George Washington's slaves could hunt

[Grizzly Adams]

There was no way free people would willingly work in the tobacco or cotton fields unless they were paid so much that the crops could not be sold competitively.

Friend I don't know where you got you information from, but my ancestors all worked in the tobacco and cotton fields. I even picked cotton until 1957 when we left the farm for a nickel a pound.

 

[Thin Black Line]

They could legally own guns if their master gave them permission, which Washington often did.

And Washington DC gives us limited permission to own some kinds of guns today

Now get off the internet and get back to work! Most of you have some
kind of ARMs that are going to be re-adjusting soon.....the mortgage kind,
not the weapon kind

The more things "change" the more they remain the same.

 

[another okie]

I'm not sure what you mean. I have no mortage or debt of any kind. Do you mean those in debt are slaves to the creditors?

 

[General Geoff]

Geoff, check your history, repeating arms were very very scarce prior to 1861. Flintlocks were still in fashion as late as 20 years before the War of Northern Agression. I would imagine a smoothbore fouling piece would not have been out of bounds in some cases but a single shot cap lock rifle was about as modern as you got in the years leading up to 1861.

That was the point of my post. No such repeating arms really existed back then. The "if they were available" was a pure hypothetical.

 

[Zoogster]

Geoff, check your history, repeating arms were very very scarce prior to 1861. Flintlocks were still in fashion as late as 20 years before the War of Northern Agression. I would imagine a smoothbore fouling piece would not have been out of bounds in some cases but a single shot cap lock rifle was about as modern as you got in the years leading up to 1861.

That was the point of my post. No such repeating arms really existed back then. The "if they were available" was a pure hypothetical.

Actualy repeating arms did exist back then. They were just too delicate and complex for the average recruited individual because they had to be made to close tolerances and required more thorough maintainence.
You are probably unaware of them because they were airguns with a butt stock resrvoir. The energy levels on them were on par with most long arms of the day, yet could fire around 20-30 shots as repeaters, and the reservoir could be detached and replaced with another previously charged and carried.

Many individual examples existed custom made around the time of the Declaration of Independence, but one of the first to go into mass production did not occur until a few years after the revolutionary war. Yet anyone with ties to the nobility would be well aware of them.
These mass produced examples would become the main armament of the Austrian army. The were the Girandoni Air Rifle, or Wind Rifle, created 1779-1780.

http://www.beemans.net/Austrian airguns.htm
As I said while these may have been some of the first mass produced ones, many custom ones existed prior, and were widely fielded by nobility.

In fact they were so feared that many considered them cowardly assassin's weapons (including Napoleon) because they did not leave the telltale black powder smoke to tell where the shots were coming from, and could fire so many shots at once.
Anyone captured with such a weapon was usualy killed because of this.
Some of the german (Hessian) mercanaries that came over to fight in the War of Independence used similar airguns, though they were built on an individual basis as the Girandoni did not yet exist.

Most royalty used airguns with as much power as firearms because they could afford them and the more sophisticated maintainence they required. Firearms were simple and rugged, powder goes in, is sparked, and fires. They could be to loose tolerances and had few parts. They were the weapon of the masses.
Fine airguns were the weapons of the nobility and those who could afford the best quality. This is the way it was until cartridge guns were invented.

Airguns were prefered by nobility for hunting and personal use as far back as the 1500s because they usualy had far more capability than powder guns of the day.

Similar airguns were also used by some in the American Civil War, especialy by "snipers." Lewis & Clark of course used one as well over 50 years before the American Civil War during thier journey.

Repeating airguns fired projectiles with as much energy as the muskets of the day, were multi shot repeaters, and would have been known to the founding fathers, many of whom had close ties with the nobility that often used them hunting.

This is long before there was a legal difference between airguns and powder guns. They were all considered arms.

 

[Millwright]

Curiouser and curiouser.........Most here assume all slaves were black - they weren't. Bond slavery was commonplace in the colonies as was criminal slavery, ( to work off a sentence or debt).

While most Americans learn Eli Whitney was famous for inventing the gin...it was his concept of standardization of measurements leading to parts commonality that was his big contribution to American industry. ( But his demonstration of this concept to the USG was done with a loaded deck. Mensuration tools of the time weren't sufficiently accurate to enable the concept except on a small scale.) >MW

 

[Roswell 1847]

There were a very few repeating muskets that used powder and ball, but I doubt any ever showed up in America.
These held powder and shot in flasks built into the buttstock and a rotary block dispensed each as it was turned. The guns were flintlocks, I believe they were also of Austrian make and both expensive and dangerous.
If the block remained heavily greased then loose powder grains wouldn't ignite, but if the block was dry fire could jump past the seals and set off the powder stored in the Buttstock.

