Talk:Sand Creek massacre

message: 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)
thread_title: Hungate massacre

message: ---
"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)
replies: text: I deleted the Ghost Dance reference since the dates simply don't work.rewinn 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost Dance

message: 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)
thread_title: Depiction in fiction

message: ""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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anon editor said.. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dog Soldiers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tom Cruise

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fort Wise Treaty

message: 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)
thread_title: American casualties and cause

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A biased article, on a difficult subject. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Battle Box

message: 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:
* U.S. Cong., Senate, 39 Cong., 2nd Sess., "The Chivington Massacre," Reports of the Committees..
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)
thread_title:  Source of testimony of Mr. John S. Smith 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sand Creek High School 

message: 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)
thread_title:  “Indians” 

message: The redirect 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)
thread_title:  "[[:Creek Massacre]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]