One specifically protects slave imports, specifically prevents non-slave states, specifically guarantees slavery in the territories, specifically prevents laws impairing slave ownership and the other doesn't. That seems to be a pretty significant difference in allowances and protections to me.
Nope! The US Constitution protected slave imports for 20 years. The Confederate Constitution allowed for exactly that which was the case before secession (trading in slaves between states) and nothing more.
Then we can say that one protected slave imports for 20 years and the other protected it in perpetuity. Seems like a pretty significant difference to me.
the same was true in the US. Read the Dred Scott decision.
Except that the parts about slavery in the territory in the Dred Scott decision were made in dicta and was not binding. It would have been challenged by the Lincoln administration.
Firstly that could have been overturned by any amendment to the Confederate Constitution - just as an amendment to the US Constitution can change it.
Except that the U.S. Constitution did not have the prohibition on any law denying or impairing the right to own slaves while the Confederate Constitution did. That would appear to mean the Confederate Congress was prohibited from doing anything, anything at all, that might have any negative impact on slave ownership. Including authorizing a constitutional amendment ending or limiting it.
Secondly, any state within the CSA was free to amend its state constitution and abolish slavery.
But could not completely abolish slavery within its borders since any Confederate citizen who owned slaves was free to bring them into the state for as long as they wished to stay.
Indeed states that did not allow slavery were free to join.
In theory perhaps. But since territories were prohibited from being slave-free then what is the chance that any state created from them would be non-slave?
The one that specifically protected slave imports from outside the country was the US Constitution.
specifically prevents non-slave states,
Neither of them does that.
specifically guarantees slavery in the territories,
They both did that after Dred Scott
specifically prevents laws impairing slave ownership and the other doesn't.
They both prevent laws impairing slave ownership.
That seems to be a pretty significant difference in allowances and protections to me.
That's because you have a false understanding of each.
Then we can say that one protected slave imports for 20 years and the other protected it in perpetuity. Seems like a pretty significant difference to me.
No. We can say one protected slave imports from outside the country for 20 years while the other did not. If there is a significant difference then it is the Confederate Constitution that is more restrictive of the slave trade than the US Constitution.
Except that the parts about slavery in the territory in the Dred Scott decision were made in dicta and was not binding. It would have been challenged by the Lincoln administration.
Except it was binding.
Except that the U.S. Constitution did not have the prohibition on any law denying or impairing the right to own slaves while the Confederate Constitution did. That would appear to mean the Confederate Congress was prohibited from doing anything, anything at all, that might have any negative impact on slave ownership. Including authorizing a constitutional amendment ending or limiting it.
Firstly, the US constitution allowed for slavery and protected the owner's right to reclaim his fugitive slaves - even if those slaves were in states that no longer allowed slavery. After Dred Scott, it could not be denied that an owner could bring his slaves into the territory of the US and still retain ownership of them. Any law can be overturned by a future law. Any provision of the constitution can be overturned by a future amendment.
But could not completely abolish slavery within its borders since any Confederate citizen who owned slaves was free to bring them into the state for as long as they wished to stay.
It said transit - The same was true in the US.
In theory perhaps. But since territories were prohibited from being slave-free then what is the chance that any state created from them would be non-slave?
Not perhaps. A provision that would have prohibited states that had banned slavery from joining was expressly voted down. You ask what are the chances that any territory that had slaves in it would choose to become a state that banned slavery. Ask Kansas.
Miss Dawg, you write that one Constitution protected slave imports for 20 years.
Which Constitution was that?