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

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

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Bellesiles' sin was not that he was wrong or that he slanted or skewed his data, or held the worong opinions, but that he lied. He invented facts to suit his opinions. Any honest scholar must dismiss his book as a fabrication, regardless of opinion about Amendment II.

He took money to do research and wrote fiction. He should give the money back, resign any scholarly posts and begin working for the Brady organization or the Democratic National Committee where the facts don't get in the way of a good story.

[Pharmboy]

It was luck that John Stark and his militiamen were near Bennington that day. This was a particularly bloody battle that killed Baum (he was a German officer that Burgoyne sent out with his divisions from his camp near Saratoga to bring back provisions).

Scholars often point out that the militias' contribution to the RevWar was less than is appreciated, although one cannot deny their importance at Lexington and Concord, Breed's (Bunker) Hill, Bennington and King's Mountain. Otherwise, the Continental Army got the job done.

[Pharmboy]

You--as Laz above--are correct. When I wrote the headline I was thinking more about the fact that he was wrong than I was about his methodology of lies and fabrication.

You--being a Bay Stater--should especially enjoy the footnote.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

As a Bay Stater...

check out http://www.concordma.com/magazine/may99/davis.html

A tranplant to Acton, I take pride in our Amendment-II traditions.

[FairWitness]

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.

It doesn't matter so much whether your means of observation and communication are eyes and lanterns on the one hand or cameras and internet on the other, as it matters that one side is equipped as well or better (either a faster internet, or a faster horse, whichever is state of the art at the time) compared to the other side.

Without the Minute Men and their arms, all this observation and communication would have been for naught.

Just so.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Did anyone notice but me that it was the enemy of the people that was taking up the guns? It wasn't for crime control, it was for people control. "

Ya said a mouthful. We are seeing the same thing today with the feds arming county and city police.

[VOA]

Here's what many Patriots showed up with for duty:

A French 1763 musket.

Side-bar question:
Why so many colonials armed with a French firearm?
Did the British confiscate lots of them once they subdued French Canada?

Or did the colonials pick them up in trade or spoils during conflicts with
Indians allied with the French?

Just curious...

[Pharmboy]

This is a more accurate representation of the musket that was used during the war as supplied by the French; it was known as the "Charleville Musket."

The militia would show up with fowling pieces and old Brown Bess' as well as the French weapons taken during the French and Indian War. The frontiersmen usually had rifles, often made by German smiths from Pennsylvania or Virginia.

Here's some more info. The lack of proper bayonets at the beginning of the RevWar cost us many good men; remember--the most feared single thing on the field of battle during the 18th century was the bayonet charge of the British infantry. One British Colonel was known as "No-flint" because he demanded that his troops remove the striking flint before battle on their Brown Besses so they could only use the weapon as a bayonet:

Selected Bayonet Scabbard Hardware of the American & British Armies 1775 -1783

By Ernest Richard Bower

By the mid 18th century, the angular socket bayonet had become a standard piece of equipment for the infantry soldier. Close order fighting in the age of inaccurate slow loading smoothbore muskets necessitated that soldiers were provided with a practical edged weapon. The bayonet answered this need perfectly. Small, easy to carry and quite deadly, the angular socket bayonet remained a military fixture in most armies until the late 1800s.

A single well trained soldier wielding a bayonet was a formidable foe. Moreover, a line of soldiers wielding muskets tipped with gleaming blades was sure to send fear through almost any enemy. Capitalizing on its practical and "shock" value, period military tactics put great emphasis on massed bayonet charges and many an engagement was decided by "cold steel".

By the time of the American Revolution, British infantrymen were supplied with angular socket bayonets. American soldiers were slower to adopt this weapon because many of their firearms were not equipped to mount a bayonet. The lack of these weapons in American hands was felt in many early engagements, the most famous of which was the battle of Long Island in late 1776. There American riflemen found themselves almost defenseless when British and Hessians rapidly advanced and forced them into hand to hand combat. Many American lives might have been saved if the army had been well supplied with bayonets earlier in the war.

In the spring of 1777, shipments of muskets and bayonets from France were distributed to the American army. As the war dragged on, most of the American army eventually were armed with French "Charleville" type muskets and matching angular socket bayonets.

