The Sand Creek Massacre, a horrific event in American history, stands as one of the most infamous incidents of the Indian Wars. Occurring on November 29, 1864, this devastating attack on a peaceful village of Cheyenne and Arapaho people near Sand Creek, Colorado, remains a stark reminder of the brutality and broken promises that characterized the expansion of the American frontier. Initially misreported as a military triumph, later investigations revealed a chilling tale of unprovoked slaughter, challenging the narratives of frontier expansion and justice.
The events leading to the Sand Creek Massacre were rooted in the escalating tensions between Native American tribes and encroaching white settlers in the mid-19th century. This period, often referred to as the Colorado War of 1863-1865, set the stage for one of the most egregious acts of violence against Indigenous peoples.
The Gold Rush and Growing Tensions in Colorado
Beginning in the 1850s, the discovery of gold and silver in the Rocky Mountains sparked a massive influx of thousands of white settlers into the region. This rapid migration, particularly the Pike’s Peak Gold Rush of 1858, severely disrupted the traditional lands and way of life of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes. Their displacement led to understandable anger and increasingly frequent conflicts.
As the number of settlers grew, Native Americans responded by attacking wagon trains, mining camps, and stagecoach lines, protecting their ancestral territories and resources. This practice intensified during the American Civil War, as the number of U.S. soldiers stationed in the western territories significantly decreased, leaving the region more vulnerable and leading to heightened fear and aggression among settlers. This period of escalating violence culminated in the widespread conflict known as the Colorado War.
Colonel John Chivington and the “Hundred Dazers”
Amidst the rising violence between Native Americans and miners, Territorial Governor John Evans sought to assert control by appointing Colonel John Chivington, a former clergy member turned military commander, to quell the perceived Indian threat. Chivington’s approach was uncompromising, driven by a well-known desire to annihilate the Native American presence in the territory.
Governor Evans further fueled the hostile environment by issuing two controversial orders. The first mandated that “friendly Indians” gather at designated camps for their safety, warning of violence against those who failed to comply. The second, even more alarming, encouraged citizens to “kill and destroy” any Native Americans deemed hostile by the state, effectively issuing a license for indiscriminate violence against Indigenous populations. In the spring of 1864, while the Civil War raged in the East, Chivington initiated a brutal campaign of violence against the Cheyenne and their allies, attacking all Indians and systematically razing their villages. The Cheyenne, joined by neighboring Arapaho, Sioux, Comanche, and Kiowa tribes across Colorado and Kansas, were forced onto a defensive warpath.
To bolster their forces, Evans and Chivington raised the Third Colorado Cavalry, a unit of short-term volunteers who proudly called themselves the “Hundred Dazers.” These men, eager for a fight, became a significant part of the tragic events that unfolded.
The Promise of Peace and a Deceptive Betrayal
After a summer marked by scattered raids and clashes, the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, weary of war, expressed a strong desire for peace. In a significant step towards reconciliation, Indian representatives met with Governor Evans and Colonel Chivington at Camp Weld, just outside Denver, on September 28, 1864. Although no formal treaties were signed at this meeting, the Native American leaders departed believing that by reporting and camping near army posts, they were declaring their peaceful intentions and would receive sanctuary.
Unbeknownst to the Native American delegates, Chivington received a chilling telegram on the very day of these “peace talks” from his superior officer, General Samuel Curtis. The message was unequivocal: “I want no peace till the Indians suffer more… No peace must be made without my directions.” This directive set a sinister tone for the coming weeks, ensuring that any hopes for genuine peace would be tragically undermined.
Following the Camp Weld meeting and under the presumed protection of Fort Lyon, Chief Black Kettle and approximately 550 Cheyenne and Arapaho, having made their peace, traveled south to establish a winter camp on Sand Creek. Trusting in the assurances of protection, they settled into what they believed would be a sanctuary. Meanwhile, those Native Americans who remained opposed to the peace agreement headed north to join the Sioux, further highlighting the deep divisions and uncertainties among the tribes.
The Horrific Assault on Sand Creek
On November 29, 1864, Colonel Chivington, fully aware that the Native Americans at Sand Creek had surrendered and were under assumed protection, led his force of 700 troops towards the peaceful encampment. Many of the soldiers were reported to have been drinking heavily, further exacerbating the volatile atmosphere. Chivington positioned his men, along with their four howitzers, around the unsuspecting Indian village.
In a powerful gesture of peace and trust, Chief Black Kettle raised both an American flag and a white flag of surrender above his tepee, visible to all approaching troops. These universally recognized symbols of peace and surrender were, however, completely ignored by Chivington. With a raised arm, he signaled for the attack to commence. Cannons and rifles immediately opened fire upon the camp, sending the inhabitants scattering in utter panic.
The frenzied soldiers then charged into the village, ruthlessly hunting down men, women, and children. The assault was indiscriminate and merciless. A few brave warriors attempted to fight back, creating a diversion that allowed some camp members to escape across the stream, but the odds were overwhelmingly against them.
Amidst the chaos, one individual, Silas Soule, a Massachusetts abolitionist and captain in the U.S. Army, courageously refused to follow Colonel Chivington’s inhumane orders. He commanded his cavalry company not to fire into the defenseless crowd, an act of principled defiance that stands out in the otherwise bleak narrative of the massacre. However, Soule’s courageous refusal was a solitary act amidst widespread atrocities.
