• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Colt ships arms to the Confederates.

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
As per the U.S. A. constitution the CSA was an illegal secessiomist groupe of states declaring war on the U.S. A.
Blitz
So you think the US was supposed to be held together at gun point? No. Take a civics class, read a history book that maybe doesn't follow the popular version of history. Do you have an actual point to make here in responding to a 2yr old post?
 
My wife’s family history ( or rumors) talk about how her great great grandfather Col. Ruffin fired the shot at fort Sumpter that started the war. Rumor has it that he was drunk and fired on a US naval ship.
I saw posted where Nathan Bedford Forest took in a large shipment of Colt revolvers. He was actually the founder of the KKK
Great connection. A drunk and a rasecist.
Actually they only cared about money
So you think the US was supposed to be held together at gun point? No. Take a civics class, read a history book that maybe doesn't follow the popular version of history. Do you have an actual point to make here in responding to a 2yr old post?
 
Go and learn what the phrase "sovereign State" means. You hear it every four years at every national convention, "The sovereign State of Oklahoma proudly casts it's eleven votes for your friend and mine, John Smith".
If you think you come from a sovereign state try telling thar to a cop when you get stopped for something and be sure to let us know how that works out for you SOVERGEIN ha.
 
It appears that you have made the point for me.
The South never declared war on the North. As I already said, the South seceded and Fort Sumter was on South Carolina soil and deemed a threat to the bay. They were warned to leave the fort or be taken forcefully. Lincoln called up the state militias to put down a "rebellion" and then proceeded to invade the south.


Great connection. A drunk and a rasecist.
Actually they only cared about money
NBF was one of the greatest military leaders our country has ever produced. He formed the Klan because the republican party at the time was forcing freed blacks to vote for them. What it became later was not its original intent.

I ask again, what is your purpose here? You wanna rehash the whole thing all over again? You do realize that people have been arguing about this for 150yrs, right?
 
The South never declared war on the North. As I already said, the South seceded and Fort Sumter was on South Carolina soil and deemed a threat to the bay. They were warned to leave the fort or be taken forcefully. Lincoln called up the state militias to put down a "rebellion" and then proceeded to invade the south.



NBF was one of the greatest military leaders our country has ever produced. He formed the Klan because the republican party at the time was forcing freed blacks to vote for them. What it became later was not its original intent.

I ask again, what is your purpose here? You wanna rehash the whole thing all over again? You do realize that people have been arguing about this for 150yrs, right?
When I was in the US Army I had many discussions with southerns with similiar views although most finally realized the war was lost a long time ago.
I suppose the troops at fort Sumpter should have said Hey! don!t do that
 
I’d be interested to know how you extrapolated the notion from his comment.
How about by trying to justify the act of war on the U.S.A. by claiming the troops at the fort were illegally there. that was the gist of his statement and false by any stretch of sovereignty.
1864 was a long time ago.

Blitz
 
The South never declared war on the North. As I already said, the South seceded and Fort Sumter was on South Carolina soil and deemed a threat to the bay. They were warned to leave the fort or be taken forcefully. Lincoln called up the state militias to put down a "rebellion" and then proceeded to invade the south.



NBF was one of the greatest military leaders our country has ever produced. He formed the Klan because the republican party at the time was forcing freed blacks to vote for them. What it became later was not its original intent.

I ask again, what is your purpose here? You wanna rehash the whole thing all over again? You do realize that people have been arguing about this for 150yrs, right?
Who!s arguing ? The war is long over , almost everyone knows it , but some want to put blame on any one else.
A physical act is a declaration, if you don!t think being fired at is a declaration or act of war you have certainly never been fired at and would not know the difference regardless of the history books you may have read I realize you have a different perspective and that is what you were taught. I have listened to this for years and years many times and will not be convinced of your point of view . History it seems will not be changed.
 
Last edited:
The US Constitution makes no reference to succession and in that sense it was technically not “against the law”, but as Lincoln said, no nation presides over its own dissolution. It’s interesting that in the Confederate Constitution succession of any Confederate state was specifically prohibited. It’s always been universally recognized that any sovereign entity can legitimately resist being forceably disassembled. The southern oligarchs were hot for war and so the war came. It was all very unnecessary. As the Frenchman said, in another context, “it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.”
 
Who!s arguing ? The war is long over , almost everyone knows it , but some want to put blame on any one else.
A physical act is a declaration, if you don!t think being fired at is a declaration or act of war you have certainly never been fired at and would not know the difference regardless of the history books you may have read I realize you have a different perspective and that is what you were taught. I have listened to this for years and years many times and will not be convinced of your point of view . History it seems will not be changed.
No shifting blame. Just the realization that the winning side gets to control the narrative and write the history books and those books don't always tell the truth. All you're doing is clinging to the popular version, which most people do. Folks like yourself seem incapable of having any perspective but your own.

The undeniable facts are that the CSA obviously felt they had the right to secede. That after said secession, Fort Sumter was on South Carolina/CSA sovereign soil and occupied by what was then a foreign military. Unacceptable in any context. They were warned multiple times to vacate and they refused. So they did what they thought was necessary. IMHO, these are important distinctions when folks such as yourself throw around nonsense about who declared war on whom.

The war began when Lincoln's army invaded the South.

Of course, none of this would really be a big deal if people were not still repeating the same kind of vitriol to continue to demonize the South.
 
There's a thread about Colt sending a large shipment of revolvers to Virginia on or right after Fort Sumpter fight started the Civil War.
https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/rare-colt-1860.143300

Samuel Colt also shipped the famous McCullough colts (Cimmaron makes 2 copies of the type) to Texas. Only one of these Cimarrons is called McCullough but the much cheaper one differs only in the finish. It's in blue like the originals were leaving the factory, instead of antiqued like the Mccoulloughs appear today.

Colt only sold 3000 guns made in his large new factory powered by a giant water wheel in Patterson between 1837 and 1842. This included two shipments of 500 to the Republic of Texas (for their navy). This was the only decent size purchase order for Pattersons. The navy disbanded after the war (Texas v Mexico / the Alamo et.al). Texas ranger captains like McCullough, Hayes, Walker took the Pattersons stored in a warehouse that nobody else in the Texas military wanted. But the rangers loved them. And used them.

A few years later in 1847 Walker sent a letter to Colt, an unexpected letter which raised the Colt firearms business from the dead. Colt's factory and all company assets had been seized away from him (bankruptcy) in 1842. Now thanks to Ranger Walker, Colt got an order from the U.S. government for 1000 improved revolvers. This order allowed Colt to borrow money from banks to build a new company, and in a year or so later, another even more outrageously large factory. Before the 'Walker' govt. contract, Colt was not welcome at any bank and few persons would reply nicely to his letters. He was sort of persona non grata.

The rangers (Hays, McCullough) also helped Colt designed the 1851 Navy soon after, and Colt named it the "Ranger" revolver in gratitude.

Colt was a Democrat, not a Republican, and these Northern Democrats opposed going to war. McCullough's rangers were going to leave Texas for the war. This would leave all the isolated settlers in Texas at risk to deadly violent Comanche raids. Colt rushed two shipments of 1860 (early models with long flutes) to McCullough on the very day or some say a couple days after Sumpter fell. It was done for humane reasons, the many debts Colt owed to Texas and it's rangers, and Colt was not all that big a supporter of the coming war, to say the least.

2 of the 3 types of engravings on percussion Colts (naval battle, Indian fight) had to do with the Texas rangers. Had there been no Texas and no rangers Colt might have ended up on skid row so to speak, instead of one of the richest men in America. He owed Texas and the rangers everything.

Back in that day, Northern newspapers attacked Colt for these types of shipments. Some of them called for his arrest. But Colt was quick to announce he never shipped any guns after the word got to him that war had been declared, and that no more shipments South would be forthcoming. (He did ship to border States like Kentucky. And two men who planned to become Southern officers after they enlisted, bought hundreds for their troops). One was Nathan Bedford Forrest who I think bought 500, I forget who the other officer was).

Colt did not remain controversial in the North for long. Colt built god knows how many thousands of muskets for the Union. And about 125,000 1860 revolvers, and tens of thousands of other revolver types for the Union during the war. None for the Confederate States. Colt died in the middle of the war 1862. and his factory burnt down for unknown reasons in 1864. The war ended in 1865.

All the above came from my reading the latest and probably best biography of Colt: "Revolver"
81XnA3c9ufL._AC_UY654_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg
As an aside, it is not widely known that the US government and Northern clothing contractors bought cotton on the sly from the southern states periodically to make army uniforms for their own troops.
 
It started with the Colt SAA in early 1890's, the SAA had a one piece frame instead of the 2 piece frame held together with the wedge. I read an article on this in one of my dad's older colt books / encyclopedias that Colt struggled to find a steel that was strong enough to take the high pressures created by smokeless powder which I believe is 3X that of black powder but was still economical enough for mass production to keep cost low. It's generally accepted that in 1900 at serial number 192000 that the SAA was certified for smokeless powder and were identified by a VP (Verified Proofed) proof mark on the left side of the trigger guard, but up to 1905 there were Colt revolvers leaving the Colt plant without the VP mark and also reports of revolvers without the VP mark being returned to Colt for warranty work and being returned to their owners with the VP mark. it was after 1905 the VP proof mark consistently appeared on every gun leaving the Colt factory.

Unfortunately my dad's collection of gun books mysteriously disappeared from the time dad passed away in Jan 2020 and my mom passing away in Aug 2020 so I cannot verify what I've written above, even the modern day Colt historical experts disagree as to when Colt fully transitioned from black powder to smokeless powder. I have seen it mentioned in several Colt SAA Forums that original Colt SAA revolvers built before 1900 be shot using only black powder loads and not smokeless powder loads due to the uncertainty of the integrity of the steel frames.


Now before anyone calls BS my dad was a huge collector of early Colt and Remington revolvers and Winchesters. I grew up living and breathing in Colt, Remington and Winchester history. Some of the early Colts dad owned included .36 Patterson, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Model Dragoons, a Walker Colt, numerous cased 1851 Navies and 1860 Armies and cased Remingtons.

It's probably for this reason I fire an original Colt 1851 Navy.

Dad passed away in January 2020 and mom passed away in Aug 2020, his gun collection was sold off years ago, he sure left one hell of an impression on me tho.

Attached in an article on dad after he retired from INCO.
Great memories! Thanks.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top