RMN Correction not an example of clear journalism

[RMN, Feb. 24, 1865]



I have very little idea what he's getting at, and I think that was the plan. Didn't mention the name of the prisoner? Indeed they did. It was the title of the article referred to in the correction.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mining Journal reports that Soule has been shot at several times.

'Miscegenation'

[RMN, Feb. 2, 1865, p. 3.]

The Rumor Mill

On Feb. 1, 1865 the RMN pokes fun at Indian rumors, forgetting that many such false rumors were credited by the paper over the previous year.





Also on page three of that issue we find the letter from the former Major Anthony turncoating on Chivington (which prompted the response from 'D.' on Feb. 4), as well as the order marking Soule's stint as provost marshal.



[RMN, Feb. 1, 1865, p. 3.]

News to White People: We're on Your Side

But Soule is like the whitest dude in town. He even rode a silver horse. That's seriously white.



[RMN, March 2, 1865, p.3]

"...half breeds, Indian traders and sympathisizers..." Some feel that Sand Creek was not just about wiping out the Indians there but about wiping out a whole way of life that had been established before the gold rush, in which white traders and ranchers on the Santa Fe trail interacted and inter-married with the Indians. That whole situation was disgusting to Byers and Chivington and their Brothers. Actions during the campaign, from the house arrest of Prowers to the murder of Jack Smith, tend to support the view that this unique sector of the regional culture was targeted along with the Indian camp.

Shot at in the suburbs

The Feb. 24 1865 issue of the Journal is important. In it they lay out their opinion about Sand Creek and the subsequent investigation. They would like to emphasize that they think it's mighty fine to kill Indians, but that these particular Indians were unjustly slaughtered, mainly to benefit the careers of Evans and Chivington, and that the massacre set off a costly wave of violence that otherwise would not have occurred. Toward the end of the article they reveal something about Soule's assassination attempt history at this time:



Then on March 2 the RMN offers this curious response on page 3, with page 2 substantially devoted to their opposing view of Sand Creek and the investigation:

The Ponies

The Indian ponies were a primary focus of attention and a major source of controversy. Various factions among the soldiers connived to make off with sizable portions of the captured herd immediately after the massacre, the first attempt foiled by a do-gooder Lieutenant named Hewitt. Some or most of the Indian ponies may have been driven to a ranch north of Denver; many individual ponies were sold off by soldiers to ranchers along the road between Fort Lyon and Denver. (According to one source, one of these ponies went to Hersa Coberly.)

The profoundly bitter Capt. Soule as provost marshall spent a lot of energy trying to round up these horses, ostensibly on behalf of the US government, but mainly I think to deny the hundred days men any material gain from their campaign, which in his mind was illegitimate at the start and disgusting at the end. He was doing whatever he could do within his power. This effort to take back horses would have engendered a lot of resentment, especially as recruiting posters for the 3rd stated that soldiers would be entitled to any property taken from massacred Indians, including horses. That's to say nothing of the horses issued the 3rd before the massacre. The vast majority of those horses had not been returned by this time -- but the men had not been paid yet either.

The Rocky Mountain News, February 25, 1865 offered snidely:



And the ad in question:



[RMN, Feb. 25, 1865, p. 2]

Daily Mining Journal debunks Byers rumor

Late February, 1865. The military commission is conducting its hearing into the Sand Creek Massacre. The Rocky Mountain News has been reporting that the officers of the 3rd are not going to get paid as a result of the investigation, and the Blackhawk Daily Mining Journal has been ridiculing the rumor for several days. On Feb. 23 the DMJ dubunks the rumor with some finality, below a juicy Lincoln tidbit:



[DMJ, Feb. 23, 1865, p. 3.]

EDIT: The News also acknowledged the falsehood of the rumor they'd been spreading in their Feb. 23 issue.

At some point U.S. Congress does withhold the pay of the 3rd, I believe. Not exactly sure when it occurred or how it turned out.