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."
But this is what you wrote: And where was Spooner? Supporting the KKK ... - this is what I would have you document - Spooner's defense of the KKK.
Now, since you have built up your nerve to converse, do take a moment and answer the last question that you ran from so shamelessly.
Please post the question I ran from, shamelessly or otherwise.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which [whatever] shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Congress may, and did, prescribe the manner in which State Acts shall be proved (authenticated), the the Effect of said authentication. "The Effect thereof" refers to the effect of the prescribed authentication, not the effect of the State legislative or judicial act.
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."
THE MANNER IS WHICH STATE LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTS ARE PROVED (AUTHENTICATED)
THE EFFECT OF PROVING (AUTHENTICATING) STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTS
As the Supreme Court noted in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935), Congress exercised its power in this regard, and the Act of Congress "provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another." The clause deals with the authentication of documents for recognition in the courts of another state. Once authenticated (proved to be true documents) as prescribed by law, such documents "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."
The Constitution doesn't say anything about Congress only having one shot to cover all scenerios. It says Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effect. Therefore a state has to allow the Congress to do that.
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.
There's nothing in the Constitution that would say otherwise and I've never said a state doesn't have the right to secede. The Constitution is clear though that the Congress has the right to decide the process of an act being proven, and secession is an act.
Instead of reading what a judge said, it's best to read what the Constitution says and it says that the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effect. When a state decides to secede, it must allow the Congress to decide what the process of proof will be. Secession is not a marriage. It has different effects.
What he's arguing gets points for originality, but not much else. Usually a proof by non-existence is sufficient to convince most people that nothing in Article IV could possilby be pertinent. That's all to say: Chase's use of the preamble in conjunction with the defunct and discarded Articles is proof positive of how hard he dug to look for a Constitutional means of declaring secession illegal.
Chase came up empty. Article IV is immaterial to the matter.
I don't go by precedent, I go by what's written.
That's all to say: Chase's use of the preamble in conjunction with the defunct and discarded Articles is proof positive of how hard he dug to look for a Constitutional means of declaring secession illegal.
Again, I've never said secession is illegal. The manner in which they seceded is illegal though. They should've followed Article IV.
Chase came up empty. Article IV is immaterial to the matter.
I don't care what Chase decided. I can read and so can most others who study the Constitution. It was written for us, not for a bunch of elites to twist for 200 years until the things we do now are unrecognizable to the spirit of the Constitution in a lot of cases. It is this ruling by precedent that is killing our freedoms. Everyone should read it for themselves and maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in in a lot of areas!
I wasn't aware that Massachusetts and California stole federal property and tried to kill American soldiers.
Which you apparently are not capable of reading.
Again, I've never said secession is illegal. The manner in which they seceded is illegal though. They should've followed Article IV
This Article IV pursuit of yours is pure hogwash. You say the states needed for Congress to prescribe something which they had already prescribed, stomp your feet and whine because, "secession is different," and then claim that the states need not "petition" Congress.
Petitioning congress for permission to secede and letting congress proscribe the manner in which it is done are one in the same. Your attempts to separate them fail in every respect.
Ahhhh, back to the classics. Have you nothing more?
Apparently you don't realize that everyone running their own version of America by reading and interpreting the Constitution by themselves is equivalent to anarchy. So who is the proper authority? The Supreme Court decided they were in Marbury vs Madison. The Southern States decided they were in their declarations of secession. Lincoln decided that he was in his establishment of a Southern blockade and call for troops.
Who does our federal Constitution serve? The SCOTUS? The President? Or the People as assembled in States?
Nope, I read just fine. I certainly don't twist the truth to justify the kinds of things you guys do.
This Article IV pursuit of yours is pure hogwash. You say the states needed for Congress to prescribe something which they had already prescribed, stomp your feet and whine because, "secession is different," and then claim that the states need not "petition" Congress.
Stomp and whine, no. My side won, no need to whine. Secession is different than a marraige and has obviously different effects. Simple enough just to allow Congress to set terms of separation.
Petitioning congress for permission to secede and letting congress proscribe the manner in which it is done are one in the same.
No it's not. Like I said, you don't ask a traffic cop for permission to go where you're going but you do things his way when he has jurisdiction over part of your route.
Your attempts to separate them fail in every respect.
Fraid not.
You brought it back up, silly. Have you nothing more?
Apparently you don't realize that everyone running their own version of America by reading and interpreting the Constitution by themselves is equivalent to anarchy.
No it's not. The Supreme Court has rule, they decide. But we don't have to agree with their opinions just because they set precedent. When we disagree with their precedent, we elect leaders who we think will appoint judges with better judgment. That is much better than going by precedent. Deciding for yourself, you're not relying on some judge who may have been insane, you have to be responsible for your own judgment.
