An Indelible Honor? Exploring Whether the Medal of Honor Can Be Stripped

The Medal of Honor stands as the United States’ most prestigious military decoration, a singular symbol of extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice “above and beyond the call of duty”. Its unique design, worn around the neck, and the solemnity of its presentation by the President in the name of Congress underscore its unparalleled status as the nation’s highest tribute to valor.  

This article delves into a complex and provocative question: Can this indelible honor, once bestowed, ever be stripped from a recipient? The answer is nuanced, rooted in a pivotal historical event and shaped by evolving legal and philosophical considerations. This exploration will encompass a deep historical analysis of past rescissions, primarily the significant 1917 Army review, and contrast it with the current understanding regarding post-award misconduct. This journey will involve examining legal frameworks, exploring the philosophical underpinnings of honor, and considering hypothetical scenarios, ultimately aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Medal of Honor’s enduring permanence.

A Historical Reckoning: The 1917 Army Medal of Honor Review (The “Purge”)

Context and Purpose: Why the “Purge”?

In the decades following the American Civil War, the criteria for awarding the Medal of Honor were notably less stringent than modern standards, leading to a significant proliferation of awards. Over 2,400 Medals of Honor were granted for Civil War service alone. Initially, the Medal of Honor was the only tangible military decoration available, and it was sometimes awarded for actions that did not meet the rigorous “above and beyond the call of duty” standard that would later define it. Awards were occasionally made based solely on a recipient’s application, lacking the stringent documentation and review processes that would later become standard.  

Concerns arose that the medal’s prestige was being diluted. Its design was sometimes misused and imitated by non-military organizations, such as the Grand Army of the Republic, prompting a redesign of the Army medal in 1904 to help distinguish it. As the United States prepared for potential entry into World War I, there was a growing desire to elevate the medal’s standing and standardize its criteria, ensuring it truly represented the nation’s highest honor for valor in combat. This period marked a fundamental redefinition of what the nation considered its highest form of military heroism. The transition from a broadly defined award for “gallantry and other soldier-like qualities” to a strict “above and beyond the call of duty” in “actual conflict with an enemy” reflects a maturing military and a desire to align the medal with a more specific, combat-centric ideal of valor. This re-evaluation of past awards through a new lens suggests that the institutional understanding of honor itself is dynamic and subject to reinterpretation, influenced by contemporary military needs and societal expectations. The “purge” was therefore less about punishing individuals and more about purifying the symbol.  

To address these concerns, on June 3, 1916, Congress passed an Act (Public Law, specific number not provided in the directly relevant snippets, but the Act is referenced as Public Law 106-83 in other contexts ) directing the Secretary of War to appoint a board of five retired general officers. Their mandate was to “investigate and report upon past awards or issue of the so-called Congressional Medal of Honor… to ascertain what Medals of Honor, if any, had been awarded or issued for any cause other than distinguished conduct by an officer or enlisted man in action involving actual conflict with an enemy”.  

Key Figures: General Nelson A. Miles

The Medal of Honor Review Board convened from October 16, 1916, until January 17, 1917. It was notably chaired by Major General Nelson A. Miles, a decorated Civil War veteran who had himself received the Medal of Honor and was a past Commander of the Medal of Honor Legion. The board adopted a methodical approach to its review, removing names from Medal of Honor citations and replacing them with numbers to help remove potential bias. While they aimed to measure the acts by the standards established at the time of the original award, their primary focus was on ensuring compliance with the new legal wording that emphasized “actual conflict with an enemy”.  

The Rescissions: 911 Medals Struck from the Rolls

On February 5, 1917, the board announced its findings, initiating what became widely known as “The Purge of 1917.” A total of 911 Army Medals of Honor were ordered to be stricken from the permanent Roll of Honor.  

The grounds for these widespread rescissions fell into several key categories:

• Awards to Civilians: Six civilians had their medals revoked. The primary reason was that the law, under the revised standards, restricted the award to “officers and enlisted men,” thereby excluding civilians, regardless of their distinguished service.  
• Awards to Entire Units: The largest group affected was the 27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment, with 864 medals rescinded. These medals were originally promised by Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, with President Lincoln’s approval, to a portion of the regiment who volunteered to extend their enlistment to defend Washington D.C. in 1863. However, due to a “paperwork snafu” or clerical error, an official list of the approximately 309 volunteers was lost, leading to 864 medals being mistakenly issued to the entire regiment. The board determined that the mass award was based on a misunderstanding and that the actions (re-enlistment, not combat) did not meet the criteria for the Medal of Honor.  
• Awards to Lincoln’s Funeral Guard: Twenty-nine servicemen who served as Abraham Lincoln’s funeral guard also had their medals revoked, as their ceremonial duties were not considered acts of valor under the new criteria.  
• Other Awards: An additional 12 awards were rescinded for various reasons, including acts that were not valorous (e.g., putting out a fire in a warehouse, delivering a message not under fire) or ineligibility (e.g., a British citizen).  

Despite these widespread revocations, none of the impacted recipients were ordered to return their physical medals. The Judge Advocate General advised the Medal of Honor Board that the Army was not obligated to enforce the return or prevent the wearing of the medals.  

Table 1: The 1917 Army Medal of Honor Rescissions (Key Categories)

Export to Sheets

Case Study: Dr. Mary Edwards Walker – Civilian, Surgeon, Suffragist

Dr. Mary Edwards Walker (1832-1919) holds a unique place in American history as the only woman ever to receive the Medal of Honor. A pioneering physician, staunch feminist, and advocate for women’s suffrage and dress reform, she consistently defied societal norms throughout her life, often wearing men’s clothing for comfort and practicality, which frequently subjected her to harassment and ridicule.  

At the onset of the Civil War, Dr. Walker sought to join the Union Army as a medical officer but was denied a commission due to her gender. Undeterred, she volunteered as an unpaid surgeon at various field hospitals near the front lines, including Fredericksburg and Chattanooga. In September 1863, she made history as the first female U.S. Army surgeon, commissioned as a “Contract Acting Assistant Surgeon (civilian)”. While serving with the 52nd Ohio Infantry, she routinely crossed enemy lines to treat civilians, an act that led to her capture and four-month imprisonment by Confederate troops in 1864 at the infamous Castle Thunder prison. During her incarceration, she steadfastly refused to wear traditionally feminine clothing.  

For her “Meritorious Service,” President Andrew Johnson awarded her the Medal of Honor on November 11, 1865, based on recommendations from Major Generals William T. Sherman and George H. Thomas. However, her medal was among those rescinded in 1917. The primary reason for the revocation was her civilian status as a contract surgeon, as the tightened criteria for the Medal of Honor restricted eligibility to military officers and enlisted personnel. The board also noted “no evidence of distinguished gallantry” in her specific case, reflecting the new, stricter interpretation of valor. Despite this official revocation, Dr. Walker famously refused to return her medal and continued to wear it proudly until her death in 1919, a testament to her unwavering belief in her service and the honor she felt she had earned.  

Case Study: William “Buffalo Bill” Cody and Other Civilian Scouts

William Frederick “Buffalo Bill” Cody (1846-1917) was an iconic figure of the American West, renowned as an Army scout, frontiersman, and showman. He was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1872 for “gallantry in action” as a civilian scout for the 3rd Cavalry Regiment during the Indian Wars. His service included tracking, guiding, and often engaging in combat alongside military units, leveraging his intimate knowledge of the terrain and Native American tribes.  

Cody’s medal was among the 911 rescinded in 1917. The sole reason for its revocation was his civilian status; the revised standards for the Medal of Honor stipulated that it could only be awarded to enlisted soldiers or officers. The law authorizing the rescission was enacted just days before his death, meaning he never knew his medal might be revoked.  

