The Cowboy Culture Is Alive and Kicking

Dear Friends,

Early last year, 2017, I was sent an article that named 11 states where the cowboy culture is "still alive and well" as the article put it. The first thing that caught my eye was when the article use of the term "is still alive and well." It seemed to infer that the it was a surprise to them that the cowboy culture "is alive and well."

But even though that was the case, it was a good article. And yes. as it's no big surprise to anyone out there, I like any positive press pertaining to American cowboys.

The 11 states they list includes Texas, Kansas, Utah, Iowa, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Florida, and Oklahoma. But while they praised those 11 states, they sorrowfully neglected a bunch of other states where the "Cowboy Culture" is also alive and kicking. 

Fact is they included Kansas and South Dakota, but for some unknown reason left out Nebraska which sits between them. Nebraska has a rich cowboy heritage. And yes, Nebraska is only second to Texas as far as beef inventory goes. But frankly, I really don't understand what criteria the publishers of that article were using.

They didn't mention that California is ranked as having the 4th largest inventory of beef cattle in the nation. They also didn't mention Missouri, Iowa, or Wisconsin rank 6th, 7th, and 9th respectfully when it comes to the top ten beef producing states. And yes, as someone ought to have told them, "Where there's beef, there are cowboys."

Of course, the folks who put out that list didn't mention California as a I stated before, but also the other 7 Western states of Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington. And friends, there are a heck of a lot of great cowhands, as well as folks who just live the cowboy culture, in those states. So how someone left out Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and New Mexico is beyond me. It doesn't make much sense.

And really, they didn't mention Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, or Hawaii. All states where the "Cowboy Culture" is definitely alive and well. Yes, even Hawaii.

If you don't believe me about Hawaii, just go to the Big Island for example and tell the Paniolo there that they don't have a Cowboy Culture going on. They will get really offended real quick. And yes, they may find you a ticket off the island and send you back to where you came from. They may even send you some place that appreciates the rude and the uneducated. Some place like say San Francisco where their idea of a cowboy is something completely opposite of what the rest of America.   

Fact is, the "Cowboy Culture" is alive and well in many states. And while cowboys can be also be found back East and in the South, the vast majority of American cowboys are found throughout all of the states in the Mid-West and West of the Mississippi River.

The American cowboy is the symbolic icon of American Western Culture and dates back to when cattle operations were the largest single segment of American agriculture. And today, more than 1 million beef producers in the United States are responsible for more than 94 million head of beef cattle. Friends, that takes a lot of folks living the cowboy life to accomplish that.

Some only see the Cowboy Culture as being the rodeos when some town's folks dust off their cowboy hat and show up at the rodeo wearing it backwards, which is a pet peeve of mine. Fact is the cowboy culture is the ropings, the pennings, the sorting, the barrel racing, and the cuttings, the pleasure riding, the trail riding, the back country horsemen, Cowboy Action shooters, Old West re-enactors, and a lot of others who do things to keep the Cowboy spirit of the West alive. It is about people living the "Cowboy Way."

The American rancher, the cattle producers, small ranches and big, the horse people, the horse rescue facilities, they're all living the Cowboy way of life that folks talk about. They fight the good fight, put in the long hours, take care of the horses and the livestock. They work to get things done before the weather comes roaring in and puts an immediate halt to everything. 

The Cowboy Culture is more than just working cattlemen and women, or horse people, or farmers. But now, does someone have to have that huge spread or even a horse to live the life of the Cowboy Culture? To my thinking, no!

Sure it includes all of the hard work. The feeding and caring for horses and cattle, the maintaining of one's property both big and small, the work it takes to feed a nation is all part of the Cowboy Culture. But really, the "Cowboy Culture" includes those millions of folks out there who live the "Cowboy Way" of life without ever sitting a horse.

They are those doing what needs to be done for one's family, friends, God, and Country. It is the life, and the freedom. And whether it's on a 200,000 acre cattle ranch or on a 20 acre spread, or a boarding facility sitting on a few acres, or maybe a small piece of Heaven where one has built a place to rescue horses, or maybe some place where a old Cowboy or Cowgirl can get back to his or her roots, it's about living the country lifestyle and being a good steward of the land.

Friends, whether one is a cattle buyer or a welder, a truck driver, or a doctor, a saddle maker, or a history teacher, the point is that the Cowboy Culture is a way of life that's been passed down to those who want to life the code. Let me repeat that, while some think it's only about working cowboys, I don't.

To me the Cowboy Culture is alive and kicking because of those living the Cowboy Code.

It's about American individualism, patriotism, and a "Can do" spirit. It's about getting things done by whatever means necessary, where your handshake is as good as your signature, where friends helps friends and even strangers in need. It's being a good neighbor and loving America not out of personal gain, but because it right to do so.

The Cowboy Culture is not about some bum wannabe who calls himself a cowboy but steals from you when you aren't looking. It's not about someone who takes advantage of someone's generosity or one's Christian ways.

It's polar opposites of lazy university graduates who think they're owed something. It's certainly not about someone who lacks common sense or the ability to do hands on work if need be. It's certainly not about someone who lacks ethics, morals, and sees the world as what's in it for them and wants to screw everyone else. Frankly, I've known some who wore a hat and boots and knew how to rope and ride, but that still didn't make them cowboys.

The Cowboy Culture means living by the code that says we live each day with enthusiasm and courage, that we do what has to be done, that we take pride in our work and finish what we start, keep our promises and live up to our word and commitments.

Our code demands that we ride out the hard times without going over to the wrong side of the line. And while some refuse to accept it, there is a line. Folks living the "Cowboy Way" are tough yet fair with others. We'd never sell our pride and honor no matter what temptation is dangled in front of us.

The Cowboy Culture is standing tall knowing that sometimes one has to be willing to draw the line and back it up. That means always being read to back it up.

 Of course, it means hoping to live with others who see the world the same way. And hopefully, that means camaraderie. And whether it's about horses, spurs, saddles, cattle, rodeo, barrel racing or cuttings, whether it's about other common interests such as hunting, fishing, or building fences and barns, or just about planting gardens and harvesting what you've planted, the Cowboy Culture is an American mindset of individualism and self-reliance. That strength and determination is something that all cowboys and cowgirls know for certain.

Yes indeed, the Cowboy Culture represents the best of America for a reason. It really does represent living in a way that is the best for us. It is a way of living based on resilience, honor, courage, optimism, hard work, and drive. And while that is fact, it's also living in a world with simple basic values such as a belief that everybody has it in their power to do right, be good, speak the truth, and be fair. And yes, abide by God's golden rule to treat others as we ourselves want to be treated.

To some, as I eluded to it earlier, it's a way of going home to their roots after years of toil in other ways of life that never agreed with them. The Cowboy Culture is their return to a life that has always been a part of them. The result is that they're comfortable knowing that they're long journey has brought them home again. Yes, I know exactly how that feels.

That goes to the desire to make things right again. Friends, even if it means rolling up one's sleeves and getting it done, the idea of living in a culture where one is only judged by the content of their character truly lies at the heart of the cowboy way. And frankly, that culture, that Cowboy Culture, is truly alive and kicking in more than just the 11 states out there.

That's just how I see it.

Tom Correa

The Crow Creek Massacre -- Revealed How Indians Massacred Indians

Dear Friends,

Because I've written about the warfare between Native American tribes, a reader wrote to take me to task and tell me that I "should know" that he was told by an "accredited professor," and "not by just by some blogger," that "Native Americans did not wage war on each other until after European Whites arrived in North America. That it was the White man who set Native American against Native American."

Friends, he was told this in an American university in a class that studies Native American history. So let's talk about that. Let's talk about the type of warfare that Native Americans waged upon each other long before Europeans, "the white man", ever stepped foot on North American soil. Let's talk about how ruthless Native Americans were when slaughtering other Native American tribes. Let's talk about how Native American Indian tribes massacred other Indian tribes. Let's talk about the fact that in many cases, warfare between the various tribes was so horrendous that they would be considered genocidal by today's standards.

The Crow Creek Massacre is an example of this. The Crow Creek Massacre is a prime example of Native American warfare that was waged against each other. The Crow Creek Massacre took place between Native American tribes at a site near Chamberlain, South Dakota, at the confluence of Wolf and Crow Creeks. The area where the massacre took place is now in the Crow Creek Indian Reservation.

The Crow Creek Massacre took place in the early 1300s. Yes, about the year 1325. That's well over 150 years before explorer Christopher Columbus found the Bahamas in 1492. It is certainly earlier than when explorer John Cabot landed on the coast of North America in 1497. Cabot was the first European to explore the North American mainland since the Viking visits in the 11th century.

