Category Archives: Chapter 7

p. 109 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

ments.” The vote of the Education Society Board on August 19th was judged illegal, apparently on the ground that the theological professors already had tenure as established by the University Board on June 9, 1847. Henceforth, the theological professors were to be considered as being on regular appointment. The brethren who had originally refused to back Maginnis were reported to have broken down completely and “repented of their folly.” The broader vision of their non­ resident associates, such as Friend Humphrey, Ira Harris, and John N. Wilder prevailed.

When the citizens of Hamilton learned that Professor Maginnis might resign because of the unpleasantness, over 120 signed a public letter urging him to continue his connection. They commented upon the luster his teaching ability gave to the institution and the loss the community would sustain. His appreciative reply, dated November 9, 1847, and published in the local paper, is especially interesting in view of the fact that some weeks earlier, he had already participated in the initial steps for removing the University to Rochester. He wrote that the occasion for the resignation no longer existed, and that he was sincerely attached to the institution and the village whose citizens, with few exceptions, had always shown him and his colleagues “those marks of respect and kindness which are always indicative of a refined and cultivated people.”

The Maginnis case was a natural outgrowth of the somewhat strained relations between the faculty and the village Baptist Church. The church itself was in an unhealthy condition as is shown by the short tenure of its pastors in the 1840’s. One, resigning in 1842, assailed the congregation for harboring “mischief makers” while both of his successors left amid bitter feelings. There was a conservative element among members whose “old puritanical notions” led them to oppose many of the liberal tendencies held by the faculty. They were the ones who had sided with Jacob Knapp and they must have rankled in 1845 when the professors and a few others withdrew to form the Seminary Church on the Hill. Perhaps they also frowned upon the cordiality which existed between the faculty, especially Professor Maginnis, and St. Thomas Church, organized by the Episcopalians in 1835. Another point of irritation was their criticism of faculty social life, about which unfriendly rumors reached even the northern part of the State. An informant in that region wrote Dr. Kendrick of difficulty in raising

p. 108 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Maginnis. Seven Trustees nominated Dr. William R. Williams of New York City to succeed Maginnis, and two abstained. In effect, this was an attempt to dismiss him. In taking this action it is possible that some of the Trustees felt that by dismissing the fiery Maginnis they might restore the harmony which had existed between the church and the University prior to the Knapp case in 1845. To cope with the extraor­dinary situation special meetings of the two boards were called for the first of September. Elisha Tucker, a member of both, expressed the reaction of several of his associates when he wrote in “astonishment to Dr. Kendrick:

 

Such a rejection of Bra Maginnis if persisted in, will dispose of friends that the institution cannot spare. Is it in the estimation of some of the board so trifling a matter to shut the door in the face of a pro­fessor that no intimation is necessary to the members of that board generally that important business is to be transacted [?]…before being rejected he has a right to know & the members of the board have a right to expect that they” will have some intimation, that the question will come up.*

 
The meetings, which lasted two days, were stormy. Dr. Williams, a University Trustee who supported Maginnis, was especially indignant and loosed his wrath on the Education Society Trustees. Before the Boards adjourned, however, they jointly adopted resolutions “expressing their undiminished confidence in the ability & competence & diligence of Prof. Maginnis, and their solicitude to retain for this Institution the benefit of his experience, influence, and high endow-

*Eisha Tucker, New York, N.Y. to Nathaniel Kendrick, Aug. 24, 1847.

First Compact (p. 107)

innovation contrary to the purpose of the Education Society. After the University charter had been granted in 1846, some of the Society’s trustees, fearful that secularization would go farther, even suggested the document be returned to the Legislature. Since both Boards at first were unable to adjust their relations to each other in such a way as to establish what were considered proper safeguards for ministerial education, they had tabled that troublesome question for a year.

In June and August, 1847, both Boards, the faculty, and the Education Society eventually worked out an arrangement, known as the First Compact, which became effective on the first of September. It provided that the Society should grant the University the use of its property and that the University should maintain a suitable course for “candidates for the Christian ministry” and allow beneficiaries to have rooms rent-free. The faculty was to be considered a single unit responsible to the University Trustees. As a means of retaining control of ministerial education the Society required the University Board to appoint and dismiss such theological professors as it should designate.

It was the question of faculty appointments which first produced serious friction. The professors in the collegiate department had been formally appointed under the new charter as a matter of course in June 1846. The University Board took no action on the theological professors, however, until a year later when they were then made members of the University faculty, but on a temporary basis until their duties and titles should be determined.

Meanwhile, some of the Baptists in Hamilton, among them Jacob Knapp, the evangelist, came to see in the formal appointment of the theological faculty an opportunity to remove Professor Maginnis from the chair of Biblical Theology. This aristocratic, tall, bent, and ailing man had aroused their enmity by his intellectual approach to religion and his uncompromising Calvinism. Knapp, of course, had not forgotten that Maginnis had been his chief opponent in the village church quarrel a few years before. When information on the Education Society Board’s meeting on August 19, 1847, leaked out, the strategy of Maginnis’s enemies was apparent. The Board had convened, with only 13 out of 31 members present, probably most of them resident Trustees, to nominate theological professors for final appointment by the University Board in accordance with the First Compact. Conant and Eaton were chosen unanimously but only four votes were cast for

p. 106 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Chapter VII – THE REMOVAL CONTROVERSY 1847-1850

To all outward appearances John N. Wilder’s dinner party given for
thirty or forty faculty members and alumni at Hamilton’s Eagle Hotel
on Thursday evening, August 19,1847, was a great success. The round of activities attendant upon commencement was over and the guests were prepared to enjoy the generous hospitality of their host. A wealthy Albany merchant in his early thirties, he was a member of both the Education Society and the University Boards, though his primary concern was with the University, perhaps because he himself had not enjoyed the benefits of a college education. He represented a happy combination of business ability, culture, energy, and genial sociability which easily won him friends and positions of leadership. Professor Maginnis was asked to say grace, and when the table was cleared Professor Eaton presided over the session of speech-making which lasted till after midnight. One guest reported that all those present “loved Hamilton with a more earnest devotion, and pledged to it anew their exertions for its growth and effectiveness.”

The spirit of good-fellowship and unanimity did not prove lasting. In its place was soon to develop animosity and strife over the very subject in which the guests had the greatest mutual interest, the University. The issue which generated so much ill-feeling was whether the institution should be removed to Rochester or some other city which would offer more advantages than Hamilton. Wilder was to become a moving spirit in trying to effect a new location; Professor Maginnis was to assist him; and Professor Eaton to be one of their most vigorous and conspicuous opponents.

Differences of opinion as to the management had first come into sharp relief as early as 1839 when non-ministerial students were admitted over the protest of Dr. Kendrick, who had considered this