When not in use, the bayonet was usually carried in a 10-18" long protective leather scabbard. These scabbards were either sewn or otherwise attached onto a waist belt or an over the shoulder cross belt. The majority of scabbards were simply sewn in place. Some scabbards were attached by means of metal clips or hooks.

British bayonet scabbards and cross belts were made to designated patterns by regular contractors. Unfortunately there was no single standard for the army, so even among the British, several different belt/scabbard combinations were in use at any given time. American scabbards were a mix of old British types, French imports and locally manufactured pieces. Even at later periods in the war, there was little uniformity in the belt/scabbard sets used in any given American regiment.

[AAABEST]

Two excellent posts.

Interesting read on Gage. That chick probably looked good with her hair down and no clothes on, no wonder he was distracted. That French musket you posted was also quite a piece of work.

Speaking of the rebels' arms, you also might run into the Brown Sess. Although it was British gun, we got our hands on quite a few of them.

[VOA]

Thanks for the info. on the Revolutionary War battle rifles.
I've been a minor black-powder enthusiast, but mostly with replicas of Hawken rifles
and had a Roger & Spenser Civil War-era revolver.

Don't know if you saw it, but "Antiques Roadshow" that aired recently here in Los Angeles
featured a Revolutionary War-ear powder horn that was beautifully inscribed
with many scenes of the conflict (in sort of a nice scrimshaw [sp?] style).

I can't remember the exact value, but it was something like 20K-50K.
It was nice to hear the owner say (something like) "It's been in the family for generations
and I hope it stays with us".

[Ohioan]

You state Bellesiles Was Wrong About Guns in Colonial America.

While that is unquestionably true, your headline suggests that his research was erroneous. Frankly, while I do not like to impugn motives, where there is any doubt, I do not really believe that anyone could be that wrong by error. His work is not an attempt to find truth. It is an effort at propaganda. In that, I think he accomplished exactly what he set out to accomplish. He confused America's sense of her own history.

Any serious scholar would know that most people do not pass on personal tools through their probate estates. They simply give them away while they are still living, either by actual transfer, or by informing their immediate kin, who is to get what household effects. If he does not know that, he could have learned that by talking to anyone familiar with the subject. Thus the part of his argument, which cited such a study was nothing but an effort to confuse reality with the Left's agenda today. That makes him a propagandist, one who--like those at Pravda during the Cold War, or those who worked for Herr Goebbels during the last World War--wants to destroy American freedom.

Of course, Pravda and Goebbels owed no allegiance to the United States. Their efforts, then, are far less despicable than are his.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Pharmboy]

You are, of course, correct. Others (see above) have made the same point.

When I wrote the headline I was thinking of his premise rather than his scholarship. Bellesiles is a liar and propagandist for the tired old un-American BS of the gun-grabbers; thus he needs to be refuted often. The many NRA-ers that are Freepers (like me) need to be aware of proof from original documents from colonial times which refute his nonsense.

[bok]

Errr thankfully immigrants from the UK and elsewhere came to the US and umm shared their DNA or i wouldn't be here.

[Pharmboy]

Thank you for your kind words. Although (like many Freepers) we do not always see eye to eye on EVERYTHING, I would rather have a Freeper like that with me than a thousand liberals that I agree with on any one thing. Best to you sir.

The Redcoat's Brown Bess By George C. Neumann

(Reprinted with permission)

American Rifleman Magazine

( April 2001, Pg 49 )

It began with a contract by Britain's Royal Board of Ordnance dated September 15, 1714. The document's purpose was not to authorize additional arms, but to develop a system of manufacture and control. The board would accumulate components of a new standard longarm pattern and inventory them at the Tower of London armory for release to private contractors in time of need. They, in turn, would provide the stocking and finishing of the final arms in conformity with a prototype musket (usually bearing an official wax seal). Locks, barrels and other iron components were to originate largely from Birmingham, while most brass furniture, stocking and assembly would be centered in London. All of the parts would then be subjected to close quality and tolerance inspections by the Board of Ordnance.

The new procedure was a brave new attempt to remedy the chaos of arms diversity that England faced at the conclusion of the war of the Spanish Succession in 1713. Unfortunately, it challenged some of the most powerful groups in highly stratified English society. The majority of army regiments were controlled by colonels who were important private individuals with established economic and political power. Each would be given governmental funds to recruit, equip and maintain a regiment. Any money remaining was considered his to keep. Prior to this date, the colonel was constrained only by vague requirements limiting barrel length and bore size for his regiment's longarms. As a result, he arbitrarily chose among a wide range of domestic and foreign patterns of varying quality and price.

