Size doesn't Matter (Part 2)

[Kenny D. Hare]

Okay, the last time I made a comment, it seemed like everyone had their turn kicking the wheels of my wagon. So, with the courtesy of a rebuttal, I would like to clarify my position. Testicular fortitude is not unthinking, hot-tempered, testosterone bravado. In layman's terms, it's having the "Balls" to self motivate a man to action under extreme circumstances, sometimes self-preservation. This certainly could of applied to the McLaury Brothers. I would surely think all war veterans have this trait, myself included. Because without it, there would be no heroes. And in all fairness, there is absolutely no correlation between pulling a gun on a Marshall in 1881 and doing the same today. The mindset of the beaten down South after the Civil War and living under forced Reconstruction is non compatible with today's America. After all, it was the Wild West.

[Murray A. Gewirtz]

Reconstruction was ended in the South prior to 1881, nor was Arizona Territory part of the South or under Reconstruction.

[Sue Cauhape]

Murray, people who came west after the War of Northern Aggression held their hard feelings against yankees as long as they lived, and passed them down the generations. Also, during the war, the mining camps and towns had their leanings, North or South. A newcomer had to learn which side the town favored before talking politics. A definite date ending the conflict has still to be decided.

Sorry we all jumped on you, Kenny. I agree with you about the comparison between now and then. As for the McLaury's and Ike Clanton at the O.K. Corral, would I be wrong to assert that they were motivated more by bottled bravado than testicular fortitude? The Earps and Doc Holladay were indeed the brave ones to walk that long way not knowing exactly what they were getting themselves into.

[Murray A. Gewirtz]

Sue, I'm aware of what you say about the long-lived bitterness between Southerners and Northerners---though I protest your calling the American Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression"---but I wrote what I did because Kenny made it seem that resentment for the Civil War and Reconstruction were the major, or only, cause of the gunfight near the OK Corral. The McLaurys were rustlers associated with a gang of rustlers, and they came from NY State, originally, and then Iowa. Their older brother, William, was a judge in Texas, and they themselves had studied pre-law courses. They might have lived a longer life had they stayed on the right side of the law.

[Morgan]

Murray I think the correct name for the war was "Northern Aggression"; there certainly wasn't anything civil about it. And the North was the Aggressor! Not the Southern States who were simply defending their homeland.

[Stan H]

Let's not re-invent history. The Civil war was just that. Websters defination:

 

Definition of CIVIL WAR

: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

[Daniel Buck]

Civil War stems from civil: citizen, not civil: polite, and has long been  standard terminology for a war within a country, that is, among its citizens. 

"War of Northern Aggression" is a politically correct term, a circumlocution designed to avoid attention on the overarching cause, slavery, and the immediate cause, the attack on Fort Sumner.  (My personal favorite terminology, though, is "Hare-Brained Scheme that Ended Badly for the Instigators But Freed the Slaves," aka "The War of Unintended Consequences.")

While we obsess on our little Civil War, keep in mind that over in China during roughly the same period raged the Taiping Rebellion, which resulted in 20 to 30 million casualties.  You read that correctly, 20 to 30 million.   That's a real civil war.  Dan

[Murray A. Gewirtz]

We refought the Civil War at this site several months ago, happily, with no real casualties. You can look back and see what was said then. Let's not redo the redo now. Hopefully, after 150 years, we are all now loyal citizens of the United States of America.

[Kevin Hogge]

Thank you Morg. It was the North who decided to invade us, we did not invade them.  And as you said, it was anything but civil. The North was the aggressor, so what else would you call it.

[Buck Grizzly]

There is no cut and dry right side or wrong side, these were two organized criminal factions, and this was a turf war. Reading the transcripts to Wyatt's testimony is riddled with inconsistencies. Sworn to uphold the law but let mule thieves as well as horse thieves slide (even when it was his own horse stolen??). This man did this, these men did that, of course these men are all dead now or they could verify what I have said, so just take my word for it, I‘m an honorable man because I wear the badge.

　

Or the, I had a scuffle with an armed man here, did nothing. Saw two more armed men there, did nothing about it at the time, witnessed on numerous occasions this “known” criminal or that “known” criminal armed, while sworn as a deputy chose not to do anything about it at the time either (I guess that would be comparable to a “known“ crack house today by law enforcement??), but when we went to the OK Corral our only concern was to disarm individuals who at the time were not obeying the no gun rule? What about all the other times when it was just one or two individuals not complying? Yea it makes much more sense to wait until there are numerous, armed, angry, inebriated, individuals, armed to the gills (saw them loading up myself) and then acting as the dedicated law enforcement types that we always have been known to be, swoop in with cat like reflexes, and declare our authority over their failure to obey the law (laws that never seemed to matter that much in the past, but that‘s not important now), expecting them, these “known” criminals to comply graciously, courteously, and obediently, when that never seemed to be a sign of normal behavior on their part any time in the past, as in, NEVER before???

　

I call BS of the highest caliber. Mr. yes I am a pimp running/living in sin with “known” whores, gambler who is doing very lucrative cleaning out, uh I mean winning shares of businesses and mines throughout the area in obviously clean table ‘wink, wink‘ games of chance and curcumstance, an alleged horse thief (on more than one occasion), and a “wanna buy a gold brick” confidence man of one sort or another, but I don't consort with criminal types, never have, never will. Even though by my own admission I had a back yard meeting with this ‘character’ and again another time with these other ‘characters‘, promising financial gain for these “known criminals” giving them the “opportunity” to do the right thing, which I will take full credit for, with the capture of other “known criminal“ we, uh I mean they, I meant they, are in competition with.

　

And then the "deal" Behan had made with me that if I didn't assume the office he (Behan) currently holds, he would out of the kindness of his heart, give me (Wyatt Earp lonely bartender, some time deputy and of course, detective when called on to take on such responsibilities) half of the take, uh I mean his personal salary?? Can you say extortion, or maybe it was bribery? It's so hard to keep all this non-criminal activity straight.

　

　

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/wearptestimony.html

　

　

What ever was going on, was slightly less than honorable and neither side could or should be able to claim, sainthood status. I would give the Clanton bunch kudo’s for standing their ground, against their rival gang members, but to declare it an example with honorable intentions, or anything other than what it was, NOT!!

What amazes me is people taking the sides of these criminals, but what really has me baffled is this infatuation with a family of organized criminals simply because they at times when it was necessary to assure their criminal enterprises, simply because they wore a badge when doing so?????????????????????????

　

If the Earp’s were just the law, it would be different, but they weren’t. It’s like saying Al Capone was just a wrongfully maligned business man and to his credit an upstanding pillar of the community. He just had a bad accountant, like Lou Costello. Two lovable fat guys who got in trouble with the IRS. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

[Jim Holden]

Interesting discussion.  I have a different family background.  My Great-Grandfather served in the 7th Illinois Infantry during the "Civil War", up through Shiloh, when he had to resign for severe dysentery (later joining another regiment).  But, due to the Federal Government's treatment of him and my Grandfather in the cattle busines in Indian Terrority, later Oklahoma Territory, they both held a long-term grudge against the Federal Government.  Then with my family in Oklahoma since the late 1870's, the succeeding generations identified more closely with the Southern Cause.  I know it's not rational, but it is what it is....

As to Tombstone and "The Gunfight" it was about Politics, as was the entire Tombstone conflict between The Earps (Republicans) and Cowboys (Democrats).  Yes there were personality conflicts, but at the end of the day, it was about controlling the country for political reasons, who would hold public office, etc.  There were killers on both sides, and in the end, the Cowboys "won" as the Democrats ended up in power there.