History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth United States Congresses, 1861-65, by Henry Wilson, 1865.

CHAPTER XXIV.

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.— FINAL ACTION.

SECOND SESSION OF CONGRESS, — PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. — REMARKS BY MR. BROOKS, — MR. CRESWELL. — REMARKS BY MR. ASHLEY ON HIS MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE REJECTING VOTE. — REMARKS BY MR. ORTH. — MR. SCOFIELD, — MR. BLISS, — MR. ROGERS. — MR. DAVIS, — MR. TEAMAN. — MR. ODELL, — MR. KASSON. — MR. FERNANDO WOOD. — MR. KING. — MR. SMITHERS, — MR. HOLMAN. — MR. PENDLETON. — MR. JENCKES, — MR. ROLLINS, — MR. GARFIELD, — MR. STEVENS. — MR. BALDWIN, — MR. WASHBURNE. — MR. PATTEESON, — MR. FIKE. — MR. U'ALLISTER. — MR. HERRICK. — MR. BROWN. — PERVIOUS QUESTION. — MOTION TO LAY THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER LOST. — RESOLUTION RECONSIDERED. — PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENT. — VOTE RECEIVED WITH CHEERS.

THE Second Session of the 38th Congress commenced on the 8th of December, 1865. The President reminded that body, that important movements had occurred during the year, " to the effect of moulding society for durability in the Union ; " " that Maryland was secure to liberty and Union for all the future ; " and that the election, which was the voice of the people heard for the first time on the proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery, made it almost certain that the next Congress would pass it. Without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition to it at the last session, he recommended the reconsideration and passage of it now. Mr. Brooks of New York took an early occasion to controvert the antislavery and general policy Page 378 embodied in the Message. He was sharply replied to by Mr. Price of Iowa, Mr. Myers and Mr. Stevens 'of Pennsylvania. Mr. Creswell (Rep.) of Maryland, in committee of the whole on the President’s Message, made a very elaborate, able, and effective speech in favor of universal emancipation. " The issue," he said, "is sharply defined between the rebellion and the United States. On the one side is disunion for the sake of slavery; on the other is freedom for the sake of the Union. . , , Whether we would or not, we must establish freedom. If we would exterminate treason."

On the 6th of January, the House, on motion of Mr. Ashley (Rep.) of Ohio, took up for consideration his motion to reconsider the vote of the 15th of June, rejecting the antislavery amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Ashley opened the debate in an earnest appeal for the consummation of the measure by the 38th Congress. "Pass this amendment," he said, "and the gloomy shadow of slavery will never again darken the fair fame of our country, or tarnish the glory of democratic institutions in the land of Washington. Pass this amendment, and the brightest page in the history of the 38th Congress, now so soon to close, will be the one on which is recorded the names of the requisite number of members voting in its favor. Refuse to pass it, and the saddest page in the history of the 38th Congress will be the one on which is recorded its defeat." Mr. Ashley was followed by Mr. Orth (Rep.) of Indiana, in advocacy of the reconsideration of the rejecting vote, and the speedy passage of the amendment. He declared that the American people and decreed that slavery is unfit to live ; that its ablest Page 379 defenders cannot long shield it from Its inevitable doom ; that, if this Congress should not heed the public voice, another Congress, fresh from the people, will obey their voice, and be rewarded with the gratitude of un told millions. Mr. Scofield (Rep.) of Pennsylvania spoke eloquently for early action. He emphatically declared, that " slavery in the end must die. It has coat the country too much suffering and too much patriotic bipod, and is in theory an institution too monstrous to be permitted to live." "The only question is, shall it die now, by a constitutional amendment, — a single stroke of the axe, — or shall it Unger in party warfare, through a quarter or half a century of acrimonious debate, patchwork legislation, and conflicting adjudication ? " In replying to the sharp personal criticisms of Mr. Scofield, Mr. Brooke of New York asserted, that the South was abolishing slavery when the abolition war commenced upon it thirty years ago ; that civil war, amid bloodshed and carnage, had hastened the abolition of slavery, but that " we had become the slaves, the thralls, the bondmen of the capitalists of the North : for the emancipation of the negroes of the South we have enslaved the white people of the North to everlasting debt."

On the 7th, the debate was resumed by Mr. Bliss (Dem.) of Ohio, in opposition to the amendment. "The success of this proposition," he said, "would dash the cup of hope from the lips of a majority of the people of all the adhering States." He declared that " the pretence of a humanitarian motive towards the negroes amounts to nothing but a display of systematic and intense hypocrisy ; " that " the best possible disposition Page 380 of them is to restore them to their primal condition." Mr. Rogers (Dem.) of New Jersey followed in opposition to the antislavery amendment of the Constitution. " The history of our country will," he said, "in pages red with blood, record that this war was caused by the acts of the abolitionists of the North. ... I implore you, in the name of truth, de not charge upon slavery the cause of this war. By the history of this country, I charge that such men as Wendell Phillipe, Horace Greeley, Lloyd Garrison, and those in power, have been the promoters of this war, and the blood of this nation rests upon them." Mr. Davis (Rep.) of New York had never understood, in its full and perfect extent, the definition of civil liberty, until he hastened to Mr. Rogers. By the commentary of that gentleman, civil liberty consisted in the right of one people to enslave another people to whom nature had given equal rights. " Slavery hag wrought too much of evil," he said, "it has shed too much of innocent blood, it has sent top many of our citizens, our brothers, our relatives, and friends to in hospitable graves, it has held its carnival of blood and death on too many battle-fields, for gentlemen from the free North to stand here as its advocates and defenders. . . . The American people, in their majesty and in their power, have decreed its absolute and perpetual annihilation."

On the 9th, Mr. Yeaman of Kentucky opened the debate in a carefully elaborated and comprehensive speech in favor of immediate action. He avowed that the perpetuity of slavery was net in issue. "That issue," he said, " was made up four years ago, and the Page 381 case has been decided against the institution, one half the jury being its own friends. Were we to do nothing and say nothing, Mr. Davis and General Lee, Mr. Stephens and Mr. Seddon, Governor Smith, Porcher Miles, and the Richmond press, would soon overturn slavery on their present line of thought and conduct." Referring to the condition of his own State of Kentucky, he declared that " events have taken the place of argumenta, and stern facts the place of doubtful conclusions. The disturbing forces are greater than we can control. Shall we manfully yield this one point, already of no practical value, or childishly resist, and be overthrown with an institution whose fall is literally crashing in our ears." Mr. Odell (Dem.) of New York, who had voted for the antislavery amendment at the preceding session, made a temperate and well-considered and effective appeal for the passage of the amendment. He confessed that " the error of yielding to the slave-power of the South is clearly seen by the nation, and more keenly felt by the Democratic party ; " that, " If the party North had resisted this encroachment upon the religious belief and northern sentiment forced upon us by the South, the war now raging would never have been inaugurated ; " that " it would have been better far toi our country and the race, had we exerted our power and manhood at an earlier period in our history." He closed his speech by declaring that " slavery has been for years a dead weight upon the Democratic party ; " that it ought no longer to consent to be dragged down by its influence ; that it " ought to accept the facts of history as they are transpiring around us, and march on with the world in its Page 382 progress of human events, — turn its back upon the dark part, and its eyes upon the bright future."

Mr. Ward (Dem.) of New York insisted, that Congress had no right to incorporate the proposed amendment into the Constitution ; that, if the right existed, it was a most injudicious time for the exercise of the power, when it would add fuel to the flame, embitter the South, and prolong the sanguinary contest. Mr. Mallory (Dem.) of Kentucky thought its adoption would multiply and complicate the difficulties in relation to slavery. "Such an act," said Mr. Voorhees (Dem.) of Indiana, "should not be consummated amid the fiery passions and vehement hates engendered by civil war. It should be the work of calmness and of peace. It is to last for all time. When the sky shall again be clear over our heads, a peaceful and Illuminating the land, and our great household of States all at home in harmony once more, then will be the time to consider what changes, if any, this generation desire to make on the work of Washington, Madison, and the revered sages of our antiquity." Mr. Clay (Dem.) of Kentucky bitterly denounced the emancipation policy of the administration. Himself a large slave-holder, and the representative of the great slave-holding interests of central Kentucky, Mr. Clay saw with apprehension and dread the rapid progress of antislavery ideas ; and he feelingly opposed to the adoption . of measures of emancipation a determined though unavailing resistance.

