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."
You guys sure don't like people disagreeing with you, do you? lol It's good for you to have your delusions challenged.
Titus, please post your proof of this ludicrous assertion.
Thank you. I'm glad Mr. Winbush has discovered his heritage, and is speaking in the hope that others would shed the revisionist blinders thay have worn for decades.
ROTFL!
Insulsissimus est homo?
Article IV, Section 1 says that the Congress may prescribe the general laws to prove state's acts.
There was not even one assertion of that in any of the state ratification papers. Lincoln made it public in the first inaugural that he would hold the forts in Florida and Charleston for purposes of taxation, while not revealing to the public the ongoing offers of the Confederacy to compensate the Federal government for all the facilities in Southern states. And even today, there are such people as you that continue with this false representation for your own rhetorical self promotion.
There's nothing false about reading Article IV.
Again, you assert a fallacy. The "stolen" property you refer to was on loan to or owned by the Federal government, not states. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Ill., etc., did not have ownership of anything in any of the seceding states.
Not only real estate, but arms.
Beginning in December, 1860, and continuing until April of 1861, several attempts were made to arrange for compensation, and in view of your past posts, you know that.
They should've followed Artcle IV and worked it out in the Congress before seceding.
Continuing to assert that the South was stealing requires documentation of fiduciary failure of the Confederacy, but the exact opposite was true in 1861.
If they didn't steal, why were there negotiations to return property?
Again, fallacy in assertion, and not supported by any law.
Article IV is law and it is clear.
Que?
Even he cannot possibly consider this conversation... Still fun to watch him flail his arms about hoping to get a shot in on someone.
As is PeaRidge.
No, "pre" is a prefix that means "before". When the states wanted to seceded, they should have allowed the Congress to prescribe the way in that the seceding states would have proven their secession.
Ex post facto is Latin for after the fact. "Ante" means before. What you suggest is that the states would separately volunteer to join a political union, without having a specified method of leaving, and at best, having to submit plans for doing so to the other members and hopefully being allowed to leave with their permission.
This assertion is made in spite of the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union requiring unanimous consent to changes, and the Constitution's admission that 9 states seceding from the prior union would create the new one. Without any state having to petition for the right to withdraw.
There's a huge disconnect there.
No, it's as simple as following Article IV. Any state wishing to secede has to allow Congress to determine the method of secession, not permission of secession.
This assertion is made in spite of the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union requiring unanimous consent to changes, and the Constitution's admission that 9 states seceding from the prior union would create the new one. Without any state having to petition for the right to withdraw.
I never said anything about petitioning.
There's a huge disconnect there.
You're not connecting with what I said.
"Pre" means "before" also.
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.