Nope. It was a compromise, and a minor detail that they decided could be settled later...so it was allowed because at the toime it was actually dying out...and importation of slaves stopped in the early 1800s. But then technology made cotton clothing cheaper than wool and flax,which led to plantations becoming economically viable...but by 1860, cotton had competition from Egypt and India, which might have made compensation to free the slaves and making them into tenant farms by freemen a good alternative.
There is a good argument that a compromise to compensate owners to free slaves would have ended slavery without war, but extremists on both sides stopped that.
Sorry, your view was not the law of the land. Read the relevant Johnson v Thompkins.
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0013.f.cas/0013.f.cas.0840.2.pdf