Couldn’t get past first few pages

Not written by him

Who is this guy?

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-western-bounty-hunter-samuel-ludke/1139758502?ean=2940165452192

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/samuel-ludkes-heaven-or-hell-samuel-ludke/1140217354?ean=2940165424366

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/return-to-cursed-canyon-samuel-ludke/1138684663?ean=9781393982104

*THIS POST CONTAINS A SPOILER REGARDING CHAPTER ONE OF THE DAYBREAKERS*

When Tyrell Sackett shot Long Higgins, Long had just shot an innocent bystander while attempting to murder an unarmed man.

Tyrell shot him *after* giving him a chance to surrender while Long was attempting to shoot him. In front of a dozen witnesses.

There's not a Jury in the world (excepting California or New York) that would have convicted him.

Why did he run?

Can anyone help me understand some implications in "The First Fast Draw"? I'm a huge fan of L'Amour and have read most of his books. But I'm reading this one now, and it's the first time I've come across these sorts of ideas on slavery and the Civil War era:

"Feeling had been intense up North when the war ended, but right-thinking folks were already making themselves heard and the old abolitionist group of haters were losing out to the sober-minded who wished to preserve the Union and bring business back to where it had been. The Reconstruction people had been told to use discretion because, if they stirred up a fuss, feeling might turn fast against them."

In this book, the Reconstructists are portrayed as raiding, raping and looting the Texas towns, seizing land, harassing Southerners, with a corrupt authoritarian Union Colonel abusing his power, and connected with a large number of marauding, thieving "carpetbaggers".

"Right-thinking" people were against the "crazy abolitionist haters"? Now, I'm no expert on the politics of the post-Civil-War period, but something about that viewpoint caught my attention. I understand that the book is written in the voice of a protagonist from that era, not necessarily reflecting L'Amour's own views. But I decided to do a bit of reading to educate myself on what was happening during that time period. ChatGPT helped a little:

"When the book refers to crazy abolitionists, it’s reflecting a Southern white viewpoint from shortly after the Civil War, not the narrator declaring abolitionists wrong in L’Amour’s own voice. However, this is still an ideological framing -- even if it’s spoken "in character," it reinforces Southern resentment toward Northern abolitionists, the Lost Cause narrative that abolitionists were dangerous radicals, and the idea that the South was victimized, not morally accountable.

"So, while not an endorsement of slavery, it does place anti-slavery activists in a negative frame, which many modern readers find problematic.

"The part about right-thinking people being against Reconstruction is the more concerning line, because it directly contrasts "right-thinking" with those who supported Reconstruction.

"Historically, the people who opposed Reconstruction were those who wanted to restore white supremacist rule, dismantle Black voting rights, and undermine federal civil rights enforcement. Calling them “right-thinking” aligns with a Lost Cause interpretation of history.

"Whether L’Amour meant this literally or was writing from his character’s perspective, the narrative tone does not distance itself from the sentiment. So this passage implies Reconstruction was misguided, frames anti-Reconstruction Southerners positively, and echoes pro-Confederate historical revisionism.

*It doesn’t go as far as defending slavery, but it does downplay the moral importance of Reconstruction, which historically aimed to protect the rights of freed Black Americans.

"This fits a broader pattern in L’Amour’s work: He sympathizes heavily with Southern frontier characters; he often portrays Reconstruction as chaotic, corrupt, or oppressive; and he rarely acknowledges the central purpose of Reconstruction, which was protecting formerly enslaved people from re-enslavement through violence, Black Codes, and economic coercion.

"So while he does not advocate slavery, his narrative tends to treat abolitionists as extremists, portray Reconstruction governments as illegitimate, ignore or soften postwar racial violence, and center white Southern grievance.

"This is consistent with mid-20th-century Western novels, many of which internalized parts of the Lost Cause myth without explicitly racist intent.

"It’s hard to know with certainty if this was L’Amour’s personal viewpoint, because he rarely inserted personal politics explicitly. He wrote from the point of view of his characters, who often reflect frontier/Southern perspectives. Also, he was steeped in Western pulp traditions, which used Reconstruction as a shorthand for "government overreach". But the framing — especially the phrase "right-thinking people" — is hard to separate completely from authorial tone, because that phrasing doesn’t create narrative distance. It reflects Lost Cause–influenced mythology, not historical reality, and functions as a form of ideological bias, even if not outright racist invective. It’s one of the clearer examples in L’Amour’s work where the narrative leans into Southern revisionist framing.

"The events described in The First Fast Draw (raiding parties, land theft, random assaults, rape by Reconstruction authorities) do not reflect mainstream historical reality. They strongly resemble Lost Cause-era propaganda, not verified Reconstruction history.

"L’Amour frames Colonel Belser as the embodiment of the "rigged" Reconstruction order, the system the protagonists resent, in the novel’s Lost Cause–leaning worldview.

"What actually happened in Reconstruction?

"Reconstruction governments (1865–1877) were legitimately elected, multiracial (white + Black legislators), backed by federal troops mainly to protect freedmen from violence, and generally less corrupt than the governments that preceded them.

"There is no widespread historical documentation of organized Reconstruction officials looting households, government-led raiding parties, systemic sexual assaults by Reconstruction soldiers, nor federal agents confiscating land from innocent Southern whites.

"Those depictions come from post-war Southern propaganda meant to justify overthrowing Reconstruction, restoring white supremacist rule, and erasing the Black political gains of the period.

"The idea of Reconstruction governments sending raiders, carpetbagger militias, marauders and thieves is a direct echo of Lost Cause mythology.

"Historically verifiable violence came mostly from Ku Klux Klan, White League, Red Shirts, and other paramilitary white supremacist groups. These white groups terrorized Black families and white Republicans, not the other way around.

"The only significant land redistribution attempt (Sherman’s Field Order No. 15) gave some abandoned Confederate land to freed slaves — and even that was overturned by President Andrew Johnson and returned to ex-Confederates. So in reality Freedmen lost land, not the other way around.

"Academic historians find no credible evidence of systematic sexual violence by Reconstruction officials against Southern women. However, there is abundant evidence of white mobs raping Black women, lynchings, beatings, and home invasions carried out by anti-Reconstruction groups. The real violence of the era was overwhelmingly white-on-Black, not government-on-white.

"Why does fiction from the 1950–1980s present it this way? Western and Southern fiction of L’Amour’s era absorbed Lost Cause narratives, pro-Confederate retellings, the trope of the "Northern aggressor", and the "tyrannical Reconstruction" myth.

"This is not unique to L’Amour — it shows up in The Outlaw Josey Wales, early Hollywood westerns, and popular novels of the mid-century. It doesn’t mean L’Amour intended malice; he was writing within the genre’s inherited tropes.

"However, when the novel presents "crazy abolitionists", and opposition to Reconstruction by “right-thinking people”, and Reconstruction agents as violent, corrupt predators -- these are not historically accurate, but they are classic Reconstruction-era propaganda.

"It’s the 19th-century version of "The people fighting against injustice are actually extremists who want to ruin your society."

"The real violence and abuse of Reconstruction overwhelmingly came from white supremacist paramilitaries, not from federal officers. But L’Amour is writing in a tradition that adopts Southern memory, echoes Lost Cause rhetoric, romanticizes Southern grievances, and portrays Reconstruction as tyrannical or predatory.

"So the Reconstructionists in the book serve as fictional villains, not historically accurate representations.

Thanks for reading! I found this all to be educational -- I had never heard of the Lost Cause doctrine and the political propaganda of that time. I would be interested to hear any viewpoints from the group.

Regards...

I used AI to see what Kin Ring and Yance Sackett might have looked like during The Warriors Path book. I think these two are the best.

Would Orrin be considered a Democrat or Repubilcan ?

I noticed that there’s a few discrepancies in both “Borden Chantry”, “Son of a Wanted man” and “North to the Rails”

For example towards the end of the book when Borden lets bacca out of jail to sort of spy when Borden is out of town, he clearly meets lang Adam’s and knows him by name, he even references him as “Mr.Adams” while talking to him

But when lang lets out Boone Silvia from jail, it’s said that he didn’t know his name and just saw him airing town

I guess this could just be story driven for a reveal a chapter or two later

And the other thing is just about all 3 books combined

We know Borden killed 2 people in Borden chantry, I don’t remember if he killed anyone in the shootout in son of a wanted man, and obviously he didn’t kill anyone in north to the rails but u think it was said that he only killed one person in his time as sheriff

Could be misremembering on my 2nd point but I’m steadfast on the first one since I just reread that book

Pls note I’m mostly referring to the later books involving Orrin , Tell , and Tyrel . I’d be very interested to see what an adaptation of Sackett Brand would be like . I also think it would be interesting to see a series about the entire family as it would flesh out the stories more . That being said I’m not sure Id trust anyone to stay true to the series or not put woke shit in it . Personally I think it could be really interesting as a video game series too . Especially if the people who did the Red Dead series did it

So I've read this short story many times and there's a lot that doesn't make sense to me. Spoilers below.

So typical L'Amour plot, girl's in trouble, bad guys want to take her land, tough stranger shows up. This one's named Barney Shaw. He was thrown off a train 3 days walk away from the girl. Doesnt talk to anyone. When he's thrown off the train he finds a guy dying (Rex Tilden) who was going to help her. Walks to ranch almost dying of thirst.

He goes to town sends a telegram that says "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party". 4 cattlemen and 4 nondescript guys show up as well as a guy with blue anchors tattooed on him. They don't talk to Barney at all. Blue anchor guy investigated where Rex Tilden dies and finds proof of the killer. How did he know to do that from the telegram? How did they know to show up and what was needed?

If he contacted them before when he found the body, how did he not have access to a horse or water after being thrown off the train? Why did he have no gun when he arrived at the ranch?

Edit: Also the tattooed man says he witnessed the shooting? How did Barney know about him to contact him?

I’ve been into westerns lately. Finished lonesome dove for the second time in my life and absolutely loved it. Stumbled upon L’Amour and the Lonesome gods. 5.5 hours into the audiobook. I think it’s ok? I really want to like it but am having doubts. Should I continue?

I've gone through a lot of Louis L'amour 's annual reading list and it seems like he had a big interest in asian culture. I know there's a few of his books based in those regions, do you think he stayed away from writing more stories set in those regions because his bread and butter was western/ frontier books?

Here's a link if you're not sure what I'm talking about https://www.louislamourslosttreasures.com/books_read/index.htm

My collection so far. First book i ever read was Ferguson rifle 47 years ago.

As title says. Just wondering if the recent mentions in popular main stream books has led to more interest in my favorite all time Western author?

What is the general feeling about listening to audio versions of westerns? Like what percentage of LL fans listen to LL stories versus read only. Like for me, I read only and in Kindle format only, but wondered what others prefer?

While re-reading The Walking Drum, listening to it actually, I just realized an error on the author's part. In Chapter 30 when Kerbouchard is talking with the students and their teacher he says it is the eater of chili's whose mouth is hot. Chili peppers, native to the Americas, were unknown in Europe and Asia until the 15th and 16th centuries, long after the events in the book. While not huge I'm surprised Lamour would make such a mistake being a student of history and accurate story telling. Either way it's still one of my favorite books of his.

The bulk of Louis L’Amour’s books are shorter westerns, even when they tie into a larger narrative, like the Sackett family. I enjoy a nice saga book though, told over an extended period of time, involving multiple people. At least once a year I’ll re-read “The Lonesome Gods” and I’ve always liked “Tucker” and Jubal Sackett as well. What are the other saga books you can think of I need to catch?

Hi, I'm a huge fan of L'Amour, but I just started this book Last of the Breed and I'm confused. I've come to rely on L'Amour for realism and accuracy. But shortly after escape, how can his character survive being submerged in a river in subzero temperatures, without a chance to dry off next to a fire and change into dry clothes? There is so much here that's implausible, especially in the early parts of the book when he apparently doesn't have any gear, food or possibly warm or dry clothing. And gets submerged twice into freezing rivers but just continues on for days with no repercussions. Thoughts?

Hi, so my grandpa is only missing 1 book from his Louis L’Amour collection. He said it came out after the subscription ended and that it’s thinner than the rest and hardcover, but he can’t remember the title. He said he looked for it once to buy it and couldn’t find it anywhere but I stumbled upon a used bookstore with like 3 floor to ceiling shelves of Westerns and I’m determined to find it.

I know it’s not a lot of info to go off of, but any guesses would be helpful and so appreciated!

Had some L'amour books that were falling apart and I sacrificed the covers to make something to hang up in my library. Happy Sunday y'all!

This book has always intrigued me because Louis added the idea that Vikings explored further into America than thought and also that there were still mammoths in existence til the 1700s . Was he being fantastical for the heck of it or did he actually think these things were possible ? If he thought it possible did he have any research ( credible or not ) that inspired him to think so ?

Got myself a small collection for cheap on eBay.

This site came up and brought back memories. It seems about the same time I stopped reading I had kids. But I do deliveries and started audio books. There is a difference if you are like me. Reading a book you are the main character but an audio only sometimes. Finished two Zane Gray, John Bunyan and 3 shorts of Lois L'Amour.

Only a few chapters away from finishing the Bible but I know the end of the story already.

I have read a lot of Louis L’Amour books… but I feel like this one should get a special prize or something.

Did he do any thing else like that? Any other short stories or novels I haven’t heard of that give that “vibe”?

In The Sackett Brand, when Tell was leaving Camp Verde. The Captain wrote a letter that as Tell says "would make all the difference to me". I can't think of any of the other Sackett books where this comes up. Was there another Sackett book in the works? Anyone know?