Sand Creek Massacre, 1864: Tragedy on the Big Sandy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- Credit to Paul I. Wellman: Death on the Prairie, 1934
This video attempts to provide the context leading up to the massacre of the Cheyenne village in the winter of 1864. The settlers of Colorado endured two summers of Indian raids from Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, Sioux, Ute, Apache, and even Comanche warbands. Local Coloradan government sought negotiation with the peace chiefs of the Cheyenne and Arapaho, only to be thwarted by warlike Dog Soldier faction in Cheyenne inter-tribal politics. Firmly under the influence of the Dog Soldiers, Cheyenne and Arapaho raids increased in the summer and autumn of 1864. Colorado retaliated on November 29th, against a Cheyenne village on Big Sandy Creek.
Ummm Roman Nose wasn’t Arapaho he was Cheyenne
Indeed. That's strange. Governor Evans specifically addresses Roman Nose as an intermediary for the Arapaho and eludes to him as one of their chiefs, which is also false. Roman Nose was simply a Cheyenne warrior, and a notable warrior at that. My guess is that Roman Nose went raiding with the Arapaho since they were closely allied with the Cheyenne. Maybe the Arapaho chose Roman Nose as their representative to Evans because he was such a popular figure in their ranks. Governor Evans must have gotten the impression that Roman Nose was a leader among the Arapaho and assumed he was a chief...neither which are true. I should have double checked.
Thank you for the correction.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 just to let you know I’m a enrolled member of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma also Roman Nose was a Dog Soldier
He was. The great cheyenne warrior Roman nose. I would have known him.
Read some original journal accounts written by Americans, Texans, Mexicans, Spaniards, settlers and mountain men about the savage nature and cruelty of the indians. I don’t think the consistent accounts of such savagery over 200 years could be anything but true.
@@trumptorianguard4617 . What's the point of researching that when any with common sense knows how consistent terrible things happened on both sides.. you do know not all interaction was war..and above typical terrible war things..what is it you're trying to say.. the tribe people bad settler people good tune again ?
U have done a great job with your presentation, thank you. :) Many decades ago I was a State utility worker and lived close by this site, way before it was developed, and I would go there frequently to walk the fort area and battle area. I remember at the fort if I kicked the soil artifacts from the fort would be visible, they clearly were not very deep. I remember one early summer night, fairly cloudy sky partial moon and I was walking the battlefield, being parked at the monument and had wandered a ways away when all of a sudden the hair on my neck and arms rose up, I felt a sense of dread and chills and had a feeling of being watched and felt a presence and great anxiety, I quickly and with haste made it back to my utility vehicle and never again visited that location at any time other than full day light. It is a special place.
Similar experience. Stay well friend.
You were wise to get the hell out of there
Wow, gave me chills reading that lol...I imagine that many munitions artifacts could be easily unearthed there as well. being that 250 army soldiers and who knows how many native combatants fired at each other for more than 6 hours straight according to the historical account. Must be a very haunted area for sure.
Hi, im a Scotsman 🏴, i know the feeling your talking about mate, i have walked on culloden moor in my own country, there was a great battle there in 1746, the butcher of cumberland and his british redcosts wiped out Bonnie Prince Charlies Jacobite Army, even on a sunny day you get an eery feeling on that moore with the dead spirits of all the slain, i wouldn't venture out there after dark anyway
Your unusual warning was a premonition for a living person who would do evil to you. Always take heed.
I lived only a couple of miles from the sand creek massacre site! When I was about fourteen. I hunted all of that country, with 22s and a old 410 shotgun. Over the years I was caught having to cross the site in the late evening, about dusk. I always found that walking through this site, would make your skin crawl. My father was the manager of the Kiowa County Grazing Ass.
Wow! That’s fascinating.
How did you all know where it took place? Is it a historic monument area or such like?
My Great great grandfather Charles Hall was a Lieutenant in the 2nd Colorado Calvary and served in the action at Sand Creek.
Later, Chipeta wife of Ouray of the Ute, gave a young white girl child to Charles and Mary Hall at their Ranch in South Park.
That was my Great great Aunt Mildred Hall later Mildred McQuade, she passed on the family ranch in 1947.
My Great great grandfather might also been involved in this event.
It's nice to have a social connection, a historical connection as it helps ground you in some ways! But the other side, the American Indian(s) were systematically denied this!
We should have respected all of the tribes, and we should have kept the promises made in all of the treaties we made, and SIGNED!!! Some Presidents signed treaties even, and
deliberately violated the rights and decrees written in them!!!
All one has to do is stop and think,,, imagine if one day you get a group of Indians come to your home, and they tell you that you have to move to a government reservation in 90 DAYS!
With government support too!!!!!! Seriously!!!! We (Americans!) really did this to the entire Native American tribal population!!!! Some of those tribes .............. are ~EXTINCT~ !!!!!
Could of been one if the young daughters of the school teacher at the meeker masacre items attacked the school teacher over him stoping their horse races. Killed the teacher took his wife and daughters as slaves. The Utes story after was they was dividing the women up amongst themselves. And I do think it was after the government intervened on behalf of chief ouray.. to negotiate the release of his own son from a rival tribe in the area that was prisoner.
Anyone ever heard of THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY?” It was several Papa Bulls(decrees) that basically stated that when an explorer (white of course) “discovered” a new land it became the territory of that government. That justified the GENOCIDE committed against indigenous peoples.
Sad but true.
@@newmoon54 I'm Native American and to my knowledge no tribes were exterminated by the US Government SOOOO relax. Lots of horrible things happened back then both sides are responsible for atrocities and just like today the media and politicians back then twisted facts to suit a narrative. You should learn these things however you shouldn't dwell on them, we have enough problems in our own times that need fixing. Fix those issues learn from the past but leave it's ghost where it belongs in it's grave with the people who are responsible.
I’m learning more about the Indian wars from
Your channel then I ever did anywhere else. Keep up the good work
You should read through the comments if you really want to learn about history the way it happenened. There are too many people that have been sucked in to an attempt to justify a real massacre.
I appreciate the kind words...but I must say, don't just take my words for it. This 20 min video is a distillation of hundreds of pages of research. The best way to understand history is to find good primary sources and trustworthy secondary sources written after the fact.
I can't recommend 'Undaunted Courage' enough. It's a wonderful overview of Lewis and Clark encountering the Indian tribes in the west for the first time. One really gets a feel how different each tribe was.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 The only primary sources you have is from people that took part in the massacre. Your best secondary sources are newspaper articles printing what murders had to say. Your hundreds of pages are based on 🐂💩. Then there are books written years later based on more second hand 🐂💩
Yeah he's good but try untworthy history
@@darrenmcg97 More like slick than good! LOL
The only means to sovereignty is territory. Denying a peoples' sovereignty is usually not taken lying down.
That seems to be a very nationalist viewpoint so i disagree
@@theamericannestormakhno2360 That's called being brainwashed
You state that "massacre" description is a lie ...
Please explain how surprising women and children in their sleep and then killing them as they flee not a massacre.
I did?
My mistake the word was slaughter. Your exact words are quote ...
"giving the liè that this was a slaughter of unresistig people ",
Perhaps i misheard you state @ 18.31-18:39- "...giving the lie to any idea this was a slaughter of unresisting Indians..." and the camp was not mainly women and children , I think any camp of any race of people would normally be mainly women and children
The camp was full of women and children to be sure. Over seventy of them were slaughtered in the attack. That particular remark was leveled against historians (Ken Burns and Dee Brown are the most notable) who describe Black Kettle's camp as "a camp of women and children." It's meant to elicit an emotional response from the reader or viewer and distorts the historical records. It's grammatical semantics.
As an example, if someone says "I see a flock of geese," then I expect to find a flock of exclusively geese...only to discover that over half of the flock of geese is in fact ducks. So it's not a "flock of geese," it's a "flock of mainly ducks with a large number of geese." Just as Black Kettle's camp was a camp 'with,' not 'of,' women and children.
Perpetrators..Manufacture Excuses . See our current Time of...' WHATABOUTISM '
All this happened back in the dark days before Dale Carnegine wrote his best seller, "How to win friends and influence people'
The first self help book? A great book.
This video offers more historical context to a tragic event. However, it leaves out some very important details. Black Kettle flew a white flag indicating peaceful intent on the morning of the attack. The video also omitted the killing of an unarmed chief - Lean Bear which led to the murders of the Hungate family in response.
The white flag seems completely irrelevant. At that point the military was under no obligation to honor such a request. Especially given what was found after the battle.
Appreciate your efforts. Raised in Franktown learned of this entire event as a child from grandma. 30 some years later purchased a dry land farm close to sight on the big sandy. I understand skepticism but I’m pretty sure that land is haunted or something, very odd feeling amongst the grove and down in one of the gullies. The history of man is complicated business.
What those settlers had to endure😢
If Ghosts were real - Politicians and warmongers would be haunted by millions and all conflict would cease.. regardless, take care of the Land and respect your Elders - and the Spirit Wind will blow kindly in your favor. Respect
This telling makes the most sense to me. A real logical accounting!
Been looking for a chanel like this one, thank you.
Chanel is a perfume available at Macy's and other retail outlets
Thank you for covering this incident in its proper context! THIS is an example of the stuff that "they don't teach you in school"!
I try. Thank you!
This "incident", @Andrew Eden ?, such a word. Even My-Lai massacre, in Vietnam, was an "incident" ?.....
There were also some "incidents" where the Waffen-SS wiped out entire villages as retribution because partisans killed some of their soldiers. It is the partisans actions that give these massacres of old men, women and children "proper context." 🐂💩🐂💩 🐂💩
@@doorusthewalrus6903 I enjoy watching your videos. Keep up the good work. You should make a video about the Cheyenne exodus raid. At least 41 white men and boys were killed and at least 25 white women and girls were raped by the Cheyennes in the fall of 1978 in western Kansas. Those Cheyennes were mean against white settlers.
@@nikolaprango2552 When you invade someone's territory, make peace treaties that you never keep, drive then from their homes, raid their villages, kill women and children, expect payback. Leave LaLa Land. I wasn't pretty on either side.
Proud to say that I am a descendant of that tragedy, plus the Battle of Little Bighorn. Our last name was originally Redcherries but the government forced my grandfather to take up the last name Whitecrow. I sadly didn’t figure this out until I was 27, I turned 28 last year Dec 22. Tsitsistas and proud of my ancestors! 🤎✊🏾🟤
Northern Cheyenne? I'd be grateful for any any books/information you can send my way on the history of the Cheyenne.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 I’m still learning. Unfortunately, I never got to ask my grandfather about our history. He passed when I was around 1 or 2.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 but I sure will.
It was a pleasant surprise to get a reasoned and fair account of the events that took place at Sand Creek.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@bobporch . 👍. I know.
Why did that Chivington guy look like a walrus ?
@@creaturecaldwell9858 Do you mean DOOFUS? LOL
@@creaturecaldwell9858 At the time of the signing of the 1868 "Treaty" that reduced Cheyenne land to 1/13 of what they had in 1851, Black Kettle was one of six Chiefs out of 44 that signed it. He just wanted peace. So when other bands that had not signed the treaty got upset and did some nasty thing, the solution was go kill a bunch of peaceful Indians. That is why Black Kettle flew the American flag. He was told it would protect him. The attitude was if it is difficult to distinguish the friendly Indians from the unfriendly, just kill them all and let God sort them out.
When the army wiped out a village it was a massacre when the Indians wiped out a settlement it was a raid
Natives Americans were in their own homeland, @William Anderson, not the settlers, land thieves......
No archeological evidence -- as yet discovered --
puts the Cheyenne in Colorado before the 1800s.
Hey,@@doorusthewalrus6903 , make a simple balance in the whole american continent since Columbus, with, on one side, the number of natives americans killed by white men, and on the other side, the number of white men killed by natives americans, what side is the heaviest ?
Your American nation was built on two legs, @@doorusthewalrus6903 , one was genocide, the other was slavery, your nation is an evil nation and I hope that, one day, it will be totally destroyed, destroyed like Hiroshima and Nagasaki for instance.....
@@missiavu thats how ignorant you are about history who do you think the indians stole it from genuis. public school education at its finest
The Sand Creek Massacre did not happen in a vacuum. Current sentiment ignores the depredations by the tribes before the massacre.
Darrell, if U read the accounts of what was done to the bodies at the Fetterman Fight, U can see why the blood lust ran heavy on both sides. War is always hell!
Only because the white eyes were encroaching on their lands, killin game, building fences and planting crops.
@@johnfarrell6282 Oh, bull--the Southern Cheyenne got here about the same time as the first whites. They came south to be near Bent's Fort, the big trading post near the Arkansas River.
@@johnfarrell6282 killing game and planting crops is no grounds for rape and murder.
Whatever your opinion, it's quite apparent to me that the Indians got the "short end of the stick" in all treaties and negotiations.
When I first came across this story I was about 10 years old reading, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." I was sickened and outraged.
I subsequently came across other accounts of the Sand Creek Massacre as it has been long dubbed. From all of the accounts that I have in recollection, Chivington's assault took place at dawn as a surprise attack as outlined here. However, my recollection was that it had been described as a surprise attack that lasted less than an hour.
Although oppositional fighting was cited as to have occurred, the "battle" was described in detail as very one sided, with very little resistance from fighting warriors from Black Kettle's band. But rather a full scale slaughter of mostly women, children and elderly men. Detailed in great measure were the gruesome accounts of rape and mutilation of the women.
In particular, the decidedly wretched and ghoulish recitation of women's breasts being cut off and paraded on the ends of bayonets, torture, and sickening accounts of mass rape and the slaughter of babies were also cited.
This is the first account that I have ever run across that attempts to, in any way, advocate for, or provide a differing account of the accepted historical narrative of the Sand Creek ordeal.
One thing is for certain:
With very few historical exceptions, peoples or groups who have been ravaged savagely tend to reciprocate that same savagery back onto their assailants or others in the same manner in which they themselves had been previously victimized given the opportunity.
And, given that the most galling and salacious recitation of the savagery exacted upon the Black Kettle band are in fact accurate and true, they do not at all exceed in any way the very same depredations enacted upon the white settlers and others as a deliberate and common practice in an ongoing campaign carried out by the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Commanche and other tribes upon the whites and other native enemies at that time or previous to it.
The vast depredations described in this account and accepted by the vast majority of historians as accurate, as gruesome and inhumane as they surely are, do not rise above the level of the disgusting brutality and debased savagery commonly practiced by plains tribes and others in all reality.
And so, sadly, to assign a moral high ground and higher level of victimization to the Native Americans here and in others instances is in fact a hypocrisy and a denial of true history.
The government is still covering this up , I live close to this place
Sorry, but reciting the obscene and brutal tit-for-tat between whites and Natives does nothing here. As far as the "...moral high ground and higher level of victimization..." goes, I'm going to side with the indigenous peoples who were the object of total eradication. After all, the concept and policy of "Manifest Destiny" was NOT the total subjugation/destruction of European settlers, was it?
Eh, 150 women and children and cutting out their privates when that particular band wanted peace it’s pretty easy to call them victims
"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" is a very biased and incomplete report. Descriptions of rape and no men killed are also a gross lie. The battle lasted for three days of pursuit. Your claim that historians find these exaggerations truthful is also a lie. You speak of true history while mangling it.
