| |

Sand Creek Massacre: The Real VillainsWild West | 5 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
Some hated Chivington, some felt betrayed, some sought to cloak their cowardice, and some saw a way to make money from the situation. Letters were soon on their way to certain high officials, and from then on the episode exploded with deceit, obfuscation and recrimination. As early as December 7, word from a member of the 1st Colorado was taken to Judge Stephen S. Harding in Denver, a political foe of Governor Evans and Chivington, of a horrible massacre along Sand Creek. Harding wrote to John Wright, a personal enemy of Evans. Wright was a friend of the Colleys’ and of Secretary of the Interior John P. Usher’s. Harding’s letter was largely false and highly sensationalist–perfect for the newspapers. Subscribe Today
One of the worst post-battle decisions the military made was after General Curtis’ interview with Wynkoop. Once Curtis’ anger had cooled, the general sent Wynkoop back to Fort Riley. General Blunt had been replaced as commander of the District of the Upper Arkansas, and the new commander, not realizing the depth of Wynkoop’s involvement in the matter, ordered him back to Fort Lyon to take command and investigate the Sand Creek affair. The man who had done the most to cause the disaster was off the hook and allowed to pick the scapegoat. He chose Chivington, who resigned his military commission on January 4, 1865.
The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War met in Washington in March 1865. The title of the committee’s report became ‘Massacre of Cheyenne Indians,’ and it was quickly evident that ‘massacre’ would be the principal theme even before the testimony began. The committee heard live witnesses and took depositions that had little bearing on the subject. Some of the depositions were written under the direction of Major Wynkoop. Testifying were Jesse Leavenworth, Sam Robbins, Sam Colley, Dexter Colley and A.C. Hunt; none had been at the battle, and they could contribute only valueless hearsay evidence. Leading questions contained words or phrases such as massacre, mutilation or friendly Indians, as if they were established facts and not the very issues to be determined. No one from the 3rd Colorado was called to testify.
The most damaging indictment came from Wynkoop’s unsworn affidavit written after his reassignment to duty at Fort Lyon, a document that was not entitled to any consideration, since it was based entirely on hearsay and was only a vituperative tirade. Wynkoop gave incorrect information about the letter he received from the Indians and passed on secondhand stories regarding mutilations of the dead as if they were facts known to him. He accused Chivington of ‘all the time inciting his troops to these diabolical outrages,’ when he did nothing of the sort. He claimed Chivington knew the Indians were friendly, and yet ‘this inhuman monster committed his unprecedented atrocity.’ Wynkoop said that all the officers at Fort Lyon were in unanimous agreement with him, and that since ‘the horrible murder by Colonel Chivington,’ the country was desolated and all but ruined.
Wynkoop’s statements were a travesty, but the true damage and insult came when they were accepted as gospel. The committee fell for it whole hog, choosing the testimony it wanted to hear as truth, and condemning the testimony that did not fit with its preconceived notions as false. The summary of the proceedings concluded that the soldiers were barbarians, while the Indians ‘in every way conducted themselves properly and peaceably.’ Chivington and Anthony were on a ‘mission of murder and barbarity,’ and the colonel ‘deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage.’ Further, Evans and Anthony were prevaricators and should be removed from office and punished ‘as their crimes deserve.’ Senator ‘Honest’ Ben Wade signed the report, and a year later admitted that he had never even attended the hearings, nor did he understand the full import of the committee report. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Tags: 19th Century, American Indian Wars, Historical Conflicts, Native American History, The Wild West, Wild West
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
5 Comments to “Sand Creek Massacre: The Real Villains”
Thanks to Greg Michno for his consistently flawless histories.
About the Sand Creek Military Hearings in Denver that followed,
Chivington’s first two requests during his testimony were first
that Samuel F. Tappan recuse himself from presiding due to
obvious bias. When Tappan refused, Chivington then asked the
committee to open the hearings to the press and public. Tappan
again refused, securing for himself unfettered revenge on
Chivington for Tappan’s humiliation at Glorieta. (by petition of a
majority of junior officers of the First Colorado Volunteer Infantry
after Glorieta, then-Major Chivington was chosen over Lt. Col.
Tappan to become Colonel in command. Tappan, a former
newspaper reporter and acquaintance of Gen. Sherman, seemed
to acquiese and bided his time for revenge. I like to think of
Tappan the historical charachter as “Press Trash with-a-grudge”)
By Curt Neeley on Oct 23, 2008 at 11:06 pm
IDK know mudh about it but it seems to me the americans were being pretty unfair!!
By Anne Barington on Apr 23, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Where did you get your info. saying he was {wynkoop} a vilian is the most stupid thing I have ever heard about sandcreek, also john smith was a trader who’s son was murdered by chivingtons men for being a half breed. I would like to know where you got your info or did you write it down read it, and then used it
By Brad Long on Aug 16, 2009 at 12:57 am
Much is made of Samuel F. Tappan’s diary. Was the diary ever published. If so, how could one see it?
Thanks,
Tom
By Tom Stohlgren on Aug 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm
re Tom Stohlgren’ question, Sam Tappan’s writings are said to be available through Kansas State Historical Society. Also, look up Kevin Cahill or KClonewolf on the internet. I think he has posted an extensive Sand Creek bibliography.
As for Michno’s credibility, he is the most thorough about his sourcing of any I’ve read and has an encyclopedic memory that has helped him connect many Sand Creek dots. Also, I like Irving Howbert’s first-hand description of the Sand Creek fight in his MEMORIES OF A LIFETIME IN THE PIKES PEAK REGION, available at history.oldcolo.com book store. And a recently discovered description by John Coplen adds to Howbert’s version.
However, the Massacre version will probably always prevail because too many careers and paychecks depend on it, plus it’s probably the most popular Fairy Tale ever concocted. I’d think the Cheyenne activists would eventually be embarassed by the hype.
Also, Michno’s BATTLE AT SAND CREEK, The Military Perspective is an excellent read on the subject, as well as his ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE INDIAN WARS and his and Susan’s
A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH about women and childrens miseries while captive of the Plains tribes during that era.
By Curt Neeley on Aug 27, 2009 at 12:31 am