- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,458
- Reaction score
- 16,518
First I should mention that Tait's article (that you generously provided to Phil [plmeek] and he posted here) is the only information I have seen thus far from Tait. So there may be information in the other article or piece you recently mentioned about Tait writing on "Short Rifles," of which I am not aware.
Second and to be fair, I must also point out Tait wrote one (now maybe two?) articles and not an entire book like Moller did. (Tait does cite Moller many times in the end notes of the Article you sent to Phil and he published here as PDF files.) Also, I've gone over the end notes of that article three times now and there doesn't appear to be anything there on how Harpers Ferry received those arms or in what condition they were in. So I agree Tait did not mention in what condition the 1792 rifles were in at HF. Actually, that blows my mind that I've never seen or heard of anyone discussing what condition the rifles were in at HF.
Tait does speculate, though he writes the following as if fact, that - "Thus, only the four hundred rifles promised to Virginia for issue to her forces, along with Arms sent up from New London, would have been shipped back to that arsenal, where they would have been cleaned, refurbished [repaired] if necessary, and properly stored." (This was in 1795 when the rifles mentioned were returned to New London and then they were stored there until later.)
What Tait doesn't mention is that Moller speculated some of the 1792 rifles at HF came from the large quantity of rifles that had been originally sent to Fort Pitt and then returned to public stores, following the disbanding of the Rifle Battalions from Wayne's Legions when they were reorganized into Infantry Regiments in November 1796. (Moller doesn't go into that much detail from the info Phil (plmeek) offered, so I filled in some of the speculative information in this paragraph, though it is informed speculation on what the Military did during the period.)
In the following paragraph from the one I posted in italics above from Tait's article, Tait goes on with further speculation to say - "The rifles would have remained at New London [from the 1795 order] when the completion of the storehouse at the new Harpers Ferry Armory made the former redundant." The last sentence in Tait's speculative paragraph was, "Thus it was that rifles lay in stores at Harpers Ferry when Lewis traveled there in mid-March 1803."
OK, I must give Tait credit, because he seems to be one of the very few who actually writes speculation about WHY they would have sent the 1792 rifles returned from different parts of the country to Harpers Ferry at all, I.E. "where they would have been cleaned, refurbished if necessary, and properly stored." I very much agree because that is exactly what the Military did then and still does today. HOWEVER, what Tait doesn't mention and may or probably didn't know is that once the rifles were "cleaned and refurbished [repaired] if necessary," what was done with the rifles once they had been cleaned and repaired at Harpers Ferry? Now, this is informed speculation on my part, but there is no doubt they would have informed Schuylkill in reports on how many they had cleaned and repaired, so Schuylkill would order what to do with the now returned and serviceable 1792 rifles and frankly THAT'S a problem with Tait's and a good many others' speculation, as well.
Going back to what Tait wrote, " when the completion of the storehouse at the new Harpers Ferry Armory made the former redundant." This is one of many references different authors have described as "storehouses, warehouses or Arsenals" THAT DID NOT EXIST when Lewis was at HF. Now perhaps Tait is just using the wrong terminology because he didn't know the correct terminology of the period, but the problem when using the wrong terminology leads people to believe there were such additional buildings there when Lewis was at HF. In fact, there was ONLY one single building that they locally called "The Factory" and we know as the Armory. The SECOND building erected at Harpers Ferry WAS a storehouse for Arms, BUT it was not begun until AFTER Lewis left Harpers Ferry and not completed until 1806. It later was referred to as "The Small Arsenal" after a THIRD building was erected even later. OK, so why is that important?
The One, Single building at Harpers Ferry when Lewis was there was what they locally called "The Factory" and later was called The Armory. This building had three floors. The bottom floor had the forges and some large equipment including a water powered Trip Hammer and wheels that ran straps up to the second floor for belt driven equipment. The second floor was where the rough forged parts were filed and finished and also including stocking and assembling the Arms. The third floor was where they stored lumber to make stock blanks, stock blanks they had cut from seasoned wood, AND any completed Arms they had made, until there was enough to make a shipment to Schuylkill Arsenal - WHERE ALL completed and serviceable U.S. Arms were stored for LONG PERIODS, including many other 1792 rifles that had not yet been issued out. (Moller and others do document this long term storage of Arms as do many period references.) IOW, Harpers Ferry was NOT a long term storage area for arms they HAD already "cleaned and refurbished/repaired" as those were no doubt sent to Schuylkill Arsenal.
So what does that leave as far as 1792 Rifles at Harpers Ferry? Though it is only my informed speculation because I can't give you period documentation, MOST of the remaining 382 M 1792 rifles MUST have been so damaged that they could not easily clean and repair them and then send them to Schuylkill Arsenal. This because those rifles had been there at HF for ONE and A Half Years by the time Lewis showed up.
Now, perhaps there is information out there I don't know about that may show my speculation to be wrong? If so, I'd love to see/read it.
OK, will go on with other problems in Tait's article in another post. This is all I can type at one setting.
Gus
Last edited:
