>>For the past couple of days I have been lazing around the house reading
>>the new BofB VIII. (between chores) I must say that I think it is the
>>best one so far. At least four of the chapters are written by fellow AMM
>>members. That speaks to the quality of the AMM. I guess my favorite
>>chapter is done by Rex Norman on Mountaineer Gear. What a thoroughly
>>excellent article. With writings this and those chapters by Clay Landry,
>>Shawn Webster, Dick Patton, Allen Chronister and the others, the info is
>>there for folks just starting out to do it right from the get go.
>>
>>I was initially struck by how much of the book deals with things
>>"Western" rather than what seems like has been the predominantly
>>"Eastern" emphasis. Maybe the tide has begun to change and the
>>"Mountaineer" is becoming more in vogue.
>>
>>If you haven't been collecting the whole series of Book of Buckskinning,
>>I think this latest edition is WELL worth your dollars.
>>
>>H'yars to the new century!
>>
>>"Teton" Todd D. Glover
>>Poison River Party Pilgrim
>>
>>
>>----------------------
>>hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>>
>
>
>----------------------
>hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 18:39:55 -0800
From: David Woodbury <woodbury@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: dead horse gun discussion
At 12:37 AM +0000 12/30/99, John Dearing wrote:
>My one last comment to David, please read the Federalist Papers to
>find out what the founders though about the right to bear arms,
>and research what really happened in England, Canada, Australia, and
>California. Those things can happen here, as well, unless we stand
>up for our rights.
John,
Thanks for keeping it cordial. I won't drag it out any more, either,
except to respond to pointed messages referring directly to something
I posted. I refer to the Federalist Papers sometimes with regard to
other issues (in Civil War discussions). They are useful to get at
the original intent, perhaps, but remain essentially editorials. I
think the Justices of the Supreme Court consider these arguments as
well, and yet they keep arriving at the same conclusions, e.g.,
Cruikshank v. U.S. 1876, "The right of bearing arms for a lawful
purpose is not a right granted by the constitution, nor is it in any
manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"; or 1939
U.S. v. Miller, ". . .the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to
bear arms that do not have some reasonable relationship to the
preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia".
If it is, as some here suggest, strictly a literal translation about
people having the uninhibited right to bear arms, then one must argue
that there is a right to bear *all* arms, from bazookas to portable
missile launchers with tactical nuclear warheads -- these are all
"arms" in the strictest sense. Most reasonable people, I think, agree
that not everyone should have the uninhibited right to bear the kinds
of arms I just mentioned. If one agrees to restricting *these* arms,
then it's only a question of how much to restrict arms ownership.
Since the Constitution left this question open, it is up to Congress
or state legislatures (our elected representatives) to determine.
David
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: 29 Dec 1999 18:47:36 -0800
From: Buck <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Coffee grinders
On Wed, 29 December 1999, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> It's been a long time since I've really tried to find good data on coffee
> during the fur trade, but it seems to me that when I was doing research in
> that or adjacent areas, water or tea was the most often mentioned
> non-alcoholic beverage. It made sense to me because tea is less bulky to
> pack, easier to prepare, and at that time, perhaps more readily available.
> Tea was also reputed to have some medicinal properties.
> Bill C
___________________________________________
Bill,
As you say tea was very popular, I was searching for information about ôCeylon Teaö as I found a wooden box at an estate sale with these words on it and a date of 1837, hereÆs what I found for theöTea Drinkersö, this is just a short history on one type.
Starting from the 16th century,establishment of plantations of export crops like cinnamon, later also coffee and
coconut, were encouraged by the colonial governments in Sri Lanka and started to suppress the traditional system
of peasant agriculture. The tropical island of Sri Lanka southeast of the Indian subcontinent offers ideal climatic
conditions for tea (Ceylon) and rice cultivation which led to a history of highly developed hydraulic civilizations in
the dry zone lowlands. The wet zone and highlands in the southwest constitute the core area of plantation agriculture because of environmental conditions suitable to support a variety of perennial commercial crops. After 1870 tea was established to replace coffee which succumbed to a virulent fungus.
Ceylon tea has been acclaimed as the best tea in the world for over several centuries. The Sri Lankan climate varies tremendously from the central highlands to the southern plains. These varying climatic conditions impart distinct flavors and aromas on our teas.
