ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n238

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-13 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #238
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest      Saturday, February 13 1999      Volume 01 : Number 238




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:22:30 -0800
From: Jeffrey Volberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

Hello the List,

Not to be disrespectful, but I am not sure the "old way" of the
idealized Indians ever truly existed, either. Travelers in Montana as
late as the 1880's commented on places called "piscums" or "pishkuns",
where the Indians had run buffalo over cliffs in the period prior to
their obtaining horses.  These piscums were characterized by piles of
bones up to three feet deep, surrounded by felted buffalo hair and
wool.  While the Indians undoubtedly took their needed supplies from the
buffalo, equally undoubtedly a great deal of hides, meat, and bone were
also wasted.  Indians were human beings, of course, not Al Gore-like
environmental superstars, and the resources available to them at the
time must have seemed virtually unlimited.  Furthermore, the
difficulties of killing sufficient amounts of buffalo before the advent
of the horse dictated the use of crude methods such as piscums.
Although they had the skills to use every part of an animal, the idea
that they always did so defies common sense as well as historical
evidence.  Of course, this is not to say the white man was not
infinitely more wasteful.  Ironically, however, many of the piscums were
eventually cleaned up by white bone collectors who shipped the bones
back East to be turned into fertilizer.  So humankind eventually made
use of what appeared to have been wasted.

Respectfully,

Jeff Volberg

Salvatore P. Patti wrote:
>
> Thank you for your input... I guess I really meant how people just waste
> things like Animals... I read somewhere that after the White Man come here..
> Over 1,000,000 Buffalo where killed and over 10,000,000 Beaver.... I do be
> leave that's the right numbers... I'm sorry I be leave in the true old
> way....( take only what you need).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phyllis and Don Keas <[e-mail]>
> To: hist_text <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>
> >Sal - I admire your sentiments, but have to disagree about the lack of
> >furs.  Not only did silk spell the end, but also the Nutria from So
> America.
> > They were very numerous and cheaper to export than the beaver here.
> >Lack of furs was not what caused the demise of the beaver fur trade.  Plain
> >old economics.
> >
> >DON AND PHYLLIS KEAS ---LIving History Consultants
> >
> >Salvatore P. Patti wrote:
> >>Rick,
> >>What you wrote makes a lot of senses. But the real fall of the fur
> >traders
> >>was the mass killing of the animals that made the business grow then
> >fall.
> >>If more trappers toke the time and managed the animals the way the
> >Indians
> >>did, There would have been more animals and the business would have
> >lasted a
> >>hell of a lot longer then it did... Or that is just the way I feel??? I
> >feel
> >>to manage the animal is more important the to make a buck... Just like I
> >>think 200lbs of meat is way better then a 8+ point rack on a Deer....
> >>
> >>        The so called Hunters are nothing more then killers of a Great
> >and
> >>noble beast ( Deer, Buffalo, Elk, Caribou, Bear and Beaver ). Indians
> >toke
> >>what they needed not what they wanted... If I'm wrong in this thinking
> >I'm
> >>truly Sorry.... I know I'm know back in the time of the Mountain men/
> >>Trapper, but that is the way I think. thank you for your time in reading
> >>this ....
> >>                                Sal______
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Rick Williams <[e-mail]>
> >>To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
