Inherited disease is not one of Lamark's ideas, iirc, any more than congenital syphilis.
But the genetic transmission of resistance to an infection would be Lamarckian, unless it was rooted in some genetically superior immune system. Then it wouldn't be specific to any particular disease.
P.S. I think you are referring to measles, not smallpox, with the American Indians. the American Indians never were exposed to measles until it was too late. Most Europeans had constant exposure to it and had developed an immune response. Bam! Not a natural resistance like partial sickle cell anemia does for Africans against malaria.
Inherited disease is not one of Lamark's ideas, iirc, any more than congenital syphilis.
My point, for clarification, is that is more likely that exposure to a pathogen would be an environmental pressure that selected genetic mutations that favored survivability rather than a direct instigator of the genetic change itself.
Kinda just borrowing your Occam's Razor to split hairs, so to speak.
You are a little off regarding inherited diseases, however. Something such as congenital syphilis is not genetically inherited. Rather, it is a result of the child being directly infected in utero. Remove the pathogen and future progeny won't be infected. Other heritable maladies, such as sickle cell anemia, actually are a genetic predisposition that is passed on to future generations. These, however, are genetic defects, not pathogenic infections.
Inherited resistance to virii is a good example of evolution in action.