Later,
Buck Conner
_________________________________
Personal :http://home.att.net/~buck.conner/personal.html
Business :http://www.teleport.com/~walking/clark/
AMM Party:http://klesinger.com/jbp/jbp.html
_________________________________
Aux Ailments de Pays!
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: 29 Dec 1999 18:51:56 -0800
From: Buck <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Coffee and such
On Wed, 29 December 1999, Vic Barkin wrote:
> Just have to chime in on the current thread on account of the fact that way
> back when, I did some research on coffee during the fur trade. here's what
> I've got...
>
> The standard coffee of the fur trade from 1800 to 1840 was green Rio. Rio
> was a designation for any Brazilian coffee imported from Rio de Janerio,
> and green meant it simply wasn't roasted. Very little roasting was done
> commercially at that time. (Today, Oro is common at stores)
>
> Even in cities, restaurants and individuals did the roasting just before
> use to preserve the flavor.
>
> Within decades of the American Revolution. coffee became a major trade item
> on the frontier, along with gunpowder, lead, sugar, tobacco and whiskey.
>
> Jim Beckwourth (Beckwith) described the first Rendezvous in 1825: "On
> arriving at the rendezvous we found the main body of the Salt Lake party
> already there with the whole of their effects. The General (Ashley) would
> open none of his goods, except tobacco until all had arrived, as he wished
> to make an equal distribution; for goods were then scarce in the mountains
> and hard to obtain. When all had come in, he opened his goods, and there
> was a general jubilee among all at the rendezvous. We constituted quite a
> little town, numbering at least eight hundred souls, of whom one half were
> women and children. There were some among us who had not seen any groceries
> such as coffee, sugar & c. for several months."
>
> In 1832 coffee and sugar found their way into the standard US Army ration.
> This did not come about because of congressional action, but was ordered by
> President Andrew Jackson, who was upset by the inability of congress to act
> on the matter.
>
> Although out of the fur trade period, This excerpt from a Civil War diary
> by William Forse Scott of the Fourth Iwoa Veteran Volunteers is appropriate
> enough:
>
> "If there had been reverence enough for a new religion, it's gods would
> have been fire and coffee. For next to fire, the one thing indespensible to
> the soldiers was coffee. There must have been very many, who when they
> enlisted were not in the habit of drinking it or drank very little; but
> camp life soon made it a neccessity to all. The active campaigner was sure
> to take it as often as he could get it; no other article of food or drink
> could approach it in value in the estimation of a man who had to march or
> work by day or watch by night. Tea was part of the army ration, but there
> was little demand for it, and the commissarys in the field were seldom
> provided with it. Fortunately, as coffee in the berries could not be easily
> adulterated, and it's bulk was comparitively not great, the army nearly
> always had it in fair quality and sufficient quality.
>
> BTW the first vaccum packed- groung roast was introduced by Hills Bros in 1900.
>
> And as for grinders, forts and military outposts usually had them, but no
> documentation I have seen places them in the field during the RM fur trade.
>
> Barkin Dawg- Y1.83 ready!
__________________________________________
Vic,
A little history found on the internet about coffee; A sheep herder named Kaldi started it all in 850 AD. He wanted to know what could be responsible for the "queer antics of his flock." Fearing his sheep possessed, Kaldi paid close observation from high on the
mountain and watched as his herd nibbled red berries from the branch of a strange tree.
Upon closer inspection he discovered the sheep eating berries from a new leaf. When he sampled the berry himself, he felt a surge of exhilaration and rushed to tell the local imam. That night the two shared a
concoction made of the berries, pranced around, and generally got pretty tanked on caffeine. When they finally dozed off, Mohammed appeared to the imam and said the berries enhanced wakefulness and wakefulness
promoted prayer. Prayer, counseled Mohammed, was better than sleep.
Sooner than you can say percolate, the imam and his monastery became famous throughout Arabia for the spirited praying of its coffee-drinking brethren. Soon others in the old world were clamoring for the newly
discovered bean.
Although legend credits Kaldi with the find, some suspect that coffee was around long before him. But no one bothered to give it a proper noun. Among other tales of coffee lore, the Bible relates that Abigail brought to David "five measures of parched corn," which some believe to be coffee. Hippocrates is said to have collected all the herbs of his time and coffee, under another name perhaps, was included in this collection. The "black broth" of the Lacedaemonians was a strong, well-boiled brew.
Whatever its origins, the black broth is now ingested by over a third of the world's population and, centuries later, continues to promote queer antics.
Source where found at:
http://cogsum.com/coffee6.html
Later,
Buck Conner
_________________________________
Personal :http://home.att.net/~buck.conner/personal.html
Business :http://www.teleport.com/~walking/clark/
AMM Party:http://klesinger.com/jbp/jbp.html
_________________________________
Aux Ailments de Pays!
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 19:34:06 -0800
From: David Woodbury <woodbury@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: MtMan-List: infiltrated...
At 7:50 PM -0600 12/29/99, Douglas Hepner wrote:
>I think we have been infiltrated!? What's up with this?
>
>"Dull Hawk"
Sorry, didn't see the "Lemmings Only" sign when I joined the list.
Can't have someone viewing a constitutional amendment differently
than this august group of mountain man enthusiasts (ironically, this
same list touts the independent-minded spirit of those early
adventurers).
Here's what's up, Mr. Hawk. I have been fascinated with mountain men
and the fur trade era for as long as I can remember, read everything
I can on the subject, travel in their footsteps when possible --
going to the mountains often to capture some of that spirit. I'm a
card-carrying member of the Jed Smith Society, and a devotee of the
Sierra Nevada. I monitor this list because it's the only one I could
find that treats the subject, at least in part, though I have no
interest, personally, in trying to authentically recreate the
mountain man's equipment or manner of dress. And, *incidentally*, I
don't believe the Constitution guarantees everyone the unrestricted
right to possess any arms they can lay their hands on. When someone
here started this discussion, phrasing the post as if we are all of
like mind on the subject of gun control, I responded to it with my
opinion.,
That's what's up with this.
David
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:26:45 -0700
From: Vic Barkin <Victor.Barkin@NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Coffee and such
Right on the mark buck,
I have read that story, don't know what I'd do without them beans, "queer
antics" or not!
B Dawg
Vic "Barkin Dawg" Barkin
AMM #1537
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:31:53 -0700
From: Allen Hall <allenhall@srv.net>
Subject: MtMan-List: gun control
Hello the list,
Guess I'll throw my 2 cents in on this here "gun control" thing. And yes, I
know gun control is being able to hit your target!!!
First. From the Preamble of the US Constitution. "We the people of the
United States....."
From the 1st Amendment; ....or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble.....
From the 2nd Amendment;.... the right of the people to keep and bear arms....
From the 4th Amendment; ....The right of the people to be secure in their
persons....
From the 10th Amendment; ...or to the people.
Why would "the people" mean different things in the second amendment, but
none of the others? The answer is obvious, the people, _means_ the people.
As to the "why would anyone need a machine gun", or why would anyone "need a
magazine that holds more that X number of rounds? Here's the deal, don't
try to determine MY needs. Why do you need a Corvette when the speed limit
is 75 max in the US? Why do you need more that 2 kids? It comes down to
this little thing called freedom of choice and the corresponding responsibility.
Take a look at the places in the US with the strictest gun control laws,
they also are the places with the highest crime rates. Go figure.....
Is crime worse now than it was in the 50's or even 60's? Most folks would
say yes, and the media and others would say that it's because of the easy
availability of guns. Well, for those that don't recall, prior to the 1968
gun control act, you could (read that anyone could) order guns through the
mail. So much for the easy availablility of guns crap.
With all the federal laws enacted, what is the prosecution rate for
offenders. Sickeningly low. These law only pertain to the good guys. If
we can't keep tons of methamphetimine, cocaine and pot from coming across
our borders, what makes us think we'll keep out a 7 pound AK-47?
One thing Dave had to say is right on the money. That is education is
critical. Popular notions are that guns are inherently evil. Take someone
out and let them shoot. You'll change their mind about guns for the
positive. Also another point that I got from Dave, WE will be the ones to
see that gun ownership and use is "allowed" in the future. Write your
representatives and anyone else. Even if they don't listen, they know that
they don't have a blank check on this question.
This can go on and on, but that's about all I've gotta say. And for
interest sake, I'm a full time law enforcement officer, and have owned
machine guns of my own, and thanks to your tax dollars (when I worked for
the government) shot LOTS of rounds from a very wide assortment of machine guns.
It ain't the talking', it's the doin'
Allen Hall in Fort Hall country
a small part of free America
Allen Hall #1729 from Fort Hall country
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:38:49 -0500 (EST)
From: MedicineWolfe@webtv.net
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Char Cloth
My mistake! I thought someone had stated a way to make char in a regular
oven. I'll just have to break out the grill(the wife hates its when I
dig fire pits in the back yard!!!)and do it the old fashion way! Sorry
to take up the lists time.