> >>Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 7:22 PM
> >>Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
> >>
> >>
> >>Henry,
> >>While I can concur with many of your points, I have to differ with some.
> >>"I" feel the death of the Rendezvous and 'BEAVER' trapping endeavors in
> >the
> >>Rocky Mountains was due to two primary reasons.  First, the change of
> >>fashion brought on by the "NEW " popularity of silk hats rather than the
> >>beaver that had been so fashionable for decades previous.  By 1840 the
> >price
> >>per pound of beaver fur had plummetted from its high just a few short
> >years
> >>earlier.  Second, with so many people after the same commodity (BEAVER),
> >it
> >>was not long before significant sections of the Rockies were denuded of
> >>beaver much as the Pacific West Coast had been depleted of sea otter.
> >>(Astors and many Russian fortunes).  By the 1860's we see the 'robe
> >trade'
> >>making significant depletions in the bison herds eventually bring this
> >>industry to it's demise.  Is this the fur trade?  Yes in it's broadest
> >>definition but very distinct from the Rocky Mountain fur trade.
> >>
> >>Another question raised was the image of the free trapper vs the
> >'company'
> >>man.  In reading biographies of so many of these mountain men, I'm
> >struck
> >>with how many different companies and trapping associations in which
> >these
> >>individuals participated.  Yes, Ashley and Andrew became Ashley and
> >Smith,
> >>then Smith, Sublette and Jackson and then Sublette and Fitzpatrick with
> >Jim
> >>and others thrown in there somewhere and this is just Rocky Mtn Fur Co..
> > To
> >>and from every Rendezvous, there were numerous comings and goings to and
> >>from civilization.  We see the upstarts like Wyeth and  Bonneville
> >jumping
> >>in the middle.  My point is, many of these so called companies were no
> >more
> >>than many of the trappers themselves making companies of THEMSELVES.
> >While
> >>seed monies were definitely needed for many of these upstarts, they were
> >>managed and staffed by those found in the Mountains.  So, free trapper
> >vs
> >>company man, I didn't dispute that most MAY have been company men but I
> >have
> >>a harder time with the Steel Mill analogy.  Yes, there is AFC, HBC and a
> >few
> >>others, but we also see cross employment in these concerns.  I guess
> >what
> >>I'm getting at is that there was a great deal of freedom for these men.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>RFC822 header
> >>-----------------------------------
> >>
> >>Received: from lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7] by mail.market1.com with
> >ESMTP
> >>  (SMTPD32-4.03) id AF4BA6B014E; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:03:07 MDT
> >>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
> >> id 10BTNQ-0003Kh-00
> >> for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:56:08 -0700
> >>Received: from [24.48.0.3] (helo=pi.adelphia.net)
> >> by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
> >> id 10BTNM-0003Jm-00
> >> for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:56:04 -0700
> >>Received: from default (isp132-235.dov.adelphia.net [24.48.6.235])
> >> by pi.adelphia.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA26531
> >> for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:56:00 -0500
> >(EST)
> >>Message-ID: <000601be56ec$2b77e1a0$eb063018@default>
> >>From: "Salvatore P. Patti" <[e-mail]>
> >>To: <[e-mail]>
> >>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
> >>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:59:52 -0500
> >>MIME-Version: 1.0
> >>Content-Type: text/plain;
> >> charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >>X-Priority: 3
> >>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
> >>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
> >>Sender: [e-mail]
> >>Precedence: bulk
> >>Reply-To: [e-mail]
> >>X-UIDL: 915555753
> >>Status: U
> >>
> >
> >

