Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops

Expand Messages
  • John Ogden
    We are under the impression that various private contract muskets deriving from the Springfield (hence French 1768) pattern were being used, but we are hoping
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      We are under the impression that various private contract muskets deriving
      from the Springfield (hence French 1768) pattern were being used, but we are
      hoping that we can use repro-weapons already in our possession so as to
      avoid the extra cash outlay.

      On 11/3/09, richard lytle <richard6616@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > John,
      >
      > Try looking for 1795 Harpers Ferry muskets and rifles. I believe that the
      > different territorial militia's may have been supplied with them. I think
      > that the Mississippi Territorial Militia specifically carried them prior to
      > 1812. If my memory is correct, the Harpers Ferry model was actually the
      > Springfield model just made at Harpers Ferry but I do not recall the dates
      > that production there started.
      >
      > Richard Lytle
      >
      > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, John Ogden <johnjogden@...<johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
      > wrote:
      >
      > From: John Ogden <johnjogden@... <johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
      > Subject: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops
      > To: "warof1812" <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>>
      > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 12:42 PM
      >
      >
      >
      > All,
      >
      > As a matter of curiosity, I and a few others were wondering if anyone
      > could give us some insight (or at least a place to start researching) into
      > what patterns of weapons would have been commonly carried by US forces such
      > as the Tennessee/Kentucky militia that Andrew Jackson had to find muskets
      > for in New Orleans or alternatively what a locally raised unit such as the
      > Pittsburgh Blues would have been given. We are operating under the
      > assumption that they were using some sort of milspec musket, possibly older
      > pieces and designs (but how old: RevWar? F&I? older still?), but this could
      > be an error. There are some people down my way looking to get a company up
      > and running before the bicentennial of the war overtakes us, and they're
      > trying to see how much of their existing kits can be cross-purposed. RevWar
      > era firelocks abound, but 1795 Springfields are pretty scarce...
      >
      > --
      > John J. Ogden
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >



      --
      John J. Ogden


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mark Dickerson
      This is a related topic that comes up on this list from time to time about historical accuracy. What level of accuracy do we as individuals and our separate
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        This is a related topic that comes up on this list from time to time about
        historical accuracy. What level of accuracy do we as individuals and our
        separate groups want to be? Is it MANDATORY that every member of a group
        have the same, absolutely correct musket, shoes, underwear,.etc? This
        depends on the group and it varies from group to group and individual to
        individual.



        Personally, I have been portraying a Royal Scot since 1990, yet I have never
        owned a brown bess musket. I only own a French Charleville. Can 95% of the
        public notice from more than 5 feet away. No! Can they notice from 500
        feet away if I have white pants and everybody else has grey? ABSOLUTELY!
        How many re-enactors have noticed that I didn't use a Bess? Probably not
        very many.



        This is just my personal opinion.



        Let the moose droppings hit the fan now.



        Mark Dickerson















        From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of John Ogden
        Sent: November 3, 2009 5:42 PM
        To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops





        We are under the impression that various private contract muskets deriving
        from the Springfield (hence French 1768) pattern were being used, but we are
        hoping that we can use repro-weapons already in our possession so as to
        avoid the extra cash outlay.

        On 11/3/09, richard lytle <richard6616@...
        <mailto:richard6616%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > John,
        >
        > Try looking for 1795 Harpers Ferry muskets and rifles. I believe that the
        > different territorial militia's may have been supplied with them. I think
        > that the Mississippi Territorial Militia specifically carried them prior
        to
        > 1812. If my memory is correct, the Harpers Ferry model was actually the
        > Springfield model just made at Harpers Ferry but I do not recall the dates
        > that production there started.
        >
        > Richard Lytle
        >
        > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, John Ogden <johnjogden@...
        <mailto:johnjogden%40gmail.com> <johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > From: John Ogden <johnjogden@... <mailto:johnjogden%40gmail.com>
        <johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
        > Subject: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops
        > To: "warof1812" <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
        <mailto:WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com> <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>>
        > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 12:42 PM
        >
        >
        >
        > All,
        >
        > As a matter of curiosity, I and a few others were wondering if anyone
        > could give us some insight (or at least a place to start researching) into
        > what patterns of weapons would have been commonly carried by US forces
        such
        > as the Tennessee/Kentucky militia that Andrew Jackson had to find muskets
        > for in New Orleans or alternatively what a locally raised unit such as the
        > Pittsburgh Blues would have been given. We are operating under the
        > assumption that they were using some sort of milspec musket, possibly
        older
        > pieces and designs (but how old: RevWar? F&I? older still?), but this
        could
        > be an error. There are some people down my way looking to get a company up
        > and running before the bicentennial of the war overtakes us, and they're
        > trying to see how much of their existing kits can be cross-purposed.
        RevWar
        > era firelocks abound, but 1795 Springfields are pretty scarce...
        >
        > --
        > John J. Ogden
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        --
        John J. Ogden

