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."

You certainly made by day. I did read that section of the Globe, and sure enough, not only does Mr. Brown assure us that no simpleton could ever have devised the notions of Mr. Spooner, but indeed, only a harebrained simpleton could do so.

Yawn. You are contradicting yourself again, and this time in the space of a mere sentence. Brown stated that the argument was intelligent and logically sound from the premises. He then stated he did not believe those premises, though never offered any explanation of what was wrong with him. It was pointed out at the time in abolitionist circles that the standards of argumentation require that such proof is incumbent upon Brown since he made the second charge, though alas he never offered it.

Mr. Wilson notes that out of 1.3 million Abolitionist votes, only about 2,000 would support the notions of Mr. Spooner.

Wilson was neither a genuine abolitionist nor a qualified authority to comment on that matter. By contrast, what we do know is that the Liberty Party, an 1840's organization that was also the first major specifically abolitionist political party in the United States, formally endorsed Spooner's book in its 1848 platform. We also know that other prominent abolitionists including one of the most famous members of that group, Frederick Douglass, endorsed Spooner's book repeatedly and publicly. And we know of course that abolition-friendly politicians such as Seward spoke favorably of Spooner's book. So as far as weighing its relevence in that movement goes, I'm inclined to trust the word of Douglass, Seward, and the Liberty Party over that of a notoriously corrupt non-abolitionist senator like Henry Wilson.

It is to be noted that in over 20,000 pages of the Glove between 1830 and 1870, we find your 'so important' Mr Spooner mentioned primarily on one of the first days of a New Congress when the most important issue in the House is the assessment of two dollar penalties on House members who walked out on a vote of adjournment that failed on the assumption that it had not failed.

I'm sure you've read all 20,000 pages as well to find every reference. In that case, you should also know that Spooner was a fairly frequent topic in the Globe from roughly 1840 to 1861. The earliest mention is sometime around 1840 regarding a legal case he submitted to Congress. He became a prominent topic again circa 1845 when he opened up a private post office (essentially a 19th century version of FedEx) that undercut the USPS' business and prompted congress to pass a law giving USPS a monopoly. His book's publication in the late 1840's again drew attention and, around 1855, got Seward's attention. Around 1856 it came up as a floor debate topic in the Senate, which it continued to do from time to time between then and 1861. But you don't have to take my word on his relevence. Frederick Douglass provided ample record on that subject:

"There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length - nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour" - Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" 1852

Also take a look at what Douglass had to say about pseudo-friends of anti-slavery like Henry Wilson:

"For an able, searching and masterly reply to the slavery argument founded on the first article, second section, and third clause of the U.S. Constitution, we refer our readers to an extract, in another column, from the triumphant work of Lysander Spooner, in favor of the anti-slavery character of the Constitution. There has been so much said of late of the "absurdities," "sophistries," and "weaknesses," of such men as Spooner, Goodell, and Smith, that we purpose to enrich our columns by lengthy quotations from the works of these gentlemen which are supposed to give the greatest proofs of these qualities; but which we believe to be the most enduring monuments of the goodness of their hearts, and clearness, soundness and comprehensiveness of their minds. We acknowledge ourselves indebted to them for giving us that mighty instrument, the Constitution, unencumbered with the pro-slavery notions and fancies which before made it to us a hated thing. Oh! it used to chill the very soul to feel that in laboring to establish the pro-slavery character of the Constitution, we were doing the very thing which the men of the lash and fetter were pleased to have us do. We feel a freedom and happiness in our present position for which we cannot be too grateful." - Frederick Douglass, newsletter, July 31, 1851

Other abolitionists had similar praises:

"It is admirable, I warmly commend it to you and your readers. High as were my opinions of his ability, they are higher now that I have read his argument in favor of his position that there is no legal or constitutional slavery in this nation." - Gerrit Smith, Liberty Party organizer and Abolitionist congressman

Even its critics like Garrison could not dispute its logical validity (as you seem unable to do as well, for that matter):

"His logic may be faultless, as a merely logical effort. We admit Mr. Spooner's reasoning to be ingenious - perhaps, as an effort of logic, unanswerable. It impresses us as the production of a mind equally honest and acute. Its ability, and the importance of the subject on which it treats, will doubtless secure for it a wide circulation and a careful perusal." - Garrison, The Liberator

What other citations do you know in the Globe to Spooner?

Barring a trip to the library to look them up again (which I can't make until at the very earliest this weekend), I don't have copies of those pages. I only copied the one I quoted for you yesterday. And before you suggest it - i'm not gonna dig through the online version either because I am on dialup (again until at least this weekend) and it takes forever for the pages to load. If you are too impatient to wait until then I can give you the general areas to look. The earliest reference I found was sometime around 1839 or 40 involving a petition he had entred regarding navigational improvements on a canal. He came up again around 1845 or 46 when Congress installed a postal monopoly to combat the American Letter Mail Company, a private 19th century version of FedEx that he owned. After the publication of his book he gained media attention as a spokesman for abolitionism. You can do a search of newspaper archives from the late 1840's and you will find several reviews of it. He started to appear in the congressional record as a figure involved with abolitionism circa 1855 - the year that an updated edition of his book came out, which was subsequently provided to every member of congress by one of the abolitionist organizations. So you can find him mentioned accordingly from roughly 1855 to 1861 in the globe. One example is that 1856 debate I directed you to. Another I distinctly recall off the top of my head was sometime around 1860 and involved a discussion of the fact that Senator Seward had written favorably of the book. Needless to say, by the mid 1850's virtually every single member of Congress knew who Lysander Spooner was and many had read his book, southerners included.

