hirds of
the members of each house of the legislature, the question of calling a
convention for the revision of the Constitution should be submitted to the
people. For calling a convention only a majority vote from the people was
necessary. This method of procedure the pro-slavery party determined upon.
The two-thirds in favor of the project could be secured without difficulty
in the senate, but in the house the desperate expedient of reconsidering
the right of a member to a contested seat and seating his opponent was
resorted to.(514) This being done the resolution to submit the question of
a constitutional convention to the people was passed by a bare two-thirds
vote in each house.(515) Of the eighteen men who voted against the
resolution, eleven were natives of southern states, two of New York, two
of Connecticut, one of Massachusetts, one of Vermont, and one of Sweden.
There were some northern men who voted in favor of the resolution.(516)

The campaign resulting from the passage of the convention resolution was
waged for eighteen months with great vigor. Press and pulpit were actively
employed.(517) A large anti-slavery society was formed in Morgan
county,(518) and it was in all probability one of many such organizations.
In August, 1824, came the final vote, and the official count of the votes
showed a majority of 1668 against calling a constitutional
convention.(519)

It is noteworthy that in this struggle the governor of the state was an
anti-slavery southerner; eleven of the eighteen anti-slavery men in the
legislature were southern; the pro-slavery party, which polled 1971 more
votes than its opponents in 1822, was defeated by 1668 votes in 1824. It
is also true that of the leaders in the campaign some of the most noted
were southern anti-slavery or northern pro-slavery men.

[Illustration: Election Results.]

The history of settlement suggests several explanations for the votes of
1822 and 1824. The legislature which passed the convention resolution had
not been chosen with the avowed purpose of doing so. Some designing
politicians had such an object in view and secured the election of
pro-slavery men by anti-slavery constituents. The number of such cases was
not large, but as the resolution passed by the minimum vote they are
important.(520) In 1822, however, there was almost without doubt a
pro-slavery majority in the state, but it is improbable that there was a
two-thirds majority. I