Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by U201491, Feb 1, 2014.
The British Banned Guns On Our Founding Fathers & It Brought About A Revolution : Freedom Outpost
Arming the Revolution: Amusettes Manufactured in Stafford, Virginia | CMH
Arming the Revolution
Amusettes Manufactured in Stafford, Virginia
A close-up of the lock, bearing the manufacturing stamp "RAP FORGE." The over-sized hammer, frizzen, and pan functioned in the same manner as any standard flintlock weapon. The hammer glanced a piece of flint against a steel upright frizzen that created a spark and ignited a small black-powder charge in the pan, which in turn ignited the main charge in the barrel via a small touch hole, causing the weapon to discharge.
Army History Magazine, Spring 2013
By Dieter Stenger, Curator, CMH
March 28, 2013
Between 1776 and 1782, the Rappahannock Forge in Stafford, Virginia, manufactured pistols, muskets, and amusettes. Defined by the French as light artillery, amusettes also were called boat, rampart, or wall guns. Used for protection on boats or in fortifications, these large, semi-portable but usually stationary muskets bridged the gap between shoulder-fire muskets and artillery. They weighed about 50 pounds, were mounted on a steel swivel, and could fire a four-ounce or 1.2 inch shot
Boston Port Act, http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h650.html, Thomas Jeffersion: A Summary View of the Rights of British America
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
Loads of information, Thanks Taku!!!!!
These people (America's first Patriots) were very self reliant.
Simple black powder is 75% Saltpeter (potassium nitrate), 15% charcoal and 10% sulfur.
Fineness determined burning rate. Not rocket science.
Gunpowder manufacturing during the American Revolution
Revolutionary War Rare Revolutionary War Historical Artifact
Gunpowder manufacturing during the American Revolution
A rare and fascinating collection of Revolutionary War period documents concerning the manufacture and distribution of gunpowder for the American cause. The five documents include several recipes for the all-important substance, the highlight of which is very rare m****cript instructions for powder sent to a man in New Milford, Connecticut, and two published in The Essex Journal and New Hampshire Packet in 1775 and 1776. Other documents detail the procurement from domestic producers, who were critical in the early days of the war to keeping the rebel armies supplied with black powder.
Of particular interest is an important document noting the inspection of 618 pounds of saltpeter, from early 1777. M****cript Document Signed by the Select Men of Milford, Connecticut, 1p. 4to. (8 x 10 in.), Milford, January 13, 1777 in which select men Gideon Buckingham, Isaac Clark and Lewis Mallits, Jr. certify "...that a Quantity of Salt Petre offered for Inspection by William Attwater of Milford the maker thereof amounting to six hundred & eighteen Pounds 1/4 is well and carefully Inspected & according to our best judgment and Skill, the same is found to be pure, clean and dry, free from any corrupt Mixture. The said Willm Attwater having made Oath according to the directions of the Law in such case made & provided, which Salt Peter is received fro the use of this State..." At the middle right, Eneas Munson from the "Powdder Mill New Haven" wrote on January 15, 1777 that he had "Reinspected the above Salt Petre which is approv[e]d in Quality as above amounting to Six Hundred four pounds, ten oz --" Attwater endorsed the verso on February 14, 1777 noting the receipt of £149.17.6 for the sale.
Saltpeter is the key ingredient for gun powder, together with brimstone, coal. The amount here would have produced approximately 750 pounds of black powder. The Continental Army had about 80,000 pounds of powder on hand in the Spring of 1775. But, by December, 1775 almost every ounce of this had been used (much, according to Washington, in a wasteful manner), placing the army in Cambridge in danger. Washington appealed for any quantity that could be produced and state governments began encouraging domestic powder manufacturing which was virtually nonexistent at the time. The entire struggle would rest upon the efforts of Attwater, Munson and others like them to supply the army's needs until more plentiful foreign supplies could be obtained. In all, domestic gunpowder manufacturers produced only 100,000 pounds of powder from 1775 through 1777, but it allowed the struggle to continue. Things improved dramatically as France clandestinely supplied the Americans beginning in late 1776, sending over 1,000,000 pounds helping ensure the continuation of the struggle and allowing for the much needed victory at Saratoga in the fall of 1777.
A few toned spots, usual folds, else bright and clean and in fine condition.
