Talk:Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst

Who are O'Toole and Anderson?
The paragraph under Pontiac's Rebellion states, "Amherst was summoned home, ostensibly so he could be consulted on future military plans in North America, and expected to be praised for his conquest of Canada but instead, once in London, was asked to account for the recent rebellion.[19] He was forced to defend his conduct, and faced complaints made by Sir William Johnson and George Croghan who successfully lobbied the Board of Trade leading to Amherst's removal.[20]" The citations given for these tidbits of info are O'Toole and Anderson, but no info is provided about their works or sources. For all we know they could be eight-year-olds. The titles of their works should be provided or this para removed. Hattrick (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The titles of their works appear under the heading "Sources". Dormskirk (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Amherst was not summoned home. He had asked for permission to go home, and permission was granted in a letter from the Earl of Egremont on 13 August 1763: "the King is pleased to grant your request to leave North America, and repair to England, at such time, and in such manner, as shall be most convenient and agreeable to yourself; and his Maj[es]ty has commanded me, on this occasion, to renew to you in the strongest terms, the repeated assurances you have constantly received of his just sense of the many eminent and meritorious services you have performed during the course of your long Command in North America; and the King orders me to add, that he shall have a particular pleasure in confirming to you, on your return into his presence, the uninterrupted satisfaction your whole conduct has given him." (Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. VII, p. 538; http://books.google.ca/books/about/Documents_Relative_to_the_Colonial_Histo.html?id=-mtAAAAAcAAJ&redir_esc=y). Because of the rebellion, permission to return home was later rescinded until October 1763. Hattrick (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

assertion regarding smallpox blankets
I would recommend this very important piece of Amherst's biography be reinstated. There are several sources on this link which can be examined to test the veracity of the assertion that he did indeed order blankets to be infected:
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.223.162 (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Previously, the article mentioned at the 1763 incident as fact, when in fact the blanket exchange was at worst unintentional contamination of the natives which happened prior to the suggestion of intentional infection, as correspondence from Amherst and his subordinate documented. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What the correspondence clearly documents is his white supremacist sentiments throughout his language. And in fact, he first suggested to Col. Bouquet in July 1763, "Could it not be contrived to send the Smallpox among the disaffected Tribes of Indians?" Bouquet then replied: "I will try to inoculate the Indians with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself." Amherst again responded: "You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The matter is covered correctly in the article on Henry Bouquet. Unfortunately, it looks like the source letters are microfilm these days, and not directly usable as cites for the article.  As for Amherst being a detestable racist, I think the fact of the matter is firmly supported by his writing. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The quotation, "Could it not be contrived to send the Smallpox among the disaffected Tribes of Indians?" is from F. Parkman's book, "The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indians." Parkman misquoted many Amherst letters, and this letter does not exist, at least not in the Amherst-Bouquet letters. The quotation here from Bouquet's smallpox letter of 13 July 1763 is almost accurate, as is Amherst's reply of 16 July 1763. Images of the letters can be found at . As for Amherst's being a detestable racist, although it is true that Amherst did not like the Indians, one should avoid taking his words out of context--the Indians involved in the rebellion were, at the time, murdering or taking prisoner settlers of any age or sex. Furthermore, one should also avoid using modern terms like "racist" to describe one person in an entire population of people who all, including the Indians, thought slavery was normal. Hattrick (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you crazy? This quote by Amherst is as well attested as anything possibly can be, appears in hundreds of sources, and certainly does not rely on Parkman. You really are desperate to whitewash historical facts you find uncomfortable, aren't you?  I've also deleted your off topic reproduction of completely irrelevant correspondence from someone else not mentioning the subject of this article, since talkpages are to be used to improve the article, not to be filled up with smokescreens and red herrings.  The bottom line per WP:VER is we go by what all the sources say, not by your version of the "Truth". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, this website that is repeatedly being linked to does NOT state that "this letter does not exist"; that is your original misrepresentation. What it actually states is that the person who created that website could not find the letter. Please do not misrepresent sources to say what you wish them to say, but what they do not in fact say. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am currently transcribing the letters of Amherst and Bouquet from the microfilms of the letters of the British Manuscripts Project. In none of Ameherst's letters to Bouquet--at least in the three reels I looked at--does he write "Could it not be contrived to send the Smallpox among the disaffected Tribes of Indians?" The idea originated in Bouquet's letter of July 13, and was agreed to as a good idea, not as an order, by Amherst on July 16. I suppose it is possible that Parkman found the letter misplaced in another section of the many thousands of Amherst letters, but I doubt it. It is also possible that, when the people in the UK were microfilming the letters, they missed one, but I doubt that too. As I said, Parkman misquoted many of the letters, and the scholars who used Parkman as their source have simply reproduced his errors.
 * As for removing the long quotation I added, I am not surprised you did so--it was rather long! However, it was not irrelevant because it summed up exactly the British view of the rebellion at the time. In his letters, Amherst frequently mentions the "breach of faith" and the "perfidious behaviour" of the hostile Indians (i.e., those engaged in the rebellion), and the long quotation you deleted summarized the events (except for the Enoch Brown School massacre [], which occurred after Amherst returned to England) that occurred between May 1763 and his departure in November or December 1763, and indicated why he had so much antipathy towards the hostile Indians. This information does not transform Amherst into a nice person, but it does provide some balance to the one-sided discussions here. So, while I will not re-add the quotation (knowing that you will simply re-delete it), I can't think of any reason why, in the interests of balance, you would remove the link to the speech, which is: http://archive.org/stream/minutesofprovinc00penn#page/216/mode/2up. Hattrick (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This smacks of POV. There exists plenty of litterature that contends that Amherst DID in fact order Bouquet to hand out smallpox infected blankets, including Amherst's own letters. For example, in What is America (Ronald Wright), Wright quotes a letter by Amherst to Bouquet:"innoculate [infect] the Indians by means of blankets. as well as try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Exercable Race." (103). I dont understand your argument at all. Id like to see the entry you deleted to be put back.--GoodandTrue (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your source? According to the links given Howard Zinn is your only source? Is that all you got a man that said, “Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable." Come on guys you can do better then this?


 * --OxAO (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article should not make a blanket assertion - pun intended. Howard Zinn is an unreliable source, no matter how many copies of his book have been sold. His influence over scholarship has been generally hurtful, by fueling a generation of writers who seek out ways to ruin reputations. For example, the link to the d'Errico article, even though it links to copies of letters, does not give sources to them which can be cited. Yet a careful reading shows that smallpox existed at Fort Pitt before Amherst got there, and there is no source which says that blankets were given out after he arrived. He may have approved the idea, in the abstract, but execution because of Amherst is something else. If it was done, why are there no sources from 1765 or 1770 to confirm it? It is just as likely that he saw smallpox had already spread and sending more blankets later was unnecessary. The article should reflect that the claim is more speculation than proven fact.Princetoniac (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fascinating what lengths you'll go to in order to attack the sources, but there's no shortage of excellent scholarship detailing what happened from the documents. Try Daniel Paul, We Were Not the Savages for one. Also, sources calling Amherst a white supremacist demonstrate this amply from his own words. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the citation of Daniel Paul's book, however, the term "white supremacist" would not be used by people who knew Amherst, or witnessed anything of the time. It is a term used by 20th century writers, and therefore a tertiary opinion. I submit that a simple Google search of Howard Zinn will show concerns about his objectivity among historians, (and the Zinn quote above is obvious as well) and objectivity is the goal here, yes? Princetoniac (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's where you are 100% wrong. He was a "white supremacist", because he fits the definition perfectly - he believed that people of other races or colors were inferior to his, quite clearly in his own words, not to mention he wished to destroy them as if they had invaded his country.  Per our verifiability policy, if reliable sources describe him that way, and as doing those things, there's no reason that assessment shouldn't be added to the article just to cover it up for those today who cling to his wonderful reputation. It's not up to wikipedia editors to over-rule sources they don't like, but I've seen wikipedia editors try to do this, and if "the source is too modern" doesn't work, next they try "the source is too old" but the real obvious reason they try to over-rule the source is because "they don't like what it says". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As for your original research, you might want to read WP:Original research. As for your quote, you might want to read WP:TALK.  The purpose of this talkpage is to discuss improvements to the article subject, Jeffery Amherst. A source making no claims whatsoever with regard to the article subject is therefore useless to this talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you intended to write your comment under my earlier comment above. I perfectly understand the rule about original research. My comment does not provide original research; it merely confirms D'Errico's original research--that the Amherst papers do not contain a letter in which Amherst wrote "Could it not be contrived to send the Smallpox among the disaffected Tribes of Indians?" As for the purpose of the talk page, it is clear that you want very much for everyone to agree that Amherst was a "white supremacist," but in order to agree with your view, we would also have to agree that Amherst suddenly, out of the blue, and for no reason other than that he was a "white supremacist", decided to infect the Indians with smallpox. This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question", and it really ought to be avoided, just as ad hominem arguments ought to be avoided (you may wish to read these articles; I certainly wish you would). The link I provided contributes to the discussion on this page and the article on Amherst by showing that Amherst had some very good reasons for his antipathy towards the hostile Indians, and these reasons, I believe, significantly weaken your white-supremacist argument. Hattrick (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't matter a whit what my view is, what your view is, or what I allegedly "want very much for everyone to agree." That's why we have policies like Neutral Point of View and Verifiability, not "truth".  This must be reflected on the article itself, although there may be a little more leeway here on the discussion page.  The wikipedia article itself does not state nor insinuate that Amherst "out of the blue" decided to infect Natives with deadly diseases; instead it presents the documentation of his conspiracy with Bouquet to do so according to reliable sources. (Once again, there is NO statement on your favorite website, by the website creator, to the effect that Amherst never made that quote; that is an original misrepresentation of the source on your part.)  The wikipedia article also does not state that Amherst was a White Supremacist, although goodness knows there are enough reliable external sources making that very claim.  According to WP:TALK the purpose of this talk page is to discuss how to IMPROVE the current wording of the article.  Filling it up with original arguments designed to demonstrate your view that "Amherst had some very good reasons for his antipathy towards" the Native inhabitants who were defending their homeland from invaders, would seem to be a case of Using the talk page for a forum or general discussion about the article topic rather than trying to improve the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to edit the article now, but the evidence in The British, the Indians, and Smallpox: What Actually Happened at Fort Pitt in 1763?" Author: Philip Ranle http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27774278.pdf?acceptTC=true seems to contradict some of what is in this article. The journals of Col. Trent, commander of the Pittsburgh militia contains a claim by Trent that he turned over to the Indians some smallpox contaminated items along with some rations on May 24, 1763. Summary timeline: 5/24/1763 Journal of William Trent "... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." 6/23/1763 Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763 smallpox in Fort Pitt 7/13/1763 Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763 discussion of smallpox blankets 7/16/1763 Amherst to Bouquet, dated 16 July 1763 Amherst's approval of Bouquet’s suggestion 7/26/1763 26 July 1763, Bouquet acknowledges Amherst's approval

