On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 03:49:00PM -0700, R wrote:
> although this isn't quite on your point, yoshie, knives and razors are the
> weapons of choice on the street where guns are banned -- as in
> england. such weapons are cheaper -- more affordable to the "lower" class
> -- generally easier to conceal, and more readily accessible than guns.
>
> R
>
>
>
>
> At 06:02 PM 8/24/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >***** Probate records as an historical source
> >
> >Michael A. Bellesiles
> >
> >...The issue is further confused by the fact that probate practices
> >changed over time. Studies in Colonial Massachusetts estimate the
> >percentage of deceased inventories at between 25% and 90%, with Kevin
> >Sweeney's study of Wethersfield, Connecticut, indicating that 70% of the
> >town's taxpayers in 1673 were inventoried, compared to 50% in 1773. (43)
> >Those not counted form a long list: "most women, most native Americans,
> >most soldiers, and all transients, sojourners, children, apprentices,
> >live-in relations, servants or slaves and their families." (44) These are
> >the poorest Americans. In Concord, Massachusetts, between 1653 and 1700,
> >281 deaths were recorded in the public records, with fifteen additional
> >known deaths not recorded. Of this number, 45 men and four women (16.5%)
> >were inventoried. (45) Philip Greven found probate records for 45% of the
> >deceased taxpayers in Andover, Massachusetts. (46) Daniel Scott Smith's
> >study of eighteenth-century Hingham, Massachusetts found inventories for
> >42% of the adult men and 4% of the women. (47) John Waters likewise found
> >inventories for 45% of the adult males in his sample from
> >eighteenth-century Guilford, Connecticut. (48) Alice Hanson Jones felt
> >that just 32.7% of "potential wealth holders" were inventoried in New
> >England in 1774. (49) In contrast, Jackson Turner Main wrote that probate
> >inventories were available for 80% of the adult male decedents in
> >seventeenth-century Connecticut. (50)
> >
> >But these scholars are not always talking about the same things. Some are
> >using sample sets of populations, others the complete population, others
> >just taxpayers or Jones' "potential wealth holders," making these
> >percentages difficult to compare. Sweeney and Smith have found a clear
> >class bias in probate inventories, with the wealthiest being most likely
> >to be inventoried. In Scott's study, 78.3% of the top 40% measured by
> >taxable wealth are inventoried, but just 13.8% of the bottom 20%. Both of
> >these scholars therefore feel that probate records may show more property
> >than is normal. (51) In terms of this particular study, then, those most
> >likely to own guns and books are most often inventoried....
> >
> >... One-third of the bottom 30% (21 of 66) of inventories Hawley studied
> >contained firearms, with guns appearing in 74% of the top 10% of the
> >inventories examined (16 of 22). (77). Hawley is the only other historian
> >with whom I am familiar who has addressed the question of gun ownership in
> >the probate records. Finding far fewer than she had expected, she
> >speculates, "Appraisers in Surry County may have selectively omitted the
> >guns of poor men from their inventories so that their heirs could meet
> >their civic responsibility." (78) But since guns could not be seized for
> >the payment of a debt, it is not clear why such concealment would be
> >necessary. Hawley assumes that since the law required that men have arms
> >for militia service that they must have had them. But she also notes "nor
> >are there any known cases of presentment before the court for failure to
> >have the requisite equipment." (79)...
> >
> >
> >...43.Kevin M. Sweeney, "Furniture and the Domestic Environment in
> >Wethersfield, Connecticut, 1639-1800," Connecticut Antiquarian 36 (1984):
> >10-39. Sweeney's study is based on 786 inventories.
> >
> >44.Benes, ed., Early American Probate Inventories, 11.
> >
> >45.Ibid.
> >
> >46.Philip Greven, Four Generations: Population, Land, and Family in
> >Colonial Andover, Massachusetts (Ithaca, NY, 1970).
> >
> >47.Daniel Scott Smith, "Underregistration and Bias in Probate Records: An
> >Analysis of Data from Eighteenth-Century Hingham, Massachusetts." William
> >and Mary Quarterly 32 (1975): 104.
> >
> >48.John Waters, "Patrimony, Succession, and Social Stability: Guilford,
> >Connecticut in the Eighteenth Century," Perspectives in American History
> >10 (1976): 138.
> >
> >49.Alice Hanson Jones, "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies
> >about 1770." Journal of Economic History 32 (1972): 116.
> >
> >50.Jackson Turner Main, Society and Economy in Colonial Connecticut
> >(Princeton, 1985), 48, 60-61.
> >
> >51.Sweeney, "Using Tax Lists to Detect Biases in Probate Inventories," in
> >Benes, ed., Early American Probate Inventories, 35-36; Smith,
> >"Underregistration and Bias in Probate Records," 105....
> >
> >76.Anna L. Hawley, "The Meaning of Absence: Household Inventories in Surry
> >County, Virginia, 1690-1715," in Benes, ed., Early American Probate
> >Inventories, 23-31.
> >
> >77.Ibid., 27-28.
> >
> >78.Ibid.
> >
> >79.Ibid., 28n.
> >
> ><http://www.emory.edu/HISTORY/BELLESILES/webprobate.update1.html> *****
> >
> >As one of Bellesiles's primary historical sources for evidence of the
> >scarcity of guns in pre-Civil-War America is probate records, it is
> >possible that gun ownership was even less widespread than _Arming America_
> >suggests.
> >--
> >Yoshie
> >
> >* Calendar of Events in Columbus:
> ><http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
> >* Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
> >* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
> >* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>
>
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu