Author Topic: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War  (Read 88634 times)

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2011, 06:15:25 PM »
The Nixons, Johnsons and Grahams were the most notorious Border Rievers on the English Frontier and they  settled in Pender County and parts west. They also took to the White House or the pulpit, much to the distress of UK Historians. Sorry about getting my numbers jumbled, it has been years since I was down b Moore's Creek .
 Down in Wilmington, NC sharp shooters used to snipe at British Regulars in Wilmington from the Brunswick County side of the Cape Fear. Go to Google Earth and see how far a shot it is from the USS,North Carolina to Front Street.

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2011, 06:41:40 PM »
I believe that the Hall's came out at the turn of the century and was in general issue for thirty years or so. Even the Common rifle dates to 1814 does it not? The Hall's is mighty fast, I have seen Dragoons laying down covering fire at skirmishes from prone faster than we could return with our caplock rifles, when I worked on the Santa Fe Trail. The 69 cal muskets were a step back in 1842.

The Hall Rifle, M1819 did not come to be issued until after 1819 and was never a common weapon in US (or any other) military service, it was, when issued at all, considered a weapon mostly for state militias, the Regulars rarely received them. They were justifiably considered unreliable - the 1819 flint Hall rifle as well as the M1841 Hall Rifle were both equipped with a ramrod for a good reason; they tended to become fouled quickly, especially in damp weather in Florida where it was first used in combat, and the breach would lock or freeze up so subsequent rounds had to be rammed from the muzzle - a hard task since the standard issue ball was larger than the bore. The Hall Rifle was the first instance of a US Rifle of any type being equipped with a bayonet as standard, though the M1817 Common Rifle was, for a short time, issued with bayonet but it was found to be unnecessary for riflemen who normally received the Common Rifle rather than a Hall.

There were Hall's carbines issued to regular Dragoons as early as the mid to late 1830s and they were the standard weapon of the US Dragoons but had the same problem as the rifle. Not to worry, all US Regular Cavalry at the time were Dragoons, very well trained to fight dismounted as well as mounted, and would not need that many rounds, especially when in a mounted fight. The Dragoons were not that fond of the Hall either - that came from practical experience of the ranks, not due to old fashioned thinking by their senior officers.
In the summer of 1990 a Dragoon re enactment unit spent a week with the staff of the Kit Carson Museum on Rayado Creek. This is right on the Trail. Being that TRS had yet to offer any repro Hall parts all of the arms were the real thing and they had most of the variants of the Dragoon length percussion Hall to hand. These Halls were all smooth bore of about 52 cal. They were loaded with a fixed paper cartridge and a No 11 cap. Now remember that these were all well used Halls not NRA perfect, more like shootable 1600 dollar antiques, 1990 prices. The only failure at the range was the usual nipple fouling. The Dragoons were very carefull about keeping powder out of the stock so they would not blow out the middle of the wood. About half of the Halls had the ramrod spike bayonet and the rest the plain iron rammer. The dragoons dismounted the breechblock and wiped out the crud, swabbed the bore with a wet patch and were quickly pack in action. I did not notice any more problems with their firearms than our half stocked rifles.

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2011, 08:27:56 PM »
Thanks for your help.  Here’s the final passage:

Main Text:

