Military Use of Rifles in the Revolutionary War

[DaveM]

Bob, arms ownership and attitudes among the pre rev war 18th century PA Germans is a topic worthy of further research (at least in my opinion), and I hope you keep it up and keep us posted.  I read some of these posts with great interest, especially to references about a cultural aversion to gun ownership by PA German immigrants that stem back to europe (if I am understanding these notes correctly).  That is the first time I have heard that notion, and I would be very interested in more information on this. Probably off-point, and boring for many, I am providing some insights from my past research below for anyone interested.

Speaking from what I have found in research, most of these immigrants, my ancestors included, were very poor.  Economic distress was the primary reason they left for the new world.  One great resource for anyone interested in learning more about the situation and mindset of the PA Swiss and German immigrant of the era is "List of Swiss Emigrants in the Eighteenth Century to the American Colonies" by Faust and Brumbaugh available at most historical society libraries.  Unlike its title, it is far more than a list.  It provides terrific insights into why people left Switzerland (and the palatinate).  It is based entirely on primary documents and manuscripts / records.  For example, reasons for emigration included young people that lost their fathers (no parental protection at home / no one to curb their desire to see the world); divorced people and widows / widowers; letters from others that left describing the wonderful new country enticed many.  However, by far the reason was poverty.  Emigrants described that they worked night and day and could not even afford their daily bread for their family and really had no choice but to leave.  As an aside, it is interesting that many of the swiss leaving at this time indicated that they were heading for "the Carolinas".  This was because that was the location most widely publicized in switzerland at the time and many ended up in PA.

That all said, most came here very poor in large numbers between 1734 and 1750.  Switzerland panicked when so many of their people began to leave, and began instituting penalties and taxes and other obstacles for those who wished to leave.    For example in some cases they would not allow their property in Switzerland  to be sold.  The swiss even tried to socially ostracize those leaving (basically the swiss officials were panicking) because residents were leaving in huge waves.    

Speaking in terms of research I did on one family, the story is likely very typical of the immigrants.  My ancestor  left switzerland in 1749, with so little money that the swiss even waived his emigration tax.  He came through Phila in 1749, and settled in Oley township.    He worked hard, and by the time he died at the  relatively young age of 62 in 1782 he was a wealthy man for the time.  His 1782 estate record as a resident of downtown Reading (a town of only about 500 households at the time) included 3 "old muskets" and a pistol (probably more than the avg household though and may not be a good example ).  In 1782, how old is "old", maybe 20+ years?  Maybe he bought them solely  for protection again the indian incursions of the 1750's or 1760's.  Why 4 guns?   I always assume he hunted with them.  Were they really muskets, or was this a generic term for long guns or rifles of any type?  Were they american made?  It is interesting, however, that I have come across very few estate records from the time that reference guns as part of the inventory.  Granted this is not something I intentionally looked for.   I have even seen numerous gunsmith estates where they did not own whole guns.  Did many men give away guns to sons before they died?  My ancestor apparently died fairly suddenly without a will or any estate planning.

I can understand, and agree, that it is highly unlikely that these immigrants would have brought any guns with them, save for maybe a very few exceptions, and that any guns they owned here were probably acquired here.  However, my perception has always been that when they earned enough money they bought themselves a gun.   The PA archives include a number of passages that describe how militia men were compensated for rifles that they lost to the british at Long Island and Brandywine in 1775 and 1776.  I would think it likely that these rifles pre-dated 1775 and that the residents had them for some time.  I doub t that they were made solely for military purposes.  Probably the schriet rifle was one of these, which appears to be to be a rifle made for private use and not military, in 1761.  And we know that gunsmiths already had functioning shops almost as soon as they arrived (Hachen at least as early as 1752 and likely as soon as he settled).  Assuming that many of the guns were made for indian trade, I always thought there would be alocal commercial trade for purchase by the resident immigrants also.  Reading had several gunsmiths before 1760 and settlement only got going there in about 1750.  We also know thst shop owners such as Conrad Weiser were selling guns in their shops as early as the 1750's and similar to indian trading, traded guns for various labor and services by settlers..  Issues like those in Northampton (lack of arms) were probably because  of the great number of impoverished new settlers and lack of a gunsmith or shop selling guns  (which is probably why Moll moved there late in 1763 to take advantage of a new market and help the residents in defense).  

Sorry for rambling - I guess in my long-winded way my point is that based on my own limited research my own hypothesis is that many PA Germans simply were poor and purchased guns once they could afford them, once they had a town gunsmith that could provide them, or had a local shop that sold them.. But would welcome evidence that they did not want to own guns,  as I am solely interested in the real story!  I would think that the british letter you show on the first page of posts is probably accurate, describing how rifles are made in numerous areas of pa  prior to 1775 and that these were for private purchase and not to arm militia.

[Bob Smalser]

1)  …Switzerland panicked when so many of their people began to leave, and began instituting penalties and taxes and other obstacles for those who wished to leave.   

2)  …And we know that gunsmiths already had functioning shops almost as soon as they arrived (Hachen at least as early as 1752 and likely as soon as he settled).…a cultural aversion to gun ownership by PA German immigrants that stem back to…

3)  …based on my own limited research my own hypothesis is that many PA Germans simply were poor and purchased guns once they could afford them, once they had a town gunsmith that could provide them, or had a local shop that sold them.. But would welcome evidence that they did not want to own guns,  as I am solely interested in the real story! 

1)  It was a common practice in Germany and Alsace for communities to require compensation for the loss of an emigrant’s services.  Sometimes directly to the local noble landowners; sometimes to the community because the local nobility exercised their right to require free labor from the local commoners and departures created a smaller manpower base from which to draw.  This was longstanding policy beginning after the 30-Years-War and continuing until the 1850’s and even the 1880’s when the last of my family emigrated.

