Talk:Daniel David Palmer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Daniel David Palmer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Fish Monger

Midnightcomm, I am glad you asked for a reference for the fish monger sentence in the lead. I, too was interested in this and found this as a reference. It is taken from "The Lerner Report" which was never published but was an investigation by a legal firm to determine the direction the chiropractic profession should take:

For years, word has circulated that Palmer was a fish-monger in What Cheer, Iowa, before he took up the art of healing. The beginning of this rumor had its origin in the affidavit filed with the Grand Jury of Scott County in September, 1905 by a man, named Charles S. Cilley -- a young practising physician of Davenport. In his affidavit, Cilley states the following:

"I am 28 years old. I have my office in the McCullough Building, and I am a physician. I have lived in Davenport, Iowa about a year. Formerly, I lived in What Cheer, Iowa and I knew Palmer I think he left there about 17 years ago. At What Cheer, Iowa, he conducted a fish market. He had no other business or occupation that I know of. I have seen Palmer at his infirmary, which is conducted on Brady Street."

Lerner goes on to say:

It is well to note that Dr. Cilley, who prepared the affidavit indicated above, was 28 years old in 1905. Palmer had come to Davenport in 1886 after he had been living in Burlington, Iowa for a while. Before that, Palmer had been in What Cheer, Iowa. Seventeen years prior to 1905 would have been 1888 -- and Cilley himself would have been 11 years old at the time. If Palmer had left What Cheer, Iowa, about 1884 or 1885 -- which is more nearly accurate -- Cilley would have been only 8 or 9 years of age. At that age, it is questionable whether Cilley could have intelligently identified Palmer's occupation in life. Willard Carver has written in his unpublished biography, which I have procured, that Palmer was not a fish-monger; but instead, Palmer had been engaged in the business of selling gold-fish -- quite a different thing entirely.

I have heard of the fish-monger occupation previously, but unless someone can find a source that specifically states it as fact, as wikipedians, we should probably not propogate a rumor. Does someone else know of a reputable source?--Dematt 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"After his release B.J. squeezed him out of the college. " <-- what the heck does this even mean??

Sounds like a POV edit to me. Let's either get rid of it or redo it. --Dematt 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall, BJ used the situation of DD's incarceration to conveniently take over the college. He ended up making a settlement and bought out his father for a specified amount and some books and other things. I don't recall the exact details, but there was no love lost between the two. That fact is also what makes the events surrounding DD's death so controversial - that BJ drove his car into him. BJ had been harshly treated and ignored by his father, and grew up as a "river rat." He got kicked out of school as well. DDs later life wasn't a dance on roses either. He even stopped practicing as a chiropractor for a time. A rather unfortunate ending for the man who invented a profession. -- Fyslee 21:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

From what BJ wrote in vol. 22, 1949 (re-printed from 1915) relating to the sale of PCC. Perhaps this will shed some light.

"The author, when but a boy and when Chiropractic was yet being nursed, was forced—by circumstances over which he had no control—to assume the proprietorship of the then only school of Chiropractic. Our first statements are the facts as they existed prior to 1906 that you might understand how it was possible that such circumstances could happen when known that “B. J. Palmer was only a boy when the events of this chapter occurred, . . .” In 1901 D. D. Palmer scuttled the Chiropractic ship; gave it up as a profession; left it in disgrace in Davenport. B. J. Palmer assumed the remnants, although “only a boy”—18 to be exact—took the scraps and debts left behind by the elder and reconstructed a business upon the ruins. Upon application, two years later, D. D. was taken into the successful business of B.J. Palmer. He returned penniless, in debt and goods mortgaged. B.J. gave half of all he had, paid his debts and cleaned the mortgage. (See Howard Nutting’stwo letters.) A similar occurrence happened several times at later dates. B. J. continued to take him back and divide. This leads up to the last time, during which he did the same act of generosity previous to the trial in question. (If B. J. four times did divide, would he the fifth time steal and rob?) This accounts for how B. J. came to own one-half of The Palmer School of Chiropractic at the time of the trial in 1906. D. D. Palmer and B. J. Palmer were both under indictment in Scott County, Iowa. It is significant that the Prosecuting Attorney, for reasons of his own, saw fit to choose the elder to trial first, the reason being best known by local merchants. B. J.’s case never was called to trial and was eventually dismissed outlawed. The verdict of D. D.’s trial being “guilty as charged.” D. D. Palmer, when asked for reason why he should not be sentenced, gave a lecture to the court stating that he had done no wrong, only good; that it was unjust to fine a man for such. He then, voluntarily, elected to serve his sentence in jail rather than pay fine. He served seventeen days, as we remember. Finding that the sentence read “until this sum shall be paid,” meaning that no matter how long he stayed he would still have the fine to pay rather than that he was paying the fine at so much per-diem, he desired freedom. His fine was paid from partnership money. Returning to The Palmer School, he assumed his former position, partnership and ownership and lectured to his classes as usual, although this arrangement was not for long. During his incarceration he soured on law, courts, public officials and even dearest and closest friends. He thought them in league against him. In time this same attitude spread to his business partner, the institution and its students. Instead of getting lighter, as time went on, it grew worse. Knowing well that a business could not be continued successfully under such a guise, we agreed to disagree and dissolve the business, either D. D. Palmer buys us or we buy him. We attempted to agree between ourselves. This was an impossibility. Then came the arbitration committee. During the period of arbitrating the issue, all property, titles, moneys, etc., were deposited and controlled by this committee. It will be abundantly shown that when D. D. and Mrs. D. D. Palmer left Davenport they had the purchase price of $2,196.79, plus the $400 they had saved up, making a total of $2,596.79. That this was the beginning of the downfall of D. D. Palmer will not be for his actions were such that he lost the confidence of every one who had to do with him professionally then or since." --Hughgr 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting letter (printed in same book as above)

