Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on May 4, 2012 19:46:45 GMT -6
I think quality comparisons can be valueless....Ethos,recruiting,weapons & tactics can all vary so much...From what I've read British troops in Germany at that time also rated the Bundeswehr highly.......Back to the 1870's, I don't think the mixing of Regular and Ex-volunteer Officers did the US Army any favours.........There seems to have been an awful lot of resentment around........... I agree profoundly with you Steve. Comparisons of this nature are hardly qualifying scenarios of validity. As for the resentment on this forum, you will see it raises its ugly head every time I post. A very few posters have declared war upon me and others, sadly, follow. A long time ago Melanie was astounded by my persistence to hang on. She would not have been shocked if she was aware of my tenacity. i will not return in favor (profanity) but will continue to voice my beliefs as I see them.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 4, 2012 19:47:26 GMT -6
Reddirt, you must have flunked courses in history! Germany, Russia and even France had the armies to defeat the U.S. at that time. Likely, England would be the prime suspect as they had a navy and could have negotiated an agreement with a army strong country.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 4, 2012 20:57:58 GMT -6
... please identify a contemporary military that was capable of defeating the United States at the point in time in question. I really can't think of one. One would have to assume that the good ole USA was, at the very least, a top contender! Stop with the over-blown, flag waving, will you? I seriously doubt the U. S. Army of 1876 would have held a candle to the Prussians, the British, or the Russians. The Seventh Cavalry was the cream of the crop in 1876... and your mis-placed and over-wrought patriotism thinks rah-rah could overcome reality? It's like saying the U. S. Army of 1938 was the equal of the Wehrmacht. Wow! How long did it take you to write that sentence? I am calm; people like you don't rile me. Only those I may take a little more serious get much of a rise out of me. However, I really think you are out of your league here. Try next door. They're more tolerant of comedians and clowns. And actually, as I think about it, you should be ignoring me. You make less of a fool of yourself that way. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 4, 2012 21:03:44 GMT -6
RED DIRT: Medal of Honor for reenlisting: Do your homework before you get an attack of the STUPIDS and question Dark Cloud. Do you think he would have posted it if it were not true, and could not back up the truthfulness of the statement. Help me to understand, I'm truly confused and I admit it. I quote Mr. Dark Cloud who stated that MOH were given out for re-enlisting and then ask for an example of such an act. A reasonable request. You say I attacked Dark Cloud. You then state that he would not have posted it if it weren't true yet, but he did! . I applaud your faith,loyalty and conviction toward Mr. Dark Clouds. I don't understand it but i appreciate it. Again Mr. Dark Cloud, would you please give the forum an example of your statement of men receiving such a high reward for re-enlisting. Thanking you in advance. Click... click... click... click. Clunk! Good grief! Go away, will you? And take Herosrest with you. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 4, 2012 21:07:21 GMT -6
i will not return in favor (profanity) but will continue to voice my beliefs as I see them. And as soon as you learn how to use the boards, you'll be able to summarize those beliefs in three letters... H, D, and U. Arrange them any way you want. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 4, 2012 21:41:21 GMT -6
The board has discussed the issues of the MOH several times. But if your skills are so low you cannot look it up on this board, you can look it up in any summary of the MOH on the Web. Try Google to find the wiki or the actual site of the MOH.
Maine soldiers were given the MOH for re-enlisting at one time. It's well known. The MOH at the time of the LBH was not given for 'above and beyond' type stuff solely.
The US could not have beaten a platoon of enraged Shriners stuffed into their little cars, unarmed, and wearing fezzes with our 1876 Army. When Sheridan dissed the Germans and French during the 1870 war, he used the AOP as his comparison, not the Army of 1870 over here.
We should not forget that Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Brazil had big Armies, bigger than our own of the time, and were buying battleships from US and British shipyards. They fought at least one war even more gruesome and bloody than our Civil War, the problem being their record keeping was not good. But for all anyone knows, those tough soldiers might well have handed us our lunch. It is not hard to imagine that Argentina's cavalry must have been excellent.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2012 22:10:59 GMT -6
Red Dirt: Are you a dim wit or just can't read? My very next line was that the 27th Maine Infantry Regiment's members were all awarded the Medal of Honor for reenlisting. Now if you would rather have Dark Cloud tell you the same damned thing that's OK, but do you think I made this up? Do you think I lied to you or are you just dim with cyber sexuality problems? If either of the above are correct why don't you go and play in a sandbox more suited your level of education, social and sexual awareness, and general swinish behavour. Try some place like Ding Dong School.
