Billy

Blog Assignment  #1 Fenn

1. In the article, Fenn considers if the spread of smallpox to the Indians at Fort Pit in 1763 was an unfortunate occurrence or a military strategy to wipeout the Indian tribes. Fenn uses historical documents to examine whether Jeffery Amherst conceived and executed a plan to infect the Indians using “’two Blankets and a Handkerchief’” (Fenn 1). The reason historians disagree is because although there is much discussion about deliberately infecting the Indians, there is little proof that the plan is carried out. Fenn gathers documents and journals to piece together how small pox exterminated entire Indian tribes.
2. Fenn first finds documentation of a plan to infect the Indians with smallpox in the diary of a land speculator named William Trent. He speaks of a meeting between the warring Indians and the British officers. After concluding the meeting the Indians requested supplies for the journey home. Trent recorded that the British had given the Indians linens from the smallpox hospital. Fort Pit books further confirm Captain Ecuyer “certified the items”, while General Gage signed off on the payment for these items (Fenn 4). About the same time there is documentation from Jeffery Amherst, who did not know of the incident at Fort Pitt, persuading General Bouquet to use small pox as a means of biological warfare. Although Fenn cannot prove that Amherst plan was ever carried out these conversations are recorded and short after Indians started dying of small pox.
3. Fenn presents arguments for both sides but she clearly believes that the evidence strongly suggests that the British used some form of biological warfare in order to defeat the Indians. The recorded conversations between British officials show that the strategy of using biological warfare was at the very least an option. Fenn then looks at the British ethics in war. Although the British have a long code of ethics it does not apply in wars with ‘”savages’” (Fenn 47). Amherst used this philosophy “’to put a most effectual stop on their very being’” (Fenn 47). Fenn concludes on the idea that the British were able to devise a plan using biological warfare and then justify their actions. Thus there is no reason to believe that the English would not carry out their plan which “’involv[ed] the indiscriminate murdering of women and children”’ (Fenn 55)
4. I do believe that Fenn effectively proved her argument because although she could not directly prove that Amherst used biological warfare she was able to show that he had intent, and he was able to morally justify his actions. Fenn shows Amherst’s intent in his letter to Bouquet in which he not only talks about infecting the Indians but also ‘“taking care to not get the disease myself”’ (Fenn 5). Amherst’s plan was clearly thought out from his letters we see a tactical plan ready to be implemented. Fenn must also prove that Amherst would carry out the plan he had devised. Fenn present more letters that show Amherst’s guilty free conscious as he believes “’their total Extirpation is scare sufficient Atonement”’ (Fenn 48). Fenn shows Amherst’s hatred for the Indians and his willingness to use any means necessary to kill them.
5. I believe that the answer is important because biological warfare continually comes up in history and remains an increasing threat today. Many people dismiss the actions of the English because the Indians through commerce or war would have contracted smallpox on their own. However, smallpox is not only a terribly painful death it also in merciless. Smallpox did not discriminate between women or children. Amherst as well as the other British officers committed genocide and most people have little knowledge, if any, of these events. As we study history biological warfare will continue to be used but not to the merciless extent as it was utilized at Fort Pitt.

