Keith,

"Face it Craig. Blacks played an important role in the Confederate Military in large numbers."

Of course, no one disputes that. Thousands of blacks were used to dig fortifications, drive wagons, and perform all kinds of necessary labor for the South during the war. The topic of debate is whether large numbers of blacks voluntarily served and were accepted by the Confederacy in combat roles.

"You can quote whoever you like to support your beliefs and expect it to be taken as the gospel."

I don't expect any evidence to be taken as gospel, but I do expect people who are serious about history to deal with the material in a logical and academic manner.

"Myself and others can quote other accounts and you shoot them down as speculation."

All historical material should be considered according to such factors as who or what the source is, when was the source recorded, what was the source's relationsihp to the topic, etc. This is basic historical study.

"Your argument doesn't hold up Craig."

Do you know what my argument is?

"Most of your opinions and statements that you quoted were from politicians. I automatically hold them as suspect."

Within this thread I have quoted Robert E. Lee, James Seddon, Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, J. L. Curry, John Reagan, and Joseph Brown. Why do you "automatically" hold these men suspect as sources about the reasons for secession and about black military service in the Confederacy? Weren't these the men who would likely be among the more important sources for such information?

"There job is to tell the people what they want to hear. Their actions can and usually do take a different route."

So you believe Lee, Seddon, Davis, Stephens, Curry, Reagan, and Brown (among others) intentionally lied?

"I've got more Confederate ancestors than I can count on all my fingers and toes and coming from an admittedly poor lineage I can guarantee you non of those people gave a hoot about the future of slavery or the black race."

How can you "guarantee" that? Do you have written evidence from all of them that didn't care at all about the future of slavery? That is a very bold claim, particularly since you say you can "guarantee" its truth.

"Free Blacks came to Virginia in 1607."

The first documented blacks in Virginia arrived in 1619.

"It's time to get off this grandstanding that the WBTS was PRIMARILY fought over the issue of slavery."

The Civil War was primarily "fought" over the future of the nation. Secession, which led to the war, was brought about by slavery.

"If you have read all of the posts recently made on this subject you have to come to the the conclusion that there are other FACTS out there besides the ones you champion."

Again, do you know what my conclusions are? I get the strong feeling you don't quite understand what I have been saying here.