Nor is it intended two. One clause refers to fugitives, which is a lot different that residents. States can outlaw slavery within their border and Congress can outlaw slavery in the territories. But if a fugitive, be they runaway slave or common criminal, is apprehended then they are returned to the state they fled from. If someone moves into the state or territory where slavery is illegal then they can't bring their slaves there. It's as simple as that.
And how do you get that interpretation out of Constitutional clause specifically requiring them to be returned back to the service of to whomever their labor is due according to the laws of one of the states?
Not hard at all. You seem to be ignoring the phrase "under the laws thereof". If slavery is legal in Kentucky and a slave flees to Indiana, where slavery is not, then that slave is returned to Kentucky if apprehended. If someone moves from Kentucky to Indiana then "under the laws thereof" in Indiana the slave is freed since slavery is illegal. Simple as that.
Under a correct interpretation of our constitution at the time, they could do so in the US as well.
Under your interpretation. That doesn't automatically make your opinion the correct interpretation.
Are you going to throw the Slave owner in Jail? Because you still legally can't free his slave(s).
Sure they could, under the laws of the state.
The Constitution has no provision for you to do so.
Actually it does under the 10th Amendment.
George Washington kept moving his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania.
Because under Pennsylvania law at the time, slave owners could temporarily reside in the commonwealth with their slaves. However, if they became permanent residents then the slaves were freed.
He was on Lincoln's side. He did not want to be placed in the position of being forced to try that case on it's merits, because he had already acknowledged that it would have condemned the actions of the North.
He was on Lincoln's side when he made the original statement. By your interpretation Chief Justice Chase should have thrown the whole matter out of court on day one. But he didn't.
It doesn't say "returned to the state". It says "But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Under your interpretation. That doesn't automatically make your opinion the correct interpretation.
Any other interpretation is in conflict with the verbiage. The founders weren't stupid, and if an interpretation conflicts with the verbiage, it is wrong.
Sure they could, under the laws of the state.
State law cannot override constitutional law. The Constitutional law requires that the person "shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
There is no wiggle room to free them. There just isn't.
You might be able to do bad things to the owner, though I think that would be considered a breach of his rights, but there is no provision whatsoever that allows a state law to free a slave held by the laws of another state.
He was on Lincoln's side when he made the original statement. By your interpretation Chief Justice Chase should have thrown the whole matter out of court on day one. But he didn't.
You apparently aren't grasping what I meant when I said he was on Lincoln's side. He had no interest in humiliating Lincoln and he also had no interest in declaring the war to be illegal. He may speak the truth in conversation, but he absolutely would not want to make such statements the official position of the Supreme Court.
He managed to obtain the result he felt was morally correct without having to denounce the legitimacy of events Lincoln set in motion.