Being computer illiterate as I am, I do not have the where withal to scan and download the illustrations I will refer to, but please feel free, if you have access to the material. In Clifton Edom's Missouri Sketch Book, Kelly Press, 1983 on page 7, is an illustration by an artist by the name of Dallas, for Harpers Weekly, showing Border Ruffians coming from Missouri to Kansas, some on horseback, some on foot. A man on the right side of the illustration is on foot and appears to have a "hasty sling" with buckle. Perhaps former militia, but in 1851, the majority "military" action going on in the midwest of note was covert, not organized. Another illustration I wish I knew how to post is found in The Golden Book of The Civil War from American Heritage. On page 23 is an illustration, again portraying Border Ruffians of the 1850s, source: Mabel Brady Garvan Collection, Yale University Art Gallery. Again, some of the bushwhackers are mounted, some on foot, rough clothing, buckskin? fringe, powder horns, no militia evident, and the man in the forefront, mounted, is carrying an American Plains Rifle over his shoulder, utlilizing what appears to be a hasty sling. Now, with my research experience, I would not necessarily rely on only 2 illustrations for a point, but a degree of a point is to be made. These are works by artists of the day, though they may have reason to highlight specific nuances(sp) due to their political stance, they would not have reason to misinterpret something as incidental as a hasty sling. Granted, these men are not traipsing through the back woods of Tennessee, they're on the Kansas prairie. They do not have anything in their hands. The border Ruffians traveled in groups, coming from various and sundry points in Mo headed West. If one or more in a given group being illustrated happen-stance as it were by a reporter of the day, and were utilizing a hasty sling, would it not be too much of a stretch to imply that other ruffians, traveling in their own groups, were using hasty slings? And as such, not as rare as we would assume.
Last of the Mohicans
- Thread starter squib load
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Being computer illiterate as I am, I do not have the where withal to scan and download the illustrations I will refer to, but please feel free, if you have access to the material. In Clifton Edom's Missouri Sketch Book, Kelly Press, 1983 on page 7, is an illustration by an artist by the name of Dallas, for Harpers Weekly, showing Border Ruffians coming from Missouri to Kansas, some on horseback, some on foot. A man on the right side of the illustration is on foot and appears to have a "hasty sling" with buckle. Perhaps former militia, but in 1851, the majority "military" action going on in the midwest of note was covert, not organized. Another illustration I wish I knew how to post is found in The Golden Book of The Civil War from American Heritage. On page 23 is an illustration, again portraying Border Ruffians of the 1850s, source: Mabel Brady Garvan Collection, Yale University Art Gallery. Again, some of the bushwhackers are mounted, some on foot, rough clothing, buckskin? fringe, powder horns, no militia evident, and the man in the forefront, mounted, is carrying an American Plains Rifle over his shoulder, utlilizing what appears to be a hasty sling. Now, with my research experience, I would not necessarily rely on only 2 illustrations for a point, but a degree of a point is to be made. These are works by artists of the day, though they may have reason to highlight specific nuances(sp) due to their political stance, they would not have reason to misinterpret something as incidental as a hasty sling. Granted, these men are not traipsing through the back woods of Tennessee, they're on the Kansas prairie. They do not have anything in their hands. The border Ruffians traveled in groups, coming from various and sundry points in Mo headed West. If one or more in a given group being illustrated happen-stance as it were by a reporter of the day, and were utilizing a hasty sling, would it not be too much of a stretch to imply that other ruffians, traveling in their own groups, were using hasty slings? And as such, not as rare as we would assume.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 90
It is obvious that many of you do not have much, if any experience using a sling. That hasty sling allows the butt of the rifle, carried muzzle down, to be lower than your head, and it will go anywhere you can walk. The muzzle will be down around your calf, but as you step up and over brush, the muzzle also rises. if the brush gets waist high, you simply rotate the gun, still slung on your shoulder. so that the muzzle is horizontal, and in front of your body. You use your off hand, or the hand that would hold the forestock when firing, to control the gun and muzzle to clear past brush. In old growth forests, the trees shade out all the underbrush and both seeing under the trees, and walking through the forests is much easier with a gun slung this way on your shoulder.
I personally have hunted with a hasty sling on my long rifle, in the Shawnee National Forest, in both old growth and new. The only thing that stopped me were the tangles of Kudzu, and there were not any deer trails going through that stuff, either. I also have hunted with a modern shotgun and have used a sling on it to help distribute that weight out my hands when climbing those hills. When you need both hands, the sling is a very useful tool. The beauty of a hasty sling is that it can be put on the rifle in seconds, and just as quickly removed, and stored in your pocket. On my shotgun, I now use a standard rifle sling, with quick detachable swivels. The sling comes off the gun when I take my stand, and the sling goes into my daypack. My hasty sling is nothing more than a piece of " latigo" used for lacing my boots. It takes even less time to make and put on the gun, and has allowed me to climb up and down some trails that would have been impossible to do if I had to always carry the gun in my hands. THAT'S the reason for a hasty sling.
