Customer Reviews

First Through Grand Canyon: The Secret Journals & Letters of the 1869 Crew Who Explored the Green & Colorado Rivers, revised edition

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I wanted to read more about Powell's trip after visiting the Grand Canyon and agree the author has done a good job of assembling the diaries and giving a commentary.
However, the overwhelming tone of the book is colored by the author's vendetta against Powell. Every action is interpreted in favor of the "noble boatmen" (like the author). There is much too much jumping to conclusions, for which he criticizes other authors. It became tiresome to read how Powell should have done this, that, or the other. Admittedly, the man had his faults, but the leader will always get the praise or blame. A more measured analysis would have been better.

This book by Michael Ghiglieri is an outstanading documentary of the first exploration of the Grand Canyon by John Wesley Powell and his crew. While almost every other account of this amazing journey is based on Powell's journal and notes, Michael very carefully pulls together all the accounts of this trip using not only Powell's notes but also the journals of the crew, letters and other doucments not previously published. His book is well researched and very effectively debunks a number of misconceptions about Powell, his leadership skills, how and why the 3 members of his trip were killed (hint: it was NOT the Indians)and the contributions and skills of his crew.

Michael not only publishes word for word all the journals that survived, but also did an impressive amount of original research into the events that made up this exploration. He then uses his background as a professional river guide to pull it together into a very compelling and hard-to-put down tale of this fateful journey. This is must read for anyone interested in the real facts of this incredible adventure.

Ghiglieri fails at the objective job of an historian. I wish he had laid out the river journals and related writings about the first Powell expedition without injecting such an extraordinary stream of personal invective. Ghiglieri doesn't trust the reader to draw his own conclusions about Powell's character. The author instead serves up an annoying personal crusade against Powell -- and against every prominent historical writer on the topic. I nearly abandoned the book while wading through the introductory tirade, but I was glad I stuck it out. Ghiglieri deserves credit for his work to research and compile the story of the first Powell expedition from the participants' river journals. Reading the expedition members' accounts grouped into daily entries provides an intimate experience of the epic trip as it unfolded.

It is great to get more detailed profiles of the men on the trip and to see the unadultered journals shown side by side for comparison. The only draw back is the introduction. It is less scholarly than arrogant---with a liberal use of literary cliches and unprofessional slights at previous people who have written about Powell.

first thru the grand canyon is a truely outstanding book..having been to the 'canyon' many times and living in Az most of my life i was most interested in the history of the 'canyon'..this book is a 'must-read'...gdm

Having hiked all established trails in the Grand Canyon except the Nankoweap and North Bass (and parts of the Tonto Trail), and having kayaked/rafted the length of the Colorado River on private, 3-week expeditions twice, one could say that I have considerable interest and respect for that awe-inspiring place. So naturally, I read Ghiglieri and Myers book "Over The Edge: Death In Grand Canyon" and found it entertaining and instructive. In consequence, I was drawn to this follow-up book by Ghiglieri which was published subsequent to "Over The Edge"...the author provided me a copy because of my historical concerns raised in the first volume, for which I am grateful.

This book essentially chronicles the expedition politics of the 1869 Major John Wesley Powell expedition through the Grand Canyon, and is an interesting read from a river-runner perspective. (Having been on multiple expeditions--both river running and mountain climbing--expedition politics have become fairly tedious for me personally...)

Problem is, Ghiglieri doesn't let the facts speak for themselves; he goes through considerable lengths to lead the reader by the nose to follow his own spin on the charactors and events involved. Certainly, Major John Wesley Powell was no saint, but he did lead a successful expedition to (at that time) the most remote corner of what is now the Lower 48 States. That Powell didn't give credit to nor reimburse his crew in full (particularly for the thousands in supplies provided by expedition members like John Sumner) became quite a sore point to all others in the expedition...which colored their "recollections" from which the "spin" of this book is based.

It is interesting that Ghiglieri devotes several pages to the adventures of Lt. Joseph Christmas Ives and his good ship, Explorer, up the lower Colorado in 1857-58. Lt. Ives adventures specifically had a "military strategic component" which Ghiglieri's book fails to detect; Lt. Ives was scouting for a water route to Utah so the United States Army might be able to receive supplies by steamboat in anticipation of an extensive military campaign against the Mormons during the so-called "Utah War". Ghiglieri notes that Lt. Ives starts up the river on December 30, 1857. At that very moment, approximately 4000 soldiers under General Albert Sidney Johnston was encamped in the bitter/burned-out hellhole of Ft. Bridger, Wyoming because they had been unsuccessful in marching to Salt Lake City before the onset of winter. Mormon Militias under Major Lot Smith had decimated his supply columns (without spilling any human blood) to prevent the Army from its perceived aggressive intent of exterminating the Mormons at that time. Lt. Ives was not an "innocent" explorer devoted to science as almost all Grand Canyon historians would have people believe. Perhaps it is an indication of the tenacity of the Mormon defense that the Mormons were trying to incite the local Indians--in this case, the Mojave--against Lt. Ives' poking around on a potential "Southern Front". (Recall General Winfield Scott's Veracruz to Mexico City strategy during the Mexican War.) Unfortunately, that same incitement backfired for the Mormons in the case of Mountain Meadows. "Jacob Hamblin: His Life In His Own Words" chronicles this encounter from the Mormon perspective and adds considerable information to the machinations of the time.

