Talk:Raid on Godfrey Ranch

Dubious casualty claim for Indians

The claim of 17 Indians dead in the attack is highly dubious. Mounted Plains Indians hardly ever suffered heavy casualties by persistent and direct attacks on an opponent, especially an unimportant one such as the Godfrey Ranch. The tale of 17 Indians killed sounds like a massive exaggeration to me. Smallchief (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Added a better source. Also, there are no indication that Godfrey did that claim, it was mostly the military historians who did so. Military historians wrote that he killed over 17 Indians and that's the source that we are following. Unless you can find a source that specifically stated that a hisotrian actually challenged Godfrey's feat, but so far there are none. As per wikia rule, we are follwing actual sources here, not assumptions. Bulls123 (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous sources which say that 17 Indians were killed at Godfrey's Ranch, but the weight of credible sources leans the other direction. The "17 Indians killed" probably comes from Godfrey himself, and thus is highly suspect.

The source you cited, Gregory Michno, Encyclopedia of Indian Wars, says "Outside Godfrey's adobe walls were 17 Indian bodies." However, his source for that statement is suspect: He cites Nell Brown Propst, The South Platte Trail,. Propst seems to be a local historian of northern Colorado rather than a specialist in the Indian wars and the publisher of this book, Pruett Publishing, is a no-name publisher.

Regarding Indian casualties, John Dishon McDermott in Circle of Fire: the Indian War of 1865, p. 27, says that "Godfrey inflicted enough damage to earn him the name of "Old Wicked." He does not mention "17 Indian bodies" or give any other number of Indian losses. Like Michno, McDermott is a well-known author on Indian wars. McDermott has equal credibility with Michno in reputation -- and given that McDermott's book is focused on the Colorado War -- more credibility in this instance.

A contemporary source is James Florant Meline in Two Thousand Miles of Horseback, page 43. Meline visited Fort Wicked in 1866, met Godfrey, described the battle in the best tradition of purple prose, and said that the Indians losses were 3 dead and 8 wounded. Presumably, the source of that statistic is Godfrey himself. There is no mention in Meline's book of 17 Indian dead. Three Indian dead seems in the realm of possibility, while 17 is not.

Another source is the War of the Rebellion--Official Records, Vol. 48, Part One. From page 40 to 44 in this book, several U.S. army officers describe their operations against the Indians in the South Platte Valley. Godfrey's ranch is mentioned several times, but the only reference I find to the battle itself is on page 41. "4 men fought a large force about the 14th and succeeded in driving them off." There is no mention of Indian casualties at Godfrey's ranch -- although there is frequent claims of Indians killed at other locations and in other battles.

Finally, there is the biography of George Bent, the Cheyenne warrior, Life of George Bent: Written from his Letters, by George E. Hyde. Pages 164-222 in the book describe the Indian campaigns in the South Platte valley in 1865. Bent does not mention Godfrey's in his lengthy account, although he talks of many other raids on ranches and skirmishes with soldiers. I only find mention in Bent of 4 Indians killed along the South Platte. Three were Sioux killed in an attack on a wagon train, and the fourth was an Arapaho killed accidentally by another Indian. In fact, Bent treats the whole South Platte campaign by the Indians as a lark with the Indians capturing large numbers of livestock and quantities of loot at little cost to themselves.

In other words, I don't find the figure of 17 Indians killed at Godfrey's ranch credible. It all sounds like a tall tale invented by Godfrey, aided perhaps by ambitious army officers embellishing their accomplishments and the colorful prose of romantic writers. I'm going to re-add the dubious tag. If you find additional material bolstering your view, we can discuss this matter further. Smallchief (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, you need to out uo an actual source or text that does challenge Godfrey’s feat. You challenge Michno’s source even though it is taken right from a historical record. Your source from. Bent is not connected to the articlr since he never even even been to Colorado. So far all you have written in your paragraph is fileld with words like “I don’t find”, which reeks of assumptions. This is wikipedia, not a forum. Put up a source or create one, then you can edit the page. Bulls123 (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I added the source that stated that he only killed 4 Indians. You can always find a source that personally challenged Godfrey’s claim, but you cannot personally write your own assumptions because every wikipedia statement must always be backed by actual sources. Bulls123 (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong on one point. Bent not only "had been to Colorado," he was a participant in the South Platte raids as a Cheyenne warrior. His no-mention of Godfrey's is as persuasive in the negative sense as claims that 17 Indians were killed. Smallchief (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Smallchief and Bulls123, I edited the 4-17 killed into 3-17 killed, since as rule of casualties, its always between the smallest recorded number to the highest recorded number that is always written. I also want to add that the 17 killed came from an interview of Private Mccallister who was one of the cvalrymen who went to relieve Godfrey's ranch from the Native Americans in The South Platte Trail, which was a prominent newspaper during the Colorado War.49.147.167.32 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I won't contest that 3 Indians might have been killed, although even that figure is likely inflated. On casualties, we always have to be careful about accepting jingoistic claims. No soldier or story teller ever got famous by claiming that he killed less of the enemy than he actually did. So tall tales abound in all wars. And the claim that 17 Indians were killed at Godfrey's is a tall tale -- with a 0.00 percent chance of being accurate. Smallchief (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I dont have any problems with your points that SmallChief. But you have to put up an actual source that contested Godfrey by name. However, you are always welcome to put up one in the future. Bulls123 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

George Bent "Source"

I own the book on George Bent and there was no mention of the Godfrey ranch in there. So I do not know why it was even used as a source here other than trying to prove an assumption of this whole casualty debate. I agree that of it being used to describe the background of the conflict, but other than that its whole usage is weird and unnecessary. To Smallchief, I am not trying to contest whether the whole "Holon killed 17 Indians" is real or not. But if you want to prove that this is false, then use an actual book or source that tries to debunk it. Here in Wikipedia, we add information based on the consensus and publications of historians and experts, not based on our own research or readings, even if it sounds strange and false to us (See: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth).

That being said, I do want to give you a tip when it comes to history. It doesn't mean that one source doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that it does not exist, especially since other sources are present. By that logic, you might as well say that Jesus Christ, Muhammad, or Sun Tzu did not exist since no contemporary sources during their time mentioned them. ChrisGultieri (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)