| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| pamphlet_wars [2026/07/29 13:15] – bant05 | pamphlet_wars [2026/07/30 19:22] (current) – bant06 |
|---|
| ~~REDIRECT>wiki:denied~~ | |
| |
| {{tag>publications}} | {{tag>publications}} |
| |
| ====== Pamphlet War ====== | ====== Pamphlet War ====== |
| |
| The founding of [[washington_college|Washington College]] (now Trinity College) in 1823 became grounds for heated debate in the early nineteenth century over whether a college other than Yale (founded in 1701) was truly necessary in Connecticut. The “Pamphlet War” consisted of written arguments for and against the prospect of a second college in the state, published as small booklets and distributed publicly. Three pamphlets constituted the central arguments that were made on both sides and were written as responses to the pamphlet that preceded it. The titles are as follows: “Considerations suggested by the establishment of a second college in Connecticut” (1824) by an anonymous set of authors associated with Yale College; “Remarks on Washington College and on the ‘Considerations’ suggested by its establishment” (1825) likely by [[wheaton_nathaniel_s|Nathaniel Sheldon Wheaton]] (Trinity's second president); and “An examination of the ‘Remarks’ on considerations suggested by the establishment of a second college in Connecticut” by Roger Sherman Baldwin. The arguments of each pamphlet is laid out below: | The founding of [[washington_college|Washington College]] (now Trinity College) in 1823 became grounds for heated debate in the early nineteenth century over whether a college other than Yale (founded in 1701) was truly necessary in Connecticut. The “Pamphlet War” consisted of written arguments for and against the prospect of a second college in the state, published as small booklets and distributed publicly. Three pamphlets constituted the central arguments that were made on both sides and were written as responses to the pamphlet that preceded it. The titles are as follows: “Considerations suggested by the establishment of a second college in Connecticut” (1824) by an anonymous set of authors associated with Yale College; “Remarks on Washington College and on the ‘Considerations’ suggested by its establishment” (1825) likely by [[wheaton_nathaniel_s|Nathaniel Sheldon Wheaton]] (Trinity's second president); and “An examination of the ‘Remarks’ on considerations suggested by the establishment of a second college in Connecticut” by Roger Sherman Baldwin. The arguments of each pamphlet are laid out below: |
| |
| **The “Considerations”** | **The “Considerations”** |
| The authors of the anonymously published pamphlet entitled “Considerations suggested by the establishment of a second college in Connecticut” argued against the existence of Washington College on the grounds that Yale College, as an institution for higher education, would remain sufficiently disposed to service the youth of Connecticut, as long as there was not another academic institution in the State that would put a strain on its resources. This pamphlet was a direct response to the solicitation of donations for Washington College from the general public, to which ‘the friends of Yale’ refused to subscribe. However, the professed reasons for the dismay expressed in this pamphlet extended beyond a mere loyalty to their own Alma Mater. The writers made a fiery moral indictment of the primary objectives stated in Washington College’s [[charter|charter]], evoking American Revolutionary sentiments in response to what they viewed as an inappropriately cozy relationship to England that Wheaton was fostering in his solicitation of foreign donations. More than this, they accused Washington College, an [[episcopal|Episcopal]] institution, of posing a serious threat to the harmonious coexistence of other Christian denominations in Connecticut, warning that, “every other sect of christians [sic] can regard Washington College, as nothing but an engine constructed to secure their extermination.” ((Considerations, p. 27)) The writers took great issue with the statement issued by the [[trustees|Trustees]] of Washington College to the members and leaders of the Church of England that, “It is the intention of the Trustees to render the College, as far as possible, as resort for the sons of all Episcopalians throughout the Union, and a nursery of ministers for the infant church.” ((Considerations, p. 27)) For these dissenters, not only was this appeal to English financial assistance unpatriotic, it also exhibited a lack of efficacy in Washington College as a truly intellectual institution. The College’s affiliation with the Episcopal Church overshadowed, in their view, a necessary dedication to “the cause of literature” proper to an academic institution. “We appeal with confidence,” they wrote, “to candid men of whatever denomination, that nothing can be more ruinous to the cause of literature, or piety, or social happiness in our country, than to change our literary institutions into instruments of sectarian aggrandizement; or in other words, to create Colleges to answer any purpose but the demands of literature.” ((Considerations, p. 18)) | The authors of the anonymously published pamphlet entitled “Considerations suggested by the establishment of a second college in Connecticut” argued against the existence of Washington College on the grounds that Yale College, as an institution for higher education, would remain sufficiently disposed to service the youth of Connecticut, as long as there was not another academic institution in the State that would put a strain on its resources. This pamphlet was a direct response to the solicitation of donations for Washington College from the general public, to which ‘the friends of Yale’ refused