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."
Can't stand disagreement huh?
fyi, i predict that #3 is next, as he appears to me and a lot of other "persons of colour" to be a stone racist.
Oh brother. You're as white as anyone. What are you trying to do, claim victim status?
4CJ will disagree. lol
NOBODY, then or now, except fools believe ANY of those documents were OFFICIAL.
If the Declarations aren't official, why was secession official? It was the same people that did both.
REVISIONISTS & the so-called RADICAL SCHOOL historians tried without sucess in the 1960s to say that the documents were something other than private papers off a FEW persons. they failed in that attempt.
It was all faked, huh? You guys and your cherry-picking. lol
I wonder if they accept Monopoly™ money.
Nah, without attempting to find you non-existant documentation, they were arsonists ;o)
Lobsters around the world are offended.
No, what he did was called sarcasm. A jab at Paritsan because the source he holds so highly for it's anti-Southern tint is also anti-Republican.
Men in Tights
We're men... we're men in tights
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men... we're men in tights.
We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right.
We may look like sissys,
but watch what you say or else we'll put out your lights. (bang)
We're men... we're men in tights
always on guard defending the peoples rights.
(Can can music)
la la la la la la la la la, la la la la la la la la la...
lalalalalalala (repeat).
We're men..manly men
We're men in tights, yes (with lisp)
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men, we're men in tights
We rob from the rich and give to the poor that's right.
We may look like pansies,
but don't get us wrong or else we'll put out your lights. (bang)
We're men... we're men in tights (tight tights)
Always on guard defending the peoples rights
When your in a fix just call for the men in tights.
We're butch.
If a document says something you don't agree with, just pretend it doesn't exist, huh?
With you guy's crazy theories such as voters being shot in voting booths, how is anyone to know when you're being sarcastic?
stand watie lowercases his name. He does this for a reason, and one that has been explained to you while asking you not to capitalize it. Abiding by his request takes zero effort on your part, and helps to show respect for him, his people, and their tribal custom. He is well known on FR and it is a rare day when I read the foxhole thread when he doesn't stop by for a bump regardless of who is being discussed.
We all disagree about a great many things, and it is appropriate that we have a lively debate on issues important to us and the path of conservative America.
That you continue to insult stand watie and his tribal tradition in such a personal way is beyond your usual annoyances. It is inappropriate. It is racist. It has no place here.
I figured union thugs on being brawling, sweaty, barrel chested men, ready to 'hit the showers' after a hard day of fighting (per your suggestion that the courts martial regarding sexual assault occurred between the soldiers themselves).
You lie. I said the charges could've been for fights between the men since no numbers are given for the other charges listed.
Defense Acquisitions: Naval Surface Fire Support Program Plans and Costs (Letter Report, 06/11/99, GAO/NSIAD-99-91).Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Navy's program to modernize its naval surface fire support (NSFS) capabilities, focusing on the cost of the modernization.
GAO noted that: (1) in the first phase of the NSFS modernization program, planned for completion by 2009, the Navy plans to develop a modified 5-inch gun and associated guided munition, land-attack missiles, and mission planning system for installation on 49 of the current classes of cruisers and destroyers; (2) the weapons developed during this phase are not expected to satisfy the full range of Marine Corps NSFS requirements; (3) development of the modified 5-inch gun is on schedule, but development costs have increased slightly; (4) development of the guided munition for this gun has been delayed by technical problems, and costs have increased; (5) it is too early to know whether the munition will meet performance specifications in terms of range, accuracy, and lethality; (6) the Chief of Naval Operations has decided to modify missiles in the Navy's inventory into a land-attack variant rather than develop a Navy variant of an Army missile; (7) the Navy expects fleet introduction of a mission planning system in 2001 to support weapons developed during the first phase of the NSFS modernization program; (8) the second phase of the modernization program, beyond 2003, includes development of a longer-range gun and munition and an advanced land-attack missile for the planned DD-21 class of destroyers; (9) weapons developed during this phase are intended to fully meet Marine Corps NSFS requirements; (10) the Center for Naval Analyses is conducting an analysis of gun system alternatives for the DD-21, and industry teams are also developing advanced gun concepts for this class of ship; (11) the Navy is conducting technology demonstration projects intended to improve performance and reduce the costs of future munitions; (12) under the Navy's plan, it will be many years before the fleet will have these weapon systems in the quantities needed to support major combat operations; (13) the Navy plans to accept delivery of 32 DD-21s between 2008 and 2020; (14) in fiscal years (FY) 1994-1998, the Navy spent $309 million on both phases of its modernization program; (15) for fiscal years 1999-2005, both phases are estimated to cost a total of about $2 billion; (16) the estimate does not include the cost of: (a) integrating land attack standard missiles into the vertical launch system; (b) changing to the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System; and (c) developing and procuring of an advanced land-attack missile for the DD-21; and (17) total program cost estimates beyond FY 2005 are not available.
In the meantime, there's money to be made selling them battle axes and broadswords.
You were at Andersonville?
Perhaps senility could explain much of what we've seen here today.
There's a difference between reading historical accounts and reading some nut's interpretation of it for a week.
So, you claim that the GAR is a bunch of brawling homo pedophile sodomites and then say that I have contempt for American soldiers?
Even Spoons would be offended that people are comparing you to him.
You lie. I said there may have been fights between the soldiers.
I have been pretty temperate, considering that you've displayed a stubbornness in your ranting on Article IV that would make a mule blush. It is laughable that you think I can't win an argument when no serious attempt to support any argument has been made by you. You post wild assertions which have no bearing on the debate at hand, then flame away like a child and stomp your feet, repeating the unsupported assertions which got you into trouble in the first place.
You go so far as to post links that evidence the exact opposite of what you state (like a trite historian's summation of the Texas secession convention), and refer to them as though there was anything within said "documentation" which could be interpreted by the most twisted logician to support anything you've said.
We treat people with respect who show the same kindness toward us. We accept the notion of authority, and have cited from several (the founders, the constitutional conventions, the SCOTUS) in support of our argument. We do not accept that #3fan had #3epiphany and is anything more than a #3rdratearmchairconstitutionalscholar.
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.