University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XII

THE WILD DAYS OF OLD

The students twice engaged in serious rebellion
against authority. The first one, by some mistake
about the date, is generally called the "Rebellion of
1834," although it took place in 1833.

The Visitors, at the suggestion of Chairman Bonnycastle,
it is believed, passed in September, 1833,
an order providing that whenever a riot or other
serious violation of good order and decorum occurred
among the students within the precincts of the
University after night, the chairman could, in his
discretion, cause a signal to be given by bell or otherwise
for each student to retire to his room and
stay there during the remainder of the night unless
sooner released. The chairman did not promulgate
this order until November 7. Notices were
posted that day for a meeting at Hotel C,[1] the usual
place for student mass-meetings. The first placards
stated that the object of the convocation was to enter
into a compact "to resist the late tyrannical movements
of the faculty." When Chairman Bonnycastle
read this statement on many of the dead walls
of the University he thought it meant renewed efforts

against the uniform law. But in the afternoon
there was another call. This time it was an invitation
to "an orderly meeting" to take into consideration
the propriety of resisting the law passed by the
Visitors at their late meeting requiring students to
retire to their rooms in case of riot or other serious
disturbance at night. The faculty met at half past
four o'clock, but adjourned to see what the students
would do.

Professor Bonnycastle closed Hotel C to the students,
but they broke in and held their meeting.
There were sixty or seventy present, and the proctor
succeeded in taking the names of forty-four. Three
of them were summoned before the faculty on the
charge of breaking the door, and their dismission
was expected. No record of the proceedings of the
meeting is extant except the announcement that its
object "would be considered as having failed if they
did not succeed in getting the signatures of a hundred
and fifty students." Probably the matter
would have ended without disorder but for the belief,
perhaps well founded, that the three students
accused of breaking the door open would be dismissed.

On the afternoon of the 8th another meeting was
held in Hotel C, and much time was devoted to considering
the proper course to pursue in regard to
the accused students. Resolutions were passed and
a committee appointed to present them to the faculty,
which met at 4.30 that day "in the library
room," and to make further and explicit representations
to that body.

Thomas L. Preston, afterwards a rector of the
University, was at the head of the committee, and
was its spokesman. He informed the faculty explicitly

that the students charged with breaking open
the door of Hotel C had no part in that act. This
information was given, he said, with the distinct
understanding that it was not a concession. The
committee was instructed to answer no further questions
in regard to the meeting, and it was resolved
that "we are determined to abide by what we have
done, let the consequences be what they may."

In regard to the original subject the committee
said the meeting held that the students were bound
to obey the public laws only, and considered the
enactment of the Visitors just announced an ex post
facto law. They made known the belief of the students
that they had a right to meet in Hotel C whenever
they deemed it proper to do so, and did not approve
the application, made that day, to the chairman
for permission. Every member considered
himself bound to abide by any punishment the faculty
might inflict upon any one on account of the
meeting.

When Mr. Preston and his colleagues withdrew
the Rev. William Hammett, chaplain, asked leave to
appear before the faculty. He said there was very
great excitement among the students, but he thought
the most of them were desirous to retreat from the
position they had assumed if they could do so with
honor. The whole meeting would go with the three
students it was generally understood the faculty intended
dismissing. The chaplain implored the faculty,
if it was consistent with its sense of duty, not
to act against these students, at least not to do so
before the present excitement had somewhat subsided.
He had been informed that they were not as
conspicuous members of the meeting as many
others.[2]

The faculty decided not to take any special action
against the three in view of the proof that they were
no more concerned than others; assured the students
that there was no thought of denying them
the privilege of meeting and deliberating in an orderly
manner, but emphatically repelled the claim
that they could assemble when they pleased in any
room without the faculty's permission, and maintained
that the persons who broke open the door
violated the law. "We do not conceive," responded
the meeting, "that we have any right to break open
any door in the University of Virginia." And there
the matter was dropped.[3]

At some time in the session of 1831-2 a military
company known as the University Volunteers was
organized, and was allowed to exist on such terms
as prevented its interference with more important
matters. Of this first organization, Douglas H.
Cooper of Mississippi, afterwards a brigadier-general
in the service of the Confederate States, was
captain. He was succeeded by Robert Marion Deveaux
of South Carolina. Thomas L. Preston of
Virginia was the third in this office. James B.
Watts of Botetourt County, Virginia, and John B.
Guerard of Beaufort district, South Carolina, and
Thomas H. Ellis, of Richmond, Virginia, were the
first incumbents of the office of lieutenant.

About the only service ever seen by this company,
which underwent yearly reorganization until 1836,
was in acting as escort to the orator who annually
delivered a patriotic discourse on the Fourth of July

in the Episcopal Church in Charlottesville. In 1833
the student thus honored was Richard Parker,
whose distinction was emphasized by the attendance
of the Jefferson Guards under Capt. Alexander
Rives. Mr. Parker entered Congress, and was the
Judge who tried John Brown at Charlestown in
1859.

