It Is A. P. Hill FROM HARPERS FERRY

Vanity | September 17, 2020 | Nathan Bedford

[nathanbedford]

September 17, 1862, the last hour of the bloodiest day in American military history, Lee knew that his beleaguered line must at last give way to overwhelming odds and the Army of Northern Virginia verged on destruction and, with it, destruction of the Confederacy itself.

Through one of history's oddist twists Lee's orders dividing his army had been discovered by common soldier in an open field days before wrapped around three cigars. The normally slothful McClellan was for once animated by the knowledge that Lee's army could be destroyed piecemeal. Lee drew up his army along Antietam Creek near the village of Sharpsburg Maryland to defend itself while he awaited the remnants of his army to come to his aid and rebalance, at least in part, the overwhelming material and numerical advantage of the Yankees.

Shelby Foote in his first volume of Civil War narrative describes the forced march of AP Hill from Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg:

Jacket off because of the heat, [AP Hill] rode in his bright red battle shirt alongside the panting troops, prodding laggards with the point of his saber. Beyond this, he had no dealings with stragglers, but left them winded by the roadside, depending on them to catch up in time if they could. Not many could, apparently; for he began the march with about 5000 men and ended with barely 3000.

Here was the decisive moment and Lee knew that all would soon be lost. Shelby Foote describes one of the most dramatic scenes of the war:

Observing a column moving up from the south west along the ridge line, Lee called to an artillery lieutenant on the way to the front with a section of guns: "what troops are those?" The lieutenant offered him his telescope. "Can't use it," Lee said, holding up a bandaged hand. The lieutenant trained and focus the telescope. "They are flying the United States flag," he reported. Lee pointed to the right, where another distant column was approaching from the southwest nearly perpendicular to the first and repeated the question. The lieutenant swung the glass in that direction, peered intently, and announced: "they are flying the Virginia and Confederate flags." Lee suppressed his elation, although the words refilled his one hope for deliverance from defeat. "It is AP Hill from Harpers Ferry," he said calmly.

As Shelby Foote wrote about AP Hill, "as was his custom, he struck hard." And so the Army of Northern Virginia was spared, but the North kept the field enabling Lincoln to claim victory and to issue his Emancipation Proclamation thus recasting the whole character of the war.

My great-grandfather was there 158 years ago today.

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "The Confederacy was recognized as a lawful belligerent power and its government was recognized as the de facto territory of that area."

"Lawful" only in the sense that rebellion, insurrection and treason are ever "lawful".

The CSA was never recognized as a legitimate country.

Respectfully, you are sir, you do not know what you are talking about. You have no clue and just make stuff up, and it spews forth, sort of like your guru Joe Biden.

While the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, the Geneva Convention applied to the conflict with the Taliban, even though the United States did not recognize the Taliban as the official government.

While the Taliban was the government, Taliban fighters were state actors, unlike al-Qaeda fighters who were always non-state actors.

In international law, the United States does not get to unilaterally decide what nations do, and do no exist, by granting or withholding official recognition. Your legal pontifications, pulled from your butt, are a joke.

See Ari Fleischer, Special White House Announcement Re: Application of Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan (Feb 7, 2002),

(1) the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, to which both Afghanistan ad the United States are parties, applies to the armed conflict in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the United States.

See also the United States Policy statement on detainees:

The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.

Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention.

For a while, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, whether the United States conferred official recognition upon them with diplomatic relations, or not.

woodpusher: "By your repeated stupid, jackass, asinine comment, you would have Communist China have been non-existent until January 1, 1979.

The real fact is, the Chi-Coms were not a legitimate government before January 1, 1979 and are still not today.

woodpusher: "If one believes your unrelenting line of bullshit, The Peoples Republic of China did not exist prior to January 1, 1979."

Nonsense, but if one believes your unrelenting line of bullsh*t, The Peoples Republic of China suddenly became legitimate on January 1, 1979.

Just because the existence of the Chinese government reduces your prior blaterings ad absurdum does not justify yor fantasy that they do not exist as both the de facto and de jure government of China. The legal existence of a government does not rely upon having diplomatic relations with the United States.

A number of countries do not officially recognize Israel. Does that mean Israel does not exist as a nation?

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.

government. (14c) 1. The structure of principles and rules determining how a state or organization is regulated. 2. The sovereign power in a country or state. 3. An orga­nization through which a body of people exercises politi­cal authority; the machinery by which sovereign power is expressed {the Canadian government} • In this sense, the term refers collectively to the political organs of a country regard less of their function or level, and regard­less of the subject matter they deal with. Cf. Nation; State.

de facto government. (1830) 1. A govern­ment that has taken over the regular government and exercises sovereignty over a country. 2. An independent government established and exercised by a group of a country’s inhabitants who have separated themselves from the parent state. — Also termed government de facto.

de jure government. (1875) A functioning government that is legally established. — Also termed government de jure.

If it makes you feel better to make believe China does not exist in your world, go for it. Nobody cares whether you find the government of China legitimate or not. It is, in fact, the government of China, and China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with the same veto power as the United States. Whether one believes the government of China to be illegitimate or not has nothing to do with whether said government is the recognized government of China.

As for your brainfart about war, see Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict,, at 20. Gary D. Solis is "a retired professor of law of the United States Military Academy where he directed West Point's Law of War program for six years. He was a 2007 Library of Congress scholar in residence."

What is "war"? Wars on drugs, on poverty, and on iliteracy are laudable political constructs but are not literally wars, of course. A state of war has wide-ranging repercussions in contracts, insurance, constitutional issues, neutrality, and governmental wartime emergency powers, not to mention the life and death issues played out on the battlefield. The "War on Terrorism" is not a war in the sense of the Geneva Convention common article 2, although that view would not be shared by the widow or husband of a soldier killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Still, the ICRC and LOAC publicists point out its non-war character. . . . So, not all armed conflicts are wars, but all wars are armed conflicts.

ICRC = International Committee of the Red Cross
LOAC = Law of Armed Conflict

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006), slip op at 67, 69

The Court of Appeals thought, and the Government asserts, that Common Article 3 does not apply to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda, being "international in scope," does not qualify as a "conflict not of an international character," 415 F. 3d, at 41. That reasoning is erroneous. The term "not of an international character" is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations.

[...]

Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." 6 U. S. T., at 3320 (Art. 3, ¶1(d)). While the term "regularly constituted court" is not specifically defined in either Common Article 3 or its accompanying commentary, other sources disclose its core meaning. The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines "regularly constituted" tribunals to include "ordinary military courts "and "definitely exclud[e] all special tribunals."

So much for your babble.

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "Nobody has been discussing official recognition with diplomatic relations."

That's all I'm discussing, because that's all that matters.

The rest is just your bloviating nonsense, sir.

Respectfully sir, you do not know what you are talking about and are just making crap up.

While the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, the Geneva Convention applied to the conflict with the Taliban, even though the United States did not recognize the Taliban as the official government.

While the Taliban was the government, Taliban fighters were state actors, unlike al-Qaeda fighters who were always non-state actors.

In international law, the United States does not get to unilaterally decide what nations do, and do no exist, by granting or withholding official recognition. Your legal pontifications, pulled from your butt, are a joke.

See Ari Fleischer, Special White House Announcement Re: Application of Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan (Feb 7, 2002),

(1) the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, to which both Afghanistan ad the United States are parties, applies to the armed conflict in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the United States.

See also the United States Policy statement on detainees:

The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.

Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention.

[griffin]

you asked me what I meant. I told you.

[griffin]

“they”. Who is “they”?

You can’t even write intelligent and pointed sentences. Why would I want to communicate further with you? Additionally, my comments were not directed at you. Go get a hobby or something. LOL!

[jmacusa]

It’s an open form jerkoff. We’re all free to comment on what ever is posted. You mentioned ‘’states rights’’ I gave an opinion.

[jmacusa]

And who am I pea brain? Tell, who am I? I'll tell you exactly who I am. An America who detests what the Confederacy was and what it stood for. It rent thi snation in two can caused the bloodiest war in our nations history in order to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor. You Rebs just refuse to accept the reality and the judgement of history. You piss ant.

[jmacusa]

Maybe you can understand the fact the South choose a path of violent secession in order to preserves and economic system based on the use of salve labor and opened fire on Ft. Sumter. The Confederacy was soundly defeated on the field of battle after causing the bloodiest war in our nations history and no amount your moral relativism is ever going to change that.

You’ve got some balls calling yourself a conservative all the while venerating a bunch of treasonous Southern Democrats.

[jmacusa]

True, lee and Davis were spared those charges would could have gotten them both hung. It was a matter of political expediency for Lincoln and the fact the nation was exhausted from all the fighting. But the fact remains lee choose to take up arms against the constitution and the country he swore an oath to defend.

[jmacusa]

What history was that “Ripley’s Believe It Or Not’’?

[jmacusa]

I’m not the divider here bozo. The Lost causers are. And, seeing how this is an old article I was looking back even tough it’s now into late October.

So you stunod, you and your big f**king mouth giving me sh!t, what’s Barr doing about Comey and Brenna and Clinton

[scott says]

Most likely folklore but: The morning of October 12, he developed a “feeble, rapid pulse” and “shallow breathing.”. Lee’s reported last words were, “Tell Hill he must come up!” “Strike the tent!”.

Actually not folkore. All the Biographies I have read have accounted that very story. Interestingly-Stonewall Jacksons last words also were battle commands to AP Hill also- as he drifted in and out of consciousness- “Order A.P. Hill to prepare for action! Pass the infantry to the front!” His final words: “Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.”

[moovova]

You do realize you replied to that particular comment already...over a month ago. Not that you can’t reply again, of course...

Maybe you should cap the booze bottle...and hit the bed?

[jmacusa]

A month ago or a year ago I don’t care. You were talking smack about me over my wondering when Barr would do something about the DC rats and calling me all kinds of sh!t. I haven’t forgotten. So man up and answer the question. What has Barr done about Comey and Brennan and the rest of those rats?

And by the way stunod, I don’t drink anymore. I haven’t in thirty years.

[nathanbedford]

Lee was hardly "spared" rather he was paroled and pardoned according to the explicit terms of his surrender.

Lincoln had very little to do with whether Lee would be prosecuted for sedition or treason and, as you opine "hung," apart from his magnificent contribution to healing the nation by his second inaugural address because he was murdered almost contemporaneously with Lee's surrender.

As to Lee breaking his oath to his country and his Constitution, that is a allegation of a moral failing not a legal conclusion. General Robert E. Lee should be judged in the context of his time, not by 21st century postmodern, woke revisionism. Lee believed, along with millions of his fellow confederates, that he was in fact upholding his oath and in fact upholding the Constitution as they understood it by defending his country from invasion.

They defended their position honorably and one might even say heroically in the defense of their country, as they defined it.

Their definition has been struck down on the battlefield, that makes them defeated in war but it does not make them oathbreakers or violators of the Constitution or, as you imply, immoral.

The very fact that they were not "hung" suggests that ultimately the government as well as the nation culturally subscribed in real time to the view that Lee committed neither treason nor sedition.

[jmacusa]

For God's sake the nonsense you Lost Causers come up with. Lee chose to to take up arms as a Virginian against the duly elected government of The United States. He most certainly broke he oath he swore and and engaged in an armed rebellion against the United States.

[moovova]

You do realize “stunod” is “donuts” spelled backwards, right? You’re kinda silly.

AND...I don’t for a minute believe you quit drinking 30 years ago. You’re just too irrational.

[nathanbedford]

For God's sake the nonsense you Lost Causers come up with…

The time warp you postmodern revisionists come up with…

Robert E Lee took up arms to defend the duly elected government of Virginia believing that a Northern invasion relieved him of his oath because the North, not Virginia, violated the Constitution.

Repeating allegations do not make them persuasive.

[jmacusa]

“Stunod’’ in the southern dialect of Italian means ''stupid''. Like I give a f**k what you believe. Fact is I AM thirty years sober. And you're just punk ass who likes to shoot his mouth and now can't answer a simple question. So I'll as again: What are Barr and Durham doing about all those former henchmen of Obama's?

[jmacusa]

Revisionist my foot Reb. Lee didn’t take and oath as an officer in the US military prior to Te Civil to defend just one state in the union but all of them.

[nathanbedford]

German officers and ranks to a man took an oath of fidelity to Adolf Hitler and later offered up that oath as an excuse for their complicity in the crimes of that wicked regime.

Whether you believe that Lee's decision to defend his home state was morally right or wrong, or even whether you do not like a comparison between Nazi Germany and radical abolitionist Northern America, you must decide whether you will judge men of a different century according to their lights as God gave them the vision to see their rights and duties.

Lee would have regarded adherence to his oath to a rogue foreign nation invading his homeland in violation of the Constitution to be as spurious as we and the Nuremberg Court regarded the oath to Adolf Hitler.

I believe and have believed for some time (see my about page) that historical figures have to be judged in the context of their own time. By that standard, Robert E Lee behaved honorably.

By that standard, history in real-time justified his well-considered and reluctantly undertaken defense of his home.