Why would he conclude that? Article IV says very clearly, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
It essentially says that a state cannot treat a citizen of another state differently than their own. Guess what? The slaves were not citizens of any state. They had no privileges and immunities. And after they were freed, the states treated them exactly that way.
The 14th was passed (as part of a trilogy of amendments) to give the slaves some basic privileges and immunities -- they were declared "citizens of the United States" and were entitled to those privileges and immunities that were part of the national government.
Let's ask Justice Washington:
"The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign."
The 14th was passed (as part of a trilogy of amendments) to give the slaves some basic privileges and immunities -- they were declared "citizens of the United States" and were entitled to those privileges and immunities that were part of the national government.
Do such privileges and immunities include those recognized in the Bill of Rights?