Talk:Sand Creek massacre

Hungate massacre
I think this article should consider removing the reference to the hungate massacre in the header paragraph, and reserve it for the later paragraphs. The "massacre" of 4 people, while horrible, was not the reason the Sand Creek Massacre occurred, by placing it where it is, it implies some kind of direct connection. Granted, Chivington tried to make that excuse later, but it's an EXCUSE. The Sand Creek Massacre happened because people hated Indians. We should be direct about that part. I'm not saying it's not important to put the time line in context, and understand the rise of hate caused by the Hungate massacre, but it should not be a top paragraph line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.147.196 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ghost Dance
--- "line 29 The Cheyenne and Arapahoes danced the ghost dance which invoked the attack. "

I don't think Cheyenne and Arapahoes ever danced the ghost dance. Can we get source? --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm2ortiz (talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted the Ghost Dance reference since the dates simply don't work.rewinn 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chivington
The distinction between the U.S. Army (of which the "U.S. Cavalry" was a branch) and the militias of the various states, Colorado in this case, was a real one--especially during the Indian Wars. U.S. Army troops and, more important, their officers, were drawn from the country as a whole, and their attitudes toward the Indians reflected a broad mix of feelings; militia troops and officers, on the other hand, were drawn from within the various states in which they normally served, and thus reflected more closely the prevailing local attitudes.

In the months preceding the tragedy at Sand Creek, Indians had killed settlers, including women and children; their bodies were displayed in Denver as proof that the Indians were indeed savages who could be dealt with only by force. Sand Creek was the almost inevitable outcome of the use of militia troops under Chivington, a member of the militia himself.

How the local militia came to be at Sand Creek on that fateful day is complicated and not part of this discussion. What happened after they got there, however, can be partially explained--in no case justified--by their local backgrounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.167.152 (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2004 (UTC)


 * For the above to be helpful in improving the article, it may be worth going into Chivington's troops & motivations; also those of Evan. According to Dee Brown, they seem to have based their political campaigns on fighting an Indian menace. rewinn 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The deliberate killing and mutilation of non-combatant women and children was rightly condemned as an atrocity. However it must be borne in mind that these pratices, and worse, were routine amongst the hostile Indians (and not just against Whites) who apparently saw nothing atrocious or immoral about them, except when practised by Whites upon them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.117.90 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And your evidence for this extremely broad and unsourced statement would be ... what?
 * There is no showing that Indians lacked as broad a range of feelings and practices as Europeans, whose history is full of both atrocities and the rejection of atrocities. In any event, it is difficult to see how the above comments would assist in improving the article. rewinn 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You ask for sources; See below. I don't know if you agree, but I find it useful to read the alternative viewpoint rather than accept what "everyone knows".  Even if one's opinion remains unchanged, it is at least a more considered opinion.  As the Romans used to say: "Audi alteram partem" Hear the other side.  Best wishes.
 * Battle At Sand Creek: The Military Perspective by Gregory F. Michno (Author) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.159.169 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to wikipedia. Let me urge you
 * Get a logon. It's free & helps discussion by making it easier for people to recall who they're discussing with
 * Sign your Talk page contribs. Just put four tildas (~) at the end & wikimagic does the rest
 * I don't know how to respond substantively to your comment. There's no showing that I or any other editor accepts what everyone knows. What wikipedia needs is sources for comment. This particular discussion conflates two issues: whether Indians ever committed atrocities, and whether they "saw nothing atrocious or immoral about them, except when practised by Whites upon them". The former is an unremarkable proposition; it would be remarkable if Indians were one of the few people never to commit atrocities. As to the latter, I very much doubt that there is any factual support; history and biology tells us that all humans very much resent being the object of atrocities. Although it seems likely that Indian-on-Indian atrocitites may not have been complained of to a White court system that would exercise little jurisdiction. rewinn 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice, rwinn. You seem to misunderstand my comments.  My point is about cultural values, not about individuals.


