By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
According to the Sand Creek massacre claim, the only combatants were soldiers—the Indians were all defenseless women, children and elderly. The massacre claim further alleges the Indians were unable to defend themselves as they were unarmed and the warriors were all off hunting.
How much of that is true?
There are few details about Sand Creek that are agreed upon. One is the distance of 40 miles from Ft. Lyon to Sand Creek and another is that the event took place from just before the sun came up until about mid afternoon.
It is a difficult claim to say the only combatants were soldiers when the event lasted over eight hours. If the Indians were unarmed and indeed camped below what is now the National Park Service Sand Creek bluff, in a small congested area, that event would have lasted less than an hour. The Indians would have been sitting ducks.
It’s important when studying a historical event, to get information from people who were there. We have been studying Sand Creek and discovering artifacts for over 50 years. One of the eyewitnesses we get a lot of information from is George Bent. He was a Cheyenne Dog Soldier, also known as a warrior. He was one of the warriors in Black Kettle’s village at Sand Creek.
Bent makes it clear that warriors were in Black Kettle’s village and not off hunting, as it’s been claimed.
“The men fought off the soldiers until the pits were ready to get into,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde 4-30-1913). There were enough warriors in that one area to fight off soldiers. Bent wrote about upper and lower rifle pits and one was big enough to fit 19 people. Chuck Bowen found an area that matches Bent’s description of the rifle pits. We know from artifacts the village was spread out over about 2-3 miles. Warriors would have been camped throughout the village and some warriors camped up the creek from the village. Read about Robert McFarland in chapter six of We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. Major Anthony, who was Commanding Officer of Fort Lyon, was at Sand Creek, and he saw over 100 warriors fighting the soldiers where he was at during the Sand Creek battle (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
Chuck Bowen found artifacts including arrowheads and bullets that show warriors fought at Sand Creek. Not all of the bullets were fired by soldiers. Indians also had guns—they were indeed armed. See our blog here: (IndiansArmed).
There are over 400 pages of Bent’s letters in the Bowen archives. Bent never makes a single claim the warriors were away from Black Kettle’s village at Sand Creek, for any reason.
We know from artifacts and eyewitnesses, combatants at Sand Creek included warriors. Soldiers were also killed by warriors. Watch our short film: (JamesCarrLetter).
Warriors were not the only Indians fighting at Sand Creek.
Indian women did a lot of the hard work in an Indian village—they put up the lodges, skinned and tanned the hides (Bent to Hyde 4-17-1905) (Bent to Hyde, 10-27-1913) (Bent to Hyde, 10-15-1904), and they killed and burned a young Shoshone Indian boy as revenge. (Bent to Hyde, 2-20-1905). Indian women also hunted antelope and mastered the use of a bow and arrow (Bent to Hyde, 2-2-1916). They would have also been combatants.
From firing distance, soldiers said they couldn’t tell the difference between a male and female Indian.
“It was utterly impossible, at a distance of two hundred yards to distinguish between the sexes, on account of similarity of their dress,” Irving Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, Memories of a Lifetime In the Pike’s Peak Region, page 125). “It was difficult to tell a squaw from a buck fifty yards away,” Lt. Templeton said (Memoirs of Lt. Templeton from the Pioneers Museum in Colorado Springs).
“As to the killing of squaws and pappooses, only a few were killed, and that mainly the result of accident; the squaws fighting as desperately as the males, and in a dress and equipage scarcely distinguishable from that of the men,” John D. Coplen said (Ballou, Adin, An Elaborate History and Genealogy of the Ballous In America, page 943). He served as Corporal of the 3rd Colorado Cavalry Company G.
Firing distance isn’t just for the soldier firing at an Indian, it would also be for the Indian firing at a soldier.
Coplen said the women fought as hard as the warriors. No doubt male and female Indians were firing at soldiers. It would be difficult to tell people apart from 200 yards away, and even at 50 yards away, as Lt. Templeton said. We also have to look at this through an 1864 lens, and with the guns they had, they didn’t have the modern technology to see a long way in the distance.
Fanny Kelly was a captive, taken by Sioux Indians in July of 1864. The Sioux and Cheyenne were one and the same, according to George Bent. “Sioux and Cheyennes have been living together for over 100 years,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 8-16-1911).
Bent was familiar with her and said in a letter to historian George Hyde that she wrote a book (Bent to Hyde 5-3-1905). Fanny Kelly’s book was titled, Narrative of My Captivity Among the Sioux Indians. As a captive, she was passed around a few different camps. At one time, she was with Sioux Indians that were part of the 1862 Minnesota Massacre (Narrative of My Captivity Among the Sioux Indians, Fanny Kelly, page 108). She was separated from her husband, her daughter was killed, and she witnessed gruesome atrocities.
“They filled the air with the fearful war whoops and hideous shouts. I endeavored to keep my fears as quiet as possible, knowing that an indiscreet act on my part might result in jeopardizing our lives, though I felt certain that we two helpless women would share death by their hands; but with as much of an air of indifference as I could command, I kept still, hoping to prolong our lives, even if but a few moments. I was not allowed this quiet but a moment, when two of the most savage-looking of the party rushed up into my wagon with tomahawks drawn in their right hands, and with their left seized me by both hands and pulled me violently to the ground, injuring my limbs very severely, almost breaking them, from the effects of which I afterward suffered a great deal,” Fanny Kelly said (Fanny Kelly, Narrative of My Captivity Among the Sioux Indians, page 18).
The people of Colorado Territory were afraid a repeat of the Minnesota Massacre would happen there.
Governor of Colorado Territory John Evans made many pleas for help to the government, due to the brutality of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians during the spring and summer of 1864.
“They steal stock and run it off, hoping to escape detection and punishment. In some instances they have attacked and killed soldiers and murdered peaceable citizens. At this the great father is angry, and will certainly hunt them out, and punish them,” Governor Evans said (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
The 3rd Colorado Cavalry was established with the intent of fighting back against the Indians. See more in chapter six, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
In early November 1864, in order for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians to camp near Fort Lyon, it was requested of them to turn over their arms and would get them returned when they left.
Below is a portion of the Commission asking Captain Silas Soule if the Indians were returned their arms. Soule was a soldier with the First Colorado Cavalry.
“State if you know whether the arms received from the Indians were ever returned to them; if so, when and by whom?,” the Commission said.
“They were returned by me, by Major Anthony’s order, about the middle of November, 1864,” Soule said.
“Did all the Indians of the Arapahoe and Cheyenne tribes come in and camp near Fort Lyon, in compliance with Major Wynkoop’s order.”
“They did not all come in, none of the Dog soldiers came in,” Soule testified (Report of the Secretary of War, 39th Congress, 2nd Session).
Not only were warriors in the village, they were armed, and they never turned over any arms to stay near Fort Lyon. They ignored orders and kept going. This information comes from Silas Soule, who some believe refused to fight at Sand Creek. However, Soule never testified that he refused to fight—he testified about his concern for crossfire. See page 246, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Multiple soldier accounts say that warriors were in the village and fought with guns and bows and arrows (Van Loan, C.E. “Veterans of 1864 Revisit Scene of Indian Battle on the Banks of Sand Creek, Colo.” Denver Post. July 26, 1908). The warriors were not off hunting. If anyone still believes they were away from the village hunting, then you need to be able to answer where they were off hunting and how they got their hunts back to the village.
George Bent wrote about a time Cheyenne and Sioux Indians were camped near the Powder River, and the warriors were hunting near the village. “Indians that were hunting came running into camp and reported soldiers were coming,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 9-21-1905).
The idea the warriors traveled away from a village to hunt is a myth, all for the massacre narrative.
Another Indian captive, taken by Sioux Indians was Sarah Larimer. She is another eyewitness to the brutality of the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians. And as stated above, those two tribes lived together for 100 years and were one and the same, per George Bent.
Sarah was offered a lesson in archery and “their conversations were constantly on killing, scalping and mutilating,” Larimer said (Larimer, Sarah L., The Capture and Escape from the Sioux, page 49) They taught their children to act like that—it was part of their culture.
“The Indians were now considered extremely hostile all over the country…They had even been so bold as to undertake to drive off the Government herd, and the attacking of emigrant trains was now of every-day occurrence,” Larimer said (Larimer, Sarah L., The Capture and Escape from the Sioux, page 75).
This is something she witnessed. George Bent witnessed the same thing as a Cheyenne Dog Soldier.
Bent wrote to historian George Hyde about the antelope pits which is another example of Cheyenne warriors teaching children their brutal ways.
“Some times these pits got so full of antelope the last ones ran over the first ones. Pile up full of these pits. Men, Women, Children then made charge for the pit. After the antelope were all killed with clubs or some other thing as bows & arrows and guns were not allowed,” George Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 2-2-1916).
George Bent was a witness to the antelope pits, and he said that men, women and children all took part in clubbing the antelope to death. Indian children were taught at a very young age how to fight and kill.
Sand Creek was not a one-sided attack. The Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians were armed, per Silas Soule. The Indians also fought back. And per artifacts and eyewitnesses, they fought with guns and bows and arrows.
Combatants at Sand Creek included soldiers, Indian warriors, Indian women and Indian children/teenagers, according to eyewitnesses and physical evidence. The idea the only combatants at Sand Creek were soldiers is debunked.
Battle artifacts found at the Lost Sand Creek Site by Chuck Bowen include bullets, arrowheads, cannonball shell fragments, and .69 caliber lead balls that went inside the cannonballs, to name a few.
Each artifact was documented with a photo and the GPS coordinates. Looking at them on satellite imagery tells a clear story—the running battle areas started on the opposite side of the creek from the village, and the battle areas started near the creek, going in various directions away from the village, mostly towards the north, northeast and northwest. The Indians fled the village after seeing the soldiers miles away, coming to fight, and soldiers pursued the fleeing Indians, creating many running battle locations. See chapter 13, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. The artifacts and the location they were found clearly shows skirmish areas between warriors and soldiers, not a massacre of unarmed Indians.
It is important to know the truth. It is important to tell the truth. And no tax dollars should be used to spread false information about a historical battle, all for the goal of making the white soldier look bad. That is what’s happening at the NPS Sand Creek site.
The discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site is not simply a location change, placing a massacre somewhere else—it is a story change, as demonstrated in this blog. Sand Creek was a running battle. It was fighting back.
We have an obligation to tell the truth.
Knowledge is power. Truth matters. Truth wins.
Make sure to learn more in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. Click on the Buy The Book tab at the top right of the page or click here: WeFoundTheLostSandCreekSite.
Give us a follow on Facebook: BowenHistory
Subscribe for free on YouTube: thelostsandcreek
