Martin, you don't post often, but when you do, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Gregory F. Michno, the author of the excellent “Battle at Sand Creek: The Military Perspective” a renown authority on the Indian Wars, unlike myself and a few others on this board, had this to say about the battle of sand creek..

It is difficult to discuss the incident at Sand Creek because it is obviously still an emotional one. A major issue here is not so much what the NPS my call the future site (although the label chosen is relevant), but how it will present the events to the public. What is needed is an even-handed interpretation where both sides are explained. If “massacre” is the prevailing theme, then any idea of “peace through unity,” such as is being presented at parks like the Little Bighorn, will be all the more difficult to establish. For a century, Sand Creek has been portrayed as a massacre, and there has been good cause for the portrayal. There is another side to the issue, however, which has not gotten equal time, and that is from the military and pioneer perspective. There are reasons to look at the “other” side to understand the events of that day. Very briefly, the Indians attacked on Sand Creek were not peaceful; they had been raiding and killing for years, and particularly so in the summer of 1864. If a majority of them, by November, were in favor of peace, it did not absolve them of guilt. That very camp had earlier held seven white captives, taken after their families were butchered. Governor Evans had tried numerous times before to make peace, but his efforts were rebuffed. Those particular Indians were not under the protection of the soldiers. This is a salient point that most of us miss. The Arapahoes that were being fed near Ft. Lyon were sent away and were under the impression of safety. They were not attacked. The Indians attacked, under Black Kettle, had come away from the Camp Weld Council knowing they were under no guarantees of Army protection—Black Kettle told this to John Prowers. The Sand Creek village was not taken by a galloping charge. The first casualties were Colorado Volunteers. The chiefs did not die stoically by their teepees. The soldiers walked through the village after the Indians left. This was reported by eyewitnesses. Even Robert Bent, an anti-Chivington man, said, “they had time to get away if they had wanted to.” There were white scalps found in the teepees. If one believes witnesses such as Robert Bent and John Smith (another anti-Chivington man), there were 60 to 80 Indians killed. Per the Colorado Historical Society records there were about 70 white casualties. There were about 1,400 “fights” in the Indians Wars between 1850 and 1890. In only five fights did the soldiers/civilians take more casualties than at Sand Creek. It was a hard-fought affair. Where the soldiers can take blame is in mutilating bodies after the fight, and so they should be. But realize that of the soldier dead who fell into Indian hands, the one recovered was also horribly mutilated. These were not acts either side can be proud of. What I would like to see is a preservation of the correct location where the village and fight actually took place, and even more importantly, have the NPS present the story in an even-handed manner. Both sides need to be given. Let the visitor form his or her own opinion. In this way, instead of aggravating wounds that have been with us for too long, perhaps we can start to heal them.