By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
After the Sand Creek event of 1864, the people of Colorado Territory celebrated it as a battle (Great Battle With Indians! The Savages Dispersed! 500 Indians Killed, The Rocky Mountain News (Daily), December 8, 1864, Page 2).
The settlers were gripped in fear before Sand Creek and the people of Colorado Territory viewed it as a win for their safety.
That narrative soon changed due to Lt. Tappan’s connections to newspapers back East. You can read more about Tappan in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
In the summer of 1865, a man named Spakes, of the 1st Colorado Cavalry, wrote to the Rocky Mountain News to defend the actions of soldiers at Sand Creek.
“Fort Lyon, C.T., July 13, 1865.
Being a member of Co. E, Vet. Battalion 1st Colorado Cavalry, and hearing Col. Chivington and the men who were under his command, at the Battle of Sand Creek, so much censured for killing squaws, and fearing that I may have to be on the ‘war path’ this summer and wishing to escape the condemnation of the public, I would respectfully request that some one friendly to the “poor red brethren,” let us know, through your paper, by what means a warrior may be distinguished from his squaw.
I have been among Indians of different tribes, and I think it an impossibility to distinguish one sex from the other at gun-shot distance.
Yours, and friendly to the whites.
Spakes.”
Rocky Mountain News (Daily), From Fort Lyon, July 19, 1865, page 2
Spakes noted that from firing distance, it was impossible to tell the difference between a male and female Indian.
Some accounts say women were targeted at Sand Creek. George Bent didn’t think so. “Soldiers could not tell the difference and would have killed the women, taken them for men,” George Bent said, (Bent to Hyde 5-24-1906).
Soldiers made similar comments.
“It was utterly impossible, at a distance of two hundred yards to distinguish between the sexes, on account of similarity of their dress,” Irving Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, Memories of a Lifetime In the Pike’s Peak Region, page 125). “It was difficult to tell a squaw from a buck fifty yards away,” Lt. Templeton said (Memoirs of Lt. Templeton from the Pioneers Museum in Colorado Springs).
“As to the killing of squaws and pappooses, only a few were killed, and that mainly the result of accident; the squaws fighting as desperately as the males, and in a dress and equipage scarcely distinguishable from that of the men,” John D. Coplen said (Ballou, Adin, An Elaborate History and Genealogy of the Ballous In America, page 943). He served as Corporal of the 3rd Colorado Cavalry Company G.
George Bent was not a soldier but a Cheyenne Dog Soldier (Warrior). Bent admitting this is a big blow to the massacre story. Not only is that story debunked by no artifacts being found below the bluff at the National Park Service Sand Creek historic site, it’s also debunked by Bent verifying this claim made by a soldier.
That bluff was chosen as the backdrop for the massacre story as it would have placed the Indians where they wouldn’t see the soldiers approaching. The massacre story says the Indians were killed as they came out of their tipis and had no advanced warning. According to artifacts, soldiers, and George Bent, that is not the case.
The massacre moniker comes from the claim women were targeted. Many soldiers and George Bent say otherwise. We’re led to believe from the massacre story that soldiers were up close and were shooting Indian women, knowing them to be women without any shred of doubt.
All of the information we get about Bent comes from letters he wrote to historians. It’s commonly believed that the book, The Life of George Bent, was written by him. It wasn’t. In fact, the book was published after Bent died. It’s actually a really loose paraphrase of his written letters. Chuck Bowen has over 400 pages of Bent’s letters in his archives.
We know from physical evidence that all of the fighting started just over two miles up the creek from the bluff at the NPS site. There were running battle locations and one of the earliest events would have been cannons firing at the fleeing Indians. The cannons would have been most effective with a large number of the enemy in one place. There were still Indians fleeing the village when the soldiers were ready to fight so getting the Howitzers in place to fire would have been a top priority.
Another claim for the massacre name is that children were intentionally targeted and killed. The information used is vague, lacking in eyewitnesses. It’s possible there could have been collateral damage, which also happened in many Civil War battles. Major Anthony testified in a Sand Creek hearing to seeing a soldier shoot at a toddler. That soldier missed and another soldier shot and killed the toddler. Major Anthony only testified to that one account. There may have been others but as we only use information from eyewitness, we don’t know for sure. But it’s possible that some children died from cannon fire. It’s also possible that when soldiers rode over the battlefield to count the dead, they may have seen what appeared to be teenage male Indians and counted them as children. The Indian and white cultures were different. A soldier had to be 18. That wasn’t the case for Indian warriors. They could be a teenager and be very skilled with a bow and arrow and be a warrior. They would also be a combatant if they were warriors.
It’s also important to note that Spakes mentions being among Indians of different tribes, so he had familiarity of what they looked like up close, which provides even more context to soldiers trying to distinguish from firing distance the difference between a warrior and a squaw. He was speaking from experience and expertise. This wasn’t someone simply having an opinion.
We’ve learned through research that many people have opinions about Sand Creek, but they don’t get their information from primary sources. This has been the case with many books written about Sand Creek—they often don’t cite any eyewitnesses or provide any citations at all. It becomes a circular process that started with someone writing a book about Sand Creek, not citing any primary sources, another book about Sand Creek is published and they cite the book before it, and the process keeps going. This is the case with most modern books written about Sand Creek. According to academia, they have sources cited in the proper format and that’s all that matters. It doesn’t matter if the sources they used were a witness to the event. The truth is, content matters. Our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, only uses eyewitnesses and some period documents.
Spakes wrote that letter nearly eight months after Sand Creek to defend the soldiers from apparent threats of condemnation from the public. What initially was celebrated as a battle in Colorado Territory had seen a shift in narrative due to the newspapers back East. When you hear something long enough and often enough, you’ll likely believe it.
This battle is usually (especially in the east) referred to as the ‘Sand Creek Massacre,’ or Chivington’s Massacre; and as such has it gone forth to the world, and as such is it likely to be handed down to posterity. I think this is unjust. It merits no such infamous brand. If this was a massacre, and not a battle, in the ordinary sense of the word, then am I at a loss to know just what constitutes a battle, and I wish to be absent from all battles. Many who were in this fight had seen service, and been in battles elsewhere; and these called this a battle, and very much of a one too.
For this affair the commander of the expedition has been censured, lied about, and cursed generally beyond all reason. I am no special admirer of Col. Chivington, nor can I justify all that was done at Sand Creek; but I have a strong desire to see justice done him, as well as all others who have been and are under the ban of condemnation on account of the mistaken idea abroad in regard to the battle. In this connection I must record my contempt for the work of the ‘Committee on the Conduct of the War’ (led by Tappan), Morse Coffin said (Coffin, Morse H., The Battle of Sand Creek page 38).
The massacre story was passed down as the truth when it was never verified. How can an unverified account be accepted as truth? How can we learn from history when what is told about an event such as Sand Creek is based on feelings over facts?
We’re living in a time now where we’re supposed to just accept what we’re told and not ask questions. The eyewitnesses from Sand Creek have been tossed aside simply because what they said is the opposite of the massacre story. However, the artifacts debunk the massacre story and corroborate the running battle account made by soldiers including Irving Howbert.
What is that story the artifacts tell? Where were they found? A new location changes the Sand Creek story. Learn more in We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Let’s keep accurate history alive.
Click the Buy the Book at the top right of the page.
Leave us a star rating and review on Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/review/create-review/?ie=UTF8&channel=glance-detail&asin=1665561556
You can learn more about the Lost Sand Creek Site discovery on this website. 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.
See more blogs here: https://www.thelostsandcreek.com/blog/
Give us a follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BowenHistory
Check out photos of artifacts here: https://www.thelostsandcreek.com/index.php/artifacts/
