Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Ari Kelman’s book, A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek re-told the “massacre” of Sand Creek from three different points of view: 1) From Colonel John Chivington, 2) Captain Silas Soule, and 3) George Bent. Each man experienced or saw the events of Sand Creek differently. Colonel Chivington viewed his involvement as a glorious victory over hostile native tribes; Captain Soule considered Sand Creek for what it was… a “massacre of peaceful Indians” (12), and Mr. Bent, who was living in the native village when Chivington attacked, saw the attack as a unlawful assault on peaceful natives who were unjustly targeted and who endured untold atrocities by Chivington’s troops and Colorado Militia volunteers. In addition to these view points and discussions surrounding the “truth” of what happened at Sand Creek, A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek also covers two other topics, those of establishing Sand Creek as a National Park, and of returning the bodies of Native Americans to the Cheyenne and Arapaho nations for proper burial. I found each chapter intriguing and captivating. I had always assumed that the Sand Creek Massacre/battlefield location was known, until a massive NPS (National Park Service) investigation took place which included NPS representatives, Congressional researchers, and Native American representatives from the Cheyenne and Arapaho nations to find the official site. From an historical perspective, I enjoyed Chapter Three the most because it went hand-and-hand with historic research techniques. We as historians follow many of the same procedures mentioned in the text, especially focusing on primary sources like participant testimony, and secondary sources, while placing “hearsay” and such works at the bottom of the totem pole unless they can be authenticated. Despite our modern fast-paced lifestyle, “That the descendants [of those who survived the attack] set aside a cemetery within the historic site to house the remains [of those taken following the massacre], which they buried following strict tribal protocols, spoke volumes about the persistence of the Cheyennes and Arapahos as well as their ongoing respect for a traditional way of life.” (267) It was interesting that no matter who was involved in the research and search for the official site of the massacre, political, tribal, and cultural tensions still played an integral part in the creation of The Sand Creek Massacre National Park, and continue to this day in some way, shape or form. Interpretations may differ as to the purpose and meaning of the National Park, but hopefully someday, “the massacre will no longer be misplaced in the landscape of national memory.” (279)
Like mark_t_garcia, I found the discussion surrounding the terms “Massacre” and “Battle” interesting. It was fascinating to read and understand the federal government’s argument of why Sand Creek should be called a “Battle” and not a “Massacre.” I can understand, especially at that time, why “Battle” would be preferred. The very minute the Native Americans fought back and defended themselves against the cavalry and militia, it became a “Battle” and not a “Massacre”. However, the federal government of the 21st century should have known better than to press the “Battle” issue considering Captain Soule’s known disapproval of Colonel Chivington’s recounting of the “battle”. Captain Soule disproved of any attack on the Native Americans at Sand Creek, and he spoke publicly on the topic pre-and post-battle, and in his letters to his mother, sister, and former commander, Edward Wynkoop. [1] In addition, there were Mr. Bent’s Frontier articles and letters written to historian, George E. Hyde, which spoke of the “battle” from the Native perspective in which he saw it not as a “Battle” but a “Massacre.” Although labelled as a Confederate, which he was, and thus forced to live with his mother’s people the Cheyenne for protection, his words were no less true, especially when added to the oral histories collected by Ari Kelman and other transcribers. To read the interactions between the federal government, anthropologists, archaeologists, researchers/investigators, and Native Americans was intriguing. I can see why the NPS and the federal government wanted to protect themselves from the blemish of Sand Creek, but reading Chivington’s multiple-altered accounts should have told them something; i.e. his accounts could not be trusted and should not be seen as factual. Despite what some might say, the Civil War did play a part in Sand Creek, but only in that many of the cavalry officers involved in Sand Creek and George Bent himself fought in that War. To go beyond that connection is to stretch the truth and history.
I have read a lot on Native Americans, especially in my Anthropology classes, but even then, this book is unique, for it focuses on one event and thoroughly investigates it from multiple angles. I found Professor Kelman’s use of multiple angles out of the ordinary. Normally, historic books focus on an event, and information surrounding that “event” is straight forward. Sand Creek however, from the start was never going to be straight forward, just based on the history of the massacre. A Misplaced Massacre covers five narratives, three from Colonel Chivington, and the last two from Captain Soule and Mr. Bent; in addition, the topics of establishing Sand Creek as a National Park, and returning Native remains to their rightful nations is also discussed. What makes this narrative even more unique is Chapter Three, which discusses how the real site of Sand Creek was found. As I was reading Chapter One: A Perfect Mob, I kept shaking my head in disgust and in anger because the reasons Colonel Chivington gives for attacking a peaceful Indian camp are insane and off the wall. However, as a reader and an historian, I had to stop and remember the state of affairs of the Union at the time, what his background was, what he thought and believed in, and what his focus was. If all of these aspects of his personality and life were taken into account, a reader could “somewhat” understand why he did what he did. That does not mean that what he did was right or necessary. Then to have Chivington change his story three times throughout the years and embellish it more and more with every telling should have sent up red-flags, especially to modern historians and researchers. His narratives and claims should be questioned and their legitimacy investigated. Stepping away from the narrative for a moment, I found Kelman’s chapter titles interesting, for they do not really relate to what the reader is going to be reading about. Take Chapter Three’s title, The Smoking Gun, for example. I would not know from the title that the chapter was going to be discussing the research and investigation of the actual Sand Creek Massacre site. From an historian’s view, we have a feeling it is going to be about the discovery of the site, but the author might have thrown us a curve ball. The chapter could have been talking about an actual “smoking gun” aka murder. Structure and flow wise, A Misplaced Massacre is very well structured; each chapter follows the previous and continues the narrative in a very interesting way without becoming stale. The author’s Notes were extensive and the seventy-four pages of them illustrate how extensively this book was researched. Further investigation/research could focus on: How the Civil War, specifically the Western Theater where Chivington fought, affected his mindset and philosophy of life, specifically with regard to his attitudes towards the Confederacy and later the Native Americans? Did the battles he was involved in during the Civil War mentally affect how he viewed non-Unionist (Confederates) and “non-Americans” (Native Americans)? Could his Methodist upbringing and pastor-ship affect his views and treatments of Confederates and Native Americans? What were the attitudes and mindsets of Civil War veterans when transferred to the West/Indian territory, where they all like Chivington, anti-Indian, or was he unique in his approach?
[1] https://www.nps.gov/sand/learn/historyculture/the-life-of-silas-soule.htm