The Missouri in the Civil War Message Board

Re: First Missouri Secession Vote

Tom; I believe this is selective story telling. The media reporting was clearly sensationalized dependent upon the editorial view and timing. (sounds familiar, doesn't it)

The sub committee on Federal Relations was 7 members nominated and voted into position on pg 5. Gamble was chair, Hough and Redd were members. On the 9th, Gamble presented the report document and Redd asked to present a minority dissent which was duly accepted the following Monday. The minority report was signed by Redd and Hough which infers the count of the sub-committee for Gamble's report was 5 to 2 for.

After accepting the report, the committee of the whole, then proceeded to amend it on several days with numerous motions and votes. Mr Moss offered several amendments. The motion voted by Bast on page 46, the 19th was put before the committee of the whole by Redd. The pertinent entry in the proceedings reads "The Convention, on motion, proceeded to the consideration of the first resolution (refering to Gamble's document and motions to amend were taken in order made not by construct of the document, e.g. Moss had already amended the 3rd resolution), when Mr. Redd offered the following amendment: Amend by striking out the word "cause" and inserting in the place thereof "motive" , which was rejected. The question recurring on the adoption of the first resolution, it was decided in the affirmative, by the following vote, the ayes and noes having been demanded by Mr Hough."
89 ayes, 1 no, 6 absent, 3 sick. Hardly a 98-1 which presumes those not there voted aye.

Remember Hough and Redd were dissenters of the original, Redd just had a weakening amendment voted down and they voted AYE.
To interpret this as a critical vote worth ringing church bells over just doesn't fly when the document as a whole is considered, particular in the construct of the following 5 resolutions yet to be approved plus a new one from the committee of the whole. The telling vote IMHO is the last vote on the final document taken as a whole which was clearly rejected by 3 pro Unionists. I'd suggest the latter didn't fit the narrative of various folks thus the "invention" of Redd's dissent by the NY Times and Bast's solitary vote by the Republican (if memory serves a Pro-Union paper). But then those reports were published BEFORE the vote on the whole which appears to me to be the equivalent of todays click bait.

To maybe put this in the proper perspective pro-union folks saw this document as a weak, flawed outcome that included being swayed by Georgia and Virginia, particularly calling for a contingent to the Virginia House. Pro-seccessionists obviously did not get their way either, seeing it as a weak kick the can down the road, stay with the Union as a neutral position. Both were unhappy. The outcome set the stage for the Price-Harney truce, Fremont and Lyon's radical views drove them to act, and Missouri was embroiled. I was not there of course, but reading the proceedings leads me to believe most of the delegates were trying very hard to stay out of the conflict by compromise, neutral positioning, and language, but the polarization of society deemed it to fail.

Messages In This Thread

First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote
Re: First Missouri Secession Vote