Further opposition came from the entrenched, private London Gunmakers' Company that saw this change as a threat to its traditional control of the design, specification and production of England's existing arms industry.

As might be expected, the new system was strongly opposed and then deliberately ignored. Nevertheless, the board's patient yet focused efforts finally resulted in a new musket design in 1722 call the "King's Pattern." Resistance to the new discipline along with the absence of wartime pressures delayed its production until 1728. The new standard musket that ushered in England's organized ordnance control was first issued in 1730 as the "Long Land" pattern. It was the beginning of the famed "Brown Bess" series that would become a legend through its contribution to the winning of Britain's empire and to America's eventual freedom.

[Pharmboy]

And, you are not the only one to remark on the fact that Gage's wife appeared to be a POA. Agreed.

[Pharmboy]

Rudyard Kipling's "Brown Bess"

The Army Musket -- 1700-1815

IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise--
An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes--
At Blenhein and Ramillies fops would confess
They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

Though her sight was not long and her weight was not small,
Yet her actions were winning, her language was clear;
And everyone bowed as she opened the ball
On the arm of some high-gaitered, grim grenadier.
Half Europe admitted the striking success
Of the dances and routs that were given by Brown Bess.

When ruffles were turned into stiff leather stocks,
And people wore pigtails intead of perukes,
Brown bess never altered her iron-grey locks.
She knew she was valued for more than her looks.
"Oh, powder and patches was always my dress,
And I think I am killing enough," said Brown Bess.

So she followed her red-coats, whatever they did,
From the heights of Quebec to the plains of Assaye,
From Gibraltar to Acre, Cape Town and Madrid,
And nothing about her was changed on the way;
(But most of the Empire which now we possess
Was won through those years by old-fashioned Brown Bess.)

In stubborn retreat or in stately advance,
From the Portugal coast to the cork-woods of Spain,
She had puzzled some excellant Marshals of France
Till none of them wanted to meet her again:
But later, near Brussels, Napoleon--no less--
Arranged for a Waterloo ball with Brown Bess.

She had danced till the dawn of that terrible day--
She danced till the dusk of more terrible night,
And before her linked squares his battalions gave way,
And her long fierce quadrilles put his lancers to flight:
And when his gilt carriage drove off in the press,
"I have danced my last dance for the world!" said Brown Bess.

If you go to Museums--there's one in Whitehall--
Where old weapons are shown with their names writ beneath,
You will find her, upstanding, her back to the wall,
As stiff as a ramrod, the flint in her teeth.
And if ever we English had reason to bless
Any arm save our mothers', that arm is Brown Bess!

[TC Rider]

Although I am highly pro-gun, I believe that internet connections and hand-held video cameras are more efective in our preservation of freedoms and war against the government.

The government can turn off the internet at a moments notice. There are nexus in the DC area which if destroyed would disable a majority of the US internet.

And who is going to broadcast your video?

The networks that are forbidden to run your anti-McCain commercial 60 days before the election?

The networks that refused to broadcast the story of Juanita Broderick until internet pressure forced them?

Return to point A.

Ultimately, it's the 2nd Ammendment that guarantees the 1st.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Although I am highly pro-gun, I believe that internet connections and hand-held video cameras are more efective in our preservation of freedoms and war against the government. 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.

Piled on pretty badly for that remark. There would be serious problems if we, as citizens, had mere guns to fight our well trained, well-equipped military [so long as our military were to remain united against us.] The technology gap we would face would be vast, as the Taliban learned the hard way this very year. Thermal vision devices. Spy satellites. Apache choppers. Land mines. Daisy cutters. Infiltrating fifth column agents. And our poorly trained and poorly equipped citizens would have severe communication problems and supply problems. Probably worst of all, God only knows what kind of slanders and rumors would be used to divide us and demoralise us. It would be living hell.

So what you say is actually true. The internet, video cameras, and our rally flags of Truth are much more powerful at this time than that old snub nose under the night stand that no one ever sees.

Fortunately, the more we try to keep the public informed today, the more trouble a future tyrant [and there WILL be a future tyrant sooner or later since people still don't take politics seriously enough], such a tyrant of the future would have that much more trouble uniting the US military against us, when the average military officer is more aware of what is really going on in the world.