 * Chivington's actions were considered, by whites, to be an atrocity because they went beyond what was deemed civilised behaviour, even in the conduct of war. On the other hand, from an Indian point of view, the killing, rape, mutilation and torture of men women and children was a cultural norm, and not viewed as aberrant behaviour, it was simply the way war was waged.  No doubt other Indian victims resented being attacked, but this does not mean they viewed these actions as atrocities.
 * In fact, I know of no violence inflicted upon an enemy by Indians which would be considered by other Indians an atrocity. (I would be very interested if someone were to show me otherwise).
 * [User:Joescallan|Joescallan]] 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you offer for the proposition that from an Indian point of view, killing, rape, mutilation and torture of men women and children was a cultural norm ... at least, any more that it is a norm among civilized societies as well? Please, cite a reliable source. The evidence that tribal societies are any more nasty, brutal and Hobbesian than more civilized societies is simply absent. To the contrary: read Henry V's speech before Harfleur and consider that Shakespeare's audience considered him a hero; ponder the conduct of civilized Japanese troops in China, civilized Amercan troops in Vietnam, civilized Russian troops in Chenchnya, et cetera; and consider that no savage society (unless perhaps the Mongols) conducted slaughter on so grand scale as the civilized societies with our invention of the strategic bomber, poisonous gas, and the death camp. It is to the glory and credit of the civilized world that we have the Geneva Conventions et cetera but they would not be necessary were our cultural norms as you suggest.  rewinn 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it assumed here that groups like the Native Americans and Mongols are "savage"? What keeps them from being called a civilization, or part of one? Undeniably, they were parts of societies, so this to me seems at best inaccurate and at worst offensive. I mean no ill will: all I ask for is a reasonable explanation, for there doesn't seem to be one. Sorry if I haven't really contributed; I was drawn in by the conversation.... 99.56.196.101 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept your comment in the spirit in which it is offered. Terminology matters and it can be hard to find the correct word. It was another editor who sought to distinguish "civilised behaviour" from that of Indians; my point was that even if one accepts such a distinction, non-Indians have committed absurdly large atrocities. In addition, I could have pointed to the Mystic massacre as a completely on-point example of a butchery that shocked our Native population. None-the-less, both tribal Mongols and tribal American Indians had or have civilizations by any reasonable definition. rewinn (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago I ran across an American (or should I say, "used in the United States?") elementary school history and geography textbook that began with the statement, "Before the Europeans arrived, North America was populated by people called Indians. Indians had no culture." That is not an exact quote, but it is very close, and the last part is exact. The book was published about a century ago. Even at that time folks should have known better. So why would a text book say such a thing? Because (opinion) that is what "they" (who ever "they might be) wanted the youth of America to believe. However I am wondering if the Indians here -in this article - are ever referred to as "savages" other than in a Anglo quote from the period.  I will check again, but I really doubt it.  rewinn, I want to congratulate you for continuing a discussinn over a four year period, a record until I see otherwise.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Depiction in fiction
Another song about this is "Banner Year" by Five Iron Frenzy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.74.218 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Partial Sentence
I removed the partial sentence at the end of the piece: "The actual location of the massacre was not definatively nailed until"... Mwanner 01:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
I removed some obscenities and other juvenile comments just now. tstockma 01:24, September 12, 2005

Anon editor said..
""the massacre in Little Big Man is also based on it." is a mistake as that movie featured an accurate recreation of the second attack on Black Kettle's Cheyennes on the banks of the Washita, 27 November 1868, where Black Kettle actually died at the hands of Custer's 7th."

There are 2 massacres in Little Big Man, the first one where Jack Crabb meets his indian wife giving birth. Custer is not present. At least the wikipedia article on Little Big Man says this was the Sand Creek massacre. I added this reference back.

