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."
http://fmshistory04.netfirms.com/Resources/Resources.htm
Bones: He's crazy Jim. He thinks Spoons Butler is a deity. He worships CNN. He thinks Vikings had armed warships. He says sailors with muskets on sailing ships will stand on the rolling and pitching deck and defend against shore batteries. He is incurable Jim.
Jim: Yeah, but he's kind of fun, like a tribble. We should keep him around for amusement.
They should have been tried as war criminals and hung.
Post #282 was my first post on the subject and it shows I said the arms were for the "ship's men".
He says sailors with muskets on sailing ships will stand on the rolling and pitching deck and defend against shore batteries
I linked Fox's memo which said the fighting sailors were to deliver the supplies, that's what they needed arms for.
Should Forrest have been tried and hung for his torture of white POWs and murder of both white and black POWs?
What torture?
What murder? When were the trials held? I have never seen a conviction, and the seems to be your standard for attempted murder and rape, so why should this be any different?
and he defends the "filth that flowed down from the north".
evidently, he believes that raping/torturing/looting/murdering innocent civilians & helpless POWs is A-OK.
3 would make a REALLY good DIMocRAT!
free dixie,sw
In response I -- Q U O T E -- what you actually said.
BECAUSE????
#282 [#3Fan to Gianni] I saw that the ship's men needed arms because they expected to be attacked by Confederates, but I don't see where arms were to be delivered. The Confederates had attacked ships before any agreement was made between the Buchanan administration and the rebels, so they had a thing about attacking ships.
#341 [#3Fan to nc] It looks as if the arms were for the ship.
422 [#3Fan] Military ships that travel close to land need arms.
#423 [#3Fan] All I can do is repeat that military ships that travel close to shore do indeed have arms.
An attack on the ship was to be defended with armed sailors. The attack was to come from the Charleston shore batteries. The shore batteries would fire their cannons. The #3 fighting Union sailors would stand on the rolling deck of a sailing ship or a rowboat and fire muskets back at the cannons. In the case of the #3Viking warriors, they would throw their axes which were the inspiration for tomahawk missiles.
And all this from a ship from #3Florida right?
He was specifically referring to armed men defending against an attack against the ships, as proven beyond a resonable doubt by the above quotes. Numbers 383 and 386 apply icing to the context.
The fighting soldiers (not sailors) who were to reinforce Fort Sumter were in USS Powhatan with their arms and the landing craft. Under orders signed by Field Marshal Lincoln, Lt. D.D. Porter had taken the Powhatan to #3Florida.
As the soldiers, arms and landing craft were in #3Florida, it has been proposed now that imaginary "fighting sailors" were to use imaginary landing craft to land imaginary supplies. It is argued that sailors on ships are issued arms. Soldiers landing on Omaha beach are issued arms. Marines landing on a beach are issued arms. Sailors manning a ship are not issued arms. Shore Patrol routinely carry a baton (club). There are some Navy exceptions such as SEALs.
High security areas in the Navy are protected by armed guards. They are called Marines, not fighting sailors.
Recall that the ships going to Charleston encountered rough seas and gale force winds. Shooting a rifle or small arm from the deck of a sailing ship or rowboat in such circumstance would require #3skill. Before getting close enough for anything ashore to be in range, the ship would likely run aground. Recall that G.V. Fox ran aground without getting in range of the shore batteries. No pilot had been brought along and nobody in the ersatz invasion force had the know-how to navigate the now-unmarked Charleston harbor.
Before they could get a ship within small arms range of shore, the shore batteries would be firing their BFG's.
There was nothing by way of supplies or reinforcements that could have been put in the fort that would have made any difference. The shore batteries were able to destroy the fort within hours. The fort was indefensible.
Moreover, there was no need for supplies without reinforcements. The fort had an eternal source of supplies from the Charleston markets. The only reason the supplies were discontinued on April 7, 1861 was that Lincoln had ordered in reinforcements in violation of an existing agreement to not do so.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE
[247]
No; 96.
FORT SUMTER, S. C., April 7, 1861.
(Received A. G. 0., April 13.)
Col. L. THOMAS,
Adjutant- General U. S. Army:
COLONEL:
I have the honor to report that we do not see any work going on around us. There was more activity displayed by the guard-
[248]
boats last night than has been clone for some time. Three of them remained at anchor all night and until after reveille this morning, near the junction of the three channels. You will see by the inclosed letter, just received from Brigadier-General Beauregard that we shall not get any more supplies from the city of Charleston. I hope that they will continue to let us have onr mails as long as we remain. I am glad to be enabled to report that there have been no new cases of dysentery, and that the sick-list only embraces six cases to-day.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
[98]
With the grim prevalence of death and illness, a strange twist emerged at this juncture in the administrative thinking of the military. On October 3 Colonel Tracy issued what in retrospect became a most controversial edict-Special Orders No. 336. In stilted military prose, the order stated:
Whereas the fresh Beef now being furnished at this Post is in the opinion of the Col Comdg unfit for issue, and inferior in quality to that required by contract. Therefore: Col. S. Moore, 16th Regt. Vet. Reserve Corps and Major Henry V. Colt, 104th N.Y. Vols. [the officers in charge of the prison camp] are hereby designated to hold a survey upon said Beef and to reject such parts or the whole of the said Beef as to them appears to be unfit for issue, or of a quality inferior to that contracted for. [14]This order came at a time when the camp's rations had already been reduced by 20 percent and the sutler's shop had been forbidden to sell food to the prisoners. Now the stark reality was that limitations on rations became more acute, for cutting back ever so slightly on the supply of beef would escalate the probability of malnutrition. And a most intriguing ramification of Special Orders No. 336 is the fate of the rejected beef. The daily meat inspection frequently resulted in large amounts of beef being rejected for failing to meet the standards of the contract. The rejected beef was then sold to local meat markets and purchased by Elmira's citizens. [15]
* * *
[99]
In 1878 the shortcomings of Special Orders No. 336 were exposed, perhaps unwittingly, in the form of a letter to a local newspaper. In responding to an article written by a Confederate survivor of Elmira, Brig. Gen. Alexander S. Diven noted that on several occasions he accompanied Colonel Tracy to the slaughter yard where the beef was inspected. Diven was for a considerable time during the prison camp's existence the provost marshal of the Federal Draft Rendezvous of Western New York at Elmira. Control of the prison camp was distinct from his command. He recalled Tracy rejecting "beef, which, though it was such as I would often have been glad to have had for myself and my command, was not all of the quality contracted for, and such part was returned." [16] General Diven's observation that the rejected beef was good enough "for myself and my command" is a poignant revelation that goes well beyond the emotional memories of the camp's survivors.
FOOTNOTES:
14. Rochester (N.Y.) Daily Union and Advertiser, reprinted in the Elmira (N.Y.) Daily Advertiser, September 30, 1864.
15. Philadelphia Press; this is an 1884 newspaper account with a dateline "Elmira, July 16," file 404-B, Chemung County Historical Society.
16. Letter of Thomas C. Jones, January 26, 1904, file 500-320, Chemung County Historical Society.
My earlier-linked testimony shows that white POWs were nailed to logs and burned to death. Forrest didn't mess around when he committed his atrocities unlike Union soldiers who only managed to burn leaves apparently.
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.