I read “Millard Fillmore” by Paul Finkelman.

Henry Clay’s supporters were shocked when, on the first ballot, their man ran second with 97 votes to Taylor’s 111. On the next two ballots, Clay lost 23 delegates, while Taylor gained 22. Taylor won the nomination on the next ballot. […] It took the Whig Convention only four ballots to nominate Taylor, while the great leaders of the party, Clay and Webster, saw their vote totals drop with each round of voting.

Anyways, I wanted to point out the parallels between the treatment of escaped slaves in 18500 and the treatment of undocumented immigrants in the 20261. In both their time and ours there is extreme debate over what federal officials are allowed to do, what states (especially those unconsenting) can be compelled to do, and how to properly square our laws with our greater sense of morality.

(0) Compare how simply the testimony that someone is an escaped slave in 1850 (1) might be similar to how immigration officers today may be allowed to compile “ethnicity” into reasonable suspicion for a stop.

I’m a bit of a Patriot and so I say the prevailing answer to these debates in my commonwealth (Massachussets) was2 back then and still is today, what is ultimately right and where we will eventually go as a nation. :)

(2) Think Frederick Douglass, not Daniel Webster.