Paul Colt's Blog, page 53
September 27, 2015
Untold Legacy
Lost in the popular history of the Grant presidency is any credit for policies and actions that might have accorded the president a more favorable legacy. Historians give him little credit for seeing the nation through the difficult period of post war reconstruction. He preserved the achievements of the war by guaranteeing African American freedmen their rights of citizenship in an unrepentant South, when necessary at the point of a bayonet.
His policy for dealing with Native Americans, though flawed when considered in light of twenty-first century values, made a good faith effort to treat the plains tribes fairly. In his second inaugural address he put forward a vision for “The original inhabitants of the land.” His so called “Peace Policy” sought to protect the rights of citizenship. The policy proved unpopular. It attracted political opposition in the west, economic opposition from railroad and mining interests and a not so passive resistance from his former brothers in arms at the War Department.
As part of his plan to expose corruption in administration of the reservation system he appointed religiously affiliated groups to oversee treatment of the tribes. Besides overseeing management of government funded treaty benefits, these well intentioned stewards saw their responsibilities to include Christian evangelization of the tribes. The policy became misguided when religious tyranny that trampled Native American culture replaced administrative corruption. It is easy to pass judgment on nineteenth century policy when viewed through the enlightened lenses of twentieth or twenty first century values; but Grant’s policy was enlightened for its time. In the end conflicts over land, gold, railroad expansion and military supremacy pit westward expansion against Grant’s Peace Policy. His best intentions could not prevail against such relentless pressure.
Next Week: A Talking Points Record
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
His policy for dealing with Native Americans, though flawed when considered in light of twenty-first century values, made a good faith effort to treat the plains tribes fairly. In his second inaugural address he put forward a vision for “The original inhabitants of the land.” His so called “Peace Policy” sought to protect the rights of citizenship. The policy proved unpopular. It attracted political opposition in the west, economic opposition from railroad and mining interests and a not so passive resistance from his former brothers in arms at the War Department.
As part of his plan to expose corruption in administration of the reservation system he appointed religiously affiliated groups to oversee treatment of the tribes. Besides overseeing management of government funded treaty benefits, these well intentioned stewards saw their responsibilities to include Christian evangelization of the tribes. The policy became misguided when religious tyranny that trampled Native American culture replaced administrative corruption. It is easy to pass judgment on nineteenth century policy when viewed through the enlightened lenses of twentieth or twenty first century values; but Grant’s policy was enlightened for its time. In the end conflicts over land, gold, railroad expansion and military supremacy pit westward expansion against Grant’s Peace Policy. His best intentions could not prevail against such relentless pressure.
Next Week: A Talking Points Record
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
September 20, 2015
Scandal or a Few
So how did Ulysses S. Grant’s presidential legacy get so tarnished? History tarred him with all the political corruption and scandal of the time. Here are some of the more notable ‘Scandals’ history attributes to Grant’s presidency. Some of them may ring a bell from that long-ago history class you took back when schools actually taught American history.
Credit Mobilier: Grant came to office and inherited this ongoing plot that defrauded the federal government of tens of millions of dollars in railroad construction contracts. That’s right, twenty million nineteenth century dollars! The plot was exposed on Grant’s watch and the conspirators, Union Pacific officials and their Congressional accomplices were brought to account.
Back Pay Grab: Congress enacted a bill authorizing a fifty percent pay increase across the board for the legislative, judicial and executive branches. They attached it to an appropriations bill that was under pressure for swift passage. Imagine that. No pay increases had been granted for some time, so the increase seemed ‘reasonable’. Grant signed the bill despite a provision that made the increase retroactive for two years. That provision provoked public outcry. In retrospect he should have vetoed the bill. Bad judgement? Sure. Is he the only president ever to sign flawed legislation? Hardly.
Indian Trading Scandal: This affair involved a kick back scheme over an Indian Agency appointment that implicated Secretary of War, William Belknap. Belknap resigned on the eve of the scandal being exposed. Grant accepted his resignation without question not knowing allegations of misconduct were forthcoming. Should Grant have questioned the sudden resignation which allowed Belknap to avoid prosecution? Probably; but that of course is hindsight. In fact a significant component of Grant’s Indian policy was an aggressive campaign to root out corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These practices were widespread before Grant came to office. His policy was to expose abuse and remove those responsible for wrong doing. That policy popular history largely ignores.
The Whiskey Ring: This scheme defrauded the government in the collection of taxes on whiskey production. The conspiracy implicated administration officials Orville Babcock and Horace Porter, both close associates of the president. Grant insisted on a thorough and vigorous prosecution- in spite, one might imagine, of his personal distaste for the very notion of taxing whiskey. His political adversaries tainted him by association.
Political corruption in the 19th century didn’t begin or end with the Grant administration. Flagrant abuses such as Credit Mobilier and corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs were rampant before Grant came to office. The rail road fraud and the Back Pay Grab had their roots in congress. The Indian Trading Scandal and the Whiskey Ring involved administration officials, but Grant was never personally implicated. Clearly he made mistakes in some of his appointments. His hands-off management style resulted in poor handling of some of the abuses that occurred on his watch. Nevertheless, he seems to bear too much responsibility for the wrongdoing of others while getting little credit for the more positive policies of his administration.
Next Week: Untold Legacy
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Credit Mobilier: Grant came to office and inherited this ongoing plot that defrauded the federal government of tens of millions of dollars in railroad construction contracts. That’s right, twenty million nineteenth century dollars! The plot was exposed on Grant’s watch and the conspirators, Union Pacific officials and their Congressional accomplices were brought to account.
Back Pay Grab: Congress enacted a bill authorizing a fifty percent pay increase across the board for the legislative, judicial and executive branches. They attached it to an appropriations bill that was under pressure for swift passage. Imagine that. No pay increases had been granted for some time, so the increase seemed ‘reasonable’. Grant signed the bill despite a provision that made the increase retroactive for two years. That provision provoked public outcry. In retrospect he should have vetoed the bill. Bad judgement? Sure. Is he the only president ever to sign flawed legislation? Hardly.
Indian Trading Scandal: This affair involved a kick back scheme over an Indian Agency appointment that implicated Secretary of War, William Belknap. Belknap resigned on the eve of the scandal being exposed. Grant accepted his resignation without question not knowing allegations of misconduct were forthcoming. Should Grant have questioned the sudden resignation which allowed Belknap to avoid prosecution? Probably; but that of course is hindsight. In fact a significant component of Grant’s Indian policy was an aggressive campaign to root out corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These practices were widespread before Grant came to office. His policy was to expose abuse and remove those responsible for wrong doing. That policy popular history largely ignores.
The Whiskey Ring: This scheme defrauded the government in the collection of taxes on whiskey production. The conspiracy implicated administration officials Orville Babcock and Horace Porter, both close associates of the president. Grant insisted on a thorough and vigorous prosecution- in spite, one might imagine, of his personal distaste for the very notion of taxing whiskey. His political adversaries tainted him by association.
Political corruption in the 19th century didn’t begin or end with the Grant administration. Flagrant abuses such as Credit Mobilier and corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs were rampant before Grant came to office. The rail road fraud and the Back Pay Grab had their roots in congress. The Indian Trading Scandal and the Whiskey Ring involved administration officials, but Grant was never personally implicated. Clearly he made mistakes in some of his appointments. His hands-off management style resulted in poor handling of some of the abuses that occurred on his watch. Nevertheless, he seems to bear too much responsibility for the wrongdoing of others while getting little credit for the more positive policies of his administration.
Next Week: Untold Legacy
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
September 13, 2015
History's Imperfect Portrait
Those who follow these posts know I’m fond of the observation: History is a prismatic lens through which we view the past as seen by those who record it. I came to this conclusion while researching my first book, Grasshoppers in Summer. That book chronicles the making and breaking of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. The treaty spanned the eight years of Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency. Grant’s presidency became a significant area of research for the book.
Much has been written about Grant’s military service. His presidency has received far less attention. Popular history dismisses it as scandal ridden and corrupt. Closer examination suggests historians accord Grant too much blame for the abuses of reconstruction era politics and too little credit for his more enlightened policies.
Many of the problems historians cite as Grant administration ‘Scandals’ arose from long established practices of political patronage. In the nineteenth century government appointments were commonly used to reward political supporters. The practice transcended the two terms of Grant’s presidency. Some might argue that various forms of patronage remain common political practice today- but I digress.
Historians regard Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, as an artful practitioner of patronage. Which begs the question: how did the Grant administration legacy become so terribly tarnished? There-in lies the point of this post series and an answer from which we can draw some insight.
Next week: A Scandal or A Few
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Much has been written about Grant’s military service. His presidency has received far less attention. Popular history dismisses it as scandal ridden and corrupt. Closer examination suggests historians accord Grant too much blame for the abuses of reconstruction era politics and too little credit for his more enlightened policies.
Many of the problems historians cite as Grant administration ‘Scandals’ arose from long established practices of political patronage. In the nineteenth century government appointments were commonly used to reward political supporters. The practice transcended the two terms of Grant’s presidency. Some might argue that various forms of patronage remain common political practice today- but I digress.