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:02:38 -0800
From: Jeffrey Volberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

I agree that the concept of sustainable harvest is something that
civilized people are only now beginning to understand.  Despite my
earlier post, I do believe that primitive people had a generally
workable understanding of the concept.  Farmers and ranchers certainly
do.  One thing that frequently gets left out of the calculations,
however, is Ma Nature.  She can sure throw a lot of curveballs, in the
form of weather variations, drought, late freezes or extreme cold,
epidemics of disease among animal populations, fire, etc.  Have you ever
noticed how some years the country will be overrun with mice or ground
squirrels, and the next year they are hard to find?  How a mountain
meadow never seems to have the same flowers growing in the same place
two years in a row?  How frogs and snakes can be like the mice and
squirrels, with populations rising and falling over long cycles?  How
about deer populations?  I don't know if we will ever know enough to be
able to "manage" nature efficiently, but what a wonderful subject to
study!

Respectfully,

Jeff Volberg

Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> My belief is that only during the past century has man fully comprehended the concept
> of sustainable harvest.  We now know (at least some of us) the critical relationships
> between habitat, reproduction rates, food chain, etc.  I expect it is possible that
> during previous centuries there were some individuals that also shared this
> appreciation but only recently have we actually applied scientific principles to the
> "management" of game and we still to a rather poor job.
>
> Jim Colburn wrote:
>
> > Washtahay-
> > At 07:59 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
> > >If more trappers toke the time and managed the animals the way the Indians
> > >did, There would have been more animals and the business would have lasted a
> > >hell of a lot longer then it did...
> >         The way the Indians "managed" the animals?  What do you mean?  Are we
> > talking the same people who hunted various animals to extinction?  The
> > tradition of wiping out species is one of mankind, not one exclusively
> > reserved to the evil white man.  Before the arrival of the white man, the
> > Indians wiped out 20 or 30 species that I can name off the top of my
> > head-and that was using stone and bone weapons.
> >         Project that forward to the damage they were doing with firearms and steel
> > knives.  Those furs were money-they could trade them for things they
> > couldn't make.  In essence, they were working overtime to buy things that
> > had a significant impact on their survival, let alone the quality of life
> > issues.
> >
> > >        The so called Hunters are nothing more then killers of a Great and
> > >noble beast ( Deer, Buffalo, Elk, Caribou, Bear and Beaver ). Indians toke
> > >what they needed not what they wanted...
> >         Hmmm.  So they drove herds of buffalo off cliffs-far more than they could
> > use, or even harvest in part-for what reason?  The use of surrounds was an
> > established custom before the arrival of the Europeans, as was the use of
> > nets to hunt birds, torching prairies to drive game, birdlime, poisoning
> > ponds, etc.
> >         For that matter, man is not the only animal to over-hunt.  Ever hear of
> > the damage a weasel will do in a henhouse?
> >         I once watched a pair of coyotes kill over thirty ducks, obviously far
> > more than they needed.  And do you think predators stop eating meat while
> > the prey is nursing young?
> > LongWalker c. du B.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:38:10 -0500
From: "Fred A. Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Rendezvous

"Salvatore P. Patti" wrote:
>
> sorry for the html post i made

[snip]

"Saright."  Those who are newer to the net often don't understand
"netiquet" until it's explained.

Fred

- --
"Slicker 'n Willie Lube".......and that's doin some!
http://www.best.com/~capn/thunder/willy.htm

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:17:08 -0800
From: "Sidney Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

Mr. Clark,

I teach elementary school.  I have also rendezvoued and studied the history
of the mountain men for quite a few years now.  No, I'm not an expert, but
even the most elementary history text will tell you that the demise of the
fur trade was largely due to the popularity of the silk hat.  It was
elegant, and less expensive than beaver felt.

While I'm sure the trappers depleated the beaver supply in the Rockies
somewhat, that really wasn't the problem.  There simply wasn't much demand
for their fur any longer. Therefore the price went so low that trapping
wasn't profitable.

Therefore, Mr. Williams was right on the mark.  However Mr. Patti certainly
has some valid beliefs and the right to state them.  I believe that you
might remember what happens when we ASSUME.