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kevin Windsor
        I think they would notice more that you were carrying a musket!!! _____ From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I think they would notice more that you were carrying a musket!!!



          _____

          From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Mark Dickerson

          How many re-enactors have noticed that I didn't use a Bess? Probably not
          very many.

          ,_._,___



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • larrylozon
          Mark Moose droppings . . . . on Accuracy I take the liberty of stating to all that your first impression is that of a soldier of the 27th United States
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark

            Moose droppings . . . . on Accuracy


            I take the liberty of stating to all that your first impression is that of a soldier of the 27th United States Infantry where a `Charleville' would be appropriate.

            With the capture of Fort Detroit, the Crown Forces captured many stands of US weapons (Charlevilles) were issued to units stationed in Southwestern Ontario. It is not a stretch that the 1st (Royal Scots) Regiment may have gotten some of these weapons. We know that the Essex and Kent Militias as well as the 41st Regiment shared in the spoils of Ft. Detroit. How far east did the spoils filter?

            My personal opinion: Is it fair to show the public something that was not invented in 1812 or is historically non correct?

            For those quick to answer - look in the archives of this Yahoo Group we have beaten this horse to death (re-enactor accuracy) ... unless you bring something new to the table.


            Yrs.,
            L2


            --- "Mark Dickerson" wrote:

            This is a related topic that comes up on this list from time to time about historical accuracy. What level of accuracy do we as individuals and our separate groups want to be? Is it MANDATORY that every member of a group have the same, absolutely correct musket, shoes, underwear,.etc? This depends on the group and it varies from group to group and individual to individual.

            Personally, I have been portraying a Royal Scot since 1990, yet I have never owned a brown bess musket. I only own a French Charleville. Can 95% of the public notice from more than 5 feet away. No! Can they notice from 500 feet away if I have white pants and everybody else has grey? ABSOLUTELY! How many re-enactors have noticed that I didn't use a Bess? Probably not very many.

            This is just my personal opinion.

            Let the moose droppings hit the fan now.

            Mark Dickerson
          • Kevin Windsor
            HUGE STRETCH!!!! MONSTER STRETCH!!!! What you would in fact be saying is that this ONE guy in the Reg t would be getting different ammunition EVERY time!! Not
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              HUGE STRETCH!!!! MONSTER STRETCH!!!!



              What you would in fact be saying is that this ONE guy in the Reg't would be getting different ammunition EVERY time!!



              Not going to happen. For the Militia to get cast off or captured stuff, yup very true! However, there was a whole series of equipment transfers in 1813 (I have too many artefacts to pack to find the source right now) between militia companies so that AT LEAST each company would have the same calibre musket.



              So while a US Soldier having a cast off British musket (as one guy) would work, it would be unlikely for a British militia man to be the only one with a cast off US musket. Quite frankly OUR BALLS ARE BIGGER!



              Now I will get back to packing eyeglasses!



              Kevin

              89th



              To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
              From: larrylozon@...
              Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:12:43 +0000
              Subject: Was: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops/ accuracy







              With the capture of Fort Detroit, the Crown Forces captured many stands of US weapons (Charlevilles) were issued to units stationed in Southwestern Ontario. It is not a stretch that the 1st (Royal Scots) Regiment may have gotten some of these weapons. We know that the Essex and Kent Militias as well as the 41st Regiment shared in the spoils of Ft. Detroit. How far east did the spoils filter?



              Yrs.,
              L2



              .








              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • larrylozon
              Kevin How did the 41st Regiment exist at Fort Malden with tents marked US4th and Charleville muskets? Big balls, small balls, Brown Besses, Charlevilles.
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Kevin

                How did the 41st Regiment exist at Fort Malden with tents marked US4th and Charleville muskets?

                Big balls, small balls, Brown Besses, Charlevilles.


                Records State: August 15-16, 1812, capture of Ft. Detroit by
                41st Regt., 49th Regt., NFLD Fenc. Regt., 1st and 2nd York Militia, 1st and 2nd Norfolk Militia, 5th Lincoln Militia, 1st Oxford Militia, 1st Kent Militia, 1st Essex Militia and Indians

                Essex, Kent and Oxford alone are Southwestern counties not to mention Norfolk, York and Lincoln.

                Those Militias operated with big balls, small balls, Brown Besses and Charlevilles

                NOT THAT BIG A STRETCH!!!!


                But Polyester uniforms is!



                Yrs.,
                L2

                --- Kevin Windsor wrote:

                HUGE STRETCH!!!! MONSTER STRETCH!!!!
                What you would in fact be saying is that this ONE guy in the Reg't would be getting different ammunition EVERY time!!
                Not going to happen. For the Militia to get cast off or captured stuff, yup very true! However, there was a whole series of equipment transfers in 1813 (I have too many artefacts to pack to find the source right now) between militia companies so that AT LEAST each company would have the same calibre musket.
                So while a US Soldier having a cast off British musket (as one guy) would work, it would be unlikely for a British militia man to be the only one with a cast off US musket. Quite frankly OUR BALLS ARE BIGGER! Now I will get back to packing eyeglasses!
              • MasterAtArms
                I am forced to agree with Kevin. It is not reasonable in any way to assume that a single soldier in any British unit (or small minority of soldiers), would
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am forced to agree with Kevin. It is not reasonable in any way to assume that a single soldier in any British unit (or small minority of soldiers), would have been allowed to carry a weapon for which the unit's standard issued ammunition was not useable. Perhaps in the heat of a battle, a soldier might pick up a discarded enemy musket and use it, but he would dispose of it afterward, or more likely, it would be confiscated.

                  It would be far more likely that British militia units might have been equipped from old stores of 2nd pattern Besses. In the event that a militia unit would be equipped with captured weapons, they would almost certainly have been universally issued to at least one identifiable sub-unit (ie. a company) to ensure ammunition interchangeability.

                  Dale

                  --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Windsor <kevin.windsor@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > HUGE STRETCH!!!! MONSTER STRETCH!!!!
                • MasterAtArms
                  ... Larry: Is there any record of how the soldiers issued the Charlevilles were grouped? I would surmise that they were likely grouped together as one or more
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "larrylozon" <larrylozon@...> wrote:

                    > How did the 41st Regiment exist at Fort Malden with tents marked US4th and Charleville muskets?


                    Larry:

                    Is there any record of how the soldiers issued the Charlevilles were grouped? I would surmise that they were likely grouped together as one or more sub-units (squad or platoon?), to facilitate ammunition issue. Especially with these being British regulars, bureaucracy and red tape would have been an important part of their organization.

                    Dale
                  • larrylozon
                    Dale I am not talking about a single soldier and Mark did US before Brit with me anywho ... I think the original post was by John Ogden and was about the
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dale
                      I am not talking about a single soldier
                      and Mark did US before Brit with me

                      anywho ...

                      I think the original post was by John Ogden
                      and was about the weapons that would have been
                      commonly carried by US forces such
                      as the Tennessee/Kentucky Militia.

                      Is it wrong for John to seek out the correct weapons


                      "NO"

                      John you go boy

                      Contact Steve Abolt sacbg7(at)att.net he is the authority on Andrew Jackson. Steve may be away at the moment but if you are patient he
                      will answer you on his return

                      Yrs.,
                      L2


                      --- "Dale" wrote:

                      It is not reasonable in any way to assume that a single soldier in any British unit (or small minority of soldiers), would have been allowed to carry a weapon for which the unit's standard issued ammunition was not useable.
                    • d_squared6
                      Ok-- I have been watching this off and on all day and decided I have nothing better to do than jump in.... Larry-- Accuracy can very well start with
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ok-- I have been watching this off and on all day and decided I have nothing better to do than jump in....