Historians regard Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, as an artful practitioner of patronage. Which begs the question: how did the Grant administration legacy become so terribly tarnished? There-in lies the point of this post series and an answer from which we can draw some insight.
Next week: A Scandal or A Few
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
September 6, 2015
Persistent Controversy
Did Pat Garrett kill the Kid? Maybe he did. There are those who vigorously defend the Garrett claim. They are quick to dismiss the contradictions, irregularities, circumstantial evidence and unanswered questions that refuse to go away. More than one hundred thirty years after the events of July 14, 1881 anomalies dog the Garrett legend. They are the reason we are left with, ‘Maybe’ he did.
The publication of Garrett’s book itself seems a little self-serving. The printed word firmly established his claim on having killed the Kid. In the book, he suggests Poe and McKinney questioned the identity of the victim at the time of the shooting. He then goes on to refute the allegation. According to Poe, he initially supported Garrett’s claim. His doubts and the question of mistaken identity came later. Garrett’s book, published more than a year after the encounter in Pete Maxwell’s bedroom, seems a convenient response to those suspicions.
As recently as this past year True West Magazine reported on the discovery of a July 19, 1881 Las Vegas Daily Gazette article on the Kid’s death as reprinted by the Colorado Springs Weekly Gazette July 23, 1881. Garrett adherents seized on the article, based on an interview with Garrett himself, to put an end to the controversy once and for all. When the article is compared to the Poe memoir and Garrett’s book, it in fact adds to the controversy.
The article’s version of the events of July 14, 1881 agrees with Poe’s memoir as to who entered the house first. Both disagree with Garrett’s later dated book. If Garrett was interviewed for the article, why does this account disagree with the account in his book? Could Garrett have changed his story? If so, why? As we discussed two weeks ago the question of who entered the house first is significant to the victim’s behavior that night. The assertion the Kid entered the house after confronting strangers standing watch outside is inconsistent with the rational behavior of an accomplished fugitive with a death sentence hanging over his head. One well respected Garrett adherent dismisses this behavior as ‘The Kid made a mistake.’
The article goes on to suggest the ‘Kid’ victim, “. . . had allowed his beard to grow and had attempted to disguise himself as a Mexican by darkening his skin by use of some sort of root.” This contention is interesting in two respects. Neither Garrett’s book nor Poe’s memoir mention an attempted disguise. Did the reporter make that assertion up out of whole cloth; or is it again possible Garrett changed his story? Could the suggestion of a disguise have been an early attempt to cover a case of mistaken identity? Then there is the suggestion of a Mexican disguise. By both Poe and Garrett’s accounts the victim spoke Spanish. The Kid spoke Spanish; but it wasn’t his first language. Could it be the victim’s first language was Spanish?
Did Pat Garrett kill Billy the Kid? Historians are convinced. They have Pat Garrett’s word on it. The state of New Mexico is convinced. They’ve got an iconic legend and the tourist attractions that go with it. One hundred thirty years later troubling contradictions, irregularities and questions still remain.
Once again we come down to the historical record. A book accepted by most as historical fact; and the memoir of a respected witness to the events of July 14, 1881. If you start with John Poe’s memoir and lay out all the pieces that don’t fit the Garrett narrative on a path leading to John Miller, you get a very plausible story. Can you prove it? No. Can you prove the Garrett claim- beyond the shadow of doubt? Obviously not. If you could, we wouldn’t have a one hundred thirty year old controversy.
For purposes of this post series the important point is: The historical records don’t agree. You can’t prove either case. Any conclusion asserts some subjective opinion. What lessons of history can you draw from records as flawed as these? Next we’ll look at a case, again based on the printed word, with the possibility of media bias.
Next Week: An Imperfect Portrait
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
The publication of Garrett’s book itself seems a little self-serving. The printed word firmly established his claim on having killed the Kid. In the book, he suggests Poe and McKinney questioned the identity of the victim at the time of the shooting. He then goes on to refute the allegation. According to Poe, he initially supported Garrett’s claim. His doubts and the question of mistaken identity came later. Garrett’s book, published more than a year after the encounter in Pete Maxwell’s bedroom, seems a convenient response to those suspicions.
As recently as this past year True West Magazine reported on the discovery of a July 19, 1881 Las Vegas Daily Gazette article on the Kid’s death as reprinted by the Colorado Springs Weekly Gazette July 23, 1881. Garrett adherents seized on the article, based on an interview with Garrett himself, to put an end to the controversy once and for all. When the article is compared to the Poe memoir and Garrett’s book, it in fact adds to the controversy.
The article’s version of the events of July 14, 1881 agrees with Poe’s memoir as to who entered the house first. Both disagree with Garrett’s later dated book. If Garrett was interviewed for the article, why does this account disagree with the account in his book? Could Garrett have changed his story? If so, why? As we discussed two weeks ago the question of who entered the house first is significant to the victim’s behavior that night. The assertion the Kid entered the house after confronting strangers standing watch outside is inconsistent with the rational behavior of an accomplished fugitive with a death sentence hanging over his head. One well respected Garrett adherent dismisses this behavior as ‘The Kid made a mistake.’
The article goes on to suggest the ‘Kid’ victim, “. . . had allowed his beard to grow and had attempted to disguise himself as a Mexican by darkening his skin by use of some sort of root.” This contention is interesting in two respects. Neither Garrett’s book nor Poe’s memoir mention an attempted disguise. Did the reporter make that assertion up out of whole cloth; or is it again possible Garrett changed his story? Could the suggestion of a disguise have been an early attempt to cover a case of mistaken identity? Then there is the suggestion of a Mexican disguise. By both Poe and Garrett’s accounts the victim spoke Spanish. The Kid spoke Spanish; but it wasn’t his first language. Could it be the victim’s first language was Spanish?
Did Pat Garrett kill Billy the Kid? Historians are convinced. They have Pat Garrett’s word on it. The state of New Mexico is convinced. They’ve got an iconic legend and the tourist attractions that go with it. One hundred thirty years later troubling contradictions, irregularities and questions still remain.
Once again we come down to the historical record. A book accepted by most as historical fact; and the memoir of a respected witness to the events of July 14, 1881. If you start with John Poe’s memoir and lay out all the pieces that don’t fit the Garrett narrative on a path leading to John Miller, you get a very plausible story. Can you prove it? No. Can you prove the Garrett claim- beyond the shadow of doubt? Obviously not. If you could, we wouldn’t have a one hundred thirty year old controversy.
For purposes of this post series the important point is: The historical records don’t agree. You can’t prove either case. Any conclusion asserts some subjective opinion. What lessons of history can you draw from records as flawed as these? Next we’ll look at a case, again based on the printed word, with the possibility of media bias.
Next Week: An Imperfect Portrait
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
August 30, 2015
If Not, What Then?
If Pat Garrett didn’t kill Billy the Kid, what happened to him? Did he simply ride off into the sunset never to be heard from again? The answer to those questions can go in a number of directions. The most popular theory attends a man known as Brushy Bill Roberts who surfaced in Texas around 1950, claiming to be Billy the Kid. Old Brushy Bill made a pretty strong case for himself until, confronted by relatives and descendants of principals in the Garrett narrative, his story broke down. Roberts also laid claim to a fanciful ‘life-after-Billy’ that included numerous aliases, four marriages and employment with Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, Pinkerton Detective Agency, U.S. Marshals Service, Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, Judge Isaac Parker’s court and Pancho Villa’s Division del Norte. Not exactly a ride into the sunset.
There are other theories too. Garrett shot the Kid; but the Kid survived and Garrett never knew it. That one could make for a fun book. Garrett was later murdered. What if the Kid was his killer? Fun, but doubtful. Another theory holds Garrett and the Kid staged the whole thing to allow the Kid to escape. They were acquainted; but hardly good friends. For me, a lesser known story is more interesting. It’s the story of a quiet ride into the sunset; and a story that has never broken down.
This is the story of a mysterious fellow calling himself John Miller, who appeared on the planet less than a month after Garrett allegedly killed the Kid. He married and moved to Arizona where he settled and built a ranch. Like Brushy Bill, Miller seemed to know everything there was to know about Billy the Kid. Physically he resembled the Kid, including the scars of numerous bullet wounds. He lived a quiet life until he passed away in the Pioneer Nursing Home in Prescott Arizona in 1937. The reason Miller’s story has never broken down is that he never claimed to be Billy the Kid. His friends believed him to be Billy. His wife told to a few of her friends her husband was in fact Billy the Kid; but John Miller went to his grave denying he was the Kid. Maybe he had something to hide.
Next Week: Persistent Controversy
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
There are other theories too. Garrett shot the Kid; but the Kid survived and Garrett never knew it. That one could make for a fun book. Garrett was later murdered. What if the Kid was his killer? Fun, but doubtful. Another theory holds Garrett and the Kid staged the whole thing to allow the Kid to escape. They were acquainted; but hardly good friends. For me, a lesser known story is more interesting. It’s the story of a quiet ride into the sunset; and a story that has never broken down.
