: This book is due at the LOUIS R. WILSON LIBRARY on the 
 last date stamped under "Date Due." If not on hold it may be 
 renewed by bringing it to the library. 
 
 DATE OVT 
 DUE RET 
 
 DATE 
 
 DUE KtT 
 
 
 1 1996 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ZQI1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 : . a O fill 
 
 i 4 ah 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — t <*. - 
 
 
 
 
 
 — JUN 1 
 
 *i onu 
 1 ZUI! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 THE LIBRARY OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 ENDOWED BY THE 
 DIALECTIC AND PHILANTHROPIC 
 SOCIETIES 
 
 F 231 
 .R8U 
 PU3 
 
""'^SITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL 
 
 0001840224 
 
 /" 2 5 $| 3/ 
 
 .V7 "T> 
 
 William Henry Ruffner: Reconstruction 
 Statesman of Virginia 
 
 By C. CHILTON PEARSON 
 
 Wake Forest College 
 
 (Reprinted from The South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. XX, Nos. 1 and 2 
 January and April, 1921) 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/williamhenryruffOOpear 
 
William Henry Ruffner: Reconstruction 
 Statesman of Virginia 
 
 C. Chilton Pearson 
 
 Wake Forest College 
 I 
 
 The year 1920 marked the semi-centennial of the opening 
 of the public schools in Virginia under the administration of 
 William Henry Ruffner. In 1870 as now the problems of the 
 day were problems of reconstruction. Since 1861 Virginia 
 had seen both conquest and revolution. The new constitution 
 and the special covenant under which the state had just re- 
 turned to the Union constituted in effect a treaty, the intent 
 of which was to render secure the results of the conquest and 
 to fortify the processes of the revolution. 1 Most significant 
 among the treaty's terms, to which effect had to be given 
 through laws, institutions and customs, were the provisions 
 for public education and the plan for protecting and develop- 
 ing an inferior race through education and suffrage. The 
 story of the working of the suffrage provision is one of dismal 
 failure. That the educational experiment proved a blessing 
 to both races was due primarily to William Henry Ruffner, 
 the "Horace Mann of the South." 
 
 Of direct and conscious preparation for his educational 
 work Mr. Ruffner had practically none. He was born Feb- 
 ruary 11, 1824, in Lexington, Virginia. From Washington 
 College he received the B.A. degree in 1842 and the M.A. in 
 1844. After courses in theology at Union Seminary, Va., and 
 Princeton and a period of two years as chaplain and student 
 at the University of Virginia, he settled in 1851 as pastor of 
 the Seventh Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. Compelled 
 to resign in 1853, the next sixteen years found him farming 
 and preaching, rather irregularly, to the small churches of his 
 native valley. If to this account we add his marriage to Har- 
 
 1 Cf. Pearson, Readjuster Movement in Virginia, ch. 2. The bibliography of 
 this book includes the bibliography for this paper. Particular reference, however, 
 should be made to the voluminous collection of papers left by Mr. Ruffner in the 
 hands of his son-in-law, Mr. R. F. Campbell, of Asheville, N. C, who very kindly 
 placed them at my disposal. Unless otherwise indicated this study is based on 
 these papers or on Mr. Ruffner's Annual Reports. 
 
4 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 riet Gray, of Rockingham, the outstanding events of his first 
 forty-five years have been chronicled. 
 
 None the less, during these years Ruffner was being fitted 
 well for what was to be his great task. Heredity and early en- 
 vironment were favorable. Into the upper Valley of Virginia, the 
 nation's first ''melting pot," had come the westward moving 
 English pioneers and southward-bound Scotch-Irish, along 
 with a sprinkling of Germans. Some of them had passed on, 
 but others had remained and mingled, generation after genera- 
 tion, with varying predominance of strain. Limestone water 
 and bracing mountain air had made them tall, large limbed, 
 vigorous. Of the best type were the Ruffners, all large men, 
 German in the origin of their name," but Scotch-Irish in their 
 intellectual independence, and English in their practical com- 
 mon sense. These characteristics were, accordingly, William 
 Henry Ruffner's birthright. 
 