So I removed the text ", and the massacre in Little Big Man is also based on it" If it is really correct please replace it. Rich  Farmbrough 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"...encamped on the eastern plains." Looking at the map it sure looks as if Sand Creek is in the western plains!!!! Oh sure, there is the demarcation between what is known as the long grass and short grass prarie but the term "eastern" doesn't seem to fit the actual location of the massacre in any manner.68.13.191.153 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In Colorado we are used to referring to anything east of Denver as the "eastern plains." Perhaps it would be better worded: "on the plains of eastern Colorado."  Plazak 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog Soldiers
I'm removing the link the the Dog Soldier (movie), it has nothing to do with Cheyenne Dog Soldiers... Ralph 9 Jan 2006
 * agreed. There really should be a wikipedia article about the historical Dog Soldiers but I lack sources. Anybody care to take it up? rewinn 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed another link to the Dog Soldiers movie for the same reason. - Shrivenzale; 15:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the whole mess of Dog Soldiers references. The one we want has been at Dog soldier; I moved to rename it to Dog Soldiers (has to go through admins to keep the edit history with the article), on top of renaming the film to Dog Soldiers (film), and creating a Dog Soldiers (disambiguation) article. I felt it was appropriate to have the article on the Cheyenne military society as the one called simply Dog Soldiers, as the other items of that name (a novel & the movie) are both ultimately references to this original.  I've got at least some material on the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers which I will be adding to that article shortly. Meantime, we can now link to Dog Soldiers without ending up on a 2002 British werwolf flick. --Yksin 11:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the Dog Soldiers were not part of the Sand Creek encampment; if they had, Chivington would have been routed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.163.39 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise
In the book The Last Samurai it states The Battle of Washita River. I'll look up the page number for eveyone so we can put this to rest.--Dm2ortiz 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I took out the following lines, since it seems there is some disagreement on them:

''In the film The Last Samurai, Tom Cruise's character Captain Nathan Algren had nightmares from his participation at the massacre. stop adding this, that was the "The Battle of Washita River" not Sand Creek!''

Does anyone have a reference they can cite one way or the other for this? If it is sand creek, it should go back in the article, but remain out if otherwise. Adagio 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, I don't see how Algren could be having nightmares about Sand Creek. According to the The Last Samurai, it says he was a veteran of the Battle of Gettysburg.  Gettysburg was July 1863.  It seems unlikely that a soldier could or would be allowed to leave the Army of the Potomac to go to Colorado and join the 1st and 3rd Colorado Cavalry a year later during the civil war.  Since the movie "takes place" in 1877, there is plenty of time for him to take part in some other massacre.  Without evidence, I think it is best to keep it out.  I think I will take it out of the The Last Samurai article too, and redirect any objections from there to here so we can sort it out. --ChristopherM 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just watched the movie last night, pursuant to research for Battle of Washita River. It's Washita that the movie refers to, if not by name. Evidence: (1) Cruise's character Algren was a former captain in the 7th Cavalry, which was not present at Sand Creek, but certainly was at the Washita. (2) In one of the nightmare/flashback scenes, he was heard to protest to the Col. Blagley character (whose presence there as a colonel as though he had commanded the 7th in that attack instead of Lt. Col. Custer was rather confusing to me) just before they charged in for the attack something to the effect of, "But they weren't responsible for the raids!" -- an undoubted reference to the raids along the Solomon/Saline rivers that was one of the proximate justifications for Sheridan's winter campaign against the Cheyenne & Arapaho which led to the Washita attack. Not a very accurate depiction of Washita, of course, but that's to be expected I guess. --Yksin 11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fort Wise Treaty
I added the name of the treaty signed by Black Kettle and others (Fort Wise Treaty of 1861) and changed it to say that only SOME of the chiefs signed it. My reference: Black Kettle: The Cheyenne Chief Who Sought Peace and Found War, by Thom Hatch (2004). This is my first time editing a wikipedia entry and I think I botched my signature; it seems to appear in the middle of the entry. --Dansato 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the names of all six of the signatories in one of Hoig's books, and added the ref. Hoig cites the standard reference on Indian treaties, Charles J. Kappler's Indian Affairs: Law and Treaties (4 vols.) Also completely rewrote the Treaty of Fort Wise article (which previously had been a unreferenced POV rant with tags complaining of such) based on rewrites I did of the Background section of this article. --Yksin 11:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