To Whom It May Concern:

This is to certify that I, Joe Schillig and I, R. H. St. Onge, both on the arbitration committee that settled the affairs of D. D. Palmer and B. J. Palmer, D. C., and that in said case if we two could not agree we were to select the third man, was so appointed at the time that said B. J. Palmer, D. C., and D.D. Palmer so signified their intentions of dissolving and herein must say thateverything was conducted in justice to both so far as our judgments allowed and which was subsequently settled to the entire satisfaction of both and that at no time in the histories of their partnership in running said school have we known B. J. Palmer, D.C., to place his father’s or any portion thereof, property in the hands of his wife other than, what the Committee decided was justly B. J.’s property, in fact nothing of the sort was ever done nor is there one bit of truth in the statement when it was made that D. D. Palmer, was turned from the school ‘penniless’ for in fact B. J. Palmer, D. C., bought his interests and good will of the business entire, paying therefore several thousand dollars in cash. Instead of doing an injustice, the opposite was what ruled our every motive. We gave and took from both sides until an agreement was reached between us and anything to the contrary is a falsehood and worthy of further investigation from those that know. The entire control of both the above named parties was entirely under our management from the time of starting until the matter was through. I, Joe Schillig, and I, H. R. St. Onge, was appointed by D. D. Palmer and B. J. Palmer, D.C., respectively. If there was any collusion anywhere it was with us, as the committee men, and as we were appointed by both parties it hardly seems fair to accuse us of such, let alone B. J. Palmer, D.C., who had no voicings in the matter. We hereby exonerate B. J. Palmer, from having performed any moral or unjust crime that others may attach to his name, which in this instance, is as we know, unmerited and base. The entire division rested in our hands from the time of commencement until finished. We further wish to brand any rumors to the contrary as base lies and not worthy of repetition, as facts, such as this contradict the foregoing. (Signed) JOE SCHILLIG, (Signed) R. H. St. Onge.--Hughgr 22:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Made some changes

I made some minor and major changes to this article to hopefully make it more encyclopedic. Some text was deleted as it appeared to be out of place and thus non-sequitur. If someone felt it was necessary, please feel free to re-incorporate it. --Dematt 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that your deleted bits should go in a new section that is flagged as a stub, to invite expansion. The deleted extracts alone look like rather skimpy, merely derogatory comments, and I think you're right they didn't follow. But they could and should be expanded, because I think that they are important indicators of missing elements of Palmer's thinking. Flagging this section as a stub is an acknowledgement that at present there is inadequate context and explanationGleng 08:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Seance

Took this one off the page because neither of the cited sources mentioned a seance. I have heard this too so if someone does have the source that says seance we can put it back in, but otherwise we should reword to match the sources.

Palmer said he "received chiropractic from the other world" during a seance, from a deceased physician named Dr. Jim Atkinson.[1][2]

Also noted that in the second source, it actually has him describing it more of an "inspiration" from the other side. --Dematt 02:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point Dematt, but wasn't this just his way of making chiro look like a religion so he could defend himself in court by saying he wasn't practicing medicine, but practicing his religion? -- Hughgr

There are references for that. Keating for one in The Evolution of Palmer's Metaphors and Hypotheses Here's one of the paragraphs that suggest it:

Despite the obvious religious character of this bio-theosophy, Palmer felt that the non-denominational character of his spiritual views were not in conflict with any chiropractor's individual theological preferences; he apparently recognized little conflict between religion and science. Donahue (12) suggests that Old Dad Chiro did not intend to establish a new religious sect, but rather to legally protect the fledgling profession by bringing the practice of chiropractic under the protection of the religious exemption clauses of many of the medical practice acts then in effect. This strategy paralleled the replacement of old technique jargon, such as diagnosis, manipulation and treatment, with legally defensible terms such as analysis and adjustment (John A. Howard, D.C., quoted in 34). Although the Founder considered chiropractic a philosophical science which "in time will lift the veil which obstructs the view of the life beyond" (16, p. 491), he would also note that "It [is] the business of religion to prepare you for death; of science to show you how to live. Religion asks, 'Are you prepared to die?' Science asks, 'Are you prepared to live?'" (31, p. 52). Unlike religion, Palmer's chiropractic was clearly in the life business. To his credit, Old Dad Chiro acknowledged that "Chiropractic may be practiced without the knowledge" of his Innate philosophy (16, p. 691);perhaps this may be interpreted as allowing that chiropractic science could be meaningful even if divorced from Palmer's "New Theology" (16, p. 446)?

-- Dematt

William Jarvis (next to Barrett the foremost authority on quackery) writes this:

Chiropractic's true origin appears to have been of a more mystical nature than the Lillard tale denotes. Palmer was an active spiritualist and apparently believed that the idea of "replacing displaced vertebrae for the relief of human ills" came in a spiritualist séance through communication with the spirit of Dr. Jim Atkinson, a physician who had died 50 years earlier in Davenport [3].

[3] Palmer DD. Textbook of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland Printing House, 1910, pp. 1112. [3]

I don't have access to Palmer's book, so I can't question his choice of words. Who can check it? It must be on DVD by now.

Good stuff

Wow guys. Your conversations are real eye openers. I think we have some good stuff here that must go into the article. I think that both should be considered primary sources and quoted as opinions, but this very much needs to go in!!!! --Dematt 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. :) I'll follow with some quotes surrounding DD's allegedly being struck by BJ's auto. It's an interesting story, but I'll have to condense because it covers about 200 pages in vol.22. :) --Hughgr 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

More info on DD and BJ's problems and DD's controversial death

This was copied from vol.22. It is BJ's story of the problems with his father and what happened during the parade that led to his murder charge.

WHEN CHIROPRACTIC was a toddling kid, D. D. Palmer had a “treating room” with a mirror on the wall. As the patient lay on the straight one-piece board table, he could look in the mirror and see what D.D. did to his back. D.D. caught one patient doing this. He took down the mirror and it never went back. Why? Because D.D. had in mind the keeping of the Chiropractic art a family secret to be handed down from father to son, etc. If Chiropractic was what D.D. said it was, if it could do what he said it could, no man could adjust all the vertebral subluxations in one city, state, or country—let alone the world. If it was a question of service to the sick, then many Chiropractors would be needed. Here was a division of thinking between the father who wanted to maintain Chiropractic a family secret, and the son who thought it better to teach many to spread its work broadcast. This created a split in the family. Many hot and unpleasant words passed between. It finally split father and son, which made the father bitter toward the son. It was a breach never patched, even to the time of the death of the father, who stipulated that the son was not to come to his funeral.

On one occasion, the father came to Davenport to an Annual PSC Lyceum, in August. A photo was being taken of a group in front of the PSC buildings. D. D. Palmer stayed across the street, observed the doings, but refused to come across and be in the group, although invited to do so. Following the photo, the annual parade through the streets of Davenport took place. First came the U.S. flag, then the PSC and UCA flags, followed by an auto which was set aside for D. D. to ride in. He refused to ride; said he was going to walk at the head of the parade, ahead of all flags. Following his car was the car in which rode Governor Morris, National Counsel for the UCA, and B. J. Palmer. The day was exceedingly hot. What would Davenport think, with D. D. Palmer, an old man, “being compelled to walk in the boiling hot sun? and the young son riding in a luxurious car? B. J. insisted D. D. ride in the car set aside for him. He refused. He was asked to get out of the parade. Several times he got out, but came back in again. Finally, B. J.’s car drove up along side of D. D., leading the parade, and asked him to get on the sidewalk and stay there. At this juncture, D. D. got out of the parade, ran down the sidewalk to the Universal Chiropractic College, went into their building and told them he had been run into, knocked down and run over, injured, etc. A short time later, however, D.D. appeared on Third and Brady-three blocks away-and started to get into the parade again. A policeman took him out and to the police station. A few days later, the Universal Chiropractic College, under the leadershipof Loban, Moyer, Rheuleman, Sol Long, Willard Carver, and others, started to collect money to prosecute B. J. for injuring his father, contending the statements made by D. D. were correct.

Several months later, D. D. died in Los Angeles, of typhoid fever. It was then the Universal group got actively busy contending D. D. died from injuries sustained at the hands of an automobile driven by B. J. in the parade in question. Affidavits were secured from “eye-witnesses” who said they saw B. J. run into his father; saw him knocked down; saw him run over, etc. Evidence was conflicting but sufficient to justify taking the matter to the prosecuting attorney of Scott County who presented the evidence on a charge of murder to the Scott County Grand Jury. This was done three times with no “true bill” being reported as many times. This forced B. J. to gather evidence to the contrary. It was later found that prosecuting affidavits were forgeries; additional evidence was later typewritten into the signed originals. All this tremendous mass of evidence, pro and con, has been gathered and published in a book titled With Malice Aforethought. Three incidents occurred which brought the issue to a head:

1. That D. D. was sick several months later, was true. That he died, was true. The attending physician signed the death certificate stating “typhoid fever” as the cause of death. Attending D. D. at the time was a nurse. She signed an affidavit for the UCC gang “that D. D. Palmer came to his death as the result of an accident from an automobile being driven at the hands of B.J. Palmer, in a parade on the streets of Davenport, Iowa,” even to stating day and occasion of a PSC Lyceum. How could she swear to such when she had never been in Davenport, did not see the parade or the purported accident? When confronted with this affidavit it was purported she signed, she swore it was a forgery; that all she gave in her affidavit was that “D. D. Palmer died of typhoid fever,” etc. She issued a counter affidavit stating the true facts, further stating that extraneous matter was added to her original affidavit after she had signed it.

2. All original affidavits held by attorneys for the UCC gang were in an envelope which lay on the desk one spring day. The window was open, desk was open; a sudden spring rain-wind storm came up which blew the envelope off the desk onto the floor. The janitor swept the papers into his basket and took them to the furnace room. He was a patient in the evening clinic of The PSC. It just happened that he told B. J. about having seen some papers of something about a murder against him, and asked “Would you like to see these papers?” In this way, B. J. secured the originals, putting him in a position to track down the forgeries and other affidavits never sworn to by some names purportedly signed thereto.

3. At the time this matter was up before the Scott County Grand Jury, The PSC had in its clinic a charity patient from Arkansas. He was a charge on county expense. The prosecuting attorney called B. J. and told him it would be better if they sent this case home and took him off the county poor fund. The attorney asked The PSC to reimburse the county for money paid out for his keep. A check was issued and sent to the prosecuting attorneys office for that purpose. At time check was given to P. A., Sol Long., attorney for the UCC gang was sitting in the anteroom. He saw the check pass hands. He immediately jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the reason he could get nowhere with his suit was because B. J. was buying off the P.A. He rushed to the UCC and that day issued a mimeographed letter stating in no uncertain terms that B. J. was buying off the P.A. B. J. secured a copy of this letter next day, sent it to the P.A., which enraged him to such an extent that he immediately dropped all further interest in their case.

One can hardly realize to what dire extents the UCC group were forced, without reading With Malice Aforethought in its entirety and weaving through the sordid details. Presumably, about $15,000 of good Chiropractic money was wasted on both sides to prosecute and defend this unpleasant episode in the life of B. J., to protect Chiropractic in its purity for posterity. Long since, B. J. has been completely exonerated of charges implicated. Long since, practically every one of the traducers is dead and buried—Loban, Moyers, Rheuleman, Sol Long, Willard Carver, etc. The episode has long been forgotten, but it raged bitterly while it lasted for more than three years.

There is a lot more detail in this book about the murder charge. If have questions about something, I'll do my best to look it up. :) For now, I'm not sure how all this information should be added to the article. If someone (hint:Dematt) wants to take a crack at it, that'd be cool with me. I'm a bit worn out from all this reading today. :)--Hughgr 02:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago I collected all the quotes I could find on-line and placed them here:

The Death of DD Palmer: Attempted Murder by His Son?

Hughgr, don't wear yourself out on this. You're really providing a lot of good information, and we're very grateful. -- Fyslee 09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to see what productive value there is in the circumstances of David Daniel Palmer's death. The speculation and poor documentation do not merit a reference in a biographical description of an individual. These rumors may be entertaining however they also cast shadows and dispersion on two leaders' characters and an entire field they founded and developed. Leave the speculation and character attacks for more in depth interpretations and save solely proven biographical information for those searching credible information on Daniel David Palmer. Notable characters from the past have had "Skeletons in the Closet" and it is entertaining however these are very inappropriate in a media focused on Encyclopedic content and based on reliable sources. Perhaps this information would be more appropriate in a section leveled at the character of health care leaders. Ronjon64 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Port Perry vs. Pickering

Is there a reason that D.D.'s birthplace is listed as Port Perry instead of Pickering?

Palmer History Palmers and the Port Perry Myth

DigitalC 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say change it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tributes

I moved this here until notability can be assessed. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Palmer was memorialized on the album "Stand up and sing for Chiropractic" by Dr. David Koffman. Koffman, known as the "Singing Chiropractor", released the album in 1978. "The Ballad of D.D.Palmer" retold the history of Dr. Palmer's first adjustment, the formation of Chiropractic and his legal battles.^{[citation needed]}

Development of "mysticism" section

I have significantly developed the section on Palmer's mysticism by adding motivating background, historical information and quotes, and by sourcing it extensively. I hope this is a good addition. I have tried to word it reasonably neutrally, while revealing some of the inner workings of this fascinating man. He thought deeply over things, studied widely, and wasn't as ignorant as many have made him out to be. That he often used his self-taught knowledge improperly and came to false conclusions was almost inevitable in that day and age, and for a man who undoutedly suffered from megalomaniacal personality tendencies, it couldn't have been any other way, since others couldn't correct his aberrations. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Patricide controversy

Across different chiropractic pages there is a repeated pattern of weakening the arguments from the reliable source. See here, here, and here. For example, this edit summary claimed to clarify the sentence. This is far from the truth. The attribution for the text from the book is at the beginning of the paragraph. As a compromise I proposal adding the attribution to the beginning of the sentence where the editor disagrees with the source. It is worth noting that this is anything but a clarifying the text. This was whitewashing the text and removing a significant part of the serious dispute including the dispute with the recorded death as typhoid and the dispute it was not an accident at all but rather a case of patricide. Rather than rewritng the text or adding the attribution the editor decided to delete significant parts of the serious dispute. It was an unattributed opinion the cause of death as typhoid which can be fixed by including attribution at the beginning of the sentence for the entire sentence.

Current version. The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid,[neutrality is disputed] but there was speculation that his death was instead a case of patricide.

Here is the proposal using attribution in accordance with ASF. The book Trick or Treatment states "officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son. Indeed there is speculation that this was not an accident, but rather a case of patricide."^[1] The attribution is clearly indicated using the name of the book and using quotations marks. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How can there be neutrality disputed about the fact that the official cause of death being typhoid? DigitalC (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. There is no question about the recorded cause of death, where he died in Los Angeles on Oct. 20, 1913, several months after the "events" of July 13, 1913. That there was speculation for many years that the events/accident somehow contributed to his death is also a fact, but it was never part of the recorded cause of death. There would have had to be some serious injury to even make such speculation reasonable, and to the best of my knowledge such an injury did not occur. He was healthy enough to travel to Los Angeles from Davenport, Indiana.

The facts must be kept separate from the speculation:

Fact: The official cause of death was typhoid fever and nothing else.
Fact: Something akin to an accident happened.
Uncertain: Whether he was struck by BJ's car or he stumbled is uncertain.
Fact: Some claimed the accident (if it happened) somehow contributed to DD Palmer's death.
Fact: Many more claimed there was no accident and thus there was no possibility that an accident could have contributed to his death.
Fact: Three (?) grand juries refused to try the case of purported patricide.
Fact: There was consideration to raise criminal charges against a rival chiropractic leader for propagating the speculation and repeatedly raising the charges of patricide.
Myth?: It's an unsolved mystery and we shouldn't attempt to imply that one or the other is the absolute truth. All we can be sure of is that there was a controversy with charges flying, but only one official cause of death, typhoid fever.

Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the source it was their opinion the primary cause of death. We can't assert opinions as a fact. The source uses the word "opinions". When the source says it was their opinions we cannot assert it as fact. They were persuaded to change their opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

QG, I knew I shouldn't comment since you are pretty hard to understand. You really need to improve your English. Now let's start from the beginning and get an explanation of your sentence in detail. Please answer each point:

1. What "source" are you referring to?

2. What is "it" referring to?

3. Who is "their"?

4. What source "uses the word 'opinions'"? Is it the same as number one above?

5. Who changed their opinions? Is it the same people referred to in number three above?

Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See here. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I made this compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Trick or Treatment was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Trick_or_Treatment-1] Cite error: The named reference Trick or Treatment was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]