Blog Assignment 2- Bouton

1. In the article, Terry Bouton examines the sixty-two road closures from 1787 through 1795 in Post-Revolutionary Pennsylvania[1]. During the 18^th century roads were essential to connect small, isolated towns to the rest of the country. Farmers used fences, trees, stones and ditches to severe lines of communication and commerce between counties. Bouton argues that the road closures were linked to a growing discontent of the farmers. The farmers felt that the wealthy government, composed of upper elites, was stripping them of their freedom gained in the Revolutionary War. Bouton also emphasizes that the destroying of roads signified an act of desperation by the farmers, who were continually taxed unfairly. Destroying the roads revealed a final attempt to save their land after unfair taxation. Bouton point out that the aggression of the farmers was not simply an isolated incident as many historians suggest.
2. Bouton begins the article explaining the farmers’ resentment with the lawmakers that lead that to take such extreme aggression. In order to fund the war the Continental Congress handed out handed out “millions of dollars in promissory notes”[2]. Following the war the notes dramatically reduced in value, forcing impoverished farmers to sell the notes to pay their mortgage. The wealthy gained control of the notes for “pennies on the dollar” but required farmers to pay “six percent interest” and full principle on the notes[3]. The government responded by cutting the money supply, which shot up interest rates at a staggering amount. Bouton explains that the farmers could not pay these high interest rates, resulting in foreclosures for an increasing number of frontier counties. In Berks County the number of foreclosures reached “68 percent of the taxable population”[4]. Bouton then analyzes how the farmers’ attempted to counteract the unfair taxation. The farmers first responded with petitions, with little success. Then they created defensive network referred to by Bouton as a “ring of protection”[5]. The “ring of protection” was a layered system designed to stop foreclosures. The initial layer consisted of tax officials that refused to collect taxes, followed by justices who would not prosecute farmers. The lowest tier consisted of the farmers who would use physical resistance. The system worked well from 1783 to 1787 using a combination of each ring to shield the impoverished farmers[6]. However, as Bouton points out the gentry controlled government which lead to transfer of power from local to state control. The state then issued stricter laws that “outlaw[ed] official resistance”, brining an end to the defense system[7]. The stricter laws were counteracted with more brutal resistance from the frontier communities, which included blocking roads. Bouton points out the desperation the farmers felt when they resorted to blocking roads; since, blocking the roads did not only prevent people from gathering at the courthouse for auctions, but it also prevented the farmers from engaging in any type of commerce with other towns. Without roads the farmers income was eliminated, and with that the ability to pay taxes. Ultimately, the farmer’s protests culminated in the armed uprisings today known as the “Whiskey Rebellion” and “Fries’s Rebellion”[8]. Bouton concludes his argument imploring the reader not to see these rebellions as “a brief single uprising”, rather as a communal effort of the lower class, attempting to gain the democracy they bled for during the Revolutionary War[9].
3. Bouton uses primary sources to support his notion that the rural insurgencies are larger and more involved than a few apprehensive farmers blocking roads. Bouton includes, the economic woes of working class men in Post-Revolutionary Pennsylvania. A Pittsburg man explained the economic crisis stating ‘“very few men can procure Money to go to market”’[10]. The man continued showing resentment for the newly formed government saying “to pay…a Debt is out of the question”[11]. The lower class felt that the government was aware of the economic burden on the lower class but continued increase taxes. This notion held by many people of the frontier community was accurate when compared to the beliefs of political juggernaught Robert Morris. Morris believed that wealth should be “’distributed”’ to wealthy men who would make “’most productive’ use of the money”[12]. The farmers responded citing the constitution, which ensures that the government work towards the ‘“common benefit…not for the particular emolument or [the] advantage of any”’[13]. Their initial protests were ignored, resulting in more aggressive defensive systems being formed. The system was effective, leading the state treasurer to report that there was “’almost a total stop in the Collecting of Taxes”’[14]. The working class victory was short lived though, as laws became stricter, and the state comptroller imposed ‘”speedy collection”’ of taxes along with plans to “’destroy or prevent’” any form of resistance.
4. Bouton challenges the textbook believing that “[modern historians] greatly underestimates” the economic crisis during that time[15]. Although the textbook acknowledges Shay’s Rebellion and the burden the farmers carried, it fails to acknowledge the political efforts of working class prior to taking military action. According to Bouton, the farmers had a well-devised defense strategy and a community that was willing to make economic sacrifices for political gain. Bouton would agree the economic problems led to political problems, as the textbook asserts, since all the men who had political status were members of the wealthy upper class. Bouton though would disagree in the textbook’s statement that the elite politicians were patriots who ensured “the authority of rules must be conditional on popular support”[16]. Bouton states if this were true then rural people would not “felt betrayed, rather than liberated by the Revolution’s outcome”[17]. Bouton sympathizes with the rural people who after the militant uprisings lost their voice in politics, leaving farmers to feel that the Revolution was an “incomplete victory at best”[18].
5. Bouton’s argument challenges common knowledge of the events following the American Revolution. Bouton uses factual information to link not only road closures, but also the Rebellions that many historians passed off as isolated incidents. Bouton shows that the excise tax on the whiskey, which leads to the Whiskey Rebellion, was an attempt “to fund the war debt as an extension of [previous] policies”[19]. Bouton links the Whiskey Rebellion to the war debt the farmers had to burden. Showing that the Rebellion was a “culmination [of] more than a decade of protest” [20]. Bouton concludes his well-supported thesis with the forceful notion that the gentry created a “government that systematically undermined the democratic society that they [founding fathers] were trying to create”[21].

