The election of Dr. Barnard as chancellor was hailed with joy by every friend of the University. As the official head of the common schools of Connecticut and Rhode Island successively, he had won the highest commendation; he was the founder and editor of the American Journal of Education; and his writings and lectures on educational topics made his name a household word among the professional teachers of this country. With his twenty years of experience, and unbounded enthusiasm, it was reasonably supposed by the regents that he would work wonders in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, his election was followed by an illness from which he did not fully recover for several years. The school year of 1858-59 passed without his being able to reach the State; and it was July 27, 1859, before he was installed.

It had been arranged that Dr. Barnard should, in addition to his duties as chancellor, be the general agent of the board of normal school regents in the reconstruction of the common school system of the State. Events so shaped themselves that most of the time and strength he was able to spare were spent upon this latter task; for he deemed it of most immediate importance that the common schools should be lifted to a higher level, that students might be better fitted for the University than they were. As chancellor, it is said that "he never gave a lecture or heard a recitation, and met the students but once in chapel" and he was, of course, unable to perfect the details of the reorganization, as had been expected of him by the regents.¹ In 1860, he suffered severe nervous prostration, and in July tendered his resignation; but, still hoping that he would regain his health, the board deferred action until it was seen that he must necessarily abandon the undertaking. The Resignation was therefore reluctantly accepted, in January following.²

By June (1860), it had been seen by the regents that a second reorganization was necessary. Professor Sterling, as dean,³ was holding the University together, and the regular work was going on; but the continued absence of the chancellor proved disheartening; the changes in the faculty, at the reorganization of two years before, had given rise to hostility and distrust in certain quarters--sentiments which might have been successfully combated by a strong administration; and the advantages which had been anticipated through the cooperative arrangement with the normal regents had now slipped out of reach, because the latter had felt obliged, in view of Barnard's illness, to proceed on independent lines. "It is not to be wondered at," wrote the University regents in their report for 1860, "that a University, still in its feeble and formative state, should feel severely the depressing influence." ⁴

The board was now indebted to the school and University trust funds in the aggregate sum of $62,510, all of this debt, occasioned by the construction of the three buildings--north and south dormitories, and main hall; outstanding construction warrants, bearing ten percent interest, amounted to $17,509.54; there was also a loan of $5,000 advanced by a private person, with interest at eight per cent, and already past due; the aggregate annual interest on all this debt was $7,239.70. The regents report:

No citizens of the State feel more deeply than do the members of this board, how wide and varied must be the scope of instruction, in a University which shall undertake really to meet the higher educational wants of this people, in coming years. But all the more firmly, on that very account, must the board refuse materially to expand its educational force at the present. We must not sacrifice to immediate effect the greater interests of the future. We must not exhaust the annual income of the institution upon its current expenses, and by keeping it forever under a load of debt, restrict its available income in the future to its present narrow limits, and thus secure a continued and a growing disproportion between its available means and the ever increasing demands which that future will bring.

Such being the situation, the board, at its meeting of June 11, sought to retrench the current expenses; and naturally the first items to "cut" were the number and salaries of the instructional force. It was ordained that the faculty "shall hereafter consist of five professors and one tutor, and no more." The salary of the professor of modern languages (Fuchs) is to be $800; of the other four (Sterling, Read, Carr, and Butler), $1,000 each; and, in addition, "the five professors shall divide among themselves equally, the fees paid by students" the salary of the tutor (J. B. Parkinson) ⁵ is not to exceed $600. Mr. Tullis was continued as instructor in commercial calculations and bookkeeping, but his pay came from fees alone. No arrangement seems to have been made for the chancellor's salary, as he was still absent, and indeed never returned to his post.

Troublous times had now come upon the country. War clouds were gathering on the horizon; public expenditures for education and other arts of peace were being restricted; and many of the students in the University were uneasily matching the outcome, anxious to enlist in case the storm broke. All this tended, more or less, to disorganize work upon "the hill." Dr. Barnard's resignation had at last been accepted; and upon Dean Sterling were thrust, in addition to all his other duties, those of acting chancellor, in which capacity he acceptably served for six long and anxious years.

