Some years ago, in 1987, I published a book on Dr. William Carey Crane. At the time, the plan was that the book would be the first of three volumes on the life and work of this significant nineteenth century figure, a giant in the religious (especially Baptist) and educational life of his time. But one thing led to another, and the task was postponed (more on this below). Suffice it to say that I have decided to return to the task, and to attempt to put relevant materials, as completed, here on my Baylor website...So this is very much a site under construction.

William Carey Crane was barely twenty-three years old when , in March of 1839, he and his wife Alcesta moved from Georgia to Alabama, where he was to become pastor of the Baptist Church in Montgomery. The modern reader will assume that his was a position of great responsibility for such a young man. And in one sense, it was. W. C. Crane was a young man, and this was a position of responsibility. But he was, it will be recalled, well educated for his time, the son of William Crane ( who was a well known layman in the denomination), and a good and popular preacher in his own right. The Montgomery to which the young Rev. Crane moved was not the great city we know today. The 1830 census lists Montgomery as the fourth largest city in Alabama, with a population of 1450, i.e., 800 whites and 650 blacks (1). By 1840, the population had grown to 2178, made up of 1117 whites and 1062 blacks ( I know that the math is a bit off, but that's what my source says!) (2).

The church to which Crane came had been founded in 1829, only ten years before, with one Lee Compere, an Englishman, as its first pastor. But there were problems getting the new church going , so the work had to be begun all over again, in 1832. There were a number of short-lived pastorates during the church's first decade; Samuel B. Worthington, James H. DeVotie, Alexander Travis, Jesse Hartwell... Some of these pastorates were more successful than others. With James H. DeVotie as pastor, the congregation completed their first church building, began to have preaching services each and every Sunday, had communion each month, etc.But though an educated man (he had attended Furman), DeVotie had problems in Montgomery. While in Montgomery, he had married a woman who was not a Baptist, and who, worse yet, "was accused of being worldly" (3).Thus, in May, 1835, the church terminated his contract. DeVotie moved on to pastorates in Tuscaloosa and Marion.

Just how many members the church had when Crane arrived is not entirely clear. But it is recorded that by October 1, 1839, the church had 132 members (4).Crane himself had a habit of summing things up from time to time, e. g. at the end of a calendar year. Thus, on December 31, 1839, he wrote in his journal,"The church has increased from 86-172. I have baptized 24 whites and about 10 blacks". As indicated above, the church's first building had been completed during the pastorate of J. H. DeVotie. According to the church's official history, it was "an unpretentious structure about 60 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 25 feet high. It was reputed to have cost about $3,000. The property was on North Court Street on a triangle of land also bounded by Coosa and Bibb.The building faced south". (5) . This building was in use from 1833-1854. As pastor of the Montgomery church, Crane was promised an annual salary of $1200.

The new preacher seems to have been happy enough in his work,at least at first. He very quickly settled into a routine. During the week, he visited various members of his flock,performed ministerial duties as required,spent a lot of time reading and studying, and on Sunday he attended three church services.The history of the church says that "The first deacon to be listed in the church minutes was Dr. A. B. McWhorter, chosen August 11, 1832, on the date of the re-formation of the church"(6).Crane's journals record that he often visited Dr. McWhorter, and that he also taught the McWhorter children, apparently tutoring them in classical languages. Dr. McWhoter remained a deacon at the Montgomery church until his death in 1859. Crane clearly admired him, and relied upon his leadreship in the congregation. Crane also relied on the leadership of Dr. R. C. Armstrong, who was ordained a deacon on November 17, 1839 (7).Crane's journal entries are full of accounts of visits to Dr. McWhorter and/or Dr. Armstrong.

There was another church leader the young Rev. Crane also relied on, perhaps even more than the two doctors listed above. He is probably mentioned in Crane's journal more than any other member of the Montgomery church. His name was Caesar. As indicated above, Crane often attended three church services each Sunday. He preached at the morning service, and usually preached another sermon at an evening service. But his journals abound with such references as:

"Afternoon Caesar preached",

"Baptism of 7 or 8 negroes in the afternoon by Caesar", or

"Heard Caesar in the afternoon. Saw him baptize three- Bro. DeVotie preached at night".

Again, the church history has the answer. From very early on, the church in Montgomery had black members as well as white. The black slaves were often given simple names, sometimes taken from classical literature, or from the Bible. In the beginning, the slaves apparently attended services with their white masters. Later, they had their own services on Sunday afternoon. Of course, any gathering of slaves required a white man in attendance, lest the gathering should become a rebellion. Caesar was, then, a slave preacher. He is briefly described in the church's history;

"Caesar, owned by a planter named John Blackwell, was purchased in 1829 by a group of pastors and laymen in the Alabama Baptist Association. For many years, he lived at the McLemore plantation east of Montgomery, preaching to slave congregations in the area. Always a slave, he was under the control of a group of trustees. A. B. McWhorter served on the Board at one time. So long as he lived, Caesar regularly preached to the black congregation of First Baptist , baptized their converts, and administered communion to them. After his death in 1845, there was no black preacher to do this."(8).

This Caesar was not well educated, but the reader looks in vain for any criticism of the man, his preaching, or his pastoral service, in any of Crane's journal entries. Indeed, Crane seems to have held Caesar, the slave preacher, in the highest regard.

Even after more than thirty-five years had passed , Crane had high praise for Caesar. In 1877-1878, Crane wrote a series of articles under the general title, "Then, not Now", which were published in The Religious Herald in Richmond, Virginia. In article 13 of that series, he included an extended reference to the black preacher:

"He was a tall,ungainly looking African, brought up in the carpenter's trade. He had been converted under the preaching of a noted self-made, but singularly shrewd preacher named McLemore, whose opinions and illustrations he had studied and adopted in a good degree. He had the failings of preachers of his time and race, who were illiterate; still sometimes, he astonished his hearers by the vigor of his language, acuteness of his distinctions, the soundness of his logic, and the correctness of his theology. He so far obtained the confidence of his white brethren, that members of the Alabama Association made up a purse and purshased his freedom. Set free, he travelled on horseback and on steamboats, preaching far and wide to his race. The churches in Mobile and Montgomery will long remember him" .

