If the new scholarship successfully corrects the old, then perhaps I might stand corrected. I have seen none of the stuff you claim successfully does that, though.

I may check out the books recommended above as it has been a long times since I read a book about the old west.

Until then, I see no more reason to carry on a discussion. I do see your passion on the subject. But, such passion just might indicate someone just as unwilling to see the warts in the Earps as those who you castigate for seeing nothing good in them might have had in the past. Until I have seen it, I cannot judge whether it is mere revisionism, or proper revelation.

So, lets just say that there are conflicting opinions with new scholarship currently having the upper hand. I have already said I am out of touch with what is going on in old west research to date. So, I’ll have to leave it at that.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

As to “arguing” with the “top researchers,” I am not saying you are all wrong. I am saying that my reading causes me to disagree with your claim that Earp was pure as the driven snow. I won’t take the word of a poster here at Stoptheaclu for the matter, but I have alreay said I might be wrong if new scholarship proves my feeling against the Earps wrong. To me, that is enough to close the issue.

Again, I have already said I have not kept up with current scholarship, so you are beating a dead horse there.

Lastly, the word you were looking for in your 7th paragraph above is “moot” not “mote.”

(And I like how you suddenly decided to drop the sash issue which was my main point against the movie all along. I see that you realize you have no leg to stand on with that so have conveniently tried to ignore it.)

TOMBSTONE was not presented as a documentary. It was a fictional movie based on historical incidents produced as an entertainment. Yes, the red shashes were fictional…But, why should any adult get their shorts tied-up in a knot over this?

In the movie – TOMBSTONE, “Curly Bill Brocius” and “Johnny Ringo” were NOT depicted as participants in the O.K. Corral gunfight. Your imagination is getting the better of you.

My Best,
Jeff Morey

There has been some excellent scholarship in the past 15 years or so. Today, when we produce something about the west in general, we have very rigid standards for documentation of every fact we produce.

There was a serious changing of the guard in Earp/Tombstone scholarship in the mid-1990’s brought about by Jeff Morey, Casey Tefertiller, Gary Roberts, Allen Barra, Lyn Bailey, myself, etc. Quite frankly, with the exception of the “classics” by Lake, and that old group of writers, almost everything I use for sourcing has been produced after 1995 or so.

If you were to access one of the newer books by any of the writers above, you would discover well referenced, resourced history and biography with standards that hold up to anything a writer in another field will produce.

We are going back to old newspapers, archives, combing dusty libraries, uncovering microfilm that has long been ignored. Basically we’re leaving no stone unturned. We’ve become an annoying nuisance if you want the truth of the matter, debating the most intricate of facts. We’ve basically turned the life of Wyatt Earp and the Tombstone store into a science, with every fact documented.

Now as to attaching you with the Waters’ book, the very lines you are using to condemn Wyatt Earp and muddy the story are basically from Waters. Academic writers have used it to the point where it is almost laughable.

Sorry, but you are arguing with the very top people in the ‘field’. We know our subject. Since you admit not being familiar with the newer research and the newer writers, your entire argument is mote.

The problem is you are out of touch and know absolutely noting of the ground-breaking research that has been done to completely change the direction of tale. Heck, we now have a detailed study of the entire Spicer Inquest by a law professor from Northwest University.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

I never said a word about this Waters book, so your attempts to connect me with it are illegitimate.

My opinion of the Earps and Holliday were formed a while ago, of course. I have not read a book on either of them since the early 1980s. So, if new scholarship has revitalized their reputations, I would not be aware of it. So, I am open to admitting that I could be wrong in my opinion of them if new scholarship has been found on their lives and times to the contrary.

On the other hand, the era doesn’t interest me like it used to (hence why I haven’t read a book about the old west since the 80s), so thanks for the book referrals.

But, I will say this about my only real point made about the movie Tombstone. That sash idea was kitchy, nonsense. It was not based on FACT, it was not REAL, it did NOT HAPPEN. Maybe the cowboys were fond of Wild Bill as you say…. but to claim they wore “gang colors” in the form of a sash is Hollyweird license and NOT REALITY.

I don’t care what Kevin Jarre’s reasons were. It IS NOT HISTORICAL.It is junk history and it is typical of Hollyweird to do things like that.

Hollyweird is one of the reasons that few Americans know anything about history. That and our schools (the main culprit, naturally) don’t bother teaching it.

You have no support for the stupid sash idea. While you blast me for not knowing the “real” Earp and Holliday, you turn around and support the foolish sash thing as unimportant! Seems to me you are not as interested in a truthful portrayal of old west history as you are pretending.

Hypocrisy does not make for good advocacy.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

I served as the historical consultant for the film TOMBSTONE. The red shash idea came from Kevin Jarre. Kevin wrote the script and served as the original director on the film. Historically, it appears some of the “cowboy gang” greatly admired Wild Bill Hickok. Since Hickok liked to wear a red sash, Jarre simply appropriated that fashion statement as a way to visually identify the cowboys. Modern gang colors had nothing to do with that decision.

As for your take on Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, I would suggest you read: “WYATT EARP: The life Behind the Legend” by Casey Tefertiller as well as “DOC HOLLIDAY: The Life and Legend” by Gary L. Roberts.

Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. However, you aren’t necessarily entitled to respect for your opinions. The Earps and Doc Holliday remain controversial figures in Southeastern Arizona. However, some claims you’ve made are completely unsupportable. For instance, Curly Bill Brocius was indeed arrested by Wyatt Earp for shooting Tombstone Marshal Fred White on October 27, 1880. Also, Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo did indeed come very near to having a shootout on the streets of Tombstone in January of 1882. So, your statements that Brocius and Ringo had nothing to do with the Tombstone conflicts beg reconsideration.

My Best,
Jeff Morey

But there is an even easier way to discover the truth. Get a copy of the recently discovered original manuscript of Waters’ book – and then compare it with what he had published. Virtually all of the negative things Waters had Allie Earp saying, are NOT in the orignal manuscript written after he had interviewed her. All these lies were later added by him to make his book more saleable.

So before you repeat any more of the ‘liberal’ lies about Earp – which come from this one source – read what Waters really wrote before he fictionlized it for his publisher.