[docmcb]

Sure. But as I said, it was well understood that arming men and keeping them in subjugation are fundamentally incompatable in the long run. The refusal to consider arming slaves when Cleburne proposed it, a year earlier, is an indication of Confederate commitment to preserving slavery. 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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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'.