The Sand Creek Massacre, Part 1: Lies and Betrayal

The Sand Creek Massacre, Part 1: Lies and Betrayal

John killerlane - August 4, 2017

The Sand Creek Massacre, Part 1: Lies and Betrayal
Major Scott Anthony. caturner.files.wordpress

No peace till the Indians suffer more

What Chivington failed to relay to Wynkoop was that on the day of the council his commanding officer, Curtis had contacted him saying that he wanted “no peace till the Indians suffer more.” Black Kettle and the other chiefs left the council believing their protection was secured and happily agreed to go to Fort Lyon. In his annual report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Evans stated that he felt that only a few Indians wanted peace and that most were hostile.

He also said that he felt there should be no peace treaty until the Indians had been beaten militarily. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington was not happy with Evans’ unwillingness to secure a potentially lasting peace with the chiefs at the Camp Weld council and even went as far as to suggest that the conflict on the Plains could have been prevented if a more conciliatory spirit been employed by the military and others.

After the Camp Weld Council, Wynkoop sent a report to Curtis informing him of the councils at Smoky Hill and Denver and suggested relocating all the Indian villages nearer to Fort Lyon, where he could monitor their actions. However, Curtis was not at Fort Riley when Wynkoop’s report arrived.

Curtis’ aide, Major B. S. Henning, received the report. Henning felt that Wynkoop had acted against policy toward the Indians he believed to be hostile, and by going to Denver, he had left his district without orders to do so. Henning relieved Wynkoop of his command of Fort Lyon and summoned him to Fort Riley to explain his actions.

Wynkoop’s replacement at Fort Lyon was Major Scott J. Anthony of the First Colorado Regiment. Anthony met with the Arapaho tribes encamped near Fort Lyon, and despite what he had been led to believe by Henning, he realized that their intentions were entirely peaceful.

Anthony also met with Black Kettle who was anxious to know if the possibility for peace still existed. Anthony informed Black Kettle that he had no orders or authority to make peace with him and that he along with the rest of his tribe should camp at Sand Creek, approximately forty miles from Fort Lyon, until he had received official orders from General Curtis.

Chivington and his men rode into Fort Lyon on November 28, 1864. When the officers there discovered that Chivington intended to attack the Indian camp at Sand Creek the following day, they protested. Captain Silas Soule, along with Lieutenant Cannon, Minton, and Cramer, voiced their opposition to the impending attack on a peaceful camp under the assumed protection of the United States Army.

Major Anthony told Soule that it was always his intention to attack, but he had to wait for reinforcements in the form of Chivington’s men before doing so. Chivington dismissed the officer’s protests before angrily saying, “Damn any man who is in sympathy with an Indian.” The stage for tragedy was set.

Keep Reading: The Sand Creek Massacre, Part 2: Slaughter of the Innocents.

 

Sources For Further Reading:

History Channel – Sand Creek Massacre

Smithsonian Magazine – In 1868, Two Nations Made a Treaty, the U.S. Broke It and Plains Indian Tribes are Still Seeking Justice

Smithsonian Magazine – The 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, Never Honored by the United States, Goes on Public View

National Public Service – A Tale of Two Treaties

National Archive – Sioux Treaty of 1868

National Park Service – Biography of Black Kettle

ThoughtCo – 1864 Sand Creek Massacre: History and Impact

The Conversation – Remembering The US Soldiers Who Refused Orders To Murder Native Americans At Sand Creek

History Collection – How the Plains Wars Were a Consequence of Brutal US Government Policies Against the Native Americans

Advertisement