Hamrick 1

Standing up for Higher Education

The Morrill Land Grant Act was first introduced in the House of
Representatives in 1857, and the goal of the bill was to provide federal
aid to institutes of higher learning, which they would then use, the
federal aid to fund agriculture and mechanical arts classes.1 As a
result of the proposed bill and the threat of the oncoming Civil War
many debates, with sectional overtones, arose from both the House of
Representatives and Congress about the constitutionality of the bill
and the issue of states rights, which at the time was a very popular
discussion. The bill itself was very simple and one would think it would
not create many debates among the House or Congress, because of
the bills intent to help American education by building colleges that
would farmers and the working class attend. However with the North
and South very much divided on every issue that came through the
legislative branch this bill too received just as much attention as
others.
The Morrill Land Grant Act was proposed to allow universities to use
federal money to help create programs that would support farmers,
who Morrill said contributed much more to the nation than soldiers.2
However the act met strong opposition from southerners and
westerners who believed the act would take away the federal lands
that had already been sold or given away by the federal government.
1 United States Congress, Congressional Globe (XXVII), 32.
2 Cohen, Reconstructing the Campus, 56.

Hamrick 2
Questions come up as to why the bill was so disputed, was it only
opposed because many southerners and westerners saw the bill as an
attack on their states right, which many believed to be
unconstitutional? Was it debated because the country was so divided
by sectionalist ideals that neither side, the North or the South, wanted
to allow the other to have something over them? Or was it debated
because many congressmen did not see a need for the bill at all, and
felt like it would eventually cause more damage than relief? Many
might say that the act or the debates that took place during the late
1850s and early 1860s are as big of a deal has this paper makes them
out to be, however when you look at the effect the Morrill Land Grant
Act had on the educational system in America its easy to see why it
was such an important act that needed to be passed. Through my
research Ive discovered that the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 was
contested and disputed in the House and Congress for a number of
years because of the tense sectionalist disparity between the North
and the South, particularly when it came to what to do with the new
land that was becoming populated in the West. The North wanted the
lands to be free states, while the South pushed for more slave states.
While many say that the Morrill Land Grant Act was a wartime bill,
because it was passed in 1862 after many of the Southern
congressmen left congress to join the Confederate States of America,
the act actually had more impact on the political side of the Civil War,

Hamrick 3
and as a result many debates arose within the Congress and the
House. I argue that the Morrill Land Grant Act debates were brought
about because of state sectionalism, the constitutionality of the bill,
the need for the bill, and issues of economic justice for the states that
were new to the Union, and as a result the Morrill Land Grant Act
showcased how divided the nation was as a whole and how
sectionalism affected politics throughout the Civil War.
The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 brought the legislative branch of the
United States Government into hotly contested debates in the late
1850s and early 1860s until the bill was passed. Proposed by
Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, one of the longest serving
Congress members and a founder of the Republican Party, the Morrill
Land Grant act dealt mainly with the use of public lands, as well as
trying to create an opportunity for farmers and their families to attend
colleges. However with the increasing sectionalism, the term which
refers to the sectional differences between the North and the South
such as industrialization versus farming, free states versus slave
states, and how to occupy the lands in the West, the United States
political realm was really pressed with the idea of passing a bill like the
Morrill Land Grant Act, and as a result the bill became more and more
contested. Many southerners opposed to bill because they stated it
attacked states rights; many northerners supported the bill because
they felt it spread the federal governments influence into the newer

