By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
We recently began a blog series covering the claims that allege Sand Creek was a massacre. One of the arguments people give to defend the atrocities committed by the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians is they “owned the land.”
The National Park Service claims it was their reservation, but they don’t provide a single source for that claim.
In 1803, a large amount of land was purchased by the United States from France—it is called the Louisiana Purchase. It included about half (eastern half) of what became Colorado Territory in 1861. Where the Cheyenne and Arapaho were instructed to camp was on that part of Colorado Territory.
“I told them they might go back on Sand creek, or between there and the headquarters of the Smoky Hills,” Major Anthony testified (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865). Black Kettle and his Indians left for Sand Creek about mid November, the only time they camped there.
The Cheyenne were not yet in this area in 1803—according to George Bent, they came from Canada – and even if they were here, the land belonged to France.
“Cheyennes came from way up north, Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 9-14-1910).
“Cheyennes 200 years ago or more lived near these lakes, living on cranes, geese, ducks, skunks, fishes, coons,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 11-20-1913).
“Up north,” is a reference to Canada. “Cheyennes always claim Suitas are up north,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 11-20-1913). “I am in hopes you will get letter from that lady in Canada soon as Cheyennes are very anxious to hear from their lost friends Suitas,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 4-18-1914).
As discussed in the last blog, oral history cannot be verified, but it’s the sole source for claiming the Indians owned the land. Oral history can be whatever someone wants it to be—there’s no accountability. Many Indian tribes actually came from Canada—some tribes are native to Canada, but not the United States.
It appears many will go along with the narrative the Indians owned the land so they won’t offend anyone. Truth is truth. It would be dishonest and disingenuous to go along with a false narrative.
When General Curtis gave the orders to Chivington to fight the Indians, he never said, “well, it’s their land, there’s nothing we can do,” or anything else like that. There was no mention of the land belonging to the Cheyenne, Arapaho or any other tribe. The land belonged to the United States. And the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers were murdering innocent white settlers during the spring and summer of 1864 in Colorado Territory. Settlers were just trying to make better lives for their families—the Homestead Act of 1862 allowed for American citizens to claim land, based on the belief in Manifest Destiny, which provided the God-given right to move westward.
When Indians would camp, it was always temporary. They would set up their village and eventually move to another location. They were nomadic. And like at Sand Creek, it wasn’t a reservation. Major Anthony confirmed where they camped on Sand Creek wasn’t their property when he testified under oath. They were instructed to camp there—it wasn’t theirs. Oral history isn’t enough to claim ownership.
“It was not an Indian reserve. I was present at the time,” Major Anthony said (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865). Major Anthony was Commanding Officer at Fort Lyon at the time of Sand Creek.
Before 1803, it was squatting. The land belonged to France. After 1803, it was squatting. The land belonged to the United States. That might sound harsh, but it’s the truth. The Louisiana Purchase was a legal acquisition of land. Spain also had possession from 1762-1800.
“Sioux & Cheyenne fought big battle with Crows near Powder River very near 100 years ago. In this fight, Cheyennes captured lot of prisoners,” Bent said. “Little over 50 years ago they moved further down the Platte River” (Bent to Hyde, 8-16-1911). The Cheyenne would have been around Montana about 1811, as Bent said it was about 100 years before he wrote that letter to Hyde, dated August 16, 1911. He further said it was about “50 years ago” the Cheyenne moved further down the Platte River. This is likely when they got to Colorado Territory, well after the Louisiana Purchase.
However, some still claim the actions of the Cheyenne and Arapaho were justified simply because they believe they were protecting their land against “invading immigrants,” and it was somehow okay for the Indians to brutally murder settlers and very young children.
June 11, 1864 is the anniversary of the Hungate family murders. A father, mother, and two little girls, were mercilessly and brutally murdered. The girls, ages six months and 2 ½ years, had their throats completely severed.
The bodies were taken to Denver and put on display which enraged the people of Colorado Territory.
“The father and mother had been shot down and mutilated with horrible brutality, and the children who had tried to escape had been pursued and killed, so that not one of the family was left alive. This news made the people of Colorado City, and the settlers along the Fountain and on the Divide, very uneasy, and of course, after that, they were constantly on the lookout, not knowing where the savages might next appear,” Irving Howbert wrote (Indians of the Pike’s Peak Region, page 76).
The murder of the Hungate family was documented in The Commonwealth.
“A Horrible Sight!—The bodies of those four people that were massacred by the Cheyennes on Van Wormer’s ranch, thirty miles down the Cut-off, were brought to town this morning, and a coroner’s inquest held over them. It was a most solemn sight indeed, to see the mutilated corpses, stretched in the stiffness of death, upon that wagon bed, first the father, Nathan Hungate, about 30 years of age, with his head scalped and his either cheeks and eyes chopped in as with an axe or tomahawk. Next lay his wife, Ellen, with her head also scalped through from ear to ear. Along side of her lie two small children, one at her right arm and one at her left, with their throats severed completely, so that their handsome little heads and pale, innocent countenances had to be stuck on, as it were, to preserve the humanity of form. Those that perpetrate such unnatural, brutal butchery as this ought to be hunted to the farthest bounds of these broad plains and burned to the stake alive, was the general remark of the hundreds of spectators this forenoon. Mr. Hungate’s body was found about a mile and a half from Van Wormer’s ranch, where he was residing as herder, and his family were found close to the house, which was burned. The deepest feeling pervaded the people of town to-day as they returned from viewing the mangled bodies of this cruelly murdered family. Let us take warning and keep prepared for the future, both in town and in the ranches through the territory, where Indians are wont to visit or pass by.
Since writing the above we have had a conversation with Mr. Follett, who has just arrived from Running Creek. Mr. F. is one of the party that went after the bodies. He says that the woman was found about four hundred yards from the house, with the children both in her arms—one a babe three or four months old, and one, a little girl about two years old. The bowls of the younger one were ripped open, and its entrails scattered by the sides of the mother and children. The body of the man was found about two miles from the house, but his whip was found at the ruins, and some other marks seemed to indicate that he had first been attacked there, and finding himself overpowered, had made an effort to escape. The residents of all that part of the country are leaving their homes in the greatest alarm, and coming toward Denver, bringing along their stock and moveable property, but leaving their farms and crops unprotected. Some of them will probably reach here this evening, and every possible aid should be rendered to make them comfortable. The men are all ready to join in the pursuit of the atrocious murderers of their neighbors, and will render valuable service in this time of need” (June 15th, 1864, The Commonwealth).
These murders were without a doubt a catalyst to Sand Creek. It has been argued whether it was done by Cheyenne or possibly Arapaho. Some reports say it was Cheyenne and Arapaho.
During testimony, Governor John Evans asked who killed the Hungate family (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865). The murders were also mentioned by other soldiers during the hearings, and Irving Howbert wrote about it. It was a major event that prompted Governor Evans to request help from the government to fight back against the Indians. Some today will defend violent protests as peaceful—they will also defend the Indians as being peaceful. It’s a distorted view of reality and history. There is no conceivable way to defend the actions like that against the Hungate family. That was barbaric.
It’s also claimed, not all of the Indians in Black Kettle’s village were violent, but were friendly. If so, “they were in poor company,” soldier Lant Williams said (Van Loan, C.E. “Veterans of 1864 Revisit Scene of Indian Battle on the Banks of Sand Creek, Colo.” Denver Post. July 26, 1908). White scalps were found in the village, based on multiple eyewitnesses, including a surgeon and physician. It would be a difficult argument to say Black Kettle was peaceful as he harbored violent Dog Soldiers in his village. See our blog about white scalps here: WhiteScalps
The village was known to be filled with violent warriors. One of the common arguments for Black Kettle is the claim he wanted peace. If he wanted peace, he could have actually set the precedent by not harboring warriors or holding white captives. Instead of talking about peace, he could have sought peace through his actions.
It is interesting that in nearly 100 letters where he wrote about Sand Creek, Bent never claimed the land belonged to the Indians or that it was a reservation.
“Black Kettle’s band moved to Arkansas River and got far as Sand Creek and were camped there for several weeks,” George Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 3-15-1905). Like we already discussed in this blog, the Indians were nomadic, they didn’t just settle in one spot and consider it their home. They were constantly on the move. George also stated they “got as far as Sand Creek.” The intention was to camp at Sand Creek, likely for several months, then move somewhere else.
“Mr Reynolds of Denver owns the land where the fort was,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 6-27-1912). If the idea the Cheyenne Indians were always here is correct, it would only make sense he would make a case for them owning the land where the fort was, since it would have been built on their land. But he didn’t make a case, as they didn’t own the land. He simply acknowledged who did own the land.
The idea the Indians owned the land on Sand Creek is debunked.
In this blog series, we have debunked the following claims: the Indians were unarmed, they didn’t commit any atrocities or depredations before Sand Creek, they were camped in a small congested area below a bluff where they couldn’t see an approaching enemy, and there were no warriors in the village. If you missed any of these blogs, read them here: (SandCreekUnarmed), (SandCreekDepredations). (SandCreekCamp), (SandCreekWarriors).
The claims of Sand Creek being a massacre are grossly exaggerated. We are transparent with the Sand Creek story. There were a few soldiers that did some abhorrent things like when they intentionally killed an Indian toddler. In any kind of battle, it’s imperative to identify and report when such behavior is conducted. But it’s a very small part of the Sand Creek story. Some will take one event like that and try to make that the entire story.
Sand Creek was a running battle between soldiers and warriors. Make sure to read the previous blogs in this series—you can find the links a few paragraphs above.
For those that still believe Sand Creek was a massacre, why is the alleged massacre location void of physical evidence? It Sand Creek was a massacre, that area below the National Park Service Sand Creek bluff would have been littered with artifacts. Nearly 700 soldiers shooting at Indians would have left several hundred bullets. None were found there. That area also would have been littered with cannonball shell fragments, the .69 caliber lead balls that went inside the cannonballs, other battle artifacts and village artifacts. There hasn’t been a single period artifact found there.
Over 4,000 period artifacts have been found on the Bowen family ranch, at the Lost Sand Creek Site, starting about two miles up the creek from the NPS bluff. The artifacts do not lie, and they tell a concise story that debunks the massacre claims. The battle at Sand Creek lasted from just as the sun was coming up well into the afternoon. There were over 70 soldier casualties. Warriors killed soldiers. It was a running battle.
It’s imperative we learn from accurate history. Learn the truth about the discovery of the real location of Black Kettle’s village and running battle locations in We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
The massacre narrative was created to destroy Colonel Chivington, and it’s now being used to destroy patriotism. The idea is for people to visit the NPS Sand Creek site and leave feeling ashamed of their white American ancestors and hate their country. Sand Creek was not a starting point—Sand Creek was fighting back against warriors that ravaged Colorado Territory during the spring and summer of that year.
Knowledge is power, and we cannot stay silent. We’re asking that you not stay silent either. Share this blog with others that may not know the truth about Sand Creek.
Truth matters. Truth wins.
Get our book here: WeFoundTheLostSandCreekSite or click on the Buy The Book tab above.
Follow us on Facebook: BowenHistory
Follows us on X: thelostsandcreek
Subscribe for free on YouTube: thelostsandcreek