As with the "Over The Edge" book from which this is based, I am disappointed at the flippant and sensational manner in which Ghiglieri continues to accuse Mormons of murdering the three expedition members (William Dunn and the Howland brothers) who had departed the river at Separation Canyon. Ghiglieri makes the fairly lame guilt-by-association justification that this was "likely" (pp 261) because of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which had occurred in September, 1857...twelve years previous to Powell's first expedition in 1869...(what a stretch!!) To buttress this accusation, Ghiglieri primarily cites two sources: John Sumner, a Civil War Veteran who was a pillar of strength during the 1869 Expedition but had obvious bias against Mormons; and a cryptic letter written by a Mormon, William Leany, a resident of Toquerville, Utah discovered by Professor Wesley Larson in the 1980s.

After the 1869 Expedition, Sumner lived the rest of his days in "theocratic" Vernal, Utah. (To this day, a large and vocal non-Mormon population in Utah will whine that Utah is a "theocracy" because hard liquor is not available at every corner grocery store and gas station...) Apparently, Sumner was bitter toward Powell for not being reimbursed for the thousands in supplies he provided the Expedition, nor credit for his considerable contributions to the expedition's success. And obviously Sumner took every opportunity to denouce the prevailing religion of the Utah Territory in the most strident terms. (Interesting that such people continue to move to and live in Utah...) Though he could produce absolutely no evidence to support his accusations, Sumner asserted to his death that the three were murdered by Mormons and not by Indians, as most historians agree to be the more likely culprits.

Sumner states in his letter to Keplinger in 1906 (quoted on page 274), "Powell states by Indians & I say killed by the Mormons, part of the same old "Mountain Meadows" massacre gang." So what else is new? Instead of remembering St. Thomas, Nevada Bishop James Leithead and company for bringing him and his partners melons and provisions which might have saved his life and probably got them to the Sea of Cortez (did they pay for them?), Sumner instead chooses to remember some scurvy Mormon who supposedly lit up when Powell told of the three hikers and the instruments they were carrying. Talk about an ingrate. A large portion of the population of the United States of that era--such as naturalist John Muir, Major Carleton (the person to make the first written report on Mountain Meadows), Sumner, etc.--had huge prejudices against the Mormons. Mormons were then the equivalents of the crazies of Waco who were barbequed by Janet Reno--who gave a damn if they lived or died? Anyone going through the media of that day has to know of this overwhelming prejudice and take it with a large grain of salt.

The Leany letter was discovered in a Toquerville attic by Larson and provides some tantilizing information which may or may not be relevant to this story. Larson had the letter authenticated to the period (hopefully not another Mark Hoffman type forgery). It speaks cryptically of the murder of three men in a Mormon Church with two rooms (which at the time could only describe the Toquerville Mormon church). The theme of the letter is not the murders...the murders are only mentioned as an aside--which is why it is such an enigma. But it does lend credence--however remote--that the Three Hikers made their way north following the Hurricane Cliffs to the first settlement, which at that time was Toquerville. Ghiglieri treats this letter as definitive proof when it is way too crytic and non-specific for any connection to be ascertained. The author fails to make this analysis because to do so would detract from a primary and salacious selling-point for the book.

On page 272, third paragraph, Ghiglieri states that Larson "suspects" that Church authorities ordered the execution of the executioner of the Howlands and Dunn "to stop the shedding of more blood". Larson also purportedly "suspects" that the blame was placed on the Indians "who also took the blame for the Mountain Meadows Massacre and for other deeds committed by Mormon militias who dressed up as Indians to assassinate enemies". (This sentense has been toned-down slightly from the "Over The Edge" book.) I spoke by phone with Larson and found that he was unaware his name was being used in this or the "Over The Edge" book. I made an appointment and personally took the "Over The Edge" section which corresponds to this book to Larson for him to read his purpored statements. He denied he ever said any of this...he also said the story of him being denied access to Mormon Church Archives, listed on the next page, was contrived...just not accurate. This essentially amounts to to an unverified and unsubstantiated ad-hominin attack on the Mormon Church. Further, Larson stated that the eighth full paragraph on page 273 relating to his exchange with a Mr. Scott Thybony was further "contrived". Obviously, someone with an agenda is stretching this story way out of proportion to lend it credence...

A just-as-likely hypothesis with the available (scant) evidence at hand could postulate that the Howlands and Dunn simply took the expensive equipment and cash they had on hand and deliberately disappeared. (Ghiglieri documents that the Howlands and Dunn made no bones about their contempt for Major Powell and his brother...why should they care about returning his notes and equipment?) But that would not be near as salacious as accusing Mormons of unsolved murder...

Beyond these two sources and any extraneous hypothesis, there is much evidence to suggest that the three were in fact murdered by Indians. The strongest evidence was that the Shivwits Paiute band acknowledged at the time that they had killed three whites because of their brutalizing one of their women. This came from multiple sources. However, no artifacts were ever collected from these Indians which would make this acknowledgement a sure thing. Others would argue these acknowledgements were made initially to Jacob Hamblin, a Mormon, who would have "ulterior motives" to report such admissions to "cover-up" the crime. Later admissions were made to other Mormons, who likewise would be "disqualified" because of religious affiliation, at least from a Mormon-Hater perspective.

Ghiglieri on page 254 states that the explanation of Shivwits Paiutes killing the three "makes little sense". Without context, this is puzzling; but in historical context, it makes tremendous sense. Just because local Indians had been "baptized" into the church didn't mean these same Indians shared the White Man's culture; "baptized" Indians on occasion did in fact kill their fellow Mormons or others who happened to be white. There are many instances of this, such as the "Walker War" (Chief Walker had been baptized, as with almost his entire tribe) and the "Black Hawk War" where "baptized" Indians killed a considerable number of their "brother" Mormons. Does this seem incongruent now? Of course. But from the records and historical perspective, those are the facts.

Ghiglieri mentions that the United States Calvary was engaged in a brutal war against the Navajos. In the context of the Three Powell Party Hikers, the U.S. Army also was engaged against the Hualapais during the years 1867 through 1869. It is well known among Indians that the Hualapais on the South Rim traded/raided/etc. their cousins the Paiutes on the North Rim. Tradition has it that communications regularly took place via such side canyons as Mohawk/Staircase Canyons (mile 171, Steven's Guide). Such a campaign by the U.S. Army would give the Shivwits additional motive to go after the three hikers. Further, to suggest that miners would not be in the area because no mining records exist would not be credible. Individual miners/prospectors now and then have generally been an antisocial, secretive and paranoid lot, and not terribly literate. From these perspectives, Ghiglieri's historical analysis seems inconsistent and downplays its implications so that he can add credibility to the sensational charge that Mormons were the culprit in this mystery.

If Mormons were the culprits, and robbery and/or protection from Federal spies were the motive, why didn't the Mormons kill Powell and his brother at the mouth of the Virgin or on their way to catch the train east? Why didn't they kill the entire party? Most of the expensive equipment that survived the expedition was there in the boats with those six. Ghiglieri documents that money was probably in their hands. Obviously, it would have been a much greater heist to take the expensive stuff from off the boats that was the "bird in hand" than would be retrieved from an exhaustive search for three hikers in the wastes of the Shivwits Plateau, the "bird in the bush". If Mormons were as homicidal as is implied in other areas of the book, the fact that these six survived to tell their stories makes little sense. Why should an isolated Mormon farmer on the Virgin River care or respect who John Wesley Powell was in the first place? Powell certainly advertised himself as being an official with the Federal Government. And wouldn't the explanation that the entire party had perished in the Canyon be credible for all time?

Anyone can make fictitious accusations and put them into writing. Just because such fictitious accusations are on an old document that checks out as to the context of the time it came from does not mean the accusations are credible. (Mark Hoffman was particularly adept at forging such accusations...) Leany certainly appears to have had an ax to grind against his fellow Mormons. Non-Mormon Sumner spent a considerable portion of his life grinding that hateful ax. Does this make their accusations probable? No--not given the amount of evidence currently available. Possible? Perhaps. But with the existing historical information we have, such accusations are still a BIG stretch. Could the scenario attributed to Larson have taken place? There isn't--at least by the information in this and other books--near sufficient evidence to call the scenario probable--only a single letter from a disgruntled Leany.

My continuing problem with this book is that Ghiglieri still goes through considerable lengths to "Pin The Tale On The Mormons" for these murders in a fairly reckless and aggressive manner despite the evidence which (mostly) suggests the deed was done by the Shivwits Paiutes. And obviously, there was some information distorted between Ghiglieri and Larson that really should be clarified...probably to the detriment of the hypothesis/accusations made in this book. There is a remote possibility that Mormons committed these crimes...but this "remote" factor is not apparent in this book. (Mormon-Haters will typically argue that Brigham Young--the supposed "theocratic dictator" of the territory--"always" made such important decisions...and probably did despite the fact that Young sent the St. Thomas Bishop to the Virgin/Colorado River confluence to rescue Powell's Expedition...)

In summary, this book is somewhat accusatory of the Mormons, who are essentially tried in a historical kangaroo court and can't possibly be given a break because of Mountain Meadows. (Jon Krakauer adds to this echo-chamber by referencing this material in his polemic book "Under the Banner of Heaven" to further his bigoted thesis that Mormons and all people of faith are prone to random murder...) This factually is way too much of a stretch...but it certainly sells books.

The explanation of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is incomplete and inaccurate in many respects; I recommend the book "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" recently published by Oxford University Press by Michael Walker, Richard Turley and Glen Leonard as the most up-to-date and objective source of information on this atrocity.