We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
A Revenue Cutter Service name.
James Guthrie, a cutter built in 1881 by H. A. Ramsey of Baltimore, Md., and used by the Revenue Cutter Service in the Baltimore area, was ordered to cooperate with the Navy during the Spanish-American War. Not needed by the Navy, she operated under military authorities guarding Baltimore Harbor from 9 May to 20 July when she resumed her former duty.
She was transferred to the Navy when the United States entered World War I and guarded Philadelphia,
An Introduction To The Book Of James
A. External Evidence: Though not decisive, there is good evidence for the epistle of James:
1. James is the first of the “Catholic” or “general” epistles which gain their name because they lack any specific address
2. Except for 1 Peter and 1 John the Catholic epistles have played more of a part in molding the Christian church than Paul’s letters
3. Some question whether Origen doubted the authenticity of James, 1 but his abundant references to James as Scripture override this concern 2
4. It is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, but this may have been to the corrupt state of this cannon (Hebrews and the Petrine Epistles are also missing).
5. Eusebius cites James among his disputed books (Antilegomena), but he refers to it as if it were genuine 3
6. M. Mayor claims to find quotations or allusions to James in Didache, Barnabas, The Testaments of the Xii Patriarchs, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermes and some later second-century Fathers 4
7. Guthrie writes, “On the whole it is not altogether surprising that this brief Epistle of James was not much quoted in the earliest period, for it did not possess such wide appeal as the more dynamic Epistles of Paul. It is the kind of letter which could easily be neglected as, in fact, the treatment of it in the modern Church abundantly shows and, once neglected, a fertile soil was provided for future doubts, especially at the time when spurious productions were being attributed to apostolic names” 5
B. Internal Evidence: Though one cannot not be dogmatic, it seems reasonable to identify the author of this letter with James, the Lord’s half-brother.
1. The author identifies himself as James 1:1
a. Only two (2) NT people 6 could fulfill this title of James and the half-brother of the Lord Jesus is the more reasonable choice:
1) James, the son of Zebedee, of the Twelve Apostles--but he is most probably ruled out since he was martyred in AD 44 by Herod, and the epistle seems to have been written after that
2) James, the half-brother of Jesus, who became the leader of the Jerusalem church
a) This is support by the simplicity of the description (e.g., a well known James)
b) In Church history it seems to have the Lord’s half-brother James who made a significant impact on the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15 21).
3) Some believe that the name is only a pseudonym attached to the letter to add authority and others see the salutation as a later addition, but these are not necessary conclusions 7
2. If the half-brother of the Lord is the more reasonable of the two possible choices, than other internal evidence supports this conclusion:
a. The author has a Jewish background:
1) He draws upon the Hebrew Scriptures (1:2 2:8, 11, 23, 25 3:9 4:6 5:2, 11, 17, 18)
2) He employs Hebrew Idioms and style behind the Greek
3) He is concerned with the Jewish Diaspora and uses Jewish terms (cf. 5:4--”Lord of Sabaoth”)
b. There are similarities between James and the speech and letter attributed to James in Acts 15 8
c. There are similarities with James and the teaching of Jesus. Guthrie writes, “there are more parallels in this Epistle than in any other New Testament book to the teaching of our Lord in the Gospels” 9
d. The rest of the NT supports James as a prominent figure who could have written this letter with authority: 10
1) Yes, he was an unbeliever in the Gospels (Mr. 3:21 Jn. 7:5)
2) But James is among the brethren in Acts (1:14)
3) James was specially singled out for a resurrection appearance (1 Cor. 15:7)
4) James was the leader whom Paul met in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:19)
5) James held a authoritative position in the church at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:13ff)
6) James spoke with Paul on his return to Jerusalem at the end of his third missionary journey and Paul agrees to James’ request (Acts 21)
e. The community appears to belong to the period before the fall of Jerusalem:
1) Rich land owners who preyed upon the needy was the case before the fall of the Jerusalem 11
2) Guthrie writes, “In fact, in addition to the social surroundings of the community, the internal conditions of quarrelsomeness among the Christians may well point to an early stage in the history of the community before much maturity had been reached” 12
3) The reference to ‘wars and fightings’ in 4:1 may have a context before the siege of Jerusalem by Titus
4) The “thoroughly Jewish background of the letter is evidenced by the absence of any allusion to masters and slaves and by the omission of any denunciation of idolatry, both of which would have been inappropriate in an epistle attributed to such a devoted Jewish Christian as James” 13
Mississippians have a long history of serving in the armed forces. Materials documenting this service occur throughout the archives’ collections. Government records include Confederate records, State Auditor’s Confederate pension files, Military Department/Adjutant General series, Veterans’ Affairs Board records, and U.S. military records. The archives has nearly 400 manuscript collections associated with the different wars in which Mississippians have served. The Mississippiana collection includes military history books as well as indices to service records and pension rolls. The archives also has many photographs with military subjects. All of these materials are searchable in the online catalog.
