Weapons of Midwestern Pioneers

Weapons of Midwestern Pioneers

Most Midwestern pioneers carried weapons. The variety of these weapons was vast.

Guns and knives were among the most popular of these weapons. The weapons became useful tools for hunting and in defense against people and animals. Each weapon had unique characteristics that made it beneficial to the pioneers.

There were many knives for the pioneer to choose from. Some of the more popular knives were the Green River Knife, the Hudson Bay Camp knife, and the Bowie Knife. One of the biggest reasons why the Green River Knife was popular among pioneers was because it made for a good butcher knife. The pioneers could use it for more than one cause. The main use was to cut meat of animals hunted for food by the pioneers. Protection was another use of the Green River Knife. In 1832, John Russell founded the Green River Knife Company in Massachusetts.

The Hudson Bay Camp knife served as the perfect utility tool because of its size. It was used for butchering and many tasks around the camp of the pioneers. This all-purpose knife had an 8 1/2 inch making the perfect size for odd jobs. The blade was thick and durable and was held by a sturdy wood handle. Jukes Coulson, Stokes & Co. manufactured this handy tool during the first half of the nineteenth century.

The Bowie knife is believed to have been most commonly found among the traveling pioneers. James Bowie made this knife popular. So many people tried to copy his model of the knife that many versions of it soon emerged. Because of this widespread mimicking of the original knife, the Bowie knife reigned as the most popular among the pioneers. This knife was used primarily for combat and hunting due to its extra large blade. Here are some examples of the knife.

Two types of guns dominated the frontier of the pioneer days. The rifle was a necessity of most pioneers for survival. The Plains Rifle became the most popular of all rifles used by pioneers. It was such a good rifle that many manufacturers attempted to model their rifles after it. The octagon-shaped barrel reached 34 inches in length, helped make this gun popular because it was shorter than most. The shorter barrel made the rifle lighter and more accessible to the pioneers. The Plains Gun originated in 1807 when Jacob Hawken completed the first model in St. Louis, Missouri.

The other desired weapon among guns that pioneers carried was the pistol. Some pistols were flintlocks, some were cap-and -ball, but the majority were single-barreled smooth bores of the horse-pistol type. These three characteristics had to do with the firing and mechanics of the gun. Later models of the Colt pistol came about in the second half of the nineteenth century. In contrast to the rifle, the pistol served as more of a defensive weapon. It was used for close encounters with snakes, rodents, and in some cases, people.

The pioneers had many useful weapons available to them. The Bowie Knife was used in combat. Two other knives, the Green River Knife and the Hudson Bay Camp knife, served as butchery tools and basic needs knives. The rifle took care of hunting duties, and the pistol insured safety especially when pioneers were camped for the night. The survival and safety of the pioneers depended on such weapons.

Early Illinois Pioneers

French Explorers

German Explorers

English Explorers

American Explorers

Illinois became a state in 1818. There are many more people in Illinois today than there were in 1818, and Illinois had little diversity among the different cultures of people who lived here in 1818. At this time settlers came from different countries and sections of our country to take advantage of the many different opportunities that Illinois offered. The early pioneers had many different reasons to settle in Illinois.

The French

Some of the first pioneers who settled in Illinois came from the north. These pioneers were French people who came from Canada. The earliest of these explorers came to Illinois as fur traders. One of the more famous explorers was George Rogers Clark. Furbearers thought that traveling down the Mississippi River would help them find furs. Then more French explorers followed; they built military outposts. The majority of the Frenchmen came before 1760, while hardly any of the French came after the French and Indian War in 1763. This was because the French had to relinquish all of the land that they owned east of the Mississippi to England. In 1818 there were around 1500 French people in Illinois. Many of these were native to the area due to the little immigration after 1760. Nearly all of the French people lived near the Mississippi River, because most of them were fur traders. The river made for easy traveling and much wildlife. The French got along with the Native Americans well. In fact, there were even a few French people who married Native Americans. The French people built cabins to live in, and they used timber from around the area to build these cabins. Many people who followed the French used this method of building houses. They grew trees around their houses, most of them being apple, cherry, peach, and pear trees, and this gave them fruit to eat. They also grew other crops. They started out with a system of farming called town farms. Everybody in the town would pitch in and help on this farm. Everybody would share the crops and money made from this. Later, the farmers decided that it would probably be easier to have your own farm and work on it yourself. People who later came to Illinois later also used this method.

German Explorers

Another group of foreigners who traveled to Illinois were the Germans. They came to Illinois in smaller numbers around 1800. Some of the Germans who traveled to Illinois were straight from Germany, but most of the Germans who ended up here were native to America. A large proportion of these settlers came from the state of Pennsylvania , and most of these Germans settled in the southern portion of Illinois. They came to Illinois because they needed prairie land to farm. In the east land was more crowded than in Illinois, and the Germans were mostly farmers, so they needed room to farm. Illinois had a lot of prairie land to offer in large quantities for cheap prices. The Germans took advantage of this opportunity.

English Explorers

The English made up a group of the settlers in Illinois, also. They had several reasons for traveling to Illinois. The Englishmen wanted their liberty. In England they did not have this, because England was a monarchy run by kings and queens. They knew that if they traveled to the United States they would have their freedom. They wanted to worship freely, and they wanted to be able to speak out. The English were against slavery, and since they were against it they didn't travel below the Mason-Dixon line into slave states. The English wanted to establish their own estates. Since most of the English were farmers, farm hands, or rural merchants, they wanted to live on the prairie land. Like the Germans, they saw how cheap the land was and decided to move to it. Farming would have been tough for them on rougher land back east. The Appalachian Mountains caused very rugged land in the east. They also had problems living in the east. This is because the revolutionary war had just ended. The people of America didn't like the English people all that well. The English people had a tougher time adapting to Illinois, and because of that they didn't play an important role in politics and the economy in Illinois, although they did play a part in the growth of Illinois to a state. The pioneers had many rivers that could take them to Illinois.

American Explorers

The largest group of people to move into Illinois were the Americans. The earliest of the pioneers were people from Virginia in search of furs and new lands. The pioneers had many rivers that could bring them to Illinois. Most of these pioneers came around the year 1765. Between 1765 and 1800 there was little population growth in Illinois by the Americans. Then between 1800 and 1810 the population in the territory increased from 2458 people to 12,282 people. Once again the population growth halted. This was because the Native Americans became very hostile to people traveling through their lands, and when people back east heard of this they became scared to move to Illinois. Around 1815 there was finally peace reached with the Native Americans, and this allowed there to be a huge population boom to the west. In 1815 there were nearly 15,000 people in the Illinois territories. By mid 1818, 35,000 people located to Illinois and by the end of 1818 around 40,000 people lived in Illinois. The population of Americans was very diverse. Of the people who moved to Illinois, estimates indicated that 38% were from southern states, 37% were from western states, 13% were from mid states, and 3% were from New England. 71% of these Americans came from south of the Mason-Dixon line. With all of these people moving to Illinois, it was easy to blaze trails for people to follow. Many of the people who moved here from the south moved because they disagreed with slavery and wanted to live in a non-slave state. They didn't like living in the south and having to work on one huge plantation; whereas in the north they could establish their own family farm. People were also treated worse in the south if they were poor. So, people would move to Illinois to try to avoid prejudice. The people who moved from the west and east moved for simpler reasons. Many of the pioneers had a love of wilderness and wanted to be surrounded by it. Other people who moved came as settlers following the range, looking for a place to settle down and farm. The last group of people were doctors, lawyers, and other business people looking to find a place for their business. The Americans saw Illinois as a great place to establish themselves.

The people who moved to Illinois in it's earliest stages saw many different reasons to settle there. Illinois was sparsely populated and had plenty of room for growth. Almost anybody who wanted to establish them self in Illinois had the opportunity to do so. There were vast amounts of opportunities in the newly founded land, and many different kinds of people decided to take advantage of these opportunities.

Chase T. Gibb

Thanks Buck for putting my article on your site.

Sources

Information for this paper was found in 3 different sources.

Black, Solon J.. Illinois in 1818. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1967.

Gove, Samuel K. and Nowlan, James D.. Encyclopedia Americana Volume 14.

Danbury: Grolier Incorporated, 1986.

The Illinois State Historical Society.

The Illinois State Historical Society Homepage.

 

[nw_hunter]

Good read! Thanks for sharing.

 

[redwing]

This slant on history seems to be off target in many ways. Many of the early settlers to the Midwest or the old Northwest as it was known were from the south. Many items about this area in the early days refer to the Ky. Hunters and the Virginia Hunters,.

This area predates the Russell and the Bowie knife as well as the Plains Rifle. The flint lock long rifle would have been more in style at the time.

You are way off base on the English. The English were the first big Plantation owners and set in motion much of the Southern culture. They were opposed to the Revolutionary War for the most part. They were close to England during the Civil War.

The Midwest was settled first by hunters and land crabbers of all kinds. The French left there mark as did the Irish and the Scotts.

The Germans came in mass after the revolutions of the mid 19the century in Germany. I am sure there are others from that area that can add to your history of the Corn Belt. You may also read up on the men Lewis & Clark recurited from this area. They were called Ky. Hunters. :hmm:

 

[Mad Professor]

I think the smoothbore/trade rifle got shortchanged

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I concur, not very accurate at all. The Green River knives really don't even make the 1840 rendezvous cut off date and where could anyone have gotten the idea that the plains rifle was lighter than the earlier longrifles? Glaring inaccuracies in some area makes the whole suspect.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Not much I could agree with in this article. Sounds like it was written for a 1960's grade school history book.

 

[jbwilliams3]

This was sort of random, methinks.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Not much I could agree with in this article. Sounds like it was written for a 1960's grade school history book.

:snore: Yup :snore:

 

Sounds like it was written for a 1960's grade school history book.

Actually, it sounds like it was written by a grade school kid. :shake:

 

[sniper68]

Not much I could agree with in this article. Sounds like it was written for a 1960's grade school history book.

Could this be the author?! :grin:

 

Hey don't yell at the messenger, I agree with you. You would not believe how many would read this and make no comment. I see many problems with this and wanted some input to see if it was just me or did others that paid attention when reading saw problems also.

Charles E. Hanson, Jr. was a very good friend and helped me when writing "Success in the North American Fur Trade". He read this and gave it to me to see what my reactions would be, you have done as I did at the time. Thanks I thought maybe I was seeing something that others didn't.

The Northwest Trade gun was mentioned; I have owned a dozen originals, wrote a book on them, several research papers and have researched another dozen for different folks over a twenty year period.

That said and like you, figured this gun saw more use than any other. Hanson corrected my thinking years ago on that theory, he showed me trade lists of weapons, military guns came into the fur trade big time.

Think about it, your a young guy finished you enlistment, no funds, only have what your wearing and the musket you were issued. If you stayed at home or went any other direction you used what you had until you could afford something better. In many cases it was a strong built service musket or rifle in later years.

Thanks again for those that paid attention, good work guys.

 

[Stumpkiller]

The largest group of people to move into Illinois were the Americans.

Americans were living in Illinois 30,000 years before the Vikings discovered this content. Kind of condescending racism, there. :nono: Next we'll be hearing about "The White Man's Burden."


The "Bowie Knife" was mostly a pulp fiction creation from just prior to the Civil War era (1840 & after). A large rifleman's knife or scalping knife is the cutlery that won the Illinois area. Almost all much thinner in width and thickness than the Searles or other "Bowie" styles.

In 1763 the territory came under British rule, but the Ft Stanwix line forbade colonization until about 1787 (when we stopped paying attention to British Rule & had time to work west). It was already a state by 1818, so the "pioneer period" falls in there.

Think about it, your a young guy finished you enlistment, no funds, only have what your wearing and the musket you were issued. If you stayed at home or went any other direction you used what you had until you could afford something better. In many cases it was a strong built service musket or rifle in later years.

Unfortunately, you cannot recreate history by simply thinking about it. It requires research and documentation. Sometimes "interpretive archeology" works, but sometimes blind squirrels find acorns, too.

 

[redwing]

Buck you are new to this forum. I think you will find some very sharp people live here. What ever your reason for this post :hmm: You Should have added it was a test fire. :nono: Don't try to fool the members of this forum. :shake:

 

[Cosmoline]

I remain very doubtful that ANY rifle was the "dominant" firearm of any region until Winchester started mass producing them after the CW. Surely the simple smoothbore would have been far more common, given the monumental costs of procuring a true rifle.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Glad to see you here Buck. I have read your book in detail and enjoyed it much.....be prepared for some questions and clarifications..... :haha: :v

 

[pichou]

I remain very doubtful that ANY rifle was the "dominant" firearm of any region until Winchester started mass producing them after the CW. Surely the simple smoothbore would have been far more common, given the monumental costs of procuring a true rifle.

Consider 2 things.

1. as already mentioned, a large percentage of the American settlers in the Lower Ohio Valley region were Southerners--a region with a strong rifle tradition. There was also a rifle making tradition in Ohio, etc.

2. The local guns that show up in the Midwest. 1850's and later are all Brit shotguns. Earlier guns that I have seen, with a local provenance, are heavy half stock rifles. The only flint smoothbore I have seen turn up at a farm auction was a restocked Prussian musket.

As for the knives, I have never seen a local HBC knife in the midwest. They jump from dug early trade styles to table and butcher knives of the mid-to-late 19th century. I think the earlier utility knives just got used up.

