Sgt. Toy receiving the Medal of Honor in 1891. Sgt. Toy was cited for "bravery while shooting Indians" at Wounded Knee. He is known to have shot two during the engagement, which is about all that his citations and the supporting material relates.
Tribes Want Medals Awarded for Wounded Knee Revoked.
While this isn't a Wyoming item per se, the Battle of Wounded Knee has been noted here before, as its a regional one.
It would likely surprise most readers here that twenty Medals of Honor were awarded to soldiers who participated in the actions at Wounded Knee. The odd thing is that I was under the impression that the Army had rescinded these medals long ago, and I'm not completely certain that they haven't. Having said that, I can't find that they were, so my presumption must have been in error.
To put this in context, the medals that were rescinded, if any were, weren't rescinded because Wounded Knee was a massacre. They were rescinded because they didn't meet the post April 1917 criteria for receiving the award.
The Medal of Honor was first authorized in 1861 by the Navy, not the Army, following the retirement of Gen. Winfield Scott, who was adamantly opposed to the awarding of medals to servicemen, which he regarded as a European practice, not an American one. The award was authorized by Congress that year, at the Navy's request. The Army followed in 1862 in the same fashion. The medals actually vary by appearance, to this day, depending upon which service issues them, and they've varied somewhat in design over time.
During the Civil War the award was generally issued for extraordinary heroism, but not necessarily of the same degree for which it is today. Because of this, a fairly large number of Medals of Honor were conferred after the Civil War to servicemen who retroactively sought them, so awards continued for Civil War service for decades following the war. New awards were also issued, of course, for acts of heroism in the remaining decades of the 19th Century, with Army awards usually being related to service in the Indian Wars. Navy awards, in contrast, tended to be issued for heroic acts in lifesaving, a non combat issuance of the award that could not occur today. Indeed, a fairly large number were issued to sailors who went over the sides of ships to save the lives, or attempt to, of drowning individuals, often with tragic results to the sailors.
At any rate, the period following the war and the method by which it was retroactively issued may have acclimated the Army to issuing awards as there are a surprising number of them that were issued for frontier battles. This does not mean that there were not genuine acts of heroism that took place in those battles, it's just surprising how many there were and its clear that the criteria was substantially lower than that which would apply for most of the 20th Century.
Indeed, in the 20th Century the Army began to significantly tighten up requirements to hold the medal. This came into full fruition during World War One during which the Army made it plain that it was only a combat medal, while the Navy continued to issue the medal for peacetime heroism. In 1917 the Army took the position that the medal could only be issued for combat acts of heroism at the risk of life to the recipient, and in 1918 that change became official. Prior to the 1918 change the Army commissioned a review board on past issuance of the medal and struck 911 instances of them having been issued. I'd thought the Wounded Knee medals had been stricken, but my presumption must be in error.
Frontier era Medals of Honor, as well as those issued to Civil War era soldiers after the Civil War, tend to be remarkably lacking in information as to why they were conferred. This has presented a problem for the Army looking back on them in general.
Indeed, the Wounded Knee medals have this character. They don't say much, and what they do say isn't all that useful to really know much about what lead them to be awarded. There is a peculiar aspect to them, however, in that they don't reflect what we generally know about the battle historically.
Wikipedia has summarized the twenty awards and what they were awarded for, and this illustrates this problem. The Wounded Knee Wikipedia page summarizes this as follows
· Sergeant William Austin, cavalry, directed fire at Indians in ravine at Wounded Knee;
· Private Mosheim Feaster, cavalry, extraordinary gallantry at Wounded Knee;
· Private Mathew Hamilton, cavalry, bravery in action at Wounded Knee;
· Private Joshua Hartzog, artillery, rescuing commanding officer who was wounded and carried him out of range of hostile guns at Wounded Knee;
· Private Marvin Hillock, cavalry, distinguished bravery at Wounded Knee;
· Sergeant Bernhard Jetter, cavalry, distinguished bravery at Wounded Knee for "killing an Indian who was in the act of killing a wounded man of B Troop."
· Sergeant George Loyd, cavalry, bravery, especially after having been severely wounded through the lung at Wounded Knee;
· Sergeant Albert McMillain, 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 at Wounded Knee;
· Private Thomas Sullivan, cavalry, conspicuous bravery in action against Indians concealed in a ravine at Wounded Knee;
· First Sergeant Jacob Trautman, cavalry, killed a hostile Indian at close quarters, and, although entitled to retirement from service, remained to close of the campaign at Wounded Knee;
· Sergeant James Ward, cavalry, continued to fight after being severely wounded at Wounded Knee;
· Corporal William Wilson, cavalry, bravery in Sioux Campaign, 1890;
· Private Hermann Ziegner, cavalry, conspicuous bravery at Wounded Knee;
· Musician John Clancy, artillery, twice voluntarily rescued wounded comrades under fire of the enemy;
· Lieutenant Ernest Garlington, cavalry, distinguished gallantry;
· First Lieutenant John Chowning Gresham, cavalry, voluntarily led a party into a ravine to dislodge Sioux Indians concealed therein. He was wounded during this action.
