roger smith “we shall soon see the consequences of such...

Roger Smith

“We Shall Soon See the Consequences of Such Conduct”:

What John Ledyard Saw at Kealakekua Bay

Only someone who has approached the Big Island of Hawaii by sea can imagine the

unbridled exhilaration experienced by a crew of eighteenth century British seamen who had spent

the previous seven months searching the frigid waters of Alaska’s Arctic Ocean for the fabled

Northwest Passage. The nearly fourteen thousand foot summits of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa

strained the necks of anyone gazing high into the tropical skies to soak up the splendor of the twin

volcanoes. Sailing around the island, the lush flora and foliage were in full view for all the weary

sailors to see; the smell of rich soil, fresh water, and exotic tropical vegetation enticed their senses to

the edge of reasonable restraint. The expedition had discovered the sister island of Kauai just ten

months prior and the adoring inhabitants had indulged both officers and crew with succulent feasts

and lavish desires; prostrating themselves in the wake of the captain’s footsteps. For Captain James

Cook and the crews of his ships, Resolution and Discovery, paradise was a frequent port of call in

their South Pacific explorations and the Big Island would be no exception.

But within one month the relationship with the indulgent Hawaiians would become deadly,

leaving admirers and historians to languish over the terrible turn of events. Since the day Cook’s

expedition returned to London without its famous captain the question has been asked repeatedly as

to why the great explorer was killed by the very people who, until just days before, had worshiped

him as a god. The mystery is not in who killed James Cook, or even how. New Zealand professor,

J.C. Beaglehole, undoubtedly the world’s foremost authority on Cook lore,1 grieved over the events

as he lamented, “Had the time of familiarity, or fancied familiarity, now come…? The questions are

1 John Cawte Beaglehole was a professor of British Commonwealth History at the Victoria University College in Wellington, New Zealand. He earned his Ph.D. at the London School of Economics before returning to his native New Zealand to teach. Beaglehole invested over three decades of his life researching the Life of Captain James Cook.

Roger Smith 2

really impossible to answer; but we seem to be confronted with a sudden shift in Hawaiian feeling.”2

A complete reversal of credence might be a more accurate term for the attitudinal volte-face

exercised by the Hawaiians. Their transformation to a total disbelief of Cook as a revered deity was

neither sudden, nor was it simply a shift, as this article will argue. But again, the nagging question of

why must take precedence because that is the premise of this discussion. The purpose of this article

is to explore the depths of this question of why, specifically, what circumstances led up to the death

of James Cook. Traditional arguments will be discussed concerning legendary gods and horrible

timing on the part of the explorer. But the answer, as we shall see, lies in a much more earthly realm

and follows a more familiar scenario than coincidences and presumed deification—these events were

not Cook’s undoing. Cook was Cook’s undoing. First, however, we must spend time addressing the

traditional scenarios in order to avoid similar sins of omission.

For the course of the eighteenth century, British historians and Cook biographers blamed his

death on the savagery of the Hawaiian culture and its people, which resolved this question of why

Cook was killed quite nicely in European minds. Tales of cannibalism and practices of sexual

immorality made their way quickly to eager ears back home. Captain Cook’s heroics as he was

brutally stabbed from behind by a long, iron dagger on the beach at Kealakekua Bay grew

exponentially as the tale was told and retold to generation after generation of sea-faring Britons.

Journals, testaments, and accounts from the officers and scientists who accompanied Cook were

written in praise and adulation of the great captain. Several of these manuscripts survive today in

British archives, which brings us back to the genius and tenacity of Professor Beaglehole as he

meticulously poured through these documents and painstakingly examined their contents for a full

and complete understanding of who James Cook was, and the significance of his life and voyages of

2 J.C. Beaglehole, The Life of Captain James Cook (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974), 663.

Roger Smith 3

exploration. In 1974, three years after Beaglehole’s death, his son published the historian’s final

work, The Life of Captain James Cook, which has since become the anchor for any study on Cook.

And yet, even with that effort, there was no clarification to the ubiquitous question of why the

Hawaiians who adored him would take his life so violently.

Other scholars like Marshall Sahlins and Gananath Obeyesekere have tackled this question

(or at least each other) from the perspective of native Polynesian culture, as during the late twentieth

century Cook was being considered by many Polynesians as a symbol of European dominance and

white supremacy. Sahlins had proposed his theory that Cook was initially hailed as the Hawaiian god

Lono, who ruled for four lunar months which coincided tragically with Cook’s appearance during

the time of Lono on January 16 to his unexpected return to Hawaii on February 11, when Lono’s

time of worship had seemingly past.3 By 1992, the battle over the question of Cook’s religious

status among the 18th century Hawaiians raged vociferously in the academic community when

Obeyesekere attacked Sahlins’ theory of Cook as Lono.4 In his own book, The Apotheosis of Captain

Cook, Obeyesekere focuses his attention on Sahlins’ theories of native customs and religious

observations that may explain the Hawaiian’s reverence for Cook as Lono, which subsequently led

to his death. But the purpose behind this adulation came under scrutiny when Obeyesekere

challenged what had come to be the accepted view of Cook’s eminence as a Polynesian deity, as

3 The name Lono is a reference to the god of fertility in Hawaiian mythology. Also responsible for food plants throughout Polynesia, Lono could send rain and sunshine, bring healthy babies, and keep the supply of food from the seas plentiful—all promised by the sign of the rainbow. Heiau, also called Morai, were built to Lono as a house of worship which was calm and without human sacrifice, unlike other Hawaiian gods. John B. Hare, Lono of the Makahiki (Internet Sacred Text Archive, 2005). <http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/ku/ku06.htm>.

4 Obeyesekere and Sahlins are excellent examples of the new outlook scholars have taken on the subject of James Cook and how they have moved away from Cook, the hero of Pacific explorations, to more sociological studies on the impact of European culture on indigenous people. Gananath Obeyesekere, The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992); Marshall Sahlins, How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, For Example (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

Roger Smith 4

presented by Sahlins. Obeyesekere accused Sahlins of being a typical, arrogant Western scholar who

supposes themselves an authority on non-Western cultures.5

Sahlins, a world renowned anthropologist, fired back at Obeyesekere with a book-length

justification of his theories, mixed with a scathing analysis of his antagonist’s presumptions. In his

book, How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, For Example, Sahlins presents a rational

hypothesis for the mysterious adoration-turned-murderous-outrage bestowed upon Cook by the

Hawaiians from January16–February 14, 1779, revolving around their observation of the return of

Lono. According to Sahlins, Obeyesekere decries the right of any non-Polynesian to speak with

authority on such matters, “claiming that his own Sri Lankan heritage gave him privileged access to

the Polynesian native perspective…”6 In the end, these two scholars did little to settle their

differences concerning the events surrounding Cook’s death, and their recent writings on the subject

have only perpetuated their bitter resentment for one another. In other words, there was still no

answer to our original question.

