect my dear husband will be so full of his great work that he will forget to tell you of our life in Oregon. He can explain what it is," etc.

   [...]

   5As soon as the Doctor could with politeness excuse himself, he mounted his pony and galloped away home, pondering the news he had received. By the time he reached Waiilatpui he resolved there must be no tarrying for "five days." On the morning of the third day after the conference the spirit was upon him, and he took such messages as were ready, and on October 3d, 1842, bade a long good-bye to his wife and home, and the two men, their guide, and three pack mules, began that ever memorable journey [...]

   1Sixty-six years ago, Marcus Whitman, a physician in Wheeler, Steuben Co., N. Y., received an appointment from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to assist the Rev. Samuel Parker in establishing a mission among the Indians of the Oregon Territory. Upon their arrival at Green River (in Wyoming) Dr. Whitman decided to return to enlist more help. Early the next year he started out again with his bride, accompanied by the Rev. and Mrs. Henry H. Spalding and Mr. W. H. Gray, whom he had induced to join him in his arduous enterprise. Eleven years later, in November 1847, the energetic and faithful missionary with his wife and twelve other persons were massacred at their Station Waiilatpu, now Walla Walla, by the Cayuse Indians. The simple chronicle of Dr. Whitman's life as recorded in the obituary notice seven months later in The Missionary Herald, the official organ of the Mission Board, reads as follows:

   2"Doct. Whitman was born in Rushville, in the State of New York, September 4, 1802. He joined the Church in that place in January, 1824; though he dated his conversion from a revival in Plainfield, Massachusetts, in 1819. He gave himself to the missionary work in 1834. In February, 1835, he went to Oregon for the first time. Having returned the same year, he was married in February, 1836; and in the following month he set out a second time for his chosen field of labor. He made a visit to the Atlantic States in the spring of 1843, being called hither by the business of the mission. He was a diligent and self-denying laborer in the the work to which he consecrated his time and energies. In the last letter received from him, he described at considerable length his plans and hopes in regard to the Indians, showing his interest not only to the Kayuses, but in more distant tribes."

   3Fifty-two years later, in the most careful appraisal of human achievement in America that has ever been made, the voting for the Hall of Fame at New York University, Marcus Whitman received nineteen out of a possible ninety-eight votes to be ranked as one of the fifty greatest Americans. In the class of missionaries and explorers he stood fourth, being surpassed by Adoniram Judson with thirty-five, Daniel Boone with thirty-four, and Elisha Kent Kane with twenty-one votes, and followed by Frémont and George Rogers Clark with seventeen, Houston with fourteen, and Meriwether Lewis with thirteen votes. Turning to the voters we find Whitman ranked first in his class by the college Presidents, receiving ten votes from twenty-five voters.

   • Rests on: dating the dinner scene (Sources 1 and 3)

     Nixon (1895) tells the dinner at Fort Walla Walla as fact: an express messenger announces "a colony of one hundred and forty Englishmen and Canadians," and a priest shouts "America is too late" (Source 1, paragraphs 2-3). He cites no source for the scene.

     Result: Bourne dates the evidence: "The story first emerges over twenty years after the events" (Source 3, paragraph 1), and its first printed version came from Spalding "in the fall of 1865" (Source 3, paragraph 4). So Nixon's scene rests on accounts printed about 23 years after the ride, not on any record made in 1842.

   • Reads: the 1848 obituary (Source 2)

     Seven months after Whitman's death, the Mission Board's magazine summarized his life (Source 2, paragraph 2). What does it say about the trip east?

     Result: It says he "made a visit to the Atlantic States in the spring of 1843, being called hither by the business of the mission," and it says nothing about Oregon policy or Washington. It was printed in "the official organ of the Mission Board" (Source 2, paragraph 1). That silence is part of the record, and any interpretation of the ride has to account for it.

   • Reaches: explaining a silence (Source 1, paragraph 4)

     Nixon admits that Mrs. Whitman's diary "avoids saying anything to excite comment regarding the purposes of his winter visit to Washington." How does he deal with that gap?

     Result: He reads the silence as secrecy: "Dr. Whitman carefully concealed all his intentions," since "publicity would likely defeat any hope of good results." The missing evidence is turned into support for the claim. The inference may be possible, but no source on this page shows the concealment itself, so the claim reaches past its evidence.

   • Rebounds: witnesses and the printed story (Source 3, paragraph 2)

     Bourne notes that the testimony for the story is "of earlier date than 1864" in no case. Why does the order of dates matter to him?

     Result: Because "nearly all of it is subsequent to the publication of the story," and much of it "repeats the gross historical errors of the story as originally published." If witnesses took errors from the printed narrative, the interpretation shaped its own sources, and the testimony cannot count as independent support.

3. Guided Practice20 minutes

   Read Source 3 together, then Source 4. Source 4 is a primary source from the time: a letter Whitman sent to the Secretary of War, which the War Department received on June 22, 1844. Nixon printed it in his own book's appendix, so both sides of the debate could read it. In pairs, students fill one row of the Map for each side: how would a defender of the story use this letter, and how would a critic?

   1The essential points in this statement are the cause and purpose of Dr. Whitman's journey to the East in 1842, his influence on the Oregon policy of the government and his organization of the great immigration of 1843. Incidental or collateral assumptions usually accompany this statement to the effect that great ignorance and indifference in regard to Oregon prevailed in Washington and generally throughout the United States, and that Dr. Whitman was able to dispel the ignorance and to transform the indifference into a deep and widespread interest. In both the essentials and the explanatory details the story of how Marcus Whitman saved Oregon is fictitious. It is not only without trustworthy contemporary evidence, but is irreconcilable with well established facts. No traces of knowledge of it have ever been found in the contemporary discussion of the Oregon question. The story first emerges over twenty years after the events and seventeen years after Whitman's death and its conception of the Oregon policy of the government is that handed down by tradition in an isolated and remote community.

   2The evidence advanced in support of this story is exclusively the oral testimony of a small group of people who have alleged that their accounts rested on Whitman's words or upon their own recollections. None of this testimony is of earlier date than 1864, and nearly all of it is subsequent to the publication of the story in its most complete form. As much of it repeats the gross historical errors of the story as originally published, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that if these witnesses derived these errors from the printed narrative they probably derived other features of their testimony from the same source. If this is made probable, it does not necessarily convict these witnesses of conscious dishonesty. No one who appreciates the fallibility of human memory as an instrument of precision and understands the subtle influence upon the mind of suggestion need be confronted by the painful dilemma that either they must reject the evidence of their reasoning powers or believe that venerated friends have been dishonest. Again most of the controversy in regard to this matter has involved religious and sectarian interests and has been conducted in large measure by people at once untrained in weighing evidence and profoundly interested in the final judgment.

   3So far then as the oral testimony or written discussion is found inconsistent with the historical facts such inconsistency may be accounted for either as a conscious effort to deceive, an unconscious perversion owing to suggestion and inaccurate recollection, or as a misinterpretation of the evidence owing either to ignorance or bias.

   4The original account of Whitman's journey, its causes, purpose, and results was first published in a series of articles in The Pacific, a religious paper in San Francisco, in the fall of 1865, contributed by the Rev. H. H. Spalding, a colleague of Dr. Whitman in the Oregon mission.

   1The Rev. Myron Eells obtained from the original files of the office of the Secretary of War two valuable papers. They bear this endorsement:

   2"Marcus Whitman inclosing synopsis of a bill, with his views in reference to importance of the Oregon Territory, War. 382--rec. June 22, 1844.

   3To the Hon. James M. Porter, Secretary of War:

   4Sir--In compliance with the request you did me the honor to make last Winter, while in Washington, I herewith transmit to you the synopsis of a bill which, if it could be adopted, would, according to my experience and observation, prove highly conducive to the best interests of the United States, generally, to Oregon, where I have resided for more than seven years as a missionary, and to the Indian tribes that inhabit the immediate country. The Government will now doubtless for the first time be apprised through you, or by means of this communication, of the immense immigration of families to Oregon which has taken place this year. I have, since our interview, been instrumental in piloting across the route described in the accompanying bill, and which is the only eligible wagon road, no less than three hundred families, consisting of one thousand persons of both sexes, with their wagons, amounting to one hundred and twenty, six hundred and ninety-four oxen, and seven hundred and seventy-three loose cattle.