American casualties and cause
I added the information from Dee Brown's book. I just returned it to the library, so I have to get the page numbers.Pejorative.majeure 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Background section
The background section has been expanded and sourced, based mainly on Stan Hoig's book The Peace Chiefs of the Cheyennes, Jerome Greene's 2004 book on the Washita, and George Hyde's Life of George Bent Written from His Letters. This section was previously completely unsourced. I'm hoping that my edits clarify the account -- I focused particularly on the differences between the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851) & the Treaty of Fort Wise, the anger of the Dog Soldiers and some other Cheyennes about the latter, & how the Dog Soldiers' refusal to feel obligated to abide by the Fort Wise treaty's stipulations helped lead to the escalating conflicts during 1864 that culminated in the Colorado War in general & the Sand Creek massacre in particular. About the only part of the background I didn't get to expanding/sourcing in this section was the stuff about how Black Kettle & company ended up at Sand Creek. Refs article-wide also cleaned up. --Yksin 11:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Atrocities
Most articles about the massacre omit the grisly details. What is the source of the passage: "Many of the dead were mutilated, ... They also publicly displayed these battle trophies in the Apollo Theater and saloons in Denver"? ALu06 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is mentioned in Dee Brown's book. Trophies were draped on weapons, clothing and were on public display in Denver. Pejorative.majeure 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Starting on page 57 in the "Condition of the Indian Tribes, Report of the joint Special Committee, Appendix" (1867), you will find alot of documented first hand testimony from Chivington's soldiers as to the grisly mutilations committed:


 * http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;rgn=full%20text;idno=ABB3022.0001.001;didno=ABB3022.0001.001;view=image;seq=0069 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.14.2 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's original research (OR) for editors to use such primary source material. It would be useful for someone to check to see if one of the recent academic histories of the massacre repeat this material or qualify it in any way.--Parkwells (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Such a report is not primary source material, but a study and compilation of materials of evidence, just as usable as any academic's study. If it is otherwise untrustworthy or there are authorities to the contrary, that can be dealt with just as any other conflicting authority. Second, references to primary source material are proper and useful if identified as such, e.g. "the Report of the Joint Special Committee cited first hand testimony ...". That the Committee came to thus-and-such a conclusion is noteworthy and if there are conflicting conclusions of comparable noteworthiness, the thing to do is to pair them off. It would be absurd to be unable to cite to a Committee merely because it consists of experts. rewinn (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
The article contradicts itself on the casualties on both sides. The infobox says that the militia forces suffered 9 dead and 38 wounded, while the Attack section says that 15 died and more than 50 were wounded. The lead and infobox both cite 400 native American deaths given by an oral history project apparently generations removed from the event. The text in the Attack section cites the 400 oral history figure, and also mentions 150-200 deaths from a historian, 500-600 deaths from Chivington's testimony, and 163 deaths by eyewitness George Bent. While all these estimates deserve mention in the text of the article, the most credible figure seems to me to be the 163 from George Bent, who was there, knew the victims, and certainly had no reason to underestimate the number of deaths. I believe that it is Bent's figure that should be cited in the lead and the infobox. Any thoughts? Plazak (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about the casualty numbers contradicting themselves. Someone needs to collate the casualties and present them as a range of possibilities.
 * Casualty numbers should also be presented in just one place - currently they are spread over about three sections of the article.
 * About the casualty count in the infobox: I agree with your logic re: Bent, but without a close reading of the sources I'm not sure that logic is enough. Maybe the infobox should present the range of possible casualties? --RhoOphuichi (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualties
Number of victims

As far as i know from reading several sources, it isn`t exactly known how many cheyenne and Arapahoe were killed in the Sand Creek Massacre. There are estimations from 150 up to 500. It is the first time that i heard about 133 victims like in this article.

Steffen 21/12/2009

A biased article, on a difficult subject.
I was a bit dismayed to read this article; the author's grasp of Colorado history is entirely inaccurate. These were not soldiers who out of cruelty attacked "friendly Indians" - that assumption is due to modern revisionist history. Because of its emotional slant toward one group, and its factual inaccuracy, I have to say that the article is biased.

While it is true that the year 1858 saw the first real rush into the high mountains to search for gold and silver, there had been white settlers in the state for many years already. The areas around Denver and Boulder were well-settled. The gold and silver rush only contributed to white populations in the high mountains in the center of the state. The Sand Creek Fight took place well east of the mountains, out on the open prairie land of southeastern Colorado - well away from any mining enterprise. The settlers there had come because there was homesteading land open for farming. I am a direct descendant of several of these families, a native of Colorado, and a descendant of three of the soldiers at the Sand Creek fight.

