The British, the Indians, and Smallpox:

What Actually Happened at Fort Pitt in 1763?

Philip Ranlet
Hunter College

An entrenched part of the multicultural canon can be summed up by

quoting from a book intended for undergraduate college students: "In the
1760s the British at Fort Pitt gave blankets from the smallpox hospital to
Delaware Indians as a form of germ warfare."' The story has been repeated
time and again and has now become dogma, or so it seems. This essay will re-
examine this familiar tale and what historians have alleged about it to deter-
mine what is credible about the incident at Fort Pitt.
Despite the persistence of the story, not every scholar is in agreement. In
1983, for example, Donald R. Hopkins called an exchange of letters between
British General Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet suggesting that
Indians be infected with smallpox via contaminated blankets "the most noto-
rious instance of smallpox being deliberately recommended as a weapon against
North American Indians." But Hopkins was compelled to observe: "The re-
sult of this conspiracy is unknown." 2
Still more pertinent is the skepticism expressed by Alfred W Crosby, whose
book, The Columbian Exchange, made disease a subject all historians of early
America had to take very seriously. In his Ecological Imperialism Crosby de-
voted an appendix to smallpox and, in a note, discussed what he called "the old
legend of intentional European bacteriological warfare." Asserting that the

colonists certainly would have liked to wage such a war and did talk about
giving infected blankets and such to the indigenes, and they may even have
done so a few times, but by and large the legend is just that, a legend. Before
the development of modern bacteriology at the end of the 19 'hcentury, dis-
eases did not come in ampoules, and there were no refrigerators in which to
store the ampoules.... As for infected blankets, they might or might not
work. Furthermore, and most important, the intentionally transmitted dis-
ease might swing back on the white population.... These people were
dedicated to quarantining smallpox, not to spreading it. 3

The account ofthe British infecting Indians with smallpox during Pontiac's
Rebellion of 1763 originated with Francis Parkman, whose hired research as-
sistant found the Amherst-Bouquet correspondence in London. Parkman, who
called the whole thing "detestable," printed the relevant sections. Amherst
asked Bouquet "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox [sic] among
those disaffected tribes of Indians?" "I will try to inoculate" the Indians, Bou-
quet responded, "with some blankets that may fall in their hands, and take
428 Pennsylvania History

care not to get the disease myself" A pleased Amherst wrote back to Bouquet:
"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well
as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."
Parkman then suggested that in 1763 smallpox at Fort Pitt did spread to the
Indians. 4
Most later versions of the fighting at Fort Pitt quoted at least part of those
letters from Parkman. His condemnation of the exchange, which he first
brought to public attention, has not saved Parkman from being vilified as a
racist-often by those who have made the most of the Fort Pitt incident.5
In 1924 the Mississippi Valley HistoricalReview published a journal writ-
ten by William Trent, an Indian trader at Fort Pitt, which included a damning
entry. For June 24, 1763, Trent wrote about a meeting with two Delaware
Indians at the fort. "Out of our regard to them," a pleased Trent penned, "we
gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital.
I hope it will have the desired effect."6
Twenty-three years later, Howard H. Peckham wrote the first major ex-
amination of Pontiac's Rebellion since Parkman. In this well-received book,
Peckham described the giving to the Indians of items used by people with
smallpox. He related that smallpox had been passed to the natives by these
unpleasant gifts and cited the above quotation from Trent's journal. However,
nowhere else in the book did Peckham cite the journal. Apparently, he paid
little attention to the rest of it and nowhere mentions Trent himself. Peckham's
interest was focused on Pontiac and the siege of Detroit by hostile Indians;
Fort Pitt was of secondary importance to Peckham.
One historian, Bernhard Knollenberg, was not impressed by Peckham's
analysis of the Fort Pitt incident, which was "substantially the same as
Parkman's." Knollenberg, in an article in the Mississippi Valley HistoricalRe-
view, went over all the documentation related to smallpox at Fort Pitt and
came to a quite different conclusion than Peckham or Parkman. "It is true,"
Knollenberg announced, "that some British officers may be charged with what
Parkman called a 'detestable' intent, but execution of the intent is not sup-
ported even by circumstantial evidence." 8
On January 21, 1955, Knollenberg was still pleased with his article and
had received some fan mail about it. When he opened a letter from Donald
H. Kent, then editing Bouquet's papers, he must have been expecting more of
the same. Instead, Kent informed the author that "there is direct evidence that
an attempt was actually made to infect the Indians with smallpox" and "that it
was an official action." The proof, found among the records of Trent's trading
firm, read: "To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from
people in the Hospital to Convey the Small-pox to the Indians Vizt. 2 Blan-
kets 1 Silk Handkerchief and 1 linnen." The expense was approved by Cap-
tain Simeon Ecuyer, Fort Pitt's commander, and other British officers. Acting
 The British, the Indians, and Smallpox 429

