[DiogenesLamp]

So what do you think Article IV, section 2 is about?

I have you at a disadvantage. I actually saw the notes on the debate about the constitutional protection for slavery. In the discussion, they use the word "slave", repeatedly.

[rockrr]

I have you at a disadvantage.

I'm still chuckling over that one!

So what do you think Article IV, section 2 is about?

It's the Privileges and Immunities clause. Do you not know the difference between a reference and an enshrinement?

Why do you suppose that they didn't follow through and actually enshrine that reference by standing tall and identifying the Peculiar Institution by name?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I actually saw the notes on the debate about the constitutional protection for slavery.
In the discussion, they use the word "slave", repeatedly."

While your link discusses slavery, it also makes clear the Constitution's language refers to indentured servants or slaves, or potentially even convicts & draft dodgers.
So the Constitution does not "enshrine" slavery specifically, but any state law which might hold a person to service, that law must be honored in the other states.

Nothing says states cannot abolish slavery, enfranchise former slaves, or that states must allow slaves to be kept by owners from other states, as alleged by the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision.

Our pro-Confederate propagandists wish us to believe that slavery was immutably "enshrined" in the 1787 Constitution when that is totally false.