However, there is no evidence that smallpox was spread subsequent to Amherst's approval of Bouquet's suggestion, and it appear that the suggestion was intended to get approval for actions already taken. The situation is complicated, and it is a matter of whether one wants to blame Amherst for events that he had nothing to do. Another matter is that there was no major outbreak of smallpox among the Indians around Pittsburgh that Summer; although there were some cases, and there was an outbreak in Pittsburgh, as evidenced by the materials given to the Indians in May.

My opinion is that Amherst had nothing to do with distributing contaminated blankets, but he appears to have found the idea worthy of consideration. Please read Philip Ranle's article, and see how it fits together. PLewicke (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the addition by which was added two days ago, here. The source in question does not establish the claim, suitably to me. The claim was, "there is no evidence to suggest the deliberate infection by Amherst or any other British soldier ever happened, rather the allegation was instead propaganda". In addition to being ungrammatical, this is quite POV pushing apparently, as the source does not even say anything about the allegation being propaganda. That seems to be original research or syntheses by Twobells here. The source does state that Amherst made some recommendations about using smallpox blankets as a tactic, and then says "There is no evidence to indicate any subsequent action by the British." What does this mean? It means that a source which is an essay on a book on global biosecurity has a chapter on history of biological warfare that briefly mentions Amherst and states that "there is no evidence". This does not to my satisfaction establish that there is no evidence in the universe and that no evidence will ever be found. To me, the source is not comprehensive enough or reliable enough on this question to establish that there is in fact no evidence to be found. And the POV pushing part of the statement is unacceptable in itself and unsourced. So i removed it. SageRad (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Correspondence to Amherst dated 24th June however confirms that there was a smallpox outbreak at the fort on or before that date. The solution to the puzzle is simply that the commander at the fort, Captain Ecuyer had, had already acted independently well before Amherst made his suggestion in July. The journal of William Trent confirms that on 24th June (not May as often mis-reported) this was the date two blankets and a handkerchief from the smallpox hospital at Fort Pitt were handed over. So although the event ocurred it didn't happen because of Amherst's direction on the matter. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.127.51 (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So how did they know how to spread a disease in the 1760s before the germ theory was accepted or widely known. They'd have no idea that blankets could be used to spread a disease, that infection route wasn't known about until several decades later, c 1800, when it was realised that germs existed and could be spread by things such as infected bedding, etc. Before then people had no idea what caused diseases. One of the first things Florence Nightingale had to do was to improve hygiene and sanitary conditions in hospitals because nearly a century after Amrherst many people still did not think infected bedding was dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

What did he know and when did he know it?
(1) If Amherst gave Bouquet a written order to use the smallpox-infested blankets, how could that have been done without his knowledge?

(2) Brigadier (not Brigadere) General is the lowest grade of general officer--in the American system, a "one-star general." The senior officer in North America (General Officer Commanding, North America) was usually if not always a Major General (two stars in the modern US system). I find it unlikely that the Commander of Forces would be a brigadier. Amherst was GOC North America for a time, was he not? Has that position been confused with that of Commander of Forces? I think it's plausible that a brigadier might command in North America, but not in London. Is there confusion?

Terry J. Carter (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Name
Why do we spell the article name "Jeffrey Amherst," when he spelled his own name Jeffery Amherst? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckwariorrandom (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Duckwariorrandom (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the redirect seems backwards. This page should be moved as the spelling is "Jeffery". Johndowning (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Infantry innovation
Was it not Amherst who developed a more effective infantry formation for British troops in North America? I believe it was used by Wolfe, and sometimes incorectly credited to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben200 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst → Jeffery_Amherst,_1st_Baron_Amherst — Significant references exist to confirm that Lord Amherst spelled his first name Jeffery. Refer to Note 1 "Jeffery" comments. Also Bio by Long spells his name Jeffery. --Johndowning (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Recommend swap Jeff"re"y and Jeff"er"y with "re" redirecting to "er". Johndowning (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please explain deletion
IP User, why would you blank all this good knowledge? I'd like to revert it back in. Would you do so, or would you please explain your edit? Thanks, kindly. SageRad (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, another user beat me to it and added it back in. Thanks. Glad this turned out to be obsolete. SageRad (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403033815/http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html to http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928095106/http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html to http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216211459/https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mikmaq-leader-says-pei-park-honours-general-wanted-184514132.html?nhp=1 to https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mikmaq-leader-says-pei-park-honours-general-wanted-184514132.html?nhp=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)