Talk:Pontiac's War/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

Considering the vulnerability to smallpox of the Amerindian populations and how it was already spreading, I'm surprised the Amherst Blankets episode gets so much attention - if I ran through the halls of the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11/01 waving a lit match, I wouldn't get much notoriety as an arsonist, unless I was of an ethnicity that historians needed to demonize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.90.244 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

I'd have no problem with this being a featured article. I've read a lot of featured article candidates, and I think that this is definitely the best one I've seen so far. Kevin, you seem to have done a lot, and I mean A LOT, of work on this article. If this does become a featured article, you deserve a ton of credit. Spectacular job. You should be proud of yourself!!

Climie.ca 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Best Regards, Cam

Agreed, yet again. My time here is still erratic, but I would be happy to participate in a nomination. WBardwin 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I plan on nominating the article for Featured status after it gets through its four-day "A class review", currently underway. Finally! —Kevin Myers 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

References

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

Review by Bishonen

Kevin, I asked User:Bishonen to look over Pontiac's Rebellion in prep for featured article nomination. She is a strong writer and editor, with many skills. I'm looking forward to finally nominating the article very soon. Best wishes. WBardwin 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, W, here are some points in random order about Pontiac's Rebellion. I don't know whether you wanted this on the article's Talk, feel free to move it anywhere you like.

1. According to the EB, the events are called Pontiac's War. Has that been considered as the name for the article? (It is now a redirect.) "Pontiac's War" is frequently used in the article, and it's even stated, in "Naming the conflict", that "Pontiac's War" is "probably the most commonly used"! Also it seems to me that the symmetrical term war is more NPOV than rebellion, which tells the reader what side to look at the phenomenon from (=that of the victors).
2. Are you really allowed to talk about American Indians? Isn't that terribly non-PC? I was surprised to see it. I would have assumed it would mean trouble at FAC. (Though I'm unsure what you ought to say instead—please bear in mind that I'm no American.) Whoah! I even see "natives", in the section "Tribes involved"! And "Ohio natives" explicitly doesn't refer to people native to the region, either--they're recent immigrants to it. This can't be right. (OTOH, of course it makes good sense to use "natives" in "Amherst's policies", about how the British "made little effort to conceal their contempt for the natives.") Mind you, though, I see Ganymead reviewed it, he would surely know, and would protest if something like that wasn't correct. Oh, well, I've probably misunderstood the whole nomenclature thing.
3. I thought the third paragraph of the Lead editorialized too much. Maybe you guys don't know how dirty European wars were... I have boldly edited it, and removed the comparison.
4. I've unwrapped an Easter Egg link or two, they're deprecated. See Wikipedia:Piped link.
5. Personally, I like the box with the quote in the "Origins" section, but FAs are big on being just the same as other FAs, layout-wise. The box will probably have to go.
6. I think the last paragraph of "Tribes involved" should come sooner, somehow. It feels delayed, and like an unexpected kind of thing, where it is. Not on the right level for its placement.
7. I get the impression the page is meticulously referenced and cited, but I can't say I've checked up—I'm so clueless about the subject anyway.
8. Please check my little copyedits, revert any or all of them, I won't be offended.
9. Very nice! Very well-written and handsome article. All of you who have worked on it are to be congratulated. It's very accessible and lucid for the ignorant. (I'm well placed for noticing that. ;-)) I like the "Legacy" section in particular — it's very thought-provoking and intellectual, yet crafted so that it's easy to take in. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks so much, Bishonen. Very helpful. I'll copy to the talk page for Kevin's review. WBardwin 07:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. It's a big plus to have an article closely read by someone who doesn't know much about the subject—things which aren't well explained really get noticed that way. I've taken the liberty to number the points above in order to respond below. Not that Bishonen wants or needs detailed responses, but future readers of the article might. I'll try to keep answers short rather than write an essay.