as a true scholar, Knollenberg immediately sent the evidence to the periodical

which printed it along with his admission: "obviously this evidence invali-
dates part of my article." 9 From that point on, there seemed no doubt that the
British at Fort Pitt had infected Indians with smallpox.
The multicultural revisionism of the 1980s and 1990s seemed to rein-
vigorate the old story. No one did more during those decades to spread and
extend it than Francis Jennings. In his Empire ofFortune, published in 1988,
he hinted that the British-unleashed smallpox caused "possibly more deaths"
than the fighting; the various outbreaks of smallpox that hit the natives during
the fighting of the 1750s might have been more British germ warfare. His
"suspicion" was supported by no evidence except the Fort Pitt episode of 1763.
In that case he has Ecuyer actually calling the hostile Indians into besieged
Fort Pitt "for parley" and then giving them the infamous blankets. Jennings
quotes Trent and then adds "An epidemic raged among the Delawares, after
which some familiar chiefs appear no more in any account: Great Chief Shingas,
for example, and his brother Pisquetomen." Bouquet's victory at Bushy Run
did not save Fort Pitt, Jennings believed. Rather, it was the rampaging small-
pox that saved the British. Although Jennings quoted Trent's comment printed
above, he did not examine the published journal. Jennings's note gives
Knollenberg's article as the source of the quotation.10
In 1993 Jennings continued his assault upon real and imagined enemies
of the Indians in The FoundersofAmerica and the Fort Pitt incident pops up
again. The British garrison "rescued itself by infecting its besiegers with small-
pox," he explains, and the British thereby spread "a terrible epidemic among
the Delawares." The whole affair, the author declares, is "All thoroughly docu-
mented," but not in The FoundersofAmerica. The relevant note refers curious
readers to Empire ofFortune."
Jennings returned again to the Fort Pitt episode in his Benjamin Franklin,
published in 1996. In this work, Jennings insists: "IfIndian raiders who wiped
out whole families deserved to be called savages, what should Amherst, Ecuyer,
and Trent be called? In terms of pragmatism, their method 'worked': the siege
was lifted." Trent is quoted here too, but the readers are, again, referred to
Empire ofFortunerather than to the journal itself.'2
The now-familiar account of the infected blankets at Fort Pitt needs revi-
sion. Logic, a better understanding of smallpox itself, and another look at the
evidence call into question much of the standard rendition of the story and
the ways that historians for more than a century have misrepresented the evi-
dence. Perhaps the best place to begin is with Amherst and Bouquet where,
after all, Parkman started. What were these soldiers really like?
Amherst, who commanded the British army in North America, had grown
to hate Indians because of the killing of British soldiers who had surrendered
at Fort William Henry in 1757, the inspiration of the famed novel The Last of
430 Pennsylvania History

the Mohicans. 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 Pontiac's 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 Armys "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."4

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.'5

Indeed, such sentiments must have been common among British officers.
Pontiac's 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 for payment to William Trent to replace the soiled
blankets given away at Fort Pitt."6
 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 inJuly 1763, sometimes it was better "to hide what one thinks.""
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.1 9
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
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 aVission 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 chiefNewcomer'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
 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. Kenny traded with some
Delawares, noting "they were in an unusual hurry, bought a Good deal of
Powder and Lead and wanted more Powder but we had it not well to Spair."
The Quaker noticed that his customers seemed to be "in fear and haste." That
same day, Trent learned that the area's Indians had abandoned their cornfields,
not a good sign for peace. 25
While Kenny busily traded gunpowder that day, Alexander McKee,
Croghan's assistant, talked with the Delaware Turtle's Heart. The Indian asked
McKee "when he tho't to go down in the Country" and was told "in Ten
Days." Then, Turtle's Heart warned McKee: "the Indian desired he would go
that Day or in four Days at furthest or else he should not expect to see him
alive more and Signified as if the Indians was just ready to Strike us." Mean-
while, McKee's father, Thomas McKee, had been delegated by Sir William
Johnson, the man responsible for Indian relations in the northern colonies, to
investigate what was happening in Pennsylvania's Wyoming valley. After the
death of the Delaware Teedyuscung and other Indians in Wyoming under
very suspicious circumstances, squatters from New England moved onto In-
dian land, a disturbing matter to both the Iroquois and the Delaware. So,
while war was dearly coming at Fort Pitt, McKee's father, who had left for
Philadelphia, was hoping to help the Indians. The senior McKee eventually
canceled his Wyoming trip because of Pontiac's Rebellion. 26
Turtle's Heart's warning made it plain to Ecuyer, a bit late, that the time
had come to prepare Fort Pitt for battle. His men hurriedly did so on May 28.
The next day the beleaguered base learned that some Delawares had killed
settlers. War was at hand. The Pittsburgers entered the isolated fort. 2 7
Soon after, Trent recorded in his journal news brought by an Indian trader.
This refugee, then safely at Fort Pitt, explained that he had met with promi-
nent Delawares who, because of "the Friendship that formerly subsisted be-
tween [our] Grandfathers and the English, which has been lately renewed by
us," told him about the outbreak of Pontiac's Rebellion to the westward. 28
The blanket affair happened on June 24. The night before "Two Dela-
wares called for Mr. McKee and told him they wanted to speak to him in the
Morning." The conference did take place on June 24 just outside of Fort Pitt.
The participants were Ecuyer, McKee, Turtle's Heart, and another Delaware,
"Mamaltee a Chief." The Indians tried to coax the people holed up in the fort
to leave, an option that Ecuyer promptly rejected and stated that reinforce-
ments were coming to Fort Pitt-the stronghold could easily hold out. After
434 Pennsylvania History

