Progressives’ Wounded Knee revisionism has no place in decisions about wartime decorations.
Progressives' Wounded Knee revisionism has no place in decisions about wartime decorations.
T he Defense Department has announced that it is officially reviewing 20 of the Medals of Honor awarded to men who fought against the Lakota in the engagement at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890. That skirmish, described as a “massacre” by present-day historians and progressive politicians, ended with the death of more than 250 Lakota natives, including many noncombatants, women, and children. This would be the first potential rescission of any Medals of Honor since a full review of all such commendations was undertaken in 1916. Congress suggested that the awards should be stripped from their long-dead recipients as part of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, in a passage added by liberal senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), who said that the rescissions would be “a step toward righting wrongs against native peoples.” The relevant text, Section 585, reads: “Each Medal of Honor awarded for acts at Wounded Knee Creek, Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota, on December 29, 1890, is rescinded.”
Despite the clarity and forcefulness of that language, the rescission still requires an internal DOD process, which Secretary Lloyd Austin has encouraged. In his letter starting the review process, Austin purports to limit the scope of the inquiry, writing that the assessment “is limited to reviewing each [Wounded Knee Creek Medal of Honor] awardee’s individual actions during this specific engagement.” Later in the letter, however, he opens the field for a much broader vision, including consideration of “the context of the overall engagement,” as well as adding multiple Interior Department personnel to the review board. Adding these civilians to the process shows that this review is not being done on a purely military basis, increasing the potential for modern political considerations to alter the outcome.
The “context” that will be considered will likely follow the prevailing modern narrative and lead to the desired conclusion: the rescission of these commendations. This incident, viewed by most as a battle at the time, is now seen by many, particularly on the progressive left, as a deliberate genocidal massacre — one that serves as a microcosm of the series of conflicts known as the Indian Wars. The modern narrative embraced in the academy and among activist groups is that Wounded Knee was a simple morality tale of evil white colonizers murdering scores of unarmed indigenous innocents who merely sought to remain on their tribal land. Of course, nobody should receive a battlefield commendation for an unprovoked mass killing of civilians, rescission proponents argue.
The reality of the situation is far more nuanced and should not be judged by the moral standards of the present day. The Wounded Knee engagement occurred during an especially volatile period in U.S.–Native relations, when American military personnel repressed several Indian revolts across the West. At Wounded Knee, the U.S. Army far outgunned the Lakota, who were in the process of being disarmed against their will; still, during the fracas, a significant number of Natives remained armed and fired at the Americans, injuring dozens and killing 25. This was not a mass execution, even though the casualty totals were highly lopsided.
Furthermore, on an individual level, participating in a rout, even one where civilians were killed, does not invalidate bravery shown under fire. Several of the citations prove this, including ones for “voluntarily rescu[ing] wounded comrades under fire,” exhibiting bravery after being “severely wounded,” and redirecting troops against orders to save lives.
On top of this oft-ignored historical nuance, several other factors militate against rescinding these awards. First, Austin’s letter describes some of the criteria for the review:
The MOH award standards and applicable laws and regulations in effect on December 29, 1890; [under which] the [reviewers] will assess whether conduct demonstrated any disqualifying actions, such as: intentionally directing an attack against a non-combatant or an individual who has surrendered in good faith, murder or rape of a prisoner, or engaging in any other act demonstrating immorality. [Emphasis added.]
These are not unreasonable criteria in a vacuum, but in context, they tell a different story. There were very different standards for the Medal of Honor in 1890. Instead of the nation’s highest military honor, it was initially struck in the Civil War as the sole military commendation available. In that, it was meant not for exceptional bravery but for “distinguished” acts. This means that there were lower benchmarks not only for conduct but for citation information as well, complicating any present-day investigation. On top of that, these particular commendations were previously reviewed and confirmed by a 1916 panel, one that had access to witness testimony from living participants.
The last criterion in Austin’s letter, that of “engaging in any other act demonstrating immorality,” allows the reviewers to ignore a multitude of contrary historical evidence in favor of that which supports their desired outcome: stripping the commendations. Combining this with the broader “context” of the engagement — the Indian Wars that the left now considers wicked — allows one to argue that any participants in the event would have been “demonstrating immorality.” Forcibly removing Native populations from their land was a regrettable aspect of 19th-century American politics. But the men who fought in the Indian Wars were not deciding on where and how to campaign; they carried out the orders of their superior officers and did so with gallantry. They should not be punished for a choice that was not theirs to make.
The broader aspects of this review are even more concerning. No novel information sparked this process. Instead, it was driven entirely by left-wing politicians and activists who shoehorned the provision into a must-pass piece of national-security legislation. Historical commendations should not be rescinded out of partisan pique; they should only be reviewed in light of newfound historical evidence. The large-scale review carried out in the early 1900s came as a result of a change in the criteria for the Medal of Honor and resulted in nearly 1,000 rescissions — notably, though, not the medals awarded for the action at Wounded Knee. The specifics of that engagement, including the fact of civilian deaths, have been known for more than a century. There is no rationale for this review outside of progressive political pressure, something made clear by Austin himself. His letter declared that the review “is warranted based on a range of factors, including the findings reflected in the [NDAA resolution], which encouraged a review.” Of course, the only factor mentioned in the entire letter is the political one.
This is only the beginning, as presentism, the tendency to interpret the past with modern standards, has no limiting principle. There are always new progressive moral judgments to retroactively apply. The 2020 statue-removal campaign was initially portrayed as targeting only Confederate monuments but quickly expanded to anyone associated with slavery, including the Founding Fathers. The slippery slope of presentism was all too real then, as it will be now. If Wounded Knee is seen as an evil massacre necessitating the rescission of commendations, why not the remainder of the Indian Wars? Why not other wars that progressives find immoral today? According to the presentists, most American wars outside of World War II did far more harm than good. In their view, the Spanish–American War was an imperialistic conflict, the Mexican–American War was a war of aggression, and the Vietnam War was meant to subjugate anti-colonialist resistance. Any honors earned by those who bravely fought for their country in these conflicts will be up for retroactive rescission under presentist auspices.
An unnamed senior official defended the review, saying that “it’s never too late to do what’s right.” The problem here is that they are completely wrong. Rescinding these awards is wrong on the merits and reifies an outlook that is fundamentally destructive to our national memory. Our courageous forebears deserve much better.