---

[1] Bouton, Terry. “A Road Closed: Rural Insurgency in Post-Independence Pennsylvania.” The Journal of American History 87.3 (2000): 885.

[2] Bouton, 861.

[3] Bouton, 863.

[4] Bouton, 859.

[5] Bouton, 874.

[6] Bouton, 865.

[7] Bouton, 878.

[8] Bouton, 882.

[9] Bouton, 886.

[10] Bouton, 858.

[11] Bouton, 858.

[12] Bouton, 864.

[13] Bouton, 886.

[14] Bouton, 876.

[15] Bouton, 857.

[16] Faragher, John M., Mari Jo Buhle, Daniel Czitrom, and Susan Armitage. “The New Constitution.” Out of Many, Volume I (6th Edition). 6th ed. Vol. 1. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. 197.

[17] Bouton 887.

[18] Bouton, 886.

[19] Bouton, 882.

[20] Bouton, 883.

[21] Bouton, 886.

Blog Assignment #3- Campbell

1.          Campbell challenges historians’ accepted idea that women became alienated from the military campaign due to personal suffering. Campbell uses General Sherman’s burning of Columbia, South Carolina to show that women’s response to the invasion cannot be summarized as disenfranchised. To prove that women inspired soldiers and in doing so influenced the war Campbell considers three issues: the soldiers’ inner battle of morality, women’s capability to fight, and the connection between the southern women and the Confederacy.

2.           Campbell examines the connection between the soldiers’ morale and the Confederate women’s devotion to preserving the South. She acknowledges that Historians are correct to say that some women’s initial response was feeling “increasingly disillusioned and disaffected from all thing military”[1]. However, Campbell argues that this initial feeling was soon followed with determined women. This transformation can be attributed to women seeing the enemy face to face, which took the idea of war and materialized it. Furthermore, Sherman destroyed the whole town leaving the community to unite through universal suffering. Campbell also emphasizes that soldiers have a certain military code of ethics, which refrained from using force against women and children. Many upper class women stopped troops from stealing items using ‘”brief stern language”’[2]. Campbell states the women were able to have an influence as “warriors” because of the southern slave society. The class system called for women to submit to men for “social harmony” not because they were inferior[3]. The southern women’s resistance gave them a sense of pride as “virulent rebels”[4]. These women wrote to the troops and inspired them to fight on.

Campbell concludes the article with women’s role following the war. Men in the north and south were able to make peace by acknowledging that both sides paid their service. However, women still felt a strong sense of southern pride that was unfulfilled. Even more devastating is that they were silenced to avoid offending southern men.

3.           Campbell relies on primary sources to validate his argument. To show the shock and terror women felt when Sherman first arrives she includes Emma LeConte’s account of waking to explosions that made ‘“the house shake”’[5]. Further description is given of Mrs. Ravenel’s home which was subjected to being ‘“plundered and rag[ed]”’ by ‘’Sherman’s Hellhounds”[6]. Despite their destructive nature the soldiers were said to be “’curiously civil and restraining from insult”’ [7].  Campbell includes numerous positive descriptions of the Northern troops to show their moral restraints, although they always strictly follow military orders. Campbell then turns his attention to the slaveholding women who are compared to the “’roughest and most brutal soldier”’ [8]. It is the women’s “’determined”’ and ‘”resolute’” actions that inspired troops saying they would “’die in defense of their country [rather] than live under Yankee rule’” [9].

4.           The cult of “true womanhood” required women to stay isolated on the plantation working long, demanding days. Both texts agree that the south’s slave society is responsible for women’s submission to men. This was required to show the slaves how to act and to “keep the paternalistic system [in] control” [10]. However, the book fails to mention that southern women are seen has having an “inner strength” that was to be concealed “benefit of social harmony” [11]. As Campbell points out this was not true in the north where women were seen as “less passionate” than men [12]. It was this “inner strength” that southern white women would call upon when Sherman entered the Palmetto State. Women were able to act out “without suffering dire consequences”, which earned the respect of the Southern troops fighting the war [13].

Out of Many describes Sherman’s march to the sea as an act of “total war” that left “’no living thing in Sherman’s track”’[14]. Campbell agrees that Sherman’s men burned houses, stole supplies, and killed all livestock. However, Historians such as Mark Grimsley believe that Sherman’s march was not act of total war but “limited by an underlying sense of morality” [15]. Campbell includes many descriptions of Sherman’s men helping the women. One women recalled “’I never thought I could feel towards the enemy as I did him”’ [16]. In Campbell’s opinion the textbook fails to examine all the accounts from that time period, and chooses to paint a false picture of Sherman’s army.

5.             Campbell explains the South’s domestic “production and reproduction” society allowed the women to feel like “mothers and warriors” [17]. It was this feeling of pride and determination that would impact the Civil War. Contrary to Faust’s argument that women became disillusioned with the war, Campbell argues that this communal feeling of suffering actually inspired women and unleashing the warrior within. Seeing the enemy face to face gave them the strength to fight back. When stories of the women’s courage reached the battlefield, it propelled the troops to continue the war. The women gave the troops a reason to continuing fighting, which directly impacted the war.

As Grimsley stated morality and restraint by the Northern troops is evident. This however is not part of the definition of total war. Personally, I think Sherman and his troops executed total destruction in an effort to cut off “tighten the noose around Robert E. Lee’s army” [18]. But this does not mean the North killed everything in their path as the book suggests. All women and children were left unharmed which is not the “total war” executed by the Native Americans during the King Phillip’s War. Border wars between the Indians and the colonist lead to the killing of all women and children. During Sherman’s march there were also many examples of Northern soldiers helping the women. Such an example of kindness was seen when a “’Yankee on horseback’ escorted her to a place of safety” [19]. Clearly stories such as these show clearly that Sherman’s march although destructive, was far form total war.

---

[1] Jacqueline G. Campbell, “‘The Most Diabolical Act of the Barbarous War’: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Burning of Columbia, February 1865,” American Nineteenth Century History 3, no. 3: 53-72 (Fall 2002).

[2] Campbell, 53.

[3] Campbell, 59.

[4] Campbell, 64.

[5] Campbell, 55.

[6] Campbell, 57.

[7] Campbell, 57.

[8] Campbell, 58.

[9] Campbell, 64.

[10] Faragher, John M., Mari Jo Buhle, Daniel Czitrom, and Susan Armitage. Out of Many, Volume I (6th Edition). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print. 270.

[11] Campbell, 59.

[12] Campbell, 59.

[13] Campbell, 58.

[14] Faragher, 443.

[15] Campbell, 59.

[16] Campbell, 60.

[17] Campbell, 53.

[18] Faragher, 449.

[19] Campbell, 59.