Renaming Mount Evans
In the Friday, April 16 Gazette issue, there is a page 3 article written about re-naming Mount Evans. I am opposed to any name change for this venerable mountain.
The driving, and only, impetus to change the name of Mount Evans is that Gov. Evans was involved in the Sand Creek Massacre. He was not. The Sand Creek Massacre was exactly that, a massacre of Indians with hideous brutality with no justification by a vastly superior force initiated by a subordinate against the orders of Col. John Chivington, the commanding officer. There is no excuse for the way this atrocious action was carried out.
Territorial Gov. John Evans has been connected to the Sand Creek Massacre as he was Governor and ex-officio superintendent of Indian Affairs of the Colorado Territory, and solely because of those titles, he should receive no honor, such as a mountain being named after him. However, both Northwestern University and Denver University, with each school having John Evans listed as a co-founder, concluded after collaborative, extensive and scholarly review that John Evans did not know of the attack at Sand Creek, nor would he have ordered this attack, and he was not even in Colorado when the attack took place.
The 2014 Northwestern University report concludes “No known evidence indicates that John Evans helped plan the Sand Creek Massacre or had any knowledge of it in advance. The extant evidence suggests that he did not consider the Indians at Sand Creek to be a threat and that he would have opposed the attack that took place.”
This inexcusable massacre should never have happened, but everything in the records show that Gov. Evans never knew it was going to happen, and that he would not allowed it to happen had he known about it.
There were continuing and ongoing hostilities between the Indians and settlers. There is no condoning of the Sand Creek Massacre, but it should be noted at that time the Indians were not entirely blameless. In 1864, there are 32 documented Indian attacks with 96 settlers being killed, 21 wounded and 6 taken hostage, As governor, John Evans wanted to subdue the hostile Indians, but he also wanted to give those Indians that wanted peace a chance to live in peace. His record proves this to be true.
The mountain now called Mount Evans represents what is now the State of Colorado in what is now the United States of America. Like the mountain itself, let it stay.
Roger H. Weed, Jr.
Repeated silence offends
When I tried approaching AFA Coach Troy Calhoun to see if he was interested in helping a local event, honoring veterans, I was never answered back.
After various attempts over months, I finally emailed the athletic director, who also ignored me.
This went on all the way up to the Superintendent. Only a couple of gentlemen provided minor attention, (one at least agreed to serve as a pivot to provide someone from the AFA to participate in the ceremony). I extended many requests to try to have anyone to get the coach to at least verify he received my email. The Public Affairs Office simply “answered” by saying they have passed my situation along. They would not tell me when or what to expect next. Again a rude dismissal of a civilian seeking to honor the military!
I reminded all these parties that there were things within my rights I could do, but being a lifelong fan of the Academy and their sports, I urged them to make this right. After the repeated silence, I finally decided to broadcast my story, (over almost a year), which included to the AFA’s rival coaches, local talk radio and this newspaper.
Their most unexpected arrogant, rude treatment has made me now question this “leadership” governmental institution.
Gun control is no solution
I have to take issue with Jeffrey Smith in his letter dated April 15, where he demands (conservative) “gun owners” come up with a better solution so that he can feel “safe” and perhaps a little vindicated over the folks who tout the 2nd Amendment as a basic civil right. As far as I can tell, most law-abiding, gun-owning American citizens do not feel as unsafe as Smith. It is my understanding that an American citizen is more likely to be stuck and killed by lightening than they are being shot and killed by a firearm.
As most of us know and understand, virtually all major American cities already have very restrictive gun control laws in place and have so for years, if not decades. And most of us also know and understand that most major American cities are (very sadly) hot beds of lawlessness and murder (mostly caused by hand guns). Since the gun control laws are already in place and gun violence is prevalent, perhaps more restrictive police enforcement, more draconian jail sentences and perhaps more effective mental health services will ease Smith’s concern.
Then again, perhaps it’s a societal issue. A large portion of the American family has morphed into a single-mother, father-less unit. Public education seems to be abysmal at best. Religion has been abandoned by many (of not most) of the younger generations. The general public’s respect and adherence of many of the laws of the land is pathetic. And heaven knows that “Gun Free Zones” have only served as a target rich environment for mentally disturbed murderers. Should I go on?
Smith writes: “The liberals have proposals.” It is obvious that those proposals (and laws) are not working. In my humble opinion, continuing to raise the call for more and stricter “gun control” is not the solution to the problem.
Harping endlessly about defenders of the 2nd Amendment only serves to strengthen most gun owners’ resolve. Unless the United States of America comes under the direct control of Communist China, the 2nd Amendment is most likely not going anywhere.
Perhaps the viable and sure-fire solution would be an open-carry policy for all citizens? They say that an armed society is a polite society.