# Tombstone or Wyatte Earp? which one did you like more? why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 9, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127 "2003-07-09T01:00:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/41 "2003-07-10T19:09:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astorian \* > \*\*I don’t go along with the term “outright murder,” but it’s fair to say a lot of people in Tombstone at the time DID see things that way. To put it mildly, not everyone saw the Earps as heroes- many viewed the conflict between the Earps and the Cowboys as a war between two rival gangs, not a simple showdown between lawmen and bad guys. \*\* Of course it wasn’t a “simple showdown between lawmen and bad guys.” Few things in history (or life) are that simple. There were political rivalries, personal rivalries, and various other complications involved. It was Union sympathizers against Confederate sympathizers, small-time ranchers (read: part-time rustlers) against townspeople (shopkeepers, saloonkeepers and gamblers), county authority against city authority. The Earps weren’t storybook heroes or even by-the-book lawmen—by modern standards, they were pretty corrupt and self-serving. However the Clantons WERE some pretty lowdown scum by modern or contemporary standards. They murdered and rustled and got away with it because they did it in Mexico. They robbed stages and stole horses and rustled cattle. But it does come down to this: Ike Clanton had made several threats against the lives of the Earps and Doc Holliday and had spent all night trying to get SOMEONE (anyone!) to give him a gun. Then his brothers and friends come into town armed (against the local ordinance) and start gathering in the lot behind Fly’s. Virgil Earp WAS the town marshall and was very much within his rights both to disarm the Cowboys AND to re-arrest Ike for making threats. The vast majority of accounts (those of townsfolk with no axe to grind on either side particularly) say that the Cowboys made the first move. Now, I am very sure that the Earps weren’t sad to see them do it—would you be sad for a chance to take down people who were constantly threatening to kill you? But they quite obviously did NOT set out to murder the Clantons and McClauries. If they had, Wyatt would have simply shot Ike down in the street. Instead, when it was clear Ike was unarmed, Wyatt let him go. The whole thing was unprofessional by modern standards but the old west shouldn’t be judged by modern standards. It was a commonplace thing for lawmen to supplement their income by taking a cut from various bars they protected in the old west. It was a commonplace thing for them to run whores and games and do all sorts of things that nowadays are clearly illegal and unacceptable. That doesn’t make the Earps heroes or even good lawmen—they were clearly neither. But it does mean they weren’t villainous, at least by the standards of the day, and it also means that they weren’t murderers. (At the time. A case might be made that Wyatt became a murderer later on, although after what was done to his brothers I can’t judge him too harshly.) ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/42 "2003-07-10T19:30:18Z")
Rik- I’m neither an expert on the Old West nor a revisionist by nature. Based on my limited knowledge of the subject, I agree with the gist of your post. Superficially, the gunfight at the OK corral looks to me like neither cold-blooded murder (Tomndeb’s charge, not mine) nor heroic police work. It looks like a sloppy, bloody mess that didn’t have to happen the way it did. But then, MOST gunfights in the Old West were probably bloody, sloppy affairs. The Clantons WERE breaking the law, and Vergil Earp was probably right to make a stand. Moreover, he didn’t simply head down to the corral and start firing away. So, the charge of “murder” doesn’t fly with me. But in retrospect, the gunfight looks like the work of one heavily armed team ready (probably spoiling) for a fight against a lightly armed band that was NOT ready or eager for a shooting match. I don’t think the Earps went to the OK Corral with the intention of gunning down the Clantons… but I do suspect strongly they were hoping the Clantons would be drunk/stupid enough to give them an excuse to take them out. And sure enough, the Clantons WERE drunk/stupid enough to do just that! ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/43 "2003-07-10T22:21:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astorian \* > \*\*Superficially, the gunfight at the OK corral looks to me like neither cold-blooded murder (Tomndeb’s charge, not mine) nor heroic police work. It looks like a sloppy, bloody mess that didn’t have to happen the way it did. But then, MOST gunfights in the Old West were probably bloody, sloppy affairs. > \*\* > > That’s for sure. The vast majority also involved alcohol…just like today! > > \*\* I don’t think the Earps went to the OK Corral with the intention of gunning down the Clantons… but I do suspect strongly they were hoping the Clantons would be drunk/stupid enough to give them an excuse to take them out. > > And sure enough, the Clantons WERE drunk/stupid enough to do just that! \*\* Well, that’s another area where Tombstone was historically accurate: the Clantons (besides Old Man Clanton who died before the shootout and their back-east lawyer brother) were complete idiots, especially Ike who was both an idiot and a complete cowardly blowhard. Curly Bill was the real brains in the outfit. ---
**Author:** ![Cholo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Cholo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cholo)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/44 "2003-07-10T23:26:23Z")
What is the deal with the burning building in the background as the Earp clan is walking towards the OK Corral? There doesn’t seemt to be any mention of it in the film itself. Any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/45 "2003-07-11T00:29:44Z")