The Puckle repeating cannon used a disc with multiple chambers which were rotated into battery and sealed to the breech by a large screw with a handle.
A hand held version made in the US has been shown in magazines, they called it "Fred Flintstone's Tommygun" it actually resembled a Thompsom in profile.

Colt Patterson Revolver Carbines were availabe from the early 1830's onward.

No repeating firearms were cheap enough to outfit more than a few Military units. The Texas Navy could only afford 180 Patterson carbines and a like number of Paterson pistols in 1839.

John Brown equiped his slave army with pikes, hoping to capture muskets from the US arsenal to equip more slaves for a revolt. Few of his men owned guns and fewer still had any sort of revolver.

Slave revolts happened in the US on rare occasions and each was doomed. Only the Slave Revolts in the French Colonies ever succeeded.

 

[MechAg94]

My Grandfather said he picked cotton in the summers as a kid. Remember, the automated cotton picking machine wasn't invented until the 50's or 60's.

 

[MechAg94]

I have heard that while slaves worked in the fields, it was often routine for younger slaves to be out near the fields shooting crows or other birds that might go after the crops. At least, that is what I have heard.

I heard there was some sort of slave revolt in one of the Carolina's some years before the Civil War where several families were killed. After that, laws were passed forbidding slaves or freed blacks from owning or possessing guns.

 

[MechAg94]

I don't think slavery is right and I don't think most slaves wouldn't like the to be free. However, most of those slaves hadn't known any other life, and it was an accepted practice.

You should also remember that indentured servitude was also common for white people as well though it often had a time limit.

I would also like to point out that even most abolitionists of the Civil War era still believed that blacks were inferior. That attitude took a bit longer to subside. You can see/read of the story of the Tuskegee Airmen to see that.


I think if you were a fly on the wall in that time, you would see a mix of different attitudes toward slaves and both extremes of bad treatment and really good treatment. Look out how people treat their own kids and think about how that carries over.

 

[Roswell 1847]

The Slave owners weren't interested in just making a fair profit, they wanted to live like kings on the sweat and blood of others.

For people like Washington and Jefferson, who were born into that culture it took a lot of soul searching just to do no more than they did.
Both also knew that simply freeing a slave into that society might well be a death sentence.
Washington left instructions and funds for the education of the slaves before they were freed, so they'd at least have a shot at making it, thats about all he could do, and even that was illegal in many slaveholder states.

Some free Blacks owned Black slaves as well, notably in New Orleans and surrounding areas.
Slavery was still legal in parts of Africa until the 1960's. Its still a wide spread practice in predominately Muslim regions of Africa today regardless of legality.

 

[MechAg94]

I also think it is wise to note that laws regarding slaves and blacks were not the same in 1760 as they were in 1860. I thought the laws were much more restrictive and anti-black in 1860.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Do you mean those in debt are slaves to the creditors?

I suppose we could split hairs over slavery vs serfdom. In both cases, free
men and knights still possess weapons. If someone has the power to tell you
that you can't possess weapons, then the exact name is really irrelevant. In
the 20th century people who couldn't own/possess/carry firearms were called
everything from "comrade" to "consumer"

 

[crazed_ss]

Applying todays moral standards to history is intellectually dishonest.

I disagree.. GW Bush summed it up nicely in his speech here..
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030708-1.html

...And some have said we should not judge their failures by the standards of a later time. Yet, in every time, there were men and women who clearly saw this sin and called it by name.

We can fairly judge the past by the standards of President John Adams, who called slavery "an evil of callosal magnitude." We can discern eternal standards in the deeds of William Wilberforce and John Quincy Adams, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Abraham Lincoln. These men and women, black and white, burned with a zeal for freedom, and they left behind a different and better nation. Their moral vision caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race. By a plan known only to Providence, the stolen sons and daughters of Africa helped to awaken the conscience of America. The very people traded into slavery helped to set America free. ...

 

[crazed_ss]

Gosh, some of you make it sound almost okay to own another person as chattel.

