One thing seems to be missing from your article. Fugitive Slave Acts made it a federal crime to help slaves even in the north, as well as making it a crime to refuse to assist federal officers (or southern slave owners) who were attempting to arrest a fugitive slave. The point of your article is that refusing to follow federal laws is unacceptable. How would you have suggested that the men of Wisconsin act when Joshua Glover, a fugitive slave, was captured by his “slave master”? If your article was published in 1850, you would have been siding with the “slave master”. I know it isn’t 1850 anymore, but people of the various states must have a way to protect human liberty in the face of federal overreach. Nullification is a much more mild method than secession. Secession talk usually occurs when individuals believe the federal government is “out of control”. A much less extreme method of dealing with perceived federal overreach would be simply nullifying federal law. For example, look at the Real ID law. It is a federal law but has not been enforced because a few states effectively nullified it within their boundaries. There was no talk of secession in those states, because they understood the much less extreme action of nullification.

I guess I am surprised that your article completely missed this important history of nullification, especially since it deals directly with race and federal laws.

Respectfully,

John