Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Interview With Author S.C. Gwynne

By Johnny D. Boggs 
Originally published on HistoryNet.com. Published Online: December 03, 2010 
Print Friendly
10 comments FONT +  FONT -

In "Empire of the Summer Moon," author S.C. Gwynne relates Quanah Parker's role in the history of the Comanche Nation. (Author photograph by Michael Belk)
In "Empire of the Summer Moon," author S.C. Gwynne relates Quanah Parker's role in the history of the Comanche Nation. (Author photograph by Michael Belk)
In a dual review of S.C. Gwynne's Empire of the Summer Moon and Nathaniel Philbrick's The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Bruce Barcott wrote for The New York Times, "If Custer illustrates how the spotlight of history sometimes shines on the wrong actor, Quanah Parker exemplifies the more deserving who get left in the shadows." That's debatable. Quanah, the half-blood last chief of the Comanche nation, has hardly been forgotten. Publishers released two biographies of him in the 1990s. He appeared on the cover of the December 2007 Wild West, and his name pops up again in a feature story ("A Texas Cattleman & His Comanche Concubine," by Richard Selcer) in this issue.

Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History had reached No. 6 on The New York Times best-seller list when Wild West caught up with author Gwynne before a talk and book-signing in Amarillo, Texas—near Quanah's old stamping grounds. An admitted Yankee who has spent the past 26 years out West, Gwynne worked for Time and Texas Monthly and is now a reporter for The Dallas Morning News. He took time to talk about Quanah, the Comanches and his book (reviewed in this issue).

'This guy's this brutal warrior, and he leaves it all behind and reinvents himself in this remarkable way'

What led you to tackle Quanah Parker and the Comanche Nation?
I read a book by Walter Prescott Webb called The Great Plains. It's a fantastic book. Webb is not a great writer in the traditional sense, but he's workmanlike, and the material was brilliant. There was a piece of a chapter—it wasn't even a whole chapter—where he asserted what [Rupert N.] Richardson had put forth in 1933 [in The Comanche Barrier to South Plains Settlement] of the Comanche barrier that determined how the continent settled itself. So I read this, and me being a Yankee, I didn't know anything about Western Indians. That was the start of it. That got me to [T.R.] Fehrenbach [author of Comanches: The Destruction of a People], and that started me reading more.

Another thing that happened, too, was I came to Texas 16 years ago with Time. As a Time correspondent you're all over the state, and as a Texas Monthly correspondent, which I was for 10 years, you're all over the state, and in certain pockets people would tell you Comanche stories. A woman might tell me that her great-grandparents were both killed by Comanches.…This happened to me a lot.

There was another reason. There wasn't anything [published] nationally since Fehrenbach. There were other biographies, little things about the Parker clan, small print runs, probably regional, probably mostly bought here. I said [to myself], Look, the average idiot in New York City has probably never heard of these guys, never heard of Cynthia Ann Parker. People in Texas might have, but Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, California and Florida? No, nothing. And not only that, I thought I could sell a book to editors who also knew nothing about this subject.

Has the perception of Quanah Parker changed since Zoe Tilghman's 1938 biography or the 1990s biographies by Bill Neeley or William Hagan?
I don't think so. I don't really claim to be breaking new ground on Quanah. It comes down to your take on it. When you deal with this kind of history, the number of sources is limited in many, many ways. I was reading a biography of Winston Churchill recently, and you realize that this guy wrote 20 notes to his wife every day. Almost moment by moment of his life is chronicled. When you're writing about native Americans, it's sparse, so you take it where you can get it.

I did a lot of original research, particularly from interview projects done in the early 1930s, where I was reading and making up my own mind, but I don't think I concluded anything differently from what Hagan did.

But Hagan focused primarily on Quanah's reservation years. Your focus is earlier.
Nobody's taken a whack at this. It's an attempt to do the whole enchilada. Basically, it's the rise and fall of the Comanche nation, the epic sweep with Parker-Parker-Parker—and then they merge with Quanah. It's partly that I had Fehrenbach's ambition. but I did it in a completely different way than Fehrenbach did. He devotes no time to the Parkers at all.

It's a big epic sweep, part of it which I got from Richardson and Webb. I couldn't let go of it. I didn't want to let go because it was too cool. I wanted a big, sweeping story plus a little more intimate. I guess that's what distinguished the book.

In The New York Times review, the writer basically said there are too many books about Custer and not enough about Quanah, and that more people should know about Quanah Parker.
I agree. I think he's one of the greatest Americans I've ever heard of. He is such a remarkable man, and he does what so many great Americans have done in the past, which is he reinvents himself. He puts the past behind him. Who knows how many people he killed and in what ways he killed them? As I point out in the book, we know where the Kwahadis were raiding in the 1860s and early 1870s, and we know what those raids involved. Now, we don't know what he did personally, but everybody was doing them, and maybe he was doing them, and they were extremely violent, extremely brutal raids, even by Comanche standards. So OK, this guy's this brutal warrior, and he leaves it all behind and reinvents himself in this remarkable way.

