By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
It’s unsure when, but it appears that sometime after the Battle of Glorieta and before Sand Creek, Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan became jealous of Colonel John Chivington.
They both fought at Glorieta, with Chivington serving as Major and Tappan serving as Lt. Colonel.
Colorado Territory Governor Gilpin appointed Chivington Major to lead soldiers at Glorieta. Chivington went into that battle without any military rank or experience—he was a Methodist preacher, well respected for his leadership.
“Major Chivington’s command continued on toward Johnson’s train of 60 wagons, capturing and destroying it and capturing and destroying one 6-pounder gun, and taking 2 officers and about 15 men prisoners. The loss of this train was a most serious disaster to the enemy, destroying his baggage and ammunition, and depriving him of provisions, of which he was short. Much praise is due to the officers and men of Major Chivington’s command,” Colonel Slough said (The War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume IX, page 535, published 1883).
Chivington’s heroic feat is watered down at the Glorieta display at the Fort Garland museum. It’s like they don’t want anyone to know he was a hero—the narrative of Chivington being a villain at Sand Creek would be damaged if he was shown as a hero anywhere else. The signage at the museum says all he did was take supplies away from the enemy.
Colonel Slough sung Chivington’s praises and in fact, his efforts provided him a promotion. In just a matter of months, Chivington went from no rank, to Major, to Colonel, skipping Lt. Colonel.
According to the Rocky Mountain News (Daily), May, 1862, Tappan supported Chivington’s promotion.
“The gallant Major Chivington is chosen unanimously by the officers and men of the First Colorado as the man of all others to lead them on to victory and glory. We learn that Lieut. Col. Tappan heads the petition made by the regiment to be forwarded to the department, and there is every probability that the Major will be promoted to the position of Colonel,” the Rocky Mountain News (Daily) stated.
Chivington was so well respected, he was unanimously chosen by his fellow officers to become Colonel, as stated above. His promotion to Colonel was also received with cheers.
Irving Howbert, a soldier at Sand Creek and a founding father of Colorado Springs, said that once the soldiers returned from New Mexico, Tappan never missed an opportunity to take a dig at Chivington.
“The overshadowing reputation made by Colonel Chivington in the campaign against the Texas invaders of New Mexico, and his subsequent promotion to the Colonelcy of the Regiment over Lieutenant-Colonel Samuel F. Tappan, although apparently acquiesced in at the time, aroused a spirt of jealousy, envy, and antagonism against him on the part of a small group of officers headed by Lieutenant Colonel Tappan and Major E. W. Wynkoop. This antagonism manifested itself on every possible occasion. After their return from New Mexico, these officers never allowed an opportunity to pass for discrediting and injuring the ‘Preacher Colonel,’ and after the battle of Sand Creek, they never tired of referring to it as an evidence of his unfitness,” Irving Howbert said (Memories of a Lifetime in the Pike’s Peak Region, pages 138-139).
It’s possible Tappan was never on board with Chivington’s promotion but felt he had no other choice than to go along with it since Chivington was so well liked and respected. Tappan wasn’t as liked or respected.
Calling someone a popinjay is not a compliment, as stated in the newspaper clipping. It means a vain or conceited person.
Just a few months after Sand Creek, three hearings were held to look into the battle. The person in charge of the hearings was none other than Lt. Col. Tappan, who was leapfrogged in promotion by Chivington.
Denver, Colorado Territory, February l, 1865
To investigate the conduct of Colonel Chivington. Led by Lt. Colonel Samuel Tappan, First Colorado Cavalry, president of the commission.
Gentlemen: I would most respectfully object to Lt. Colonel Tappan, first veteran battalion Colorado cavalry, being a member of the commission, for the following reasons, to wit:
1st. That the said Lt. Colonel Tappan is, and for a long time…has been, my…avowed enemy.
2d. Tappan has repeatedly expressed himself…prejudiced against the killing of the Indians near Fort Lyon…commonly known as the battle of ‘Sand Creek,’ and has said that it was a disgrace to every officer…and that he would make it appear so in the end.
3d. I believe…he cannot divest himself of his prejudices…to render an impartial verdict.
J. M. Chivington,
Colonel First Cavalry of Colorado” (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
It was also testified by Joseph S. Maynard that Tappan had a bias towards the Sand Creek battle.
‘Joseph S. Maynard, being first duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is well acquainted with Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Tappan, first cavalry, Colorado; that he has heard said Tappan say that the battle of ‘Sand Creek,’ or, more properly, the battle fought between the troops under Colonel John M. Chivington, first cavalry Colorado, and the Cheyenne Indians, fought November 29, 1864, about forty miles north of Fort Lyon, Colorado Territory, was one of the greatest blunders ever committed, and one that would cost thousands of lives, and the government a great deal of treasure.
J. S. MAYNARD (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
Tappan agreed with Maynard’s comments.
The statement of Captain Maynard is substantially correct. A few days after the affair of Sand creek I remarked to Captain Maynard that from what I could hear, the attack on the Indians at Sand creek was the greatest military blunder of the age, and fatal in its consequences. As to my alleged prejudice and alleged personal enmity, even if true, I should not consider them at all influencing me in performing the duties assigned me in this commission, especially after taking the oath required as a member.
SAMUEL F. TAPPAN,
Lieut. Colonel Veteran Battalion, First Colorado Cavalry,
President Commission. (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
Tappan was not simply a member of the Commission, he was president. He admitted to having a prejudice about Sand Creek and was then tasked to lead the hearings. He already had his mind made up before the hearings began and was investigating his superior officer, the man who received a promotion over him.
At the very least, that was clearly a conflict of interest.
It also needs to be known, many that testified were not even at Sand Creek. It’s clear the three hearings were not an objective investigation—Chivington was denied witnesses at the Denver hearings. However, many have accepted the findings from the hearings as Gospel without knowing any of the details.
Tappan missed out on a promotion, became jealous of Chivington and was able to create the narrative of Sand Creek being branded as a massacre. It was revenge.
“Never pick a fight with people who…” Read the full quote on page 168 of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
The hearings were one-sided and the findings should not be considered Gospel—they should be rejected and tossed out.
If you want to learn and know the truth about Sand Creek, carefully look at the story the artifacts tell. Chuck Bowen’s discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site on the Bowen family ranch, where he found over 4,000 battle and village artifacts, overwhelmingly supports Irving Howbert’s claim that Sand Creek was a running battle between soldiers and warriors.
The artifacts are the one thing that cannot lie.
Learn the truth in our book. Click on the Buy The Book tab or click the link below:
Give us a follow on Facebook: BowenHistory
