TDMD
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Location
- Norridge, IL
Citation: Displayed most conspicuous gallantry on the field vigorously contesting the advance of the enemy and continuing to encourage his troops after being himself severely wounded. I'm sure it can be rescinded.
Sounds like a weak argument.
Of course.... the entire invasion was "temporary." In regards to clarity of orders.
Point one - it pays to be a congressman with the president's ear. And what good would it do to rescind the MoH from him almost 100 years after the man died?
Point two - weak argument? I'm the one throwing quotes around here to prove my points, you and Opn have done none of that, you've only made wild arsed claims, so far. And as far as a quote from Humphreys, here goes, Coddington page #356:
General Humphreys later commented that if all the troops of the Third, Fifth, and Second Corps engaged on the Union left flank had been in position at the beginning of the battle on July 2, or if all the reinforcements had been sent in in one body, the result would have been different. Any attempt, he asserted, to maintain by successive reinforcements a position which was originally held by inadequate numbers of men and was about to give way, was bound to be unsuccessful. It was so with his Third Corps.
Point three, what does the temporary nature of the whole invasion have to do with the fleeting value of the PO?