"True to form aren't you? Twisting that I am supposed to have said. I never said any such thing. You statement was to some degree the CSA leadership refused to arm the slaves because they were fighting to preserve slavery. I never said they chose defeat over emancipation and even posted a reference to back up my point, That same reference clearly shows they fought for and got the right to offer emancipation-- from the very congress you claim chose defeat. "
My position is now and always has been simple, very simple:
By the choices they made, the CSA political leadership, congress and executive branches, threw away when it would have been most effective, the valid recommendations of some of their most skilled military leadership, men of fine minds who were keenly aware of the needs and resources of the Confederacy and urged bold timely action to achieve independence. The recommendations, begun in 1861 by Ewell (Thanks David) and continuing with Cleburne in late 1863-early 1864, and even Lee in 1865.
When Lee asked for strong action on emancipation and arming of slaves in large numbers, the congress gave them a weak tea -- a half-hearted measure to allow accepting donations of slaves into the military, slaves who would not be guaranteed emancipation, thus lacking a strong incentive for victory, but who would be returned, if they survived, to their owners who would then have the option to offer emancipation if they so chose, or keeping them, and their wives, and their children in bondage, if that suited their massa.
If the CSA congress did give Lee what he desired, as you try to imply, then why were he and Davis expressing such disappointment in the bill as passed? You posted that not me.
PS it is gratifying to know you now find Cleburne credible enough to quote. Perhaps you will, in time, come to realize he was absolutely correct in his assessment of the realities set forth in his memorial proposal on emancipation, and that by rejecting it, the CSA leadership ultimately condemned their bid for independence.