Author Topic: john wesley hardin (Read 3314 times)

williamlayton · « **on:** February 07, 2003, 09:48:07 PM »

good guy? bad guy? a good killer? a bad killer?
not too much fiction involved.
blessings

sjc1 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2003, 01:45:29 AM »

From reading John Wesley Hardin by Lewis Nordyke I feel that Hardin was just trying to survive during a difficult time in our history. Events put him in circumstances that required that he react in a manner that meant that someone was going to die. I do not think he was a cold blooded killer. I do not feel that he was evil. He was just a man trying to get by in life.

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2003, 05:54:04 AM »

SJC;

I'd respecfully have to disagree with you. From most accounts, and I've read dozens, Hardin appeared to be pretty cold blooded. He killed most blacks he had occasion to and they were not included in his tally! Mexicans were treated with the same disdain. Hardin appeared to be a "sure thing" killer, and shooting in the back wasn't unheard of. The west knew lot's of killers, and some of them wore badges and would shoot straight and fast and were quick to pull their irons. But for the most part, they didn't go looking for someone to shoot. I get the feeling Hardin always had his eye out for a chance to add a notch to his yardstick.

Regards;

Dan C

sjc1 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2003, 07:20:13 AM »

Dan;
I feel that Hardin has to be looked at through the perspective of the time he lived in. Life had a different value placed upon it compared to today. The Texas Rangers, and I have read many of their accounts, viewed the life of a Mexican and Indian differently then we view those lives today. I think the lives of Blacks were viewed quite differently right after the Civil War then those lives are today. Values were different then than today. I believe that Hardin has to be viewed in the context of the time in which he lived. It is difficult for us to look back in history and judge the actions of others based upon on our values that we now have. I think Hardin may have killed based on his assumption, right or wrong, that if he did not he was going to be killed. Life was cheap except if it was your own.
I believe that the last half of the 19th. century was no doubt a very interesting time in our history.
Thank you for reading my post.

Capt Hamp Cox · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2003, 11:11:06 AM »

I'm not about to make excuses for Hardin (he's definitely not one of my favorite gunfighters), but I think that before judging him, one needs to take a close look at what was going on in Texas during the Civil War, and what transpired here during Reconstruction. A better knowledge of his environment won't justify his actions, but it may shed some light on how and why he got to be the way he was.

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2003, 01:57:51 PM »

Gentlemen;

I fully understand that certain values from certain areas of the US might cause one to place different races on different planes, but the truth is, based on the writings which date back much farther than the civil war, enlightened leaders recognized that all men were created equal. Please understand there is no paradox in those words as written by men who owned slaves. Both Jefferson and Washington recognized the evil of forced servitude and Washington took steps to see his slaves freed and taken care of. Jefferson would have done the same had not laws been enacted which prevented him doing what Washington had done. That said, I cannot find any law in effect at that time that allowed the murder of a law enforcement officer or a soldier regardless of race, yet Hardin was guilty of both crimes. The fact the soldiers he murdered were black matters not to me. I study history and write about it. I cannot find anything that would allow me to look at Hardin as a by-product of his time and place, anymore than I can look to ghetto scum who murder today and find reason to explain their behavior as understandable. To do so would be to brand the James gang as misunderstood outcasts who didn't know any better! Even back then, society was able to see the difference between productive members of society, and those who deserved 25 year prison sentences - which I believe Hardin served entirely. Regards;

Dan C

sjc1 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2003, 04:33:19 PM »

Dan: You say you study and write about history, therefore, may I suggest a book you may find interesting. It is Holt Collier by Minor Ferris Buchanan. Holt was born a slave in Mississippi, fought for Mississippi during the Civil War. He received a pension from the State of Mississippi because of his service. Was quite a bear hunter. He quided Teddy Roosevelt on two bear hunts and did in fact capture a bear and tie it to a tree for Roosevelt to shoot. Roosevelt did not do so and there began the "teddy bear" story. I think you will find it a very interesting read about a very interesting individual.
This has nothing to do with Hardin, I am just passing along something that I think you may find interesting.
By the way, I feel that history is extremely interesting, it does repeat itself and we unfortunately seem to never learn from it.

