Journal Articles and Biological Warfare

I found it funny how our scholarly journal article was about the pros and cons of scholarly journal articles and how to write one. The pros listed include peer reviewed (they receive heavy scrutiny before publication), concise (short, sweet and to the point), and a guide to more sources (in case you wanted further research or wanted to check up on their facts). The cons include that it is someone else’s interpretation (you might have a different one) and the writers usually assume you are familiar with the topic (which could be VERY untrue). As I was reading further I couldn’t help but wonder what the difference was between the scholarly journal article and a research paper? Is it the length? Or am I missing an obvious point?
Further in the reading we look at Elizabeth Fenn’s own article called “Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst”. Fenn first focuses on the infamous story of Jeffery Amherst and his involvement in condoning biological warfare against local Indians. Fenn is sure to make the point that the article isn’t about condemning Amherst even though she does make a comment that his “record speaks loudly enough regarding his character”. I wonder if that was meant as an insult. It was apparently William Trent, a trader and speculator, who wrote that they had given local Indians two blankets and a handkerchief from the local smallpox hospital. It was not known whose idea it was or who carried it out. Also the instant epidemic of smallpox in the Ohio country coincides with the items given to the Indians at Fort Pitt. Coincidence?
Fenn goes further to discuss how Fort Pitt was not the first time biological warfare was used. In fact it was even evidenced that Indians had used it back during Queen Anne’s war in the early 1700’s. She describes more cases in which others have been documented using the same “weapon.” The conclusion can be drawn that although Fort Pitt is one of the more famous stories in biological warfare it definitely wasn’t alone. Its justification is that “all is fair in war.” However disease itself did in fact wipe out entire native populations. Genocide will never be just.