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."
Fine by me!
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
VI. TRIALS -- Rule 44.
Rule 44. Proof of Official Record
(a) Authentication.
(1) Domestic.
An official record kept within the United States, or any state, district, or commonwealth, or within a territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by the officer's deputy, and accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by a judge of a court of record of the district or political subdivision in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of the court, or may be made by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties in the district or political subdivision in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of the officer's office.
(2) Foreign.
A foreign official record, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof; or a copy thereof, attested by a person authorized to make the attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (i) of the attesting person, or (ii) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of the documents, the court may, for good cause shown, (i) admit an attested copy without final certification or (ii) permit the foreign official record to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without a final certification. The final certification is unnecessary if the record and the attestation are certified as provided in a treaty or convention to which the United States and the foreign country in which the official record is located are parties.
(b) Lack of Record.
A written statement that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, designated by the statement, authenticated as provided in subdivision (a)(1) of this rule in the case of a domestic record, or complying with the requirements of subdivision (a)(2) of this rule for a summary in the case of a foreign record, is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry.
(c) Other Proof.
This rule does not prevent the proof of official records or of entry or lack of entry therein by any other method authorized by law.
Wierd, Non! This is exactly what I said in #687.
[G 687] As far as I am aware, the only way to effectively do this [kick out Mass] would be for all of the other states to seceed and form a new republic, ratify a new constitution, etc. Thus, to kick out a single state would require cohernet movement of all the others, and not just 3/4.
[NS 722] 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.
Here's where I got it from. I called Ms Cleo and asked what your next attempt to prop up your argument would be. She said, "Non's gwanna staaht postin' ywar aahguments, and sayin' they suppwort his own conclusion, mon."
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make contact with John Edward and ask Madison, "Where do you get that from?"
Records of the Federal Convention
[2:188; Madison, 6 Aug.]
XVI
Full faith shall be given in each State to the acts of the Legislatures, and to the records and judicial proceedings of the Courts and Magistrates of every other State.
[2:445; Journal, 29 Aug.]
It was moved and seconded to commit the following proposition
Whensoever the act of any State, whether legislative executive or judiciary shall be attested and exemplified under the seal thereof, such attestation and exemplification shall be deemed in other State as full proof of the existence of that act--and it's operation shall be binding in every other State, in all cases to which it may relate, and which are within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the State, wherein the said act was done
which passed in the affirmative
It was moved and seconded to commit the following proposition
Full faith ought to be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Legislature shall by general laws determine the Proof and effect of such acts, records, and proceedings
which passed in the affirmative
and the foregoing Propositions together with the 16 article were referred to the honorable Mr Rutledge, Mr Randolph, Mr Gorham, Mr Wilson and Mr Johnson
[2:447; Madison, 29 Aug.]
Art: XVI. taken up.
Mr. Williamson moved to substitute in place of it, the words of the Articles of Confederation on the same subject. He did not understand precisely the meaning of the article.
Mr. Wilson & Docr. Johnson supposed the meaning to be that Judgments in one State should be the ground of actions in other States, & that acts of the Legislatures should be included, for the sake of Acts of insolvency &c--
Mr. Pinkney moved to commit art XVI, with the following proposition, "To establish uniform laws upon the subject of bankruptcies, and respecting the damages arising on the protest of foreign bills of exchange"
. . . . .
Mr. Madison was for committing both. He wished the Legislature might be authorized to provide for the execution of Judgments in other States, under such regulations as might be expedient--He thought that this might be safely done and was justified by the nature of the Union.
Mr. Randolph said there was no instance of one nation executing judgments of the Courts of another nation. He moved the following proposition.
"Whenever the Act of any State, whether Legislative Executive or Judiciary shall be attested & exemplified under the seal thereof, such attestation and exemplification, shall be deemed in other States as full proof of the existence of that act--and its operation shall be binding in every other State, in all cases to which it may relate, and which are within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the State, wherein the said act was done."
