Category Archives: The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850

p. 119 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Professor Thomas J. Conant, p119Professor John H. Raymond, p119

 

 

that the Boards had not been consulted officially before the bill was introduced. The faculty, with the exception of Dr. Kendrick, Eaton and Spear, sought its enactment and Professors Raymond and A. C. Kendrick presented their views at Albany.

When the bill came before the appropriate committee of the Assembly, Smith Sheldon, who seems to have been the chief lobbyist, persuaded several members of both houses to attend its meetings to hear the arguments for his side. As a sop to the Anti-Removalists Ira Harris had proposed to their counsel, Judge Charles Mason of Hamilton, that the University Board be authorized to change the location only if the residents of the village failed to obtain the endowment by August, 1848. Following acceptance of the compromise by the Hamiltonians, the Legislature passed the bill and the Governor signed it on April 3, 1848.

Professor Eaton and Dr. Kendrick were pleased with the outcome, and the citizens of Hamilton also until they began to appreciate the strenuous effort required to raise the $50,000. Smith Sheldon, who doubted their ability to do so, believed nevertheless that any attempt at removal without giving them a chance to keep the University would mean litigation and possible negative action by the Boards. He counted on their failure to force them to agree to a new location. Dr. Conant, who feared they might succeed, wrote Professors Raymond and A.C. Kendrick that in such an event “we must contrive some way of escape before it is too late.”

During the spring and summer of 1848 the citizens of Hamilton

p.118 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Professor Asahel C. Kendrick, p118Professor John F. Richardson, p118

 

 

and Raymond, likewise entered the newspaper controversy, even to the extent of quarreling with each other as they sought to publicize their views. One correspondent calling himself “Peace,” wearying of the Removal material which flooded the Register early in 1848 and realizing more was to come, wrote, “we have had light enough-a little more will incline some of us to shut our eyes.” His plea went unheeded.

Several of the leading Baptists of Albany agreed with Wilder and the Rochester brethren on the advisability of removal. Four of them, Ira Harris, judge of the State Supreme Court; Friend Humphrey, Mayor of Albany; the Rev. Bartholomew T. Welch of the Pearl Street Baptist Church; and Smith Sheldon, merchant, were Trustees of the University, having been named to the Board in the charter; while two, Humphrey and Sheldon, were also on the Education Society Board. Their familiarity with University affairs and their standing in denominational and political circles enabled them to become effective sponsors for a bill authorizing the removal of Madison University which was introduced in the State Assembly early in February 1848.

Over their names and Wilder’s, a circular was sent to members of both Boards and other friends telling them of the bill and asking for an expression of ‘opinion. A large majority favored its passage even though some opposed removal. The latter believed that its provisions, which granted permission to change the location only on condition that a $50,000 endowment were not raised, would cause friends of Hamilton to rally to the University’s support. One Trustee, however, objected

p. 117 – The removal controversy 1847-1850

regarded as moral duty and possessed of a tireless energy in speaking and writing, he easily assumed leadership of the opposition. He was, moreover, armed with the opinion of his friend, President Eliphalet Nott of Union College, who believed that relocation would violate the implied contract between the University and its donors who had assumed that Hamilton would be the permanent site and in support of the view cited the Dartmouth College case. Also, Dr. Nott favored a rural setting because of the moral, religious and economic advantages. Even if it should be that a large number of New York State Baptists supported removal, he questioned whether it would be expedient “to rupture the ties that bind so many hearts to the original Institution, and in disregard of the rights and feelings of its founders & patrons to attempt to force on them the acceptance of an interest in a new and distant location….” These points Eaton was to enunciate repeatedly in the next two years.

Eaton’s Candid Appeal proved the chief topic of discussion at a meeting of Western New York Baptists at Wyoming on January 11, 1848. Their reply, An Address to the Baptist Churches of the State of New York…, written by Pharcellus Church, was lengthy, sharp and sarcastic. It assailed “certain false reasonings and injurious imputations” emanating from Hamilton and castigated the non-Baptists of the village, whose interests were branded as essentially foreign and hostile to those of the University. Stung to the quick, one of the Hamiltonians responded with a letter to the Democratic Reflector, reminding Dr. Church,

 

You have partaken of the charities of the Institution at Hamilton; you have received its highest honors; now you have raised your snaky head, and thrust out your envenomed tongue, to destroy that which warmed you into life and influence.

