A. The First Gun Count

Arming America:

Through most of the seventeenth century the New England settlers were desperate for firearms and powder. . . . In 1630 the Massachusetts Bay Company reported in their possession: “80 bastard muskets . . . ; 6 long Fowlinge peeces . . . 6 foote longe; 4 longe Fowlinge peeces . . . 5-1/2 foote longe; . . . 10 Full musketts . . . .” There were thus exactly one hundred firearms for use among seven towns with a population of about one thousand.214

Cited Source:

26 February, 1628. Necessaries conseaued meete for or intended voiadge for Newe England to bee prepared forthwth. . . . .

Armes ffor 100 men:— . . . 80 bastard musketts . . . ; 06 longe ffowling peeces . . . 6 foote longe . . . ; 4 longe ffowlinge peeces . . . 51/2 foote longe; 10 ffull musketts . . . .215

[Comment:]

In Bellesiles’s first supposed gun count in the new world, he uses this source to show that settlers in Massachusetts Bay were only 10% armed, when it actually shows the plan to arm every man—100 guns for 100 men. It was not a list of guns “in their possession” in 1630, as he presents it. Rather, like a list of apparel for 100 men that precedes it, this is a list of “Armes ffor 100 men” that the company wants to ship over to America. Bellesiles lists the date as 1630, rather than 1628, in the cited text. Had Bellesiles made only one error and listed the date correctly as 1628 (or 1629), scholars would have known that it was not a list of guns actually in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which was founded in 1630. (Error first identified by Clayton Cramer.)

B. An English Bookseller with a Pike

Arming America:

Pikemen were present at nearly every encounter in King Philip’s War, as there simply were not enough guns to go around. Nonetheless, in October 1675, the Massachusetts General Court ordered that, “Whereas it is found by experience that troopers & pikemen are of little use in the present warr with the Indians . . . It is ordered by the court . . . that all pikemen are hereby required . . . to furnish themselves with fire armes.” But they could not locate sufficient guns, leading one Massachusetts soldier to recall in 1681, “I thought a pike was best for a young soldier, and so I carried a pike, and . . . knew not how to shoot off a musket.” 216

Cited Source:

But from Love, I must make a Transition to Arms; and cou’d you think that [I] . . . wou’d ever make a Souldier? Yet so it fell out: For ’tis their Custom here for all that can bear Arms, to go out on a Training Day: But I thought a Pike was best for a Young Souldier, and so I carry’d a Pike; and between you and I, Reader, there was another Reason for it too, and that was, I knew not how to shoot off a Musquet. But ’twas the first time I ever was in Arms; which tho’ I tell thee, Reader, I had no need to tell to my Fellow-Souldiers, for they knew it well enough by my awkward handling of them. For I was as unacquainted with the Terms of Military Discipline, as a wild Irish Man [who did not know his right hand from his left] . . . . But we were even here, for tho’ they understood Arms better than I, yet I understood Books better than they.217

[Comment:]

The author, John Dunton, was not a “Massachusetts Soldier,” but rather an English bookseller on a five-month visit to America in 1686.218 Unlike American settlers, he knew nothing about arms. Bellesiles offers Dunton’s letter as evidence of a shortage of guns, American unfamiliarity with guns, and a preference for pikes. To the contrary, Dunton observes American familiarity with guns and his arming by others suggests no shortage of firearms. As to Dunton’s preference for pikes, he explains his reasons, which mostly do not apply to the Americans he is writing about. Last, Arming America mistakenly shifts the date of this source to five years closer to King Philip’s War, and Bellesiles uses the source to support his contention that there were gun shortages during that war. (Error first identified by Justin Heather.)

C. Benedict Arnold and the Brown Besses

Arming America:

When news of Lexington reached New Haven, Benedict Arnold inspected his troops and found them largely unarmed. He threatened to break into the town arsenal in order to arm his men, but the town’s selectmen relented and opened the doors to his militia, with Arnold supervising the distribution of Brown Besses.219

Cited Source:

In New Haven, the enthusiasts were not thwarted, although Benedict Arnold had to threaten to break open the powderhouse before town leaders supplied his volunteers with ammunition.220

[Comment:]

The claims that the men were gunless and that Arnold distributed Brown Besses are nowhere in the cited source. I know of no reason to believe that Bellesiles’s story is true. (Error first identified by Robert Churchill.)

D. Axes for Woodworking

Arming America (discussing Frederick Gerstaecker’s observations of Americans):

He noted that they were very “expert” at the use of axes, “which they begin to wield as soon as their arms are strong enough to use them,” adding that axes made very good weapons.221

Cited Source:

As they are thrown on their own resources from their youth, these Americans are very skilful in providing for their necessary wants, and are particularly expert with the axe, which they begin to wield as soon as their arms are strong enough to lift it. They use it for a variety of purposes—building houses, laying roofs and floors, forming the chimneys and doors, the only other tool used being an auger; and nothing amuses them more than to see the awkwardness of a newcomer, when first he handles an axe.222

[Comment:]

Gerstaecker’s statement that “axes make very good weapons” is not in the original source as Bellesiles claims, either on the page Bellesiles cites (241) or elsewhere in the book. This mistake furthers one of Arming America’s major themes—the axe as an important weapon, rivaling the gun. (Error first identified by Justin Heather.)

E. Guns for Personal Use

Arming America:

Ole Rynning advised his Norwegian readers to bring “good rifles with percussion locks,” as such good guns are far too expensive in America and can be sold there for a solid profit. Guns thus had an economic value, but if thought requisite for self-protection, it remained an unstated assumption.223

Cited Source:

Those who wish to emigrate to America ought to take with them . . . Some good rifles with percussion locks, partly for personal use, partly for sale. I have already said that in America a good rifle costs from fifteen to twenty dollars.224

[Comment:]

If Bellesiles had included the four words after the ones he quoted, his readers could have seen for themselves that Rynning believed guns should be brought “partly for personal use.” This reason was present and not “unstated.” (Error first identified by Clayton Cramer.)

F. Anti-Federalists Wanting Every Man Armed

Arming America:

Smilie, like most Anti-Federalists, had no problem granting the state the authority to decide who should be allowed to serve in the militia, or to limit those ineligible from owning guns. Nor did most Anti-Federalists want to see the propertyless carrying arms in or out of the militia.225

Cited Sources:

(1) Federal Farmer:

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. . . . First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and [sic] guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms . . . . [I]t places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments: by it, the militia are the people . . . . [T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms . . . .226

(2) George Mason:

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present Government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishments inflicted.227

[Comment:]

Both these sources, cited by Bellesiles to support his claims, argue something quite different. Contrary to Bellesiles’s position, Mason and the Federal Farmer had problems “granting the state the authority to decide who should . . . serve in the militia” or who should own guns. Further, they did favor poor whites carrying arms, despite their distrust of them, so long as every (white) man bore arms. (Errors first identified by Eugene Volokh.)

G. Females Counted as Males

Arming America (discussing the Providence probate inventories):

These 186 probate inventories from 1680 to 1730 are all for property-owning adult males . . . .228

Examples of Female Inventories:229

“ Inventary of the Estate of . . . Alice Angell . . .” (7:88);

“ Inventarey of the Estate of Mris ffreelove Crawford . . . (Widdow)” (7:117);

“ Inventary of the Estate of Sarah Gurney” (7:168);

“ Inventory of the Esstate of ms Mary Borden” (16:60);

“ Inventory of all and singulior the Goods and Chattles of Mary Whiteman” (16:70);

“ Inventory of all the Esstate . . . of Mary Inman . . . widdow” (16:146);

“ Inventory of the Esstate of Susanna Whipple” (16:174);

“ Inventory of all and singulior ye Goods & Chattles of Joanna Inman” (16:236);

“ Inventory of all and singulior ye Goods and Chattles of Tabitha Inman . . . spinser” (16:238);

“ Inventory of the Esstate of mrs Elizabeth Towers” (16:278);

“ Inventory of the Esstate of mrs Lydia Williams” (16:341);

“ Inventory of the Esstate of Rachal Potter . . . widow” (16:346);

“ Inventory . . . of All and singulior the Goods Chattles and Creadits of Anna Whipple widow” (16:370);

“An inventory of the Esstate of Abigail Hopkins” (16:410);

 “Inventory of the Esstate of mris Sarah Clemance” (16:420);

“ Inventory of the moveable Esstate of the Widdow Ann Lewes” (16:429).

[Comment:]

These are 16 of the 17 female estates with inventories within Bellesiles’s sample of186 estates, supposedly all male, cited in the hardback edition of Arming America.

H. Counting Guns in Nonexistent Wills

Arming America (discussing Providence wills):

Just two of the 186 wills accompanying these probate files specifically mention a gun . . . .230

Examples of Intestate Estates Without Wills Among His 186 Estates Supposedly with Wills:231

“Resolved waterman . . . dyed intestate” (6:12);

“Estate of . . . Tolleration Harris who died intested” (6:35);

“ John Joanes . . . dieing intested his Estate falling unto ye Care of ye Towne Councill of Providence aforsaid for dispossition” (6:120);

“Benjamin Beers . . . dieing intested” (6:162);

“Benjamin Greene . . . dyeing Entestate” (6:163);

“Noah whipple . . . dyeing intested” (6:239);

“Samuell Winsor . . . leaveing no Legall written Instrument whereby the sd Estate might be disposed” (6:253);

“ James Angell . . . dyeing intested” (7:32);

“ Stephen Hawkings . . . dying intested” (7:35);

“ John Potter . . . dyeing intested” (7:45);

“Benjamin Carpenter . . . who dyed intested” (7:65);

“Daniell Browne . . . dyeing intested” (7:69);

“William Randall . . . dying intested” (7:106);

“George Potter . . . dyeing intested” (7:109);

“Daniell Williams . . . dyeing intested” (7:112);

“Benoni Woolley . . . dying intested” (7:139);

“William Hawkins . . . dying intested” (7:142);

“Eliezer Arnold junr . . . dying intestate” (7:152);

“ John Mathuson . . . dieing intested” (7:205);

“Richard Coman . . . dyed Intestate” (16:9);

“ Stephen Arnold Junr . . . dyed Intestate” (16:14);

“ James Applebey . . . Died Intestate” (16:17);

“Thomas ffield . . . Dyed Intestate” (16:31);

“Richard Lewes . . . Dyed Intestate” (16:33);

“Thomas Olney . . . dyed Intestate” (16:45);

“Mary Borden . . . dyed Intestate” (16:62);

“Samuel Wright . . . dyed Intestate” (16:63);

“Mary Whitman . . . Dyed Intestate” (16:73);

“ John Paine . . . dyed Intestate” (16:92);

“ James Rogers . . . Died Intestate” (16:97);

“ John Browne . . . dyed Intestate” (16:120);

“Eliezer Whipple . . . dyed Intestate” (16:121);

“ John Smith Junr . . . dyed Intestate” (16:124);

“William Crawford . . . died Intestate” (16:156);

“Lott Trip . . . dyed Intestate” (16:159);

“Hannah Wailes . . . dyed Intestate” (16:167);

“ Susannah Whipple . . . Dyed Intestate” (16:175);

“ John Phillips . . . Died Intestate” (16:199);

“Tabathy Inman . . . dyed Intestate” (16:241);

“Samuell Gorton . . . Died Intesttate” (16:246);

“Elizabeth Towers . . . Dyed Intestate” (16:279);

 “Solomon Thornton . . . dyeing intested” (7:157);

“William Turpin . . . dying Intested” (7:179);

“ John King . . . Dyed Intestate” (16:286);

“ John Hause . . . Died Intestate” (16:312). 

[Comment:]

In the hardback edition of Arming America, Bellesiles claimed to have read 186 wills in the Providence records looking for guns. Yet for about 100 of these 186 estates, there were no surviving wills, almost always because the decedent died without making one. The above examples are fewer than half of the estates without wills. Bellesiles could not have read wills in these estates because they never existed. 

I. Guns in Travel Accounts

Arming America:

Generally stated, an examination of eighty travel accounts written in America from 1750 to 1860 indicates that the travelers did not notice that they were surrounded by guns and violence. . . . The absence of discussion about guns in travelers’ accounts is intriguing . . . .232

Cited Sources Include:

(1) Baynard Rush Hall:

Let none think we western people follow rifle shooting, however, for mere sport; that would be nearly as ignoble as shot gun idleness[.] The rifle procures, at certain seasons, the only meat we ever taste; it defends our homes from wild animals and saves our corn fields from squirrels and our hen-roosts from foxes, owls, opossums and other “varments.” With it we kill our beeves and our hogs, and cut off our fowls’ heads: do all things in fact, of the sort with it, where others use an axe, or a knife, or that far east savagism, the thumb and finger. The rifle is a woodsman’s lasso. He carries it everywhere as (a very degrading comparison for the gun, but none other occurs), a dandy a cane. All, then, who came to our tannery or store came thus armed; and rarely did a customer go, till his rifle had been tried at a mark, living or dead, and we had listened to achievements it had done and could do again.233

(2) William Blane:

Go to what house I might, the people were always ready to lend me a rifle, and were in general glad to accompany me when I went out hunting.234

Every boy, as soon as he can lift a rifle, is constantly practicing with it, and thus becomes an astonishingly expert marksman. Squirrel shooting is one of the favourite amusements of all the boys, and even of the men themselves. . . . It is reckoned very unsportsmanlike, to bring home a squirrel or a turkey, that has been shot any where, except in the head. I have known a boy put aside and hide a squirel that had been struck in the body; and I have often seen a Backwoodsman send a ball through the head of one which was peeping from between a forked bough at the top of one of the highest trees, and which I myself could hardly distinguish.235

(3) Fortescue Cuming:

Apropos of the rifle.—The inhabitants of this country in common with the Virginians, and all the back woods people, Indians as well as whites, are wonderfully expert in the use of it: thinking it a bad shot if they miss the very head of a squirrel, or a wild turkey, on the top of the highest forest tree with a single ball; though they generally load with a few grains of swan shot, with which they are equally sure of hitting the head of the bird or animal they fire at.236

(4) Isaac Weld (comparing Canadian hunters to U.S. hunters):

The people here, as in the back parts of the United States, devote a very great part of their time to hunting, and they are well skilled in the pursuit of game of every description. They shoot almost universally with the rifle gun, and are as dexterous at the use of it as any men can be.237

(5) Charles Murray:

I lodged the first night at the house of a farmer, about seven miles from the village, who joined the habits of a hunter to those of an agriculturist, as is indeed the case with all the country people in this district; nearly every man has a rifle, and spends part of his time in the chase. My double rifle, of London manufacture, excited much surprise among them; but the concluding remark of almost every inspector was, “I guess I could beat you at a mark.” 238

[Comment:]

These are just a few of the travel accounts that Bellesiles cites for the absence of guns, but which directly contradict his claim that these travelers or settlers did not notice that they were surrounded by guns. (Errors first identified by Clayton Cramer, though the passages differ somewhat.)

J.[.1] Homicides . . . in Plymouth

Arming America:

[I]n forty-six years Plymouth Colony’s courts heard five cases of assault, and not a single homicide.239

Examples of Homicide Cases Heard in the Document Series Cited:240

Arthur Peach, Thomas Jackson, Richard Stinnings, & Daniell Crosse were indicted for murther & robbing by the heigh way. . . . . . . . They [the jury] found the [defendants] . . . guilty of the said felonious murthering & robbing . . . . (1638, 1:96-97)

Att this Court, Allice Bishope . . . was indited for felonius murther by her comited, vppon Martha Clark, her owne child, the frute of her owne body. . . .

. . . . These [jurors] found the said Allice Bishope guilty of the said fellonius murthering of Martha Clarke aforsaid; and so shee had the sentence of death pronounced against her, . . . which acordingly was executed. (1648, 2:134)

Robert Latham was indited for fellonious crewelty done vnto John Walker, his servant, aged about 14 yeares, by vnreasonable correction, by withholding nessesary food and clothing, and by exposing his said servant to extremitie of seasons, whereof the said John Walker languished and imeadiately died . . . . . . . . These [jurors] found the said Robert Latham guilty of manslaughter by chaunc medley. (1654, 3:73)

John Hawes, of Yarmouth, was indited for violently and by force of armes takeing away the life of Josepth Rogers . . . by giueing him a most deadly fall . . . . . . . . These [jurors] brought in a verdict wherin . . . John Hawes was not guilty . . . . (1660, 3:205)

Samuell Howland . . . by discharging of a fowling peece on the body of Willam Howse . . . wherby the said House was wounded, languished, and ymediately died. . . . . The verdict . . . : Not guilty of wilfull murder . . . . (1663, 4:49-50)

Att this Court, a natiue named Matthias . . . was indited for killing of another natiue named Joseph . . . The verdict of the jury was,— We find him guilty of manslaughter by way of chaunce medley. (1674, 5:156)

Wee, of the jury, one and all, both English and Indians, doe joyntly and with oneconsent agree vpon a verdict: that Tobias, and his son Wampaquan, and Mattashunnamo, the Indians, whoe are the prisoners, are guilty of the blood of John Sassamon, and were the murderers of him, according to the bill of inditement. . . . . The verdict of the jury being accepted by the Court, the sentance of death was pronounced against them . . . . (1675, 5:167-68)

Indian James, thou art heer indited . . . for that thou . . . didest felloniously, willfully, and of mallice forethought, with intent to murder, kicke Samuell Crocker . . . on the bottome of his belley, wherof the said Samuell Crocker three weekes after died . . . . The jury find the prsener nott guilty of wilfull murder. (1681, 6:82)

[Comment:]

These are some of the homicide “cases heard” by the Plymouth courts in the forty-six years. (Errors first identified by Randolph Roth.)

J.[.2] . . . Assaults in Plymouth

Arming America:

[I]n forty-six years Plymouth Colony’s courts heard five cases of assault, and not a single homicide.239

Examples of Assault Cases Heard in the Document Series Cited:241

“Francis Sprague fined . . . for beating Wm Halloway . . .” (1637, 1:75).

“Edward Dotey for breakeing the Kings peace, in in assaulting Georg Clarke. Fined xs” (1637, 1:75).

“Robert Barker . . . for breakeing the Kings peace in drawing blood vpon Henry Blague, fined . . .” (1638, 1:106).

“Abraham Sampson . . . psented for strikeing & abusinge John Washbourne. . .” (1638, 1:107).

“Ralph Goarame, thelder, psented for breakeing the Kinges peace in beateing of Webb Adey” (1638, 1:118).

“Joseph Halloway, for breakeing the Kings peace, in strikeing Peter Handbury, for wch he is indicted, is fyned xls” (1642, 2:42).

“Abraham Pearse complns agst Mr Wm Hanbury, in an action of assault & battery” (1643, 7:35). 

“We do here psent Mr Symkins for the breach of the Kings peace, wth strikeing of Thomas Hinkley. Released” (1645, 2:97).

“Thomas Hitt . . . to answere for haueing a hand in the said affray made vpon Vssamequin . . .” (1646, 2:99).

“Wee psent Willam Halloway and Peregrin White, both of Marshfeild, for fighting” (1649, 2:147).

“Wee present James Cole, of the towne of Plym, for making of a batterie vppon Willam Shirtley . . .” (1650, 2:162).

“[W]ee present Ralph Chapman . . . for striking of Ferman Haddon” (1650, 2:165).

“John Holmes complained against Josepth Warren, in an action of battery . . .” (1651, 7:56).

“John Holmes complained against Edward Doty, in an action of trespase and asault . . .” (1651, 7:56).

“John Willis . . . complaineth . . . against Trustrum Hall and his wife, in an action of assault and battery . . .” (1651, 7:58).

“Wee psent Joane, the wife of Obadiah Miller . . . for beating and reviling her husband, and egging her children to healp her, biding them knock him in the head . . .” (1654, 3:75).

“Att this court, Sarjeant Tickner was fined twenty shillings for striking and abusing Joseph Wormall . . .” (1660, 3:209).

“Ralph Smith . . . for breaking the peace in striking of Willam Walter, is fined . . .” (1662, 4:34).

“Thomas Pope and Gyles Rickard, Senir, for breaking the Kinges peace by striking each other, were fined . . .” (1663, 4:48).

“Thomas Pope his striking of the said Rickards wife . . . the Court haue centanced him . . .” (1663, 4:49).

“Ensigne Willams and John Bayley, for breakeing the peace by striking one another, fined . . .” (1663, 4:50).

“Richard Willis and Joseph Sauory, for breaking the peace by striking one another, fined . . .” (1663, 4:50).

“Henery Green . . . for breach of the peace by striking Philip Leanard, fined . . .” (1663, 4:50).

“William Randall complained . . . for assault and battery made by the said Thomas Hatch . . .” (1664, 7:116).

“Edward Jenkins complained against Ensigne John Williams, in an action of the case, to the damage of twenty pounds, for battery, and sheding of blood by striking the said Jenkins” (1664, 7:116).

“William Randall, for breakeing the Kings peace by poakeing or strikeing Jeremiah Hatch with a ho pole, is sentanced to pay a fine . . .” (1665, 4:83).

“James Cole, Junir, for breaking the Kinges peace in strickeing of Robert Ransome, is fined . . .” (1665, 4:88).

“Ephraim Tilson, for breaking the Kinges peace in strickeing Robert Ransome, is fined . . .” (1665, 4:88).

“John Bates and Willam Burden, theire breaking the Kinges peace by striking each other, they were sentanced by the Court . . .” (1666, 4:137).

“Jabez Howland . . . to make further answare for misdemenior towards Josepth Billington by striking and otherwise abusing of him . . .” (1666, 4:137).

“John Andrew, for breakeing the Kinges peace by strikeing Josepth Bartlett, was fined . . .” (1666, 4:139).

“Josepth Bartlett, for breakeing the Kinges peace in striking the said Andrew, fined . . .” (1666, 4:139).

“Joseph Turner, for his breach of the peace in strikeing Thomas Perrey, is fined . . .” (1667, 4:177).

“Joseph Bartlett, for breakeing the Kinges peace in strikeing of an Indian called Sampson, is centanced to pay a fine . . .” (1667, 4:177).

“Mary Phillips and Jane Hallowey, for breaking the Kings peace by strikeing each other, were fined . . .” (1668, 4:187).

“Richard Dwelley, wherby hee is convicted of fighting . . . , the Court haue centanced him to pay a fine . . .” (1668, 4:191).

“Mr Josias Winslow, for breaking the kinges peace by strikeing Nathaniel Winslow, was fined . . .” (1668, 5:10).

“Caleb Lumburt, for breaking the Kinges peace in striking of James Gleaghorn, was fined . . .” (1668, 5:16).

“Willam Thomas and Samuell Arnold, Junir, for breaking the Kinges peace in striking each other, were fined . . .” (1668, 5:16).

“Att this Court, John Dunham . . . came into the Court and complained against John Dotey, that hee . . . did crewelly beate him . . .” (1669, 5:25).

“John Tilson, in breaking the Kings peace by strikeing Robert Ransom, the said Tilson is fined 3s 4d” (1669, 5:30).

“Thomas Mathewes, for vnreasonably beateing of the Indian Ned, and therin breaking the Kings peace, is fined . . .” (1669, 5:31).

“Samuell Norman, for breaking the Kinges peace in strikeing Lydia, the wife of Henery Tayler, was fined . . .” (1670, 5:39).

“And in reference to the said Norman his throwing his hoe att Hannah Dauis, and thereby soe hiting her . . . , hee was centanced by the Court to pay . . .” (1670, 5:39).

“John Gray, for breaking the Kinges peace in striking of John Hawes, was fined . . .” (1670, 5:53).

“ [A]n Indian called Will, for his vnsufferable, insolent carriage in oposing of and strikeing att the constable of Yarmouth with an axe, &c, was fined twenty shillings” (1670, 5:53).

“Willam Griffin and Richard Michell . . . for fighting together, and therby breaking the Kinges peace, were fined . . .” (1670, 5:53).

“Richard Marshall, for abusing his wife by kiking her of from a stoole into the fier, was centanced to sitt in the stockes . . .” (1671, 5:61).

“Richard Dillinga, for breakeing the Kinges peace by striking of Jabeze Howland, was fined . . .” (1671, 5:65).

“Willam Randall, for abuseing and strikeing of Edward Wanton, was centanced by the Court . . .” (1674, 5:148).

“ [I]f the said John Cowine be off the peace . . . towards Ensigne John Williams, . . . whome he lately assaulted and abusiuely wounded; and that hee . . . doe psonally appeer att the Court . . .” (1674, 5:163).

“Robert Crosman, . . . for abusing the constable . . . by throwing a sticke att him, and drawing his knife and saying hee could afford to stabb him, was fined . . .” (1675, 5:169).

“Joseph Burge, for . . . beating one of the guard . . . is fined . . .” (1675, 5:181).

[Comment:]

Bellesiles uses his count of “cases of assault” to establish his claim of low violence in Plymouth Colony. These are most of the 1636-1681 assault cases heard by the Plymouth courts in the volumes of Shurtleff cited in Arming America. Technically, assault originally consisted of putting someone in fear of a battery. As these cases show, what we would today informally call an assault was then usually punished criminally as a breach of the King’s peace and much less often by a tort action for damages for assault or for battery. It is not clear exactly what Bellesiles counted or thought that he counted as assaults. In any event, there are many more than five prosecutions for assault-type behavior in the set of Plymouth Colony records that Bellesiles cites.

