Tom;
I have enjoyed our discussion and like all good efforts at understanding the past, oftentimes more questions arise than answers. Kirby is right, for something so pivotal to the war in Missouri, information is sparse.

I was diving into the persons that voted no on the final resolution of the convention, specifically Sample Orr. I kind of knew the name but was surprised when I got to looking that he was Claiborne Fox's number 1 opponent for the governorship in 1859 under the Constitutional Union party of John Bell. He was a frequent correspondent with Lincoln and Bates. This led me to a very well done thesis on Hamilton Gamble, a slave owning "conservative" pro-unionist. It is here:

https://search.proquest.com/openview/45187ae5350b50546bca38a0ff91cf11/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

It certainly helped to verbalize what many of us that have tried to explain the civil war in Missouri have felt for years. You can't effectively place Missouri in the typical North/South binary description often times used to simplify the war into anti-slavery North/ pro-slavery South.

Ayres in his thesis refers to both Boman and Parrish. He also quotes Parrish with the 98-1 vote and then footnotes it to Parrish's reference:
"Parrish, Turbulent Partnership, 9. The exact breakdown of the convention makeup between Unconditional and Conditional Unionists is unknown. A fire apparently destroyed voting records. The records of the vote totals also suffered from a fire and the final number of vote totals is based on a speech a Missouri politician gave in 1863. See, Robinson, A Union Indivisible, 136, 244n50; Arenson, The Great Heart of the Republic, 111."

This reference and sourcing by Parrish runs counter to the Journal of Proceedings that certainly has vote totals and was not destroyed by fire as suggested by the unidentified 1863 politician.

Clearly many at the convention identified themselves as conservative pro Unionist calm thinkers who were looking for a compromise to avoid blood shed in the state. This is a uniquely Western border state sectional position that I would argue receives short shrift in many histories of the war. In particular the idea that early on in the war, slave owners would be pro-Union and that there was an anti-federalist, individualist (dare I say Libertarian), anti-slavery faction in the Missouri State Guard!

So I agree, I think the "98-1" vote refers to Bast's vote on resolution 5. At least I think the 98-1 vote story whether myth or slight exaggeration goes back to 1863.

Enjoy!