Monday, February 1, 2016
Thursday, December 3, 2015
RIFLEMAN BOOT CAMP Tallahassee Fl. Jan 24-29 2016
RIFLEMAN BOOT CAMP Tallahassee Fl. Jan 24-29 2016
6 DAY - RIFLEMAN BOOT CAMP - 6 DAY
RWVA Appleseed Rifle Marksmanship & Heritage Clinic
MUST READ INFORMATION!
No Refunds - however transfers are available - please see this page for more information.
This event is a Riflemans Boot Camp. This is an event where attendees learn all that is needed to become an instructor. You are not required to become an instructor however.
Please see this link for more information.
Range Fees for this event are:
Payable at the range on the day of the event.
This is the amount the range requires per student and is not part of your instruction fees paid here. Please be prepared to pay this part at the event.
Schedule: 8:30am-5:00pm daily (as conditions permit)
All Participants are responsible for being prepared, Please be sure to read your confirmation e-mail. It will direct you to links on how to prepare for this event. or go to: http://appleseedinfo.org/
6 DAY - RIFLEMAN BOOT CAMP - 6 DAY
RWVA Appleseed Rifle Marksmanship & Heritage Clinic
MUST READ INFORMATION!
No Refunds - however transfers are available - please see this page for more information.
This event is a Riflemans Boot Camp. This is an event where attendees learn all that is needed to become an instructor. You are not required to become an instructor however.
Please see this link for more information.
Range Fees for this event are:
Payable at the range on the day of the event.
This is the amount the range requires per student and is not part of your instruction fees paid here. Please be prepared to pay this part at the event.
Schedule: 8:30am-5:00pm daily (as conditions permit)
All Participants are responsible for being prepared, Please be sure to read your confirmation e-mail. It will direct you to links on how to prepare for this event. or go to: http://appleseedinfo.org/
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Philosophy of Liberty of the Founding Generation
“Philosophy of Liberty of the Founding Generation” By: John “DrJohn” Sampson
I have been asked give a short presentation on Liberty during this Appleseed event. I must admit to being somewhat intimidated by the task, for several reasons. First, it is a very large topic. But since we are doing it in the context of Appleseed, I take it to mean what was the philosophy of Liberty of the founding generation. Why did they fight with such grim determination? What were they fighting for? Another reason is that each person fought and struggled for his own reasons, so there were many ‘philosophies’, not just one. But they were all pretty much complementary. Instead of giving you my own idea of what the founding generation had in mind, I think it best to describe their motivations in their own words, letting them speak for themselves. I will have some commentary on what they spoke and wrote, but as much as I can, I will do so by putting myself in their place and explaining as I think they would have done themselves.
One more item of difficulty is that their philosophy, their world view, so to speak, is so vastly different from ours. So much so that it is difficult or even impossible for many people even to imagine such ideas. Let’s explore them a little bit, the ideas of those men, women, and children who loved Liberty so much that they were willing to pay almost any price to attain it.
In the first place, we might wonder what they meant by ‘Liberty’. In the words of one of the most revered of the founding generation, Samuel Adams, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or the legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” That’s a pretty revolutionary thing to say. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thomas Jefferson said “(R)ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” I might add a word about the meaning of the word “tyrant” or “tyranny”. The founding generation didn’t use these words as an epithet. Like everything they said, these words had a particular meaning. They referred to rule that was arbitrary and capricious, and treated men differently based on whim and preference, not on objectivity. It was rule based on connections and power.
I did not say these things myself, although I strongly support the sentiments. Let’s consider another quote or two from Thomas Jefferson, a man widely respected as being one of the pivotal intellectuals of the American Revolution and the principle author of the Declaration of Independence.
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?” That’s pretty radical, don’t you think? How do you feel about the matter?
Thomas Jefferson also said, “The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.”
He also said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
I think you get the drift. No need to belabor the point. The predominant theme of Revolutionary War era America was Liberty.
We aren’t going to be able to cover the philosophy of the founding generation in great depth because of time constraints, but let’s hit another couple of highlights. I would like to quote one of the most influential documents of its day, the one that seemed to encompass a great deal of the thinking that shaped their belief system. This is from the second and most famous paragraph of that document:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.---That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
Can anyone tell me what that is from? Yes, the Declaration of Independence. Let me make a few obvious comments. The founders considered some truths so obvious, so impressed on our very hearts, as it were, that they were ‘self-evident’, that is, that anyone knew they were true just by examining his own heart. Of course all the great religions reinforce these beliefs, but even if religions did not exist, we would still know these things to be true. Among these truisms is the knowledge that we have certain rights that are un-alienable, often mispronounced unalienable. That means we cannot split these rights off from ourselves even if we wanted to. They are as much a part of our very nature as gray, heavy, and space-occupying are to the nature of lead. That governments are created by people to secure those rights. Just to secure our rights to life, freedom of action, and property. The right to property is essential because if government can deprive us of our property at will, our rights to life and freedom of action are meaningless. As one of the founders, George Mason of Virginia, phrased it, if Parliament can tax us one shilling out of twenty, what security is there for the other nineteen? And the document refers not to happiness per se, but the pursuit of happiness. So it was recognized that each person had the right to live his own life as he saw fit, free from any meddlesome attempts to make him conform in any way whatever, except to leave his neighbors in peace.
One more thought on the wording of the Declaration, the phrase, “government derives its just powers from consent of the governed”. That implies that there are unjust powers as well that government exercises. Or in the words of Thomas Jefferson, speaking of the new Constitution, “Laws which violate the basic law of the land are null and void and of no force whatever.” The clergy of the Revolutionary generation well understood this concept and taught it constantly from the pulpit.
Let me just quote a few others of the founding generation, to give you a little ‘flavor’ of their thinking, so you can understand them a bit better and perhaps get a different perspective on the situation in which we now find ourselves. Capt. Levi Preston of Danvers had fought during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. He was interviewed many years later and asked what it was that made him fight. The old man considered the question a bit. To prompt a reply, the interviewer asked if it was the Stamp Act, or the tax on tea, or the writings of the philosopher John Locke. Finally the old man said, “Young man, what we meant in going for the Redcoats was this. We had always governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean that we should.”
One more quote, from a man who wrote with such conviction, sincerity, and common sense that he rescued the War for Independence from almost certain loss. The pamphlet appeared in December of 1776 and was instrumental in boosting the morale of the Continental army and in winning the battles of Trenton and Princeton and turning the tide of the war. Let me quote:
“Britain with its army to enforce her tyranny, has declared she has a right not only to TAX but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner is not slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited power can belong only to God.” Thomas Paine, The Crisis. This referred to the Declaratory Act passed by Parliament in 1766, at the time the Stamp Act was repealed. England wanted to alert her American colonies that the hated tax would be repealed, but that in no way meant that England forfeited her right to rule the colonies in every way imaginable. To the colonists, that was merely a euphemism for slavery. Can government rule us in all cases whatsoever? That is, do we have a moral or ethical obligation to submit to government without any reservation, even when it violates our conscience? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to act immorally? Asked in that way, the question more or less answers itself. I would like each of you to ponder that for yourselves. Does government have the right to bind us in all cases whatsoever? Or are there limits? What are your own thoughts on the matter?
Let me quote one more of the Founding Generation, Samuel West, a Congregationalist minister In Massachusetts Bay Colony during the Revolutionary period. He gave a very influential sermon after the fighting had broken out, and he eloquently outlined the American patriots’ high moral ground in opposing British tyranny. Let me paraphrase a paragraph of his sermon. I admit that I paraphrase his words quite a bit, but only to make them more understandable to modern ears. “Thus we see that a state of nature, though it be a state of perfect freedom, gives men no right to do anything that is immoral, or contrary to the will of God, and injurious to their fellow-creatures; for a state of nature is properly a state of law and government, even a government founded upon the unchangeable Natural Law, and a law resulting from the eternal fitness of things...A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of Natural Law, ought immediately to be rejected as an lie... Had this subject been properly understood, the world would have remained free from a multitude of absurd ideas, which have been industriously propagated by artful and designing men, both in politics and the pulpit. The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have gained support among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to Natural Law and destructive of human happiness, peace and prosperity.” He goes on to say, “This plainly shows that the highest state of liberty subjects us to the law of nature and the government of God.” In other words, men have no moral obligation whatever to obey any so-called ‘authority’ that acts contrary to God’s law, or Natural Law, or the Ten Commandments, as they would have understood the concept. What is your own opinion about that? Ever given it a thought? It is certainly not the kind of thing you hear in the popular culture, and to my way of thinking, we are the worse off because of it.
I have given you a lot to think about. And I certainly hope it has stimulated your thinking, and that you will read more. The thoughts, sentiments, and beliefs expressed are those that motivated a peace loving people to rise up and defeat the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. Their thinking is so different from the popular culture of today that it is hard for many people even to conceive of it. But to my way of thinking, their morality, responsibility, and determination are far more agreeable to me, and harmonize with what I feel to be just and true, than any amount of what I get through the popular culture. I hope it holds some attraction for you as well.
Let me end this with one more quote from one of my very favorite founding fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren. He was one of the principle leaders of the Patriots in Boston at the time of Paul Revere’s ride, one of the most influential and admired men in Massachusetts Bay Colony. He was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill in June, 1775, fighting off the Redcoats so that as many Patriot militia as possible could escape and live to fight on. He spoke these words at the commemoration of the Boston Massacre in 1775:
“Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.”
I have been asked give a short presentation on Liberty during this Appleseed event. I must admit to being somewhat intimidated by the task, for several reasons. First, it is a very large topic. But since we are doing it in the context of Appleseed, I take it to mean what was the philosophy of Liberty of the founding generation. Why did they fight with such grim determination? What were they fighting for? Another reason is that each person fought and struggled for his own reasons, so there were many ‘philosophies’, not just one. But they were all pretty much complementary. Instead of giving you my own idea of what the founding generation had in mind, I think it best to describe their motivations in their own words, letting them speak for themselves. I will have some commentary on what they spoke and wrote, but as much as I can, I will do so by putting myself in their place and explaining as I think they would have done themselves.
One more item of difficulty is that their philosophy, their world view, so to speak, is so vastly different from ours. So much so that it is difficult or even impossible for many people even to imagine such ideas. Let’s explore them a little bit, the ideas of those men, women, and children who loved Liberty so much that they were willing to pay almost any price to attain it.
In the first place, we might wonder what they meant by ‘Liberty’. In the words of one of the most revered of the founding generation, Samuel Adams, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or the legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” That’s a pretty revolutionary thing to say. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thomas Jefferson said “(R)ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” I might add a word about the meaning of the word “tyrant” or “tyranny”. The founding generation didn’t use these words as an epithet. Like everything they said, these words had a particular meaning. They referred to rule that was arbitrary and capricious, and treated men differently based on whim and preference, not on objectivity. It was rule based on connections and power.
I did not say these things myself, although I strongly support the sentiments. Let’s consider another quote or two from Thomas Jefferson, a man widely respected as being one of the pivotal intellectuals of the American Revolution and the principle author of the Declaration of Independence.
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?” That’s pretty radical, don’t you think? How do you feel about the matter?
Thomas Jefferson also said, “The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.”
He also said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
I think you get the drift. No need to belabor the point. The predominant theme of Revolutionary War era America was Liberty.
We aren’t going to be able to cover the philosophy of the founding generation in great depth because of time constraints, but let’s hit another couple of highlights. I would like to quote one of the most influential documents of its day, the one that seemed to encompass a great deal of the thinking that shaped their belief system. This is from the second and most famous paragraph of that document:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.---That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”
Can anyone tell me what that is from? Yes, the Declaration of Independence. Let me make a few obvious comments. The founders considered some truths so obvious, so impressed on our very hearts, as it were, that they were ‘self-evident’, that is, that anyone knew they were true just by examining his own heart. Of course all the great religions reinforce these beliefs, but even if religions did not exist, we would still know these things to be true. Among these truisms is the knowledge that we have certain rights that are un-alienable, often mispronounced unalienable. That means we cannot split these rights off from ourselves even if we wanted to. They are as much a part of our very nature as gray, heavy, and space-occupying are to the nature of lead. That governments are created by people to secure those rights. Just to secure our rights to life, freedom of action, and property. The right to property is essential because if government can deprive us of our property at will, our rights to life and freedom of action are meaningless. As one of the founders, George Mason of Virginia, phrased it, if Parliament can tax us one shilling out of twenty, what security is there for the other nineteen? And the document refers not to happiness per se, but the pursuit of happiness. So it was recognized that each person had the right to live his own life as he saw fit, free from any meddlesome attempts to make him conform in any way whatever, except to leave his neighbors in peace.
One more thought on the wording of the Declaration, the phrase, “government derives its just powers from consent of the governed”. That implies that there are unjust powers as well that government exercises. Or in the words of Thomas Jefferson, speaking of the new Constitution, “Laws which violate the basic law of the land are null and void and of no force whatever.” The clergy of the Revolutionary generation well understood this concept and taught it constantly from the pulpit.
Let me just quote a few others of the founding generation, to give you a little ‘flavor’ of their thinking, so you can understand them a bit better and perhaps get a different perspective on the situation in which we now find ourselves. Capt. Levi Preston of Danvers had fought during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. He was interviewed many years later and asked what it was that made him fight. The old man considered the question a bit. To prompt a reply, the interviewer asked if it was the Stamp Act, or the tax on tea, or the writings of the philosopher John Locke. Finally the old man said, “Young man, what we meant in going for the Redcoats was this. We had always governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean that we should.”
One more quote, from a man who wrote with such conviction, sincerity, and common sense that he rescued the War for Independence from almost certain loss. The pamphlet appeared in December of 1776 and was instrumental in boosting the morale of the Continental army and in winning the battles of Trenton and Princeton and turning the tide of the war. Let me quote:
“Britain with its army to enforce her tyranny, has declared she has a right not only to TAX but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner is not slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited power can belong only to God.” Thomas Paine, The Crisis. This referred to the Declaratory Act passed by Parliament in 1766, at the time the Stamp Act was repealed. England wanted to alert her American colonies that the hated tax would be repealed, but that in no way meant that England forfeited her right to rule the colonies in every way imaginable. To the colonists, that was merely a euphemism for slavery. Can government rule us in all cases whatsoever? That is, do we have a moral or ethical obligation to submit to government without any reservation, even when it violates our conscience? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to act immorally? Asked in that way, the question more or less answers itself. I would like each of you to ponder that for yourselves. Does government have the right to bind us in all cases whatsoever? Or are there limits? What are your own thoughts on the matter?
Let me quote one more of the Founding Generation, Samuel West, a Congregationalist minister In Massachusetts Bay Colony during the Revolutionary period. He gave a very influential sermon after the fighting had broken out, and he eloquently outlined the American patriots’ high moral ground in opposing British tyranny. Let me paraphrase a paragraph of his sermon. I admit that I paraphrase his words quite a bit, but only to make them more understandable to modern ears. “Thus we see that a state of nature, though it be a state of perfect freedom, gives men no right to do anything that is immoral, or contrary to the will of God, and injurious to their fellow-creatures; for a state of nature is properly a state of law and government, even a government founded upon the unchangeable Natural Law, and a law resulting from the eternal fitness of things...A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of Natural Law, ought immediately to be rejected as an lie... Had this subject been properly understood, the world would have remained free from a multitude of absurd ideas, which have been industriously propagated by artful and designing men, both in politics and the pulpit. The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have gained support among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to Natural Law and destructive of human happiness, peace and prosperity.” He goes on to say, “This plainly shows that the highest state of liberty subjects us to the law of nature and the government of God.” In other words, men have no moral obligation whatever to obey any so-called ‘authority’ that acts contrary to God’s law, or Natural Law, or the Ten Commandments, as they would have understood the concept. What is your own opinion about that? Ever given it a thought? It is certainly not the kind of thing you hear in the popular culture, and to my way of thinking, we are the worse off because of it.
I have given you a lot to think about. And I certainly hope it has stimulated your thinking, and that you will read more. The thoughts, sentiments, and beliefs expressed are those that motivated a peace loving people to rise up and defeat the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. Their thinking is so different from the popular culture of today that it is hard for many people even to conceive of it. But to my way of thinking, their morality, responsibility, and determination are far more agreeable to me, and harmonize with what I feel to be just and true, than any amount of what I get through the popular culture. I hope it holds some attraction for you as well.
Let me end this with one more quote from one of my very favorite founding fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren. He was one of the principle leaders of the Patriots in Boston at the time of Paul Revere’s ride, one of the most influential and admired men in Massachusetts Bay Colony. He was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill in June, 1775, fighting off the Redcoats so that as many Patriot militia as possible could escape and live to fight on. He spoke these words at the commemoration of the Boston Massacre in 1775:
“Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.”
Monday, July 27, 2015
LADYSEED Florida --- Make your reservations SOON.
