NWTG in the Colonies?

[Clark Badgett]

From Colonial Williamsburg web page .... The use of trade guns used by militia mentioned again ....weird

This particular one is rather inconclusive. There were guns for the trade, trade muskets and trade guns intended for Indians.

 

[Rob M.]

This particular one is rather inconclusive. There were guns for the trade, trade muskets and trade guns intended for Indians.

This particular one is rather inconclusive. There were guns for the trade, trade muskets and trade guns intended for Indians.

LOL !! No matter ... I'm just having fun pointing out the obvious . I'm not trying to convince anyone . I answered the O.P.s original question a LONG time ago ...

 

[FlinterNick]

Northwest guns almost exclusively came over as full arms. They did import guns and parts for the trade. In fact there were very few restrictions on arms in the English colonies, either ownership or going into business to import them for trade.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was about Anglo-Americans settling in lands set up for Indians across the Appalachians. It was soundly ignored, and was one of the causes of the rebellion.

The proclamation of 1763 restricted trade between the 13 colonies and the newly acquired Quebec Colonies, it was focused at eliminating expansion west and also forbade commerce that was not conducted through licensed British Agents. It was designed to eliminated conflicts between native Americans and Americans as well as protect the fur trade by the the Hudson Bay Company generated most of its revenues from in the Quebec Colony and Hudson Bay Colonies. Trading weapons between the colonists and Quebec was pretty much eliminated by a border that was occupied by British Soldiers. Trade beyond that border without a license was illegal of course, licenses were not approved for by most who had held claims to the lands before the F&I war.

While the excuse by the British Government was to avoid conflicts, it was really a desire to control commerce and protect interests for the HBC and its shareholders in England. They didn’t want the competition from the colonies and it wasn’t just about guns it was about everything of value, pots, pans, tools, raw materials, tobacco, etc. The British economic system in general did not permit free trade by the colonists, they were required to deal directly with England or other colonial subjects in America. A simple thing like casting brass was illegal.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/t-05214.pdf

 

[FlinterNick]

LOL !! No matter ... I'm just having fun pointing out the obvious . I'm not trying to convince anyone ...

Having fun pointing the obvious? Well at least we know you dont believe your own BS.

Have a great one.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Although interesting and certainly entertaining, this thread is going round in circles.
The question was specifically about NWTG’s, not “Trade Guns” in general.

 

[French Colonial]

No dog in this fight, don't care for the looks, primitive serpentine side plate and big ugly trigger guard....

But here is my question, maybe it has been answered but here it is.

Where specifically is the "North West"?

And another one.

What differentiates a "North West" trade gun from a trade gun?

 

[mikesto44]

No dog in this fight, don't care for the looks, primitive serpentine side plate and big ugly trigger guard....

But here is my question, maybe it has been answered but here it is.

Where specifically is the "North West"?

And another one.

What differentiates a "North West" trade gun from a trade gun?

Hard to support an argument when none of us were there.
Clarification of trade guns and Northwest guns were used randomly back then. Plus the term Muskets and fowlers.
They might be ugly to some but that's each ones opinion.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Clarification of trade guns and Northwest guns were used randomly back then. Plus the term Muskets and fowlers.

^Incorrect^
A musket certainly is not a Fowler.
And “North West Trade Gun” is not a generic “Trade Gun”.
And when exactly is “back then”?

But then again, don’t let facts cloud up the discussion.

 

[FlinterNick]

^Incorrect^
A musket certainly is not a Fowler.
And “North West Trade Gun” is not a generic “Trade Gun”.
And when exactly is “back then”?

But then again, don’t let facts cloud up the discussion.

Agree ! So how about all those 69 cal harpers Ferry muskets / fowlers that were used in the revolution… a musket is a musket after all

 

[FlinterNick]

No dog in this fight, don't care for the looks, primitive serpentine side plate and big ugly trigger guard....

But here is my question, maybe it has been answered but here it is.

Where specifically is the "North West"?

And another one.

What differentiates a "North West" trade gun from a trade gun?

No dog in this fight, don't care for the looks, primitive serpentine side plate and big ugly trigger guard....

But here is my question, maybe it has been answered but here it is.

Where specifically is the "North West"?

And another one.

What differentiates a "North West" trade gun from a trade gun?

as you can see in the map the Hudson cay company is pretty far in the northwest in comparison to the colonies. After 1763 the northwest was closer of course pretty far away.

 

[mikesto44]

FlinterNick we get your point. But like I said I'm no expert. But I'm wondering that if the ships going up, down the St. Lawrence river. Might have dropped off guns at the forts or ports along the way..?
Your map shows quite the possibility ? Being so many relic locks, serpentine side plates have been found ?
I'm just curious because I like the guns.

 

[Rob M.]

And ....dont get me wrong .....when " trade guns " are mentioned I dont think they are referring to N.W. trade guns , there were SO very many different types of trade guns ...I just think its interesting that there were trade guns listed as being in armouries or used etc.etc. Just interesting .

 

[Clark Badgett]

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763#:~:text=Decreed on October 7, 1763,the French and Indian War.
I see no mention of prohibited trade with Quebec. Nor is it mentioned on any other web source on the Proclamation.
Nor here;
https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/1763-proclamation-of#

 

[FlinterNick]

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763#:~:text=Decreed on October 7, 1763,the French and Indian War.
I see no mention of prohibited trade with Quebec. Nor is it mentioned on any other web source on the Proclamation.
Nor here;
https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/1763-proclamation-of#

Quebec was behind the proclamation line

The proclamation was designed to restrict commerce aka trade west of the boundary line

“In addition, the British government viewed westward expansion as a threat to their mercantile economic system, expressing concern that opening up the west to farming families would provide the colonies with opportunities to gain economic independence through commercial agriculture. While Britain intended for the boundary line to alleviate tensions between Anglo settlers and indigenous peoples, eager colonists largely ignored the proclamation and settled beyond the boundary with few consequences from the government.”


