How else would you measure compliance? Right after the rebellion those who led the South into war stepped right back into state government. Among their first acts was the passage of legislation meant to keep the black population in a state as closely approximating slavery as possible. It was these kinds of actions, a deliberate attempt to avoid the law, that led to reconstruction.
I eagerly await your explanation as to how this comports with Article 5's, "...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
No problem. By freely entering into rebellion, the Southern states freely accepted the consequences of their actions. And I would point you to Article I, Section 5: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..." If the Congress and Senate decided that leaders of the rebellion would not be seated as members then they were free to do so.
By the way, I cheerfully recognize that a state cannot rescind an earlier ratification vote. But it's worth noting that in addition to New Jersey, the states of Ohio and Oregon also rescinded their ratifications of the 14th; not because of any inherent opposition to its content, but because of the unconstitutional manner in which Congress was acting with regard to the 14th. On the one hand you admit that states cannot rescind their ratification, and on the other hand you claim New Jersey, Oregon, and Ohio did so. It's one or the other.
It's "one."
I'm not claiming that the rescissions were valid. I'm simply pointing out that these states -- not Southern states, you'll note -- felt a moral obligation to protest what they perceived as illegal maneuvering by Congress for the specific purpose of passing the 14th amendment. The texts of their rescission proclamations make that very clear.