have a copy of it, but the vast majority of documents I have accumulated about Emily are still in Mexico. Because ofthe controversial nature of my thesis, I tried to obtain copies of all the documents I could, and placed them in bound,indexed catalogues. However, it was simply impossible for me to bring all my papers with me to Montana when Icame for this fellowship, so I only have with me here those documents I thought were most vulnerable to questionsand doubts (that is, questions about there existence). I call that catalogue "Primary Documents 1." Because Lamar'spublic papers clearly noted the arrival of Emily on the Flash with Morgan, I relegated the bill for her passage to asecondary catalogue. I believe that document is in "Primary Documents 2," which I did not bring with me toMontana. But it does exist and is easily found and replicated. I have six such catalogues.
I'm curious about your questions relating to that journey.
I would also like to know in what passages youspecifically see my tendentiousness,
because I am at a crossroads here and respect your observations. Despitewhat traditional historians might think, I am sincerely interested in ferreting out the truth behind the myth. If I amguilty of anything, it is the belief that the truth about Emily has been mired in a folkloric muck. The anomalies thathave plagued this story have admittedly colored my thinking, and I have struggled with how to get at the core of thisstory without falling prey to some of the tendencies that (I believe) have plagued others. I would deeply appreciate -when you have the time-- a detailed look at where I might be evincing tendentiousness
because I really do want thebook to be about raising questions, as opposed to pretending to answer all the questions.
I am also interested in your take on Adina, whose legacy has never before been fully considered, and whichI believe offers enormous insights into the mystery.
I know that it is in my best interest to engage your wisdom, as you are clearly one of (if not THE) most respectedauthority of this era in Texas history. (I've talked to several people). I know you are busy, Professor, and I amgrateful for any time you have to give. Please consider me an avid student.Warmest regards,AuthorFrom: AuthorTo: ProfessorDate:
Dec. 8, 2002
Subject: Forgive the obsessionProfessor,Please forgive the obsession here with the term "tendentious" but I think it is a valid term to which it would behooveme to be aware. As you know, I am more a journalist than a historian. At the same time, I have spent years goingwhere no Texas historian has bothered to go before and because of this, feel that I have some cachet as a scholarof this particular history. Your comments, however, have given me pause, and I would like to discuss them with you,not only for this project, but for others down the road.Specifically, when you suggest that my approach has been more that of a lawyer than a historian, (I cringe forobvious reasons) but I also felt coming into this project that I was emulating the historians that I initially referencedin my work. That is to say, that I took my cues from Lutzweiler, Binkley, Estep, Henson and the like, and built mywhole project on how they approached their projects. That is to say that I believed that approaching history from apoint of view was how it was done. Your comments suggest that I was wrong in that assumption.On the face of it, your comments about giving the benefit of the doubt to those documents that support my casemake sense. But I thought that if I didn't bring them up, and give them the benefit of my belief in them, that I wouldbe failing my readers.I know you are busy and have more than your share of students already, but I hope you will see in me a person whois sincerely interested in getting it right and--as time permits- I hope you will suffer my questions.All best,AuthorFrom: ProfessorTo: AuthorDate Sent:
Dec. 9, 2002
Subject: RE: Forgive the obsessionDear Author:Thanks for your messages. I am too swamped with term papers and finals just now to give you any more detailed acritique -- I'll do my best to get back to you before Xmas, but no promises -- I have a commitment to read (for apublisher) another scholar's manuscript before I can get back to yours.Nevertheless, I want to commend you again on your determination to get to the bottom of this story -- but rememberthat no historian should let the desired conclusion determine how any piece of evidence is treated. (Take a look ifyou want to see some of my methodological work, at an article I did for
). You're on a research adventure ofyour own -- what you must NOT do is to lose your credibility by using a double standard on the evidence, or byignoring evidence that might detract from your desired conclusion.