Except that judging from the citation, 14 Wend. 507 N.Y., it appears to be a state appeals case and not a federal one. Specifically New York.
And as for Webster, he was speaking in the abstract and not making accusations. Earlier in the speech he said, "For it would be absurd to suppose that, by the whole states and large portions of the country, either the North or the South has the power or the right to violate any part of that Constitution directly, and of purpose, and still claim from the other observance of its provisions. If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically persist in so doing year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be 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? "
So did the South have the right to decide on their own that the compact was broken? Webster answered that, too. "No state can decide for itself what is constitutional and what is not. When any part of the Constitution is supposed to be violated by a state law, the true mode of proceeding is to bring the case before the judicial tribunals; and, if the constitutionality of the state law be made out, it is to be set aside."
Finally, what did Webster think of the South's remedy? The action you claim were constitutional? "...after all, secession, disruption of the Union, or successful nullification, are but other names for revolution." So violations that you claim justified the Southern rebellion are not supported by one of your sources, and are marginally supported by the other, which was not a federal court case. Madison's provisions still stand, and were not met by the South in 1860.
True, my mistake, it was a decision from New York. Being listed under the federal Constitutional provision at the source caused my confusion. Unlike some people though, you won’t come across me making the same assertion again.
-----
And as for Webster, he was speaking in the abstract and not making accusations.
Politicians tend to talk that way.
-----
Earlier in the speech he said,
The next sentence after your quote:
This is indeed to be understood with some qualification,
so obviously it wasn’t a carte blanch statement.
-------
So did the South have the right to decide on their own that the compact was broken? Webster answered that, too
He’s speaking of STATE law in your exerpt, not federal law
…. if the constitutionality of the state law…. is supposed to be violated by a state law,
The remarks concerning federal authority is further down:
But what I mean to say is, that if the public men of a large portion of the country, and especially their representatives in Congress, labor to prevent, and do permanently prevent, the passage of laws necessary to carry into effect a provision of the Constitution, particularly intended for the benefit of another part of the country, and which is of the highest importance to it, it cannot be expected that that part of the country will long continue to observe other constitutional pro-visions made in favor of the rest of the country; because, gentlemen, a disregard of constitutional duty, in such a case, cannot be brought within the corrective authority of the judicial power.
-----
Madison's provisions still stand, and were not met by the South in 1860.
LOL! It was a letter. Trying to insinuate it was a ‘provision’ as if it had some force in Constitutional law is, well, pretty lame….IMHO.