By Mike Bowen – Co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
How trustworthy are the military reports from the hearings that followed Sand Creek?
Most trust that a military report is objective, without any bias.
What if information had been uncovered, showing otherwise?
Just a few months after Sand Creek, in early 1865, three hearings were held, but there was never a trial. The hearings were led by Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan.
Tappan was known as Colonel Chivington’s enemy and the hearings began with Colonel Chivington objecting to Tappan’s involvement. Tappan was next in line to become Colonel and Chivington passed Tappan in promotion, without any prior military experience before serving as Major at Glorieta. It’s documented from eyewitnesses that Tappan became enraged with Chivington and had a vendetta against him. Read more about Chivington and Tappan here: Chivington&Tappan.
B. F. Wade, Chairman of the Commission, provided a report concerning what he claimed were the Commission’s findings concerning Sand Creek.
Wade contradicts himself in his report.
“All the testimony goes to show that the Indians, under the immediate control of Black Kettle and White Antelope of the Cheyennes, and Left Hand of the Arapahoes, were and had been friendly to the whites, and had not been guilty of any acts of hostility or depredation. The Indian agents, the Indian interpreter and others examined by your committee, all testify to the good character of those Indians. Even Governor Evans and Major Anthony, though evidently willing to convey to your committee a false impression of the character of those Indians, were forced, in spite of their prevarication, to admit that they knew of nothing they had done which rendered them deserving of punishment.
A northern band of the Cheyennes, known as the Dog Soldiers, had been guilty of acts of hostility; but all the testimony goes to prove that they had no connexion with Black Kettle’s band, but acted in despite of his authority and influence. Black Kettle and his band denied all connexion with or responsibility for the Dog Soldiers, and Left Hand and his band of Arapahoes were equally friendly.
Respectfully submitted.
B. F. WADE, Chairman” (Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War 1865, Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session).
His claims are easily debunked. He starts with “all the testimony,” which means 100 percent. This is false. Most testimony that spoke of the Indians being friendly to the whites came from people who were not at Sand Creek.
Wade left out some critical information, such as the fact that both Governor Evans and Major Anthony testified concerning many atrocities committed by the Indians that were at Sand Creek. Wade also left out crucial testimony from the surgeon, Dr. Birdsal, that was at Sand Creek and testified to identifying many white scalps found in the tipis. Read his testimony in our book.
“They were sending out their raiding parties. Their men came there on Smoke Hill, and every little while a raiding party would make an attack on some train or some ranch,” Major Anthony stated (Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, Congress of The United States, In The House of Representatives, 1865).
He further testified:
“But before the re-enforcements came from district headquarters, Colonel Chivington came to Fort Lyon with his command, and I joined him and went out on that expedition to Sand creek (Creek). I never made any offer to the Indians. It was the understanding that I was not in favor of peace with them,” Major Anthony testified (Thirty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, Congress of The United States, In The House of Representatives, 1865).
Wade claimed that Governor Evans said there was no reason for the attack. In sworn testimony, Evans said this:
“It is proper for me to say, that these attacks during the summer, and up to the time I came away, were of very frequent occurrence. The destruction of property was very great. Our people suffered wonderfully, especially in their property, and in their loss of life. They murdered a family some twenty-odd miles east of Denver. The attacks by hostile Indians, about the time I came away, were very numerous along the Platte. There was an attack as I came in, about the month of November. It was in the evening, about sundown, and I passed over the ground in the night in the stage with my family, and a few days afterwards a party of emigrants, returning from Colorado, were murdered near the same ground, which was near Plum creek; and for a considerable length of time, immediately after I came in, the attacks were very numerous and very violent, until the stage was interrupted so that it has not been running since, until within a few days”—Governor Evans (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
Governor Evans said this concerning peace talks in the months prior to Sand Creek:
“So far as making a treaty now is concerned, we are in no condition to do it; your young men are on the war path, my soldiers are preparing for the fight. The time when you can make war best is in the summer time; the time when I can make war best is in the winter,” Governor Evans said (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
It was documented throughout the hearings that Colonel Chivington’s orders to fight the Indians came from Major General Curtis. If Tappan and company felt so strongly about Chivington not having the authorization to fight at Sand Creek, why wasn’t Curtis brought in to provide testimony? If the hearings were truly an objective investigation, that would be the sensible thing to do. Read about those orders in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Also, if Tappan and company felt so strongly that Chivington committed wrong-doing at Sand Creek, why wasn’t there a trial? It’s also important to note that every member of the Third Colorado Cavalry was honorably discharged.
There was clearly no interest in having a trial, as it was an apparent political attack on Chivington.
Major Anthony testified under oath that he saw a few soldiers kill a young Indian boy, about the age of a toddler. If that happened, why weren’t they identified and investigated? There’s no evidence Colonel Chivington ordered soldiers to do that. The alleged quote of Chivington saying, “nits make lice,” is never attributed to an eyewitness who heard him say that—it’s always quoted as if whoever is claiming it today heard Chivington say that. It’s likely a made-up quote. If you believe he said it, cite the source and eyewitness who heard him say it.
Wade also claimed that the Dog Soldiers had no affiliation with Black Kettle. George Bent was one of them and wrote about their raids in his letters to historians. It was likely by design George Bent wasn’t called in to testify—his testimony would not have helped the Commission. Dog Soldiers were indeed at Sand Creek. Read more about Bent in our book.
Another myth with Sand Creek is the claim Chivington rounded up the worst people he could find to go fight at Sand Creek. Chivington didn’t even organize the Third Colorado Cavalry.
Per the sworn testimony of Colorado Territory Governor, John Evans:
“As governor of Colorado Territory, did you have any troops organized there last summer?,” the Commission asked.
“Yes, sir; I organized a regiment,” Governor Evans testified.
“For what term of service?”
“For one hundred days.”
“Who was the colonel of that regiment?”
“George L. Shoup” (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
The Third Colorado Cavalry was eventually placed under Chivington’s control, but he did not organize the regiment.
The information that has been passed down about Sand Creek is far removed from eyewitness accounts or testimony and is mostly myth.
Multiple eyewitnesses said the warriors were in the village and they set up camp there because it would be a good place to hunt.
Read about why Sand Creek was the Indians’ hunting camp here: SandCreekHunting. See our video about Silas Soule. He also said the Indians were camped at Sand Creek so they could hunt. SilasSoule.
It’s not that Chairman Wade got information wrong, it’s that he lied in an official military report. On top of that, the hearings are full of testimony from people who were not at Sand Creek. Colonel Chivington requested for multiple eyewitnesses to testify in the hearings at Denver—he was denied.
Denying someone to have witnesses testify is simply un-American.
If the hearings were an unbiased investigation, the only people providing testimony would have been those present at Sand Creek, and the person being investigated wouldn’t be denied having witnesses testify.
There also wasn’t a trial, which is quite telling. If the massacre claims were true, a trial would have been a slam dunk.
Unfortunately, the reports and documents from the hearings are not reliable. Too many eyewitness accounts contradict the claims the Indians were peaceful, unarmed, didn’t fight back at Sand Creek, or that the village was filled with women, children and elderly.
Information about the hearings can be found in We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, following chapter 14, a chapter of artifact photos. These photos detail artifacts found at the Lost Sand Creek Site. The artifacts are a big part of discovery and we share a lot of photos of them in the book. They truly are the piece of evidence that reveals the truth about Sand Creek. Make sure to get a copy of our book so you can learn the truth.
You may not be aware that the village site and running battle locations are two separate locations—very little fighting actually took place in the village.
Our book not only details the real locations, it also details how the real locations change the traditional massacre story. How can that story be wrong?
Get our book. Click on the Buy The Book tab in the top right of this page.
Give us a follow on Facebook: BowenHistory
Subscribe for free on YouTube: TheLostSandCreek
