Question: Rifle for a German Palatine, Mohawk Valley, c.1715

[Stonehouse john]

My wife's been doing some genealogy.  She got pretty far.  Until a few days ago I'd never heard of a Palatine; turns out I'm descended from them.  I've been reading all I can find these past few days and, naturally, one of my first thoughts was "what kind of firearms would these people have been using?" (because, of course, now I want to build one...)

Quick story...
They were Germans.  They fled Germany for their lives in about 1709 and went to England.  They arrived as impoverished immigrants and were housed in overcrowded refugee camps in London for a record-cold winter.  My ancestor's name was Johann Christian Garlock, his first wife and children died in these camps (my wife found their names and the records of their deaths).  In 1710 the English transported Johann among nearly 3,000 German Palatines in ten ships to New York Colony.  They were placed in a work camp along the Hudson River (called "East Camp") cooking pine-tar into pitch and turpentine for His Majesty's Royal Navy to work off the cost of their passage and also (they believed) to act as "human-shields" against hostile attacks since theirs was the most remote of the Hudson settlements.  After one year the endeavour failed due to poor tar-yield (wrong pine species for tar) and a lack of continued government commitment to the project. The crown announced a "cessation of work and worker-subsistence" in the summer of 1712, and the immigrants were left on their own.  Apparently, one account says "Those who stayed at East Camp suffered to the point of boiling grass and eating leaves from the trees to survive the winter of 1712-13". 

By 1718 Johann, with several other families, had moved up the Mohawk River Valley to live among the Mohawks in the area that would become the town of German Flatts.  After hearing Palatine accounts of poverty and suffering, the Mohawk clan mothers granted permission for them to settle in the Schoharie Valley.  Around 1720 Johann married a full-blooded Mohawk woman named Betsy Theyanoguin and their children became my lineage (Betsey's father was Hendric Theyanoguin who served with William Johnson and was killed fighting the French at the battle of Lake George on Sept. 8th, 1755).

So... back to my question... what sort  firearms would these people have been using in the 17-teens?  They were German, but poorer than dirt so no fancy Jagers among them I'm sure.  They fled a failed government work-camp and took their wives and children into a genuinely hostile wilderness.  If they weren't adequately armed when they left East Camp I'd imagine they became so at their very first opportunity.  I know we have some very informed historians here; is there any historical/ archeological record about this?  If no specifics are known about this group per se, then what do you think would have been the most likely arm for their time and circumstances?  I'm completely intrigued and excited by this story now and I'd love to hear y'alls informed thoughts on this.

Thanks,
John         

   

[rich pierce]

Great family history. I have family in the Mohawk and Schoharie valleys during the same period so have thought about this quite a bit.

I think the Dutch settlers were likely to prefer Dutch style guns. The Hudson River fowlers are an example of this. English settlers and likely German settlers were likely using English guns. It was an English colony and trade was brisk. Pretty easy to get almost anything to the Mohawk and Schoharie areas by boat. Rifles were very rare in the area. Sir William Johnson engaged some Pennsylvania gunsmiths at one point because there was nobody, or next to nobody, making rifles in the Mohawk valley.

Many Palatines were quite poor and not well armed. In 1720, a poor Palatine may have owned an old snaphaunce, an old Dutch or French trade gun, or a low end English trade gun of recent vintage. It is possible that through his marriage to a Mohawk woman that he could have been exposed to rifle culture but this is still very early for that. I’d be thinking he might have a worn gun from 1680-1700 or so. Some English trade guns of the period were stocked in ash.

If you have Grinslade’s book Flintlock Fowlers look at New England fowler 1 and Unique Fowler 1. Both date to that period. New England fowler 2 is also a good one to consider. No buttplate, early lock, generous barrel length and bore.

[Mike Brooks]

OR, he may have had no gun at all.

[Eric Kettenburg]

The river long fowlers were for the wealthy families.  One of the reasons so many of them are actually traceable back through a specific family and why the majority of them are in fantastic condition.

