Texas Gun Lore

[baldeagle]

This is not a book review. I'm not even done reading it yet (about halfway through), but I can already highly recommend this book. Written by Carroll Holloway, the book is crammed with Texas history as it relates to guns. But, I was struck almost immediately by the introduction, when I read this:

Why did men acquire rights? How was the foundation of liberty and democracy laid? An invention is the answer to these questions also -- the invention of the gun!

Never have I read, in so succinct a form, the explanation for the 2nd Amendment.

The writer points out that historians rarely write about the causes of major historical changes. For example, the highway system in America is the direct result of the invention of the automobile. The invention of the gun, he points out, made the serfs' lives valuable to their lord. No longer could a small coterie of highly skilled and trained knights serve as a feudal lord's power. One unskilled serf with a few hours training could kill a knight whose entire life had been devoted to the profession of arms. So the serfs became necessary for his army if he was to win in battle.

Here's an example of what he writes, and this is just in the introduction.

American historians gleefully report the Battle of New Orleans, where the Americans won by killing or wounding 3,336 British, with the loss of only eight Americans killed and thirteen wounded. We are to assume, possibly, that some supernatural power enabled "our side" to win so decisively, as a reward for being ever right. The answer, again, is firearms. The British were using short range muskets of poor accuracy. The Americans were equipped with finer rifles than the Europeans suspected were in existence. At a range which was deadly for the rifles, the smoothbore muskets were almost harmless.

When I read this I thought immediately of the Battle of Little BigHorn. The hapless Army troops were equipped with single shot Springfield rifles and Colt revolvers while the Indians had Henry, Remington and Sharps repeaters (as well as many black powder weapons and bows and arrows), outgunning them and slaughtering them to a man. Try to find that information in historical accounts of the battle. Most historians attribute the victory to the Indians outnumbering the cavalry or to poor decisions on Gen. Custer's part.

So far I am loving this book. When the Civil War began, the ability to manufacture arms in the South took on a tremendous importance. Texans geared up and began manufacturing, with much difficulties due to workers being constantly drafted into the Confederate Army, rifles and pistols that saw service in the war and later in winning the west. Texas natives may be familiar with the Colt Walker and the Dance revolver, both influenced and/or manufactured by Texans.

You can buy the book on Amazon or do as I did and check it out from your local library.

[C-dub]

This is not a book review. I'm not even done reading it yet (about halfway through), but I can already highly recommend this book. Written by Carroll Holloway, the book is crammed with Texas history as it relates to guns. But, I was struck almost immediately by the introduction, when I read this:

Why did men acquire rights? How was the foundation of liberty and democracy laid? An invention is the answer to these questions also -- the invention of the gun!

Wasn't the Magna Carta also about acknowledging peoples' rights? That was way before guns.

[baldeagle]

The Magna Carta granted rights to the barons, not the serfs. The serfs got their rights at the point of the gun.

[VMI77]

When I read this I thought immediately of the Battle of Little BigHorn. The hapless Army troops were equipped with single shot Springfield rifles and Colt revolvers while the Indians had Henry, Remington and Sharps repeaters (as well as many black powder weapons and bows and arrows), outgunning them and slaughtering them to a man. Try to find that information in historical accounts of the battle. Most historians attribute the victory to the Indians outnumbering the cavalry or to poor decisions on Gen. Custer's part.

I can't point to any one source, but I've been aware of that difference for a very long time, so the information is out there. Also, there are a number of old Hollywood westerns that depict unscrupulous traders selling repeating rifles to the Indians while Army troops had only single shot Springfield rifles. A quick check also finds the Wikipedia article on the Little Big Horn discussing the difference in firepower:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... echloaders

Two hundred or more Lakota and Cheyenne combatants are known to have been armed with Henry, Winchester, or similar lever-action repeating rifles at the battle.[98][108] Virtually every trooper in the 7th Cavalry fought with the single-shot, breech-loading Springfield carbine and the Colt revolver.[109]

Historians have asked whether the repeating rifles conferred a distinct advantage on Sitting Bull’s villagers that contributed to their victory over Custer’s carbine-armed soldiers.[110]

Historian Michael L. Lawson offers a scenario based on archaeological collections at the "Henryville" site, which yielded plentiful Henry rifle cartridge casings from approximately 20 individual guns. Lawson speculates that, though less powerful than the Springfield carbines, the Henry repeaters provided a barrage of fire at a critical point, driving Lieutenant James Calhoun's L Company from Calhoun Hill and Finley Ridge, forcing them to flee in disarray back to Captain Myles Keogh's I Company, and leading to the disintegration of that wing of Custer's Battalion

Also, the case for battlefield superiority of repeating rifles isn't as solid as might be thought at first blush, and the reason why the Army was using single shot Springfield rifles is discussed too. Among other reasons:

The Springfield carbine is praised for its “superior range and stopping power” by historian James Donovan, and author Charles M. Robinson reports that the rifle could be “loaded and fired much more rapidly than its muzzle loading predecessors, and had twice the range of repeating rifles such as the Winchester, Henry and Spencer.”[116][117][118]

Gallear points out that lever-action rifles, after a burst of rapid discharge, still required a reloading interlude that lowered their overall rate of fire; Springfield breechloaders “in the long run, had a higher rate of fire, which was sustainable throughout a battle.”

To my surprise, historian and author of Tragedy and Hope, once known as Bill Clinton's history professor, makes a similar point about guns being the precursor of Democracy, and even wrote about about how an equality of available weapons between people and government produce Democracy, and inequality, tyranny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley

Quigley concludes, from a historical study of weapons and political dynamics, that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy.[7][8] Democracy tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to buy and use.[9] This explains why democracy is so rare in human history.[10]

In the 1800s (peaking in the 1880s), guns were the best weapon available. In America, almost everyone could afford to buy a gun, and could learn how to use it fairly easily. Governments couldn't do any better: It became the age of mass armies of citizen soldiers with guns.

Of course, this theory, if true, and I've no doubt that it is, doesn't bode well for our future.

[ronin]

The Magna Carta granted rights to the barons, not the serfs.

That's an important distinction. The Magna Carta was essentially a peace treaty between the king and rebellious nobles. It was a significant document in the context of the divine right of kings, and it had some relevance to free men who weren't nobility. However, it was largely a moot point to serfs bound to the land.

[C-dub]

The Magna Carta granted rights to the barons, not the serfs. The serfs got their rights at the point of the gun.

True, but still way before guns. However, point noted.