Case Study: The 27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment

In 1863, as Confederate forces under General Robert E. Lee advanced towards Washington D.C. before the Battle of Gettysburg, the Union capital’s defenses were critically low. The enlistments of the 27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment were nearing their end. To bolster the capital’s defenses, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, with President Lincoln’s approval, promised Medals of Honor to any men from the regiment who volunteered to extend their service beyond their separation date.  

Approximately 309 soldiers from the regiment volunteered to stay for four days. However, due to a “paperwork snafu” or clerical error, an official list of these specific volunteers was lost. Consequently, 864 medals were mistakenly issued to the entire regiment, even though the majority had not volunteered or engaged in combat. The 1917 Review Board determined that this mass award was based on a misunderstanding and that the actions (re-enlistment, not combat) did not meet the stringent “above and beyond the call of duty” criteria for the Medal of Honor. As a result, all 864 medals awarded to the 27th Maine were rescinded.  

Impact and Controversy

The “Purge of 1917” generated significant controversy and caused “terrible shock and embarrassment” for many of the affected recipients. Many of these individuals were elderly veterans in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, for whom the Medal of Honor was their “pride and joy” and the pinnacle of their lifetime achievements. The public declaration that they had not deserved the honor they had cherished for decades was deeply humiliating.  

While the purge was aimed at restoring the medal’s integrity and standardizing its criteria, it also highlighted the profound implications of retroactively applying new standards to past acts. The controversy underscored the tension between maintaining the highest possible standards for military honors and the historical context in which those honors were originally bestowed. This widespread rescission initiated a period of re-evaluation regarding the Medal’s criteria and the very nature of military recognition.

The Long Road to Restoration: Righting Historical Wrongs

The Campaigns and Re-evaluations

The decades following the 1917 purge witnessed evolving societal views on military service, civilian contributions, and historical injustices. These shifts, coupled with persistent advocacy from descendants, historians, and political figures, laid the groundwork for re-evaluations of some of the rescinded awards. The campaigns for restoration often argued for a reinterpretation of the original service under broader understandings of valor or in light of changing social norms and historical significance.

Walker, Cody, and Others Reinstated

• Mary Edwards Walker: Her Medal of Honor was posthumously restored on June 10, 1977, by the Army’s Board for Correction of Military Records. This action, while often erroneously attributed directly to President Jimmy Carter, was a significant recognition of past discrimination and a testament to her “distinguished gallantry, self-sacrifice, patriotism, dedication and unflinching loyalty to her country”. Her family, along with advocates for women’s rights and historical recognition, campaigned for decades. The arguments for her restoration centered on the injustice of revoking an award from the only woman recipient, particularly given her unique and dangerous service as a civilian contract surgeon and prisoner of war. The Board’s decision effectively acknowledged that her civilian status and gender were inappropriate grounds for the original rescission, aligning with a more inclusive and equitable historical perspective.  
• William “Buffalo Bill” Cody and Four Other Civilian Scouts: Following Dr. Walker’s restoration, a relative of Cody’s requested similar action. On June 12, 1989, the Army’s Board for Correction of Military Records reinstated the medals for Cody and four other civilian scouts: Amos Chapman, William Dixon, James Dozier, and William Woodall. Cody’s relatives had lobbied Congress for over 72 years for reconsideration. The successful effort in 1989 was spearheaded by a legislative assistant in Senator Alan K. Simpson’s office, who drafted a legal brief. This brief argued that civilian scouts, despite their official status, functioned as “reconnaissance” and were given the rank and pay of officers for retention purposes, making them functionally equivalent to military personnel. This reinterpretation of their role under the historical context of the Indian Wars provided the basis for their restoration.  

In total, 6 of the 911 medals rescinded in 1917 were later restored, all to civilians who had served alongside U.S. troops.  

