Talk:Pontiac's Rebellion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pontiac's Rebellion has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Pontiac's Rebellion has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
More information... This article has failed an A-Class review.
Related task forces... British military history task force Canadian military history task force

This article is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.

Contents 1 Amherst and Those Blankets! 1.1 Biological Warfare: Mutual? 2 Featured Article? 3 References

[edit] Amherst and Those Blankets!

The documents do still exist in England! - at the National Archives in Kew and at the British Library in London - and they are open for consultation. I saw them last week. As communications were commonly poor at the time several copies were made of each letter and several of the copies still survive. The NA has the Amherst papers and the British Library the Bouquet Papers. The missing word in the Bouquet letter is a " ----- " in the original, in the copy I've seen, so I assume the 'bastards' is an invention. Julian Hendy, Leeds, England

Kevin, and all: The suspect early Parkman work (see below) seems to be our ultimate source for most repeats of the story. The primary documents would probably be held in England, if they still exist. This 2003 book, of course, takes the opposite side from your newest research — just to make it interesting. WBardwin 10:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Overall Source: Koplow, David. Smallpox, The Fight to Eradicate a Global Scourge. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 2003, pp. 61-62. ISBN 0-520-23732-3.

Sources referenced in the paragraphs below:

• Parkman, Francis, The Conspiracy of Pontiac. (1851; reprinted New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1991, 646-649.)
• Knollenberg, Bernhard, “General Amherst and Germ Warfare,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (December 1954) 489-494.
• Poupard, James A., Miller, Linda A. and Granshaw, Lindsay, “The Use of Smallpox as a Biological Weapon in the French and Indian War of 1763,” ASM News 55, no. 3 (1989), 122 - 123 (also suggested that the blank line in Bouquet’s letter may have been for “operational security.”)

“....In 1763, during Pontiac’s Rebellion at the latter stages of the French and Indian War, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, Britain’s North American commander-in-chief (who was well acquainted, from long experience, with the devastating effects of disease on military order and operational effectiveness) proposed biological warfare. In a July 7 letter to his subordinate, Colonel Henry Bouquet, the ranking officer for western Pennsylvania, Amherst suggested, “Could it not be Contrived to Send the Small Pox amoung those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Strategem in our power to reduce them.”

Bouquet wrote back to Amherst on July 13: “I will try to inoculate the ________ with Some Blankets that may fall in their Hands, and take care not to get the disease myself.”

Amherst, apparently satisfied, responded shortly thereafter, “You will Do well to try to Inoculate the Indians, by means of Blankets, as well as to Try Every other Methode, that can Serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race.” Shortly thereafter, defenders of Fort Pitt (near what is now the city of Pittsburgh), led by British Captain Simeon Ecuyer, conspired to pass, ostensibly as a token of friendship, two blankets and one handkerchief delicately removed from a local smallpox hospital to two hostile chiefs, in the hope that “...it will have the desired effect.”

While the historical record remains obscure about whether the scheme was consummated, by the following spring, smallpox was indeed raging among the unsuspecting “savage” Indians in the Ohio River valley, and sixty to eighty Mingoes, Delawares, and Shawanoes had died of an infection resembling smallpox. Still, it is not certain whether the contemplated British intervention had been its trigger; there were many other possible sources for the outbreak at that time.”

The missing word (______) in Bouquet's letter has been included in many recent accounts: "bastards." My guess is the blank line originated with Francis Parkman, whose Victorian sensibilities (and contemporary publishing practices) required the omission.

I don't know if the documents still exist; I imagine they still do, held in the British archives. Bouquet's papers have been published in a 6 volume 19 volume set, and are frequently cited by historians. That doesn't concern us here, of course; our job is just to cite the historians.

I believe the smallpox blanket incident was indeed first uncovered by Francis Parkman and first published by him. I've read that the story of Parkman's discovery is covered in Francis Parkman, Historian as Hero (Wilbur R. Jacobs, 1991), which I've never read.

However, the Koplow account you've cited above is basically similar to most others I've read, though it gets the timing and other minor details slightly wrong. Why do you say it takes the opposite side? --Kevin Myers 13:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Probably due to those minor errors, timing mostly, Koplow and his sources imply that Amherst's suggestion/order led to the infection/genocide action. Your conclusion was that someone took the initiative before hand, right? And I really like primary sources! (My historian's training.) If we wanted someone to look for them, one of our new admins User:Mel_Etitis is a British professor at Oxford, if I'm not mistaken. So what makes Anderson and/or McConnell more definative as sources, in your opinion? WBardwin 18:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anderson & McConnell are historians who've specialized on the era in question; they've invested much time sorting through the primary documents. Koplow is an expert on bio-warfare, but presumably not on the minute details of Pontiac's War; his account of the smallpox blanket incident should perhaps be considered a tertiary source, while McConnell's book is closer to being a secondary source. --Kevin Myers 01:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Remain calm. Sorry if I pushed a button or two. The question is simply historiographic. I'm not defending Koplow or any other source. Koplow is only here because I was after the quotes.

