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."

So do you hate Ike too?

"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."
-- Col. Ernest F. Fisher, PhD Lt.
101 st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army

When Germany surrendered in May 1945, the American Military Governor, General Eisenhower, sent out an “urgent courier” with instructions making it a crime punishable by death to feed German prisoners. It was even a capital offence to gather food together in one place to take to prisoners. The message reads in part: “…Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot…”(1)
This was no idle threat. On July 31st 1945 Agnes Spira was shot by French guards at Dietersheim for taking food to prisoners. In effect this was a deliberate policy to starve the German prisoners of war. Many prisoners and German civilians saw American guards burn food that had been brought to the prisoners. According to one former prisoner who described it recently: “At first, the women from the nearby town brought food into the camp. The American soldiers took everything away from the women, threw it in a heap and poured gasoline over it and burned it.” (2)
(1) Crimes and Mercies, Bacque
(2) Ibid

Haven't read enough about Ike to really form an opinion, but he really sounds like WT's kind of guy.

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.

Article I deals with the powers of Congress, not the President.

From Chief Justice Taney quoting Chief Justice Marshall (my blood cousin) concerning habeas corpus and Article I:

'If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide; until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws.' I [Taney] can add nothing to these clear and emphatic words of my great predecessor [Marshall].

Among other things, Article II states the President should take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Lincoln violated it.

And the south should've adhered to Article I concerning associations, and Article IV.

You can assert this all you like, but I disagree with your constitutional theories.

It was rebellion, and he can do what was necessary, limited by impeachment.

Lincoln took an action he know would provoke war and argued that the states were created by the Union rather than the other way around and thus didn't have the power to secede (balderdash, in my opinion).

I have argued on these threads that it would have been better for the South to not fall into the trap Lincoln set at Fort Sumter and let Lincoln do an overt act of war like trying to collect tax revenue from ships going to the South.

I'm not trying to sway you, I'm just countering the one-sidedness, exaggeration, and the omission of facts by your side

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Look, for instance, at your repeated claims of 39% mortality at Andersonville. You clearly did not read all of the linked information concerning Andersonville on the site I posted.

You misquote my posts and attribute things to me I don't believe. This is not a junior high debating society or the Clinton Whitehouse.

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.

There you go again.

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.

That certainly is a factor for some people.

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.

Depends on the survey and what questions were asked. Small towns tend to be much friendlier than large cities, for example. I considered for a time accepting a job in the Chicago suburbs -- I'd have probably liked it.

Our Southern lab is in a large city and our Northern lab is in a small suburban city in a large metropolitan area. The people transferring were all PhDs, none of them having any connection with the other area. For these people, it was a matter of life style.

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.

I'll buy that. My wife hated my assignment at the Northern lab. When we would head South to visit her mother in Georgia, by the time we got to North Carolina we could tell a distinct difference in people and their more friendly interactions. It was like a breath of fresh air.

We do go back North on occasion. We spent a week with our eldest son on the beautiful Massachusetts coast a couple of years ago, and we have taken several trips to go to the Metropolitan Opera in NYC. I miss that.

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.

People were much more loyal to their home state in the old days. Lee probably thought of himself as a Virginian first and an American second. He would not be a traitor to his home, his people. I respect that and can relate to it.

You are probably too young to remember LBJ's TV commercials that had Goldwater sawing off the New England states. Sometimes I feel like sawing them off myself. I went to school in Massachusetts with people who had never been west of the Hudson. They considered Boston to be the only place where anything worthwhile was going on. I felt sorry for them and their self-centered arrogance.

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.

I'll assume you are not intentionally trying to be insulting. You might try working on your posting style.

The apparent lack Confederate rapes have been addressed extensively on a previous thread. It is old news. The letter you cited has been brought up before. I don't doubt there were rapes by Confederates. Some are documented on the web. On the other hand, there was opportunity to rape for Federal soldiers passing through Southern country where the men were often gone off to war and not around to protect the women. German soldiers and Japanese soldiers did the same thing during WWII.

I don't believe Southern men are any more virtuous than Northern men in this regard. There were some differences in Northern and Southern leadership, however. Lee admonished his troops to not molest the locals during their trip into Maryland and Pennsylvania. I've read soldiers' diaries (I can't locate them now) where the Southern troops grudgingly obeyed this directive -- their own homes had been burned by Northern troops and they were itching for revenge but didn't take it because of the directive.

I know that Sherman issued orders calling for harsh punishment if his troops committed crimes, but there are enough reports of widespread looting and burning of homes and cities that I think he looked the other way. That is my belief and speculation and I label it as such.

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.

I've posted the following story about the goodness of a Federal officer commanding a prison and his wife before, but I'll do it again for your benefit.

I want to say a few words for Colonel Brown's wife. One day in a fit of desperation, I wrote Colonel Brown a note, asking him to grant me an interview. To my surprise, on the following day he granted it. A sergeant conducted me to his office quarters. The Colonel received me politely. I told him I had an uncle in St. Louis, St. Andrew Murray, who would gladly aid me with money if I were allowed to communicate with him. His reply was, "Sir, I, personally, would be glad to grant your request; but I am sorry indeed I can not, under my orders, do so. I am powerless." For a few moments he left the office. The lady who had been present during the interview was Colonel Brown's wife. Turning to me she said, "Write your draft to your uncle; you shall have the money." This kind noble lady...gave me, as I left the office, a paper containing two large slices of bread, butter, and ham. I took them to my sick comrade, Billy Funk.

Some escaped Southern prisoners thought so highly of Colonel Brown's kindness in the face of orders for him to be harsh that they published an open letter thanking him for his professional behavior. Colonel Brown got disciplined by his superiors.

I assume you have posted stories of the kindness of Southern guards.

Sorry for the interruption. It was time for Tex-Mex. I hope you have good Tex-Mex in your part of the country. We used to get served enchiladas covered in spaghetti sauce when we lived in the North.

[Me]: 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?

[You]: 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.

You've touched on part of the problem between North and South. Slavery supporters pointed to the Bible as support for slavery, and Northerners said there was a higher law than the Constitution. Southerners pushed for the Constitution to be obeyed with regard to fugitive slaves, and Northerners passed laws that public officials would lose their jobs, be fined, and be imprisoned if they in any way assisted in returning fugitive slaves. Such diametrically opposed views were almost bound to end in conflict.

Slavery was an evil. Would that we could have gotten rid of it when we founded the country, if not before.

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.

Good for you. First thing you've posted that I really concur with.

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.

When proven wrong, Walt will sometimes repost the discredited information on another thread. When called on it, he's said that he was posting it for the lurkers. When Walt posts something factual, I listen to him. Actually Walt is the reason I joined FreeRepublic -- he was making claims that I thought to be false and I wanted to be able to refute the claims.

I respect Non-Seq. He will usually acknowledge error, while Walt and others typically won't.

While I think slavery was the main issue that brought on the war, it wasn't the only issue involved. I don't think you will find a poster on either side who will argue for slavery.

If you see things only in terms of slavery you will miss a good part of what the other posters and I are concerned about. We are concerned by abuses of power by the central government and concerned about the preservation of the freedoms we have under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I hope that you share these concerns. That is something we should have in common.

To me the War Between The States highlights all of these issues. These threads have discussed the meaning and intent of the Constitution in depth. It is like a graduate seminar on the Constitution and our history. More often than not, I will disagree with your Northern friends with respect to the Constitution. That's OK -- they've helped clarify my views and for that I thank them.

Getting back to your point, what falsities, exaggerations, and omissions of facts have I made?

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.

I'm retired now and this is a nice hobby. I get engrossed in the first-hand newspaper reports of the war and the issues. I've copied pages from an old Northern newspaper to get their perspective and bought a bound volume of old Harper's Weekly pages to get the Northern view.

Do you try to understand the other side's viewpoint?

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.