The archives has microfilm copies of service records for Mississippians in the War of 1812 (1812–15), Mexican War (1846–48), Civil War (1861–65), and the Spanish-American War (1898), and draft registration cards for World War I (1917–18). The archives also holds Mississippi World War I statement of service cards, 1917–19.
James G Howden
Jim Howden grew up in Point Lonsdale where he attended Queenscliff High School and later Geelong College. He stroked the Geelong College second crew in 1950 to a second placing. In the following year he stroked the first crew but did not the final and in 1952 was in the six seat of the second placed first crew.
Jim did his most of his competitive rowing at MUBC and later joined Yarra Yarra with other noted rowers Tony Walker, Peter Gillon and Ian Bult. Jim was Captain of Yarra Yarra Rowing Club. Later he joined Mercantile Rowing Club as his children started rowing. Three of his children raced for the Club.
Above: A young James Howden seated second from right next to coach Bob Aitken whilst rowing in a intercollegiate Ormond College crew
The highlight of Jim’s rowing career was his bronze medal in the eight at the Melbourne Olympic Games in 1956 after winning the King’s Cup in the same year.
Above: Race finish at the Olympic Games in 1956
Perhaps his greatest contribution to the sport was as Rowing Australia Chairman of Selectors at a crucial time in the sport, the introduction of a professional Head Coach in Reinhold Batschi. Jim was one of the initiators of this change and a great supporter of Reinhold when he arrived. This was a controversial and big change for the sport and could not be done without the support of people of the ilk of Jim Howden.
The sport changed dramatically for the better as a result of this decision.
Jim Howden was a lawyer who was appointed a County Court judge. In his obituary, County Court Chief Judge, Judge Waldron described Jim as “a man of great physical and personal charm” who earned high respect from all who came in contact with him. “He had a genuine empathy with and understanding of the less fortunate in our society.”
15 months after his appointment to the County Court on 11 March 1986, he was diagnosed as having a malignant melanoma. He finally lost his battle with cancer six years later but continued to sit for most of this time. Judge Waldron noted that: “We, his fellow judges, marvelled at his heroic fighting spirit and his conscientious determination to continue to discharge his judicial duties.”
Jim and Elaine Howden had five children, three boys and two girls, most of whom rowed, and at Mercantile. Jim is buried at Point Lonsdale.
Andrew Guerin (using material from an obituary in The Age newspaper)
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, errors may exist. Please send advice of any errors or inaccuracies by email to:
Also your comments, suggestions and photos are sought to enhance this site.
The idea for this history originated from the Olympic Rowing and World Senior Rowing Championship histories written by Andrew Guerin and Margot Foster in 1991, 1992 & 1993 for the Australian team handbooks. Andrew Guerin developed and extended these histories to the current format in 2004 for publication in 2004 and then expanded the site.
Steve Roll has been an invaluable contributor to the website in locating errors and finding Christian names of rowers. His superb work is acknowledged.
© Andrew Guerin &ndash 2004
These contents of this history are copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted by the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. However given that the purpose of the history is to assist rowers and rowing clubs, written permission is not required for non-commercial usage by rowers and rowing clubs provided acknowledgement is made.
Disclaimer: Whilst extensive efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied, the editors take no responsibility for any loss or damage whatsoever arising from inaccuracies contained in this work.
Modern Day False Teachers
Why is it that so few Chrisitan appear concerned about the existence of False Prophets?. From the way many of us talk about the subject you might wonder whether we believe any teacher deserves to be so categorized. It is as if the only heresy left in our culture is to call someone a heretic. But why? Confrontation may be too uncomfortable for some. Calling someone a heretic may seem too judgmental. Many simply follow the crowd, rather than follow the Bible, unwilling and unequipped to challenge the faith they were raised in. Maybe it is too difficult to think this deeply . but Jesus said, "the way is easy that leads to destruction" but it is the difficult "narrow path that leads to life". Christians must, therefore, arm themselves against false prophets .. and recognizing who they are requires knowledge. And knowledge requires a study of God's word.
