Which is exactly right.
If the northern States disputed the definition of property in Article IV Section 2 Clause 3, the should have petitioned the federal government to have it changed.
While they had every right to alter that definition for themselves, they had NONE to do so for any other State, and property belonging to a person in another State should have been returned as such until the abolitionist States followed Constitutional procedures and had the Compact amended. That’s exactly what the Constitution says.
The South was under NO obligation to defend that which had previously been decided by ALL the States. That was supposed to be the federal government’s job.
In the case of any person accused of being ‘property’ the personal liberty law provided for a legal process to determine facts. That legal process involved testimony, rules of evidence, and due process protections of individual rights, based on the principle of “innocent until proved guilty”.
And you are honestly against that? You support people that were against that? Really?