   Key. A defender rests on the letter's proof that Whitman met the Secretary in Washington ("the request you did me the honor to make last Winter, while in Washington"; "since our interview," paragraph 4) and that he worked for the emigration and for Oregon's place in national policy. A critic reads the same paragraph differently: Whitman writes that the government "will now doubtless for the first time be apprised" of the emigration. In his own book, Bourne argues in a note (page 89) that Whitman would not have written this way if he had pledged to the President to lead that emigration. Neither reading is a misquotation: the letter is compatible with a national interest, but it does not show that national business was the cause of the ride. Ask: Bourne offers three explanations for an inconsistency in paragraph 3. Which one would Eells most strongly reject for the witnesses he knew, and why?

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Students read Source 5, Myron Eells's 1902 reply to Bourne, and write a Map entry for Eells's own argument: what does he say about the relationship between missing records, recollections and the truth? Then they answer in a paragraph: on which point is Eells's criticism of Bourne strongest, and on which point is Bourne's method stronger? Quiz Questions 12-16 and 19 use Source 5.

   1Although Professor Bourne makes much of this want of evidence at the missionary rooms at Boston, in Mrs. Whitman's letters, and in other writings that Dr. Whitman went east for national reasons, as a strong proof that he had no such reasons, it reminds the writer of the story of the five witnesses in court who testified that they saw the prisoner murder his fellow being, but because ten men appeared who stated that they did not see the murder committed the prisoner was cleared. [...]

   2[...] If Professor Bourne can find a plain statement at Boston or in Mrs. Whitman's letters or by any good authority previous to 1864 that Dr. Whitman did not go east for national reasons, let him make it known, but if not, the absence of evidence in certain places is not conclusive proof that Dr. Whitman did not go east for those reasons.

   3(c) Professor Bourne holds that the recollections of persons who were acquainted with Dr. Whitman are of little or no value, when stated many years afterwards, if they are unsupported by written cotemporary evidence, for it is not scientific history. He rejects the evidence of many witnesses because they published nothing until 1864, and so the evidence depends on the memories of persons twenty-one years or more after the events took place. He refers (p. 71) to two books, "Introduction to the Study of History," and "Pierce's Recollections as a Source of History," to sustain him in his position. This address, delivered in June, 1901, was offered to the American Historical Review for publication, but was declined in a very gentlemanly letter by the editor in chief because "it rests largely on the remembrance of the old." He also added, "Scientific historical students know from innumerable tested cases that extremely little confidence can be reposed in recollections set down long after the events, even when several of them closely agree."

   4If the editor had lived as long on the Pacific coast as he has on the Atlantic he would have learned that one great object of the State Historical Societies is to write down the historical statements of many individuals before they shall die and their knowledge be lost forever. There have been many men on the Pacific coast who never had much education and who find it a great task to write a little, who have made and witnessed the making of a large amount of history, not knowing its importance at the time, and even others did not realize it until later events showed the importance of these facts. These societies are glad to record their evidence from thirty to sixty years after the events transpired. [...] The writer has no objection to scientific history as above defined, namely the facts written at or near the time they occurred. He has tried to obtain all such scientific history that he could for all of his writings. He has searched old books, pamphlets and letters for it. He thinks highly of it, and more highly of only one thing and that is the truth. This he places above everything. Generally scientific history and truth agree, but sometimes in order to obtain the truth it is necessary to go outside of scientific history, and sometimes scientific history is not the truth. [...]

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one thing an interpretation can do to a source that a source cannot do to an interpretation, and one thing a source can do to an interpretation." (Sample: an interpretation can shape what later witnesses remember; a source can limit what an interpretation can honestly claim.) Introduce Source 6 for the homework.