However, we need the right to bear arms, as a last line of defense against tyranny. The internet switch can be pulled in a second. Don't forget, as I understand it, the internet is hosted by the Pentagon. Jamming devices could block radio frequencies. Satellite communication would be completely vulnerable. So would phone lines.

True, the war of the internet [the war for truth] is an effort to prevent such a thing from happening. However, the internet is no more powerful than the average voter's willingness to get informed. Sadly, that is not very high right now. People watch Half Alive News on TV and assume that all news is boring. How little they know. I entertained my household today reading one minute speaches by Traficant. LOL. Very interesting. But can we count on voters to get it right? Only rely on others when you have to when it comes to precious freedom. And yes, for all our problems, even low caliber popguns could be decisive if a coup were attempted [high calibre is preferred, however.

IMHO, guns are more a psychological weapon against a modern military than anything else. To hold a gun, you feel empowered. People holding guns are 10 times more likely to resist military force than unarmed people. And the sword cuts the other way as well. Military body armor might make soldiers capable of jogging straight up to you while you are shooting away. But would they? Not likely. They would get bogged down, looking for cover [not sure how much penetration your gun has]. In the meantime, someone would get smart, make homemade bombs, review McGyver reruns, read books best unnamed at the moment, and learn from retired veterans. And, the military would be torn. Discord would spread through the ranks with every week of armed resistance [especially if we do what we can to keep people informed before it happens]. In fact, a single, poorly equipped person can inflict far more military damage today than ever before. The days of guerrilla fighting are just beginning. When I mentioned that to my cousin, he reminded me what the terrorists achieved on 9-11 not too long ago [although he and I both condemn what is done we both recognise the devastating capability of lightly armed thugs, soldiers, or otherwise].

But I'm not trying to pile on. You are right in almost evererything you said. We must not, MUST not look at guns as the best answer so long as we have such vast freedom [to speak at least]and access to information at our fingertips. Some people might even dream of anarchy in the future. Have fantasies about it. And they will talk trash about the value of free speech and political activism. [Such people would contribute very well if there actaully were a coup.] Others are simply cynical about our political future.

I see a different future out there. I see corruption on the local level getting the same reaming out that occurred on the national level. And I see it spreading to other countries. I see people wising up. They aren't as naive as they were a few years ago. We are on the verge of wonderous times, if only we can survive the liberal inertia of the past. Dusty, creaking old institutions that are running on empty, trying desperately to crush the public will.

[Physicist]

There would be serious problems if we, as citizens, had mere guns to fight our well trained, well-equipped military [so long as our military were to remain united against us.]

But that's half the point. If their fellow citizens are unarmed, our troops can control them without killing any of them or incurring any risk. It's easy to remain united under those circumstances. But if American troops have to be ordered to kill the American citizens they are sworn to defend, I don't see them remaining united.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

But if American troops have to be ordered to kill the American citizens they are sworn to defend, I don't see them remaining united.

Not for any length of time, to be sure. However, don't forget that deceiving your crusading followers is an old trick of tyrants. During a communications blackout, each individual unit can be told a line of baloney about this group of people and that pocket of people. And/or you might need to round up everyone in a particular city to find that 'nuke bomb terrorist'. "But don't let word get out. We must not allow panic to spread."

Each unit would be isolated from the others.

An historic example was in Roman times. A manipulating legionaire had his soldiers murder some messengers sent by the Senate. He said they were going to revoke the soldiers' pension plan. In truth, the messengers were going to tell the soldiers that their legionaire was a traitor and needs to be arrested. That sleezeball later took complete control of Rome and had his political opponents executed.

I hope and pray that our nation never gets so immoral that we could have a coup over a threatened pension plan. But I tell you, it could ultimately happen. Our family unit is breaking down. Colleges teach moral equivilency. Population control and enviro-wackos blur what is right and wrong. Class warfare erodes our respect for other peoples' rights. Abotion is particularly damaging to the female gender, but also to males such as Tom Likis who says mothers should abort their children rather than get child support.

Imagine what morality could be 20 years from now if conservatives quit trying to make a difference. It is up to us. Every moral front is more important than people think.

But at the same time, we must discourage those tyrant wannabes as much as possible.

Freegards.....