In 2003, Philip Edwards edited Beaglehole’s original works on Captain Cook into a much

shorter version for the Penguin Classics, simply called The Journals. In his account, Philips removes

the majority of personal commentary of Beaglehole’s previous writings. This book reserves itself to

the day-to-day entries of Captain Cook and allows the material to present itself more on its own

merits. It makes no claims and calls for no conclusions, but rather offers a straight forward approach

to exactly what the famed explorer put on paper. A most interesting note found in this book is a

5 An ironic note to Obeyesekere’s claim to his inherent superior understanding of Polynesian traditions and customs is in Anne Salmond’s recent discovery that Obeyesekere’s hypothesis is a misunderstanding based upon a lack of understanding of ancient Hawaiian customs. Salmond, Anne, The Trial of the Cannibal Dog: Captain Cook in the South Seas (London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 2003), 403.

6 This quote first came to my attention on the jacket cover of Sahlins’ book, and again on page one, demonstrating the degree of acrimony between these two scholars. In fact, Obeyesekere contradicts himself in his own book by admitting that “Not being a Polynesianist, I am conscious of treading uncertain ground.” Obeyesekere, The Apotheosis of Captain Cook, xiii.

Roger Smith 5

comment by Edwards in his introduction to the third and fatal voyage. He writes, “The invaluable

accounts of the voyage by Anderson and Samwell, supplemented by extracts from (among others)

Edgar, Burney and [John] Ledyard may be found in Beaglehole’s full edition.”7

However, in searching Beaglehole’s opus of 1974, there is no mention of a journal written by

John Ledyard. In fact, there are only two references to Ledyard at all, neither of which speak highly

of the man or his integrity. Ledyard is referred to by Beaglehole as a “wanderer…of lofty sentiment

and literary ambitions.”8 In another passage where Ledyard has been recommended by his superior

to Captain Cook for the purpose of undertaking a dangerous five day journey across the frozen

wastelands of Unalaska in search of Russian furriers, Beaglehole relates the episode thusly: “[Cook]

sent…Corporal Ledyard of the marines, nothing loth to make a name for himself, and perfectly

willing to travel stowed away inside a kayak.”9

If you are asking, who was John Ledyard and why should your attention be drawn to these

seemingly insignificant passages, you would be in good company. Ledyard was also a Cook

biographer, in a manner of speaking. He was a non-commissioned officer in the Plymouth 24th

Division and had volunteered for assignment on the Resolution, Cook’s flagship. In his duties he was

privy to many of the goings-on of the ships command and was an eye-witness to the incidences

which took place from January 16 to February 14, 1779. He too wrote an account in such a detail

and correspondence that would speak highly of his brief Dartmouth College education. What makes

Ledyard’s journal unique to the others is that he was an American citizen and, as such, wrote without

constraints of civility to social standing or obligations to the crown. With a natural talent for

7 Cook, The Journals, 431.

8 Beaglehole, The Life of James Cook, 503-04.

9 Ibid, 631.

Roger Smith 6

linguistics, and in provocative detail, Ledyard relates personal conversations as well as formal

meetings between Hawaiian chieftains and priests and the officers of the two British vessels.

Ledyard knew, as did the rest of the crew, the answer to why Captain Cook was revered one day and

killed soon after before anyone had ever posed the question.

One of the real mysteries concerning this entire affair is the lack of acknowledgment of

Ledyard’s journal by Cook biographers. Even one of the most recent accounts of the voyages of

James Cook, The Trial of the Cannibal Dog: Captain Cook in the South Seas, by Anne Salmond,

referenced Kenneth Munford’s 1963 supplement to his original 1939 Ledyard biography rather than

Ledyard’s own journal. Clearly the journal was not an insignificant publication as the Connecticut

State Assembly granted Ledyard a protection of copyright shortly after the American Revolution in

1783. By April of 1786, each state had adopted copyright laws based upon Connecticut’s acceptance

of Ledyard’s request. In 1790, the U.S. Congress passed the first national copyright laws based upon

Connecticut’s template, allowing Ledyard’s book, A Journal of Captain Cook’s Last Voyage to the

Pacific Ocean, and in Quest of a North-West Passage, Between Asia and America, to be the first to

receive the protection of the copyright laws of the United States.10(see figure 1)

There have been five Ledyard biographers, beginning in 1828, with the writings of Harvard

president and Revolutionary War historian, Jared Sparks. Sparks’ account glowed with romanticism

and represented a more Hawkesworthian11 description of his hometown hero. Ledyard was

10 Ledyard, The Last Voyage of Captain Cook, xxi.

11 John Hawkesworth was the most famous of the early Cook biographers. Hawkesworth published the official account in 1773, and his adaptation is only notable in the fact that it aggrandized Cook’s exploits to the point of fallacy. Hawkesworth compiled an accounting of Cook’s first expedition from several journals, and then enhanced them with much editorial license as if to be Cook’s own journal—written in the first person, no less. But he included so many uncorroborated tales of wanton sex and misspoken events that many believe the public fallout he received brought his untimely death on November 16, 1773. Upon receiving a copy of this version while still at sea on his second voyage, Cook became so incensed over the broad fabrication of his exploits that he insisted on having total control of the publication of his second voyage. Lord Sutherland, John Hawkesworth (Chicago and Edinburgh: Encyclopedia Britannica, 2005). <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9039611>.

Roger Smith 7

Figure 1 Copy of the Original Title Page of John Ledyard’s A Journal of Captain Cook’s Last Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, and in Quest of a Northwest Passage Between Asia & America. Reprinted from Edward G. Gray, Go East, Young Man, Common-place The Interactive Journal of Early American Life, Inc., vol.5 no.2, January 2005. <http://www.common-place.org/vol-05/no-02/gray/index.shtml>

Roger Smith 8

chronicled again in 1939, by Kenneth Munford, and 1946, by Helen Augur.12 “Ledyard’s mythical

status weighed so heavily that [Sparks, Munford, and Augur] revised, abridged, and edited his

journals and letters, even creating imaginary scenes.”13

While inadvertently creating the potential for Ledyard to be discounted as a significant

historical figure, these accounts of his excursions did not dampen the efforts of other historians. In

1961, the American Heritage Publications presented a historically accurate view of Ledyard’s

version of Cook’s voyage entitled, Captain Cook’s American, by E.M. Halliday. This article does at

last produce a believable rendition of most of Ledyard’s journal and lends credibility to his

personage as never before. Unfortunately, this accounting was meant to be informative of the reality

of Ledyard’s sheer existence as a member of Cook’s voyage—something not well known, even

today—and did not explore the seemingly endless question of why that is now being asked.

In 2005, author James Zug14 edited Ledyard’s complete set of journals, documents, and

personal letters for the National Geographic Society. In the same year, Zug also published his own

account of the travels and expeditions of John Ledyard entitled, American Traveler: The Life and

Adventures of John Ledyard—the Man who Dreamed of Walking Around the World. From these

works the full scope of Ledyard’s observations of Cook’s third voyage will be seen, oddly enough,

12 Like so many of the romanticized accounts of Captain Cook, I have chosen not to include Sparks’, Munford’s, or Augur’s versions of John Ledyard’s travels. Sparks knew many of the Revolutionary heroes personally, but again the trend at this time was to elevate and revere, which makes it difficult to sift the facts in a short paper. More attention will be given to Sparks in the more complete accounting of John Ledyard, of which this paper is but one part. To Helen Augur’s credit, however, it should be noted that her later publications of fictional novels, which are based on or around historical settings and events, are of an excellent caliber and leads one to wonder if her biography of Ledyard was integral in this change of genre. Robert Livingston Schuyler, The William and Mary Quarterly Review of Books—Passage to Glory: John Ledyard’s America, by Helen Augur, 3.3, Number 3, p.431, July 1946.

