AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: J1776 on February 09, 2011, 08:25:56 AM
-
Hello.
I'm new to the forum as a new friend had referred me to this wonderful site. I'm really looking forward to learning and making new friends along the way.
Onto my question...
Not sure if I should post this hear or elsewhere, but here we go...
I'm trying to find out what rifles would have been commonly seen and used in the Northeastern Pennsylvania area in the 1700s. (ie. Wyoming Valley area, etc.)
Would it have been Upper Susquehanna?... Lehigh?...Bucks County?...
or others I've not read or heard of yet?
I know of a few builders in the area but none in the 1700s.....only the 1800s.
Thank you fellas in advance.
-
I would start with Eric kettenburg's website. Extremely knowledgable gunbuilder, restorer and researcher on the subject. Good luck.
http://web.mac.com/kettenburgs/Site/Home.html
-
Any idea?...was this topic moved from Antique Gun Collecting to "contemporary" gun collecting?
I could have sworn I put it in "antique" since it deals with the question of past history rather than those things being made "today" (contemporary)? Maybe it was just to late when I had posted it and I can't recall? haha
I could not find a historical area of the forum to ask such a question. I couldn't find the topic today when I looked.
-
Guy,...
Thank you very much. I'll take a look there.
:)
-
Depends. Probably smoothbore fowler type guns. The area was settled by Connecticutters (including some of my ancesters), though there were Pennsylvania settlers up there (more to the west (Muncy/Sunbury?), but claimed by Penn and Conn to the extent shots were fired and people died (see Yankee-Pennamite Wars). However, some Lancaster folk were on the side of the Yankees and were involved in the Wyoming Vally massacre. So, a guess would be fowler or Lancaster style rifle.
That said, that is only conjecture and must be taken as such.
I have recently seen a period reference to indians distance wise outshooting the settlers because they had rifles (possibly from Eric Kettenburg's site -read it, good stuff) which leads one to infer that the settlers only had smoothbores, and a separate reference where the settlers felt safe by the river because bullets wouldn't carry across. The Susquehanna is fairly broad in the Scranton Wilkes-Barre area, so that may refer to rifle or smoothbore.
My 2 cents, and worth every penny.
-
Dale,...
It was settled by those from CT but not long after you had the Dutch there,.. a big Germanic influence,.... this is what I found historically, so I figured maybe you had a lot of the Bucks Co. and Lehigh influence perhaps?
In a book by the name of "Atlas of the North American Indian" in regards to the "Rebellions Against The Dutch" the map showed a wide spread area that looks to be that with which the Dutch traded with the Indians of the PA area as far west as the Pittsburg area and covering PA all the way to "New Amsterdam" (NYC today).
Now in my home town of Nanticoke, PA (Named after the Nanticoke Indians of Maryland who migrated there) the Nanticoke indians migrated there about 1750. Adopted in 1753 by the Six Nations, they settled at Chenango, near Binghamton, to guard the "Southern Door" of the Confederacy.
A few "firsts" for that town as it took strides forward specifically include the following:
1774 The first school teacher was William McKarrichan.
1776 The first two "great roads," Middle and River Roads, were staked out.
1780 First weekly mail from Wilkes-Barre.
Also, we see "Harvey creek", draining Harvey lake and, going south, falls into the river at West Nanticoke. This is joined by Pikes creek in Jackson township. This lake was named for Benjamin Harvey, who located near its junction in 1775.... now known as "Harvey's Lake".
All seem to point to Connecticut settlers however in that specific area which seems odd as there is such a heavy Germanic influence found in primitive antiques in the area.
There was a fur trade on years beforehand, active as it was, but no specific notes of "settlemets" to speak of other than that of Forty-Fort and others of the area fraught with those from Connecticut?
One interesting thing that I have found however, is an exceept from a book written in 1893.
As follows ***(Note the mention of "Quakers" here in the second paragraph!!)***
History of Luzerne County Pennsylvania
H. C. Bradsby, Editor
S. B. Nelson & Co., Publishers, 1893
CHAPTER II.
1762
"Within a circle of ten miles from the Wilkes-Barre court house, where is now a population of considerably over 100,000, was for fifty years the heart of the battlefield between savagery and civilization, and then came the War of the Roses in contention for the possession and ownership of the soil. The wave of the death struggle swept back and forth; literally charges and retreats and counter charges; captures and expulsions and then recaptures and again repulsed; the swarming immigrant this year, the sad exodus the next: the victory to-day, the bloody massacre almost sure to swiftly follow. The scythe of death mowed its winrows in the ranks and eagerly came others in the place of the dead. What destiny hung in the balance, so long suspended by a single hair! This was something of the alembic that distilled the remarkable manhood that has inscribed high in the temple of the immortals the names of most of the first settlers of what is now Luzerne county. Illustrious men and glorious women, all as brave as death! Your sufferings and your dearly earned triumphs deserve the record of the inspired pen, and that page would be the most luminous in history. Men, real men, develop best under adversity; the weak and inefficient faint and fall by the way, and the fittest survive and stamp their iron qualities upon their offspring, and this natural selection brings us a race of men on whose shoulders may rest a world. Heroes indeed, a race of the world's bravest and best. The simple story of their struggles and, the final supreme triumphs are each and ail an epic that should be written in every living, heart. Let their deeds be immortal! their memories most sacred.
The climax of the struggle came only when it was Puritan versus Quaker over the question of ownership of the soil. This was serious indeed; no men were ever more intensely earnest in the claims on both sides of the question. The law as interpreted by authority was on the side of the Quakers; yet the plain equity was with the Puritans. Both were right and both were, not intentionally, wrong. This paradox only expresses the general phase of the great problems. As a question of the letter of the law the Quaker's triumph was complete, yet to-day from Old Shamokin (Sunbury) to Tioga Point (Athens), this once disputed land is as Yankee in fact as any portion of Connecticut. When these forces were arrayed in armed hostility, the scant records now left us of the communications between the respective leaders, communications offering adjustments, proclamations giving the world the facts in the case; petitions to the Pennsylvania authorities, and statements in the nature of pleas for justice, as well as arguments before courts, show these pioneers from the Nutmeg State mostly as remarkable statesmen, diplomats and broad [p.38] constitutional lawyers and defenders of the rights of man such as are not surpassed in any chapter in our country's history. These men it must be remembered were simple pioneers, the most favored with but sparsest advantages of the schoolroom and none of them really trained to the law, the courts or statesmanship. Yet they rose with the great emergency. Their records were halt and lame in spelling, yet they are the enduring evidences that their minds were strong and nimble."
-
Something neat I found in my historical research today!!!
(Wish I could find myself a copy of this book!!) :(
The Germanic influx into Pensylvania which passed through the Wyoming valley area,which included the Luzerne County area (Are right below Wyoming Valley) on their way tot he Reading, PA area "Tulpehocken".
An excerpt from the book: A history of Wilkes-Barré, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 1909
"In the summer of 1752 fifty other Palatine families from Schoharie passed through Wyoming on their way to the valley of the Tulpehocken;..."
"Conrad Weiser,....born near Wurtenburg, Germany,..."
