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?
My feeeeeelings on the matter are immaterial.
The question is were they Constitutional? The US Supreme Court said they were not.
-----
Again, if the northern states had a problem with the Constitutional provisions that they had previously agreed to, the burden was on them to get them changed.