That Fiend in Hell: Soapy Smith's Denver reign in the Haigh dissertation.

Soapy Smith in front-page cartoon
(3rd from left at the table)

Rocky Mountain News, October 16, 1892

(Click image to enlarge)

In 2009 Jane G. Haigh completed her dissertation for a PhD in history and American Indian studies at the  University of Arizona. The title of her work is Political Power, Patronage, and Protection Rackets: Con Men and Political Corruption in Denver 1889-1894.

On page 8 of That Fiend in Hell, Cathy Spude incorrectly states that Jane Haigh

dispels the notion that Smith was influential in Denver politics, concluding that he was used by the Denver politicians as a tool to buy votes. 

Spude goes on to expand Haigh's supposed "conclusion" by stating that Soapy's "infamy" came from "the pleasure Denver newspapermen took in making fun of him—and by extension the candidates that he supported—than any real influence he had in Denver politics." Spude gives Haigh a general footnote credit, which cites no page(s), and adds how "This conclusion" should be taken into account in evaluating "Smith's overall legend."

I own a copy of Haigh's dissertation, have read it thoroughly and looked back through it numerous times. I found it well written and informative, but I also found that Haigh presents a very different history than the one of which Spude writes. Nowhere in the dissertation does Haigh indicate that Soapy was merely a tool, that Denver newspapermen took Soapy's reign lightly, or that they made fun of him. On the contrary, Haigh does write that "The most well known con man in Denver was Jefferson Randolph 'Soapy' Smith..." (p. 38). To demonstrate Soapy's prominence and degree of influence, Haigh quotes numerous newspaper accounts, such as this one published on July 29, 1889, in Denver's Rocky Mountain News: 

Soapy, in the language of the fly-by-night fraternity “has” Denver…. He has it to do with what he will in so far as all professional swindling and stealing is concerned…. The city is absolutely under the control of this prince of knaves, and there is not a confidence man, a sneak thief, or any other parasite upon the public who does not pursue his avocation under license from the man who has become great through the power vested in him by those whose sworn duty it is to administer the laws without fear or favor. (Dissertation, p. 77; also see more of this article in Alias Soapy Smith, pp. 145-46. The article includes this subtitle in capitals: "HE OWNS THE TOWN.")

Haigh adds the following:

Arkins [editor and owner of the Rocky Mountain News] was correct that in addition to his personal soap game and gambling, Soapy Smith had gained control of a downtown protection racket that exercised authority over the operations of thieves and con men, and paid off the police on behalf of all. Soapy developed this practice in Denver, perfected it in Creede, Colorado at the height of the brief silver rush, and later applied it to his advantage at Skagway, Alaska at the beginning of the Klondike Gold Rush.  (Dissertation, p. 77)

An examination of the dissertation shows that the "conclusion" Cathy Spude claims Jane Haigh draws does not belong to Haigh but to Spude and Spude alone.

 

That Fiend in Hell: On good and not-so-good comments.

M. J. Kirchhoff's new book

A difference is apparent between the book review comments made by those who have not researched Soapy Smith and those who have.

Cathy Spude's website contains seven comments about That Fiend in Hell by various writers, researchers, and publishers. Of these, only William H. Hunt is known to have published anything about Soapy Smith in Alaska (Chapter 5, "Vigilantes," Distant Justice: Policing the Alaskan Frontier, 1987). Unfortunately, Hunt's 16-page chapter contains the common, erroneous information put forth by previous authors who were willing to pass along hearsay and fiction about Soapy Smith. My aim in addressing this matter is not to belittle those who have written so glowingly of Cathy Spude's book but to point out that these writers have not been serious researchers about the life of Soapy Smith and his immediate environment. For this reason, their glowing comments about That Fiend in Hell tend more toward friendly flattery than authoritative comment.

The exception is William H. Hunt. He points to himself as one who made errors in representation and who learned from Cathy Spude's book. Subsequently he also read my biography and wrote that he appreciated my research and its presentation (see comment, top right column).

A contrast to the statements addressed above about That Fiend in Hell comes from M. J. Kirchoff, twice named Alaska Historian of the Year and author of the new book Dyea, Alaska. It appears in Skagway Stories, a blog devoted to the history and people of Skagway, Alaska. Provided below is this blog post in full, with Mr. Kirchoff's "comment" emphasized.

Yesterday I attended a lecture at the National Park Service by M. J. Kirchhoff on violence on the trails and the Soapy story. There was also a critical review of Spude’s book which many agreed had many false assumptions and mistakes. Mark agreed that Jeff Smith’s book on Soapy is a very good reference for students and historians.

Mark’s new book is called Dyea, Alaska: The Rise and Fall of a Klondike Gold Rush Town, printed in 2012 and available at the Skagway News Depot in Skagway. I leafed through it and was amazed at the incredible collection of historic photos of Dyea that have never been published before. Also at their clarity and good descriptions. Here is Michael Gates description: 'Kirchhoff is a widely respected historian whose previous works include an excellent biography of Jack Dalton as well as Clondyke: The First Year of the Rush… Kirchhoff tackles the overlooked aspects of Alaska and Yukon history and fills in the gaps in our understanding of the North…. Kirchhoff’s book charts the rapid decline of Dyea, and offers an explanation for the eventual death of this once bustling community, but you will have to read the book to learn the answer....

All writers and researchers appreciate friendly comments about their work and tend to publish them in promotions. Sometimes, though, the comments seem not so friendly, and the best of these are the ones that point out the good and the not so good, such as mistakes or perceived failings. When only the comments of those less than fully qualified are presented, all highly flattering, the effect tends more toward puffery than honest comment. In the pursuit of truth, good can come from comments that also find fault. They help to adjust a work and make better work possible.

I guess it all boils down to this: when a work is published, its life is not over. It keeps on living the life that has been given it by its creator. Glowing comments from those not so qualified to evaluate do not establish or preserve the quality of a work. Only its ability to present truths that last over time can do that.