Author Topic: Earps vs. Clantons (Read 1238 times)

Holiday · « **on:** January 18, 2003, 01:43:28 PM »

So, what your opinion? Who were the good guys? The Earps were the law, but a lot of folks hold that the Clantons and McCloweries were "victems". I personally believe it wasn't as black and white as it sometimes seems.That being said, I personally feel that the Earps were closer to being the "good guys" than their rivals. They were shady, and my name sake Doc Holiday was probably just along for the ride and to help his friend Wyatt, but the Clanton gang were a gang of crooks. That's my opinion, how about your's?

sjc1 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2003, 01:56:48 PM »

From what I have read I believe that the Earps were the "good" guys on that particular day in Tombstone. I think that they, at times, walked a fine line between good and bad but tended toward the good on most occasions. The one thing about Holiday was his loyalty to Wyatt Earp.

Capt Hamp Cox · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2003, 12:29:10 PM »

Not an easy question to answer, since I don't think anyone can legitimately claim either side was lily white and without guilt. The more you study Old West history, the more characters you find who tended to ride both sides of the legal fence depending on the time, place, and/or situation. Also have to realize that often, those who survive hard times become hard people. We shouldn't become guilty of applying our modern day values and mores when judging the actions of people who lived in an entirely different environment from ours. Wiith that said, I think the Earps probably had some ulterior motives, but I also think they were several rungs above the opposition when it came to who was right and who was wrong. I vote for the Earps.

Holiday · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2003, 02:14:14 PM »

Yep, seems like y'all are thinkin' along the same lines as I am. Capt. Cox, you sure are right about not judgeing folks by our modern standerds today. The world was a differant place back then. Not simpler, not more complicated, but differant.

Old Cane · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2003, 11:38:22 AM »

I think being outside the law is just that any place, any time. Just because you won't get caught is no good reason to be up to no good. It would seem morality was held in higher esteem back then but when you learn more about these sometimes outlaw, sometimes lawman it really makes you wonder.

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2003, 11:27:26 AM »

Gentlemen...and ladies,

History is replete with examples of some good men who did some bad things, and some bad men who did some good things. A man could be a good man, and have a reputation as a "bad" man, or he could be a down-right bad man and people made excuses for him. Truth be told, there were some good men, some bad men and some skunks! All the rest either took sides, or hunkered down until the shooting stopped!

Dan C

Old Cane · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2003, 01:06:22 PM »

Well said.

williamlayton · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2003, 12:39:07 AM »

remember a german asking whose side god was on.

.45 COLT · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2003, 01:54:59 AM »

I guess I'd back the Clantons. They were crooks and didn't seem to try to hide it. The Earp group on the other hand used the law to try to legitimize their actions. Not much of anything on earth lower than a crooked cop.