Jesus, the apostles Paul, Peter, and John all repeatedly warned such men would rise up among us, and lead many astray, even within the visible church. They warned that not only would there be many False Teachers, there would be many followers of them as well . people "to suit their own desires . will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Tim 4:3). Sadly, very few people do their homework when considering their own pastors, so the wolves have taken advantage of this fact to keep multitudes in their blinded condition. Obviously we should not easily call other people a heretic, but if they publicly teach doctrine long recognized by the church as false, then we ought to call it out.
Here is a list of of the more obvious heretics/false teachers to be marked & avoided: (not exhaustive)
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney
No single man is more responsible for the distortion of Christian truth in our age than Charles Grandison Finney. His "new measures" created a framework for modern decision theology and Evangelical Revivalism. In this excellent article, Dr. Mike Horton explains how Charles Finney distorted the important doctrine of salvation.
Jerry Falwell calls him "one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham." I recall wandering through the Billy Graham Center some years ago, observing the place of honor given to Charles Finney in the evangelical tradition, reinforced by the first class in theology I had at a Christian college, where Finney&rsquos work was required reading. The New York revivalist was the oft-quoted and celebrated champion of the Christian singer Keith Green and the Youth With A Mission organization. He is particularly esteemed among the leaders of the Christian Right and the Christian Left, by both Jerry Falwell and Jim Wallis (Sojourners&rsquo magazine), and his imprint can be seen in movements that appear to be diverse, but in reality are merely heirs to Finney&rsquos legacy. From the Vineyard movement and the Church Growth Movement to the political and social crusades, televangelism, and the Promise Keepers movement, as a former Wheaton College president rather glowingly cheered, "Finney, lives on!"
That is because Finney&rsquos moralistic impulse envisioned a church that was in large measure an agency of personal and social reform rather than the institution in which the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are made available to believers who then take the Gospel to the world. In the nineteenth century, the evangelical movement became increasingly identified with political causes-from abolition of slavery and child labor legislation to women&rsquos rights and the prohibition of alcohol. In a desperate effort at regaining this institutional power and the glory of "Christian America" (a vision that is always powerful in the imagination, but, after the disintegration of Puritan New England, elusive), the turn-of-the century Protestant establishment launched moral campaigns to "Americanize" immigrants, enforce moral instruction and "character education." Evangelists pitched their American gospel in terms of its practical usefulness to the individual and the nation.
That is why Finney is so popular. He is the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism. evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we must first notice his theological departures. From these departures, Finney became the father of the antecedents to some of today&rsquos greatest challenges within evangelical churches, namely, the church growth movement, Pentecostalism and political revivalism.
Who is Finney?
Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God&rsquos Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of objective content (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to "make a decision."
Charles Finney (1792-1875) ministered in the wake of the "Second Awakening," as it has been called. A Presbyterian layover, Finney one day experienced "a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost" which "like a wave of electricity going through and through me . seemed to come in waves of liquid love." The next morning, he informed his first client of the day, "I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus Christ to plead his cause and I cannot plead yours. "Refusing to attend Princeton Seminary (or any seminary, for that matter). Finney began conducting revivals in upstate New York. One of his most popular sermons was "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts."
Finney&rsquos one question for any given teaching was, "Is it fit to convert sinners with?" One result of Finney&rsquos revivalism was the division of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic factions. His "New Measures" included the "anxious bench" (precursor to today&rsquos altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other "excitements," as Finney and his followers called them.
One need go no further than the table of contents of his Systematic Theology to learn that Finney&rsquos entire theology revolved around human morality. Chapters one through five are on moral government, obligation, and the unity of moral action chapters six and seven are "Obedience Entire," as chapters eight through fourteen discuss attributes of love, selfishness, and virtues and vice in general. Not until the twenty-first chapter does one read anything that is especially Christian in its interest, on the atonement. This is followed by a discussion of regeneration, repentance, and faith. There is one chapter on justification followed by six on sanctification. In other words, Finney did not really write a Systematic Theology, but a collection of essays on ethics.
But that is not to say that Finney&rsquos Systematic Theology does not contain some significant statements of theology.