This royal proclamation, issued on October 7, 1763, closed down colonial expansion westward beyond Appalachia. It was the first measure to affect all thirteen colonies. The edict forbade private citizens and colonial governments alike from buying land or making any agreements with natives; the empire would conduct all official relations. Furthermore, only licensed traders would be allowed to travel west or deal with Indians.



and don’t forget the Quebec act 1774 that came later

 

[rich pierce]

FlinterNick we get your point. But like I said I'm no expert. But I'm wondering that if the ships going up, down the St. Lawrence river. Might have dropped off guns at the forts or ports along the way..?
Your map shows quite the possibility ? Being so many relic locks, serpentine side plates have been found ?
I'm just curious because I like the guns.

They couldn’t drop off guns promised to trading posts. This discussion has 2 points of view among those posting. 1) “I have or love NWTGs and want to represent a white colonist and use one, and so I want some historical justification for that.” The same thing happens for fusils de chasse. In defense of this position, so many people have them, and so many suppliers make kits or complete guns, that most folks would assume they were widely used in the 13 colonies between the 1750s and the end of the Revolutionary War. So like Rod Stewart, they look for a reason to believe.

2) Long time students of colonial arms wonder, “Why do these folks (the above group) who express interest in using arms that were very plausibly, or clearly proven to be be used by white colonists during this time frame, not just buy or make guns that were commonly used? And why won’t they buy a few books? Why do they rely on self-proclaimed experts (including me) instead of developing a library that answers all their questions?”

Inexpensive books to buy if you REALLY are interested in documented guns of this period:

For Trade and Treaty
Of Sorts for Provincials
The Northwest Gun
Flintlock Fowlers: The First Guns Made in America

Buy or use the gun you like. At 100% of rondy or primitive shoots your NWTG will be admired. At 40-70% of historical re-enactments it won’t be questioned. If you want to be in a specific re-enacting company and use your NWTG, find an outfit in the old Northwest or Canada or the western fur trade.

 

[oreclan]

His rifle , along with everyone else's weapons , were used up a LONG time ago ....

He may have known my ancestors the Lynn's (or Linn); Andrew and his sons Andrew, Jr. , William, and James. James died on the Ohio River in an ambush. Captain William was waylaid by Indians in Louisville after serving with Clark at the Illinois campaign. Andrew Sr. died in Kentucky. Capt Andrew Linn Jr.(my ancestor ) was called the packhorse general for his efforts on the Ohio campaigns .
I would love to have known what firearms they used. There are several pictures of one of Captain William Linn's pistols ,however in Hankla's book

Cheap to import does not mean cheap to own. Most of the colonial population at the time was extremely poor and what were the best quality imports being sent to the colonies? Imported goods from England to the colonies were often the least quality. If you review the types of fowlers used by militia in museum specimens and in private collections (actual physical evidence) you’ll see that the overwhelming majority of them are made with older locks and inexpensive materials such as sheet steel, sheet brass and copper. Some specimens don’t even have butt plates.

Also, the Williamsburg Gunsmith in the time of colonial Williamsburg produced the best and were of the most expensive and highest quality, not all colonists lived in Williamsburg. Lastly the term English Fowler does not always indicate its imported from England, it is a design, a specific style and pattern.

I happen to own an original English fowler that is stocked with brass furniture that copies French trade gun styling.

 

[Rob M.]

North West trade gun is a nick name that the Hudsons Bay Company " 's trade gun " acquired . At first it was called the Samual Oakes pattern , then just " their pattern Trade Gun " and by the late 1740s and 1750s it was being referred to as the North West Gun ... The nick name stuck from then on . Who gave it that name ? No one seems to know ....

 

[Rob M.]

Although interesting and certainly entertaining, this thread is going round in circles.
The question was specifically about NWTG’s, not “Trade Guns” in general.

Yes ....and the question was answered a LONG time ago .....however ....someone suggested , well stated as undeniable fact , that no trade gun was used in the colonies let along a N.W. trade gun ( which is a certain type of trade gun for you $!&@ folks ) . That is the reason for showing that trade guns , in general , were indeed collected and used even in the east . I certainly agree that a N.W. trade gun would be a rarity in Williamsburg( as stated at the beginning ) but in present day upstate NY or near Fort Pitt ....hardly a rarity .... Any way ....Let's beat this dead horse some more !! I LIKE IT !!! Giddy up m0+#@& f%#&@r !!

 

[FlinterNick]

FlinterNick we get your point. But like I said I'm no expert. But I'm wondering that if the ships going up, down the St. Lawrence river. Might have dropped off guns at the forts or ports along the way..?
Your map shows quite the possibility ? Being so many relic locks, serpentine side plates have been found ?
I'm just curious because I like the guns.

You find those serpentine side plates on all kinds of guns, even old dog lock trade guns and Dutch guns.

 

[PathfinderNC]

This discussion has 2 points of view among those posting. 1) “I have or love NWTGs and want to represent a white colonist and use one, and so I want some historical justification for that.” The same thing happens for fusils de chasse.

This ^^^