Chronicles of Tombstone's TurbulEnt Years
Tombstone History Archives
Glenn Boyer’s Response to Vendetta as Published in WOLA
Newsletter of the Western Outlaw-Lawman History Association (WOLA)
IV, Spring/Summer 1995, pp. 5-7.
The Boyer Response NOLA Wouldn’t Let You See!
Editor’s Introduction: It seems hard to believe that an organization supposedly dedicated to fostering outlaw and lawman history would suppress materials from one of the great authors of that history. But that is just what the National Association for Outlaw and Lawman History (NOLA) has done to Glenn G. Boyer. They have determined that NOLA members may not see the second part of Boyer’s response to a critique NOLA published of Boyer’s book, Wyatt Earp’s Tombstone Vendetta.
Censorship in any form is reprehensible, but what makes this example so onerous is that it is being imposed for no good reason. Chuck Parsons is editor of the NOLA Quarterly. Without giving Boyer a chance to rebut in the same issue, Parsons published what was said to be a book review called “The Curious Vendetta of Glenn G. Boyer,” by Jeffrey J. Morey. But it was as much a vendetta against Boyer as it was a review.
In his letter to Boyer refusing to publish the second part of Boyer’s response, Parsons said “although it may be of some interest to NOLA members I feel that the two sides of the question have been presented, first by Mr. (Jeff) Morey (see NOLA Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, Oct-Dec. 1994), and then your rebuttal in the subsequent issue. I do not see any real purpose in continuing the controversial discussion of your book… .”
Who does Chuck Parsons think he is kidding? Obviously he can fool NOLA’s members. If he publishes nothing more in the Quarterly about Boyer’s response, they will never know Boyer had more to say about the attack on him by Morey.
“Some interest” to NOLA members! Hell, NOLA members would donate blood to know what Boyer has to say about Morey. No “real purpose!” What purpose does NOLA have, does Chuck Parsons have, but to present both sides of an important outlaw-lawman history controversy?
“I am sure you realize, ” Parsons continues in his condescending letter to Boyer, “that it would not serve a valid historical purpose to continue the ‘debate’ between you and Mr. Morey in the NOLA publication.” Then Parsons has the gall to add “I would hope that both you and he would more worthily spend time and energy doing additional research…” Boyer was doing research before Parsons was born!
It is not our purpose in this introduction to critique Morey’s “review”. Suffice it to say it was a bludgeoning attack on one of the country’s leading Earpiana authors. Any right-minded editor would have allowed Boyer to respond in the same issue. He was allowed to respond in the next issue, but he was given only a short period of time to prepare for it. When he asked to conclude his response in the following issue, he was turned down.
What follows is Glenn G. Boyer’s own introduction and then the material that the NOLA leaders would not publish. It should be made clear that Boyer did not approach WOLA about this — we learned of Parsons’ refusal to publish the Boyer material from another Earpiana source. We approached Boyer to publish his material. As he says in his introduction, he sent us letters and materials related to this incident, but it was after we already had learned of the NOLA refusal. He had thought of some other medium of making the suppressed materials public, but agreed to allow us to publish those materials.
Except for one WOLA board member, none know we are going to publish the suppressed Boyer material and no board member has influenced us to publish or not to publish. Your editor is doing this entirely of his own volition. As with all materials we publish by other authors, all ideas expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of WOLA.
Your editor recently obtained the latest NOLA mailing list, so this WOLA Newsletter is being mailed to all 400 WOLA members and 325 NOLA members. Boyer’s response will be read by NOLA members after all!
Dear Jim Dullenty:
I sent an extensive number of Wyatt Earp related documents to you recently, from which I now understand you wish to publish historical information of public interest.
The entire package was originally sent to you primarily because of the historical content, with no thought that you might publish it. I intended another composition for that purpose, but upon reflection, agree this one will do as well, and save me the trouble of working on another. I sent the original material to you because I consider you part of the public opinion elite in the field of “outlaw-lawman” history. As indicated below, I was muzzled in my effort to make it public, which also prompted me to send it to various individuals personally, since the matter needed airing. (Incidentally, I asked NOLA for their mailing list so I could send the material I sent to you to the entire NOLA membership which had been exposed to what I consider grossly misleading impressions, in order to try to correct such mis-impressions so that my lifelong effort to set and keep the picture straight on Wyatt Earp would not be frustrated. They refused me access to their mailing list and one can’t help but wonder why.)
The full spectrum of documents specifically address an article that appeared in the Fall 1994 NOLA Quarterly, entitled “The Curious Vendetta of Glenn G. Boyer,” by Jeff Morey. The NOLA Quarterly published only my partial response to that article in their next subsequent issue, after being heavily pressured to do so. I would have sent them a longer response, which is actually demanded, but the short deadline they provided me precluded doing so. Accordingly I sent them additional information which they declined to publish. As you requested after considering the publication of that suppressed, supplemental material, I sent you the NOLA editor’s patronizing letter containing the surface reasons for not publishing that information.
If you seriously still contemplate publication of the suppressed information, I think that editor’s letter of refusal is also of public interest and that it should be published as a preliminary to my comments on the Jeff Morey article.
The entire package of documents I sent you includes my cover letter to the NOLA editor and considerable additional information not essential, in my view, to public understanding of the issue, and some of it, if publicly aired, would be more apt to be seen as an attempt to embarrass than an attempt to contribute to historical knowledge through establishing the integrity of my past work, which is being questioned. Therefore, I do not wish the cover letter and certain other preliminary text to be widely disseminated as it would be in publication. It was not written with that in mind. Moreover, the total package introduces, in places, questions germane to a pending lawsuit which I don’t wish to try in the press.
And, as I pointed out above and wish to re-emphasize, various fully-documented, facts pointed out to the editor of NOLA could be quite embarrassing. I feel this may be so, since it is possible that NOLA was not, in advance of publication, in full possession of the facts relating to the conception and writing of “The Curious Vendetta…etc.” which is to say the strong possibility, in the light of our common knowledge of human nature, that it was primarily a “spite piece” as established by the documentation referenced above. Investigations I have made raise the strong suspicion that NOLA may have been misled into publishing, not that this excuses them from the responsibility to have made a full advance investigation, or the fact that they did not avail me, as part of such investigation, the opportunity to comment in advance of publication, especially since there were allegations, which, if untrue, were libelous. What was done, on the other hand, might be construed, not as the action of victims, but of fellow-conspirators, since what occurred looks suspiciously like a historically-well established expedient of cowards, referred to in the Old West - and today, as well - as “back shooting.” (As one of the co-authors of “Curious Vendetta…” unwisely revealed to the wrong confidante: “We are going to ambush Boyer.”) I daresay that no one contemplating “back shooting” throughout history, ever before telegraphed advance information of the contemplated sneaky act to the targeted victim.
I therefore, confess to having crafted Wyatt Earp's Tombstone Vendetta in the manner I did somewhat tongue in cheek. Which is to say, it is not footnoted. I also comment in my foreward that no less a historical pundit than Herbert Bolton dismissed footnotes as the equivalent of the trash left around a building site by sloppy craftsmen. But more to the point as Ben Traywick commented in the Introduction, people have appropriated my unique historical 'finds' in the past, without giving me credit for them. They have done so by adopting my original discoveries as their own, which is simple if one cites sources, but artfully omits the modifier: "as quoted in, Boyer’s, etc. …”
The most aggravating recent examples are that both Wyatt Earp movies released in 1994 leaned heavily on my work, but gave me only minor credit, since the movie writers and producers had appropriated their facts, as they assured me, from many sources, unaware that those sources had acquired their most intriguing new information from my work in the first place. For example (1) we know from the move [sic] Tombstone that movie producers are now aware of the love triangle behind the Tombstone violence from the book I collected and edited: I Married Wyatt Earp, (2) that Big Nose Kate was not a frontier floozie, but a well educated woman born to minor Hungarian nobility, and that her real name was Haroney, (3) that Morgan Earp had a pretty blond wife named Lou, (4) that Sheriff Behan was born into a well-know [sic] frontier family at Westport, Mo., and that he was far from being Gentleman Johnny as many, such as the late Dan Thrapp, have tried to portray him, but was an unmitigated scumbag, and a lot more, all known from my books or articles over the past quarter century, based on actual contacts with blood relatives of all those people. Prior to that, these historical characters were uncritically accepted by historians and the public as only names, and it was also accepted that they’d never be anything else. My unparalleled service to knowledge in demonstrating that wasn’t so, and in so doing, acquainted readers with some fascinating people, should not be savagely attacked, but rather appreciated, and that this is not so is a sorry commentary on the human condition. Fortunately, we see here a fringe reaction. But what possessed NOLA to abet it?
The humorous aspect of crafting Wyatt Earp’s Tombstone Vendetta so its facts are almost impossible to copy without citing the entire book by title (which does not impair the validity of the facts in any way) is illustrated by the following contrasting attitude expressed to me on a post card recently:
Have faith in your fans and damn the critics!
The world can always use a good mystery, the Ten Eyck you have created is splendid indeed, and will survive. If others need to know, gather your 4 horses, 4 dogs, 7 cats - tell them and swear them to secrecy. Your ‘total response’ can then claim 15 others who know the answer and that is sufficient. Do not answer this - just wanted you to know there are folks out here that appreciate your refreshing writing and accurate editing and research! If you are ever in Seattle looking for some ‘quiet time,’ give us a call. We’ll ‘watch the sound,’ and talk of ceiling wax and things -
Have a Happy 95
3130 SW 167 St.
Seattle, WA 98166
I don’t know Bill Caler personally, but have corresponded with him, and must say he sounds like my kind of guy. They obviously ‘watch the Sound’ up thataway as we do the mountains down here. As for ‘quiet time’: I wish the Harpies would let me have a little quiet time, but as long as they keep shooting at me they are going to have some unquiet time themselves for wasting my time.
I thought of Morey’s comment, “why is nobody laughing?” when I read Caler’s card. I know why Morey isn’t laughing, and so would Caler and hordes of others steeped in traditions of the Old West, but in a thousand years Morey would not appreciate why others are laughing. Somewhat like Mark Twain’s Canadian owl that “wasn’t impressed with Yosemite, either.”
I have another comment to insert here from a letter dated 2 Dec. 1994 from a lady who wouldn’t mind my quoting her by name, but I think it would only cause her heartburn that she doesn’t foresee, so I will merely say she is a historian of the variety I appreciate; one who does outstanding research, gets it published, and depends for reputation on what she produces, rather than acting as though reputation is a fixed quantity so that one must destroy another’s reputation to acquire one of their own. I include this lady’s remarks on the Earp writing of others, because Morey, in his piece, concludes that the works mentioned by her are both derivatives of mine. I think he is correct. (It illustrates what I said above about copying my work.) The excerpt follows:
“I am also a member of NOLA and I read the Morey article. This is not the first time I think Chuck Parsons has been totally off base with what he has published in that journal. The very least you do (if you are at all professional that is) is let the person under attack know in advance and allow a chance for rebuttal in the same issue or the following issue of the journal.”
NOTE: The problem with the following issue is that misinformation reaches a lot of people that the correction will not reach, thus misconceptions live in history forever.
The above letter continues:
“I have not done any digging on Earp. I have, however, read your Vendetta and all of your series in True West. If you are blowing smoke, you are doing one hell of a job at it. Your writing is some of the best I have come across anywhere in this so-called ‘Western History’ field. You have made the Earp clan come alive and let us see them as real people; no small accomplishment.
“Dick Erwin’s book is so badly written I don’t think anyone should have dignified the thing with a review. I gave up trying to read it after 30 or so pages. I have tried twice to read Paula Mark’s And Die in The West and gave up both times. I keep wondering how some of these folks can take such exciting people and write such dull books about them.”
