Is this fiction?
Google Alerts reported the following new post:
"NATIVE AMERICAN CHIEF OFFERS AID TO CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD" 1864
What is this? Does this make any sense? Is it entirely made up?
"NATIVE AMERICAN CHIEF OFFERS AID TO CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD" 1864
What is this? Does this make any sense? Is it entirely made up?
posted from CPRR Discussion Group at 6:46 PM
4 Comments:
From: "Larry Mullaly" lmullaly@jeffnet.org
Sounds like an episode from a novel.
A few notes:
Tevis was not a Director or Officer of the Central Pacific Company at this time.
Based on later practice (I don't believe much of any documentation exists for this period), the inner circle of California associates and not the "board of directors" would have made such a decision.
Knowing the parsimoniousness of the associates, it is unlikely that they would expend gold coin to assist Native Americans in Nebraska.
—Larry Mullaly
From: "Kyle Wyatt" kylekwyatt@gmail.com
It is a North American Invitational Model United Nations - I believe they typically pose hypothetical scenarios. Check out Feb 16
http://naimundaily.wordpress.com/
For other examples.
But the premise of that nonsensical post, that there was an armed conflict between the CPRR and the UPRR using rifles and explosives, is ludicrous.
The provision of the Pacific Railroad Act that "the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California, after completing its road across said state, is authorized to continue the construction of said railroad and telegraph through the territories of the United States to the Missouri river, including the branch roads specified in this act, upon the routes hereinbefore and hereinafter indicated" only created a commercial rivalry with a race to build toward a meeting point, not an armed conflict between the railroads.
The armed conflict involved only the UPRR, assisted by the United States Army, and plains Indians, not the CPRR nor the western Indians with whom the CPRR had cordial relations.
From: "Wendell Huffman" wendellhuffman@hotmail.com
Unsigned and without supporting evidence, it's worthless rubbish. Besides, it has obvious flaws. Unfortunately, to point them out merely invites the author to correct them, making future version of such nonesense more believable.
Post a Comment
<< Recent Messages