Talk:Jesse James

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cody Vaughn

This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.

Contents 1 Bias 2 The Real Bias 3 Where the money is 4 DNA nitpicking 5 She Who?/ Please clarify 6 need for disambiguation ? 7 Jesse James in Music 8 Songs about Jesse James 9 Assassination? 10 James Family 11 Descendants and "Authorized" Voices 12 True Story 13 Place of Death 14 Jesse (Woodson) Robert James 15 Facts and Myths 16 Edited Introduction 17 Clay County and Kearney

[edit] Bias

This is one of the least neutral articles I've read in a while. The essay needs to be rewritten to stick to the facts of Jesse James life. At the moment it portrays the Union as something approaching the Third Reich Unsigned comment by 201.250.84.10, signed for "him by JimWae 2006-Jan-03

• Most of these POV insertions (including assuming that he faked his death) were made Nov 21 by [1]. I suggest we revert to the last by me on Nov 21 & work from there --JimWae 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Real Bias

I disagree that cody vaughn which has been redacted was biased and or portrayed "Union as something approaching the Third Reich." Particularly in that by removing any such discussions also removes the motivations behind the James-Younger gang, removes academic research into the clandestine organizations which backed the James-Younger gang, and removes discussion of causes behind what appear to be unexplainable acts of the James-Younger gang.

The fact remains that Union troops and their abolitionist militia auxilleries known as Red Legs have the largest number of atrocities ascribed to them in what was truly an atrocious civil war within the state of Missouri. Records of the period are distinct in representing the wholesale pillaging, burning, rape, and murder of Confederate sympathizers in Missouri. The animosity the Union forces in Missouri engendered, eventually caused later Missouri governments to conduct Congressional investigations which were authoritative in judging Union activities during and after the war as nothing short of crimes against humanity.

Additionally, it is clear from growing research into the James-Younger gang and other groups after the war, that there were socio-economic reasons for the increase in outlawery. These were rooted in Union sectional, political, and class imperialism against the Southern sectional, political, and class structure. By refusing to discuss actions by Northern interests which illuminate this socio-economic oppression, we fail to understand the reasons behind the growth of groups such as the James-Younger gang in post-bellum America.

Rather than impugn the James character with surreptitious remarks about his family such as "hemp-growing...slave owning...timid step-father", which have really no baring on characteristics which might illuminate the James-Younger gang activities, let us stick to real facts such as that the James family were prosperious minor plantation owners of the gentry class, were literate and educated, had helped settle and pacify the region for American civilization, but then had that honor, wealth, and status literally stolen and degraded in a vicious civil war which left Missouri in ruins. Such an illumination would much more reveal the motivations behind Jesse James than that his step-father was a timid hemp grower.

Although the most recent edit has included good biographical information regarding James-Younger activities, they fail to mention that much of the James-Younger activities were targeted upon "scallawag" and "carpetbagger" institutions and individuals. For instance, the notorious Northfield raid was targeted upon a bank owned by two villified Reconstruction Union occupation military governors who were heavily tied to Republican Party establishment figures, especially those which were developing a stranglehold on economic resources in the nation and were attempting to expand that control into areas such as Missouri.

Additionally, the failure of the Northfield raid, the demise of the gang's members, and the dissappearence of the James brothers coincides with a drop-off in other outlaw acts by other gangs. Considering the likely use of counter-intelligence and criminal investigation methods by the aforementioned Republican establishment against a political background of ending Reconstruction government, it is highly likely that the James gang and others ceased operating simply because of larger socio-economic factors involving successful implementation of political oppression techniques. In other words, the James gang was part of an organized effort to resist Northern interests in the Post-bellum period, and that resistence became increasingly tenuous as political factors changed. By ignoring those factors we fail to read the underlying ground upon which the James-Younger gang travelled in it's resistence.

By ignoring Union atrocities we fail to understand the motivation of the James-Younger gang. By censoring data regarding Confederate Partisan Ranger activities to fit a prescribed political viewpoint we fail to read the networks and methodologies which made outlawery successful in the post-bellum period. By inserting ridiculously inane remarks about "hemp growing" and "timidity" or other such slights, it is revealed were the real bias originates from. Lets look at history with unvarnished eyes, not the cynical ones of a propogandist. Consequently I suggest we work from the last edit and build upon that which includes the best biographical data from several viewpoints and sources.-American_cavalier@yahoo.com

[edit] Where the money is

He is reported to have said: "Why do I rob banks? Because that is where the money is!"