On the question for committing art: XVI with Mr. Pinkney's motion
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [Ayes--9; noes--2.]
The motion of Mr. Randolph was also committed nem: con:
Mr. Govr. Morris moved to commit also the following proposition on the same subject.
"Full faith ought to be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Legislature shall by general laws, determine the proof and effect of such acts, records, and proceedings". and it was committed nem: contrad:
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 4, Article 4, Section 1, Document 4
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_1s4.html
The University of Chicago Press
Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 4 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937.
You should be on the Court - a perfect fit ;o)
So says you. I think different.
Cite one court decision that ever held secession was illegal due to any alleged violation of Article 4, Section 1.
I don't care about the opinions of others, I can read the Constitution myself.
Cite any legal expert who has ever writtten that secession was illegal due to any alleged violation of Article 4, Section 1.
Experts schmexperts. The Constitution was written for us to read, not some expert to decipher it for us.
Hitchcock v. Aicken
1 Caines 460 N.Y. 1803
* * *
The 4th article of the constitution declares, "That 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." This article, I think, manifestly presents two subjects for legislative provision; 1st. To prescribe the manner of proving such acts, records and proceedings; and 2dly. Their effect. In pursuance of this power we find congress, by an act passed 26th May, 1790, (Laws U. S. vol. 1, 159,) after prescribing the mode of proof, declaring, "That the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, 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 whence the said records, are or shall be taken. The framers of this constitution, doubtless, well understood the light in which foreign judgments were viewed in courts of justice, and must have intended, by this article, to place the states upon a different footing with respect to each other than that on which they stood in relation to foreign nations; had not this been their intention, they would have been silent on the subject. I am aware that the old confederation contained a similar article, (4th article,) declaring that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state."
* * *
Although the act of congress does not adopt the term effect, as stated by the judge, yet, if it means any thing, it means to declare the effect. It says, "The said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, 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 whence the said records are, or shall be taken." ... If nothing more was intended than to declare the manner of authenticating such records and proceedings, this part of the act is useless; nay, worse it is mischievous, being calculated to mislead. ... If a judgment in the state of Connecticut would not be conclusive there, but only prima facie evidence, it would be unreasonable to consider it conclusive here; and if conclusive there between the parties, I can see no substantial reason against considering it so here. When the matter has been once litigated, and the merits fairly tried, it appears to me to be contrary to sound principles, and tending to promote litigation, and against the very genius and spirit of the article of the constitution above referred to, again to open the judgment. I think the rule laid down by the court, in the case of Kibbe v. Kibbe, above cited, is founded in justice and good sense, that the judgments of courts, in sister states, ought to receive full credence where both parties were within the jurisdiction of the court at the time of commencing the suit, and were duly served with process, and had, or might have had, a fair trial of the cause.
* * *
It appears from these decisions, that judgments in other states were not regarded under the confederation as of binding and conclusive effect; and the defendant was admitted to deny the regularity and equity of the proceedings by which the judgment was obtained. This was placing the judgments of the other states on the basis of foreign judgments, which are received only as prima facie evidence of the debt; and it lies with the defendant to impeach the justice thereof, or to show them to have been irregularly or unduly granted. Sinclair v. Fraser, cited in Doug. 5, note, and in Appendix, p. 6, 7, in the case of Galbraith and Neville.
Such being the received construction of the injunction, that full faith and credit was to be given to the judicial proceedings of other states, it remains to see whether the case is altered under the existing constitution of the United States. That constitution, by authorizing congress to prescribe not only the manner in which the acts, records and proceedings of other states shall be proved, but their effect evidently distinguished between giving full faith and credit, and the giving effect to the records of another state, and until congress shall have declared by law what that effect shall be, the records of different states are left precisely in the situation they were in under the articles of confederation.
The act of congress of 26th May, 1790, is entitled "An act to prescribe the mode in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings in each state shall be authenticated, so as to take effect in every other state." After prescribing the mode of authentication, it declares that the records and judicial proceedings so authenticated, 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 whence they are taken. This act leaves the question as to the effect of such records precisely where it found it.
