rio nueces said:
HOUSTON, TEXAS - 1865
" Last Sunday I spoke of the first Federal troops that ever came to Houston, the 'Army of Occupation'...in an Army such as that, there were 'toughs' and a few of those broke from time to time and caused trouble. However, they did not always get away with the play, for when a six-shooter was at that time as much a part of a man's outfit as his boots or shoes, there were always two sides to an attempted knockdown...
The slingshots used by the thugs were made of lead and were about the size of a large egg. They were fastened to a leather thong and this was slipped over the wrist and securely knotted there. It was a fearful weapon and and with it skulls and bones were easily crushed. An old German was found on Washington Street one morning with a crushed skull, while a negro had his shoulder crushed somewhere out on Main St. No doubt there were other cases, but if so, I have forgotten them. I do remember three casualties on the other side. One was a soldier found on Main St. just above where the Rice Hotel stands. He had been shot through the head and the slingshot attached to his wrist told the story of why he had been shot..."
True Stories of Old Houston and Houstonians' Dr. S.O. Young, Houston, 1913
While I appreciate you sharing a story that helps highlight some historical use of the items in question, there is some assumptions I would like to point out in the quoted story that may be missed:
First due to a certainly strong dislike of the military occupiers at the time there is going to be a motivation to blame them for more of society's ills than they are even responsible for. This was in 1865, the North had just won the war, many bad things were done during the war, emotions and hatred were high, and they were occupying.
This means while the troops, many young rowdy men, certainly were responsible for their share of trouble, it must be kept in mind that there would be a motivation to blame them for many unsolved attacks, and various others problems in society beyond what they actually caused.
I doubt the soldiers were the only ones carrying or using such items at the time, just the most disliked group at the time there who did.
Second the
"a six-shooter was at that time as much a part of a man's outfit as his boots or shoes"
also must be kept in context.
These guns were expensive then, and while certainly they may have been common amongst some classes, like the well to do southern gentleman of the time who had tremendous influence in society, as well as various middle aged men of many classes, and some young men, they were not common amongst everyone.
Otherwise there would not have been a large number of young men running around with various other weapon types as their primary defensive, offensive, or mutual combat weapons. From the infamous bowie knife, to various saps and other devices. We know these other weapons were quite common, weapons many men had, and some of them would even be targeted by legislation. Often times targeted more severely by legislation than the six-shooters that were found less frequently in the hands of the lower income and undesirable classes.
Third the assumption that everyone with such a device was up to no good is clearly given, especially in
" told the story of why he had been shot"
but is entirely an assumption.
Especially if such devices were entirely legal at the time (and even if they had not been).
It may be an assumption correct many times that such an armed person was up to no good, but wrong many other times.
That would be similar to an assumption today that young men carrying a folding knife as a potential weapon were up to no good. Or that one found dead with one in the hand (or even similar to a knife on a belt, in a pocket, or clipped onto clothing, because of how saps were transported) on the streets was using it in an offensive capacity rather than a defensive capacity when killed.
Clearly that would be an assumption, and they may very well have had one ready for potential defensive use while walking through a bad area at night and were attacked or there was a robbery attempt and they got shot.
The common way to carry such things was also tied around the wrist, and hidden within the palm, like when walking through a bad area at night. It could be deployed by dropping it from the hand, or out of a sleeve and swinging it from the loop tied around the wrist or simply hitting something with it held in the palm with the tie acting as a retention device.
So it doesn't even necessary show it was intended for use offensively just because it was tied on the wrist either, and was not being transported as one normally did when they wanted it potentially available.
The soldiers were also in a hostile foreign land far from home filled with people that hated them and everything they represented. You can be sure there was soldiers murdered by southern men that didn't like them, or were ambushed and killed by locals when the opportunity presented itself. The need and desire to be capable of effective defense even without a firearm would be high.
Some incidents could also have been mutual combat scenarios where someone was injured or killed when the situation escalated to or involved weapons.
Rather than the assumptions given by the article that bad guys used the saps, and anyone with one was bad, and anyone injured by one was victimized. While the guy that shot someone with such a device and took off can be presumed to have only been defending themselves from a thug, and was not an attacker, robber, or mutual combatant themselves.
.
