I am awestruck by the sheer intellectual brilliance of your rebuttal.
DL:"If the slaveowner has a right to go to a different state, and if he has a right to take his "property" with him, than like it or not, the state is obligated to abide by the requirements specified in the Federal Charter. They don't get to modify it with conditions."
This statement is just, without qualifiers or conditions, wrong.
You repeatedly mention that Art IV, sec2, clause 3 does not mention conditions and qualifiers. GW was acutely aware of these "unmentioned " conditions and qualifiers. That is because his Attorney General (the very first US Attorney General) made the mistake of "not understanding" the laws regarding a slave owner bringing his slaves into the State of Pennsylvania. His slaves were taken from him by the State due to the very qualifiers and conditions that are not expressed in Art IV Sec 2 Clause 3. It was not by any particular shrewdness on the part of GW that he used the loophole. He was strongly advised by his good friend the US Attorney General to not temp fate and make the same mistake of losing his slaves.
Believe me, I would have been first in line to ROTFLMAO to watch you, back in 1790 march into Pennsylvania with your slaves and declare you were taking up permanent residence because you were protected by the Federal Charter. (First off, the good citizens of Pennsylvania would have asked you, "what the h*ll is a "Federal Charter".)