"The Sand Creek Massacre: The Official 1865 Report..." Topic

… with James P. Beckwourth's Additional Testimony.

"An Important Primary Source of One of the Most Significant Atrocities in the Indian Wars with Unique Contemporary Annotations
On the morning of November 29, 1864, Colorado state cavalry under the command of Col. John Chivington attacked a peaceful encampment of mostly Cheyenne Indians along the Sand Creek in Colorado, slaughtering perhaps as many as 160 people, mostly women and children. It was one of the most egregious atrocities of the Indian Wars. Even with the country embroiled in a Civil War, the gravity of the situation can be gauged by the fact that within six weeks of the killings, a Joint Committee of Congress conducted a public hearing. Congress vilified Chivington in summarizing his cowardly and racist attack in their published report: "Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity . . . he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre." The Sand Creek Massacre: The Official 1865 Report contains a facsimile of the "Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War: Massacre of the Cheyenne Indians" along with unique annotations made by a reader at the time and the attached typescript testimony of the African American pioneer James P. Beckwourth, in which he recounts the atrocity. This edition is introduced by Bill Yenne. who places the Sand Creek Massacre in context within the Civil War and Indian Wars and provides biographical information about the main persons involved."
See here
link

Amicalement
Armand

What a weird cover- way too cartoony for something so serious.

Rich

The top illustration is part of a larger painting: "The painting above depicting the Sand Creek Massacre was completed by warrior, Howling Wolf, who, at age 15, defended the Indians against the unprovoked attack along with his father, Eagle Head. Later, imprisoned along with other Cheyenne, he became famous for his "ledger art."

Congress vilified Chivington in summarizing his cowardly and racist attack in their published report:

Well, by the standards of that blurb any war fought between differing 'races' is racist. Firebombing Tokyo (or Dresden) could be described in the same terms.

Based on the standard histories, the Sand Creek massacre is repugnant enough. Layering in racism is unnecessary. Unless of course, one recounts the 'racism' of all who were involved in the conflicts…

P.S. while websearching I came across this 'revisionist' piece -
link

You tell 'em!

Fresh scalpes were found in the peaceful camp.

What makes a scalp French?

Section 9. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to this Confederacy.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

there are many more paragraph in this section.

The Confederate Constitution also does not prohibit the abolishing of slavery by the States. The first veto Jefferson Davis issued was over the importing of black slaves from the Union. Yes, the Union. Seems the North still like its slave trade. (Northern war aims did not change to include ending slavery in the south, while leaving it alone in the North and in the Southern territory controlled by the Union Armies unitl mid to late 1862).

The US Constitution had to be amended to outlaw slavery. Allowed the sovereign States to determine. It did not outlaw the importing of slaves. The CSA Constitution regulates the trade, places restrictions upon it. At the same time the US Constitution had none of the restrictions of the CSA Constitution. Both allowed slavery. Slaves were listed in the 1860 cenus in of all places Delaware.

Whites, blacks, Indians all owned slaves. It was acceptable then and not now.

Neither Constitution protected any rights to murder. Red herring argument. The protections of the US Constitution was not given to the Native Americans. As we do so now to people who are just on a temp VISA.

During the War, slave ships still moved from Africa to Latin America. Many flying the US Flag. So while people thump their chest to try and prove their "superiority"…they fail to see the beam in their eye.

To Native Americans the US Flag could be more hated than the battle flag of the ANV. They were murdered, land stolen and condemned to hell hole reservations. Starved, raped and hunted. Considered semi-human. By those flying the US Flag.

If we must get rid of the flag of the ANV for past behavior real or imagined….then the US flag must come down for past behavior ingrained in the history books.

People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.

Back to original topic: Chivington's actions can be specifically referred to as racist because of his "Nits breed lice" comments when asked if the Cheyenne children should be spared. Racist _and_ genocidal. A real sweetheart, don'tcha think?

To Native Americans the US Flag could be more hated than the battle flag of the ANV. They were murdered, land stolen and condemned to hell hole reservations. Starved, raped and hunted. Considered semi-human. By those flying the US Flag.

The issue is not the flag under which atrocities were committed, but the inherent, foundational nature of the regime that committed them.

The U.S. constitution does not protect any "right" to murder Native Americans, nor starve them, nor rape them, nor hunt them, anymore than it protects the "right" to murder Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. Murdering civilians is not inherent to or embedded in the U.S. constitution.

Similarly, slavery – or for that matter, racial inequality under the law- is not inherent to or embedded in the post-Civil-War U.S. constitution. In fact, the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments are explicitly aimed at ending and preventing those injustices.

The Confederate constitution, on the other hand, does protect the "right" to own black people as slaves. It is inherent to and embedded in the Confederate constitution.

So the issue is not that of "evil things were done under this flag", but rather that of a flag symbolizing and representing an inherently evil regime. The Confederacy, with its explicit constitutional protection of race-based slavery and thus racial inequality, is an example of this type of inherently evil regime. The post-Civil-War United States, with its explicit constitutional prohibition of slavery and guarantee of equal protection under the law, is not.

Neither Constitution protected any rights to murder.

Both US and CS constitutions regarded slaves as property, not as human beings, with no civil rights.

A slave owner was allowed to torture, mutilate and kill his slaves, just as he would his cattle or his dogs. It was only the omnipresent threat of violence, up to and including homicide, that kept the slave system working, since the slaves had little other motive to obey orders.

It has been argued that a wise slave owner would not destroy his own valuable property. It is true that there were places where cruelty to animals and slaves was socially unacceptable.

But neither common sense nor social censure can prevent some people from expressing their worst natures. There are many cases on record of slave owners killing their slaves. With some crops, such as the sugar plantations in Louisiana during the 1820s, it was a routine part of production to work most field hands to death in five to seven years.

Sorry for the digression. I have no excuses to make for Sand Creek either.

I would note Chivington's previous combat experience was at Glorietta Pass, where he fell upon the Confederate supply train and wiped it out, teamsters and mules alike. Getting into practice, I guess.

Leading to the Union victory in what has been called the Gettysburg of the west.