I am sensing the same sentiment here.

Amazing that people who will begin foaming at the mouth the second the gov't even suggests some new form on gun control, can sit here and rationalize and justify why slavery wasnt that bad.

 

[Robert Hairless]

He also occasionally supplied them with lead shot, apparently so they could provide wild game for both themselves and him.

George Washington was unenlightened in more than one way.

If Washington had a proper respect for the ecology he would have supplied steel shot, not lead.

Washington also did not declare Mt. Vernon a Gun Free Zone.

I'm distressed that Washington encouraged Americans to use guns as an instrument of national policy instead of addressing its differences through the United Nations.

We need to recognize also that George Washington led armed gangs to shoot British tourists.

George Washington would not stand a chance as a candidate in the 2008 Presidential election. Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would beat him in a landslide.

Let us be proud of the long distance this country has travelled since it was founded.

 

[frogomatic]

I'm not too sure a slave owner(eliteist) would allow a slave(peasant) to use any kind of modern weapon if they were available, as it would be far more feasible to rebel(reform) effectively with a repeating firearm.

the mentality of the modern anti-gun politicians, and yet we're the ones with outdated ideals!

 

[Art Eatman]

Picking cotton? Ah, wage inflation! A fella gets 5¢ a pound in 1957. Heck, I only got 2¢ a pound back in 1946. Hardest dollar I ever earned.

The south end of a northbound plowhorse ain't the world's most scenic view, either.

I've not read some of the comments as "condoning" slavery so much as pointing out that the idea of brutality being some sort of common, everyday treatment was wrong. Sorta stupid to cripple a thousand-dollar asset to the point of non-utility.

And this thread is mostly off-topic. Good thread, though.

I'll let it run through New Year's, if it stays rational...

Have a Happy, non-slave New Year's...

Art

 

[ilbob]

The Slave owners weren't interested in just making a fair profit, they wanted to live like kings on the sweat and blood of others.

I think you have been watching Roots too much. Slavery was not anywhere near as lucrative as you might think.

I also think it is wise to note that laws regarding slaves and blacks were not the same in 1760 as they were in 1860. I thought the laws were much more restrictive and anti-black in 1860.

As the North tightened the noose around the South, the South responded with more laws that attempted to preserve slavery.

Some free Blacks owned Black slaves as well, notably in New Orleans and surrounding areas.

Yep. Some even worked in brothels. Supposedly, several of the more infamous brothels were owned by free blacks using mostly black women, both free and slave.

Slavery was still legal in parts of Africa until the 1960's. Its still a wide spread practice in predominately Muslim regions of Africa today regardless of legality.

Adherents of the religion of peace are not bound to follow the law. Pretty convenient religion.

 

[Drysdale]

There was no way free people would willingly work in the tobacco or cotton fields unless they were paid so much that the crops could not be sold competitively.

I guess the scars on my mother's hands from all the cotton she picked as a young girl are imagined?

You sound just like LULAC, saying that there's no way Americans will do the jobs Mexican illegals are doing for a competitive price.

I disagree with them as well.

 

[gc70]

The Slave owners weren't interested in just making a fair profit, they wanted to live like kings on the sweat and blood of others.

Here is some interesting information about US slavery gleaned from 1860 census data.

In 1860, there were 393,975 slaveholders who owned 3,950,528 slaves.
49% (191,410) of slaveholders held 4 or less slaves, totaling 10% (399,217) of the slave population.
The slave population was 50.16% male and 49.84% female.
The median age of slaves was between 14 (45% age 14 or under) and 19 (56% age 19 or under).​

Census information was collected by household, suggesting that the "average" slaveholding household owned an "average" slave family of 4 (adult male and female and male and female children).

 

[MechAg94]

I don't think anyone on this thread is trying to justify slavery at all. We are just trying to be historically realistic about the attitudes and norms of that time. Attitudes have changed since then and thankfully so.

It wasn't until after WWII that the common idea that some races were inherently inferior started to recede. Partly due to Hitler's Nazis and partly due to the battlefield performance of many black men; among other reasons also. I have seen a few stories of the performance of black troops in WWI that who were turned over to French command. They asked for more. My point of this is that attitudes have changed for the better, but it is important to remember what people thought and did 200 years ago so we are not blind to what may come in the future. Blindly judging everything by today's norms and standards without that understanding is foolish and close-minded, IMO.