Tag Archives: Nathaniel Kendrick

p. 126 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Nye, active participants in the week’s proceedings, whose assistance was to prove most valuable for the Hamilton cause in the litigation to come. Mason was a justice of the Supreme Court and Nye, a member of the Class of 1832, the County Surrogate and Judge.

The faculty, except for Professors Eaton and Spear, was more than ever convinced that Rochester was the proper site. Dr. Kendrick’s death on September 11, 1848, was a severe blow for the Anti­ Removalists, but Dr. Eaton stood his ground, confident that legal obstacles would bar relocation. Professor Spear, who had tried to maintain a neutral position prior to the August meetings, in October seriously questioned the wisdom of the action taken by the Boards and the Society. He wrote to a Rochester friend, “Men assume a great responsibility to pluck an old institution like this, before they are sure they can plant it. Any man can pull down an Edifice but it takes an Architect to build one.” He shrank from the prospect of protracted litigation and its attendant adverse effects on fundraising, patronage, and academic pursuits which were inevitable whether or not removal eventually succeeded. Rather than subject the University to these trials he urged the “western brethren” to “strike for a New Institution.”

By January 1849, the Hamilton citizens were ready to initiate legal action. Confident of success in the courts, they abjured “all recriminative and acrimonious language” toward the Rochester friends for whom, they stated, they cherished no ill-feeling. On the contrary, they would rejoice to see a university grace that city provided that Madison were left undisturbed.

A few weeks later Peter B. Havens and Thomas Wiley of Hamilton, with James W. Nye as their attorney, filed a complaint with the State Supreme Court, then in session at Morrisville, the county seat, asking for an injunction to prohibit the Trustees of the University and Education Society from acting. Though neither Havens nor Wiley was a Baptist, they considered themselves entitled to bring suit because they had been among the original subscribers to the $6,000 which Hamilton citizens had paid to the Education Society in 1823 on condition that the institution be located in the village. The plaintiffs had also contributed to funds for construction of buildings on the campus. Justice Philo Gridley, who had practiced law in Hamilton in the 1830’s and hence must have been familiar with many aspects of the case, granted them a temporary injunction on January 23, 1849.

p. 121 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

tees, in session daily except Sunday for the entire week. At their second sitting the Board asked if the endowment fund had been obtained, so that they might know whether to take action on the removal question. The Anti-Removalists were unprepared to make a formal report, but two days later friends of Rochester offered subscrip­tions, a site, and a bond amounting in all to $100,000. There was also before the Board a letter from Robert R. Raymond, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Syracuse, which stated that, though his fellow­ citizens did not wish to compete with any other locality, they could be relied upon for $50,000 and a site if the University were moved there.

Following these proposals Daniel Hascall spoke extemporaneously against removal, stressing especially the Education Society’s contract with the original donors of whom he was one of the few survivors. He had recently settled near Hamilton after residing for a decade in Vermont, and now with great zeal gave his support to the Anti­ Removal cause. Professor Eaton also defended Hamilton in an able three-hour speech. John N. Wilder, Elisha Tucker and Pharcellus Church responded briefly for Rochester.

Soon after the Board resumed its sitting Monday August 14, the Hamilton report was ready. While a committee examined the document, the other members approved an allocation of time so that the issue might be decided before the Education Society’s annual meeting the next day. The Trustees also listened to further remarks from Elder Hascall whom some of the Removalists interrogated so sharply as to draw pointed rebukes from Deacon Colgate and others. Nathaniel Kendrick and Betsey Payne, who like Hascall were original donors, sent letters expressing anxiety lest the location be changed.

The most stormy session occurred on Monday evening when the members met at the Boarding Hall to take final action. Though the public was not admitted, a large number of local citizens gathered outside the open windows to listen. The committee on the Hamilton proposal had reported in the afternoon that the residents of the village offered subscriptions totaling $28,000, half of which the committee considered of questionable value; a bond of $30,000 guaranteeing the collection of subscriptions; and a signed promise to use their best efforts to raise the remaining $20,000 within a year. To bring discussion to a head David R. Barton of Rochester moved that it would be expedient to change the location of Madison University from Hamilton

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. 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

p. 104 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

circles who became one of the first trustees of Madison University, used his influence to get favorable action.

The objection raised in 1845 that there was no proper agent to receive the charter had been met by setting up an independent corporation, Madison University, which had the power to provide for its own succession. Of the twenty-seven men composing the first Board of Trustees, seventeen were at the same time trustees of the Baptist Education Society, thus making an interlocking directorate. All of them were Baptists and New York residents; six came from Albany, six from Hamilton, seven from New York City and Brooklyn, three from Utica, and one each from Rochester, Homer, Elbridge, Fayetteville, and Waterville. Twenty were laymen; among them, in addition to Ira Harris were William Colgate, Seneca B. Burchard, Friend Humphrey, Alvah Pierce, Henry Tower, John N. Wilder, and ex-governor William L. Marcy. The clergymen included Nathaniel Kendrick; Bartholomew T. Welch, well-known Albany pastor; Edward Bright, Jr., preacher and editor; William R. Williams, outstanding New York City minister, and Pharcellus Church, a member of the Class of 1824 and pastor of the First Baptist Church of Rochester.

The charter defined the purpose of Madison University as “promoting literature and science” but made no mention of training ministers. The character of the new Trustees was no doubt sufficient guarantee that this new function would not be neglected. Perhaps the omission of this point was used as a means of facilitating the passage of the act of incorporation. The charter authorized the Education Society to make whatever arrangements seemed proper for the transfer of all or part of its property to the University whose location was fixed at Hamilton. The right to grant degrees was stipulated, and the Trustees were empowered to appoint the faculty subject to removal by a majority vote of the total membership of the Board.

The Education Society Trustees believed incorporation would benefit the Institution in many ways without detracting from its efficiency as an agency for ministerial education. They saw the charter as a means of advancing its reputation, enlisting state aid, and increasing the number of tuition-paying students in the collegiate department. They rejoiced also that there now existed in the State a Baptist university which would provide “the education of our sons at college by teachers who hold the truth as we hold it.”

p. 102 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

achieved a fair degree of maturity, a status which must have cheered
the Trustees while at the same time it presented new problems. The Board hoped for State aid since the opening of the collegiate depart­ment to non-ministerial students in 1839 made that division the equivalent of a regular college. Students who entered the collegiate course, meanwhile, began to ask for baccalaureate degrees. Efforts to get State patronage and permission to grant degrees were the back- ground of the movement for incorporation which eventually attained success with the granting of the Madison University Charter in 1846.

The first suggestion that State money might be available came in 1839 from Charles Walker of Utica, a trustee and a member of the State Assembly. He and Friend Humphrey of Albany, likewise a trustee and a member of the Senate, were authorized to petition the legislature in January, 1840, for an annual appropriation of $5,000. Their exertions were unavailing, however, since the legislature refused to grant funds to an unincorporated institution.

To obviate this objection, the Executive Committee, faculty, several Board members, and citizens of Hamilton and vicinity immediately took steps to get the collegiate department incorporated as Hamilton University. The Assembly unanimously approved their petition in April, 1840, but the next month it was rejected by a 16 to 9 vote in the Senate. The reason was that the proposed university did not meet conditions which the Regents of the University of the State of New York imposed on all institutions asking for charters, namely, that they possess specified assets of not less than $70,000. Though the resources of the Institution were estimated at more than this sum, they were not invested and secured as the Regents required.

Dr. Kendrick, who was much more interested in training Baptist ministers than in seeing the collegiate department expand, opposed the charter movement as strongly as he had the admission of non-ministerial students. He was apprehensive lest the collegiate department become independent of the other divisions with the result that the local advantages for theological education might be impaired. He also feared that incorporation would make the Institution less dependent on the churches, whose agent it had always been, and, consequently, less responsive to their needs. Furthermore, he questioned whether, if a charter were obtained, Hamilton would be the best location for the collegiate department, thus anticipating one of the important issues of

p. 95 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

 

over the finances with care and took a leading part in the work of the Executive Committee.

Throughout the 1830’s and late into the next decade Dr. Kendrick continued as Corresponding Secretary. After 1840, administrative duties occupied so much of his time that he had turned over to Professor Maginnis. most of his work as professor of systematic and pastoral theology. The Reports of the Board, circulars, and other articles from his pen in the hospitable pages of the Baptist Register and other denominational journals were perhaps the Society’s most effective advertising. Of all the members of the Board, he had the most thorough understanding of its activities and problems.

Financial questions proved by far the most serious and trying with which the Board had to deal. From 1833 to 1846 annual expenditures

p. 81 – Student life, 1833-1846

entrance originated among friends of the Institution who asked whether the Education Society might open the collegiate department to non-ministerial students without prejudice to the Society’s original objective. They considered the moral and religious influence pervading the Institution made it especially desirable as a place to which they might send their sons for a liberal education.

The Trustees and faculty spent long hours at meetings in June and August, 1839, deliberating the proposal. In exploring all of its phases they were not unmindful of the contribution which the tuition of non-ministerial students would make to the, chronically empty treasury. Dr. Kendrick, alone among the faculty, strongly opposed the change. He foresaw that it would be the entering wedge for reorienting the Institution’s character and educational program. Prospective preachers, he believed, should be protected from the contaminating worldly influence of non-theological students. “Can our young men,” he asked “preparing for the ministry, in the incipient state of their piety, before their religious habits are formed, become the companions of prayerless youth, to room and study, and lodge with them for a term of years, and not be retarded in the cultivation of their Christian graces?” He feared also that the “prayerless youth” might create disciplinary problems. The most serious objection he raised, however, was that the change would impair the confidence of the churches and cause them to withdraw their patronage.*

When the decision was made, with Dr. Kendrick’s the only negative vote, he announced that, though he had used every means to prevent the step, he would do all he could to make the new policy successful. His arguments, however, were responsible for many of the qualifying restrictions attached to the resolution as finally adopted. It provided that, “for the time being,” the faculty might admit to the collegiate department “a limited number of young men, who may not have the ministry in view,” but in no case were they to exceed the total of ministerial students in all departments of the Institution. Lay students were to possess good religious or moral character. They were to be well prepared for whatever classes of the collegiate department they proposed to enter, and no modifications for their benefit were to be made in the course of instruction. Their tuition and fees were to be

*Seymour W. Adams,Memoirs of Rev. Nathaniel Kendrick, D.D. and Silas N. Kendrick (Philadelphia, 1860), 172-176.

p. 64 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Asahel Clark Kendrick, the young cousin of Nathaniel Kendrick, who had taught both Greek and Latin since 1831 was relieved of the latter by Richardson in 1839. Free now to concentrate on Greek, his “first linguistic and scholarly love,” he published a grammar two years later. Though he had a competent knowledge of modern European tongues as well as those of the Old Testament, it was as a student and teacher of Greek that he made his name. He found language study an effective means of broadening the general culture of his students and his keen, versatile, and poetic mind made the Iliad and Odyssey, as studied in his Classrooms, living portrayals of real people. Like his friend and colleague, Raymond, he must have had considerable influence in polishing and refining the tastes and manners of the boys who sat under him.

As was true of so many other college presidents of the pre-Civil War period, Nathaniel Kendrick was the balance wheel responsible for the smooth functioning of the entire mechanism. His very presence penetrated every phase of the Institution’s activity. He continued to teach theology; but as his administrative duties increased, he “gave less attention to instruction and turned over routine academic matters to his faculty of younger men under the chairmanship of Professor Maginnis. In December, 1844, on his way down the Hill, he fell on a patch of ice and received a severe spinal injury which confined him to his home most of the time until his death four years later. Though forced to give up his teaching completely, he carried on much of the business of the Education Society from his sickroom. Students who watched with him during the long and sleepless nights and all others who had contact with him in this period of excruciating pain testified to his unabated devotion to the Institution’ and his calm reliance on the comforts of his religious faith.

In carrying the teaching load which a growing enrollment made heavier, the faculty was aided by eleven recent graduates of the collegiate department and several student assistants. Known as, “tutors” or “assistant teachers,” they seem to have met classes in Greek, mathematics, or whatever subject they were qualified to handle. Most of them served only a year or two until they finished the theological course. George Ripley Bliss, Class of 1838, who was a tutor in Greek, 1840-44, was so well thought of that he won highly Battering resolutions of appreciation from both students and faculty when he left. He subsequently had a notable career as a professor at Bucknell and