In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first constitution, with the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it, I suppose, very nearly unanimously; but you should bear in mind that you—­speaking of you as one people—­that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the, institution amongst you; that you made it a free State not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make a free State, you would not know what to do with.  If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on this continent who have adopted slavery.

Pray what was it that made you free?  What kept you free?  Did you not find your country free when you came to decide that Ohio should be a free State?  It is important to inquire by what reason you found it so.  Let us take an illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky.  Kentucky is separated by this River Ohio, not a mile wide.  A portion of Kentucky, by reason of the course of the Ohio, is farther north than this portion of Ohio, in which we now stand.  Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery; Ohio is entirely free from it:  What made that difference?  Was it climate?  No.  A portion of Kentucky was farther north than this portion of Ohio.  Was it soil?  No.  There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorable to slave than the other.  It was not climate or soil that mused one side of the line to be entirely covered with slavery, and the other side free of it.  What was it?  Study over it.  Tell us, if you can, in all the range of conjecture, if there be anything you can conceive of that made that difference, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it out of Kentucky, while the Ordinance of ’87 kept it out of Ohio.  If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power to conceive of it.  This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that Ordinance has never made any State free.

I don’t stop at this illustration.  I come to the State of Indiana; and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as between Indiana and Kentucky:  it is equally applicable.  One additional argument is applicable also to Indiana.  In her Territorial condition she more than once petitioned Congress to abrogate the Ordinance entirely, or at least so far as to suspend its operation for a, time, in order that they should exercise the “popular sovereignty” of having slaves if they wanted them.  The men then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege.  And so we have the evidence that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for that Ordinance; that she besought Congress to put that barrier out of the way; that Congress refused to do so; and it all ended at last in Indiana being a free State.  Tell me not then that the Ordinance of ’87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a free State, when we find some men chafing against, and only restrained by, that barrier.