AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Bob Smalser on April 30, 2012, 08:50:10 PM
-
For your reference, this is a refinement that is part of an article that is scheduled to be published in Muzzle Blasts Magazine. It corrects a date error on Peter Kuntz (1790-1862).
(https://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/23549184/402340212.jpg)
-
Bob, Thanks as always for sharing your research.
-
Bob, if Johannes Moll was born in 1746, how was he owning property by 1751 in Berks Co.?
And the evidence for William Moll merely existing, let alone being his father, is... where?
I AM NOT TRYING TO BE A SMARTA**
However, these two pieces of MISinformation are repetitively circulated around the internet and they are just plain wrong and/or unprovable, and it is doing a disservice to all who attempt to research the Molls to continually repeat them.
Resume.
-
Bob, if Johannes Moll was born in 1746, how was he owning property by 1751 in Berks Co.?
And the evidence for William Moll merely existing, let alone being his father, is... where?
See the "B" in B1746? It stands for "before". As he died 48 years later in 1794, the odds say he was closer to the 60-65 years old expected for men rather than 48.
And we've been through the William Moll arguments before. They are hardly misinformation, as besides Moll family records recorded by two published Moll genealogists, they are based on a first-person interview with William Henry Moll. And that's solid enough to leave it there until someone comes up with something better.
Long strings of coincidences usually aren't. And waiting for the 1760 equivalent of social security numbers is one of the reasons y'all had almost none of the linkage data posted above until Dennis Kastens and I walked this information forward beginning with German church records, testing and correcting it along the way with university historians specializing in the colonial period. While Ron Gabel did a great job in the 1960's based on old Lehigh County histories and records, those histories were chock full of errors y'all have been repeating ever since. One of which I just caught and corrected above, only because I was missing an 1860 Census mis-scanned as "Runtz" instead of "Kuntz".
As priorities for apprenticeships and jobs went to 1) Immediate Family Members 2) Extended Family Members, and 3) Fellow Church Congregants, this "who-begat-who" stuff is vital. Add cultural, economic, situational and spiritual belief systems, and a number of other conclusions kicking around the collecting community based on analysis of artifacts alone are questionable, and deserve a challenge.
The signed, heirloom tool William Moll left to his gunsmith descendants for “cutting threads” could have been a number of tools ranging from a common screw plate (called a die today), to a large reamer, to a rifling machine. Whatever it was, it was sufficiently large and valuable to merit initials and date of completion (1747), a factor in favor of a more complicated device than a mere screw plate. Moll was also around 35 when he made that tool -- far beyond the years when he would have been overly infatuated with minor achievements. Of greater importance to the issue of William Moll’s existence (some students of the period claim both he and the rifling machine are figures of myth) is that the referenced Mathews and Hungerford passage was taken from either direct correspondence with, or more likely, a live interview with great grandson and gunsmith William Henry Moll, who was alive at the time the book was published and had the tool in his shop. Thus, he undoubtedly knew exactly what the tool was and accordingly, what William Moll did for a living. The younger Moll already had nine noted gunsmiths in his lineage; neither he nor his interviewer had motivation to fabricate another, and he clearly told his interviewer that William Moll was a gunsmith. Further, the Mathews narrative reads as though the interviewer actually saw the device but merely didn’t pursue with Moll a more precise description of what it was.
Why can’t more be found on William Moll? Recent unpublished research by Dave Madary shows “gunsmith” John Moll as occupying land adjacent to other people’s Berks County land warrants (surveys) in the 1750’s, but without a land warrant of his own.18 This could mean the warrants pertaining to him and his father William were lost, but it more likely means they were poor squatters homesteading illegally, a common condition on the frontier, especially between the years 1718-1732, when William Penn died and proprietorship of the colony was contested. All homesteaders arriving in those years began as squatters, accordingly were poorly-documented during their squatting years, and the Molls are thought to have arrived in 1731. William Moll is hard to pin down perhaps because he was only one step ahead of eviction by the Land Office and wanted it that way. Further, while they eventually prospered, the Molls remained poor for some time. Tax records show by 1772 John I owned a cow to feed his new family but didn’t even own a horse for transportation (Kastens Vol IV 53; Kenny 23-30; Silver 7-8).
-
Bob: There are many references to Kuntz-Rupp as partners or at least working together. Are there any Kuntz/Rupp conections anywhere in that family association? Smylee
-
Bob: There are many references to Kuntz-Rupp as partners or at least working together. Are there any Kuntz/Rupp conections anywhere in that family association?
Sure. And more, although the Rupps didn't begin until a generation after Moll and Newhard began in 1763-1764. As Peter Newhard's will inventory mentions John Rupp I, they clearly had a longstanding relationship. All these families attended Egypt Reformed Church together (except the Rupps, who were Lutheran), and when Zion Reformed was established in Allentown in 1772, it shared pastors, trustees and resources with Egypt for some years.
But what evidence we have to date shows Moll and Newhard had a strong professional and personal relationship. And that one, the other or both trained the early Kuntzes and Rupps, and in turn the Rupps trained the Schreckengosts and the Kuntzes Joseph Clippinger. Although evidence is strong that Newhard trained David Kuntz and Moll trained Jacob. Priority for apprentices would also go to Moll, as Newhard also farmed between 100 and (later) 300 acres without older sons and was only a seasonal gunsmith.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic20.picturetrail.com%2FVOL12%2F1104763%2F23549184%2F393801132.jpg&hash=f7272b6e4698fa5a7f6a84d9f6c6e1d6cef7c75a)
Rupp-Schreckengost intermarriages include Susanna Oury (1791-1844), daughter of 1750 immigrant Catharina Christina Rupp (1749-1825), to Benjamin Schreckengost (1788-1868). Also Jacob Simon Rupp (1822-1902), a first cousin to Hermann Rupp, to Mary Ann Schreckengost (1829-1904). Also Christine Ferringer (1800-1893), who was the granddaughter of Herman Rupp’s sister, Maria Clara Rupp (1750-1798), to John Jacob Schreckengost (1793-1893), Samuel Franklin Rupp (1873-1960) to Maude Belle Schreckengost (1880-1936) and Charles Hebert Rupp (1878-1953) to Viona G. Schrecengost (1880-1966). (LDS Genealogical Library; Rob Watt).
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic20.picturetrail.com%2FVOL12%2F1104763%2F23549184%2F401456756.jpg&hash=740bc5a5681464b818184aa235e05a3ef5cfdf13)
-
I see, I wasn't sure what the "B" stood for.
All I can say about the William Moll mess is, *sigh*
-
All I can say about the William Moll mess is, *sigh*
Quite the story you've got going there.
Fine. And what do you propose in return?
That Johannes Moll was dropped out of the sky by a stork? Or was a runaway redemptioner apprentice silversmith whose name wasn't even Moll?
Show me some evidence other than rumors started by three gun collectors swapping lies over drinks at the bar, and I'll run it through the historians here and in Germany.
-
I know nothing about these gunsmithing families but have learned a lot by reading this thread and the earlier, longer one back in late 2010 (http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=13303.0).
So my only contribution can be this: we shouldn't underestimate the degree to which families misunderstand and misrepresent their own histories. They don't do this (typically) maliciously or to deceive others. They are usually deceiving themselves--or convincing themselves of things, filling in gaps that don't make sense to them. Generally, the stories they tell are more interesting for what the reveal about the teller--or the period in which they are being told--than about the subjects of the story themselves. A key question, I think, to always ask is: why is this story being told? what good does it do for the person or persons telling it?
The stories told by the gunsmithing family about which I do know a lot, the Henrys of Lancaster & Northampton Counties, show this pretty clearly. The Killbuck story (William Henry of Lancaster saved the life of a Delaware Indian during Braddock's defeat in summer 1755) is entirely fabricated--by William Henry III, I believe, in the early 1860s, but for understandable reasons: he was trying to make sense of his family's deep & persistent connection with this family of Delawares who had taken the Henry name. Eighteenth-century remarks as well as the stories that other family members told (before and after WH III's invention) explain the families' connections very differently: no battlefield rescue, no Braddock, etc. Indeed, William Henry I was not with Braddock--despite the repetition of this "fact" over and over and over and over and over again.
So: it is not possible to know how or when William Henry and Killbuck first came to know each other or why their relationship was so significant to Killbuck that he took William Henry's name when he was allowed to join the Moravian church in 1789. But the fact that we cannot know how they met (or propose a replacement "fact" for the inaccurate one) does not mean that we cannot know with a high degree of certainty that the story that has been passed down is inaccurate in nearly all aspects.
-
Bob, I do not feel a need to propose anything. I am content to state that currently Johannes Moll's origins are unknown, and any more is speculation. I don't have a problem with a loose end, regardless of how long it may remain loose. My biggest problem with the armada of internet genealogists, in fact, is their seemingly homogenous need to tie up all loose ends regardless of documentation or - more appropriately - lack thereof. I am not accusing you of this at all however I am certain you will take it personally as you always seem to do. I'd like to compliment you highly re: the Neihardt work you have proffered. It seems quite well-considered and documented, and when I have a chance to read through it all I anticipate updating the portions of my own website which deal with Peter Neihardt. I am not focused on genealogy but at the same time I do wish for the bit of historical background info I put "out there" to be accurate. I will certainly credit you for it. I simply do not understand your apparent eagerness to jump on the William Moll bandwagon when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that particular storyline. It has been fairly extensively proven by now (not only by myself and my own targeted research but also via the work of others in unrelated areas) that most - if not all - of the late 19th century "Histories" are highly unreliable and sorely lacking in documentation. Furthermore, the mysterious William Moll "tool" monogram and date is (1) quite vague in and of itself, and (2) falls squarely into a period that is well-reecognized amongst collectors and researchers as being the birth of a pseudo-documented genealogy movement in America, a period when everyone and his brother had some old relic or another of a family's grand history. No, this does not automatically disqualify it, but it has to render it highly suspect at the least and the complete - COMPLETE - lack of any other evidence that a man named William Moll even existed has to call the whole brief story into considerably more than serious question.
So my proposal is, "I don't currently know, and I don't care to put something entirely questionable into hard copy where it will be subsequently interpreted (wrongly or not) as fact."
-
... we shouldn't underestimate the degree to which families misunderstand and misrepresent their own histories.
No doubt about it.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic20.picturetrail.com%2FVOL12%2F1104763%2F23549184%2F402354175.jpg&hash=c04b6484828f543e75b7a8b50c1fd14395b2c03b)
In September 1737 an immigrant ship full of Palatine Germans unloads in Philadelphia and through a translator the men all take an oath of allegiance to the King front of four English justices to obtain settlement rights on the frontier.
The court and later land office records note the three Neuhart men aboard as “brothers” from “Zweibruecken”, the old Lehigh County histories repeat what was recorded, and as a few of their children became famous and wealthy as gunmakers, politicians and landowners, every publication since has used those old histories…including the family in 1917 creating the monument above to their forbearer…and including some publications today.
Except the records are incorrect.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic20.picturetrail.com%2FVOL12%2F1104763%2F23549184%2F402358156.jpg&hash=86c32009478a75f67f420a827419fca04a8b5459)
The Neuharts were part of a party of at least 17 members from the village of Rumbach, which is around 30 road miles from the city of Zweibruecken, but then part of the old Holy Roman Empire’s Duchy of Zweibruecken. There were four Neuhart men, not three, the senior being Frederick above. And they weren’t brothers, but a half-brother, a nephew whose age was hidden to obtain half fare, and a second cousin.
Just don’t expect me to believe Johannes Moll dropped out of the sky into Allentown in late 1763 as a trained, practicing gunsmith. Somebody trained him. And in the first generation hand-to-mouth subsistence farming economy of the 1730’s through early 1760’s, that person was most likely to have been his father trained in Germany, just like Frederick Neuhart trained his oldest son to be a cordwainer, and Michael trained his to be a weaver. There wasn’t much of a market on the frontier for guns, hence there weren’t many gunsmiths being developed, because there wasn’t the money to buy guns or the parts to make them. Which also makes the idea that youngsters then could have been self-taught implausible.
A rifle then cost more than a hundred acres of frontier land, almost as much as a full-fare passage from Rotterdam to Philadelphia, and almost as much as a draft horse. Early probate and sheriff inventories of household goods mention the snares and bird nets early settlers used for hunting, but few guns. Official correspondence after every Indian incident from 1755 to 1763 includes loud pleas for weapons and ammunition, because few settlers owned them. That situation would improve rapidly between 1763 and 1775-6 as the frontier economy improved and Pennsylvania easily fielded battalions of frontier riflemen for service in Boston and Long Island, but the actual evidence says the starting point for Moll in 1763 and Christian Springs in 1762 was near zero. That’s most likely why “John Moll, Gunsmith” moved from his Berks farm and shop to Allentown. After burying the 13 mutilated and scalped children killed in the Whitehall Township Massacre in October 1763, the provincial government finally approved substantial weapons and money for defense of the frontier, and families who didn’t own firearms were ready to spend what money they had to buy them. There was finally a market for servicing and making weapons, and for the first time that market was well-funded.
-
Bob, if I understand correctly, the cause and effect story you're telling goes something like this: there wasn't a need on the frontier for rifles (which were expensive) until Indian attacks made them seem necessary, so the production of rifles began in earnest only after this (Moll moving to Allentown in 1763 signals the start of this development).
If that's the case, why wouldn't the phenomenon you describe have begun in the late 1750s? By 1763, Indian attacks or (more important) the conviction that such attacks were imminent had been persistent since 1755 in the areas of Pennsylvania that you are interested in. The Whitehall Township Massacre in October 1763 wasn't the beginning of anything, was it?
So, does it make sense that "there was finally a market for servicing and making weapons" only in 1763? And, even were that the case, what is the evidence that only then "that market was well-funded"?
*******
The issue of the prevalence (or not) of guns in colonial America is, as I'm sure you know, a very controversial one. Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000) made very similar claims about the absence of guns in probate records--but only by deliberately falsifying data; it first won, and then was stripped of, the Bancroft Prize. Bellesiles's critics (Clayton Cramer's Armed America [2007] or James Lindgren's "Counting Guns in Early America" [2002], which is explicitly about probate records) have pretty much refuted the thesis that guns were scarce in colonial America. Have you consulted any of these thorough analyses of the prevalence of guns in colonial America?
-
... why wouldn't the phenomenon you describe have begun in the late 1750s? By 1763, Indian attacks or (more important) the conviction that such attacks were imminent had been persistent since 1755 in the areas of Pennsylvania that you are interested in. The Whitehall Township Massacre in October 1763 wasn't the beginning of anything, was it?
Good question. The short answer is while the province provided guns to militia forces, all of whom were volunteers in Pennsylvania, there simply wasn't enough money in the hands of the typical family to purchase firearms much before the early 1760's, when the first generation of sons was sufficiently grown to speed up the ongoing but slow process of land clearing. The sequential father-son wills of John II Moll's in-laws below demonstrate the expense of horses alone for continuing land clearing consumed much of the farm’s productivity. (Also keep in mind the wills below reflect one of the more successful and wealthier families in the county) Add to that the thinly-manned forts Franklin and Weisner constructed along Blue Mountain provided a false sense of security.
So South of Blue Mountain for a number of reasons there was a lull in Indian attacks between those of 1755, when settlers simply fled rather than fought, and 1763 attacks that were part of Pontiac’s Rebellion, when settlers were willing to fight but largely didn’t have weapons:
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 (population 300), there were only four guns, three of which were unfit for use, and the enemy within four miles of the place.
Respectfully yours,
(Colonel) JAMES BURD (Mickley 30)
While Whitehall wasn’t attacked again on such a scale, townships west and north of Blue Mountain certainly were. The Franklin County Schoolroom Massacre the following July being just one.
The transition from hand-to-mouth subsistence farming to an economy we’d recognize today in the Lehigh Valley took almost two generations, with University of Toronto geographer James Lemon stating that for southeast Pennsylvania as a whole, homesteaders weren’t selling a significant amount their production as surplus until the third generation. The evolution of local economic life beginning with two adults with small children building a log-cabin farmstead in the wilderness in 1738 to large, prosperous farms and mills worth several thousand pounds (probably Pennsylvania pounds) in the wills below was slow, especially in the first generation before the family’s sons were grown.31 While the local markets: a trading post at Bethlehem 6 miles distant, a foundry (Durham Furnace) 21 miles distant, and major markets in Reading and Philadelphia 37 and 65 miles distant, all over largely unimproved roads and trails, were certainly part of that evolution, they weren’t the drivers. The ability to convert forest to productive farmland was the driver, and that largely didn’t reach fruition for the families who settled the Lehigh Valley in the late 1730’s until the second generation reached adulthood around the time of the Revolutionary War (Kennedy 598; Lemon 27).