Table 2: Notable Medal of Honor Restorations

Export to Sheets

It is important to note that subsequent litigation, such as the Garlin Conner award case in 2015, clarified that the Army’s Board for Correction of Military Records lacks the authority to unilaterally award or restore Medals of Honor. In such cases, the Board can only recommend the award, which then requires executive action and often a statutory waiver from Congress. This underscores the extraordinary nature of Medal of Honor awards and restorations, requiring high-level approval and often specific legislative or executive intervention.  

The Modern Stance: Can the Medal of Honor Be Stripped Today?

Post-Award Misconduct: No Established Formal Mechanism for Revocation

The prevailing understanding within the U.S. military and legal community is that there is currently no established formal process or explicit legal mechanism to strip a Medal of Honor recipient of their award for misconduct occurring after the award. The Medal of Honor is awarded for a specific, singular act of valor performed at a specific time. The heroic act itself, once recognized, is considered immutable and cannot be “undone” or diminished by subsequent behavior, no matter how egregious. This principle emphasizes the sanctity and permanence of the honor once it has been legitimately bestowed for a valid act of valor.  

Current U.S. Code (e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 7271 for Army, § 8291 for Navy/Marine Corps) outlines the criteria and authority for awarding the Medal of Honor but does not contain provisions for its revocation due to post-award misconduct. This distinction suggests a profound symbolic immunity for the Medal of Honor, setting it apart from other military decorations. The nation, in essence, chooses to honor the extraordinary act as a fixed historical event, rather than making the award contingent on a lifetime of flawless conduct. This approach safeguards the medal’s integrity as a testament to a specific, unalterable moment of heroism, rather than a continuous endorsement of the recipient’s entire life.  

Legal Opinions and Scholarly Articles

Scholarly analyses, such as Dwight S. Mears’s work, highlight the ambiguity and inconsistency in the full scope of authority to deny or revoke achievement or valor medals. While regulations for  

other military decorations expanded the “honorable service” requirement to cover before, during, and after qualification, and sanction retroactive revocation of some medals , the Medal of Honor remains distinct in practice regarding post-award misconduct. Recent discussions, like the Department of Defense review of Medals of Honor awarded for the Wounded Knee engagement (1890), consistently focus on re-evaluating whether the  

original actions met the standards of the era, not on subsequent misconduct. This reinforces the principle that reviews typically pertain to the validity of the initial award, not the recipient’s later life.  

Distinction from Other Awards or Situations

It is crucial to differentiate the Medal of Honor’s status from other military and civilian awards, as well as from situations involving false claims of receipt.

• Other Military Awards: Lesser military awards and badges (e.g., Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation and Achievement Medals, combat and special skill badges and tabs) can be revoked for misconduct or failure to maintain professional standards. Army Regulation 600-8-22 outlines procedures for commanders to initiate revocation requests for such awards if a soldier fails to meet standards (e.g., physical fitness, weight control) or commits criminal or unprofessional acts during the period meriting the award. This stark contrast highlights the unique and enduring nature of the Medal of Honor once earned.  
• Civilian Honors: Even high civilian honors, like the Presidential Medal of Freedom, generally have no formal process for revocation, although public pressure can arise in cases of egregious misconduct (e.g., the Bill Cosby case). While Congress has introduced bills to affirm the President’s power to revoke the Presidential Medal of Freedom for certain conduct, these have not become law, underscoring the inherent difficulty in establishing such mechanisms for even civilian awards.  
• Protecting its Integrity: The Stolen Valor Act: It is imperative to distinguish between stripping a legitimately awarded Medal of Honor and prosecuting individuals who falsely claim to be recipients.
  • The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-437) made it a misdemeanor to lie about earning any military medal or honor.  
  • The Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Alvarez (2012): This 2005 Act was subsequently struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which ruled that simply lying, without criminal intent or tangible benefit, could not be criminalized under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.  
  • The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-12): In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Congress passed a revised law, signed by President Barack Obama on June 3, 2013. This version criminalizes   fraudulently claiming to have received a valor award (including the Medal of Honor) with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit. Penalties for violation include fines and imprisonment.  
  • The Distinction: The Stolen Valor Act serves to protect the integrity of the awards system from imposters and fraudulent claims. It is not, however, a mechanism for stripping legitimate awards from recipients for post-award misconduct. This clear legal separation further reinforces the unique and enduring nature of the Medal of Honor once it has been legitimately earned.

Philosophical Debates: Should an Honor for Valor Be Revocable?

The Act vs. The Person

A core philosophical argument against stripping the Medal of Honor for post-award misconduct centers on the nature of the award itself. The medal honors a specific, extraordinary act of valor performed “above and beyond the call of duty”. This act, a historical event, is considered immutable and cannot be undone or diminished by the recipient’s later personal failings, no matter how egregious. The medal is a testament to that singular moment of heroism, a fixed point in history, rather than a continuous endorsement of the individual’s character throughout their entire life.  

Protecting Prestige and Symbolism

Revoking the Medal of Honor for subsequent bad acts could potentially damage its profound prestige and symbolism. If the medal were seen as subject to revocation based on shifting public opinion, changing moral standards, or later life events, it might undermine its perceived permanence and the absolute nature of the valor it represents. The honor is meant to be indelible, a fixed point in history, a timeless recognition of courage that transcends the fallibility of human character.

The “Unthinkable” Scenario

The absence of a formal mechanism for post-award revocation raises a profound hypothetical: What if a Medal of Honor recipient committed an extremely heinous post-award crime, such as treason, mass murder, or a similarly abhorrent act that deeply shocks the national conscience?

Current U.S. law and explicit policy do not provide a clear answer for such a scenario, as the existing framework for rescission primarily addresses issues with the original award’s validity, not subsequent misconduct. This suggests that the “act-specific” nature of the award would, under current interpretations, still hold. However, the immense public and political pressure in such an “unthinkable” scenario would be unprecedented. While the legal framework currently lacks a mechanism for post-award revocation, the moral outrage from such a crime would undoubtedly force a profound national debate. This pressure might compel Congress to consider specific legislation or an executive order. However, such actions would immediately face significant constitutional challenges, particularly regarding ex post facto laws and bills of attainder (as discussed in Section VII), as well as the fundamental principle that the medal honors a past act. The very difficulty of contemplating such a scenario highlights the deep-seated belief in the permanence of the valorous act itself, even when the individual’s subsequent life is morally compromised. It forces a confrontation between the ideal of unblemished heroism and the reality of human fallibility. The “indelible” nature of the honor is thus tested not just by legal statute, but by the very limits of public forgiveness and institutional resolve.

Global Perspectives: Revocation of Top Valour Awards Internationally

The U.S. stance on the Medal of Honor’s non-revocability for post-award misconduct is not universally shared among other nations with equivalent highest valor awards.

United Kingdom/Commonwealth: Victoria Cross (VC)

The Victoria Cross, the highest military decoration for valor in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms, historically included provisions for forfeiture. Between 1861 and 1908, the awards of eight Victoria Cross recipients were indeed forfeited, typically for serious criminal offenses like treason, cowardice, or felony. However, a significant shift occurred after 1920, when King George V expressed strong objections to the use of forfeiture power, and no further VCs have been forfeited since. Despite this  

de facto policy, the power to cancel and restore awards is still included in the Victoria Cross warrant. The power to restore a forfeited award, however, has never been exercised.  

This historical practice and its current non-use, influenced by a monarch’s decree, suggests a subtle but significant distinction in how national honors are perceived in a monarchy versus a republic. In a monarchy, the honor is bestowed by the Crown, and the King’s personal decree can influence its application or non-application of forfeiture. The King’s objection effectively created a policy against forfeiture, even if the legal power remained. This indicates a similar philosophical gravitation towards the permanence of valor, but achieved through a different institutional pathway than in the U.S.

France: Légion d’honneur

France’s highest order of merit, the Légion d’honneur, does have formal mechanisms for revocation. The honor can be withdrawn in cases of criminal conviction or for acts “contrary to honor or of a nature to harm the interests of France”. Similarly, the UK’s broader honors system includes a “Forfeiture Committee” that considers cases where an individual has brought the honors system into disrepute, including criminal offenses.  

Comparative Analysis

The existence of formal revocation mechanisms for top valor awards in other major allied nations highlights the unique U.S. approach to the Medal of Honor. While countries like France and, historically, the UK, prioritize maintaining the ongoing “honor” of the recipient as a condition of holding the award, the U.S. system (for the Medal of Honor) appears to place a higher emphasis on the immutability of the valorous act itself, once recognized. This divergence underscores the distinct philosophical underpinnings of national honors systems, reflecting differing views on the relationship between an individual’s lifetime conduct and the permanence of a specific heroic deed.

Presidential and Congressional Prerogative: Theoretical Paths to Revocation

Presidential Prerogative/Executive Action

As Commander-in-Chief (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution), the U.S. President possesses broad powers over the military. Theoretically, a President  

could attempt to strip a Medal of Honor through an executive order.

However, the legal and political feasibility of such an action would be extremely limited, and the fallout immense. Executive orders are directives to the executive branch and must be consistent with existing law. They are also subject to judicial review. If an executive order attempted to strip a Medal of Honor for post-award misconduct without specific statutory authority, it would likely face immediate legal challenges on grounds of exceeding presidential authority or violating due process. The President’s power is at its “lowest ebb” when acting against the express or implied will of Congress. The constitutional architecture of separated powers, particularly the limitations on executive authority, acts as a significant bulwark against any unilateral presidential attempt to strip a Medal of Honor for post-award misconduct. Executive orders, while powerful, must align with existing law and are subject to judicial scrutiny. This inherent design of the U.S. government implicitly safeguards the Medal’s permanence, making it exceedingly difficult for any single branch to diminish its honor.  

Beyond legal challenges, such an action would almost certainly ignite immense political and public controversy, potentially damaging the President’s standing and the very prestige of the Medal of Honor itself. The deeply ingrained reverence for the medal and its recipients would make any unilateral stripping a highly contentious act.

The Role of Congressional Action

Congress, through its legislative power, could theoretically pass a specific law to revoke an individual Medal of Honor or establish a future process for revocation based on post-award misconduct. However, such legislation would face significant constitutional implications.

• Ex Post Facto Laws: Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing “ex post facto laws,” which retroactively criminalize an act or impose a greater punishment for a past act. If a law were passed to strip a Medal of Honor for a crime committed   before the law’s enactment, it could be challenged as an ex post facto law if the stripping of the medal is deemed a “punishment”.  
• Bills of Attainder: The Constitution also prohibits “bills of attainder,” which are legislative acts that determine guilt and inflict punishment upon an identifiable individual or group without a judicial trial. A specific law targeting an individual Medal of Honor recipient for revocation could be challenged on these grounds, as it would bypass the judicial process for determining guilt and imposing punishment.  
• The U.S. v. Alvarez Precedent: While the Alvarez case dealt with false claims of military honors, its emphasis on free speech and the requirement for “tangible benefit” for criminalization would likely be considered in any debate about legislative action regarding legitimate awards. The Supreme Court’s reluctance to allow the government to criminalize mere lies suggests a high bar for any legislation that could be interpreted as retroactively punishing or diminishing a recognized act of valor.  

The constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder serve as a potent legal bulwark against legislative attempts to retroactively strip the Medal of Honor for post-award misconduct. By preventing the government from imposing punishment for actions that were lawful at the time or from legislatively determining guilt without due process, these clauses reinforce the principle that the Medal of Honor, once legitimately earned, represents an immutable historical fact. This suggests that the “indelibility” of the Medal is not merely a matter of policy or tradition but is deeply embedded in the foundational legal principles designed to protect individual rights from governmental overreach, even in the face of public outcry over a recipient’s later actions.

Data, Numbers, and Statistics (Exhaustive)

The Medal of Honor’s history is punctuated by significant figures and dates that underscore its evolving nature and enduring prestige.

• Total Medals of Honor Awarded: As of January 3, 2025, a total of 3,526 individual Medals of Honor have been awarded since the Civil War. Over 40% of all Medals of Honor were awarded for actions during the American Civil War.  
• Number Rescinded by the 1917 Board: Exactly 911 Army Medals of Honor were rescinded by the 1917 Review Board.  
• Number of those 911 Later Restored: 6 of the medals rescinded in 1917 were later restored. These include Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, William “Buffalo Bill” Cody, Amos Chapman, William Dixon, James Dozier, and William Woodall. All were civilians who served alongside U.S. troops.  
• Number of Living MoH Recipients: As of January 3, 2025, there are 61 living recipients of the Medal of Honor.  
• Double Recipients: Historically, 19 servicemen have received two Medals of Honor.  

Table 3: Key Medal of Honor Statistics

Export to Sheets

An Unblemished Symbol? The Enduring Meaning of the Medal of Honor

The historical journey of the Medal of Honor, marked by periods of broad issuance, a significant “purge,” and subsequent restorations, underscores its immense symbolic weight in American society. These debates and reviews reflect a continuous societal effort to define, refine, and protect the meaning of valor. The enduring reverence for the Medal of Honor stems from its recognition of singular acts of supreme courage, often at the cost of life. The current absence of a mechanism to strip the medal for post-award misconduct reinforces the idea that the medal honors the immutable act, ensuring its sanctity as a symbol of the highest sacrifice.

The debates and historical reviews surrounding the Medal of Honor underscore its immense symbolic weight in American society. This highlights the power of symbolic recognition in general, where carefully designed awards serve to commemorate extraordinary contributions, a service provided by providers of distinguished commemorative items.

While the Medal of Honor is unique in its prestige and specific criteria, the principle of bestowing tangible honors is widespread. Many organizations, from corporations to academic institutions, engage in designing custom medals to signify achievement in their respective fields, ensuring that excellence and dedication are appropriately celebrated with lasting mementos.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the question of whether the Medal of Honor can be stripped yields a complex answer. Historically, yes, medals have been rescinded, particularly during the comprehensive 1917 Army review. This “purge” struck 911 medals from the rolls, primarily due to issues with original eligibility and evolving standards, not for post-award misconduct. Notable figures like Dr. Mary Edwards Walker and William “Buffalo Bill” Cody were among those affected, only to have their honors later restored through persistent advocacy and re-evaluation, acknowledging past injustices and reinterpreting historical service.

However, in the modern era, for misconduct occurring after the award, there is no established formal process or explicit legal mechanism to strip a Medal of Honor. This reflects a deeply ingrained philosophical stance that the medal honors a specific, immutable act of valor, which cannot be undone by a recipient’s subsequent failings. This principle distinguishes the Medal of Honor from other military and civilian awards, which may be subject to revocation.

Furthermore, the Medal of Honor’s permanence is safeguarded by the constitutional framework of the United States. Any attempts by the Executive or Legislative branches to unilaterally strip the medal for post-award conduct would face significant legal challenges, particularly concerning ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. The Stolen Valor Act, while crucial for protecting the medal’s integrity, addresses fraudulent claims of receipt, not the stripping of legitimate awards.

Ultimately, the Medal of Honor remains an unblemished symbol of extraordinary courage, its enduring meaning rooted in the sanctity of the act it commemorates. This profound reverence, coupled with robust legal and constitutional principles, makes its revocation for post-award conduct virtually inconceivable under current norms and legal frameworks.