Each source I've referenced dealing with this topic (eight so far), in whatever discipline, has a slightly different take on the story - our dreaded POV. (I have one too.) Some of them seem to be biased based on social class, some based on their point in time, some based on race, and some based on academic discipline. Not unusual in history or any of the social sciences. So, what makes this pair of historians just a little more reputable than the others? Where did they get their primary information and what is their expressed and implied POV? If their perspective is accepted without question, we can fall into the same errors as, for example, Poupard and his fellow authors above. They failed to do as complete an investigation as McConnell (Is that the source for "bastard"?) - and so their error was passed down the line to Koplow. If the article is to be definative, all these little "i's" and "t's" need to be dotted and crossed - and I'll confess to being compulsive. Since I'm afraid I won't have time to read either of these books in the next few months, I'd like to know a little more about them so I can look critically at material. So, tell me why you trust them. From the work I've seen from you so far, that would be a high recommendation. WBardwin 05:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And I am calm -- although my writing might sometimes seem terse, I'm the very model of equanimity. :-) You bring up some good points: I believe that Wikipedia should have a "how to" article on writing history (if it doesn't already), and you allude to some issues that should be addressed if such an article were written.

I have no particular attachment to the Anderson & McConnell books per se. When it comes to writing history articles for Wikipedia, I think the standard sources should be academic historians who are writing within their area of expertise. Next in preference would be academics writing outside their field, and non-academic writers published by major publishers. (Least in preference would be writers with small or obscure publishers; articles on web sites would usually be unacceptable references.) So the Anderson & McConnell books fall within the category of the best references to use for such an article, as well as the Dowd and White books listed in the references. Parkman and Peckham are cited because they are important in the historiography of the subject, though time has passed their books by (they wrote before the advent of "ethno-history" or "New Indian History", which pays as much attention to Indian history as it does "white" history). If there are other books by academic historians on Pontiac's War, I haven't read them, but the insights from them could (and should) be integrated into the article by someone at some point.

Of course, these books I mention are to be regarded as ideal sources when talking about the specifics of Pontiac's War. When talking about, say, the contagiousness of smallpox, a different set of expert references would be ideal. With luck, the first set of historians have already referenced this other set of experts, making our job here easier.

The "bastards" quote is in the Anderson book, which cites as a reference a 1933 biography on Jeffery Amherst, so knowledge of the "missing word" has been around in academic circles for quite some time. The "bastards" quote is also in a recent book called The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier (John Grenier, 2005), which cites a specific series and page number in the Bouquet papers. My guess is that writers like Poupard did not have either access to or knowledge of the Bouquet papers, and as a non-expert in the historical aspect of the topic did not know of the old Amherst bio, and so instead used the censored quote from Parkman. --Kevin Myers 15:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biological Warfare: Mutual?

The intro states "Notably, during the war both sides attempted crude forms of biological warfare". However, unless I'm missing something, the only mention is of the supposed use of smallpox infected blankets by troops at Ft. Pitt. Are we missing an example of American Indians using employing some form of biological warfare? Thanks. --Davidp 13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now, it's noted only in the footnote. Someone recently rearranged the paragraph in question, putting the emphasis in the wrong place (the Indian attempt was minor), and thus making the paragraph somewhat insensible. I'll fix it up next time I do an update, if no one else does. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. "The Indian attempt at biological warfare was the poisoning of the well at Fort Ligonier, Dixon", however, sounds quite significant. On what basis would one consider this attempt "minor"? --Davidp 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Minor" as in it apparently had no effect, lacked the novelty and potential scope of the smallpox attempt, and is thus rarely discussed in the literature. Dixon's book, I believe, is the only book listed in the references which mentions it, though I recall reading about it somewhere else previously. If and when I find more details I'll add them. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the actually affect of one's biological warfare attack is reason to dismiss it. But I suppose we lack the information needed, so whatever. --Davidp 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

Kevin -- such good work. This has really become a nice article. How would you feel about a nomination for featured article? I would be happy to nominate if you would be comfortable with the scrutiny. Let me know. WBardwin 08:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I still feel I have some work to do here -- details about raids on white settlements is lacking, I think. Plus, there's a new book out: Never come to peace again: Pontiac's Uprising and the fate of the British Empire in North America by David Dixon. My library doesn't have it yet, and I'd hate to think there's something important in there I don't know about. It seems I always think there's just one more thing to add or one more book to read. So maybe I'm not the best judge of when to request peer review and begin the featured article process. I'll leave that up to you! --Kevin Myers 23:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Kevin, you have done very little "tweeking" in the last few months and the article is quite stable (aside from a little vandalism and experimenting). I will have a little free time in late November and early December to "defend." I somehow don't think the article will be heavily criticized, but would want to be available if need be. How does that timing suit you? Looking forward to the process. WBardwin 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, "see" you then! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, you are tweeking again! But here we go - I'm placing the article in the peer review system. WBardwin 06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin -- great edits. I'm printing off a paper copy to compare to the peer review suggestions. I still like my red pencil when it comes to clean up. WBardwin 04:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I just made some more edits in response to peer review suggestions. Fire up that printer again! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin -- sorry to be away so long. Some serious family health issues, I'm afraid. So, a good peer review and some tweeking in my absence. Featured article next? I should be, barring any new crisis, more available after April 15th. Best wishes. WBardwin 07:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your troubles. Yeah, I think I'll get to the featured article process soon. Tidying up a couple other entries right now. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 07:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Some of the references still need sorting out. I noticed one <! > Rmhermen 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)