The Crow Creek Massacre, and the Crow Creek Site, the site of the massacre near Chamberlain, South Dakota, is today an archaeological site and a U.S. National Historic Landmark. Excavation of part of the site was done in the 1950s, with additional excavations in 1978 and later.

In 1978, South Dakota State Archaeologists toured the Crow Creek site, which had been known and had some professional excavation in the 1950s. They discovered human bones eroding from the end of the fortification ditch. After they received permission to excavate the site from the reservation tribal council, and following a consultation about how to proceed and agreement for the reburial of remains on-site, archaeology teams recovered the skeletal remains of at least 486 Crow Creek villagers.

The remains of the villagers of Crow Creek were discovered in a fortification ditch. That's where they were buried about the year 1325 and covered with a small layer of clay from the river's bottom. As for the layer of clay covering the bodies, they were coated by a "thin and scattered layer of bones." And no, no one knows exactly why that was done. 

The ancestors of the Mandan people were the first to occupy the area sometime after the year 900 AD. They built numerous earth lodges there. After them, around the year 1150. The Central Plains Indian tribe, the Arikara, is believed to have moved into the area. They were from what is today Nebraska. 

Researchers really don't know if the Arikara tribe chased the Mandan out or if they simply moved into the abandoned village. Either way, the Arikara expanded the village and even built an additional 55 lodges there. And yes, there is evidence that the Arikara built well-planned out defensive positions for its village. Yes, walls and fortifications to keep out intruders wanting to do them harm. And friends, these were farmers, not mounted warriors.

Worried about war and being invaded by other tribes, even then, the Arikara tribe is known to have built a moat and a fortification around their village to keep out other attacking tribes. It was when the tribe started work on replacing the earlier fortification with a new fortification and ditch around the expanded village that an attack occurred. That attack from another tribe resulted in the massacre. Yes, the Native American tribe attacked the Arikara and killed all there. And yes, they hunted down those who fled and killed them as well.

The massacre took place just before dawn. The tribe of Native Americans who slaughtered the Arikara is unknown. It is believed that Native American warriors, numbering over 1,500 of them, overran the deep ditch and breached the break in the fortifications intended to protect the Arikara tribe from attacking tribes.

Why did the Arikara need a fortification, a wall, a defense? 

Well, despite the lie that all Native American peoples were peaceful, the Arikara tribe knew better and needed a wall to protect themselves. And even though a horrible drought at the time set a state of hunger on the tribe, the tribe still grew. The new wall was needed because they needed more room for a growing population. This meant they needed to move their fortification outward.

Researchers say the remains reveal the facts of their untimely deaths and events of the massacre, and they also reveal other aspects of their lives. For example, there is evidence of nutritional deficiencies, and the presence of animal bones in the fortification ditch gave credence to the fact that villagers ate their dogs because of hunger. They may have been facing starvation because of recurring drought.

As for the massacre? The remains reveal that the tribe that attacked them was opportunistic in that they took advantage of a break in the new fortification to commence their invasion. That break came about when the villagers moved their palisade wall outward to make more room for their growing tribe. So make no mistake about it, the wars they waged on each other were horrendous. And in this case, the invading tribe came in to kill everyone there. This includes women and children who tried to flee. It is believed that while some made it and escaped, others were captured and killed, and mutilated.

Archaeologists from the University of South Dakota found that the remains of the 486 people there were all killed during the attack. The vast majority of the remains showed signs of ritual mutilation, particularly dismemberment and scalpings. This shows that scalping was done long before Europeans arrived in North America. So, when one hears the myth that Native American Indians learned scalping from the Europeans, since this all took place 150 years before European Whites ever arrived here, you know that that myth is a lie. 

Most reports on the massacre agree that 90% of Indians in that village were scalped. But, there are those who state that it could have been as high as 100%. This is based on skeletal remains that exhibit cuts on their skulls indicative of scalping. Research shows that men, women, and children were scalped. The only difference is that the younger children were cut higher on the skull. 

The Native American invaders shot stone-tipped arrows at the defenders who met them. They used stone axes, wooden clubs, and spears when they closed in on the defenders. They used their stone axes to hack their victim apart and stone knives scalp the dead. There is an abundance of evidence of wounds, "butchering marks" and scalping. 

As far as other signs of ritual mutilation that have been found at the Crow Creek Massacre site, researchers found that tongues had been removed, teeth were broken, many were beheaded, hands and feet had been cut off, and there were other forms of dismemberment in the form of genital mutilation. All of those who were slaughtered showed signs of malnutrition and many had evidence of being wounded in other attacks.

Researchers say the remains revealed evidence of previous warfare with other tribes. According to researchers, evidence of previous warfare was present in the skeletal remains because they showed evidence of earlier wounds. In fact, there is evidence that two men had apparently been scalped previously and survived. The two found had survived previous scalping incidents, and both had wounds that were in the process of healing when they were finally killed. Other evidence found is that of others being wounded by arrows, the points of which remained in the legs and were overgrown by bone. 

Since many of the bodies were missing limbs, it is believed that the attacking tribe may have taken those limbs as trophies. Researchers also saw the tongue removal, the decapitation, and the dismemberment of the victims in addition to the scalping that was performed, all as being standard practice in Native American warfare. 

Also, it should be noted that the bodies were burned, and there is evidence of limbs being removed by various means. In fact, researchers believe that many of the mutilations could have been traumatic enough to result in death. Yes, that means that they were being mutilated while still alive.

The evidence of being wounded in other attacks and the taking of war trophies was a revelation for history revisionists who claim that Native American cultures lived in complete harmony with each other. Because of what was found and what is seen as indisputable fact, the Crow Creek Massacre shows that tribes were under a lot more stress from other warring tribes than once thought.

In fact, now researchers have theorized that the people were attacked by others or several other groups for the arable land and resources. Arable land is land capable of being plowed and used to grow crops. Yes, for all of the same reasons that Europeans and those on other continents have waged war on each other. 

The bodies found in the fortification ditch were piled as deep as four feet in some areas. The bodies showed evidence of having been laid out and exposed to weather and scavenging animals over a period of time. In fact, the bodies of the villagers are said to have been laid out on the open ground for weeks after the attack. Yes, laid out all while wolves and coyotes, crows, and vultures picked at their bones. And yes, researchers also believe that scavengers might have dug up these remains as a food source later. It is for that reason that many of the bodies were found to have their bones separated and located elsewhere apart from the rest of their bodies before the burial.

According to what I've read, it's not clear who buried the victims of the massacre. It may have been the attacking tribe, or it may have been escaped villagers who returned and found the slaughter. The survivors may have returned and buried their people in a mass grave. Then again, they may have been buried by members of an affiliated village that discovered the massacre scene.

The Crow Creek Massacre site has been designated 39BF11 under the Smithsonian site numbering system. The site is located on lands now under the control of the US Army Corps of Engineers due to its flood control and other projects on the river. So all and all, the location of the Crow Creek Massacre is now a well-preserved archaeological site. 

Today, the descendants of those people live in North Dakota as the Mandan and Arikara nations, respectively, of the Three Affiliated Tribes, along with the Hidatsa tribe.

So there you go. Like it or not, there is a general rewrite of American History these days. And that's especially true when it comes to Native American history. Most of it is an attempt to portray North American Indian tribes as living in peace and harmony with each other before Europeans set foot on this continent. There are classes in high schools, colleges, and universities that are stating that they did, even though that's just not true. Even though that's a lie.

Whether it's taking a look at The Tonkawa Massacre of 1862, or The Pawnee Massacre - Sundown of the Pawnee Indians, there is so much evidence that points to the fact that Native Americans waged horrific war upon each other for hundreds of years. Yes, before and after Europeans arrived here.

And if you want to know how many tribes waged war upon each other, imagine this if you would, researchers have found that only about 13% of all of the tribes actually avoided warfare with other Indian nations. Imagine that only 13 % of the hundreds of tribes that we know of avoided going to war with other Native Americans.

So why aren't people being taught that fact today? Why are young people being taught the lie that "Native Americans did not wage war on each other until after European Whites arrived in North America? That it was the White man who set Native Americans against Native Americans."? Why aren't people being taught how Native American tribes understood the importance of protecting their own people with security barriers?

Well, that's a question that should be looked at because it goes to the heart of why people rewrite history to support their own self-serving agendas.

And yes, that's just the way I see things.

Tom Correa

Red Beard vs Rowdy Joe Lowe -- The Gunfight

On Thrusday, October 30th, 1873, The Wichita Eagle reported that "a melee Monday night between the proprietors of the two dance houses in West Wichita resulted in Rowdy Joe being shot in the back of the neck and Red Beard being wounded in the arm and hip."

