Johannes / John Rupp of Macungie

[Eric Kettenburg]

Paragraph 4:  “He married Ursula von Peterholtz in January of 1750.  She was of noble blood, the daughter of Count Heinrich von Peterholtz.”  Mr. Kolar also goes on to note her parentage, the town and location in which she was born, and a quick mention of the old story re: her parent's objection to George Rupp.  Mr. Kolar writes confidently of this.

Documentation please?  There is no source documentation that actually verifies this ‘romantic’ story of their elopement related in the county histories.  All that can be said, based upon one sponsorship record in the Jordan Reformed congregation for 1771, is that George Rupp was married to a woman named Ursula.  There is nothing of which I'm aware actually verifying her origin or surname, and in fact the repeated attempts by Alfred Loy during the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Europe to reclaim the long-lost “Rupp fortune” seem to have gone absolutely nowhere.  I won't dismiss the story out-of-hand, and I will freely admit that perhaps portions of it may be accurate; apparently, later descendants during the 1890-1900 period felt strongly enough about it to put up hard cash in order to send Alfred Loy to Europe to dig further.  But show me the money!  Where is the documentation? 

Someone to whom I had inquired recently sent me copies of the following, all from the Reading Times I believe.  I also have since found three of them posted up on Ancestry.  The newspaper articles are verifiable insofar as they are real clips from the Reading Times dating throughout the 1898-1902 period.  I do not know what eventually happened to Alfred Loy’s quest other than that the “Rupp fortune” was apparently never secured.  I assume there was a reason for this, but I do not know what that reason was.  Also not sure if the Reading Times ever followed up on this after 1902.














I'm gonna go sink another drink.  It'll give me time to think...

[Eric Kettenburg]

Paragraph 5 :  “The couple came to Penn’s Woods in the new world in August of 1750 aboard the English ship “Brothers.”

No, it appears that they/he did not.  There is no record at all of a George Rupp or in fact any Rupp surname variant being upon the passenger list for “Brothers” or “Two Brothers” (a different ship) in 1750 or in any year.  Pennsylvania German Pioneers lists a “Johann George Koop” in the transcribed version of list C for the “Brothers” on Aug. 24, 1750 (there is no list A or B), and I thought this name might be suspiciously close enough to warrant an investigation.  Nevertheless, it does indeed appear to be “Koop” or “Koop” on the original list.  The surname is slightly questionable / difficult but it definitely is not an “R” in comparison with other capital “R” letters signed by other men, and there definitely is only a single “p” at the end if in fact that is the letter.  If anyone specializes in 17th/18th century German script and feels differently, please do offer an opinion!





The ship “Brotherhood” listed a Johannes Rub and Christian Rub in 1750, but neither of these fellows are George or Johan George.  There is no record that I can find - thus far -  of a George Rupp, or Johan George Rupp/Rup/Rub/Rueb etc. arriving on ANY ship through the port of Philadelphia.  There are a few different Rupp variations listed on the palatine ship lists of course, but none of them are George or Johan George, and none of them had children listed with the name George or Johan George.  Many lists, in fact, only list the adult males so if George had been brought here under the age of 16 aboard one of those ships, there would be no records of him.  I can find no listing in Pennsylvania German Pioneers, no listing in A Collection of Upwards of 30,000 names…, no listing to be found in Pennsylvania arrivals anywhere, and I have been not only looking in Strassburger/Hinke’s transcriptions and Rupp’s 30,000 names... but I have been slowly scouring through the actual surviving lists available through the PA state digital archives (microfilm images) for the years around 1750.  Now, obviously he came from somewhere and arrived somewhere in the colonies, but as of the present time, nobody including myself has been able to point to a passenger list with an immigrant listing that could conceivably be this man.  He very possibly arrived through a different port in a different colony.

If someone has a record of a George Rupp arriving ca. 1720-1760, somewhere, I would love to see it and pursue it further whether it fits the ‘eloped with Ursula’ narrative or not.  Meanwhile, one thing I can say with a fairly good degree of certainty is that he did not arrive aboard the ship “Brothers” in 1750 and since it is quite easy to find the lists for that particular ship, I can’t imagine why Mr. Kolar chose to perpetuate incorrect information without further investigation.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Paragraph 5:  “Wealthier than most immigrants, they acquired a tract of land of over 600 acres around Trexlertown, in what is now Lehigh County, under a land warrant dated the 25th of December 1752.”

