User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Lane Debates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Seminary The struggle between the North and the South began over free speech about the negro. The Lane Debates on Slavery were held over 18 evenings in February of 1834, at the Lane Theological Seminary, in Cincinnati, Ohio. The announced topics were:
 * Whether slavery in the United States should be ended immediately (immediatism).
 * Whether the American Colonization Society, which opposed immediatism and supported the emigration of American blacks to Africa, to the future Liberia, was worthy of support.

These "debates" — they have also been described as a revival show — are the beginning of abolitionism (immediatism) as a significant political movement in the United States. For the first time it got national publicity, and was presented as the answer to the increaingly obvious shortcomings of the colonization program. The "debates" were full of first-person accounts of the horrors of slavery, and the argument that God wants us to stop sinning this way, immediately. John Rankin attended the debates, as did Harriett Beecher [Stowe], daughter of Lane's president, Lyman Beecher, and future spouse of Lane professor Calvin Stowe. Rankin and Harriet Beecher knew each other personally; they may have met at these debates.

The outcome was the complete victory of abolitionism over colonization among those in attendence. Turning an incident into an affair, the trustees barred further discussion of abolition, which led to a mass walkout by the students. These Lane Rebels, as they were later called, enrolled in the new Oberlin Collegiate Institute, turning it into an anti-slavery center.

The debates and the students' walkout were well publicized, and influenced the nation's thinking about slavery, creating support for abolition.

The abolition–colonization controversy
An inquiry into the character and tendency of the American colonization, and American anti-slavery societies https://archive.org/details/inquiryintocha00jayw/page/n6/mode/2up review https://www.newspapers.com/image/34584378/?terms=William%2Bjay "What to do with the Negro population has almost always been a question before the American people."

Part of "the negro problem", as it was seen in the antebellum United States, was the question of what to do with former slaves that had become free. Since the eighteenth century Quakers and others had preached the sinfulness of slave ownership, and the number of freedmen and freed women was rising and showed every sign that it would continue to grow. The freed slaves married and had children, so the number of free people of color (Blacks born free) was rising even faster. Some owners freed their slaves in their wills. Philanthropic societies and individuals raised or donated funds to purchase slaves' freedom; freedmen sometimes were able to purchase the freedom of family members, and James Bradley (former slave) is an example of an enslaved man who was able to purchase his own body (his freedom). In some Northern cities there were more than a handful of escaped slaves. In Boston, the most anti-slavery major city in the country, there were over a thousand.

The status of these free blacks, in both the South and the North, was anything but comfortable. They were not citizens and in most states could not vote. They had no access to the courts or protection by the police. In no state could their children attend the public schools, even though they paid taxes to support the schools. The were subject to discriminatory treatment in everyday life that makes the Jim Crow period look good.

The original "remedy" for this problem was to help them go "back to Africa". The British had been doing this, in Sierra Leone, moving there former American slaves that had gained their freedom by escaping to British lines during the American Revolution, and who found Nova Scotia, where the British took many of them, too cold. (See Black Nova Scotians.) The British also took to Sierra Leone slaves captured from slaving ships, being smuggled illegally across the Atlantic to North America. A well-to-do African-American shipowner, Paul Cuffe, had transported some former slaves to Sierra Leone.

However, Sierra Leone, economically, was in no position to welcome former slaves from the United States. The American Colonization Society was formed to help found a new, American colony of freed blacks. Although there was some talk of locating it in the American territories of the midwest — a sort of reservation for Blacks — the decision was made to follow the English example and start an African colony. The closest available land was what became the Republic of Maryland and later Liberia.

The rejection of colonization
The colonization project got off to a good start, with various governmental and private donations and the participation of distinguished individuals: U.S. Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison; Senator Henry Clay, who presided over its first meeting; as well as most of the future white abolitionists. The problem had been solved, and in an honorable way. The former slaves would fare better in Africa, among other blacks.

This happy situation quickly started to unravel. First of all, thr disease rates were ghastly, the highest since accurate record-keeping began. Over 50% of the colonists died of malaria and other diseases.

