“tacit indication that slavery was accepted under the constitution.”
Slavery is recognized to exist and is accepted. But if slavery was truly protected, there would have been language in the Constitution prohibiting action against the institution.
No such language is found in the Constitution. Since slavery is not protected by the Constitution, states were free to outlaw the institution. By 1804, all states, North of the Mason Dixon Line, had either outlawed slavery or passed laws that would eventually end the practice in their states.
Outlawing slavery does not absolve a state from the Constitutional requirements of Art IV section 2.
I think Article IV, section 2 clearly qualifies as that.
No such language is found in the Constitution. Since slavery is not protected by the Constitution, states were free to outlaw the institution.
I recently had an exchange of messages with someone on another website who said that court cases were moving in the direction of making it difficult to outlaw slavery in free states. I've already voiced my opinion on the difficulty of banning slavery in free states because of the "privileges and immunities" clause, as well as the 5th amendment protections against taking without just compensation.
From what the fellow was telling me, court cases of that era were moving towards the "you cannot prohibit slavery in free states" position.
Outlawing slavery does not absolve a state from the Constitutional requirements of Art IV section 2.
Clearly, and therein lies the rub. Unless you violate "privileges and immunities", you can't prohibit someone from coming into your state with their slaves. Furthermore, unless you violate the fifth amendment, you cannot take away their slaves for being in your state.
It was only indulged because nobody pushed it into this sort of legal fight.