-
OBJECTIONS
I 7/,  *,l
TO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONSIDERED:
REiARKICS AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF
THE TRUSTEES OF THE PEABODY
EDUCA TION FUND.
NEW YORK, OCT. 7, 1875.
BY BARNAS
BOSTON:
PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON.
I875.
I II
I,    1,
-i
i'
SEARS, D.D. 
AT the Annual Meeting of the Trustees of the
Peabody Education Fund, New York, Oct. 7, I875,
it was
Voted, That the Argument of the General Agent for
Free Common Schools be published in the Proceedings
of the Board, and also that such a number of copies of
the same as he shall think proper shall be printed, under
his direction, for general circulation. 
OBJECTIONS
TO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONSIDERED.
REMARKS OF DR. SEARS ON SUBMITTING HIS
ANNUAL REPORT.
You will have perceived that my Report the present year
is compressed within narrow limits. I desired to present,
in connection with it, a somewhat extended statement of
the views I entertain, after the most careful and anxious
consideration, on topics that have been forced upon my attention by those who call in question the utility and even
the justice of any provision by the State for the education of
the people.
Since our last meeting, the subject of public Free
Schools has been more fully discussed in the Southern
States than during any previous year. The protracted
consideration of the Bill contemplating "mixed schools,"
by both houses of Congress, gave occasion to the opponents of popular education to rally their forces and make
an assault upon the whole systemn. The defence by the
State Superintendents and others has been equally earnest, and much more rational and convincing. No sensible and careful observer supposes for a moment that the
Public Schools in any Southern State will be abolished.
Too many of the people have seen the advantages arising
from them, even in their incipient stages, to allow such a
backward step to be taken. They perceive that the objections made are, for the most part, speculative, and
often purely imaginary; while others, less decided in
their opinions, think it premature to pass judgment on
them before the experiment has been fairly tried. The
main object of the opposition is clearly to avoid the pay 
4
ment of the school tax. All other considerations appear
to be subsidiary to this.
The most general objection is, that the government has
no right to tax the people for the education of their
children. It is here implied that the government constitutes one party, and the people another, which, in
republican States, is untrue, both in theory and in
practice. It is also implied that the acknowledged power
of taxation vested in the Legislature is so limited as to
exclude the support of schools, whereas it is a discretionary
power, which may, indeed, be abused, but for the abuse
of which a remedy is at hand in the sovereignty of the
people. Chief-Justice Marshall says, "The people of a
State give to their government a right of taxing themselves
and their property; they prescribe no limits to the exercise of this right, resting confidently on the interest of the
Legislature, and the influence of the constituents over
their representatives, to guard them against its abuse."
A State Legislature has, therefore, a legal right to tax
the people for schools. The question then turns on the
point whether it has a moral right to exercise its constitutional power in this way. It has been maintained that
the State has no such right, and roundly asserted that it is
robbery to take the hard earnings of one man to educate
the children of another. Abating the exaggeration of the
statement, and putting it in the proper form, that the
property of all is taxed for the education of the children
of all, we would remind those who take this view that
such was not the opinion of Jefferson, the founder of the
school of political philosophy to which they profess to
belong. He prepared a bill, to use his own language,
"for elementary schools for all the children rich and poor."
" One of the provisions of the bill," he says, "was that the 
5
expenses of these schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, - every one in proportion to his taxrate."  In another place he adds,  It is an axiom in my
mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands
of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people
with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the State to effect, and on a general plan."
The theory of our opponents is, that the government
should limit itself almost exclusively to the protection of the
rights of the citizens in their person and property. Their
motto is, "That government is best which governs least."
The fact is overlooked that modern society is far removed
from primitive simplicity; that, as civilization advances,
men are brought into closer relations with each other
both individually and collectively; that, as they have
more wants, so they must have more supplies in common;
that, in these circumstances, they derive great advantages
from organization and combined action, which were impracticable before; that the man who lived apart from
others, and could bring his own bucket of water, and
carry his own lantern, now, that he lives in a community
where there is a division of labor public and private,
finds it easier and cheaper to pay his tax for water and
for gas-lights, and in many ways to employ others to
do what he once performed with his own hands.  The
regulations of government must increase in number as
social life becomes more complex. The more progress
there is in civilization the more concert will there be in
action. Public economy will come into greater prominence, and increased demands will be made on the
government for the exercise of its powers. Excessive
legislation on some subjects does not prove that there
should be no legislation in respect to schools. It is only 
6
against needless or injurious legislation that we should
be on our guard.  For the above-named motto, therefore,
we would substitute the following, as much nearer the
truth and more accordant with reason: Of those thing's
which are ncccssary for the ]Subli'c good, the State should
i)erformi that and only that whiclt i( can do better than
the idividiual, and leave to izdivi'duals that and only
that which they cant perform mo re advantageously than
the Slate.
That government cannot be pronounced unjust which
takes nothing from the individual without public necessity
on the one hand, and without rendering a proper equivalent on the other. And this necessity exists in every free
government in regard to schools; and this compensation
for taxes is made in the security and general welfare of
society. It is a great advantage to a citizen to live in
the peaceful enjoyment of all the means of individual,
domestic, and social happiness and prosperity provided
by an enlightened, provident, and well-ordered State;
and for all this it is but just that he should bear his part
of the public burden. Nor is it necessary, as is sometimes
supposed, that every measure adopted by the State should
be equally favorable to every individual. If one be less
benefited than others by a certain legislative act, he will,
in turn, be more benefited than they by some other act.
Most laws operate with some degree of inequality. If,
then, Public Schools are not directly of the same utility
to all, and yet indirectly benefit all in a broader sense,
there is no more injustice in taxing the people for their
support than there is in doing the same for other kindred
objects respecting which there is no dispute. The postal
service, the improvement of harbors, the removal of
obstructions to navigation from rivers; the construction 
7
of canals, roads, and bridges; humane and charitable
institutions, and the public works of cities, and police
regulations, - all favor some classes of citizens more than
others; and yet no one pronounces the laws providing
for them unjust. Perhaps no law passed "for promoting
the public welfare" operates more equally for the good
of all than that for educating the children of the State.
There are no such absolute rights of property as exempt citizens either legally or morally from reasonable
taxation. The power of a State to tax is inherent and as
universal as the power to govern. The only consideration
that is left is, whether the necessities and interests of a
State are such as to justify the exercise of this power in
the establishment of schools. That question has been so
often and so thoroughly argued elsewhere that'it need
not be discussed here, except incidentally as we proceed.
Another objection has been stated in the following
words: "I object to this system, always and necessarily
tending to uniformity, because it violates the law of nature, which is the law of God." But every human being
has much in common with others, while he has sonme
things peculiar to himself. Of what is individual and
peculiar, some things are blemishes, others excellences.
Now, to speak in the same manner and in the same spirit
of things so diverse, is not very philosophical. What is
common to all requires of the educator common treatment. What is faulty needs to be obliterated, as far as
possible. Peculiar qualities which are good should have
a normal development.
A child, so far as he is rational, participates in the
universal reason. An appeal to this is, in its nature, the
same in all persons, adapted only to their age and
attainments. Every mind in a class made up of such 
8
pupils needs to be held to a common standard. It has
been  proved,  by  innumerable  examples,  that a boy
educated in this way has more mental power and versa tility than one trained by himself. Having a common
interest with others, he is aroused by sympathy. The
action of the class on his mind is as valuable to him as
the instructions of his teacher. The faculty of reason has
freer play and becomes more many-sided. His whole
mental  development is less  abnormal,  and  injurious
idiosyncrasies are thrown into the background, as they
should be.  Education in the direction of universal or
abstract reason is like the centripetal force in the solar
system; that in the direction of individual peculiarities
is like the centrifugal force. The former tends to unity;
the latter to separation and isolation. The best training
of the mind is that which begins with the individual
where it finds him, and from that point starts in the
direction of absolute truth and reason. The individuality
will always assert itself as a positive force, and the progress made towards absolute perfection will give the best
possible development to a healthy individuality. Let me
illustrate: There is but one Model Man for humanity,
and all men are required to imitate him. The Scriptures
give us no caution against imitating him too perfectly
for fear of producing a "monotonous uniformity." The
individuality will take care of itself. There will not only
be variety enough, but it will be of the right kind; it will
not be abnormal. The Apostle of Love and the Apostle
of the Gentiles were more alike for being disciples of
Christ; but they not only preserve their individuality, but
they both have a far better individuality for their common
discipleship. Thus the two factors, a different startingpoint and a common goal, ever approximated but never 
9
reached, are both necessary to that variety which God
designed. Such is the law both of Christianity and of
nature. But we are concerned with this broad principle
only so far as it applies to Public Schools.
First, as to the pupils. They are usually in school
only six hours a day, for four or five months of the year,
between the ages of about seven or eight and fifteen or
sixteen, leaving a plenty of time for the development of
their individuality. While in school, their normal individuality will be preserved; only faulty and repulsive
peculiarities, blemishes, and weaknesses will be, as far
as possible, weeded out. The different schools and
grades of schools are under different teachers.
In the second place, uniformity in those simple elements of knowledge usually taught in the Common
School is desirable. Let all the children resemble each
other as much as possible in their knowledge of the
powers of the letters of the alphabet and of numbers;
of orthography and pronunciation; of the meaning of
words and the grammatical structure of sentences; of
penmanship, punctuation, and the use of capitals; of the
fundamental rules of arithmetic, and of the elements of
physical and political geography. Individual peculiarities on these points are altogether too prevalent.
If by " uniformity" is meant that the schools of all the
cities and districts will naturally be taught and disciplined
in the same way, nothing is farther from the trutil. The
School Laws do not prescribe modes of teaching and
discipline. The County Superintendents and Trustees
have little or nothing in common in supervising schools.
They act independently, so far as they act at all on these
points, - each following his own sense of propriety. The
teachers, on whom the character of the school in these
2
*.1  Ace       1: e, in 
I0
respects depends, are entirely independent of each other,
are no more "equal" than other persons.  On one point,
however, there is uniformity in the Public Schools: they
must teach all the branches of an elementary English
education, and each in due proportion, -which cannot
be said of all Private Schools.
If the meaning be that in the same school and in the
same classes there is a general uniformity, the remark is
equally applicable to academies, colleges, professional
schools, and universities. But how does this principle
operate in fact? For more than half a century theological seminaries have sent out their classes annually, and
yet no two clergymen so educated, though the instruction
was uniform, have preached alike. The individuality of
lawyers and physicians, who have been educated alike,
is just as observable. If the objector had spent a part of
his life in Prussia, or in those States of our own country
where for a long period the people have been educated
in the Public Schools, he would have known that individuality, except in its repulsive forms, in those who have
passed through them, is just as marked as it is elsewhere.
There is, indeed, some degree of uniformity in intelligence, civility, and capacity for business.
Thus we see what ground there is for the following
assertion: "Now, the children of our State, in attendance
upon the Public Schools, are daily subjected to this unnatural process, tending to absolute uniformity, to the
obliteration of peculiar characteristics, and by necessity
diminishing their capacity for happiness and usefulness.
Upon the same Procrustean bed they must all be placed,
lopped off when too long and stretched out when too
short, that, if possible, the law of nature may be nullified
and the order of God reversed."
-':,..    o.' ~
,.  
II
Again, it is said: "The tendency of the system everywhere and always is to enforced attendance." "If the
system is to be sustained by the compulsory exactions of
law, it must also,' as a logical necessity, be sustained by
the compulsory attendance of pupils." "In all the German States, in Italy, in nine States in this Union,..
compulsory attendance is the law." The author of this
statement cannot have read the School Laws of those
States of the Union to which he here refers. His whole
argument is framed on the false supposition that nine
States do now, and all States finally will, require all
children to attend the Public Schools. Not one of these
States requires a child to do so. It is not against Private
Schools, but against ignorance and barbarism, that they
(and we too) are making war. Nor is it true that the
law, in any of them, lays hold of the child, and forces
him to disobey his parents, dragging him to the Public
School. On the contrary, it says nothing to the child,
requires nothing of him, but lays its injunction on the
parent, and requires him to give a minimum of education
to his child, either in a public or private school, - enough
to render it possible for him to become a safe and decent
citizen.
In taking a speculative view of the logical necessity of
the system, the writer appears as a closet theorist, and not
as a practical man. In a complex matter, where there are
many co-operating causes, he takes one line of thought,
and leaves out all the rest; and, with this one thread of
logic, talks of logical necessity, as if the practical man
were to proceed invariably in the narrow groove of a
single syllogism. What may be simple and easy in
theory may be impossible or inexpedient in practice.
The considerate man knows that to make a law is one 
12
thing, and to enforce it is quite another. There may be
a logical necessity from a single point of view, and over
against it many insurmountable obstacles from several
practical points of view. Legislators are more swayed
by the latter than by the former. Compulsory education,
where it really exists, has, in its real aim, sole reference
to the children of the ignorant and vicious. So far as I
know, it is, in this country, enforced only in reference to
them, and that, I believe, in only two or three cities.
There is no motive to induce men to enforce such a law
in regard to others, where the reasons of the law cease,
but every motive to the contrary. Consequently such a
law, even where it exists, never in practice affects the
children of other parents. In fact, the compulsory law is
not generally enforced at all. This writer is as sure as
that the sun will rise to-morrow, that, if the school system
continue to exist, compulsory attendance will be the law
of the Commonwealth. Others, proceeding on the principle that-laws which cannot be enforced in consequence
of their unpopularity are as weak as tow, are just as
certain that compulsory attendance can never prevail in
this country. General expediency, not a syllogism, will
decide the question. If there be such a law, it will not
reach those parents who give any reasonable degree of
education to their children, and it will do more good
than harm to others who do not give their children any
education. If there be no such law, we must deal with the
ignorant as we always have done, relying on those moral
agencies which have been employed by all the States
from the beginning, and which are still the reliance of
nearly all of them. The point now at issue is not that
of compulsory attendance. We have nothing to do with
that subject in these States. The true question now 
I 3
before the people is, "Shall we make a fair trial with our
present system of education, or shall we abandon it out
of regard to the objectionable features of another and
different system?"
Reasoning from the monarchical States of Germany
and Italy to the republican States of this country, in regard to compulsory attendance, is not very logical. The
stringent authority of government is congenial to the
sentiments and habits of the people in the one case, and
uncongenial in the other. No inference, therefore, can
be drawn from the practice of the former to that of the
latter.
Assuming that compulsory attendance (which is by no
means the same as the enforced education of neglected
children) will be universal in these free States, the objector to Public Schools goes on to say: " Now compulsory attendance upsets the reciprocal relations and duties
of parent and child, as God has defined and imposed
them, and is, ipso facto, a negation of God's authority.
By the system, the child is not in the hands of his parents,
but of the State. He is to be taught such subjects as the
State prescribes; his manners, his health, his politics,
his morals, even his religion, are all subject to State
control. The child belongs to society, and not to his
parents."  He then appeals to the Bible:   Honor thy
father and mother;"   Children, obey your parents in
all things;"  Ye, fathers, bring up your children in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord." He adds, finally:
"Shall the child, in obedience to his parents, as God
requires, stay at home and violate the law? or, shall he
go in obedience to the law, and disregard his parents,
which God forbids?"
It is, no doubt, the Divine plan for parents to give 
14
personally religious instruction and home discipline and
training to their children; but it is not the Divine plan
that parents should be their children's schoolmasters.
Teaching must be a business, a profession; and we
are no more required to teach our own children in the
studies of the schools than we are to make their shoes,
Nor is it true that instruction given by others in spelling,
reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and grammar
-the principal studies taught in the Public Schoolsinterferes, in any way, with parental duty or authority.
The parent who sends his children to these schools can
teach them what the Bible requires quite as well as the
one who does not. Besides, fathers are the very men
most likely to lead in all public measures for schools.
There is no party in the State whose interests can induce them, or whose power could avail them, to force
upon the collective body of parents a system of education against their will. The idea is wholly preposterous.
The law, in a few States, requires the parent to see
that his children are, for a period of about twelve weeks
in the year, instructed either in a public school or elsewhere.   Parents, with comparatively few exceptions,
thankfully accept the boon of Free Schools, and comply
with the requirement. These are all the facts from which
an attempt is made to prove that the child is forced to
violate a law of God. 
In regard to the principle so confidently laid down,
viz., that the State cannot, in any thing, without impiety,
abridge the parent's authority over the child, I would
remark that there is another passage of Scripture which
seems to have been forgotten: " Let every soul be subject
unto the higher powers." Here both parent and child
are required to be subject to the powers that be, because 
I5
they are ordained of God. By Divine appointment, the
authority of the civil government is superior to that of
the parent. The will of the parent must, in the last
resort, yield to the will of the government. The government is so important to society, to which the family is
only preparatory and ancillary, that the family must be
subject to its authority. The child belongs as much to
society as to the family, and for a much longer period.
He is protected by the government against the cruelty
of the parent. If he violate a law, the parent cannot
protect him by interposing his authority. If the State
needs the military services of a youth of eighteen years,
the parent cannot resist. If the small-pox prevails, and
a city orders that all the children shall be vaccinated, the
parent cannot say the child is under my control. If a
ship in which he sails is put in quarantine, the father
cannot command his son to come home. All this is as
scriptural as it is rational.
In all civil matters, therefore, parental authority is
limited by the exigencies or perils of the State.  This
law is as applicable to education as it is to any other
subject. The question, then, is not whether the State
can lawfully and scripturally interpose in the education
of children, but whether its exigencies or perils are really
so great as to demand and justify the interposition. To
draw the line is, indeed, a delicate matter. But of the
principle of State interposition, whenever it is expedient,
neither Scripture, nor reason, nor analogy allows us to
doubt.
It is said that, by the theory of Public Schools, "the
State stands to the children in loco larentis." The
Public School system rests on no such doctrine as that.
No such principle is recognized in the School Laws. 
I6
The State stands in its own place, and leaves the parent
in his. For its own sake, it aids the parent in training
up his children to become good citizens, well knowing
that, without such aid, a multitude of children will be
neglected and become its worst enemies. This is the
theory adopted by every State. It does not propose to
bestow a bounty upon individuals, as such, nor to
interfere with the liberty and just rights of the parent.
Such complaints do not come from parents who have
lived under this beneficent system, but from men who,
without experience or observation, theorize in the closet
on the subject. The people are beginning to see that
they have a deep stake in this matter; that they are
immensely benefited as well as the State; that by this
means, and no other, can they educate every child without
difficulty. When they have once enjoyed the blessing
of Free Schools they almost universally open their eyes
to all the great realities of the case, and give up their old
prejudices. They regard these schools as their own,
and glory in them as the "people's colleges." Are not
Public Schools more controlled by the popular will than
any others? Teachers are selected and schools controlled
by those whom the legal voters, mostly parents, elect for
this purpose. How is the teacher appointed in a Private
School? Do forty or fifty parents individually make the
contract, and does each one exercise his parental authority
in settling the course of study, the text-books, and the rules
of discipline? It is well known that the best Private
Schools in the South are academies with preparatory departments; and that these are managed, not by the parents
of the children, but by boards of trustees. Parents may
patronize them or not; they can exercise no control over
them. Other Private Schools are set up and governed by 
I 7
the principal according to his own ideas; and he, if he be
a man,will suffer no dictation in his own chosen profession.
