Scott, did you look into whether the son Martin Baer was also a non-associator? In other words, is it possible that the rifle “officially” had to be purchased by the captain, but went to war in the hands of Martin Baer - if Martin was under his command?
Dave, thanks for the comment. I'm not sure I understand it, though. Do you mean that Zantzinger purchased it as a sort of an "insurance" policy for Baer--since only by purchasing it (or, more precisely, guaranteeing Baer would be compensated for the rifle if it wasn't returned to him) could Baer receive the value of the rifle if it were destroyed in war? That's a very interesting idea.
But I don't think captains would have done this?
Many soldiers brought their own weapons to war. The captains were buying these arms to outfit the
others, who didn't have weapons or didn't/couldn't bring them. This was an inequity (somewhere in the article I quote somebody who said so at the time) but it was what happened: the soldiers who brought their own arms to war risked something (financially) that the others didn't. If Martin Baer were going to fight, he would have just brought his own weapon with him. It would have been highly unusual (I don't know of another case) for the local government to reimburse the soldier for the value of the arm that he carried.
Let me know if I'm missing your point.
[Martin Baer
was listed as a non-associator in Hempfield Township, so he didn't go to war.]
