American Rifle - Alexander Rose [233]
Return to text.
107. Russell, “American Rifle.”
Return to text.
Chapter 3
1. Quoted in B. Hindle and S. Lubar, Engines of Change: The American Industrial Revolution, 1790–1860 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986), p. 254.
Return to text.
2. M. R. Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977), p. 19.
Return to text.
3. On Colt, see D. A. Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1832 (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), p.23
Return to text.
4. As a result, the “American System” became so inextricably identified with specifically American business practice that when, in 1889, Mark Twain wanted to create his all-around Connecticut “Yankee of the Yankees” for his satirical novel of a nineteenth-century man who wakes up in King Arthur’s Camelot and teaches his knights baseball, he invented none other than Hank Morgan (born and reared in Hartford, home of Colt’s massive armory), who “went over to the great arms factory and learned my real trade; learned all there was to it; learned to make everything: guns, revolvers, cannon, boilers, engines, all sorts of labor-saving machinery.” M. Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), p. 5.
Return to text.
5. H. Adams, The Education of Henry Adams: An Autobiography (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1918), p. 5. New universe or not, it did not save Robbins & Lawrence: the company went bankrupt a few years later after a series of financial miscalculations.
Return to text.
6. S. Wilentz, Society, Politics, and the Market Revolution, 1815–1848 (Washington, D.C.: American Historical Association, n.d.); E. D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (New York: Pantheon, 1974); W. B. Rothenberg, From Marketplaces to a Market Economy: The Transformation of Rural Massachusetts, 1750–1850 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); C. Sellers, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Return to text.
7. On the choice of Harpers Ferry, see Smith, Harpers Ferry, chap. 1. On Harpers Ferry, see also P. A. Chackel’s Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archeology of the Early American Industrial Era (New York: Plenum, 1996).
Return to text.
8. C. W. Sawyer, Our Rifles (Boston: Williams, 1946), pp. 128–41; J. E. Hicks, Notes on United States Ordnance: Small Arms, 1776 to 1940 (Mount Vernon: N.Y.: James E. Hicks, 1940), pp. 25–26; B. R. Lewis, Small Arms and Ammunition in the United States Service (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1956), p. 8 (though Lewis calls it a Model 1804).
Return to text.
9. Smith, Harpers Ferry, pp. 70, 83.
Return to text.
10. The fullest analysis of Stubblefield’s reign can be found in ibid., pp. 140–83.
Return to text.
11. Hall to Secretary of State James Monroe, March 21, 1817, quoted in R. T. Huntington, Hall’s Breechloaders (York, Pa.: George Shumway, 1972), pp. 2–3.
Return to text.
12. The best summary of these post-Revolutionary debates is L. D. Cress’s “Reassessing American Military Requirements, 1783–1807,” in K. J. Hagan and W. R. Roberts, eds., Against All Enemies: Interpretations of American Military History from Colonial Times to the Present Day (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986), pp. 49–69.
Return to text.
13. See S. Forman, “Thomas Jefferson and Universal Military Training,” Military Affairs 11, no. 3 (1947), pp. 177–78; and his “Why the United States Military Academy Was Established in 1802,” Military Affairs 29, no. 1 (1965), pp. 16–28.
Return to text.
14. Amazingly, Hall had never heard of previous attempts. Indeed, he was being completely honest when, a little later, he wrote that