There's a striking line in the book: "There was never anything subtle about Quanah, either in war or peace." How so?
He was just out there. At some point he decides these schools are all being done for white people, and Indians aren't welcome, and he goes, "I'm gonna start a school district, and I'm gonna be president, and I'm gonna donate the land for it, and I'm gonna get it." It's so interesting that this guy who is the school board guy also recruited the [Indian] troops for [the 1874 Battle of] Adobe Walls. He was an aggressive personality but, from all accounts that I read, a nice aggressive personality. You wanted to do it for Quanah. You liked him.

The subtitle of your book calls the Comanches "the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History." What about the Lakotas?
I view power as influence and the ability to change history. There's really no significant contact of any time, militarily, before 1854 with the northern Sioux. They certainly did have their affect on history in those latter years, but the fact that the Comanches were the contact point for all these empires—Mexican, Spanish, French, Texan and American—nobody's anywhere near them in that regard. It's an accident of history that they happened to be sitting where all of these empires kept pushing, so that's my argument. I'm looking in terms [of the Comanche Nation] almost as a European state in the 17th and 18th centuries.

What was Quanah's relationship with Colonel Ranald Mackenzie?
A historian would like to have seen into that room. Mackenzie gave [Quanah] etiquette lessons, spent time with him, tried to find [Quanah's] family, gave him jobs to do. There was clearly this relationship. Unfortunately, because of the nature of Mackenzie, he never said anything. Mackenzie would have been famous if he had only written the kinds of reports Custer did. Mackenzie's reports were, "Went into field…killed Indians…end of report." Of course, from Quanah you get anecdotal accounts, but hardly anything. It's just frustrating.

How did Cynthia Ann Parker's recapture by Texans affect Quanah, her son?
All we know is he loved her, and he missed her terribly, and that he tried to find her for many years. I think it's touching. He was so fond of her, and she was dead by the time of Blanco Canyon [an 1871 Comanche-Army fight], but the fact that he kept that picture in his house, and the fact that he went to the trouble to get her body moved, got the U.S. government to pay for it—which is totally Quanah—that goes to this other side of Comanches. Everybody says they were just thugs and killers. They were tender.

A Comanche friend of mine says his people fought so hard because they loved their families. But he adds, "We can be overly argumentative."
I just read this history of World War II and what the Japanese did, and it was absolutely no worse than what the Comanches did. What the Japanese did was the same as what the Comanches did. So was what the Vikings did. The problem was it was the collision of the premodern with the modern. The Sioux did pretty much the same thing. I tried to make that point in the book. You can't single them out. Not only that, but we have very recent historical examples of civilized nations—not to mention uncivilized nations—doing all of these things.

What led to the downfall of the Comanches and other Plains Indian tribes in the 19th century?
Ultimately you had the Civil War. No one had seen that type of military force unleashed. So at some point after that the die is cast, and the guys running the show are these grim warriors who beat the South, [Ulysses S.] Grant, [William] Sherman, [Philip] Sheridan, and they are really grim warriors.

So you had disease, and the sheer U.S. military capabilities and the death of the buffalo. But to me, once the last buffalo is shot, there's no such thing as a Plains Indian. There can't be. What are they supposed to do? They are then forced to trade cattle for white man's goods. That's all they can do, and increasingly it was going to be harder for them to steal cattle. It's the end of the Plains warriors.

You didn't really need all the military capability that Grant, Sherman and Sheridan brought to bear, although that's why I opened the book with Blanco Canyon. I thought that's the significant moment where those guys go, "OK, enough's enough. We're sick of this crap. We're taking our best soldiers from the Civil War and we're going to get them." At that point, once those three guys are focused, you don't have much time.

Why did Quanah forever deny that the Texas Rangers who recaptured his mother also killed his father?
I think it was clear. It was incredibly embarrassing. [Quanah's father, Peta Nocona, is] in camp with women, and he gets shot down by a bunch of ragtag Rangers? It's really disgraceful. Not only that, but he loses an enormous amount of meats, skins.

How effective was Quanah as a leader during the reservation days?
Very effective. And the stuff he fought for, I believe, was the right stuff. Quanah had to fight for everything he got. He was political all the way. Quanah has really good at that. And fundamentally, I think the things he did were good and right.

What's next for you?
One of the great revelations was Jack Hays, and one of the revelations was that Texans haven't heard of this guy anymore. He becomes one of the great heroes of the Mexican War, but before that the material is so thin. It's tough. I would love to figure out how to do Jack Hays as a full-length biography.


10 Responses to “Interview With Author S.C. Gwynne”


  1. 1
    Lyndsay says:

    Hi guys, we've got reviews on Empire of the Summer Moon here http://artswrap.co.uk/event/reviews-tickets-empire-summer-moon-quanah-parker-and-rise-and-fall-comanches-most-powerful-ind
    but what we would really love is YOUR opinions!

    Whether you are an historian, an history buff or a book reader, we want to hear how great you think this book is – or if you think the opposite, we want to hear that too. Leave a comment, review, rating or even start a discussion on Artswrap!

    Thanks all!

