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."

[Me] Prove: A. Hatefulness

He honored Booth's actions.

Show by citation where he said that, and how what he posted amounts to hatefulness, that he hated someone, as with odium and burning despite.

Everyone else is pulling their load around here -- when you say someone said something, it isn't good enough. You have a history of twisting what people say in your own posts -- you came onto this thread in the first 100 posts and immediately mischaracterized someone. Wanna know where? Cite and quote nolu chan like you ought to, and I'll show you the same courtesy, and show you why what you posted was a mischaracterization. But then you know you did it, because that's what you do. I suspect that mischaracterizing other people's thoughts so you can evacuate your own emotional load on them is one of the principal attractions FR has for you -- but, hey, let's not get into posting like you do, okay?

[Me] B. "Typical"

[You] You guys never disagree with each other.

Counterfeit answer. Agreement among a group doesn't amount to being a "typical" or exemplary Neoconfederate. National Park Rangers agree that forest fires are bad for you -- but that doesn't make them Neoconfederates. What is the essential value of the Neoconfederate, that makes him a Neoconfederate -- and do any of us share it other than stand_watie? Cite and quote.

And for the record, we do disagree with one another. I disagree with stand_watie about breaking up the Union; he wants out, and I'd prefer to keep my options open. Right now I incline more toward kicking New England and the east bank of the Hudson River as high as the Fishkill River out of the Union, rather than withdrawing Dixie from it -- but that's just a notional, working position. But if you'd been paying attention to what you so easily run your mouth about, you'd know that.

[me] C. Neoconfederate

You live in the past....

Search on my posts, then come back here for your platter of cold crow, jerk.

..... and blame Lincoln for everything and the south for nothing,.....

Wrong again, I've blamed the South and Bobby Lee for plenty -- but you'd know that if you'd been paying attention before you decided to run your mouth about someone you don't know.

........and you deny historical documents such as the Declarations of Secession.

Black falsehood -- I've never denied historical documents. I defer to GOPcapitalist on the study of the Declarations of Secession, since he analyzed both the Declarations and the secession ordinances themselves, as well as other important, similar documents bearing on the Southern States' withdrawal from the Union.

I don't deny those documents. Like other people, I want them taken in context, not waved around like burning flags the way Marxist pseudohistorians like to do, and read from narrowly to make a Marxist troll's mendacious points about "liberation wars" and "vanguard leadership".

See above. [X2]

Nonresponsive times two. Points taken as conceded.

[me] And as long as your mouth's open, cite and quote something I posted that evinces certifiable hatred of someone or something.

Your post you said something like someone's grandpa was SS or something....Your first post.

dwills posted up that the descendant of a black Confederate soldier was a) suffering from Stockholm syndrome and b) ought to be deeply ashamed, that his ancestor had been a holocaust "collaborator". This manner of expression evokes specifically World War II, quislings, and the freiwilliger-SS who rallied to the Nazi cause from the occupied countries -- the lowest of the low, the moral lepers of the 20th century. dwills reviled this man in this way, for honoring his ancestor and claiming a part of the South's tradition of valor for his family and his race.

I gave it right back to dwills, and if you go back and read the post for comprehension, you will see that I made a cheap point on dwills's facile grammar to turn his odious spear back on him, and simultaneously make a point that dwills had tried to smear the man's grandfather by comparing him to quislings and SS camp guards, and then hanging the grandfather around his neck -- something called "taint of blood", which we conspicuously do not do in America. My point was that, while heaping contempt and moral odium on the long-ago black Confederate, dwills showed that he himself operates in a moral gutter of his own, one familiar to Marxist agitprop bores and revisionist historians, as they lay about them with their broad brushes dripping with tar.

Capiche?

Show by citation where he said that, and how what he posted amounts to hatefulness, that he hated someone, as with odium and burning despite.

I'm not going back 900 posts to look for it. He said it.

You seem to have the impression I care about what you think. I don't give a rat's behind what you think. Most of you guys are messed up beyond redemption. I'm just here countering your falsehoods.

But then you know you did it, because that's what you do. I suspect that mischaracterizing other people's thoughts so you can evacuate your own emotional load on them is one of the principal attractions FR has for you -- but, hey, let's not get into posting like you do, okay?

