Yet More Evidence That Bellesiles Was Wrong About Guns in Colonial America

Freeman's George Washington, Vol. III ^ | April 24, 1775 | John Rowe

[Pharmboy]

Coming to the close of Freeman's Vol III (of VII) biography of the General (Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, Volume III, Planter and Patriot, Scribners, New York, 1948), I came across the following footnote on page 576.

Please note that the link I provided above is NOT to the 7-volume bio but rather the one-volume condensation by Harwell. The footnote (number 161) refers to a discussion in the text about arms being turned in by the militia after serving in Boston (so new unarmed recruits could use them) and going back to the farm:

In the open country and the villages, the ownership of arms was general, though doubtless many persons possessed worthless firelocks that had been passed from father to son. The surprise to the student is in the large number of arms held by city dwellers. John Rowe noted (Letters and Diary, 292, April 24, 1775), that on order of General Gage, the people of Boston turned in 2,674 small arms. As the population of Boston was then 15,000 or approximately that, one small arm was delivered for every 5.6 inhabitants. Doubtless many other arms were concealed.

[Pharmboy]

I post this in case any gun-grabber that you folks may run into cites the ridiculous Bellesiles "book."

My favorite quote: Doubtless many other arms were concealed.

[tubebender]

Nice find...BUIMP

[Lazamataz]

He wasn't "wrong".

He lied.

There's a big difference.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

What was the average size of a city family back then? This might approach one gun per city-dwelling family that was turned in to the Brits.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

GOOD CATCH BUMPS

[patton]

Aren't the two VA laws convincing enough? One required all heads-of-households to own enough weapons to equip the family, the other required everybody to bring them to church, for practice. See the original Emerson decision for exact cites.

The author of this propaganda piece is a flat-out liar.

[Pharmboy]

Okay--allow me to quibble: he LIED and he was WRONG. But seriously Laz, thanks for the point--well made.

[Pharmboy]

Nothing is ever enough for the lying gun-grabbers. But I found that this was about BOSTON particularly satisfying!

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Pharmboy]

What was the average size of a city family back then? This might approach one gun per city-dwelling family that was turned in to the Brits.

Good point. Another way to say it might be 1 gun for every adult male in Boston in 1775--that was turned in. They probably kept two more at home that General Gage needn't not know about...

[Pharmboy]

Duh--"need not know about"

[Plutarch]

You don't have to look far to find evidence of widespread gun ownership in Colonial America.

From David Hackett Fischer's Paul Revere's Ride:

"Most towns expected individual militiamen to supply their own weapons, and acted to arm those who were unable to arm themselves. Newton's town meeting made special provision to arm its paupers at public expense.... Not many societies in the 18th Century would have dared to distribute weapons to their proletariat."

Paul Revere's Ride at Amazon (a great book!): (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195098315/qid=1026522082/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/102-4683113-6552106)

[Pharmboy]

You don't have to look far to find evidence of widespread gun ownership in Colonial America.

Agreed. But I particularly like this source because it gives numbers and it is from and original colonial diary. Irrefutable by today's lefty democrap gun grabbers.

[TomGuy]

...on order of General Gage, the people of Boston turned in 2,674 small arms

So, we can infur from this that General Gage was one of the first pre-Brady, liberal, PC, gun-grabber. It looks like it started around April 1775 and continues today. Doubtless many other arms were concealed, as they would be today if the government tried to confiscate small arms.

[Pharmboy]

A bit about Gage:

General Thomas Gage
By Jennifer S.


He was a British general and governor of Massachusetts at the beginning of the American Revolution. He was born in Gloucestershire, England, the second son of an Irish viscount of modest means. Gage joined the army in 1746 and was aide-de-camp to the Duke of Albemarle in Flanders and in Scotland. His capable service during the Seven Years War in the Braddock campaign, at Ticonderoga and Montreal, and in various administrative assignments, led to his appointment in 1763 as British commander-in-chief for North America.

While holding this position, he was named governor of Massachusetts in 1774, at the same time that Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party, which had happened the previous year.

Later, in a dispatch that reached him on April 14, 1775, Gage was ordered to take vigorous action, without reinforcements. This dispatch resulted in the march to Lexington and Concord on the morning of April 19, which resulted in the first engagement of the Revolution. Removed from command in October 1775, Gage returned to England, where he died on April 2, 1787. Not a great man, Gage was a brave soldier, a competent and devoted pubic servant.

[Pharmboy]

I couldn't find a portrait of Gage, but I did find one of his American-born wife. It was said that he did not have the heart for the war against the colonies because of her.

In 1771, Copley left his native Boston for a six-month stay in New York, where he accepted numerous portrait commissions. His first subject was Margaret Kemble Gage, the American-born wife of General Thomas Gage, commander-in-chief of the British forces in North America (who had sat for a portrait by the artist in 1768).

Mrs. Gage wears a turbanlike swath of drapery, a silk caftan over a lace-trimmed chemise, and an embroidered belt - a Turkish-style costume that enhances her languid pose. Such clothing was fashionable at British fancy dress balls, but since masquerade balls were not held at the time in New York, Mrs. Gage would have had no occasion to wear the costume outside the studio. Her faraway gaze suggests pensive thought and intellectuality, implying that she was not preoccupied with trivial matters. This is the first painting in which Copley depicted a woman in such exotic clothing or in such a state of melancholic reverie.

[Pharmboy]

Interesting point about the movement from the country to the city; however, I don't think there was that much freedom for the young farmboys to come to town unless they were particularly gifted so they could learn a trade (that is, the family needed them to work the acreage). But, as another poster above remarked, the local governments encouraged an armed citizenry.

[elbucko]

The days of carrying out successful armed resistance with guerrilla tactics and small arms against a government as technologically sophisticated as ours is long over.

Respectfully, I most wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. When those of us who posses weapons believe more in cameras than firearms, we will begin to turn them in and we will be doomed as is England and Australia.

[elbucko]

I believe that Internet connections and hand-held video cameras are more effective in our preservation of freedoms and war against the government.

You have made a fatal error in judgement by confusing communications with arms.The camera was the eyes of the patriots in the Old North Church of Boston. The Internet of 1775, lanterns, one or two and the horse and its rider, Paul Revere. Without the Minute Men and their arms, all this observation and communication would have been for naught.

Would you like to be in a foxhole with a pair of binoculars, a walkie-talkie, and NO GUN?
I think not!