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."
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Soon afterwards, before he left Columbia, Sherman changed his tune and started passing the blame to Confederate General Wade Hampton, saying his men started the fire by burning the cotton they had left in the streets.Sherman's subordinates, however, did not substantiate this view. General Charles Woods, whose division was first into the city, wrote in his report, dated February 21, 1865, just after leaving Columbia, that the fire and its spreading was due to alcohol and it effects on "drunken negroes and the vilest vagabond soldiers, the veriest scum of the entire army." In his March 26th report, General William Woods, brother of Charles, stated, "I am satisfied by statements made to me by respectable citizens of the town that the fire was first set by the negro inhabitants." Likewise, XV Corps commander, General John A. Logan, made no mention of any burning cotton in his report, dated March 31, instead blaming the fire on "drunken soldiers."
On April 4, 1865, Sherman submitted his official report of the Carolinas Campaign. In it he still held Hampton accountable:
I disclaim on the part of my army any agency in this fire, but, on the contrary, claim that we saved what of Columbia remains unconsumed. And without hesitation I charge general Wade Hampton with having burned his own city of Columbia, not with a malicious intent, or as the manifestation of a silly "Roman stoicism," but from folly and want of sense, in filling it with lint, cotton, and tinder.
Though the general admitted that "others not on duty, including the officers who had long been imprisoned there, rescued by us, may have assisted in spreading the fire after it had once begun, and may have indulged in unconcealed joy to see the ruin of the capital of South Carolina."
* * *
In 1875, in his Memoirs, Sherman freely admitted he lied about Hampton: "I did so pointedly, to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in my opinion boastful, and professed to be the special champion of South Carolina." Sherman also said that his men had "utterly ruined Columbia."
Affixation of a state seal satisified all the requirements of 1 Stat. 122 (1790 ). Therefore secession existed, the naval coastal bombardment by the Vikings was unlawful, and there should be just compensation.
Ownership was returned to the Custis family by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court rendered on December 4, 1882. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)
The "Western world" includes the US. Please provide an example wherein your doctrine regarding article IV has been followed.
Is that how you propose we decide what our law is, by what the rest of the world does instead of what our Constitution says?
"Our law" is based largely on English common law. Our constitution has roots in the Western tradition. Your reading not only ignores all historical Western precedent, but even American precedent, the dictates of the framers, Interpretive works by American experts, and the Constitution itself.
I prefer the Constitution obviously.
You appear to prefer #3Constitution, which does not exist for the remainder of the 279,999,999 people of this country. We are not bound by your inane interpretation of the document (thank goodness). Certainly the men of the South 140 years ago were not either.
Not when Article IV says the Congress can decide how secession can be proven. Secession is an act, not a marriage.
Seeing that we're the only ones that have our Constitution and secession was attempted illegally, there won't be an example. I guess common sense isn't something that comes naturally to you neoconfederates.
"Our law" is based largely on English common law. Our constitution has roots in the Western tradition. Your reading not only ignores all historical Western precedent, but even American precedent, the dictates of the framers, Interpretive works by American experts, and the Constitution itself.
You neoconcederates just don't like the Constitution do you? You want to follow the rules of a monarchy rather than our Constitution? The Constitution says that the Congress may guide how a state proves it's acts, simple as that. You can't decide to go back to the old monarchy when you see a law in the Constitution you don't like.
You appear to prefer #3Constitution, which does not exist for the remainder of the 279,999,999 people of this country. We are not bound by your inane interpretation of the document (thank goodness). Certainly the men of the South 140 years ago were not either.
And they paid dearly and are still crying today about it. Looking back, it looks as if they would've been OK if they would've proved their secession according to Article IV, but good for us, they were too lawless to follow the Constitution giving Lincoln all he needed to preserve the union. If you're going to secede, make it the will of the people and not a few plantation owners and browbeating delegates. Had Congress laid the terms for proving secession, I doubt if it would've survived and 600,000 would've been saved. When you read about those conventions, they were more about thuggery than the will of the people.
The book is trash, a hit-piece against Lee and everything associated with roughly half of the America which you claim to love.
With U.S. troops once being killed by those who seek to destroy the UNITED States of America, you still venerate the killers of U.S. troops in the 1860s.
It does give interesting insight into what sort of people would cite it as a solid reference, and their propensity to venerate the killers of Citizens of these States of the 1860's while al quiada terrorists strive for the same goal today.
Most insightful is Shelton's claim that the Confederates sought to "Destroy the government," a charge she makes repeatedly throughout the book. With all her bitching about 'omissions' on the part of other historians, I find it most interesting that she does not mention the restraints put on Jackson after first Manassas, when his desire was to march on Washington and hang those responsible for the invasion of Virginia.
It's as though she's saying that without the South, the US wasn't worth diddly squat. Certainly I have shown more coutesy toward the Northern states than Ms Shelton in this regard.
Yes, but her use of the word is unique to Chambersburg; while chapter after chapter is dedicated to vindication of Sherman and Sheridan. Her hypocracy is greater in scope than the very Stone Mountain memorial which she so abhorrs.
Methinks that it is you who "just doesn't get it." Nobody here has fantasies of killing US troops. No US troops have fantasies of killing US citizens.
Like Shelton's father (and herself), who carried their hostility towards half of America to the grave, you rant and rave against the very people who compose half the country that you claim to so love. Your partisanship extends well beyond Republican politics into your hatred of anyone and everyone who demands that the nature of this Republic be the basis for its governance. You despise those who fought on behalf of the principles upon which division of power rests. You are of the breed which brought the war; whose pettiness and blindness to the desires of others on both sides split this country so deeply.
Compare her sewage and her father's demands that the "traitor coin" not be minted with the actions of those who attended reunions with former enemies and reconciled the sections in the years following the war. According to Shelton, those Union soldiers who were able to bury the hatchet and the congress who approved the coin and aided in construction of Stone Mountain are no less traitorous than the men who wore the grey in open hostility. According to her, the Republican party with which you choose to ally yourself so closely was nothing more than a tool of the klan. Tell me, does your book also give this account?
Was secession about slavery? Surely it was in the deep South, but you and Shelton claim it as uniform cause for the Confereracy. Virginia was solidly behind the cause of Union until her people learned of the planned hostilities toward her sister states. The unified Northern sentiment which you laud was nonexistent. Were hostilities a necessity? How likely is it that a seven-state confederacy could have lingered long without an attempt to reunify herself with the more powerful Northern Union?
In spite of all your nonsense regarding the killing of US troops and weak attempts to draw parallels between citizens acting in their sovereign capacity as outlined in the DOI and Constitution, you are the only one who has demonstrated hostility on these threads. It is you who venerate those who killed offensively, and not in defense of their homes and families. It is you who initiates vitriolic flame-wars and calls Americans terrorists, and it is you who is in conflict with credible historians.
Mornin' Ms Stewart... Happy St Patrick's day!
Stat. 122 (1790) applies to the acts of states, not marriage.
I didn't ask for an example of secession. I asked for an example of any act of a state which followed your interpretation of Article IV. If I understand you correctly, a state needed to:
1. petition the federal legislature for enact laws reagarding proof of an act
2. dawdle while such acts were being debated and passed
3. await the presidents approval of such acts
4. move forward with their planned act
It can be anything that a state has done in the history of our republic. Have at it.
You neoconcederates just don't like the Constitution do you?
We like the Constitution of the United States of America. Not #3Constitution.
You want to follow the rules of a monarchy rather than our Constitution?
Please show where I have stated that.
And they paid dearly and are still crying today about it.
Looking through the posts, it appears as though the victors are the ones doing all the crying.
If you're going to secede, make it the will of the people and not a few plantation owners and browbeating delegates.
Plantation owners were secure in their property in the Union, and were by and large against secession until they realized that it was unstoppable. I have not seen evidence of it, but it does not seem unlikely that their support was given to secession in order to prevent a massacre a la the French revolution. If you could provide facts either in support or denial of that hypothesis, I would welcome them.
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.