Raymonds seem not to have been able to accept, but Professor Conant and Pharcellus Church were on the campus and participated in the exercises. Professor A. C. Kendrick and other former Removalists who were present at the Jubilee Celebration in 1869 could join Professor Eaton in rejoicing that amity and good will between Madison and Rochester prevailed and that the friends of each exchanged “hearty congratulations on the success of their favorite enterprises.”
Comments Off on p. 139 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 139, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
Tagged Asahel Clark Kendrick, Pharcellus Church, Thomas Jefferson Conant
organized in this Institution and that no student hereafter shall connect himself with such societies in other colleges.”
The Society for Inquiry aroused particular interest by inviting the Rev. Richard Fuller of Baltimore to preach the anniversary sermon at its annual meeting in August 1847. Fuller was well-known for his Scriptural defense of slavery in a series of letters written in the mid-’40’s to Francis Wayland, President of Brown University, and published in the Christian Reflector. Local anti-slavery sympathizers had hoped to engage Fuller in a debate. While refusing to accept their challenge, he stated that he did not advocate slavery but only maintained that it was not necessarily a sin. He won general acclaim in Hamilton for his discourse in which he stressed the equality of all men; he wished freedom for the slaves but saw great difficulties in bringing it about.
In the correspondence between the Society for Inquiry and similar organizations at other colleges the Removal Controversy was discussed. The secretary for the organization at Lewisburg (Bucknell) expressed particular sympathy for Madison University in its days of tribulation because it had furnished so many denominational leaders “now sounding the gospel message under almost every sky”
and because “all our teachers [Stephen W. Taylor and George R. Bliss among them] have gazed upon its walls and trodden its grounds and have brought to us the spirit they imbibed under its fostering care…..”
The secretary of the Society at Brown wrote, “We regret that you have suffered so much…and though the result is not what we could have wished…our earnest prayers shall arise that the scepter of the Lord may not depart from Hamilton and that the light of His countenance may beam upon Rochester.”
For students, faculty, alumni, and all who had been in any way connected with the University, the Removal years had been filled with unrest, deep concern, heart-searching and often bitterness. The relief which came once the issue was finally settled was to be followed by forgiveness when time should heal old wounds. In 1861 Professor Eaton, in a letter filled with affectionate regard, urged his erstwhile opponent, John H. Raymond, and Mrs. Raymond to be the Eatons’ guests at commencement when old friends, ready to forget the unpleasant past, could live over the happy memories they shared. The
Comments Off on p. 138 – The removal controversy, 1847 – 1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 138, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
ture, Science and Art.”Though disgusted with its style and pretentiousness, the faculty at Ritchie’s suggestion permitted him to continue it on condition that he add as associate editors four students to be chosen by the two literary societies, the Adelphian and the Aeonian. Ritchie had also suggested that no political articles be printed. Matters soon came to a head when Ritchie wrote a controversial editorial on the religious press and the anti-slavery sentiment in New York State which the associate editors rejected, a decision in which the faculty concurred. When Ritchie announced he would run the editorial despite his express agreement to publish nothing without the associate editors’ concurrence, the faculty suspended him for two days with the warning that expulsion would follow if he did not change his mind at the end of that time. Flouting their authority, he published the editorial in the issue of January 15, and immediately left the village to return some days after the suspension period had expired. Expulsion resulted from his defiance and the Students Association promptly repudiated the publication on the ground that its editor had been expelled and that the University no longer authorized its existence.
Ritchie, however, continued on his own to issue 21 more numbers, the last one appearing on September 15, 1847. Some of the Baptists of the State who advocated many of the radical reforms of the day sought to make him a martyr, but within a few months his case was forgotten because of the rising importance of the Removal controversy.
The Aeonian and Adelphian Societies, to whom the faculty had attempted to transfer the Hamilton Student, apparently had little inclination to sponsor it because neither published a successor. They did maintain, however, their customary programs of private and public meetings for reading, orations and other literary efforts. When several members decided to enter the University of Rochester in the fall of 1850, it became necessary to decide whether the societies and their libraries, which were valued at between $600 and $700 each, should go with them. Thanks to the resistance of William T. Biddle and others, they remained on campus.
The question of establishing fraternities, which the faculty had vetoed in 1843, came up again in 1847. This time it was presented as a matter of forming an anti-secret organization. After careful consideration, the faculty decided that no Secret or anti-secret Society shall be
Comments Off on p. 137 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 137, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
Tagged Adelphian Society, Aeonian Society, Fraternities
and Spear. In a joint session, the University and Education Society Trustees agreed on replacements and thus enabled Henry Tower, the new President of the University Board, to give out their names at the close of the week’s exercises when he announced that instruction would be resumed as usual in the fall.
During the period 1847 to 1850, teaching had often become secondary to the question of location. One or more of the faculty was usually absent from classes on removal business, especially Eaton and Raymond. As was to be expected, the students took sides on the exciting issue. Influenced by the professors who favored Rochester, several were eager for relocation. When the Gridley injunction in the spring of 1850 obviated that possibility they eagerly awaited the announcement of the opening of the new institution so that they might enroll and in due time 21 did. Others, uneasy because of the strained atmosphere on the campus and the University’s uncertain future, withdrew, 24 going to Union College. Registration shrank from 216 in 1847 to 140 in 1850. The losses were particularly severe in the collegiate department where the decline was from 140 to 93. Students had been warned on all sides that the institution would soon be dead. Yet not all could believe this prediction. A minority swayed by William T. Biddle, Class of 1849, then in the theological department, and a few like-minded companions, agreed that if classes met in October they would return.
Numerous cases of student discipline reflect the unrest which resulted from the Removal Controversy. The most serious, that in connection with Professor Maginnis’s delivery of Dr. Kendrick’s funeral sermon in January, 1849, has already been mentioned. Disturbances in the dormitories were frequent. George B. Eaton, son of Professor Eaton, no doubt greatly embarrassed his father by instigating several, one involving the exploding of gunpowder under the bed of a fellow student. In many cases the culprits were required to make public confession in chapel as part of their punishment.
The most recalcitrant, perhaps, was George G. Ritchie, Class of 1849, who won distinction for starting the first student publication. As a freshman he discussed with some of the faculty his plan for issuing a paper and, notwithstanding their apparently mild objections, got out the first number on November 2, 1846. He called it the Hamilton Student with the subtitle, “A Semi-Monthly Mirror of Religion, Litera-
Comments Off on Hamilton Student, the first student newspaper (p. 136)
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 136, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850, timeline
Tagged Enrollment, Philetus Bennett Spear, Student Discipline, Student Publications
capital. Brown and Judd had tapped a reservoir of emotion.
The transition of control in the University Board from the Rochester supporters to the Anti-Removalists was another dramatic episode of the 1850 commencement week. Thanks to the fact that Removal men had been appointed to vacancies, friends of Hamilton failed to constitute a quorum. In case the Removalists should refuse to meet, the University would be forced to suspend operations. That a quorum of any kind could be gathered after August, 1850, seemed improbable.
When the Trustees met on the 19th they were three short, and it was not until their third session, the afternoon of the 20th, that a quorum of nine was present. Knowing that a committee of Anti-Removalists was prepared to negotiate with the Board, five Removalists present agreed to resign and resolved:
that we pledge ourselves to elect substitutes on the nomination of Dea. Wm. Cobb, of Hamilton, provided a written pledge be first given by responsible individuals, that the professors who shall resign shall be paid in full on or before the 10th of September next, and that the bill of the Legal Committee at Albany … be paid by 1st of November next.*
The condition meant that friends of Hamilton, already staggering under a heavy deficit and hard-pressed to raise the endowment, would immediately have to secure $2,700 for faculty salaries and $265 for lawyers’ fees incurred by the Removalists. Though willing to pay the salaries, they regarded the legal expense as unjust and declined the condition. As the Board was about to dissolve without having surrendered control to the Hamiltonians, Professor Spear volunteered to assume responsibility for providing the money and Deacon Cobb, Alvah Pierce and three others joined in signing the bond. The Board accepted the document and six members withdrew one by one as Anti-Removalists took their seats. The crisis was passed and it was now possible to proceed with arrangements for carrying on the work of the University.
The newly constituted Board turned at once to the most urgent matter, that of reorganizing the faculty. Professors Maginnis, Conant, Raymond, A. C. Kendrick, and Richardson had resigned two days previously to accept appointments at Rochester, leaving only Eaton
*Colgate University, Board of Trustees, Minutes, Aug. 20, 1850.
Comments Off on p. 135 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 135, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
Tagged Asahel Clark Kendrick, George Washington Eaton, John Howard Raymond, John Sharp Maginnis, Thomas Jefferson Conant, University Trustees
The Removalists, whose perspective was distorted by optimism for their projected university at Rochester, underestimated the recuperative powers of Madison. Professor Richardson, writing from Hamilton after the endowment drive had begun stated “I think the sober minded business men of this vicinity have scarcely any hope of the success of the effort to sustain an institution here,”
and added that he knew of no one who had much confidence except Professor Eaton. Professors Raymond, Conant, and A. C. Kendrick were already at work drawing up a “Plan of Instruction”
for the University of Rochester and its agents were making a special effort to collect sufficient funds to insure its opening in the fall. The Removalist professors strongly urged students at Madison to transfer to Rochester and many decided to do so. Professor Richardson doubted that five would be left in Hamilton to open the new academic year.