Is there a source for that? The only instances I can find by Googling are things like 'how to get your business working' seminars that ask "Why did Jesse James rob banks?" and answer "It's where the money is", without actually attributing the quote to him. The line's more usually attributed to Willie Sutton, who credits it to "some enterprising reporter who apparently felt a need to fill out his copy".

If there's a better source for this, go ahead and re-add it. --Calair 23:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I only moved the quote from an odd placement by a previous anon editor. It was too apt to be true vandalism. I don't know whether the quote is valid or not, but it sounds like a nice little research project. I'd add it to my to do list, but it's very long at the moment. Perhaps someone has a biography that might address it? Comments welcome. WBardwin 04:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think it was vandalism either, just dubious about the accuracy - I can see how the quote from Sutton might be turned into a joke about a more famous robber, and then reinterpreted as a quote, and without supporting evidence that's my best guess as to what's happened here. --Calair 07:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DNA nitpicking

I reworded the claim that "DNA analysis gave a 99.7% probability that [the Missouri body] was Jesse James" because this misrepresents the nature of DNA testing. DNA tests can't give that sort of information, because that probability depends on a lot of other factors, some of which can't easily be quantified. It's not clear exactly what the "99.7%" number *does* properly refer to - it doesn't appear in the linked mitochondrial DNA analysis - but it is most likely equivalent to "only 0.3% of people would match the reference DNA samples from James' known relatives as closely as this sample does".

I know some of the newspaper articles about this report represented it as "a 99.7% probability that the body was Jesse James"; they got it wrong too. This is a common misunderstanding about DNA testing; one of these days I'll get around to writing it up on a DNA-related page, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. --Calair 00:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] She Who?/ Please clarify

"Jesse James had married his own first cousin, named Zerelda Mims after his mother, after a nine-year courtship. They had three children, Jesse Edwards, there was also a child that did not survive long, and Mary. She and Frank James' wife tried to get the brothers to take on a more normal life, and with a $10,000 reward on his head....." --does this "she" refer to Jesse's wife, or his daughter Mary? J. Van Meter 15:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] need for disambiguation ?

It appears that Jesse James play in the movie: The Butterfly Effect.

A disambiguation page wouldn't be a good idea ?

ZeroJanvier 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse James in Music

One of the most significant examples of Jesse James in music is the musical "Diamond Studs - The Life of Jesse James", a musical by Jim Wann and Bland Simpson. It accurately (and with great humor) follows the major events of Jesse Jame's life with some of the finest move-your-ass southern music (covering everything from old-time, folk, ballads, soul, rock, through gospel). I think it made it to off-broadway in the 70's and has seen a recent revival (see "www.studsatthebarn.com").

I thought that the line Dylan (in Outlaw Blues) said "I might look like Robert Frost." Max 097 01:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs about Jesse James

The pogues did not write the song Jesse James. Most sources list the song as Traditional but I believe this version may be based on a Woody Guthrie version of the song due to its similarity to songs such as Jesus Christ.

[edit] Assassination?

Why is James' killing listed as such? An assassination is a politically motivated killing; Ford's reasonings probably had more to do with collecting the reward and/or wiping out a criminal. Matt Deres 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to above

as.sas.si.na.tion (noun) 1. to murder by sudden or secret attack. (Merriam Webster dictionary)

The word assassination has nothing to do with political motives, but political extremists may use assassination to obtain their objective(s). You are correct that Robert Ford's reasoning for the murder of Jesse James was based on collecting a reward. He thus assassinated James in order to collect said reward. Jeff Soapy Smith 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This jumped out at me too. In the USA the word "assassination" is almost always used to mean the murder of an important political leader. Even if this is not the meaning intended that is what most Americans will think. Why not just title the section "Death"? Steve Dufour 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I went ahead and did that? No one can argue with the fact that he died; while if you use the other word you are confusing the readers. Steve Dufour 05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I would object, for one. There is no confusion in the definition. The Fords were offered pay, to give information to lawmen, and to do away with James, if they could. That is assassination in definition. Just because some people think it only applies to political motives, is no reason we need to change the definition of a word. Ford did not just kill Jesse James. He planned and waited for the perfect moment. Soapy 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the facts. You know 100 times more than I do about it anyway. All I am trying to say is that the word "assassination" is going to confuse lots of people. Better to let them read the story and make up their own minds. Steve Dufour 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Family

Among the definitions for the word "family," Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary cites the following: "a succession of persons connected by blood, name, etc.; a house, line, clan, tribe; race." Under this definition, the use of the word appears entirely applicable in the sense it is being used to identify the James family's web site, Stray Leaves, in the External Links section.