The Battle of Sand Creek," or "Sand Creek Massacre" was not a massacre, but it occurred only months after a summer of bloody attacks on white settlers in Nebraska territory along what was called "The Medicine Road." Among the many helpless victims was a 14-year-old girl named Hammar, a recent immigrant. She was the only one of her family found alive by would-be rescuers. She could not explain what had occurred because she could not speak because the"Braves" had exploded a cartridge shell in her mouth. They had also shot arrows up into her pelvis from below so that the tips protruded above her hips on both sides. She lived for several days in agony. She must have screamed too much while they raped her. The Colorado Volunteers did little more in revenge other than scalping a few Indians they killed. My sources are "Massacre Along the Medicine Road," by Ronald Becher, and various books by perhaps the only reliable historian of the Old West left, Gregory Michno. His book, "The Three Battles of Sand Creek" examples of the incident in detail using documented sources and exposing the later faux histories created for already biased minds like yours. Other books by Michno include "A Fate Worse than Death," which is an examination of many documented captive narratives with a debunking of some of the revisionist history and their perpetrators in the final chapter.
The fact is that the U.S. Government tried to pacify the tribes by offering support if they allowed settlement and refrained from harassing and raiding them. But their brave young men found raiding usually unarmed or poorly armed civilians easier than facing the army. During the Civil War, the depredations were particularly violent because the Sioux and Cheyenne knew of it and took advantage as they tried to in Minnesota in 1864. By 1864, the local white populations were seething with anger over years of horrible violence and murder. The so-called "Indian Wars" was Governments were really a series of police actions aimed at pacifying the wild tribes. If the point was genocide, the government could certainly have done a far more thorough job if that was its aim.
@@noelfoley7359 Ridiculous claim! If the Government's aim was to eradicate the tribes they could have done a lot better job of it and saved a lot of money, trouble, and white lives! The aim was always to pacify, to civilize the indigenous tribes. Many tribes took to civilization well, others not so well. By the latter half of the 19th century, only the more violent tribes, the ones that BTW had histories of brutalizing other tribes were left to deal with - and they were treacherous. The Sioux and Cheyenne were among the worst. This is why Crook had 262 Shoshone and Crow warrior allies with him and his 1,000-soldier army when he fought the Battle of Rosebud Creek a week before Custre fought the same Indians. The Sioux had signed a treaty with those tribes but had resumed raiding and hunting on their territories contrary to the treaty.
I dare you to visit the Pine Ridge Reservation today and try to tell us that this is the White Man's fault. The Tribes in my area of the PNW are similarly given to destroying themselves with drugs. We have a death by fentanyl a day among our tribes. Readings of source history will prove that to any honest searcher.
As a european this is highly interesting, as we never learned anything about the native americans.
Many Americans haven't either.
Younger Americans perhaps, education has changed dramatically in the US. When I a young schoolgirl, I remember being fascinated by the West, Indian history taught in the classroom.
@@rosaoddin4338 not if Ron D’Santis has his way .
@@tomcooley3778 Bullshit. DeSantis has not proposed any legislation limiting history being taught.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 not yet !
I am of an age brought up on the lies of Hollywood, how different I now look upon the history of that time.
It often starts as a suspicion: an overly simplistic presentation of "good" vs "bad." From there, you dig into the secondary sources and get into the primary sources from there.
One of my first eye opening moments was when I re-read a once beloved book, 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.' I wanted to hear the story through the actual words of the victims and perpetrators...Dee Brown makes up so much shit in that book. For example, in HIS account of the Sand Creek Massacre, all of Chivington's casualties at the battle were self inflicted because his soldiers were drunk (a convenient fact, IF the Cheyenne village were filled of nothing but women and children). This claim originates with his book and is utter bullshit! Nowhere else does this appear in the sources and is only reinforced by "historians" after 'Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.'
My professor used to staple a McDonald's application to essays that lied or plagiarized. In the academic world, if the lie is big enough your book gets accolades. I rant because I hate liars.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 So do I
Hiigwd
@@bobporch Please point out the lies...with primary sources of course!
This is the owner of this channel opinions about Sand Creek.
I love History as much as most of us, and if we have to name ONE episode that defined the brutality of the
conflict between Natives and European Settlers, is Sand Creek.
Chivington acted out of personal interest.
It is a fact that Black Kettle was a pacific Chief, he later died in another brutal attack by Custer and his 7th at Washita, also very controversial.
There are plenty of proofs that Most men under Chivington were
under influence and their bestiality was displayed in the Main theatre in Denver days after the Battle, showing women's private parts, scalps, and limbs taken at Sand Creek.
This are proven facts.
We can go back and forth as much as we want, but the facts are set.
In a conflict of catastrophic proportions like the USA vs Native Tribes, no one get out clean, but pretending to
diminish Sand Creek gravity is not a good Historian work.
No matter how you try to lodge a defense on the actions of the military on that day there is no way to justify the actions and atrocities perpetrated by Chivington and his men on that day.
Always two sides, nothing is black and white
You don't have to justify it, its simply what happened. Both sides hated each other so it should come as no surprise that things like this happened. If you were alive at the time and had a family member scalped and their body cut up by a bunch of people that are in stark contrast to you you'd probably have ill will toward them too, just as the Indians had many grievances and were seldom dealt with fairly by any official body.
Imagine that if where you lived today there were roaming bands of warriors attacking and mutilating people in the hills and wooded areas, and that these people are a constant threat to you. How would you feel toward them?
@@praetoriandorn3154 These men urged on by a maniacal leader in Chivington had absolutely no justification in that sensless slaughter of women, children and adding to that by their mutilation of all and wearing those human parts as trophies. It was an atrocity no question and Chivington was brought up on charges because of this.
@@praetoriandorn3154 Atrocities on both sides. The whites because of greed. The natives because of survival.
The army carried out what would now be considered atrocious war crimes. The indians carried out similar atrocities in rebellion against the occupiers. Both sides felt righteous. Neither side was right.
Fast becoming one of my favorite YT channels. Keep up the great work!
If I could only complete my projects quicker. Thank you!
I have walked over Sand Creek and also the site of the Battle of the Punished Woman. It is starkly beautiful out there. Pass through that land. You cannot live in that rocky high plains.
At Sand Creek, Chief Black Kettle posted an American Flag and a White Flag above his teepee, to make clear that his intentions were peaceful; but, his teepee was rifled with shot anyway, and his wife was wounded. I don't think that Black Kettle was able to restrain some of the warriors from carrying out raids.
Laurence, clearly he could not, and he would, along with his village, pay the price. :(
They wanted revenge for other killings against their people, which were themselves revenge against attacks on white people, and so on and so on.
Sand Creek was a Massacre
Chiming ton is my great , great great grandfather. My grandfather who was a settler in Northern NM Circa 1910 met a old mountain man who was in Chivingtons army. His story was very different than some history books. It was much more a story of survival.
His daughter Sara was kidnapped by Ute Indians . Her husband was a minister as well.
@@billhughes1613 I had no idea. Would be interesting if someone -- say, maybe a family member -- would write a family history about him. :)
Bill Hughes- a story of survival for whom? The Indians or the whites? What did the old mountain man have to say about Sand Creek? That it was a massacre that needed not happen because of the evilness of John M. Chivington, or was it, not a massacre? Now, please understand that I am asking these questions in the most objective way I know how. What do you think of your great-great-great grandfather, love or hate him?
@@smokingsara001 what do you think he thought of his great great grandpa, why should he hate him? Get real
That may be so, but I do not know what his expereince might have been.
This is sad on both sides but we keep displacing so many tribes from there ancestral homelands. In Michigan we displaced the Odawa , Ojibwa, and Potawatomi from here. I wish I could know more about those tribes history to know more about my home and the people that lived here before my white ancestors.
Windds, such is the way of the world, that is why u should always arm yourself and be prepared, as the Jews in Germany did not. :(
Indian tribes were displacing Indian tribes long before the white man arrived. Every civilization has done it . Hasn't stopped yet and won't in the near future
@@boblemmon9971 a terrible thing isn't justified because other people do it. This is literally child logic.