First, in answer to the question, "Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?", Finney answers:
"Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned he must incur the penalty of the law of God . If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept, for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys or Antinomianism is true . In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground (p. 46)."
Finney believed that God demanded absolute perfection, but instead of that leading him to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that ". full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed . But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not" (p. 57).
Finney declares of the Reformation&rsquos formula simul justus et peccator or "simultaneously justified and sinful," "This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the Universalism that ever cursed the world." For, "Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost" (p.60).
Finney&rsquos doctrine of justification rests upon a denial of the doctrine of original sin. Held by both Roman Catholics and Protestants, this biblical teaching insists that we are all born into this world inheriting Adam&rsquos guilt and corruption. We are, therefore, in bondage to a sinful nature. As someone has said, "We sin because we&rsquore sinners": the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the fifth-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.
Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma" (p.179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else&rsquos sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney&rsquos whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation" (p.206)? In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ&rsquos work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, "I do not nullify the grace of God&rsquo, for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." It would seem that Finney&rsquos reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.
That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something&mdashnot for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God&rsquos moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam&rsquos example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that "The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted . If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p.209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to,&rsquo be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which
"assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement . It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one" (p.217).
Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off Reformation orthodoxy, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that "regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ&rsquos moving example (p.224). "Original sin, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence" (p.236).
Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack "the article by which the church stands or falls"&mdash justification by grace alone through faith alone.
Distorting the Cardinal Doctrine of Justification
The Reformers insisted, on the basis of clear biblical texts, that justification (in the Greek, "to declare righteous," rather than "to make righteous") was a forensic (i.e., legal) verdict. In other words, whereas Rome maintained that justification was a process of making a bad person better, the Reformers argued that it was a declaration or pronouncement that had someone else&rsquos righteousness (i.e., Christ&rsquos) as its basis. Therefore, it was a perfect, once and-for-all verdict of right standing.
This declaration was to be pronounced at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end. The key words in the evangelical doctrine are "forensic" (legal) and "imputation" (crediting one&rsquos account, as opposed to the idea of "infusion" of a righteousness within a person&rsquos soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,
"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd. As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners . As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ&rsquos obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."
To this, Finney replies: "The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ&rsquos obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ&rsquos righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us . it was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf " This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner&rsquos justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp.320-2).
The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is "the antinomian view," Finney asserts. "We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject." (pp.326-7).
As the noted Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are throughout history only two religions: heathenism, of which Pelagianism is a religious expression, and a supernatural redemption.
With Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney&rsquos revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His "New Measures," like today&rsquos Church Growth Movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church&rsquos ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.
It is upon Finney&rsquos naturalistic moralism that the Christian political and social crusades build their faith in humanity and its resources in self-salvation. Sounding not a little like a deist, Finney declared, "There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God." As the new birth is a natural phenomenon for Finney, so too a revival: "A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means&mdashas much so as any other effect produced by the application of means."
The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. "No doctrine," he says, "is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd" (Revivals of Religion [Revell], pp.4-5).
When the leaders of the Church Growth Movement claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes: growth is a matter of following the proper principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney.
When leaders of the Vineyard movement praise this sub-Christian enterprise and the barking, roaring, screaming, laughing, and other strange phenomena on the basis that "it works" and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of "its cash-value in experiential terms."
Thus, in Finney&rsquos theology, God is not sovereign, man is not a sinner by nature, the atonement is not a true payment for sin, justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality, the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney&rsquos Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney&rsquos pragmatism: "Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that &lsquoworks&rsquo, and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume."
As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented, the stretch of territory in which Finney&rsquos revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionistic cults that plagued that century. A gospel that "works" for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow&rsquos disillusioned and spent supersaints. Needless to say, Finney&rsquos message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today that bear his imprint such as: revivalism (or its modern label. the Church Growth Movement), or Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, or political triumphalism based on the ideal of "Christian America," or the anti-intellectual, and antidoctrinal tendencies of many American evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Not only did the revivalist abandon the doctrine of justification, making him a renegade against evangelical Christianity he repudiated doctrines, such as original sin and the substitutionary atonement, that have been embraced by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Therefore, Finney is not merely an Arminian&rsquo, but a Pelagian. He is not only an enemy of evangelical Protestantism, but of historic Christianity of the broadest sort.
