The Lawson Trek
  • Home
    • About
    • Interactive Map
    • The Trek
  • Along the Path: Blog
  • John Lawson
    • "A New Voyage to Carolina"
    • The Carolina Colony
  • Talk to us!
  • Store
  • Press

Along the Path

Updates as we learned about Lawson's journey and times -- and reports from the trail as we progressed along it. Plus tales of the process of publishing the result.

And Our Guns Were Very Good

10/5/2015

3 Comments

 
I have an agenda; you should know this as you begin reading. My goal is to convince you that the guns of the 18th century were so different than the guns of today that while applying constitutional principles to them is essential, applying unadulterated 18th-century law to them is madness.

About Tuesday, Jan. 27, 1701, John Lawson makes the following entry in his "Journal of a Thousand Miles Travel'd": "At Night, we lay by a swift Current, where we saw plenty of Turkies, but pearch'd upon such lofty Oaks, that our Guns would not kill them, tho' we shot very often, and our Guns were very good."

I share this quote for many reasons. First, "we shot very often, and our guns were very good" sounds so much like Hemingway that I think Hemingway himself would be jealous. Second, though, is that once again we are talking about guns, and I think Mr. Lawson has some light to shed.


Lawson, walking through backcountry among wild animals and possibly enemies, would naturally have carried a weapon with him. To understand that weapon I turned to my trusted source, advisor, and friend Dale Loberger. Dale delivered a lecture about old roads that I wrote about, and he joined the Trek to teach how to use period surveying and outdoors tools. Most important, though, when I was just beginning my journey and
Picture
That's a fowler -- the kind of gun Loberger figures Lawson would have had. Plus all the rest of the stuff Lawson would have had. Where's the Gore-tex?
showing off the absurd pile of 21st-century outdoors accoutrements I was going to bring with me on my first venture out, he tweeted the image you see at left. Dale has since demonstrated himself to be a trustworthy source and a trustworthy friend and thoroughly versed in the equipment of Lawson's time. So I asked whether he'd help me understand what a gun was back in Lawson's day -- a day which, neatly, differed very little from the days a century hence when the successful American revolutionaries were reserving to the people the right to keep and bear arms. In light of the recent -- and constant -- 
madness our population demonstrates about guns, I asked Dale to ​help me understand. These arms that our ancestors famously defended our right to bear: What were they? How did they work? Could the framers have been able to even imagine the level of instant mayhem we currently use them to inflict on one another, and if so could they have taken that into consideration?

What those guns were and how they worked was clear to Loberger, and he explained it to me. "I suspect that what Lawson most likely had was called a fowler," he told me. "A civilian shotgun of the day, single-barrel of course, but smooth bore." It would have shot buckshot or solid ball or both. Dale can load and shoot his fowler four times a minute in competition; a rifle, with smaller pan and breach, would take even longer to load, up to 45 seconds, but because of the rifling that imparted spin to the ball through the patch loaded around it, it offered a much more accurate shot, especially at a distance; the fowler wasn't accurate at a distance. So anyhow, if you think of an eighteenth-century gun, think 15 seconds between shots, with those seconds spent shaking a ball or shot out of a bag, measuring black powder and pouring it into the barrel; putting in a wad and ramming that down; putting in a ball (or a load of shot) and doing the same; then priming the pan, then shooting.

"The technology is not big," Dale said of the flintlocks of the period. "It's a rock hitting a piece of steel, causing black powder to ignite." The guns of the eighteenth century required considerable interaction. You couldn't just pick one up and shoot someone, let alone shoot a room full of people.As you know, sometimes the powder in the pan burned up but failed to ignite the powder and you got a flash in the pan; if while you were in the half-cocked position of your loading process your trigger tripped, you went off half-cocked; and in the late 18th century when mass production of firearms began, stores of barrels, locks (the trigger part), and wooden stocks filled warehouses, and then a craftsman could easily assemble a rifle, lock, stock, and barrel.

So anyhow that's your gun-related phraseology lesson, but more important, obviously, is that when it came time for the United States Constitution, and the framers enshrined the people's right to hold onto guns so they would be prepared to participate in that famous well-regulated militia, that's the kind of gun they'd have been thinking about. The type of gun that might have been able to allow you to harm one person if you barged into a learning environment all prepared and crazy, but would probably have enabled plenty of people to stop you before you got to your second shot.

That is, think less technology than tool -- like an ax, or a shovel; not like a computer or an airplane. It was a pretty simple thing, and you had to do a lot to make it work.

In fact, much earlier in his journal Lawson described one of his guides: "Our Indian having this Day kill'd good Store of Provision with his Gun, he always shot with a single Ball, missing but two Shoots in above forty; they being curious Artifts in managing a Gun, to make it carry either Ball, or Shot, true. When they have bought a Piece, and find it to shoot any Ways crooked, they take the Barrel out of the Stock, cutting a Notch in a Tree, wherein they set it streight, sometimes shooting away above 100 Loads of Ammunition, before they bring the Gun to shoot according to their Mind."

I bring that up, again, because I want you to think: this was the kind of tool a gun was. This thing with moving parts that would get rusty if you didn't clean them and that could shoot a few times a minute if you were very fast and well prepared and close to your target. A think you needed to wrestle into condition for it to work the way you wanted it to.

And again, my point: the thinking of eighteenth-century minds about eighteenth-century tools gives us a magnificent place to start. But slavishly applying only that thought to twenty-first-century weapons of mass destruction makes no sense. It makes no sense at all.

Dale himself -- "I'm very pro-gun myself," he says, and I know it to be true, in the most responsible way possible -- brings up the "well-regulated militia" point that's been receiving a good bit of attention in recent days -- here, and here, and here. "During the revolution, when men weremustered to the army, they were required to bring a gun with them. The assumption was, we're gonna need people who know how to use weapons. Men need to have them and they need to have familiarity with how to use them. That made perfect sense." Which it did -- until the military started providing its own weapons and storing them. Suddenly the well-regulated militia was supplying its own arms, so the people didn't ... well, as Dale says, "Some of what I've told you does go against my case and the case for why people want to have guns." 

Dale also goes into significant detail about how people living on the frontier -- "and you're worried more about bears or Indians, that would be a good reason to have a gun."  Most colonists were farmers, though, and "there's no significant need for a gun if you're a farmer." Going hunting was a waste of a day, and you'd spend that day much better tending your crops. You weren't worried about wildlife or hostile natives, so a gun would not have been important to you. This is Dale telling me this. He further noted that a gun would have been all but useless as a weapon of mass murder back then. If you wanted to commit such a crime then -- and people did -- you'd use "an edge weapon," like a knife, or maybe a club, like the person in the link. 

Now Dale does believe strongly in the importance of keeping weapons, above all for the Jeffersonian "blood of patriots and tyrants" capacity they give the people to stand up to a government leaning towards totalitarianism. It's very hard to argue against that fear, and it's very, very hard to worry about the views of people like Dale -- responsible, thoughtful people willing to discuss their points of view like civilized people even when those perspectives differ. Dale understood my purpose in this piece and cooperated because he believes in the importance of understanding. I would fight hard for the right of people like Dale to keep and bear arms, and I suspect, bowing to that need for a well-regulated militia, Dale would support most calls for training, background checking, and the kind of gun control laws and programs that have rendered other countries far safer than ours.  I'm not sure about that -- and I'll give him space to clarify if he likes -- but the point isn't really the second amendment.

​The point is the tool. When Dale and I camped together he made breakfast using only his knife as a tool, and he taught me to use many other tools, like those for surveying. Above all else I think of Dale as someone who understands tools and uses them appropriately.

Lawson, himself a surveyor as well as the user of a fowling piece, knew the difference between a tool and a weapon of mass destruction. I believe the framers would have too. For the last decade or so the Supreme Court has been unable to tell the difference. I think Lawson would roll his eyes.

Lawson understood that a gun could be very good when it could shoot game. I believe he'd have known that a gun could be very bad when it could squeeze off hundreds of rounds per minute and was unregulated to the point of absurdity.
​
3 Comments
Dale Loberger
10/5/2015 04:02:18 pm

I appreciate the tone that my friend, Scott Huler, used in this article in reference to our conversation. As I told him then, I knew his opinion and he knew mine. Fortunately, we continued to have a civil discourse as we conjectured about the opinions of our ancestors and how they may relate to the modern world. As we are both students of history, neither of us can claim a better knowledge of how historic figures would view the modern advances in firearms or growth of our government. He has laid out his argument and has invited me to add to that discussion. I hope to express myself as eloquently as he did.

To understand the mind of the eighteenth century man, we must understand the political thought that guided his opinions. That is not to say that all men presented with the same facts fell into the same line of thought, however. The shared experiences of that time led men to either side of the battle during the American War for Independence with equal vigor. The second amendment was a statement written by the side that won that battle. Expressed in that statement are the memories, the fears, and the hopes of its authors and those who voted for its passage.

Europeans, the English in particular, had a long tradition of legal rights dating back at least to the Magna Carta of 1215. Although that document had been effectively replaced, it remained a significant icon even in the eighteenth century. When the rights of a new wave of immigrants to the Carolinas were trampled by wealthy officials in the decades after Lawson, the growing populace exercised the idea of “regulation” and elected Regulators to negotiate on their behalf with the colonial English government for relief of oppressive and arbitrary judgments. The Regulator Movement culminated in the Battle of Alamance (1771) where it was squashed by the “corrupt” government of William Tryon representing the authority of the King and Crown. Tryon demanded royal allegiance and destroyed property of those sympathizers of the movement to eliminate their ability to oppose his dominion by waging any further effective resistance. By the time that the rebellion-minded “yankees” in Boston and eventually Philadelphia caught up to the Carolinians in the idea of organized resistance, the war was over - at least in the minds of many southerners. Continued usurpations by royal military leaders like Cornwallis and Tarleton on behalf of the government eventually led many loyal citizens to distrust their government and refuse its ultimate authority to the point that winning a war became unrealistic and eventually led to a resignation of British troops at Yorktown and a final settlement freeing the colonies to form a new union. It was the men who fought this battle of ideals that enshrined the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms against any foe of the Constitution “foreign or domestic.” They knew, first-hand, the dangers of an unchecked government. The militia they empowered was not the military under authority of any federal government, but citizens fighting for their own rights as free “men” who were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Given that context, it is not fair to think that a “military providing its own weapons” is a reasonable substitute to a “well-regulated militia.” By definition, a “militia” is a group of “able-bodied civilians” in service to their country (or the prevailing idea of the period in question, "service to the Constitution.")

The next difficulty in the conversation becomes the unforeseen advancement in firearms since the second amendment was drafted. Given the purpose that the framers of the Constitution wrote their words, it should be clear that they intended “able-bodied citizens” to have weapons equal to that of the military in order to potentially depose unjust leaders. The argument to this point is certainly made in Thomas Jefferson’s words to William Stephens Smith in 1787 that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” The practicality and wisdom of such power in individual hands to potentially cause “mass destruction” today is a clear counterpoint to the period intentions and a valid limitation to my modern mind. The legitimate question then becomes where the line is drawn by a government to restrict the possession of “arms” in defense of individual rights when the government is seen not as the guarantor of those rights, but the biggest potential threat to them. History is replete with examples of abusive governments both predating the Constitution and since. I believe a valid argument can be made that those governments with restrictive gun ownership at any given time were some of the worst abusers of civil rights.

Guns in the eighteenth century were also not as readily avai

Reply
Dale Loberger
10/5/2015 04:03:41 pm

Guns in the eighteenth century were also not as readily available then as they are today. There were absolutely never any background checks to ownership, but the cost of a gun was typically a significant portion of a worker’s annual income. This was an effective form of self-regulation against those without money or a job. I do not believe that this was an intentional way to limit gun ownership, however. Up through the early nineteenth century, all “able-bodied men” were still expected to own and have familiarity with the use of firearms. Even though we had a small standing army, militia gatherings for drill practice were still common and penalties for failure to participate were enforced. The reasonable limitation here could be made that protected owners were considered (as "well-regulated militia") to be “able-bodied citizens” acting in uniformity of purpose. While this certainly excused the physically infirmed from participation in drills, I believe the logical limitation was against those who were “otherwise unfit” to handle a weapon such as those of an “unstable mind” or those looking to extort personal profit. Again, I believe some legitimate argument could be made for limiting ownership to those “qualified” through a licensure program in order to counteract the dramatic increase in availability, quality and capacity of firearms available today.

While not trying (yet) to debate modern laws, I believe that the founding fathers had every intention of making weapons available to the populace, as a supplement to the ballot box, in order to help keep the government accountable and honest. However, there are numerous challenges when extending their notions to the modern world that they could not have foreseen. As both sides of the debate continue to interpret the second amendment, I would hope that they do so from knowledge of the eighteenth century mind along with its very specific concerns and remedies instead of a legalistic parsing of phraseology. The details of our modern world are quite different from history, but the human condition itself is little changed. My personal belief is that the foundation of debate should be how we integrate modern evidence into our current protected rights, not the experimentation of modern political theories outside of our genuine historical context.

Reply
Scott Huler
10/5/2015 08:11:07 pm

Dale, this is just marvelous. Thank you for improving my understanding of the time and giving me much more to think about.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    January 2020
    October 2019
    May 2019
    February 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    August 2017
    May 2017
    August 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014

