Tag Archives: William Colgate

p. 132 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted on May 3, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 132 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

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

p. 121 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted on May 3, 2012 by | Comments Off on 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

Comments Off on p. 121 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted in Chapter 7, p. 121, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850

Tagged , , , ,

p. 115 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted on May 2, 2012 by | Comments Off on 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

Comments Off on p. 115 – The removal controversy, 1847-1850

Posted in Chapter 7, p. 115, The Removal Controversy, 1847-1850

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on May 2, 2012 by | Comments Off on 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.”

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

Posted in Administrative Problems and Incorporation, 1833-1846, Chapter 6, p. 104

Tagged , , , , , ,

p. 98 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

Posted on May 2, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 98 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

Bangkok two years after his graduation. The money was in payment of his student loan even though his notes had been canceled when he sailed for the mission field.

Since collections and gifts failed to meet the needs of the Institution, the Trustees resorted to other measures. Charges for tuition and board were raised in the mid-’30’s. Special subscription campaigns were launched for salaries and debts, but it is not clear, however, what the cash returns actually were since it often happened that subscribers paid only part of their pledges. In 1837 the Trustees decided that it would be expedient to start a drive for a $50,000 endowment fund. Such a venture required caution because many Baptists, William Colgate among them, opposed an endowment on the ground that income from such a source would make the Institution independent of the churches whose agency it was and who had been its chief support. Dr. Kendrick, who was thoroughly familiar with this objection and also with the condition of the treasury, wrote with some asperity in the 1837 Annual Report “There is a happy medium between a state of penury, which paralyzes [sic] all the energies of the Society, and cripples the Institution in its faculty and students, and such a profusion of funds as allures to luxury, and induces to forgetfulness of a daily dependence on the Father of mercies.” Even the most sanguine Board members had no expectation of a “profusion of funds,” but they did hope that enough might be raised from a regular income to defray a part of the annual expenses. In 1839 the goal was raised to $100,000, but five years later not more than $10,000 had been collected. It was not until 1850 that efforts to establish an endowment succeeded.

The beauty of the campus and the village in their setting of rolling hills, broad valleys, woods, and farmland invariably drew appreciative comments from visitors and students. By the middle 1830’s the campus included about 170 acres. Most of it was given over to cultivated fields and pasture which supplied the Boarding Hall with dairy products, meat and vegetables; 50 acres were occupied by the Institution’s buildings and Samuel Payne’s home. Near the buildings were walks and groves often used by the students for retreat and meditation.

Landscaping did not seem to awaken the Trustees’ interest until 1836 when they appointed a committee for laying out the grounds. They also offered a prize of $70.00 for the best plan which united “the greatest beauty and simplicity with the least expense in consumma-

Comments Off on p. 98 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

Posted in Administrative Problems and Incorporation, 1833-1846, Chapter 6, p. 98

Tagged , ,

p. 97 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

Posted on May 2, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 97 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

to agony of spirit in devising means for life.” In 1840 he wondered why the Baptists of the State of New York couldn’t raise $20,000 for the Institution if those of Maine and Massachusetts provided $50,000 for Waterville College. Two years later Dr. Kendrick wrote that the claims of ministerial education were “but faintly perceived and more feebly felt by the great body of the churches throughout the State” while the Board and faculty were carrying a burden which was “greater than they can long endure.”

Two of the Board’s most effective agents for collecting funds were James Edmunds, Jr., the steward, and Zenas Freeman. Both were on intimate terms with Dr. Kendrick and possessed remarkable energy and keen judgment. As they traveled up and down New York State presenting the claims of the Institution on the generosity of the churches and individuals, they constantly met competition from agents of other denominational interests, notably the American and Foreign Bible Society, and home and foreign missions. Adverse economic conditions, such as the Panic of 1837 and low crop prices, also reduced collections.

Auxiliary societies continued to be an important reservoir of funds. Those in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan sent contributions and students to Hamilton. There were also several women’s organizations, particularly the New York City Baptist Female Education Society, which channeled large sums to the treasury. Between 1836 and 1841 these groups contributed $10,000. The Young Men’s Education Society of New York and Brooklyn likewise deserves mention for its generous patronage.

Among the individuals who made sizable gifts were: Deacon Olmstead with two $1,000 scholarships; Deacon Colgate with one; Mrs. Hulda E. Thompson of Troy, New York, with one (the largest donation by a woman); and Stephen B. Munn of New York City, $1,500. John Rathbone, also of New York City, gave the Education Society 13,000 acres of mountain land in western Virginia, estimated to be worth between three and five thousand dollars. Justus H. Vipton, Class of 1833, missionary to the Karens in Burma, endowed out of his meager salary a $1,000 scholarship for the exclusive use of students preparing to become missionaries in the Far East. An even more exceptional gift was $100 from Mrs. Jane G. E. Reed, a missionary to Siam and window of Alanson Reed, Class of 1835, who had died in

Comments Off on p. 97 – Administrative problems and incorporation, 1833-1846

Posted in Administrative Problems and Incorporation, 1833-1846, Chapter 6, p. 97

Tagged , ,

p. 77 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted on May 2, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 77 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

pointed out that the book collection was entirely inadequate to the needs and that where similar institutions had thousands of volumes, the Seminary had only a few hundred. To overcome this grave deficiency he announced that he and a few others had opened a subscription of $1,000 to be spent by the faculty for books and that $700 already had been pledged. In response to his appeal, the assembly subscribed the remaining $300 in a few minutes. Part of the money realized was sent to Professor Sears, who was then in Germany, for the purchase of theological tomes rarely on the market in the United States.

Encouraged by the results of the subscription campaign in 1833, the Trustees opened a second one three years later. Five thousand dollars was to be raised one hundred shares of $50.00 each, payable in five annual $10.00 installments would thus insure an income of $1,000 for five years for buying books. All members of the faculty, except Professor A. C. Kendrick, who was then on a trip in the South, were subscribers. Their high hopes were blasted by the Panic of 1837, but not before a $1,000 order had been placed with the German bookseller at Halle. After some items arrived the Executive Committee was forced to cancel the order for those not already shipped and Dr. Kendrick was obliged to appeal to William Colgate for a loan of $700 to cover the consignment which had already been received.

Nearly every Annual Report of the Education Society carried an appeal for the library, especially for volumes in English on theology, history, and literature. At the urgent request of the faculty, the Executive Committee in 1842 sent $500 to’ Professor Conant, then studying in Germany, to buy books, including the “principal writings of the Fathers.” Professor Raymond who apparently resented the purchasing of so many works in theology, especially those in foreign languages, complained that the library was “shamefully deficient” in standard titles in English literature. By 1846 the collection probably contained about 5,000 volumes, estimated as being worth around $3,500.

Professor A. C. Kendrick, who was chosen librarian by his colleagues in 1834, was intensely concerned about the responsibilities of his position. He observed that “Other institutions are making up the necessity of having an ample library &if we are not on the alert on this point they will draw the students.” Under faculty supervision he and

Comments Off on p. 77 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted in Chapter 4, p. 77, The Expanded Period, 1833-1846

Tagged , , , ,

p. 76 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted on May 2, 2012 by | Comments Off on p. 76 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Fairfield, New York, gave his course of lectures in chemistry, both on the Hill and at the Hamilton Academy. Professor Taylor took over chemistry instruction in 1843. Astronomy always had a place in the curriculum throughout this period, but geology and mineralogy seem to have been offered only in 1836. A course in biology based on William Smellie’s Philosophy of Natural History was given from 1833 to 1835.

Unfortunately, when Professor Taylor had gotten the work in science nicely developed he resigned and recent graduates added to the faculty as tutors attempted to carry on in his place. The students resented this makeshift arrangement which was to last until the 1850’s.

The quality of instruction in the Institution’s two-year preparatory course proved to be so good in the mid-’40’s that the Hamilton Academy, which a decade before had been rated second in the state by the Board of Regents, suffered severely from the competition. The office of principal was abolished in 1838 and the regular faculty assumed responsibility for the elementary work in their respective fields and either conducted classes themselves or directed advanced students who served as assistants.

The eight-year course embracing the three departments of the Institution had no counterpart. Professor Raymond wrote of it in the Society’s Annual Report in 1842:

 

The organization is certainly unique-strikingly so. Its precise model is not to be found, we believe, in any other school, secular or religious, at home or abroad. But the Board…did not feel bound by existing models. Their eye was fixed on the specific wants of our own zion; and, while they were not negligent of, the lights of experience or unsolicitous to secure the counsels of the wise, their measures were all finally adopted with exclusive reference to those wants. The result of many years anxious and prayerful deliberation, of very many distinct and cautious and (almost invariably). unanimous decisions, is before us in the plan of the Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution- a place so manifestly the work of Divine Providence and so susceptible of justification in all its essential features, that we think none but the most ureflecting could condemn it on the irrelevant, ground of non-conformity to institutions formed under different circumstances for different ends.

The efforts of the faculty and trustees to build up the library failed to advance with the development and improvement of the curriculum. At the Education Society’s annual meeting in 1833 William Colgate

Comments Off on p. 76 – The expanded program, 1833-1846

Posted in Chapter 4, p. 76, The Expanded Period, 1833-1846

Tagged , , ,

p. 22 – Administration, Setting, and Staff, 1820-1833

Posted on March 28, 2012 by | Leave a comment

country, especially for “young men from the interior, bro’t up to hard labour; without the advantages of a common school education” and unaccustomed to city ways and often desperately poor. The opportunities at Hamilton for them to supply “destitute churches” on Sundays he stressed as valuable in providing preaching experience and a small financial return. He tactfully called attention to arrangements for cooperation already worked out with the Vermont education society and stated, “If you deem this method calculated to promote the general interest of our common cause … you will accept the assurances of a firm disposition on our part, to enter cordially into such a connection [with you] and be fellow helpers in the same good work.”*

Negotiations dragged on till March 24, 1823, when the Trustees of the New York Baptist Theological Seminary, giving up the idea of maintaining their own school, voted that it was “expedient to send to the Seminary at Hamilton such an annual sum as may be conveniently Spared and such students as may to this board appear Expedient.” Within a month they turned over to agent Joel W. Clark $350 and soon after shipped $100 worth of books to Hamilton. Their first student, William G. Miller, “a member in good standing of the Abyssinian Church,” joined the Class of 1826. Henceforth, the New York Baptist Theological Seminary was a paper organization only, its sole purpose being to assist the Hamilton institution. The Board justified abandoning their own school on the ground of inadequate funds, but the unfailing help which they and other Baptists in New York City, now released from supporting a strictly local enterprise, were to give to the up-state seminary was many times to save it from ruin.** When the Education Society had been chartered in 1819 the New Yorkers had regarded it as a rival The Rev. John Stanford had said, “‘I wonder if the people away off in the woods, a hundred miles west of Albany, are so silly as to suppose that young men licensed [to preach] in the city of New York would think of going away there to obtain an education.” ***But four years later he had changed his opinion.

William Colgate, a wealthy soapmaker and philanthropist, had been

* Baptist Education Society, Executive Committee, to New York Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary, Board, July 29, 1820.

** New York Baptist Theological Seminary, Record Book, 1813-48, passim.

*** New York Baptist Register, July 27, 1848.

 

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Administration Setting and Staff 1820-1833, Chapter 2, p. 22

Tagged , ,