Thanx to all,
M.W
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:13:02 -0800
From: R Lahti <lahtirog@gte.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Char Cloth
MedicineWolfe@webtv.net wrote:
>
> My mistake! I thought someone had stated a way to make char in a regular
> oven. I'll just have to break out the grill(the wife hates its when I
> dig fire pits in the back yard!!!)and do it the old fashion way! Sorry
> to take up the lists time.
Medicine Wolf,
If you have a propane torch you won't need to break out the grill. Still
need to do it outside though. All you need to do is heat the proposed
char material in a tight metal container until you vaporize all the
volatile out of it. Usually just getting the bottom of a small can red
hot and holding it at that temp for a few minutes will do the trick.
Problem is it gives off a bit of smoke. If you have a good exhaust fan
in the kitchen, I guess you could do it on the stove top with a burner
on high. Hope that gives you some ideas. I remain.....
YMOS
Capt. Lahti'
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:56:30 -0800
From: R Lahti <lahtirog@gte.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: infiltrated...
David Woodbury wrote:
>
> At 7:50 PM -0600 12/29/99, Douglas Hepner wrote:
> >I think we have been infiltrated!? What's up with this?
> >
> >"Dull Hawk"
>
> Sorry, didn't see the "Lemmings Only" sign when I joined the list.
Dave,
No need to apologize to me. Your certainly entitled to your considered
opinion and welcome to share it with grace and aplomb which you did
under fire.
I don't happen to agree with you though. I suppose I can't argue with
what you reported as to how the courts have ruled but I think they are
wrong too. That is the problem we face today. Convincing those who make
law and enforce law that the Constitution should mean what it says. If
read in the context of the age it was written in, there was no organized
militia but rather all able bodied men between a certain age were
considered members by dictate and default. (A formal militia was not
formed for several years after the Constitution was ratified.) They were
probably encouraged to maintain the equivalent of the contemporary
military arm of the day ready for use. That is why, I think one can find
so many quotes by leading figures of the day such as Jefferson saying
that free men should never be denied their "Arms". Should the able
bodied citizen of today be made to hold ready with outdated weapons of a
bygone era?
The Federalist papers may be editorials but they were written by the
same men who framed the Constitution. Those men, almost to a man, agreed
that an unarmed citizenry was to be avoided at all cost to ensure that
the country would not return to anything like a monarchy. It is also
known that the various amendments were originally to be excluded because
it was felt that these things should go without saying. But they were
enumerated expressly for the propose of ensuring that those particular
freedoms would not be abridged. It has been an up hill fight every
since.
I can see the attractiveness of the argument that nobody needs this or
that type weapon and the attractiveness of legislating restrictions on
firearms ownership to solve societal problems but what I don't
understand is why the media and academia scream bloody murder when the
First Amendment comes under fire with any suggestion of censorship but
are silent ( for the most part) when an amendment like the 2nd is
attacked through restrictions on firearms ownership by even citizens of
good moral character. Where does accountability and responsibility get a
chance to play.
Your point about banning such things as military weapons of explosive
or mass destructive potential is well taken. It is hard to argue with
that type of restriction and even the laws that restrict ownership of
full auto weapons is not that unreasonable. But in a country where
individual freedom is supposed to be held so high, I fail to see the
wisdom in letting even one freedom be slowly eaten away. It is not too
far fetched to imagine that a gutted 2nd Amendment won't lead to a
gutted 1st or 3rd or 4th or etc. Which of the Amendments do you hold
most dear? The 1st? The 5th? Do you want your right to speak freely
abridged for the common good? Who do you want responsible for deciding
that what you say or want to say is harmful and punishable by
imprisonment?
I respectfully submit to you sir that you can not have it both ways. It
is either all, or soon enough nothing. So yes you are free to view a
Constitutional Amendment differently than this or any august group
whether they be Mountain Men or Whatever's. I hope that your willingness
to water down the right to keep and bare arms will not some day be an
action that you will deeply regret. A Happy and Prosperous New Year to
you sir, I remain....
YMOS
Capt. Lahti
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
End of hist_text-digest V1 #437
*******************************
-
To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to
"majordomo@xmission.com"
with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.
