Confederate Medal of Honor (2 Viewers)

[BLReed]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/26/confederate-medal-of-hono_n_5218723.html

Valor in Gray

HANCOCK, Md. (AP) — The Medal of Honor, created by Congress during the Civil War as America's highest military decoration for valor, was never meant for Americans who fought for the South. They were the enemy, after all.

But there's a Confederate Medal of Honor, little known yet highly prized, that the Sons of Confederate Veterans bestows on those whose bravery in battle can be proven to the private group's satisfaction.

The silver-and-bronze medal is a 10-pointed star bearing the Great Seal of the Confederate States and the words, "Honor. Duty. Valor. Devotion."

It has been awarded 50 times since 1977, most recently to Maj. James Breathed, a native Virginian buried in Hancock. He was honored last year for his bravery as an artillery officer in the 1864 Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse in Virginia.

The number of recipients is tiny compared to the 3,487 on the U.S. Medal of Honor roll, including more than 1,500 who fought for the Union in the War Between the States. Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans say their medal is given less freely than those the Union awarded during the war.

"The SCV created their own Confederate Medal of Honor simply because there were some incredible acts of valor that had received little or no recognition during and after the war," said Ben Sewell III, executive director of the 29,000-member group, based in Columbia, Tenn.

The medal has Civil War-era origins. Confederate President Jefferson Davis signed a law in 1862 authorizing medals for courage on the battlefield, but none was issued. The U.S. Army Center of Military History says Gen. Robert E. Lee refused to award individual citations for valor, mentioning noteworthy performance in his dispatches instead.

The Confederate Medal of Honor recipients are largely low-to-middle-ranking figures. Perhaps best-known is Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest of Tennessee, who tormented Union commanders with lightning raids, reportedly had black Union soldiers executed after their surrender at Fort Pillow, Tenn., and was for a time a post-war member of the Ku Klux Klan.

The first medal recipient was Pvt. Samuel Davis of Smyrna, Tenn. Davis was captured by Union troops and hanged as a spy in 1863 at age 21. His statue graces the grounds of the state capitol in Nashville, along with those of presidents Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson. Other recipients include the eight crew members of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley who perished in 1864 while attacking the federal war sloop USS Housatonic near Charleston, S.C.

Military historian Gregg Clemmer researched Confederate medal recipients for his 1996 book, "Valor in Gray." He cites Sgt. Richard Kirkland of South Carolina, honored for actions in the 1862 Battle of Fredericksburg, Va. Kirkland, moved by the cries of dying Union soldiers, reportedly brought them water on the battlefield during a firefight — an account doubted by some historians.

 

[Larry Allen]

An interesting topic and one that would make for a good and lively debate I imagine. :wink2:

Personally, I can understand why many would not want to see the UNITED STATES Medal of Honor be awarded to a Confederate Soldier, but I do not object to the Confederate Medal being given to BRAVE Southern soldiers. --- Larry

 

[Scott]

The dead are dead and neither know nor care. The living that do this are identifying with a cause that history has left behind. There can not be much documentation left behind of any act above and beyond , even if deserved.

If the Sons of whatever want to do this for surviving relatives then fine, but it would be in bad taste to hold such awards for a cause that was defeated and a confederacy that no longer exists in comparison to the Congressional Medal of Honor.

 

[tdubel]

The dead are dead and neither know nor care. The living that do this are identifying with a cause that history has left behind. There can not be much documentation left behind of any act above and beyond , even if deserved.

If the Sons of whatever want to do this for surviving relatives then fine, but it would be in bad taste to hold such awards for a cause that was defeated and a confederacy that no longer exists in comparison to the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I will try to say this with all the grace I can muster. Why on this green earth do you really care and feel the need to post negative comments or snide remarks everytime there is something written about the Confederacy in a positive light? Nearly everyone on both sides of those hallowed grounds were brave and deserving, it really doesn't matter who won or lost for the purposes of remembrance.

MY opinion is your post on any subject related to the Civil War is in bad taste as usual. Being a card carrying member of both the Sons of Union Veterans and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (your snide remark of whatever), this post is the same tiring malarkey that seems to come out of your keyboard periodically.

TD

 

[BLReed]

There can not be much documentation left behind of any act above and beyond ......

It goes back to 1862----------"Confederate Medal of Honor, was a military decoration meant to honor officers, noncommissioned officers, and privates for their valor in the armed forces of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. It was formally approved by the Congress of the Confederate States on October 13, 1862.

During the war, however, there were shortages of metals, and many medals were not minted or awarded. The names of these soldiers were, however, recorded in an Honor Roll and preserved in the Adjutant Inspector General's records.

.... but it would be in bad taste to hold such awards for a cause that was defeated..

I haven't read anywhere that is was for a cause. But to honor the brave soldiers. I'm certainly not big
on the German Kaiser or later the Nazi's, but I have to admire the bravery of those awarded the Iron Cross.
Maybe that's because none of my Military Awards have been for Valor and have lifelong friends that have many
a "V" on their awards.

You might want to brush up a bit.........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_of_Honor
and http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/confederate-medal-of-honor/

Keep this in mind "Two Medals of Honor – One Federal, One Confederate, both American"

 

[Scott]

The moderator took down the runner up joke so I posted my serious opinion.

To retroactively give an award anywhere near the name of the Medal of Honor may be within the business of the SCV but is not the same. The United States can retroactively award medals to long deceased heroes because it is the same government since 1787. The Confederacy no longer exists so any organization that awards medals in the Confederacy's name is being presumptuous, even if the deceased was entitled to it.

One can have respect for foreign soldiers, even past enemies, but the Confederacy was on the wrong side of history, started the war at Fort Sumter, was beaten on the battlefield, and surrendered. Hundreds of thousands died because some states leaders couldn't accept the results of the 1860 election and continue to work within the system that up until that election was favorable to their states.

I am only bound by common courtesy and decency to respect the Confederacy's dead as either heroic or victims but not any medals awarded by a private club.

 

[Poppo]

The moderator took down the runner up joke so I posted my serious opinion.

To retroactively give an award anywhere near the name of the Medal of Honor may be within the business of the SCV but is not the same. The United States can retroactively award medals to long deceased heroes because it is the same government since 1787. The Confederacy no longer exists so any organization that awards medals in the Confederacy's name is being presumptuous, even if the deceased was entitled to it.

One can have respect for foreign soldiers, even past enemies, but the Confederacy was on the wrong side of history, started the war at Fort Sumter, was beaten on the battlefield, and surrendered. Hundreds of thousands died because some states leaders couldn't accept the results of the 1860 election and continue to work within the system that up until that election was favorable to their states.

I am only bound by common courtesy and decency to respect the Confederacy's dead as either heroic or victims but not any medals awarded by a private club.

Dear Scott,

you have a wierd and dogmatic view of history. The confederacy was on the right side, and the Union on the wrong one: some states LEGALLY declared their independence according to the constitution and the union attacked them ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for this reason.

An independent state can't bear a foreign army on its land and, as the fort sumter garrison didn't leave, the confederates were obliged to push them away.

The winners of the war weren't the brave unionist soldiers, but the banks, the big industry, the speculators: the great grandfathers of the ugliest capitalism we can enjoy today...

 

[tdubel]

Its a sad commentary when a simple news item is posted and it is basically attacked and turned into the North vs. South. As someone proud of my own heritage, everytime I see this kind of diatribe, it reminds me of my favorite jingle (cleaned up for the board):

"You fly your flag, I will fly mine, but I will be dadgummed if I will give you or waste any more of my time!"

TD

 

[jazzeum]

This is really much ado about nothing. If a lost cause heritage group wants to give awards, so what? It's as significant as a civic group giving out its annual man of the year award to some local business person.

Now, if the U.S. Government decided they wanted to issue Medals of Honor to those who fought for the Confederacy that would be a different story.

I really find these arguments some sort of macho hand to hand combat, which really don't advance any conversation or learning about the Civil War or its causes or repurcussions.

I have, in the past, posted many articles and book suggestions and except for students of the War and American History like Al, almost no one comments. Why? Who knows? I just don't this Forum is the place to discuss these kinds of issues. There are plenty of blogs that do that like Civil War Memory, Crossroads, Freedman's Patrol, Student of the American Civil War or Cenantua's Blog.

Interestingly, some of these heritage groups are starting to die out. See this article from the Montgomery, Alabama Advertiser, http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...wd-prattville-confederate-observance/8471783/

Maybe at some point, these events will be truly relegated to the history books.

Brad

 

[tdubel]

This is really much ado about nothing. If a lost cause heritage group wants to give awards, so what? It's as significant as a civic group giving out its annual man of the year award to some local business person.

Now, if the U.S. Government decided they wanted to issue Medals of Honor to those who fought for the Confederacy that would be a different story.

I really find these arguments some sort of macho hand to hand combat, which really don't advance any conversation or learning about the Civil War or its causes or repurcussions.

I have, in the past, posted many articles and book suggestions and except for students of the War and American History like Al, almost no one comments. Why? Who knows? I just don't this Forum is the place to discuss these kinds of issues. There are plenty of blogs that do that like Civil War Memory, Crossroads, Freedman's Patrol, Student of the American Civil War or Cenantua's Blog.

Interestingly, some of these heritage groups are starting to die out. See this article from the Montgomery, Alabama Advertiser, http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...wd-prattville-confederate-observance/8471783/

Maybe at some point, these events will be truly relegated to the history books.

Brad

Brad,
On some points I don't disagree, but why is the Sons of Confederate Veterans relegated to a lost cause heritage group? They are not. As a member of both Sons of Union and Sons of Confederate, these groups work together with the National Parks and the Civil War Trust and other groups to preserve the battlefields and thereby history. I think that's important. As students of history, I would hope that the collective "we" are the last folks who want these groups and others like them to die out. Everyday, there is a developer out there trying to "redevelop" Civil War Battlefields, they need to be preserved or else all that will be remembered will be in a history book. AND that is not acceptable in my book. It is bad enough that in today's public school they barely touch on the Civil War.

Another interesting item to note, is that the opposition to a Casino in Gettysburg was defeated by the collective effort of all of the groups mentioned and more. There is not a North Vs South anymore and that attitude is tiring, these groups today are important in remembering history.

There will never be a definitive answer on the cause of the Civil War as the viewpoints of that span the spectrum so to speak, and that's ok, maybe all of the viewpoints are right in some way. As to repercussions today, I find it interesting that the most vitriolic sources of debate occur between academics who have their own uncompromising strong opinions. I think if you ask any typical "Northerner" or any typical "Southerner", there is not really much thought or opinion into the subject.

Just my 2 cents, but the whole thread is much ado about nothing, the original post I found interesting and think why not? There is nothing wrong with a heritage group recognizing the valor of a soldier regardless of which side he was on, it was Americans Killing Americans, plain and simple, they both believed they were fighting for a better Country.

TD

 

[jazzeum]

Tom,

As I said I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing and just leave it at that. The other things we've discussed and like I said this Forum is not really designed to discuss issues in substance.

Parts of the SCV may do good work but to me they're just a heritage group, pushing forth their view of things. They don't look too good in the Olustee dustup.

I also disagree about your reference to academics. Professors are not the only doing research in the archives and the records and there are often strong discussions going on between people who are interested in the Civil War. Witness the controversy over the Hood book.

Brad

 

[tdubel]

Tom,

As I said I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing and just leave it at that. The other things we've discussed and like I said this Forum is not really designed to discuss issues in substance.

Parts of the SCV may do good work but to me they're just a heritage group, pushing forth their view of things. They don't look too good in the Olustee dustup.

I also disagree about your reference to academics. Professors are not the only doing research in the archives and the records and there are often strong discussions going on between people who are interested in the Civil War. Witness the controversy over the Hood book.

Brad

Brad,
Point on the SCV with regard to the Ocala/Olustee group. I can't speak on that directly, from what I have seen and read, one of their members is a Congressman who is a fool and apparently has led this charge and puts foot in mouth quite often, which is a shame. I can only speak on the group that I am a member of and interestingly enough, there are several in our MD Chapter who are members of both SUV and SCV, we tend to do a lot of preservation activities in tandem. There will always be a crappy group within organizations that embarrass the group as a whole.

Agree, in the same way on academics, I shouldn't have generalized them all in that category!

TD

 

[Combat]

Tom,

As I said I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing and just leave it at that. The other things we've discussed and like I said this Forum is not really designed to discuss issues in substance.

Parts of the SCV may do good work but to me they're just a heritage group, pushing forth their view of things. They don't look too good in the Olustee dustup.

I also disagree about your reference to academics. Professors are not the only doing research in the archives and the records and there are often strong discussions going on between people who are interested in the Civil War. Witness the controversy over the Hood book.

Brad

I agree for the most part. My only concern is that in characterizing this as a "Medal of Honor" it is easily confused or equated with an officially sanctioned award form the U.S. Government. When you say that a solider has won the "Medal of Honor" that's what an average person might assume. A private entity can do whatever they like unless it is illegal and I'm not suggesting they should be made to stop. That doesn't mean, however, they won't be subject to scrutiny. For example, McDonald's could award Medals of Honor to the folks who eat the most french fries, but it is somewhat disrepectful to those who have been awarded the Medal of Honor. I don't really see any real point to this practice. If the Confederate governement itself, including General Lee, did not see fit to issue any such personal awards as the article points out, then why 150 years later would some group deem it necessary to question their judgment on such matters?

 

[Warrior]

Dear Scott,

you have a wierd and dogmatic view of history. The confederacy was on the right side, and the Union on the wrong one: some states LEGALLY declared their independence according to the constitution and the union attacked them ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for this reason.

An independent state can't bear a foreign army on its land and, as the fort sumter garrison didn't leave, the confederates were obliged to push them away.

The winners of the war weren't the brave unionist soldiers, but the banks, the big industry, the speculators: the great grandfathers of the ugliest capitalism we can enjoy today...

You know, I was going to stay out of this thread, I really was.

Until I read this gem.

Honestly, you wrote what you wrote and then you said SCOTT has a weird and dogmatic view of history?

Something about people living in glass houses applies here.

Tell me; what sorts of books are you reading to come up with your theories on the American Civil War?

I didn't know Aesop wrote any books about the ACW; gee, you learn something new everyday.

The Confederacy was on the right side; wow.

I mean, just, WOW.

 

[Rutledge]

Many from the North take the view that the war was about slavery, first and last. Many from the South have a different view: that the war was primarily about economic issues, of which slavery was an important but not only factor. States rights played into this as well.

The truth is many in the North made their fortunes from the slave trade -- acquiring, transporting and selling slaves. This is where much of Boston's initial wealth came from.

The South had paid dearly for its slaves. As an agrarian society, slave labor made plantations profitable enterprises. With slavery abolished the large amounts of money "invested" in slaves was worth exactly zero. Whole generations of families would be financially wiped out. The North, meanwhile, had already made their handsome profits and now could afford to step back from a practice they had pioneered and advanced.

The South also didnt like its wealthier neighbors lecturing them from afar, or hectoring them about how to conduct their (finanical) affairs. As many things in life do, it came down to money. The North also didnt like the lower cost structure the South had due to its availability of slave labor. Imagine the frustrtation when the dealer who convinced you needed this "slave product" now comes back and says, ooops, no, sorry, we take it all back --- but you are still out the money you paid us.

On the battlefield it was and is well known that the average confederate soldier was a far better fighter than the average northern soldier. Thus how the souith almost prevailed despite its great disadvantage in men and resources.

OK, Ive said my piece.

 

[Poppo]

You know, I was going to stay out of this thread, I really was.

Until I read this gem.

Honestly, you wrote what you wrote and then you said SCOTT has a weird and dogmatic view of history?

Something about people living in glass houses applies here.

Tell me; what sorts of books are you reading to come up with your theories on the American Civil War?

I didn't know Aesop wrote any books about the ACW; gee, you learn something new everyday.

The Confederacy was on the right side; wow.

I mean, just, WOW.

I am amazed of your amazement. I always write concrete topics, but the replies are always about amazement and books. Of course, the biggest american historiography always uses the same old and only reason to justify the northern invasion : slavery. But why aren't considered " sinners" also Washington, Jefferson, and the southern presidents owning slaves? Because every state needs to justify his own History, even by turning into right what was wrong( of course also european states do this ).
Speaking more concretely...Do you mean to deny the fact that the war started because the Union wanted to keep the southern states in it? Just read Lincoln statements, he clearly wrote that this was the reason.
At that time the abolitionists were a small group of fanatics, and Lincoln was not one of them. It is of course easy, with the nowadays "glasses" to use the slavery theme as a shocking reason; but taking a present point of view and sensibility, and applying it to the past is an old technique to distort the historical facts.


ps: when did the war start? When the southern states seceded. So what was the cause for the war: the slavery or the secession?

 

[Warrior]

On the battlefield it was and is well known that the average confederate soldier was a far better fighter than the average northern soldier. Thus how the souith almost prevailed despite its great disadvantage in men and resources.

Have to disagree with you on this.

Leadership, ie, generals in charge is what failed the North from 1861-1863, from mid 1863 to mid 1865, it was a different story and the tide was turned.

With Vicksburg falling and Gettysburg turning into a major defeat, the war was essentially over, it dragged on for two more years for no good reason, the South had no shot to win.

Much in the same way the defeat of Rommel at El Alamein and the 6th Army at Stalingrad basically ended WWII in the ETO, but it dragged on for two more years.

Not to mention in the West, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan were superior to anything the South had to oppose them; had there not be a western theater and Sherman, Grant and Sheridan were in the East, the war would have lasted two years.

Tops.

Fighting ability of soldiers in the field is only as good as those who are leading them, so again, you're wrong.

 

[Warrior]

I am amazed of your amazement.

And I'm amazed that you are amazed over my amazement.

Please; we are done now, ok?

 

[jazzeum]

And I'm amazed that you are amazed over my amazement.

Please; we are done now, ok?

Now, it's his turn: he's amazed that you're amazed that he's amazed that you're amazed.... Wait, I think I have one too many or not enough amazements. Isn't that amazing? :tongue:

 

[Warrior]

Now, it's his turn: he's amazed that you're amazed that he's amazed that you're amazed.... Wait, I think I have one too many or not enough amazements. Isn't that amazing? :tongue:

More like he's had one one too many.