conferring with their chiefs, the two Indians "returned and said they would
hold fast of the Chain of friendship" but they were obviously not very believ-
able. The Indian messengers had asked for presents-food and alcohol-"to
carry us Home." Requesting gifts was common, but Ecuyer in this case seemed
especially generous. Turtle's Heart and his companion received food in "large
quantities"-some "600 Rations." Included among this largess was a bundle
containing the soiled handkerchief and blankets, as already related, and Trent
wrote in his journal of his desire that smallpox would infect the Delawares. 29
Could smallpox be transmitted in such a fashion? The answer is yes. Dur-
ing the course of the disease, a smallpox victim discharged bodily fluids loaded
with the infectious virus upon his bed linen, which absorbed it. People who
cleaned such things could be in danger from them. However, the smallpox
virus dies quickly, even in the scabs on the ill person's body, so the newer the
presence of smallpox on blankets and other goods, the greater the chance of
spreading the contagion. A scientific experiment determined that infected cloth-
ing, stored in "a wooden box" could survive "as long as 66 days." The Fort Pitt
items, though, do not appear to have been stored like that. The soiled material
given to the Indians was not in a box but, apparently, had been wrapped up in
a dean sheet of linen. Most likely, the items in question had been exposed to
the air for some time. The above-mentioned experiment concluded that "when
clothing was spread out on a bed and exposed to indirect light," the smallpox
virus on the clothing was dead "after 7 days."30
The key questions relating to the Fort Pitt episode are how fresh was the
virus on the infected cloth and how were the items stored. No evidence exists
to answer such questions, yet plenty ofevidence suggests that either the small-
pox virus was already dead on the unpleasant gifts or that the presents simply
failed to fulfill Trent's ardent desire to infect the Indians.
On July 22, about a month after the deceptive gift, Trent wrote in his
journal: "Gray Eyes, Wingenum, Turtle's Heart and Mamaultee, came over
the River told us their Chiefs were in Council, that they waited for Custaluga
who they expected that Day."' This entry, which is ignored over and over
again in historical accounts, shows both recipients of the soiled material alive
and well-smallpox should have hit them by that time.
Trent does not mention smallpox when Turtle's Heart and his colleague
reappear, nor does Trent ever mention smallpox again in his entire journal,
although he surely must have sought information about the outcome of his
scheme. On September 5 he talked to an Indian who had conversed with
some hostile Shawnees. Trent learned that "the Delawares had all left their
Towns," but, again, smallpox is not mentioned. Given the scope of the small-
pox epidemic that Jennings reports, the disease should have been a major
topic of conversation among Indians and the Delawares, if burdened by hordes
of smallpox victims, should have had a tough time leaving the area. Yet Trent
 The British, the Indians, and Smallpox 435