The "legal reasons" that have been asserted to object to use of the word are vague, indefinite, unspecific, and lack citations of law. A further assertion states that use of the term "The Family" is a nebulous and disputable claim. Indeed it is . . . if one is not part of that specific family. The family of Jesse James has disputed such claims for years, first in the lawsuit brought against John James, a hapless claimant and imposter who was determined to be mentally insane, and in the case of J. Frank Dalton, a con artist. Both of these claimants to the Jesse James family appeared in the FBI file on Jesse James because they were charlatans and frauds. However, Jesse James himself did not appear in the FBI file because he indeed was recognized for who he was. More recent claimants have been disputed in public forums by James family members, acting as authorized voices for the Jesse James family, as well as by other advocates who are simply interested. Most James family claimants eventually disprove themselves. The use of the term in this circumstance is not "nebulous and disputable" because factually Stray Leaves is published by the family relations of Jesse James. They contribute to it. They employ the web site Stray Leaves as the family's own voice, as it did recently in reporting of the family's exhumation of Jesse James' twin children. And its claim to be the offical web site of the family of Jesse James can be substantiated in a court of law.

Other assertions also made include the following: "No web site can claim to represent 100% of the James family." No such representation is made. It would be a foolish assumption. The James family has only been able to define itself within the past decade, after considerable research at extraordinary expense in both time and money. No family can ever define itself in utter totallity. It's a mathematical impossibility. The James family makes no such representation.

Another assertion is: "given that Jesse James is a 19th century historical figure, no web site can claim to be the authorized voice of all of his living relations." Deceased historical figures can indeed have authorized voices. Elvis Presley has his. So does Liberace. No one would ever question the house of Windsor if Prince Charles, or any of the Windsor family, made reference to George V their 19th century ancestor. In fact, one would expect that Prince Charles' voice is indeed an "authorized voice." Still, George V has his biographers, both authorized and not authorized by the Windsor family. But is Prince Charles an authorized voice for every relation of his, including his own relations within the Jesse James family? Certainly not. Is Prince Charles entitled to characterize himself as an official family member of George V. By all means.

Stray Leaves has been published by the family of Jesse James for a decade. In all that time no such assertions have been made, as those which have appeared here. JamesPreservationTrust 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Eric James, President, The James Preservation Trust

[edit] Descendants and "Authorized" Voices

Regarding the post just above, I agree that relatives of Jesse James (that is, a subset of all possible relatives) can get together, put up a website, and call it the Official Website of Jesse James's Family. I don't see a problem there. But this strangely touchy and defensive posting takes a wacky and logically incorrect turn, when it starts going on about authorized voices.

Authorized voice of the family? OK by me, even if it's a partial family, or even distant relations. But authorized voice of Jesse James himself? That's what this post implies, when it starts going on about Elvis, Liberace, and the British royal family, beginning with this line: "Deceased historical figures can indeed have authorized voices."

If Elvis authorized a biographer or writer to represent his point of view when he was alive, then yeah, he's got an authorized voice, dead now or not. But Jesse James? He no more has an authorized voice than George Washington or Genghis Khan. If you have some relationship, even if it's pretty distant, you can speak for "family," but that doesn't give you a claim on any authority over Jesse James. God knows I wouldn't want my cousins or uncles or nieces claiming to be my authorized voice, just because we have some common ancestor. At least I'm alive to say so, but Jesse James didn't get a choice.

I agree, there are no real legal objections--call yourselves the official site, and God bless you. But no one can be the "authorized voice" of a fellow who got shot in 1882, after living in secret all his life. You might as well claim to be the authorized voice of Ivan the Terrible, because your family tree shows you're his great-great-x1000-nephew. Good luck with that.

One more thing: Authorized biographies are always the worst. They're usually so dutiful, without enough distance from the subject. So we can thank our lucky stars there can be never be an authorized biography of Jesse James. --Cliometrician

---To the person who wrote the above, but did not sign their name: The reason it sounds odd is that you are only seeing one side of a past argument with a vandal who daily changed the James' family external link, arguing that they were not the official family voice, which they are. Yes, families can speak offically for their deceased relatives. After a certain amount of time, the legal representation may end, but they are still offical representatives as far as the history of the deceased. Soapy 06:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---To Mr. Soapy: If you refresh this page, you'll see that I added my log-in name. My friend, I must disagree. I followed the argument very well as far as control over the link. Makes sense--I buy it. But it does not lead to the conclusion that you're now supporting: "Yes, families can speak offically for their deceased relatives."

Living persons, as individuals or as families, can speak officially, legally, and every other way for themselves, but a long-dead public figure like Jesse James is public domain. People will write and argue about him from here to eternity, and the only authority anyone can claim comes from doing their homework and making sense.

