From the Department of Defense:
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III has directed the Defense Department to review the Medals of Honor awarded to approximately 20 soldiers for their actions during the December 1890 engagement at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, to ensure no awardees were recognized for conduct inconsistent with the nation’s highest military honor.
DOD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness will convene a special review panel to conduct an individualized assessment based on standards in effect during that period.
The scope of the panel’s review is limited to examining each Medal of Honor awardee’ s individual actions during the engagement at Wounded Knee Creek. However, “The [special review panel] may consider the context of the overall engagement as appropriate, including as necessary to understand each [Wounded Knee Creek Medal of Honor] recipient’s individual actions,” Austin wrote in a memorandum directing the review…
…The officials noted that the standards for awarding the Medal of Honor have evolved over time, and the review would be held in accordance with the standards in place at the time, as well as the context surrounding the actions at Wounded Knee.
What is that context?
Some 200 Lakota Sioux men, women and children were gunned down in the snow on December 29, 1890, in a scuffle that turned into a confused firefight, which became a massacre that stained the honor of the United States Army and ripped the heart out of the Lakota nation.
By 1890, the Lakota were a sad remnant of the people who had defied U.S. military might in one last, glorious summer of freedom in 1876. Led by the holy man Sitting Bull, and the superb military leaders Crazy Horse and Gall, they routed an army column under General George Crook along Rosebud Creek, then slaughtered Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and 220 men of his 7th Cavalry at the Greasy Grass, along the Little Big Horn River.
Their moment of triumph was short-lived. Scattered and hunted relentlessly, the bands led by Crazy Horse and others surrendered to the Americans. A year later, Crazy Horse was killed by a bayonet through the kidneys while resisting arrest. Sitting Bull had fled to Canada, where he found refuge for a few years before he returned to U.S. territory to surrender in 1881. Now, in the hard winter of 1890, Sitting Bull, too, was dead — killed by Lakota policemen sent to arrest him for fomenting unrest on the Standing Rock Agency in South Dakota.
Unrest and tension crackled in the cold Dakota air that winter. The Ghost Dance movement, started by a Paiute holy man named Wovoka, had swept the plains, offering desperate people a spiritual reed of hope to cling to. As with many revivalist movements Wovoka’s original vision was for a return to pure, old ways, which would bring about a great cleansing and return the world to its old form, before the coming of the white man had so severely disrupted the native lifeway.
Among the Lakota, the Ghost Dance took on a particularly millenarian, apocalyptic edge. That frightened the white settlers, the military and civilian Indian agents, who feared the Ghost Dance was fomenting militancy and presaged an uprising. A heightened alert and increased police and military presence, in turn frightened the Ghost Dancers.
Former Pine Ridge Agent, Valentine McGillycuddy, urged that the Ghost Dancers be left alone.
“The coming of the troops has frightened the Indians,” he wrote. “If the Seventh-Day Adventists prepare the ascension robes for the Second Coming of the Savior, the United States Army is not put in motion to prevent them. Why should not the Indians have the same privilege? If the troops remain, trouble is sure to come.”
And come it did.
With Sitting Bull dead at the hands of police, members of his Hunkpapa band fled to join a group of Ghost Dancers led by Chief Spotted Elk (sometimes known as Big Foot). The 7th Cavalry intercepted about 350 Lakota at their camp along Wounded Knee Creek, and surrounded them with the intent of disarming them and returning them to assigned areas on the reservation.
The troopers arrayed themselves around the village and deployed several small Hotchkiss Mountain Guns, which fired explosive shells. Col. James W. Forsyth demanded that the Lakota lay down their weapons — and most complied, piling their rifles on blankets on the frozen ground. The atmosphere was rife with tension. The Lakota were frightened and angry, the troops of Custer’s old command were keyed up.
It is not clear what exactly transpired to spark the slaughter. Most accounts agree that soldiers attempted to disarm a young warrior named Black Coyote, who refused to give up his rifle. He may have been deaf and did not understand what he was being ordered to do. A scuffle ensued. At the same time, a Lakota Shaman named Yellow Bird began chanting and dancing and threw a handful of dust in the air. A signal? No one knows. A shot rang out, possibly an accidental discharge during the scuffle with Black Coyote.
