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."
The "necessities needed" was for the fort and was separated from what was listed just before it. It looks as if the arms were for the ship. Regardless of where what was going where, you can't show me the signed armistice so I'm doubting if it even existed. Looks like it was just a truce between the Buchanan Administration and the rebels. Plus any president has an obligation to give his troops the supplies they need to defend themselves so Buchanan was derelict in not supporting his troops if he did make a verbal agreement with the outlaws.
It's a lengthy and complex argument that, in order to get the full jist of, you should at least skim through the text itself (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm)
That said, the argument in oversimplified summary is as follows:
1. Human liberty is a natural and inalienable right under the the common law.
2. By the universally accepted principles of common law, contracts that violate the common law and rights under it are invalid and void.
3. The constitution is by definition a contract of government.
4. If the constitution therefore permits slavery, it is void under the common law. Only if it does not permit slavery is it valid.
5. On the subject of slavery itself, the plain literal text of the constitution is silent, instead only referring to slaves as "other persons" and in the status of servitude. Therefore it cannot be said to explicitly authorize slavery.
6. Since the constitution does not recognize slavery explicitly it therefore cannot be said to violate the common law and therefore, as a contract, is in theory valid under that law. Slavery, therefore, is not sanctioned under the Constitution.
It is important to note again that this is a great oversimplification of a lengthy and complex argument - one that can only be fully understood by at minimum skimming the text itself. It should also be noted that his case was not without precedent and in fact built upon some of the same principles that were used in the landmark Somersett case of 1772 in England (the first step towards abolishing slavery in England proper). So in a sense, Spooner was simply applying the principles of common law and their previous successful application in Britain to the United States.
2. You attacked the author of that argument based upon factually inaccurate information, to which I responded by noting the facts surrounded him.
3. You responded to those facts by requesting further information about a book he wrote for the abolitionist movement, to which I responded by describing in summary that book's arguments and referring you to an online copy of it.
That said, if you wish to discuss any of these issues further please do so. If you do not desire to discuss them, don't ask that I provide you with information about each and drop the irrelevant side commentary as is contained in your wholly meaningless metaphor about rowboats.
My points of relevance are as follows:
1. You asserted without explanation that the south was treasonous in the war, to which I responded by offering a soundly reasoned argument as to why they were not.
2. You attacked the author of that argument based upon factually inaccurate information, to which I responded by noting the facts surrounded him.
3. You responded to those facts by requesting further information about a book he wrote for the abolitionist movement, to which I responded by describing in summary that book's arguments and referring you to an online copy of it.
That said, if you wish to discuss any of these issues further please do so. If you do not desire to discuss them, don't ask that I provide you with information about each and drop the irrelevant side commentary as is contained in your wholly meaningless metaphor about rowboats.
Main Entry: rev·o·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "re-v&-'lü-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English revolucioun, from Middle French revolution, from Late Latin revolution-, revolutio, from Latin revolvere to revolve
: a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.
And for the southern actions of 1861 I suggest this is more accurate:
Main Entry: re·bel·lion
Pronunciation: ri-'bel-y&n
Function: noun
a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
Especially the unsuccessful part.
Even you have to admit we put up one heck of a fight. Lincoln thought he'd have us conquered in a matter of weeks. He paid for his mistake with 4 long years of war that consumed thousands of lives including his own.
Wrong. By its legal definition, the actions of the south did not constitute treason. See the first post I made to you for an explanation of why this is so.
Do I need to translate words into Marklar for you as well?
That they are. Their capacity to understand common english seems to be degrading. It has been supplanted with a simplistic circular device that also seems to lack capabilities for even the most immediate memory retention.
Your mind seems to be the one that is boggled, but I took your advice. Is Roget's International, Third edition OK with you? Because in that it gives revolt, mutiny, mutineering, insurrection, insurgence, riot, Putsch, uprising, outbreak, general outbreak, and revolution as synonyms for rebellion, but not secession. For revolution it gives words like revolt, overthrow, overturn, subversion, and coup d'etat, but not secession. For secede it it lists synonyms such as bolt, pull out, withdraw support for, or sell out, but not revolution or rebellion.
Do I need to translate words into Marklar for you as well?
Perhaps. I don't speak Maklar, I don't speak Iowa either, apparently. Let me know where you got your English-Maklar, Maklar-English dictionary and I'll look it up.
It may have taken the North longer than we at first anticipated, but we never doubted the outcome. Y'all came from the 'one southerner can whip 10 Yankees' school, and y'all still got yer ass kicked. A shock which some of you seem to have never gotten over.
Taking over 4 years to do so, at 3-1 odds, and waging war against innocent women and children ain't an ass-whupping. But if you want to be think so, be my guest.
Only one side was surprised by the outcome of the War of Southern Rebellion, and it wasn't mine.
7. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.
Secede
To withdraw from fellowship, communion, or association; to separate one's self by a solemn act; to draw off; to retire; especially, to withdraw from a political or religious body.
Clearly unrelated.
You mean they expected to wage war on women, children, and elderly men?
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.