The troops maintained their indiscriminate assault for most of the day, during which numerous horrific acts were committed. Accounts speak of a lieutenant who killed and scalped three women and five children who had surrendered and pleaded for mercy. After the initial attack, the soldiers returned to the camp, systematically killing any wounded survivors they could find. They then proceeded to mutilate and scalp the dead, including pregnant women, children, and even babies. Before finally departing, the soldiers plundered the tepees and divided the Native Americans’ horse herd as spoils of their gruesome “victory.”
By the time the attack concluded, as many as 150 Native Americans lay dead, the vast majority of whom were elderly men, women, and children. In stark contrast, the attacking cavalry suffered only nine or ten casualties, with approximately three dozen wounded. Chief Black Kettle and his wife miraculously managed to follow other survivors up the stream bed, despite his wife being shot multiple times; she somehow survived the brutal ordeal.
Aftermath, Investigations, and a Murder
The survivors, many of whom were wounded, sought refuge with the Cheyenne Dog Warriors, a group that had steadfastly opposed the earlier peace treaty. Camping at the Smoky Hill River, many more Native Americans joined the Dog Soldiers, arriving at the grim conclusion that no successful negotiations could be made with the white men. For them, war was the only remaining option. Indeed, the Sand Creek Massacre is frequently cited by historians as a critical catalyst for the Battle of Little Bighorn, as many Cheyenne warriors subsequently dedicated their lives to avenging the massacre and waging war against the U.S.
Upon their return to Denver, the Colorado volunteers were met with a hero’s welcome, proudly displaying the scalps they had taken. Initially, the press enthusiastically reported the event as a glorious victory against a bravely fought defense by the Cheyenne. However, within weeks, contradictory eyewitness testimonies began to emerge, painting a far more disturbing picture. These conflicting accounts prompted a military investigation and two separate Congressional inquiries into the events at Sand Creek.
Silas Soule, the courageous captain who refused to fire on the innocent, was eager to testify against Chivington. His testimony was crucial in exposing the truth. Tragically, shortly after providing his damning account, Soule was murdered by Charles W. Squires. It is widely believed that this murder was orchestrated by Chivington himself, a desperate attempt to silence a key witness and bury the truth.
A Stain on American History: Lingering Controversy and Legacy
As the horrific details of the Sand Creek Massacre came to light, the U.S. public, particularly in the Eastern states, was shocked by the sheer brutality of the event. The congressional investigation unequivocally determined the crime to be a “sedulously and carefully planned massacre.” When questioned at the military inquiry about the killing of children, one of Chivington’s soldiers famously quoted him as saying, “nits make lice,” an appalling statement that encapsulated the dehumanization of the victims. Despite being denounced in the investigation and forced to resign, Colonel Chivington, remarkably, was never brought to justice for the massacre, nor were any of his men.
While Easterners were outraged, many people in the Colorado Territory, however, initially celebrated the incident. Chivington even appeared on a Denver stage where he regaled delighted audiences with his gruesome war stories and proudly displayed 100 Indian scalps, including those of women, to a cheering crowd. This stark contrast in reactions highlights the deep-seated prejudices and conflicting perspectives of the era.
The massacre had far-reaching consequences. As word of the atrocities spread among the Native American tribes of the southern and northern plains, their resolve to resist white encroachment stiffened considerably. An avenging wildfire of renewed hostilities swept across the land, and true peace would not return for another quarter of a century.
Commemoration and Rectification
Through the years, the site of the Sand Creek Massacre has continued to be a place of somber remembrance and ongoing controversy. An aging John Chivington reportedly returned to the area in 1887, perhaps reflecting on his past. In 1908, veterans of the Colorado Regiments planned a reunion at the site, though the nature of their remembrance remains debated. In August 1950, the Colorado Historical Society, alongside local residents and Chambers of Commerce, placed a marker atop the bluff at the Dawson South Bend, attempting to formally acknowledge the site.
Descendants of the Sand Creek Massacre survivors remain active in tribal communities across Montana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Their Council Representatives continue to work diligently alongside the National Park Service, striving for accurate representation and preservation of the site’s history. Despite these efforts, the incident has remained a controversial topic, with some in Colorado traditionally viewing it as a founding victory for the state, a narrative that stands in stark opposition to the historical truth.
In a significant step towards historical reconciliation, the Sand Creek Massacre was designated a National Historic Site on August 2, 2005. This designation came almost a decade after Congress first mandated the action in 1998, a delay attributed to years of controversy and disagreement regarding its interpretation. The site was finally brought together for an accurate and solemn remembrance of that horrible event in American history.
In November 2014, the Smithsonian Magazine pre-released an article for its December edition titled “The Horrific Sand Creek Massacre Will Be Forgotten No More,” affirming the site’s crucial role in restoring one of the worst atrocities ever perpetrated on Native Americans to public memory. Further rectifying historical oversights, Colorado Governor Jared Polis officially rescinded the two proclamations issued by Territorial Governor John Evans in 1864 on August 17, 2021. These original orders, which had never been officially revoked even after Colorado achieved statehood, played a direct role in setting the stage for the massacre and now stand denounced, finally addressing a long-standing blight in the historical record.
Conclusion
The Sand Creek Massacre remains a profound and painful chapter in American history, representing a stark betrayal of trust and an unconscionable act of violence against a peaceful community. Its legacy continues to shape our understanding of the Indian Wars, the complexities of frontier expansion, and the ongoing efforts to acknowledge and reconcile historical injustices. The designation of a National Historic Site and the official rescinding of discriminatory proclamations are vital steps towards ensuring that the tragedy of Sand Creek is never forgotten and its lessons of peace, justice, and humanity endure for future generations. The echoes of this dark day serve as a perpetual reminder of the need for vigilance against hatred and prejudice.