Of one thing Finney was absolutely correct: The Gospel held by the Reformers whom he attacked directly, and indeed held by the whole company of evangelicals, is "another gospel" in distinction from the one proclaimed by Charles Finney. The question of our moment is, With which gospel will we side?
(Reprinted by permission from Modern Reformation.)
Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are from Charles G. Finney, Finney&rsquos Systematic Theology (Bethany, 1976).
Dr. Michael S. Horton is Member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and cohost of the popular White Horse Inn radio program.
New for 2019 The Stonewall Inn IPA by Brooklyn Brewery
The Stonewall Inn IPA is a fearless IPA for all. With unabashed notes of citrus peel and grapefruit, this unapologetic and refreshing IPA reminds us of where we’ve been and celebrates where we’re going. This is a beer for everyone, no exceptions. In 2021, our partnership will grow beyond the United States and we’ll be pouring SWIIPA to support The Stonewall Inn Gives Back initiative and queer communities around the world.
In 2019 The Stonewall Inn celebrated the 50th anniversary of the historic Stonewall Uprising and welcomed World Pride to NYC. To commemorate this milestone in LGBTQ history we have partnered with Brooklyn Brewery to craft THE STONEWALL INN IPA. Brooklyn Brewery will be contributing a portion of the proceeds to the official charitable giving organization of the Stonewall Inn, The Stonewall Inn Gives Back Initiative (SIGBI).
Please support SIGBI’s mission to bring critically needed educational and financial assistance to grassroots organizations providing advocacy, guidance, and shelter to LGBTQ youth in mostly rural and underserved communities throughout the United States and abroad.
For the last four years, I have spoken at a conference on the West Coast called &ldquoResolved.&rdquo The name is drawn from the Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards and is aimed at college students and &ldquotwenty-somethings&rdquo in the next generation. As …Read More
The healing of the demon possessed boy (Matt. 17:14&ndash20) at first glance seems to be only one more in a series of miraculous healings recorded by Matthew. What makes this one unique is Jesus&rsquo emphasis on the role of faith. …Read More
State Center is very proud of its heritage and history. To that end, many community-minded people pitched in to purchase and preserve the historic Watson’s Grocery Store on Main Street. The store originally was a turn-of-the-century grocery and dry goods store. Most of the antique fixtures remain, and the museum today preserves the look and feel of what was commonplace in State Center from 1895 until it closed in the 1980s
The community has made a commitment to save itself from becoming another economic ghost town by providing its full support to the “Main Street Program”, and as a result, the downtown has begun to bloom again in the “Rose Capital of Iowa”. In June of 2003, just in time for the 45th annual Rose Parade, the three-block area of State Center’s historic Main Street was given a complete facelift with new sidewalks, street lighting, street resurfacing, and infrastructure.
The mission of the State Center “Main Street Program” is to create an environment for positive growth through volunteerism, community involvement, and regional partnerships within the context of historic preservation. The four point approach for economic revitalization includes: Business Improvement, Organization, Promotions and Design.
Please come visit State Center soon.
From Fr. John's Desk
I want to begin by offering a very Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers, grandfathers, and spiritual fathers in our parish.
Seeing so many Father’s Day envelopes come in, with the names of fathers both living and deceased on them, tells me that many of us both appreciate and want to pray for our fathers and grandfathers. We will keep those envelopes near the Altar throughout this month, and include the names on them in all the Masses that are offered. Let’s also be sure to keep our fathers and grandfathers, and all those men who have been a blessing to us, in our personal prayers as well.
Articles Featuring Dalton Gang From History Net Magazines
They rode in from the west through a crisp, brilliant October morning in 1892, a little group of dusty young men. They laughed and joked and ‘baa’ed at the sheep and goats along the way. In a few minutes they would kill some citizens who had never harmed them. And in just a few minutes more, four of these carefree riders were going to die.
For they planned to rob two banks at once, something nobody else had ever done, not even the James boys. They had chosen the First National and the Condon in pleasant, busy Coffeyville, Kan. Three of the young men were brothers named Dalton, and they knew the town, or thought they did, for they had lived nearby for several years. Coffeyville was a prosperous town, with enough loot to take them far away from pursuing lawmen.
Now, 110 years after the raid, much of what happened is lost in the swirling mists of time. Today it’s hard to sort out fact from invention, and one of the remaining questions is this: How many bandits actually rode up out of the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) to steal the savings of hard — working Kansas citizens? Most historians say there were five raiders … but some say there was a sixth rider, one who fled, leaving the others to die under the citizens’ flaming Winchesters.