1. I've thought about the naming issue too. The "most commonly used" refers to usage by historians, who frequently use "Pontiac's War", although they don't avoid the other common titles. As far as I can tell, including using the dreaded Google test, "Pontiac's Rebellion" is still more generally used by non-specialists. Because our naming conventions say that "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship", I've stuck with "Rebellion". But either title works for me.
2. Yeah, despite some misconceptions to the contrary, "American Indians" or "Indians" is still acceptable usage in the United States. "Native Americans" is widely used by the American public, though most U.S. and British historians seem not to bother with the PC term because all the primary sources they quote use "Indians". Canadian PC has gone a different route, which makes "Native American" especially problematic for them, and "Indians" a bit less so. Ah, political correctness. When writing about American Indian historical topics that span the US-Canadian border, I aways use "North American Indian" as the first reference, and "American Indian" and "Indian" thereafter. I use "Native American" and "First Nation" only for contemporary U.S. and Canadian topics, respectively. I think a few other Wikipedia editors understand and follow these distinctions, but mostly there's ill-informed chaos. ;-)
3. That was not editorializing, but rather the adumbration of a theme that I never fully developed. So you were right to remove it. The idea, explored by some scholars, is that while Europe was moving towards an era of limited warfare, the North American frontier was developing the concept of total war. "Those who have only experienced the severities and dangers of a campaign in Europe, can scarcely form an idea of what is to be done and endured in an American war", opined the British Annual Register in 1763. But I didn't expand on this because it's more about 18th century warfare in general rather than Pontiac's War. Plus there are no good Wikipedia articles on these topics to link to. ;-)
4. Cool.
5. I've used those quote boxes on other FAs; they haven't been a problem yet, but you never know.
6. I had vaguely the same idea at one point, so there probably needs to be an adjustment there.
7. Thank you.
8. Thank you.
9. Music to my ears!

—Kevin Myers 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

6. The adjustment is perfect! Bishonen | talk 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, and thanks again for reviewing and copyediting the article. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Great -- now a featured article! I enjoyed reading this article and I'm glad that it was put it forward for recognition. Congratulations to all the contributors, it is a wonderful article. GwenW 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. —Kevin Myers 13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add my congrats to this article. I supported it for GA, A, and FA nomination and selection, so I am pleased that all of the hard work that mainly Kevin and many others have done on it. Congratulations. Hard work DOES pay off.

Fort Michilimackinac

I just tagged the June 4 date that the local Ojibwas staged the stickball game to trick the Fort Michilimackinac guards as {{dubious}}. I see a number of other sources such as [1] and [2] that say it was June 2. The Fort Michilimackinac article also currently says that it was June 2. Please verify the correct date. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, typo. Even this article, several paragraphs earlier, says the first wave of attacks lasted until June 2. Thanks for catching that. —Kevin Myers 04:46, 1 June 2007

(UTC)

Non-Neutral POV

I believe the title of this article and the first sentence are either wrong or show a non-neutral POV. At this time the British did not "rule" over the Great Lake Indians, the Indians were still independent nations (at least they still considered themselves sovereign nations). Rebellion means overthrowing the current rulers. I believe a more correct name would be "Pontiac's War". BradMajors (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's make that a proposal to move the article to Pontiac's War. That's the title in Encyclopedia Brittanica. Any objections?S711 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on documented germ warfare

Even the footnote names some authors who believe the "attempt" at racially-based extermination (genocide) of Natives was successful, and I could add several others to the ones listed. However, the paragraph in the old version is too heavily slanted to favor the claims of the school of thought that tries to pretend it was somehow an "unsuccessful" attempt, with rather specious arguments if you ask me. AKA, a whitewash. Per WP:NPOV, our wording should not endorse one set of authors in contradiction of another set of authors, what is known as a "point of view" in our article. My edits are an attempt to make it plain that these claims are claims, not universally held truths that all historians agree to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for main page