Now before we get into this tale of the Old West, let me just say that there are many accounts of this gunfight. No kidding, this is one gunfight that you can pick and pull which story you like the best and just go with it. With saying that, let's get into this story about two saloon owners who went at it.

Edward T. "Red" Beard, who was said to be born sometime in 1828 was a gambler and saloon keeper. And yes, as stated in the Wichita Eagle, he was the son of the man who first settled Beardstown, Illinois. Being originally from Illinois, Red struck out on his own and soon settled in Virginia. It's believed that he was considered "a man of wealth" while there, that's because he's also said to have married well.

Then in 1861 at the outbreak of the Civil War, Red Beard left his life behind and moved west. Some say he was run out of Virginia one step ahead of a rope, but then who knows since that's only speculation since he left so swiftly.

After Virginia, he travel to California, and then onto Oregon and into Colorado where he is said to have developed a reputation as being a man with a bad temper who was supposedly good with a gun. That mix made him a nasty individual. And no different than today, knowing that meant that men facing him didn't take any chances. Folks knew it was a kill or be killed fight if faced against him.

By 1873, Red Beard settled in a boom town across the Arkansas River from Wichita, Kansas. It was there in Delano that he opened a saloon which is said to have been pretty successful for a time.

Of course that all came to a stop on October 27th, 1873, when he became angry with a saloon girl who worked next door at the saloon owned by "Rowdy Joe" Lowe. She was in his place and he wanted her to get out and go back to Rowdy Joe's.

Joseph Lowe was born in 1845, so Joe  was 17 years younger than Red. While he was also known as "Rowdy Joe" Lowe, because some say he was a gunfighter, most agree that he was just a gambler and saloon owner who had a reputation with his fists. Yes, Rowdy Joe was said to be a brawler.

Just like Wild Bill Hickok and the Earps, and like Red Beard, Rowdy Joe Lowe was originally from Illinois as well. Lowe and his wife Katherine, who believe it or not was known as "Rowdy Kate," moved to Kansas a few years after the end of the Civil War.

In 1871, the couple moved to Newton, Kansas, where they set up a saloon and brothel. Then in 1872, Rowdy Kate is said to have left with a pimp who was starting up a competing brothel. Rowdy Joe found her and the pimp, and just shot him.

The folks in Newton didn't like that much, so the citizens committee there forced both Rowdy Lowes to get out of town and take their attitudes with them to the Wichita area. That's how they came about buying their saloon in Delano, Kansas.

Supposedly the Lowes made good money with their saloon. That is until Red arrived in town and built a saloon 50 feet from the Lowes' saloon. While competition was said to be friendly at first, tempers flared when a few soldiers destroyed Red’s saloon.

That incident took place one evening when a young soldier had shot a woman from Beard’s saloon. In response, Beard opened fire on all of the soldiers. The soldiers supposedly retaliated that night by burning his saloon down.

Red Beard rebuilt his saloon, but he had animosity toward the Lowes because they profited from his place being burned to the ground. Things went from bad to worse when after a day of heavy drinking, Red decided to shoot Rowdy Joe right through the window of his saloon. Rowdy Joe returned fire and that gunfight ended with both surviving to tell the tale. The same outcome didn't happen on after their encounter later. 

On Monday, October 27th, Red Beard was again drinking heavily and getting angrier by the moment. At one point, he accused one of his prostitutes, a saloon girl by the name of Jo DeMerritt, of stealing from him. In response, DeMerritt threw a bottle at Red and immediately fled next door to Lowe’s saloon. 

So now, you're saying, but you said that the saloon girl worked for Lowe? And I did, but this is how such stories work out. Some sources say she worked for Red and fled to Rowdy Joe's, while others say that DeMerritt worked for Lowe.

Either way, Red Beard storms into Lowe's saloon and starts shooting at Jo DeMerritt who is also said to be one of Lowe's "girls". Point is that Beard shoot another of Lowe's girls by mistake.

Yes, the drunken Red Beard followed DeMerritt. He then barges into Lowe’s saloon. And in the smoke-filled saloon, Red mistook another prostitute, Annie Franklin, for DeMerritt. So Red fired a shot which struck Annie in the stomach.

When he saw this, Rowdy Joe immediately goes behind the bar and grabs a shotgun. He then exchanges shots with Red. It's said that one of Red Beard’s bullets grazed Rowdy Joe's neck. After that, a stray bullet from Red Beard hits one of Lowe's customers Bill Anderson in the head. Anderson was standing at the bar, and his said to be blinded for life.

After hitting Anderson, Red Beard runs with Rowdy Joe right after him. Now this is where it gets even more interesting, there is on story that says both men grab horses and race out of town in what then becomes a running gun battle.

Yes, both men are mounted and shooting at each other. And yes, in case you're wondering, I'm as surprised as you are that neither man shoots the other's horse.
Soon enough Rowdy Joe catches up with Red Beard. And then near the river bridge, when he comes into range, Rowdy Joe Lowe opens up and unloads both barrels of his shotgun into Red Beard. 

Red Beard was found critically wounded bleeding like a stuck pig from his arm and thigh. He was filled with buckshot. And even though that was the case, Red is said to have clung on to life for the next two weeks. But then finally, because of a loss of blood, he died on November 11th, 1873.

On Thrusday, November 13th, 1873, The Wichita Eagle reported that "E. T. Beard, better known as 'Red,' the proprietor of one of the dance houses across the river, paid the penalty of his misdeeds with his life on Tuesday  morning [November 11th]. It will be remembered that he was shot in a row at his dance house some two weeks since."

The article describes the post-mortem, which was attended by Rowdy Joe, who was charged with shooting Red. The articles stated, "He was formerly from Beardstown, Illinois, which was laid out and named after his father, who was wealthy. He was well educated, had Christian training, and has three children, two daughters and a son, nearly grown, who are now attending school in the east and know nothing of their father’s wild life in the west. Age about 45."

OK, so there is another story to this that says after chasing DeMerritt across the street, Red entered the Lowe Saloon where he accidentally shot and wounded a patron and another girl. That story says that Rowdy Joe grabbed his shotgun from behind the bar, went around to get behind Red Beard and opened up with both barrels. For me, I like the horse chase!

So now, according to one source, after the shooting near the river bridge, Rowdy Joe Lowe rode back to town, remember he's atop a horse, where he turned himself in to the local law. But did he turn himself in?

The reason that I ask is that a few weeks later on Thrusday, December 18th, 1873, The Wichita Eagle reported, "Notice offering $100 reward for the apprehension of one Joseph Lowe, alias 'Rowdy Joe,' a fugitive from justice from Sedgwick County, Kansas. He is about 28 years old, 5'9", heavy set, dark complexion, black hair and heavy black mustache, gruff manners, formerly proprietor of a dance house. Had a scar on right side of neck from a pistol ball."

Now while I have a hard time believing that a newspaper with print a notice of a bounty on someone if that person has already turned himself in, another source says that Rowdy Joe Lowe stood trial a few months later and he was found not guilty. In fact, some reports say that most in Delano, Kansas, considered what Lowe did as having done the town a favor. Yes, really more good than harm. From what I gather, getting rid of Red Beard was seen that way even though the newspaper didn't think so.

And as for Rowdy Joe Lowe and wife, well their saloon is said to have been extremely profitable at first. But things changed after the gunfight with Red Beard.

Of course that's the problem with shooting someone in places like a saloon. Some customers say it doesn't bother them as long as the booze isn't watered down too much, while others say the Hell with that place and go find another more quiet watering hole amongst the many that were available. And friends, unlike the movies where an Old West town only has one saloon, that is not the way it was. Usually boomtowns had a number of them. For example, Tombstone was home to more than 100 saloons within two year of their boom in 1879.

But, because of a number of complaints about cheating and under-handed card deals, word started to go around that the place was only shaking down people. Soon Lowe's saloon began to go down hill quick. The couple decided to cut their loses and moved to Texas.

Some say they rode with the Sam Bass gang. Others say they spent some time is Dodge City, but were eventually told to get out of town. They then supposedly travel to Tombstone, Arizona, where they may have set up a bar and brothel with Big Nose Kate.

That place is said to have had a reputation for ruthlessness. The no rules places had but one rule and that was that "no man should leave with money in his pockets." Some said the price of their drinks varied with how drunk you were, and it's also said that big time gamblers, the high rollers, might be drugged, robbed, and tossed in a gully out back. Because of this, the couple began drifting, gambling and occasionally working in saloons in various towns.

Then on February 11th, 1899, Rowdy Joe Lowe was drunk in the Walrus Saloon in Denver, Colorado. He began insulting police officer E.A. Kimmel. It was very apparent that Lowe was trying to goat Officer Kimmel into a fight.

Because Officer Kimmel had already heard about Lowe's reputation as a killer, even if it was of just one man, he knew better than to take chance when up against a known killer. So without hesitation, Kimmel drew his pistol and shot and killed Rowdy Joe Lowe.

Some say Lowe was unarmed, it's believed that he had a derringer on him. And as for Rowdy Kate? After Joe Lowe was shot dead, she disappeared and was never seen again.

You might find it fascinating that another Wichita newspaper, the short-lived The Wichita City Eagle, ran a story about how Rowdy Joe Lowe was killed in October of 1874. Yes, 25 years earlier than when he really was shot dead. That newspaper reported that Rowdy Joe was attacked by Indians en route to the Black Hills. They said that he was hit by three bullets and died instantly. Imagine that.

Tom Correa

Billy The Kid -- Did He Kill 21 Men?

A letter from a reader asks, "Is the myth about Billy the Kid killing 21 men true or not?" My reader also wants to know when and where he was born because he's read a couple of different versions.

Legends say he killed one man for each of year of his life. But before we get into that, let's take on when and where Henry McCarty, also known as William H. Bonney, also known as "Billy the Kid," was born.

From what I've read on him, people can guess all they want but no one has proof of when or where he was born. That's the bottom line on that.

The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid is a biography and supposed first-hand account written by Pat Garrett with the assistance of ghostwriter Marshall Ashmun "Ash" Upson. In that book, Garrett and Upson give the date of the Kid's birth as November 23th, 1859, and say it he was born in New York City.

The problem is that though this information has been accepted as the actual birth date and place for Billy the Kid, no one has any proof as to when or where he was born. That means there is no record of the month, the day or even the year. So then, if I'm right in that there is no record, then there are some of us who want to know where that date came from? And really, how did Garrett and Upson know since they did not really know the Kid?

I read where one writer stated that Marshall Ashmun "Ash" Upson made up the year and simply gave Billy the Kid the same birth date as his own which is November 23rd. I don't know if that's true or not, but it does appear pretty fishy since no one can find a record of birth anywhere for the Kid. And yes, Upson was born on November 23rd. 

As for the year, from what I can see, it's all speculation as to whether or not he was born in 1859. As far as some are concerned, since some have found witnesses that say that the Kid was actually 17 years old during the Lincoln County War in early 1878, then that means the Kid may have been born in 1860 or 1861. 

Fact is, from what I can see, his date of his birth remains a complete mystery. Yes, the same as with whether he was born in New York or Indiana or what have you. No one can say because there is no record of his date or place of birth, or where he was born. 

Now as for how many men did he kill? 

To my knowledge, the myth that says he killed 21 men is not true. As for the killings that we absolutely know are attributed to Billy the Kid, that number is 4.

Why only four? Well, we know that he killed Frank Cahill, Joe Grant, James W. Bell and Bob Olinger. We know that he and other gunmen were involved in the deaths of Billy Morton, Frank Baker, William McCloskey, William Brady, and George Hindman. But even though that's the case, we do not know if he was the actual shooter of those men or if it were one of the others whose bullet or bullets may have killed those men.

The problem here is no different than the myths of Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok, King Fisher, Ben Thompson, Luke Short and many others. A great number of legends have killings attributed to them that they simply did not do. In many cases, someone else did the killing and they were credited for it. In other cases, they themselves built up their legends by coming up with tall tales about people they fought and won, and the struggles that they overcame. 

It is like not having witnesses to John Wesley Hardin's claim that he drew down on Wild Bill Hickok and that Hickok was fine with that. That was Hardin's claim from inside prison, and from what I can tell it's completely fabricated. If it isn't, then someone should produce a witness. The problem is that there wasn't any witnesses to what would have been a very big deal. It's just a fact, someone getting the best of the "legend" Wild Bill would have been huge news. 

In the case of Billy the Kid, it is believed that Deputy James Carlyle was mistakenly shot and killed by his own posse went they thought he was Billy the Kid. It was shown later that the posse blamed the killing on the Kid out of convenience instead of owing up to a mistaken of friendly-fire. Any evidence that points to the Kid has been shown to be circumstantial evidence at best.

Billy the Kid has been blamed for killing Buckshot Roberts, but it was Charlie Bowdre who killed Roberts. The Kid was credited with killing Charlie Crawford, but his killer was Fernando Herrera who is said to have shot Crawford as he rode towards town to join Peppin's posse during the siege at McSween's house. 

Billy the Kid gets credit for the killing of Robert Beckwith, but no one really knows who's bullet killed Beckwith. And as for killing Morris Bernsteinring, he was killed by Atanacio Martinez and not the Kid. 

So while we can say that he participated in five shootings, it's a lot more accurate to credit Billy the Kid killing the four men that we absolutely know he killed. And that, well that's no where near 21.

And yes, that's just the way I see it. 

Tom Correa

Jacob Thrailkill's California Gold Rush Letters 1848-1850

Dear Friends, 

Since my regular readers know that a great deal of my research material comes from archived newspapers, court documents, journals, and other sources of documentation, I wanted to share with you a few abstracts of letters from a miner who came to the Far West during the California Gold Rush in 1849.

The California Gold Rush began on January 24th, 1848, when gold was found by James W. Marshall at Sutter's Mill in Coloma, California. Some say it only lasted from 1848 to 1855. 

The 1849 miner Jacob Thrailkill was born in Tennessee on January 26th, 1812, to James Thrailkill and Susannah Ham. He moved on to Missouri and then to Ft. Des Moines, Iowa, where he established a farm. He married Eleanor "Nelly" Ann Knaoy, also listed as Nellie Ann Kenaoye, in 1831. He and Nelly had six children. But sadly, Nelly died in 1846.

Jacob remarried shortly afterwards to Sarah B. Ferguson. Some reports say they had two children, other reports say only a son Thomas. Jacob went missing in Panama en route home, and declared dead in 1851.

One letter is from April 29th, 1849, from "Near Council Bluffs, Iowa". One is from September 16th, 1849 from "Columa California". And the last letter is from February 14th, 1850 from "Georgetown sixty miles east of Sacramento City". A fourth letter is from M.C. Ferguson in "Charaton Cty, Mo" dated Jan 28th, 1848, addressed "Dear brothers and sisters" and sent to Jacob in Ft. Des Moines. 

These letters are now archived at the California State Library They are all are transcribed. And in addition there are two pages of family genealogical notes, one is on a sheet with a colored lithograph.

Jacob's letter from April 29th, 1849, from Near Council Bluffs, Iowa, is a brief report on the journey since leaving home. He states that they have arrived in good time to meet with others to begin the journey across the plains and plan on crossing the Missouri River in the morning. While he mentions practical details, he also sounds a bit mournful. 

"The provisions you cooked for us lasted till we arrived here except part of the ham, which was eaten up by a dog one night. The cows are of great use to us, partly for work, but particularly for the milk. -- The team is in fine condition, improving daily. Our cooking, milking, &c, goes off nicely since we made our mess box, got our cooking utensils &c." 

"Though we left you while the elements were in commotion and ourselves in tears, yet we had much pleasant weather before our arrival here, and a calmness of feeling resulting from a trust in the providence of God that he will protect both you and us, while present or far absent."

His next letter is from September 16th, 1849 from "Columa, California." He is now in Coloma, and is getting ready to begin digging for gold with associates from home. He talked a little about the route traveled from Salt Lake City across the Great Basin, and that he is pleased with California.

"It is called the Great Basin because its waters do not run off to either of the Oceans, but run down in the valleys and sink into the ground." 

"Myself, Howe, Hezekiah, Goodnough and McHenry are working together at the mining business. We got here a week ago to day and have been taking care of our cattle and recruiting ourselves. Tomorrow we commence business." 

"The country is very healthy, the ground covered with a beautiful forrest of Oak and Pine trees, gold is inexhaustible the whole ground being filled with it."

In his letter from Coloma, Jacob goes on to offer advice to others making the journey across the plains. He states, "I would advise those coming the overland route to get strong 2 horse wagons, tine well set, from four to six yoke of cattle not less than five nor more than eight years of age, and not bring more than 1000 to 1200 pounds. We were green in these matters when we started, but now we are ripe and capable of giving advise. Never get loose made cattle -- bulls nor stags". 

And yes, in that letter he actually encourages his wife to think about joining him in California, writing, "If you should come bring garden seeds of all kinds and especially Onion seeds as onions are worth one dollar a pound."

Just to give you a reference of how much money one pound of onions cost in 1849.  One dollar in the year 1849 would be the equivalent of $30.70 in 2017.

He closes his Coloma letter by asking about their children. "I wish in your next letter you would tell me how the children are doing at school, and whether Thomas Benton can talk yet."

His last letter is from February 14th, 1850 from "Georgetown sixty miles east of Sacramento City" where he, Hezikiah, and Howe are still together. 

"We are stopping here a few days until the snow melts off the mountains so that we can go higher up, and expect to remain together until we return, which I ardently hope may be soon but will be somewhat owing to our success within the next few weeks." 

Then he goes on to talk about his concern for what is taking place with the farm in Iowa, writing, "It grieves me very much to think you have been put to so much trouble on account of the crops not being properly tended. Also on account of the children so many of them being sick at the same time and for such a length of time. I trust it will not be long before I will be with you and in a condition to render paternal relief."

He described the California winter weather by writing this, "Sacramento City has been entirely overflowed, which caused a great loss of property estimated at two [mill]ions of dollars. The water was from 5 to 12 feet deep in the City and boats were rowed all about the streets. It is a very common thing for us to wade through snow two or three feet deep and in two hours or less time be traveling in a pleasant valley where vegitation is rapidly growing and the weather uncomfortably warm. This is the spring season of the year here." 

He closed his last letter with thoughts of home, saying, "Hoping that Kind Providence will still preserve us until we meet again I remain your affectionate husband, Jacob Thrailkill."

Jacob left for California in early 1849. He traveled overland and arrived safely in late summer. He was first in Coloma where gold was first discovered. Then he wintered in Georgetown near Hangtown, before moving on into the Sierra when the spring mining season got underway. 

According to family history, Jacob Thrailkill succeeded in his mining venture and left to return home with his "pile" in November of 1850. Yes, just before most of the placer gold petered out.

Jacob Thrailkill's California Gold Rush letters, 1848-1850, are kept in the California State Library. They were donated by Gary Schwartz "In memory of Mary Katherine Schwartz, Esq., BA in 1940, University of New Mexico; JD: 1959, University of Miami".

As with other letters, the three letters from Jacob Thrailkill to his wife, Sarah in Fort Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa, gives us a peek into the live of the 49ers who went to California during the Gold Rush. His letters allow us a small glimpse into how is was during the early days of the Gold Rush. 

With over 500 small placer mining camps doting the Sierras during the Gold Rush, by 1851, just 3 years after its initial discovery, placer mining was already coming to an end. And yes, as more and more miners flooded into the Sierra, there were too many people for profitable placer mining. Soon it became very clear that individual miners were no longer making money.

For miners to be profitable, they had to dig deeper in the ground and soon hydraulic mining machinery were necessary to keep mining in business. Letters from those who came during that time, the ones who arrived after the placer gold was played out sound very different. They are the ones who will write home about working for day wages and returning east with empty pockets.

As for Jacob Thraikill, his family records state: "Jacob Thrailkill left the Pacific Coast by steamer in November 1850 and was lost on the isthmus of Panama and never was heard of afterwards".

It's no telling if he was waylaid by bandits, robbed and killed, or if somehow he fell ill from any of a number of diseases there. All in all, to me, his never making it home again is a sad fate for a man who endeavored to do good for his family. Yes, a sad fate indeed.

Tom Correa 

Wyatt Earp's Biography By Stuart Lake -- Part 3

In this series on Wyatt Earp, I decided to talk about some of my sources.

Since many of you have written to ask, I've shared with you the fact that I use bits and pieces of information from various sources, including period newspaper archives and journals. Actually, I like using archived newspaper articles as my primary source when researching because I blieve they give us a clear picture of how people were seen at the time before any later hype may have taken place, and how events really took place. 

Of course, as the town of Tombstone in the 1880s proved, different newspapers sometimes put their own biases on stories. For Tombstone, the Tombstone Epitaph newspaper was a solid supporter of the Earps faction, while the Tombstone Nuggett supported the Cowboy faction. That means one has to keep that in mind when reading what either paper has to say.  

The Tombstone/Earp books that are my favorites are William M. Breakenridge's Helldorado: Bringing Law to the Mesquite, Eugene Cunningham's Triggernometry: A Gallery of Gunfighters, Ed Bartholomew's Wyatt Earp: The Untold Story, and Wyatt Earp: Man and Myth, Tim Fattig's Wyatt Earp: The Biography, and Andrew C. Isenberg's Wyatt Earp: A Vigilante Life.

In this series, I also wanted to take a look at Wyatt Earp's biography Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, which author Stuart N. Lake himself admitted to fabricating. 

I wanted to take a look at how and why it came about. I wanted to look at how it was received and if it was challenged, which it was many times over the years. I also wanted to find out if there were others who told a more honest version of the man that most Americans have come to believe was a hero and iconic lawman of the Old West. 

While I'm sure that I didn't mention every book ever written about Wyatt Earp, after all, how could I? I really just wanted you to see what sources I've used in one way or another.

Yes, I found out that many authors took up the challenge and did a great deal of research looking into who Wyatt Earp really was. Some, sorry to say, furthered the myth instead of clearing the fog. Some did it for self-serving reasons, such as simply wanting fame for themselves. And yes, there were others who tried to maintain some semblance of unbiased reporting of the facts.

But if one thing can be learned from this, it's that some images, once cemented in the minds of the American public, simply cannot be dispelled even with the truth. And yes, that brings me to this question:

Why does Stuart Lake's fabricated image of Wyatt Earp prevail and endure over all of these years?

In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, it has to do with it being a good story. Even though it isn't real, and just a fake, it is a good story. It is a story that people like.

Stuart Lake's book on Wyatt Earp was a favorite of many because it's a tale full of adventure, drama, violence, and even revenge. Its hero is someone that many admire in one way or another. And yes, that's especially true in the midst of the Great Depression when it came out. Those were hard times, and people were looking for a "believable" hero. Lake's book gave them one.

But more importantly, it was a hit because Lake's book was made for Hollywood. In the 1930s, "Cowboy" films were all the rage, and producers were looking everywhere for new material that was halfway believable.

The first film using Stuart Lake's fiction about Wyatt Earp was called Frontier Marshal, which was produced by Sol M. Wurtzel in 1934. It is said that even before the movie was released, Wyatt Earp's widow Josephine Earp sued 20th Century Fox for $50,000 in an attempt to keep them from making the film.

Supposedly she looked at it as an "unauthorized portrayal" of Wyatt Earp. Which to most means that she wasn't getting paid for it. And to that end, she succeeded in getting Wyatt's name completely removed from the movie. Instead, his character in the movie is re-named "Michael Wyatt." But yes, the movie was still released as Frontier Marshal to draw an audience familiar with Lake's book Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal.

A second version of the same film using the same title, Frontier Marshal, starred Randolph Scott and was directed by Sol M. Wurtzel again. It was produced in 1939. Again Josephine Earp threatened to sue, but this time she settled for $5,000. So yes, it was OK to use Wyatt Earp's name since she was paid.

Stuart Lake retold this same story in a 1946 book that director John Ford developed into the movie My Darling Clementine starring Henry Fonda in a town that looked nothing like Tombstone. Instead of a town of 10,000 people in 1881, it was a sparse corral out in the middle of nowhere. But still, that film also boosted Wyatt Earp's reputation. 

After the movie Gunfight at the O.K. Corral was released in 1957, the shootout that took place near the OK Corral became known by that name. And no, the story isn't close to what took place. But frankly, it's one of my favorites "shoot 'em ups!"

Since then, Stuart Lake's version of Wyatt Earp has been portrayed a number of times by all sorts of actors. For the most part, most make him look like the virtuous lawman, So yes, most are still just fiction.

The movie Tombstone is one of my favorite OK Corral movies. Besides, Doc Holliday had a lot of bullets in his six guns that he's not supposed to be carrying because of the No Gun City Ordinance in Tombstone. There is another problem with the movie. It has to do with the fire when the Earps and Holliday make their walk down to the OK Corral. Do you remember that in the film, there was a fire in the background?

Remember, the "cowboys" were in violation of a city ordinance. That's it. That means the most that could have happened was a $20 to $25 dollar fine for wearing a gun openly in plain view in town.

In the film, a fire is taking place behind them. In real life, a fire was the number one threat in the Old West. If the city police had decided to enforce a city ordinance instead of fighting that fire, which in real life never took place, I believe the Earps and Holliday would have been run out of town on a rail.

And on Earp's vendetta ride in the movie Tombstone, they leave out Warren Earp, who was part of the actual posse in 1882. And in the movie, they also kill at least a dozen or more sash-wearing bad guys. That did not happen in real life.

It makes great theater, wonderful acting, but it's not even close to the truth. As for Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer, they are my favorite Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday of any OK Corral movie. I can see them being close to looking like that.

As for the movie titled Wyatt Earp starring Kevin Costner in the lead role of Wyatt Earp, that movie was just bad from beginning to end. I think Kevin Costner really played a horrible Wyatt Earp. For me, after reading that Earp was not a shy businessman and self-promoter, I don't believe Wyatt Earp had the dark persona Costner portrayed.

Remember, even in his later years, the real Wyatt Earp was known to hang around Hollywood studios and spin yarns about the Old West. So no, I don't see Earp as being as quiet as some say he was.

Of course, Lake's book inspired the 1955 television series The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp starring Hugh O'Brien.

My older brother and I were talking a few months before he passed away last November 3rd, 2016. Like me, he loved watching the old reruns of The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp on the Encore Western Channel. He didn't read a lot about Wyatt Earp, so he took what he saw on television as being who Wyatt Earp really was.

I remember watching The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp with him as a kid in the 1950s and early 1960s. We both loved it. I got older and started researching history. And yes, there are times that I find it sort of sad that I learned the truth about who Wyatt Earp really was. 

So who was Wyatt Earp, you ask? 

Well, for me, since some of you have asked for my opinion on Wyatt Earp for what that's worth, here it is. And please remember, this is just my opinion, based on everything I can find on Earp that doesn't seem like it was written by some fan of his. Remember, I treat looking at historical figures as a crime investigator. I gather evidence and try to remain impartial until I'm finished gathering as much evidence as I can.

Of course, in some cases, it's simply human to say to yourself, "This so-and-so is a bum!" after finding out more about someone. Heck, read some of the many comments, and you will find a number of readers who have written to me to call me "a bum" and worse. Mostly, it's because I found out something about their hero that I wrote about, and they feel I was trying to besmirch a legend.

For me, I believe Wyatt Earp really showed his true colors, showed the world who he really was, in San Francisco in 1896 when he refereed the Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey Heavyweight Championship boxing match. If you want to read about what took place, here's the link to a post that I wrote on the incident: Wyatt Earp -- From Unknown To Notorious Desperado

Back then, people did not know who Wyatt Earp was. And because of that, people did not see Earp as a "heroic frontier marshal." This was simply because his book had not been published yet, and most never ever heard of the OK Corral.

Because people did not know who he was, people were not biased to think he was some sort of hero. That's simply because no one saw the Hollywood creation called "Wyatt Earp" until later. What they saw in 1896 was the real deal and not the fabrication. 

Instead of seeing what we have come to believe as the man who tamed the West, in 1886, people from coast to coast knew him as a dirty referee. Yes, someone who fixed the heavyweight championship and then ran from the ring as fast as he could before many in the crowd realized what had happened. And yes, that should tell people volumes about the man. 

One Earp researcher once said, "Wyatt Earp got more notoriety around that boxing fight than he ever did with the gunfight." And frankly, I agree.

Hollywood has turned Wyatt Earp into a gunslinger without compare, a man who never shirked his responsibilities, who would never do wrong, who was brave, courageous, and bold, just like the song says. And yes, Hollywood sticks to the myth it created while refusing to make a movie about how Wyatt Earp officiated the Fitzsimmons-Sharkey fight on December 2nd, 1896.

My belief is that Hollywood refuses to make a movie about the real story of how Wyatt Earp was involved with fixing the Fitzsimmons-Sharkey fight. They refuse because it would ruin a myth that has made Hollywood a great deal of money for more than 80 years. 

So, as for me, when my late brother Herman Ray used to ask me who Wyatt Earp really was, for his sake, I always replied, "I'll tell you this, he was certainly not Hugh O'Brien."

And yes, I always left it at that.

Tom Correa

Wyatt Earp's Biography By Stuart Lake -- Part 2

In Part One of this review, I talked about some of my source material and Wyatt Earp's biography by Stuart N. Lake entitled Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal. His work started the evolution of the Wyatt Earp myth as created by Stuart Lake.

Wyatt Earp was very ill the last few years before he died. We know this because his prostate and kidneys were giving him problems, and would be the death of him in 1929 at the age of 80. Wyatt died before his biography was published, and by Lake's own admission -- he made up most of the story to his book Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal.

While many have believed that Wyatt was a liar, and that he told Lake all sorts of tall tales to build himself up to be more than he was, I really believe that Lake put words in Earps mouth all for his own gain. Yes, I really believe the Lake used Earp to make himself famous and wealthy. No, that is not a leap of conjecture on my part because we know that Lake lied by his own admission. And frankly, that's why I refuse to use Lake's book as source material.

Here is Part Two, where we pick up the story with another writer who many say was also a fraud.

So now, we need to talk about former Air Force officer turned Wyatt Earp historian Glenn G. Boyer. A number of people write me to quote Boyer all the time. Even after being exposed, many people really see Boyer as the go-to Earp authority.

Boyer made his fame in a series of articles and a couple of books supporting an extremely favorable image of the Earps. Besides his articles, his first book I Married Wyatt Earp: The Recollections of Josephine Sarah Marcus Earp was published in 1976 by the University of Arizona Press.

Ben Traywick, author of Chronicles of Tombstone, John Henry - The Doc Holliday Story and former Tombstone Arizona's official volunteer town historian reportedly is noted as saying "Boyer was a giant in the field of Earp history, nobody could touch him."

Because of his magazine articles, Glenn G. Boyer became widely recognized as the leading authority on Wyatt Earp. Imagine that. Then in 1993, Boyer published Wyatt Earp's Tombstone Vendetta which he presented as a "nonfiction novel" based on the account of a newspaperman he identified as "Theodore Ten Eyck." He followed this with a series of Earp articles in True West Magazine entitled Wyatt Earp, Legendary American which again identified "Theodore Ten Eyck" as a source. I believe Boyer’s Wyatt Earp: Legendary American series ran in True West Magazine from August 1993 to September 1994.

Boyer's problems began when several Old West historians openly voiced their skepticism of his works, openly questioning his sources, and frankly openly questioning his honesty. In fact, one historian actually published a critique of Wyatt Earp's Tombstone Vendetta in which he suggested that Boyer's source "Theodore Ten Eyck" was not a real person at all and just someone fabricated by Boyer to lend credence to his work.

Boyer's response to his critics was surprising in that he launched personal attacks and more, all which eventually led to more historians coming forward to question the authenticity of Boyer's articles in True West Magazine, his book Wyatt Earp's Tombstone Vendetta and his first book I Married Wyatt Earp: The Recollections of Josephine Sarah Marcus Earp as well.

Casey Tefertiller, a former writer for the San Francisco Examiner newspaper, came out with his book entitled Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend in 1997, although some have it's publishing date as 1999 for some reason. His book agrees with Boyer yet takes on Boyer over material in Boyer's books.

Since I've only skimmed through Tefertiller's book, and found it to be just a book in agreement with Boyer, I wasn't interested in reading it. But even though it sounds in agreement with Boyer, it is said that Tefertiller didn't use any of Boyer's research. It is also interesting to note that by then Tefertiller and others are really questioning how legitimate Boyer’s sources really are.

As far as not being credited in Tefertiller's book, as as incredible as it sounds, Glenn G. Boyer states, "Writing about Earp and failing to mention me and my work is something like writing about Catholicism and neglecting to mention the Pope."

But the attacks took their toll, and finally Boyer admitted that most of the charges of his critics were true. Boyer was essentially exposed for being a fraud in the opinion of a number of historians. In fact, he admitted that he fabricated his books and his articles feeling that he needed to be some sort of Earp cheerleader.

And in what seemed to be his complete undoing, he shot his credibility all to Hell when he stated that because of his connection to the Earp family that he "had a license to say any darned thing I please for the purpose of protecting the reputation of the Earp Boys, which I committed myself to do. I can lie, cheat, and steal, and figuratively ambush, antagonize, poison wells, and all of the others [sic] things that go with a first class Vendetta, even a figurative one."

So the memoirs of Josie Earp that Boyer published was not her first-hand recollections, but instead all Boyer's fabrications. Glenn Boyer tried to pass them off as real but was found out and exposed. He was the Earp authority, but that is no longer the case. The reason for that is that he has been exposed and his research is today considered not reliable source material. Yes, he did the exact same thing that Stuart Lake did in regards to the store and quotes supposedly attributed to Wyatt Earp. He just made them up.

Author Lee A. Silva self-published his first Wyatt Earp biography entitled Wyatt Earp: A Biography of the Legend. Volume I: The Cowtown Years (2002) and his second book on Earp is entitled Wyatt Earp: A Biography of the Legend. Volume II, Part I: Tombstone Before the Earps (2011). 

