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."
No, waiting until a state acts, then deciding the method.
reductio ad absurdum
They agreed to Article IV when they ratified.
The Constitution says the Congress may prescribe the laws. That means the states must allow the Congress to set the process if they're going to carry out an act.
I never said they have to get approval. I said they have to allow the Congress to prescribe the way any state proves their acts.
This flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment.
The tenth amendment doesn't apply to secession because Article IV says that the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts. The tenth amendment says power not delegated to the United States. Article IV delegates to the Congress the power to prescribe laws for states to prove their acts.
Sure. But Article IV does not prohibit secession. But secession is not a legislative act - it is the act of the people of a sovereign state in convention.
It sets the rules for states to prove their acts, secession being an act of a state, it therefore falls under Article IV.
But secession is not a legislative act - it is the act of the people of a sovereign state in convention.
A public act, yes, as Article IV says.
It's part of his mental affliction and another of his Hinkley-esque qualities. He insists upon getting the "last word" in any conversation no matter how insignificant it may be. It may also be one of his schizo tendencies - he exhibits at least two distinct personalities around here and at times blends them together by conversing with himself. They both seem to mistake any form of third party reference to him, no matter how indirect it may be, with a conversation in which he is involved.
'Congress may by 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....Congress exercised its power and issued its prescription 70 years before the WBTS.
The question is not whether Congress issued a prescription, but whether someone took his prescription.
And it's allowed to do so at any time per Article IV.
Congress may prescribe the law to prove or authenticate a legislative Act or judicial Act of a State. This means that Congress sets the process by which state authorities prove a submission to be an authentic copy of a State Act. Congress did set the process. At the time of the WBTS, it had been set by the Act of May 26, 1790. Currently it is set by 28 USC 1738.
This is the official opinion of the Unites States Legislative branch by way of its Act of May 26, 1790, and of the United States Executive branch by way of signing the legislation, and of the United States Judicial branch by way of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
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:
Not much of a barrier to secession.
The process was never set for secession. The states should've gave the Congress the opportunity to set the laws for secession to be proven and when they didn't, they were in rebellion.
This is the official opinion of the Unites States Legislative branch by way of its Act of May 26, 1790, and of the United States Executive branch by way of signing the legislation, and of the United States Judicial branch by way of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
Article IV says the Congress can prescribe laws as to the effect of acts. Obviously that had not been done yet for secession. The seceding states should've followed Article IV.
Not allowing Congress to set the rules for secession was a barrier.
In their 1790 act, Congress didn't say that the acts of the state legislatures except secession were authenticated by ...
You apparently wish to insert the words, "except secession", into the 1790 act.
I just wish to read the Constitution and it says Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effects. Seceding states must give Congress that opportunity.
Congress prescribed the law in 1790. You just don't like the result.
From the New York ratification of the Constitution:
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness ...... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
They understood the Constitution.
Article IV makes it clear that Congress may pass laws that govern how a state proves it's act and the effect thereof. If a state is to secede, it must allow the Congress to do that. Secession obviously has different effects than a marriage.
Getting kind of far out on your twig, aren't you? Congress had their say in the 1790 law and didn't make an exception for secession.
As I pointed out, the New Yorkers who ratified the Constitution believed they had an unabridgeable right that could not be violated to re-assume their own government when their happiness required it. I feel their interpretation is more correct than yours. No offense intended.
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.