West Virginia--Van Winkle, Willey.
Ohio — Sherman, Wade.
Indiana--Henry S. Lane.
Iowa — Grimes, Harlan.
Kansas--J. H. Lane, Pomeroy.
Not Voting.--Buckalew, Pa.; Wright, N. J.; Hicks, Md.; Bowden and Carlile, Va.; Richardson, Ill.--all Democrats.
But it failed1
in the House
: Yeas 95; Nays 66--substantially, though not absolutely, a party division.
, of Ohio
— changing his vote to enable him to do so — now moved a reconsideration; and the subject went over to await the issues of the War
and of the pending election of President
, in his Message already quoted, now urged the House
to concur with the Senate in adopting the Amendment-saying:
Without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session.
Of course, the abstract question is not changed; but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence, there is only a question of time as to when the proposed Amendment will go to the States for their action.
And, as it is to so go at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?
It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes, any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now, for the first time, heard upon the question.
In a great National crisis, like ours, unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable — almost indispensable.
And yet, no approach to such unanimity is attainable, unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority.
In this case, the common end is the maintenance of the Union; and, among the means to secure that end, such will, through the election, is most clearly declared in favor of such Constitutional Amendment.
accordingly called up2
in the House
his motion to reconsider the vote above given; and the question was at length brought3
to issue — a motion to lay it on the table having been defeated by 111 to 57--when the reconsideration was ordered: Yeas 112 ; Nays 57.
The vote was then taken on concurring with the Senate in passing the Amendment, in the shape reported by Mr. Trumbull
from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate — as follows:
Be it resolved, &c., That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely:
now concurred with the Senate, by the following vote:
Yeas--[Democrats in Italics.]
Maine--Blaine, Perham, Pike, Rice.
New Hampshire--Patterson, Rollins.
Massachusetts — Alley, Ames, Baldwin, Boutwell, Dawes, Eliot, Gooch, Hooper, Rice, W. D. Washburn.
Rhode Island--Dixon, Jenckes.
Connecticut--Brandagee, Deming, English, J. H. Hubbard.