The party from the mill and himself [Johnson], upon reaching the place, had found it in ruins and the house burned to the ground. About 100 yards from
the desolated ranch they discovered the body of the murdered woman and her two dead children, one of which was a little girl of four years ands the other an infant. The woman had been stabbed in
several places and scalped, and the body bore evidences of having been violated. The two children had their throats cut, their heads being nearly severed from their bodies. Up to this time the
body of the man had not been found, but upon our return down the creek, on the opposite side, we found the body. It was horribly mutilated and the scalp torn off. The family are spoken of by
their neighbors as having been very worthy and excellent people.[vii]
More than three months after these accounts were produced, there is another report about the Hungate massacre. This comes from
the Arapahoe Chief Neva, who participated in the Camp Weld Conference, held near Denver on September 28, 1864. In this conference Governor Evans asks the seven Indians present, who killed the
Hungate family? Neva responds that it was a small party of four Arapahoes, led by "Medicine Man, or Roman Nose, and three others."[viii]
This contradicted an earlier report given to Governor Evans just four days after the massacre. In this report, Robert North, a man who was
married to an Arapahoe woman and had lived and traded among the Indians for years, warned Evans the fall before that the Indians were only trading for arms and ammunition in anticipation of a
general Indian war for the purpose of driving all white people from Colorado. He then identifies the Arapahoe Notnee as being with the party that killed the
Robert North, the same who made statement last autumn, now on file, reports that John Notnee, an Arapaho Indian, who was here with him and Major
Colley last fall, spent the winter on Box Elder. He was mad because he had to give up the stock that he stole from Mr. Van Wormer last fall. He thinks he was with the party who murdered the
family on Mr. Van Wormer's ranch and stole the stock in the neighborhood last Saturday, but thinks that the most of the party were Cheyennes and Kiowas.[ix]
As far as contemporary reports exist of the Hungate massacre, the newspaper accounts, military reports and Camp Weld Conference noted above are what
contemporary historians use to depict the Hungate massacre. What come later are reminiscences from pioneers, and it is from these accounts that certain embellishments to the murders begin to
develop. These embellishments, I believe, deter one from understanding the actual truth of what happened. Nevertheless, modern authors, culling from all of these sources, develop this
scenario, which can be called the standard view. It is not correct: Nathan Hungate was away from his home, working the ranch with a ranch hand named Miller when the Indians surprised Ellen and
her children. His family is soon killed, the house then looted and burned, and Nathan then learns of the tragedy when he sees smoke coming from the direction of his home. While he goes to his
now burning home he is overtaken by the murderous Indians and killed before getting there. While Nathan races to his death the ranch hand, Miller, turns his tracks to Denver, where he soon
reports the massacre to the authorities, and is thus the messenger noted in Evans' reports.[x]
There is, however, primary source material never before consulted that relates to the Hungate massacre. These documents present a clearer picture of
what was happening at the time the Hungates were murdered. Further, modern archeological evidence points to an entirely different understanding of the massacre than the standard view noted
The heretofore-untapped primary source documents are found in the National Archives Building in Washington, DC, from individual Indian depredation claims
housed in Record Group 123. Record Group 123 is not the only record group housing depredation claims. But it is the largest, housing about 10,000 separate claims, and it is from this record
group that are found the claims of John S. Brown, one of the freighters noted in the report of June 12 by Governor Evans, and again in the report dated June 13, 1864. Philip Gomer also filed a
claim for his losses at this time. Gomer owned the mill near the Hungate place where the bodies were first taken.
Before presenting this new information, a word of explanation is in order regarding Indian depredation claims. In 1796 Congress first passed laws
allowing for compensation for U.S. citizens who had property stolen by Indians in treaty with the United States. Compensation for a successful claim was to be taken from the annuities provided
in the various Indian treaties. This law was tweaked and changed many times over the ensuing decades, but the driving thought behind it was twofold: to prevent settlers from seeking revenge
against the depredating Indians (education), and to cause the Indian to refrain from committing depredations (civilization). The claims were processed through the "Civilization and Education"
Division of the Office of the Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs.[xi] The law worked both ways. If an
Indian suffered property losses from an American citizen, then they could petition congress to reimburse them for their loss, and compensation to the grieved Indian would come from the U.S.
