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."
It was no treason by any common use of the law. Here's what a famous abolitionist legal philosopher said on that very same subject:
The Constitution says: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
This is the only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be interpreted, like all other criminal laws, in the sense most favorable to liberty and justice. Consequently the treason here spoken of, must be held to be treason in fact, and not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name.
To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their "subjects;" who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.
Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other.
The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer --- one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.
Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power.
For example, our fathers --- even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects --- certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power.
It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.
Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what they sincerely believe to be such usurpations.
It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the fourth of July, 1776 --- that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him --- provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact.
For the same reason, the Southern people, if they sincerely believed --- as it has been extensively, if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution." - Lysander Spooner, 1870
You fail to comprehend the meaning of "proving a State act." It refers to acts of State legislatures. The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form."
Currently it is codified at 28 USC 1738 which states, "The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form."
Fort Pickens is in Florida. Fort Pickens is in the South.
Then why can't you come up with anything?
Could you link me to a site that shows that any sitting U.S. President has ever signed an armistice with anybody?
I could link you to the armistice of September 3, 1943 entered into by the United States and Great Britain with Italy at Fairfield Camp in Sicily. It was presented by General Dwight D. Eisenhower and accepted by Marshal Pietro Badoglio.
It's easier to just read the Constitution and the Constitution said the Congress can decide how a state proves it's act.
You fail to comprehend the meaning of "proving a State act." It refers to acts of State legislatures. The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form."
Secession is an act of the legislature, not something that a clerk simply stamps like a marriage, and the Congress can decide how it is proved.
Currently it is codified at 28 USC 1738 which states, "The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form."
Again, secession is an act of the legislature, not a simple marriage that a clerk stamps and it's done.
Fort Pickens is in Florida. Fort Pickens is in the South.
Yep. Where's that armistice at? From what I've read, Lincoln warned them that he was sending food to the soldiers at Sumter, not arms, so the men wouldn't starve. Even objecting to this humanitarian mission was an act of war, let alone firing shots.
Uh oh, looks like you're stalling. Can you link me to the signed armistice at all?
I could link you to the armistice of September 3, 1943 entered into by the United States and Great Britain with Italy at Fairfield Camp in Sicily. It was presented by General Dwight D. Eisenhower and accepted by Marshal Pietro Badoglio.
I want the one that proves that the men were not allowed to be fed. It looks like that's what the mission was, to feed the men, not to reinforce the forts. Even so, any president who doesn't allow his troops to defend himself was negligent in his duties, so Buchanan was negligent. And again, it was federal property, we could do as we wished, especially after Buchanan left office.
The OFFICIAL ORDERS state to "REINFORCE" to "HOLD" and reference the "AUGMENTED GARRISON."
OFFICIAL RECORDS
FORT SUMTER
SOURCE: OFFICIAL RECORDS, OPERATIONS IN CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C. , Series 1, Volume 1, Page 236.
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
FORT PICKENS
RECORDS OF REBELLION, VOLUME 1, CHAPTER 4
360
OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA.
[CHAP. IV.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, March 12, 1861.Captain VOGDES, U. S. Army,
On board U. S. sloop-of-war Brooklyn, lying off Port Pickens:SIR: At the first favorable moment you will land with your company, re-enforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders. Report frequently, if opportunities present themselves, on the condition of the fort and the circumstances around you.
I write by command of Lieutenant-General Scott.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
You obviously did not read the OFFICIAL RECORD.
Nobody was starving, they were getting their food delivered from Charleston merchants until April 7, 1861, after the mission to reinforce and hold the fort was sent.
There was no humanitarian mission. The OFFICIAL ORDERS documented in the OFFICIAL RECORD prove that claim is false.
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SOURCE: OFFICIAL RECORDS, OPERATIONS IN CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C. , Series 1, Volume 1, Page 236.
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
There was no food shortage. It is well-documented that Fort Sumter had obtained food from the merchants of Charleston since shortly after Major Anderson moved there. It is well documented by the official records of both sides that the supply of food from the Charleston merchants was not cut off until April 7, 1861. After the South Carolina officials learned of the fleet that was sailing toward them, they cut off the food supply.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE
[247]
No; 96.
FORT SUMTER, S. C., April 7, 1861.
(Received A. G. 0., April 13.)
Col. L. THOMAS,
Adjutant- General U. S. Army:
COLONEL:
I have the honor to report that we do not see any work going on around us. There was more activity displayed by the guard-
[248]
boats last night than has been clone for some time. Three of them remained at anchor all night and until after reveille this morning, near the junction of the three channels. You will see by the inclosed letter, just received from Brigadier-General Beauregard that we shall not get any more supplies from the city of Charleston. I hope that they will continne to let us have onr mails as long as we remain. I am glad to be enabled to report that there have been no new cases of dysentery, and that the sick-list only embraces six cases to-day.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
[Inclosure.l
HEADQUARTERS OF THE PROVISIONAL ARMY, C. S.,
Charleston, S. C., April 7, 1861.
Maj. ROBERT ANDERSON,
Commanding at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor S. C.:
Sir:
In compliance with orders from the Confederate Government at Montgomery, I have the honor to inform you that, in consequence of the delays and apparent vacillations of the United States Government at Washington relative to the evacuation of Fort Sumter, no further communications for the purposes of supply with this city from the fort and with the fort from this city will be permitted from and after this day. The mails, however, will continue to be transmitted as heretofore, until further instructions from the Confederate Government.
I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G.T. BEAUREGARD,
Brigadier- General, Commanding..
CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE
[145]
HEADQUARTERS QUARTERMASTER’S DEPARTMENT,
Charleston, January 19, 1861. Quartermaster- General:
You are ordered to procure and send down with the mails for Fort Sumter to-morrow a sufficient quantity of fresh meat and vegetables to last the garrison of Fort Sumter for forty-eight hours, and inform Major Anderson that you will purchase and take down every day such provisions from the city market as he may indicate.
D.F. JAMISON.
CHARLESTON, April 8, 1861.
Hon. L. P. WALKER:
Anderson’s provisions stopped yesterday. No answer from him. I am calling out balance of contingent troops.
G.T. BEAUREGARD.
[#3Fan] Again, secession is an act of the legislature, not a simple marriage that a clerk stamps and it's done.
One look at ANY ordinance of secession and you would have known that it was not an act of the legislature. I do not have time to do your homework for you.
We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be, and the same is hereby, totally annulled, and said Union of States dissolved; and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded; and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be, and they are hereby, repealed.
What the Constitution says is:
U.S. Const, Art 4, Sec 1, Cl 2:
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The general law passed on May 26, 1790 says, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form."
The Congress did decide how the legislative act of a state is proved.
By choosing adopt your own interpretation of the Constitution, and to ignore legal authorities, the relevant act of Congress, and the relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, you have left yourself as lost as Jessica Lynch navigating in the desert.
Then why do the supporters of the rebellion insist on claiming that their situation was identical to that of the founders, to the point of calling their actions 'secession' from the British empire? It is nonsense, complete and utter nonsense.
Well, if Silas Hardacre says so, I guess it must be true. Are there other illegal actions against which there is no law?
4CJ is holding his own. Your denial of the records not withstanding.
Ummm.... in most cases... no.
Apparently reading is not your strong suit either. Does Jessica know about this?
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.