· Second Lieutenant Harry Hawthorne, artillery, distinguished conduct in battle with hostile Indians;
· Private George Hobday, cavalry, conspicuous and gallant conduct in battle;
· First Sergeant Frederick Toy, cavalry, bravery;
· Corporal Paul Weinert, artillery, taking the place of his commanding officer who had fallen severely wounded, he gallantly served his piece, after each fire advancing it to a better position
For quite a few of these, we're left without a clue as to what the basis of the award was, at least based on this summation. But for some, it would suggest a pitched real battle. A couple of the awards are for rescuing wounded comrades under fire. Others are for combat actions that we can recognize.
Indeed, one historian that I know, and probably only because I know him, has noted the citations in support for "it was a real battle", taking the controversial, albeit private, position that Wounded Knee was a real, pitched, engagement, not simply a slaughter. This isn't the popular view at all, of course, and its frankly not all that well supported by the evidence either. But what of that evidence.
A popular thesis that's sometimes presented is that Wounded Knee was the 7th Cavalry's revenge for the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Perhaps this is so, but if it is so, it's would be somewhat odd in that it would presume an institutional desire for revenge rather than a personal one, for the most part. Wounded Knee was twenty four years after Little Big Horn and most of the men who had served at Little Big Horn were long since out of the service. Indeed, some of the men who received awards would have been two young for service in 1890, and while I haven't looked up all of their biographies, some of them were not likely to have even been born at the time. Maybe revenge was it, but if that's the case, it would demonstrate a 19th Century retention of institutional memories that vastly exceed the 20th and 21st Century ones. Of course, the 7th Cavalry remains famous to this day for Little Big Horn, so perhaps that indeed is it.
Or perhaps what it reflects is that things went badly wrong at Wounded Knee and the massacre became a massively one sided battle featuring a slaughter, something that the Sioux on location would have been well within their rights to engage in. That is, once the things went wrong and the Army overreacted, as it certainly is well established that it did, the Sioux with recourse to arms would have been justified in acting in self defense. That there were some actions in self defense which would have had the character of combat doesn't mean it wasn't combat.
And that raises the sticky moral issues of the Congressional efforts to rescind the medals. Some of these medals are so poorly supported that the Army could likely simply rescind them on their own, as they have many others, and indeed, I thought they had. Some seem quite unlikely to meet the modern criteria for the medal no matter what, and therefore under the practices established in 1917, they could be rescinded even if they were regarded as heroic at the time. Cpl. Weinert's for example, unless there was more to it, would probably just merit a letter of commendation today.
Indeed, save for two examples that reference rescuing wounded comrades, I don't know that any of these would meet the modern criteria. They don't appear to. So once again, most of these would appear to be subject to proper unilateral Army downgrading or rescission all on their own with no Congressional action.
But what of Congressional action, which has been proposed. The Army hasn't rescinded these awards and they certainly stand out as awards that should receive attention. If Congress is to act, the best act likely would be to require the Army to review overall its pre 1917 awards once again. If over 900 were weeded out the first time, at least a few would be today, and I suspect all of these would.
To simply rescind them, however, is problematic, as it will tend to be based neither on the criteria for award today, or the criteria of the award in 1890, but on the gigantic moral problem that is the Battle of Wounded Knee itself. That is, these awards are proposed to be removed as we regard Wounded Knee as a genocidal act over all, which it does indeed appear to be.
The problem with that is that even if it is a genocidal act in chief, individual acts during it may or may not be. So, rushing forwards to rescue a wounded comrade might truly be heroic, even if done in the middle of an act of barbarism. Other acts, such as simply shooting somebody, would seem to be participating in that barbarism, but here too you still have the situation of individual soldiers suddenly committed to action and not, in every instance, knowing what is going on. It's now too late to know in most cases. Were they acting like William Calley or just as a regular confused soldier?
Indeed, if medals can be stricken because we now abhor what they were fighting for (and in regard to Wounded Knee, it was questioned nearly immediately, which may be why the Army felt compelled to issue medals to those participating in it, to suggest it was a battle more than it was), what do we do with other problematic wars?
Eighty six men, for example, received the Medal of Honor for the Philippine Insurrection. In retrospect, that was a pure colonial war we'd not condone in any fashion today, and it was controversial at the time. Theodore Roosevelt very belatedly received the Medal of Honor for leading the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry up Kettle Hill during the Spanish American War, and he no doubt met the modern criterial, but the Spanish American War itself is morally dubious at best.
Of course, none of these awards are associated with an act of genocide, which takes us back to Wounded Knee. As noted above, maybe so many awards were issued there as the Army wanted to to convert a massacre into a battle, and conferring awards for bravery was a way to attempt to do that.
Certainly the number of awards for Wounded Knee is very outsized. It's been noted that as many awards have been issued for heroism at Wounded Knee as have been for some gigantic Civil War battles. Was the Army really more heroic at Wounded Knee than Antietam? That seems unlikely.
Anyway a person looks at it, this is one of those topics that it seems clear would be best served by Army action. The Army has looked at the topic of pre 1917 awards before, and it removed a fair number of them. There's no reason that it can't do so again. It was regarded as harsh the last time it occurred, and some will complain now as well, but the Army simply did it last time. That would honor the medal and acknowledge the history, and it really shouldn't be confined to just Wounded Knee.
Dead men and horses at Wounded Knee following the conflict.
_burning_after_the_Japanese_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_-_NARA_195617_-_Edit.jpg)
_%E2%80%93_Lisboa.jpg)
In looking these up, the way that the descriptions read above is actually the way they really read. So, for example, some say only "extraordinary gallantry"
Modern ones are much more complete.