"Weiser's Iroquois alliances, his skill in preventing Maryland and Virgina from becoming involved in an Indian war, his ability in securing the friendship of the Six Nation allies on the Maumee and Wabash stimulated the fur trade in Pennsylvania"
It is important to note that the "fur trade" was routed through the Wyoming Valley area of PA.
Thus, one may surmise that indeed the Germanic influenced rifles coming out of the Bucks co. area and Lehigh would have indeed been seen in the Wyoming Valley area. As well as the rifles coming out of the Connecticut area as well as the majority of settlers there were "Yankees" (from CT)!
In addition, missionary, David Brainerd" was settled right above the Easton, PA area by 1745. Of course he was born in Connecticut....no ties to Germanic peoples.
-
Very interesting, keep it coming. My home town too.
Bill
-
I posted some family letters from the period on the other site which gives a small synopsis of life in the valley around the time of the Revolution. One is a long biographical dictation. If interested I could paste them here. A lot of mention of guns, natives, shooting, scalping, death, disease and plight. Unfortunately nothing "specific" with regard to guns.
Most of this information can also be dug from the Bradford County Historical Society website.
-
I posted some family letters from the period on the other site which gives a small synopsis of life in the valley around the time of the Revolution. One is a long biographical dictation. If interested I could paste them here. A lot of mention of guns, natives, shooting, scalping, death, disease and plight. Unfortunately nothing "specific" with regard to guns.
Most of this information can also be dug from the Bradford County Historical Society website.
Rootsy,..
that was myself, same question,..saw those family letters,... really great stuff!!!!!! :) :) :)
I was referred to this forum by a friend so I figured I'd share the question here as well.
I'm sure the fellas here would probably like to read the personal accounts of your ancestors as I enjoyed them,... .post away!
-
Guy,
Thanks for the kettenburg link. I helped my alot. Found info on a rifle I've been looking for, for sometime now.
Rich
-
This is a place that was settled by Swiss and Germans as early as 1709, and some serious gunmakers included. The problem is that none of the guns survived or most people don't accept the guns attributed to these early settler/gunsmiths as legitimate Dyted
-
I'm right in the heart of the place So it a big part of the History where I live:
In 1760 you are going to find an influx of New Englanders ( Connecticut settler 1763 & then not again until 1769) The Susquehanna River brought traveler both from North (New France) and From the South ( Lancaster and the Palatine settlements) So You may see New England fowlers, Germanic Fowlers & Rifles as well as Lancaster & York Influences
Just my two pence
Jim
-
Swiss & German by 1709?
Where in NEPA?
-
"in the 1700s" covers alot of time. There were gunmakers in Easton as well as the well known Allentown area, Lancaster, Reading, etc all before the Rev War. Most white settlers didn't go far north of the Blue Ridge until after the F&I War [1750s-60s], although there were hunters anf traders there. Most of the firearms would likely come from the places south of the Blue Ridge. Plenty to choose from there!
-
It would have been suicide to venture into the upper Susuquehanna valley to settle from 1700 thru The F&I war. Yes their were adventures, hunters, traders, etc, but settlement was not tolerated by the natives. In their last big uprising they pushed out ALL settlers between 1778-80. Our founding father George Washington then struck the deciding blow when he sent General Sullivan on his eradication march up the river. Nothing of native civilization was spared, villages, stored food, growing crops, etc. Yes, there were individuals who made guns, but no one at that time, in that geographic area, had a shop with business hours!
-
To Jim F. go to page 4 on this forum under "Swiss gunsmiths with a link to early Pennsylvania" posted by mkeen, also Jacob Dubs Jr. set up a forge at Great Swamp area in 1732. Dyted
-
Oops! I checked my geography and I was talking early Bucks Co. Sorry. Dyted
-
No apologies, we are all passionate about history or we would not be on this site. In the days you refer to it was not exactly safe to be out and about anywhere on the Susquehanna. When the Brits established Fort Augusta at Sunbury ( where the river branches meet) , travel any farther North was risking your scalp. You bought your guns south of there for certain. ;D
-
Have to be a bit more resolute to trip me up on the history of this ( My ) area!
But I'm always open for true historical data...you never know....... Keep an open mind
-
I fear that this is moving way beyond the original question: but the heck with it I will move the path a bit.
If you were to pick the "wyomink area" as the center of the NEPA ( it may not be but who wants to measure it...don't mention the "golden means")
You are talking wilderness..... White intrusion comes about 1762 from Connecticut by 1763 they are heading back north ( what was left of them!) then We have the Pontiac Rebellion so no whites are coming back until 1769 & when they do they are New Englanders again. So If we go early; say 1742 -54 you are talking voyagers ( french) & maybe some traders but they are trespassing in and about an Iroquois "Penal colony" of sorts Where the Delawares are now their subjects along with a number of other tribes under the 5 nations watchful eyes....... So Trade guns=that early ...you bet most likely French. Supposedly Brulle came through the area very early in the 1700 ( I doubt it) So before 1763 Trade guns ( mostly French)
Obviously The Poor Connecticuts lost some guns & their lives about the (63) ( NE Fowlers) 1769 More NE Fowlers. In to the 70's PA rifles coming up the Susquehanna with the Pennamites to take back PA from New England.... Then by mid 70-80 a real melting pot starts. In with the Germans.
If you need more history let me know....but that should give you an idea of what was here. and no there wasn't a "gunshop" locally at that time You went down the river to York or Lancaster if you were a Pennamite & if you were a Connecticut you went northeast to the Delaware settlements
-
It would have been suicide to venture into the upper Susuquehanna valley to settle from 1700 thru The F&I war. Yes their were adventures, hunters, traders, etc, but settlement was not tolerated by the natives. In their last big uprising they pushed out ALL settlers between 1778-80. Our founding father George Washington then struck the deciding blow when he sent General Sullivan on his eradication march up the river. Nothing of native civilization was spared, villages, stored food, growing crops, etc. Yes, there were individuals who made guns, but no one at that time, in that geographic area, had a shop with business hours!
Actually there was already a school in Nanticoke, PA (In Luzerne, Co. right there in the lower part of the Wyoming Valley) by 1774,.... so, there had to be more going on before 1774 for there to have been a school by 1774? Maybe not much before 1774, but a few years I'd presume?
Where's a time machine when ya need one!! :o
-
To Jim F. go to page 4 on this forum under "Swiss gunsmiths with a link to early Pennsylvania" posted by mkeen, also Jacob Dubs Jr. set up a forge at Great Swamp area in 1732. Dyted
If I'm correct, the Great Swamp area was in the Quakertown, PA area....
-
I fear that this is moving way beyond the original question: but the heck with it I will move the path a bit.
If you were to pick the "wyomink area" as the center of the NEPA ( it may not be but who wants to measure it...don't mention the "golden means")
You are talking wilderness..... White intrusion comes about 1762 from Connecticut by 1763 they are heading back north ( what was left of them!) then We have the Pontiac Rebellion so no whites are coming back until 1769 & when they do they are New Englanders again. So If we go early; say 1742 -54 you are talking voyagers ( french) & maybe some traders but they are trespassing in and about an Iroquois "Penal colony" of sorts Where the Delawares are now their subjects along with a number of other tribes under the 5 nations watchful eyes....... So Trade guns=that early ...you bet most likely French. Supposedly Brulle came through the area very early in the 1700 ( I doubt it) So before 1763 Trade guns ( mostly French)
Obviously The Poor Connecticuts lost some guns & their lives about the (63) ( NE Fowlers) 1769 More NE Fowlers. In to the 70's PA rifles coming up the Susquehanna with the Pennamites to take back PA from New England.... Then by mid 70-80 a real melting pot starts. In with the Germans.