:v

 

[Cosmoline]

How many rifles could the smiths have turned out a year, though? What were they charging at the time? How many could have afforded to buy them? If we're judging the percentages of period firearms based on those that happen to have been preserved all these decades we may be getting a skewed conclusion. We have a frontier inhabited by a relatively small number of comparatively wealthy rifle owners and the rest of the population somehow disarmed. That was similar to conclusions in the notorious "Arming America." The alternative explanation is that the bulk of the population was armed with simple scatterguns that were considerably easier to make and cheaper to buy, and which consequently saw a lot of hard use and were never worth enough to preserve. The rifles, OTOH, would have been cherished heirlooms precisely because of their value.

That would also explain why it is the expensive, comparatively rare rifles which have the vaunted local provenance. Who bothers to keep track of provenance on a crude barn gun?

And there's also the question of need. Why would farmers need to spend a year's wages on a rifle when their hunting was typically of the meat bag variety and relied on hounds to bring game to scattergun range?

 

A good example of a "crude barn gun", like your term was also the percussion trade guns. Some of my father's friends back in the 50's would show us their "farm guns". They were smoothbore single shot, cheaply made shotguns. At the time Hanson hadn't come out with his book on tradeguns. I moved to CO from PA in the early 60's and met Charlie at a gun show. We started talking about guns in general and the subject of my father's "farm guns" came up. A few years later I took a few up to Chadron and Charlie went crazy about the condition of these guns. They were not just "crude barn guns" but late trade guns from back East, probably in the New England area in their day.

 

I remain very doubtful that ANY rifle was the "dominant" firearm of any region until Winchester started mass producing them after the CW. Surely the simple smoothbore would have been far more common, given the monumental costs of procuring a true rifle.

Consider 2 things.

1. as already mentioned, a large percentage of the American settlers in the Lower Ohio Valley region were Southerners--a region with a strong rifle tradition. There was also a rifle making tradition in Ohio, etc.

2. The local guns that show up in the Midwest. 1850's and later are all Brit shotguns. Earlier guns that I have seen, with a local provenance, are heavy half stock rifles. The only flint smoothbore I have seen turn up at a farm auction was a restocked Prussian musket.

As for the knives, I have never seen a local HBC knife in the midwest. They jump from dug early trade styles to table and butcher knives of the mid-to-late 19th century. I think the earlier utility knives just got used up.
:v

I have to agree with you on smoothbores, English and Belgium were very common. We always think the term "cottage industry" was modern, not so it was going strong building these cheap guns in Europe. One family were stockers, another barrel makers and so on, finally assemblers.

I use to collect early working knives, you all have done that, they're endless. Have never seen any marked or looked like an HBC knife. Like you say most were butcher style blades.

Thanks for the input guys - good posts.

 

[J.D.]

How many rifles could the smiths have turned out a year, though? What were they charging at the time? How many could have afforded to buy them? If we're judging the percentages of period firearms based on those that happen to have been preserved all these decades we may be getting a skewed conclusion. We have a frontier inhabited by a relatively small number of comparatively wealthy rifle owners and the rest of the population somehow disarmed. That was similar to conclusions in the notorious "Arming America." The alternative explanation is that the bulk of the population was armed with simple scatterguns that were considerably easier to make and cheaper to buy, and which consequently saw a lot of hard use and were never worth enough to preserve. The rifles, OTOH, would have been cherished heirlooms precisely because of their value.

That would also explain why it is the expensive, comparatively rare rifles which have the vaunted local provenance. Who bothers to keep track of provenance on a crude barn gun?

And there's also the question of need. Why would farmers need to spend a year's wages on a rifle when their hunting was typically of the meat bag variety and relied on hounds to bring game to scattergun range?

While each maker may not turn out all that many guns per year, one has to consider the sheer numbers of makers that were in business.

Most, if not all of those established makers had who knows haw many apprentices and at least one journeyman, supervised by the master, so it is obvious that these are NOT one man shops. Some, larger shops were almost assembly line operations with workers acquiring specific skills to perform specific jobs.

All one has to do is find a copy of "Gunmakers of wherever" to get an idea of how many makers were in production in a given state, at any particular time. I am aware of books, of varying thicknesses, cataloging the KNOWN gunmakers of over a half dozen states, and I'm sure there are books listing gunmakers in other states, that I am unaware of. Moreover, who knows how many undocumented gunmakers were working either part time or full time in conjunction with another trade? Some known gunmakers show up on tax lists as blacksmiths, for example.

The so called information in "Arming America" is largely bogus. Some of the stats were made up to satisfy the authors very biased presuppositions, so disregard the contents as any form of historic documentation.

Well Buck, I guess I have become so gun shy from being attacked as an authentinazi that I have begun to let sleeping dogs lie, when it comes to misinformation posted on this and other forums.

Good to see you posting here, BTW.

I'm looking forward to reading your comments on some of the subjects posted on this forum.

God bless