Replies

The subsequent decision to arm them is, consequently, a strong indication that the Confederacy gave winning the war and independence a higher priority than maintaining slavery, once it became clear even to politicians that they couldn't have both.

A lot is made of this legislation, holding it up as an indication that the confederacy was changing and that slavery may not have survived in an independent south. I believe that is nonsense. Armed black soldiers was a step that the confederacy wasn't willing to accept because it did threaten their society, placing black men on a par with whites. The idea of arming slaves was a last gasp of the south, an idea without a single chance of making a difference. The fact that even at this late date, with the whole country falling apart around them, the southern leadership couldn't whip up enough political will to emancipate slaves who served is an indication that they weren't willing to challenge southern society and southern aristocracy by threatening their 'peculiar institution'.

A lot is made of this legislation, holding it up as an indication that the confederacy was changing and that slavery may not have survived in an independent south. I believe that is nonsense. Armed black soldiers was a step that the confederacy wasn't willing to accept because it did threaten their society, placing black men on a par with whites. The idea of arming slaves was a last gasp of the south, an idea without a single chance of making a difference. The fact that even at this late date, with the whole country falling apart around them, the southern leadership couldn't whip up enough political will to emancipate slaves who served is an indication that they weren't willing to challenge southern society and southern aristocracy by threatening their 'peculiar institution'

Well, it's a matter of interpretation. I said it was hard for the Confederate leaders to accept, that's why they delayed until too late. But the law WAS passed, and they didn't know the war would end in a few months, and it iS evidence of a shift in thinking. Anytime you won't do something, and then you decide to do it after all, your thinking must have changed. Of course it was looming defeat that forced the change; they finally saw they had to choose whether independence or sdlavery was more important, and they chose independence. Of course they waffled about immediate emancipation; that's what politicians DO! Lincoln only freed part of the slaves himself, at first, you will recall. But everybody understood, I'll wager, that arming slaves set in motion a process that HAD to end in some basic redefining of the relationship and the institution -- which need not have been total emancipation, of course.

A lot is made of this legislation, holding it up as an indication that the confederacy was changing and that slavery may not have survived in an independent south.

What was the one position on which Davis was immobile? Come on, Non - it's your big chance to talk about Davis (with invite, even)!