If you need more history let me know....but that should give you an idea of what was here. and no there wasn't a "gunshop" locally at that time You went down the river to York or Lancaster if you were a Pennamite & if you were a Connecticut you went northeast to the Delaware settlements
That is a great surmise of the facts,.. a good factual-based idea to what most likely would have been. Just what I was looking for!
Thank you! ;)
-
Yeah, but that 1770-1780 melting pot melted as fast as it had congealed with the Wyoming Massacre of 1778, wiping out all white settlement for some time.
One of the largest Indian incidents ever in Pennsylvania. 302 scalps taken and over a thousand homes burned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Massacre
-
Just some Historical notation based on this thread :
On maps from the 1600 through the 1700's there were many "Great Swamps"
We were talking about Northeastern PA so That means the Great Swamp to the East: The Pocono Barrens; The "Shades of Death" as it was known at that time. This was the Great (NEPA) Swamp
School by 1774 in the Wyoming Settlement: why yes, The Connecticut setters were intelligent people with 5 years of settlement at that time, there should be a school
-
You are right on the money there Bob. Settlement was eradicated by the events of the "Big Runaway" as it was called. Hundreds killed outright, thousands displaced for almost two years, everything settlers built burned to the ground. Settlement in the region was not possible again safely until post 1780. The natives were not dumb, as they watched the Susquehanna valleys fill with settlers they knew they would soon be unwelcome. This was there last large offensive in the region, and it was extremely successful. As stated above, Washington let loose General Sullivans campaign to eradicate their villages and food sources, and so he did. There are many towns and villages in this part of Pa founded 1780 or shortly after, because thats when it was safe to come back to the area. At that point in history in this region, you could open up a gunshop without the fear of being killed for the priviledge!
-
There was no substantial killing of non-combatants and almost no inhabitants were injured or molested after the surrender.[7] John Butler wrote : "But what gives me the sincerest satisfaction is that I can, with great truth, assure you that in the destruction of the settlement not a single person was hurt except such as were in arms, to these, in truth, the Indians gave no quarter."[8]
That's complete BS, of course. A spinmeister from 1778. The whole purpose of attacking frontier farms and settlements was to terrorize families sufficiently so the militiamen would be forced to remain at home to guard them rather than fight organized battles elsewhere.
And the guy who approved and even cheerleaded the massacre of noncombatant British subjects was King George III.
Recognizing that hiring native tribes to murder noncombatant British subjects might be controversial, General Gage had been lobbying British Secretary of War William Wildman (Lord Barrington) via letter since early June, 1775 for crown authorization to incite tribal allies. Wildman and others demurred, and it was hardliners King George III and (later) the new Secretary of State for America George Germain (Lord Sackville) who quickly bought into Gage’s erroneous claims that Washington had unleashed his “savages” against British forces, and gave the approval. Germain favored a strategy of Screcklichkeit, or instilling terror among the civilian populace that he had observed as a soldier serving in Central Europe, not understanding that the effect in America would be more rage than terror. While the arrival during July of a sunburnt Thompson’s Rifle Regiment dressed like natives played a minor role, misreporting them was part of a continuing conversation between Gage and his superiors in Britain. This added emphasis to a decision already made but not yet in the hands of Gage, who continued to argue for terrorizing families on the frontier as a means to keep the militiamen at home.
Governors and Indian Superintendents were told in a crown letter of 17 July 1775, “….it is His Majesty’s pleasure that you lose no time in taking such steps as may induce (the Indians) to take up the hatchet against His Majesty’s rebellious subjects.” signed King George III
Fortunately it took the British two years before the policy would have an effect because there was no shortage of key officials who, appalled at the idea, stalled implementation. This group included General William Howe, who soon replaced Gage (Fischer Washington’s 75; Nester 70-71).
-
As I noted earlier in this thread my ancestors were some of the early CT settlers of the Wyoming Valley. They later migrated up the Susquehanna to Bradford Co. The following are letters and recorded dissertations of their lives in the Wyoming Valley, focusing particularly on the time frame of the massacre of 78 and the years before and after. The one is quite long and for that I apologize... These are easily found via the net if you search for the Gore family. I hope to not kill this thread with this posting as I find the discussion very enlightening.
Obadiah Gore Jr. to Nathaniel Gallup
Westmoreland 7th March 1779
Sir:
I have been in the Continental Service Ever since the beginning of August 1776 and was at the White Plains when the Emeny _ist* off this place last July. You doubtless have heard the particulars of the Action in Which I lost three of own brothers. viz: Silas, Asa, and George, and two brothers in law Timothy Pierce and John Murphy --- Daniel and Samuel was in the battle but escaped, --- Our families were all drove out from this Settlement without the help of horses and cattle, and with no more than what they could carry out throught the wilderness on their backs. And our buildings all burnt and our household Furniture and clothing all carried away or destroyed, but we have got the possession again and have about 140 Continental Soldies here, besides a number of Inhabitants that has returned, and we have a very strong fort with Artillery and provisions plenty ....... Father moved back his family in Nov. Last and he took the small pox of which he died the 10th of January last. --- Mother and the children has had it by inoculation and recovered and now live with me. Daniel and his family & Silas widow and her children are here, --- Asas, widow and her child is a Preston, Hannah and her children is at Plainfield, Lucy and her children are at Canaan*.... It is a healthy time with us at present. We have no news or nothing, nor nothing new happened here since the 10th of last month when a party of Indians came down & and killed 3 men, and wounded another who has since recovered. The Indians lost one killed dead on the spot and two others badly wounded as apparent by the blood, but we could not catch them ---- I desire to be remembered to Annl* and all my cousins. Mother desires to be remembered to you and your family.
I remain yours,
Obadiah Gore
Obadiah Gore Sr. to Nathaniel Gallup
Westmorland June 22nd 1778,
Dear Brother and Sister
After our love to You and your children these few lines may inform you of our health through the Divine Goodness. It is a time of health in general though some difficulty with the Indians and torys. About 30 miles up the Susquehannah there has been a number taken by the Enemy and carried to Niagery fort - perhaps 20! and we have had some suspicion of some of that number Killed, but not certain. 16th Inst Capt Robins son Miner [?] and one Joel Phelps and four more went up the river about the afor mentioned distance in two canoes, and came near a number of Indians and torys, the number not known, who called to them and bid them surrender but our men thought not best to be made prisoner - made off in the Canoes as fast as possible! The indians shot at them a large number of Guns, and wounded the aforesaid Robbins and Phelps, and shot a great many bullets, which struck the canoes and paddles, and the four other men remained unhurt: they came down the River, and the next morning Mr Robins died - being shot through the belly, and Phelps was shot more on the side - there seems some hope of his recovery. We have forts. We Keep a watch and have sent to the Board of war for help - My two oldest sons are in Continental service. Obadiah a Lieut in Col [?]yth's Regiment, [?] of Daniel Lieut in a Company raised for our defense here, under Capt Detrick Hewitt. Remember my love to brother Hobart and family, and all inquiring friends: I take it a good deal hard of you that you never write to me. - I want to know whether you ever hear from brother Samuel or Moses and want to hear of any thing that is remarkable. So no more at present but remain your sincere friend and loving brother.
