Talk:Siege of Fort Pitt

Resolving Issues with Article

General

The controversial issue with this article is the cause and effect to wit: we have the eyewitness artifacts to the cause (Trent, Ecuyer) and eyewitnesses to the effect (Turtleheart, Trent, McCullough, Hicks, Hutchins, Jameson et. al.). The point isn't to disagree with the people who were there, and took the time to report what happened, but to convey the circumstance as accurately as possible. In short, the attempt to deliver smallpox was made - but the attempt was unsuccessful.

Unless more information comes to light that contradicts this causality, we have a duty to anyone reading this to be honest and refrain from critical theory or any other biases... we should simply stick to the facts wherever they may fall.Brett Gasper (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Special

Exhibit A

Apparently, we have proponents of Critical Race Theory (CRT) sabotaging the page to engage in CRT's key elements of storytelling and revisionism - to highlight social injustices, specifically, "white supremacy" or "white privilege" and acquire some degree of empathic fallacy:

This would be fine if the CRT proponents could cite documented evidence that the effort was successful. The problem with the CRT narrative is that we have documented evidence that the recipients and the deliverers of the sundries did not die of smallpox - at least not within the next five years. The door is always open to present contradictory evidence and this article can always be modified to reflect that evidence.

Resolution

Exhibit B

Being that the article was flagged POV and disputed by an anonymous flagger in what appears to be a "hit and run" attempt and that this article has a long history of sabotage (as far away as Punjab Province, Pakistan) I am going to give considerable response time - then flag this issue resolved.

Consensus

Can we agree on two points: that an attempt to deliver the infected sundry items was attempted and that the attempt was apparently unsuccessful? If so, please indicate by writing "Agreed" and signing below.

Agreed Brett Gasper (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

400,000 to 500,000 Figure

Thomas Hutchins Map of Henry Bouquet's 1764 Expedition

Not to sound like Dr. David Henige, but where do the authors get their numbers from? We can see a map drawn by Thomas Hutchins with the emplacement of Native American camps that Hutchins visited on his 1762 expedition, whose account we find here Further, we have somewhat of a rough census of the Delaware populations by Croghan (1759), Bouquet (1764), Hutchins (1768) and Dodge (1779) in the Virginia Library system found here. No contemporaneous report, direct or inferred, suggests such astronomical figures for even the Eastern Seaboard. When we have source accounts of populations, we don't really need "experts" like Dr David Stannard and Ward Churchill inflating numbers... simply look at the map and the numbers given by the people sent to count them and look for corroborating/disputing sources. Brett Gasper (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Journal of William Trent

I rephrased some of the article to add some ambiguity where there was some minor editorializing and add a reference. Given that Trent was negotiating with a enemy who renewed their allegiance to him, it is unclear whether his remarks "Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." refer to intentionally infecting them with small pox or merely as being effective tokens of good will.

I cited the source I've seen, although it appears the original, full journal appeared in a 1924 version of the Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Also, the journal has been ascribed to Ecuyer in other sources.

There appears to be an invoice which speaks much clearer as to Trent's intentions, but I haven't been able to track down anything but references to that document. Will add when I find it, as it's quoted in several scholarly publications, I mention it in the article without reference. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The invoice is mentioned in the section below this, and quoted in full here. —Kevin Myers 01:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have revised it to cite that article. Not sure how much more a direct reference to the invoice we're going to get than that, probably not necessary since the invoice appears to be quoted in full anyway. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fenn in Proper Context

Brett concurs that the essay, cited here by Elizabeth Fenn, is valuable and she did write a broad and comprehensive thesis, in her book, titled Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82. Dr. Fenn also includes the sundries invoice and it's stated purpose - corroborated by the journals of Ecuyer, Trent et.al. and we should accept the facts, objectively, that Captain Samuel Ecuyer devised the plot and Captain William Trent carried it out - only to be supported, after the fact, by Colonel Henry Bouquet and General William Amherst as the dates of correspondence will testify.

However, we should not be too myopic in our sources and try to draw on as many of the relevant eyewitnesses as can be found. If Elizabeth Fenn, claims that "the circumstantial evidence is nevertheless suggestive": whereby, "John M'Cullough, a fifteen-year-old captive among the Indians, reported that the disease took hold after an attack on some settlers sick with the smallpox along central Pennsylvania's Juniata River. The timing, however, is uncanny: the eruption of epidemic smallpox in the Ohio country coincided closely with the distribution of infected articles by individuals at Fort Pitt."

We should have more, local, evidence to finely focus, what Dr. Fenn responsibly and ethically notes as "circumstantial" and "suggestive". Militia Captain Robert Robison wrote a detailed account of the Indian raids in the Tuscarora and Juniata River Valleys of Sunday, July 5th (10th) 1763 - roughly, 200 miles from Fort Pitt.

Two families, of William White (Juniata River) and Robert Campbell (Tuscarora River) were shot, by Indians, in the same manner as they were "laying" or "resting" on the floor of their cabins respectively.

There are some caveats to remember, when citing Fenn's Pox Americana: the narrative begins with 1775 (though background is forthcoming) in her book review on CSPAN (Febuary 7,2002: at the 0:59:59 segment) Dr. Fenn was asked specifically on this point:

"The famous story about the British infecting the Indians at Fort Pitt, in 1763, with smallpox, with infected blankets, is 
not apocryphal: the attempt was made. What's really interesting about that, is that, in fact, two different people thought of 
the idea independently of each other, of trying to affect the Indians with these blankets. It is possible: there have been 
cases, in India, of laundry workers, at a distance from the hospital, being infected with smallpox from linens... dirty 
linens from a hospital. The people who worked on smallpox eradication campaign, that I've spoken with, tend to think that 
infection, that way, is sort of exaggerated in our minds - but it is possible that it did happen."

Finally, we should not use deceptive numbers or exaggerate the effect of the blankets. An American historian, bibliographer, academic librarian and Africanist scholar, Dr. David Henige, asks many historical writers "where do you get your numbers?" in his book "Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate" I have included Major Thomas Hutchin's Map, that he recorded the data from, on his 1762 expedition, that relates the location and size of the Indian towns. Unfortunately, there is no indication of actual populations from his 1762 journal or from his map - only that a catastrophic epidemic hit the Kickapoo, Miami and Shawnee, a year before, in August, 1762.

We can only infer, from Henry Timberlake's March, 1762 map of the Tennessee River Valley the population concentrations of Indian towns - where he itemizes the number of braves (fighting men they send to war). In light of these artifacts, even by extremely (emphasis added) liberal counts, 400,000 to 500,000 is an over-exaggeration by a magnitude of ten.

John McCullough, remarks in his journal about, his time at the new camp on the Muskegon River:

"In the Spring we returned to the west branch of Moosh-king-oong, and settled in a new town, which he called Kta-ho-ling,
which signifies a place where roots have been dug up for food. We remained there dur­ing the Summer. Sometimes in the Summer, 
whilst we were living at  Kta-ho-ling, a great number of Indians collected at the forks of  Moosh-king-oong; perhaps there 
were three hundred or upwards; their inten­tion was to come to the settlements and make a general massacre of the whole 
people, without any regard to age or sex; they were out about ten days, when the most of them returned; having held a 
council, they concluded that it was not safe for them to leave their towns destitute of defense." 

No place else does John McCullough make reference to so large numbers of braves.

There is a document that compares Delaware populations by Croghan (1759), Bouquet (1764), Hutchins (1768) and Dodge (1779) in the Virginia Library system.

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Documentation of giving blankets?

Are you sure that the officers definitely gave infected blankest to the Native Americans? Where is your source for this specific event? From what I read, there is no documentation of the actual giving of the infected blankets.

You've been misinformed. Before the middle of the 20th century, historians knew that British officers considered trying to infect the Indians, but it was not clear if the attempt was made. Proof was discovered in an account book kept by William Trent in which he charged the government for the items he used "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians". For an online scholarly source, see here. Google Trent's phrase to discover more sources.

Scholars have therefore known for 50 years that the attempt to infect the Indians was definitely made. (Whether the attempt worked is another question.) However, some modern authors, either because they have not read the modern scholarly literature, or because they have another agenda, still write as if there's no proof. They're wrong. Part of the confusion no doubt comes from the fact that a second incident in 1837 appears to have been fabricated. —Kevin Myers 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source of confusion, by the way, is that there's no evidence that Amherst or Bouquet had anything to do with the blanket incident. They both discussed it, to be sure, but by that time Trent and Ecuyer had already made the attempt, and there's no record of Amherst or Bouquet communicating with anyone else about the idea.

The incident appears to have been common knowledge in Pittsburgh for years afterwards. David McClure (1748–1820), a missionary who passed through in 1772, wrote in his diary:

I was informed at Pittsburgh, that when the Delawares, Shawanese & others, laid seige suddenly and most traitorously to Fort Pitt, in 1764, in a time of peace, the people within, found means of conveying the small pox to them, which was far more destructive than the guns from the walls, or all the artillery of Col. Boquet's army, which obliged them to abandon the enterprise. (Diary of David McClure, pp. 92–93)

—Kevin Myers 07:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is some good and valuable research Kevin. Using eyewitnesses defeats modern revisionisms (eg. Ward Churchill) and similar critical theorists of the Native American Studies clique. It is interesting, through research, that we were able to draw on the same conclusions independently. On this note, David McClure, arriving nine years later, can be considered a second hand source - but his memoires report that it was smallpox that caused the Delaware to abandon their mission. We, of course, know that this is not the case - as Colonel Henry Bouquet fought a two day battle from Bush's Fort to Grant's Hill to drive off the Delaware, Shawnee, Mingo and Wyandot Confederation. Still, we should keep him in our mind as a corroborating second hand source should an unknown primary source surface. Brett Gasper (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

source for "bastards" quote?

The line "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself.", attributed to Bouquet, doesn't seem to have a reliable source. Can one be found? It's not in Fenn's article, the most thorough one I've seen. - Metalello ^talk 19:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google books search shows that quote in mullitple reliable sources. In this case, it's the same sources as the following sentence. —Kevin Myers 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My Google Books search returns five books containing the "bastards" line. Two don't have a preview, and two are not scholarly and don't provide a source. The one remaining, Genocide and International Justice, doesn't show the footnotes in the preview, so we can't track their source down further.

Contrariwise, Fenn's well-documented piece contains the sentence "I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself." This is close enough to the "bastards" version to make it highly likely that one is a modification of the other, or that both are modifications of an original. Given the spelling, capitalization and grammar features of Fenn's version, not to mention the anachronistic-sounding "bastards", I am inclined to think that Fenn's version is the original. A glance at her footnotes shows that she consulted the primary source, making it even more likely that the "bastards" version is incorrect.

Google Books shows three results for the Fenn version, with inoculate spelled in the modern fashion, and one with inocculate. This latter result is Fenn's article.

I am going to change the sentence in the main article to Fenn's version, unless I see solid proof (namely the primary source) that it is not correct. - Metalello ^talk 07:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This came up years ago on the Pontiac's War discussion page. The published primary source, The Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet (1940), omitted one of Bouquet's words in the typescript. It says: "I will try to inoculate the ____ with Some Blankets". (Original is online here). Long's 1933 biography of Amherst has the quote, but with the dash replaced with the word "bastards", suggesting that Long was willing to print a curse word that the editors of the Bouquet papers chose to elide. To complicate matters, Fenn says that the transcript of the letter in the published Bouquet papers differs significantly from the original document. She doesn't say what those differences were, unfortunately, but since she has clearly seen and is quoting from the microfilmed original, it's probably best to follow her wording. This leaves unanswered why the editors of the Bouquet papers would omit the word "Indians", or why Long would insert the word "bastards", but that's a mystery for another time and place. —Kevin Myers 11:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The original handwritten letter says "I will try to Inoculate the Indians by means of blankets that fall into their hands." I hope this helps clear up the "Bastard" question and any necessary changes will be made... cheers. Brett Gasper (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

source

Mann, Barbara Alice (2009). The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion. ABC Clio. this book has a chapter on the fort Pitt incident. It is a well written and researched book and would be useful here,User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Commentary is nice to get someone else's source material - but really we should concentrate on getting as many eyewitness artifacts as possible and presenting them to the reader. The reader can, then, make their own judgments as how to interpret them. The challenge is accurately reporting the context.