The debate was resumed on the 10th, by Mr. Kassen (Rep.) of Iowa, in a temperate, earnest, and effective speech. "I had rather stand solitary," he said, "with Page 383 my name recorded for this amendment, with the hope of justice twenty years hence, than to have all the honors which could be heaped upon me by any political party in opposition to this doctrine." Addressing himself to the Democratic side of the house, he said, " If you desire peace and harmony, you will give the people of the North and of the South an opportunity to establish harmonious relations by the expression of legitimate majorities upon this question. If you desire perpetual discord and war, then you will refuse them the opportunity, and compel the perpetuation of this institution, with bloodshed without end in the future, and disunion without end in the present." Mr. Fernando Wood (Dem.) of New York declared, that " the Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races ; the Almighty has made the black man inferior ; the condition of domestic servitude as existing in the Southern States is the highest condition of which the African race is capable ; and, when compared with their original condition on the continent from which they came, is superior in all the elements of civilization, philanthropy, and humanity." Mr. Eldridge (Dem.) of Wisconsin believed the adoption of the amendment " would furnish the rebel leaders another argument by which to win the doubting and to arouse the lukewarm." Mr. King (Dem.) of Missouri, who had voted against the amendment, now made an elaborate and able argument for its adoption ; closing with the expression of the hope, that, " from the bloody ordeal and fierce chastening of the past four years, our glorious nation may still brave the trials yet to come, and that ere long we shall enter the sunshine of peace, and stand before the world a free, united. Page 384 and happy people." Mr. Grinnell (Rep.) of Iowa would vote for the amendment, " because It is a measure of justice to millions in chains, to hundreds of thousands fighting our battles." Mr. Farnsworth (Rep.) of Illinois thanked Ged that he had " the privilege of standing up here, and advocating tills amendment." Mr. McBride (Rep.) of Oregon declared that slavery had filled the land "with broil, with hate, with intestine commotion and irreconcilable discord. . . . Long enough has it debauched and deadened the conscience of the people ; long enough has it shocked humanity and defied Heaven by its violations of every principle of truth and morality ; and now, having filled up its cup of crime and villany by a treason so rank and foul as to shame all historic example and all criminal parallel, we, who hold the malefactor in our grip, owe it to humanity, to justice, to ourselves, and the world, to strangle the guilty monster."

The debate was resumed, on the llth, by Mr. C. A. White (Dem.) of Ohio in opposition. He expressed the belief, that if we forced the rebels to enlist their three million slaves into their armies, with the promise of freedom for their service, that slavery would be destroyed and the annihilation of slavery by such means would sound the death-knell of the Union forever. Mr. Smithers (Rep.) of Delaware, referring to the early antislavery sentiment of his State, said it .was "unnecessary to recur to subsequent events to account for the apparent decline of the antislavery sentiment of Delaware. In the general abandonment of their manhood by the friends of liberty through out the whole country we participated, and the hand Page 385 of freedom went back upon the dial. Again it is moving forward, and is fast upon the hour of noon." He " was assured, that of those who did not support him, there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, who will hail with joy the accomplishment of this great measure of justice, tranquillity and security." Mr. Townsend (Dem.) of New York would not change the organic law in times of civil war, Mr. Holman (Dem.) of Indiana believed the fate of slavery sealed : it dies by the rebellious hand of its votaries ; its fate is determined by the war, by the measures of the war, by the results of the war, — therefore he opposed the amendment as unnecessary, a dangerous precedent without a benefit. Mr. Cravens (Dem.) of Indiana spoke briefly in opposition to the passage of the resolution. Mr. Broomall (Rep.) of Pennsylvania hoped that "the next President of the United States will be inaugurated over a Republic wholly free, and wholly devoted to the civil and religious liberty of all the people within its borders." Mr. Pendleton of Ohio, the candidate of the Democracy for the Vice-Presidency in 1864, denied the power of three-fourths of the States to pass this amendment. He could not go beyond this question of power, and should therefore confine himself to its consideration. In closing his argument, he de clared that " the time is fast passing away, when, under the influence of your policy and your legislation, the Southern people will have the least interest in your laws. Your legislation has turned to ashes the golden fruits of your military successes. Your policy has verified the alleged causes of secession. Gentlemen must not be misled by the syren voices that come up to them Page 386 from captured cities of the South. They woo you but to ruin. If you misunderstand them, they will lead you as willing victims upon quicksands and rock." Mr. Jenckes (Rep.) of Rhode Island thought Mr. Pendleton had improved upon the school of his master, who looked upon a severed and divided Union as " a compact of States." He had designated the nation " a compact of confederation." Mr. Jenckes said " it was a misuse of language, in this age of the world, to charge us with abuse of power, when we place ourselves in the direct line of the eternal forces acting out God’s justice upon earth….In this contest, slavery commenced the fight ; It chose its own battle-field ; it has fought its battle, and it is dead. In the com-ac of our victorious march, that battle-field has come into our possession, and the corpse of our dead enemy is upon it. Let us bury it quickly, and with as little ceremony as possible, that the foul odor of its rotting carcass may no longer offend us and the world."

On the 12th, Mr. Smith (Rep.) of Kentucky maintained the proposition, that " it is the duty of the American Congress, under the present circumstances, to submit this amendment to the people, and that it is the duty of the people to adopt it ; because it was this isolated subject of slavery that produced the revolution or the rebellion ; and only by getting rid of this subject can we give permanent peace and tranquillity to the land." Mr. Cox (Dem.) of Ohio asserted the right to adopt the amendment, but denied its expediency. " Slavery is to me," he said, "the most repugnant of all human institutions. No man alive should hold me in slavery ; and, if it is my business, no man with my consent shall Page 387 hold another." Mr. Woodbridge (Rep.) of Vermont declared, that " the blood of the nation and the tears of the widow call for the passage of this resolution." Mr. Thayer (Rep.) of Pennsylvania regretted that Mr. Pendleton, in sustaining his views with regard to the un constitutionality of the proposed amendment, should be driven to re-assert that old and fast-dying feeling, " that the Constitution is not a Constitution for the people, but a league between States. That heresy leads into the bloody slough of secession."

On the 13th, Mr. Rollins (Dem.) of Missouri addressed the House for more than two hours, in a speech of much eloquence and power, in favor of the passage of the resolution. He had voted against it ; but he now believed its adoption " would go far to strengthen the Government, by preventing future dissension and cementing the bonds of the Union, on the preservation of which depends our strength, our security, our safety, our happiness, and the continued existence of free institutions on the American continent." Mr. Garfield (Rep.) of Ohio Invoked the House "in the name of justice, in the name of the Republic, to hold not back the uplifted sword now drawn to strike the final blow." Mr. Stevens (Rep. ) of Pennsylvania replied to the personal allusions of Mr. Pendleton, in a brief speech of rare power and beauty. In earliest youth he had been taught to revere the sublime principles of the Declaration of Independence. He found in the Immortal language of the great men of antiquity one unanimous denunciation of tyranny and slavery, and eulogy of liberty. His hatred of the infernal institution, and his love of liberty, were inflamed by the inspired teachings Page 388 of Socrates, and the divine inspirations of Jesus : this feeling grew with his growth, and strengthened with his strength ; but, he thanked God, it had not decayed with enfeebling age. He was willing to take his chance with Mr. Pendleton, "when we all moulder in the dust. He may have his epitaph written, if it be truly written, ' Here rests the ablest and most pertinacious defender of slavery, and opponent of liberty ; ' and I will be satisfied if my epitaph shall be written thus : ' Here Ilea one who never rose to any eminence, and who only courted the low ambition to have it said, that he had striven to ameliorate the condition of the poor, the lowly, the down-trodden of every race and language and color.' [Applause.] I shall be content, with such a eulogy on his lofty tomb and such an inscription on my humble grave, to trust our members to the judgment of after-ages," — "The Slave power," said Mr. Baldwin (Rep,) of Massachusetts, " has bred traitors as natur ally as foul vapors breed disease, or as a den of thieves breeds villany. Any compromise with it would necessarily become to us ' the mother of woe and death and hell.' Let it be destroyed ; for our republican institutions cannot be safe while it exists 1 Let it be destroyed, that the rights of man may be vindicated, and eternal justice satisfied."

The debate was resumed on the 28th, by Mr. Higby (Rep.) of California. "There is," he declared, "no domestic tranquility now, and there never will be while this institution remains in the land." Mr. Finck (Dem.) of Ohio opposed the resolution, "because it will not tend to suppress the rebellion and restore the Union, but will protract the war." Mr. Washburne (Rep.) of Page 389 Illinois paid a tribute of respect to those Democratic members of the Legislature of his State who voted " to wipe out the institution of slavery, so wicked and infernal in itself, and which has brought such untold sorrows upon the nation." Mr. Cole (Rep.) of California, and Mr. Starr (Rep.) of New Jersey, briefly addressed the House in advocacy of the amendment. "The enactment," said Mr. Patterson (Rep.) of New Hampshire, " which reduce an accountable being, however humble and degraded, to the condition of a chattel, that subjects him to unrequited toil and hopeless ignorance, that multiplied men for the market oblivious of domestic ties, and presses the cup of mixed and measureless woe to the lips of helpless women and innocent children, without pity and without remorse, has no force as law. I diffidently, but fearlessly, deny, upon this floor, that any assembly of human law-makers ever possessed the power to create a right of property in man which we, as men, or citizens of the Republic, are bound to respect. Why, sir, the humblest daughter of sorrow that ever crouched beneath the lash of the task-master, lifting her fervent prayer to that Judge ' whom no king can corrupt,' appeals to a tribunal before which the trembling slave stands the peer of her proud master, whose pleasure is the price of her shame, and who eats bread in the sweat of her brow." Mr. Morris (Rep.) of New York believed, " before God, the hour has come in which, if we should avert the judgments of Heaven and save our nation from ruin, we must render our organic Law explicitly affirmative on the great question of human slavery." Mr. Pike (Rep.) of Maine de clared, that the slave system should be eradicated without Page 390 delay, and no vestige be left to offend God or curse man."

On Tuesday, the 37th of January, 1865, Mr. Ashley took the floor to close the debate, but yielded it to Mr. M’Allister (Dem.) of Pennsylvania. He had voted against the amendment ; but he now declared, that, in voting for it, " I cast my vote against the corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy, and declare eternal war against the enemies of my country." This emphatic avowal was received with rapturous applause by the Republican side of the House. Mr. Coffroth (Dem.) of Pennsylvania had voted against the amendment on the 15th of June; now he should vote for it. Above all things, he desired that the Democratic party should be again placed in power. Slavery had been a fruitful theme for the enemies of Democracy, and he would remove from the political arena that which has given them life and strength. " If by my action to day," he said, "I dig my political grave, I will descend into It without a murmur ; knowing that I am justified in my action by a conscientious belief I am doing what will ultimately prove to be a service to my country, and knowing there is one dear, devoted, and loved being in this wide world who will not bring tears of bitterness to that grave, but will strew It with flowers." Mr. Miller (Dem.) of Pennsylvania rose simply for the purpose of repudiating the sentiments and positions of his two colleagues.

