Journals and letters written by the fur traders who did man Fort Clark make it clear that they were appalled by the epidemic, in part because they had Indian wives and children and were thus a part of the Indian community.[14] The traders also had economic interests in keeping the Indians healthy. The trader Jacob Halsey—who himself contracted the smallpox—lamented that “the loss to the company by the introduction of this malady will be immense in fact incalculable as our most profitable Indians have died.”[15] The traders would not seem to have any incentive to wage biological warfare on their own families and their “most profitable Indians”, much less put their own lives at risk.
Churchill claims that vaccine was withheld by “the army”, citing Stearns & Stearns.[16] What the Stearns actually wrote was that “great care was exercised in the attempt to eliminate the transfer of the smallpox” by the traders, and that “a physician was dispatched for the sole purpose of vaccinating the affected tribes while the pestilence was at its height.” It is difficult to see how Churchill could have derived his reading of events from the Stearns.[17]
Churchill argues that the “post surgeon” ordered the Indians to scatter, thus strategically spreading the disease. But an eyewitness on the scene—the trader Jacob Halsey—complained in a letter that:
I could not prevent [the Indians] from camping round the Fort—they have caught the disease, notwithstanding I have never allowed an Indian to enter the Fort, or any communication between them & the Sick; but I presume the air was infected with it…my only hope is that the cold weather will put a stop to this disease…pray send some vaccine.[18]
This letter is printed as an appendix to Chardon’s journal, the only primary source that Churchill cites in support of his story.
What if the U.S. Army had been active in the region? Given the opportunity, would Army officers have had any motive to use biological warfare against the Mandans? Five years earlier, in 1832, Congress had passed an act and appropriated funds to establish a program for inoculating Indians on the Missouri River.[19] Given this Congressional mandate to protect Indians from smallpox, given the lack of hostilities between the U.S. military and the Mandans or any other Plains Indians at that time, and given the military’s lack of presence in the area of the Mandans at the time, Churchill’s version of events does not seem plausible, even in the context of counterfactual speculation.
Churchill argues that the disease’s vector was smallpox blankets given as gifts by the Army. None of the sources that Churchill cites mentions gift blankets. Available evidence indicates that the disease’s vector was either the trader Jacob Halsey himself, who arrived on the St. Peter already infected, or an Arikira Indian woman who also arrived on the steamboat in the same condition.[20] The primary source that Churchill cites makes it clear that the local traders considered the disease to be entirely accidental, and as unwelcome by the local whites as by the Indians.
Could Churchill’s Charge of Genocide Still Be Valid?
Is it possible that Churchill has additional sources which he did not cite that might still validate his charge against the US Army? Could it be that Churchill is guilty of no more than sloppy citations? In all fairness to Churchill, the smallpox blanket hypothesis of Plains epidemics dates back to the 19th century. In 1884, Hubert Howe Bancroft wrote of a smallpox outbreak in 1836, commenting in a footnote:
Beckwourth, the negro, was accused, I do not know how justly, of willfully sowing smallpox among the pestiferous Blackfeet, by disposing to them of certain infected articles brought from St. Louis.[21]
This story suggests that one element of Churchill’s version is not original to him—the deliberate infection, originating from St. Louis. But problems remain. Bancroft cites no sources, restricts this observation to a footnote, and does not seem confident in the rumor’s reliability. Testing the rumor against what is known, we find immediate contradictions. First, the Mandan epidemic broke out in June 1837, not 1836, and Mandan territory was distant from Blackfeet territory. Contemporary versions of the Beckwourth rumor have him visiting the Crow—not the Blackfeet—in the spring of 1837. Second, Beckwourth had been employed by the American Fur Company, and was trying to renew his contract with the company when he visited the Crow in 1837. He had operated a trading post among the Blackfeet, and married two Blackfeet women. Furthermore, Beckwourth had lived among the Crow for six to eight years, and had additional wives and relatives among that tribe as well. Beckwourth would have no more motive to deliberately infect his family members—and the potential trading partners of the company with which he was seeking a contract—than would the traders at Fort Clark.[22]
The trader Jacob Halsey wrote on November 2, 1837, that the smallpox epidemic had been introduced among the Blackfeet by a sojourning member of their own tribe, who had returned home on the steamboat St. Peter.[23] Thus Bancroft’s version of events is directly contradicted by the Halsey letter, which is contained in a book cited by Churchill.
For the sake of argument, give Churchill the benefit of the doubt. Excuse Churchill for being ignorant of Beckwourth’s biography, for not noticing the Halsey letter in the Chardon volume he cites, and for confusing Bancroft with Thornton. The problem remains: Where did Churchill get the idea of smallpox blankets originating in an Army infirmary? Where did Churchill get the idea that there was a post surgeon who told the Mandans to scatter and spread the disease? Where did Churchill get the idea that the Army withheld vaccine? These are the specific charges with which Churchill indicts the US Army with genocide. Not only do all of Churchill’s cited sources fail to support these charges—the broader literature fails to support the charges as well. Whence, then, did Churchill derive them?
Could Churchill have derived his story from an oral tradition? One of Churchill’s sources—Stearn & Stearn (81)—relates a story of a Mandan chief stealing an infected blanket from the steamboat. In the Stearns rendition, the trader Chardon tried to retrieve the infected blanket by promising to exchange it for clean ones. However, the source cited by the Stearns—Zenas Leonard’s narrative—does not contain this story. In fact, Leonard’s narrative ends in 1835, two years prior to the Mandan outbreak, and does not mention either Chardon or smallpox. Nor do the Stearns themselves seem to give the story much credence. Even if true, the story still directly contradicts Churchill’s claim that the army distributed infected blankets obtained from a military infirmary.
The Mandans do seem to have developed suspicions about the traders as the source of the disease. Chardon reports that on Sunday, July 30, 1837, a “Mandan Warrior” named Four Bears gave a speech blaming “the whites” for the epidemic. Chardon transcribes Four Bears’ speech into his journal, commenting that:
They threaten Death and Distruction to us all at this place, saying that I was the cause of the small pox Makeing its appearance in this country.[24]
Obviously the Mandans had a legitimate hypothesis on that point. But the contemporary Mandan grievances did not involve the Army or even mention it. Furthermore, Churchill does not cite Mandan oral history. Churchill cites sources that radically contradict his version.
Conclusion
Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them.
It is a distressing conclusion. One wants to think the best of fellow scholars. The scholarly enterprise depends on mutual trust. When one scholar violates that trust, it damages the legitimacy of the entire academy. Churchill has fabricated a genocide that never happened. It is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.
Churchill claims that vaccine was withheld by “the army”, citing Stearns & Stearns.[16] What the Stearns actually wrote was that “great care was exercised in the attempt to eliminate the transfer of the smallpox” by the traders, and that “a physician was dispatched for the sole purpose of vaccinating the affected tribes while the pestilence was at its height.” It is difficult to see how Churchill could have derived his reading of events from the Stearns.[17]
Churchill argues that the “post surgeon” ordered the Indians to scatter, thus strategically spreading the disease. But an eyewitness on the scene—the trader Jacob Halsey—complained in a letter that:
I could not prevent [the Indians] from camping round the Fort—they have caught the disease, notwithstanding I have never allowed an Indian to enter the Fort, or any communication between them & the Sick; but I presume the air was infected with it…my only hope is that the cold weather will put a stop to this disease…pray send some vaccine.[18]
This letter is printed as an appendix to Chardon’s journal, the only primary source that Churchill cites in support of his story.
What if the U.S. Army had been active in the region? Given the opportunity, would Army officers have had any motive to use biological warfare against the Mandans? Five years earlier, in 1832, Congress had passed an act and appropriated funds to establish a program for inoculating Indians on the Missouri River.[19] Given this Congressional mandate to protect Indians from smallpox, given the lack of hostilities between the U.S. military and the Mandans or any other Plains Indians at that time, and given the military’s lack of presence in the area of the Mandans at the time, Churchill’s version of events does not seem plausible, even in the context of counterfactual speculation.
Churchill argues that the disease’s vector was smallpox blankets given as gifts by the Army. None of the sources that Churchill cites mentions gift blankets. Available evidence indicates that the disease’s vector was either the trader Jacob Halsey himself, who arrived on the St. Peter already infected, or an Arikira Indian woman who also arrived on the steamboat in the same condition.[20] The primary source that Churchill cites makes it clear that the local traders considered the disease to be entirely accidental, and as unwelcome by the local whites as by the Indians.
