No it isn't, because they were too ashamed to admit it, and so they used euphemistic terminology to describe the same thing.
much less “enshrined” in it.
And there you are wrong. Despite their refusal to use the word, they described the same meaning accurately enough to discern they were specifically referring to slavery. They just couched it in less offensive descriptive language.
Article IV, section 2.
You can’t enshrine something you can’t even say aloud. That’s just (typically) idiotic of you.
Set revisionism aside, set aside all the legal haggling, what the Constitution said, the Federalist Papers, all the secession issues and answer this:
Wouldn’t slavery have ended someday?
In SC, 1/3 of the residents owned 2/3 of the residents, how would political power ever have changed hands peacefully?
Wouldn’t there always been some accumulated civil strife/political aggravation that led to war?
The Civil War was inevitable. The Confederacy could never have won, given its disadvantage of resources, manpower, and war materiel.
The end result would have been the same, no way to permanently avoid it.
What is the point of continuing to advocate what was always a losing cause?
What’s done is done.
There was no “enshrinement” and it clearly saw it would end and the suppression of importation after 1808 shows that.
There was no worshiping of slavery in the Constitution.