|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 1, 2009 7:49:30 GMT -6
<Of course, what matter when some tribes used arrows dipped in rattlesnake venom and rotten meat>
Source?
_______________
Re: Infected Blankets . . .
Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt.
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. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.
On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:
P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.
_______
Also another tidbit about smallpox-infected blankets:
An additional source of information on the matter is the Journal of William Trent, commander of the local militia of the townspeople of Pittsburgh during Pontiac's seige of the fort. This Journal has been described as "... the most detailed contemporary account of the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold." [Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938).]
Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:
... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
Trent's Journal confirms that smallpox had broken out in Fort Pitt prior to the correspondence between Bouquet and Amherst, thus making their plans feasible. It also indicates that intentional infection of the Indians with smallpox had been already approved by at least Captain Ecuyer at the fort, who some commentators have suggested was in direct correspondence with General Amherst on this tactic.
______________________
And "hunting them with English dogs" part is not pleasant warfare . . . would you agree?
PS: The following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 1, 2009 9:12:24 GMT -6
<Of course, what matter when some tribes used arrows dipped in rattlesnake venom and rotten meat> Source? _______________ Re: Infected Blankets . . . Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. 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. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine. On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript: P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present. _______ Also another tidbit about smallpox-infected blankets: An additional source of information on the matter is the Journal of William Trent, commander of the local militia of the townspeople of Pittsburgh during Pontiac's seige of the fort. This Journal has been described as "... the most detailed contemporary account of the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold." [Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938).] Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement: ... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. Trent's Journal confirms that smallpox had broken out in Fort Pitt prior to the correspondence between Bouquet and Amherst, thus making their plans feasible. It also indicates that intentional infection of the Indians with smallpox had been already approved by at least Captain Ecuyer at the fort, who some commentators have suggested was in direct correspondence with General Amherst on this tactic. ______________________ And "hunting them with English dogs" part is not pleasant warfare . . . would you agree? PS: The following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity. re: Poisoned arrows-one quick source, not my original but that is somewhere in either Thrapp or Cozzens. books.google.com/books?id=jj8YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA284&lpg=PA284&dq=%22poisoned+arrows%22+Indians&source=bl&ots=S2FO6cNjtQ&sig=BiJsMBtCQXInMmqZu9S9BZdHVlg&hl=en&ei=gXhLSpLeBpS2Npvx7JsC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3I was unaware of the Trent journal, I'll have to get a copy as I had family in that area during the time referred to. However, I would suggest that giving infected blankets to them on May 24, 1763 did not have the desired effect as per your post script, smallpox broke out among them the following year. Smallpox doesn't have that long an incubation period. While Bouquet and Amherst did discuss the idea, there still is no evidence that there was a plan put into effect. According to your dates, the Fort Pitt incident occurred prior to the Bouquet-Amherst exchange. By the way, it is typical to use quotation marks when quoting from a work, in your case: biochem118.stanford.edu/Papers/Simone_Brutlag/Amherst%20&%20Smallpox.pdf pg. 4. |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 1, 2009 9:29:17 GMT -6
Just the mention by Officers discussing using infected blankets is reason enough to believe they had no hesitation or concern of what that act could do ALL Indians, not just warriors but the entire tribe.
If they were willing to seriously discuss it is justification of their intent to use whatever means in killing Indians.
As for Indians using poising on an arrow . . . no doubt it was used, but a single arrow is no where close to the damage caused by a single blanket infected with germs that could kill many as opposed to an arrow killing one.
In the end both sides were willing to use whatever means in their power to fight and/or eliminate an enemy . . . however, since the Whites were the "civilized" ones it casts more doubts on just how different they were than the Indians they were fighting.
Doesn't really say much for us humans . . . then or today.
P.S. Thanks for the grammer lesson.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 1, 2009 10:40:47 GMT -6
[ conz you hit the bottom once again  . nazis were also very efficient, so was napoleon on the battlefield, the whale industry. Civilisation as you call it is ugly and beauty is not always efficiency. I actually think the Nazi regime was highly inefficient, which is one reason they did so poorly in WWII. Capitalism is FAR more efficient and outproduces socialism every time it is tried. The Indians really got started exterminating their buffalo herds when they discovered they could trade hides for guns, ammo, tools, canvas, etc. They needed FAR more buffalo to get these things than they needed to eat. The more buffalo they killed for hides, the richer the tribes became. They didn't seem to care much for ecology or herd sustainment, etc. And when the herds dissappated, they only blamed the Americans...they never curtailed their own excessive hunting practices that I can see. Hides = wealth. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 1, 2009 14:46:32 GMT -6
conz can you stay out of this post it was real cool with BC CRZHRs billy brokensword and AZ ranger for a while I learned some things from Az ranger and i ignored the Crzhrs smallpox facts (can you give me the book?) Now you're back and you're deafblind or vice versa, what a waste all these posts and you start the same thing over again. read some books on the buffalo part. indians killed more buffaloo but did hardly trade in the extremination period. did you see any cheyenne or comanche or lakota come in for massive trade from palo duro canyon or powder river? buffalo trade has never been set up as the beaver fur trade was. it was for a while 1800-1850 quite big but the belt demand was not there yet so just nice hides and not the belt biz and the squaws could not tann enough hides for wealth you sillybilly do we have to repeat ourselves horses was their pride and scalps and coups they could not trade massive for that. ammo exchange was restricted as from 1860. SB and CH did not want from the whites goods in the LBH period except guns and ammo, but that is what you shoot when you hunt buffaloo Makes no sense your wealth theory wealth indians DID not care, as long as not on the agency status and fame yes. it is my anniversary so please give in FOR ONCE on this sacred board of marshmallows |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 1, 2009 14:50:47 GMT -6
BILLY AND CONZ
you started with saying that indians killed more buffalo as whites > proven foolish
now come up with your proof of indians killing more indians as whites killed indians
for the period with records 1850-1890
don't elude the sources questioned for your own statements
come with your numbers or don't state such bisonmanure
yihi!