Warriors dived for their rifles. Soldiers opened fire. Indians fired upon soldiers. The firing became general. The Hotchkiss guns opened up. Lakota began to flee, scattering and running for a ravine where they might find shelter — and a defensible position. It was at that point that what could have been characterized as a fight turned into a massacre. Soldiers shot the wounded, and pursued the fleeing Lakota and gunned them down without consideration of age or sex.
General Nelson Miles, in overall command of the Army in the Dakotas, censured Forsyth for deploying his command in a manner that left them susceptible to friendly fire — 29 soldiers and one Indian scout were killed; probably only a handful by the Lakota — and for completely losing control of his troops. Miles knew it was a massacre, but a court of inquiry would exonerate Forsyth. Twenty of his men would be awarded the Medal of Honor.
The Army’s summary of casualties noted that 85 Lakota warriors were killed or died of wounds, along with 68 “noncombatants,” and 47 others, “age and sex unknown.”
David wrolson says
Does anyone think they will stop with Wounded Knee? That is obviously the low hanging fruit regarding Indian War medals-but my guess is that next would/will be the Nez Perce War.
Clyde says
Exactly! The rewriting of history is something done in communist controlled countries. I’ve already heard that some WWI monuments have been defaced because the Army was segregated at the time of the war. The removal of Confederate monuments and defacing their graves is an absolute disgrace. Remember that the Veteran’s Admin. is the source of headstones for Confederate veterans because they were Americans also. I plan on being laid to rest in a National cemetery before long. Will some snowflake someday deface my grave because I drank coffee, ate steak or drove a gasoline powered car?
D Mears says
Former Army historian here. Rewriting history is also performed in all democracies- it’s an essential part of historiography. Army historians recently revised their account of Wounded Knee to acknowledge that soldiers killed noncombatants indiscriminately, even using artillery at close range. The Army’s original narrative was simply wrong, and I fully support the change. I recently published on the Wounded Knee Medals here: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol48/iss1/7/
JimC says
Thank you for stopping by the campfire. I will kick your link up into a post.
Travis Slusser says
I’m no moral relativist, but I do believe the vast majority of volunteer soldiers- of all nations and throughout history, embarked on their service in good faith and with good intentions. I also doubt very many men have marched off to war worrying about what side of history they’ll be on in 100+ years.
Also, judging people long dead for adhering to the cultural and societal norms of their time and place is just disgusting… and pointless.
Hell, if they really feel the need to do something they ought to just posthumously award some medals to Gall or Wooden Leg or some other warriors, seeing as they’re part of this country’s story too and fought for a reasonable cause.
D Mears says
Societal norms (lieber code of 1863 and customary international law) clearly prohibited killing noncombatants without military necessity in 1890. Soldiers who violated these directives committed murder or negligent homicide, crimes that were equally in force at that time. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol48/iss1/7/
Gregory A Walker says
Absurd.
Leave the true and accurate history as it is…and history is always revised with new information that is documented.
Bear in mind the Native Americans (and I am a Warrior-Brother in the Nez Perce tribe) carried out their own wars and battles taking prisoners as slaves, killing and mutilating their enemies, and seizing territory from those they conquered.
“The editors argue that a failure to acknowledge the roles of warfare and violence in the lives of indigenous North Americans is itself a vestige of colonial repression—depriving native warriors of their history of armed resistance. These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life.”
https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/north-american-indigenous-warfare-and-ritual-violence
Ugly Hombre says
The Neo Bolshevik New Democrats constant going back into the past to right what they consider wrong is stupid and destructive.
“Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III has directed the Defense Department to review the Medals of Honor awarded to approximately 20 soldiers for their actions during the December 1890 engagement at Wounded Knee Creek, ”
But since the idiots want to go there..
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/01/08/defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-hospitalized-biden-national-security/72147987007/
“The public (was) kept in the dark until Friday, but Biden, who after all is the commander in chief, had no clue for three days that the person he appointed to run the Pentagon was out of commission.”
“At a time when the world is increasingly dangerous, and thousands of U.S. military personnel are perched on the edge of a war zone, it would be nice to think that the United States is ready to confront those challenges in a competent way. ”
“But this complete breakdown in communication among our nation’s top national security leaders is far from comforting.” No Chit.