In the spring of 1861, the War of Secession opened. In common with college students the country over, our University men were quick to respond to President Lincoln's call. During the year, the following enlisted in volunteer regiments: George W. Ashmore, of Arena; James H. Bull and John A. Bull, of Middleton; Cary M. Campbell, of Madison; Edwin D. Coe, of Watertown; Joseph W. Curtis, of Madison; Brasier R. Ellis, of Westport; Robert H. Henry, of Verona; E. C. Hungerford, of Watertown; Michael Leahey, of Portland; Edward G. Miller, of Sweet Home; Pliny Norcross,⁶ of La Grange; Otis Remick, of Cornish, Me.; S. S. Rockwood, of Milton; Henry Smith, of Middleton; Henry Vilas, of Madison; and William A. Wyse, of Sauk City.⁷

In addition to the above, the catalogue for 1862 reports the following graduates as serving at the front: Alexander C. Botkin, A. M., '59; Sinclair W. Botkin, A. M., '57; William W. Church, A. B., '61; Leander M. Comins, A. B., '60, and Charles Fairchild, A. M., '57, all of Madison; Samuel Fallows, A. M., '59, of Oshkosh; Almerin Gillett, P. B., '61, of Geneva; Richard W. Hubbell, A. M., '58, of Milwaukee; Edwin March, A. M., '59, of Beaver Dam; William P. Powers, A. B., '60, of Madison; Burgess C. Slaughter, A. M., '56, of Middleton; Fred T. Starkweather, A. B., '60, of Milwaukee; and John E. Sutton, A. B., '60, and William F. Vilas, A. M., '58, of Madison.

Undergraduates, in addition to those reported for 1861, were listed as being in the army, as follows: Thomas Bennett, of Beloit; Moses L. Bradley, of Madison; William W. Chadwick, of Monroe; Phineas J. Clawson, of Waukesha; Henry L. Gray, of Madison; Hudson H. Helms, of Fitchburg; Robert H. Henry, of Verona; Gilbert T. Hodges, of Monroe; William H. Keepers, of Madison; C. P. Larkin, of Milwaukee; Aaron H. McCracken, of Sweet Home; Jefferson C. McKenney, of North Leeds; J. E. Mathewson, of Neosho; Ceylon H. Olney and John C. Pradt, of Madison; M. H. Puffer, of Monroe; Albert J. Rockwell, of Oconomowoc; Jotham Scudder, of Juda; E. F. Stone, of Sun Prairie; and J. Dwight Tredway, of Madison.

The regents' report for 1863 does not contain a list of undergraduates in the army, but adds to the list of graduates thus engaged, the names of Farlin Q. Ball, P. B., '61, of Monroe, and Isaac, N. Stewart, P. B., '62, of Waukesha. John E. Sutton, '60 is reported as dead.

A matter-of-fact paragraph in the report for 1864 eloquently tells the story of that year, in the relations between the University and the federal army:

The members of the Senior class (with one exception) having left the State, along with many other students of the University, as volunteers in the 40th Regiment of Wisconsin Infantry (one hundred day men), no commencement was held. The Executive Committee were authorized to provide for commencement exercises on the return of the class, if it should then appear advisable; and if not, the president of the board and the dean of the faculty were authorized to prepare and deliver diplomas to the graduating class. The degree of Bachelor of Arts was directed to be conferred upon James Lambert High and Washington Irving Wallace, and the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy upon⁸ Eugene M. Congar, Augustus H. Salisbury and John Coit Spooner.

By the following year, the University had very nearly recovered its normal strength in the matter of attendance, the whole number of students for 1864-65 being 306, of whom 169 were men and 137 women--but only forty-one of these were entered in the regular college courses (nineteen classical and twenty-two scientific), the others being in the preparatory, commercial, and normal departments. The faculty thus reported to the regents upon the "difficulties and embarrassments of the war period:"⁹

