Really? Well then someone should have told the rebel leadership that.
Yes really and noone needed to tell them. They knew full well why they were leaving
Included were protections for slave imports from the U.S.
So states that had slavery could continue to sell across state lines just as they had done previously. Big deal.
Nonslaveholding states could be admitted - just as was said and contrary to what you claimed.
Except for the fugitive slave clause and the 3/5ths compromise. The Confederate Constitution essentially had the Corwin Amendment. Not much was different.
They wanted to provide each member state the leeway to manage it as they saw fit without interference from the central confederate government.
You left out a much more strict interpretation of the general welfare clause as well as expressly limiting tariffs to 10% as well as very tight restrictions on the ability of the central government to spend money such as a line item veto, a ban on riders being attached to bills, term limits etc. They were specifically addressing many of the ills they had seen in the US constitution. We would be better of today if many of these provisions had been adopted into the US constitution. Their objections went way beyond slavery.
They did indeed. Slavery.
So states that had slavery could continue to sell across state lines just as they had done previously. Big deal.
Specifically protecting slave imports was not something the U.S. Constitution had.
Nonslaveholding states could be admitted - just as was said and contrary to what you claimed.
How? The Confederate Constitution makes that impossible. Perhaps you can explain the process that would result in that?
Except for the fugitive slave clause and the 3/5ths compromise.
What you refer to as "the fugitive slave clause" said that people charged "in any state with treason, felony, or other crime" would be extradited. It covers far more than slavery so your description is not at all valid. The 3/5ths compromise does not specifically refer to slavery in the U.S Constitution. It does in the Confederate Constitution. I wonder why?
The Confederate Constitution essentially had the Corwin Amendment. Not much was different.
Except that the Corwin Amendment protected slavery where it existed and offered no guarantees on allowing its expansion. The Confederate Constitution guaranteed expansion in every corner of the country.
They wanted to provide each member state the leeway to manage it as they saw fit without interference from the central confederate government.
That would be the same central government which guaranteed that people could go into any state with their slaves, which prohibited any laws "denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves" could be passed, which guaranteed no new states would be non-slave, or that the states could ever get an amendment doing away with slavery added to the Constitution? Doesn't look like a lot of leeway was allowed to me.
You left out a much more strict interpretation of the general welfare clause as well as expressly limiting tariffs to 10%...
There is no such limitation. All the Confederate Constitution says is that tariffs must be uniform and could not be protective. They could not be imposed on states in violation of treaties. They could be applied to fund lighthouses and such.
...as very tight restrictions on the ability of the central government to spend money such as a line item veto, a ban on riders being attached to bills, term limits etc.
It's very debatable on how restrictive those were. The term limits applied to the president only. The constitution did allow for riders or amendments. The line item veto did exist in it.
Their objections went way beyond slavery.
The objections didn't go far beyond slavery, if they went beyond it at all.