For a long time, historians have concerned themselves with separating fact from fiction. In the case of mythical figures, however, the claim to have discovered the “truth” about one of them is a little preposterous. As Stephen Tatum points out in his book, it would be better to take all the interpretations of the figure and, instead of discarding those that seem unlikely, analyze them all to discover the historical context of the time periods that believed them. Billy the Kid is one such legendary figure, as the record of his life is filled with question marks and blanks. The facts of Billy the Kid’s life story are hazy, and to some extent, we can never know for sure what is true, so, beyond rudimentary information gathering, time would better be spent analyzing the how and the why of the myth.
Legendary Americans, by their nature, have lives that are difficult to pin down. Various facts about their lives can be determined to be probably true, and certain stories can be interpreted as almost certainly not true, but there is no way of knowing for sure. This ambiguity holds true for other historical figures as well, but the degree of certainty historians can attain for a figure like George H. W. Bush is well beyond that of someone like Billy the Kid.
The definition of the Kid depends on the reliability of the sources used. A combination of solid source materials can lead historians to approach the so called ‘real’ Billy the Kid, but they will never be able to actually discover him. After a while, the search for the truth yields diminishing returns, and historians will have come as close as they are ever going to get to knowing who Billy the Kid was in his own time. Even the sources from the period, such as the newspaper accounts of his crimes, are suspect, and the “official” book that Pat Garrett authorized was so sensationalized that it “ensured the Kid’s life after death in legend” (Tatum 184). Despite the uncertainty created by this, however, historians can establish certain events of the Kid’s life as true. The Kid’s death, for instance, took place in Fort Sumner in Pete Maxwell’s house (Utley). The fringe movement that supports the theory that he lived in hiding until 1937 is holding on to false hopes, but their tenacious grasp gives some insight into the time period they come from (Paige). Ironically, deaths usually cause the most controversy in legendary figures, but Billy the Kid’s is rather clear cut compared to the rest of his life, particularly his alleged crimes.
Billy the Kid’s murder count is an example of a fact that is difficult to pinpoint and almost certainly not worth the effort. The colloquial legend is that the Kid killed a man for every year of his life, for a grand total of 21 men (Paige). This number varies, depending on who is doing the telling, from 4 to 40 (Paige). Looking at it objectively, however, the exact number seems unnecessary. Reliable sources tell us that Billy the Kid killed at least one man, and general historical consensus says that he had almost no effect on the state of New Mexico in terms of politics, so what difference does it make whether he killed 4, 14, or 40 men? We would be better off determining what effects the legend of the Kid had, since we can actually see the legend as it currently exists.
Scholars must be careful, as Tatum points out, not to make the same mistakes with the legend that they made with the Kid’s life. The legend by itself is no more useful that the number of men the Kid killed. It needs to be analyzed in a historical context to yield anything worth knowing, and to achieve an even more complete picture, the analyzer ought to include his own study in the equation (Tatum 180). As he says, “the interpreter of the Kid is not subservient to any data, but is rather a participant in the creation of his evidence” (176). Historians often count themselves as objective observers, as people who peruse the record and assemble a credible narrative from their findings. Tatum says that while they do this, they are in fact creating more history, since future historians will look back and analyze their actions, and they should take this into account.
Some opponents might say that facts are the basis of history, and to downplay them would undermine historical scholarship itself. This is true, to some extent, since a complete disregard for facts would lead to everyone floating in the middle of conjecture-land. At the same time, however, too much focus on hard details leads to drifting in the same place. What makes some historians sure that 4 is the proper number of killings to credit the Kid with? The conjecture that the recorded murders were the only ones the Kid committed. They cannot prove this, however, considering the events took place over one hundred years ago, and this guesswork adds nothing of interest to the conversation about the Kid. Therefore, it seems more useful to learn the rudimentary facts and spend time on more tangible things, such as his legend.
This legend remains, but the facts have long since evaporated. What’s left is only the interpretation of fact; the search for the real Billy the Kid is a fruitless struggle to discover the truth behind a legend that ultimately falls short of its goal. The pursuit of separating fact from fiction, while interesting, misses the larger issue of determining why certain time periods accept one version of events over others. So, to answer the question of what is true about Legendary Americans versus what is false, it isn’t really clear. Some things appear more factual than others, and some so much so that they should be taken as truth, but to distinguish between myth and reality ignores the fact that the two are intertwined, and the effort to shuck the myth from the history silences all those who believed the legend. Once we move on from such endeavors, we can finally begin to learn from our past.
Sources:
Page, Jake. “Was Billy the Kid a Superhero–or a Superscoundrel?” Smithsonian Feb. 1991: 137-49. Link.
Tatum, Stephen. Inventing Billy the Kid. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1982. Print.
Utley, Robert. “Billy the Kid Country.” American Heritage 42.2 (1991): 65-72. Link.
Fascinating stuff, Eric. I’m not sure I’m prepared to go with you the whole way to saying the separation of fact from fiction is nothing more than “interesting”–in the case of some figures we’ve studied, I think the stakes are higher than that. But I do agree with you that at some point the pursuit for “The Real X” has diminishing returns and obscures “the larger issue of determining why certain time periods accept one version of events over others.” Well put!