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."
I said the 1903 count was more complete than Stanton's. And it was, because Stanton's prisoner count was missing a number of Southern prisons.
You are the only person I'm aware of that currently claims a 39% death rate. The prisoners who were there apparently didn't. The park service doesn't.
Overall, including what is known of all the prisons, the death rate appears to be in the 12 to 15% range for both sides (Source: Portals to Hell, Military Prisons of the Civil War by Lonnie L. Speer, 1997).
I said the 1903 count was more complete than Stanton's. And it was, because Stanton's prisoner count was missing a number of Southern prisons.
You are the only person I'm aware of that currently claims a 39% death rate. The prisoners who were there apparently didn't. The park service doesn't.
Overall, including what is known of all the prisons, the death rate appears to be in the 12 to 15% range for both sides (Source: Portals to Hell, Military Prisons of the Civil War by Lonnie L. Speer, 1997).
Your link says it! The one you said was the most accurate. But whether it was 12, 15, 24, 29, or 39% can we agree that the prisoners were not treated well? That's all I asked for when this subject was brought up. One bit of honesty. I never said the union treated their prisoners well and I'm sure there were murderers on both sides running the prisons. When I asked if the prisoners at Andersonville were treated well, the answer was "yes", which goes against the thing I asked for...honesty about just one thing.
Overall, including what is known of all the prisons, the death rate appears to be in the 12 to 15% range for both sides
But can you agree they weren't treated well?
[You] Whatever it was that caused the exchanges to stop.
General Grant listed the basic cause:
"I refused to exchange prisoners because as soon as the South's soldiers are released from our prisons they rush back into the rebel ranks and begin fighting again. When Northern soldiers return from southern prisons either they never again enter the ranks, or if they do, not until they go to their homes and have a long furlough."
Those darn Southerners fought too hard.
[You]: Since the South couldn't feed their prisoners, they had a moral obligation to release them.
I've posted to you above where the South released 13,000 prisoners with no requirement for exchange from the other side. Some claim that the North delayed taking those prisoners for months so that they could not vote in the fall election. This argument claims that many of the prisoners were mad at the Lincoln Administration for stopping the prisoner exchange. The 1864 election was anticipated to be very close, so the return of angry prisoners might have tipped the balance. That is the claim anyway.
Could've saved a lot of lives if they would've taken furlough.
I've posted to you above where the South released 13,000 prisoners with no requirement for exchange from the other side. Some claim that the North delayed taking those prisoners for months so that they could not vote in the fall election.
If there's no proof, why mention it? Any claim in the world can be made by the words "some say...". I'm sure some say a lot of things. Some say that Bush is the antichrist.
This argument claims that many of the prisoners were mad at the Lincoln Administration for stopping the prisoner exchange. The 1864 election was anticipated to be very close, so the return of angry prisoners might have tipped the balance. That is the claim anyway.
Yeah, and you guys say everything about Lincoln and nothing about the south. Why do you have to believe the absolute worst about people when those same people make up 3/4 of America now? Is it fair to demonize every northern person, every northern general, every northern soldier so one-sidedly? Do you really believe everyone from the north is evil? I don't care what you think, the only thing I don't like is the falseness of it all every day. When you talk about northern rapes, no mention is made about confederate rapes. When you talk about what you see as unfairness in halting secession, you never mention the unfairness of slavery. When you talk about the northern generals you hate, you never mention the southern general that murdered his own troops by sending them to their deaths on a night attack just because he was angry at them. This is what makes your claims so unbelievable, you can't admit anything.
There were exceptions on both sides, but the average prison commandant probably did as well as he could. That doesn't mean that the average Joe on either side was treated well or badly. Prison was just a bad and potentially deadly experience for all prisoners.
I think the basic problem was overcrowding on both sides, which was brought about by the Federal decision to stop prisoner exchanges. Prison populations grew slowly until an exchange cartel was reached in 1862, then they fell sharply as prisoners were exchanged. After the North stopped exchanging prisoners in 1863, the prison population boomed. New prisons had to be built, and existing ones had more prisoners than they were designed for. The big death rates occurred after the exchanges were stopped.
Overcrowding lead to rapid spreading of disease among the prisoners. The medicines of the time were probably not good enough to handle some of the diseases that ranged through the prisons, e.g., small pox, etc. Insufficient food didn't help either. Overcrowding also stretched the already limited food supply of the South. A report to the Confederate Congress on the Confederate food situation for the population in general noted that most families of soldiers had not had any meat to eat in six months.
