An opposing view: Descendant of black Confederate soldier speaks at museum

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.

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.

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!

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."

[#3Fan] Elections where some were threatened not to participate. Not good enough proof for me.

Hapgood's Life of Lincoln contains the following unblushing paragraph:

Charles A. Dana testifies that the whole power of the War Department was used to secure Lincoln's re-election in 1864. There is no doubt but this is true. Purists may turn pale at such things, but the world wants no prettified portrait of Mr. Lincoln. Lincoln's Jesuitical ability to use the fox's skin when the lion's proves too short was one part of his enormous value.

Think of it, men of America! "Jesuitical ability" to trick, to deceive, to rob the people of their right to the ballot is, by a modern Republican historian, not only condoned, but commended as of "enormous value." And any honest man, shocked at so infamous an outrage on the rights of freemen, the Republican Hapgood sarcastically terms "purist." "Purists may turn pale," etc. In his book, published in 1892, General Butler proudly relates his part in the infamous work of using the army at the polls. The story is this: The election day was November 8, 1864. Lincoln had sent agents to New York City to spy out and report how the election would go. The report boded ill for Lincoln's success; in fact, indicated that New York would give a large majority for General McClellan. Lincoln, Seward and Stanton were alarmed. The latter instantly telegraphed General Butler to report to him at once. Butler rushed to Washington, and Stanton explained the situation at New York.

"What do you want me to do?" asked Butler.
"Start at once for New York, take command of the Department of the East, relieving General Dix. I will send you all the troops you need."
"But," returned Butler, "it will not be good politics to relieve General Dix just on the eve of the election."
"Dix is a brave man," said Stanton, "but he won't do anything; he is very timid about some matters."
This meant that General Dix was too honorable to use the United States Army to control and direct elections.
"Send me," suggested the shrewd Butler, "to New York with President Lincoln's order for me to relieve Dix in my pocket, but I will not use the order until such time as I think safe. I will report to Dix and be his obedient servant, and coddle him up until I see proper to spring on him my order, and take supreme command myself."
"Very well," assented Stanton, "I will send you Massachusetts troops."
"Oh, no!" objected the shrewder Butler, "it won't do for Massachusetts men to shoot down New Yorkers."

Stanton saw this also would be bad politics, so Grant was ordered to send Western troops -- 5,000 good troops and two batteries of Napolean guns -- for the purpose of shooting down New Yorkers should New Yorkers persist in the evil intention of voting for McClellan.

When the citizens of New York saw Butler and his escort proudly prancing their horses on the streets and saw the arrival of 5,000 Western troops and the Napoleon guns, there was great agitation and uneasiness over the city. Newspapers charged that these warlike preparations were made to overawe citizens and prevent a fair election. Butler was virtuously indignant at such charges. General Sanford, commanding the New York State militia, called on Butler and told him the State militia was strong enough to quell any disturbance that might occur and he intended to call out his militia division on election day. Butler arrogantly informed General Sanford that he (Butler) had no use for New York militia; he did not knew which way New York militia would shoot when it came to shooting. General Sanford replied that he would apply to the Governor of the State for orders.

"I shall not recognize the authority of your Governor," haughtily returned Butler. "From what I hear of Governor Seymour I may find it necessary to arrest all I know who are proposing to disturb the peace on election day."

Butler well knew he was the only man in the city who intended to disturb the peace on election day. Butler's mean and cowardly soul gleefully gloated over the power he possessed to bully and insult the great State of New York, its Governor and militia officers -- power given him by Lincoln, whose orders he had in his pocket to relieve General Dix, and take command of the army under Dix, and hold himself ready on election day to shoot down New York men at the polls to secure the re-election of President Lincoln. On November 5th Butler issued Order No. 1, the purpose of which, he said:

Is to correct misrepresentations, soothe the fears of the weak and timid and allay the nervousness of the ill-advised, silence all false rumors circulated bymen for wicked purposes, and to contradict once for all false statements made to injure the Government in the respect and confidence of the people. The Commanding General takes occasion to declare that troops have been detailed for duty in this district to preserve the peace of the United States, to protect public property, and insure a calm and quiet election.

The citizens of New York well knew that the above was one tissue of falsehood; they knew that Butler and his 5,000 Western troops, his batteries and Napoleon guns, were there to overawe the people and force the re-election of Lincoln.

"The Commanding General," continues Order No. 1, "has been pained to see publications by some not too well informed persons, that the presence of the troops of the United States might by possibility have an effect on the free exercise of the duty of voting at the ensuing election. Nothing is further from the truth."

Who, knowing Butler's nature, does not picture to himself the Mephistophelean smile which ornamented his visage as he penned the above, and the following pretty falsehood: "The soldiers of the United States are here especially to see that there is no interference with the election."

If the reader cares to see the full text of this lying order he can find it in Butler's book (page 1097).

On November 7th, the day before the election, after Butler had placed his troops and made all arrangements necessary to control the ballot, he wrote to Secretary of War Stanton a letter in which he said, "I beg leave to report that the troops have all arrived, and dispositions made which will insure quiet. I enclose copy of my order No. 1, and trust it will meet your approbation. I have done all I could to prevent secessionists from voting, and think it will have some effect." Secessionists meant Democrats who chose to vote for McClellan.

On page 760 of his book, Butler describes how he disposed of the troops to accomplish his purpose. On page 771, Butler gives a joyful account of a reception at Fifth Avenue Hotel tendered him in honor of his signal success in keeping Democrats from voting. Full to bursting with pride, Butler made a speech to his entertainers, explaining how, after the Union army had conquered the South, her people should be treated. "Let us," said this willing and eager tool of despotic power, "take counsel from the Roman method of carrying on war." The Roman method was to make slaves of all prisoners of war; to inflict upon them every cruelty pagan hearts could devise. Butler continued:

Let us look to the fair fields of the sunny South for your reward. Go down there in arms; you shall have what you conquer, in fair division of the lands, each man in pay for his military service. We will open new land offices wherever our army marches, dividing the lands of the rebels among our soldiers, to be theirs and their heirs forever.

SOURCE: Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-65, George Edmonds, pp. 204-208

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient."
Texas State Constitution of 1745, accepted by the Federal government with their resolution admitting Texas to the Union:

Whereas
the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution approved March the first, eighteen hundred and forty-five, did consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, might be erected into a new State, to be called The State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same might be admitted as one of the States of the Union; which consent of Congress was given upon certain conditions specified in the first and second sections of said joint resolution; and whereas the people of the said Republic of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, did adopt a constitution, and erect a new State with a republican form of government, and, in the name of the people of Texas, and by their authority, did ordain and declare that they assented to and accepted the proposals, conditions, and guaranties contained in said first and second sections of said resolution: and whereas the said constitution, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of the Republic of Texas, has been transmitted to the President of the United States and laid before Congress, in conformity to the provisions of said joint resolution

To which the President noted that a copy of the Texas Constitution had been sumitted to the federal government:

To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I communicate, herewith, a letter received from the President of the existing government of the State of Texas, transmitting duplicate copies of the constitution formed by the deputies of the people of Texas in convention assembled, accompanied with official information that the said constitution has been ratified, confirmed, and adopted by the people of Texas themselves, in accordance with the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, and in order that Texas might be admitted as one of the States of that Union.
JAMES K. POLK.

Congress accepted their ratification and their Constitution which allowed the people of Texas to alter their form of government at will.

No. Gianni asked for an example where a state followed your interpretation of Article IV and petitioned the Congress for prescription of a method of proof prior to engaging in a state act.

That's what I said and that's what I gave you. Illinois petitioned Congress to run a pilot program. That's exactly what you asked for.

Can I post lies about you also?

You clearly asked for a case where a state petitioned the Congress to prove an act and that's what I gave you.

[Gianni, post #820] 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

Yep, that's what I gave you. Illinois is wanting approval from Congress before they move forward. I'm sure that proof will consist of arrangements with neighboring states. It's exactly what the southern states should have done when they wanted to secede.

nolu chan posted the article in which Illinois was bitch-slapped for openly violating federal law by engaging in illegal international importation of medicines.

The southern states got the bitch-slapping of all time. lol

What's all this about Indiana, Mo, and KY

They have concerns about business. Their people will get their medications from Illinois. There's going to have to be an arrangement. It's what Article IV is all about...prescribing laws to prove acts.

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.