First of all, there is nothing to indicate they were “…wealthier than most immigrants…” other than the 19th century romantic stories of the so-called ‘Rupp fortune.’  Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.  I wasn’t there, and neither was anyone with the ability to document their wealth either, since nowhere is there found factual documentation of it.  Also, George Rupp definitely did not initiate a warrant for over 600 acres and he likely did not initiate the process until 1786.  The 1752 warrant which Mr. Kolar is referencing is listed in the PA Archives series 3, Vol. 26, on Dec. 20, 1752.  Anyone can find it for themselves at Fold 3 (online) and it’s on page 154.  This warrant is for 25 acres for a man transcribed as “George Roap.”  I have doubts that is is George Rupp, but I can’t say this for certain not having seen the original warrant or how far back the interest is back-dated.  As I note in my own article, there were many ‘Raup’ surnames in NH county as well as ‘Raub’ surnames, and my opinion (not a fact, just an opinion) is that this 1752 warrant is for one of those individuals given the odd phonetic spelling.  There is a warrant initiated for George Rupp that can be found later in the same archives series on page 158, March 25, 1786, for 145 acres wth interest back-dated to 1782, which seems much more relevant to the quantity of land for which he was taxed; that hovered around 180 to 200 acres up through the War, and following the War he seems to fall off the assessments when Herman has @ 260-280 acres and Andrew, 100, until later on when it seems possible John split off some of this also.  As I note in my research, George’s estate paperwork hints at some form of - potentially - land split or sharing agreement among the sons, but this is currently unclear.

Warrant of 1786:

[spgordon]

Paragraph 5 :  “The couple came to Penn’s Woods in the new world in August of 1750 aboard the English ship “Brothers.”

[snip]
...one thing I can say with a fairly good degree of certainty is that he did not arrive aboard the ship “Brothers” in 1750 and since it is quite easy to find the lists for that particular ship, I can’t imagine why Mr. Kolar chose to perpetuate incorrect information without further investigation.

Honestly, of all the things you've posted this one is (so far!) the most mysterious, since Mr. Kolar was not repeating unreliable information but changing reliable information with no justification!

[Eric Kettenburg]

To be fair, I don't think he came up with it completely out of thin air.  I swear I remember finding another article or reference to George Rupp arriving aboard the 'Brothers' or the 'Twin Brothers' somewhere, I just can't remember where I saw it.  Probably one of the county histories, or maybe something Bob Smalser wrote/posted either here or on Ancestry (he has posted a LOT on Ancestry).  I think Kolar was simply repeating what someone else had told him.

I honestly don't find any ill-intent as per Mr. Kolar's 2017 article but I do think it's grossly misinformed.  Where I see the ill-intent is in the current annotations being written for the upcoming Sotheby's auction of the DuPont collection in January, as I have now sent all of this information to three different people involved in the auction.  Rather than correct the representation - arguably fraudulent representation of the rifle - or at the least include the information I provided, they actually doubled down on the completely unverifiable pre-War attribution to George with a rifle signed John. 

Caveat Emptor indeed (although it's a spectacular rifle and personally I wouldn't give a s&&t when or by whom it was made).

[spgordon]

I honestly don't find any ill-intent as per Mr. Kolar's 2017 article but I do think it's grossly misinformed. 

I didn't mean to imply any ill-intent either. I just find the whole thing incredible--what people are willing to state confidently when they have no solid information (or don't bother to check whether the information is reliable). I mean, if the whole story is seamlessly coherent, maybe there's no cause to think twice. But there are plenty of red flags in this case...

[Eric Kettenburg]

Paragraph 6:  “There is considerable evidence that John George Rupp may have made this early rifle.  He came from a family of European gunsmiths and even though he was considered a ‘commoner,’ he is described in other records as a most superior and talented young man.”

What evidence?  The opinions of the Mr. Kolar or unnamed others?  The rifle is signed ‘John Rupp.’  It is not signed ‘George’ or ‘John George’  or ‘JG’ or anything of the kind.  It’s signed John.  As I have demonstrated in my research, George Rupp was always known and referenced in every existing record as George Rupp.  He was never referenced as a gunsmith and no firearm of any kind has ever materialized signed by ‘George’ or ‘John George’ Rupp.  Mr. Kolar initiates this paragraph with the phrase, “There is considerable evidence…” and then proceeds to provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.  In fact, this was one of the first observations offered me when I asked an opinion of the article of others.  If I may be blunt, this is probably the most outrageous statement in this entire article solely because of this bizarre sentence absolutely lacking in every conceivable way.