2)  Certainly.  But in the Palatinate, Alsace, Wuerttemberg, Baden, Westphalia, Hesse, Saxony and Bavaria entry into the gunsmith profession was severely restricted by the guild system which controlled supply by restricting the number of smiths, and the nobility which controlled demand.  The bottom line is that guns were expensive, scarce and hard-to-get, and if you weren’t a forester/gamekeeper or had hunting rights as a member of the nobility or a wealthier burgher, you didn’t own a gun in those locales.  In the 1750’s there weren’t a lot of trained smiths either in America or arriving from Germany…hence the Moravians had to import one specially after their missionaries were massacred in 1755.  Further, there is evidence that once he arrived his output was minimal, having almost no impact outside the Moravian community.  So for all the humming and woofing today about Andreas Albrecht, I’m not convinced he made the early contributions often attributed to him.   Under Albrecht the Moravians in Northampton Cy were producing more sets of chairs than they were guns.

3)  Except guns were relatively expensive, and if you were a subsistence farmer there were few ways to acquire even small amounts of cash.  In pre-war 1775 a plain rifle with accoutrements cost roughly 6-8 English pounds in Pennsylvania, while a hundred acres of vacant frontier land sold for 5 pounds, trade guns 2-3 pounds, military muskets 3-4 pounds, a horse 10-12 pounds, and a 60’ by 230’ building lot in downtown Allentown 45 pounds.  Historians like John Shy and Clayton Cramer talk to how cheap and readily-available guns were in the colonies…except they weren’t talking about Pennsylvania, where militias were few, late and poorly-subsidized for a host of reasons.  Hence there weren’t a lot of old militia guns on the used market.  Further, a gunsmith who also wasn’t a subsistence farmer himself was a rare creature, especially early-on.  Those guys were in the trade to earn cash; they really didn’t need the 50 bushels of grain I had available to trade, because if it was a good year for grain, they had a surplus, too.

Accordingly, I wouldn’t characterize the shortage of guns in the hands of German immigrants prior to the Indian wars of 1755 and 1763 a “cultural aversion” but rather a matter of priorities.  As a farm kid my father trained bird dogs as a sideline, I paid for 2 years of college running a trapline while in HS, later graduated in forestry and wildlife biology, and spent some time as an army ranger after being drafted (They said, “With your majors, it’d be a perfect fit.”  I said, “No, thanks.”  They said, “It pays 25% more.”  I said, “Where do I sign?”)  Yet I’m certain I’m not as skilled as those early Palatinate, Alsatian, Ulster-Scot and Swiss farmers at poaching restricted lands, but I’m also certain I could acquire as much or more game without a gun as with a gun.  In short, until I absolutely needed a gun to defend myself from others having guns, I had higher priorities to spend my scarce cash on.

[Eric Kettenburg]

There are a considerable number of advertisements to be found for rifle barrels, gun barrels, gun locks, brass mounting etc. (all for sale, and in quantity) in the PA Gazette.  Prior to 1750 the ads are much more scarce (yet can be found, here and there), but between 1750 and 1770, not so scarce.  Prior to 1750 there are more ads for "ship muskets" and "muskets," "fowling pieces" etc., quite a few in fact.  People were definitely interested in obtaining arms, and certainly by the 1750s if not earlier on a more sporadic basis, building them.  Primary documentation, not our 21st century opinion and speculation.

[Bob Smalser]

1)  Prior to 1750 the ads are much more scarce (yet can be found, here and there), but between 1750 and 1770, not so scarce.  Prior to 1750 there are more ads for "ship muskets" and "muskets," "fowling pieces" etc., quite a few in fact. 

2)  People were definitely interested in obtaining arms, and certainly by the 1750s if not earlier on a more sporadic basis, building them.  Primary documentation, not latter-day writers' opinion and speculation.

1)  That neatly fits the hypothesis that before the Indian attacks of 1755, the firearms market was more centered on the port and shipping industry than on frontier settlers, especially newly-arriving German settlers.

2)  The myth of the “three Newhard brothers from Zweibruecken” was primary documentation archived in Philadelphia, too, based on Pennsylvania naturalization officials not bothering to get straight their true familial relationships and origin.  (There were four Neuharts from Rumbach , not three from Zweibruecken, they weren’t brothers, and they were accompanied by a brother-in-law and uncle named Kern and Stoehr respectively) And the more I dig, the more errors and/or contradictions in “primary documentation” I uncover. To wit:

For all the humming and woofing about Moravians around here, what exactly were Andreas Albrecht’s early contributions to gunmaking other than making a few pretty rifles whose toes cracked because he didn’t align the wood grain properly?  Or…I’m hardly an artifact authority…was that just his student Oerter who didn’t understand wood grain?

-    Albrecht arrived in 1750, but taught music at the Nazareth Boy’s School until the trade school opened in Christian Springs in 1757, where he switched to teaching gunmaking, although his previous experience was as a stocker for the army, not a gunmaker.

-    You’d think that after the massacre of Moravian missionaries a mere 30 miles to the north in 1755, by 1759 the Moravians’d be producing rifles hand over fist to arm the males in their own population of a thousand-plus, and also others to sell to the local community for much-needed cash.  After all, Bethlehem and Nazareth were still supporting refugees from the 1755 attacks.  But if you thought that, you’d be wrong, as save perhaps for a few students, Albrecht was the sole gunmaker listed in 1759:

-    Plus while he was the master of the gunmaking enterprise, he still taught music every day at Nazareth two miles distant, which with decent artificial lighting still in the distant future, probably took up half his working day.

-    Albrecht is the #11 gunmaker between four nail makers and three wood turners.  So two years after their missionaries were massacred, the Moravians were probably producing many more sets of chairs than they were guns.  Not a very impressive effort.

-    A mere year later, in 1760 the Moravian benefactor Count Zinzendorf dies and his heirs sue the Moravian Church for all the $ millions he had advanced them since 1730 to keep their operations afloat.  The collectivist “General Economy” the Moravians had been living under hadn’t been paying for itself by a long shot, and it took the church more than a few decades to fully reimburse Zinzendorf’s heirs.  More evidence that these communal utopia types had been talking a good game, but hadn’t been working very hard.

-    So in 1762 the Moravians ditch the “General Economy” and to generate cash sell their various businesses to their masters.  So as they are about to get productive, Albrecht’s response by 1766 at age 48 is to get married (given Moravian “choir” living, he probably hadn’t been close to a woman since 1748 when he left the army) and become a full-time innkeeper.  I hope he did better in Lancaster in 1771, because his early accomplishments sure sound overstated to me.

Sources whether primary or secondary are but one piece of the puzzle.  Context and perspective of time and place is another.  Rational analysis of the first two is a third.

[spgordon]

A mere year later, in 1760 the Moravian benefactor Count Zinzendorf dies and his heirs sue the Moravian Church for all the $ millions he had advanced them to keep their operations afloat.  The collectivist “General Economy” the Moravians had been living under hadn’t been paying for itself by a long shot, and it took the church more than a few decades to reimburse Zinzendorf’s heirs.  More evidence that these communal types hadn’t been working very hard.

Bob: I know you're usually meticulous in your research, but this is nearly all wrong. Since the point you seem to want to make is that "these communal types hadn't been working very hard," let me just focus on that point. The "General Economy," from what scholars can tell from the extensive accounts that survive, was making a profit--indeed, enough of a profit to fund the church's widespread missionary work in North America. That was the point of the experimental communal Economy--to make a profit--and it was quite successful. If your "test" of what might prove a profit would be the proliferating of gunsmiths or gunshops--a Moravian franchise--you're seriously misunderstanding how Moravian communities worked. Whatever profit a trade produced wasn't used to enlarge the trade; it was used to further mission work.

So the Economy didn't collapse because it was failing. The European Moravian church demanded that the Economy be dissolved and that most of the trades be privatized so the Bethlehem community would produce even more profit, much of which was appropriated to pay off Zinzendorf's debts. (And do you mean that Zinzendorf's "heirs," or that his "creditors," sued to recover debts after his death?) Kate Engel's Religion and Profit: Moravians in Early America (2009) lays all this out as well as anyone.

I assume when you say that "these communal types hadn't been working very hard" you mean only that they didn't produce many guns? Or is there some evidence of their general laziness that you've found?

I'm not sure why your contention about the low level of gun ownership in early America, which I think remains an open question (as the discussion here makes clear), requires you to exaggerate in this way. Or create and then attack straw men. Has anybody made a claim about the number of guns that Albrecht (or the Moravians generally) produced that you're refuting here?

Scott

[Eric Kettenburg]

"So two years after their missionaries were massacred, the Moravians were probably producing many more sets of chairs than they were guns."

The key word there is "probably."  We really don't know, we are only speculating.  Interesting, but speculation none the less.

[Eric Kettenburg]

"...what exactly were Andreas Albrecht’s early contributions to gunmaking..."

A fascinating question which as yet remains to be answered.

[mr. no gold]

A question remains: if the Indians could trade furs for European guns, why couldn't the farmers do the same? The frontier inhabitants almost certainly did, as to lack arms in those dangerous zone was tantamount to suicide. How else did they obtain arms? We can suppose that gun ownership was widespread and considered vital whether in 'rural, or suburban' areas, as game of some variety (likewise for fur bearing animals), could always be procured. This, with subsistence farming would have served the people well. Just some random thoughts on this highly interesting subject.
Dick

[Bob Smalser]

I don't have to drive 15 miles from where I live deep in the woods to find contemporary churches  (in a state not normally considered devout) of three to five hundred congregants who, in proportion,  support overseas missionary efforts equal or exceeding those of the colonial Moravians.

The argument isn't important to mine other than an illustration of some of the myths out there being purveyed, but the church's debt to Zinzendorf's heirs was simply too great, accumulated in too short a time, and took too long to pay off to be attributed to however many missionaries living in the bush.  By several-fold.  If the General Economy was so successful, why do away with it within months of your notes being called in?

This is like making the argument that 16 workers were sufficient to service 12,000 stands of arms turning over every few months at the "Allentown Factory" after Philadelphia was evacuated in 1777 and armory operations shifted to Lancaster, Harrisburg and Allentown.  Please.  Sixteen workers were barely enough just to load and unload the wagons.

Am I overstating?  Probably.  But the arguments aren't very convincing and merit a relook.

[spgordon]

I don't have to drive 15 miles from where I live deep in the woods to find contemporary churches  (in a state not normally considered devout) of three to five hundred congregants who, in proportion,  support overseas missionary efforts equal or exceeding those of the colonial Moravians.

I cannot follow the logic here. I didn't think we were discussing whether we admire the Moravians for supporting missionary efforts. The only point is that the General Economy in Bethlehem was designed to produce enough $$$ to support the community and enable missionary work. The social structure (the choir system, raising children communally) was designed to enable individuals, usually couples, to be detached for missionary work. If there is a point you're making here that I'm missing, please repeat.

The argument isn't important to mine other than an illustration of some of the myths out there being purveyed, but the church's debt to Zinzendorf's heirs was simply too great, accumulated in too short a time, and took too long to pay off to be attributed to however many missionaries living in the bush.  By several-fold.  If the General Economy was so successful, why do away with it within months of your notes being called in?

What is the myth being purveyed? Did anybody claim that the debt came entirely from the missionary work, as you imply here? Do you have any figures about how extensive the Moravian missions were? And how much they cost? If not, on what is the above statement based?

The studies I've read (I've noted Kate Engel's) show that (A) Bethlehem's communal system was making a profit and (B) the system was dismantled, and the trades privatized, because the European Moravian church expected that would increase Bethlehem's capacity to contribute to paying off the church's debt. This shows that the European church believed that Bethlehem's community could be organized to make more profit. It also shows that the communal organization had earlier had an aim other than the greatest profit possible .

By the way, the inventories and books from many of Bethlehem's trades survive and so the issue of whether they made a profit or not isn't uncertain. I'll add some figures from Engel's book tomorrow.

Scott

[Bob Smalser]

The communal system was making a profit and (B) the system was dismantled, and the trades privatized, because the European Moravian church expected that would increase Bethlehem's capacity to contribute to paying off the church's debt.

 

Again, that simply doesn’t pass the common-sense test of context and perspective.

If the communal system was making such a handsome profit, why change it?  

How would the Moravians, who had no real American experience with privatization in either Bethlehem, Nazareth, Lititz or Wachovia, know that dissolving the General Economy and selling/renting the various businesses to their masters would generate greater profits?

Common sense says they wouldn’t know.  And they made the change because the communal system was failing.

[spgordon]

I've explicitly answered the questions you ask in the immediately previous posts, so I'll repeat here and then let it rest.

If the communal system was making such a handsome profit, why change it?  

The communal system made a profit. The European church believed that, by privatizing the trades, a greater profit could be made. Not complicated.

How would the Moravians, who had no real American experience with privatization in either Bethlehem, Nazareth, Lititz or Wachovia, know that dissolving the General Economy and selling/renting the various businesses to their masters would generate greater profits?

Well. Moravian communities existed in Europe as well. All were not organized communally. Moravians understood how non-communal economies worked. They lived in them in Europe and America (Lancaster, New York, Philadelphia). So I would say that it is the opposite of "common sense" that "says" that "they wouldn't know" how other economies worked.

And, again, I'll repeat that there is no need for speculation here. Church authorities in Europe and in Bethlehem debated and disagreed about the dissolution of the General Economy. All these documents survive. There is no need to wonder about whether European authorities expected that, by dissolving the economy, they would be able to obtain more revenue from Bethlehem. (More revenue: the General Economy was already making a profit, with that profit being plowed in to missionary activity rather than to pay off the debt left at Zinzendorf's death.)

Good night.

[Kermit]

"Common sense." The hobgoblin of research.  Tread lightly when going there!

[Dphariss]

Albrecht had gone through the apprentice system in Europe and the Journeyman phase so  thinking he was only a gunstocker for the army shows a lack of understanding of the process of producing gunmakers in Germany.

Dan

[spgordon]

If I could ask one additional question, after a good night's sleep, to Bob:

If I understand correctly, your general claim is that there was less gun ownership, particularly among immigrant German populations in colonial Pennsylvania, than has been believed or claimed. And that the Moravian gunsmiths, who have been much written about lately, never produced very many guns of any sort.

If these are the points you most want to make, I am not sure why you need to make claims at all about whether the General Economy in Bethlehem was working, whether the Moravian tradesmen were working hard, about the causes of the Moravian Church's debt after Zinzendorf's debt--or to demean Albrecht because, as is surely true (of any society?), his fellow craftsmen produced more chairs than he produced guns.

These aren't (as far as I can see) relevant to the very interesting issues in bold above.

Scott

[Bob Smalser]

Albrecht had gone through the apprentice system in Europe and the Journeyman phase so  thinking he was only a gunstocker for the army shows a lack of understanding of the process of producing gunmakers in Germany.

Whisker page 31:

"I was born in the little town of Celle...when I was thirteen I became the apprentice of a gunstock maker..."

In Albrecht’s own words he describes that he was apprenticed to a gunstocker for four years, then as a journeyman became a gunmaker’s helper for another four years.  Then he was accepted into the army as a gunstocker for 8 years.  He doesn’t mention standing for the rigorous master’s examination of the time as a gunmaker…you’d think he would have if he had…and by his own admission the vast bulk of his experience was repairing musket stocks broken by soldiers and replacing ready-made government parts.   

That he didn’t know how or didn’t care to toss a buttstock in a few gallons of boiling water for an hour so he could correct the severe grain runout at the toe by bending before the final shaping of his blank isn’t particularly impressive.  Neither is Christian Springs, the so-called font of early riflemaking, having three adults turning chair parts and only one part-time gunmaker as late as 1759.  More impressive is that by 1762 the Moravian Church came to the conclusion that like all utopian schemes since the dawn of man, their communal economy provided few incentives to work either smarter or harder, and they could do better by scrapping it, which they did.

My intention, however, isn’t to slam Albrecht or the Moravian Church, it’s to point out that like the notion that every frontiersman had at least one trusty rifle with which he was an expert hanging over the door ready to go…which by every primary source I’ve found to date wasn’t true among Palatines as late as 1763… the actual accomplishments of the early Moravians could probably also stand some scrutiny, both in output of rifles and exactly who outside of their closed community they influenced or trained.  The evidence points to Johannes Moll, not Andreas Albrecht, as the first gunmaker 19-year-old farmer Peter Newhard came in contact with.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VEIOV3P9rHwC&lpg=PA140&ots=oRp99tEz4x&dq=andreas%20albrecht%20gunsmith&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q=andreas%20albrecht%20gunsmith&f=false

[rich pierce]

