View the H-OIEAHC Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-OIEAHC's January 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-OIEAHC's January 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
To: H-NET/OIEAHC Electronic Association in Early American Studies <H-OIEAHC@H-NET.MSU.EDU> Reply-to: clayton@claytoncramer.com X-Mailer: V-webmail 1.4.2 ( http://www.v-webmail.co.uk/ ) Delivered-to: H-OIEAHC@H-NET.MSU.EDU Original-recipient: rfc822;saillant@vmh.cc.wmich.edu > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:32:42 -0800 > From: "Jack N. Rakove" <rakove@stanford.edu> > this up). The letter, as best I recall, was from one of the Israel Chapins > (sr. or jr.) who served as federal agents to the Iroquois in the early > 1790s, when the remnants still residing in the western reaches of NY were > maintaining an uneasy neutrality during the Indian war of the > not-so-distant Ohio Valley. The point of the letter was that amid mounting > reports that some of the Iroquois (mostly Seneca, I suppose) were leaning > toward entering the conflict, many of the white settlers were getting > nervous about their own security--at which point Chapin interjected a > comment that many or most them lacked arms. This comment would, of course, > strike the Bellesiles critics, and others, as counter-intuitive, which of > course is what made it so interesting because one would always assume that, > other than southern slaveholders, frontier settlers living in some > proximity to potentially hostile Indians in a time of active conflict would > be the first category of the population we would expect to be well-armed. It certainly seems that the level of armament of New England colonists declines as the 18th century advances, primarily because Indians became less and less of a security issue. Many of the laws requiring you to bring your guns to church in New England are 17th century, and are clearly specific to fear of Indian attack. In the South, these same laws exist, but while based on fear of Indian attack in the 17th century, seem to be primarily based on fear of slave rebellion in the 18th century. (I have the images of these states for Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia on my web site at http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary.html#MilitiaLaws.) The more interesting question is whether this was a localized shortage of arms or not. My examination of travel accounts suggests that this was atypical. Another point worth considering is whether "arms" meant all guns, or specifically muskets. For example, some documents from the early Republic refer to "fire arms and rifles." A rifle as a military arm was fairly specialized because they were slow to reload. Fowling pieces were widely owned for hunting, but would be considered a less than adequate military arm, because they were too low a caliber. Another area where confusion is surprisingly easy in colonial and early Republic documents is that handguns were not "guns." Only what we would call long guns today were called guns. I've read many accounts that refer to "guns and pistols," clearly distinguishing them. Clayton E. Cramer clayton@claytoncramer.com http://www.claytoncramer.com Being a citizen of the Republic is not a spectator sport.
|