As a general rule, an answer has to provide evidence that is both:
- at a minimum standard (e.g. we don't accept anecdotes, we eschew Wikipedia and other tertiary sources), AND
- at a higher standard than the original claimant.
If someone questions a claim with a very high standard of evidence to support it, it means anyone who wants to answer the question, must produce extremely high standards of evidence.
In this case, you cited a claim about the constitution of the Confederate States. You mentioned your sources, including a reference to an essay that explicitly linked to a copy of the constitution of the Confederate States, and pointed out the exact text which answered your question completely.
(The essay went further, and examined the historical context behind the apparent motivations for the unexpected laws.)
It is difficult to imagine what higher evidence there could be that a law existed than an explicit copy of that law in context. So, the minimum bar for answerers appears to be set too high here.
More importantly, it is difficult to imagine what further evidence you would need to be convinced of the claim. I put the question on hold while that was addressed. Why do you remain unprepared to provisionally accept the claim given the quality of evidence supporting it? Why are you still doubtful?
Deliberately omitting the best evidence you have in a question wouldn't help. It would just mean that you will get the same evidence in the answer, and you would remain unconvinced and no-one would know why.