Red Dirt: How many men do you know that pretend to be a woman either in reality or here in cyberspace as a means to hide their identity? How many men do you know that respect a man who pretends to be a woman? How many women do you know that would respect a man pretending to be a woman? I think when you answer those questions you might have some idea why you are held in such contempt.
Have you lossed your mind or just misplaced it?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 5, 2012 19:58:22 GMT -6
RED DIRT: Medal of Honor for reenlisting: Do your homework before you get an attack of the STUPIDS and question Dark Cloud. Do you think he would have posted it if it were not true, and could not back up the truthfulness of the statement. Help me to understand, I'm truly confused and I admit it. I quote Mr. Dark Cloud who stated that MOH were given out for re-enlisting and then ask for an example of such an act. A reasonable request. You say I attacked Dark Cloud. You then state that he would not have posted it if it weren't true yet, but he did! . I applaud your faith,loyalty and conviction toward Mr. Dark Clouds. I don't understand it but i appreciate it. Again Mr. Dark Cloud, would you please give the forum an example of your statement of men receiving such a high reward for re-enlisting. Thanking you in advance. Joe you are an idiot. When you quote someone please don't leave out information that is pertinent to the discussion. Such as The 27th Maine Regiment all received the Medal of Honor for reenlisting. Other similar non combat awards were to the Funeral Guard of President Lincoln. All these medals 900 and some in total were withdrawn in 1917, including that of William F. Cody.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 5, 2012 20:06:26 GMT -6
For those of you that are new here. Reddirt is a retired male(claims police officer) living in Oklahoma. His name is Joe Wiggs and he uses multiple names to match his personalities.
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on May 5, 2012 23:44:09 GMT -6
Joe you are an idiot. When you quote someone please don't leave out information that is pertinent to the discussion. Such as The 27th Maine Regiment all received the Medal of Honor for reenlisting. Other similar non combat awards were to the Funeral Guard of President Lincoln. All these medals 900 and some in total were withdrawn in 1917, including that of William F. Cody.The Twenty Seventh Maine did not exactly receive the MOH for "re-enlisting". This regiment was a nine month unit; upon expiration of their contracted term of service they were asked to stay and defend the nation's capital in June of 1863. The Twenty-Fifth Maine declined and went home; some 300 of the Twenty-seventh said yes. After the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg and the threat to Washington D.C. subsided, they were allowed to go home where they were mustered out a few weeks later. Due to incomplete records of who exactly stayed the whole regiment received the MOH. The original criteria for the MOH; (1862) mentions "most distinguished gallantry in action" and "other soldier like qualities" such as selfless devotion to duty as displayed by the 300 or so from the 27th Maine. So while these medals did not meet the criteria of 1917 when they were revoked, they much more met those of 1863. The medals were awarded at the request of Secretary Stanton. Several years ago while doing some volunteer work at Camp Rucker, AZ I got a look at a copy of the MOH request from Gen. Townsend, Dept. of the Pacific to General Sherman recommending the medal to several Eigth cavalrymen for their service against Cochise in the rugged Chiricahua Mtns. Townsend mentions awarding the medals would be good for morale. Sherman endorsed the request with the comment, as best as I could make out, "I concur".
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 6, 2012 9:20:23 GMT -6
So some received the MOH for NOT EVEN re-enlisting but being in the same unit of some men who did, and this temporarily?
Where do we find them.......
The point being that it's most misleading and verging on the dishonest to imply those who received the MOH during those years for those actions (and inactions) are to be revered as current medal winners are or should be.