Additionally, there has - as yet - been no evidence or documentation provided to indicate that his particular Rupp family background included 17th century or early 18th century gunsmiths.  Why?  Because the records apparently do not exist to verify George’s birth, let alone his family background (see my previous references to the work of Annette Burgert).  The only representations of a background in gun work for this family prior to sons Herman and Johannes/John have been statements made in the late 19th and early 20th century by family Freundschaft groups and gatherings.  Finally, since there are absolutely no surviving period documents of his youth, how on earth could anyone describe him as a “…most superior and talented young man?”  There is nothing of the period describing him as such, and while I’m positively certain that his later descendants may have chosen to describe him in this manner to the editors of the county histories, familial remembrances rendered a century or more after the life of a given individual do not carry any water whatsoever without supporting documentation.  There is none.

[spgordon]

Apparently in 1788 many inhabitants of Northampton county petitioned to have the county divided. I don't know anything about this petition--and Lehigh County was only carved out from Northampton in 1812. The petition is a long scroll: over one thousand people signed it and it took about 20 photographs to capture the whole scroll.

But look who signed the petition:





Note that Herman signs his name in "Latin" script but Georg in German script.

[Eric Kettenburg]

That is some awesome piece of paper!  Where is that located?  Also, I might add that his "R" in Rupp is clearly a German script "R" and reinforces the assertion that the dude knew how to write, and the letter in the 1750 'Brothers' list is not an R but indeed most likely a K.  Also he clearly is using two 'p' letters at the end of his surname, not one.  I also love to see the u-hook.  The John Rupp rifle were are currently debating - at Sotheby's next month - also seems to my eye to utilize the u-hook in the surname signature.  I don't think it's a random mark.

Spectacular find there Scott.

[spgordon]

It's among the vast Northampton County papers at HSP, which spread through 6 boxes and 116 volumes. All I can tell you is that it is in this box:



I remembered this petition and thought there was a chance that they signed it?

The only description of what's in all these boxes is the long paragraph below--and you need to rely on the desk person to know where the eff any particular item is among the 6 boxes and 116 volumes:

https://discover.hsp.org/Record/ead-0456/Description#tabnav

The collection deals with the founding and early settlement of Northampton County. It reflects the character and nationality of the settlers, religion, commercial and land enterprises, Indian warfare, and includes letters and documents of men who were prominent in the economic development of the country. There are: land warrants, 1734-1887; surveys, 1705-1886; deeds, 1689-1867; correspondence, 1743-1804; field notes of surveys, 1768-1865; minutes of the Board of Property, 1776-1779; wills, administration accounts, 1682-1860; accounts, 1775-1855; bonds and agreements, 1742-1880; pleas and prosecutions, 1753-1848; tax list, 1816; and miscellaneous papers on land transactions, and municipal, legal, political and domestic affairs, 1706-1880. The collection also contains: commissioners minutes and accounts, 1755-1782; provincial tax assessments, 1767-1782; Northampton County, assessments, 1768-1793; tax rates, 1762-1789; funding tax, 1789; state tax, 1782; supplementary tax, 1781; county treasurer's accounts, 1754-1770; miscellaneous assessments, 1808-1815; indentures, land warrants, petitions for roads, taverns, creation of new townships, oaths of allegiance, indictments, criminal proceedings, details of Indian warfare, military defenses, requests for provisions, arms, ammunition for forts and garrisons, letters on the Moravians in Bethlehem, the Nazareth community, 1727-1858. Among the letters are those of: Edward Biddle, William Bradford, Henry Engel, James Hamilton, Timothy Horsfield, Robert Levers, Thomas Mifflin, Thomas McKean, Jacob Orndt, William Parsons, Richard Peters, Nicholas Scull, Jonathan Sergeant, William Shippen, Bishop Spangenberg, Daniel Stroud, Edward Tilghman, Conrad Weiser, and others. Included in the collection are: provincial tax receipts, 1776; duplicates for county tax, 1770; tax and assessment book, 1779; county tax, 1786; duplicates of provincial tax, 1789; duplicates of county tax, 1766, 1788; letters and documents on the Revolutionary War, transportation, litigations, commerce, politics, grand jury, indictments, marriage contracts, domestic affairs, 1749-1783; surveys, surveyors' returns to the general office, 1776-1865; tax lists, papers on the Continental Army, Connecticut claimants, muster rolls, bonds, legal instruments, list of constables, 1765-1859; Bethlehem materials, letters about the number of people killed by the Indians, 1755-1757, Indian accounts, Quakers and their conduct at Easton, Nazareth community affairs, drafts, bills of sale, 1765-1859. Other papers are: surveys and deeds, 1689-1867; Bethlehem and vicinity papers, 1741-1886, containing letters and documents on the settling of Bethlehem and adjacent areas, surveys and drafts of lands, details of Indian warfare military protection, means of defense of Forts Norris, Allen and Hamilton; petitions for new roads and tavern licenses, constables' returns, records of prices of food; minutes of the Committee of Observation and Inspection of Northampton County, 1774-1777, with Major Robert Traill's report of the proceedings of the Committee of Safety, on the execution of measures adopted by the Continental Congress; manuscript histories of Northampton County, by Matthew S. Henry, 1851, with notes on development of townships, education, religion, witchcraft, trade, Revolutionary War, Indian affairs, court cases, names of taxables, assembly proceedings. Documents on the founding of Easton published in the P.M.H.B., 38 (1914): 110-114.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Paragraph 6:  “Local tax records in America at this time were non-existent.  He may have been much more than a farmer or wealthy land owner.”

