The Pioneering Spirit (Nenana: real estate, buyer, cabin)

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by karibear

I've been reading all along, and am rather impressed with both sides' viewpoints and extensive research to support each ones POV.

You probably did not look at the "extensive research" done by arctichomesteader very carefully. He has cited two sources, but they don't support what he says in the articles where he cites them.

In Arcticle 114 he cited an FBI web page that discusses the Deringer pistol used to assasinate Lincoln in 1865. It supports nothing he said in the article. Nothing.

All the rest of his numbers apparently are coming from the source cited in Article 116, which is titled "Civil War Guns" and says virtually nothing to support his claims. Rather, it contradicts several of them. He claims the Cold 1849 Pocket Revolver sold hundreds of thousands to civilians and was not used by the military. The cited webpage says the number sold from 1850 to 1873 (clearly covering the Civil War period) was 325,000 and discusses massive use by the military. He also mentions the Colt 1851 model, equally a military weapon whose sales figures are from 1850 to 1873 and include massive military use. Note that 4 million men were in uniform during the Civil War, so the numbers are not unreasonable for that time period, but are abjectly ridiculous when claimed to be pre-War civilian use.

Basically his sources agree with the concept that the Civil War was the beginning of the "Gun Culture" in America, and that in the years prior to the Civil War, during which time the westward migration over the Oregon Trail and other routes took place, most Americans didn't have guns.

I like history, but more as a global thing, not the dates and statistics so much. I'd rather see how certain events cause different trends in different societies. It's the people who interest me most,

That actually is pretty much what this topic should be about. To get a valid perspective on it, it should be studied with exactly that in mind. The dates and statistics only come in when people with preconceived notions of what it had to be start making up history instead of studying it!

The Civil War had it's moments, but overall, to me all it really signifies is that the US was most proficient at self-destruction and encouraging divisiveness on a grand scale, guns/no guns notwithstanding.

The Civil War fascinates some historians, but I'm like you; I just don't see much I'm interested in.

On the other hand, the whole concept of Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, and the phenominon of the Overland Trails, is really interesting! And of course Alaskan history followed that, what with purchase in 1867 followed by the gold rush, it is all tied together as serial sets of events.

... western Illinois where they farmed. From what I was told, they had no guns of any kind,

That is correct. Muzzle loading muskets were expensive, they were hand made and difficult to maintain. They were also unreliable and very poor weapon for individual defense or even for hunting. Consider that the military during the Revolutionary War typically wore bright color uniforms, stood side by side in close formation, and fired volleys mostly with little effect. The famous shots in Concord saw something like 100 milita with muskets, all of which 7 actually fired shots, and they only hit one enemy soldier!

You would not depend on such a weapon to protect your home unless you have that 100 men!

[arctichomesteader]

You continue to quote sales numbers for a time period after the significant dates. The Oregon Trail was first opened in 1836, and migration was intense from 1841 for several years, and then tapered off to relative completion by 1861. You have cited no weapons that were sold prior to the last twilight of that migration. They could not have been an influence over the 10 or 20 years prior to the period in question.

In addition you are citing pistols, not long guns. What has been mentioned, numerous times, is the fact that muzzle loading long guns were the weapons of choice for accidental gunshot deaths.

So did Americans just suddenly become interested in carrying guns when Colt's revolvers came out?

Few such records survive.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

So did Americans just suddenly become interested in carrying guns when Colt's revolvers came out?

No, obviously not. Colt was making revolvers in the 1830's... and nobody was buying them.

Few such records survive.

I'm not sure what you mean. You've been citing URLs for records, but claiming they say other than what they do. In fact, the records are available, though I doubt that much of it is on the Internet.

But we can find hints of those records... for example the URL you cited mentioned 250,000 Colt Model 1851 revolvers, but didn't point out that 42,000 of those were manufactured in England. Another webpage did mention that, but didn't indicate that they were shipped to the US. An even different webpage (discussing one specific revolver that was for sale) indicated that the serial number was for an English made version that was imported. (That particular gun also had a US Army officer's name engraved on it.)

Clearly the Colt records for serial numbers do exist. They would also indicate the dates of manufacture.