Hamrick 4
territories that were beginning to develop. Those that thought the bill
would cause more damage than good to the Union debated the
economic ramifications and the impact they would have on the nation,
particularly how they land would be acquired from the federal
government. While all these were major issues regarding the bill, the
biggest ones were the idea of sectionalism, the House and Congress
were split so much between the northern congressmen and southern
congressmen that it was almost impossible for either side to get
anything passed because the other side would immediately vote
against what was being proposed, and the debate on whether or not
the bill was constitutional.
While there are books and articles written about the Morrill Land
Grant Act, many of them focus on the effects the act had on the
American university system after its passing. However there are a
number of sources that discuss the history of the act, the beginnings of
the Civil War, the implications the bill had on American economics, the
sectional crisis within American politics. The sources that focus mainly
on history of the Morrill Land Grant Act are Lee Deumers, The
Agricultural Educational History of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 18623
and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges The Land Grant Tradition.4
3 Duemer, "The Agricultural Education Origins of the Morrill Land Grant
Act, 136
4 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
The Land Grant Tradition, 1-34

Hamrick 5
Deumers writing uses mainly primary sources from Morrill
himself as well as Congressional Globe records to showcase
Representative Morrills goal for his act as well as outlining how the
department of agriculture and agriculture education came to the
forefront of the American education system. The National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges uses primary sources
from Mr. Morrill just like Deumers work did, but takes it a step further
by outlining the exact history of Land Grant colleges and going into
detail on the effect the bill had on higher education in America. The
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges also
gives text of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 as well as its
subsequent amendments.
The sources that mainly focus on the beginnings of the Civil War
are Louis Masurs, The Civil War: A Concise History5 and Michael
Cohens, Reconstructing the Campus: Higher Education and the
American Civil War6, both of these books use a variety of sources
ranging from primary sources such as letters, newspapers, speeches,
to secondary sources from other highly distinguished authors. Masurs
book does an excellent job of giving general background information
on the Civil War itself starting from the years right before the Civil War
and extending on past 1865. Masurs book extends the Civil War
conversation with intriguing writing, but keeps his book concise in
5 Masur, The Civil War
6 Cohen, Reconstructing the Campus, 57

Hamrick 6
order to not overload the reader. This source does a great job giving a
narrative of the Civil War. Like Masurs book, Cohens Restructuring
the Campus, gives a different background of the Civil War. Cohens
book like Masurs provides a short concise history of the education
system before, during, and after the Civil War. These books play off
the same argument that the Civil War changed American society
greatly, while they cover different aspects of the war they both provide
details that can be used to make an argument for the sectionalism
within the American political system and how it affected the war both
on the battlefield and in the process of law making.
The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 was hotly debated because
many believed that it would have profound economic implications. Two
sources that deal with this issue are John H. Florers Major Issues in
the Congressional Debates of the Morrill Act of 18627 and Scott Keys
Economics or Education: The Establishment of American Land-Grant
Universities.8 Both Florer and Key use extensive amounts of primary
sources to help support their arguments that the Land-Grant Act was
about economics as much as it was about education. Key in his
argument states that Morrill believed that his bill would create colleges
which in turn would distribute, knowledge which will prove useful in
building up a great nation- Great in resources of wealth and power

7 Florer, Major Issues in the Congressional Debates of the Morrill Act

of 1862, 459-478
8 Key. Economics or Education pp. 196-220.

Hamrick 7
but greatest of all intelligence and virtue.9 Like Key, Florer too makes
the argument that the Morrill Act was as much about economics as it
was education. Both authors defend their arguments with primary
sources and counterarguments to discussions that were brought up
during the congressional debates from 1857 till 1862. Florer talks
more about how the Morrill Act fought off attacks from those who
refused to support the bill because they thought it would hurt the
Union instead of help it. Many opponents of the bill argued that the bill
would, retard settlement and damage the economic growth of the
West Florers writing focuses more on the actual debates held in
congress, while Keys focuses more on the economic impact of the bill,
however both show the importance the bill had on American
economics, whether it be through political work or economic work.10
The Morrill Act of 1862 also highlighted issues of sectionalism
within the Union, both politically and educationally. The act of fought
over for five years before it was passed, and much of this had to do
with the divide between the North and the South in the House and
Congress. However sectionalism continued even after the Civil War at
least educationally. In his article, In Search of Direction: Southern
Higher Education After the Civil War Joseph Stetar illustrates through
primary and secondary sources how the southern education struggled

9 Key. Economics or Education 196-220

10 Florer, Major Issues in the Congressional Debates of the Morrill Act
of 1962 459-478

Hamrick 8
in the years after the Civil War.11 Stetar argues that the South did not
gain the same type of Universities that appeared after the Civil War,
particularly those that appeared in the West. Just like Stetar, Florer, in
his article, Major Issues in the Congressional Debates of the Morrill
Land Grant Act of 1862 showcases how many southern congressmen
voted against the Morrill Act of 1862 because they believed it went
against states rights.12 Both of these works, even though they discuss
different aspects of the South, show how the South fought to prevent
the creation of these Land Grant universities, they also show how as a
result of the war and the passage of the bill the South higher education
fell behind the rest of the nation and did not receive the opportunity
settle new universities until during reconstruction.
These sources provide great insight into how the Morrill Land
Grant Act of 1862 helped to change the landscape of American higher
education, but also these sources help to further bring to light the
issues that surrounded the Morrill Land Grant Act, particularly the
history of the act, the Civil War and the effect it played on the passage
of the act, the effects the bill had on the economics of the Union and
the worry many opponents of the bill had, and finally the issue of
sectionalism within the House and Congress and how they affected the
bills passage. These issues will be further discussed in my argument of
11 Stetar, In Search of Direction 341-367.
12 Florer, Major Issues in the congressional Debates of the Morrill
Land Grant Act of 1862 459-478

Hamrick 9
how the Morrill Land Grant Act was contested for five years before
passage, and how the Civil War, sectionalism, and the bills affect on
the Union economics brought the bill to the forefront during 1962, and
as a result the nations sectionalist divide was put on showcase.
In the years before the Civil War, particularly the late 1850s, the
nation began to become more and more divided due to a major
sectionalist divide between the North and the South. This division,
caused mainly by the issue of slavery and whether or not it should be
allowed into the new territories, heightened the importance of every
issue that was brought up in the House or Congress, and eventually
was one of the main reasons as to why the United States experienced
a Civil War. The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 felt the effects of
sectionalism as well as other issues such as the possible economic
impact the bill would have on the nation, the constitutionality of the
bill, and in the end the Morrill Land Grant Act was a prime example of
what American politics was like before and during the Civil War.
The bill, introduced in 1857, proposed that at least 6,060,000
acres of land worth about 7,575,000 would be granted to each state
according to their congressional delegation for the purpose of funding
at least one college where the majority of the focus was on agriculture
and mechanical arts.13 With this bill Mr. Morrill hoped that the nation
could focus on agriculture and mechanical arts to help improve the
13 Florer, Major Issues in the Congressional Debate of the Morrill Land
Grant Act of 1862 459

Hamrick 10
lives and wealth of the country. However, like most bills that were
introduced at this time, the Morrill Land Grant Act ran into extreme
sectional rivalries, mainly on how the land was going to be used. Mr.
Morrill, in his first attempt to get his bill passed, wished for the
Committee of Agriculture to decide its future however his opponents
were able to send it to the much more dominate Committee of Public
Lands, where the bill was debated and eventually determined it should
not be passed, so along with Presidents Buchanans veto the bill was
tabled until 1861.14 Morrill reintroduced in 1861 and by this time much
of the southern states had withdrawn from the union, as a result this
left only a very small number of western states in opposition to the
Land Grant proposal and has a result President Lincoln was able to
pass the bill. This sectional divide led to the bills passing, but not
before encounter major opposition from the western states. The bill
was once again sent to the Committee of Public Lands, where again
they determined it should not be passed.15 In an attempt to get
western states on board with the bill Mr. Morrill asked Senator Wade, of
Ohio, to propose a similar bill in Congress hoping that a passage in the
senate would help his bill pass in the house.16 The bill was passed in
both the House and the Senate, however it did not pass without much
debate. One of the major debates concerning this bill in the House and

14 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 32

15 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXXII, 2432.
16 United States congress, Congressional Globe, XXXII, 2770.

