Talk:Pontiac's War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Pontiac's War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Michigan (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greenbrier raids in 1763/64[edit]

Congratulations to the authors of this page, it is really good. I'm working on the Chief Cornstalk page, and am wondering if the Greenbrier raids led by him in 1763/64 can be accurately described as part of the Pontiac Rebellion. Opinions? MinervaK (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Minerva. This is obscure stuff, so it's possible that the list of Wikipedia editors who have heard of these raids is limited to you and me. ;-) But yes, the raids are considered part of Pontiac's War: the books by Dixon and Peckham, for example, mention the raid in which the Clendenin (or Glendenin) homestead was attacked. I believe that there's only one piece of evidence that Cornstalk led this raid: the memoir of John Stuart, who wasn't there and wrote decades after the fact. He may have heard eyewitness accounts of the raid, as this article suggests, but it would be nice if we had more solid evidence of Cornstalk's involvement. This is why historian John Sugden uses the phrase that Cornstalk "is said to have led the war party" (American National Biography). —Kevin Myers 06:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Man, I have hit the motherlode of historic accounts over in Google -- it seems that many of the old "eye witness" books and articles from the period have been digitized and are available for free! So I think I might be able to find some confirmation for Stuart's story. It might take me a while, though -- there's so much to sift through. Last night I read Draper's "sketch of Cornstalk" -- it gives a pretty full accounting of the various raids ascribed to him, including the Clendenin (sic) one, but I'm not sure where Draper got his info. I'm waiting on a couple of books from interlibrary loan, including the Draper guide. Anyway, I'm enjoying the research. Cheers -- MinervaK (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Back in 1936, Ewing's article says that all accounts of the raid ultimately came from Stuart's memoir or from the account by Holcomb, who didn't mention Cornstalk. If you find another independent account, please let me know! —Kevin Myers 10:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Ritually"? Why are all the atrocities committed by the Indians, such as cannibalism, and torture etc., described as being done "ritually"? Is this supposed to mean they didn't really mean it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Very innacurate and pro-Indian-biased article. How about neutral point of view instead of all out anti-Euro propaganda? Expand on the 'policies of the British' - the 'policy' referred to was refusing to submit to extortion and threats from a band of women killing and child killing racist thugs - almost makes it sound as if ole whitey was up to his dirty tricks again. Small pox on blankets? Oh please...

Are you a commie, or a citizen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 

I agree that this wiki article is full of bias - against white Christian people (British, colonists). I tried to edit the second paragraph from the top regarding British trying to infect Indians with smallpox by using blankets. What nonsense! I added that a citation was needed to support that claim. A wiki editor (true to their creed) put the article right back the way it was -- in less than 2 hours! People in the 1760s did NOT know how smallpox was contracted, other than by association with a person who had it. In other words, it's highly doubtful that anyone actually believed smallpox could be transferred by way of an inanimate object e.g blankets, tomahawk, piece of meat, a twig,etc. I don't know where this story came from about white people trying to infect Indians with smallpox by blankets, but I've seen quite a few attempts to plant that nonsense into narratives regarding white and Indian conflicts. I would NEVER give wiki a dime in charity for their grossly biased reporting on American history - always anti-white Christians - ALWAYS! (Steven)

I was unaware that France or French Canada were not mostly white christian countries at the time, or for that matter that fairly significant swathes of the algonquian peoples were not roman catholics by that point. I guess the canadiens might have been too mixed for people like you, too strong a whiff of native blood to truly merit your attention. (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You "don't know where it came from" - I don't know how you can say that, that is why we have "references" that should tell you exactly where it came from (ultimately, by Amherst and Bouquet's own admission) and honestly, it's not to hard to find references for this in anything written on the topic, so you can rest assured that we at wikipedia did not make it up perhaps contradicting your nurtured presumption that there were no such thing as white supremacists in those days! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One British officer suggested using the disease. One British officer tried to implement the idea. This on incident is NOT representative of the British army strategizing to annihilate the Indians. Pontiacs war was fought for ONE purpose: annihilate white people (British and colonists). The British at Fort Pitt were desperate. The Indians, true to their nature, were going to kill/murder/dismember every white person in that fort. As for your disgusting comment on white supremacy, well, certainly white people back then, in general, felt a sense of superiority about themselves toward the Indians; much of it derived from the way the Indians lived and conducted themselves. However, that does not in any way mean that white people were interested in doing harm to Indians. The Indians ALWAYS provoked the violence , and in the most ruthless, inhumane ways imaginable; which, of course, only added to white people belief of Indians being uncivilized people. The continued Indian violence against innocent white people was what convinced white people that Indians should be distantly separated from them. (steven)

Okay, if you have any sources referencing your point of view, we can perhaps attribute them in the article, just as we are now reporting what is found in the references we do have. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok debaters, I've revised the section "Siege of Fort Pitt" to be much more objective. The historical records show a) there was discussion in postscripts by Amherst and Bouquet about giving smallpox infested blankets to their enemies along with other hypothetical warfare stratagem, b) no evidence that this was actually attempted on Bouquet's orders and arguments to suggest he never went through with it, c) Trent attempted this, but d) there is no evidence that it succeeded and evidence to the contrary, e) that smallpox had already been in the Native American populations prior to this incident, and f) Europeans as well were decimated by the disease with it going back and forth between populations (as plagues tend to do...) (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historical record" would usually mean primary sources, which we avoid. According to the numerous secondary sources in the article, the use of smallpox blankets was a deliberate attempt to kill Native Americans. The best you can do to whitewash that is cite a large number of academic secondary sources (without addition or alteration) that argue that the letters aren't real or something, and even then we tend to readily dismiss non-mainstream arguments. If you want to try to give "balance," you'll still need to cite plenty of sources regarding Native American atrocities being considered as noteworthy as the smallpox blankets (which you're probably not going to have much luck with, without unacceptable overemphasis or using polemic sources). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even contesting the fact that there was an attempt at biological warfare. What IS contested by historians is whether or not it worked, and this is using secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bouquet Expedition[edit]

--Ej0c (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Although the river Bouquet marched to was then called the Muskingum, it is now the Tuscarawas. Preferred way of dealing with this?