1- "I believe that you posted late in the debate the Virginia delegates were the only delegates against arming the slaves."
-- no George, in the four paragraph quote that you posted, one paragraph referred only to the Virgina's state congress which was opposed to the CSA legislation.. but I myself never claimed they were the only delegates.. I merely said this paragraph only speaks about Virginia..
2- "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."
-- yes absolutely, this is exactly what I said also, that the CSA congress requested all kinds of property from its citizens, without any principle of 'property' being raised. But then when CSA congressmen refused to okay Lee's request that owners surrender slaves to be drafted into the army and they suddenly claimed it was an issue of "property rights".
My point is is the CSA congress demanded property of all sorts from livestock to comodities to many other goods, but only excludes ONE specific TYPE of property from government requisition, clearly then the issue, isn't "property rights" it is much more specific. The CSA said they could draft a man's son, seize a citizen's horse, and his grain, commander his home, but they could not take a slave, because that would violate a "property right"?
3-"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. "
-- Like you proved above, George, the CSA congress had already demanded that the citizens give up their personal rights, surrender their property rights, and forget about states rights, through the personal drafts, the property reqisitions, and the CSA take-over of state militias into central government control.
Everything was under central government control, but the slave owners, who made up the majority of congress, refused suddenly to allowed slaves to be drafted, because now it suddenly violated a suddenly "sacred principle" of "not surrendering" to the central government? Is it a case of your property is subect to requistion, but mine is not?
George they WERE "the central government", the very ones who had already superceded personal, property and states rights as applied to the ordinary citizen with the laws they themselves passed and saw enforced on everyone else in the south. Suddenly they say we will niot bow to the central government? LOL, we will now bow to ourselves??!! We will take your sons, and horses, but our slaves are off limits?
4- " 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---. "
-- George remember in the legislation we've been discussing? The central government said "no state can have more than 20% of its slaves donated"?
That is exercizing central government control over a state. Call it central planning, call it socialism, call it whatever you wish, but no matter what you call it clearly is the central government claiming over all authority over the states. Once again it is the CSA congress putting themselves above the state.
I could go over your other points but this is sufficient for now.