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.

[moovova]

What in the Hell are you talking about?

[BroJoeK]

moova: "What in the Hell are you talking about?"

Ladies, your Democrat slips are showing:

wgmalabama: "I don’t understand the irrational hatred of the South by certain posters."

moovova: "Folks like the “Reb haters” here..."

That's how Democrats argue.
The truth is nobody here "hates the South" or Southerners, regardless of how often your old Democrat training breaks through.

[moovova]

You’ve had the two seconds of hate-spewing I normally tolerate. Adios amigo...

[jmacusa]

Thank you Bro JoeK. As always you’re spot on.

[woodpusher]

Lee was never convicted of or even tried for treason, rather, his descendents were awarded compensation by the government for misappropriating the Custis Lee mansion overlooking Arlington.

The claim that there ws an award of compensation is incorrect. The government seizure was held to be unlawful. The subsequent sale at auction to the Tax Commissioner was held to be void. The Supreme Court held that neither the government, nor the Tax Commissioner, had held good title to the property. Good title to the property remained with Lee.

The property was not condemned, and compensation was not paid. Pursuant to an agreement, the property was purchased by the government from its lawful owner.

https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore/History-of-Arlington-National-Cemetery/Arlington-House

In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lee's favor. A few months later, in March 1883, the federal government purchased the property from Lee for $150,000 (over $4 million today), and Arlington National Cemetery continued its mission as a burial ground for U.S. service members and their families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lee_(1882)

Congress enacted legislation funding the purchase on March 3, 1883; Lee signed over the title on March 31; and the title transfer was recorded on May 14, 1883.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 219-222 (1882)

It is not pretended, as the case now stands, that the President had any lawful authority to do this, or that the legislative body could give him any such authority except upon payment of just compensation. The defence stands here solely upon the absolute immunity from judicial inquiry of every one who asserts authority from the executive branch of the government, however clear it may be made that the executive possessed no such power. Not only no such power is given, but it is absolutely prohibited, both to the executive and the legislative, to deprive any one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or to take private property without just compensation.

[. . .]

Shall it be said, in the face of all this, and of the acknowledged right of the judiciary to decide in proper cases, statutes which have been passed by both branches of Congress and approved by the President to be unconstitutional, that the courts cannot give a remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without lawful authority, without process of law, and without compensation, because the President has ordered it and his officers are in possession?

If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.

[...]

Another consideration is, that since the United States cannot be made a defendant to a suit concerning its property, and no judgment in any suit against an individual who has possession or control of such property can bind or conclude the government, as is decided by this court in the case of Carr v. United States, already referred to, the government is always at liberty, notwithstanding any such judgment, to avail itself of all the remedies which the law allows to every person, natural or artificial, for the vindication and assertion of its rights. Hence, taking the present case as an illustration, the United States may proceed by a bill in chancery to quiet its title, in aid of which, if a proper case is made, a writ of injunction may be obtained. Or it may bring an action of ejectment, in which, on a direct issue between the United States as plaintiff, and the present plaintiff as defendant, the title of the United States could be judicially determined. Or, if satisfied that its title has been shown to be invalid, and it still desires to use the property, or any part of it, for the purposes to which it is now devoted, it may purchase such property by fair negotiation, or condemn it by a judicial proceeding, in which a just compensation shall be ascertained and paid according to the Constitution.

[PeaRidge]

Changing the subject and piling on more canards doesn’t make your post less of a fantasy.

[Mashood]

Up came Gregg, Branch, Archer, Pender, Brockenbrough, and Thomas!

[woodpusher]

Uh, didn't the war begin like a month or more earlier with the attack on Fort Sumter?

No, it did not. "[I]n a civil war, only the government can know when the in­surrection has assumed the character of war." Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 9 (1875). It is determined by an act of the government which clearly indicates that a state of war exists.

As the clock stopped on the performance of many contracts for the duration of the war, for legal purposes in many, many cases the courts were required to determine the precise start and end dates of the war. The start and end of the war was precisely determined by the U.S. Supreme Court is several cases.

The war began by Lincoln's proclamation of a blockade on April 19, 1861.

The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).