Humbly,
Sidney




>Mr. Patti,
>
>I suggest you spend a few more years studying the fur trade,
>native american history, and the relationships that have existed between
man
>and nature. I sure don't confess to know everything,
>on the contrary it seems the older I get the more aware of all the things I
>don't know. I can tell you I lived for seven years in a 12' by 16' cabin
>back  in the woods of northern WI with no electricity or running water
>and that experience helped me understand many things mainly
>because when I wasn't working I had a LOT of time to read and
>THINK. Studying archeology from paleo times to present has been one of the
>most enjoyable things for me and has really opened my eyes in a lot of
>respects. We are fortunate that there are many records
>of the fur trade and early exploration of this country. There is hardly no
>end of things to read and learn about.
>I can't see how some people can form such strong opinions after
>watching a few movies like "Dances with Wolves" and the like.
>
>From the Northwoods
>
>Tony Clark
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Salvatore P. Patti <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 6:48 PM
>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>
>
>>Rick,
>>What you wrote makes a lot of senses. But the real fall of the fur traders
>>was the mass killing of the animals that made the business grow then fall.
>>If more trappers toke the time and managed the animals the way the Indians
>>did, There would have been more animals and the business would have lasted
>a
>>hell of a lot longer then it did... Or that is just the way I feel??? I
>feel
>>to manage the animal is more important the to make a buck... Just like I
>>think 200lbs of meat is way better then a 8+ point rack on a Deer....
>>
>>        The so called Hunters are nothing more then killers of a Great and
>>noble beast ( Deer, Buffalo, Elk, Caribou, Bear and Beaver ). Indians toke
>>what they needed not what they wanted... If I'm wrong in this thinking I'm
>>truly Sorry.... I know I'm know back in the time of the Mountain men/
>>Trapper, but that is the way I think. thank you for your time in reading
>>this ....
>>                                Sal______
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Rick Williams <[e-mail]>
>>To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
>>Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 7:22 PM
>>Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>>
>>
>>Henry,
>>While I can concur with many of your points, I have to differ with some.
>>"I" feel the death of the Rendezvous and 'BEAVER' trapping endeavors in
the
>>Rocky Mountains was due to two primary reasons.  First, the change of
>>fashion brought on by the "NEW " popularity of silk hats rather than the
>>beaver that had been so fashionable for decades previous.  By 1840 the
>price
>>per pound of beaver fur had plummetted from its high just a few short
years
>>earlier.  Second, with so many people after the same commodity (BEAVER),
it
>>was not long before significant sections of the Rockies were denuded of
>>beaver much as the Pacific West Coast had been depleted of sea otter.
>>(Astors and many Russian fortunes).  By the 1860's we see the 'robe trade'
>>making significant depletions in the bison herds eventually bring this
>>industry to it's demise.  Is this the fur trade?  Yes in it's broadest
>>definition but very distinct from the Rocky Mountain fur trade.
>>
>>Another question raised was the image of the free trapper vs the 'company'
>>man.  In reading biographies of so many of these mountain men, I'm struck
>>with how many different companies and trapping associations in which these
>>individuals participated.  Yes, Ashley and Andrew became Ashley and Smith,
>>then Smith, Sublette and Jackson and then Sublette and Fitzpatrick with
Jim
>>and others thrown in there somewhere and this is just Rocky Mtn Fur Co..
>To
>>and from every Rendezvous, there were numerous comings and goings to and
>>from civilization.  We see the upstarts like Wyeth and  Bonneville
jumping
>>in the middle.  My point is, many of these so called companies were no
more
>>than many of the trappers themselves making companies of THEMSELVES.
While
>>seed monies were definitely needed for many of these upstarts, they were
>>managed and staffed by those found in the Mountains.  So, free trapper vs
>>company man, I didn't dispute that most MAY have been company men but I
>have
>>a harder time with the Steel Mill analogy.  Yes, there is AFC, HBC and a
>few
>>others, but we also see cross employment in these concerns.  I guess what
>>I'm getting at is that there was a great deal of freedom for these men.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:41:04 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Angela Gottfred)
Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Oilcloth

Pat Quilter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In my humble opinion (and that's all it is) although historically available,
>and thus theoretically "acceptable" I would bet the occurance of oilcloth in
>the Rocky Mountains during the fur trade was about zero.

I apologize for picking nits, but in fact oilcloth was much used in the
Rocky Mountain fur trade before the Mountain Man era. Voyageur canoes were
equipped with oilcloths to protect the cargo from spray. These oilcloths
_may_ have been used as shelters at the end of the day (draped over the edge
of an overturned canoe--see Frances Ann Hopkins' painting _Voyageurs at
Dawn_ to get the idea). I suspect that the oilcloths covered the cargo at
the end of the day, and the voyageurs used the canoe sails for shelters.

One other example, from the heart of the Rockies--on his 1793 trip from
Peace River to the Pacific Ocean, North West Company partner Alexander
Mackenzie notes that one day his men used an oilcloth as a 'screen' during a
brief rainshower.

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:40:43 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Angela Gottfred)
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Response to Heny's Post

Tom Roberts <[e-mail]> wrote :

>My belief is that only during the past century has man fully comprehended
the concept
>of sustainable harvest.  We now know (at least some of us) the critical
relationships
>between habitat, reproduction rates, food chain, etc.  I expect it is
possible that
>during previous centuries there were some individuals that also shared this
>appreciation but only recently have we actually applied scientific
principles to the
>"management" of game and we still to a rather poor job.
Hear, hear! Also, "the past is not all one country", or one people, for that
matter. I'm sure that in some areas, Europeans did a fine job of managing
game. I understand that the Beaver Indians in the Canadian Rockies had a
fine system of game management before the fur traders came along in the
1790's--each family "owned" the game in a specific area. With the
introduction of the fur trade, however, and the intrusion of other tribes
into their area, this system broke down.

