McCanles Massacre – A WPA Interview
The McCanles Massacre, a tragic and controversial event steeped in the lore of the American West, continues to fascinate and confound historians and enthusiasts alike. Occurring on July 12, 1861, near present-day Fairbury, Nebraska, at the Rock Creek Station, the incident resulted in the deaths of David McCanles and several of his men at the hands of James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok. The truth behind the McCanles Massacre remains shrouded in conflicting accounts, personal biases, and the passage of time, making it difficult to ascertain a definitive narrative. This article delves into a transcribed interview conducted in 1938 by a Work Projects Administration (WPA) writer with F. J. Elliott, offering a glimpse into the perspectives and local knowledge surrounding this infamous episode.
The WPA, established during the Great Depression, aimed to provide employment through various public works projects, including documenting historical events and collecting oral histories. George Hartman, a WPA writer from Lincoln, Nebraska, interviewed F. J. Elliott of Wilbur, Nebraska, on November 26, 1938, seeking to gather insights into the McCanles Massacre. The interview, presented here in an edited format for clarity and readability, reflects the prevailing sentiments and interpretations of the event within the local community nearly eighty years after it transpired.
The article begins by acknowledging the enduring interest in the McCanles Massacre and the challenges in uncovering the absolute truth. The author, writing in 1938, expresses skepticism about ever fully knowing the facts, citing the conflicting accounts and the passing of key witnesses. He notes that William Monroe McCanles, a son of David McCanles who was twelve years old at the time of the event, only recently shared his version of the story, raising concerns about its reliability given the absence of corroborating testimonies from individuals who directly knew the involved parties.
The author emphasizes that those who support differing accounts of the McCanles Massacre are "honest, upright people" who based their knowledge on the stories passed down from their parents, who, in turn, had personal interactions with David McCanles and Wild Bill Hickok. This highlights the deeply personal and familial nature of the narratives surrounding the event, suggesting that perspectives were often shaped by loyalty, local reputations, and inherited biases. The author explicitly states his desire not to offend the McCanles family or those who knew them, acknowledging the sensitivity surrounding the subject matter.
The article then presents two primary accounts of the McCanles Massacre. The first is drawn from an old history book published around 1882, which attributes its information to S.C. Jenkins and S.J. Alexander, who arrived at the Rock Creek Station shortly after the killings, as well as reports from Wild Bill Hickok’s trial. This account portrays McCanles as a Southern sympathizer who sought to enlist Hickok’s support in disrupting the stage company’s operations. When Hickok refused, McCanles allegedly threatened him, leading to the deadly confrontation. According to this version, Hickok acted in self-defense, a claim that was supported by the lack of opposing witnesses at his trial in Beatrice, Nebraska, resulting in his acquittal.
The second account is attributed to William McCanles Jr., David McCanles’ son, as published in the Fairbury Journal on September 25, 1930. This version suggests that Hickok’s motive was fear, stemming from McCanles’ threat to forcibly remove a man named Wellman from the station, where he was living. This account implies that Hickok preemptively acted to protect Wellman from McCanles’ aggression, suggesting that the killing was not necessarily a direct act of self-defense but rather a response to McCanles’ intimidating behavior. The article’s author interprets this account as potentially justifying Hickok’s actions, arguing that McCanles was attempting to force his way into another man’s home.
The article further elaborates on the character of David McCanles based on local anecdotes and testimonies. It mentions that those whose parents knew McCanles often described him as "brutal and overbearing." The author questions why William McCanles Jr., as an eyewitness, did not testify against Hickok at the trial, raising doubts about the completeness and veracity of his account.
The article then shifts to recount a conversation with an unnamed individual whose family were neighbors of the McCanles family. This individual recalls that Mrs. McCanles never blamed Wild Bill for the incident. The story also introduces Kate Shell, who ran a store near the west station and sold supplies and whiskey to travelers on the Oregon Trail. The article mentions that Mrs. McCanles disliked Shell but was sometimes forced to invite her to dinner, highlighting the social dynamics and potential rivalries within the community. The article further alludes to an article in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent that allegedly discussed Kate Shell’s role in the events, though without providing specific details.
The article also describes the toll bridge operated by McCanles, noting that it was a significant source of income. The author recounts that travelers were often forced to pay the toll, even though a nearby crossing existed, due to threats of trespassing. This paints a picture of McCanles as a shrewd and potentially unscrupulous businessman.
The article includes an excerpt from a Colorado newspaper featuring the reminiscences of a man named Blancett, whose father operated a stage station on the Oregon Trail. Blancett knew both Wild Bill Hickok and David McCanles. He describes Hickok as a man of action, not words, and a skilled gunslinger who only used his weapons in the line of duty or when provoked. Blancett notes that Hickok was not initially known as "Wild Bill" and that the moniker became widespread later in his life. Blancett claims that Hickok drew his gun first in the dispute with McCanles, although the reason for the dispute remains unclear. Blancett concludes by stating that Hickok was a "perfect gentleman" to those who minded their own business and were not overly inquisitive.
The article then quotes a story from the Fairbury Journal about George Jenkins, whose father was among the first permanent settlers in the area and served as a county official. Jenkins recalls hearing his parents recount the McCanles Massacre numerous times. According to Jenkins, his father said that McCanles had threatened to steal livestock for the Confederacy, prompting the settlers to organize in resistance. Jenkins’ mother expressed relief upon learning of McCanles’ death, and his father helped bury the bodies of McCanles and his men. The prevailing sentiment in the Jenkins household was that McCanles was a "wild reckless man and a Southern sympathizer."
Another account from the DeWitt Times News is presented, attributed to the foreman of the state stations. This man recounts that Hickok stopped at the McCanles home on his way to the trial in Beatrice, expressed his sorrow to Mrs. McCanles, and gave her $35.00, which was all the money he had at the time. This act of contrition suggests a degree of remorse on Hickok’s part, even if he maintained that he acted in self-defense. The foreman also confirms that Hickok’s trial lasted only fifteen minutes and that he was acquitted due to the lack of opposing witnesses.
Finally, the article provides biographical information about Wild Bill Hickok’s family, drawing from an old history of La Salle County, Illinois. It traces Hickok’s father’s migration from Vermont to Illinois and highlights his role as a deacon in the Presbyterian Church and a store owner. The article describes Wild Bill as a tall, athletic man who was more than a match for the "roughs" he encountered on the frontier. It mentions his service with Jim Lane in the Kansas troubles and his roles as a constable and a U.S. Marshal. The article concludes by recounting Hickok’s murder in Deadwood, South Dakota, and the subsequent trial and execution of his assailant.
In conclusion, this WPA interview offers a valuable, if incomplete, window into the local perceptions and interpretations of the McCanles Massacre in the late 1930s. It highlights the conflicting narratives, personal biases, and enduring mysteries that continue to surround this pivotal event in the history of the American West. The McCanles Massacre, as presented through these accounts, remains a complex and contested historical episode, defying easy categorization and demanding careful consideration of the multiple perspectives involved.