It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1861

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:

[. . .]

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States . . . have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade. . . .

Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 9, 12 (1875).

It being, then, settled that a war may exist, and yet that trad­ing with the enemy, or commercial intercourse, may be allow­able, we are brought to inquire whether such intercourse was allowed between the loyal citizens of the United States and the citizens of Louisiana until the 23d of April, 1861, when the acceptance was made upon which this suit was brought. And, in determining this, the character of the war and the manner in which it was commenced ought not to be overlooked. No declaration of war was ever made. The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April; and it then became his duty as well as his right to direct how it should be carried on. In the exercise of this right, he was at liberty to allow or license intercourse; and his proclama­tions, if they did not license it expressly, did, in our opinion, license it by very cogent implications. It is impossible to read them without a conviction that no interdiction of commercial intercourse, except through the ports of the designated States, was intended. The first was that of April 15, 1861. The forts and property of the United States had, prior to that day, been forcibly seized by armed forces. Hostilities had commenced; and, in the light of subsequent events, it must be considered that a state of war then existed. Yet the proclamation, while calling for the militia of the several States, and stating what would probably be the first service assigned to them, expressly declared, that, “in every event, the utmost care would be ob­served, consistently with the repossession of the forts, places, and property which had been seized from the Union, to avoid any devastation, destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.” Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhab­itants of the States in which the unlawful combinations men­tioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra ; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade.

[...]

But in a civil more than in a foreign war, or a war declared, it is important that unequivocal notice should be given of the illegality of traffic or commercial intercourse; for, in a civil war, only the government can know when the in­surrection has assumed the character of war.

In some states, e.g. Virginia, the start of the war occurred on April 27, 1861.

Brown v Hiatts, 82 U.S. 177 (1872)

Syllabus at 177:

4. It having been held that the civil war commenced in Virginia at the date of the proclamation of the President of intended blockade of her ports, April 27th, 1861, and to have ended, so far as the statutes of limitation are concerned, on his proclamation of its close, April 2d, 1866, the period between those dates must be deducted in the computation of the time during which the statute of Kansas had run against the right of action of the mortgagee on the said bond and mortgage.

Opinion of the Court at 183-185:

It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President. That was the first public act of the executive in which the existence of war in that State was officially recognized, and to its date the courts therefore look as the commencement of the war. And so far as the operation of the statute of limitations is concerned, it was held in the same case that the war continued until proclamation was in like manner officially made of its close. That occurred on the 2d of April, 1866. The period, therefore, between the 27th of April, 1861, and the 2d of April, 1866, must be excluded in the computation of the time during which the statute has run against the right of action of the complainant on the bond and mortgage in suit, and being excluded the present suit is not barred. It is unnecessary to go at length over the grounds upon which the court has repeatedly held that the statutes of limitation of the several States did not run against the right of action of parties during the continuance of the civil war. It is sufficient to state that the war was accompanied by the general incidents of a war between independent nations; that the inhabitants of the Confederate States on the one hand, and of the loyal States on the other, became thereby reciprocally enemies to each other, and were liable to be so treated without reference to their individual dispositions or opinions; that during its continuance all commercial intercourse and correspondence between them were interdicted by principles of public law as well as by express enactments of Congress; that all contracts previously made between them were suspended; and that the courts of each belligerent were closed to the citizens of the other. Statutes of limitation, in fixing a period within which rights of action must be asserted, proceed upon the principle that the courts of the country where the person to be prosecuted resides, or the property to be reached is situated, are open during the prescribed period to the suitor. The principle of public law which closes the courts of a country to a public enemy during war, renders compliance by him with such a statute impossible. As is well said in the recent case of Semmes v. Hartford Insurance Company, "The law imposes the limitatioh and the law imposes the disability. It is nothing, therefore, but a necessary legal logic that the one period should be taken from the other."

As the enforcement of contracts between enemies made before the war is suspended during the war, the running of interest thereon during such suspension ceases.

The proclamation of a blockade was an international act of war. It exerts its effect upon foreign nations entering and leaving the ports of another party, either another nation or belligerent power. It proclaimed official recognition of the Confederate States of America as a lawful belligerent power, and the conflict between the USA and the CSA to be a lawful public war. Various other nations then declared neutrality between the powers engaged in the proclaimed war.

