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."
sherman has a front row seat, very near the fire, along with a host of other damnyankee filth (like spoons butler for example),for eternity.
free dixie,sw
telling the TRUTH about the rampage of the damnyankee war criminals against INNOCENT CIVILIANS across the southland AND the MIS-treatment of helpless POWs is not in the best interst of the damnyankees, either!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Domestic slavery was quite common in West Africa, although the Europeans organized the trade to a much greater magnitude and value. Free black slaveowners resided in states as north as New York and as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri. According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The majority of black slaveowners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane. The majority of black masters had not been slaves themselves. Yet, the ranks of black slave masters were diverse: some acquired slaves as soon as they had accumulated enough capital after their own freedom, others received slaves with their own freedom from their white masters, and others had been free for several generations.
[4CJ to #3] The answer requires a trip to the library, I'll add it to my list.[#3 to 4CJ] It's been a while since I've read these threads since you guys have been so discredited here, but reading this thread you've definitely went the path of tinfoil. You used to be one of the sane ones but it seems now you are just as out there as some of the other neoconfederates that are notorious for that.
more?
[#3, post 96] when the Civil War is mentioned or Lincoln, there were always many comments to not get the nuts started.[#3, 105] Yeah right, that's beyond the pale. Like I said, tinfoil.
[#3 to Gianni, 106 (well before 'freak' incident)] a wise person doesn't spend too much time arguing with people that are delusional. lol
Don't give me some crap about how your lilly-white virtue was offended by my "unprovoked" use of the word freak and whine to the Adminmods about how people have little respect for someone who enters the thread spewing insults and refuses to elaborate on their opinion, repeatedly posting totally unprecedented and unsupported personal interpretation of an immaterial clause of the constitution.
Eventually, even #3courtesy was abandoned in favor of repeated assertions that we are all liars and would pay for our lies. LOL all you want, the joke's on you.
(Note to others: If you don't want to pay for your lies, you can avoid the Illinois tollway by taking I-80 using the West beltway).
He calls us delusional? I replied to NS #62 in my #89 stating it would take a trip to the library to grab the information on a justice of the State of Georgia being hung. Which was provided in posts 152 and 164 - the latter being the personal account of Justice Hiram Warner, his robbery and his being hung in an effort to divulge the location of his gold. When the hanging failed, the union troops had removed the noose and set fire to the woods. Only his regaining conciousness saved his life.
We've posted fact after fact. Nothing delusional.
So you take what "some said", assume it's true and use that to further speculate about what others said. Keep doing that and you're as far away from the truth as you can get.
Lincoln is an easy target because of the unconstitutional things he did.
Articles I and II gave him the power to do what he did when there is rebellion, limited by Congress' ability to impeach him, and he wasn't impeached.
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.
And the south should've adhered to Article I concerning associations, and Article IV.
Unconstitutional actions like present-day CFR get me riled up. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus does the same.
It was rebellion, and he can do what was necessary, limited by impeachment.
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.
I'm not trying to sway you, I'm just countering the one-sidedness, exaggeration, and the omission of facts by your side
You are making a very big incorrect assumption about me. If you really mean me personally, please provide some examples.
You repeat things you have no proof of assuming they're true just because someone said it before. You believe that murder was one-sided, when it wasn't. You assume every bad thing you read about Lincoln is true when there is no proof of it.
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.
It's a matter of being with your own people though. Most everyone I know that moved south has come home too. I don't think it has to to with the goodness of people, it has to do with being those that have a common bond.
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.
But the odds are you're going to see that because it's where you live. They did a survey of American towns asking what towns were the friendliest towns in America and Illinois took four of the top six or seven. I dated a woman from 100 miles south of my town (getting near Kentucky) and she said she couldn't believe how much friendlier the people were as she got near my area. When I spent two days visiting her, I could see the difference in the friendliness of those her in her town, they weren't people you could talk to for the most part. That's not to say that it gets worse as you go farther south because I've taken trips to the south and I think people around the Charlotte area (I spent a couple days in Earnhardt country in 2000) are great.
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. 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.
Some saw what the southerners did as traitorism. I dare to say that if the east and left coasts decided to align with France, Germany, etc, to secede, and invited these socialist countries to help them secede to break up America that many here would call for the hangings of traitors for anything they could get them on. That's not to say I agree with the hanging of secessionists, but I can understand the sentiment, they're aligning with those that hate our ways. 1860 wasn't long after 1812.
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.
I don't deny that some weren't of the purest of heart, but what I disagree with is acting as if one side were all devils, while the other side were all angels and promoting that idea with falsities, exaggerations, and omission of facts.
BTW, I have friends in the North and a son that lives in NYC. My grandfather taught medicine in NYC.
I got friends in the north too, believe it or not. I try not to talk about politics to my friends unless they agree with me, because I can get fired up. I keep more friends that way. :^)
"I don't care what you think?" Please take a Dale Carnegie course.
I know that most of you read your books, taking a week to soak in one man's opinion, lose perspective, and become beyond redemption to truth. That's why I say I don't care what you think, but just want to counter the falsities and omissions of facts by telling simple truths, and getting a few facts out there, like the confederate rapes thing that has never been mentioned before.
There are far fewer Southern rapes in the records.
Because they didn't keep records. Earlier on this thread I showed a letter by a governer of one southern state pleading with a Confederate military official to charge rape against his soldiers that raped. He said since there was a dispute between who had jurisdiction, confederate soldiers were not being charged when they raped confederate women.
Part of it has to do with soldiers perhaps feeling more free to rape when they are in enemy territory.
My early link show that the rates were about the same. The criminal mind occupies about the same rate of southerners as it does northerners.
