|
MOH
Aug 8, 2006 10:01:51 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on Aug 8, 2006 10:01:51 GMT -6
Another slack-jawed civilian question, really.
In another thread, Scout's remarked on the haphazard way the MOH was awarded, or not, to the water-carriers.
Does anyone know how the process worked? Clearly the men had to be recommended by an officer; but who then decided whether to accept or reject the recommendation? And on what basis? Did good character come into it, for example, or was it entirely random?
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 8, 2006 10:40:52 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 8, 2006 10:40:52 GMT -6
The Medal Of Honor was first awarded to federal train thieves during the CW, was granted to TWC for two events of overpowering unimportance, and - while not a joke - was nowhere NEAR the honor it is today. That Goldin got one is nauseating enough, and frankly nothing occured at LBH worthy of it by today's standards. The water carriers got them, unless shot like Madden. Nice, eh? Whether random or deliberate, it's an open question why they were awarded at all except to buy off the annoyed lower ranks for a fiasco not of their doing.
Please don't think of it as equivilant to the Victoria Cross or the like. We had very few baubles to hand out, hence the foolish brevet ranks and, possibly, the bitterness of truly admirable officers for lack of respect or honor at all. That list might arguably start with Grant, who thought a Blenheim in his future - not unreasonably, perhaps.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 8, 2006 11:13:25 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on Aug 8, 2006 11:13:25 GMT -6
Well, he got a White House ...
I thought the MOH was instituted by George Washington, not in the CW? But maybe I've misremembered. Agree, there wasn't a lot for officers; the MOH was for enlisted men only until some time later, was it not? With minimal chance of promotion, and only "a couple of miserable brevets I care nothing about" (as Keogh put it, no doubt voicing the feelings of many), it's almost amazing officers managed to be as motivated as they were. Sherman almost admits as much when he turns down the (alleged) petition to have Reno and Benteen succeed to the 7th's vacancies; he talks almost wistfully about Napoleon's strong belief in the value of making promotions in the field.
Buying off the lower ranks may well have been a part of it; plus it probably also helped along the story for the general public. A fiasco, but with "heroic acts of bravery by humble ordinary folks" to create an upside to the disaster ... Clever stuff. Spin and the mass media were born simultaneously, perhaps.
Incidentally, I didn't know until yesterday, from the Light Dragoons book, that originally the VC couldn't be awarded posthumously. (Nowadays, it's rare for a living man to get it.) So plenty of worthy people must have gone unrecognised in the British ranks, as well ...
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 8, 2006 11:37:18 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 8, 2006 11:37:18 GMT -6
Washington originated the Purple Heart, although not just for wounded in action, and it faded away and was revived later. MOH came with CW.
Nowadays, a soldier who has never served in combat can still appear in legally awarded ribbons, medals, and festoons to blind the eye. When they leave the service and join the Legion and such they revert to adorned baseball caps that make them look like the pit crew at NASCAR, rather than respected soldiers.
England had other medals and awards long before we did, is my point. We were indebted to von Steuben during the Revolution, who hated medals. The confederates had none, and considered it equivilant to be mentioned in Lee's reports, one reason he was liberal of praise and not deserved scorn to some. It's a real and serious issue how to deal with this in a civilian centered democracy.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 8, 2006 12:23:10 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on Aug 8, 2006 12:23:10 GMT -6
The Purple Heart must be what I was thinking of. Sorry.
We have the same thing, campaign medals. The holders are proud enough of them, and with reason, but they're not the same thing as medals awarded for individual deeds.
