Betty Oops
-
Dear young females out there, remember when your parents said you would
regret that lower back tattoo because it won’t look sexy when you get older;
this i...
7 hours ago
Monday, January 26, 2009
Charles William Mitchell and Elvire Stegen (Part 3)
This is a letter from Charles William Mitchell to Morris Mitchell dated July 23, 1933.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
9 comments:
So what's the real story? Was he really the big jerk that he's made out to be or is he just trying to get grandpa to feel sorry for him and take his side?
It is interesting to see that Charles makes note about his heart in this letter, and that is what killed him 13 years later. He was 54 years old when he passed away. I was just two weeks old when he died.
That is an interesting point Aunt Yvette. If you look at his death certificate, it confirms what you are saying regarding how he died. I need to check things again though because there is something wrong with the PAF file that was handed down. Big Suprise. The PAF file claims that he died in '44. You were born in '45 as I recall. A quick search of the cemetery records shows him dead August 31, 1945. Obviously things aren't quite lining up. Imagine that I guess. When I make it back to Hayden, I will check the death certificate.
Kerry....the magical question. Forgive me if I go on a soapbox here for a moment. When I tell people what I do for work, Historical Archaeology, I usually get one of two responses. Generally it is something about Indiana Jones. Occasionally it is something to the effect of, Isn't all archaeology historical? The answer to that if they don't really care is yes. The answer to that based on reality is that Historical Archaeology designates archaeology of the period for which written record exists. If they really want to know, which I'm sure you do, I usually tell them the second answer. Otherwise I just say yes. The next question that is generally posed is, If written record exists, then why are you digging? What more is there to learn? The answer to that question applies to your question as well, Is he or is he not a big jerk? In Sandpoint, we have been digging what is referred to as the restricted district. When the Sandpoint settlement moved across sand creek, they made all of the "bad" stuff stay on the original side and called it the restricted district. This includes brothels, bordellos, saloons, chinese inhabitations and businesses, etc.... Here is an example of the history of Sandpoint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandpoint,_Idaho#History
I'm not a bleeding hearts type of guy, but where in there does it say anything about the restricted district? In all fairness, it mentions it in two places. The railroad brought in chinese settlement and Roosevelt called it a rough and tumble environment. Roosevelt calling it that is roughly the equivalent of Brigham Young calling Utah Zion. No offence against the Utahns. My point is that it is romantisized so that it doesn't really have meaning and reality is that a simple search of the records shows that not everything was hymns and prayers. Anything "bad" gets swept under the rug and forgotten. That's where historical archaeologist come in. The theory is that I can tell a story about you based on the garbage you discard. Take that back any period of time and you have archaeology. Historical archaeology uses written records to coroborate what we see in the ground. The garbage is just one more source of information. The biggest difference is that the winners don't decide which garbage gets dug up. In theory it is completely unbiased, but in reality, every decision we make as archaeologists also introduces bias. It isn't a perfect system, but better than nothing I think. So, now back to your question. Was he a jerk? Well, if you asked Grandpa Mitchell, then he was. In all of my years doing family history (10 now), I think I can count the number of times I've heard anyone speak of Heleman Campbell or Charles William Mitchell combined on one hand. Of those times, it has always been hush hush for fear of upsetting the saints and I've never heard anything positive about them. Why? Heleman Campbell may have had a terrible temper, but it is pretty obvious that he was a successful business man. Charles William Mitchell may have made a serious mistake, but reading these letters certainly sheds a different light on things. I won't reveal the ending just yet, you have to get that from the letters yourself. However, all things are relative and the story we have is one sided. My goal is not to paint them as perfect people, but rather just produce the info that I find and let you decide for yourself. I will post the next letter tonight if I get time. The next story after this one will be that of Heleman Campbell. Thanks for your question. It got me thinking.
Enjoy
I wonder why people ask questions when they don't really care about answers??
When I ask a question, I am asking it because I want to know. Granted, I am not going to understand a very detailed technical answer on some things, but I really want to know more or I wouldn't be asking. To ask, "can't you learn about history just by reading", is kind of a dumb question. People tend to put their own interpretation of a subject in things that they write.
What is grandpas side of the story? Or do we know his?
Dan...are you referring to Morris?
I don't know that we have a documented version of his side of the story or not. However, I do recall two times when he went into depth about how he felt about his Dad. Aunt Yvette was there with me for one of them. She would attest to the fact that it was a bunch of rambling and negative. I don't recall specifics of what he said, but he didn't have anything good to say. Another time he told me about a letter he had from Charles W. Mitchell's mother (Emma Priest Mitchell) and claimed that Emma ripped him a new one for leaving Elvire. However, as many times as I asked, he always brushed me off. He never could produce the letter. I couldn't either when I went through their stuff after he died. However, I have since learned that he was likely referring to a letter in the possession of his sister that you will be able to read more of later. Whether he was making it up or just senile or both, who knows. Others would corroborate with me when I say that I haven't ever heard him say anything positive about his Dad. Not trying to judge him. Heaven knows I'm not perfect. Far from it actually. Just presenting the information is all. I wish I could give you more detail, but I really can't recall specifics of what he said.
Yes Morris. I have only heard a small small amount of info on Charles Mitchell from you last time I was home. The letters are nice to read. I have no emotional connection to Charles Mitchell and the Morris that I knew is totally different from what everyone says he was in the end. I can't judge on any experiences I had as a kid because I never new the real story. The stuff you post is all news to me. I enjoy the posts they are interesting.
Easy there Joe. I only wanted to know if Charles really was a jerk. But since you brought it up, isn't all archaeology historical? Looking forward to the rest of the story.
Yes Kerry. All Archaeology is historical. ;-)
Post a Comment
For "Comment As", select name/url and you only have to type in your name. Or you can choose anonymous and say in your post who you are.