Point 1: Academic discussions. I got a Doctorate in Philosophy with a specialty in Anthropology. One of the things such a degree confirms upon its recipient is give one license to engage in academic discourse on philosophic discussions of such matters germaine to one's field of specialty as -- in my case -- myth and legend, and usually, people respect what you have to say (obviously, Jeff Smith excepted). I've written a book on the subject. In my circles, without a similar degree, you will not be able to argue semantics by quoting dictionary definitions with me. [Granted, on your website, in your world, you can do anything you want.] My peers in the academic world, all PhD's, who recommended publication of my book, believe my discussion makes a contribution to the greater discussion of American myth and legend. As you will see, if you do read the book, it is NOT as simple as fact vs. fiction, but there are indeed many shades of gray.

Point 2: Shea's book, TRAGEDY as political satire. Again, I am not going to pre-publish my book on your website, Jeff. If your readers are interested, they can read my book when it comes out. As with any book, it is of course opinion. Just as much of your book is opinion. They can read my reasoning, my "provenance" as you so quaintly put it, and my credentials, and judge for themselves.

Point 3: Jane Haigh's Dissertation. If you have not read her dissertation, you have not firmly grounded yourself in the political context of Denver in the 1890's -- as I earlier asserted you had not. Jane herself admits that KING CON was a light piece, she wanted to do her dissertation about Soapy, and then was not able to find sufficient material about him to warrant one. She ended up writing about political corruption in Denver and had very little to say about Soapy because he played such a minor part in the city's politics.

Point 4. The Skagway Town Site lawsuit. No. Smith had nothing to do with the lawsuit. The testimony was detailed and verbatim and all of the major players in Skagway testified. Smith's name was never mentioned nor even hinted at. I am a skilled historical researcher and I know how to read between the lines. He is not behind the scenes at the townsite controversy. Period.

Point 5: The "provenance" as you so strangely request (its a rather archaic term) for Clancy, Saportes and Hornsby being members of the original citizen's committee that formed to adjudicate the townsite lots in Skagway are a matter of record in the townsite files. There is chain of evidence in these files, combined with the newspaper articles in late December 1897, February 1898 and March 1898 that show a direct connection between the committee that was formed to survey the townsite, sue Bernard for his claim on the townsite, elect a town council, set up a Safety Committee, hear the facts of the McGrath and Rowan murders, and later, issue a broadside to shut down the con men and bunco men. I trace out that chain of evidence and citations in my book. I will not publish those citations in your web site. If your readers are interested, they can get that information in my book or they can spend the several weeks I spent digging it up out of the townsite files and newspapers themselves. Have at it yourself, if you like, or you can wait for my book. However, please don't insult me by accusing me of making something like that up.

Point 5: I have never seen any direct evidence that Allan Hornsby was receiving graft from Soapy. All I've seen are unsupported allegations and unauthenticated legend. Both Hornsby and Saportes protested strenuously that they were deported from Skagway without cause. The more I dug into the first hand accounts, the more I am inclined to believe them. I think both were charmed by Smith, as reporters, they found him good copy, but that they were not as deeply intertwined with his operations as unsupported, unauthenticated (or as you so slyly put it "behind the scenes") legend would have it.

Point 6: King. Again, I speak of legend. The legend calls Soapy the King of Skagway. Not the King of Skagway underworld (I notice you are the one who is doing the modification, not the legend-makers). In my book, I trace out the origin of the term "King," how widely it was used, making its way into the title of books and even up to Howard Clifford 1997 book who had him as the UNCROWNED KING OF SKAGWAY. Not the uncrowned king of the Skagway underworld, but King of Skagway. It is all part and parcel of making him more than he really was. From saying he was head of the parades in Skagway to King of Skagway ... yes, in reality he was a "boss" of a group of con men. That does not make him what the Juneau press in 1907 called Chris Shea, "The King of Skagway politicians."

Smith was reported in a number of 1898 newspapers to aspire to be "boss", even mayor of Skagway. The term King came along later, about the time the "real" "King of Skagway" wrote his political satire.

I don't believe I will scan and send you a PDF file of my Chris Shea piece. Seeing how you tend to violate copyright laws on your website, that would probably get me in trouble with the Pacific Northwest Quarterly. If you don't want to give me a mailing address for a gratis copy of the journal, you will have to go to the PNQ website and order a copy for yourself. You have my email address if you want to send me a snail mail address without publishing it here.

As I re-read your comments, I see again that a lot of our inability to agree has to do with our different focuses. Your focus is entirely on Soapy and his world of vice. My focus is on the larger community, not just Skagway and southeast Alaska, but what I call the larger ecumen of the Progressive Era. There is nothing wrong with having different perspectives revolving around one incident in time. You criticize my lack of attention to details that you have command of. Those details are your expertise and I am happy to concede them to you. I fail to understand why you are not willing to concede my expertise on the greater context of how a society works as a whole from my academic and scholastic background as a historian and anthropologist. Especially when all you have seen is little snippets, casual conversation, and the summaries on websites.

My book is about Soapy's legend, not Soapy himself. It is as much, perhaps more, about the people who created the legend as it is about Soapy. It is about the function of legend and myth in modern American society. It ends by making a plea to keep legend alive and well and recognise its place in our culture as something separate from history.

And for what it's worth, I do hope Howard Blum makes his movie, despite the fact that his book is what I would call a novel.

Most Sincerely,

Cathy