I understand this to mean that no state can pass a law depriving a man "from such service or labour" as he is legally due.
Meaning that going to another state will not free a slave from the labor he owes to whomever has the legal right to his labor. Do you understand this to mean something different?
Tsk. Tsk. This is your argument that the Constitution forced all States to "embrace slavery" (as Davis did)? Let me put the Article in terms that maybe you can understand.
"No owned Slave from a Slave State, escaping from his owner into a Free State, is then considered Free, but rather must be returned to his owner in the Slave State."
You see, the article is about the Slave and the recognition of the rights of Slave States by Free States. Article IV is not about the owner of the slave. The owner must remain in the Slave State. That owner was not allowed to bring his Slave into a Free State. Nothing in the Constitution says that all States must "embrace slavery".
"No owned Slave from a Slave State, escaping from his owner into a Free State, is then considered Free, but rather must be returned to his owner in the Slave State."
You are Liberalizing it. You are "living constitutioning" it. You are reading a meaning into it beyond what the words say. You are limiting it's scope in such a way that the words do not clearly mean.
I know you want it to mean that, but you are not showing that it does in fact, mean that.
What does that clause say about Dred Scott? What does it say about a slave owner traveling with his slave into a "free" State?
Does the constitution say he shall be free, or does it say he shall continue to provide labour to whom it is due under the laws of that time?
I never really paid a lot of attention to that clause before, but now that this discussion has focused my attention on it, I am at a loss to understand how it can be interpreted in a good way for your side's position.
That owner was not allowed to bring his Slave into a Free State.
And where does it say that in the Constitution? I was of the opinion that citizens could travel wherever in the United States they chose to go, and that they could bring along with them whatever companions they so choose.
By what authority can you claim they have no right to do this? You've already said that a slave would be returned if found in another state. Where does it say the person who claims him may not be also in the same state?