13 Ledyard, The Last Voyage of Captain Cook, xiv.

14 James Zug is a Dartmouth College graduate who became enamored with Ledyard’s story while at the school. Ledyard attended Dartmouth for one year only, yet his celebrity is noted with an annual canoe race and several landmarks named for him, including the Ledyard State Bank, Ledyard Bridge, Ledyard Hall, and an annual canoe race sponsored by the Ledyard Canoe Club.

Roger Smith 9

as new information. But this knowledge has been in existence for over two hundred and twenty-five

years, so perhaps there are other questions that should be asked in regards to such a stark oversight.

What could Cook’s lone American have seen that would cause his journal to be ostracized from all

official British accounts and renditions for so many years?

We will look at this alternative account of the events surrounding the death of James Cook by

incorporating Ledyard’s insight and non-conformist views of the actions that caused the tragedy.

The readers will have the opportunity to weigh for themselves the discrepancies between traditional

accounts of Cook’s last days in Hawaii and a source that has been flouted by the best of Cook’s

biographers.

After Ledyard’s death in 1789, his fame grew for a season then vanished into obscurity. His

journal found a new audience then joined the fate of its author. But to investigate the death of Cook

and the surrounding controversy it is necessary to look beyond a simple comparison of personal

journals. Neither Cook nor Ledyard kept his journal on a daily basis and often left days, weeks, and

even months completely unaccounted. Cook’s journal, for example, had missing days during every

month of the voyage, and one span of silence lasted from July12 – October 17, 1776, with only one

page of notes to cover the whole of the month of August. When reading Cook’s journal, one notices

that upon finding land his writing style would change drastically to that of a scholar and he would

allow days, even weeks, to elapse before returning to his journal to write long, insightful

documentaries of the events that had transpired. While at sea, however, his method was to jot down

disjointed, staccato-like entries that were more the product of a military guardian charged with his

ship’s safety and discipline. His journal is rife with this pattern of annotation, which would explain

the abrupt end brought to his notes on January 17, 1779, one month before his death. Therefore, in

order to piece together the events of January 18th – February 14th, the day of Cook’s death, we must

Roger Smith 10

rely completely upon the journals of the crew members of both the Discovery and the Resolution as

the primary documents of note.

As stated earlier, that is the genius of the works of J.C. Beaglehole, who compiled many

years’ worth of journals, letters, and diaries from those in Cook’s command who were present and

did make note of the events in question. This article will rely heavily upon Beaglehole’s research

and compilation and consider his book, The Life of James Cook, as one comprehensive accounting of

Cook’s final days. This will leave the journal of and the impressions of two of his biographers,

Halliday and Zug, to stand in a comparative analysis with those of Beaglehole’s assemblage and

Phillip Edwards.

The time at sea, compounded by the fact that this was Cook’s third such voyage in eleven

years, may have led to an alteration in the great explorer’s tolerance for the antics of the crew and

the natives encountered. Several accounts note that Cook’s attitude towards the men had grown

increasingly coarse throughout the voyage. He was “less patient and tolerant, more given to anger,

more severe in his punishment, both in regard to his own men and the people they encountered,

during this last voyage.”15 Ledyard on the other hand, one of those subordinate members of the crew,

makes little notice in his writings of these punishments, which might speak to the fact that his was

not a journal bent on maligning his famous captain. At no point in Ledyard’s accounting of the

voyage does he speak ill of Cook’s decision making processes until after the sighting of Maui on

November 26, 1778. The crew had endured ten months of searching for the fabled Northwest

Passage, only returning to warmer waters to wait for the winter season to pass. Even Beaglehole

notes: “Their idea of refreshment, as they turned back from the ice, had not been this sort of

15 Salmond, The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, 393-94. Salmond includes an appendix (p.433-37) emphasizing the increased punishments authorized by Cook on the third voyage. While the number of lashes administered reduces from the first to the second voyage, 354 to 288, the numbers dramatically increase on the third voyage to 684. Cook, The Journals, 612.

Roger Smith 11

hovering on the edge of paradise…Cook, for whatever reason, seemed to have lost contact with his

men.”16 With provisions low, the most egregious of which to the crew was their supply of grog, the

men of the Resolution and Discovery were looking forward to a well-deserved retreat of native

women, fresh water, and unsalted meats. 17 What they received was an unexplained seven weeks of

meandering, first off Maui, and then the Big Island. At one point the seas were so fierce that it took

the Resolution nineteen days to sail from Maui to Kealakekua Bay on Hawaii’s eastern point, only to

be blown back out to sea for another six days before being able to return. And still, Cook would not

allow the ships to anchor until January 17, 1779, the day of his last entry in his personal journal.

No explanation can be found for Cook’s actions during this time. In his own journal, the

explorer only discussed the lack of discipline among the men when their grog expired.18 Beaglehole

notes that 2nd Lieutenant James King, Astronomer in Chief of the Resolution and one of Cook’s

strongest advocates after his death, wrote that the officers could only “presume” their captain’s

intensions.19 With no explanations being offered to any of the men on either ship, Ledyard

complains, “This conduct of the commander in chief was highly reprobated and at last remonstrated

against by the people on board both ships…the brave men, who were weaving the laurel that was

hereafter to adorn his brows.”20 King supported that sentiment later when he wrote in his memoirs

that Cook’s refusal to land was “to the great mortification of almost all in both ships…we were jaded

and very heartily tir’d with Cruising of these Islands near two months…The Disappointment in not

16 Beaglehole, The Life of Captain James Cook, 640.

17 Cook referred to the crew as mutinous when they refused to his concoction of sugar cane beer for their beloved grog. Ibid, 640, 642; Zug, American Traveler, 93.



20 Ledyard, The Last Voyage of Captain Cook, 68-69.

Roger Smith 12

trying for a place of Anchorage had a bad effect on the Spirits of our Ships Company.”21 This marks

the bursting of the bubble for the common sailor and marine under Cook’s command, for King

inadvertently included his own peers in the officers staff when he used the phrase, we were jaded, as

opposed to the men were jaded, or the crew was jaded. But this discontent did not run to the point of

creating instances of insubordination or mutiny. In fact, there is never a discussion at any level of

such behavior during any of Cook’s Pacific voyages—a lesson the master of the Resolution, William

Bligh, should have learned under Cook’s tutelage. It would be interesting to discover a document

that would shed light on why the great captain would prevail upon his men, and himself, to endure

such conditions for almost two full months when paradise was but a row boat ride away. Beaglehole

feels that Cook was experiencing a great deal of strain at this time as he lashed out in his journal

against the Navy Board, accusing them of “mismanagement and abuse” concerning the cordage

supply on board.22 At last Cook called to drop anchor and the mood of the personnel on board both

ships improved immediately as he softened a previous decree of no fraternizing with the native

women. On shore the men can finally experience a much needed time of rest and relaxation, and put

behind them the turmoil of the sea. Little did they know that the truly serious trouble would begin

once on terra firma.

