According to Ian K. Steele, Amherst "sought to impose Euro pean definitions of war . . . more fully than had been the case to date." The initiation of Pontiacs Rebellion violated the general's idea of proper warfare. On May 29, 1763, Amherst wrote of the "Treacherous Behavior" of the Indi ans who had just made peace with the British: they were "Contemptible" for "Violating the most Solemn Promises of Friendship, without the Least Provo cation on our Side." In July he complained of their "Temerity" and "Ingrati tude." By August General Amherst wanted to be sure that the natives were "Sufficiently Punished for the Depredations and Barbarities." Only then could peace be considered: "they must first be Brought to such a State as may give us Room to hope they will Remember the Engagements they make with Us."13 A commander-in-chief who detested Indians and their departure from his ideas of war would have little reluctance in suggesting the dissemination of small pox among them. Colonel Henry Bouquet, one of the many foreigners who had joined the British Army's "Royal Americans," did not like colonial Pennsylvanians. In 1756 he was attacked in Philadelphia by a colonist with a whip. Afterward, Bouquet remarked: Everything most abominable that nature has produced, and everything most detestable that corruption can add to it, such are the honest inhabitants of this province. A weak government puts the capstone on their insolence, and if order is not established there, the authority of the King and of his Parlia ment will soon be no longer recognized.14 Bouquet shared with Amherst a distaste for the Indians' violation of trea ties. While at a peace conference in 1764, Bouquet lectured the attending Shawnees and Delawares: You have dared to attack Fort Pitt, to the building of which you expressly consented, when in presence of George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, I made the first Treaty with you upon the Ohio, after we had dispos sessed the French of Fort Duquesne, and several of you now present, assisted at that Treaty.1 ^ Indeed, such sentiments must have been common among British officers. Pontiacs Rebellion caused a deep, bitter, resentment against the Indians. Gen eral Thomas Gage, for example, railed about the "Rascals of the Ohio" re sponsible for "all this Mischief." "No Peace should be made with them," Gage insisted, "till every Measure is tried to destroy them." He would leave the "Suggestions" to those more knowledgeable. Not surprisingly, Gage would give the final approval lor payment to William Trent to replace the soiled blankets given away at Fort Pitt.16 This content downloaded from meon Wed, 27 May 2015 15:33:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The British, the Indians, and Smallpox 431 Bouquet, however, differed from Gage in one important matter. Gage was not concerned about the effects of smallpox. Bouquet was very concerned about the pox?he had never had it. And judging from the Royal Americans' doctor, Bouquet "might be apprehensive of catching the infection from me, who is so often among the Soldiers in that disease." The physician, therefore, "on purpose avoided" Bouquet. Both men were in Philadelphia during 1756 when smallpox was raging. Overall, the colonel seems to have been very health conscious. He avoided alcohol and made sure to get plenty of exercise, which pleased the doctor. Ironically, Bouquet died of yellow fever a mere nine days after he was promoted to the military command of Pensacola, Florida, in 1765.17 Bouquet's response to Amherst's smallpox suggestion seems willing enough, but Bouquet added that he did not want to get the disease himself, and if he spread the virulent virus among the Indians, there was a good chance that he might catch it too. Smallpox would likely spring back upon its disseminator, as Crosby observes. This basic reality explains why, when Bouquet wrote to Fort Pitt's commander, he said nothing about passing on smallpox to the Indi ans, as Knollenberg pointed out. Nor did Bouquet do anything about spread ing the disease afterward. Bouquet's response to Amherst seems to have been merely a way to deflect a bizarre idea of his superior officer. As the colonel commented in July 1763, sometimes it was better "to hide what one thinks."18 In practice, Bouquet ignored Amherst's suggestion, not out of humanitarian feelings towards the Indians, but for his own personal safety. Neither Amherst nor Bouquet actually tried germ warfare. The attempt to disseminate small pox took place at Fort Pitt independent of both of them. Smallpox and the Indians were a dangerous and unhappy combination. In 1773 George Croghan, who handled Indian affairs at Fort Pitt, commented that "the Small pox itts very fatal to them and allways will be, Till they become Civilised, as Till