MIAMI UNIVERSITY, CALVINISM, AND THE
ANTI-
SLAVERY MOVEMENT 1
By JAMES H. RODABAUGH
Miami University is a daughter of the
Old Northwest. Its
origins may be traced to the land grant
made by Congress to John
Cleves Symmes in 1787. According to the
contract, among the
lands of the Symmes Purchase one
township was to be reserved
for an "academy or college."
After years of controversy and
litigation during which Symmes sold the
reserved lands, Congress,
in 1803, granted in trust to the state
of Ohio another township
in lieu of that within the purchase. By
authorization of the legis-
lature of Ohio, the present college
township was set aside. On
February 17, 1809, an act was passed
establishing the Miami
University. After years of political
controversy over the location
of the university itself, during which
time a small endowment
was built up from the leasing of the
lands, the institution was
opened in the fall of 1824.
At that time Robert Hamilton Bishop,
a Scotsman well-
known in the West as a preacher and
teacher, became president.
Small hope had been held by some for the
little college buried in
the wilderness, but Bishop, who foresaw
the growth of Ohio
and the Middle West, assumed his
position with optimism for
the institution's future. It began to
thrive immediately, and by
the late 1830's was the leading
university west of the Alleghenies.
During these years new buildings were
constructed, the endow-
ment was increased by the leasing of the
college lands, and the
number of students, reaching 250 in
1839, was greater than in
any other western school and compared
favorably with the great
universities of the country.
Although a state institution, Miami
University was virtually a
Presbyterian stronghold during the first
fifty years of its exis-
1 This address was delivered before the
Mississippi Valley Historical Association,
April 29, 1938.
(66)
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: RODABAUGH 67
tence. All of its presidents up to 1873
were Presbyterian minis-
ters, and its trustees and professors
were, in general, members of
that denomination. Presbyterian
philanthropic associations, such
as the Presbyterian Education Society
and the Board of Education
of the General Assembly, gave financial
aid to Miami and to a
number of its students. This close
connection with the church in-
volved the university in the strife
which split the Presbyterians
into the Old and New Schools in the
1830's.
During the early decades of the
nineteenth century the
rugged individualists of the United
States, and particularly of
the West, began slowly to arise from the
clutches of the pure
Calvinism which had been inherited from
the old countries. Pure
Calvinism had taught that because of
Adam's original sin, all men,
except the elect who had been
foreordained to salvation by divine
decree, were inherently evil and damned
to a fiery hell by an
angry God. Here was a doctrine at which
the democratic spirits
of the West gradually revolted as they
listened to the thundering
voices of such theological liberals as
Nathaniel W. Taylor of Yale
and his protege, Lyman Beecher; George
W. Gale and his con-
vert, Charles, Grandison Finney and
Finney's pupil, Theodore
Dwight Weld. In the process of the
evolution of religious doc-
trines from orthodox Calvinism to a new
freedom of the spirit
came inevitable and bitter struggles
such as those between the
Old and New Schools of the Presbyterian
Church. Although
there were various doctrinal points of
difference between the Old
and New Schools, the great distinction
was psychological, one of
attitudes. Whatever seemed to be liberal
in the sense of repre-
senting something new in theological
principle or religio-social
policy can perhaps be generally
associated with the New School.
On the other hand, the Old School,
narrowly sectarian, generally
represented the orthodox, conservative
point of view, which ac-
cepted the existing order as right and
decried anything new.
Bishop was, by his training, essentially
a reformer. Although
steeped in the religious teachings of
the Burgher Church of Scot-
land, his contacts at the University of
Edinburgh opened to him
a wider interest in mankind, and he
turned with enthusiasm to the
68
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
new studies of human society, namely,
history, politics, and social
relations. At Edinburgh he fell under
the influence of Dugald
Stewart, then the leading philosopher of
the British Isles, a liberal,
an anti-cleric, and an enthusiastic
supporter of the French Revolu-
tion. Other students attending Stewart's
lectures while Bishop
was there included the later Whig
leaders, Lord Henry Cockburn,
Lord Henry Petty, Francis Horner, Lord
Francis Jeffrey, and
Lord Chancellor Henry Brougham. Under
the influence of Stew-
art and his students Bishop began to
criticize the idea of having
various denominations.
He carried these influences with him to
the United States in
1802.
From 1804 to 1824 Bishop taught at Transylvania Uni-
versity; there and later at Miami he
taught courses in social re-
lations, said to be among the first of
such courses taught in the
United States. While in Kentucky he
became involved in a bit-
ter controversy in the Associate
Reformed Church, in which he and
several other young ministers were
attacked for their liberal teach-
ings. With this background Bishop
assumed the presidency of
Miami University. When the church
divided in 1836-37, Bishop
pled for unity. As early as 1833 he
sensed the oncoming revolu-
tion and published A Plea for United
Christian Action, Addressed
Particularly to Presbyterians. This sermon was re-published all
over the country, and served to involve
Bishop and Miami Uni-
versity in the conflict. Bishop's great
work in the strife was an
attempt to compromise and harmonize the
opposing schools, and
the university became the center from
which this movement
emanated.
