|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 18, 2005 22:30:15 GMT -6
Edwin Stanton was Secretary of War under Lincoln, then Andrew Johnson, who canned him. Stanton refused to leave his office, citing the Tenure of Office Act, and barricaded himself in his office until Congress voted against his dismissal. Strange bird.
William Belknap became Sec. of War after Grant's election in 1868. Elisabeth, you're right, he was a Democrat from Iowa.
But if it was Stanton who opposed repeaters, how is it the cavalry was armed with the Spencer during his tenure?
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 19, 2005 0:09:29 GMT -6
Steve and all, somewhere in the muddled recesses of my memory, I seem to recall that the opposition to repeating weapons dated from the Civil War era, led by the commander of the Ordnance Dept. I believe it was he who had put a roadblock in front of Spencer which was overcome by Spencer demonstrating the rifle to Lincoln. Whether Stanton aided and abetted the Ordnance department commander, I have no clue. If someone has time, the commander's name can be found on the Ordnance Department year-end reports in the Official Records located at the Cornell Making of America site. That URL is: cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.htmlLook in Series 3. That is where I think I saw them before, but it has been a while. Best of wishes, Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 19, 2005 4:16:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 19, 2005 4:45:39 GMT -6
OTS, I haven't found the quote, but it seems likely to have been not Stanton but Brigadier-General James W. Ripley. He was Chief of Ordnance, and described as a man 'congenitally immune to new ideas'. Here's a very similar tale of his reaction to the idea of machine guns: www.lib.rochester.edu/rbk/epitaph/19_4.stm
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 19, 2005 6:26:32 GMT -6
Thanks one and all. It could have been Ripley. I was thinking that it was a cabinent member, which gave a kind of finality to it, if you know what I mean. This thought though was prevalent during this time. And once again it really proved the difference between economy and tactical distribution on the field. Once the soldiers ill trained horses were spooked off, and the soldiers frightened to death for their very lives, the indians closed the distance and simply finished them off after the soldiers had expended all their revolver ammo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't alot of cavalry revolver cartridge cases found anywhere on the battle field, was there? That there wasn't can't necessarily be because of looters, because this sort of thing in all probability would have been sporadic as necessity demanded.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 19, 2005 8:59:36 GMT -6
Ripley's resistance is not surprising. Historically, the military tends to resist change. Not just the US, either. The breechloader was first developed by Major Patrick Ferguson, a Scotsman commanding Loyalist troops in the American Revolution. His rifle allowed a soldier to load without standing up and exposing himself to enemy fire. This weapon could very well have had an impact on the final outcome of the war, but, like most new inventions, was not well received. Ferguson's rifle I believe saw limited service with special ranger type units, then died out after Ferguson himself was killed at King's Mountain in 1781. It would take armies another half century or more to adopt the breechloader.
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 19, 2005 9:21:46 GMT -6
Sadly this is/was tied to political interest groups. Many inventions are curtailed or just down right scared out of existance because of this. Years ago a man appeared on the Johnny Carson show. He brought with him an invention that would revolutionize the way power could be generated. It was a giant horseshoe magnet device about the height of a man. This was suspended on a base with an achor bar on the top or closed end of the horseshoe. In the base, situated in the middle, where the open end of the horseshoe would pass was about a foot long probe. When he gave the horseshoe magnet a hand generated spin, each time that the magnet broke the probes field it generated electricity. This thing was a perpetual motion machine! Once it was started it wouldn't stop! I forget how much electricity that one machine generated, but it was an enormous amount! That I do remember. He claimed that if enough of these were tied into a series that they could produce enough energy to satisfy the needs of Los Angeles! That this method of electrical generation could easily and inexpensively generate that kind of electricity was proven right there on that stage!!!
He had even developed a series of smaller ones that could be put into an automobile and power it indefinitly!
He had a patent on the device but said that political interest groups and the oil companies were preventing him from marketing it. And guess what? Here we are how many years later, looking for what? When it's already been discovered!!! Why? Because the political interest people and big oil company's didn't invent the thing so that they could then generate the revenue from it!!!
If we only knew it someone probably has already invented the phaser from star trek, and because of same, it too is being supressed! Wouldn't surpise me none! And neither does the selfishness with which Ripley and others like him surpise me either! The sad part about it is the huge loss in life that this causes!!!
|
|
|
Post by toisach on Sept 19, 2005 2:09:07 GMT -6
WOW! What a tome of information I've tumbled into here! Thanks to EVERYONE for the useful information! I shudder to throw in my nickle's worth, but by the time Godfrey wrote to Paxton the term "Bulldog" was in general use as a nonspecific general description piece of terminology. (think SNUBNOSE or DETECTIVE SPECIAL) today. I realize that doesn't help exactly and in fact it re-muddies things...any chance of recovering shell casings from the site now???