Great debate here, backed by scholarship.  I'm a research scientist so enjoy seeing how historical research works.  Long held and oft-repeated beliefs (a word full of meaning) are sometimes difficult to study with any objectivity.  Knowing it or not, we often look for data that is supportive of our own points of view, discounting or finding potential weaknesses in evidence that is not supportive, and amplifying or emphasizing data that is supportive.  One of the best ways to eliminate bias is to set the parameters for gathering data and analyzing data in advance of the study.  An example in historical research like this would be to identify a number of towns in Pennsylvania or anywhere else that could be considered "frontier" at that time, and examine the prevalence of different types of guns in probate records, compared to other commodities we "know" were present in every household (chairs or tables for example) over a specified timeframe.  This has the potential for eliminating under-reporting in probate records of items that were given away before or at the time of death.  Another useful technique is to compare data from probate records from one area to another, though methods of inventorying household goods may vary quite a bit.  At the end of the day, however, many grasp dearly held notions all the way to the grave, regardless of emerging new data.  And all researchers have a strong drive to conclusion, whether a conclusion is premature or not.

[Dphariss]

Albrecht had gone through the apprentice system in Europe and the Journeyman phase so  thinking he was only a gunstocker for the army shows a lack of understanding of the process of producing gunmakers in Germany.

Whisker page 31:

"I was born in the little town of Celle...when I was thirteen I became the apprentice of a gunstock maker..."

In Albrecht’s own words he describes that he was apprenticed to a gunstocker for four years, then as a journeyman became a gunmaker’s helper for another four years.  Then he was accepted into the army as a gunstocker for 8 years.  He doesn’t mention standing for the rigorous master’s examination of the time as a gunmaker…you’d think he would have if he had…and by his own admission the vast bulk of his experience was repairing musket stocks broken by soldiers and replacing ready-made government parts.   

That he didn’t know how or didn’t care to toss a buttstock in a few gallons of boiling water for an hour so he could correct the severe grain runout at the toe by bending before the final shaping of his blank isn’t particularly impressive.  Neither is Christian Springs, the so-called font of early riflemaking, having three adults turning chair parts and only one part-time gunmaker as late as 1759.  More impressive is that by 1762 the Moravian Church came to the conclusion that like all utopian schemes since the dawn of man, their communal economy provided few incentives to work either smarter or harder, and they could do better by scrapping it, which they did.

My intention, however, isn’t to slam Albrecht or the Moravian Church, it’s to point out that like the notion that every frontiersman had at least one trusty rifle with which he was an expert hanging over the door ready to go…which by every primary source I’ve found to date wasn’t true among Palatines as late as 1763… the actual accomplishments of the early Moravians could probably also stand some scrutiny, both in output of rifles and exactly who outside of their closed community they influenced or trained.  The evidence points to Johannes Moll, not Andreas Albrecht, as the first gunmaker 19-year-old farmer Peter Newhard came in contact with.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VEIOV3P9rHwC&lpg=PA140&ots=oRp99tEz4x&dq=andreas%20albrecht%20gunsmith&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q=andreas%20albrecht%20gunsmith&f=false

To have an informed discussion on the "gunstocker" we would need to understand what the trade really was and what the training entailed.
Then we would have to know what he was exposed to during his journeyman phase, which in this case apparently lasted about 5 years.
Pg 142 of "Moravian Gunmaking of the American Revolution" shows a gun lock signed by and attributed to Albrecht. If he made this lock its far better quality than many of the locks used on guns and rifles in America. A great many of the imports were little better than junk and this could be why there are shop made locks in this book.
Perhaps he picked these skills up during his 9 or so years in the civilian gun trade before joining the Army. Maybe it was part of his training. Did he have to have lock making skills to work as a gunsmith in the Army? There is also a coffee mill signed by Albrecht. Did he cast the bowl and make the other metal parts? We don't know. But repairing coffee mills and other mechanical devices fell to the smiths and lockmakers of the Moravians. The "lockmaker" also stocked guns and rifles. So apparently he was either a gunstocker who made door locks or a doorlock maker that stocked guns. I know some skilled gunstockers who never had any instruction what-so-ever.
Having the skill to be a master did not mean you would be a master. This was decided by the other masters and required both the skills but also the perceptions of the other master who may or my not agree to have another in the guild. So regardless of skill, personality or to many masters could keep a person from ever being a master. I would also point out that apprentices were not simply accepted, they had a period of time to show some ability and if they lack the ability they were then rejected by the guild. Nor was it possible to simply be apprenticed. A butchers son for example could not become a gunstocker. The FATHERS trade would determine if the boy would even be considered.

You were trying to write off Albrecht as nothing more than a musket repairer, which you then repeated above. I submit that he was more than this.

So far as the grain flow? Who knows where the truth lies. Maybe there were time constraints. Putting wood in boiling water is going to greatly increase to time needed to stock a gun since the wood is going to have to be allowed to normalize again, weeks at least, before doing any thing further. At least I would never trust it until I was sure it had normalized again.
"Dry" precarved stocks that arrive in the west from the east are not really useable for several weeks since immediately inletting parts can result in massive changes in the inletting. The technical term is "Gaposis".
Not much of a problem with bows or chairbacks or cabinets and most carpenter work but its poison in guns. A gap that is "normal" in carpenter work is a massive error in firearms where the fit should be to .001" max.
A friend got some stock wood in recently and it checked so bad after arrival its now useless. He now wishes he had painted or "glued" the end grain but he thought it was dry. And he is not without experience.