Bishop's colleagues in the attempt to
re-unite the church in-
cluded Samuel Crothers, an anti-slavery
leader then preaching in
Adams County, Calvin E. Stowe,
husband of Harriet Beecher
Stowe, John W. Scott, a Miami professor
and father of President
Benjamin Harrison's first wife, and
several former students of
Miami, most prominent of whom was Thomas
E. Thomas. In
1838, they formed an organization known
as the "Reformers," or
"Conservatives," or
"Ministers and Elders of the Presbyterian
Church, who declined to adhere to either
division." This asso-
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: RODABAUGH 69
ciation held a number of conventions and
published on the Bishop
press at Oxford a magazine called the
Western Peace maker and
Monthly Religious Journal. From May, 1839, to September, 1840,
a determined campaign for peace and
friendly relations within the
church and religious community was
carried on in the Peace-
maker and other journals and papers. The
"Conservatives"
adopted Bishop's proposals advocating
the establishment of a
truly democratic form of government in
the church such that the
local churches would not be subject to
the dictation of the General
Assembly. Along this line Bishop wrote
that although the church
is of much importance, after all it is
up to "each man, in his
place," to "attend
particularly to himself. . . . When every pro-
fessor of religion will keep his own
heart and his own conduct
right, we will have a reformed state of,
society."
Although Bishop soon passed from active
leadership in the
attempt to re-unite the church, that
leadership fell into the hands
of several of his former students.
During the middle decades of
the century Thomas and Joseph Glass
Monfort both graduates of
Miami in 1834, and William C. Anderson,
who had fallen under
Bishop's influence although not a
student at Miami, kept active
the struggle for reunion. By 1866, these
men were able to bring
the proposals for reunion to a point
where negotiations were
started. Monfort and two other former
students of Bishop at
Miami were appointed to the Joint
Committee on Reunion. Mon-
fort drew up the plan for reunion on the
basis of "the Standards
pure and simple," and propagandized
successfully for the accep-
tance of the plan, according to which
the Old and New School
assemblies agreed to unite in May and
November, 1869. This
amounted to a virtual adoption of the
portion of Bishop's plan
which guaranteed self-government to the
synods and presbyteries.
The connection between the Presbyterian
Church and Miami
University has been a very real one; the
university through its
administrators and graduates exerting a
great influence on the
church. The denomination in turn vitally
affected the university.
The theological controversy enveloped
Miami University and as-
sisted in bringing troule within its
walls, which forced Bishop
70
OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
out of the directorship of the
institution. Another controversy
was raging at the same time which, with
the theological strife,
took its toll at Miami in the removal of
liberal leadership from
the university and replacing it with
dogmatic and arbitrary rule.
That was the anti-slavery movement.
The anti-slavery movement was accepted
by the social re-
former, Bishop, with open arms. His
Scottish educational heri-
tage instilled in him an essentially
humane and democratic point
of view. While in Kentucky he had formed
a warm friendship
with the Reverend David Rice, the father
of Presbyterianism in
the West and the man who took the first
conspicuous step toward
the abolition of slavery in Kentucky. Bishop
was chosen to edit
Rice's Memoirs. Bishop spent
several years in organizing Sunday-
schools for Negroes in and around
Lexington and was more
than once returned to the grand jury for
these activities. In
Ohio, Bishop apparently assisted in
forming the Ohio Coloniza-
tion Society and was elected one of its
vice-presidents. A local
colonization society was organized among
the students and pro-
fessors at Miami. By 1830, the
colonization idea, however, had
displayed its impracticability and a new
organization, the Ameri-
can Anti-Slavery Society, got under way
about 1833.
The famous Lane Seminary debate in 1833
and the formal
agitation of the American Anti-Slavery
Society beginning in 1834,
set in motion the organization of a
number of local anti-slavery
societies in the West. Shortly after the
Lane debate, the Miami
University Anti-Slavery Society was
formed on June 12, 1834.
The students, among them James G.
Birney, Jr., expended much
time and energy speaking throughout the
region, distributing
pamphlets, and procuring subscriptions
to various anti-slavery
papers, and they assisted James G.
Birney, Sr., to develop the first
circulation of the Philanthropist. These
activities of the students
received the support of Bishop and
Scott. These men, however,
refused to join the society, preferring
to press first for an anti-
slavery stand within the Presbyterian
Church. Bishop was not
a rabid abolitionist of the Garrisonian
type.