Particularly telling to Gerrit Smith, the abolitionist philanthropist, was that the American Colonization allowed the sale of alcohol (and other nasties, like chewing tobacco) in the colonies which became Liberia. He comments on it in the Society's African Repository magazine. Smith was for temperance, which was the only respectable position. That blacks in Africa were allowed to import liquor from the United States (which they in turn sold to the natives, along with "military stores" ) revealed the venality of the white members of the American Colonization Society: its goal was to get rid of the blacks, and they sure didn't want them up north.

Weld organizes "debates"
When Weld arrived at Lane in 1833, he found "not a single immediate abolitionist".

Weld read William Garrison's new abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, begun in 1831, and his Thoughts on African Colonization, which appeared in 1832. These had a great influence at the other Ohio College, Western Reserve College, leading to Beriah Green's four published sermons, and his relocation under pressure to Gale's school, the Oneida Institute, far more sympathetic than Lane to abolitionism. What Garrison desired, and he convinced Green, was "immediatism": immediate, complete, and uncompensated freeing of all slaves.

Over a period of several months Weld convinced nearly all of the students individually of the superiority of the abolitionist view.

The idea of spreading abolitionism by holding public "debates" on it was "suggested and promoted by Arthur Tappan, who was the most generous benefactor of the seminary".

Lesick Lane Rebels 77 says it was Weld's idea.

"Weld had no intention of holding a debate on the pros and cons of antislavery." "There was little opposition, little conflict, and consequently little debate." In his correspondence Weld informs friends that he is trying to get the anti-slavery (immediatist) argument and evidence out to as many people as possible. Nevertheless, what was announced was debates, on two points.

Beecher was a colonizationist, and gave a speech on that topic to the Cincinnati Colonization Society on June 4, 1834. Professor Stowe spoke at a Colonization Society meeting on June 9, 1834. According to H. B. Stanton, "a flourishing Colonization Society has existed among us almost from the foundation of the institution"; however, it only appears in the American Colonization Society's journal, the African Repository and Colonial Journal, in 1834. There were similar groups at Western Reserve and other colleges. "Of the gross inconsistency, (not to use a harsher term,) of Colonizationists on this subject, the proceedings of a Colonization meeting in Cincinnati, Octo- ber 31st, 1834, afford a striking example. On motion of the Rev. Dr. Beecher, the following Resolution was unani- mously adopted: " Resolved, that the establishment of co- lonies in Africa, by the selection of colored persons who are moral, industrious, and temperate, is eminently cal- culated of itself to advance the cause of civilization and religion among the benighted native population of that continent ; as well as to afford facilities to the various Missionary Societies for the prosecution of their pious designs." https://archive.org/details/inquiryintocha00jayw/page/68/mode/2up/search/Cincinnati"

Notable people present
"The President, and the members of the faculty, with one exception [Bates], were present during parts of the discussion."
 * Gamaliel Bailey, physician, lecturer on physiology at Lane, to become an abolitionist newspaper editor.
 * Harriet Beecher Stowe, at that time simply Harriet Beecher, daughter of Lane's president; 18 years later publishes Uncle Tom's Cabin.
 * Henry Ward Beecher, minister, called, after his father Lyman, "the most noted minister of the nineteenth century". Supported sending rifles ("Beecher's Bibles") to emigrants trying to make Kansas a free state.
 * Lyman Beecher, Presbyterian minister and controversial president of Lane, father of Henry and Harriet.
 * James G. Birney, attorney, former American Colonization Society Agent, author of a lengthy published break with or attack on the Society. "His knowledge and pervasive influence informed the Lane Seminary debate, lifting it to the height of its subject."
 * James Bradley (former slave), the only Black participant.
 * Samuel Crothers (probable but unconfirmed )
 * Amos Dresser, Lane student; would hecome famous for being publicly whipped in Nashville, Tennessee, for distributing abolitionist literature.
 * Huntington Lyman
 * Asa Mahan, minister and Lane trustee, the only one that supported the students, who resigned with the students and accompanied them to the Oberlin Collegiate Institute, whose first president he became.
 * John Rankin (abolitionist), author of the first American anti-slavery book, and key figure ipon the Underground Railroad.
 * Henry Brewster Stanton, future abolitionist speaker and politician, and husband of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
 * Calvin Ellis Stowe, Lane professor, future husband of Harriet Beecher.
 * Theodore Dwight Weld, former Oneida student, anti-slavery activist.
 * Hiram Wilson, former Oneida student like Weld; moved to Canada and ran Canadian terminus for the Underground Railroad.

