Army begins Stripping CSA Battle Honors from Guard Units

[Poohbah]

I think Mike and Poohbah have it.

If they were really serious about eliminating battle honors for things that are considered problematic to some modern sensibilities, then all units with honors from the following conflicts should have those stripped as well:

Mexican-American War
Wars of Western Expansion, aka Indian Wars. Including the 10th Cav.
Spanish-American War
Vera Cruz and the Mexican intervention/invasion
Invasions of the Central and South American countries in the 1920's and 1930's

No, you have it backwards.

I want to destroy the monuments to NATIVE AMERICANS.

Wounded Knee? They were rebelling against the government and got what they deserved. Et cetera.

[M.Becker]

I think Mike and Poohbah have it.

If they were really serious about eliminating battle honors for things that are considered problematic to some modern sensibilities, then all units with honors from the following conflicts should have those stripped as well:

Not so modern. Sometime after the war the South wanted to erect a Confederate monument at Gettysburg. Union veterans didn't like that and didn't hold back.

[Craiglxviii]

Without going into too much detail, Merrill McPeak directed that two of the four squadrons here at Shaw - 17TFS, and 21TFS(my outfit) should be retired because they ceased to exist as coherent flying units after being wiped out in the Philippines in 41-42. Now, as much as our hearts disagreed with this, from a purely historical viewpoint he was right - although the squadrons were never officially stood down (and I think it's unlikely at best that there ever was a document anywhere standing down the 132nd's ancestor units), they were unmanned and unequipped for 29 years. They did not have the continuous service history that the units of the 20TFW (which succeeded them at Shaw) did.

Per Wiki on 17TFS:

Other members of the 17th escaped to Australia, where they collected new P-40s (see Pensacola Convoy) and reformed as the 17th Pursuit Squadron (Provisional). In January 1942, the squadron undertook a flight across Australia and the Arafura Sea, to Java and took part in the Dutch East Indies Campaign, where it claimed 49 Japanese aircraft destroyed, for the loss of 17 P-40s.[12] At the end of February, as Japanese ground forces approached, the squadron handed over its surviving aircraft to the Dutch military and returned to Australia.

What remained of the 17th Pursuit Squadron was integrated into other American units in Australia. Fifth Air Force carried the squadron as an active, unmanned unit through the end of the war. Lastly, 2 April 1946, the unit was placed in inactive status. It would remain inactive until almost the end of the Vietnam War.

and

21 TFS:

The unit was activated in October 1944 as a very long range Republic P-47N Thunderbolt fighter-escort squadron for B-29 Superfortress units engaged in the strategic bombardment of the Japanese Home Islands. It trained under the Third Air Force in the southeast United States and deployed to the Pacific Ocean Theater, moving to Okinawa in May 1945.[5]

The squadron began operations from Ie Shima Airfield in June. It engaged in dive-bombing and strafing attacks on factories, radar stations, airfields, small ships and other targets in Japan. It made several attacks on shipping and airfields in China during July. The unit flew its only escort mission on 8 August 1945 when it escorted B-29s during a raid against Yawata, Kyoto, Japan.[5]

After the end of combat in the Pacific, it remained on Okinawa as a part of the air defense and occupation force for the Ryukyu Islands after the war. The unit was inactivated on Okinawa on 15 October 1946.[5]

I look forward to the thoughts and comments; you may fire when ready.

Mike, there are two distinct views to squadron lineages.

There's the USN pre 1998 which insisted on total continuity:

Under pre-1998 rules, a squadron could be "established," "disestablished" and "re-designated." A squadron's history and lineage began when it was established and ended when it was disestablished. When a squadron was disestablished or re-designated, its former designation became available for reuse by a new or re-designating squadron, just as the name of a decommissioned ship (e.g., USS Enterprise) might be given to a new vessel. The new or re-designated squadron could carry on the traditions, nickname, or the insignia of the previous squadron, but it could not lay claim to the history or lineage of that previous squadron any more than a newly commissioned USS Enterprise could lay claim to the history of a former ship of that name.

But the USN adopted the USAF/US Army rules post 1998:

This system changed in March 1998 with the issuance of Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5030.4E. U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons are no longer disestablished but "deactivated." A deactivated squadron remains in existence, though only "on paper", awaiting possible future "re-activation". Neither its designation nor any previous designations are available for use by a new squadron. A re-activated squadron would trace its lineage back to the squadron's original establishment date, including its inactive period.

The UK insists on following USN Pre-1998 rules -- witness their continual use of regimental amalgations to "keep it alive"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rifles

Rather than inactivating them and storing the colors for future use.

Over here we will designate a platoon or company within a battalion as the regimental placeholder for one of the amalgamated regiments. Traditions are kept alive that way. But then, the whole regimental system works this way, I don’t know if it translates into US practice.

[M.Becker]

Back to the question of why have battle honors from the Confederacy. I go back to Pres Lincoln's address - lets bind up the nations wounds with malice towards none. Recognizing the honors of valiant service, even from the wrong side for a wrong cause, does that bind up the wounds.

Correct idea in general by Lincoln but US units displaying CS battle honors this early seems way too soon. My money is on after 1877 when the Southern states regained full control of their affairs including militia. They continued their traditions and when the militia became NG or a regular unit this was something already in place. And the war was over long enough for people to care any more.

Immediately post-war in Maryland, we had some pretty strict reconstruction era laws passed that banned people from the Confederacy from state militia service in MD. They repealed it after only a few years, and then they had no problem filling militia ranks.

Huh? Maryland remained in the Union, so there wouldn't be reconstruction, wouldn't there?

[kdahm]

I think Mike and Poohbah have it.

If they were really serious about eliminating battle honors for things that are considered problematic to some modern sensibilities, then all units with honors from the following conflicts should have those stripped as well:

Mexican-American War
Wars of Western Expansion, aka Indian Wars. Including the 10th Cav.
Spanish-American War
Vera Cruz and the Mexican intervention/invasion
Invasions of the Central and South American countries in the 1920's and 1930's

No, you have it backwards.

I want to destroy the monuments to NATIVE AMERICANS.

Wounded Knee? They were rebelling against the government and got what they deserved. Et cetera.

I was just taking their stance to the logical conclusion.

If we go deep enough, maybe they should eliminate all battle honors ever. After all, someone was always being trampled on by the US military, they're the source of most US eeevvviiilllllll, and so battle honors just glorify the racist, western imperialist, male dominated white past. /sarcasm

[Poohbah]

I want to turn their sacred cows into cheeseburgers.