To retain ownership across state lines where the property is considered a limited person in the other state.

But that wouldn’t work for say heroin.

If your state says heroin is legal and the fed says it’s illegal, you can’t really leave your state and still legally be in possession of it.

I guess you could claim you own a person in a red state but once they leave, you no longer own them?

Wasn’t that the red states’ whole complaint? That their slaves shouldn’t be considered free men once they leave?

So in conclusion, the whole states rights argument doesn’t work because what they actually wanted was to have their state’s laws apply across the country.

And this doesn’t even talk about the moral issues which imo and most people’s opinion should override the above logic anyway.