The Legend of Joe's Cave:

An Update and Response to My Critics

by Jim Vandergriff

University of Arizona

My purpose here is twofold: (1) to present some new information about the players in the story of Joe’s Cave that I discussed in my article, "The Legend of Joe’s Cave: Murder, Medicine, Counterfeiting, and Vigilantism," and (2) to respond to Dana Everts-Boehm’s criticisms of that article.

Not too long after this article was published, Larry Sellars, who was seeking some genealogical information, sent me some family information I didn’t have. Specifically, he gave me a photocopied page from a book entitled Our Ancestors in Pulaski Co. MO, and a copy of a page of signatures, which has been handed down through our families as part of the petition [attached] to free William Grizzell that is referred to in The History of Pulaski County.

Readers will recall that Representative Armstrong’s Springfield Press article, which is appended to my original article, said that "William Grizzle" was sent to Warsaw for trial and that he and Mrs. "Raffety" committed suicide in jail while awaiting trial. I argued that that was unlikely (p. 37). The information Sellars sent me put a couple of holes in my argument. William Grizzell was apparently tried in Warsaw for the murder of Rafferty, but he subsequently died in the Missouri State Penitentiary in 1845. The page he sent me says the following:

So, I was wrong to argue that Grizzell wasn’t tried in Warsaw; in fact, he was tried there on a change of venue. However, I was right to argue that "the lovers probably didn’t commit romantic suicide" (p. 37).

Still another effect of this document is to suggest that perhaps the Goodspeed History of Laclede, Camden . . . Counties, Missouri is incorrect in saying that the first murder trial in Pulaski County, as I noted on page 37, "was against William Grizzell . . . in 1839," unless a change of venue hearing counts as a trial. Other effects of this document are that it provides more evidence of the spelling of Grizzell’s name, and suggests that I might find additional information about the trial in Benton County records which might help me determine if this murder was really connected with Amanda Fulbright’s death or if it was perhaps a part of the "Slicker" vigilantism that plagued the county in the early 1830's. It also provides me with a first name for Rafferty. The document refers to him as being named "Thomas" Rafferty, a reference I have seen nowhere else. This page also cites testimony from the trial that Grizzell purchased the gun with which he killed Rafferty from a neighbor, casting doubt, then, on Representative Armstrong’s idea that Rafferty was killed with the gun with which he had shot Joe. Thus, the overall contribution of the citation from Our Pulaski County Ancestors is positive: though it doesn’t answer all the questions, I know more than I did before I got it.

Larry also sent me a photocopy of a handwritten document that bears on Grizzell’s story. It is a list of signatures, ostensibly part of those on the petition Pulaski County residents got up to free Grizzell. On that document are the signatures of my great-great-great grandfather, William Dodson, and his brother, James N. B. Dodson, who was to become the first County Clerk of Kinderhook (later Camden) County upon its organization in 1841. The existence of this document validates the fact of the petition mentioned in The History of Pulaski County, about which I was skeptical, but that book is incorrect in saying that it was a "successful" petition. In fact, the petition for Grizzell's freedom was unsuccessful; the successful petition in his behalf was for leniency once he was condemned. However, I don't know from which of these the page I have comes.

Also shortly after the article reached print, Lynn Morrow sent me a photocopied, type-written narrative about the death of Amanda Fulbright from the Fulbright archives in the Springfield Museum of History. That story differs somewhat from the others I have encountered. It, for instance, identifies Amanda as a young woman and says that she died almost immediately. Though I have encountered other versions of the story that so identify her, they are versions obtained from Fulbright descendants. Census data and death records seem to confirm that she died at age 10. This narrative also says that Joe was buried by his fellow slaves. I have not encountered that variant in other versions and believe the historical evidence refutes it.

My central argument in the article, though, is that the story of Joe’s Cave has changed over time, and that it has attracted a variety of folk motifs for reasons about which I can only speculate. Thus, the documents that both Larry and Lynn have sent me, while they punch holes in a couple of my conclusions, generally strengthen my arguments.

My second purpose here is to respond to Dana Everts-Boehm’s criticisms. To her entire argument, I answer that she is not reading the article I wrote, but the one she thinks I should have written. Nowhere in my discussion of these stories do I say that there is not racism in them. I think I fairly clearly pointed out, even, that the rape motif that occurs in some of the story versions is probably a result of the racism of the tellers. In fact, I said on p. 32 that it "was probably added as a result of the racial prejudices and preconceptions of some of the later tellers of the story." She mentions that point in her "Comment," then proceeds to accuse me of unconscious racism. To her apparently rhetorical question about rape as a motif, I say "Yes." One of the things rape is is a motif in folk tales. That fact neither defines me as insensitive to the heinousness of rape, nor diminishes the horror of the act. At that point in her response, I believe that Everts-Boehm steps far beyond the boundaries of professionalism and even civility. I will not engage with her further on that issue.