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2003, 02:38:42 AM »

sjc;

You're the second person to recommend that book recently. I'm going to have to find it. Thanks;

Dan C

williamlayton · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2003, 10:26:43 AM »

i breached the subject for two reasons 1) because i was raised in the town where he commited his first offence and had the chance to know very closely a relative of his 2) there seems to be, from the skimpy amount of research i have done, a vast gulf on the opinions concerning this individual.
there is a new book, as yet unready by me, that delves into the psychology, psycosis, mind of john wesley. i'm not sure without him being here this is very coclusive.
hardin was a complex individual-i believe he felt justified in all of his actions. this is the position, as i understand it, of most antisocial or people without any restraint from any kind of conscious( could be wrong-your corrections would be appreciated).
his great niece, ruth manning, was a defender of his. she said he was a nice boy--i remember her words. she had an uncle, who was a texas ranger, who took an almost neutral position on him-not really codemming him or condoning his actions, a most unusual stance for a texas ranger.
i know he did not seem to demonstrate much forsight when allowing himself to become entangled in most of the situations which ended in death of others and eventually himself. maybe he was just stupid or without the ability to see the end from the begenning. most of the situations look pretty obviouse from my perspective.
he did have an obvious disreguard for safty.
blessings

sjc1 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2003, 11:08:20 AM »

What I am attempting to convey in my posts above is that I, myself, cannot really judge Hardin today. I come from a different era. I am not saying that Hardin was justified in his killing, just that I cannot honestly judge him with my values. Hardin, coming from Texas after the Civil War, looked at events through different eyes than mind. I would speculate that after the Civil War that most anyone in a Union uniform may not have been greeted too warmly in Texas or anywhere in the South for that matter. Blacks in a Union uniform probably evoked emotions on an altogether different level. They is no doubt that Hardin was a very complex individual. Most people of interest usually are.
Thank you for reading my post.

Capt Hamp Cox · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2003, 12:32:34 PM »

At the time Hardin started his killing career, Texas was:

a. part of a "country" that had been defeated in war;
b. governed by officials who had not been elected by the populace;
c. policed by (in many instances) men of color who were considered to be inferior by those being policed.

It is true there were no laws "in effect at that time that allowed the murder of a law enforcement officer or a soldier regardless of race". It is also true that there were few in the community who would shed tears if a member of occupying military or the State Police were killed, and even fewer who would lend assistance in apprehending the guilty party. It must also be recognized that, rather than being the last resort in conflict resolution, violence tended to be the first, and, during the post Civil War period, people often ended up dead over what would now be considered minor incidents. ( It does sound sort of like the ghetto, doesn't it?) If the guilty party actualy reached the point of being tried by a jury of his peers (at least some of whom were sympathetic), odds were not great he would be convicted. They had lawyers back then too, remember? Don't you kind of wonder how Hardin could have killed as many as 43 men (some sources credit him with that number) and was only tried once?

With that said, I must reiterate what I implied in my earlier post. I don't think there was anything admirable about Hardin. I do think he was probably one of those individuals who felt no remorse whatsoever for his actions, and felt justified in what he did. I also feel strongly he was, to some degree, a product of his environment.

Incidentally, Hardin served 15, 17, or 19 years of his 25 year sentence (depending on the source) and was pardoned.

williamlayton · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2003, 03:32:05 PM »

did't leave much time in his short life (42 yrs) to kill all those folks. really a mjority we in that south central texas fued (however you spell it=not this way i'm sure). the one that makes me wonder about him is the guy he shot for snoring-if it really happened. anyway the opinions went about the ways i suspected--although i'm not covienced this is a justification-and i really am not saying anyone is trying to do that.
thanx, hamp for letting us take up the space.
blessings

Capt Hamp Cox · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2003, 04:20:12 PM »

This site has a rather lengthy piece on John Wesley Hardin that I think Dan Chamberlain might even agree with (check out The Deadliest Gunfighter). Has some other interesting gunfighter info also.

http://www.darkcanyon.net/gunfighters_of_the_old_west.htm

williamlayton · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2003, 12:53:53 AM »

good post-as usual.
blessings

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2003, 02:38:48 AM »

Let's not forget Commodore Perry when it comes to gun play with a rifle!
He rode into the ranch yard of an outlaw gang and killed at least 4 before riding out again...unmolested!

