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."

You used the word 'obviously' twice in one post which contains no factual information whatsoever. Nothing that you say is obvious. It all must be derived from #3constitution, and now #3scripture. Your use of the word 'obvious' is an insult to those who bothered to learn the English language as it is used in our republic.

I was obviously showing the mindset of those that would perpetuate slavery. Some of them were murderers.

Funny, when 4CJ "showed the mindset" of those who ravaged Georgia by pointing out that "some were rapists" you cried to the heavens. Now you point to events in Kansas to show the mindset of Texans. While we're discussing mindsets look up some info on the Redlegs. Some of them were murderers as well.

Here we go with "it was faked!" again.

I didn't say it was faked. I said that you had not shown us any evidence. How funny that someone obsessed with a state's obligation to prove its acts feels no compulsion to provide any evidence in support of the bilge he spews forth on this thread. Perhaps we've lowered our standards of proof to something akin to, "The story is related on literally dozens of websites."

It doesn't take much of an imagination to comprehend how someone is encouraged not to attend a political event.

Right. From now on, when you post something with no reference or apparent support, I'll just imagine how it occurred per your instruction above.

It's one thing not to participate. It's another to be "encouraged" not to participate.

As I'm sure thousands of New Yorkers could tell you. Hmmm... Let's see... in that example we have a Union general discussing how it would be inappropriate for Mass. militiamen to kill New Yorkers, and an acknowledgement of the deed after the fact. What do we have in Texas? An ambiguous assertion that Unionists were 'discouraged' from participation in a convention who's result had no effect until ratified by a popular vote of the people. No dicussion of artillery rolling through the streets. No discussion of armed troops stationed at the polling places. No admission by any secessionist leaders after the fact.

But then, we have our imaginations to fill all of that in for us, don't we.

How else would one "encourage" someone not to attend a political event of such importance. You're denying the obvious.

Funny, when 4CJ "showed the mindset" of those who ravaged Georgia by pointing out that "some were rapists" you cried to the heavens.

"Cried to the heavens"? You guys have a thing about being overdramatic. I simply asked for proof of thousands of rapes that he claimed, proof he couldn't even come close to coming up with.

Now you point to events in Kansas to show the mindset of Texans.

Not Texans, slavery perpetuators. Good Texans were "encouraged" not to attend this great movement "of the people".

While we're discussing mindsets look up some info on the Redlegs. Some of them were murderers as well.

What comes around goes around.

I didn't say it was faked. I said that you had not shown us any evidence.

It's easy to see how they were "encouraged" not to participate. Deny the obvious.

How funny that someone obsessed with a state's obligation to prove its acts feels no compulsion to provide any evidence in support of the bilge he spews forth on this thread.

I'm a person, not a legislature. Now you're just getting silly.

Perhaps we've lowered our standards of proof to something akin to, "The story is related on literally dozens of websites."

There you go with "it was faked!" again. Why is New Yorkers being shot in voting booths easy to believe for you but not thuggery when it's obvious thuggery was the subject. And you're the one that believes New Yorkers were shot in voting booths. That's an extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up. I've said nothing that extraordinary. Anyone can see what is meant by being "encouraged" not to participate in a political event.

Right. From now on, when you post something with no reference or apparent support, I'll just imagine how it occurred per your instruction above.

You've never been stopped before. You ignore Mississippi's Declaration of Secession...you believe that troops would shoot McClellan voters. Wacky.

As I'm sure thousands of New Yorkers could tell you. Hmmm... Let's see... in that example we have a Union general discussing how it would be inappropriate for Mass. militiamen to kill New Yorkers, and an acknowledgement of the deed after the fact.

So how many McClellan voters were shot? And could you link me to these stories where these mass piles of bodies would be? Also could you prove to me that Lincoln got 100% of the vote so we can see what you say is true?

What do we have in Texas? An ambiguous assertion that Unionists were 'discouraged' from participation in a convention who's result had no effect until ratified by a popular vote of the people.

No effect. I can see that you think results justify the means. How can you say there was no effect when what they were doing was voting? You're idea of a good election is to exclude those that may disagree with you?

No dicussion of artillery rolling through the streets. No discussion of armed troops stationed at the polling places. No admission by any secessionist leaders after the fact.

Again, how many McClellan voters were killed in the voting booths? And did Lincoln get 100% of the vote that would prove you are right? Secessionists got near 100%. Proves who was allowed to attend and who wasn't. No wonder Texas' own Governer called it illegal.

But then, we have our imaginations to fill all of that in for us, don't we.

The link says what it says. The results show the same.

THADDEUS STEVENS (4 Apr 1792 - 11 Aug 1868)

LINK

A shadow was cast over Steven's life by a murder that was committed in Gettysburg in 1824. The body of a black servant girl, whose name was Dinah, was found in a shallow pond. She had apparently been killed by a blow to her head. She was pregnant, and rumor had it that the fetus was whitish, indicating a white father. Rumors also began to circulate widely that Thaddeus Stevens was the white father of Dinah's unborn child, and that it was he who killed her.

The rumors about Stevens being guilty of this crime circulated not only by word of mouth, but also in letters to the editor in newspapers, in which his name was never mentioned but in which his identity was strongly hinted at. Finally, seven years after the murder, an editor and political enemy of Stevens wrote an editorial in which there could be little doubt that he was accusing Stevens of the murder. Stevens promptly sued the editor for libel and won his case. Despite this legal exoneration, however, doubts and gossip continued.

All through his life Stevens would be accused of sexual irregularities, fornication, adultery, and bastardy. In a paternity suit that went to trial, Stevens was cleared of having fathered a child.

Among his disreputable pastimes was gambling. He also drank heavily, up to a moment in his life when he abruptly gave it up. When a drinking companion suddenly died after a drinking bout, Stevens hauled upstairs every bottle and keg he had stored in his cellar, and emptied their contents into the gutter in the street in front of his house.

LINK

Not as much is known about Lydia Hamilton Smith (1813-1884). A mother of two who was separated from her husband, she worked for and with Stevens from 1848 until his death.

Upon his death, Stevens, who never married, bequeathed to Smith $5,000 in cash and some personal furnishings. With those funds and her property management experience, Smith later operated her own boarding houses in Lancaster, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. She became prosperous enough to purchase Stevens’ home and law office on South Queen Street.

Sources: Historic Preservation Trust of Lancaster County and www.harpweek.com.

In Back to the Basics, by Michael Zak, at page 27, appears the following:

The firm backing of his constituents is all the more remarkable considering that he was as married to a black woman as a white man could be in those days. In 1843, when he was 51, a widowed free black woman, Lydia Smith, along with her two young sons, moved in with the naver-married Stevens to serve as his housekeeper. As demonstrated by their devotion to each other until his death, their relationship evolved into husband and wife. Mindful of the prejudices of the age, Stevens was always careful to refer to her as "Mrs. Smith," but Lancaster neighbors knew to call her "Mrs. Stevens."

After he died in August 1868, Republicans renominated Stevens for another term. The dead Stevens won "a nearly unanimous victory." (B2B, p109)

LINK

1848 Lydia Smith comes to work for TS
23 Aug 1848 -- Nominated by Whig county convention as congressional candidate
10 Oct 1848 -- Elected to 31st Congress

#913 [#3Fan] The southern states got the bitch-slapping of all time. lol

There is the quote.

-YOU- were the one laughing at hundreds of thousands of KIA.

What are you laughing about? 110,070 Union combat deaths? 249,458 other Union deaths? 275,175 Union wounded? 634,703 Union casualties?

Perhaps 74,524 Confederate combat deaths make you laugh? 124,000 other Confederate deaths? 137,000 Confederate wounded? 335,524 Confederate casualties?

Perhaps a combined 970,227 American casualties makes you laugh.

LINK

COMBAT DEATHS

Union         110,070  
Confederate    74,524  
Combined      184,594

Casualties


             Enrolled   Combat    Other   Wounded       Total              
Union         2,803.3  110,070  249,458   275,175     634,703   
Confederate   1,064.2   74,524  124,000   137,000 +   335,524   
Combined      3,867.5  184,594  373,458   412,175 +   970,227

Combat deaths refers to troops killed in action or dead of wounds. Other includes deaths from disease, privation, and accidents, and includes losses among prisoners of war. Wounded excludes those who died of their wounds, who are included under Combat Deaths. Ratio is the proportion of wounded in action to combat deaths. Note that the wounded figures do not include cases of disease. Under Percentages, KIA refers to the percent of those enrolled killed in action, Dead to the percent dead from all causes, and Casualty to the percent killed or injured. KIA/Month, killed in action per month, gives a fair indication of the intensity of combat

Notes:
* Non-battle deaths not known for these wars.
+ Confederate non-battle deaths and wounded estimated.
& Actually only six weeks of sustained combat.
^ There was only one month of combat.

[#3Fan] I know logic is foreign to neoconfederates.

I know law is foreign to #3Fan. (Other than #3Constitution and #3Scripture, as previously noted.)

FINDLAW LINK

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 28 : Section 1738

Title 28 U.S. Code

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Code
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART V - PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 115 - EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02 Section 1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit

The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or

Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

-------------------

FINDLAW LINK

Section 1738 - Notes

SOURCE (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 947.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 687 (R.S. Sec. 905).

Words ''Possession of the United States'' were substituted for ''of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States''.

Words ''or copies thereof'' were added in three places. Copies have always been used to prove statutes and judicial proceedings under section 687 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The added words will cover expressly such use.

Words ''and its Territories and Possessions'' were added in two places so as to make this section and section 1739 of this title uniform, the basic section of the latter having provided that nonjudicial records or books of any State, Territory, or ''country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'' should be admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or ''such country.''

Words ''a judge of the court'' were substituted for ''the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate'' without change of substance.

At the beginning of the last paragraph, words ''Such Acts'' were substituted for ''And the said''. This follows the language of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution.

For additional provisions as to authentication, see Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

-------------------

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.