Austins Good Conduct and Meritorious Service Medals should be struck for going AWOL in a time of great national danger. imo
A charge of desertion in a time of war might be going to far? Maybe Austin might want to use a mirror?
Phat chance.
Joel Engesser says
I think the Defense Department should stay out of the matter completely, but I have no problem with historians and scholars evaluating these cases. Clearly, as the DOD said, the standards for earning the medal have dramatically shifted over time, as did the quantity handed out. This may be because there were fewer official medals then. I’m most familiar with the stories behind the WW1 and WW2 medal winners and every one I can think of was truly a case of extraordinary heroism.
Maciej Szymkiewicz says
Why didn’t John Chivington get the Medal of Honor?
Jerry N says
Brothers and sisters, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the Congressional Medal of Honor? What’s the DOD got to do with it at this point? Wouldn’t Congress have to act on it?
JimC says
I think the “Congressional” is just “in the name of the U.S. Congress.”
Jerry N says
Back to social studies class I guess! I thought congress had to at least go through the motions of approving them. Thanks for the reply!
D Mears says
No, Congress authorized the criteria but has no role whatsoever in adjudication of the medal.
D Mears says
The issue is complicated by the rules governing revocation of medals. In 1916, the last time a review resulting in revocation of the MoH was authorized by Congress, the War Department did not have the authority to revoke medals unilaterally. But with the growth of executive authority they eventually permitted revocation of service medals by the 1960s, and all medals (including the MoH) by 1974, but only under circumstances such as fraud, material error in calculation, or facts subsequently determined that would have prevented the original award (none of these apply here, as the basic facts at Wounded Knee were known to award authorities).
The last decade saw new clarifying instructions on medal revocation, largely in reaction to some of the more controversial cases involving military awards and UCMJ, such as MAJ Mat Golsteyn, who had a SSM pending upgrade to the DSC until he acknowledged killing an unarmed noncombatant in an interview with the CIA. The Army subsequently revoked his medal and eventually charged him with murder after he admitted his actions on Fox News. Some MoCs advocated that Golsteyn had been treated unfairly because his misconduct was apparently unrelated to his qualifying actions (even if likely separated by only a day or so). Rep Duncan Hunter sponsored several provisions in the NDAA that would have prevented DoD from revoking medals in that type of situation, which caused OSD to author new guidelines over when misconduct can result in revocation of medals. The basic rule is that in cases of misconduct, medal revocation should only flow from separation from the service, by court martial or otherwise, simply because the military condones the behavior at some level if they don’t expel the member. Here, since Wounded Knee saw no punishment at all of the offenders, the only clause that might apply is a retroactive determination that service was unsatisfactory, which normally applies when an officer retires during a pending investigation (statute permits a secretary to reduce the officer in retirement in that case–see the recent example of RADM Ronny Jackson being reduced to CAPT). So this is why DoD is looking narrowly for only serious misconduct at Wounded Knee, and probably a high threshold of proof. If interested in the promulgation of the revocation rules, I covered them in an article a few years ago: https://tjaglcs.army.mil/Portals/0/Publications/Military%20Law%20Review/2021%20(Vol%20229)/Vol.%20229%20-%20Issue%203/4%20Mears%20Final.pdf
Congress could certainly expand the scope of the review by passing enabling legislation. That would permit, say, the revocation of medals that simply failed to qualify under 1890 regulation and law, but have no misconduct implicated. Unfortunately, that is not possible for this review simply due to the compressed timeline driven by the ending of this administration (they have missed the NDAA window for the FY25 bill that will pass this fall, and amendments are only considered by unanimous consent, meaning they can be blocked by anyone). I proposed passing prospective authorization of this type in my law review article: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol48/iss1/7/
Dan Elliott says
Crazy Horse was not resisting arrest when he was killed. He had voluntarily surrendered, after being promised he would not be jailed at Fort Robinson. When he realized he would in fact be jailed, he resisted and was stabbed. (See Thomas Powers’ book, “The Killing of Crazy Horse.”) It’s a fine point but an important one.