The article “Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Centrury North America: Beyond Jeffrey Amherst,” the subject of biological warfare is discussed. To be more specific the article focusses on whether or not small pox was used against the native Americans. Evidence supports the notion that biological warfare was used at Fort Pitt. There is no denying that the small pox virus was responsible for killing a large population of Native Americans, the only question that has any form of contreversy is whether or not the settlers intentionaly infected the Natives. To me, this question is not so important. I personnally believe if the settlers didn’t give the Native soldiers small pox it was only because of lack of execution or imagination. Amherst’s post script provides enough evidence for me. Other instances where the use of biological warfare, i feel, are a little more contreversial.
The Article does well to prove that the use of biological warfare was a reality and was not limited to hostile soldiers or native americans.
Blog Assignment #2 — Breen
1. T. H. Breen discusses the shaping of American ‘consumption, ideology, and community’ of the colonials during the early years up to the revolution. Breen asserts that by examining the mental framework of the American people of time, a better understanding of how and why the colonists were able to come together and separate themselves and America as a ‘commercial empire’ from Great Britain (472).
2. Breen asserts the role of the “new commercial narrative in the early 1760’s” (which involves the British misinterpretation of American wealth) as one colonial explanation for Great Britain’s unprecedented taxes (472). Also, more importantly perhaps, Breen argues that the commercial perspective is a likely origin of new American Ideologies. Breen supports this claim my explaining commonly accepted American ideas. Breen notes that almost all Americans at the time agreed that Great Britain’s success was a result of the colonies it had established (481). He/She notes the American belief that trade should have reciprocity, and he/she examines the vast use of boycotting. Breen suggests that the act of boycotting became virtuous act, and this belief “linked everyday experience and behavior with a broadly shared sense of common good” (495).
3. Breen draws upon numerous newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets as well as a few published historical references to support his claims. Sources like the Boston Gazette Newspaper as well as articles submitted to the Connecticut Journal by writer “X,”
4. This article argues almost completely different origins of American unity and ideology to that of the book. Breen looks at the commercial prospective almost exclusively while the book references more specific historical events such as Valley Forge.
5. I have no problem with was what was in the article, it all related to the commercial perspective. I think that the fact that almost all Americans attributed Great Britain’s wealth to colonial trade was particularly strong evidence. Also I found his/her analysis of the boycotts very interesting. If I had any problem, it was that Breen never pointed out any instances where the emerging ideologies could be misattributed
Blog Assignment #3 — Campbell
1.This essay examines the “dynamic nature of Southern morale, the concept of Female honor, and the women’s relationship to the confederate Nation.
2.The author uses anecdotes, which come mostly from letters and journals, from the experience that many women and soldiers had during the burning of Columbia, South Carolina.
3.The author’s main arguments are that the dynamic nature of southern morale came from the fact that “’Cohesion is a renewable resource’ and that ‘ideological attachments’ can provide ‘sustaining motivation.’ (62-3). She explains that women were not an exception to this trend. The piece of evidence I found most convincing was her listing of the amount of war funds raised the month before and the month after the burning of Columbia took place (which increased in amount more than five times). Campbell also explains how the women of the South were seen as people with strong wills that they repressed for the good of the society. The viewpoint and Campbell’s claim are enforced by the accounts of southern women’s ‘masculine firmness’ when dealing with union soldiers. Campbell’s third major point is that women did not simply lose fervor for the confederacy when times got tough. They responded with the same resilience that the men had. Campbell makes a good argument to support her claim. She uses sound logic that explains why it would make more sense for women to respond with more desire for succession after they experienced atrocities at the hands of the union.
4.The bulk of Campbell’s claims all are all argued well and backed up with hard evidence, however, she did make some assertions in her conclusion that I feel severely lessens the impact of her message. She make the claim that “women were denied a similar sense of closure [that their duty was fulfilled]” that men had, but right after this claim is made, she cites the opinion of a woman who “suspected men felt the same way”(67). Then she ends her conclusion saying that southern white men “used the threat of black on white rape as a powerful tool to control the behavior of white women and to terrorize the black population” (67). I could write a paragraph explains the number of different reasons this statement is wrong and should not be included in the text.
5.Depsite some problems in the conclusion this essay still covers an important topic. This essay is far less useful as a tool to garner sympathy for white women in the south as “victims of northern atrocities and potential victims of black rapists”(67). This essay is important because women are not the good-natured, simple, helpless creatures that they are often portrayed to be, and this article helps to reveal people of this by correcting misconceptions that would increase that stereotyping of women.
There is definitely disagreement between Out of Many and Campbell’s interpretation of how the people responded to the Union armies strategy. Out of Many (mostly through anecdotal evidence from a southern woman) emphasizes the extent to which the Southern citizens showed fear and helplessness. This of course is the opposite of what Campbell has been arguing. After reading both versions, I think that evidence supports Campbell’s arguments, since her essay included more than just the comments of a lady Chestnutt. Campbell does seem to come to an agreement with Out of Many and Constructing the American Past on society’s image of women being the morally superior sex.
5. It is clear that Campbell does not agree with Faust as she argues that southern women’s support for the war only grew after Union military operations like Sherman’s March took place. Campbell incorporates notion of “true womanhood” and “female honor” by referencing circumstances in which white southern women would use these notions to their advantage. Campbell cites instances where women would simply stair at pillaging union soldiers. When they did this it caused the soldiers to feel guilty and in some cases it would make the soldiers stop what they were doing altogether. Women used their image of “female honor” to stand up for themselves. The idea that the “decision to broaden the war so that it directly affected civilians was new in American military history” is ridiculous. The U.S. military used the strategy against Native Americans plenty of times before the civil war. Perhaps that is how/why Grant decided to use the strategy.
