Not at all. Property rights are not listed. Nor is the right to travel. Nor the right to use math to obscure there contents of a document, etc.etc. Yet these are all rights.
Not only were the authors of the Constitution zealous believers in property rights, but many of them believed that property rights extended to the ownership of people.
This is a thread questioning the intrinsic merit of property rights, and I read your comment as suggesting that the Constitution might somehow refute property rights. It clearly does not.
Not all of them. And some who did, gave up on slavery.
Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The houses in [Philadelphia] are worth more than all the wretched slaves that cover the rice swamps of South Carolina....The admission of slaves into the representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government...
This is a thread questioning the intrinsic merit of property rights, and I read your comment as suggesting that the Constitution might somehow refute property rights. It clearly does not.