remained silent on the subject. 32 If Fort Pitt had been saved by the blanket
stratagem, Trent would have done some gloating. Only one conclusion can be
drawn-the plan flopped.
The only possible evidence of any effect by the soiled blankets is an entry
ofJuly 20 where Trent mentions that the Indians were using trickery "to make
us believe their numbers much greater than what they are." The Indians were
shorthanded at Fort Pitt, but not because of the dubious gifts. Rather, a short-
age of warriors is not surprising at the conclusion of the French and Indian
War; a major war causes substantial losses. Other diseases took their toll as
well. A measles epidemic in 1759 that came to Pittsburgh with some South-
ern soldiers surely spread to the Indians. Dysentery was present in 1761. A
serious epidemic ofwhat Kenny called "ague"-perhaps flu-hit the Shawnees
especially hard the following year.33 Smallpox too had reduced the fighting
strength of the Indians, but not in the way Jennings and the others believed.
Parkman mentioned the testimony of a captive of the Indians, Gershom
Hicks, and then related that smallpox hit the Indians from Fort Pitt. Although
Peckham did look at Hicks's statements, he simply repeated Parkman's asser-
tion, but Knollenberg, in an unrefuted section of his article, explained that
Hicks reported that smallpox had first surfaced among the natives in "the
spring of 1763," not later. Smallpox had been present among the Indians well
before the Fort Pitt incident took place. Hicks, an excellent witness as he was
fluent in the Delaware tongue and even knew some Shawnee, also shed light
on the Indians' smallpox losses. For the year from the spring of 1763 to April
1764, "30 or 40 Mingoes, as many Delawares and some Shawneese Died all of
the Smallpox." Therefore, about 100 Indians died in a year among three dif-
ferent tribes. Given smallpox's usual cataclysmic effects, this outbreak was com-
paratively minor. 34
Where did the smallpox in Fort Pitt come from? To quote Parkman's flowery
rhetoric: "Fort Pitt stood far aloof in the forest, and one might journey east-
ward full two hundred miles, before the English settlements began to thicken."
Fort Pitt was isolated, except, of course, from Pittsburgh. The likeliest carriers
were the residents of Pittsburgh who were evacuated into the fort on May 30.
Smallpox appeared in the fort soon after. The question then becomes, where
did the Pittsburghers get it? As smallpox had already been among the Indians,
it islikely that some infected Indians spread the disease to Pittsburghers. While
unusual, smallpox could, naturally enough, be transmitted from Indian to
colonist. In 1759, smallpox caught by colonists from Indians at a peace con-
ference ravaged Charleston, South Carolina, and surrounding places. 35
Since, as appears likely, the smallpox at Fort Pitt originated with the Indi-
ans, the blanket gambit had to have been a complete failure. Trying to infect
Indians with smallpox that came from them in the first place was doomed to
fail, because the Indians vulnerable to the disease had just been exposed to it.
436 Pennsylvania History

The recent outbreak in the spring of 1763, as well as the earlier epidemic in
the 1750s, should have made most of the local Indians immune to smallpox
because they had had it before. Hick's testimony about Indian smallpox losses
in 1763-1764 demonstrates that most of the local Indians already had immu-
nity to the pox.
Moreover, no one can be certain that the soiled handkerchief and blan-
kets actually reached their destination. One can imagine Turtle's Heart open-
ing the bundle after departing from the besieged fort. In Indian society, even
a used shirt was an acceptable gift-after a washing.3 6 It would have been
readily apparent by the odor that these items had not been washed. Perhaps
the two Indians perceived the unwashed state of these presents as an insult
and immediately dumped the bundle. As the virus had probably been ab-
sorbed into the cloth some time before, the material was no longer very infec-
tious. Dumping the offensive gift would have defeated the scheme.
But who at Fort Pitt had dreamed up this eighteenth century version of
germ warfare? Could the responsible person have been either Captain Ecuyer
or Alexander McKee, the two individuals who had talked with the Indians?
Simeon Ecuyer had been a captain only since April 27, 1762, barely more
than a year when the incident occurred; he took over the fort's command in
November 1762. The first paperwork he submitted was so inaccurate that
Bouquet, in New York, had to redo it himself At Fort Pitt Ecuyer seems to
have been mostly interested in the Saturday dances and how to get the local
women drunk. (Punch was usually successful although whiskey was needed
for the most difficult cases.) Furthermore, Ecuyer seems to have had little
experience in fighting Indians. He fired cannons at them from the fort, which
brought criticism from Amherst. Cannon fire worked well against European
troops, who fought in massed formations, but was usually ineffective against
Indians, who ordinarily dispersed over a wide area. Instead, Amherst believed,
the Indians should be allowed to get dose to the fort and then killed by
grapeshot, a potent antipersonnel weapon, or picked off by gunfire.3 7 Ecuyer
does not seem to have been imaginative enough to try passing on a disease.
Nor is McKee a good suspect. As Croghan's assistant, it seems improbable
that he would knowingly participate in something that Croghan would never
have agreed to if he had been at Fort Pitt. This statement seems especially apt
for the reason that Turtle's Heart's earlier warning-without a doubt-had
saved McKee's life. Because the soiled items inside a linen sheet (which Trent
may have been compensated for) constituted only one bundle, McKee prob-
ably never knew what was secreted amongst the many presents handed over to
Turtle's Heart. Bundling the soiled gifts inside a sheet served to conceal what
was going on from those not involved in the scheme; it also was probably
intended to make sure that moving those items out from the hospital would
not spread disease among Fort Pitt's garrison. What little evidence exists sug-
gests that only Ecuyer and William Trent knew what was being done.
 The British, the Indians, and Smallpox 437

