By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
There are many soldier accounts that describe Sand Creek as a hard-fought battle. What evidence suggests those accounts can be trusted?
The following information comes from soldiers from various companies in the Colorado 3rd Cavalry and 1st Colorado Cavalry. These accounts come from soldiers that were not associated with each other.
Lant Williams, known as the “kid of his company,” was from Kansas. He was only 19 at Sand Creek and served in Company D of the Colorado 3rd Cavalry. One of the four veteran soldiers that met in 1908 in an attempt to mark the location where they fought the Indians in November of 1864, Lant provided details to newspaper reporter C. E. Van Loan with the Denver Post. Morse Coffin also gives an account of Lant’s experience at Sand Creek in the book, The Battle of Sand Creek, which was originally published in the Colorado Sun in 1879. Van Loan rode along with the veterans and covered it for the Post. You can read that account in chapter two of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
In the summer of 1864, Indians closed the stage route along the Platte River, per the Kansas soldier. Williams enlisted in August of 1864 and served along the old Ben Holiday line guarding the stages and emigrant trains. He continued his service by fighting at Sand Creek that November.
While riding along the battleground, Lant encountered a wounded soldier, dismounted from his horse and stayed with him. Morse Coffin found Lant in this dangerous situation.
“During the progress of our company up the creek he had, for some reason unknown to me, tied his horse to a bush near the east bank of the creek, and a little below where I found him; and having reached the west bank, had been holding the head of a wounded man of some company of the 3rd, and caring for him for about three hours, and until the arrival of the ambulance,” Coffin said (Coffin, Morse, The Battle of Sand Creek, pages 24-25).
It is unknown which soldier Williams cared for, however, Coffin stated the soldier was a member of the 3rd and believed he died. Read more in our blog here: Lant.
Lant said the Indians were not just armed with bows and arrows but also with guns. “Most of them were armed with bows and arrows and we had the advantage with our rifles and revolvers, though there were some good guns with the Indians, too, as we found out…The Indians could pull an arrow from the quiver, fit it to the string, and pull it back all in one motion while they were looking over their shoulder. They could work those bows as fast as a man could work a single-action revolver, and a lot more accurately, too,” the Kansas soldier said (Denver Post. July 26, 1908).
He described how well equipped and good at fighting the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians were, and this was a situation where the Indians weren’t expecting soldiers to fight them that day. Indians found places along the creek bank where they dug into the bank and concealed themselves where they fired at soldiers with revolvers, per Lant Williams. Some referred to those places as rifle pits, but the actual rifle pits were about 2-3 miles above the top of the village, based on digging tools Chuck Bowen found at a location that matched George Bent’s description of the pits. George Bent said one pit was big enough for 19 people to fit into. See more in chapter thirteen of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Other arguments have been made that the Indians camped on Sand Creek were peaceful. “They say there were some friendly Indians in that camp, but if so they were in poor company,” 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).
Irving Howbert served in Company G of the Colorado 3rd Cavalry and fought at Sand Creek at only 18 years old. He was originally from Iowa but moved to Denver with his father in 1860.
The young soldier provided the best details of land descriptions that led Bowen to the right locations to search for artifacts with a metal detector on the Bowen family ranch.
Here are a few examples of his descriptions of the event and the land:
“At daylight in the morning the command was forty miles away from the fort. Just as the sun came up the command reached the top of a ridge overlooking the valley of the Big Sandy, from which point a large Indian village could be seen scattered along the north bank of the stream about three miles away,” Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, El Paso County Pioneers, The El Paso County Democrat, December 1908).
“Crossing the creek, the regiment proceeded along the north bank until near the village, where they met the Indians, and then the battle began,” Irving Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, Memories of a Lifetime in the Pike’s Peak Region, pages 123-124).
“After the engagement began, the Indian warriors concentrated along Sand Creek, using its high banks on both sides as a means of defense. Sand Creek at this point is about two hundred yards wide, the banks on each side of which are almost perpendicular and from six to twelve feet high,” Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, Memories of a Lifetime in the Pike’s Peak Region, page 124).
“The engagement later extended up this creek for three or four miles from the Indian encampment,” Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, Memories of a Lifetime in the Pike’s Peak Region, page 124). “The fight soon became general all up and down Sand Creek valley, the Indians constantly firing from their places of defense along the stream and a continuous fusillade being kept up by the soldiers, shooting at every Indian that came within range of their guns” (Howbert, Irving, Memories of a Lifetime in the Pike’s Peak Region, page 125).
The eighteen-year-old soldier clearly described Sand Creek as a running battle. There is no source material that verifies Sand Creek as a massacre or that the soldiers circled around the village and killed the Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis. Howbert also clearly describes the Bowen ranch with his reference to creek banks 200 yards wide. He said the engagement extended three or four miles up the creek from the village, which is substantiated by over 4,000 artifacts Bowen discovered on the Bowen family ranch.
The creek banks at the NPS Sand Creek site are nowhere
near 200 yards wide—they aren’t very wide at all.
Howbert gave an account on how his company dealt with children on the battlefield:
“At one place, an Indian child, three or four years of age, ran out to us, holding up its hands and crying piteously. From its actions we inferred that it wished to be taken up. At first I was inclined to do so, but changed my mind when it occurred to me that I should have no means of taking care of the little fellow. We knew that there were Indians concealed within a couple of hundred yards of where we were, who certainly would take care of him as soon as we were out of the way; consequently we left him to be cared for by his own people.”
“Every one of our party expressed sympathy for the little fellow, and no one dreamed of harming him” Irving Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, The Indians of the Pikes Peak Region page 106-107).
Howbert’s account doesn’t get any recognition from the NPS—it doesn’t help the massacre narrative that most soldiers did not target children. Most eyewitnesses describe a fight between soldiers and warriors.
The massacre claim alleges the soldiers were the worst that could be found. The claim leaves out examples or citations. Irving Howbert was a pillar in his community. He settled in the Old Colorado City area and was a founding father of Colorado Springs. You can read more about him in our book which includes information on his character and role as a leader.
Howbert had a remarkable recollection of where the village was from the ridge. His descriptions proved invaluable to the discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site. He was also one of the first to report on Lt. Col. Sam Tappan’s hatred and jealousy for Colonel Chivington. Read more in our blog here: HowbertTappan.
Howbert’s description of where the village was located and where fighting took place was incredibly accurate—the entirety of his Sand Creek account needs to be considered with great credence. Why would he have such accurate details of the land but lie about the event? He had no reason to lie, and the location artifacts were found at the Lost Sand Creek site lines up with the claims of Indians fleeing up the creek from the village, thus making the event a running battle.
Lieut. Alexander Safely, 1st Cavalry of Colorado, saw the commencement of the battle and witnessed George Pierce get killed. Pierce, a soldier, was the first killed at Sand Creek. Safely said he shot White Antelope in the groin and then another soldier shot him in the head. White Antelope was shooting at them with a revolver in his left hand, Safely said. He did not see a white flag and further stated he was in a position where he could have seen one (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
The first killed at Sand Creek wasn’t a Cheyenne or Arapaho Indian, it was a soldier, as described above.
Safely’s account doesn’t describe a massacre of unarmed and defenseless Indians—it describes a hard-fought battle between soldiers and warriors.
Stephen Decatur of Company C, Colorado 3rd Cavalry, said he lived among Indians for seven years and was present at Sand Creek. It was the fourth battle he fought in, and he said he’d never seen harder fighting in his life. He testified under oath to seeing white scalps found in Indian lodges and also said he did not see a white flag in the village (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
It’s interesting that all of these soldiers, who did not know each other, all said Sand Creek was not only a battle but a hard-fought battle. They were in different companies and lived a long ways from each other.
There’s no way, especially in the 1860s, they got together to compare stories and make sure they all called Sand Creek a battle.
Each soldier came to his own conclusion based on his experience at Sand Creek and experience dealing with Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians. Soldiers also gave accounts detailing Cheyenne warriors committing heinous acts in the months before Sand Creek. Read our blog here: IndianAtrocities.
As detailed earlier, Howbert described how soldiers at Sand Creek dealt with children. There is no source material that provides any verifiable information that children were targeted at Sand Creek. The sole purpose of that narrative is to make people believe the soldiers were the worst of the worst.