In considering the condition and prospects of the University, the Faculty deem it proper to revert to the special difficulties which have embarrassed them both as individuals and as University officers during the war period. Every call, from the very first, which has been made by the Government for men, has taken from us a portion of our best students, and especially reduced our advanced classes. The hundred-day call broke up our commencement of last year, as it did that of the other Colleges of the State. The very last enlistment took from us a member of the senior class now graduating, and also one of the junior class, together with others not so advanced in their course. The present graduating class has indeed, wholly or mainly by the war, been reduced from more than twenty to the existing number. Besides the direct calls to the field, the pressure for young men for various business avocations has taken or kept from us many others. It may not be improper to remark also that the members of the Faculty have experienced much personal embarrassment from inadequate support arising from the increased rates of living, and especially at Madison as a seat of Government and a military post. By pinching economy, they could not live upon their salaries, even with small families; and with those having large families or subjected to any unusual expenses, the University salary has afforded but little, if any, over half support. Up to this time, the improvement in this respect has been but slightly perceptible. Notwithstanding these difficulties, it was the determination of the Faculty, both as a matter of duty and professional pride, to labor to the utmost to maintain the continuity of the institution, and they have succeeded in sustaining numbers and keeping up classes beyond all reasonable expectations. The Faculty had full confidence that the close of the war would greatly fill up our higher institutions of learning, and our own among the number; that not only would many of our former students return to us, but that others from the army, having had their hopes and views enlarged, and having some means at their command, would, before resuming their places in society, spend a time in the University. The indications from letters of inquiry and other information are, that this expectation will be fully realized. Notwithstanding the personal embarrassment and trouble above referred to on the score of insufficient support, the Board will bear witness that they have not been annoyed in this regard with complaints or demands for change. The Faculty have felt that they could confide in the just and liberal treatment of the Board according to the means of the institution.

Sorely hampered though the University had been, through lack of students and a chancellor, and naturally suffering from neglect in a time of great popular excitement in other fields of interest, the institution had nevertheless made some progress during the war period.¹⁰

It will be remembered that the charter of the University provided for four departments: Science, literature, and the arts; law; medicine; and "the theory and practice of elementary instruction." As early as 1850, Chancellor Lathrop had urged that this fourth department be inaugurated as soon as practicable, for the new State sorely needed trained teachers for the common schools. Owing to lack of funds, however, nothing was done until the spring and summer of 1856 (the fourth Wednesday of April to the fourth Wednesday of July), when Professor Read delivered a few lectures on pedagogy to a class of eighteen--the first summer school at the University. The normal department in 1857 was held during the same period, with an attendance of twenty-eight; the attendance upon the teachers' classes in 1858 is not recorded.

The hopes centering around Chancellor Barnard had especial reference to normal instruction, of which he was to have direct charge; but we have seen how illness wrecked his plans. The summer of 1859 appears to have passed without any pupils in this department; but when the course reopened in April, 1860, the chancellor's name had attracted fifty-nine students, whose names make a brave show in the catalogue--heretofore, the names of the summer-term normal students were not given in the catalogue. The continued absence of Dr. Barnard, however, caused the abandonment of the class at the close of the summer term. Finally, Prof. Charles H. Allen,¹¹ formerly the agent of the normal school regents, was engaged to give normal instruction at the University, and for two years, "with signal energy and success," said Dean Sterling, revived the enterprise; in June, 1865, the normal department graduated six young women. Professor Allen then resigned, and there was some question whether it would not be well to combine the normal and preparatory departments, for evidently there was no money for both. Prof. Joseph C. Pickard continued normal instruction through the year 1865-66; and then the work was definitely abandoned until 1885, when, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, there was at last established a chair of pedagogy, which in due time developed into the present well-organized School of Education.

We learn from the report of the faculty to the regents, made in 1865 and quoted above, that there was another reason than that of financial stringency, for the early non-success of the normal department: "It is not to be disguised," writes Dean Sterling, the author of the report, "that among former students of the University, and among leading ones now in the institution, there has been a strong feeling of opposition to the Department, mainly on the ground of its bringing females into the University. There has been an apprehension that the standard of culture would be lowered in consequence. No reason whatever has as yet existed for this apprehension. There has been no such mingling of classes in the higher and more recondite subjects as to render this effect possible, even if it would be the result; and, in point of fact, there has not been a period in the history of the University when some few students have carried their studies to a higher or wider range than in recent classes."

In 1851, the regents had reported that their "plan contemplates the admission of female as well as male teachers to all the advantages of the Normal Department of the University, and offers to the members of the teachers' class access to the instruction of the other departments." Six years later, the regents declare that:

The completion of the central edifice [University Hall] will open the way to the admission of female pupils of the normal and other departments of the University. It is a question now much agitated, whether the liberal culture of the female mind is an end most approximately attained under the existing agency of separate educational establishments, doubling the array and quadrupling the expense of the instruction. The entire success which has attended the common education of the sexes in the normal schools and the higher academies of the eastern states, goes far towards settling the question for the University. It may be alleged that public sentiment in Wisconsin is not yet ripe for dispensing with separate female schools; still the board deem it right to prepare to meet the wishes of those parents who desire university culture for their daughters, by extending to all such the privileges of the institution. The residence or the families of the faculty in the buildings, and the admirable conduct of the commons hall, will render the membership of female students pleasant, economical, and safe.

This was an advanced position for those days, and fitly illustrates the quality and temper of the majority of the men who have from the earliest years served upon the board of University regents. In the summer of 1860, we have seen that there was a large normal class--thirty of the fifty-nine expectant students being "females". Young women did not again appear until Professor Allen's revival of normal instruction in 1863, when 119 of them were registered, and they have ever since been much in evidence in the University catalogue--at first, largely in the normal department, but gradually reaching out into every course in the institution. The reorganization act of 1866 declared explicitly, "The University in all its departments shall be open to male and female students." But it will be shown in the succeeding chapter what trials still awaited the cause of coeducation at the University of Wisconsin.

The creation of an agricultural department at the University was early urged upon the legislature. In March, 1854, the assembly committee on agriculture and manufactures made a report to that body, strongly arguing that the State swamp lands be "turned over, in trust" to the University fund, for the creation of such a department. "Let it be known," poetically writes the chairman (Abner Mitchell, of Green county), "that there is one spot upon the broad bosom of our State, where the farm boy can burst from his chrysilis gloom, and walk forth in the clear blaze of rural light, with all its laws and conditions in view, and the result will show in favor of what profession aspiring talent will manifest itself. * * * Let this be done, and your Committee will guarantee that there will be much less discrimination against rural pursuits, by youth of talent and energy."

Nothing came of this report in the legislature; but, in May, the regents engaged S. P. Lathrop, M. D., ¹² of Beloit, to be professor of chemistry and natural history, and he continued to discharge his duties as such until his death in the following December. Lathrop's chair was intended to be the nucleus of an agricultural department, and in their report for 1854 the regents promise to elect a successor in July. "It will be a part of the plan of this department," they say, "to offer yearly instruction to agricultural classes in chemistry and its applications." Dr. Lathrop's successor was Dr. E. S. Carr; and in the regents' report for 1855 it is stated that he will lecture on "agricultural chemistry and the applications of science to the useful arts. This course of instruction is expressly designed for the young farmers and artisans of the State; and it is to be hoped that many will avail themselves of the opportunity thus presented, of carrying the instructions of the laboratory into the industrial operations of the community at large. Each pupil of this department may become the instructor of his vicinage--and especially would it be desirable, that the teachers of the district schools should be well versed in natural science and its applications. The University proposes to open the way to this very valuable result, by arranging the agricultural and the teachers' classes in the same term." We have here the germ of the idea from which sprang the farmers' institutes of the succeeding generation.

It would seem, from the annual reports of the regents, that the plan of combining the teaching of agricultural chemistry and the summer school for teachers was continued until 1862, in which year Congress passed the Agricultural College (or "Morrill") act. This law granted to the several states "an amount of public lands * * * equal to thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative in Congress to which the States are respectively entitled" by the apportionment under the Federal census of 1860. Wisconsin's congressional delegation then being eight in number, this State's share was 240,000 acres. Each State receiving this land was to use the proceeds as a perpetual fund, the interest only of which should be used for "the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life." And further, warned by the example of Wisconsin in the misuse of its original University fund, this act expressly ordained that "No portion of said fund, nor the interest thereon, shall be applied directly or indirectly, under any pretense whatever, to the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of any building or buildings." Several of the States used this fund to endow separate agricultural colleges, and there was some attempt made in Wisconsin to adopt this policy; but fortunately better counsels prevailed, and the College of Agriculture was by the reorganization act of 1866 made an integral part of the University, both being strengthened by the union.¹³

