Assignment #1-Fenn
1. Did General Amherst order the british to infect the Indians at Fort Pitt in 1763?
What role did biological warfare play?
2. Fenn used the fact that the british gave infected blankets and material to the indians. According to Military Collections and Remarks (Fenn, 50), these events were well documented as evidence of there wrong-doings.
3. Fenn’s main point was to show the affects of smallpox in an overall sense. Fenn points out the tremendous affect it had on the indian population. The hidden trajedy Fenn shows is the no regret attitude that has been shown to an entire race, although great damage was felt from small pox.
4. Fenn proves her point strongly as she tries to show the dangerous effect of smallpox not only on indians alone, but on any natural population as a whole. Her factual events and statistics are astonishing and open any blind eye. In 1763 William Trent from Fort Pitt write “’we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the small pox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect”’ (Fenn 9). Having the heartless mentality to be the demise of a culture is purely saddening. Once smallpox was introduced there was no stopping the invisible giant. Doctor William Douglas who describes the creeping illness as “’’no condition of the air can produce the smallpox”’ (Fenn, 17), such that once the sickness is airborne, there is nothing that can be done to ensure immunity.
5. Fenn’s views and stance in my opinion is very important. Her arguments show the motives and intentions of certain individuals in critical times of the past, which we need in order to learn from for the future. It shows the tremendous impact that a biological weapon would have on not only a culture, but on a society as a whole.
Assignment #2 — Breen
- The historical question or interpretation that I believe Breen tries to examine is how influential trade was and how it had a major impact on determining the political culture of America. British rule wanted to keep Americans dependent economically on Britain and barely able to support themselves independently on their own income. British parliament only cared about the ability of Americans to pay the dramatically increasing taxes. The British “refused to believe that despite their superficial glamour, eighteenth-century Americans remained provincial bumpkins, too par to pay taxes…too untutored to display their wealth tastefully,” (474).
- Breen’s main points and overall conclusion was that colonial life set the groundwork for American culture and heritage for decades to come. The disputes of trade and political power played instrumental roles in the misunderstanding of colonial people. The British believed that the American wealthy were merely not smart in the ways that they displayed their wealth. “…It was not so much that the reports of extravagant American market behavior had been erroneous, rather the colonists were parvenu consumers who had failed to master the etiquette of a polite society,” (474). Americans continued to urge that there was a common misconception in the amount of elite patrons because of a false sense of public image that may have been portrayed. British infiltration of the colonies only added fuel to the fire of Americans. Americans began a series of “Acts”, which strained ties even more between the two societies.
- Breen’s arguments are supported by many newspaper resources during colonial times and also by current articles about colonial America. The Boston Evening Post argued of “taxation without representation” while Shklar’s article influenced the Americans in regards to manufacturing themselves, which further beckoned the idea of boycotting imported goods and in turn created American pride and unity.
- The British Empire was dictated by commerce and its political moves while America was rooted in the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Americans entered into war against Britain and had no one but themselves to lean on so they had no choice but to band together and believe in the cause if they wanted victory. I believe that it was the individual identity of an American which overcame the brutal abundance of the British. The relentlessness and un-willingness of Americans to give in to British empirical ways was the difference.
- I did not really fully comprehend Breen’s arguments in regards to a national identity. I grasped the concept of “American is better” as a whole philosophy but it was a little hard to understand how just the mind-set of individuals could affect the outcome of a society as a whole. Clearly I do believe that Britain had a much more stable economic grasp on things during the colonial era, and it’s hard to see how Americans slipped from that grip.
Blog Assignment #3- Campbell
1. Throughout “‘The Most Diabolical Act of all the Barbarous War’: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Burning of Columbia, February 1865,” Campbell tries to understand the duties of women in the South during the Civil War when South Carolina was going through its trials. The yanks see and understand the honor women show towards the confederate society. It didn’t really faze anyone when the notion of losing was amidst, they always remained prideful and loyal, and this was a key factor for empowering womanhood and portraying Southern women as strong individuals.
2. Campbell’s main point was to emphasize the degree of loyalty Southern elite women emulated during the Civil War. Women were willing to take authority and fight just as hard as anyone. “Another young woman advised a friend that if a Yankee soldier should ever point a gun at her, she should not be afraid, tis only done to alarm.” (Campbell, 13) This only goes to show the degree of confidence and strong will that women would have to have if they were to be steadfast in the civil fight. Women would not let their city be crumbled by a “malicious enemy.” The support and unwavering pride is something that the Confederate soldiers fed off of and some may say it was the reason for their strength as weak as they might have seemed. Campbell stated how “when threatened by an invading army they responded both as mothers and warriors.” (Campbell, 59) I conclude that Campbell believed that the hardships and first hand experiencing of the suffering set way for malice and hate being replaced by pride in the Southern women’s hearts. Southern women symbolized strength and perseverance which came to be the backbone of female icons across the nation.
3. Campbell used other historians such as Gallagher and Faust to emulate her beliefs. Faust added another dimension to her argument because she does not agree entirely with him. She also mentions James McPherson’s analysis of the Civil War. Which show’s women in a new sense of being. She used Emma LeConte many times in the essay, quoting such things that Emma would say and the reactions to the events during the burning of Columbia and also the reactions of soldiers as they would enter a home and the women would stand fearless as they destroyed their house.
4. Campbell’s article supplements the main points of identifying a new emerging figure of a Southern civil war women and the impact they had. Out of Many contributed the ideology of a “true womanhood,” which addresses the southern white woman’s opposition to the civil war. In Constructing the American Past the Southern women were depicted as loyal, unlike the elite who were viewed in a negative sense. The non-elite marched and shouted “Bread! Bread! Our children are starving while the rich roll in wealth!” (441) The rich women were un-affected to some extent because they had their husbands at home still because they were able to pay their way off the draft list.
5. Campbell talks of a woman named Emma LeConte who retells her experience of the raids by the pillagers. Once again the elite white women were able to ward off the soldiers to some extent using their attained status and moral attitude. This though did not slow the woman’s spirits as they continued to be determined and steadfast in their views and pride in being a woman. The women put in their time and effort only because they had hidden agendas of their own. Their commitment to the war was what drove the men, but the women used their support to inevitably garner respect and power, so they may not be viewed as “useless.” The woman knew as the end of the war came closer and defeat was inevitable it was appropriate to blame the Yankee soldiers, and their people and government. Sherman’s march was an act of war that was not expected and sneaky. Sherman paid no mind to cultural thresholds or property of any kind. He terrorized and destroyed what he came across. Sherman’s initiative to, “shake up,” the home stand in order to affect the soldiers on the battlefield was a smart task. Future missions would emulate this style of warfare. In World War II and the War in Iraq it is common to see on the news the destruction of civilian homes and property in order to antagonize the enemy. Civilian death and suffering is almost always involved during “total war.”