|
|
ftm
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by ftm on Jan 28, 2006 1:16:35 GMT -6
I would like to add to the discussion on Custer’s revolvers. I know very little about Custer but a fair amount about the handguns of the time. It is stated that Gen. Custer and his brother were presented with a Galand and Sommerville revolver each by Lord Berkeley Paget in 1869. These revolvers were thought to have been manufactured by the Braendlin Armoury, but the first model was manufactured by the Birmingham gunmaker William Tranter who also owned the premises of the Braendlin Armoury. The next piece of the puzzle is the pair of “Webley” Bulldog revolvers reputedly carried at the Little Big Horn. I am led to believe that Major Godfrey’s letter did not state Webley revolvers but stated “two Bulldog self cocking English, white handled pistols with a ring in the butt for a lanyard”. The white handles would have been either bone or ivory which was not uncommon on finer weapons. William Tranter made just such a weapon, the example I have seen is six chambered in .430 CF with a 3” barrel. It has a shrouded hammer face and a floating firing pin in the frame, walnut one piece grips and is fitted with a ring for a lanyard. These revolvers were manufactured prior to 1868 and if Custer liked the Galand and Sommerville revolver it is not unreasonable to assume that he would purchase other weapons from the same maker. At this time both Tranter and Adams were of higher quality than Webley. Further information on William Tranter and his weapons can be found at www.firearmsmuseum.org.au The practice of calling all British handguns Webley would be the same as calling all American handguns Colt. A number of Birmingham and Belgium revolvers by various makers were actually marked “Bulldog”, but most of these were in the low end of the market. Does anyone know the present whereabouts of Tom Custer’s Galand and Sommerville revolver? FTM 28th January 2006
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 28, 2006 4:30:22 GMT -6
I believe that Tom Custer's Galand and Sommerville is residing in its original wooden case, complete with ammunition. I don't remember where I saw it, but I am sure I saw a picture of it somewhere.
Most likely, Custer carried twin Webley Royal Irish Constabulary pistols, which are similar to the Bulldogs and available at the time. The Bulldogs weren't readily available until after Little Big Horn.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 28, 2006 11:36:46 GMT -6
You would think that the government would have learned something from the Wagon Box Fight, The Hayfield Fight, and Beecher's Island about the advantage of rapid fire weapons. It was the weapons that saved all the commands from being over run by the Indians.
Rapid fire weapons may have been a huge advantage for the troops at the LBH and may have in fact been the difference between defeat and victory.
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Jan 28, 2006 11:51:59 GMT -6
You would think that the government would have learned something from the Wagon Box Fight, The Hayfield Fight, and Beecher's Island about the advantage of rapid fire weapons. It was the weapons that saved all the commands from being over run by the Indians. Rapid fire weapons may have been a huge advantage for the troops at the LBH and may have in fact been the difference between defeat and victory. Crzhrs: you confuse "rapid fire" with "repeaters". The soldiers at Wagon Box and Hayfield had the new Springfield rifles, single shot. Compared to the old muzzleloaders, these WERE rapid fire, as they stopped Indian charges with quick repetitive volleys. The men at Beecher's Island had the Spencer repeater; they stopped warrior charges as well, but still remained under siege on that island for ten days. The subject of repeater vs. single shot has been debated ad nauseum. See Markland's post in "Indian Rifles" thread as well as Alfuso's post Guns of the Little Big Horn; not sure what thread it's under. Both weapons had pros and cons. The army very very rarely engaged Indians in close quarters; wish Icould find the particular reference, but during the Cheyenne outbreak of 1878, troops were pinned down by long range rifle fire which outranged their carbines; an example where repeaters would be useless. Indeed one of the cavalry officers commented how after an engagement, he quickly ditched his Winchester, finding its short range of no value. Billy's post from the Ordnance Dept. mentions Charley Reynolds as well as Gen. Crook carrying the Springfield. I would trust these two veteran frontier Indian fighter's judgment.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 28, 2006 11:59:42 GMT -6
Steve:
Thanks for the clarification. The single shot did have better range than the Winchester.
Plus at the Wagon Box & Hayfield Fight, the troopers did have a fortified position in which to fight from, while at Beecher's Island the defenders were mostly in the open but being experienced frontiersmen and having the rapid fire weapons were able to hold out.
|
|
ftm
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by ftm on Jan 28, 2006 15:49:36 GMT -6
El Crab,
The picture you are referring to is most likely the one on page one of this forum. The Tranter RIC/bulldog style revolver was available circa 1868. Do you know if a copy of Godfrey's letter is available on-line?
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Feb 7, 2006 15:37:56 GMT -6
Hi ftm, Tom Custer's cased Galland & Sommerville was sold to a private collector for $77,000 in the Butterfield & Butterfield auction of Important Custer, Indian War & Western Memorabilia at San Francisco on April 4, 1995. Tom's revolver was lot #102, and was described in the catalog as follows: 'Captain Thomas Ward Custer's Cased Galand and Sommerville Revolver, circa 1870. Serial no. 572, .44 Webley caliber. 5 inch octagonal barrel marked on top flat J. D. Dougall, London & Glasgow. Blue finish. Checkered walnut grips. With green baize lined case containing cleaning rod, oiler and cartridge block. Lid with circular brass escutchon engraved TWC. The whole contained in its leather traveling case embossed with Captain Custer's 'TWC' monogram. Condition: Fine-excellent. Revolver retains 40-50% blue finish with smooth brown age patina. Grips excellent. Case lining with slight wear and discoloration. Excellent travelling case with few scuffs and missing one strap. Provenance: Charles A. Custer Family Collection. Note: This gun was presented to Capt. Thomas Ward Custer in 1869, along with a companion piece to his brother, George Armstrong, by Lord Berkeley-Paget at Fort Lincoln in appreciation for a buffalo hunt they had arranged near Fort Hayes, Kansas in 1869. The hunting party also included Lord Waterford, Captains Myles Moylan, Thomas weir, General S.D. Sturgis, Lieutenant W. W. Cooke and Mrs. Custer. Illustrated on pp. 76 and 77 of Custer Battle Guns by John s. du Mont and pp. 19 and 22 of Firearms in the Custer Battle by Parsons and du Mont. Estimate: $60,000/90,000' Here's the picture of Tom's revolver which I posted some time ago (you can just see the corner of the leather travelling case in the top left behind the raised lid of the wooden case): Ciao, GAC
|
|