* * *
It is pretty evident that the constitution meant nothing more by full faith and credit, than what respected the evidence of such proceedings; for the words are applied to public acts, as well as to judicial matters; nor ought the act of congress to be carried further than the words will warrant.
* * *
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 4, Article 4, Section 1, Document 8
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_1s8.html
The University of Chicago Press
By the constitution it is declared that '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.'By the act of 26th May, 1790, ch. 11, congress provided for the mode of authenticating the records and judicial proceedings of the state Courts, and then further declared that 'the records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, 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 whence the said records are or shall be taken.'
It is argued that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence when admitted. This argument cannot be supported, The act declares that the record duly authenticated shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state Court from whence it is taken. If in such Court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz. record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other Court. Congress have therefore declared the effect of the record by declaring what faith and credit shall be given to it.
Justice Story, Mills v. Duryee, 11 Cranch 481, 483-484 (1813)
The authenticity of a judgment and its effect, depend upon the law made in pursuance of the Constitution; the faith and credit due to it as the judicial proceeding of a state, is given by the Constitution, independently of all legislation.
Justice Swayne, McElmoyle ex rel. Bailey v. Cohen 13 Pet. 312 (38 US), 324-325 (1839)
Two points - secession is not a public act - it is a sovereign act of the people of the state. Public acts are those done by state legislatures and/or other state officials ["the suit concerns the public acts of an officer of the State government", Osborn v. Bank Of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (22 US) (1824); "the public acts of public officers purporting to be exercised in an official capacity and by public authority", United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691 (31 US) (1832)]
The Effects Clause states, "[a]nd the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Not "must", but may. Congress has already enacted the applicable laws.
No, sovereign acts are by the people, in the case of ratification or secession by their delegates to convention - these delegates have no other powers. Public acts, as noted by the Supreme Court, are those performed by "an officer of the State government" or other "public officers purporting to be exercised in an official capacity" as noted above.
The Secession Commissions were put together by the legislatures anyway.
No. The delegates to the conventions were elected. Pursuant to Federal law, the states were bound to recognize the legality of the state acts calling for elections - "An Act to authorize and require the Governor of the State of Georgia, to call a Convention of the people of this State; and for other purposes therein mentioned."
And the states agreed to have Congress guide the process of proof so they must give them that opportunity and secession is not a marriage and so would require laws to guide it.
No. The states ensured that the powers NOT delegated nor prohibited remained with the states/people of the several states. The Constitution applies to "public acts", not to sovereign acts, and the "proof" of public acts has already been legislated.
Even under that it's still a public act because they were commmissioned by the legislatures. Regardless, secession is a public act.
No. The delegates to the conventions were elected. Pursuant to Federal law, the states were bound to recognize the legality of the state acts calling for elections - "An Act to authorize and require the Governor of the State of Georgia, to call a Convention of the people of this State; and for other purposes therein mentioned."
They were commissioned by the legislatures, simple as that. Regardless, secession is a public act.
No. The states ensured that the powers NOT delegated nor prohibited remained with the states/people of the several states.
Article IV delegates that power to Congress. You admitted as much before.
The Constitution applies to "public acts", not to sovereign acts, and the "proof" of public acts has already been legislated.
The Constitution says "laws" not "law". So the Congress definitely has the power to guide how a state proves it's acts as Article IV says. Secession is not a simple marriage, it's a public act.
Donated to the Library of the State University of Iowa by Lucy S. Stewart, a daughter of Iowa.
4CJ, If you haven't found a copy yet, perhaps it can be found under the alternative title, 500 Pages of Why I Hate R. E. Lee.
I'm on about the 7th chapter wholly dedicated to twisting the wording of everything Lee said to his discredit (the others are titled differently, but essentially devoted to the same end), and still have not found any reference to him in a U.S. uniform at the Virginia convention, although his appearance at the convention has been discussed several times. Perhaps it's still yet to come.
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.