Subscribe online and save nearly 40%.
Coffeyville was unprepared, a peaceful little town, where nobody, not even the marshal, carried a gun. The gang might have gotten away with stealing the citizens’ savings that October 5 morning except for Coffeyville’s penchant for civic improvement. For the town was paving some of its downtown streets, and in the course of the job the city fathers had moved the very hitching racks to which the gang had planned to tether their allimportant horses. So the outlaws tied their mounts to a fence in a narrow passage, called Death Alley today. They walked together down the alley, crossed an open plaza, and walked into the two unsuspecting banks. Tall, handsome Bob Dalton was the leader, an intelligent man with a fearsome reputation as a marksman. Grat, the eldest, was a slow — witted thug whose avocations were thumping other people, gambling, and sopping up prodigious amounts of liquor. He was described as having the heft of a bull calf and the disposition of a baby rattlesnake. Emmett, or Em, was the baby of the lot, only 21 on the day of the raid, but already an experienced robber. The boys came from a family of 15 children, the offspring of Adeline Youngeraunt to the outlaw Younger boys — and shiftless Lewis Dalton, sometime farmer, saloonkeeper and horse fancier.
Backing the Dalton boys were two experienced charter members of the gang, Dick Broadwell and Bill Power (often spelled Powers). Power was a Texas boy who had punched cows down on the Cimarron before he decided robbing people was easier than working. Broadwell, scion of a good Kansas family, went wrong after a young lady stole his heart and his bankroll and left him flat in Fort Worth.
Grat Dalton led Power and Broadwell into the Condon. Em and Bob went on to the First National. Once inside, they threw down on customers and employees and began to collect the banks’ money. However, somebody recognized one of the Daltons, and citizens were already preparing to take them on.
Next door to the First National was Isham’s Hardware, which looked out on the Condon and the plaza and down Death Alley to where the gang had left their horses, at least 300 feet away. Isham’s and another hardware store handed out weapons to anybody who wanted them, and more than a dozen citizens were set to ventilate the gang members as they left the banks. The first shots were fired at Emmett and Bob, who dove back into the First National and then out the back door, killing a young store clerk in the process.
Grat was bamboozled by a courageous Condon employee who blandly announced that the time lock (which had opened long before) would not unlock for several minutes. Grat, instead of trying the door, stood and waited, while outside the townsmen loaded Winchesters and found cover. When bullets began to punch through the bank windows, Grat, Broadwell and Power charged out into the leadswept plaza, running hard for the alley and snapping shots at the nest of rifles in Isham’s Hardware. All three were hit before they reached their horses — dust puffed from their clothing as rifle bullets tore into them.
Bob and Emmett ran around a block, out of the townspeople’s sight, paused to kill two citizens and ran on, turned down a little passage and emerged in the alley about the time that Grat and the others got there. Somebody nailed Bob Dalton, who sat down, fired several aimless shots, slumped over and died. Liveryman John Kloehr put the wounded Grat down for good with a bullet in the neck. Power died in the dust about 10 feet away. Broadwell, mortally wounded, got to his horse and rode a half — mile toward safety before he pitched out of the saddle and died in the road.
Emmett, already hit, jerked his horse back into the teeth of the citizens’ fire, reaching down from the saddle for his dead or dying brother Bob. As he did so, the town barber blew Emmett out of the saddle with a load of buckshot, and the fight was over. Four citizens were dead. So were four bandits, and Emmett was punched full of holes — more than 20 of them. Which accounted for all the bandits… or did it?
Emmett always said there were only five bandits. However, four sober, respectable townsfolk, the Hollingsworths and the Seldomridges, said they had passed six riders heading into town, although nobody else who saw the raiders come in thought there were more than five. And, two days after the fight, David Stewart Elliott, editor of the Coffeyville Journal, had this to say: It is supposed the sixth man was too well — known to risk coming into the heart of the city, and that he kept off some distance and watched the horses.
Later, in his excellent Last Raid of the Daltons, Elliott did not mention a sixth rider, although he used much of the text of his newspaper story about the raid. Maybe he had talked to the Seldomridges and Hollingsworths, and maybe they had told him they could not be certain there were six riders. Maybe — but still another citizen also said more than five bandits attacked Coffeyville. Tom Babb, an employee of the Condon Bank, many years later told a reporter that he had seen a sixth man gallop out of Death Alley away from the plaza, turn south and disappear.