Like I said, this has been discussed on other threads. I bought a book, Military Justice in the Confederate States Armies to investigate the issue. Only one near case was documented in 9,475 military trials whose records survive, but these trials represent less than half of the trials known to have taken place. I discoved on the web that unlike in the North, rape was a civil court matter for the Confederates for most of the war.

Again, I'd advise you to look at your posting style. You make assertions about me that aren't true. Are you simply trying to provoke reaction? It is really a poor way of convincing someone in an argument.

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.

Now who is making assertions about the other side on this thread? Would you please take a look at what you've posted. With such assertions, you shouldn't be surprised that people react to your posts negatively.

I don't doubt that such a general might exist. It is just that I've never heard of him. You apparently can't provide a name or information about him, yet fuss at me for mentioning claims made during the war? Try to be consistent.

Supplies. Do you dislike the tactics of Ike too then?

I have no problem bombing supply lines. I do have problems with looting, burning civilian houses, and harassing civilians, strangling them until they tell where they've buried the family silver.

I support our use of the atomic bomb in WWII because in the end it saved lives on both sides. I understand that the same type of argument is made to justify what Sherman et al. did. I have a problem though with the kind of thievery that took place by Union troops in the South. Sherman said his troops could take only what they needed to survive -- they went wild instead and weren't reined in. Roads in Georgia were littered with stuff they took apparently just to break.

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.

If you have facts to refute someone's post, then by all means please post them. We all learn from these threads. Making blanket assertions about the other side is not the way to argue. If you've got the facts on your side, someone will listen.

POWs were not treated well.

Yes, prisoners often weren't treated well. I've made the point before that prisons on both sides weren't great places to be. No prison is. Some were deadly, in fact. On the other hand, some prisoners in Texas played baseball, or at least what was called baseball at the time, and there were good and kind guards in prisons on both sides. There were bad guards too, on both sides.

[#1740] [#3Fan to Gianni] Nolu brought up the word "liar" first IIRC.

Do you yet again just not recall correctly, or are you a liar?

FIRST POST ON THREAD BY #3FAN

To: Non-Sequitur
Who?
[crickets]

#88 posted on 02/26/2004 2:42:25 PM CST by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

#91 #3Fan 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.

#96 #3Fan to 4CJ

On many threads of other topics then when the Civil War is mentioned or Lincoln, there were always many comments to not get the nuts started.

#105 #3Fan to 4CJ

I think that's what separates those who recognize reality from those of you living in the past who accept any kind of wild revisionism as long as it demonizes those you consider the enemy.
...
Yeah right, that's beyond the pale. Like I said, tinfoil.

#130 #3Fanto 4CJ

Again, you make wild claims that you can't back up. You're delusional.

#136 #3Fanto 4CJ

The fact that you assume the worst of intentions to everyone but southerners shows how delusional you are.

#151 #3Fan to Gianni

To: Gianni
History is set. You are entitled to your own opinions, but the facts are not malleable to your twisted vision.
I'm not the one twisting history, I cited the Declarations of Secession. You guys are saying that Lincoln was solely motivated by money and power which is absolutely delusional and ridiculous. You refuse to acknowledge both sides without being prompted. So deception by omission is your game when you don't outright lie. (By "you" I mean neoconfederates)
151 posted on 02/27/2004 1:24:01 PM CST by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

nolu chan first post to #3Fan:

To: #3Fan; 4ConservativeJustices

[#3 Fan] they should've followed the Constitution in their secession attempts. Could you please explain what you mean by this?

171 posted on 02/28/2004 2:03:07 PM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

ALL my prior posts on the thread:

#51 to wtc911; stainlessbanner; 4ConservativeJustices

[Quoted Walter D. Kennedy and Lerone Bennett, Jr.]

#52 to don-o; 4ConservativeJustices

Harper's Weekly, Vol 7, No. 315, January 10, 1863
"Rebel Negro Pickets as seen through a Field-Glass"
[Posted image]

#102 to Twinkie; dwills

The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England

(May 19, 1643)

AMERICA'S ORIGINAL FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW
Quoted Extracts

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.