The early revolutionary effort to encourage domestic gunpowder manufacture took many forms, states as well as individuals did what they could to establish powder mills and saltpeter mines. Knowledge of the art of gunpowder manufacture was also freely distributed. Of interest is a m****cript Document, 1p. 4to. (7.5 x 11.5 in.), [no place, no date], addressed to Mr. Davis Marsh of New Milford on the address panel on verso. Entitled “To make Gun powder” the document provides a fairly detailed method for manufacturing the gunpowder so important to the American cause during the Revolutionary War. The recipe reads, in most part:
“Refine salt peter in this way, put it in a clean Iron kittle with water enough to desolve [sic] it When it warm, after it is desovled [sic] let it get cool & it shoot into cristals [sic] take out those crystals & heat it again &^ so on till you get it all refin’d &c- Prepare you Brimstone in this way - tye [sic] it up in a linen rag & boil it in weak lye about an hour then boil it in clear water till it becomes soft enough to rub fine with your thum [sic] & finger -- To cole [sic] you can get the heart of red ce[a]der that is neither winding nor knotty you can burn your cole in an Iron pot or kittle by covering the top including close & heating it slowly on a fire &c Bass wood will do middling will but hemp stalks is said to be the best however ceder [sic] will be as good perhaps -- Put all our materials into a wooden Morter with water enough when pounded a little to make it like hardish [sic] morter [sic] then pound 2 days at least, the more the better while pounding if it gets to[o] dry, put in a little water so on till it is pounded enough, let it be dry enough to sift, or keep pounding at the last so as to have it dry enough to go through a sieve the size you want the grains, sift it through & let it dry & then take finer sieve & take out all the dust & wet the dust a little & pound it over again & so on till you get it all the seize you want -- Dry it in the sun &c. The water you use should be rain or soft clear water”
On the left margin, the amounts of the various ingredients is listed. Clean horizontal fold separation, usual folds, two moderately toned spots, otherwise very good condition.
The other two recipes in the collection are published in two editions of The Essex Journal and New-Hampshire Packet 4p. each, (10 x 15 in.). The first, from December 15, 1775, bears a nearly full-page article which notes that "As the know[l]'edge of making SALT-PETRE, engages the attention of numbers, who at this critical time are zealous for their country's good, induces us to hope that by inserting the following, which we have taken from a late London magazine; we shall, at lest, gratify some, and in the meantime, disoblige none of our readers..." The article discusses the various sources of "Nitre". The second, from the January 19, 1776 edition, features an article by Henry Wisner (1725-1790) who gives detailed instructions for the production of powder. Wisner himself established three powder mills in the Hudson Valley and served as a member of the First and Second Continental Congresses. He notes that he had "...lately erected a powder mill in the south end of Ulster county..." and offers to "Any person inclining to build a powder-mill... a plan, with directions for the constructions of all it's [sic] parts and utensils..." These articles appeared at that most critical time when Washington at Cambridge had virtually no gunpowder in his stores. There was only enough powder to fire off a cannon from Prospect Hill on occasion while the balance of the artillery stood silent. Had Howe learned of Washington's vulnerability, he could have destroyed the main body of the Continental Army in an afternoon. Fortunately Howe never gleaned this critical intelligence. When Washington finally received a quantity of powder in March, 1776, he ordered the Ticonderoga cannon hauled up onto Dorchester Heights. The appearance of American artillery that could bombard Boston directly convinced Howe to evacuate, ending the nearly year-long siege.
Also sold together with a m****cript Document Signed "Enoch Huse", 1p. (6 x 2.5 in.), Boston, December 22, 1787, a receipt for Nathaniel Cushing who purchased "1 Qr Cask Gunpowder" for the sum of £2.2. Nathaniel Cushing commanded a company in the regiment of Col. Joseph Vose. Vose's regiment participated at the Battles of Monmouth, Newport and Yorktown.
Margins slightly irregular, else very good.
Together this fine collection provides a vivid testament to the early days of the American Revolution when the initiative and hard work of many individuals helped to continue the struggle despite tremendous odds
It seems some still think the colonists were dependant on the British for Arms and Ammunition, and Just providing details that they were self sufficient and very much capable of standing on their own.
Quality Arms were being manufactured as early as 1740 In America.
They did not want British regulations and they did not keep their arms in a central storage facility as the British demanded.
They kept their arms and powder and ball at home and with them, contrary to what some have been saying. Eventually a knife suitable for fighting or a bayonet was also required to be kept with the arms.