The Germans stuck in the Mohawk and Schoharie valleys by the Brits were dirt poor and were being used as human shields.  They by and large had very literally nothing.  If there were firearms among them - and that is in and of itself questionable - they likely would have been very old jacobean doglocks or frankyl even matchlocks.  Whatever kind of surplus garbage the Brit gov't could throw at them for pennies.  Possibly some older Dutch trade guns ca. the mid/late 17th century as per Hamilton's example.  I am quite positive that by and large, the "weapon" of choice (and circumstance) among those Palatines was likely an axe, froe or shovel.

[S-SFlint]

   I do not believe the Palatine refugees were "issued" any weapons by the British authorities. "East Camp" was on land for which Robert Livingston had a patent. Livingston also held the actual colonial contract to supply the Royal Navy with materiel. I don't know the specifics, but in other cases such contracts gave access to military assistance in case of an emergency. The thinking of the time would have heavily frowned upon the idea of arming "foreigners", even for their own defense.
   It should also be remember that British relations with the Iroquois Confederacy were very good at this time, and that the New York frontier was relatively free from conflict. The Beaver Wars had ended in 1701, and by 1710 the War of the Spanish Succession had reached something of a stalemate (the Bourbons having consolidated their hold on the Spanish crown, but lost in every other theatre).
   The Palatine's weren't sent to this area as shock troops, but as almost literal human shields: an early warning system of sorts should the French renew hostilities on the American continent.

   As to the most likely type of gun for a Palatine settler to have? One could start by asking "what was the most likely gun for a Mohawk warrior to have? Following the abandonment of the work camps, the refugees who remained in the area intermingled, culturally, to a high degree with the Mohawk. Their access to firearms would have been very similar to that of the Mohawk.
    It would only have been the second and third generations who would have had easier access to weapons after decades of successful farming increased their spending power, and carved out a niche within the larger New York colony.

[Stonehouse john]

I do have a nice ash stock blank on hand.  If I plan carefully I could probably get an axe, a froe AND a shovel handle out of it.

I don't have Grinsdale's book yet Rich but I've been meaning to pick it up.  Guess now's my chance.  Thanks.

Sounds like I should be asking about common Mohawk arms of that era in case I should choose not to go the shovel-handle route.

[WESTbury]

This is one of the more interesting and informative threads by far, that I have read in some time.

[rich pierce]

I do have a nice ash stock blank on hand.  If I plan carefully I could probably get an axe, a froe AND a shovel handle out of it.

I don't have Grinsdale's book yet Rich but I've been meaning to pick it up.  Guess now's my chance.  Thanks.

Sounds like I should be asking about common Mohawk arms of that era if I choose not to go the shovel-handle route.

The Mohawks had access to Dutch, French (through raiding) and English arms.  Here’s an article on the Mohawk chiefs of the era. No knowing whether the artwork is based on reality or stage props.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Mohawk_Kings




Of course, not having a gun is also a viable option for portraying any poor farmer or laborer.

[Stonehouse john]

That's an interesting article Rich, thanks, this story is all new to me.  And poking around from there I discovered this page...  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrick_Theyanoguin
which is actually about Betsy's father Hendrick (who is my nineth great grandfather). 

Of course, not having a gun is also a viable option for portraying any poor farmer or laborer.

I'm gathering that that might be most historically accurate, yet somehow I envision that portraying a human-shield armed with a pointed stick (or shovel-handle) could possibly take away a bit of the romance of the thing (though, on the up-side, I suppose it would considerably reduce my powder expenditures).

Perhaps to get into the good rifle-era I need to do a bit more research into Johann's sons and grandsons and see if there were any Garlock boys in the F&I or Rev wars.

John

[Chris_B]

This is one of the more interesting and informative threads by far, that I have read in some time.

I second that!
I live far away from the Palatinate in Northern Germany, as far as I know my ancestors
lived here for generations, with one line from Saxony.
Except for a great-grandfather, who was a Rittmeister with the Saxon Royalty, I know of
no one of my forefathers who owned a gun.
Since my area was (and always is) covered with forest, some of them may have been hunters,
but probably the weapons they used were the property of the landlords.
I guess the same was true for the people in Southern and Southwestern Germany, so, probably
not many guns (if at all) they brought to the New World.

[Steve Collward]

Stonehouse John,
   A book I would suggest reading is "Bloody Mohawk" by Richard Berleth.  This book covers the cultural and military history in New York during the 18th Century. It includes a good amount of information on the Palatine Germans.  Well researched and well written.

[Stonehouse john]

Steve,  Thanks very much for the book recommendation, it sounds right up my alley.  I'm going to order it tonight (along with Grinsdale's Flintlock Fowler book).  I'm just finishing a book called "The Unredeemed Captive" by John Demos.  It's a slightly dry read but well researched and covers an interesting time.  It details events in western Massachusetts in the late 1600's surrounding the cycle of warring, raiding, retaliation and captive-taking between the whites and native people.  I'm kind of stunned by the scale of hostage-taking in those days.  I've always believed that a few children or fit young people might be occasionally taken as targets of opportunity after a raid and adopted into a tribe, but I had no idea that taking dozens, even whole towns-full of captives to Canada for ransom, conversion, or adoption was pretty much a thriving industry and "redeeming" or ransoming them was just a normal part of diplomacy and commerce.

The overarching and relentless theme to me is how continuously uncertain every day existence was. 

It was stated above that
 " relations with the Iroquois Confederacy were very good at this time, and that the New York frontier was relatively free from conflict. "

 With the benefit of hindsight we can see now that that was true, but over and over in these historical narratives are examples where everything was just fine and completely peaceful until one day (or night) when suddenly it completely wasn't.  And the people at the time had no way of knowing whether the next moment, or just their next trip out to the well for a bucket of water, might trigger the onset of the next all-out massacre.  That's why I expected that any family living out in the frontier would get adequately armed as soon as they could manage to do so.  Of course if they were dirt poor and starving that would take longer, but there's another thread on this forum entitled "How much did it cost" with a good discussion of the "quality of life" value of early firearms, and any tool that could prevent your family from being taken from you (and also help feed them) seems like it would be an early priority for any residents of that frontier in those days.
If, as Chris B says, the Germans came from a non gun-owning culture perhaps that effected their decision making too?

[Craig Wilcox]

Along with Mike Brooks comment:

Would it be normal for "town type workers" to own firearms in most settlements?  The butcher, the baker, the candle-stick maker?  The owner/operator of the grist mill?  The person selling dry goods, such as cloth to make clothing?

These gentlemen would have scant reason to own a firearm, excepting of course, those who enjoyed (or had necessarily had to hunt for their meat) hunt?

I could see the trapper, or perhaps a herdsman, needing to have a firearm.

I can understand that any firearms present would not be the "latest and greatest"-these transplanted Germans were dirt-poor.  But - they also had to eat.  Perhaps schimmels?  Barn guns?  Hopefully more than just their shovel or axe.

[S-SFlint]

   One thing to keep in mind is that the American mindset we take for granted did not exist yet.  As Chris_B pointed out, weaponry in Europe was by tradition (and often law) reserved for the upper classes and the army. Hunting was very regulated and a privilege that was taken very seriously by the initiated. The general populace was not armed, and the idea of arming them was mostly considered to be a danger to society.
   The concept of personal liberty in the matter of self defense, and the right to bear arms developed on the American continent. Largely through the experiences of early settlers who suffered the consequences of not being armed and responsible for their own persons, and exposure to native cultures that, by and large, highly valued the ability to take care of oneself.

In the early period under discussion this mindset of rugged individualism had not yet fully developed. In the early French colonies, for example, you needed government permission to marry. In New England you needed the minister's approval for almost everything (an example of this communal approach can still be found among the PA Dutch). In some places weapons were only handed out "at need" (and often too late), in other places you might have encountered a firearm in the homes of the appointed militia members. There was a much wider variance in personal initiative than what we're used to today. 

It should be be kept in mind that many immigrants from Europe- up into the 19th century- had trouble grasping the idea that they needed a gun here. Many would have (and some did) set off for the American frontier unarmed. It's hard to imagine in our interconnected modern world just how different life was in America vs Europe.  The longer the immigrant survived, the more likely they would be to adapt their thinking, and put the effort into acquiring a firearm.

Stonehouse John,

   Mr Collward's book suggestion is an excellent place to start. If it were me, I would focus a little later after the work camps were closed down. In 1723 some German Palatines were able to purchase land (100 acres a head) in the Mohawk valley. Thus the years 1720-1730 might be a good period to consider. The surviving refugees had clearly begun to forge ahead by this point. A decade in which to develop an independent spirit, financial means and good relations with their Mohawk neighbors. I would be surprised if by this period, members of this community were not arming themselves.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Man, I would love to forge up some kind of seriously worn, old looking wicked axe!!!!