                        Larry-- Accuracy can very well start with vocabulary. While some poor folks may still have had the misfortune to be issued the now-ancient French-made flintlocks created at the late Royal arsenal at Charleville, it is likely that most of those would have passed on by 1812. Yes....I have seen original 1812-vintage weapons with "Charleville" still stamped on them, so don't bother splitting hairs. Yes, there were some. That being said, most US, musket-toting types were using a US musket manufactured in one of the US arsenals-- Springfield, MA or Harpers Ferry, Va. So let's leave the Charleville talk to the Rev. War or F&I community, shall we?

                        That being finished, ideally militia units in the US were supposed to be issued weapons from federal stores when "federalized." Obviously this did not always happen, but if one cannot find specific information on the unit one is doing, it is a good premise from which to start. Ironically, there were more than a few Americans using Brown Besses as well-- the US had bought up a bunch in the early 19th century. Artillery men in particular seem to have gotten these-- and we all know about artillerymen having bigger balls, so I won't go there. Congratulations....you're .06 caliber (or so) less dead if you are hit by an American musket ball.....whatever.

                        That the Royals would have accepted captured weapons that didn't take the ammunition they had (and with little opportunity to replenish) suggests that they would have been in dire straits indeed. Maybe they were.....I haven't done the research on that. But isn't all this missing the spirit of the original question?

                        Thanks for getting moose poo on us Mark!

                        D2




                        L2 wrote:

                        > With the capture of Fort Detroit, the Crown Forces captured many stands of US weapons (Charlevilles) were issued to units stationed in Southwestern Ontario. It is not a stretch that the 1st (Royal Scots) Regiment may have gotten some of these weapons.. . . >
                        > Yrs.,
                        > L2
                        >
                        >
                      • Ray Hobbs
                        List: This post does not deal with British regulars, but with militia - the 1st Lincoln to be precise. It is also documented, a feature which is often missing
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          List:
                          This post does not deal with British regulars, but with militia - the 1st Lincoln to be precise. It is also documented, a feature which is often missing in such discussion. In Feb. 1813 two companies of the 1st Lincs were issued with French muskets. Four months earlier, in Nov. 1812, there is a list of ammunition - either English or French. The origin of these muskets is not documented, and therefore is not speculated.
                          Yr Humble and Obedt. Svt
                          Ray Hobbs, Maj.
                          AdC to Col Williams


                          RG 8, Series �C�, Vol. 1701, p. 230

                          The State of Arms and Accoutrements of Capt. Laws Company

                          Muskets 28 All french except one
                          Bayonets 28 half of which do not fit well
                          Scabbards 28 16 of which have no belts
                          Cartridge Boxes 28 12 of which are Belly Boxes
                          The Muskets are all in good repair

                          Feby. 2nd 1813 M. McClellan, Capt.

                          State of Arms and Accoutrements Capt. McClennan�s Company

                          Muskets 34 All french
                          Bayo0nets 34 11 of which do not fit
                          Scabbards 26 3 of which have no belts
                          Cartridge Boxes 34 11 of which are Belly Boxes and have no straps.

                          4 Muskets are out of Repair in the Locks

                          2nd Feby, 1813 Martin McClennan, Capt.
                          1st Regt. Lincoln Mil.


                          RG 8, Series �C�, Vol. 1701, p. 217

                          Return of Ammunition issued xxx two kegs French English

                          Rounds of
                          French English
                          Capt. James Crooks � 300
                          � John McEwen � 100
                          � John Jones 192 �
                          � Martin McClennan 30 `�
                          � George Ball` 320 �

                          20 Nov. 1812.


                          To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                          From: ucpm_gunner@...
                          Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:18:53 +0000
                          Subject: Re: Was: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops/ accuracy




























                          I am forced to agree with Kevin. It is not reasonable in any way to assume that a single soldier in any British unit (or small minority of soldiers), would have been allowed to carry a weapon for which the unit's standard issued ammunition was not useable. Perhaps in the heat of a battle, a soldier might pick up a discarded enemy musket and use it, but he would dispose of it afterward, or more likely, it would be confiscated.



                          It would be far more likely that British militia units might have been equipped from old stores of 2nd pattern Besses. In the event that a militia unit would be equipped with captured weapons, they would almost certainly have been universally issued to at least one identifiable sub-unit (ie. a company) to ensure ammunition interchangeability.



                          Dale



                          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Windsor <kevin.windsor@...> wrote:

                          >

                          >

                          > HUGE STRETCH!!!! MONSTER STRETCH!!!!



















                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • d_squared6
                          Ray-- Thank you for once again being a voice of reason. And thanks for the interesting documentation. Yes....always nice to have real proof of what one is
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ray--

                            Thank you for once again being a voice of reason. And thanks for the interesting documentation. Yes....always nice to have "real" proof of what one is wagging one's tongue about. I particularly enjoyed the comments about the various accoutrements-- bayonets that don't fit muskets, cartridge and belly boxes without straps, etc. etc. Sounds like these guys worked at an historic site!! I wonder what reaction would accompany a group of fellows who dared to turn out to an event, based on such documentation.....more moose poo I suspect. Thanks again!

                            D2
                          • larrylozon
                            Dale Go to www.fortyfirst.org Click on HISTORY Scroll down to A Detroit Prize List This portion includes the Staff, 41st, 49th, Royal Newfoundland
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dale

                              Go to www.fortyfirst.org
                              Click on "HISTORY"
                              Scroll down to "A Detroit Prize List"

                              This portion includes the Staff, 41st, 49th, Royal Newfoundland Fencibles, and two lists relating to the 1st Essex Militia. This transcription therefore does not contain information for the Royal Artillerymen who were present; nor for sailors of the Provincial Marine ..."

                              What is also not listed is that many Militias that were issued cast off 41st coats (in order to fool the USA Troops that the attackers were British Regulars) were charged the amount of a new red coat.

                              I hope this helps

                              My research has nothing of how the soldiers issued the Charlevilles were grouped.

                              Yrs.,
                              L2


                              --- "Dale" wrote:

                              "Is there any record of how the soldiers issued the Charlevilles were grouped?..."
                            • James
                              ... [snip] ... A scrupulous regard for honesty, and the honour of my Regiment, the 41st, requires me to state: 1) I have never come across a record of any
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "larrylozon" [snip]
                                > How did the 41st Regiment exist at Fort Malden with tents marked US4th and Charleville muskets?
                                >
                                [snip]
                                >
                                > Records State: August 15-16, 1812, capture of Ft. Detroit by
                                > 41st Regt., 49th Regt., [and a bunch of fencible and militia units]


                                A scrupulous regard for honesty, and the honour of "my" Regiment, the 41st, requires me to state:

                                1) I have never come across a record of any sort indicating that members of the 41st Regiment were issued American muskets. They helped *capture* many stands of same at Fort Detroit, but that is not the same as having these arms issued to members of the 41st for use in combat.

                                2) the main strike force of the Right Division (being a varying number of companies of the 41st) was usually billeted in buildings in Sandwich, not stationed at Fort Malden, for the relevant periods during the war postdating the capture of Detroit, namely, August 1812 to September 1813. I have no idea where any captured American tents might have ended up, but they were not being utilized by the 41st. When the Right Division besieged Fort Meigs in April/May 1813, it is recorded that they had no tents or shelter at all, other than what crude shelters could be improvised from materials at hand.

                                3) the 49th's contribution to the capture of Detroit consisted of General Brock's batman. And of course General Brock himself, although by that point he was acting in the capacity of a general officer hence not attached to any specific regiment...

                                Jim Yaworsky
                                41st
                              • Mark Dickerson
                                Just to clarify, I never stated that the Royal Scots were issued French muskets. I said that I as a re-enactor, carried a French musket for the 12 years that
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Just to clarify, I never stated that the Royal Scots were issued French
                                  muskets. I said that I as a re-enactor, carried a French musket for the 12
                                  years that I was in the line before my elevation to officer status.



                                  I guess my point is, that if a new group of people from Rev War want to
                                  start up a militia unit from the United States and participate in the 1812
                                  bicentennial events, then (IMHO) using a second pattern bess, or a
                                  charleville would be acceptable. It saves the cost of buying a new
                                  Springfield or later patter of Brown Bess, and the public and re-enactors
                                  most likely will not be able to see the difference.



