The original post said that this individual had manned an artillery position and fired his guns at the enemy after that position had been surrendered by its commanding officer. So, yes, that was a criminal action that should have been punished. In addition to being disobedience of an order, it was either attempted murder or murder, depending upon if he hit anyone or not. It was not the action of an honorable 19th century soldier.

Was he a brave man? Yes. Should his commanding officer have been court-martialed for his actions? Possibly so. Would the Union Army have been better served if Fout had been the commander in that situation? Probably yes. He sounds like the kind of soldier you'd want in your unit - if he could learn to take orders. But Fout was not the commander and the battery had been surrendered. Under the circumstances you described, Fout's execution by either side would have been appropriate. Once your unit has surrendered and a white flag is flying, you can't re-man your guns and continue your own little war. It's not honorable, and back then, that mattered. It should still matter.

Jim, please forgive my preaching on the Artillery Board, I know this would be more appropriate for News and Views, but for crying out loud, they're praising the awarding of medals to some guy who shoots at people after he's surrendered!