|
Varnum
Apr 25, 2013 6:28:07 GMT -6
Post by montrose on Apr 25, 2013 6:28:07 GMT -6
Varnum's performance at LBH has had me wondering.
His performance as Chief of Scouts was poor. He failed at the basic officer function of leadership. He failed to control the actions of his subordinates, and ended up wandering the prairie with his orderly, like a lost puppy.
LTC Custer seems to have lost confidence in him. In Ash Creek he detailed LT Hare to lead the scouts. Hare was posted on the right, the area closest to the enemy. Varnum was sent to the left, an area highly unlikely to contain enemy.
Note that after LBH, Varnum was moved away from troops to a staff position that kept him away from troops.
This is just speculation from a former green tabber. Varnum just makes my spider senses tingle.
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 25, 2013 11:59:10 GMT -6
Post by zekesgirl on Apr 25, 2013 11:59:10 GMT -6
Varnum "missed" a trail along the Rosebud and had to double back and re-check it. Custer asked him if he needed help and Varnum said 'No'. Hare was detailed anyway.
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 26, 2013 7:43:11 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Apr 26, 2013 7:43:11 GMT -6
I believe there is both merit and substance to what Montrose says here.
There was a failure of leadership on the part of Varnum. Perhaps he did lose Custer's confidence in him, but that may very well be an uncertain reading of the tea leaves.
In the days before written officer evaluations, it is rather hard to pin down a man's strengths and weaknesses, as viewed by others. I don't think that being assigned as regimental quartermaster in the immediate aftermath of LBH is a "tell All" tell. After all Stuart was the quartermaster of the Mounted Rifles, and good or bad as many of his decisions were I don't think anyone ever questioned his combat leadership abilities.
Varnum only held one command, that of Company B, 7th Cavalry. He held it for some good time, and during this tenure of command was awarded the Medal of Honor. To me the biggest tell on Varnum is that he never after held command, and while promoted to LTC while on active duty, and COL later while inactive, his assignments were ordinary and ones that largely kept him away from troops.
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 26, 2013 10:52:50 GMT -6
Post by Gatewood on Apr 26, 2013 10:52:50 GMT -6
Of course any misgivings that Custer may have developed about Varnum died with him (Custer), so anything that weighed negatively upon his career would have had to come from elsewhere. I don't recall ever seeing anything that indicated that he may not have been well regarded by others, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't. On the other hand, rather than having problems in troop command, he may have just been a good staff officer and found roles that suited him there.
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 26, 2013 11:11:36 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Apr 26, 2013 11:11:36 GMT -6
This last is a very distinct possibility. There are very few great captains, and a whole lot of absolutely outstanding staff officers who are really not fit by temperament for command roles.
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 26, 2013 13:12:04 GMT -6
Post by fred on Apr 26, 2013 13:12:04 GMT -6
I am not sure I agree here.
I have read on a couple of occasions (please don't ask me where!) that Custer thought very highly of Varnum and that was why he made him Chief of Scouts. Other than the screw-up at Lame Deep, I see no other reason to criticize him. And in reality, the diverging trail into the Lame Deer tributary swung right back into the main trail.
I would think Varnum was less experienced than say Ed Godfrey, and Godfrey admitted they completely misread the signs. Reading the signs wasn't Varnum's job; that was the job of Boyer and the Indian scouts. Varnum's job was to make sure the scouts did theirs. Or am I wrong?
Also, let's not forget we had scouts from three different tribes, each with their own interpreter, and each with their own venue of expertise. Let us also not forget the awful interpretation Bloody Knife attached to prehistoric rock scratchings in the Rosebud Valley. Controlling this mob was a heck of a job and I believe Custer attached Hare to the job only because of the size of the growing Rosebud trail and anyone's inability to control men over such a wide range.
As for the rest of Varnum's career....
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 26, 2013 13:35:14 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Apr 26, 2013 13:35:14 GMT -6
Fred: I think that is why I am on the fence about him. I think there was a failure in leadership in the scouts. I don't know though if anyone could have done it better. What makes me wonder though, is that I picture Custer as one that you either tell him what he wants to hear, or don't tell him anything at all. That can only lead to failure up and down the line, with all parties concerned failing in their responsibilities. I don't believe anyone associated with LBH came out with a whole skin in the aftermath. I would suspect that some of them were treated unfairly, but I just don't know who they would all be specifically, or why in any detail worthy of completely condemning a man for.
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 27, 2013 6:35:52 GMT -6
Post by Gatewood on Apr 27, 2013 6:35:52 GMT -6
Varnum was also, by his account, utterly exhausted, having spent far more time in the saddle and covered much more territory with his scouts than the rest of the force. Any errors that he may have made could just be attributable to that. I've also noticed that, in this campaign and others, the position of chief of scouts seemed to have generally been relegated to one of the most junior officers, possibly indicating that it was not considered to be something worthy of a more senior officer (by senior I mean a more senior 2nd Lt or a 1st Lt).
|
|
|
Varnum
Apr 27, 2013 6:53:16 GMT -6
Post by fred on Apr 27, 2013 6:53:16 GMT -6
There were eight second lieutenants in the Seventh Cavalry at the time of the battle (not counting Crittenden). Varnum's DOR placed him third in a tie with his USMA classmates, Harrington and Wallace. The three of them had a DOR of June 14, 1872, and out-ranked only Hare (6th, June 17, 1874; Sturgis, 7th, June 16, 1875; and Reily, 8th, October 15, 1875).
Notice that both Wallace and Hare wound up with ED. Again, from what I have been able to find out, Varnum, Harrington, Wallace, and Hare were all highly thought of by Custer, and Benteen thought Wallace, Varnum, and Hare deserved brevets for their actions at the LBH.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|