HistoryNet mastheadHistoryNetShop Summer Catalog

Sand Creek Massacre: The Real Villains

Wild West  | 5 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

Evans was upset about the committee’s portrayal of him as a liar. He complained that it was ‘partial,’ ‘erroneous’ and did him ‘great injustice.’ He soberly reviewed the events, cited the numerous errors the committee made, and insisted that the committee itself was ‘culpably negligent’ for not examining the actual facts that would have exonerated him. It was wrong to conclude ‘that I had prevaricated,’ he said, ‘because my statement did not agree with the falsehoods they had embraced.’

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to Wild West magazine

Concurrent with the above investigation, a joint special committee under Senator James Doolittle made its ‘Report on the Condition of the Indian Tribes.’ Again testimony was taken, but Sam Colley changed his story, stating that the Indians at Sand Creek were friendly and had not been depredating. He told about the chiefs being shot down in front of their tepees, the American flag flying, and the horrible scalping and mutilations, although he had not seen a bit of it. He also made a statement that apologists seem so prone to make, inadvertently exposing the reality of the situation. The villagers ‘were butchered in brutal manner,’ he said, ‘and scalped and mutilated as bad as an Indian ever did to a white man.’

Silas Soule testified in Denver. He wrote a letter to Walt Whitman and said, ‘I flat refused to order in my men or open fire.’ In his testimony on February 16, however, there were too many potential witnesses who could counter this line, plus, if he admitted to disobeying orders in battle, he would be liable to court-martial himself. Soule balked. Losing his bravado, he meekly stated that at Sand Creek, Anthony ordered him to fire and he did so. He moved up the creek ‘for the purpose of killing Indians,’ but because troops were firing on both sides of him he felt ‘it was unsafe’ and scurried away. The now humble captain made no claims that lofty principles kept him from firing.

One problem for persons telling lies is that they may not remember what they have said. On February 16, Soule testified that women and children at Sand Creek were scalped and mutilated while escaping. He couldn’t have known, however, for he was guarding the baggage and left before the fight ended. On the 20th, when asked if he saw any soldiers scalping or mutilating Indians, he answered, ‘I think not.’

Lieutenant Cramer came to the stand, and he too changed his story. Like Soule, he had been bragging that he would not fire during the battle. He wrote to Wynkoop, ‘I got so mad I swore I would not burn powder, and I did not.’ Realizing the implications of such an admission in a military tribunal, Cramer also showed the white feather and said that his battalion was firing at the Indians, including White Antelope. Cramer said he started and stopped firing’several times during the fight.’ The tribunal was not inclined to take these men to task for their baldfaced mendacity.

On March 20, the tribunal moved to Fort Lyon. The first witness was Ned Wynkoop, who showed the same color as Soule and Cramer. He told a few lies about Anthony, saying that Anthony issued goods and food to the Indians in ‘greater quantity than ever I had issued,’ when in truth Anthony had only given food to the Arapahos for about 10 days while they were considered prisoners. What is notable in his face-to-face hearing in contrast with his written affidavit is the lack of venomous accusations. John Chivington was in the same room with Wynkoop, and all the name-calling miraculously ceased. Wynkoop even admitted that at the September council, Chivington told the Indians that he was the war chief ‘and his business was to kill Indians, and not to make peace with them.’ Wynkoop could bluster and blame, but when in the presence of a man of greater size, stamina and character who could easily call his bluff, he folded up like a losing poker hand.

Two months later, Soule was shot down on the streets of Denver while on duty as provost marshal. The assailant, Charles W. Squiers, fled to New Mexico Territory, where he was arrested by Lieutenant James D. Cannon of the New Mexico Volunteers, who had also been at Sand Creek. He returned Squiers to Denver for court-martial. The Black Hawk Mining Journal asserted that Soule was killed so that he wouldn’t testify, but retracted when it learned he had already done so. The paper later stated that there were no grounds to believe that the death was ‘instituted by high and responsible parties.’

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tags: , , , , ,

HistoryNet.com Subject Locator
  1. 5 Comments to “Sand Creek Massacre: The Real Villains”

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

Post a Comment

Please note that HistoryNet Staff cannot respond to requests for research of any type. Please visit our research forum to post research questions. If you have a question about our magazines, please use the contact us form.

Related Articles



SPONSORED SITES







HistoryNet Article Archives Historynet Spacer

OPINION POLL

Which of these World War I aircraft was the best fighter plane?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

See previous polls

STAY CONNECTED WITH US

RSS Feed
 
Get Our Daily HistoryNet Email
 
 


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.

 Get our RSS!
 Newsletter Signup

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.
Contact Us|Advertise With Us|Subscription Help