Let's put it this way. BP clearly didn't want to kill its workers and create the largest environmental disaster in US history. But they were also clearly warned there were serious problems with the blow out preventers, and they were very aware of the dangers and consequnces. At that point they had a choice. Slow down, fix the problems, which would add to their costs, or forge ahead, do nothing and take the risk. They choose money over safety and the rest is history.
The CSA leadership faced a similar crisis. They wanted independence, were told several times what sacrifice would be needed to secure it, and time after time chose not to make that sacrifice. Then in the last months, their own president and their most important military leader again went to congress and pleaded, please draft, emancipate and arm the slaves. They absolutely refused to do that.
A watered down useless version barely passed by three votes, and all that version was was more or less a resolution asking slave owners for free-will donations of their slaves, which will be returned to them if the slave survived the battle. Any person who advocated using slaves as soldiers were castigated in the vilest terms in the press and in the congress.
The debate lasted long enough for the public to have weighed in. The entire army could have weighed in, from the highest officers on down. There is all this evidence coming in now that shows blacks and slaves were everywhere integrated into the army and fighting as soldiers already, under the most legendary and reknowned CSA officers like Stonewall Jackson. If the numbers are true, no soldier, no officer of the CSA military could have been unaware that slaves were already successfully armed and fighting like brave men and willing to lay down their lives for the cause.
If this is all true, any opposition to a practice that was already being done on a widespread scale for years was clearly and completely pointless.
So, where was the widespread support by the public? Where was the widespread support by the military who had all witnessed witht heir own eyes the bravery and loyalty of their armed black fighting slaves? There were less than 80 men voting on this draft and emancipate and arm the slaves measure, and barely half of them could be persuaded to even accept the watered down "donate and arm slaves" measure.
Some try to say the measure failed because of some principled stand about "property rights" and the abuse of governmental power. If that is true, then the CSA congress put that "property right" as a higher priority than winning their independence.
However the CSA congress had already demanded their people surrender their personal right to liberty by force in the drafting of whites as soldiers. The CSA congress had already demanded that the states surrender their rights of soveriegnty, by forcing all states to surrender their militias to central government control, and property rights involving all other types of property, except slaves, had already been made subservient to central governmental power.
So I think only one conclusion can be made here. The CSA congress put the rights of slaveowners ahead of their own desire to win independence, even as late as March 1865. Like the executives at BP who chose profit over safety, the CSA suffered the consequences of that choice. The public didn't demand a different outcome on the vote, and it seems neither did the military, despite General Lee's clear warning: enact this measure, or lose everything.