This article has been nominated for the main page on May 9th: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#May 9.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious. How is it that the second link, which in located in the first sentence of our featured article, is a redirect? In the synopsis on the main page it says "North American First Nation" while in the article it says "North Americans Indians", and both are redirected to the hugely diverse topic, Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Wouldn't this be akin to saying that the Indian Rebellion of 1857 was carried out by Sepoys but having that term link to Asians? Hammersbach (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A poorly thought out last minute edit, apparently.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like this edit has stayed in and cannot be undone anymore. The guy who did the FA reverted it without comment the first time. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more than that... "First Nations"?... a purely Canadian term (used specifically for tribes that are based in Canada) for an event that took place mostly in the US? Please! Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading the first sentence a few times I have come to the conclusion that we are letting the apparent need for a link drive the description of this loose, one time confederation of Native Americans that made up one side of this conflict. There just isn’t really a good separate article that adequately describes this alliance currently available on Wikipedia. Since a link isn’t required or mandated we shouldn’t try and force the issue by linking to whatever is the best of the lot that we happen to have on hand. The members of this confederation are described in much better detail and terms later in the article so I have created a link to that particular section. (And I am sure that the more observant among you have noticed that in the process I have deleted one link in the first sentence yet somehow managed to add four others to it…) Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical issue with link: the #origins link works in IE but not FF or Opera. From earlier edits this subject matter appears highly-charged politically so I have not tried to fix the link at this point, pending other reaction. PL290 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also suggest including more words in the link, as it currently would be assumed to be a link to an article describing what a "confederation" is (and therefore ignored). Probably need at least "a loose confederation of elements". PL290 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Greenbrier raids in 1763/64

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 89.100.118.29 (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I was also noticing that some of the sources went in great depth to describe the Native American (implying all?) "rituals", while interestingly, aside from the Small Pox blankets, there is no mention of any torture, rape, or brutal killing the British soldiers inflicted on their enemies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.118.36 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2016 (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...

^here

Are you a commie, or a citizen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.39.82 (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 [Really?], 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. Read.< Do some research before writing this "nonsense" >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. 199.180.98.54 (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...) 108.225.190.118 (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 108.225.190.118 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bouquet Expedition

--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?

Col. Henry Bouquet & His Campaigns of 1763 and 1764

Additional & more specific information concerning Pontiac's War & the role of Col. Henry Bouquet may be found in the book,, by Rev. Cyrus Cort of Greencastle, Franklin County, PA. Published in Lancaster, PA by Steinman & Hensel, Printers in 1883. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, by CYRUS CORT, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 24.102.227.84 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)N Shrader

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pontiac's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411181922/http://www.common-place.org/vol-03/no-03/reviews/shannon.shtml to http://www.common-place.org/vol-03/no-03/reviews/shannon.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525151825/http://www.common-place.org/vol-03/no-03/reviews/oberg.shtml to http://www.common-place.org/vol-03/no-03/reviews/oberg.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Unfortunately, the acts of removing their dead from the battlefield offers almost no Algonquian references for casualties. Needless to say, the only consolidation is the Colonial references. [3] "There are no firm casualty figures, but in addition to the perhaps hundreds of colonists killed or captured, thousands of frontier settlers fled to Philadelphia and to more secure towns and fortifications in the Delaware Valley." Now this in one state, but I'd really like the references. I found a book: [4]

From what I can see, a high school student or something posted something about 400,000 casualties which doesn't make any sense whatsoever in this post: [5]. Then the next edit put the casualties at 200-1500 without any references and left the 400k estimate: [6]. I helped with this article in the past (just a bit) so I don't see how you guys could accept misunderstanding. Goin' to request a watch. 216.223.90.33 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed two of the citations on the 400k figure, one because it says nothing about Pontiac or native Americans[7] and the other because I couldn't find it in any library catalog or mentioned anywhere on the web[8]. The only other source doesn't give an actual figure, but it does say that smallpox devastated native populations, over two centuries from the 1600s (e.g. page 24) to the 1800s (e.g. page 69). So, I kept the source, but removed the figure.[9] DrKay (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pontiac's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129040347/http://www.washington.edu/research/showcase/1990a.html to http://www.washington.edu/research/showcase/1990a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pontiac's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407070434/http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=hswpead%3Bcc%3Dhswpead%3Brgn%3Dmain%3Bview%3Dtext%3Bdidno%3DUS-QQS-MSS19 to http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=hswpead%3Bcc%3Dhswpead%3Brgn%3Dmain%3Bview%3Dtext%3Bdidno%3DUS-QQS-MSS19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020120546/http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohstemplate.cfm?action=detail&Page=0103115.html&StartPage=75&EndPage=117&volume=103&newtitle=Volume%20103%20Page%2075 to http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohstemplate.cfm?action=detail&Page=0103115.html&StartPage=75&EndPage=117&volume=103&newtitle=Volume%20103%20Page%2075

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pontiac in 1763.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1