The author has failed to paint a complete picture of the socio-political realities of the time. In the minds of the settlers, the land on which they settled was "owned" by no one before they received permission from the government to homestead it and develop it. It was difficult land, not terribly fertile; breaking it for planting for certainly a hellish job. There were no real Indian settlements there at the time besides those that traveled through the area seasonally in hunting cycles. There had been no permanent agriculture. There had been some friendly relations between the Indians and the settlers, and there had also been some problems. Several farms had been robbed and settlers attacked and killed in the years leading up to the Sand Creek attack; in the months before, violence from Indians in the area  had steadily escalated and local settlers were more and more on edge. Indians routinely helped themselves to livestock and horses, and frequently walked into cabins unannounced (they had no concept of property or privacy, so they didn't knock) and helped themselves to food and possessions they wanted. The terrified settlers gave them what they wanted to get them out and on their way. Occasionally, the Indians did more than that and left families dead.

It is also important to understand that in late 1862, the Sioux in Minnesota had staged an aggressive uprising against settlers in that state, attacking farmsteads and brutally killing hundreds of settlers - estimates run between 400 and 800. This situation had terrorized settlers across the country, and stories of that butchery and also the local attacks were at the forefront of peoples' consciousness.

With the population of southeastern Colorado becoming more terrorized, officials of the state of Colorado had become increasingly frustrated with appeals to the federal government for help and protection, which went largely ignored. This was partly because the nation was up to its neck in the Civil War at the time, and partly because people living in the eastern U.S. had no direct experience of Indian attacks - this issue had played itself out in that region generations before. There was an enormous disconnect between the way the people in the federal government and the eastern public viewed the Wild West, and the reality faced by settlers.

Finally, the state of Colorado was authorized to raise an armed force to strike back - the idea being to put fear in the hearts of the Indians who had been sniping at the settlers, and hopefully end the terror. The result was that many settlers - many of whom had direct knowledge of the conflicts and threats, and had been afraid for the safety of their families and livelihoods - joined the army in the days before the fight. Many were teenagers, others seasoned veterans of other conflicts. Many had no military training at all, and had never seen a battle in their lives. But they had been trying to protect their own homes for months or years, and they certainly saw the opportunity to do something about the threat they felt.

It is also important to understand that Chivington was an extremely controversial figure in his own time. He had made many political enemies long before the Sand Creek fight. First hand accounts of the day vary from those that paint him as an Indian-hating demon, to those that portray him as confused and betrayed. We have little way of knowing what the truth is. After the battle, there was propoganda on both sides. To this day, historians disagree on the man's true character and part in the battle, and some modern historians consider his court martial a farce.

What we do know is that the Indian camp was attacked when the majority of the males were away hunting - the U.S. army had no way of knowing this, entering the camp as they did at dawn. The author includes that the army was drinking heavily - this is merely conjecture, and came from propoganda after the fact to paint the army as drunken brutes. Other statements jumped out at me - including that the soldiers returned to the battle scene to take horses. I don't know why they would not - why would you leave the horses there to starve? I believe that taking the horses with you after a battle was likely standard practice and considered humane. Also, many horses and other livestock had been stolen from the settlers.

After the battle, those who were political enemies of Chivington started circulating stories that resulted in his court martial. At the same time, stories started circulating in towns further east of the atrocities committed by soldiers at the battle. Some modern historians, bowing to political correctness, don't like to consider that these were at least in part the gross exaggerations of a few boasting soldiers, or of those opposed to the settlers - persons who had no real direct knowledge of the battle or the situation leading to it.