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:44:47 -0500
From: "Salvatore P. Patti" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [none]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE5770.2B0A46C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

join
Peace Be With You Always!

- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE5770.2B0A46C0
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3DAmaze =
size=3D6>join</FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3DAmaze size=3D6>Peace Be With You=20
Always!</FONT></EM></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE5770.2B0A46C0--

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:36:56 -0600
From: Jeff Powers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List:  Enamel Cookware and dishes

   >I did the research on graniteware and then published an article on
   >it for the Rendezvous Report a few issues back.  Not only was
   >graniteware not used during the fur trade, it is doubtful it was
   >used that much during the Civil War.  Certainly not common.  You
   >might want to read the article for full information and I even
   >wrote one the next issue on alternatives that are proper you can
   >use.  Don Keas
   >DON AND PHYLLIS KEAS ---LIving History Consultants
     Don, Rendezvous Report is a new one to me,who is the publisher,where do
I write,and MOST IMPORTANT what issues am I looking for! I use tinware,but
am always interested in period alternatives!

Jeff Powers,Rogue & Ne'er do Well

"They make no scruple to break wind publickly" Fr.Louis Hennepin 1698

Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Test Drive

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:32:20 -0800
From: Chris Sega <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Oilcloth

> Angelas post got me thinking and It made me think of a hugely important role
> for an oilcloth.  Beaver packs.  As we know the Mtn men had to care for their
> packs of Fur constantly so they didnt rot or get eaten by bugs, and I would
> imagine that including the ability to shed water Linseed oil probably turns
> bugs sort of like Cedar oil etc.  Just a thought.

Your most onry' and disobedient hivernant.
Sega

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:35:37 -0700
From: "Barry Conner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes

As Don has stated "doubtful it was used that much during the Civil War".

According to an old original Francis Bannerman Sons catalog dated 1868,
(they were founded in 1865 in New York, made their first purchases of
American Rev. War surplus from the government at that time or just before
opening for business).

In the 1868 catalog they show the "newest" eating item available to a modern
army "gray modeled graniteware" just released surplus from the United States
Union Army. Goes on to state how it (won't rust and is easily kept clean in
any mess [kitchen]. Available: graniteware plates @ $ .24 each, new or $ .18
each, good cond./ lot prices upon request, foreign governments use
letterhead).

Other than being a Union Civil War item they do not give any information
other than it being a "new item for the modern army".

On another note: don't always believe what is read in a catalog as being the
straight story, they are only repeating what they have been told by the
manufacturer. That story or time period could be off many years, decades and
so on, its the old story of; "you never hear a hawker cry rotten fish". I'm
sure you'll figure that out.

Buck
dba/ Clark & Sons Mercantile
http://www.teleport.com/~walking/clark/
__________________________________
- -----Original Message-----
From: Phyllis and Don Keas <[e-mail]>
To: hist_text <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 8:21 PM
Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes


>I did the research on graniteware and then published an article on it for
>the Rendezvous Report a few issues back.  Not only was graniteware not
>used during the fur trade, it is doubtful it was used that much during the
>Civil War.  Certainly not common.  You might want to read the article for
>full information and I even wrote one the next issue on alternatives that
>are proper you can use.  Don Keas

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:57:18 -0700
From: "Barry Conner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

"Brucella melitensis", "Brucella abortus" & "Brucella suis" are three types
of organisms that started in Malta and British soldiers on that island
developed a disease later called Malta fever. Its related to contagious
abortion of cattle, like mentioned. It wasn't discovered in America until
1900 in dairy cattle, that's how humans get it with drinking and using milk.

"I hate to burst your bubble", but according to Colorado State University
before 1927 this disease was regarded as a curiosity fever when found in
humans and no records of it west of the Missisippi in domestic or wild
animals until after 1912. A little later than when the herds went down.

I called a professor that teaches at this vet college and he had seen the
same program and felt the information wasn't correct according to the years
and time frames mentioned. He did say they had purchased a copy of the film
and found many flaws, but didn't say much more than what I have written.

Buck
_______________
- -----Original Message-----
From: larry pendleton <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post


>I hate to burst your bubble, but there is another theory on the demise of
>the buffalo. A couple of years ago there was a PBS documentary which dealt
>with the subject. On it there was a historian [I can't recall his name] who
>had the all the numbers and documentation to support the theory that it was
>not physically possible to haul enough powder and lead to the plains to
>exterminate the then massive herds of buffalo. His theory also was that the
>buffalo herds had grown so large that disease had become a major problem in
>the herds. The disease was BRUCELLOSIS.  It is a reproductive disease that
>causes the  females to abort their calves at about the middle of their
>gestation. It is also a very contagious disease. .......................

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:27:51 -0600
From: "Henry B. Crawford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Rocky Mountain trapper

You are correct, there.  The Rockies were a clean (not pristine, but clean)
environment, and it beat city living by a mile.  The cities of the period
were real toilets (literally) to live in (some haven't changed much.)
Could be a good reason that trappers kept going back to the high country.

HBC

>Ah, but what a tough individual he was.  And what a great  environment he
>lived in for the most part.  Clean, pure, no roads , no fences, no poles stuck
>in the ground, fish and game abounding in many areas.  Many of these self
>reliant guys would not return to the 'States' for love or money.  I believe
>they loved their life. While I'm sure some of them were rotters, I admire the
>'mountain man'.
>        Dick

****************************************
Henry B. Crawford    Box 43191
Curator of History    Museum of Texas Tech University
[e-mail]    Lubbock, TX  79409-3191
806/742-2442     FAX [phone]
              Website: http://www.ttu.edu/~museum
******  Living History . . . Because It's There  ******

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:53:05 -0600
From: "Henry B. Crawford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Henry's Post

Rick,

Actually, in a sense, you did agree with me.  The depletion of the beaver,
and the changes in the market forced the fur companies to rethink their
allocation of company funds into the rendezvous system and divert their
resources to less costly avenues of trade becaues the profits just weren't
there anymore.  Those economic factors (reduction in raw materials and
changing market trends) reduced fur trade profits and promped fur co. execs
to shift from the rondy to the tried and true trading post, where it all
began.

You are absolutely correct, that the robe trade was distinct from the RM
fur trade, but as you said, in the broad sense, it is still the fur trade,
which is exactly my point (remember what I said about historians thinking
in broad terms?  That's what I mean.)  Both of your points are well taken
and I agree with them, yet from a decidedly different angle.

As for the trappers becoming the "companies," that is true, yet my
attention was on the peon trapper, not the trapper-entrepreneur like Smith
and Jackson, etc., who themselves rise to company ownership through buyout
and combination.  These are a distinctly different class of men.  I have to
say that the vast majority of trappers were not.  You raised some good
points.  Gives us more to think about.  Thanks.

>Henry,
>While I can concur with many of your points, I have to differ with some. =
> "I" feel the death of the Rendezvous and 'BEAVER' trapping endeavors in =
>the Rocky Mountains was due to two primary reasons.  First, the change =
>of fashion brought on by the "NEW " popularity of silk hats rather than =
>the beaver that had been so fashionable for decades previous.  By 1840 =
>the price per pound of beaver fur had plummetted from its high just a =
>few short years earlier.  Second, with so many people after the same =
>commodity (BEAVER), it was not long before significant sections of the =
>Rockies were denuded of beaver much as the Pacific West Coast had been =
>depleted of sea otter. (Astors and many Russian fortunes).  By the =
>1860's we see the 'robe trade' making significant depletions in the =
>bison herds eventually bring this industry to it's demise.  Is this the =
>fur trade?  Yes in it's broadest definition but very distinct from the =
>Rocky Mountain fur trade.
>
>Another question raised was the image of the free trapper vs the =
>'company' man.  In reading biographies of so many of these mountain men, =
>I'm struck with how many different companies and trapping associations =
>in which these individuals participated.  Yes, Ashley and Andrew became =
>Ashley and Smith, then Smith, Sublette and Jackson and then Sublette and =
>Fitzpatrick with Jim and others thrown in there somewhere and this is =
>just Rocky Mtn Fur Co..  To and from every Rendezvous, there were =
>numerous comings and goings to and from civilization.  We see the =
>upstarts like Wyeth and  Bonneville  jumping in the middle.  My point =
>is, many of these so called companies were no more than many of the =
>trappers themselves making companies of THEMSELVES.  While seed monies =
>were definitely needed for many of these upstarts, they were managed and =
>staffed by those found in the Mountains.  So, free trapper vs company =
>man, I didn't dispute that most MAY have been company men but I have a =
>harder time with the Steel Mill analogy.  Yes, there is AFC, HBC and a =
>few others, but we also see cross employment in these concerns.  I guess =
>what I'm getting at is that there was a great deal of freedom for these =
>men. =20