For example, Rifleman Christopher’s father Frederick Neuhart (1699-1765), according to various Lehigh County and church histories, was the owner of one of the most prosperous farms in the area at the time of his death. The location was on the lower Jordan Creek; land that is now at or within the city limits of Allentown. A provincial tax was assessed Jan. 2, 1765. He was taxed for 305 acres (of which 85 acres were under cultivation), eight horses, seven cattle and eight sheep, indicating a sizeable farming operation for that period. His will as Frederich Neuhart of Whitehall Township, cordwainer, was executed on Jan. 1, 1764, was signed “Fridrich Neihart”, and made the following provisions:
(1) To two sons, Frederick & Lawrence the sum of 30 pounds each.
(2) To eldest son, Christopher, five shillings, as his full share of my estate because of advancements in my life time.
(3) To wife Maria Margaretha all real and personal estate during her natural life, afterward to my children: Frederick. Lawrence, Daniel, Peter, Juliana wife of Stephen Schneider, Salome, Sophia, and Elizabeth Barbara, share alike. (Note this excluded Christopher, whose farm purchased in Mt Bethel Township with his father’s assistance in 1762 had failed by 1764, perhaps due to some natural disaster).
(4) Executors to be friends, George Knauss and George Jacob Kern (1737 fellow immigrant and nephew of the owner of “Trucker’s Mill” in Heidelberg Township 14), with power to see that minor children are educated and to bind them out to learn trades or husbandry. Witnesses were Thomas Hunsicker, Johannes Roth, and J. Okely. Probated May 14, 1766. (Kastens Vol IV 14-16; Klees 191-96; Register's file #428 at Easton)
Frederick’s farm was acquired by purchase from the original homesteader, John Eastburn, in November, 1746. Twenty years later, only 85 of 305 acres were cleared and in tillage with five grown males working the land. And at four to five acres per horse, three to four per cow and two per sheep, over 70 of the tilled 85 acres were required just to support the farm’s livestock, leaving only 10-15 acres to feed and provide income for the nine residents of the farm, which alone would have been marginal. (University of Michigan historian Michael Kennedy states that in southeast Pennsylvania, a minimum of 125 tillable acres was required to produce marketable surpluses.) Plus they didn’t need eight horses just to till 85 acres, as later generations would own half that many to farm similar tracts. They owned extra teams because land clearing remained a major part of their efforts. When he wrote his will in 1764, Frederick’s cash legacies to his sons (including Christopher) show he had accumulated over 60 pounds in the 27 years since his largely penniless arrival on the frontier. How much cash was derived from the farm and how much from Frederick’s and his older sons’ seasonal trade as cordwainers? Probably most was derived from their trade, as all the local farmers needed substantial shoes to do heavy work, and as of 1764 the farm acreage arithmetic indicates the farm was still a capital asset under development, with most of the farming effort being reinvested in the cycle of land-clearing and tillage to increase productive farmland acreage as opposed to producing short-term income. Thus by 1764 there was some cash income, but most of it probably came from shoemaking (Kennedy 590; Lemon 28-29, 64-65, 94, 152-53, 181, 205).
In turn, Frederick’s third son Lawrence’s (1740-1817) will of 1814 demonstrates a largely complete transition from the hand-to-mouth subsistence farming of 1740 to a cash-based economy of 1815, with an attendant rise in cash on hand and cash values. Lawrence’s assets included 183 acres along the Jordan Creek (his share of his father’s farm) plus additional acreage in “Northampton County” (in 1812 Allentown and the original family farm had become part of Lehigh County), plus a grist mill he built in 1790 that continued operation into the 20th Century. Note that in his lifetime Lawrence at least doubled the number of acres he originally inherited.
(1) Fifty pounds to Zion Reformed Church.
(2) Fifty pounds to the poor of Northampton County.
(3) To son Jacob my plantation of 100 acres with water rights, valued at 2100 pounds.
(4) To sons Johannes and Daniel the mill and its nine acres, plus adjacent woodlands, together valued at 3100 pounds.
(5) To son Friedrich 17 acres plus the land I gave him in my lifetime.
(6) To son Daniel all the land and buildings he now farms plus the adjacent woodlands.
(7) To son Friedrich and daughter Elizabeth, wife of Johann Moll, my 24 acres in Heidelberg Township.
(8) To daughters Elizabeth, wife of Johann Moll, Anna Maria, wife of David Jundt, and Salome, wife of George Jundt, the 142-acre tract I own in Northampton County.
(9) Executors will be my son Friedrich and my son-in-law Johann Moll (today known as gunmaker John Moll II). (Kastens Vol IV 36-37; Register’s File #218 at Allentown)
Two sons aren’t mentioned in the will: Christian who in 1798 married and moved west to establish a farm on 182 acres of prime Susquehanna River bottomland in Columbia County, and Peter who in 1800 established a blacksmith shop on Sumner Avenue in Allentown. As there appears to be no enmity involved (both sons named boys after their father in the years following his death), it is highly likely their father helped them establish new farms and businesses and merely didn’t mention that in his will. Hence his actual wealth accumulation was probably two parts greater than his will reflects.
-
Bob I do agree completely that the impetus for firelock readiness in the Allentown area following the massacre increased dramatically, and Moll's "coincidental" appearance there at the same time probably is part of a larger story. However,
"Just don’t expect me to believe Johannes Moll dropped out of the sky into Allentown in late 1763 as a trained, practicing gunsmith."
He did not drop out of the sky. We know exactly where he was for the preceding 12-13 years: as an adjoining neighbor to the Angstadts in what would become Rockland twp. Berks Co. A neighbor to a family which produced a number of known gunsmiths. Georg Angstadt has long been believed to have been a gunsmith, and I believe (I will have to dig it up as I'm going by memory only at the moment) there is some very cursory documentation to this effect. So Moll is on 50 acres - for 12 to 13 years - next to a whopper of a farm run by an old guy believed to be a gunsmith, whose son Adam was a known gunsmith and whose grandsons Peter and Joseph have left ample evidence of their work for us to examine, and when he (Johannes) sells his property in 1763 he is noted in the document as a "gunsmith." Meanwhile we still have no evidence at all for a William Moll. Furthermore, while many fathers did indeed train their sons, an equal number of non-tradesmen (easily and equal number, if prob. not more I would wager) farmed them out to artisans for training. The notion that Johannes must have been a gunsmith because his father was a gunsmith is a very, very specious argument with no basis at all in fact. Why, in fact, is it not equally likely that Johannes emigrated to America sans family? I'll have to revisit the Palatine lists but I do recall that there are one or two John/Johannes Molls who arrived prior to 1750/51 when he first appears on the Rockland property. I think 1747 or 48 for one? I might also add that building a functional rifle or musket is not rocket science, and imported locks/barrels/furniture were EASILY available everywhere for sale (this is documented), as well as scavenged components. It does not take much at all for anyone who has simply looked at a gun and has even a rudimentary talent for utilizing some simple wood tools to get a functional firearm going. There are numerous extant examples of surviving American flint arms that were obviously stocked by competent amateurs with no 'formal' training. I'm not saying that is the case with Moll, but I certainly see no reason to dismiss the scenario (a speculative one) as readily as you seem willing to do. What Frederick Neuhart did in relation his descendants' training is completely irrelevant here, as he was not Moll's father nor was he a neighbor ca. 1751-1763.
-
Furthermore I should add that there is an existing, very early (in appearance) smooth rifle/musket kind of thing of unknown origin that probably - based upon what I currently know of American provincial arms development - dates to the 1750s or 1760s if not earlier, and it is "signed" with large amalgam filled block letters "CHRISTOPH. MOLL." The letters are executed exactly the same (i.e., enormously) as two later restocked barrels which are marked, "JOHANNES MOLL." No I do not have pictures currently, but I suspect it will be published one of these days. It is certainly earlier than any surviving John Moll rifle. I know of two other collectors who have viewed this rifle many years ago and feel likewise that it is a very, very early piece.
Edit: checked my notes, one guy claimed that he remembered it being marked Christophel Moll, but I he's going on a memory of seeing it somewhere around 40+ years ago. It is in fact marked exactly as I describe above.
So: Christoph/Christophel/Christopher - brother? father? uncle? cousin? have to dig out the papers but I think there was a Christophel in Berks and thence - dare i say - NC? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
-
Bob, you've used this quotation about Northampton Town in October 1763 before, and one begins to suspect that your entire generalization about the lack of guns "on the frontier" depends on this single piece of evidence (and ignoring any evidence to the contrary). We covered all the pieces of your claim about this some time ago, so I'll provide the link to it: http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=14597.msg155649#msg155649
And I can't resist copying as well my remarks on that bit of evidence from then: "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."
That is: what justifies moving from this fact that there were few guns in Allentown in October 1763 to an assertion about the number of guns present in Northampton County generally (or, as you often seem to imply, the Pennsylvania frontier more generally)? Is there any other evidence about how prevalent guns were on this or any frontier in Pennsylvania?
Your response, I am sure, will involve suggesting that frontier households did not have "enough money" to buy guns--which is shown by pointing to the evidence of Allentown in October 1763--and so we're back at square one.
-
The notion that Johannes must have been a gunsmith because his father was a gunsmith is a very, very specious argument with no basis at all in fact.
Those are all good points above.
But they entirely ignore the fact that a Moll grandson specifically mentioned that Johannes Moll had a father named William who was a gunsmith. And had absolutely no reason to fabricate a story. Add to that two Moll genealogists who report family records stating that William died intestate in Northampton County and that there are records accordingly in the Easton Courthouse, and even if the records can no longer be found, that’s stronger evidence than speculation about gunmaking neighbors or a young Moll immigrating alone, which was uncommon until the peak immigration years of the early 1750’s.
But I’m hardly married to the notion of a William Moll. I only want to see something more solid before I erase him.
While the Berks farms were settled earlier and were more developed than Northampton farms, I can’t overstate relative costs. Even for locks and barrels. A plain rifle with accoutrements then cost roughly six to eight English pounds, which was a year’s wages for the average worker. In turn, a full fare for passage from Rotterdam to Philadelphia cost 8 pounds, a hundred acres of vacant frontier land sold for five pounds, trade guns two to three pounds, military muskets three to four pounds, a horse 10-12 pounds, a piano 20 pounds and a 60’ by 230’ building lot in downtown Allentown 45 pounds . Until their farms became more productive, the money wasn’t there.
-
Bob, you've used this quotation about Northampton Town in October 1763 before, and one begins to suspect that your entire generalization about the lack of guns "on the frontier" depends on this single piece of evidence.
I like Burd’s letter for its brevity and poignancy. But there are several other references to weapons shortages in Francis Fox’s” Sweet Land of Liberty, the Ordeal of the American Revolution in Northampton County” and Nester’s “The Frontier War for American Independence”.
When the Continental Congress asked Pennsylvania to raise rifle companies in 1775, the Pennsylvania representatives’ planning figure was two men per township. Not because there weren’t more men, but because there weren’t many more men owning rifles and possessing the requisite skills.
Here’s one quickie on p46 of Fox, and this was in 1775 when weapons were much more common than they had been in 1763:
“…provide each man with a good firelock, one pound of powder, four pounds of lead…committeemen to meet in Easton May 22 (1775) to report on how well their township had complied with the committee’s orders. In truth however, the committee knew that due to a lack of arms not more than 50 men in the entire county could turn out as they had recommended.”
The good news is there are professional historians arguing the same topic, and I hope Aaron Spencer Fogelman (Hopeful Journeys. German Immigration Settlement and Political Culture in Colonial America) picks up this ball and runs with it:
“…I have never looked much into 18th-century gun making but always wanted to, as there are a number of important topics involved. My sense is that a lot of people did not own guns, as there simply were not enough gun makers or imports to keep up with the exploding population. My adviser from the University of Michigan, John Shy, disagrees rather vehemently with me. You might be interested in his book "A People Numerous and Armed." … The essays in this book came out in the 1960s and 1970s and were very influential among early American military historians. In fact, they are still standard reading.”
Again, like the notion of William Moll, I’m not married to any of this. I only want to see solid evidence rather that lore and mythology, because all the evidence for German immigrants to Pennsylvania is to the contrary.
-
I only want to see solid evidence rather that lore and mythology ....
Relying on Aaron F., who admits that he has not "looked much into eighteenth-century gun making" (but wants to!), rather than on John Shy is odd in the extreme. If you would like "solid evidence rather than lore" regarding the prevalence of guns generally (not Northampton County in particular) in colonial America, read Clayton Cramer or James Lindgren.
Citing two instances in which there were shortages of weapons and ignoring the many, many instances that show the contrary is part of the method that Bellesiles used to build up his picture of the scarcity of guns in colonial America. Cramer and Lindgen demonstrate at length and in painstaking detail the willful blindness to contrary evidence necessary to believe that these instances are in any sense representative.
... because all the evidence for German immigrants to Pennsylvania is to the contrary.
Evidence of? There is no "evidence" whatsoever about gun ownership among German immigrants to Pennsylvania, is there?
-
When the Continental Congress asked Pennsylvania to raise rifle companies in 1775, the Pennsylvania representatives’ planning figure was two men per township. Not because there weren’t more men, but because there weren’t many more men owning rifles and possessing the requisite skills.
Whoa, I think this appeared after I first read your post or I missed it the first time.
Where did you get this information from--not the 2 men per township but the reasons for it (contemporaries believed that there weren't more than 2 men per township owning rifles)?
-
…read Clayton Cramer or James Lindgren.
I’m not interested in arguing about various gun control agendas. Especially yours. Nor am I a fraud who fabricates or short-sheets evidence.
But I am researching colonial Pennsylvania south of Blue Mountain, and the situation among German immigrants there in the first thirty years of their settlement was almost entirely different than in colonies that had mandatory militia laws like Cramer’s Maryland, Virginia and New England.
Provide me some specific references you think I’ve missed concerning early SE Pennsylvania, and I’ll happily pursue them.
-
OK, how about this that surrounds the quote you cherry picked from Frank Fox's book.
Fox does state (with no citation) that the Northampton County Committee "knew in advance that due to a lack of arms not more than fifty men in the entire county could turn out as they had recommended." Note that this is Fox talking, not a quotation from the Northampton County Committee's minutes.
In the next paragraph, Fox notes that the Committee Minutes report that 2300 men joined the militia in Northampton County--and that the Committee required that all militiamen "provide themselves with arms and ammunition." Hard to see how they would require this if the arms were not available. Its other demand was that "shopkeepers be forbidden to sell or dispose of any arms or ammunition without the consent" of at least one committee member. Seems like there were arms around and that the concern was that they would end up in the hands of the "wrong" folks.
On the following page, Fox describes Lewis Gordon (committee chairman at the time) searching for provincial arms loaned to Northampton County during the French and Indian War, reimbursing officers for arms purchased for their battalions, and collecting 57 rifles made by local men (presumably recently).
Suggesting that there was a scarcity of arms in Northampton County in 1775 requires one to ignore this (and other) evidence.
-
I’m not interested in arguing about various gun control agendas. Especially yours.
If I have a gun control agenda, I am unaware of it. And if you find in anything I wrote anything about a gun control agenda, you're mis-reading.
Cramer certainly writes to undermine what he sees as Bellesiles gun control agenda. Lindgren, from what I can tell, has no axe to grind except the accurate reading of evidence (and exposing fraud where it has occurred). But I'd be interested to know if you read them differently--if you bother to read them.
-
...In the next paragraph, Fox notes that the Committee Minutes report that 2300 men joined the militia in Northampton County--and that the Committee required that all militiamen "provide themselves with arms and ammunition."
Sure. But did they actually show up with arms and ammunition as the committee wished?
If they did, the province wouldn't have had to buy the 12,000 stands of arms it had in Allentown alone by 1777.
But again, my text reads the weapons situation was improved by 1775 when Thompson's Rifle Battalion was formed. My focus on weapons shortages is 1763.
-
If I have a gun control agenda, I am unaware of it. And if you find in anything I wrote anything about a gun control agenda, you're mis-reading.
Then why associate me with Bellesiles? Based on the reviews, I never bothered to read him, let alone use him as a reference.
-
From the Northampton County Committee of Observation Minutes (15 July 1775):
"It being represented to the Committee that several of the Soldiers who have enlisted in the Company of Rifle men now raising in this County are not supplied with Rifles and by a calculation made this day it appears that nineteen Rifles are yet wanted for the use of said Company..."
I don't know, honestly, how many men were in the Northampton County rifle company. But I think there were nine PA rifle companies that went to Cambridge, and when they arrived there were some 800 men. So perhaps each company had about 90 or so men? So 19 rifles lacking... means 80% of the men had rifles.
*******
Oh, and it's not fair play to suddenly revert to the claim that "my focus on weapons shortages is 1763"! You offered the quotation from Frank Fox (regarding 1775) when I asked for evidence beyond that Burd letter from October 1763!
-
I don't know, honestly, how many men were in the Northampton County rifle company. But I think there were nine PA rifle companies that went to Cambridge, and when they arrived there were some 800 men. So perhaps each company had about 90 or so men? So 19 rifles lacking... means 80% of the men had rifles.
Thompson's Battalion had 743 with 189 Germans. Morgan's Rifle Company attached to him from Virginia and Maryland (and a few from western Pennsylvania) had 93, with 21 Germans for a total of 836.
Miller's company from Northampton had 80 with only 16 Germans.
But some Northampton men enlisted in other counties. My forbearer walked to Harris Ferry to enlist in Smith's company, probably because Smith was a famous Indian fighter (or murderer, depending on your point of view) and this youngster's family had been burned out in 1755 with fatalities.
So the bulk of the frontier riflemen, even in Northampton, were Ulster Scots, not Germans.
-
I've lost track of the point here.
First you cited Fox's claim that in May 1775 there weren't 50 "arms" (not rifles) in Northampton County.
We know this is wrong because at least 61 riflemen showed up in July. There were obviously far more arms possessed by individuals in Northampton County than showed up for the rifle company. But we know, at the very least, there were 61! Other evidence (supplied by Fox himself) indicates that there were additional arms, likely quite a few.
Now you propose (with a "probably," admittedly, but why even probable?) that the men who showed up without rifles must have been the 16 Germans in the company of 80 men. I think you would have to admit that this is entirely made up. There is no evidence whatsoever to make this "probable." You're trying to keep your contention that Germans didn't own arms afloat. [ADDED LATER: Bob, you removed this point from your previous post once I wrote this! Again, not fair!! Guess I need to do the quoting thing to make sure you don't adjust the record!!]
We have come a far way, in any case, from the original contention, based on Frank Fox's remark (which the rest of his own text undermines), that there were few arms in Northampton County (because Germans couldn't afford them) in 1775. That claim can be retired.
It is irrelevant (even if true) that "the bulk of the frontier riflemen, even in Northampton, were Ulster Scots, not Germans." ALL the frontier riflemen could be Ulster Scots and the Germans in Northampton County might still have two longrifles per home and a starter rifle for each child.
I refuse to re-engage with you on any subject that includes the word "Moravian," so I will just say that many Germans may have owned rifles and chosen not to join militia companies. That German communities in Lancaster County and I believe in Northampton County were "disarmed" (as non-associators) suggests strongly that they possessed arms.
-
First you cited Fox's claim that in May 1775 there weren't 50 "arms" (not rifles) in Northampton County.
We know this is wrong because at least 61 riflemen showed up in July. There were obviously far more arms possessed by individuals in Northampton County than showed up for the rifle company. But we know, at the very least, there were 61! Other evidence (supplied by Fox himself) indicates that there were additional arms, likely quite a few.
Now you propose (with a "probably," admittedly, but why even probable?) that the men who showed up without rifles must have been the 16 Germans in the company of 80 men. I think you would have to admit that this is entirely made up. There is no evidence whatsoever to make this "probable." You're trying to keep your contention that Germans didn't own arms afloat.
It is irrelevant (even if true) that "the bulk of the frontier riflemen, even in Northampton, were Ulster Scots, not Germans." ALL the frontier riflemen could be Ulster Scots and the Germans in Northampton County might still have two longrifles per home and a starter rifle for each child.
I refuse to re-engage with you on any subject that includes the word "Moravian," so I will just say that many Germans may have owned rifles and chosen not to join militia companies. That German communities in Lancaster County and I believe in Northampton County were "disarmed" (as non-associators) suggests strongly that they possessed arms.
1) Fox’s claim included the complete kit, not just the guns.
2) I was kidding about the 16 Germans accounting for the shortage of rifles.
3) I have the rosters. While there may be some “Smiths” and the like who in actuality were “Schmidts” or Schmiegs”, Captain Smith of Harris Ferry certainly wasn’t one of them, so I’m pretty close on the number of Germans. Not many from Northampton, given their density there.
4) If I remember Fox correctly, Northampton Moravians were fined by some unscrupulous officials in Easton, but their possessions weren’t confiscated. The province’s intent (and directives) were to allow pacifists to contribute to the effort in other ways.
-
I'm rapidly losing track of the point here myself. And the time period: 1763 and 1775 are two entirely different periods; almost to the point, one might say, of being two entirely different worlds in Northampton County. Can we stick to applying Burd's quote to the TOWN of Northampton at the specific time that the letter was written? To interpret it as being possessive of broader implications for the entire - if I dare say, friggin' - county, or any other time, is ludicrous and speculative in the extreme.
When Burd's letter was written, the Bethlehem Moravians had already seen fit to construct and establish a dedicated GUN shop at Christian's Spring. Why would they have done this in the preceding couple of years if it was not profitable? Furthermore, the invaluable research that Bob Lienemann has shared with me for many years now - FIRST HAND documented ledgers ca. 1754-1760 - indicates that there was a substantial amount of gun work going on under the auspices of the locksmith's shop in Bethlehem during the second half of the 1750s and prior to the establishment of the shop up at CS. The ledgers also indicate that they (those involved in the lock shop) were obtaining materials in Philadelphia, which *seems* to have been a relatively common thing and goes towards dispelling the romanticized notion that those on the Northampton Co. "frontier" were not able to obtain gun parts i.e. gun mounts, gun locks and/or gun barrels (all of which were publicly advertised for sale in Philly throughout the 1750s and 1760s). While of course it is a leap to assume EVERYONE in NH County could zip back and forth whenever required, there certainly is documented evidence of a trade corridor between the city and NH County. In fact:
November 1, 1764
The Pennsylvania Gazette
"BETHLEHEM STAGE, from Philadelphia. THIS is to acquaint the Publick , that there is a convenient Stage Waggon, which goes every Tuesday Morning from Philadelphia to Bethlehem, and returns Saturday following; the Waggon carries not only Passengers, but likewise Merchandize; the Neighbours at Easton, Allen Town, &c. that will please to favour us with their custom, may depend on it, that good Care will be take of what shall be instrusted to them. JOHN FRANC OBERLIN, GEORGE SCHLOSSER.
N.B. There are good Store Rooms in Bethlehem, where the Goods may lie till the Delivery of them."
Back to my point of contention - that of William Moll. WHO are these two "Moll genealogists" you keep mentioning, and more importantly, what exactly are their sources? Brent Wade Moll has a fairly extensive site but most, of not all, of his information on the Moll gunsmiths was obtained via Earl Heffner's little book published in the early 1970s as well as Henry Kauffman's old book from the 1960s (both of which, in turn, relied fairly heavily upon the old county "Historys..."). I corresponded with him (Brent) via a few emails maybe 6 to 8 years ago, and he was not able to offer anything substantive on Johannes, the mysterious William etc. My impression was that most of what he had obtained dealing w. the Allentown Molls was obtained via Heffner's book and varied undocumented internet sources. Heffner, meanwhile, relied fairly heavily on the 19th century county "Historys..." as well as unsubstantiated second hand documents. I personally was not able to find ANY record of William Moll in Easton, nor have I been able to find ANY record of him in most of the early documentation from Easton that was placed on microfilm at HSP in Philadelphia. I will grant you that this does not mean that he never existed, nor does it mean that such paperwork never existed, but it's certainly curious and throws the entire story into question.
-
4) If I remember Fox correctly, Northampton Moravians were fined by some unscrupulous officials in Easton, but their possessions weren’t confiscated. The province’s intent (and directives) were to allow pacifists to contribute to the effort in other ways.
This is half correct. Bethlehem's neighbors tried to use state laws, the Test Act & Militia Law, to confiscate all their property, but these efforts failed; state officials protected Bethlehem. True.
The confiscation of arms, however, occurred under a different directive--typically from County Committees. On July 28, 1776, the Bethlehem diary records: "Col. Kichline came from Easton to collect the remaining fire-arms here. On representing that a place like ours should not be entirely without fire-arms, he without hesitation left a few pieces." The same happened to German communities, Moravian and Mennonite, throughout Pennsylvania. In March 1776, the Lancaster County Committee of Observation ordered that “non-associators in this county [should] deliver up their arms to the captains of the respective battalions,” who should give “receipts for said arms.” On July 27, the Lititz diary noted that “by order of the Committee in Lancaster, the brethren had to deliver all guns in their possession at the tavern, receiving a receipt therefor.” One could continue to list examples of this from other German communities that, lucky for us, kept daily congregational diaries.
My only point here is that this offers evidence that Germans in Northampton County owned guns. The Bethlehem diary doesn't indicate what percentage of men there did. And I realize that Bethlehem may not be representative of the frontier farmer that you are focusing on. But many of the communities and individuals that were disarmed at this time were farmers. It would be nice if surviving records documented each and every German family in Northampton County that had to give up their arms, but no such luck. What evidence from the period does survive, however, offers no support whatsoever for the contention that German farmers did not or could not possess arms.
-
This is an excellent reason for not letting people know you have a firearm.
This confiscation skews the entire gun ownership thing.
Are the neighbors going to rat out someone when the lack of firearms in the area could get them killed or their only means of protection also confiscated?
This throws a huge monkey wrench in the "how many firearms did they have".
Hidden storage was common and I can see a lot of firearms being "missed".
If a person DID have his gun confiscated the chances of it being returned in anything like its original condition would be remote. I can't see this being a friendly process or something everyone complied with.
Dan
-
This is an excellent reason for not letting people know you have a firearm.
This confiscation skews the entire gun ownership thing.
No doubt.
On May 25, 1776 in Emmaus (Northampton County), the following occurred: "while Friedrich Romig, Sr., and his family were attending communion services, his house and also the houses of his two sons were searched by a group of 25 men who took away their guns."
Romig, by the way, is just the sort of German immigrant, Bob, that interests you. He was born in 1713 in the Palatinate, emigrated to PA in 1731, and settled on a farm in Macungie. He had twelve children. He died in 1783 and is buried on his farm. And he and his son apparently owned guns.
More men came on July 9 to Emmaus and "took the guns from the local inhabitants." I would need to do some research to confirm it, but I strongly suspect that the large majority of these "local inhabitants"--who had guns and were disarmed--were German immigrants.
-
About colonial Pennsylvania Germans owning guns. This information comes from my article "Community and Material Culture Among Lancaster Mennonites: Hans Hess from 1717 to 1733" that was published in the January 1990 issue of Pennsylvania Mennonite Heritage. I surveyed 20 Lancaster Mennonite inventories from 1724 to 1742 to contrast and compare with the 1733 inventory of Hans Hess. Hans owned a gun valued at £1. Out of the 20 other inventories, 6 mentioned guns and these were pacifist Mennonites. Not everyone in the colonial period owned a gun, but neither were they absent. Also the guns were affordable. The total value of the estate of Hans Hess was £395.19.11, so the gun made up a very small part. The gun was equal in value to 3 bed covers on the inventory.
Martin
-
Great post and very informative but wasn't barter also used in the absence of hard currency?
-
Barter was used and continued after the colonial period. I've seen account books for joiners where a neighbor supplies wood and the value of the wood was deducted from his future bill. Sometimes it was a long period of time before all debts were settled. But hard currency did exist and might have been slightly more available in Pennsylvania, because the value of silver was greater than in neighboring colonies. In Lancaster County, PA all land purchases that I have seen were with cash or a mortgage plus cash. Estates were always settled with cash. You could not barter with an estate. If your neighbor died and you owed any money, the cash was due in short order.
Martin Keen
-
He'll be back in nine months. Same discussion will ensue, as if this one never occurred.
Re: Crawdad's and Martin's point about barter, I was going to mention to Bob that cash wouldn't have been necessary to purchase a gun--but that matter arose last time around, too, and his response then, if I remember correctly, was that these farmers would have had no surplus to barter, etc. That provoked a discussion about the composition of soil that I couldn't follow.
What the previous dozen or so posts show is that there was a market for guns among German immigrants before and after 1763: the guns were available, affordable, and the German farmers purchased them. German farmers were being disarmed regularly in the 1770s. In Martin's small sample, a full third of German immigrants in the 1720s/1730s/1740s had guns (according to their inventories, and of course many others might have had guns and passed them on before they died). Pretty conclusive, to my mind.
-
I've enjoyed this thread very much! The back and forth was lively, although I have a hard time agreeing with most of Bob's points.
It seems to me, in this thread and the one before, that he's trying very hard to make his point, and is working toward a predetermined result that only he knows..... ::)
Should be interesting reading in muzzle blasts, when they publish his view.
John
-
It’s also a little disheartening that we do not have enough written records to provide concrete conclusions concerning a weapon that we developed and used to great effect in both civilian and military endeavors in the development of our own country. But it is still very interesting to see the original sources for these debates come to light. I may need to get to a really good book store.
-
It’s also a little disheartening that we do not have enough written records....
It's true and frustrating. On the other hand, I'm always amazed at what has survived and how much we can know--perhaps not with certainty, but with a degree of confidence--from these documents that have survived. The Moravian materials in particular, simply because of the daily diaries and thorough business records that every community kept and have preserved, are deep, rich mines of information.
And the materials that have survived but haven't been consulted or used, for the most part, are vast! Tax records, land records, inventories--these things, I think, have been used extensively. But at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania alone are massive collections of letters and documents from eighteenth-century Pennsylvania (typically grouped by family: Shippen, etc.) that have never been gone through with an eye to what they may reveal about the eighteenth-century gun trade.
Plenty more to discover, I think.
-
"But at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania alone are massive collections of letters and documents from eighteenth-century Pennsylvania (typically grouped by family: Shippen, etc.) that have never been gone through with an eye to what they may reveal about the eighteenth-century gun trade."
You can say that again. I came away from my brief research there with the impression that one could - literally - spend years carefully reviewing the documentation that has survived, and never get to all of it...
What I find disheartening is to see firm conclusions being drawn while this vast pool of information sits idle, and what inevitably is utilized are merely the small portions that have been reviewed and referenced in secondary sources.
-
"But at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania alone are massive collections of letters and documents from eighteenth-century Pennsylvania (typically grouped by family: Shippen, etc.) that have never been gone through with an eye to what they may reveal about the eighteenth-century gun trade."
You can say that again. I came away from my brief research there with the impression that one could - literally - spend years carefully reviewing the documentation that has survived, and never get to all of it...
What I find disheartening is to see firm conclusions being drawn while this vast pool of information sits idle, and what inevitably is utilized are merely the small portions that have been reviewed and referenced in secondary sources.
I agree wholeheartedly with you Eric. Too many writers rely solely on secondary sources and never get to the primary ones. Of course it's a lot easier and less time consuming to use secondary sources. Here's a tidbit on gun ownership in the early colonial period. I've wanted to post this in an earlier thread but the topic had degenerated.
Jan 13. 1730 The Pennsylvania Gazette
About the same Time, another very large Panther was killed near Conestoga. He had got among some Swine in the Night-time, and the Owner hearing them cry, went out with a Couple of Dogs, which drove the Panther up into a great Tree. Ignorant what is was that went up the Tree, he made a Fire near it, and left two Women to watch while he went to fetch a Neighbour that had a Gun. They fir'd at him twice, and the second Time broke both his Fore Legs, upon which, to their great Surprize, he made a desperate Leap and fell to the Ground near the Man, would could but just get out of his Way. The Dogs immediately seized him, and with another Shot in the Head he was dispatched.
At least the neighbor had a gun to finish off the panther!
Martin
-
You can say that again. I came away from my brief research there with the impression that one could - literally - spend years carefully reviewing the documentation that has survived, and never get to all of it...
It's got to be a shared enterprise over a long period of time. (I realize that most people don't have access to these archives or the time to devote to investigating them.) But here's the sort of thing one can come across:
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F23rp9nd.jpg&hash=e43f30fa902411871983eb1dc6ee21a4e598c64b)
This is a list of "muskets furnished" by the Lancaster gunsmiths in late 1775 or early 1776, noting the number of barrels they proved & the number of muskets they produced (in what period of time).
That's John Noll, not John Moll, near the bottom of the list. :o
This particular document is included amongst the Lancaster County Manuscript Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
-
Wouldn't it be neat to know what these looked like - wonder if these guys all used the same pattern?
-
They were supposed to use a pattern. The Lancaster gunsmiths at first refused to make the muskets required by the County Committee, after which the Committee:
"Resolved that in Case any of the Gun-Smiths in the County of Lancaster, upon Application made to them by the Members of the Committee of the respective Townships to which they belong, shall refuse to go to Work and make their Proportion of the Firelocks & Bayonets required for this County by the Honorable House of Assembly, within two Weeks from such Application, agreeable to the Pattern at the Philadelphia Prices—such Gun-Smiths shall have their Names inserted in the Minutes of this Committee as Enemies to this Country, and published, as such, and the Tools of the said Gun-Smiths so refusing shall be taken from them, and moreover the said Gun-Smiths shall not be permitted to carry on their Trades, until they shall engage to go to Work as aforesaid, nor shall leave their respective Places of Residence until the arms are completed."
-
Since this seems to have curved around towards a debate as to whether or not the farmers on the Northampton Co. frontier had firearms, or access to firearms, or the desire to have firearms, I took a quick look through one of my old favorites, the Pennsylvania Gazette; a *primary* source. I briefly looked at ca. mid 1750s through early 1760s, since this is around the time Burd's account lamented the lack of guns in Allentown (town-folk, after all). So can be apply this lack of firearms at that specific place and time to the entire county? Let's see.
(1) Heiss had a gun, and he also told the Miller as well as the Miller's helper to "...fetch a gun..."
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: December 18, 1755
Title: PHILADELPHIA, December 18.
PHILADELPHIA, December 18.
Since our last we have received most melancholy Accounts from Northampton County , of a Number of People being murdered by the Indians, and of a great many others having left their Habitations for fear of them. These Accounts are supported by many undoubted Affidavits; but as they are chiefly to the same Purpose, we think it needless to repeat them all, and therefore insert only the following one at length, as it is the most circumstantial of the whole, and seems to be given by a Man of great Courage and Resolution.
NORTHAMPTON County , Pennsylvania, ss.
PERSONALLY appearbefore me Timothy Horsfield, Esq; one of the Justices in and for the said County , George Casper Heiss, Blacksmith, aged 36 Years, and upon his solemn Affirmation, according to law, deposed and said, That on the Tenth of this instant December, about Five or Six o'Clock in the Evening, being at Supper in the House of Frederick Hoeth, about eight Miles beyond the Gap of the Blue Mountains, in the said County , together with the said Hoeth, his Wife, five Children, and one Philip Fleck, suddenly Heissthis AffirmantWife, being in a Garden near the House, cried out to her Husband lamentably, "Caspar, Caspar, come and help me, the Indians are here, they will kill me and the Children," said Heiss having three Children in the House he lived in; upon which this Affirmant, with said Hoeth, ran out of the House, when three Guns were immediately discharged at them. This Affirmant then ran towards his own House, which he found filled with Indians, and then went back to Hoeth, whom he fond lying dead at the Back Door; he then went to the Mill, about five Rood from the House, when the Indians fired three Guns at him. In the Mill this Affirmant found the Miller, named Philip ------, and a Boy, the Son of one Sylvas,, who were quite ignorant of what had happened and acquainting them with the Circumstances, bid them leave off grinding, and fetch a Gun, and help him to fight the Indians. This Affirmant then took a Gun, and went alone into HoethHouse, round the Bakehouse, and so into the Smithshop; from whence he saw an Indian kneeling before another Door, charging his Gun, at about two Guns Length, at whom this Affirmant took Aim, and shot dead on the Spot, hearing him expire with a Groan. This Affirmant then stepped to him, and took the GUn out of his Hand, and then discovered two more Indians in the Door of his House, who both fired at him; upon which this Affirmant jumped into the SmithShop, and fell over the Anvil, and in the Surprize letting the Gun fall, which he had before taken from the Indian, took up a Hammer, and went out of Doors, but finding his Mistake, ran into the Shop again, and took his own Gun, and went directly into the Mill to fetch a Charge of Powder, being all he had, and returned again into the SmithShop, intending to drive the Indians from his House, in order to get more Powder and Shot; and seeing an Indian at his Door, he fired at him, and having no more Powder or Lead, and hearing his Wife cry out mournfully, "Caspar, Caspar, ah, my dear Caspar! farewell, I shall never see you more,."which Cry so affected this Affirmant, that leaving his Gun in the Shop the second Time, was determined, at all Events, if possible, to rescue her, and running to her, found two Indians dragging her along, where he took hold of her Arm, and one of the Indians, letting go his Hold, pointed his Gun at him, which this Affirmant observing pushit aside while discharging, and wresting it out of the IndianHands, fell backwards, and the Indian struck at him with his Hatchet; but this Affirmant tumbling several Times over got clear, and fell into the Mill Race, and soon getting out again, went into the SmithShop, and took his Gun, though without any Charge, and persisting in his Intention of fighting the Indians, having no other Weapon, clubbhis Gun, and ran after them with it to strike them, but missing his Blow, they fired at him several Times, thought without Effect; but at last perceiving they would be too many for him, he went to the Mill, and took with him the aforesaid Boy, and went through a Swamp, to the House of one Sarsass, where this Affirmant found nine or ten Men standing on their Guard, and perswaded them to go with him to fight the Indians, but to no Purpose. The next Morning, at Break of Day, this Affirmant, with four others, returned to Hoeth, being about two Miles and a half distant, where they found the Dwelling house, Saw mill and Grist Mill, &c. all burnt down, the Body of Hoeth almost consumed in the Flames, and his Wife lying in the Mill race partly burnt, one of the Children, about ten Years old, lying dead and scalped; and this Affirmant supposed his own three Children were consumed in the Flames, as he saw his own House set on fire first. This Affirmant went then to the House of Christian Bomper, about half a Mile distant, and found the Buildings consumed, the People being all fled. From hence they went to the House of one Jacob, a Carpenter, at a small Distance, which was also burnt, and found another Man, whose Name this Affirmant knows not, killand scalped. They then proceeded in Quest of this AffirmantWife, and found one of her Petticoats, rent from Top to the Bottom, hanging in the Grubbs, and afterwards a Tub with some Butter, some of the Childrens Clothes, and several Things, supposed to be dropped in running. Afterwards they found an Indian Pipe and Pouch, a Fox and Bearskin, which they gave to a Man, who had fled and almost naked, and had been all Night in the Woods, and further this Affirmant saith not. GEORGE CASPAR HEISS.
Taken and affirmed to at Bethelehem, the 13th Day of December, 1755, before me TIMOTHY HORSFIELD.
N.B. One of the HoethChildren, a Boy of twelve Years old, escaped, as did the Miller.
-
(2) Gnadenhutten. Those present have guns but it seems a number of them "burst", possibly ill-maintained, and this loss apparently later leads to "few guns" being present.
(I should interject an *opinion* here, that it would seem that a common theme through many of these accounts indicates that the white settlers were often taken unaware, by surprise, and also did not typically seem to have guns ready-to-hand, however guns are often mentioned. Further, a good number of the deaths were women and children, also taken unaware; this obviously renders a high casualty rate, which when used without specifying such details (i.e., that many deaths were unprepared women and children), can possibly create an incomplete interpretation of a mass of unarmed men who were helpless against the natives. I am beginning to form an opinion that the events of the 1750s/1760s in NH county were less about the settlers not having guns, and more about them not being prepared or familiar with using them in a warfare situation. My interpretation anyway - not a "fact" just an interpretation.)
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: January 8, 1756
Title: PHILADELPHIA, January 8.
PHILADELPHIA, January 8.
Extract of a Letter from Captain William Hayes, dated at AllenTown, January 3, and addressed to His Honour the Governor, and the Commissioners.
"I am sorry to inform you, by these Lines, of the bad News of our Defeat at Gnadenhutten. The Day you left Bethlehem, December 31, I set out as soon as possible, and marched with the Waggons about ten Miles, and I continued my March early next Morning, and proceeded with Safety, till I came within about two Miles of Gnadenhutten, and having orderthe Guard to take Care of the Waggons, I went a little before, one of the Brethren from Bethlehem being with me, and two of their Indians; but, advancing to the Top of a high Hill, I saw a great Smoke ascending from Gnadenhatten, upon which I gave my Horse to one of the Indians, and ran down on Foot, because of the Ice that was in the Valley, when I heard Guns go off very fast, and met two of my own Men galloping towards me, that had gone forward with some Indian Horses that were sent up from Bethlehem to winter there, and were within fifteen Perches of the Houses, and fired upon first by three Indians, and then by a great Company. They informed me of a great Number of Indians being there, and that there was not one of our Men in the Town, as they thought, alive, and begged of me to turn back, and protested that they would not return with me. Nevertheless I got the Guard, about eighteen Men, composed, and we put ourselves in running Order, to go and see how it was with our People, designing that if the Church was standing, we would go forward and help them, but if the Church was burnt, we might conclude that note of our People were there alive. Accordingly we went to a Hill, a little Distance off, to the North East side of the Place, and there we saw the Church all on Fire, and almost flat, and a Body of Indians marching out upwards, and stopping among the Bushes, as we thought. We then consulted whether it was best to go down or not, and at last one Man in the Company offered to go by himself, saying, they could not shoot him, and accordingly went and found some dead Bodies there, but saw no Indians. He then returned to us'but the Evening coming on, we saw we could do nothing, it being too late, and not venturing to go to the Fire in the Night, we came back safe to UplingerHouse, were there was Number of People gathered together, and lodged there. About Twelve of the Clock, out Lieutenant came in almost dead with Cold, having little or no Cloathing on, and no Shoes, his Feet frozen, and all torn with Ice and Stones. He told me, that he had lain under a Rock in the River from about One of the Clock (after crossing it) till it was dark, and when he came away, he saw the Indians dancing and howling about the Fire, and computed that there was a Body of them, to the Number of 250 at least, and that he had fought them till they set Fire to the Houses to the Windward of them, and so filled the Church with Smoke, that he could stay no longer; and that a great many of their Guns bursted in their hands, and their Ammunition being scarce, he ran out with his Men, and beat them off a little: But that they wheeled round the Smoke, and fired briskly on our Men, and killed some: that the rest ran away, and that he could not stop them by any Means, till they came about a Quarter of a Mile from the Place; and that they drew up under a little BAnk of the River, and fired briskly, while they had any Ammunition: That then an Ambuscade rose (and thought to have headed and stopped them in the River) which had not appeared before, on the other Side of the River, from the Mill: upon which they all fled, and many of them were shot down on the Ice, and in the River, and those that escaped lost their Guns, and some their Shoes.
We are now in a poor Condition of Defence, our Lieutenant being unfit for Service, and likely to be so for a long Time, and we have but few Guns, our Blankets all lost, our Ammunition spent, and upwards of twenty of our Number supposed to be killed, and several wounded. We are at a small Garrison, about eleven Miles from Bethlehem, and here design to wait for further Orders. There were several more Houses burnt on this Side the Mountain that same Day, and some People killed and wounded."
-
(3) Gnadenhutten again; relief party sent, 22 guns among 52 men, so a ratio of about 1 in 2. Not bad.
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: January 15, 1756
Title: PHILADELPHIA, January 15.
PHILADELPHIA, January 15.
Extract of a Letter from Bethlehem, January 8, 1756.
"I arrived here last Night. We met a Number of Waggons on the Road moving off with the Effects of the People of Lehi Township. All the Women and Children are sent off out of that Township; and many of them have taken Refuge here; all in great Confusion.
The Substance of the Action at Gnadenhutten, as we have received it from divers who were there, is this. The lieutenant, who commanded, had Fifty two Men with him at Gnadenhutten, mostly Labourers, who came with Aces to look for Employment, but without Arms. A Detachment of the Company was down here with the Captain, to escort up some Waggons with Provision; and another Party was out to meet the Waggons, so that among the Fifty two Men they had but Twenty two Guns. The Lieutenant, and four others, were on the Scout on the other Side of the River, a little above the Town, which consisted of about 36 Houses, and a Church. They saw Tracks of two Indians in the Snow, and following the Tracks, came in Sight of a String of 200 Indians, who were running round to hem them in; so that finding no Way open to escape, either up or down the River, they were obliged to take right through the Water. The Indians followed them to the Bank, and when they were about half through the River, fired on them very thick, and wounded the Lieutenant in the Leg so that he fell, and wet his Gun; they wounded also one Klein in the Belly, who, as soon as he reached the other Shore, turnand shot one of Enemy down, who they saw roll down the Bank, and fall in the River. The Lieutenant (Brown) Coat was shot through in many Places, as were the Coats and Hats of the rest, by no others were wounded. They got into the Church, where they defended themselves well for some Time, and killed several of the Enemy. One fell in the Middle of the Street; and another came from behind a House, and took the dead Man by the Leg, and was drawing him off, but he was shot, and fell on the other. The Indians set the Town on Fire to the Windward of the Church, which presently filled it with Smoke, so that they could neither see nor breathe. Then, having well charged all their Pieces, they sallied out, and engaged the Enemy among the Houses, where they killed several more of them; and at last, their Ammunition being spent, the Lieutenant orderevery Man to shift for himself, and they separated. Klein, who was wounded at first, desired the Lieutenant no to leave him, and he led him over the Ice, on a Part of the River that was frozen. The Enemy fired very thick at them, and Klein fell, being shot through the Head. The Lieutenant took up his Gun, and while he was charging it, t was shot out of his Hand. He then got on a little Island, where was Abundance of Drift Wood, and hid himself under the Side of a Log with Leaves and other Trash, where he lay till Midnight, and then got off, and escaped to the Settlements. During his Concealment, he saw the Enemy all round looking for him, and heard them speak both English and Dutch, which he understands. The Town was chiefly burnt down with the Church. Hayes camp up after the Action was over, and saw the Enemy march off with a Horse Load of Blankets our Men had left in the Church, but was too weak to attack them. It is supposed we had 20 Men killed; the rest got off, but several are badly wounded.
(4) More from same date - Allamengal area, could mean N. Berks or N. NH Co., not sure. Blue mountain frontier either way. "Watch of two townships" comes to 60 men who were apparently armed as they engaged the enemy.
The Action at Allemangle was thus. Three Men, who had left their Dwellings over the Mountains, used now and then to go to the Top of the Mountain, from whence they could see them, to observe whether they were burnt, or yet standing. On Saturday last they saw Smoke from one of their Chimnies, and going a little nearer, saw two Indians standing Centry, a Number being in the House. They went back, and alarmed the Watch of two Townships, who assembled the next Morning, to the Number of Sixty Men, who went over the Hill, and divided into two Parties, to surround the House; but in going down the Hill, one of the Men fell, and his Gun going off, alarmthe Indians in the House, who ran out into a Pine Swamp, and when one of our Parties came up, fired and wounded four. Our People went after them boldly into the Swamp, engaged them, and killed several. But our other Party hearing the Fire, fled without coming up to the Engagement; and three straggling Indians coming up with them, fired at them as they were on the Top of the Hill, and killed one. The Indians proving too hard for our People in the Swamp, they retreated to a House, from whence they fired on the Indians that surrounded them, and killed several. At length the Firing being heard, another Party of our People came up, and the Indians retreated. We got five Scalps, but they got nine of ours. Our Men are sure they killed eight at least. Two of our Wounded are since dead."
-
(5) More dealing with the situation revolving around the Gnadenhutten region. These guys involved were armed (though again, apparently entirely unprepared for dealing with the natives.)
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: January 29, 1756
Title: PHILADELPHIA, January 29.
PHILADELPHIA, January 29.
Account of Christian Bomperand Companylate Misfortune in going over the Blue Mountains. JOHN ADAM HUTH, Christian BomperServant Lad, aged about 19 Years, on being examined, said: That his Master, Christian Bomper, himself, and his Brother Michael, set out from Bethlehem on the 15th of this instant January, and came to Nazareth. The next Day my Father, Valentine Huth, my sister Elizabeth, Lawrence Kunckle, Nicholas Jeisley, old Fried, his Son Nicholas, and Captain Trump, came to us to go over the Blue Mountains, and we went that Day to John C. Dowell, where we stayall Night. The Watch perceived that there were Indians about the House, but while the Watch were giving Intelligence of it, and the People were getting their Arms, the Indians went off, and nothing further was heard of them. Captain Trump left us, but sent six of his Men to escort us, and on Saturday, the 17th, about 9 a Clock, we set off from McDowell, and came to Waibert, where we found all consumed. From thence we went to Peter Hess, and found all in good Order. From Hesswe went to Nicholas Nieser, (on the Way we found a Waggon, with the Gears all cut in Pieces, to which we put our Horses, and took it with us) where all was laid in Ashes and the Hogs, Sheep and Cows, lay dead about the Place. from thence we went to Nicholas JeisleyPlace, where all was plunder, even a Chest with some of his best Things, which he had hid in the Woods; here we left the Waggon. From thence we went to my FatherPlace, fed the HOrses, and left Jeisley and the old Man with them, and 13 of us went to Frederick HoethPlace. When we got into the Lane, we found three of Christian BomperHogs lying dad, and going down the Fence a little further, we found some of his Cattle, which we drove before us, intending to carry them to Valentine HuthPlace, where there was Fodder for them, and a House for us to lodge in, and to return the next Day, and fetch the rest. But when we came to the Creek, which we were obliged to cross, the Indians fired upon us before we were aware of them, which one of the Soldiers was killed on the Spot. I shot at one of the Indians, as did Christian Bomper several times, and then every one made the best of his Way over the Creek as fast as he could. I was shot in the Leg, and as I was pulling my MasterGreat coat off, I received a Shot in the Arm, which broke it. My Father also discharged his Piece; but three Indians immediately ran to him, whom he fought with for a considerable Time, till they got him down on the Ground, and then murderhim. They ran by where I lay, and one of them wanted to stop, but they called to him to come and overtake the others first, me they could get when they came back, and spoke it all in English. They then got up with my Sister, and one of them took her under his Arm, and knockout her Brains. I heard her cry, Help me, but heard her no more. When the Indians were all gone past, I crept under the Root of a fallen Pine Tree. On their Return they searched for me, and were so near, that I could have taken hold of them with my Hand, but they did not see me. When it grew dark I went away, and before I had got a Mile, I found five lying dead on the Road, one of which was my Brother Michael, the other four, I suppose, were Soldiers; but what became of my Master Christian Bomper, Lawrence Kunckle, and Nicholas Fried, I cannot tell. In the Night I came to my FatherPlace, and finding no Body there, I hid myself under some Straw, and heard the Indians continually shouting and crying, altho'I was four Miles from HoethPlace. At last there came some Body into the House were I was hid, and I called, Who is there? But they did not answer. I called a second Time, Are you Friends or Foes? They then replied, Friends, and proved to be Jesley and Fried. They asked me, if I had hooted and cried so? I told them no, it was the Indians; and also acquainted them how it had gone with us; upon which they were for leaving me directly; but I begged and prayed them to stay and take Care of me; however they went way notwithstanding, saying, they could not stay. They soon returned again, and I promised, if they would stay with me, to be as little Trouble to them as possible, which they accordingly did. The next Morning they took one of my Father Horses, and put an old Saddle on him, and brought me that Day, in all my extream Pain, to the Nazareth Tavern, where one of the Soldiers, who was in our Company, also came, and had saved his Life by getting into a Swamp, and sitting all Night in a Tree. What became of the rest is not known; but the Indians pursued them close, and were not far from them. I did not see above 12 or 15 Indians at most. JOHN ADAM HUTH
(6) Same issue. Now over to Easton area - a farmer, who was armed and shooting at an Indian, apparently with gun problems once again.
Extract of a Letter from Easton, January 22.
"Besides what is mentioned in the above Extracts, I have to add, that my Serjeant, Peter Kechlin, patrolled this Day as far as Nazareth, where he was told, that a Centinel (a neighbouring Farmer, who for his Safety is residing there) seeing an Indian last Night come pretty near him, called out, Who is there three times, but received no Answer; whereupon he drew his Trigger, but his Gun missed Firing thrice. He then called out to the Men in the House, who fired out at the Window, but missed the Indian, who ran off in the Manner of a Worm Fence, to prevent being shot; this they discovered by his Tracts, which appeared this Morning: So that they are under the greatest Apprehensions of being attacked every Minute, and were very pressing for our Men to stay with them; which they could not do, having no Orders, and as they could not be spared from the Watch."
-
(7) Ran to fetch arms (plural) at Jacob Gerhart's.
(This is Albany twp, so upper Berks. Co township)
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: February 19, 1756
Title: PHILADELPHIA, February 19.
Mr. LEVAN,
"I cannot omit writing you about the doleful Circumstances of our Township of Albany. The Indians came Yesterday Morning, about Eight a Clock, to Frederick ReichelsderferHouse, as he was feeding his Horses, and two of them ran up to him, and followed him into a Field about ten or twelve Perches; but he escaped, and ran towards the house of Jacob Gerhart, with a Design to fetch some Arms. When he came near Gerharts, he heard a lamentable Cry, Lord Jesus! Lord Jesus! which made him run back towards his own House; but before he got quite Home, he say his House and Stables in Flames, and heard the Cattle in the latter bellowing terribly, and thereupon ran away again. Two of his Children were shot; one of them we found dead in his Field, the other was found alive, and brought to HakinbookHouse, but died three Hours after. All his Grain and Cattle are burnt up. At Jacob Gerhartthey have killed one Man, two Women, and six Children. Two Children slipped under the Bedstead, one of which was burnt, the other escaped, and ran a Mile to get to the People. We desire Help, or we must leave our Houses and Plantations.
VALENTINE PROBST."
-
(8.) A son of George Minier goes into the house to get a gun; Philip Buffart also has gun.
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: March 11, 1756
Title: PHILADELPHIA, March 11.
PHILADELPHIA, March 11.
The following Account of Mischief done by the Indians at the Plantation of Philip Buffart, in Northampton County , on the other Side of the Blue Mountains, between Fort Norris and Fort Hamilton, was sent in a Letter from Mr. J. Matthew Otto to a Gentleman at Bethlehem, dated March 5. viz. That on the First Instant one Muhlhaus, who was breaking Flax there, was shot through the Body, and the Wound thought to be mortal: That a Boy of George Minierwas standing at the Door, and received a Shot in the Breast, upon which he went into the House to get his Gun, and as he was cocking it fell down dead: That then BuffartSon ran out of the House, when he was shot in several Places, and died soon after: That Buffart himself, and an Indian, fired at one another, when he was wounded in the Arm, and the Indian shot in the Back, who ran off, making an howling Noise: And that some of BuffartNeighbours, who came to his Assistance, heard a Groaning at a Distance, thought to be that of two wounded Indians; that they say five Indians; and that in the Beginning there were eight of them seen.
-
(9.) Some folks up in Lynn township (NH Co.) get a group together and go after some natives, not very specific but they did fire upon the indians so at least some of them must have been armed.
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: July 14, 1757
Title: PHILADELPHIA, July 14.
PHILADELPHIA, July 14.
We have Advice from Northampton County , that Teedyuscung is arrived at Easton, with 130 Indians, in order to hold a Conference with this Government.
And we hear from Lynn Township in the same County , that on the 9th Instant, as one Adam Clawse, with some of his Neighbours, were cutting down his Corn, they were attacked by a party of Indians: That of their Number two Men, two Women, and a Girl, escaped: That Martin Yager and his Wife were killed and scalped: That the Wife of John Crowshore, and one Child, the Wife of Abraham Secler, and one of Philip Ashton, were murdered, but not scalped: That upon the Alarm being given, a small Party went out after the Enemy, and came up with nine of them, at whom they fired some Shot, and it is thought wounded several; but that they afterwards lost them among the thick Woods.
-
(10.) Again, here we have what seem to be men working in the fields, attacked suddenly. At least a 14 year old boy has a "piece."
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: June 29, 1758
Title: PHILADELPHIA, June 29.
From Northampton County we hear, that on Wednesday, the 14th Instant, two Men in a Field were fired at by the Enemy, one of which was wounded; that they took to the River, when the well Man escaped by swimming, but the wounded One was tomahawked in the River: That the same Day some People were fired on in another Field, and two Men killed; and a white Boy, about fourteen Years of Age, firing his Piece, wounded one of the Indians, and charged again, but finding his Companions had left him, made the best of his Way off.
-
(11.) And of course, 1763.
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: October 13, 1763
Title: PHILADELPHIA, October 13.
PHILADELPHIA, October 13.
Wetterholt's militia party (number not mentioned) out of Fort Allen is attacked while unprepared at a private residence:
On Sunday Night last an Express arrived from Northampton County , with the following melancholy Account, viz. "That on the Morning before the House of John Stinton, about eight Miles from Bethlehem, was attacked by the Indians as follows. Captain Wetherholt, with a Party, belonging to Fort Allen, being at that House, and intending early for the Fort, ordered a Servant out to get his Horse ready, who was immediately shot down by the Enemy; upon which the Captain going to the Door, was also fired at, and mortally wounded: That then a Serjeant attempted to pull in the Captain; and to shut the Door, but he was likewise dangerously wounded: That the Lieutenant next advanced, when an Indian jumped upon the Bodies of the two others, and presented a Pistol to his Breast, which he put a little aside, and it went off over his Shoulder, whereby he got the Indian out of the House, and shut the Door: That the Indians after this went round to a Window, and as Stinton was getting out of Bed, shot him, but not dead, and he breaking out of the House, ran about a MIle, where he dropt and died: That his Wife, and 2 Children, ran down into the Cellar, where they were shot at three Times, but escaped: That Captain Wetherholt, finding himself growing very weak, crawled to a Window, and shot an Indian dead, it was thought, as he was setting Fire to the House with a Match: And that upon this the other Indians carried him away with them, and went off. Captain Wetherholt died soon after."
Here at Adam Tashler's were "...about 20 men in arms..."
Extract of a Letter from Bethlehem, October 9.
"Early this Morning came Nicholas Marks, of Whitehall Township, and brought the following Account, viz. That Yesterday, just after Dinner, as he opened his Door, he saw an Indian standing about two Poles from the House, who endeavoured to shoot at him; but Marks shutting the Door immediately, the Fellow slipt into a Cellar, close by the House. After this said Marks went out of the House, with his Wife, and an Apprentice Boy, in order to make their Escape, and saw another Indian standing behind a Tree, who also tried to shoot at them, but his Gun missed Fire. They then saw a third Indian running through the Orchard; upon which they made the best of their Way, about two Miles off, to one Adam Tashler, where about 20 Men in Arms were assembled, who went first to the House of Jacob Mekly, where they found a Boy and Girl lying dead, and the Girl scalped. From thence they went to Hance Sneider, and said MarkPlantations, and found both the Houses on Fire, and a Horse tied to the Bushes. They also found said Sneider, his Wife and three Children, dead in the Field, the Man and Woman scalped, but not the Children. On going further, they found three Girls, one dead, the other two wounded, one of which scalped. After this they returned, with the two wounded Girls, to Adam Tashlerand saw a Woman, Jacob AllmongWife, with a Child, lying dead in the Road, and scalped. The Number of the Indians, they think, was between Fifteen and Twenty.
"I cannot describe the deplorable Condition this poor Country is in; most of the Inhabitants of AllenTown, and other Places, are fled from their Habitations. Many are in Bethlehem, and other Places of the Brethren, and others farther down the Country. I cannot ascertain the Number killed, but think it exceeds Twenty. The People at Nazareth, and other Places belonging to the Brethren, have put themselves in the best Posture of Defence they can; they keep a strong Watch every Night, and hope, by the Blessing of God, if they are attacked, to make a good Stand."
-
(Lost track of numbering! Another account of Wetterholt's situation noted above; Andrew Hazlet's house attacked and Hazlet has a gun and - you guessed it - it misfires.)
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: November 10, 1763
Title: PHILADELPHIA, November 10.
We are desired to publish what follows, as being a more authentic Account of the Damage done by the Indians in Northampton County , on the Eighth of last Month, than what was inserted in the Gazette of the 13th, viz.
"That on the 8th of October, betwixt Day break and Sunrise, the Indians attacked the House of John Stenton, when eight Persons (instead of three mentioned) were killed and wounded, seven of which were shot, some dead, and others died soon after of their Wounds, in the greatest Agony; the Eighth likely to do well: That after they went from Stenton, they plundered the House of James Allen, a little Way from thence; they then attacked the House of Andrew Hazlet, about Half a Mile from said Allen, where they shot one Man dead, and scalped him; upon which Hazlet got his Gun, and attempted to fire at the Enemy, but it missing Fire, he was shot himself by them; whereupon his Wife, being at some Distance, and seeing what had happened, ran off with two of her Children, but was instantly pursued by the Indians, who overtook and tomahawked her, and them, in a most barbarous Manner; notwithstanding which, she and one of the Children lived four Days in the most exquisite Pain, and the other Child it is thought will recover; after which they plundered HazletHouse: and that about a Quarter of a MileDistance from thence, they, as was supposed, plundered the House of one Crocher, and then burnt it down."
-
John McNair in Allen township has a gun stolen from his house.
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: September 3, 1767
Title: WENT away on the 19th of August, from the subscriber, living
WENT away on the 19th of August, from the subscriber, living in Allentownship, Northampton county, a man that proffessed to be a well digger, who agreed with me to dig a well, and accordingly began the same; but finding my house without any body in it, went in, and stole the following goods, viz. two good coats, two shirts, a neat fuzeen gun , shot bag, and powder horn; one coat is dark blue, home made thick cloth, full trimmed, the other is a brown watered stuff coat, full trimmed; the shirts are both coarse linen, one quite new, the other half worn, the shot bag is calfskin, dressed with the hair on, and a quantity of powder and shot. There was also stole the night following out of a house in the neigbourhood, supposed to be by the same person, a 40s. beaver hat, and a pair of channelled pumps. He told me his name was Archibald McCapel, born in Ireland, can speak good English and broken Dutch, is about 5 feet 6 inches high, sandy complexion, spitted with the small pox, had long black hair, but talked of cutting it off. Had on, when he went away, an old felt hat, check shirt, a short green thick cloth jacket, double breasted, with metal buttons, lined with white flannel, and striped linen trowsers, and old shoes, one with a buckle to it, the other tied. Whoever takes up and secures said thief, shall have THREE POUNDS reward, and reasonable charges, paid by me
JOHN McNAIR.
-
Guy runs off with a smooth rifle gun in Forks township.
Collection: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: January 26, 1769
Title: RUN away from his bail, on the 9th of this inst. January, JOHN
RUN away from his bail, on the 9th of this inst. January, JOHN DAVIS, this country born, about 21 years of age, about 5 feet 5 inches high, of a sandy complexion, freckled, had a pretty large scar on the instep of one of his feet, occasioned by the cut of an ax, and he is pretty talkative; had on, when he went away, a blue broadcloth coat, with mohair buttons, a red plush waistcoat, leather breeches, and a fine hat; he also had other clothes, of a light ash colour, lined with striped linsey, the coat had no lining in the sleeves; these he had packed up in a pair of check trowsers; he may dispose of one suit; he took with him a smooth rifle gun , and as he has served his time, he may possibly produce his indenture. Whoever secures the said runaway in any goal, shall have FIVE POUNDS reward, paid by the subscriber in Forks township, Northampton county. GEORGE TIDFORD.
-
I'll see what else I can find.
Obviously they were not bristling with firearms, and many of these folks seem to have lots of problems with their firearms, but the firearms are there nevertheless.
The PRIMARY information is there, all one has to do is look for it.
-
It would be interesting to know how Bob would respond to all this evidence of guns among Northampton County farmers--and, at least from what one can tell from many of the farmers' names, German farmers in Northampton County.
It is difficult to imagine--after seeing such evidence from the Pennsylvania Gazette, or realizing that if Northampton County's farmers were disarmed they must have possessed arms--how one could preserve the mistaken belief that there was not a market for guns among Northampton County's German farmers: guns were available and these farmers were able to obtain them.
It would be tricky to draw firm conclusions about the percentage of farmers overall that possessed arms from this information. But that would be an entirely different discussion. There's no evidence whatsoever that arms weren't available or that farmers couldn't (or didn't choose to) obtain them.
Burd's comment about Allentown in 1763 is interesting but only interesting in the way Bob thinks when taken out of context. Put back in the context that Eric has just supplied, the interesting question is why there weren't more guns in Allentown at that particular moment? Obviously there were plenty of guns available and those who lived in the surrounding countryside had them.
-
Tic,,,,,,Tic,,,,,,Tic,,,,,Tic,,,,,,,,,,,
-
Miscellaneous public records of NH county, currently stored at HSP.
In Vol. 1, page 197: Letter dated July 13, 1756, Timothy Horsfield to William Parsons at Easton: account of arms held by Daniel Kliest in Bethlehem, 4 "middling good" and 28 "commonly called glass guns, several broken."
(I have no idea what the term "glass gun" may mean. Even if the Moravians were using the term "glas" gun, in either German or Dutch it would still indicate glass I believe. ???)
-
Paraphrasing here because I'm not going to sit here typing for an hour!
Going back through notes I took when researching Edward Marshall and his infamous rifle; I had found an account of an indian attack, testimony given by a 16 year old named George Ebert of Easton. I noted it because he mentioned that Marshall's wife had been killed at the Blue Mtn, however he noted that the whole incident (about which he was testifying) began on May 2, 1757, when he and 18 armed men (this does not appear to have been a militia company, as there was no additional testimony of a captain or lieutenant, only a group of men accompanying wagons it would seem) were traveling to the assistance of a group of residents who had been attacked in Lower Smithfield. This testimony is also in the same book of varied NH Co. public records noted above, page 253.