                                  Mark Dickerson







                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • tom4141fournier
                                  When reviewing the Procter Court Martial manuscripts and also American accounts of the pursuit up the Thames; came across the fact that the Right Division had
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    When reviewing the Procter Court Martial manuscripts and also American accounts of the pursuit up the Thames; came across the fact that the Right Division had stacked a large number of American muskets in a bullding just outside of modern day Chatham (Bowles..I think ...). The Americans put out the fire and regained many of their muskets lost at Detroit.

                                    They had been lugged around but not necesaarily every used ...

                                    Tom


                                    --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "James" <yawors1@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "larrylozon" [snip]
                                    > > How did the 41st Regiment exist at Fort Malden with tents marked US4th and Charleville muskets?
                                    > >
                                    > [snip]
                                    > >
                                    > > Records State: August 15-16, 1812, capture of Ft. Detroit by
                                    > > 41st Regt., 49th Regt., [and a bunch of fencible and militia units]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > A scrupulous regard for honesty, and the honour of "my" Regiment, the 41st, requires me to state:
                                    >
                                    > 1) I have never come across a record of any sort indicating that members of the 41st Regiment were issued American muskets. They helped *capture* many stands of same at Fort Detroit, but that is not the same as having these arms issued to members of the 41st for use in combat.
                                    >
                                    > 2) the main strike force of the Right Division (being a varying number of companies of the 41st) was usually billeted in buildings in Sandwich, not stationed at Fort Malden, for the relevant periods during the war postdating the capture of Detroit, namely, August 1812 to September 1813. I have no idea where any captured American tents might have ended up, but they were not being utilized by the 41st. When the Right Division besieged Fort Meigs in April/May 1813, it is recorded that they had no tents or shelter at all, other than what crude shelters could be improvised from materials at hand.
                                    >
                                    > 3) the 49th's contribution to the capture of Detroit consisted of General Brock's batman. And of course General Brock himself, although by that point he was acting in the capacity of a general officer hence not attached to any specific regiment...
                                    >
                                    > Jim Yaworsky
                                    > 41st
                                    >
                                  • Mark Dickerson
                                    Sometime in the late 1800 s or early 1900 s, the site of the General Myers had been located just outside Chatham. This is one of the gunboats that were burned
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 5, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's, the site of the General Myers
                                      had been located just outside Chatham. This is one of the gunboats that
                                      were burned by the British. Much of the boat remained preserved in the mud
                                      of the river. It was put on display in Chatham where souvenir hunters and
                                      the weather quickly destroyed it. BUT, according to local folklore, a very
                                      numerous quantity of muskets were also found in the mud. Once again,
                                      souvenir hunters made quick work of this discovery. I have no idea if these
                                      were also American muskets from Detroit.



                                      Mark Dickerson







                                      From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                      Of tom4141fournier
                                      Sent: November 4, 2009 5:36 PM
                                      To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: 1812 41st and American Muskets





                                      When reviewing the Procter Court Martial manuscripts and also American
                                      accounts of the pursuit up the Thames; came across the fact that the Right
                                      Division had stacked a large number of American muskets in a bullding just
                                      outside of modern day Chatham (Bowles..I think ...). The Americans put out
                                      the fire and regained many of their muskets lost at Detroit.

                                      They had been lugged around but not necesaarily every used ...

                                      Tom







                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • James
                                      ... One of the reasons Proctor was convicted at his court martial of professional negligence arose from the manner in which he conducted and organized the
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 5, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Dickerson" <mdickerson1@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > "Sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's, the site of the General Myers had been located just outside Chatham. [snip] according to local folklore, a very numerous quantity of muskets were also found in the mud."


                                        One of the reasons Proctor was convicted at his court martial of professional negligence arose from the manner in which he conducted and "organized" the retreat of the Right Division after the Battle of Lake Erie. The fun started when he couldn't make a firm decision on how far the Division was going to withdraw.

                                        His initial plan was to set up a new base at "the Forks of the Thames", which, in 1813, usually referred to Chatham more often than London. Proctor had fantasies of setting up a new naval base there, and utilizing the "defences" of the spit of land between the Thames and McGregor's creek that is now Tecumseh Park.