The stated topics of the debates
The two specific questions addressed were:


 * "Ought the people of the slaveholding states abolish slavery immediately?", and
 * "Are the doctrines, tendencies, and measures of the American Colonization Society, and the influence of its principal supporters, such as render it worthy of the patronage of the Christian public?"

Each question was debated for two and a half hours a night for nine nights.

The debates were not transcribed, and there was no attempt afterwards, as there would be later with Pennsylvania Hall, to collect the texts which were written out — not all were — and make a booklet of them. However, there are excerpts in newspapers and books.

Participants
According to Stanton, "eleven of our number were born and brought up in slave States, seven of whom were sons of slaveholders [Allan, Thome], and one of them was himself a slaveholder, till recently [Birney? Thompson?]; one of us [Bradley] had been a slave, and had bought his freedom, "with a great sum," which his own hands had earned; ten others had lived more or less in slave States, besides several who had travelled in the midst of slavery [Weld], making inquiries and searching after truth." One (Cox?) was an agent of the Colonization Society, though the debates ended without anyone talking in defense of colonization and against abolition. The group claimed they had full knowledge of the colonization project from "all the numbers of the [American Colonization Society's publication] African Repository, from its commencement, nearly all the Annual Reports of the Colonization Society, and the prominent documents of the Anti-Slavery Society.... Our kind friends in the city, furnished us with Colonization pamphlets in profusion. Dr. Shane, a young gentleman of Cincinnati, who had been out to Liberia, with a load of emigrants, as an agent of the Colonization Society, furnished us with a long statement concerning the colony." (On Shane's reports on Liberia, see and .)
 * 1 was an agent     Cox said he was agent, was he there?
 * 1 was an agent     Cox said he was agent, was he there?

The first 9 evenings
The first 9 of the 18 evenings were devoted to the first topic, whether slavery should be ended in the United States immediately.


 * According to Stanton's report, "The first speaker occupied nearly two evenings, in preseenting facts concerning slavery and immediate emancipation, gathered from various authentic documents." According to Lawrence Lesick, this was William T. Allan, "heir to a slave inheritance", who spoke for "nearly three nights".

{{quote|Facts communicated by Mr. Augustus Wattles, of Lane Seminary, to the Editor of the Western Recorder

The debate was opened by Mr., of Alabama. He commenced by asking this question — " What is slavery ?" "Before we con prescribe a remedy," said he "we must understand the disease. We must know what we are attempting to cure, before we give the medicine." I was rejoiced to hear such a beginning from the son of a slave-holder; for I had longed to learn the true condition of the slave. And I had no doubt but that the feeling of the abolitionists on the subject of slavery, "was the poetry of philanthropy,"* [footnote: *Rev. Dr. Hawks.] and that "nine-tenths of the horrors of slavery were imaginary."† [footnote: †Hon. T. Freylinghuysen, at the New-York Colonization meeting.]

Mr. ——— proceeded to give us facts illustrating slavery, and its effects on the social and political relations; facts illustrating the kind disposition of the slaves, and their gratitude for favors. He ridiculed the idea of its being dangerous to emancipate them immediately; then referred us to facts in point, and closed by giving no his heartyassent to the doctrines of immediate emancipation, as defined by the Emancipator, viz:


 * "By immediate emancipation we do not mean that the slaves shall be turned loose upon the nation, to roam as vagabonds or aliens; nor, that they shall be instantly invested with all political rights and privileges; but we mean, that instead of being under the unlimited control of a few irresponsible masters, tney shall really receive the protection of law: that the power which is now vested in every slave-holder to rob them of their just dues, to drive them into the fields like beasts, to lacerate their bodies, to sell the husband from the wile, the wife from the husband, and children from their parents, shall instantly cease: that the slaves shall be employed as free laborers, fairly compensated, and protected in their earnings: that they shall be placed under a benevolent and disinterested supervision, which shall secure to them the right to obtain secular and religious knowledge, to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, to accumulate wealth, and to seek an intellectual and moral elevation."