While the frontier riflemen were among the most able of George Washington’s forces in 1775 and 1776 (if not the best behaved), they were few in number and the skill levels in marksmanship and field craft they brought with them couldn’t be sustained as their ranks were thinned by casualties and expiring enlistments.(Note 4) Soon many rifle companies would devolve into units with less unique skills armed largely with muskets.  By early 1778 even volunteers were hard to find, and colonies instituted a draft for militia service.(Note 12) Despite their lack of formal military training, in their original form the frontier rifle units were formidable.  The British complained bitterly about their officers being targeted by snipers.    In November, 1775, “20 boats” containing British regulars supported by three artillery batteries and the guns of a frigate raided Lechmere Point during the siege of Boston to seize cattle.  Opposed by only six riflemen from Thompson’s Battalion who were there to tend the livestock, the result was 17 British killed to only one American, and no cattle taken. (Note 13)  Hessian diaries from the New York battles in 1776 describe officers cutting the rank insignia from their uniforms so as not to become early casualties.  Hessians arriving on Staten Island in July were forced to change their bivouac plans when they rudely discovered the Kill Van Kull channel, 350-500 yards wide, was no obstacle to the reach of Colonel Edward Hand’s riflemen.  A rifleman named George Merchant, a “tall and handsome Virginian” (Note 5), was captured in Quebec and sent with his weapon back to England to give demonstrations intended to aid recruiting by showing what formidable antagonists British forces were facing in America.  Merchant’s demonstrations had exactly the opposite effect.  Twenty five riflemen under Colonel Hand stopped a 10,000-man British landing force in its tracks at Throg’s Neck in October, 1776, delaying their offensive a week by forcing them to land elsewhere, the delay allowing Washington to evacuate the bulk of his forces from Manhattan.  Hand’s riflemen would do similar on multiple occasions at Trenton and Princeton in December and during the winter battles over forage and rations in northern New Jersey in early 1777.  “Nest of American hornets”… “galled by fire”… “officers taken”… and men “dropping fast” became common phrases in British and Hessian correspondence.  In spite of the disaster at Long Island in 1776, by the following spring the myth of British invincibility was permanently broken, with frontier riflemen and their distinctly American rifles playing a role far disproportionate to their numbers (Bolton 110; Field 131; Fischer Washington’s 22-25, 109, 237, 246, 294-96; McCullough 38, 51, 229; Smith 67; Stroh Thompson’s 20, 22, 28, 42).

End Notes:

Note 4:  The two companies of Thompson’s Rifle Battalion selected for the Quebec Campaign were not chosen because they were uniquely skilled, but because they were behaving badly in camp at Cambridge.  These were Captain William Hendricks’s company from Cumberland County and Captain Matthew Smith’s company from Lancaster County. There had been several incidents of fighting between the back country riflemen and the coastal New England regiments composed largely of fishermen, with one later melee reportedly broken up by George Washington personally (Fischer Washington’s 25; McCullough 38, 51; Stroh Thompson’s 22).
.
   Today most infantrymen are “riflemen”, and we use the term casually, with occasional sources extending it to the writing of history in error.  There were never many true riflemen or rifle units serving in the war; most soldiers were armed with smooth-bore muskets, fusils (a lighter, shorter musket), or fowlers (shotguns) shooting ball, buckshot, or a combination called “buck and ball”.  In 1775, Pennsylvania raised nine companies of true frontier riflemen; Maryland two, and Virginia two, with strengths ranging from 60 to 90 men each.  New England had few rifles in 1775.  Then in early 1776, Pennsylvania raised an additional 12 companies of 72 or more riflemen each under Colonel Samuel Miles, and Virginia and Maryland six more under Colonel Hugh Stevenson.  There were certainly rifles here and there in the militia regiments where men often owned their own firelocks, with the southern militias and units raised from frontiersmen probably having a higher percentage of rifles.  The ratio of 350 rifles to 1500 muskets confiscated from 2000 Scottish settler households after the 1776 Battle of Moore’s Creek, North Carolina was probably representative of the region (Russell 83).  Colonel Peter Kachlein’s Northampton County Militia (Kachlein was from Easton) is also an example. Battle histories refer to them as “Kachlein’s Riflemen”, although likely under half were armed with rifles.  The “overmountain men” from Appalachian frontier settlements at the 1780 Battle of King’s Mountain are another example; they certainly had a high percentage of riflemen.  But the major rifle units available to Washington in 1775-6 were only the units I list – approximately 2300 riflemen in a force larger than 20,000 (PA Archives Series 2 Vol X; Russell 83; Stroh Thompson’s 13-15).

Note 5:  Charles Bolton in his 1902 book identifies the “tall and handsome Virginian” rifleman who was captured at Quebec and sent to England to give rifle demonstrations as a man named “Merchant”.    Surviving roster fragments of Daniel Morgan’s Virginia Riflemen based on British prisoner lists contain a man named George Merchant, but more intact Pennsylvania Archives and Oscar Stroh in his 1975 book on Thompson’s Battalion based on those archives list  “George Merchant” as a member of Captain Matthew Smith’s company from the Lancaster area, who was probably the same man.  Merchant was from Pennsylvania, specifically Donegal on the Susquehanna River in Lancaster County.  A head count of archived rosters and roster fragments show 743 in Thompson’s Battalion with 189 of those having German names, and 93 in Morgan’s Riflemen with 21 German-Americans (Bolton 110; Roberts 375; Stroh Paxton 39, Thompson’s 20, 42).

Note 12:  War weariness wasn’t limited to the Americans.  While the colonies were forced to institute a draft for militia in 1778 after almost three years of war, the supply of recruits became so low in Britain that parliament enacted the Army Press Act the same year (Fischer Washington’s 39).

Note 13:  The marksmanship of the frontier riflemen was notable. The arguments used against targeting officers were there would be no one to control the soldiers’ blood lust once the fight was won, or to surrender if the fight were lost.  These were rationalizations that relied heavily on the beliefs that soldiers came from the dregs of society, that their ranks included a significant percentage of criminals, and that their corporals and sergeants couldn’t think for themselves or control the men on their own – erroneous beliefs that persist to some extent even today. However when applied to the professional British and Hessian units fighting in North America at the time, such arguments were complete nonsense.  Just like in professional military units today, the British and Hessian ranks were largely filled by “country lads” of good character and clean records who wanted to be there, led by a professional corps of able non-commissioned officers.   Further, the British would learn a lesson from the Americans and adopt both rifles and sniping two decades later at the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars. (Fischer Washington’s 23, 39). 

   The British raid on Lechmere Point was well-planned and conducted in substantial force to steal cattle, as food supplies were running low in Boston.  From the sparse descriptions in Washington’s letter praising the troops and Lieutenant Colonel Edward Hand’s subsequent letter to his wife, the raiding force was probably company-sized, with upwards of a hundred men and impressive support from three batteries of artillery on Bunker, Breed’s and Copp’s Hills, plus the guns of a British frigate 300 yards offshore.  Lechmere Point then became an island at high tide, and the raid was timed for then to isolate the six riflemen tending livestock from reinforcements.  Alerted by the gunfire, Colonels Thompson and Hand personally led the regiment in a cross-water counterattack, wading up to their armpits crossing the isthmus.  The British departed empty-handed before the reinforcements came within range, however, with most of their (heavy) casualties caused by the original six defenders (Stroh Thompson’s 28).
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 08:31:32 PM by Bob Smalser »

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2011, 08:55:08 PM »
Is this part of chapter one of your new book? :)

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2011, 01:21:54 AM »
Is this part of chapter one of your new book? :)


Yes, on Peter Newhard.   Plus a friend is considering doing a piece on colonial gun ownership to bring John Shy's work up to date.

https://press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=23883

For example, we know that almost none of the Palatines and Huguenots brought guns with them to America....they had to acquire all of them here.  Which means during the 1755 and 1763 wave of Indian uprisings there were relatively few guns in German households for a number of reasons, one of which is gun production couldn't keep up with the demand.  For all the humming and woofing about Moravian gunmaking, their actual production was miniscule...in 1759 they only had one gunmaker working, and he also taught music….and meaningless in terms of protecting growing numbers of settlers.

But what about the Scots, Irish Presbyterians and Borderers?  They certainly owned guns in their homelands.  Hence the Battle of Culloden, among others.  Did they bring them with them?  Muskets are difficult to hide should port officials and ship's masters object.  Does examination of artifacts reveal they did?  Again considering Moore’s Creek…..one gun per household across 2000 households is probably two or three times the density of guns present among Pennsylvania German households during the same period.  And I doubt by the 1770’s Carolina and Georgia gunmakers were that much more prolific than Pennsylvania gunmakers.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 09:56:58 PM by Dennis Glazener »

Offline Kermit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3099
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2011, 02:46:27 AM »
Thanks, Bob--and all--for very interesting reading.

I'm sure I heard Bob say he's never fired a muzzleloader. Surely there are some who live on or near the Kitsap Penninsula who can rectify this deficiency! Dave Rase maybe?  :-\
"Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Mae West

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2011, 03:29:27 AM »

I'm sure I heard Bob say he's never fired a muzzleloader. Surely there are some who live on or near the Kitsap Penninsula who can rectify this deficiency! Dave Rase maybe?  :-\

I'm about to fix that.  I recently acquired a sound English double, this weekend  bought a pile of flask parts at auction, and as soon as I get a proper shot/powder snake made we'll treat the grandchildren to a little 10ga smoke at Bremerton Trap and Skeet.  ;)

mkeen

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2011, 08:21:24 PM »

For example, we know that almost none of the Palatines and Huguenots brought guns with them to America....they had to acquire all of them here. 

…..one gun per household across 2000 households is probably two or three times the density of guns present among Pennsylvania German households during the same period. 


Bob, what is your source for this information?

Mart Keen

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2011, 08:57:24 PM »

Bob, what is your source for this information?

Aaron Spencer Fogleman's book Hopeful Journeys has lots of detail on the conditions in the Palatine-Alsace-Baden at the time.

And Rosalind J. Beiler's IMMIGRANT AND ENTREPRENEUR: THE ATLANTIC WORLD OF CASPAR WISTAR, 1650-1750 is a story about a Kraichgau forester's son who immigrated to America and for a time imported German guns to Philadelphia, among his many other enterprises.  Beiler found some cases of city people in Germany demanding the right to own guns and getting it, but there were numerous restrictions and it is clear that very few people there owned guns.

https://www.amazon.com/Immigrant-Entrepreneur-1650-1750-German-American-Institute/dp/027103372X/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301422023&sr=8-1-fkmr1#_

The bottom line for the German-Alsatian immigrants is that if they weren't a forester or had served in the army (and to my surprise few of the thousands I’ve studied had), they had zero experience with or access to firearms.  Accordingly, they didn't bring any with them.  And since the situation was largely peaceful in Pennsylvania from 1685 to 1755, they really didn't need them for their first generation here, either.  Snares are cheaper and more effective for hunting than firearms if you don't know how to shoot, and these folks brought many generations of poaching experience with them.

Even after Indian attacks killing thousands from 1755-1757, when another wave of attacks happened in 1763 as part of Pontiac’s Rebellion, there were still large numbers of unarmed German settlers in Pennsylvania.  To wit:

Quote
                                                     "NORTHAMPTON TOWN, the 10th, this instant, October, 1763.

To the Honorable JAMES HAMILTON (1710-1783),    Esq., Lieutenant Governor and Commander in Chief of the Province of Pennsylvania…

…  we found the inhabitants that had neither Guns, Powder nor Lead, to defend themselves, and that Colonel Burd  (James Burd 1726-1793) …would assist them with guns and ammunition, and he requested of me to write to your Honor, because the inhabitants of the town had not chose their officers at the time he set off, so we, the inhabitants of the said town hath unanimous chose George Wolf, the bearer hereof, to be Captain, and Abraham Rinker (1741-1820, later brother-in-law to John Moll I) to be Lieutenant; we whose names are underwritten, promise to obey to this mentioned Captain and Lieutenant, and so we hope his Honor will be so good and send us 50 guns, 100 pound of powder, and 400 pound lead, 150 stands for the guns… JOSEPH ROTH, Minister (Mickley 30)”
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 09:57:31 PM by Dennis Glazener »

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19564
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2011, 11:28:00 PM »
That cultural information about the Palatine immigrants could explain why a rifle culture never developed among white settlers in the Mohawk Valley of NY State.  Other factors may be that the Palatine immigrants in the Mohawk Valley were farmers, not hunters, and that they had not experienced raiding from the local Iroquois nations but only from the French and their native allies in the north (armed with fusils).  In contrast to other border-living settlers, they seemed particularly helpless when warned of impending attacks from Brant's boys etc- incapable of sending out scouts, etc.  We often assume "colonial Germans- must be riflemen or rifle-makers".  Those of us interested in the colonial rifle culture and from that area have searched for and longed for true "upstate NY-made colonial rifles" to be discovered, but they do not pop up.
Andover, Vermont

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2011, 03:50:14 AM »
I will have to buy a copy.

Offline bgf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2011, 04:26:31 AM »
The interesting thing to me is that Germans seem to have been recruited (willingly on their part) as buffers in the frontier areas of Virginia at about the same time being discussed.  Not only did they seem to adapt to the frontier, they were a major part of expanding it to the southwest, where one rifle per family might have been a comic lack of armament in some cases.  I wonder if the gun-less culture in Germany isn't being somewhat exaggerated?  Not to argue, just hard to reconcile this information with what I've researched esp. in Va..  Either complacency in parts of PA bred less discipline or the harsh reality of the frontier necessitated a different reaction, but the two situations seem at odds.

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2011, 05:11:42 AM »
Consider the timing.  

 The real violence didn't begin until 1755.  Before that you could get by without guns, and if you had no experience with them, you probably did, as even a basic rifle cost more than a hundred acres of frontier land.  But when guns became necessities during the 1755 F&I and 1763 Pontiac's War, ethnic Germans adapted.  Hence by 1775 two thirds of George Washington's most famous rifle units were Pennsylvanian with over one out of four being German-Americans, including those rifle units from Virginia and Maryland.  That's a close match to the population demographic then, indicating that by 1775 the Germans were just as able and willing to fight as their Scotch-Irish counterparts.  It took 20 years for German settlers to grow fangs...but grow fangs they did.

So while major Shenandoah Valley settlement began in the 1730's, the push south and west and major Ohio Valley settlement occured later...Ohio Valley much later...by which time the Germans had adapted to their new environment.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 05:17:39 AM by Bob Smalser »

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1329
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2011, 03:42:57 PM »
Quote
one gun per household across 2000 households is probably two or three times the density of guns present among Pennsylvania German households during the same period.

My sense of reading around in the scholarship in this area suggests that these numbers give an unwarranted sense of precision, or confidence, about what we really know about the prevalence of guns in early America or early Pennsylvania in particular. We simply cannot treat a letter about the lack of guns in one town (or even several such reports) as representative of the wider situation.

Michael Bellesiles's fraudulent Arming America (2000) insisted that there were very few guns in early America and those that were here were in poor working order, were imported from Europe, etc. That book, and Bellesiles's earlier article out of which the book grew, was refuted by many legal scholars and historians, including:


and, most thoroughly, in a monograph:

  • Clayton Cramer, Armed America (Thomas Nelson, 2007).

I think we need to know a lot more before we can make any certain claims about any of this.

Scott


« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 09:58:15 PM by Dennis Glazener »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2011, 04:56:15 PM »

Michael Bellesiles's fraudulent Arming America (2000) insisted that there were very few guns in early America and those that were here were in poor working order, were imported from Europe, etc. That book, and Bellesiles's earlier article out of which the book grew, was refuted by many legal scholars and historians...

Interesting references, thanks.  But all of them deal only with the general theme of contemporary gun control, using history either as background, excuse, or refutation.  A revisionist historian cum political hack distorts and falsifies references to make his wished-for point and gets called on it.  While there appear to be some nuggets in the refutations, that's hardly ground-breaking research.

None of them address the central point made...not by me...but by Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer and from a different angle South Alabama historian Aaron Spencer Fogleman, that there were major cultural differences between the "Puritans, Cavaliers, Borderers and Pietists" that had a major effect on colonial attitudes and approaches toward almost everything.  That the effect of these differences on gun ownership hasn’t been fully explored is a challenge to pursue, not a drawback to shrink from.  

My hypothesis is that before the violence of 1755 and 1763, gun ownership among German Pietists was significantly less than among their Scotch-Irish-Borderer neighbors on the frontier and, as a reaction to that violence, by 1775 gun ownership between the two cultures largely balanced itself.  As initial evidence I offer primary and secondary sources on post-war life in the Palatinate-Alsace-Baden and British-Scotland-Ireland border regions, the 1745 Jacobite Rising, 1776’s Battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge, the 1763 Whitehall Massacre, the archived rosters of the first two 1775 rifle regiments including Morgan’s Riflemen.  Notable is I have yet to find a thorough historical analysis of either the (pivotal) Whitehall Massacre or those rosters…deficiencies that include historians omitting entire 500-man battalions of Thompson’s and Mile’s Rifle Regiments from the Battle of Long Island.  Hence there is plenty of room for contributions.  I only ask that you be specific.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 05:08:05 PM by Bob Smalser »

Offline TPH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2011, 05:15:13 PM »


 In the summer of 1990 a Dragoon re enactment unit spent a week with the staff of the Kit Carson Museum on Rayado Creek. This is right on the Trail. Being that TRS had yet to offer any repro Hall parts all of the arms were the real thing and they had most of the variants of the Dragoon length percussion Hall to hand. These Halls were all smooth bore of about 52 cal. They were loaded with a fixed paper cartridge and a No 11 cap. Now remember that these were all well used Halls not NRA perfect, more like shootable 1600 dollar antiques, 1990 prices. The only failure at the range was the usual nipple fouling. The Dragoons were very carefull about keeping powder out of the stock so they would not blow out the middle of the wood. About half of the Halls had the ramrod spike bayonet and the rest the plain iron rammer. The dragoons dismounted the breechblock and wiped out the crud, swabbed the bore with a wet patch and were quickly pack in action. I did not notice any more problems with their firearms than our half stocked rifles.


Keep in mind that where you use the term "Dragoons" that it should at all times be placed in quotes when referring to reenactors. No offense to the fellows involved, I have been a reenactor for almost 25 years and have been blessed to have always belonged to groups that want to do it right - at least to the best of our abilities. That includes serving as volunteers at the NPS facilities at Antietam and Harpers Ferry under close supervision by the knowledgeable personnel working there who also learned from us and the careful research and documentation done by several of our members.

What I am saying is that the "Dragoons" were in all likelihood firing more than the actual Dragoons of history did except under severe circumstances. With experience and given the opportunity under stress, perhaps the historical Dragoons would have "dismounted the breechblock and wiped out the crud, swabbed the bore with a wet patch" and get quickly pack in action but is there period documentation of this? It is highly doubtful, doing this on horseback (impossible!) or on foot under opposing heavy fire is not without it's disadvantages.

Bob, this is a very fine thread with some interesting points, sorry to have wandered off topic talking about a firearm that was not in existence at the time of the American Revolution.
T.P. Hern

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1329
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2011, 05:42:21 PM »
Quote
None of them address the central point...that there were major cultural differences between the "Puritans, Cavaliers, Borderers and Pietists" that had a major effect on colonial attitudes and approaches toward almost everything.  That the effect of these differences on gun ownership hasn’t been fully explored is a challenge to pursue, not a drawback to shrink from.

Yes, I agree entirely! It's an important issue. I was skeptical not about the general claim about cultural forces that may have led German immigrants to possess fewer guns but rather about the attempt to move from this possibility to a quantified claim about the amount of gun ownership among German immigrants.

It's a tricky thing to move from the nature of gun ownership in the "old" country to the nature of gun ownership among those who emigrated to the American colonies. You could believe that they preserved the culture of the "old" country that (as Bellesiles himself argues) severely restricted gun ownership (i.e., state controlled who could own guns). OR you could believe that they recognized the opportunity in the "new" world to possess what they had been forbidden to possess in the old country and seized that opportunity along with many others in the new world. Who knows which scenario is more likely? I would think one could only assess which actually occurred by knowing something about the numbers of guns in whose hands--and that information, at present, is lacking.

The nature of the evidence that survives (or even was produced at the time) may shape what we can now know. When towns found themselves lacking weapons they would have written to request them; when townspeople had plenty of weapons they would have written nothing. This case suggests the validity of the proposition that the absence of evidence can't be taken as the evidence of absence.

This is why Bellesiles and others tried to rely on (or, in Bellesiles's case, falsify) probate records for evidence of the prevalence of guns.

BTW, Clayton Cramer's book, Armed America, is more focused than these other refutations on showing the prevalence of guns in early America and disputing much of the evidence used for the contrary argument. (That is, he's not, in that book, addressing the gun control issue that, as you point out, many of the others who objected to Bellesiles work were primarily interested in.)

Scott



« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 09:34:30 PM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

Offline Karl Kunkel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2011, 05:47:39 AM »
Bob,

I agree this is a most informative thread.  Bremerton Trap & Skeet, is that the place on the way out to the Bremerton airport? I have Hopeful Journeys currently waiting on my reading pile, glad to hear it has interesting information.  Look forward to your book.
Kunk

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2011, 06:22:42 AM »
Bob,

  Bremerton Trap & Skeet, is that the place on the way out to the Bremerton airport?

Yes.

And regarding Hopeful Journeys, I just received Aaron Spencer Fogleman's comments on this paper the other day.  He's interested in doing a piece on colonial gun ownership, as the subject has been muddied by longstanding mythology on the one hand and writers with contemporary political agendas on the other.


dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2011, 02:06:10 PM »


 In the summer of 1990 a Dragoon re enactment unit spent a week with the staff of the Kit Carson Museum on Rayado Creek. This is right on the Trail. Being that TRS had yet to offer any repro Hall parts all of the arms were the real thing and they had most of the variants of the Dragoon length percussion Hall to hand. These Halls were all smooth bore of about 52 cal. They were loaded with a fixed paper cartridge and a No 11 cap. Now remember that these were all well used Halls not NRA perfect, more like shootable 1600 dollar antiques, 1990 prices. The only failure at the range was the usual nipple fouling. The Dragoons were very carefull about keeping powder out of the stock so they would not blow out the middle of the wood. About half of the Halls had the ramrod spike bayonet and the rest the plain iron rammer. The dragoons dismounted the breechblock and wiped out the crud, swabbed the bore with a wet patch and were quickly pack in action. I did not notice any more problems with their firearms than our half stocked rifles.