If Tom Babb saw anything, it might have been Bitter Creek Newcomb, also a nominee for the sixth man. He was a veteran gang member, said to have been left out of the raid because he was given to loose talk. One story has Bitter Creek riding in from the south to support the gang from a different angle. If he did, Babb might have seen him out of the Condon’s windows, which faced south.
The trouble with Babb’s story is not the part about seeing a sixth bandit — , it’s the rest of it. After Grat and his men left the Condon, Babb said he ran madly through the cross — fire between Isham’s Hardware and the fleeing bandits, dashed around a block and arrived in the alley as the sixth man galloped past: He was lying down flat on his saddle, and that horse of his was going as fast as he could go. Finally, he stood right next to Kloehr, the valiant liveryman, as he cut down two of the gang. Maybe so. Babb was young and eager, and as he said, I could run pretty fast in those days.
Still, it’s a little hard to imagine anybody sprinting through a storm of gunfire unarmed, dashing clear around a city block, and fetching up in an alley ravaged by rifle slugs. To stand next to Kloehr he would probably have had to run directly past the outlaws, who were still shooting at anything that moved. And nobody else mentioned Babb’s extraordinary dash, even though at least a dozen townsmen were in position to see if it had happened.
Still, there is no hard evidence to contradict Babb. Nor is there any reason to think that his memory had faded when he told his story. Maybe he exaggerated, wanting just a little more part in the defense of the town than he actually took… and maybe he told the literal truth. So, if Babb and the others were right, who was the fabled sixth man?
Subscribe online and save nearly 40%.
Well, the most popular candidate was always Bill Doolin, who in 1896 told several lawmen he rode along on the raid. No further questioning was ever possible, because in 1896 Doolin shot it out with the implacable lawman Heck Thomas and came in second. A whole host of writers supported Doolin’s tale. His horse went lame, the story goes, and Doolin turned aside to catch another mount, arriving in town too late to help his comrades. The obvious trouble with this theory is that no bandit leader would have attacked his objective short — handed instead of waiting a few minutes for one of his best guns to steal a new horse.
Nevertheless, the Doolin enthusiasts theorized that Doolin had gotten his new horse and was on his way to catch up with the gang when he met a citizen riding furiously to warn the countryside. The man stopped to ask Doolin if he had met any bandits. Doolin naturally said he hadn’t, and, ever resourceful, added: Holy smoke! I’ll just wheel around right here and go on ahead of you down this road and carry the news. Mine is a faster horse than yours. Doolin, according to oneaccount, started on a ride that has ever since been the admiration of horsemen in the Southwest… Doolin… crossed the Territory like a flying wraith,… a ghostly rider saddled upon the wind.
The flying wraith fable is much repeated. One writer says Doolin never stopped until he reached sanctuary west of Tulsa, a distance of at least 101 miles.
But before anybody dismisses Doolin as the sixth bandit, there’s another piece of evidence, and it comes from a solid source. Fred Dodge, an experienced Wells, Fargo Co. agent, stuck to the Daltons like a burr on a dogie. He and tough Deputy Marshal Heck Thomas were only a day behind the gang on the day of the raid.
Dodge wrote later that during the chase an informant told him Doolin rode with the other five bandits on the way north to Coffeyville, but that he was ill with dengue fever. Although Heck Thomas remembered they received information that there were five men in the gang, Dodge had no reason to invent the informant. And, if Dodge’s information was accurate, Doolin’s dengue fever would explain his dropping out just before the raid a great deal better than the fable about the lame horse.
Not everybody agreed on Doolin or Bitter Creek as the mystery rider. After the raid some newspapers reported the culprit was one Allee Ogee, variously reported as hunted, wounded and killed. Ogee, it turned out, was very much alive and industriously pursuing his job in a Wichita packing house. Understandably irritated, Ogee wrote the Coffeyville Journal, announcing both his innocence and his continued existence.
A better candidate is yet another Dalton, brother Bill, lately moved from California with wrath in his heart for banks and railroads. Bill had few scruples about robbing or shooting people after Coffeyville he rode with Doolin’s dangerous gang. Before Bill was shot down trying to escape a batch of tough deputy marshals in 1894 , he said nothing about being at Coffeyville, and he couldn’t comment after the marshals ventilated him. So nothing connects Bill Dalton with the sixth rider except his surly disposition and his association with his outlaw brothers.
