Only after some Southerners threatened "no Union" if they refused.
At the same time those Northerners were passing laws to abolish slavery in their own states.
jeffersondem: "But the northern states did not enshrine slavery into the Constitution gratuitously: they had good reason.
It was thought to be in their economic and political best self interest."
A typical Lost Cause Marxist explanation.
If you could go back to 1787 and ask them directly, here's what they'd say:
If you pressed them, saying, "but isn't it all just to line your own pockets with Federal money?" they might invite you to duel, or just remind you that of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, over half lost their lives and/or fortunes as a result.
It would take the later "genius" of a Karl Marx combined with the bitterness of Lost Causers to see in all that mere "economic and political self-interest."
“Only after some Southerners threatened “no Union” if they refused (to enshrine slavery into the Constitution of the United States.)”
That is an interesting comment.
Previously you have claimed northern states at the time were diametrically opposed to slavery - considered it immoral - but now you make the case that northern states were willing to be joined at the hip in a partnership with the evil southern slavers.
Why?
Can you explain why you say the Founders believed adopting a pro-slavery Constitution formed a more perfect Union? Or established Justice? Or secured the Blessings of Liberty? Or insured domestic Tranquility?
If it is necessary to invoke the Red Menace in this thread, let's turn to one of America's most-read authors, whose words about the topic still resonate:
Here in the United States, the communists are bending all efforts to smearing the South and Southerners, because they know that we are one of the strongholds of Conservatism and are likely to resist Communism more fiercely than the large industrial sections of the North and the Middlewest.