Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
THOMASVILLE -- Nelson Winbush knows his voice isn't likely to be heard above the crowd that writes American history books. That doesn't keep him from speaking his mind, however.
A 75-year-old black man whose grandfather proudly fought in the gray uniform of the South during the Civil War, Winbush addressed a group of about 40 at the Thomas County Museum of History Sunday afternoon. To say the least, his perspective of the war differs greatly from what is taught in America's classrooms today.
"People have manufactured a lot of mistruths about why the war took place," he said. "It wasn't about slavery. It was about state's rights and tariffs."
Many of Winbush's words were reserved for the Confederate battle flag, which still swirls amid controversy more than 150 years after it originally flew.
"This flag has been lied about more than any flag in the world," Winbush said. "People see it and they don't really know what the hell they are looking at."
About midway through his 90-minute presentation, Winbush's comments were issued with extra force.
"This flag is the one that draped my grandfathers' coffin," he said while clutching it strongly in his left hand. "I would shudder to think what would happen if somebody tried to do something to this particular flag."
Winbush, a retired in educator and Korean War veteran who resides in Kissimmee, Fla., said the Confederate battle flag has been hijacked by racist groups, prompting unwarranted criticism from its detractors.
"This flag had nothing to with the (Ku Klux) klan or skinheads," he said while wearing a necktie that featured the Confederate emblem. "They weren't even heard of then. It was just a guide to follow in battle.
"That's all it ever was."
Winbush said Confederate soldiers started using the flag with the St. Andrews cross because its original flag closely resembled the U.S. flag. The first Confederate flag's blue patch in an upper corner and its alternating red and white stripes caused confusion on the battlefield, he said.
"Neither side (of the debate) knows what the flag represents," Winbush said. "It's dumb and dumber. You can turn it around, but it's still two dumb bunches.
"If you learn anything else today, don't be dumb."
Winbush learned about the Civil War at the knee of Louis Napoleon Nelson, who joined his master and one of his master's sons in battle voluntarily when he was 14. Nelson saw combat at Lookout Mountain, Bryson's Crossroads, Shiloh and Vicksburg.
"At Shiloh, my grandfather served as a chaplain even though he couldn't read or write," said Winbush, who bolstered his points with photos, letters and newspapers that used to belong to his grandfather. "I've never heard of a black Yankee holding such an office, so that makes him a little different."
Winbush said his grandfather, who also served as a "scavenger," never had any qualms about fighting for the South. He had plenty of chances to make a break for freedom, but never did. He attended 39 Confederate reunions, the final one in 1934. A Sons of Confederate Veterans Chapter in Tennessee is named after him.
"People ask why a black person would fight for the Confederacy. (It was) for the same damned reason a white Southerner did," Winbush explained.
Winbush said Southern blacks and whites often lived together as extended families., adding slaves and slave owners were outraged when Union forces raided their homes. He said history books rarely make mention of this.
"When the master and his older sons went to war, who did he leave his families with?" asked Winbush, who grandfather remained with his former owners 12 years after the hostilities ended. "It was with the slaves. Were his (family members) mistreated? Hell, no!
"They were protected."
Winbush said more than 90,000 blacks, some of them free, fought for the Confederacy. He has said in the past that he would have fought by his grandfather's side in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry led by Gen. Nathan Bedford Forest.
After his presentation, Winbush opened the floor for questions. Two black women, including Jule Anderson of the Thomas County Historical Society Board of Directors, told him the Confederate battle flag made them uncomfortable.
Winbush, who said he started speaking out about the Civil War in 1992 after growing weary of what he dubbed "political correctness," was also challenged about his opinions.
"I have difficulty in trying to apply today's standards with what happened 150 years ago," he said to Anderson's tearful comments. "...That's what a lot of people are attempting to do. I'm just presenting facts, not as I read from some book where somebody thought that they understood. This came straight from the horse's mouth, and I refute anybody to deny that."
Thomas County Historical Society Board member and SVC member Chip Bragg moved in to close the session after it took a political turn when a white audience member voiced disapproval of the use of Confederate symbols on the state flag. Georgia voters are set to go to the polls a week from today to pick a flag to replace the 1956 version, which featured the St. Andrew's cross prominently.
"Those of us who are serious about our Confederate heritage are very unhappy with the trivialization of Confederate symbols and their misuse," he said. "Part of what we are trying to do is correct this misunderstanding."
