I'll second the welcome back. The comment you quoted above wasn't directed at you however, but rather at Bob Lienemann, with whom I've been corresponding on this subject as well. It's very, very hard to simply 'put the [
documentable] facts out there' all by their lonesome while simultaneously avoiding any conclusions whatsoever.
My thoughts on the whole gun thing in a nutshell - speculative, for as Scott notes above, it's really impossible now in 2012 to present a clear picture - are that guns were there, guns were owned, and guns were used. My impression is that many of the guns were probably poorly maintained and not used regularly in a martial fashion. In fact, many of the '
poor Germans' probably had no concept at all of the Indian's blitz warfare, lightning strikes on isolated locations and then *poof* gone back over the blue mountain. Most every period account, the only accounts I would concern myself with, tend to reinforce this interpretation, and the lack of war experience combined with a lack of constant firearm readiness basically made them sitting ducks. Some apparently put up a fight, but most probably were already conditioned to simply get the $#*! out of there with their skins intact. Whole lots of
probablys there. Just don't say the guns, and a market for them, weren't there, because they definitely were and have been proven to be so.
An entirely additional chapter which has yet to be examined (not in this monster thread and not in most texts, although *hint hint* there is a LOT to be found in my old friends the first hand documents), is the relationship between the way the natives were viewed pre-1755 and post-1755, and the role of the Moravians and their missionary activities among the natives in this view specifically in Northampton County. There are ample accounts of "friend indians" (
and I quote, because that term was used for the Moravian converts or near-converts) coming and going throughout the county and particularly to and from Bethlehem, and during the years of trouble, they were put into a very dire predicament and advised to stay hidden and not go 'out' lest they be harassed, imprisoned or killed. Many of them seem to have become entirely dependent upon white charity. I can't offer the exact location of this at the moment as it's buried, and I'm paraphrasing, but I distinctly remember reading it right from the horses' mouths ca. 1755-63. So, to be more concise, what I'm getting at is this: how did the relationship of area German farmers with the Moravian indians pre-1755 color their expectations and perceptions of said natives, and how did those expectations and perceptions color their level of preparedness when all $#*! broke loose in NH Co.? I can't help but to view this as a very interesting question.
"Page 123-4. Mathews, Alfred and Hungerford, Austin. History of the Counties of Lehigh and Carbon, Philadelphia: Everts and Richards, 1884. However loose those early histories, they remain better than rumors."(I can;t figure out how to do the fancy quote box in a selective fashion)
Oh lord, WHAT RUMORS? There are no rumors, or at the least, I don't believe that I have put any forth since the recent discovery of where he was ca. 1751-1763. Next door to a Berks Co. gunsmithing family. That's it. Sure, someone taught him, someone taught them, who taught who is a big question? I don't know. None of us know, as currently none of us know where he was prior to 1751. maybe he was born here, maybe he was one of the immigrants on the pre-1751 ship lists. One thing I do know for certain, the property on the map was noted "John Moll," not William Moll. Prior to John being there, it was noted as Moses Hyman who vacated the land ca. late 1750 and ended up in Reading. Moll never had a warrant on it, nor anywhere else in Rockland twp. (or what became Rockland twp.) So any smith shops or dwellings or whatever that were there were either put up by Hyman or by John Moll. There was no William involved in that land. Other surrounding people at the same time are George Ongstadt, David Weiser, Abm. Peter, John Frederick, Peter Preil, Jacob Plant, Lazarus Weidner. During the 1750s, also Wm Foulke. We would never know all this, save that repeated surveys were made ca. 1749-1751 which can provide a timeline of who was where. I guess I have to disagree - spurious, speculative or otherwise unverifiable information is not better than rumor simply because it is put into print. It's fine to discuss as speculation, as long as it is recognized as questionable. BTW, where did that old, oft-repeated information about the Neiharts being from Zweibrucken originate again?