   Teacher notes. (1) Sources 1-3 and 5 were written between 1895 and 1902 and use the language of their time, including "Indians," "Kayuses" and Bourne's word "massacred." In class, call the events of November 1847 the attack or the killings at Waiilatpu. The National Park Service, which presents the site history in partnership with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, says on its FAQ page that the word "massacre" "gives an inaccurate impression of this tragic event": "Thirteen people were killed in the initial attack," women and children other than Mrs. Whitman were not killed, and most people at the mission were taken hostage and held for a month. (Bourne's count, Whitman, his wife and twelve others, differs from the Park Service's count for the initial attack; students can note the difference.) Give students the Cayuse perspective that the 1895-1902 writers leave out. The Park Service calls the mission years "a pivotal moment for Cayuse and other Native people living on the Columbia Plateau." On its park home page it says that "after thousands of years of habitation by the Cayuse Nation," life on the Plateau "begins to change rapidly with the influx of missionaries, newcomers from the Oregon Trail, and diseases," and it describes the attack as "a single violent act of desperation to protect a community." It also notes that the mission was later burned "in retaliation for lodges which had been destroyed by the Oregon Volunteers." The Cayuse are a nation with their own history, not only figures in a missionary story, and their descendants live in the region today as part of the Confederated Tribes. (2) The debate also had a religious side: Bourne notes that it "involved religious and sectarian interests" (Source 3, paragraph 2), and some writers of the period used hostile language about Catholics; the excerpts here leave that language out, and the lesson takes no side on religious questions. (3) Source 6, Interpretation A, contains deliberate errors for the homework, and its label on the page says so; do not present it as a reading of the evidence.

   1Interpretation A (SVHS-written sample, written with deliberate errors for the homework to find). Marcus Whitman cared only about his mission and had no interest in the future of Oregon. Bourne proved in 1901 that the story of the dinner at Fort Walla Walla was invented, so every part of the "saved Oregon" story is false. The 1848 obituary in The Missionary Herald says he went east "by the business of the mission," and that one sentence settles the question.

   2Interpretation B (SVHS-written sample). The earliest printed account of Whitman's life, the 1848 obituary, says he went east on mission business, and no account of the dramatic dinner at Fort Walla Walla appeared in print until more than twenty years after the ride. Bourne therefore treats the dinner story as a legend that later witnesses absorbed from print. Eells answers that silence in the records does not prove Whitman had no national purpose, and Whitman's own 1844 letter shows that he did meet the Secretary of War in Washington and helped guide about a thousand emigrants on the road to Oregon. The evidence supports a narrower claim than Nixon's: Whitman went east on mission business and became an advocate for American settlement, but the story that he rode east to stop Oregon from being traded away rests on recollections set down from 1864 on.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   A historian's claim about a meeting in 1850 depends mainly on memories that witnesses wrote down in 1872. Which Map question addresses this problem most directly?

   AReads: does the historian quote the memories correctly? BRebounds: did the historian's book change later records? CRests on: what is it built on, and when was that made? DReaches: does the historian explain any silence in letters?

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 1, paragraph 1, why did Whitman go to Fort Walla Walla?

   ATo see a sick man and get articles for his journey BTo warn the British traders about the coming emigrants CTo ask the Hudson Bay Company to carry his letters east DTo meet the priest who had come from Fort Colville

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Nixon quotes the young priest's words at the dinner (Source 1, paragraph 3). What would a historian most need to accept the quotation as evidence?

   AA later history book that repeats the same words exactly BProof that Nixon lived in Oregon during the 1850s CA record by someone at the dinner, made near the time DSeveral witnesses who read Nixon's book and agree

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 2, paragraph 3, why does Bourne describe the Hall of Fame vote of 1900?

   ATo prove that Whitman did organize the emigration of 1843 BTo show how far Whitman's fame had grown past the record CTo argue that college presidents were the best judges DTo show that the obituary had overstated his importance

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   The obituary in Source 2 appeared in "the official organ of the Mission Board." What objection could a defender of the "saved Oregon" story raise about it?