About the fall of 1836 some seventy students reorganized
the company, and elected Thomas H.
Morris captain. Chairman John A. G. Davis communicated
to the young soldiers the terms under
which the organization could receive the sanction of
the authorities: 1. No violation of enactments to be
allowed on parade or between the time of going on
parade and being disbanded for the day; 2. The
uniform of the University to be worn; 3. Neither
the corps nor any of its members should fire their
muskets on the Lawn or Ranges or near thereto, or
permit any one else to do so; 4. The members of
the corps should not make any use of their muskets
except in their regular military exercises; 5. It was
to be distinctly understood that the faculty reserved
the right of dissolving the corps for any violation
on the part of the corps, or any of its members, of
the foregoing conditions; and also whenever the
interests of the University should, in their opinion,
require it; 6. Whenever, and as soon as, the corps
was dissolved the muskets should be returned to the
place of safe keeping in Charlottesville from which
they were taken; 7. While the corps and every
member of it was responsible for the fulfilment of
these conditions the officers were considered as particularly
so.

No notice was taken of this official pronouncement.
Therefore Captain Morris was summoned

to appear before the professors, whom he informed
that his company had "neither agreed or disagreed"
to the terms. The conditions were not regarded as
binding and the right of the faculty to provide terms
was denied.

When Captain Morris retired from the faculty
room the professors had the issue distinctly before
them—so placed with military directness. The
opinion of the students was that they existed as a
military company without the authority of the University
and even in defiance of the objections of the
faculty. The chairman was directed forthwith to
inform the students concerned that they were not in
fact a military company of legal organization, and
that those who had muskets in their possession and
did not immediately remove them would be considered
as violating the laws regarding keeping firearms
within the precincts.

To this there was a prompt response in the form
of resolutions adopted by the company. They were
unambiguous: "Resolved, That the company is not
disbanded; that the company will attend and drill
as usual, what the faculty may say to the contrary
notwithstanding; that every member of the company
pledge his honor to stand by his comrades, and
that action of the faculty against one shall affect
every individual." In order that there should be no
mistake about the persons who would be affected by
faculty action against an individual a roster of the
company was furnished to the chairman. It contained
sixty-eight names. Two of the seventy were
in "rustication" at Bowcock's Tavern for drunkenness
and disorder and the other for drinking at
Vowles's.

Chairman Davis and the faculty took decisive

steps, but with cautious regard to all proper details.
The janitor was sent to summon the student whose
name stood first on the roster, the intention being to
call before the faculty the entire company, one member
at a time. "Dr." Smith returned and reported
that the captain had informed him that "Mr. Walker
was on parade and could not be spoken to."

The proctor was then sent with the roster to ascertain
which of the students named on it were on
parade and had muskets. An officer of the company
obligingly called the roll by the proctor's roster,
and all the students thereon but four answered
and were bearing muskets. The proctor brought
back the terms of another resolution by the company—"Resolved,
That we have our arms and intend
to keep them." The manner of voting aye was
by "shouldering muskets." Every man shouldered
his weapon.

There was no paltering with the "rebels;" a resolution
expelling them received every vote. The purview
of the order of dismission recited that these
students had introduced firearms and other weapons
within the precincts without lawful authority and
had avowed their determination to keep them in
their possession therein notwithstanding the enactments
of the institution and the express prohibition
of the faculty. These offenses were held to be aggravated
by the fact that they were a result of an
illegal combination between the members of the
company.

The announcement of the action of the faculty
was made known at 4 o'clock on Saturday. It was
followed by excesses which have been unequalled,
and which constitute a very dark page, in the history
of the University. The disorder was persisted

in until late Sunday night, with many of the marks
of the stupid frenzy of a mob. The professors'
houses were attacked, the doors forced, the windows
broken, and the inmates regarded themselves as in
serious danger of personal violence. Firearms—especially
muskets—were discharged everywhere and
at frequent intervals. The institution was without
police, and there was no means at hand with which
to control the mob. The civil authorities intervened,
stationed armed soldiers at the Rotunda and at
other points in the grounds, and instituted an investigation.

On the 19th of November—a week after the beginning
of the disorder—a meeting of students was
"held at the Rotunda" at which John W. Harris
presided and Walter Gray acted as secretary. It
was well attended and its action was unanimous.
The sentiment of the meeting was embodied in a
preamble and resolution, which were laid before
the faculty. The preamble averred that serious consequence
had already attended the disagreement between
the faculty and a large part of the students,
and expressed apprehension of more unfortunate effects;
set forth the belief of the meeting in the integrity
and sincerity with which the views of the
members of the military corps were entertained,
despaired of an adjustment between the students and
the faculty and proposed that "the origin and
progress of this unhappy difficulty should be calmly
and deliberately reviewed either by a full session of
the Board of Visitors of the University or by an
enlightened and impartial public opinion." The
resolution pledged them to an individual responsibility
under the statutes of the institution so that if
the point of authority involved—that is, the right of

The Lawn, showing southern half, with pavilions (professors' residences) and dormitories on each side,
and the Academical Building closing the view

OPPOSITE P. 150

the faculty to disband the company unless it complied
with the proposed conditions—should be decided
against them they would acquiesce cheerfully.
Pending the appeal no arms would be used in the
University.

