A Misplaced Massacre

[John Winn]

The US army would have been involved heavily either way because the settlers always demanded protection. Forts all over the place. Curiously, or not so curiously, many rancherias and Indian settlements were close to the forts - for protection. That put the military in a very weird position, to say the least!

Indeed. And as I know you know, diane, but others likely don't: there was a local case where the miner militia attacked a fort held by regulars who were protecting some natives. The miners were repelled but later filed claims for their expenses and were reimbursed by the government. So, attack a federal fort protecting natives and you get reimbursed for your troubles. Makes sense if you've been a bureaucrat (sort of).

 

[huskerblitz]

Colorado in the Civil War
Expired Image Removed
Private Joseph Aldrich served with the First Colorado Cavalry and died at the Sand Creek Massacre.

Photo courtesy of Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy Collection
Call Number Z-517

Sand Creek Massacre News Release


April 3, 2014
For Immediate Release
Interpretive Staff, 719-729-3003


Colorado in the Civil War

This article is part of a series by the National Park Service concerning the 150th Anniversary of the Sand Creek Massacre.

"With Mormons to the west, New Mexicans of questionable loyalty to the south and Indians everywhere else," Duane A. Smith paints a picture of what Coloradans faced at the beginning of the Civil War. Tasked with guarding the territory and millions of dollars in trade and gold production, Colorado's Union soldiers also participated in campaigns against Confederates in New Mexico, rebels in the territories, and Plains Indians, ultimately marring their reputation with the Sand Creek Massacre.

Initially raised by Territorial Governor William Gilpin in 1861, the 1st Colorado Infantry Volunteers (U.S. Army) faced their baptism of fire at Glorieta Pass in New Mexico, denying the Confederacy access to the gold fields of Colorado. Subsequently converted to cavalry and stationed across Colorado, new Territorial Governor John Evans and commanding officer Colonel John Chivington resisted calls to move them east. They argued that Plains Indians threatened the territory, a fear that proved unfounded until the summer of 1864.

With the so-called Indian War of 1864 causing death and loss across Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska, Governor Evans and Colonel Chivington were authorized to raise the 3rd, a regiment of one thousand U.S. Army volunteers for 100 days. Alongside 250 men of the 1st, around 425 of these men attacked and killed peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho in the village on Sand Creek in 1864. The repercussions from the Sand Creek Massacre resounded across the plains for years to come.

To find out more about the effects of the Civil War on the Sand Creek Massacre, go to www.nps.gov/sand or visit the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site outside of Eads, Colorado.

http://www.nps.gov/sand/parknews/colorado-in-the-civil-war.htm

 

[ErnieMac]

I'm not so sure that settlement would have slowed. After all, with or without government endorsement, there was a lot of land that was open and I believe that settlers would be drawn to this land. I see a lot of settlers flocking to the West and all but going to war with the natives there. There would have been no quarter with the natives being ultimately wiped out but with a lot more death among the settlers as well.

R

You are right that the land was available, but the Homestead Act put it in the price range of many who couldn't afford it and the railroads made it accessible. The railroads also opened the way for construction crews, cattle drives and buffalo hunters. The Civil War also provided a pool of restless manpower not wanting to or being able to return to their pre-war existence. What, in your opinion, would have been difference between 1860 and 1865 that would have spurred a more rapid growth if these events had not occurred?

 

[dlofting]

Been reading comments with interest. I'm sort of with Diane on this....as well as several others. The Sand Creek Massacre, in particular, took place in a vacuum created by the absence of the 2nd Cavalry on that part of the plains. What was left was, as we call them in Texas, "flop-eared" militia with absolutely no qualms about wiping out every man, woman, and child. The "setup" for the massacre comes about with attacks and increased belligerance by Cheyenne (and other) warriors, then retaliation by the militia at Smoky Hill, then the gathering of the tribes for protection, the massacre, the burning of Julesburg, and all heck breaking loose. Whee! Just one cluster thingy to another. If that makes it a part of the civil war....

