Talk:A. P. Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Full name in title?[edit]

Shouldn't this article renamed (moved to) Ambrose Powell Hill? I know most historical texts refer to A. P. Hill, but it seems un-encyclopedic to use initials in titles for articles.

Second, it seems odd that there is no space between A. and P. Is that some standard I'm not aware of?

I know that historical military articles don't get much attention in Wikipedia. If no one comments for a week or so, I'm going to move the article and leave redirects for the other versions of his name.

-- A D Monroe III 02:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate text[edit]

The following text in the article is inaccurate:

When Virginia seceded, he was made colonel of a Virginia infantry regiment, winning promotion to the rank of brigadier general on the field of Bull Run.

A.P. Hill’s regiment (13th Virginia) arrived on the Manassas Battlefield by train with Arnold Elzey’s Brigade about 12:30 p.m. on July 21, 1862. The battle raged in the distance and Elzey’s Brigade hurried in the direction of the firing. Before reaching the battle Elzey detached the 13th Virginia to the lower Bull Run fords. The 13th Virginia and A. P. Hill participated very little in the Battle of First Manassas or Bull Run. Hill felt again that he had been cheated of an opportunity to display his merits and he remained Colonel of the 13th Virginia until February 1862.

A. P. Hill was promoted to Brigadier-general upon the recommendation of General Joseph E. Johnston and assumed command of James Longstreet’s former brigade (1st, 7th, 11th and 17th Virginia infantry plus Loudoun artillery). With this brigade he distinguished himself at the Battle of Williamsburg on May 5, 1862 and about one month later was promoted to Major-general in command of a division of six brigades which Hill termed the “Light Division.”

The article seems very sketchy. There is a great deal of interesting material regarding his engagement to Ellen Marcy and the serious personal controversy with both Generals Longstreet and Jackson. That he suffered from gonorrhoea as a West Point cadet is reported but the other far more interesting facts are omitted.

Please have the inaccurate statements corrected and review the other very interesting facts regarding A. P. Hill’s life.

Thomas Miller —84.157.80.105 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

The mention of "...complications of veneral[sic] disease, possibly gonorrhea...", without citing sources leaves the article open to criticism. I would think that it may be an issue with his descendants. Elementary school teachers may also take issue with it when their students cut and paste that section (without even understanding) into a biography. Citing "Some historians believe..." seems more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia.

Nevertheless, it apparently was 'common knowledge' at the time that upon his appointment to the United States Military Academy and subsequent journey north from Virginia, that A.P. Hill's father had explicitly instructed him to travel up the west side of the Hudson to West Point and not to go by way of New York City. He ignored this advice and went to the City where he contracted a STD; specifically "syphilis" and not gonorrhea. There was no cure then or throughout the Civil War and treatment was arcane, archaic, and even somewhat barbaric to a point of itself rendering victims incapacitated. The disease unchecked, there seems little doubt that this painful affliction had or may have on many occasions throughout his life and military career debilitated him to a point of being bed-ridden and fully unable to perform his duties. 173.59.145.219 (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


If you do choose to cite some references, I don't think it deserves to take top spot under "Legacy". It certainly wouldn't be something that I would want as a legacy and I doubt that Hill would either. Perhaps it deserves mention (if at all) under a "Medical" heading. --Dogfish 21:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See if the changes I just made are satisfactory. I don't think "Medical" is a good heading because the condition had a direct effect on how his generalship was evaluated. I once heard a Gettysburg LBG say that "Hill spent a night with Venus and a lifetime with Mercury" although I don't think that was a treatment for gonorrhea. More accurate jokes are needed. :-) Hal Jespersen 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you went over and above on the changes... well done. I understand that his recurring illness affected his performance and warranted mention. I'm new to this. Now that the issue is resolved, do I delete my comments or does one leave it intact for future electronic archeologists to ponder..? --Dogfish 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the interchange as-is. Eventually, if the Talk page gets too full, we may archive old comments. But we generally only remove vandalism. Hal Jespersen 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: AP Hill was a distinctive leader in the Civil War. The issues of possible gonorrhea are significant - but one must remember it was a common disease then. Not sure how to incorporate that opinion into the article. But it ought to be included.... Engr105th 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way to include the thought is to find a secondary source (professional historian writing in a published work) about Hill and footnote it. In my readings about APH, I have not found such an opinion. The guy performed poorly in the war's biggest battle due to illness, so it's an illness of note. Hal Jespersen 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you Jespersen...If we can't isolate the disease as an STD, then leave it as "disease". I must admit, I can't find anything referencing any original source for gonorrhea other than second hand jokes (if thats what they are). Could be anything - drank some bad water 2 days before... ???? Engr105th 06:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. The article clearly documents the disease as gonorrhea, citing Robertson's bio as a source. What we were discussing is whether to edit in a comment that says "Please don't think poorly of Little Powell because gonorrhea was very common in that era." My view is that opinion should be included only if we quote a secondary source saying it about Hill in this context. Hal Jespersen 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E B on A P[edit]

Encyclopædia Britannica lists its article as "Hill, A P"

The article begins as "Hill, A(mbrose) P(owell)"

Source: Hill, A P.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD .

Interesting to note that EB has dispensed with the use of periods with abbreviations (at least in this case). I knew the standard was evolving but I didn't know the extent. --Dogfish 05:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they dispense the periods only if the actual name can be interchanged with the letters, if not, it remains with a period. Lincher 11:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand upon that? I have no idea what that phrase means: "actual name can be interchanged with the letters". Hal Jespersen 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the name of the guy is known, e. g.: A P Hill ... Ambrose Powell Hill, then they will not use punctuation for the letters. If the name of the guy is unknown, e.g. A. A. Raiba then they will leave the name with the punctuation. Am I clearer? Lincher 18:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it's clear. Thanks. Quite an odd editorial convention. I'd be interested to know how they punctuate Ulysses S. Grant and Harry S. Truman. :-) Hal Jespersen 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are written that way : Grant, Ulysses S./Ulysses S. Grant and Truman, Harry S./Harry S. Truman, with the slash separating the different titles that are seen on EB2006 (online)'s articles.
The other funny thing is Hill, A(mbrose) P(owell) is the title of the article on EB2006 but the title of the page is A. P. Hill. Lincher 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly regarded?[edit]

"Nevertheless, Hill was one of the war's most highly regarded generals on either side." looks PoV to me. Opinions of Hill varied at the time and among historians ever since.

My PoV is that he was nuts and should have been left in charge of a regiment or maybe a brigade under a very strong division commander. I think there is evidence both ways but I wouldn't dream of putting my PoV in the article. Frankly, I think the red shirt is enough to show that I am right. I know that lots of officers did things like that in the ACW but I think they were nuts also. 71.234.37.99 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven71.234.37.99 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it is a POV. This is one of the older Wikipedia articles that has not been full cited, which an opinion like that certainly should be. The following sentences provide some context to the claim, but it needs a citation. I'll add a flag. In the meantime, there were a number of successful but eccentric generals in the war, Stonewall Jackson among them. Their personal habits do not usually affect their martial reputations in any significant way. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jackson and Hill tried to fight duels while leading troops in the field, in the near presence of the Union Army. Jackson requested an issue of pikes because he thought equipping some companies with them would conserve ammunition. Hill ignored direct orders from everyone ever placed over him except for Jackson and Lee. While the presence and influence of Lee allowed them to function as effective leaders at times they were deeply flawed commanders. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides ammo concerns, Jackson also liked the idea of pikemen because throughout history they were the soldiers used to deal with cavalry. At the early stages of the ACW quite a few horsemen only carried their saber, and not firing a pistol/carbine at enemies. As for the general officers my POV is that any participants of a civil war must be a little nuts to fire on their former comrades & fellow countrymen, even if they considered themselves from a separate nation anyway. Is there wording in this article that still bothers you? Kresock (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted sentence, July 22, 2011[edit]

I did some minor rewording to a recent edit, but could not understand what the following sentence meant (up to the first footnote):

  • Hill had been given either charges for lack of duty by his commanding officer[1] and he had repeatedly requested to Lee to set up a court of inquiry, but the commanding general did not wish to lose the effective teamwork of his two experienced lieutenants.[2]

Feel free to reword and place it back into the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hassler, Appendix.
  2. ^ Hassler, pp. 112–14, 128–31.

Army of Northern Virginia Poem[edit]

Under the analysis section it mentions that A.P Hill, "was omitted from Stephen Vincent Benet's poem, "The Army of Northern Virginia" even though all other generals of his rank were present.[28]"

However, I just read the poem online and found mention of A.P. Hill about 3 paragraphs in: http://allpoetry.com/poem/8513609-Army_Of_Northern_Virginia-by-Stephen_Vincent_Benet

"A. P. Hill leads the van. He is small and spare, His short, clipped beard is red as his battleshirt, Jackson and Lee are to call him in their death-hours."

Am I missing something? It *clearly* appears AP Hill's name is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmazeika (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's last words[edit]

Lee also called for Hill in his final moments ("Tell Hill he must come up."), although current medical opinion is that Lee was unable to speak during his last illness.

These could still have been Lee's last words - before losing his power of speech. Also he could have been referring to D.H.Hill. Valetude (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A. P. Hill/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is close to B-status, but it lacks an infobox and specific inline citations. With those changes, it may actually move beyond B-status and may be ready for review as a GA. Erechtheus 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 05:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A. P. Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junior or II[edit]

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

2600:6C54:507F:D033:5DF6:3D5E:B25B:E7F9 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Ownership[edit]

The article states: "Robertson's biography of Hill quotes his wife Kitty as saying her husband, "never owned slaves and never approved of the institution of slavery." In the 1850 census, Thomas Hill (Hill's father) owned 20 slaves in Culpeper County. Ten years later, Thomas Hill Jr. owned at least 38 slaves in Culpeper County. Hill's uncle (also named Ambrose P. Hill) farmed in Culpeper County, Virginia, using enslaved labor. In the 1840 census Ambrose P. Hill owned 32 slaves, and 30 slaves in the 1850 census."

I think this should be clarified such that it is clear whether A.P. Hill owned slaves or not. The way it is written it sounds like his wife said that he never owned slaves, but the census states he did. I think what the section (might?) be trying to say is that he never owned slaves but his family (father, brother and uncle) all owned slaves, as evidenced by the census. 69.125.82.78 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's confusing. I found one of the census references, it lists 30 slaves 1850 on pg 17-18. I don't know which person that is, though. The other might be https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYTT-4SN, though that's page 30, not 32, and seems to say 34 slaves, not 32. — Omegatron (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IP address[edit]

Adding OR is not valid, and you are 3RR violation Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._P._Hill&oldid=1197128581"