Oh, give me a break. At the time of the Constitution, slavery was perceived as a dying institution, economically unsustainable, which is why they agreed to ignore it and leave it for the states to figure out. Hell, they couldn't bring themselves to use the word "slave" in the Constitution. It's all "Persons in Service." But the economics of slavery were completely transformed by the invention of the cotton gin. Suddenly it became hugely profitable to own slaves, and once that happened, there was little chance the south was ever going to go for emancipation. Not as long as the slaveowning aristocracy ran things. The northern states had all abolished slavery in a 23 year period, from 1777 to 1800. How many states ended slavery in the 65 years after that? Zero. Instead, the south agitated for expanding slavery, into Texas, into California, into Utah, into Kansas, into Missouri, into New Mexico. They wanted to annex Cuba just to add more slave territory.
In the 1850s, slaves were the largest capital investment in the U.S., with a value of $1 billion at a time when the federal budget was $25 million, and they were only getting more valuable, individually appreciating at about 10% a year.
Whoa...you obviously know your US slave history. But, for the sake of clarity, in NY State it was still legal to own slaves until 1821, based on the laws passed in the late 1700s.
Spare us your Yankee elitism, Heyworth. You are playing right into their hands.