-
Bob? ???
Can someone at least pretend to be Bob?
After the last discussion, which ended in May 2011 or so, Bob stayed off this site for nearly a year. I hope he comes back sooner this time--because I'm eager to see how he modifies his ideas based on the abundant evidence that Eric has provided.
-
Miscellaneous public records of NH county, currently stored at HSP.
In Vol. 1, page 197: Letter dated July 13, 1756, Timothy Horsfield to William Parsons at Easton: account of arms held by Daniel Kliest in Bethlehem, 4 "middling good" and 28 "commonly called glass guns, several broken."
(I have no idea what the term "glass gun" may mean. Even if the Moravians were using the term "glas" gun, in either German or Dutch it would still indicate glass I believe. ???)
Hmmm. The odd thing is that Horsfield suggests that these guns are "commonly called glass guns," which suggests that the term was ... well, common.
-
I wonder if it is some type of reference or slang for a blunderbuss? The reason I mention this: I know that I have more than one reference ca. 1750s *somewhere* (meaning I distinctly remember them, but currently do not know which huge pile of papers and notes is hiding it) noting that the brethren were trying to obtain blunderbusses (specifically termed "blunderbusses") for Bethlehem and later Nazareth. Through George Ernst Schlosser, at least on one occasion.
I know all the cartoons when I was a kid showed blunderbusses being loaded with glass and/or nails.... ::) :D :D :D
-
Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
-
That is great stuff!!! And my plan worked perfectly if I do say so myself, and I do!!! I figured with a little goading someone would open up the flood gates and start posting some great information. And it would be even better if this information was all collected together and published in a series of books with, of course, some contemporary editing.
-
I dug out some of my notes also - here is a interest dialog between the Chief of Oneida indians, at a conference with the "northern indians" in August 1762: The chief, named Thomas King, apparently lived beyond "Mohonoy (Mahonoy?) / "Nixhisaqua".
Chief:
"...some of our warriors who are here have no guns, and if you will bestow any on them, I desire they may be good. You are daily making rifles. I do not know what you do with them. When you gave me any guns, you gave me yellow stocked ones that are worth nothing (note - maybe birch guns were made for indians?) I have asked you now four times. At Easton, you only gave me gun locks. What, think you, could I do with them, without stocks and barrels? I make no guns. After I got the gun locks, I joined myself with General Forbes, and went to war with him, as you ordered me, against the french. and as soon as I had done it, you still only gave me gun locks."
-
Examples of Barter in the economy;
"October 26, 1755: "Three men came today,- they are Germans from New River, but now living on the Town Fork. Two of them undertake to make us 3000 shingles in three weeks, the third will fell and trim 100 trees, the pay to be a pair of shoes each."
Could have just as easily been "their pay to be three rifled guns!!"
Another good entry paraphrased of course;
"recall the 1757 entry in the Bethlehem ledger of the Locksmith and Gunstocker whereby Abraham Steiner purchased a gun from the Bethlehem shop to send to his son in Wachovia.."
-
If we read Kindig it seems gun work was done on the installment plan as well.
Dan
-
Miscellaneous public records of NH county, currently stored at HSP.
In Vol. 1, page 197: Letter dated July 13, 1756, Timothy Horsfield to William Parsons at Easton: account of arms held by Daniel Kliest in Bethlehem, 4 "middling good" and 28 "commonly called glass guns, several broken."
(I have no idea what the term "glass gun" may mean. Even if the Moravians were using the term "glas" gun, in either German or Dutch it would still indicate glass I believe. ???)
Glass guns? The letter would appear to be written by an Englishman to another Englishman about guns held by a German. Glass could be a Pennsylvania Dutch term for a certain type of gun. From Eugene Stine's Pennsylvania German Dictionary which focuses on the Lehigh-Northampton County variant, glass is defined as class. In the dialect glass is spelled glaas. Pennsylvania Dutch is an odd combination of German, English and dialect words and does vary somewhat from region to region in Pennsylvania. No way of knowing exactly what is meant by glass guns unless some text turns up with a better description. I checked Muhlenberg's 1812 dictionary but there are clues there.
Martin
-
I really wish it could be explained. I do have a few other references to Schlosser acquiring arms in Philadelphia for Bethlehem, and also Bethlehem's desire for some swivel guns which I believe were of the form of a large bore blunderbuss mounted on a swivel to be used from a stockade wall. Possibly, this term is some kind of reference to such a piece - a short, large bored close range defensive arm of some kind.
-
Interesting.
As you say, Mart, the letter is written from one Englishman to another (Horsfield was in 1756, I believe, a justice of the peace at Bethlehem). So if the term "glass" reproduces something from Pennsylvania Dutch it would be transcribing how Horsfield heard the "common" term. He would have heard "glaas" as "glass" (which would signify "glass" in English) or he could have heard the German "glass" (which would signifiy "class" in English). So this still leaves us with "class" or "glass." But what would a "class gun" be? Was that a "common" term? A "high-class" gun I could understand ... but Horsfield didn't write that...
The Moravians at Bethlehem, however, didn't speak a dialect of Pennsylvania Dutch, did they?
Other possibilities:
"Glatz" means bald... "klotz" means block ... and "glatte" means "smooth": perhaps we have a winner?
Scott
-
Keeping it alive as I go through notes.
NH Co. records at HSP, microfilm, roll MFilmXR 698
Letter: Lewis Weiss to Timothy Horsfield at Bethlehem, August 1763
Weiss had spoken to 3 of Governor's commissioners, told them he wants arms, especially blunderbusses, for Bethlehem and Nazareth. There were arms for sale at auction (in Philadelphia) the coming week, Schlosser would buy them for Bethlehem if the commissioners did not. William Hoffman had 3 swivels for Bethlehem.
Letter: Later letter from Weiss in Philadelphia to Horsfield August 1763
Mr. Schlosser bought arms for Bethlehem, hoped bill would be paid by province when commissioners provide for the frontier.
Letter: Lt. Jonathan Dodge at Fort Allen to Horsfield at Bethlehem August 1763
Guns supplied by provice were bad, "not one in 10 that would kill a man in ten times shooting."
(Is this indicating the apparently common misfire issue?)
Also: on microfilm MFilmXR 703 are a number of NH county treasurer's payments ca. 1754-1756, and a LARGE number of these are bounty payments for squirrels (??? this seems weird - attack squirrels!), fox and wolf heads. Let me reiterate - a LOT of bounty payments, well over half to German names. (A good number to Edward Marshall too, which is what I was originally looking for at the time). Now, I suppose we could debate whether or not these were being *trapped* or shot. I can;t answer that, just putting it out there. Like Bob Lienemann, the superhero of impartial research once said to me (and I STILL remember it), "just put the information out there and let people make up their own minds."
(Where's the fun in that Bob? ;D ;D )
-
More on glass guns. Eugene Stine's dictionary of the Lehigh-Northampton dialect defines Glattbix as a "smooth bore rifle". His definition not mine. Rifle would not be the proper term. This would show that Glatt was used to describe a smooth bore gun. If all the Germans in the area are describing a smooth bore gun as Glatt it is no stretch to see how an Englishman would interpret the sound as glass.
Martin
-
If all the Germans in the area are describing a smooth bore gun as Glatt it is no stretch to see how an Englishman would interpret the sound as glass.
Agreed!
It did occur to me that whoever transcribed the letter--I don't know whether, Eric, you were working with the original letter or a transcription (I suspect the original letter)--may have transcribed "glass" when Horsfield wrote "glatt," but it's equally possible that Horsfield assimilated "glatt" to the more familiar English word "glass."
-
Yellow-stocked guns.... oil paint w/ochre pigment? There is a Lehigh in the Henry museum collection painted red, looks like red milk paint.
-
The original was written in English and the exact spelling was "glass," or I should say, that's exactly how I copied it. Unfortunately, as usual, I was very pressed for a limited amount of time any of the occasions I went down there and so never had the time to fully copy anything - I basically just scanned through anything I could find relative to NH Co. and paraphrased anything pertinent in notes, copying exact quotes if I deemed them important and planned to use them. I did make sure to document where everything originated!
I have more of interest, will post as soon as I can go through everything.
Fortunately, I was specifically looking into NH Co. during the exact period we are discussing here, as well as Allentown ca. 1760s-1770s, and I was looking for anything relative to guns, gunsmiths etc. Good information to have!
-
I suspect you guys are correct about the use of the term "glatt." Possibly it was being used in plural or a local slang, i.e. "glatts" or something similar, but anyway you look at it, it is darn close to "glass" and very likely exactly what was being referenced.
-
Microfilm MFilmXR 703
DEcember 1755, William Hays to William PArsons at Easton:
Hays acquired 100 "guns" (no further specification) as well as 100 wt powder, 400 wt of lead of which half was "swan shot"; 55 of the guns were for PArsons and were currently at Overpacks on the Durham Road.
July 1756, Letter from William PArsons at Easton to Commisioners, makes mention of a letter he had received from Horsefield which accounted for Provincial arms held by Daniel Kliest at Bethlehem; Kliest only had enough guns for about 1/3 of the men, but the guns were not good and (quote) "the men being generally as much afraid to fire them as they would to meet an indian." [unfortunately, Horsefield's letter was not there that I could find, so it was only paraphrased by Parsons]
September 1763, petition to Col. Horsefield at Bethlehem, from people at Brinker's Mill; it's a long petition, they want soldiers stationed there, and only half the petitioners have guns and are short on powder and lead. [so half are unarmed, but on the other hand half ARE armed.]
October 1763, Commissioners in Philadelphia to Horsefield at Bethlehem, they are sending by Bethlehem stage 25 muskets to Captain Gordon at Easton, 50 muskets to CApt. Wolf at Northampton Town, 25 muskets to Capt. Hays in Allen Township. Powder, lead, flints and shot sent along to all as well.
-
(Where's the fun in that Bob? ;D ;D )
By all means keep going, Eric. I'm collecting it.
So the issue wasn't so much there weren't guns, but the guns they had didn't work. Perhaps both because Rhinelanders had almost zero experience with firearms in their home country, and the emergency of 1755 brought a lot of junk trade guns into the country. Plus the evidence is still a long way from every homestead possessing a firearm. There's merit to the argument that the massive influx of German settlers to Northamption in the late 1740's and early 1750's outstripped almost all available resources.
To wit, Marianne Wokek's Trade in Strangers, where the peak year is 1750.
But William Moll stays where he is unless you come up with something a lot better than the live interview of William Henry Moll.
Page 123-4. Mathews, Alfred and Hungerford, Austin. History of the Counties of Lehigh and Carbon, Philadelphia: Everts and Richards, 1884. However loose those early histories, they remain better than rumors.
http://search.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=14003&iid=dvm_LocHist000929-00086-1&sid=&gskw=&cr=1
-
Welcome back! (Seriously.)
I don't think anybody (here, at least) claimed that "every homestead possess[ed] a firearm." I think we were contending that German farmers (a) could obtain guns and (b) did obtain guns--and that there is no evidence to generalize that as a group Northampton County German farmers did not possess firearms. It would be beyond my abilities to know how to move from the evidence that Eric has collected to any kind of estimate of what percentage of these farmers did possess guns and what percentage did not. But its clear that one cannot claim accurately that German farmers, in particular, did not or could not possess firearms.
If you contend "that the massive influx of German settlers to Northamption in the late 1740's and early 1750's outstripped almost all available resources," you seem to be accepting that these German settlers were indeed a "market" for guns. Indeed, now they seem to have gobbled up all the available product!
-
I don't think anybody (here, at least) claimed that "every homestead possess[ed] a firearm." I think we were contending that German farmers (a) could obtain guns and (b) did obtain guns--and that there is no evidence to generalize that as a group Northampton County German farmers did not possess firearms.
If you contend "that the massive influx of German settlers to Northamption in the late 1740's and early 1750's outstripped almost all available resources," you seem to be accepting that these German settlers were indeed a "market" for guns. Indeed, now they seem to have gobbled up all the available product!
They were only a market for guns to the extent that they could afford them, whether by purchase or barter. The demographics and residual wealth of German frontier settlers was dramatically different by 1750 than they were in the 1730’s:
1) Commoners rarely owned firearms in Germany and Alsace. It was possible, but difficult and expensive. They definitely didn’t bring firearms with them, as besides expense, any one of the 20+ Rhine River checkpoints alone along the way would have confiscated them.
2) There were twice as many German immigrants to Pennsylvania in the six years between 1748 and 1754 than there were in the 27 years from 1720 to 1747. That’s one helluva spike in a 1685-1775 influx of over 80,000 settlers.
3) As German immigration progressed from 1685 to 1754, the merchants profiting from it in Rotterdam, Cowes, London and Philadelphia got better at it, and it became more, not less expensive. For a number of reasons, settlers had less and less money to spend in Pennsylvania as the wave of immigration progressed through 1754.
4) Whether by purchase or barter, acquiring a new rifle prior to the Revolution was extremely expensive. Equal to a year’s wages or a full-fare passage from Rotterdam to Philly. More than a hundred acres of frontier land or a full fare passage from (cheaper) Ireland to Philly. Or almost as much as a horse. Acquiring one within two or three years after the merchants, ship’s captains and the Penn Land Office picked you clean upon arrival, was almost impossible.
I’ve never disputed rifles were out there. What I’m disputing (and so is Fogelman) is given the immigration spike alone compared with available resources in Pennsylvania, there couldn’t have been as many as advertised by the screenwriters.
-
I'll second the welcome back. The comment you quoted above wasn't directed at you however, but rather at Bob Lienemann, with whom I've been corresponding on this subject as well. It's very, very hard to simply 'put the [documentable] facts out there' all by their lonesome while simultaneously avoiding any conclusions whatsoever.
My thoughts on the whole gun thing in a nutshell - speculative, for as Scott notes above, it's really impossible now in 2012 to present a clear picture - are that guns were there, guns were owned, and guns were used. My impression is that many of the guns were probably poorly maintained and not used regularly in a martial fashion. In fact, many of the 'poor Germans' probably had no concept at all of the Indian's blitz warfare, lightning strikes on isolated locations and then *poof* gone back over the blue mountain. Most every period account, the only accounts I would concern myself with, tend to reinforce this interpretation, and the lack of war experience combined with a lack of constant firearm readiness basically made them sitting ducks. Some apparently put up a fight, but most probably were already conditioned to simply get the $#*! out of there with their skins intact. Whole lots of probablys there. Just don't say the guns, and a market for them, weren't there, because they definitely were and have been proven to be so.
An entirely additional chapter which has yet to be examined (not in this monster thread and not in most texts, although *hint hint* there is a LOT to be found in my old friends the first hand documents), is the relationship between the way the natives were viewed pre-1755 and post-1755, and the role of the Moravians and their missionary activities among the natives in this view specifically in Northampton County. There are ample accounts of "friend indians" (and I quote, because that term was used for the Moravian converts or near-converts) coming and going throughout the county and particularly to and from Bethlehem, and during the years of trouble, they were put into a very dire predicament and advised to stay hidden and not go 'out' lest they be harassed, imprisoned or killed. Many of them seem to have become entirely dependent upon white charity. I can't offer the exact location of this at the moment as it's buried, and I'm paraphrasing, but I distinctly remember reading it right from the horses' mouths ca. 1755-63. So, to be more concise, what I'm getting at is this: how did the relationship of area German farmers with the Moravian indians pre-1755 color their expectations and perceptions of said natives, and how did those expectations and perceptions color their level of preparedness when all $#*! broke loose in NH Co.? I can't help but to view this as a very interesting question.
"Page 123-4. Mathews, Alfred and Hungerford, Austin. History of the Counties of Lehigh and Carbon, Philadelphia: Everts and Richards, 1884. However loose those early histories, they remain better than rumors."
(I can;t figure out how to do the fancy quote box in a selective fashion)
Oh lord, WHAT RUMORS? There are no rumors, or at the least, I don't believe that I have put any forth since the recent discovery of where he was ca. 1751-1763. Next door to a Berks Co. gunsmithing family. That's it. Sure, someone taught him, someone taught them, who taught who is a big question? I don't know. None of us know, as currently none of us know where he was prior to 1751. maybe he was born here, maybe he was one of the immigrants on the pre-1751 ship lists. One thing I do know for certain, the property on the map was noted "John Moll," not William Moll. Prior to John being there, it was noted as Moses Hyman who vacated the land ca. late 1750 and ended up in Reading. Moll never had a warrant on it, nor anywhere else in Rockland twp. (or what became Rockland twp.) So any smith shops or dwellings or whatever that were there were either put up by Hyman or by John Moll. There was no William involved in that land. Other surrounding people at the same time are George Ongstadt, David Weiser, Abm. Peter, John Frederick, Peter Preil, Jacob Plant, Lazarus Weidner. During the 1750s, also Wm Foulke. We would never know all this, save that repeated surveys were made ca. 1749-1751 which can provide a timeline of who was where. I guess I have to disagree - spurious, speculative or otherwise unverifiable information is not better than rumor simply because it is put into print. It's fine to discuss as speculation, as long as it is recognized as questionable. BTW, where did that old, oft-repeated information about the Neiharts being from Zweibrucken originate again? :-*
-
I’ve never disputed rifles were out there. What I’m disputing (and so is Fogelman) is given the immigration spike alone compared with available resources in Pennsylvania, there couldn’t have been as many as advertised by the screenwriters.
Well ... I think you did in the recent past insist something very close to there were no "rifles...out there" among the Pennsylvania German farmers of Northampton County. "Few" is one phrase you use below; "near zero" is another:
Official correspondence after every Indian incident from 1755 to 1763 includes loud pleas for weapons and ammunition, because few settlers owned them. That situation would improve rapidly between 1763 and 1775-6 as the frontier economy improved and Pennsylvania easily fielded battalions of frontier riflemen for service in Boston and Long Island, but the actual evidence says the starting point for Moll in 1763 and Christian Springs in 1762 was near zero.
Anyway, I am glad now that it is only the imprecision of the "screenwriters" that you're disputing--and in this effort at historical accuracy I can join you. In that light, I guess we can both agree with Eric that
guns were there, guns were owned, and guns were used.
All the evidence that we have indicates this is the case: there were guns and there was a market for them among Northampton County German Farmers (NCGFs from here on out). To make any claim whatsoever about precisely how many (whether "near zero" or very few or less than half) is guesswork (or worse, since it isn't even filling in the blanks; it's making things up entirely). But less than one in "every homestead" we can be certain of, since many of the reports that Eric supplied indicates that some households did not have guns. But perhaps the next two neighbors did. Or five neighbors. Maybe 80% of the NCGFs own guns and the stories that survived are of the few outliers who lacked them and so whose stories got told? Well that's equally guesswork.
I need to add that repeatedly citing Aaron F., whose two books (on German immigration and violence against Moravians) I admire, on the issue of gun ownership smacks of desperation for an ally, since he admits in personal correspondence with you that he has not "looked much into eighteenth-century gun making."
A while back you challenged: "Provide me some specific references you think I’ve missed concerning early SE Pennsylvania..." I think Eric did that, in abundance, more than anybody could have expected (or deserved!: the amount of time that went into the gathering of that material, which he simply posted to this list, must have been enormous). What I don't understand is why this abundant, contemporary evidence hasn't resulted in a modification of the theory about the prevalence of guns among NCGFs? The theory seems to depend on a belief that the NCGFs could not obtain guns either through barter or cash. But obtain guns they did. So maybe the theory needs adjusting?
In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling
-
Eric, to add the fancy quote box, when making a reply, note the two rows of little boxes to the rght of 'Add BBC tags:'. Go to the bottom row, second box from last, looks like a balloon from a cartoon, click that. The quote code pops up, with a blinking cursor between them. Paste your copy in there.
-
The quote code pops up, with a blinking cursor between them. Paste your copy in there.
Well that's just keeeeewwwwwwwwllllll.
Thanks Tom! Got it. ;D
-
I work for a living, keep a roof over my head, pay my taxes, and I would find it impossible to buy a nice Kettenburg or a Martin rifle today. I suspect that I am far better off than a man in Colonial times. Pure speculation that most farmers barely got by until well established and turning a profit. That would take years.
-
I see some reasoning that because a new rifle was a "year's wages" that this could lead to being unarmed. Knowing little of the area and nothing of primary sources, I just note that there were guns available in the period that were much less expensive than new rifles. There are many contemporary estates which show in their inventories, guns valued at much less.
-
Eggs-act-leeeee.
Using the period descriptions as a guide, it might be said that many of the arms being used in Northampton county ca. 1750s and early 1760s (both privately as well as by the militia) were not of the best quality and certainly had issues with proper function. Perhaps, compounded by 'operator malfunction?'
-
I see some reasoning that because a new rifle was a "year's wages" that this could lead to being unarmed. Knowing little of the area and nothing of primary sources, I just note that there were guns available in the period that were much less expensive than new rifles. There are many contemporary estates which show in their inventories, guns valued at much less.
I work for a living, keep a roof over my head, pay my taxes, and I would find it impossible to buy a nice Kettenburg or a Martin rifle today. I suspect that I am far better off than a man in Colonial times. Pure speculation that most farmers barely got by until well established and turning a profit. That would take years.
Ah, the poor colonial farmer or the dumb Dutchman! Unfortunately it is not true. Just as today there was a broad spectrum of wealth. In todays terms some of this dumb farmers living in log cabins were multi-millionaires. I have many colonial ancestors that I will never equal in wealth. If a gun is worth a years wages how could you ever sleep? In the Hans Hess inventory of 1733 one gun is valued at £1 while the bedding for one bed is equal to £3.4.7 and this does not the include the bed frame. Hans died with 11 children and had an estate worth £395.19.11. His son Christian, a gunsmith, purchased a total 200 acres of land in 1755 and 1762 for £256.5.0. Christian would have turned 20 in 1747, so he was making money pretty darn fast. Christian died in 1794 with an estate worth £3782. It is total nonsense to think these farmers could not purchase a gun because it cost too much. A lot of farmers had excess cash and were making money from day one.
Martin
-
What about the folks just starting out, clearing land, and on the front line of the wilderness?
-
What about the folks just starting out, clearing land, and on the front line of the wilderness?
Hans Hess arrived in Pennsylvania in 1717 and was below average in wealth. In the 1719 through 1724 tax lists of the Conestoga area in Chester County, he was at the 20th percentile of wealth. Eighty percent of the local population was wealthy than he was. He settled on land in the future Lancaster County that had never been cleared. In 1717 this land was four miles from Indian territory. He was on the front line of the wilderness. The land Christian purchased had never been settled and he had to clear some after the purchase. For most of his life Christian rented this land out to other people and they cleared more land to increase their income.
Books were also valuable. The one Bible on the Hans Hess inventory was valued at £1.7.0. Thirty five percent more than his gun.
Martin
-
It's certainly possible that (A) folks just starting out would find it impossible to devote their resources to purchasing a gun, whatever it would have cost. Even to barter for a gun would mean to not use that surplus to barter for something else. BUT it is equally possible that (B) a gun was considered important enough that scarce resources were used to purchase one or trade for one.
The point is--or what seems to me to be the point is--that there is no evidence whatsoever for the prevalance of the former position (A). Even if we can show that early immigrants were cash-poor, had "less and less money to spend," as Bob wrote, this tells us nothing whatsoever about how they spent what little money they had or how they obtained items through other means. Nor is there even a single anecdote in a contemporary document in which an individual expresses his inability to obtain a gun for the reasons proposed in this thread. So on what basis can this argument be made and re-made over and over again?
There is, however, considerable evidence that German farmers obtained guns. Eric provided a lot of it, right from Northampton County. Many German farmers were disarmed a decade later, which means they had arms to be taken from them--and there's no reason to infer that they obtained these weapons only during that decade.
It certainly makes sense that the demand for guns rose and fell depending on frontier violence--and that at times of large mobilizations communities were made aware of the lack of guns or, as Eric has pointed out, the lack of guns that worked well. But even this deficiency needs to be explained (not just cited as if it is self-evident). Many men who showed up for militia duty without a gun may have had a gun in their household that they left home with their brother/son/wife for protection. Absent evidence, that speculation is just as possible as the proposal that these unarmed militia men came from households that never had a gun.
-
Many men who showed up for militia duty without a gun may have had a gun in their household that they left home with their brother/son/wife for protection.
To draw a parallel, I have seen documentation in the past that showed when French settlers in
Canada were called up for militia duty, many of the "purposely" left their guns at home because they knew they would be issued one by the militia, at no expense to them; and upon their release from duty they kept the guns in case of future call-ups.
It is entirely possible that the same mindset existed among these Germans. Also, I wonder how many of them were brethren who believed in pacifism as part of their religious beliefs.
-
Also, I wonder how many of them were brethren who believed in pacifism as part of their religious beliefs.
Others on this list know more about this than I do, but certainly many of the German farmers in Lancaster County became non-associators--i.e., they would not associate in militia companies--during the Revolution, when such service in Pennsylvania become mandatory. Richard MacMaster has found, for instance, that in Earl Township, Lancaster County, "virtually all the Mennonites, Dunkers, Amish, and Moravians" became non-associators (Conscience in Crisis, 295). John Newcomer, the Mennonite gunsmith, seems to have been one of the few Lancaster County gunsmiths to refuse to make muskets in 1775 when Lancaster County's Committee of Observation required all the county's gunsmiths to stop making rifles and start making muskets.
Their pacificism wouldn't have precluded them from owning rifles, of course, which they would have used for non-martial purposes: indeed, it is these non-associators who are disarmed during the Revolution.
Severe pressure from neighbors and from the way neighbors used state laws (which assessed enormous fines against those who would not serve in militias and licensed County Lieutenants to collect such fines, if necessary, by taking their property) eventually forced many who did not wish to join militia companies to do so. At least this is what happened in many Moravian communities beyond Bethlehem. I don't know whether Mennonite communities ended up capitulating to the same degree.
-
I’ve read a journal that a homesteading family, the Mother and children, were chased into the cellar of their cabin by a bear that kept slamming on the door until shot by some passing neighbors. I would suspect that given the Eastern woods were filled with top of the food chain predators, and that doesn’t include us, these people would make it a priority to get themselves armed. It wasn’t just Indians that could kill or hurt you.
-
Also, I wonder how many of them were brethren who believed in pacifism as part of their religious beliefs.
Others on this list know more about this than I do, but certainly many of the German farmers in Lancaster County became non-associators--i.e., they would not associate in militia companies--during the Revolution, when such service in Pennsylvania become mandatory. Richard MacMaster has found, for instance, that in Earl Township, Lancaster County, "virtually all the Mennonites, Dunkers, Amish, and Moravians" became non-associators (Conscience in Crisis, 295). John Newcomer, the Mennonite gunsmith, seems to have been one of the few Lancaster County gunsmiths to refuse to make muskets in 1775 when Lancaster County's Committee of Observation required all the county's gunsmiths to stop making rifles and start making muskets.
Their pacificism wouldn't have precluded them from owning rifles, of course, which they would have used for non-martial purposes: indeed, it is these non-associators who are disarmed during the Revolution.
Severe pressure from neighbors and from the way neighbors used state laws (which assessed enormous fines against those who would not serve in militias and licensed County Lieutenants to collect such fines, if necessary, by taking their property) eventually forced many who did not wish to join militia companies to do so. At least this is what happened in many Moravian communities beyond Bethlehem. I don't know whether Mennonite communities ended up capitulating to the same degree.
This is a difficult subject to get a clear picture. Initially it appears many Mennonites were unwilling to swear allegiance to the new country. Their parents had affirmed their allegiance to King George. Mennonites cannot swear an oath only affirm. This is still true today. Most Mennonites are listed as non-associators, but that organization collapsed early in 1777. Then the Pennsylvania militia was formed in March 1777. As time went on, it appears many Mennonites were members of the militia. Over time, the lack of any fighting by the militia might have reduced their reluctance along with the costs. The number of people with inactive duty in the militia is staggering compared to those who actually served. Fines could be onerous. I have seen one individual who had to pay £66.0.0.
Martin
-
Fines could be onerous.
Indeed. Although his study hasn't yet been published, Frank Fox has found that in Pennsylvania "militia fines for the years 1777-1783 totaled more than £6,000,000 continental currency. [County] Lieutenants retained and dispersed about half of this sum to cover militia expenses, and forwarded the remainder to the state treasurer"--and the "amount forwarded to the state treasurer totaled one-sixth of state revenue" for that period. So these militia fines were, so to speak, big business.
The militia system with its fines resulted from the Militia Act of early 1777. Are you saying, Martin, that the Mennonites tended to serve rather than pay these fines--in part because they gambled that there was a strong likelihood that, while they might drill with a militia unit, they wouldn't be called to serve in actual combat? I'm not sure what you meant by "that organization collapsed early in 1777"?
Scott
-
Fines could be onerous.
I'm not sure what you meant by "that organization collapsed early in 1777"?
Scott
According to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, "Associators were volunteers who comprised the Military Association, a civilian reserve designed to repel any invasion of Pennsylvania until the collapse of the Association in the winter of 1776-1777. The Pennsylvania Militia was organized under an Act of the Assembly of March 17, 1777 that required compulsory enrollment by constables of all able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 53 to repel invaders."
I had a thought about the fines for non-service. Were those amounts in continental currency or Pennsylvania currency? It would make a huge difference. Pennsylvania currency was pegged to silver while the continental currency was not. Hence the saying "not worth a continental." If you could pay in continental notes it might not have been very costly.
Martin
-
According to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, "Associators were volunteers who comprised the Military Association, a civilian reserve designed to repel any invasion of Pennsylvania until the collapse of the Association in the winter of 1776-1777. The Pennsylvania Militia was organized under an Act of the Assembly of March 17, 1777 that required compulsory enrollment by constables of all able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 53 to repel invaders."
I do see that phrasing a few times on the PHMC website, but I wish I knew what they meant by this "collapse." I suppose they mean that, when push came to shove, men didn't serve as they had promised or "volunteered"? I probably need to learn a lot more about this, but these associations were, in my understanding, county-based (rather than authorized at the state level). So the Lancaster County Committee of Observation divided the County up into companies and battalions in May 1775 and assessed fines on those who did not serve, known as non-associators. I don't think this county-based system ever "collapsed," though again it may have functioned better in some counties than others. Only after Pennsylvania established its new state government under its new constitution of 1776 did it pass the state-authorized Militia Law of March 1777.
But my real interest in asking my question was about the Mennonites. Did they change their attitude toward service in the militia as the war dragged on? Or were they just pressured into serving by exorbitant fines and threats of neighbors (which pretty much characterizes what happened to the Moravian communities beyond Bethlehem).
Scott
-
Where did this thread start? Anyway, it is extremely difficult to get any exact data on Mennonite attitudes. First, it is almost impossible to be sure any one individual is Mennonite at a specific time. The Mennonites did not keep records like the Moravians or other church groups. If an adult had not been baptized they would not be a member of the church and would not come under church rules. In a previous post I said it appears Mennonites were members of the militia. Am I positive, they were members to any extent? No. It would take a great deal of time to match militia lists with actual individuals. Too many surnames are the same and the militia lists I am familiar with do not give ages. In short, I don't know with any certainty. They might have taken the view that showing up for a meeting and marching around without a gun was not actually engaging in warfare.
Martin
-
Since this thread went quiet, I 'unstickied' it. Be sure to print it out for your personal reference, or copy the topic header for easier searching:
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=21620.0
-
D**n it! I was just taking a breather! I've got more to come pertaining to NH Co., but I'll probably lose track of the thread!
>:(
-
Many men who showed up for militia duty without a gun may have had a gun in their household that they left home with their brother/son/wife for protection.
To draw a parallel, I have seen documentation in the past that showed when French settlers in
Canada were called up for militia duty, many of the "purposely" left their guns at home because they knew they would be issued one by the militia, at no expense to them; and upon their release from duty they kept the guns in case of future call-ups.
It is entirely possible that the same mindset existed among these Germans. Also, I wonder how many of them were brethren who believed in pacifism as part of their religious beliefs.
I have thought of this as well. During the Revolution we constantly see cries of "not enough arms, not enough arms".... I have always wondered if the people simply left their guns at home, either for the wife and family to use, or because "I'm not gettin' my gun all beat up... they can provide me with one".
A huge percentage of German immigrants were "Redemptioners":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptioner
On top of this, many would start their journey at some port on the southern end of the Rhine river, with all thier belongings (including, perhaps, their guns), but, the ship owners and the port operators and every local authority they passed through on their way to Holland found it quite a lucrative business to charge passage fees. Some were lucky to leave Rotterdam with the clothes on their backs.
So, it might have taken a while for a new immigrant to be able to afford a gun. But, I bet as soon as he could get one, he would get one! :D
-
I'll sticky it again...no problem. I didn't want the top of the window taken up by stickies that aren't active.
Type away, my friends.
-
German farmers were generally considered much more efficient and productive than their English neighbors, so this might explain how they could literally "grow" their wealth at a fairly rapid pace.
-
All this is useful, thankyou. But it still doesn’t address the structural problem of weapons ownership that Aaron Fogelman mentions as requiring additional research.
The population explosion on the Pennsylvania frontier immediately prior to the French and Indian War was massive, and far surpassed the colony’s ability to either produce or even import firearms, setting aside the issue of first-generation homesteaders’ ability to pay for them or the attendant shortages in powder and lead, also largely imported items at that time.
Between 1740 and 1754, 55,672 German immigrants landed in Philadelphia along with another 10,418 or so Ulster Scots, the Ulstermen concentrated between 1740-41 and 1754. Probably very few of the Ulstermen brought weapons with them, and for certain almost none of the Germans did. While redemptioners became more common at the tail end of these immigrations, in Pennsylvania these servitude contracts were only for three years or less, with the redemptioner usually heading for the frontier afterwards.
That’s over 66,000 immigrants arriving in the short span of fifteen years in the largest port on the continent, yet a port having a population and attendant infrastructure and manufacturing of less than 20,000 inhabitants. And those immigrants migrating largely to the dangerous frontier long before weapons production of any scale began in the colonies in the early 1760’s. Even at one weapon per three people, that’s a requirement for firearms in quantities not seen until almost 20 years later during the Revolution.
Hence it is no surprise that after the Indian raids of 1763, frontier communities like Northampton Town found themselves significantly short of weapons for defense.
-
66,000 people in 15 years is about 4400 people per year. Say 5 people per family, that's about 880 family's a year.
I wouldn't think a thriving port comunity would have much difficulty in supplying 600 to 800 guns per year to these families...
John
-
Eric K. provided plenty of evidence that average German immigrant farmers possessed weapons. No evidence exists whatsoever that they had any trouble obtaining arms. Seems like it is time for the theory to adjust to the facts rather than vice versa. But you seem far more interested in dispensing information than modifying your account due to information offered here. It's too bad, for instance, that you don't credit the posters on ALR with some of the information that they provided you & that you used in your recent Muzzle Blasts article.
The really puzzling thing, Bob, about your stubborn adherence to a contention that is refuted by all contemporary evidence is that the claim--that German farming families didn't have any arms, or many arms (I can't keep track of your changing position)--isn't necessary to your argument about the Molls & Newhardts whatsoever.
I just read the Muzzle Blasts piece, which (to my mind) is really excellent. You make a very persuasive case that Moll would have relocated to Allentown in response to what must have been perceived as an escalating Indian war. There's no doubt that arms were scarce and urgently needed--but this obviously isn't because nobody had any before 1763! So why do you need to go down the path into fantasy-land about the lack of gun ownership among Northampton County German farmers, which is so clearly inaccurate, when your narrative about the Whitehall Massacre and the Molls, etc., doesn't depend on this whatsoever?
-
I wouldn't think a thriving port comunity would have much difficulty in supplying 600 to 800 guns per year to these families...
Then where are they?
If they were available in those kinds of quantities, then why are Revolutionary War weeapons relatively common and weapons from only 20 years earlier so scarce people aren't even sure what they looked like?
-
Then where are they?
Probably the same place the thousands of arms sent over from Britain in the mid-1750s are. In spring 1756, "10,000 stands of Arms"--all "Land Service Muskets of the King's Pattern with Brass Furniture"--were sent over to Boston for the use of William Shirley. In 1758, William Pitt ordered that "12,000...Muskets" be sent to New York. (This information from Jim Mullins's Of Sorts for Provincials: American Weapons of the French and Indian War [2008].)
The fact that few of these arms survived until today says little--nothing, really--about their presence and their use in colonial America.
The issue of imported arms makes it clear, too--as others on this thread have said, several times--that it is simply a mistake to suggest that, for Northampton County German farmers (or anybody else) to obtain arms, they would have had to purchase a new rifle. So it makes no sense to argue that, because a new rifle cost a certain amount, a certain type of farmer could not afford to possess a weapon at all.
-
The fact that few of these arms survived until today says little--nothing, really--about their presence and their use in colonial America.
Hardly.
-
Well where are the 22,000 muskets sent over in 1756 and 1758? Your logic would seem to compel you to say that, if we cannot account for them, they must not have existed. But what about those primary documents?
Things get consumed and replaced. Especially when they are considered utilitarian objects. And even when it's not wartime. Why would we expect that these weapons would have survived?
-
The population explosion on the Pennsylvania frontier immediately prior to the French and Indian War was massive, and far surpassed the colony’s ability to either produce or even import firearms,
Produce? Probable, albeit not a proven fact. Import? No problem at all there, as our old friend the PA Gazette will attest (and this is just for Philadelphia alone):
July 30, 1741
The Pennsylvania Gazette
PETER TURNER intending for London, desires all Persons indebted to him, to settle and ballance their Accounts... To be Sold by said Turner, at the House late Mr. William Preston's, in Front Street... Rifle barrel Guns, Bucaneers, with several sorts of fowling Pieces..
November 1, 1744
JUST imported from London, in the Argyle, John Seymour, Master & the Williams, Henry Harrison, a Variety of Goods, to be sold by Hamilton, Wallace and Co. at the House where Widow Fishbourn formerly liv'd, the Store fronting Fishbourn's Wharff... trading guns, fowling pieces, ship muskets, pistols, cutlasses, and broad swords, cartouch boxes, red leather belts and French flints...
November 1, 1744
The Pennsylvania Gazette
JUST imported from London, in the Brigantine Argyle, John Seymour, Commander, and to be sold by Huston and Campbell, at their Store, in Front street, opposite to Samuel Hasel, Esq; for Ready Money or short Credit... gun powder, privateering muskets, trading Guns, musket balls, lead, and small shot...
January 22, 1745
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just imported in the Mary and Carolina, from London, and to be sold by Ebenezer Currie, at his Store, betwixt Grey's and Norris' Alley, in Front Street... Gunpowder, Ships Muskets, Cutlasses and Pole Axes...
September 26, 1745
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just imported from London, in the Agnes and Betty, Capt. Brame and the Mercury, Capt. Hargrave, and to be sold cheap for ready Money or short Credit by Peter Turner, in Front Street... muskets for privateering, neat fowling pieces...
November 7, 1745
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just Imported by Peter Turner, in the Ship Carolina Galley, Capt. Mesnard from London and to be sold reasonably for ready Money or short Credit... ship muskets, neat light fowling pieces...
October 16, 1746
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just imported in the Anne Galley, Capt. Houston, from London, and to be sold by Neats and Smith, at their store, opposite to the sign of the Bible, in Front street, for ready money... trading guns, ship muskets, and neat fowling pieces...
March 8, 1748
The Pennsylvania Gazette
A Parcel of good Muskets, all well fitted with Bayonets, Belts and Cartouch Boxes, and Buff Slings to cast over the Shoulder, very useful to such as have Occasion to ride with their Arms; To be sold by B. FRANKLIN.
October 6, 1748
This is to give notice, that on Wednesday, the 12th instant, will be put up to publick vendue, under the court house, an assortment of European and East India goods, viz... muskets, trading guns, and fowling pieces...
July 2, 1752
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just imported in the Sampson, and other ships, and to be sold cheap, by ROBERT and AMOS STRETTELL, At their store, in Front street... ship muskets and long buccaneers...
June 3, 1756
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just imported in the Philadelphia, Captain Forsyth, from London, and other vessels from London and Bristol, and to be sold cheap, for cash or short credit, by RHEA and WIKOFF, At their store, the fifth door below Black horse alley, in Front street, between Market and Chestnut streets, Best London muskets, London proof...
March 5, 1761
The Pennsylvania Gazette
FRANCIS and RELFE, In Front street, the Corner of Chestnut street, HAVE renewed their large assortment of dry goods of every kind, by the Boreas Frigate, just arrived from London; and who have likewise to sell... rifle gun barrels, the best sort of gunpowder...
June 4, 1761
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just imported in the last Ships from London, &c. and to be sold by FRANCIS and RELFE, At their Store in Front street, the Corner of Chestnut street, the following Goods... rifle gun barrels and locks, gunpowder, oil flints...
April 14, 1763
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Just imported from London, by the last Vessels, and to be sold cheap, for Cash or short Credit, by WILLS and JACKSON, At their Store in Water street, between Market and Arch streets... brass mounting for guns finished, plain gun locks and bridled ditto, pocket pistols of different sorts, powder horns...
September 6, 1764
The Pennsylvania Gazette
Imported from Liverpool, and to be sold for prime Cost, at ROBERT TOWERS, Between the Presbyterian Meeting and Strawberry Alley, in Market street... rifle double barrel and smooth bore guns, pistols, flints, bullet and shot molds, with a variety of other things...
(This is just the years prior and during the F/I War.)
-
...Revolutionary War weeapons relatively common...
(My turn!) Hardly.
More so than F/I era, comparatively? Absolutely, but then, the F/I era pieces had a minimum of 20 additional years of [edit: EXTREMELY] hard usage upon them and there were of course less of them (less does not mean non-existent, nor scarce, simply less...) then the enormous importations of arms during the late 1770s as well as the enormous efforts during the 1770s to literally force anyone with gunsmithing ability to work for the common cause.
I certainly would not term Revolutionary War-era weapons as "common," however.
-
All this is useful, thankyou. But it still doesn’t address the structural problem of weapons ownership that Aaron Fogelman mentions as requiring additional research.
Here's what you noted that Aaron wrote you: "I have never looked much into 18th-century gun making but always wanted to, as there are a number of important topics involved. My sense is that a lot of people did not own guns, as there simply were not enough gun makers or imports to keep up with the exploding population."
I would wager that if you told Aaron the actual facts of the situation--including the easy availability of "new" imported guns as well as the many imported guns in the colonies due to the French & Indian War, and the many reports of German farmers owning guns--he wouldn't wonder much longer about whether German immigrant farmers in Northampton or any other PA county could obtain guns if they wanted to. The "problem" only arises when one assumes--incorrectly--that the primary way to obtain a weapon was to purchase an expensive rifle from a local maker.
That is: his puzzlement may stem from the way you presented the issue to him.
-
Caspar Wistar imported rifles in the 1740s and 1750s from Germany--asking that they be made in particular for the American market ("people [here] prefer rifles with barrels that are three feet and three to four inches long" he wrote in 1737). He tried to avoid British duties on these rifles by asking his German supplier to pack the rifles in immigrants' trunks.
The market for these rifles: new German immigrants. In 1743, he told his German supplier that "all of the newlanders who came through" his area wanted to purchase the guns that Wistar had obtained from a particular gunsmith in Rothenberg.
All this information easily available in Rosalind Beiler's Immigrant and Entrepreneur: The Atlantic World of Caspar Wistar, 1650-1750 (Penn State Press, 2008).
***
I guess Wistar didn't realize that these new German immigrants wouldn't have been able to obtain these rifles he was selling to them.
-
As you know the Marshall rifle barrel is stamped or engraved IAD Rothenberg. This may further support the Marshall rifle is a re stock of a German rifle
-
Wowee that is a fantastic bit of information Scott. I need to grab a copy of that as I would love to see the origin of his references.
-
It's a good book--but there's not much more about Wistar's rifle importing activities. There are, if I remember correctly, perhaps a dozen or so letters between Wistar and Holzer, his German supplier: these letters are in German and Beiler translates them for her study. She gives the date for each letter, though, so it should be easy to find the German originals among the Wistar Family Papers at Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
In 1736, Wistar told Holzer that he sold 7 firearms for £20 PA currency.
Beiler states just once, I think, that Wistar mentioned that "the gunsmith from Rothenberg" was one of his major suppliers--but in the original letter, for all we know, Wistar may have mentioned the gunsmith's name ...
-
Caspar Wistar imported rifles in the 1740s and 1750s from Germany--asking that they be made in particular for the American market
Any references to American stock wood being shipped to Europe?
-
Not that I recall. I think Wistar only imported: he didn't export, so the book (which is focused on his activities) doesn't discuss American wood being shipped to Europe.
Coincidentally, though, Wistar's father (I think) was a forester in Germany and so there is considerable discussion about wood as a commodity in Germany itself...
-
I have "America's Wooden Age" by Hindle. Seven articles on the development of wood as a commodity in the Colonies. From the seventeenth cent thru the nineteenth. Wood as a material, as an industry, and a major part of the American economy.
-
Immigrant and Entrepreneur: The Atlantic World of Caspar Wistar, 1650-1750 is on Google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0J7QwewEiFcC&q=
It is much preferable to have a hard copy, but you can wordsearch the google copy. pretty cool. The Google book doesn't have all the pages available.
-
Bob, I do not feel a need to propose anything. I am content to state that currently Johannes Moll's origins are unknown, and any more is speculation. I don't have a problem with a loose end, regardless of how long it may remain loose. My biggest problem with the armada of internet genealogists, in fact, is their seemingly homogenous need to tie up all loose ends regardless of documentation or - more appropriately - lack thereof. I am not accusing you of this at all however I am certain you will take it personally as you always seem to do. I'd like to compliment you highly re: the Neihardt work you have proffered. It seems quite well-considered and documented, and when I have a chance to read through it all I anticipate updating the portions of my own website which deal with Peter Neihardt. I am not focused on genealogy but at the same time I do wish for the bit of historical background info I put "out there" to be accurate. I will certainly credit you for it. I simply do not understand your apparent eagerness to jump on the William Moll bandwagon when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that particular storyline. It has been fairly extensively proven by now (not only by myself and my own targeted research but also via the work of others in unrelated areas) that most - if not all - of the late 19th century "Histories" are highly unreliable and sorely lacking in documentation. Furthermore, the mysterious William Moll "tool" monogram and date is (1) quite vague in and of itself, and (2) falls squarely into a period that is well-reecognized amongst collectors and researchers as being the birth of a pseudo-documented genealogy movement in America, a period when everyone and his brother had some old relic or another of a family's grand history. No, this does not automatically disqualify it, but it has to render it highly suspect at the least and the complete - COMPLETE - lack of any other evidence that a man named William Moll even existed has to call the whole brief story into considerably more than serious question.
So my proposal is, "I don't currently know, and I don't care to put something entirely questionable into hard copy where it will be subsequently interpreted (wrongly or not) as fact."
I am new to the forum scene, but in my personal opinion William H. Moll does exist and that him and his father worked together as gunsmiths...I have a Pennsylvania Long Rifle that has "J and W.H. Moll Allentown PA 1400" stamped on top of the barrel...From research I have done the father and son made rifles between 1838-1844...this is a quality made firearm that still fuctions as it should...I have fired it and it shoots extremely well for its age...I would appreciate any help someone might be able to give me on what the 1400 represents...I am going to try to get some pics taken of the rifle incase anyone would like to see it...especially of the barrel address...
-
Welcome, Randy!
It's the earlier William Moll (1710-1780, according to Bob Smalser's chart) about whom Eric K. is dubious.
I don't think anybody is doubting the existence of John Moll III and William Henry Moll.
Maybe somebody on the list can help with the "1400"--and I am sure that posting pictures of it would be very welcome!
-
sorry i took so long to get back been very busy it goes without saying that record keeping that far back was without a boubt very primitive and ship records i would think were not 100% accurate seems to me that a son would know what his fathers name was and i dont see what benefit there would be to making up a ficticious name anyway. i have tried to make sense out of all these different opions on this site but it is very hard to follow and keep up with i have personally found that the older generations of people are a lot more truthful then the newer generations as far as making up stories about things that there are nothing to these people lived when a hand shake was as good or better then anything that is legally documented this day and time the initials on the rifle i have j& wh moll had to come from some where seems awful unusal that it is agreed that there was a later william moll but few believe that there may have actually been an earlier william moll i personally believe there was and hopefully one day i can find research proving it sometimes we have to go with our gut instinct. just my opinion
-
I am trying to post pics of my J & W.H. Moll rifle on here, but cant figure out how to do it...does any one know how???
-
sorry i took so long to get back been very busy it goes without saying that record keeping that far back was without a boubt very primitive and ship records i would think were not 100% accurate seems to me that a son would know what his fathers name was and i dont see what benefit there would be to making up a ficticious name anyway. i have tried to make sense out of all these different opions on this site but it is very hard to follow and keep up with i have personally found that the older generations of people are a lot more truthful then the newer generations as far as making up stories about things that there are nothing to these people lived when a hand shake was as good or better then anything that is legally documented this day and time the initials on the rifle i have j& wh moll had to come from some where seems awful unusal that it is agreed that there was a later william moll but few believe that there may have actually been an earlier william moll i personally believe there was and hopefully one day i can find research proving it sometimes we have to go with our gut instinct. just my opinion
Huh? ???
John
-
Go to the very beginning and refer to the chart:
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=21620.msg205540#msg205540
There is an early Wm Moll, and a later WH Moll.
-
I am trying to post pics of my J & W.H. Moll rifle on here, but cant figure out how to do it...does any one know how???
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=10.0 (http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=10.0)