Tag Archives: John Howard Raymond

p. 138 – The removal controversy, 1847 – 1850

Posted on May 3, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 138 – The removal controversy, 1847 – 1850

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

Tagged ,

p. 135 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted on May 3, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 135 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

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 , , , , ,

p. 127 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted on May 3, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 127 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Judge Ira Harris and Robert Kelly, a wealthy New York merchant, both members of the University Trustees committee appointed in August to examine legal obstacles to removal, seem to have been convinced that there were no serious objections though the whole committee had not yet given an opinion. In October 1848, Harris had expressed his belief that the way was clear. When Kelly found himself unable to attend a meeting of the committee in Albany in January 1849, he recommended that the Board’s resolution for removal be filed with the Secretary of State even if there were legal obstacles. Deacon Burchard, the chairman, believed, however, that there should be a delay until expert legal opinion· might be obtained. Apparently his counsel went unheeded for the Secretary of State received the resolution on January 25. The next day, however, the Havens and Wiley injunction was served on the President of the Board and thus halted proceedings until the matter could be decided by the courts.

Hardly had the injunction been served when Professor Eaton and others tried to get the Act of April 3, 1848, which authorized removal, repealed. In his Memorial to the Legislature Eaton stressed that the Hamilton people, though certain that the courts would eventually decide in their favor, wished repeal so that they might avoid protracted litigation which would keep friends from contributing funds until the case might be settled.

To counteract this Anti-Removalist tactic, John N. Wilder, Smith Sheldon, and Ira Harris, aroused and indignant, made vigorous efforts to influence members of the 1849 Legislature to retain the Act. Professor Raymond came from Hamilton to join them. One of the most ardent advocates of removal from the inception of the idea and restless under the routine of the classroom, he enjoyed the excitement and the non-academic associations. He was assigned the task of drawing up a reply to Eaton’s Memorial, which he did in the form of a Remonstrance. Aside from reiterating already familiar arguments he pointed out that for the Legislature to repeal a law which had been enacted only the year before after mature’ deliberation would be inconsistent with that body’s proper dignity and good faith.

Most of the discussion on repeal took place in the Senate where Senator Thomas N. Bond, representing the district in which Hamilton was located, made a forceful and comprehensive speech against removal. When the final vote was taken on April 10th, the bill failed of

Comments Off on p. 127 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted in Chapter 7, p. 127, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850

Tagged ,

p. 119 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted on May 3, 2012 by | Comments Off on 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

Comments Off on p. 119 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted in Chapter 7, p. 119, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850

Tagged ,

Young men not seeking to be preachers first admitted (p. 80)

Posted on May 2, 2012 by | Comments Off on Young men not seeking to be preachers first admitted (p. 80)

1842 that sometimes the churches sent to Hamilton “simple hearted brethren desirous to do good” but generally devoid of other qualifications. Following their dismissal after the trial period, they often circulated among the churches as bona fide representatives of the Institution. These, men, the Trustees felt, cast discredit on the Seminary and on the cause of ministerial education.

The Institution, though designed and maintained primarily for Baptists, was open, by 1833, to qualified young men of every evangelical denomination. They were subject to the same requirements as applicants from Baptist churches and pursued the same course of instruction. The number of non-Baptists, however, was small and few traces of their presence can be found.

Academic qualifications for admission to the collegiate department were based from 1833 to 1846 on completion of the course of instruction offered by the preparatory department or the equivalent. Those entering the theological department were expected to have finished a college course. Applicants, who because of their age or other circumstances were unable to devote the necessary time, were still allowed to take the three-year Shorter or English course, the entrance requirements of which were the same as the preparatory department’s.

The faculty apparently found a large number of students poorly prepared, especially in the elementary subjects. To eliminate this difficulty they urged all young men who thought of coming to the Institution to apply for admission as soon as they were qualified to enter the academic department. The students in the Shorter course, particularly, were often deficient in preparation. Professor Raymond facetiously wrote of one as being “an incorrigible rebel against all the rules of Grammar & of Dictionary” who “long before he crossed our academic threshhold” had been “a hardened offender … an Ethiopian whose skin could not be changed . . . and unto all good spelling reprobate.” Yet Professor Raymond was quite ready to admit that such students “with all their disadvantages” usually proved a credit to the Institution.*

The most radical change in the admissions policy and, in fact, one of the fundamental changes in the history of the Institution, occurred in 1839 when the Trustees decided to admit young men who did not “have the ministry in view.” Sentiment for broadening the basis for

*John H. Raymond to James Edmunds, New York, N.Y., Dec. 17, 1844.

Comments Off on Young men not seeking to be preachers first admitted (p. 80)

Posted in Chapter 5, p. 80, Student Life, 1833-1846, timeline

Tagged

p. 65 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted on May 1, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 65 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Crozer Theological Seminary. Richardson, Spear, and Raymond, alone of the tutors, became regular faculty members.

By employing tutors and student assistants, the Trustees were able to keep down the cost of instruction. Though more full-time professors were needed, the faculty members concurred with the Board in its policy of making no such appointments and were willing to carry heavy teaching loads to keep expenses at a minimum. By 1836 their salaries had risen to $800 but they were still underpaid. Worse than being underpaid, however, was the frequent inability of the Treasurer to remit each quarter’s salary on time. Often the professors were forced to go deeply in debt to care for their families. Dr. Kendrick, keenly aware of their privations, reminded the Education Society that, since the faculty had been chosen to train young men for the ministry,

It is of utmost importance . . . that adequate provision be made for their support, in order that they may give themselves wholly to their appropriate labors, without being ‘distracted with private cares….*

Typical of the faculty’s spirit of sacrifice is Raymond’s statement to the Board that he had turned down-offers of more lucrative positions because of his “settled conviction of the permanent importance of this Institution” and his “attachment to’ the particular departments of instruction” over which he presided. When Professor Maginnis disclosed that because of inadequate recompense he was about to resign, the entire faculty went so far as to “express to the Ex[ecutive] Com[mittee] their full conviction that the continuance of Prof. Maginnis in the chair of Biblical Theology is of vital importance to the interests of the Institution” and to “assure the Com. that they will found no claim in their own behalf upon any arrangement which the Com. may deem it expedient to make in order to meet the pecuniary wants of Prof. Mag”[innis.]**

Even though often harassed by financial worries, the professors and their wives, formed “a circle, rarely surpassed … in its elements of congeniality, and in the rich sources of enjoyment which it opened to its members,” Professor A. C. Kendrick recalled forty years afterward. Three faculty families, the Spears, Eatons, and Conants, lived in

*Baptist Education Society, Annual Report , 1840, 18.

**John H. Raymond to Board of Trustees, Baptist Education Soceity, Jan. 12, 1843; Faculty Minutes, 1840-51, Mar. 25, 1841

Comments Off on p. 65 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted in Chapter 4, p. 65, The Expanded Period, 1833-1846

Tagged , ,

p. 63 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted on May 1, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 63 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

the students presented him with a written tribute and held a special meeting to bid him farewell. After six years in which he was to take the principal role in founding and developing the University at Lewisburg (now Bucknell) he was to return to the campus in 1851 as president of Madison University.

The youngest member of the faculty was John Howard Raymond, born in New York City, who in 1837, at the age of twenty-three, acted as tutor in Hebrew even before he had completed the theological course. The next year he exchanged Hebrew for intellectual and moral philosophy and belles lettres and in 1840 became Professor of Rhetoric and the English Language. Raymond had studied three years at Columbia but, when expelled for some student prank, had attended Union from which he graduated in 1832. Following a brief period reading law he had decided to prepare for the ministry and entered the Institution for that purpose. He had at once impressed the faculty with his ability and promise. Admitted to the Class of 1836, he and three classmates proposed to go to Assam and there translate the Bible into the languages of the East. When this venture failed to materialize, he decided to devote himself to teaching.

Raymond’s natural bent toward language had shown itself when, as a schoolboy of nine or ten, he had avidly studied Goold Brown’s Grammar under the author’s direction. He called this book “the foundation of all the intellectual discipline I ever had.” As a student at the Hamilton Academy in 1824-25 he became as absorbed in Latin and rhetoric as he had been fascinated by English grammar. Brilliant and devoted to his teaching he threw himself into his work with great success. On at least two occasions when he was offered more attractive positions, Dr. Kendrick implored him not to leave since he felt the Seminary could scarcely recover from the blow. His sparkling and kindly wit, genial manner, and innate refinement must have helped to bring out the social graces and poise of his students just as his keen intelligence and industry developed their minds.

Philetus Bennett Spear, like his classmate Raymond, joined the faculty in 1837 before finishing the theological course. A native of Palmyra, New York, he was tutor in mathematics and then in Hebrew until he was made “adjunct professor” of that subject in 1842. Spear’s primary interests were administration and finance, and long service in these fields, rather than teaching, gave him his reputation.

Comments Off on p. 63 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted in Chapter 4, p. 63, The Expanded Period, 1833-1846

Tagged , ,