Because the Northern States had already been violating the compact for almost 40 years. In fact, the violations we SO flagrant, it was mentioned
by the Appeals court for US Supreme Court Jack v. Martin in 1835
and we may find when it is too late, that the patience of the south, however well founded upon principle, from repeated aggression will become exhausted. These considerations would have no influence with me if I could satisfy myself of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress; but I can never contribute in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to the abolition of slavery, however great an evil it may be, in violation of the constitution and laws of the country, and in violation of the solemn compact which was made by our forefathers at the adoption of the constitution, and which their posterity are bound to preserve inviolate. I am sustained in this view of the case by the whole current of authority, in all the states where the question has been decided.
As well as being mentioned in a speech by Daniel Webster in 1851;
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
----
I posted this material on the other thread and you totally ignored it, but with your recent behavior, I guess now I know why.
So two people and you make it so? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Those poor dears. Not allowed to abuse their slaves without suffering the disapproving glances from their neighbors. It must have been absolutely horrid.
I recommend you read Daniel Webster’s quote more carefully. He does not, in what you quoted, assert that the northern states have violated the compact.
Further, various SCOTUS decisions ruled that state officials are not required to help southern kidnappers recover their slaves. That is a federal government responsibility only.
Why? Because with northern help would come northern state procedure, which would require giving the kidnapped and alleged slave due process, and the forged documents routinely used by the kidnappers would have been challenged per the personal liberty laws. To avoid that, Taney removed the state role in recovering the fugitive slaves.
That resolved the controversy, per Article 3 section 2 for honest people.