 Out of the Scotch-Irish instinct for education had early 
 sprung Augusta Academy, built solidly out of the abundant na- 
 tive rock. With the Revolution it had become Liberty Acad- 
 emy, and the village around, Lexington. After a small gift 
 from the admired Father of his Country, Liberty Academy 
 became Washington College. But regardless of passing influ- 
 ences, the school had at all times been primarily the training 
 ground for young Presbyterians of moderate means and good 
 family. On its faculty was Henry Ruffner, the father of 
 William Henry; later he became its president. Close by was 
 another educational institution very significant for him who 
 would understand the politics of our middle period, the Vir- 
 ginia Military Institute. Thus Lexington was a cultural cen- 
 ter. In Franklin Hall its most eminent citizens read papers 
 and debated to a decision the burning issues of the day; and 
 since these were men of strong convictions and of wide and 
 clannish connections in both the aristocratic east and the demo- 
 cratic west, their discussions and decisions were often of prac- 
 tical political consequence. In this work Henry Ruffner was 
 a leader, contributing a very famous pamphlet on slavery and 
 fathering a significant movement for public education. And 
 the young Ruffner, busy as he was with classical studies and 
 enticed into imitation of his father's occasional verses, re- 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 5 
 
 sponded to this stimulus to thought on social questions. Of his 
 first three public efforts, one dealt with the importance of edu- 
 cation, one with slavery, and one with the settlement of inter- 
 national disputes through a congress of nations. 
 
 From Lexington young Ruffner went first for a year (1842- 
 1843) of business experience to the Kanawha country, as mana- 
 ger of his father's salt works. 
 
 Capital, he wrote his father from this developing country, 
 was very poorly employed in the east while it demanded a high 
 price in the west; one might reap a tidy profit by playing 
 broker. But his instinct for business was not to have immedi- 
 ate play ; instead he must seek theological training in the east. 
 Of this seminary work at Union Theological Seminary and 
 Princeton we have little knowledge, save such as may be in- 
 ferred from a single sermon, well written, well reasoned, but 
 to the modern mind heavy and dull. Apparently he himself 
 counted as more valuable his course in Moral Philosophy at 
 the University of Virginia under Professor W. H. McGuffey. 
 Dr. McGuffey, he afterward declared, "converted my facul- 
 ties into common-sense," and between the two thereafter ex- 
 isted a genuine, Presbyterian friendship such as Ruffner rarely 
 felt for other men. One would like to think that the young 
 chaplain also attracted the . attention of John B. Minor, the 
 University of Virginia's great law teacher; but this can only 
 be conjectured from the readiness with which Professor Minor 
 later came to his aid. 
 
 The University of Virginia of that day would hardly be in- 
 fluenced by a preacher of twenty-six years. But Ruffner must 
 have displayed ability, for from there he went to the Philadel- 
 phia charge. One may fancy that life in a large northern city 
 was illuminating to the village preacher. But one must guard 
 against the modern tendency to assume that the countryman 
 of that day was backward in his knowledge of important hap- 
 penings. We know that he was not immune to the liberal in- 
 tellectual influences of Philadelphia. Particularly valuable was 
 the strong friendship which he formed with Stephen Caldwell, 
 whom he frequently called "the economist," man of wide and 
 correct historical reading and rather unusual insight into such 
 problems as the free negro presented and was to present. On 
 
6 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 the other hand Ruffner must have been able to help Caldwell, 
 for he knew his father's view and activities in the matter of 
 slavery. As long ago as his Kanawha year he had formulated 
 and published ideas of his own from which he never receded. 
 Slavery, he had written anonymously in the Kanawha Repub- 
 lican, was neither dishonorable nor contrary to God's Word, 
 but it was an economic burden, and on that account should be 
 gotten rid of. Later he had served as agent of the Coloniza- 
 tion Society in carrying negroes from Christiansburg to Balti- 
 more for deportation to Africa. Later still he had taken part 
 in organizing and teaching a Sunday school for negroes in Lex- 
 ington, a work in which Stonewall Jackson succeeded him after 
 an interval. And now he could bring from the Mecca of the 
 South's future rulers first-hand knowledge of opinion then in 
 the making. 
 
 Soon, however, came ill health — a nervous affection of the 
 throat, it seems. From the city pastorate Ruffner retreated to 
 Rockingham County where he seems to have sunk into the work 
 of occasional preacher as easily as he had taken up a colporter's 
 task on leaving the Seminary six years before. One cannot easily 
 live in the Valley without becoming a farmer, so fertile is its 
 soil and so genial its climate. Possibly at Washington College 
 Ruffner had attended lectures on Agricultural Chemistry — for 
 such were given, the first in America, it has been claimed. At 
 any rate he soon became not only a "practical" farmer but also 
 a "scientific" farmer. From farming chiefly he derived his 
 livelihood, and years later his "Tribrook" farm was one of the 
 show places of Lexington, whither he returned in 1863. And 
 never did he lose faith in Valley agriculture : even in 1891 he 
 could write in Suggestions for my family : "Land will increase 
 in value, and farming become more profitable." During these 
 years, too, he became interested in the geological formations of 
 the state, and many are the little note books that he filled then 
 and later with first-hand observation. Characteristically, he 
 attempted to put this knowledge to practical use, and one finds 
 among his papers records of more than one commercial ven- 
 ture of his own and several stout volumes prepared for im- 
 portant corporations or the federal government. But this work 
 was done chiefly after his superintendency. The most import- 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 7 
 
 ant immediate result of these pre-war days was the restoration 
 of his health and a widening of his acquaintanceship. And 
 only in the light of his varying activities at this time can we 
 understand how responsible men could a little later speak so 
 confidently of his business sense and executive powers. 
 
 The test of loyalty to one's own people imposed so rigor- 
 ously during the Civil War and Reconstruction Ruffner met 
 satisfactorily and yet with dignity. It was Lincoln's call for 
 troops, he told Stonewall Jackson, that converted him, as so 
 many other Virginians, to secession. Following the accepted 
 custom for ministers, he remained at home and did his bit by 
 visiting the distressed, writing letters to the front, gathering 
 food and clothes for the armies, joining the Home Guards, and 
 at least once preaching a sermon on the obligation of the oath 
 of allegiance. During Congressional Reconstruction he shared 
 the intense indignation of Professor John B. Minor over the 
 "infamous Catilines at Washington." But he probably never 
 joined the passive resistance group. Instead, after a decent in- 
 terval and a brief anonymous re-assertion of the rightfulness of 
 secession in the Charlottesville Chronicle, he dropped for good 
 and for all the legalistic attitude of the South's old leaders, 
 urged participation in national life, and set himself to study 
 the state's practical problems. Once more debate was resumed 
 in Franklin Hall. On the question, "Is it advisable for the 
 state of Virginia, at this time, to adopt a system of Public Free 
 Schools ?" Ruffner took the negative, his side winning twenty- 
 seven to none. Less than a year later, April 6, 1867, he champ- 
 ioned the affirmative of the query, "Ought Virginia to adopt 
 measures for the education of the colored people?" and again 
 his side won, sixteen to six. > 7 
 
 Embedded in the Virginia constitution of 1870 were pro- 
 visions for the usual feature of a modern school system. This 
 was revolutionary. For in the long run its meaning was to be 
 democracy for the whites and opportunity for the blacks through 
 the agency of an increasingly socialized state. Most of the 
 accustomed leaders of the whites, however, envisioned the 
 revolution in the light of the conquest. To them there was at 
 best a "system prescribed by the constitution," or "this system 
 of common schools which has been thrust upon us." And 
 
