If protection of slavery were the big grievance of the Southern states why would they not simply have accepted the Corwin Amendment? Why risk what was sure to be a very costly and bloody war? They could have had slavery expressly protected effectively forever in the US Constitution.
Obviously slavery was not their main concern - only an expedient means of citing that it was the Northern states which violated the constitution and thus broke the deal between them. They were uninterested in any remedy because they knew they would be much better off financially being independent and not subject to high tariffs payable to the Northern states via the federal government.
And as I pointed out by the time the Corwin Amendment went to the states for ratification, the seven seceding states had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery to a far greater extent than the Corwin Amendment ever could. Why would they call it all off and return to half a loaf when they could stick with secession and keep the whole one?
Obviously slavery was not their main concern - only an expedient means of citing that it was the Northern states which violated the constitution and thus broke the deal between them.
Except the Southern leaders of the time said slavery was.
They were uninterested in any remedy because they knew they would be much better off financially being independent and not subject to high tariffs payable to the Northern states via the federal government.
Considering they were paying a disproportionately small percentage of the tariff why would that be an issue? And why aren't there more writings saying it was?