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."

I don't think Sumner ever understood exactly what offense he had given.

I'm sure Chuck Schumer doesn't understand how offensive he behaves either simply because he is such a wretched person. That fact doesn't make him any less repulsive or profane though, nor would it for Sumner.

Afterall, Brooks, after giving several different answers in while he was convicted justifiably of an ugle felony. The one Brooks settled on most consistantly was that Sumner had insutled South Carolina by detailing it's relatively embarrrassing performance in the American Revolution. It is, however, doubtful that this was the real reason as the same discussion had come up on several occassions, and even thought Butler had truly made a Democratic ass out of himself in the discussions, no offense seemed to have been taken by him on those occasions.

Aside from being coherency-challenged, that passage lacks either documentation or consideration of the facts of the beating. Brooks specifically took offense to that speech of Sumner's and especially so since it made several vile attacks upon Butler's physical handicaps. Upon hearing of the attacks Brooks, who was always quick to the duel, consulted his colleague Rep. Lawrence M. Keitt as to how he could exact satisfaction for the insult upon his family and state. In all liklihood Brooks intended to challenge Sumner to a duel as he had done previously in political disputes of honor (in fact he had to use the famous cane he hit Sumner with because of an old wound he recieved in another duel with a soon-to-be Senator from Texas). Upon consulting Keitt it was noted to him that dueling was, by tradition, a device of exacting honor between two gentlemen of comparable social status. Sumner, because he was such a repulsive and vile creature, was not considered to rise to that level. In the old days a gentleman would duel a gentleman but a gentleman would not duel the town drunk, who was his social inferior. Drunkards got kicked and hit with canes instead by the day's social conventions. To Brooks, Keitt, and most of congress for that matter, Sumner was Congress' equivalent of the town drunk. So he was dealt with accordingly.

Your Spooner, who's writings are so reminiscent of Charles Sumner's speeches

No. Spooner did not spit, slobber, or mock the physical handicaps of other people when he wrote. His books contain a certain elegance to them. They are sharp, decisive, and hard hitting but also elegant. Sumner, by contrast, was a fowl mouthed raving and slobbering loon.

but generally without reference to morality, conscience, and the true condition of southern society

You evidently have not read his works then. Spooner's entire philosophy is built upon the notion that absolute moral truths derive from the natural law.

was merely just another racist extremist

Spooner a racist? What evidence do you have of that? That's right. None. Spooner was actually one of the few abolitionists who truly saw blacks as fully entitled to share in the equality of the human condition (many of his associates wanted slavery abolished but desired to separate the two races). His greatest objection with the civil war was that it gave us an anti-slavery policy that was NOT out of any general love for the freedom of the black man but rather out of political convenience for the white northerners. He was also an attorney by profession and spent about two decades before the war providing free legal services to fugitive slaves.

and it was on this point that he later spoke up to deny the treason of the Confederate traitors

He denied the treason because there was no treason under ANY standard commonly accepted definition of the common law.

even while they were committing their most outrageious crimes and depradations not only on the rule of law

Wrong. Spooner wrote to the south at a time when they were under military despotism, in part due to Sumner's radical reconstruction policies. The so-called "rule of law" during reconstruction was point of a northern bayonet, which is no legitimate law in its own right but rather coercion. Get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off like that again.

#9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

#. 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I read this to mean exactly what it was intended to mean - A Prohibition against the Federal Government interference in a State's self-determination. And this is what gave the South all it really needed to secede once the State legislatures (i.e. the representatives of the People) voted for it. "Where does it say that, once ratified, that a state can walk out on a whim?" Because each State DID NOT surrender its sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution they were still able to determine the course of their own destiny. All the Constitution was put in place for was as guidelines for what the Federal Government could and could not do.

Look at Madison's statement ""Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39

So if the State determined that the Fed had usurped its authority over a period of time, they had the right and duty to form a government that they felt would preserve their inalienable rights in accordance with the following passage from the Declaration of Independence " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." And this key statement " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now I realize that this is not the way you Yankees view it, but you have allowed your understanding to be misconstrued by Lincoln. So you see, the matter of choice was up to each sovereign State as to whether or not it would remain with the Federal Government or not. The Federal Government really had no legal right to force a State to remain in the Union. And if you read the last line of Madison's statement he clearly says In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." Well the Constitution was established, and it was a Federal, not a national Constitution.