to subscribe. However, the professed reasons for the dismay expressed in this pamphlet extended beyond a mere loyalty to their own Alma Mater. The writers made a fiery moral indictment of the primary objectives stated in Washington College’s [[charter|charter]], evoking American Revolutionary sentiments in response to what they viewed as an inappropriately cozy relationship to England that Wheaton was fostering in his solicitation of foreign donations. More than this, they accused Washington College, an [[episcopal|Episcopal]] institution, of posing a serious threat to the harmonious coexistence of other Christian denominations in Connecticut, warning that, “every other sect of christians [sic] can regard Washington College, as nothing but an engine constructed to secure their extermination.” ((Considerations, p. 27)) The writers took great issue with the statement issued by the [[trustees|Trustees]] of Washington College to the members and leaders of the Church of England that, “It is the intention of the Trustees to render the College, as far as possible, as resort for the sons of all Episcopalians throughout the Union, and a nursery of ministers for the infant church.” ((Considerations, p. 27)) For these dissenters, not only was this appeal to English financial assistance unpatriotic, it also exhibited a lack of efficacy in Washington College as a truly intellectual institution. The College’s affiliation with the Episcopal Church overshadowed, in their view, a necessary dedication to “the cause of literature” proper to an academic institution. “We appeal with confidence,” they wrote, “to candid men of whatever denomination, that nothing can be more ruinous to the cause of literature, or piety, or social happiness in our country, than to change our literary institutions into instruments of sectarian aggrandizement; or in other words, to create Colleges to answer any purpose but the demands of literature.” ((Considerations, p. 18)) |
| |
| Literature, the demands of it, the cause of it, the importance of retaining its purity against “mercantile” or sectarian motivations, was also a concern woven throughout this pamphlet. According to the authors of the “Considerations,” the purpose of a college was to promote “sound literature,” defined as “the discipline and preparation of youthful minds, by an extensive course of liberal studies, for future usefulness.” ((Considerations, p. 4)) The pamphlet exalted the ideal of a pure love for learning and framed any perceived “sectarian aggrandizement” in Washington College’s mission as a contaminant encroaching upon such an ideal. It should be noted that Yale was not a secular school at the time, in the way that a modern reader may assume it to be. Though this pamphlet does not explicitly identify Yale with any denomination, it was founded as a Congregationalist institution. Even so, a spirit of Christian interdenominational unity was espoused by the authors of the “Considerations,” as they stated that, “We believe that providential ends of no small importance are to be answered, by the association of christians [sic] under different forms of worship, in a way to produce increased emulation in ‘well-doing,’ without weakening the bands of christian [sic] affection.” ((Considerations, p. 27)) | Literature, the demands of it, the cause of it, the importance of retaining its purity against “mercantile” or sectarian motivations, was also a concern woven throughout this pamphlet. According to the authors of the “Considerations,” the purpose of a college was to promote “sound literature,” defined as “the discipline and preparation of youthful minds, by an extensive course of liberal studies, for future usefulness.” ((Considerations, p. 4)) The pamphlet exalted the ideal of a pure love for learning and framed any perceived “sectarian aggrandizement” in Washington College’s mission as a contaminant encroaching upon such an ideal. It should be noted that Yale was not a secular school at the time, in the way that a modern reader may assume it to be. Though this pamphlet does not explicitly identify Yale with any denomination, it was founded as a Congregationalist institution. Even so, a spirit of Christian interdenominational unity was espoused by the authors of the “Considerations,” as they stated, “We believe that providential ends of no small importance are to be answered, by the association of christians [sic] under different forms of worship, in a way to produce increased emulation in ‘well-doing,’ without weakening the bands of christian [sic] affection.” ((Considerations, p. 27)) |
| |
| **The “Remarks”** | **The “Remarks”** |
| Baldwin, Roger S., and Chauncey A. Goodrich. Considerations Suggested by the Establishment of a Second College in Connecticut. Gleason & Co., printers, 1824. | Baldwin, Roger S., and Chauncey A. Goodrich. Considerations Suggested by the Establishment of a Second College in Connecticut. Gleason & Co., printers, 1824. |
| |
| Baldwin, Roger S., and Nathaniel S. Wheaton. An Examination of the "Remarks " on Considerations Suggested by the Establishment of a Second College in Connecticut. Printed by Peter B. Gleason, & Co., 1825. | Baldwin, Roger S., and Nathaniel S. Wheaton. An Examination of the "Remarks" on Considerations Suggested by the Establishment of a Second College in Connecticut. Printed by Peter B. Gleason, & Co., 1825. |
| |
| Daggy, Robert E. "Education, Church, and State: Timothy Cutler and the Yale Apostasy of 1722." //Journal of Church and State//, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 1971, pp. 43-68. | Daggy, Robert E. "Education, Church, and State: Timothy Cutler and the Yale Apostasy of 1722." //Journal of Church and State//, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 1971, pp. 43-68. |