The parent must put up with such a teacher as others approve. There is often no choice between this and going
without a school, on account of the impracticability of maintaining two schools in the same place. Practically, the
whole matter is managed by a few leaders, the people following; and it is just as safe to have those leaders regularly
chosen by the people as to have them self-appointed. What
has been so often said about individual parental control has
no place in any respectable Private School; and is true
only of family schools, which are now wholly out of date.
A still more definite ground of complaint is presented
thus: "The Public School, in all its departments, is and
must be utterly irresponsible to parents. This feature,
though the system is on its good behavior yet with us, is
already beginning to awaken, to some extent, the public
attention to the mischievous tendencies of the scheme.
The punitive measures of the Public School even now
... frequently do violence to our sense of justice, and
inflict irreparable injury upon the character of the child."
"In many cases, despite the best efforts to prevent it,
incompetent, corrupt, brutal teachers will be appointed.
... Whatever subjects may be taught, whatever manners
encouraged, whatever morals, whatever religion, inculcated, however aggrieved or wronged, we must be silent,
acquiescent. For slight or imaginary offences, a coarse,
vulgar teacher, vexed and goaded by cheap whiskey, may
wreak his brutal wrath on your noble boy, your delicate,
shrinking daughter." I quote this last passage with regret.
Does the writer mean to affirm that the Public School
system is less favorable to the appointment of competent
and humane teachers than the system of Private Schools?
3 
i8
The State, when its system is complete, provides for the
professional training of its teachers by means of Normal
Schools, Teachers' Institutes, and by the visitation and
instruction of Superintendents. Nothing has exerted a
happier influence in improving the quality of instruction
given than these several agencies. Every teacher is
subjected to a careful examination by a properly qualified
officer, before he can be lawfully appointed. Then a
selection is made by another officer or Board of officers.
Having entered upon his duties, he and his school are
frequently visited and inspected, and compared with
others, and if he prove unfit for his office he is dismissed.
Can as much be said of the ordeal through which the
private teacher is to pass?
It is precisely at this point of wholesome and firm, but
humane discipline, that the Public School has greatly
the advantage over the Private School for the mass of
children. The interference of dictatorial parents is one
of the causes of bitterest complaint with teachers generally.
The teacher may be made the slave of a powerful patron,
and the proper discipline of the whole school must yield
to the dictates of one whom it is not safe to offend. The
parent will believe the child (the most unreliable witness)
and not the teacher, who is treated as a culprit; and there
is no cool, disinterested party to settle the difficulty impartially. In the Public School, the parent goes directly to
the Superintendent or other school officer, who is not only
free from the excitement arising from being a party in the
dispute, but directly and deeply interested in maintaining
faultless discipline, both for his personal satisfaction and
convenience and for the reputation of the schools, which
depend wholly on popular favor. He hears the parent's
complaint. He then goes to the teacher and endeavors to 
I9
effect an amicable settlement. If he does not succeed,
he next lays the matter before the School Board, and the
case is investigated and settled. There cannot be greater
security than this, both for the school and the parent. It
is not the child, but the parent, who should seek redress.
There is no part of the whole system of public education
which is more universally satisfactory, where it is in
vigorous and healthy operation, than its equitable and
well-ordered method of school government.
The State employs its wisest and best men to provide
good school-houses and furniture, qualified teachers,
judicious courses of instruction, and just discipline; but
leaves every citizen at liberty to send his children to
Private Schools of his own choice. And yet, in view of
these very facts, the objector says: " My soul sickens in
the contemplation of the terrible condition to which we
are hastening." And what is this terrible condition? It
is that in which a State, for its own preservation and
welfare, and for the general good, takes care that all the
people possess the rudiments of knowledge by the only
means which can secure that result. The author denies
that the State, which exists for the purpose of protecting
person and property, has the right to protect itself and
its citizens against ignorance, lawlessness, and violence,
by such a preventive as teaching the people. Thieves
and plunderers are to be so far protected in their right
to do wrong, that they can bring up their children to be
like themselves; and the evil must not be touched by the
State till it is past remedy, and is then to be visited with
penalties. Little culprits are around our premises every
day, with no occupation but pilfering; and yet it is not
allowed to put them in school, and make useful citizens
of them; but they are to be left to grow up, in swarms, 
20
as pests of society. In some places which are in just
this condition good citizens are removing to other States;
and how is this exodus to be arrested? By emigration
societies? Public Schools will furnish a surer and better
remedy. This is a practical question, and the sooner
we meet it the better. If we deny the right of the State
to protect itself in this way, the evil can never be
removed. England has, from the time of the Heptarchy,
tried the experiment of checking it by Private Schools at
an expense that is perfectly enormous, and now confesses
that it is a total failure; and is driven to the expedient of
Public Schools by the appalling mass of ignorance that
is growing upon its hands, and endangering the stability
of the government. No other State on either side of the
Atlantic will ever lavish so much money as England has
lavished upon Private Schools. The experiment failing
there, I see no chance for its success in any other country.
Prussia, on the other hand, has educated her people as
no other State has done; and the consequence is that,
in proportion to its population, it is the most enlightened,
influential, and powerful people on the globe. And yet
universal education is vastly more necessary to a republic
than to a monarchy. Free Schools have been longer
maintained in republics than in monarchies. For more
than two centuries have they existed in some of our own
States; and no tax has been paid more cheerfully by
them than the school tax. By no amount of argument
could they be induced to cut off this right hand of their
strength. The whole population think they receive untold blessings in the form of a prevalent public spirit,
orderly and peaceable citizenship, general intelligence,
enterprise, wealth, liberality, security of person and
property, activity and energy in church and State, in 
21 I
comparison with which a school tax of a few dollars is
as nothing. If the fears entertained by some are just,
why have they not been realized in this long and widespread experience? Why does not some nation, State,
or city, which has given it a fair trial, abandon the
system?
The failure of Private Schools for the elementary instruction of the people -for we are s.peaking of these
only - may be explained from their very genius, which
is, in a multitude of important particulars, the very
reverse of that of Public Schools. Private Schools are
often established as a means of support, or for moneymaking, and conducted both with reference to education
and to gain, in varying proportions. Public Schools
are established and conducted with sole reference to the
best and least expensive means of education. Private
Schools are established, not in sufficient numbers nor
where they are most needed, but where they will yield
the greatest income. The teachers are self-appointed,
for whose competency and fitness no one is responsible.
They may be good; they may be adventurers; they may
be objects of charity, kept in place out of mere pity.
The teachers lay out their own courses of instruction,
often with the most slender provision for elementary
studies. There is no supervision of Private Schools.
The teacher cannot grade his school. If he instructs
by individuals instead of classes, he can give only a few
minutes a day to each pupil. If he instruct, as he must,
numerous small classes, where he attempts to classify all
his pupils, he must hurry from one subject to another
without time for plan or preparation. He cannot safely
be firm and impartial in his discipline. He is liable to be
in the power of influential patrons. Teachers cannot bfi 
22
distributed in numerous grades of schools on the principle
of division of labor, each one being devoted exclusively
to that for which he is best fitted. These, and a host of
other disadvantages, lie not in any thing culpable in private teachers, but are inherent in the system as a means
of general education. These schools exclude all systematic arrangement among themselves, by being wholly
independent of each other and disconnected. We are
ready to do all honor to individuals, societies, and
churches by whose benevolent agency Private Schools
have been provided for the destitute. Some of these are
doing a work which will be held in grateful remembrance
by succeeding generations. Private Schools of various
kinds have-their appropriate place among the means of
education. But they are an unsafe reliance for the universal diffusion of knowledge, and lack the elements of
economy and efficiency which characterize the Public
Schools.
If we are to believe in the theory set forth in the various articles under review, it is well for the State to appropriate funds for the endowment and support of the highest
institutions of learning for the education of the few, but
not to appropriate one cent for those schools which offer
elementary education for all the people. It is well for
the State to encourage emigration societies and agents,
but not Free Schools; though these attract,not the scum
of European society, but families of wealth and culture.
It is well for the public to tax itself for railroads, but not
for schools, though the latter increase the population and
the value of property as certainly as the former.  It is well
to pay enormously for a little doubtful legislation and a
great deal of party strife and contention, but it is tyranny
to go to the root of the evil, and, by such means as 
23
public instruction, to educate the people up to the point
of giving their votes to none but competent and good
men, and thus healing this running sore of the nation.
It is well to pay high rates of tuition, which shall exclude
the majority of children, perhaps, from the schools, in
order to place our children, for a few hours of the day,
where they shall not come in contact with the children
of others; and yet monstrous for the public (which alone
can do it) to educate, improve, and refine all the children in the streets and about our doors, so that contact
with them (which in most cases is inevitable) shall
endanger no child's morals or manners.
It is furthermore objected that "education would
be, to the mere operatives certainly, a positive. disqualification.. by arousing ambitions which must be for ever
crushed; " that the progress of society would be retarded
by universal education, because " civilization ceases
without scavengers, boot-blacks," &c.  To show that it is
sin for such persons to better their conditions, the passage
is quoted, "Let every man abide in the same calling
wherein he is called." And, to make the matter still
more sure, it is added, "God visits the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children;" " The child, by God's appointment, inherits the physical, moral, and intellectual
characteristics of its parents." The conclusion is, " Our
modern fanaticism is wiser than God."
It is needless to comment upon these obvious perversions of Scripture; but it is natural to inquire what the
people of Scotland, of Switzerland, of all the German
States, and, we may add, nearly, if not quite, all the
States of the Union, do for scavengers, boot-blacks, and
operatives of every description, if the education of these
classes unfits them for their occupation. We have ob 
24
served but one effect in this regard, -the increase of
their wages.  The universal testimony of employers is
that the value of service, even of the lowest grade, is in
proportion to the intelligence of those employed. What
a calamity it is for a human being to be shut out, not only
from profitable employment, but from the light of the
sacred Scriptures, and of all books, and for the soul that
was made for knowledge and culture to remain almost a
blank! How dreary the life, and how low the pleasures
of one who can never taste the sweets of literature, nor
know what is going on in the wide world, in this age of
wonders, beyond the narrow limits of his own town or
district! As surely as States come under Christian influence, and pursue an enlightened policy, the children
of the degraded and dangerous classes will not be left to
the sad inheritance of their fathers' ignorance, crime,
and.ignominy. The human heart revolts at the idea that
men are not to be helped out of their wretchedness, even
for the public good, on the ground that Providence would
not have it so. The humanizing influences of the age,
felt in every civilized State, come not, as is implied, from
impiety, but from the divine precepts and example of
the Great Teacher and Exemplar of religion and virtue.
Another paradoxical view is advanced. The argument
that public intelligence is necessary to free institutions is
pronounced to be "entirely unsatisfactory," and then we
are informed that "there is a vast amount of cheap humbug about this matter of education," and that the education
which a citizen needs is not given in the Public Schools.
" The mere ability to read, write, and cipher, a smattering
of geography and grammar, of history and science, is not
education, and seldom prepares a boy for the intelligent
and conscientious discharge of the duties of citizenship." 
25
"The best school which human wit ever devised for
political instruction was our old county court system,
where the sovereigns every month, however untaught in
books, learned from the lips of eloquent orators and
statesmen the history and nature of their government, the
aims and tactics of rival parties, and received the ablest
instruction in the rights and duties of citizenship. In this
way intelligent citizens were made, though they did not,
and many of them could not, read the newspapers." I
am afraid that, in the changes that have taken place, that
race of politicians -great orators, statesmen, and patriots
- have deserted the county courts, if they have not, like
those times of ignorance, passed away. Besides, the
question at issue is not whether one, while a boy, and
while at school, or even when he is through with his
school, is "fitted for civic offices," but whether his power
to read and understand will, when he has exercised it in
his manhood, place him in intelligence above his neighbor
who has not this power?
Suppose some men are brighter without education than
others are with it, how is the writer to make it out that
the bright intellects are always with the illiterate, and the
dull ones always with the educated classes? With the
same capacities, and with the same opportunities for
growth and development in practical and public life, will
it be maintained that the educated boy has no advantages
over the uneducated? If not, the argument is entirely
sophistical. Knowledge and discipline are given in the
schools; practical and political knowledge follows the
schools, and comes of itself and with increased power in
the advance to manhood and maturer years. The school
gives the elements of power; life gives direction and
development to that power.
4 
26
Suppose the illiterate can learn many things by
observation, by intercourse with better-informed men.
Do they enjoy the monopoly of these opportunities? Can
they observe better, reflect more, judge more accurately,
and reason more logically than those who have at the
start disciplined intellects, exercised memories, and
minds stored with elementary principles, and with varied
knowledge?  Does an excursion in geography beyond
the horizon of one's own home, and in history farther
back than the days of one's grandfather, and a familiarity with the thoughts of the great English writers, and
the enjoyment arising firom the perusal of the daily,
weekly, monthly, and quarterly press, unfit him for
competition with those of his fellow-citizens who are
destitute of all these things, and to whom the literature
of the world is a blank?
If the argument against the necessity of "book learning" for the citizen is good, it is as applicable to private
as to public schools. But who would be so mad as to
propose that all these be closed, and the youth be suffered
to grow up as ignorant as barbarians; and, in their ignorance, prejudice, and passion, to drink in the sentiments
of corrupt party politicians, and to depend on such an
education as a preparation for the duties of citizenship?
There are those who protest against the payment of
taxes "for the education of the children of worthless
vagabonds." They would set these chiz'ldren to work in
clearing up the swamps that breed malaria. Such persons, of course, must think it cheaper, wiser, and better
to leave them, under the sanction of Heaven and of just
laws, in their hereditary condition of vice and misery
than to educate them, though the contagion of which
they complain spread like the leprosy, though theft and 
27
robbery and bloodshed and slaughter outgrow all legal
restraints and remedial measures; though such of their
number as are detected and punished only become worse
and more desperate by incarceration; and, finally, though
the " taxation wrung from an unwilling people" for detecting, trying, imprisoning, and supporting them in
penitentiaries be much greater and more oppressive than
would be necessary to educate them all inii their youth,
and save them and us from one of the greatest curses
which now afflict society.
As to putting young children into the field at the age
which the laws of nature have set apart for education,
and thereby dooming them to perpetual ignorance, it is
as preposterous as it would be to attempt to reap when
we ought to sow. It is as impossible to reap in seedtime as it is absurd to sow in harvest-time. This is not the
way to rid ourselves of " the brute tyranny of numbers."
We cannot recall the right of suffrage, and yet that right
will prove a curse unless its exercise be guided by intelligence. We must be for ever where we now are, or in
a worse condition, unless we educate. Therefore, with
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, I Lay educate,
educate, educate! There is no use in ignoring our
perilous circumstances. Do not let the State refuse to
save itself simply because in so doing it also improves,
elevates, and saves individuals. To brand this as
" Quixotic philanthropy" is easy, indeed; but it is no
mark of wisdom.
I will close this discussion by indicating, in the briefest
manner, a line of argument that is purely practical. It is
well known that in all the Southern, and especially the
Gulf States, good lands can be purchased for a moiety of
their former value. This condition of propertyis, no doubt, 
28
produced by many causes. But men who have offered to
sell their plantations even at a much lower rate in the far
South, have given as the chief reason the insecurity of
property in fences, fruits, produce in the field, and all the
smaller stock of a farm, arising from the depredations of a
low and ignorant population. The pilfering propensities
of this class of people are, indeed, quite insufferable.
Let good schools be planted in all these districts, and, in
less than ten years, when the pupils shall have reached
their maturity, the whole condition of things will be
changed. Again, the system of slave labor being abolished,
and that of free labor substituted, it becomes necessary
to qualify men for their new condition by giving them
intelligence enough to be their own masters. Freedom of
itself does not make one an intelligent and useful citizen.
This question of labor can never be properly adjusted with
an ignorant people of blind impulses. They will sport with
their liberty to their own injury and that of their employers.
Nor is it for this class alone that Public Schools are necessary. Such are the improvements in the industrial arts,
and such the competition in all branches of business in the
same and in different sections of the country, that men who
are far behind others in intelligence and skill will stand no
equal chance with them. Agriculture is now the leading
occupation of men in the South. That it is generally in a
low condition, that only a part of the soil is under cultivation, and that not in the most economical way, is confessed
by all. The more thorough cultivation of small tracts of
land, a greater variety of crops, with a proper rotation, and
a system of sub-soiling, manuring, and draining, would not
only be more profitable, but would greatly improve the soil.
But all this presupposes a more intelligent class of laborers.
A still greater advantage would accrue from the introduction
of manufactures. Raising only one or two kinds of crops, 
29
depending chiefly on bulky raw materials to be transported
at the present high rates, and paying for their return in
the form of manufactured articles, not only subjects men
to all the risks of a bad season at home, or of reduced profits
if the season is good abroad, but it burdens them with
disproportionate expenses, and leaves them without the
prosperity resulting from a multiplication of the branches
of business which places producer and consumer side by
side. Now we must either renounce all these essential
means of prosperity, or we must educate the mass of the
people up to that point of intelligence which will render
the skilful practice of all the industrial arts possible. The
Private Schools will never reach the great body of the
laboring classes. They are limited, sporadic, and devoid
of all organization and system. Contrast with them the
Public Schools both in efficiency and in the scope, order,
and economy of their operations. In the first place, there
is a complete organization of school districts, school funds,
and of school officers. All the parts of the State receive
equal attention in proportion to their population. The
whole working of the system is in the hands of men chosen
from among all the people for their skill in the business
of education. The highest educational talent of the State
is placed at the head of the system. Others of similar
character constitute the State Board of Education. The
best assistants that can be obtained are sought for as
county superintendents. The fittest men in each-district
are selected as local school officers. All these, each in his
appropriate sphere, act in concert on the same general plan.
It is also to be remembered that the schools themselves
are organized and duly graded. Teaching becomes a
profession, with a system of promotions that secures
permanency in the office. Normal Schools and Teachers'
Institutes train persons for this special work. Thus the 
30
system, as such, is complete in all its parts, and has the
economical advantages which characterize all great and
successful business enterprises, by means of combination,
organization, and supervision.
This is the theory. We do not assert that the ideal is ever
fully reached in practice. School officers and school men
share in the infirmities common to all. Least of all do we
maintain that a new system will, at thze beginning, bring
forth all its legitimate fruits. All that we assert - and the
experience of more than thirty States bears us out in the
assertion -is that, wherever sufficient time and opportunity
have been given, the ideal has been reasonably approximated
first in the cities, and next in the country.
...