Keep in mind that where you use the term "Dragoons" that it should at all times be placed in quotes when referring to reenactors. No offense to the fellows involved, I have been a reenactor for almost 25 years and have been blessed to have always belonged to groups that want to do it right - at least to the best of our abilities. That includes serving as volunteers at the NPS facilities at Antietam and Harpers Ferry under close supervision by the knowledgeable personnel working there who also learned from us and the careful research and documentation done by several of our members.

What I am saying is that the "Dragoons" were in all likelihood firing more than the actual Dragoons of history did except under severe circumstances. With experience and given the opportunity under stress, perhaps the historical Dragoons would have "dismounted the breechblock and wiped out the crud, swabbed the bore with a wet patch" and get quickly pack in action but is there period documentation of this? It is highly doubtful, doing this on horseback (impossible!) or on foot under opposing heavy fire is not without it's disadvantages.

Bob, this is a very fine thread with some interesting points, sorry to have wandered off topic talking about a firearm that was not in existence at the time of the American Revolution.
Good point, This is my point: They were using the real item shooting from the cartridge box on the Llano and they knew their weapons, all practical experience. Many carried a horse pistol and all had sabers. I can only imagine that a man could rectify a jam in combat with some confidence that his buddies would cover him. If we can't count on that then the US would never have adopted cheaper gear like the M 16.

dannybb55

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2011, 02:11:07 PM »
Back on topic, it may have been quiet north of the Mason Dixie Line but we were having some serious problems early on with the Tuscaroras and before that, the Quakers here in NC. We had a little civil war that managed to define the arguments for the Separation of church and state and the 2nd Amendment.

Offline HIB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #46 on: April 02, 2011, 05:22:39 AM »
Bob and fellow contributors, This truly is an exciting and informative review.

I have been wondering if any of you have access to Clarence M. Busch's work entitled 'Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania' published by the State Printer of Pennsylvania in 1856. Basically the two volume set deals with the Commonwealths response and defense against the Indian raids along the Blue Ridge Mountains during the pre-Revoluntion years of 1755 thru the 1760's and even up to the end of the Revolution in 1783. The forts of the Blue Ridge Mountains extended from Ft.Dupui's in the east [Northhamton Co.] thru the Counties of Lehigh, Berks, Lebanon and Dauphin in the west terminating at Ft. Harris which is present day Harrisburgh, Pa. The two volume set is full of accounts of the fort's commander's begging for supplies [powder and lead] and describing the poor condition of their weapons to the Governor and anyone who would listen.

If you haven't read these accounts I heartily recommend them as it is right in your ball park when considering the populous and armlament of the Pennsylvania settlers before the American Revolution and during the French and Indian War. 

Regards,  HIB   

Bob Smalser

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #47 on: April 02, 2011, 07:29:25 AM »
Fabulous resource, thanks.

greybeard

  • Guest
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2011, 04:49:04 AM »
Off Topic.  Bob , you are in for a real treat if you are shooting a 10 Ga. double this weekend for the  first time. I spent many relaxing hours deriving pleasures from fine English perc, doubles.
ENJOY. Cheers    Bob

Offline Canute Rex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
Re: Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2011, 07:05:22 AM »
One thing to think about when we delve back into these primary sources: We are examining the past not only through the filter of our own modern mindset, but also through the beliefs and prejudices of the original writer. The people who wrote these accounts made their own editorial decisions based on culture, politics, and personal agendas.

For example, I am wondering about the people who wrote in England about the deadly nature of riflemen. Were they Tories or Whigs? The Whigs were generally sympathetic to the colonists and would have been happy to discourage their fellow subjects from pursuing the war.

Part of the analysis of first person accounts is an analysis of that person's origins, beliefs, and relationship to the subject.