So who is the proper authority? The Supreme Court decided they were in Marbury vs Madison. The Southern States decided they were in their declarations of secession. Lincoln decided that he was in his establishment of a Southern blockade and call for troops.
The Supreme Court rules but we don't have to agree and if we don't we change leaders to put in judges with better judgment.
Who does our federal Constitution serve? The SCOTUS? The President? Or the People as assembled in States
Of the people. That's why the people should decide for themselves instead of relying on judges for the final say. How many times to you see people quoting a judge, when they should be quoting the Constitution. If they can't find support in the Constitution for their beliefs about our law, then they've not taken responsibility for their opinion.
Of course, #3Fun MUST change the wording of the Constitution to render it HIS way.
The Constitution does NOT say "Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effect."
What the Constitution says is "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
What the Constitution says is that Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and Congress may prescribe the effect thereof, of authenticating said Acts, Records and Proceedings in the Manner prescribed by Congress. Congress may by general laws prescribe the Manner of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings. In presenting records of Legislative Acts, or Judicial Records or Proceedings, the State must provide proof of the authencity of the record. Congress may prescribe the manner of authentication. Congress may prescribe the effect of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings in the manner prescribed. Congress did precisely that by the Act of May 26, 1790.
U.S. CONST. Art 4, Sec 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which [whatever] shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Congress may, and did, prescribe the manner in which State Acts shall be proved (authenticated), and the Effect of said authentication. "The Effect thereof" refers to the effect of the prescribed authentication, not the effect of the State legislative or judicial act.
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."
THE MANNER IS WHICH STATE LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTS ARE PROVED (AUTHENTICATED)
THE EFFECT OF PROVING (AUTHENTICATING) STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTS
THE CURRENT FEDERAL STATUTE 28 USC 1738 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."
As the Supreme Court noted in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935), Congress exercised its power in this regard, and the Act of Congress "provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another." The clause deals with the authentication of documents for recognition in the courts of another state. Once authenticated (proved to be true documents) as prescribed by law, such documents "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."
Effect thereof, their effect, what's the difference? And it's funny that you quote judges when I quote the Constitution. It's simple enough to read the Constitution and it clearly says that the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and the effect thereof. The Constitution didn't say it was for one time only and secession obviously has a different effect than a marriage so it simple enough for a state to let the Congress decide the manner of proof and it's effect.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry
BOSTON -- Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.
"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."
Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."
Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.
"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."
The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.
The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.
"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."
Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.
Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.
Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is f----d up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."
According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.
"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."
The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.
"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."
Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.
[#3Fun] And it's funny that you quote judges when I quote the Constitution.
#3 only MIS-quotes the Constitution. When #3 "quotes" the Constitution, a review of the Constitution reveals the phrasing does not exist within the Constitution.
[#3Fun] It's simple enough to read the Constitution and it clearly says that the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and the effect thereof.
That reading is, in fact, not only not simple but impossible. As usual, that phrasing is not there.
Of course, #3Fun MUST change the wording of the Constitution to create HIS meaning.
The Constitution does NOT say "Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effect."
What the Constitution says is "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
What the Constitution imports is that Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and Congress may prescribe the effect thereof, of authenticating said Acts, Records and Proceedings in the Manner prescribed by Congress. Congress may by general laws prescribe the Manner of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings. In presenting records of Legislative Acts, or Judicial Records or Proceedings, the State must provide proof of the authencity of the record. Congress may prescribe the manner of authentication. Congress may prescribe the effect of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings in the manner prescribed. Congress did precisely that by the Act of May 26, 1790.
U.S. CONST. Art 4, Sec 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which [whatever] shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Congress may, and did, prescribe the manner in which State Acts shall be proved (authenticated), and the Effect of said authentication. "The Effect thereof" refers to the effect of the prescribed authentication, not the effect of the State legislative or judicial act.
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."
THE MANNER IS WHICH STATE LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTS ARE PROVED (AUTHENTICATED)
THE EFFECT OF PROVING (AUTHENTICATING) STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTS
THE CURRENT FEDERAL STATUTE 28 USC 1738 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."
As the Supreme Court noted in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935), Congress exercised its power in this regard, and the Act of Congress "provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another." The clause deals with the authentication of documents for recognition in the courts of another state. Once authenticated (proved to be true documents) as prescribed by law, such documents "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."
CA and MA are coastal states. Perhaps some old armed Viking ships could be obtained to provide a naval bombardment. That should bring them to their knees. Oh, wait a minute, strike that last.
Why invade? Why not just kick them out and let them do whatever they want about gay marriages? We can pull out all the troops and send them to the remaining states, strip whatever federal property we can and take it with us. The savings we realize from cutting all those people off the Social Security roles and reduced federal funding should more than compensate for the federal property we have to leave behind.
Ouch...
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.