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."
They did. To support your argument, you need to show that Stat. 122 (1790) did not exist.
I think it's covered.
So we'll chalk that up as a biased opinion, unsubstantiated by any facts.
Does the term "public official" mean anything to you? Public officials perform public acts. Public officials are the servants of the people. The "people" are sovereign over their Constitution, their legislature, judges, tax commsioners, county commisioners, governor, Attorney-General and other public officials.
Either way, you're screwed. If you are saying that the people acted outside of the legislature then they were indeed rebels and secession never existed since the legislatures had no say
Nope. Legislatures did not ratify the Constitution - constitutional conventions called by the legislature via election did. The people are sovereign over their elected officials.
If you admit that the legislatures turned over power to the conventions then that is covered under Article IV and since they didn't follow Article IV, they were rebels, and secession never existed because it was never proven.
Nope. Article IV covers public acts being "proven" to other states. The public acts in question were simply a call for elections to convention - which is legal. As previously noted, sovereign acts are not covered by either Article IV or the Supremacy clause.
Must be gospel, if Stewart said it right? ;o)
The self avowed war criminal lied? I am shocked, shocked I tell ya!
Bump. Where did any one of us allude to that perceived fantasy?????
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.
Bump again. It's one thing to be CONSERVATIVE, another to blindy follow simply because of a political label. If one looks at the issues - limited government, lower taxes, self-defense, etc the Republican party of 1860 is not the party of President Reagan.
ROTF! Whose turn is it to water the flowers?
I'm as much a female as you are.
A 2-minute search revealed this:
The Governor announces Illinois is submitting a formal request to U.S. Health and Human Services Sec. Tommy Thompson asking to launch the first federally-approved drug importation pilot program.
"Pilot program" means that it will be an act in Illinois. I guess Illinois could just ignore the Congress and go ahead and act to allow Illinoisians to get drugs from Canada but it might get messy.
We like the Constitution of the United States of America. Not #3Constitution.
I simply repeat what it says.
Please show where I have stated that.
"English law" above.
Looking through the posts, it appears as though the victors are the ones doing all the crying.
Winners have nothing to cry over.
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.
From here:
Lawyers made up 40 percent of the membership and slaveowners about 70 percent, although most owned fewer than fifty slaves.
and:
The election of delegates needed all the legitimacy the Texas legislature could give it, because what evidence still exists indicates that the election procedures did not even meet the minimal standards of the day. Delegates were often elected by voice votes at public meetings. Unionists were discouraged from attending such meetings or chose to ignore the process because they considered it illegal. As a result the delegates overwhelmingly favored secession.
Doesn't sound like the will of the people, it sounds like a bunch of thugs.
The legislatures convened the commissions. That alone makes it a public act (as if it wasn't obvious).
Nope. Legislatures did not ratify the Constitution - constitutional conventions called by the legislature via election did. The people are sovereign over their elected officials.
The people are the public and they acted as a state.
Nope. Article IV covers public acts being "proven" to other states. The public acts in question were simply a call for elections to convention - which is legal. As previously noted, sovereign acts are not covered by either Article IV or the Supremacy clause.
The people are the public and they acted as a state and therefore their act had to be proven to the other states as covered in Article IV.
Are Ike and Truman war criminals? If not why not?
The government was smaller, taxes were lower, and we punished those that attacked us. Looks like Lincoln was a fine Republican in the sense of Reagan to me.
Boy, some people just can't win (that's you this time).
Please provide an example which meets the criteria that you set forth.
You, me, and thousands of Keyes/McClintock/Salier supporters will not be allowed knowledge of the secret republican handshake until we learn to toe the line.
taxes were lower, but Lincoln was hell bent on raising them.
we punished those that didn't like us.
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.