Since the advent of both of the above less-than-adequate books demanded that I write Vendetta to straighten the picture again, and influenced my choice of style, I think they are fair game. I, years ago, undertook to set the picture straight on Wyatt Earp at the specific request of members of the Earp family. These two writers definitely kicked it askew again after I had it fairly straight with my books SUPPRESSED MURDER OF WYATT EARP (1967), I Married Wyatt Earp (1976), and WYATT EARP, by Wyatt S. Earp (1981), his autobiography. Moreover, Erwin’s and Marks’ books are examples of the misappropriated sources mentioned: for example, Dick Erwin grudgingly gives me credit for a brief entry about Johnny Behan, then does an entire chapter that could have had no source except my articles on Behan, with no credit given whatsoever. Paula Marks, for whatever reason (I can imagine why - she perversely resented my not helping her round up my cattle that she planned to rustle) is forgetful about the source of WYATT EARP, by Wyatt S. Earp, although the front matter makes it clear that I discovered the long lost ms., had it published, wrote the foreword and that it is copyrighted in my name. She lists it in her bibliography as “privately published” to avoid mentioning my name. Erwin, by the way, misled by Morey’s co-author of Curious Vendetta, did even worse and claimed there was no such book as Wyatt’s autobiography, but that another of the same discription was published by his O.K. Press in Taipei. (He later discovered his disastrous mistake, and how and why he’d been duped, but has so far avoided thanking me for letting him know.)
Having cited the above, I don’t think it’s necessary to take Morey’s comments in detail, but will to some extent on a few major points anyhow, just sufficiently to expose his ignorance and/or sophistry in imposing his premises and interpretations on various things.
But first, let us recognize that I did Vendetta without citing specific sources, with some wicked thoughts of tweaking the noses of people such as Morey, and the two above writers, although primarily to straighten the picture that such people seem determined to knock askew from time to time. I could as well have ignored NOLA’s libelous article whatever its impact on my reputation. But since the information will reach a fair-sized audience, including the institutions with libraries who are members of NOLA, and thus reach countless numbers in future generations, I thought I’d better try again to keep the picture straight. NOLA, striving to serve the cause of history, had done it a great disservice in this case, to my work, rather than to basic sources I uncovered.
How deucedly inconvenient of me to arrange to keep credit for my own work for a change. Obviously unforgivable. Moreover, since I am the author of one literary hoax, as Morey pointed out (my Illustrated Life of Doc Holliday - 1966, written at a time when I had no idea I’d ever write anything more) the possibility haunts some “history rustlers” with the suspicion that Vendetta also could be a hoax, enticingly lying in wait, like a shiny coin on the sidewalk, to be picked up and claimed as one’s own, only to discover later that it is counterfeit. People with a true grasp of the bold, expansive Western humor that is the hallmark of Twain, and the other journalistic hoaxers would not blame me if Vendetta were a hoax. (For example, read Twain’s Empire City Massacre.) But this is not the case although a certain class will always suspect such a possibility. For example, Morey bleeds for poor, poor, victimized Paula Marks, who didn’t discover that my Illustrated Life of Doc Holliday was a hoax, (and by the time her book went into paper back, no one had yet told her, including lachrymose Morey). I asked one of her principal advisors why he didn’t he didn’t tell her and he said, “She didn’t ask me.” That was after he learned that volunteering information was fruitless there. For example, she ignored his advice that Morgan Earp came to Tombstone long after the other brothers (arriving in July 80) and wrote instead: “Historians are not in agreement…” [on that subject]. She obviously entirely missed my article: “Morgan Earp, Brother in the Shadow,” in which Louisa (Lou) Earp’s letters make that clear, as well as the records of Morg as a lawman in Montana. As I have said, I would be less dismayed by being liberally copied without attribution if only they’d copy well.
I also would be more impressed with Morey’s tears of sympathy for Marks if, a few years ago, he had not done the same sort of hatchet job on Mark’s work, similar in scope and intent to THE CURIOUS VENDETTA OF GLENN G. BOYER, the earlier hatchet job titled: EQUIVOCATION AT THE O.K. CORRAL (of which earlier work I sent NOLA a copy - why don’t you print it too, in your self-appointed role as keeper of Public Morals? I feel that failure to do so will conclusively show that you hold a bias against my work only.) Moreover, Morey’s sub rosa co-author, Carl Chafin, did another real hatchet job on “poor” Paula in the WOLA Quarterly. Few are deceived by such Crocodile Tears when the straight story rears its head.
