By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Much of the information in this blog comes from the hearings following Sand Creek. No charges were brought against Colonel Chivington, so there was never a trial. It was simply the court of public opinion.
John Smith was a trader and interpreter who was trading with the Cheyenne and Arapaho at Sand Creek. He was sent by Major Anthony to go to Black Kettle’s village at Sand Creek and report back what the Indians were doing. Smith was also given permission to take goods with him to trade, according to David Louderback’s testimony (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
It seems that John Smith used his opportunity to simply trade with the Indians and wasn’t as concerned with reporting back to Major Anthony as instructed. Though he was only at Sand Creek a few days before Chivington led soldiers to attack the village, his only concern after the event was the loss of his buffalo robes. Knowing his son was threatened to be killed at Sand Creek, he did nothing to protect him. John Smith was only concerned with himself.
“26th of November, I received permission from Major Scott J. Anthony, to proceed to the Indian village…for the purpose of trading with the Indians…accompanied by a soldier…David Louderback and a citizen, Watson Clark,” Smith testified (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
“On the afternoon of the 29th I went to Colonel Chivington and Colonel Shoup; told them that I was going to take some buffalo robes for the wounded from John Smith’s wagon,” Dr. Caleb Birdsal testified.
John Smith sought twenty dollars apiece from the government for the one hundred and fifteen robes he lost (Dr. Caleb Birdsal, First assistant surgeon, Colorado 3rd Cavalry, Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
According to Morse Coffin, Smith was seeking far more than $20 for each buffalo robe.
John Smith was angered for losing his buffalo robes at Sand Creek. He claimed his buffalo robes along with two white ponies, and other goods netted him $25,000 (Morse Coffin, The Battle of Sand Creek).
“Major Colley, Indian agent, and John Smith, Indian interpreter, stated that they…would do anything to damn Colonel John M. Chivington, or Major Downing. They had lost at least six thousand dollars each…they had one hundred and five robes and two white ponies bought at the time of attack, independent of the goods which they had on the battle-ground…but would make the…government pay…and damn old Chivington,” Captain Presley Talbot testified (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
John Smith’s story about how much he lost kept changing. He was known by his comrades as “Lying John Smith.” And it was documented he would do anything to get back at Chivington for his losses.
“When Doolittle’s Committee visited Fort Lyon, with Wynkoop, Col. Leavenworth and the lying John Smith…” (The Rocky Mountain News (Daily), Volume 6, Number 72, November 6, 1865).
John Smith had a bill made out against the government for his losses stating he would go to Washington and present it. The price of buffalo robes was generally less than what Smith was seeking. It’s also unknown if Smith received any compensation for them.
“Colley and John Smith…stated they would do anything to damn Colonel Chivington, did they say they would do anything else?” Chivington said. “State any other conversation that you had with Major Colley and John Smith” (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
I heard a portion of a letter read in the adjoining room, in which I lay wounded…I recognized the voices of Smith, Colley, and Olmsted, the purport of which was denouncing Colonel Chivington and the Sand Creek fight,” Captain Presley Talbot, Company M, Third Colorado Cavalry, said. “I also heard Smith…state that the eastern papers would be filled with letters from Fort Lyon, denouncing the same, and that Colonel Chivington had murdered his boy, and that he would be avenged by using every effort with the department possible. Colley and Smith stated to me in person that they would go to Washington and represent the Sand Creek battle as…a massacre; and Smith said that he would realize twenty-five thousand dollars from his losses.
Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865.
150 robes at $20 each would only be $3,000.
It’s false information that Colonel Chivington murdered John’s son Jack.
“In what way did this attack on the Indians further the purpose of Colonel Chivington?” a committee member asked Smith. “It was said–I did not hear him say it myself, but it was said that he would do something; he had this regiment of three-months men, and did not want them to go out without doing some service,” Smith testified (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
Chivington did not have the authority to make the decision to take the soldiers to Sand Creek. He was following orders from his General.
Smith alludes to the idea Chivington ordered Sand Creek so the volunteer regiment wasn’t organized for nothing and time would run out on their service. It was already documented that General Curtis ordered the Indians to be dealt with. See our last blog here: GeneralCurtis.
And Smith was also repeating something he didn’t hear Chivington say. It was hearsay which isn’t credible testimony. That was a common theme throughout all three hearings, and from most who testified.
John Smith and Major Colley saying they would do anything to, “damn Colonel Chivington,” shows they had motive. The hearings were not about getting to the truth about Sand Creek. They were a one sided attempt to destroy Colonel Chivington. It was a political attack. The hearings were led by Lt. Col. Tappan, a known enemy of Chivington. Tappan was next in line to become Colonel and was passed by Chivington for the promotion. Tappan worked his adult life to make his way up the ranks, and Chivington went into Glorieta without any prior military experience and became a Colonel in just a few months. A jealous Tappan went after Chivington. See more about this in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. And now that false massacre story about Sand Creek is being used to destroy Patriotism and make Americans feel ashamed for all of the terrible things white soldiers supposedly did.
The Indians weren’t the only ones to scalp their enemies. John Smith acted like he was one of the Cheyenne.
“My father and others, Tom Boggs and Charley Auttobees in fact, old timers all knew Bull Hump, Comanche chief. He was war chief. One of these Comanche war chiefs, my father’s train near Arkansas River on Pawnee Fork on Santa Fe Trail killed Red Arm, Comanche war chief. John Smith and Fisher scalped him and give the Cheyennes the scalp to dance over. This was in 1844” (Bent to Hyde, 4-14-1914).
John Smith shows himself to be violent and a liar. Scalp dances were incredibly barbaric. We go into detail about them through George Bent’s letters in our book.
“I had a half-breed son there, who gave himself up. He started at the time the Indians fled; being a half-breed he had but little hope of being spared, and seeing them fire at me, he ran away with the Indians for the distance of about a mile. During the fight up there he walked back to my camp and went into the lodge. It was surrounded by soldiers at the time. He came in quietly and sat down; he remained there that day, that night, and the next day in the afternoon; about four o’clock in the evening, as I was sitting inside the camp, a soldier came up outside of the lodge and called me by name. I got up and went out; he took me by the arm and walked towards Colonel Chivington’s camp, which was about sixty yards from my camp. Said he, “I am sorry to tell you, but they are going to kill your son Jack.” I knew the feeling towards the whole camp of Indians, and that there was no use to make any resistance. I said, I can’t help it.” I then walked on towards where Colonel Chivington was standing by his camp-fire; when I had got within a few feet of him I heard a gun fired, and saw a crowd run to my lodge, and they told me that Jack was dead” (Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith. Washington, March 14, 1865, Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
The point of having hearings is not to double down on an opinion. It should be about seeking the truth. This is not what happened. They went all out on the massacre narrative regardless of actual eyewitness testimony or what was true. Most that testified against Chivington were not at Sand Creek.
Out of the thousands of Sand Creek artifacts Chuck Bowen found at the Lost Sand Creek site, he never found any of the metal peace-pipe tomahawks that most would think of. However, he did find railroad spikes among village artifacts. The railroad never went anywhere near this site. George Bent talks about war clubs and tomahawks. It’s certainly possible the existence of railroad spikes at the Black Kettle village site is from John Smith brining them to trade. He could have found them along railroad tracks and took them to Sand Creek to exchange for buffalo robes at no cost to him.
From our book:
Maybe their war clubs were different than the stereotype.
In all the fight and village areas, I found railroad spikes. Coincidence? The Cheyenne tools or weapons were often made from white man’s discarded stuff. I found a piece of an octagon gun barrel that had been flared at one end with cerated edges to use as a hide scraper. I also found a horseshoe that had been reshaped as a tool and a metal stiffener from a horse blinder used as a digging tool.
A railroad spike would work as a tool or a weapon without reshaping. It could be bound to a wood handle with sinew and used as a hammer, digging tool, or a war club. It’s possible traders brought them from a distant railroad to trade to the Indians for buffalo robes.
We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
On behalf of Black Kettle, John Smith wrote the following letter:
EDITORS NEWS:—I want to give you notice that if you don’t stop calling my people “red devils,” “thieving scoundrels,” “women violators,” “children scalpers,” &c., &c., I will send Col. (sic Lt. Col.) Tappan to “investigate” you. We are and always have been “friendly” as a people. We have some bad boys, just like white folks whom we cannot control—some of them fired into Capt Tyler’s train the other day; they tried to kill his squaw and pappooses, for what he did to us last year—some of them burned the Wisconsin Ranche—and have been burning trains “and sich.” but we are friendly. You see by calling us such names, the soldiers are likely to come on us and repeat “Sand Creek,” and then where will you be. All these epithets you bestow on us will go back home to roost. We have Tappan and Wynkoop, and Gen. Sanborn, and the Committee on the Conduct of the War, and Bennett, and Bradford, and Henry Leach, and Gen. Slough, and his paid organ, (the Atchinson Champion) all on our side, besides a host of others, don’t you see! Now you have altogether “too much acrimony.” We are “intelligent, sensible people;” and very friendly. You had better keep still.
Truly yours,
Black Kettle
By John Smith—Interpreter
The Rocky Mountain News (Daily), Volume 6, Number 79, November 14, 1865.
Anyone leading a hearing is supposed to be objective, but Black Kettle and John Smith confessed to having Tappan and the Committee on the Conduct of the War on their side. Black Kettle and Smith admit to the hearings being a one sided attack against Chivington. And what kind of “peaceful” Indians issues threats?
John Smith was also the main witness for Lt. Col. Tappan in the Sand Creek hearings. He admits to having prejudice, and it is clear he had motive.
Lying John Smith is a main reason for the Sand Creek massacre narrative. That false massacre narrative has been told for nearly 160 years. If you hear something long enough and often enough, you’ll likely believe it.
No period artifacts have been found below the National Park Service Sand Creek site bluff as the massacre story says that is where the Indians were camped and attacked by the soldiers.
No bullets, no battlefield. No village artifacts, no village.
A lie told a thousand times is still a lie.
If we have to tell the truth a thousand times, or more, we will.
Truth matters. Truth wins.
Keep history alive before it’s too late. Learn more in our book. You can get it 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
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.
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
Check out photos of artifacts here: https://www.thelostsandcreek.com/index.php/artifacts/