Upon landing, Cook was instantly hailed by the Hawaiians as Lono, the God of Bounty, as

anywhere from ten to fifteen thousand natives would throw themselves prostrate on the ground every

time Cook glanced in their direction.23 It is a scene that did not surprise the men of the Resolution

and Discovery because the residents of Kauai had behaved in a similar manner when Cook first


22 This would have been a serious charge of corruption, accusing the English Navy, and therefore the Empire, of cutting costs by stocking royal ships with cheaply manufactured rigging supplies. Beaglehole, The Life of Captain James Cook, 644-45.

23 Ibid, 649; Ledyard, The Last Voyage of Captain Cook, 69-71.

Roger Smith 13

discovered that island on January 21, 1778.24 In his journal, Lt. King reports, “…they certainly

regarded us as a superior race to themselves.”25 Cook, ever the English officer and gentleman,

assumed that this was a protocol set aside for great chiefs.26 There is no disagreement between the

documents that these events did indeed take place, however Sahlins and Obeyesekere continue to

bicker over the reason.27

As Sahlins points out, each time Cook arrived in the Hawaiian Islands it was during the

festival of Lono, which lasts for four lunar months. After which the god of war and human sacrifice,

Ku, regains power and anyone still serving Lono becomes an immediate adversary.28 This is

supposed to explain why the Hawaiians turned on Cook upon his return to the Big Island on

February 11, 1779 to repair a broken mast. It was to have been the time of Ku, and Lono was to be

destroyed. This could also explain why the Hawaiians expressed relief days earlier when Cook had

told them that they would soon be leaving. Certainly the Hawaiians would not want Lono to be

present when the time of Ku arose. But Sahlins does not explain why the date of February 6, 1779

fell during the time of Lono, and only five days later it was already the time of Ku, when in 1778

Cook was hailed as Lono on Kauai during the month of March. Nor does this explain why the

Hawaiians had become disrespectful to the point of attacking Cook and his men with hail storms of

rocks prior to their departure on February 6, 1779, when it was still the time of Lono. It is


25 Sahlins, How “Natives” Think, 202.


27 In his argument, Obeyesekere seemingly undermines his own case by noting that Cook’s folklore is not included in modern day Lono ceremonies on the island of Oahu, which is by no small coincidence an island Cook did not visit. He also states in a rather contorted line of reasoning that Cook’s deification cannot be true because it is accepted at face value by westerners, which thereby renders it no longer exclusively Hawaiian. “In my view the perpetuation of this myth is not primarily Hawaiian, because it is doubtful whether Hawaiians wanted this to happen.” Obeyesekere, The Apotheosis of Captain Cook, 49-50.

28 Sahlins, How “Natives” Think, 26; Beaglehole, The Life of Captain James Cook, 658.

Roger Smith 14

concerning these events where the works of Beaglehole takes an alternate course to that of John

Ledyard.

Historians note that January passed with relative quiet: Cook was treated to more pomp and

circumstance of religious significance; a party of five (headed by Ledyard) spent several days

climbing three-quarters of Mauna Loa’s height; the men happily gathered provisions with the help of

the natives; and “the tapu was off the bay, and ladies…were restored to their lovers.”29 This is a key

reference, as will be seen, because it so clearly shows how far removed modern Western sensitivities

can be concerning the journal entries of eighteenth-century English officers and the everyday

activities of the common individual on the island, European or Hawaiian.30

Ledyard’s journal filled in the details of the events leading up to references of the removal of

the “tapu.” He explained that immediately upon Cook’s establishing a base on land, a detail of men,

of which Ledyard was the noncommissioned officer, were stationed next to a stone wall which made

up one-fourth of the boundary for the local Morai, or temple. Their tents had been cordoned off with

white rods by the chiefs as a taboo to keep the local women away from the marines, as this was

sacred ground. By Ledyard’s admission the soldiers and the native women made a mockery of this

boundary by constantly sneaking about for sexual liaisons: “The embarrassments of our enamoratoes

were already under, were still greater from our contiguity to the Morai, which women of the country

never dare approach from religious motives….”31 In short, this was a serious breach of religious

etiquette due to the local prohibitions of females near the Morai. Rather than be inhospitable and


30 Neither the writings of Beaglehole or Salmond demonstrate concern for the grave circumstances of the removal of the tapu.

31 Ledyard, The Last Voyage of Captain Cook, 73.

Roger Smith 15

force the marines to move their tents, these men were given a strict guideline by the chiefs to

observe the sanctity of the location where they had chosen to establish their camp.

Later, to save face at having their instructions and authority so blatantly ignored, the chiefs

relaxed their stance and removed the barrier rods, but a covenant had been breeched, nonetheless.

According to Ledyard, “It was the beginning of our subsequent misfortunes, and acknowledged to be

so afterwards when it was too late to revert the consequences.”32 It becomes clear from this

admission that not only was there trouble afoot virtually the first day on the island, but this event

was recognized and acknowledged by others crew members to be the inauguration of their problems

with the Hawaiians. And yet, in the Beaglehole account it is only noted that the restriction had been

removed concerning the boundaries around the Morai and the young lovers were allowed to resume

their indulgences.

On February 1, one of the most momentous events took place that brought Cook-as-Lono

down from his celestial pedestal, and neither Ledyard nor the many officers whose journals and

notes are compiled in Beaglehole’s voluminous works seemed to catch its apparent significance.

William Watman, an elderly gunner on board the Resolution passed away after suffering a stroke.

His dying request was to be buried at the Morai. As the body was brought ashore, the people of the

village shut themselves up in their homes and only the chiefs and priests attended the funeral service.

All accounts note the tranquility of the people after the service, as thousands came to lay slaughtered

pigs and flowers on the grave. King and Ledyard both wrote that later that night a very sober council

of chiefs and priests sat around a fire sacrificing even more animals to heap upon the grave.33

32 Ibid, 73.

33 Ibid, 83-85; Beaglehole, The Life of Captain James Cook, 656.

Roger Smith 16

Ledyard was allowed to sit in on the somber observance and referred to their spirit of philanthropy

and piety at this time as “an example that will put seven eights of Christendom to the blush.”34

But it is Halladay who, after reading Ledyard’s journal in 1961, observed perhaps the most

illuminating summary of the occasion and why the chiefs had become so philanthropic. The

Hawaiians were honor bound to pay such homage to an individual who, while seemingly

insignificant in comparison to Cook himself, was nonetheless a member of Lono’s race. And yet,

there was almost certainly a nagging realization among the chiefs and priests that these white

men…were men. Mere mortals who were consuming their provisions at an astronomic rate, and

stockpiling on their ships what provisions they did not consume. They had desecrated the Morai with

women and had introduced venereal disease to the archipelago when they stopped in Kauai in 1778,

the spread of which had infested all of the islands at an alarming rate.35 Halladay speculated that the

solemnity that night around the fire may have been partly in obedience to their beliefs, as they paid

their final respects, and partly in their gradual realization that these white men had been duplicitous

in allowing themselves to be worshipped as something they were not.36

On February 3, less than two days after Watman’s burial, the first instance of physical

violence occurred between the Hawaiians and the crew when an attempt was made to impress

islanders in to repair work on the Resolution’s rudder. Ledyard, recording the event in detail, notes

that relationships with the Hawaiians were starting to sour as a party of sailors had been tasked to

reattach the rudder which had been sent ashore for repairs. The men needed help from the Hawaiians

as the rudder was too burdensome for the detail of sailors. The masters mate, William Bligh,