Hamrick 11
Congress was whether or not the federal sale of public land was
constitutional. Morrill seemed to already know that his bill would be
challenged on constitutionality, because he had seen other bills be
debated over the same issue, and he fought back by challenging the
consistency of those who were going to question the bill. Mr. Morrill
stated, Lions accustomed to roar around the Constitution are quite
disposed to slumber whenever it is desirable for a certain gentlemen,
who carry extra baggage, to leap over the impediment this quote was
aimed at those members of Congress who had in the years before
passed laws that dealt dealing of federal land to the railroads, but
where now trying to find a way to make his bill, which dealt with
federal lands for educational purposes, unconstitutional.17 Mr. Morrill
challenged those against his bill by going straight to the Constitution,
which gives Congress the power to, dispose of federal land this
statement from the Constitution gave Mr. Morrill all he needed for the
reason as to why his bill was constitutional. However Mr. Morrills bill
still met strong opposition based on constitutionality, which in turn
increased the debates within Congress.18
Senator Clement Clay, from Alabama, was one of the main
senators who opposed the Morrill Land Grant Act and he too turned to
the Constitution to make his argument. Senator Clay considered the
land grants to be a magnificent bribe that were meant to encourage
17 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 1692.
18 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 1695.

Hamrick 12
Alabama to surrender to the federal power her original and reserved
right to manage her own domestic and internal affairs.19 These two
statements, one by a northern senator Morrill, and one by a southern
senator Clay show just how divided the country was on political issues.
The countries extreme sectionalist divide can be seen by how both of
these men interprets the Constitution use of the word dispose when
it comes land. Clay, a southern man, interprets that dispose was
never meant to be seen as a way for the federal government to give
away land, where Mr. Morrill clearly sees the word dispose as way for
the federal government to gain land in order to help out the nation.
These continued debates on constitutionality of the Morrill Land Grant
Act became more and more sectionalized, where issues of states rights
began to come into play and as I stated, the issue of constitutionality
and states rights where two of he main reasons as to why the Morrill
Land Grant Act was so hotly debated. Many southern and western
congressmen felt like the bill had no right to grant land for federal
purposes, because it was the states right to do what they wanted with
the land, George Pugh, an Ohio Democrat, felt like the bill invaded the
freedom the states had to make decisions regarding their own lands.20
These debates showcased the sectional divide in Congress, because
the opponents of the bill were concerned more about the states rights
issues of the bill, rather than the educational portion of the bill, and
19 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVIII, 852.
20 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 715-716

Hamrick 13
since states rights was such a big issue in the years leading up to the
Civil War the Morrill Land Grant Act was debated and held up in
Congress until many of the southern members left, after which the bill
was passed with relative ease.
Another issue that was brought up during the Morrill Land Grant
debates was the issue of whether or not the bill was actually needed
and what the desired results of the bill would be. This became a major
issue because Morrill begin to have to showcase his bill as something
other than just financial gains for the federal government, which many
of his opponents believed his bill to be. Morrill focused much of his
debate on the decline of American farming; how the soil was being
used up to fast by farmers who were still using out dated farming
techniques, and how that about three-fourths of American land was
exhausted.21 Morrill also argued that many of the schools in the
United States that taught agricultural education and machinery
education where not able to adequately teach farmers how to better
farm their land, Morrill also stated the states did not have to proper
funds to help fund those schools with the supplies and machinery they
needed to properly teach. Morrill finished his statement with the
following quote,
Pass this measure and we shall have done- something to enable
the farmer to raise two blades of grass instead of one; something for

21 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 1693.

