They were not "poor whites" as has been recently said.[140] If they had been poor; if they had not owned a lot of good horses, they would not have been murdered. The desperado always appeared upon the fringe of our advancing settlements; but he was neither a settler nor a home builder. The men who were murdered and robbed had taken claims, had built homes, and were living peaceably and honorably in them. They did not in their lives exhibit the characteristics of the desperado, but their assassins measure up to the part. They had no homes; they were not cultivating the fertile soil of eastern Kansas; they had abandoned their claims and were living upon their wits; they were floaters who intended to leave the neighborhood. These men wore the brands which distinguish the desperado; they carried "slung-shots";[141] they were swearing, swaggering bullies[142]--"rough-necks"--who infested that border and preyed upon the home builders. In the preface to his great book, Mr. Villard states that "to Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson is due his ability to record for the first time the exact facts as to the happenings on the Pottawatomie." It is evident that he was imposed upon by these principals in the "happenings"; for it is unfair to suppose that he would withhold the facts from his publication if he had correct information in his possession concerning them. He has written voluminously, and in a scholarly manner about this episode, and has shown the inconsistency of a part of the brood of fallacies which were conjured, and put forth as motives justifying Brown's conduct therein; but he has not added any valuable fact to the narrative that was given out by Mr. Townsley concerning it. Mr. Townsley withheld the facts relating to the robbery and the exchanging of the horses through confederates, for the personal reason that he did not desire to incriminate himself as a horse thief. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson had greater reasons for withholding from Mr. Villard, and from the public, the damning evidence of the brutal selfishness of this crime. It was theirs rather to guard, _jealously guard_ their father's fame and to defend his memory; and not to betray it by giving up facts that would disclose the secret of his and of their own dishonor. Statements made by criminals, concerning their criminality, are not usually true. It is well enough to get such statements, but it is the safer way not to attach much importance to them. These men were not credible witnesses. John Brown, himself, was a very unreliable witness upon any question wherein his personal interests were involved; and was especially so in relation to this incident; and these two men, as witnesses in their own behalf, continually denied having any knowledge of the facts herein, until Townsley gave out the secret of their complicity with the murders. Salmon Brown wrote December 27, 1859:[143]