The Dred Scott decision ruled on that issue.
No, he’s right. There were compromises, even though it refers to “persons held to service.” This wasn’t irrelevant, because there were whole classes of legally bound apprentices and indentured servants at the time. Those practices vanished faster than slavery.
However, the compromises were also over related issues rather than slavery in and of itself.
In 1776, men argued over government in the guise of slavery, and in 1860, they argued over slavery in the guise of government. - Me
Many southerners didn’t want to be bullied by certain northerners. They weren’t sure they even could end slavery: what exactly would the slaves do? Transport back to Africa was impractical, yet slaves were much less Americanized at this point, and importation of Africans was very common. How would they integrate into society? Racism was present, but much less virulent than it later became (and not-suprisingly, increased as the population of blacks did). Many of the same men who argued against banning slavery themselves did free their slaves (such as Edward Rutledge).
That was part of the compromise. The Constitution defines situations that apply to slavery but does so without mentioning slavery.
Beautiful whoosh, Ludovic.
I got it, if that’s any consolation.
There was slavery in Washington, DC in the 1960s, in the neighborhood where I sometimes lived as a youngster with my grandmother. Slaves were held by a diplomatic family from someplace in Africa, and the family was not subject to the same laws. One of the slaves cut herself very badly, lost a lot of blood, and seemed to neighbors to be in great danger, but the family would not get medical attention for her because she was just a slave. This caused a big upset in the neighborhood.
I don’t know whether they were not subject to the same laws in a technical sense or only in a practical sense. IIRC the police came, at one point, and announced they had no power to do anything.