Under the enactments the sentence of dismission
to be final had to be approved by the Visitors, but
the case was never reviewed by them. No doubt a
full report was made by the faculty, but even this
fact does not appear in the minutes of the board.

Notwithstanding all that had taken place, the
memorial of the mass meeting was received in a conciliatory
spirit by the faculty, and the chairman
(Professor Davis) proposed a very generous course
in the following preamble and resolution:

"Whereas the students of the University, in a full
and general meeting assembled, have unanimously
represented that the said dismissed students committed
the act for which they were dismissed under
the impression that they were authorized to do so
by the laws of the institution, and propose in their
proceedings to obtain the sense of the Board of
Visitors of the University as to the true construction
of said laws, and in the mean time pledge themselves
that no arms shall be introduced within the precincts;
and whereas, whilst the faculty are perfectly
satisfied of the correctness of their own construction
of the laws, and of their duty to enforce them according
to their construction, they are nevertheless
willing for the reasons above stated, and under the
special circumstances of this case now to readmit
the above named students; therefore, Resolved,
That those students who think proper to return, of
those dismissed as aforesaid, be readmitted."

The vindictive spirit attributed to the chairman

by the students and their partisans does not appear
in this proposal of amnesty; instead, there is forgiveness
of all outrages and insults that followed the
act of dismission. But not all of Dr. Davis's colleagues
agreed to go to this length with him, and
some of them insisted on giving weight, in their
compromise, to the acts of insubordination which
had wrought so much injury to the institution. Accordingly,
Dr. Emmet proposed to add this condition:
"Upon application to the chairman of the
faculty and upon disclaiming any participation in
the principal acts of riot and violence." But the vote
was taken upon Dr. Davis's plan as submitted, and a
majority of one appeared in the negative.

The chairman knew that if his plan of amnesty
was adopted with Dr. Emmet's amendment no student
could re-enter and he succeeded in having
added these words, "or, if they cannot disclaim such
participation, making proper atonement therefor."
In this shape the resolution of readmission received
the sanction of the faculty on the 22d of November.

Just what the mass-meeting meant by its offer to
submit the question at issue to an "enlightened and
impartial public opinion" is not clear. If the phrase
described a purpose to publish a statement and leave
the public to make up its judgment from the facts
and arguments thus communicated the unexpected
course of the faculty in offering terms of peace
which a man of honor in almost any situation could
accept did not prevent the preparation and publication
of such a brief by a committee, not of the mass-meeting,
but of the company. A profound impression
was made by the summary dismission of so
large a number of students, many of them among
the best of the University, and a sentiment adverse

to the institution became rather general. Some of
the newspapers, condoning the severity of the faculty;
strengthened this sentiment by espousing the
cause of the dismissed. When the resolution providing
for conditional readmission was made known it
was condemned for its mildness! These contradictory
impulses called forth Chairman Davis's pamphlet
entitled "An Exposition of the Proceedings of
the Faculty of the University of Virginia in relation
to the Disturbances at that Institution," a masterly
plea as well for the necessity of severe treatment of
the students while in rebellion as for the forgiving
policy put in force when the ends sought by punishment
had been attained. His defense of the conciliatory
course of the faculty concludes his "Exposition":

"This resolution was not passed until the arms
had been removed out of the precincts, and an assurance
had been given by the whole body of students
that they should not be again introduced, unless
the Visitors of the University should authorize
their introduction. And it would not have been
adopted then, but for the many good students among
those dismissed, and their peculiar situation. They
had, many of them, become involved in the difficulty
under circumstances which, together with their previous
characters, constituted a strong claim to our
indulgent consideration. But these students, although
desirous to return, were prevented by the
pledges into which they had inconsiderately entered
from doing so on any terms by which a discrimination
should be made between themselves and others.
Gentlemen of great respectability and intelligence,
the fathers of some of the dismissed students, who
came to the University to obtain the readmission of

their sons, in view of this state of things, earnestly
recommended the course which was adopted, as the
only one which would place it in the power of any
student, however exemplary his character or mitigated
his offense, to re-enter. And the company being
now disbanded and dispersed, the arms removed,
and a pledge given that they should not be again introduced,
it was believed by the faculty that they
might now allow those who had been dismissed to
re-enter, on the terms prescribed in their resolution,
without impairing their just authority. Discrimination
between those engaged in the outrages, and
those not so engaged, which under other circumstances
would have been proper, under existing circumstances
could not be made without defeating the
object in view. Besides, as there was reason to believe
that those whom the faculty would desire to
exclude would not apply for readmission on the
terms prescribed, such discrimination was unnecessary
with a view to their exclusion; whilst in truth,
it could in no other manner be so effectually made as
by the resolution adopted. By that resolution, the
combination which had otherwise succeeded, at least
so far as to involve all in a common fate, was broken
and defeated in respect to that object, as it had previously
been defeated in its primary object of resistance
to the faculty. The resolution of dismission
was not rescinded; but its purpose having been attained
in the enforcement of the laws, and in teaching
it is hoped a salutary lesson for the future, the
exclusion from the University produced by it, and
which from the nature of the sentence was not perpetual,
was taken off on compliance with certain
conditions."