There are certain obvious discrepancies between Crane's recollections of Caesar and the account given by church historian Lee Allen (above),e.g. Allen says Caesar was "always a slave", but there seems little doubt that Lee and Allen are describing the same man.

Of course, it should not be expected that slaves in pre-Civil War Montgomery should be given the same rights in the church as white members. At first, they do seem to have had similar voting rights. But in April of 1840, while Crane was the pastor, this policy was changed, apparently because of a vote taken at a special Saturday evening conference. A slave named Stephney "was charged with keeping a house of ill repute, lying , and working on the Sabbath"(9). The white members of the conference, led by Dr. McWhorter, voted for excommunication, but an overwhelming number of blacks (9-1) voted against the motion. After that, the blacks had separate meetings, and no longer voted on matters of importance to the entire church. It does seem that the black slave members of Crane's church were well treated. But some of the most touching of the Crane memorabilia in the Texas Collection at Baylor are those small scraps of paper which are, clearly, permission slips, enabling slaves to join the church, to marry, etc. Among the permission slips at Baylor may be found those that read:

"My negro woman Silvey is permitted to join the church with us", signed by Mary Vickers.

"Lydie has permission to join the Baptist church in Montgomery " (the signature is difficult to read).

Also, from what appears to be a later date, we find:

"I permit the boy William who is under my control & management to be married to Pamilie, a girl belonging to my wife, who also consents to their marriage",signed by Geo. S. Geiger (?).Written in pencil on the back of this note,we can read, "Dr. Crane acted on this document and married the slaves".

Another note in the collection was sent to Dr. McWhorter:

"Dear Sir:

Darly, the Bearer of this, applyed to me for permission for a woman that I own of the name of Amy to join your church . I have no objection to her doing so.

So William Carey Crane found himself as the pastor of a young but growing church, with both white and black members. But he was never able to restrict himself to working within a single local church.On today's map, the city of Montgomery dominates its part of the state of Alabama.,surrounded by the much smaller cities of Marian, Wetumpka, Tuscalooosa, etc. In Crane's day, Montogomery was not so dominant, and travel between these cities not as easy as it is today. But from the start, the Montgomery Baptists had fellowship, and shared "protracted" meetings, i.e. revivals, with other cities in the area. Crane's friend, and predecessor in the Montgomery pulpit, "Brother DeVotie", was in Tusculoosa.And readers of my earlier work on Crane will recall that he was encouraged to go to Alabama by another friend, Milo P. Jewett, of Marian, Alabama.

That would be Milo Parker Jewett (1808-1882), and his biography deserves somewhat more extended comment. Jewett was born in Vermont, and graduated from Dartmouth in 1828. He then read Law for a time, before entering Andover Theological Seminary (graduated 1833).He was a member of the first faculty of the Marietta Collegiate Institution in Ohio, but left there when he became a Baptist in 1838. Jewett had a strong interest in "female" education, so in that same year of 1838, he moved to Marian, Alabama, where he was the founder and served as President of the Judson Female Institute. It was beyond the years of his contact with Wm. Carey Crane, but it should be reported that, in 1855, he moved North again, to Poughkeepsie, New York. There, in 1856, he purchased a school from a wealthy friend, Matthew Vassar, and then, still later, persuaded Vassar to endow the school that bears his name. Jewett Hall, on the Vassar campus, was named for Crane's friend and frequent correspondent, Milo P. Jewett (10).

The files of the Texas Collection at Baylor University show that Crane and Jewett exchanged many letters, and that the two met and worked together at a number of revival meetings. As just one example, Crane's journals show that on August 17, 1839, he "...went to and preached at a protracted meeting in Marian", and he notes that Jewett was there.

No doubt Milo Jewett had an influence on the young W. C. Crane, but he (Crane) also became well acquainted with other influential preachers in the denomination who were to influence his life in more direct ways. 1839 was only six years before Baylor University was chartered in 1845, though it was some twenty-four years before Crane was to become President there in 1863. But while in Alabama, Crane became with two members of Baylor's first Board of Trustees- William M. Tryon and James Huckins.

William Tryon was a native of New York (born 1809). who, as a young adult, earned his living as a tailor. For some reason (not entirely clear), he left New York and moved South to Georgia, where he became a student in the first class of the new Mercer Institute. He began preaching in Irwinton, Alabama, but moved to Wetumpka, Alabama, in December, 1839 (11). It seems Crane and Tryon had met and become friends before Tryon moved to Wetumpka. In his journals, Crane writes of having gone to a meeting of the Alabama Convention, and he notes that on November 18, 1839, there was "...preaching by Bro. Tryon". After this date , references to his "Bro. Tryon" appear more frequently in the journals. On June 4,1840, for example, he writes that he "Went to Wetumpka, Put up at Bro. Tryon's" Tryon's biographers report that in Wetumka, he met and married "...a recently widowed lady of some influence, Louisa Jacqueline (Reynolds) Higgins, daughter of a wealthy planter"(12). Elsewhere, she is described as "...a wealthy lady whose assets included several slaves" (13). The marriage was performed , April 14, 1840, by their friend, the Rev. William Carey Crane of the Baptist Church, Montgomery. In January of 1841, Tryon left Alabama to become a missionary to Texas. In Texas, he served as a chaplain to the Republic of Texas Senate, and, in December of 1845, he accepted the call to become pastor of the Baptist Church in Houston. When yellow fever struck the coastal towns of Houston and Galveston in 1847, he was urged to flee to the safety of his farm inland in washington county. But he refused to leave his ministerial duties of comforting the sick and dying fever victims. William tryon died of yellow fever in early November of 1847, aged thirty-eight years (14).

Crane's journals for January 8, 1840, record a historically significant visit, "Called upon by Rev. James Huckins, Agt. of Am. Bapt. Home Miss. Society". On that Sunday, January 12, he added: "Bro. Huckins preached in morning. Glorious in Holiness, fearful in praises,doing wonders." Obviously, Crane was impressed by "Bro. Huckins' " preaching ability.. Huckins must have been on his way to Texas. We do not know where he went after visiting Montgomery, but it is known that he steamed into the harbor at Galveston aboard the good ship Neptune at about 6:00 PM on Friday, January 24, 1840 (15). Did the two men discuss Texas, and the need for a Baptist school of higher learning there? Perhaps that would be too much to hope. At any rate, Huckins went to Galveston. He was a native of New Hampshire (born 1807). He seems to have intended only a short visit to Texas, but (like Tryon), he came to see that texas needed missionaries He later became pastor of the Baptist Church in Galveston. Like Tryon, he was present during the Galveston epedemics, but he survived. Still later , he served as a Confederate chaplain during the Civil War, and as a development officer for the young Baylor University. He died is Charleston, South Carolina, in early August, 1863.

In general, then, things seemed to be going rather well for the young Rev. William Carey Crane in his ministry in Montgomery. The church he served grew, and he made friends (some influential), both within his congregation and outside it. It should also be recalled- as indicated in the first volume of this study- that Crane had married his childhood sweetheart, Alcesta Flora Galusha. Truly, he seems to have loved her very much, and to have been completely devoted to her. But, as also indicated earlier, her only serious problem wes that she was tuberculor. Just before they married, she became seriously ill. The couple made a sort of "false start" South, that is, they began the journey, but she had to return home to gather her strength.It was thought (hoped) that the Southern climate might improve her health. And, early on, it seemed to work that way. In a memorial volume written for her, Crane wrote of the early days of 1838:

"... reached Talbotton, Georgia in November, where, until February, 1839, her health seemed to be improving. She became so much invigorated in health, that she could ride all day without much fatigue, and walk over a mile. In March, 1839, the writer received and accepted an invitation to take charge of the Baptist church in Montgomery, Alabama". (16)

For a time, everything seemed to be fine, and the young pastor was hopeful:

"For six months after her removal to Montgomery, the symptoms in Mrs. C's case were all favorable to her ultimate recovery. Flattered by the delusive appearances of the most treacherous of human ailments, she never despaired of recovery until the last day of her life."(17)

This last may not be quite true. It seems, rather, that he was never able to accept the fact that she was dying. Once more, for much of 1839, there seemed to be every reason to hope. His wife seemed healthy, and the church prospered:

"The Fall of 1839 was distinguished by a very general attention to religion in nearly all the churches in Alabama. Montgomery and Wetumpka were especially blessed with an outpouring of the spirit's influence, and many committed themselves with the churches who were previously in the gall of bitterness and iniquity."(18)

Alcesta gave herself fully to the task of being a pastor's wife, and seems to have played the role well. Crane spoke of her, "...great anxiety for the prosperity of the church of which her husband was the pastor."(19) And he felt that, "There is good reason for the belief that some of the accessions to the Montgomery church were effected by her instrumentality"(20)

Sadly, this could not continue.As early as November 20, 1839, Alcesta wrote in her own journal:

"So unwell tonight that I am afraid I can attend Church no more at present."(21)

Again, on December 8, she wrote:

"An interesting day; ten whites, and ten blacks baptized; communion. Prudence forbids my going out, and I find it a trial."(22)

She did not improve as Spring came. On April 27, 1840, she wrote in her journal:

"I expect to start tomorrow for home, although weak and feeble. Perhaps "tis the last Sabbath I shall ever spend in Montgomery. May God forgive my mis-improvement of those spent here, and give me repentence for the same. My weight is now but ninety-four pounds: it may never be more . Oh! that I could be perfectly resigned to the will of God."(23)

In such desperate situations, people grasp at whatever hope they can find. It seems to have been thought that if she could return to her father's home in Rochester, New York, perhaps the change would aid her recovery. Again, it seems to have been impossible for the healthy young pastor to realize that his wife's illness was as serious as it was. And of course, he still had his work to do. So he travelled with her as far as Tuscaloosa, and from there she was"...accompanied by Dr. Henry of the latter place"(24)--presumably Tuscaloosa. Craane wrote in his journal on May 1, "My poor dear wife. I commend her to God-Sad was parting to me-God bless and protect her". Yet once more, her did not seem ready to accept the fact that she was dying. On May 27, he wrote, "...feel lonely and sometimes am anxious for the return of ny wife-need more religion." He continued to write as if she would be home soon. At the same time, he kept up with his reading. For example, on May 6, he "Read through Longfellow's Voices of the Night".On June 16, he read "...Wayland's Polit. Econ., Mahan, etc."

On June 4, he had gone to Wetumpka, and stayed with Tryon. On June 7, "Bro. Huckins preached at night and took up a collection." So his ministerial duties continued.

During all this time, he wrote to Alcesta regularly-he was a good and loyal correspondent-and he could not understand why she so often failed to reply. There is evidence that some of his old doubts and insecurities returned. Maybe she had never really cared for him at all. There is one extant letter-which we may hope was never posted-in which he made fun of Alcesta, criticizing her because he kept writing as agreed, while she did not.

In his Memoir, Crane reports the truth as he later learned it. He could not have known how bad things really were. The trip from Montgomery to Rochester, New York, had taken six long weeks. She had travelled by boat up the rivers and canals through Beaver,to "Cleaveland",to Buffalo, and then to Rochester, finally arriving on June 10th,"...and so emaciated and enfeebled was she that her friends hardly expected that she would live a week longer."(25) The long trip had taken its toll. Just a week or so later, on a Monday evening, she looked at the sunset, and said to her Mother, "Ma, I am dying, now."(26) Her Father later wrote that, during that painful week, she often said, "Pa, tell Carey how much I wanted to write him."(27) She did write one last letter, on June 16. What she wrote may not be so important-what does a young wife, who knows that she is dying, write? But that letter has survived. The hand that wrote it was obviously shaking and weak; this is the hand of a very old woman. Near the end of the letter, she wrote,"I have been all day writing this letter,so you know what it has cost me."(28) She died on June 23,1840. At the time of her death, she was about three weeks short of her twenty-fourth birthday.

