There was no act making slavery legal in the US. Some state laws allowed slavery. Others didn't. You seem to be saying that the Constitution permanently committed the country to keeping slavery and giving it every advantage. It didn't. Concessions given to slaveowners were not an endorsement of its existence and value or a guarantee that it wouldn't ever be challenged.
If any state "freed" the slave, that state was in violation of Article IV, section 2. Article IV, section 2 does not have an exception clause. It specifically says that no state law can free a slave held by the laws of another state.
It says nothing of the sort.
How do you get around article IV, section 2?
Uh ... by reading it?
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The key word is "escaping" I don't see anything in there that says that you can bring your slaves to another state, be resident in that state, keep and work your slaves and then bring them back to your slave state with you.
If you move to another state, you have to respect and obey its laws, and if those laws forbid slavery you are in violation of the laws. That state may not choose to take away your slaves, but they have the right to sue, and courts have every right to recognize their freedom.
Maybe you are referring to this part:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
That does not mean that Wisconsin has to give visiting South Carolinians the "rights" Carolinians claim for themselves at home. It means it has to grant those Carolinians the rights that Wisconsiners have.
Apparently, Wisconsin will have to allow a slaveowner to take slaves through the state, but if the slaveowner establishes residence in the state, he can't remain the owner of slaves without making a mockery of states rights and the Constitution.
I did find your reference to Asperger's, but won't quote it here. It's not an advantage to be on the spectrum. Trust me. You have no idea how negatively people react to those who are too obsessional, narrowly focused, and fanatical.
I see the statement has been made: “You seem to be saying that the Constitution permanently committed the country to keeping slavery and giving it every advantage.”
The fact is, from the beginning it was known the Constitution would only enshrine slavery as long as the Constitution remained unaltered.
Everyone knew it could be legally and peacefully altered to abolish slavery using the amendment process.
Later some would advocate abolishing slavery by using bayonets to overthrow the constitution’s pro-slavery provisions. Of course, that could only be done after 600,000 men were safely buried.
I am saying that the Constitution committed the country to keeping slavery until it could be abolished by the procedure contained within the Constitution for amending it.
It says nothing of the sort.
Are you willfully blind? It very much says that. I cannot fathom how you could possibly see it saying something different. Let's look at it.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
This clearly says that state laws to abolish slavery are null and void if they interfere with returning a slave to his master.
The key word is "escaping" I don't see anything in there that says that you can bring your slaves to another state, be resident in that state, keep and work your slaves and then bring them back to your slave state with you.
George Washington did exactly this.
"Escaping" means attempting to get out of being held to service. The means by which this is attempted are irrelevant. Trying to claim the laws of a "free state" made you free, is an attempt to "escape" being held to labor due.
If you move to another state, you have to respect and obey its laws, and if those laws forbid slavery you are in violation of the laws.
No, any state attempting to refuse to allow a man to come into their state with his slaves, is violating the rest of Article IV, which requires states to respect each others' Privileges and immunities.
The problem here is that states were attempting to override Federally legal acts without going to the trouble of amending the Constitution. They were attempting bad faith claims to get what they wanted.
That does not mean that Wisconsin has to give visiting South Carolinians the "rights" Carolinians claim for themselves at home.
This is what I mean by acting in "bad faith." Under the meaning in 1787, it was accepted by all parties that slaveowners could go to other states with their slaves if they so wished. Had all parties been informed that this would allow the banning of travel or residence in certain states, the Slave owning states would have rejected the Constitution.
You are proffering a meaning contrary to what was understood by all parties in 1787. Again, more of that "living constitution" stuff.
Apparently, Wisconsin will have to allow a slaveowner to take slaves through the state, but if the slaveowner establishes residence in the state, he can't remain the owner of slaves without making a mockery of states rights and the Constitution.
And so now we move the dispute over to the meaning of the word "residence." What if he resides in Missouri, but has property in Wisconsin? Again, attempting to interfere with what was agreed upon in 1787 is acting in bad faith.
I did find your reference to Asperger's, but won't quote it here. It's not an advantage to be on the spectrum. Trust me. You have no idea how negatively people react to those who are too obsessional, narrowly focused, and fanatical.
I have joked about that for years. It has become a thing to claim you are using "weaponized Autism". It means nothing to me to let people think I have Aspergers, and the only thing surprising is that some people demonstrate irony by obsessing about it. :)