The requirements for filing a successful claim for an Indian depredation included several components.
First, the raiding Indians had to be in amity with the United States, which usually meant the Indian tribe and the United States had agreed to an existing treaty. Sworn affidavits had to be
signed by victims of Indian assaults, including at least two witnesses who could testify to the merits of the losses and the truthful character of the victim. The Indian tribe responsible for
the depredation had to be identified, and there had to be an investigation at which time the claim was presented to the tribe and the tribe's response was received. If the depredation occurred
on Indian land, the claimant had to produce evidence showing their permission to be in Indian Territory.[xii] Only occasionally do the offending tribe admit to committing any depredations. A special agent with the
Department of the Interior would then investigate the claim as to the validity of the losses and the amounts of the goods stolen or destroyed. Often the agent would not allow the entire dollar
amount detailed in the claim to be accepted.
One requirement for a successful claim was that it had to be filed within three years of the loss; otherwise the claim was barred from compensation.
However, so many claims were denied on this statute of limitation that Congress in 1885 removed the three-year time clause, effective back to 1873. Thus, several thousand claims were re-filed
in the late 1880s.[xiii]
With this amended act of 1885, all Indian depredation cases were transferred from the Department of Interior to the United States Court of Claims for
final adjudication. But it was the following requirement that today makes such claims a rich and useful research haven:
That all claims shall be presented to the court by petition setting forth in ordinary and concise language, without unnecessary repetition, the facts
upon which such claims are based, the persons, classes of persons, tribe or tribes, or band of Indians by whom the alleged illegal acts were committed, as near as may be, the property lost or
destroyed, and the value thereof, and any other facts connected with the transactions and material to the proper adjudication of the case involved. The petition shall be verified by the
affidavit of the claimant, his agent, administrator, or attorney, and shall be filed with the clerk of said court. It shall set forth the full name and residence of the claimant, the damages
sought to be recovered, praying the court for a judgment upon the facts and the law.[xiv]
Philip Gomer filed a claim for the loss of six horses and a colt on June 11, 1864. Gomer was apparently the nearest neighbor to where the Hungates
lived. While Gomer himself testified that he was away in Denver at the time of the raid, like Isaac Van Wormer, he had a ranch hand that lived at the ranch and took care of his stock. Gomer's
main business was ranching and freighting. Mr. Ferguson and his wife, Catherine Calander Ferguson, were living at the ranch when the Indians raided it on June 11. Ferguson himself was away and
Catherine was left alone. On March 26, 1866 Philip Gomer testified that the raiding Indians were Arapahoe and Cheyenne and "murdered one entire family, known as the Hungate family, driving off
his stock and a large amount for Mr. Van Wormer and others…."[xv]
Catherine Ferguson testified on March 9, 1865 that she was alone in the home when at about five o'clock in the afternoon a lone Arapahoe Indian
approached her house and took the horses picketed and grazing nearby. Mrs. Ferguson quickly mounted another horse and followed the Indian for nearly two miles in an attempt to recover the
horses. The Indian, though armed, did not try to molest her but rather kept the horses just out of her reach. Mrs. Ferguson finally went to a neighbor's house and enlisted a man to assist her
in trying to recover the horses. By this time though, the Indian was able to escape with the horses. She said, however, that it was subsequent to this that she learned of the deaths of the
The depredation claim of John Sydney and Junius F. Brown, brothers in the freighting business, contains dozens of pages of affidavits, of which more
than 75 pages are relevant to the Indian raids occurring at the time of the Hungate murders. Included in the affidavits is one by Thomas J. Darrah, one of the freighters who wrote the report to
Captain Maynard on June 13. Darrah was also in the freighting business, and had apparently suffered his loss of mules shortly before Brown, probably on June 9. It is Darrah who reports to John
Brown, who was in Denver at the time, of the loss, probably on June 10, of several mules from Brown's freighting excursion to Denver.[xvii] Junius Brown had overseen the loading of six wagons in Atchison, Kansas in early May.