Trent isthe most logical suspect for the mastermind behind the smallpox
stratagem. Captain William Trent was a militia officer whose military skills
were not highly regarded, although Ecuyer, obviously inexperienced, leaned
heavily on Trent, who had spent much time on the frontier. He had been a
business partner of Croghan's and had helped him with Indian relations in the
past. Trent had even helped Ecuyer set up the smallpox hospital in the fort
after the outbreak of the disease there. In 1757 Trent had seen firsthand
smallpox's effect upon Indians when, at peace talks, some of them died from
38
it.

Indians fighting in the French and Indian War had infuriated Trent. In
1755 an anguished Trent had written about one Indian raid: "one whole fam-
ily was burnt to Death in an House. The Indians destroy all before them;
firing Houses, Barns, Stackyards and every thing that will burn.... they have
killed more, and keep on killing, the woods is alive with them." By 1758
Cherokees refused to enter Pennsylvania because they believed that Trent had
been responsible for an attack on their forces. To worsen his attitude, the war
had greatly hurt his trade and his finances; in 1761 some Indians had tried to
steal ten horses from him. 3 9
Then came Pontiac's Rebellion. Trent's business was not aided by the re-
sumption of fighting. In addition, in his journal Trent recorded that the Indi-
ans were now at war again despite having made peace. This factor infuriated
army officers and Trent probably reacted in the same way. And, in his journal,
he wrote that "we" had given infected items to the Indians. Trent seems to
have been seeking revenge over many things. 40
The failed attempt at germ warfare did not raise the siege of Fort Pitt.
Rather, it was Bouquet's success in August 1763 at what has been dubbed the
battle of Bushy Run that did so. Over 25 miles from the fort, Bouquet's relief
force was ambushed. Fighting spread over two days, with heavy casualties on
both sides. Bouquet won by withholding some of his soldiers from the battle
and then throwing them at the surprised Indians. 41 The natives' tough fight-
ing suggests that they were not then weakened by smallpox emanating from
Fort Pitt.
What about Jennings's claim that two prominent Indians, Shingas and
Pisquetomen, disappeared from the record because they died from Fort Pitt's
germ warfare? Shingas, in fact, does appear after the gift of soiled cloth. On
July 26, 1763, well after that affair, Trent wrote: "The Indians came over
Shingess, Wingenum, Grey Eyes ... with several other Warriors....." Shingas
had been "very Sick" much earlier, in June 1762, according to Kenny, and one
authority states that Shingas "died during the winter of 1763-1764," well af-
ter smallpox should have killed him. 42
As for Pisquetomen, he had had a long career dealing with the colonists.
Pisquetomen does not appear in Trent's journal after the evil gift, but he is not
438 Pennsylvania History

mentioned in it before the incident either. Kenny described Pisquetomen as

an "old man" in 1759. Perhaps he died before the siege at Fort Pitt. Besides, as
he was elderly (as was Shingas), he may have already had smallpox years be-
fore.43
Furthermore, a list can easily be made of Indians who survived well past
the toll that successful germ warfare would have taken. King Beaver, described
by Kenny as "middle aged" in 1759, lived until 1769. Newcomer survived
until 1776. Another Indian mentioned by Kenny, Killbuck, died in 1811.
Grey Eyes was still breathing in 1773 and White Eyes made it to 1778. Turtle's
Heart, who received the bundle of blankets, played a prominent role in the
conference in 1764 (where he was called "young") that brought peace to the
area. His comrade, Mamaltee, does disappear after his reemergence in July
1763, but, as the Delawares suffered heavily at Bushy Run, Mamaltee prob-
ably died there. Ironically, most of these Indians outlived Henry Bouquet.
Posted to Florida, in 1765 he caught yellow fever, another disease he had
never had, which killed him.4
If the spreading of smallpox was, as Jennings and others insist, so success-
ful, why did Amherst keep on raving against the Indians? On November 5,
1763 the general complained that "the whole race of Indians who have so
unjustly commenced, and are still carrying on Hostilities against Us" should
be "effectually reduced, and severely punished." 45 If smallpox had "reduced"
the Indians, as Amherst had wished, he should have been pleased and have
had no need to call for still more punishment.
Teedyuscung, at a peace conference in 1757, gave a speech meant for the
British monarch which was heard by William Trent:

Now as much blood isspilt I desire you will join with me to clear this way..
. . We, on our Parts, gather up the Leaves that have been sprinkled with
Blood; we gather up the Blood, the Bodies, and Bones; but when we look
round we see no place where to put them; but when we look up we see the
Great Spirit above. It isour Duty, therefore, to join in Prayer, that he would
hide these things, that they may never be seen by our Posterity, and that the
Great Spirit would bless our Children, that they may hereafter Live in Love
together; that it may never be in the Power of the evil spirit, or any evil-
minded Persons, to cause any breach between [our] Posterity. 6

Despite Teedyuscung's wishes, evil must be exposed, not covered up. De-
liberately trying to spread disease is despicable in whatever century it might
take place, but the smallpox incident has been blown out of all proportion,
given that it was likely a total failure. Jenning's suggestion that smallpox was
also planted during the French and Indian War is unwarranted. Smallpox,
widespread in that war, attacked everyone-Indians, colonists, and members
of the British army-and this major outbreak of the 1750s and 1760s prob-
 The British, the Indians, and Smallpox 439

ably originated in French Canada in 1755.47 The time is long overdue for
what happened at Fort Pitt in 1763 to be discussed rationally and on the basis
of evidence rather than unsupported and repetitious assumptions.

Notes
1. Colin G. Calloway, The World Turned Up- HistoricalReview, 11 (1924), 400 (cited here-
side Down: Indian Voices from Early America after as "Trent's Journal").
(NewYork, 1994), 4. Elizabeth A. Fenn, "Bio- 7. Peckham, Pontiac, 170, 170 note 11. Trent
logical Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North is not mentioned in the book's index.
America: Beyond Jefflery Amherst," Journal 8. Bernhard Knollenberg, "General Amherst
ofAmerican History, 86 (March 2000), 1552- and Germ Warfare," Mississippi Valley Histori-
1580, is a useful compilation of the literature cal Review, 41 (1954-1955), 489-494.
on smallpox. However, her suggestion that 9. Donald H. Kent to Knollenberg, Jan. 19,
germ warfare involving smallpox during the 1955, and Knollenberg to Managing Editor,
1700s may have been common is sheer con- Jan.21, 1955, "Communications," ibid., 762-
jecture. Certainly, her discussion of smallpox 763.
in Virginia is inadequate. See my article in the 10. Francis Jennings, Empire of Fortune:
Journal of Negro History, 84 (Summer 1999) Crowns, Colonies, and Tribes in the Seven Years
"The British, Slaves, and Smallpox in Revolu- War in America (New York, 1988), 200-201,
tionary Virginia," 217-226. 447-448, 447 note 26.
2. Donald R. Hopkins, Princes and Peasants: 11. Jennings, The Founders ofAmerica: How
Smallpox in History (Chicago, 1983), 246. Indians Discovered the Land, Pioneered in It,
3. Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological Imperialism: andCreated GreatClassicalCivilizations;How
The BiologicalExpansion ofEurope, 900-1900 They Were Plungedinto a Dark Age by Invasion
(New York, 1986), 345 note 38. Another in- and Conquest; and How They Are Reviving
cident involving smallpox and infected cloth (New York, 1993), 298-299, 425n.
in Spanish California during 1763 appears to 12. Jennings, Benjamin Franklin: Politician
have been accidental. E. Wagner Steam and (New York, 1996), 161, 201, 219 note 18.
Allen E. Stearn, The Effect ofSmallpox on the Apparently without intentional irony, various
Destiny oftheAmerindian (Boston, 1945), 44- anonymous critics ofJennings's work are said
45. in Franklin to possess both "ignorance and
4. Francis Parkman, The ConspiracyofPontiac bias." Ibid., 204.
and the Indian War after the Conquest of 13. Jeffrey Amherst to Sir William Johnson,
Canada,6h' ed. (1870; reprint, Boston, 1933), May 29, July 7, July 28, Aug. 20, 1763, in
II, 44-45; Howard H. Peckham, Pontiacand James Sullivan et al, eds., The Papers of Sir
the Indian Uprising, 2d ed. (1947; New York, William Johnson (Albany, N.Y., 1921-1965),
1961), 227n. IV, 193, X, 689, 733, 761 (cited hereafter as
5. Francis Jennings, "Francis Parkman: A Brah- Johnson Papers); Ian K. Steele, Betrayals: Fort
min among Untouchables," William andMary William Henry and the 'Massacre"(New York,
Quarterly 3d ser., 42 (1985), 305-328. See also 1990), 145-147.
other works by Jennings cited below. 14. Henry Bouquet to [Lt. Col. John Young],
6. Albert T. Volwiler, ed., "William Trent's Dec. 15,1756, S. K. Stevens, Donald H. Kent
Journal at Fort Pitt, 1763," Mississippi Valley et al, eds., The Papersof Henry Bouquet (Har-
440 Pennsylvania History