A large part of the Southern population was involved with the war and no longer available for food production. That was listed in the Southern papers as one of the arguments against using slaves in the army. The food supply would have gone to pot.
The fact that there were roughly comparable overall death rates in Northern and Southern prisons suggests to me that there were common factors at work. Disease being the main killer on both sides, I suspect overcrowding with some effect for skimpy and inappropriate food.
They were treated badly and I can't believe just one bit of unbiased conversation cannot be had.
I think the basic problem was overcrowding on both sides, which was brought about by the Federal decision to stop prisoner exchanges.
I blame the South's refusal to employ furlough.
Prison populations grew slowly until an exchange cartel was reached in 1862, then they fell sharply as prisoners were exchanged. After the North stopped exchanging prisoners in 1863,...
Because of the south's uncooperation.
...the prison population boomed. New prisons had to be built, and existing ones had more prisoners than they were designed for. The big death rates occurred after the exchanges were stopped.
And they were stopped because the south wouldn't employ furlough.
Overcrowding lead to rapid spreading of disease among the prisoners. The medicines of the time were probably not good enough to handle some of the diseases that ranged through the prisons, e.g., small pox, etc. Insufficient food didn't help either. Overcrowding also stretched the already limited food supply of the South. A report to the Confederate Congress on the Confederate food situation for the population in general noted that most families of soldiers had not had any meat to eat in six months. A large part of the Southern population was involved with the war and no longer available for food production. That was listed in the Southern papers as one of the arguments against using slaves in the army. The food supply would have gone to pot. The fact that there were roughly comparable overall death rates in Northern and Southern prisons suggests to me that there were common factors at work. Disease being the main killer on both sides, I suspect overcrowding with some effect for skimpy and inappropriate food.
Elmira was in the cold so I'm sure part of it's high death rate was due to that. When the south could not feed the POWs, they should've been released. To not do so was murder being that they died at a 39% rate.
Given the reports of election tampering in the North cited in earlier posts and Butler's statements about what he did, I think there is more than a little possibility for what I mentioned.
Yeah, and you guys say everything about Lincoln and nothing about the south.
Lincoln is an easy target because of the unconstitutional things he did. At least, I and many others believe they were unconstitutional. One thing these threads have made me aware of is the importance of adhering to the Constitution. Unconstitutional actions like present-day CFR get me riled up. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus does the same. I get goosebumps when I read ex parte Merryman.
I think the South had a much stronger case constitutionally concerning secession than the North. Your secession argument doesn't sway me.
Why do you have to believe the absolute worst about people when those same people make up 3/4 of America now?
You are making a very big incorrect assumption about me. If you really mean me personally, please provide some examples.
I lived in the North as an adult for 8 years. Some parts of the North I like, but for overall quality of life I much prefer the South. People in my laboratory who were transferred North couldn't wait to get back home and all returned. Northerners from our Northern office reluctantly accepted transfers to our office, then would ask to stay in most cases. As I said, it is a quality of life thing.
There are parts of the South I don't like. The South Bronx comes to mind. After all, those Southerners who voted in NYC in 1864 had to live somewhere.
Is it fair to demonize every northern person, every northern general, every northern soldier so one-sidedly? Do you really believe everyone from the north is evil?
I will admit to abusing Beast Butler. He did things like hang a man for taking down a flag. I have always been flabergasted that Lincoln asked Butler to be his running mate in 1864.
Lincoln was smart enough to realize that reconstruction should not be harsh. Unfortunately he was killed, and then the Radicals got hold of the reconstruction process. Here in Texas the Radicals attempted to stay in power after being voted out of office by seizing the Capitol Building with an armed mob and kidnapping the mayor of Austin. People down here didn't take kindly to that sort of thing, just as you wouldn't if the South had done similar things in your state.
BTW, I have friends in the North and a son that lives in NYC. My grandfather taught medicine in NYC.
I don't care what you think, the only thing I don't like is the falseness of it all every day. When you talk about northern rapes, no mention is made about confederate rapes.
"I don't care what you think?" Please take a Dale Carnegie course.
There are far fewer Southern rapes in the records. Part of it has to do with soldiers perhaps feeling more free to rape when they are in enemy territory. Part of it may have to do with the fact that rapes by Northern troops were handled by the Northern military courts which left records, while until late in the war Southern rapes were handled by the civil courts. The records and many Southern courthouses were destroyed by the war. As a genealogist, I know that all too well.
