An opposing view: Descendant of black Confederate soldier speaks at museum

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.

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.

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!

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."

Wrong, we're a nation of laws and our Constitution has never been revoked.

Wrong again, we're a nation of compacted Peoples, and our laws are our toolkit, and the Constitution our partnership agreement. And yes, the Constitution has never been "revoked" -- but, fallacy of distraction, you knew that wasn't the argument, didn't you? The argument was, several States convened their Peoples, resumed their powers as Sovereign, and withdrew from the Union by the same way they came in -- by ratification convention, or, as the language would have it, by secession conventions, which were sovereign acts not subject to review by federal judges -- or by you.

Secession wasn't "legal" -- it was supralegal, i.e., it was transacted in a sphere above the Constitution, at the level of the People and sovereignty. But you slothfully refuse to get it, and you refuse to take a telling point that's been made against you.

Your attempt to find some Biblical metaphysical authority by which the Government can transcend the authority of its creator is bogus. Notice that I'm not calling you a liar, as you like to call everyone who disagrees with you, as you pule and mewl about people's responding badly to your taunts and ragging and fallacious bullhockey.

But then, I've told you you're toast, and you're toast. You're not rockin' anyone here.

I want to see direct proof that the Confederate POWs were massacred. Something like a letter from the Secretary telling his underlings to kill the POWs will do.

I presume you will provide such proof of your assertion that "The south was using them as hostages to make demands and allowed them to die when those demands were not met."

Congress refused to investigate Ould's charges. The Radical Republicans voted down the inquiry with an 'our guys would never do that' sort of response.

I've checked the Charleston papers of the time and found reference to the 600 prisoners and their low rations. The prisoners were placed in a stockade in front of a Union battery such that Confederate shells falling short of the battery would fall in the stockade. There is reference to this in the Charleston paper, IIRC.

BTW, I never said "massacred." I said intentionally starved to death. Perhaps it was unintentional -- I can't read the mind of the Federal General in charge of the prisoners. Several of the surviving Confederate diaries from the 600 Confederate POWs document the shock of the Federal medical staff when they saw the condition of the prisoners. They were only permitted to see the Confederate officers when the Federal General was removed.

One of them stated that he would not have believed that a Federal officer guilty of such brutality if he had not seen it himself. One stated that in all his experience he had never seen a place so horrible or known of men being treated with such brutality. [2nd Lt. Henry Cook, 44th TN Infantry]
A medical director made his appearance with a number of subs; we learned that General Foster has been relieved and that our situation under Gilmore, his successor, will be much better. The medical director declares that our situation is terrible, and says he will insist on a more generous diet. [Capt. Henry Dickinson, 2nd VA Cavalry]
After remaining in this condition until about February, 1865, we were visited by one of the chief surgeons of the U.S. Army, who I was informed, said if this treatment lasted for one month longer that there would be none of the prisoners left to tell the tale. An immediate change was therefore ordered, and much better rations were given to us, but alas it was too late for many who had borne bravely only to fall at the gate of relief. [2nd Lt. David Gordon, 4th SC Cavalry]
My medical director yesterday inspected the condition of the Rebel prisoners confined at Fort Pulaski, and represents that they are in a condition of great suffering and exhaustion for want of sufficient food and clothing... [C. Grover, Brev. Maj. Gen. Commanding]

Despite this, the conditions at Fort Pulaski did not change for at least another week [Joslyn, pg 220]. For 43 days they lived on 10 oz of wormy meal and 4 oz of pickles a day, sometimes without the pickles. After a month of much improved rations, about 100 of them still could not walk. Many had scurvy.

I don't think Northern or Southern soldiers in general were so cruel as to so horribly mistreat POWs. My own belief is that there were exceptions like the 600 and that some cruel treatment of POWs did occur on both sides. However, I think that the general prisoner problem itself can be laid at the feet of the Lincoln Administration for their policy of not exchanging prisoners -- this led to the overcrowding of prisons and the spreading of disease you mentioned.

Wrong, it was agreed how states would prove their acts and Congress has the power to decide how.

Secession wasn't "legal" -- it was supralegal, i.e., it was transacted in a sphere above the Constitution, at the level of the People and sovereignty. But you slothfully refuse to get it, and you refuse to take a telling point that's been made against you.

I simply am reading the law as agreed to by all the states when they ratified and they agreed to allow Congress to guide the process.

Your attempt to find some Biblical metaphysical authority by which the Government can transcend the authority of its creator is bogus.

Romans is not bogus.

Notice that I'm not calling you a liar, as you like to call everyone who disagrees with you, as you pule and mewl about people's responding badly to your taunts and ragging and fallacious bullhockey.

Out and out lies have been told here about me. Nothing new for a neoconfederate to lie though.

But then, I've told you you're toast, and you're toast. You're not rockin' anyone here.

I know I'm not changing your minds. All you guys are so brainwashed by the one-sided bull you engulf yourself in that you've lost all perception of reality. I'm simply countering falsehoods.

LINCOLN SAID IT A THOUSAND TIMES

Between 1854 and 1860, Lincoln said publicly at least two times that America was made for the White people and "not for the Negroes."

At least eight times, he said publicly that he was opposed to equal rights for Blacks.

He said it at Ottawa:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the fotting of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (CW 3:16)

He said it at Galesburg:
I have all the while maintained that inasmuch as there is a physical inequality between the white and black, that the blacks must remain inferior .... (Holzer 1993, 254)

He said it in Ohio. He said it in Wisconsin. He said it in Indiana. He said it everywhere:

We can not, then, make them equals. (CW 2:256)

Why couldn't "we" make "them" equals?

There was, Lincoln said, a strong feeling in White America against Black equality, and "MY OWN FEELINGS," he said, capitalizing the words, "WILL NOT ADMIT OF THIS..." (CW 3:79)

See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 211-212

When, in 1855, Lincoln's best friend, Joshua Speed, asked him to clarify his position on slavery, he said frankly, "I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery, (CW 2:233, Lincoln's italics). Lincoln said this so often and so loud that it is astounding that some people, even some historians, claim to misunderstand him.

He said it in CAPITALS at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854:

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me. (CW 2:248)

That didn't deter honest and dishonest men -- then or now -- and he said it again at Bloomington, Illinois, on September 4, 1858:

We have no right to interfere with slavery in the States. We only want to restrict it to where it is." (CW 3:87)

He said it at Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, at the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. (CW 3:16, italics added)

He said it at the second Lincoln-Douglas debate and the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth debate:

I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. (CW 3:277)

Challenged again at the seventh and final debate, he said it again:

Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge [Stephen] Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. (CW 3:300)

He said it in Illinois.
He said it in Michigan.
He said it in Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio, and New York.
He said it everywhere.

We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the pease of the country, both forbid us. (CW 3:435)

One has to feel sorry for Lincoln retrospectively and prospectively. For he declared it and, to use his word, "re-declared" it. He quoted himself and "re-quoted" himself. Yet honest and dishonest men -- then and now -- continued to misrepresent him, despite the fact that he said it a hundred times:

I have said a hundred times and I have no no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. (CW 2:492, italics added).

If he said it a hundred times, he said it a thousand times:

I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, no any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.. (CW 2:471)

Not only did he say it but he cited evidence to prove it.

He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. (CW 3:96)

See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 248-250.

This is a pivotal point, one that has been masked by rhetoric and imperfect analysis. For to say, as Lincoln said a thousand times, that one is only opposed to the extension of slavery is to say a thousand times that one is not opposed to slavery where it existed. Based on this record and the words of his own mouth, we can say that the "great emancipator" was one of the major supporters of slavery in the United States for at least fifty-four of his fifty six years.

See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 251.

CW = The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler, 11 vols. Rutgers, 1955

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.