[drewbug]

Very interesting, but are you sure about that example?

Const. of C.S.A. art. I, § 9, ¶ 4 restricted their federal legislature's power:

> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The next section similarly restricted the states' power to "pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law" but did not reference slavery.

[tdb7893]

Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know).

Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority:

Article IV Section 3(3)

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

[drewbug]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore