11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poor Scholarship, December 11, 2004
This review is from: Blood at Sand Creek: The Massacre Revisited (Paperback)
This book is so terrible I do not know why anyone would want to publish it. The author makes claims that are completely untrue, writes poorly, and does not adequately document his research. The author claims that Bull Bear, a chief of the Dog Soldiers, died at Sand Creek. This is completely untrue; Bull Bear was not even present at Sand Creek. The author claims that White Antelope was an Arapahoe chief, when he was actually a Cheyenne chief. How could someone miss such important facts? Scott claims that John Chivington never swore, even though his colleagues testified otherwise. Scott describes Chivington: "There could hardly have been a more unlikely frontier hero, with all of its macho implications, than John Milton Chivington. If a novelist had created Chivington, editors and publishers would have rejected him as being too improbable." What are statements like these doing in what is supposed to be a history book? In the bibliography, he cites Duane Schultz's book, Month of the Freezing Moon, but misspells his name as "David Schultz." In his bibliography he lists a number of encyclopedias but not enough primary sources.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Ignorance is bliss, June 27, 2004
This review is from: Blood at Sand Creek: The Massacre Revisited (Paperback)
Bob Scott's book is a good example of horrible historical research. If you want to argue that John Chivington was not an awful person and that he was justified, so be it. However, use more resources than basic encylopedias. During the course of the book, Scott contradicts himself, ignores reams of testimony that don not back his case, and gets facts wrong. If you want a better researched, more fair-minded read, check out Stan Hoig's book or David Svaldi's on sand Creek.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Whitewashing Sand Creek, June 2, 2005
This review is from: Blood at Sand Creek: The Massacre Revisited (Paperback)
A reader who wants to learn about the Sand Creek Massacre would be well advised to begin elsewhere. Stan Hoig's fine book would be an excellent place to start. Grinnell's books on the Cheyenne contain more good information. This book, alas, contains little information about the fight itself - a bare handful of pages.
The presentation is flawed. Although the author states that he does not intend to exonerate Chivington but wants only to bring out the facts of this incident, this book seems like a whitewash of the whole affair. The author presents an admiring look at Chivington but fails to cite evidence which is more critical of the man. For example he does not mention that Chivington was accused of murdering Confederate prisoners and immediately dismisses any alleged profanity by the colonel.
The book is also full of errors. For example, he places Fort Riley, Kansas southwest of the Smoky Hills in Kansas. In fact, Fort Riley is to the east and is north of most of the Smoky Hills area. He also asserts that Confederate agents were stirring up Indian trouble in 1860. It's worth noting that there was no Confederacy in 1860 and that Texas didn't secede from the Union until February, 1861 - the same month the first Confederate constitution was ratified by six deep South states. The is also the inference that problems from 1856 on were stirred up by southern agents.
Mr Scott also seems to be convinced that the Confederacy bore a large part of the responsibility of the warfare on the plains. He refers to Cheyenne attacking in the same manner as Confederate troops. Yet the hatred for the white man which permeated the Dog Soldier society and affected, to some extent, all the warrior societies would have precluded the type of training such an attack would infer.
The litany of Indian attacks in Kansas and Colorado is informative and this is the first modern work I've encountered which mentions these. Unfortunately, when describing encounters between soldiers and Indians, Mr. Scott places the blame primarily on the Indians.
Likewise, the pro-Chivington testimony presented in this book is seldom found elsewhere and it's presentation here is a good thing.
This would be a good book for someone who already has a fair amount of knowledge of the battle and is looking for the other side of the story, but I wouldn't recommend it for the novice or casual reader.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