Frankly, I don't know what "official" means, as far as what you're saying goes. Is it a claim to greater knowledge? You only get that by conducting research, not from blood. (Andrew Jackson's great-great-great-grandson can tell me Jackson was eight feet tall, and even believe it, but it doesn't make it true). Is it a claim to legal authority? No, you already let go of that one. So it seems like "official" means to you: "I feel a special connection to this historical subject because we have some common ancestor, or this person is my direct ancestor." In other words, "official" means a subjective emotional state on the part of the living person. Well, allright, I respect that, but does it mean anything for anyone else?

This is all a tempest in a teapot, because I don't see that it has led to anyone messing around with content (except for the link issue, which seems to have settled down). My point is that the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to invite everybody who is knowledgeable about a subject to contribute, and errors or strong POV will be caught by other people. It's democracy of knowledge. But talk about "official" and "authorized voices" of people who've been dead for 120 years goes against that. I'm arguing a principle: expertise is expertise, and that's it. --Cliometrician

--To Mr. Cliometrician: Thank you for adding your name to your posting. I agree with you that living persons can speak officially (and legally) for themselves, and I agree with you that a deceased relative's history, becomes public domain after a number of decades. I used the term official, not in a legal manner (nor does the James family), but in a historical and genealogical sense. They are the official family spokespersons, and are accepted as such, by much of the historical community. No, not everyone accepts them, and no, they can not possibly speak for all members of the family, just as the President of the United States cannot possibly speak for all of us. I cannot speak for the James' but I do know several of the key members of the family Trust, and feel they have gone through the same process my family has, when forming our official-dom.

As with the James family, my family, in regards to Soapy Smith has invested over one hundred years, researching, collecting, and studying our infamous descendants. Our families have invested more time and effort into historical research than anyone on the outside of the family could ever wish to accomplish on their own. Our families have an access to information that others do not. Because many of the interested family members saw the family unit as a vast bank of knowledge, we formed an official trust to officially speak for the desceased. No one in my family has contested the issue of having "spokespersons" for several decades, and I am sure it is the same way within the James family. For the most part the vast network of historians has also accepted our families claim to being the official spokes-persons. The main reason my family does this, and I am sure it is the same with the James family, is for historical accuracy. You would not believe how busy I, myself am, in correcting false histories about Soapy Smith, that are still being published as truth. I had to completely re-write the Soapy Smith Wikipedia article, and it is still very vague. I am sure the James family has their job cut out for them. Now, when I speak of false histories, I am not saying that our families are trying to protect the good name of our deceased descendants. We are trying to protect the truth, good and bad. Because so many past (and present) historians use fill (False Information-Latent Lies) in writing, the truth becomes difficult to accept, even with documentation. It's the old story of, "Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth." I have author friends who still print that Soapy Smith was a cowboy, even though documentation shows this not to be the case.

The vandal who messed with the James family external link was obviously a jealous individual, who would not change any of the content of the article, because he/she did not know the history. I can only guess that he/she just could not stand that there was an official stance on the subject. Perhaps he/she always thought of themselves as the last word on history. Many people are like that. I remember, a few years ago, when I corrected the spelling in a magazine article on Ed O'Kelley (the man who shot Bob Ford). The spelling of O'Kelley came from the family descendants, but this author spelled it Ed O. Kelly, and then insisted, in the pages of the magazine, that the family was misspelling their own name!

Wikipedia IS a place of knowledge, where anyone can contribute information, but the purpose of an encyclopedia, of which Wikipedia wishes to emulate, is information...true information, not errors and POV. Where better to get truth in information than from those who have spent decades finding it. As you said, "expertise is expertise, and that's it." Soapy 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To Cliometrician...As I read your concern, it appears to deduct that no one can speak for the deceased, specifically one who’s been dead for 120 years. And the family of the deceased may not speak in any “official” or authoritative or “authorized” capacity regarding the deceased.. We respectfully disagree.

Let us offer you a hypothetical scenario that may assist you in understanding why we disagree. Presume the following: You yourself know you have 7 aunts and uncles, all of whom are deceased. But someone publishes a piece that states you have 9 aunts and uncles. The piece then broadcasts widely about the two you don’t know. The story appears plausible. There’s some evidence, but not enough to substantiate the issue conclusively. But other people are beginning to believe it is true that you have 9 aunts and uncles and not the 7 you claim. At this point, the cliometrician in you knows the historical statistics are 7 and not 9. Do you as a cliometrican argue the principle you would have us believe that “expertise is expertise, and that’s it.” It’s 7 aunts and uncles, not 9. Or do you claim your authority as a family member to state, “Our family knows nothing about these other two aunts and uncles. No evidence of them exists among the family. In fact, there is evidence that the existence of two additional aunts & uncles would have been impossible. And we are prepared to make our case before a court of law”? It’s our belief most people would prefer you to assert your authority as family, not as a statistician of history, even though you never were authorized to do so by your deceased aunts and uncles.