The Rev. W.C. Crane knew nothing of all this. He continued to read, study, preach, visit, and, in general, to do all the things expected of a young pastor. Thus, on May 27, he wrote in his diary,

"Read...Christian Review- Wayland, etc.- called on McWhorter- Rode out- feel lonely and sometimes am anxious for the return of my wife-Need more Religion- Am too groveling in my feelings..."

This continued through much of the month of June. On June 17:

"Reading Abercrombie, Fuller, and Watson..."

On June 29, six days after Alcesta had died, he wrote:

"Left Montgomery at 1 1/2 o'clock this morning-having received a letter from my father-in-law giving a discouraging account of my poor afflicted wife- also received a letter from her yesterday written with such a troubled hand as to lead me to suppose her in immanent danger. Alarmed on her account- my church very loath to part with me."

It must be recalled that this was 1840, and travel was slow and primitve , by our standards. The young oastor made haste: "...travelled in mail coach all night...", passed through Columbus , Georgia, then Talbotton, then on to Barnesville, Greensborough, Monticello, Crawfordsville, Warrenton, then to Augusta, where he "...put up at the Globe Hotel". He then took a "self-hire car " to Charleston, then headed for Wilmington, "...had a very stormy night." He passed through Richmond and Fredricksburg, and finally arrived about 6 p.m., July 4, at the home of his father in Baltimore. There he heard, as he wrote in his diary, "...the appalling intelligence of the death of my dear, devoted wife".

He and his father, William Crane, then travelled to New york together, arriving in Rochester July 9.The next day he visited his wife's grave. The young pastor's grief was deep and genuine. He remained on Rochester until July 27, no doubt as a guest at the Galusha home. During this time , he visited friends in the area, and attended services in the city's various churches. On Sunday, July 26, he "Delivered S.S. address at 1st Church in Rochester- afternoon preached at 2nd Church".

He then went over to Rome, New York, arriving there on Tuesday, July 28. He "...stopped with Gen'l Armstrong-Supped at Mr. Wright's". The next day he attended the commencement at Hamilton College. He visited a number of old friends in Rome; on Friday, he was back at the Wright home. His diary says he "...called on Eld. Vogle & Misses Wright- Miss Burry (?)-Stryke". On August 2, he preached in the morning at the 1st Presbyterian Church, and in the afternoon at the Baptist Church. On Tuesday, August 4, he left Rome for Utica and Hamilton. And then he began the long trip South. He did stop in Baltimore again, and preached at the Calvert Street Church, the afternoon of August 23.

Well...one might have expected that he was on his way back to Montgomery. Instead, on September 2, he began the journey back to Rochester. Again, his diary says he left Baltimore for Rochester, "Sad indeed was my parting- with all my dear friends: The prayer of my dear father in behalf of all his dear children was touching in the extreme". But instead of going to Rochester, he reached Rome on September 4. And on September 5, he wrote: "At night engaged to be married to Jane Louisa Wright of Rome". On Tuesday, September 8, he "Spent morning with my dear Louisa-Dined at Mr. Wright's. That afternoon, he went by rail to Syracuse, and then by canal packet to Rochester, arriving on the 9th. In Rochester, Crane noted that he "Staid with my dear Alcesta's relatives".

At first glance, it might appear that Crane's behavior was improper- even hypocritical- in that he became engaged to another woman with such unseeming haste after Alcesta's death. But perhaps not. Jane Louisa Wright had been a close personal friend-perhaps her best friend- of his first wife, Alcesta. In the Texas Collection at Baylor, there is a bound volune of letters from Jane Louisa Wright to Alcesta Flora Galusha. The earliest of the letters is undated. It may in fact have been written by another member of the Wright family, perhaps Louisa's sister Helen.. Again, the letter is not dated, but someone (Crane?) has pencilled in "1833". There are many letters from "Jane" to Alcesta that date from 1835, when Alcesta still lived in Shaftesbury, Vermont. It is not known when, or where, the two girls met. But they corresponded more or less regularly for at least four years before Alcesta's marriage, and the correspondence continued during the time William Carey Crane and Alcesta lived in Georgia and then in Montgomery, Alabama.The letters indcate that they sometimes visited, while young girls, in one another's homes, sometimes for periods of two or three weeks, during Summer vacations. So Louisa was a close personal friend; no doubt she and William Carey Crane had met many times before Alcesta's death. The letters from Louisa to Alcesta were such that he might have read them, too, or perhaps Alcesta read them to him. At any rate, in the weeks after Alcesta died, he wrote to Louisa to ask if he might continue the correspondence. She agreed, and one thing led to another, and soon they were engaged to be married.This was someone he had known for some time, someone who had been close to Alcesta, and who shared many of the qualities that had attracted him to Alcesta.

But who was Jane Louisa Wright? Not too much is known about her. In one of his many journals, Crane says she was born in Rome, New York, May 21, 1817, and that she was the daughter of William and Mary Wright of that city. Elsewhere, he says she was educated on Rome, and in Clinton, New York. Again, the Texas Collection at Baylor University has a small bound volume of "Literary Extracts" of Miss Jane Louisa Wright, which is dated 1833. This volume also carries, inside, the information that she had attended the Clinton female Seminary from 1831-1833. The book contains poems she had written, as well as poems she had copied (Milton, Cowper, Longfellow, etc.) from books, as well as some poems and inspirational notes from what were probably her classmates at Clinton.

Historians of religion in America may recall that Rome, New York was the site of one of the early revivals conducted by the famous evangelist Charles G. Finney from late 1825 (December 25) to early 1826. Finney's own Memoirs tell of the great impact this revival had on what he called a Congregational church, where the pastor was the Rev. Moses Gillett (he was the pastor there from 1807-1837). The church membership was greatly increased due to Finney's work in Rome. After Gillett retired, in 1837, there were a number of short pastorates, until Rev. Selden Haynes became the pastor in 1841. When W.C. Crane and J. Louisa Wright were married (more on that below), the ceremony was performed by Selden Haynes.