As for myself, I have no doubt that some of the soldiers were brutal, and that some of the worst of the stories - which I heard with horror as a child - were at least partly true. I have read the documentation and first hand accounts, and see no evidence that these actions were taken by the majority, but rather by a few soldiers alone. I also have no doubt that most of those involved were not racist brutes, but men trying to protect their families and farms and towns, and did their duty as they had to - no more and no less. As a descendant of two of the local teenagers present (my mother's side) and one older seasoned soldier from the Boulder area (father's side), I also know that the battle left plenty of scars to go around as did the months and years of violence leading up to it. Boys who grew up in that area grew up with the constant threat of violence from Indians, and many had memories of finding settlers dead. To pretend that only one side was the aggressor, and that there was only suffering on the other side, is an insult to all those who lived through those difficult times, and it shows a lack of education about the realities of the society and times in which these people lived.

A rare book has been reprinted, on the history of Colorado. It gives the perspective of those who lived at the time and fought at Sand Creek - True History of Some of the Pioneers of Colorado, by Luella Shaw. It is available in many Colorado libraries and online bookstores. Various books discuss Chivington, the controversy surrounding his reputation at the time, and his political situation.

S. A. Allen, Colorado Springs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momspack4 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"To pretend that only one side was the aggressor, and that there was only suffering on the other side......" - and if a foreign civilization appeared on the shores of the present-day U.S. and began to colonize could the current inhabitants be considered aggressors if they attempted to resist? I'm sorry if the historical record casts your ancestors in a bad light but the fact is the white settlers were invaders who, albeit slowly, brutally supplanted the indigenous peoples of the land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.55.109 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a moot point, the issue is not the general aggression of Indians at that time, that is the same mistake Chivington made, the tribes were not a universal force under a single leader with a single motive. Black Kettle had recently signed a truce with the US and his tipi had an American flag draped on demonstrating such, it was surrounded by women waving white flags. There was no mistake, this was a friendly tribe. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A few comments on Mr. Allen's contribution:

„While it is true that the year 1858 saw the first real rush into the high mountains to search for gold and silver, there had been white settlers in the state for many years already. The areas around Denver and Boulder were well-settled.”

This is simply wrong. Boulder settlement was formed in 1858 by gold mining squatters. Likewise, Denver and Aurora were founded in the Colorado Gold Rush – in direct violation of the 1851 Horse Creek Treaty which gave whites no more than a right of way. Before the Gold Rush there had been no mining in the Rockies and only a handful of trading posts for trade with the Indian tribes, basically the enterprises of Bent and Saint Vrain. If you have any information on any further settlements of Whites in Colorado I would be interested in learning about it. I very much doubt there is anything more than what I mentioned.

“The author has failed to paint a complete picture of the socio-political realities of the time. In the minds of the settlers, the land on which they settled was "owned" by no one before they received permission from the government to homestead it and develop it.“

Yes, and their self-serving POV simply ignored the law. The US was bound by the 1851 treaty to expel these squatters from Cheyenne-Arapaho lands. You paint the local tribes as interlopers on white settlements who would “help themselves” on white property and even raid settlements. What you wantonly fail to acknowledge is that it was the squatters who were the interlopers who destroyed the Indian means of subsistence.

“Finally, the state of Colorado was authorized to raise an armed force to strike back - the idea being to put fear in the hearts of the Indians who had been sniping at the settlers, and hopefully end the terror.”

That’s self-serving propaganda, aimed at portraying land-grabbers and ethnic cleansers as victims and the victims of ethnic cleansing as the villains. The Colorado 1st Volunteer Cavalry was formed already in November 1862 and saw action against Confederate forces at Glorietta Pass. In late March 1864 they received orders to redeploy east to fight Confederates outside the territory. Within less than a fortnight they staged several attacks on Cheyennes and thus instigated the Colorado War that would keep them from having to redeploy east.

“What we do know is that the Indian camp was attacked when the majority of the males were away hunting - the U.S. army had no way of knowing this, entering the camp as they did at dawn.“

In fact we know that this was not the case. What we do know is that none less than Chivington himself (Camp Weld meeting) but also Major Antony and Major Wynkoop had all ordered the peacefully inclined Indians to camp near Fort Lyon. Antony kept them there until Chivington’s raiding force arrived at Sand Creek to launch a raid at the unsuspecting Indians.

