Customer Reviews

Touched by Fire: The Life, Death, and Mythic Afterlife of George Armstrong Custer

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Sometimes overlooked in this book are Louise Barnett's fascinating sidebars on women on the frontier. She could make another book out of her research in this area.

I just re-read this biography, after several years, and I was reminded again what a great book it is. Barnett's Custer is not Custer-the-awful or Custer-the-hero -- but Custer-the-human. She is solid on her sources, and tells a story about Custer that develops his relationship with his wife in ways that I find fascinating. You get a sense from this about a person who was three-dimensional. Her description of the battles are solid, though if you want more detail, you will need to find that in other books. If you want to learn about the person behind the fighting, though, this is the book for you.

I agree with Bob Reece on that score. At the time _Touched By Fire_ was published, we also saw publication of another Custer biography by Jeffery Wert. Barnett's bio was by far and away the better of the two. Custer comes to life for modern readers in a way few authors have made him come alive. My personal favorite Custer "bio" is still Evan Connell's _Son of the Morning Star_, but Barnett's work is also one that I refer to regularly.

Bob Reece spends a lot of his review addressing the issues raised by "a reader from San Francisco" covering the "experiment" that was illustrated in the A&E (and possibly the History Channel as well) documentary in "The New Explorers" series. The New Explorers documentary was seriously marred, I think, in swallowing hook, line, and sinker author Robert Nightengale's almost paranoiac ravings against Benteen and Reno. Any reader interested can refer to Nightengale's _Little Big Horn_ for details there. What I want to note about the "experiment" mentioned is an interesting fact, namely that it appears that those in the Reno-Benteen contingent who claimed to hear firing in the distance were also those who were younger officers who were not Civil War veterans. It is very probable that Reno and Benteen simply did not hear any firing in the distance owing to partial hearing loss induced by their Civil War service.

But that's irrelevant to Barnett's biography. Don't ignore Connell's _Son of the Morning Star_ in your Custer researches, but for an excellent introduction to the life of one of the most colorful Army officers in U.S. History, you can't beat _Touched by Fire_.

I adamantly disagree with the reviewer, below, from San Francisco. This is one of the best biographies of Custer's life with his wife, Libbie. Their relationship comes to life in Barnett's book.

The reviewer mentions the "New Explorers" program on the History Channel and its reference to Reno and Benteen not coming to Custer's aid when they knew he was under attack was a sham to historical research. Frankly, I was embarrassed for the History Channel when I viewed this program. It has always been understood by historians of the Battle of the Little Bighorn that the men under Reno and Benteen's command heard firing to the north coming from the Custer Battalion. Reno had just got whipped soundly by the Sioux and Cheyenne warriors in the river valley forcing him to retreat to the high bluffs overlooking the river (now known as the Reno/Benteen defense site); it was from this position that they heard firing to the north. Reno had lost over 30 men during the valley fight and retreat. His men were demoralized and there were many men wounded. Custer was five miles to the north beyond the hills; it might as well been a 100 miles. The "New Explorers" premise is that it's some great mystery whether the soldiers' heard gun firing or not. So, they conduct a makeshift "experiment" with a tape recorder on the Reno/Benteen defense site. Over the hills, to the north, they have a few guys waiting to fire some carbines. So, the guys with the tape recorder are talking through walkie-talkies to the men who are waiting to fire their carbines and they begin to countdown to zero. At zero, the men fire their carbines and it's recorded on the tape. Wow! The "researchers" got all excited and said this was proof that Reno heard the firing and, because, he didn't come to Custer's aid, Custer met his death. What a joke! This "experiment" was conducted on a quiet afternoon. The "researchers" didn't take into consideration that the Reno/Benteen site, during the battle, would not have been so quiet. Most importantly, their premise is nothing new. It's their conclusions that are subjective and childish.

Barnett doesn't stoop to such stupidity like these "researchers." She portrays the life of Custer and Libbie as one of genuine caring. After Custer's death, Libbie resolves to spend the rest of her life protecting her husband's reputation. Libbie was ahead of her time; she was a strong, independent woman who faced all kinds of hardships with courage and strength.

And, Custer? He was a man like some people today. He was ambitious and wanted to move forward with his career, yet he didn't let his ambitions affect his decisions on the battlefield.

Once you start reading TOUCHED BY FIRE, you will find it hard to put down. It is a moving story.

If you are looking for an in depth tactical analysis of the battle of the Little Bighorn or even an in depth look at Custer's military career this is not your book. This book concentrates on the more personal side of the life of George and Libbie Custer. I found it to be engaging and worthwhile especially the latter parts of the book dealing with Libbie's life and work as a widow attempting to honor her husband's memory.

First of all, a perspective reader should understand what type of book this is. It's not a battle book. It's a biography of a marriage and a legend. And how that legend came about and was and is sustained. I find little to find fault with in this book. The writer is careful and thorough for the type of book this is. She is correct in pointing out the problems with the Texas "campaign". That situation hasn't received enough ink as she points out. She is careful with the possible unfaithfulness of Custer. She lays out the facts as known and lets the readers make up their mind.
She is correct about the racist attitude of the frontier military of that era. Nothing new there. Even now it is difficult for some white Americans to accept the fact that Custer and his companies just plain got whipped by a supposed inferior people. It was brought on for the most part by Custer alone. Again, that is difficult for some people to accept. Tired horses and jamming guns and Reno and Benteen not riding to the sound of shots had little to do with anything. It was simply bad choices in a situation that had no tolerance for bad choices! If it wasn't Custer commanding, this incident would be merely a molehill in the history of the Indian Wars rather than the mountain that it has become. I don't believe that this is the right book for someone who has never read Custer to begin with. But other than that it's a good read!

