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.
Fascinating that Virginia got final jurisdiction for treason to me because the place John Brown attacked was the Federal Armory in Harpers Ferry, one of only 2 in existance at the time in the USA. Plus, President Buchanan had ordered Colonel Robert E. Lee and the marines to Harper's Ferry as soon as word got to Washington.
Brown planned on using these weapons to arm the slaves that were going to supposedly heed his call for armed insurection and rebellion. Problem was, none (or just a couple) of the slaves joined him and he murdered more who didn't join.
So back in the day, the Federal courts allowed the States to handle treason. Too bad we can't get Pelosi extradited today.