Regardless of that, consider your figures for only 15,000 Deringers being sold over multiple decades prior to the Civil War. Note that Colt started making revolvers in 1837, and barely sold a few thousand before at least the 1850s. The Patterson (1837) didn't sell at all. The Walker (1847) only sold 1,100. The Dragoon (1848) sold 15,000 before the Civil War.

What brought on the "Gun Culture" of America was a combination of at least two new events, coupled with a bit of history. The history is of course the idea (which you are so taken with yourself) that Americans are and should be gun toting adventurers! As noted previously, we saw that with the way everyone ran off to shoot a buffalo the first time a wagon train came across a herd. But while Americans had that in their concept of history, they didn't have either a real need for guns nor were guns readily available... until the Civil War.

But even then it isn't just the mere availability of guns that changed, it was also the usefulness too. Technology rapidly advanced between say 1840 and 1870 or 1880. Those wagon trains were using muzzle loaders, which were expensive, difficult to maintain, and not exactly the most accurate wapon ever made. But they did need guns! (Their perception of the need may have been grossly exaggerated, which apparently contributed to the accident rate.) They needed to hunt.

But the Civil War put not a few thousand weapons into society, but literally millions! And after the war the "Wild West" soaked up the disgundled, the adventurous, and it surrounded those who had migrated before the war too. Suddenly the entire western half of the continent was a place where guns were necessary and the populaton was increasing.

In addition, the weapons became much more accurate, much more reliable, and much less expensive. (Supposedly the Colt Model 1851 owned by General Lee was fired after his death. It had sat, loaded but not used for 7 years, and every single chamber fired!)

And we have had no reason to revert, since the Civil War, to a less Gun Culture type of society!

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

No, obviously not. Colt was making revolvers in the 1830's... and nobody was buying them.I'm not sure what you mean. You've been citing URLs for records, but claiming they say other than what they do. In fact, the records are available, though I doubt that much of it is on the Internet.

But we can find hints of those records... for example the URL you cited mentioned 250,000 Colt Model 1851 revolvers, but didn't point out that 42,000 of those were manufactured in England. Another webpage did mention that, but didn't indicate that they were shipped to the US. An even different webpage (discussing one specific revolver that was for sale) indicated that the serial number was for an English made version that was imported. (That particular gun also had a US Army officer's name engraved on it.)

Clearly the Colt records for serial numbers do exist. They would also indicate the dates of manufacture.

Regardless of that, consider your figures for only 15,000 Deringers being sold over multiple decades prior to the Civil War. Note that Colt started making revolvers in 1837, and barely sold a few thousand before at least the 1850s. The Patterson (1837) didn't sell at all. The Walker (1847) only sold 1,100. The Dragoon (1848) sold 15,000 before the Civil War.

What brought on the "Gun Culture" of America was a combination of at least two new events, coupled with a bit of history. The history is of course the idea (which you are so taken with yourself) that Americans are and should be gun toting adventurers! As noted previously, we saw that with the way everyone ran off to shoot a buffalo the first time a wagon train came across a herd. But while Americans had that in their concept of history, they didn't have either a real need for guns nor were guns readily available... until the Civil War.

But even then it isn't just the mere availability of guns that changed, it was also the usefulness too. Technology rapidly advanced between say 1840 and 1870 or 1880. Those wagon trains were using muzzle loaders, which were expensive, difficult to maintain, and not exactly the most accurate wapon ever made. But they did need guns! (Their perception of the need may have been grossly exaggerated, which apparently contributed to the accident rate.) They needed to hunt.

But the Civil War put not a few thousand weapons into society, but literally millions! And after the war the "Wild West" soaked up the disgundled, the adventurous, and it surrounded those who had migrated before the war too. Suddenly the entire western half of the continent was a place where guns were necessary and the populaton was increasing.

In addition, the weapons became much more accurate, much more reliable, and much less expensive. (Supposedly the Colt Model 1851 owned by General Lee was fired after his death. It had sat, loaded but not used for 7 years, and every single chamber fired!)

And we have had no reason to revert, since the Civil War, to a less Gun Culture type of society!

Colt's first revolver failed in part because of its fragility, complexity, and partly because of economic problems that affected the entire country. Once the Walker came out, business boomed.

