ice, _Debates on Slavery_, p. 133.

[265] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, July 30, 1845.

[266] _Ibid._, July 19, 1848.

[267] _Ibid._, August 14, 1850.

[268] _Ibid._, August 2, 1848.

[269] _St. Louis Daily Times_, October 14, 1852.

[270] _Louisville Daily Journal_, November 23, 1848.

[271] _Louisville Public Advertiser_, November 2, 1825.

[272] _Ibid._, September 13, 1826.

[273] _Louisville Daily Times_, March 1, 1854.

[274] _Slavery and Internal Slave Trade in the U. S._, p. 12.

[275] Martin, Asa E., _Anti-Slavery Movement in Kentucky_, p. 89.

[276] Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 74.

[277] _Cynthiana News_, January 10, 1858.

[278] _Henderson Weekly Commercial_, January 29, 1858.

[279] _Georgetown Gazette_, December 23, 1858.

[280] _Weekly Free South_ (Newport), April 29, 1859.

[281] Debates of the Convention of 1849, p. 73.

[282] Little, L. P., _Ben Hardin, his Times and Contemporaries_, p.
544.

[283] _Presbyterian Herald_, April 12, 1849.

[284] _Collected Documents_, 1847, pp. 581-583; 1853, pp. 401-403;
1860, pp. 241-246.

CHAPTER III

THE LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY

Slavery in its more economic form naturally spread to the Kentucky
district as the western frontier of Virginia became settled. Of the
293,427 slaves which were held in the State of Virginia in the year
1790, however, only 11,830 were in the district of Kentucky, which at
that time had a total population of 73,077. Few thought, however, of
disputing the rights of the institution in the newly created State.
The final convention which met to form a constitution was held at
Danville, beginning on April 2, 1792, and in the course of its
proceedings it was apparent that there was no fundamental division
among the delegates regarding any of the proposed provisions with the
exception of the one dealing with slavery. Virginia had stipulated in
giving permission for the formation of the new State that slavery as
an established institution should not be disturbed, and this policy
had the support of a majority of the members of the constitutional
convention. George Nichols, a native of the Old Dominion, was the
leader of the assembly and had charge of most of the work which was
done and naturally was most interested in carrying out the wishes of
his native State in the formation of the new document. The only
serious opponent was David Rice, a noted Presbyterian minister, but,
having resigned on April 11,