Mr. Herrick (Dem.) of New York, at the last session, had voted against this resolution from a solemn conviction of duty. Pie now approached its discussion with quite altered views as to its expediency. " I shall Page 391 now vote," he said, "for the resolution, as I formerly voted against It, because I think such action on my part is beat calculated to assist in the maintenance of the Government, the preservation of the Union, and the perpetuation of the free institutions which we inherited from our fathers. I may incur the censure of some of my party friends on this floor, and perhaps displease some of my respected constituents ; but to me the country of my birth, and the Government under whose benign protection I have enjoyed all the blessings of liberty, and under which, restored to more than all its original splendor, and strengthened and purified by the trials through which it has passed, I expect my children's children to enjoy the same blessings long after my mortal frame shall have mouldered into dust, is dearer to me than friends or party or political position. Firm in the consciousness of right, I know that Posterity will do me justice, and feel that no descendant of mine will ever blush at the eighth of the page on which my vote is recorded in favor of country, government, Liberty, and progress." Mr. Brown (Dem.) of Wisconsin suggested an amendment making hereafter free all persons sold or transferred to another, all females, and all persons after the first day of January, 1880, with compensation for direct damage to loyal owners. Mr. Harding (Dem.) of Kentucky denied the power of amendment to abolish or establish slavery ; there was "danger that the Constitution, after all that has been done and suffered to preserve it, may at last sink and perish by the hand of revolution in the North." Mr. Kalbfleisch (Dem.) of New York spoke at much length against the amendment, amid manifestations of impatience.

Page 392 Mr. Ashley then moved the previous question upon Ills motion to reconsider the vote rejecting, at the last session, the Antislavery Amendment. Mr. Stiles (Dem.) of Pennsylvania moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, — yeas 57, nays. 111. The question being on Mr. Ashley's motion to reconsider, Mr. Ancona (Dem.) of Pennsylvania demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question on reconsideration was carried, — yeas 112, nays, 57. The question recurring on the passage of the joint resolution, Mr. Ashley demanded the previous question, and It was ordered. On motion of Mr. Dawson (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, the yeas and nays were ordered on the final passage of the joint resolution ; and, being taken, resulted, — yeas 119, nays 56, not voting 8, — as follows : —

Yeas. — Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D, Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, Broomall, William G, Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cole, Colfax, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, English, Farnsworth, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Herrick, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W, Hubbard, John H, Hubbard, Hulburd, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, King, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, M’Allister, M'Bride, M'Clurg, M'Indoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neil, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Radford, William H. Randall, Alexander H, Rice, John H, Rice, Edward H, Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, John B, Steele, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B, Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman, — 119.

Page 393 Nays, — Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Grider, Hall, Harding, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M, Harris, Holman, Phillip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kernan, Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O’Neil, Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Ross, Scott, William G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Wadsworth, Ward, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, and Fernando Wood, — 56.

Not Voting. — Messrs. Lazear, Le Blond, Marcy, M'Dowell, M'Kinney, Middleton, Rogers, and Voorhees, — 8.

Notice had been previously given, by Mr. Ashley, that the vote would be taken on that day. The nation, realizing the transcendent magnitude of the issue, awaited the result with profound anxiety. The galleries, and the avenues leading to them, were early thronged by a dense mass intensely anxious to witness the scene. Senators, Cabinet officers, Judges of the Supreme Court, and even strangers, crowding on to the floor of the House, watched its proceedings with absorbing Interest. During the roll-call, the vote of Speaker Colfax, and the votes of Mr. English, Mr. Ganson, and Mr. Baldwin, which assured success, were warmly applauded by the Republican aide. And when the Speaker declared, that, the constitutional majority of two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution was passed, the announcement was received by the House and the spectators on the floor with a wild outburst of enthusiastic applause. The Republican members instantly sprang to their feet, and applauded with cheers and clapping of hands. The spectators in the crowded galleries waved their hats, and made the clambering with enthusiastic plaudits. Hundreds Page 394 of ladies, gracing the galleries with their presence, rose in their seats ; and, by waving their handkerchiefs, and participating in the general demonstrations of enthusiasm, added to the intense excitement and interest of a scene that will long be remembered by these who were fortunate enough to witness it. For several minutes, the friends of this crowning act of emancipation gave themselves up to congratulations and demonstrations of public joy. "In honor," said Mr. Ingersoll (Rep.) of Illinois, "of this immortal and sublime event, I move that the House adjourn." The Speaker declared the motion carried ; and then, again, cheering and demonstrations of applause were renewed. Mr. Harris (Dem.) of Maryland demanded the yeas and nays, on adjournment, — yeas 121, nays 24. So the House adjourned, having on that day passed a measure, which, if consummated, will make slavery forever impossible in the Republic of the United States.

Source: Wilson, Henry. History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Eighth United States Congresses, 1861-1865, Boston: Walker, Fuller, & Co., 1865.