University Micrdrilms International 300 N Zeeb Road Ann Arbor

INFORMATION TO USERS Tliis reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us tor microfilming. While the most advanced technology lias been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "targ et" fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Paget s.)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure com plete c o n tin u ity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map. drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Micrdrilms International 300 N Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Ml 48100 8526285 Zam, Gerard Anthony THE COMPETITION OVER THE MORRILL LAND GRANT FUNDS IN OHIO, 1862-1870 The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1985 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by Zam, Gerard Anthony All Rights Reserved THE COMPETITION OVER THE MORRILL LAND GRANT FUNDS IN OHIO, 1862-1870 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gerard Anthony Zam, B.S.Ed., M.A. The Ohio State University 1985 Reading Committee: Approved Robert B. Sutton Philip L . Smith Robert E. Jewett Adviser Department of Educational Policy and Leadership Copyright by Gerard Anthony Zam 1985 TO MY MOTHER, IN MEMORIAM, AND FATHER ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the members of my Reading Committee, and especially my adviser. Dr. Robert B. Sutton. iii VITA June 14, 1945 .............. Born - Toledo, Ohio 1967 ......................... B.S.Ed., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1967-1973 ................... Instructor, The Eaton High School, Eaton, Ohio 1972 ......................... M.A., The University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio 1973 ......................... Administrator, Ohio State Government, Columbus, Ohio 1976-77; 1979-80 ............ Instructor, The Bishop Ready High School, Columbus, Ohio 1977-79; 1980-81 ............ Teaching Associate, Department of Educational Policy and Leadership, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1984 - Present .............. Instructor, The Arcanum High School, Arcanum, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Fields Studies in History of Education. Professor Robert B. Sutton Studies in Philosophy of Education. Professor Philip L. Smith Studies in Social Studies Education. Professors Robert E. Jewett and M. Eugene Gilliom iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION.............................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................... ill VITA .................................................... iv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1 II. OHIO HIGHER EDUCATION DURING THE ANTEBELLUM PERIOD ........................... 11 III. THE POLITICAL PROCESS AT WO R K .................... 72 IV. THE COMPETING FACTIONS.............................. 180 V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................ 376 APPENDIXES A. THE MORRILL ACT OF 1862 ........................ 385 B. DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FARMERS' COLLEGE ............................. 388 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 392 v CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTION Histories of the Land Grant Act of 1862, more popularly known as the Morrill Act, generally fall into one of two categories-- histories of the land-grant idea and histories about land-grant institutions. The former are general histories of the movement, usually viewed from a national perspective, which seek to iden tify, explain, and to some degree analyze those social, political, and economic forces instrumental in shaping this evolutionary, if not revolutionary, idea in American higher education. "Jacksonian Democracy", "Social consciousness", "utilitarianism", and "indus trial classes" are seemingly ubiquitous concepts linked to this 1 movement and consequently scrutinized in this approach. That the products of this movement were inextricably tied to these concepts, there can be no doubt. But the establishment of each land-grant institution was a singularly unique event, af fected by a number of local and statewide pressures, none ever quite the same as the next. Edward D. Eddy in his Colleges For Our Land and Time has tried to classify these institutions rather arbitrarily according to the "type" of recipient assigned the 2 Morrill funds. But mere classification does not begin to detail all of the complexities involved in the ultimate disbursement of the funds in each state. 1 2 One would think that these local and statewide pressures would be fully treated in the histories of each land-grant institution. Indeed, the call has been unmistakably clear. Earle D. Ross, noted land-grant historian, after decrying the conventional his tories of those colleges as being too provincial and antiquarian concludes . that if the histories of our land-grant colleges and universities are allowed to reflect the conditioning social and institutional trends which have so largely shaped and actuated their careers, along with the variant tendencies of the particular institution, they may not only help to clarify current educational issues but as well make definite and substantial contributions to the social and intellectual history of the nation.3 But many institutional land-grant histories, products of chroniclers or devoted alumni, fall woefully short of Ross' exhor tation. Rarely is the interplay of these forces at the state and local levels critically analyzed, especially those which preceded the establishment of the institution. Indeed, the social, poli tical, and economic forces which sought to shape the initial utility of the Morrill funds in each state are given, at best, a cursory glance. They are, in fact, prefatory to the rest of the "real" history of the institution, and consequently in need of greater analysis.^ In most states, a series of commonly identified events pre ceded the actual legislative statute establishing each land-grant institution. The initial phase consisted of the formal acceptance 5 of the provisions of the Morrill Act by the state legislature. The Civil War and its deliterious effects precluded many of the 3 states from rushing in to accept the grant with its attendant responsibilities. In fact, the "states in rebellion" were ex pressly denied the right to its benefits until after the War. Not until 1870 would the great majority of states agree to establish state-sponsored teaching of the agriculture and mechanic arts.6 After acceptance, each state concentrated on the sale of public lands (land scrip when public lands within the state were exhausted), the proceeds of which would be used to finance the new institution(s ). A formula, based on the census of 1860, appor tioned to each state a quantity of public land equal to thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative in the congress of the United States. At a recommended minimum level of SI.25 per acre, the total of all the monies derived would then be invested in stocks of the United States, or some other safe stocks, so as not to yield less than five percent interest. This sum would constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which was to remain forever undiminished. In addition, each state was responsible for all expenses incurred in the administration and sale of the public lands or scrip. For many states, this second phase was both pro tracted and difficult; indeed, one of a number of impediments which delayed final legislative action on the entire matter.7 A third phase, and the one characterized by Eddy as the most controversial and bitter, centered on the awarding of the grant to a worthy recipient(s ). At least part of the confusion lay in the multiple interpretations afforded Section Four of the Federal 4 statute which outlined in rather broad terms how the monies derived from the grant should be apportioned namely: . * . To the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be without excluding the scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic

Load more