I'm here because I like to talk about politics. Sometimes it's necessary straighten out the lies about the hometown hero though.

Counterfeit answer. Agreement among a group doesn't amount to being a "typical" or exemplary Neoconfederate.

Yes it does.

National Park Rangers agree that forest fires are bad for you -- but that doesn't make them Neoconfederates. What is the essential value of the Neoconfederate, that makes him a Neoconfederate -- and do any of us share it other than stand_watie? Cite and quote.

Living in the past, revising history, blaming everyone but the south.

And for the record, we do disagree with one another. I disagree with stand_watie about breaking up the Union; he wants out, and I'd prefer to keep my options open. Right now I incline more toward kicking New England and the east bank of the Hudson River as high as the Fishkill River out of the Union, rather than withdrawing Dixie from it -- but that's just a notional, working position. But if you'd been paying attention to what you so easily run your mouth about, you'd know that.

I'm running my mouth because all you guys are posting to me at once. I have the peanut gallery all worked up. Funny how quoting the Constitution angers you guys so.

Search on my posts, then come back here for your platter of cold crow, jerk.

You live in the past.

Wrong again, I've blamed the South and Bobby Lee for plenty -- but you'd know that if you'd been paying attention before you decided to run your mouth about someone you don't know.

You haven't said a word about it. What do you blame them for?

Black falsehood -- I've never denied historical documents. I defer to GOPcapitalist on the study of the Declarations of Secession, since he analyzed both the Declarations and the secession ordinances themselves, as well as other important, similar documents bearing on the Southern States' withdrawal from the Union.

Like I said, you deny them. He denys them.

I don't deny those documents. Like other people, I want them taken in context, not waved around like burning flags the way Marxist pseudohistorians like to do, and read from narrowly to make a Marxist troll's mendacious points about "liberation wars" and "vanguard leadership".

They were the official word of the secessionists.

Nonresponsive times two. Points taken as conceded. dwills posted up that the descendant of a black Confederate soldier was a) suffering from Stockholm syndrome and b) ought to be deeply ashamed, that his ancestor had been a holocaust "collaborator". This manner of expression evokes specifically World War II, quislings, and the freiwilliger-SS who rallied to the Nazi cause from the occupied countries -- the lowest of the low, the moral lepers of the 20th century. dwills reviled this man in this way, for honoring his ancestor and claiming a part of the South's tradition of valor for his family and his race. I gave it right back to dwills, and if you go back and read the post for comprehension, you will see that I made a cheap point on dwills's facile grammar to turn his odious spear back on him, and simultaneously make a point that dwills had tried to smear the man's grandfather by comparing him to quislings and SS camp guards, and then hanging the grandfather around his neck -- something called "taint of blood", which we conspicuously do not do in America. My point was that, while heaping contempt and moral odium on the long-ago black Confederate, dwills showed that he himself operates in a moral gutter of his own, one familiar to Marxist agitprop bores and revisionist historians, as they lay about them with their broad brushes dripping with tar.

See...hatred.

#1563 [nolu chan] Abraham Lincoln was a Southern poor white, of illegitimate birth, poorly educated and unusually ugly, awkward, ill-dressed. He liked smutty stories and was a politician down to his toes. Aristocrats -- Jeff Davis, Seward and their ilk -- despised him, and indeed he had little outwardly that compelled respect.</ b>

#1565 [#3Fan] Proof that neoconfederates are full of hate.

#1587 [nolu chan] The quote is from a New Yorker. The quote is from a Black New Yorker. The quote is from a Black New Yorker and founding member of the NAACP. The quote is from William Edward Burghardt DuBois, May, 1922.

#1587 [nolu chan] Now, #3Idiot, prove that William Edward Burghardt DuBois was a neoconfederate who was full of hate.

#1595 [#3Fan trapped and weaseling] You repeated his words without attributing his quote to him. That makes them your words.

Those words cannot render me "a neoconfederate full of hate" without rendering W.E.B. DuBois a "neoconfederate full of hate."

Choke on it, you hateful little man.

Here, take a drink of your favorite beverage.

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.