Mary Edwards Walker - Medal of Honor Recipient

[cw1979]

I have read both sides of this argument and come to the same conclusion as two of the above posters also did, Walker did not deserve the MOH nor did she have any right to receive it in the first place. It was a "shut up" award which was obviously somewhat successful. Not one thing i have read about her states she was ever a part of a single heroic act. I also strongly believe the medal should be given to military personal only, which she was not.

I am all for civilian being honored for heroic acts, police officers, Firemen, Ems and even your regular civilian who goes above and beyond the call of duty and risks their life. That is exactly why awards like the public safety officer medal of valor were created. Then we have the medal of Freedom but that medal is a joke. To make a long story short, her acts were not heroic nor were they deserving of a medal of any sort. I know people who have made a much greater contribution to saving lives and have never been given a single award, even though they genuinely deserved it. I find it a shame we give medals out due to political correctness and not for actual valor.

Well said. Thank you.

[cw1979]

 

My question asking if you also wrote a letter regarding the scouts is relevant because you admit that one of the criteria for disqualifying Walker was the fact that she was a civilian. This same scenario falls true for the civilian scouts.

 

While the citations for the scouts from the Indian Wars only states gallantry in action, I did find a civilian scout from the Civil War whose medal does not show gallantry in action, William H Woodall. He was Chief Civilian Scout for Major General Philip H. Sheridans Cavalry Corps. His citation states Captured flag of Brigadier General Rufus Barringers headquarters brigade.

 

http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/1514/woodall-william-h.php

 

 

 

While there may be some confusion as to which battles in which she served, the Army History website in my post above as well as the CMOHS website also list: Battle of Bull Run, Chickomauga, and the Battle of Atlanta.

 

http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/1428/walker-dr-mary-e.php

 

You started this conversation by stating alleged items irrelevant to what you are now saying is the criteria for being awarded the medal, gallantry in action. By doing so, you are only trying to discredit her rather than show facts about her service during the war. For instance, you stated she was released as a POW allegedly because her captors grew tired of her complaining where this has been shown she was exchanged along with other surgeons. You stated President Johnson wanted her to be placated by being given the medal which is also unproven. You stated Carter caved which is also an allegation.

 

As far as showing evidence of people from the North helping people from the South or vice-versa, these stories have been read and heard from different places. I was born and raised in the south. My entire life, I have read books about the Civil War. My entire life, I have heard my family stories as well as family stories of my friends. I have discussed on this forum how my Great-Great Grandfather threw my Grandfathers school history book about the Battle of Manassas in the fireplace saying Those are a bunch of Yankee lies. I was there and that did not happen. It has been stated that history is written by the victors.

 

Many of the exploits of early women have been lost or forgotten. It does not surprise me that it is hard to find information about Walker. Even in relatively modern times, the stories of the WASP in WWII were hidden until finally in 1977, the records were unsealed after an Air Force press release erroneously stated the Air Force was training the first women to fly military aircraft for the US.

 

Hopefully one day, the true story of Dr Mary Walker will be discovered. Until that time, we can only speculate but nothing has been shown as indisputable evidence.

I fear you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

For a moment stop looking at this from the prospective of a woman's actions and ask if the actions themselves merit the award. They do not; her gender has nothing to do with it.

 

The same can be said of the civilian scouts; man or woman they should not have been awarded the medal.

 

The award to General MacArthur in WWII is another example of an inappropriate, politically motivated award. His gender does not apply to the argument.

 

As for the WASPs they did no more or less than male civilian contract pilots of that era. I don't see any of those men being buried at Arlington but I could have missed such news articles.

[cutiger83]

My point of this entire discussion which seems to be getting lost is that short of going back in time, or finding letters or something from the period, it is tough to say conclusively it was one way or the other without doubt. There are a couple of things to consider also, aside from evidence of her actions. For one thing, not everyone who did something amazing was recognized with a medal, and conversely, not everyone recognized with a medal did amazing things. The only thing they were consistent about, was being inconsistent in their awards to people. Proving actions of 60 years earlier (now over 150 years ago) is as hard today as proving what someone did 50 years ago; all you have to go on is what someone thought to write down. Sometimes they didn't write it down for 20 or 30 years, which introduces more doubt since time had passed. In the end, you either accept it, or you don't. Either way, recognized or not, if someone went out of their way to serve their nation, that is more than most people have done since.

[cutiger83]

As for the WASPs they did no more or less than male civilian contract pilots of that era. I don't see any of those men being buried at Arlington but I could have missed such news articles.

 

My point regarding the WASP was that not all facts are known about women in history. However, the WASP did the EXACT same thing as the men in the Air Transport Command. When a man was killed, he received a military funeral and the family received $10,000. When a WASP was killed doing the EXACT same thing the other WASPS had to take up money to have the body shipped home and the family got nothing but a telegram stating “Your daughter died. Where do you want the body sent?” The WASP deserve to be buried at Arlington. They served our country with honor and distinction.

[LuftStalg1]

 

My point regarding the WASP was that not all facts are known about women in history. However, the WASP did the EXACT same thing as the men in the Air Transport Command. When a man was killed, he received a military funeral and the family received $10,000. When a WASP was killed doing the EXACT same thing the other WASPS had to take up money to have the body shipped home and the family got nothing but a telegram stating “Your daughter died. Where do you want the body sent?” The WASP deserve to be buried at Arlington. They served our country with honor and distinction.

Agreed. And I would bet BIG anyone even putting a petition together to have the WASP dug up and moved would be publicly (not literally) crucified. My understanding of the qualifications for the MOH have become tighter and tougher over time. I am not convinced comparing actions for today and 150 years ago can be adequately made. I see it as comparing killing a grizzly with a knife or killing 100 grizzly with a gun and 100 bullets at close range. In the beginning there is little doubt it was a bit wishy washy on the process, just like today at times. I do appreciate seeing the input and discussion of history.

[cw1979]

 

My point regarding the WASP was that not all facts are known about women in history. However, the WASP did the EXACT same thing as the men in the Air Transport Command. When a man was killed, he received a military funeral and the family received $10,000. When a WASP was killed doing the EXACT same thing the other WASPS had to take up money to have the body shipped home and the family got nothing but a telegram stating “Your daughter died. Where do you want the body sent?” The WASP deserve to be buried at Arlington. They served our country with honor and distinction.

 

I was not speaking of nor comparing WASPs to the Air Transport Command. Those men were members of the US Army Air Force; if they died while in the service they could and should have been buried in a military cemetery.

 

The men I was speak of (I should have made myself clear) were the men who worked for the Civilian Pilot Training Program or the civilian contract instructors who trained RAF pilots in the United States. These men were civilians, just as the WASPs were, who did a job the nation needed done. There job was a civilian job; not a military one.

 

I do not believe it is possible for me to make you see my view on this issue; I believe you are very committed to your cause and I respect you for it even if I disagree with you.

 

I will not post on this matter again.

[cutiger83]

 

I was not speaking of nor comparing WASPs to the Air Transport Command. Those men were members of the US Army Air Force; if they died while in the service they could and should have been buried in a military cemetery.

 

The men I was speak of (I should have made myself clear) were the men who worked for the Civilian Pilot Training Program or the civilian contract instructors who trained RAF pilots in the United States. These men were civilians, just as the WASPs were, who did a job the nation needed done. There job was a civilian job; not a military one.

 

I do not believe it is possible for me to make you see my view on this issue; I believe you are very committed to your cause and I respect you for it even if I disagree with you.

 

I will not post on this matter again.

 

 

Yes we will never agree. However, you cannot compare the WASPS to the CPTP program because the WASPS were a part of the ATC not the CPTP. They transported planes and flew planes for target practice. They were never a part of the CPTP. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[FFZFlyer]

Outstanding and fascinating scholarship, FFZ. Thank you for your time to post it.

 

Thanks for the comments, they are appreciated.

[Wharfmaster]

Dear Madam:

 

Your Son, 3rd Mate, US Merchant Marine, died when his ship was torpedoed by a German U-Boat in the North Atlantic, 1943.

 

Oh, by the way, we don't consider him a War Veteran.

 

 

 

Wharf

[FFZFlyer]

Cutiger83, Re: your post #23. Your family stories are treasures for your family, to be sure, and contribute to many interesting conversations with relatives, I would think. However, they are not historical records and would fall under the category of "hearsay." What is needed is documented references.

 

Re: your post #24. You cite the original Army MoH law which, indeed, permitted awards of the medal for "other soldier-like qualities." The original act also limited the MoH to enlisted men, BTW. You conveniently failed to note that on March 3, 1863, the same President Lincoln signed an amendment that not only opened the award to officers but eliminated the "other soldier-like qualities," and limited it those who "most distinguished, or who may hereafter most distinguish, themselves in action​ ​​ (italics mine)." See Medal of Honor Historical Society Annals, Vol. 1 No. 3, March 1979.

 

As I earlier pointed out, Walker did not qualify for the award because of her status as a civilian contractor and because there was no evidence, then or in the 20th century that any of her service had been "distinguished" in any way, shape, or form.

 

You keep referring to the scouts. Its been too many years to recall if I actually voiced my opinion via a letter, but I'll say probably not because I recognized that the forces aligned to restore their awards had already made up their minds, much as they had with Walker a few years earlier, so there was little reason to try to change them. For the record, I thought the scouts merited the MoH based on distinguishing themselves in action," but were not eligible because they were civilian contractors. Its no different today - a government civilian contractor is just that, he/she performs a contracted service or provides a contracted product, gets paid and the contract is complete. There is no provision for providing a civilian contractor a pension let alone a military decoration.

 

As for Woodall, while his citation might not have contained the phrase "in action" very few of the Civil War citations do, especially the flag capture citations. Brevity was the norm. A casual review of CW MoH citations reveal that few contained more than half a dozen or so words. The Indian War citations were even more sparse. But there was almost sure to be action when an enemy flag was captured, because a unit's colors were closely guarded (you may have heard of a "color guard") and efforts to take one were hotly contested.

 

I'll also go on the record has having opposed most of the "late" awards that have become so frequent in recent years. Without concrete evidence of original opposition to the award for whatever reason, I did not think there was enough to justify these awards, and several of them, based on their citations, did not seem to be worthy of the MoH. In cases where a service member had originally been recommended for the MoH but the paperwork had been lost or additional evidence was located that warranted upgrading a lower award I was fully supportive.

 

I share your opinion that many deeds of valor go unrecognized, for a wide variety of reasons. In fact, I have long said, "Not every act of gallantry receives appropriate recognition, but every recognized act should be justified."

 

Your sincerity and passion is apparent and you are to be congratulated for that. In the end, my opinions about Walker and the scouts, and other questionable awards of the MoH including MacArthur, Lindbergh, WWII command awards, and a few others, don't matter because the deed is done and the only thing I can do about that is share facts and voice my opinion.

[tarbridge]

Okay...let's stay on track...

[cutiger83]

Cutiger83, Re: your post #23. Your family stories are treasures for your family, to be sure, and contribute to many interesting conversations with relatives, I would think. However, they are not historical records and would fall under the category of "hearsay." What is needed is documented references.

 

Your sincerity and passion is apparent and you are to be congratulated for that.

 

Your sincerity and passion is also apparent. I love a healthy debate. The best thing about this thread is that it has gotten me interested in learning more about Walker as well as learning more about the history and evolution of the MOH.

 

Regarding family stories, isn't everything we collect based on stories from families with maybe a mix of some historical records? Aren't history books written based on personal experiences or stories from people who were there mixed with some historical records? Yes there certainly are historical documents but not records from everything in our past. How many records do we have from the American Revolution? Not many so is everything from that time considered hearsay?

 

While I do understand that documentation solidifies history, I believe we also need a healthy mix of the personal experiences.

[FFZFlyer]

 

 

Regarding family stories, isn't everything we collect based on stories from families with maybe a mix of some historical records? Aren't history books written based on personal experiences or stories from people who were there mixed with some historical records?

 

 

 

Uh, no, not good ones. Any publisher would demand verification of stated facts, particularly controversial ones.

[cutiger83]

 

Uh, no, not good ones. Any publisher would demand verification of stated facts, particularly controversial ones.

 

It all boils down to what is accepted as verification. Not all things in life are documented in a written report. Also. someone had to write that report so it is subject to the author's interpretation. In addition, not all written reports are correct. For instance, in Luftstalag1's post #10, he states that there is a POW certificate in his great great grandfather's records but his diary states to the contrary. If you went solely by the records, you would be incorrect. The family has the correct story.

 

We will have to agree to disagree....

[tarbridge]

 

It all boils down to what is accepted as verification. Not all things in life are documented in a written report. Also. someone had to write that report so it is subject to the author's interpretation. In addition, not all written reports are correct. For instance, in Luftstalag1's post #10, he states that there is a POW certificate in his great great grandfather's records but his diary states to the contrary. If you went solely by the records, you would be incorrect. The family has the correct story.

 

We will have to agree to disagree....

Kat...I have to disagree with your family has the correct story. The families rendition and the truth might intersect...but my experience says many times its confused or overstated. But thats fine.

I don't know if Walker did any of the things claimed, it seems her history is clouded.

If you go by the rules and regulations, she fits with the others; the medal recension was valid.It has been a interesting read.

[cutiger83]

Kat...I have to disagree with your family has the correct story.

 

 

I did not say my family has the correct story. I was talking about Luftstalag's family story about his great great grandfather that was discussed in post #10. .

[tarbridge]

 

 

I did not say my family has the correct story. I was talking about Luftstalag's family story about his great great grandfather that was discussed in post #10. .

My statement was a overview of family and family lore, not "your" family or Luftstalag1's.

[cutiger83]

My statement was a overview of family and family lore, not "your" family or Luftstalag1's.

 

I misunderstood what you meant. Sorry.

 

I believe you also misunderstood what I meant. When I said "the family has the correct story", I did not mean this as an overview of all family stories being correct. I meant in that instance for Luftstalag's great great grandfather, his family had the correct story in the diary.

[tarbridge]

 

I misunderstood what you meant. Sorry.

 

I believe you also misunderstood what I meant. When I said "the family has the correct story", I did not mean this as an overview of all family stories being correct. I meant in that instance for Luftstalag's great great grandfather, his family had the correct story in the diary.

Thanks. I'm glad we understand that we misunderstood each other.