[phi11yguy19]

Though an articulate reply, you’re nonetheless playing games again. Those “CLAIMS not to be predujiced” are referenced specifically in the first half of the same sentence as “respecting the Territory or other Property”.

The unfortunate truth (as culminated in Dred) was slaves were indeed legally viewed as “property” of their masters (just as indentured servants were like Ben Franklin was when indentured to James). The difference being that slaves had no legal status as citizens of any State, and there was no such thing as citizenship of the common government (United States) at that time, which is why Dred was first dismissed for having no standing in the court.

The clause protected against the practice of slaves being “freed” (or “stolen” depending if you’re talking ideology or law) once they crossed State lines into non-slave states or Federal territories - such acts were never done Constitutionally - moral relativism is not the law. That’s why Dred was returned AND that’s why the Northern troops returned THOUSANDS of slaves to their plantations DURING the war.

Territories were not States and held no sovereignty. The laws of congress to control them (often martial at first) until they met the requirements to request statehood were not in antithesis of the restrictions placed upon them in the Constitution. There is not legal justification for the point you’re trying to make in the context of the laws at that time.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The problem with your reading of the clause (besides the fact that it doesn't jibe with the discussion at the Constitutional Convention) is that slaves were not the property of the state. The clause does not say that the claims of any person not be prejudiced. It's the claim of any state.

The difference being that slaves had no legal status as citizens of any State, and there was no such thing as citizenship of the common government (United States) at that time, which is why Dred was first dismissed for having no standing in the court.

This notion that there was no such thing as US citizenship, only state citizenship is another falsehood I've seen repeated on these threads. The fact is that the Constitution refers to US citizenship several times, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 specifies the process:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.

The clause protected against the practice of slaves being “freed” (or “stolen” depending if you’re talking ideology or law) once they crossed State lines into non-slave states or Federal territories - such acts were never done Constitutionally - moral relativism is not the law.

No. That would be Article IV, Sections 1 and 2.