Participation in the military operations of a lawful belligerent power is lawful and not criminal. Captured members of said military become prisoners of war, not criminal defendants, unless charged with crimes against the laws of war.

[sauropod]

.

[wgmalabama]

I have been called some names in the past. Democrat is a new one.
In case you haven’t looked at election results, the south is the new Massachusetts of the voting heart of a free constitutional country.

The hate of the NE towards the south iso odd. I just don’t understand it.

I will add you to the list. Feel free to have the last word. If this hatred continues, I will just say my piece and get banned. No biggie if the hate your brother attitude in lost causers areas keep letting their slips showing.

[wgmalabama]

Just a azimuth check

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2020/02/19/states-that-defend-uswhere-do-our-military-volunteers-call-home/#4ef6b3ad534c

[wgmalabama]

Or by region

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-is-not-representative-of-country-2014-7

[BDParrish]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer! Each point was good for many minutes of exercise for the little grey cells. I was the most intrigued with your words about the future.

I was saved when a ten year old boy at the Trinity Bible Church in Rock Hill SC. I was invited to Bible School by the neighbor kids, Johnny Olsen and his sister. I remember hearing it on the third day, it was Wednesday, August 9, 1967. I remember it as vividly as if were yesterday. The first day I was thrilled with the refreshments and playing with the other kids. On the second day I fell in love with my teacher, Mr. Sarah Smith, who was so like my dear Grandma. On the third day I HEARD it. I must have heard it before, but I realized what it all meant.

Mrs. Smith at the end of the lesson, said, “If you want to be saved, Don’t go out to recess, stay back and talk with me about it.” Of course I got up to leave and walked out with the other children but when I got to the door, I turned back to see her standing there with her glasses on her nose looking at me her Bible cradled in her arms.

So I went back in to her. She showed me a few verses including Rev 3:20 “I stand at the door and knock...” She knocked on my chest like it was a door, it felt like a thousand pounds of iron hitting my chest. “He’s knocking on your heart door,” she said, “will you let Him in?” I shouted, “Oh YES!” She led me through a brief sinner’s prayer, repeat after me kinda thing, but such relief and ever since such certainty.

As to the “Lost Cause” and lies etc., while I do not see that there is any great harm in the back and forth we have here, it is certainly incumbent upon Lost Causers to let the Yanks have the last word. It is, and ought to be, the privilege of victory.

At Appomatox, as we marched through the ranks of blue, to stack our muskets and receive our written paroles, Col Lawrence of Maine was there in charge and he brought his people to attention and they saluted us! Blows my mind.

I am out after your final with my respect sir.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: " Changing the subject and piling on more canards doesn’t make your post less of a fantasy. "

I didn't change the subject, you just hate, hate the truth.
The truth is that Confederates were at war against the United States from Day One in December, 1860.
The Union's responses increased over time, but when exactly they first responded to war with war SCOTUS itself said was a matter arbitrary definitions.

Sorry if the truth hurts.
Get over it.

[BroJoeK]

wgalabama: "I have been called some names in the past. Democrat is a new one.
In case you haven’t looked at election results, the south is the new Massachusetts of the voting heart of a free constitutional country."

Historically, since 1932 Southern Democrats were the more conservative wing of the Northern leftist Democrat party.
Then LBJ demonstrated that some Southerners could be as leftist as anyone, but often Southern Democrats partnered with Republicans to defeat the most radical of Democrat schemes.

Today, since the passing of KKK Sen. Rbt Bird, most Southern Democrats vote Republican, and have helped turn the South into a bastion of more conservative values.
But there's a problem... after the Civil War Southern Democrats were able to quickly reunite with their Northern Democrat allies based on a pack of lies about the war called "the Lost Cause".
These lies excused Democrats and blamed Republicans for everything bad that happened.
Today Lost Causers on Free Republic are hoping to keep the lies alive by, among other things, demonizing Northerners in general, Republican specifically.