Extracts
4. It is by these Confederates agreed that... and that according to their different charge of each Jurisdiction and Plantation the whole advantage of the war (if it please God so to bless their endeavors) whether it be in lands, goods, or persons, shall be proportionately divided among the said Confederates.
8. ...It is also agreed that if any servant run away from his master into any other of these confederated Jurisdictions, that in such case, upon the ceritficate of one magistrate in the Jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled, or upon other due proof; the said servant shall be delivered, either to his master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate or proof.
Ain't one ;o)
"For more than two years, negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as Rebel soldiers, and had paraded with White troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."
Horace Greeley, The American conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-'65: Its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to Exhibit Especially Its Moral and Political Phases, With the Drift and Progress of American Opinion Respecting Human Slavery From 1776 to the Close of the War for the Union, Hartford, CN: O. D. Case & Co., Vol. 2, p. 524
Maybe he should've enlisted our own Prince of Pith to his aid on that one.
See, that's what I mean. An accusation of murder should have some evidence or logic behind it. Wild accusations of murder qualify for tinfoil. I wouldn't dream of accusing Lee of murder unless I had a link ready. I think that's what separates those who recognize reality from those of you living in the past who accept any kind of wild revisionism as long as it demonizes those you consider the enemy.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? There were many factors.
When you said that those who recognize that slavery was the reason for secession were not recognizing facts. It's it the South's own words in their Declarations. You Spent a whole thread talking about about a black southerner fighting for the Confederacy acting as if he was the norm. I can take you to an Underground Railroad station right here near my house to show you that many blacks did not support the Confederacy.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? I posted an article about Mr. Winbush, and the fact that his grandfather for the Confederacy - a position Mr. Winbush stated he would take as well.
Again, you said that Winbush proves yankees had their facts wrong. That implies black supported slavery.
Not at that time - until then modern wars were much more "gentlemanly".
War was gentlemanly?! Read about the English versus the Highlanders! Read about the Alpiners versus the Saxons! I'd say burned houses and supply barns isn't near as bad as what the Highlanders and the Saxons went through!
Sherman instituted the policy of waging war on innocent civilians, to make Georgia "howl". That is, the defenseless old men, women and children.
And it's what Ike, Truman, Patton, Doolittle, all of them did. It's how wars are won, you destroy the opposing army's supply. Southerners had it easy compared to Tokyoans, Germans who were firebombed, Hiroshimians, Nagaskians, etc. Hundreds of thousands were killed. All the South lost were inanimate objects.
His army could beat them. But please see post 72 - the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue before and after the war. Civilian property could not be seized/destroyed without compensation.
It was rebellion.
By Lincoln's own admission, he was perfectly content for the seceded states to be left alone [''beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere], as long as he could 'collect the duties and imposts'. A demand for tribute.
Yeah right, that's beyond the pale. Like I said, tinfoil.
Since the tinfoilers were kicked out in 2000, neoconfederates were the running joke with their hatred of Lincoln and northeasterners, and their claims that blacks liked slavery and wanted to be slaves, some even say they were better off as slaves. Posters would moan when a neoconfederate would start in on a non-Civil War thread. That was 3-4 years ago and I don't have the links to the threads, obviously. That's when I knew they were discredited and a wise person doesn't spend too much time arguing with people that are delusional. lol
Yes, of course I noticed your slight of hand in the response to 4CJ above, wherein you substitute 'slavery' for 'Confederacy.' I see it's a trick you like enough to do in subsequent posts, so I'll let you have it. The problem with it is the idiotic absolutism by Unionists. Perhaps it's bred into their ideology: As the Union must be absolute, so must all facts pertaining to the aggressive war for it's maintenance. So be it, but I would be surprised if you found that black hatred of slavery was universal (especially amongst free black slaveowners), let alone hatred of the CSA. And so it continues: No black confederates, No black support for the CSA, No room for the anti-federalists in the category 'founders.'
some even say they were better off as slaves.
Who said that? Some posters here? Or some slaves? One I believe I can document... the other you apparently cannot. Such is the way, typically.
Posters would moan when a neoconfederate would start in on a non-Civil War thread
Usually it seems most of the moaning comes from explaining our system of government to the Hamiltonian bloggers, who's desires for the US were shot to hell, shredded, and turned away. Maybe I'm only hearing the moans from my side of the fence. It's very possible that their moaning is equal.
As far as controversy and argument, perhaps you're one of those people who likes one-sided discussion. I've learned a great deal from these WBTS threads, and plan to continue. Sure, 90% of the posts are fluff and/or crap, but there are jewels in there, grab a pitchfork and dig. Here, Let me try it your way:
Headline: Gun Grabbers After Us Again
Post 1: Those guys suck.
Post 2: Right on, they do suck.
Post 3: They suck and they're bastards.
Post 4: I love guns, and those guys suck.
Headline: CA Supremes to Force Gay Marriage Down Everyone's Throat
Post 1: Those guys suck.
Post 2: Right on, they do suck.
Post 3: They suck and they're bastards.
...
I've tried it, I can't stay interested. The best threads on FR involve controversy: WOD, WBTS, Animal Rights.
What's the difference? In order to say that blacks supported a Confederate victory, they have to say that blacks wanted slavery. Many have said that blacks were better off as slaves. They're delusional.
I see it's a trick you like enough to do in subsequent posts, so I'll let you have it. The problem with it is the idiotic absolutism by Unionists. Perhaps it's bred into their ideology: As the Union must be absolute, so must all facts pertaining to the aggressive war for it's maintenance. So be it, but I would be surprised if you found that black hatred of slavery was universal (especially amongst free black slaveowners), let alone hatred of the CSA.
See, there you go. You're promoting that blacks didn't mind slavery. You're delusional.
And so it continues: No black confederates, No black support for the CSA, No room for the anti-federalists in the category 'founders.'
I didn't say there wasn't any. There's a few nuts scattered everywhere and I'm sure that some blacks did fight for their little dictators just as some people in other tyrannies will fight for their leaders. I reject your implications that blacks didn't mind being slaves.
Who said that? Some posters here?
Yes, through the many threads. They say that granting the slaves their freedom was a bad thing to do since they weren't used to it. Under that philosophy freedom could never be granted, which of course the perpetuation of slavery was sought after in the Declarations.
Or some slaves? One I believe I can document... the other you apparently cannot. Such is the way, typically.
Posters here through the threads a couple years ago. I don't know if it's been repeated lately, I quit reading these monotonous delusional threads long ago.
Usually it seems most of the moaning comes from explaining our system of government to the Hamiltonian bloggers, who's desires for the US were shot to hell, shredded, and turned away. Maybe I'm only hearing the moans from my side of the fence. It's very possible that their moaning is equal.
If America is so terrible, move.
As far as controversy and argument, perhaps you're one of those people who likes one-sided discussion. I've learned a great deal from these WBTS threads, and plan to continue.
Lots of revisionism, I'm sure. You'd be better off reading the words of the people involved then instead of reading what someone here says what someone said then. They tend to twist things if they don't quote directly. Just like when 4CJ said thaty Lincoln's only ambition was for money. Delusional.
Sure, 90% of the posts are fluff and/or crap, but there are jewels in there, grab a pitchfork and dig. Here, Let me try it your way: Headline: Gun Grabbers After Us Again Post 1: Those guys suck. Post 2: Right on, they do suck. Post 3: They suck and they're bastards. Post 4: I love guns, and those guys suck. Headline: CA Supremes to Force Gay Marriage Down Everyone's Throat Post 1: Those guys suck. Post 2: Right on, they do suck. Post 3: They suck and they're bastards. ... I've tried it, I can't stay interested. The best threads on FR involve controversy: WOD, WBTS, Animal Rights.
Be careful what you believe though. It's always best to read the words of the people involved, not what someone who lives in the past who has an agenda has to say about it.
Your argument that CSA=slavery does not fit the facts. The majority of those who fought were not slave owners. Many who sided with the confederacy felt that slavery was a plague, yet tolerated it. Others still wanted to end slavery prior to even secession, so that the goal of the war would be clear.
Many have said that blacks were better off as slaves. They're delusional.
Sure they weren't just quoting Lincoln?
[G] I see it's a trick you like enough to do in subsequent posts, so I'll let you have it. The problem with it is the idiotic absolutism by Unionists. Perhaps it's bred into their ideology: As the Union must be absolute, so must all facts pertaining to the aggressive war for it's maintenance. So be it, but I would be surprised if you found that black hatred of slavery was universal (especially amongst free black slaveowners), let alone hatred of the CSA.
[#3] See, there you go. You're promoting that blacks didn't mind slavery. You're delusional.
That's not what it says.
I reject your implications that blacks didn't mind being slaves
Out of left field there. Please cite the relevent portion of my post where I said that "blacks didn't mind being slaves."
They say that granting the slaves their freedom was a bad thing to do since they weren't used to it
Once again, sure they weren't just quoting AL?
[G] Usually it seems most of the moaning comes from explaining our system of government to the Hamiltonian bloggers, who's desires for the US were shot to hell, shredded, and turned away. Maybe I'm only hearing the moans from my side of the fence. It's very possible that their moaning is equal.
[#3]If America is so terrible, move.
This is out of the parking lot beyond left field. America is not terrible due mostly to retention of some elements of federal government.
Just like when 4CJ said thaty Lincoln's only ambition was for money. Delusional.
Delusional? I would't go that far. Incomplete, for sure: money and power, but most people these days equate the two so his leaving it off is understandable.
Be careful what you believe though. It's always best to read the words of the people involved, not what someone who lives in the past who has an agenda has to say about it.
Obvious, from the way you re-post my exact words, then arrive at conclusions no sane person could draw:
[G] I would be surprised if you found that black hatred of slavery was universal (especially amongst free black slaveowners),
[#3] You're promoting that blacks didn't mind slavery
[G] Hamiltonian bloggers, who's desires for the US were shot to hell, shredded, and turned away.
[#3] If America is so terrible, move
He went on to say "Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object...The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection."
So maybe all Lincoln wanted was to make sure that Davis got the birthday card he sent?
The Declarations made clear that their cause was thoroughly identified with slavery.
The majority of those who fought were not slave owners. Many who sided with the confederacy felt that slavery was a plague, yet tolerated it. Others still wanted to end slavery prior to even secession, so that the goal of the war would be clear.
That doesn't stand up to what is said in the Declarations. The Declarations state that secession was for slavery.
Sure they weren't just quoting Lincoln?
I'm saying that there are posters here that have said blacks were better off as slaves. Even you hinted toward it.
Out of left field there. Please cite the relevent portion of my post where I said that "blacks didn't mind being slaves."
You said black hatred of slavery wasn't universal. That makes slavery OK?
Once again, sure they weren't just quoting AL?
I'm relaying what some here have said in the past.
This is out of the parking lot beyond left field. America is not terrible due mostly to retention of some elements of federal government.
Glad to see you admit you were out of line in your America-bashing.
Delusional? I would't go that far. Incomplete, for sure: money and power, but most people these days equate the two so his leaving it off is understandable.
See, you're delusional. You're saying that Lincoln only cared about money. You guys have lost touch with reality.
Obvious, from the way you re-post my exact words, then arrive at conclusions no sane person could draw:
You've said what you said. You say that Lincoln's only motivation was money and you imply that blacks weren't against slavery.
No, he probably thought that would be formal recognition of the Confederacy.
;o) Paging ..., nah. Leave in him in the deep, inner recesses of his mind.
Maybe we can get GOPcapitalist to post his matrix of secession documents and their reliance on slavery. Because you chose to only read the ones posted here by certain types who omit inconvenient facts does not mean that you cannot be educated.
I'm saying that there are posters here that have said blacks were better off as slaves. Even you hinted toward it.
No, I didn't. When you claimed that I did, I asked you to cite where. You have not. Now you once again indicate that I did.
You said black hatred of slavery wasn't universal. **==** That makes slavery OK?
**==** <- total leap by you, stop putting words in my mouth.
Glad to see you admit you were out of line in your America-bashing.
Nowhere did I bash America. Once again, when you previously claimed that I did, I asked you to show where. Now you once again have stated something as fact that is not true.
See, you're delusional. You're saying that Lincoln only cared about money. You guys have lost touch with reality.
Good Gravy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My exact words: money and power, which you cite, then say I only talk about money??
You've said what you said.
While this is the only truthful part of your post, I don't think that it contributes anything or was ever in doubt.
You say that Lincoln's only motivation was money
No, I didn't. In fact, I specifically said that 4CJ was mistaken in thinking that Lincoln's only motivation was money, which you cited and then proceeded to lie about.
you imply that blacks weren't against slavery.
No, I didn't. As a point of fact, your willingness to speak on the part of CSA blacks as though they were an aggregate people with totally coherent beliefs is probably one of the greatest insults that I can imagine.
Sigh. Please read the statement whch preceded your reply. [For clarification, I did not state that the justice was killed, only that he was hung in an attempt to force him to divulge the location.]
You Spent a whole thread talking about about a black southerner fighting for the Confederacy acting as if he was the norm.