then they Cant be brought to keep themselves Warm, and adopt Such meshurs as is Necessary in that Disorder." Croghan's observation is a criticism of how Indians dealt with fevers and diseases such as smallpox? hoping that a dousing with very cold water would cure them. This technique was ineffective against smallpox. For that matter, everything the British tried failed too until the development of inoculation, which involved giving a pa tient a weak case of smallpox so that the full power of the disease would be avoided. However, even inoculation sometimes proved fatal and it remained controversial among the colonists. A few years after the Fort Pitt episode, rioting against inoculation rocked Norfolk, Virginia; that colony soon severely limited the procedure. During the French and Indian War, smallpox attacked both the Delaware Indians and the colonists of Pennsylvania.19 During 1761-1763, although the war in the area was over, relations be tween the two groups deteriorated. James Kenny, a Quaker Indian trader, arrived at Pittsburgh, the settlement established next to Fort Pitt, in 1761. If This content downloaded from meon Wed, 27 May 2015 15:33:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 432 Pennsylvania History Pittsburgh "continues to Increase," Kenny predicted, "it must soon be very large, which seems likely to me." Kenny soon learned of discontent among the local Indians, one of whom wondered aloud why the British continued to improve Fort Pitt despite their overwhelming victory against the French. Kenny himself mentioned in November 1761 that the fort seemed "much Stronger than it was in times of more danger." And, in 1762, he learned that another trader, William Trent, had made a mistake by letting the natives have goods on credit. They failed to pay the debts and Trent cut off the credit, leading to "dissatisfaction in both sides."20 Kenny, still quite new in Pittsburgh, listened to what the "Old Traders" had to say?and it was not encouraging. The old-timers forecast another war with the Indians, which the natives did not try to deny. The important Dela ware White Eyes admitted to Kenny that there was war talk among them. Another Delaware bluntly predicted to some colonists "a War against us Next Spring," but everyone dismissed his statement because "we know him to be a Roague and Horse thief."21 As a devout Quaker, Kenny was disturbed by those reports. He was also concerned about "the Imposter which is raised amongst the Delawares, in order to shew them the right way to Heaven." A prophet had convinced the Delawares to follow his "new Plan of Religion": reject the goods of the whites, wear only animal skins, and live "as their forefathers did." The prophet spoke of a "Bitter Water," which Kenny interpreted as a "Physick to purge out all that they get of the White peoples ways and Nature." The Delawares danced and prayed "to a little God who carries the petitions and presents them to the Great Being." Reportedly, the prophet told the Delawares "he had a Vission of Heaven where there was no White people but all Indians, and wants a total Seperation from us, and for that purpose advises the Indians to Impose upon the Traders,"22 hardly welcome news to an Indian trader such as Kenny. When the details of the treaty ending the French and Indian War reached Fort Pitt, the natives were shocked. Ever since the start of European settle ment, the Indians had been able to play the English and French off against each other, but the new treaty all but removed France from the continent, to the Indians' dismay. As Croghan explained in April 1763, the Indians around Fort Pitt "always expected Canada would be given back to the French on a Peace. They say the French had no Right to give up their Country to the English." Kenny recorded the Delaware chief Newcomer's reaction to the peace treaty?he was "Struck dumb for a considerable time." Newcomer eventually declared that "the English was grown too powerful and seemed as if they would be too strong for God himself," showing how drastically the Delawares thought the geo-political situation had shifted against them.23 During this pivotal period, in April 1763, Croghan decided to journey to eastern Pennsylvania. Croghan, who opposed the sale of rum to the Indians as This content downloaded from meon Wed, 27 May 2015 15:33:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The British, the Indians, and Smallpox 433 well as giving them credit, was nonetheless popular among them. Kenny noted in his journal one Indian's remark that Croghan "was the Only Man amongst us they regarded and only for him it might be War again, and that none of us knew how to please Indians but him." Affairs at Fort Pitt rapidly worsened after Croghan's departure on April 25.24 May 27 turned out to be an important day.