The reason that you are wrong is very nicely explained by Jim 0216 in post #102. Re: Ammendments IX and X. Also, you spelled "then" incorrectly. It is "if, then" not "if, than".
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".)
You are an @$$. Your assertion that I would have slaves is contemptible, and as a consequence, I have no interest in discussing this topic further with you. I consider you an obsessive child who shoots of her mouth when she should shut up and listen to the grown ups.
The problem with you is as Reagan said of his opposition. It is not that you are ignorant it's that you "know so much which isn't so. "
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Court of Errors and Appeals) ruled in 1802 that Slavery was permissible by the Pennsylvania constitution. This was a Unanimous decision.
Since George Washington died in 1799, I don't think his slaves were in any jeopardy of being taken away from him. Slavery persisted in Pennsylvania until at least 1840 when the census registered "64" slaves living in the state.
That George Washington didn't want to antagonize people, even though he had a legal right to do so if he wished, is a testament to the sort of character he possessed. He was trying to bring the nation together rather than rend it with needless animosities.