  2. 2
    Kathleen Wildwood says:

    I live in Parker County and have heard about Cynthia Ann Parker all of my life. I really appreciate the thorough research and the sensitivity of writing this amazing story. Quanah was truly an amazing man! Thank you for writing this book!

  3. 3
    Kekoa Gabriel says:

    I'm really hopeful that S.C. Gwynne does work on Jack Hays-I've never really had a handle on the Texas Rangers, but do so after reading Empire of the Summer Moon, or at least a better one. I've been a western history afficionado all my life, but really don't know that much about the Comanches. My dad grew up in Groesbeck which is near Fort Parker so he was steeped in the legends of the Cynthia Ann Parker, the raid, Quanah Parker and so forth. This book has been a revelation to me.

  4. 4
    Sonja says:

    I am not from the US but always interested in history and the exploits of the discoverers, their exposure and humanity or lack thereof.
    I bought this book to have a holiday read, being drawn by the title that implies that I might learn about indigenous people of the US.
    What surprise, what a find, a book that I could not put down even at 1am in the morning. Not just the story, which should be treasured as a piece of US history, but the style of writing, the insights and pace is a delight. Looking forward to the next book of this fabulous writer.

  5. 5
    Edward Howell says:

    After reading T.R. Fehrenbach's Comanches: The History of a People, I was wanting more about the Comanches. Empire of the Summer Moon filled this need. My great, great, grandparents were killed by the Comanches in 1864 near Cherry Springs, Texas. My great grandmother was orphaned, as well as her other brothers and sisters as a result. I often wonder how my life would have been different if this had not happen.

    Empire of the Summer Moon is a great read and I hope S.C. Gwynne will write about John Coffee "Jack" Hays as well.

  6. 6
    Ken Adams says:

    As an Eastern Virginia Indian I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. The main question I have is who determines which people are civilized or not. Gwynne refers to the Comanche as uncivilized. Why? Does modern technology and medicine make people more civilized. The wars of the 20th century killed 100 million people, many burned alive. In light of that, I disagree with the civilized or not civilized. However, this is an amazing and great book and difficult to stop reading. Ken

  7. 7
    Jerry E. says:

    Great book. The genius of the work is the humanization of the characters. Too often we seek to stereotype the participants into good guys and bad guys. The author reminds us that history is filled with people much like ourselves. These people respond to the world in ways we would given their circumstances. The story doesn't pick sides, instead humanizes the actions of its participants in ways a modern audience can appreciate.

  8. 8
    jay s says:

    It is so good to read a true history of a people who more often than not are portrayed as little angels until the white man arrives. I often wonder if the natives got the upper hand in these wars if they would have allowed us the reservation way out or more likely the final solution. The fact that Mr. Gwynne tells it like it was is good enough for me. Im tired of being white and being blamed for everything on the planet. As far as I'm concerned we were all caught up in it, whether white, black or galvanized.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    Ron W says:

    I confess I haven't read the entire book and these comments are based on the initial historical chapters. I would also like to state that I am a Ph.D. Anthropologist (now emeritus), who specialized in American Indian ethnology. My concern is that this book takes an overly simplified and popularized journalistic approach to Comanche history. There is a tendency to reduce the Comanche story to a pseudo-boxing match between champions, or in his words between \competing empires.\ The Comanches are described as tougher than all other tribes in American history, they are short, dark, barrel chested horse-whisperers with a super-human skill to shoot bow and arrow. All of this popularized rhetoric reminds me of descriptions of the Huns when they invaded Europe. Gwynne makes several blunders in his statements about the prehistory of the Plains. Archeology and ethnohistory shows that each tribe came from different ecological regions and they seasonally had hunted buffalo on the fringes of the Plains using horse travois. The adoption of the horse enabled them to spend more time hunting when the vast herds moved north during the summer months. All the Plains tribes became highly adept horsemen — the Blackfeet, in northern Montana, prided themselves on their horse herds and their riding skills; the Sioux confederation has long been known to be outstanding mounted warriors; even tribes like the Nez Perce on the northwestern fringe of the Plains were outstanding horsemen and horse breeders. As social scientists have long known, you don't explain the twists and turns of history by appealing to one ethnic group as being \tougher\ than the others — you look at the historical and ecological circumstances that gave one group leverage and advantage at a particular point. In the case of the Comanches, they were middle-men in the early years between the Spanish and the French. They were able to acquire many firearms as well as much larger horse herds than tribes to the north. The Comanches at various times formed alliances with the Spanish against the Apaches. Each tribe was highly adapted to the regions in which they lived. The Apache, for example, were not \less tough\ than the Comanche; rather, the Apache focused on the mountainous regions of the continental divide, all the way down to southern New Mexico and east Arizona. The Apache regarded the Spaniards and the Mexicans as their primary resource, and not the buffalo. Almost all the comments that Gynne makes about the super-human warrior skills of the Comanche have also been made by other authors about the warrior skills of the Apache, the Kiowa, the Cheyenne, the Sioux, and so on. Gwynne's book would have been greatly improved if he had used more complex historical and ecological perspectives, rather than silly ethnocentric rhetoric about \the clash of empires.\



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by Weider History, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2014 Weider History. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy