Colonial Germ Warfare

The humanizing of War! You might as well talk of the humanizing of Hell...As if war could be civilized! If I'm in command when war breaks out I shall issue my order—"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility. Hit first, hit hard, and hit everywhere!" 

—Sir Reginald Bacon, The Life of Lord Fisher 
of Kilverstone, Admiral of the Fleet 

After the British removed the French from their colonial claim in North America, British policy in Ohio changed sharply. Sir Jeffrey Amherst commander of the British forces, declared that British should no longer give gifts to Indian chiefs. Many Ohio Indians were dependent on British trade and so starvation set in. Ohio Indians began following Neolin, a prophet who believed Europeans were a plague to be removed.

In 1763 Indians including Pontiac – an Ottowa chief – attacked British forts and killed 2000 settlers. This became known as Pontiac’s Rebellion. In response, Amherst suggested the British “send the Small Pox amongst these disaffected tribes of Indians”. ordered infected blankets to be sent into camps. Hundreds were killed as disease spread amongst the tribes. The Indians were forced to sue for peace.

So was the British use of primative germ-warfare effectively a war crime? Or would it be justified, as Machiavelli argued: "When it is absolutely a question of the safety of one's country, there must be no consideration of just or unjust, of merciful or cruel, of praiseworthy or disgraceful; instead, setting aside every scruple, one must follow to the utmost any plan that will save her life and keep her liberty."

What do you think? Full article here...

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm 

---

colonial_germ_warfare.pdf
File Size:	520 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---