“No, it really couldn’t. Article IV Section 2 does not allow states to free slaves.” The article does not prevent a state from making ownership of a slave by a citizen of that state illegal in that state. In some cases like New York or Pennsylvania, it’s citizens were give several years to free or sell the slaves out of state that they owed.
“The Dred Scott decision ripped off the mask of the fiction that they could continue to get away with ignoring Article IV Section 2 of the US constitution.” Which dealt with fugitives slaves. The Dred Scott case affirmed the right of a state to make ownership of slaves against the law it that state.
It did not mandate slavery, it made it very clear that it could not be banned by a vote of the state. Semantics. No southern state could take any action to outlaw slavery. Which states were free to do in the North or the West if they so chose.
I'm not sure if that is true or not. The Fifth Amendment would probably forbid them from doing it, but barring that, I can see where it is possible for a state to legally prohibit it's own citizens from owning slaves.
In some cases like New York or Pennsylvania, it’s citizens were give several years to free or sell the slaves out of state that they owed.
This is true, and many if not most, were sold to states in the South so that their owners wouldn't lose money. I think at peak, a slave was worth the modern equivalent of $100,000.00 .
Which dealt with fugitives slaves.
Which is any slave trying to gain their freedom, isn't it? Article IV says that no state law can free a slave. So how does that work in practice?
It did not mandate slavery, it made it very clear that it could not be banned by a vote of the state.
Correct. Which is what I meant when I said that so long as a slave is held by the laws of another state, a "free state" couldn't free him.