In any event, regarding Morey’s major detective work, (or perhaps we should say ‘fancy footwork’) I recommend that the reader review it again (in the Fall 94 Quarterly) in the light of the following:
1) My prior writings, upon which Morey ponders, were all tinged by the necessity to keep undeserving claimants off the trail of the items of great value that Bill Miller had given me at various times, such as guns, the bed Wyatt died in, his saddle, etc. Morey wonders why I was still claiming to protect the Millers after they were dead: rather obviously because I myself wasn’t dead, and was vulnerable to the same invalid claims as the Millers would have been jeopardizing ownership of extremely valuable memorabilia. Thus there are red herring that were dragged across the trail in the past. (Morey’s protestations that I lack a holy reverence for historical purity, unlike his own pristine perfection, reminds me of Judge David Davis’ comment to Lincoln about the compromises that had to be made at Chicago to secure Lincoln the nomination for President: “You weren’t there, Lincoln.” Nor was Morey there when I found all the relatives who could tell the straight story, and wondered with them why no writer had ever come to see them previously and asked them something.
2) My concealment of how early I met the Millers was not my idea in the first place and was based on the same motivation. I originally wrote in SUPPRESSED MURDER the story of Bill Miller’s long visits to Wyatt at Vidal every year, exactly as it appeared in Vendetta, and was told I shouldn’t do that by Bill Miller because he didn’t want to arouse family suspicions about where Uncle Wyatt’s things might have gone. His degree of intimacy with Wyatt was not generally known among people who would have claimed themselves as heirs with a far greater claim than Bill’s, since he wasn’t even a blood relative. Of course that lack of a blood tie applied to some others as well, because such claimants existed on both Wyatt’s and Josie’s sides of the family. (All such other claimants were gone by the time I wrote Vendetta, which had much to do with my decision that I was free to do so.)
3) Morey does an absolutely stunning high wire act with his detective work on wording of a Nugget article, on the assumption it would have appeared some other way if Ted Ten Eyck had been a newsman working for the Nugget. I certainly agree, but Ted was not a newsman working for the Nugget, that was simply part of the cover I erected for him; and it was also a convenient literacy device for convenient delivery. And as I mention in my Introduction to Vendetta… Ten Eyck might have been a strawman… but, if so, it then would become legitimate to ask, how would I have learned of the things that happened in the Nugget office? (Anyhow, this is again consideration of the vehicle, rather than of the pure gold delivered in it.)
That does not blink away the above question regarding how I knew of detailed affairs in the Nugget office. My informant was Albert Behan, living in Ajo, Arizona in 1944 when I was there as a pilot going to gunnery school. He would naturally have attracted my attention, but I might not have stumbled across him if others hadn’t told me he was there before I was sent there. Because of his presence, I took a leave in September 1944 and practically lived with him for several weeks, sleeping several nights, as he did, in the tent behind his house (which house, as he said, was too damn hot). The tent wasn’t exactly air conditioned luxury either. Albert spent a lot of time as a kid, hanging around the Nugget office (after all its editor was Albert’s Pa’s Undersheriff), and Albert saw Curly Bill there, and certainly knew Curly Bill elsewhere, as Josie Earp mentioned in I Married Wyatt Earp. Like a typical bright kid, Albert never missed a thing said around the Nugget office, and remembered most of it. Morey is correct regarding my use of Douglas Martin’s book in a sense of the word; actually because I was working under a close deadline - I xeroxed the passage from Al Turner’s O.K. Corral Inquest, which Al based on Martin’s work. I did that merely to save typing time. Editing is often a hectic business. To the general public for whom the book was intended, these minor variances make no difference. (I might well have searched my files for my typescript of the Nugget stories in question, but Turner’s book was handy on the shelf.)
Regarding the need to make such a choice at all, one may ask, what is an editor supposed to do with an old ms. that reads, “Copy text from article in scrapbook,” when the scrapbook appears to be long gone? Well, folks, if it’s apparent what article was referred to, the editor goes to another source of the article, if there is one. In this case there is no significant difference in the sense of the article.
