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."
The fact that it is a freak is far from unprovoked, as you probably have experienced first hand here. This thread is an example of what he does on every other thread he visits (besides exhibiting Hinkley characteristics over Jessica Lynch, that is) - he unleashes a verbal defecation in which he insists upon getting the absolute last word on the most inane and petty points of discussion imaginable. He will continue so long as anybody replies to him as he has nothing better to do, apparently is not employed, and will stay up all hours responding line by line and word by word to every single comment ever directed at him and then some until the thread he is crapping all over eventually dies off. He makes Clinton's debates over the meaning of "is" look sane, normal, and reserved. And that sort of behavior is by its very definition that of a bonifide freak of nature.
Anarchy ultimately begets totalitarianism. The political spectrum maintains continuity through that link, yet those at either end fail to see any connection.
free dixie,sw
i'm FLATTERED!
folks, Van is an expert & scholar on the period.
ALL here SHOULD be flattered too.<P.free dixie,sw
there is a famous political cartoon from NYC (by thomas nast, if i remember correctly) that shows lincoln being dragged by a buggy & team driven by the radicals toward the so-called EP!
in point of fact, he HATED & FEARED asians,blacks,catholics,indians,jews,latinos,recent immigrants and "muddy coloured people" (1/2 breeds like ME for instance).
lincoln was NOT an honorable person,but rather was a CHEAP & CONIVING politician, who was about as decent & principled a person as wee willie klintoon is!
free dixie,sw
Finally, the Republican inability to capture Black votes is explained.
If you were being sarcastic, I suggest a sarcasm tag since you guys have a habit of making ridiculous claims, such as voters being shot for their vote.
Never said it wasn't. It's not illegal to dishonor your parents either but it's against God's law.
Your overreaction to a typo proves how desperate you are to get anything on me, since you guys have been wrong since we started.
Whoever you guys quoted. I don't live in the past like you weirdos do.
About 900 posts ago and I'm not backtracking that far because we discussed it foir hundreds of posts. My Texas link. You saw it. You're just pretending it doesn't exist because it proves me right.
Are you denying you used the term "freak"?
Mary Todd Lincoln's favorite color has as much to do with the legality of secession as does Article IV, section 1. Article IV, section 1 puts no limitations on the acts of a state as you have claimed repeatedly. Your ability to read for yourself and use your imagination has apparently failed you once more.
Article IV, Section 1 says that Congress may prescribe laws to set the manner in which states prove their acts and secession is an act.
To do what, be a productive member of an anarchy? I'm sure the Mass supreme court thought the words of the Mass Constitution was all they needed to delcare gay marriage an inalienable right. Do you not get that everyone abiding by their own interpretation of the constitution is a call for chaos?>/i>
Judges have legal say but the citizens should think for themselves and when a judge goes against a citizen's judgment then that citizen should vote for someone who will appoint better judges. This system would work much better tyhan putting all faith in judges.
So then, your lies are so outrageous that you cannot even corroborate them using the lunatics who brought the war in the first place?
What lie? I've told no lie.
It's 'documentation' that does not support what you are saying. Much like Article IV, Section 1, you post a link that does not say what you then insist repeatedly it does. It's sad, really, when someone who claims all they need is a personal reading of the Constitution has proven so oft that they cannot read for comprehension and understanding.
What link are you talking about? My Texas link showed exactly what I said was true, that the conventioners were thugs. My Illinois link showed that Illinois did indeed petition Congress before carrying out an act. My Davis link indeed showed him in a dress (just firing you up again, I know it wasn't the right dress...lol...).
anarchy and that way you don't end up going by precedent, anarchy but by what each person gets from the words of the Constitution. anarchy If everyone went by their own mind, anarchy then we wouldn't be in the shape we're in today where the Constitution is not followed for the most part. We'd be living in the paradise of an anarchy. I don't though. anarchist.
Nope, judges have legal say.
The North could take care of the prisoners, the south couldn't. The south should've released them if they couldn't feed them. Looks like murder to me. The north was under no obligation to give into the demands of the murderers. That would be the equivilant of giving into terrorists today. The south was saying "do this or the POWs die". That's terrorism.
Lincoln was never charged either yet you claim he broke laws. Where's your consistency? It's clear that the citizens were denied their republican government when power was handed to thugs at the conventions.
Or is this a case of Union arsonists being prevented from burning the polling places?
You deny that there were threats against New York?! Man you guys sure do close your ears to anything that doesn't support your crazy theories. lol
No, you just can't break laws when you feel like it. You guys are the anarchists.
I think you're just resisting the point -- which is called "slothful induction" and a reason for awarding a debate on the spot.
Resisting the point? Your claim that any law can be broken at any time is ridiculous.
Oh, yeah, when they ratified the Constitution. Before they ratified the Constitution. And after they ratified the Constitution. For as long as the People draw breath, bucko, they are the Sovereign, which is the alpha principle of American government. The People are the ontological Power in this country -- legally, and every other way. If you say differently, you're a traitor and a renegade.
You're an anarchist. We are a nation of laws.
By quoting God, I take it that you recognize the paramountcy of the People
No God says His powers that be are the power.
-- but here is where you again employ a fallacy of distraction. I wasn't talking about breaking the law, I was talking about unmaking the law -- which the People have the right and power to do at will.
Yes, but they must do it in the way set forth as agreed to. They just can't break agreements.
People, up here. Constitutions, laws, governments, and officialdom, down there. Get it?
Wrong. The powers that be are the power. And the Constitution is of God and we must follow what we agreed to when we want to change it or disolve agreements.
I don't normally speak to people like this, but you are showing signs of mulish obduracy, rebellion, slothful induction, and plain old bad faith in argument. But I won't wait on you, nor cater to you. Point!?
Whatever.
Like I said, you idiots can't read or think for yourself. You have to always get someone's opinion.
It's not in the Constitution so it's immaterial to the agreements made.
You guys said people would be shot for their vote. Crazy.
Lincoln followed the Constitution recognizing things could be done while there was rebellion.
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.