Hollywood Vs. History
From reading the many posts here, it is interesting to me how some people will view a period film such as this, especially one made in Hollywood, and assume that it is factual history, "It must have happened that way because Hollywood says so". Hollywood is notorious for not letting historical facts get in the way of "good" movie-making. "Soldier Blue" is no different. A for instance, the line regarding the Honus character's father being killed along side Custer at the "Little Bighorn - last year". Custer died at the Little Bighorn in June, 1876, twelve years after this battle took place. The movie-makers had an agenda, historical fact be damned. There are two sides to every story and only one was shown here (inaccurately to boot). Don't think for a second that the Vietnam War was not on the mind of old Joe Levine when he directed this film. From the reading I have done on the battle at Sand Creek, there seems to have been a great deal of justification for this attack. First of all it was not the U.S Army that attacked this village on November 29th, 1864, it was a regiment of Colorado Territory volunteer cavalry. The U.S Army was busy out East fighting Confederates in one of the Civil War's bloodiest years. These volunteers were men who had heeded the call by the territorial governor to punish the Indians for several years of depredations and atrocities against the citizens of Colorado and their properties. The U.S government could not send help so the people of the territory were forced to fend for themselves. These volunteers suffered physical hardship in order to come to grips with the enemy during this winter campaign. There was much evidence found in the Sand Creek camp after the battle, white scalps (many fresh), stolen livestock and plundered goods, to prove that many of these "friendly" Indians were not so friendly. Yes, cruel things were done there but not to the extent that the movie would have you believe. Many of the volunteer soldiers no doubt would have known first-hand what hostile Indians had done to friends, neighbors and family members and some soldiers acted out accordingly (justifiably in their own minds). Frontier fighting was brutal in the 1860's and 70's. From the written account, The Indians at Sand Creek were prepared to fight and dared the whites to attack them. They fought hard from pre-dug firing positions. Women and children fought from these positions and others fleeing were caught in the cross-fire. The Indians were not on land granted to them by the government, land deemed "safe" from white attack, and most witnesses at the battle agree that there was no American or white flag offered up by the Indians. The Indians fired the first shot and a white soldier was the first to fall.
Much can be said for the mistreatment of the American Indian by our government throughout our history. Yes we have a lot to ponder, and much that we cannot be proud of. I believe that we as Americans will usually try to right our wrongs. We are fortunate to be able to look back at historical events today and cast judgement on them. How can we honestly judge the people of 1864 Colorado territory who lived those times without delving into their times? Do the research, the West was indeed wild!
I apologize for the long post but felt a need to touch on the other side of the historical story that this movie portrayed. For more detailed information on the battle, before and after, may I suggest "I Stand By Sand Creek" 1985 by William R. Dunn, Lt. Colonel, Military Historian. Evan S. Connell's "Son of the Morning Star" also presents both sides of the Indian versus white debate.
Thanks,
Tom