Obah Gore.
-
Obadiah Gore Sr's Daughter (Obadiah Gore Jr's sister) dictated a biography to her daughter and it is quite long, too long to post here in one shot or even multiple replies. It can be read at the following URL, the Tri-County Genealogy website (Bradford, Tioga and Chemung Counties).
http://www.joycetice.com/families/hanagore.htm
-
Just some Historical notation based on this thread :
School by 1774 in the Wyoming Settlement: why yes, The Connecticut setters were intelligent people with 5 years of settlement at that time, there should be a school
The Wyoming Valley and a lot of northeastern PA came under the control of the Penn family in 1768 as a result of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix.
Mart Keen
-
Yeah, but that 1770-1780 melting pot melted as fast as it had congealed with the Wyoming Massacre of 1778, wiping out all white settlement for some time.
One of the largest Indian incidents ever in Pennsylvania. 302 scalps taken and over a thousand homes burned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Massacre
I'm not 100% sure what befell Nanticoke after the Wyoming Valley Massacre.
I know Nanticoke did not vanish all of the sudden.... though it was incorporated as a village in 1830.
Referring to one of my earlier posts regarding this:
A few "firsts" for that town as it took strides forward specifically include the following:
1774 The first school teacher was William McKarrichan.
1776 The first two "great roads," Middle and River Roads, were staked out.
1780 First weekly mail from Wilkes-Barre.
Also, we see "Harvey creek", draining Harvey lake and, going south, falls into the river at West Nanticoke. This is joined by Pikes creek in Jackson township. This lake was named for Benjamin Harvey, who located near its junction in 1775.... now known as "Harvey's Lake".
So, I'm guessing after the massacre everything just vanished????
This is a link to the Nanticoke, PA history website,.. not a huge amount there, but a good amount. It mentions quite the settlement in the early 18th century,...a Grist mill, Iron Forge and sawmill by the Susquehanna rapids of that area of land. Quite an interesting bit of info. I have yet to find any writings that record where all that was "completely" abandoned after the Wyoming Valley massacre took place? I see where it says in 1780 the grist mill was guarded by armed settlers. Wish there was more out there!
http://www.nanticokecity.com/history.htm
-
Just some Historical notation based on this thread :
On maps from the 1600 through the 1700's there were many "Great Swamps"
We were talking about Northeastern PA so That means the Great Swamp to the East: The Pocono Barrens; The "Shades of Death" as it was known at that time. This was the Great (NEPA) Swamp
School by 1774 in the Wyoming Settlement: why yes, The Connecticut setters were intelligent people with 5 years of settlement at that time, there should be a school
Ah!,... The Shades Of Death,... I completely forgot about that swamp area!!!
-
"400 Virginian volunteers, all armed with rifles, and excellent marksmen, and dressed alamode de sauvages, with painted shirts and fur-caps stained with paint."
Scots Magazine, October 1764
This was relating the dress of the Virginia Militia going west with Bouquet, The same expedition that many of us know about because of the description of the oilcloth shirt.....
400 Riflemen in 64....Thats a lot of rifles for that early according to the "Conventional Wisdom"
-
"400 Virginian volunteers, all armed with rifles, and excellent marksmen, and dressed alamode de sauvages, with painted shirts and fur-caps stained with paint."
Scots Magazine, October 1764
This was relating the dress of the Virginia Militia going west with Bouquet, The same expedition that many of us know about because of the description of the oilcloth shirt.....
400 Riflemen in 64....Thats a lot of rifles for that early according to the "Conventional Wisdom"
If they were actually rifles as opposed to a mixture of rifles, muskets, fusils and fowlers...is a big if. Primary sources then were no more accurate than primary sources now.
Today most infantrymen are “riflemen”, and we use the term casually, with occasional sources extending it to the writing of history in error. There were never many organized rifle units serving in the war; most soldiers were armed with smooth-bore muskets, fusils (a lighter, shorter musket), or fowlers (shotguns) shooting ball, buckshot, or a combination called “buck and ball”. In 1775, Pennsylvania raised nine companies of true frontier riflemen; Maryland two, and Virginia two, with strengths ranging from 60 to 90 men each. New England had few rifles anywhere in 1775. Then in early 1776, Pennsylvania raised an additional 12 companies of 72 or more riflemen each under Colonel Samuel Miles, and Virginia and Maryland six more under Colonel Hugh Stevenson. There were certainly rifles here and there in the militia regiments south of New England where men often owned their own firelocks, with the southern militias and units raised from frontiersmen probably having a higher percentage of rifles. The ratio of 350 rifles to 1500 muskets confiscated from 2000 Scottish settler households after the 1776 Battle of Moore’s Creek, North Carolina was probably representative. (Although probably a greater density of firearms than were present in German households - unlike many Scots, Palatines and Alsatians brought little experience with firearms with them to America, and wouldn’t acquire them until necessity demanded it.) Colonel Peter Kachlein’s Northampton County Militia (Kachlein was from Easton) is also an example. Battle histories refer to them as “Kachlein’s Riflemen”, although likely under half were armed with rifles. The “overmountain men” from Appalachian frontier settlements at the 1780 Battle of King’s Mountain are another example; they certainly had a high percentage of riflemen. But the major rifle units available to Washington in 1775-6 were only the units I list – approximately 2300 riflemen in a force larger than 20,000 (PA Archives Series 2 Vol X; Russell 83; Stroh Thompson’s 13-15).
-
"400 Virginian volunteers, all armed with rifles, and excellent marksmen, and dressed alamode de sauvages, with painted shirts and fur-caps stained with paint."
Scots Magazine, October 1764
This was relating the dress of the Virginia Militia going west with Bouquet, The same expedition that many of us know about because of the description of the oilcloth shirt.....
400 Riflemen in 64....Thats a lot of rifles for that early according to the "Conventional Wisdom"
If they were actually rifles as opposed to a mixture of rifles, muskets, fusils and fowlers...is a big if. Primary sources then were no more accurate than primary sources now.
While it is a valid question, are you asking it to grind an anti-rifle axe or to find the truth?
Since the document states ALL ARMED WITH RIFLES we have little choice but to accept it at face value. It possible that some were no rifle armed but any assumption of this is revisionist history SINCE THERE IS NO PROOF OR MENTION OF THIS.
We have to look at the fact that some native tribes were heavily armed with rifles by this time. In fact they had been using rifles for about 2 decades by the 1760s.
While its currently the "in thing" the disparage the use of rifles due to a great many reenactors who often do not shoot live ammo much if at all and thus think the SB is cool because its light and their friends, some of whom could not function in the 18th century due to limited skill sets, think its cool too.
