Yes, I've noticed that as well.
Clearly slaves must always be returned to their masters. It says so quite explicitly. Clearly their masters have the right to go into non slave states.
Complete nonsense. Article IV says, "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime." So a slave who illegally runs away from his master in a slave state has committed a crime in that state and must be returned to that state from punishment. Nothing in that could be confused with a state's right to outlaw slavery within it's borders. Nothing in that says a slave owner has the right to take his slaves wherever he wants. And as part of all that prohibiting a slave owner from bringing his property into that state.
Where does a state get the authority to free slaves? Their own laws cannot do it, because this is expressly prohibited by Article IV, section 2.
Article IV Section 2 does not say that.
So what do they do? They *CLAIM* they have the right to ban slavery in their state, but nothing in the Constitution can be actually understood to mean this thing they claim.
Nothing under the Constitution reserves that right to the government so it's a right reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.
No, I suspected precisely right. I knew you would try to make up some phoney reason why Article IV, Section 2 doesn't mean what it says, and I knew you would try to pretend this is somehow different from what the Confederate constitution did.
LOL! Only if one adopts the same idiotic interpretation of Article IV as you do.
It doesn't have to say that. That is the default meaning when slavery is accepted as legal by the national compact.
*YOUR SIDE* has to have something that says states can ban citizens of other states from bringing their slaves.
The rights of citizens in going to other states is clearly stated in the privileges and immunities clause, and the ability to take slaves with them is implicit in that clause. Slaves were legally equivalent to cows or horses, and the idea that people would be banned from bringing their livestock and working it would have been regarded as failure to conform to the agreement.
If it were intended that slaves would be regarded as a "special case", then this special case would have been spelled out. The fact that no mention was made of slaves being a "special case" under constitutional law pretty much proves there was no intent to treat them as a special case. Ergo, the default rule is that they are property, and are therefore useable by the owner in whatever manner the owner wishes.
Your side just pleads "special case" because you want there to be a special case without actually having to have it voted on and ratified by the rest of the states, which in 1787 were mostly slave states.
This is an example of Liberals trying to "living document" the constitution into meaning something quite different from what it originally meant. If there is no special classification for slaves in the US constitution which allows them to be banned in other states, the default position is that they cannot be banned.
It may be ugly, but it is an accurate reading of the legal facts for that time period.