****************************************
Henry B. Crawford    Box 43191
Curator of History    Museum of Texas Tech University
[e-mail]    Lubbock, TX  79409-3191
806/742-2442     FAX [phone]
              Website: http://www.ttu.edu/~museum
******  Living History . . . Because It's There  ******

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:36:01 -0600
From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

Buck,
  Way to go !  I appreciate the info.  I know my parents talk about the
effects of undulan fever [I'm not sure of that spelling] when they were
kids during the depression. My Dad was born in 1927. You are exactly right
about humans getting it from drinking milk that came from infected cows.
What about the theory that was put forth in the program that states there
was no possible way that much ammunition could have been hauled out there ?
I'm not claiming to be a expert on the subject, just repeating what I saw
on the program. I'll do some more research on Bucellosis. I have the
material here to do that. I should have done that before I shot my mouth
off. I just took the program as fact. A mistake I think we are all guilty
of from time to time. If you get any more info on it please pass it on.
  This must be the second mistake I've made. The first time I was mistaken.
I just thought I'd made a mistake. [ Just funnin guys ! ]
Pendleton

- ----------
> From: Barry Conner <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
> Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 6:57 PM
>
> "Brucella melitensis", "Brucella abortus" & "Brucella suis" are three
types
> of organisms that started in Malta and British soldiers on that island
> developed a disease later called Malta fever. Its related to contagious
> abortion of cattle, like mentioned. It wasn't discovered in America until
> 1900 in dairy cattle, that's how humans get it with drinking and using
milk.
>
> "I hate to burst your bubble", but according to Colorado State University
> before 1927 this disease was regarded as a curiosity fever when found in
> humans and no records of it west of the Missisippi in domestic or wild
> animals until after 1912. A little later than when the herds went down.
>
> I called a professor that teaches at this vet college and he had seen the
> same program and felt the information wasn't correct according to the
years
> and time frames mentioned. He did say they had purchased a copy of the
film
> and found many flaws, but didn't say much more than what I have written.
>
> Buck
> _______________
> -----Original Message-----
> From: larry pendleton <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 11:12 AM
> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>
>
> >I hate to burst your bubble, but there is another theory on the demise
of
> >the buffalo. A couple of years ago there was a PBS documentary which
dealt
> >with the subject. On it there was a historian [I can't recall his name]
who
> >had the all the numbers and documentation to support the theory that it
was
> >not physically possible to haul enough powder and lead to the plains to
> >exterminate the then massive herds of buffalo. His theory also was that
the
> >buffalo herds had grown so large that disease had become a major problem
in
> >the herds. The disease was BRUCELLOSIS.  It is a reproductive disease
that
> >causes the  females to abort their calves at about the middle of their
> >gestation. It is also a very contagious disease. .......................
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:05:59 -0600
From: "Henry B. Crawford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Mountain Men on History Channel

Friends,

I got a call from Brian Coughlin, one of the producers from Greystone
Communications.  They do documentaries for the History Channel (Real West,
Civil War Journal, Tales of the Gun)  He said that the program some of us
participated in shooting last fall is scheduled for air on Saturday, March
20th.  I think they're simply calling it "The Mountain Men." They are using
me as a "talking head," along with Bob Utley and a couple of others.  On
behalf of Greystone, my thanks to Todd, Dean, and others who participated.
Brian also told me that they got Pernell Roberts to narrate.  They needed a
distinctive, familiar voice that didn't cost too much.  Sam Elliot (their
first choice) was too costly.  I, and a couple of others, sent them dozens
of suggestions, and they chose Roberts.  Look for it.  I hope it meets with
your approval.