Someone living on the frontier populated by rifle armed natives who know how to use them will have difficulties in countering them if only armed with a musket or fowler. In fact its nearly impossible for the musket/fowler to effectively deal with the rifle outside linear European infantry tactics. The natives were not dumb enough to fight this way so rate of fire meant very little and the bayonet only works if you can get close.
A decent rifleman with a reasonably accurate FL rifle of 45-50 caliber can kill or cripple a man every shot at 150 yards. Its EASY. So if the bayonet armed musket toter gets gut shot at 150 yards his ability to use the bayonet or load rapidly is "degraded".
The musket or fowler is just a noise maker at this distance unless shooting at "area targets". Why 150 yards? BECAUSE IT IS MENTIONED as a shooting distance for rifles in the 1750s. If I am out in the woods at daylight with a good rest I can shoot a musket armed farmer at his cabin door with perfect safety. They are not a significant threat.
Given the way the natives made war the smoothbore was largely useless against the rifle as was beautifully demonstrated by Morgan's Riflemen at Saratoga where the French allied native and French Canadian scouts virtually all returned to Canada rather than try to confront Morgan's men. This from the writings of BRITISH OFFICERS who were "boots on the ground" with Burgoyne.
The people on the frontier, if not hampered by a pacifist religion or distorted reading of the 10 Commandments, needed rifles by the F&I War just to counter the rifles in Native hands.
But this in another truth that is uncomfortable for people who want the 18th Century to fit some mould they created to match their "persona". As a result conflicting information its either ignored or questioned when there is no valid justification for the question other than trying the discredit a source dead for 250 plus years in many cases which as a result cannot be refuted. If we only accept the information that WE want.
We cannot judge everyone on the frontier by one group of people who are so ignorant and trusting as to live on the fringe of a warlike group of people, who as a group kill people for fun and profit, apparently unarmed.
This is a "Darwin Award" scenario.
Dan
-
Well written Dan!
John
-
I’m interested in separating lore from ground truth via available evidence instead of demagoguery that does little more than restate the lore.
“All armed with rifles” doesn’t ring true because the evidence doesn’t support it. Virginia Militia…mostly farmers and not professional hunters/trappers ala Natty Bumpo…supplied their own weapons, and to assume all those cash-strapped, first-generation subsistence farmers in 1764 owned a rifle costing 6 pounds as opposed to a fowler costing 3 pounds isn’t supported by the preponderance of evidence. In turn, the ratio of 350 rifles to 1500 smooth-bores confiscated from 2000 Scottish settler households after the 1776 Battle of Moore’s Creek, does ring true (and for a welcome change is period evidence presented by someone who knew what he was looking at). That’s not to say Bouquet didn’t have a healthy percentage of skilled riflemen, or that he didn’t use them effectively…he did, and Washington would later emulate him by asking for dedicated frontier rifle units in 1775…but casual statements from secondary sources should always be challenged. In fact, it’s probably fair to call Bouquet the progenitor of the dedicated American rifle units that were so successful in 1775 and 1776, as some of the 1775 battalion and regimental commanders had been junior officers under Bouquet in the two previous conflicts.
Further, given the inaccuracies inherent in casual reports, accepting these statements at face value only perpetuates the inaccuracies. For example, “Kachlein’s Riflemen” of lore circa 1775 was in real life the Northampton County Militia…more farmers…where the evidence suggests they were hardly all armed with rifles like Morgan’s Thompson’s, Miles’ and Stevenson’s purpose-organized rifle units. Same with the lore about early Christian Springs’ rifles. While their riflemaking school may have begun in 1757, the evidence suggests few of their neighbors were armed with anything other than farm implements during the Indian attacks of 1763, and the Moravians didn’t begin producing rifles on a for-profit, production basis until 1762, a year or so before John Moll arrived after the 1763 Whitehall Massacre. Hence the default answer for whether Moll or Albrecht had greater influence on Northampton gunmaking probably shouldn’t tilt toward Albrecht, who was only a part-time gunmaker from 1757 to 1762 and was gone entirely by 1766.
Same with the natives. While I’m sure Natty Bumpo’s Mohican companions were armed with fresh, well-maintained long rifles costing 6 pounds or more with which they could shoot into a 7-inch circle at 250 yards 10 times out of 10, I’d like to see some evidence that the overwhelming preponderance of the firearms in tribal possession…when they owned them at all…weren’t poorly-maintained, 2-pound smoothbore trade guns.
-
I’m interested in separating lore from ground truth via available evidence instead of demagoguery that does little more than restate the lore.
“All armed with rifles” doesn’t ring true because the evidence doesn’t support it. Virginia Militia…mostly farmers and not professional hunters/trappers ala Natty Bumpo…supplied their own weapons, and to assume all those cash-strapped, first-generation subsistence farmers in 1764 owned a rifle costing 6 pounds as opposed to a fowler costing 3 pounds isn’t supported by the preponderance of evidence. In turn, the ratio of 350 rifles to 1500 smooth-bores confiscated from 2000 Scottish settler households after the 1776 Battle of Moore’s Creek, does ring true (and for a welcome change is period evidence presented by someone who knew what he was looking at). That’s not to say Bouquet didn’t have a healthy percentage of skilled riflemen, or that he didn’t use them effectively…he did, and Washington would later emulate him by asking for dedicated frontier rifle units in 1775…but casual statements from secondary sources should always be challenged. In fact, it’s probably fair to call Bouquet the progenitor of the dedicated American rifle units that were so successful in 1775 and 1776, as some of the 1775 battalion and regimental commanders had been junior officers under Bouquet in the two previous conflicts.
Further, given the inaccuracies inherent in casual reports, accepting these statements at face value only perpetuates the inaccuracies. For example, “Kachlein’s Riflemen” of lore circa 1775 was in real life the Northampton County Militia…more farmers…where the evidence suggests they were hardly all armed with rifles like Morgan’s Thompson’s, Miles’ and Stevenson’s purpose-organized rifle units. Same with the lore about early Christian Springs’ rifles. While their riflemaking school may have begun in 1757, the evidence suggests few of their neighbors were armed with anything other than farm implements during the Indian attacks of 1763, and the Moravians didn’t begin producing rifles on a for-profit, production basis until 1762, a year or so before John Moll arrived after the 1763 Whitehall Massacre. Hence the default answer for whether Moll or Albrecht had greater influence on Northampton gunmaking probably shouldn’t tilt toward Albrecht, who was only a part-time gunmaker from 1757 to 1762 and was gone entirely by 1766.
Same with the natives. While I’m sure Natty Bumpo’s Mohican companions were armed with fresh, well-maintained long rifles costing 6 pounds or more with which they could shoot into a 7-inch circle at 250 yards 10 time out of 10, I’d like to see some evidence that the overwhelming preponderance of the firearms in tribal possession…when they owned them at all…weren’t poorly-maintained, 2-pound smoothbore trade guns.
"400 Virginian volunteers, all armed with rifles, and excellent marksmen, and dressed alamode de sauvages, with painted shirts and fur-caps stained with paint."
Scots Magazine, October 1764
In your post above, the words "all armed with rifles" is what was written in 1764. The remainder of that post is simply your opinion.
