[jeffersondem]

“Slavery, despite its inherent immorality, was not addressed in the Constitution.”

It was addressed in the sense it was enshrined in the United States Constitution.

[BroJoeK]

steve in dc: "Slavery, despite its inherent immorality, was not addressed in the Constitution.”

jeffersondem: "It was addressed in the sense it was enshrined in the United States Constitution."

Jeffersondem, your favorite term "enshrined" is too highfalutin a word, when "buried", "entombed" or "embalmed" would be better descriptions, because:

Montgomery, Alabama, February 1861:

1. Unlike the Confederate constitution -- framed in Montgomery, Alabama starting on February 7, 1861 -- the US 1787 Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery by name.
   Our Founders went to great lengths to avoid saying directly what they intended, suggesting they knew full well slavery was so wrong it must not be called by its proper name.
   So, they wanted to bury the corpse of slavery under a matting of obfuscatory words.

2. Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not allow exceptions in laws abolishing imports of slaves from other countries.

3. Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not prohibit outlawing slavery.
   As the CSA constitution said:

   "Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]"

   Now, to a normal person reading this, it seems pretty clear that the Confederate constitution outlaws abolishing slavery, but our pro-Confederates here respond with two arguments:
   • This provision only prohibits the Confederate Federal government from abolishing slavery, it does not prohibit states from abolishing slavery.
     States, our pro-Confederates claim, were still free to abolish slavery if they wished.

   • Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin!
     The CSA constitution, they claim, only says exactly what Corwin said:
     

     "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.[2][3]"

   Northern Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan,
   signed Corwin Amendment after unanimous Democrat votes for it.

   However, we should notice the historical timeline here:

   • February 7, 1861 -- the Confederate Secession Convention in Montgomery, Alabama, began work on their new Confederate constitution.
     It was completed on March 11, 1861.

   • February 28, 1861 -- Ohio Republican Congressman Corwin submitted his proposed amendment.
     It barely passed with 100% Democrat support and majority Republican opposition and was signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan on March 4.

   So it appears to me that the Confederate constitution came first and Corwin was simply hoping to match what Confederates were already guaranteeing.
   Corwin was ratified by just two of five Union slave states and three of 18 Union free states -- nowhere near the 3/4 required.
   In 1864 Ohio rescinded its ratification and Maryland voted to abolish slavery on its own.

4. Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 USA Constitution makes no guarantees of a "right of sojourn" with slaves.
   In contrast, the CSA constitution says:

   "Article IV Section 2(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.[31]"

   Crazy Roger Taney's insane 1857 misinterpretations
   of our Founders' Original Intentions:

   To which our pro-Confederates respond: that's just what the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scot ruling provided.
   However, the fact is that no Founder in 1787 would have interpreted their new US Constitution the way Crazy Roger Taney did in 1857.

5. Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 US Constitution did not forbid Congress from outlawing slavery in US territories.
   Indeed, the US Congress had outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories in 1787, so that was clearly intended by our Founders.

   The CSA constitution says, regarding territories:

   "Article IV Section 3(3) -- In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[32]"

   Again, this was Crazy Roger's ruling in Dred Scott, but it had nothing to do with our Founders' original intentions.

   The three-fifths clauses of both constitutions are almost identical, except for Confederates' use of the words, "three-fifths of all slaves".

6. The fugitive slave clauses of both constitutions are identical, because for once Confederates decided to use our Southern Founders' euphemistic language instead of their own more blunt words regarding fugitive slaves.

Bottom line: your favorite word, "enshrined", is indeed the proper word for slavery in the 1861 CSA constitution, but not in the 1787 US Constitution.
Instead, our Founders in 1787 hoped to "bury", "entomb" and/or "embalm" slavery, as best they could at that time.
Sadly, for them and the USA, slavery was not yet dead in 1787.