high risk but lightly armed

[George]

While reading the old accounts of the early setters of Kentucky, I’m sometimes surprised that they went in harms way while fairly lightly armed. Traveling to or from, by the Ohio River or overland by the Wilderness Road, there would seem to have always been a high possibility of attack, as warned of in the November 1, 1788, issue of the Kentucky Gazette:
“...a large company will meet at the Crab-Orchard on the 19th of November in order to start the next day through the Wilderness. As it is very dangerous on account of the Indians, it is hoped each person will go well armed.”

Yeah, in that situation I would have been armed to the teeth, I think. Not so with some of them.

Running Mad for Kentucky
Frontier Travel Accounts, edited by Ellen Eslinger

Joel Watkins, 1789, returning to Virginia via the Wilderness Road:
“the whole of our Company peraded for the Wilderness which consisted of 26 men & a ***** boy Ten Guns and three Holster pistols and one or Two pocket pistols.”

Slightly more than a third of the men armed with long guns?

George Rogers Clark’s memoir, describing the trip over the Wilderness Road he and John Gabriel Jones made in the spring of 1776, forced to stop and hole up in an abandoned cabin at Martin’s Station because of scald foot [trench foot]:

”...that we were well armed ”” a rifle, two cases of good pistols, and a hanger;... we barred (the) door, knocked out some port-holes, set the table in the middle of the floor, and spread our arms and ammunition in order, ”¦. Our agreement was, that in case of an attack, that Mr. Jones should continue to load the pieces as I discharged them.”

Apparently Jones was only armed with a hanger and pistols, the pistols in cases...in his saddle bags? Even if he had them in his belt, who heads into Indian territory armed only with a weapon that's good out to about 20 yards? That's like taking a duck to a chicken fight.

There were, as usual, exception to this casual attitude. This guy’s approach if more to my way of thinking.

Running Mad for Kentucky
Peter Muhlenberg’s journal, 1784, approaching Pittsburg:
“I have at present the perfect resemblance of Robinson Crusoe: four belts around me, two braces of pistols, a sword and rifle slung, besides my pouch and tobacco pipe, which is not a small one.”

He reminds me of the character named Clyde in the movie Unforgiven who, when chided for carrying three pistols when he only had one arm, said, "I just don't want to be killed for lack of shooting back."

And the only reference I’ve ever collected describing women being armed:

James Knox party, defensive night camp on the Wilderness Road headed to Kentucky:
“The women who were armed, as most of them were with pistols, took position with their husbands....”

Spence

 

[wulf]

Good read....thanks for sharing.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

four belts around me, two braces of pistols, a sword and rifle slung

I like that you also have documentation of a civilian rifle with a rifle sling. I haven't seen many such references, but perhaps I've not paid as much attention as I should.

:thumbsup:

LD

 

[George]

That may be the only reference I've found which is unequivocal.

Spence

 

[tenngun]

We have to keep in mind cost, how much did s gun cost? A healthy percentage of a years wages. Many moving beyond the pale were pretty poor. We like to think rifle in every hand but the economics of both the makers and the buyers says this would be very hard.
On the other hand inspite of the amount of guns moving to the tribes was not enough to put one in every Indians hand. Most fights would be hand to hand and a woodsmans ax or belt ax or a piece of firewood was a fair defense.
It really wasn't until after the AWI that guns started to become more affordable and common. Even then if we think about something like the western mt man period one of the old comments I often heard and said my self was 'many mt men brought their own rifles. In truth most of the boys were issued one from the company, and were expected to pay an inflated price for it from their earnings. When the Oregon trail opened it was some sort of smooth bore under the seat.

 

[Canute Rex]

What Tenngun said. Roughly speaking, in the 18th century in America a long gun might cost 2 to 6 pounds depending on quality and condition. A farmer might net 10 pounds a year and an artisan 30 to 60. It was kind of like buying a major appliance or used car today. Not an impulse buy.

 

[BrownBear]

I'm nowhere near so thorough or organized in saving references Spence, but I clearly recall reading accounts from early contact when much stock was put in the "deterrent" effect of having even a few firearms when the locals had none. Maybe that was fantasy on the part of the explorers, but facing down a few firearms when you have none would kinda "extend" the effectiveness of a handful of arms, even handguns. Even in later accounts when the locals had only smooth trade guns and visitors had rifles, the locals stayed well back.

 

[cynthialee]

you go where you got to go and do what must be done

I have been dirt poor to the point of uprooting and going across the country in search of better.
Threw out my thumb and went across the interstate system a few times. Dangerous and probably a little stupid but when life in one place is untenable you do what you have to do.

These folks with out proper firearms and pisspoor defensive capacity didn't have a choice. They needed to get to newer horizons and the lack of a firearm on such a trip means you are leaving it in gods hands. Of course one would prefer to carry a formidable gun. What can you do...?