By an act approved April 2, 1863, the legislature accepted from the federal government the Agricultural College grant of 240,000 acres, "upon the terms, conditions and restrictions" of the law, and the governor was directed to appoint two commissioners to select the lands. The entire amount was, in 1863-64, located in Chippewa, Clark, Dunn, Marathon, Oconto, Polk, and Shawano counties. We have seen that the first federal land-grant made to Wisconsin (in 1838) was for the benefit of the University, and consisted of two townships (46,080 acres). From their sale the State realized but $150,000; on the other hand Michigan obtained from a like grant over $500,000. In 1854, Congress doubled the grant to Wisconsin, and again, in order to attract immigrants, the lands were sold at prices much below the market rate, so that there was realized from this source but $138,240. Popular indifference to the University, together with the desire to entice settlers by cheap lands, combined to repeat the old story --the Agricultural College lands were purposely selected in agricultural districts at once available for settlement, and by the legislature ordered sold at a fiscal price of $3.25 per acre. At the same time the New York Agricultural College, incorporated with Cornell University, received the grant for that State. There being no federal lands in New York, the New York commissioners chose their acres, for the most part, in Wisconsin, carefully selecting good pine lands, which they foresaw would in time have a high market value. Thus Cornell University, as the result of a policy of waiting, secured from the Wisconsin pineries an endowment of over $7,000,000, to-day bringing her an annual income of over $350,000. Wisconsin herself sold the Agricultural College grant for prices which now yield an annuity of about $12,000. We of this generation, who are being taxed to support our University, should clearly understand that it is a case where the penalty for the sins of the fathers is laid upon the sons.¹⁴

Throughout the war period, a strong note of discontent is sounded in the annual reports of the regents, with respect to the financial condition of the University. It will be remembered that in 1860 they reported a debt of about $85,000, nearly all of it incurred for building purposes, on which there was an interest charge of over $7,000 per year. In 1861, they call attention to the fact that this leaves them but $10,000 net income; deduct from this the sinking fund provided by law, and they have left "only $7,701.16 applicable to the current expenses of the present year, and but $6,201.16 from and after 1864. * * * The expenses of conducting the University, as at present, without a chancellor, with an inadequate instructional force, and transacting everything on a scale of the most rigid economy, are not less than $10,500 per annum; of which, perhaps $1,500 may be anticipated from fees of students. * * * The facts submitted show in ugly contrast to the roseate anticipations elaborate liberally in former reports by this board to the legislature." They strongly urge the legislature "to extricate the University from its present embarrassments" by directing "that the cost of buildings and grounds be paid from the capital of the fund, and thus leave the annual income of its net resources unencumbered."

The legislature of 1862,¹⁵ in an unaccustomed fit of good intention, came to the supposed aid of the institution by cancelling the debt for main hall ($45,810), allowing the rest of the accumulated building debt ($47,416.27) to be paid from the principal, instead of the income, and exempting the regents from the necessity of maintaining a sinking fund for the payment of indebtedness caused by building. This act was doubtless intended to afford a partial relief to the University; but its effect was quite the reverse. By cancelling the debt for main hall, that amount was actually taken bodily by the State from the trust fund given by Congress, being thenceforth lost to the University, and its income correspondingly decreased. In their report for the year, the regents point out that the net income available for conducting the institution is now but $6,000, whereas the expenses, "without a much-needed chancellor, are not less than $7,000 per annum." They vigorously question, on broad grounds, the right of the State to devote any of the fund to land or buildings, and ask that it be entirely freed from responsibility for either, and be restored to the University, to be thereafter used only for support. Undaunted by non-success in this plea, they return to the charge in 1863 and 1864, again without effect. In 1865, they report an expenditure of $12,800 more than the receipts, of which $1,200 is for the item of fuel alone, but are happy in having just executed a stroke of economy, by which furnaces in the dormitories have been discontinued, "supplying the rooms with stoves and requiring students to furnish their own fuel."

But such economies as these could not save the situation. The University was sick well-nigh unto death, and required a more drastic remedy. This came in chapter 114 of the laws of 1866 (approved April 12), which reorganized the institution upon a more extended plan, and gave an implied promise of more substantial aid from the State treasury. The modern prosperity of the University dates from the passage of this law. It will be our pleasure in subsequent chapters to follow the story of its development.