Talk:John Joel Glanton

Glanton Gang command

Technically, Glanton is in command, not second to the Judge.

It's not even technical. Glanton was always in command. — LlywelynII 14:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Naked Horse

Naked Horse was the Yuma Valuable Man who opposed Glanton and Glanton's take-over of the Yuma Ferry from Able Lincoln around the middle of February, 1850. Naked Horse had been the Valuable man of War for the Yuma for thirteen years. The Yuma Valuable Man "Santiago" was the person who took care of Yuma law at the time.

In April of 1850 Naked Horse held council and it was decided that Glanton and his gang of murderers and rapists had to be destroyed. Naked Horse and his warriors carried out the task professionally and methodically, killing Glanton and his gang while leaving the Mexicans and eastern invaders at peace and unmolested.

Naked Horse eventually helped run the new ferry, using the ferry scows and equipment that General Patterson and his men had built (taking six days).--Desertphile

Obviously this needs sourcing. — LlywelynII 14:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Death

I read in some old school magazine from the '40s that I found on Google Books, it said the massacre at the Gila River ferry when Glanton died occurred April 23, 1850. I'll try to find the link.24.78.210.56 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. I can't recall the link but I found that same magazine on Google Books I think. The Yuma massacre was April 23, 1850 and I am about to change the article thus.24.78.130.38 (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Name

The Early Life and Education section says:

Glanton (sometimes spelled "Gallantin")

Is there any evidence for that? Reference 1 doesn't cover it, and the variant name seems entirely based on endnote 33 in the Flashman novel (see the In literature section), which has the claim: "Gallantin (also known as Glanton)".Idontcareanymore (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One assumes there was such a source or record but it's not in the TSHO article so it bears removing for now. — LlywelynII 14:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Jackson Co., Arkansas Territory

Note that while TSHO is technically correct for the location during this era, later reorganizations placed the Roddy plantation in present-day Woodruff County. It seems more helpful to provide the present-day location than the area's former name when there was no settlement apart from the plantation. — LlywelynII 14:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

TSHO and Sloane Rodgers

So... (a) apparently the "reliable" source here is obviously wrong in at least some respects (Glanton's father was dead by 1835 and his stepfather isn't recorded leaving the plantation) because of its 1950's author's overcredulous treatment of primary sources that seem to have been repeating rumors or Glanton's own embellishment of his past. (b) The "unreliable" source is a respected historical researcher who just can't be arsed to polish and publish her own work, posting it to Find a Grave and the other researchers on their boards. Fair enough, we could just ignore her... except that (c) the reliable source here has even acknowledged how right she is, how wrong it was, and corrected its previous content... in part.

The important part they didn't fix was all the nonsense myth about Glanton showing up like a psychopathic parody of Forrest Gump to every important action in the Texan Revolution except the Alamo. That does show up in later accounts, but they were repeating rumors and tall tales, which Rodgers hasn't found any corroborating paper trail at all for. We should keep TSHO pending better sources but—awkward as her publishing trail is—I do think it's necessary to mark out the lack of expected records or mention of the guy during what's claimed to have been his first stint in Texas and necessary to remove any obviously wrong claims (both parents living in Gonzales in 1835) even when the TSHO still includes it. — LlywelynII 16:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Further mistakes. The current text of the TSHO article is out of order and wrong again, talking about an 1847 enlistment before discussing deserting Capt. Truit's company in Hays's regiment on 18 October "1846" to mourn the death of his young son by a wedding officiated in October 1846. Unless he actually married a woman 9+ months pregnant when he had been in a different state 9+ months previously and deserted a company that didn't actually exist based on all other records of Hays's 1846 command, the 1846 desertion is an error in a record or its transcription that was actually talking about an event that happened in 1847. — LlywelynII 15:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Glanton Massacre

"Other highly-sensationalized accounts claim they destroyed a boat and killed some Quechans operating a rival ferry near Pilot Knob." Don´t get me wrong here, but I think there are reliable sources to argue in a similar direction. Specifically Joel Hyer https://www.missouriwestern.edu/las/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/04/CV-Joel-Hyer.pdf] in "We are not savages": Native Americans in Southern California and the Pala Reservation, 1840-1920. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press 2001. He an Jack D. Forbes in "Warriors of Colorado" Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1965 are atleast for me, not sensationalized sources. In fact both of them are mentioning more details than the article has today. First of all the Glanton gang did attack the Quechchan Ferry and killed the Irish ferryman Callaghan before pitching his body into the water, Forbes argues. But what led to an escalation was the reaction of the gang to a compromise idea. They would split the cargo of both ferries. A diffrent behaviour of the Quechans appeared just shortly after the Glanton gang beat up a Quechan as their reaction to the offer. Certainly it can not be proofed 100%, but I strongly belive that the Glanton Massacre was not onesided effected by the Quechan tribe. Furthermore a false storytelling by the survived men led to the Yuma War. This war was only justified by denying the brutality of the Glanton gang. In general the whole paragraph is a contrast to the named sources, especially the Quechan side is not mentiond enough, so it feels like the Glanton gang was just a victim of the Quechans what clearly is not the case. I would hope this paragraph gets fixed any time soon. 2001:9E8:1864:D200:E504:B88F:9398:4C68 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)