 

[Don Steele]

This discussion of the relative expense of firearms in the 18th century makes me wonder if there are any references to the early pioneers into the wilderness of the overmountain region using bows..??
Having a couple of fowlers, maybe even a rifle in your group would be great...but after you've taken your shot or two, you're pretty much defenseless beyond arms reach against an opposition force armed with bows and a handful of arrows.
I don't know if I've ever seen any mention of the early pioneers adopting the bow.

 

[Elnathan]

This discussion of the relative expense of firearms in the 18th century makes me wonder if there are any references to the early pioneers into the wilderness of the overmountain region using bows..??
Having a couple of fowlers, maybe even a rifle in your group would be great...but after you've taken your shot or two, you're pretty much defenseless beyond arms reach against an opposition force armed with bows and a handful of arrows.
I don't know if I've ever seen any mention of the early pioneers adopting the bow.

The early overmountain settlers were pretty well off and well armed. See Henrietta Arnow's works.

After the Revolution there was a massive influx of whites into Kentucky and many of these were indeed very poor and may not have had sufficient weapons (Wonder how many of them thought that since peace with Britain was concluded that there was little threat from Indians too?)

I'm not convinced that guns were all that difficult to acquire, BTW.

 

[azmntman]

Well they may have been a large expense BUT the folks back in the day didn't have an whole lot of expenses either? No car payment, mortgage, insurance (health, life, auto, business etc etc), utilities, tuition, sales tax, county tax, property tax, income tax, FICA tax, city tax, gasoline tax, etc. etc. So maybe forking over 50% of a years salary was not as big a deal as today? If they made $1000.00 a year and paid $500 for a nice accurate rifle it wouldn't in any way compare to today's average family paying 50% of the annual $86,000.00 :hmm: In this world today we "hardly" ever consider forking over 50% of a years salary for any single purchase....we finance it! (I forgot to add interest above).

Apples to oranges in my opinon (which is valueless per my better half )

 

[tenngun]

That's certainly a valid point,later in time cowboys would paint summer wages for a pair of boots or a hat. The other side is valid to often the poor worked for room and board, many came out of indentureships with little. It wasn't that guns were not available but the means to buy things could be dear.

 

[tenngun]

I would also point out back in the old days there was no osha, no 911, no warning labels. Today you can work on a repro sailing ship, but you will put on a harness before you go aloft. They had the tech to do that then but the saying was 'a hand for the ship a hand for yourself'
I emember a tv show that talked about local travel. In the Andes there was a road that went across a valley. It was a ten mile trip.however someone set up a Rube Goldberg zip line. People jumped in line to use it.
Back then there was less concern for personal saftey. They were much more willing to take a chance, even for a very minor payoff.

 

[BrownBear]

There were also the huge land scams going on, the rich and powerful hatching schemes luring hopeful (and poor) settlers west with the promise of cheap or free farmland and an easy life. A whole lot of folks grasped at the promises and assurances of safety in their moves west to the waiting utopia.

 

[Elnathan]

I don't know where Canute got his figures for annual income, but I suspect that they are for cash income only. The farmer would raise most of his own food, so those ten pounds represent the income from his cash crop or side job. Most of that is going to go to the local general store for stuff he can't make himself - cloth, spices, ammunition, tools, etc., so it isn't just "fun money," but forking over half of it for a good quality weapon that will last for many, many years isn't quite in the same category as paying out half ones total income.

Having said that, most folks in the Southern backcountry, White or Indian, were in debt, I think. Among the Creek/Muskoge it was pretty much universal practice to purchase gun, ammo, and other hunting supplies at the beginning of the year on credit from the traders and rely on being able to pay it off with the fruits of the summer deer-hunting trips - worked well for awhile, but as the deer got thinned out and goods became more expensive, they found themselves in a bind they couldn't get out of...with the white farmers it was just a matter of being able to finance tools, and other essentials, and most folks ended up with an open tab at the local store or owing money to better-off neighbors the way folks today end up with a credit card that they can't quite ever pay off completely.

Braund, Katheryn. Deerskins and Duffels: The Creek Indian Trade with Anglo-America, 1685-1815. University of Nebraska Press; 2nd ed. November 1, 2008.

Kars, Marjolene. Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in Pre-Revolutionary North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press. February 25, 2002.

 

[tenngun]

Still people were ofth loath to part with coin, much life was lived by barter. We know that inspit of militia laws requiring minimal equipment that often people didn't have even that minimum. People bought what they could. And there were spend thrifts and penny-wise pound foolish then as now.
I am put in mind of the western trails lined off cast goods, or the trails military followed that likewise had a wealth of cast offs. These people lived at that time and New what travel was like.
Lots of us do the 'poor farmer' when in fact these people were rather wealthy, but... had little disposable income. They were well dressed had fresh meat on the table and a warm place to sleep but had little to spend.

 

[azmntman]

My maternal grand parents were farmers. 125 acres with a mule and a plow (no sons)and a 2x4, for the mule. My mom had no issues with the great depression. They had food (beef, pork, poultry n eggs and of course vegi's), a well, a roof and sold enough to the "city" folks to get the necessities. Heck they made there own soap. :thumbsup: