The
University's Response to
William B. Shepard's
Speech, October 15, 1816;
The Raleigh Minerva, October 18, 1816, 3
1
No Author
Page 3
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA.
Mr.
Lucas
2
—Correct information is very important and desirable, expecially in those
cases where the interests of society are so materially concerned. You will
therefore please to insert in your useful paper the following observations.
Feeling fully justified in the proceedings in the case by the laws of the
University and a firm determination in the strength
of
God, to
discharge duty amidst every opposition; the attention of the public is invited
to a plain candid statement of facts That these may be understood and regarded
in their just light, you will be pleased to notice the two following laws of
the
University
3
1st. "If any student shall deny the being of a
God, or the
divine authority of the
Holy
Scriptures, or shall assert and endeavor to propagate among the students
any principles subverting the foundation of the
christian
religion, and shall persist therein after admonition, he shall be
dismissed.
2nd. "Nothing indecent, profane or immoral shall at any time be
delivered on the public stage, under penalty of such censure as the faculty or
trustees shall judge proper. And with a view to
preserve all public exercises of the students from impropriety of any kind,
every student during his senior year and previously to his commencement
performances especially, shall shew to the President or presiding professor the
whole of what he proposes to speak and shall not fail to
observe such corrections as shall be made of his performances; and if any
student pronounce any thing in public of a censurable nature in contradiction
to the directions or corrections of the officer to whom he has shewn his piece,
the President or presiding Professor is required to
stop him on the public stage, and he shall be other wise
censured as the
Trustees or Faculty shall determine."
On these grounds [the speech of
Wm.
Shepard
was ex]amined, and corrections were made by the
President [Robert Chapman]
. Some of these were considered
by him and known by the speaker to be important and some unimportant. It has
been the invariable practice of the
President
in his corrections to signify the first by
erasure and insertion, and unimportant verbal alterations by placing the
corrections above, without erasing the words of the speaker, leaving it at his
option to use his own language or adopt the suggested amendment. The
publication of the speech in
Mr. Gales'
paper
[The Raleigh Register]
of last week though some notes are made, is
apprehended to be essentially defective, and to have a tendency to mislead the
public mind by not clearly marking and stating this distinction and stating the
reasons assigned by the
President
for the corrections. The public then will please
to observe that there was but one erasure, and no insertion but what had
reference to
christianity. This erasure respected the sentence,
"Without retailing scenes which would cause the most abandoned prosely[t]e
of infamy to blush himself into virtue." The words "into virtue"
were erased. The correction however was not considered as materially important
and was no object of notice in the delivery of the speech. The essential points
were, "But
England has
shewn us a
christian
people born at the foot of the altar, consecrated to the
God of
mercy—whose first draught was from the chalice of the church—whose
first sound breath was a petition to a saviour." Words erased from "
England," and the following substituted in their
place; "professedly and pretendedly, with superior advantages, has shewn
us a people." This reason was assigned to the speaker, noted on his
speech, as the ground of correction: "
Christianity ought not to be considered and mentioned as
accountable for the conduct of British Rulers who are not under its
influence." The precise words the publisher ought in candor to have
inserted. Another exceptionable expression, was, "lighting the torch of
war at the shrine of
God."
Altered the
shrine of wickedness. The following sentence
was corrected: "tell it not that
England,
the mistress of the world (the stay of righteousness, the staff of religion;
whose vessels teem with missionary philanthrophists, that make the savage dens
of
Hindostan reverberate the anthems of
God) erected a
trophy, &c." The words in a parenthesis were erased and not the words
"erected a trophy," as stated in the paper. The reason assigned to
the speaker, written on his speech, for this erasure was—"British
rulers, and individuals of that nation, who are sending missionaries abroad in
the world, are different objects and ought not to be identified." The
disregard of this correction in connection with the two proceeding it, evincing
a determination in the speaker to prostrate the laws, and utter language deemed
highly censurable, as the language of infidelity, impelled the
President
, as required by law, to require him to desist
from speaking. There is another exceptionable part of the speech which was
corrected by insertion, but which has been essentially mutilated by the
publisher. The public will notice the sentence as printed in
Mr.
Gales'
paper, and the original as handed to the
President
and corrected by him. "The
(Christian)
American
(in the cause of Justice) when he rushes into the battle, is animated by the
spirit of
Washington, which, descending from heaven, covers him with
the light of glory, exhorts him to victory, for
God is the
leader." The original was in the same words, with the following addition
of poetic lines:
"And if he falls, say not his cause is done,
His deathless spirit shall outlive the sun
A while his ashes mingled with the dead.
But to yon heaven the aspiring soul has fled!
On seraphs wings she sought celestial rest
And keeps eternal sabbath with the blest."
The ground of the correction, sending every soldier, at death,
however vile and abandoned to heaven, in direct opposition to the
Sacred
Scriptures, which declare that "he that believeth not shall be
damned,"
4 has
thus been left out of view. With what design this was done, the public must
judge. As printed in
Mr.
Gales'
paper the correction was entirely unnecessary and childish. It is
proper also to state to the public, that had the determination of the speaker
and his prompter, to prostrate all authority, been known to the Faculty, the
unhappy consequences to them and others would have been prevented. The public
will now readily see that the publication in
Mr.