When speaking of the cruelties practised upon the slave, he said—

{quote|"At our house it is so common to hear their screams from u neighbouring plantation, that we thsk nothing of it. The overseer of this plantation told me one day, he laid a young woman over a log, and beat her so severely that she was soon after delivered of a dead child. A bricklayer, a neighbor of ours, owned a very smart young negro man, who ran away, but was caught. When his master got him home, he stripped him naked, tied him up by his hands, in plain sight ami hearing of the academy and the public green, so high that his feet could not touch the ground; then tied them together, and put a long board hot wren his legs, to keep him steady. After preparing him in this way, he took a paddle, bored it full of holes, and commenced beating him with it. He continued it leisurely all day. At night his flesh was literally pounded to a jelly. It was two weeks before he was able to walk. No one took any notice of it: no one thought any wrong was done." on this paragraph also anti-slavery record https://archive.org/details/antislaveryreco03socigoog/page/n36/mode/2up/search/Lane}}

He stated many more facts of a similar kind. It will be recollected that he was attempting to give a fair expos[é] of slavery. And (said he) lest any one should think that in general the slaves are well treated, and these are the exceptiona, let me be distinctly understood :— Cruelty is the rule, and kindness the exception." This was assented to, and corroborated by all from the slave-holding states. }}


 * "Conclusions and inferences were then drawn from these facts, and arguments founded upon them favourable to immediate abolition, during the two next evenings."
 * "Nearly four of the remaining five evenings were devoted to the recital of facts, in regard to slavery, slaves, and slaveholders, gathered, not from written documents, but from careful personal observation and experience. Nearly half of the seventeen speakers, on the evenings last alluded to, were the sons of slaveholders; one had been a slaveholder himself; one had till recently been a slave; and the residue were residents of, or had recently travelled or lived in[,] slave States."

James Bradley

 * Although not planned as such, the centerpiece of the debates, according to those who attended, were the two hours of James Bradley. He was a former slave who had managed to save enough to purchase his freedom. Anxious for education, the first educational institution he came to after crossing into the free state of Ohio was the Lane Seminary. Although in his own words he was "so ignorant, that I suppose it will take me two years to get up with the lowest class in the institution", he was treated well by the students. "In all respects I am treated just as kindly, and as much like a brother by the students, as if my skins was white, and my education as good as their own. Thanks to the Lord, prejudice against color does not exist in Lane Seminary."


 * "James Bradley, the emancipated slave above alluded to, addressed us nearly two hours; and I wish his speech could have been heard by every opponent of immediate emancipation — to wit: first, that "it would be unsafe to the community"; second, that "the condition of the emancipated negroes would be worse than it now is — that they are incompetent to provide for themselves — that they would become paupers and vagrants, and would rather steal than work for wages." This shrewd and intelligent black cut up these white objections by the roots, and withered and scorched them under the sun of sarcastic argumentation for nearly an hour, to which the assembly responded in repeated and spontaneeus roars of laughter, which were heartily joined in by both Colonizalionists and Abolitionists. Do not understand me as saying, that his speech was devoid of argument. No. It contained sound logic, enforced by apt illustrations. I wish the slanderers of negro intellect could have witnessed this unpremeditated effort.... He is now a beloved and respected member of this institution. Now, Mr. Editor, can slaves take care of themselves if emancipated? I answer the question in the language employed by brother Bradley on the above occasion. "They have to lake care of, and support themselves now, and their master, and his family into the bargain; and this being so, it would be strange if they cculd not provide for themselves, when disencumbered from this load." He said the great desire of the slaves was — "liberty and education." And shall this heaven-born desire be trampled in the dust by a free and Christian nation?"



Thompson

 * "Mr. Henry P. Thompson, a native and still a resident of Nicholasville, Kentucky, made the following statement at a public meeting in Lane Seminary, Ohio, in 1833 [1834]. He was at that time a slaveholder.""Cruelties, said he, are so common, I hardly know what to relate. But one fact occurs to me just at this time, that happened in the village where I live. The circumstances are these. A colored man, a slave, ran away. As he was crossing Kentucky river, a white man, who suspected him, attempted to stop him. The negro resisted.The white man procured help, and finally succeeded in securing him. He then wreaked his vengeance on him for resisting — flogging him till he was not able to walk. They then put him on a horse, and came on with him ten miles to Nicholasville. When they entered the village, it was noticed that he sat upon his horse like a drunken man. It was a very hot day; and whilst they were taking some refreshment, the negro sat down upon the ground, under the shade. When they ordered him to go, he made several efforts before he could get up; and when he attempted to mount the horse, his strength was entirely insufficient. One of the men struck him, and with an oath ordered him to get on the horse without any more fuss. The negro staggered back a few steps, fell down, and died. I do not know that any notice was ever taken of it."


 * "Rev. Coleman S. Hodges, a resident of western Virginia, gave the following testimony at the same meeting":"I have frequently seen the mistress of a family in Virginia, with whom I was well acquainted, beat the woman who performed the kitchen work, with a stick two feet and a half long, and nearly as thick as my wrist ; striking her over the head, and across the small of the back, as she was bent over at her work, with as much spite as you would a snake, and for what I should consider no offence at all. There lived in this same family a young man, a slave, who was in the habit of running away. He returned one time after a week’s absence. The master took him into the barn, stripped him entirely naked, tied him up by his hands so high that he could not reach the floor, tied his feet together, and put a small rail between his legs, so that he could not avoid the blows, and commenced whipping him. He told me that he gave him five hundred lashes. At any rate, he was covered with wounds from head to foot. Not a place as big as my hand but what was cut. Such things as these are perfectly common all over Virginia ; at least so far as I am acquainted. Generally, planters avoid punishing their slaves before strangers."


 * "Mr. Calvin H. Tate, of Missouri, whose father and brother were slaveholders, related the following at the same meeting. The plantation on which it occurred, was in the immediate neighborhood of his father's.""A young woman, who was generally very badly treated, after receiving a more severe whipping than usual, ran away. In a few days she came back, and was sent into the field to work. At this time the garment next her skin was stiff like a scab, from the running of the sores made by the whipping. Towards night, she told her m master that she was sick, and wished to go to the house. She went, and as soon as she reached it, laid down on the floor exhausted. The mistress asked her what the matter was? She made no reply. She asked again; but received no answer. "I'll see," said she, "if I can't make you speak." So taking the tongs, she heated them red hot, and put them upon the bottoms of her feet ; then upon her legs and body; and, finally, in a rage, took hold of her throat. This had the desired effect. The poor girl faintly whispered, "Oh, misse, don't — I am most gone", and expired."


 * "From their testimony, the following facts and premises were established, to wit":"That slaves long for freedom; that it is a subject of very frequent conversation among them; that they know their masters have no right to hold them in slavery; that they keenly feel the wrong, the insult and the degradation which are heaped upon them by the whites; they feel interest comparatively in their master's affairs, because they know he is their opressor; they are indolent, because they can earn is their own; they pretend to be more ignorant and stupid than they really are, so as to avoid responsibility, and to shun the lash for any real or alleged disobedience to orders...."

Arguments addressing the first question in favor of the immediate abolition of slavery included:


 * Slaves long for freedom.
 * When inspired with a promise of freedom, slaves will toil with incredible alacrity and faithfulness.
 * No matter how kind their master is, slaves are dissatisfied and would rather be his hired servants than his slaves.
 * Blacks are abundantly able to take care of and provide for themselves.
 * Blacks would be kind and docile if immediately emancipated.


 * "At the close of the ninth evening, the vote was taken on the first question, when every individual voted in the affirmative except four or five, who excused themselves from voting at all, on the ground that they had not made up their opinion. Every friend of the cause rendered a hearty tribute of thanksgiving to God, for the glorious issue [result of the discussion]."

The second 9 evenings
In response to the second question, Reverend Dr. Samuel H. Cox, who had served as an agent for the Colonization Society, testified that his view of the Society's plan changed when he realized that no blacks, despite the claims of those who ventured to speak for them, would ever consent to be removed from their native country and transplanted to a foreign land. He reasoned, therefore, that the plan could only be enacted by a "national society of kidnappers."

