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.
Yes they knew why they were leaving. Economics.
The only imports that were protected were those from where they had previously been allowed to be traded across state lines. The African slave trade was still banned.
and for some strange reason you left out Article I section 2
“Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.”
in which they reserved the power to ban importation from US states for the Confederate Congress.
Nope! As I showed, a proposal to make their admission impossible was voted down.
OF COURSE my description is valid. You really are trying to spin here if you’re claiming that Article IV section 2 clause 3 a “person held to service or labor” was not a fugitive slave clause. Everybody called it exactly that. Because it was. The 3/5ths clause of the US Constitution does not specifically say “slave” but everybody knows that’s exactly what it meant. Really poor attempt at spin on your part here.
No it didn’t. It allowed for non slaveholding states to be admitted.
Firstly, the provision against bills of attainder does not necessarily mean a confederate state could not choose to abolish slavery within its borders. Secondly, any state could of course leave the CSA at any time.
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.
Yes there is. It says only revenue tariffs and not protective tariffs are allowed. A revenue tariff does not allow for higher than a 10% rate.
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.
Its not very debatable how restrictive those were. The constitution said a bill could only be about one thing and that must be expressed in the title. ie no riders.
Their objections went way beyond slavery.