After spending nearly half a century studying the western Indian wars, I finally achieved a sense of “enlightenment,” that moment when the little “Eureka” light bulb pops on and a richer and fuller understanding is achieved. Ironically, this milestone of sorts also produced a dichotomy, because it has finally become clear that there are no definitive answers to be realized. It is extremely difficult to write accurate history. Studying and writing good history on Sand Creek is nearly impossible.
Others have already written extensively on the Sand Creek incident. I use the word “incident” because the words “fight,” “battle,” or “massacre” more often than not spark an argument before a discussion on the merits even begins. Almost every major historical event experiences interpretive shifts over the years. Examples abound, such as the causes of Civil War, Custer’s actions at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, or the depiction of the American Indian.
The manner in which Sand Creek has been portrayed, however, has remained remarkably static. Politicians, investigative committees, and the Eastern press hailed it as a massacre almost from the start, and most of the general public today who hears the words “Sand Creek” add the word “massacre” to the end. The only “good” press about Sand Creek came from a few eyewitnesses, but they are usually depicted as apologists or liars. Even some of those men changed their minds when the tide of disgust grew too high to withstand. The Sand Creek affair was a tragic event in American history, but after all the ink spilled writing about it, we still don’t know what really happened beyond the most general brush strokes.
Many questions arise when discussing Sand Creek: Were the Indians peaceful? Did they capture and hold white prisoners? Were they under the protection of the soldiers? Was this a battle or a massacre? Were excessive numbers of women and children killed? Were bodies mutilated? Did the Indians fly an American flag? Did the chiefs die stoically in front of their tipis? Were white scalps found in the village? Did Sand Creek trigger the beginning of the extensive and bloody Indian Wars?
Three formal hearings were conducted to find answers to these and other questions. The body of evidence produced by these inquiries is large. Unfortunately, a close study of the evidence only muddies the water and makes it more difficult to reach firm conclusions.
In a fit of unwarranted optimism, I thought I would be able to clear the water when I wrote Battle at Sand Creek: The Military Perspective (Upton & Sons) in 2004. As a historian, I believed that a presentation of the facts would allow readers to objectively evaluate the complicated situation, make an educated assessment, and perhaps see the affair in a different light—or at least realize there were two sides to the story. Since the incident is almost universally portrayed as a massacre, I tried to swing the historical pendulum more to the middle by illuminating the points that would lend credence to the minority view that an actual battle had occurred, albeit one that was accompanied by horrible atrocities.
I was wrong. Critics of Battle at Sand Creek argued I was too “pro-white.” Ari Kelman, the author of A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek (Harvard University Press, 2013), for example, represented me as a modern defender of Colonel John Chivington and seems to view everyone who defends some of the actions of white settlers and/or soldiers as “culture warriors.” When I wrote Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer’s Defeat (Mountain Press, 1997), however, criticism erupted that I was too “pro-Indian.” Since both sides of the spectrum are angry with me, perhaps I am doing something right.
I am by no means a Chivington defender. In fact, I cannot countenance the historical man. I find almost all of our military actions taken against the Native Americans in the name of Manifest Destiny to be a hollow cover-up for a blatant land-grab. Our treatment of the tribes was appalling. But facts are facts, and as I noted above, I firmly believed that evidence would persuade readers to see different points of view.
What I didn’t fully appreciate was that the truth becomes more elusive the deeper and more detailed we drill into the history of an event. As we move from macro history to micro history, uncovering more facts and evidence on events large and small, the more difficult it is to organize these facts into a coherent narrative—particularly when individual memories are involved. Memories are often faulty. We make poor eyewitnesses, and sometimes (often?) enhance or alter our memories without ever realizing it when additional suggestions or information is interjected after an event. Sometimes we subconsciously do what the rest of the herd does. We are slaves to our prejudices, experiences, and belief systems. Sometimes our beliefs conflict with our behaviors. For better or worse, we filter information through our individual lenses, and we sometimes don’t let truth get in the way of what we already think. We often see what we believe, and often ignore concrete evidence that contradicts what we believe. The participants in the Sand Creek affair were also human, and so not immune to any of this.
* * *
The Three Battles of Sand Creek is divided in three sections. The first, “In Blood,” unfolds the story of Sand Creek. It is shorn of much of the background information that was included in my earlier book Battle at Sand Creek, but maintains a reconstituted version of the events of November 29-30 1864. It is the most comprehensive account of that day published to date.
The second section, “In Court,” focuses on the three investigations into the Sand Creek affair, illustrates some of the biases involved, and presents some of the contradictory testimony.
The third section, “The End of History,” is an attempt to put my Eureka moment into book form by shedding light on the significant challenge of sorting fact from fiction when particular details and human memory are involved. To accomplish this, I use contemporary examples and several modern psychological- and memory-related tests, intertwined with applicable Sand Creek examples, in an effort to determine the reliability of eyewitness testimony. I believe the results will surprise some readers, and make them think about how we interpret not only historical events, but events of our own lives. As will be readily understood, the obstacles encountered utilizing eyewitness memory testimony make writing accurate and detailed history very difficult, and perhaps impossible.
My hope is that readers new to the story of Sand Creek appreciate the varied aspects of the incident and complications involved in using memory to put the pieces together in a coherent narrative, and that readers already familiar with it will reassess their beliefs about what may or may not have happened there. Where will the “facts” presented herein take them? Will initial conceptions be cemented into place by the end of the book, or changed by the telling of the tale? In particular, will confirmation bias—the tendency to interpret or recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs—lead readers to throw out the non-confirmatory evidence and thus further reinforce original beliefs or initial reactions?
Perhaps there is some penitence about writing history, like the medieval flagellants who walked the European streets whipping themselves with flails. Ultimately, the journey through the sources, the discoveries, and the stories carry me to some higher meaning of understanding and help me continue rowing against the current.
Gregory F. Michno
Frederick, Colorado