Its possible to make a gun from a "dry enough" stock and have it warp and gap afterwards because its too new.
I can't see carefully drying a plank or blank to normalize so it will maintain its shape and size fairly well  then tossing it in hot water. If you have lot of time it might be OK, if you can keep it from warping when it drys again but if you have  to have a gun out the door in a week or two?
Gunstocks need not be wet to bend BTW.
I have seen finished high grade shotgun stocks bent for cast off and drop with a jig and a couple of heat lamps.
Dan

[spgordon]

More impressive is that by 1762 the Moravian Church came to the conclusion that like all utopian schemes since the dawn of man, their communal economy provided few incentives to work either smarter or harder, and they could do better by scrapping it, which they did.

This says a lot about your attitude about utopian experiments. It is uninformed about the particular utopian experiment that you are discussing. Or do you have some evidence of any sort whatsoever that Moravian craftsmen and craftswomen worked less "smart" or "hard" than others? You do recognize that this was a "utopian" experiment, which, one would think, would lead to some reflection on the fact that profit was not the primary goal of these trades and crafts. And yet repeatedly you seem to assess the "success" of the experiment on whether it produced as much profit as it could. It seems like you can't conceive of a social and economic system designed on other principles. I'd say this assumption is what needs reexamination.

[Dphariss]

More impressive is that by 1762 the Moravian Church came to the conclusion that like all utopian schemes since the dawn of man, their communal economy provided few incentives to work either smarter or harder, and they could do better by scrapping it, which they did.

This says a lot about your attitude about utopian experiments. It is uninformed about the particular utopian experiment that you are discussing. Or do you have some evidence of any sort whatsoever that Moravian craftsmen and craftswomen worked less "smart" or "hard" than others? You do recognize that this was a "utopian" experiment, which, one would think, would lead to some reflection on the fact that profit was not the primary goal of these trades and crafts. And yet repeatedly you seem to assess the "success" of the experiment on whether it produced as much profit as it could. It seems like you can't conceive of a social and economic system designed on other principles. I'd say this assumption is what needs reexamination.

I cannot speak to the Moravians and how communism worked for them.
But communism really does not work very well, this has been repeatedly proven. Some research will show that the Plymouth Colony darned near starved to death before adopting free enterprise in food production. The people who could work could see little point is busting their butts to provide food to others at no gain to themselves.

Dan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
*******************
Due to insufficient corn production and the discontent of the single young men who resented having to provide for other men's wives and children, Bradford changed the original communal use of land and equal division of the harvest and divided the land in plots to be temporarily assigned to individual families who would retain their harvest for themselves. According to Bradford, this resulted in increased productivity and social stability:

    At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves [...] This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

[Bob Smalser]

Here’s an interesting exchange between Commissioner Benjamin Franklin and Deputy Governor Robert Morris after Franklin had been appointed to organize a Pennsylvania Militia after the 1755 Indian massacres of Moravian missionaries at Gnadenhutten (now Lehighton) and dozens of settlers on the Northampton County frontier.

It highlights how poorly armed and unfamiliar with firearms the predominately Palatine settlers were, and that the Moravians had to acquire firearms from New York to defend themselves.  There is also a connection to later Northampton gunmaker Peter Newhard.  Emphasis is mine.



Jan 14, 1756 Franklin Diary Entry:
   
   "While the several companies in the city and country were forming, and learning their exercise, the Governor prevailed with me to take charge of our northwestern frontier, which was infested by the enemy, and provide for the defence of the inhabitants by raising troops, and building a line of forts. I undertook this military business, though I did not conceive myself well qualified for it. He gave me a commission with full powers, and a parcel of blank commissions for officers, to be given to whom I thought fit. I had but little difficulty in raising men, having soon five hundred and sixty under my command…The Indians had burned Gnadenhutten, a village settled by the Moravians, and massacred the inhabitants; but the place was thought a good situation for one of the forts. In order to march thither, I assembled the companies at Bethlehem, the chief establishment of those people. I was surprised to find it in so good a posture of defence; the destruction of Gnadenhutten had made them apprehend danger. The principal buildings were defended by a stockade; they had purchased a quantity of arms and ammunition from New York, and had even placed quantities of small paving stones between the windows of their high stone houses for their women to throw them down upon the heads of any Indians that should attempt to force their way into them. The armed brethren too kept watch, and relieved each other on guard methodically as in any garrison town.
   
   In conversation with the (Moravian) bishop, Spangenberg (August Gottlieb Spangenberg 1704 - 1792), I mentioned my surprise; for knowing they had obtained an act of parliament exempting them from military duties in the colonies, I had supposed they were conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. He answered me, "That it was not one of their established principles; but at the time of their obtaining that act it was thought to be a principle with many of their people. On this occasion however, they, to their surprise, found it adopted by but few." It seems they were either deceived in themselves or deceived the parliament; but common sense, aided by present danger, will sometimes be too strong for whimsical opinions.
   
   It was the beginning of January, 1756, when we set out upon this business of building forts. I sent one detachment towards the Minisink, with instructions to erect one for the security of that upper part of the country; and another to lower part with similar instructions; and I concluded to go myself with the rest of my forces to Gnadenhutten, where a fort was thought more immediately necessary. The Moravians procured me five wagons for our tools, stores, baggage, &c. Just before we left Bethlehem, eleven farmers, who had been driven from their plantations by the Indians, came to me requesting a supply of fire arms, that they might go back and bring off their cattle. I gave them each a gun with suitable ammunition. We had not marched many miles before it began to rain, and it continued raining all day. There were no habitations on the road to shelter us, till we arrived near night at the house of a German, where, and in his barn, we were all huddled together as wet as water could make us. It was well we were not attacked in our march for our arms were of the most ordinary sort, and the men could not keep the locks of their guns dry. The Indians are dextrous in their contrivances for that purpose, which we had not. They met that day the eleven poor farmers above mentioned, and killed ten of them; the one that escaped informed us that his and his companions' guns would not go off, the priming being wet with the rain.
   
