On the sixth of January, the bill again came up in the regular order of business, and Mr. Giddings concluded his remarks. He endeavored to meet the arrogance of Mr. Burt, clearly and as fully as his abilities would permit. He accepted the challenge thrown out by that member, that he would leave no other loop-hole for gentlemen to escape, than by meeting the question of property in human flesh. To this point he directed his remarks, attempting to show the doctrine of Mr. Burt to be opposed to the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution of the United States, to civilization, to the dictates of our common humanity.[83] When he concluded his remarks, he withdrew his motion to reconsider, in order to test the sense of the House on the passage of the bill, which would be the next question in order.
As the roll was called, and the votes given, the result became doubtful, and much interest was manifested in all parts of the hall. The bill and discussion had been thrust upon the House by slaveholders: its whole merits were based upon the most vital principles of slavery. The question of property in human flesh, constitutes one of the essential elements of the institution, without which it could not survive one hour. The slave power had not for many years been defeated on any proposition touching slavery, and it appeared painful for those interested in that institution to have their influence doubted.
The Clerk (a deputy) was engaged a long time in counting the votes, and ascertaining the result. He was a slaveholder, and appeared perplexed; some members, even before he made report of the vote, expressed doubts of his accuracy. At length he passed his report to the Chair. The Speaker, Mr. Winthrop of Massachusetts, casting his eye upon the figures, rose from his seat, and announced the vote—“ayes ninety, noes eighty-nine,” and then remarking that the rules of the House made it his duty to vote in all cases when such vote would change the result, began to give his reasons for the vote he was about to record, and as he proceeded it became evident that he was opposed to the bill. The Clerk then handed him another paper, and the Speaker, after reading it, announced that the Clerk had mistaken the vote, and without saying more, announced—“ayes ninety-one, noes eighty-nine,” and declared the bill “passed.”
The interest had now become intense in all parts of the hall. It was perfectly natural that men should be suspicious of the Clerk. Mr. Dickey, in particular, had taken a deep interest in the question. He was sitting near the Author, and expressed freely the opinion, that the Clerk had reported the vote incorrectly. So strong was this belief, that he went to the Clerk, and demanded a copy of the record giving the ayes and noes. The Clerk promised to give it soon. Dickey waited a short time, and renewed his call on the Clerk, who again promised. Dickey, after waiting a proper time, went to the Clerk’s table, and took the record of yeas and nays, and brought it to the seat of the Author, and requested his assistance in counting the vote. They counted and re-counted several times, but were unable to make the vote other than “eighty-nine ayes, and eighty-nine noes”—showing a tie vote; which, without the Speaker’s vote, would have defeated the bill. Dickey returned the record to the Clerk, and then called the attention of the House and the Speaker to the fact, that the Clerk had inaccurately reported the vote. The Speaker replied, if an error had occurred, the proper time to correct it would be the next morning, on reading the Journal, when a motion to correct the entry would be in order, in preference to any other business.
On looking over the list, it was subsequently discovered, that the vote of Hon. John W. Farrelly of Crawford county, Pennsylvania, was not recorded. This added intensity to the interest already felt on the subject.
The next meeting of the House was on Monday, when the Speaker recited the facts as they occurred on Saturday, and declared that, on a more careful examination, it was found that the vote stood—“ayes eighty-nine, noes eighty-nine.”
Mr. Farrelly inquired, if his vote was recorded? The Speaker informed him it was not, but that it was his right to have it recorded, if he had actually voted on the passage of the bill. That gentleman declared that he had voted no, on the passage of the bill, and the vote being recorded, the Speaker declared the result to be “ayes eighty-nine, noes NINETY,” and then announced the bill “lost!”
The friends of freedom were greatly cheered, from the consideration, that party ties had not been strong enough to control members on this important vote. Of the twenty-one members from Ohio, only Mr. Ritchey of Perry, Mr. Cummins of Tuscarawas, and Mr. Taylor of Ross, voted with the slaveholders; while such Democrats as Messrs. Faran, Fries, Kennon, Lamb, Miller, Morris, Sawyer and Starkweather voted against the doctrine that men and women may be held and treated as property. Indeed, there were but few Representatives from the free States willing to recognize that doctrine. No member from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin or Iowa voted for it. From Maine, Messrs. Clapp, Clarke and Williams; from New York, Messrs. Birdsal, McClay, Murphy, Necoll and Tallmadge; from Pennsylvania, Messrs. Brady, Bridges, Brodhead, Charles Brown, C. J. Ingersol, Levin and Job Mann; from Indiana, Messrs. Dunn, R. W. Thompson and Wick; and from Illinois, Messrs. McClernand and Richardson voted to pay Pacheco a thousand dollars, because General Jessup sent a most dangerous enemy out of Florida.
Mr. Burt, and the friends of slavery generally, appeared irritated by defeat. They had driven their Northern allies to revolt. The more they reflected upon the subject, the more important the issue appeared. They had caused great agitation, while professing to deprecate all discussion in regard to slavery. If slaves were not property under the Federal Constitution, they must be regarded as persons. If the civilized world looked upon them as persons, those who held them in bondage must of course be considered as oppressors of mankind, and could have no claim to the title of Democrats or of Christians. In every point of view, the result appeared disastrous to the slave power.
It was under these circumstances, that the Hon. William Sawyer of Ohio, was induced to move a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was lost. From the fact that none but those voting in the negative could by the rules of the House move a reconsideration, and that he subsequently voted against his own motion, it is probable he made it from personal kindness to those who supported the bill. On this motion, a long discussion subsequently arose, which did not terminate until the nineteenth of January, when the motion to reconsider prevailed, and on the final passage of the bill the vote stood—ayes 101, noes 95. So the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, and the struggle in that body terminated. But the bill was never brought up for discussion in the Senate, and the claim was never more moved in either House of Congress. The question of property in human flesh, however, continued to be discussed by the people, and in Congress, until it has become one of the great issues on which political parties now base their action.