Were they? Let's look at the legacy of the Davis regime. In April 1862 the Davis regime instituted conscription and forcibly extended the enlistment of soldier, in spite of the fact that they were supposed to be state militia on load to the central government. The Davis regime seized private property without compensation by placing a levy on all agricultural produce "for the war effort". They forced private ship owners to reserve a percentage of their cargo space for the government without payment "for the war effort". They forced slave owners to provide slave labor for government projects, again without payment. The confederate congress enacted a protective tariff in May 1861 in spite of the fact that their constitution did not allow it. They refused to create a supreme court in spite of the fact that their constitution required it. The government seized control of industries like salt and liquor and textiles. They proclaimed martial law in sections of the country hundreds of miles from the fighting and jailed thousands without trial. They tried to enact an income tax that was confiscatory in nature. And this is your idea of home rule, smaller government, less taxes, and individual liberty?
And that listing of Confederate national abuses does not even cover all the local abuses by low-level reb thugs and the general degenerate local feudalism in the land of the whip and chain.
And this is your idea of home rule, smaller government, less taxes, and individual liberty?
I don't know if I'd use the tax policies of the central Confederate government to prove my point - and that appears to be about 80% of your argument - since the states that comprised the Confederacy refused, in the main, to cooperate with the central government on the issue of taxation and, to a lesser extent, conscription (possibly because they believed in home rule, smaller government, less taxes, and individual liberty). It is precisely because of that refusal that the Confederate government had to resort to such drastic revenue measures as the massive issuance of bonds, and loans.
Martial law? You're correct. Jailing people without trial? Ditto. And I'll save you the trouble: does the "individual liberty" argument mentioned above represent blatant hypocrisy, given the institution of slavery? Of course it does.
Refusal to create a Supreme Court? Debatable, and a very interesting subject. "Failure" might be a more accurate word in any case. Please see Article 6, Section 1 of the permanent Constitution, which effectively cedes this issue to the provisional Constitution of February 8, 1861. The latter, in point of fact, defined and created the Confederate Supreme Court (see Article 3, Section 1.2 and 1.3) If one defines a quorum as a simple majority, and since at least 8 Confederate districts were created out of a possible 11, it appears that it is possible that a de jure Confederate Supreme Court did indeed exist, even if never met. Would be glad to hear your arguments to the contrary.