With regard to 1. I agree that Ohio refused to give up Brown and Merriam to Virginia through writ. I have a problem with Virginia's standing in this. The feds sent Lee with Marines immediately in and he ended the raid by capturing or killing almost all involved. The captured survivors of the Harpers Ferry raid we're immediately tried, convicted and HUNG for treason before the war started. The treason was due to the take over of the federal armory there, not the murders these men committed in town before, during and after the raid. Virgina was essentially declaring this act an invasion against the State itself and that Ohio, Iowa and other states were involved because the abolutionists were from there. One can argue that the Federal goverment had ultimate jurisdiction and not Virginia, and that the Federal government acted swiftly to protect Virginian's life and property.
2. Is legitimate back then, but completely unrecognizable in today's America, as everything the feds do now involves the distribution of pork.
3. One could argue that Ohio is no more obligated to accept Virginia's fugitive slave laws back then, any more than Ohio today has to accept Mass. homosexual marriage law. And if Ohio wants to pass a law refusing to accept or acknowledge homosexual unions from other states, I believe it is within their rights.
The great irony of all this is the fact that even though this war was fought to protect States rights, with legitimate arguments on both sides, all the States lost most of their rights during this war, never to see them return, even to this day.
diplomat, thanks for the reply.
The Harper's Ferry convicts were charged with (convicted of and executed for) treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia (not the US), murder and inciting servile insurrection. Now, as for treason against the Commonwealth, one of the accused (Brown, himself, if memory serves) said that he never owed any allegiance to Virginia, so being charged with treason to her was inappropriate (Brown had a certain point here, I believe). But murder and inciting insurrection were serious crimes, and the Governors Kirkwood and Dennison were dead wrong to refuse the extradition requests from Governor Letcher. What this conduct meant was observed by the Staunton (Va.) Vindicator in February, 1860, when that paper editorialized as follows: "The conduct of the Governor of Iowa (says the Richmond Dispatch) is remarkable for its duplicity, and shows to us of the South, what we have to expect from Northern officials, elevated to power by the sectional party of the day."
The fact that Northern Republican office holders (not just loud-mouthed radicals in private life) had done this was very troubling. Would a Seward or Lincoln Administration take a similar stance in regards to perpetrators of future armed invasions of the South?
And you are correct on one other point. A different extradition failure spawned an appeal to the Federal bench around the same time. In Kentucky vs. Dennison, the Court ruled that the Governor had a moral obligation to extradite fugitives from justice, but that the Federal Court had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus ordering a State Executive to do his duty.
As for the idea that the Federal government had ultimate jurisdiction I am not sure what Federal laws the raiders broke at Harper’s Ferry. I’m not sure there was even a Federal law against murder back then. That would have been a State law only. And the Federal government acted swiftly to protect Virginians’ life and property, but apprehension and prosecution are two separate things.
2. You are right about pork, but it was one of the grievances of which Southerners complained. If ever there was a real-world example of the slippery slope, this issue is it. Is there any topic that the Federal government considers to be beyond its purview?
3. The fugitive slave law was a Federal not a State law. It was enacted pursuant to Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution. Lots of States had laws that were specifically designed to thwart Article IV, Section 2. Of course, these laws were unconstitutional, but they did serve as examples of how Republicans intended to run the show, once they got the Senate and White House. Some Republicans had already shown that they were willing to use their offices to protect murderers. What were Southerners supposed to make of that fact?
Of course, if a Northern State found enforcing the fugitives from labor clause to be so repugnant, they could have seceded. Then they would be free to ignore the Fugitive Slave Law and welcome escaped slaves with open arms.