"Rescind Wounded Knee Medals?" Topic

Three House members are calling for Congress to posthumously rescind Medals of Honor awarded to 20 U.S. soldiers who participated in the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre, where an estimated 250 Native Americans -- mostly women and children -- were killed…

link

More retroactive virtue signalling. Not a good day, but the proposal accomplishes nothing

Yesterday wouldn't be soon enough.

I'm sure it's a worthwhile step in reconciling with a despicable past. It can't undo the act, the policy or the thinking behind what was done of course. Putting aside the justifiable emotional responses if I may … is it possible for acts of courage, honour and valour to be undertaken and rewarded by soldiers albeit that their cause is rotten? AND does a criminal act undo an heroic act?

Normally I'm against going back in history to apologise for things your ancestors did, but this seems like an obvious step that should have taken years ago.

Form a committee of living Medal of Honor recipients to review each case and make the decision.

But where does it end?

US Government treatment of Native Americans was horrible, granted. But was it more horrible than slavery?

Why do we STILL have a Presidents Birthday holiday when we ALL know that was originally Washington's Birthday … and Lincoln's Birtday (separate days which in my lifetime were joined up into a single day). Washington was a slaveholder. And what about Lincoln? He ONLY abolished slavery in slave states as a way to shorten the war. It was not his deepest desire to free slaves.

So I think we should tear down both the Washington and Lincoln memorials in Washington DC.

In fact, why name our capitol for a slave holder? Washington DC should be renamed something else.

And why are Washington and Lincoln both on our currency?

Looking at history through modern eyes will often end up with revisionist slants. Which is fine. LEARN from the mistakes of the past. But rewriting them?

Where does it end?

dBerczerk touched on it, as there is a precedent for such an action. In 1916 the Army formed a Medal of Honor Review Committee to review whether the MoH was appropriately awarded to every recipient up to that point. As documents can be reviewed that allow medals to be upgraded, they can be reviewed to see if medals were issued inappropriately/in error in the first place.

I'm not convinced this is rewriting history as such. None are pretending that something which occurred didn't. It might be more accurately seen as a cessation of recognised rewards from hereon – a point in time and forward from there. They will always have had the honour bestowed at the time and from that point up until the withdrawal.
Across the world there are a lot of statues and monuments to people who were unethical and criminal by any current measure. This is largely because they and their mates were in power and commissioned the works as mutual back-slapping exercises … it continues to this day but there's a lot more scrutiny in some countries.

So did the 1916 committee review the medals awarded in 1890? IF yes, then nothing more to do, unless we're going to do this every 100 years.

Not sure its really worth it.

Don't be too hasty to condemn. Yes, women and children were killed, but it was in the midst of a chaotic battle. Bullets were flying from both sides, as indicated by the numerous soldier casualties. Men were awarded medals for risking their lives and doing their duty above and beyond what was expected. Many awards were for aiding or rescuing the wounded. It may have been a conflict that could have been avoided, but don't blame the individual solders. This was not like the Sand Creek massacre.

I can find only 18 medals awarded

William G. Austin Army Sergeant Company E, 7th U.S. Cavalry While the Indians were concealed in a ravine, assisted men on the skirmish line, directing their fire, etc., and using every effort to dislodge the enemy.
John E. Clancy Army Musician Company E, 1st US Artillery Twice voluntarily rescued wounded comrades under fire of the enemy.
Mosheim Feaster Army Private Company E, 7th U.S. Cavalry Extraordinary gallantry.
Ernest A. Garlington Army First Lieutenant 7th U.S. Cavalry Distinguished gallantry.
John C. Gresham Army First Lieutenant 7th US Cavalry Voluntarily led a party into a ravine to dislodge Sioux Indians concealed therein. He was wounded during this action.
Mathew H. Hamilton Army Private Company G, 7th U.S. Cavalry Bravery in action

Joshija B. Hartzog Army Private Company E, 1st US Artillery Went to the rescue of the commanding officer who had fallen severely wounded, picked him up, and carried him out of range of the hostile guns.
Harry L. Hawthorne Army Second Lieutenant 2nd U.S. Artillery Distinguished conduct in battle with hostile Indians .

Marvin C. Hillock Army Private Company B, 7th US Cavalry Distinguished bravery.
George Hobday Army Private Company A, 7th US Cavalry Conspicuous and gallant conduct in battle.

George Loyd Army Sergeant Company I, 7th US Cavalry Bravery, especially after having been severely wounded through the lung.
Albert W. McMillan Army Sergeant Company E, 7th US Cavalry While engaged with Indians concealed in a ravine, he assisted the men on the skirmish line, directed their fire, encouraged them by example, and used every effort to dislodge the enemy.

Thomas Sullivan Army Private Company E, 7th US Cavalry Conspicuous bravery in action against Indians concealed in a ravine.
Frederick E. Toy Army First Sergeant Company G, 7th US Cavalry Bravery.
Jacob Trautman Army First Sergeant Company I, 7th US Cavalry Killed a hostile Indian at close quarters, and, although entitled to retirement from service, remained to the close of the campaign.

James Ward Army Sergeant Company B, 7th US Cavalry Continued to fight after being severely wounded.
Paul H. Weinert Army Corporal Company E, 1st US Artillery Taking the place of his commanding officer who had fallen severely wounded, he gallantly served his piece, after each flre advancing it to a better position.
Hermann Ziegner Army Private Company E, 7th US Cavalry Conspicuous bravery
—

…this seems like an obvious step that should have taken years ago.

Action was previously blocked by the late Senator McCain, according to the article. Didn't explain his reasoning.

It would remove a stain on those who were recognised with such an honorable medal. Unless of course you feel that there is honor in caving in the heads of children with a rifle butt, I'd disagree but its your right to hold such opinions.

I understand for a range of reasons we have a lot of investment in protecting soldiery from ethical scrutiny. Whilst there will be members of this forum who countenance any behaviour under the total war umbrella it's a logical flaw to think that soldiers are not responsible for the war crimes they perpetrate. Recently we have a good example in the US of how police officers are expected to account for their actions under the most rigorous public enquiry there is – and rightly so. A man with a gun is a dangerous creature – are we not responsible for how we conduct ourselves? Getting back to the medal thing, I tend to look at the company I keep before ascribing a value to any association – be it a club, fraternity, who I work with or an award. I'm also mindful that awards are sometimes politically and cynically motivated initiatives to distract attention from more sinister events. Rorke's Drift (a sacred cow I realise) saw a swag of VCs distributed to concentrate the public mind away from the folly and disaster at Isandlwana. Revisiting the validity of an awards mechanism that is still in effect doesn't seem pointless – proper review won't pre-empt a result.

So many awards in such a small conflict? I think only two from Somalia. If you're going to take away their metals, do you take away their pensions and the pensions of their spouses, their Family has to pay it back? Punish the leaders who caused the event, but not the individual soldiers who are just doing their duty.

Just remember this, the Indians that were gathering at wounded knee were there to preform the Spirit Dance a ceremony that was suppose to wipe out all whites and bring back the buffalo. Not exactly a peaceful gathering.

Which was of course completely unprovoked.

Seems to me more PC … Yes, we all know sadly women & children get killed in war. No matter how much you try to stop it. The best you can do is limit it. As noted in this battle like in many/most, with bullets, etc., flying everywhere some no-combatants could/will be killed.

Now like any war crime, if anyone just went up and purposely shot, beat to death, etc., non-combatants. That is another situation.

US Government treatment of Native Americans was horrible, granted. But was it more horrible than slavery?

True. But IMO both of those situations were beyond horrible. Heinous, cruel, etc., etc., but it did happen most unfortunately. We must not forget that.

However, at this point in time, I think it is much to late to change the status of the award of these metals. Anyone who was there, etc., are long dead. Sounds a little like Orwell's 1984 rewriting of history, etc.,. Again … IMO, more of the current PC "movement", SJWs in action, etc.

How far back should we go in applying our modern sensibilities, values, and beliefs to the past actions of people we can't even begin to understand? Generally, people will want to mine history for incidents that suit their modern beliefs whatever they may be.

Cutting off the head to cure the headache. Treat the symptom but the disease rolls merrily along. How is rescinding past medals going to improve future conditions on a reservation?

Agree with both of you.

Again, just more of the current PC, SJW , IMO …

Hmmm. I have read several articles and have not seen anyone touch upon whether or not lawmakers have a LEGAL RIGHT to rescind the medals.

And to anyone who wants to respond, PLEASE back it up with facts and not opinions. Do not make assumptions about Congress making the award so, of course, they can take it back just because they want to (not because of the behavior of the soldier or new facts coming to light to challenge the actions the soldier performed to warrant the award). I'm interested in precedent and law.

As the President is in command of the military, I would venture to risk that its his call. Congress can pass the bill, it'll probably get vetoed, some Senator will then be labelled as "soft on the military, or anti-veteran"…blah, blah, blah…

If that pendulum starts swinging all veterans awards might come under scrutiny, and then where does it stop?