risburg, Pa., 195 1-1984), I, 37 (cited hereaf- 23. Ibid., 187; George Croghan to Johnson,
ter as Bouquet Papers). April 24, 1763, Johnson Papers, X, 659-660.
15. Colonial Records ofPennsylvania: Minutes 24. Kenny, "Journal 1761-1763," 186;
ofthe ProvincialCouncilofPennsylvania(1852- Croghan to William Trent and Alexander
1853; reprint, NewYork, 1968), IX, 218 (cited Lowery, Feb. 5, 1761, Bouquet Papers,V, 282;
hereafter as PR). Ecuyer to Bouquet, April 23, 1763, Col. Bou-
16. Thomas Gage to Johnson, Aug. 12, 1763, quet, Series 21649, Part 1, 107; Nicholas B.
Johnson Papers, X, 788; Kent to Kollenberg, Wainwright, George Croghan:Wilerness Dip-
Jan. 19, 1955, "Communications," 763. lomat (Chapel Hill, 1959), 178, 197-198;
17. Dr. James Stevenson to Bouquet, Dec. 13, Albert T. Volwiler, George Croghan and the
1756, Bouquet Papers, I, 34-35; Stevenson to Westward Movement, 1741-1782 (Cleveland,
Bouquet, Dec. 7, 1762, Sylvester K. Stevens, 1926), 164.
Donald H. Kent, and Leo J. Roland, eds., The 25. Kenny, 'Journal 1761-1763," 197-198;
PapersofCol. Henry Bouquet (Harrisburg, Pa., "Trent's Journal," 393.
1940-1943), Series 21648, Part 2, 174 (this 26. Kenny, 'Journal 1761-1763," 197-198;
WPA project will hereafter be cited as Col. Lords of Trade to George III, Jan. 14, 1763,
Bouquet). Johnson Papers, IV, 18; Thomas McKee to
18. Bouquet to Simeon Ecuyer, July 4, 1763, Johnson, June 2, 1763],June 28, 1763, ibid.,
Col Bouquet, Series 21653,197; Knollenberg, 132, X, 720; Paul A. W. Wallace, Indians in
"General Amherst," 493. Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Pa., 1961), 156-
19. Alexander White to George Croghan, Aug. 157, 179-180.
30, 1773, in Nicholas B. Wainwright, ed., 27. Kenny, "Journal 1761-173," 198; "Trent's
"The Opinions of George Croghan on the Journal," 394.
American Indian," PennsylvaniaMagazine of 28. "Trent's Journal," 395.
History and Biography, 71 (1947), 153 (cited 29. Ibid., 400; Bouquet to Ecuyer, July 4,
hereafter as PMHB); 'Queries proposed by 1763, Col. Bouquet, Series 21653, 197;
Doctor Robertson," Ibid., 155, 159; Stearn Alexander McKee to Croghan, June 24, 1763,
and Stearn, Smallpox, 39-40; John Duffy, ibid., Series 21655, 210. Trent dearly wrote
"Smallpox and the Indians in the American that one handkerchief was presented to the
Colonies," Bulletin ofthe History ofMedicine, Indians. If a linen handkerchiefwas also given,
25 (1951), 336; Patrick Henderson, "Small- as has been suggested, the evil gifts would still
pox and Patriotism: The Norfolk Riots, 1768- have been wrapped up in a bundle. A piece of
1769," VirginiaMagazineofHistory andBiog- hospital linen would have been the logical
raphy, 73 (1965),413; Frank L. Dewey, "Tho- wrapping material. Fenn, "Biological Warfare,"
mas Jefferson's Law Practice: The NorfolkAnti- 1554, note 5.
Inoculation Riots," Virginia Magazine ofHis- 30. Abram S. Benenson, "Smallpox," in Alfred
tory andBiography, 91 (1983), 52. For the In- S. Evans, ed., ViralInfections ofHumans: Epi-
dians' use of hot houses followed by cold wa- demiology and Control, 2d ed., (New York,
ter, remarkably similar to the Scandinavian 1984), 553; Hopkins, Princes, 3; Crosby, Eco-
sauna, see Paul Dudley, "An Account of an logicalImperialism,309; Kent to Knollenberg,
extraordinary Cure by Sweating in Hot Turff, Jan. 19,1955, "Communications," 763. Burn-
with a Description ofthe Indian Hot-Houses," ing the clothing of those who took care of
Royal Society of London, PhilosophicalTrans- smallpox patients was not unknown. See
actions, 33 (1724-1725), 129-132. For another George Muter to Thomas Jefferson, March 8,
reference to the Indians' use of water as a cure, 1781, Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papersof Tho-
see Duffy, "Smallpox," 338. mas Jefferson (Princeton, 1950- ), V, 96.
20. John W. Jordan, ed., "Journal of James 31. "Trent's Journal," 406.
Kenny, 1761-1763," PMHB, 37 (1913), 12, 32. Ibid., 411.
27-28, 163. 33. Ibid., 406; Hugh Mercer to Bouquet,
21. Ibid., 169, 179, 184. March 18,1759, BouquetPapers, III, 210-211;
22. Ibid., 171-173, 175, 188. Kenny, "Journal 1761-1763," 17, 153, 169,
 The British, the Indians, and Smallpox 441

172,178;JohnW.Jordan, ed., "James Kenny's 38."Detail of Indian Affairs," n. d., Stevens

'Journal to Ye Westward,' 1758-59," PMHB, and Kent, eds., Wilderness, 31; PR, VII, 517,
37 (1913), 419. 546; Slick, Trent, 112, 114; Bouquet Papers, V,
34. Deposition of Gershom Hicks, April 14, 282n; DufFy, "Smallpox," 337.
1764, Col. Bouquet, Series 21650, Part 1, 101- 39. Trent to James Burd, Oct. 4, 1755, PR,
102; Parkman, Conspiracy,II, 45n; Peckham, VI, 641-642; John St. Clair to Bouquet, May
Pontiac, 170, 170n; Knollenberg, "General 31, 1758, Bouquet Papers, 1, 403; Bouquet to
Amherst," 493. Robert Monckton, May 15, 1761, Ibid., V.
35. Parkman, Conspiracy; II, 5; Sewell Elias 483; Slick, Trent, 126.
Slick, William Trent and the West (Harrisburg, 40. "Trent's Journal," 395, 400.
Pa., 1947), 111; Duffy, "Smallpox," 338-339. 41. Lt. Gov. Hamilton to PennsylvaniaAssem-
36. William Trent to Bouquet, June 5, 1758, bly, Sept. 12, 1763, PR, IX, 42; Peckham,
BouquetPapers, II, 37. Of course, if the small- Pontiac, 212-213; Slick, Trent, 124.
pox virus had already died, no infection would 42. "Trent's Journal," 407; Kenny, "Journal
have occurred even if the soiled cloth had 1761-1763," 158; Wallace, Indians, 178-179.
reached its destination. 43. Kenny, "Westward," 433; Francis P.
37. Bouquet to Ecuyer, Nov. 25, 1762, Col. Jennings, "A Vanishing Indian: Francis
Bouquet, Series 21653, 160-161; Bouquet to Parkman Versus His Sources," PMHB, 87
Ecuyer, Feb. 18, 1763, Ibid., 171; Amherst to (1963), 308.
Bouquet, May 2, 1762, Ibid., Series 21634, 44. Kenny, "Westward," 429; Kenny, "Jour-
87; Ecuyer to Bouquet, Nov. 22, 1762, Ibid., nal 1761-1763," 43; PR, IX, 215-216; Bou-
Series 21648, Part 2, 159; Ecuyer to Bouquet, quet Papers, I, xxvii note 17; Wallace, Indians,
June 26, 1763, in Sylvester K. Stevens and 171, 174, 176, 180; Wainwright, Croghan,
Donald H. Kent, eds., Wilderness Chronicls 293; Peckham, Pontiac, 213.
ofNorthwestern Pennsylvania(Harrisburg, Pa., 45. Amherst to Gov. Hamilton, Nov. 5, 1763,
1941),247-248; Amherst to Bouquet, July 16, PR, IX, 74-75.
1763, ibid., 262; Wainwright, Croghan, 193; 46. PR, VII, 669-670.
Bouquet Papers, I, 38n. 47. Kenny, "Westward," 404; Duffy, "Small-
pox," 336.