It's deceptive for a Thompson re-enactor to make a big deal of the 1876 MOH or anyone to do so to hush criticism of the act, then and now.
|
|
Gerry
Junior Member
Peter
Posts: 63
|
Post by Gerry on May 6, 2012 12:45:54 GMT -6
So some received the MOH for NOT EVEN re-enlisting but being in the same unit of some men who did, and this temporarily? Where do we find them....... The point being that it's most misleading and verging on the dishonest to imply those who received the MOH during those years for those actions (and inactions) are to be revered as current medal winners are or should be. It's deceptive for a Thompson re-enactor to make a big deal of the 1876 MOH or anyone to do so to hush criticism of the act, then and now. There has to be an understanding in the difference between 1876 and today, the medals awarded and the reasons for receiving the medal. Peter Thompson never once mentioned that fact that he received the MOH in his narrative, but he did. He received the medal in Oct 5 1878. 2nd LT W. S. Edgerly obtained two medals for Co C, Sgt Hanely and Pvt Thompson. I am confused with your understanding that I make a big deal of the 1876 MOH, it is what it is. The posting of a picture of Thompson’s medal is no more than displaying the medals at the NPS museum at the LBH. The medal that I have displayed at my website and on the other board, is the medal awarded to Private Thompson personally. The picture also displays the case that held the medal. There is no deception. It is a display of a historical artifact. “To hush criticism of the act, then and now” Is it the act of issuing MOH to soldiers during the Indian Wars to be hushed? Were not these soldiers, soldiers of the US Army then as they are today? Yes, today there is the pyramid of honor of medals awarded to soldiers for their actions. What other medal was to be issued in 1876? I suppose that is your main point that in comparison to today’s standards the medal should have been some other medal for some of the 15 that were issued for service at the LBH and those that were issued in questionable circumstances. True that all medals awarded did not fit today’s standards. There are still many of the soldiers actions that would fit. To address Thompson’s medal, his citation reads: “After having voluntarily brought water to the wounded in which effort he was shot through the head, he made two successful trips for the same purpose, notwithstanding remonstrances of his sergeant.". The multiple, voluntary, and individual actions, for his fellow wounded soldiers, resulting in a head wound, is what the medal was issued for. Thompson was already wounded in Benteen’s first charge. He lost his right index finger and had a bullet lodged in his right elbow. Then wounded, on his own, he makes his trips to the river to get water for the other wounded soldiers. When at the river he takes a bullet to the head. Thompson’s expiration papers state: “This soldier participater in the Battle of the Little Big Horn MT. June 25, 1876 and was given a medal of honor for conspicuous bravery in said battle.” Do not mistake your personal feelings about this man with the acts that he performed. 1918 defined the MOH as: "That the President is authorized to present, in the name of the Congress, a medal of honor only to each person who, while an officer or enlisted man of the Army, shall hereafter, in action involving actual conflict with an enemy, distinguish himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty." Peter Thompson’s record stands, and for his actions, he would be eligible for the medal by today’s standards. Gerry
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2012 13:36:28 GMT -6
Steve: You are correct because it was not a reenlistment. It should be more properly cited as volunteering to extending the term of their enlistment in time of national emergency. Slight difference, perhaps lost on some. This is not a concerpt unknown in our time.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 6, 2012 13:46:08 GMT -6
Most sites say he got shot in the arm and hand. The MOH citation is quoted in several places as saying there was a head wound.
However, I wonder what source you have that he was shot through the head, and by what miracle anyone back then could survive a shot THROUGH the head, absent the cheeks. I wonder if someone mistyped/misread head for hand?
No, I don't think anyone at the LBH would be remotely even nominated for an MOH by today's standards. The only thing the MOH in 1876 has in common with the one today is the name. You're correct I think that he and his peers would have been rewarded lesser medals, and those deservedly. The very few wounded in the water runs suggests it wasn't all that it has been made out to be.
Be it said, I'd be whining and using the wounded to protect myself, so there's nothing about this that makes me look good.
As with Martini, I don't believe Thompson's story. It appears too late and something that remarkable with Custer saving Indian women etc. would have been even more popular than Martin meeting Boston, and I don't believe he OR Watson would have failed to remark upon it immediately after the battle among others who'd rush to the media. Whitaker and La Custer would have been all over it.
But they appear decades later. Thompson story appears when Watson has vanished. Convenient. Slaper, who was there, called him a liar.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2012 14:33:56 GMT -6
DC: I agree with you here. I will have to re-read the citations, but working from memory, those leading would most likely be in line for the Bronze Star with V device and those that went along for the Army Commendation Medal. There is half a chance now that with the Gulf War I backlash in mind that these actions would not be considered for anything at all. It is all in the citation write up and the people that evaluate them.
|
|