Younger brother John Brown was awaiting the goods to be delivered to Denver, 640 miles from Atchison. The Browns would usually average two trips per season, each round trip taking about sixty
days. This was the first one for 1864. They had been in the freighting business since 1862.
The freighting excursion included two wagons pulled by six mules each, and an additional four wagons, each pulled by four mules, for a total of
twenty-six mules and two horses. Six men drove the six wagons, with a seventh man serving as wagon master.[xviii] When the
party was just thirteen miles from Denver, they had stopped on Coal Creek near a watering hole, to prepare dinner (the noon meal) and rest the animals. They unharnessed the animals,
placing them about seventy-five feet from the wagons, where the mules then began to roll on the ground. It was about twelve o'clock in the afternoon, June 10. The men were in the process of
making a fire to cook their meal. Wagon master John Hammer, twenty-two at the time, testified what happened next: "At first I saw two Indians come dashing by the mules, flirting buffalo robes.
It frightened the mules and drove them away. They were unharnessed, prepared to graze, and rolling near the wagons in the road."[xix]
Only two or three of the seven men were armed with pistols, none having a rifle.[xx] In the moment of the surprise and the boldness of the raid, the freighters had forgotten to use their pistols to prevent the theft.
All twenty-eight animals bolted. The Indians had placed themselves between the rolling animals and the freighters.
When this happened Hammer ran to the nearest mule, but "just as I made an effort to catch a mule one of the Indians threw a dart fastened to a lariat rope, and in dodging it I fell to the
ground and the mule got away from me."[xxi] There was a seventh wagon with the
wagon train, a lone man who met the freighters on the road about six days earlier and asked if he could join the train. His four mules, however, were wild, and when the other mules were
unhitched the four wild mules had to be tied to the lone man's wagon, or else they would have run away.
Quickly Hammer asked to use the wild mules to pursue the fleeing Indians. The owner refused. Taking matters into his own hands, Hammer then informed
the unidentified man that he was going to use the mules anyway, and he would be reimbursed later if the mules were hurt or lost. However, none of the mules had ever been ridden and only two
could be successfully mounted. Hammer and another man, Joseph Ferguson, then went in pursuit of the scattering stock, while the man who initially refused the use of his mules, "broke down and
cried like a child…."[xxii]
The two men followed the Indians several miles, until dusk, when other Indians began to bring their stolen stock and join the Indians Hammer and
Ferguson were pursuing. By this time eight other Indians had joined with the other two. All of the Indians were armed with rifles. During the chase and before the other Indians joined the two
being pursued, the Indians "would drive the herd as fast as possible, and flirt robes at our wild mules to head us off when ever they could get a chance." When the herd would scatter the two
pursuing freighters were able to "cut out those that were the slowest and fell behind."[xxiii] In this way Hammer and
Ferguson were able to recover eight mules before ending the recovery effort. With these recaptured mules they then returned to where the raid began. The next day John Brown, with his friend
Corbin, arrived to where the wagons had been stopped prior to the raid. The eight mules were then used to slowly bring the wagons into Denver while Brown and Corbin went in the direction the
Indians ran with the stolen stock, hoping to still recover them.[xxiv]
John Brown testified what happened then:
There was a camp of U. S. soldiers camped on what was known as Cherry Creek, Capt. Maynard in command. The above Darrah, had before informing us of our
loss, carried an order from Capt. Maynard to have those troops [under command of Lt. Dunn] to go over to Running Creek, to march from Cherry Creek to Coal Creek and back in 48 hours. We went to
Box Alder [sic] and traveled about 14 miles up Running Creek, where we found the soldiers in camp eating dinner, and was also joined by Thomas J. Darrah. After dinner the soldiers saddled up
and traveled up the creek, we in company with them. A few miles up the creek we found Hungate's cabin pillaged and a note pinned on the cabin, signed by a party from Gomer's Mill, containing
the information that Mrs. Hungate and two children were killed; a short distance from the cabin we left the soldiers as they had to return.
We then started from the station at Box Alder [sic] and while on the way, we found Hungate killed and scalped. We made a report of it in town and
the bodies of the Hungates' were brought into where is now Denver City, and buried.[xxv]
Thomas Darrah's affidavit in Brown's depredation file supports Brown's testimony. After reporting his loss of stock and subsequently delivering a message
from Captain Maynard to Lieutenant Dunn of the 1st Colorado Volunteers, Darrah stayed with the soldiers until the next day:
When we camped for dinner we were joined by J. S. Brown. In company with the soldiers we followed the trail of the Indians until we came to a cabin which
had been pillaged on which we found a note signed by a party from Gomer's Mill, stating that Mrs. Hungate and her two children had been killed and were at the mill. We skirted around in the
timber looking for Mr. Hungate but did not find him. At a short distance from the Hungate cabin we left the soldiers as they had orders to return. We then started for the station at Box Elder
and on the way found Mr. Hungate killed and scalped. We reported it to the stage station and at Denver and the bodies were brought in to where the City of Denver now is and
Darrah's statement is significant for a couple reasons. First, he indicates that the trail of stolen stock led them to the Hungate place, where they then
learned of the murders. This implies that the same Indians they had been chasing were involved with the Indians that had killed the Hungates, with their murders occurring subsequent to the two
freighter's pillaged stock. Second, Darrah identifies himself and Brown as then reporting the deaths in Denver, thus making them the "messenger" to Governor Evans noted in Evan's June 12
addendum to his earlier letter to Chivington of June 11.[xxvii] This is further supported by yet another report from Governor Evans.
The Brown depredation file includes this report of Evans, dated June 15, and addressed to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The report makes it clear
that the "messenger" reporting the Hungate murders was plural:
The last company left Denver for the Arkansas River on the 11th inst., and camped 15 miles up Cherry Creek under orders to join the regiment
east of Fort Lyon. On that night three messengers came in from the settlements some ten or twenty miles east of this place, on Box Elder Creek, and reported an extensive stampede of
stock, including some 50 or 60 head of mules, and the murder of an entire family, a man named Hungate, his wife and two children, and the burning of their house. The scalped and
horribly mangled bodies were brought to the city yesterday.[xxviii]
The Hungates, then, were in all probability killed by the same party of Indians who had been involved in stealing stock in and around the area between Box
Elder/Running Creek and Coal Creek for at least two days before the murders. How big was this party? Elsewhere in the Brown depredation file it is noted that a total of 113 mules were stolen
between June 9 and June 11.[xxix] In Evans'
report dated June 11 he there notes 49 mules lost to Brown, Darrah and "others." We can assume that Darrah's loss is similar in numbers to Brown, but this still leaves unaccounted about fifty
mules/horses taken from other persons, in order to account for the final number of 113 stock stolen. Nathan Hungate and Isaac Van Wormer lost some, but probably much less than what is still
unaccounted for. So what does this signify regarding the Indians involved in this large raid that culminates in the murders at the Hungate home? The raiding warriors had to be a large party of
Indians in order to be able to divide and commit their various sorties. It must have been at least twenty Indians at the fewest, and probably more, perhaps as many as fifty or sixty. It wasn't
a haphazard raid conducted by a small number of Indians. It was a large raid, and large raids take planning and careful execution in order to achieve success.[xxx]
While all of this information in the depredation files provides some answers about the Hungate massacre and gives us a more complete understanding of the
number of Indians involved and what was happening at the time when the Hungates were killed, still unanswered is the question why they were murdered. Why were they killed when it is
obvious from the testimony of Hamner in the Brown depredation claim and Catherine Ferguson in the Gomer claim that the Indians doing the raiding, while armed, were not interested in molesting
people? There had been no killing while the Indians were depredating for at least two days until the Hungates were murdered. So why were they killed?
Two possible answers emerge from the known documents. One is that that Robert North correctly reported that the Indians were about to start a major war
against encroaching white people residing in Colorado Territory and surrounding states/territories and thus the Hungates were the first in this new war. The other is that a vengeful Arapahoe,
Notnee, retaliates against Van Wormer by killing his ranch hand and family. Neither of these hypotheses, however, holds water. To the first, if a general war were being commenced, then the
armed Indians would have at least tried to kill those people encountered in stealing stock before and after the Hungates were killed. But in fact the opposite occurs. Thus North, even if
reporting the truth of what he observed the preceding fall, is wrong, at least, for June 9-11, 1864. What happens later that summer along the immigration/freighting trails is another matter. If
there is a direct road to Sand Creek from earlier events in 1864, it does not originate in the Hungate murders. Rather, it germinates from the many murders that occur on and near the Santa Fe
and Platte River trails throughout the summer but after the Hungates were killed. The Hungate murders fuel the thirst for retaliation, but the Indian war of 1864 is really about the
subsequent raids along the trails of immigration and freighting.
A new scenario buries the vengeful Notnee hypothesis. This proposal is more consistent with what has been recently discovered at the Hungate
homestead site via the use of metal detectors. This new evidence points to the hypothesis that the Hungates were burned out of their home before they were murdered, and only after they
had made a staunch defense using as many as five weapons that were later burned because they were left inside the burned out home. Had the Hungates been killed before the house was burned these
weapons would have been stolen by the Indians before torching the house. In addition to the weapons, many personal items recently discovered at the original home site also would have been
stolen rather than left and destroyed by fire. And if the house was burned during a siege, it is more likely that Nathan was present and not the standard view, which claims that he saw his
house burning from a distance and died coming to his family's assistance. Further, a more likely motive for burning the house and then killing the Hungates would be that Nathan probably shot
and killed one of the raiding Indians when the Indian's first raided the ranch, either late in the day of June 10, or early in the morning of June 11.
It makes more sense that the Indian's original intent with the Hungates, as it was with all of the other thefts during this time, was simply to steal
stock. If it was to start a general Indian war, then why wasn't Mrs. Ferguson killed, or the freighters associated with Brown and Darrah? And if there were 113 mules and horses stolen during
this time, why weren't the other victims of theft also killed? Something had to have gone bad during the raid at the Hungate place that would motivate such retaliation. And in order to take the
time to burn the family out of their home, there must have been several Indians present, or else Nathan would have in all probability been able to keep them from torching the house. This fact
is what makes the vengeful Notnee hypothesis unreasonable.
Since the Indians had stolen the stock from Brown's freighting outfit and then left in the direction of the Hungate home on the afternoon of June 10, then
perhaps it all began in the early evening on that day when Nathan might have killed one of the marauding Indians. That would make their retaliation to begin in the early hours of June 11, the
house finally being burned down a few hours later, and then the family killed when their only choices were to burn to death in the house or flee in terror from the engulfing flames.
This scenario fits well with their deaths being discovered in the afternoon of June 11 and Governor Evans learning of it from the freighters in the late
evening that day. Further, this understanding makes more sense than the idea that a pouting and angry Notnee, with perhaps three other Indians, chastised by having to give back some stock he
earlier stole, would then return and viciously kill two baby girls, violate and murder Mrs. Hungate, and surprise and kill a worried Nathan coming to check on the welfare of his family, all to
"get even with Van Wormer." That is simply a senseless scenario, as is Neva's claim that Medicine Man and three other Indians killed the Hungates. No, it took more than four Indians to kill the
Hungate family, and the best motive for that would be to avenge another Indian's death, an Indian likely killed by Nathan as the warrior attempted to steal stock from near the
This does not mean that Nontee was therefore not involved with the Hungate tragedy. It is possible that he was with the larger party that killed the young
family. It is even possible that Notnee was with the small raiding party when Nathan surprised and killed or seriously wounded one of the Indians. For that matter, perhaps Medicine Man was also
involved. But what is not plausible is that the motive for killing Nathan and his family was anger at being chastised for an earlier theft at the Van Wormer site. Equally implausible is that it
was only a few Indians who were responsible for the murders.
It is a fair question to ask what evidence is available to support this new hypothesis. Two sources are found in the past and one in the present. One is
another newspaper account in The Denver Commonwealth of June 15. This article is infrequently mentioned in contemporary writings on the Hungate massacre. What is important in this
article is that it places Nathan at the home when the Indians attacked his family. That it is recorded just three days after the murders adds credence to its reliability. After
reporting on the murders, the article continues:
Since writing the above we have had a conversation with Mr. Follett, who has just arrived from Running Creek. Mr. F. is one of the party that went after
the bodies. He says that the woman was found about four hundred yards from the house, with the children both in her arms –- one a babe three or four months, and one, a little girl about two
years old. The bowels of the younger one were ripped open, and its entrails scattered by the sides of the mother and children. The body of the man was found about two miles from the house, but
his whip was found at the [burned] ruins, and some other marks seemed to indicate that he had first been attacked there, and finding himself overpowered, had made an effort to
It is not clear what the "other marks" were that suggested Nathan was present at the home when the attack began, but what is important is the fact that it
was believed at the time that he was present and tried to escape. The second primary source evidence is simply the knowledge how Indians retaliated when one of their tribe was killed. Brevet
Major General C. C. Augur, commanding the military division of the Department of the Platte, noted in an order he sent that it "is a well known rule with Indians that when injured, they
retaliate upon the first favorable occasion that offers."[xxxii] This first favorable retaliation often involved innocent people, but in the case of the Hungate family, Nathan in all likelihood provided the Indians their desire for
retaliation by shooting one of the Indians raiding his ranch. It is already known from the other depredations that the raiding Indians were split up into small numbers, so it was probably just
a few Indians who approached his ranch for the purpose of stealing stock. Nathan, seeing the theft, probably shot one of the Indians.
This is a much more plausible motive for what had to be several Indians coming back to the ranch and taking the necessary means and time to set Nathan's
house on fire. They would have carefully assaulted the house from all sides, in order to get close enough to torch it. Three or four Indians couldn't have accomplished this with any success, as
Nathan could have defended his family as long as he had ammunition. No, it had to be a larger party, and such a party needs a motive to retaliate. Notnee's motive of anger at Van Wormer is not
enough, nor was he and two or three other Indians capable of flaming the house while the family was inside defending themselves. Recovered artifacts from the Hungate home site support this new
[i] Ed. L. Miller, Murder at
the Hungate PlaceJune 11, 1864 (unpublished manuscript, 2001), 49-60. The Denver Commonwealth, June 15, 1864, indicates the mother and daughters were found
about 400 yards from the house. The report commonly called the Freighter's Report, dated June 13 (Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XXXIV, 354) indicates
the bodies were found 100 yards from the house. As will be seen later, because of the proximity of the house with Running Creek, the 100 yard estimate makes more sense. Perhaps the
newspaper article mistyped 400 for 100.
[ii] The actual location of the
homestead is presently unknown, and is placed by others on Comanche Creek anywhere from a few miles north of Highway 86 to a few miles south of Highway 86. I determined my location
according to the affidavits in the Dietemann Indian Depredation claim, which is noted in the text.
[iii] Apollinaris Dietemann
Indian Depredation Claim #4941. Indian Depredations Claims Division, Record Group 123. National Archives Building, Washington, DC.
DenverCommonwealth, June 15, 1864. Western History Department, Denver Public Library, Denver, CO.
[v] The War of the Rebellion:
A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1891), Series I, Volume XXXIV, Part IV, 319-320. Hereafter cited as
[vi] Official Records, 320-321. From this report, compared to the report dated June 12 (endnote 5), the chronology is that Evans first hears of the stolen stock from
Darrah, and after responding to this depredation, he later learns of the Hungate murders.
[vii] Official Records,
8 John M. Carroll, The Sand Creek Massacre: A Documentary History (New York, NY: Sol Lewis, 1973), VI.
[ix] Official Records,
422. In a letter dated November 10, 1863, Evans gives North's statement: "The Comanches, Apaches, Kiowas, the northern band of Arapahoes, and all of the Cheyennes, with
the Sioux, have pledged one another to go to war with the whites as soon as they can procure ammunition in the spring. I heard them discuss the matter often and the few of them who opposed
it were forced to be quiet and were really in danger of the loss of their lives … the principal chiefs pledge to each other that they would shake hands and be friendly with the whites until
they procured ammunition and guns, so as to be ready when they strike. Plundering to get means has already commenced, and the plan is to commence the war at several points in the sparse
settlements early in the spring." (Official Records, 100, emphasis added).
[x] See, for example, Stan Hoig,
The Sand Creek Massacre (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961), 58-59; Margaret Coel, Chief Left Hand: Southern Arapaho (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1981), 189-190; Gary Leland Roberts, Sand Creek: Tragedy and Symbol (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1984), 244-245; Ed. L. Miller, Murder at the Hungate
Place, 97-100, 129-132. The ranch hand, Mr. Miller, gets added to the affair in 1892, when an unidentified man is there reported to have been with Nathan Hungate when they saw
the ranch on fire. The unidentified man races to Denver while Nathan rushes to his death in a vain attempt to save his family. See The Denver Republican, May 27,
1892. Mr. Miller is named as the unidentified man in 1935, when Van Wormer's daughter has her account of the deaths recorded in The Colorado Magazine, Vol. 12, 1935. On this
standard view, the messenger reporting to Evans is mistaken as Miller.
[xi] "Depredations" Report,
Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Entry 96, Letters Sent, 1890, 20-21, Record Group 75, National Archives Building, Washington, DC.
[xii] It should be noted that the
10,000 depredation claims in Record Group 123 were nearly all ultimately rejected from compensation. The cause for rejection was not that the claims were deceitful, but rather that there
was some technicality in filing.
[xiii] "Depredations," 19-24.
[xiv] "Public Act No. 139, for
the adjudication of claims arising from Indian depredations." The Carl Albert Center, The University of Oklahoma, Sidney Clarke Collection, Box 6, Folder 32, Norman, Oklahoma.
[xv] Philip P. Gomer Indian
Depredation Claim #693. Indian Depredations Claims Division, Record Group 123. National Archives Building, Washington, DC.
[xvi] Gomer Indian Depredation
Claim. Gomer's depredation claim includes, in a later filing, an affidavit from Gomer's sister, Martha Quinlan, who states that she was at the home, alone, and witnessed the lone Indian
steal the stock. She further states that it was shortly after the noon meal that "a man rode by and said the Hungate family had all been murdered by
[xvii] The depredation
file officially states that the Brown loss occurred June 9 or 10 (in more than one place June 10 is overwritten as June 9 or 10), 1864, and Darrah's testimony simply states that his loss
was suffered at the same time of Brown's loss. Studying the file however, shows the more likely scenario that Darrah suffered his loss and then discovers the Brown depredation and informs
Brown of such (in Denver). For that time sequence to occur, it appears more likely that their losses occurred at least a day before the Hungates were murdered.
[xviii] John Sidney Brown Indian
Depredation Claim #2196. Indian Depredations Claims Division, Record Group 123. National Archives Building, Washington, DC.
[xix] Brown Indian Depredation
[xx] It seems odd at first glance
that a freighting outfit would be so poorly armed, but until this time there had been little molestation on the trails to and from Denver, hence there was little need to be well armed, a
fact noted in the affidavits of the depredation file several times. The purpose of freighting was to deliver the goods to their destination, so there was not time to hunt near the trail,
and thus little need for rifles and having each teamster armed. Of course, this changed after June 11, 1864.
[xxi] Brown Indian Depredation
Claim, Statement of Loss, 15.
[xxii] Brown Indian Depredation
Claim. [xxiii] Brown Indian Depredation
[xxiv] Brown Indian Depredation
Claim, Statement of Loss, 2.
[xxv] Brown Indian Depredation
Claim, Statement of Loss, 2, emphasis added. [xxvi] Brown Indian Depredation Claim, Claimants' Request For Findings of Fact, 9, emphasis added.
[xxviii] Brown Indian Depredation
Claim, Claimants' Reply Brief, 4, emphasis added.
[xxix] Brown Indian Depredation