e then moved in 1819 to Edwardsville, Illinois,
where he emancipated his slaves. Arriving in that State just at the
time its citizens were trying to decide whether or not that
commonwealth should be a slave or free State, this anti-slavery man
turned the tide in favor of freedom. He had been in the State only
three years when he was nominated by the anti-slavery party for
governor. He received a minority of the votes cast at the election in
1822; but owing to a split in the pro-slavery party which divided its
votes between two candidates, Coles was elected, although the friends
of slavery elected their candidate for lieutenant-governor and a
majority of the members of both branches of the legislature. There
ensued then a struggle to have a convention called so to change the
constitution as to make Illinois a slave State.

Judge Gillespie, a contemporary, described the situation as follows:

It was conceded in those days that a State formed out of the
"North West Territory" could not be _admitted_ into the Union
contrary to the provisions of the ordinance of 1787, which
prohibited slavery, but the slavery propagandists contended that
you could, the next day after being admitted under an
_anti-slavery_ constitution, change the constitution so as to
admit slavery, and in that way, "whip the devil around the
stump." It was likewise contended that slavery existed in
Illinois beyond Congressional interference, by virtue of the
treaty (of 1763) between France and England, and that between
England and the United States at the close of the Revolutionary
War, in both of which the rights of the French inhabitants were
guaranteed. One of these rights was that of holding slaves,
which, it was contended, was protected by treaty stipulation, and
was equal in binding effect, to the Constitution (of the United
States) itself. Besides, it was maintained, that by the conquest
of George Rogers Clark, this country became a part of Virginia,
and that Congress had no more power to abolish slavery in
Illinois, than it had in Virginia. The logic of the times was
that the French inhabitants had the right to hold slaves, and
that the other inhabitants had equal rights with the
French--ergo: they all had the right to hold slaves. This was the
argument of the celebrated constitutional expounder--John
Grammar, of Union county--in