Replies

Nope. Stop trying to take the focus off of the US Constitution.

The original claim and the resulting questions were on the Confederate constitution. Then you blundered in and injected your inane question pertaining to your weird interpretation of Article IV.

No. I had already made the point that if it isn't specifically mentioned as a "special case" in the US Constitution, then by default, states could not legally prohibit an acknowledged right by citizens of other states.

You claimed this argument was wrong, but you put forth the exact same argument regarding the Confederate Constitution.

You understand the necessity of allowing "free states" when it comes to the Confederate constitution, but you absolutely and unequivocally refuse to understand that this exact legal concept also applies to the US Constitution.

If it isn't in there, it doesn't exist. "Free States" were illegal in the US, right from the beginning. They demand a "special case" consideration for "property", without being explicitly clear on the point that this sort of "property" was an agreed to exception.

And George Washington more or less ignored these "free state" laws.