@@descendantofartorias2067Just because it’s past your understanding, is no reason to call names. Tsk tsk
@@boblemmon9971why do people always say this. Like yeah, humans go to war and do bad stuff, obviously. When I talk about bad stuff Roman’s did for example nobody feels the need to bring up that those people did bad stuff to each other before the Romans. Like yes all people do bad things now can we please get back to this particular topic? Why do people always feel the need to say this whenever it deals with Native Americans?
These narrations are great but I think that when mention is made of Indian captives, which were always women and children, the names of those captives should be given. For instance, at Sand Creek Black Kettle's village held Laura Roper who was about 16-17 years old. With Laura were Ambrose Asher, Danny Marble and Isabel Eubanks 7 or 8 and 4-5 years old respectively. Laura was subjected to gang rape and violent physical abuse by the squaws. Amazingly, she survived and lived quite a while. All of these captives were eventually returrned by Danny Marble died shortly after his return to authorities, likely from thyphoid fever. These same Cheyenne had only recently murdered, scalped and dismembered members of the Hungate family. These few named are only a drop in the bucket of innocent and typically unarmed people who were murdered by the Cheyenne and other plains tribes. People need to understand these are the typies of atrocities that inspired men like Chivington and later Custer, under Sheridan and Sherman, to do all they could, to decimate indian villages.
Oh it is enough to make the blood boil! I had a script half written about the most re-enacted battle of the American West, the charge at Summit Springs, that would hyper fixate on the stone age mentality of some tribes towards their captives. I hope I can get to a place where I may continue these videos. Rape, murder, infanticide, and overall genocide was the rule for most Indian warfare.
Thank you for writing this out for us!
This report is taken solely from the White side of the controversy! Nowhere in it does it take into consideration the Native side of the story so, take the information in it, with a grain of salt!
I live on the Arapaho side of the Wind River Indian Reservation and have heard from a great many of the descendants of those that were at the Sand Creek Massacre! Some of those descendants are from people that were scalped and or mutilated during this atrocity!
Nowhere in this report does it mention the fact that soldiers of the "Bloodless 3rd" as this regiment was called by others at the time, paraded in the streets of downtown Denver City with scalps, severed breasts, and male and female genitalia adorning their hats and caps as "trophies of war"! That alone would tend, with Captain Silas Soule's, and others' accounts of the atrocities done at the massacre to throw great suspicion on this flawed account!
It is up to the reader/listener to make his or her decision as to the veracity of this piece!
I would urge you to do more research into this massacre before making any decision as to the veracity of this particular report!
The mad man leading this expedition, when asked as to the disposition of, prisoners if any were taken, "Knits make "lice!" meaning take no prisoners of any age, kill them all!
Nowhere in this piece will you find mention of both the Colorado Governor's or Chivington's political ambitions! THOSE ambitions had a great deal to do with why this happened yet, there is no mention of them!
So, without reporting ALL sides of this event, how can one hope to do a fair and IMPARTIAL telling of the events? He can't! What you have here is a one-sided piece of trash!
I believe that, if you research this event in any number of places, you will find that it WAS a massacre and not JUST another battle in the Indian Wars!
The point of the presentation is to show the broader context of the massacre. Nowhere do I justify, or condemn, either side and I try to rely as much of primary sources as possible.
I couldn't find any newspapers or eyewitness accounts of he parade of mutilated sexual organs, but there were plenty of scalps displayed when the 3rd Colorado returned to Denver. As far as my research led me, this is an exaggeration at the very least.
Also, the quotes you use are from J.P. Dunn's account of the massacre, written in 1886. Historians like to quote Dunn because of the sensationalism, but I couldn't find any corroborating evidence that Chivington actually spoke these words...let alone if Dunn would be in any position to hear Chivington speak. During his testimony to Congress, Soule alleged that Chivington said to him, "damn any man with sympathy for Indians" after the battle. This carries more weight, as opposed to a story some guy wrote twenty-two years after the fact.
I would also encourage you to read Laura Roper's account of her captivity with the Cheyenne and Arapaho to know that we're not dealing with some "noble-savage" Rousseauian myth either. Plenty of blame to go around.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 Name one treaty the United States ever kept with Native Americans. Your so called broader context is pure 🐂💩🐂💩 Native Americans never took a scalp until the white men taught them that fine art. Kill an "INJUN", scalp him, and get a cash reward. Steal their land. Kill all the Tatonka so the are starved onto a reservation where crooked Indian agents robbed them and starved them some more. When they got hungry and left the reservation to hunt, just send the cavalry to kill then all. That Mr Walrus is your real broader context. Pathetic!!!!
When you want to justify the slaughter of old men, women, children, babies and wounded, you need to cherry pick the facts that fit the narrative. Anything that does not fit the narrative, simply omit, and create a broader context that skirts all around the plain truth. Chivington was a war criminal that would have been hanged, but was no longer under military jurisdiction due to him leaving the military before they could try him.
Negative comments about this video magically disappear. This is my second repy to your post.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 I agree with Kim Curtis 100% on this-- The story was told mostly by the cavalry-- as was most of these accounts-- I have also studied and read accounts of the soldiers bragging about the attack when they reached Denver, and using women's breasts for saddle horns, Cheyenne scrotums for tobacco pouches, etc-- Chivington was an ordained minister with political aspirations, who was bent on killing----- A murderer if you will, who thought he would be considered a hero-- but this atrocity was too much for even the US Cavalry to bear--- How could a minister of God act like this in any way, shape, or form???
Why does the immediate response have to be defensive. Why can’t we educate one another with facts. Native/American history is dark, but we have to learn to talk about it.
What about the Indian accounts? We need to hear from both sides, not just the whites.
True, but those are hard to find. I'm taking a more traditional approach to this material because all I every heard or read about the subject portrayed the Indians as noble, sages of nature: a heavy distortion by Marxist historians.
Shouldn't be hard to find an Cheyenne centric version of the events, but the ones I've found mix in a number of lies. I know of no book or documentary that doesn't malign Covington as a drunk, psychotic, bloodthirsty gremlin and takes no account that the Cheyenne and Arapaho broke the Fort Wise Treaty immediately after signing it, all the wile raiding, stealing, enslaving, and killing the people of Colorado and Kansas for two full years prior to Sand Creek.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 - When people invade other people's land, the people being invaded tend to get upset and try to defend themselves. Imagine if China tried to do to America what the whites did to the Native Americans. That'll never happen, but America instead butts its nose into Asia and tells China that Taiwan is not a part of China. What arrogance. Why don't you provide some of the awful and racist quotes that the whites, including Chivington, made about the Native Americans? I don't doubt that the far left lies about a lot of things, but you cannot fight lies with more lies.
The Cheyenne touched the pen to paper and proceeded to break the agreement. They killed American civilians and rival tribes, just as Chivington and his soldiers killed Cheyenne people at Sand Creek. It's not a simple case of the noble savage versus the corrupt colonialist. That's such a simplistic, and dare I say, childish view of history. Both sides precipitated events leading to the massacre.
Hard to find accounts from people who were illiterate, few in number, amd nomadic.
@@hurdygurdyman1905 - Harder, yes, but it could be done. There are lots of Indian accounts of the Bighorn battle.
I have respectfully listened to your version of the Sand Creek Massacre and do not agree with your opinions. There are at least two sides to everything. It does not match the historical and oral history my studies have found.
I'd certainly like to delve into those sources. If you would post a few suggestions, I'd read them.
I just happened back to the site and saw your reply. My views have been shaped primarily by Stan Hoig's book, The Sand Creek Massacre; Margaret Coel's book, Chief Left Hand; somewhat on Hyde's Life of George Bent (This mainly gives flavor of which the same can be said for Kevin Cahill's Sand Creek as well as Morse Coffin's account).
There have been many lectures attended over the years. Then, there are several visits to Sand Creek (including three ceremonies with the Cheyenne and the Arapaho instilling in me a sense of their truth).
There is a painted elk hide that hangs in the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody, Wyoming made by Eugene Ridgely, Sr. who painted it based on his family's recounting of what occurred at Sand Creek. In the painting, you can see most of the men leaving the encampment to hunt for buffalo to feed the people. Scott Anthony had cut off food provisions to them. Of course, some men were left behind as protection. This is why resistance to the military was met. (The Ridgely's descend from Lame Man, a Sand Creek survivor.)
There is a book written about finding the Sand Creek site again. It was found based on the knowledge passed down the Ridgely line as to its location. When technology could not find the site, the Ridgely brothers found it (Technology proved them correct.).
Lastly, there is a book by Gary L. Roberts, Massacre at Sand Creek: How Methodists Were Involved in an American Tragedy. This is an important work. Well worth a read.
Thank you for listening.
It is pronounced Ft. Lion not Lee-on just saying.
Missed some things..and much of what you presented is questionable ..no mention of the American flag Black Kettle was flying in the camp that he was told if flown that no attack would be..but I suppose it doesn't matter ..and you didn't say what happened to Black Kettle at the next attack on his camp when in Oklahoma ..where the cluster attacked ..Black Kettle was killed at this one..he should have never trusted any who said they would be safe
There's lots I left out: the battle of Julesburg, the killing of Lean Bear, George Bent in the Cheyenne camp during the battle, etc. Some of it I just did for time's sake; some of it, I couldn't find evidence. Trust me, we'll get to George A. Custer and the Battle of Washita River. ;)
Black Kettle's flag is interesting. I found many conflicting stories surrounding it. At most, I could find that Abraham Lincoln gave him this flag as a stipulation of the Treaty of Fort Wise. The Cheyenne signed Treaties of Fort Laramie & Fort Wise, but they never abided by any of the agreements. We know that hostile bands originated from Black Kettle's band of Cheyenne, which he confessed to in his letter to Governor Evans (Little Crow is the definite name I could pinpoint), but he was also rather impotent to stop them since he lost much of his sway due to the Dog Soldiers running show.
That being said, I don't know what the significance of the flag is? Not to say it didn't happen, but I truly do not see the significance. The flag was part of an agreement he didn't fulfill and largely COULDN'T fulfill because of the Dog Soldiers. All of Black Kettle's promises he made at the Weld Conference were honored--notably the slaves the Cheyenne took.
A small segment I left out of the video (for time) were the eleven documented attacks by Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Sioux warbands in the Colorado territory during the two months after the Weld Conference promised peace with the whites.
I believe Black Kettle was sincere in his DESIRE for peace, but for him the Treaty of Fort Laramie, Treaty of Fort Wise, and Weld Conference are classic examples of don't promise more than you can deliver. It made him look like a liar and a conspirator with the violence...which maybe he was. I couldn't find any proof beyond his words to say nay, but I doubt it.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 . Did you research Black Kettle's final attempt to have peace at that river in Oklahoma ? It was said cluster tracked a warparty to his camp so the cluster decided to attack ..Black Kettle was killed here..he should have had things ready to fight ..even if he was assured no attack was going to happen..its hard to think of this happening twice ..it drove it home for other Cheyenne that there was no peace in mind when it comes to the invaders..even when surrendering
@@doorusthewalrus6903 . Black Kettle more than likely had relatives that refused to surrender so when these relatives visited his camp the military gave the ok to attack all Cheyenne..
@@creaturecaldwell9858 There were Indian camps spread along 15 miles of the Washita. Black Kettle's was the first Custer got to. It was the dead of winter. Custer surrounded the camp and had old men, women. children, babies, and wounded warriors shot. Everyone except 53 women and children were slaughtered. Custer put the 53 in the center of his retreating column so that warriors from the other camps would not attack. Black Kettle and his wife were both shot in the back. At both Sand Creek and the Washita Massacre the bodies were just left where they fell. That was how other Native Americans saw all the evidence of the Massacre.
@@creaturecaldwell9858 I have cateracts. I thought this was the DOOFUS the Walrus channel LOL
I still can’t believe they named a community Chivington literally 10 miles south of the crime scene. Insane.
You are def one of the best story tellers on RUclips, and certainly are not afraid of telling the whole uncomfortable history of these conflicts. The part about the fresh scalps on the tipis of a “peaceful Indian village,” is something that I never heard anywhere, but given how violent that period was and the ascended power of the dog soldiers, I def believe that account, which totally changes how we should see this battle. If people want to call it a massacre because women and children were killed, then fine, but every single raid on white settlements was a massacre then. While today we may look at scalping your dead enemy as a war crime, the Indians did far worse while their victims were still unfortunately alive. The frequent gang rape of women, the horrific torture of captives, whether they be children, is something that is not mentioned much today. While I do believe that the American government engaged in genocidal actions against the indigenous tribes of the Americas, it must be always remembered that most vicious killer of natives was not the white mans guns, or cannon balls, but the scourge of European diseases. These were wars of annihilation, perpetrated by both sides. The constant raiding of settlements, and the horrific treatment of the settlers proves that. The whites just had more advantages and thus were victorious. Please keep making this eye opening and greatly informative and entertaining content Doorus!
Both sides is the key. Thanks for the kind words!
@@doorusthewalrus6903 SO, where IS the Native side of this piece of trash?
He certainly is a good story teller!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Could it because the fresh scalps were an outright lie to justify a massacre? Maybe that is why you never heard about it before.
@@bobporch . High probability in these things.
Seems both sides indulged in cruelty to the opposing side.
Jane, It surely got to that.
White man speak with forked tounge.
Still to this day
What's a tounge?
The Eternal...Characteristic...of Lawyers & Politicians
Why isn’t it reasonable to assume that were always more Indians than settlers
Putting the family in unprotected areas is beyond me
Wow! You need to do actual research. If this is how you research, I would not share my truths as a Native with you. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
I do see the same mistakes in you as in your hero of Chivington.
Jerry Reed, civility is superficial while the worldview of one's civilization is domination.
I believe it's pronounced "LIE-on"
I think that's correct, especially given the rocky mountain accent pronunciation of it.
There is always 2 sides of every story. I'm glad you speak the truth of the Sand Creek. I often pointed out this to my liberal friends that history should never be political. Just the truth good or bad.
Nomber one the indians were here in this nation that is now called america they are true Americans the corrupt politicians and government took it from the indians history teaches that clombus discovered America he named it but the indians were already here clombus just got credit for it look at the railroad how that it was started the took And murdered people that didn't want to give up there Land I don't believe that God told Columbus to come to this nation to take the land from the indians the indians are the only race that is still living on a resevation they have been tread worse than anyrace in America
*Never is there an excuse to murder.* Never can slaughter of Women and Children be justified, on either ethnic side of the line.
*Who reaped the benefits that resulted? Who profited and who continues to profit?*
*Therein lies your Truths.*
Beth, try harder to make your point, and resist clich'e.
So..Black Kettle tried to surrender to the military..was told he couldn't and had to camp on sand creek..I see.
Some Arapaho got tired of starving and went to war. That was when Black Kettle tried to find safety for his village. Then what you post is correct.
@@bobporch . What I posted is fact regardless of any this or that because it's what occurred.
I totally agree with you. My only point is Black Kettle knew there was going to be trouble and wanted no part of it. So he tried to move near a fort and be under army protection and was then refused.
@@bobporch . I apologize for posting comments that are at times hostile like..I just have anger at times
@@creaturecaldwell9858 No need brother. I just was on a 3 day rampage against 25 slicksters that were screwing vets. All they acomplished was pizing people off, just like this video. Poeple that won't do the right thing get me wound up too.
People talk about the difference between a massacre and a raid. The army wasn’t trying to steal things from the Indians, so it’s not a raid they were going there to kill. The Indians were primarily concerned with stealing things that’s a raid. There is a difference, even though people get killed in both one is to plunder as the primary goal so yes, there is a difference. The Vikings went on many raids. Their primary goal wasn’t to kill people but they killed plenty. It’s all about mission..
That's a gross misunderstanding of Native American culture at the time and Military tactics in General. Firstly An Army doesn't just go to Kill, it goes to project power the mere presence of an Army was often enough to get an enemy to sue for peace if that fails then combat can be initiated and even then it was often preferred that a total defeat not be inflicted on an enemy as they could be quickly made friends again and turned against your new enemies, this was the strategy the US Military used against my people the Native Americans. Secondly the purpose of a Indian raid was not only to steal goods mainly Horses it was also to kill enemies. Only by taking scalps and surviving raids did a warrior gain status in his tribe. Warfare was an essential part of Native American life. Without it a man was not a man he needed two things to progress in tribal life horses and scalps without those things no woman would marry him and no man would follow him. We had to kill it was how our world worked it was savage but it was ours
@@loslobos786 obviously there are nuances to it, and I didn’t break it down to that degree but yes, they were driven by different motivations. And yes, I understand American Indian culture was not generally to destroy forces, but to acquire horses or other possessions. It was a different way of fighting and has a different mentality and warfare.
@@bigrob1344 read Empire of the Southern Moon. It's all about the Comanche and really breaks down the myth of the noble savage, when the natives went to steal they stole, when they went to kill them killed everyone they were as barbaric as anyone.
@@loslobos786I mean not all natives were the Comanche
@@jameshill8493 yeaaaaahhhhhh but the traits of raiding and warfare in the Native world was pretty much universal with only slight levels of civility. For instance the First Nations people took hostages often for use in barter and to replace dead relatives, while the Plains Indians like the Comanche almost never took prisoners killing often in what can only be called genocide. The differences are subtle lol but yes all Natives did it.
Thanks for bringing realistic history, many false narratives about that period of history
The truth of tit for tat violence is too much for some people to wrap their head around. Things aren’t always black and white
Yeah, sometimes they are brown and white.
@@buffalobilly6926 exactly
I mean the US government even deemed it a massacre and wrong after they heard what had happened
10:02 - People wonder why they were called “Savages”
This was a complete tragedy of innocent lives lost. Hubris of Col. Chivington who had two brave 😢soldiers who refused to carry out his orders. Capt. Silas Soule and Lt Joseph Cramer would not let either of the companies they led fire upon 300 natives, mostly women and children. The massacre killed all the Indians at the encampment.
Excellent videos!
They always forget that the Indians were here first. The Indians did what they had to do to survive from invaders.
So
Oh really ? So the Indians had to murder women and children ? That went on for years and years . If you remember , the " native Americans " came to an uninhabited North America .
You say they got here first . So what ? There was no boundaries , or rule of law here . What there was was innumerable tribes with no
unification. Savages that constantly waged war on each other . They were very good at torture , and would commit extremely outrageous atrocities on the settlers . Ofcourse the whites did bad things. They are humans and humans do terrible acts . When you have relatives and friends that have been murdered and tortured people fill with hate and revenge , but don't make out like you and others are , that the whites were the bad guys and the Indians the victims . That is a distortion of reality .
… Left Hand was an Arapaho chief. Just read a Book about him and the southern Arapaho by Margaret Coel. Guess there are more mistakes in this video . Don’t forget to mention that the event happened during the civil war.
Awesome work !
Your accuracy is impressive. Native American resistance was justifiable. However, in my opinion, their ruthlessness was counterproductive. Thank you for your objectivity.
Genocide was what the American government did. The American accounts of anything about Indians are fabricated, slanted, exagerated, and largly inaccurate. So, if you want to know the facts, get your information from Indian authors.
The Native American resistance was DEFINATELY justifiable and there ruthlessness and brutal was because that's how the military was being towards them, u fight evil men with overwhelming brutality and they get the point!!
@@lovingmymamalighter102 I agree, unfortunate as that mey be. The American government deployed genocide against American Indians. The American theme is conquest and domination.
@@lovingmymamalighter102 *Screams in Social "Science"*
Warfare becomes a tit for tat struggle until one side cries uncle. All wars are that way. Unfortunately for us, we tend to look at them backward instead from a point before looking forward. Those that respect the victors will demonize the vanquished. Those that pity the vanquished will demonize the victors....often without much evidence on either.
For the most part undermanned army posts did not come into a situation of peaceful natives to start a war that would overwhelm the very army....but few of the nations remained peaceful amongst each other. They didn't respect each other, their claims to territory and the philosophy of might makes right was the cornerstone of most of the 500 nations. Many times external settlers had legal deals with one tribe or chief that other tribes or even rival in tribe war parties did not respect. The situation of Kentucky and Boonesboro for instance was exactly that...as you see similar to the beginnings of this war.
This became a panic on the Platt during the Civil War, when Dog Soldier war parties saw a weakness in the US Army due to the Eastern white man war. They raided isolated homes and settlements. Colorado Territory brought in an Indian Hater from their past and mercenaries from Mancato, Minnesota and Kansas jayhawkers as a nuclear option. He was favored by President Lincoln. Lincoln did not have time to deal with western trouble...so make it go away.
In this case it was a hired mercenary militia and the territorial militia that did the raid...and wanted credit for an easy victory to show the residents of Colorado their decision in appointing Chivington was a good one. It would also, in Chivington logic, scare the war parties into surrender.
The US Army refused to engage. The young captain and his lieutenant said they would not fire on women and children. Chivington brought charges, but the US Army rejected them and instead removed Chivington's ability to order US Regular troops. The hearings and investigation after the CW would later come down on Chivington...but the witnesses were already known in their opinions.
When it comes down to it...it is easy to judge from a comfortable chair....but harder to imagine your feelings if people are being ravaged and killed 30 miles from your house. Often the desire is make this stop even if you have to kill them all. That thought existed in both sides.
This horrible video is so incredibly prejudicial and inaccurate you should be deeply ashamed of posting it.
Good video. Thanks
So many of the comments here are devastating to read.
History is not truth, it is not objective. Sources (letters, diaries, etc) are created with the subjectivity of the author.
I visited the Sand Creek National site. I read from the diary of officers and men that were at the massacre that day. It doesn't put Chivington in a good light with descriptions of Indian children and women with their brains bashed out. Wasn't one of the officers that testified against Chivington assassinated in Denver during the trial? One wrong doesn't make another right.
Didn't say it does, but context matters. The Cheyenne, among other Colorado tribes, were raiding and doing the exact same thing to settlers. The Coloradans had their blood up and it didn't help that the so-called peace chiefs were made promises of peace that they were impotent to enforce among their warriors.
Two sides to every story.
Well, when you are culture revolving around murder, theft, and enslavement and you go up against a superior opponent you're going to reap what you sow.
This myth going around claiming the settlers didn't try to get along with the indian is ridiculous.
Historians like Dee Brown and the political agitation in the 60s with AIM (American Indian Movement) launched the "noble savage" rhetoric into the mainstream. Russel Means and Dennis Banks created the "Trail of Broken Treaties" in 1972; and supported by prominent college historians (who should have known better), they popularized the sentiment that the United States committed genocide and broke every treaty with the Indian Tribes. The only problem is that it's a load of hogwash.
300 years is an awful lot of history to boil down into a childish "good guy vs. bad guy" narrative. It's so irritatingly dull when compared to the reality of events. So much history of the frontier is being forgotten. I'd love to see a SERIOUS academic revival on the subject like America had from 1920-1950.
I immediately knew you were not credible.
John Chivington was in all purposes not a Methodist minister when he arrived in Denver. The Methodist Church had previously removed him from their rolls of active ministers. And had informed him that he would never be assigned a new church.
Plus, you never breeched how Chivington later became a low rent con man. Who would abandon his wife according to the divorce decree his ex-wife was awarded.
Didn't know that about him being defrocked from the clergy. The books I read describe him as a former minister before he enlisted. As to the second part, Chivington's later social faux paus are have nothing to do with his role in the Indian wars.
Calm down, Tony. What Doorus put in his video is what everyone thinks. It doesn't make him "not credible." "Not credible" does, however, extend to people who totally condemn others for making a minor mistake.
@@hurdygurdyman1905 Given your reading abilities, check yourself. My name is Troy not Tony. (mic drop)
@@hurdygurdyman1905 Like it or not... reading comprehension is important.
@@troydgwyn6146 Okay Tony
l9ve the battle history!
also the way this is being told Chivington acted on his own orders not by higher command
A complex history with an inevitable result
Sadly, I think so.
I love the artwork.
at 13:25 it states Col. Chivington declared martial law, to my understanding he could not because was still in the US Army. Only Gov.s could declare martial law of each state. I guess is state is different from others. Chivington was not Gov. just then only after this occurred.
So this Chivington guy was supposed to be a minister huh ?
Great video! I would love to watch your re-telling of the battle at Big Hole. The Indians actually capture one of our artillery pieces in that battle. Also, look into how Horse Thief Canyon in Southern California got its name. An interesting tale of posses, horse thieves, and blown up dams that I think would be right up your alley.
It's fascinating what could have been if the native Americans learned to manufacture or came across large amounts of cannon.
Some Native American resistance was justified, some wasn't.
History with BALLS
Nothing like good old fashioned Revisionist history.
U hunted artifacts at the location in the 1960s. The movie Soldier Blue made it famous in 1970.
It's cavalry not calvary. I'm sure all good American Christian's must know the difference
Feel better?
The movie "Soldier Blue" is based on this massacre. It was extremely graphic.
...and extremely a-historical.
who is the walrus really
Is there a transcript for this somewhere?
There is.
There is a good reason they do not teach this stuff in school. Never have I seen a video distort the truth and cherry pick facts in such a way as to blame the victims. Of all of the sites managed by the US Park Service there is only one with a designation as the sight of a massacre: Sand Creek. General Grant, who in 1864 was a little busy, called Sand Creek "nothing short of murder." No less than 150 old men, women, children, babies, plus wounded warriors were slaughtered without mercy. Their bodies were horribly mutilated, body parts including genitalia were collected along with scalps as souvenirs. There is some much relevant information left out of this video to conceal the real truth, I find it appalling. Even two of Chivington's company commanders refused to follow his orders and ordered their men to stand down. Sand Creek was the same type of abomination as MyLai was in Vietnam. And yes, there were people then that tried to justify the slaughter on non-combatants as this despicable video does.
chivington also murdered confederate prisoners of war .after sand creek kit carson had to be physically restrained from killing him on sight.carsons command of the new mexico militia refused to serve with the colorado men as their conduct was so extreme.he lobbied washington to have chivington tried and executed and had the full support of congress and the joint chiefs.the problem was due to a technicality chivington was by then immune from prosecution.his enlistment had lapsed and as a territorial miltia officer not a regular it appears that federal authority had no means to indict him as his service was over.as colorado was a territory the only legal recourse was federal statute which as chivington had left the militia legally meant the army or congress had no authority over him.the law as it stood then could not be applied retroactively for offences committed under previus service.had he still been serving when charges were mooted he could well have been hanged.the massacre was unjustifiable even in those more prejudiced times as was seen as such by the appalled union.the cheyenne at sand creek had been directed there by the army.black kettle took great pains to convince them they were non hostile non combatants.he flew the stars and bars over the camp to show they were protected and no threat.the dead were old people women and kids.to make it worse if possible poor black kettle still trusted the us army and met his death 4 years or so later in almost identical circumstances at the hands of custer who attacked again a camp of elderly and women and children in winter when the actual hostiles were camped a few miles away.from this massacre custer got his reputation as being a bold indian fighter despite running away when the real cheyenne warriors appeared and leaving a sqaud of his men to die.a dirty sordid criminal war crime.to try and defend chivington is obscene.
@@mikekemp9877 I know for a fact everything you stated is true. However, there were two positives that came out of this sordid period of history. Chivington's political ambitions and reputation were destroyed when the truth was revealed. He then contracted cancer which must have been a slow and painful death in those times. Custer was a true hero during the Civil War and should have retired. He too became a war criminal at Black Kettle's Cheyenne camp on the Washita. Ironically, Custer thought he was attacking the opposite end of the Little Big Horn camp from Reno. Instead, he attacked the middle where the Cheyenne were camped. Custer led 11 cavalry charges during the Civil war, always from the front. It is unlikely he changed his style. Numerous sources say he was killed by the Cheyenne trying to ford the river and was dragged up to "Last Stand Hill" by troopers. You would not believe some of the replies defending Chivington and Custer I have received to posts on other videos. It is a pleasure to hear from someone who knows factual history. I did report this video for false information.
@@bobporch thank you.its odd this idiot quotes dunne whose 1884 masterpiece massacres in the mountains he dismisses saying it was sensational and written after the battle so doesnt count.in fact dunne was tremendously influential on western history and was a very contempory voice.his investigation which forms the title of the book was an account of the mountain meadows massacre.indeed years earlier it was his revelations that led to the subsequent execution of the mormon responsible and exposed the fact the attack wasnt caused by native americans.he also in the book apart from sand creek has a detailed investigation citing reports and despatches about red clouds war and the fetterman massacre.he also is the source most quoted for the inquiry into the big horn disaster to this present day and the latter part of his history is an almost verbatim account.he didnt use hearsay he was a dedicated investigative reporter unbiased who spoke to peple who were there and read every document connected to the matter.he knew and was considerably closer to events than this moron.as to the political bias against chivington by wyncoop and the two junior officers its an absurd statement.the three were regular army had no interest in colorado as a state and indeed risked their careers when it came out that chivington had lobbied partisan politicians to bring pressure on the three to change their stories and support him.so in fact by telling the truth they risked a great deal.contrary to the impression given here chivington and his drunken cutthroats did apart from the massacre nil to help the war effort either against the tribes or sibleys confederate army.the main work was done by carsons new mexico men and the regular army.in fact the battle against rebel forces alluded to here which the poster claims saved new mexico from invasion had nothing to do with the colorado men.the rebel column had been driven off by carson after a brisk fight .the colorado regiment had nt taken part but assisted in capturing the supply column horses and about 150 prisoners.carson thought this was a windfall over 300 horses and wagons of much needed supplies.he left chivington to take it and the prisoners back to denver and continued his advance on the rebel army.chivington then ordered his men to cut the rebels throats to save ammo and destroyed all the captured horses the same way.they then looted the wagons took what they wanted and burnt them.they paraded through denver in similar fashion as after sand creek giving the impression they had been in a great battle.the northern command were mortified and chivington again using the fact his enlistment was up escaped censure.its thought his rejoining and forming his company of murderers to attack sand creek was a political move by him to gain back his credibility after the union had disowned him.its not modern bias he was loathed and hated by every union officer at the time and more so after sand creek.he was a sadistic lunatic with a gruesome propensity for blood and violent depravity.
Did you even watch the video? The Cheyenne actually broke two treaties and massacred, mutilated, raped, and enslaved men, women, and children for two years before the retaliation. I didn't hear any condoning of Chivington in this video, just simple cause and effect. A bleeding heart robs the brain of reason.
@@zacharyholler5964 Did you even read what I wrote?🥱🥱
Soldier Blue
by Buffy Sainte-Marie
I'll tell you a story and it's a true one
And I'll tell it like you understand
And I ain't gonna talk like some history maid
I look out and I see a land
Young and lovely, hard and strong
For fifty thousand years we've danced her praises
Prayed our thanks and we've just begun
Yes, yes
Yes this is my country
Young and growing
Free and flowing, see to see
Yes, this is my country
Ripe and bearing miracles
in ever pond and tree
Her spirit walks the high country
She's giving free wild samples
And setting an example how to give
Yes this is my country
Retching and turning
She is like a baby learning how to live
i can stand upon a hill at dawn
Look all around me
Feel her surround me
Soldier blue
Can't you see her life has just begun
Beating inside us, telling us she's here to guide us
Soldier Blue, Soldier Blue, Soldier Blue
Can't you see that there's another way to love her
This is my country
And I sprang from her
And I'm learning how to count upon her
Tall trees and the corn is high country
I guess I love her
And I'm learning how to take care of her
When the news stories get me down
I take a drink of freedom to think of
North America from toe to crown
It's never long before
I know just why I belong here
Soldier Blue, Soldier Blue
Can't you see that there's another way to love her
power to your people
Miss, try harder with facts, not a singers B.S.
I am not a "miss", @@Jay_Hall, Missiavu means grand-father in corsican.
@@missiavu I was shortening your "handle", not referring to your sex! LOL...chill out man! :)
I do believe Custer was let down by the USA Calvary because of the single shot riffuls they were sent out withj , yes sent out with, inferior weapons and so they were out gunned, so the 7th Calvary had to reload every shot, they only had one shot, then reloading time and that took way to mutch time aginst the Indian soldiers who had repeating riffuls. PS The us knew that the Indian soldiers were well armed with repeating riffuls they were reciving from the trading post's, my point is never send our loved ones our to fight a war with rocks when the Other side has a rock crusher!. Ps Love to all is always in the light 😊. 9:46
Jerry Reed, that is fine. You be well.
If only the Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes were as friendly as the Shoshone. I think they have just as many descendants as the Cheyenne today and avoided much of the bloodshed.
Modern narratives of Indian victimization though often correct lack the nuances of reality. The white Americans were mostly dirt poor and survival in the frontier was not easy. They directly competed with the Indians for survival. These Indian wars, especially if they involved volunteers were particularly vengeful and vicious in retribution for the predatory raids of the Indians who were particularly heinous. If you saw the corpses of your neighbor's wife and his children raped and mutilated, restraint would not be at the front of your mind. Also, the tribunals that followed these particularly brutal retaliations prove that the Army were making some efforts to beeasured.
T, truth U tell. :)
There was no reason other than the greed for gold, for the settlers to go westward. They were crossing and living on Native American land without their permission. You would be mad wouldn’t you if someone just came and set up camp on your land, killed the buffalo and started complaining about you living on your own land. The Native Americans did do bad things and did have raids but many wanted peace instead and they were driven to that point because every treaty made was either to trick them or weren’t being enforced. Not to mention taking them from where they lived all their life and putting them onto a piece of land that someone else chose for them.
@@hydromic2518 Settlers were mostly, vastly going to farm the land, not seek gold. Yes, things could ave been handled far better on both sides. :)
TELL ME HOW HE DIED!
after watching this a person learns more, from this is telling the damn politicians twists things around to their liking
Nice example of gross revisionism.
Yep. There was genocide in progress, the shame of a nation. Like slavery, the shame of a nation. There are two humiliating stains that cause Americans to resist simple ideas like studying the racism and misogyny of the past, and to hang on to myths of heroism, fairness and justice. In fact the American way has always been one of power and greed at almost any cost. Now the actual principle of democracy are at risk because of the fear and humiliation that accompanies accountability.
This is emotionalism and it has no place in actual history. Every word and event is backed by actual first-hand accounts. There is no "heroes" or "villains" in this retelling. The lenses of "racism" and "misogyny" projects what is not there. Fighting for one's life or livelihood, whether American or Indian, is not necessarily racism...it's life.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 The problem with first-hand accounts is that they tend to be collected from only one side and that the participants have an interest in justifying their own actions. Imagine if the story of WWII was being told only from the perspective of the Nazis.
A more pertinent example is a historian telling a story 100 years after the fact versus corroborating evidence from a dozen primary sources. One is more LIKELY to by true than the other.
There was a concerted effort by journalists and historians to record the cultures, languages, and history of the American Indians in the late 19th and early 20th century. We have accounts from Little Raven and Black Kettle's grand-daughter -- among others -- who were actually at the event. There is quite a bit of testimony against Chivington and his men that I needed to read from Wynkoop, Soule, Tappan, Bent, and others who were at the massacre. The problem is it's not primary ("I heard this happened", "someone told me" etc.) and that says something when they can't say what they actually saw. Not to say that it's not true, but it does make the evidence weaker. I don't discount what they said because they are "one sided," but I do lay their motivations on the table.
@@doorusthewalrus6903 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well times were different and war is not a nice Thing. Women and children died on both sides.
Well hello Uncle Doorus :)
Howdy
I'm here because of the Mandarin from Iron Man 3.
What!!! No TAZER FACE ??
When Might makes Wright...Injustice will occur
History is always written by the victors, to make them look good, where did you get the information? like the Alamo.
Uhmmm...the Mexican army were the victors at the Alamo...are you claiming that they were lying?
I remember the Alamo!
Pedro, at the Alamo the Mexican Army killed all survivors,,not too smart, so soon they would be treated the same."What goes around comes around". :)
I think this was objective
Remember Geronimo’s Skull!
Chivington was a mason. Tomorrow we have March 22nd - 322. That number is used by the "US-presidential club" at Yale University, “SKULL AND BONES”.
I LOVE THIS STUFF TURN TO JESUS TODAY FOR WHOSEVER SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL, BE SAVED ROMANS 10-13
You love the stories of rape, murder and chaos...then talk about Jesus?
What is wrong with you?
I had no idea there was an Arapaho named Roman Nose.
I knew about the Cheyenne Roman Nose.
Guess you learn something everyday.
That is because Roman Nose was a Southern Cheyenne Chief. He was with Chief Black Kettle during Custer's Massacre of a peaceful Cheyenne village on the Washita River in 1868. There was also another Northern Cheyenne Chief that sometimes is confused with him. He was called Hook Nose.
@@bobporch . I thought the same thing..he's Cheyenne..not Arapaho
@@creaturecaldwell9858 Definately! Southern Cheyenne to be specific. This video is so bad. The Native side wasn't even researched. I missed the Arapaho error in the video but saw it in you comment.
@@bobporch . Yours as well.
That is because Roman Nose was a Southern Cheyenne Chief. He was with Chief Black Kettle during Custer's Massacre of a peaceful Cheyenne village on the Washita River in 1868. There was also another Northern Cheyenne Chief that sometimes is confused with him. He was called Hook Nose.
I’d like to meet this “Roman Nose” …😂😂
Chivington was a butcher and his troops from Denver were drunken miners. Chivington's attack at Sand Creek was on the land next to that of some of my relatives. I used to walk the Sand Creek massacre site. It is now owned and operated by the US Department of the Interior. Black Kettles tribe was encamped exactly where they had been told to camp. That is the only way Chivington and his drunken sotts could have figured out how to find Black Kettle's tribe. Black Kettle's women and children were killed because Chivington was not competent to find hostiles and nobody in Black Kettle's group exected them. In short it was a cowardly suprise attack. Women and children were killed by cannon all day long. Your defense of Chivington is pathetic. The fact that two off the officers on the scene didn't take part puts the lie to the notion that the massacre was a fair or justified fight. I guess your believe is one good massacre deserves another.
I'm ignorant of the truth of this massacre, except what movies show. Apart from yourself, who else supports your rendition of this horrible incident? Is this conjecture on your part or taken from actual records. I mean no disrespect, but when history is being rewritten, it'd help a lot with some provenance. Otherwise, a great presentation, thanks.