Could Churchill’s Charge of Genocide Still Be Valid?
Is it possible that Churchill has additional sources which he did not cite that might still validate his charge against the US Army? Could it be that Churchill is guilty of no more than sloppy citations? In all fairness to Churchill, the smallpox blanket hypothesis of Plains epidemics dates back to the 19th century. In 1884, Hubert Howe Bancroft wrote of a smallpox outbreak in 1836, commenting in a footnote:
Beckwourth, the negro, was accused, I do not know how justly, of willfully sowing smallpox among the pestiferous Blackfeet, by disposing to them of certain infected articles brought from St. Louis.[21]
This story suggests that one element of Churchill’s version is not original to him—the deliberate infection, originating from St. Louis. But problems remain. Bancroft cites no sources, restricts this observation to a footnote, and does not seem confident in the rumor’s reliability. Testing the rumor against what is known, we find immediate contradictions. First, the Mandan epidemic broke out in June 1837, not 1836, and Mandan territory was distant from Blackfeet territory. Contemporary versions of the Beckwourth rumor have him visiting the Crow—not the Blackfeet—in the spring of 1837. Second, Beckwourth had been employed by the American Fur Company, and was trying to renew his contract with the company when he visited the Crow in 1837. He had operated a trading post among the Blackfeet, and married two Blackfeet women. Furthermore, Beckwourth had lived among the Crow for six to eight years, and had additional wives and relatives among that tribe as well. Beckwourth would have no more motive to deliberately infect his family members—and the potential trading partners of the company with which he was seeking a contract—than would the traders at Fort Clark.[22]
The trader Jacob Halsey wrote on November 2, 1837, that the smallpox epidemic had been introduced among the Blackfeet by a sojourning member of their own tribe, who had returned home on the steamboat St. Peter.[23] Thus Bancroft’s version of events is directly contradicted by the Halsey letter, which is contained in a book cited by Churchill.
For the sake of argument, give Churchill the benefit of the doubt. Excuse Churchill for being ignorant of Beckwourth’s biography, for not noticing the Halsey letter in the Chardon volume he cites, and for confusing Bancroft with Thornton. The problem remains: Where did Churchill get the idea of smallpox blankets originating in an Army infirmary? Where did Churchill get the idea that there was a post surgeon who told the Mandans to scatter and spread the disease? Where did Churchill get the idea that the Army withheld vaccine? These are the specific charges with which Churchill indicts the US Army with genocide. Not only do all of Churchill’s cited sources fail to support these charges—the broader literature fails to support the charges as well. Whence, then, did Churchill derive them?
Could Churchill have derived his story from an oral tradition? One of Churchill’s sources—Stearn & Stearn (81)—relates a story of a Mandan chief stealing an infected blanket from the steamboat. In the Stearns rendition, the trader Chardon tried to retrieve the infected blanket by promising to exchange it for clean ones. However, the source cited by the Stearns—Zenas Leonard’s narrative—does not contain this story. In fact, Leonard’s narrative ends in 1835, two years prior to the Mandan outbreak, and does not mention either Chardon or smallpox. Nor do the Stearns themselves seem to give the story much credence. Even if true, the story still directly contradicts Churchill’s claim that the army distributed infected blankets obtained from a military infirmary.
The Mandans do seem to have developed suspicions about the traders as the source of the disease. Chardon reports that on Sunday, July 30, 1837, a “Mandan Warrior” named Four Bears gave a speech blaming “the whites” for the epidemic. Chardon transcribes Four Bears’ speech into his journal, commenting that:
They threaten Death and Distruction to us all at this place, saying that I was the cause of the small pox Makeing its appearance in this country.[24]
Obviously the Mandans had a legitimate hypothesis on that point. But the contemporary Mandan grievances did not involve the Army or even mention it. Furthermore, Churchill does not cite Mandan oral history. Churchill cites sources that radically contradict his version.
Conclusion
Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them.
It is a distressing conclusion. One wants to think the best of fellow scholars. The scholarly enterprise depends on mutual trust. When one scholar violates that trust, it damages the legitimacy of the entire academy. Churchill has fabricated a genocide that never happened. It is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.