35 Zug, American Traveler, 93.

36 Halliday, American Heritage, 85.

Roger Smith 17

recruited over fifty natives who mocked the proceedings by faking their efforts in a melodramatic

fashion, and in fact hindered the effort completely. When Bligh finally caught on to their prank he

became enraged, striking several of the natives, and then ordered one of the chiefs to force his

people to do as they had been told. Here Ledyard writes, “But of shewing their disregard and scorn,

which had long been growing towards us laughed at him, hooted him, and hove stones….”37 At this

point the English work party not only defended themselves but began to severely beat what natives

they could apprehend while driving the rest back. Ledyard had been at the tent encampment with his

troops and, having observed the scene, ran down to assist. A large crowd of Hawaiians quickly

formed and soon the hail storm of stones became too much for the Englishmen. Tempers now ran

fiercely hot on each side, as Ledyard notes, “Though I plainly foresaw these things, and was

conscious that they had originated chiefly from our imprudence…I could not justify a passive

conduct, and therefore acquainted the commanding officer of the tents (Lt. King) of the disturbance,

requesting that I might put the guard under arms.”38

This is the only passage in Ledyard’s entire journal, not only of his adventures with Cook but

of all his travels, where he is provoked to anger in this manner. A passive, seminary-educated,

amateur observer of human nature and cultural distinctions, the young American feared for his safety

to the point of requesting the right to arm his men against further attack. This is no insignificant

circumstance and he is quick to admit that this sort of encounter had been long overdue—and at the

advocacy of the men of Cook’s command. Ultimately, the crew was able to get the rudder down to

the water to be returned to the ship—but with the assistance of Ledyard’s guards, not the Hawaiians,

who had refused to assist further. There was no resolution between the two peoples, nor any desire


38 Ibid, 92.

Roger Smith 18

by the Hawaiians to be of service, therefore allowing animosity to percolate. Ledyard’s journal is

important in the attention it gives to this incident—something other commentators passed over.39

Nor was this an isolated incident. Ledyard notes, “Instances of this kind though of less

apparent importance had happened several times before this on shore.”40 Meanwhile, petite theft had

become more commonplace as Hawaiians suddenly began to make what appeared to be casual

excursions out to the ships where they would snatch an object, almost always made of iron, and leap

overboard to swim to a waiting canoe. Thus, scourgings began for any Hawaiian caught in such an

activity, and Cook also utilized his previously successful method in Tahiti of apprehending thieves

by holding natives, chiefs—even canoes—hostage until the stolen article was returned. Ledyard

lamented these decisions as he writes, “We shall soon see the consequences of such conduct.”41

By February 4, the relationship between the Hawaiians and Cook’s men had become brittle,

at best. But on this day a decision was made by Cook that could possibly have resulted in, not only

his own death, but that of several others had the episode not been so shocking to the Hawaiian

people. It is an affair that Beaglehole and Ledyard are diametrically opposed as to the impact and

significance it played in Cook’s eventual slaying just ten days later.

The supply of firewood gathered in Alaska for the two large ships had been nearly

exhausted, and more would be needed before returning to Kamchatka and the pursuit of the

Northwest Passage. Cook accompanied Lt. King and his marines, of which Ledyard was the unit’s

corporal, to procure the necessary timber from Kao, a chief who had especially befriended Cook.

Beaglehole laments that Cook did not follow his usual pattern of utilizing forest timbers near the

39 Salmond is one of the few recent historians who mention this incident, using Munford’s biography of Ledyard to note the facts—though the event becomes trivialized by her description of the incident as a “scuffle.” Salmond, The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, 406.

40 Ibid, 92.

41 Halliday, American Heritage, 85.

Roger Smith 19

waters edge.42 One answer to this mystery comes from Ledyard, as he had noted on his journey up

the face of Mauna Loa on January 26th, that there were no trees of significant size “at a uniform

distance of 4-5 miles”43 of the bay where the ships were harbored. Considering the size of the

population of the Hawaiian people referred to by all accounts, it makes perfect sense that the forests

had long been cleared for building materials to construct a village of adequate size, hence the

uniformity of distance of the forests from the beaches. It is therefore understandable, after reading

Ledyard’s journal, why Cook did not follow his normal procedures for obtaining firewood.

To solve his wood supply problem, Cook chose to dismantle the wooden fence surrounding

the remaining three-fourths of the sacred Morai, which must have been of significant size for the

amount of wood present to satisfy the needs of both the Resolution and the Discovery. Recognizing

that this was a holy place, Cook had also summoned Kikinny, the village priest, in addition to Kao

and other chiefs who were present. According to Beaglehole, the fence appeared to have begun to

rot in some places and therefore there could “hardly be any impropriety or impiety” in Cook’s

inquiry to purchase this wood.44 Kao, supposedly, was eager to accommodate the request and did not

even put a payment on the purchase, though Cook paid a “handsome price” out of respect.45 It is also

stated by Beaglehole that the men took carved images in addition to the fencing, which they claimed

was at the encouragement of the natives nearby. King was alarmed at this action and approached

Kao to apologize, but the old chief supposedly asked that only the smallest of the images taken be

removed and the remaining two images be allowed to stay. But, here, a discrepancy within

Beaglehole’s version of this incident can be found in a comment by Edwards in his book, which is




45 Ibid, 655.

Roger Smith 20

based solely upon Beaglehole’s compilations. Edwards states that the reaction of the chiefs and

Kikinny to the wooden images being removed “…not surprisingly, caused resentment.”46

Ledyard’s account—also very much in contrast—indicates there was a confrontation over

this matter. He writes that “Cook was insensible of the daily decline of his greatness and importance

in the estimation of the natives,” relying upon such confidence to request the purchase of the wooden

Morai fence for the price of only two hatchets.47 The chiefs, he continues, were dumbfounded by the

inadequacy of the price offered and angry that Cook proposed such a purchase. Far from

acquiescing, they rejected the offer. Cook, Ledyard goes on, was surprised and upset by their

reaction and ordered King’s attachment to tear down the fence and load the wood into the boats,

regardless of these objections. This left the chiefs distraught “to behold the fence that enclosed the

mansions of their noble ancestors, and the images of their gods torn to pieces by a handful of rude

strangers without the power, or at least without the resolution of opposing their sacrilegious

depradations.”48

According to Ledyard, Cook was unable to reconcile the chiefs. He approached them and

offered the hatchets again. Again they refused, and Cook thrust three hatchets into the garment of the

priest, Kikinny, and turned to speed the men along in their duties. Kikinny then turned to one of his

servants and instructed him to remove the hatchets from inside his garment, not wanting to even

touch the items so as to perceive that they were not being accepted in any fashion. By this time a

crowd had gathered around the pile of wooden planks that had already been removed and, becoming

outraged, began to throw the fencing back towards the Morai, attempting to undo the work of the



48 Ibid, 92-93.

Roger Smith 21

marines. Ledyard wondered, in his text, as to why this did not explode into a fatal incident, but the

marines managed to retrieve all of the wood that they desired and returned to the ship.

This account of the affair was clearly controversial for biographies about Cook. Beaglehole,

for example, had this to say: “It is clear that those were mistaken who later declared Cook guilty of

some vast blasphemy in Hawaiian eyes. Neither the enclosing fence nor this particular class of

images…had any sanctity; a Hawaiian in need would have burnt them…”49 If there were ever an

instance for Obeyesekere to complain of white men claiming to know the mind and religious

attitudes of the Polynesian peoples…

One possible answer as to why Cook was allowed to continue with this act of blasphemy is

due to the fact that in their religion the Morai belonged to Lono during this time of the year and he

could do with his belongings as he pleased, though it upset the Hawaiians enough to attempt to stop

him.50 Ledyard notes that the “poor dismayed chiefs dreading his displeasure” may have restrained

their people short of riot because, while they had challenged the authority of the other white men

since the death of William Watman, they had never defied Lono himself.51 While it was true that one

of Lono’s race had succumbed to the frailty of death, as would a mere mortal, nothing to date had

taken place to make the Hawaiians dispute the deity of Cook directly. Regardless of how one

interprets these proceedings, there can be no confusion as to the statement by all accounts that after

this episode the chiefs began to make inquiries concerning how long it would be before Cook and his

crew set sail. Just after Cook’s arrival in January, Lt. King penned a warning in his journal that “they

regard us as a set of beings infinitely their superiors; should this respect wear away from familiarity,

49 Beaglehole, The Life of Captain James Cook, 655-56.

50 Ibid, 657-660.


Roger Smith 22

or by intercourse, their behaviour may change….”52 Perhaps King’s concerns were more valid than

he realized at the time they were inscribed.

There is another instance of conflict mentioned by Ledyard and Salmond on February 4, but

absent in other works all together, between the Hawaiians and Captain Clerke, the commander of the

Discovery. One of the chiefs, whom Ledyard does not mention by name but recalled that this man

had killed a native with his bare hands for striking one of “Clerke’s boys” earlier in the week, had

been invited to dinner on the Discovery.53 During the meal the ship's carpenter’s mate had taken one

of the small boats ashore for the purpose of finishing a project before all hands were called to the

ships for the evening. When Clerke was informed that the boat was missing he immediately

assumed it had been stolen, confiscated all of the chief’s canoes along side the ship, and took his

warriors into custody for punishment. Enraged, the chief threw open his robe and demanded that

Clerke plunge a sword into his chest rather than accuse him of petite theft. As the confrontation

heated the carpenter’s mate returned from shore and the chief left with his men, highly insulted.54

On the following day the camps were struck and the Resolution and Discovery departed for

Maui.55 Ledyard and Beaglehole both made note of the fact that as the ships sailed out of

Kealakekua Bay the Hawaiians had put the torch to a small house on the corner of the Morai that the

crew had used for a combination hospital/sail loft. But, again, that is all these two accounts agree on.

Beaglehole claims that the fire was the result of Hawaiians with torches that “ransacked the house



54 Ibid, 94.

55 Salmond writes that the ships departed Kealakekua Bay on February 4th, but Beaglehole’s compilations and Ledyard agree that it was the 5th.

Roger Smith 23

for possible booty,”56 while Ledyard writes that the crew of his ship felt concerned, at first, that they

had left a campfire lit which might have caused this calamity. But he then notes that the all of the

men on deck, not just himself, could see that the fires were being set intentionally “to shew us the

resentment they entertained towards us, on account of our using it without their consent…it

evidently was esteemed by the natives as holy as the rest of the Morai, and ought to have been

considered by us.”57

All accounts are in harmony as to the events of February 7 – February14, 1779. The

Resolution and Discovery encountered hurricane force winds almost immediately upon leaving

Kealakekua Bay, and were hammered by gales and high seas for four days while trying to reach the

island of Maui. When the main mast of the Resolution became damaged by the winds and all of the

small boats in tow were swamped with sea water, the two ships had no choice but to return to the

Big Island and Kealakekua Bay. It was not a choice that the captains made eagerly due to the

difficulties of the last few days among the natives, but it was quite simply a decision that could not

be avoided.

On February 11th, the sails of the two tall masted ships once again entered Kealakekua Bay,

only their reception was markedly different. Rather than thousands of smiling and joyful Hawaiians

greeting the ships with women, food, and song, there was only one canoe with Kao and a young but

fierce Kamehameha, future king of all the Hawaiian islands, that rowed out to the Resolution. By no

small irony, the only items of interest that appealed to the future monarch for trade were nine iron-

bladed, long knives. The rest of the islanders were in shock that the ships had returned and their

patience with the presence of the Europeans strained to the point of violence. Hawaiian



Roger Smith 24

consternation to Cook’s return has been attributed by some as the result of their fear that the

Europeans had decided to settle among them.58 There was eventually some trading that took place,

but only from the canoes that ventured out to the ships, and at exorbitantly high rates of exchange in

comparison to just seven days before.59

With the mast removed from the Resolution by February 12, and a carpenters work shop

established on land for the repairs, a water-gathering crew was besieged by an unprovoked attack of

rock throwing villagers. Cook ordered Lt. King to “give orders to the Corporal (Ledyard), to have

the Centries pieces loaded with Ball instead of Shot.”60 This was a harsh order. The result of a blast

of small shot is designed as a sore warning, where a ball could mean death. Ledyard writes that,

“What we anticipated was true…our former friendship was at an end, and that we had nothing to do

but to hasten our departure to some different island where our vices were not known…”61

The 13th of February was the darkest day yet since Cook’s return to the bay. A set of

armorer’s thongs had been stolen from the Discovery, along with a chisel and a lid off of a water

cask. Hearing the ensuing skirmish from the carpenter’s tents on shore, Cook, King, Ledyard, and a

marine private armed with a musket ran towards the thief to intercept him as he swam ashore. Aided

by comrades, the Hawaiian was too quick and escaped into the hills. Cook and his party pursued the

man for several miles, constantly being fed false directions by the natives and laughed at from the

bushes. Beaglehole laments, “Where now was the respect, where now were the prostrations before

Lono, the murmurs of awe?”62 Meanwhile, the master of the Discovery had rowed the ship’s cutter

58 Salmond, The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, 409.





Roger Smith 25

ashore with a small crew, including midshipman George Vancouver, in an attempt to join the search.

They were met on the beach, however, by the same chief that had been mistakenly accused of

complicity in “stealing” the Discovery’s small row boat on February 4th. The chief gave the master a

beating, while natives pelted the crew with rocks and broke their oars, sending them back to the ship

severely wounded.63

That night, as the officers of both ships met to discuss their safety until repairs could be

completed on the Resolution’s mast, the cutter from the Discovery was cut from its moorings and

discovered stolen the next morning, February 14th. By all accounts and journals reviewed, Cook had

made the decision to use his staple strategy for recovering stolen property at other Pacific islands by

taking one of the chiefs hostage until the stolen item was returned. But the Hawaiians knew that

something was afoot. Cook and ten marines arrived on land in a pinnace, as a launch filled with ten

more marines accompanied them. The Resolution’s cutter, with Ledyard on board, and two smaller

boats filled with marines and sailors from the Discovery fanned out across the water to blockade the

bay. The large village appeared empty and Cook and his armed escort made a random trek to the

house of Kireekakoa, an older but revered chief. The scheme to avoid suspicion failed when

Kireekakoa’s wife began to wail loudly as the Englishmen took her husband down to the boats. The

village’s houses quickly emptied as thousands of Hawaiians rushed the beach to aid the old chief.