Too much Conan as a kid, probably...... 

[Yorker]

This must be the same Johann who first settled Gerlachsdorf near Schoharie.

https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=145438
https://familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/Johann_Christian_Gerlach_(1672-1764)
http://schoharie.nygenweb.net/simmen.html
Matt Nelson

[mr. no gold]

Interesting discussion of arms in early colonial America. There have recently been number of revanchist studies on this subject with most if not all concluding that there were few if any firearms here at that time. Perhaps that is so, but game animals were a staple for many colonials and that would require some tools with which to harvest them. Probably firearms. So,  whether there were hostilities with the indigenous populations or not, the presence of firearms seems rather likely on the strength of logic alone. And, the native people had the bow and arrows but guns were relied on to a large degree.
So, if there were few to no guns and few to no makers, where did the foundational knowledge come from that provided the skills, supplies and know how that seemed to explode in several places: New England, Pennsylvania, parts of the South? From these centers it quickly spread over a wide region and peoples. I doubt that it sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus, and to be sure there was an evolution in styles and perceptions of what constituted a proper arm, but that had to have had a beginning and the uniquely American KY Rifle was the major result.
Just a few random thoughts on the subject.
Dick

[spgordon]

Interesting discussion of arms in early colonial America. There have recently been number of revanchist studies on this subject with most if not all concluding that there were few if any firearms here at that time.

The book that argued this at length--and convinced many people (who wanted to be convinced), Michael A. Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000)--turned out to be fraudulent. It was "based" on an examination of a vast number of probate records that Bellesiles had not consulted and could not have consulted (because they didn't exist). The book was stripped of the very prestigious Bancroft Award that it had been given.

[WKevinD]

This is a shot of a fowler I built awhile back as a representation of my thoughts on an early Mohawk valley gun.
Kevin

[Stonehouse john]

REALLY interesting and informative posts from everyone here. 

Eric, Any fella intimidating enough to carry a Conan-axe just might get by without even needing a rifle!   I've seen your work, If there's anyone to create that axe I think you'd be the guy.

Matt,  Yes, that's surely the same Johann.  I was not at all aware of the Schoharie chapter of his life.  It makes perfect sense that he'd be in that place at that time.  It's in a direct line from the work camps to Mohawk where he ended up and it's in the intervening years.  It's hard to perfectly line up all of the times and facts from all the various accounts when information is this old (but that's the intriguing part that keeps us searching I guess).  Thank you for those links!  I've done a lot of web-searching for details about him but hadn't found any of those things you posted. 

Dick and spgordon, I am by no means anything close to an authority but I do read every first-hand, documented account I can get my hands on going back into at least the late 1600's and it seems to me that for a region with "few if any firearms" there was a whole lot of shootin' going on.

Kevin, that fowler looks fantastic!  Are there more photos of it posted here somewhere?   Id love to see the rest of it.  The dog-lock looks early for sure, what timeframe would that piece date back to?

[Yorker]

FWIW a bunch of resources mention his will was probate in 1764, its probably out there somewhere still.  I searched yesterday to no avail.  They aren't necessarily all inclusive, and it only gives a window into what they wished to distribute upon their death (in his case at 92) but you'd find it interesting nonetheless.  My quich research yesterday indicates he was a leader (perhaps a minister) amongst them so he was probably somewhat better off than others.

Check out the petitions for land he was involved in here:
https://www.geni.com/people/Johann-Garlock/6000000007726937974


There might be more records about him at the Old Stone Fort if you are ever around the Schoharie area. Gerlachsdorf is completely gone, I don't think its ever been excavated but its probably been visited bt metal detectorists over the years.  I've seen collections of a lot of gun parts dug in the Schoharie valley over the years.  Maybe one of them will post his finds here. 

[S-SFlint]

   The idea that there were few firearms in the early colonies is indeed a false one, almost ludicrously so when we consider the extent to which the Dutch, French and English trade consisted of firearms. That does not mean that access to weapons was equal everywhere and for everyone.

   A large percentage of the early colonists to British colonies arrived indentured. The German Palatines fall within this category. Their passage and initial settlement was funded in exchange for their labor. It was only after that contract was no longer in force that they were free to direct themselves as they wished. It would have taken far longer to be in a position to do so.
   Generally speaking, those holding contracts of indenture had no incentive to arm their dependents, except in very specific crises. Moreover, they had a high incentive to keep their dependents working rather than hunting or exploring, etc. The backgrounds of the indentured also frequently precluded them from having a familiarity with firearms. Some were agrarian peasants, but many were from the slums of cities. In many cases everything about this new continent was outside their previous frame of reference (which helps explain why death tolls were so staggeringly high at times). Even those from the country, who may have done some poaching, likely didn't use a gun for it.
   Most terms of indenture were for the better part of a decade, meaning that a man might be in America for fifteen years before he started to earn enough money to be independent. It often took  decades to move beyond subsistence and start generating income.

   In contrast, the paid passage colonist was a very different kind of person. They most often came from the upper-middle or lower-upper class. Quite a few "second sons", or sons of second sons, ended up coming to the colonies. For these gentlemen who had previously had little hope of advancement outside of the army, the New World was an attractive alternative. In some cases representing the interests of influential uncles or cousins, these men arrived in a position to buy land and begin farming immediately. Their journey to success frequently measured in years rather than decades.
   They had the background of hunting and handling firearms plus the funds to afford them. As their numbers grew so too the demand for weapons. It is these men who were the market basis for the firearm industry in the early colonies.

[backsplash75]

I hate to get in the way of a number of good stories    but DeWitt Bailey's Small arms of the British forces in America is what OP needs to be reading.  Paraphrasing (p105) Gov. Hunter requested 600 firelock muskets and bayonets "to equip the German Palatines..." in 1709. Bailey notes that the prices paid for said muskets was "full Ordnance price" and as such suggests that they may have been current top of the line 1703 doglock muskets. He includes a Fort Anne inventory from 1712 with 890 "New" and 410 "old" muskets and a mixed bag of socket and plug (wood handled) bayos. Bailey notes that this is the earliest mention of socket bayonets in the colonies.

Wm3 doglocks https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-229.html

1704 Queen Anne musket at NAM https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1984-08-96-1

[Yorker]

All this time, the emigrants were clamoring for their "Valley of Schorrie", and would not be put down. After spending some time in the Schooley Mountains, they were told they were to shift for themselves. In the southern part of New York and northern New Jersey is a barren rocky table land; here they stayed awhile and then decided to leave. They found a home for themselves in Schohorie. There they lived for a while in caves as they could, with some aid from England as tools, which were mostly guns, axes and hoes.


First Petition, 15 Feb 1715: To his excellency, Robert Hunter, Esq., Capt. General and Governor in Chief of Provinces New York and New Jersey in Council. The humble petition of: John Christian Gerlach, Deiderich Capelman and Wilhelm George. Humbly Pray: Whereas there is a certain small peace of vacant and unappropriated woodland on the east side of Schoheres Creek in ye county of Albany, containing about 150 acres which your petitioners are inclined to purchase from the native Indian proprietors for a church. Do therefore most humbly pray that your Excellency will be graciously pleased to grant a Lycence unto your said Excellency's petitioners to purchase the said one hundred and fifty acres of vacant woodland from said native Indian owners. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray, etc.....Albany ye 10th Feb 1715/16. Signed John Christ. Gerlach.

https://www.geni.com/people/Johann-Garlock/6000000007726937974

Also read ~pg 36 here:
https://www.northerncatskillshistory.com/Writing_History/200_Documents/Simms%20History/01%20Origin%20of%20Schoharie.pdf

[rich pierce]

Backsplash, very nice. Sounds like these would be kept at fort. Perhaps the OP is thinking personal gun? But certainly for drill it sounds like the 1703 doglock would be spot on. The Rifle Shoppe catalogue shows a few options.

Early Queen Anne Doglock musket (844) says “early”
WR Doglock musket (554) says late 1600s
AR Doglock musket (560) dated 1706

Then there are roundfaced lock guns
James II carbine (676)
William II Musket (704)
Queen Anne Musket (638)

These could give good idea of what the fort muskets were like. Those with more historical knowledge and a TRS catalogue could add more.