Can I ask you politely not to revive the old argument about who said what to who about the Tanner revolver? I think it will just cause a fight again. Let's move on from there.
I will state plainly here that I am willing to concede that it probably never belonged to Soapy. The Tanner family firmly believes that it was given to Tanner by the people of Skagway in appreciation for his role in rounding up the gang. Their family tradition is strong evidence for me, just as a great deal of the family tradition about Soapy is strong evidence for you about Soapy's deeds. The fancy inscription on the gun, "J. M. Tanner, U.S. Deputy Marshall" supports this family inscription. As I have studied Harriet Pullen, I have come to believe that once she got ownership of the gun, she embellished the story, and gave it some background it may not have had. She added the "PULLEN" and "SOAPY" inscriptions in order to own something that "belonged" to Soapy. In my view, Pullen was one of the greatest legend-makers of them all, and she wanted to be part of the legend.
I point out in my book that the 1900 census shows that Harriet did not go to Skagway until September 1898. The stories she told about herself being there in the fall of 1897 are the duplicates of Annie Leonard, who worked for William Moore. These stories are available in the Skagway Townsite files, and Harriet no doubt heard them, then put herself into them. She later put herself into the Soapy story, and continued to elaborate and change that. However, in 1900, when the census-taker came around, she didn't realize that she would want to be the Soapy legend-maker, so she didn't know she would have to lie about when she came to Skagway. She told the truth that she had come to Skagway in September 1898, too late to be a witness to the shooting.
You wrote, "In later issues of both the Skaguay News and of the Daily Alaskan, it becomes clear that all SEVEN members of the city council were forced to resign. A new city council election was... more
I don't want to get into a long list of errors, some of which are minor and don't really matter. Some are major, and will come out in my book. Some could launch long, heated discussions, and maybe... more
Cathy, Once again I assumed you were right. You wrote, "One that comes to mind immediately is your assertion that Soapy was in Skagway in November of 1897. You base this on the single 'fact' that a... more
For Your Consideration, Jeff: SOAPY TIMELINE, SKAGWAY (Mostly taken from Jeff Smith’s Alias Soapy.) August 22, 1897: Soapy arrives in Skagway on the Utopia (Smith, Alias, p. 345). September 14, 1897: ... more
Congratulations Cathy! You may have finally caught a mistake I may have made. It's a good possibility and I'll look into it. You mention that Soapy "didn't get his permission to open a business on... more
The fact that these three gentlemen were in Skagway earlier than Soapy is documented in the Skagway Lot Location files on file in both the Skagway Public Library and in the Alaska State Archives in... more
I note in this post symptoms of what I talked about in another post regarding "reading between the lines" and "assuming." You can talk all you want but knowing your past history I can't take your... more
Jeff: The trouble with these very long, multi-subject postings is that we lose track of who said what when. Can we make a "rule" to try to stay polite? And to try to break the threads into single... more
You wrote, "The trouble with these very long, multi-subject postings is that we lose track of who said what when. Can we make a "rule" to try to stay polite? And to try to break the threads into... more
Cathy, I know it's an embarrassing and sore point with you but I bring up the history of what you told me about the Selmer revolver because it is a good example of how you have made great mistakes in ... more
Jeff: In the interest of keeping this dialogue going, as I asked before, lets try to be cordial. Insulting the Tanner family in talking to me is not being cordial. In my mind, if the Tanner family... more
Cathy, I am a historian. There are certain rules historians are encouraged to abide by. Naturally one of these is to keep opinions and facts separated. You can freely have opinions but you must... more
Perhaps you don't understand the nature of peer review. I don't believe they have it for the big national presses, only for the academic presses (but I could be wrong). I believe for a press like... more
One reviewer knew my book. That is great. However, it was only one, not all your reviewers, thus my conclusion has to remain the same. What review and testing process your book went through means... more
Ah, Jeez... I just spent almost an hour making replies, and then lost it all. Maybe I should do this little by little! I don't think I'm going to rewrite my book on your webpage, Jeff. In order to... more
Yes, I look forward to what your book says, but I will need to do the additional research due to your habit of "reading between the lines." This reminds me of a little story. There's a gentleman on a ... more