   The next day being fair, we continued our march, and arrived at the desolate Gnadenhutten; there was a mill near, round which were left several pine boards, with which we soon hutted ourselves; an operation the more necessary at that inclement season, as we had no tents. Our first work was to bury more effectually the dead we found there, who had been half interred by the country people; the next morning our fort was planned and marked out, the circumference measuring four hundred and fifty-five feet, which would require as many palisades to be made, one with another of a foot diameter each. Each pine made three palisades of eighteen feet long, pointed at one end. When they were set up, our carpenters built a platform of boards all round within, about six feet high, for the men to stand on when to fire through the loop holes. We had one swivel gun, which we mounted on one of the angles, and fired it as soon as fixed, to let the Indians know, if any were within hearing, that we had such pieces; and thus our fort (if that name may be given to so miserable a stockade) was finished in a week, though it rained so hard every other day that the men could not well work.”

Franklin's official report of January 26th, and personal letter to Gov. Morris of January 25th, which give more minute details of the fort, were as follows:

Fort Allen, at Gnadenhutten, Jan. 25, 1756.

Dear Sir:

   We got to Hays the same evening we left you, and reviewed Craig's Company (the Scots-Irish militia company at Craig’s Settlement) by the way. Much of the next morning was spent in exchanging the bad arms for good - Wayne's Company having joined us. We reached, however, that night to Uplinger's (at Fort Lehigh), where we got into good Quarters.

   Saturday morning we began to march towards Gnadenhutten, and proceeded near two miles; but it seeming to set in for a rainy day, the men unprovided with great coats, and many unable to secure effectually their arms from the wet, we thought it most advisable to face about and return to our former Quarters, where the men might dry themselves and lie warm; whereas, had they proceeded they would have come in wet to Gnadenhutten where shelter and opportunity of drying themselves that night was uncertain. In fact it rained all day and we were all pleased that we had not proceeded. The next Day, being Sunday, we marched hither, where we arrived about 2 in the afternoon, and before 5 had enclosed our camp with a strong breast work, musket proof, and with the boards brought here before by my Order from Trucker's Mill (Wm. Kern's Mill at Slatington, an in-law of Gunmaker Peter Newhard), got ourselves under some shelter from the weather. Monday was so dark with thick fog all day, that we could neither look out for a place to build or see where materials were to be had. Tuesday morning we looked round us, pitched on a place, marked out our fort on the ground, and by 10 o'clock began to cut timber for stockades and to dig the ground. By 3 in the afternoon the logs were all cut and many of them hauled to the spot, the ditch dug to set them in 3 feet deep, and that evening many were pointed and set up. The next day we were hindered by rain most of the day. Thursday we resumed our work and before night were pretty well enclosed, and on Friday morning the stockade was finished and part of the platform within erected, which was compleated the next morning, when we dismissed Foulk's and Wetterholt's Companies, and sent Hay's down for a convoy of provisions. This day we hoisted your flag, made a general discharge of our pieces, which had been long loaded, and of our two swivels, and named the place Fort Allen, in honor of our old friend (Judge William Allen, father of James Allen who laid out Allentown in 1762, and also Chief Justice of the Province). It is 125 Feet long, 50 wide, the stockades most of them a foot thick; they are 3 foot in the ground and 12 feet out, pointed at the top, the figure nearly as opposite.”

Reference:
Busch, Clarence M. Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania, Vol 1.  State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1896. Print. Pp184-224

[spgordon]

I cannot speak to the Moravians and how communism worked for them.
But communism really does not work very well, this has been repeatedly proven.

This is fair enough--and there is no way we can know whether the Moravian experiment in Bethlehem would have similarly collapsed due to problems inherent to communal organizations had it not been dissolved, for other reasons, by the European church after about twenty years. It may very well have.

It's worth noting several things in this regard. First, every resident of Bethlehem was asked, when the matter of dissolving the communal economy arose in the early 1760s, what they wanted. Everybody wanted it to continue; their written responses survive. This is not surprising. The communal arrangement guaranteed all residents housing, clothing, care when they were sick or old; it freed them from the "competitive" world. They had to work hard, and the profits--the surplus value--of an individual's labor did not remain with him (or her). It went to the church and, through the church, to the mission work that underlay the founding of Bethlehem itself. We might not want to live under such a system in which we would not keep the profits of our labor. But the residents of Bethlehem chose this system and chose to continue to live under it. They recognized their place within a larger missionary project that seemed, to them, of crucial importance. Not just important: necessary.

Of course this sample of residents who responded is skewed: those who had no liking for what they called communal "housekeeping" could leave the community. Which is to say: living in Bethlehem was voluntary. They received many, many more applications to join the communal economy than the church authorities accepted.

And, finally, what seems most important to say is that they worked hard, and worked well, because they believed that they were working for "the Savior." They were not compelled to live in, or work in, this social arrangement; they willingly chose it and wrote extensively about how rich their lives were in it. Some may treat this as a ridiculous false ideology; but it seems fair, no matter what we may believe, to recognize that they did believe.

Scott

[DaveM]

If anyone wants to read some very detailed accounts of this Moravian attack, as well as other indian attacks in the Berks and Northampton region, I suggest Rupp's "History of Berks and Lebanon Counties".  This book has a number of letters written describing the attacks, from Conrad Weiser and others.  These accounts, while sad, also provide insights (the accounts mostly are from 1755).  letters describe settlers defending themselves with their own guns in a number of accounts, guards riding out from Reading and exchanging fire with indians, neighbors responding to help their neighbors and firing their guns to scare off the indians, men forming groups and pursuing the indians, too many to include here.  Seems to include plenty of evidence of gun ownership by the pa germans.  One area even had an informal "fort" where neighbors would gather to defend themselves.  The poor farmers (described above in Northampton) were described as such, very poor, and driven off suddenly and essentially naked.  Documented in this correspondence also include a Noah Frederick who was killed while plowing - the indians stole his goods including his "good rifle gun".  Descriptions are made of a Mathias Boeshore and his defending himself with his "rifle".  Understandably guns became in even shorter supply as the indians stole them (of course that is what they would be after).  The indians would often attack when the men were working or helpless - one account of men out picking cherries when the women were attacked.  The men later went after the indians.   

Also interesting is that there were notes indicating that there were french officers directing the indian attacks in Northampton County and setting up "headquarters" in that county. Also  interesting is that this book also includes a single pa german estate record for a Lancaster guy (a Michael Burst) who died in 1741 and this estate inventory happened to include "a gun".   

[dannybb55]

"Common sense." The hobgoblin of research.  Tread lightly when going there!

Only Thomas Pain could walk there

[dannybb55]

Bob, arms ownership and attitudes among the pre rev war 18th century PA Germans is a topic worthy of further research (at least in my opinion), and I hope you keep it up and keep us posted.  I read some of these posts with great interest, especially to references about a cultural aversion to gun ownership by PA German immigrants that stem back to europe (if I am understanding these notes correctly).  That is the first time I have heard that notion, and I would be very interested in more information on this. Probably off-point, and boring for many, I am providing some insights from my past research below for anyone interested.

Speaking from what I have found in research, most of these immigrants, my ancestors included, were very poor.  Economic distress was the primary reason they left for the new world.  One great resource for anyone interested in learning more about the situation and mindset of the PA Swiss and German immigrant of the era is "List of Swiss Emigrants in the Eighteenth Century to the American Colonies" by Faust and Brumbaugh available at most historical society libraries.  Unlike its title, it is far more than a list.  It provides terrific insights into why people left Switzerland (and the palatinate).  It is based entirely on primary documents and manuscripts / records.  For example, reasons for emigration included young people that lost their fathers (no parental protection at home / no one to curb their desire to see the world); divorced people and widows / widowers; letters from others that left describing the wonderful new country enticed many.  However, by far the reason was poverty.  Emigrants described that they worked night and day and could not even afford their daily bread for their family and really had no choice but to leave.  As an aside, it is interesting that many of the swiss leaving at this time indicated that they were heading for "the Carolinas".  This was because that was the location most widely publicized in switzerland at the time and many ended up in PA.

That all said, most came here very poor in large numbers between 1734 and 1750.  Switzerland panicked when so many of their people began to leave, and began instituting penalties and taxes and other obstacles for those who wished to leave.    For example in some cases they would not allow their property in Switzerland  to be sold.  The swiss even tried to socially ostracize those leaving (basically the swiss officials were panicking) because residents were leaving in huge waves.    

Speaking in terms of research I did on one family, the story is likely very typical of the immigrants.  My ancestor  left switzerland in 1749, with so little money that the swiss even waived his emigration tax.  He came through Phila in 1749, and settled in Oley township.    He worked hard, and by the time he died at the  relatively young age of 62 in 1782 he was a wealthy man for the time.  His 1782 estate record as a resident of downtown Reading (a town of only about 500 households at the time) included 3 "old muskets" and a pistol (probably more than the avg household though and may not be a good example ).  In 1782, how old is "old", maybe 20+ years?  Maybe he bought them solely  for protection again the indian incursions of the 1750's or 1760's.  Why 4 guns?   I always assume he hunted with them.  Were they really muskets, or was this a generic term for long guns or rifles of any type?  Were they american made?  It is interesting, however, that I have come across very few estate records from the time that reference guns as part of the inventory.  Granted this is not something I intentionally looked for.   I have even seen numerous gunsmith estates where they did not own whole guns.  Did many men give away guns to sons before they died?  My ancestor apparently died fairly suddenly without a will or any estate planning.

I can understand, and agree, that it is highly unlikely that these immigrants would have brought any guns with them, save for maybe a very few exceptions, and that any guns they owned here were probably acquired here.  However, my perception has always been that when they earned enough money they bought themselves a gun.   The PA archives include a number of passages that describe how militia men were compensated for rifles that they lost to the british at Long Island and Brandywine in 1775 and 1776.  I would think it likely that these rifles pre-dated 1775 and that the residents had them for some time.  I doub t that they were made solely for military purposes.  Probably the schriet rifle was one of these, which appears to be to be a rifle made for private use and not military, in 1761.  And we know that gunsmiths already had functioning shops almost as soon as they arrived (Hachen at least as early as 1752 and likely as soon as he settled).  Assuming that many of the guns were made for indian trade, I always thought there would be alocal commercial trade for purchase by the resident immigrants also.  Reading had several gunsmiths before 1760 and settlement only got going there in about 1750.  We also know thst shop owners such as Conrad Weiser were selling guns in their shops as early as the 1750's and similar to indian trading, traded guns for various labor and services by settlers..  Issues like those in Northampton (lack of arms) were probably because  of the great number of impoverished new settlers and lack of a gunsmith or shop selling guns  (which is probably why Moll moved there late in 1763 to take advantage of a new market and help the residents in defense).  

Sorry for rambling - I guess in my long-winded way my point is that based on my own limited research my own hypothesis is that many PA Germans simply were poor and purchased guns once they could afford them, once they had a town gunsmith that could provide them, or had a local shop that sold them.. But would welcome evidence that they did not want to own guns,  as I am solely interested in the real story!  I would think that the british letter you show on the first page of posts is probably accurate, describing how rifles are made in numerous areas of pa  prior to 1775 and that these were for private purchase and not to arm militia.

Maybe all of those  Swiss were heading to Newbern, NC, the town had good press back in Europe.