Jesse James left no power of attorney to defend himself. Nor did his immediate family establish a foundation to protect and defend his identity. The fact is, no such lawful opportunity was afforded the family at the time of his death. Percentage wise, Jesse James evaporates daily into mythology as the facts regarding him recede.

The family of Jesse James historically has had itself challenged and assaulted at every turn. The family has defended its integrity and veracity against challengers and false claimants in courts of law, and the family has prevailed. The challenges are chronic, to the extreme of being pathological. They will not cease in this generation nor any other. A search of the internet will reveal many web sites devoted to the genealogy and history of Jesse James. Much of it false and inaccurate. Indeed, much of it intentionally so. The family cares nothing about the mythology of Jesse James. But it does care about fact. The family established The James Preservation Trust to preserve and disseminate its factual history. To this extent, the family will continue to act upon its “official” capacity and its authority to speak for itself and its members both living and dead, to differentiate the mythology from the fact. JamesPreservationTrust 29 June 2006 (UTC) Eric James, President, The James Preservation Trust

--To Eric James and Soapy Smith: First off, I respect and pay tribute to your interest in your long-deceased relatives, and your dedication to the facts. Same goes for the importance you place on your relationship. I know you've had plenty to defend against, in terms of false claims, such as the whole nonsense about a faked death.

But (and this is the last I'll say about it, because we will have to agree to disagree) if you think you have any claim over your ancestor's story, apart from the authority derived from your research into verifiable facts, then you are mistaken. Imagine that Lincoln's relatives were given authority to pronounce the various books about him true or false, simply because they were relatives. Ridiculous. The most solid books about Jesse James, including the hallmark by Professor Settle, were all written by nonrelatives, as far as I know.

Now, if you have done serious research because of your family connection and your desire to defend against all of these claims of "my grandpappy was the real Jesse James," more power to you. Hats off, and I mean it. But it's your research, your factual knowledge, that gives you authority, not your blood.

In Mr. James's last post, he used a hypothetical example of me "knowing" that I have so many uncles, and someone writing that I have a different number. Let me give you a counter example. My grandfather had a brother that no one ever mentioned--not my parents, not my grandparents. I only recently learned of him from an uncle, who said there had been a terrible falling out between my grandfather and his brother. I "knew" that I had no great-uncle. I was wrong. What if some writer had dug up the birth certificate, and proved it before I heard of it from my uncle? I would actually know less, because I was relying on what I "knew" from being a family member, and not from a documentary source.

So there we have it: If you are conducting and encouraging serious, hard research, then your family connection has served you well, and serves all of us well. But it's the research, not the blood, that makes knowledge. There's no aristocracy in America, in politics or in knowledge; blood alone doesn't mean anything on that score, except how it motivates you to go out and do good, hard work in digging up facts.

So we disagree on a definition, but not on the goal. --Cliometrician

[edit] True Story

Jesse and Frank James onced helped out a old lady with giving her 900 dollars to pay off her debt to the bank after she let them in her house on a rainy night and gave them dry clothes and food and let them sleep in her house.

[edit] Place of Death

Where did he die? 75pickup (talk • contribs)

[edit] Jesse (Woodson) Robert James

Jesse James real birth name is (Jesse Robert James) named after his father whom deserted the family and ran off to the gold fields of California. I'm inclined to believe Jesse later changed his middle name to (Woodson) in defiance of his fathers actions. See 1850 US Census for verification.

70.57.165.87 13:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Richard M. James

A short bio here suggests that his father did not desert the family: [2]--Chops79 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts and Myths

Stray Leaves, the James Family Website has a list of Facts and Myths researched by historian Phil Stewart, who is indicated as having been the former historian of the Jesse James Farm and Museum: Facts and Myths--Chops79 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited Introduction

The introduction formerly indicated that the James' life of crime was due to injustices from railroad companies and "untimely" death of their mother leading them to take revenge on railroads. In fact, their mother outlived both of them, surviving to the age of 86. Their first robberies were banks, not railroads. They didn't rob a train until at least five years into their criminal career. Dabarkey 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clay County and Kearney

The statement, "Jesse Woodson James was born in Clay County, Missouri (later renamed Kearney)", is inaccurate. James was born in Clay County, but Clay County was not renamed Kearney. Kearney (pronounced kar'-nee in Missouri) is a town in Clay County.