The history of Colby College, Part 10

Author: Colby College
Publication date: 1963
Publisher: Waterville, Colby College Press
Number of Pages: 716

USA > Maine > Kennebec County > Waterville > The history of Colby College > Part 10

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

As for the boarding department, it too was having hard going. One Ben- jamin Sheppard claimed that he had been given authority to operate a commons, but the Trustees declared his permission had extended only to occupancy of the steward's apartment, rent free, until such time as a steward should be appointed. In order to avoid a lawsuit, the Board authorized the Prudential Committee to make the best settlement they could with Sheppard.

In 1832 the same Mr. Coffin who had originally provided board for stu- dents was in that business again, for the Trustees ordered him "not to charge the students more than one dollar per week for board," at the same time decree- ing that "no scholar shall be compelled to board with him, and each scholar shall have liberty to board where he pleases."

At the end of that college year, the Trustees were so dissatisfied with the arrangement with Coffin that they built a steward's house at the north end of

THE END OF A REIGN

the college grounds, a building that for many years bore the name of college commons. At a later day it would be operated by the college itself, but in Chaplin's time and much later the incumbent steward took complete risk of operating the table at sufficient profit to keep himself out of debt for supplies and overhead.

President Chaplin presented his resignation to the Trustees at their annual meeting on July 31, 1833. An ugly situation had arisen, making Chaplin so determined to terminate his services that he refused to preside at Commence- ment and the Trustees authorized Professor George Keely to confer the diplomas.

The immediate cause of the President's withdrawal was the occurrence on July 4, 1833, of a student demonstration in the cause of abolition of slavery. Not for a moment should it be assumed that Chaplin was pro-slavery or that he objected to abolition societies. What he did object to was anything which marred the sober decorum that must be observed in any institution of which he was the head, especially one in which a majority of the students were preparing for the ministry.

By 1830 the anti-slavery movement was well under way in New England. In June, 1833, the dynamic abolition leader, William Lloyd Garrison, lectured in Waterville, and so fired the enthusiasm of the college students that they de- termined to form an anti-slavery society. Since the cause was freedom, what better day could be found to declare their purpose than the birthday of the na- tion's freedom, the Fourth of July? Assembling in the commons dining hall, the students adopted the following constitution:

Preamble

Believing that all men are born free and equal, and possess certain un- alienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness, and that in no case consistently with reason, religion, and the im- mutable principles of justice, can one man be the property of another; we the subscribers do hereby agree to form ourselves into a society to be governed by the following constitution.

Article I. This Society shall be called the Waterville College Anti- Slavery Society.

Article II. The object of this society shall be to endeavor by all means sanctioned by law, humanity, and religion, to effect the abolition of slavery in the United States; to improve the character and condition of the free people of color, to inform and correct public opinion in re- lation to their situation and rights, and obtain for them equal rights and privileges with the whites.

Article III. Any person who is a member of the College may become a member of this society by signing the constitution and paying annually to the treasurer twenty-five cents."

So enthusiastic was the gathering that it made a lot of noise. Even at the other end of the campus, the dignified president could hear the shouting and the cheers. He suspected that the celebrants had been fortified by New England rum, but even if they were cold sober, such disturbance of the peace and quiet of a scholarly community could not be countenanced.

At that time the college calendar included the month of July, and on the morning of July fifth President Chaplin told the students, in no uncertain terms,

HISTORY OF COLBY COLLEGE

exactly what he thought of their conduct. The exact words the President used were not recorded, but they were such that those who years later were asked for their recollections of his remarks all agreed that the whole student body arose in indignation from their chapel seats and demanded that President Chaplin retract statements they found objectionable. When Chaplin insisted that he meant every word he had said, the students left the building in anger.

At an immediately called faculty meeting, the President demanded the sus- pension of several known leaders in the episode, pending a more thorough in- vestigation. The faculty agreed, but Professors Keely and Newton, while not objecting to the decision, urged caution concerning any final action.

A week elapsed, during which the episode affected the classroom work, causing the faculty to become increasingly concerned. They decided unanimously that the President should deliver in chapel a carefully prepared written statement, which should be read to the faculty in advance. On July 10 Chaplin delivered such a statement, a copy of which in his own handwriting and attested by Pro- fessor Conant, is now preserved in the Colby Archives. The statement is too long to quote here in full, and much of it is made up of religious homilies which have little bearing on the issue. A few passages, however, reveal not only some details of the incident, but also the unusual attitude which Chaplin and his col- leagues held toward the Fourth of July, which had been an annual celebration for fifty-seven years when it caused this crisis at Waterville College.

Chaplin did withdraw his earlier implication of drunkenness:

We are happy to find, on inquiry, that none of you were chargeable with drinking ardent spirits or wine on that evening. The noises which we heard from the dining hall excited fears that some of you were actually inebriated, and that all present have made some use of ar- dent beverages. We feel it to be a fit subject of congratulation that such apprehensions were erroneous.

But the President made it clear that, wine or no wine, the faculty strongly disapproved of the noisy celebration, and he told the students exactly why they disapproved.

The anniversary of our independence ought to be celebrated by appro- priate religious services. It is a season when we ought to call to mind the goodness of God in enabling our Fathers to shake off the yoke of oppression and assume the attitude of a free and independent nation. And it is proper that we, as social beings, should assemble for such services of gratitude and blessing. But revelry should be discounte- nanced as incompatible with such a celebration. We ought to spend the day in much the same way as we spend the Sabbath, and as pious people we spend our annual Thanksgiving. It is a day of joy, but a joy that ought always to be sober and chastened. We should resort to no amuse- ments, partake of no entertainments, and engage in no exercises which have a tendency to unfit the mind for the holy intercourse with God.

Chaplin was not impressed by the argument "Everybody's doing it." He was quite aware that many people, probably the majority, did not share his stern, religious views about observance of the nation's birthday. Majorities didn't trouble such a man. He would always insist that "One with God is a majority." He told the rebellious students who indeed were now on the point of actual re- bellion:

THE END OF A REIGN

Some of you say, 'Were not the very same things which the faculty condemn practised formerly by pious people? Did they not celebrate the Fourth of July in the same manner that we lately did?' Yes, there were professors of religion, even pious people and ministers, who did these things. But shall we conclude that it is right for us to do the same? Then it is right to carry on that infamous and abominable traffic, the slave trade. The pious John Newton was for years the cap- tain of a slave ship. Does that justify any man today in committing so grievous an outrage? A few years ago many good people made free use of ardent spirits. Is this a satisfactory reason for our doing the same? Some good men indeed celebrate the Fourth of July just as you did the other evening. But that does not make it right.

Then the President got down to the facts concerning the disapproved be- havior, and it was in this passage that the students found his most objectionable words. We have placed in italics the particular phrases that led the students to say that the President had insulted them.

You are greatly mistaken, young gentlemen, if you suppose that we wish to deprive you of any real enjoyment. We wish you all to be happy in this world as well as in the next. But we wish you to under- stand that happiness does not consist in mirth and jollity. True joy is always serious. Real pleasure must correspond to the nature of the participant and the rank which he holds in the scale of existence. You are not beasts of the field or fowls of the air, but rational and immortal beings, and you ought to seek pleasures which add to your dignity and high destiny. Moreover, young men who are obtaining a college edu- cation may justly be expected to have a taste somewhat more elevated than that of the common herd of mankind. Can you be surprised, then, that after all the pains we have taken to refine and elevate your feelings, some of you have a taste so low and boorish, that you can be pleased with noises which resemble the yells of a savage or the braying of an ass? For you to pride yourselves on doing that which a boor, a savage or a brute may do as well as you is truly contemptible.

It was then that President Chaplin really poured it on. He referred to the recent death of one of the students and said it should remind these young men of the ominous uncertainty of life. Suppose they had to appear before the Divine Judge the very night of their unseemly celebration? He referred to recent evangelistic meetings held at China and at Ten Lots, and he made it all too clear that, in his opinion, some of his listeners were quite unfit to be ministers. He said:

The scene of your revelry took place within less than a week after numbers of you attended protracted meetings. We hoped that the time you spent at China and in the western part of this town would not be lost. We hoped you would return to the College with salutary religious impressions which would prove to be deep and lasting. But we feel that the devotional feelings generated at those meetings must have been for you as the morning cloud and the early dew. Alas, they are gone, wholly gone! What good does it do for you to go abroad and pray and exhort and preach with seeming fervor and solemnity, then return to celebrate the Fourth of July in the manner which you did? How could you, who intend to be pious ministers of the gospel, thus engage in loud and boisterous mirth?

HISTORY OF COLBY COLLEGE

The President announced that two ringleaders of the evening's revelry had been expelled and six others had been given a long suspension. Even if the President's address had done anything to allay student resentment-and it had not -the inflicted punishments brought matters to a climax. Now it was the stu- dents who turned to formal statements in writing. On July 17 they addressed the following petition to the faculty.

To the Faculty of Waterville College:

Whereas in the address to which we listened on Saturday last we find we were injured, individually and collectively, that our proceedings on the evening of the Fourth of July were misrepresented and that the epithets which were applied to us were harsh, severe, and undeserved, we feel it to be a duty which we owe to ourselves as men, to request of you an explanation of the terms in which we were addressed, and also the sources of the information which gave rise to them.

We have learned from individuals who have conversed with members of the faculty that the address was not intended merely to reprove us for our conduct on that evening, but also for certain misdemeanors for six months past. We did not understand the address in this way. We supposed that it related exclusively to the evening of the Fourth of July. If we are incorrect, we wish to be informed of it. But allowing that it did refer to all misconduct for the last six months, we do not consider that, as a body, we are justly censured for the conduct of individuals, or in any way answerable therefor. We are willing on all occasions to re- ceive reproof when guilty of violating the laws of the college, but we think we have a right to expect that such reproof will come couched in at least respectful language. We consider that our characters as students of this college, and as men, have been unjustly injured and we ask redress.

Those of us who were not present at the celebration on the Fourth of July feel it due to ourselves to ask how far we are implicated in the ad- dress, and what instances of misconduct were there referred to. We would also add that we think the interests of the College require that an explanation be made.

Waterville College, July 17, 1833.8

The fifty-seven signers of that petition included some of the most religious and best behaved men in the College. One of them was a sophomore, Jonathan Furbush, already serving as an ardent home mission worker among the French- Canadian people on "The Plains" who, because of pneumonia contracted in humanitarian work there in a winter blizzard, died before he could complete his college course. Another was William Mathews, the young man who was so thoroughly trusted that, as we have already recounted, he carried several thousand dollars belonging to the Waterville Bank to another bank in Boston. Another was Silas Illsley, the first of many members of that family to attend the College, and one who was a leader in both religious and literary pursuits throughout his college years. Among the signers was one man who would live well into the twentieth century. He was William Howe, who had a distinguished career as a Baptist minister in Boston and Cambridge, and who died in 1907 at the extreme age of one hundred and one years. It would have been interesting to have obtained from Mr. Howe, in his old age, his reminiscences of that dining hall incident of July 4, 1833, but apparently no one thought to ask him.

THE END OF A REIGN

On the following day the faculty sent to the petitioning students a formal reply:

Whereas the impression seems to prevail among the students that two only of the members of the faculty are responsible for the address de- livered in the chapel on Saturday last, be it resolved unanimously that the President be requested to inform the students that the above men- tioned address, before it was delivered in the chapel, had been read to all the members of the faculty and had been unanimously approved. Also resolved, that the faculty entirely disclaim the construction which they understand is given by the students to those sentences in the address which occasioned most offense, and that the object of the faculty, in those sentences, was to show those whom they addressed the inconsistency of some of their conduct with the rational and immortal nature which they possess.º

The students, especially those who were members of the theological group known as the United Brethren Society,10 were not satisfied with that response. They insisted on a retraction of what they still termed offensive epithets, and the matter was far from settled when the Trustees, in annual meeting, were con- fronted with the resignations of President Chaplin and Professor Conant.

The faculty records themselves reveal no rift between faculty factions, but the following minute in the trustee records shows that such a rift did exist.

Voted, that the President be requested to furnish this Board with a statement relative to the late difficulties which occasioned his resignation, and that Professors Conant, Keely and Newton be requested to furnish statements also relative to disturbances among the students. Voted, that a committee of five be appointed to attempt a reconciliation beween Professors Keely and Newton on the one part and Professors Chaplin and Conant on the other part.

Keely and Newton immediately presented their statement to the Board, but it was not until Chaplin learned the contents of that statement that he and Conant presented their own, which was couched entirely in the form of a refutation of their opponents' statement. The matter was so fraught with dire consequences for the College that its historical importance justifies complete quotation of both statements. No mere excerpts and no paraphrase will suffice. The surest way to understand the unfortunate situation is to see exactly what both sides had to say. The original statements here quoted are preserved in the Colby Archives.

At the first session of the Trustees' annual meeting, President Chaplin had apparently accused Keely and Newton not only of failing to support him, but of actually aiding and abetting the student revolt. To this charge the two pro- fessors gave vigorous denial.

We deem it important to embrace the opportunity you have kindly of- fered to say a few things in reply to the charge which has this afternoon been preferred against us. We should not have known of any difficulty existing between present members of the faculty, had not Dr. Chaplin expressly charged us in your hearing with refusing to sustain him and Professor Conant in reference to the course which they wished to pursue in the discipline of certain students.

We do not consider ourselves bound to conjure up the reasons which have induced the students to suppose that two individuals of the faculty

HISTORY OF COLBY COLLEGE

were mostly responsible for the address which has given offense. We are conscious of having attempted to pursue a judicious course in refer- ence to this and to former acts of the Executive Government ever since we have been members of it. Our individual opinion has been con- cealed, if it did not precisely correspond with that of the ruling members of the faculty. But do Dr. Chaplin and Prof. Conant suppose that their general character and the general tenor of the course they have pursued for months (not to say years) past can be observed by the students and yet no opinion be formed as to the influence which individual mem- bers may have in the meetings of the faculty? In addition to the fact that it was publicly announced to the students that every member of the faculty was responsible for the address the delivery of which gave of- fense, we have repeatedly and distinctly stated our disapproval of such loud and noisy mirth as was displayed on the night of July fourth. We have never knowingly winked at any sin of this kind in students, but have endeavored to be firm supporters of the cause of good order and strict discipline in the college. We may, however, be allowed our own opinion as to the best method of correcting any evil which may be found to exist.

We are specifically charged with deserting Dr. Chaplin and Prof. Conant when the second address was presented for approval of the faculty. We solemnly assert that, far from deserting them, we fully supported them. Toward the close of our last faculty meeting we had, through the whole affair, endeavored to defend Dr. Chaplin (who was declared by certain students to be incompetent for his office) and Prof. Conant (who had been insulted in the street), and we stated our determination to act in their behalf as we would wish them to do for us in like cir- cumstances. We further declared that, though we had doubts as to the policy which they wished to pursue, we would certainly sustain them if they were not satisfied with less severe measures.

After Dr. Chaplin and Prof. Conant, to our exceeding surprise, pro- posed to resign their offices as the best method of removing the diffi- culty existing in the College, we solemnly declared to Dr. Chaplin that, though we had other ample reasons which respected the welfare of the college for being reluctant to accede to the violent measures proposed, yet our principal reason for taking that position was a regard for his own interest. We stated to him our fears that those measures would create bad feeling, not only in the College, but particularly among the friends of the College abroad, that would be to the President's disad- vantage and perhaps lead at some future day to his removal from office. To be charged, as we were this afternoon, is indeed a most unwelcome return for the affection we have felt for Dr. Chaplin and the support we have endeavored to give him as President of the College.

If you think it of any consequence to examine further into our official or private conduct since we have been members of this faculty, we shall re- joice in a thorough investigation. We have only to add that we feel a deep interest in the welfare of this College and that our whole energies have been devoted to those measures which, in our opinion, were adopted to promote its best interests; and now the question whether we can hereafter be useful as members of the faculty we submit entirely to yourselves.

Calvin Newton George W. Keely

Waterville College, July 30, 1833

THE END OF A REIGN

The reply which President Chaplin and Professor Conant immediately made to the Newton-Keely statement shows that there had long been disagreement be- tween the two factions and that the Fourth of July incident was only the spark that ignited a long-loaded powder keg.

In reply to the communication of Professors Keely and Newton, we readily admit that both men have manifested a deep interest in the prosperity of the College and a readiness to make sacrifices in its be- half. But we cannot admit, that during the late disturbances they have shown a willingness to bear their full share of the responsibility resting on the faculty or to expose themselves to the manifestations of dis- pleasure and resentment shown by certain students. If their protesta- tions are sincere, as we presume they are, the two professors must have been most egregiously mistaken as to the best methods of manifesting their esteem for the presiding officer of the College, and of sustaining him in the arduous duties of his station. To move on with him till he had exposed himself to the fiercest resentment of a large proportion of the students, and then propose a relaxation of measures when it was most necessary to rally round him and present a bold front to the dis- affected students, was certainly the readiest way to ruin the President's influence and expose him to the contempt and scorn of all who had assailed him. Had they intended to effect the President's removal from office, they could hardly have adopted more suitable expedients.

Professors Keely and Newton seem to imagine that it was not their fault if the students thought them opposed to the measures which the President and the first professor were pursuing. We must say that, if these two gentlemen had combined a sincere attachment to our cause with a suitable degree of boldness and decision, not an hour would have elapsed before the students as a body would have beheld the faculty as one and indivisible. We do not accuse these professors of betraying us. They do not deserve to be ranked with Judas, who betrayed his Master, nor with Peter who denied him. The course they have pur- sued resembles rather the conduct of the other disciples, who, when the Master was arrested, had not the courage to stand by him, but forsook him and fled.

Professors Keely and Newton refer to us as "ruling members" of the faculty, indicating that for months, even years, the predominance of our influence has been apparent to the students. We do indeed hold the first two offices in the Executive Government, but in no sense have we been "ruling members." We have never shown an overbearing spirit or exercised authority in any improper degree. But, admitting that the students, from observation of the attitude and actions of all mem- bers of the faculty, might form some shrewd conjectures respecting the degree of interest felt by each in the late transactions, does that ac- count for the fact that, during the late disturbances, the students have, from first to last, considered Professors Keely and Newton as opposed to the vigorous measures pursued by the faculty? If these gentlemen had really wished the students to consider them as going heart and hand with us, could they not easily have given that impression?

Professor Keely is a man whom we highly respect. He is a man of genius and taste, as well as a profound scholar and an able instructor. We consider him, too, as possessing no inconsiderable share of moral worth. His great fault is want of that firmness and decision of char-

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

The history of Colby College, Part 10

Author: Colby College Publication date: 1963 Publisher: Waterville, Colby College Press Number of Pages: 716

Author: Colby College
Publication date: 1963
Publisher: Waterville, Colby College Press
Number of Pages: 716