- Published on
School students want their history lessons to be relevant. They want to know why the events of the past matter. One wonders, then, how many teachers in Ohio and Wisconsin tell their pupils that if it were not for George Rogers Clark, they might be Canadians.
“With just 150 volunteers,” Eric Sterner tells readers in his much-needed biography, Clark “paddled, rode, and walked from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi through all kinds of weather to seize the largest white settlements in the…Illinois Country. Combining speed and surprise with a mastery of psychological warfare, skill at maneuvering and the political gaps among various groups, and a healthy dose of luck, the small force accomplished the unexpected.”
“With just 150 volunteers,” Eric Sterner tells readers in his much-needed biography, Clark “paddled, rode, and walked from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi through all kinds of weather to seize the largest white settlements in the…Illinois Country. Combining speed and surprise with a mastery of psychological warfare, skill at maneuvering and the political gaps among various groups, and a healthy dose of luck, the small force accomplished the unexpected.”
Clark’s adventure in Illinois is a great story and an essential part of our national history, yet few Americans are aware of it. The obvious reasons are that George Washington was not involved in it, and it occurred far from eastern population centers. Its place in the Revolutionary story also requires some explaining: It was a Virginia enterprise, entirely independent of Congress or the Continental Army. Clark’s men were not Continental soldiers, State regulars, nor even militia. They were simply volunteers hoping for a vaguely promised reward.
Mr. Sterner explains that Henry Hamilton, the Canadian lieutenant governor at Fort Detroit, initially hoped to sway western settlers toward the Crown. Hamilton published his overture in a printed broadside.
Mr. Sterner explains that Henry Hamilton, the Canadian lieutenant governor at Fort Detroit, initially hoped to sway western settlers toward the Crown. Hamilton published his overture in a printed broadside.
I do assure all such as are inclined to withdraw themselves from the Tyranny and oppression of the rebel Committees, & take refuge in this Settlement, or any of the Posts commanded by His Majesty’s Officers, shall be humanely treated, shall be lodged and victualled, and such as come off in arms & shall use them in defence of his Majesty against Rebels and Traytors, ’till the extinction of this rebellion, shall receive pay adequate to their former Stations in the rebel service, and all common men who shall serve during that period, shall receive his Majesty’s bounty of two hundred acres of Land.
Never likely to persuade, the proclamation was most often found next to the bodies of murdered settlers and consequently perceived as a declaration of “all out war.” Governor Patrick Henry secretly authorized Clark to recruit men and take that war to the enemy on the north side of the Ohio. Through a remarkable sequence of heroic deeds, Clark’s little army not only captured three French-speaking settlements but also Governor Hamilton himself.
Mr. Sterner’s treatment of Clark is superior to its predecessors in part because it makes a clear-eyed assessment of its subject. Clark was no diplomat. He viewed repeated treaty negotiations with hostile Indian tribes as telegraphing fear and weakness. When he convened his own such meeting, he declared, “I am a man and a Warriour and not a councillor. I carry in my Right hand war and Peace in my left.” When Winnebago leaders offered him a peace pipe and a belt of wampum, he smashed them with his sword. Hamilton’s surrender followed Clark’s theatrically gruesome tomahawking of prisoners outside the fort at Vincennes. With just a small force at his disposal, Sterner explains, Clark relied on psychological warfare to succeed.
After Clark’s success against Hamilton, the north side of the Ohio was organized as Illinois County, Virginia. His men, too, were organized (if they enlisted) as the Illinois Regiment of Virginia state regulars. As peace neared, the possession and governance of territory became increasingly important. Nathanael Greene prioritized square miles over urban centers in the south and won the Carolinas and Georgia for the United States. The Illinois Regiment’s tenuous control over the West led to the acquisition of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. It is an important story and one that needed to be told right. Mr. Sterner has done that in Till the Extinction of This Rebellion: George Rogers Clark, Frontier Warfare, and the Illinois Campaign of 1778-1779.
Since the 1876 centennial, Revolutionary War historiography has been inappropriately focused on the northeast and the career of Washington (which was also mostly in the northeast). John Buchanan, Michael Cecere, and Andrew Waters are among the authors who have helped correct the north-south imbalance. Eric Sterner, also the author of Anatomy of a Massacre and The Battle of Upper Sandusky, 1782, is valiantly working to correct the much deeper east-west imbalance.
Mr. Sterner’s treatment of Clark is superior to its predecessors in part because it makes a clear-eyed assessment of its subject. Clark was no diplomat. He viewed repeated treaty negotiations with hostile Indian tribes as telegraphing fear and weakness. When he convened his own such meeting, he declared, “I am a man and a Warriour and not a councillor. I carry in my Right hand war and Peace in my left.” When Winnebago leaders offered him a peace pipe and a belt of wampum, he smashed them with his sword. Hamilton’s surrender followed Clark’s theatrically gruesome tomahawking of prisoners outside the fort at Vincennes. With just a small force at his disposal, Sterner explains, Clark relied on psychological warfare to succeed.
After Clark’s success against Hamilton, the north side of the Ohio was organized as Illinois County, Virginia. His men, too, were organized (if they enlisted) as the Illinois Regiment of Virginia state regulars. As peace neared, the possession and governance of territory became increasingly important. Nathanael Greene prioritized square miles over urban centers in the south and won the Carolinas and Georgia for the United States. The Illinois Regiment’s tenuous control over the West led to the acquisition of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. It is an important story and one that needed to be told right. Mr. Sterner has done that in Till the Extinction of This Rebellion: George Rogers Clark, Frontier Warfare, and the Illinois Campaign of 1778-1779.
Since the 1876 centennial, Revolutionary War historiography has been inappropriately focused on the northeast and the career of Washington (which was also mostly in the northeast). John Buchanan, Michael Cecere, and Andrew Waters are among the authors who have helped correct the north-south imbalance. Eric Sterner, also the author of Anatomy of a Massacre and The Battle of Upper Sandusky, 1782, is valiantly working to correct the much deeper east-west imbalance.
GABRIEL NEVILLE is the author of The Last Men Standing: The 8th Virginia Regiment in the American Revolution.
- Published on
All or nearly all the 15 infantry regiments raised by the Old Dominion in 1775, 1776, and 1777 had two or more companies of riflemen. Their weapon is sometimes called the “Kentucky Rifle,” but because the long-barreled design originated in Pennsylvania, "Pennsylvania Rifle" is the better term. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York diplomatically calls it the "American Longrifle." It asserts in a display that the weapon was “the first distinctly American art form created by European settlers in North America.” Many of the guns are indeed works of art.
Tradition, supported but not proved by documentary evidence, holds that Martin Meylin of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, made the first longrifle. He was an immigrant from Switzerland and may have produced an early version of his design in Germantown, Pennsylvania, in 1705 before he built his gun shop or “boring mill” in West Lampeter Township in 1719. An 1844 history records matter-of-factly that Meylin was “the first gun-smith within the limits of Lancaster County; as early as 1719, he erected a boring-mill, on what is known as Meylin’s run.” The building still stands at the intersection of Eshelman Mill Road and Long Rifle Road. There is no archeological evidence to prove or disprove that rifles were made there, and skeptics suspect the site was merely a blacksmith shop. However, two early rifles with “MM” engraved by their maker seem to show, but again do not prove, that Meylin was the earliest creator of the familiar firearm. Even if entirely true, “inventor” might be too strong of a term for him. The longrifle evolved from German hunting guns, which made a separate leap over the Atlantic in 1776 in the hands of Hessian and Anspacher Jägers. The primary innovation was the long barrel, which made the weapons very accurate.
An ornate Pennsylvania rifle probably made by George Schreyer Sr. (1739–1819) in York County, Pennsylvania ca. 1770. (Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Though historians debate Meylin’s role, Lancaster County’s central place in the development of the longrifle is undisputed. It was the earliest and most prominent center of rifle production in colonial times. Adjacent York, Berks, and Lebanon counties also had many gunsmiths, and the craft followed settlement on the western and southern path on the Great Philadelphia Wagon Road. By the time of the Revolution, craftsmen made rifles in Shepherdstown, Winchester, Staunton, and other Shenandoah Valley towns. The unique styles of different counties and different artisans can still be discerned by knowledgeable observers. Rifles were essential on the frontier for self-defense, subsistence hunting, and for hunting expeditions supporting the robust transatlantic deerskin trade. By the 1770s, western men in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania had an established reputation for expert marksmanship.
Pennsylvania rifles were used infrequently in the French and Indian War. They demonstrated their military value in Lord Dunmore’s War, the last colonial Indian war, fought in 1774. Virginia’s western militia bested a large Indian army on the banks of the Ohio River in a battle that only barely resembled European tactics. When the Revolution broke out, Virginia’s first contribution to the Continental Army was two companies of riflemen from Berkeley and Frederick counties, led by Hugh Stephenson and Daniel Morgan. When the Old Dominion began to form its own full-time regiments, it incorporated rifle companies in a way that mimicked British use of grenadier and light infantry companies. The rifle companies were recruited in the western counties to “act as light infantry” alongside musket companies from the east side of the Blue Ridge.
Like the nearby state historical marker, a plaque on the building is prickly about the "so-called Kentucky Rifle." The longrifle was developed in Pennsylvania two or three decades before the earliest white settlement of Kentucky.
Virginia’s regiments of “regulars” (full-time troops) began as provincial (or “state” after July 4, 1776) before joining the Continental Army. The 1st and 2nd regiments were created with two rifle companies each. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th each had three. The 9th, originally formed for service on Virginia’s eastern shore, had two. Virginia does not seem to have specifically ordered rifle companies for the six newest regiments, but the 11th, 12th, and 13th certainly included riflemen, and the 10th, 14th, and 15th may have as well. Uniquely, the 8th Virginia was raised entirely in the west and carried only rifles.
It took some time for American commanders to learn how to effectively incorporate rifles into their tactical playbooks. Slow-loading and unable to hold bayonets, they were suited only for skirmishing and harassing from a distance. In close combat they became little more than unwieldy clubs after firing one round. This was tragically illustrated in the opening minutes of the Battle of Princeton. In addition to the 1775 independent companies, Moses Rawlings, Abraham Kirkpatrick, and William Darke, led effective early rifle units in different capacities. Peter Muhlenberg, Colonel of the 8th Virginia, grew frustrated with the high-maintenance weapons and asked that his men be issued muskets. Daniel Morgan, on the other hand, paired himself with Henry Dearborn’s musket-carrying light infantry to form a very effective combined-arms force during the Saratoga campaign.
Rifles played an important role in the Revolution and the conflicts that followed. They were centrally important in Andrew Jackson’s lopsided 1815 victory at the Battle of New Orleans. Many rifles for military use were churned out by gun shops with little ornamentation, but the best ones were custom-made personal possessions that were often highly ornate.
Today, 18th century long rifles are high-prized collectors’ items. Notable collections can be viewed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Landis Valley Museum in Pennsylvania, and the Museum of Southern Decorative Arts in North Carolina. Like much that is important in early American history, the longrifle’s story began in Lancaster County, perhaps in Martin Meylin’s gun shop.
GABRIEL NEVILLE is the author of The Last Men Standing: The 8th Virginia Regiment in the American Revolution.