Touched by Fire offers a fresh look at "the Custer myth," and it's worth reading if you want to supplement the strictly historical accounts of Nathanel Philbrick and James Donovan. Barnett only spends about 100 pages on the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The rest is a compact biography of Custer, with a focus on the way his marriage impacted his life and legacy. Folks who are complaining about the material on Libbie should reexamine the title. This is not a biography of Custer, it's an examination of a popular myth, and Custer's wife was the wind that stoked that fire. Barnett does an excellent job of presenting the intellectual environment of the Custer era, weaving together information from civilian and military sources, including the journals of army wives.

The book has two flaws that can't be ignored. First, the history of the battle is inaccurate in ways that taint the credibility of the rest of the book. For example, Barnett claims that the common descriptions of the poor condition of the horses are not supported by facts. This is patently not so. The horses were overworked, underfed, and had gone without water. The travel logs confirm the overwork. The ration records support the food issue (the horses were getting 2 pounds of feed a day instead of the required 12). And journal reports (and common sense of anyone who has seen SE Montana in June) confirm the lack of water. It's a small point, but only one of many little weakness. Both Donovan and Philbrick, writing more recently than Barnett, confirm the weakness of the horses, a crucial problem for a cavalry unit.

The second flaw is one I'm sympathetic with, but I think her position is overstated. She insists that the obsession with Custer and what happened at the Little Big Horn is simply a reflection of white racism. There is a large element of truth in this. As witness, consider the reviews of her book which mention, offhand, that because only Indians survived, we can't know what happened. If only whites had survived, could we know what happened? Nonetheless, I don't think this is the only explanation, as Barnett insists. A big piece of the curiosity is wondering how Custer could have been so stupid. We understand Fetterman's stupidity (a similar, smaller "massacre" that happened a few years earlier); Fetterman was an arrogant racist -- like most of his fellow soldiers of the time -- but he was also completely ignorant of Indian fighting. Custer was supposedly the greatest Indian fighter in the army.

What we learn when we study the period carefully is that Custer was not "the greatest Indian fighter in the army," he was just a guy with a successful (and hardly difficult) battle behind him. The "greatest" stuff was hype, promoted in his lifetime by his own publicity seeking and after by his wife's hero worship. Ranald MacKenzie had more successes and better trained troops. George Crook was more successful, as was Nelson Miles. What Barnett contributes is an excellent analysis of why the "boy General" of the Civil War, beloved of his troops and glittering with honors, was hated by his men ten years later and incapable of adapting to the police action of the Indian Wars. A great deal of our fascination with the battle hinges on the intriguing discrepancy between reality and publicity.

Don't read Touch by Fire to study the battle. Barnett gives it less than a hundred pages, and the analysis is flawed enough to be misleading. For a focus on the battle, I recommend Nathanel Philbrick's The Last Stand. But if you want to know who Custer was, who we thought he was, and why we thought so, Touched by Fire is for you.

Even though the book is 400 pages, there is very little of it dealing with Custer's life. The author will mention substantiating evidence, but then never provide it. For example, she refers to archaeology work done at Little Bighorn but never says what it is. The book focuses way too much on Custer's wife...for a biography of him. There are 100 pages dealing with her widowhood. After reading the book, I don't know any more about Custer than I did before reading it. I had expected some sort of biography since the title reads "the life & death" & then meaning of the myth from that, but the book didn't deliver. I didn't get anything from the book to change my preconceptions of him from history class. The writer puts forth a victim defense...nothing was his fault, the army failed him, etc. Bottom line is 270+ men died at Little Bighorn.

Even though the book is 400 pages, there is very little of it dealing with Custer's life. The author will mention substantiating evidence, but then never provide it. For example, she refers to archaeology work done at Little Bighorn but never says what it is. The book focuses way too much on Custer's wife...for a biography of him. There are 100 pages dealing with her widowhood. After reading the book, I don't know any more about Custer than I did before reading it. I had expected some sort of biography since the title reads "the life & death" & then meaning of the myth from that, but the book didn't deliver.

A funny book, really.
Louise K. Barnett ruthlessly devides all historians into Custer-phobes and Custer-philes, modestly putting herself aside and letting the reader decide what label the author deserves. There is no secret - it seems like she is a Custer-maniac. She tries to make us think that Custer was a gallant and dashing hero and an oustanding miltary commander during his lifetime and became even more so in american minds in his "mythic" afterlife. The book itself becomes a part of that artificial and primitive mythology.
But it is very hard to persuade a modern educated person to call a hero a cavalry colonel who with a force of 600 soldiers attacks a sleeping village of about fifty tents killing dozens of women and children and then using the surviving non-combatants as a live shield (Washita massacre). And it is even harder to make us think of Custer as an oustanding military commander when with a force of the same 600 troopers of 7th Cavalry he tried to play the same genocidal trick and attack a village of about 2000(!) tents. We know the result of this "brave" attempt: at Little Bighorn his whole command of 3 companies was completely annihilated within 20 minutes and the remaining companies under major Reno and captain Benteen survived the battle with heavy casualties only because the Indians had little time to finish them. But according to Mrs.Barnett Custer was a hero and Benteen was a bastard because one day the latter offended a group of women who were paying a social call. Mrs. Barnett seems to enjoy the details just like she was one of those women: "Without ceremony he went outside and urinated, at some length, against the tent, as could be clearly heard within it." Some more details about old soldier's urinating peculiarities follow on page 322.
Well, if you want to know some important facts about American history - avoid this book, you will lose your time. But if you like myths and dubious stories sprinckled with some awkward(if not ridiculous) psycho-analysis- this book is for you.