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Biological warfare

As a warning to readers, the entire section is biased. The wording clearly attempts to imply that the documented usage of biological warfare didn't happen to result in deaths, despite this conclusion being dubious at best. Indeed, it is very sloppy writing, with contrary statements (for instance, "Indians in the area did indeed contract smallpox. Some historians have noted that it is impossible to verify how many people (if any) contracted the disease as a result of the Fort Pitt incident", and "While no existing evidence supports that this attempt was successful, a preponderance of documented evidence suggests that the smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange, was contracted from a different source"). There are many statements not sourced, and of dubious accuracy. I added some "citation needed" tags, but I suspect they will be removed. Consider this a contentious article, where bias of editors making wikipedia an unreliable source for these events.17:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.246.81 (talk)

Please allow me to systematically rebut your criticism that "the entire section is biased":

"The wording clearly attempts to imply that the documented usage of biological warfare didn't happen to result in deaths..."

We simply are under the impression that if there were notable deaths resulting from the exchange (that nobody has contested as your weak straw-man implies) that eyewitnesses would have considered it noteworthy - as they wrote about smallpox sicknesses before the exchange of the sundries. If you have an eyewitness source to extrapolate on this, we would certainly love to see it.

"...despite this conclusion being dubious at best"

The use of the word "dubious" is dubious and wreaks of speculation, ambiguity, argumentum ad hominem and attempting to poison the well. We are simply trying to get at the facts with as many relevant eyewitness accounts as possible.

"Indeed, it is very sloppy writing..."

Originally, it was written in classical argument format with a subsequent paragraph to systematically extrapolate each point of the thesis statement, "While no existing evidence supports that this attempt was successful,[5][6] a preponderance of documented evidence suggests that the smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange, was contracted from a different source, and the attempt to "inoculate" the recipients, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee,[7] was unsuccessful."

The following subsections systematically dilate on each point of the thesis statement:(with eyewitness source references included)

"Turtleheart and Mamaltee did not get Smallpox"

"Smallpox Preceded the Exchange of 24 June 1763"

"Smallpox from a Different Source"

"No Remarkable Connection"

On these points there are twenty-two citations of the twenty-seven total article citations: your argument "There are many statements not sourced, and of dubious accuracy." is not founded in reality and here is why:

From a philosophical view, it appears (and I may be wrong) that you are engaging in critical theory that requires "storytelling" and "revisionism", to highlight social injustices, while the rest of us are engaging in Herodotus' Method:

1. Gather artifacts and eyewitness writings

2. Test for period and bias respectively

3. Construct a vivid narrative in light of your findings.

Brett Gasper (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding POV tagging, I agree that the section on biological warfare seems to include a large amount of uncited material. 62.253.177.175 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific when you criticize. Between Trent, Ecuyer, Turtleheart, Hicks, McCullough, Hutchins, Jameson, et al. these people were eyewitness to the plot and eyewitness to the effect. A piece of prima facie evidence is Turtleheart's signature at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, five years later. I only mention this because the article is attempting to establish cause and effect from eyewitnesses and artifacts. Also, if you have any eyewitness writings of the event contradictory to this thesis - will you share it? Brett Gasper (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As historians have noted, Indians frequently caught smallpox when they raided white settlements and scalped the victims, bringing home the infected scalps to their own villages. Rjensen (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, you're the one trying to rewrite my history on wikipedia with some kind of frigging psyop, but it won't work because the rest of the web already knows what happened here. You're just in a glass jar where everyone will see what you did for centuries to come. 71.246.152.185 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well actually I'm not British-- it was the British Army that was accused of the smallpox attack. please look at : http://books.google.com/books?id=RDVSz5ZnOa0C&pg=PA85 = David R. Starbuck (1999). The Great Warpath: British Military Sites from Albany to Crown Point. UPNE. pp. 84–85. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious as to what documented evidence you have that suggests that the attempt resulted in at least one death? There are a few sources (William Trent, 22 July 1763 and Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768) that suggest both recipients of the blankets, Turtleheart and Mamaultee, survived the attempt. I do agree with you, that we should never use the phrase "some historians" without stating specifically who.

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to Biological Warfare

Bias, Dubious The wording clearly attempts to imply that the documented usage of biological warfare DID happen - as evidenced by multiple first hand sources. Specifically, the sundries receipt alluded to in Dr. Elizabeth Fenn's Essay, "Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst" records for June 1763 include this invoice submitted by Levy, Trent and Company, and the June 24, 1763 Journal entry of Captain Samuel Equyer,

"24th The Turtle's Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort 
Mr. McKee went out to them ... Out of regard to them, we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the Smallpox 
Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." - Journal of William Trent, entry of 24 June 1763

What is being deliberated upon are the questions: "was the attempt at biological warfare successful?" and "are there existing, first hand, eyewitness accounts that supports the answer to this question?".

By the same source, of William Trent, who recorded McKee's gift to Turtleheart and Mamaultee on June 24, 1763 Turtleheart and Mamaultee appeared at Fort Pitt, about one month later, on July 22:

"22d Grey Eyes, Wingenum, Turtle's Heart and Mamaulter came over the river, told us their chiefs were in council, and that 
they waited for Custaluga, whom they expected that day..." - Journal of William Trent, entry of 22 July 1763

It is apparent that the direct recipients did not immediately contract the disease, further, Turtleheart signed the Treaty of Fort Stanwix five years later, in 1768.

If it is sufficiently put to rest that the direct recipients of the blankets did not contract smallpox. Then what were the effects of smallpox in the region? when did smallpox have it's greatest effect? and where were these effected people situate?

Documented eyewitness, Thomas Hutchins, suggests that the greatest toll was recorded the year before in the August 1762 entries of his journal:

"The 20th, The above Indians met, and the Ouiatanon Chief spoke in behalf of his and the Kickaupoo Nations as 
follows: '"Brother, We are very thankful to Sir William Johnson for sending you to enquire into the State of the Indians. We 
assure you we are Rendered very miserable at Present on Account of a Severe Sickness that has seiz'd almost all our People, 
many of which have died lately, and many more likely to Die." 
-Thomas Hutchins, Journal entry of 20 August 1762

"The 30th, Set out for the Lower Shawneese Town' and arriv'd 8th of September in the afternoon. I could not have a meeting 
with the Shawneese untill the 12th, as their People were Sick and Dying every day." 
-Thomas Hutchins, Journal entry of 30 August to 12 September, 1762

Sloppy, Contradictory Writing The prose was originally written in classical argument format of a five sentence thesis paragraph - with the last sentence stating the itemized thesis of (A)smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange (B) smallpox was contracted from a different source and (C) the attempt to "inoculate" the recipients, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee, was unsuccessful.

Each subsequent heading (or paragraph) supported the thesis sentence, in an ordinate manner, to dilate on each assertion and supply the relevant eyewitness sources:

(A) smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange

(B) smallpox was contracted from a different source

(C) the attempt to "inoculate" the recipients, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee, was unsuccessful

(Summary) all sources make no mention of any epidemic, in the time-frame of two weeks (incubation) except McCullough and on the Juniata River, 200 miles from Fort Pitt. Captain Robert Robeson infers that the White and Campbell families were killed in their sick beds.

Further, there are no significant population reductions, of the Delaware, between the census of Croghan (1759), Bouquet (1764), Hutchins (1768) and Dodge (1779)

Unless there is some evidence that exists that suggests otherwise (and we are all open to the evidence) we must conclude that the exchange had no effect.

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)