Somewhat curiously, Crane wrote of the church in Rome as Congregational, (as Finney did), though Louisa always claimed that she was Presbyterian. This mystery is solved by the editors of the superb recent edition of Finney's Memoirs:

"the First Church of Rome had been founded in 1800 as a Presbyterian church but became connected with the Oneida (Congregational) Association in 1812. In 1818, while retaining a congregational form if government, it transferred to the Oneida Presbytery. As the minister put it, 'Though nominally congregational, we are really presbyterian, with a defective organization'" (29).

The minister in the quotation above was William Eaton Knox (1820-1880) (30). In later years, members of the Wright family would write to Crane with many kind words concerning "Bro. Knox".

The connection with Charles G. Finney may be important for understanding Louisa Wright. It is likely that Louisa's father was in the publishing trade, and was the "W.E Wright" who , the editors of the Finney Memoirs report, published Finney's Lectures on Revivals of Religion in Pulaski, New York, in 1845 (31). Letters to Crane from the Wright family show that they had moved to Pulaski from Rome by 1845.

Louisa's letters to Alcesta,and later to W.C. Crane (she called him "Carey")reveal a young lady who lived well. The Wright family had a large house which seemed to be always full of visitors, and plenty of servants to perform the difficult tasks.There also seemed always to have been many books about. In one of her letters to Alcesta, Louisa said she was starting to read "Kaims'"' Elements of Criticism. This was the famous Scottish judge Henry Home, Lord Kames ("Kaims" and "Kaimes" are alternate spellings). He was Thomas Jefferson's favorite philosopher, and many editions (usually abridged) of his three-volume Elements of Criticism (first published 1762), were printed in America. Later she said she was about to start to read Paley's Natural Theology, and she wrote of devoting much time to studying the German language.

She (Louisa) travelled, stayed with friends, and wandered as far West and South as Detroit and Akron. In a letter written to Alcesta, dated March 26, 1840, she wrote:

"We have now a protracted meeting in Akron- the truth is preached with very great plainness and the effect is engrossing- the whole community seems to be involved in the subject- there is also a meeting being held in the Baptist church, both houses are crowded. Mr. Richards our minister is dwelling most particularly upon entire consecration. I never thought so much upon the subject before and never was so much impressed with the truth that 'Grow your own' religion has seemed to consist in abstaining from sin and I have never thought so much about my power & energy being devoted to God but if I know my own heart I am willing it should be so and yet when I say it my life contradicts...I pray that my duty may be made plain to me. I feel it an honor to do anything to promote his cause".

This passage may be important because it sounds so much like Finney's Memoirs. Finney always emphasized plainness of speech. But more important is the fact that the central doctrine of Finney and Asa Mahan and the "Oberlin Theology" was this doctrine of "entire consecration", or "entire sanctification", or "Christian Perfection". The classic text for this doctrine was the Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection (1839),by Asa Mahan, the president at Oberlin College.It should be recalled that Crane's journals from the Montgomery period often say that he was "reading Mahan", and his notes also show that he had read "Mahan''s Christian Perfection". Mahan had become president at Oberlin in 1835; Finney joined him as professor of theology that same year. A problem from the start was that while Mahan and Finney (and others at Oberlin) taught a doctrine of "Christian Perfection", many people were unclear as to just what this was supposed to mean. Did they really think that Christians, in this present life, could live without sin? The answer was less than clear. Did they think of this "entire sanctification" as a second work of grace? Sometimes they seemed to be saying that, sometimes not. In his Memoirs, Finney wrote:

"...I was satisfied that the doctrine of sanctification in this life, and entire sanctification in the sense that it was the privilege of Christians to live without known sin, was a doctrine taught in the Bible,and that abundant means were provided for the security of that attainment"(32).

It should not be assumed that Louisa Wright had no mind of her own, but simply accepted whatever she was taught by travelling evangelists, such as Charles Finney. But it may be of interest to recall that the faculty (and students) at Oberlin were strongly opposed to domestic slavery, and made Oberlin a prominent stop on the "underground railroad", the route North for escaped Southern slaves, in the years prior to our Civil War.When he agreed to teach at Oberlin, Finney forced the trustees to agree (as a condition of his employment) ... "that we should be allowed to receive colored people on the same conditions that we did white people, that there should be no discrimination made on account of color" (33)--and he did this in 1835!! Louisa Wright's letters reveal this same hatred for slavery, and repeated prayers for its abolition In a letter to Louisa dated April 19, 1841, Crane responded to one of her attacks on slavery,

"As a question of political economy, I would dispense with them. At the same time I know from better means of observation than even their master himself has that they are happier than their owners. As to owning slaves- myself I can say nothing- I can do without it- I shall not own a single one."

It must be admitted that Crane changed his views on slavery after he reached Alabama. He had come to feel that slaves were, after all, the lawful property of their masters, and should not be taken from those owners without compensation. And as the qoote indicates, he had come to accept the common rationalization that the slaves he knew were, in fact, happy, as slaves, and really did not wish to be freed. So he asked that Louisa, when she came to live in Alabama, keep her negative thoughts to herself, and not stir up needless trouble.

Alcesta had died June 23, 1840; Carey and Louisa were engaged as of September 5. Was this improper? There seems no reason to think so, but neither of them wanted to appear to be doing anything immoral. Louisa felt they should not marry for a year after Alcesta had died.. So he returned to Montgomery, and she remained in Rome, and they exchanged letters once per week. Louisa often sent her letters via her father or another family member to be mailed from another town in New York, so that the local postal workers could not gossip. Crane said this was foolish, that they were doing nothing wrong, and had nothing to hide. But he, nevertheless, addressed many of his letters, written to Louisa, to "William Wright", Louisa's father. They did not marry until August 23, 1841.So they exchanged letters for about a year. These letters have survived, and give the reader a lot of insight into what these two people were like, what they thought, and how they lived.

William Carey Crane was a well read scholar, and the same seems to have been true of Louisa, and much of what they wrote in their letters concerned their reading.As only one example, he wrote to louosa from Boston as August 20, 1840:

"I perceive that you have been perusing Longfellow.His Hyperion is rather Germanic in its style & thought and exhibits that he knows something about transcendentalism. His prose is generally better than his poetry-- there are only two or three of his poetic effusions that have pleased me very much. I find that his 'Rejected Addresses' are very popular. The North American speaks in very flattering terms of them.Their origin you probably know, if you do not I will send it to you with the book."

Again, Louisa was a good student, too, and had also read a good deal, and she must have been impressed with Crane's scholarship. But they did not simply write about books. As already noted, they talked about moral and religious issues, such as slavery, evangelism, and "Christian perfection". From the first, Louisa, made it clear that she was Presbyterian, not Baptist, and that this was not likely to change.Crane defended his Baptist faith, and insisted that he would expect her to attend church with him, and support his work. But beyond that, her own faith could be left a personal matter; the fact that she acknowledged Christ as her savior was enough.

Louisa's letters to "Carey", written more than 150 years ago, are crumbling now; his replies are not always in better condition, But, once more, thet reveal a great deal about pre-Civil War life in America, North and South, and the sorts of issues that concerned Americans in 1840. Again, Louisa felt they should wait a year after Alcesta had died before marrying. "Carey" reluctantlt agreed, but did attempt to convince her that they could, without any appearance of misconduct, marry in May. But letters crossed, and he had to attend an important denominational meeting in Baltimore in April. So, as noted above, they were finally married August 23 (though some sources give the date as August 22) by the Reverend Selden Haynes at the First Congregational (or Presbyterian, see above) Church in Rome, New York. She then returned with her "Carey" to Montgomery as his second wife.He seems , really, to have loved her very much, and there is no reason not to think that his affections were fully reciprocated. Her letters show that she loved him, too, as does a journal she kept (Curiously, Crane knew nothing of this journal until after her death). In her journal, especially, Louisa wrote as if she felt that somehow, Alcesta-that unfortunate girl they had both loved in their different ways-was aware of her union with their "Carey"...and that she approved. Sometimes, the "ghost" of the first wife haunts a second marriage, and can destroy it. But in this case, Alcesta seems to have been an additional, and very special, bond between Louisa and W. C. Crane.The marriage seems to have been a happy one. An additional reason for happiness was that Louisa, unlike Alcesta, seemed to be in excellent health, and capable of bearing children.

Crane's crowded personal life- his life as a husband and a preacher at a growing Baptist- was not permitted to prevent his continued growth as a scholar. He continued to read periodical literature- especially the Christian Review and the North American Review, but also other religious newspapers and journals- and scholarly books of the day. His journals are filled with the names of Wayland, Mahan, Longfellow, Bancroft (the historian), and many more. The journals he kept also reveal a number of scholarly projects under way.But his major publications during the Montgomery years were his Memoir of Mrs. Alcesta Flora Crane, which he published in 1841, and A Collection of Arguments and Opinions upon the Subject of Baptism, published in Montgomery in 1839.

This paper was read as my "Faculty Research Day" presentation, February 14, 1996. I should add that Robert Bryan Sloan was inaugurated as Baylor's 12th president September 15, 1995.

If I ever get to write a volume on William Carey Crane's years at Baylor, 1863-1885, this paper will be included at some point.

As everyone knows, Baylor University recently inaugurated the school's twelfth president, Robert Sloan. It was a great honor for me, personally, to have been a part of the inauguration ceremony. On that occasion, the new president gave the mandatory inaugural address. I shall have little to say today about that address, but would mention it only to contrast it with a somewhat earlier inaugural address, given by Dr. William Carey Crane on January 18, 1864. My curiosity concerning President Crane's address was first aroused by reading Lois Murray's book, Baylor at Independence. In her book, Ms. Murray wrote, "His inaugural address, 'Mind is the Standard of the Man', was termed philosophical by contemporary newspapers" (1). Since I teach Philosophy, I wondered if it really was philosophical, and if so, what sort of philosophy? Her book gave no answer. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a copy of the address from Baylor's Texas Collection.

A bit of stage-setting is in order, and I only wish I were knowledgeable enough to do this part of the job properly. Baylor was a small, struggling school when William Carey Crane was persuaded to become its fourth president in 1863. He replaced the Rev. George Washington Baines, the great- grandfather of Lyndon Baines Johnson. The school was just under twenty years old. It had been chartered in 1845, when Texas was an independent republic. In 1864, Texas was one of the Confederate States of America,and the Civil War was not going well for the Southern states. The tide of battle had turned: Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Knoxville had been captured by the Northern armies in 1863. At Baylor, students not already in uniform were drilled on the campus grounds, and the university buildings were used as barracks for Confederate troops. One of the new president's first acts was to write to the Confederate military , asking that the school's buildings be released, to be returned to academic use, and this was done. On the more personal side, Crane was similar to our new president in at least one respect. At the time he accepted the Baylor presidency, his wife had given him six children, and a seventh was expected {Close enough. The Sloans already have seven children}. It is a long involved story that I still hope to put in book form, but suffice it to say that, at this time, Crane was a troubled man, both professionally and financially. He had had problems at the school where he had been teaching in Louisiana, and he was deeply in debt. And the prospects at Baylor did not look good.

In his address, Robert Sloan could look back on 150 years of academic accomplishments, some rather impressive. President Crane could not find much to praise. Baylor was in a shambles when he took office, and he knew it. As he said in his address (p. 21):

"I come to this work, to start as if nothing had been done. It is time Baylor University has accomplished some important results. It has a good beginning in grounds, buildings, apparatus, and library. It has the commencement of an endowment. It has yet to be a University indeed..."

 There were other differences between the Crane and Sloan addresses. "Style" may not be the word. In the nineteenth century, it was expected that new frontier religious schools would have to prove that they were real universities, doing important academic work, staffed with qualified instructors. Thus catalogues would list, not only the courses to be taught and their instructors, but also the textbooks to be used in those courses. It was important to show that our schools taught the same courses, in the same way, and even used the same books ,etc., to compare favorably with the best Eastern schools. Teachers were also expected to display their qualifications. Crane, in his address, took every opportunity to quote famous authors and poets, and to display his linguistic abilities. But more on this below.

