Monday, 9 May 2016

Pontiac's Rebellion


3 comments:

  1. Brit-bashing, P.C. propaganda. Funny how Amherst knew about germs before Pasteur 1860-64), isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found it interesting. The French were way better in dealing with the tribes as they had vested interest in keeping neighbor relations up. The British didn't spare nearly the same time and interest. Part of the uprising was due to the British stopping weapon and ammo supplies and not keeping the promise of leaving the Forts and land to the tribes. They instead built up and added to the forts with more Anglo settlers.
      Pontiac wasn't in charge of the rebellion either. It was a cooperation of all the tribes. He was singled out due to the importance of Fort Detroit.
      The British ticked off the tribes again by doing all negotiations with Pontiac after the fact which also led to the rumor of Pontiac being killed by another tribesman of the Algonquin Nation....

      Delete
  2. I am certainly no Indian apologist. My own 7th great grandmother was killed and scalped in a Delaware raid in February 1756. That said, Amherst and Bouquet's letters pretty clearly articulate their intent to spread small pox among the natives, as attempted by Captain Ecuyer at Ft. Pitt. In the context of the time, and in consideration of the existential threat to the frontier populace, I think it a reasonable course of actiion, but the evidence is compelling: it did happen, using blankets from the small pox ward at Fort Pitt. Whether they understood the microbiology is beside the point...

    ReplyDelete