Are you suggesting that something written at the time is incorrect, and that your opinion, 247 years after the fact, is correct?
I sincerely hope you're not in the business of writting history books!
John
-
Scots Magazine, October 1764
The report could be entirely true...all I'm suggesting is more evidence is required for definitive conclusions.
Henri Bouquet commanded the 1st Battalion of the 60th Royal American Regiment, and is credited with introducing the rifle (without official blessing) and open-order tactics. But nowhere I've seen in the major sources states all his (farmer-volunteer) troops were armed with rifles, and local economic facts suggest they probably all weren't. Further, even if Bouquet was supplying his troops with weapons (which he wasn't), where would he get 400 rifles in the late 1750's? Was Virginia producing rifles in those kind of quantities then? Was Pennsylvania? Imported from Germany to Philadelphia? All questionable. And if we know or have insight into those answers, I'd be grateful for the sources.
At the time the article was written, Bouquet was commanding 1500 militia and regulars on a punitive expedition against tribal forces in the Ohio Valley. Perhaps the 400 mentioned were his riflemen, gleaned from the 1500...the ratio rings true...but without corroborating evidence, we don't really know that.
-
The rifles used in the French and Indian War seem to have been a mix: some colonial-made, some imported.
One source that any writer about the weapons available during the French and Indian War to the British or provincial troops should consult is: Jim Mullins, Of Sorts For Provincials: American Weapons of the French and Indian War (2008). Mullins cites plentiful primary documents about large batches of imported arms.
There were also large collections of old arms in the colonies. In 1758, William Henry of Lancaster was brought to Winchester, VA, to inspect a large shipment of arms sent there from Williamsburg. He reported to William Byrd that “he does not think the old Guns, (about 320) are fit for Service, for they have been in the Magazeen…ever since the Reign of King William.” In this instance the guns weren't fit for service (and were likely not rifles). But Henry repaired other batches of weapons, including rifles, in 1756 and again in 1758: in 1756, he took "a great deal of pains to rectifie [the arms of Pennsylvania troops], & [to] bore & straiten the Barrels." One might expect that other gunsmiths were similarly involved in making older weapons, including rifles, ready for service in 1756-63.
I realize the above quotations don't give us any information about the number of rifles, new or old, available for British, Pennsylvania, or Virginia companies during the French and Indian War. But they do point out, clearly enough, that we simply do not have the sort of information that could support generalizations about how many soldiers in any company were or were not supplied with rifles. It's basically guesswork.
I've disagreed with Bob elsewhere about the unsupported and unsupportable notion that "the evidence suggests few of [the Moravians' Northampton County] neighbors were armed with anything other than farm implements during the Indian attacks of 1763." I won't repeat all that here--only state again that there simply isn't enough evidence to ground such a conclusion.
-
I've disagreed with Bob elsewhere about the unsupported and unsupportable notion that "the evidence suggests few of [the Moravians' Northampton County] neighbors were armed with anything other than farm implements during the Indian attacks of 1763." I won't repeat all that here--only state again that there simply isn't enough evidence to ground such a conclusion.
Except, of course, Governor James Hamilton and professional soldier Colonel James Burd, a protege of Bouquet. Burd being a first-hand witness who had at least a vague idea what he was looking at.
NORTHAMPTON TOWN, the 10th, this instant, October, 1763.
To the Honorable JAMES HAMILTON (1710-1783), Esq., Lieutenant Governor and Commander in Chief of the Province of Pennsylvania,
We send greetings: As I, Joseph Roth of Northampton Town, Church Minister, on the ninth of October, as I was preaching, people arrived in such numbers I was obliged to quit my sermon, and as Colonel James Burd (1726-1793) was in town, I spoke to Colonel Burd concerning the Indian affair.
We found the inhabitants that had neither Guns, Powder nor Lead, to defend themselves, and that Colonel Burd …would assist them with guns and ammunition, and he requested of me to write to your Honor, because the inhabitants of the town had not chose their officers at the time he set off, so we, the inhabitants of the said town hath unanimous chose George Wolf, the bearer hereof, to be Captain, and Abraham Rinker (1741-1820, later brother-in-law to gunmaker Johannes Moll) to be Lieutenant; we whose names are underwritten, promise to obey to this mentioned Captain and Lieutenant, and so we hope his Honor will be so good and send us 50 guns, 100 pound of powder, and 400 pound lead, 150 stands for the guns… JOSEPH ROTH
LANCASTER, October 17th, 1763
Sir: (Governor Hamilton) I arrived here on Monday night from Northampton. I need not trouble your Honor with a relation of the misfortune of that county, as Mr. Horsfield told me he would send you an express, and inform you fully of what happened. I will only mention, that in the town of Northampton (where I was at the time), there were only four guns, three of which were unfit for use, and the enemy within four miles of the place.
Respectfully yours,
JAMES BURD
Like I said. Evidence, not more romantic lore about the Moravians based on a few pretty relics and a utopian dream.
And thanks for the leads. Henri Bouquet is my next area of interest.
-
Bob:
How large was the town of Northampton at the time? And Northampton County? So you've mistaken one thing for another, no? Or at least you've made a claim about all the Moravians' Northampton County neighbors when, really, you had a single piece of evidence that refers to Allentown alone. Do you really have any evidence whatsoever about how many rifles were owned by Northampton County or Lancaster County farmers? I'm afraid a single count of weapons in Allentown in 1763 doesn't quite pin things down.
Also: even good evidence requires interpretation and understanding. Why were there only 4 guns (3 of them unfit for use) in Allentown in October 1763? Is it possible (indeed, probable) that the town had more guns earlier but many had left with the militia men who owned them or had been taken by authorities for use by soldiers between 1755-1763? My point here is that, even if entirely accurate, this count of guns at this snapshot of time needs to be explained and understood before it's (mis)used as representative of how many guns existed in the entire county.
Since we've covered all the Moravian stuff before--feels more like Groundhog Day than Memorial Day--I won't take the bait here and just say that nothing that I wrote in reply to the most recent posts had anything to do with Moravians. I used the word only because you did--all I'm really saying is that you have no information whatsoever about the prevalence of weapons in Northampton County. Whether the Moravians were making many or few weapons at the time is totally beside the point.
-
The Indian raid Hamilton and Burd were discussing cut a 10-mile swath through Allen and Whitehall Townships with 23 killed and several more seriously wounded…mostly women and children.
Of the eight or so farmstead families, one inn and one mill attacked, only one had a gun besides the inn where local ranger company commander Captain Jacob Wetterholt was assassinated as the initial target of the raid. By the end of the day a force of “20 armed neighbors” had assembled to engage the war party, but the report (based on interviews with surviving witnesses as well as newspaper and archive accounts) doesn’t state what they were armed with. Perhaps all were armed with firearms (unlikely, because the next day the same group requested 50 guns from the province), but even if so, that’s 20 men among at least 200 who had been alerted by then. Nor did the 12 Indians (counted from a rooftop while crossing the river) all have firearms. Their attacks would have been a lot more devastating if they had. Northampton Town was a new settlement, but the two townships involved and nearby Craig's Settlement had been settled since the early 1730’s, and as the Lehigh Valley had such desirable farmland, were relatively densely populated by 1763.
Further, in October 1763 the only local "militia" was a 50-man ranger company stationed at Ft Allen on the other side of the Lehigh Water Gap only since the previous July. Here is their by-name roster:
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~marier/Roster.htm
Again. Evidence, not lore.
Sources:
Clarence M.Busch, Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania, Vol 1. (State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1896), 142.
Joseph J Mickley, Brief account of murders by the Indians, and the cause thereof, in Northampton County, Penn'a., October 8th, 1763. (Philadelphia: Thomas William Stuckey, Printer, 1875) 11-19.
C. Hale Sipe, The Indian Wars of Pennsylvania. (2 vols. 1929: Bowie, Md; Heritage Books, 2000) 456.
-
I don't think I've offered any "lore": I've questioned the conclusions you draw from the few snippets of primary sources you cite.
I would think the population of Allentown at the time would be important to your researches if you're drawing conclusions about the prevalence of weapons there. What was it?
My point about the source you cited is that you presented it as evidence of the scarcity of guns in the well-populated counties but actually it described only the count of guns in what you now suggest was only a new (and lightly populated?) town.
Any way to know anything about the representativeness of those 20 armed men? Why are you assuming that they were the only "arms" available at the time? Perhaps only 50% of the men with arms showed up? Or 5% How can we know?
-
I think they were all riflemen, but prior to the invention of the time machine, we have nothing but the written accounts and internet arguments.
If the account said 400 New York Militia all armed with rifles I would discredit it, but 400 backwoods Virginians dressed as Indians, something we see again and again in Virginia rifle units units (64, 75, 79X2) the evidence leans toward their actually being riflemen.
I for sure do not subscribe to the "Hiding behind rocks and trees armed with rifles killing the evil commie brits" line that some folks who sell M14 stocks like to use for why we won the Revolution,
I do see the influence of Riflemen spreading out, Parr's Riflemen being stationed in Schoharie, and Tim Murphy settling there after regular service dischare and serving in the militia has morphed into the "Fact" that the Schoharie Militia was a rifle unit, same with Nick Stoner, who was a musician in the NY Line during the Rev war has morphed into he was a rifleman.....
-
I’m interested in separating lore from ground truth via available evidence instead of demagoguery that does little more than restate the lore.
“All armed with rifles” doesn’t ring true because the evidence doesn’t support it. Virginia Militia…mostly farmers and not professional hunters/trappers ala Natty Bumpo…supplied their own weapons, and to assume all those cash-strapped, first-generation subsistence farmers in 1764 owned a rifle costing 6 pounds as opposed to a fowler costing 3 pounds isn’t supported by the preponderance of evidence. In turn, the ratio of 350 rifles to 1500 smooth-bores confiscated from 2000 Scottish settler households after the 1776 Battle of Moore’s Creek, does ring true (and for a welcome change is period evidence presented by someone who knew what he was looking at). That’s not to say Bouquet didn’t have a healthy percentage of skilled riflemen, or that he didn’t use them effectively…he did, and Washington would later emulate him by asking for dedicated frontier rifle units in 1775…but casual statements from secondary sources should always be challenged. In fact, it’s probably fair to call Bouquet the progenitor of the dedicated American rifle units that were so successful in 1775 and 1776, as some of the 1775 battalion and regimental commanders had been junior officers under Bouquet in the two previous conflicts.
Further, given the inaccuracies inherent in casual reports, accepting these statements at face value only perpetuates the inaccuracies. For example, “Kachlein’s Riflemen” of lore circa 1775 was in real life the Northampton County Militia…more farmers…where the evidence suggests they were hardly all armed with rifles like Morgan’s Thompson’s, Miles’ and Stevenson’s purpose-organized rifle units. Same with the lore about early Christian Springs’ rifles. While their riflemaking school may have begun in 1757, the evidence suggests few of their neighbors were armed with anything other than farm implements during the Indian attacks of 1763, and the Moravians didn’t begin producing rifles on a for-profit, production basis until 1762, a year or so before John Moll arrived after the 1763 Whitehall Massacre. Hence the default answer for whether Moll or Albrecht had greater influence on Northampton gunmaking probably shouldn’t tilt toward Albrecht, who was only a part-time gunmaker from 1757 to 1762 and was gone entirely by 1766.
Same with the natives. While I’m sure Natty Bumpo’s Mohican companions were armed with fresh, well-maintained long rifles costing 6 pounds or more with which they could shoot into a 7-inch circle at 250 yards 10 times out of 10, I’d like to see some evidence that the overwhelming preponderance of the firearms in tribal possession…when they owned them at all…weren’t poorly-maintained, 2-pound smoothbore trade guns.
We have good evidence that the Natives of PA and Western NY were armed with rifles to a significant extent by the 1740s. We have a written account that the Indian Allies that accompanied Braddock were rifle armed. The quote reads "very dexterous with a rifle barrel gun and tomahawk" this from an nameless eyewitness according to Bailey.
I am not sure the assumption that the poor did not own rifles due to cost will withstand scrutiny.
There is a quote in pg 76 “British Military Flintlock Rifles” By Bailey
It states that the very poor are selling rifles to the Creeks at “monstrous price” and that the gun is the greatest part of their estate.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FP1020064.jpg&hash=c30cdab3283ccfaf22d21503ffab8e01a8b06cc1)
This seems to refute the idea that the poor did not own rifles. At least in SC.
Which also raises the question of who was making rifles in SC in 1756?
But then rifles were being imported from England in the 1750s and probably before. So making rifles here is irrelevant. Just because there is no documentation for making rifles in any part of Colonial America is no proof there were no rifles. Rifles (and smooth rifles) purchased in London were for sale in America, documented, in 1757 I am sure these were not the first.
I would assume that selling the rifle at a profit resulted in the "very poor" eventually becoming less poor. But this is speculation.
The Gov’t agents, north and south, were trying to keep rifles from native hands by the mid-1750s. But it was not possible according to Bailey.
Did all natives have rifles? No. Just like the whites some did not like them or could not use them to best effect. A smoothbore is as good as a rifle to the poor shot. A good shot that tries a rifle or learns to use one has little use for a SB.
There is an account of a flatboat being overrun along the Ohio in 1790 “Incidents Attending the Capture, Detention, and Ransom of Charles Johnston of Virginia”.
Johnson states the Natives, a considerable war party, were rifle armed. Being from various tribes from Ohio, “friendly” eastern tribes and some Cherokees or other southern tribe.
Rifles would make sense when attacking boats on a wide river. Were they REALLY ALL rifle armed. Unlikely. But most could easily have been.
But some surely were. Also, part of the booty he was forced to carry into Ohio was a very heavy rifle barrel.
He does state that he and his fellow travelers were armed with “nothing better than common fowling pieces” except for one who had a "small neat rifle".
This seems to indicate 2 things, fowling pieces were used but were apparently not thought to be the best choice but merely “sufficient”.
But given the foolishness that lead to their being attacked no firearm would have made any difference.
As someone else pointed out you seem determined to force the witnesses of the past to conform to your current opinions. The fact that you are so unwilling to accept documentation from the past concerning firearms types and uses makes me question everything you write as probably being biased toward whatever you want things to be rather than what the WERE in reality.