I can only remember Stevens' mentioning him once as an extreme radical, and Sumner doing the same once in passing.

Neither Sumner nor Stevens has much room to talk in accusing another of extremism or radicalism. It is also a known fact that Spooner did NOT have a very friendly relationship with either senator from his home state of Massachusetts, which means Sumner (who he specifically blamed for many of the war's horrors) and Wilson (though Spooner and Wilson did write each other a couple times). Of the politicians he did converse with and exchange letters with, I have already mentioned one - Seward, the Senator from New York and later Secretary of State. He was also close friends with Gerrit Smith, an abolitionist congressman. Prior to the war he also exchanged letters with Benjamin F. Butler, one of Lincoln's favorite generals and later the Massachusetts Governor, and several judges, governors, state supreme court justices and the sort in New England.

#341 [#3Fan] It looks as if the arms were for the ship.

#383 [#3Fan] Confederates opened hostilities by firing on the "Star of the West" (is that the name?) so hostilities towards ships were to be expected.

#386 [nc] The "ship's men" needed arms. Talk about lost at sea.

#386 [#3Fan] The "Star of the West" was attacked.

#386 [nc] The "ship's men" needed arms to return fire expected from the shore batteries. Picture it in your mind and try not to snork coffee all over your keyboard.

#386 [#3Fan] Todays military ships do indeed have guns. What's so extraordinary about it?

In such a target rich environment, the question is where to begin.

The "ship's men" (so-called) were never attached to the ship.

The "ship's men" (so-called) were never attached to the Navy.

The "ship's men" (so-called) were not members of the ship's crew.

The "ship's men" (so-called) were soldiers, not sailors.

The "ship's men" (so-called) were in USS Powhatan. Like Mary's Little Lamb, wherever Powhatan went, the "ship's men" (so-called) were sure to go.

The "ship's men" (so-called) were being provided with transportation by the U.S. Navy. Calling these soldiers "ships men" is like taking a flight on Delta Airlines and calling yourself a member of the air crew. As far as the Navy was concerned, they were passengers.

On April 1, 1861, Admiral Lincoln ordered the Commandant of the Brooklyn Navy Yard to fit out USS Powhatan and directed him not to communicate such to the Navy Department under any circumstances.

April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard
You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln

That same date, Admiral Lincoln reassigned USS Powhatan from Captain Mercer to Lt. Porter, and kept this secret from the Department of the Navy and the Department of War. Admiral Lincoln gives the ship to Lt. Porter with orders to take it to Florida.

April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN
You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.
Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.
You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.
This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward

Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles later writes, "There would seem to have been a deliberate purpose to render the Sumter expedition -- the first of the war -- abortive; to prevent the garrison from receiving supplies; to compel Major Anderson to surrender and evacuate the fort; for every step taken, every measure adopted, was met and thwarted by counteracting measures, most of them secret, emanating from or sanctioned by the President, who was unsuspectingly made to defeat his own orders and purposes."

On April 5, 1861, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles gives orders to Captain Mercer to take USS Powhatan to Charleston as his flagship.

April 5, 1861
To: Captain Mercer, Commanding Officer, USS Powhatan
The U.S. Steamers, Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane, will compose a naval force under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S.C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the object of an expedition of which the war Department has charge. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G.V. Fox.
You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc.
Signed: Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy

On April 6, 1861, Lt. Porter took USS Powhatan and sailed.

With Lt. Porter as Commanding Officer, Jessica Lynch acting as navigator, USS Powhatan goes to sea, the ship's name is painted over, and finally, on April 17, 1861 they arrive at Pensacola, Florida flying English colors and burning English coal.

This is rather like going to the airport and catching a Delta Airlines flight to Charleston, South Carolina and being delivered six days late to Pensacola, Florida by a plane falsely identified as belonging to British Air.

The "ship's men" (so-called) were still aboard USS Powhatan. The soldiers purportedly intended to augment the Fort Sumter garrison never went to South Carolina. All the landing craft purportedly intended for the Fort Sumter mission were aboard USS Powhatan. The ships that did arrive at Charleston harbor played no role in the events. They had no soldiers to land, and no landing craft to attempt to land soldiers or anything else. They were spectators, unable to provide any assistance whatever.

#275 [#3Fan] I don't see where the arms were to be delivered.

Usually, when the Navy delivers a load of soldiers to a potential combat zone, the arms are delivered with the soldiers. In such situations, soldiers tend to like to have their weapons with them. It seems to be an old Army tradition.

#275 [#3Fan] I saw that the ship's men needed arms because they expected to be attacked by Confederates.

These "ship's men" (so-called) were soldiers being transported by Navy ship. They needed their long arms because it would have been a severe breach of Army etiquette and tradition to go into battle with nothing in their hands but their short arms.

#341 [#3Fan] [A]ny 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.

Admiral Lincoln did not get any supplies to the troops and got their unending supplies from Mr. McSweeney cut off. Admiral Lincoln did not get any reinforcements or provisions of any kind to the troops, and he got them shelled and shot at.

Every military leader who had been consulted, including Major Anderson, had advised that any mission such as that purported was a military impossibility. In the actual event, no landing was either attempted or possible, and the purported garrison reinforcing troops (the "ships men" so-called) were not even there. Also not there was the intended flagship, the Navy captain who was supposed to be in charge, and the landing craft essential to land anything.

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.