Their actions against British "Gun Control" was one of the big factors among others that the revolutionary war was fought for.
Not far from what the leftist politicos of today are attempting to do here.
The results will end up the same way as they did then.
It is amazing how the rules and regulations that King George put on Massachusetts after the Boston Tea Party seems to coincide with todays governments rules and regulations against the non-government peoples freedoms.
They make favorable laws for themselves and less freedom laws for the civilians.
1774-2014 hasn't changed much it seems.
Massachusetts Government Act
"Increasingly, the view from Britain was the Massachusetts represented the epicenter of resistance to royal control."
"His Majesty trusts that no opposition will, or can, with any effect, be made to the carrying the law into execution, nor any violence or insult offered to those to whom the execution of it is entrusted. Should it happen otherwise, your authority as the first Magistrate, combined with the command over the King' s troops, will, it is hoped, enable you to meet every opposition, and fully to preserve the public peace, by employing those troops with effect, should the madness of the people, on the one hand, or the timidity or want of strength of the peace officers on the other hand, make it necessary to have recourse to their assistance."
Sound a lot like todays riot control.
"By May, Parliament had had enough, and passed the Coercive Acts. The Massachusetts Government Act, passed on May 20, 1774, effectively abrogated the colony’s charter and provided for an unprecedented amount of royal control. Severe limits were placed on the powers of town meetings, the essential ingredient of American self-government. Further, most elective offices in the colony were to be filled with royal appointees, not with popularly elected officials."
Gun control right around the corner?
"Early 1775 found the British Parliament embroiled in debates over the most effective way to deal with the errant North American colonies. The Boston Tea Party in late 1773 provoked a firm Parliamentary response with the Coercive Acts in the following year. The American counter-response came in the form of protests, boycotts and violence.
The Americans, however, still had friends in high places. The Earl of Chatham, member of the House of Lords, hoped in early 1775 to alleviate the crisis by proposing the removal of soldiers from Boston, the hotbed of colonial resistance. This idea was firmly rejected by the House of Lords, but Chatham tried again to calm the waters. He proposed that if the Americans would formally recognize Parliamentary supremacy and enact their own plan for generating revenues, then the British government would back off from its tax programs and extend recognition to the Continental Congress. This plan was also quickly killed by Chatham’s colleagues.
Lord North, the Prime Minister, advanced a similar idea in the House of Commons in February 1775. He proposed that if the colonies would tax themselves in amounts sufficient to pay for their own defense and for the salaries of royal judges and other officials, then Parliament would not impose taxes on them. This measure found favor in Commons and was approved, but awaited consideration by the Lords and the king.
Probably more indicative of Parliamentary sentiments was a measure passed at this same time and approved by George III on March 30. The New England Restraining Act singled out the northeastern colonies, much as the Coercive Acts had done earlier, as the source of unrest and disciplined them as follows:
Effective July 1, 1775, New England trade was to be limited to Britain and the British West Indies; trade with other nations was prohibited
Effective July 20, 1775, New England ships were barred from the North Atlantic fisheries — a measure that pleased British Canadians, but threatened great harm to the New England economy.
In April 1775, the colonies of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina were included under the Restraining Act’s provisions, clearly a move made to punish them for their adoption of boycott actions under The Association.
On the eve of the initial fighting at Lexington and Concord, sympathies for the American colonists were still being expressed by influential members of Parliament, but their numbers were insufficient to carry the day."
Battle of Lexington and Concord and http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h655.html
"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here." Captain John Paarker, to his Minute Men on Lexington Green, April 19, 1775.
If a gun owner has any doubts to how our Founding Fathers viewed freemen, patriots, the militia and the right to own firearms they should read the above links.
Lexington and Concord may have just happened in Jemez Springs, NM
Chief Told To Disband Entire Police Department
You want see anything about permits, background check, waiting periods, etc...
Country men had their firearms and where called upon when needed.
I doubt it. They'd just make another Dorner out of him. There would need to be a significant amount of citizens & good LEOs first to start any Lexington and Concord.
The masses are still sleeping.
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms
"Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. — Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. — We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death."
That seems to say it well.
Since history is repeating itself Glad I read this for counter measures. :thumbup:
It is not far from what they are and will attempt.
It must be countered with the same and even more resolve.
Separate names with a comma.