4) Morey make much of Josie’s seeming knowledge of her own death before it occurred for which one can hardly blame him. That, of course, is based on the generalized term, “Ten Eyck Ms.,” and the term is a by product of the merging of several sources, a customary editorial procedure to provide continuity for Ten Eyck’s story. Morey can be excused here, since he’s never edited anything for publication. When I referred broadly to the Ten Eyck Ms. being among items left by Josie, that obviously was not literally true, nor meant to imply that it was. I probably didn’t even think of it, since I merged sources, including her incomplete, probably- bowdlerized, part of it (which was indeed in her stuff) into one final document in 1993, a perfectly well-accepted editorial practice with memoirs.
Obviously, aside from being inexperienced, Morey was deliberately dredging any and every morsel that discredited my work. (such as the reference to a loose piece of scuttlebutt, alleging that I Married Wyatt Earp was “bunk,” dashed off in a potboiler by writer, Larry Tritten, which I fully illuminated in the next issue of the NOLA Quarterly, thereby emphasizing Morey’s hypocrisy in pretending to believe something he knew was untrue, since he’d many times seen, and never before questioned, the first Jeanne Cason affidavit which I caused NOLA to publish in rebuttal of the “bunk,” allegation in the above January 1995 Quarterly.)
Morey’s article in addition to being first and foremost a smear job, is also a transparent attempt to smoke out my sources for his use, and that of his ilk, in the accustomed, formerly-happy manner: i.e. “with confidence that I wasn’t baiting them.” I am not going to mention those sources in any more detail, if for no better reason than being unobliging to my detractors. The major impact on the public may be that this has convinced me that Earp writing is a waste of time. I have found it all work and no income, to say nothing of inviting brickbats from the obsessed. Therefore, I have cancelled my contract to expand into a biography my fourteen article series that appeared in True West.
The truth about every one of Morey’s quibbles indicates that there are plenty of other interpretations of material than those conveniently adopted to give his theme validity. Space does not permit covering them all. He seems convincing only if one innocently buys his interpretations of things as he wishes one to do, and accepts them as the only possible interpretations.
A couple of final examples: (1) that my letter to Lake indicating I planned to get acquainted with the Earps shows I didn’t then know them - whereas that letter deliberately included that misinformation to try to get the incommunicative and cagey Lake to respond; the letter was actually written at Bill Miller’s kitchen table, with his cooperation, when I was visiting him on leave from the Air Force. I particularly remember that since the lights went out due to a thunderstorm and we had to interrupt work for awhile. (But, let’s give Morey the benefit of accepting his implications, and assume I met Bill and Estelle Miller later: what difference would it make to the general reader in that I knew many Earps for a long while anyhow, took down their recollections in notebooks and on tape, preserved them in letters and in priceless recollections?) (2) Morey also implies that there is something fishy about when I got the TEN EYCK MS. due to a letter that he found in the Huntington Library that I sent to Robert N. Mullen. I ask, what did Morey do with the rest of my letters that should have comprised a fairly extensive file, along with the carbons of Mullin’s replies? Did Morey ignore the ones that didn’t suit his purpose? Or are they missing, filched by an all-too-common type of researcher? And why take the existence of such a document as early as 1977, as suspicious: why not, instead, say “Hey, there really was a Ten Eyck Ms. at least as early as 1977 - how about that?”
“About that,” Mullin and I speculated at great length in several letters, not about who Ten Eyck obviously was in 1930, or 1944, but who he not-so-obviously may have been in early Tombstone. I was pursuing that natural question: Was I being levelled with by the so-called Ten Eyck sources? I similarly spent almost ten years trying to figure out if Josie was levelling before I allowed her memoir to go to a publisher. Apparently, however, writing by recall and working against a deadline in haste, I may have scrambled the dates involved in getting the ms. and the permission to use it, etc. Small matter.
Sorry, Jeff, my record is only vulnerable to serious damage when misconstrued or when it is deliberately distorted by misinterpretations and outright lies. I am not going to be smoked out. As I commented in an article in Real West many years ago, to which Morey alludes, entitled “Trailing An American Myth,” my operations, in view of my reluctant informants and other complications, were often like CIA laundering operations. I strongly feel the end justified the means, regardless of the, sometimes contradictory audit trail that suggests subterfuge. That’s the way it is in the real world, Jeff! (Outside of campuses and libraries, anyhow.) Ask any detective.
If anyone with a legitimate need to know wishes details beyond what I have provided above, I am sorry that I lack the time to elaborate. I try to run a ranch and keep up with fences, water, feeding horses and keeping them healthy, etc. Most of my days are spent with a wrench, shovel or hammer in hand, or on a horse. It’s a full time job.
I may some day write a pamphlet entitled The Earp Curse and cover more details of my experiences trying to straighten and keep straight the Earp picture than anyone is apt to imagine possible. The most classic broadside that my work ever elicited, which I keep framed on my wall, was the comment of an individual who was obviously irritated (when I refused to verify a photo as someone it wasn’t). His encomium reads: “It’s scum-sucking people like you who make this a bad world! Choke on that, puke face!”
Top that, Morey.
In closing, I noted that NOLA prefaced the letter of Dr. Walter Cason published at my request in your January 95 Quarterly with the pointed remarks that it was “undated and unsigned:” petty sniping which suggests a deliberate attempt to hint darkly that I might have fabricated the material that so-strongly supports the existence of a fellow like Ten Eyck, who was seen by Walt as a young man (1) where I wrote in Vendetta that he was seen, (2) doing the things I wrote that he did, and (3) that Mrs. Earp was secretive about his identity. I subsequently arranged for the editor of the NOLA Journal to talk to Dr. Cason and I think it is only fair to state here that he learned that Dr. Cason’s letter was, indeed, bonafide (he’d simply sent me a hasty, undated and unsigned memo copy). Dr. Cason also reiterated that the ms. done by his mother and aunt, that formed the basis of I Married Wyatt Earp was, indeed, genuine. His sister, Jeanne, confirmed the existence of the other ms. that was the basis of the book, which I have termed the Clum/Earp Ms. My copy of it is alive and well and so am I.
Now, how about a little “quiet time,” guys? I paid my dues. If I get another ration of it, I’m going to invite the Harpies out here, and if they unwisely come, drown them in the horse trough.
Glenn G. Boyer
The following is Mr. Boyer’s reply to Chuck Parsons’ letter of Feb. 15, 1995, in which he declined to publish the foregoing balance of Mr. Boyer’s comments on “The Curious Vendetta of Glenn G. Boyer.” It too is considered of interest to NOLA & WOLA readers:
25 February 1995
Western History Researcher
Editor, NOLA Publications
“Answer man” True West
P.O. Box 61
Smiley, TX 78159-0061 USA (A necessary modifier, I suppose, in Texas - are you sure Texas is in the USA?)
Congratulations on improving your perception; you are getting closer - re. your Feb. 15 letter - where you have at least upgraded your view of Morey’s malicious garbage as a “debate,” rather than a book review. I always thought it looked more like a calculated attempt to destroy my reputation and nullify my life work on the Earps and haven’t changed my mind. The fact that you decline to let me say the balance necessary, after not providing me time enough in the first place to prepare it, makes it look a lot like whatever all that toe dancing was, NOLA was up to its ears in it, and now doesn’t want to look any more foolish than it already does. Your sudden decision to be judicious at this late date is also a confession that you recognize the additional material completely demolishes your article, which I did only partially before. (For the record, I note you said a reply was invited from me; au contraire I had to bludgeon you over the head with the threat of a lawsuit to get your grudging permission to be heard.)
Your suggestion that I now reform and do some research brings tears to my eyes. I thought perhaps the fact that I’ve done more of it than anyone over the past half century by means of what I thought were unprecedented first person contacts with those who knew the West’s most famous lawman had attracted your attention. It should be especially noticeable since, unlike others, I published extensively, rather than hoarding, like Scrooge McDuck, to savor swimming around in it all alone.
In any case, I am growing tired at seventy-one and until the rest of you catch up, or at least till Morey does some research intended to be constructive and is able to find a publisher without giving it away, I’d like a rest.
Where were you when I needed you to warn me I was about to waste a half century of my life?
Glenn G. Boyer