Customer Reviews

Battle At Sand Creek: The Military Perspective

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Michno usually writes books on Plains Indian wars in a different perspective and this usually makes things interesting. In this case, the controversial battle always attached with the word massacre is looked at from a different vantage point such as looking at the military situation as a whole and the fact that the areas around Denver were in a panic from Indian attacks. Several raids had occurred that included Cheyenne, Arapahos and other tribes. Black Kettle and other Chiefs did want peace and traveled to Denver to meet with government officials. However, many young men still made war on the public, which include atrocities. Michno argues that although Black Kettle and many of his bands wanted peace, the failure to control his young warriors called for action. Interesting characters in this conflict are Colonel Chivington, Governor Evans , Black Kettle and Major Wynkopp. The later acts independently but not as a representative of his government or the military and thus loses command of Fort Lyons as action is in place to retaliate against the Cheyenne. The author indicates conflicting testimony some based on political motives and some by mixed interests such as the Brent family that is associated with the Cheyenne. There is even the argument that the Indians seek peace in winter and war in the summer requiring action when they are less mobile. Michno also argues that the famous American flag was not flying or if it was it was impossible to see among many lodges. He also notes that the Cheyenne fought valiantly and created many casualties. Other issues, the Cheyenne gave up four hostages but kept two at the time of the attack. A well documented book that puts forth a strong argument. You will not be disappointed with this challenging book.

History doesn't happen in a vacuum. Greg Michno's impressive study of Chivington's attack at Sand Creek presents important context for what has become an iconographic chapter in the history of the American frontier.

Until Michno's BATTLE AT SAND CREEK came out in 2004, Stan Hoig's SAND CREEK MASSACRE dating back to 1961 was the standard work on the subject. A Professor of Journalism at the University of Oklahoma, Hoig brought a wonderful style of writing and some solid research to Sand Creek, but his synchronic approach failed to reconstruct the spirit of those times as well as Michno's work does, in my opinion.

Educated as an historian, you can see the diachronic method at work in BATTLE AT SAND CREEK. The University of Northern Colorado is well known to students of the American West for the quality of its programs and its good academic reputation is validated by Michno's research.

In addition to a lot of work, it took a lot of courage for Michno to take on the entrenched, orthodox interpretation of Sand Creek. I'm glad he did and I hope he doesn't mind being burned at the stake by people whose view of Sand Creek has been formed by watching movies.

"This book is an Upton & Sons publication. I have several books by this publisher in my library and each is of very high quality. This volume is no exception. I have easily paid more for books of this same or lesser quality. I found only one "typo" in the whole text. On page 203 the word "no" was used rather than the word "do". Direct quotes from primary sources were published exactly as written by the particular historical figure involved in spite of some rather poor use of English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure by the direct sources quoted. It is, however, simply good history to publish the truth as it stands; not try to make changes to the text or story to suit present tastes. Both the publisher and the author show respect for historical truth in all regards.

I really liked the layout and organization of the book. Upon first opening the book I discovered a large two page map of the "Santa Fe Trail" area and on the back two pages another equally impressive two page map of the "Overland Trail, Platte River" area. Each map displayed clear and easily read locations of the towns, rivers, forts, and Indian agencies for the period discussed. The maps were very helpful in following the movement of the events presented in the text. An important extra that many publishers fail to provide.

In addition to the maps the author provides an appendix with a very relevant discussion of archaeological work at Sand Creek. In addition to this appendix another appendix provides a roster of members of the 1st and 3rd Colorado Cavalry as well as each unit's battle casualties.

Machino states in the final chapter titled "Legacy" that the controversy about Sand Creek was the result of several factors. There were, however, three primary factors. The first of these was political, involving statehood for Colorado, the second was crooked traders and Indian agents, and finally several members of the 1st Colorado wanting to mask their own failures and mistakes falsified some of the facts. I felt the author presented substantial evidence throughout the book to support his conclusions, and I fully agree with him. I highly recommend this book and advise any who have an interest in this subject matter to purchase a copy for yourself. You'll not be disappointed.

Finally, I would like to say that Machino's book is very readable and interesting.

The most well researched history of this episode. Controversial because Michno includes the brutal context of the battle and refers to it as a battle not a massacre. This book includes an extensive leadup to the battle and the aftermath. This book is as close to the truth as we can find on this subject.

This book is much too expensive for such a poorly written "History" book. Aside from the grammatical errors, spelling errors and other typos, this book was not a well written history book. I was interested to read a different perspective on the Sand Creek Massacre. Unfortunately I do not believe this book credibly gave me that other perspective. Michno set out to write a book justifying Chivington and others actions and he used flawed logic and poor reasoning to do so. Michno repeatedly criticized other historians claiming they had twisted history to fit the common feeling that Sand Creek was an unjustified massacre. But in his effort to support the attackers and define Sand Creek as a battle not a massacre he also had to twisted and distort history.

I agree historical events are occasionally distorted and adjusted over time. I believe the truth probably lies somewhere between the traditional Sand Creek Massacre version and Michno's version, but this book does nothing to credibly sway history towards Michno's version. On Page 256 Michno quotes The Rocky Mountain News only a few weeks after Sand Creek when it said, "there's no exaggeration in stating that no two men give the same version of the big battle..." Yet over 100 years later Michno obviously feels he knows exactly what happened and everyone else is wrong. The book would have been more credible if he had written it as a different perspective, like the title claims, but he wrote it as the definitive history.

I do not believe Michno started from a neutral position and researched this book to determine the true facts. I believe Michno set out to write this perspective and did not let the facts get in the way of a good story. This book provided some interesting information, but on the whole I do not feel it was very accurate and it was a poorly written "History" book.

I've been really impressed by Gregory Michno, in both Lakota Noon and Indian Wars. However, in this book, it appears he let down his objective intelligent analytical style to go on a crusade, discarding all the research techniques that made LN and Indian Wars so believable. For instance, he could have corroborated Indian Testimony with that of the Army's, a tool which he used very successfully in the past. His failure to even delve into that issue makes it apparent that he had a decision on the whole matter before he even began his research, and only pursued feeble arguments which supported his own theory. His character assassinations of Silas Soule and Major Anthony is a very pathetic excuse to discredit their recorded testimonies in my opinion, and a very boring technique used in politics today to an alarming rate. I look forward to better efforts from him in the future.