Where do you get "a few thousand" regarding Colt pre-civil war? Sources please...

There is lots of info. available on Colt. Most arms makers in the 1830's and 40's were small local businesses, and few of the records of such businesses survive.

I'd argue against your statements that muzzleloading rifles aren't accurate. I own and have fired many, they're quite accurate.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Colt's first revolver failed in part because of its fragility, complexity, and partly because of economic problems that affected the entire country. Once the Walker came out, business boomed.

Where do you get "a few thousand" regarding Colt pre-civil war? Sources please...

Probably the best source to cite here... is YOU!

You've tried everything you can to find data indicating high sales figures prior to the Civil War, and have failed totally.

There is lots of info. available on Colt. Most arms makers in the 1830's and 40's were small local businesses, and few of the records of such businesses survive.

There is no indication that any of them were making large numbers of weapons, and there is no indication that all put together they made any huge number of weapons. Even the numbers bought by the military were relatively miniscule compared to what happened during the Civil War.

I'd argue against your statements that muzzleloading rifles aren't accurate. I own and have fired many, they're quite accurate.

You would argue with your mother over whether you survived birth if that were an indication that guns just weren't inherently part of every American's life prior to the civil war.

However, muzzleloaders as they existed prior to 1840 were prone to any number of faults, misfiring being the most obvious problem. You can't hit a target when the weapon does not fire correctly...

Apparently most (I don't know the percentages) of the muzzleloaders were muskets, which are smooth bore as opposed to rifles, and had an effective range of perhaps 50 yards.

Your use of modern power etc. of course is a relatively different environment, and yet even muzzleloader rifles today are not nearly the weapon that other modern designs are. Regardless, comparing a modern muzzleloading rifle, using modern bullets and powders, to what was commonly being used on the Oregon Trail is a bit on the incredible side.

Here's a good description, from another Internet cite of the kind DannyL just can't get along with (the State of Utah). Note also that the article they provide was written in 1994, prior to Bellisiles book and therefore clearly as much influenced by it as were the 49ers by the Civil War in the way you are always claiming!

Utah History to Go

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

Probably the best source to cite here... is YOU!

You've tried everything you can to find data indicating high sales figures prior to the Civil War, and have failed totally.

There is no indication that any of them were making large numbers of weapons, and there is no indication that all put together they made any huge number of weapons. Even the numbers bought by the military were relatively miniscule compared to what happened during the Civil War.You would argue with your mother over whether you survived birth if that were an indication that guns just weren't inherently part of every American's life prior to the civil war.

However, muzzleloaders as they existed prior to 1840 were prone to any number of faults, misfiring being the most obvious problem. You can't hit a target when the weapon does not fire correctly...

Apparently most (I don't know the percentages) of the muzzleloaders were muskets, which are smooth bore as opposed to rifles, and had an effective range of perhaps 50 yards.

Your use of modern power etc. of course is a relatively different environment, and yet even muzzleloader rifles today are not nearly the weapon that other modern designs are. Regardless, comparing a modern muzzleloading rifle, using modern bullets and powders, to what was commonly being used on the Oregon Trail is a bit on the incredible side.

Here's a good description, from another Internet cite of the kind DannyL just can't get along with (the State of Utah). Note also that the article they provide was written in 1994, prior to Bellisiles book and therefore clearly as much influenced by it as were the 49ers by the Civil War in the way you are always claiming!

Utah History to Go

I have some original blackpowder weapons, using real blackpowder (both commercial and homemade), they are quite accurate and reliable too. Get a good repro. of an original and it's pretty much the same except in unimportant details for this discussion. Rifles were popularized in America, not Europe. We were heavily criticized for our use of rifles rather than smoothbores in the Revolution, in sniping at officers. They were quite common, though just like today, shotguns (smoothbores) were very popular.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

You probably did not look at the "extensive research" done by arctichomesteader very carefully. He has cited two sources, but they don't support what he says in the articles where he cites them.

In Arcticle 114 he cited an FBI web page that discusses the Deringer pistol used to assasinate Lincoln in 1865. It supports nothing he said in the article. Nothing.