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 1, 2009 14:56:14 GMT -6
the most detailed contemporary account of the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold." [Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938).] is this still available tashunca witko? ABOUT POISONED ARROWS THAT WOULD BE PRETTY COOL IF THE SIOUX HAD CURARE!!! AT LEAST THEY WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED GUNS TO COUNTER AND THE TERROR WOULD BE MASSIVE!! ;D what a bummer they could not trade for that through mexico costa rica soemwhere to get some! they would have won the war  This would be cool warfare as they would should only armymen and not innocent children and women and elderly alll dead throught the smallpox. eastern tribes lost 80% of their numbers. please show some respect when you compare apples and eggs. |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 1, 2009 20:52:57 GMT -6
BILLY AND CONZ you started with saying that indians killed more buffalo as whites > proven foolish now come up with your proof of indians killing more indians as whites killed indians for the period with records 1850-1890 don't elude the sources questioned for your own statements come with your numbers or don't state such bisonmanure yihi! Not proven foolish...the facts are with us, to be sure. As for the period 1850-90, 90% of the Indians had been "civilized" by then, and were no longer killing each other as much as the 100 years before, so that shows the white man's success in this matter. There were only a few of the most violent tribes left to subdue, before the continent could be truly peaceful, and that, unfortunately, involved killing a few Indians. But we didn't give them much chance to kill each other near the end...they were too busy being chased all over the land by the U.S. Army. Probably the last big killing of Indians on Indians was that Cheyenne raid on the Shoshone village where they got that bag of baby Shoshone hands. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 2, 2009 6:32:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 2, 2009 6:42:00 GMT -6
Indians killing Indians has been a fact for as long as they had been in the Western Hemisphere.
But that is not different than Whites killing Whites, Blacks killing Blacks, Asians killing Asians and so forth.
What this tells us is the human race is fully capable of killing each other whether they are of the same race or not . . . no single race is worse than the other. And we should not say the "savages" were worse than the "civilized" ones just because the civilized ones were more advanced and could read, write, add, and wore clothes.
Throughout history the civilized ones were just as willing to kill without hesitation and in mass numbers and were far more efficient at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 2, 2009 7:13:59 GMT -6
Smallpox arrived with the Spanish and had been around the Americas for hundreds of years before the British discussed it in letters. It is believed to have originated in Africa and was also introduced from slaves. Where is the evidence that it was effective and caused anything but discussion hundreds of years latter. This is not the chicken or the egg smallpox comes before the blanket.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 2, 2009 8:20:48 GMT -6
I don't think the question of when Small Pox was in North America is what we are discussing but whether Whites were willing to use it as a weapon against Indians.
Just the mere fact that the British discussed it is enough to show that Whites were willing to use any means to kill Indians.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 2, 2009 8:54:46 GMT -6
The bottom line is the decision to kill. I am not sure that there was preferred methods of killing then only what is effective. I can't think of any treaty or UN type of resolution that would have been in effect that would have considered the methods of killing like we have today. They also used lead unjacketed bullets.
Does anyone think that if the Indians had a way of spreading a disease to the whites they would not have used it?
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 3, 2009 1:39:47 GMT -6
BILLY AND CONZ you started with saying that indians killed more buffalo as whites > proven foolish <snip> Wolfie, please find a sentence of mine which states Indians killed more buffalo than the Anglos. You will not find that but what you will find are my comments stating that the Indians were not the prototypical conservationists that some would have us believe. Driving herds: bulls, cows and calves off cliffs was detrimental to the long-term survival of the species. But, since you mentioned it, the chances are good that over time, the Indians did kill as many buffalo as the hide-hunters. Billy |
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 3, 2009 1:45:03 GMT -6
Just the mention by Officers discussing using infected blankets is reason enough to believe they had no hesitation or concern of what that act could do ALL Indians, not just warriors but the entire tribe. If they were willing to seriously discuss it is justification of their intent to use whatever means in killing Indians. <snip> P.S. Thanks for the grammer lesson. Horse, absolutely buffalo dung. Military officers are paid to contemplate things that a normal person would blanch at. Just because it was discussed does not mean it happened. But, would smallpox be worse than what happened to Col. Crawford? Or would it be deserved? And that was not a grammar lesson as I am not a fit person to give those types of lessons. However, I do know that when cutting and pasting direct quotations from another person's work, quotation marks are the norm. Billy |
|
. nazis were also very efficient, so was napoleon on the battlefield, the whale industry.