As John McEnroe would yell, “You can not be serious!”  True, from the formation of the county in 1752 through 1760, there do not appear to be surviving tax records for Northampton County.  This is only 8 years, and during that period of time, there was a ‘Horse and Wagon Census’ taken in June, 1758.  A transcription of this can be found in the PA Archives, Series 5, Vol. 1.  Looking at the return for Macungie, pgs. 208-209, George Rupp is not listed which would indicate either he was not there (which I doubt), or he did not own a wagon, pack horse or draught horse.  There are then surviving tax records beginning in 1761 and George Rupp is noted upon almost all of them, including the first year of 1761.  Noted, I might add, as “George Rupp.”  Scott Gordon may be willing to help out if you are lacking in record availability.  The records are extant - please don’t claim they don’t exist.

Here is a ‘catalog’ of every Macungie Rupp tax entry I have been able to record between 1761 and 1790, as well as the 1798 direct tax:

http://erickettenburg.com/johannes-rupp-continued.html

As to being “more than…” anything, this is a preposterous way to approach a scholarly or informative article.  Facing a vacuum of documentation or proof, one can not in good conscience use that vacuum as implication of something that is not there.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Paragraph 6:  “During the Revolutionary War he [George] was a member of the Ranging Company of Northampton County under Lieutenant Colonel Philip Boe.  Did he carry this rifle while on patrol?”

I believe Mr. Kolar is referencing Philip Boehm, sometimes spelled in various ways.  I can’t speak to a source of where the information related by Mr. Kolar may be found but under the militia law passed in 1776, men between the ages of 18 and 53 were required to serve.  By the time the War broke out, George Rupp would have been over this age if in fact he was born in 1721.  I am not sure where militia lists may be found for the early War years, as those that I have seen generally list the officers and then merely a total count of the men under their command without detailing individual names.  More detailed lists in the PA Archives series (lists including privates) generally date to the early 1780s and I’ve noted the mentions of the Rupp family members therein in my own research, including George.  However, it is my opinion that this is referencing George Jr., as George Sr. should have been too old for militia service by the mid 1770s.

Paragraph 7:  “If it were not for the existence of another later rifle with an identical signature in script on the barrel… you would probably come to the conclusion that John George Rupp made the early rifle.”

Speak for yourself.  I absolutely would not come to that conclusion.  I would come to the conclusion that a man named Johannes (or John if anglicized) Rupp made all of the rifles signed “John Rupp” because his name was John and I would come to the conclusion that the gun stocker knew his own name.  I would also come to the conclusion that his father George - always known as 'George' in every document of the period, signing his name 'George' as late as 1788 (as Dr. Gordon has recently demonstrated with an original document), and was referenced as 'George' in his 1807 estate papers by his own son Herman - would have signed the rifle as 'George Rupp' had he in fact made the rifle that he clearly did not make.  I don’t believe anyone would “…come to the conclusion that John George Rupp made the early rifle” unless he or she is willing to twist reality into multiple pretzels.  With mustard.

[BradBrownBess]

Has anyone on this forum seen this particular gun in person - I know John Kolar has but I am not sure if he is a member here.

I don't doubt the "post war" research at all. It would be nice if Sothebys actually gave a condition report in detail other than "flowery descriptive language" - the pictures do that.

I find it a strikingly handsome gun (even if a bit clunky) and it appears from the photos to be extremely original - but I don't know if this piece has had more hands laid on it and a better opinion formed as to what all has been done to the piece.

Seems having only 2 known signed examples - and its "controversial attribution" make it quite interesting and rare even if not to a particular taste.

