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."
CONGRESS SET THE PROCESS OF PROOF IN 1790.
Secession is neither a Legislative nor Judicial Act. Secession is not a document. "Proving an Act" pursuant to Art 4, Sec 1, involves a showing that a document provided for use in court is authentic. For a Legislative Act, affixation of the official seal of the state is the prescribed method to "Prove an Act." The Congress not only MAY prescribe laws for states to prove their acts, CONGRESS ENACTED SUCH LAWS.
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.
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."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/28/parts/v/chapters/115/sections/section%5F1738.html
United States Code
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART V - PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 115 - EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
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.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
=================
Where do you get that from? There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a state from being expelled, so your talk about secession and new republic is ridiculous. We aren't forming a new republic, we're expelling Massachusetts from our existing one. So we just do it. Tell Massachusetts that they are no longer a state, redo the flag, put customs posts around the border, cut off social security payments, etc., and it's done. Hell, we wouldn't need 49 states, just a majority vote in Congress to pass the legislation cutting off Massachusetts from the rest of us. Why isn't it as easy as that?
Article V - [N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
You're wasting a lot of bandwidth to post the exact same novel 5 or 6 times.
If they are expelled then they are no longer a state, are they?
It is not a requirement, and if it were, it was already met.
Once again you've turned our republic on it's head. The Constitution acts as chains on the power of fedgov; the 10th Amendment thereto insures that it shall never be reversed. Expulsion of a state by federal action would be an unenumerated power and thus the only way it can exist would be if it were necessary and proper to carry out one of the enumerated powers. It is not.
This is the same bass-ackward interpretation of our system of government that you've used a hundred times in justifying suspension of habeus corpus. Expulsion of a state is an unenumerated power. Suspension of the writ is specifically delegated to the legislature. "It's not in there" is the admission that you make. What does the BOR say about powers that are "not in there?" How is it the most basic elements of Republican government escape you?
Others share your views of the Constitution. They are not to be found on a website dedicated to the advancement of conservatism.
For which constitutionally enumerated power is expulsion of a state necessary and proper?
Specifically, what part of "without its Consent" don't you understand? You think it's ok for a state to be kicked out against it's will, but wrong to leave voluntarily?
There is nothing in the Constitution mentioning expulsion. Since it is not enumerated then it is not forbidden to the states, is it? And there is nothing in the Constitution defining 'necessary and proper'. So why can't the states expel another state for any reason at all?
Specifically, what part of 'no longer a state' don't you understand? Only states are guaranteed representation in the Congress. If Massachusetts is expelled then they are not in the Union and cannot demand representation in Congress. Where is that forbidden?
You think it's ok for a state to be kicked out against it's will, but wrong to leave voluntarily?
And you think it is OK to leave without the consent of the other states, but not OK for the other states to expel one without its consent. Where is either one forbidden?
I'm not talking about Bush getting a wild hair up his butt and kicking out Massachusetts. I'm asking why the states, through a vote of their representatives in Congress, cannot expel another state? Where is that power forbidden to the states? And where is this Constitutional acid test that determines when action is 'necessary and proper' and when it is not?
Fess up... What country do you live in?
How can a state government expel another from the federal Union through unilateral action by the first at the state level?
Like #3, you get points for originality.
A vote of their representatives in Congress would be a federal act, and thus must fall within the enumerated powers of the federal legislature.
And where is this Constitutional acid test that determines when action is 'necessary and proper' and when it is not?
The Constitutional acid test that determines when action is constitutionally derived currently lies with the Supreme Court via their usurpation of this power in Marbury v. Madison.
Let me ask this again. What section of the Constitution prevents the states (plural) from expelling another state? Why could not the states, through a majority vote of their members in Congress, expel Massachusetts? What specifically forbids them from doing so? Where is this power explicitly denied the states? And if not denied them, then doesn't the 10th Amendment allows them to do it?
Like #3, you get points for originality.
I could never even hope to match your posts for originality.
"May" means they must be allowed to set the process for secession. Marriage was not secession, secession is a state act.
Why? Is it not the states in Congress assembled? Do they not represent the will of the people of those states? Such a vote would still express the will of the states and, since not forbidden, should be able to expel Massachusetts. Shouldn't it?
The Constitutional acid test that determines when action is constitutionally derived currently lies with the Supreme Court via their usurpation of this power in Marbury v. Madison.
Where did the Marbury v Madison decision state that?
You point is EXACTLY why the clause was added to Article V on 15 Sep 1787:
'Mr. Sherman expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate.'Accordingly,
'M--Sherman moved according to his idea above expressed to annex to the end of the article a further proviso "that no State shall without its consent be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."'Which failed 8-3, then Morris moved that it be changed to,
'"that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"'Which passed without debate.
[non-seq] If they are expelled then they are no longer a state, are they?
Clearly the states of the Confederacy were out of the Union while the Radical Republicans prohibited their senators from being seated.
We have a precedent for kicking Massachusetts out.
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.