The US Constitution did not mention slavery directly...
One major difference between the two documents - one mentions it ten times and one doesn't mention it at all.
...but it had the 3/5ths compromise as well as a Fugitive Slave Clause.
As it happens the first was applicable only to slavery but the Fugitive Slave Clause also covered indentured servants and apprentices.
It also allowed for the African Slave trade to continue for 20 years. The Confederate Constitution kept the ban on the African slave trade. The only imports it allowed were from the US. In other words, it kept the status quo ante and nothing more.
But unlike the U.S. Constitution specifically protected slave imports. One major difference.
It did not prevent any non slave state. In fact that was voted down.
Article 2, Clause 1: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." Where a state in the U.S. could prohibit slaves within its borders entirely no state in the Confederacy could be slave-free. Any slave owner could enter the state and remain as long as they wished with their property and there was nothing the state could do about it.
As for the claim that it "required any territories acquired to permit slavery" that was the same as the US post Dred Scot.
Except that the Confederate Constitution specifically protected slavery in the territories while the Dred Scott decision comments on slavery were made in dicta and were not binding. They certainly would have been challenged.
You say it made it impossible to amend the constitution to end slavery. No it did not.
The amendment process for the Confederate Constitution required Congress to act. Either to submit the amendment itself or, if it initiated in the states, "Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made..." Yet Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Such a call or such an amendment would certainly "impair the right of property in negro slaves" and would be, on the face of it, unconstitutional. It would have made an interesting question for the Confederate Supreme Court...had such an institution been allowed to exist.
And yet I demonstrate that I have and it is you who hasn't.
One major difference between the two documents - one mentions it ten times and one doesn't mention it at all.
One was coy about mentioning it directly while the other was not. That's about it. The allowance of it and the protections of it are the same.
As it happens the first was applicable only to slavery but the Fugitive Slave Clause also covered indentured servants and apprentices.
Great.
But unlike the U.S. Constitution specifically protected slave imports. One major difference.
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.
Article 2, Clause 1: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." Where a state in the U.S. could prohibit slaves within its borders entirely no state in the Confederacy could be slave-free. Any slave owner could enter the state and remain as long as they wished with their property and there was nothing the state could do about it.
the same was true in the US. Read the Dred Scott decision.
Except that the Confederate Constitution specifically protected slavery in the territories while the Dred Scott decision comments on slavery were made in dicta and were not binding. They certainly would have been challenged.
LOL! It most definitely WAS binding. They must've failed to teach you that in law school.
The amendment process for the Confederate Constitution required Congress to act. Either to submit the amendment itself or, if it initiated in the states, "Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made..." Yet Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Such a call or such an amendment would certainly "impair the right of property in negro slaves" and would be, on the face of it, unconstitutional. It would have made an interesting question for the Confederate Supreme Court...had such an institution been allowed to exist.
Firstly that could have been overturned by any amendment to the Confederate Constitution - just as an amendment to the US Constitution can change it. Secondly, any state within the CSA was free to amend its state constitution and abolish slavery. Indeed states that did not allow slavery were free to join.