The latest Texas Aggie has a story on the history of the football rivalry, which is what brought this question to mind.

I've always wondered why the State of Texas seems to have fought so hard against the establishment and continued operation of the A&M College of Texas.

One would assume that the oldest state college would have been funded and encouraged and expanded. Instead, it seems like Austin (meaning the government) always wanted a "University of Texas", and intentionally promoted and funded it, to the detriment of A&M.

It took the support of Sul Ross to save the college, according to all I've read.

Any history gurus want to explain it to me? I have some ideas, but I'll hold them until later.

BQ_90 nails it. Morrill was universally hated in the south before the war. Apparently like some of our modern congress-critters he was particularly annoying.

Former Confederate generals like Ross at A&M and Stephen Lee at Mississippi State risked their reputation when they advocated for grange like agricultural policies. Their former comrades weren't that keen on their ideas.

The Olio, 1895

My suspicion was that the Morill act had a lot to do with it. I was also guessing that they preferred a "University" to produce lawyers on other liberal arts degrees, sectional pride, (Austin vs Bryan) and snobbery against a "cow college".

Since the Morill Act required education of "negroes", do you think some of the opposition was in hopes that by killing A&M, they would also kill Prairie View?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

My suspicion was that the Morill act had a lot to do with it. I was also guessing that they preferred a "University" to produce lawyers on other liberal arts degrees, sectional pride, (Austin vs Bryan) and snobbery against a "cow college".

Since the Morill Act required education of "negroes", do you think some of the opposition was in hopes that by killing A&M, they would also kill Prairie View?

---

So how many universities even offered Ag degrees in the country prior to,the land grant act? Even in the north?

My point is that I assume a degree in Ag in 1876 was less valued by Austin elites than a degree in the Classics, and a future "reading law"

CanyonAg77 said:

---

My point is that I assume a degree in Ag in 1876 was less valued by Austin elites than a degree in the Classics, and a future "reading law"

---

No doubt. My guess it was that way all,over the country

Not a college/university program, but Washington was very involved with Agricultural practices:

Washington's post-Revolutionary War rehabilitation of Mount Vernon progressed from repairing the physical improvements of his plantation to a reconsideration of his entire mode of farming. The end of the war triggered an interest amongst educated and wealthy American planters and gentleman farmers in agricultural reform. On March 1, 1785, twenty-three such prominent planters founded the first American organization devoted to agricultural pursuitsthe Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture.

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-and-agriculture/

The Agricultural and Mechanical college of Texas had quite the poor reputation in the late 1800's"

The Royal Agricultural College (RAC), now the Royal Agricultural University (RAU), was the first agricultural college in the English-speaking world. In 1842, the seeds were sown at a meeting of the Fairford and Cirencester Farmers Club.

BQ_90 said:

---

I guess Fightin' Texas Aggies wasn't just a saying

---

well, there's a reason for the yell: "Farmers Fight!"

I'm sure there was cases like that all over. But when vast majority of the ag sector in the 1800s was based on slave labor, things like improving yields, more efficient equipment or harvesting probable wasn't a big deal or concern

BQ_90 said:

---

I guess Fightin' Texas Aggies wasn't just a saying

---

My great granddad, who was class of 1882 as I mentioned above, got kicked out of A&M late in his freshman year for getting in a knife fight. Some members of the family claimed he killed the other student, but my dad always denied that. My great granddad remained a diehard Aggie despite his expulsion and went on to become a very prosperous merchant and landowner.

Speaking of Fighting, can anyone confirm that the "Fightin' Texas Aggie Band" got its name from the way that drum majors used to be selected?

Quote:

---

My guess is that has less to do with the act (which provided generous support to create the university without requiring much from the state legislatures) and more to do with the fact that the Reconstruction government created A&M and did so at the expense of Austin.

---

Very much so . . . .I have read a lot about the 37th Congress. It was one of the most active in the history of the Republic and the 1st Morrill Land Grant Act was one of many new structures that were pushed onto to the reintegrated rebel states during reconstruction. If you look at the initial Congressional debate over the bill prior to the Civil War (first edition was vetoed by James Buchanan in 1857) , Southern and Western States resisted it as an unnecessary extension of Federal Sovereignty into what they viewed as a State matter.

The predictable response was to throw roadblocks in the way of actual support and implementation of the universities and instead favor more home grown institutions under the sway of regional folks.

I think the origins of the land grant college act actually came from what in the 1850s was still considered 'the West', but would now be considered the Midwest. The first leader of the movement was Jonathan Turner of Illinois, and the first ag college, predating the Act, was established in Michigan (now Michigan State.) Senator Lyman Turnbull of Illinois was an early sponsor in Congress, but they got Morrill (from Vermont) to be the face of the Act for sectional reasons.

The primary opposition to the Act was always Southern Democrats. I don't think it was opposition to the ag college idea per se, but part of their general opposition to Republican/Whig advocacy of Federally funded infrastructure projects in general.

I will note that when the first version of the Act passed Congress, there were only two states west of the Mississippi that didn't touch that river - Texas and California. (Oregon became a state in 1859, Kansas in 1861.)

It was opposition to free soil agriculture versus slave agriculture

Quote:

---

I think the origins of the land grant college act actually came from what in the 1850s was still considered 'the West', but would now be considered the Midwest. The first leader of the movement was Jonathan Turner of Illinois, and the first ag college, predating the Act, was established in Michigan (now Michigan State.) Senator Lyman Turnbull of Illinois was an early sponsor in Congress, but they got Morrill (from Vermont) to be the face of the Act for sectional reasons.

The primary opposition to the Act was always Southern Democrats. I don't think it was opposition to the ag college idea per se, but part of their general opposition to Republican/Whig advocacy of Federally funded infrastructure projects in general.

I will note that when the first version of the Act passed Congress, there were only two states west of the Mississippi that didn't touch that river - Texas and California. (Oregon became a state in 1859, Kansas in 1861.)

---

Good point . . . "Western States" is an agglomeration that probably simplifies too much.

Agreed that some of the more developed Western States supported the legislation. Many of those politicians (Lincoln included) represented the last gasp of Whig party thinking which embraced Federal Investment to raise the standard of living of the average man. . . .infrastructure, strong central bank, etc. Morrill himself was a Whig at one point. The land grant acts fit right with that political movement.

But disagree that all Western State in aggregate were in support. If you look at the role call for the bill, nays were found in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota which was basically all the "West" outside of Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan.

Roll Call on S. 298: Donating public lands to the several States and Territories which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts..

Another good summary

Quote:

---

Opponents of the legislation included those who believed that education matters were solely the responsibility of the states. But many who took this position in 1857 were no longer in Congress in the 1860s. In fact, many were southerners who left Congress when their states seceded from the union. Other legislators, particularly from the western states, objected to the fact that land situated in their states sometimes was used to provide revenue to states in the east that lacked substantial amounts of federal land.

---

https://constitutingamerica.org/july-2-1862-president-abraham-lincoln-signs-morrill-act-establishing-land-grant-colleges-guest-essayist-james-c-clinger/

One of the interesting things on that - all four of the Senators from CA and OR were Democrats, and they all voted Yea.

The contrast between the land grant schools in CA and TX is interesting. In CA, the University of California system is the premier system, with Cal, the flagship, having pride of place (although Los Angelinos prefer UCLA). That's even though California already had a public secondary education institution when the Morill Act was passed - the State Normal School (now San Jose State).

(UC Davis, the 'ag school' of the UC system, started out as the University Farm, and didn't become its own separate campus until post-WWII. UCD is probably #3 or 4 in the UC system, prestige wise, behind Cal and UCLA, contesting with UC San Diego for #3.)

Looking at the roll call vote, the most solid block was the East Coast states - ones that were part of the original 13 states, plus Vermont. Delaware looks like it had the only Nay vote, with a couple of Did Not Votes scattered. Which is kind of odd, because Delaware is usually all about enriching itself at other states' expense.

And I would guess that the land grants for all of those states would be somewhere in the western states and/or territories. New York's is in Minnesota, if I recall.

There are some good points here. I will agree that there was opposition to the Morrill Act, but not 100 percent. It was more complicated than that. The 1876 Texas Constitution had a provision for the establishment of UT, which had been a similar provision in earlier constitutions. But this one added that UT should have an "agricultural and mechancial" subordinate college. Now, some Tsips I knew found this and tried to argue that A&M was supposed to be part of UT originally. I got sick of them arguing this BS, so I researched it and the very obvious answer is that A&M was already funded, constructed, and within weeks of opening when the constitution was passed, so A&M was a done deal BEFORE the constitution mandated an UT and said it should have an A&M school attached to it.

So what this means is that even though A&M was already funded (from five years before), the predominately Democratic legislature mandated a SECOND A&M school in the constitution. Why do that? Well, the obvious answer is that they wanted to take advantage of Morrill Act funds, which were restricted and the A&M name basically triggered the act and made the school possessing it eligible to draw down funds. So the A&M note in the UT founding document is basically a cynical attempt to grab federal dollars.

This however, calls into question the idea that pure hate of the Morrill Act or Morrill himself was behind the hate of A&M. I think it was more complicated than that, and what the bigwigs in the legislature wanted was control. A UT with a small A&M branch would still get most of its funds from Austin and they would pull the strings (possibly to the extent of blocking the black version that the Morrill Act contemplated). A&M would be less under their control. This is a hypothesis, but a plausible one given how the legislature usually works.

Quote:

---

Looking at the roll call vote, the most solid block was the East Coast states - ones that were part of the original 13 states, plus Vermont. Delaware looks like it had the only Nay vote, with a couple of Did Not Votes scattered. Which is kind of odd, because Delaware is usually all about enriching itself at other states' expense.

And I would guess that the land grants for all of those states would be somewhere in the western states and/or territories. New York's is in Minnesota, if I recall.

---

If you're talking about the Morrill Act, it was passed in 1862, so there were no Southern members of Congress there to vote on it.

Quote:

---

If you're talking about the Morrill Act, it was passed in 1862, so there were no Southern members of Congress there to vote on it.

---

Actually,

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Civil_War_VAFirstCivilWarSen.htm

Quote:

---

When Virginia seceded from the Union in April 1861, a pro-Union countermovement in the northwestern part of the state sought to keep Virginia loyal to the Union and to maintain representation within the federal government. Claiming that secession from the Union was not lawful, a restored "rump" government organized in Wheeling under the governorship of Francis Pierpont and claimed jurisdiction over the whole state. The rump Virginia general assembly elected two new United States senators to replace the two who had withdrawn in support of the Confederacy.

With the seating of Virginia senators Waitman T. Willey and John S. Carlile on July 13, 1861, the Senate affirmed the validity of the restored pro-Union government in Virginia. "The loyal men of Virginia have elected a legislature and seek representation in the Congress of the United States," argued Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois in a spirited debate over seating the two men. "They are entitled to representation here." In the Senate, Willey and Carlile advocated statehood efforts by the northwestern portion of Virginia, which led to the formation of the state of West Virginia in 1863.

---

Both Willey and Carlisle were yea votes for the act. Also,Kentucky was a Southern neutral state with citizens fighting for both sides, but the state kept Senate seats.

But the Morrill Act only passed due to secession. No secession, Morrill Act goes down to defeat in 1862, yet again.

Quote:

---

But the Morrill Act only passed due to secession. No secession, Morrill Act goes down to defeat in 1862, yet again.

---

Maybe, but it passed both chambers the first time around in 1859 and was eventually vetoed by James Buchanan. So it really didn't go down the first time around.

It barely passed both chambers and Buchanan vetoed it due to popular outrage from southerners and westerners.

I think we could look at it as a case of congressmen not voting their constituents wishes. Similar to a recent congressional vote on Ukrainian funding without US border protection. The congress critters were waving flags and their constituents were going WTF?

I view it differently. Buchanan's veto was philosophical and reflected typical (of that era) states rights crowd resistance to expansion of federal sovereignty as well as fiscal worries that handing valuable land to states for free cut into potential federal revenues. There was no income tax then and the Federal budget was buttressed by land sales so Buchanan's stance made sense at that point.

By the time 1862 rolled around, the federal budget had exploded, taxes were everywhere, and to your point the states rights crowd was largely extinguished due to the traitorous nature of that line of thinking. Here is the text of Buchanan's veto message. I abridged it a good bit to capture the essence of his objections.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/veto-message-444

Quote:

---

I shall now proceed to state my objections to this bill. I deem it to be both inexpedient and unconstitutional.

1. This bill has been passed at a period when we can with great difficulty raise sufficient revenue to sustain the expenses of the Government. Should it become a law the Treasury will be deprived of the whole, or nearly the whole, of our income from the sale of public lands, which for the next fiscal year has been estimated at $5,000,000.

2. Waiving for the present the question of constitutional power, what effect will this bill have on the relations established between the Federal and State Governments? The Constitution is a grant to Congress of a few enumerated but most important powers, relating chiefly to war, peace, foreign and domestic commerce, negotiation, and other subjects which can be best or alone exercised beneficially by the common Government. All other powers are reserved to the States and to the people. For the efficient and harmonious working of both, it is necessary that their several spheres of action should be kept distinct from each other.

3. This bill, should it become a law, will operate greatly to the injury of the new States. The progress of settlements and the increase of an industrious population owning an interest in the soil they cultivate are the causes which will build them up into great and flourishing commonwealths. Nothing could be more prejudicial to their interests than for wealthy individuals to acquire large tracts of the public land and hold them for speculative purposes.

4. It is extremely doubtful, to say the least, whether this bill would contribute to the advancement of agriculture and the mechanic arts--objects the dignity and value of which can not be too highly appreciated.

5. This bill will injuriously interfere with existing colleges in the different States, in many of which agriculture is taught as a science and in all of which it ought to be so taught. These institutions of learning have grown up with the growth of the country, under the fostering care of the States and the munificence of individuals, to meet the advancing demands for education. They have proved great blessings to the people.

6. But does Congress possess the power under the Constitution to make a donation of public lands to the different States of the Union to provide colleges for the purpose of educating their own people?

I presume the general proposition is undeniable that Congress does not possess the power to appropriate money in the Treasury, raised by taxes on the people of the United States, for the purpose of educating the people of the respective States.

---