Cook fired a double-barreled musket at an advancing native dressed in a thickly matted vest, which

was worn for protection in battle.64 Unfortunately for Cook, his first barrel was loaded with small

shot which had no impact on the Hawaiian whatever. Assuming themselves invincible now to the


64 The question should be raised at this notation as to why the Hawaiian who charged Cook, and subsequently shot, was dressed for battle far enough in advance of this provocation to be on the front line of the assault? Was he the only one? Unfortunately we have no written documents from the islanders themselves to allay these questions and can only presume that these people had been pushed to the point of war by Cook and his crew.

Roger Smith 26

white man’s fire power, the crowd rushed Cook’s party. Cook fired his other barrel, loaded with ball,

striking the man, and then turned to the boats off shore which had begun to open fire on the

Hawaiians.65 Ledyard recorded that Cook was attempting to instruct the marines in the boats to cease

fire and come in, presumably in an effort to charge the beach with muskets loaded.66 With his back

to the enraged mob, Cook was thrust clean through from behind by one of the long, iron-bladed

knives that he had traded to Kamehameha only three days earlier. As Cook fell dead, face down into

the water, four other marines were killed while the rest managed to escape to their boats and back to

the ships.

The bodies of the dead Englishmen were taken into the village by the Hawaiians, much to

the dismay and chagrin of those on board the Resolution and Discovery. Clerke sent another charge

of marines onto the beach who were able to recover the Resolution’s mast while Lt. John Gore kept a

volley of canon fire heaping hot lead onto the village to cover their efforts.67 That night, after dark, a

canoe approached the Discovery to return Cook’s hat, and a bundle containing the great explorer’s

thigh: “And when we enquired what had become of the remaining part of him, he gnashed his teeth

and said it was to be eaten that night.”68 The native, a young chief, then promised to return as much

of Cook’s body as he could manage, as soon as possible. According to William Bligh, the other

officers set to work that night concocting a mutual conspiracy for the purpose of cloaking their

65 Ibid, 100; Beaglehole, The Life of Captain James Cook, 671.

66 Beaglehole once again strove to discredit Ledyard’s accounting of Cook’s actions as he adds a footnote to this portion of his works which said, “There is no justification for the statement commonly made that he was waving to the boats to stop firing.” The statement was “not commonly made”—it was made only in John Ledyard’s Journal. Salmond has supported Ledyard’s interpretation of Cook’s actions, pointing out that only Lt. Williamson—whom most officers accused of abandoning Cook on the beach out of cowardice—recorded the scene differently. Ledyard, The Last Voyage of Captain Cook, 99; Beaglehole, The Life of James Cook, 672; Salmond, The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, 413.


68 Ibid, 102.

Roger Smith 27

cowardice in leaving Cook alone on the beach.69 On the night of February 19, the canoe returned

with a small box containing “the scalp, all the long bones, thighs, legs, arms, and the skull; the

jawbone of the latter was missing, as were the feet, and the hands were separate. All had been

scraped clean except the hands, which had been preserved with salt stuffed into a number of

gashes.”70 The right hand bore an identifiable scar which forced the men of the expedition to face the

cold, hard fact that their leader had been consumed by his killers.

As stated before, the intention of this article is not to analyze how James Cook was killed,

but why. Granted, to endeavor to discuss any circumstances surrounding his demise virtually

mandates an accounting of the details of his death; however, there is very little disagreement on the

subject. How he died is a subject of complete accord among the varied accounts of the expedition. In

fact, there are no points of strife to speak of on this subject in either the journals of John Ledyard or

the collection of primary documents compiled by J.C. Beaglehole, other than what would be

considered an event or an occurrence that was simply viewed from different levels of perception. An

officer of the Royal Navy, born an Englishman of aristocratic birth, such as Lt. King, would view

life’s daily occurrences on an expedition such as this much differently than a corporal of the

marines, born in the colonies. It is only once the ships sail into Kealakekua Bay that we see any great

distinctions in the journals of note. However, it is at this juncture that the journals not only differ, but

the discrepancies, deviations and blatant inconsistencies alter the entire perception of what happened

and the its reasoning.

Why? Beaglehole struggled to understand the violent mood swing among the Hawaiians

towards their beloved Lono, while Ledyard had documented instance upon instance of ill feelings

69 Alaxander, Caroline, The Bounty: The True Story of the Mutiny on the Bounty (New York: Viking, 2003), 45-46


Roger Smith 28

and hostilities from the Hawaiians as early as January 18th. Ledyard discussed eight separate

instances of contention between Cook, the crew, and the Hawaiians which included such violations

of relationship as scourgings, blasphemy, desecration, false accusations, armed encounters, rock

throwing, mockery, and the appalling realization that, in spite of their participation in the holiest of

Hawaiian religious ceremonies, these white gods were indeed mortal men. This may have been the

most egregious source of contention of all. Regardless, each of these instances occurred prior to the

ships sailing away in early February, and certainly prior to February 13, when Beaglehole bemoans

the sudden shift in Hawaiian attitudes towards Cook and his men.

Beaglehole is in such complete denial of the impact and affect, perhaps even the existence,

of these early conflicts that he presumes that any negativity between the Hawaiians and Europeans

was not displayed until after Cook’s return to Kealakekua Bay on February 11. This is evident when

the historian writes, “…as if the return had released some instinct in the people that had hitherto

been pent up.”71 Beaglehole went to great lengths to not only disregard Ledyard’s input on these

subjects, but he even attempted to discredit Ledyard’s claim (though he refrained from mentioning

the American by name) that Cook had committed blasphemy in the eyes of the Hawaiians when he

tore down the fencing at the Morai. “It has been documented that Cook was killed because he

returned to Hawaii at the wrong time in the Mahahiki cycle…however, the Hawaiian’s had many

reasons for their anger.”72

Ledyard clearly documented the instances of why the Hawaiians hadlost their reverence for

Captain Cook and his crew. From reading Ledyard’s journal a very distinct crescendo of annoyance

and agitation can be seen building among the natives. As it was noted, Ledyard believed that it was

71 Ibid, 663

72 Salmond lists several grievances that the Hawaiian and other islanders may have held against Cook and his crew. Oddly, the offense at the Morai was not one of them. Salmon, The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, 414.

Roger Smith 29

sheer shock on that fateful day concerning the fence at the Morai that kept the Hawaiians from

committing murder sooner than they did. Granted, one might question the account of a mere corporal

of the marines in comparison to the years of research and tireless man-hours that a historian of

Beaglehole’s brilliance might compile. But neither man was of ordinary stock, as one may observe

in the manner in which Ledyard expresses himself in his writings. In their brief stay on the island,

with limited opportunity due to the performance of his duties, sixteen pages of Ledyard’s journal are

dedicated to the events that took place just from January 17 – January 31. All of Beaglehole’s

collected journals, ship’s logs, personal letters, and publications produced only five pages during the

same time frame. Clearly John Ledyard had information to offer.

But why did Beaglehole have such disregard for the historical value John Ledyard’s journal?

