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."
Secession would be a state act and therefore subject to Congress prescribing laws for a state to prove their act of secession.
"General Law" does not address secesssion. Article 4 is clear. It covers legitimacy of public acts, records, proceedings of general law, privileges and immunities, exradition of felons and slaves, allows jurisdiction in cases where a new state is attempted to be constructed within the boundaries of another state, or two or more states forming a third; allows Congress to exercise control in territories or possessions; and guarantees a republican government along with protections against invasion or domestic violence upon request of the state government. Every one of those regulations apply to effective Federal support, not prohibition of secession.
I never said secession was prohibited, I said the Congress gets to set the rules for proof of secession.
Article 4 has never been considered a controlling legal authority on secession.
I don't care what it was considered by others. It's best to read the document for yourself and it clearly says that the Congress may decide the way a state proves it's acts.
You are wasting your time.
No, Article IV is clear.
Not surprising, those were Democrats that seceded for slavery.
Georgia: "We want to leave the union."
Federal Congress: "Give us a few years and get back to us."
No state would have joined if this were the case. Article IV states that "the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The revalent laws have been cited. It states that Congress may legislate how acts are proven (have the same legal standing in another state as it does in the original state), not that congress can determine the act illegal.
I never said anything about petitioning.
If Congress has failed to provide for enactment, having to request that it do so before leaving is a petition.
You're not connecting with what I said.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner ;o)
Maybe so, maybe not. If so, you would've had a case then. But we'll never know since the secessionists didn't follow the law.
No state would have joined if this were the case.
Oh baloney. No state would've joined if they knew that there would be terms to separation? I think everyone expects terms of separation.
Article IV states that "the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The revalent laws have been cited. It states that Congress may legislate how acts are proven (have the same legal standing in another state as it does in the original state), not that congress can determine the act illegal.
I didn't say they could could or couldn't determine the act illegal. I just said that as soon as the seceding states did not allow the Congress to prescribe laws to prove their secession, they were in violation of the Constitution they agreed to and therefore were in rebellion.
If Congress has failed to provide for enactment, having to request that it do so before leaving is a petition.
No it's not. When a traffic cop guides you through a detour, you're not asking him for permission to go where you're going, you're allowing him to tell you how to navigate at that particular point.
I didn't say it was subject to Congressional approval. I said that they have to follow Article IV in doing this act.
Congress did not think it did, but you do. So, continuing with this >>> "I never said secession was prohibited, I said the Congress gets to set the rules for proof of secession" <<< is proof of your wish to continue deception.
What deception? Article IV is clear and it says Congress decides how acts are proven.
It seems as if you believe that repetition proves truth, which of course does not.
No, repetition is necessary when the opposition repeats their faulty position though.
No one has asserted that Article 4 controls secessionist movements.
I don't care what anyone else has asserted. The Constitution was to be read by the people and reading it for ourselves, we can see that it clearly says the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts.
If it did, Buchanan, Black, Seward, and Lincoln would have seized the moment.
Lincoln did, didn't he? Did he ever call the South's secession a legal secession?
"The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions." [John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, 1823]
Congress, the creature of the states, can not impose conditions not mentioned in the Constitution upon her creators.
BTW, welcome to FreeRepublic, Historian. I've been enjoying your posts.
I don't care what John Taylor says. I can read the law for myself and the Constitution says that the Congress may prescribe laws for the states to prove their acts.
Of course not.
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856), "to prove, is to determine or persuade that a thing does or does not exist", as in PROOF of legality: "Proof is the perfection of evidence." It's certification, to affix with a seal, rubber-stamp, notarization etc. That's the accepted "proof" of a document. To prove an act or document simply allows one state to accept such on good faith that the act/document is valid - not a ruling on the legality of the act/document.
That was for the Congress to decide plus the effect thereof (and obviously there would be effects unique to secession), and since the seceding states didn't follow Article IV in allowing the Congress to decide the proof and the effects, then the South was in violation of the Constitution an in rebellion.
You don't consider slavery bad enough to get rid of for a hundred years. Where's your honor?
This refers to legislative or judicial acts of States.
"Proving" an Act involves a show of proof that what is presented to the Federal authorities is, in fact, an authentic copy of a legistlative or judicial act of a State. Federal law prescribes the method of proving an Act.
A legislative Act is proved by having the seal of the respective state affixed thereto.
A judicial Act is proved "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 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."
See the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
2. The faith and credit required to be given to judgments does not depend on the Constitution alone. Article 4, 1, not only commands that 'full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State' but it adds 'Congress may be general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.' And Congress has exercised this power, by Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C . 687, 28 USCA 687, which provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another, and specifically directs that judgments 'shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.'
When the facts fail you, make up rules. You'd make a great liberal activist judge.
Facts fail? How?
...make up rules.
Made up? It's right in Article IV, pure and simple. It says Congress may prescribe rules for states to prove their acts and the effects thereof.
You'd make a great liberal activist judge.
Citing Article IV is liberal activism? LOL
And is only necessitated for states remaining in the union, not those whose conventions have rescinded ratification.
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.