Well, I never claimed the Earp’s committed murder in cold blood–I’d have let them cop to a plea of 2d Degree Murder. A few points (based on the versions I’ve read): The McLaurys and Clantons were saddling up to _leave_ town, not “gathering in the lot” preparatory to a fight, and therefore, would have been within their rights to have their weapons with them. Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury were not armed (meaning that rather than four armed Earps facing five armed Clantons, it was actually four armed Earps facing only three armed opponents–possibly two, as Billy Claiborne ran immediately, and few accounts record whether he was armed). The shooting started when Billy Clanton, the youngest “participant” threw up his hands and yelled “Don’t shoot me; I don’t want to fight.” at which point Morgan Earp shot him in the chest. (Having been shot with his hands up, Billy then drew his gun to fight back.) Tom McLaury was shot while holding open his coat to show that he was unarmed. Now, I am aware that there are other versions, some claiming that Tom McLaury had a hideaway, some claiming that the Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton started the action by cocking their pistols, triggering a lethal response. I just have not found those claims to be as credible as the points I laid out, above. (I do not recall any claims that the first shot was fired by a Clanton or a McLaury.) ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/46 "2003-07-11T01:05:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Well, I never claimed the Earp’s committed murder in cold blood–I’d have let them cop to a plea of 2d Degree Murder. > > A few points (based on the versions I’ve read): > > The McLaurys and Clantons were saddling up to _leave_ town, not “gathering in the lot” preparatory to a fight, and therefore, would have been within their rights to have their weapons with them. > \*\* > > Yes, I am sure the surviving Clantons CLAIMED that…just as they claimed that Doc Holliday fired the first shot (with a revolver, despite the fact that his hands were filled with a shotgun), when other witnesses were very certain he did not. > > \*\* > Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury were not armed (meaning that rather than four armed Earps facing five armed Clantons, it was actually four armed Earps facing only three armed opponents–possibly two, as Billy Claiborne ran immediately, and few accounts record whether he was armed). > \*\* > > Ike Clanton was unarmed because he had been forcably disarmed earlier the night before after making threats. He spent all night and most of the next morning trying to beg, borrow or steal a gun. Tom McClaury WAS armed: he had a rifle on his horse and was in fact reaching for it when Doc Holliday shot him with the shotgun. > > \*\* > The shooting started when Billy Clanton, the youngest “participant” threw up his hands and yelled “Don’t shoot me; I don’t want to fight.” at which point Morgan Earp shot him in the chest. (Having been shot with his hands up, Billy then drew his gun to fight back.) > > Tom McLaury was shot while holding open his coat to show that he was unarmed. > \*\* > > Both are outright lies—I make that statement based on both physical evidence and eyewitness accounts. Civilian eyewitnesses agree that the Clantons/McClauries opened fire first. And, as has been said, Tom had a rifle and the autopsy plus subsequent re-enactments have demonstrated that he was trying to get it out of his sheath when he was shot. > > \*\* > Now, I am aware that there are other versions, some claiming that Tom McLaury had a hideaway, some claiming that the Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton started the action by cocking their pistols, triggering a lethal response. I just have not found those claims to be as credible as the points I laid out, above. (I do not recall any claims that the first shot was fired by a Clanton or a McLaury.) \*\* All the reliable claims say this. The only contradictory ones are from the Clantons and Behan, who are not reliable. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/47 "2003-07-11T02:47:21Z")
**RikWriter** , do you have the film of the fight? Not a 20th century movie, but an actual film of the actual fight? Obviously, we have each found separate sources that we found more credible, but your excited cries of “Lies” seem to indicate a more partisan approach than one would get from a review of all the conflicting views of history. I have no vested interest in the Earps being “bad guys.” I simply have apparently encountered more information that tilts away from the Earp version than you have. However, I would point out, purely as an opposing attorney if we were trying the case, that your version leaves a couple holes: You say that it was only the Clanton’s “story” that they were leaving town, yet the horses were already saddled (otherwise Tom McLaury would not have been able to be “going for” his rifle in your description). Tom McLaury had come into Tombstone a day earlier. Are you really willing to claim that a horseman left his horse standing saddled for a whole day? In a gunfight, in which one side approached with drawn weapons, a man trying to retrieve a rifle from a saddle scabbard is at a serious disadvantage. For the purposes of the origins of the fight, he was unarmed according to your account. Do you have an actual citation for the claim that "Civilian eyewitnesses agree " the Clanton’s fired first? My FIL has a number of histories of the West, and I have never encountered that version. (Not to mention that there were very few “civilian” witnesses, in that many of the townspeople were partisans of either the Earps or the Clantons, so a “civilian” (used as “neutral”) observer would have been hard to find.) ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/48 "2003-07-11T15:03:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\ ***RikWriter** , do you have the film of the fight? Not a 20th century movie, but an actual film of the actual fight? > > Obviously, we have each found separate sources that we found more credible, but your excited cries of “Lies” seem to indicate a more partisan approach than one would get from a review of all the conflicting views of history. > \*\* > > I find your choice of words to be disingenuous. There was no “excited cry” of lies and how would you know my mental state when I typed the word “lies?” Are you telepathic? Or do you, in your own words, have the movie of me typing? Guess, like Doc Holliday in the movie, your hypocricy knows no bounds? > > \*\* > I have no vested interest in the Earps being “bad guys.” I simply have apparently encountered more information that tilts away from the Earp version than you have. However, I would point out, purely as an opposing attorney if we were trying the case, that your version leaves a couple holes: > > You say that it was only the Clanton’s “story” that they were leaving town, yet the horses were already saddled (otherwise Tom McLaury would not have been able to be “going for” his rifle in your description). Tom McLaury had come into Tombstone a day earlier. Are you really willing to claim that a horseman left his horse standing saddled for a whole day? In a gunfight, in which one side approached with drawn weapons, a man trying to retrieve a rifle from a saddle scabbard is at a serious disadvantage. For the purposes of the origins of the fight, he was unarmed according to your account. > \*\* > > No, you’re wrong on several counts. The brothers had JUST ARRIVED at that lot with their horses. They had been in town since the morning, but they had moved to the vacant lot just before the showdown. Do you think they carried the saddles on their backs while they led their horses to the lot? And BTW, a man with a rifle has a VERY big advantage over a man with a pistol. > > \*\* > Do you have an actual citation for the claim that "Civilian eyewitnesses agree " the Clanton’s fired first? My FIL has a number of histories of the West, and I have never encountered that version. (Not to mention that there were very few “civilian” witnesses, in that many of the townspeople were partisans of either the Earps or the Clantons, so a “civilian” (used as “neutral”) observer would have been hard to find.) \*\* Just because someone preferred the Earps to the Cowboys doesn’t make them less of a civilian. The fact that most of the townspeople DID support the Earps should tell you something about the Cowboy gang in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/49 "2003-07-11T16:16:49Z")
> [@](#): > > I find your choice of words to be disingenuous. There was no “excited cry” of lies and how would you know my mental state when I typed the word “lies?” Are you telepathic? Or do you, in your own words, have the movie of me typing? Guess, like Doc Holliday in the movie, your hypocricy knows no bounds? There is nothing disingenuous in what I have posted. I am responding to the way you expressed yourself. Rather than saying that bulk of the testimony contravened those statements, you responded to one paragraph with “Both are outright lies.” Since _you_ do not know where that information originated, (Ike Clanton and John Behan were not the only ones who testified before Spicer or were quoted in the _Epitaph_), the immediate assertion of _lying_ indicates a leap to an unsupported conclusion of who said what and why they said it and demonstrates far more passion than is called for in this discussion. Spicer, himself, expressed the belief that the Earps probably fired first, although he noted that there was a lot of conflicting testimony and concluded that they were justified in doing so based on his understanding that Virgil was carrying out a lawful intent to disarm the others. > [@](#): > > No, you’re wrong on several counts. The brothers had JUST ARRIVED at that lot with their horses. They had been in town since the morning, but they had moved to the vacant lot just before the showdown. Do you think they carried the saddles on their backs while they led their horses to the lot? And BTW, a man with a rifle has a VERY big advantage over a man with a pistol. I’m afraid that I would have to see evidence of your claim that Tom McLaury had only arrived that morning–given that he was involved in a fight with Wyatt Earp earlier in the morning, before Frank McLaury rode in (and, given that I have seen claims that he had come in with Ike Clanton the day before). The “moving the horses” claim sounds plausible, but would need to be supported by a reason. One does not need to move horses around to ambush someone in town, so why do your sources claim that they were moving to the OK lot? Frank McClaury had gotten into a squabble with Wyatt over where he tied his horse near a store, earlier, and it makes sense that he might have been moving it to a corral. However, Tom had been in town overnight. This would raise the question: why was he moving his horse (which had, one presumes been stabled _somewhere_ overnight) if he was not planning to leave? As to the rifle vs pistol comparison, you are simply being silly. A rifle tucked into a saddle scabbard four or five feet off the ground is not a “VERY big advantage” over a pistol (or, especially, a shotgun) that is already being held and pointed at one from a distance of five feet or less. Given a choice of weapons and terrain, I would certainly take the rifle (preferably on an open plain at a distance of three hundred yards) over a pistol. However, the range of a rifle is pretty much moot when the range to the target is little more than the length of the barrel (making it difficult to maneuver) and becomes a serious