By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
Colonel John Chivington responded to the Sand Creek hearings and the accusations brought against him claiming he attacked a peaceful village on November 29, 1864.
The document was titled, Synopsis of the Sand Creek Investigation, and the report includes testimony from soldiers.
The massacre story claims an unarmed and defenseless Indian village was camped below the bluff at what is now the National Park Service Sand Creek site, didn’t see approaching soldiers and were slaughtered as they awoke and came out of their tipis. There are problems with the massacre claim and the alleged massacre location. No period artifacts have ever been found below that bluff. Skilled archaeologists, including Fred Werner, meticulously searched that area, only to find soda can tabs, barbed wire, fence staples and other modern ranching related finds. Read about Werner in chapter three of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
If the Indians were camped below that bluff, that area would have been littered with bullets, arrowheads, cannonball shell fragments, .69 caliber lead balls that went inside the cannonballs, kettle fragments, and much more.
The massacre claim started with Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan and Indian trader/interpreter John Smith. It was levied against Chivington that he rounded up soldiers and attacked a village that was full of elderly, women and children, all of whom unarmed. Tappan was successful in getting this story out in the newspapers back east and convincing people Sand Creek was a massacre of innocent and defenseless Indians. Chivington said it wasn’t true. And there were many soldiers that sided with him, defending Sand Creek as a hard-fought fight.
Tappan was next in line for Colonel and was passed up by John Chivington. He became Chivington’s enemy. Chivington was given the rank of Major to lead soldiers at Glorieta, after having been offered the position of chaplain. He was a hero for that victory. Within just a few months, Chivington went from no military rank to Major to Colonel. Irving Howbert said that Tappan vowed to destroy Chivington. Tappan was furious as he believed his promotion was stolen from him and given to Chivington. He led the hearings following Sand Creek, and Chivington sounded the alarm before the hearings began, voicing his objection, saying Tappan was his enemy and should not be leading the investigation.
“The overshadowing reputation made by Colonel Chivington in the campaign against the Texas invaders of New Mexico, and his subsequent promotion to the Colonelcy of the Regiment over Lieutenant-Colonel Samuel F. Tappan, although apparently acquiesced in at the time, aroused a spirt of jealousy, envy, and antagonism against him on the part of a small group of officers headed by Lieutenant Colonel Tappan and Major E. W. Wynkoop. This antagonism manifested itself on every possible occasion. After their return from New Mexico, these officers never allowed an opportunity to pass for discrediting and injuring the ‘Preacher Colonel,’ and after the battle of Sand Creek, they never tired of referring to it as an evidence of his unfitness,” Irving Howbert said (Memories of a Lifetime in the Pike’s Peak Region, pages 138-139).
John Smith became enraged after his buffalo robes were taken during the engagement at Sand Creek. He said he would go to Washington (city) and present Sand Creek as a massacre. Smith claimed his buffalo robes were valued at nearly ten times the actual amount.
“In the conversation I recognized the voice of Smith, Colley, and a man by the name of Olmstead, all denouncing Col. Chivington and Sand Creek fight. The letter was addressed to the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington City. Also heard Smith, in my presence boastingly say that the eastern papers would be filled with letters from Fort Lyon denouncing the same. Colley and Smith stated to me that they would go in person to Washington City and represent the Sand Creek fight as nothing more than a massacre, and Smith stated that he would realize $25,000 for his losses,” Major Presley Talbot, 3rd Regiment Colorado Cavalry, testified (Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, Congress of The United States, In The House of Representatives, January 10, 1865).
Dr. Birdsal testified that Smith was seeking $20 a piece for the 115 buffalo robes he lost. That’s a far cry from the $25,000 he ended up requesting.
Both Smith and Tappan had motive. One was jealous and the other was determined to do whatever he needed to do to recoup his money, and then some.
Most people who have heard the allegations brought against Chivington aren’t aware of the backstory. According to Major Anthony, Commanding Officer of Fort Lyon, the Indians were not peaceful, and if he had the force necessary, he would have attacked them himself.
“But before the re-enforcements came from district headquarters, Colonel Chivington came to Fort Lyon with his command, and I joined him and went out on that expedition to Sand creek. I never made any offer to the Indians. It was the understanding that I was not in favor of peace with them,” Major Anthony testified (Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, Congress of The United States, In The House of Representatives, January 10, 1865).
In his synopsis, Chivington included the orders from General Curtis and testimonies from Lt. Clark Dunn, B. N. Forbes, Captain T. G. Cree, Lt. Alexander F. Safely, William H. Valentine, Stephen Decatur, Dr. Caleb Birdsal, Dr. T. P. Bell, and Lt. Harry Richmond.
For those who have been told Chivington ordered Sand Creek or the Indians there were peaceful:
Orders of Major General S. R. Curtis, Commanding Department of Kansas, to Col. John M. Chivington, Commanding District of Colorado, Department of Kansas:
FORT LEAVENWORTH, April 8, 1864.
To Col. John M. Chivington:
I hear that Indians have committed depredations on or near the Platte River. Do not let District lines prevent pursuing and punishing them. Give Col. Collins and General Mitchell your full co-operation and information.
[Signed.] S. R. CURTIS,
Major General Com’dg, &c._________
FORT LEAVENWORTH, May 30, 1864.
To Col. John M. Chivington:
Some four hundred Cheyennes attacked Lieutenant Clayton on the Smoky Hill. After several hours’ fight the Indians fled leaving twenty-eight killed. Our loss was four killed and three wounded. Look out for Cheyennes everywhere: especially instruct the troops on the upper Arkansas.
[Signed.] S. R. CURTIS,
Major General Com’d’g, &c._________
FORT KEARNEY, August 8, 1864.
To Col. Chivington:
Nine men killed to day about two miles east of Plum creek. Two women and four children supposed to be taken prisoners. Mrs. Smith is supposed to be one of them. Indians attacked these trains, destroyed one, and killed all the men in the train.
H. RUHL,
Capt. Com’dg._________
FORT LEAVENWORTH, Sept. 28, 1864.
To Col. Chivington:
I shall require the bad Indians delivered up: Restoration of equal numbers of stock also hostages to secure. I want no peace until the Indians suffer more. Left Hand is said to be a good chief of the Arapahoes, but Big Mouth is a rascal. I fear Agent of 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 Gen’l Com’dg, Dept. Kansas.
General Curtis made it clear the Indians were to suffer for the depredations they committed in the spring and summer of 1864, several months before Sand Creek. He ordered that no peace was to be made with the Indians. Colonel Chivington didn’t order Sand Creek—he was following orders to fight armed warriors that terrorized the citizens of Colorado Territory. It’s important to note that in the letter General Curtis wrote to Colonel Chivington dated September 28, 1864, Curtis said that hostages needed to be secured and the Indians needed to be fought. Curtis saw the innocent whites as not simply being taken captive, but held hostage. Indians used them for negotiations—many of the hostages were abused and some killed.
B. N. Forbes being sworn, testified that he was a soldier, served in Co. D. First Colorado Cavalry:
“I was with the expedition commanded by Major Wynkoop, that went to the Smoky Hill about the middle of September, 1864. After going into camp on the Smoky Hill Major Wynkoop and the officers held a consultation with the chiefs. We remained in the camp about six hours. The Indians came into this camp about five Indians to one white man. The Indians were all armed; they took some of our provisions out of the wagon forcibly. The Indians behaved towards the troops pretty saucily… Quite a number of Indians also surrounded the cannon; Lieut. Harding went to one of their chiefs, Black Kettle, and got him to talk to the Indians and coax them away; they saddled up their ponies and went away, first setting fire to the grass to the windward of our camp, which compelled us to break camp and move back about ten or fifteen miles, where we camped that night.”
Lieut. Clark Dunn, being duly sworn testified:
“I was at Fort Lyon, Nov. 28th, 1864. I talked with Major Anthony in regard to the Indians encamped on Sand Creek. He said they were hostile and not under the protection of the troops; that he would have gone out himself and killed them if he had had a sufficient number of troops under his command: this he stated before and after the battle of Sand Creek.”
Capt. T. G. Cree, being duly sworn testified:
“Major Anthony, after the battle of Sand Creek, stated that we had done a good thing in killing the Indians at Sand Creek, and believed in following it up and killing more if we could catch them.”
William H. Valentine, Veterinary Surgeon, 1st Colorado Cavalry, sworn and testified:
“I was at Fort Lyon when Major Wynkoop returned from Denver with the Indians in 1864. I had a conversation with Left Hand in regard to a couple of Indians. I asked him if those were the two Indians, pointing to them, that killed the blacksmith and the soldiers on the Arkansas River, near Haines’ Ranch: he said yes, they were. The Indians at this time had in their possession eight head of Government mules belonging to the ambulance and wagon the blacksmith and the soldiers had when they were killed… Major Anthony succeeded Major Wynkoop in command of Fort Lyon. During the time that Major Anthony was commanding at Fort Lyon I saw the guard fire upon some Indians about six or seven in number. I think the Indians were trying to get into the Post.”
Stephen Decatur, 3rd Regiment of Colorado Cavalry, sworn and testified:
“I have lived for seven years among the Indians. I was at the battle of Sand Creek. Arrived at the village at about sunrise on the morning of the 29th of November 1864. I was acting battalion adjutant, by order of Lieut. Col. Bowen commanding. This was my fourth battle and I never saw harder fighting on both sides.”
Dr. Caleb S. Burdsall (Birdsal), Surgeon 3rd Regiment Colorado Cavalry, sworn and testified:
“I was at the battle of Sand Creek, fought Nov. 29, 1864. While dressing the wounds of some soldiers, in a lodge, a soldier came to the door of the lodge and asked me to look at five or six white scalps he held in his hand. One or two of these white scalps I think could not have been taken from the head more than ten days.”
Dr. T. P. Bell, Surgeon 3rd Regiment Colorado Cavalry, sworn and testified as follows:
“I was at the battle of Sand Creek, fought Nov. 29, 1864. After the battle I saw a great many white scalps in the village of the Indians at Sand Creek: I have no idea how many, though there were a great many. There were some that looked as if they might have been taken some time; others not so long, and one that I saw not over from five to eight days old at furthest.”
That was only a sampling of the testimonies Chivington included in the Synopsis of the Sand Creek Investigation. Morse Coffin mentioned it in his book which we read from in a recent video. We also uploaded a video reading Chivington’s Synopsis with the full testimonies. Check it out here: SynopsisSandCreek.
According to those eyewitnesses, Sand Creek was a hard-fought fight, white scalps were found in the village, the Indians were armed, they showed hostility and they were not attacked as they awoke and came out of their tipis.
According to Irving Howbert’s account, and verified by artifacts, the soldiers first saw the Indian village from the top of a ridge, about two miles up the creek, and stretching along the creek for about three miles. The ridge he references is the bluff at the NPS Sand Creek site. That bluff is still important—it’s just not where the Indians camped, but where the soldiers saw the village.
Chuck Bowen found village artifacts precisely where Howbert said the village was located. On the other side of the creek from the village site, he found battle artifacts. Soldiers said that when they arrived, they found a desolate looking place, as most of the Indians fled after they spotted the soldiers as a long black line, several miles away. As detailed by soldiers, very little fighting took place in the village—this has been verified by the location of village and battle artifacts. There are over 100 photos of artifacts and maps detailing artifacts found at the Lost Sand Creek Site in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
The location where the Indians were actually camped places their village where they could and did see approaching soldiers. The bluff serves as a backdrop for a better massacre story. The more dramatic, the better. But it’s not reality.
The alleged massacre location is void of period artifacts. The village and battle locations have been verified by over 4,000 artifacts. A different location also changes the Sand Creek story. It was a running battle where over 70 soldiers were wounded or killed.
Artifacts being found at a different place doesn’t mean a massacre happened somewhere else—the artifacts show the soldiers and Indians fought somewhere else. The artifacts verify accounts that soldiers and warriors had skirmishes, resulting in some soldiers killed in battle. One of those soldiers was Robert McFarland. Read more about him and watch our film about him here: JamesCarrLetter
Sand Creek was certainly not a genocide, as it’s being pushed to be taught as such in Colorado schools. See a copy of a letter we sent our state representatives here: SandCreekLetter. A defenseless village wouldn’t be able to wound or kill over 70 soldiers, let alone fight back at all. It’s imperative Sand Creek be taught accurately in schools. Sand Creek has not only been misrepresented, it’s the most lied about event in Colorado history. Students are being forced a false story and narrative, in an attempt to make them hate our country and their white American ancestors. It’s an attack on patriotism. Sand Creek was defended and celebrated as a battle in Colorado Territory. If you live in Colorado, please contact your representatives and let them know you are opposed to Senate Bill SB25-123, which will teach Sand Creek as a genocide and as if it were the holocaust. Here is a link to the bill: SB25-123.
Seeking truth is being cancelled and accurate history is being erased. Our objective is to tell the truth, based on the physical evidence and soldier accounts that corroborate each other. The truth needs to be known, not ignored.
Knowledge is power. It’s imperative to stand on what’s good, right and true.
Click on the Buy the Book tab in the top right corner of the page. Please leave us a rating and written review on Amazon: LostSandCreekBook
Give us a follow on social media:
Facebook: BowenHistory
X (formerly Twitter): thelostsandcreek
YouTube: thelostsandcreek
