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."
In other words, secession would be permitted and welcomed, as long as the Confederacy handed over tribute to Lincoln. It was about the money.
If the states could change their mind about ratifying the 14th - and their LAST vote be legal, why wouldn't their vote in 1861 to leave be legal???? Inquiring minds and all that...
You haven't really read much on this topic have you? I still cannot get over the fact that there are Freepers who have been trained to look at history through politically correct glasses... 99% of the South did fight enthusiastically, but they were fighting for their farms and their families and their states. About 5% were slave owners. The north cared little one way or the other about slavery. Teachers and some modern history books would tell you otherwise.
It was more comical than even that... Only the YES vote was considered valid. Subsequent attempts to revoke it were ignored... On the other hand, initial NO votes were allowed to be overturned.
Of course, you're bound to receive a blog or two on the will of the "American People" as though such an aggregate entity ever existed (prior to the war).
Of course such an entity never existed - James Madison clarified the issue to Mason in the Virginia ratification debates. In the federal debates the delegates refused to even second a motion to submit ratification to the people of the states en masse. Madison also stated in the Federalist Papers that each state would only be bound by it's own voluntary act.
[crickets]
The answer requires a trip to a library - I'll add it to my list.
Speaking of facts...from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-
Ouch. So much for states rights and tariffs. lol
It's been a while since I've read these threads since you guys have been so discredited here, but reading this thread you've definitely went the path of tinfoil. You used to be one of the sane ones but it seems now you are just as out there as some of the other neoconfederates that are notorious for that.
1, I am not aware that "we" had been discredited. 2, specifically what qulifies me for "tinfoil"?
I did stay at a Holiday Inn once ;o)
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.Ouch.
On many threads of other topics then when the Civil War is mentioned or Lincoln, there were always many comments to not get the nuts started.
2, specifically what qulifies me for "tinfoil"?
Making wild claims you can't back up, such as the gold claim. Implying slavery had nothing to do with secession. Implying blacks were in full support of secession. Saying Sherman commited war crimes when about every general in war understands that it's the army's job to disrupt the enemy's war supply. According to your definition of "war criminal", Ike is one, Patton is one, Truman is one, Roosevelt is one, Doolittle was one. They all attacked civilian structures to disrupt enemy supply. Claiming that Lincoln only fought for money.
I wrote, "IIRC his men hung a justice of the Georgia Supreme Court in an attempt to learn the location of his 'gold' (this after taking over $10,000 in cash from him)." IIRC = If I remember correctly. All I have to do is take a trip to the library to find the account again. For clarification, I did not state that the justice was killed, only that he was hung in an attempt to force him to divulge the location.
Implying slavery had nothing to do with secession.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? There were many factors.
Implying blacks were in full support of secession.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? I posted an article about Mr. Winbush, and the fact that his grandfather for the Confederacy - a position Mr. Winbush stated he would take as well.
Saying Sherman commited war crimes when about every general in war understands that it's the army's job to disrupt the enemy's war supply.
Not at that time - until then modern wars were much more "gentlemanly". Sherman instituted the policy of waging war on innocent civilians, to make Georgia "howl". That is, the defenseless old men, women and children. His army could beat them. But please see post 72 - the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue before and after the war. Civilian property could not be seized/destroyed without compensation.
Claiming that Lincoln only fought for money.
By Lincoln's own admission, he was perfectly content for the seceded states to be left alone [''beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere], as long as he could 'collect the duties and imposts'. A demand for tribute.
Link please?
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.