Many commencement-week visitors came to the village in August 1850, expecting the exercises to be the last on the campus. Professor Eaton recalled that “The anti-removalist alumni, to the surprise of both sides, came up in unusual numbers, with sad and heavy hearts, to attend the funeral of their cherished Alma Mater, and see her decently buried.”
At their meeting in the Baptist Church, John Newton Brown, Class of 1823, recalling her history and associations and acknowledging with unrestrained emotion his debt to the institution, turned the tide and inspired his listeners to rally to her support. Catching the spirit of the occasion, Orrin B. Judd, Class of 1841, offered a resolution, which was passed unanimously, that “The manifestations of this day remove all reasonable ground, if any such ground has ever existed, for representing our Alma Mater, the Madison University, as being in a hopeless decline.”
This demonstration of affection must have cheered Eaton, Spear, Hascall and the others who had fought removal so tirelessly.
During the past three years alumni had followed the course of events with interest and often with anxiety. Some, of course, favored removal but the prevailing sentiment seems to have been against it. One graduate asserted that the richest endowment an institution could have was the “affection of a numerous alumni.”
Such feelings closely identified with Hamilton could not be easily transferred to Rochester and any attempt to do so would have meant a loss of this intangible
Comments Off on p. 134 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 134, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
Tagged Commencement, John Newton Brown
was contingent, failed to discharge their trust properly in that they had not met together to examine the legal difficulties. Judge Gridley by permanent injunction, issued April 23, 1850, therefore decreed that Madison University should remain in Hamilton and that the compact of 1847 between the Education Society and the University Trustees should be binding. A milestone had been reached.
The Removalists charged that the Gridley decision was based on technicalities and that it thwarted the wishes of a large proportion of Baptists of New York State. Professor Eaton reminded them that a judicial opinion does not “ordinarily take within its scope the great principles involved in a contested case when technicalities present themselves at the threshold which wholly invalidate the legality of the project proposed and resisted.”
In Eaton’s opinion the judge, though avoiding a discussion of principles, had shown his knowledge of them.
Meanwhile, the Removalists had set about drafting plans for a new institution to be named the “University of Rochester”
and appointed committees to obtain funds and a charter. Especially active were Ira Harris, Friend Humphrey, John N. Wilder, and David R. Barton. On January 31, 1850, the Regents of the University of the State of New York issued a provisional charter. The next May, the Removalists held an educational convention in Rochester to found the New York Baptist Union for Ministerial Education, a counterpart to the Education Society, which was soon to establish a seminary in connection with the University.
The friends of Hamilton, believing that Judge Gridley’s decision would not be reversed even if the Rochester supporters saw fit to appeal it, now set about to secure the financial resources which Madison University so desperately needed. Many prospective donors had withheld their contributions pending settlement of the question of location. The Education Society’s Treasurer, Alvah Pierce, confronted by a diminishing annual income, had been forced to sell some of the organization’s real estate and use bequests to reduce the heavy floating debt. The University, dependent entirely on income from tuition, contributions, and some state aid, had a deficit also. Under the leadership of Eaton, Hascall, Spear, and others, the Baptists of the village and fellow citizens, meeting on May 2, 1850, decided to raise an endowment of $60,000.
Comments Off on Removal controversy resolved (p. 133)
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 133, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850, timeline
Tagged Endowment
tenacity of the Hamiltonians. To give up the charter, the latter maintained, would kill the institution; it would lose its faculty and students, its patronage from friends and the state, and its name and reputation as a college. The Albany convention optimistically appointed Henry Tower, an active member of both Boards for many years, to a committee to try to persuade Daniel Hascall and Medad Rogers and the Hamiltonians to abandon their suit and surrender the charter. His efforts proved unsuccessful, and he was assured that if Hascall and Rogers withdrew others would take their places.
Early in December 1849, the Education Society Board held a special meeting to take official action on the “Albany Compromise.”
Among those present was Deacon Colgate who had hitherto yielded to removal as the will of the denomination. Devoted to the institution at Hamilton, he had changed his mind and now thought that to accept the proposals would mean its death and at this crisis he even assented to an endowment for the University. The solemn and prayerful deliberations of the Board consumed two days. By unanimous vote it rejected the measures adopted at Albany and directed that counsel, employed to defend the Society in the Havens and Hascall suits, be dismissed. If an institution were to rise in Rochester, they felt, “it would be better for it to be wholly new, and not have interwoven with it a charter that should bring with it more or less of prejudices and embarrassments contracted by removal.”
Despite the Board’s action, the Removalists, determined to wage their struggle to a finish, sought in January 1850, to have Judge Gridley vacate or modify Judge Allen’s temporary injunction of August 28, 1849. That they should have chosen to bring the action before Judge Gridley occasioned surprise since he was known to be partial to the Hamilton group. The attorneys argued the case in March and the judge gave his decision the following month. He held that the University Trustees in voting to remove to Rochester had not complied with the Act of the State Legislature of April 3, 1848, which authorized the transfer, because the resolution of the Trustees read “to Rochester or its vicinity“
whereas the statute specifically permitted removal to Utica, Syracuse, or Rochester. He also held that the filing of the resolution with the Secretary of State was unauthorized because the Trustees’ committee on legal obstacles, on whose favorable report the filing
Comments Off on p. 132 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 132, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
Tagged William Colgate
joined Professor Eaton and others in opposing it. When the friends of
Rochester learned that a suit might be initiated in his name they used
every possible appeal to induce him to change his stand, pointing out
that since removal was inevitable he would bring upon himself in his
old age the obloquy of the Baptists throughout the State of New York
by refusing to give way to their wishes. It is told that, seated silently at
a table with his eyes lowered, he listened calmly to their arguments,
seemed to yield, and then after a pause raised his eyes, lifted his right
arm and brought his clenched fist on the table with startling energy
and slowly and solemnly declared, “It shall not be moved!”
Forthwith,
he and Medad Rogers, a Hamilton resident who also had been a party
to the original contract, sought an injunction against the Society and
the University which Judge Allen granted temporarily on August 28th.
The University Trustees assembled at Albany on August 30 “to
When they convened, however, they were
perfect removal measures.”
confronted with the Hascall and Rogers injunction. Under these cir-
cumstances they, with Albany and New York City Baptists, issued a
summons for an educational convention in Albany on October 9 in
conjunction with the annual meeting of the Baptist State Convention,
which it was thought would formally endorse removal. Friends of
Rochester planned also to have Deacon Cobb, as President, announce
a meeting of the Education Society at the same time, which they
anticipated would promptly nullify the transactions of the recent
annual meeting and reelect the Board chosen in 1848.
Deacon Cobb, fully cognizant of the designs to gain control of the
Society, declined to call the meeting. The educational convention,
however, assembled on schedule and, contrary to expectations, its
deliberations were generally harmonious. The friends of Rochester
were determined to have a University in that city, but they advocated
a compromise which the convention adopted: that Madison University
surrender its charter for the use of the Rochester collegiate institution;
that Hamilton be made the seat of theological education; and that the
Constitution of the Education Society be so modified as to eliminate
Anti-Removalist control. In case the friends of Hamilton should reject
the compromise, the Removalists were ready to provide for theological
as well as collegiate instruction at Rochester.
Many Baptists hailed the scheme as a practicable and amicable
adjustment. They failed, however, to make a true assessment of the
Comments Off on p. 131 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 131, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
August 10 setting aside the election of Education Society Trustees in 1848 and directing that the organization choose a new Board. When his order reached Hamilton on August 13 during commencement week, the Society’s Executive Committee, on the advice of Judges Mason and Nye, announced that the annual meeting would be held the next day. This move took the friends of Rochester by surprise since a three-week notice had been customary and consequently they were unable to muster many of their supporters.
More than sixty members of the Society assembled for a lengthy but courteous and dignified session in contrast to the one held the year before. They repealed the amendment to the constitution adopted in 1848 providing for the election of Trustees by classes and chose a new Board almost identical with that elected in 1847; Deacon William Cobb was again President. Removal was not openly discussed since Hamiltonians were content to await the decision of the court in the Havens and Wiley case. Professor Raymond considered the meeting “a most bald & bare face piece of trickery, practiced under the direction & control of … [local] lawyers, for the purpose of tying up the Ed. Soc. & making it over into the power of Hamilton citizens for ever & ever.”
Some of the Trustees of both Boards, as disgusted as Raymond at the turn of events, proposed that the Baptists of the State meet in Albany to settle the Removal question once and for all.
The obstructionist legal tactics used by the friends of Hamilton were proving effective. The Babcock injunction had thwarted the Removalists at Albany in June, 1849, and Judge Allen’s final decision in August had unseated several of their Trustees from the Education Society Board. In the pending Havens and Wiley suit the temporary injunction of January 23, 1849, had prohibited both Boards from taking steps for removal. When this case came before Judge Allen on August 20, 1849, for final action, he ruled that the temporary injunction must be vacated since the plaintiffs could not show that they were founders of the Society or parties to the original contract for location and hence did not have sufficient interest to bring suit. He did indicate, however, that he believed the Society had no right to remove the institution.
At this juncture the friends of Hamilton turned to Daniel Hascall as a proper plaintiff to represent them. Of his signing the contract and his intimate connection with the Society there was, of course, no doubt. From the first he had become convinced that removal was wrong and
Comments Off on p. 130 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850
Posted in Chapter 7, p. 130, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850
Tagged Daniel Hascall, William Cobb
