Talk:Hickok–Tutt shootout

Accuracy of Article

After reading this account about the Tutt-Hickok fight, I had some real problems with several aspects of what had been written, especially the statement that Hickok "rested his pistol on his off arm, took aim and fired." Not only is this not mentioned in the eye-witness accounts I've read, but it just doesn't make sense that he would take the time to do this in a gun fight where seconds can be the difference between life and death. I contacted Marshall Trimble, of True West Magazine, regarding the fight and the authenticity of the Wikipedia article. Trimble has been a published author for over thirty years, taught Arizona and Western history at Scottsdale Community College since 1972, and he regularly lectures about the Old West. In 1977, the governor of Arizona appointed him Official State Historian.

My question was this:

"After reading an article regarding the Hickok-Tutt fight, I have some reservations with certain aspects of the account, primarily with the scenario where Hickok "rests his pistol on his off arm", takes aim and fires. This just doesn't ring true, and doesn't hold with the accounts I've read. Did this actually happen?"

Today I received an E-mail from Trimble that reads as follows:

"Here's what the foremost expert on Wild Bill, Joe Rosa had to say:

'I do not know who started the story of the arm-rest hold, but probably the same one who claimed that Hickok shot Tutt when using a Colt's Dragoon.

In fact he used one of his Navy pistols from the holster and there was no "fast draw" but rather a carefully aimed shot, from 75 yards away, while on the move. Tutt who had turned sideways in dueling fashion, fired and missed, but Hickok did not.

I fear that too many people are misled by the crap about fast draw which never existed in the Old West, at least by that name. Rather, it was described as "quick" which means physically quick or "quick as thought" as Hickok's actions were described when he shot Coe at Abilene after being shot at twice.

All my best, old friend,

Joe'"

Other aspects of this article are suspect, such as where it is stated that Hickok "cocked his gun and returned it to his holster", that Tutt was hit in the "left side" (a right-handed person, standing sideways in a dueling stance would be hit in the right side, and the coroner's report substantiates this), and that the two faced each other down in the classic "Mashall Dillon" gunfighter scenario (they were actually walking towards each other when Tutt reached for his gun and Hickok responded).

I've made several attempts to correct this post, but each time my correction has been replaced with the same erroneous account that I originally questioned.

One must note that the reference cited for the bulk of the gunfight "information" is "Wild Bill and His Era: The Life and Adventures of James Butler Hickok", published in 1933, an era infamous for liberal interpretations of history. The editors of the '20s and '30s are known for wanting an exciting yarn, not excruciatingly accurate history, and so allowed much legend, hearsay and speculation to be published as "fact". The idea was to sell books, not to give a history lesson. In the 60-odd years that have gone by since the publication of this book, attitudes towards historical accuracy have changed, and much new information has come to light. For a more accurate and thoroughly researched account of the fight, see "Wild Bill, gunfighter" by the above cited Joseph G. Rosa. Rosa is considered the authority on Wild Bill, having spent a lifetime researching the gunfighter, and is the only researcher who actually was granted access to original source material by the Hickok family, including letters, diaries and other materials. 216.17.175.181 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC) R. Larkins 5/17/09

I'm actually a bit wary of Rosa as his book reads more like a fanzine than a nuetral account. I can tell you where the idea Hickok used a Colt's Dragoon came from. It's in the History of Greene County, Missouri written in 1883, Bill...drew his revolver, a Colt's dragoon, with cap and ball. This source is interesting for it's description of Hickok, a drunken, swaggering fellow, who delighted when "on a spree" to frighten nervous men and timid women, After settling in Springfield a favorite diversion of his was to ride his horse on sidewalks and into saloons, hotels, stores, and other public places. Another source is Jim Dunham who is a "Wild West" firearm consultant for History Channel and gives lectures on "Wild West" history at the Booth Western Art Museum. This is how he explains it in his article on Hickok — "At the time of the shootout he owned .32 Smith and Wessons, .36 Colt Navies and .44 Colt Dragoons. Hickok was in the habit of "swapping" his usual sidearms for a larger caliber when expecting trouble. No one actually knows what guns he used but considering that he was expecting trouble (at least one account claims he fitted fresh caps to his gun the night before) it is very likely that he took the Dragoons with him." As for resting the gun on his forearm. In standard dueling position you face your opponent with the side opposite to your gun, ie left side facing for a right handed gunman and rest your gun on your left arm to steady it. Hickok himself in a letter he wrote in 1867 says he never used a "quickdraw" in a fight but took his time by raising his gun to eye level and sighting along the barrel, which is consistent with a dueling position but ambiguous on which way he faced. However, the 1883 account states: Just as Tutt reached the corner of the court-house and Campbell street, Bill called out, "Dave, don't you come across here with that watch." Tutt, as some say, drew his pistol, and almost instantly Bill fired, using one arm as a rest for his revolver. Wayne (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with the first writer, here. I've read some of the accounts and transcripts of the actual trial and Coroner's Inquirey and not once was this form of gunplay mentioned. To the second writer: If you want to rely on reports written for a minor County magazine during a time when writers were extremely loose with the truth and never allowed the facts to get in the way of a good yarn, versus the scholarly research by an internationally recognized authority on the subject, go right ahead, just don't try to convince me (or others) that you know anything about the subject. Do yourself a favor: read some Rosa for the real story, and leave the tall tales to the kiddies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.251.163 (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it rather arrogant to consider that a single historian is correct and all other historians and the contemporary sources they used are wrong? We can't write an article around a single source. Wayne (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the transcript of the trial was lost so you would only have read newspaper reports of the trial. The only official mention of what type of gun Hickok used says "a certain pistol of the value of five dollars" and one mention in a contemporaneous newspaper (which may have been wrong) said it was a "colts dragoon" which supports Dunham's reasoning. What source did Rosa use that said they were the navies? Nothing is certain in history and you need to keep in mind that even the date of the shootout is disputed. Wayne (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

19th vs. 21st Century Dollars

A dollar in 1865 could easily purchase what a hundred will today. Therefore, $200 then was more like $20,000 now, unless my math is off. Changed the article.

"What cost $200 in 1865 would cost $2781.72 in 2008". From an inflation calculator. Wayne (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

poorly written.

"Hickok had been born in Illinois, coming west after mistakenly thinking he had killed a man in a drunken brawl."

Who is he? No context and no context directly implied. 76.117.72.131 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I once read a biography of Hickock. In that book the story went something like this: Hickock was being bullied at work and got into a fight with the bully during which they went into the water. Hickock got out of the water first and other workers had to pull the unconscious bully out of the water and try to revive him. Thinking the bully had drowned, Hickock lit out for the west believing he would be arrested for murder. The bully was revived and so Hickock was not wanted for murder. 172.221.229.51 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Did Wild Bill Ever Recover the Watch?

What happened to the Waltham repeater gold pocket watch? Did it shatter when Hickok's bullet struck Tutt (or when the latter collapsed), and did Wild Bill recover it? ˜˜˜˜