At the end of the debate, many of the participants concluded not only that slavery was a sin, but also that the policy of the American Colonization Society to send blacks to Africa was wrong. As a result, these students formed an antislavery society and began organizing activities and outreach work among the black population of Cincinnati. They intended to attain the emancipation of blacks, not by rebellion or force, but by "approaching the minds of slave holders with the truth, in the spirit of the Gospel."

Formation of an anti-slavery society at Lane
After the debate, an anti-slavery society was set up at Lane. "William T. Allan, of Alabama, President; Marius R. Robinson," of Tennessee, Vice President; Andrew Benton, of Missouri, Recording Secretary; James A. Thome, of Kentucky, Treasurer; C. S. Hodges, of Virginia, Auditor. Managers—George Whipple, of New-York; James Bradley, of Guinea; Abner S. Ross, of New-Jersey; James M. Allan, of Alabama; Theodore D. Weld, of New-York; H. Lyman, of Louisiana; H. B. Stanton, of New-York; James Steele, of New-York."

Work among and for the African Americans of Cincinnati
Contrary to general belief, it was not the debate that provoked a negative reaction. Rather, it was the students' interactions and work for the African Americans of Cincinnati that was found unacceptable.

"In Cinfinnati, four or give flourishing schools have been established by the dtudents of Lane seminary" https://archive.org/details/antislaveryreco03socigoog/page/n42/mode/2up/search/Lane  anti-slavery record
 * https://archive.org/details/antislaveryreco03socigoog/page/n96/mode/2up/search/Lane

see Title: Report on the condition of the people of color in the state of Ohio : from the proceedings of the Ohio Anti-Slavery Convention, held at Putnam, on the 22d, 23d, and 24th of April, 1835.

Author: Augustus Wattles

Publisher: Gale, Sabin Americana

Description:

Based on Joseph Sabin's famed bi  https://archive.org/details/ASPC0005079400/page/n19/mode/2up

reached ny post 7/24/34 https://newspaperarchive.com/other-articles-clipping-jul-24-1834-1539998/

Theodore Weld wrote in a letter: "We have established five day schools among the three thousand colored people of Cincinnati; a Lyceum with tri-weekly lectures; evening schools for teaching adults to read; Sabbath schools and Bible classes. We are also trying to establish a reading-room and library for them. I have never seen such eagerness to acquire knowledge, nor such rapidity of acquisition."

The students did "violence to public sentiment reckless of consequences." But was public sentiment right? Was it in accordance with the Gospel? The history of the world shows that public sentiment has been oftener wrong than right. Many of the greatest enormities ever witnessed on earth hare been sanctioned by public sentiment. Rankin answer 3ab

People thought that when Beechum returned, he would undo the trustees' actions.

Actions of the Board of Trustees
The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees met on August 20, 1834, and accepted the report from "the Committee appointed by the Executive Committee of the Trustees of the Lane Seminary, to consider the matter recently brought before them, relative to the proceedings among the students on the subject of slavery". The probable negative effect of this on enrollment was soon mentioned.

The Board met early in October, 1834, and accepted the recommendations of the Executive Committee, which had been "extensively published". They added to it "an 'Order' giving power to the Executive Committee to expel any student from the Seminary 'whenever they shall think it necessary so to do'". The new policies went into effect November 15.

In October, classes being in recess, President Beecher was fund-raising in the East.

"Most of [the students] indulged the hope that the Faculty, especially the venerated head of the institution, Dr. Beecher, would be able to arrest these laws, and prevent their being carried into effect. But finding that Prof. Stowe, on his return, had acquiesced in the decision of the Board, that the Trustees had refused to await the return of President Beecher, and that the laws were formally promulgated, they with one consent almost, resolved on retiring from an institution that had enacted such arbitrary and oppresive statutes. Though a large number of them were separated from each other, and were without any knowledge of the course which other members of the Seminary would pursue, each member of the Anti-Slavery Society had come deliberately to the solemn determination not to surrender a tittle of his principle, but to leave the Seminary — however great the amount of personal sacrifice."