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.
And part of it may be that the south needed every soldier more than the north and didn't want to lost them to charges of rape.
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'm glad to see you say that. I for one put God's law as the only Supreme law over the Constitution (which there should never be a conflict (since slavery was removed) because the Constitution is drawn from God's law) and although the ordinances of the First Covenant were done away with when Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, God did not want Israelites to be slaves to other Israelites. Most blacks believe in the God of Israel making them Israelites by the promise to Abraham and should not have been slaves by circumstances of their birth alone.
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 I was a kid about 10 years old I used to tell the other kids not to put someone down for their race, which was rare when I grew up, so maybe I would've. I think this thread proves I'm willing to go through a lot of work to defend what right and to argue angainst the perpetuation of slavery. Do you see anyone else here doing what I'm doing? I don't except for Non and Walt. Most would rather let your side continue their falsities, exaggerations, and omission of facts unchallenged. So it could be that I would've been a radical. I've certainly had a few death threats myself over other issues.
I've honestly never heard of this general. Who was he?
You prove my point perfectly. Your side spends so much time reading theories of the evil of a few northerners and those that you want to hate that you never get any other perspective and you drift far from the truth. You guys live for this stuff, you talk about it every day, you read books on it, but you never get to know much of the truth because you draw from one narrow perspective. You didn't know that confederate rapes were not reported and confederate rapists were not gone after in the confederate ranks like they were in the Union ranks. You've never heard of the general I just mentioned. I mentioned his story before on this thread asking for his name but no one will tell me. I'm sure your buddies know who he is and know his story but are not telling me. I can't remember his name because I don't live for this stuff like you guys do. They're not telling me his name because they're only interested in propaganda, not the full perspective.
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.
Supplies. Do you dislike the tactics of Ike too then?
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.
Given you guys exaggerations, one-sidedness, and omission of facts, I don't believe anything you say. But I have said the POWs were not treated well and there were murderers on both sides. So it's possible, but I'd have to see more perpective then your "some say" references.
What is it you feel I can't admit?
That POWs were not treated well.
And they were escaped slaves from the south? Could you give me a link telling their story or at least confirming that they were Lincoln's slaves?
Factories, buidings, and food stores supply armies and have people in them. What was the target when Tokyo was firebombed?
If Ike waged war on innocent civilians - not as collateral casualties, but as primary targets, then he is guilty of the same crime.
Ike did the same as Sherman, attack the buildings that supplied armies, inflicting collateral damage against people. Hundreds of thousands died in Germany in those firebombings. Was Ike a war criminal?
Sherman's [*spit*] purpose was to spread the tyranny of his union cult...
America is a cult?
...and his attacks on civilians had no direct military value...
They kept confederate armies from resupplying.
- were illegal per two Supreme Court decision prior to the war,...
It was rebellion and the Constitution says nothing of the sort when there is rebellion.
...and did not serve to save lives in the long run.
It ended the war quicker thereby saving lives.
He waged a war like bin Laden - against CIVILIANS, not military targets.
The burned buildings kept the confederates from resupplying.
I haven't denied there were black confederates. I haven't said much at all about the subject. But I do know this, that if the Chinese were to gain some military advantage and cart off millions of Americans to be slaves in China, and Taiwan waged war against China and made the release of the American slaves part of their objective, I would consider a traitor any American who fought against the Taiwanese effort.
Colder, I guess.
There was no "demand" - it was simply an exchange of prisoners. The Union refused.
The Confederates wouldn't hold up to an agreement of furlough.
No. Release them so they could fight again, without Confederates recieving the same benefit?
Union troops went on furlough.
They were military, not civilians.
Murder is murder when it's a POW.
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.
So you admit that Sherman's efforts did have an effect on the Confederate military. Glad to see it.
Sherman's [*Spit*] actions caused the deaths of his own men.
The confederate unwillingness to agree to furlough caused it. They were the ones that were under the moral gun since they couldn't feed them. The North could feed theirs, they didn't have to give in to terrorist demands.
If Lincoln and Sherman [*Spit*] was so worried about their POW's they should have marched to Andersonville, instead of Savannah.
They had to win a war. You have to take out the army before you can free the people, you should know that.
The death rate was 15% which wasn't much worse than disease in the armies. There's big difference between 15% and 39%.
Read posts #1656 and #1663, we've had a visitor.
One-sided ones, no.
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!
You have to use your own judgment to decide what is credible. Obviously, the books you've read are not credible.
FACTS, otoh, are FACTS! REAL answers to historic questions are found in BOOKS at libraries.
Not propsaganda books.
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.
You can do what you want. That's not to say I'll do what you say.
You've been reading propaganda again. The south wouldn't employ furlough.
Oh boy. lol
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.
Proof please.
So do you hate Ike too?
...AND the MIS-treatment of helpless POWs is not in the best interst of the damnyankees, either!
Can you agree that Union POWs were mistreaed also?
Insults against northerners were kicked off in post #43 and 4CJ added to it in post #57. My post came later. Regardless I attacked delusional points. "Freak" is nothing but a personal attack.
...and whine to the Adminmods about how people have little respect for someone who enters the thread spewing insults and refuses to elaborate on their opinion, repeatedly posting totally unprecedented and unsupported personal interpretation of an immaterial clause of the constitution.
I never complained of the personal attacks. The only complaint I mentioned to the moderator was the false accusations of crimes from one poster. I've made no mention to the moderator about any of the rest of you.
Eventually, even #3courtesy was abandoned in favor of repeated assertions that we are all liars and would pay for our lies. LOL all you want, the joke's on you.
Nolu brought up the word "liar" first IIRC.
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.