Though I agree in general with Everts-Boehm’s contention that folklorists need to be "critical," I believe that kind of critique to be a purpose in and of itself, not a lens through which all research must be reported. If one’s purpose is critique, one should critique. If one’s purpose is analysis, one should analyze. Purpose, not politics, should drive one’s writing. My purpose in the original article was not to write a polemic against racism, but to discuss how a story had changed over time. I, and anyone else who cares to look, can find ample evidence of racism in the Ozarks. If it is a surprise to her, then perhaps she needs to reassess her own understanding of Missouri history. Racism is so common and so pervasive in Missouri, and the South in general, that an article pointing out its existence would be a case of carrying coal to Newcastle.

A sub-theme in Everts-Boehm’s response is that one should condemn racism wherever is occurs. I don’t agree with her. I do think racism is a terrible thing, but I don’t think that means I have to violate the direction of my article to condemn every occurrence of it in a 150 year old legend. More noteworthy would be finding a piece of historical southern folklore that wasn’t racist. Furthermore, I find it extremely presumptuous of her to assume that, because someone tells a legend (handed down as legends are by word of mouth), that person subscribes to everything the story reflects. For instance, when my daughter was three or four, I used to tell her fairy tales to lull her to sleep. That doesn’t mean that I believe in fairies, magic, talking deer, Santa Claus, or golden stairways into my stepfather's pond -- all of which showed up in the stories I told her.

To push a bit further, one of the things that accounts for changes in oral texts over time, for instance, is people attempting to repeat words and ideas they don’t comprehend. One example that comes to mind immediately is the local pronunciation in Southwest Missouri of the name of the Pomme de Terre River. "Pumletar" is a common folk rendition of that French phrase. Early inhabitants of the region undoubtedly learned the name orally and passed their perceptions on to their children, who learned them orally. The result is a changed pronunciation that bears little resemblance to the original, but has its roots and history therein. Likewise, individuals may repeat folk narratives without buying into the philosophical sub-texts they may contain for other people. In short, I believe Everts-Boehm’s simplistic dichotomous thinking about racism in folk narratives to be patently absurd.

Furthermore, the majority of my informants for this article were my rather close relatives. I will neither accuse nor condemn them for what they believe; neither am I willing to impute beliefs to them on the basis of the stories they tell. Nonetheless, it would not surprise me to find racism in Missouri. Missouri is a state with its roots in slavery and formed out of land stolen from the Native Americans. Personally, I am sorry for our cruel and bloody history, but I don’t find it odd that Missouri’s culture still shows effects of that history. However, neither that cultural history nor those views are relevant to the point I was attempting to make in my article, except to the extent that I noted.

Representative Armstrong’s father was a Confederate soldier. So was William Dodson for a brief period. Dr. Dodson’s nephew (or perhaps younger brother) was a Union soldier, as were several other of my relatives. Dr. Dodson’s father squatted on, and claimed as his own, land that had belonged to the Osages. The site where Dr. Dodson built his Methodist Church is about a thousand yards from the site of a beautiful spring valley where the Osages had camped for centuries. My failure to condemn or commend their stances in the Civil War and the means by which they acquired their land says nothing about whether I agree with their views and their actions; rather it is evidence that I do not think it relevant to the point of my article. The point and purpose of my article was an analysis of the story of the naming of Joe's Cave.

Neither do I accept Everts-Boehm’s criticism of my phrase "golden age." (p. 40) Rightly or wrongly, human beings often look upon the past as a golden age. Even a cursory glance at the mythologies around the world will evidence that human quality. I see no more need to condemn it in folk tales from the Ozark than I do in the Garden of Eden story in the Old Testament. I did not say the 1830s was a golden age. Rather I pointed out how I think my informants characterize their past. I consciously and carefully used the phrase "as it were" to point out that this characterization is a perception of the tellers, not a fact. "For whom?" Everts-Boehm asks. I believe my article answers that question quite clearly -- for anyone who reads what I actually wrote.

The issues Everts-Boehm raises are not pertinent to the article I wrote. If she wants to read something else into my discussion besides the points I was attempting to make, I cannot prevent her doing that. If I failed to make my points clear, I will accept responsibility for that. I do not, however, accept as valid her argument that I didn't write the article she thinks I should have written. I set out to support my contention that the story of the naming of Joe’s Cave, a story still alive in the oral traditions of the Ozarks, is an historical legend in the classical sense of that term. I believe I did that, and did it reasonably well.