bloody bills marriage record

[honcho34]

This is my first thread here. Been doin some research on b.b. anderson. I thought I had read a back (while lurckin this site) someone was lookin for his marriage licence,well Ifound it at the local library. not the license itself just the record. it says........3/3/1864 Rt. Wm. T. Anderson Bush Smith. Not Maggie bush smith. If this helps that person wanting to know cool,glad I could help.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Texas Jay]

Thank you, honcho34, for posting these details about the alleged marriage certificate for "Bloody Bill" Anderson and Bush Smith. I've had a copy of this for quite some time and there are a few things that need to be mentioned about it. One is that the "6" in "1864" has been written over a printed 5 so it has been altered. Another thing is that Bill Anderson never signed this certificate so his name was written in by others. The biggest problem with it, as far as I'm concerned comes from one of Bill Anderson's own Guerrilla comrades, John McCorkle in his book "Three Years With Quantrill". In the book, McCorkle emphatically states that Bill Anderson and Bush Smith were married "during Christmas week" (1863), not March 1864 as the certificate alleges, and that most of his comrades were present.
~Texas Jay
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bloodybillandersonmystery
http://bloodybillandersonmystery.webs.com

 

[Capt_Gregg]

I've had a copy of this for quite some time and there are a few things that need to be mentioned about it. One is that the "6" in "1864" has been written over a printed 5 so it has been altered.

They were using pre-printed forms left over from the 1850s that had "185_" for the year.

Another thing is that Bill Anderson never signed this certificate so his name was written in by others.

There were spaces for the names of those being married. There were no spaces requesting signatures.

The biggest problem with it, as far as I'm concerned comes from one of Bill Anderson's own Guerrilla comrades, John McCorkle in his book "Three Years With Quantrill". In the book, McCorkle emphatically states that Bill Anderson and Bush Smith were married "during Christmas week" (1863), not March 1864 as the certificate alleges, and that most of his comrades were present.

The exact quote is "During Christmas week. Captain Bill Anderson married a Southern lady in Sherman,
all of us attending the wedding." Hardly an "emphatic" statement, and since his book came out in 1917 (over 50 years after the fact), there is ample reason to question his recollection vs the date on the marriage license.

 

[Texas Jay]

I've had a copy of this for quite some time and there are a few things that need to be mentioned about it. One is that the "6" in "1864" has been written over a printed 5 so it has been altered.

They were using pre-printed forms left over from the 1850s that had "185_" for the year.

Another thing is that Bill Anderson never signed this certificate so his name was written in by others.

There were spaces for the names of those being married. There were no spaces requesting signatures.

The biggest problem with it, as far as I'm concerned comes from one of Bill Anderson's own Guerrilla comrades, John McCorkle in his book "Three Years With Quantrill". In the book, McCorkle emphatically states that Bill Anderson and Bush Smith were married "during Christmas week" (1863), not March 1864 as the certificate alleges, and that most of his comrades were present.

The exact quote is "During Christmas week. Captain Bill Anderson married a Southern lady in Sherman,
all of us attending the wedding." Hardly an "emphatic" statement, and since his book came out in 1917 (over 50 years after the fact), there is ample reason to question his recollection vs the date on the marriage license.

Capt_Gregg,
Nothing you've said refutes or disproves anything that I said. I said the certificate was "altered". Writing over a printed date number with another number is an alteration. If I'm not mistaken, you are claiming that with all the marriages that took place in Sherman in the early 1860s, that the county office never bothered to print new forms for the 1860s, even after over 4 years had passed? That may not seem odd to you but it sure does to me.

I made the correct point about the names and middle initial being written in by someone else. other than the named couple, because traditionalists have tried to mislead people about this for years. What they want to ignore is the fact that there are examples of "Bloody Bill's" signature out there somewhere where he gave his correct middle initial and yet he is probably the most famous person in our history whose own signature has NEVER been made public. Why is that? Readers can probably correctly guess the reason that Bill Anderson's handwriting has been hidden or destroyed. Hint: "Bloody Bill" Anderson's father was named William C. Anderson.

The highly-questionable, altered marriage certificate, in my view, does not supersede the importance of an eye-witness (McCorkle) account, even if that account was remembered 50 years later. Traditionalist historians are often guilty of criticizing Guerrillas' recollections and memories while, at the same time, expecting people to believe their own mythical versions of what happened (which were written well over 100 years later) with nothing to base them on except for suspicious "documents" and/or vivid imaginations that retell our history according to the way they wish it had happened.

~Texas Jay
http://bloodybillanderson.webs.com

 

[Rollie Taylor]

Capt_Gregg,
Nothing you've said refutes or disproves anything that I said. I said the certificate was "altered". Writing over a printed date number with another number is an alteration. If I'm not mistaken, you are claiming that with all the marriages that took place in Sherman in the early 1860s, that the county office never bothered to print new forms for the 1860s, even after over 4 years had passed? That may not seem odd to you but it sure does to me.

I made the correct point about the names and middle initial being written in by someone else. other than the named couple, because traditionalists have tried to mislead people about this for years. What they want to ignore is the fact that there are examples of "Bloody Bill's" signature out there somewhere where he gave his correct middle initial and yet he is probably the most famous person in our history whose own signature has NEVER been made public. Why is that? Readers can probably correctly guess the reason that Bill Anderson's handwriting has been hidden or destroyed. Hint: "Bloody Bill" Anderson's father was named William C. Anderson.

The highly-questionable, altered marriage certificate, in my view, does not supersede the importance of an eye-witness (McCorkle) account, even if that account was remembered 50 years later. Traditionalist historians are often guilty of criticizing Guerrillas' recollections and memories while, at the same time, expecting people to believe their own mythical versions of what happened (which were written well over 100 years later) with nothing to base them on except for suspicious "documents" and/or vivid imaginations that retell our history according to the way they wish it had happened.

~Texas Jay
Home - William C. "Bloody Bill" Anderson

Texas Jay,
You do not question the fact that William Anderson married Bush Smith in Sherman Texas, for you have erroneously claimed that William C. Anderson's oldest child, Francis Marion Anderson, was the child of Bush Smith. Since you have ceaselessly championed William Columbus Anderson as Bloody Bill Andeson, your allegation that the marriage record was altered is based on the fact that the marriage record reads "William T. Anderson", rather than William Columbus Anderson. Sgt. Thomas M. Goodman, who was a prisoner of Bloody Bill Anderson for ten days, wrote a book in 1868 about the experience. Portions of the title read, "A Thrilling Record...Ten Days Experience with Colonel William T. Anderson (the Notorious Guerrilla Chieftan)... The name on the marriage license, the book by Sgt. Goodman, the 1860 census of Breckenridge Co, KS, showing William T. Anderson, would be sufficient to convince any rational person that Bloody Bill Anderson was William T. Anderson and not William Columbus Anderson of Brown County Texas. Add to that the fact that O R 52, the official record of the Civil War, describes the event in which William T. Anderson was killed in October 1864. Further, it is a simple matter to follow William C Anderson in census records from Cole Co, MO in 1840; to Taney Co, MO in 1850; to Stone Co, MO, in 1860; to Brown Co, TX, in 1870. William Anderson patented land in Brown Co in 1859, and was a taxpayer in 1863.

William T. "Bloody Bill" Anderson was killed in 1864 in Missouri while William C. Anderson was in Texas. A newspaperman named Henry Clay Fuller cannot change that fact with a sensationalized story about Bloody Bill Anderson's mythical escape in your link above.
Rollie