    Categories

    All
    Adventure
    African American
    Angie Clemmons
    Anthropocene
    Apothecary
    Appalachian
    Archaeologists
    Archaeology
    Army-navy
    Art
    Artifacts
    Atlanta
    Backpack
    Banking
    Barbecue
    Barry Beasley
    Bath
    Beaufort
    Beckee Garris
    Beetle
    Beginning
    Ben Franklin
    Berm
    Bill
    Birds
    Blister
    Book
    Bookstore
    Boston
    Botanical
    Boykin
    Breach
    Brent Burgin
    Brownlee
    Buck
    Buffer
    Cabelas
    Cambridge
    Camden
    Camera
    Canoe
    Canty
    Catawba
    Chain
    Charleston
    Charlotte
    Chelsea
    Chocolate
    Chris Judge
    Church
    Cincinnati
    City Of Raleigh Museum
    Civilization
    Coe
    Comment
    Community
    Concord
    Confederate
    Contentnea
    Cornwallis
    Country Music
    Couture
    Crawford
    Creek
    Croatoan
    Cutler
    Cypress
    Danger
    Davis
    Death
    Delightsome
    Delk's
    Denton
    Devices
    Drake
    Drawing
    Drunk
    Duck
    Durham
    Eagle
    Earnhardt
    Earth Day
    East
    Ecologist
    Effron
    Embankment
    End
    Error
    Evans
    Exhibit
    Expeditions
    Facebook
    Feather
    Fern
    Finish
    Fire
    Flag
    Flintlock
    Flood
    Francis
    French
    Gaillard
    Gander Mountain
    Garden
    Geology
    Gimpy
    GIS
    Google
    Great Wagon Road
    Green
    Greenville
    Grifton
    Guerry
    Gun
    Guns
    Haigler
    Hallenbeck
    Hampton
    Hanging
    Hannah Smith
    Harris
    Hartford
    Harvest
    Heat
    Hempton
    Highway
    Hillsborough
    Hips
    Historic Bath
    Hollow Rocks
    Home
    Homeness
    Hortus Siccus
    Hospitality
    Huguenots
    Huntley
    Indians
    Instagram
    Interstate
    Island
    Ivy
    Ivy Place
    Jamaica
    Jarvis
    Jennifer Landin
    Jered
    Jimmy White
    John Jeffries
    John White
    Journalism
    Kadaupau
    Kannapolis
    Katawba Valley Land Trust
    Katie Winsett
    Kayak
    Kershaw
    Keyauwee
    King
    Knife
    Lame
    Land
    Language
    Lawson
    Lawsonians
    Lecture
    Legacy
    Legare
    Legislators
    Leigh Swain
    Lenoir
    Lenoir Store
    Lenses
    Library
    Lichen
    Lies
    Loberger
    Locke
    London
    Longleaf
    Lost Colony
    Lynch
    Lynching
    Magnuson
    Mansplaining
    Maps
    Mass Shooting
    Match-coat
    Mathematical
    Meerkat
    Memorial
    Mental Floss
    Mill
    Millstone
    Miniature
    Monkeyshine
    Moonshine
    Museum
    Museum Day Live
    Musings
    Nancy
    Nascar
    Native American Studies Center
    Natural History Museum
    Nature
    Nesbit
    Netherton
    Neuse
    Newspaper
    Nonfiction
    Notebooks
    Occaneechi
    Orlando
    Pack's Landing
    Palmetto
    Pamlico
    Park
    Patent Leather
    Pedestrian
    Peggy Scott
    Periscope
    Petiver
    Photography
    Physic
    Pig
    Pig Man
    Pittsburgh
    Pocket
    Poinsett
    Polo
    Potsherd
    Pottery
    Preparation
    Presentation
    Press
    Process
    Proofreading
    Property
    Publishing
    Raccoon
    Racing
    Racism
    Racist
    Raleigh
    Rape
    Ray
    Readings
    Reconsideration
    Records
    Revolution
    Richard Smith
    Richardson
    Rights
    Riparian
    Rivulet
    Road
    Roadness
    Roanoke
    Robert Off
    Roland Kays
    Rolling Stone
    Roombox
    Rules
    Salisbury
    Santee
    Sapona
    Sassafras
    Scan
    Sconc
    Seneca
    Seth
    Shakespeare
    Sir Walter Raleigh
    Slavery
    Slime Mold
    Sloane
    Slope
    Small Town
    Smith
    Smithsonian
    Snow
    Sore
    Sounds
    Spanish Moss
    Specimens
    Speedway
    Spencer
    State Fair
    Steve Grant
    Stewart
    St. Mark's
    Suburban
    Sumter County
    Surveying
    Swamp
    Tar River
    Technology
    Textile
    Tide
    Tobacco
    Toms River
    Tool
    Towel
    Trade
    Trading Ford
    Trading Girls
    Trail
    Trap
    Traunter
    Tree
    Tree Farming
    Trek
    Trilobite
    Troi Perkins
    Truth
    Tryon
    Tupelo
    Turkey
    Tuscarora
    Twitter
    Ugly
    Unc
    Val
    Val Green
    Virginia
    Virginia Dare
    Virginia Historical Society
    Walking
    Washington
    Waxhaw
    Weather
    Website
    White
    Writing
    Wrong
    Yadkin
    Yoga

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly