BRANDISHING THE GUN: REPRESENTATIONS IN EARLY

AMERICAN LITERATURE, 1500-1800

by

Jay Branagan Webb

APPROVED BY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

______________________________________________ Dr. Pamela Gossin, Chair

______________________________________________ Dr. John Gooch

______________________________________________ Dr. Eric Schlereth

______________________________________________ Dr. Natalie Ring

Copyright 2019

Jay Branagan Webb

All Rights Reserved

For Claire

BRANDISHING THE GUN: REPRESENTATIONS IN EARLY

AMERICAN LITERATURE, 1500-1800

by

JAY BRANAGAN WEBB, BA, MA

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The University of Texas at Dallas

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

LITERATURE

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS

December 2019

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation has been a work in progress for quite some time. It began as a flicker of thought

as I was reading James Fenimore Cooper’s Deerslayer and noted that Natty Bumppo argued for

gun safety and expressed concern for lives mournfully taken by the American failure to respect

the gun. Reading this in wake of the Sandy Hook School shooting created a serious question:

How had early American literature addressed issues of gun culture, gun control and gun safety?

As I studied various accounts, I found more significant questions that overshadowed the

aforementioned and helped to remove presuppositions. I became more interested in ways in

which these texts turned to firearms to answer contextual sociopolitical issues. I am grateful to

my dissertation committee for granting me the opportunity to explore the roles that guns played

in Early American literature within a scope that extends over three hundred years.

I would like to give special thanks to my Dissertation Chair, Dr. Pamela Gossin, for her support

and thought-provoking news clippings. I appreciate her willingness to step up from co-chair to

“the” chair. She allowed me to work as a fulltime professor and on the dissertation. Her patience

as I strove to juggle family life, professional development, and my research and writing has been

overwhelmingly meaningful in my life. Her forbearance and understanding for over four years

has been invaluable.

I owe a great debt to my dad, Stanley J. Webb, and Melinda Webb, my mom, for help with edits

and revisions. Their persistence with difficult projects and help was infectious. I appreciate being

able to talk through major points with them and discuss ideas that did or did not come to fruition

in this work. For my father’s guidance and example, I am grateful. I owe my mother an extensive

backlog of babysitter fees for taking care of my daughters while I wrote.

vi

I have to include an indescribable heart-felt sense of indebtedness and appreciation to my wife,

Claire. She never complained when I depended on and requested so much from her.

I am grateful for many scholars within the field that have shown interest, sent me news clippings

and book suggestions, or have given me advice. I want to thank Dr. Wayne Franklin for his

advice and suggestions, his meeting with me at the 2015 MLA Convention, and his e-mail

correspondence regarding my chapter over Cooper’s Nathaniel Bumppo. I want to thank Dr. Jay

Terry Lees for news clippings and Becky Lees for her reassurance. I wish to thank Dr. Steven

Hahn for his exuberant encouragement. Ultimately, I owe deep appreciation to my family and to

my wife in particular for her inspiration.

October 2019

vii

BRANDISHING THE GUN: REPRESENTATIONS IN EARLY

AMERICAN LITERATURE, 1500-1800

Jay Branagan Webb, PhD The University of Texas at Dallas, 2019

Supervising Professor: Pamela Gossin, Chair

This dissertation explores early American literary representations of firearms, both pistols and

rifles. Its primary purpose is to provide an overview of a few samples of early American

perceptions of guns and explore ways in which such perceptions were formed upon the American

frontier and helped create American culture and identity. Furthermore, it examines ways these

texts mythologize, interpret, and symbolize gun use. It shows how authors turn to the gun to

answer basic questions about acquiring food, safety, and future colonization. Firearms also

promoted the idea of cultural dominance and Manifest Destiny. The shooter’s actions were often

sanctioned by God or couched in heroic endeavors. Such depictions contribute to American

identity and the construction of the nation’s Gun Culture. As authors turn to the gun as a means

to answer their current sociopolitical issues, the complexities that Early America confronts are

disregarded or “tabled” for later debate or for future authors. This study asserts America has a

collective consciousness or understanding of gun use. It explores the political issues that early

explorers and Americans encountered concerning firearms and addresses in what manner these

anxieties or concerns are demonstrated. More specifically, these narratives reflect the attitudes

viii

early Americans had concerning gun use before, during and after the writing of the Second

Amendment. Ultimately it provides an account of how early American literature reflects,

questions, and employs values found within American identity and the American frontier.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………..…………….... v

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………… …...……..vii

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….…...……….x

INTRODUCTION “SIGHTING-IN”: POSITIONING GUNS IN SCHOLARSHIP …................1

CHAPTER 1 “EXPEDITION GONE AWRY”: CABEZA DE VACA AND GUNS AMONG THE NATIVES………………….……………………………………………………………….30

CHAPTER 2 “THROUGH A CHANCE SUPPOSED”: CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH STAGING THE AMERICAN GUN………………………………………………..………………….…….53

CHAPTER 3 “GUN-TOTING WOMEN”: THE (RE)IMAGININGS OF MARY ROWLANDSON…...…………………………………………..………………………………..85

CHAPTER 4 “PRESENT ARMS”: LEWIS AND CLARK AND THE OPENING OF THE FRONTIER..............................................................................................................................…123

CHAPTER 5 “LE LONGUE CARABINE”: NATIONALISM IN COOPER, NATHANIEL AND THE KENTUCKY RIFLE………………………………………………………..…...…175

EPILOGUE UNPACKING THE GUN IN EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE….…....…..223

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………….……………………………..243

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH………………………………………………………………...…252

CURRICULUM VITAE.……………………………………….……………………. ………..253

x

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Soldier Firing a Harquebus (1475).………………..………………………………………...43

3.1 Title Page for Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative (1682), Published in Cambridge....104

3.2 Title Page for Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative (1682), Published in London….....106

3.3 Female Soldier Woodblock Printing Repurposed for Mary Rowlandson (1770), Published in Boston……………………………………………………………………...…109

3.4 Hannah Snell Performing Musketry Drills (1750)……………………………………...…..110

3.5 Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative Title Page (1773), Published in Boston ….……..114

4.1 Blunderbuss Guns on Swivel (1804)……………………………………………………….145

4.2 Giradoni Air Rifle (1803)…………………………………………………………………..147

4.3 Captain Lewis and Clark holding a Council with the Indians (1810)……………………...162

4.4 Meriwether Lewis Esq. in Native Regalia (1807)………………………………………….165

5.1 Sheet Music of The Hunters of Kentucky arranged by William Blondell (1824)………….180

5.2 Sketches of the Kentucky Rifle (1977)…………………………………………………….182

1

INTRODUCTION

“SIGHTING-IN:” POSITIONING GUNS IN SCHOLARSHIP

It is difficult to argue that gun culture does not exist in the United States. Statistics,

popular culture, and even common vernacular establish imperative connections between guns

and the United States. Internationally, the United States ranks well above any other country in

charting the number of guns per capita. The Small Arms Survey conducted in 2017 recorded that

the number of civilian-owned guns in America surpassed the population, documenting 393

million guns to 326 million people.1 As Christopher Ingraham reported, “Americans made up 4

percent of the world's population but owned about 46 percent of the entire global stock of 857

million civilian firearms.”2 Aside from current statistics that indicate a predominate gun culture

in America, recurring models of the frontier “gun-toting” hero occur throughout U.S. history and

literature, forming national mythology. Stories about the lives of Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone,

and the fictional character of Natty Bumppo, were integrated into the American narrative and

helped establish and maintain enduring values and characteristics of the American heroism.3 The

1 Small Arms Survey 2017 qtd. in Christopher Ingraham, “There are more guns than people in the United States, according to a new study of global firearm ownership.” Washington Post, 19 June 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/?utm_term=.93413bfe2d68. Accessed 29 April 2019.

2 Christopher Ingraham, “There are more guns than people in the United States, according to a new study of global firearm ownership.” Washington Post, 19 June 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/?utm_term=.93413bfe2d68. Accessed 29 April 2019.

3 For instance, by John Filson, popularizing the life of Daniel Boone in the late 1700s, which many authors would continue. John Filson, The Discovery of Kentucke and the Adventures of Daniel Boon. (Garland Pub. 1978).

2

American branding of the frontier hero continues in historical and even current mass

consumption and entertainment from American frontier dime novels to spaghetti westerns, and

even space cowboys. Gun clubs, gun museums, and popular debate over Second Amendment

rights—all reflect the prominence of gun culture in the United States. Indeed this sustained

interest affirms that guns have and continue to shape American culture.4 The gun is even

depicted (often unknowingly) in common vernacular, revealing telling influences in phrases like

“the right caliber,” “riding shotgun,” “going off half-cocked,” “setting your sights on,” “being a

big-shot,” “bringing out the big guns,” or even “having tickets to the gun show,” which all serve

as prevalent metaphors in everyday usage, integrating the gun’s power, authority, individuality,

and even violence into customary American speech.5

Though gun culture is undeniably present, modern understanding and contemporary

viewpoints regarding firearms often confuse (or are often read back into) more historical and

literary representations, framing firearm representation in favorable or unfavorable political

perspectives. Many historians and political scientists disagree as to what exactly the gun

4 See Michael Butler, “Sons of Oliver Edwards; or The Other American Hero” Western American Literature vol 1: 12 (Spring 1977) 53: “Leatherstocking has traditionally been treated as the first fully developed American hero, the type prefiguring later anti-types like the mountain man, cowboy, gangster, soldier of fortune […]” and Mary Suzanne Schriber, Gender and the Writer’s Imagination: From Cooper to Wharton. (Lexington: University of Kentucky,1987): “It’s a truism of literary criticism that James Fenimore Cooper created the first distinctively American heroes. Natty Bumppo has long been accepted as the prototype of American frontiersman grappling with American problems: Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination (Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002) 276-8; Herman discusses how middle class men during the Jacksonian market revolution began to idolize hunter folk heroes such as Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and Big Mike Fink, creating an imagined American hunting legacy as well as driving popular culture beliefs and myths about American identity and attitudes toward guns.

5 Robert Myers, “Gunspeak: The Influence of America’s Gun Culture on Everyday Communication” Anthro-at-Large: Bulletin of the Federation of Small Anthropology Programs 12:1. (Spring 2005) 12-16.

3

represented throughout American history. For instance, as Richard Hofstadter calls for more

scholarship exploring guns and gun rights in his article “America as a Gun Culture” (1970), he

asks why “intelligent Americans cling with pathetic stubbornness to the notion that the people’s

right to bear arms is the greatest protection of their individual rights?”6 The rhetoric with which

Hofstadter frames his question regarding “pathetic stubborn” gun rights enthusiasts and owners

does as much to betray his own political disposition as it serves to call for gun scholarship.

Furthermore, presuppositions about American gun culture are referred to on both sides of the

argument and end up begging the proverbial question. Hence, the argument becomes circular.

In response to Hofstadter’s question, Michael Bellesiles’ controversial Arming America (2000)

exposes a more deceptive dilemma that places historical scholarship in collusion with political

bias. Bellesiles challenges the idea that early America even had a well-defined gun culture. He

claims that few early Americans owned or even demonstrated much concern for guns, asserting

that only after the Civil War did American attitudes toward guns begin to change. Though

initially well received by scholars, his work underwent major scrutiny as falsified information

surfaced.7

6 Richard Hofstadter, “America as a Gun Culture” American Heritage 21. 6. (1970): 4. Hofstadter is writing in the wake of (and makes direct reference to) the assassination of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy as he calls gun rights into question.

7 “Forum: Historians and Guns,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser. 59 (January 2002), 201-68. Bellesilles reprinted his text as Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, 2nd ed. (Brooklyn, New York: Soft Skull Press, 2003). Here, the fabricated evidence is taken out in attempts to prove that his argument should still be viable. Bellesilles makes an effort to defend his thesis in and distances the argument from his overt bias, claiming he did not write the text with current political debate in mind. He also claims that the number of guns and other evidence that he fabricated in his prior book was not the central argument of the entire text. He still maintains, however, that gun culture did not culminate until the mid-nineteenth century in America. He does this by addressing the number of guns accounted for as well as focusing on gun manufacturing. I attest that aside from gun ownership and production, gun narratives in literature is an accurate indicator of gun culture.

4

In reaction to scholarship couched in anti-gun biases, many political and social scientists

have further clouded the issue with biased views of their own. For example, Clayton Cramer

strives to refute Bellesiles’s premise—that there was no gun culture until after the Civil War—

with his text Locked and Loaded: The Origins of American Gun Culture.8 Cramer does much to

assert that gun culture and dependence upon them has been crucial ever since early American

colonization. Much of his stance in the text relies upon refuting the argument that

industrialization and gun manufacturers did much to establish and propagate gun culture.

Additionally, Cramer also pens another text entitled Armed America: The Remarkable Story of

How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie (2007). In it he maintains that firearms

not only were always an integral part of American life but also quickly became a symbol of

citizenship in early America (even before the Revolutionary war).9 Although Cramer levels

criticism at the predispositions or “political leanings” of a few historical scholars of gun culture

(mainly those of Bellesilles), his book’s own title and interpretations betray a contradictory but

complementary bias, in being overly reductionist and whiggish in his claim. In other words, he

works from his presumed historical perspective of an America well-accustomed to guns and to

gun culture and then reads this back into accounts to prove his perspective accurate. For instance,

8 Clayton E. Cramer, Lock, Stock, and Barrel: The Origins of American Gun Culture (Santa Barbara: Praeger 2018).

9 Clayton E. Cramer, Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie (Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006). Clayton Cramer levels criticism at Bellesiles’s Arming America as well as at historians with “political leanings” that influenced criticism (xiv). I find his pro-gun views just as politically driven as the anti-gun control scholarship he critiques. Clayton Cramer, as gun enthusiast, in Armed America offers, for the most part of the monograph, his rebuttal to Bellesiles’s Arming America arguing the existence of a vibrant gun culture in early America. Cramer takes liberties in interpreting a “pro-gun” American history.

5

even his title smacks of the “petitio principii” rhetorical fallacy, assuming the initial point, and

again, begging the question.10 What exactly makes apple pie or firearms “American?” More

explicitly, food history of apple pie predates American colonization and the Revolution

extending back to Swedish, Dutch, and English culture.

Similarly, one could argue that firearm history maintains comparable European roots. To

enter debate one must approach the matter with the already framed concepts of national identity.

For instance, what did the new nation do to Americanize guns? How does one define American

identity? Placing the historical and easily recognizable early American gun narratives under a

close reading offers critical insight. The benefit of such an approach is that it evades much of the

polemical and biased representations as current gun debates often read their own belief system of

gun-myths and understanding of gun culture in America back into debates—frequently this

occurs after school shootings and other atrocities that bring gun debate to the forefront. Rather,

turning to historical examples of gun narratives, perceiving ways in which guns were depicted

and exploring ways that authors used guns as a means to address political issues places attention

on the origins of gun perspectives (whether accurate or unfounded) within the context of then-

current historical issues.

Furthermore, other studies that have contributed to our understanding of gun culture in

America. Adam Winkler’s Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America (2013)

traces the various readings of the Second Amendment from the founding of American

10 Strangely, apple pie begins to become “Americanized” and part of the American persona in the 19th century, culture began to catch-up with the new nation creating new definitions. It is my argument that like apple pie, firearms are just as similarly has been rewritten into the American history and has already aided in establishing the nation’s self-definition.

6

democracy to the Jim Crow South and on to the Civil Rights movement and the Ronald Reagan

era.11 He addresses the political tightening and loosening regarding the legalities of gun

ownership. The monograph offers a perspective on how constitutional law varies concerning

social, economic, and political pressures. Much of his argument illustrates ways that the

American justice system is rather reactionary to social change and, as a consequence, traces a

series of pendulum shifts regarding gun control as opinion and policy respond to these social

pressures inherent in colonization, the need for an American identity, and Manifest Destiny—all

aspects that stress the value of guns upon the American public through its literature.

Another monograph that explores the economic factors in creating the American Gun

Culture is Pamela Haag’s The Gunning of America: Business and the Making of American Gun

Culture (2016). This text asserts that the creation of gun culture was commercially created by

Remington, Winchester, and other American gun barons. In advertising and political arenas these

manufacturers highly exaggerated ways in which the gun became inextricably linked to

American identity in terms of individualism, rugged masculinity, the creation of the war hero,

and Manifest Destiny. Haag’s argument offers valuable insights into the commercialization of

gun culture, claiming, “It was the gun business’s business to create them [both the demand for

and the product of guns].”12 The Gunning of America’s compelling thesis—that gun culture in

America was essentially manufactured by its gun manufacturers—evokes a captivating narrative

11 Adam Winkler, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2013).

12 Pamela Haag, The Gunning of America: The Business and the Making of American Gun Culture (Philadelphia: Basic Books 2016) xv.

7

of gun barons finding ways to tap into the civilian/domestic market after the Civil War and after

World War I. Similar to Haag’s text, this study acknowledges economic factors in the creation of

American gun culture, yet much of this study’s scope is predominantly pre-industrial America,

highlighting various themes that, later, gun businesses exaggerate. Yet, it is important to

underscore that much of the American palate for the heroic gun began to take shape well-before

as authors shaped positive gun narratives and the motifs. Early American literature uses the gun

to address issues of colonization, the dream of Manifest Destiny, and the demand to create a

national identity. Many authors offer their readership significant gun myths with dime novels and

the industrial era, dovetailing into Haag’s The Gunning of America, where economic factors

drive Gun Culture. I argue that American gun culture is not found within an “either/or” debate—

either economic factors (both Haag and Bellesiles’ argument) or enthusiastic pro-gun sentiment

from America’s inception (Cramer’s argument); rather, gun culture began to build within

America, and this is prevalent as this study traces gun themes and imagery within early

American literature. American gun myths occurred in literature for social and political reasons

and built upon one another, aiding in the creation of an American Gun Culture.

By turning to the literature of early American authors, those invested or interested in

current gun-debate can find some common ground in understanding American historical gun

perspectives and discover how they were politicized. In other words, performing a close reading

of guns in literature from the perspective the author presents provides a significant avenue into

contextual understandings of gun perspectives untainted by current polemical perspectives. Such

an understanding of cultural and political issues that arise in gun presentations in literature

allows for analysis with less obfuscation. Analysis of widely read early American literature,

8

rather than historical gun debates or accounts of gun ownership, permits insight into the cultural

perspectives and representations that both politicized the gun and helped build American gun-

culture. Before America’s inception, “gun” became a politically loaded term. It is my hope that

understanding how the gun became a symbol inherent in the fabric of the construction of

American identity, as seen in early American literature, can help inform current gun debates. I

argue that the gun was seldom perceived of in colonial and early America as a simple tool but

was always associated with various socio-political concerns, values, ethics, racial distinctions,

heroism, nationalism, Manifest Destiny, and anxieties. Studying the ways in which past authors

perceived and endorsed gun use may aid in creating a consensus on gun use and ownership in the

current debate.

A brief survey of firearm scholarship reveals that a majority of scholarly analyses were

devoted either to the defense of American firearms and their “established legacy” or to the

defense of social, cultural, and governmental parameters placed upon firearms. For instance, gun

rights attorney Stephen Halbrook’s That Every Man Be Armed (2000) favors populists’ (gun

enthusiasts’ or NRA advocates’) interpretations that stress the individual right to bear arms and

include hunting, personal protection, and the staging of a coup against corrupt governments as

accompanying political truths, making guns both necessary and “American.” Countering

burgeoning populist interpretations, many historians like Alexander De Conde’s Gun Violence in

America (2001), Joyce Malcolm’s Guns and Violence (2004), Richard’s American Violence

(1970), and Gary Wills’ A Necessary Evil (2002) claim that such a legacy of individualistic gun

rights had not yet come to conceptual fruition at the time of writing the Second Amendment

(1791), much less at the time of American colonization. These historians offer a few perspectives

9

of the Second Amendment, regarding it as a decree to organize a State militia rather than as a

declaration for the individualistic right for personal gun protection—namely, the “collective

rights” or “State’s rights” school of thought. Similarly, Saul Cornell’s A Well Regulated Militia

(2008) emphasizes that civic rights are of prime importance, claiming historically that the

Second Amendment required that each citizen supply the State his arms and service to the militia

rather than asserting his right to private ownership.13 While each of these perspectives is valid,

and welcomed, this study implies that the Second Amendment’s original interpretation was never

meant for individual arsenals for personal use and defense. Rather, it was meant to supply the

State with individuals’ firearms and service in the militia in defense of the State. Such a

perspective most likely would be lost on other political authors, such as Stephen Halbrook and

Clayton Cramer, and their readership who come to a different conclusion when examining the

same facts. American history often fuels current polemical disputes and purviews framed in

either/or arguments and creates a platform for caustic deliberation that overlooks the possibility

of an environment where political bias could be set aside and common ground and understanding

could take place. However, when turning to early American literature, fiction, and myth, rather

than political science and history, dialogue becomes less caustic or one-sided and shared

understanding regarding guns, their use, and historical perspectives allow for a broader

exploration of possibilities rather than reactionary confrontations.

13 Conversely, Saul Cornell traces Halbrook’s and Williams’ “individual right” interpretation as stemming from nineteenth century thought, not the Revolutionary period. Saul Cornell, A Well-Regulated Militia: the Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. (Oxford University Press 2006).

10

Thankfully, historiography reflects that recent studies reject past tendencies to evoke an

either/or debate, instead replacing polarizing and altruistic accounts and interpretations of guns

and gun rights with more complex, multifaceted viewpoints and methodologies. For instance,

David C. Williams, a legal historian, offers his The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment

(2003) as a less personally biased and more comprehensive work in understanding the

interpretation of the Second Amendment. He refers to many of the aforementioned scholars as

being divided upon two major phrases within the Second Amendment. Specifically, he notes

ways in which some scholars stress the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms

shall not be infringed.” On the other hand, Weberian scholars (such as Dennis Henigan and Keith

Erhman) identify the preceding clause that stresses: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to

the security of the Free State,” explaining that a State could monopolize and control the

definition of a legitimate use of violence.14 However, what is most intriguing about this legal

study is that Williams frees scholarship from generalizing binaries, restructuring polemical

debate. The differing interpretations of The Second Amendment, he claims, are couched

significantly in myth and Willams affirms, “Neither offers a balanced account of the Second

Amendment.”15 Shaping oppositional interpretations as myths, Williams also is able to explore

ways the framers of the constitutions strove to maintain a balance of power to the people and

government. Williams brilliantly moves the stale scholarly debate away from either/or argument

14 Both Henigan and Erhman refute claims that the Second Amendment advocated individual rights to stage an insurrection. David C. Williams, The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment: Taming Political Violence in a Constitutional Republic. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003) 112.

15 David C. Williams. The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment: Taming Political Violence in a Constitutional Republic. (New Haven: Yale University Press 2003) 7. Williams argues that both differing perspectives “illuminate important political truths,” yet, both are “dangerously one sided.”

11

to worldviews, attitudes, and myth. Williams’ study highlights the value of understanding ways

that myth shapes attitudes and in turn shapes law and government. His study strives to explore

deeply seated modes of thought rather than to evoke deeply seated pro or anti arguments.

As historians have already noted the significance of gun and frontier myths, many studies

connect such myths to America’s national identity.16 This study aims to build upon such

understandings and lead readership toward a productive recognition of myth and the role it

played in American history and the creation of its gun culture. Richard Slotkin’s groundbreaking

trilogy explores ways in which much of “American culture” developed out of real anxieties over

wilderness and real or rumored threats from Native Americans. His Regeneration Through

Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier 1600-1870 (1973) couples a cultural-

historical approach with Joseph Campbell’s “power of myth” in order to explain how European

settlers expressed anxieties through violence—a fundamental ingredient in the creation of a

national myth and identity. In The Fatal Environment: The Myth of the Frontier in the Age of

Industrialization, 1800-1890 (1985) he continues to trace violence through the nation’s concept

of Manifest Destiny to its industrialization and imperial expansion eras. Lastly, his Gunfighter

Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in the Twentieth Century (1992) marks ways in which gun

affinity in popular culture—dime novels, Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Shows, and Hollywood film—

16 Another text that addresses the issue of gender in the creation of gun culture and American identity is Laura Browder’s Her Best Shot: Women and Guns in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 2006). This text argues that images of women’s relationships with guns serve as lynchpins for broader cultural issues. Another text delves into ways in which race plays a factor in gun culture and, in particular, gun ownership is Nicholas Johnson’s Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books 2014). This text chronicles the African American experience and relationship with gun ownership, cultural stigmas, and political rights. Though much of its scope focuses upon the Jim Crow South and Civil Rights era, it does evoke multiple perspectives on the issues of guns and the African American struggle to gain freedoms.

12

responded to and influenced American culture and politics. Slotkin explains his studies’

reasoning:

True myths are generated on a subliterary level by the historical experience of a people

and thus constitute part of that inner reality which the work of the artist draws on,

illuminates, and explains. In American mythogenesis the founding fathers were not those

eighteenth-century gentlemen who composed a nation at Philadelphia. Rather, they were

those who (to paraphrase Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!) tore violently a nation from the

implacable and opulent wilderness—the rogues, adventurers, and land-boomers; the

Indian fighters, traders, missionaries, explorers, and hunters who killed and were killed

until they had mastered the wilderness; the settlers who came after, suffering hardship

and Indian warfare for the sake of a sacred mission or a some desire for land; and the

Indians themselves, both as they were and as they appeared to the settlers, for whom they

were the special demonic personification of the American wilderness. Their concerns,

their hopes, their terror, their violence, and their justifications of themselves, as expressed

in literature, are the foundation stones of the mythology that informs our history.17

The historical experiences and anxieties that Slotkin highlights and which each artist “draws on,

illuminates and explains” consistently return to themes of violence as a form of regeneration or

remaking of America, reclaiming it as God’s country. Slotkin explains that framers of American

17 Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1800. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2000) 4.

13

myth and American history were the adventurers that “mastered the wilderness” and subdued the

Natives in both real and fictional narratives.

Just as Slotkin builds upon Joseph Campbell’s concept of myth (focusing more upon

ways in which American writers portrayed violence and took part in the mythogenesis of

American culture), I build upon Slotkin’s concept of violence with particular emphasis on the

role of firearms, tracing a few narratives of “rogues and adventurers” underscoring how

representations of firearms drew upon myth. More specifically, I am building on the manner that

he addresses myth created for the public to address their major “concerns, their hopes, their

terror, their violence, and their justifications of themselves,” as a means to answer significant

political, cultural, and economic questions. I argue that symbolism surrounding the gun has been

so solidified from the point of colonization to the present, and that meaning, myth, and

politicization of the gun have become so ingrained and rooted within language itself that critical

debate, either popular or scholarly, becomes problematic. Undoubtedly, any discussion of guns,

gun rights, and gun culture is infused right from America’s exploration and colonial inception

through myth that becomes indistinguishable from political agendas. Thus, by turning to close

reading and contextual understanding, looking at ways the authors (and illustrators) purposefully

staged the gun as American mythology serves as an answer to political and social issues,

particularly focusing upon various problems that the gun purportedly solves within the texts, one

can better understand ways in which authors have turned to evoking images of the gun as a

means to respond to current issues. In this manner studying ways in which gun terminology was

used in the past, we may be able to isolate instances of such mythologized and polemical

understandings of the American gun. This is where my approach somewhat differs from

14

Slotkin’s. This study follows his approach in uncovering Campbellesque archetypal

understandings of myth. Yet among these myths, it uncovers the underlying needs of individual

authors to turn to such guns myths, often revealing the ethical and political issues at stake. In

turning to a close reading of gun depictions, imagery and myth reveal political agendas.

What this study helps to uncover it that the gun, in literature, was seldom a simple tool or

machine; the myth of the gun is used to provide solutions to crucial problems and situations that

formed this nation, such as: how could Europeans eradicate such a large population in the

Americas? Also, by what means did colonizers set themselves as distinctly superior to the

Natives and, later over Europeans? How could colonials maintain a sense of protection and quell

the anxieties future immigrants maintained toward Natives and wilderness? And, how could the

gun imagery encourage men to enlist in the American Revolution, or later, to ensure peace and

trade among the Natives? Further, how did early American authors—acting as moralists—instill

a sense of ethics, natural law, and acute discernment within its citizenry?

A brief reading of William Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Jean Michelet’s Histoire de France

1516 – 1547, and Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote offers a sense of how literary texts

conflate national patriotism with gun-use (Henry IV) and questions the ethics of gun-use in war

and battle (Histoire de France and Don Quixote). Hotspur’s monologue in Shakespeare’s Henry

IV pits two symbolic objects, spermaceti and saltpeter, at odds—arguing which object should

serve as the emblem of the sovereign man. As Hotspur is bloody and leaning on his sword, after

battle, he muses in his monologue, “came there a certain lord, neat and trimly dress’d” that “with

many holiday and lady terms […] talked so like a waiting –gentlewoman/ Of guns and drums

and wounds, —God save the mark—/And telling me the sovereign’st thing on earth/ Was

15

parmaceti18 for an inward bruise.”19 While Hotspur is covered with blood, his wounds “growing

cold,” this man is gingerly taking snuff claiming parmeceti is “the sovreign’st thing on earth” for

treating bruises. Here, Hotspur notes that this effeminate man is carrying on about spermaceti, or

sperm whale oil20 being the “sovereign’st thing.” The term sovereign takes on the meaning of

being “most notable” or “of superlative degree” for remedies. Sperm whale oil as material also is

being heralded as what makes Great Britain superior. Hotspur recalls how this gentleman as he

elevates the incomparability of spermaceti as he condemns saltpeter stating, “And that it was

great pity, so it was,/ That the villainous saltpetere should be digg’d/ Out of the bowels of the

harmless earth,/ Which many a good tall fellow had destroyed/ So cowardly; and but for those

vile guns,/ He would himself have been a soldier.”21 The fashionable gentleman is stating that

were it not for villainous guns and had military weapons maintained their decency, “he would

himself have been a soldier.”22 Just as a nation’s ability to produce sperm whale oil is

emblematic of its maritime and scientific superiority, the use of guns crosses some fashionable

line, proving it to be cowardly or vile to some Englishmen. Yet Shakespeare contrasts Hotspur

with this so-called “cowardly” character and defines Hotspur’s notion of the gun as a symbol of

sovereignty and as a test of bravery and manliness.

18 Spermaceti 19 William Shakespeare, Henry IV. (London: Penguin 1996) 59. 20 Spermaceti: oil that gave the most efficient light and also was used to treat bruises. 21 William Shakespeare, Henry IV. (London: Penguin 1996) 59. 22 Henry IV 59.

16

Within this juxtaposition of the two characters, the play Henry IV reveals ways in which

objects are fused to meanings of sovereignty. French history offers an example that echoes a

similar sentiment, building a national character and ideals of gentrification by rejecting the use of

guns. In Histoire de France 1516 – 1547 (1867), Jules Michelet explains,

No use has yet been made in France, in 1547, of that terrible weapon [the gun: both the

cannon and the harquebus] against men. The French used it with good effect against

some castles in 1338, but they would blush to employ it against their fellow-creatures.

The English, less humane, without doubt outstripped us, and made use of some at the

celebrated battle of Creçy.23

As Michelet calls into question the humane use of firearms and cannons, he uses othering to

define French sophistication and bravery in contrast to the “less humane” and well-armed

English. In both examples, material, myth, and othering all converge to create or support national

identity in its regard for firearms. Shakespeare’s Hotspur consents to the use of guns as a weapon

of nobility and English masculinity as opposed to the other gentleman that Hotspur paints as

“womanly.” And Michelet marks the English’s gun-use as barbarous or undignified. As we will

explore later, the Englishmen Captain John Smith uses a similar argument against the Spanish

conquistadores, condemning their treacherous use of the gun in contrast to that of the refined and

well-mannered English colonizers.

This argument regarding the gun’s early introduction as it reflects or negates national

civilized gentry is apparent in Spanish literature as well. Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote

23 qtd. in W.W. Greener, The Gun and its Development. 9th ed. (New York: Bonanza 1967) 55.

17

(first volume published in 1607) continually uses and critiques historical nostalgia as it pertains

to national character, humanity, and bravery as the knight-errant claims,

It grieves me to have undertaken this exercise of a knight-errant in this our detestable

age; for although no danger can affright me, yet […] I live in jealousy to think how

powder and lead might deprive me of the power to make myself famous and renowned by

the strength of my arm and the edge of my sword throughout the face of this earth.24

As Cervantes recognized the new technology of the gun challenged and changed perspectives of

bravery. For the most part, European nations esteemed their traditional perspectives of bravery

and humanity in their “assumed” hesitation to adopt this “treacherous saltpetre” while they

claimed other countries more brutish or less refined because of their quick adoption of such

technology that seemed to promote a concept that the soldier reliant on such a weapon is void of

skill or lacks bravery. Where Europe may have been the birthplace of gun debates over moral

issues and traditional concepts of bravery, America is the real battleground on which the debate

took shape. As European powers began to fight over land in the Americas and define this new

environment, the gun also took upon itself (or rather was given by early American authors) new

definitions that would later be adopted, adapted or discarded in order to frame American notions

of the gun.

Another study that provides scholarship with similar attention toward gun myth and gun

culture nostalgia is Daniel Herman’s Hunting and the American Imagination (2001). Herman

uses a cultural-historical approach to explore the roots of an Anglo-American ethnic identity as

24 Miguel Cervantes, The History of Don Quixote of la Mancha. Translated by Thomas Shelton. (London: David Nutt 1896) 140.

18

personified by the American hunter. In tracing various trends found from the writings of Captain

John Smith to Theodore Roosevelt, Herman, rather than praising or vilifying the hunter,

elaborates upon myths and values ascribed to the hunter.25 Herman focuses upon representational

myths in order to answer what makes hunting “American,” underscoring ways in which the

contested figure of the hunter has been adopted into American mainstream culture. Herman uses

myth in order to trace various trends in popular perspectives and representations of the American

hunter.

My study follows the trends of scholarly development exemplified by Slotkin, Williams,

and Herman, avoiding dangerous dichotomies, disagreements, and allegations of contemporary

understandings superimposed upon those of the past. However, I place particular focus upon

firearm representations. Though as both Slotkin and Herman remark, understanding violence and

hunting influences perspectives on the American gun, these two studies do not attend specifically

to other politicized uses of the gun and overlook many of the ways the gun was brandished as a

literary device before the Civil War.26 A narrowed focus upon literary depictions will serve to

illuminate ways in which symbolism of the gun changes and evolves from America’s

colonization to just before the Civil War.

“Firearms” itself is a broad term with many uses, makes, and models. Yet, for the

purpose of this study, I interpret firearms to mean weapons using gunpowder that can be carried

25 Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 2001) xi.

26 Richard Slotkin’s Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in the Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1998) does this but his scope resides within the early nineteen hundreds.

19

and used by one individual, such as muskets, rifles, pistols, and harquebuses. My focus on

American guns and their connections with myth engages additional discussion about national

identity, cultural iconography, values, and symbols—all crucial tools for gauging changes in

American culture. With these critical elements, I hope to discuss and gauge American gun

culture.

Many historians and legal and political scholars not only reference myth but also

continually refer to fictional narratives, yet it is surprising to note the lack of literary scholarship

in American firearm representation. Literary works are saturated with gun references and

methodological approaches steeped in myth, fiction, representation, and symbolism. A literary

study fully dedicated to gun myths will help fill this gap in research and uncover some

overlooked or unanticipated historical perceptions, meanings, origins, and insights built into the

literary construction of American gun culture.

Other scholarship that focuses upon the colonials’ apprehensions regarding the Natives

and the wilderness is Ian K. Steele’s Warpaths: Invasions of the North America (1994). Here,

Steele highlights early American struggles for survival and supremacy as being a major—and

often ignored—convention for Anglo-Americans as military exploits, trade, and diplomacy

became central features in the creation of American culture. Steele argues these clashes are

instrumental in creating a national identity. As the texts reaffirm “othering” as imperative in

creating a national identity, I continue this discussion as conflicts, clashes, and the natural

20

environment serve to generate both nonfiction and fictional accounts, establishing political roles

for the American gun.27

Clashes and conflicts between Europeans and Natives are central to my argument as

definitions and myths of the gun are created within this context. This conflict is what makes the

American gun different from that of the Europeans’ use of the firearm. These Euro-American

definitions are addressed and elaborated within each chapter. In general, the gun, within

narratives of conflict with Natives (and eventually the British), becomes a stand-in for

nationalistic pride, Eurocentrism, God’s will, providence, nature, predestined death, and an

appeal for peace and economic relations. Once Native peoples obtain and adapt the gun to the

wilderness, the gun yields more intricate definitions in the hands of the Euro-American. The gun

becomes Americanized by colonial perceptions when Natives use the weapon against the settlers.

Within these narratives, colonials and Americans adopt their perceived Native characteristics in

regards to the gun and claim then as their own. In such a way, colonials are able to turn to gun

myth in order to set themselves apart as superior to their enemies.

In building upon literary and historical scholarship that traces how the frontier created

American national identity, my study examines how early American authors defined the gun

through political staging—placing the gun in a situation where it serves a response to political

issues of the time. For example, as explored in Chapter 2, John Smith showcases—stages—the

27 Jeffery C. Alexander, Ron Eyerman, Bernhard Giesen, Neil J. Smelser, and Piotr Sztompka, Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press 2004). A text that explores how national or collective identity is created through shared traumatic experiences. In this study, as colonist clash with the Natives, in captivity narratives, colonial narratives, and violent historical fiction, the United States grounds its identity in such trauma and the role of the firearms becomes written into or intertwined with both the trauma and the foundation of a collective identity.

21

gun as an effective tool against the Natives to assuage his readers’ New World anxieties. Thus,

the gun serves its newly conferred political agenda to increase immigration and colonial

expansion even if the gun, for the most part, is ineffective and often deficient against the Natives.

Yet, the gun myth is perpetuated. Each chapter will provide a more comprehensive

understanding, firstly, of the mythopoetics of the “American gun”28 (searching for how the gun

became staged as the tool that “won the west” through fiction and symbols) and lastly of the

ways that Native images coupled with the gun offer pivotal reflections in defining the American

gun and in turn American identity.

Within each chapter, I build upon Slotkin’s definitions of violence and its connections

with American mythopoetics with particular focus upon how the gun entered into and played a

part in nation-building. For instance, Slotkin argues that American culture emerges out of New

World anxieties of its early colonizers. Such anxieties solidify upon both the Natives and the

wilderness. Slotkin asserts American myths are created as these anxieties are manifest in violent

actions taken against these two entities. I shape this argument around perspectives of firearms in

early American literature. Lastly, I draw upon Tzvetan Todorov’s conceptual approach of

“otherness” found in The Conquest of the Other. Todorov explores how Spanish conquistadores’

rhetoric in narratives and myths “conquered” Natives culturally as they stripped Natives of their

own voice in history, becoming a mouthpiece for the Natives, creating myths and definitions for

“the other” in order to respond to political questions that the conquests raised. His definition of

otherness through rejection, internalization, and re-representation is not only significant in

28 Mythopoesis is the study of origins of myth or the making of myths. This study explores

narratives that connect firearms with various forms and archetypes of myths, that contributed to mythic origins of the gun culture.

22

establishing a characteristic frontier and aborigine for Anglo-American identity but is also useful

in understanding the inextricable role the gun plays in that characterization. Early American

authors associated their proposed images and myths of American Natives with that of the gun,

rebranding the European gun as American. As new American heroes used the New World guns,

they also appropriated specific values, views, and perspectives, as they dominated the wilderness

and Natives themselves. Authors often misrepresent Natives throughout their narratives through

cultural misunderstandings and even intentional political purposes. Otherness aided in separating

Anglo-Americans from European and allowed for more opportunities for early American authors

to mythologize the gun as they spoke about and for Natives.

As previously mentioned, many historians, cultural critics, political scientists, and law

scholars have continually used past narratives from both fictional and non-fictional accounts.

Gun scholarship indeed merits a study that uses close reading of narrative in order to elicit more

understandings of attitudes toward guns answering why authors may tend to rely upon their

image or hyperbolize their accuracy and power. This study hopes to uncover past attitudes

regarding guns. It explores some of the rhetoric that continues to influence cultural attitudes,

revealing a manner in which guns become politically charged. I affirm that many of these

historical meanings, however timeworn they may be, are deeply-rooted in and continue to

influence and even manipulate current definitions of the gun. This study, in essence, is an

exposition of “how the sausage is made” or, in other words, how gun myth (mythopoeisis), gun

beliefs, and overall gun perspectives are made—offering a glance into how some of the

groundwork was laid for an American gun culture. Through an exploration of five major authors

writing over three hundred years of early American literature, deeper understanding of early

23

American gun symbolism, imagery and—overall—portrayal offers a potentially healthier

framework for gun debate and perhaps may even aid in the creation of improved public policies.

I reveal ways in which authors stage the gun and depict or “brandish” it in order to solve colonial

questions, political problems, and American issues of that time. Such a study is crucial, as it

uncovers a foundation to better understand how and why various gun perspectives and myths are

made, often revealing political and social issues and insecurities that created a dependence upon

guns and gun-myth. For instance, as explored in Chapter 3, Mary Rowlandson—who never fires

a gun in her narrative—soon becomes a mythical gun-toting woman as an answer to American

political revolutionary demands. Representational pairing of the gun and the woman serves as

significant revolutionary propaganda and bolsters the rallying cry for independence and

distinction from Britain. In this manner, literary studies exemplify how the gun aided in creating

a national identity. Past historians, playwrights, novelists, conquistadors, and colonists have

incorporated their own representations of the gun and its relationship with their nation, citizenry,

and militaristic exploits—all influencing the collective consciousness of their readers.

Each chapter develops ways in which a selection of authors imprint notions of

masculinity, citizenship, sovereignty, and other political elements that unify ideals and values

that create a national identity. This study offers examination of the rhetoric surrounding the gun

in a 300-year span in the United States, focusing on various trends, attitudes, and politically

driven representations. As these beliefs regarding firearms enter the literary public sphere,

concepts of the gun’s role begin to solidify. The gun, then, acquires deep historical ties with

political paradigms and national characteristics. Early American authors played an important role

24

in the creation of these gun myths that continue to permeate through American culture and aid in

the founding of gun culture in the United States.

Many historians intent upon delineating fiction from fact have turned to narratives to

answer probing questions regarding guns. What is problematic about this quest (and literary

analysis makes this even more evident) is that notions of the American frontier and certainly the

American gun from colonization onward have been distorted and politically driven. This changes

the often generalized definition of the early American gun perceived simply as a tool. As

Europeans instilled myths and symbols regarding their newfound firepower, the American

environment became the ideal operative stage on which to define its symbolic value, influencing

much of what gun culture has become today.

By tracing representations of the firearm within works by Cabeza de Vaca (1500s) to

James Fenimore Cooper (1800s), I will examine ways in which the gun was staged on the

fictionalized American frontier and show that firearms have a robust presence in sociopolitical

history throughout this period. By focusing on representative examples throughout these three

hundred years, one can better comprehend what attitudes of the past have been adopted or

discarded in order to create current definitions and multiple understandings of the “American

gun.”29 Through such works many early authors have mythologized the gun.

As Spanish explorers and conquistadors predate British colonization, Chapter 1 is

devoted to Spanish influence in gun perspectives on the new continent. It will explore ways in

which, first, Dryden’s Indian Emperor (1665) addresses Spanish firearms in historical retrospect.

29 I chose fiction and non-fiction texts that played a significant part of the literary public sphere. Most were popularly read to understand and characterize the Americas.

25

I illustrate ways in which this play mythologizes accounts and turns to the gun to answer an

essential moral question regarding the destruction of the entire Aztec Empire. I contrast Dryden’s

play, which claims to be historically accurate, with historical accounts from Hernan Cortez,

focusing on the use of the harquebus and cannon. I then turn to Cabeza de Vaca’s Chronical of

the Narvaez Expedition (1537) to explore how powerless the harquebus was compared to the

Natives’ bow and arrow. As de Vaca is captured by the Natives, his narrative offers an initial

inside portrait of the American Native that will later play into (or be co-opted by) colonial

definitions of American identity in dealing with Natives and understanding the gun through other

captivity tales.

Chapter 2 will address the ways John Smith portrays the gun in his narratives (1580-

1631). In the genesis of the Jamestown colony, the gun proves useful as a means to gain food

primarily by trade with the Natives. Here Smith artfully enhances the Natives’ awe and desire

regarding the gun in order to mask the colony’s own vulnerability.30 He also turns to gun myth to

create a sense of security for his readers, potential immigrants to the new American colonies. In

the English’s first foray on the continent, the gun is used to establish order, ensure safety, and

also gain food (but mainly to demonstrate the colonies rhetorically as a “land of plenty”). John

Smith, accused by many—even his contemporaries—of too much self-promotion, also markets

30 This study is concerned with European and Anglo-American accounts misrepresenting or misinterpreting Native American perspectives of firearm. Inherent in these misinterpretations reside significant anxieties that aided in constructing Gun Culture. Yet, this study’s scope does neglect Native American accounts. Another study focused upon these accounts could help delineate ways in which narratives from the Native inhabitants influenced the inception of American gun culture and gun perspectives.

26

the gun in propagandizing fashion as the answer to many concerns and anxieties early American

colonials harbored regarding such a precarious venture.

Chapter 3 turns the focus away from secular and masculine explorers’ accounts to that of

the female Puritan. The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: Being a Narrative of the Captivity

and Restoration of Mary Rowlandson (1682) illustrates significant religious perspectives that

many early colonials shared. Her captivity implicitly counters Smith’s assertions about safety in

the English colonies. Rowlandson exposes a colonial militia lacking in skill and efficiency and

totally inept in providing any form of safety against Native attacks. Similar to both de Vaca’s

and Smith’s accounts, her captivity also offers valuable insights into Native culture and the

wilderness. She questions traditional European values and adapts to Native culture in order to

survive. In essence she negotiates between Native and traditional European values. Similar to

Dryden’s retrospective understanding of the gun, Mary Rowlandson’s character and the gun are

heralded in the context of the American Revolution. Colonial patriots turn to this gun-toting

woman for a simple yet significant image that promotes military enlistment, defense of

possessions and land, as well as revolutionary values, such as individuality, freedom, anti-

authoritarianism (especially anti-monarchy sentiment).

Chapter 4 follows the Lewis and Clark Expedition and revisits some of the major themes

addressed in previous chapters. The chapter explores how the Corps of Discovery’s narratives

began to shift American perspectives regarding hunting. It is also within this period that the gun

becomes inextricably linked to Manifest Destiny. The gun is also displayed to the Native nations

with pageantry, pairing it with concepts of sovereignty, the promise of peace and trade, order,

27

and protection of life and property. Also, the narrative warns of possible hazards regarding guns

and serves as a foreshadowing of future gun issues.

Chapter 5 will continue to trace the values envisioned in the image of the frontier hero

found in John Smith, Mary Rowlandson and the Corps of Discovery, as these values become the

foundational traits of one of the most quintessential fictional heroes of the frontier, Natty

Bumppo. This chapter first describes James Fenimore Cooper’s political leanings upon the

American gun. It then illustrates ways in which Natty Bumppo becomes the prototypical

American frontier hero with one foot placed in Native and the other in Anglo-American culture.

Such an image of the gun-toting frontier hero becomes considerably disseminated within

American culture and even now continues to express American principles. Natty, as one of the

principal primogenitors of this particular frontier hero, instills values in the gun and champions

important ethics of the American shooter. The hero and the gun, like many other protagonists

aforementioned, becomes a simple answer to many moral and political questions. Nathaniel and

his gun ensures safety, embodies an American (puritanical) work ethic, is beholden to his own

creed, shows disdain for unrighteous killing, and educates on proper gun care and gun safety. In

essence, he becomes the embodiment of the best of American values—according to Cooper—

and gun culture.