FEDERAL - 1. Of, relating to, or designating a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.
2. Of, constituting, or marked by a form of government in which sovereign power is divided BETWEEN A CENTRAL AUTHORITY AND A NUMBER OF CONSTITUENT POLITICAL UNITS. - Webster's Dictionary

This is odd too.

RATIFICATIONS

NEW YORK

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

RHODE ISLAND

III. That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. That the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers, and every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

[nc] Do you have an imaginary captain stashed away someplace? Cap'n Crunch perhaps?

[#3Fan] Yeah, yeah, anything that shows the South committed malfeasants just has to be faked and a grand conspiracy. The link in post #442 is clear, but you just continue to live in your fantasy world.

The link in #442 is clear. In your fantasy world it goes to a fantasy captain who wrote fantasies. So where is your Captain? If it was not Cap'n Crunch, was it Captain Ron, captain of the Albondigo?

I know Mr. Fox had the favor of one general, but that was his brother-in-law, the Postmaster General.

| 616 | 617 | 618 | 619 |

The Galaxy, vol. 10, issue 5 (November 1870), Former Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, "Facts in relation ot the Expedition ordered by the Administration of President Lincoln for the relief of the Garrison in Fort Sumter."

General Scott said, "there was not in his entire command a sufficient military force to relieve Major Anderson, nor could one be collected and organized within the time limited to accomplish that object." [616]

In reading a carefully prepared statement by direction of General Scott, General Totten "stated the impracticability of relieving the garrison should the insurgents resist by force, and that ultimately Sumter must inevitably fall." [617]

"Mr. Seward from the commencement doubted not only the practicability of reinforcing Sumter, but the expediency of any attempt to provision the garrison, therein differing from every one of his colleagues, though in perfect accord with General Scott." [617]

"Mr. Blair, on the other hand, who was scarcely less familiar with the whole subject than Mr. Seward, was emphatic and decisive from first to last in his opinion that Sumter should be reinforced at any cost or any sacrifice." [617]

"The members of the Cabinet, with the exception of Messrs. Seward and Blair, coincided in the views of the President, and like him were embarrassed by the question presented. They were united in the opinion that the Federal authority must be asserted and maintained, but under the circumstances deprecated hasty coercive measures, and, unless it became absolutely necessary, were unwilling in view of the military counsels to resort to force to provision the fort." [618]

[nc - Of course, Mr. Lincoln had the perfect man to lead the mission, Mr. G.V. Fox.]

[nc - I am happy to record that Mr. Blair was emphatic and decisive in support of his brother in law, Mr. G.V. Fox.]

"General Scott, who had favored Mr. Fox's proposition in February, declared it was now an impossibility; but Mr. Fox was unwilling to relinquish it without first visiting Sumter. To this the President assented, and he left Washington for charleston on the 19th of March. In an interview which he had with Major Anderson within the fort, that officer declared it was impossible for the navy to obtain ingress to him, and that relief could be furnished by no other means than by landing an effective army on Morris Island. His views coincided in all respects with those of General Scott, and confirmed the positions of Mr. Seward. But Mr. Fox dissented and achered to his plan, which was in accordance with the policy of Mr. Blair." [618]

"The supplies in the fort were getting low when Mr. Lamon, the former business partner of the President, who had been sent as a special and trusty messenger to Major Anderson, after the visit and report of Mr. Fox, returned on the 28th of March and stated it would be impossible to reinforce the garrison, and that the provisions on hand would be exhausted by the 15th of April, but a little over two weeks from that date. On receiving this information from Lamon, the President declared he would send supplies to the garrison, and if the secessionists forcibly resiisted, on them would be the responsibility of initiating hostilities." [619]

Mr. Fox wrote:

I maintained the proposition and suggested that it was a naval plan and should be decided by naval officers. The President asked me if there was any naval officer of high authority in Washington who would sustain me, and if so to bring him to the White House. I knew that Commodore Stringham was at that time filling the position of detailing officer in the Navy Department and I took him to the President, where in the presence of Lieutenant-General Scott he not only confirmed my views, but said that he had that morning held a conversation with Commodore Stewart, who declared that Fort Sumter could easily be reenforced and provisioned with boats at night.

Now there is a cozy system. The President does not consult the Secretary of the Navy or any senior naval staff. Mr. Fox just happens to know a Commodore Stringham in naval detailing.

SECWAR Cameron wrote: "[Fox's] proposal has, in a measure, been approved by Commodore Stringham; but he does not suppose, or propose, or profess to believe that provisions for more than one or two months could be furnished at a time.

Mr. Fox also admitted, "I suggested to the Secretary of the Navy to place Commodore Stringham in command of the naval force, but upon consulting with that distinguished officer he considered it to be too late to be successful, and likely to ruin the reputation of the officer who undertook it then."

It is reported that, "At the start of the Civil War Stringham began feuding with the assistant secretary of the Navy, Gustavus Fox."

On the 23d of September, 1861, at his own request, Commodore Stringham was relieved from his command.

Perhaps you remember the Lincoln order to SECNAV Welles to replace Stringham as naval detailer with Captain Barron who turned out to be a Confederate naval officer.

http://www.uttyl.edu/vbetts/little_rock_daily_state_journal.htm
[LITTLE ROCK] DAILY STATE JOURNAL, November 7, 1861, p. 2, c. 2
Mrs. Commodore Stringham who has been busily engaged in conveying information to the Confederates, is in the hands of the Federal officers at Louisville, Ky.

Captain Rowan on the Pawnee reported: "Captain Fox left this ship intending to make the attempt to land the provisions early the next morning; made all preparations to protect him. The next morning he grounded on Rattlesnake Shoal, which delayed the expedition till the following night."

The abstract log of the Pawnee indicates Mr. Fox's naval misadventures continued: "At 7:30 p. m. came in collision with the Baltic, crushing the gig and doing other damage. The Baltic's stern was also considerably damaged."

But all was not lost. Mr. Fox did not have to abandon ship. Mr. Fox contacted a Mr. Aspinwall and "This gentleman applied to Mr. John Jacob Astor, jr., who very generously gave him a check for $3,000. With this he procured the tug Yankee and persuaded Commodore Breese, commandant of the New York navy yard, to arm and fit her out; and having received from that officer an appointment as acting lieutenant in the Navy, I left on the 26th for Hampton Roads, where I reported to Commodore Pendergrast, of the Cumberland."

And so, having first grounded the Baltic and then having been rendered in need of tug service by a collision with the Pawnee, Mr. Fox obtained an appointment as acting lieutenant in the Navy and got his ass towed the hell out of there.

Now, there is your acting lieutenant after the battle of Fort Sumter was over. Where is your captain?

Mr. Fox became a midshipman in January 1838. He graduated Annapolis in 1841. He was promoted to Lieutenant in 1852. After 18 years, he resigned from the Navy in 1856 as a lieutenant. However, he married the sister of Montgomery Blair. In 1861 he went from Acting Lieutenant Fox, to Chief Clerk to SECNAV Welles, to the August 1, 1861 created position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

[Non-Seq] How many times do I have to repeat myself? Secession per se is not unconstitutional. However, Article IV, Section III makes it clear the Congressional approval is needed for change in the status of a state. And Article I, Section 10 makes it clear that unilateral action when such actions impact the interests of other states are forbidden. So it is the unilateral aspect of the southern action which made it illegal.

Article 4, Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Article 1, Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Art 4, Sec 3, Cl 1: In seceding, a state neither forms a new Sate nor forms or erects a State within the Jurisdiction of any other State.

Art 4, Sec 3, Cl 2: Irrelevant to the issue of secession.

Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 1: In seceding, a state does not enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 2: In seceding, a state does not lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports.

Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 3: In seceding, a state does not lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War.

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.