If you hunt somewhere that is flat, and you have no need to use a sling, then don't use one. But to argue that they never were used by long hunters in the past seems kind of silly. These men were, if nothing else, very practical men. They did what had to be done to get the job done. :hmm:
I personally have hunted with a hasty sling on my long rifle, in the Shawnee National Forest, in both old growth and new. The only thing that stopped me were the tangles of Kudzu, and there were not any deer trails going through that stuff, either. I also have hunted with a modern shotgun and have used a sling on it to help distribute that weight out my hands when climbing those hills. When you need both hands, the sling is a very useful tool. The beauty of a hasty sling is that it can be put on the rifle in seconds, and just as quickly removed, and stored in your pocket. On my shotgun, I now use a standard rifle sling, with quick detachable swivels. The sling comes off the gun when I take my stand, and the sling goes into my daypack. My hasty sling is nothing more than a piece of " latigo" used for lacing my boots. It takes even less time to make and put on the gun, and has allowed me to climb up and down some trails that would have been impossible to do if I had to always carry the gun in my hands. THAT'S the reason for a hasty sling.
If you hunt somewhere that is flat, and you have no need to use a sling, then don't use one. But to argue that they never were used by long hunters in the past seems kind of silly. These men were, if nothing else, very practical men. They did what had to be done to get the job done. :hmm:
rudy parnell
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 418
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe ...[that should give me some growing room] we should look at scabbards. Most of the distant travel involved horses and canoes. This implement is far superior to a hasty sling that has been discussed with fervor. Now, don't you just know if slings were in vogue...the Native Americans would have crafted some really spiffy ones. :haha: But," a gun sheath" ie. [scabbards] would work well for rifles and large horse pistols. I will speculate that Early American Frontiersmen were rough and ready with the long rifle minus the sling!
hawkeye1755
54 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,775
- Reaction score
- 0
Here is a special one:Davy said:
and one with a sling :grin:
:hatsoff:
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
Have you read Mark Twain's evaluation of Cooper?
It's spot on and very entertaining.
It's spot on and very entertaining.
Guest
TheNabi said:
Why does someone always have to reduce everything down to this level? It's a movie for God's sake.
It's not supposed to be the truth.
It's not supposed to be reality.
It's supposed to be ENTERTAINMENT! :shake:
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 424
It's not a documentary?
Dale Brown said:
Well, that's why I added my second post. But for some people, a possibly entertaining movie becomes annoying when it is made with ignorance/lack of simple research. I personally watched it simply for an analysis and could barely stand it....but it was beautiful and sure made me want to go back and visit the East Coast again!
TheNabi said:
I enjoy works of fiction because this works for me...
54ball
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,116
- Reaction score
- 1,029
I find LOTM the movie a very entertaing trip to 1757. It is art. Art is an artist's imitation of reality. We get into trouble when we try to make art our reality.
Cooper was a man of his time. In his work you will read things that may offend some of our 21st Century sensebilities. The movie, however is very loosely based on Coopers work. I do not find the movie to be racist. Innaccurate yes, racist, no.
If you mean the way the indians were portrayed as being racist I disagree. Some may think I'm being racist by using the term Indian. I am at least 1/16 Cherokee very proud of it and I do not find the term indian to be offensive at all. I am one.
In my study of history, I search for the truth. This is sometimes hard because a lot of the time history is art. You have to look through the fog of :bull: to get to the truth. Sometimes the truth is unpleasent. A very unpleasent time to live was 1757. Here are some truths from that era to think about.
Fort William Hernry was seiged and surrendered. True. Montcalm let Monroe march his army away armed. True. The French's Indian allies were angered at this, they wanted scalps and booty. True. Monroe was attacked. True. The massacre portrayed in the movie did not happen. I do not remember the figure but the losses were less than 100 and Monroe survived. The French indian allies murdered the wounded British left in the fort and even dug up corpses from their graves to get scalps and booty.True. Many of these indians contracted diseases from these corpses and infected their tribes. True. The eastern Indians burned people at the stake.True. The eastern indians believed in blood revenge and would seek out and kill a transgressor years later, even if the transgression was an accident.True. Indians of the east sometimes adopted white children and raised them as their[url] own.True.In[/url] the frontier it was common for indians and whites to intermingle.True. Frontier homes were raided men women and children tortured murdered and sometimes eaten.True. Indian villages destroyed by frontiersmen men women and children killed and their food stores destroyed so the surrvivors would starve.True.
Modern historians tend lean toward the notion of native americans good, europeon exploiters, land stealers, culture killers bad. The early settlers did their share of atrocities. The fact is the native americans were sometimes the very savages they were made out to be. Honestly in this day and time would you want vast areas of wilderness contolled by the tribes of old? If you tresspass you could be burned at the stake, run the guantlet or your family murdered under the law of blood revenge.
Cooper was a man of his time. In his work you will read things that may offend some of our 21st Century sensebilities. The movie, however is very loosely based on Coopers work. I do not find the movie to be racist. Innaccurate yes, racist, no.
If you mean the way the indians were portrayed as being racist I disagree. Some may think I'm being racist by using the term Indian. I am at least 1/16 Cherokee very proud of it and I do not find the term indian to be offensive at all. I am one.
In my study of history, I search for the truth. This is sometimes hard because a lot of the time history is art. You have to look through the fog of :bull: to get to the truth. Sometimes the truth is unpleasent. A very unpleasent time to live was 1757. Here are some truths from that era to think about.
Fort William Hernry was seiged and surrendered. True. Montcalm let Monroe march his army away armed. True. The French's Indian allies were angered at this, they wanted scalps and booty. True. Monroe was attacked. True. The massacre portrayed in the movie did not happen. I do not remember the figure but the losses were less than 100 and Monroe survived. The French indian allies murdered the wounded British left in the fort and even dug up corpses from their graves to get scalps and booty.True. Many of these indians contracted diseases from these corpses and infected their tribes. True. The eastern Indians burned people at the stake.True. The eastern indians believed in blood revenge and would seek out and kill a transgressor years later, even if the transgression was an accident.True. Indians of the east sometimes adopted white children and raised them as their[url] own.True.In[/url] the frontier it was common for indians and whites to intermingle.True. Frontier homes were raided men women and children tortured murdered and sometimes eaten.True. Indian villages destroyed by frontiersmen men women and children killed and their food stores destroyed so the surrvivors would starve.True.
Modern historians tend lean toward the notion of native americans good, europeon exploiters, land stealers, culture killers bad. The early settlers did their share of atrocities. The fact is the native americans were sometimes the very savages they were made out to be. Honestly in this day and time would you want vast areas of wilderness contolled by the tribes of old? If you tresspass you could be burned at the stake, run the guantlet or your family murdered under the law of blood revenge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I'll keep out of politics ( other than: I don't agree that the ends - comfortable white rule - justify the means), but I was simply noting that there are many innaccuracies in the movie. Starting with some of the character's names.
As you pointed out, there are many correct aspects of the movie as well. I guess because I was specifically writing a paper on the movie, I wasn't able to get into it as much as I would if I just watched it for fun.
As you pointed out, there are many correct aspects of the movie as well. I guess because I was specifically writing a paper on the movie, I wasn't able to get into it as much as I would if I just watched it for fun.
mikee51848
54 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,599
- Reaction score
- 2
TheNabi said:
Wow.... are you related to this former member?
one more thing-54ball said:
I think you have an interesting perspective that I have found innacurately shared amongst many outdated gun books that I have read. If you study the initial contacts of Natives and Europeans, you will see that the vast majority of the meetings were peaceful until the search for gold and other commodities led towards violent and disgusting treatment towards many different tribes. Time and time again, treaties were made and broken.
I think how you skew the perspective is by forgetting how the Europeans invaded the native lands. The idea of manifest destiny is still accepted in the minds of many today. As though we somehow deserved North America more than anyone else. They absolutely did steal, massacre, and commit genocide to many tribes, to the point that not much was left.
It was true that some tribes were violent and were warring with each other before european contact. But if you actuallu study this history and compare it to genocide, murder, or the treatment of natives, it just ends up sounding like one is justifying what happened, which was wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
This discussion started with the question, "How long was the long rifle carried by DANIEL DAY LEWIS?"
Please, let's not turn it into a debate over who has committed the largest percentage of atrocities.
Please, let's not turn it into a debate over who has committed the largest percentage of atrocities.
Claude said:
There was an interesting article on hollywood longrifles in one of Dixie's BP Annuals that covered DDL's Kill-deer. If I remember correctly, the gunsmith tried to convince either the producer or the director to use a short barreled rifle, something more common on the frontier. I think maybe a transitgion rifle, but they insisted on the overly long rifle we see in the movie. since he was called "la longe Carabine"
Cpl.Parker
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 1
What is attached to the wampum strap? Anyone?
Thanks
K
[/quote]
Here is a special one:
and one with a sling :grin:
:hatsoff: [/quote]
Thanks
K
[/quote]
Here is a special one:
and one with a sling :grin:
:hatsoff: [/quote]