Lastly, the Epilogue places all the myths and values addressed in these chapters in the

context of current gun debates. The epilogue addresses how Nathaniel Bumppo becomes the

model for many subsequent American literary heroes. It also problematizes the ways in which

American literature has turned to the gun for simplistic answers to complex political problems

and current arguments regarding gun rights and policies.

28

Ultimately this work examines narratives that define early American gun consciousness

within its crucial literary and historical contexts, offering more concrete definitions and

understandings than early Americans had regarding firearms. By investigating both fictional and

nonfictional narratives of and references to early American gun use, I explore a related set of

questions that remain open in current scholarship. For example, did America have a collective

consciousness or understanding of gun use? What were the main political issues that early

Americans encountered and questioned concerning firearms? How were these anxieties or

concerns about gun use addressed? More specifically, what were the various attitudes early

Americans had concerning gun use before, during and after the writing of the Second

Amendment? How does gun use in early American literature reflect, question, and employ

values of manhood, American identity, and the American frontier?

In tracing representations of guns found in the literary public sphere from the Spanish

conquest in the 1500s to American gun novels of the 1800s, this study shows how the “American

gun” has been interpreted and celebrated. It also serves to delineate much of the misrepresented,

overlooked, and misunderstood historical national identifications found in the gun, as authors

have mythologized the gun in order to claim cultural values and attitudes. Gun narratives reveal a

sharper and at times more ambiguous image of the gun in its relation to the creation of—and

more importantly—the characterization of the United States.

Literary criticism provides a viable means of studying modes of firearm representation as

various forms of literary criticism focuses upon representations and affirmations of values,

morals, and particularly heroic narratives. Though there are many different attitudes and

approaches throughout American history regarding guns, this study does not claim that these

29

representative texts stand as the only touchstones of American collective consciousness. Such a

claim would be oversimplified. Rather, as printed texts operate to both mirror and transform

public attitudes, this literary approach serves first, to contextualize areas where the gun is

brandished in narrative form; second, to highlight various overlooked ideological backdrops for

intentional or unintentional political shaping of the gun in narratives as a nation began to form;

and third, to extrapolate from the texts specific literary modes that serve to establish the concept

of American identity as it relates to the gun. In short, this literary approach will highlight areas

where early American narratives have fused myths, values, and characteristics into the gun and

have deemed this object as particularly “American.”

As the creation of these myths takes part in the construction of cultural identity, a close

examination of how the firearm became the epicenter of many American frontier myths evokes

various values of a hero and culture as they are coupled with the gun. This study does not intend

to defend or attack American gun culture. Rather this literary analysis contemplates meanings of

gun depictions and strives to identify the author’s biases, concerns, and celebrations of the

American gun. In brandishing the gun upon the stage of the American frontier, these authors

offer valuable insight to the politically charged formation of American gun culture.

30

CHAPTER 1

“EXPEDITION GONE AWRY:” CABEZA DE VACA AND GUNS

AMONG THE NATIVES

In studying gun perspectives, many authors have emphasized their effectiveness in the

genocide of the indigenous peoples of America. In John Dryden’s heroic drama The Indian

Emporour [sic], or Conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards, first performed in 1665, Dryden

revisits Hernán Cortes’s battle with Montezuma to reinforce the popularized postcolonial

binaries of European supremacy over “primitive” Natives. Dryden’s play does much to

characterize Spain in conquest as it does the Aztecs in their captivity. Where Spain exhibits

militaristic strategy and might, technological progress, and jingoistic loyalty to God, Country,

and King, the Aztecs symbolize the American pagan wilderness and unsophisticated culture. In

introducing the play, Dryden’s “Connection & c.” shows concern for balancing theme with

dramaturgical accuracy:

I have neither wholly followed the Story, nor varied from it; and, as near as I could, have

traced the Native Simplicity and Ignorance of the Indians, in relation to European

Customs: The Shipping, Armor, Horses, Swords, and Guns of the Spaniards, being as

new to them [the Natives] as their Habits and Language were to the Chieftains.31

(emphasis added)

Dryden’s apology explains that although his historical precision may be limited in scope, he

follows the true accounts closely, “tracing” the apparent “Native Ignorance and Simplicity” as it

31 John Dryden, Works of John Dryden. Vol 9. (Berkeley: University of California Press 1966) 27.

31

is factually contrasted with the superiority and sophistication of “European Customs” that is

apparent in Spanish arms, habits, and language. Dryden allocates “European Customs” into

ships, “armor, horses, swords, and guns of the Spaniards,” placing militaristic might and

“advanced” materials in contrast with the “primitive natives.” Dryden reinforces cultural

superiority through keen attention to technological objects—Spanish guns included.

Dryden continues to emphasize this juxtaposition, reinforcing myths regarding the gun.

As Cortes’s men discharge their guns in battle, the Indians implore, “Oh mercy at thy feet we

fall,/ Before thy roaring gods destroy us all;/ See we retreat without the least reply,/ Keep thy

gods silent, if they speak we dye.”32 Dryden, in humorous yet tragic fashion, celebrates European

armament and ridicules the simple-mindedness the Indians had regarding Spanish firearms. Yet

these two couplets along with his own preface accounting for the way “things really were” offer

rich insight in answering the questions of: 1) how and why myths regarding firearms were

created;33 2) how Europeans use the Americas as a stage for creating national character; and 3)

what Natives’—“the others’”—role was in establishing national identities.

In answering these questions, it may be difficult to delineate one question from the other,

as theories, linguistics, myth, and “otherness” converge as they address art and artifacts.

However, such a conglomeration of theories and approaches assists in the telling of a significant

portion of the story of firearms on the American continent—particularly of the United States—

32 Works of John Dryden 40. 33 Mythopoetics

32

that has often been neglected.34 For instance, in The Conquest of America: The Question of the

Other, Tzvetan Todorov—both historian and structuralist literary critic—explores the ways in

which the Spanish linguistically dominate the Native culture both by placing a skewed judgment

upon the Natives and also placing themselves (the Spanish) in a position in which they also

select the criteria by which the Natives are judged.35 In other words, Todorov asserts, “they [the

Spanish] decide, for instance, that human sacrifice is the consequence of tyranny, but massacre

[which the Spanish make their own allowances for] is not.”36 This study offers linguistic

methods of Spanish conquest over the Americas. As guns are given a more metaphorical and

symbolical role (which this study will examine later within this chapter and throughout)

Todorov’s linguistic analysis becomes more apparent in highlighting the rhetorical promotion of

firearms as a means of both establishing a criteria judging one nation over another in terms of

“technological advancement” as guns are equated with the nation’s favor with God. In following

this approach we are able also to see ways in which firearms are coupled with national identity in

order to side-step many complex political and moral questions as European (and in later chapters

Euro-American) cultures exploit, eradicate, and relocate Native nations and colonize the Native’s

34 See Tzvetan Todorov’s concept of “otherness” and “subjugation of the other” predominantly found in his The Conquest of the America: The Question of the Other, trans. Richard Howard (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1999); also Richard Slotkin’s analysis of myth and violence in his Regeneration Through Violence: the Mythology of the American Frontier 1600-1800 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2000). Though Slotkin’s approach predominantly focuses on historical accounts, he does address—at times—significant literary texts (such as James Fenimore Cooper’s Leatherstockings Tales). I follow Slotkin’s argument into other significant early American narratives, addressing ways in which colonials adopt and accept influences of the Native culture as they violently oppress this culture—in doing so they influence American national identity.

35 Tzvetan Todorov, The Conquest of the America: The Question of the Other. Trans. Richard Howard (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1999).

36 The Conquest of the America 150.

33

former territory. Thus, Dryden’s focus on military might aids in the reader’s negotiating moral

ground affirming who God favors and also asserting an ethnocentric explanation of cultures,

using their own established set of criteria ex post facto.

As Todorov’s seminal monograph offers insight into the rhetorical analysis of firearm

narratives, Richard Slotkin’s Regeneration Through Violence delves into criticism of myth as it

is associated with national identity, particularly as colonials use violent means of supplanting

Native culture.37 To summarize Slotkin, colonials turned to myth in order to explain and

reconcile their own political and social actions to their God and ultimately to themselves—and

much of American identity is founded upon such myths.38

Dryden’s Mythopoetics of the Gun in the Americas

In Dryden’s heroic drama the poet attempts to answer an underlying moral question as to

why European powers “easily” dominated the New World through the use of myth and rhetoric.

The lines “Oh mercy at thy feet we fall,/ Before thy roaring gods destroy us all;/ See we retreat

without the least reply,/ Keep thy gods silent, if they speak we dye.”39 infuse various European

imperialistic jingoisms within the symbol of firearms. The Natives surrender to the animalistic

roars and European gods that speak death and keep the Natives from “replying” with arrows and

37 Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: the Mythology of the American Frontier

1600-1800 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2000). 38 Heike Paul’s, Myths That Made America: An Introduction to American Studies. (Bielefeld,

Germany: Transcript Verlag 2014) highlights the various myths that are often related with American identity, namely, the promised land, the myth of the frontier, the myth of discovery, and the myth of America as an imagined community.

39 John Dryden, Works of John Dryden. Vol 9. (Berkeley: University of California Press 1966)

40.

34

words—subjugation on multiple levels in both physical and ideological realms. First, Dryden

explains how the continued use of guns would render their population obsolete. Yet apart from

genocide, the defiant voice of these “thunder gods” overpower the “reply” from the Natives.40

Dryden’s perpetual allusions to the overpowering speech of the firearms hold a particularly

ironic turn as Dryden’s narration displaces the Native’s own narrative as he assumes the role

representing their “authentic” and “true” “Ignorant and Simplistic” character and voice. The gun

becomes a powerful metaphor that silences a nation and symbolizes the bellicose conquest found

in the Spanish confrontations of a foreign culture.

However, when one compares Dryden’s supposedly “accurate” depiction of the event

with Cortes’s own accounts, one discovers an entirely different picture where Dryden’s guns are

nowhere to be seen. Rather, Cortes speaks more of military tactics and his own Machiavellian

prowess than of technological superiority. In fact, many times when he mentions the harquebus

and crossbow he applauds not the power of his own armament but rather his own foresight in

choosing their most advantageous positions.41 Cortes explains, “And if I had not placed there a

strong force of harquebusiers and crossbowmen with some guns [cannons],42 they could easily

40 The term “thunder gods” is also an appropriation of Native concepts of deity.

41 A forerunner of the musket, yet often the terms were used interchangeably. The harquebus was often too heavy to aim so oftentimes a stand with a hook accompanied its user. The shooter would place the stand on the ground, steady the muzzle and shoot. It took close to a minute to reload and did not shoot very accurately, yet its use confused many in combat with the sounds and smoke it made.

42 When reading texts regarding firearms particularly within the 16th and 17th century the word “gun” or “ordinance” refers to the cannon, whereas handheld guns would be distinctly referred to as the musket or harquebus or hand cannon or “hand gonne.”

35

have broken in without our being able to resist.”43 Aside from asserting his own militaristic

prowess, Cortez even overturns the generalization found in Dryden’s mythopoetics of Spanish

guns, the “roaring gods” that would “destroy them all.”44 Cortez continues, “Although the

artillery did much damage, for there were thirteen harquebuses besides the guns and some

crossbows, it seemed to make no impression, for where ten or twelve were killed by firing others

can immediately take their place, so that it was as if none had fallen.”45 Though Cortez concedes

the Spanish have the technological advantage the firearms seem “to make no impression” upon

the Natives, they do not exhibit any fear, they do not retreat and only around a dozen fall.46

Furthermore, Cortez’s account overturns Dryden’s voiceless Native.

They came across a large number of Indians who shot at them with arrows and wounded

twenty Spaniards […] When the captain of artillery read the requirimiento before a

notary to these Indians, telling them, through the interpreters, that we did not desire war

but only peace and love between us, they replied not with words but with a shower of

arrows.47

43 Hernan Cortes, Hernan Cortes-Letters from Mexico. Trans. Anthony Pagden. (New Haven: Yale University Press 2001) 131.

44 John Dryden, et. al. Works of John Dryden. Vol 9. (Berkeley: University of California Press 1966) 40.

45 Hernan Cortes, Hernan Cortes-Letters from Mexico. Trans. Anthony Pagden. (New Haven: Yale University Press 2001) 131.

46 Works of John Dryden 40.

47 Hernan Cortes, Hernan Cortes-Letters from Mexico. Trans. Anthony Pagden. (New Haven: Yale University Press 2001) 131.

36

Cortez’s account opposes many of the myths, generalizations, and characteristics that Dryden

maintains as being accurate. Dryden’s gun became infused with mythic power dominating the

Native population, culture, and speech in order to help explain the easy conquest of European

nations in the New World. Dryden’s gun serves to characterize the bellicose Spaniards as

avaricious yet technologically favored by God or even history itself, representing the Natives as

an easy target with an inevitable demise.48 Gun ownership offers an explanation for indigenous

genocide.

Although Cortez’s use of firearms did not in actuality pose an extreme technological

imbalance, Dryden’s play aligns itself with other historical accounts from the late 1600s.49

Dryden reflects upon Cortez’s conquest with a sense of nostalgia and oversimplification to

promote the idea that Natives were inferior, and the technological advent of the gun proved a

distinct advantage. Also, Dryden is implicitly promoting the “English gentleman” and his more

diplomatic methods of colonization over the tyrannical use of violence found in the Spaniard’s

gun. To Dryden, as well as his contemporary historians, the answer surrounding images of

genocide lies in the superiority of European culture, physiology, and technology. From the early

48 Dryden’s introduction of Francisco Pissarro in Indian Emperour [sic] offers a way to demonstrate the inhumane methods of conquest.

49 See: Sir William Devenant’s Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru (1658) and the writings of Samuel Purchas, mainly Purchas, his Pilgrim (1629), also Dougald MacMillan’s, “The Sources of Dryden’s The Indian Emperour [sic],” Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4 (August 1950) 355-370, and Joyce E. Chaplin’s Subject Matter: Technology, Body, and Science on the Anglo-American Frontier (1500-1676) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2003). All note that sixteenth and seventeenth century writers associate explorers of the Americas as advocates technological advances and such advanced culture must, naturally, take advantage of these advances for himself, his crown, and country. All the above texts address that such advantages were often connected with God and allowed for exploitation of these new found lands as they were granted new stewardship by God and the Crown.

37

1600s to the 1800s, Stefan Berger’s The Past as History explores “the way a nation was narrated

and communicated to people through history in an attempt to offer them identification and a

means of making sense of their lives.”50 In a similar way, Dryden’s literature offers his audience

a perspective of genocide, by turning to simple reductionist answers claiming such annihilation

of Native populations is inevitable. Such historical suppositions found within the literary sphere

purposely position the gun and characterize it in such a technologically advanced manner that the

populations and cultures assumed such violence was inevitable, and their owners were favored

by God. Even in his work, Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond concedes that the Spaniards’

prevailing weapons of horses, “swords, lances, and daggers,” were the most useful for

“slaughter[ing] thinly armored Indians.”51 Diamond further remarks that it was not until the

1700s that “guns replaced swords as the main weapon favoring European invaders over Native

Americans and other native peoples.”52 Nonetheless, in reading such early narratives of

American conquest and colonization, as exemplified by Dryden, one is able to find that a close

reading of firearms provides new overlooked contextual metaphors and new understanding based

upon significant socio-political influences. These influences change perceptions and create

myths of the gun in the American environment. From these themes one can gain substantial

50 Stafan Berger and Christoph Conrad, The Past as History: National Identity and Historical Consciousness in Modern Europe (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan 2015) 9.

51 Jared M. Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies. (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1997) 76.

52 Guns, Germs, and Steel 76.

38

insight into how the gun first enters the arena and informs the growing concept of American

national identity.

Like Dryden’s drama, Cabeza de Vaca’s Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition reveals

instances where political and social needs drive firearm symbols and myths. This account of the

Spanish conquest of the Narváez Expedition in the mid-1500s also provides a more Transatlantic

perspective in the development of firearms as they take the stage in the Americas.53 The

importance of the Spanish Conquest in charting America’s own history is noted by Thomas

Jefferson’s writings. He claims, “Next to this [French] the Spanish is most important to an

American. Our connection with Spain is already important and will become daily more so.

Besides this the antient [sic] part of American history is written chiefly in Spanish.”54 In

examining early Spanish accounts one uncovers foundational symbolic, linguistic, and cultural

aspects of American gun culture. The “invisible bullets” or metaphorical bullets found within

Spanish accounts are perhaps more culturally influential than the actual bullets that leave the

muzzle of the gun.55 In short, sifting through the past’s literary saltpeter, one can find political,

social, economic parts that made the gun in America a significantly loaded term and symbol.

53 National identity is created not only from within one’s own cultural history but also as a Transatlantic platform.

54 “From Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Jr., 6 July 1787,” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0475. [Original source: Julian P. Boyd, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 11, 1 January–6 August 1787 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955) 556–559. Accessed 30 March 2019.

55 “invisible bullets,” a phrase that Stephen Greenblatt uses as a chapter title for his seminal work in introducing the significant theory of “subversion and containment.” Stephen Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. (Berkeley: University of California Press 1988).

39

Contextualizing De Vaca

In the wake of Cortes’ conquest (1518-1520), Spain maintained great prospects for

wealth, particularly gold, in the New World. The Narváez Expedition’s (1527-1536) objective

was to claim the gulf coast for Spain, build two towns and establish two garrisons, and obtain as

much gold from the Natives as possible. The Narváez Expedition began with six hundred men,

which soon dwindled to three hundred before they reached what is currently Florida. One of

Narváez’s crew and the narrator of Relacion (1542), Cabeza de Vaca, recounts the struggles as

these three hundred men contacted disease, were killed by hostile Natives, and were overcome

by starvation. Aside from reading the overarching thematic elements of “man versus nature,” as

many of these events hewed down the three hundred to only four survivors who eventually

arrived naked and starved in Mexico City, this account drastically transfigures the imperialist

perceptions, assessments, and representations of European superiority in technology, culture,

health, and military might. Such a perspective is a stark contrast to Hernán Cortes’s narrative—

an expedition led only a few years prior to the Narváez’s. De Vaca’s Rélacion diverges from

Cortes’ ethnocentric and nationalizing account. Yet cut from a different cloth, de Vaca’s Natives

are both ruthless and compassionate; moreover, the Natives far surpass the Spanish skills in both

military technology and survival. De Vaca illustrates the Spanish conquistadores as incompetent,

unintelligent, lacking the skills and technology necessary for their environment and more

importantly for their own survival. Throughout the text, the Spanish are encumbered with

worthless armor, burdened with the elements, and unskilled and ill-prepared in navigating

through new territory and constantly dependent on Native generosity for sustenance. In sum,

Spanish technology, physiology, and beliefs are mal-adapted for the New World. Narváez’s men

40

are deceived by the Natives, easily contact sicknesses, and are naked and starving throughout the

majority of de Vaca’s narrative. De Vaca’s account does much to extinguish the imperialist

vibrato found in Dryden’s play as well as Cortez’s own self-promoting Letters from Mexico and

eclipse notions of Eurocentric technological superiority found in the gun. As de Vaca introduces

the reader to the new territory, the bow and arrow are the most proven and reputable tool in

maneuvering and negotiating the wilderness in the New World.

As the gun in the mid-sixteenth century was sometimes represented as the weapon that

would tame or conquer the frontier, de Vaca’s Relation offers foundational perspectives on how

European firearms were first used in the territory which will eventually become the United

States. Differing from previously established accounts by other conquistadores, namely Hernan

Cortez, de Vaca’s account is one of survival and the unconquerable cunning of the Natives in the

indomitable American wilderness. As a soldier-turned-explorer, de Vaca calls for domination

through diplomatic means and politically strategic endeavors rather than through the brawn of

European technology—gunpowder. De Vaca first pleads with governing powers to be diplomatic

with the Natives rather than conquer them. De Vaca pleads with the Natives to flee, as he

becomes aware of a militaristic plot to conquer the tribe that has helped him in times of

starvation.

Historical Perceptions of de Vaca’s Firearms

De Vaca curiously dismisses firearms as a tool to conquer the frontier. In his section

entitled “How the Indians are ready at Armes” he begins, “These are the readiest people of arms

41

of all the ones I have seen in the world […]”56 De Vaca is astounded at how they acrobatically

“dodge and leap from one end to the other […] so well that in such places they receive little

harm from crossbows and arquebuses.”57 De Vaca becomes painfully aware of the Native’s

militaristic skill and marksmanship. He even notes the ways that the Natives mock the very

elements and tools that aided in laying the Aztecs under Spanish rule. He avows, “Rather, the

Indians laugh at those weapons because they are of no use against them on flat fields where they

roam freely.”58 Granted, de Vaca concedes that these tools are beneficial in choke-points, such as

waterways and narrow passes, yet within this concession, the firearm undergoes even more

scrutiny as it is only useful in very limited geographical areas, furthering the argument that the

bow was made for the entire territory rather than the gun. Furthermore, after deeming the

innovation of gunpowder “useless” and “laughable” among the Natives, de Vaca reports, “horses

are what will subdue them.”59 The irony becomes apparent as the account later unfolds that the

Narváez Expedition, in such dire straits (due to Native attacks, exposure, and starvation), end by

having to dismantle their armaments and eat their horses. Mary Docter asserts that this section of

la Relacion is pivotal:

Nowhere is this transformation more powerfully illustrated than in Chapter VIII, when

necessity forces the Spaniards to melt down the very instruments of conquest—armor,

56 Alvar De Vaca, Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition: A New Translation: Contexts, Criticism. (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2013) 58.

57 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 58.

58 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 58.

59 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 58.

42

harnesses, and weaponry—to make boats. The horse, another important tool of conquest,

is transformed into a crude instrument for survival: tails and manes become rope and

rigging, the legs are skinned and the hides are cured to make pouches to carry water. 60

Florida swamps were often difficult to navigate with their horses, the armor used is useless as

arrows effortlessly penetrate it, and the weaponry proved useless (even laughable). Hence,

repurposing tools of conquest into tools of survival appears a logical and pragmatic solution for

the expedition. Indeed such transformations reorient the conceptual frameworks for the conquest

of the New World. Here the so-called favored technological power seen in the material of the

harquebus is now replaced by nails, saws, and axes.61

Firearm historians correspondingly note, like de Vaca, the inefficiencies of harquebuses’

use in the Americas. These cumbersome arms required a tremendous amount of maintenance,

money, and training to fire properly. The arquebusier had to hold the gun on its mark until the

primer caught fire and entered into the main chamber. Depending on weather conditions as well

as the conditions of the powder, it may take more than a few seconds for this action to take

place—allowing Natives to jump quickly out of the way. Also, the harquebus’s success relied

upon multiple components working correctly, even outside the gun itself. In addition, the

arquebusier carried and had to manipulate the support or rest, which propped up the forearm of

the firearm. The shooter also uses a long fuse or “match,” to ignite the firing pan which then

would ignite the charge to send the bullet out of the barrel. The match was tied to the shooter's

60 Mary Docter, “Enriched by Otherness: The Transformational Journey of Cabeza de Vaca.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 58, no.1 (Autumn 2008) 9.

61 Alvar de Vaca, Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition: A New Translation: Contexts, Criticism. (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2013) 21.

43

arm which allowed the shooter to let the match drop in order to load the firearm arm. Many times

these matches would go out or accidentally touch the firing pan or set off the gun powder.62 The

shooter also held fine powder for priming the pan in a flask, and another flask for coarse powder

for loading, and bullets in a pouch—all of which the shooter had to manipulate while loading and

often while under fire.63 Indeed, the arquebusier, even after being trained, could be easily lost in

all the operation of the harquebus as he opens and closes drawstrings, measures powder, keeps

his match aglow, primes, loads, fires, then repeats the process (see Figure 1.1). With all these

intricacies and inefficiencies found within the process, many historians affirm that such

processes discouraged the popularity of such weapons.64

Figure 1.1. Soldier Firing a Harquebus (1475)

62 (See Figure 1.1) W.W. Greener, The Gun and its Development. 9th ed. (New York: Bonanza 1967) 54.

63 W.W. Greener, The Gun and its Development. 9th ed. (New York: Bonanza 1967) 58.

64 W.W. Greener, The Gun and its Development. 9th ed. (New York: Bonanza 1967) 58. After stating all the intricacies of the harquebus, Greener argues: “With all these encumbrances, it was not surprising to find that for many years the bow was considered a superior weapon” (58). Also, for instance, monographs like Alexander De Conde’s Gun Violence in America: The Struggle for Control (Boston: Northeastern University Press 2001) claim the intricacies of firing the gun discouraged its use.

44

Cabeza’s Firearm Mythopoetics

The procedure for preparing and firing one’s weapon is so involved that in preparation

for battle the shooter must train in order to commit the steps to muscle memory, making the

function of the gun an integral part of himself. This connection pushes the routine of firing into

the realm of ritual. For instance, soldiers given the harquebus made symbolic preparations for

war that bonded the shooter to his weapon. Although these devices proved inefficient, the

Europeans continued to use them as many felt the loud blasts confused or disoriented the enemy.

Nonetheless, the user had an inextricably tedious process in operating the harquebus with flasks

containing explosive gunpowder hanging from their persons. Edward Davies’ History of the

English Army (1619) reveals the delicate and thoughtful deliberation involved in preparing the

harquebus to fire.

For a souldier must ever buy his powder sharpe in taste, well incorporate with saltpeter,

and not full of coal-dust (raw charcoal). Let him accustome to drie his powder, if he can,

in the sunne just sprinkling it over with agua vitæ or strong claret wine. Let him make his

tutch powder being finely sarsed and sifted […] at the powdermaker’s or the

apothecarie’s […]. This preparation will at first touch give fire, and procure a violent,

speedy, and thundering discharge.65

Davies provides an even deeper perspective on the necessary care and consideration, required for

firing a shot. The process requires much more labor than the crossbow from soldiers, generals,

captains, powder-makers, and even apothecaries. Also, the soldier becomes “accustomed” with

65 qtd. in Sibbald David Scott, British Army: its Origin, Progress, and Equipment. (London: Cassel, Petter, and Galpin 1868) 291.

45

drying his powder in the sun, almost ritualistic sprinkling “water of life” on explosive powder

meant to inflict death, causing the powder to catch fire at the first touch of the match fuse. It is

not that these intricacies cause the harquebus or musket to become inferior or unpopular, rather

this new technology requires much more labor, thought, and consideration from its designers,

users, and managers. The arquebusier sifts, touches and tastes powder, becoming more involved

with the science of his weapon.66 By such detailed experimentation, the practitioner could

maximize the weapon’s usefulness.

Although this more technical way of killing greatly differed from the bow, it originally

shared peculiar similarities. First, the harquebus’s use parallels the bow’s militaristic practice in

long-distance barrages. Hernan Cortez often mentions the harquebus being used alongside the

crossbow in skirmishes and battles. Also, the romantic prefix “arc” continues to refer back to the

bow in terms of launching projectiles to encumber the enemy. From the Dutch term “haakbus,”

meaning “hook gun,” it derives its name from the hook used on the top of the support of the gun.

Later models became light enough to do without the support staff, and also the hook shape as the

stock curves down.67 The etymology of the gun’s name focuses upon the fact that the gun was

heavy, cumbersome and needed support, or that it functioned much like a crossbow.

66 Some harquebusiers and musketeers have even been known to use saltpeter as a seasoning for

their food. 67 Rev. Walter W. Skeat, An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language 3rd ed. (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1898) 34.

46

The Bow and the Harquebus

In contrast, de Vaca consistently praises the bow, a tool fashioned from the hostile

wilderness for the hostile wilderness, over the ineffective European methods of killing. De Vaca

narrates one encounter as follows:

The Governor ordered the horsemen to dismount and attack them on foot […] In that

skirmish some of our people were wounded, since their arms and armor did not help

them; and there were men that day who swore they had seen two oak trees, each as thick

as a man’s lower leg, shot straight through by the Indian’s arrows; and that is not

something to marvel at, considering the force and skill at which they shoot, for I myself

saw an arrow stuck in the base of a poplar tree that it penetrated full span.68

Here, de Vaca’s rhetoric constructs the bow as the definitive tool of the American frontier. First,

he recounts others’ testimonies of Natives’ skill, as arrows “forcefully” split two oak trees as

thick as a man’s lower leg. De Vaca witnesses Native’s skill with the bow as an arrow goes

through the tree trunk of a poplar tree, alluding to a much thicker part of a tree rather than just

above an ankle, the thinnest part of a man’s leg. Furthermore, de Vaca’s pronouns add emphasis

upon what “he himself” witnessed.69 The arrow as a projectile appears to assert more mass and

force—in essence, damage—than that of the harquebus. For de Vaca, the arrow pierces right

through trees. His remarks continue mythologizing the bow and arrow as they devastate the very

material from which they are made. Furthermore, de Vaca strangely fixates upon the damage

68 Alvar De Vaca, Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition: A New Translation: Contexts, Criticism (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2013) 18.

69 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 18.

47

arrows can do to trees more than the casualties inflicted upon his own men. The trees in his

narrative seem to prove more sound and solid than the Spaniards, as the environment and Natives

whittle-down three hundred European men to only four survivors. Implicit in their accounts is

the underlying message that if these arrows can completely devastate such dense and resilient

hardwood penetrating it all the way through, then their armor is useless.

Aside from mythologizing the bow as a tool of destruction in the hands of skilled

Natives, the bow also affects a man’s prominence and stature in the wild. De Vaca ends his

statement, summarizing descriptions of all the Natives he has seen from various tribes from

Florida to Texas: “All the Indians we saw, from La Florida to here, are archers, since they are so

large in body and go about naked, from a distance they look like giants.”70 The image he creates

becomes a generalization, claiming every Native skilled archer is larger in stature than

Europeans and these bowmen “look like giants” at a distance. Throughout de Vaca’s account of

the bow continues to enforce the theme of Native dominance. Upon running into another

skirmish with the Natives, de Vaca states with trepidation, “And a half hour later, a hundred

other Indian archers joined them, and now, whether they were big or small, our fear made them

look like giants.”71 As if the bow could augment physiology, de Vaca’s “giant natives” dominate

the Spaniards, render armor useless, shatter trees, and increase the stature of its beholder. The

primal and simplistic weapon, made from and for the ungodly new territory, dominates European

ingenuity and metallurgy and mocks musketry and European military science.

70 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 18.

71 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 29.

48

Other early narratives echo de Vaca’s disdain for European gunpowder weaponry and

showcase Native skill and the effective efficiency of the bow and arrow.72 American weaponry

originates with Native chipped flint technology. “First encounter” narratives describe the bow as

the quintessential weapon of choice. Only later do accounts, such as Dryden’s play, describe the

harquebus as superior to the bow. The accounts of weaponry are tainted with political agendas

that smack of attitudes of Manifest Destiny, racial hierarchies, and both nationalistic and

religious superiority. However, as identified in later periods—more specifically during the late

seventeen and early eighteen hundreds—the aborigines’ mastery of the bow and arrow also

transfers to their use of the rifle.73

It is important to note that de Vaca’s account which does much to mythologize the bow

over the musket is not an isolated one. A literary analysis of English accounts written between

the 1500s to 1600s consistently emphasize spectacle and awe regarding Native bows over that of

European gunpowder and musketry. Early American historian, Joyce E. Chaplin asserts that the

English were, “Jealous of Spanish accomplishments [in colonization] in America […] scanned

Iberian accounts in order to learn how to catch up.”74 She claims,

72 For instance, John Smythe—cousin of Edward IV, not to be confused with Captain John Smith of the Virginian colony—publishes Certain Discourses (1590) see chapter “Bow versus Gun in Renaissance England” an expose on the new “divers sorts of weapons” namely that of the hand cannon, harquebus, serpentine, and asserts that the longbow far outperforms any of novel implements of war. John Smythe, “Bow versus Gun in Renaissance England,”Certain Discourses, Concerning the Formes and Effects of Divers Sorts of Weapons, and Other Verie Important Matters Militarie, Greatlie Mistaken by Divers of Our Men of Warre in These Daies (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1967) xli.

73 Native skill with the gun becomes a major theme in early American literature and is discussed in more detail in all the chapters that follow.

74 Joyce E. Chaplin, Subject Matter: Technology, Body, and Science on the Anglo-American Frontier (1500-1676) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2003) 18.

49

The English doubted that they had learning that made them superior to America’s

natives; they were too aware that they lagged behind their European counterparts […]

The uncertainty of English about their mastery over nature continued, even to the extent

that they did not believe that firearms guaranteed them success when they began invading

Indian communities from 1585 onward.75

Chaplin turns to cultural history, addressing the notes of Samuel Purchase’s Encyclopedia as he

discovers an American fashion among Virginian men. They shaved the right side of their hair

just as the Natives did in order to aim and shoot their bows without getting their hair tangled.76

This style expresses that early colonials often praised the indigenous culture and strove to adapt

to the environment welcoming (at times) influence from the county’s Natives. As colonists

finally gained a foothold in the Americas and the prospect of Manifest Destiny became more of a

possibility in the minds of these new immigrants, the spectacle of and admiration for the Natives’

bow diminished the cultural norms that used to pay homage to the Natives.

Captivity in Relation

In following suit with other conquistadores, the account of de Vaca addresses the use of

horses and lances as the ultimate cause of the Natives’ submission to Spanish rule.77 The

conquistador Alcaraz freed de Vaca from captivity but enslaved the Indians of Sinaloa in

75 Subject Matter 21.

76 Subject Matter 79.

77 Alvar de Vaca, Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition: A New Translation: Contexts, Criticism (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2013) 76.

50

Mexico. De Vaca sympathized with the Natives, yet his plea on their behalf is not heard. De

Vaca declares, “The Christians had invaded the land and had destroyed and burned the pueblos

and taken away half the men and all the women and children,” making them starved slaves and

Christians.78 Perhaps seeing his once own emaciated self in their countenance, de Vaca pleas

with the Lord and “His Imperial Majesty” that “good treatment” is the “surest way” to attract

Natives to Christianity, “the other is not.”79 De Vaca acquiesces to the Native’s captivity to save

his own life. His time spent with Natives educates him about their humanity, culture, and moral

creeds. In return he advocates a peaceful means of subjugating them.

Conversely, the Spanish did not return the favor but enslave the Natives, requiring them

to grow food to sustain more Christians who would come to conquer. The captivity which de

Vaca undergoes offers him insight and empathy for his captors. De Vaca even adopts Native

culture in his narrative as he situates days and people in terms of sunrises and sunsets.80 He

resents European culture and creates a code of ethics different from that of the Spanish. He even

questions those in authority. Much like many of the following captivity narratives of Captain

John Smith, Mary Rowlandson, and Cooper’s hero—Nathaniel Bumppo, these captives or

individuals act as cultural liaisons and are used to coopt or shape a new culture from the ashes of

the Native culture damaged by the Europeans. In this manner captivity narratives become

significant to understanding the gun’s role in the New World, as much of Euro-American culture

and literature derives from the confrontation between European and American Natives. These

78 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 77.

79 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 77.

80 Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition 80.

51

cultural clashes, as perceived in Cabeza de Vaca’s narrative and others, create an environment

from which American identity is created.81 For instance, European authors often advocated for

Native superiority in battle in an undermining way, labeling the culture Godless and bloodthirsty

savages—which explains and morally justifies European uses of the gun to demolish, scatter, and

eradicate many of their tribes. Even if the gun did not in actuality have a direct hand in these

accounts, myths regarding the gun did. Later Euro-Americans (which following chapters will

cover) turn to their own perceptions of Native identity to differentiate themselves from the

European culture. The gun both acts in violence towards the Natives—and such violence is

explained as morally necessary—and acts in violence through European accounts of the Natives.

These Euro-American narratives repurpose such violence and connect social and political

agendas and purposes to these accounts. For instance, the violence in Mary Rowlandson’s

narrative (as explained later) will be repurposed for the American Revolution as the oppression

she experienced from the Natives becomes refashioned into British tyranny.

From early American narratives that address clashes between European and Native

cultures, the gun reflects images, experiences, and characterizations from which certain symbols

arise. As this chapter highlights some foundational gun perspectives, in the next chapter I will

discuss Captain John Smith as his narratives mark a tipping point in branding firearms as a tool

for conquering the American frontier. In the following chapter we will see how Smith’s writings

and other narratives begin to alter the settlers’ perspectives on guns and Natives. These further

81 Tzvetan Todorov’s The Conquest of the America: The Question of the Other trans. Richard Howard (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1999) 3-34; see also Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: the Mythology of the American Frontier 1600-1800 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2000) 3-7.

52

explorations will expose the gun not only as the prima facie weapon of colonization of the

American frontier, but as a vital actor in staging political performances in economic, political,

and cultural affairs.

53

CHAPTER 2

“THROUGH A CHANCE SUPPOSED:” CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH STAGES

THE AMERICAN GUN

On April 26th, 1606 a band of over one hundred men, exhausted from battling tempests

with their ship’s supply almost depleted, tacked their ships into the mouth of Chesapeake Bay

and set the anchor. About thirty men rowed ashore and were immediately assailed by Indians.

Two men, Captain Archer and Matthew Morton were shot with arrows; subsequently, Captain

Newport fired off a shot from his pistol, “to which the Indians little respected.”82 The Indians

continued firing until all arrows were spent; the Natives, then, “retyred without harme.”83 This

adventuresome opening scene of John Smith’s first narrative touches on several crucial themes

that Smith will address throughout: fear, intrigue, and hard work, even in seemingly futile

circumstances. This beginning captures the difficulties of colonizing Jamestown but also

foreshadows its momentous significance. While describing the scuffle and even within the same

sentence in which he speaks of the violence, Smith adds, “in that same place was the Box

opened, wherein the Counsell for Virginia was nominated.”84 Here, the first political institution

was established in the naming of those members on the council in charge of “erecting of a great

cittie.”85 Indeed, Smith’s first account of colonizing the Americas follows Richard Slotkin’s

82 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes, ed. Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 5.

83 The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) 5.

84 The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) 5.

85 The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) 5.

54

thesis regarding violent themes and psychological anxieties as the English colonials struggle to

displace the Native Americans. Yet a question arises as Smith juxtaposes violent encounters

only moments before a political ritual of colonialism occurs: To what extent do depictions of

firearms factor into these themes of violence and the creation of a colony? Smith mythologizes

firearms here to obtain the political means necessary to establish the colony. Throughout his

narratives, just as he does in this episode, the gun is seen as the means of keeping Natives at bay

long enough to establish the formalized administrative beginnings of the colony. On several

occasions, it is the firearm that proves crucial for survival in establishing the colonizer’s

domineering presence among the Natives, in establishing order for the settlement, and also in

offering the promise and assurance of safety for future colonists. The musket’s utility in myth

surpasses by far its real functionality. One way in which Smith establishes significant roots in his

contemporary literary public sphere is by defining gun-myth as a substantial political tool in the

colonial expansion in Americas.

Smith’s American Firearm Mythopoetics

Similar to de Vaca’s account, Smith is astounded that Natives have such little regard

towards for the pistol, answering its sharp crack with even more arrows in unabated volleys. Yet,

Smith’s representation of the gun throughout his narratives does not wholeheartedly disparage its

use. Neither does Smith tout militaristic prowess as does Dryden in his retelling of Cortez’s use

of the gun. Rather, Smith’s depictions of the gun act as a central role in establishing a foothold in

Virginia, assuring diplomacy, trade, and colonial security. In order to accomplish such tasks,

Smith relies upon mythopoesis, incorporating traditional archetypes and creating new myths

55

more apt for a new environment. In short, Smith creates various myths for the gun in order to

solve political and social problems. He stylistically stages the gun, establishing it as spectacle,

connecting it to themes of legend, power, and intrigue, striving to gain dramatic respect for the

weapon from natives, settlers, and even prospective settlers. John Smith turns to the gun to evoke

a sense of safety for the colonists and future colonists and cultural supremacy among the Natives.

Smith’s gun myths gain diplomacy, treaties, and trade among the Natives. The myths created

here will be revisited by future authors that reproduce and influence American attitudes and

perspectives regarding firearms and their use, as will be explored in other chapters.

Smith: Mythologizing the American Frontiersman

Smith opens his first narrative about Virginia with an onslaught of arrows being fired

from the wilderness. But the reader soon finds out that this was not Smith’s first brush with

death—far from it. Further reading uncovers several other adventures, such as his escaping

slavery in Turkey, almost being put to death (more than a few times), and fighting three Turkish

soldiers in personal competitive duels—decapitating each man one-by-one,86 to name a few. No

doubt Smith, a short red-bearded man, had a knack for adventure, or at least a knack for the

telling of such heroic tales—especially those about himself. Smith creates an American epic by

relying on foundations (or archetypes) from ancient heroic tales. This once knight-errant makes

his début within the New World and repackages old myths within a new environment, creating a

new hero, the American frontiersman. Smith writes himself as an Aeneas-like quintessential

86 This story is inspiration for his coat of arms. His coat of arms contains a knight’s closed

helmet with a visor and ventail, under which is located three Turkish heads with turbans, representing Smith’s heroic act.

56

hero. In fact, Smith does this in such broad strokes that many of his contemporaries criticized

what they deemed as his overblown boldness to spin tales. What is new to this American

narrative is rather than Robin Hood’s longbow, or King Arthur’s Excalibur, Smith’s new

environment proposes a new boon—the gun.87

Aside from many events of his narrative being criticized for being exaggerated,88 his

narratives were deemed useful by many eager to learn about colonization. Read from a literary

point of view, Smith’s myths are enthusiastically marketed to future colonizers. He offers details

about flora, fauna, Native villages and maps, and suggests possible profitable areas (likely far

from violent Natives). In sum, Smith’s plausible fiction coupled with fact establishes a serious

characterization of the Virginia colonizers preparing the reader for dangers in the wilderness,

resting answers to these anxieties upon the gun. Here Smith uses conflict, violence, terror, and

craftiness to illuminate and build new meaning for the colonial gun. He turns to myth to structure

his escapades and proceedings with the Natives. These myths reveal values that Smith strove to

instill or evoke from the new settlers he commanded, ideals that he believed would ensure

success in the colony. His accounts have been used by scholars to characterize the beginnings of

American identity and also to explore the beginning of hunting in America.89

87 Philip L. Barbour, “Captain John Smith and the London Theatre” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 83, no.3, 1975 277-279.

88 John Smith was posthumously satirized as an armchair adventurer in drama and some historians “branded him a braggart,” as stated in Frank E. Grizzard, and D B. Smith. Jamestown Colony: a Political, Social, and Cultural History (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO 2007) xxxv.

89 Alden T. Vaughan, American Genesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia (New York: Harper Collins Publishers 1975) and J.A. Lemay, The American Dream of Captain John Smith. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia 1991). See also Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press 2001).

57

While Smith uses firearms as a mode of differentiating between the Natives and the

English colonizers, Smith also notes the difference in sovereignty with regards to the means of

wielding such weapons. Smith stereotypes Englishmen as gentlemen and the Spanish as more

carnal and prone to violence. Granted, Captain John Smith admired the more domineering

approach of the Spaniards and was not alone in placing esteem on such a portrayal. Before

England was the empire on which the sun never sets, the English—at least in their early stages of

colonization—approached occupation of new worlds with a sense of inferiority and doubt. A

major contributing factor was the fact that they entered into colonial expansion about one

hundred years after many neighboring countries. They were also concerned about their ability to

create substantial colonies or establish dominion over the Natives, at least long enough to keep

them at bay. Smith’s secular, militaristic and optimistic bravado served to bolster English

colonization and reassure those with vested interests in the success of the colony.

Along with Smith, many of the English admired the ways in which the Spanish were able

to quickly subdue Natives and acquire land. Yet, as the English began their colonial objectives,

they also began to regard the Natives as being more hostile and unconquerable, much like those

from Cabeza de Vaca’s account. Starting colonization much later than the Spanish, the English

struggle with anxieties about their insufficiencies and begin a struggle for dominance over the

wilderness as well as economic position within global markets. Within this environment of

English apprehensions John Smith does not portray firearms as the only answer or even one of

the foremost solutions, but as one of many multifaceted effective means to achieve colonization.

Yet, differing greatly from de Vaca’s attitude, when Smith does address firearms, he deliberately

58

mythologizes firepower among the Natives as a means of propaganda that can establish positive,

opportunistic and epic images of guns in order to promote colonization.

Furthermore, Smith’s militaristic background and more secular and pragmatic approach

prove critical in providing one of the most favorable accounts of guns place in the New World

within his lifetime. Smith’s accounts suggest several definitions and uses of firearms that will

serve as a foundation upon which many future authors and citizenry would later consider the

“American gun.” The gun becomes the predominant answer to the colonizers’, settlers’, and

citizens’ fears and anxieties and also a definitive means of marking differences between the

colonists and Natives. Smith is among the first to call for gun ownership as a means of ensuring

one’s protection. Admittedly there are many other proponents for the use of the gun; however,

Smith becomes one of the major mouthpieces for American colonial attitudes toward the gun

during his time and one whose voice contributed greatly to future gun perspectives.

Smith’s account proves essential in establishing a unique national character. His rhetoric

unabashedly resorts to national jingoistic values, especially in defining a country’s identity,

setting England’s methods of colonization apart from those of Spain. He criticizes Spain for only

exploiting the New World for its gold. Throughout his narrative he often returns to this criticism.

After attacking Spain’s greedy conquistadors, he lauds England’s more prominent economical

presence and also their intentions to remain and cultivate and settle the land—establishing a

different value system for English colonization. Smith explains that a firmly planted colony reaps

the benefits of the land in commodities long into the future. England’s approach offers many

years of riches rather than Spain’s quick grab for gold.

59

Aside from criticizing the Spaniards, Smith also sets the American colonist apart from

English gentry. He ridicules the eccentric, elegantly clothed “Tuftafaty humorist” whom he

deems as ill-suited for the hard practical labor of colonization, those who often complain about

conditions on the new continent and wish to return to England. Smith defines the model colonial

and frontier hero, one who is not greedy and warmongering like the Spanish, yet also not

malcontent or lethargic, like that of the stylish “sophisticated” Englishmen. The colonial frontier

to Smith is only hospitable to those willing to work, a more practical gentry that can cope with

tragedy but also capitalizes upon good fortune. Smith celebrates these characteristics of

American colonizers (particularly those characteristics found within himself), commending

daring endurance and adaptable industry of those who take an active hand in transforming the

wilderness into a “great cittie.” Smith consistently turns to “otherness” to remold meanings of

sovereignty and the new colonial citizen. More explicitly, in building an identity for “New

England” (a term Captain John Smith, himself, coined), he looks to Spain, the Natives, and even

dainty Englanders for necessary contrast to highlight the more practical and productive frontier

hero. This means of defining by differentiating also holds true with Smith’s definition of gun use

in the new colonies. Unlike the Spanish, the English handled their guns with more comportment,

dignity, and reserve, striving to build a colony rather than conquer the Natives or greedily

confiscate gold. Smith’s method of colonization supports diplomacy over conquest (at least upon

the surface); yet, he uses (both explicit and implicit) threats of gun violence as a viable means to

gain such diplomatic relations. And unlike the Spaniards, the gun—within Smith’s accounts—

becomes much more than a symbol of dignified gentry or conquest.

60

The Hunt and the Myth

For Smith, guns are seen as crucial for the survival of English colonization. Indeed,

Smith’s narratives romanticize as well as exaggerate the importance of the musket to the hunt.

For instance, after deeming the winters as the most effective season to go fowling, Smith

provides accounts that muskets could prove more effective than one might believe. He states,

“148 fowles the President, Anthony Bagly, and Edward Pising, did kill at 3 shoots.”90 The

extraordinary number of fowls becomes a major asset to the colony at a time of need. Such

accounts of plentitude and immense bounty mythologizes and commodifies the New World to

readers. The image of a country teeming with game evokes an environment that offers an

environment of abundance and wealth for the opportunist.

Similarly, J.A. Lemay, a scholar of Early American Literature, offers an important aside

in his biography entitled, The American Dream of Captain John Smith, claiming the use of the

musket as Smith’s first marked differentiation from American colonials to those staying in the

motherland. Lemay explains such differentiation as a means of reformation for Smith. Though

not particularly religious, Smith uses colonization of America to define English colonists as

braver, more self-asserted, and practical as individuals. In short, he wished the American

colonial to become more like himself. Lemay asserts,

No other founding colonist had as grand a secular view of what it meant to be an

American. Incidentally, Smith first expressed a special relationship with weapons, and he

explained it with a frontier thesis: most colonists were well armed, the militia held

90 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed.

Philip L. Barbour. 1 Vol. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 82.

61

holidays, and the men frequently went “hunting and fowling.” The result, Smith noted,

was that “most part of them are excellent marksmen.” The metamorphosis from English

to American would enable even gentlemen to transform themselves from discontented,

useless drones into workers with fulfilling roles.91

Smith does not only maintain differences between the Spanish and English colonial methods, but

more significantly, Smith strives to assert a difference from pawn-like Englishmen to

autonomous American colonials—marking the use of the musket (in hunting and drills within the

militia) and being an excellent marksman as a rite of passage from the old English customs to the

industrious colonial.

American colonial attitudes toward hunting and firearm use continue as a major

distinction. In England for those who did not own property, hunting was deemed poaching and

was a criminal offense committed mainly by those that were impoverished. However, wealthy

land-owning Englishmen considered hunting an act of recreation only reserved for the elite. In

fact, game laws practiced in England throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth-century report

the attentiveness that the Crown, aristocracy and landed gentry maintained in the protection of

“their monopoly on hunting.”92 Munsche, in his study of the history of England’s hunting laws,

remarks that repealing such laws, as the aristocracy assumed, would threaten the status of the

elite and cause the poor laborers to “soon sink into lives of crime and debauchery” and society

91 J.A. Lemay, The American Dream of Captain John Smith (Charlottesville: University

Press of Virginia 1991) 26.

92 Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press 2001) 20.

62

would be in ruin.93 As hunting was perceived as a recreation, and work was perceived as

necessary to maintain social order, to give the lower class the rights to such recreation and

hunting would inevitably lead to immorality.94 Such reasoning influenced the Game Act of 1671

in which one’s property value had to reach a certain standard for one to own guns, hunting dogs,

snares, and other hunting equipment.95 Hunting, in this manner, became a mark of prominence

within society. Daniel Herman, notes that “hunting made elite Englishmen into a ‘venerable’

caste, superior to tradesmen, yeoman, and tenant farmers.”96 Overall hunting in England was an

exclusive practice reserved for the wealthy; whereas the poor hunter or poacher (hunting to

prevent starvation or gain money through the black market) was perceived as a disgrace.

In the New World hunting laws in the colonies were null and void where there were no

such restrictions on property and firearms. Yet Smith still had to fight against the old world’s

customs. If colonial men would not hunt, Smith strove to break such cultural norms

generationally, attempting to convince Jamestown farmers to “traine [sic] up their servants and

youth in shooting deere [sic], and fowle [sic],”97 For some, however, the gun was seen mainly as

93 P. B. Munsche, Gentlemen and Poachers: the English Game Laws, 1671-1831 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008) 53-54.

94 Gentlemen and Poachers 53. 95 "Charles II, 1670 & 1671: An Act for the better preservation of the Game, and for secureing

Warrens not inclosed, and the severall Fishings of this Realme." Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5, 1628-80 Ed. John Raithby, s.l: (Great Britain Record Commission, 1819), 745-746. British History Online. Web. 10 April 2019. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp745-746.

96 Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination (Washington: Smithsonian Institution

Press 2001) 20.

97 qtd. in Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press 2001) 20.

63

a means to assert social status. Yet, colonists, particularly those coming from poverty, perceived

that hunting out of necessity was socially degrading—and the colonies were in dire need in their

infancy. In times of scant meals, the colonist outsourced hunting to the Natives, or traded with

them for game. In short, few took up Smith’s call to the hunt, as very little were trained in this

area or deemed the act prudent. Naturally, the colonies attracted opportunist unhappy with their

current financial status. Though some landed gentry may have invested in the Virginia colonies

or have been given governmental duties, much of the colonizers were interested in being the first

of their family increase in social status rather than be demoted to the designation of being a

“poacher.” What is readily apparent in Smith’s portrait of the newly found colony is shaped

around the tragedy of starvation, a tragedy that calls for all means that remedy this unfortunate

situation—all forms of obtaining victuals. Though Smith was a proponent of consuming swans,

geese, and ducks as well as a “diverse sorts of beasts as fat as we could eat them,”98 proving both

abundance and ease of harvesting game, the practice of hunting for immigrants—particularly for

English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, and French Huguenots—was uncommon.99 Yet, Smith

still stresses the ease of killing, the sharp eye of the militia, and the opportunities to train youth

and servants to hunt game, creating and building upon gunpowder myths as he asserts gun

ownership and use are not just for English aristocracy but also for the self-determined American

colonial.

98 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 2 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 15.

99 Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press 2001) 21.

64

Later colonial authors corroborate Smith’s attested perceptions of gun use, which

distinguishes the American colonial from the European. In seventeen hundred, John Lawson

claims,

Here [in the Americas] property hath a large scope, there being no strict laws to bind our

privileges. A qu[e]st after game being as freely and peremptorily enjoyed by the meanest

planter, as he that is the highest in dignity, or wealthiest in the province. Deer and other

game that are naturally wild, being not immured,100 or preserved within boundaries, to

satisfy the appetite of the rich alone. A poor laborer that is made master of his gun, & c.,

hath as good claim to have continued coarses [sic] of delicacies crowded upon his table,

as he that is master of a great purse.101

John Lawson’s excerpt in his diary affirms a promise that once the colonial American masters

his gun, he and his family will enjoy a table trimmed with delicacies fit for dignitaries. Such a

guarantee is offered to even the “meanest” or most average planter whose hunting grounds are

boundless. Lawson couples the large scope of property, not yet parceled out and privatized, with

the gun to promote a yeoman farmer to aristocracy. The gun offers access to freedoms and food

only accessible in the New World. Also, the gun offers him the status of a “master.” As

restrictions were placed upon guns and hunting in England, colonials were able to experience

newfound freedoms and the higher status of gun ownership and use. Though hunting was not

customary in early American colonies, the noticeable differences authors like Smith and Lawson

100 confined. 101 qtd. in Stuart A. Marks, Southern Hunting in Black and White: Nature, History, and Ritual in

a Carolina Community. (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press 1991) 29.

65

assert serve to create American perceptions of the gun. Smith’s observations and assertions of

colonial firearm acumen, though inflated, add a distinguishing cachet to the American colonial—

one that other authors endorse. The American hunter adds further to this image via values of

industry, self-reliance, disdain for authority and regulations. These characteristics found in

abundance later in the nineteenth century American hunter—particularly in the character of

Natty Bumppo—have their origins in the gun perspectives of the seventeenth and early

eighteenth-century authors like Captain John Smith and John Lawson.102

Smith’s Gunpowder Myths

Aside from producing food, a primary purpose of firearms in Smith’s narratives is to

ensure safety, especially as the discourse of “Indian raids” upon the colonies escalated anxiety.

An early incident in his narrative serves to introduce the gun as a means for protection. In order

to map the area and in search of a possible northwest passage, Smith half-heartedly trusts two

Algonquin Natives to aid his little expedition as guides in rowing a canoe up a tributary of the

Chickahominy River. After Smith, Master Robbins and Thomas Emery finish eating, one Native

convinces Smith to explore the river a little further, separating their party. A little dubious of this

situation (observing that perhaps these Natives will divide and conquer), Smith urges the other

two in his party to prepare their pieces, and keep “their matches lit” in order to quickly discharge

them at any sign of trouble.103 As Smith is exploring, his guide suddenly grabs him. Smith then

102 As will be explored in Chapter 5, Nathaniel Bumppo asserts these “American” characteristics

as he claims the right to hunt during a time in which law forbids.

66

notices two other Natives with bows drawn upon him. Smith claims that as he is about to be shot,

“I prevented in discharging a French pistol.”104 Note that Smith does not describe the blood and

carnage that his French pistol produces.105 Rather, Smith’s use of terms in describing this life

and death struggle moves from a state of disregard to ceremonial adoration. His once, generally

termed “peece,” soon becomes a less unambiguous “pistol.” Then, as Smith’s life hangs in the

balance, his aforementioned “pistoll” exclusively becomes a well-fashioned “French pistol.” As

Smith rhetorically draws his readers into the intensity of his predicament, the description of his

pistol becomes more detailed. Smith then mentions that he hears war cries but “no warning peece

[sic],” or warning shot, from those in his company. Unfortunately, Master Robins and Thomas

Emery neglected to light their matchlocks. Unnerved by his predicament he takes his Indian

guide as a hostage. Smith announces, “presently I seazed [sic] him and bound his arme [sic] fast

to my hande [sic] in a garter, with my pistol ready bent to be revenged on him.”106 Smith’s

account changes tense from past to present, heightening the dramatic effect of immediacy, as

“presently seazed [sic]” “with my pistol ready bent” upon his deceiving guide, Smith attempts to

protect his own life. With heightened intensity, Smith finally establishes gun ownership of the

103 The matchlock was a musket that required a slow burning fuse, a match, to be clamped in the

position over the flash pan. Pulling a trigger or lever would allow the lit match to lower to the flash pan and ignite powder that would discharge the gun.

104 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed. Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 45.

105 Philip Barbour, editor notes that French pistols were deemed as considerably “leaders in pistol

making” qtd. in Smith John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed. Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 102.

106 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 45.

67

piece, calling it “my pistol.” Smith rhetorically equates preservation of one’s own life with the

need for ownership of a firearm. The early colonial period establishes an early origin of his

common American trope—that gun ownership equates to safety and security in a harsh and

unpredictable environment. This trope continues to become developed by other authors (which is

later explored in other chapters).

As Smith continues describing this struggle, it is the gun that maintains center stage in the

conflict. After being shot in the thigh with an arrow and discharging his pistol three or four

times, he is surrounded by two hundred men. These men lay their weapons upon the ground and

“the Indian importuned me not to shoot.”107As Smith backs away, he and his hostage fall into a

“low quagmire.” Indeed the protagonist is in dire straits. Smith’s turn of phrase emphatically

creates dual meanings: he is both in a hazardous, complex or awkward position as well as a

boggy marsh or swamp.108 It is within this quagmire that Smith perceives that the battle is lost.

He cannot retreat, he is outnumbered, and the wilderness together with the Natives is threatening

his life. Smith and his captive Native are sinking. He finally relents: “I resolved to trie their

mercies, my armes I caste from me, till which none durst approch [sic] me: being ceazed on me,

they drew me out and led me to the king.”109 Though the French pistol never makes a mark upon

Native flesh in this section of the narrative, it keeps the danger at bay—“none durst approch”

him as long as he held the pistol.110

107 The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes. Vol. 1 47. 108 Both meanings of quagmire were used in Captain Smith’s contextual vernacular. 109 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 47.

68

Even within the fashioning of the narrative, Smith cannot keep from theatrics, positioning

his pistol as if it was Excalibur. Just as the Smith ingeniously piques Natives’ intrigue and regard

for his pistol, he continues to represent Native interest and fear of firearms. The Natives show

regard for the firearm by not approaching Smith, but also Smith implicitly elicits his readers’

underlying regard for his pistol as they witness its effectiveness in keeping Smith alive. In

contrast, it is Master Robins and Thomas Emery who neglect to keep their matches lit that perish.

Here Smith offers himself as an exemplary frontier hero, untrusting of the Natives, but coupling

this mistrust with being “ready at arms” ready enough to fire his pistol “three or four times.”

Smith offers himself the exemplary colonial—clearly, he is the only one that survives in his

group. He knows when to and when not to shoot. He is fierce enough to have Natives perceive

him as a threat, yet smart enough to find opportunities to survive. Smith assesses the curiosity

Natives maintain regarding this “new” technology and as he is brought to the chief where he

shares this knowledge of firearms and compass and is eventually set free. Smith fashions these

New World heroics upon several elements—skill with firearms, readiness, bravery, rules of

engagement, and cunning.

Though many of his readers did not own a pistol or a firearm, and often, for religious

reasons did not condone violence, Smith’s adventurous battles still promoted a sense of safety

through European firearms among his readership. If Natives were afraid of the simple noise

110 Later in A True Relation Smith recognizes that his pistol did kill a Native. But here, he omits

his violent act. Though he emphatically asserts firearms as a means of security, Smith’s approach in earlier narratives is to advocate for diplomacy rather than violence in methods for colonization. The colonizers are extremely outnumbered, and firearms are not up to the task, as Smith purposefully fails to admit. Only after the Virginia colony has gained more colonizers and has braved more than a few skirmishes, Smith offers a more violent account in his later works.

69

firearms emitted or feared their simple presence in the New World, a simple militia should prove

sufficient for protection for the colony to conduct its business. In a sense, his narrative builds

anxieties of the New World, yet assuages such anxieties with the gun. The circular pattern of

apprehension, distrust, and vulnerability is created with each battle for his life. Smith’s heroic

tales stimulate unease over the Natives’ presence and also attempts to mitigate such dread

through the use of firearms. In a sense, his method places political power within the firearms. For

one, he creates and harnesses anxiety to establish a hero; he promotes mistrust of and tenuous

relations with Natives. He also promotes values of preparedness for danger, asserting that a

vigilant colonial should always be ready to fire his weapon. He does this by contrasting his own

experience, with those of the now dead, Master Robbins and Thomas Emery, as they did not take

heed and “keep their matches lit.” After building fear, mistrust, and anxiety regarding the

Natives, he appeases some of it as he writes that as long as he held his pistol, “none durst

approach.” It is through mythic and legendary heroic storytelling that Smith capitalizes upon

such anxieties, using them to promote values that he deems necessary for colonization.

Smith stages firearms as the tool that offers protection and safety to those that look to them, care

for them, and “keep their matches lit.” The narrative implies a dogmatic decree: “take care of

your gun and it will take care of you.”

Though his narrative offers a simplistic answer, the psychology of fear is quite complex.

As Smith stresses preparedness he also exposes anxieties over dangers in colonization. Such

anxieties are answered with gun preparedness, yet the gun’s protection does not serve to mitigate

the anxieties, rather they feed them. Smith’s narratives create a psychological impasse. From

Smith, Colonials know they need guns and a militia for protection (as Captain John Smith uses

70

his pistol to keep harm at bay), but they also are aware that such dangers can occur before a

moment’s notice (as observed in the death of Robinson and Emery). It is true a well-regulated

militia can aid in staving off Native attacks, yet such preparedness does nothing to alleviate the

daily palpable vulnerability one has to endure within the colony.

As Smith reasserts prepared individuals with firearms as the sole means for protection

within the American colonies, much of his narrative undercuts this argument. He admonishes

everyone to “keep your matches lit” placing weight upon readiness. Such significant colonial

apprehensions filter into law in Virginia which, as recorded by William Stratchey (1612),

requires a watchman to “shoulder his piece, both ends of his match being alight, and his piece

charged, and primed, and bullets in his mouth […].”111 Such laws required the guard to always

be at the ready, having such a familiarity with his equipment that his mouth became storage for

bullets. Smith ultimately expresses a significant cultural understanding of training and

preparations regarding firearms. Even though his audience might not own guns, or think of

violence as a favorable option, Smith’s attempts to resolve their fears relying upon vigilance in

keeping firearms or the creation of a well-trained militia. Such an answer proves to be easily

stated but difficult to put into practice as Natives later ransack the Virginia colony multiple

times. Smith promotes the hero that is quick on the draw, but also smart enough when to decide

when not to shoot. Such heroic characteristics, however, are easily endorsed as an answer to

colonial protection, yet in reality—as later explored in Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative—

it is difficult to establish and maintain a well-organized militia fit enough to counter skilled

111 qtd. in Brian J. Given, A Most Pernicious Thing: Gun Trading and Native Warfare in the

Early Contact Period. (Carleton University Press 1994) 39.

71

Natives. In short, Smith stages the gun as a protective means within his narrative, however in

historical actuality, colonial fears and anxieties prevail: Militias prove unfit, and all self-

sufficient means for colonial protection from Natives continue to fail.112

Natives’ Mythopoeisis

Smith emphasizes his own discernment and keen ability to know how to convince the

Natives of his bravery and his technological superiority. These form a future mythical trope—

the frontier sharpshooter with a high level of acumen and righteous judgment. The spectacle

Smith creates around firearms allows him to survive and assume an air of bravery. His cunning

expertise explains why he chose to abandon his arms and “trie their mercies” or allow himself to

be captured.113 There are several such incidents that demonstrate the extent to which Smith is

willing to go to instill the Natives’ reverence for the gun. One such incident occurs when he is

being held captive. Throughout the narrative Smith strives to keep this technology a new

mystery, placing more faith in the myth of firearms than firearms themselves. Smith and his crew

make a point never to trade or allow Natives to procure guns. Chief Powhatan often makes

remarks to Smith that he wants to acquire this new technology, requests that Smith always

declines. Aside from dramatic demonstrations of power, Smith also knows when to withhold

information about this new technology in order to keep its status in its much-needed mythical

scope. Smith writes of this purposeful anticlimactic event: “The King with fortie Bowmen to

112 Thus British troops have to support the colonies in the French and Indian War. 113 Brian J. Given, A Most Pernicious Thing: Gun Trading and Native Warfare in the Early

Contact Period (Carleton University Press 1994) 47.

72

guard me, intreated me to discharge my Pistoll […] with a mark at six score to strike therewith

but to spoil the practice I broke the cocke, whereat they were much discontented though a chance

supposed.”114 In order for the Natives to gauge the effectiveness of this curious device, Smith

was given the difficult feat of striking a mark at 360 feet—“six score.”115 In reality, the

colonists’ pistols were accurate only within 100 feet, as were the Natives’ arrows. Here, Smith

knows that the Natives believe his pistol is powerful, but cannot quantify this power. If he goes

through with the demonstration, he will reveal the pistol’s limitations. It takes more time to ready

than a bow and is just as, if not less, accurate. The Natives have already killed two of Smith’s

compatriots who did not ready their firearms. Here in a desperate situation, Smith provides a

sleight of hand, “through a chance supposed.” The currently overlooked meaning for Smith’s

“chance supposed” (emphasis added) is “pretended or fictitious”116—the meaning that Smith

intends. At a crucial moment Smith feigns that he “broke the cocke,” claiming that the weapon

cannot shoot, rendering the Natives unable to understand the limited range of the pistol. The

Natives become “discontented,” but still Smith preserves that aura of the indomitability of the

gun that he continuously strives to generate among Natives in the New World and the future

New Englanders.117 Here the firearm serves as a device that commands power in killing massive

amounts of fowl, and in claiming a pistol cannot shoot evading Native reconnaissance of

114 Brian J. Given, A Most Pernicious Thing 51. 115 120 yards or paces (360 feet) 116 “supposed, adj. 2.a”. OED Online, Oxford University Press, March 2019,

www.oed.com/view/Entry/194695. Accessed 11 April 2019. 117 “New England” a term that Smith coins.

73

European weaponry. As elected cape merchant and appointed “Commissioner for Indian

Economic and Military Affairs” of the Virginia Colony, Smith uses this created myth to sustain

peaceful relations long enough to perform valuable trade.118

In the Americas the gun is clearly seen as a way of staving off hunger—a primary means

of survival. In similar fashion, Smith again uses firearms as an integral means of fostering better

economic relations with the Natives. One of the ventures that push subsistence hunting to the

background is trade. As the acquisition of sustenance quickly becomes the foremost demand as

colonists landed, Smith and others risk hostile environments to trade with the Natives. Smith’s

first published narrative, A True Relation, begins with Captain Archer and Matthew Morton

being shot by hostile Native arrows. Even after these setbacks, John Smith and a few others

explore a navigable river in order to establish trade with the Natives settled along its shore.

Smith recounts from the beginning of the narrative that circumstances were dire: “God (being

angry with us) plagued us with such famin [sic] and sicknes [sic], that the living were scarce able

to bury the dead.”119 Often, they have only rotting sturgeon left in their storehouse, which had to

be guarded against greedy colonists. He, again, asserts himself as the exemplary colonist. In such

grim conditions, John Smith is able to use firearms to impress Natives into trade agreements.

A Captain’s Captivity

Whereas much of John Smith’s later narratives serve the purpose of ensuring colonial

118 Phillip L. Barbour, “Captain George Kendall: Mutineer or Intelligencer?” The Virginia

Magazine of History and Biography 70.3 (1962): 299 119 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes. Ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 33.

74

expansion and immigration, his earlier text maintains themes of threat and conflict—both

necessary for Smith to achieve heroic status. Overall, Smith has proven brave enough to be taken

as a prisoner and also knowledgeable enough to understand when it is necessary to use his

firearms. But it is at this point that the narrative takes an unusual twist. It is not his gun, but the

compass that he uses to engage King Powhatan. Amazed at Smith’s knowledge of the earth and

stars and at the needle within the compass—forever divining the direction of North, Powhatan

grants him his life. Smith is freed because he astounds the Natives with his country’s scientific

advancements. It is through this technological connection that Smith is able to bridge the gap

between the two societies. Implicitly, however, Smith understands that Powhatan’s primary

motivation is to establish trade with the strange newcomers. Powhatan wishes to trade with the

colony for guns in order to conquer their enemies. Smith, unfailing in his industrious manner,

then opens substantial lines of trade with Powhatan with some promises of this new ballistic

technology. Smith follows through with a few of them such as giving a gift of a large cannon

(ordinance) to King Powhatan. Due to Smith’s aptitude for bravery and capacity for restraint, he

is better able to understand the Natives’ culture and make promises of gun trade. The purported

promise of trade, according to Smith, entices Powhatan to respect the settlement’s boundaries

and not pose a threat. Smith, as narrator for the Chief, makes the gun one of the most desirable of

weapons, and one of the weapons that set apart the colonizers from the natives.120 However,

Smith’s captivity and economic connections with the Natives that allow the colony room to

120 Inflating Native interest in the gun becomes a theme that continues even in Lewis and Clark’s

expedition. Also, it is within the economic interest of the colony to establish Native intrigue in weaponry that is not readily available to them. The more astounded natives are to firearms, the more safe colonials can become.

75

grow. It is the gun or the promise of gun trade, that is one of the foundations for which

Virginia—one of America’s first colonial settlements—is allowed some immunity from Native

attack. Trade relations are what undoubtedly keeps the Virginia colony from starvation and

failure. In continuing the trend established with de Vaca’s narrative, Smith’s captivity offers

significant insights that inform economic and somewhat peaceful relations. Yet, here, the gun

plays a more significant role in maintaining these relationships of power and peace.

Smith’s Gunboat Diplomacy

Throughout his narratives, Smith displays the musket and gunpowder in dramatic fashion

as a spectacle to increase Native curiosity, obsession, and dread. A telling incident occurs as

Smith’s trade party is leaving Mamanahunt. The Natives ask to witness the report of their

muskets, and Smith and his crew willingly comply by shooting their arms in the middle of the

river to create a reverberating echo. Smith delights in astounding the Natives:

At my departure they requested me to hear our pieces, being in the midst of the river,

which in regard of the echo seemed a peale [sic] of ordnance.121 Many birds and fowles

[sic] they see us dayly [sic] kil [sic] that much feared them […], so desirous of trade wer

[sic] they, that they would follow me with their canowes [sic], and for anything give it

me, rather than return it back, so I unladed again 7 or 8. Hogsheads at our fort.122

Here the musket is not used as a tool in hunting, but rather as a harbinger of power to create a

121 or cannon. 122 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes. Ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 41.

76

sense of shock and awe with their feared neighbors. As long as the Natives respect their guests,

the network of trades can continue. In fact, more food is gained by shooting muskets in the air in

the midst of a crowd than by firing them at wild game. Just after creating the smoke-filled

cacophony in the middle of the river, Smith describes the Natives as so desirous for trade that

they follow them as they exit their village to “give it me, rather than return” empty-handed.

Smith’s cunning theatrics represents the musket as a major difference that allows colonists the

upper hand and characterizes the Natives perceiving these guns as an underlying threat and

something they covet—which then motivates Natives desire for trade with colonists. Such

difference asserts—as explored in the first chapter— that colonists are privileged and maintain a

major advantage over the Natives due to their gun ownership. Though the Natives are portrayed

as fearful of the gun, even within Smith’s own narrative, there is cause for doubt. The Natives

wish to test the efficiency of Smith’s pistol. Firearms do not dissuade the Natives from attacking

Smith or the Virginia colony. Also, when the crew first landed, shots are fired which “the Indians

little respected.”123 Ultimately, the Natives outnumber colonists. Yet, Smith insists upon the

power residing in gunpowder technology which is (at this point) only possessed by the colonists.

The high regard that Smith builds from the Mamanahunt visit through his orchestrated

“peales of ordnance” and haphazard killing of birds produces, according to Smith, a “desire for

trade” so much so that the Natives follow Smith after his grand exit to do more trading. Intrigue

built upon gunpowder soon leads to the trade of beads, hatches, and copper, but never guns.

Smith’s cunning use of sound and ostentatious killing are able to procure 7 or 8 more

123 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes, ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 5.

77

hogsheads,124 saving the colony from a few more days of starvation. Smith claims that trade with

the native was instigated with astounding gun use and demonstrations.

Smith’s crucial passage connects the violence portrayed by the sound of the musket to

cultural submission and associates firearms with the Natives’ subservient economic relations as

well. Almost incongruously, Smith transitions from the echoes of guns across the water to a

portrayal of his crew shooting birds and fowl before they left the village as if the dramatic

account of the “peale of ordnance” reminds the author of a previous and significant occurrence

or another incident that he neglected to address. Smith asserts, “Many birds and fowles they see

us dayly kil that much feared them […]”125 It is important to note here that once again Smith is

not mentioning the muskets or pieces used in fowling. However, unlike the earlier account where

the firearm is not present or implicitly implied in hunting, the sentence establishes the unspoken

presence of firearms. As Smith’s crew daily eradicate birds and fowl, the Natives—witnessing

the event—become horrified or unnerved. The objective is clear. Smith’s crew kills both small

birds (swallows, robins, etc…) and large fowl, which serve as target practice for the men and

also serve to intimidate the Natives. The colonists quickly acquire such a considerable amount

of birds and fowl that it “much feared them […]”.

As Barbour addresses in his footnotes, there is clearly a deleted section from Smith’s

original accounts. The missing section leaves the printed version in significant ambiguity.

Smith’s reference of “them” leaves an open referent alluding to the Natives’ fear of firearms or

124 large barrels or casks 125 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes. ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 41.

78

the colonial men who wield these weapons. Whatever the referent, the aggressive, innovative and

mechanized killing machine, or the vulnerable Natives, the “them” in Smith’s printed texts lacks

the significant elaboration that his editors or Smith himself cut. What remains in print is the

deleterious unspoken conflict between the clashing cultures. The Natives acknowledge the power

the English settlers brought. The muskets convey major competition over resources and land,

easily killing many birds and fowl—and, just as easily implying killing the Natives as well.

The Native intrigue, however, is filtered through colonial perspectives. Some scholars

purport that the natives were not as astounded with gunpowder weapons as the colonist may

stress.126 Granted, firearms did make a large report when fired, something the natives would not

covet in hunting or their gorilla-like warfare. As bow and arrows are more accurate and efficient

than firearms, Smith elevated or even purposefully misrepresented the power and impression the

gun maintained over Native tribes. The bow and arrow, being more proficient in hunting and in

battle seem as if it would always have the upper hand among Natives. The bow and arrows

seldom misfire. Also, the time it takes to load and shoot is drastically shorter than firearms.

Though firearms may have maintained a sense of novelty among the Natives, many early

American historians agree that colonial accounts of Native firearm intrigue served to mitigate

colonial anxieties. For instance, Robin Fisher, a Native American historian, argues, “European

captains relied on the assumed superiority of their firearms over Indian weapons. They thought

that the ‘terror’ which these arms inspired constituted their strength and security ‘against the

126 Brian J. Given, A Most Pernicious Thing: Gun Trading and Native Warfare in the Early

Contact Period, (Carleton University Press, 1994), and Robin Fisher, Contact and Conflict: Indian-European relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890, (Vancouver: UBC Press 1992).

79

multitude.’”127 The colonial assumptions regarding Native attitudes towards firearms become the

status quo in perceiving much-needed fear and intrigue from the Natives. In his study, Contact

and Conflict, Robin Fisher addresses that even in the early eighteen hundreds, American traders

put on gun demonstrations (such as those of the Lewis and Clark expedition, which will be

addressed in a later chapter) by which, “Such displays [of a cannon or gun] were possibly more

for the benefit of the whites than the Indians. They were reassuring, particularly if the Indians

appeared to be suitably impressed.”128 Though the scope of Fisher’s study is more than one

hundred years after that of Captain John Smith, Smith’s account significant origins of colonials

relying upon firearms to command a sense of superiority over the indigenous population. Smith

turns to firearms in order to assuage the compulsory fears and anxieties dealing with the

differences of race, religion, and essentially culture; thus, the gun and gun ownership become a

symbol of superiority and safety. It served, in early American literature, as an emblem of

supremacy foreshadowing dominance over territory and the Natives.129

In essence, the gun myth that Captain John Smith creates among the Natives invariably is

established solely for his intended audience—colonists and future colonists. The colony at its

inception is starving, vulnerable, and reliant upon the aid of the natives for survival. As the

future appears bleak, Smith turns to the image of the gun to answer such adverse conditions.

127 Robin Fisher. Contact and Conflict: Indian-European relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890, (Vancouver: UBC Press 1992) 16.

128 Contact and Conflict 39.

129 Becoming inextricably linked to Manifest Destiny before the concept even arose.

80

These gun performances—gun demonstrations, gun promise of trade, gunboat diplomacy, and

even heroic gun narratives of bravery—all assert the necessary English authority that is absent

upon the new continent. In his article, “The Colonial Stage: Risk and Promise in John Smith’s

Virginia,” Joseph Fichtelberg explores Smith’s “authoritarian command” and “swaggering

dominance” as he purposefully performs so that the “English public who must be made to

believe in the Virginian adventure, and his performances attempt to restore the colonial authority

that seemed so tenuous in 1612.”130 Fichtelberg stresses such ends were a means to give the

appearance of colonial order and inevitable commercial success. As Fichtelberg asserts such

staging was executed through Captain John Smith’s tone, rhetorical ploys, and plotlines, the

image and symbol of the gun also deserve a prominent position in proclaiming England’s

cultural dominance upon the New World. In Smith’s cultural expressions, Native gun

astonishment, fear, and desire for trade, continually make manifest underlying colonial

vulnerabilities in the struggle to maintain order, assert authority, and demonstrate power. Smith

evokes the power found in the gun in this brave new world in order to assure English command

and the colony’s profitable position in the marketplace.

Colonial Mythopoeisis

In the new colony, firearms are used to establish control not only over the Natives but

also over the colonists as well. After proudly asserting his cunning way to use firearms to gain 7

or 8 hogsheads’ worth of more food, Smith then states, “Having thus by God's assistance gotten

130 Joseph Fichtelberg, “The Colonial Stage: Risk and Promise in John Smith’s Virginia,” Early

American Literature, vol. 39, no. 1, Mar. 2004 12.

81

good store of corn […] Gods providence grew mutinous.”131 Smith introduces the readers to

Captain Kendall, one of Smith’s compatriots on the council, who was condemned for mutinous

acts.132 A few of Kendall’s most mutinous complaints, as historian Philip Barbour addresses, are

his expressing concern to better fortify their colony from an Indian attack.133 Just as Kendall, the

blacksmith, would be hanged for mutiny, “being upon the ladder,”134 the authorities and the Jury

change their sentence. Rather than being hanged, the jury recognizes Kendall’s rank and status

and sentence him to be shot by firing squad. Though many of Smith’s crew who are accused of

mutiny are often let go, possibly because the colony needed able bodies,135 this time the Jury and

the colony acted out their sentence. Smith laments the death sentence but affirms that “God’s

providence” cannot be arrested by mutinous acts. Smith’s accounts reaffirm the status quo as the

death sentence by firing squad is brought to American colonies. Firearms are the means used to

discipline and punish colonists.

Rhetorical Device for Future Colonials

Although Smith’s first narrative, A True Relation (1608) begins with heroic adventures

(Smith’s battles, captivity, and critique of the idle colonizers), his later narratives read more as

131 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 41. 132 The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes. Vol.1 41.

133 Phillip Barbour, “Captain George Kendall: Mutineer or Intelligencer?” The Virginia Magazine

of History and Biography 70.3 (1962) 301. 134 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed. Philip L.

Barbour. Vol. 1. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 41. 135 Captain John Smith himself was accused of mutiny.

82

explicit advice to the prospective colonial. In 1626, Smith noted several journalists had given a

negative picture of America calling it a “wasteland and impoverished.” Smith thus writes The

True Travels to counter the denigrating picture. Smith’s text, here, serves to promote strong

defensive measures rather than promote firearms as a means of attaining food. He emphasizes,

“For Armes [sic], there is scarce any man but he is furnished with a Peece [sic], a Jacke [sic], a

Coat of Maile [sic], a Sword, or a Rapier; and everie [sic] Holy-day, everie Plantation doth

excersize [sic] their men in Armes [sic], by which meanes [sic], hunting and fowling, the most

part of them are most excellent shots.”136 Here, Smith includes in his list of Arms, “a Jacke” (a

strong hardened leather jacket), chain mail, and swords evoking the well-developed defense

along with a piece or “Peece.”137 Additionally, the hunt—as explored earlier—serves as both a

means of providing food and a means to train those in charge of defending the Plantation,

reassuring prospective colonizers of their ultimate safety (more of Smith’s New World

propaganda). Later in The True Travels, Smith explores the fruitful gardens and abundance of

domesticated animals. He asserts, “They are able to feed three or foure [sic] hundred men more

than they [the colonists] have.”138 In such a setting Smith’s use of firearms fosters the image of a

well-fed and well-protected colony.

Yet, more importantly, Smith uses images of firearms as propaganda that ensures

“peaceful” relations and essential channels of trade with the Natives. It is through the presence of

136 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 217. 137 A portable firearm. 138 John Smith, The Complete Works of John Smith (1580 -1631) in Three Volumes. Ed.

Philip L. Barbour. Vol. 1. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1986) 217.

83

firearms that colonizers are able to create a sense of trepidation among the Natives, a deterrent

from attacks which enables lines of communication and trade to be established. The “peace”

between the colonizers and Natives, formed out of mutual economic interests, is always tentative

at best. All the festivities and ceremonies seem to portray a tranquil and stable relationship

between the two societies, but the façade ineffectively masks suspicions and uncertainties each

group held. Within these relations, Smith uses firearms to portray the colonists as the dominant

party, in spite of the fact that colonizers were economically dependent upon the Natives and

continued to struggle for survival. Firearm ownership and demonstrations sustain colonists’

ethnocentric world view and also quells the distress that colonizers confronted as they feared

“the other” of the New World.

The Complete Works of Captain John Smith provides a significant example of the early

formation of American gun culture.139 Smith rhetorically stages the firearm through myth mainly

for political purposes, surrounding it with symbolic intrigue and thrilling enchantment for the

purposes of psychological warfare. Smith strives overall to redefine labor, complaining about

idle colonizers or aristocrats that cannot adapt to new means of labor. In this setting, firearms

provide a means of protection and of providing food—one factor within Smith’s rebranding of

“colonial labor.” Also, as Smith became more considerate of his readership, who were primarily

religious settlers, he tones down the violence and heroic endeavors and turns more towards

descriptions of the land and Natives. A half a century later, the balance of power between

139 Namely: A True Relation of Such Occurrences and Accidents of Note as Happened in Virginia (1608); The Proceedings of the English Colony in Virginia (1612); The Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles (1624); and The True Travels, Adventures and Observations of Captain John Smith (1630).

84

colonists and Natives will be considerably altered when Natives obtain more firearms. The

reverence Smith (and many other colonials) gave the Anglo-American concept of the gun went

through a marked change as Native-American tribes also acquired firearms. Such a shift takes

place roughly sixty years later, around the time of the publication of Mary Rowlandson’s

captivity narrative in 1682.

85

CHAPTER 3

“GUN-TOTING WOMEN:” THE (RE)IMAGININGS OF MARY ROWLANDSON

Of the various narratives that served to shape and represent American identity within the

American colonies, The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: Being a Narrative of the Captivity of

the Restoration of Mary Rowlandson (1682), not only has maintained significant readership but

also offers noteworthy perspectives on firearm use within the New World. Mary Rowlandson’s

narrative has been described by many historians as the first bestselling narrative in the American

colonies and continued to attract readership for over five decades after its first publication, which

was six years after the end of King Phillip’s War (1675-1678).140 Early American historian,

Michelle Burnham, describes its “extraordinary popularity” citing “the fact that no first edition

survives simply because it was literally read into decay and oblivion.”141 Though the first

printing was one thousand copies, the readership and circulation of these editions are

incalculable as copies loaned to others became so tattered that four consecutive editions were

printed within its first year of publication.142 The narrative’s popularity reveals valuable cultural

insight into a wide array of colonial perspectives as most scholars focus on its various topics—

such as Native American culture, Puritan evolution within the new American frontier, and

140 Kathryn Zabelle Derounian, “The Publication, Promotion, and Distribution of Mary Rowlandson's Indian Captivity Narrative in the Seventeenth Century.” Early American Literature, vol. 23, no. 3, 1988 239.

141 Michelle Burnham, “The Journey between: Liminality and Dialogism in Mary White Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative.” Early American Literature, vol. 28, no. 1, 1993 65, 72.

142 Kathryn Zabelle Derounian, “The Publication, Promotion, and Distribution of Mary Rowlandson's Indian Captivity Narrative in the Seventeenth Century.” Early American Literature, vol. 23, no. 3, 1988 239.

86

aspects of the female colonial experience.143 Yet, what is most compelling for this study is the

much overlooked female perspective on the American frontier and its associations with firearms.

Rowlandson’s narrative offers significant positions on early American colonial sentiment as it

establishes foundations for later conceptions of the frontier hero and the place of the gun,

exemplifying a shift from European to “American” perspectives and definitions of firearms.

Similar to Captain John Smith’s narrative which emphasizes more approving perspectives of

firearms concerning the colony’s specific economic and political demands, Rowlandson’s

captivity narrative also engages similar concerns within the Lancaster colony, placing Protestant

values—namely, feminine virtue and maternal aspects—in jeopardy. Mary Rowlandson’s

narrative provides a significant understanding of her contemporary cultural acumen perceiving

the gun in terms of Providence using the language of fear and terror among the Natives, insights

of nature, and perceptions stressing individual rights. After 1776, her narrative and gender are

reimagined by politically driven American Revolutionaries into a “gun-toting American Patriot,”

which demands a more radical reading of the text that insists upon an American national identity

rooted in taming the wilderness, challenging authority, and defending individual rights and

property with a gun in hand.

Overall, Rowlandson’s narrative provides female viewpoints that were widely distributed

and consumed by the colonial population, and the various “American definitions” of the gun that

Captain John Smith established become filtered through feminine, religious, and economic

perceptions in a “life and death” circumstance all through which Rowlandson masterfully

143 Denise Mary MacNeil, The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826: Gender, Action, and Emotion (New York: Palgrave MacMillian 2009) 4.

87

exhibits a will to adapt and survive. Since most of the text’s readership spans from 1682 to 1776

many publishers rebranded Rowlandson’s account as a nationalistic endeavor that politicizes her

narrative and thus creates a major leitmotif from which the American frontier hero emerges.144

Yet, unlike Smith’s writings which provide a cut and dried perception of firearms, Mary

Rowlandson’s original narrative, and its politically charged subsequent editions offer a much

more protean set of possible interpretations.

Mary Rowlandson as Frontier Hero

Rowlandson’s text—as many scholars note—is complex. She opens by disparaging

Native culture and violence, and praises the Puritanical view of God’s condemnation as it is

attributed to the Natives and the wilderness, yet (and many times within the same breath) she

challenges such initial, absolute statements. For example, she asserts that after she is taken,

Natives are “bloody heathens,” “merciless heathens” and “barbarous creators,” but in the

following paragraph she emphasizes her dependence upon their mercy as she cries and, “one of

them asked me why I wept? [sic]” and Rowlandson, answers “they could kill me.” She is then

given “two spoonfuls [sic] of meal (to comfort me) and another gave me a pint of peas.”145 This

odd juxtaposition of extreme violence and astonishing generosity obscures the primary (and

often one-dimensional account) of the Puritanical view regarding Native characteristics. This

writing style challenges the status quo and dominate world view of Natives, authority, the

144 MacNeil, The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826 9.

145 qtd. in Richard VanDerBeets, Held Captive by Indians: Selected Narratives, 1642-1836.

(Knoxville, Tenn: University of Tennessee Press 1973) 58.

88

wilderness, and governmental powers. Many times Rowlandson may begin piously recounting a

horrific event, yet by the end of the sentence she will deconstruct her own faith-based claims and

open a completely new vista demanding reconsideration (or even nullifying) her previous faith-

promoting statement. From these contradictory perspectives—Puritan and Pagan, civilization and

wilderness, and European and Native—Rowlandson forms a synthesis of values, codes, or

cultures. What ties all these seemingly disparate threads of her ordeal together is one overarching

idea: survival. Rowlandson’s narrative consistently stresses an ability to bend one’s code of

ethics (if need be) to adapt in order to survive. It is under this extremely harsh life or death

condition that the American imaginations, mythos, and understanding of the gun emerge and

begin to solidify. In fact, survival—the common denominator of Rowlandson’s disparate

approaches to her own story—is also a foundational concept reflected in colonial sentiment and

anxieties that influences understandings of American identity and American firearms.

Rowlandson masterfully melds both thesis and antithesis into her captivity narrative in a

manner that many scholars refer to as a “double sense” 146—a blending of points of opposition,

creating new rhetorical spaces through which she is either able to transition between Native and

European cultural aspects and dogmas or blend or blur the two seemingly opposing world views

(Native and European) that offer her survival or the most positive outcome.147 Rowlandson’s use

of double sense positions herself in such a way that she is able to cross-culture, gender, and class

boundaries. Her rhetoric reaffirms European order and perspectives in the wilderness and adapts

146 Denise Mary MacNeil, The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826: Gender,

Action, and Emotion. (New York: Palgrave MacMillian 2009) 5. 147 The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826 9.

89

to new freedoms, even while captive, that the new environment allows. Such a new space, as

many scholars argue, became a fundamental aspect of Rowlandson’s popularity and later became

a cultural force that was instrumental in defining many attributes of the American Frontier

hero.148 Rowlandson’s American values were especially reimagined and interpreted into her

account which resulted in a more heroic characterization especially as the narrative was read

during the American Revolution, eight decades after it was originally published. In tracing

multiple renditions and different readings of Mary Rowlandson’s narrative, one can uncover

several crucial political roles that the gun plays. First, the gun becomes a means of

accomplishing providential edicts (such as God’s deliverance of death). Second and conversely,

the gun is portrayed as a source of fear and panic especially when it becomes adopted within the

Native’s superior war and raiding tactics. Ultimately, firearms are offered as a tool of economic

progress.

Mary Rowlandson’s Firearm Mythopoesis: Providence and Native Terror

Rowlandson’s portrayal of firearms and weapons first emerges in a metonymical sense, a

stand-in for Providence. Providence is read—and written—into Rowlandson’s narrative through

sensory perception—godly fear, use of nature, and biblical references. For instance, the first

editions responded to a religious readership and highlighted belief in and connection to God

through trials—just as it states in the title page, “The Sovereignty and Goodness of God.” In

order to convey this, she often resorts to attaching a parallel scripture to her trials. For instance,

148 Derounian, Mott, and Fliegelman. See also Denise Mary MacNeil, The Emergence of the

American Frontier Hero 1682-1826: Gender, Action, and Emotion. (New York: Palgrave MacMillian 2009) 5.

90

when she is weeping by the river before a Native offered her corn-meal and another offered her a

half of a pint of peas, she is caught up in remembrance and refers to Psalms 137:1, “By the

Rivers of Babylon, there we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion.”149 It is within

this vein that Rowlandson initially offers a religious perspective of her trials, as if they were

God-given. She places a religious lens upon firearms as well as their use, the lives they take or

injured was directed by the hand of God. Her providential viewpoints differ greatly from John

Smith’s secular treatment. Yet, similar to John Smith’s accounts, her narrative is read as a

Jeremiad, a warning—words like those of the Old Testament Jeremiah who prophesied of God’s

vengeance on those who were not conforming to His holy writ. She admonishes Colonials that

there are consequences for pride and sin. Hence, Rowlandson perceives the massacre to be a part

of God’s reprimand. She sees God’s castigation in the Natives’ bullets. In this sense guns serve

to deliver Providential demands of death, delivering colonials from evil, horror, and the toils and

tribulations of life on earth. This can be seen in her depiction of her sister’s death at the hands of

the Natives. Rowlandson exclaims, “My eldest sister being yet in the house, and seeing those

woful [sic] sights […] and her eldest son telling her that her son William [sic] was dead, and

myself wounded, she said, ‘Lord, let me die with them;’ which was no sooner said but she was

struck with a bullet, and fell down dead over the threshold.” 150 Rowlandson describes this scene

significantly at the threshold of the house which is also at the threshold of life and death, as God

delivers her, immediately responding to her exclamation, with the lethal placement of a bullet.

149 Rowlandson’s own emphasis. qtd. in Richard VanDerBeets, Held Captive by Indians: Selected

Narratives, 1642-1836. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press 1973) 57. 150 Denise Mary MacNeil, The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826: Gender,

Action, and Emotion. (New York: Palgrave MacMillian 2009) 60.

91

The bullet is shown as answering prayer or foreordaining the end of her sister’s life. To be sure

in the Puritanical mythos, the end of one’s life is never coincidental or haphazard. Thus,

Rowlandson not only shows the colonials as powerless, lacking skill with the gun, and deficient

in militaristic wisdom but also portrays —even in the Wampanoag band’s raid—the ensuing

violence from these firearms as a colonial Jeremiad. Rowlandson’s audience and political

purpose are much different from Captain Smith’s political propaganda in which he addresses the

continual practice and impeccable skill of the Virginia militia, ensuing safety for future

colonials. Here Rowlandson’s anguished tone suggests an answer as to why such a horrific scene

took place: “The Lord hereby would make us the more to acknowledge his hand, and to see that

our help is always in Him.”151 By addressing the power of God, the gun is perceived as a clear

instrument of God’s reprisal. Through a Puritanical lens Rowlandson offers a more religious

reading of the desecrations wrought by guns and bullets. It is the work of an angry God

demanding subservience.

Yet, the narrative—again—reflects “double-sense” of the atrocities. Just as Rowlandson

assures the reader that “our help is always in Him,” affirming all will be well through faith in

God, she then evokes terror, “But out we must go, the fire increasing, and coming along beside is

roaring, and the Indians gaping before us with their guns, spears and hatchets, to devour

us.”152 In this passage, Rowlandson first establishes a Puritanical perspective that violence and

death are dealt with by God’s castigating hand while, at the same time, his other hand offers

deliverance and aid. Again, Rowlandson’s pious outlook on the scene quickly turns to pragmatic

151 The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826 60.

152 The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826 60.

92

affirmations necessary for survival—undercutting her previous godly perspective. Here it is no

longer a reflection of the fear of God, but fear of the Natives. The active agent quickly is

transferred from God to the Wampanoag band which maintains the power to “consume” all of

Lancaster. This is the first overt retreat of the various “removes” that Rowlandson stylistically

expresses.153 Although God is present in her apologetic rhetoric, she also (and often quickly)

turns to practical ways either of staving off violence or of finding ways to survive. The guns,

here, become the tool of violence that forces Rowlandson to recognize the power of both God

and the Natives. She transitions at this point in her narrative from addressing the power of God

found in gunfire to an emphasis upon Native skill in contrast to the ineptness of the colonials

with their firearms (and not John Smith’s preferred references to a well-organized and practiced

militia).

Rowlandson sets a stage in which guns maintain an overpowering presence in the graphic

massacre. She asserts the cunning in the atrocious killings that these “murderous wretches”

exemplify with the use of the once predominantly white colonial technological advantage—the

musket. Within Rowlandson’s third sentence, the dread is clearly apparent. Rowlandson

describes the colonists’ panic: “Hearing the noise of some guns, we looked out; several houses

were burning, and smoked ascending to heaven.”154 The atrocity she accounts for is first

153 Rowlandson divides her text not into chapters but into twenty “Removes” into the wilderness

with the Natives. Organizing the text geographically rather than temporally (her entire captivity lasted 11 weeks) impresses upon the reader the significant divide between colonies and Indian Territory. With each remove she is drawn further into the wilderness until her final “remove” from the wilderness (her twentieth remove) where she is purchased for twenty pounds and brought back to her family.

154 Mary White Rowlandson and Horace Kephart, The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other

Indian Captivity Narratives. (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications 2005) 58.

93

perceived through auditory experience, not offering a visual image directly with the clatter of

munitions. As Jasmine Lellock states, Rowlandson does “ascribe the work of the guns […to an]

immaterial force: Providence.”155 Indeed, Rowlandson’s narrative not only offers guns as a

significant emblem of Providence, nature, and her trial, but reveals how guns are key agents

within horrific scenes. The very type of armaments that the colonials pridefully wielded in

Captain John Smith’s narratives which marked their superiority, now transfer that superiority to

the Natives. In this context, Rowlandson places the gun in both colonial and Native hands and

“dolefully” (her word) attests that the Natives’ skills far surpass the entire militia and garrison

that Lancaster is able to muster, laying the colony to waste.

Rowlandson continues by describing the Natives’ superiority with firearms. As she hears

the noise of guns in the distance, panic ensues. Her next paragraph places the violence within

their own backyard. Rowlandson exclaims, “There were five persons taken in one house. The

father and mother, and a sucking child, they knocked on the head; the other two carried away

alive.”156 Her accounts of the Lancaster atrocities continue; a man running away is shot down,

stripped naked with his bowels split open. Another man running away is quickly shot down.

Rowlandson pauses to explain such killing is made effortless as the Natives shot from higher

ground, overtaking the roof of the barn, shooting “down upon them over their

fortifications.”157 Next, the Natives fire upon the Rowlandson household from various

155 Jasmine Lellock, “Of Guns and Other Weapons in Mary Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative.”

Early Modern Women, vol. 4, 2009 199. 156 Mary White Rowlandson and Horace Kephart. The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other

Indian Captivity Narratives. (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications 2005) 58. 157 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 59.

94

advantageous bunkers and highpoints. Natives shoot from the barn, a hill, and “anything that

would shelter them.”158 From these various positions, Natives swiftly appear, as if from the

wilderness itself. By moving without transition from one scene to the next, Rowlandson

immerses the reader in the quickly delivered terror. It is as if the terror is springing up from

nature itself as both Providence and the Natives conspire against the colonials. The Natives’

mastery over musket use, their strategic positions, and what would be later called their “skulking

way of warfare”159 all leave the colonizers “wallowing in blood.”160 Rowlandson highlights the

expertise with which these Natives exercise dominion over the Lancaster colony. From the

Puritan perspective, these heathens took the technological advantage once predominantly

maintained by the colonizers and desecrated “all before them.”161 Playing off the colonists’

anxieties, Rowlandson shows there to be no reprieve or sanctuary. Although Rowlandson offers

a Puritanical interpretation, conceding their “help is always in Him [the Lord]”; she concludes

that the pragmatic source of survival is moving further into the wilderness—“out we must go.”162

Ultimately, within the first few episodes of violence, Rowlandson affirms the expertise the

158 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 59. 159 A phrase later used by colonist to denigrate or the “underhanded” ways in which the Natives

plundered the colonies, yet later—especially in the early 1800s—American citizenry claimed their militia adopted such an artful and evasive way to wage war. Such a transition, discussed in later chapters, illustrates how American citizenry adopts the idea of Native prowess in order to build their own mythical might.

160 Mary White Rowlandson and Horace Kephart. The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other

Indian Captivity Narratives. (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications 2005) 59. 161 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 59. 162 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 60.

95

Natives have over Lancaster through their knowledge of the terrain, their speed in attack, and

their skill with the musket. It is noteworthy in her narrative that there is not one account of a

successful colonizer fighting back. Any effective violence is presented fully from the

Wampanoag band’s point of view. Seemingly at every turn Rowlandson overwhelms the reader

with graphic scenes as she finds sons, and daughters, and dear neighbors “bleeding out their

heart’s blood upon the ground.”163 Natives (as they had previously done with Spanish horses)

take a weapon that was once a sign of “advanced” European culture and technology and reinvent

or refashion it to fit within the new geopolitical location. Colonists render the Native use of

firearms in a more hostile manner. Natives’ fire at will from several different locations,

confusing colonials. In such a commotion, Rowlandson publicizes Natives’ firearm prowess,

emphasizing the anxiety and fear within victims, underscoring the British colonials’—and

Europeans’ for that matter—failure to meet these Natives with equal or greater skill.

Mary Rowlandson’s Firearms as Natural Catastrophe

In addition to using the gun as a means of portraying Providence’s and the Native’s role

in violence, Rowlandson also describes the gun in terms that suggest its relation to Nature’s

power, redefining the Puritanical perspective on the wilderness. She refers to the bullets as a

“handful of stones […] rattling against the house,” another volley as if it were “bullets that

seemed to fly like hail,” wounding one man after another. Such metaphors and similes seem to

reference Nature’s hand in the affair. As Jasmine Lellock states, in these indications the subject

163 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 60.

96

of such action is unclear.164 Yet, Rowlandson clearly shows that the colony is at the mercy of

those demonstrating the most power and renders the Natives, God, and nature as the acting

agents. In contrast, the colonials’ only role is that of the direct object. Passive voice,

supplication, and petitions to higher powers are the most common colonist responses. The

description of the ruthless Natives, Providence’s hand, and the force of nature establishes the

hellish state within which Rowlandson shocks her reader. Rowlandson depicts firearms as being

of limited use in the hands of colonials and also describes their collective acceptance of their

predetermined fate. Such supplication effectively mirrors many of their communal and pious

thoughts. Culturally, early colonials perceived successes as indicators as being God’s chosen,

and atrocities (such as Indian massacres) as being under God’s condemnation as God’s elect

were understood as being called to repent. The underlying cause of God’s condemnation of His

people is their failure to develop an organized and active militia skilled in musketry.

Consequently, the path for repentance and being granted God’s favor is to maintain a more

trained, skilled, and well-regulated militia.

Within Rowlandson’s narrative the gun is professed metonymically.165 As it is initiated in

her retreat, the gun comes to symbolize Native supremacy, God’s authority and also embodies

the threat she must overcome. Because of the gun, she must “remove” or escape into the

wilderness. There she acquiesces as the passive participant, in order to survive she must become

an active protagonist. She demonstrates within the wilderness incredible fortitude within a place

164 Jasmine Lellock, “Of Guns and Other Weapons in Mary Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative.”

Early Modern Women, vol. 4, 2009 195-196. 165 A figure of speech that offers an item or thing that is taken for another. For example “the

crown” often means the monarchy in Great Britain.

97

that is defined by her culture as a “lively resemblance of hell” as she endures “merciless

enemies.”166 Rowlandson consistently identifies the culprit in these violent episodes—the

“prevailing” Natives. Grammatically, it is generally the Natives who are the active subjects as

they wield firearms while colonists assume the position of direct objects. The Wampanoag no

doubt have a dramatic presence, and the narrative reflects the disorienting effects of the raid.

They do not offer directions about where the attack is coming from, nor place a comprehensive

time frame upon the raid. So the unsuspecting victims die on the thresholds of their own homes

or run one way only to be caught by another section of the raiding band. The lack of transitions

in Rowlandson’s account within her first remove blurs any notion of temporal or spatial

sequencing. Rowlandson is out of the house only to be back in the house in the following

paragraph. The invaders are at the barn, on a hill, then at the very door ready to “devour

us.”167 Bullets shower the victims from everywhere and nowhere as these “skulking” or

seemingly invisible warriors’ tactics evoke panic. The gun—illuminated by the imagery of God,

Native, and nature—gives credence to Rowlandson’s explanation of her “removes” and her

submission to the Natives is made more acceptable to her readership. In short, the horrific

presence of the Native gun justifies her surrender to “those black creatures in the night.”168

As in her sister’s death, it is the gun that is highlighted when Rowlandson herself

contemplates whether to accept death or captivity. At the moment of her capture, Rowlandson

166 Mary White Rowlandson and Horace Kephart. The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other

Indian Captivity Narratives. (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 2005) 61. 167 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 60. 168 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 61.

98

asserts, “I should rather be killed by them than taken alive; but when it came to the trial my mind

changed; their glittering Weapons so daunted my Spirit, that I chose rather to go along with those

(as I may say) ravenous Bears, than that moment to my end my daies [sic].”169 She positions the

“glittering Weapons” as the item that evokes enough fear for her to suddenly change her resolve

to die. At this point, though, Rowlandson quickly manipulates Protestant tropes of Providence in

seeking death. Rather than submitting to the Natives, her sister piously chose death, which God

granted with a bullet at that very moment. Yet, Rowlandson must submit to the “ravenous

Bears.” At this crucial moment, the entire narrative hangs in the balance.170 Rather than

requesting death from God, Rowlandson is captured and must resolve to survive. Rowlandson

undercuts the fastidious, austere Puritanical creed and develops a new adaptable dogma as she

opts to “go along” with the Natives. Because of the violence the reader has just witnessed, the

author gains his/her consent to join in with the protagonist in this new trial that Providence has

prepared. It is her trial to go with these godless creatures, putting feminine virtue at risk,

accepting a fate different from her sister’s, favoring life and survival. Rowlandson’s grit and will

to survive sets her at odds with traditional perspectives and Puritanical world views as she

acquiesces to new influences from Native cultures and the wilderness.

Intense fear and the will to survive together open a new vista of perspectives in

Rowlandson’s narrative. Indeed this turning point poses several complex questions regarding

free will. In Puritanical typology, the will of the individual must be turned over to the community

169 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 61. 170 Had Mary Rowlandson not been in fear of the glittering weapons, and chose death just as her

sister had, this best-selling captivity narrative would not have existed.

99

and God. In a sense, this is what her sister does and is delivered from a captive life with these

Natives by the bullet. Rowlandson, rather than going along with what appeared to be mandated

by God with regards to her sister, chooses a different path—to live with such godless creatures—

and then redefines this experience (her own choice) as God-given as well. However, initially,

where it is the bullet that symbolizes the path provided by Providence, it is the glinting guns and

knives—that “so daunted her spirit” which helps her audience accept her choice of survival with

the Natives. In the following chapters, Rowlandson asserts that this path is also one that

Providence has asked her to bear. Yet, at the point of her decision, it is the fear and daunted

spirit evoked by those impressive weapons that demand surrender to the Natives. Her individual

will to survive, here, is elevated above the community. Providence is not at present a part of her

decision-making process although, much later, with the advantage of hindsight, the protagonist

does assert that Providence willed her to live and survive such trials and removes. Such a

rhetorical positioning of the gun is crucial in understanding how Rowlandson strategically gains

the reader’s acceptance of the narrative itself—a story of an unpretentious Puritan woman who

opts to live among a godless community rather than to die with God. Rowlandson uses the shiny

weapons in her initial and most significant “remove.” She addresses the fear of death as guns,

knives, and hatchets impress upon her a new understanding. Though she must live with these

perceived heathens, she is alive and faithfully submits herself to these new trials of God. With

Rowlandson, as with many of American Wilderness narratives, the gun is invariably linked with

the theme of tenacious survival.

Aside from Rowlandson’s noteworthy scare-tactics, firearms play a significant role not

only at the beginning of her heroic journey into the wilderness as a captive but also in a vital

100

economic role in possible negotiations for peace. Lellock notes that after more than a few

removes into the wilderness, Rowlandson’s fear regarding the weapons subsides, and she later

describes firearms in a “matter-of-fact” manner preserving them as “objects of exchange.”171

Lellock maintains that Rowlandson rhetorically positions her narrative to favor individual action

over offering one’s will to the community and God—precursors to American values. Though

Rowlandson does indeed perceive firearms in pragmatic and economic terms, the fear

established in previous incidents still lurks behind these economic definitions. The gun is still an

object that conjures fear and respect.

This double role of the gun can be seen in the moment of hope in which Rowlandson is

about to be traded for gun-powder. On March 14, 1676—in her eighth remove—the Wampanoag

return from raiding Northampton, bringing with them “horses and sheep and other things.”172 In

such a weak and wretched state, she declares, “I desired them that they would carry me to

Albany upon one of those horses, and sell me for powder; for they had sometimes discoursed. I

was utterly helpless of getting home on foot, the way that I came. I could hardly bear to think of

the many weary steps I had taken to this place.”173 Perceiving her own life as an economic

commodity to the Natives, she, after languishing in hunger, quickly begins to establish herself

within the Native community through knitting. She trades her knitwear to neighboring families

for food and is treated better by the natives as her skills in handicraft make her an asset to her

171 Jasmine Lellock, “Of Guns and Other Weapons in Mary Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative.”

Early Modern Women, vol. 4, 2009 197. 172 Mary White Rowlandson, and Horace Kephart. The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other

Indian Captivity Narratives. (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 2005) 70. 173 The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives 70.

101

Native family and tribe. She becomes so renowned for her knitwear that King Phillip requests

her to make a shirt for his own son.174 It is because of her particular skill, she soon realizes that

her Native owner took much more pride in her usefulness, so much so that his wife became

jealous of Rowlandson. Through these and other means, she quickly perceives ways in which the

Natives measured her life in terms of other useful commodities—specifically of gun-powder

kegs. Her ability to perceive her own value in terms of kegs of powder reveals ways in which her

Puritanical paradigm shifts to the perspectives of what the Natives revere. Anxious to end her

trials in the wilderness, she adopts social customs of economy cajoling them to trade a weary and

starving knitter for more gunpowder—which presumably translates as more plausible raids and

more provisions for the Natives. The current government highly stressed that no trade be done,

“either guns or gunpowder […], which might come to be used against ourselves.”175 Whether or

not Rowlandson was aware of such laws makes little difference. Her proposing such a trade

shows what lengths she is willing to take. Rowlandson weighs her horrors, hunger, and

ungodliness and asserts her individual concerns over those of the community or government.

Although Natives can use traded gunpowder to wreak havoc upon other colonies, like her

own, the reader becomes invested in the protagonist in such a way that he or she understands the

justification of such a trade. Rowlandson pits individual freedom against possible future

destruction of the community. In this manner, Rowlandson continually challenges Puritanical

norms in which the individual must acquiesce to the greater good of the community. She asserts

self and survival within the wilderness against the needs of the larger community. She survives

174 Metacomet, the Wampanoag chief. 175 “An Abstract of Laws of the New England, 1641,” reprinted in Force, Vol. III, No. 9 10.

102

in the wilderness—not by conquering it, but by domesticating it with her knitwear and finding an

economic position within an ungodly community. Such a narrative challenges masculine

authority and places greater merit upon experience and adaptability. She opposes the very

precedent Captain Smith established by not trading guns to the Natives.176 Though she does not

wield a gun, her experiences in crafty financial negotiations reflect her basic will to survive. Like

the other themes of Providential imposition and Native superiority, the elevation of the

individual over the community is once again focused upon the use of firearms. As will be

explored in the remaining chapters, the central role of the gun is apparent throughout the

development of the American frontier hero in which the value of the individual is given legal

priority over the community.

Rowlandson, the American Patriot

For a considerable period, Rowlandson’s narrative found extended interest within the

public.177 Thus various perspectives and interpretations of the narrative continued to be molded

according to the political contexts of its readerships. The shift from a religious to a political-

based readership is readily apparent in promotional presentations placed upon the narratives’

covers. Throughout various reprinted editions, Rowlandson’s book’s marketability increased as

176 By this time (1675), most of the tribes on the fringe of the colonies were well-equipped with

muskets, especially during King Phillips War. At this time all the colonists leveled criticism at other nationalities accusing them of trading firearms to the Natives. In reality, as Brian Given’s reveals in his A Most Pernicious Thing, as most all colonials participated initially in the trade ban (prior to 1640), then—circa 1670—many relented and traded. He asserts that many Natives possessed flint-locks muskets (58-59). See Brian J. Given, A Most Pernicious Thing: Gun Trading and Native Warfare in the Early Contact Period. (Ottawa: Carleton University Press 1994).

177 As aforementioned the narrative sold many copies and was published many times, especially

in the mid and late eighteenth centuries.

103

her character shifted from being a passive victim to that of an active American hero, in

particular, a gun-toting woman, though strangely enough in her account she never wields a

musket. Yet, to drive sales responding to the ideological demands from the public, editors

revised the titles of the narrative and used more heroic—dare I say “American” and patriotic—

art upon its cover as seen in Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5. “The Sovereignty of the Goodness of

God” (Figure 3.1) was published in Cambridge in 1682.178 The second edition (as its title page

notes) promotes faith in God and His goodness. Corrections and an amendment are also

included—in particular, the sermon by her husband. In order to combat difficulties within the

printing market of New England, many publishers repackaged “steady sellers.”179 To increase

the pool of consumers, many reprinted texts were marketed in “impersonal and ideologically

neutral modes of transaction.”180 As a means to make the text more marketable to those that are

less religious, Joseph Poole’s re-printed the narrative, elevating the “True History of the

Captivity and Restoration of Mary Rowlandson” as seen in Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3 is published in

1770, which depicts Mary Rowlandson as a female soldier with a musket and powder-horn. Note

how firearms are accorded a central position. Figure 3.5 depicts Mary Rowlandson, even as she

is outnumbered, defending her home as she levels her musket at the Natives. These images mark

178 The first edition was compiled within another text. This first account was only around eight

pages in length. 179 Both New England and England’s texts were “limited geographically and socially,” as stated

in Kathryn Zabelle Derounian’s “The Publication, Promotion, and Distribution of Mary Rowlandson's Indian Captivity Narrative in the Seventeenth Century.” Early American Literature, vol. 23, no. 3, 1988 239–261. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25056730.

180 Stephen Botein, "The Anglo-American Book Trade Before 1776: Personnel and Strategies." In

William L. Joyce et al., eds. Printing and Society in Early America. (Worcester, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society 1983) 48-82.

104

prominent transitions of gun perspectives and how their power as symbol and image

progressively takes a greater role in providing answers to many early American political

problems as publishers connect Rowlandson’s narrative to the gun.

Figure 3.1. Title Page for Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative 1682, Published in Cambridge

At its first 1682 publication, Rowlandson’s narrative establishes various cultural

underpinnings of the colonial Puritan (see Figure 3.1). From the first seven words of its title,

“The Sovereignty and Goodness of GOD,” with the word “GOD” placed in all caps in the largest

font upon the front cover, the editor highlights the major figure of the narrative. The common

belief within the colonies was that they would found a city upon a hill which would stand as an

example to all other cities and nations—as stated in the New Testament’s Gospel according to St.

105

Matthew. As such, unity and order should receive what follows in the next phrase of the title,

being, “Together in Faithfulness of His Promises Displayed.” No mention is made of the

protagonist within the first few phrases as the publication, ensuring that God would be read as

having the leading role of the narrative. Indeed, the faithful reader will note the episodes where

Rowlandson testifies of Providence’s hand in flying bullets and piously establishes God in His

major role. As has already been argued, much of her narrative—through the rhetorical means of

“double sense”—does much to counter significant premises found in traditional European

Puritanical epistemologies which include the passive acceptance of God’s will as well as the

prime importance of the community over the individual. After acknowledging the predominant

role God plays in the narrative, the title claims that the promises and goodness of God will be

read in the faithful, “Narrative of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson.” The font size highlights her

“Narrative” and her name, which of course is less than half the size of “GOD” in the title. The

heading minimizes the role that Rowlandson plays in the narrative. Rowlandson’s experience is

showcased as another witness of God’s goodness, stating, “Commented by her to all that desire

to know the Lord’s Doings to & Dealings with her; especially to her dear Children and

Relations.”181 Starting such a subtitle with passive structure—“commented by”—serves to

highlight Rowlandson’s virtuous role in submitting to all the “Lord’s Doings and Dealings.” It is

as if she were merely the conduit through whom the Lord was revealing His will to the colonist

who has ventured out in the wilderness of the New World. The subtitle concludes by stressing

community, as it affirms her role, not as an individual who successfully or heroically negotiated

the wilderness and her own survival, but one who fulfills a Puritanical role as part of the

181 See Figure 3.1.

106

community: the mother to her “dear Children” and a member of the community of “dear

Relations.”

Figure 3.2. Title Page for Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative 1682, Published in London

Due to the success of the Cambridge edition, Joseph Poole reprinted the narrative in that

same year (1682) under a different title page, “A True History of Captivity and Restoration of

Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. A Minister’s Wife” (Figure 3.2.), perhaps attracting a less pious

audience. God is not boldly declared at the forefront of this edition’s title. Rowlandson’s

passivity and submission again are rhetorically on display, as it is a History “of Mrs. Mary

107

Rowlandson” (italics added), after which her role within the community is underscored as “A

Minister’s Wife.” This edition’s subtitle, differing from the aforementioned edition, stresses

“The Cruel and Inhumane Usage she underwent amongst the Heathens.”182 Again, the selling

points of the narrative sensationalize the harsh conditions she endured and exhibits the Natives of

America as immoral creatures. Though God is not nearly as prominent within the title as in the

other edition, God is still present because the cover also advertises Mary Rowlandson’s

Minister’s Sermon in the appendix of the book and stresses her position in society as a Minister’s

wife. The later 1682 title page continually requests that the reader interpret the text as being set

forth by Providence, valuing submission to God and the community. It highlights the foresight of

God, communal roles and experiences, and the ability to survive.

In a 1770 edition of the narrative, eighty-eight years after the text’s first publication—

Boston publisher and author—Nathaniel Coverley reworks the title page of Mary Rowlandson’s

text, surprisingly, to display her with a musket in hand. The wood-carved image was not so new

to the public. It originally appeared in a children’s adventure story entitled, “Life and Adventures

of a Female Soldier”183 that appeared in 1762 (fig. 3.3.). This other account regards Hannah

Snell as the protagonist as she donned a man’s uniform and served in 1750 in the British Royal

Marines (see fig. 3.4.). Twenty years after the adventures of this British female hero, Nathaniel

Coverley repurposes the image used in the publication of Snell’s story, deletes the title and all

written accounts that would connect the figure to Hannah Snell, renames and Americanizes the

182 their italics 183 Neal Salisbury, (ed.) The Sovereignty and Goodness of God by Mary Rowlandson with Related

Documents. (Boston: Bedford and St. Martins 1997) 52.

108

figure into Mary Rowlandson. Though there is no evidence given in Rowlandson’s account of

doing so, Coverley visually recreates Rowlandson as a gun-toting female hero. Although the

image was British in its original context, its new use to depict Rowlandson is seen not in terms of

a woman defending the colonies from the Natives (significantly not present in the wood carving),

but rather as her defending the colonies from the unrighteous tyranny. As Mary Rowlandson’s

narrative enters the public sphere of the 1760s and 1770s, the narrative’s Puritanical

interpretations have evolved considerably into revolutionary sentiments. Later these are

christened a factor in American identity.

109

Figure 3.3. Female Soldier Woodblock Printing Repurposed for Mary Rowlandson in 1770, Published in Boston

110

Figure 3.4. Hannah Snell Performing Musketry Drills (1750)

111

The preceding images show how Nathaniel Coverly’s woodcarving reuses or coopts

Britain’s Hannah Snell into America’s Mary Rowlandson. Here, Rowlandson is depicted

wearing a tricorn hat (see fig. 3.3) holding a musket that is equal to if not more than her height

while her other hand, extended toward the musket, is clutching a powder horn. The tricorn hats

were often specifically styled with the left edge angled and higher than the right to allow the

musket to be more easily shouldered without knocking off the hat. In such a way, fashion

designated influence, power and a mark of prestige in those that were trained to fire muskets.

Such fashion parallels that of shaving one’s side of the hair as the Natives did in order to

facilitate an easy release of the bowstring.184 The British fort in the background is flying the

Union Jack and becomes Lancaster’s garrison; which should have been better protected and

better provisioned by those whom the flag represents. Within this new political arena,

Rowlandson’s plight, rather than aiming criticism towards the inept members of her own

community, is pointed towards the King and country. She stands as a solitary figure in the

foreground. The idea of the community is placed only within the background.

Furthermore, Rowlandson’s gender bending alters the readerships’ impressions of her

character. She is no longer the submissive and pious protestant. She is more assertive in her

stance. The female body is transformed into a persona that will rise to the occasion to defend her

family’s and her community’s as well as her own life. She will do everything possible to survive

regardless of the dictates and traditions being passed down from authority figures, even breaking

from British cultural ties. This updated version of Mary Rowlandson stands as a figure that

informs readers that she can survive and adapt in the wilderness—American fortitude found even

184 As explored in Chapter 1.

112

in a colonial female. Yet, such imagery is not fully female as she adopts the masculine dress and

cultural roles as protector of her domain. Ironically, the following year after its publication, King

George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, prohibiting colonial expansion past the

Appalachian Mountains. Reading Rowlandson’s account within such a political environment in

where King George’s court limits colonial freedoms, Rowlandson’s own assertiveness, will to

survive, and industrial ingenuity become a clarion call for independence. Furthermore,

Rowlandson’s narrative carries an underlying message of American colonial distinction from

cultural norms found in the European continent. An American colonial woman who survived in

the wilderness defied all other atrocities and also challenged the status quo (precisely, much of

the sentiment leading to the American Revolution) easily became appropriated into new creeds

of independence and freedom in defiance of British tyranny.

Also highlighted in this altered cover art is Rowlandson’s image as a defier of authority.

At the time of her capture, the law forbid any trade of guns and gunpowder with the Natives.

Rowlandson rebels against that regulation when it might have reduced her chances of survival,

and she instead advocates for gun trade with the Natives. It is interesting to note that much like

Rowlandson, colonials collectively resisted the 1763 Royal Proclamation.185 Rowlandson’s

narrative is used to illustrate a rejection of impractical or irrational law mandated by out-of-touch

officials, which is often reflected in the American idealism of the period. As is often the case

with many other historic women of this era, their efforts are mythologized as they become

185 Figure 3.3. is also repackaged as another American patriot, “Miss Fanny’s Maid” (1770).

American patriots rallied around female embodiments of liberty. The American Revolution was often times conceived through the female body. A work that explores this sentiment more is Katharina Erhard, “Rape, Republicanism, and Representation: Founding the Nation in Early American Women's Drama and Selected Visual Representations.” American Studies, vol. 50, no. 3, 2005 507–534.

113

embodiments of revolution, freedom, and liberty—as well as other revered values. Similarly, this

occurs in the case of Rowlandson’s stalwart religiosity, which when perceived through the lens

of revolution and patriotic nationalism becomes altered considerably.186 The Puritanical

Minister’s wife undergoes a metamorphosis into a gun-toting metaphor for revolutionary

America.187

186 This text and artwork on the title page stirs American Revolutionary sentiment. Similar to

Paul Revere’s depiction of the Boston Massacre, and the “Take Notice” parchment that depicts a soldier’s differing stances as he drills with a musket, Mary Rowlandson’s narrative fueled a the thoughts of the revolt, rejection of the English monarchy and its statutes, and reasserts the difference of colonist with England’s citizenry. Within these propagandist images, the musket becomes a significant tool for insisting upon action. In Revere’s Boston Massacre the muskets are leveled at defenseless colonials. In the “Take Notice” parchment and Rowlandson’s cover art, the musket is placed within the hands of American colonials in drill, preparation, and defense of one’s property and rights.

187 Katharina Erhard’s texts highlights other works that expound upon the significance of

feminine symbols of the American Revolution. For instance, Mary P. Ryan explains the female body as a “transitive semiotic device” (27); nineteenth-century maternal figure "was not only conflicted but also a site of politicized, aesthetic contention” (26); Frost asserts that "the image of the vulnerable female was essential to patriotic Revolutionary discourse" (127); Jasinski substantiates how “Americans employed the imagery of feminized liberty to justify their revolution” (158); Samuels expounds on how “national identity became attached to female bodies” (19); Cleary demonstrates how post-Revolutionary Americans “yoked the identity of the nation to that of women” (60); M. Burnham proposes that “the republic was [...] constructed in the image of a woman” (69); Richards attests to “women's centeredness in the figuration of the republic” (“Politics of Seduction”). qtd. in Katharina Erhard, “Rape, Republicanism, and Representation: Founding the Nation in Early American Women's Drama and Selected Visual Representations.” American Studies, vol. 50, no. 3, 2005 508.

114

Figure 3.5. Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative Title Page, Published in Boston in 1773

115

Another more telling representation of Mary Rowlandson is found within the John

Boyle’s printing house in 1773 (see Figure 3.5.). Markedly different from the first two cover

pages of 1682, any allusions to God have been deleted, and in their place Mary Rowlandson

stands, a lone figure, at the threshold of her home with her musket leveled at her pursuers. Rather

than a tricorn hat, her head is piously covered. Her pursuers are wearing long coats and wielding

hatches and guns, outnumbering her four to one.

Placing the 1773 publication in context establishes Rowlandson as an original American

hero. In this image she is converted into an icon for the American Revolution. Since the 1763

publication of her narrative, colonials experienced the Stamp Act, Quartering Act, Tea Act, and

the Boston Massacre. The following year (1774), the first meeting of the Continental Congress

convened. At this time, many of Rowlandson’s readers’ are concerned not with the fear of the

Natives or the foreboding wilderness. The French and Indian War is now a decade in the past.

Rather, their concerns are transferred from fearfully looking west to looking towards the

northeast colonies and their greatest threat: Great Britain. In subtle distinction, John Boyle

reproduces the growing revolutionary sentiment of fear for colonial safety and against British

threats. The Natives of Rowlandson’s text are no longer wearing loincloths, but long coats. They

are also not depicted in the manner Rowlandson described in her narrative. Rather than hiding

behind cover or crouching just below a hill (as aforementioned), they are shoulder to shoulder,

pursuing Mary Rowlandson in uniform—British militaristic—maneuvers: some wielding

tomahawks, while other combatants aim and fire their muskets in disciplined unison. John

Boyle’s woodcarving depicts the transition of colonial anxieties once directed at the Natives,

116

now toward the antagonistic redcoats. The revulsion toward the Natives—caste as brutish, evil,

devilish, and inhumane—is easily transferred to a new enemy.

Within captivity narratives, American colonials were able to establish a dominant

historical rift between themselves and European culture. Mary Rowlandson’s narrative, once

heralded for its supplication and piety, gives way to new cultural myths—myths of initiation into

(or the appropriation of) Native American culture, triumph over the wilderness, individualism,

independence, and a declaration of inalienable rights in the face of tyranny. All these myths

implied within her text are underscored by Boyle when his lone character levels a musket at

British redcoats, attempting to masquerade as vicious Natives, but not altogether pulling it off.

Many historians, such as Richard Slotkin, Greg Siemenski, and Rebecca Faery highlight the

popularity of Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, noting the significant new editions as pivotal in

establishing an American culture distinct from that of the British. As Siemenski maintains, such

works “transform[ed] a captivity narrative into a potent metaphor for the Revolution.”188

Additionally, such narratives easily entered into the revolutionary literary public sphere as they

were published in Boston, not like previous editions assembled in the publishing houses of

London.189 Mary Rowlandson’s revitalized edition, replete with Boyle’s expressive

woodcarving, was one of these newly reprinted narratives. In his article, “The Puritan Captivity

Narrative and the Politics of the American Revolution,” Siemenski focuses upon ways in which

188 Such as Regeneration Through Violence, and Cartographies of Desire: Captivity, Race and

Sex in the Shaping of an American Nation. Greg Siemenski, “The Puritan Captivity Narrative and the Politics of the American Revolution.” American Quarterly, no.1, 1990 52.

189 Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology and the American Frontier,

1600-1860. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000) 96.

117

Boyle’s image coupled with Rowlandson’s text naturally appealed to the revolutionary resolve

that produced the Boston Massacre. In this manner, the atrocities that colonials experienced

(whether a massacre in Lancaster or Boston) served to unite them against violent forms of

tyranny. In addition, as Siemenski notes, captivity narratives such as that of Rowlandson aided

colonists in creating a culture distinctly different from their homeland. Colonists were able to

tout and even flaunt the hardships, new skill sets, and adaptability found in these captivity

narratives. It is the captivity narratives that give the colonies a history of their own and sets

colonists apart from the British populace. Captivity narratives became a source of strength for

patriots claiming a distinctly different culture, adopting different colonial issues, and requesting

different treatment and laws than those that were enforced. Ultimately, these narratives promoted

a readymade framework for patriots who wished to assert a culture and history of their own

nation, highlighting elements of tenacity, endurance, and adaptability.190

As scholarship establishes that “Puritan captivity narratives were well-suited to support

the revolutionaries’ cause,”191 so was the gun depicted in John Boyle’s woodcarving of Mary

Rowlandson (see Figure 3.5.). In the same manner that some historians perceive captivity

narratives as giving birth to a national identity and revolutionary exclamation, Boyle’s image of

Mary Rowlandson is a harbinger of revolutionary sentiment and also a forerunner of a type of

nationalistic hero. In adding weight to these scholars’ argument, Boyle transforms a passive yet

pious minister’s wife into a gun-toting hero. On one level the narrative in connection with the

190 Greg Siemenski, “The Puritan Captivity Narrative and the Politics of the American

Revolution.” American Quarterly, no.1, 1990 52. 191 “The Puritan Captivity Narrative and the Politics of the American Revolution” 44.

118

woodcarving delivers a significant gender shift compelled by an active female protagonist. Such

gender-bending presents a feminine figure as advocating for men enlisting in the patriot cause

and also infers a right to own and bear arms against tyranny. In particular, the colonists’ general

understanding of feminine characteristics—their so-called fragility, domesticity, and requested

silence in political issues—dominate social consciousness. Yet Rowlandson’s narrative and

image imply bravery and advocates for the defense of individual rights, protection of the home,

vehement social and political freedoms and change, and adaptability. Boyle submits Rowlandson

as a figurehead for the American Revolution to patriots, relying upon myth and heroine

archetypes—such as Ancient Greece’s Athena or France’s Marianne. He reimagines her

narrative within the new context of the Revolution, expressing and publicizing a bravura that is

typically American—as this woman wields a gun in defense of her home and family.

Rowlandson’s gender plays an important role, as her narrative promotes republican virtue.

Historian Ruth Bloch offers Rowlandson’s piety, individuality, independence, industrious

domestic talents, and the fact that Rowlandson did not prove to be weaker than a man, as

explanations as to why the American Revolutionary period turned to her as a remarkable female

icon.192 Boyle’s portrayal of Rowlandson makes particular use of her femininity, giving

prominence to the eve of the American Revolution.

The image of Rowlandson reimagined within this polemic context places a strong

emphasis upon her challenging of traditional norms and aristocratic rule by calling upon her

colony to break laws of gun trade and free her. Her figure requests the service of male colonials

192 Ruth H. Bloch, “The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America,” Gender and

Morality in Anglo-American Culture, 1650–1800. (University of California Press, Berkeley; Los Angeles; London 2003) 141.

119

for the revolutionary cause. After all, if a mere female can stand against tyranny and bravely defy

repression, so can they. To the 1770 reader, significant parallels can be effortlessly drawn from

Rowlandson and Lancaster’s atrocities which inform the revolutionary sentiment. The Boston

massacre is also the Lancaster massacre, Rowlandson’s captivity is also the patriots’ captivity,

and her freedom is American freedom. Boyle’s woodcut does not, however, portray the massacre

as it was: houses are not burning and there is no death. In turning to the woodcut, Siemenski

asserts,

The Boyle woodcut of a militantly defiant Rowlandson contradicts this portrayal [of the

massacre], of course, but herein lies the virtue of the captivity as a metaphor for

revolution; the story of affliction becomes a rallying cry for defiance. If the Boyle cut

subverts a key lesson in Rowlandson’s narrative, it does so only in the service of a higher

law—the inalienable right of liberty.193

Rowlandson’s image becomes a herald for those who wish to join in her protection and defense,

defying tyranny and proclaiming the right of liberty. Such an image disgraces those that do not

take up a gun, as she has, to defend their home. The text together with Boyle’s representation

chastises these colonials who neglect to participate in their militia. The depiction of Rowlandson

in the revolutionary context also exploits the timidity found among the colonials when facing the

daunting task of defying the crown, reaffirming boldness in the acquisition of freedom and

liberty.194 The resolution of this conflict, according to Boyle’s image of Rowlandson, is

193 Greg Siemenski, “The Puritan Captivity Narrative and the Politics of the American

Revolution.” American Quarterly, no.1, 1990 52. 194 The following scholarship addresses reasons as to why many Americans would turn to the

Mary Rowlandson as an exemplary figure for the American Revolution, highlighting characteristics such

120

accomplished by placing confidence in the gun—again reaffirming the fear and resolve Captain

John Smith established in his accounts.

Additionally, Rowlandson’s account—similar to that of Cabeza de Vaca’s—required her

to rely upon Natives for survival. Yet, different from de Vaca, her ability to knit distinguishes

her and establishes her within economic relations among the Native community. This economic

status transforms her and grants her a position within the Wampanoag community. This entrance

generates a budding cross-cultural identity in which colonizers coopt Native culture (often

through violence) to propose an American culture separate and independent from British

culture.195 The cross-cultural identity allows patriot colonists to magnify elements of Native

culture (filtered through the colonists’ perspective)—such as characteristics of prowess,

adaptability, and solidarity, gained from combat. These characteristics, many colonists perceive

as inherent in Native culture are also found in Rowlandson’s image and narrative through her

associations with her captive tribe. Rowlandson, just as many American colonials have subdued

the wilderness and the Native enemies. If this is so, the American revolutionaries can, no doubt,

subdue the British tyranny and establish independence. Rowlandson’s narrative reflects

fundamental socio-economic relations with the Natives: yet at the same time that it adopts or

as her defiance, anti-authoritarian perspectives, and virtue. Also her fact that many people knew of her story facilitated Revolutionary America in raising her narrative as an icon—culturally uniting the colonies. Teresa Toulouse, The Captive's Position: Female Narrative, Male Identity, and Royal Authority in Colonial New England. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.), Greg Siemenski, “The Puritan Captivity Narrative and the Politics of the American Revolution.” American Quarterly, no.1, 1990. and Ruth H. Bloch, “The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America,” Gender and Morality in Anglo-American Culture, 1650–1800, (University of California Press, Berkeley; Los Angeles; London, 2003) 141.

195 Richard Slotkin’s most quintessential argument in Regeneration Through Violence: The

Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1800. (Norman: Oklahoma University Press 2000).

121

becomes accepted into Native culture, it condemns it. As Rowlandson stands with her musket

leveled at Natives, she demonstrates the will power and resolution she obtained at the end of her

trials and removes into the wilderness. The gun is made alive and is taken from the Natives and

placed within her hands. In a similar way, American culture—in its infancy—establishes Native

skill with the rifle, placing it in the colonial’s skillful hands, especially (as we will see in a later

chapter) when Andrew Jackson’s army deftly wields their Kentucky rifles against the Natives as

well as the British.

Ultimately, Rowlandson defies most of the contextually assumed vulnerabilities of her

sex and in turn challenges and opposes European femininity.196 Moreover, if colonial women are

capable of taming the wilderness, questioning authority, and withstanding tyranny, then

Rowlandson’s text and imagery implicitly engage colonial men in a call to arms. The gun

became a major cultural difference as Revolutionaries emphasized American experience with the

gun and touted skill, need, and familiarity in drills, pamphlets, and Rowlandson’s title pages. The

gun is so prevalent that an early American female, allegedly held Natives at gunpoint, something

that distinguished an American experience which is contrasted with English gun ignorance. The

reimagined Rowlandson account serves to establish an American identity rooted in the need for a

well-armed and well-trained militia. Her femininity both undercuts past male passivism—as the

196 David S. Field’s and Fredrika J. Teut’s “The Republican Court and the Historiography of

Women in Domain in the Public Sphere” explores ways in which American females at the time of the revolution began to experience more freedom within the public sphere than females within Britain and France. By using Jurgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere they assert American women were able to speak more toward public concerns and were granted more political freedoms that their European counterparts who had to secretly strive to operate., David S. Shields and Fredrika J. Teut’s “The Republican Court and the Historiography of Women in Domain in the Public Sphere.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 35, no.2, Summer 2015 160.

122

Lancaster militia failed her—yet also serves to bolster male participation in the Revolution

(perhaps these future patriots and militia-men may redeem her). As Rowlandson was once

economically equated with gun-powder, she is later associated with firearms in a more active

sense. Rather than being passively bought and sold for powder, her activity and resilience among

the Natives are traded for political salt-peter as she is adopted for the American Revolutionary

cause. The popularity of Rowlandson’s story culturally unites the colonies and depicts an early

nation with a budding gun culture. Rowlandson’s narrative rests upon the ability to defend one’s

home, protect one’s rights, and resist tyranny. Her presence in the wilderness brings it to order,

her domestication of the wilderness denotes a will to survive and future developments of the

frontier.197 The imagery and symbolism of firearms become even more deeply rooted in

American culture as Lewis and Clark explore the western frontier and attempt to make peace

with the Natives.

197 Kaythryn Zabelle Derounian-Stodola argues in her article “The Indian Captivity Narratives of

Mary Rowlandson and Olive Oatman: Case Studies in the Continuity, Evolution, and Exploitation of Literacy Discourse” Studies in the Literary Imagination. Georgia State University: vol. xxvii no. 1. 1994 33-46. The racial ways in which Rowlandson—and mainly the ministerial involvement in preparing her text—depicted the Natives with such retribution that the past images of violence encouraged the concept of Native genocide and embolden later American political agendas in the promotion of Manifest Destiny. Political attitudes exploited the captivity and sensationalized the violence within these narratives which contributed to the stigma that Natives could not co-exist with the colonies and therefore must be either exterminated or pushed out of their territory.

123

CHAPTER 4

“PRESENT ARMS:” LEWIS AND CLARK AND THE OPENING OF THE FRONTIER

As captivity narratives, such as Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity and Restoration (1682)

and Cotton Mather’s The Captivity of Hannah Dustin (1696-1697) continued to circulate and

inform the literary public sphere, so did interest in westward expansion and exploration. With the

result of the “Royal Proclamation of 1763” that defined all colonization to the east of the

Appalachian Mountains as null and void after the colonies’ successful revolution, the notion of a

new American frontier was pushed to the political forefront.198 With the completion of President

Jefferson’s Purchase (1803), the interest in this new territory became a governmental priority.

Though many narratives of fur trappers and traders filtered into public discourse, there had never

been an exploration or a narrative specifically sanctioned by the newly formed American

government regarding the state of the western territory. In 1804 Thomas Jefferson enlisted

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to travel, observe, and report on the newly acquired land

and officially to explore what was deemed by many as the “unexplored.”199 Though

Merriweather Lewis delayed publishing his findings, many—including Thomas Jefferson—

praised the outcomes of the expedition, touting the company’s success in establishing peace and

trade with the Natives, in discovering the most accessible route to the Pacific, and in

198 As the American Revolution is within the scope of this study, I acknowledge the chosen

primary texts do not explicitly address ways in which the American Revolutionary war directly influences gun culture; rather, this study as addressed in the previous chapter reveals the more implicit manner in which gun culture enters into significant literary works.

199 Though Thomas Jefferson’s first choice to head the expedition was French botanist, André

Michaux, the plans failed and Jefferson relied more upon the federal government and called American citizenry to lead, making the journey a more nationalistic endeavor.

124

documenting the scientific discoveries of flora and fauna of the territory. What is also apparent in

Lewis and Clark’s narratives is that the gun is portrayed in a manner that parallels and reaffirms

its practical and symbolic functions as found in previous narratives and more importantly proves

to be a dynamic contributor to the Expeditions’ official and unofficial objectives. Narratives

produced from this expedition offer insight into the primary values and myths associated with the

frontier and, more importantly, reveal ways in which guns act within this new frontier as

sanctioned by the federal government. In a sense, the Lewis and Clark expedition models the

first governmentally approved firearm narrative, offering its citizenry examples of conduct

around firearms, attitudes toward hunting, as well as cultural bearing regarding the style and

archetype of the gun carrying frontiersman.

These accounts, similar to Smith’s and Rowlandson’s narratives, were extremely popular.

Many citizens followed the political and economic interest in the westward expansion. Just as

other nations such as Spain, Great Britain, and France gained and colonized territory, for the

United States the concept of building an empire began to take shape after the Louisiana

Purchase. By such a means, the United States validated itself within the international arena. Yet,

the Louisiana Purchase also brought promise, dreams, and hopes to the American public. The

push westward unleashed promises of expanded business, trade, Christianity, and overall

opportunity. For the most part, the territory in the nineteenth century meant power. The “measure

of personal status, economic opportunity, and stability” all were derived from land ownership. 200

It is in this vein that many read the Corps of Discovery’s narratives of what they unpretentiously

200 Such a tour “began in a swirl of dreams, schemes, illusions, and expectations.” James P.

Rhonda “‘So Vast an Enterprise:’ Thoughts on the Lewis and Clark Expedition,” Voyages of Discovery: Essays on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. (Helena: Montana Historical Society Press 1998) 3.

125

entitled their “western tour.” Just as many readers looked to the narratives of Captain John Smith

for opportunistic endeavors in settling the new territory, many readers also sought after the

Expeditions’ texts with similar optimism and economic interests. In order to take advantage of

this interest, one unknown author published The Travels of Lewis and Clark, in 1809, under the

pseudonym Hubbard Lester. The text was embellished from newspaper articles, and, was in all

actuality, a fictionalized account. In attempts to pass this text off as official—taking advantage of

the public’s fascination with the Expedition—the publication sold for one dollar and sixty-two

cents—upstaging the official historical account by five years.201 It was Nicholas Biddle that

started and Paul Allen Esquire that finished and compiled the History of the Expedition Under

the Command of Captains to the Sources of the Missouri, Thence Across the Rocky Mountains

and Down the River Columbia to the Pacific Ocean Performed During the Years 1804—5—6 By

the Order of the Government of the United States (1814). These “historians” did not stint in

highlighting the heroic endeavors of the Corps. The text sold for six dollars (approximately

seventy dollars in our current market).

Additionally, the texts involving the Lewis and Clark Expedition had no other precedent

within the American nineteenth-century reading public as this was the first governmentally

sanctioned exploration. As a standard to understanding the level of economic interests that many

citizens held toward the newly purchased territory, many of the Lewis and Clark Expedition

explain that areas that had not been populated on their exit began to thrive as towns on their

return, just a few years later. Not only was economic interest a major factor, but also the public

201 Doug Erickson, “First Accounts of the Expedition” Discovering Lewis and Clark, July 2008,

http://www.lewis-clark.org/article/3028#footnote5_beiuktz. Accessed 29 March 2019.