The massacre claim alleges the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians were all camped below the bluff, in a small congested area, at what is now the NPS Sand Creek site. It further alleges the soldiers surrounded the village and killed the Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis. However, the part of the story not told by the NPS is that no period artifacts have ever been found below that bluff, or in any congested area. If the massacre claim was true, that area would have been littered with bullets, cannonball shell fragments, the .69 caliber lead balls that went in the cannonballs, village artifacts, plus much more. It’s too much of a stretch to say the artifacts were picked up over the years.
Chuck Bowen has found hundreds of bullets, fired and unfired—they were all found with a metal detector and would be difficult to see laying on the ground. They were all just a few inches deep. He didn’t find artifacts just walking around and picking up items he could see. The bullets also nearly blend into the ground. The same is true with most artifacts he found, including the percussion caps—they are very small and would be nearly impossible to find laying on the ground.
Artifacts Bowen found prove the village was about 2-3 miles long and very little fighting took place in the village. The artifacts show what the soldiers said to be true—fighting became general along Sand Creek, starting on the opposite side of the creek from the village, extending for over three miles.
One thing is certain—artifacts do not lie.
Soldiers were inspired to write about their experience at Sand Creek due to Colonel Chivington being denied witnesses at the Denver hearings and people testifying who were not even at Sand Creek, falsifying the event. We need to be learning from people who were there.
Eyewitnesses do not describe any fighting taking place below a bluff or in any small congested area—they also do not describe the village below a bluff or in a small congested area. The village is described as being about 2-3 miles long and fighting taking place away from the village. There was no surprise attack while Indians were asleep in their tipis. The idea that nearly 700 soldiers on horseback, with four cannons in the lead, could sneak up on anyone is not realistic. According to George Bent, the soldiers were spotted several miles away as a long black line, by Cheyenne warrior, Little Bear. The soldiers would have to be several miles away to be seen as a long black line instead of soldiers on a horse.
Those who defended Sand Creek as a battle were silenced. The same thing has happened to us, for simply telling the truth about the artifact discovery.
If we weren’t telling the truth,
there would be no need to silence or minimize the discovery.
As Christians, we are called to be truthful: “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” (Matthew 5:37). We are about seeking and telling the truth concerning Sand Creek. If you believe it doesn’t matter whether we’re telling the truth or not about Sand Creek as it’s been 160 years since the event, you should also then believe the NPS shouldn’t be operating a Sand Creek “historic site” 160 years after the event.
Telling the truth is always important, even after 160 years, especially since the truth gets buried. It’s not simply that the alleged massacre location doesn’t have very many artifacts, that area below the bluff where the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians are alleged to have camped and killed by soldiers, is void of period artifacts. The small area where the NPS found some village related artifacts and 174 musket balls all in the same hole was over a mile up the creek from their alleged massacre location.
It can’t be stressed enough that the discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site doesn’t simply place a massacre location somewhere else. The village site and battle areas are two separate locations. There aren’t any congested areas with village artifacts and battle artifacts or any congested battle areas. In fact, very little fighting took place in the village and the fighting went along the creek and scattered away from the creek in multiple directions. Maps showing and explaining this are included in our book.
Read about Little Bear’s account in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. We only use information about the event from people who were at Sand Creek, including soldiers and Dog Soldier, George Bent. In his later years, while working as an Indian agent in Colony, Oklahoma, Bent wrote letters to historians that were asking about his Cheyenne life and time as a Dog Soldier (warrior) in Black Kettle’s village. Chuck Bowen has over 400 pages of Bent’s letters in his archives. The archived letters include copies of George’s handwritten letters, obtained from the Denver Public Library, Western Division. The rest of the copies of Bent’s letters in the archives are typed versions, transcribed from his handwritten letters at Yale University. You can read more about this in our book.
It’s interesting that George Bent, who was a warrior in Black Kettle’s village, called Sand Creek a battle and a fight (Bent to Tappan 4-16-1889, Bent to Hyde, 1-12-1906). Bent fought in four Civil War battles as a Confederate and saw a lot of killing in those battles. George went to Missouri for his schooling and while there, the Civil War started. Since Missouri was a border state, he could choose to fight for the Union or the Confederacy. He likely chose to fight as a Confederate since the Bent family near St. Louis had been slave owners. When he returned to Colorado Territory, he still saw the Union soldier as the enemy— George was half Cheyenne and continued that fight when he became a Cheyenne Dog Soldier.
George Bent’s numbers for dead Indians ranged from 137 in a letter to Lt. Colonel Tappan and 163 in a letter to historian George Hyde (Bent to Tappan, 3-15-1889, Bent to Hyde, 4-30-1913). Though his numbers were much higher than the official count of 69, they are much lower than the alleged number of dead Indians purported by the NPS today of over 260, without a single citation for their number. His high numbers of 137 and 163 came nearly 40 years after Sand Creek—he didn’t go back over the battlefield and count dead Indians. He got his numbers from old Indians at the agency in Oklahoma. You can read more about the official count of 69 dead Indians here: OfficialCount.
If the soldiers truly rode around the village and killed the Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis, George Bent would not have referred to Sand Creek as a fight and a battle. He also said that warriors fought off soldiers until the Indians could get into the rifle pits (Bent to Hyde, 4-30-1913).
The information provided above from Bent is quite different than what’s told in the traditional massacre claim. However, Bent was there, and it’s important to learn about Sand Creek from those who experienced it. It’s also important to note that many will take information from a book, The Life of George Bent, thinking George wrote it, but he didn’t write that book or any book. He simply wrote letters to historians. That book is loosely inspired by Bent’s letters but fails to cite his letters throughout. The chapter on Sand Creek doesn’t include a single citation to any of Bent’s letters. It’s best to get information directly from the source.
We’re about telling the truth, based on the massive discovery of artifacts found at the Lost Sand Creek Site on the Bowen family ranch and based on accounts from eyewitnesses.
One thing is certain: artifacts cannot lie. They are the one piece of evidence that provides the truth about what happened and where it happened. The Indians were not camped below that bluff or attacked below that bluff. They were camped starting over 1 ½ miles up the creek from there, and many fled away from the village after Little Bear saw the soldiers as a long black line, several miles away.
Our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, is a truthful account of discovery. We don’t have a dog in this fight—we just want people to know the truth. There were over 70 soldier casualties and knowing the warriors were actually in the village, per George Bent and multiple soldiers, and knowing the Indians were also armed, per soldiers and George Bent, changes the story completely.
It’s important to weigh all of the evidence before coming to a conclusion on something. With Sand Creek, most already have an opinion based on what’s been told for 160 years. Please take the time to read our book, check out more blogs and look at all of the information concerning Sand Creek, through the lens of 1864, and come to a more informed understanding of what happened at Sand Creek, what led to Sand Creek, and why it matters today.
Truth always matters. The massacre story was created to attack Colonel Chivington—it was politically motivated by Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan. Chivington, without any military experience or rank, was appointed Major going into Glorieta. He was a known hero at that battle—he leapfrogged Tappan in his promotion to Colonel, skipping Lt. Colonel. He received his appointment to Major and promotion to Colonel in the matter of several months. Tappan became furious and vowed to destroy Chivington.
The massacre story is now used to destroy patriotism.
It’s the perfect story to make people feel ashamed of their white American ancestors and their country.
In reality, Sand Creek was a fight between soldiers and warriors. We don’t shy away from the fact a few soldiers intentionally killed children, but that’s actually a small part of the real Sand Creek story. The killing of children also happened in many Civil War battles and we don’t call those massacres.
So even after 160 years, it’s greatly important to combat the falsehoods of Sand Creek with the truth, corroborated by physical evidence and accounts from eyewitnesses.
Truth matters. Truth wins.
Click on the Buy The Book tab in the top right or click on the link here to get our book: WeFoundTheLostSandCreekSite. You can also purchase a book from us. We have a limited amount of books on hand. Email us at chuck@thelostsandcreek.com.
Give us a follow on Facebook: BowenHistory
Check out the video from our recent book program in La Junta: LaJuntaProgram.