When you talk about what you see as unfairness in halting secession, you never mention the unfairness of slavery.
You haven't been around these threads enough. I've argued that slavery was the main, but not the only, cause of the war. Slavery was legal at the time, and the fact that Northern states were nullifying the Constitution with personal liberty laws was a leading cause of the war.
I argued against segregation in the Deep South in the 50s and for the civil and voting rights of blacks. Fortunately times have changed, but I wonder if you would have done that in the Deep South back in the 50s. It got me a death threat.
When you talk about the northern generals you hate, you never mention the southern general that murdered his own troops by sending them to their deaths on a night attack just because he was angry at them. This is what makes your claims so unbelievable, you can't admit anything.
I've honestly never heard of this general. Who was he?
I don't hate any Northern general, but my Georgia in-laws sure did (Sherman -- when their parents were children they saw Sherman's troops come through their farms).
I strongly dislike the tactics of Northern generals Hunter, Sheridan, Sherman, Butler, Wild, and Grant because they made war on civilians. I don't like Federal General Foster because he caused the deaths of some of the 600 Confederate prisoners I mentioned by starving them, and it wasn't because of any restriction in food supply as you intimated. If you'll pardon me, that is a lame excuse in this case.
What is it you feel I can't admit?
The records indicate two black indentured servants viz., Maria Vance and Ruth Burns/Stanton.
Supplies of what - civilians? If Ike waged war on innocent civilians - not as collateral casualties, but as primary targets, then he is guilty of the same crime.
Laden's purpose is to spread the tyranny of his cult and his attacks have no direct military value, and do not serve to save lives in the long run so of course I hate him.
Sherman's [*spit*] purpose was to spread the tyranny of his union cult and his attacks on civilians had no direct military value - were illegal per two Supreme Court decision prior to the war, and did not serve to save lives in the long run. He waged a war like bin Laden - against CIVILIANS, not military targets.
Allowing the evidence of Black Confederates would ruin the myth, wouldn't it.
So why did so many Confederate POW's die in Northern prisons? There was no "demand" - it was simply an exchange of prisoners. The Union refused.
Since the South couldn't feed their prisoners, they had a moral obligation to release them.
No. Release them so they could fight again, without Confederates recieving the same benefit? They were military, not civilians. The Union POWs ate the same as the rest of the Cconfederates - remember that ol' Sherman [*Spit*] leveled the countryside - no crops, no supplies, no medicines were available. Sherman's [*Spit*] actions caused the deaths of his own men.
If Lincoln and Sherman [*Spit*] was so worried about their POW's they should have marched to Andersonville, instead of Savannah.
Per your arguement, when the Union could not feed & CLOTHE the POWs, they should've been released. It was murder right?
What records might that be?
Wayne C. Temple, "Ruth Stanton Recalls the Lincolns", The Lincoln Herald Vol. 92, Iss. 3.
Allen C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President.
Kenneth J. Winkle, The Young Eagle: The Rise of Abraham Lincoln.
Mariah Vance, Lincoln's Unknown Private Life: An Oral History by His Black Housekeeper Mariah Vance 1850-1860, Walter Oleksy & Lloyd Ostendorf, eds.
#3, the moron & evidently RACIST, also fits that description, too.<P.free dixie,sw
otoh, FOOLS/morons/damnyankees, etc. DO believe the worldwidewierd is "wunerful,wunerful", despite the fact that the net is FILLED with LIES, stupidity,foolishness AND SIMPLISTIC answers to complex questions.
as i've said many times, expecting the internet to be anything other than an ever-expanding compendium of UNverified data is STUPID!
FACTS, otoh, are FACTS! REAL answers to historic questions are found in BOOKS at libraries.
may i genly suggest that you turn off your PC, get out of the house and go to your local library. and READ the TRUTH, such that people with education will stop lol AT you.
free dixie,sw
the NPS (no friend of either dixie or the CSA)states, in their public display at the Camp Sumpter National Prisoner of War Center, that,
"lincoln REFUSED to accept the Union POWs, which had been offered to be transported to US lines. his rationale was that such refusal to accept US POWs would continue to burden the south with their care".
lincoln, the tyrant & WAR CRIMINAL was SOLELY to blame for their deaths.
NOT opinion. FACT!
free dixie,sw
AT LEAST 15,000 were MURDERED in cold blood at PLPOWC. their bodies were secretly buried all over the site of the current Point Lookout State Park AND the bones continue to wash up every time it rains hard.
free dixie,sw
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.