I have maintained and held my position as the same from day one and that is --- THE CSA leadership did not refuse to arm slaves for the simple reason of maintaining slavery. I pointed out several reasons Davis was initially against arming the slaves but changed his position. I believe that you posted late in the debate the Virginia delegates were the only delegates against arming the slaves. My position then and now is unchanged it was more than a simple issue to maintain the institution of slavery. You are the one who insists on trying to brow beat and pound the issue home regardless of the facts presented. You seem to believe that only your opinion and your point of view matters. In my opinion you are trying to prove the statement “the war was all about slavery.”

The citizens of the South were caught in the middle so to speak. They gave everything they could to the Southern armies. Eggs, ham, chickens, uniforms and so forth were paid for and bought by the soldiers themselves I have letters to prove this. Other foodstuff and supplies came by way of taxes, the same taxes I am sure helped supply the Union forces. I have looked up many, many CSRs of Confederate soldiers and with Southern civilians with like names I have found receipts where the Confederate government either paid or promised to pay for goods. It was not like the government of the CSA got everything without cost

Now did the Southern slave-owners object to giving up their slaves or were they really against giving up their slaves and property and other rights to a strong central government? Remember the meddling of the government into their affairs among other things was a cause for secession.

I believe you have already posted this, however let‘s look at these passages again ---

"When we left the old Government he had thought we had gotten ride forever of the slavery agitation; that we were entering into a new Confederacy of homogeneous States upon the agitation of the slavery question, which had become intolerable under the old Union, was to have no place. But to his surprise he finds that this Government assumes the power to arm the slaves, which involves also the power of emancipation."

Mr. Hunter then showed from statisticks that no considerable body of negro troops could be raised in the States over which the Government had control, without stripping the country of the labour absolutely necessary to produce food. He thought there was a much better change of getting the large number of deserters back to the army than of getting slaves into it.

Mr. Graham argued at length against the constitutionally and expediency of the measure.

Clearly a rights and supply issue. The same argument was argued in the US House of Representatives and also included Indians.

Yes there was racism involved on both sides, North and South, I will put that out and up front before you try to also make that an issue.

I have read someplace that the states of the Confederacy had control over the slaves. At the present time I cannot put my finger on that exact reference but this seems to verify that point---.

Mr. Graham also opposed the bill. He meant to hold out no threat, but he would say that when Congress adopted such a measure the States would feel called upon the consider whether such an inroad upon the Constitution did not call for additional guards being thrown around that instrument.

GP