[Petronski]

Per the rules of war, is the Commander-in-Chief a legitimate military target? Could we have assassinated Hitler?

I don't think a head of state is a legal military target. For a sufficiently evil head of state, like Hitler, I would break the law.

I'm sorry the Vatican extended diplomatic relations with Davis too, but if all you can cite is the Vatican, I think that means NO ONE ELSE extended diplomatic relations to Davis. So by your definition, I suppose the rest of the world is with me: JD doesn't qualify. If the Great Slaver Rebellion of 1861 had succeeded, diplomatic recognition most surely would have followed, but alas, it was not to be.

[4CJ]

I'm sorry the Vatican extended diplomatic relations with Davis too, but if all you can cite is the Vatican, I think that means NO ONE ELSE extended diplomatic relations to Davis.

Wrong. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha did so as well, and the Confederacy established treaties with some 25 separate Indian nations (and acknowledged as nations per numerous Supreme Court decisions).