A post of a man who was proud of his ancestor. But it was not an isolated incident:
The next recorded organization of negroes, especially as Rebel soldiers, was at Mobile, toward Autumn; and two or three months later, the following telegram was flashed over the length and breadth of the rejoicing Confederacy:"New Orleans, Nov. 23, 1861. "Over 28,000 troops were reviewed today by Gov. Moore, Maj. Gen. Lowell, and Brig.-Gen. Ruggles. The line was over seven miles long. One regiment comprised 1,400 free colored men."The (Rebel) Legislature of Virginia was engaged, so early as Feb. 4, 1862, on a bill to enroll all the free negroes in the State, for service in the Rebel forces; which was favored by all who discussed it; when it passed to its engrossment, and probably became a law.
Horace Greeley, The American conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-'65: Its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to Exhibit Especially Its Moral and Political Phases, With the Drift and Progress of American Opinion Respecting Human Slavery From 1776 to the Close of the War for the Union, Hartford, CN: O. D. Case & Co., Vol. 2, p. 522.
Again, you said that Winbush proves yankees had their facts wrong.
Well duh. If blacks, slave and free, fought for the Confederacy that speaks volumes about the true causes of the war - to many it was that arrogant yankees attempted to dictate their attitudes and beliefs on the country, and failed to abide by the terms of their agreement.
But for the sake of argument, slavery was already legal. The South had no need to secede to continue it - there were not enough states against it to pass an amendment, and Lincoln himself signed and amendment that would have made slavery permanent.
War was gentlemanly?!
Please, I wrote that modern warfare was gentlemanly per accepted international laws & treaties. The Lieber Code attempted to legalize the attack and destruction of civilian property. See the decision by Taney cited previously which recognizes that civilian property is not a legimate target of war.
All the South lost were inanimate objects.
Hundreds of thousands of homes and farms were leveled, entire cities were destroyed, thousands of women were raped, property stolen, numerous slaves murdered, civilian livestock slaughtered for no reason, the women & children of Roswell enslaved and sent north, nunneries and churches looted and destroyed, and entire populations were left to starve to death or to freeze.
That you delight in such men, or consider their actions trivial speaks volumes.
It was rebellion.
So? The court still had ruled the taking/destruction of civilian property illegal.
Yeah right, that's beyond the pale. Like I said, tinfoil.
Does Lincoln need Heavy-duty or regular? It was what he said.
How could sending something via the U.S. mail to someone located in the U.S. be formal recognition of anything? Other than the birthday, of course.
Point of clarification. In his inaugural, Lincoln made it abundantly clear that his object was to control the forts and collect the duties - beyond that no action would be taken against the seceded states. His prior speeches had emphasized his adamant refusal to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court, his efforts to prevent amalgamation of the races.
Weak, 4CJ. Very weak. You claim he was hung without any sort of qualifier, and that implies executed. So was he executed? Did he live? Did it even happen at all?
Hundreds of thousands of homes and farms were leveled, entire cities were destroyed, thousands of women were raped, property stolen, numerous slaves murdered, civilian livestock slaughtered for no reason, the women & children of Roswell enslaved and sent north, nunneries and churches looted and destroyed, and entire populations were left to starve to death or to freeze.
Hundreds of thousands? In your day job do you do crowd estimates for the government for things like the Million Man March?
LOL Or we could just read what the secessionists said in the official record, and they said clearly that secession was for slavery.
No, I didn't. When you claimed that I did, I asked you to cite where. You have not. Now you once again indicate that I did.
You said that blacks weren't universally against it. That implies it wasn't so bad, doesn't it?
**==** <- total leap by you, stop putting words in my mouth.
Im not. I asked you a question. Was slaver OK since not all black were against it?
Nowhere did I bash America. Once again, when you previously claimed that I did, I asked you to show where. Now you once again have stated something as fact that is not true.
You went on a rant about things being shredded or whatever. You weren't complaining of things being shredded?
Good Gravy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My exact words: money and power, which you cite, then say I only talk about money??
Money=power. You say that was his only motivation and again, you are delusional.
No, I didn't. In fact, I specifically said that 4CJ was mistaken in thinking that Lincoln's only motivation was money, which you cited and then proceeded to lie about.
You added power, which is the same as money. You're delusional in saying that Lincoln was only after money.
No, I didn't.
By only telling one side of the story, implications were made. It is a fact that slavery was terrible for a lot of blacks and many blacks tried desperately to escape it. A fact you guys don't seem to ever mention.
As a point of fact, your willingness to speak on the part of CSA blacks as though they were an aggregate people with totally coherent beliefs is probably one of the greatest insults that I can imagine.
I don't think I'm out of line in saying that slavery was a bad thing for blacks, like I said there is an Underground Railroad station near my house. At least they had friends in Illinois willing to help them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.