In the anti-slavery movement within the
church Bishop was
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: RODABAUGH 71
allied, on the whole, with the same men
with whom he was united
in the religious controversy. These men
wished to see the church
declare slavery a sin, while, at the
same time they agreed
that, in order to solve the problem,
expediency as well as right-
ness would have to be taken into
consideration. In the Peace-
maker, the religious periodical previously mentioned, Bishop
and
Scott wrote that the problem of
abolition was an educational one,
and it was therefore the responsibility
of the church through its
ministers to teach some means of
abolishing slavery. As the move-
ment for emancipation grew, it became
Bishop's "determination
to compel the Presbyterian Church to
take anti-slavery ground,
and to assist in arresting the onward
progress of Slavery, and
ultimately remove the curse from
American soil." He began his
active crusade in the conventions of the
"Reformers" who passed
resolutions condemning slavery and calling
upon the whole church
to take a similar stand.
Southwestern Ohio was an area of divided
opinion both on
the religious and slavery questions.
Bishop's sympathy with the
New School and with the anti-slavery
movement won him the en-
mity of a large portion of the community
and of a majority of the
Board of Trustees who were either
members of the Old School or
pro-slavery in sentiment. They chose to
attack Bishop's administra-
tion for laxity of discipline, that
being based solely on the fact
that he permitted the students in their
literary societies to debate
the important religious and political
questions of the day. Bishop
frankly encouraged the students to have
and to speak their own
opinions freely, and in his final
address as president of Miami
he said: "I love to see in young
men a disposition to think and to
act in all things for themselves and on
their own responsibility.
. . Nor have I yet any occasion to
repent of throwing myself
upon the understandings and the hearts
of any number of young
men."
The Board forced the resignations of
Bishop and Scott. The
administration of the university was
then turned over to George
Junkin, the "heresy-hunter" of
the Presbyterian Church, an Old
School leader, who, in 1835, brought on
the split in the church
72
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
by his prosecution of the Philadelphia
minister, Albert Barnes, for
heresy. In addition, Junkin was an
ardent anti-abolitionist. He
immediately felt called upon, as he
said, "to labor for the sup-
pression of a class of disputations that
result in evil," namely, the
debates on religious and political
questions in the literary so-
cieties. In the course of an eight-hour
address against abolitionism
Junkin stated that when he came to
Miami, "it was early impressed
upon my mind, that this brand
[abolitionism] had already kindled
up a fire which had well nigh consumed
Miami University. To
such a runinous degree did the fire burn
within her bosom, that
the Trustees took up the subject and
passed strong resolutions
condemnatory of this wild fire."
Junkin's job would have been
difficult enough even if he had not been
a bigot. But he attempted
to replace the liberal administration of
Bishop, which was emi-
nently successful, with the dogmatic
rule of a tyrant, or monarch,
as he chose to call himself. The result
was that the students rose
up against him, the number in attendance
began to decrease, and
agitation was soon set on foot in the
community and among the
alumni demanding his removal. After
three years of fighting
everything that did not conform to his
Old School orthodoxy, of
winning the hatred of the Methodists and
other sects, and of
battling abolitionism, Junkin resigned
in 1845.
The influence of Miami University in the
anti-slavery move-
ment in the Presbyterian Church
continued as Bishop's students
carried on his program. Again it was
Thomas who led the agita-
tion, assisted particularly by Anderson.
Monfort edited an anti-
slavery church paper called the Presbyter.
In 1864, after years
of bitter debate, the Old School General
Assembly adopted as em-
phatic an abolition declaration as any
abolitionist could desire.
This, wrote the historian of the
relation of the Presbyterian
Church to the Federal Union in the Civil
War, "was indeed a
triumph for the southern Ohio group,
that for over twenty years
had been fighting to get the Assembly to
adhere to its 1818 stand,"
that is, take a frankly abolitionist
position.
Thus Miami University exerted her
influence on the anti-
slavery crusade, especially in the
Presbyterian Church. Not only
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: RODABAUGH 73
did she produce students such as Jared
M. Stone, Freeman G.
and Samuel F. Cary, John, James and
William Thomson, Robert
Schenck, David Bruen, and Thomas and
Monfort who carried
on the struggle, but through the
activities of Bishop and Scott,
the university became the center of the
early movement within
the Old School to force the church to
take an anti-slavery stand.
As a virtual Presbyterian school, Miami
became a storm center
of two great controversies which rocked
the national church;
first, the controversy between liberal
and orthodox Presbyterians;
second, the struggle between the slavery
and anti-slavery forces
of the church; with each group fighting
for the control of the
university. By 1845, the conflicts had
brought disaster to the
administrations of Miami's first two
presidents. Nevertheless,
the Presbyterians still remained in
control of the university.