Historians Say "Never." Springfield, Missouri Begs to Differ.

Photograph by Martha Hutchens, image on display at History Museum on the Square

by Martha Hutchens

“The gunfight in the middle of Main Street in an Old West town never happened,” historians say.

And mostly, they’re right. But there was that one time in Springfield, Missouri—the story that made Wild Bill Hickok famous.

Many of the details are disputed, but we do know that Wild Bill shot Davis Tutt on the Springfield square on July 21, 1865. Davis Tutt died. And it all started over a watch.

Image by @RobStark/ Deposit Photos

We have two main almost-contemporary sources: Colonel George Ward Nichols, who wrote for Harper’s New Monthly Magazine in 1867, and Return I. Holcombe, who wrote The History of Greene County, Missouri in 1883. It was Nichols’s story that made Hickok famous, but was it accurate?

Both sources seem to agree that Hickok and Tutt were acquaintances. The men each earned their living by gambling and would have frequented the same places.

According to Nichols, Tutt had loaned Hickok money. Hickok had a good night at the tables, and Tutt asked for the $40 Wild Bill owed. Bill paid him, and Tutt then added that he was owed another $35 for a different loan. Bill didn’t question the second loan but believed he only owed $25 and wanted to check his records. Tutt scooped Bill’s watch off the table to hold as surety. Wild Bill took this as a mark against his honor, since it implied he was a man who didn’t pay his debts.

Holcombe tells a simpler story. Hickok and Tutt were playing each other, and Hickok had a bad night. He lost his money, his watch, his diamond pin, and his diamond ring.

Both sources say that Hickok requested (or demanded, depending on the account) that Tutt not wear the watch. But Tutt wore the watch to the town square the next day, July 21, 1865.

According to Holcombe, Hickok first called out to Tutt when he was roughly 100 yards away, warning him not to come across the square with the watch. By the time Tutt was about 75 yards away, he made the soon-to-be fatal error of reaching for his gun.

Hickok drew his pistol, steadied his right arm on his left forearm, and shot Tutt between the fifth and sixth ribs. Tutt died within a few minutes. The sheriff approached Wild Bill, who surrendered his pistols and admitted to shooting Tutt.

Nichols described an event much closer to what we see in Western movies, with the men facing each other about fifteen yards apart.

Image of Springfield Town Square, by Martha Hutchens

I’ve been to the square and seen the places where the men stood, or at least where the historical markers say they stood. It is far closer to seventy-five yards, which would be a difficult shot even today. With the pistols of 1865, even a skilled marksman would have needed a great deal of luck. Whether that was good luck or bad would depend on which side you stood on.

Hickok stood trial and was acquitted under self-defense, or more accurately, reasonable doubt that he was the aggressor. According to Holcombe, Tutt’s handgun was displayed as evidence, and it had a single chamber empty.

At this point we gain another contemporary source: the local newspaper, The Weekly Patriot. Unfortunately, it tells us very little, only that the jury reached its verdict in minutes and that there was general dissatisfaction with the outcome. Under Missouri law at the time, self-defense did not apply if a man willingly entered a fight he could reasonably avoid. The jury appears to have set aside this standard.

Image by @marzolino/Deposit Photos

There may have been another underlying issue. This shooting took place only three months after the end of the Civil War, and southwest Missouri had seen violence years before 1861. Hickok served with the Union, and Tutt with the Confederacy. But the story is complicated. Tutt was almost certainly acting as a double agent, reporting Confederate movements to the Union, and considering the units each man served in, it is likely Hickok knew this.

As you might expect, Nichols and Holcombe disagree about the role the war played in the gunfight. Nichols claimed that Hickok had killed one of Tutt’s friends during the war, while Holcombe maintained that once the war was over, it was truly over for Hickok.

It is also difficult to ignore the possibility that a jury composed entirely of Union loyalists in postwar Springfield felt little sympathy for a former Confederate.

To tell the truth, I find the disagreements in this story to be one of its most interesting aspects. History is so seldom as cut-and-dried as it appears in textbooks.

What everyone agrees on is that Nichols’s article in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine made Wild Bill Hickok a celebrity, and he went on to become one of the most well-known names in the Old West.

Historians are right to distrust the word never—and Springfield, Missouri, reminds us why.

If you'd like to learn more about the background of both men in this fight, you can find that information here, on my website.

Best-selling author Martha Hutchens is a history nerd who loves nothing more than finding a new place and time to explore. She won the 2019 Golden Heart for Romance with Religious and Spiritual Elements. A former analytical chemist and retired homeschool mom, Martha occasionally finds time for knitting when writing projects allow.

Martha’ debut novel, A Steadfast Heart, is now available. You can learn more about her books and historical research at MarthaHutchens.com.

When his family legacy is on the line, rancher Drew McGraw becomes desperate for someone to tame and tutor his three children. Desperate enough to seek a mail-order bride. But when the wrong woman arrives on his doorstep, Drew balks.

Heiress Kaitlyn Montgomery runs straight from the scandal chasing her toward a fresh start on a secluded ranch. She strikes a bargain with Drew—a marriage convenient for both of them.

But the more Kaitlyn adapts to ranch life and forms a bond with Drew’s children and their enigmatic father, she realizes that this ranch is where she is meant to be. And then her past catches up with her…