Amen to that. Several posts back Mr. #3nice guy hit the abuse button after I employed a descriptive verb defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "To observe persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement" in reference to a lengthy display of such behavior he exhibited over the course of several months on dozens if not hundreds of FR threads in which he made hundreds upon hundreds of posts WRT a certain celebrity former POW (for as of yet unexplained reasons, that word, despite being a matter of perfectly common, decent, and valid descriptive use in the English Language, is treated as something of a profanity around here - I've asked why many times but have yet to see an answer. I'll also note for the moment that it is a word which could equally describe his past behavior WRT other freepers, myself included, seeing as he used my posting history more than once to engage in a certain cyber version of that verb by following me between threads on FR with the intent to provoke and inflame - his modus operandi).

Anyway, to make a long story short I made subsequent reference to his abusive and hypocritical whining to the site administrators, which he followed up by claiming that he had not made the complaint. That quickly turned out to be a lie because (a) the same event occurred within moments of his return to this thread after I again referenced the apparently "forbidden verb," and (b) nolu_chan found him a couple days later on another completely unrelated thread attempting to post complaints about my use of the same "forbidden verb" there. He's literally like the fat kid on the gradeschool playground who doesn't have any friends and spends recess every day throwing mud at other kids and calling them names because he knows that he's fat and they aren't. Sure enough, somebody finally turns the table on him and says "look fatty, the reason nobody likes you is because you're so obnoxious to everybody else and because you do nothing but throw mud at them and call them names day after day after day." And the second that happens he runs to the teacher whining about how everyone else is being mean to him.

Oh well, as the old saying goes, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

[nolu chan #1540]

Lincoln, in an address at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857:
A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together... Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization... The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. (Vol. II, pp. 408-9)

[#3Fan #1555] They weren't citizens. It wasn't any different than deporting Mexicans.

There were Africans in America before the Mayflower landed, and 244 years before the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Deportation of the Black race did not speak only of slaves but also of Free Blacks.

If one were to deport Mexicans, they would be deported to Mexico.

If -YOU- were to deport Blacks, to where would you deport them? Just some convenient spot on the continent of Africa? Haiti? Panama?

If -YOU- were to deport Whites, to where would you deport them? Just some convenient spot on the continent of Europe? Iceland, perhaps?

Would -YOU- deport ALL Latinos to Mexico? How about the non-Hispanics?

The Continental United States will fit into Africa about 9 times with a little space left over. Do you somehow conclude that all the Blacks in America came from ONE nation or ONE tribe?

HOW IS DEPORTING SOMEONE BASED ON THEIR FOREIGN NATIONALITY THE SAME AS DEPORTING SOMEONE BASED ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN???

One may not be deported just because one is not a citizen. If legally in the United States, a resident alien is not subject to deportation because he or she is black or brown or yellow, or even polka dot. If legally in the United States, a resident alien is not subject to deportation because he or she is Mexican.

Tenga un buen dia, amigo.

#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.
#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.
#1599 [nolu chan] Those words cannot render me "a neoconfederate full of hate" without rendering W.E.B. DuBois a "neoconfederate full of hate."
#1605 [#3Fan] He's a New Yorker full of hate, you're a neoconfederate full of hate, as most neoconfederates are..
You are just a second-rate hate-filled little man who calls W.E.B. DuBois a New Yorker full of hate.
Perhaps you would care to explain why a founder of the NAACP, a New York Black man with a Ph.D. from Harvard, would be full of hate for Abraham Lincoln?
Telling the truth is not hate.

It would appear that you are unable to prove your absurd contention that W.E.B. DuBois was a NewYorker full of hate, much less a Neo-Confederate full of hate.

Further, it would appear that you are unable to provide any explanation why a founder of the NAACP, a New York Black man with a Ph.D. from Harvard, would be full of hate for Abraham Lincoln.

Nor do you deny the factual nature of the remarks of W.E.B. DuBois.

Abraham Lincoln was a Southern poor white,