One of the first things which I have learned in my history graduate program:
How little which I really knew about scholastic research.
Also how some historians & history buff’s belief systems and perspectives are so hardwired into their cognition, they are very resistant to re-examine and change the above.
My first hand experience of having to let go of deeply embedded beliefs was my long held perspective the McLaury’s were bad outlaws and cow-boys.
After vacating my perspective I was then able to move forward with an openness to re-examine my McLaury research.
In summary: after having some of my research findings subjected to peer review.
It is now my perspective the McLaury’s were not really the bad outlaws
and rustlers which I once (wanted) to believe.
Using the peer review process feedback, I now perspect that the McLaury’s were more of business entrepreneur middlemen:
The McLaury brothers engaged in what I personally refer to as ‘the cattle and mule version of money laundering’
It is interesting that the McLaury’s friend was the both the county sheriff and also the county tax collector.
The McLaury’s were engaged in handling large amounts of money transactions and were possibly paying the county sheriff and tax collector his proceeds to not interfere in their business. BTW: this paragraph is only my educated speculation since I have only located circumstantial evidence as opposed to confirmation evidence.
I never got around to discussing the above with Paul Johnson but I hope to do so in the future.
...review in itself is faultless? There are many history books out there that contain errors and some are subject to influence from myths that have developed, mine own included. Re-examination is always... more
Re: But can we be sure that the peer... — B.J.,Sat Dec 10 2022 1:15