No... you asked me a SPECULATIVE question because it depends on a hypothetical condition (the Confederacy winning the war) that we know to be false. Any answer is SPECULATION... that is to say, an EDUCATED GUESS. A direct question would be one inquiring on something that is based in reality and can actually be known. However, since you didn’t understand my answer the first time, I will explain it again in more detail:
Given the nature of protection of the institution of slavery in Article IV, Section 2, Number 3 of the CSA Constitution, namely “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due. and Article I, Section 9, No. 4, namely “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”, I would have to say that no, the CSA would not have abolished slavery at the immediate end of the war.
That said, there is also no reason to believe that slavery would have continued in perpetuity; it is reasonable to think that it would have naturally ended within a generation or two. It is important to note that no new slaves could be imported from outside the CSA, except from slaveholding territories of the USA, and the Confederate Congress could even restrict that (CSA Constitution, Article I, Sec. 9, Nn 1-2). The last nation in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery was Brazil in 1888–and so there is no reason to think that slavery in a hypothetical postwar Confederate States of America would not have had a similar natural decline... and so yes, the CSA would have amended their Constitution to abolish slavery at some point after the end of the war, though it is impossible to guess exactly when.
The Confederate Constitution clearly laid out that they were defending slavery [...]
Yes, it did. Not merely defending, but asserting, as it also made provisions for expansion and creation of future slaveholding states.
[...] and that was the reason for secession.
No, it didn’t. No reason for secession is stated there (perhaps you have conflated it with another document, or perhaps I missed something in the text?); in fact, I see no reference to secession at all, and only two passing references to the United States.
Your powers of bs are extraordinary. [...] You make all the convoluted arguments of a Lost Causer
The use of ad hominem is the mark of someone whose argument lacks strength. It really doesn’t suit you.
Just as the United States did.