Why did he find it difficult to even mention the man’s name without adding an air of distaste? If

Ledyard’s journal was of no repute, then why did the famed historian not denounce the journal, and

its author; discrediting the entries at every turn, ala Sahlins and Obeyesekere? Could it be that the

task could not be performed without opening up an array of personal assumptions and unmerited

allegations, with no concrete evidence to bare them out? Unfortunately, these are questions that may

never be discovered, but there is one thing that we may know with certainty when searching for their

answers and it was suggested by Philip Edwards, a Beaglehole disciple. In the introduction to his

book which recreates Cook’s journals, Edwards writes, “It has to be said that Beaglehole’s loyalty to

his hero was so intense that he hardly ever saw Cook as biased or unfair or just wrong.”73 One might

speculate from this that Beaglehole simply could not tolerate any views in his works that shed an

irreverent light upon his hero—and certainly not a view that declared that Cook and his crew,

Ledyard included, had acted imprudently or made incorrect decisions in their dealings with the

73 Cook, The Journals, xii.

Roger Smith 30

Hawaiians. “Ledyard did not owe fealty to Great Britain and did not feel obligated to join in the

adoration of Cook…the only writer to declare that Cook was in part to blame for the killings and

destruction that punctuated the visit, his book became the sole source for an alternate view on the

interactions between the Europeans and the islanders.”74

Since it is well documented how the world felt about Captain Cook in 1779, what then did

John Ledyard’s contemporaries and associates have to say about the peripatetic American? In his

autobiography Thomas Jefferson described Ledyard as “…a man of genius, of some science, and of

fearless courage, & enterprise.”75 Upon hearing of Ledyard’s death, Thomas Paine wrote Jefferson,

telling him the news as told to him by Joseph Banks: “We have lost poor Ledyard…we sincerely

lament his loss.”76

In regards to the authenticity of his comments concerning the death of James Cook, perhaps

the most important thing to keep in mind when reading John Ledyard’s Journal is that his accounts

were not merely views, opinions, or perceptions…they were eye witness observations. The man was

physically present, to the same extent as King, Clerke, Gore, Vancouver, Burney and Bligh, and he

was able to write without the hindrance of aristocratic loyalty to those of a similar station or class.

His views were honest and open, quite often pointing an accusatory finger at himself concerning the

injustices he transcribed. It should also be noted that his Journal was accepted as truth in its day and,

as a result, this alternative view as to why Cook was killed in Hawaii had circulated long ago in

prestigious circles. As proof, we have Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography, where he wrote, “[John

Ledyard] had accompanied Capt Cook in his voyage to the Pacific, had distinguished himself on

74 Zug, American Traveler, 92.

75 Jefferson, Autobiography, 47.

76 Zug, American Traveler, 227

Roger Smith 31

several occasions by an unrivalled intrepidity, and published an account of that voyage with detail

unfavorable to Cook’s deportment towards the savages, and lessening our regrets at [Cook’s] fate.”77

77 Jefferson, Autobiography, 47.

Roger Smith 32

Bibliography

Alexander, Caroline. The Bounty: The True Story of the Mutiny on the Bounty. New York: Viking, 2003. Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa. Proceedings of the Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa. London: C.Macrae, 1790. Made available as on-line microfiche at: <http://www.microform.co.uk/guides/Africana.pdf> Order no. F02979; 13 fiches 37. Bardell, Andrew. CCSU – The Royal Marines on Cook’s Voyages, 2006 <http://www.captaincooksociety.com/ccsu417.htm> Beaglehole, J.C. The Life of Captain James Cook. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974. Bongers, Kale S. John Ledyard’s Insatiable Wanderlust. The Dartmouth Review, vol.25, issue 11, April 22, 2005. <http://www.dartreview.com/2005/04/22/john_ledyard_insatiable_wanderlust.php> Collins, R. Thomas. The Yankee Who Would Not Stay Still: John Ledyard Persuaded Americans to Trade With China. The Quillnews, 14 April 2005. <http://www.quillnews.com/main/2005/04/the_yankee_who_.html> Cook, James, J.C. Beaglehole, ed., Phillip Edwards, and Hakluyt Society. The Journals Penguin Classics. New York: Penguin Books, 2003. Darrow, E.E. The Battle of Groton Heights: A Story of the Storming of Fort Griswold and the Burning of New London on the Sixth of September, 1781. New London, CT., 1931. Evans, Jay. John Ledyard, 2005. <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~doc/shrines/johnledyard/> Fenn, Elizabeth A. Pox Americana. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001 Frost, Robert. Dartmouth College Commencement Address. 1955. From the Robert Frost Collection at the University of New Hampshire, filed under Publications, Box 2, Category C: Speeches, f.12. Gray, Edward G. Go East, Young Man. Common-place The Interactive Journal of Early American Life, Inc., vol.5 no.2, January 2005. <http://www.common-place.org/vol-05/no-02/gray/index.shtml>

Roger Smith 33

Goodrich, Rev. Charles A. Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence. New York: William Reed & Co., 1856. Made available by John Vinci, ed., ColonialHall.com, 27 December 2005. <http://www.colonialhall.com/morrisr/morrisr6.php> Halliday, E.M., James Parton. American Heritage: The Magazine of History. Vol. XIII, Number 1. New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, 1961. Hare, John B. Lono of the Makahiki. Internet Sacred Text Archive, 2005. <http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/ku/ku06.htm>. Hawkesworth, John. An abridgment of Captain Cook's first and second voyages. The first performed in the years 1768, ... 1771; the second in 1772, ... 1775. ... Extracted from the quarto edition, in five volumes. ... The seventh edition London, 1798. Based on information from English Short Title Catalogue. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Group. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ECCO>. Kishlanski, Mark, Patrick Geary, Patricia O’Brien. Civilization in the West, Vol. II, Since 1555.

New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., 2003. Jefferson, Thomas. Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue; Boulder,

CO.: 1997. Made available on e-book by the University of Florida Libraries. http://www.netlibrary.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/Reader/

________. Personal letter to John Ledyard letters. Paris, August 16, 1786.

<http://www.memory.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj/mtj1/006/0100/0178.gif> Ledyard, John. A Journal of Captain Cook’s Last Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, and in Quest of a

North-West Passage. Hartford, Ct.: printed and sold by Nathaniel Patten, 1783. ________. Personal letter to Thomas Jefferson. Iakutsk, Russia, July 5, 1788.

<http://www.memory.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj/mtj1/006/0100/0970-973.gif> ________, James Zug, ed. The Last Voyage of Captain Cook: The Collected Writings of John Ledyard National Geographic Adventure Classics. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2005. Obeyesekere, Gananath. The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992. Sahlins, Marshall. How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, For Example. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. _______. Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985

Roger Smith 34

Salmond, Anne. The Trial of the Cannibal Dog: Captain Cook in the South Seas. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 2003. Schuyler, Robert Livingston. “The William and Mary Quarterly Review of Books.” Passage to Glory: John Ledyard’s America, by Helen Augur, 3.3, Number 3, p.431, July 1946. Smith, James Morton, ed. The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826. Volume One, 1776-1790. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. Sutherland, Lord. John Hawkesworth, Chicago and Edinburgh: Encyclopedia Britannica, 2005. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9039611>. Thoreau, Henry David. A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Made available as an e-book by the University of Toronto at the following website: <http://prod.library.utoronto.ca/utel/authors/thoreauh.html> Zug, James. American Traveler: The Life and Adventures of John Ledyard, The Man Who Dreamed of Walking the World. New York: Basic Books, 2005.

Roger Smith 35

Roger Smith 36

roger smith “we shall soon see the consequences of such...

Documents