Talk:Pleasant Valley War

Omission

The entire two sections on the Wells Outfit and Frederick Burnham have one glaring omission. If Wells and Burnham, by extension, were drawn into the feud, on whose side did they act? Both Grahams and Tewksburys were cattle ranchers, so the directive by the creditors to drive away the opposition's cattle does not clarify the issue. Who were the creditors? Grahams? Or Tewksburys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.21.155 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sad to say that this question, over three years later, still hasn't been answered. Anyone have access to the sources to add a bit more clarifying language? Ljpernic (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Lee Hanchett's book about this is excellent and explains who was really behind the war. Tax records show that before the war, sheriff Mulvenon was very poor but after the war was fairly well off. Mysterious individuals payed for Ed Tewksbury's two murder trials in Phoenix. Research makes it obvious that the money behind the Tewksbury faction was the Phoenix banker, Daggs, who wrote in a letter to his daughter: "They say that war is hell and I should know because the Pleasant Valley war cost me $100,000." At that time this was a huge quantity of money. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, so the Wells group supported the Tewksburys. This is hinted at in the article (somewhere it talks about them joining the losing side of the war), but I will add a little bit to make this connection clearer.

Also, thanks for pointing out the attach/attack mistake. If you (or anyone else) don't object, I'm going to change "...and sent two deputies to attach his cattle" to "...and sent two deputies to seize his cattle". That way we can have others avoid the same confusion that I had in just thinking it was a typo (since many, like me, might not be familiar with this terminology). Thanks -- Ljpernic (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, rereading the text, I'm still not clear (sorry to be dense). So, the Daggs brothers told the Wells outfit to support the Tewksburys or have their sheep seized in lieu of their debt, but instead they killed a deputy who confronted them and ran off? If they refused to join the Tewksburys like the Daggs wanted them to, then for which side did they fight where "For the Wells outfit it became a sheer waste of human life in a struggle without honor or profit in another man's feud, and seemingly without end"?Ljpernic (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I red Lee Hanchett's book about this. I don't know if the Daggs brothers told the Wells brothers to support the Tewksburies. This article is not great and someone needs to clean it up a lot. I recommend that you read Hanchett because it is newer and is based on research such as court testimony, tax records and the letters, etc. of Daggs. Some people think that this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cowboy.jpg is a picture of posse member (John)Fetcher Fairchild on his way to the war. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

The tone of this article seems rather inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. It frequently engages in editorializing and subjective judgements. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Burnham's account does not deserve the prominence given it in the article.

Burnham's story is colorful and of the times, but is hardly the template upon which to frame this article. Eliminate it and his photo completely and offer his book as further reading. NO historians of this conflict have ever given it such prominence (this is the first I've ever seen of his face) and thus this article is not only off the track, but it is totally out of whack. More about Globe than Pleasant Valley. Globe was a hell hole, too. Politics and mining polluting the typical deadly fare of a rustling range war; see Clara Woody.

My own GGpa was on the Tewksbury's side; George Wilson, an orphaned minor. Ed Tewksbury worked for George's legal guardian/brother-in-law, George Newton, at Wilson's Ranch. This is called the "Middleton Ranch" made famous for the Apache raids that persuaded that family to sell to ours, and then this gunfight in 1887. Newton and JJ Vosburg hired Tom Horn to take care of the Flying V nearby after the shepherd got shot. The Grahams and those Blevins rustlers were clearing the valley for themselves after the Blevin's pa went missing (Tom Horn's work?) We'd already lost a breed mare to that crew and the court had proven itself useless. We stood our bloody ground. Forrest's "Arizona's Dark and Bloody Ground" was the most famous of the older books and leans on the Youngs and Hashknives to tell a Graham biased tale.

Don Dedera's book, "A Little War of Our Own," is the most comprehensive, but reads like a jumbled jewelry box for all its darling details. Perhaps Clara Woody's book with Milton Schwartz, "Globe, Arizona" is the best source as it's Part Two is titled "WAR IN PLEASANT VALLEY" and attempts chronology; however, she is a Tewksbury partisan. So am I.

But, whether a Graham, Blevins or a Tewksbury sider, NONE would say Burnham's is the story to lead the way. It's a box canyon with a fancy shmancy name like Remington's that deserves to get shot down. Dedera's book is the best for citations, and it's footnotes and bibliography are essential to any student of this war. Hanchett's books are good, but he's a Graham sider looking for conspiracies to excuse the Grahams and Blevins' wrong doings.

Take down that folly of a detour and restore the story to its established glory. It was a bloody hell that left your palms stained with spots if you got out alive. Burnham only WISHED he was involved, the blood sucking profiteer. He was just cashing in on the nationally recognized horror of it all. Participants kept their mouths shut for a reason.

68.228.220.88 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Burnham was a participant in the feud and his eyewitness accounts give readers significant insights into the earliest phases of the conflict. Historians R.R. Money, J.P. Lott, and P. van Wyk have all researched this conflict and support Burnham's inclusion. The books you cite focus on later and more notorious phases of the conflict that took place well after Burnham escaped from Globe.

But there is legitimate discord over which family brought Burnham into the feud. When Burnham published Scouting on Two Continents in 1926, some members of the feud were still living and Burnham said he did not wish to mention names that might re-kindle the conflict. According to Lott, Burnham was drawn into the conflict by his association with Fred Wells and his family, but Money states that it was his association with the Gordon Family. Burnham was friends with both of these families in Globe, so it could have been either. However, in the undated manuscript of his memoirs, Burnham explicitly mentions his friendship with young Tommy Gordon and his family within the context of the feud. To help clarify this issue, I can add this footnote to the text. In addition, I would also agree that we could substitute Wells for Gordon in this article.

Ctatkinson (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sheep war

"The conflict was commonly thought to be an Arizona sheep war". Since this is wrong, why not delete it? Why would it be necessary to include someone's ignorance about this subject in an Encyclopedia? Shouldn't the article just state the facts: that it was a territorial conflict between two families, over grazing land? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is good to include that it was commonly thought to be a sheep war. Sheep wars were at that time relatively common, so the assumption was natural. That it wasn't true doesn't mean it isn't part of the factual history of the Pleasant Valley War. As an analogy, it would be like writing an article on the history of Mars and not including the fact that people used to think Martians had cities there tucked away in canals. Hilariously ignorant, but still part of the history. That's my opinion, at least. Ljpernic (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)