                                        The fact was, there physically wasn't much at Chatham in 1813, no matter what Proctor's Ordnance maps might have shown, and the supply route down the Thames could be interdicted at will by American landings on the north shore of Lake Erie. Plus, it is doubtful if there was enough "lift" capacity on the Burlington Heights-Brantford-Burford-London-Chatham route to keep the Division and its Indian allies supplied in any event. Eventually, Proctor realized this, and Burford became the next preferred new base, with an interim stop planned for Moraviantown to try and shake off any American pursuit.

                                        In the stages when "the plan" was to retreat to Chatham, Proctor had all the supplies of the Right Division laboriously ferried there. This included items like captured American muskets, and some serious naval and "fortress" artillery pieces. Not much food, though. This took several weeks to accomplish, and is one of the contributing reasons why the Right Division would take a pasting at Moraviantown. If Proctor had been realistic from the get-go, the Right Division could have made a clean get-away while Harrison was carefully organizing his offensive after the Battle of Lake Erie.

                                        Anyway, after much effort and time being expended in ferrying all these assorted supplies to Chatham, the upshot was that they were all either captured by Harrison's men, or dumped in the Thames, when it became apparent that setting up shop at Chatham was not going to happen, and a further retreat was necessary. As hard as it had been to get these materials to Chatham, it was impossible to "save" them and move them much further upriver.

                                        Witnesses at Proctor's court martial who had actually worked on these supply "arrangements" were, needless to say, not happy about the way things had gone down...

                                        Jim Yaworsky
                                        41st
                                      • usmarine1814
                                        No facts here just some rationale that I came up with Perhaps territorial militia were carrying their personal arms. Many of these could have been those
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Nov 6, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          No facts here just some rationale that I came up with


                                          Perhaps territorial militia were carrying their personal arms. Many of these could have been those carried by them or their family members in the AWI thus a Charleville or even and old committe of public safty weapon is POSSIBLE and PLAUSABLE but I am not sure how PROBABLE.
                                          What this makes me think of is Mr. Burns from Gettysburg PA. He is the War of 1812 Militia member who was present at Baltimore in 1814 and then in 1863 participated at Gettysburg(not sure how much.) Yet the photo of him clearly shows the musket he was supposed to have carried to both engagements. It is definately a flintlock. It looks like some sort of private purchase though. Not sure what it is.
                                          Just for thought.. no real evidence one way or the other..but Iam sure research could reveal the answers...it often does
                                          YHOS
                                          Colin Murphy
                                          USS CON 1812 MG
                                          USMCHC

                                          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, John Ogden <johnjogden@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > We are under the impression that various private contract muskets deriving
                                          > from the Springfield (hence French 1768) pattern were being used, but we are
                                          > hoping that we can use repro-weapons already in our possession so as to
                                          > avoid the extra cash outlay.
                                          >
                                          > On 11/3/09, richard lytle <richard6616@...> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > John,
                                          > >
                                          > > Try looking for 1795 Harpers Ferry muskets and rifles. I believe that the
                                          > > different territorial militia's may have been supplied with them. I think
                                          > > that the Mississippi Territorial Militia specifically carried them prior to
                                          > > 1812. If my memory is correct, the Harpers Ferry model was actually the
                                          > > Springfield model just made at Harpers Ferry but I do not recall the dates
                                          > > that production there started.
                                          > >
                                          > > Richard Lytle
                                          > >
                                          > > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, John Ogden <johnjogden@...<johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
                                          > > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > From: John Ogden <johnjogden@... <johnjogden%40gmail.com>>
                                          > > Subject: 1812 Firearms issued to non-Federal US troops
                                          > > To: "warof1812" <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>>
                                          > > Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 12:42 PM
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > All,
                                          > >
                                          > > As a matter of curiosity, I and a few others were wondering if anyone
                                          > > could give us some insight (or at least a place to start researching) into
                                          > > what patterns of weapons would have been commonly carried by US forces such
                                          > > as the Tennessee/Kentucky militia that Andrew Jackson had to find muskets
                                          > > for in New Orleans or alternatively what a locally raised unit such as the
                                          > > Pittsburgh Blues would have been given. We are operating under the
                                          > > assumption that they were using some sort of milspec musket, possibly older
                                          > > pieces and designs (but how old: RevWar? F&I? older still?), but this could
                                          > > be an error. There are some people down my way looking to get a company up
                                          > > and running before the bicentennial of the war overtakes us, and they're
                                          > > trying to see how much of their existing kits can be cross-purposed. RevWar
                                          > > era firelocks abound, but 1795 Springfields are pretty scarce...
                                          > >
                                          > > --
                                          > > John J. Ogden
                                          > >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --
                                          > John J. Ogden
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                        • Sanford
                                          I m a new member of this group and have been lurking for a short while. I have been a rev war reenactor for about 12 years in New England but recently moved
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Nov 6, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I'm a new member of this group and have been lurking for a short while. I have been a rev war reenactor for about 12 years in New England but recently moved to the mid West and so am pursuing a War of 1812 impression.

                                            I have been following this thread with some interest and I would like to comment on the use of the term "Charleville musket" in this time period.

                                            This term could well apply to the arms of the US forces around 1812, at least by the US Government. Maj Hicks, in his work "U.S. Military Firearms" (1962) shows a typical contract of 1798 which states:

                                            "The said Arms shall be delivered at (BLANK) in the State of (BLANK) and shall be made after the Charleville model. …"

                                            The above quote from a contract of 1798 is, of course, a bit early for our period but habit and language die hard.

                                            Then, on the 1st of Jan 1799 a receipt from a Mr Rhodes: "Received of John S. Dexter, Supervisor for the District of Rhode Island, One Musquet, with Bayonet complete, of the Charleville pattern, …"

                                            Maj Hicks also states under the heading "Contract Muskets of 1808":

                                            "It must be kept in mind that the arms manufacturing armories were known at that time as the "Charleville pattern." Then too some of the real French Model 1763 muskets were given out as patterns."

                                            Peter Schmidt, in his work "U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets, And Their Bayonets, The early years 1790 – 1815" includes a letter from the Commissary General of Purchases dated 25 May 1812 requesting the storekeeper at Springfield armory, John Chaffee, to provide a complete inventory of all the ordnance at Springfield. In response to this request Mr Chaffee conducted an inventory and stated that there were 70,201 muskets on hand and that 1,406 of them were French, English, and Dutch; he further stated that many muskets required inspection prior to being issued. As a result of this inspection the French muskets seemed to be in better condition than the Springfield muskets.

                                            Included in the inventory of Springfield armory completed in 1812, there was a total of 40,391 serviceable "Springfield" muskets (both from the national armory and from contractors) and 1,000 serviceable French muskets.

                                            Finally, Mr Schmidt includes a letter dated 19 Dec 1803 from the Superintendents Office, Philadelphia to Geo. Ingels, Military Storekeeper, U S Arsenal [Schuylkill]:

                                            "Sir, Be pleased to deliver to Tench Coxe Esqr, Purveyor of public Supplies One Charleville Musket with Bayonet complete, and one good Rifle, also One Bayonet Scabbard with Belt, to be retained in his office as patterns."

                                            Mr Schmidt speculates that this musket was most likely one from Harpers Ferry used as a pattern for the 1808 contracts.

                                            I realize that the `official' language had changed by 1812, my intention here is to show that the term "Charleville musket" was in use by the US government shortly before 1812 to describe the official muskets and therefore the term may well have still been in general use. In addition, given the fairly large numbers of "French" muskets stored at Springfield there is a very real possibility they were issued to the Army for the war. And of course, all of the muskets up to the Model 1816 were based on the French Mle 1763 Leger (aka: 1766/68) provided in great quantity to the United States during the AWI and generally called "Charleville" regardless of which of the three manufacturies they actually were produced at.

                                            John, back to your original question and your statement that Model 1795 Springfields are pretty scarce. You can swap out the lockplate from a Charleville Model 1763 (aka 1766/68) with one from the Rifle Shoppe with just a bit of work. Or, if you want to go with an India gun, www.militaryheritage.com has a Springfield for $560.00 US, and Dixie Gun Works has Petersolis' M 1795 for $1,250.00..

                                            Just thought I'd throw my two cents worth in.

                                            Sandy Walker
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.