Their analysis is long on rhetoric and short on logic.
Laws that presumed any black person was to be considered a fugitive until proven otherwise were clearly unconstitutional, and also violated even older common law principles presupposed in the Constitution.
Why then did Nicolay and Hay say [Link, see page 30]:
"The editors of the "National Intelligencer," who certainly could not be accused of a desire to misrepresent either the North or the South, printed in their issue of December 11, 1860, a careful analysis and review of all Northern Personal Liberty bills."
From Wikipedia [so be cautious]:
Although a slaveowner, Bell was one of the few southern politicians to oppose the expansion of slavery in the 1850s, and campaigned vigorously against secession in the years leading up to the American Civil War.[2] During his 1860 presidential campaign, he argued that secession was unnecessary since the Constitution protected slavery, an argument which resonated with voters in border states, helping him capture the electoral votes of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. After the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861, Bell abandoned the Union cause and supported the Confederacy.
Let's see.
1. Bell opposed expansion the expansion of slavey in the 1850s. So did Lincoln.
2. Bell campaigned vigorously against secession. Lincoln sure opposed secession.
3. Bell argued that secession was unnecessary since the Constitution protected slavery. In his first inaugural speech, Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery. Lincoln's speech notes for an 1859 speech said [Link]:
"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the Constitution demands it."4. Bell was a Whig. Lincoln had been a Whig for most of his political career.
5. Bell spoke out against the Mexican war in the 1840s. So did Lincoln.
6. The Constitutional Union Party of Bell's wanted to preserve the Union. So did the Republicans and Lincoln.
7. Bell had voted for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. When in Congress in the l840s, Lincoln had introduced a bill outlawing slavery in the District of Columbia that included the right of slave owners to recover their fugitive slaves that escaped into DC.
Bell was not much different from Lincoln on those issues.
Bell "went traitor after he lost the election"? After Fort Sumter, Bell thought his home state of Tennessee should arm itself to repel any invasion by Federal troops. This reminds me of what Alexander Hamilton said during ratification of the Constitution:
It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.