   AIt was written much too long after Whitman died to be useful BIt contradicts itself about the year of the trip east CA mission magazine would naturally stress mission business DIt was written by Spalding, who invented the story

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which of these is NOT one of the grounds Bourne gives in Source 3, paragraph 1, for calling the story fictitious?

   AIt lacks trustworthy evidence from the time BIt conflicts with well established facts CNo trace of it appears in contemporary discussion DWhitman's letters say he never saw the Secretary

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why does Bourne say his conclusion "does not necessarily convict these witnesses of conscious dishonesty" (Source 3, paragraph 2)?

   AMemory is fallible, and suggestion can shape it unawares BThe witnesses swore oaths before a judge in a court of law CThe witnesses wrote within a few weeks of the events DBourne had interviewed each witness himself in 1900

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   At the end of Source 3, paragraph 2, Bourne says the controversy was conducted by people "untrained in weighing evidence and profoundly interested in the final judgment." What problem is he naming?

   AThe sources were written in languages few could read BThe interpreters had a stake in what the answer was CThe records were kept in Boston, far from Oregon DThe debate had ended before any sources were printed

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What does Source 4, paragraph 1, tell you about how this letter reached the debate?

   ANixon copied it from a newspaper article in 1885 BWhitman's wife kept it among her own letters CEells found it in the Secretary of War's files DBourne printed it first in his 1901 essay

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 4, paragraph 4, Whitman calls his route "the only eligible wagon road" and asks the government to adopt his bill. How should a historian treat these statements?

    AAs claims by a writer promoting his own plan BAs neutral facts, since a government filed them CAs proof that the ride east was made to save Oregon DAs recollections, since they were written years later

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 4, paragraph 2, quotes the War Department's endorsement, "rec. June 22, 1844." Why is a date written by the office that received a letter strong evidence for dating it?

    AClerks in government offices never made errors in dates BIt also proves that each statement in the letter is true CLater editors always changed the dates printed on old letters DIt was made by a third party at the time the letter came

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What is the point of Eells's story of the five witnesses and the ten men (Source 5, paragraph 1)?

    AThat Bourne relied on ten witnesses while Eells relied on five BThat people who saw nothing do not cancel those who did CThat a court trial is a better way to settle history DThat more witnesses always mean a more reliable story

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 5, paragraph 2, what does Eells challenge Bourne to produce?

    AA plain statement before 1864 that he did not go east for national reasons BA letter from Spalding written before 1865 that tells the dinner story CTestimony from the Hudson's Bay Company traders who were present at the dinner DA copy of the 1848 obituary signed by each of the Mission Board's officers

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    According to Source 5, paragraph 3, why did the American Historical Review decline Eells's address?

    AIt attacked Bourne's personal honesty BIt was too long to print in one issue CIt rested largely on the memories of the old DIt had already been printed in a local newspaper

15. Question 15 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 5, paragraph 4, which kind of source does Eells defend?

    ANewspaper reports printed on the day of an event BGovernment records filed in the War Department CLetters that missionaries sent to their Board DStatements recorded from settlers decades later

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Does Eells's story of the five witnesses (Source 5, paragraph 1) fit the Whitman case? Use Bourne's argument in Source 3, paragraph 2, in your answer.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare what the 1848 obituary (Source 2, paragraph 2) and Nixon (Source 1) say about the purpose of Whitman's trip east. Explain why Bourne gives the obituary more weight, and give one reason a defender of the story might give it less.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Bourne says the story's "conception of the Oregon policy of the government is that handed down by tradition in an isolated and remote community" (Source 3, paragraph 1). Explain what he means, and how this claim connects to the kinds of sources the story rests on.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    In Source 5, paragraph 4, Eells says that "sometimes scientific history is not the truth." Explain what he means by "scientific history," and give one strength and one risk of his approach.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Bourne lists three ways an inconsistency between testimony and the facts can arise (Source 3, paragraph 3). Choose the one you think best fits Nixon's dinner scene in Source 1, and explain what evidence would show whether you are right.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.9.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.