This is the story of a mysterious fellow calling himself John Miller, who appeared on the planet less than a month after Garrett allegedly killed the Kid. He married and moved to Arizona where he settled and built a ranch. Like Brushy Bill, Miller seemed to know everything there was to know about Billy the Kid. Physically he resembled the Kid, including the scars of numerous bullet wounds. He lived a quiet life until he passed away in the Pioneer Nursing Home in Prescott Arizona in 1937. The reason Miller’s story has never broken down is that he never claimed to be Billy the Kid. His friends believed him to be Billy. His wife told to a few of her friends her husband was in fact Billy the Kid; but John Miller went to his grave denying he was the Kid. Maybe he had something to hide.
Next Week: Persistent Controversy
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
August 23, 2015
Irregular Routines
Garrett and Maxwell took charge of the body and the events that followed Garrett shooting Billy The Kid. Their actions are tainted by serious irregularities. Maxwell is said to have written the coroner’s report and the verdict for a coroner’s inquest. The local postmaster signed the inquest verdict as foreman the following morning. The jurors never met as a group. The Justice of the Peace who allegedly impaneled the jury, made no official record of having done so. The coroner’s report and inquest verdict were entrusted to Garrett to file at the Lincoln County Courthouse. Neither document has ever been found. Is it possible Garrett ‘lost’ documents he feared wouldn’t stand up to close scrutiny?
A facsimile of what appears to be the inquest verdict was discovered decades later. Misspellings and the use of ‘marks’ witnessed by Pete Maxwell suggest that some of the jurors signatures may have been falsified. Then there is the facsimile itself. The technology wasn’t invented until decades later. If a photocopy was made of the original, what happened to that document? Could the original have been a forgery disguised by facsimile to prove the Garrett claim?
The body was buried the following morning. No photos were taken of the body or Garrett with the body as was the custom with high profile outlaws. Public display of the body, also the custom, is subject of some dispute. While a few people claim to have seen the body, I have never found any evidence of a full public viewing. All these irregularities circumstantially favor the appearance of a cover up.
If Garrett killed the wrong man, he had motive enough for a cover up. That begs the question why would Pete Maxwell help him? History tells us the Kid was romantically involved with Pete’s younger sister, Paulita. Pete’s motive for participating in a cover-up might have been to get the Kid out of Paulita’s life.
If the Kid was hiding in the area when the shooting occurred, he could easily have had a ‘Mark Twain moment’, and decided that an exaggerated report of his ‘death’ was better than the pardon he sought. Could he have escaped that night and assumed some new identity? It seems a reasonable speculation.
Next Week: If Not, Then What?
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
A facsimile of what appears to be the inquest verdict was discovered decades later. Misspellings and the use of ‘marks’ witnessed by Pete Maxwell suggest that some of the jurors signatures may have been falsified. Then there is the facsimile itself. The technology wasn’t invented until decades later. If a photocopy was made of the original, what happened to that document? Could the original have been a forgery disguised by facsimile to prove the Garrett claim?
The body was buried the following morning. No photos were taken of the body or Garrett with the body as was the custom with high profile outlaws. Public display of the body, also the custom, is subject of some dispute. While a few people claim to have seen the body, I have never found any evidence of a full public viewing. All these irregularities circumstantially favor the appearance of a cover up.
If Garrett killed the wrong man, he had motive enough for a cover up. That begs the question why would Pete Maxwell help him? History tells us the Kid was romantically involved with Pete’s younger sister, Paulita. Pete’s motive for participating in a cover-up might have been to get the Kid out of Paulita’s life.
If the Kid was hiding in the area when the shooting occurred, he could easily have had a ‘Mark Twain moment’, and decided that an exaggerated report of his ‘death’ was better than the pardon he sought. Could he have escaped that night and assumed some new identity? It seems a reasonable speculation.
Next Week: If Not, Then What?
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
August 16, 2015
The Poe Contradiction
According to both Poe and Garrett, they along with deputy Kip McKinney, set up a watch for the Kid in an orchard on the edge of Fort Sumner on the night of July 14th 1881. Garrett’s account states that he saw someone resembling the Kid approach Pete Maxwell’s house that night and followed him into the house. Poe has it that Garrett entered the Maxwell house to question Maxwell before the man they believed to be the Kid arrived. By Poe’s account, Garrett left his deputies on watch outside where they were seen by the man who next entered the house. This is a significant difference in the two stories.
Imagine you are the Kid, a wanted desperado with a death sentence hanging over your head. Late at night you encounter strangers skulking about your intended destination. Do you go inside to find out who the unknown visitors are; or do you scoot back to your hidey-hole? If, by contrast, you are one of the Kid’s many friends in the area, you have no reason to fear the unidentified strangers. If your friend is hiding nearby, your instinct is to warn him. You might go inside to find out the strangers identity.
As Garrett tells it, the Kid entered Pete Maxwell’s darkened bedroom and asked Maxwell the identity of the men outside in Spanish. Poe’s account holds that the man who entered the house after Garrett also challenged the deputies’ identities in Spanish. Why would the Kid inquire in Spanish? Maxwell spoke English. The Kid spoke Spanish but it wasn’t his first language. On the other hand the Kid had a goodly number of Mexican friends in the area. One of them might have spoken Spanish. Garrett claims he recognized the Kid’s voice in the dark and shot him. Someone very likely died that night. Was it the Kid, or possibly one of his friends?
Next Week: Irregular Routines
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Imagine you are the Kid, a wanted desperado with a death sentence hanging over your head. Late at night you encounter strangers skulking about your intended destination. Do you go inside to find out who the unknown visitors are; or do you scoot back to your hidey-hole? If, by contrast, you are one of the Kid’s many friends in the area, you have no reason to fear the unidentified strangers. If your friend is hiding nearby, your instinct is to warn him. You might go inside to find out the strangers identity.
As Garrett tells it, the Kid entered Pete Maxwell’s darkened bedroom and asked Maxwell the identity of the men outside in Spanish. Poe’s account holds that the man who entered the house after Garrett also challenged the deputies’ identities in Spanish. Why would the Kid inquire in Spanish? Maxwell spoke English. The Kid spoke Spanish but it wasn’t his first language. On the other hand the Kid had a goodly number of Mexican friends in the area. One of them might have spoken Spanish. Garrett claims he recognized the Kid’s voice in the dark and shot him. Someone very likely died that night. Was it the Kid, or possibly one of his friends?
Next Week: Irregular Routines
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
August 9, 2015
A Shadow of Doubt
One of my favorite historical controversies is centered on Pat Garrett’s claim he killed Billy the Kid, July 14, 1881. One hundred thirty years later questions remain. John Poe, Garrett’s deputy on the scene that night, and others question Garrett’s claim. They suggest he killed the wrong man and covered it up.
Today Garrett’s claim rests on his 1882 book The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid, It’s not surprising. We’ve talked about the power of the nineteenth century printed word many times on these pages. Legendary treatment given an assorted cast of nineteenth century characters too numerous to mention, all testify to the difference between fact and the cachet of fact.
Garrett’s book comes down to us today as the accepted historical record of the Kid’s death. What is surprising is that controversy surrounding his claim also continues to this very day. Why? Because there are contradictions, irregularities, circumstantial evidence and unanswered questions that simply won’t go away. We are left with the question: is Garrett’s claim proven beyond the shadow of doubt; or is it a hastily conceived cover up?
The controversy piqued my curiosity when I picked up John Poe’s memoir The Death of Billy the Kid and laid it beside Garrett’s book. Poe, a respected law enforcement officer and political figure of his time, enjoys a somewhat more respectable reputation than the often financially troubled ethically challenged Garrett. If you take Poe for a credible witness to the events of the Kid’s death, you are left with two differing accounts, procedural irregularities, circumstantial evidence and unanswered questions.
Next Week: The Poe Contradiction
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Today Garrett’s claim rests on his 1882 book The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid, It’s not surprising. We’ve talked about the power of the nineteenth century printed word many times on these pages. Legendary treatment given an assorted cast of nineteenth century characters too numerous to mention, all testify to the difference between fact and the cachet of fact.
Garrett’s book comes down to us today as the accepted historical record of the Kid’s death. What is surprising is that controversy surrounding his claim also continues to this very day. Why? Because there are contradictions, irregularities, circumstantial evidence and unanswered questions that simply won’t go away. We are left with the question: is Garrett’s claim proven beyond the shadow of doubt; or is it a hastily conceived cover up?
The controversy piqued my curiosity when I picked up John Poe’s memoir The Death of Billy the Kid and laid it beside Garrett’s book. Poe, a respected law enforcement officer and political figure of his time, enjoys a somewhat more respectable reputation than the often financially troubled ethically challenged Garrett. If you take Poe for a credible witness to the events of the Kid’s death, you are left with two differing accounts, procedural irregularities, circumstantial evidence and unanswered questions.
Next Week: The Poe Contradiction
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
August 2, 2015
Contradiction: The Historical Record
The Custer contradiction is the image of heroic cavalry commander measured against his performance on the field of battle. We owe the idolized image of the dashing, daring boy general to several sources. His wife, Libbie adored him. Following his death she commissioned two flattering biographies to polish his legend. The power of the printed word in the nineteenth century carried the cachet of fact.
Custer understood the power of the printed word. He courted reporters who followed his exploits, assuring him favorable press coverage. Blatant self-promotion further contributed to his heroic image. A reporter accompanied him on his survey expedition into the Black Hills. He was similarly accompanied by a reporter on his fateful misadventure at the Little Big Horn. In short, Custer sought favorable notoriety and got it.
Newspaper accounts of his famous last stand secured his legend with an outraged public. The legend inspired artists who immortalized a hero’s tragic demise in dozens of glamorized renderings. Anheuser-Busch commissioned the painting Custer’s Last Fight and distributed prints to hang prominently on back bars wherever beer was sold across America.
More recently Hollywood picked up where Libbie, his newspaper friends and the artists left off. Custer was portrayed in film as a heroic though tragic figure. They Died With Their Boots On and Tie A Yellow Ribbon to name but two cemented the legend in classic movies.
The Custer contradiction is exposed by his war record and performance in the Sioux campaign. Custer attained remarkable battlefield success during the Civil War, propelling his meteoric rise to Brevet Major General. He did it at the cost of repeatedly incurring heavy casualties. One man’s daring is another man’s reckless disregard for endangering his command. We find insight into the man behind the legend by what he did to secure his downfall at the Little Big Horn. In military terms the historical record falls well short of heroic legend.
As many of you commented over these last weeks, the historical record of the Little Big Horn lacks much with respect to the Native American account of what happened. That record comes down in oral traditions not widely available. Those stories never made it into the history books. Those of us seek to uncover the Native American story, come away with little more than shared glimpses. Yet you begin to understand it is a spiritual story. The essential facts on the ground don’t change; but Native American motives and emotions become clearer.
We began this series with the observation that the lessons of history depend on historical records handed down to us. We cited some examples where historical records may be distorted, inaccurate or controversial. I suggested we examine the records to see if we can uncover that often elusive grail, truth. In cases like Custer the record becomes pretty clear. In other cases, the record becomes subjective or subject to controversy. We’ll leave those subtleties for you to decide. The point of the exercise is not so much to resolve controversies as it is to expose the role the historical record plays in framing our perception of the lessons of history. The historical record may reflect fact, or trump it. As we shall see in coming weeks, historical records have profound implications for those of us living out twenty-first century history. Next we’ll take a deeper look at another controversy that again owes its history to the nineteenth century printed word.
Next week: A Shadow of Doubt
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Custer understood the power of the printed word. He courted reporters who followed his exploits, assuring him favorable press coverage. Blatant self-promotion further contributed to his heroic image. A reporter accompanied him on his survey expedition into the Black Hills. He was similarly accompanied by a reporter on his fateful misadventure at the Little Big Horn. In short, Custer sought favorable notoriety and got it.
Newspaper accounts of his famous last stand secured his legend with an outraged public. The legend inspired artists who immortalized a hero’s tragic demise in dozens of glamorized renderings. Anheuser-Busch commissioned the painting Custer’s Last Fight and distributed prints to hang prominently on back bars wherever beer was sold across America.
More recently Hollywood picked up where Libbie, his newspaper friends and the artists left off. Custer was portrayed in film as a heroic though tragic figure. They Died With Their Boots On and Tie A Yellow Ribbon to name but two cemented the legend in classic movies.
The Custer contradiction is exposed by his war record and performance in the Sioux campaign. Custer attained remarkable battlefield success during the Civil War, propelling his meteoric rise to Brevet Major General. He did it at the cost of repeatedly incurring heavy casualties. One man’s daring is another man’s reckless disregard for endangering his command. We find insight into the man behind the legend by what he did to secure his downfall at the Little Big Horn. In military terms the historical record falls well short of heroic legend.
As many of you commented over these last weeks, the historical record of the Little Big Horn lacks much with respect to the Native American account of what happened. That record comes down in oral traditions not widely available. Those stories never made it into the history books. Those of us seek to uncover the Native American story, come away with little more than shared glimpses. Yet you begin to understand it is a spiritual story. The essential facts on the ground don’t change; but Native American motives and emotions become clearer.
We began this series with the observation that the lessons of history depend on historical records handed down to us. We cited some examples where historical records may be distorted, inaccurate or controversial. I suggested we examine the records to see if we can uncover that often elusive grail, truth. In cases like Custer the record becomes pretty clear. In other cases, the record becomes subjective or subject to controversy. We’ll leave those subtleties for you to decide. The point of the exercise is not so much to resolve controversies as it is to expose the role the historical record plays in framing our perception of the lessons of history. The historical record may reflect fact, or trump it. As we shall see in coming weeks, historical records have profound implications for those of us living out twenty-first century history. Next we’ll take a deeper look at another controversy that again owes its history to the nineteenth century printed word.
Next week: A Shadow of Doubt
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
July 27, 2015
Vain Glory at Little Big Horn
Let’s look at Custer’s performance at the Little Big Horn in purely military terms. He violated his orders when he engaged the Indian camp without coordinating the attack with Terry and Gibbon. Crook’s column was nowhere to be found, though Custer would have had to stumble on it to find it. He made no serious attempt to link-up with Crook. He should have reported that to Terry and awaited further orders. That never entered his thinking. His only thought was the Seventh’s glorious victory over the Sioux and their allied tribes. He justified his attack with the fiction the tribes were breaking camp, preparing to run.
He attacked an enemy of undetermined strength. His scouts warned him it was a big village. The whole of it couldn’t be seen from the Crow’s Nest. A commanding officer who disregards enemy strength prior to engaging an action is simply irresponsible. He chose to attack at midday rather than scout the village in preparation for a surprise attack at dawn. The attack followed two days and a night of forced march. His men and their mounts were exhausted. These rash miscalculations doomed his command to the resulting defeat.
He divided his command. Fully massed he was outnumbered between 4:1 and 6:1, depending on the actual number of warriors defending the village. He dismissed that consideration. Arrogance inspired ignorance. Dividing his command compounded the problem. Major Reno was ordered to commence the attack with three companies, fewer than two hundred men. He sent Benteen and three companies out of the action while holding a fourth company in reserve to protect his pack train. Custer led four companies into position to support Reno. When Reno and his command were pinned down in the trees south of the village, Custer gave no support. Reno and his men were left to withdraw under extreme duress, taking heavy casualties.
Custer effectively abandoned Reno, advancing on the village further north. From the bluffs overlooking the village, he must have seen the enemy strength far better than from the Crow’s Nest. He might have withdrawn at that point to support Reno and take the defensive position that ultimately saved Reno, Benteen and what remained of their commands. He did not. He assaulted the village, giving up high ground before being thrown back by overwhelming force. He fought his way back up the bluff to open ground where he and his command were lost.
Custer is indeed a contradiction. His popular persona is dashing, daring and heroic. His record is reckless, rash and worthy of the last rank in his graduating class. His insatiable appetite for personal glory led him to disobey his orders. Ambition blinded him to the risks he accepted for himself and inflicted on his command. Arrogance rendered him ignorant of situational intelligence vital to command. In that he was derelict in his duties. Vain glorious? Yes. Valorous? Heroic? Rent a movie.
Next Week: The Historical Record
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
He attacked an enemy of undetermined strength. His scouts warned him it was a big village. The whole of it couldn’t be seen from the Crow’s Nest. A commanding officer who disregards enemy strength prior to engaging an action is simply irresponsible. He chose to attack at midday rather than scout the village in preparation for a surprise attack at dawn. The attack followed two days and a night of forced march. His men and their mounts were exhausted. These rash miscalculations doomed his command to the resulting defeat.
He divided his command. Fully massed he was outnumbered between 4:1 and 6:1, depending on the actual number of warriors defending the village. He dismissed that consideration. Arrogance inspired ignorance. Dividing his command compounded the problem. Major Reno was ordered to commence the attack with three companies, fewer than two hundred men. He sent Benteen and three companies out of the action while holding a fourth company in reserve to protect his pack train. Custer led four companies into position to support Reno. When Reno and his command were pinned down in the trees south of the village, Custer gave no support. Reno and his men were left to withdraw under extreme duress, taking heavy casualties.
Custer effectively abandoned Reno, advancing on the village further north. From the bluffs overlooking the village, he must have seen the enemy strength far better than from the Crow’s Nest. He might have withdrawn at that point to support Reno and take the defensive position that ultimately saved Reno, Benteen and what remained of their commands. He did not. He assaulted the village, giving up high ground before being thrown back by overwhelming force. He fought his way back up the bluff to open ground where he and his command were lost.
Custer is indeed a contradiction. His popular persona is dashing, daring and heroic. His record is reckless, rash and worthy of the last rank in his graduating class. His insatiable appetite for personal glory led him to disobey his orders. Ambition blinded him to the risks he accepted for himself and inflicted on his command. Arrogance rendered him ignorant of situational intelligence vital to command. In that he was derelict in his duties. Vain glorious? Yes. Valorous? Heroic? Rent a movie.
Next Week: The Historical Record
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