Cheers,
HBC

****************************************
Henry B. Crawford    Box 43191
Curator of History    Museum of Texas Tech University
[e-mail]    Lubbock, TX  79409-3191
806/742-2442     FAX [phone]
              Website: http://www.ttu.edu/~museum
******  Living History . . . Because It's There  ******

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:46:17 -0600
From: "northwoods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Re: MtMan-list: Re: Response to Heny's Post

Barry,

Agricultural Research Magazine says that Brucellosis has been
"A bane of cattle producers since the 1840's".

USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service says "Brucellosis
caused devastating losses to farmers in the US over the last century".

I have in front of me at this moment a book entitled "The Buffalo
Producers Guide To Management and Marketing". It says that
historically speaking there are " four major diseases that domestic
stock transmitted to bison, causing epidemic losses to the bison population:
hemorrhagic septicemia, brucellosis, malignant anthrax,
and tuberculosis."

It goes on to say that ,"Other enviromental hazards are quicksand,
bogs, flood, drought, raging fires, lightning, hurricane (it says hurricane)
drowning, blizzards, Or frozen ice over snow causing
starvation. Iced rivers and lakes are particular problems because
partially thawed or newly formed ice may hold the first and second buffalo
but with the herd moving as a close unit the combined weight
eventually breaks the ice and traps many animals"

One other interesting thing this book says is that " The stampede
is the "fatal flaw" of the bison . That instinct was and is today a major
cause of death and injury. In the natural balance of things perhaps
it was intended more to limit the herds than for the survival ."

All this being said, personally I feel that man and his rifle had to have
been one of, if not the primary exterminator of the bison.
A good book on the subject is "The Great Buffalo Hunt" by
Wayne Gard. I enjoyed it very much.

I might add that my wife is a veterinarian .

From the nortwoods, ( Northwoods Veterinary clinic )

Tony Clark

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 99 20:19:21 -0700
From: Phyllis and Don Keas <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Graniteware

Ok, here it is.  The Rendezvous Report is published by Marlis Simms,
editor, Box 457, Glorieta,NM 87535.
My research was thru the Graniteware Society and phone calls to Evelyn
Welsh who is considered to be The expert on the subject.  Read the whole
article, but here are the main points.
Enamiling has been an art form since it's development in ancient China
and Egypt.  In the 1850's it went from art to commerce.
In 1799 Sven Rinman obtained a patent for two methods of enameling
kitchen utinsels.  In 1839 Thomas and Charles Clarke applied for an enameling
patent.  Both Clarke and Rinman patents were European.
The earliest American patent is to Charles Stumer in 1848.  Another to
George Holley for "The Improvment in Enameling Cast Iron in 1857.  Enameling
to the 1850's was done on cast iron, not tin ware.  The Niedringhaus
Brothers began stamping out tinware in 1862 and got a patent in 1876 for "The
Improvment of Enameling Sheet-Iron Ware".
The only way enanelware could have made it to the fur trade would have
had to have been European imports and I have never seen any lists of such
imports and I have not seen any lists of enamelware on goods either going to
Rendezvous or to fur trade posts.
If anyone can come up with some documentation that would differ from
this, I would appreciate seeing it, but this is what I have found so far and
it is not based on assumptions or conjecture.
Considering the American patent dates and Army issues during the Civil
War that list tin ware rather than enamelware is why I made the statement
that it would even be a stretch for use in Civil War reenactments.
So I will reiterate my statement that "there was no enamelware used
during the fur trade".  Not even William Drummond Stewart's outfit lists
enamelware and if anybody would have had it he would, especially at that late
date in the fur trade.
So if someone on this list can prove by research that what I have found
is wrong, please do so.  In the meqantime I will stich to tin, copper or
castiron.  I KNOW these are correct.  Don Keas

------------------------------

End of hist_text-digest V1 #238
*******************************

-
 To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.