"We learn that Mr. Theodore Weld was aimed at particularly by the 'Order' of the Board of Trustees, giving power to the Executive Committee to expel any student from the Seminary whenever they 'shall think it necessary so to do.' It is said that as soon as the Executive Committee were clothed with this new and extraordinary power, thev called a meeting, and one of them (who was until lately a resident in Georgia) moved that Mr. Weld be expelled from Lane Seminary! The preamble to the resolution stated that he had introduced abolition into the Seminary, had been the moving cause of the incendiary movements, and that the existence of the Seminary would be hazarded by his member[ ]! This motion was opposed with great firmness by the minority of the Board, and the majority were entreated to suspend action on the case until Dr. Beecher's return. So they adjourned for three days, met again, and again adjourned to the 20th for final action. No breach of law was alleged against Mr. Weld, no disrespect of the faculty, nor any thing calling in question his moral character except the mere motion to expel. After the promulgation of the laws, and the students had determined on asking for dismission, Mr. Weld waitewaited upon the Faculty and informed them that as he stood charged with a high misdemeanor before the highest judicatture to which as a student he was amenable, he should not of course be guilty of such indecorum as to apply for a dismission before the court had taken final action on the case, and thus avoiding expulsion by skulking out under cover of a regular and honorable dismission while the Board had measures in progress which aimed at thrusting him out, branded with disgrace. So he was permitted to remain a member of the Seminary, though excused by the Faculty from its duties and exempted from the action of its laws! Afterwards the Board had a meeting, retreated from their ground, and of course left Mr. Weld without impeachment and in fair and honorable standing. As soon as the result was communicated to him, he applied for and received an honorable dismission.

Theodore Weld was aware that the first victim of this policy would be himself. However, he did not withdraw Once it was clear that he would not be expelled, he then resigned.

"The trustees soon expressed a determination to prevent all further discussion of the comparative merits of the policy of the Colonization Society, and the doctrine of immediate emancipation, either in the recitation rooms, the rooms of the students, or at the public table; although no objection had previously been made to the free discussion of any subject whatever. During the vacation that followed, in the absence of a majority of the professors, this purpose was framed into a law, or rule, of the seminary, and obedience to it required from all.

The trustees laid down the doctrine that "no associations or societies ought to be allowed in the seminary, except such as have for their immediate object, improvement in the prescribed course of studies." This was followed by an order in these words : "Ordered that the students be required to discontinue those societies [the anti-slavery and colonization societies] in the seminary.""

"Sixteen students had already arrived to enter the next theological class. Of these eight have refused to enter and will leave. Six have entered, two of them being sons of the President. Besides these, it is known that a large number who were expecting to join the class, have been prevented by the obnoxious laws from going to the Seminary. How many of the students will stay is not yet determined. The theological class last year consisted of forty. Only two of these had entered this term, the fourth day after its commencement. The literary department last year consisted of about sixty. Of these only five had entered."

The event resulted in the dismissal of John Morgan, "professor of mathematics and natural philosophy", and the departure of a group of 40 students and a trustee. It was one of the first significant tests in the United States of academic freedom and the right of students to participate in free discussion. It is the first organized student group in American history. Several of those involved went on to play an important role in the abolitionist movement and the buildup to the American Civil War.

though I can no onger publicly advocate it as the agent of your society, I hope soon to plead its cause in the humbler sphere of personal example, while pursuing my professional studies, in a rising institution at the west, in which manual labor is a DAILY REQUISITION.

Reaction fron New Hampshire convention, November
p. 36 of

Sons & Daughters of Thunder
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/03/20/film-portrays-harriet-beecher-stowe-and-lane-seminary-debates-against-slavery/3221563002/

to look at
https://web.archive.org/web/20181025235123/http://www2.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/LaneDebates/Resources.html
 * McNutt, Randy. Lane Seminary Propelled Anti-slavery Movement. Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 September 2003. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/09/28/loc_bicennotebook28.html.
 * “Historic Reenactment of the Lane Slavery Debates of 1834.” Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition. http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/lane.htm
 * Resources for Studying the Lane Debates and the Oberlin Commitment to Racial Egalitarianism

commentary by garrison 11/22/1834 https://www.newspapers.com/clip/43467482/commentary_on_lane_seminary_situation/