but since I had to come back in to correct that sentence.. I want to call attention these quotes from David's post:
" The Richmond Enquirer denounced the masters footdragging, to any black-soldier policy as "calculated, if not designed, to defeat its operation and render it fruitless... "
that supports my whole premise that the legislation was watered down to make it all but useless... and that it seemed designed to protect the slaveholder's interests.. I was denounced for that.. but here it is in contemporary Richmond papers... and they name the footdraggers as the "masters"
" Slave-owners dominated the government .... The slave-owner domination of government explains why the War Department had spurned suggestions about arming them throughout the first three and half years of the conflict; why the Hindman-Cleburne proposal received such an icy reception in Davis' cabinet and why (as Hindman later recalled) it had found "not a friend in either House" of congress; why Lee and Davis began to advocate it only in the fall of 1864. "
Exactly. But had I posted this myself, which summarizes my position quite well, I'd have been called a Battle Hymn of the Republic bigotted yankee shill.
When I suggested that maybe folks here were "underplaying" the role of slavery and the slavemasters in their view of the legistative process, suddenly these quotes from contemporary Southerners, in their own words, is posted to show that the role of slavery and the slavemasters was indeed very important to this issue, and to this debate on the bill, and that I am a bigotted yankee for saying that it wasn't being recognized enough by folks here in the forum.