In later years, Chris Madsen commented on the Coffeyville raid for Frank Latta’s excellent Dalton Gang Days. If whatMadsen said was true, neither Doolin nor Bill Dalton could have been the sixth bandit. Madsen was in Guthrie when the Coffeyville raid came unraveled, was advised of its outcome by telegram, and forthwith told the press. Almost immediately, he said,Bill Dalton appeared to ask whether the report was true. Madsen believed that Bill and Doolin both had been near Guthrie,waiting for the rest of the gang with fresh horses. You have to respect anything Madsen said, although some writers have suggested that the tough Dane was not above making a fine story even better. We’ll never know.
Other men have also been nominated as the One Who Got Away, among them a mysterious outlaw called Buckskin Ike, rumored to have ridden with the Dalton Gang in happier times. And there was one Padgett, a yarn spinner of the I bin everwhar persuasion. Padgett later bragged that he left whiskey — running in the Cherokee Nation to ride with the Daltons. At Coffeyville he was the appointed horse holder, he said, and rode for his life when things went sour in that deadly alley.
Some have suggested that the sixth rider might even have been a woman, an unlikely but intriguing theory. Stories abound about the Dalton women, in particular Eugenia Moore, Julia Johnson and the Rose of Cimarron. The Rose was said to be an Ingalls, Okla., girl, who loved Bitter Creek Newcomb and defied death to take a rifle to her beleaguered bandit boyfriend. And there was Julia Johnson, whom Em married in 1907. Emmett wrote that he was smitten by Julia long before the raid, when he stopped to investigate celestial organ music coming from a country church. Entering, he discovered Julia in the bloom of young womanhood, and it was love at first sight. Well, maybe so, although Julia’s granddaughter later said Julia couldn’t play a lick, let alone generate angelic chords from the church organ.
Julia, Em said, was the soul of constancy, and waited patiently for her outlaw lover through all his years in prison. Never mind that Julia married two other people, who both departed this life due to terminal lead poisoning. Never mindthat she married her second husband while Emmett was in the pen. The myth of maidenly devotion is too well — entrenched to die, and she has been proposed as the sixth rider more than once, on the flimsiest theorizing. However, aside from the fact that Julia probably never laid eyes on Emmett until he left prison–that’s what her granddaughter said, anyway — there’s no evidence Julia rode on any Dalton raid, let alone Coffeyville.
Bob’s inamorata and spy was Eugenia Moore. Eugenia, we are told, rode boldly up and down the railroad between Texas and Kansas, seducing freight agents and eavesdropping on the telegraph for news of money shipments. Eugenia might have been Flo Quick, a real-life horse thief and sexual athlete, who dressed as a man to ride out to steal and called herself Tom King. The Wichita Daily Eagle rhapsodized: She is an elegant rider, very daring. She has a fine suit of hair as black as a raven’s wing and eyes like sloes that would tempt a Knight of St. John her figure is faultless Even if the reporter overdid the description, Flo was no doubt someone who would have caught Bob Dalton’s eye. There is no evidence, though, to suggest she rode with him on the raid.
And so, if there was a sixth bandit, who was he? He could have been some relative unknown, of course, Padgett or somebody like him, but that is unlikely. This was to be a big raid, the pot of gold at the end of Bob Dalton’s rainbow. He would not take along anybody but a proven hardcase, even to hold horses. Doolin is the popular candidate, with substantial support in the evidence. Still, I’m inclined to bet on Bill Dalton, in spite of Chris Madsen’s story. Although there is no direct evidence to link him with the raid, he gathered intelligence for the gang before they rode north to Kansas, and he certainly turned to the owlhoot or outlaw trail in a hurry after Coffeyville. He repeatedly proved himself to be violent and without scruple, and he loathed what he considered the Establishment: banks and railroads.
For those who scoff at the idea of a sixth bandit, there’s one more bit of information, a haunting reference that was apparently never followed up. In 1973, an elderly Coffeyville woman reminisced about the bloody end of the raid: Finally they got on their horses… those that were left. Several of ’em, of course, were killed there, as well as several of the town’s people. And they got on their horses and left…
Subscribe online and save nearly 40%.
This article was written by Robert Barr Smith and originally published in October 1995 Wild West Magazine.
For more great articles be sure to subscribe to Wild West magazine today!