To return to the question asked earlier, was the address philosophical, and in what way, or ways, could it be termed such? Yes, it was, and in more than one way. First, consider the title, "Mind, the Standard of the Man".Sometimes, when we have no time to do something completely new, we enlarge on topics we have discussed before. In 1853, Crane published a set of Literary Discourses made up of five of his earlier addresses. The first of these, entitled "The Scholar", was delivered at Mississippi College in Clinton, in July of 1848. In that essay, he wrote, "Upon the grand principle which is the basis of all Greek, as well as all human philosophy I stand..." (2).

He then gave the passage in the original Greek and translated it for his audience,"Mind, the standard of the man". But in the book, apparently the typesetters had made a mistake in the Greek script, which may have been a reason, plus obvious ease in reading, he transliterated it in his Baylor address as "phren gnomon anthropon" (p.3.). I confess I am a bit troubled by this phrase. Crane seems to be using it as one of those catch- phrases any good philosophy student should be able to identify, as we identify "cogito ergo sum " with Descartes, or "esse est percipi " with Bishop Berkeley. And I cannot identify it. If we spell out what Crane means, however, the theme can be found in Plato or in Aristotle.What he is saying is that people are to be judged, in the last analysis, not on the basis of anything purely physical, whether it be beauty of form or muscular development, but on the basis of their mind or intellect. Clearly, this is a Greek, Platonic, doctrine, but I don't find he phrase standing out in every history of Greek thought, as Crane seems to suggest.

He then quotes Milton's Paradise Lost on the importance of mind in the scheme of things;" The Mind in its own place can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven,"...etc.

The discussion of this topic is then divided into four parts. "Let us first" , he said (p.4), "contemplate with philosophic eye the attributes of the intellect". Indeed, this is the most philosophic part of the address. After a short reference to Timothy Dwight, most of the discussion is taken from Sir William Hamilton.

Sadly, the work of Sir William Hamilton is not that often read today. In the mid-nineteenth century, he was considered one of the world's greatest philosophers, possibly the greatest.Some time ago, I did a small study of the sort of periodical literature which Crane would have read, which study seems to show that articles devoted to Sir William Hamilton out-numbered those devoted to Kant by about 2 1/2 to 1. Hamilton was ill (partially paralyzed) during much of his last years, and his celebrated lectures on Logic and Metaphysics were published by his students,in four large volumes (3).

In America, Hamilton had many followers and admirers.The best philosopher among these was probably Francis Bowen of Harvard. Bowen was the editor of one of Crane's favorite periodicals, the North American Review, from 1843-1854. Bowen's Treatise on Logic (4),first published in 1864, was heavily indebted to Hamilton. In 1861, he (i.e.Bowen) published a one-volume abridgement of The Metaphysics of Sir William Hamilton; Crane's quotations are taken from this work. Thus he takes up the question of whether the mind should be considered as active or passive and quotes Sir William:

"Activity and passivity are not therefore, in the manifestations of the mind, distinct and independent phenomena. They are always conjoined. There is no operation of the mind which is purely passive"(5).

I should insert here something that will be obvious to my colleagues, the fact that this has been one of the major questions--perhaps the major question-- of modern philosophy since the Renaissance. In most university Philosophy departments, one of the major, core courses has this question as central. Where I went to school, the course covered two semesters and was called "British Empiricism and Continental Rationalism" .

Here at Baylor, the course is Philosophy 3312 in our History of Philosophy sequence, covering Modern European Philosophy and taught by our Chairman, Dr. Robert M. Baird.I know the matter becomes more complicated than this (it always does in Philosophy) but, basically, the Empiricists (selections from Locke, Berkeley, and Hume are standard readings) taught that in the knowing process, the mind is largely passive. They spoke of the mind as a tabula rasa (or blank tablet), or a ball of wax (on which, presumably, sense "impressions" get impressed),or a dark and empty room (in which data is placed).The Rationalists (with standard readings from descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza) taught that the mind plays an active role We learn what we learn through the use of Reason, and the senses often deceive us. Kant sought to combine the best insights of the two traditions. My own view is that he was usually prejudiced in favor of the Rationalist persuasion, but that's another story, which should not detain us here.

Crane then takes up the curious question of whether or not " ...the mind is always in a state of conscious activity" (p.6). There follows a dazzling display of knowledge of the history of philosophy in which crane quotes Plato, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, and Kant, giving the opinions of each on this issue. But in fact the entire discussion is taken, almost verbatim, from Bowen's edition of Hamilton (6). One lone exception is a relevant quotation, in Latin, from Cicero, inserted, no doubt, to demonstrate proficiency in Latin. The sentence can be translated as "By ' Nature' I mean here that power within us which never permits the soul to be at rest and free from movement and activity" (7). I do not find this quote from Cicero in Hamilton's lectures.

This discussion is followed by references to, and not quotations from, another work from 1861, the Abridgement of Mental Philosophy by Thomas C. Upham on the topic of insanity, or what Upham called "alienation of the power of belief"(8). I shall spare you the quotations, but the whole business is taken, almost verbatim,again, from Upham. We know Crane had a copy of Upham's book in his personal library.

So what can be said about Crane's philosophy thus far? I make two observations. First, it might be worthwhile to note that in the mid-nineteenth century, the subject of "mental philosophy" ( also called "mental science" or "intellectual philosophy") included what we would now call epistemology, philosophy of mind, and psychology. Psychology was not yet a separate discipline. Upham's works were distinguished by his extended description of mental disorders.

Second, Upham, who taught at Bowdoin College, sought to defend the Scottish philosophy of Common Sense of Thomas Reid and Dugald Stewart against the German, largely Kantian, philosophy of Coleridge (and such of his American admirers as James Marsh of Vermont). Hamilton was the last major philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment; he edited what is still, to this day, the standard edition of Reid's works. I include only this reservation, that in fact Hamilton sought to combine Kantian and Scottish elements,e.g., he taught (as Kant did) that the mind has a role in shaping what is known. So, as the saying has it, we now know where Crane was " coming from" philosophically.

Crane then moves on to a lengthy, mostly exclamatory, section, "Let us contemplate second , the triumphs of intellect"(p. 10). This section features about seven pages of praise for the wonders of modern science--telescopes, printing presses, the steam engine, the cotton gin, etc.

Back to education, "Let us consider in the third place the importance of the cultivation of mind"(p.17). This brief section contains some of Crane's finest rhetoric. We should seek education because it promotes our happiness. But more than that,

" The glory of God and the advance of the Christian Church demands high education for our race. God delights not in ignorance. The Christian Church would be shorn of its moral power were it filled with ignorant zealots. Its members should be intelligent" (p. 18).

So the mind should be cultivated--how should this be done? "Let us consider in the fourth place how the intellect should be cultivated" (p. 19).In this final section Crane argues that our intellectual development should be a project to which we devote all our powers for our entire lives. Here he makes a simple point, which I consider nevertheless profound. We often speak of going off to college to "get an education" or "get educated". Four years and we've got it!! We get that sheepskin, and it's done. The degree represents a finished product. Crane argues that there is no finished product; we never get it all:

"When the course of study is completed, unthinking minds suppose that the education is complete. How sadly mistaken, It has just begun. The scaffold has been set up. It will take all one's life to erect the house and fill it with mental furniture. No man can complete his destiny unless he resolves to study for life. The true scholar glories in being a student for life" (p. 19).

Permit me to insert here the aside that one reason I admire William Carey Crane so much is that he put this principle into practice in his own life. Because of his many duties as teacher, preacher, administrator, fundraiser, etc., etc.,he did not write and publish as much as he might have. and certainly he had his faults. But his Journals, which he kept from the age of 18 on to near the end, show that he never stopped reading, studying, thinking. He was a scholar for life.

As indicated earlier, the last part of Crane's address was concerned with a recitation of his own educational background, his record of service to the Baptist denomination, and his hopes for Baylor University. He said the school needed several endowed chairs, in such areas as "Ancient and Modern Languages", "Mathematics and Natural Philosophy","Chemistry and Astronomy", "Oratory and Rhetoric", as well as an "endowed Theological Chair". He estimates that these..." must be endowed with from twenty to twenty-five thousand dollars each" (p. 22). I do not know the present salary range in the Religion Department, but I suspect the price has gone up. He also reminded his hearers of the school's physical needs, and then, in what is in part a return to the "student for life" theme, he made a plea which needs to be repeated in our 20th century and kept in mind as we move into the next:

"Nor should it be forgotten, that both the president and professors of this institution must all be students and must also, all have time for study. It will be idle to expect them to fulfill their duties and sustain their own and the university's reputation, unless they study, study, hard, study constantly. The trustees, the patrons, and a thinking public should expect and require them to study and allow them all the time and all the facilities for so doing" (pp. 22-23).

As I recall, President Sloan closed (echoing earlier such addresses) with "Have a care for Baylor", a plea for the prayers and support of his audience. President Crane did much the same. Surely, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln (another rather good speaker), it is altogether fitting and proper to do this. It is also important to emphasize, as both men (Crane and Sloan) did why Baylor is worthy of such support, and to state, as both tried to do, what there is in this academic setting, with its distinctive Christian character, that is worthy of support.

I close with a final thought on a question I'm sure has occured to others; why is an essay such as this one (mine) worth doing? I know Crane did things in his address that our new president would never have done. His language and rhetoric may sound old-fashioned, quaint, even ostentatious.So why bother? My answer may seem a bit strange and requires what may sound like a bit of preaching, which is not at all my area of expertise.I recently read an essay, in The American Scholar, entitled "A Career at Harvard". An aging scholar, who had spent his best years as a teacher of History, looked back over his long career, and the changes he had seen take place in the academic world, especially, of course, at Harvard. He did not like what he saw; he saw the ideals and traditions that had made Harvard great being abandoned and forgotten. The great university looked to him something like a huge diploma factory, or some sort of grotesque academic version of a fast food restaurant. His final two short paragraphs are worth repeating here:

"In the vast playing field that the multiversity has become, numerous people scurry about, all doing their own job, with only a few unifying links inherited from the past. Inertia, vague sentimental traditions, and catchphrases whose origins few recall, trickle through he players.

But here and there a survival recalls earlier commitment: someone put those stones in place, gathered up those materials in an organized fashion, for some purpose. And now and then the monuments to scholarly endeavor will draw the curious in to explore the wonders of learning" (9).

Briefly, I do not want to see that happen here; we must not forget. It is important, in our sesquicentennial year, to remember that our golden dream, or bold vision (whatever we choose to call it!) of academic excellence at Baylor University did not begin in the 21st century, or even the 20th. It goes back to the very beginning, down at the old campus in Independence, and we owe much of that vision, and all those proud traditions we want to claim , to President William Carey Crane.

Endnotes.

1. Murray, Lois Smith, Baylor at Independence,Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas, 1972,p. 223.

2.Crane, William Carey, Literary Discourses, Edward H. Fletcher, New York, 1853, p.10.

3. Hamilton, Sir William, Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, four volumes, edited by H.L.Mansel and John Veitch, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh ,Fifth Edition,1870.

4. Bowen, Francis, A Treatise on Logic, John Allyn, publisher, Boston, 1880.

5. Bowen, Francis, The Metaphysics of Sir William Hamilton,Collected, Arranged, and Abridged for the use of Colleges and Private Students, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1861, p. 215.

6. Ibid.,pp 216-220.

7. Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Brutus, On the Nature of the Gods, On Divination, On Duties, translated by Hubert Poteat, University of Chicago Press, 1950, p. 452.

8.Upham, Thomas C., Abridgement of Mental Philosophy (1861), Scholars Facsimilies and Reprints, Delmar, New York, 1979,pp. 256-257.

9. Handlin, Oscar, "A Career at Harvard", The American Scholar, Vol. 65, No. 1,Winter, 1996, p. 58.