I looked up Spencer Roane and discovered that he studied law at William and Mary, then went on to become a justice in the Supreme Court of Virginia. In a case regarding the incorporation of taxation in relation to religion (specifically Christianity), he opposed the involvement of religion in legislation, despite being a Christian himself. Continuing his advocacy for secular policy, his efforts alongside Jefferson and Madison led to the creation of Establishment of Religious Freedom in 1785. Also, he was many years younger than the other men.

His assistance on secularism in legislation translates to UVA's foundation as a nondenominational institution. This was an important ideal for Jefferson, so it makes sense that he would like Roane on the team.

Yikes. I completely missed this line the first time I read through this, but this is a harsh and supremacist claim. We've all been alarmed by the racism associated with the inclusion of slaves at UVA's founding, but it extends much beyond that. If the founders were so insistent upon creating well-natured men, not just students, this is an ideal in stark contradiction. This is outright dehumanization of the Native Americans, which, quite frankly, has no place in this document. It has little to do with the foundations of the university and much to do with a racist superiority complex by these white men. They could have said something more along the lines of "education is necessary because it allows us to look towards progress," but they instead chose to resort to an unnecessary and explicitly degrading comparison.

This lays out an important distinction of a public university which they were trying to achieve: a secular education. This also shows another way in which this document mirrors the nation's founding documents with the separation of church and state. However, those who held power did not represent "all sects of religion on an equal footing;" Christianity was (is?) a dominant religion. I think this transferred over to those who received this education, as well. This phrase has the right intention, but it is not seen through in practice.

Given the time period, this phrase is more or less redundant. At the time, white, property-owning men were the only people truly deemed to be citizens. By separating "men" and "citizens" gives the illusion of a broader acceptance of other individuals (i.e. women and slaves); it's nothing more than that, though. Their intentions for education were only intended for white males, no matter how they try to rephrase that fact.