"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?
You are correct for taking me to task for making this statement. Please allow me to "walk it back". The first part of the post I stand behind.
Restrictions on travel of an owner with his slave came into play later than Article IV. For example, in 1790 in Pennsylvania, if a slave spent 6 months in that State, they were automatically free. Even George and Martha were well aware of this:
Washington brought 8 slaves to Philadelphia in November 1790. Four of them, he returned to Mount Vernon in Spring 1791, before the 6-month deadline. Two of them were taken on a short trip to New Jersey by Martha Washington, which interrupted their 6-month residency. Two of them were trusted not to take advantage of the Pennsylvania law to seize their freedom.