Replies

I'm well aware of what Article IV Section 2 says, and as I read 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 person who escaped such service or labor had to be returned to the party to which the labor or service was due.

That implies more then anything recognizing some sort of legal contract between the party due the labor or service and the person in labor or service to the party.

Legally these would be Apprentices of a guild or a union, indentured servants and debtors working off a debt through service to those that loaned them the money, not slaves. Especially if you believe that slaves were property and no more then cattle or chattel, they could not therefore be considered as persons and would be not be legally bond to a two party contract they could not have entered into any more then a horse or a cow could enter such a contract

The Thirteenth Amendment does not ban any property ownership of slaves, it abolishes the practice of slavery or involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted.

"Legally these would be Apprentices of a guild or a union, indentured servants and debtors working off a debt through service to those that loaned them the money, not slaves."

You are simply WRONG.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/15.html#1

"This clause contemplated the existence of a positive unqualified right on the part of the owner of a slave which no state law could in any way regulate, control, or restrain. Consequently the owner of a slave had the same right to seize and repossess him in another State, as the local laws of his own State conferred upon him, and a state law which penalized such seizure was held unconstitutional. Congress had the power and the duty, which it exercised by the Act of February 12, 1793, to carry into effect the rights given by this section, and the States had no concurrent power to legislate on the subject. However, a state statute providing a penalty for harboring a fugitive slave was held not to conflict with this clause since it did not affect the right or remedy either of the master or the slave; by it the State simply prescribed a rule of conduct for its own citizens in the exercise of its police power."

-------------------

I challenge you to provide a legitimate opposing resource.