disadvantage when one needs to be able to reach up, remove the longer, heavier weapon from an awkward position, then turn one’s whole body to point it (since firing a rifle one-handed makes a nice movie stunt, but makes little sense in real life). (This is especially true if, as I have seen claimed, Tom was standing in front of his horse, initially, meaning that he would have to turn his back to the Earps or (as he apparently did) duck behind his horse to retrieve it. It simply does not make him “armed.”) > [@](#): > > Just because someone preferred the Earps to the Cowboys doesn’t make them less of a civilian. The fact that most of the townspeople DID support the Earps should tell you something about the Cowboy gang in the first place. The fact that “the townspeople” (meaning some undetermined majority) supported the Earps has yet to be demonstrated. Both sides had intense supporters in town. Spicer took testimony for over twenty days and still wound up claiming that most of the testimony was disputed. At any rate, I have done pretty much all of this from memory, since my reference works are 230 miles away and the web sites I have found have seemed less than neutral (I am not going to quote a web site put up by a Clanton cousin in _this_ discussion). I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/50 "2003-07-11T17:01:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*There is nothing disingenuous in what I have posted. I am responding to the way you expressed yourself. > \*\* > > No, you’re making assumptions about my mental state when I made the post. > > \*\* > The “moving the horses” claim sounds plausible, but would need to be supported by a reason. One does not need to move horses around to ambush someone in town, so why do your sources claim that they were moving to the OK lot? > \*\* > > One does indeed need horses if one plans a confrontation from which one might want the ability to run away from quickly should things go bad. One might also not wish to pay stable fees for one’s horse should one not plan on staying in town overnight. > No one knows for certain why the cowboys went to the lot. No one knows if they planned to ambush the Earps that day. The only thing known is that they had made many threats against the Earps and Doc Holliday, they were gathered together in that lot and they were armed. > > \*\* > Frank McClaury had gotten into a squabble with Wyatt over where he tied his horse near a store, earlier, and it makes sense that he might have been moving it to a corral. However, Tom had been in town overnight. This would raise the question: why was he moving his horse (which had, one presumes been stabled _somewhere_ overnight) if he was not planning to leave? > \*\* > > Don’t know. I don’t know that it is known for certain that Tom had been in town all night, but bringing his horse to the lot doesn’t mean he was planning on leaving town—it simply means he wanted to be ready to do so if needed. > > \*\* > As to the rifle vs pistol comparison, you are simply being silly. A rifle tucked into a saddle scabbard four or five feet off the ground is not a “VERY big advantage” over a pistol (or, especially, a shotgun) that is already being held and pointed at one from a distance of five feet or less. Given a choice of weapons and terrain, I would certainly take the rifle (preferably on an open plain at a distance of three hundred yards) over a pistol. However, the range of a rifle is pretty much moot when the range to the target is little more than the length of the barrel (making it difficult to maneuver) and becomes a serious disadvantage when one needs to be able to reach up, remove the longer, heavier weapon from an awkward position, then turn one’s whole body to point it (since firing a rifle one-handed makes a nice movie stunt, but makes little sense in real life). (This is especially true if, as I have seen claimed, Tom was standing in front of his horse, initially, meaning that he would have to turn his back to the Earps or (as he apparently did) duck behind his horse to retrieve it. It simply does not make him “armed.”) > \*\* > > Try explaining that turn of phrase to a police officer if he sees a rifle in the back seat of your car. He will certainly classify you as “armed” despite the fact that you’d have to twist around and reach into the back seat to get at it. > And yes, a rifle DOES have a huge advantage over a pistol even in closer quarters: it’s easier to aim and it has much more stopping power (given that it fires a rifle cartridge rather than a pistol cartridge). > \*\* > I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. \*\* Well, since I have studied the whole thing quite a bit as well as visiting Tombstone twice and talking at length with locals who are experts on the dispute, I am certainly not prepared to change my opinion based on your statements here. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/51 "2003-07-11T17:08:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cholo \* > \*\*What is the deal with the burning building in the background as the Earp clan is walking towards the OK Corral? There doesn’t seemt to be any mention of it in the film itself. Any ideas? \*\* It was an actual fire that happened to take place that morning. It had nothing to do with fight but the Director did some research and had it blazing away in the background… also serves as a nice metephor for them decending into hell. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127/52 "2003-07-11T17:11:49Z")
Sorry to clarify (I hit post instead of preview) The fire took place on the morning of the actual gunfight and not of the filming. The filmmakers doing research found out that little tidbit and included it in the background to add to the realism of the scene. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tombstone-or-wyatte-earp-which-one-did-you-like-more-why/187127.md?page=2)