[WESTbury]

I know John Kolar has but I am not sure if he is a member here.

It is a great looking rifle.

I'm surprised that Kolar has not responded, if he is a member of the ALR, or through a friend that is a member. I think that we all would appreciate hearing his point of view.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Yes, I have seen it first hand in the early 2000's at KRA.  I suspect there are others here that have as well.  It's considerably larger than most other rifles of this region, era and style, but I so attribute that partially to the use of what I am positive are some recycled components from an earlier rifle.  In fact I think I will be starting another thread on this shortly to dig into this a bit further, just to get some feedback.  There are many considerations - to my way of thinking - that go into the stocking of a rifle, and while this one stands somewhat outside of the realm of the 'norm' for the area, the larger size and larger cheek to not (imho) indicate an early date, especially considering the carving execution, box style and engraving, and of course most importantly, THE FREAKING CLEAR NAME ON THE BARREL.

There are other rifles of this region that are larger than average, somewhat outside of the norm, including a couple with ridiculously prominent cheeks (Jacob Schleppy rifle anyone?) that nevertheless have never been pushed as being War-era rifles.  Because they aren't.  Rifles are not cookie-cutter items.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'm up for publicly discussing and debating with anyone at any time, and I will do so politely despite being branded a stooge.    I know that I sometimes may allow sarcasm to infiltrate my writing; can't help it.  I grew up in NJ.  I don't mean offense.  My mother always called me a smarta##.

HOWEVER:  an intelligent discussion or debate requires documentation and facts, not opinion.  Dismissing factual documentation that does not fit a proposed narrative is going to raise the hackles of many.

I know that there are quite a number who view this forum but never engage.  On this particular topic I definitely know of a few who have been following it but have not offered commentary.  I'd urge ANYONE to do so, positive or negative.  I constantly hope that others may come across this thread, or my site, or what was posted on the Contemporary Makers blog, and have additional documentation that could add to the picture.  Everything comes to light sooner or later.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Still working my way through paragraph 7 of Mr. Kolar's article and it's beginning imho to get a bit disjointed.  I'll get to that; in fairness, he likely thinks my brain is disjointed.

He addresses a later signed rifle, actually signed "John Rupp."  I'll try to get to that shortly.  At the time the article was written, he seems to have been conflicted as to how to approach the two signatures being largely the same on two very disparate rifles, as the later rifle he illustrates is considerably different.  I'm not a psychologist, but I have played one at times, and the way I read his commentary on the signatures indicates to me that Mr. Kolar himself was struggling with a way to explain the almost-identical signatures on two extremely different rifles.

At the time he wrote the article (published 2017), the signed "John Rupp" rifle which recently sold through Poulin's was still hiding away.  The Poulin rifle is clearly (to my eye) made by the same man that stocked the Kindig/Collis/now DuPont at Sotheby's rifle, including some very distinctive tells in the carved details.  But let's just look at the signatures:

Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's rifle:





The most interesting thing here is that while the signature is essentially an anglicized signature, the "u-hook" or "u-bogen" over the letter 'u' is retained.  And yes, I very much believe that mark over the 'u' is deliberate and put there on purpose.  I find it understandable, especially given the manner in which the letter 'u' is cut, which may also look very much like an anglicized letter 'n.'

Now the Poulin rifle signature"





Setting the rifles themselves aside for a moment, if these signatures were upon any other two rifles not currently being debated, I don't think (but I could be wrong - this is a brief opinion interlude) that anyone would doubt that they were signed by the same man, especially once actually viewing the rifles and also in consideration of the fact that there are certainly a few years between the two.  The Poulin's rifle does not maintain the u-hook, although the signature is more worn and the photo is not as clear so I can't say for 100% that it wasn't there.  I don't think there is any evidence of it though.

Later rifle illustrated in Kolar's article:





There is a small mark visible above the 'u' although due to the quality of the print photos, I can't determine if it's deliberate or not; it may simply be a random mark, or shadow, or lint.  A good detailed photo of this signature should be warranted.  Photo quality aside, once again, I think most would be hard-pressed to deny the exceptional similarities between all three, especially if one considers that Johannes Rupp conceivably had a working career of perhaps 25 years prior to his documented death ca. 1810-1816.

If nobody had proposed a pre-War origin for the earliest-appearing rifle - the upcoming Sotheby's rifle - and we as a group were presented these three signatures on any other grouping of rifles, would we really be considering that they were made by different men, or that a man signing rifles as "John" used the name "George" in every other documented instance?

I'm hoping that the absurdity comes into focus.

[Tom Currie]

I'm very much enjoying the lively discussion. Eric, I'm looking forward to reading your updated articles also.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I’m not going to approach this paragraph-by-paragraph or statement-by-statement much more beyond the point at which I left off with paragraph 8, as the remainder of the article becomes increasingly speculative and Mr. Kolar presents a number of questions which he subsequently can not answer.  Those which he attempts to answer are entirely speculative and without any documented or factual basis.  Anyone who would like to review Mr. Kolar’s article for themselves and form their own conclusions should be able to obtain a copy through the NMLRA or Muzzle Blasts magazine.

In paragraph 8, Mr. Kolar does make note of a comparison between the work displayed upon a late (early 19th century) rifle signed “John Rupp” and that of Peter Kuntz.  He asks, “How did he know the work of Kuntz?”  I am not going to undertake a deep dive into Kuntz genealogy at the moment, but if Mr. Kolar were to have examined property deeds for George Sr. and - later - Herman Rupp, he might have seen that the Rupp property/properties were immediately bounded by property of “Dewalt” Kuhns / Kuntz, this being a somewhat anglicized variation of the name ‘Theobald’ and often written as ‘Diebold’ or ‘Diepholt.’  How this particular Kuntz may tie into the Peter/Jacob Kuntz family is a job in which I am not currently engaged, but it is also interesting to note that by the mid to late 19th century, the area on Lehigh County maps known as ‘Rupps’ or ‘Rupp District’ was immediately bounded by ‘Kuhns District’, itself bordering on South Whitehall township.  There’s a rich subject for potential sleuths.





Toward the end of paragraph 8, Mr. Kolar states, “John George Rupp is never mentioned as a smith or gunsmith, but again, his prominence as a large land holder may have precluded any mention of another occupation.”  I’m just going to repeat what I previously stated in post #135:  this is a preposterous way to approach a scholarly or informative article.  Facing a vacuum of documentation or proof, one can not in good conscience use that vacuum as implication of something that is not there, especially considering that at least twice between 1766 and 1781 he was specifically noted as a “farmer” on the assessment lists.  Could George Rupp have been capable of stocking a rifle?  Sure, anyone could.  Prove it, and document a single instance in which he either used the name ‘John’ himself or was referenced in a document as ‘John Rupp.’

[Eric Kettenburg]

Paragraph 11:  “We don’t know who he [John Rupp] apprenticed with…”  True.  In fact, we don’t know if he apprenticed with anyone at all.  There is no evidence that by the War-era, and beyond, every single tradesman must have necessarily apprenticed with someone in order to perform a service.  Clearly, based upon information published by Bob Lienemann, the Moravians at Bethlehem and Christian’s Spring were maintaining somewhat of the old European system of master/apprentice relationships.  Yet, it is very possible - speculatively - that the War created turmoil within this system.  And interesting case study can be made with the example of a man named Michael Schrader/Schroeder whose name is spelled in a variety of creative ways in the assessments for Salisbury Township and eventually Northampton Town (Allentown).  In 1764, Michael “Schreader” was tax collector for Salisbury Township which initially also included Northampton Town (Allentown).  He was subsequently taxed as Michael “Shredder” in one 1765 list and “Shroeder” in a detailed 1765 list for Salisbury, which noted him as owning a total of 122 acres, 3 horses, 4 cattle and 2 sheep.  By 1770 Michael “Shroeder” is taxed in Northampton Town, no trade, and 1772 again as “Shreder” with no trade listed.  By 1776, Michael “Shraeder” owns a tavern in Northampton Town, but then in 1779 Michael “Shrader” is a “G’Smith.”  In 1781 Michael “Shrader” is in Northampton Town wth no trade listed, again in 1785 and 1786 (“Shreader”) and in 1787 and 1789 he is noted as a “B’smith.”  The long and short of it is, to my way of thinking, that people historically as now do what is necessary to survive.  In 1780, Johannes Moll (John Moll Sr.) was taxed in Northampton Town as a “Tailor” and his father-in-law, Abraham Rinker, was taxed as a “Hatter.” (PHMC MF roll 331)  There is no doubt Johannes Moll was a gunsmith, but by 1780, the armory/armories in Allentown had been shuttered and Northampton County ‘dried up’ relatively speaking relative to what had been going on ca. 1777 through early 1779.  As the War effort shifted back east to the mid-Atantic coast and points south, and imported French and Dutch arms filled the vacuum of the early years, the need for gunsmiths and/or gunstockers in Northampton County may have been quite diminished.  There was a definitely a continental 'shoe factory' there through the early 1780s, and possibly other establishments to support the state cause; being on the state payroll was certainly more of a guaranteed source of income than private solicitations, and it is not clear to me how firmly Pennsylvania may have been insisting upon gunsmiths working solely for the state cause by that point in the War.  Philadelphia was retaken from the British by 1779 and multiple repair facilities were able to resume in that city rather than the ‘backwoods’ of Northampton County.

Kolar notes in paragraph 11 that “This John Rupp, could have created the early rifle [the rifle in question] in his second or third year of apprenticeship in 1777 or 1778.”  Again, this is assuming he served a formal apprenticeship and assuming his birth date of 1762 is accurate, which is in no way certain.  For all we know, he may have picked up a knowledge of gunsmithing by helping his brother Herman.  Did Herman serve a formal apprenticeship?  There is no way to know this either, although it is interesting to observe that the only two signed rifles extant of Herman Rupp are dated 16 years apart (1793 and 1809) and yet are almost identical in appearance -  a mechanical and unthinking similarity being evident between the two.  This type of similarity does not seem to be present in the signed or attributed rifles of John Rupp.  Furthermore, the question that begs an answer: if John Rupp was involved in a formal apprenticeship and was only in “…his second or third year of apprenticeship…” at the time he made this rifle - in order to fit the narrative - why would we then assume that he would be permitted to sign a shop product with his own name?  I am not aware of any situation in which this would be considered acceptable in light of what is currently known of 18th century apprentice and journeyman practice.

In paragraph 13, Mr. Kolar invites the question as to whether John Rupp might have apprenticed with “William Moll (1712-1780), John Moll (1746-1794) or Peter Neihardt (1743-1813).”  First of all, there is absolutely no evidence AT ALL that a man named William Moll existed, let alone was a practicing gunsmith or existed with firm birth/death dates.  This is entirely second or third hand speculation based upon absolutely nothing of documented substance.  Johannes / John Moll Sr. has been documented in Rockland twp, Berks Co. by 1752-1753 (warrantee maps), and was noted as a gunsmith on a 1763 indenture when he sold his Rockland twp. property before moving to Northampton Town.  Therefore, this proposed birthdate of 1746 is absolutely an impossibility and once again is solely based upon second or third hand ‘Ancestry-type’ information.  I am not in any way denying that John Moll Sr. may have been a basis for an apprenticeship of some kind:  in fact, I firmly believe (my own speculation) that Johannes Moll was the primary design and style source for what later became the ‘Lehigh’ style of rifle making.  If the Rupp’s apprenticed formally with anyone, I strongly suspect it was Moll - my speculation.  Peter Neihardt is also a potential candidate, however he was not documented in period records as a gunsmith until 1789 despite an extant rifle firmly dated 1787.  Nevertheless, there is no evidence that anyone other than Moll was working as a gunsmith prior to the War in the Allentown or Macungie area.

[spgordon]

... the Moravians at Bethlehem and Christian’s Spring were maintaining somewhat of the old European system of master/apprentice relationships.

We really know next to nothing about how the Moravian apprentice system worked in Pennsylvania. I really wish somebody would do a deep dive into what we can learn from the archives about apprenticeship generally in these Moravian communities. What we would learn from other trades surely worked exactly the same for the gunmaking trade. What is clear from what little I have seen in the archive is that Moravian authorities quickly learned that in settlement communities such as Bethehem or Christiansbrunn or Lititz it couldn't function like an "old world" system.

A. Boys were typically apprenticed to master: BUT, if a Moravian boy was assigned to a Moravian shoemaker, and that Moravian shoemaker was, a year or two later, dismissed from the community--according to an apprentice agreement, the boy was bound to the master and so the master could legally take the boy. Not acceptable!--the Moravians were not going to let a devout boy leave with a expelled master. So agreements had to be different.

B. Also, the church's needs superseded any arrangement between master and apprentice. So, if a Moravian boy was assigned to a Moravian shoemaker in Lititz and then, a year or two later, there was an urgent need for shoes in North Carolina, the church always reserved the right to reassign that boy. So much for the apprenticeship agreement.

C. The wanderjahr just wouldn't work: the Moravian church isn't going to allow its devout boys to wander out in the world (ever). Maybe, if arrangements could be made, a boy could go learn from another Moravian (J. Joseph Henry went to study briefly with Henry Albright, who was still a Moravian though he had left Moravian settlement communities). But I would guess such things were unusual rather than expected.

D. The housing and other aspects of the agreement (responsibilities of the master) didn't fit settlement communities. William Henry II's apprentices could not live in his house because he had daughters--unmarried boys and unmarried girls (who weren't family) could not live under one roof. Again, not a problem in the "world" but a major one in Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lititz, etc.

E. Which Moravian boys completed the standard seven-year apprenticeship? William Henry II didn't: he is assigned to Albrecht in June 1771 and running the Christiansbrunn gunshop by mid 1777. Oerter certainly worked under Albrecht for more than seven years. We have precious few apprenticeship agreements (indentures) for any Moravian trades and none, I think, for any gunmakers.

Boys were "assigned" to masters, no doubt, in all trades. But I'm not sure that anybody thought that the European system could work in this new landscape, for a number of reasons ...

[Eric Kettenburg]

Both you and Bob certainly are much more knowledgeable when it comes to the Moravian communities than I.  The point I am trying to make is that among the Moravian craftsman, based upon info Bob has shared and published, it seems clear to me in a simplistic sense that they were maintaining some form of master/apprentice relationship with a somewhat formalistic nature.  There is not much evidence of this outside of the Moravian communities during the colonial period, although there are some nuggets to be found here and there (our discussion re: Heyne and a Johannes Moll being one) which indicate that some at the least were maintaining this relationship.  But how does the War figure into this?  Speculatively, I would ask:  if someone was hired on as a workman in Northampton Town ca. 1777 - perhaps with some background in joinery, or blacksmithing, or some other 'mechanically' useful ability - and worked there for a couple of years servicing continental arms, might not he be fairly well-prepared to carry on gunsmithing to some degree following the closure of the armories in 1779?  Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say, and stocking up a functional flintlock sure isn't rocket science.  With no guild system in place, who is to say who might act as a gunstocker or gunsmith and who might not?  It seems as though quite a number of post-War gunsmiths were alternately farming, blackmsithing and gunsmithing; might periodic profitability have played a role in which task was most immediately productive?

I guess what I'm trying to determine is how forcefully we should be considering the master/apprentice relationship by the 1770s and beyond, again with no formal guild system in place to act as police.

[spgordon]

With no guild system in place, who is to say who might act as a gunstocker or gunsmith and who might not? 

I get what you're saying/asking & generally agree with it and its implications. And, yes, I guess things were more controlled in Moravian communities--though not, I think, because a European apprenticeship system was largely functioning but just because the church controlled & could control tradesmen's behavior. So the answer to your question above--within Moravian church settlements--was: the church.

Outside those settlements, in the "world"? No body existed to police whether an adult set himself up and practiced gunsmithing. (I think that's your main point.)

Apprenticeship agreements, which still existed, could when used certainly bind underage boys, no matter how skilled they had become, from practicing their trade independently until the agreement had expired.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I have to correct myself; I noted the discussion a few pages back involving Heyne and the boy Johannes Moll, and completely forgot that the information you posted was Lancaster Moravian information, so those two are certainly not a good example of an agreement outside the Moravian church!  Duh.

I appreciate the clarity of the church acting as enforcer in these agreements.  What happens in Bethlehem stays in Bethlehem... 

There are a awful lot of 'Run Away from the subscriber...' (to paraphrase) ads throughout the PA Gazette, indentured servants and I assume some apprentices.  I wonder how many of them were recovered and enforcement actions taken?  Don't think I've ever seen a study of this, although I'd also wonder if it were even possible to approach such a study with enough documentation to be of value.

[spgordon]

I have to correct myself; I noted the discussion a few pages back involving Heyne and the boy Johannes Moll, and completely forgot that the information you posted was Lancaster Moravian information, so those two are certainly is not a good example of an agreement outside the Moravian church!  Duh.

It is a good example!--since this is in Lancaster, which wasn't a closed Moravian settlement community such as Bethlehem or Lititiz. Moravians in Lancaster (or Philadelphia, or New York) did not have their economic lives monitored and controlled by the church. They "just" attended church, more like we do today, and had their economic lives separate from the church.

There are a awful lot of 'Run Away from the subscriber...' (to paraphrase) ads throughout the PA Gazette, indentured servants and I assume some apprentices.  I wonder how many of them were recovered and enforcement actions taken?  Don't think I've ever seen a study of this, although I'd also wonder if it were even possible to approach such a study with enough documentation to be of value.

There is an old book that I have on my shelf--Sharon Salinger's "To Serve Well and Faithfully": Labor and Indentured Servants in Pennsylvania, 1682-1800 (1987)--that I've never read but may have some answers to that.