126

continued to crave captivating and thrilling tales of excursions in the wilderness among the

Natives. While such interests began with Mary Rowlandson’s and other captivity narratives, they

escalated with further westward exploration.

But as previously noted, the Lewis and Clark Expedition narratives, differing from other

accounts, stress the authorization of and support from the American government. It is with this

respect that these accounts serve in some official capacity to provide the nation's citizenry with a

sense of the Nation’s identity in relationship to the American frontier and guns’ participation

within this new environment. Cultural conflicts found within the narratives of Cabeza De Vaca,

Captain John Smith, and Mary Rowlandson are reiterated and readdressed in the official

accounts of the Lewis and Clark voyage. Yet different from these other accounts, the Expedition

wrote about the events shortly after, and even during, their occurrence. Such journal entries offer

more immediate descriptions, impressions, and explanation of circumstances. By journaling—

rather than providing accounts from memory (many years after the events took place)—the

authors are able to express directly the unknowns, conflicts, and possible failures of the

excursion. The reader experiences the journey along with the author. Not only is this account an

official government expedition, but it is also written as the narrative unfolds. Other texts

examined were written from recollection, at times, many years after the stated events occurred.

Differing from such accounts, the published diaries and correspondences of the Lewis and Clark

expedition offer readers a place among their crew. Such a standpoint asks the readers to adopt

perspectives of the gun as the journey develops, allowing their readers a more organic and less

contrived set of perceptions/ influence of their gun perceptions.

127

Also, in the Lewis and Clark accounts scientific discovery (geography and natural

history) is intertwined with firearm images offering a more solid definition of the gun’s place in

westward expansion and the overall National Identity. In following the exploration

chronologically, significant trends and transformations of the gun create a comprehensive

observation that ultimately describes ways in which an American Identity began to take shape as

the concept of Manifest Destiny pervaded the public sphere. Lewis and Clark’s Expedition

couples America as a gun nation with Manifest Destiny. More specifically, the nation’s Corps of

Discovery’s accounts of the expedition reveals the American gun as a harvester of meat, a

“peacemaker,” and a significant diplomatic symbol. The gun is also portrayed as a frontrunner in

establishing Native relationships of economy, taming the wilderness, and establishing a frontier

hero and culture. Yet to complicate matters, gun portrayals also offers narratives that lack resolve

and end in ambiguity, as gun accidents and gun misuse occur.

The Allure of the Frontier

The event of the first governmental expedition into the west inspired and captivated many

Americans’ interest. One historian argues, “American fascination with Lewis and Clark had

begun almost as soon as the explorers departed.”202 For instance, Thomas Jefferson

acknowledges in correspondence to Paul Allen, editor of The History of the Expedition Under

the Command of Lewis and Clark (1814), “Never did a similar event excite more joy thro’ the

United States […] The humblest of it’s [sic] citizens had taken a lively interest in the issue of this

202 Daniel J. Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination. (Washington D.C: Smithsonian

Institution Press 2001) 84.

128

journey and looked forward with impatience for the information it would furnish.”203 What is

even more significant is the basis in which the writings were received. In a somewhat differing

perspective from that of Captain John Smith’s sometime exaggerated account where readers may

have needed to take the narrative with the proverbial grain of salt,204 the journals from the Lewis

and Clark expedition were regarded as factual. Gary Moulton asserts, “What sets this romantic

and stirring event apart from other western epics is the true and undisputed evidence upon which

it is based.”205 Even though these men wrote with bias and even romantic flair (as we will

address later within this chapter), the narratives were understood as objective, accurate

information. Consequently, couched within the scientific data of flora and fauna, weather

patterns, cartography, the idealistic and even mythic elements ascend into the foreground and

reflect budding perspectives of frontier culture, a culture which is decidedly influenced with the

mythic power of the gun. Here the gun is employed in a crucial time when “the nation itself was

turning increasingly to its sense of identity with the western lands to justify its authority.”206 As

accounts of the expedition provided answers to Americas’ self-conscious quest for national

identity, the Corps of Discovery’s narratives defined such national identity—particularly upon

203 qtd. in Daniel J. Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination. (Washington D.C:

Smithsonian Institution Press 2001) 84-85. 204 Posthumously these narratives were parodied in theatre due, often making fun of Captain John

Smith’s overblown heroic dramatic deeds and accomplishments. See Philip L. Barbour, “Captain John Smith and the London Theatre.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 83, 1975 277-279.

205 Gary E. Moulton, “On Reading Lewis and Clark: The Last Twenty Years” Voyages of

Discovery: Essays on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. (Helena: Montana Historical Society Press 1998) 48.

206 Bruce R. Greenfield, Narrating Discovery: The Romantic Explorer in American Literature, 1790-1855. (New York: Columbia University Press 1992) 88.

129

the frontier— as being replete with trappings of patriotism, underscored by a governmental

authority, but also ideals of individualism. They include romantic hunting expeditions, as well as

an epic bear attack. They demonstrate principles of standing ones’ ground and protecting one's’

property, but also heroically escaping antagonistic Natives. In all of these events, the gun was not

merely present but played a crucial role.

The Expedition Begins

Almost from the beginning of their journey the gun is used to secure an air of legitimacy

for the Expedition, especially among the Natives.207 In May 1804, the Corps of Discovery depart

Camp Dubois and encounter the Lakota, or the Sioux, a nation that Lewis deemed as “warlike”

and “violent miscreants of the savage race.”208 As described in Captain John Smith’s violent first

encounter, the Expedition faces a similar altercation which serves as a warning to the Corps to

always be on guard. Though the Expedition’s flintlock guns were considerably more advanced

than the match-lit firearms used by Captain Smith and his men, the flash pans the Expedition

used still had to be primed with dry powder. Consequently, the leaders’ admonitions to be

constantly on guard in hostile territory paint their narrative with a sense of urgency and danger.

As seen in Clark’s warning:

207 It is significant to note that although today the term Native often an overgeneralized term,

grouping many different Native cultures into one simple assemblage of people differing from the Euro-American culture. Yet for this study, the narratives and especially the readers followed suit often placing the Natives into dichotomous categories—the “noble” and the “malevolent savage.”

208 qtd. in James P. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press 1984) 27.

130

In a notherley [sic] direction […] in this quarter is Suppose to be the residence of Deavels

[Devils] that [sic] they are in human form with remarkable large heads, and about 18

Inches high, that they are very watchfull [sic] and are arm’d [sic] with Sharp arrows with

which they Can Kill at a great distance; they are Said to kill all persons who are So hardy

as to attempt to approach the hill.209

Though the Expedition was under order to establish peace with the natives, they knew that

conflict could quickly arise in hostile territory. A primed gun was the means of safety and

answered to the fears and anxieties of the Corps. Many of the Corps (including Lewis and Clark)

came from militaristic backgrounds where such a response was second nature. As the Corps

enters hostile territory—such as with the Sioux at the beginning of their journey—they prepare

clothes and the peace medal as gifts, hoping to soften any antagonistic threats. Yet as Clark notes

in his entry on September 24th, 1804: “[we] prepared all things for Action in Case of

necessity.”210 They armed the pirogue (a large open boat propelled by oars and sail) with the

blunderbuss and other larger guns on a swivel just in case conflict arose. John Ordway (a former

sergeant of the United States Army, and often organized guard duty in the Corps of Discovery),

gives the account of this first altercation of their journey with the Sioux and chief Black Buffalo.

The Corps began with their customary giving of gifts, gun demonstrations,211 and reading of the

certificate of peace, and presentation of the peace medal and began to prepare to continue their

209 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Bernard Voto. The Journals of Lewis and Clark.

(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 1953) 22. 210 The Journals of Lewis and Clark 31. 211 explored later in this chapter

131

journey. Some Sioux men boarded the pirogue and chief Black Buffalo held on to the cable to

keep the Corps from leaving. Ordway asserts, “They then began to act Intoxicated.”212 Within

this power struggle, as Ordway continues to exclaim, Captain Clark and Captain Lewis both call

the men to arms. Ordway asserts, “the Large Swivel [was] loaded immediately with 16 Musquet

[sic] Balls in it the 2 other Swivels loaded well with Buck Shot [and] each manned.”213 The

Corps stood their ground. Ordway continues:

Clark used moderation with them [and] told them that we must and would go on and

would go. that [sic] we were not Squaws. but [sic] warriers [sic]. the chief Sayed he had

warriers [sic] too and if we were to go on they would follow us and kill and take the

whole of us by degrees to that he had another party or lodge above this [and] that they

were able to destroy us. then Capt. Clark told them that we were Sent by their great father

the president of the U.S. and that if they misused us that he of Capt. Lewis could by

writing to him have them all distroyed [sic] as it were in a moment.214

Within this encounter the expedition is able to use the firepower that they have already

demonstrated to a certain extent to the Sioux to intimidate them into submission. Captain Clark

then affirms the power of the “great father,” the president of the United States. This is all done as

he holds the aggressive Natives at gunpoint. This struggle for power and demonstration

emphasized with guns leveled at the Sioux illustrates what most scholars agree was one of the

212 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Bernard Voto. The Journals of Lewis and Clark.

(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 1953) 37. 213 The Journals of Lewis and Clark 37. 214 The Journals of Lewis and Clark 37.

132

main objectives of the Expedition—to impress upon the Sioux and the hundreds of other Native

Nations that they would encounter the power, authority, wealth, and overall dominion of the

“great white father” (the president of the United States) and the new nation. By means of this

power they could create a safer environment between the Natives’ nations and Americans in

order to conduct trade.215

In the winter of 1804-1805 the Corps of Discovery establishes Fort Mandan in the

Mandan Nation’s Territory. Here, the Corps uses the gun to establish a peaceful coexistence that

many scholars would later argue as most crucial for the party’s success.216 Though the Corps was

comprised of many seasoned soldiers, the crew lacked complete or updated knowledge of the

surrounding territory and many of the necessary survival skills and necessary to live in the bitter

conditions. Yet partly out of curiosity, partly due to the promise of future trade, partly to engage

the Natives to form an alliance with the “great white father” and partly to gain sufficient

firepower to protect themselves from the Sioux, the Mandan admirably portray their own cultural

values and took the Corps under their protective wing. In this incident the Expedition parallels

the opening scenes of Captain John Smith’s narrative. Just as Powhatan wishes to establish

diplomatic relations in order to obtain guns from Captain John Smith in order to keep his

enemies at bay, the Mandan nation also hopes such relations would allow for future gun trade to

help them stave off the “warlike” Sioux. Each winter the Mandan were forced into hiding into a

cold canyon to stay away from the Sioux, as the Sioux claimed their hunting ground during

215 The Journals of Lewis and Clark 25.

216 James P. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), and Thomas P. Slaughter, Exploring Lewis and Clark: Reflections on Men and Wilderness. (New York: Knopf Distributed by Random House 2003).

133

winter months. So the expedition was forced to share this difficult camp with scant resources

with their hosts. Though the Mandan relationship with Lewis and Clark’s band can be attributed

to a plethora of motives, it must be noted that the Mandan opened their villages to the strangers,

exhibiting compassion not unlike that found when Cabeza de Vaca’s comrades were

shipwrecked near Galveston Island.

Before the Corps had begun their journey into the so-called “unexplored,” they heavily

relied upon information gathered by native nations. Their knowledge of territories, hunting lands,

geographical characteristics—all came from natives during the brutal, yet, significant winter they

spent with the Mandan. One major element that leads to the Corps of Discovery’s success, which

many scholars agree upon, is the winter that the Corps spend with the Mandan nation. In Lewis

and Clark among the Indians, James Rhonda writes,

Although visiting and trading were important parts of life shared by Indians and explorers

during the long winter months, few activities bound the men of the fort to the villagers as

did hunting. Both cultures valued the hunter for his skill in a dangerous pursuit.

Throughout the winter there were many joint hunting parties. Those trips, often in bitter

cold and through deep snow, served to increase the sense of sharing a common life on the

plains.217

In other words, where it is true that trade, council, and oratorical promises of peace established a

premise for the two nations to maintain a peaceful future, it was the active pursuit of hunting that

provided a basis of friendship among the villagers (natives) and the men from the fort (the

217 James P. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press

1984) 105.

134

Corps). Furthermore, as these cultures shared in this activity, the Corps was able to learn from

the thousands of years of experience that the Natives had attained, and while it is true “Both

cultures valued the hunter for his skill in a dangerous pursuit,”218 these different cultures valued

each other’s hunting styles for different reasons. Where the Natives were depicted as valuing the

Corps’ firearms, the Corps offers many accounts valuing, and witnessing with awe, the Native’s

hunting skills. For instance, during the hunt, the Corps killed ten buffalo, yet were not able to get

to half of them as they were shot over the broken icy ground. The Corps watched with veneration

as, “the mounted Indian hunters guided the buffalo heard away from broken ground and on to a

level plain where each man cut out an animal [breaking it away from the herd] for the kill.”219

This style of breaking buffalo away from the herd allows for a clean shot and a more efficient

way to harvest the animals. The Corps watches in admiration. Yet such admiration, as Lewis

narrates, was mutual due to the Corps skillful use of firearms. On January 24, 1806, Lewis

writes,

Drewyer and Baptiest La Paage returned this morning in a large Canoe with Comowooll

and six Clatsops. They brought two deer and the flesh of three Elk & one Elk's skin,

having given the flesh of one other Elk which they killed and three Elk's skins to the

Indians as the price of their assistance in transporting the ballance [sic] of the meat to the

Fort; […] the Indians remained with us all day. The Indians witnessed Drewyer's

shooting some of those Elk, which has given them a very exalted opinion of us as

218 James P. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians 105. 219 James P. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians 105.

135

marksmen and the superior excellence of our rifles compared with their guns; this may

probably be of service to us, as it will deter them from any acts of hostility if they have

ever meditated any such.220

The camaraderie shared in a hunt builds diplomatic relations as the Native remains with them all

day. Also, a successful hunt builds the morale and unity among the hunting party as they share in

taking life in order to give or sustain life. The canoes were so full of harvested meat that the

waves of the river almost overtook them. No doubt, as addressed by Ronda, the men sharing in

experiences of hunting successes, failures, and fighting the cold, built a strong diplomatic

relationship. The admiration and adoption of hunting skills also placed the men into a space

similar to that narrated by Mary Rowlandson, in which they cast aside Eurocentric perspectives

and traditions and adopted Native customs, clothing, and hunting tactics, that would (like for

Mary Rowlandson) best suit them for survival in the frontier. Perhaps the factors most crucial to

the expedition’s survival that took place that winter among the Mandan would be in securing the

promise of future trade and alliances, in promoting joint hunting expeditions with the natives that

both impressed and taught the Corps much-needed hunting skills. Furthermore, it was in this

extended stay that the Corps of Discovery secured the scouting services of the Shoshone-

slave/wife of the French trapper Jean-Baptiste Charbonneau—Sacagawea.

There is, however, another important benefit of the joint hunting parties which Lewis

explicitly refers to in the previous quotation. The hunt ensured security. Lewis claims that being

220 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Bernard Voto. The Journals of Lewis and Clark.

(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 1953) 315.

136

an excellent shot “will deter them from any acts of hostility.”221 Just as Captain John Smith kills

birds (some, possibly, not even edible) to impress the Natives with their skill, so does the Corps

maintain the same regard for their firearms—either implicitly or explicitly taking a page from

early colonists’ rhetoric regarding their weapons. Brian Given, in his study The Most Pernicious

Thing (1994), clarifies the use of this rhetoric in the United States, pronouncing that colonists

and explorers were constantly surrounded by dominant tribes that, “could, if united, have easily

destroyed them.”222 Thus—as argued in a close reading of Captain John Smith’s and the Corps

of Discovery’s narratives—the colonists and explorers, “needed to develop an image of

militaristic superiority to act as a symbol of security.”223 Yet, as Natives begin to possess these

firearms,224 Euro-Americans lose this once upheld distinction and self-proclaimed advantage.

The Lewis and Clark expedition is a crucial case-study as technological advances make firearms

more accurate and reliable, at the same time as Natives begin to possess them. Narratives from

the Corps, then, mark an insightful transition period regarding gun-demonstrations and gun trade.

Gun Trade

The Expedition’s promise of gun trade established a means of developing diplomatic

relationships among Natives. Unlike the time of Captain John Smith’s colony where the gun was

221 The Journals of Lewis and Clark 315. 222 Brian J. Given, A Most Pernicious Thing: Gun Trading and Native Warfare in the Early

Contact Period. (Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press 1994) 116.

223 A Most Pernicious Thing 116. 224 As Lewis and Clark’s Expedition reach the Pacific coast they find that many Native Nations

already have a significant gun collection.

137

a newly emerging weapon, early 1800s firearms were not only familiar but, in some instances,

already in use among the Natives. When arriving at the Pacific coast, Lewis notes that trade is

already established, “on the coast of America south West of this place of which little is but yet

known to the world […] traffic of part of the whites consists of vending, guns, (principally old

British or American muskets) powder, balls, and Shot, […]”225 The list continues—kettles, hats,

coats, tobacco, knives, beads, and other accouterments. However, the items regarding the gun are

marked as more important (at least in Lewis’s perspective) as they are listed first.226 In such a

way the accounts, whether accurate to Native culture or interests or not, provide the Euro-

American readership with the image of the Native as heavily involved and intrigued by the

technology of firearms (as addressed later).227 Overall, the promise of trade—particularly of

guns—encourages the help of Native nations. Furthermore, it is the promise of gun trade that

emphasizes the presence of firearms in the American frontier, making it into a gun nation. It is

not this study’s aim to assert that the Corps perspectives (particularly regarding Natives) are

correct or incorrect; yet as earlier stated, the accounts of the Corps of Discovery were extremely

influential in forming public sentiment since they were taken by their readers to be “true and

225 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 316. 226 The Natives attained their firearms through French, Spanish, British, Dutch or American trade.

227 Historians debate both the gun availability to Native Nations throughout the Midwest and west

of the United States. Brian Givens’ Most Pernicious Thing (1994) counters what is deemed a historical bias that Natives became dependent upon gun trade with whites. Though this chapter functions outside of Given’s scope, I assert that such accounts of Native gun trade dependence derives from European and Euro-American anxieties and fears toward Native nations. As the Lewis and Clark expedition states that Natives effectively hunt with the bow, the narratives do place Native interests in the gun—particularly the rifle—as a driving factor for peaceful relationships.

138

undisputed evidence.”228 Attention to the creation of myth within the narratives of Lewis and

Clark expedition may offer valuable insight into the ways Euro-American’s perceived and

represented Native affinity, intrigue, wonderment, and desire for guns and gun trade.229

Aside from the promise of trade, Lewis also addresses what he deems to be the Natives’

primary interests in Euro-American culture in regard to their attention to the English language.

Speaking of the Chinook, Lewis explains, “the Indians inform us that we speak the same

language with ourselves and give us proofs of their veracity by repeating many words of English,

as musquit [musket], powder, shot, nife [knife], file, damned rascal, son of a bitch &c.”230 Here,

Lewis claims whether these influences are from, “the U’ of States or Great Brittain [sic], I am at

a loss to determine.”231 It is significant to note some of the first English words the Natives learn

from their contact with Europeans and Americans deal with firearms. As these narratives address

the opening up of the west, in terms of trade, diplomacy, cultural connections, and exploration,

the gun here proves to be a dominant instrument central not only in its practical elements of

hunting and protection, but also as cultural currency, marking the influence European and

American culture as it extends further and further into Native territories.

228 Gary E. Moulton, “On Reading Lewis and Clark: The Last Twenty Years” Voyages of

Discovery: Essays on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. (Helena: Montana Historical Society Press 1998) 48.

229 Another study devoted to gun trade arrangements and rhetoric particularly from the 1700s to the 1800s could fill this gap in literary scholarship.

230 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 316.

231 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 316.

139

This symbolic role of the gun, discovered in accounts of Captain John Smith and Mary

Rowlandson appears to be a significant element in the colonists’ experience. Yet, as previously

pointed out, working firearms were hard to come by and difficult to maintain. In both instances,

however, their immediate concern was to keep guns out of the hands of the Natives. The

colonists rightfully feared Native threats and plunder, which they felt would most likely be

directed at them rather than at other Native tribes. Within the 1600s and early 1700s, the demand

to keep these firearms (although practically inferior to the Natives’ skill with the bow) served as

a symbol of cultural superiority.232 Such rhetoric serves ultimately to emphasize European and

Euro-American hegemony over the Natives—which in turn supports the notion of their moral

superiority as well. In these scenarios, the gun provides the newcomers an answer to the many

moral questions of dealing with colonization as well.

The accounts of Lewis and Clark are much in line with previous narratives in regards to

gun trade.233 The gun’s importance is perhaps even more heightened because of the

technological advances the gun made from Cabeza de Vaca’s time to the time of Lewis and

Clark. As the flintlock mechanism replaced the more rudimentary matchlocks, the shooter no

longer needed to keep his match lit, a problem particularly when the air was humid or while

running through the brush. Also, flintlocks can be easily maintained if one makes sure the

powder is dry in the flash pan. If not, one must simply dump the soiled powder and add new dry

232 The gun also serves as a symbol and marks a psychological differentiation which the colonists

craved, offering a sense of safety, protection, and militaristic superiority. 233 However, technological advance began to slowly narrow the gap of between the efficiency of

the bow and arrow and the flintlock muskets or rifles.

140

powder to keep the gun ready to fire. In such a manner, flintlocks used by the Corps become

more efficient to use within the frontier environment.

Additionally, a member of the Corps, John Shields, was a trained gunsmith and

mechanically inclined. Lewis asserts that if it was not for the “ingenuity of John Shield, most of

our guns would at this moment be unfit for use; but […] they are all in good order.”234 Shield

was able to trade his skill to the Natives many times for much-needed provisions. In this manner,

having extra equipment, spare parts, and qualified gunsmith, the Corps was able to be more self-

sufficient in gun maintenance and promote gun use and reliance upon guns more than in the early

colonial period. In short, due to technological advances and more access to gun parts, the crew

establishes a more sufficient and reliable image of the gun, one that the colonial period (John

Smith’s narratives in particular) would often feign or mythologize over in their parley with

Natives and in their propaganda to future colonizers.

With more proficient arms, the Corps maintained similar colonial attitudes of militaristic

superiority and cultural supremacy. This assumed elevated status in their connections with the

Natives is noted in the Corps experience. Many of the Natives, Lewis asserts, considered their

weaponry “great medicine,”235 a term that Lewis assumed meant that the Native’s interpreted

something as enigmatic and incomprehensible. For instance, after Lewis demonstrated his air-

gun, he notes, “I also shot my air-gun which was so perfectly incomprehensible that they

234 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 344.

235 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 222.

141

immediately denominated it the great medicine. the [sic] idea which the indians [sic] mean to

convey by this appellation is something that eminates [sic] from or acts by the influence or

power of the great spirit […] by its incomprehensible power of action.”236 In this manner Lewis

evokes a sense of superiority in the advanced status that Euro-Americans maintain, as they

comprehend and create a tool incomprehensible to the Natives. Bestowing such a mythic

significance upon this tool no doubt prompts the readers to make a similar connection as well.

Yet, in similar fashion Euro-Americans were just as amazed at the new technological

advances in firearms. Many times Americans project their own excitement within Native

accounts. After Lewis demonstrates his air-gun to Colonel Thomas Rodney, Colonel Rodney is

so impressed that he records the occurrence in his journal, declaring:

In perfect order she fires 22 times in a minute. All the balls are put at once into a short

side barrel and are then droped [sic] into the chamber of the gun one at a time by moving

a spring; and when the trigger is pulled just so much air escapes out of the air bag which

forms the britch [sic] of the gun as serves for one ball. It is a curious piece of

workmanship not easily described and therefore I omit attempting it. 237

The Colonel, no doubt accustomed to firearms, is so impressed with the air-gun that he attempts

to describe its mechanics but soon is at a loss for words. As someone who maintains command of

his county’s militia and being a veteran of the Revolutionary War, Colonel Rodney cannot even

comprehend or describe its “curious workmanship.”238 In order to maintain a distinct cultural

236 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 222. 237 qtd. in Dwight L. Smith and Ray Swick, A Journey Through the West: Thomas Rodney's 1803

Journal from Delaware to the Mississippi Territory (Athens: Ohio University Press 1997) 50.

142

superiority from the Natives, accounts from the Lewis and Clark Expedition may inflate their

observations of the Natives’ shock and awe. In doing so, firearms become a major source of

status-building in the frontier.

As Euro-American writers and readers also began to consider the gun a status symbol, so

did the Natives. Natives desired guns for hunting and protection but also as a means of owning a

tool of “great medicine” and harnessing its power. The Corps understood that gun trade would

bring help from the Natives, maintain peace, ensure future trade and therefore, along their

journey they reserve some firearms to be given as gifts—most were pistols—yet many Natives

perceived these handguns as ceremonious gestures toward peace and diplomacy. According to

the Expedition, Native gun owners—just as in terms of other items such as beads—often

considered the weapon as a talisman, token, and/or status symbol. For this reason, the Corps uses

the gun to ensure success. Lewis and Clark also offer detachment orders, stating the standard

procedures regarding guns, “the Indians have been dismissed, both gates shall be shut, ad [sic]

secured […] Any individual selling or disposing of any tool or iron or steel instrument, arms,

accouterments or ammunicion [sic], shall be deemed guilty of a breach of this order, and shall be

tryed [sic] and punished accordingly.”239 The priority of keeping the guns away from the

Natives, aided in the Corps’ security, and ensured future success. Psychologically, it allowed for

a significant distinction. In accordance with the Corps, Lewis and Clark found that the Spanish

also operated in the same vein,

238 qtd. in A Journey Through the West: Thomas Rodney's 1803 Journal from Delaware to the

Mississippi Territory 50. 239 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 307.

143

I can discover that these people are by no means friendly to the Spaniards. Their

complaint is that the Spaniards will not let them have firearms and ammunition, that they

put them off by telling them that if they suffer them to have guns, they will kill each

other, thus leaving them defenseless and an easy prey to their bloodthirsty neighbors to

the east of them, who, being in possession of firearms, hunt them up and murder them

without respect to sex or age and plunder them of their horses on all occasions.240

The strong desire that Natives (in this case the Shoshone) have for gun trade is readily apparent.

It is, even more, telling that the Spaniards argue that the Natives are not capable of discerning

when to use the gun—in a sense reflecting themselves onto the Natives as a means of escaping

the moral judgment of their own violent actions. The Spaniards did not think the Natives capable

of understanding social contracts. The Spanish conclude that if guns were distributed to Natives,

they would be uncontrollably bloodthirsty and that they (the Native nations) would eradicate

each other. For the European and Euro-Americans the gun is evidence of their authority and

explains their dominance, allowing them to overlook questions of morality in negotiations with

the Natives. Nonetheless, it is in this promise of gun trade the Corps feel they are able to secure

Native nations’ compliance and respect, and from this promise they are able to notify all Natives

that they are now under the domain of the great white father.

240 Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, The Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark

Expedition 1804-1806. ed. Ruben Gold Thwaites, (New York: Dodd Mead Company 1904) 383.

144

Gun Presentations

As Lewis and Clark make their way into various Native encampments the gun plays a

central role in the introductory ceremony. Similar to the themes uncovered in the study of

Captain John Smith’s narratives, the gun represents the assurance of peace, the promise of future

trade, and aid gained from the Natives. As gun trade became perceived by the Expedition as an

enticement to Native nations to enter peace treaties with the United States, gun demonstrations

became a customary ceremony in meeting different tribes. The Corps of Discovery’s narratives

rhetorically promote gun demonstrations as a display of authority and power of the American

government. Routinely, when officially meeting the Native tribe, the Corps would dress in their

military attire and parade into the Indian camp accompanied by fifes and drums. After gaining

onlookers in this manner and before the ceremonial council with the chief, the Corps would often

turn to firing demonstrations of two specific guns, both the Blunderbuss and the Giradoni Air

Rifle, to serve as an overture before peace talks occurred.

The Blunderbuss was a weapon effectively used at short range and it received its nom de

guerre for the extremely loud noise it makes when firing. It is distinctly shorter than a musket

and contains a bell-shaped muzzle, which made it easier to funnel shot (see Figure 4.1).241 One

other significant commonality between Captain John Smith’s narratives and the journals of The

Corps of Discovery is a similar motive for promoting their firearms as spectacle—trade. One of

its best-suited uses was not necessarily its accuracy—it was a short-range weapon. The noise it

made “blundered” or confused many of those who heard its spectacular report. Just as Captain

241 Michael Carrick, “Blunderbusses” Discovering Lewis and Clark. May 2005.

https://www.lewis-clark.org/article/2360. Accessed 25 March 2019.

145

John Smith orders his men to shoot their muskets by the river to amplify the noise in order to

bewilder and amaze the Natives, so too the Corps shoots their loudest gun in their arsenal.

Simply put, the blunderbuss offers an impressive blast that, according to the Corps, impresses

and confuses on-looking Natives.

Figure 4.1. Blunderbuss Guns on Swivel

The second firearm that the Corps relied upon for their demonstrations was at the time

relatively obscure—the Giradoni Air Rifle. Most likely built in Philadelphia by Isaiah Luken, a

clockmaker and gunsmith, the Giradoni Air Rifle contains a cylinder air chamber that doubled as

the stock. The shooter, with a hand pump, would pump air into the chamber, often taking fifteen

146

hundred strokes to fill the chamber. Lead balls (most likely at .31 caliber) were placed in the

magazine, and the gun could fire roughly twenty shots repeatedly within a minute,242 and be

fired up to forty times before the chamber needed to be reloaded with compressed air (see Figure

4.2).243 In The Journals of Lewis and Clark, the air rifle is mentioned around twenty times. Of

those twenty instances, sixteen were in direct correspondence to gun demonstrations intended to

impress the Natives.244 It was quiet, it could be quickly reloaded and shot, and moreover, did not

require powder to shoot—meaning no smoke or noise to give away a position. This fairly low

maintenance gun, which required no gunpowder, was as Lewis asserts considered, “great

medicine.”245 He exclaims, “My Air-gun also astonishes them very much; they cannot

comprehend it’s shooting so often and without powder; and think that it is great medicine which

comprehends everything that is to them incomprehensible.”246 Even Lewis, himself is astounded

at the accuracy and ease of firing: “I went on shore and being invited by some gentlemen present

to try my air gun which I had purchased brought it onshore, charged it, and fired it myself seven

242 qtd. in Joseph Mussulman, “Lewi’s Air Gun” Discovering Lewis and Clark. September 2003.

https://www.lewis-clark.org/article/1827#footnote5_d4ty2fs. Accessed 25 March 2019. 243 Frederick J. Chiaventone, “Lewis and Clark’s Girandoni Air Rifle” Warfare History Network,

7 December 2018, https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/lewis-and-clarks-girandoni-air-rifle/. Accessed 25 March 2019.

244 qtd in. Joseph Mussulman, “Lewi’s Air Gun” Discovering Lewis and Clark. September 2003. https://www.lewis-clark.org/article/1827#footnote5_d4ty2fs. Accessed 25 March 2019.

245 Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, The Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark

Expedition 1804-1806. ed. Ruben Gold Thwaites, (New York: Dodd Meed Company 1904) 361.

246 Lewis, Meriwether, William Clark, ed. Bernard DeVoto. The Journals of Lewis and Clark. (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 1997) 315.

147

times 55 yards with pretty good success.”247 Note that the italics Lewis adds in both of these

statements focus an emphasis on the air gun and how unique a machine it is calling it great

medicine. No doubt, Lewis is excited to demonstrate this to the Natives, just as much as he is

excited to try it out for himself. Whereas the blunderbuss uses mainly the principle of shock and

awe, based upon a magnificent reverberating report (especially out on the plains), the air rifle’s

demonstration offers a more stealthy and surreptitious gunshot. Both demonstrations help

convince the Native population to honor the United States of America and agree to peaceful

relations and trade.

Figure 4.2. Giradoni Air Rifle

After gun demonstrations, the Corps—at times—arranges gifts of shot and powder, while

reserving gifts of pistols for the most prominent Nations they encountered. During the diplomatic

ceremony, oftentimes after they smoke and pass the peace pipe, the Corps would take part in

“distributing Some [sic] powder & lead” and upon leaving the crew, would salute the Nation,

“with a gun and Set out.”248 In such a way, the Corps would provide significant “bookends” with

247 qtd in. Joseph Mussulman, “Air Gun Accident” Discovering Lewis and Clark. March 2004.

https://www.lewis-clark.org/article/1825. Accessed 25 March 2019. 248 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 442.

148

their encounters with the Natives—asserting difference, magnifying their guns and their own

status as gun owners as “great medicine,” often ending their visit with the promise of gun trade.

For example, Lewis recalls an encounter with Cameahwait, Shoshone chief and Sacagawea’s

brother. The Chief is suspicious of the Corp thinking them to be “in league with the Pahkees and

had some order to decoy them [the Shoshone] into an ambuscade.”249 In order to control the

situation Lewis, “told him [Cameahwait] if they [the Shoshone] continued to think thus meanly

of us that they might rely on it that no whitemen [sic] would ever come to trade with them or

bring them arms or ammunition and that if the bulk of his nation still entertained this opinion.”250

Such encounters are common throughout the Corps’ journey. Lewis and Clark continually use

the promise of gun trade to diffuse situations and to gain the upper hand. It is intriguing that

Lewis does not first consider using Sacagawea’s relationship with her brother as a means to

dispel the Shoshone’s suspicion but rather his prompt recourse resorts to emphatically placing

the promise of gun trade in jeopardy. This threat is understood to resolve the impasse.

The gun also becomes the means by which the Corps attempts to establish peace among

warring Natives. Lewis earlier notes the Mandan were extremely desirous to gain guns and notes

this provision would open up the tribe to hunting buffalo. For two-thirds of the year their tribe

had been living on fish, berries, and roots due to their trouble with the Sioux. The Mandan

quickly surmise that the gun would also enable them to wage war against enemy tribes. But

Lewis states that they, “must desist from making war,” just as their enemies have promised the

249 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, ed. Bernard DeVoto. The Journals of Lewis and Clark.

(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 1997) 196. 250 The Journals of Lewis and Clark 196.

149

Corps to “desist from making war on them.”251 Lewis concludes by making a promise to the

Mandan, claiming that, “after our finally returning to our homes towards the rising sun, white

men would come to them with an abundance of guns and every other article necessary to their

defense and comfort, and they would be enabled to supply themselves with these articles […] in

exchange for the skins of beaver Otter and Ermin.”252 To that the Mandan reaffirm that “they had

been long anxious to see whitemen that traded guns; and that we might rest assured of their

friendship and that they would do whatever we wished them.”253 Lewis gives more consideration

to the Natives—in regards to reasonable gun use—than do the Spanish, yet still he addresses

them with a considerable air of superiority, stopping just short of having the Mandan grovel.

The promise of gun trade reaffirms that though the Corps are significantly outnumbered, the two

Nations do not meet on equal grounds. The United States and the “great white father” naïvely

promise they will bring peace to all Native nations. Unfortunately, there are few Native primary

sources to help historians determine the Native attitudes toward firearms and gun trade.

Communication between the tribes and the Corps had to pass through different interpreters

which employed multiple languages—allowing for many messages to be misconstrued or even

lost in translation. Yet, what holds congruent throughout Lewis and Clark’s accounts is that the

Natives were enthralled with the gun, amazed at the Corps skill in shooting, wanted them for

251 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 215. 252 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 215. 253 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 215.

150

their own protection and survival, and entered into peace treaties and honored “the great white

father” in order to obtain them.

The Hunt

In Captain John Smith’s narrative the gun serves only as one of many means to provide

food for the starving colony. In Lewis and Clark expedition, the gun becomes the primary means

of obtaining food through the hunt. The journal entries of Lewis wax poetic as he, at times,

describes the frontier as a land of plenty, full of wild beasts ripe for the picking. For instance, on

September 17, 1804, Meriwether Lewis tops a hill almost two hundred feet high. From that

vantage point he offers a cinematic composition of the countryside: “the country breaks of[f] as

usual into fine leavel [sic] plain extending as far as the eye can reach […] This scenery already

rich pleasing and beautiful” is filled, “by the immence herds of Buffaloe deer Elk and Antelopes

which we saw in every direction feeding on the hills and plains.”254 In this governmentally

funded excursion, readers are introduced to a plentiful country that dazzles one’s imagination.

It is easy to establish the Expedition’s reliance upon the gun for substance, which is

almost a daily prerogative. Lewis and Clark’s journals routinely record the number of species

they kill. Their diet consists mainly of meat, and they use many of the skins to make clothes as

well (a skill they developed from the Natives). On November 19th,1804, Clark recorded, “our

Perogue of hunters arrive with 32 Deer, 12 Elk & a Buffalow [sic], all of this meat we had hung

254 Gary E. Moulton, ed. The Journal of Lewis and Clark Expedition vol. 3 (Lincoln: University

of Nebraska 1987) 80-81.

151

up in a Smoke house, a timely supply…our men move into their huts.”255 Not only does this

entry underscore the amount of meat they need, and a “timely supply” it was as well, but it also

emphasizes the support provided by the Natives to prepare and store the foodstuffs they acquire

because of the tribe’s skill in hunting, tanning, and preserving.

Sustenance

Throughout, the narratives of the Lewis and Clark consistently substantiate how much the

Expedition relies upon hunting to sustain itself. On the third of February (1805), Clark notes,

our provisions of meat being nearly exorsted [sic] I concluded to Decend the River on the

Ice & hunt, I Set out with about 16 men 3 horses & 2 Slays Descended nearly 60 miles

Killed & loaded horses back, & made 2 pens which we filled with meat, and returned on

the 13th [10 days later] we Killed 40 Deer, 3 Bulls 19 Elk, maney [sic] So meager that

they were unfit for use.256

It is of little worth to state the explicit, that simple ownership of the gun does not guarantee a

harvest; yet what is even more noteworthy from these instances is that the crew, famished,

reflects an important mirror image of meager winter game. As wildlife survives with scant food,

the men do also. Such inextricable links between the available game and the crew’s plight

consistently appear throughout their narratives. Similar to Captain John Smith’s narrative as the

colonials starve and fight over food rations and live off of rotting sturgeon, these dire

255 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 131. 256 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 97.

152

circumstances found within these gun narratives serve to emphasize even more the necessity of

both game and guns. Whereas Captain John Smith’s guns were used to facilitate trade with the

Natives for crucial food, the Corps of Discovery uses the gun directly in the act of hunting to

deliver themselves from dire starvation. Patrick Gass demonstrates how much they relied upon

hunting as he provides the running total of game killed in his journal, stating, “I made a

calculation of the number of elk and deer killed by the party from the 1st of Dec. 1805 to March

1806, which gave 131 elk, and 20 deer.”257 Within three months, one could estimate the total

amount of meat the party harvested was around thirty-two thousand pounds of meat from elk and

approximately a thousand pounds of deer meat.258 This yields around ten pounds of meat each

day for each member of the crew.259 Again, both narratives (Captain John Smith’s and the Corps

of Discovery’s) rely upon the gun to deliver them from starvation—the very sections of the text

that enforce upon the reader that success is hanging upon the proverbial thread. Also, both

narratives provide astounding numbers of game taken from the frontier. The records of both

accounts (mainly that of the Corps of Discovery) also demonstrate the plentiful game and the

areas that were most profitable for future expeditions and settlements. Like John Smith’s hopes,

their exploration delivers a future in which settlers could later exploit the land. Where the gun

257 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 344. 258 The basis of these calculations are considering that the average elk killed weighed around five

hundred pounds and the average deer was one hundred pounds, then the total factors fifty percent of the animal as edible and harvestable meat. These calculations are by no means exact yet offer a fairly conservative estimate of meat availability during these three months.

259 Granted the number of the crew vacillates as French fur trappers join the expedition at different times. The above estimate was configured for thirty-seven members.

153

answered to Captain John Smith’s moments of survival in an indirect manner, the Corps of

Discovery more actively places the guns within their own hunters’ hands to remedy the matter.

During the colonial years, hunting was considered a means of supplying food primarily

associated by Natives (as aforementioned in Chapter 2 as John Smith strove to change this public

image). Lewis and Clark serve to gentrify the hunter, greatly elevating the hunting image and

persona for Americans. In his study of the image of hunting in the American public sphere,

Daniel Herman marks the Lewis and Clark expedition as a pivotal event in which the negative

persona of the poor hunter begins to swing significantly toward a more exemplary American

figure. In doing so, the public image of the Lewis and Clark expedition also begins to couple

Native American imagery with images of the American hunter. As the Corps continued their

journey, the dress standard became more conducive to Native accouterments and their natural

environment. For example, many of the Corps abandoned the use of their soldier boots for

moccasins. In doing so, they also learned Native customs for tanning and needlework.

Moreover, these Native styles of leather, skins, hunting shirts, and fur caps become the mode of

fashion for the recognized American frontier hero. Again, European perceptions of American

indigenous culture was coopted in order to create a Euro-American culture.260 The Corps’ Native

adoptions began to push the American heroic imagery away from the European norms toward the

Native-like frontiersman.

260 Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: the Mythology of the American Frontier,

1600-1860. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2000).

154

The Proto-Darwinian Corps

Historian of American hunting, Daniel Herman, traces the trends of American

perceptions of hunting and marks the Lewis and Clark Expedition as the beginning of a major

shift of American popular opinion toward the use of guns in sport hunting as a common practice

that solidifies into the mid-to-late nineteenth century. He deems literature that came from the

Lewis and Clark Expedition as providing some of the most influential hunter stories that served

to both initiate and reflect such a shift in perception. Specifically Herman perceives that the

Lewis and Clark Expedition’s manuscripts (journals and correspondence) influenced Americans

upon two significant ontological fronts—both running upon “separated ideological tracks” yet,

“both became conduits for the popularization of sport hunting.”261 One of these was the hunt as a

test of skill, prowess, and intelligence where the winner gains the dominant position within the

food chain—a position he terms “the proto-Darwinian perspective.”262 The other ideological

track is Rousseauian thought, in which hunters regard themselves as “men of virtue” and humane

stewards of nature, killing for scientific discovery, population maintenance, and to honor the

species rather than dominate it. Upon both suppositions, the literature coming from the William

and Clark Expedition does much to reflect the proto-Darwinian perspective, regarding the hunt

as pitting one’s wit, stamina, and overall skill against wild beasts, which influenced Euro-

Americans to take up the practice of hunting.

261 Daniel J. Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination. (Washington D.C: Smithsonian

Institution Press 2001) 84. 262 Hunting and the American Imagination 84.

155

Examples of the proto-Darwinian perspective run rampant within many of the hunts the

Expedition recorded. What is more noteworthy for this study is the gun’s presence and overall

firearm testimonials that establish a connection between the gun and the man to form an image of

a gun-toting frontiersman taming the unruly wilderness. At times, in the expedition, the hunters

were hunted, and firearms offered a means of protection from wildlife. Such stories served as

proof of the proto-Darwinian approach and the role of the man connected with the gun offered a

sense of dominance over the environment. For instance, as the crew canoes through what would

later become Garfield county Montana, they encounter a brown bear. Lewis describes the event:

“In the evening the men in two of the rear canoes discovered a large brown bear lying in the

open grounds about 300 paces from the river, and six of them went out to attack him, all good

hunters; they took the advantage of a small eminence which concealed then and got within 40

paces from him unperceived.”263 Again, Lewis although stating facts, rhetorically involves the

reader on the hunt—concealment, crouching, using the layout of the land to their advantage—all

elements that build upon adrenaline-pumping pursuit. These men are attempting to take down a

ferocious animal. Their success or failure, without a doubt, would be recorded. Four of them

engage the bear where the other two agreed beforehand not to shoot just in case an emergency

ensued. The four hit the bear, but “the balls pass through the bulk of the lungs, in an instant this

monster,”264 Lewis continues, “ran at them with an open mouth, the two who had reserved their

fires discharged their pieces at him as he came towards them, boath [sic] of them struck him, one

263 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 130-131.

264 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 130-131.

156

only slightly and the other fortunately broke his shoulder” yet still the bear, undaunted, “only

retarded his motion for a moment only.”265 Such an account highlights the strength of the bear

countering the men’s skill, prowess, and the overall dependability of the men’s firearms. The

hunters’ lives are now at stake.

The hunt quickly becomes a tangible conflict between man and beast, as Lewis

proclaims, “the men unable to reload their guns took to flight, the bear pursued and nearly

overtaken [overtook] them before they reached the river. Two of the party betook themselves to a

canoe and the others separated and concealed themselves among the willows.”266 As the bear

approaches nearer, the men quickly, “reload their pieces, each discharged his piece at him as they

have an opportunity they struck him several times again but the guns served only to direct the

bear to them.”267 As men’s lives hang in a dangerous balance, it is their skills with the gun that

become the determining factor. But ironically, the sounds and smoke from their guns cause the

bear to identify their vulnerable location. In such a dire situation, those that can steady their

nerves, aim, and fire in a more composed manner and have more of a chance to hit the bear with

a fatal shot. Again, the very tools that could deliver them from death become the very tools that

betray their position—accuracy becomes crucial, and shooting skill is placed against the bears’

natural characteristics. This enthralling hunt becomes a symbolic image of a greater conflict

which will decide which species is able to conquer the other—again, man and beast are pitted

against each other, a conflict in which the American public of nineteenth-century develops more

265 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 131.

266 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 131. 267 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 131.

157

of a fascination and also more of a cultural taste for through literary narrative.268 As the episode

unfolds, on equal grounds, the bear charges after the men give away their position. Also, Lewis

refers to the bear with a personal pronoun, “him,” creating a sense of the equal status of the bear

to his contenders—the men in the hunting party. The bear then pursues two of the men, “so close

that they were obliged to throw aside their guns and pouches and throw themselves into the river

atho’ the bank was nearly twenty feet perpendicular.”269 In such a cinematic action sequence, “so

enraged was this animal that he plunged into the river only a few feet behind the second man he

had compelled to take refuge in the water.”270 As the bear drops twenty feet into the river and

lands only a few feet from another man, that man dives into the water and swims away from the

bear. Then, within this heroic sequence, “one of those who remained on shore shot him through

the head and finally killed him,” ending the pursuit and the story that smacks of western dime

novels told in a later time.271 Finally, they, “took him [the bear] on shore and butchered him

when they found eight balls had passed through him in different directions.”272 A bear, having

been shot seven times, required the eighth bullet precisely placed through his skull to be stopped.

In later reflecting upon the experience, Lewis asserts, “These bears being so hard to die rather

268 This will be explored heavily in the next chapter with James Fenimore Cooper’s

Leatherstocking Tales (1823-1841), as the character of Nathaniel Bumppo, Daniel Boone, and Davey Crocket emerge as quintessential American frontier heroes, all have significant run-ins with ferocious wildlife and prove their skill and masculinity with such conflicts.

269 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 131. 270 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 131. 271 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 131.

272 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 131.

158

intimidates us all. I must confess that I do not like the gentleman and had rather fight two Indians

than one bear.”273 Lewis here, again, offers an appellation to the bear that places it on equal

ground to a man, addressing it as a “gentleman.” Furthermore, Lewis understands that in order to

take down a bear, “There is no other chance to conquer them by a single shot but by shooting

them through the brains, and this becomes difficult in consequence of the two large muscles

which cover the sides of the forehead and the sharp projection of the center of the frontal bone,

which is also a pretty good thickness.”274 The shot would have to be accurate. The bear’s

genetics create an even more difficult shot as both bone and muscles have been developed to the

point that they protrude, protecting Lewis’s proclaimed kill shot, the brain. Ultimately, the

excursion’s discussion of the bear attack places a central focus on man versus beast and

furthermore, such a pursuit and perspective pits beasts against man’s gun—the most acclaimed

technological device for delivering death. This proto-Darwinian approach couples man and gun

in a significant manner and publicizes firearms in such a way that man living in the frontier (or

conquering the frontier) must own and operate a gun in a skillful level in order to survive and be

placed at the forefront of the most dominant species. In this way gun ownership becomes

symbolic of man maintaining the highest place on the food chain. No doubt, ego also becomes a

fundamental aspect to this claim and to access this dominant role, man must have a gun at his

side.

273 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 129.

264 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 130.

159

In following the theme of man versus nature, the narrative continues to add to the theme

of conquering nature. Just as the party escapes the bear attack, more “horror,” and “upmost

trepidation” occurs to others of the party as a pirogue was upset and emptied much of their

provisions, into the water. Just after fighting off a bear, the Corps suffers more conflicts with

nature as many of the articles in the boat that were “indispensably necessary to further the views,

or insure [sic] success of the enterprise” were damaged or lost.275 Ultimately, the narrative

addresses the raw struggle of man in nature and draws from its simplicity the finality of its

success or ultimate failure.276 The Corps consistently addressed anxieties over the possible

failure of their voyage. Yet, what remains, as a simple answer to these apprehensions caused by

bear attacks, Native conflicts, and hunger is their gun. It is the gun that allows the Expedition’s

deliverance from most of their adversarial environments and agents.

Rousseau in the American Frontier

Lewis’ daring accounts fill the reader with wonder, excitement, and promise. Yet another

objective Lewis maintained throughout the journey was scientific discovery, particularly

cataloging new species of flora and fauna—hunting in the name of science. One of Lewis’ goals

was to collect a pronghorn. He meticulously maps out the hunt in his journal. Each time he

approaches within three miles of the herd, they bolt. Lewis then figures ways in which he could

outsmart the fastest animal he has seen on the prairie. Spending the rest of the day, eager to get a

275 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 131. 276 Such a simplistic conflict becomes quickly coopted into American definitions of masculinity.

Something that James Fenimore Cooper instills in his protagonist Natty Bumppo as Natty saves women from a panther attack.

160

specimen to bring back to President Jefferson, Lewis crouches behind a shallow ridge and

accidentally spooks the herd. Though he is unsuccessful in obtaining his specimen, he continues

with his hunting story, “I beheld the rapidity of their flight before me […] it appeared reather

[sic] the rappid [sic] flight of birds than the motion of quadrupeds. I think I can safely venture to

ascertion [sic] that this speed of this animal is equal if not superior to that of the finest blood

courser.”277 As Lewis narrates the account of such a majestic animal getting away, it is not the

simplistic duality of man versus nature that is found within Lewis rhetoric but it is the splendor

of nature and the desire to capture and account for such splendor. Such an approach is often

referred to as “Rousseauian,” meaning that men glean virtue, empathy, and deeper understanding

of the world through nature.278 Lewis, here, values the hunt not because he had to prove man’s

status over nature but because he perceived the beauty and majesty of the wildlife itself. As

Lewis appreciates the splendor of the herd’s movement and the poetic superiority of the herd's

movement. Though Lewis fails, this time, to capture the animal for scientific cataloging, he

strives to capture the essence of the magnificent animal in words. Lewis’s account reflects the

Rousseauian ideology of mankind gaining knowledge and virtue through the observation of

nature. In this romantically scientific manner, Lewis promotes hunting as virtuous. Although he

did not capture a pronghorn, he values the exhilarating experience of the hunt.

In differing from such an impetus for hunting, Lewis and other participants of the crew

regarded the hunt as a necessity to fill starving bellies. Yet, Lewis’ aforementioned account

277 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 81-82. 278 Daniel Herman, Hunting and the American Imagination (Washington: Smithsonian Institution

Press 2001) 83.

161

addresses spotting, tracking, and ambushing the magnificent pronghorn. Lewis also idolizes the

stealthy maneuvers and poetic movement of the pronghorn, relating to the hunting experience in

a Rousseauian manner. Also, aside from the simple utilitarian approach, filling empty stomachs,

or the Rousseauian approach, finding virtue and knowledge in observing nature, Lewis and his

crew esteemed hunting as a means of proving one’s self, placing value on a steady trigger finger

outsmarting dangerous game—the proto-Darwinian perception. The Corps exemplified and

promoted many nuanced perceptions of hunting, changing American understandings of the sport.

Both Captain John Smith and Lewis record the numbers of wild game killed, considering

it useful to quantify or record the number of the game killed. Such strategies lead their readers to

reflect on the plethora of game within the territory—implicitly making an argument for the

prosperity inherent in the explored land. The number of animals becomes propaganda for

American colonialism and Manifest Destiny. Lewis’ records affirm the brilliant political

acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase, often describing a hunt with the specific numbers,

assessing land value through fauna. Yet, differing greatly from Captain John Smith, Lewis

positions himself with humane virtue, acting as a steward for nature as he collects, categorizes,

and studies specimens. Then, on the other hand, Lewis also portrays the hunter in a different

light as he heroically pits his men against a bear attack, or stealthily tracks and “gets the jump

on” the fastest animal on the American prairie. Lewis and Clark’s expedition asserts the hunt

with more flair and appeal. The crew become expert hunters and reflect a skill that is both

heroically masculine on one hand and virtuously humane cultivating thoughtful scientific interest

in the fauna on the other.

162

Native cultures continue to influence the Corps and, in turn, influenced the perspectives

of many Americans, as many of these soldiers-turned-explorers become heroic figures in the

public eye. These figures brave bear attacks, Native ambushes, and rely upon hunting for

sustenance. Furthermore, Lewis views hunting through a heroic lens and in turn American public

opinion of hunting began to shift as Americans read of the Corps’ journey. The Corps promotes

hunting in two very different frames of thought: the Corps advance the popularization of guns

and their role found in hunting, issuing hunting as sport acceptable for Americans.

The Expedition’s Images of the Gun

Figure 4.3. Captain Lewis and Clark holding a Council with the Indians

Journals and other manuscripts regarding the Expedition also mark a strong

transformation of gun imagery. In 1810, Patrick Gass, the first of the Corps to publish his

163

journal, depicts an image of Lewis and Clark and members of the Corps holding council with the

Natives (see fig. 4.3).279 These iconic figures sport European fashion and bring civilization

among the territories, each furnished with a European top hat or a militaristic bicorn hat,

captain’s uniform, and each equipped with an overcoat with buttons and coattails. Also, lounging

in the foreground is a member of the expedition, resting the butt of his rifle on the ground with

the tip of the barrel pointing skyward. As noted earlier, the gun becomes an integral part of the

expedition’s “council” and overall diplomatic relations with the Natives. Additionally, this early

image represents the expedition in terms of a European taming of the wilderness, a “pilgrim’s

progress” replete in its European fashion equipped with European firepower. This image

promotes views similar to those established in Captain John Smith’s narrative. Note, the natives

do not have guns. They enter the council circle with the bow and the peace pipe, whereas, Lewis

and Clark enter the council with a hand of friendship (and ultimately a promise of trade)

extended and a rifle at rest looming in the foreground, reaffirming the similar type of “gun-boat

diplomacy” established within the narratives of Captain John Smith. Guns are present in the

image but not active, yet maintain a preeminence.

As the accounts of Lewis and Clark circulate, the gun later becomes transformed as its

image becomes enhanced with its connections to Native culture. These images reconstruct

American ideals, culture, and overall identity as it relates to its gun culture. As earlier noted, the

Corps focuses on practicality rather than pomp. They gained influence from Native populations

that lead to their use of moccasins, hunting shirts, and other clothing made with skins. Through

279 Stephen D. Beckham, et al. The Literature of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: A Bibliography

and Essays. (Portland, Or: Lewis & Clark College 2003).

164

these changes, the gun culture they promoted no longer becomes an entity that reaffirms a

Eurocentric attitude of superiority (as depicted in Figure 4.3); rather it affirms an adaptation and

adopting of both Native culture (or the American perception of what Native cultures are) and

European cultures, as Lewis and Clark wield their guns not in the European fashion but as part of

an American Frontier hero’s ensemble. In stark contrast to Patrick Gass’s aforementioned

depiction (fig. 4.3) another image, published by William Strickland in 1816 depicts Meriwether

Lewis donning a head-dress, buckskin, a tippet (a sash made from otter and ermine skins), and—

of course, a powder-horn and long-barrel rifle that is almost up to Lewis’s armpit (see fig.

4.4).280 Just as Mary Rowlandson culturally becomes more and more a part of the Native

community, so does the Lewis and Clark expedition. Men realize that the boots issued originally

are not conducive to their environment; therefore, they adopt moccasins, buckskins, and hunting

shirts. Their uniforms (particularly their coats) go into packs and only come out on rare

ceremonial occasions. The crew adapted into a peculiar combination of European and Native

dress which places the gun into a new American fashion.

280 Stephen D. Beckham, et al. The Literature of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: A Bibliography

and Essays. (Portland, Or: Lewis & Clark College 2003).

165

Figure 4.4. Meriwether Lewis Esq. in Native Regalia

In artistic representations of “The Expedition” the gun became placed within this new

environment and became coupled with the new wardrobe which distinctly fashioned a new

identity—one that Euro-Americans could assert, adopt, and appropriate as their own. Restyling

of the gun, as filtered through Native culture, crafts a newly authoritative stance for the gun.

Rather than asserting the gun in a Eurocentric fashion, the gun takes upon itself a new image.

Different from the European, it is repurposed in such a way that the frontiersman and his gun

166

begins to contribute to a “gallery of stock figures and melded them into a composite image of the

American hero” since the late 1700s.281 The new nation repurposed or refashioned the European-

made gun through buckskin, leather straps, carvings of buffalo or fur trades, or even natives on

the butt-stock. It is the Lewis and Clark expedition that began to mix with the native culture to

create the buckskin—or even leather-stocking-wearing hero. It is within the Lewis and Clark

Expedition that a significant pivot into creating the native-like frontier hero occurs. Through

such fashions the European gun becomes reintroduced into the frontier—refashioned to the ways

in which Euro-Americans wish to envision the new American hero.

Defense

For most of the journey the Corps was able to avoid firing any shots with the intent to kill

any Natives. After Lewis and Clark separated to explore the river systems on their way back to

the east, Lewis’ group encountered a small Blackfoot war party. One morning on July 27th 1806,

J. Fields—who was standing guard—carelessly left his gun further than an arm’s reach. Nine

young Natives stealthily take his and other’s guns. As one was taking Drewyer’s, Lewis wakes

up, instinctively reaches for his own rifle only to find it had also been stolen. Lewis goes for his

second firearm, his pistol, as Fields tries to retrieve his gun from a Native who will not let it go.

Fields stabs the Native in the heart and gets possession of his gun. The stabbed Native “ran 15

steps and fell dead.”282 Lewis then pursues the Native, who has his gun, and yells at him to lay it

281 Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier,

1600-1800. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2000) 311. 282 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Gary E. Moulton. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An

American Epic of Discovery. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 2003) 41.

167

down. As the Native is in the process of placing the gun on the ground, Drewyer raises his gun

to shoot the Native. Lewis forbids Drewyer from shooting as, according to Lewis, “he [the

Native] did not appear to be about to make any resistance or commit any offensive act, he

dropped the gun and walked off slowly.”283 The Native’s life was spared. The other Natives on

their way out of the Corps’ camp drive off the horses. Lewis follows two into a bluff and

exclaims, “I would shoot them if they did not give me my horse and raised my gun.”284 As one

of them jumps behind a rock, the other armed with an old British musket turns around and

“stoped [sic] at the distance of 30 steps from me and I shot him through the belly, he fell to his

knees and on his wright [sic] elbow […] raised himself up and fired at me.”285 The bullet flies

over Lewis’ head so close that he feels the wind from it. Then, the shot Native crawls behind a

rock. Needing to reload his pistol, Lewis returns to the Camp to get his shot-pouch. He realizes

that rushing at the Natives without a loaded weapon would be futile. The Corps then rounds up

all horses they can find, as well as the captured Natives. The one that lay dead has the peace

medal that the Corps given him the night before, around his neck, offering a grave sense of irony.

They take all the firearms from the Natives and burn their bows and arrows. The Corps assume

that the Blackfeet will pursue them once the tribe hears of the encounter and travel until two in

the morning the next day.286

283 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 414. 284 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 414. 285 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 414. 286 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 416.

168

This incident foreshadows future encounters between the whites and the Natives and

highlights important gun values such as self-defense and vigilance. As the Corps make it out

safely, firearms are accented at the end of their journey as frontier weapons necessary for

defense. These unfortunate events depict the Natives in an untrusting manner. When the Corps’

lack the discipline at the end of their journey to stand guard in the manner Captain Lewis and

Clark order, young men from the tribe that wished to gain a name for themselves find an

opportunity. This event serves to impress upon the readership the importance of always being

ready and alert and having a secondary firearm at the ready. Though the Corps must quickly put

distance between themselves and the possibly pursuing tribe, the firearms and knife that the

Corps did have on hand prove successful—none of the Corps were lost in the fight and they were

able to drive off the raid, get their horses, and defend the camp. But this event also serves to trace

a significant evolution of the gun’s importance. Where guns were once considered ineffective

against the bow and arrow in Cabeza de Vaca’s account, they are now regarded as one of the

most prized possessions in the frontier. Where the militia was once a subject of scoff ridicule and

implicit criticism in Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative, the skillfulness of the Corps

redeems the gun in American imagery. Lewis also practices discretion in asserting that it is

immoral to shoot someone who is not a threat. Such practices become central characteristics of

the fictional hero, Natty Bumppo.

Gun Accidents

As the Expedition influenced public acceptance concerning hunting, accounts also serve

to showcase some of the first shooting accidents. Lewis illustrates one such accidental shooting

169

in his journal as the Corps is hunting elk. Lewis reports how he shoots and kills one elk and

wounds another. Lewis and Cruzatte track the elk down into the willows. Lewis gets the

wounded elk in his sights and is just about to fire when, “a ball struck my left thye about an inch

below my hip joint, missing the bone it passed through the left thye and cut the thickness of the

bullet across the hinder part of the right thye; the stroke was very severe.”287 The bullet cuts

through his flesh and misses the bone and the femoral artery. Had these vital areas had been

damaged, Lewis would not have healed as quickly. In such a case the outcome of the Corps of

Discovery may have differed greatly. In pain, he calls out to Cruzatte but gets no answer. Lewis

then “instantly supposed that Cruzatte had shot me in mistake for an Elk as I was dressed in

brown leather and he cannot see very well.”288 Partially concealed in the willows and wearing

buckskin, he assumes that he has been shot accidentally. Yet after calling out to Cruzatte so

loudly and discerning that the shot “did not appear to be more than 40 paces from me.”289 Lewis

then assumes that he is surrounded by “Indians […] concealed in the bushes.”290 He then

retreats, limping toward the pirogue as he called out for Cruzatte to retreat as well. Lewis

continues, “I prepared myself with a pistol, my rifle and air-gun.”291 Startled by the possibility

of an ambush, he turns to three different firearms as the first line of defense and skillfully knows

a retreat by boat will “sell my life as deerly [sic] as possible.”292 It is in the boat that he waits, “in

287 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422.

288 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422. 289 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422. 290 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422. 291 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422.

170

this state of anxiety and suspense” for “about 20 minutes.”293 Then the rest of the party returns

with Cruzatte accompanying them. Cruzatte confesses “in a state of alarm” that there “were no

indians [sic]” and “that if he shot me it was not his intention, that he shot an Elk in the willows

after he left or separated from me.”294 As to Lewis’s shouts of warning, Cruzatte claimed, “he

did not hear me when I called to him so frequently which he absolutely denied.”295 Sargent Gass

pulls out the lead ball from Lewis’s thigh which Lewis estimates to be the size of the bullet

matching the caliber of Cruzatte’s gun. Lewis later asserts, “he had shot me” and “was anxious to

conceal his knowledge of having done so.”296 He confirms Cruzatte, with poor sight, denied

hearing any indication of Lewis shouting. Rather than rush to Lewis’s aid, Cruzatte runs away

from his mistake to join the crew. The accident left Lewis with a high fever and pain to the

extent that he must turn the responsibility of journaling to Captain Clark. Since the incident

could have been tragic for the expedition it seems to merit considerable criticism, yet Meriwether

in a matter-of-fact manner states the facts and asserts that the journey must continue. Here the

readers have just witnessed the dependence the Corps has upon guns and are also introduced to

the dangers inherent in their misuse as well as the severe consequences of these mistakes.

Captain Lewis could have been seriously wounded or killed in the first expedition sanctioned by

the newly formed government, which could have challenged, even more, the budding gun culture

292 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422.

293 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422. 294 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422. 295 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 422. 296 The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery 423.

171

in America. Yet, Lewis’s own account takes the mistake in stride and does not pontificate upon

the event any more throughout his journal. What is even more intriguing is that the

governmentally sanctioned account written by Nicholas Biddle and Paul Allen, published in

1814, completely overlooks this significant accident. Perhaps to save face for Pierre Cruzatte and

to provide a more honorable account in favor more of the heroic endeavors of the Expedition, the

authors chose to omit the blunder from the official record.

There are other reported incidents of accidental shootings. One such incident occurs at

the beginning of the journey. Lewis is familiarizing himself with the air-gun, and Mr. Blaze

Cenas becomes interested in the firearm, asks to hold the weapon and accidentally shoots a

woman. Lewis states,

Mr. Blaze Cenas, being unacquainted with the management of the gun, suffered her to

discharge herself accidentally. The ball passed through the hat of a woman about 40

yards distant, cutting her temple about fourth of the diameter of the ball. She fell instantly

and blood gushing from her temple, we were in the greatest consternation and supposed

she was dead.297

Just out of Mr. Cenas’ curiosity, he asks to shoot the gun. Meriwether Lewis obliges. Yet

because Cenas was unfamiliar with how the mechanisms work, he shot an innocent passerby.

Then Lewis in an almost dumbfounding manner reports, “But in a minute she revived, to our

inexpressible satisfaction, and by the examination we found the wound by no means mortal or

even dangerous; called the hands aboard and proceeded to a ripple of McKee’s rock.”298 Yet, the

297 qtd in. Richard H. Dillon, Meriwether Lewis: A Biography. (New York: Coward-McCann

1965) 59. 298 qtd in. Richard H. Dillon, Meriwether Lewis: A Biography 59.

172

curious expression of the accident is that there is no more thought given to the matter. Here, the

life of a simple passerby is placed in jeopardy because of Mr. Cena's unfamiliarity with the

weapon and Lewis’ failure to recognize his guest’s ineptitude. The entry simply ends, remarking

that the wound was not “even dangerous,”299 and does not even end the sentence there but

continues in a different vein, “called the hands aboard and proceeded to a ripple of McKee’s

rock.”300 Before the woman’s head-wound even clots, Lewis and the crew make their way back

to the river, giving an air of disregard to the incident without any further comment. The popular

historian Stephen Ambrose writes in his Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas

Jefferson and the Opening of the American West, that “Never again did he [Meriwether Lewis]

pass the air gun around when it was pumped up and loaded;”301 Nonetheless, Lewis comes off as

rather indifferent to the accident. Perhaps this early incident influenced him to be more

understanding of Pierre Cruzatte’s negligence in the later accident. In both scenarios the ending

could have been much worse. And in both incidents the participants apparently fail to take

responsibility and move on with minimal consideration of the possible seriousness of such

carelessness. As we will later see in the next chapter, James Fenimore Cooper provides

additional insight and political commentary on such melancholy events.

Gun Incidents

299 qtd in. Richard H. Dillon, Meriwether Lewis: A Biography 59. 300 qtd in. Richard H. Dillon, Meriwether Lewis: A Biography 59. 301 Stephen E. Ambrose, Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the

Opening of the American West. (New York: Simon & Schuster 1996) 108.

173

Yet another significant misuse of firearms occurs a few years after the completion of the

journey. In 1809, Lewis is found bleeding over his buffalo skin blanket in an inn called Grinder’s

Stand—located southwest of Nashville, Tennessee. He had been shot in his head—as part of his

skull was missing and there was another shot below the breast. Miss Grinder—who provides

many contradictory accounts which complicate the event—heard the two shots and finds

Meriwether still alive. She calls for Lewis’s servant and according to James Neely’s letter to

Thomas Jefferson, Lewis says as he is dying, “I have done the business my good Servant give

me Some water.”302 James Neely, Thomas Jefferson, and William Clark all mourn the loss of

their friend and accept the death as suicide—even though the Lewis family contests that it was

murder. Nonetheless, the newspapers publish the correspondence of those that state suicide as

the factor, often acknowledging Lewis’s depressive state describing him as “deranged in

mind.”303 The letter from James Neely to Thomas Jefferson begins, “It is with extreme pain that I

have to inform you of the death of his Excellency Meriwether Lewis […] and I am Sorry to Say

by Suicide.”304 The letter was published in Tennessee’s The Democratic Clarion nine days after

Lewis died. Whether influenced by depression, malaria, or post-traumatic stress of the

Expedition,305 this morose incident provides the public with a remarkable bookend to the

302 James Neely to Thomas Jefferson, Nashville Tennessee 18 October 1809. Founders Online.

National Historical Publications and Records Commission. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-01-02-0478#D26110ID8. Accessed 26 March 2019.

303 James Neely to Thomas Jefferson, Nashville Tennessee 18 October 1809. Founders Online. National Historical Publications and Records Commission. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-01-02-0478#D26110ID8. Accessed 26 March 2019.

304 James Neely to Thomas Jefferson, Nashville Tennessee 18 October 1809.

174

episodic journey. Three years after his return from the Expedition, placing his life in peril on

behalf of the United States, Meriwether Lewis’s final gun-narrative involves him pressing one of

his pistols against his head and the other against his heart and pulling both triggers. Though the

news coverage never states the occurrence this explicitly, the underlying message to the public

that read of his adventures hunting, shooting bear, astounding Natives with his firearms,

promoting peace through the promise of gun trade, and protecting his provisions and life with

guns, perceive a more sobering side of gun use. Lewis leaves his contemporaries in a state of

uncomfortable ambiguity. Many unanswered questions are often coupled with suicide, for

instance, if he did not have his pistol would he have died. Such questions obscure the simplistic

narratives of guns in the frontier and—for a moment—the public may question these areas of

gun misuse. Yet as disturbing as the topic of suicide is and as unsettling as the ambiguity of the

story becomes, much of the public returns to the simplistic and straightforward narratives

aforementioned and overlook the severe issues of misuse that arise in gun narratives. Just as

Meriwether Lewis, himself, overlooked or minimalized the accident with the air gun and even

undermined the severity of the gun accident to which he himself becomes a victim and just as the

official governmentally sanctioned history omitted Lewis’ air gun accident, elk shooting

accident, and his own suicide, the frontier gun becomes romanticized and is established as a

necessity in heroic efforts of protection, sustenance, demonstrations of power and authority. The

more sobering side of gun misuse is marginalized until the gun narratives of James Fenimore

Cooper come to fruition.

305 These are the most common theories that explain Meriwether Lewis’s suicide, many of these

theories are address in Thomas Danisi, Uncovering the Truth about Meriwether Lewis. (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books 2012).

175

CHAPTER 5

“LE LONGUE CARABINE:” NATIONALISM AND JAMES FENIMORE COOPER’S

NATHANIEL BUMPPO

Just as previously explored literary writers used the gun to fulfill political objectives, later

authors continued in that same vein, presenting the gun itself as ultimately American. Captain

John G. W. Dillin’s history, The Kentucky Rifle (1924), the gun is portrayed as embodying

American values and becomes a symbol for America itself. In the dedication he writes:

From a flat bar of soft iron, hand forged into a gun barrel; laboriously bored and rifled

with crude tools; fitted with a stock hewn from a maple tree in the neighboring forest;

[…] an unknown smith, in a shop long since silent, fashioned a rifle which changed the

whole course of world history; made possible the settlement of a continent; and

ultimately freed our country of foreign domination. Light in weight; graceful in line;

economical in consumption of powder and lead; fatally precise; distinctly American; it

sprang into immediate popularity; and for a hundred years was a model often slightly

varied but never radically changed.306

In this description, one cannot help but perceive the patriotic overtones of this “distinctly

American” rifle. The “home-grown” rifle, having a “stock hewn from a maple tree in a

neighboring forest,” is curiously made from the frontier itself. Dillin, here, emphasizes the act of

“reordering” or “reorganizing” the raw material of the maple from the forest into a tool that, in

turn, serves to civilize the very frontier from which it was made, “making possible the settlement

306 John G.W. Dillin, The Kentucky Rifle 5th ed. (York, Pennsylvania: George Shumway 1967) xi.

176

of a continent.” The Kentucky rifle is coupled with the industrious character professed in the

American settler.307 In creating Dillin’s Kentucky rifle one turns a “neighboring” maple into the

tool that would take part in the actual and—just as significantly—mythical, conquering of the

American frontier.

Elements of Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis are found in the account of The

Kentucky Rifle, meaning, the body politic turns to the fringe or outskirts of the nation for its

defining characteristics. Within this framework, those negotiating American wilderness/frontier

take on legendary roles and contribute to the nationalistic definition of “American character.”

Note that Dillin’s industrial fashioning of the barrel is made “laboriously” by “unknown” skilled

hands, praising the work of a common gunsmith that, through Dillin’s sense of nostalgia, not

only fashioned gun barrels but also aided in fashioning American ideals. The ideals and events

that Dillin references in conjunction with the Kentucky rifle are democracy built by opposing a

tyrannical force and freeing “our country of foreign domination” and Manifest Destiny, which

made “possible the settlement of a continent.” These standards become intricately conflated or

even synonymous with the rifle as if the unknown gunsmith forges these ideals into the metal of

the gun at the time of its fabrication. As Dillin adjoins these ideals and events with the Kentucky

rifle, the rifle is endowed symbolic value as the harbinger of democracy, Manifest Destiny the

307 David Nye, America as Second Creation: Technology and Narratives of New Beginnings.

(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004). This study addresses ways in which Americans restructure their past through technology and myth. Nye asserts the myths of the axe, the log cabin, and the mill, as a proclaimed identifiers of the self-made man. These tools became mythologized in order to place in industry within “God’s country.” My study asserts the gun as among these items Nye chose. The gun, however, promotes differing literary tropes, as established by the authors this study visits. These authors stage the gun as a means of safety, difference, and status for political purposes.

177

revolutionary war, and westward expansion. Dillin captures the essence of nostalgia, which is

invested in this object. The Kentucky rifle, thus, becomes much more than a tool as the respected

political actions that have contributed to American characteristics are also inherent in its firing,

exhibition, and pageantry. Through these exaggerated claims, Dillin pairs American democracy,

nationalistic pride, American war heroes, and nostalgia for unnamed common frontier settlers

with the Kentucky rifle.

The gun, much like the colonies, comes from “crude” beginnings; as the stock comes

from the wilderness; and the barrel is painstakingly crafted, much like democracy. Dillin’s

depiction of the construction of the Kentucky rifle easily becomes conflated with constitutional

rights “forged” by founding fathers, and also serves to defend those rights that free America from

“foreign” oppression. Nostalgic narratives in American ballads, historical accounts, and—

overall—literature have continued to show the Kentucky rifle as most “distinctly American.” As

accounts regarding the Kentucky rifle accumulate, the gun is coupled with aspects of American

nationalism, xenophobia, wisdom of the American frontier, and the virtues of its citizenry that

allow for democracy to prevail. Although Dillin’s text applauds the Kentucky rifle, he coupls its

praise with aspects such as xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and jingoistic nationalism.

Additionally, Dillin reveals other significant aspects of the rifle’s political and cultural

associations. Much like the newly heralded political system, the rifle is practical, economical and

has rapidly gained popularity and approval from the American citizenry. It is difficult to

distinguish the exact time where Dillin is discussing the rifle or America’s foundational

democratic principles as, “it for a hundred years was a model slightly varied but never radically

changed” (emphasis added). Similarly, the political system forged by American forefathers,

178

aside from its few ratifications and alterations (amendments), has given the world a democracy

founded upon secure principles. Here, Dillin that asserts the Kentucky rifle, which has “never

radically changed” (and is much like many citizens’ perspectives of American democracy) has

also “changed the course of world history.” In essence, Dillin’s America and the Kentucky rifle

become exemplary political system and weapon.

Yet, Dillin is but one of the many authors who tout the significance of the Kentucky rifle

as an American symbol. In fact, there are several often-overlooked American textual

representations which define the Kentucky rifle in a similar fashion. Roughly one hundred years

prior to Dillin’s text, Samuel Woodworth wrote a ballad called The Hunters of Kentucky (1821),

which also pays homage to the American weapon of the frontier. The song represented Andrew

Jackson as a national hero along with America’s celebrated “sharp-shooters,” all armed with the

Kentucky rifle. The song was widely used along with Jackson’s 1824 and 1828 presidential

campaign trails. In this song these sharpshooters fight on both western and eastern frontiers,

against and the British (“John Bull”). They protect the nation, its citizens’ property, as well as

the virtue of American women (safeguarding “girls and cotton bags”). Jackson and his men are

alert and attentive as they, with their Kentucky rifles, advance with the speed of horses and

attack with the ferocity of alligators.

But Jackson was wide awake, and wasn’t scared of trifles,

For well he knew what aim we take with our Kentucky rifles;

So he led us down to Cyprus swamp, the ground was low and mucky,

There stood John Bull in martial pomp, and here was old Kentucky,

179

A bank was raised to hide our breast, not that we thought of dying,

But then we always like to rest unless the game is flying;

Behind it stood our little force, none wished it to be greater,

For everyman was half a horse and half an alligator.308

Figure 5.1. Sheet Music of The Hunters of Kentucky arranged by William Blondell

The ballad’s use of the first-person plural includes both the singers and the audience within the

308 Samuel Woodsworth, “The Hunters of Kentucky or The Battle of New Orleans and Half Horse

or Half Alligator” ed. William McCarty The American National Song Book: Songs, Odes, and Other Poems on National Subjects. (Philadelphia: Mm. McCarty 1842).

180

gun-toting throng. They are the “Hunters of Kentucky,” and act under the direction of Jackson.

The second verse describes how every man waited for the British to be near enough until “we

thought it time to stop them” fighting and they were proud to attest to how quickly the

“Kentuckians drop’em.” The song asserts an air of prowess, oneness with and knowledge of the

environment, and the expertise of a small band of soldiers pitted against the well-trained British

army. The ballad most significantly celebrates expertise with the Kentucky rifle and the lauded,

“typical,” American style of warfare. Gun, man, and methods of war are radically differentiated

from those of the British. Americans are economical, connected with the environment and

discerningly accurate, as are the Kentucky rifles.

In the early 1800s, the Kentucky rifle was deemed a superior weapon to the musket.

Different from the musket, its rifled or grooved barrel would spin the bullet which in turn

allowed for it to cut the air with a more precise trajectory. The gun was known for its

proficiency, economy, and practicality. Rifle shooting acquired sharpened senses and keen

judgment to discern the favorable moment to shoot. The faster reloading time also became

attractive to the colonial. But for many of the British and European, soldiers were outfitted with

the less costly European smoothbore musket, as bulk manufacturing and distribution made it an

easier choice for arming the troops. The costly process for grooving (rifling) the inside of the

barrel as found in the Kentucky rifle was deemed unnecessary. Furthermore, many Europeans

believed the larger caliber bullet (most smoothbores averaged .65 of an inch where others

achieved .75 up to .80 of an inch) would cause more damage. For large European troops,

generals favored the possibly greater ballistic damage of the smoothbore as well as its rapid

181

production.309 In contrast, the Kentucky rifle used about a third smaller caliber, averaging .45 to

.50 of an inch.310 The smaller caliber required less powder (about the size of a woman’s

thimble)311 and also the smaller mass allowed the bullet to achieve greater velocity, increasing

range and accuracy. The lighter weight allowed the shooters to carry more bullets, be more agile

on the battlefield, expend less powder, and achieve three times the velocity of the European

musket. Economy, especially in the American frontier, was essential. It was never certain when

the shooter or hunter could be resupplied.

Figure 5.2. Sketches of the Kentucky Rifle (1977) 312

309 This is not to insinuate that the American troops did not use the European musket, they did.

However, the American military began to employ a few snipers or sharp shooters that often owned their Kentucky rifle.

310 American Rifle a Biography. (New York: Bantam Dell 2008) 18. 311 George Hanger, qtd. in American Riflemen, “never put more powder than is contained in a

woman’s thimble.” 18.

182

While European armies employed the use of the cheaply produced muskets that could

throw massive volleys of lead at a sizable opposing force, the American settlers, trappers,

hunters, and militiamen became more devoted to the Kentucky rifle, especially as the public

literary sphere began to tout its success.

Also since the rifle and its accompanying equipment were much lighter, many gun

makers began to experiment by stretching the barrel, extending the range and accuracy of the

weapon.313 As civilization moved westward with more distant lines of sight on the plains, such

improvements on range and accuracy became paramount, pushing the use of the weapon

westward and pushing the frontier westward as well. Just as Dillin expressed, the rifle made

“possible the settlement of a continent.” The Kentucky rifle not only came to symbolize the

American Revolution but also Manifest Destiny, useful in eradicating both foreign interests and

American Natives. This dual role is perhaps best seen in the nostalgic literature of this period and

perhaps best reflected in the works of James Fenimore Cooper where the political currency of the

Kentucky rifle is clearly showcased.

The Kentucky Rifle: Cooper’s Heroic Boon

Of James Fenimore Cooper’s many literary accomplishments deserving of consideration

is his ability to introduce the Kentucky rifle within the American literary sphere by using it

symbolically to stress themes of American exceptionalism, nostalgia, melancholy, and loss.

Cooper “presents arms” as a significant political agent for the American public and establishes

312 Figure 5.2 Edith G. Cooper, The Kentucky Rifle and Me. 1st ed. (Cooper 1977). 313 Edith G. Cooper, The Kentucky Rifle and Me. 1st ed. (Cooper 1977).

183

the Kentucky rifle as the image of the American gun, accompanied with values he writes into its

mythos. In his political texts, The American Democrat and his well-known Leatherstocking saga,

Cooper mythologizes the American gun and in many ways fashions it into concepts of American

culture. The role that Cooper plays in the literary realm is most significant in assisting in the

inauguration and development of the American gun’s association with ideals and its sacrosanct

“gifts.” Before Cooper fully enters the role, an American author, Walter Channing in 1815 issues

a call in the North American Review to promote American culture and establish “a literature of

our own.” Emerson responded with a transparent eye (1836); Thoreau, a cabin and a pond

(1854), Melville, a white whale (1851), and Margaret Fuller answered with The Dial (1840).

Before many of these established authors renowned works, however, Cooper (from 1823 to

1841) offered the report of a Kentucky flintlock long rifle called “kill-deer” as an answer to

Channing’s request. Cooper crafts Hawk-eye’s rifle meticulously, connecting it with American

history, with myth, and—in particular—with Cooper’s idea of “American” ideals, characteristics,

and archetypes, all contrasted with those represented by European muskets and pistols. Cooper,

also, assigns the Kentucky rifle to his particular brand of American nationalism by employing

elements of nostalgia (the combination of melancholy and admiration),314 placing these firearms

in specific American spaces and events, and demonstrating their success and superiority in

arenas of major conflicts exclusive to American history.

314 Wayne Franklin, New World of James Fenimore Cooper. (Chicago and London: The

University of Chicago Press 1982) 3, 12, and 27. Franklin marks the year of 1825 that, “for more than a year the United States experienced a wave of nostalgia—the first ever on these shores—centered in idealized heroic past [… celebrating] a man whose selfless devotion to liberty (and America) was proverbial long before he arrived” (42).

184

Aside from employing firearms upon the historic stages of the French and Indian War,

westward expansion, early settlements, and conflicts with “skulking” Natives, Cooper also places

firearms in relation to the natural environment. He judges the firearm as many judge aesthetics

by gauging how well its form matches its function and how well that knowledge of function is

utilized by its shooter. Such a cohesive relationship of man and gun to their environment

establishes a significant foundation of a character from which Cooper is able to build what he

deems should be American values and ethics. Natty exemplifies gun etiquette, correct customs,

and what American gun culture should be. Cooper juxtaposes Nathaniel’s gallant ideals and

creeds with archaic European dogmas or naïve inferences. In short, as Cooper establishes one of

his most prolific heroes, he is also defining and instituting an American gun culture this is

distinct from European standards and values. Cooper sets these new customs as practical and

more advantageous for the growing new nation. Cooper’s American Kentucky flintlock and the

American frontier establishes national myths, characteristics, and jingoistic ideals.

Cooper’s basic perspectives of American gun culture are most candidly apparent in some

of his more overtly political writings. In his Notions of the Americans (1828), for instance,

Cooper contrasts European gun culture (or lack thereof) with that of American gun’s fascination,

allure, and practical use, noting that the American wilderness is likely the cause of this major

difference. Unlike in Europe, personal gun ownership and skill are deemed as more integral and

crucial for an American’s defense, protection, and sustenance. It is primarily by means of the gun

that one maintains the order and democratic ideals of the nation. Cooper emphasizes that

America’s gun-skilled citizen provides a significant advantage to counter the power and threat of

Europe’s large standing armies. He states,

185

The present Military condition of the United States though far from imposing, is

altogether more respectable than it has ever before been. One who is accustomed to see

kings manœuvre large bodies of household troops as their ordinary playthings, might

smile to be told that the whole army of this great republic contains but 6000 men. […]

But he who estimates the power of this people to injure or to resist by the number of its

regular troops makes a miserable blunder. The habit of discipline and the knowledge of

military details are kept alive by the practice of this small force. They are chiefly

employed on the western frontier, or they garrison, by companies, the posts on the sea-

board. They answer all the objects of preserving order on the one, and the guarding of

public property on the other […] But the vast improvement in the Country, is in the

progress, […] of professional knowledge rigid military educations, tempered by a

morality and deference to the institutions of the land [largely speaking of Europe], that

are elsewhere little cultivated, and which tend to elevate the profession by rendering a

soldier strictly the support and not the master of the Community.315

Here, Cooper touts that American soldiers gain and maintain their “discipline and knowledge of

military details” from the western frontier—where they are actively involved in the practice of

national defense. Furthermore, targeting any possibility of another war with calculating

European kings, he uses a smug jingoistic style of delivery, substantiating that this American

“small force” could easily out-maneuver large bodies of European troops, as they have

developed skill in quickly negotiating this new territory, “keeping alive” their marksmanship and

315 James Fenimore Cooper. Notions of the American: Picked Up by a Traveling Bachelor.

(Albany: State University of New York Press 1991) 201.

186

developing a new form of warfare more congruent with the landscape. Cooper builds upon the

novel design of skulking warfare tactics coupled with the Kentucky rifle in Samuel Woodworth’s

“The Hunters of Kentucky.” In this differentiation of tactics, Cooper also hypothetically places

the American military at odds with an unspecified European army (uniting Americans in

anxieties regarding European threat).316 Yet, in this conflict, Cooper is also pitting democratic

ideals instilled in American soldiers against those employed by Kings. The American army

acquires these democratic ideals upon the frontier as they “answer all the objects of preserving

order on the one, and the guarding of public property on the other” in contrast to the conniving,

“smiling,” tyrants that have little regard for the lives of their troops, perceiving them as “ordinary

playthings.” Cooper’s American army reveres the lives and interests of its people, as opposed to

European armies who are merely the King’s commodities. Cooper also highlights differing ends

and means whereby the American gun performs necessary acts of violence protecting,

“preserving,” defending, and “guarding,” not only property but also the nation's ideals. As

Americans hone their skills with the rifle on the frontier, they are freeing themselves of any fear

and anxiety of being inferior to the Europeans in matters of military might or governmental

influence.

Cooper continues by addressing the economic and practical approach to militaristic duties

of this “small army” of the citizenry of this “great republic:”

It is not probable that the jealousy of Americans will ever admit of the employment of a

very large regular force in time of peace. They prefer trusting to the care of armed

316 The War of 1812 had ended thirteen years prior to when this text was written.

187

Citizens. Though the militia never can be, compared with its numbers, as formidable as

disciplined troops, it is certainly sufficient to maintain order, and to resist invasion.317

Once again, Cooper offers the American jingoism of a new nation whose military might is built

upon a citizenry whose skills in combat are acquired through the labor of settling territory

(gaining and protecting possessions and ensuring order). He maintains this might is equal—if not

superior—to any other countries in the global theatre. Cooper, much like Samuel Woodworth,

promotes a militaristic narrative favoring American quality over European quantity.

In a sense, Cooper’s appeal to the people’s self-protective and defensive sentiment in

addressing real or fictitious threats serves as a means of uniting Americans through such shared

anxieties. In this appeal the American rifle and the skills gained in its use in the wilderness are

positioned as the means to assuage the fears he conjures—pitting American pride and skill found

in even ordinary American citizenry against menacing, jealous, greedy or indifferent European

dictators. The tool that alleviates terror is not cannon-fire; it is the personal firearm, a tool that

can be operated independently by an individual rather than by a collective group. Even though

many military scholars assert that cannons were instrumental in the Revolutionary War and the

War of 1812, many times serving as the deciding factor of the battles’ outcome, here Cooper

mythologizes a tool that any Americans could own and operate. He further commends a

“trusting” government that sees the wisdom in ensuring its citizens the access to firearms:

It is scarcely fair for Governments to refuse to give a population the necessary degree of

intelligence, and then to say it will be dangerous to entrust them with arms. We know that

317 James Fenimore Cooper, Notions of the American: Picked Up by a Traveling Bachelor.

(Albany: State University of New York Press 1991) 201.

188

a child may do mischief with a weapon, but we also know that Nature has decreed that

the time shall come when it may be made highly useful to him. For my part I firmly

believe, that if Europe would put the school book into one hand, the other might be safely

trusted with the musket. It is commonly the interest of the vast majority in every nation to

preserve order; and they will certainly do it best, if the means are freely furnished. When

the interests of the majority are in favour of a change, there is something very like true

wisdom and justice in permitting it.318

Here Cooper defends the Second Amendment. Any “mischief” done by youth regarding

inappropriate gun usage is of little consequence. Any unnecessary gun violence should be

minimal if the overall population is educated. In building upon patriotic boldness, Cooper is

turning the table upon Eurocentric ideals and perspectives. Rather than perceiving ways in which

America measures up to European military, culture, norms, governance, and structural and

institutional hierarchies, he uses America as a model for European countries, particularly in

addressing the military benefits of the Second Amendment. Cooper asserts that many domestic

and international disputes could have been averted had the government entrusted arms to its

gentry. Cooper also affirms that by conferring firearms to the vast majority, unnecessary

violence will be limited and governing forces will be kept in check. Revolutions, wars, and

campaigns will occur only when they are in the best interest of the “majority.” Cooper also

places the unnecessary violence caused by despots in direct contrast with the “mischief” of a few

young boys, asserting that such violence and wars caused by greedy despots have destroyed

larger portions of the populace than children using firearms do mischief. In short, Cooper

318 Notions of the American 201-202.

189

stresses that if many European countries promoted America’s more liberal gun laws, they would

have had a much less bloody history.

Cooper constructs a simple argument that infuses the voice of the people with the power

inherent in firearms. Yet Cooper’s argument is far from being specific, as he refers to justified

violence as a “natural” occurrence, with a nod to the reader as if the author and reader are in

implicit agreement regarding what constitutes these justified violent occurrences. This

significantly reaffirms ways in which Cooper, as well as the American public, turn to the

firearms, or the symbolism found within its image, as simplistic responses to complex contextual

issues. This study traces this concept as Dryden turns to firearms to explain colonization and

Native eradication. Captain John Smith turns to firearms to evoke a sense of security for the

anxious future colonials. Publishers of Mary Rowlandson’s narrative turned to the image of the

gun-toting woman in order to inspire revolutionary sentiment and enlist men in the war.

Furthermore, Lewis and Clark turn to firearm demonstrations to conjure a sense of

nationalistic authority and dominance over the newly purchased territory. Similarly, Cooper

offers firearms as an answer to what differentiates and distinguishes American culture over

European and such distinguishing factors of responsible moral judgment qualify the American to

know when insurrection or violence is justified. This very complex philosophical conundrum is

resolved with America’s gun use. Cooper makes no mention of upon what grounds a revolution

or violence might occur. He only offers the vague statement that these will occur, “When the

interests of the majority are in favor of a change.”319 Cooper indeed looks to the American

Revolution as well as Jeffersonian principles as support for his views on arming the populace.

319 Notions of the American 202.

190

The bloody French Revolution offers an interesting assertion of Cooper’s faith in the American

public. According to Cooper, had the French properly educated their children placing a “school

book in one hand and a musket in the other,” Cooper insinuates that the French possibly would

have been able to control their bloodlust. Nonetheless, the European—unlike the American—

was never entrusted with the gun, therefore, only the American contains the knowledge,

comportment, and judgment needed to own and operate firearms. He also charges his readers to

become cognizant of how the gun can be used both in preserving democracy and in ensuring that

the government does not neglect its duties to uphold the interests of the majority.

For valid use of the gun, Cooper offers nothing beyond that of when it is in the “interest

of the majority” or when “Nature’s decrees.” Similar to Captain John Smith, Lewis and Clark,

and publishers such as Boyle, Cooper turns to the gun as a viable answer to political issues, yet

he does so more overtly—precisely calling upon gun use to solve political ills. Like the

aforementioned authors and publishers, Cooper also neglects to define these terms. Again the

gun is the answer to wrongs, and the shooter will know when to use the gun: when Nature

decrees it or when the populace approves. In short, readers must rely on their own sentiment and

interpretation to know when gun violence is warranted. Cooper’s ambiguity, in a sense, applies a

principle of assumed consensus, offering Americans their right to interpret when gun use can

right their significant wrongs. But dangers lurk in this ambiguity. Such loosely defined terms

allow Cooper to unify the American citizenry (mainly white landed gentry) in gun ownership and

usage—proposing that a gun-owning citizenry is high-minded enough to know when violence is

and is not the means to an end.

191

Furthermore, Cooper praises the government for entrusting its citizenry with the means of

establishing a coup if the government itself goes awry. In fact, he holds that both gun ownership

and democracy are “natural[ly]” coupled. In his essay The American Democrat, he states,

“Democracies are less liable to popular tumults than any other polities, because the people,

having legal means in their power to redress wrongs, have little inducement to employ any other.

The man who can right himself by a vote will seldom resort to a musket.”320 Cooper claims a

democracy leads to fewer “tumults” as citizens can choose the “ballot before the bullet.” Though,

exclusively, Cooper places democratic vote before gun violence, the dichotomy Cooper endorses

rhetorically is hazardous—if the ballot does not settle the issue, gun violence is the next resort,

knowingly, and most likely will be used to right perceived wrongs. Also, inexplicitly, the

presence of guns in the American household allows the citizenry to support their political voice

with gun violence. This “either/or” mode of thought does little to allow the democratic process to

render guns obsolete; rather, it promotes the violent backing of one’s political opinion or to

defend one’s social status, in the gun duel. In his later fiction, Cooper will revise and refine much

of this vague gun-use in his value system.

Nathaniel and his Gun

In developing his protagonist Natty Bumppo, Cooper introduces similar principles to

those he establishes in Notions of the Americas and The American Democrat and includes more

320 James Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat and Other Political Writings. ed. Bradley

J. Birzer and John Wilson. (Albany: State University of New York Press 1991) 406.

192

specific examples in proper gun use. Through Natty, Cooper sets the quintessential American

hunter apart from European gentry and customs. Also, Cooper asserts substantial principles and

values in his hero to establish and revise American gun culture. Through Natty Bumppo, Cooper

reflects a nationalistic fascination with guns and continues to construct an American myth that

fosters nostalgic depictions of the American gun and its shooters. First, Cooper establishes the

rifle—particularly the American-made Kentucky (also known as “Pennsylvania”) flintlock long

rifle—as the weapon of choice on the American frontier. Cooper contrasts these “superior”

armaments with those used by Europeans on the frontier. Second, Cooper weds his protagonist to

his own Kentucky rifle—Killdeer—by giving Bumppo various sobriquets and by positioning

these two characters (hero and gun) as almost inseparable. Throughout his adventures, both

Natty and Killdeer are given the highest regard. Third, he heralds Nathaniel (Natty) as America’s

gun expert, asserting that his knowledge transfers into other crucial areas necessary to sustain life

on the American frontier. Cooper uses Natty as a means to establish a set of principles and gun

ethics for a democratic nation that chooses to entrust firearms to the people.

Cooper fuses Natty’s identity with that of his rifle. Throughout the Leatherstocking

series, Natty is described constantly as leaning upon his rifle, reloading it just after firing, and

praising its secrets and legendary precision—which he does often in the heat of battle. Even in

appearance Natty’s gun matches his long and slender physique. Cooper reminds his readers that

Natty has an “upright iron frame”321 (and another image of stature, an “iron-like inflexibility of

his frame”)322 as the Kentucky rifle’s barrel is made of soft metal that, barely reaches “the top of

321 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 1 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

814.

193

his fox-skin cap” when the stock is placed on the ground.323 Additionally, Killdeer uses a

greased leather (deerskin) wad to envelop its bullets as Natty wears deerskin leather stockings.

Natty’s articulations, judgments, and authority are often paralleled by the “reports” (or what

Natty calls “speech”) of Killdeer. Many of Nathaniel’s interjections emphatically make major

impacts upon his audience (and readers) as he places judgment and declares the truth. Both are

the rugged product of the wilderness; both represent the simple, the pragmatic, the economic

depictions of manners, and both represent true and accurate judgment.

The sobriquets used for Natty are often those that point to his keen sight, accuracy, and

judgment (all characteristics necessary for survival—a common theme throughout most of

Cooper’s texts). Names such as Hawkeye, the Pathfinder, and the trapper, all favor sharp

observation and a keen awareness of dangers, advantages, and the signs that nature offers. These

names also explore the various ways Bumppo evolves and adapts with his environment. These

furnish Hawkeye the “gift” of foresight and skills necessary to discover what Natty deems are

“its secret vartues [sic].”324 Other names unify Natty with the rifle itself. For instance, while he is

called “the hunter,” his rifle is nicknamed “Killdeer” which parallels his other appellation “The

Deerslayer.” His enemies, the Mingos, have given him the name of “Le Longue Carabine,”

which Natty adamantly rejects, not on the basis that this name was delivered to him by his

enemies but solely based upon his knowledge on parts and names of the gun. To Nathaniel,

322 The Leatherstocking Tales 528. 323 The Leatherstocking Tales 22. 324 James Fenimore Cooper, The Deerslayer: or, the First War-path. (London: Routledge, Warn,

and Routledge 1862) 306.

194

accuracy both of appellation as well as the accuracy of a rifled gun matter immensely. In an

English context “carbine” refers to a smoothbore short-barreled firearm, not his preferred

Kentucky rifle. He claims, “But I do not admit the right of Mingoes to bestow a name on one

[…] especially, as their title is a lie, ‘kill-deer’ being a grooved barrel, and no carabyne.”325

Nathaniel does accept names from his kin as well as from the Delaware, but the name he is given

in French by his enemies he considers a vile falsehood—contrasting Bumppo and Killdeer’s

truth and certitude with that of the Mingos’ false notions. This reinforces Cooper’s own theme as

he also depicts the Mingos as speaking with a forked tongue or striving to deceive various

characters. Moreover, Cooper ascribes to Nathaniel a dialectically different “back-woods”

pronunciation of the “carabyne” which to him lacks proficiency and accuracy. Yet, in reality, the

French term for “rifle,” “fusil de rayé” or simply “fusil,” is a term that is used synonymously

with that of the “carbine,” “gun,” or could even mean “shot gun”—all non-rifled barrel guns.326

Nathaniel is emphatic in correcting the French term (which is almost comical), emphasizing the

weapon’s name they give him is an inaccurate misconception. Whether Cooper is aware of this

blunder or not, Natty’s intentional or unintentional misunderstanding is useful in underscoring

the comical turn in Last of the Mohicans. Natty’s objection to his name occurs when he is tied to

a tree and about to be shot. His obsession over this almost insignificant detail of semantics

occurs while he is in such dire straits; his concern over such detail features both a comical

apprehension over a seemingly insignificant feature in such frightful circumstances and also

325 The Deerslayer 814. 326 Westly R. Burrell, “James Fenimore Cooper and the ‘Long Rifle.’” Michigan Alumnus

Quarterly Review 60.10 (1953) 142.

195

reflects the courage Natty maintains under fire. The situation nonetheless provides more gravitas

to Natty’s own consternation. He takes substantial insult at the appellation even when his life

hangs in the balance, as he obsesses over what he deems is the correct terminology. He interprets

the appellation specifically through an American lens (rather than through the French language

or the Mingo’s semantics). As both the French and Mingos are enemies, he would not acquiesce

to the name. He refuses to bend to his enemy’s idioms, only accepting English or Mohican gun

definitions and appellations. This humorous episode reveals a nationalistic control over gun

definitions and characterizations. Even if the French “carabine” is sensibly appropriate, Natty

will have none of it. He is adamant, even in the face of death, to enter a tirade about what

appellations will and will not identify him. The American hero and his gun stubbornly preserve,

engender, and honor the only characteristics and titles that Natty perceives as true—even if, in an

unsophisticated manner. As the definition of the gun is at stake, for Natty, so is his own identity.

The correction of this false naming plays a role in Heyward’s heroic attempt to assume

Natty’s identity and accept his punishment. After Natty objects to the “Le Longue Carabine”

title, the Delaware believe that they have captured their nemesis, “Le Longue Carabine.”

Heyward, in an attempt to save Nathaniel’s life, professes to be that man. However, Natty cannot

allow this kindness. To establish his identity, Natty proposes a shooting competition, an event

that occurs in many of the Leatherstocking Tales. First, Natty makes an astounding shot without

aiming down the barrel. Heyward calls it sheer luck. Then, Natty nicks the bottom of a gourd just

enough to make it appear untouched by a bullet, knowing that upon closer observation the

incredible accuracy of the shot will be revealed. Cooper describes Natty as he fires as becoming

almost inextricably merged to his gun: “without tremor of variation, as though both man and rifle

196

were carved in stone.”327 Anticipation builds each time Hawkeye fires. At times, Cooper traces

the bullet’s course, and other times he follows the action of Hawkeye. In either case, the action

of man and gun become one. The authentic American man and gun cannot be counterfeited

This unifying description of man and gun is common throughout Nathaniel’s saga. For

instance, in The Pioneers (1823) at yet another shooting competition, “an ancient amusement”—

the traditional Christmas turkey-shoot—Natty discharges Killdeer and smoke fills the scene. In

this commotion, the audience is uncertain of the result. Natty, in a quiet and dignified manner,

places Killdeer’s stock on the snow and opens, “his mouth in one of his silent laughs, and then

proceeds very coolly to recharge his piece” having full knowledge of his accomplishment.328

Throughout the episode, Nathaniel maintains an intimate connection discerning his gun’s actions

and secrets before they can even be confirmed. The turkey, as well as his reputation as the best

shot in the territory, has once again become his prize. Within this scene and many others, Cooper

instills within the American rifle a sense of certainty, skill, and a quiet sense of superiority.

Nathaniel gains his titles and defends them through the gun, not in a European style duel, but in

an all-American turkey-shoot. Cooper crafts these characteristics of simplicity, certainty,

practicality, and veracity as American—a sense of masculinity that is something to be sought

after and proven with the gun.

From the moment Natty obtains his rifle, he and his gun are almost inseparable. He holds

it as he swims and climbs cliffs, causing him at times to lag behind others. But in dire

327 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 1 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

18. 328 The Leatherstocking Tales 216.

197

circumstances, it proves well worth its constant heft as it serves a significant role in resolving

central conflicts throughout Cooper’s chronicles. In The Pioneers Nathaniel uses Killdeer to

dispatch a panther pursuing Elizabeth and Louisa. In Last of the Mohicans (1826), Nathaniel

finally removes the antagonist, Magua, with one final gunshot from Killdeer. And, in The Prairie

(1827) Nathaniel uses Killdeer to save his crew without even firing his weapon. After the Tetons

set fire to the prairie grass to capture or kill members of his crew, Nathaniel uses the flash pan

from his rifle to start a backfire, preventing them from being scorched. Through such a variety

of methods, Nathaniel judiciously uses his “gifts” and knowledge of his rifle to preserve life,

offset violence, and establish the more moral and ethical means of using firearms as it is often set

against characters that typify the violent Native Americans, the rash and naïve white colonists,

and the “trigger happy” soldiers, who do not apply themselves in as correct a manner as Natty

and become one with their gun and the creeds for which it stands.

At one point in the Leatherstocking series, Nathaniel offers to separate himself from

Killdeer. In The Last of the Mohicans Natty strives to bargain his life for Cora’s, asserting, “I

will throw ‘kill-deer’ into the bargain. Take the word of an experienced hunter, the piece has not

its equal atween the provinces.”329 Adding, “if I should teach your young men the real virtue of

the we’pon, it would smooth the little differences in our judgments.”330 Natty is willing to

deliver up himself along with his weapon in order to maintain peace and protect Cora. Natty

volunteers to part with Killdeer (and offers shooting lessons to the young men) if it will save a

life. Though Natty is most always connected with his rifle, he does in few occasions part with

329 The Leatherstocking Tales 835. 330 The Leatherstocking Tales 836.

198

Killdeer. In one instance he stashes Killdeer before he enters into an Indian village, laying it

aside as he—at the moment—realizes the gun is safe and he needs to cover ground more quickly.

In another instance, he sheds himself of his rifle in order to hint to David Gamut, the traveling

musician captured by the Mingo, that he is close by and plotting to save them.331 He does so in

order to move quickly and in order to keep himself from being identified by the other Mingo. In

one other instance, he stashes it as well as Uncas’s firearm under a bush before he goes into the

Delaware village. Yet, for the most part of the Leatherstocking Tales, when Natty is present so is

Killdeer.

As the quintessential American frontier weapon, Killdeer seems unstoppable in the hands

of Natty—“Sertain death,” as Natty says.332 Nathaniel claims it as a character or living/conscious

entity on its own, which contains mystical secrets and virtues to those penitent enough to

perceive them. It symbolizes the authority to advocate life and death. It speaks, just as Natty

does, with assertive exclamations. As Cooper strives to establish an American hero, he is also

establishing an American gun, made in America, from American maple, which is more effective

than the English shot-guns, or what Natty calls a “pop-gun,” or English muskets, or even the

French “carabine,” fitting naturally within the particularities of the American frontier.

It is through Nathaniel that Cooper is able to show that peaceful, diplomatic processes,

are the values behind quintessentially American gun proprietors. One must maintain an

331 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 1 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

846-847. 332 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 2 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

922.

199

understanding and judicious mind and use caution before gun use is allowed. Many times, it is

Nathaniel who first offers an olive branch to the enemy before turning to gunfire. Cooper

continually asserts a restrained, moderate temperament and even goodwill and respect for all life,

through Nathaniel—all of which rests within his appeal for sympathy. The power of compassion

and sensitivity in his frontier hero is apparent in Deerslayer (1841). When Nathaniel and Hurry

Harry (also known as “Henry March”) argue over the value of life with respects to one’s race,

Hurry asserts, “White is the highest colour, and therefore the best man” and that an Indian is,

“counted as more than half human”333 and almost goes as far as claiming the only good Indian is

a dead one. Furthermore, Hurry is astounded that Deerslayer has not yet killed a Native and is

almost ashamed for him. Furthermore, Hurry tries to win Deerslayer over into esteeming his

business of taking and selling scalps for money. Cooper asserts, “Hurry had all the prejudices

and antipathies of a white hunter, who generally regards the Indian as a natural competitor, and,

not unfrequently, as a natural enemy. As a matter of course, he was loud, clamorous, dogmatical,

and not very argumentative [meaning his ideas were rigid and narrow enough to not allow for

argument].”334 As with many of Cooper’s stereotypes of white hunters, Hurry Harry is

characterized as blatantly prejudiced, bigoted, and inflexibly brash. These knee-jerk reactionary

thoughts follow him as his character mirrors the cliché to shoot first and ask questions later.

Harry’s unquestionably stubborn ideas are often fueled by economic competition and taken to

the extreme and used to justify manslaughter for money. Not so for Nathaniel Bumppo.

333 The Leatherstocking Tales 527. 334 The Leatherstocking Tales 527.

200

Cooper contrasts Hawkeye with Hurry. Rather than being too quick to judge,

“Deerslayer, on the other hand, manifested a different temper; proving, by moderation of his

language, the fairness of his views, and the simplicity of his distinctions, that he possessed every

disposition to hear reason, a strong, innate desire to do justice.”335 Though, as already explored,

Cooper maintains that rights to gun ownership are almost exceptionally “American,” Cooper also

maintains the basic requisites of a high moral character that must be found within any gun

owner. Through Hurry, Cooper not only questions judgments, personal philosophies, and

motives, but also demonstrates mistrust, and even foreboding over Hurry’s conduct in killing and

scalping Natives. It is this calamitous act, which Natty vehemently opposes, that all the lives of

those in Natty’s party are placed in jeopardy. As Natty and Hurry argue over what is ethical or

as they state, “lawful and onlawful [sic],” Cooper draws the reader into the debate, favoring the

more “Christian” perspective of his heroic shooter. The young hunter, Natty, affirms, “When the

Colony’s laws, or even the King’s laws, run ag’in the laws of God, they get to be onlawful, and

ought not to be obeyed. I hold to a white man’s respecting white laws, so long as they do not

cross the track of a law comin’ from a higher authority [...].”336 Here, Cooper offers a deeper

understanding of Nathaniel, also known as “The Pathfinder,” for Natty God’s as well as “the

man without a cross.”337 Nathaniel, rather than assuming the socially accepted epistemological

postulations of his older, more experienced companion, Hurry, Natty squares himself with both

natural and Divine laws, choosing the path dictated by a higher authority. Nathaniel, unlike

335 The Leatherstocking Tales 527. 336 The Leatherstocking Tales 25. 337 The Leatherstocking Tales 25.

201

Hurry, weighs life before he takes it and does not (at least tries to not) cross or go against the

laws, or path God has given. Granted, Pathfinder, as “a man without a cross,” is not “crossed”

with Indian blood, which Cooper continually reminds his readers, to reassert that Nathaniel

Bumppo—though well-versed in Native languages and customs—is not an “Indian.” Ultimately,

Natty (as the Pathfinder) constantly attempts to read or discern from nature and reason which

(including cross-cultural understanding) path to take. Once discerned, he does not oppose—or

cross—what God or Nature has designated.

Cooper reflects upon morals and discipline even in the wardrobe of these two characters.

Nathaniel, though younger and less experienced than Hurry, is dressed, “more particularly to the

part connected with his arms and accoutrements.”338 Nathaniel has powder horn, knife, shot

pouch, and knife, placed meticulously about his body. As noted before, Nathaniel is one with his

rifle, so is his dress; this is “connected with his arms [firearms].” Hurry, on the other hand, is

“careless, slovenly” and “reckless.”339

The Ethics of the Kentucky Rifle Compared to “European” Weaponry

Throughout The Leatherstocking Tales, Cooper defines a marked difference between the

transplanted European ethics in gun culture and that of the Kentucky rifle. The very first chapter

338 The Leatherstocking Tales 499. 339 The Leatherstocking Tales 499.

202

of The Pioneers demarcates this difference in Natty and Judge Temple. Judge Temple stops his

sled, hearing the hunter’s dogs howl as they track a deer, in hopes of gaining bragging rights by

bagging the animal before Natty has a chance. Temple pulls out his shotgun and fires twice as

the animal leaps into the path before him. Just after Temple fires, two other shots are heard and

the buck falls. Natty and Oliver instantly emerge from behind two tree trunks—as if from the

landscape itself. To Natty’s surprise, Judge Temple boasts of his excellent shot and claims to

have killed the deer, himself. The claim is in question and leads a jovial argument between Judge

Temple and Natty.

The Judge declares,

“Ha! Natty, had I known you were in ambush, I should not have fired,” cried the

traveller. [...]

“No—no—Judge,” returned the hunter, with an inward chuckle, and with a look of

exultation, that indicates a consciousness of superior skill; “you burn your powder, only

to warm your nose this cold evening. Did ye think to stop a full-grown buck […] with

that pop-gun in your hand? There’s plenty of pheasants amongst the swamps; and the

snow birds are flying round your own door, and shoot them at pleasure, any day; but if

you’re for a buck, or a little bear’s meat, Judge, you’ll have to take the long rifle, with a

greased wadding, or you’ll waste more powder than you’ll fill stomachs, I’m thinking.340

The conversation is more of a contest of hunting knowledge and experience, one in which the

reader begins to question the Judge’s own strength of discernment. The Judge claims that he had

340 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 1 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

19.

203

killed a deer with the shotgun once before and that he packed one barrel with buckshot and the

other with birdshot. Where the first barrel may have stood a chance to take down the deer, the

contents of the other barrel would have been best not to shoot—this act proves precarious and

destructive. Yet, the Judge still fires. Natty laughs “inwardly” at the tenderfoot mistake the Judge

is making in trying to shoot a deer with lightweight shot meant for birds. The Judge continues,

“Here are two hurts; one through the neck, and the other directly through the heart. It is by no

means certain, Natty, but I gave one of the two.”341 Again the Judge misinterprets the actions

that had taken place. Natty sets the Judge straight, explaining the two holes were made by rifle

bullets rather than the Judge’s smoothbore filled shot. It is Natty’s bullet that wounded the deer

in the neck, and the last shot “was sent from a younger truer and a younger hand, than your’n and

mine ‘ither.”342 Natty claims that Oliver maintains the right to the deer and that the hunter that

made the shot that killed the game is always entitled to the deer, holding to practical and natural

laws of the hunt. Natty holds to these traditional laws of the wilderness even though he is afraid

that the Judge, who owns the land, may be attempting to exercise new-fangled laws just now

taking over the territory. Natty represents “free country liberty” in contention with Temple’s “old

world” dogmas. Though Natty’s concern here is disregarded, Cooper offers a glimpse at the

novel’s major conflicts as Natty’s character, simple, practical, and idealistic, is in direct contrast

with British abstract law and customs. It was the rifle that brought down the deer, and the

European scattergun was only effective in haphazardly shooting Oliver as he (Oliver) was

341 The Leatherstocking Tales 19. 342 The Leatherstocking Tales 19-20.

204

hunting the deer on the other side of the road. The Judge, here, is ironically not judicious,

precise, or accurate. He shoots the wrong type of gun, he shoots Oliver instead of the deer, and

he adjudicates that he has shot the deer and should have the rightful claim. When Natty states

Oliver has the rightful claim, the judge even attempts to bribe the two hunters to say that the

Judge was the one that shot the deer. In this introductory meeting, the Judge—old British law—

is not only useless, but is corrupt, worthless, and even harmful within this new environment.

Copper demonstrates these antiquated customs through gun etiquette—the hunters are right and

the Judge is erroneous in more ways than one.

Not only are Natty’s gun ethics at odds with the old world’s antiquated laws designating

the aristocratic ownership of all game, but they are also at odds with the new laws dealing with

hunting seasons, which Natty regards as unnatural. If any regulation should be placed upon

hunting deer, Natty asserts, shooters should only be allowed to hunt with a rifle rather than a

smoothbore. Once again, Natty who knows the territory is able to discern more than the

sophisticated Judge. Natty is making a case for using the right tool for the job. Furthermore, the

gun regulation Natty proposes has proper evidential support, as the scattergun wounded a fellow

hunter. After the hunting season is instituted, Natty speaks out against such tyranny, asserting

natural, God-given laws instead. In this fashion, his rifle, and title of Deerslayer becomes

couched in a political issue and his bullet becomes ballot, practicing civil disobedience.

Nathaniel’s act of poaching reaffirms the name of his rifle, Killdeer, and stresses Natty’s act of

noncompliance and refusal to be subjugated. Here, as on many other occasions, Killdeer

becomes his political voice.

205

Cooper’s rejection of old-world gun culture is apparent in Natty’s view of pistols as well.

In The Deerslayer, Nathaniel, Chingachgook, and Judith uncover items in Tom Hutter’s

mysterious chest to reveal,

a pair of pistols, curiously inlaid with silver. Their value would have been considerable,

in one of the towns, though as weapons, in the woods they were a species of arms seldom

employed; never, indeed, unless it might be some officer from Europe, who visited the

colonies, as many were then wont to do, so much impressed with superiority of the

usages of London, as to fancy they were not to be laid aside on the frontier of America.343

Cooper’s passage first takes issue with the pistol’s value. Though in a town, these intricately

designed dueling pistols could catch a fair price, particularly due to the craftsmanship of their

inlaid silver. Cooper makes a crucial distinction between aristocratic European fashions and the

more rugged and simplistic style of the Kentucky rifles. Cooper asserts that these pistols really

belong in London where their usage is connected more with fashion and distinction of rank and

family name—“superiority,” whereas in America, such intricate pistols hold little distinction and

even less usefulness. However, in contrast to how a British officer would perceive them useful in

London as a means of preserving the honor of the family name, he would assume they held even

more importance in the American frontier. The guns mirror the essence of their nation. As

Killdeer is true, accurate, efficient, made from the frontier for the frontier, the European dueling

pistols are designed to designate distinction in society, meant to settle disputes and offenses

against family honor rather than to gain food, or defend political rights. On the banks of the

343 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 2 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

698.

206

Susquehanna such a social placeholder becomes laughable. Even the wilderness conspires

against their intricate design as the elements corrode them over time. The author pulls the reader

in to share a quiet laugh with Natty who sees the folly of bringing such uselessly intricate pistols

into the American frontier.

Gun Dangers and Etiquette

The two pistols not only symbolize Europe’s inept perceptions of firearms and ultimately

useless gun customs (dueling) when transported to America, but they also demonstrate the

dangers inherent in treating them without due respect. After Natty discovers the two intricate

European pistols in the chest, he lays out particular issues of gun safety. From the look of the

pistols, Chingachgook deems these weapons, “Child gun” and begins handling the instrument,

“as if it had been a toy.”344 Natty perceives this blunder and quickly intervenes, “Not it, Sarpent;

not it—t’was made for a man and would satisfy a giant, if rightly used. But stop; white men are

remarkable for their carelessness in putting away fire arms, in chists and corners. Let me look if

care has been given to these.”345 Natty takes the pistols to show that they were loaded.

Chingachgook looks on in amazement at the old caked priming on the piece, after years of

inattention, “for he was in the practice of renewing his priming daily, and of looking into the

piece, at short intervals.”346 Cooper, here, reveals the care and respect that Natives give to

firearms and compares that to “white culture.” Cooper underlines that the Native Americans’

344 The Leatherstocking Tales 698. 345 The Leatherstocking Tales 698. 346 The Leatherstocking Tales 698.

207

awareness and veneration for firearms are always accompanied by proper care and consternation.

According to Chingachgook, these pistols, with over-embellished design, yet discarded and

neglected in the chest, could not be practical weapons, but a child’s playthings. Cooper

constructs a Native American Native perspective and respect for firearms and contrasts it with

“white man’s neglect.” Chingachgook highlights the indignity white culture has assumed

concerning gun use, taking for granted the power and hazards that come with them.

Understanding this recklessness Natty proclaims,

This is white neglect,’[...] shaking his head, ‘and scarce a season goes by, that some one,

in the settlements does n’t suffer from it. It’s extr’ornary too, Judith—yes, it’s downright

extr’ornary that the owner shall fire his deer, or some other game, or perhaps at an inimy,

and twice out of three times he’ll miss; but let him catch an accident with one of these

forgotten charges, and he makes it sartain death to a child, or a brother, or a fri’nd!347

Cooper underscores the deplorable inexperience and naiveté of American settlers/citizens, as

Natty morosely recounts the “white neglect” these settlers have in regard to guns. Natty recalls

that almost every season some accident involving firearms occurs. Partly in jest and partly in

solemn melancholy, he reminds—more the reader than Chingachgook—that American

settlers/citizens are more accurate at shooting their own children, brothers, or friends than they

are at shooting game or enemies. Just as in The Pioneers, Judge Temple does just that, as he is

shooting at a deer, his aim slips and he unintentionally shoots Oliver. Although The Deerslayer:

The First Warpath predates The Pioneers chronologically, Natty’s sobering words of caution

347 The Leatherstocking Tales 698.

208

were published eighteen years after Judge Temple’s blunder. Yet, rather than offering a comical

comparisons of expert hunters—Natty and Oliver—with that of unfit settlers such as Judge

Temple, Cooper uses a darker sense of irony to underscore what he and Natty deem a major

growing problem in America, arguing against the deadly effects of neglected guns and gun

accidents caused by Americans’ delinquent consideration of gun-safety. Within these negligent

practices, Natty argues against the lack of gun etiquette that many settlers exhibit. Nathaniel

distinguishes between the expert and the dabbler who pretends to be skilled. Also, as the

settlements push the frontier boundary, Natty seems to imply a time may come when the gun’s

usefulness may be considerably limited. Nathaniel, like Frederick Jackson Turner implies in his

Frontier Thesis, believes that there is always space between wilderness and civilization. He and

his gun navigate between war-like Natives and the obsolete laws and ills of society. Natty

effectively uses his gun against the latter yet shows concern when the gun becomes part of

societal ills or cultural problems.

Though esteeming gun use, interest, and skill as nationalizing tropes in his literature,

Cooper expresses caution for the gun aficionado. As Cooper is placing the gun as spectacle in his

tales, he also exhibits concern that one must consider such power with respect, establishing gun

etiquette and principles through Natty Bumppo (as well as many of his other protagonists).

Returning to the pistols found in the chest, Natty, after examining the caked priming and neglect,

believes these pistols to be dangerous and they need to be discharged. Natty bases much of his

prophetic assertions as warnings, couching his tone in nostalgic melancholy and marvel or

irony—often in the heat of battle. Natty is constantly striving to make the correct judgment call

before firing, holding trigger-happy individuals with deep disdain. Natty also touts much of his

209

knowledge as he laughingly smiles at the frontiersmen’s and settlers’ naivety regarding hunting

and guns. As Cooper, the gun moralist, develops Nathaniel, his character is also conditioning and

directing readership toward correct gun etiquette and safety.

The warning that Cooper gives Nathaniel regarding gun safety is accompanied by an

even more stringent warning regarding the inherent violence evident in guns’ use in war. In The

Pathfinder (1840) as Nathaniel and Chingachgook are accompanying Master Cap and Mabel

down the river in hostile Iroquois territory, Nathaniel and Master Cap begin to discuss the

consequences of the recent war. Cap addresses his expertise in the war as the coast and how trade

routes need his service for defense. Pathfinder (Natty) in a more morose manner, addresses the

unfortunate violence caused by the war, as he declares,

None can tell better than we who dwell in the woods […] I have often followed their [the

English and the French] line of march by bones bleaching in the rain, and have found

their trail by graves, years after they and their pride had vanished together. Generals and

privates, they lay scattered throughout the land, so many proofs of what men are when

led on by their love of great names, and the wish to be more than their fellows.348

Natty, as he takes upon himself the appellation of Pathfinder, describes the sullen path he finds in

the country. In the wake of many battles of The Seven Years’ War, the heroic protagonist that

we perceived in Last of the Mohicans and The Deerslayer develops even more disdain for

violence, greed, and even the quixotic adventurer, “led on by the love of great names,” and

rebukes the heroic endeavors and notions of superiority that the soldiers maintain. Pathfinder,

348 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 2 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

99.

210

Nathaniel, becomes a voice for the woods of the American frontier, witnessing the destruction

and unnecessary loss of life upon his path. Master Cap, astonished at such a dolorous account

rejoins, “I must say, Master Pathfinder, that you sometimes utter opinions that are a little

remarkable, for a man who lives by the rifle; seldom snuffing the air but he smells gunpowder, or

turning out of his birth but to bear down on an enemy,”349 to which Natty quickly retorts,

If you think I pass my days in warfare against my kind, you know neither me, nor my

history. The man that lives in the woods, and on the frontiers, must take chances of the

things among which he dwells. For this I am not accountable, being but humble and

powerless hunter and scout and guide […] No—no—bloodshed and warfare are not my

real gifts, but peace and marcy.350

Master Cap., surprised at the character and ideals that Pathfinder portrays, assumes that one who

“lives by the rifle” would maintain an ultimate goal to constantly live in pursuit of battle, war,

and the kill. Though Pathfinder does, at times, foresee an enemy needing to be killed when the

time is right, he asserts he does not live by the rifle, “bloodshed and warfare” are not his gifts,

but rather “peace and mercy.”

Cooper, here, reasserts the key features of his renowned character, features he may have

perceived as being in jeopardy in the new-fangled frontier heroes that came to fruition after Last

of the Mohicans was published (1826). Novels, such as John A. McClung’s Camden, a tale of

“Western Adventure” (1830), depict frontier heroes as being drawn to violence and anxious to

remove Native Americans from the territory. McClung, for instance, features Daniel Boone

349 The Leatherstocking Tales, Vol. 2 99. 350 The Leatherstocking Tales, Vol. 2 99.

211

moving westward trading the security of a village for “the more thrilling excitement of savage

warfare.”351 Indeed, Cooper’s text envisions an America that transcends the simplistic villainous

perspectives of the Native, depicting peace, temperance, and judicious discernment at the heart

of his prized protagonist and within the core values of the nation.

Cooper’s Captivity

Aside from creating a protagonist who is at the same time European and Native

American, Cooper is able to capitalize on this confrontation of the two cultures by tapping into

the captivity narrative in the Leatherstocking Series. Indeed, it is captivity in Last of the

Mohicans that provides the plot with a motive of Native revenge. Colonel Munro has whipped

Magua for coming into their camp drunk, his status as chief is now gone. Also, Magua learns that

in his absence, his wife has married another. For this, he blames Colonel Munro and seeks to kill

him, capture, marry and impregnate his daughter, Alice. In this act, Magua feels that Colonel

Munro’s bloodline would end and his will survive. At the epicenter of this battle for supremacy

between Anglo-Americans and American Natives is Nathaniel, the composite of the two cultures

and the prototype of Cooper’s ideal American. Yet it is Natty who must put an end to Magua’s

malicious plot for revenge by killing him. Within this final dénouement, a bullet from Killdeer

ends Magua’s life. His death fulfills a substantial conflict-resolution that began to build ever

since Magua’s first deceitful act of violence. The conniving, bloodthirsty Magua will not have

351 John Alexander McClung, Sketches of Western Adventure: containing an Account of the Most

Interesting Adventure connected with the Settlements of the West from 1755 to 1794. (Covington: Richard H. Collins 1872) 85.

212

any descendants, yet, ironically, neither will the Mohicans. Before Magua dies, he kills the

faithful Uncas, unfortunately terminating their bloodline as well. 352

Through these violent means, Cooper offers American readers a window into Native

eradication and expulsion that had been successively occurring since the sixteen hundreds—a

subject that was becoming even more contentious political issue at the time of The Last of the

Mohicans’ publication (1826).353 Cooper applauds the end of the bloodthirsty Natives, through

the Anglo-American Natty. Yet he laments the annihilation of the Mohicans, placing the blame

upon another Native. The termination of Magua’s and the Mohican bloodline are portrayed as

anticipated and inevitable, as Cooper’s title implies. In such a way, Cooper places Americans in

a position concurring with political issues regarding Native American relocation. For instance, in

1825 (the year before The Last of the Mohicans was published), President Monroe requested the

creation of the Arkansas and Indian (what would become most of Oklahoma) Territories from

the Senate. The proposal would request the various nations (the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee,

and many others) to exchange their lands for territory west of the Mississippi. After the Senate’s

approval, the bill was rejected by the House of Representatives. In 1830, four years after the

publication of The Last of the Mohicans, Andrew Jackson revisited the “issue” proposing the

Indian Removal Act. Within this political context, readers of Last of the Mohicans could

perceive the removal as both necessary and inevitable. The death of Magua is necessary and the

death of Uncas: inevitable. As both evil and noble “savages” are removed from Cooper’s

352 The theme of continuing one’s tribe, bloodline and progeny in The Last of the Mohicans

supports Richard Slotkin’s Regeneration through Violence (2000). 353 During the Presidency of James Monroe, John C. Calhoun, the secretary of War, created plans

for Native removal.

213

narrative, Natives are being removed, predominantly from the Southern States to federal land

west of the Mississippi River. Cooper’s text offers readers a backdrop for processing current

moral ramifications for political actions. Though The Last of the Mohicans laments the death of

Uncas and many other Natives, the removal is perceived as predictable and even unavoidable.

For instance, Tamenund, the sage and chief of the Lenni-Lenape, discusses the past promise of

peace from the white men, and then proclaims, “I know that the pale-faces are a proud and

hungry race, I know that they claim, not only to have the earth, but the meanest of their colour is

better than […] the red man. […] They have entered the land at the rising, and may yet go off at

the setting sun!”354 Tamenund foresees colonization as a threat to the Natives and forecasts

Manifest Destiny. He even refers to white men as locusts devouring trees and even addresses that

when the white men colonized along “every brook,” the Native tribe had to retreat, “following

the deer back to the river of our nation.”355 Cooper, through the sage, reveals the Native and

Anglo-American conflict as unavoidable and the Native retreat, removal, or demise would be the

eventual solution.

In such a manner Nathaniel’s Killdeer fulfills the mythical role that early American

colonists (such as John Smith) bestowed upon the gun. The Natives fear Killdeer. The gun and

its shooter’s reputation precedes them and Natives demonstrate nervousness if they hear the

report of Killdeer or perceive Nathaniel coming. It is the gun that upholds women’s virtue,

colonial presence, and eradicates deceitful Natives, such as the prowling “Renard Subtil” (the

354 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 1 (New York: Viking Press 1985)

825.

355 The Leatherstocking Tales, Vol. 1 832.

214

Wiley Fox) another appellation for Magua. In the wake of such Native removal and eradication,

the Anglo-Americans create a culture and establish a nation of their own—an adaptation of both

Native and European values and characteristics, regenerating and rechristening the territory as

their own.

The Last of the Mohicans serves as a capstone in conflating both Native and European

elements into an American culture and within representations the American rifle. In Cabeza de

Vaca’s narrative, the gun is deemed useless against the Natives. Though the hurricane certainly

hurried the outcome, the Spanish who survived are made captives by the Natives. The Spanish

are portrayed as pathetic and on the brink of starvation. But through his captivity, De Vaca learns

survival skills and develops a relationship with the Natives that help him cross a large portion of

the continent where he comes in contact with the conquistadors who are making slaves of the

Natives. He writes to the governor proposing a new model for dealing with the Natives as

equals. Similar to Cooper’s protagonist, De Vaca, lived among indigenous people, felt their

compassion, and witnessed both their loyalty and treachery. Yet as Uncas, the remaining Last of

the Mohicans dies, the reader’s eye turns to Nathaniel, the Anglo-American character who has

adopted and understands the Mohican culture.356 If regeneration of the race’s qualities is to be

achieved in Last of the Mohicans, it is through the cultural adaptability found within the

protagonist and not biological reproduction.

356 Much of James Fenimore Cooper’s inspiration for Natty Bumppo’s moral compass and

ancestral heritage is found with his contact with Moravian missionaries that converted many Delaware. Natty’s hybridity of European and Middleastern descent is further explored in Lindsey Claire Smith, “Cross-Cultural Hybridity in James Fenimore Cooper’s ‘The Last of the Mohicans.” American Transcendental Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3, Sept. 2006 547.

215

Cooper stresses similar aspects through the capture of his protagonist. Captivity becomes

pivotal for both the hero and the gun. Captain John Smith is able to assess the economic

relationship as he shows off his pistols, muskets, and makes false promises as a means of

furthering trade with Powhatan. Smith’s captivity narrative finds a means to establish trade,

diplomacy, and a peaceful means of coexistence. Later, in eighteenth and nineteenth-century

renditions of his adventures, authors created a narrative where he and Pocahontas become

romantically involved, by which the two cultures experience becomes connected unified. Mary

Rowlandson, in like manner, experiences a new cultural understanding as she finds herself

“removed” from original Puritanical perspectives. Lewis and Clark adapt and adopt Native

customs and styles. In a similar fashion, Cooper’s economic, political, and epistemological views

undergo considerable changes due to his perception of what he deems valuable in the Native

experience. As Nathaniel becomes a foundational character for the American frontier hero, his

rifle, Killdeer, becomes the Campbellesque “hero’s boon.” Cooper constantly places the plight of

his protagonist in this environment where he encounters both the noble and the savage inherent

in the indigenous European populations. Though Nathaniel is not a captive, he has, in his

knowledge and adopted manners of the Native language and customs, captured the essence of the

Native assimilation of wilderness.357 As already discussed, his characteristics link both European

and Native culture to make an American identity, in a manner similar to Lewis and Clark, and

also Mary Rowlandson’s image during the Revolutionary War. Nathaniel is able to meld the

values of these two cultures in Native dress and Killdeer in hand.

357“We hear two young Men” The Boston Gazette 20 Aug. to 27 Aug. 1733 3.

216

Cooper’s Mishaps and Misfires

Cooper, as a moralist, references ever-increasing statistics of shooting accidents in

America. In addition to one of the first well-known accidents from early settlement, news articles

broadcast many of these unfortunate narratives within their pages. For instance in 1733,

approximately the same time period of Deerslayer, “We hear two Young Men went west to shoot

Pidgeons in the Narragansett Woods, and by Accident shot the other in the Forehead, and lodged

many Shots there insomuch that his Life is in great Danger.”358 Then further down upon this

same page of The Boston Gazette, a man stopped by the Smith’s shop and placed a rifle on the

ground,

charge[d] with Powder and Shot, and the Barrel in his Hand, holding towards him almost

perpendicular, a spark flew Accidentally from the Forge into the Pan of his Gun, which

dischar’d it so near his Face, that Shot has blown off his Chin, the tip of his Tongue and

most Part of his Nose and Forehead, and made him a frightful Spectacle. He is under the

Cure of a Skilful Surgeon. It was supposed if the Barrel of the Gun had inclined one Inch

nearer he would have blown his Brains out.359

These mournful events happened with such frequency that they establish a niche within the news

that unfortunately still continues today within the United States. These reports appear often in

newspapers, with headings like “Most Melancholy Accident” or “Dreadful Accident from

358“We are inform’d” The Boston Gazette 20 Aug. to 27 Aug. 1733 3. 359 “We are inform’d” The Boston Gazette 20 Aug. to 27 Aug. 1733 3.

217

Careless Use of Firearms.”360 Another, report which occurred three years before Cooper

published Deerslayer, informs readers,

Mr. Christian Winter […] accidentally shot his eldest son, a promising boy about 8 years

of age, through the head. The ball entered on the left side, a little in front of the ear, and

passed out the back of the head, carrying a portion of the brain and skull along with it.

The child continued to breathe for fifteen or twenty minutes, when it expired. Mr. W. was

examining a pistol, which accidentally went off, the ball passing through his own hand,

through the child’s head, slightly wounding a young man in his employment in the arm,

and lodged in a portion of the room in which the accident occurred.361

The image of this boy, almost eight, with his brains blown out of his skull, still breathing for

close to fifteen minutes and suffering such a violent and unnecessary death, begs pathos from the

reader and the question why.

News of these events must have influenced Cooper in some way to critique the

lackadaisical manner in which many Americans treated the power of life and death placed within

the loaded gun. Cooper demonstrates major concerns with Americans disregarding proper gun

etiquette, gun storage, and gun use. He expresses major apprehensions toward the American,

“false pride and frontier boastfulness,”362 and in the way Euro-Americans treat both the Natives

360 Peter Manseau, Melancholy Accidents: Three Centuries of Stray Bullets and Bad Luck.

Brooklyn, London: Melville House, 2016. Peter Manseau traces three hundred years of gun fascination, highlighting the accidental shootings and trends in dark, poetic reports.

361 “Melancholy Accident” The Sun, 24 November 1838, (qtd. in) Peter Manseau. Melancholy

Accidents: Three Centuries of Stray Bullets and Bad Luck. (Brooklyn, London: Melville House, 2016) 85. 362 James Fenimore Cooper, The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 2 (New York: Viking Press, 1985)

522.

218

and their guns haphazardly. In the finale of his Leatherstocking series, Cooper turns to his

quintessential hero, positioning Nathaniel in his youth, and reinforces the same creeds he has

always done within his well-known protagonist. Nathaniel does his best to keep “blood off of the

conscience.”363 Within the first three chapters of Deerslayer, Hurry emphatically argues with

Natty, accusing Nathaniel of being overly cautious with his rifle. Hurry claims that hunting “four

footed beasts” is not heroic and that if he is to make his mark as a well-known frontier hero he

must practice his rifle on the Delaware.364 Nathaniel is proud that he has never shot anyone in his

life—which will soon change as he kills a Native in defense of his life. Hurry in favor of

shooting the Natives and then scalping them for money even implicitly accuses the tenderfoot of

being “chicken” and faint-hearted.365 In his earnest retort, Nathaniel, argues, “I’m not

quarrelsome; and that goes a great way towards keeping blood off the hands, among the hunters

and redskins; and then, Harry March, it keeps blood off the conscience, too.”366 In situating

thoughtfulness and an appeal to truth, life, and the allowance of life, instilled in Nathaniel, at

odds with the values of Harry Hurry, a character who reflects false pride and frontier

boastfulness, Cooper emphasizes the traits he deems necessary in American portrayals of frontier

heroes and their cautious, conservative, attitudes towards guns and guns’ use.

363 The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 2 522.

364 The Leatherstocking Tales Vol. 2 501. 365 The Leatherstocking Tales Vol. 2 522.

366 The Leatherstocking Tales Vol. 2 522.

219

Cooper’s Gun Culture

Cooper establishes an atmosphere that blends both Native American and European

(particularly British) cultural values as he melds them both into the character of Nathaniel

Bumppo. From the mid-eighteenth century on, as explained in the previous chapter, colonials

and Americans constantly returned to the captivity narrative as an answer to the burgeoning

conundrum of a national identity. Pauline Strong states that it is in these captivity narratives—

both factual and fictitious—that Americans found a “compelling representation of an emerging

American Self undergoing a transformation.”367 As Cooper latches on to such a prevalent theme

in which America has a vested public interest, other authors resurrect John Smith’s captivity

narrative and offer several fictional accounts of his rescue by Pocahontas which begin to travel

through the public literary sphere. Strong notes that after the publication of The Last of the

Mohicans (1824), the captivity theme began to pervade even more and “expanded from print to

drama, public sculpture, children’s games, film, and television, remaining today an implicit

model for representations of threatening otherness.”368 It is proposed that these early Americans

turned to such narratives as a response to the problem of a lack of an American national

identity.369 What Cooper is able to do is use the captivity trope to mix and meld identities

originally perceived as opposites, creating a merger of race, creeds, and cultures which pervade

the text, and more importantly define the character of Natty Bumppo. He is civil, but lives in the

367 Pauline Strong, Captive Selves, Captivating Others: The Politics and Poetics of Colonial

American Captivity Narratives. (Boulder: Westview Press 1999) 2. 368 Captive Selves, Captivating Others 2. 369 Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier,

1600-1860. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 2000) 466.

220

wilderness; he is deadeye but seldom shoots, he is white but spends most of his time with

Natives—particularly Chingachgook, and he speaks in both the Delaware and English tongue.

In his Regeneration Through Violence (2000), Slotkin argues that Americans of the

1800s turned to the symbolic frontier hero as a response to their contextual issues, “reducing the

complexities and ambiguities of the American situation to a simple, satisfying formula.”370 I

argue that the gun functions in early American literature in a similar way to Slotkin’s frontier

hero. On one side, one expects American literature to address the errors of a government that

would enforce the Trail of Tears (1838-1839) and recognize other atrocities against Native

massacres.371 On the other, one also expects a literary response to reflect the overall political and

cultural zeitgeist or sentiment that advocates Manifest Destiny and evitable control over the

entire North American continent. Such concepts regarding Native removal and Manifest Destiny

all become conflated within the image of the American gun. The gun emblematically reduces

complex narratives of political and moralistic anxieties. For instance, the gun that Natty Bumppo

wields strangely and heroically serves that function. Killdeer collapses into simplistic binaries as

if there will always be a right and wrong time to kill. Here, Cooper, in a similar way, avoids

complex philosophical debate as to when violence is justified in his Notions of the American.

Just as Cooper argues that any person raised with a schoolbook in one hand and a musket in the

other will make correct decisions when pulling the trigger or even assumes that citizens will

know the correct time to stage an insurrection of the government, Cooper also side-steps issues

370 Regeneration Through Violence 466. 371 Due to many of the trumped-up accounts of Natives threating settlers, multiple Indian

massacres occurred throughout the nineteenth century; a few are: Battle of Bad Axe (1832), Cutthroat Gap (1833), Indian Creek (1832), and the Amador Massacre (1837).

221

by returning to Natty’s notion of natural laws and Killdeer’s precision. Cooper offers these two

characters as well-established myths that have been in construction since the American colonial

period; the American hero and his gun become the simplistic answer to intricate issues and

anxieties.

Ironically, as Cooper strove to use the gun and Nathaniel Bumppo to assert American

values of discernment, individuality, natural law, and correct principles, the gun also serves to

conflate questions of ethics, natural law, Native genocide and removal. Guns as myth permit

citizens to ignore notions of Anglo-American hypocrisy in regards to their treatment of the

Natives and duplicitous deeds similar to the British tyranny they experienced. Overall, Cooper

portrays firearms as an integral part of the American frontier, hero, and culture. In his novels,

guns ensure food and protection. They are beneficial in creating a sensible and practical citizenry

and teach responsibility to young men. To Cooper, gun ownership ensures government by the

majority. Their use differentiates the United States’ citizenry and governmental structures from

Europe’s and other tyrannical nations. Though the shooter should be disciplined, like Natty,

Cooper warns readers that many gun owners neglect and disregard accurate and thoughtful

judgment, like Judge Temple and Hurry Harry. In following the promotion of American values,

much of Killdeer’s use also combat governmental tyranny, fights authoritarianism, and offers a

political voice to the hunter (a practical common man). Cooper’s gun gives power to the general

public and becomes a symbol of self-reliance.

Yet, many times, Cooper acts as an American gun moralist, warning readers of the

dangers of misuse and misapplication. As a model gun owner he asserts Natty (dedicated to both

practicality and moral values) as being in tune with the “natural law”—a vague notion—as a

222

model for knowing the correct times to shoot and not to shoot. Cooper makes other assumptions,

such as addressing that the majority will “know” when the time is right to take up their guns and

oppose governmental oppression. The line between protection and murder is never blurry for the

literary hero. Cooper’s gun provides much-needed political and societal answers to his public,

yet dangerously conflates complex questions within the gun; questions such as when is violence

justified, or when is staging a governmental coup appropriate, and ultimately, when is killing

another person vindicated. Though these issues easily find a resolute answer within the fictional

gun-toting Natty, more complex issues arise for the United States nations’ gun-toting citizenry

and gun-culture.

223

EPILOGUE

UNPACKING THE GUN IN EARLY AMERICAN LITERATURE

In this study, I have attempted to unpack ways in which early American literary

representations provided clues to the origins of America’s present-day gun culture. I have traced

the evolution of symbolic images of the gun and gun hero. Within the natural and cultural

environment of the New World, representations of the gun differ greatly from those the Old

World. The gun itself was used in literature to mark that difference. As the gun enters the

American wilderness and encounters Natives, the gun hero becomes a salient figure attached to

significant values and myths that are portrayed as unique to the American environment and its

history. These values play a significant role in the creation of American identity. Guns are

connected with and promote individuality, anti-authoritarianism, self-reliance, self-distinction,

and Anglo-American superiority. In this land of abundance, firearms provide a means of

sustenance and self-reliance. They assuage social anxieties caused by the threats of fierce

animals and hostile Natives. They offer distinction and a sense of superiority for those who

possess this new technology. This feeling of superiority serves as justification for removal and

even the eradication of the original inhabitants of the New World that might oppose their

“progress.” One might say the gun was used to further both the conceptual and actual

development of Manifest Destiny and was also inherent in war propaganda in the Revolutionary

era.

Along with distinguishing Euro-Americans from Natives, the gun was portrayed as

something unique to the colonial experience. The skills developed to stave off aggressive Natives

allegedly set colonials apart from other Europeans. Such purported skills were used to foster

224

abstract notions of independence. The colonials were skilled enough to fight Natives, on their

own, no longer dependent as they once were during the French and Indian war—upon the crown

to send British troops for their protection. Furthermore, the gun expertise developed among

colonials while fighting against the Natives could easily be shifted to political conflict against the

tyranny of England and toward battles against the redcoats. Through these early narratives, gun

myths offer a generalized, yet, functional response to early American challenges such as war,

independence, safety and protection, American identity, self-reliance, freedom, revolutionary

propaganda, American heroes, appropriation of land, confiscation of Native territory, and

Manifest Destiny.

Cabeza de Vaca’s account serves as one of the first narratives to introduce the gun to

America. At this point the gun, however, proves to be ineffective. It does little to keep the

Natives at bay. Native skill with the bow far outweighed the Spaniard’s use of the unwieldy and

cumbersome harquebus. The bow is much better suited for frontier conditions. It is much more

maneuverable yet powerful enough to split tree trunks and pierce armor. The accuracy of these

earliest guns was uncertain as the harquebus relied upon dry conditions to be most effective, the

weight of the weapon needed support, and its reloading could take minutes. Through his

captivity, Cabeza de Vaca, who must rely upon the Natives for survival, gains a new appreciation

for this “other” culture. Ultimately his experiences cause him to call into question the Spanish

methods of conquest. He points towards a more diplomatic and humane manner of settling the

New World—in such a method Cabeza’s gun has little clout.

When the English make their first forays into colonization nearly a century later, the

gun’s role grows significantly. Captain John Smith does much to establish the gun in the New

225

World. Although gun technology is not much more advanced from de Vaca’s epoch, John Smith

stages the gun, drawing attention to it, embellishing the Native’s reactions to its power. He also

elevates the militia’s skill in the colonies, ensuring peace and also the future success of his

colony. In doing so, he reinforces the view that Natives were incapable, uneducated, and

primitive. Smith’s gun gives colonists a sense of preeminence, though in reality the colonists

heavily rely upon both Natives and European supplements to survive. By using scare tactics

(leveled at the Natives), he is able to create a gun-hero who could supply the colony with

protection and sustenance while they were in dire straits. Admittedly, the Natives were much

more knowledgeable about the land. They knew ways to obtain food and also knew of other

Native Nations’ languages, customs, and alliances. Overall, they were much more adept at

surviving. On the other hand, for colonizers, survival was a constant struggle. But in fact, Smith

brandishes the gun as a means to establish the colonists in a position of cultural superiority over

the Natives in the late fifteen and early sixteen hundreds.

While many Natives surely perceived the gun with interest, the impracticality of such a

weapon in the fifteenth and sixteenth century was overwhelming. Aside from the need for

constant trade for powder and lead, the intricate design of the weapons required much

maintenance and time to simply load and shoot. The blast frightened animals and gave away the

shooter’s position, which ultimately did not fit their hunting or combative style. Yet, the theme

continues through much of early American literature. The presence of the gun causes awe and

fear among the Natives—ensuring safety and preparing the way for more immigration to the

American colonies. These colonists, though migrating for various reasons, received literature

226

preparing them for the Americas that assured them that their anxieties could be set aside because

of the inherent protection provided by the gun.

Differing greatly from Smith’s knight-errant style of bravery within the frontier, Mary

Rowlandson evokes a more pious understanding of the gun. The gun, in the hands of the Natives,

does God’s bidding, calling the colony to repentance. Rowlandson implicitly laments that the

military skill that Smith boasts of, did not exist in Lancaster. In the late sixteen hundreds to early

seventeen hundreds, Rowlandson’s narrative places her at the mercy of the Natives and God; yet,

she evokes principles countering such subordination. She becomes industrious within Native

society, barters for sustenance, and stresses individualism, adaptability, survival at all costs, and

hints toward anti-authoritarian thought and action. These values are later, during the American

Revolution, visually appropriated. In the new cover art Rowlandson is represented as defending

her life, family, home, and possessions with a gun leveled at the Natives. Such cover art conveys

an image that the public effectively understood. Within these images of Rowlandson, the gun

serves as a cultural tool which answers political and social issues (like home defense and

colonial independence) that Rowlandson never depicted in her account—as she never held any

weapon nor did she defend her home with a gun. Such a peculiar pairing of the well-read account

of Mary Rowlandson with the gun at the threshold of her home, clearly resonated with its

readership, and the gun myths that pervaded throughout the colonies became usurped for

political agendas in the mid to late seventeen hundreds.

After the Revolutionary war, the gun again became a symbol for authority and political

power as the Lewis and Clark expedition made its trek west providing readers with a narrative in

which the gun’s importance is clearly defined on the American frontier. The Expedition

227

reinforces the myth John Smith established as the Corps showcased their firearms through gun

demonstrations to impress the Natives. Both the blunderbuss and the Girandoni Air-rifle are

paraded into several Native Nations. After these staged shows the Natives were asked to pledge

allegiance to the “great white chief.” Here the gun serves to secure both trade with various

Nations as well as offer a tentative peace agreement. The gun also proves to be useful in

supplying the crew with game. The flint-lock Kentucky rifle proved a successful technology in

the frontier, and the crew relied heavily upon the meat their firearms procured. Lewis and Clark

numbered the animals they killed and cured, offering the image of a man with the gun and some

sort of animal roasting over the fire pit. The Lewis and Clark era mark a significant paradigm

shift from hunting being something poor Europeans or Natives did out of necessity to something

of a sport that American gentlemen could do. The hunter in the 19th century was a custodian of

nature. This perception of the hunter highlights man’s admiration of animals, stresses an accurate

and ethical kill and addresses population management of game—a Rousseauian concept. Another

common perspective of the 19th-century hunter that the Lewis and Clark expedition advanced

was the Darwinian aspect of hunting. This perspective pits man against animal and stresses the

hunter’s cunning decisions, skill in tracking, and overall knowledge with his gun. Lewis and

Clark reinforce the idea that gun ownership is coupled with social distinction and superiority.

They popularized hunting and melded the two cultures, British and Native American, into an

alluring American frontier hero.

Similarly, Cooper perpetuates this same bravura within his character Natty Bumppo.

Those quick on the trigger, well-armed and well-trained in firearms are the ones to prevail. A

loaded gun becomes a simple answer to threats both real and imagined. Natty Bumppo continues

228

to popularize and mythologize the American hunter. His names “Deerslayer,” “Hawkeye,” and

“Pathfinder,” all evoke skill in hunting. Like Lewis and Clark, Natty is a buckskin-clad

American hunter living off his own kill navigating at the edge of the wilderness and civilization

and encountering “good and bad” Natives. In addition to being a crack-shot, who combines

aspects from both Native and British culture, Natty also (like Rowlandson) evokes a sense of

individualism, claiming not to be “subject” to much at all besides natural law. It is this

combination of traits that defines the American persona that this new literature creates.

There is yet another attribute to Cooper’s gun hero that differs from those of the earlier

authors. Cooper becomes a gun moralist and provides somber and frank words of caution. Where

de Vaca asserts guns to be powerless, Rowlandson critiques the lack of skill, and Smith asserts

that guns wield great power; none strictly caution their readers of erroneous gun use nor do these

narratives request restraint. Rather, they propose the opposite. Smith asks for more firearms in

the colonies, Rowlandson asks the community to disregard the legal stipulations placed upon gun

trade. Captain John Smith, even after being wounded in his upper inner-thigh in a gun-powder

accident,372 does not draw attention to such a traumatic and life-changing event. Due to the

gravity of his wound, Smith returned to England and continues to advocate colonization by his

pen rather than through actual participation.

Lewis and Clark, on the other hand, begin to suggest restraint in the practice of hunting.

Lewis realizes over-hunting is not morally sound and advocates for a scientific (Rousseauian)

approach to managing the wilderness and game populations. They also wish to never violently

372 Smith neglect this matter, perhaps out of embarrassment, personal image was of a deep

importance to Smith, much of this account come from other sources rather than Smith’s own narratives.

229

attack the Natives and use firearms (with implicit overtones of violence) to promote diplomatic

relations. Nonetheless, there were a few shots—at the end of the Expeditions—fired at young

Natives. However, the press and government, perhaps out of respect for his family, neglected to

report or address Meriwether Lewis’s gun suicide. As in Smith’s account, accidents—such as

with the Girandoni Air-rifle on the riverbank—did occur, yet the authors disregarded the

seriousness of these issues. For these authors, the gun is regarded as an answer to many serious

social dilemmas and political questions of their time (such as safety, colonial distinction, racial

supremacy, etc…).

Conversely, when the gun itself might be seen as the contributing cause of the problem,

these authors seem to direct their readers’ attention elsewhere. For instance, none of the sad

irony is addressed as the very gun once used to protect Lewis himself is used to take his own life.

Ultimately, these authors simplify and mythologize the gun to respond to current issues, yet they

fail to address or purposefully overlook erroneous gun use as it complicates matters and threatens

their own positioning of the gun as a promising solution to political and social issues.

James Fenimore Cooper, however, forthrightly addresses some of the issues that arise

within America’s gun culture. He creates a space where he both advocates for gun use, turning to

many of the motifs previously established, yet also critiques gun negligence. Through Nathaniel

Bumppo, Cooper provides America with a gun moralist. Heroically, he illustrates a right and

wrong time to shoot and advocates that reason and rationality must always govern the shot.

Cooper issues a more explicit warning through his character Nathaniel, as Natty pressures

readers to not romanticize the gun to a point where it is not perceived with reverence. Nathaniel,

the gun moralist, requests gun etiquette that is considerate, careful, and restrained.

230

Yet, during the mid-eighteen hundreds, popular American gun myths did not follow

Cooper’s lead. Rather, as Cooper promoted a protagonist that advocated gun ethics, gun safety,

and as his hero consistently contemplates the value of each life he took, many authors began to

portray versions of the frontier hero that focus less on gun ethics and more on what sold books—

gun violence. Daniel Boone became characterized by many of these authors in this manner.

Michael Lofaro tracks the various authorial depictions of Daniel Boone often depicting him in

ways reminiscent of Nathaniel Bumppo. For instance, Lord Byron’s poem Don Juan, depicts

Boone in 1823 as “an idealized example of Rousseau's natural man to demonstrate that spiritual

purity, serenity, freedom, simplicity, and good health are the results of a life lived in the

wilderness.”373 Yet other authors, particularly those ascribing to the mechanisms of the dime

novel wrote more of Boone’s violent exploits. Lofaro highlights the characterization of

Alexander McClung who was a “devotee of ‘the only good Indian is a dead Indian’ school of

thought, [and] gave his readers a Boone that pined away for the ‘thrilling excitement of savage

warfare’ after Kentucky had become too thickly settled.”374 Additionally, Burke Brentford

depicts violent scenes in which Boone, “grasped the redskin’s windpipe with a grip of iron

before a sound issued from it, the other dashed the uplifted tomahawk aside, and the next instant

the knife of the hunter passed through the man's heart, cleaving downward from the shoulder-

blade.”375 Such a character contrasts with Natty’s judiciousness and concern in giving every

373 Michael A. Lofaro, “Tracking Daniel Boone: The Changing Frontier in American Life.” The

Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, vol. 82, no. 4, 1984, pp. 321–333. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23380399 326.

374 “Tracking Daniel Boone” 330. 375 qtd in. Burke Brentford, The Thunderbolt of the Border; or, Daniel Boone on the Warpath

(New York 1891) 3.

231

Native, even Magua, the benefit of the doubt with his keen, quick eye. Also, such a character as

McClung’s and Brentford’s Boone, becomes more like that of Hurry Harry, anxious to kill as

many Natives as possible. Especially within the dime novel violence toward the Natives was

celebrated.

In a sense, as he was Revolutionary War veteran and an elected Statesmen, Daniel

Boone’s narratives—like the narrative of Lewis and Clark—employs an ethos of American

authenticity and elevates Boone into a national icon. Yet, as Boone’s narrative became more

fictionalized and was placed into a simplistic and sensational dime novel framework, the more

complex and moralistic manners that Cooper illustrates become overlooked or over-turned by the

new sensationalist writing.

Another character that opposed Cooper’s moral Natty, is Robert Montgomery Bird’s Nick

of the Woods (1837). Bird’s protagonist is a Quaker, who should obey the religion’s edicts to

oppose all violence, yet Nick, (the more aptly named Nathan Slaughter), begins a killing

rampage to revenge the death of his family. Bird’s Natives are depicted as cruel savages and

Nathan Slaughter vehemently rids the world of many Shawnee, carving crosses in each of the

bodies he leaves in his wake.376 Though Natty also demonstrates his share of violence, Cooper

praises him for his restraint. Cooper’s Nathaniel kills only if it means other lives will be spared

regardless of race. Bird’s Nathaniel, on the other hand, follows McClung’s adage laying the

Natives to waste.

376 Christine Bold, Selling the West: Popular Western Fiction, 1860-1960, (Bloomington and

Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 1987) xii.

232

This new type of fiction portrays Natives differently from Cooper. Wayne Franklin

argues that Cooper “was not imagining or wishing their [the Native’s] displacement. At the same

time that Cooper seemingly accepted their fate, he complicated the plot by including the Native

Americans at the center of his story—and giving them a kind of voice that no one had yet given

them in American fiction.”377 Cooper, in The Last of the Mohicans even reveals a budding

Romance between Uncas and Cora,378 promoting a blending of races, advocating for peace and

progressive views of racial relations. Yet, many of the protagonists in the budding dime novels

served to “legitimate American imperial violence,”379 and the voice of reason used by Cooper’s

cautious and careful Nathaniel Bumppo began to be drowned out by blood-thirsty Indian killers.

Particularly in the wake of the Civil War, gun representation in dime novels romanticized

the man and his gun in more simplistic ways. These romanticized perspectives coupled with

industrialization marks a shift toward commercialization of gun perspectives which promoted

sales of gun fiction and guns. The dime novel became propaganda for the gun industry.380 Gun

manufacturers turned to literature to promote gun myths. Within many novels after the Civil

War, themes such as masculinity, killing natives, security, and advocating a man with a gun—all,

377 Wayne Franklin, James Fenimore Cooper: The Early Years (New Haven and London: Yale

University Press, 2007) 481.

378 Cora is perceived and racially classified in the text as a quadroon (one quarter African and three quarters European ancestry). Her mother was mixed race and her father, Colonel Munro, was English.

379 Kathy Lavezzo and Harilaos Stecopoulos, “Leslie Fiedler's Medieval America.” American Literary History, vol. 22, no. 4, 2010 868.

380 “In a saturated market after the war, gun manufactures looked for novel ways to boost sales,

and marketing strategies became more sophisticated.” Karen R. Jones and John Wills, “‘The Gun That Won the West.’” The American West: Competing Visions, by and, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2009 65 JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1s473v5.7

233

previously promoted by James Fenimore Cooper, John Smith, and Mary Rowlandson, became

exaggerated. For instance, in 1989, C.C. Post claimed, “while there is really far less lawlessness

and disregard for human life among the cattlemen and cowboys along our frontiers than the

blood and thunder stories told of them would lead people to suppose, in the case of Indian attack

or ‘reckless characters,’ ‘of course, they had to go well armed.’”381 The image of the gun on the

frontier became so well-established in American literature that those participating in settling the

west felt it was a necessary item. Karen R. Jones and John Wills, American historians, in their

article, “The Gun That Won the West,” suggest that where the gun really excelled was in its

storytelling potential. As American citizens purchased guns, they also purchased these common

American myths associated with it, stories of individualism, anti-authoritarianism, racial

supremacy, and self-sufficiency. The hard steel body came to embody other values of Manifest

Destiny, self-determination, precise judgment, and unchecked authority.382

As these scholars recognize, the gun as a tool becomes laden with myth and an

overarching sense of Americanness. Dillin’s Kentucky Rifle represents self-defense and

resistance to tyranny and was built from the American wilderness (with a stock cut from a

“neighboring tree”), the Kentucky rifle advocates American ideals and democracy. Similarly,

Jones and Wills perceive the myth as etched into the gun casing. They advocate that the gun and

gun myth become so intertwined that the simple presence of the gun promotes concepts “self-

381 qtd. in Karen R. Jones and John Wills, “The Gun That Won the West.” The American West:

Competing Visions, by, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2009 68. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1s473v5.7

382 Karen R. Jones and John Wills, “The Gun That Won the West.” The American West: Competing Visions, by, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2009 60–86. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1s473v5.7

234

reliance, individualism, and self-determination.”383 Gun manufacturers capitalized upon these

conceptual aspects as gun myths permeate American novels and films. William Hosley asserts

the commercialization of such integral myths in American culture, “What Colt [the gun

manufacturer] invented was a system of myths, symbols, stagecraft, and distribution.”384 In

essence, the staging of the gun that began with Captain John Smith in American literature to

assuage his readership of their anxieties and concerns continued into the industrial and

commercial era of the early nineteen hundreds and even today. Gun myth, representation, and

imagery became an integral part of dime novels, film, and television, all serving to advertise and

promote gun myths and gun sales. Such perspectives were of particular interest to American gun

manufactures. Pamela Haag describes how gun capitalists have endorsed gun myths to create

more demand for guns in commercial America, opening the gun manufacturers market to

civilians. The gun, in the marketplace became a symbol of American exceptionalism.385 In this

manner, gun manufacturers could serve a wider consumer base.

Other media, such as film, perpetuate various ideals. American films such as The Great

Train Robbery (1903), Robert Redford’s Jeremiah Johnson (1972), and Alejandro González

Iñárritu’s Revenant (2015)386 grace American media and portray multiple gun images and

disseminate many themes that early American texts established such as concepts of self-reliance

and individualism. Television series such as Gunsmoke (1952-1961 as radio production and

383 “The Gun That Won the West” 71. 384 William Hosley, Colt the Making of an American Legend, (University of Massachusetts, 1996)

54. 385 Pamela Haag, The Gunning of America: Business and the Making of American Gun Culture.

(New York: Basic Books, 2016) xii, 8. 386 Hugh Glass, like Nathaniel Bumppo, is cautious about taking life.

235

1955-1975 as a television series), Davy Crockett (1954-1955), The Rifleman (1958-1963), and

Have Gun Will Travel (1957-1963) promoted the gun as essential and powerful. The gun

throughout these various media was the ultimate answer to various social and cultural problems.

In many ways, the mechanistic and regimented production of western dime novels, mass-

produced and mass-distributed, resolved most plot conflicts with the gun. The style of much

dime-novel writing, in response to the consumer culture, functioned as an astounding equivalent

to the mass-produced and mass-distributed manufacturing of guns.

The utilitarian images and myths of the gun bled into American politics. A year after the

1999 Columbine shooting the NRA anticipated more rigid talk political about gun control. The

incident deemed “the deadliest high school shooting” would need a masterful declaration to

recuperate lost political ground. The president of the National Rifle Association and former

actor, Charlton Heston, knew how to make the much-needed theatrical entry to the already

vehement political environment. Heston delivered what is now known as one of the most

acclaimed NRA speeches. He dramatically raised a Kentucky Flintlock rifle and declared in a

vigorous tone that any opposed to Gun Rights should come and attempt to pry this rifle, “from

my cold, dead hands!”387 In this instance, the Kentucky rifle gave a significant political

performance. It was held as a spectacle to serve a specific agenda in which it became a

commanding multifaceted symbol to all Americans. Rather than judiciously wielding his weapon

like that Nathanial Bumppo to his enemies in the preservation of another’s life, Heston fights for

his gun, no matter how many others’ “divisive forces” die in the process. His speech references a

387 Jared Law, “2000.07.26 – 2000 NRA Convention – Charlton Heston – From My Cold, Dead

Hands!” Online video clip. You Tube. YouTube, 12 May, 2012. Web. 26 April, 2016.

236

threat to “rights” and natural “God-given” privileges; it alluded to brave Revolutionary war

soldiers that used it; it referenced gun ownership and use as a patriotic right and duty. Heston

also used the rifle to indicate a clear enemy—the “oppressive forces” attempting to limit these

firearms. His demonstration enlisted all gun owners as combatants against these “divisive

forces.”

Aside from Heston’s spectacle, much of the effectiveness of his speech is owing to the

preceding political displays throughout American history and literature, that established the

Kentucky rifle firmly in the American imagination. Rich history, traditional imagery, and

nationalistic pride have crafted myths with this particular firearm. In this simple declaration,

Heston’s rifle promotes various values as well as xenophobic perspectives to best serve the

purposes of the NRA. In other words, the “divisive forces” to which he alluded (those requesting

gun regulation), are deemed “unAmerican” and a threat to the pure “unadulterated” American

history—particularly the Revolutionary war, the war that won America’s rights. Heston’s

Kentucky rifle eloquently serves as an emblem that emphasizes threat, tension, and an ultimate

resolution—an axiomatic procedure for firing the weapon: a threat is perceived (tension), the

enemy is targeted, the trigger is pulled and the threat is eliminated (resolution) and the American

hero succeeds. Such a rhetorical structuring of a rifle, at times, becomes more effective as a

political tool than as a practical tool. Heston cannot take full credit for such a politically and

rhetorically dynamic use of the rifle. As noted by this study, many authors relied upon literary

gun performances, and they did little (save Cooper) to address the issues guns raise.

In much of early American literature guns are presented as the solution, not the problem.

In many ways guns are perceived in the present-day in the same manner and function even more

237

deeply as myths, metaphors, and symbols because more literature and media have acted to

further provoke readers into understanding the gun as an integral part of American society. In

other words, many current gun myths or gun perspectives echo early American literary myths in

extremely personalized discursive ways. These originary myths have become intertwined in

religious, political, and emotional and physical aspects of American life and become imbedded

into individual value systems through ideological means.388 In this study, we have seen the gun

interpreted through colonial power structure from the earliest narratives on. Many institutions

and corporations continue to propagate these gun myths in a very personal manner, a manner that

emotionally places one’s physical existence as being entirely reliant upon the gun. For instance,

Major William Henry Rupert’s Rifleman’s Creed promotes gun use in a manner similar to that of

Nathaniel Bumppo.

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It

is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless.

Without my rifle, I am useless. […] I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its

accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am

clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will ... Before God, I swear this

creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy.

388 The term “ideology” I refer to here is based upon Myra Jehlen and Sacvan Bercovitch’s

Ideology and Classic American Literature. (Cambridge University Press 2004). 5. Ideology is defined as focusing on ways in which one’s “class and a [social] conventions are intimate components of individual behavior.”

238

We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy,

but peace!389

The above asserts elements that Natty Bumppo illustrated. Both he and his rifle are unified. He

knows the integral parts of it and is rarely seen without it—Killdeer is Natty’s best friend. He

depends upon his rifle to live as a hunter it is a means to sustain or protect life, similar to a

soldier. Furthermore, Natty maintains a sense of readiness with his gun and also keeps it clean

and keeps himself clean as he follows his moral compass. With it, he defends his friends and

country—the frontier. Overall, Nathaniel is victorious over his enemy and always uses it to

maintain peace. As soldiers ritualistically repeat the Rifleman’s Creed they reassert these ethical

and moralistic metaphors that stress cleanliness, accurate judgments, vigilance, protectors of

peace all depend upon the rifle. The creed provides just one example of the ways that guns are

perceived today as they were perceived in early America. Currently the Marines continue to

teach and recite the Rifleman’s Creed, offering its soldiers a ceremony in which they recite

fundamental ways to conceptualize their weapon, making its mass production and mass

distribution more personal. In uncovering ritualistic metaphors regarding weapons, Jerrod

Whitaker furthers the discussion of how such an ideology has become propagated into American

gun culture:

Given the increased militarization of parts of American culture (particularly the police

force) over the past few decades, it would be worthwhile to analyze critically how

civilians adopt many of the same deeply felt interpretations of their weapons as members

389 Major General William H. Rupertus, “My Rifle: The Creed of a U.S. Marine.” qtd. in Marion

F. Sturkey, Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines (Plumb Branch: Heritage Press International 2010) 114.

239

of the military, especially since a generation has been at war and is reintegrating back

into civilian life. Clearly, making a weapon become an intimate part of an owner’s sense

of him/herself is a potent strategy that may contribute to an individual’s desire to protect

the weapon, rather than the other way round. And surely campaigns seeking to keep guns

legal and ubiquitous can capitalize on the embodiment of such an ideal.390

In a sense what Whitaker—and I am hoping this study as well—is bringing to light, is the detail

that as some segments of the American public advocate for gun rights, they are not merely

advocating their own right to gun ownership but vehemently advocating and defending vital

metaphors found within various gun narratives. In the heart of issues regarding guns is not only

the right to self-preservation or self-defense but also the values placed within the gun through

early American gun narratives such as individualism, self-reliance, elevated distinction, and

antiauthoritarianism. It is also the gun activist, much like the colonist, who maintains anxieties

regarding tyranny and oppression, just as many gun rights enthusiasts emphasize the unexpected

dangers are lurking around the corner and promote concealed carry. Institutions wishing to

maintain the ease of gun distribution and ownership are well aware of these myths—and just as

Charlton Heston’s raised Kentucky Rifle—use them, as Whitaker states, to “capitalize on the

embodiment of such an ideal.”391

As representations of early American literature show, many authors did little to evoke the

sense of danger and foreseeable threats of gun accidents, violence, and suicides. As argued

390 Jarrod Whitaker, “I Boldly Took the Mace for Might: Ritually Weaponizing a Warrior’s Body in Ancient India.” International Journal of Hindu Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, Apr. 2016 79.

391 “I Boldly Took the Mace” 79.

240

earlier, James Fenimore Cooper perceived guns more as a threat later in his writing career and

then made Nathaniel into more of a gun moralist. Yet, even while Cooper argues for gun ethics

through his major character, other authors and publishers realized sensationalized gun violence

would sell better on the popular market.

By recognizing several gun perceptions found in early American literature (from the mid-

sixteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century) we can see how gun myths formed around

American attitudes towards guns, and how they still promote gun use and gun ownership.

Through the literary origins of gun culture we can also perceive how these myths served social or

political purposes, such as: advocating for the removal of Natives, promoting colonization,

asserting colonial rights against tyranny, encouraging enlistment patriot in the Revolutionary

war, or asserting one’s own individuality over authority. The creation of American gun culture

was also heavily influenced by economic incentives.

Current debates over gun regulation reveal that nothing much has changed. Gun myth and

cultural values remain interwoven with political ideologies and agendas. In short, guns are never

just a simple tool found on the American frontier. Guns, for many, are synonymous with the

meaning of America itself. Today, pro-gun myth continues to be propagated in support of gun

rights, even in the wake of hundreds of mass shootings.392 Furthermore, pro-gun institutions have

successfully lobbied the U.S. Federal government to pass the Dickey Amendment, ensuring that

392 According to a 2015 study conducted by Adam Lankford of The University of Alabama. “Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American.” qtd. in Max Fisher and Josh Keller, “What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer.” New York Times. Nov. 7 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html Date Accessed 4 Aug. 2019.

241

no government funding can support gun use research that might involve support for gun control.

Under these conditions, pro-gun storytellers gain additional control over gun myth by building

upon pro-gun attitudes that pervade early American literature. New, more cautionary

perspectives and more safety-driven literary representations of guns might change American

attitudes regarding guns by providing a balance to pro-gun narratives that facilitate positive

changes in gun law, gun use, and gun etiquette. However, to effectively reach large and diverse

audiences, these narratives must now circulate across multiple media platforms (including

novels, film, television, movies, video games), as much traditional news and politics are

primarily delivered by politicized media organizations to audiences who already hold similar

views.393 In the wake of ongoing gun atrocities,394 the type of sobering approach offered by

James Fenimore Cooper could reach a broader audience (perhaps even pro-gun activists) to

promote some gun regulation and healthy gun-use education. Ironically, present and future

American gun narratives might well find it effective to respond just as early American literature

did in turning to gun narratives to address their fears about the kind of political and social issues

393 A few artist and authors have begun to provide new narratives or reject roles that promote gun

violence. For instance, Jim Carrey has rejected roles in films that contain gun violence and even parodies Charlton Heston’s popular NRA speech. See “Jim Carrey Speaks Out to Support Gun Control: Again Actor Says Hatred and Threats Have Been Directed at Him.” The Record. (The Canadian Press: Cambridge, ON). Accessed 4 Aug. 2019. Other comedies have parodied gun affinity in the United States in television shows such as South Park see Ryan Parker, “South Park Takes on Gun Control in Season Finale.” The Hollywood Reporter 7 Dec. 2015. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/south-park-takes-gun-control-846572 Accessed 4 Aug. 2019. And also The Simpsons, see Alan Siegel, “When Homer Simpson Bought a Gun, and the NRA Didn’t Get It.” Slate. 3 June 2014. https://slate.com/culture/2014/06/simpsons-gun-episode-the-cartridge-family-was-kind-to-the-nra-but-they-didn-t-get-it-video.html Accessed 4 Aug. 2019.

394 Since the beginning of my work on this dissertation there have been multiple mass shootings

that have occurred in the United States—from the Sandy Hook School Shooting (Dec. 2012) to the Dayton Ohio Mass Shooting (Aug. 2019).

242

they saw as potentially arising with gun use and ownership, with one major difference: unlike

early American literature, today’s gun narratives must address the political and ethical

implications and personal pain and loss caused by actual (not fictional) gun violence, mass

shootings, and harmful neglect.395

395 Future studies should address ways in which current American gun narratives challenge past popular gun myths and attitudes. A current study that begins to do this is Pamela Haag’s The Gunning of America: The Business and the Making of American Gun Culture, (Philadelphia: Basic Books, 2016). Furthermore, narrowing the scope to specific regions will most likely highlight various themes and illustrate gun culture particular to a particular region, particularly since much of early American identity developed regionally.

243

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Works

Alvar De Vaca, Chronicles of the Narváez Expedition: A New Translation: Contexts, Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2013.

Cervantes, Miguel. The History of Don Quixote of la Mancha. Translated by Thomas Shelton. London: David Nutt, 1896.

Cooper, James Fenimore. The American Democrat and Other Political Writings. Edited by Bradley J. Birzer and John Wilson. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc., 2000.

---. The Deerslayer: or, the First War-path. London: Routledge, Warn, and Routledge, 1862.

---. The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 1 New York: Viking Press, 1985.

---. The Leatherstocking Tales. Vol. 2 New York: Viking Press, 1985.

---. Notions of the American: Picked Up by a Traveling Bachelor. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.

Cortes, Hernan. Hernan Cortes-Letters from Mexico. Translated by Anthony Pagden. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Dryden, John. et. al. Works of John Dryden. Vol 9. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.

Rowlandson, Mary White and. The Account of Mary Rowlandson and Other Indian Captivity Narratives. Edited by Horace Kephart, Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 2005.

Shakespeare, William. Henry IV. London: Penguin, 1996.

Smith, John. The Complete Works of John Smith 1580 -1631 in Three Volumes. ed. Philip L. Barbour. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Lewis, Meriwether and William Clark. The Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition 1804-1806. Edited by Ruben Gold Thwaites, New York: Dodd Meed Company, 1904.

---. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery. Edited by Gary E. Moulton, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.

244

---. The Journals of Lewis and Clark. Edited by Bernard DeVoto Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1997.

Secondary Works

Alexander, Jeffery C., et al. Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004.

Ambrose, Stephen E. Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

“An Abstract of Laws of the New England, 1641,” reprinted in Force, Vol. III, No. 9.

Bacon, Francis. The New Atlantis. Ocean Shores: Watchmaker Publishing, 2010.

Barbour, Philip L. “Captain John Smith and the London Theatre.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 83, 1975.

---. “Captain George Kendall: Mutineer or Intelligencer?” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 70.3 1962.

Beckham, Stephen D. et al. The Literature of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: A Bibliography and Essays. Portland, Or: Lewis & Clark College, 2003.

Bellesiles, Michael. Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, 2nd ed. Brooklyn, New York: Soft Skull Press, 2003.

Berger, Stafan and Christoph Conrad, The Past as History: National Identity and Historical Consciousness in Modern Europe. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America,” Gender and Morality in Anglo-American Culture, 1650–1800. University of California Press, Berkeley; Los Angeles; London, 2003.

Botein, Stephen. “The Anglo-American Book Trade Before 1776: Personnel and Strategies.” In William L. Joyce et al., eds. Printing and Society in Early America. Worcester, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society, 1983.

Brentford, Burke. The Thunderbolt of the Border; or, Daniel Boone on the Warpath. New York, 1891.

245

Browder, Laura. Her Best Shot: Women and Guns in America. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Burnham, Michelle. “The Journey between: Liminality and Dialogism in Mary White Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative.” Early American Literature, vol. 28, no. 1, 1993.

Burrell, Westly R. “James Fenimore Cooper and the ‘Long Rifle.’” Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review 60.10 1953.

Butler, Michael. “Sons of Oliver Edwards; or The Other American Hero” Western American Literature vol 1: 12 Spring 1977.

Carrick, Michael. “Blunderbusses” Discovering Lewis and Clark. May 2005. https://www.lewis-clark.org/article/2360. Accessed 25 March 2019.

Chaplin, Joyce E. Subject Matter: Technology, body, and Science on the Anglo-American Frontier 1500-1676. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

“Charles II, 1670 & 1671: An Act for the better preservation of the Game, and for secureing Warrens not inclosed, and the severall Fishings of this Realme.” Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5, 1628-80. ed. John Raithby. s.l: Great Britain Record Commission, 1819. 745-746. British History Online. Web. 10 April 2019. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp745-746. Accessed 25 April 2019.

Chiaventone, Frederick J. “Lewis and Clark’s Girandoni Air Rifle.” Warfare History Network, 7 December 2018, https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/lewis-and-clarks-girandoni-air-rifle/. Accessed 25 March 2019.

Cooper, Edith G. The Kentucky Rifle and Me. 1st ed. Cooper, 1977.

Cramer, Clayton E. Armed America: Firearms Ownership, Hunting, and Gun Culture in the Early United States. Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006.

---. Lock, Stock, and Barrel: The Origins of American Gun Culture. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, 2018.

Danisi, Thomas. Uncovering the Truth about Meriwether Lewis. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2012.

D'Avenant, William. The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru Exprest by Instrumentall and Vocall Musick, and by Art of Perspective in Scenes, &c. London: Henry Herringham, 1658.

246

De Conde, Alexander. Gun Violence in America: The Struggle for Control. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2001.

Derounian-Stodola, Kaythryn Zabelle. “The Indian Captivity Narratives of Mary Rowlandson and Olive Oatman: Case Studies in the Continuity, Evolution, and Exploitation of Literacy Discourse” Studies in the Literary Imagination. Georgia State University: vol. xxvii no. 1. 1994.

---. “The Publication, Promotion, and Distribution of Mary Rowlandson's Indian Captivity Narrative in the Seventeenth Century.” Early American Literature, vol. 23, no. 3, 1988.

Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1997.

Dillin, John G.W. The Kentucky Rifle. 5th ed. York, Pennsylvania: George Shumway, 1967.

Dillon, Richard H. Meriwether Lewis: A Biography. New York: Coward-McCann, 1965.

Docter, Mary. “Enriched by Otherness: The Transformational Journey of Cabeza de Vaca.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 58, no.1 Autumn 2008.

Erhard, Katharina. “Rape, Republicanism, and Representation: Founding the Nation in Early American Women's Drama and Selected Visual Representations.” American Studies, vol. 50, no. 3, 2005.

Erickson, Doug. “First Accounts of the Expedition” Discovering Lewis and Clark, July 2008, http://www.lewis-clark.org/article/3028#footnote5_beiuktz. Accessed 29 March 2019.

Fichtelberg, Joseph. “The Colonial Stage: Risk and Promise in John Smith’s Virginia,” Early American Literature, vol. 39, no. 1, Mar. 2004.

Fisher, Max and Josh Keller, “What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer.” New York Times. Nov. 7 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html. Date Accessed 4 Aug. 2019.

Fisher, Robin. Contact and Conflict: Indian-European relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1992.

“Forum: Historians and Guns,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser. 59 January 2002.

Franklin, Wayne. New World of James Fenimore Cooper. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

247

“From Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Jr., 6 July 1787,” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-11-02-0475. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 11, 1 January–6 August 1787, ed. Julian P. Boyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955, pp. 556–559.] Accessed 30 March 2019.

Given, Brian J. A Most Pernicious Thing: Gun Trading and Native Warfare in the Early Contact Period. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press, 1994.

Greener, W.W. The Gun and its Development. 9th ed. New York: Bonanza, 1967.

Greenblatt, Stephen Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Greenfield, Bruce R. Narrating Discovery: The Romantic Explorer in American Literature, 1790-1855. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.

Grizzard, Frank E. and D B. Smith. Jamestown Colony: a Political, Social, and Cultural History. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2007.

Haag, Pamela. The Gunning of America: The Business and the Making of American Gun Culture. Philadelphia: Basic Books, 2016.

Hofstadter, Richard. “America as a Gun Culture” American Heritage 21. 6. 1970: 4

Ingraham, Christopher. “There are more guns than people in the United States, according to a new study of global firearm ownership.” Washington Post, 19 June 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/?utm_term=.93413bfe2d68. Accessed 29 April 2019.

“James Neely to Thomas Jefferson,” Nashville Tennessee 18 October 1809. Founders Online. National Historical Publications and Records Commission. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-01-02-0478#D26110ID8. Accessed 26 March 2019.

Jehlen, Myra, and Sacvan Bercovitch. Ideology and Classic American Literature. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

“Jim Carrey Speaks Out to Support Gun Control: Again Actor Says Hatred and Threats Have Been Directed at Him.” The Record. The Canadian Press: Cambridge, ON. Accessed 4 Aug. 2019.

248

Johnson, Nicholas. Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2014.

Kyle, Chris. “The American Longrifle.” American Rifleman, June 19, 2013. http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2013/6/19/the-american-longrifle. Accessed 29 April 2019.

Law, Jared. “2000.07.26 – 2000 NRA Convention – Charlton Heston – From My Cold, Dead Hands!” Online video clip. You Tube. YouTube, 12 May, 2012. Web. 26 April, 2016.

Lellock, Jasmine. “Of Guns and Other Weapons in Mary Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative.” Early Modern Women, vol. 4, 2009.

Lemay, J.A. The American Dream of Captain John Smith. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991.

MacMillan, Dougald. “The Sources of Dryden’s The Indian Emperour [sic],” Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4 August 1950.

MacNeil, Denise Mary. The Emergence of the American Frontier Hero 1682-1826: Gender, Action, and Emotion. New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2009.

Manseau, Peter. Melancholy Accidents: Three Centuries of Stray Bullets and Bad Luck. Brooklyn, London: Melville House, 2016.

Marks, Stuart A. Southern Hunting in Black and White: Nature, History, and Ritual in a Carolina Community. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1991.

McClung, John Alexander. Sketches of Western Adventure: containing an Account of the Most Interesting Adventure connected with the Settlements of the West from 1755 to 1794. Covington: Richard H. Collins. 1872.

“Melancholy Accident” The Sun, 24 November 1838.

Moulton, Gary E. “On Reading Lewis and Clark: The Last Twenty Years” Voyages of Discovery: Essays on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1998.

Munsche, P. B. Gentlemen and Poachers: the English Game Laws, 1671-1831. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Mussulman, Joseph. “Lewi’s Air Gun” Discovering Lewis and Clark. September 2003. https://www.lewis-clark.org/article/1827#footnote5_d4ty2fs. Accessed 25 March 2019.

249

Myers, Robert. “Gunspeak: The Influence of America’s Gun Culture on Everyday Communication.” Anthro-at-Large: Bulletin of the Federation of Small Anthropology Programs 12:1. Spring 2005.

Nye, David. America as Second Creation: Technology and Narratives of New Beginnings. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004.

Parker, Ryan. “South Park Takes on Gun Control in Season Finale.” The Hollywood Reporter. 7 Dec. 2015. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/south-park-takes-gun-control-846572 Accessed 4 Aug. 2019.

Purchas, Samuel. Purchas, His Pilgrim. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, LLC., 2010.

Ronda, James P. Lewis and Clark among the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

---. “‘So Vast an Enterprise:’ Thoughts on the Lewis and Clark Expedition,” Voyages of Discovery: Essays on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1998.

Rose, Alexander. American Rifle a Biography. New York: Bantam Dell, 2008.

Salisbury, Neal. ed. The Sovereignty and Goodness of God by Mary Rowlandson with Related Documents. Bedford and St. Martins: Boston 1997.

Samuel Woodsworth. “The Hunters of Kentucky or The Battle of New Orleans and Half Horse or Half Alligator” ed. William McCarty The American National Song Book: Songs, Odes, and Other Poems on National Subjects. Philadelphia: Mm. McCarty, 1842

Scott, Sibbald David British Army: its Origin, Progress, and Equipment. London: Cassel, Petter, and Galpin, 1868.

Schriber, Mary Suzanne. Gender and the Writer’s Imagination: From Cooper to Wharton. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987.

Shields, David S. and Fredrika J. Teut’s “The Republican Court and the Historiography of Women in Domain in the Public Sphere.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 35, no.2, Summer 2015.

Siegel, Alan. “When Homer Simpson Bought a Gun, and the NRA Didn’t Get It.” Slate. 3 June 2014. https://slate.com/culture/2014/06/simpsons-gun-episode-the-cartridge-family-was-kind-to-the-nra-but-they-didn-t-get-it-video.html Accessed 4 Aug. 2019.

250

Siemenski, Greg. “The Puritan Captivity Narrative and the Politics of the American Revolution.” American Quarterly, no.1, 1990.

Skeat, Rev. Walter W. An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898.

Slaughter, Thomas P. Exploring Lewis and Clark: Reflections on Men and Wilderness. New York: Knopf Distributed by Random House, 2003.

Slotkin, Richard. Regerneration Through Violence: the Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 2000. Print. 466.

---. Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in the Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.

Smith, Dwight L. and Ray Swick, A Journey Through the West: Thomas Rodney's 1803 Journal from Delaware to the Mississippi Territory Athens: Ohio University Press, 1997.

Smythe, John. Certain Discourses, Concerning the Formes and Effects of Divers Sorts of Weapons, and Other Verie Important Matters Militarie, Greatlie Mistaken by Divers of Our Men of Warre in These Daies. Ithaca, New York: Cornel University Press, 1967.

Strong, Pauline. Captive Selves, Captivating Others: The Politics and Poetics of Colonial American Captivity Narratives. Boulder: Westview Press. 1999. Print. 2.

Sturkey, Marion F. Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines. Plumb Branch: Heritage Press International. 2010.

Todorov, Tzvetan. The Conquest of the America: The Question of the Other. trans. Richard Howard Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999.

Toulouse, Teresa. The Captive's Position: Female Narrative, Male Identity, and Royal Authority in Colonial New England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

VanDerBeets, Richard. Held Captive by Indians: Selected Narratives, 1642-1836. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1973.

Vaughan, Alden T. American Genesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1975.

“We are inform’d” The Boston Gazette. 20 Aug. to 27 Aug. 1733.

“We hear two young Men” The Boston Gazette. 20 Aug. to 27 Aug. 1733.

251

Whitaker, Jarrod. “I Boldly Took the Mace for Might: Ritually weaponizing a Warrior’s Body in Ancient India.” International Journal of Hindu Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, Apr. 2016, 51-94.

Williams, David C. The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment: Taming Political Violence in a Constitutional Republic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.

Winkler, Adam. Gunfight: the Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2013.

“supposed, adj. 2.a”. OED Online, Oxford University Press, March 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/194695. Accessed 11 April 2019.

252

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jay Branagan Webb—from Bainbridge, Georgia—completed his schoolwork at Bainbridge High

School in 1998. He received a Bachelor of Arts with a major in English in May 2005 at Weber

State University, and a Master of Arts in Humanities in May of 2007 at Florida State University.

In Spring 2010, he entered the graduate program in Literature at The University of Texas at

Dallas. He is currently teaching English and Humanities full-time at Abraham Baldwin

Agriculture College, in his hometown—Bainbridge, Georgia.

253

CURRICULUM VITAE

Jay Branagan Webb, PhD

Education The University of Texas at Dallas PhD - Literature Dec. 2019

Florida State University M.A. - Humanities May 2007

Weber State University B.A.- English May 2005

Dissertation Brandishing the Gun: Representations in Early American Literature, 1500-1800

Teaching Experience

Instructor, Abraham Baldwin Agriculture College (May 2016-Present) ENGL 1101: Composition I ENGL 1102: Composition II ENGL 2112: World Literature ENGL 2132: American Literature (From 1865-Present) HUMN 2221: Ancient Civilization to the Renaissance HUMN 2222: Baroque to Modernity HUMN 2002: Baroque to Modernity (Study Abroad Central Europe) HUMN 2700: International Film Studies STAB 2003: Study Abroad Central Europe PRSP 1020: Perspectives in Film RSCH 1100: Research and Documentation

Online Instructor, eCore (July 2019-Present) ENGL 1102: Composition

Adjunct Instructor, Richland College (Aug. 2013-Dec. 2014)

254

Presentations

“Ticket to the Gun Show: Captain John Smith’s Spectacle of the Gun” Critical Voices—University of Northern Texas

March 2015

“The Genesis of Gun Culture in Captain John Smith” Research, Writing, and Art Conference—University of Texas at

Dallas

March 2015

“‘Breaking Bad’: Transcending Habit in Emerson” Research, Writing, and Art Conference—University of Texas at Dallas

March 2013

"Red Badge of Courage Under Fire” Research, Writing, and Art Conference—University of Texas at

Dallas

March 2012

“Thoreau’s Arrowheads”

March 2011

ENGL 1301: Composition I Teaching Assistant, University of Texas at Dallas (Aug. 2010 –May 2015)

LIT 2341: Literary Analysis RHET 1302: College Writing

Adjunct Instructor, Salt Lake Community College (Jan. 2008-May 2009)

HUM 1100: Introduction to Humanities Adjunct Instructor, Utah Valley University (Jan. 2008-May 2008)

PHIL 2050: Ethics and Values Teaching Assistant, Florida State University (May 2005-May 2007) HUM 3321: Multicultural Film Studies

255

Research, Writing, and Art Conference—University of Texas at Dallas

Affiliations/Memberships

Phi Theta Kappa—Advisor

Modern Language Association

American Studies Association

Phi Alpha Theta: History Honors Society—Vice President University of Texas at Dallas

May 2016- present

Jan. 2014-present

Jan. 2014-present

March 2014-May 2016

Program for Instructional Excellence—Coordinator Florida State University

Student Involvement and Leadership—Student Activities President Weber State University

May 2006-May 2007

June 2003-June 2004

Student Government—Freshmen Representative Bainbridge College

Sept. 1998-May1999