View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
1. "McGrath, John J CIV USA TRADOC" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 2. Matt Clark <email@example.com> -----Message from: "McGrath, John J CIV USA TRADOC" <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- More awards of the MOH were given in the 1890s (683) than during the war itself and after up to 1890 (785). The reson for this was that in the 1890s, many CW veterans applied for the Medal, over 700, until McKinley tighed up standards in 1897 that now required that award recommendations could not come from the individual himself, and also required eyewitness testimony as to the act described. Some awards of the MOH in the 1890s were somewhat controversial. During the war, it was considered less proper for higher ranking officers to receive the Medal. Officers were generally rewarded with brevet or actual promotions instead. (Quinlan was promoted to LTC in his regiment, the 88th NY, but retired due to his war wounds by the end of the year) However, by the 1890s, many former or still active officers now felt that they deserved the MOH in addition to any brevet or actual promotions they had received. The most blatant examples of this was that of O.O. Howard and Nelson Miles. Howard was at the time an active duty major general, who was awarded the MOH in 1893 for an action at the Battle of Fair Oaks, 1 June 1862, when Howard had been a BG of Volunteers commanding an infantry brigade during the battle and lost his arm. Subsequent promotions later in the war were considered to be in recognition of his valor. Despite battlefield failure at Chancellorsville and battlefield controversy at Gettysburg, Howard still ended up a BG in the regular Army at the end of the war, a position achieved by only a handful of officers. These promotions were considered generally to have been the equivalent of awards for valor and Howard's pushing for the MOH while serving as an active two-star. Miles was also a serving major general in 1892 when he received the MOH for his actions as a regimental colonel at the Batlte of Chancellorsville in May 1863. Miles was only three years away from being appointed commanding general of the army and had previously received a substantive promotion to BG, US Volunteers in May 1863 and a brevet promotion to BG in the regular Army for his actions in 1867 for his performance at Chancellorsville. Late awards to senior serving officers such as Miles and Howard who had already been rewarded for their performance had to have seemed like an abuse of the system at the time. As cited, the process was revised in 1897 and then later in 1915 when the US armed forces began adopting a more modern system of awards which placed the MOH as the top (rather than the sole) decoration. John J. McGrath "McGrath, John J CIV USA TRADOC" <email@example.com> -----Message from: Matt Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- > Although the action took place in 1862, the Medal was not > awarded until 1891. I believe this was the case for many > Civil War Medals of Honor. I found nothing in the New York > Times about congressional initiatives on the subject. Has > anyone else discovered the rationales and the procedures that > were used to commemorate valor so long after the event? I don't know about the date of these awards, but many Civil War Medals of Honor were given for actions not really involving extreme heroism in the face of the enemy but for acts such as saving a comrade from drowning. Many of these were subsequently nullified by Congress when it adopted the "Pyramid of Honor" system of military awards in, believe, the 1920s. Matt Clark Matt Clark <email@example.com> ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----