He stated that he used the letters that Wyatt and William S. Hart wrote back and forth during the late 1920s as his main source material. Frankly, I've only skimmed through his work because it seems to be a more on the par with Boyer's works which celebrate Wyatt Earp's. For me, like Boyer's work, Silva doesn't appear very impartial.
 
Lee Silva himself stated in an interview that Glenn Boyer and Ben Traywick are the go-to sources for the best overall pictures of Wyatt Earp. Silva also stated, "As for one single book, Casey Teffertiller’s Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend (2012) includes not only Teffertiller’s primary research." Which doesn't surprise me since Teffertiller apparently agreed with a lot of what Boyer wrote.

As for me, once I find out that a work was fabricated or that an author is using that fabricated material as his go-to source material, I have no interest in reading such fiction when I'm looking for facts. So yes, it's just my opinion, but I really disagree with Mr Silva about Glenn Boyer and Ben Traywick being the go-to sources for Wyatt Earp.

In Andrew C. Isenberg's Wyatt Earp: A Vigilante Life, he examines Earp in a way that I can appreciate in that he is not a fan nor a hater. His book appears to be an objective research.

Andrew C. Isenberg is a professor at Temple University, historian, and author. And yes, Isenberg has a lot to say about Wyatt Earp. In 2013, he published his book Wyatt Earp: A Vigilante Life. In it the author reveals that the Hollywood Earp is fiction. 

And more so, he asserts that his myth was created by none other than Earp himself. He asserts that in actuality Earp led a life of impulsive lawbreaker while shifting identities. He points out that when Earp was not wearing a badge, he was variously a thief, a brothel bouncer, a gambler, and a confidence man. 

As Mr. Isenberg states, "He donned and shucked off roles readily, whipsawing between lawman and lawbreaker, and pursued his changing ambitions recklessly, with little thought to the cost to himself, and still less thought to the cost, even the deadly cost, to others."

"While the Hollywood version is stubbornly, consistently duty-bound, in actuality Wyatt led a life of restless inconstancy, impulsive law-breaking and shifting identities," says Mr. Isenberg.

Mr. Isenberg claims Earp "spent most of his life working in brothels, saloons and gambling halls. When he was not wearing a badge he was variously a thief, brothel bouncer, professional gambler and confidence man who specialised in selling gold bricks that were nothing more than rocks painted yellow".

"In 1871 he broke out of jail in Arkansas after being arrested for horse theft," says Mr. Isenberg. "In 1872, he left Peoria, Illinois, following a string of arrests for consorting with prostitutes. In 1876, officials in Wichita, Kansas, declared him a vagrant and banished him after he assaulted a candidate for town marshal on the eve of a municipal election."

Mr. Isenberg says Wyatt Earp was a gambler, a pimp, a brothel owner, and was arrested three times for "keeping and being found in a house of ill-fame".  

According to Mr. Isenberg, Wyatt Earp escaped to a new town time and time again where he reinvented himself each time. As for his being drawn to police work, not because of an abiding belief in truth, justice and the American way, but because the early US justice system was so corrupt he saw it as a world in which he could thrive. 

Mr. Isenberg says. "It was an easy source of cash."

According to Mr. Isenberg, Wyatt Earp's greatest lie was his portrayal of himself as a dutiful lawman seeking frontier justice as a vigilante with a badge. 

"His resort to vigilantism in 1882 was not the act of a man unwaveringly committed to justice in a frontier territory where the courts were corrupt but the impulsive vengeance of a man who had long disdained authority," writes Isenberg. "[Earp] pursued his changing ambitions recklessly, with little thought to the cost to himself and still less thought to the cost, even the deadly cost, to others".

By 1896, his involvement as a referee in that fixed Heavyweight Championship prizefight brought him national notoriety. But as a crook and a scoundrel, not as the gunfighter and lawman that he saw himself. Yes, it was then that Earp's history of criminal activity caught up with him.

Earp died in 1929, and did not live to see how Hollywood embraced the myth that Stuart Lake created, that being a paragon of law and order. Mr. Isenberg argues that even though that's the case, that that is Earp's greatest confidence game of all.

For me, from what I've read, I agree with the findings of Andrew Isenberg, and with what Billy Breakenridge said about Wyatt Earp. But frankly, how I see Wyatt Earp is not important as long as I can present information about him in as unbiased a manner as I can. And believe me, that's hard to do while knowing what I do because of my research.  

Some say my labeling Wyatt Earp a pimp, a horse-thief, crook, con-artist, and yes a murderer, is uncalled for. I get told that all the time. The people that tell me this inevitably remind me that it was different times and they say that a lot of people did those things. But friends, that's not true. No, not everyone in the Old West was a pimp, a horse-thief, a crook, a con-artist, or a murderer. And while those were different times, it should be remembered that people even then had rules to live by and the vast majority did exactly that.

From what I can tell, Wyatt Earp only lived by his own rules. And yes, his rules did not include living within the law when it suited him. That's not my judgement of him, that's just a straight forward fact based on how he conducted his life.

People who write me to defend Wyatt Earp should really read more about him from various sources to get a better more well-rounded picture of his character, or his lack of character. I say read some of the authors that I mention in this article. And then you too, after reading the material that I mention here, may find that trying to separate the fan lust from the disdain to find non-biased truth and straight reporting is tough.

For all intents and purposes, it appears that there are a number of writers who were part of fabricating the myth, the fiction, the fake, we know today as Wyatt Earp. And while I understand that people have their own self-serving reasons for doing such things, from what I can tell it all started with Stuart Lake when he made up the whole story in the first place.

Just as Boyer put his opinion of what he thought took place in Tombstone into Josephine Earp's mouth in his book, Lake put his conclusions, his opinions, and his imagination into Wyatt Earp's mouth. And as with Boyer, Lake did it to give his words a great deal more impact than if Lake had said them himself.

To me, it's just my opinion, but I think Lake, like Boyer, knew darn well that he was doing wrong. But he did it anyway, and it made both he and Wyatt Earp famous. Yes, famous. Truth be damned.

Wyatt Earp's Biography By Stuart Lake -- Part 3

Tom Correa 

Wyatt Earp's Biography By Stuart Lake -- Part 1

Is Stuart Lake's Creation A Magnificent Fake?

For a few years now, my readers have been asking me about my sources and about the books that I use for source material. Most of my regular readers know that I read a lot of old newspapers, court documents, pioneer journals, and those sorts of things.

Since many of you have written to ask, below I talk about some of the books that I've read or skimmed through regarding the Earps and what all went on in Tombstone. I don't use a few of these for source material because of blatant bias and hero worship on the part of the writers, the same way that I don't use some of them because of blatant bias against Wyatt Earp.

Of these, I'm glad that I've read and found it very informative. Others I really wish I hadn't because they're just full of misinformation which is a nice way of saying full of crap. Yes, a great deal of conjecture which as most of us know is just someone's opinion or conclusion based on incomplete information.

I hate the whole "they most of did this because of that" when really there's no hard evidence to back up their conclusions. While I do like to see writers making connections to other events at the time, some writers make real leaps to try to tie in things that happen just to justify their own opinion. Sadly, there are writers who do that simply because their reader trusts them to be honest. When I catch a hint of that taking place, well that's when I usually disregard that book as a reliable source.

As you read this, you will certainly figure out which is which as I go through this. But really more importantly, while I talk about the question of some of my source material, I'll look at Wyatt Earp's biography by Stuart N. Lake entitled Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal. The book that made Wyatt Earp famous. The book which created the greatest myth of the Old West. A myth that still has it's defenders today. And yes, you will see why I refuse to use Lake's book as source material.

First, one book on the Earps that I really like is one that I've been re-reading lately. That book is among my sources, and it really covers more than just Tombstone and the Earps. That book is by William M. Breakenridge, entitled Helldorado: Bringing Law to the Mesquite. It was published in 1928.

While his book was ghostwritten by William MacLeod Raine, I read where Raine's work in crafting Helldorado: Bringing Law to the Mesquite was more as a co-author than purely his own work. Subsequently, it was author Billy Breakenridge's creation. 

"Billy" Breakenridge arrived in Tombstone before the Earps. He saw a lot of people come and go, and he served as a deputy sheriff under Cochise County Sheriff Behan during the 1880s including before and after the gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Breakenridge was an eye-witness to all of what went on at the time. And while some things in his book appear fabricated, his facts are a lot closer to what took place than what we find in Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal by Stuart Lake.

And no, it doesn't surprise me that in Helldorado: Bringing Law to the Mesquite, Breckenridge portrays Wyatt Earp as a desperado and opportunist, a pimp, a thieve, and a murderer.

After the Fitzsimmons-Sharkey fight in December of 1896 where Wyatt Earp was the key figure in that rigged fight, Earp went under the microscope and his life of shady dealings was then examined and printed in newspapers across the country. Earp himself is said to have hated the repeated attacks. He even went so far as to do newspaper interviews, but his interviews failed to stop the bad press.

Then in 1922, Frederick R. Bechdolt published When The West Was Young which included the story of Earp's Tombstone years. Bechdolt characterized the Earp-Clanton feud as being more like problems between partners in crime. Which, by the way, from what I can tell is very close to how the troubles in Tombstone really began. Too many backroom deals and double-crosses on both sides.

An article by John M. Scanland in the Los Angeles Times attacked Earp's character and actually got Earp's Hollywood friend William S. Hart, the New York stage actor turned silent movie cowboy actor, all riled up so much so that he defended Earp in a letter to the editor.

I believe that that was when Wyatt Earp decided to rewrite his past by finding and contracting a writer of his own to tell his side of the story. He found writer John Flood to help him produce the "true story" of his life as he saw it. And while it is said that Flood took a great number of notes from his conversations with Earp, the finished product reportedly appeared to be a copy of a bad movie script.

Earp tried to have it published through his Hollywood friends. But fact is, no one was interested for a number of reasons. First, there were all sorts of people coming forth at the time to pen their memoirs of what they saw during the Wild West. Most were trying to cash in of the romanticism of the West that was sweeping the nation at the time. Second, people thought Earp's story was simply not interesting. Even with a 30 second gunfight added to the story, there were other shootouts that were much more eventful. 

Walter Noble Burns published The Saga of Billy the Kid in 1926, and when Burns approached Wyatt about writing his life's story, Earp turned him down to stay with what Flood had come up with. Later Wyatt Earp tried to stop publication of Burns' book, Tombstone: An Iliad of the Southwest, because Earp wasn't happy that he himself wasn't made the central character. 

It is believed that Stuart N. Lake read Burns' book while recuperating in a San Diego hospital. Lake soon began a collaboration with Earp. But frankly, that only lasted a few months before Wyatt Earp died on January 13th, 1929. And yes, that is probably why Earp's book Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal is considered a work of fiction by most who have read it.

While the Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal was published in 1931 and heralded as a major biography in the reviews of the time, fact is researchers cannot verify most of the information or the lengthy quotes that were supposedly from Earp himself. And yes, there is a reason for that.

What that book accomplished was to cement Wyatt Earp's image as a heroic defender of law and order in the minds of Americans. But even though that was the case, from the beginning there were those who saw the book for what it was -- just a work of fiction, a book filled with lies.

William McLeod Raine, Breakenridge's ghostwriter was one of the most vocal critics of Lake's work. He was very open about his contempt for Lake's version of how things were in the Old West. Author Floyd Benjamin Streeter openly challenged some of the claims. He did like what Earp supposedly said about the cattle towns of Kansas.

In 1932, Frank C. Lockwood published his history of Arizona in which he called Wyatt Earp a "very crafty and suave dissimulator." Eugene Cunningham, Western novelist and author of Triggernometry: A Gallery of Gunfighters, also took Earp's book to task regarding supposed "facts" of what took place. I found his book very interesting.

Cowboy author Eugene Manlove Rhodes, and journalist Anton Mazzonovitch, along with a number of Arizona pioneers including people such as Tom Masterson, the brother of Bat Masterson, challenged what Wyatt Earp supposedly stated in Lake's book. Or more accurately, challenged what Stuart Lake said Earp supposedly lived through.

But how much was of Wyatt Earp's biography just Stuart Lake's imagination? Well, most likely most of it. Lake himself confirmed that suspicion when he admitted to making up the quotes attributed to Wyatt Earp.

In fact Burton Rascoe, the biographer of Belle Starr, wrote Lake about his suspicions that he and not Earp was behind the many quotes. Surprisingly as it might sound, Lake wrote to Rascoe replying that "Earp had been inarticulate." Lake also stated that Earp was not very intelligent in that his "speech, he was at best monosyllabic." In fact, Stuart Lake actually admitted that he felt "journalistically justified in inventing the Earp manuscript." Yes, Lake practiced what we call today, "Fake News."

Stuart Lake admitted to Rascoe that his intent was to find "a method that would stamp mine [his book] as authentic. Possibly it was a form of 'cheating.' But, when I came to the task I decided to [employ] the direct quotation form sufficiently often to achieve my purpose. I've often wondered if I did not overdo in this respect."

Even though Burton Rascoe was told that Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal was a fake, he wrote Lake stating, "This book may be faked from beginning to end, but if it is, it is a magnificent job of fakery -- a creative work of first-rate ingenuity, in fact."

Author Frank Waters was actually said to be outraged by Lake's book, especially after he found out the Lake fabricated it from beginning to end.  In 1932, Waters met Alvira Sullivan Earp who was the widow of Virgil Earp. He began a sort of collaboration with her to publish her story.

At the same time, it's said that he also spent six months in Arizona talking with old-timers and poring over the files of the Arizona Pioneers Historical Society. And yes, the more he learned about Wyatt Earp, the more he became convinced that the now-famous Wyatt Earp was nothing more than a liar and a crook.

After that, it's said that Waters saw Allie Earp's story as having a bigger purpose of setting the record straight about the Earps. Because of this, he blended her reminiscences with the results of his research. Of course, her story ended up being buried and the bigger story of the Earps took center stage.

It is said that he submitted his manuscript, "Tombstone Travesty" to "Aunt Allie." But instead of liking it, she was outraged and swore that it was all a "pack of lies." So what did Waters do? Well, he shipped the manuscript off to the Arizona Pioneers Historical Society. And yes, it is said that it became pretty much forgotten there.

Then in 1946, Waters resurrected the story with his publication of his book entitled The Colorado. In it, he took Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal to the task as "the most assiduously concocted piece of blood-and-thunder fiction ever written."

As it turned out, The Colorado was a portent of the future. In the 1950's interest in Wyatt Earp was revived by The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp, a weekly television series on ABC Network starring handsome Huge O'Brian as Wyatt Earp. With that television show, Lake's view prevailed in the works of that decade.

A more responsible attack on Wyatt Earp appeared in 1956 when William MacLeod Raine revived his criticism of Earp in an article called Wyatt Earp: Man Versus Myth. 

Raine states: "I think that as the infirmities of the years overtook Earp his ego resented the thought of slippers by the fire. His mind dwelt on the past and his turbulent role on the young lawless frontier. As he reconstructed those days, imagination embellished facts, and the Wyatt Earp who emerged was much taller in the saddle than the real Wyatt Earp."

But even though Americans such as me were being weaned on the legend of Wyatt Earp on television, by the end of the 1950s, Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson and a few others were being denounced as nothing more than "fighting pimps" in Time Magazine. 

And at the same time, those taking a more in-depth look at Wyatt Earp included historian Peter Lyon. His historically accurate The Wild, Wild West was published in the very prestigious American Heritage in August of 1960. It's good source material to an extent in that it will lead you to look into other things.

About that time, Frank Waters recovered his manuscript, Tombstone Travesty, from the Arizona Pioneers Historical Society and set about transforming it into a book he originally entitled The Earp Gang of Tombstone.

He supplemented his earlier work with new research that he had gotten from his friend John D. Gilchriese, an Earp researcher. Waters then published The Earp Brothers of Tombstone: The Story of Mrs. Virgil Earp in 1960.

In his review of the book for Library Journal, W. S. Wallace stated that he considered The Earp Brothers of Tombstone "the most authoritative account ever to be published on the subject."

Combined with a mountain of old-timer commentary critical of Earp, the then acknowledged expert on gunfighter literature Ramon F. Adams stated, "At last we have a book which dares to tell the truth about the Earps, refuting many highly romantic and imaginative tales told by Burns and Lake."

Ed Bartholomew published Wyatt Earp: The Untold Story (1963) and Wyatt Earp: Man and Myth (1964).

Ed Bartholomew's books are said to be openly critical of Wyatt Earp. But really, all he does is make a pretty good case to support his findings that Earp was not that which Lake made him out to be.

Bartholomew made his case by the accumulation of facts that Earp fans immediately called "unfair" and should not be mentioned. I guess there are those who really only want one side of a story to come out when looking at a historical figure.

For me, I've found a lot of very credible information in his books. But like everything out there on the Old West, we have to sift through it and try to verify things for ourselves. The writer who proved that to be true is Glenn Boyer who we will talk about in Part Two.

Wyatt Earp's Biography By Stuart Lake -- Part 2

Tom Correa