Dan C

williamlayton · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:02:00 PM »

:shock: well complete ignorance is obvious. who is commodore perry. i know of one ranger named perry but do not think tis him. sounds interesting--please add more info.
blessings

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2003, 02:22:59 PM »

Comodore Perry Owens. He wasn't a comodore...that was his first name! He was a buffalo runner and Arizona lawman. There was a feud between two families named Tewksbury and Graham in 1886 to 1892. Typical sheep versus cattle thing. Anyway, in 1887 a tough named Andy Cooper ambushed John Tewksbury and William Jacobs. Comodore Perry Owens was sheriff of Apache County. He rode to the home of Andy's brother John. Owens rode in and climbed the stairs on the front porch and ordered Andy to surrender. Instead, Andy and a gent named Johnny Blevins came out guns drawn. The shooting started and Owens felled both men with his Winchester. A man named Mose Roberts joined in and joined the departed. A young Sam Houston Blevins took a hand and was mortally wounded, dying later. With no more work to be done, Owens remounted his horse and rode away. I can find no mention of Owens being involved in shady doings. He appears to be a genuine good "bad" man.

Dan C

Capt Hamp Cox · « **Reply #17 on:** February 17, 2003, 12:24:46 PM »

Here's an account of the event from Bill O'Neal's Encyclopedia of Western Gunfighters.

"September 4, 1887, Holbrook, Arizona.
On a Sunday afternoon Owens rode up to the Holbrook house of widowed Eva Blevins, who recently had lost her husband and one of her four sons in the Pleasant Valley War. Owens was looking for her boy Andy "Cooper," who had adopted an alias because he had killed two sheepmen in the Pleasant Valley feud and because he was sought by Texas authorities for past misdeeds. Owens approached the house with his Winchester cradled in his arms, and he spotted Andy, armed with a six-gun, peering through one of the two front doors. Owens and Andy fired simultaneously, and the lawman's bullet plowed through the door and sent Andy staggering back into the arms of his mother. Then John Blevins squeezed off a shot from the other front door, and Owens, still firing from the hip, shot him in the right shoulder. Owens ran to the side of the house just as Mose Roberts, a Blevins brother-in-law from Texas, hopped out a rear window brandishing a revolver. Owens dropped Roberts with one shot, then wheeled to meet another threat. The youngest Blevins boy, sixteen-year-old Sam Houston, ran onto the front porch with a six-gun, but Owens drilled him in the heart. Owens fired a few more shots through the thin walls of the house, but there was no one besides Eva Blevins and two other women left standing. Owens rode off, leaving only John Blevins to survive the shootout."

vacek · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2012, 06:36:32 AM »

I would like to revive this topic from a little different point of view. We know that John Wesley Hardin was raise in the Wesleyan theology which taught the fallen nature of man and in this context the definition of sin which by Wesley was knowining and willfully going against the known will of God.... Willful disobedience. Whereas the Calvinist definition is "imperfection" regardless of your will. Hardin willfully put himself in a lot of situations that resulted in others being killed. I guess there may be some argument for the "time and place" that influenced him, but he was also surrounded by good influence with his godly family and upbringing and willfully chose to go the other way. Was he wicked. Well, I gues all of us have strayed at one time or another but hopefully not to the point where several/many people die at our hand.

Regardless, he was a very interesting person, and intelligent.

smokehouserex · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2012, 09:01:13 PM »

Hello vacek:

A very good idea, IMO, I don't know a lot about his religious influence but what you stated is very interesting.
You know, sometimes people with this type of background seem to go either with it or try to go as far away from it as possible. He had to be a extremely violent person to kill people for such trivial offences as he is reported to have done.
He too must have been very intelligent because he was said to have become a lawyer while doing time, I believe that it was also said that he was some sort of a minister while in prison which was one reason for his early paroll as well as good behavior. A complex individual, probably some mental disorder also, maybe mulitiple personalities because we see major differencies that seem to be polar opposites?

?
John Wesley must have had a big ego also, we read about him shooting playing cards and selling them and doing feats of marksmanship for a crowd, he must have loved the attention as well.
These were just a few thoughts for us to consider.
Without a doubt one of the most well-known of the western "Shootist" to us who love the tales of the Old West.
I enjoyed your post, maybe it will be revisited and discussed in depth.
thank you
HM

Duke0313 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 25, 2012, 05:32:01 PM »

Hardin never killed anyone who didn't need killin'! His words, not mine. Hardin was a cold-blooded killer and probably would have been so at any other time or place in history. My words, not his.

vacek · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2012, 03:31:10 PM »

Smokehouse,

Thank you for your post. In some ways the "doctrine" of the time was more defined or taught than now. Most of the people I know (I teach a lot of Sunday School) are pretty much unaware of the doctrines and when it is taught it takes them back a little. I'm pretty confident that JWH was knowledgeable about the Wesleyan doctrine and practice and have wondered if / how he rationalized his behavior.