By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
Why do so many believe it was Colonel Chivington who ordered soldiers to fight at Sand Creek? He did not have that authority and was only following orders from General Curtis.
The oral history accounts about Sand Creek often mention peace talks between the Cheyenne/Arapaho Indians and Major Wynkoop, who was commanding officer at Fort Lyon. However, by the time of Sand Creek, those peace talks ended, and Major Anthony was commanding officer at Fort Lyon. Any agreements or talks with Wynkoop were null and void.
Major Anthony took command at Fort Lyon on November 2, 1864, per his Sand Creek hearing testimony.
Months before Sand Creek, General Curtis ordered Colonel Chivington to send forces to fight the Indians.
June 3, 1864
Fort Leavenworth
To Colonel Chivington, Denver:
Send out force to crush the Indians that are in open hostility, as requested by Governor Evans.
S. R. Curtis, Major General Commanding Department Kansas.
Report on the Conduct of the War, 38th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865
General Curtis had no intention of making peace with the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians. He issued the orders to send troops from the Third Colorado Cavalry and First Colorado Cavalry to fight the Indians camping at Sand Creek. Governor Evans made many requests to the government asking them to send troops to fight back against the countless wagon train raids, the killing of innocent white settlers, running off stock, and scalping white men, women and children.
Chivington wasn’t involved in the decision making. He was the one ordered to lead soldiers to Sand Creek.
General Curtis told Chivington the Indians should “suffer more.” This information has been suppressed and left out of accounts about Sand Creek. Chivington said he could not disobey orders from the General.
Evans made Curtis aware of the sufferings of the settlers by the Indians.
Per the testimony of Major Anthony, “Major Wynkoop, who had been in command at Fort Lyon, had had some difficulty with the Indians at that point. He had proposed terms of peace with the Indians, which action was not approved at the headquarters of the department or district” (Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War 1865, Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, Congress Of The United States, In The House Of Representatives, January 10, 1865).
General Curtis made it clear no peace agreement was to be offered. Instead, he wanted the Indians to face the consequences for their actions.
September 28, 1864
Fort Leavenworth
To Colonel Chivington:
I shall require the bad Indians delivered up; restoration of equal numbers of stock; also hostages to secure. I want no peace till the Indians suffer more…I fear the agent of the Interior Department will be ready to make presents too soon. It is better to chastise before giving anything but a little tobacco to talk over. No peace must be made without my directions.
S. R. Curtis, Major General Commanding Department Kansas.
Report on the Conduct of the War, 38th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865
The General was quite aware of the Indians stealing stock, taking white captives, and terrorizing the settlers on the plains of Colorado Territory. He was also aware this was not a village of women, children and elderly. The village was filled with Dog Soldiers (warriors) that killed innocent white settlers including their young children, some as young as six months old.
“I was present at an interview between Governor Evans on the part of the whites, and Black Kettle and six other Indians, at Camp Weld, Denver, about the 27th of September, 1864, in which the Indians desired peace, but did not propose terms. General Curtis, by telegraph to me, declined to make peace with them, and said that there could be no peace without his consent. Governor Evans declined to treat with them, and as General Curtis was then in command of the department…I could not disobey his instructions. General Curtis’s terms of peace were to require all bad Indians to be given up, all stock stolen by the Indians to be delivered up, and hostages given by the Indians for their good conduct. The Indians never complied with these terms,” Chivington testified (Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War 1865, Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, Congress Of The United States, In The House Of Representatives, January 10, 1865).
One thing is certain, a Colonel cannot disobey a General. Curtis knew Black Kettle held white captives and with the Indians not complying with those terms, it left no choice but to gather soldiers and fight back.
“Major Wynkoop…did…allow some of these Indians to camp…near Fort Lyon, and did promise them the protection of our flag…he was relieved of the command…and Major Anthony placed in command…who required the Indians to comply with General Curtis’s terms, which they failed to do, and…Major Anthony drove them away,” Chivington testified (Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War 1865, Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, Congress Of The United States, In The House Of Representatives, January 10, 1865).
There are clearly some misunderstandings involving Sand Creek and protection offered the Indians by Wynkoop. Per Chivington, Major Wynkoop provided the Indians protection under the flag, but also per Chivington and Major Anthony, Wynkoop did not have the authority to do so. It was also in violation of orders from General Curtis.
The argument that soldiers likely saw an American flag in Black Kettle’s village is a moot point. As per orders from General Curtis, as stated above, the Indians were not provided terms of peace or under the protection of the flag.
Major Wynkoop is not an authoritative source concerning Sand Creek. It’s like the telephone game. It was passed down that the Indians were under the protection of the flag, but no one knew the source of that information. And as it turns out, General Curtis made it clear no protection was offered. Oral history is not verifiable. Someone hears something, repeats it to the best of their ability, and over time, information becomes incorrect. It doesn’t take long for the information to become unrecognizable from how it began.
When information changes hands, information changes.
History needs to be documented.
Sand Creek history has become so convoluted due to the oral history accounts. Many of those accounts have been believed without checking the source or asking any questions.
The verifiable source is the artifacts. And each one was documented with a photo and the GPS coordinates. They weren’t simply documented and nothing else done with that information. The waypoints from the GPS were entered into Google Earth and looking at the artifacts on a satellite imagery map provides clarity on Sand Creek. The artifacts were not found in a clustered area, which is suggested by the massacre story which says the Indians were camped below a bluff in a small confined area. The artifacts were actually found over several miles, in multiple directions, and all of them were found on the Bowen family ranch by Chuck Bowen, starting at least two miles up the creek from the National Park Service historic site.
As we’ve stated in multiple blogs, no period artifacts were found below the bluff at the NPS site.
No bullets, no battlefield.
Since we now know from physical evidence the Indians were not camped below that bluff, how much of the massacre story can we believe?
The artifacts actually debunk the massacre story but corroborate the account by a Sand Creek soldier. He provided Chuck and Sheri Bowen the biggest clue of all for where to search for artifacts. We go into much more detail in our book. You can also find the account from the soldier in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
It wouldn’t be possible for a village of women, children and elderly to run up the creek several miles, in multiple directions, all the while outrunning soldiers on horseback.
History is being erased, and seeking truth is being canceled.
Let’s not allow that to happen.
The false massacre story is now being used to destroy patriotism and is intended to make Americans feel ashamed of their country. If we’re not careful, we’ll no longer be a free country. We’re already getting to a point where we’re no longer free to think critically.
The Sand Creek massacre story is about being told what to think instead of being allowed to think.
Seek truth and repeat the truth.
This is about much more than revisiting a historic event from 160 years ago, this is about knowing that much of what happened at Sand Creek was a fight between soldiers and Dog Soldiers. This false story affects our lives today.
You can learn more about the Lost Sand Creek Site discovery on this website. You can also support keeping history alive by picking up a copy of We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. The truth about Sand Creek needs to be known and needs to be shared.
Leave a comment below and share this blog on Facebook. You can also copy the link and email it to all of your friends. Feel free to CC us on the email at chuck@thelostsandcreek.com.
Learn more about the Sand Creek location discovery made by Chuck and Sheri Bowen by browsing this website. Be sure to pick up our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
See more blogs here: https://www.thelostsandcreek.com/blog/
Give us a follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BowenHistory
Get our book here: https://www.thelostsandcreek.com/#buythebook
Leave us a star rating and review on Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/review/create-review/?ie=UTF8&channel=glance-detail&asin=1665561556
Check out photos of artifacts here: https://www.thelostsandcreek.com/index.php/artifacts/