Get your Ladyseed ON.........................
https://www.facebook.com/FloridaAppleseed/photos/gm.1609085806028108/10153106558009912/?type=1
https://www.facebook.com/FloridaAppleseed/photos/gm.1609085806028108/10153106558009912/?type=1
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
Liberty Teaching Rifle
Liberty Teaching Rifle LTR or Family Teaching Rifle
The object of this build was to make a lithe, light weight rifle, to use for teaching marksmanship skills with Florida Project Appleseed. The rifle had to be able to be used effectively by students young or old and small or large. The rifle had to be able to be quickly configured for the shooters body geometry and sighting preferences (irons, scope or dot)
I've built a few Liberty Teaching Rifles (LTR) for myself and for other friends specifically for their build and shooting style. But this rifle is different, it wasn't designed to be a perfect fit for everyone, but a better than stock fit for anyone. Another thing was that the rifle had to be kept as close to stock as possible. Project Appleseed is built around the premise of the 4moa Rifleman. A person using a good stock rifle with good standard ammunition and a GI Sling will be adequate to engage a 4 moa target at 500 yards, the traditional 'Rifleman's Quarter Mile'.
The rifle had to be kept mechanically as close to stock as possible. This would reinforce the 'shooter skill', 4moa Rifleman concept of Appleseed over the Hollywood/Advertiser brainwashing, $$$ equal hits, version of marksmanship.
The base was a Ruger 10/22 birch stock 50th Anniversary Model with an 18in barrel. cost $180
Four reasons for this choice.
1st It's is the most common rifle at an Appleseed.
2nd It is the Chevy 350 of the rifle world, parts are cheap and readily available.
3rd Reliable - Rugers and Marlins are rifles that will work all weekend (500rounds) without cleaning.
4th Ease of cleaning (1 screw).
As an Appleseed Instructor many times I'll get home after 2 days of teaching marksmanship with 4 filthy, wet, sand covered rifles to clean and I didn't get to shoot one round. Ruger 10/22s and Remington 597s are easy to completely strip down to the individual components. The Marlins, not so much, so it was eliminated from my considerations. The Remingtons were eliminated because in my experience they wont constantly go the full weekend with out cleaning. (YMMV)
Modification to the Ruger (Remember the object is to keep as stock as possible)
Trigger & Bolt Group
The stock trigger was as about as bad as I've ever had on a Ruger gritty, creepy and broke well past the 8lbs that my trigger Gage reads to.
Cleaned and stripped the components.
I polished the trigger spring strut ball end, which had a rather sharp edge to it.
I also modified the lawyer designed bolt lock/release and did modify with a dremal/fine diamond file for one handed operation. For instructions go to
( http://www.instructables.com/id/Ruger-1022-DIY-Auto-Bolt-Release/?ALLSTEPS ).
Then I cleaned the pins and metal parts (not springs), gave them a light coat of Miltech-1 then baked at 150 in the oven for 30min. Applied a second coat while still warm and repeated.
The rest just a good clean and light lube with CLP.
Results Trigger break 4 3/4lbs, 85% of the creep gone with a fairly decent break. At a minimum this is what it should have been shipped with from Ruger. Cost 0$ + time
Next installed a drifted the front sight out and installed a TechSight front with longer National Match post (#TRS210) (Blue Loctight all sight screws) Cost 22$ = time
Followed by installing a UTG Ruger 10/22 (MNT-22TOWL) scope rail (I did not use the supplied Ruger rail mainly to get more for/aft adjustability for proper scope eye relief) Cost 10$ + time
I'm still waiting for the UTG Sub-compact adjustable Rear Sight (MNT-910) (locks to scope rail) Cost 25$
(see **Addendum** below)
I also added a NCstar Comp/Flash hider but not for the usual reasons.
I put them on 1st to keep out a possible bore obstruction, 2nd to protect the muzzle crown and 3rd this particular break doesn't have any ports pointing to the ground. Helps keep the dust and sand down.
(don't forget to Blue Loctight it) Cost 10$ + time
Appleseed shoots a lot from the prone position and many times our firing lines are on the dirt. The new shooters are concentration on rifle operation, proper sling use and steady hold factors sometimes lose a little muzzle awareness and go what we call 'Worm Diggin', with the barrel. The comp helps to prevent a muzzle obstruction and a "bad Thing".
STOCK ASSEMBLY
I've used a lot of different 10/22 replacement stocks and ended choosing the Blackhawk KNOXX AXIOM R/F Ruger 10/22 Stock in color tan.
(black stocks get HOT in Aug in Florida on an uncovered firing line - a new shooter will not get good cheek weld on a stock if it is the temp of the Sun) Minor cheek weld adjustment are handled with pipe insulation and vet wrap.
1 Screw Disassembly (like stock 10/22) for cleaning
Light Weight
Free Floated Barrel Assembly
Sling swivel mounts factory installed
Smallest diameter pistol grip (easier for smaller hands to grip)
Pistol grip close to trigger, easier to achieve a good C-shaped trigger position
Stock Length of Pull (LOP) 9 3/4 in - 13 1/2 and just by slipping on a M-4 butt you can increase this to 14 1/4 inch and add a GI rubber recoil pad you' re up to 14 3/4 inch LOP. With that kind of range you can fit just about any size humanoid.
Added to stock A pair of TALON 1 1/4 swivels the one piece style Cost 10$
Finally a M1/M14 GI canvas sling Cost 15$
The Blackhawk - KNOXX AXIOM 10/22 Adjustable Stock Cost 65$
So for right around 300$ you get a very adjustable LIBERTY TEACHING RIFLE to help you teach the next generation of shooters both young and old.
******ADDENDUM******
Finally received the UTG Sight it looks to be very durable and does work with my TechSight Ft Sight. It does not have "click" style adjustments of the TechSights but the adjustment mechanism works well. I will post the adj = moa when I get a chance to give it a thorough range session.
*******ADDENDUM to ADDENDUM ********
The Weaver/Picatinny friendly UTG Micro-Sights work great with the TechSights target Front sight
(Item #TSR210 - Front Sight Tower Assembly for Ruger - Steel
* Replacement Front Tower Assembly for TSR200. This includes the base, extended target post
(.050 inches taller than standard post) spring & detent, and mounting hardware. )
This was the first 3 rounds out-of-the-box for the UTG sight. For you Appleseeders use the TechSight chart for front elevation. The UTG Mini Sight works out to about 1.33 MOA per rear mark Up and Down. YMMV depending on the distance between your particular sight set-up.
After ascertaining the adjustments, the next 5 were top of the black. This was acceptable as the indoor range I was using only went out to 20 yards, not the usual Appleseed 25 meters. Shots 6 and 7 were just to verify the 1.33MOA adjustment for the elevation of the rear sight.
You might have noticed the removable cheek pad. Smaller faces are a tad low for good cheek weld. It's made from 1/2 black pipe insulation ($1.50 for 10ft at Lowes/Home Depot) and Camo Gorrilla Tape. Cut to length, split down the middle and cover with the duct tape. Easy On, Easy Off, the duct tape adds stiffness to the pad and holds it in position. It usable on many rifle stocks.
Please feel free to add questions or comments. I've had quite a few students ask about a flexible Family Teaching Rifle and would appreciate your ideas ( to steal ;) ).
The object of this build was to make a lithe, light weight rifle, to use for teaching marksmanship skills with Florida Project Appleseed. The rifle had to be able to be used effectively by students young or old and small or large. The rifle had to be able to be quickly configured for the shooters body geometry and sighting preferences (irons, scope or dot)
I've built a few Liberty Teaching Rifles (LTR) for myself and for other friends specifically for their build and shooting style. But this rifle is different, it wasn't designed to be a perfect fit for everyone, but a better than stock fit for anyone. Another thing was that the rifle had to be kept as close to stock as possible. Project Appleseed is built around the premise of the 4moa Rifleman. A person using a good stock rifle with good standard ammunition and a GI Sling will be adequate to engage a 4 moa target at 500 yards, the traditional 'Rifleman's Quarter Mile'.
The rifle had to be kept mechanically as close to stock as possible. This would reinforce the 'shooter skill', 4moa Rifleman concept of Appleseed over the Hollywood/Advertiser brainwashing, $$$ equal hits, version of marksmanship.
The base was a Ruger 10/22 birch stock 50th Anniversary Model with an 18in barrel. cost $180
Four reasons for this choice.
1st It's is the most common rifle at an Appleseed.
2nd It is the Chevy 350 of the rifle world, parts are cheap and readily available.
3rd Reliable - Rugers and Marlins are rifles that will work all weekend (500rounds) without cleaning.
4th Ease of cleaning (1 screw).
As an Appleseed Instructor many times I'll get home after 2 days of teaching marksmanship with 4 filthy, wet, sand covered rifles to clean and I didn't get to shoot one round. Ruger 10/22s and Remington 597s are easy to completely strip down to the individual components. The Marlins, not so much, so it was eliminated from my considerations. The Remingtons were eliminated because in my experience they wont constantly go the full weekend with out cleaning. (YMMV)
Modification to the Ruger (Remember the object is to keep as stock as possible)
Trigger & Bolt Group
The stock trigger was as about as bad as I've ever had on a Ruger gritty, creepy and broke well past the 8lbs that my trigger Gage reads to.
Cleaned and stripped the components.
I polished the trigger spring strut ball end, which had a rather sharp edge to it.
I also modified the lawyer designed bolt lock/release and did modify with a dremal/fine diamond file for one handed operation. For instructions go to
( http://www.instructables.com/id/Ruger-1022-DIY-Auto-Bolt-Release/?ALLSTEPS ).
Then I cleaned the pins and metal parts (not springs), gave them a light coat of Miltech-1 then baked at 150 in the oven for 30min. Applied a second coat while still warm and repeated.
The rest just a good clean and light lube with CLP.
Results Trigger break 4 3/4lbs, 85% of the creep gone with a fairly decent break. At a minimum this is what it should have been shipped with from Ruger. Cost 0$ + time
Next installed a drifted the front sight out and installed a TechSight front with longer National Match post (#TRS210) (Blue Loctight all sight screws) Cost 22$ = time
Followed by installing a UTG Ruger 10/22 (MNT-22TOWL) scope rail (I did not use the supplied Ruger rail mainly to get more for/aft adjustability for proper scope eye relief) Cost 10$ + time
I'm still waiting for the UTG Sub-compact adjustable Rear Sight (MNT-910) (locks to scope rail) Cost 25$
(see **Addendum** below)
I also added a NCstar Comp/Flash hider but not for the usual reasons.
I put them on 1st to keep out a possible bore obstruction, 2nd to protect the muzzle crown and 3rd this particular break doesn't have any ports pointing to the ground. Helps keep the dust and sand down.
(don't forget to Blue Loctight it) Cost 10$ + time
Appleseed shoots a lot from the prone position and many times our firing lines are on the dirt. The new shooters are concentration on rifle operation, proper sling use and steady hold factors sometimes lose a little muzzle awareness and go what we call 'Worm Diggin', with the barrel. The comp helps to prevent a muzzle obstruction and a "bad Thing".
STOCK ASSEMBLY
I've used a lot of different 10/22 replacement stocks and ended choosing the Blackhawk KNOXX AXIOM R/F Ruger 10/22 Stock in color tan.
(black stocks get HOT in Aug in Florida on an uncovered firing line - a new shooter will not get good cheek weld on a stock if it is the temp of the Sun) Minor cheek weld adjustment are handled with pipe insulation and vet wrap.
1 Screw Disassembly (like stock 10/22) for cleaning
Light Weight
Free Floated Barrel Assembly
Sling swivel mounts factory installed
Smallest diameter pistol grip (easier for smaller hands to grip)
Pistol grip close to trigger, easier to achieve a good C-shaped trigger position
Stock Length of Pull (LOP) 9 3/4 in - 13 1/2 and just by slipping on a M-4 butt you can increase this to 14 1/4 inch and add a GI rubber recoil pad you' re up to 14 3/4 inch LOP. With that kind of range you can fit just about any size humanoid.
Added to stock A pair of TALON 1 1/4 swivels the one piece style Cost 10$
Finally a M1/M14 GI canvas sling Cost 15$
The Blackhawk - KNOXX AXIOM 10/22 Adjustable Stock Cost 65$
So for right around 300$ you get a very adjustable LIBERTY TEACHING RIFLE to help you teach the next generation of shooters both young and old.
******ADDENDUM******
Finally received the UTG Sight it looks to be very durable and does work with my TechSight Ft Sight. It does not have "click" style adjustments of the TechSights but the adjustment mechanism works well. I will post the adj = moa when I get a chance to give it a thorough range session.
*******ADDENDUM to ADDENDUM ********
The Weaver/Picatinny friendly UTG Micro-Sights work great with the TechSights target Front sight
(Item #TSR210 - Front Sight Tower Assembly for Ruger - Steel
* Replacement Front Tower Assembly for TSR200. This includes the base, extended target post
(.050 inches taller than standard post) spring & detent, and mounting hardware. )
You might have noticed the removable cheek pad. Smaller faces are a tad low for good cheek weld. It's made from 1/2 black pipe insulation ($1.50 for 10ft at Lowes/Home Depot) and Camo Gorrilla Tape. Cut to length, split down the middle and cover with the duct tape. Easy On, Easy Off, the duct tape adds stiffness to the pad and holds it in position. It usable on many rifle stocks.
Please feel free to add questions or comments. I've had quite a few students ask about a flexible Family Teaching Rifle and would appreciate your ideas ( to steal ;) ).
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Post a picture of your favorite Appleseed Rifle
Go to our G+ Florida Project Appleseed and put up a picture of your favorite Appleseed rifles.
It's located under the COLLECTIONS tab and we have 2 categories Centerfire and Rimfire.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/109029711021565859818/109029711021565859818/posts/p/pub
Use the link above. Thanks
It's located under the COLLECTIONS tab and we have 2 categories Centerfire and Rimfire.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/109029711021565859818/109029711021565859818/posts/p/pub
Use the link above. Thanks
Friday, June 5, 2015
John "Jack" Jouett History of the Revolution
Listen my children and you shall hear of the midnight ride of JACK JOUETT.............. read on Appleseeders.
John "Jack" Jouett, Jr. (December 7, 1754 – March 1, 1822) was a politician and a hero of the American Revolution, known as the "Paul Revere of the South" for his late night ride to warn Thomas Jefferson, then the Governor of Virginia, and the Virginia legislature of coming British cavalry who had been sent to capture them. Jouett was also the father of Matthew Harris Jouett, a famous painter from Kentucky.
The Jouett Family and the Revolution
Jack Jouett served as a Captain in the 16th Regiment of the Virginia militia during the American Revolutionary War. He was of an old Norman family of Huguenot origin settled in Touraine, and directly descended from the noble Matthieu de Jouhet, Master of the Horse to Louis XIII of France, Lord of Leveignac, and Lieutenant in the Marshalsea of Limousin, whose grandson, Daniel de Jouet, came to the Narragansett country, in Rhode Island, in 1686. Daniel's youngest son, Jean, Jack's grandfather, settled in Virginia.
Jack Jouett was an imposing figure at 6'4" and 220 pounds and contemporary accounts describe him as muscular and handsome. His family, based in Albemarle County, Virginia, was very active in the revolutionary cause. Both Jouett and his father, John Sr., had signed the Albemarle Declaration, a document renouncing King George III signed by 202 Albemarle citizens. During the Revolution, Jouett's father supplied the military with meat for its rations, and Jouett's three brothers all served in the military, including one who was killed at the Battle of Brandywine.
Jack Jouett's Ride
Background: The British Plan
On June 1, 1781 British General Cornwallis learned from a captured dispatch that Gov. Thomas Jefferson and Virginia's legislature had fled to Charlottesville, Virginia, the location of Jefferson's home, Monticello. Virginia's government had escaped to Charlottesville after Benedict Arnold, who had defected to the British, attacked Virginia's capital, Richmond. Cornwallis ordered Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton to ride to Charlottesville, Virginia and capture Gov. Jefferson and the Virginia legislature. Tarleton hoped to capture Jefferson and the many notable Revolutionary leaders who were Virginia legislators, including: Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Nelson, Jr., and Benjamin Harrison V.
On June 3, Tarleton left Cornwallis's camp on the North Anna River with 180 cavalrymen and 70 mounted infantry of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Tarleton marched his force covertly and planned to cover the last 70 miles to Charlottesville in 24 hours, an incredibly fast maneuver designed to catch the politicians completely unaware.
The Ride Begins
Jouett, twenty-seven years old, lay asleep on the lawn of the Cuckoo Tavern (although an account by Thomas Jefferson says Jouett was at his father's house) in Louisa County, Virginia, on the night of June 3, 1781.[6] During the night, he heard the sound of approaching cavalry and spotted the "White Coats," the British cavalry led by Colonel Tarleton.
Jouett correctly suspected that the cavalry was marching to Charlottesville to capture Virginia's government. Jouett knew that the legislature was completely undefended. Very little fighting had taken place on Virginia soil from 1776 to 1780, so most of Virginia's forces were deployed elsewhere. The British had only recently begun significant campaigns in Virginia, so few forces were in the state except a small group led by the Marquis de Lafayette, who was far from Charlottesville. With no possibility of defense, the only hope for Jefferson and the legislators was advance warning and escape. Jouett quickly mounted his horse and, at about 10 P.M., began the 40 mile ride from Louisa to Charlottesville. With the British cavalry on the main highway, Jouett had to take the rough backwoods trails to the overgrown Old Mountain Road with perhaps only the light of the full moon to guide him and still ride fast enough to beat the British.
Tarleton's Travels
At 11 P.M., Tarleton paused for a three-hour rest at Louisa Courthouse. He began his march again at about 2 A.M. He soon encountered a train of 11 supply wagons at Boswell's Tavern bound for South Carolina where Nathanael Greene led the main branch of the Continental Army in the South. Tarleton burnt the wagons and continued onwards.
Around dawn, Tarleton reached the plantations of Castle Hill, Doctor Thomas Walker's home, and splinter group of British arrived at Belvoir, the home of his son, Continental Congress member John Walker. Tarleton captured or paroled various important figures at the two plantations. Various legends have sprung up about the stop at Castle Hill. Supposedly, Dr. Walker prepared an elaborate breakfast (including alcohol), for Tarleton in order to allow more time for Jefferson and the legislature to get warning of the cavalry. Tarleton's account says he did pause at Castle Hill for a half-hour rest, but the story of Walker's ploy is probably apocryphal.
Jouett's Warning and Monticello
Jouett's route took him through a ford of the Rivanna River at the town of Milton. At about 4:30 A.M., he crossed the ford and ascended the mountain on which Jefferson's Monticello sits. At Monticello, Jouett awoke Jefferson and his guests, several Virginia legislators. (According to the Giannini family, descendants of Jefferson's gardener, Anthony Giannini, noted early riser Jefferson was in the gardens at Monticello with their ancestor when Jouett arrived.) Jefferson rewarded Jouett with some fine Madeira. Jouett then left to travel the extra two miles to warn the town of Charlottesville.
Jefferson did not rush. He had breakfast with the legislators, and began making arrangements to leave. He spent two hours gathering his papers together. When Captain Christopher Hudson rode to Monticello to warn of the imminent arrival of the British, Jefferson sent his family to Enniscorthy, a friend's estate about 14 miles away. He himself continued to prepare to leave, setting a horse outside his estate for a quick escape. He continually checked Charlottesville with his telescope for signs of the British. By the time he finally saw them, cavalry were already on Monticello's lawn. He quickly mounted his horse and escaped, successfully eluding the British in the woods.
The British detachment sent to Monticello was led by Captain Kenneth McLeod. Upon their arrival, the British found Jefferson's servants hurriedly hiding his valuables.
Jouett and Charlottesville
After Monticello, Jouett rode to the Swan Tavern (owned by Jouett's father) where most of the legislators were staying. The legislators decided to flee and reconvene in Staunton, 35 miles west, in three days, June 7. Jouett's warning allowed most legislators to escape, but seven were caught.
Jouett displayed additional heroics and helped General Edward Stevens escape. The general was recovering from wounds he received at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. From Swan Tavern, Jouett rode with Gen. Stevens as he made his escape, but the wounded Stevens could not ride fast enough to keep the British from catching up. Fortunately, Jouett had the eccentric habit of dressing in ornate military costume with a scarlet coat and a plumed hat, and Stevens was dressed in shoddy clothing. British cavalry assumed that Jouett must be a high military officer, so they ignored the shabby general and pursued Jouett, who successfully eluded them.
Aftermath and Honors
In Staunton, the legislature elected Thomas Nelson to be the next governor, since Jefferson's term had actually expired on June 2.
Recognizing its debt to Jouett, the legislature passed a resolution on June 15 to honor him. The legislature resolved to give Jouett a pair of pistols and a sword in gratitude. Jouett received the pistols in 1783, but it took 20 years before he got the promised sword.
Later life
In 1782, Jouett moved to what is now Kentucky. A family story says that, on his way to Kentucky, Jouett heard a woman's screams coming from a house. He burst into the house and found a wife being abused by her husband. He attempted to help by knocking down the husband, but the wife did not appreciate his involvement and struck him over the head with a pot. The pot's bottom gave out, and the pot became stuck around Jouett's neck. Jouett fled the scene and travelled 35 miles before he found a blacksmith to remove the pot.
Jouett settled in Mercer County. He served as a Virginia state legislator and, when Kentucky became an independent state, a Kentucky state legislator from Mercer and later Woodford County when he moved there. Jouett was a prominent citizen of Kentucky. He had friendships with Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. In business, he focused on livestock raising and breeding, importing animals from England.
While in Mercer, Jouett married Sallie Robard. Together they had 12 children, including the famous painter Matthew Harris Jouett. Of his famous son Jouett said, "I sent Matthew to college to make a gentleman of him, and he has turned out to be nothing but a damned sign painter."Jouett had another notable descendant through Matthew, his grandson James Edward "Fighting Jim" Jouett. James served under Admiral Farragut, and was immortalized in Farragut's famous quote "Damn the torpedoes! Four bells! Captain Drayton go ahead! Jouett full speed!"
Jack Jouett died March 1, 1822 at his daughter's house in Bath County, Kentucky. He is buried in Bath County at the "Peeled Oak" farm in an unmarked grave. The site of the grave was lost until the 20th century.
Legacy
Jack Jouett has, for the most part, fallen through the cracks of history. Jouett has retained some recognition including Jack Jouett Elementary School in Louisa County, Virginia and Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County named in his honor. Many contend that his ride was far more important than that of Paul Revere. However, Revere's ride had the benefit of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem to enshrine it in the American consciousness. In an attempt to help promote Jouett's memory, the Charlottesville Daily Press published the following poem on October 26, 1909:
"Hearken good people: awhile abide
And hear of stout Jack Jouett's ride;
How he rushed his steed, nor stopped nor stayed
Till he warned the people of Tarleton's raid.
The moment his warning note was rehearsed
The State Assembly was quickly dispersed.
In their haste to escape, they did not stop
Until they had crossed the mountain top.
And upon the other side come down.
To resume their sessions in Staunton Town.
His parting steed he spurred,
In haste to carry the warning
To that greatest statesman of any age,
The Immortal Monticello Sage.
Here goes to thee, Jack Jouett!
Lord keep thy memory green;
You made the greatest ride, sir,
That ever yet was seen."
John "Jack" Jouett, Jr. (December 7, 1754 – March 1, 1822) was a politician and a hero of the American Revolution, known as the "Paul Revere of the South" for his late night ride to warn Thomas Jefferson, then the Governor of Virginia, and the Virginia legislature of coming British cavalry who had been sent to capture them. Jouett was also the father of Matthew Harris Jouett, a famous painter from Kentucky.
The Jouett Family and the Revolution
Jack Jouett served as a Captain in the 16th Regiment of the Virginia militia during the American Revolutionary War. He was of an old Norman family of Huguenot origin settled in Touraine, and directly descended from the noble Matthieu de Jouhet, Master of the Horse to Louis XIII of France, Lord of Leveignac, and Lieutenant in the Marshalsea of Limousin, whose grandson, Daniel de Jouet, came to the Narragansett country, in Rhode Island, in 1686. Daniel's youngest son, Jean, Jack's grandfather, settled in Virginia.
Jack Jouett was an imposing figure at 6'4" and 220 pounds and contemporary accounts describe him as muscular and handsome. His family, based in Albemarle County, Virginia, was very active in the revolutionary cause. Both Jouett and his father, John Sr., had signed the Albemarle Declaration, a document renouncing King George III signed by 202 Albemarle citizens. During the Revolution, Jouett's father supplied the military with meat for its rations, and Jouett's three brothers all served in the military, including one who was killed at the Battle of Brandywine.
Jack Jouett's Ride
Background: The British Plan
On June 1, 1781 British General Cornwallis learned from a captured dispatch that Gov. Thomas Jefferson and Virginia's legislature had fled to Charlottesville, Virginia, the location of Jefferson's home, Monticello. Virginia's government had escaped to Charlottesville after Benedict Arnold, who had defected to the British, attacked Virginia's capital, Richmond. Cornwallis ordered Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton to ride to Charlottesville, Virginia and capture Gov. Jefferson and the Virginia legislature. Tarleton hoped to capture Jefferson and the many notable Revolutionary leaders who were Virginia legislators, including: Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Nelson, Jr., and Benjamin Harrison V.
On June 3, Tarleton left Cornwallis's camp on the North Anna River with 180 cavalrymen and 70 mounted infantry of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Tarleton marched his force covertly and planned to cover the last 70 miles to Charlottesville in 24 hours, an incredibly fast maneuver designed to catch the politicians completely unaware.
The Ride Begins
Jouett, twenty-seven years old, lay asleep on the lawn of the Cuckoo Tavern (although an account by Thomas Jefferson says Jouett was at his father's house) in Louisa County, Virginia, on the night of June 3, 1781.[6] During the night, he heard the sound of approaching cavalry and spotted the "White Coats," the British cavalry led by Colonel Tarleton.
Jouett correctly suspected that the cavalry was marching to Charlottesville to capture Virginia's government. Jouett knew that the legislature was completely undefended. Very little fighting had taken place on Virginia soil from 1776 to 1780, so most of Virginia's forces were deployed elsewhere. The British had only recently begun significant campaigns in Virginia, so few forces were in the state except a small group led by the Marquis de Lafayette, who was far from Charlottesville. With no possibility of defense, the only hope for Jefferson and the legislators was advance warning and escape. Jouett quickly mounted his horse and, at about 10 P.M., began the 40 mile ride from Louisa to Charlottesville. With the British cavalry on the main highway, Jouett had to take the rough backwoods trails to the overgrown Old Mountain Road with perhaps only the light of the full moon to guide him and still ride fast enough to beat the British.
Tarleton's Travels
At 11 P.M., Tarleton paused for a three-hour rest at Louisa Courthouse. He began his march again at about 2 A.M. He soon encountered a train of 11 supply wagons at Boswell's Tavern bound for South Carolina where Nathanael Greene led the main branch of the Continental Army in the South. Tarleton burnt the wagons and continued onwards.
Around dawn, Tarleton reached the plantations of Castle Hill, Doctor Thomas Walker's home, and splinter group of British arrived at Belvoir, the home of his son, Continental Congress member John Walker. Tarleton captured or paroled various important figures at the two plantations. Various legends have sprung up about the stop at Castle Hill. Supposedly, Dr. Walker prepared an elaborate breakfast (including alcohol), for Tarleton in order to allow more time for Jefferson and the legislature to get warning of the cavalry. Tarleton's account says he did pause at Castle Hill for a half-hour rest, but the story of Walker's ploy is probably apocryphal.
Jouett's Warning and Monticello
Jouett's route took him through a ford of the Rivanna River at the town of Milton. At about 4:30 A.M., he crossed the ford and ascended the mountain on which Jefferson's Monticello sits. At Monticello, Jouett awoke Jefferson and his guests, several Virginia legislators. (According to the Giannini family, descendants of Jefferson's gardener, Anthony Giannini, noted early riser Jefferson was in the gardens at Monticello with their ancestor when Jouett arrived.) Jefferson rewarded Jouett with some fine Madeira. Jouett then left to travel the extra two miles to warn the town of Charlottesville.
Jefferson did not rush. He had breakfast with the legislators, and began making arrangements to leave. He spent two hours gathering his papers together. When Captain Christopher Hudson rode to Monticello to warn of the imminent arrival of the British, Jefferson sent his family to Enniscorthy, a friend's estate about 14 miles away. He himself continued to prepare to leave, setting a horse outside his estate for a quick escape. He continually checked Charlottesville with his telescope for signs of the British. By the time he finally saw them, cavalry were already on Monticello's lawn. He quickly mounted his horse and escaped, successfully eluding the British in the woods.
The British detachment sent to Monticello was led by Captain Kenneth McLeod. Upon their arrival, the British found Jefferson's servants hurriedly hiding his valuables.
Jouett and Charlottesville
After Monticello, Jouett rode to the Swan Tavern (owned by Jouett's father) where most of the legislators were staying. The legislators decided to flee and reconvene in Staunton, 35 miles west, in three days, June 7. Jouett's warning allowed most legislators to escape, but seven were caught.
Jouett displayed additional heroics and helped General Edward Stevens escape. The general was recovering from wounds he received at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. From Swan Tavern, Jouett rode with Gen. Stevens as he made his escape, but the wounded Stevens could not ride fast enough to keep the British from catching up. Fortunately, Jouett had the eccentric habit of dressing in ornate military costume with a scarlet coat and a plumed hat, and Stevens was dressed in shoddy clothing. British cavalry assumed that Jouett must be a high military officer, so they ignored the shabby general and pursued Jouett, who successfully eluded them.
Aftermath and Honors
In Staunton, the legislature elected Thomas Nelson to be the next governor, since Jefferson's term had actually expired on June 2.
Recognizing its debt to Jouett, the legislature passed a resolution on June 15 to honor him. The legislature resolved to give Jouett a pair of pistols and a sword in gratitude. Jouett received the pistols in 1783, but it took 20 years before he got the promised sword.
Later life
In 1782, Jouett moved to what is now Kentucky. A family story says that, on his way to Kentucky, Jouett heard a woman's screams coming from a house. He burst into the house and found a wife being abused by her husband. He attempted to help by knocking down the husband, but the wife did not appreciate his involvement and struck him over the head with a pot. The pot's bottom gave out, and the pot became stuck around Jouett's neck. Jouett fled the scene and travelled 35 miles before he found a blacksmith to remove the pot.
Jouett settled in Mercer County. He served as a Virginia state legislator and, when Kentucky became an independent state, a Kentucky state legislator from Mercer and later Woodford County when he moved there. Jouett was a prominent citizen of Kentucky. He had friendships with Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. In business, he focused on livestock raising and breeding, importing animals from England.
While in Mercer, Jouett married Sallie Robard. Together they had 12 children, including the famous painter Matthew Harris Jouett. Of his famous son Jouett said, "I sent Matthew to college to make a gentleman of him, and he has turned out to be nothing but a damned sign painter."Jouett had another notable descendant through Matthew, his grandson James Edward "Fighting Jim" Jouett. James served under Admiral Farragut, and was immortalized in Farragut's famous quote "Damn the torpedoes! Four bells! Captain Drayton go ahead! Jouett full speed!"
Jack Jouett died March 1, 1822 at his daughter's house in Bath County, Kentucky. He is buried in Bath County at the "Peeled Oak" farm in an unmarked grave. The site of the grave was lost until the 20th century.
Legacy
Jack Jouett has, for the most part, fallen through the cracks of history. Jouett has retained some recognition including Jack Jouett Elementary School in Louisa County, Virginia and Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County named in his honor. Many contend that his ride was far more important than that of Paul Revere. However, Revere's ride had the benefit of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem to enshrine it in the American consciousness. In an attempt to help promote Jouett's memory, the Charlottesville Daily Press published the following poem on October 26, 1909:
"Hearken good people: awhile abide
And hear of stout Jack Jouett's ride;
How he rushed his steed, nor stopped nor stayed
Till he warned the people of Tarleton's raid.
The moment his warning note was rehearsed
The State Assembly was quickly dispersed.
In their haste to escape, they did not stop
Until they had crossed the mountain top.
And upon the other side come down.
To resume their sessions in Staunton Town.
His parting steed he spurred,
In haste to carry the warning
To that greatest statesman of any age,
The Immortal Monticello Sage.
Here goes to thee, Jack Jouett!
Lord keep thy memory green;
You made the greatest ride, sir,
That ever yet was seen."
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
PETER FRANCISCO
PETER FRANCISCO
It is somewhat surprising that
Hollywood has never made a movie based on the life of Peter Francisco. His
story would seem to have all the ingredients for box-office success–mystery,
romance, and swashbuckling action. Perhaps the problem is in casting the role;
it would require a swarthy, Mediterranean actor who is also the size of a house
and has a light tenor singing voice.
If such a film were made, one
can imagine the opening scene: in the foreground a wooden pier juts out into a
misty harbor, where the stillness is broken only by the cries of a few gulls.
Gradually, the sound of splashing oars becomes audible. A longboat emerges from
the fog; then, as the scene brightens, the silhouette of the merchantman from
which it came appears in the distance. The boat pulls alongside the dock;
sailors' rough voices mutter unintelligibly as the form of a small person is
lifted from the bobbing craft and set on the pier.
A shout is heard and the boat
quickly departs. The bewildered castaway turns toward the camera. He is a young
boy, no more than four or five years old, dressed in a once-fine suit that now
is dirty and worn. On his shoes expensive silver buckles spell out the initials
'P.F.
At daybreak the pier begins to come
to life. Waterfront residents gather curiously around the waif, asking
questions. Unable to speak their language, he simply repeats the words Pedro
Francisco. Eventually a woman comes along, takes the child by the hand, and
leads him away, saying I'll take him to the poorhouse. They'll know what to do
with him.
This scenario, though a bit
romanticized, is roughly what happened at City Point (now a part of Hopewell),
Virginia, on June 23, 1765. The boy later grew up–and up–to become the
most remarkable fighting man of the Revolutionary War, a giant of a soldier of
whom General George Washington is reputed to have said: Without him we would
have lost two crucial battles, perhaps the War, and with it our freedom. He was
truly a One-Man Army.
Soon after young Pedro Francisco was
taken to the Prince George County poorhouse, his plight came to the attention
of Anthony Winston, a local judge and uncle to Virginia firebrand Patrick
Henry. Winston took the lad in and taught him to speak English.
Once the boy could communicate with
his new guardian, he recounted what he remembered of his past, but it wasn't
much. He had lived in a mansion near the ocean, he said. His mother spoke what
he thought was French; his father spoke another language–what, he couldn't say.
One day, when Pedro and his younger sister were playing in the garden, rough
men seized them. The girl fought and got away, but Pedro was bound,
blindfolded, gagged, and carried to a ship. After what seemed an endless
voyage, he was put ashore at the City Point dock.
Winston never learned anything more
about the boy's past, but later investigators have been more successful in
piecing together what appears to be a likely, if partial, solution to the Peter
Francisco mystery. In 1971, Virginia researcher John E. Manahan, reporting on
studies he had carried out while teaching overseas, argued convincingly that
Francisco's original home had been at Porto Judeu, on Terceira Island in the
Portuguese-held Azores, and that he was the same Pedro Francisco born there on
July 9, 1760.
Why Francisco was abducted remains a
mystery. Manahan theorized that the child had been kidnapped by sailors who
intended to sell him in the New World as an indentured servant, but the
researcher offered no explanation of why they abandoned their captive instead.
An Azorean legend has it that the Francisco family, fearful of political
enemies, engineered Pedro's abduction as a means of protecting him from some
grisly form of reprisal planned against his parents. While this may be true,
evidence is lacking. But that Peter Francisco was a Portuguese (which he
himself suspected) seems almost certain, and Portuguese-Americans have eagerly
accepted him as an illustrious forebear.
Whether or not the sailors in fact
intended to sell the boy into indentured servitude, that more or less became
his fate. Rather than provide Peter with formal schooling, Judge Winston put
him to work doing chores around his plantation, a 3,600-acre estate in
Buckingham County, Virginia, known as Hunting Tower.
In adulthood Peter was destined to
attain the then-prodigious height of six-feet-six-inches–nearly a foot taller
than the average man at the time–and weigh at least 260 pounds. Already of
surpassing stature by his early teens, the youth was instructed in the brawny
trade of blacksmithing–an obvious calling for a person of his size and amazing
strength. It was the latter rather than his height that got him noticed.
In March 1775, when he was not yet
fifteen, Francisco went along with Judge Winston to Richmond for a meeting of
the Virginia Convention. Tempers flared as delegates hotly debated the colony's
relationship with Great Britain.Young Peter contributed to the excitement when
he broke up one tavern dispute by lifting the combatants into the air and
banging them together until they ceased their argument.
It was during this convention that
the lad stood outside St. John's Church and heard through the window the
renowned speech by Patrick Henry that ended: I know not what course others may
take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Peter, as the story
goes, was ready right there to take up arms against the British oppressors, but
Judge Winston prevailed upon him to wait: though large enough to go to war, he
was not quite old enough. In 1776 Winston relented, and at the age of sixteen Peter
enlisted with the 10th Virginia regiment as a private.
Although Francisco was not at Bunker
Hill or Saratoga, in many other respects his military career closely followed
the course of the War of Independence. After a stay of several months in New
Jersey following his enlistment, Francisco received his first taste of action
in September 1777 at Brandywine Creek in neighboring Pennsylvania, where
General Washington, the commander in chief of the Continental Army, attempted
to halt the advance toward Philadelphia of some 12,500 British troops under the
command of General William Howe.
Outflanked by Howe, the Americans
suffered a defeat in the ensuing battle, and Washington's army was forced into
a disorderly retreat. The regiment of which Francisco was a member held the
line at a narrow defile called Sandy Hollow Gap for a crucial forty-five
minutes, allowing the rest of the force to withdraw and preventing an all-out
rout. The young soldier suffered a gunshot wound to his leg during this
hard-fought rear-guard action.
While convalescing in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, Peter encountered the Marquis de Lafayette, who as a
twenty-year-old major general in Washington's Army also had been wounded in the
fray. Their vast differences in rank notwithstanding, the two young men
recuperated together and reportedly became friends.
By October, Francisco was well again
and rejoined his regiment in time for the Battle of Germantown, five miles
north of Philadelphia. Although the British eventually forced the Americans to
retreat, this fight nevertheless restored the Continentals' morale, for they
had almost held the day and thus now knew that the British were vulnerable.
Francisco was with the troops at
Fort Mifflin on Port Island in the Delaware River from late October to mid-November.
This post was abandoned under ferocious British shelling, forcing the defenders
into the wintry hell of Valley Forge, where Francisco was hospitalized for two
of those agonizing months.
For the next three years, Francisco
followed his commanders through a succession of engagements. In several
instances he performed exploits of such an extraordinary and courageous nature
that by war's end he became generally recognized as the most famous private
soldier of the Revolutionary War.
Francisco fought at Monmouth (near
present-day Freehold, New Jersey) on June 28, 1778, where a musket ball tore
into his right thigh, leaving a wound that nagged him for the rest of his life.
On July 15-16, 1779 the young
Goliath took part in the daring surprise attack led by General Mad Anthony
Wayne on Stony Point, the British Army's stronghold on the Hudson River, north
of New York City. The American assault columns were spearheaded by two
twenty-man commando units known as forlorn hopes; Francisco was in the northern
one, commanded by a Lieutenant Gibbon. Gibbon's unit sustained so many
casualties that only he, Francisco, and one other man reached their objective,
but the advance party was right behind them, and the Americans captured the
fort.
During the attack Francisco suffered
his third wound of the war, a nine-inch gash in the stomach, but that didn't
stop him from killing three enemy grenadiers and capturing the enemy's flag.
After recuperating in Fishkill, New York, the wounded warrior bided his time
with the troops in various locations until December 1779, when his three-year
tour of duty expired and he returned to Virginia.
Francisco's journey southward
coincided with a turn in the same direction by the war itself. In early 1778
the British decided to move their heaviest offensive activities into the South,
partly because they expected to receive the backing of the many Loyalists they
believed resided in the region. When Peter learned of the enemy's intentions,
he joined the Virginia militia.
British strategy called for the
capture of Savannah and the securing of Georgia, to be followed by a move north
into South Carolina. Congress selected General Horatio Gates, the unpleasant
intriguer whose victory at Saratoga in 1777 had puffed up his reputation, as
the man to check the Redcoats' advance in the South. The ensuing operations,
known as the Camden Campaign, were an American fiasco, and Francisco was there
to experience the unfortunate episode.
The first major clash in the South
between the Continentals and the British Army came at the Battle of Camden on
August 16, 1780. The outcome, an utter rout, was labeled by nineteenth-century
historian John Fiske as the most disastrous defeat ever inflicted on an
American army, but nonetheless here Francisco achieved one of his most shining
moments. Overtaken and surrounded by the enemy during the panicked American
retreat, the lad speared a British cavalryman with a bayonet, hoisted him from
his horse, and then, climbing onto the steed himself, escaped through the enemy
line by pretending to be a Tory sympathizer. Catching up with his fleeing
comrades, he gave the mount to his colonel, thereby saving the exhausted
officer's life.
Next, seeing that one of two
American cannon was being left behind, Peter–as the story has it–crouched beneath
the 1,100-pound gun, lifted it from its carriage and onto his shoulder, and
carried it off the field to prevent its falling into enemy hands. Some
historians have questioned whether such a feat is possible, but during the
American bicentennial celebrations of 1975-76 the U.S. Postal Service saw no
reason to doubt it and issued a commemorative stamp showing the hulking Peter
Francisco performing this stupendous deed. No wonder that, by the time of this
battle, Peter had acquired the reputation as the strongest man in America.
Francisco again returned to Virginia
after the Camden debacle, but not for long. When he learned that Captain Thomas
Watkins was raising a cavalry troop, he got himself a horse and returned to
action. Watkins's unit was assigned to the command of Colonel William
Washington and was soon involved in the crucial confrontation at Guilford
Courthouse, North Carolina, on March 15, 1781.
The Continentals were now under the
command of Nathanael Greene, who, unlike Gates, proved worthy of the confidence
placed in him. Greene's actions in the South were instrumental in bringing the
war to a victorious conclusion. Technically, the Battle of Guilford Courthouse
was a British victory, for Greene's soldiers retreated after a hard-fought
contest; but it was a Pyrrhic one–the losses suffered by the British, now under
the command of Lord Cornwallis, were so grave that his army was effectively
wrecked. Later Cornwallis wrote that the Americans fought like demons in what
was one of the bloodiest battles of the war.
At Guilford Courthouse Francisco
once again gave a most astonishing performance. As Benson Lossing reported in
his 1850 Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, Francisco, a brave
Virginian, cut down eleven men in succession with his broadsword. One of the
guards pinned Francisco's leg to his horse with a bayonet. Forbearing to
strike, he assisted the assailant to draw his bayonet forth, when, with
terrible force, he brought down his broadsword and cleft the poor fellow's head
to his shoulders!1
Despite his latest wound, Francisco
did not leave the battle, and in one final assault against the British he
killed two more of the enemy before receiving a bayonet thrust in his right
thigh the whole length of the bayonet, entering above the knee and coming out
at the socket of his hip. As his comrades retreated, the fallen cavalryman was
left for dead on the field. A Quaker named Robinson is said to have taken
Francisco to his home and cared for him until he rallied.
After this fray, Francisco again limped
home to Virginia. Having suffered five wounds for his country's cause, Peter
could easily have been excused from further service at this late date in the
war, but his military career was not quite over. He volunteered as a scout to
monitor the Virginia operations of Banastre Tarleton and his horsemen. While
out on a mission, Peter stopped off at the inn of one Ben Ward. Nine of
Tarleton's troopers surrounded the tavern and announced Peter's arrest. One of
the soldiers further demanded that Francisco surrender his silver shoe buckles;
in a scene worthy of a Hollywood script-writer, Francisco told him, in effect,
to take them yourself. As the cavalryman bent to do just that, Peter snatched
his captor's saber and struck him a blow on the head. The wounded trooper fired
a pistol, grazing Peter in the side for his sixth wound of the war; Francisco
at the same moment cut the soldier's hand nearly off. Another cavalryman aimed
a musket at the American, but when it misfired Peter wrenched it from the
soldier's grasp, knocked him from the saddle, and escaped on his horse.
With this feat of derring-do,
Francisco's career of terrorizing British troops ended. He was granted,
however, the supreme satisfaction of being present when Cornwallis surrendered
at Yorktown on October 19, 1781.
Peter then returned to Richmond in
the company of Lafayette. There is an unverifiable story that as the two were
strolling in front of St. John's Church, a young lady who was leaving the
building tripped and was caught by the strapping young veteran. And that was
how Francisco first encountered Susannah Anderson, the woman he would marry.
Before giving any thought to
marriage, however, Peter sought the education he had earlier been denied. The
story of his determination to rise above his humble status is as inspiring as
the tales of his battlefield achievements. He went to school, sat his hulking
form down next to the children, and within three years was reading the
classics.
At the same time that Peter was
pursuing learning, he worked as a blacksmith. During this time a diarist named
Samuel Shepard observed him at work and recorded that he never before saw
muscles as great and developed in so young a man, or boy, he is still a boy . .
. his great hands, long broad the fingers square, the thumbs heavy and larger
in the nail than the usual great toe. His feet are as exceptional for length
and thickness as is his whole body. His shoulders like some old statue, like a
figure of Michelangelo's imagination like his Moses but not like David. His jaw
is long, heavy, the nose powerful, the slant [of his] forehead partly concealed
by uncombed black hair of a shaggy aspect. His voice was light, surprising me
as if a bull should bellow in a whimper. Other contemporary accounts emphasize
Francisco's gentle nature and note that his prominent traits of character for
temperance, good temper, and charity were no less striking.
With his marriage to Susannah in
December 1784, Peter became a member of the landed gentry, a part he played
well. He displayed a taste for bright-colored waistcoats, high hats, and silk
stockings. He acquired a reputation for his hunting and fishing outings and his
house parties, at which he would display his fine voice, described by one
visitor as having a power, depth, and sweetness of tone, with wonderful
potency. His pathetic earnestness is irresistible.
Peter and Susannah had a son and a
daughter before she died in 1790. Catherine Brooke became Peter's second wife
in 1794, and two years after her death in 1821 (they had three sons and one
daughter) he married Mary Grymes West, the widow of Major West, a Virginia
planter.
Many of the stories told about Peter
Francisco in this period of his life are awestruck recountings of his strength.
He seems to have acquired a Paul Bunyan-like status, and it is impossible to
tell which of the tales about him are true. It may well be that they all are.
He may really have amused guests by holding two 160-pound men at arm's length
above his head, and actually have rescued a cow and her calf from a bog by
picking one up under each arm and simultaneously carrying them out of the mud.
Not surprisingly, Francisco folklore
includes stories of arrogant tough guys foolish enough to test his strength.
One husky chap reportedly traveled all the way from Kentucky for this purpose.
Finally goaded into action, the gentle giant threw the challenger over a
four-foot fence onto the public road. The badly shaken visitor said that he
would leave satisfied if Peter could dispose of his horse in the same fashion;
whereupon Francisco handily lifted the steed over the rails. The embarrassed
Kentuckian headed for home, enjoined by his good-natured host to call again
when you are passing.
As Francisco grew older and rich in
renown, honors and rewards came his way. In 1819, Congress granted him a
monthly pension. Five years later, when the Marquis de Lafayette made a
triumphal return to the United States, the celebrated visitor made a point of
visiting his old hospital mate. And, in 1825 Francisco was named
sergeant-at-arms of the Virginia legislature.
Peter Francisco passed away,
apparently from appendicitis, on January 16, 1831. The House of Delegates
adjourned and paid him the honor of a public funeral at which the Right
Reverend R. C. Moore took note of Peter's degree of bodily strength superior to
that of any man of modern times . . . exerted in defense of the country which
gave him [a home].
The passage of this American
Hercules from mysterious waif to war hero to country squire, and from the
Azores to the Virginia countryside, is surely one the most intriguing and
unusual stories to be found in the early annals of the United States.
Hollywood, take note.
This article originally appeared in
the October 1998 issue of American History magazine. For more great
articles be sure to pick up your copy of American History.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Agent 355
"355"
Many intelligence historians consider her one of this country’s
first female undercover operations officers. Still others refer to her as the
“hidden daughter of the American Revolution.” While defending against British
transgressions in and around New York, George Washington came to rely heavily
on the information she supplied him. But even today, she is known only by the
designation “355,” the code-number for “lady” in an encryption system used by
the famous Culper Ring.
It was to the Culper Ring that “355” reported, having been
selected for the silent service by Abraham Woodhull, chief of the clandestine
group. A Long Island farmer, Woodhull’s nom de espionage was Samuel
Culper, Sr. His principal agent was a Quaker dry goods merchant named Robert
Townsend, who was known as Samual Culper, Jr. This fictitious father-son
arrangement formed the basis of the highly effective Culper network.
Utilizing a variety of tradecraft, including a type of
invisible ink developed by the brother of future Chief Justice John Jay, the
Culper Ring provided timely and accurate intelligence to American military
leaders, most notably General Washington.
It is believed that “355” was a member of a prominent Tory
family, a position that would have allowed her virtually unrestricted access to
British political and military leaders operating in the New York area.
For her part, “355” helped expose Benedict Arnold’s treasonous
role in the surrender of West Point and neighboring military outposts, an act
that earned him a £20,000 gratuity from the British government.
She also facilitated the arrest of Major John André, the head
of England’s intelligence operations in New York, who was eventually hanged as
a spy on orders from General Washington.
While in New York, the debonair André kept company with any
number of beguiling and available women. Taking advantage of this, “355” worked
the parties he gave and attended, paying careful attention to what he offered
during conversations that were often plied with considerable quantities of ale.
Any substantive information “355” gleaned from these indiscretions, such as the
deal to hand over West Point for payment, was surreptitiously passed by way of
the Culper Ring to an appreciative George Washington.
It is believed that “355” was actually Robert Townsend’s
common-law wife, with whom he had a son. When the junior “Culper” learned that
his prized operative and lover was to bear his child, he pleaded with her to
forgo her dangerous espionage work. She refused, believing, and rightly so,
that the information she was providing was of the highest value.
“Three-fifty-five’s” days were, indeed, numbered, thanks, so the historical
reflection goes, to the traitor Arnold, who gave her up once he had defected to
Great Britain following the arrest of André.
In October 1780, “355” was captured and ordered held in fetid
conditions aboard the prison ship Jersey, which was moored in the East
River. While incarcerated, she gave birth to a son, whom she named Robert
Townsend, Jr., after the Culper Ring operative. She died shortly thereafter.
To new intelligence service hires, “355” is often cited as an
inspirational example of a trusted field agent, who has retained her anonymity
even 222 years following her death. The young woman’s contributions to
America’s War for Independence did not go unnoticed by the head of the fabled
Culper Ring, Abraham Woodhull, who wrote that she “hath been ever serviceable
to this correspondence” and could “outwit them all.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)