“…atrocities committed by soldiers at the battle. Some modern historians, bowing to political correctness, don't like to consider that these were at least in part the gross exaggerations of a few boasting soldiers, or of those opposed to the settlers - persons who had no real direct knowledge of the battle or the situation leading to it.“

Wrong again. The overwhelming majority of the witness accounts presented at the inquiries was eyewitness accounts of men who had been present at the battle.

“I also have no doubt that most of those involved were not racist brutes, but men trying to protect their families and farms and towns, and did their duty as they had to - no more and no less.“

Which meant, as per Chivington, “kill them all, big and small, nits make lice”. The overwhelming majority of the Indians killed at Sand Creek were women and children.

“…and many had memories of finding settlers dead. To pretend that only one side was the aggressor, and that there was only suffering on the other side, is an insult to all those who lived through those difficult times, and it shows a lack of education about the realities of the society and times in which these people lived.“

Sure the Indians did strike back. Would you show the sincerity to identify which killings of settlers might have occurred prior to the volunteer unit raids on Cheyennes in April and May 1864 which started the war? Probably none. Obfusciating cause and effect is indeed an insult to the suffering of the people who lived through this period, especially the people who called this their home and were not recently arrived squatters.

Lookoo (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle Box
When it comes to massacres like the Malmedy Massacre the box used in this page is fine. However, when it comes to incidents involving combat that are named battles, such as this, a battle box should be used. Though women and children died, the US Army suffered about 75 casualties including over twenty dead, that doesn't sound like a massacre in defintion, which is an attack on a completely unarmed or a lightly defended group of people. In this case the natives were not lightly armed, the engagement is called a battle just as much as a massacre so a battle box should be used for this article.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A massacre is a massacre is a massacre. Treating this like a battle is morally repugnant. 129.105.250.137 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Source of testimony of Mr. John S. Smith
The article quotes the testimony of Mr. John S. Smith and gives the reference a PBS web page: This source –  – quotes from the same testimony and gives as the original: The reference in the article should be changed to refer to the original source, naturally maintaining the link to the PBS on-line copy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * U.S. Cong., Senate, 39 Cong., 2nd Sess., "The Chivington Massacre," Reports of the Committees..

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. — ΛΧΣ  21  07:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sand Creek massacre → Sand Creek Massacre – The Sand Creek Massacre is a proper name and should be capitalized. Buaidh 14:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose a quick google search shows both styles being used, in which case the Manual of Style says that the current edition is correct.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per Coffeepusher's reasonang, and because it is arguable that it is a proper name. Pretty much any event, from a birthday party onward can be found named in capitals, generally ungrammatically. It could perhaps be said that major historic events (unlike the subject of this one) have proper names, but this massacre is not such. Even for major events you will find uncapitalised usage such as 'the first world war'. Imc (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can find uncapitalised usage of "the first world war" yet we still use "First World War" in our article, does that not suggest that individual instances of uncapitalised usage should not preclude as from using capitals if that is handled by most RS?
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this, but reading the text of the first few pages of google book results, they all seem to treat it as a proper name. Dlv999 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if there is widespread and common use of the capitalised version in RS, then I agree that it could be reasonable to capitalise it here. That was not the argument made by the proposer, it was just an assertion that it is a proper name. Also it would be useful to have some consistency - compare other massacres, some distinctly better known, Srebrenica massacre, Katyn massacre, Deir Yassin massacre, Bloody Gulch massacre and many more. I've not tried to look up references to them. Imc (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sand Creek High School
To the best of my knowledge, Sand Creek High School is named after this Sand Creek and not Big Sandy Creek or the massacre that took place there. 75.163.216.64 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Spoke with a teacher at this school this morning and he indicated this is his belief as well. I removed the reference until I can determine factually one way or another. TurboManiacal (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)TurboManiacal
 * Nice work, ! If there's anything you can add to the school's article, too, that would be great. It looks a little empty (and without WP:RS) at the moment :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

“Indians”
Why does this article not use the term “Native American” or “Native” in place of the antiquated and incorrect term “Indian”? 2601:281:D080:5850:CD83:E4FC:E07C:233 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on Wikipedia nor among the original inhabitants that these terms are antiquated or incorrect. Fettlemap (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"Creek Massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creek_Massacre&redirect=no Creek Massacre] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)