K. Vermont Probate Estates with Gun Conditions Misreported

1.  Bellesiles in Current Website Report:242

“1788 Eln. Hubbel farmer Bennington gun £2,8, old gun £1”

Original Record:243

Bennington District (I:366-375):

“1 Gun” 0-48-0;

“1 other Gun” 0-18-0

2.  Bellesiles in Current Website Report:242

“1783 Oliver Scott farmer Rupert 3 old guns £2,16”

Original Record:243

Manchester District (I:72-73):

“1 Gun” 1-10-0; “1 Do.” 1-0-0;

“1 Do.” 0-6-0;

“one pair of horse guns” 0-8-0

3.  Bellesiles in Current Website Report:242

“1784 Sam. Nichols farmer Guilford better gun £2, poorer 13s”

Original Record:243

Marlboro District (I:32-33):

“2 Fire Arms the one at L2 the other at 8s”

[Comment:]

Vermont counties make up the bulk of the estates in Arming America’s frontier counties from 1765 to 1790 (Bellesiles finds guns in only 14% of them).244 To support such a low percentage of guns on the frontier, he has provided on his website since October 2001 a report listing forty-five Vermont estates with guns, which purports to be a count and description of all of the Vermont gun estates from 1770 to 1790.245 In the list of Vermont gun estates on his website, Bellesiles misreports the conditions of guns in the three estates listed above.

L. Vermont Gun Estates Missing from Bellesiles’s Counts

In the list of forty-five Vermont gun estates on his website described immediately above,246 Bellesiles misses some or all guns in most of Vermont’s gun estates. Bellesiles misses all guns in the following estates:247

(1) In book I of the Bennington District manuscript probate records:

John Armstrong (p. 45), John Hodgkinson (p. 72), David Barber (p. 91), Luther Lawrence (p. 96), Amos Fairchild (p. 178), Levi

Morgan (p. 212), Jedediah Dewey (p. 225), Benjamin Fray (p. 282), Jonathan Moon (p. 290), Abner Drinkwater (p. 307), Samuel Hunt (p. 330), William Hundbeck/Hendricks (p. 413);

(2) In book I of the Hartford District manuscript probate records:

Enoch Bontwell (p. 11), Elkanock Stuart (p. 14), John Northam (p. 18), Nathan Gall (p. 22), Alexander Miller (p. 32), Philip Smith (p. 35), Oliver Farnsworth (p. 55), Perez Woods (p. 63), Joseph Smalley (p. 70), Benjamin Cox (p. 73), Phinchas Power (p. 82), William Huchins (p. 97), Lt. James Smalley (p. 109), Thomas Pitkin (p. 113), Charles William, Jr. (p. 120), Joseph Bates (p. 128), Billa Gray (p. 150);

(3) In book I of the Manchester District manuscript probate records:

John Sherman (p. 54), William Searl (p. 63), Elijah Golusha (p. 90), Benjamin Rose (p. 135), John Grimel (p. 151), Lemuel Buck (p. 169), Alaph Leaven (p. 200), Jonathan Hay (p. 236);

(4) In book I of the Marlboro District manuscript probate records:

William Sears (p. 91), Charles Phelps (p. 131), Thomas Sergent (p. 156), Francis Whitmore (p. 169), Richard Weatherbee (p. 179);

(5) In book I of the Rutland District manuscript probate records:

Ezra Mead (p. 13), Eleazer Davis (p. 174);

(6) In book II of Rutland District manuscript probate records:

Nathan Baldwin (p. 1), Capt. William Fitch (p. 11), Jacob Linly (p. 71), William Douglass (p. 73), Robert Adams (p. 83), Samuel Gates (p. 103), Joseph Throop (p. 112), Daniel Edgerton (p. 121), Solomon Steel (p. 140), Daniel Wyman (p. 161), Philip Griffiths (p. 169), Elisha Clark (p. 190), Jacob Katts (p. 209), Caleb Calvin (p. 220), Stephen Royce (p. 231);

(7) In book I of Windsor District manuscript probate records:

Benjamin Allen (p. 4), Johnson Hutchinson (p. 33), Benjamin Bishop (p. 38), Asahel Johnson (p. 56), Elijah Smith (p. 59);

(8) In book II of Windsor District manuscript probate records:

Combs House (p. 1), James Martin, Jr. (p. 8), Josiah Hall (p. 27), John Duke (p. 35).

[Comment:]

Overall, Bellesiles finds only 45 Vermont estates with guns, when there were 115 such surviving gun estates in Vermont (or 110 if you exclude Orange County, which Bellesiles did in Arming America). Thus, besides misdescribing guns and omitting some guns in gun estates he identifies, he misses all guns in at least 65 Vermont estates.