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?
How did the CSA constitution protect slavery more than the US Constitution would have with the Corwin Amendment? The idea that they would opt for a bloody expensive war over an issue the other side was more than happy to concede right from the start is simply not rational.
Plenty of Southern leaders said their main concern was the tariff, the unequal federal government expenditures, and the use of the federal government as an engine of Northern aggrandizement. Southerners were of course paying 75% of the Tariff. They were the ones doing the exporting and importing.