Gales'
paper, last week, which says, that parts of the speech gave such
offence to the Faculty that twenty-seven students were suspended, was
incorrect. The offensive parts of the speech were known only to the
President
, whose business it was to make all corrections
he deemed proper; but the speaker's breach of the laws and defiance of
authority, in not observing the corrections, were the causes of the offence to
the Faculty, which in justice ought to have been stated. With respect to the
suspension of others, "the facts which have come to the knowledge of the
citizen," give a wrong, incorrect view of the subject. It is proper, then,
to state to the public that at the conclusion of
Wm.
Shepard's
speech, in defiance of authority, there was a very general
plaudit in the Hall in token of approbation. That at the end of the speakin[g,]
as the students went to the
College, there were noisy shoutings for
Wm.
Shepard
, and great noise and riot in the buildings during a great part
of the night—that the next morning the Faculty were grossly insulted by
the students, individually and as a body—that all business was at an end,
and authority despised and insulted,—that a public notification was
placed on the Chapel door inviting the attendance of the students at a precise
hour—that only 27 attended,
5
& that these when discovered by the Faculty, avowed it as the object of
their meeting, in the express language of one of their leaders "to form
measures to express their indignation against the proceedings of the
Faculty." This avowal they seemed afterwards to wish to palliate and
conceal. They all had opportunity given them by the Faculty to state their
object, to disavow such a design, and withdraw from the combination; but they
chose to maintain their connection. Finding them engaged in such business, the
following law of the
University was the ground of procedure; "if any
clubs or any combinations of the students shall at any time take place, either
for resisting the authority of
College,—interfering in its government,
shewing disrespect to the Faculty, or to any of its members, or for concealing
or executing any evil design, the Faculty are empowered and directed to break
up all such combinations as soon as discovered, and to inflict a severer
punishment on each individual than if the offence intended had been committed
in his individual capacity, whatever be the number concerned or whatever be the
consequence to the
College."
6 They
were required to sign an acknowledgement of their offence, hoping that the
Faculty would forgive them, and [promising future subjection to the laws: which
they refused, and were accordingly suspended.
7
These are the] facts, and it is further stated—that the Faculty proceeded
with great deliberation—spent a whole week in the business—spared
no pains to reclaim the students to a sense of duty, but that they who were
suspended preseveringly manifested such a spirit and avowed such principles
that the Faculty were compelled to send them away from the institution.
Chapel Hill
Oct. 15, 1816.
Endnotes:
1. The
University's response to the publication of
William Biddle Shepard's
speech appeared in
The Raleigh Minerva
on October 18, 1816, p. 3;
in the
Raleigh Register
on October 18, 1816, p. 3; and
in
The
Carolina Federal Republican
of
New Bern,
NC, on October 26, 1816, p. 2. The version appearing in a microfilm of
The Raleigh Minerva
serves as copy-text and is
emended with readings from
The
Carolina Federal Republican.
The author is unknown but probably is
Joseph Caldwell
.
2. Alexander Lucas was the printer of
The Raleigh Minerva.
A weekly newspaper edited
by
William
Boylan
,
The Raleigh Minerva
received the printing
patronage of the
Federalist party and generally was supportive of the
University.
Joseph
Gales'
Raleigh Register
was a rival paper, staunchly
Republican and often critical of the actions of
University faculty and
trustees.
3. Though
John
Pettigrew's
copy of the
"Laws and Regulations for the University of North
Carolina"
represents an early version of ordinances
governing student behavior,
trustees' minutes for December 3, 1802, contain a
second, more elaborate set of twenty-four rules prepared as part of a
"circular letter" sent to parents (
Vol. 3, UA). On December 13, 1811,
the
trustees formed a committee to revise the
ordinances again, but the minutes do not record the revised rules. The first
"law" quoted is more restrictive than earlier regulations concerning
religion, which required students to attend public prayers daily, observe the
Sabbath, and avoid profane language but which did not stipulate articles of
faith to which students had to subscribe. The first sentence of the second law
was already in force in 1802; the remainder may have been added in 1811, when
the laws were revised.
4.
John
3:18.
5. The entire student body in 1816 numbered ninety-two students
[
"Matriculates and Graduates,"
Catalogue of the Trustees, Faculty and Students of the
University of North Carolina, 1867-68
(Raleigh: Nichols, Gorman and
Neathery, 1868), 14].
6. The 1802 version of this law is as follows: "Should a
combination ever be formed by any number of Students to trangress the laws, or
to prevent their execution, or to shew disrespect to the Faculty, or to anyone
of its members, or to introduce disorder in any shape, the Faculty shall either
punish the whole body according to their demerits, or they shall select such as
appear to be most active and forward, as the sole objects of punishment. The
Faculty shall choose either of these methods as to them shall appear most
expedient" (
Trustees Minutes, Vol. 3, UA).
7. The students were required to sign the following pledge:
We whose names are hereunto subscribed students of the
University of North Carolina are convinced and do
acknowledge that whoever of us were engaged in the plaudits made on tuesday
evening in the public hall after speaking by
W. Shepard
were guilty of gross disorder & disrespect
of authority, that on the next morning we transgressed our duty as students of
the
University and as good members of society by
proceeding with tumultuous noise and riotous behavior to the public hall, and
uniting in an unlawful & disorderly assembly for the purpose of opposing
the Faculty and violating the laws.
We confess that this conduct was improper & unjustifiable. We
hope that it will be forgiven by the faculty and we solemnly promise that we
will hereafter faithfully submit ourselves to the laws of the
university and deport ourselves as orderly members
of society. (
Faculty Minutes 2:57-58, UA)