OF COURSE SBs outnumbere rifles. Most people, considering the general population, not only did not know how to use one they HAD NO NEED for one. I suspect that a great many firearms owners of the Colonial period only had what was needed for militia use and never used it in any practical sense unless ordered to do so.
The true riflemen are rare even today. Most are gun owners, if that, and are not serious shooters even if they own firearms.
So rifles are going to be relatively rare ESPECIALLY in the more settled areas. A store keeper in 1776 Philladelphia is not likely to be sniped by a rifle toting native while standing in the door of his house. Someone living on the western frontier might be as safe.
If 10% of the natives have rifles and know how to use them, and accounts of the 1750s say they did. HOW DO YOU COUNTER THEM WITH A MUSKET. Answer? Its impossible. The rifle was a much more effective weapon from the military standpoint other than in LINEAR EUROPEAN tactics which the Natives were never dumb enough to emulate. If a couple of natives with rifles are 100 yards from the door its not possible to open it. If you have rifle you can shoot from a loop or crack without exposing yourself with some hope of killing them or at least causing them to seek easier prey. At 100 yards the typical smooth bore is little more than a noisemaker in this context. Read the accounts of accuracy testing of the typical musket well into the 19th century.
We have accounts that the rifle was effective at 150 yards. Its EASY to hit a man at this distance with a rifle over 36-40 caliber. The Musket is USELESS at this distance for point targets. The bayonet is not of much use at even 50 yards. Especially if the rifleman using a tree for rest shoots the musket armed enemy in the guts at 150 yards. Shooting your enemy at a distance is always an advantage.
The rifle is documented as being in Militia use in America from at least the 1680s (500 foot and fifty riflemen) about 10%.
Then we have the question of where did the 1740s natives learn of the rifle? Why would they want one?
One simply cannot counter the evidence by saying people were to poor. This is irrelevant when its a NEEDED item for survival.
I would also point out that Natty Bumpo is fictional, sort of a 18th century superman and trying to use a character of this sort to belittle other people's arguments is a form of insult.
Dan
-
Two things at play here: facts and tradition. The facts are fairly sparse, either way. The tradition is clear. Whether the tradition follows the facts precisely or not, it is clear that there is little to emulate in poor settlers living unarmed or inadequately armed in dangerous areas. I tend to believe most of the tradition, but what little study I have done focuses on SW Va. into Tn. and KY, where the settlers were apparently well-armed (I suspect with a high percentage of rifles -- e.g., King's Mountain) and not prone to shirk a fight, regardless of their ethnic origins, financial status, or religious background. I have also grown skeptical of the absolute origin of the rifle and propagation from PA only -- several examples of rifles from south do not bear any great resemblance outside basic function to PA rifles, and quite a few look positively European in concept, especially the step-toe group from SW Va, so that I'm liable to wonder if they weren't built by immigrants trained in or influenced by their native arms as much as or more than anything from PA. Of course, we "know" now that few Germans ever had guns, so it is a mystery :). All that is to say I agree with Dan on this one.
-
I don't see much point in reasoning that folks could afford or not afford this or that, as a basis for "deciding" the prevalence of rifles in any place or time. Poor folks today have all found some way to have internet and cell phones with the latest technology. Folks find a way to get what they want or need, and if rifles were the "new thing" you can bet a young man saved to get one like a kid in the 1960's saving for his first car. It's human nature.
Regarding Pennsylvania versus Southern roots for longrifles, there's no argument that there were both independent influences and cross-pollinations going on. So much has been published of Pennsylvania rifles all the way back to the 1960's that there's much more known about them and perhaps more surviving specimens than Southern examples.
But the elusive question continues to be, who first introduced a rifle culture to the back country in the forst half of the 1700's so that Indians desired and became armed with rifles? Totally speculative. We still have no idea whether none, some, or most of these were imports and what their origin was, what they looked like. But rifle guns with 4 foot long barrels are mentioned very early, and it seems that demand must have exceeded what a few colonial gunsmiths could provide (thus imports seeming likely, as was the case with smoothbores). Total speculation.
-
Why do we assume there were only a few gunsmiths in the Colonies? I just finished reading an original letter from John Tobler (German- Swiss)who was settleing in a new village of Savannaton (Beech Island) SC, about 5 miles down river from Augusta, GA. He asked that the next installment of settlers include gunsmiths and they also bring a plentiful supply of muskets and powder and lead.......he didn't say shot(?) If they were bringing gunsmiths to this little frontier settlement and they did because in an account of the 1760 Long Cane Massacre people evacuated to Tobler's Fort where there was a gunsmith....... why is it not likely that many other, especially German -Swiss settlements didn't have gunsmiths???
heavens, they mihght even have been making southern guns in the early 1700s............... :o :o ;D ;D
-
Tim, I'll need to go back and look at some references, but there have been catalogues of the number of gunsmiths in the colonies (Whisker is one who did this, I believe) and they grew exponentially in number just like the colonial population from the 1730's through the Revolutionary War. Also we tend to think "gun-maker" when we hear "gunsmith" but many/most very early gunsmiths may have had a large proportion of work in repairs and maintenance. I know little of the South but we know that in Pennsylvania in 1740 there were perhaps 6 documented gunsmiths in Northampton/Bethlehem/Allentown areas, 4 gunsmiths in Lancaster and 2 or 3 in Reading, for example (I made those numbers up; am sure others have the actual head counts). In 1770 those numbers would be in the dozens. These numbers may be affected by customs in recording census also; perhaps gunsmiths were often just "smiths" in the early records.
There are few cases of good records and it may not be wise to extrapolate from the Moravian Christians Spring shop, but we know this shop a) had a major stylistic influence; b) was a low production shop given the numbers Oerter turned out each year (I think he averaged 16). If 1000 native Americans alone from New York to Georgia west of the settlements had rifles we'd need a lot of rifle-making gunsmiths keeping very busy to supply them plus every able-bodied Virginian. I know of no records before the Revolutionary War indicating who was supplying rifles to anyone in large numbers, other than ads in the papers of the major coastal cities, and we don't have evidence that the frontier was being armed with rifles made by gunsmiths in the port cities.
There is little disagreement that the vast majority of smoothbores purchased or traded were imported, as were mamy manufactured goods including blankets etc. It was the economic system to export raw materials and purchase made goods from the mother country. It may well be that in early years, the same was true for rifles.
-
I hesitate adding to this thread, but:
I asked a while back how large Northampton Town was in 1763.
Mathew S. Henry's History of the Lehigh Valley (1860)--not an entirely reliable source throughout, granted--describes an 1764 assessment list that lists only thirteen families residing in Northampton Town (p. 264-65). So the fact that in October 1763 James Burd found "only four guns, three of which were unfit for use" is a lot less surprising than, say, if we had been imagining even a small town at what is now Allentown.
And, as I suggested before, to understand the significance of Burd's report fully--as evidence for the ownership of guns generally--we would need to know whether there had been more guns earlier (but had been used in the fighting during the years since 1755) and, of course, keep the distinction between Northampton Town and Northampton County clear.