University of Virginia Library

III. State Students

We have seen that the University of Virginia was,
from the threshold of its history, the target of ignorant
prejudice, selfish jealousy, and calculated hostility.
There were those persons who honestly thought that it
diverted to the education of the wealthy funds which
ought properly to have been spent on the education of the
poor; there were the friends of the small colleges, who
were convinced that its advancement could not be brought
about without damage to these seats of learning, in which,
for local or denominational reasons, they were alone interested;
there were the demagogues, who endeavored
to curry popular favor by denouncing every public institution
that was liberally patronized by the prosperous;
and finally, there was a respectable group of citizens, who
looked with disapproval on the University because it was
so unreservedly in sympathy with the political principles
of Jefferson. Among the partizan organs published in
Richmond, at least one,—and that one edited with conspicuous
ability,—was influenced by this political spite
to be-little and injure it at every turn. Naturally, those
who were responsible for the University's administration

were more or less harassed by this persistent animosity.
Even if it had not been distasteful to them from a moral
point of view, it was impossible for them not to regret it
from a practical, since the institution was dependent upon
the good will of the General Assembly for the payment of
its annuity, without which its operating machinery must
have soon slowed down to a full stop.

It was foreseen, at an early date, that, unless the University
could be made popular by some shrewd device,
it must suffer,—perhaps irretrievably in the end,—from
this illiberal or interested outcry against it. The most
sensible of all the proctors of those times, Brockenbrough,
was the first to suggest the only measure that was exactly
calculated to silence the noisy opponents who were always
pointing a threatening finger at the institution as a seat
of learning reserved for the affluent. It will be recalled
that he recommended to Thomas W. Gilmer, then a member
of the General Assembly, the passage of an act
which should allow at least one student from each senatorial
district of the State to be admitted without requiring
him to pay the usual tuition fees. It is quite
possible that he had in mind that clause in Jefferson's
bill of 1779 which provided without charge for the higher
education of a definite proportion of those indigent pupils
who should show, in the intermediate academies, the possession
of remarkable talent and scholarship. The Faculty
warmly approved of Brockenbrough's suggestion;
and again and again they urged its adoption in a form
only slightly different from its original tenor. But it was
not until 1845 that any step was taken to increase the
number of students by the admission of State scholars.
Radical voices were already growing blatant. In November
of that year, the Richmond Whig asked the following
significant question: "Cannot the annual appropriation

of fifteen thousand dollars to the University be
more profitably expended for the great cause of education
than in instructing from one hundred to one hundred
and fifty youths, all of whom have the means of finishing
their course through their own resources?"[1] "There
should be no professors' fees," that journal declared, "no
library fees, no proctor's fees. These should be paid by
the State and people."

This was an extreme expression of Jefferson's views,
and the Visitors and Faculty were sagacious enough to
perceive that the public sentiment which it reflected could
be successfully used to stabilize the University's position.
Here was a means of countering the charge that it was
a seat of learning practically open only to the rich, a
charge that had caused acute perturbation because menacing
the very existence of the institution by robbing it of
the bulk of its income. The authorities of the University
fully approved of the General Assembly's action in requiring
them to educate at least one young man chosen
by a board in each of the thirty-two senatorial districts
into which the State was then divided. This seems to
have been first recommended to the Assembly by the legislative
committee which investigated the riots of 1845.

In June, 1846, the Visitors drafted the regulations
that were to govern the new set of students: they were to
be liable for no dues beyond the fines imposed for derelictions;
their general status was not to differ from that
of the paying matriculates; they were to be permitted to
prolong their studies for two years at least, and even
for a more protracted period, should they exhibit uncommon

promise. The charge for board was not to exceed
sixty dollars,—which was a smaller sum than the
ordinary student was expected to deposit in the hands of
the hotel-keeper during a single session. The proctor
was instructed to enter into an agreement with some responsible
person to provide food for the State scholars
on this basis; and as an encouragement to such a person,
by swelling his profit, he was to be permitted to occupy
the proctor's house; to enjoy the lease of the Dawson
farm for a period of one year; and also to obtain fuel
from the University's woods. If the number of State
scholars should fall short of thirty-two, he was to be
granted the right to make up his complement of boarders
from the mass of the other students.

The first steward, as the contractor was called, was
Major Edmund Broadus, and his engagement dated from
November 13, 1846. The earliest State scholars had
been admitted during the previous September. These
young men assembled at the University with the credentials
of their district boards and were closely examined
by a committee of the Faculty. Twenty-five were present
on the first occasion. Subsequently, the original selection
seems to have rested exclusively in the hands of the
professors as a body. To all, the test of mental capacity,
moral excellence, and inadequate means to obtain an education
at their own expense, was strictly applied. The
preference, in making a choice, was given to those who
wished to enter the academic schools; but candidates
for the professional schools were not shut out. A committee
was appointed to distribute the State students
among the different classes; and should more than ten
of them enter a single class, its instructor was to be
entitled to twenty-five dollars for each individual in excess
of that number. There was, at a later date, an additional

requirement imposed by the General Assembly,
which was aptly calculated to increase the beneficial effect
of the innovation: every State student, in matriculating,
must agree to teach for a period of two years after leaving
the institution.

The system of State students was a prosperous one
from the very start,—no doubt, because it was looked
upon favorably by the Faculty and Visitors alike, who
joined heartily and intelligently in the effort to forward
it. "I heard in Charlottesville, with much pleasure,
from the officers of the University," James M. Mason, a
member of the Board, wrote Cabell in November, 1846,
"of the successful working so far of our arrangements
for the education of the poor boys, and trust that what
we have done, will deter the General Assembly from
farther disputes to contract its revenues." During the
ensuing year, when the system had stood the test of twelve
months' passage, a few changes were made in the first
regulations. Now, as formerly, the applicant must be
at least sixteen years of age; but his credentials, instead
of being handed in in September, were to be submitted
prior to June 15, so as to give the Faculty an
opportunity to fill all vacancies before the session should
begin. He must also designate the schools which he
wished to enter; and they must be at least three in number.
If mathematics, natural philosophy, and ancient
languages were chosen, he must prove that he had enjoyed
the same amount of preparation which was expected
of the regular student. If no candidate should
come forward from any one of the districts, the Faculty
were, in 1849, empowered to select one from another
district, whether already represented or not.

In the course of this year, the General Assembly
adopted an additional provision, which still further

broadened the scope of the innovation: they required that
the State students should not only be taught without payment
of fees, but should also be exempted from all expense
for board. This law was in operation for a time,
but its effect turned out to be injurious. Previously, the
spirit of the State students, without exception, had been
to strive, to the very height of their ability, to utilize all
the opportunities for acquiring knowledge that were
thrown open to them. Now, supported by the Commonwealth,
many of these young men fell into habits of restless
idleness, while others wasted most of their time in
vicious dissipation. The general decline of the body was
the more remarkable as the General Assembly had, in
eliminating the charge for food, required that the age of
the applicant should never be less than seventeen because
of the greater likelihood of a person at that older period
of life comprehending the real advantagesto follow from
the enjoyment of the privilege.

The Visitors had unanimously protested against the
allowance of free board. They asserted that, with an
annuity of only fifteen thousand dollars, it would be difficult
for the institution to stand up straight under the
heaviness of this new load; and that the additional charge
could only be met by cutting down the amount now applied
to the prosecution of the regular work. No weight
was given by the Legislature to the justness of this complaint
until 1856, when the rule granting free board to
State students was repealed. An improvement in their
character as a body was soon discernible. In the meanwhile
(1853), the Visitors had endeavored to persuade
the General Assembly to loan the University the sum of
twenty thousand dollars; and its consent to do this was
only obtained on condition that the number of State
students should be increased to fifty. Cabell pointed out

that this number could not be accommodated unless the
Legislature should agree to increase the number of
teachers also, and make special appropriations for the
purchase of books and apparatus in addition. The proposal
was not pressed for the time being.

At the termination of the Fifth Period, 1842–1861,
the general impression of the system of State students
was as favorable as it had been at the close of the first
year of its operation. The mistake was made in the beginning
of segregating them. Not only did the entire
company eat their meals under the same roof, but twelve
dormitories were, in 1848, built on Monroe Hill to provide
them with lodgings. Many persons at first predicted
that the system would fail in the end, because,
owing to this segregation, these young men would feel
that they belonged to an inferior social caste in the University,
and, for that reason, would be apprehensive of
the tacit ostracism or the open jeerings of their more fortunate
fellows. Time proved that this anticipation was
entirely without foundation. Not only did the Faculty
and Visitors exert themselves, as we have seen, to encourage
and assist the State students, but the general attitude
of the college at large towards them was helpful
and sympathetic. In 1848, Major Broadus declared
that, as a body, they bore a favorable comparison with
an equal proportion of the regular students; and that
the best scholars among them were quite as finished as the
best in the ranks of those who had paid the fees. It was
remarked at this time, before the quality of the mass had
been lowered by free board, that each one was anxious
to enter the classes of at least four professors, so as to
derive the greatest profit possible from their course of
two years. Among the most successful students at the
University after 1856, were many who had only been

able to attend through this legislative benefaction; and
an important proportion of these belonged to the most
highly respected families of the Commonwealth.