Yes, it's an odd situation. Perhaps we get away with it in England because the serious medals are conferred by a politically neutral -- the unkind would say irrelevant -- head of state? So they're entirely ceremonial in nature, and a reflection, in theory, of the whole nation's response to a soldier's deeds. (Though it has to be admitted that the "whole nation's response" is measured largely by the Daily Mail's line on things.) And we've been used to a standing army for maybe a couple of centuries, so it doesn't polarise people so much here; we tend neither to glorify it nor revile it, but just to take it for granted. Of course there's the periodic fever of support for "our boys", mostly worked up by the newspapers, but on the whole we don't think about it much; it's really only when major medals are awarded that much attention is paid. It must be much more difficult, as you say, to get the balance right in a society that instinctively feels the army is some kind of anomaly.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 8, 2006 22:14:06 GMT -6
Post by greenpheon on Aug 8, 2006 22:14:06 GMT -6
Elizabeth; We too have campaign medals as well as other personal decorations for valor and meritorious service. Initially, medals were viewed by the Republic as the trappings of monarchy and of course after the Revolution we had no use for such reminders of European dominance. There is a very handsome campaign medal for the Indian Wars and was adopted so late that few IW veterans survived long enough to wear it.
The modern MOH is equal in rank to the VC and awarded for "Conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty". I am impressed that you did not fall into the mistake many people make of calling it the CMH which is, of course, incorrect. It is however, awarded by the President in the name of Congress.
Washington initially established the purple heart as an award for valor. It fell out of use and resurrected as a medal to denote those wounded in combat. It holds a place of special distinction that says "valor" although not awarded specifically for valor. My kinsman, a sailor aboard the USS Franklin, a WWII aircraft carrier, was postumously awarded the Purple Heart for his mortal wounds and the Silver Star for his valorous acts deemed to be "Gallantry in action".
Greenpheon
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 0:18:00 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on Aug 9, 2006 0:18:00 GMT -6
Thanks for that, and congratulations on your relative. Here's a nice breakdown of the MOH's history: www.cmohs.org/medal/medal_history.htmFrom this, it seems that it was in 1917 that it gained its current status -- and that it was our old friend Nelson Miles who presided over the decision to strip hundreds of existing MOH winners of their medals. That must have gone down like a lead balloon, I should think, especially just as the USA was entering WW1? But maybe they knew what they were doing in choosing that moment to set a gold standard for conspicuous gallantry ... What also seems to emerge from this, if I've read it correctly, is that until the Miles purge it was perfectly OK for individuals to recommend themselves for the medal! Perhaps that makes the appalling Goldin's efforts to get it look slightly less disgusting than one thinks -- if only slightly; and it does help explain why Benteen didn't terminate the correspondence the moment he discovered what the man was up to. If self-promotion was the norm, he'd be fairly unsurprised by it. This site gives a bit of an explanation as to how the LBH medals were awarded. It says: 'Due to the large number of men submitted for Medals of Honor after the Battle of the Little Big Horn, a review board of officers was assembled to consider the requests. The number was pared down to 24 men, and a "new standard" was applied that "the conduct which deserves such recognition should not be the simple discharge of duty, but such acts beyond this that if omitted or refused to be done, should not justly subject the person to censure as a shortcoming or failure."' It'd be great if some record of the review board's deliberations exists -- or even just the full list of the original contenders. Nice to know who the officers were, as well. Presumably not 7th Cavalry, or we wouldn't get the complaints from Godfrey, Benteen et al that worthy candidates were omitted ...
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 8:18:56 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 9, 2006 8:18:56 GMT -6
It's perfectly acceptable to call it the Congressional Medal of Honor, since Congress does in legislation referencing it. No "mistake."
Douglas MacArthur recommended himself for the MOH, after thoughtful consideration with due regard for benefit and loss. A clue, surely. He was always in the shadow of his father, who won the medal by the standards of his time. Is there a medal given people for having relatives who did something impressive? Isn't bragging still considered tasteless? Guess not.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 9:23:44 GMT -6
Post by markland on Aug 9, 2006 9:23:44 GMT -6
DC wrote (in one of his less lucid moments), "Is there a medal given people for having relatives who did something impressive? Isn't bragging still considered tasteless?"
Actually, the person who wrote it was stating a fact, not bragging.
There are enough statements on this board that you can more worthily use hyperbole upon than this subject.
Billy
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 9:39:47 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 9, 2006 9:39:47 GMT -6
It may or may not be a fact, I neither know nor care, but it's still throwing a saddle across a tale not one's own for public approval. Bragging where I come from.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 11:25:04 GMT -6
Post by rch on Aug 9, 2006 11:25:04 GMT -6
I think it is unfair to characterize the 1916-7 CMH review as "Miles' purge." After subtracting the 864 men of the 27th Maine Inf who recievied the medal as an enducement to stay in the service and 29 men who received it for escorting Lincoln's body home to Illinois only 18 medals were withdrawn. 6 of those were to civilians, including Buffalo Bill, who have since had their medals reinstated.
Any American veteran or serviceman has the right to, in effect, recommend himself for a decoration. I would never have gotten my Good Conduct Medal if I hadn't asked for it.
I don't believe Keogh accepted his brevets while in a drunken stupor. We may have a difficult time with brevets, but at the time it was a reasonable practice.
rch
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 11:53:47 GMT -6
Post by analyst on Aug 9, 2006 11:53:47 GMT -6
It has always amazed me, on these boards, that persons who have never carried "Steel" in defense of the republic or worn the green, suddenly want to be known as experts regarding military personnel citations or tactics! I guess it's some kind of "macho" self-aggandizement? Since I have no experience as probably the finest WW2 Commander in a combat theatrer, who walked around in full general's uniform to be shot at by snipers, I feel unfit to judge MacArthurs citations. Apparently, there is one here who feels he has the experience and intellect to tackle the task!
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 13:03:38 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 9, 2006 13:03:38 GMT -6
Long before he and Sutherland and others on his staff illegally and irrefutably accepted huge bribes from a foreign government and this shortly after allowing the Phillipines with 24 hours warning after Pearl Harbor to be clobbered by the Japanese who caught his planes wing to wing, MacArthur - while on an unauthorized nighttime recon in Mexico - was in a firefight. For this, he wanted the MOH. Didn't get it. Huh. Got it later, though.
Coulda taken out some wounded on those boats instead, or maybe some children who ended up in the Death March. But they didn't have the cash, one supposes.
If he hadn't been a Republican icon and needed for bipartisan support, he could - and probably should - have shared the same fate as Kimmell and Short. His abilities were very high, but so were his negatives, and overall he's mostly fiz.
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 16:02:03 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on Aug 9, 2006 16:02:03 GMT -6
rch --
My apologies if "purge" sounded pejorative. The CMOHS website I cited here uses the term itself, and it seemed like useful shorthand.
I'm sure Keogh was very gratified by his brevets during the CW. But after that, what did they give him -- or any officer? A courtesy title sometimes absurdly at odds with the rank he filled. Minimal chance of promotion. And, in the frontier army, almost the guarantee that no-one in high places would ever know of his exploits, since he was the man who would have to write them up. Only a shameless self-promoter, or someone lucky enough to have a reporter or outside observer along when he performed some feat of arms (e.g. Barnitz, written up by the commander of the railroad surveying party), would stand a chance of glory. The rest just had to do their jobs with no recognition. That's all I'm suggesting.
analyst --
Could we have some rules of engagement here?
None of us, by definition, has experience of being massacred.
Is direct personal experience to be the only decider of who has a right to voice an opinion? If so, it's going to be remarkably quiet around here ...
|
|
|
MOH
Aug 9, 2006 16:10:06 GMT -6
Post by markland on Aug 9, 2006 16:10:06 GMT -6
rch -- analyst -- Could we have some rules of engagement here? None of us, by definition, have experience of being massacred. Is direct personal experience to be the only decider of who has a right to voice an opinion? If so, it's going to be remarkably quiet around here ... ZINGElisabeth 1, Analyst 0
|
|