That doesn’t uphold the notion that the Civil War was not about the institution of slavery and the abolition thereof, or not “sparked” thereby. The confederate constitution making it “more explicit” (in a number of other clauses beside the one I cited) highlights this matter, as does the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. The notion of a “fugitive slave clause” was absent from the Articles of Confederation to boot.
Well we know the civil war was not about slavery for a couple of reasons.
1. Slavery would have continued unabated and indefinitely if the Southern states had remained in the Union.
2. Abraham Lincoln supported the Corwin amendment which would have greatly strengthened the protection for slavery in the United States.
With both sides agreeing on slavery, it can hardly be claimed to be the cause of the war.
The confederate constitution making it “more explicit” (in a number of other clauses beside the one I cited) highlights this matter,
Again, the USA recognized legal slavery. So you are telling me the CSA really, really, really, recognized legal slavery?
Again, isn't this like being a "little bit pregnant" as opposed to being really really pregnant?
You either had legal slavery or you didn't. There were no graduations of it. It was "yes" or "no."
The notion of a “fugitive slave clause” was absent from the Articles of Confederation to boot.
So was the bill of rights and a lot of other subsequent necessities.
I will also point out that in 1776, every single state had legal slavery. Why would they need to write anything protecting it when everyone was already in agreement on all the essential points, such as "fugitive slaves"?