Talk:Medal of Honor/Archive 4

Medal of Valor
I removed the references in this section because there isn't a medal of valor, and never has been-- it was clearly referred to as the medal of honor in both the authorizing legislation and regulations. I think this was the product of someone misreading a secondary source. I also edited the WWII section because it erroneously states that the last noncombat medal was in 1942, but it was actually Owen Hammerberg in 1945, and the Navy attempted to award another noncombat MoH in the 1950s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.158 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I see the changes have been re-added while I was off-wiki, so the page is now up to date. - wolf  16:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to update the opening paragraphs to include ‘The official name of the award is "Medal of Honor" but because the medal is presented "in the name of Congress", it is often referred to informally as the "Congressional Medal of Honor" or something along that line. Perhaps the reference to the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor should also be deleted.


 * I am presently reading The Medal of Honor by Dwight S Mears and I am most impressed. It is going to be a great reference and I respect his opinion on the correction of the Walker and Cody awards. However, I think he is wrong, but first could I say I was delighted he raised the issue of the part played or not played by President Carter. As President Truman noted ‘the buck stops here’. I suspect President Carter may not have been personally involved but the Secretary of the Army answered to President Carter and the Board answered to the Secretary of the Army probably through an Assistant Secretary. If anyone was being devious it was the Secretary of War in 1919 setting up a Board that included Nelson Miles who investigated himself. The dishonourable intention of the Board was to strike out all 864 awards to the 27th Maine despite 311 having been legally awarded. The awards to the Lincoln Guard, Walker the five civilian scouts and a handful of others were collateral damage. They did not ‘directly contradict federal statutes’ since all the awards other than 553 to the 27th Maine had been validly awarded. The method used to make Cody and the other four scouts eligible was most famously used in 1919 to grant posthumous Victoria Crosses to two civilian merchant skippers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Staunton (talk • contribs) 08:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The Mears book documented that the White House was unaware of the award to Walker after it was approved (well-wishers wrote to the White House and they didn't know about it, and had actually written a legal opinion recommending denial about two weeks earlier-- see p.172). Also, the Walker case file shows the record was corrected well below the secretary of the Army-- the assistant secretary for manpower & reserve affairs. Either way, the BCMR objectively doesn't have the authority to reinstate award that was lawfully rescinded, and those awards were rescinded by statute as well as invalid under the original law (civilians were expressly written out per every version of the statutes ever enacted, then and now). So, even if the president were involved, it would still be unlawful, because neither the president nor anyone in the executive branch have the authority to contravene a statute. Reference the upgrade that happened earlier this year, for Garlin Conner. It came from the BCMR. This time the BCMR merely recommended it be upgraded, it went through the president, and he requested a waiver of the statute of limitations. This is what should have happened in the Walker and Cody cases, but for some reason those boards lacked sound legal advice. With Cody's upgrade they just changed his status to a soldier on paper so that they could cure the defect, which might technically be valid if he actually had been a soldier (pretty clearly untrue, in my opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.158 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I love what Mears wrote and his argument is logical but I respectfully suggest his premise is in error. Walker's medals, both of them, were never rescinded, never cancelled and were never requested to be returned to the US Army. The 1916 legislation was about pensions and the Army via a Board selected which MofH recipients would be eligible to receive the pension. No law was broken and since the Supreme Court has not ruled it unlawful it is just an interesting academic opinion. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Read it again. There were two laws enacted in 1916-- one about the roll (pension), and one specifically about rescinding the medals. The latter is all that the board was tasked with. Page 216 of the book references the pension act (39 Stat 53), and p.218 references the medal of honor revocation law (39 Stat 166, 214). The text is very clear: "in any case in which said board shall find and report that said medal was issued for any cause other than hereinbefore specified the name of the recipient of the medal so issued shall be stricken permanently from the official medal of honor list. It shall be a misdemeanor for him to wear or publicly display said medal . . ." You're correct that Walker never returned the medal because the law did not give the Army jurisdiction to force this in cases where the recipient wasn't active or retired, but her medal was most definitely removed from the list, as were about 909 others (why the current MoH count is about 3,500 and not 4,400 something). You're correct that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this specific issue, but they have ruled on ex post facto legislation, and the only prohibition is criminal penalties changed after the fact (see Calder v. Bull, which established this principal in 1798, and more recently Stogner v. California striking down ex post facto extension of statutes of limitation). The mere fact that it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court has no bearing on its legality; most issues of law are not ruled on at that level. Here, there would be a question of standing-- a private citizen couldn't sue over another person's eligibility for a MoH. The easiest way to understand this is to look at it as a simple separation of powers issue. Since the Boards for Correction are a delegation of a service secretary's authority (not even a cabinet member), then it holds by extension that if a secretary cannot do something, then the Board cannot either. A secretary, and indeed, even the President, cannot unilaterally contradict public law, so the BCMR most certainly cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.158 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Walker and the scouts are Medal of Honor recipients. No court decision has ruled the awards invalid. The 'BCMR most certainly cannot' but they did. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not according to Congress, which solely authorizes the awards, and directed that those awards be stricken. Nothing has reversed that statute. Look, I agree that the BCMR's actions haven't been challenged in court, but my point above is that you can't sue over this issue as a private citizen for lack of standing-- a challenge would have to originate from the service at the time of the action (even the government is barred from looking into this again, with the possible exception that the Cody award was possibly procured by fraud). I would agree that the awards are on the official rolls (because, well, they are), but the authority to make the awards is still questionable because they directly contradict the authorizing statute. The BCMR's jurisdiction here is murky-- they very clearly cannot award an original MoH, but in theory they could still mark someone's record as if they had it, on the grounds of correcting an error or injustice. The boards were created in the late 1940s to fix records and alleviate the need to pass bills of relief in Congress. But that only gives them the authority to operate in the absence of Congressional sanction one way or the other, not in contradiction of a statute. Here, the will of Congress was clear, because Congress directed that only soldiers could receive the MoH, and expressly sanctioned the removal of these medals. The outcome is not much different from MacArthur's medal, which the book documents was also unlawful, but nobody has challenged officially other than the Army's postwar admission that it was questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.158 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Two minor points; 1) the "Congressional" misnomer is already covered in the lead, and 2) @76.115.49.158; wasn't the medal originally called the "Medal of Valor", when it was first initiated, by the Navy? Thanks (oh, and don't forget to sign your posts) -  wolf  16:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There was a legislative attempt in 1972 (House Report No. 92-1393, Sept. 12, 1972, to accompany HR 11035, ""Designating the Medal of Honor Awarded for Military Heroism as the "Congressional Medal of Honor"") that actually sought to change the name to Congressional Medal of Honor. It was petitioned by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, which passed a resolution on the matter in 1971. According to the House Committee on Armed Services, "In the course of the hearings, it was amply demonstrated that the Medal of Honor is generally, but erroneously, known as the Congressional Medal of Honor" (p.2, rept. 92-1393). The fact that the bill failed is an affirmative response to the claim that this is the name, and it also demonstrates that Congress itself acknowledged that Medal of Honor was the correct term. Further, the former director of the Marine Corps History Division published an article in 1961 noting that the Navy previously used both Congressional Medal of Honor and Medal of Honor until 1944, when they opted to refer to it only by the latter term. In his words, "by decision of the Navy Department in 1944, the Medal may no longer be referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor--a title that had been unofficially applied over the years because the Medal was presented in the name of Congress." Source: H. W. Edwards, The Navy Medal of Honor, Leatherneck, May 1961, 71. The medal has never been called the Medal of Valor in any legislation or regulations; the 1861 bill authorized the Navy Secretary to ""cause two hundred "medals of honor" to be prepared..."" Source: 12 STAT 333, Mears book p.213. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.158 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is my last say on this matter. I only ever refer to the award as the Medal of Honor or US Medal of Honor but respect those including most presidents since President Teddy Roosevelt who refer to the award as the Congressional Medal of Honor. I commend 76.115.49.158 for exposing the Medal of Valor error. I checked a dozen different references but could find no primary source to support a Navy Medal of Valor. I did on one occasion in this discussion forget to sign my post but my name was Autosigned by SineBot. I do not object to either usernames or unsigned comments particularly since 76.115.49.158 was spot on exposing the Medal of Valor. It has been fun. Look forward to swapping opinions on other MofH issues. Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "I did on one occasion in this discussion forget to sign my post but my name was Autosigned by SineBot. I do not object to either usernames or unsigned comments particularly since 76.115.49.158 was spot on exposing the Medal of Valor." - Okay! Thank you for that. Moving on... Yes, the user known only as "76.115.49.158" has been awesome in correcting that error and providing all kinds of info in support of that correction. (He would be even more awesome if he signed his posts, but anyway... ) That said, it seems there is a Medal of Valor that is awarded by the US Navy to civilians, and it appears that several US States have a Medal of Valor that they award to various people, including National Guardsmen. These may or may not have contributed to the errors found in the article. fyi - wolf  19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Roosevelt & MacArthur
I don't see why that addition was controversial-- both of these recipients were problematic. MacArthur's medal was clearly unlawful, as even the Army determined at the end of WWII (it's in the archival records). Marshall, the real author of the award, admitted it also-- he acknowledged it was solely for propaganda purposes and did not meet the requirements. Roosevelt's medal was the product of an apparent political concession by the Army, and had previously been rejected twice (including by Louis Caldera, the Army secretary who formerly rejected it per the Army decoration board's own recommendation). The committee on armed services apparently forced it through anyway, so it's lawful, but dubious nonetheless, as there was no evidence of discrimination, impropriety, or error that is normally required to waive the statute of limitations. To make matters worse, Roosevelt improperly pressured the Army for the medal for political purposes, which really ought to have invalidated any award into perpetuity, and was likely why the Army declined to award it during the Spanish American War.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is true, then it should be documented in reliable secondary sources about the MoH, Roosevelt and/or MacArthur. Can you provide citations to such sources that say what you are claiming? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this, if an RS makes the claim we can start to discuss this. Until then it is going nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Very reliable. I cited the Mears book, which drew from the Marshall Papers, the FDR Library, and the MoH file in the archives (where he found records showing the Army knew it was unlawful). This was the edit: "Notably, however, there is a historical consensus that Douglas MacArthur's award is "illegitimate or at least highly questionable" for failing to conform to required gallantry thresholds, meaning that it violated the governing statute without a waiver. Similarly, the senior Roosevelt's award was also questionable due to the Army rejecting it at the time of his qualifying action as well as upon reconsideration in 1998, when the Army Secretary announced that its decorations board determined "that Theodore Roosevelt's bravery in battle did not rise to the level that would justify the Medal of Honor and, indeed, it did not rise to the level of men who fought in that engagement." "Foxtrot5151 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the additional details. These are somewhat shocking allegations, especially considering the people involved, as well as the fairly harsh opinions being expressed. We know how seriously some of these public/military figures respond to these revelations, and how it can affect families (not that that alone would be a reason to withhold content, just a reason to make sure it's accurate and well sourced). Personally, I'd like to know if there is additional sourcing available? (I'm not questioning you or your initial source). But as for this content, if it's to be added, I'll leave that to further discussion, (definitely would like to see more of that) and of course, consensus. I'll reserve my opinions for now. Thanks again. - wolf  01:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The MacArthur award's violation of the statute is actually well known in historical circles-- it was covered extensively in Marshall's papers published in 1981. You can see part of this on the Marshall Foundation website, which quotes from the primary sources: https://www.marshallfoundation.org/library/digital-archive/memorandum-for-the-president-32/
 * As for Roosevelt, Congress held hearings on the issue, and Secretary Caldera reported that the Army denied it a second time for lack of gallantry, prior to reversing and awarding it anyway (presumably for political reasons). As Mears documents, it seems as if the overzealous congressmen from NY pressured the Army into giving that one out. It's lawful, but it's an award that apparently violated the SoL waiver procedures in 10 USC 1130, under which the committee is supposed to defer to the military's judgment (not just keep beating them up until they change their minds). Foxtrot5151 (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Other primary sources on Roosevelt. 144 CongRec H10123 has a discussion on the Army's view: "I have had conversations in recent days with the Acting Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Army, where a position was presented to me that although Theodore Roosevelt had been brave on that day, they indicated it did not appear, based on the Army's analysis of the recommendation, that the courage shown by Theodore Roosevelt was extraordinary by comparison to other officers of similar rank and responsibility." There is also an interesting article discussing this issue in MHQ: Coffman, Edward and Allan Millett, "Was Congress and President Bill Clinton Justified in Posthumously Awarding the Medal of Honor to Theodore Roosevelt?" MHQ Vol. 14 (Spring 2002), 60-67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to steer clear of primary sources on this, as it is controversial and may be subject to challenge. Other than Mears, are there any other reliable secondary sources that mention these issues with the awards? Are there any reviews of Mears to help us be assured his work is credible and reliable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mears cites the following for MacArthur on general consensus the award was problematic: Borch, Medals for Soldiers and Airmen, 12 (cited as "best example" of how "not all awards of the decoration reflected the same level of heroism"); Willbanks, America's Heroes, 196-97 (the decision to . . . award [MacArthur] the Medal of Honor was fundamentally political" and was an "obvious response" to "Japanese propaganda"); Martin and Wyatt, Encyclopedia of Media and Propaganda in Wartime America, 585 ("MacArthur also was awarded the Medal of Honor, an honor that many defenders of Bataan and Corregidor believed was undeserved"); Smith, MacArthur's Escape, 16 ("Historians have argued that the junior MacArthur received the medal more as a political gesture than for any heroic action"). Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Some other sources: Leary, MacArthur and the American Century, 453 ("Army Chief of Staff George Marshall awarded MacArthur a Congressional Medal of Honor in order to discredit Japanese propaganda deriding MacArthur's bravery"), Buhite, Douglas MacArthur: Statecraft and Stagecraft, 49-51 ("Congress, influenced by the press released on the general's "battles" against the Japanese, had begun to consider awarding MacArthur the Medal of Honor. General Marshall thought the president should preempt such an award by granting it himself and asked his staff members for their thoughts . . . Eisenhower averred that no general should receive the award because no general was ever close enough to the fighting front to deserve the honor."); James, The Years of MacArthur, 129 (in response to "this propaganda barrage [Marshall] decided that one countermove would be to award the Medal of Honor to MacArthur"); Borneman, MacArthur at War, page unknown ("Critics later scoffed that America's highest military decoration had been bestowed for nothing more than MacArthur's seasick escape from the Philippines"); Marshall, The Papers of George Catlett Marshall, 148 ("Marshall said that the War Departmetn was anxious to give MacArthur a MEdal of Honor; Sutherland was direct to [recommend him for one]"); the list goes on...Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also some interesting history recorded by the Army in the immediate aftermath of WWII. The War Dept conducted a study in 1945 that listed the MacArthur, Wainwright, and Doolittle medals as questionable because they were for leadership rather than gallantry (in direct violation of the gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty" requirement, which was in place since the turn of the century). The Army's own volume, The Medal of Honor of the United States Army (1948), records the fact that the Army formally asked Congress to stop authorizing like awards, specifically in reaction to legislative bills of relief that would have granted Medals of Honor to both Generals Pershing and Eisenhower in 1945. According to the Secretary of War, "The services and achievements described in HR 3541 and HR 3542 as the bases for the proposed awards of the Congressional Medal of Honor do not meet the requirements for such awards under existing law, as set forth above. In isolated instances, under special acts of Congress, the Congressional Medal of Honor heretofore has been awarded in circumstances which did not meet such requirements (e.g., to Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh in 1928 and Major General Adolphus W. Greely in 1935)." According to the Army, the War Dept. decorations board disapproved the Pershing and Eisenhower awards, and this "represents the War Department's first representation to Congress that special gold medals be voted by Congress in such cases of outstanding leadership and that the Medal of Honor be reserved for awarding only gallantry in action." (The Medal of Honor of the United States Army, 445). I think the War Dept. was also reacting to the MacArthur medal, which wasn't actually given a legislative waiver, partly because Marshall misunderstood it. But it was a coerced award (Marshall ordered that it be recommended, twice, and had already decided to approve it prior to receiving the narrative, which was pretextual). Merely being near the front lines is in no way above and beyond the call of duty-- you don't have to be an expert on the MoH statutes and regulations to put that one together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Controversial and unlawful, are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The historical consensus is that it was questionable, not unlawful (even though it most certainly was the latter). The problem is that most historians only write about this peripherally; they're rarely well versed enough in the statutes to render a judgment on that point. But Marshall coerced the award, and documented this, as well as the fact that MacArthur did not perform an act of gallantry-- Marshall very literally ordered that it be awarded without even knowing what MacArthur's chief of staff would cough up as a retroactive justification. And so Sutherland simply wrote that he visited the front lines and didn't take cover during an artillery barrage. That was objectively not something that could qualify for the MoH; the Army had fleshed this out in the 1890s for its regulations. Assistant SecWar Joseph Doe was one of the first to articulate this point in 1894, saying that "It does not seem to me that Congressional medals of honor were intended to be given to officers for leading their commands in action, whatever measure of gallantry may have been shown in such leadership." That's where "above and beyond the call of duty" came from when they wrote it in the regulations some 40 years prior to Mac's award; you cannot receive the medal for doing something you were obligated to do as a matter of duty. And if you're a leader, showing up occasionally is a matter of duty, quite clearly. That isn't really arguable. If they had passed the SoL waiver that was in play at the time, it would be lawful. But since the waiver did not pass, the award violates the statute. If the Army had the authority to review the award like it did pursuant to the statutory grant in 1916, that medal would most certainly be rescinded-- there isn't even an argument that it's valid. The only reason it's on the official roll is that the Army cannot undo it without a bill.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to ask; what is your interest in this? Is this personal for you? Are pursuing this for any other reasons? Just curious... thanks - wolf  02:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A little bit, admittedly. I used to be a soldier, and with Mac I've been ambivalent for some time. He was always presented as a hero-like figure when I was in uniform, and I grew to realize that the truth was more nuanced the more I studied him. While I think that MacArthur probably deserved the MoH for other actions, he most certainly did not for this one-- not just maybe, but most definitely not. It tainted what the decoration meant, because it blurred the line over the criteria for the award. It facially broke the law and allowed the MoH to be used for a purely political purpose. You can't do more than what a statute delegates, and political awards that involve no gallantry are most certainly not authorized under the Public Law in question. Most canons of statutory interpretation wouldn't even be needed here because it broke the plain language of the statute- you don't even have to dig into the legislative history to realize that it wasn't permissible. I get it that from Marshall's perspective that it was strategically worthwhile because it salvaged an important general's reputation (and if the US lost the war, who cares whether the MoH's purity was preserved?). But still, as someone who holds this medal in high regard, it was a very unwise decision. I suspect that Marshall probably knew this, and that's perhaps why he documented it so well. After all, he wasn't really a friend of MacArthur-- Mac saw him as a rival and had previously attempted to derail his career by transferring him to the National Guard when he was Chief of Staff in the 1930s. On Roosevelt, I have respect for that man, but his improper lobbying for the MoH ought to have disqualified him, and the political pressure used to secure the award in the 1990s was flatly disgraceful. Louis Caldera was clearly pressured to award that medal, because he came out in public and announced that TR didn't perform any noteworthy gallantry, as determined by the Secretarial Decorations Board (all generals who pretty much know what they're doing). The fact that Caldera reversed himself after sharp criticism by Congress speaks for itself-- it set an extremely poor precedent, and opened the door for future abuses. In sum, I think it's very reasonable to put an asterisk after both of those awards, because they were both given out for very political purposes that don't apply to others-- one was extralegal, and the other, while legal, involved a waiver of the SoL that wasn't justified by any clear error, impropriety, or discrimination, which is what the regulations proscribe for that type of waiver. BTW, I wrote the earlier unsigned posts on the talk page, and also most of the legal portions on the original Wikipedia article. But I hadn't logged in for so long that I forgot my login username and password. Apologies for that.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's bring this back to what the reliable secondary sources say about these two awards, because that is what goes in articles. It seems to me from the sources quoted above that the article should say that MacArthur's award of the MoH was politically motivated, and was made at Marshall's urging to restore MacArthur's reputation and US morale after his escape from the Philippines. Is that a fair summary? Beyond that, I'm not seeing sources saying it was unlawful, so we don't say that in the article. It isn't clear to me what reliable secondary sources there are about the question of TRs award. Can you quote from some? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Mears is the only one who says that Mac's award was unlawful. But Marshall did admit that it was not permissible under the law to FDR, and the Army listed it as "questionable," which is clearly a euphemism for unlawful. So, I would say the author of the award as well as the policy proponent contemporary to the award both admitted the same. I'll dig more into the TR medal-- the primary sources are also enough with that one, but there are several books that covered the lobbying campaign.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are a few more sources on TR: ::: Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, 872 ("President Clinton, responding to heavy pressure from the Roosevelt family and the Theodore Roosevelt Association, posthumously granted TR his Medal of Honor"); Grondahl, I Rose Like a Rocket, 317 (“Roosevelt decided to mount a campaign for the medal, despite the fact, as he complained to Platt shortly after his inauguration, that he did “not have one minute’s rest from morning until night.” . . . He would continue to lobby unsuccessfully for the rest of his life.”); Yockelson, “I Am Entitled to the Medal of Honor and I Want It,” Prologue 30 (1998) (“"if I didn't earn it, then no commissioned officer can ever earn it. . . . I don't ask this as a favor--I ask it as a right. . . . I feel rather ugly on this medal of honor business; and the President and War Dept. may as well understand it. If they want fighting, they shall have it." . . . Regardless of why Roosevelt was not awarded the Medal of Honor, it was the correct decision. In one way or another, most of the officers participating in the fighting on July 1, 1898, performed very well. . . . To single out Roosevelt as a hero among the other line officers would have been a great injustice, and the merit of the award would have been cheapened.”); Andrews, 101 Things Everyone Should Know About Theodore Roosevelt (“Some army historians felt that he had not really earned the medal. They argued that other soldiers had done as many brave things at the Battle of San Juan Hill . . . Eventually, due to pressure from TR’s supporters, the army relented.”); Willbanks, America’s Heroes, 286 (“the issue regarding Roosevelt’s medal surfaced again in 1998 when congressional legislation forced a review of the late president’s actions in Cuba.”); Kinseed, “Teddy Roosevelt’s Frontier Justice,” American History 36 (Feb. 2002) (“Tweed Roosevelt, and members of the Theodore Roosevelt Association lobbied Congress to posthumously award the medal. After a hearing in September of that year, Congress voted for the action, but President Bill Clinton delayed his approval until army experts completed a review on the matter.”)Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For Mac's MoH, I pulled the Army AG Office manual "Handling Medal of Honor Cases in the Correspondence and Examining Division" (1912). This was the precedent file used to adjudicate award applications at that time, and the policy never became any more lenient. It has an entire page devoted to awards "Denied in the absence of a showing by the official records of an act of distinguished gallantry in action beyond the call of duty," and lists a sample rejection justification: "Sir: Referring to the letters, received by your reference, of General L. A. Grant of Minneapolis, Minn., and Hon. F. G. Butterfield of Montpelier, Vermont, relative to the matter of obtaining a medal of honor for Hon. Henry T. Cushman for gallantry said to have been displayed by him at the Wilderness, May 6 and 7, and at Spottyslvania May 12, 1864, while an officer in the 4th Vermont Infantry . . . I have the honor to advise you as follows: The medal of honor authorized by the act of Congress approved March 2, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 751), is awarded only for particular deeds of most distinguished gallantry in action--service above and beyond the call of duty and of such a conspicuous character as to clearly distinguish the soldier for gallantry and intrepidity above his comrades. Under the provisions of the act of Congress approved April 23, 1904 (33 Stat. L., 274), the evidence to justify the award of the medal must be derived from the official records. While it appears from the records that Quartermaster Henry T. Cushman . . . rendered valuable services, fearlessly exposing himself where duty called him, it does not appear form the records that Quartermaster Cusman performed in action on either of those occasions any deed of most distinguished gallantry. The Department is therefore constrained to deny the request for the award of the Medal to Hon. Henry T. Cushman. Very respectfully, Assistant Secretary of War." This would clearly be controlling on MacArthur-- it's why a SoL waiver is a prerequisite for the award's legality. If Marshall had cited an action that subjectively could have been non duty bound, then that would be arguable. But as it stands, MacArthur objectively did not perform an act above and beyond the call of duty. Further, the undue command influence of the Chief of Staff also taints the case: he ordered the award before it was recommended, and circumvented the entire approval process by writing it himself. They didn't even collect the required eyewitnesses, which was a regulatory requirement. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(break)
Apart from questions about sourcing, we need to ask ourselves whether the proposed addition is of due weight. My inclination is that the proposed edit is not, at least as presented. It may or may not be appropriate in a more concise form in a different part of the article. My inclination is that Medal of Honor is a parent article and this controversy should be placed in one or more relevant subarticles, but people more familiar with the topic may disagree with me on that (all of this assuming the sourcing is considered adequate, on which I do not comment). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that this entire field is dominated by amateur (non-scholarly) historians, many of whom are overly deferential--most of these books that are actually centered on military awards aren't particularly critical or scholarly. That's why they continue to perpetuate so many mistakes. So, if you're looking for a consensus on the lawfulness or questionable nature of an award, you're likely not going to find it, because there aren't too many authors qualified to weigh-in on that point. I mean, who is this field is both trained in law and historical methodology? I can count that number on one hand. Perhaps revise the edit to soften the allegation of unlawfulness, but note that both Marshall and the Army acknowledged that it did not conform to the statute (which is objectively true). Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To backtrack some, I decided to verify all of your citations. For future reference, including full ones is both necessary for us to use them on Wikipedia and makes finding the source much easier. Detailed results below:

The following sources contain the quotes thereunto attributed:

The following source contains the quoted passage in only one version (I checked at least two others): This is where more information would have been helpful (in this case especially a year). I didn't find the passage you quoted at first, which when combined with the two things below made me very suspicious of everything you've said.

The following source ❌does not contain the quoted passage:

The following source exists but could not be verified: This source was published merely two months ago, which is part of the reason I was suspicious. I wondered if maybe this was an attempt to get yourself cited on Wikipedia. Seeing as Mears is prominent enough to have been cited in a couple of relatively recent articles (such as USA Today) as an expert (and I found these completely by accident), I no longer see a motivation. My apologies for assuming poor faith.


 * Actual comments to come. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually did not see that there was a first large group of additional sources; these are entirely the second. And the first group contains the important ones, because they purport to establish the consensus we're asking for.

Verified:

The following is probably confirmed*: *Google Books is reporting to find the peculiar phrase "propaganda barrage" on page 129, but won't display the text for me.

The following exists, but the quote is unverified:


 * In short, there's clearly a consensus that MacArthur's award was a propaganda ploy. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so. The first policy we need to consider regards original research. Because Wikipedia is written mostly by amateurs, we do not draw conclusions: we merely cite other people who wrote the things we are repeating. In this case, you are trying to say that Roosevelts' medals were awarded in dubious manners. Therefore, none of the sources you provided regarding Roosevelt except the original (Mears) help us. While they demonstrate that there was political pressure, none of them outright state that this was wrong/unlawful/dubious. You explain that this is because this field is dominated by non-scholars who are afraid to speak out; this may or may not be true, but we still cannot say it, because that wouldn't be a published opinion by a reliable source. The second consideration is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If we're going to claim that these people didn't deserve their medals, we'll need multiple high-quality sources to defend that assertion. You've provided enough regarding MacArthur, but not Roosevelt.

The third consideration is the one I raised earlier, due weight. I've spent far too much time working on this today, and there's room for discussion of what's due here, so I'm going to sit on this one for a moment and allow others to comment. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I dug into the TR matter, but the sources are pretty thin here-- nobody really did any due diligence on the retroactive award review itself, other than media accounts, although there was a fair amount of debate beforehand. What bothers me is that the Army made a clear rejection at both the decorations board and secretarial level, prior to reversing, which means the medal was substantively reviewed twice and rejected before the approval, along with public statements (by Caldera) that TR did not rise to the requisite level of gallantry. That's quite bizarre and difficult to explain-- none of the sources even attempt to do so. The Army's Center of Military History commissioned a historical study on the TR medal efficacy in summer 1999, according to media accounts. I'm asking for it by FOIA request. They were later barred from recommending MoH cases after a scandal of sorts, but they could still do it at that time.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks for the verifications. I had trouble with the American History mag source because Google books has a scan of multiple issues and doesn't display accurate page numbers; I thought it was from the TR article, but evidently was wrong. The snippet is here: https://books.google.com/books?id=zi8_AQAAIAAJ&dq=Bill+Clinton+delayed+his+approval+until+army+experts+completed+a+review+on+the+matter&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=tweed On the Army MoH publication, you can see a snippet of the section I cited here: https://books.google.com/books?id=nNb-rePp3I8C&dq=%22the+medal+of+honor+of+the+united+states+army%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22represents+the+war+department%27s+first%22 Foxtrot5151 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, CMH's FOIA officer says that the Roosevelt historical report wasn't retained, so it would only be available in the national archives (a bridge too far for me right now). I still think the TR Medal was a political concession that probably violated the spirit if not the letter of regulations as well as 10 USC 1130, the statute governing retroactive waiver of the statutes of limitations on the award. Regulations say petitioners must have a clear reason for an upgrade, such as discrimination, impropriety, or error, and nothing more than speculation was ever argued with TR. Also, Congress is supposed to defer to the military's judgment on the waiver, but that clearly didn't happen here, since Secretary Caldera announced they wouldn't be waiving it prior to reversing himself. The language of the waiver in that case also appears to waive more than the time limitations, saying that it would also make the criteria those in force at the time (as in the Spanish American War, which is problematic because the predominately modern 1918 statute hadn't been enacted at the time; the 1862/1863/1904 laws allowed Medals of Honor to awarded for virtually any reason, and the regulations were tougher but not modern in terms of eyewitness requirements, etc.). This type of conflict has never been clarified in Sec. 1130- the law says "Determinations under this section regarding the award or presentation of a decoration shall be made in accordance with the same procedures that apply to the approval or disapproval of the award or presentation of a decoration when a recommendation for such award or presentation is submitted in a timely manner as prescribed by law or regulation," but doesn't actually say that this will apply retroactively, particularly in cases where the governing law has changed. It sets up a conflict in some cases, because medals awarded prior to 1918 for the Army or 1963 for the Navy are not the Medals of Honor, for all intents and purposes, because the earlier laws were repealed in their entirety, so they are the same medal in name only. Anyhow, I still think TR's award is questionable on the merits, but I agree that the evidence and scholarship is not as clear as with MacArthur's, which very obviously violated both regulations and the law. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Late Awards
I added several sentences about the late awards from the Civil War, which technically weren't late because the law and regulations had no time limitations back then. Nevertheless, I think these are critical to mention because they comprised about half of the awards for the conflict (probably over 600), and led directly to the 1918 statute of limitations that was extremely narrow-- even more narrow than we have today, actually.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends what is your cut-off date. USA 1863-1866 - 389 & 1867-2014 - 810; USN 1863-1866 - 298 & 1867-1916 - 6. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Congressional Medal of Honor Society"
The Congressional Medal of Honor Society page redirects here, yet not a single word about it other than a passing reference that is does exist. This is kinda important, since the PSU shooting mentions that the hero of the shooting was inducted to a society that I've never heard of (despite my militry background and having an uncle who has received the Medal Of Honor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.21 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked; "What the fuck is a "Congressional Medal of Honor" what the fuck is the Society?"" - Well, thanks to Wikipedia, you can click on the external link for the CMOHS and read the section of their page that tells you all about them, thereby filling in those gaps of knowledge that you and your uncle came away with after your time in the military, (and apparently couldn't be addressed by Wikipedia. Or the... internet...) Anyway, hope your day gets better... - wolf  06:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Unknown soldiers recipient count
The table at Medal_of_Honor says 9 unknown soldier have been awarded the medal, but the linked List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients says 5. Any ideas about this discrepancy? Reywas92Talk 01:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The five MofHs awarded to foreign allies are all for the First World War. In addition, there are the four US MofH unknowns for the two world wars, Korea and Vietnam. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation required for posthumous MofH awards
I have added 'citation required' after posthumous awards = 624 in the information box. I have been unable to find any current reference to quote. I assume that the definition for a posthumous award is where the recipient was deceased at the time of presentation or at the date of the General Order announcing the award or at the date the award was approved. If that is so, the number 624 is reasonable but a source needs to be found. Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Cushing
Why isn't 1st Lt Alonzo Cushing included in the list of late awards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.171.122 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Normally awarded by the President
The second sentence states ‘The medal is normally awarded by the President of the United States in the name of the U.S. Congress’. If the sentence commences with word ‘Today’ the sentence would be accurate. It is only in the Vietnam War that for the first time the President, Johnson, Nixon and Ford presented the majority of awards being 149 of 265 awards presented between 1964 and 1976. Ignoring two Vietnam awards presented by the Secretary of the Navy in 1978 and 1980, all except one presentation since 1980 have been by the President. So it would be correct to say either ‘Today’ or ‘Since 1980’ that ‘The medal is normally awarded by the President of the United States’

If either ‘Today’ or ‘Since 1980’ is added to the second sentence then rest of the sentence ‘awarded … in the name of the U.S. Congress’ would also be correct. The words have been used since at least the Korean War but I would appreciate any reference as to when the phrase was first used in citations?

Should the word ‘awarded’ in the second sentence be ‘presented’? Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a section listing awards (count) by conflict - represents the time of the action under which the Medal is for. It usually some time before the Awarding of the medal is done. How about a section on number of awards by/ per president. Above - not interested - as to if the president was actually present at the ceremony- but signed / approved of the person receiving the award. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Space Force
Do Space Force recipients get the USAF version of the MOH, like USMC gets the USN variant? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That would certainly follow the pattern, since they are in the DAF, but as of now there are no sources that confirm it. Garuda28 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Great question. If there has been any authoritative commentary about this 'what if', it could be mentioned. There would seem to be five options USA, USN, USAF, USCG or new version. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Anthony, do you consider Space Force recipients guardians (used here) or Guardians? Since Marines (marines used here when its not used elsewhere-US Marine Corps article here ...) and others are going to be entering the Space Force too, the question is relevant. 47.142.132.142 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of claim of ineligibility for Space Force
This claim does not appear to be factually correct, as awards and decorations are managed by the Department of the Air Force, rather than the individual services. Furthermore, AFMAN 36-2806 (which deals with awards and decorations), as well as all other Department of the Air Force instructions, apply to both the Air Force and Space Force (all AFIs published prior to 1 April 2021 apply to both services ). Unless should revert themselves or add a definitive source that states that the Space Force is ineligible for military awards I will revert to the last stable version in 24 hours. Garuda28 (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

47dot: You claim your source "...has no mention of "Space Force" MOH eligibility." as the basis for your edit. That argument fails since absence of proof is not proof. Current US military nomenclature doesn't need to specify sworn members of the Space Force as eligible for them to receive a MOH. They are in the armed forces, if they perform an act of valor worthy of the award, how could you possibly think they would be deemed ineligible? On what basis? According to what law? In other words, where does it say, right now, that "SF members are not eligible for the MOH"...? - wolf  06:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

DOD Manual 1348.33, Vol 3 (Oct 19, 2020) > p. 7-8: Section 3. Procedures for DoD-Wide Decorations and Awards 3.1. Military Service Crosses. c. Award Criteria and Eligibility Requirements. (5) In accordance of with Sections 7274, 8299, and 9274 of Title 10 US.C., no Military Service Cross may be awarded to any person unless: f. Approval Authority (3) Air Force. ''See Air Force Manual 36-2806. Pursuant to current statuary and E.O. guidance persons who distinguish themselves while serving in any capacity with the Space Force are not eligible for award the Service Crosses. Once applicable guidance is revised to expand eligibility to this class of persons, this issuance will be revised accordingly.'' 47.142.132.142 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas MOH editors... this should answer both of you (and others) who got me blocked for Christmas after I spent a lot of time improving articles worth improving in good faith and good intentions (not to be a so called "disruptive editor"- at Air Force Cross article and here). My source (DOD'S 1348.33 Vols 1-4 source(s) which the AF 36-2806 refers to too) that you and your friend ignored says right now, not eligible (right now) for the Air Force Cross, SS, DFC, and DSMs decorations. This indicates the MOH (1348.33 Vol 1) had to have had a "not eligible" status too for Space Force persons which you both appear to imply is/was not possible. Can Space Force guardians be removed at those decorations articles or not? You don't permit  "Marines" instead of "marines" here like the Marine Corps article does permit, for years (?).
 * AF Manual 36-2806 (10 June 2019) > p. 61: DOD Decorations, A2.1.  Refer to... Volumes  1... 3 of DODM 1348.33, A2.3. Air Force Cross (AFC)
 * First, just stick to content and sources, and leave all the personal, off-topic ranting and raving out of it. Second, this is the MOH page, anything about other awards, such as the AFC, should be on that talk page. Third and last, do you have a reliable source that states unambiguously, not "indicates" or "implies", that SF personnel are not eligible for the MOH? If not, then your post above was a waste of time. - wolf  01:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is MOH Talk page ("MOH page"), I was not ranting and raving, what good would it do to say that debating or reverting someone's, post, anywhere in article is edit warring and disruptive to them no matter what. My comment was also on the AFC talk page when I commented here. Marines (and others) are also going to be entering the Space Force so whether its Marines or marines ("marine" usage forced here) is relevant. Other decorations are more or less relevant too to MOH; AFC is 2nd highest valor decoration which may be upgraded to a MOH. Seems to me the DOD Valor Website, and 1348.33 is the main source... when, MOH is eligible to Space Force persons. I did not say or mean that armed forces members could not get or ever get the MOH or not entitled or ever entitled to the MOH.
 * As is, it seems to me the wording of the 1st paragraph needs to be revised and same words are repeated unnecessarily (unstable?) in 2nd paragraph >
 * that may be awarded to recognize American soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, Space Force guardians, and coast guardsmen who have distinguished themselves by acts of valor. The medal is normally awarded by the President of the United States, but as it is presented "in the name of the United States Congress" and is often referred to as the "Congressional Medal of Honor".
 * There are three distinct variants of the medal: one for the Department of the Army, awarded to soldiers, one for the Department of the Navy, awarded to sailors and marines, as well as coast guardsmen of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Air Force variant is awarded to airmen and Space Force guardians.[10][11] 47.142.132.142 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've looked through both sourced and neither state that the space force is ineligible for the MOH. On the contrary, we have sources stating that AFIs apply to USSF unless stated otherwise, which would indicate MOH can be awarded to USSF unless a AFI or DODI specifically states otherwise. Do you have a specific section that indicates this? Garuda28 (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Off topic reply addressed to repeated off-topic comments about the "Marines" vs "marines" that the 47dot IP user strangely continues to add to his comments. We get it, you have issues with rules on capitalization. You're not alone in that, but unfortunately, that rule is in place for now. That said, this is not the place to complain about it. See WP:MARINE and take your complaints to the associated talk page. - wolf  20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

US Army Centre for Military History ends hosting 1979 Senate Medal of Honor green book.
The CMH kept online for many years the last Medal of Honor work produced by the Senate and vigorously kept it in pristine condition by refusing to correct errors. The website at https://history.army.mil/moh/index.html continues to say there have been ‘more than 3,400 Medals of Honor’ which is correct even if the total has been over 3,500 since 2014. It recommends the Congressional Medal of Honor Society for information on Medal of Honor recipients. It has remembered its history by keeping the following sign that has been up for many years - ‘Please do not contact CMH ANSWERS regarding Medal of Honor issues’. This would seem to be a good time to update the reference a defunct online copy and give credit to the original research published by the US Senate in a series of publications from 1963 to 1979 listing Medal of Honor recipients.Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)