I was referring to this little tidbit:
[SIZE=-1]

[SIZE=-1]The Deringer pocket pistol achieved its greatest popularity during the mid-1850s and was a favorite of civilians seeking a compact, easily concealed firearm for use in personal defense. Although the Deringer pistol was somewhat limited by its single-shot capacity, its light weight and small size gave it a distinct advantage over bulkier, unconcealable alternatives, and the limitations of its firing capacity could be circumvented by carrying two pistols, which were sold as pairs for approximately $22 to $25 during that time period. The Deringer pistol's ubiquity, success, and infamy as a deadly weapon is apparent in its association with a number of prominent California murders that took place during the 1850s, as well as its later use in the assassination of President Lincoln. The latter homicide ensured the permanent notoriety of the Deringer pistol while simultaneously finalizing the incorporation of the word "derringer" into the American lexicon as a common noun denoting a concealable, short-barreled nonautomatic pistol. Notably, the use of the noun Deringer refers to a pistol manufactured by Henry Deringer, whereas the use of the noun derringer (sometimes spelled Derringer) refers to a pocket pistol of any make.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]With the advent of breechloading firearms, self-contained cartridges, and the Civil War, the demand for Deringer pistols and other percussion weapons declined sharply. In addition to its pending obsolescence as a percussion device, the Deringer pistol's non-martial status was underscored by the lack of a standardized caliber among pistols of its make. Because each paired set of Deringer pistols included a bullet mold specific to the caliber of the two matching pistols, loss of this mold virtually precluded the proper fit of ammunition for the paired set. The prewar focus on definitively military weapons obviated the inadequacy of the Deringer pistol on the battlefield, and sales of the firearm during the war were low. Following the death of Henry Deringer in 1868, the market for pocket pistols opened to competitors eager to apply the breechloading system to a concealable weapon.[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

They were also unreliable and very poor weapon for individual defense or even for hunting. Consider that the military during the Revolutionary War typically wore bright color uniforms, stood side by side in close formation, and fired volleys mostly with little effect. The famous shots in Concord saw something like 100 milita with muskets, all of which 7 actually fired shots, and they only hit one enemy soldier!

You would not depend on such a weapon to protect your home unless you have that 100 men!

A buck and ball load is quite effective.

[BudinAk]

Originally Posted by Rance

Can you imagine treking through this country back in the 1800's? I wonder how many of those gold seeking folks are laying across the state. Bears, cliffs, broken legs, forging raging streams, hypothermia, falling through ice...and all done on foot with hundreds of lbs of gear on their backs. No phones, no planes, no nothing. Heck there were probably a few that went nuts just from the solitude. Had to be a tough breed to venture all the way up here with the bare minimums to survive on. And you know most had no idea how to live off the land here.

You're right Rance! And, in more recent times, this is what comes to my mind:

Alone in the Wilderness, the story of Dick Proenneke, by Bob Swerer Productions

I don't mean to "plug" a commercial enterprise, but this is one fantastic story. A sourdough's life in the wilderness of Alaska. They made a movie about him....remarkable tale. Made me want to go out and do the same, but my wife said "nyet"...

Bud

[DannyL]

And Bud, that kind of stuff is part of our problem.
People see that stuff, read that stuff, and show up in Alaska with a pocket full of credit cards and a cell phone.
No clue about how to live here. I see it here in juneau all the time. And hell, juneau is really easy to live in.

[karibear]

Originally Posted by DannyL

And Bud, that kind of stuff is part of our problem.
People see that stuff, read that stuff, and show up in Alaska with a pocket full of credit cards and a cell phone.
No clue about how to live here. I see it here in juneau all the time. And hell, juneau is really easy to live in.

They did the same thing in Kodiak, too, only it was before cell phones and none of them had it together enough to have a credit card. Just that 'he did it, I can do it, too' attitude. The first summer I was there, there were 3 guys who decided since it was 'only' about 10 miles as the crow flies from Port Lions, they could walk back to Kodiak instead of paying plane fare or hitching a ride on a boat. Took them maybe three or four days to do it, but at least they made it. Very much chastened and very hungry, because they'd only taken along enough food for a day's hike.