 

The columns of the Reflector, the Baptist Register, and New York Recorder carried many letters and articles on the controversy, but few were as abusive as this censure of Dr. Church. The writers, their identity often concealed by pseudonyms, did not hesitate to stoop to personalities, so heated had their feelings become. Daniel Hascall, replying in a letter to the Register to statements made by Church, wrote that this “alumnus was not taught such random shots at Hamilton. If he has any more disclosures to make, I beseech him to confine himself to veritable facts.” Members of the faculty, particularly Eaton

p. 116 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

thought the faculty should take a neutral stand leaving the decision to the Boards. When a majority of his colleagues became active partisans for the change he at first felt that they were injudicious and later, convinced by the arguments against removal, that they were wrong. All the faculty except Dr. Kendrick and Professor Philetus B. Spear joined in a letter urging Eaton not to prejudice Wilder’s efforts in New York. They pointed out that the Rochester brethren were the first to take effective steps to raise an endowment, which was so sorely needed, and that Madison County citizens had acted only when faced with the prospect of losing the University:

Nothing but necessity has prompted their effort & let that necessity be withdrawn & the subscription falls through & we are thrown farther back than ever from the attainment which we consider vital to the Institution’s prosperity. On the other hand let the enterprise go forward, unchecked by untimely interference, & then when the question comes up for final decision, we have at least an alternative, & a strong argument for endorsement to those who would retain it here.*

As a further check on Eaton, Professors A. C. Kendrick and Conant followed him to New York to talk with Deacon Colgate and others. In Eaton they had an impulsive, emotional antagonist who was to make anti-removal the great crusade of his life. Motivated by what he

*Faculty of Madison University to George W. Eaton, New York, N.Y., Dec. 27, 1847.

p. 115 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

needed, he asserted that it should be raised for the University in its present location. The Hamilton people, he stated, were ready to contribute $15,000 for a new building if patrons in the rest of the state would make up an endowment of $100,000.

Following the adoption of Eaton’s Candid Appeal, the Hamiltonians appointed committees to obtain subscriptions. On the first day $7,150 was raised in the village and by the end of the first week $8,300 had been pledged. Though these sums were small in comparison to what the friends of the Rochester location had collected, the Hamiltonians were hopeful. Deacon Seneca B. Burchard was “pleased to witness the excitement,” but Deacon Alvah Pierce thought the campaign would be “a heavy lift.” Dr. Kendrick did not feel free to publish his opinions though he naturally watched the progress of affairs with deep interest. To Zenas Freeman he confided that his greatest fear was that removal might

 

not be well for the education of the Baptist ministry…It may then have to encounter sectarian influences, more embarrassing to the free development of our [i.e. Baptist] peculiar sentiments…than anything we meet with here, &…the expense of supporting our indigent young men may be somewhat increased.

 

He added, however, “I have no prepossessions to any place, but prefer
to see the U[niversity] located where it can accomplish the most good.”

Both the Hamiltonians and the Removalists attached great importance to the views of the Baptist brethren in Albany and metropolitan New York because their endorsement, and especially financial assistance, was essential to whatever policy might prevail. As spokesman for the friends of Rochester, Wilder attempted to win the New York City Baptists for removal, but despite his eloquent pleas and many addresses in similar vein by William R. Williams, Elisha Tucker, and others at meetings held late in December 1847, and early in January 1848, unqualified approval was not forthcoming. Deacon William Colgate, in particular, could not make up his mind; and no one’s opinion carried more weight than his. The New Yorkers did go so far, however, as to state that an endowment of $150,000 must be raised whether or not the institution were moved.

To present the Hamilton point of view Professor Eaton decided to go to New York. When the removal question had been first raised he had tended to favor a new location, he wrote years afterward, but he

p. 114 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

our mechanics; the increase and prosperity of our merchants; the social, moral and intellectual improvement of our society, which the institution will continue to bring, of as much value to us, as to either [sic] of those grasping cities?” He estimated that the officers and students of the University spent annually from $30,000 to $40,000 in the village and urged those who had profited to be the first to oppose removal by subscribing liberally to its endowment.

The Hamilton citizens committee submitted a report at an ad­journed meeting held in the Baptist Church on December 6. Written by Professor Eaton, it was unanimously adopted and 3,000 copies ordered printed and distributed. The report, entitled A Candid Appeal of the Citizens of Hamilton, to the Friends and Patrons of Madison University throughout the State of New York, was designed to answer the Rochester Circular. One by one, Eaton attempted to refute the “grossly libellous” objections to Hamilton, “the result of ignorance and overwrought zeal to get our noble University from us.” He then contended that the advantages of a rural village as a site for a college or university greatly exceeded those of a populous community. He stressed the quiet and seclusion, greater healthfulness, absence of urban temptations and vices, cheapness of board and lodging, the inexpensive style of living for both faculty and students, and the beauty of the landscape. To reinforce his arguments he pointed out that many of the most flourishing colleges such as Dartmouth, Amherst, and Williams were in country villages.

Dr. Eaton next turned to specific considerations against a change of location. He cited the institution’s success in carrying out the purpose of the founders and the denomination and the “sacred associations” of the campus, all of which he maintained, could not be transferred to “a great secular institution in another part of the state.” The suggestion that non-Baptists be admitted to the management of the university after its transfer to Rochester he found especially distasteful. More important, however, was the legal barrier against removal in the form of the original contract made in 1819 between the Education Society and the citizens of Hamilton, whereby the Seminary had been located in the village on condition that a building worth $3,500 be erected and $2,500 paid in board. Eaton stated that as a last resort the Hamiltonians would defend their rights “to the utmost extreme of litigation.”While agreeing with the Removalists that an endowment was urgently

p. 113 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

resources with the likelihood that it would never “abound in wealth, population, enterprise, and men of education to a sufficient extent for the demands of a great University;” the absence of manufacturing, commercial, and agricultural advantages in the surrounding area to support a denser population; and the presence of Hamilton College at Clinton, twenty miles distant, which would meet the needs of Central New York. In contrast, the advantages of Rochester were played up in glowing terms. Its youth and rapid growth, which would enhance real-estate investments, was further supported by the agricultural productiveness of the adjacent territory, the rapidly-growing number of wealthy, intelligent and enterprising citizens, the absence of a college in the region except for a small one which the Episcopalians had at Geneva (now Hobart), and the extensive railroad, canal, and lake navigation systems which made the city easily accessible.

News of a possible relocation of Madison University began to appear in the papers of Utica, Syracuse, Auburn, and Rochester, each putting forward the claims of its respective community as a site. Citizens of Rochester, businessmen, and ministers of several denominations, following speeches by Church, Wilder and others at a public meeting on October 28, 1847, unanimously approved the removal project and appointed a committee to raise subscriptions and further the enterprise. Alexander M. Beebee, editor of the Baptist Register of Utica and Sewell S. Cutting, editor of the New York Recorder, a Baptist paper in New York City, duly reported these developments, but discreetly declined to take sides. Cutting, however, expressed regret at no word on the issue from Hamilton.

The proposal to move the institution seems temporarily to have stunned the Hamiltonians, but finally they held a public meeting on November 25, 1847, and, on the motion of Deacon Seneca B. Burchard, appointed a committee to investigate the reasons for and against, the funds invested in University properties, and the prospects for raising an endowment in Madison County. The committee consisted of three lawyers, two businessmen, a physician, and the editor of the Democratic Reflector, none belonging to the Baptist Church:

A few days later an article by “A Citizen” in the Reflector pointed out that the loss of the University would injure nearly all members of the community. Noting that Syracuse, Utica, and Rochester wanted the University, the writer asked, “Is not the industry and activity of

p. 112 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

leadership of its deacons and Dr. Church had prevented a split between the orthodox and the supporters of Knapp’s new measures such as had occurred in the Hamilton Church.

As a result of his conversations with Elisha Tucker, Dr. Church called a meeting of a few Rochester friends of Madison University to consider the possibility of removal. Wilder was present and also Professor Conant, Church’s brother-in-law, who supplied information on conditions at Hamilton but gave no opinion as to what should be done. The progress of the discussions warranted a second meeting on September 12 at the First Baptist Church. The pastor and Wilder, pointing out the heavy pecuniary embarrassment of the University and its out of the way location, urged Rochester as a better site. Wilder believed it should be moved only on condition that a partial endowment be raised and a good location and buildings be provided. Both he and Dr. Church thought a large proportion of New York State Baptists would approve. When Church moved that it be regarded as the sense of this meeting that Madison University be removed to Rochester, there was no dissent and a committee of eight was appointed to confer with the churches of Western New York to determine their attitude.

Dr. Church and Wilder, the foremost leaders, immediately set about enlisting support. At an adjourned meeting on September 20, Wilder introduced a resolution, which was adopted, urging the Madison University Trustees to apply for the Legislature’s permission to transfer the institution to Rochester or its vicinity. Another resolution expressed the opinion that the Baptists of the city and Monroe County should raise $30,000 for endowment and that immediate steps be taken to that end. Early in October, Wilder, Church, and others won the unanimous approval of the Monroe Association for these measures. Subsequently other Baptist groups in Western New York pronounced for removal and endowment.

As a means of reaching a wider public, especially the Baptists of the State, the Removalists sent out a letter in October, 1847, probably written by Dr. Church, which, with a few changes, they published as a Circular to the Friends of Madison University. The immediate necessity for endowment was noted and the disadvantages of the Hamilton location developed at length: remoteness from main thoroughfares and the poor condition of Central New York roads; the village’s limited

p. 111 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Elisha Payne the next year. In their places a new generation stood ready for change, such men as Wilder, James Edmunds, Edward Bright, and others who knew of the early trials and sacrifices only from the records or hearsay. It was the beckoning future which held their interest.

Immediately after the special meetings of the Boards to consider the Maginnis case in September 1847, Trustee Elisha Tucker went to Rochester, where he had been pastor of the Second Baptist Church, and reported their actions to Pharcellus Church, minister of the First Baptist Church. He told him that, in his opinion and that of other Trustees and faculty members, removing the University to Rochester would eliminate the various difficulties. Dr. Church, meanwhile, had received a letter from Hamilton hinting at this solution. At about the same time as Tucker’s visit, Wilder, having spent the summer in Hamilton, and Professors Maginnis and Conant arrived in Rochester. All three seem to have agreed with Tucker that removal would be highly desirable.

These visitors found a sympathetic and understanding listener in Dr. Church, himself a University Trustee, a member of the Class of 1824, and the recipient of a D.D. at the commencement of 1847. He was a man of great enthusiasm, rather fond of controversy, a forceful speaker and master of a direct and pungent literary style. A native of Western New York, he had entertained the idea of establishing a college in that area as early as 1830. Though he does not seem to have participated actively in the founding of a short-lived Baptist college at Brockport, Monroe County, which had enlisted the support of Rochester Baptists in the mid-1830’s, he joined with Presbyterians and others in attempting to establish a «University of Rochester” a decade later. Since this project had failed to materialize, he saw in Tucker’s suggestion a means of supplying Western New York with an institution of higher education and at the same time of relieving the University of its problems, financial and otherwise.

Rochester, which was flourishing following the Panic of 1837, seemed an ideal site. With the abandonment of the movement to organize a university under Presbyterian sponsorship the field was now open to the Baptist, who were numerous and influential in the area. The First Church was in a prosperous condition as a result of Jacob Knapp’s revivals there in the late ’30’s. The skillful and devoted

p. 110 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

funds for the University because the impression was current that the professors lacked piety “& that their ladies pattern too much after the vain & fashionable of the world in the manner & expense of their parties.”

Noteworthy as these personal and social irritations are as background for the Removal Controversy, they are overshadowed by financial matters. When the University Trustees first met in 1846, they had “a charter to sustain the dignity of a University but not a dollar of invested capital.” The Education Society had failed to obtain funds and carried a $20,000 debt. In the First Compact the University Board had agreed

to make earnest and extended efforts for the collection of an endowment sufficiently large, to exempt [the University] from the necessity of continued appeals to the Churches, but never so increased as to foster inaction in the Faculty, or independence of the Churches.

Their goal was $50,000, half of the income to be expended for the theological professors’ salaries and the remainder for general instruction. Nothing had been accomplished, however, by the time agitation for removal began.

The constantly depleted treasury had borne heavily on the faculty, who were not content to accept the frugal standard of living of their predecessors two decades before. Particularly vexatious was the inability of the Treasurer to pay them promptly at the end of each quarter. Professor Raymond, for example, was sometimes paid in $5.00 driblets. In 1847 the University Board raised the salary scale to $1,000 per year for theological professors and $800 for those in the collegiate department, but there was no assurance that these promises could be kept consistently.

The tide of dissatisfaction might have been stemmed had Nathaniel Kendrick been a younger man and in good health. His influence in the faculty, so significant in the past, had given way gradually before the energy and iniative of his colleagues, the oldest of whom, Conant, was his junior by twenty-six years. Though they greatly respected the venerable Nestor, some of these younger men were restive and discontented. In the Education Society, also, Dr. Kendrick ceased to be active because of the illness which confined him to his bed from 1845 until his death three years later. He and his generation were becoming historical figures. Deacon Olmstead died in 1842 and Samuel and