Hamrick 14
every owner of land; something for all who desire to own land;
something for cheap scientific education; something for everyman who
love intelligence and not ignorancesomething for better peace, good
order, and better support of Christian churches and common schools
and something to increase the loveliness of the American landscape. 22
Morrill built a strong argument, especially referring to the family life
and church life of the American citizens, he felt that none of the
opponents of his bill would dare challenge the religious and family
statement he made and he was right, however they still challenged if
his bill would accomplish all it was set out to accomplish. Their main
arguments in regards to whether or not the bill would reach its desired
needs and results were that grant would not create enough revenue,
which in turn would not allow the development of a college in that
specific area which would not lead to the results to bill talked about.23
Jefferson Davis argued that the proposed plan would cost farmers a
great amount, and as a result they would not gain as much as the bill
proposed.24 The debate on whether or not the Morrill Land Grant Act
would actually serve its purpose became so hotly debated that a new
issue arose, one that dealt with the issue of economic justice for the
new states in the union, as well as economic worries many of the

22 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 1696.

23 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 1741, and
XXVIII, 715.
24 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVIII, 1413.

Hamrick 15
southern congress men brought the debate back to the idea of states
rights and sectionalism.
In the debates that followed the Congress was very much divided
because of the issue of states rights and sectionalism, the southern
and western congressmen, particularly Clement Clay, felt that the
greedy capitalist would monopolize large bodies of land within the
western states.25 However supporters of the bill felt like the states in
the west had received more than a generous amount of land and that
minimal loss of land, about 10,000,000 total acres, from a total of
1,046,290,093.16 acres would not hurt the western states at all.26
Senator Harlan, from Iowa, stated that this small loss of land would be
more than overbalanced by the advantages that the newer states
would derive not just from graduates of their own agricultural colleges,
but also those who graduated from Land-Grant colleges in the East and
then migrated westward.27 Those that supported the bill believed that
no harm would come to the western states, and that actually the bill
would be more beneficial to the western states as a whole. These
intense debates on whether or not the bill would help or hurt they
states was one of the main reasons as to why the bill was held up in
Congress and the House for so long. The debates also show
overarching themes of intense state sectionalism as Florer points out
25 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVIII, 1413.
26 Florer, Major issues in the Congressional Debates of the Morrill Act
of 1862 471
27 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXXII, 2329.

Hamrick 16
that the southerners saw this as a War between the states which
increased the East-West sectionalism that remained.28 The southern
and western states wanted to hold on to as much land as they could,
and they used the narrative of states rights time and time again to
attack Morrill and his bill proposal. Republican James Lane, from
Kansas, was so worried that Morrills bill would allow almost every foot
of valuable land in Kansas into the hands of nonresident speculators.29
These themes of states rights played a major role in the development
of the debates as shown by the interaction between southern and
western congressmen and northern congressmen.
Many might argue that the Morrill Land Grant Act was just a
minor act that had no effect on American politics whatsoever and
many might say that the act or the debates that took place are not as
big of an issue as this paper is making them out to be and they have
all the right to say those things, however when you look at what the
Morrill Land Grant Act has accomplished, and the effects it had on
American higher education you can clearly see how important it really
was. In his speech titled, Adapting Justin Morrills Vision to a New
Century Martin Jischke tells about the importance of the passing of the
bill and how Morrill was building a bill that would better the nation as a
whole.30 As a result of the passing of Morrills bill there are 105 land
28 Florer, Major Issues in the Congressional Debates of the Morrill Act
of 1862 469
29 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXXII, 2248.
30 Jischke, Adapting Justin Morrills vision to a New Century 142.

Hamrick 17
grant universities and they enroll about three million students each
year, and none of these universities would exist today had the bill not
been debated from 1858-1861.31 The debates on constitutionality
showed just how separated the North and the South were from each
other, and through the debates you could see how much attention this
bill received. Both the North and the South used to Constitution to
combat each other during the debates, and both interpreted the
Constitution in different ways. Morrill used Article IV, Section 3 to
discuss that disposing of federal lands allowed him to use the land to
help create these land grant universities and many other senators from
northern states believed that what the Constitution stated about
disposing of federal land was to be taken literally.32 However as I
have mentioned earlier, the southern congressmen did not see it that
way. Southern congressmen used the Constitution, particularly Article
1, Section 8 in their argument against the bills proposal of promoting
education, stating that to promote the progress of sciences and useful
arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries the southern
congressmen did not believe that the Morrill Land Grant Acts first
priority was to promote education, and therefore they saw it as
unconstitutional.33

31 Jischke, Adapting Justin Morrills Vision to a New Century 143

32 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVII, 1695.
33 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVIII, 853.

Hamrick 18
All of these debates had a profound effect on the outcome of the
bill, and a profound outcome of the American system of higher
education schools. The issue of states rights and the use of lands in
the west was major, because that was what the bill needed to function.
The bill needed lands in the west to be able to establish these colleges
so they could begin to teach the farmers new techniques on how to
farm the land in a way that would save the soil from getting too
exhausted. Many might argue that the bill had little effect
economically, but that was the issue that was debated the most
amongst the congressmen. Many of the congressmen of the western
states were worried that large capitalist firms from the North would
come and buy the land and then monopolize much of the acreage that
was in the west.34 These worries by the southern and western
congressmen heightened the issues of state sectionalism, which was
becoming even more of a concern because of the possibility of many of
the southern states leaving the union as tensions continued to grow
leading up to the Civil War. So for those that argue that the Morrill
Land Grant Act had nothing to do with state sectionalism I ask you to
look at the evidence I have just presented. Finally the Morrill Land
Grant Act showed just how divided the country was during the years
before the Civil War and then during the years the war was taking
place. This can been seen by how fervently the southern congressmen
34 Florer, Major Issues in the Congressional Debates of the Morrill
Land Grant Act. 471

Hamrick 19
fought to keep this bill from passing. From arguing the constitutionality
of the bill, to discussing the financial impact the bill would have on the
nation, the South was prepared to not let this bill pass and give more
power to the federal government than it already had.35 The Morrill
Land Grant Act serves as a great reminder just how difficult it was to
pass anything during the 1860s, and that sectionalism was one of the
main reasons as to why the nation had a Civil War.
The Morrill Land Grant Act was passed in July of 1862, only after
the southern congressmen had left congress after the secession of
their states. This created a situation to where there were only a limited
number of western congressmen to oppose the bill and the majority of
the northern congressmen and republicans passed the bill, which was
then signed into action very quickly by President Lincoln. The bill
accomplished its goal of providing educational opportunities to farmers
and their families; the bill also established land grant universities all
throughout the west. Land Grant universities are some of the most
common schools in the United States today, and many wouldnt be
here today had these debate not taken place in the early 1860s.
Without the strong opposition from southern and western members of
congress the bill would not of been changed and amended until it was
perfect, nor would the bill have included the teaching of military tactics
as Cohen illustrates, he also ended with this topic, in an apparent

35 United States Congress, Congressional Globe, XXVIII, 852.

Hamrick 20
attempt to shame his colleagues into supporting the bill through this
inclusion of the teaching of military tactics Morrill saw his bill gain even
more support.36
Even though the bill was passed, it still had to endure its fair
share of Civil War political hate. The bill was seen as a war bill, and
many southerners used the idea of the war to fight the passing of the
bill. The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 was a major bill that was
passed in 1862, and it was a major topic of discussion leading up to the
Civil War and during the war. The bill was a prime example of how the
nations sectionalism kept policies from getting passed, the bill also
showcased just how divided the nations congress was between the
North and the South.
The Morrill Land Grant Act was argued and debated before the
Civil War and during the Civil War, and as a result caused many
different issues to be explored before the bills passing. The extreme
sectionalist divide between the northern states and southern states
based off of the idea of how the land would be used, and whether or
not slaves would be allowed in the new territories drove the debates in
the House and Congress. Along with those disagreements, factors
such as the economic impact of the bill, was it constitutional, and
whether or not the bill was actually needed helped to further the
debates among the congressmen. All of these factors helped lead to

36 Cohen, Michael D. Reconstructing the Campus, 57

Hamrick 21
the bills passing, because by the time the bill was passed these factors
had caused the southern states to secede from the Union thus allowing
republicans to vote on the bill unopposed. The Morrill Land Grant Act
debates showcased how divided the nation was during the late 1850s
and early 1860s. The issues highlighted in the debates where issues
that were being discussed all throughout the nation at the time and not
just in congress. The debates and Morrill Act really embody the
American political sector of the time, and represent a divided nation.
The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 helped produce many of the state
universities that most Americans attend in todays world, and had the
act not been passed the American higher education system would look
much different than it does today. The act allowed for almost all
Americans, except for African Americans, to attend a college in which
they could learn trades and techniques that would better improve their
lives. The ability for farmers and other to go to college and learn
better ways to farm their crops and learn to use new mechanics to help
better farm the land gave the American society a better way to
produce crops, and as a whole improved the livelihood of the American
public.

Bibliography
Primary Sources

Hamrick 22
United States Congress. Congressional Globe (Washington: John
C. Rives).

XXVII

United States Congress. Congressional Globe (Washington: John

C. Rives).

XXVIII

United States Congress. Congressional Globe (Washington: John

C. Rives).

XXXII

Secondary Sources
Cohen, M. D. Reconstructing the Campus: Higher Education and the American
Civil War. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2012.
Dennis, Michael. The Skillful Use of Higher Education to Protect White Supremacy.
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 32 (Summer, 2001), pp. 115-123.
http://0-www.jstor.org.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/stable/2678797
Duemer, Lee S. "The Agricultural Education Origins of the Morrill Land
Grant Act of
1862." American Educational History Journal 34, no.
1: 135-146. ERIC,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 14, 2014).
Eckinger, Helen. 2013. "The Militarization of the University of Alabama." Alabama
Review 66, no. 3: 163-185. Humanities International Complete,

EBSCOhost (accessed

September 9, 2014).
Florer, John H. Major Issues in the Congressional Debates of the Morrill
Act of

1862 History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4, (Winter,

1968), pp. 459-

478 http://0-

www.jstor.org.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/stable/367539

Hamrick 23
Flemming, Cynthia Griggs. The effect of Higher Education on Black Tennesseeans after
the Civil War Phylon (1960-2002), Vol. 44, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1983), pp.
209-216

http://0-www.jstor.org.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/stable/274933

Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the
Republican Party

before the Civil War. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1970

Gyure, Dale Allen. The Heart of the University: A History of the Library as an
Architectural Symbol of American Higher Education. Winterthur Portfolio, Vol.
42, No. 2/3 (Summer/Autumn 2008), pp. 107-132. : http://0www.jstor.org.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/stable/10.1086/589593

Heuvel, Sean M. 2007. "The Old College Goes to War: The Civil War Service of
William and Mary Students." Virginia Social Science Journal 42, 32-48.
SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed September 9, 2014).

Jisckhe, Martin C. Adopting Justin Morrills Vision to a New Century. Vital Speeches
of the Day 71, no. 5: 142-147. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost
(Accessed

October 14th, 2014)

Key, Scott. Economics or Education: The Establishment of American Land-Grant

Universities The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Mar.-Apr.,

Hamrick 24
1996)

pp. 196-220. : http://0-

www.jstor.org.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/stable/2943980

Masur, Louis P. The Civil War: A Concise History (Oxford: Oxford

University Press,
2011)
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.
The Land Grant Tradition. The National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant

Colleges EBSCOhost (Accessed

October 14, 2014)

North, Caroline P. The Land Grant Universities: The First Centennial Marriage and
Family Living, Vol. 24, No.2 (May, 1962), pp. 187-188. : http://0www.jstor.org.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/stable/347011

Stetar, Joseph M. In Search of a Direction: Southern Higher Education after the Civil
War. History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985): Pg. 341367. http://www.jstor.org/stable/368273