Not entirely true. The federal government met it's obligations to enforce the Constitution through legislation like the Fugitive Slave Acts and the legal steps it took to enforce them. Individual states may have refused to abide by those laws in violation of the Constitution, but the courts were the place to take that to and not rebellion. Of course, if your earlier claims are correct then the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Laws began and ended in the District of Columbia.
A 'free and independent State' could not be forced into anything.
Would that include being forced to deport runaway slaves to southern states?
Individual states may have refused to abide by those laws in violation of the Constitution, but the courts were the place to take that to and not rebellion.
Well, we all now know where you screen name came from.
Why would the southern states bother with the courts AFTER both the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Acts had already been ignored?
Is there a 'criteria of rebellion' that says you must complete steps 1 and 2 before preceding to step 3?
(I don't think so)
--------
Of course, if your earlier claims are correct then the jurisdiction of the Fugitive Slave Laws began and ended in the District of Columbia.
Physical jurisdiction, not the legal jurisdiction over matters written in the Constitution.
--------
Would that include being forced to deport runaway slaves to southern states?
Neither the Northern or Southern states could be 'forced' into anything......not even to stay in the Union.