You and your friend moovova seem to enjoy that especially.

wgalabama: "The hate of the NE towards the south iso odd.
I just don’t understand it."

What in the world are you talking about -- the "hatred" of Patriots towards Cowboys?? Seriously?
Are you talking about the real hatred of leftist radicals like, say, AOC & Antifa towards conservatives in general?
You think that has something to do with North vs South?
What planet do you live on?

The truth is nobody gets a free-ride through life, everyone at some point faces people who don't immediately trust outsiders, and must work to win their trust, but certainly no conservatives are taught to hate Southerners or "the South".
Nor does anyone on Free Republic that I've seen feel that way.

But we do hate your Lost Cause Democrat lies, and we're here to correct them with the truth.

wgalabama: "If this hatred continues, I will just say my piece and get banned.
No biggie if the hate your brother attitude in lost causers areas keep letting their slips showing."

???
Here's my message to you in a nut-shell: if you wish to be a Republican, and not just an old-time Southern Democrat, you have to begin by giving up the Lost Cause Democrat lies you learned as a child -- just the lies, give up nothing that's actually true.

[BroJoeK]

"Just a azimuth check"

Nobody on Free Republic disputes the fact that Southerners today are at least as patriotic as, arguably somewhat more patriotic than, any other region of the country.
For that you are hugely admired & appreciated by other patriots.

Just leave your Lost Cause lies in that trunk in your attic.
No need to air them for public consumption -- they win no friends and influence no people among conservative Republicans outside the South.

[BroJoeK]

BDParrish: "As to the “Lost Cause” and lies etc., while I do not see that there is any great harm in the back and forth we have here, it is certainly incumbent upon Lost Causers to let the Yanks have the last word.
It is, and ought to be, the privilege of victory."

Nobody here is seeking to impose "victor's justice" or "victor's history" on Southerners.
It's the reverse of that: during & after the Civil War Southern Democrats concocted a self-justifying pack of lies called "the Lost Cause".
By demonizing & blaming Lincoln's Republicans for everything, they were able to quickly reunite with their Northern Democrat allies and again become a huge US political factor.

Today, some Southern Democrats on Free Republic are hoping to keep the Lost Cause lies alive by demonizing their fellow conservative Republicans outside the South.

I'm saying: knock it off!
Neither you nor conservatives in general benefit from constantly rehashing the Civil War lies you learned as children.
Give them up! And for Christ's sake, don't use those lies as your excuse to hate everyone who doesn't share your own particular accent of the English language.

[BroJoeK]

Lower Deck: "Uh, didn't the war begin like a month or more earlier with the attack on Fort Sumter?"

woodpusher: "No, it did not.
"[I]n a civil war, only the government can know when the in­surrection has assumed the character of war."
Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 9 (1875).
It is determined by an act of the government which clearly indicates that a state of war exists."

Legalistic SCOTUS decisions regarding commercial contracts don't change the fact that Confederates were at war against the United States from Day One in December 1860 -- with threats against US officials, seizures of many Federal properties and then firing on Union ships, culminating in their assault on Fort Sumter and the surrender of the Union force there.
In all that time the Union responded minimally, though as early as February 1861 President Buchanan announced Fort Sumter would not be surrendered without a fight.
Some Confederates even called Lincoln's 1st Inaugural, March 4, 1861, "a declaration of war".
But Confederates knew well ahead of time what it would take to start a shooting war.

And, according to Jefferson Davis, as soon as they were ready, they did it.
Lincoln responded by calling up 75,000 troops, and then after Jefferson Davis announced Letters of Marque against Union shipping, Lincoln announced a blockade.

Today we say accurately that Leftists like Antifa & BLM, and some Democrats generally, are at war against the United States, our values and our Constitution.
When President Trump responds by sending Federal forces to certain cities, in no way does he "start a war", he only responds to the warfare being waged against us by Democrats.

Same with Lincoln.

[woodpusher]

Legalistic SCOTUS decisions regarding commercial contracts don't change the fact that Confederates were at war against the United States from Day One in December 1860 -- with threats against US officials, seizures of many Federal properties and then firing on Union ships, culminating in their assault on Fort Sumter and the surrender of the Union force there.

Inane blather by a legally incompetent blogger regarding points of law determined by the Supreme Couurt on multiple occasions, establishing well-settled law, are not changed by said inane blather. Of particular importance, if a state of war exists, the military must know about it. It seems essential to making the decision to kill people and break things. As is very well documented, the U.S. military was acting under non-aggression orders that defied the existence of a state of war.

Just because you disagree with the well-settled law established by the U.S. Supreme Court does not raise your inane comments above the level of inanity.

"[I]n a civil war, only the government can know when the in­surrection has assumed the character of war."

Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 9 (1875).

Your histrionic claim of a state of war in 1860 is factually and legally in error. The power to declare the United States to be in a state of war is controlled by the U.S. Constitution and decided only by an act of the government. It does not reside within the power of a foreign government, nor within a state in insurrection.

Only the government can know when an insurrection has assumed the character of war. You may not like it that you do not have the power to decide for the government, but that is the way it is. The government is so empowered, to the exclusion of all others.

An act of war does not create a war. Only the party acted upon may decide whether it chooses to recognize an act as creating a state of war. There was no war in 1860 and you can not manufacture one by your unilateral blather.

No declaration of war was ever made. The President recognized its existence by proclaiming a blockade on the 19th of April; and it then became his duty as well as his right to direct how it should be carried on. In the exercise of this right, he was at liberty to allow or license intercourse; and his proclama­tions, if they did not license it expressly, did, in our opinion, license it by very cogent implications. It is impossible to read them without a conviction that no interdiction of commercial intercourse, except through the ports of the designated States, was intended. The first was that of April 15, 1861. The forts and property of the United States had, prior to that day, been forcibly seized by armed forces. Hostilities had commenced; and, in the light of subsequent events, it must be considered that a state of war then existed. Yet the proclamation, while calling for the militia of the several States, and stating what would probably be the first service assigned to them, expressly declared, that, “in every event, the utmost care would be ob­served, consistently with the repossession of the forts, places, and property which had been seized from the Union, to avoid any devastation, destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.” Manifestly, this declaration was not a mere military order. It did not contemplate the treatment of the inhab­itants of the States in which the unlawful combinations men­tioned in the proclamation existed as public enemies. It announced a different mode of treatment, — the treatment due to friends. It is to be observed that the proclamation of April 15, 1861, was not a distinct recognition of an existing state of war. The President had power to recognize it, The Prize Cases, supra ; but he did not prior to his second proclamation, that of April 19, in which he announced the blockade.

Obviously, the Supreme Court explicitly and emphatically found that the proclamation of April 15, 1861 was not a distinct recognition of a state of war, rather it announced a different mode of treatment, the treatment due to friends. The court found that the President could have recognized such a state of war but chose not to, and did not do so, until April 19, 1861.

The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).

It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.

Again, only a public act of the government may fix the date of the start of a war. Kibbitzers in the peanut gallery do not get to replace the government and make such decisions for it.

And in Brown v Hiatts, 82 U.S. 177 (1872) the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the matter again.

Opinion of the Court at 183-185:

It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President. That was the first public act of the executive in which the existence of war in that State was officially recognized, and to its date the courts therefore look as the commencement of the war. And so far as the operation of the statute of limitations is concerned, it was held in the same case that the war continued until proclamation was in like manner officially made of its close. That occurred on the 2d of April, 1866. The period, therefore, between the 27th of April, 1861, and the 2d of April, 1866, must be excluded in the computation of the time during which the statute has run against the right of action of the complainant on the bond and mortgage in suit, and being excluded the present suit is not barred. It is unnecessary to go at length over the grounds upon which the court has repeatedly held that the statutes of limitation of the several States did not run against the right of action of parties during the continuance of the civil war. It is sufficient to state that the war was accompanied by the general incidents of a war between independent nations; that the inhabitants of the Confederate States on the one hand, and of the loyal States on the other, became thereby reciprocally enemies to each other, and were liable to be so treated without reference to their individual dispositions or opinions; that during its continuance all commercial intercourse and correspondence between them were interdicted by principles of public law as well as by express enactments of Congress; that all contracts previously made between them were suspended; and that the courts of each belligerent were closed to the citizens of the other.

Hanger v. Abbott, 73 U.S. 532 (1867)

Proclamation of blockade was made by the President on the nineteenth day of April, 1861, and, on the thirteenth day of July, in the same year, Congress passed a law authorizing the President to interdict all trade and intercourse between the inhabitants of the States in insurrection and the rest of the United States.[1]

War, when duly declared or recognized as such by the war making power, imports a prohibition to the subjects, or citizens, of all commercial intercourse and correspondence with citizens or persons domiciled in the enemy country.[2] Upon this principle of public law it is the established rule in all commercial nations, that trading with the enemy, except under a government license, subjects the property to confiscation, or to capture and condemnation.[3]

[1] 12 Stat. at Large, 1258-257.

[2] The William Bagaley, 5 Wallace (72 U.S.), 405; Jecker et al. v. Montgomery, 18 Howard (60 U.S.), 111; Wheaton on Maritime Captures; 209.

[3] The Rapid, 8 Cranch (12 U.S.), 155; The Hoop, 1 Robinson Admiralty, 196.

The Rapid, 8 Cranch (12 U.S.) 155, 160-161 (1814)

This is the first case, since its organization, in which this Court bas heen called upon to assert the rights of war against the property of a citizen. It is with extreme hesitation, and under a deep sense of the delicacy of the duty which we are called upon to discharge, that we proceed to adjudge the forfeiture of private right, upon principles of public law highly penal in their nature; and unfortunatcly too little understood.

But a new state of things has occurrebea new character has fien assumed by this nation, which involves it in new relations, and confers on it new rights; which imposes a new class of obligations on our citizens, and .ubjects them to new penalties;

The nature and consequences of a state of war must direct us to the conclusions which we are to form on this case.

On this point there is really no difference of opinion anmoug jurists: there can be none among those who will distinguish between what it is in itself, and what it ought to be under the influence of a benign morality and the modern practice of civilized nations. In the state of war, nation is known to nation only by their armed exterior; each threatening the other with conquest or annihilation. The individuals who compose the belligerent states, exist, as to each other, in a state of utter occlusion. If they meet, it is only in combat.

War strips man of his social nature; it demands of him the suppression of those sympathies which claim man for a brother; and accustoms the ear of humanity to hear with indifference, perhaps exultation, "that thousands have been slain."

These were only selected cases that were decided at the U.S. Supreme Court. As an official state of war affects whether there is lawful trade or trading with the enemy, and whether contractual obligations run or are tolled, the existence of a state of war is a legal matter for the government to decide, and it affects thousands or hundreds of thousands of cases. See also the cases cited in Hanger v. Abbott, and Brown v. Hiatt, 1 Dillon 372 (Kan., 1870).

As the official records show, the provisioning of Fort Sumter was made pursuant to a contract between the United States government and a Charleston merchant, Mr. Daniel McSweeney, until April 7, 1861. Had a state of war existed, perhaps Col. Robert Anderson should have been executed for trading with the enemy.

And, of course, there is the Official Records. O.R. Navy, Ser. I. Vol. 4, pp. 109-110:

Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, transmitting communication from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, regarding cooperation for the protection of Fort Pickens.

U. S. Frigate Sabine,
Off Pensacola, April 1, 1861.

Sir: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter addressed to me by Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, who is here in command of some troops sent out in January last to reenforce the garrison of Fort Pickens. I have declined to land the men as Captain Vogdes requests, as it would be in direct violation of the orders from the Navy Department under which I am acting.

The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here. They would be no justification to me. Such a step is too important to be taken without the clearest orders from proper authority. It would most certainly be viewed as a hostile act, and would be resisted to the utmost. So one acquainted with the feelings of the military assembled under General Bragg can doubt that it would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war. It would be a serious thing to bring on by any precipitation a collision which may be entirely against the wishes of the Administration. At present both sides are faithfully observing the agreement entered into by the U. S. Government with Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase. This agreement binds us not to reenforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reenforce it. I saw General Bragg on the 30th ultimo, who reassured me the conditions on their part should not be violated. While I can not take on myself under such insufftcient authority as General Scott's order the fearful responsibility of an act which seems to render civil war inevitable, I am ready at all times to carry out whatever orders I may receive from the honorable Secretary of the Navy.

In conclusion, I beg you will please send me instructions as soon as possible, that I may be relieved from a painful embarrassment.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. A. Adams,
Captain, Senior Officer Present.

Hon. Gideon Welles,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.

- - - - - - - - - -

[Enclosure.]

U. S. Frigate Sabine,
Off Pensacola, Fla., April 1, 1861.

Sir: Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.

Yours, etc.,

I. Vogdes,
Captain, First Artillery, Commanding.

Captain H. A. Adams,
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola.

For there to have been a state of war since 1860, one must believe that Navy Captain (O-6) Adams, the Senior Officer Present Afloat (SOPA) off Pensacola (and Fort Pickens and For Barrancas) did not know his nation was in a state of war, and hallucinated that it was in an imaginary non-aggression agreement with the officials of the state of Florida. Just to clarify ranks, an Army Captain is an O-4. As SOPA, Captain Adams was the senior in command over all the U.S. Navy assets in the area. In a time of war, do you not think it necessary for the senior military commanders to know they are at war? Here the senior commander was concerned about committing an act that could be seen as an act of war. He was operating under orders not to reinforce Fort Pickens, in observance of an agreement entered into by the U. S. Government with Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase.

To make absolutely clear the orders under which Capt. Adams (SOPA) was operating, see O.R. Navy, Ser. I, Vol 4, pp. 113-114:

Letter from Captain Adams, V. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, to Lieutenant Slemmer, IT. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Fla , promising prompt reenforcement when required.

U. S. Frigate Sabine,
Off Pensacola, April 11, 1861.

Sir: You have stated in your communication to me of the 10th instant that from information received through private hands you have reason to believe; that the safety of the fort depends on its immediate reenforcement. Will you be pleased to lay this information in full before me? So many unfounded rumors have been in circulation to this same effect that it is necessary to be cautious, and my orders are positive not to land reenforcements unless the fort is actually attacked or preparations are making to attack it. Should your information be such as to justify it, I will have reenforcements landed as soon as practicable when the state of the sea will admit of boats landing outside the harbor, and at night, as you recommend.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. A. Adams,
Captain, Senior Officer Present.

Lieutenant A. J. Slemmer,
Commanding Fort Pickens, Fla.

There was a similar agreement in effect regarding Fort Sumter.

OR Ser. I, Vol. 1, pp. 3-4

[No. 12.]

Fort Sumter, S. C, December 27, 1860.

(Received A. G. O., December 31.)

Colonel : I had the honor to reply this afternoon to the telegram of the honorable Secretary of War in reference to the abandonment of Fort Moultrie. In addition to the reasons given in my telegram and in my letter of last night, I will add as my opinion that many things convinced me that the authorities of the State designed to proceed to a hostile act. Under this impression I could not hesitate that it was my solemn duty to move my command from a fort which we could not probably have held longer than forty-eight or sixty hours, to this one, where my power of resistance is increased to a very great degree. The governor of this State sent down one of his aides to-day and demanded, "courteously, but peremptorily," that I should return my command to Fort Moultrie. I replied that I could not and would not do so. He stated that when the governor came into office he found that there was an understanding between his predecessor and the President that no re-enforcements were to be sent to any of these forts, and particularly to this one, and that I had violated this agreement by having re-enforced this fort. I remarked that I had not re-enforced this command, but that I had merely transferred my garrison from one fort to another, and that, as the commander of this harbor, I had a right to move my men into any fort I deemed proper. I told him that the removal was made on my own responsibility, and that I did it because we were in a position that we could not defend, and also under the firm belief that it was the best means of preventing bloodshed. This afternoon an armed steamer, one of two which have been watching these two forts, between which they have been passing to and fro or anchored for the last ten nights, took possession by escalade of Castle Pinckney. Lieutenant Meade made no resistance. He is with us to-night. They also took possession to-night of Fort Moultrie, from which I withdrew the remainder of my men this afternoon, leaving the fort in charge of the overseer of the men employed by the Engineer Department. We have left about one month's and a half of provisions in that fort; also some wood and coal and a small quantity of ammunition. We are engaged here to-day in mounting guns and in closing up some of the openings for the embrasures—temporarily closed by light boards, but which would offer but slight resistance to persons seeking entrance. If the workmen return to their work, which I doubt, we shall be enabled in three or four days to have a sufficient number of our guns mounted, and be ready for anything that may occur.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON, Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

Col. S. COOPER, Adjutant- General.

OR Ser. I, Vol. 1, pg 294:

[No. 96.]

Fort Sumter, S. C, April 8, 1861.

Col. L. Thomas, Adjutant-General U. S. Army:

Colonel: I have the honor to report that the resumption of work yesterday (Sunday) at various points on Morris Island, and the vigorous prosecution of it this morning, apparently strengthening nearly all the batteries which are under the fire of our guns, shows that they either have received some news from Washington which has put them on the qui vive or that they have received orders from Montgomery to commence operations here. I am preparing by the side of my barbette guns protection for our men from the shells, which will be almost continuously bursting over or in our work.

I had the honor to receive by yesterday's mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me verj' greatly, following as it does and contradicting so positively the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was authorized to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.

It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned. Even with his boat at our walls the loss of life (as I think I mentioned to Mr. Fox) in unloading her will more than pay for the good to be accomplished by the expedition, which keeps us, if I can maintain possession of this work, out of position, surrounded by strong works, which must be carried to make this fort of the least value to the United States Government.

We have not oil enough to keep a light in the lantern for one night. The boats will have, therefore, to rely at night entirely upon other marks. I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.

How can the nation be considered to be in a state of war since 1860, and in April 1861 a senior U.S. Navy Fleet Commander does not know about it?

BroJoeK, why did you not inform Captain Adams that there was a war going on? And how did he miss it?

How did the officers commanding Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens not know they were supposed to be at war? How could the military on both sides, and politicians be under the impression that there was an agreement to not attempt to reinforce either Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens (or Fort Moultrie in 1860)?

In a movie hypothetical, a nuclear missile is launched by a Failsafe computer in error at a Russian city. Notice is immediately given of the error, but the missile cannot be stopped. In order to avert a full-on nuclear exchange, the U.S. accepts a Russian missile hit on New York City. Two cities are destroyed by nuclear weapons, but no war occurred.

A hostile act does not create a state of war.

[wgmalabama]

History is history. How we got from there to here is important. It is not eternal damnation. I wish the 160 years of history didn’t make you hate the South. I really do. There are key issues tht make it the way it is both good and bad. The new south is the stronghold of constitutional support.

Having said that, history, heritage, identity makes the south somewhat uniform in the drive for liberty, personal and religious freedom,1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th 10 th amendment on average - you get the Idea. We welcome all Citizens who Share that zeal.

I do hope you come to love us as brothers. I would host you in my home to share our love for god given liberty. Any time. Honest.

I don’t define the south on 150+ years ago history. I judge based on recent action. Having said that, family trees are what they are. I will not condemn my family back then for doing what they saw as best. They were poor and not slave holders. Both sides (GA and AL) were dirt farmers and for their reasons fought for southern causes. I will honor my family.

To be honest. I’m somewhat fearful that the recent riots/protests are going to make many fearful to express their true liberty based beliefs.

Less so you and yours. I will try to be better at discussing why I’m prideful of the new south and will also be the first to point out where we fail( Doug Jones) This is the U ITED STATES and not the federally controlled states of America. Hope we can agree on that. Also it’s more important what we do moving forward and not looking back.

If I am wrong in my assumptions then we cannot honor anyone.

I see many honorable men during the CW on both sides. I see many brave men on both sides. But just like I don’t personally agree with the dragging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I separate the politicians from the men serving. Hope you can or attempt to do the same.

Blessed be the men who gave their lives so we can post back and forth. They are better men than me Without a doubt. To those who paid the sacrifice from 1776 - today, I am humbled, prayerful and to be honest a bit ashamed for the state of our Republic.