University of Virginia Library

XXIII. Debating Societies

The Washington Society seems to have been the first
to reorganize after the close of the war. This occurred
on October 14, 1865, following a suspension that had remained
unbroken during an interval of four and a half
years. The earliest step towards resuscitation was
taken by John H. Lewis, J. S. Harnsberger, W. M. Perkins,
and A. F. Fleet,—all of whom were students enrolled
from Virginia. When Lewis was called to the
chair on the occasion of the first meeting, he spoke with
pathetic eloquence of the smallness of the number of
members then present as compared with the number that
used to assemble under the same roof in the prosperous
days of the past; and he paid a tender tribute to the
memories of those who had perished on the battlefield.

At the second meeting, held seven days afterwards,
twenty-eight new members were sworn in. From this
time forward, a monthly orator was chosen. In November,
with the assistance of the ladies of the University,
this society collected a fund sufficient to repair
their hall and to furnish it properly.[14]

The Jefferson Society had quickly followed the example
of its contemporary in reorganizing. Many urbane
and kindly messages passed between the two bodies
during these first years of revived activities,—thus in
October, 1866, the Washington Society addressed its
sister association in these stately words: "We congratulate
the Jefferson upon the brilliancy of its past
career, and especially of its recent session; upon its present
high position, and its bright prospects for the future;
and we hope that it may ever continue its good work.
The Washington remembers, with deep pleasure, the
happy relations of courtesy and friendship which have
heretofore existed between the two societies, as they
have labored together hand in hand in the great field of
literature."

One of the earliest of the joint transactions of the

two bodies was the drafting of a petition to President
Johnson in behalf of Mr. Davis, whose release from
prison was sought; but in the end, this document was
ordered by both to be laid on the table indefinitely.
This event occurred in January, 1866. No doubt, the
practical uselessness of the petition was perceived. In
May of the following year, the societies had the acute
satisfaction of adopting a joint resolution offering Mr.
Davis their congratulations on the recovery of his freedom,
and inviting him to be present during the exercises
of the approaching commencement. They even went so
far as to express a desire to collect a fund for his benefit.
The warmth of their patriotism was further demonstrated
by the earnestness with which they supported
the proposition to raise in the University cemetery a
suitable monument to the Confederate dead. A committee
having been appointed to canvass for subscriptions
in the local community, it was determined to set aside
for the same pious object whatever surplus should remain
in the two treasuries at the end of the session.
One student was named for each State of the South, who,
during the vacation, was to solicit contributions of all
the alumni residing within its borders. The Washington
Society suggested that the decorations so lavishly strewn
about at the finals should be dispensed with, and the
money which would have gone to their purchase, diverted
to the building of the memorial.

The narrowness of their quarters at this time seemed
to have been irksome to the members of this society,
and in June, 1867, they petitioned the Board of Visitors
to grant to them, in common with the members of the
Jefferson, the use of the chapel as a debating hall. But
this must have proved unsatisfactory, for the Washington
Society discussed for some time whether they should not

apply for the possession of the large apartment situated
in the Temperance Building on the floor just above the
postoffice. In 1869, the same society petitioned the
Visitors for pecuniary aid in enlarging the area of their
hall. There was in their treasury about thirteen hundred
dollars, but they needed five hundred more. This
additional amount was appropriated by the Board, and
the hall, in consequence, was extended. Owing to the
abuse by strangers of the privilege of attending this
Society's weekly debates, a proposal to shut them out
on such occasions seems to have been adopted.

The spirit of partisanship in the elections of both the
Washington and the Jefferson, had, by 1870, grown so
intemperate as to draw the disapproving attention of the
Faculty. The University Magazine itself vigorously
censured the prevailing electioneering methods, and called
upon the members of both bodies to frown upon the
flagrant favoritism that was shown so unblushingly in
the support of the different candidates. It was said,
without overstatement, that the race for honors was
not decided on the floors of the two halls, but in the
secret caucuses assembled in the dormitories. An odd
custom prevailed in the Jefferson Society at this time.
Partly in a spirit of earnestness, partly in a spirit of jocularity,
perhaps, a special committee annually investigated
the record of each member, and if it was found to be
without blemish, he received a formal and elaborate
certificate of upright character.

It was estimated, in 1871, that, of the five hundred
students who had matriculated during this session, only
one hundred and sixty had permitted their names to be
entered on the rolls of the two societies. Not one fourth
of these came forward to take any share in the proceedings
of the meetings. The controlling motive of those

who did join was usually to increase the chance of success
for some aspirant for honors. But it was not always
the most popular student who won the prize,—
so soon as it was perceived that a candidate was backed
by a powerful combination, all the smaller factions united
their strength to defeat him.

The three honors which were held in the most exalted
esteem were the debater's medal, the final oratorship, and
the final presidency. These honors were ordinarily distributed
by a shrewd manipulation of votes. One fraternity
would give the most energetic assistance to a candidate
for the medal who belonged to another fraternity,
on condition that the latter fraternity would uphold the
former's candidate for the oratorship; and this compact
having been signed, the two associations would join in
canvassing for a candidate for the presidency in return
for his fraternity's support of the two candidates for
the medal and the oratorship. It was admitted by all
that the extent of the wire pulling and vote swapping
which preceded these elections had a demoralizing and
distracting influence on the currents of University life.
By 1872, the intermediate celebration had been abolished,
and in consequence, the importance of the presidency
at the final exercises was very much enhanced. It
called for a candidate of special characteristics to carry
off the laurels of success in a campaign for this office.
"The position," said Dr. Culbreth, "exacted a man
with a social and friendly nature, clever and frank manners,
and abundant time for indulging these qualities,—
always urbane and polite, but avoiding excessive demonstration."

The Board of Visitors, about 1872, arrived at the
conclusion that the addresses of students in the public
hall, on the occasion of the commencement, were, as a

rule, singularly impoverished in thought and flat in expression,
and they instructed the Faculty to allow no
speech to be delivered there by a collegian which had
not first been strained in the sieve of a professorial committee.
The Faculty themselves had, for sometime,
been fully aware of the acute need of some form of revision.
In their annual report, drafted in the spring
of this year, they had commented on the immaturity of
mind, and the deficiency in culture, which were reflected
in the structure of most of these utterances; and they had
recommended that no student should be permitted to
declaim from the rostrum, unless he could show diplomas
acquired in at least two of the academic schools. In
addition, they had counselled that no address should be
allowed to extend beyond thirty minutes in the time of
its delivery.

It was not simply the unripeness of intellect, and
the faultiness of taste, which were displayed in the compositions
of so many of the young men who spoke, that
made the Board and Faculty so solicitous to clip these
orations before they should fall on the ears of a public
audience. The animosities that had been aroused by the
war were never more acrimonious than during the session
of 1871–2, for, by that time, the policy of reconstruction,
so ruthlessly enforced in the South, had reached
its highwater mark of infamy. It was but natural that
youthful orators coming from such States as Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, should have
felt an uncontrollable desire to give full voice on the
platform to their indignant resentment over the conditions
then prevailing in their native commonwealths.
But the Faculty, more farsighted than these young men,
were not to be seduced from their determination to shut
out of the public hall the utterance of such bitter political

emotions. "The story is told," says Dr. Culbreth,
"that, previous to the final of 1872, one of the orators
called on Professor Holmes (chairman of the pruning
committee) and laid before him the pages of his proposed
speech. 'I hope,' said the Professor, 'you have
not condescended to select a subject of low order, particularly
one pertaining to the late bitter strife, and one
that might compromise our institution.' 'Far from it,
Professor,' said the student, 'I have not touched a single
thing on this mundane sphere. I have restricted myself
entirely to a celestial topic: the night brings out the
stars'."

It was the general impression, at this time, that the
two societies had failed to carry out the purpose for
which they had been revived after the war. The editors
of the magazine complained that no one took any
part in the current of so-called debate in these bodies,
unless he had written out his speech and committed it
to memory. The members who possessed the leisure
and energy to prepare such elaborate discourses were
few in number, and it followed that the proceedings were
meagre in thought and curtailed in extent. Indeed, so
impoverished did these proceedings, by 1873, become in
both societies,—for the same condition was to be discerned
in both,—that it was suggested, apparently by
the students themselves, that the principal awards should
be made by committees of the Faculty. It was proposed
that one committee should be assigned to each society;
and that each committee should attend at least
three debates, in the course of each session. "As matters
now stand," said the editors of the magazine in
January, 1874, "if we are determined to allow personal
feelings to warp our judgment, why not call things by
their right name, and to the man who makes most friends

present a token of friendship instead of a debater's
medal?" And yet, it may be pointed out parenthetically,
that it was, during the existence of this very system,
with all its abuses, that commanding speakers like A. P.
Humphrey, John W. Daniel, Isidor Rayner, and
others hardly less distinguished, were trained after the
war; while before the war, it had been the nursery for
such noble orators as Robert Toombs and John S. Preston,
and such keen dialecticians as Alexander H. H.
Stuart and Robert M. T. Hunter.

The Faculty too had arrived at the conclusion that
the societies were dragging their anchors, with the more
disturbing prospect of ultimately drifting on the rocks
At a meeting of that body in November, 1874, they determined
to alter the manner of choosing the debaters
and orators. They now adopted the rule that, in each
recurring November, two committees of the Faculty
should be appointed, to consist of three members respectively,
—one of these committees was to undertake the
duty of selecting the best debater and the best orator
among the participants in certain prearranged discussions
in the Washington Society, and the other to perform
the same duty in the Jefferson. These committees
were instructed to attend at least four debates, of which
one was to come off in January, one in February, and
two in March. The number to be attended was afterwards
reduced, first to two and subsequently to one.

The new rule did not swell the audience as much as
was expected. The number of young men present was
small, the number of candidates insignificant,—at least
at first,—but during the session of 1875–76, as many as
twelve aspirants offered themselves in the Washington
Society alone.

A resolution was submitted in the Jefferson in November,

1888, that a medal should be awarded to that
member, who, during the year, had shown the highest degree
of improvement in debate. Definite nights were
to be assigned for the speaking, and each candidate was
to be required to enter his name in a list to ensure his
recognition on the floor in his turn. The decision as to
the successful competitor was to be left to a committee
of five members of the Society. This resolution was
adopted, and was still in force after 1889. Another of
the conditions to be noticed in the Jefferson, at this time,
was the observance of the earlier custom of appointing
a monthly orator. Thus we find that, during the winter
of 1883, addresses were delivered in the hall of that
society by prominent members like W. P. Trent and
Walter S. Lefevre, and in harmony with their after
careers as professors, the subjects which they selected
were purely literary. In 1885, the office of critic was
established. It was the duty of its incumbent to submit
periodical reports, in which, by judicious censure, he was
expected to raise the general level of the speaking.

During this session, there seems to have been a recrudescence
of interest in both societies, for each could
now boast of the possession of a larger membership than
had fallen to its lot for many years. This revival was
thought to be principally due to the excitement of the
contests for final president. During one month of 1889,
eighty-six additions were made to the roll of the Jefferson,
under the influence of the active electioneering canvass
then going on. It was acknowledged, at this time, that
the interest in the literary exercises of both societies
was very languishing; and how far this had gone was
rather curiously revealed in the fact, that, when, in
February, 1892, ten members came forward at a meeting
of the Jefferson to take part in the debate, it was said

that such a sight had not been observed for at least a
decade.

The popularity of the two societies had, during this
period, been very much damaged by the growth in the
University of the taste for athletic sports. It was noticed
that, when the night for a debate coincided with
the night for a gymnastic tournament, the attendance
in the Jefferson and Washington Halls alike was not
sufficient to make up a quorum. On the occasion of one
meeting of the Jefferson Society at this time, a member
arose and proposed that the sum of five hundred dollars,
—which then happened to be reposing in the treasury
as unappropriated surplus,—should be presented, as a
token of appreciation, to the General Athletic Association.
By the end of the ensuing two years, this spirit
of prodigality had brought about such depletion in the
funds of this society that it was compelled to petition
the Board of Visitors for pecuniary help in order to
maintain its existence. An important innovation had
now been adopted by both societies in relation to the
medals. Formerly, the orator's was awarded to the
speaker who turned out to be only second in merit in the
set debates, but, afterwards, it was bestowed upon the
one who was decided to have delivered the most striking
address in a purely oratorical contest. Occasionally, as
many as seven aspirants would contest for the honor.
This award also was made by a committee of the Faculty.

The members of this body were still dissatisfied with
the formal speeches delivered by representatives of the
societies during commencement week. In 1893, Professor
Venable suggested that the choice of final orators
should be limited to the candidates who had been recipients
of title degrees. This indicated an extraordinary
falling off in merit in comparison with the times when

the most distinguished alumni were not the men who had
won these degrees, but the men who had received the
medals of the debating societies.

During many years, an energetic rival of the Jefferson
and Washington Societies was found in the Council of
Friends of Temperance. There was a report, in 1873,
that, at every meeting of its members,—who consisted
in the main of students,—there was an animated and
suggestive discussion. "The Temperance Hall," said
the editors of a contemporary number of the magazine,
"promises to be one of the best places in which to cultivate
the budding flowers of rhetoric, and to learn the initial
flights of oratory." It was thought that its representatives
carried off the laurels of superiority in the
oratorical display at the commencement of 1876. The
association had elected for that occasion an able president
and two very brilliant orators, and its medalist,
Charles W. Dabney, was a vigorous debater, who was
destined, in after-life, to occupy numerous posts of high
scholastic distinction. The membership was now large
enough to allow room for the selection of young men
of talent for all the leading parts on the public day.
During the session of 1883–84, its enrolment was as
long as that of the Washington Society, and in 1884–85
fell short by twenty names only of that of the Jefferson.
At this time, the number of its members ran ahead of
the number entered in the list of the Washington Society.