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. :)
You can be a resident of Colorado. You may have been born in Colorado. You may own land in Colorado. But you better not light up a joint in broad daylight on the street in Milwaukee. Your Colorado residence doesn't mean you can ignore the laws of Wisconsin with impunity. States rights, baby!
[George Washington] obviously didn't agree that they could ban it in their state, but as a means of keeping peace withing a fragile coalition, he chose not to confront them on the point.
Obviously? Washington freed his slaves in his will. He was a product of slave society and reflected the views of slave owners of his day, but those views weren't the same as the views of slave owners 70 years later. Washington, like Mason and other revolutionaries didn't view slavery as a positive good and a permanent institution, but as something that would some day (somehow) be superseded and surpassed by society. So, no, it wasn't "obvious" that he'd object to Pennsylvania's laws or Pennsylvania's right to abolish slavery.