people of the book and oregon mission and asking for missionaries

4. It is only when we reach this fourth issue that we come to the real purpose of the correspondence/publication: the visit of the four Native Americans to Clark in the Fall of 1831 (though the date isn't specified in this letter). What are the "facts" of the encounter between Clark and the Indians that Walker relates? It would have been helpful for Furtwangler to put in the Appendix to his book (Bringing Indians to the Book) also the report of Bishop Rosati of the visit of these Natives. There is no question but Walker says he saw three Flat-Heads (one had died by this time--probably September or October 1831). Furtwangler has to try to explain this away, since he doesn't want the four visitors to be Flat-Heads. But when you have this memory, later confirmed by Clark, it is hard to explain it away by negative evidence (Rosati didn't mention it), though Furtwangler is on more solid ground when he shows that artist George Carlin, who later painted one of the two surviving Indians, shows him without a flat head (though I don't know the evidence for Carlin's actually having painted one of the two Native survivors of this trek). One fact I noted was the representation that the Indians had come "3,000 miles" to see Clark. It is probably closer to 1,500 miles; so little was known about the actual geography of the Rocky Mountain interior at the time.

5. The following sentence has occasioned discussion, much of it wrong-headed, I think. Walker says: "Gen. C. related to me the object of their mission, and, my dear friend, it is impossible for me to describe to you my feelings while listening to his narrative." Furtwangler interprets this to mean that Walker was overwhelmed by the variety of stimuli he received at the moment, which probably led to his making mistakes about describing who was with him. That is, this sentence is taken to be a sort of self-confession of why he didn't remember things well. In the context of the things that Walker narrates, however, the sentence has a completely different meaning. He is using terminology from religious experience. "Benighted" people, who had only "natural knowledge" of God, knowledge that may have been effaced over the millennia, were now coming to St. Louis to ask about the White Man's "book." This shows that the final ingathering of the nations may be happening, perhaps that great event that would precede the final harvesting of souls--the dawning of the Kingdom of God. It is as if Walker believes he is seeing God's plan for world history unfold right before his eyes. Thus, he is overwhelmed with emotion at seeing this. His statement has nothing to do with being confused at the multitude of images around him and therefore not reporting accurately what he has seen.

6. One of the debated points of interpretation has to do with how "official" the "delegation" of the Four Flatheads/Nez Perce was. What does Walker say about that? Rosati's account talks about the motivation for the trip being that a few Natives had been sent to study in Canada, had learned about Christianity there, had returned to their people and had thus started the story about the White Man's religion. Since religion and power were connected, and since the Natives knew that the White Man was gradually coming in larger and larger number to his territory, wouldn't it have been logical to send a delegation of Natives to a trusted White (General Clark) to find out the sources of the White Man's power? Thus, instead of it being a "Macedonian Call" for missionaries to make them "little Protestants" or "new Catholics," the visit of the Four Natives can be taken as a quest to learn about the sources of power of the White Men--a sort of anthropological quest of the Natives, so to speak. Supporting the "delegation" theory is the notion that these four came to Clark--who was the official representative of the White government.

7. How do we take the most well-known sentence of the letter, that the Four Natives asked about "a book"? The actual sentence runs: "They had a book containing directions how to conduct themselves in order to enjoy his favor and hold converse with him; and with this guide, no one need go astray, but every one that would follow the directions laid down there, could enjoy, in this life, his favor; and after death would be received into the country where the great Spirit resides, and live for ever with him." Is it too much of a stretch to believe that an illiterate people, for whom the concept of "book" was completely undeveloped, would have come to St. Louis to ask about the book? I don't know, but I think it is likely they could have asked such a question. After all, they had seen fur traders and mountain men for decades; they had seen how some of them carried Bibles; they were aware that there were schools where young people were taught to read books. The question regarding what this book contained would have been a natural question to ask. The "Book" was central to Protestant religion. Reporting that the Natives were asking about a "Book" would have sent Presbyteries and Conferences "over the top" with glee.

I need one more essay to "finish" my talking points.

1993