This leads me to believe that the massacre wouldn't have happened if the "professional" soldiers that were in place in Colorado, etc. before the Civil War hadn't gone north or south to fight in the war. Does this make Sand Creek part of the Civil War ? I can see some historians arguing that it does.

 

[James N.]

This sounds interesting. I do have a problem with connecting it, or any other battle/massacre/incident, directly with the Civil War. There were several bills and laws passed once the Southern representatives and senators were gone that directly impacted Native peoples, several wars and uprisings erupted in the West - sometimes because the army's protection was either gone or weakened. But I still think the Indian wars are separate from the Civil War and only ran parallel to it. The fights were largely over decisions being made in Washington affecting people who had no representation or any voice at all, not what was happening on battlefields east of the Mississippi.

One reason for including this incident ( and others like it occurring around the same time ) with those of the Civil War is that without the war it likely wouldn'tve happened. The Denver thugs and barflies would never have wound up in the position to inflict such harm under so unlikely a colonel if the officers and men of the real army had not been away taking care of "the unpleasantness" leaving protection of the frontier to these dubious volunteers. Even though the later affair at the Washita was also termed a "massacre" Custer kept his men in hand and there were no similar atrocities or outrages committed by members of the 7th Cavalry.

 

[Nathanb1]

One reason for including this incident ( and others like it occurring around the same time ) with those of the Civil War is that without the war it likely wouldn'tve happened. The Denver thugs and barflies would never have wound up in the position to inflict such harm under so unlikely a colonel if the officers and men of the real army had not been away taking care of "the unpleasantness" leaving protection of the frontier to these dubious volunteers. Even though the later affair at the Washita was also termed a "massacre" Custer kept his men in hand and there were no similar atrocities or outrages committed by members of the 7th Cavalry.

I personally think the weather and the discovery of another village full of angry warriors coming on the run (who wiped out you-know-who) probably did more to discourage the full range of atrocities Custer's men might have indulged in.

 

[Nathanb1]

This leads me to believe that the massacre wouldn't have happened if the "professional" soldiers that were in place in Colorado, etc. before the Civil War hadn't gone north or south to fight in the war. Does this make Sand Creek part of the Civil War ? I can see some historians arguing that it does.

I can see their point. To me, it's the culmination of the Gold Rush/Expansion era when their territories were invaded, because the root problems and the tit for tat killings and massacres begin long before the war. At the very least, with the Mormon settlers headed for Utah before the Buchanan administration. But maybe we're all wrong and it's one of those connecting dominoes of cause and effect toppling between the two. I would be interested (and I'm thinking about doing this) to see where my 8th graders put it when we learn about it, or if they include it at all. Wish I'd thought of that last year!

 

[cash]

This leads me to believe that the massacre wouldn't have happened if the "professional" soldiers that were in place in Colorado, etc. before the Civil War hadn't gone north or south to fight in the war. Does this make Sand Creek part of the Civil War ? I can see some historians arguing that it does.

Wounded Knee happened with the "professional" soldiers in place.

 

[diane]

Wounded Knee happened with the "professional" soldiers in place.

That was a different time frame, though. The Ghost Dance was a problem for the agent at the Sioux reservation and he asked for military support. He got it. It was the end of the US-Dakota war - everybody was very nervous and jumpy. To say the soldiers over-reacted is a real understatement. The Plains people have a lot against the army - their interactions were much different than most of the California tribes.

 

[cash]

That was a different time frame, though. The Ghost Dance was a problem for the agent at the Sioux reservation and he asked for military support. He got it. It was the end of the US-Dakota war - everybody was very nervous and jumpy. To say the soldiers over-reacted is a real understatement. The Plains people have a lot against the army - their interactions were much different than most of the California tribes.

Sure, different time frame, but professionals can and did engage in massacres just as the militia did.

 

[Nathanb1]

Sure, different time frame, but professionals can and did engage in massacres just as the militia did.

I think, sadly, we're discussing a massacre (mass killing) as differentiated from the level of atrocities the Chivington-led forces involved themselves in. If you've read about the "trophies" displayed by the militia on their triumphant return to Denver, it becomes quite clear. As we're a family-friendly forum, I'm not going into what was done to dead bodies and the way babies and children were killed and their bodies treated.

There's a level of hell reserved for people who do things like that, quite separate from even the men at the Washita and Wounded Knee (terrible as those events were).

 

[dlofting]

That was a different time frame, though. The Ghost Dance was a problem for the agent at the Sioux reservation and he asked for military support. He got it. It was the end of the US-Dakota war - everybody was very nervous and jumpy. To say the soldiers over-reacted is a real understatement. The Plains people have a lot against the army - their interactions were much different than most of the California tribes.

In addition to this, Wounded Knee was the result of a number of bad decisions....it should never have happened, at least not the initial shooting. Some of what followed was definitely over reaction on the part of some of the soldiers.

For an excellent and thorough account read "American Carnage: Wounded Knee, 1890" by Jerome A. Greene.

 

[cash]

I think, sadly, we're discussing a massacre (mass killing) as differentiated from the level of atrocities the Chivington-led forces involved themselves in. If you've read about the "trophies" displayed by the militia on their triumphant return to Denver, it becomes quite clear. As we're a family-friendly forum, I'm not going into what was done to dead bodies and the way babies and children were killed and their bodies treated.

There's a level of hell reserved for people who do things like that, quite separate from even the men at the Washita and Wounded Knee (terrible as those events were).

The worst thing about it is the unnecessary and wanton killing of people. Really, nothing would have prevented the Regulars from engaging in the same behavior, though. Native Americans themselves engaged in desecrating dead bodies of their enemies.

 

[diane]

The worst thing about it is the unnecessary and wanton killing of people. Really, nothing would have prevented the Regulars from engaging in the same behavior, though. Native Americans themselves engaged in desecrating dead bodies of their enemies.

This was a problem on both sides - chopping people up. The Indians generally did it for spiritual reasons - not letting an enemy enter the spirit path whole. Whites, who are mostly Christian, have supposedly left this stuff to heathens but there's a trophy matter that sort of replaces it. Nobody looks good on that subject, that's for sure.

 

[KLSDAD]

No, the war of empire argument wasn't fleshed out in the book. I can understand his use of the term. For the Federals, it was a war to maintain the Union, and later it also became a war to determine what that Union would look like, at least from the standpoint of slavery and freedom. So it was for them a war to determine what the US empire would be and later in the war whether or not it would be an empire of freedom. For the confederates, it was a war to establish their empire of slavery.

Well, I understand the relationships you mention but I'll have to watch his presentation again.

A few questions/comments on the general subject:

1. As mentioned above, the NPS considers some of the Indian activity to be a part of the CW in their designation of the largest or most important battlefields. I use their listings alot as I travel and their selections and thinking have always interested me....particularly with regard to actions that didn't quite make the cut.

2. If Indian actions between 1861 and 1865 aren't considered part of the CW then certain guerilla activity in Missouri and elsewhere probably shouldn't either.

3. I wonder what the implications of including or not including battles with the Indians are? I can see a certain amount of modern politics not too far under the surface.......but maybe that's just me.

 

[cash]

Well, I understand the relationships you mention but I'll have to watch his presentation again.

A few questions/comments on the general subject:

1. As mentioned above, the NPS considers some of the Indian activity to be a part of the CW in their designation of the largest or most important battlefields. I use their listings alot as I travel and their selections and thinking have always interested me....particularly with regard to actions that didn't quite make the cut.

2. If Indian actions between 1861 and 1865 aren't considered part of the CW then certain guerilla activity in Missouri and elsewhere probably shouldn't either.

3. I wonder what the implications of including or not including battles with the Indians are? I can see a certain amount of modern politics not too far under the surface.......but maybe that's just me.

My personal view is that events such as Sand Creek didn't touch on any of the issues of the war, unless we redefine those issues. In other words, in order for Sand Creek to be part of the Civil War, we have to define the war as including the issue of what the territories would look like beyond whether or not they would be free or slave. There were some instances where Native Americans took part in Civil War battles. I don't think there's any controversy about whether or not they were part of the Civil War. But if we keep the definition of the issues surrounding the territories as whether or not they would have slavery, then it seems to me that Sand Creek can't be considered part of the Civil War, but rather is part of another set of conflicts that overlapped and ran parallel to the Civil War.

 

[Nathanb1]

Well. Picked up a True West today. Apparently the First Battle of Adobe Walls, which celebrates its 150th this year, is being promoted as "the only Civil War battle fought in the Texas Panhandle." You can meet Kit Carson's great-grandson and real live Kiowas and Comanches and go out to the battle site for $50 on November 25th. I'm sure that conflicts with a football game....

 

[ole]

The NPS lists them as CW battles. I can agree or disagree, but it remains that a government entity lists them as such. And that's what I said a page or two back. Why does "city hall" come up as a symbol?

 

[Nathanb1]

The NPS lists them as CW battles. I can agree or disagree, but it remains that a government entity lists them as such. And that's what I said a page or two back. Why does "city hall" come up as a symbol?

Huh?

 

[Nathanb1]

I believe that, without the war, the frontier would have been much more violent on both sides. The settlers and natives had few reservations (pun not intended) about wiping each other out when possible. If left to the locals, there would have been a lot more small unit violence.

R

Good grief!

Texas could not have been more violent, war or not. I'll refer you to The Settlers' War by Gregory Michno.
And it also applies to huskerblitz's post, so I'll do a twofer.....Michno not only documents the bloodshed on the frontier during the time of the war--he analyzes that in comparison to before and after.

Guess what? He found the weather apparently played a bigger factor than any frontier defenses (U.S. Army, Texas Rangers, or Militia/Minutemen). The Comanches/Kiowas raided with impunity no matter who tried to stop them. Frankly, Texas is (and was) simply too big and there were too few people to provide any barrier. They just rode around any forts or even mobile defense forces.

Weather was a much bigger problem and had it not been for the drought affecting much of Texas during the war, the depredations might have been much worse. Makes perfect sense if you're from Texas.....horses can't travel for days without water, and once you get past that famous North-South line that runs through Texas about where Comanche County is (no pun intended!), the number of viable water sources drops terrifically (look at a map with rivers and creeks--and just because the thing is there doesn't mean there's water!). I suppose everyone knows there is only one natural (year-round) lake in Texas....Caddo Lake in East Texas, so don't be misled by that.

I haven't read this book in its entirety, but used it for a source some time ago. Could be used for a primer of sorts if you want.
https://archive.org/details/indianwarof1864b00ware

From Nebraska's standpoint, the Indians waited until they were sure the army wasn't going to have the forts at full strength. Then they began raiding areas in central and western Nebraska and into Colorado and Wyoming. They did this because they knew they could get away with it most of the time. That was when a number of Nebraska troops were recalled back home (the volunteers thought they would remain just for this reason) and they began chasing the tribes into Minnesota.

Would have conflicts erupted without the Civil War? Yes, I believe it would have. Probably in a different set of circumstances and what that may be I'm not sure. The Indians at some point would have needed to stand up to the encroachment and protected their land and food stores. But like I said earlier, nothing happens in a vacuum. This is why I think one can place Sand Creek in the context of the Civil War even though it's not directly related to the secession issues.

And now I pull out the rabbit from the hat. I've been reading a review of this book tonight, and it looks fascinating. Like someone said, nothing happens in a vacuum, and I think the chief value of this book might be that it provides a perspective of the other side of the coin. Looks like the basic research was good, but the author didn't put the whole thing together. I may have to get this one at some point and see what I think.

http://www.historynet.com/book-review-cheyenne-war-by-jeff-broome.htm