8 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 the great mass of the whites, still stunned and apathetic, agreed. 
 On the other hand some leaders felt with Mr. Ruffner that 
 education ought to be provided, and by the state, for the 
 negroes, so pathetic in their eagerness for schools and so ludi- 
 crous in their expectations. Moreover, the constitution was 
 mandatory, and the governor insistent. Not from choice, 
 therefore, but from necessity would the legislature take up 
 early in 1870 the election of a state superintendent of public 
 instruction, which was its first duty under the constitution. In 
 recognition of the situation the Educational Journal of Vir- 
 ginia had been founded, and it perhaps reflected the best public 
 opinion when in February, 1870, it said : The new superinten- 
 dent must be "alive to. . . . changes wrought by the war, 
 and yet not a man to surrender in homage to that fashionable 
 deity of New Virginia and purely material prosperity, all our 
 time honored memories." 
 
 For this position Mr. Ruffner became a candidate in the 
 fall of 1869. Though without technical training or experience 
 in public education, he was not poorly equipped. He was, as we 
 have seen, a minister; and the ministry and education had al- 
 ways been closely allied. His education was broad, his experience 
 varied, his inclinations social. His record during Civil War 
 and Reconstruction was satisfactory. From his letters of 
 recommendation we learn that his belief in public education 
 was sincere but tempered with the proper caution for the times. 
 Especially prized and valuable was a letter written by Prof. 
 John L. Campbell and signed by R. E. Lee, stating the belief 
 that he "will give the system a fair and honest trial, and that 
 he will be most competent to make what may be good in it 
 available for the interests of education, and to suggest promptly 
 such alterations and amendments as future experience may 
 point out as desirable." Armed with this letter and with testi- 
 monials from such men as John B. Baldwin, J. William Jones, 
 A. Leyburn, Edward L. Joyner, and William Preston Johnston, 
 Mr. Ruffner invaded the state capital and enlisted the aid of 
 friends and relatives there. Fortunately politicians were not 
 much interested in the position. And so in the Conservative 
 caucus "the Southwest, Richmond and the Valley carried me 
 through," and the Legislature confirmed the nomination, 141 to 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 9 
 
 1, on March 2, 1870. "This is a jejune life I am leading," 
 Ruffner wrote his daughters about this time, "but my con- 
 science rests easy under it. My work is a great one — and I 
 must about it." 
 
 The statesmanship of the new superintendent quickly re- 
 ceived its first test. Under the constitution it was his duty 
 to "report to the general assembly within thirty days after his 
 election a plan for a uniform system of public free schools." 
 This was no slight task. For to succeed, the system must be 
 simple enough to be workable in the hands of an untrained 
 force and yet so sound in principle and so flexible in detail as 
 to admit of continuous development as conditions improved. 
 Selection and adaptation rather than originality were obviously 
 demanded. But which of the existing systems was best? And 
 what adaptations were necessary to meet conditions peculiar to 
 the South and the education of negro freedmen in mass? On 
 these questions the slight antebellum experience of the south- 
 ern states and the recent brief work of the Freedmen's Bureau 
 shed but little light. Fortunately, the constitutional provisions 
 were admirable. Fortunately, too, Dr. Barnas Sears, their 
 inspirer and perhaps their author, was accessible. In his capac- 
 ity as agent of the Peabody Fund Dr. Sears was proclaiming, 
 "Free schools for all, neither more nor less." A New Eng- 
 lander who had been president of Brown University and 
 secretary of the Massachusetts state board of education, he 
 was soon to become a "citizen of Virginia" and to be recognized 
 as such by general acclaim. To him Ruffner now turned for 
 much technical advice and from him learned how to avoid divis- 
 ion and dissension by letting some things work themselves out. 
 Best of all, perhaps, Prof. John L. Minor, of the University of 
 Virginia, tendered help. For Professor Minor was very learned 
 in the law, knew the strength and weakness of his fellow Vir- 
 ginians, and was willing to give to the "cause," as he some- 
 times called public education, disinterested services whose value 
 has not yet received adequate public recognition. Possibly 
 Ruffner was unconsciously aided also by impressions derived 
 from his father's plan of twenty years before, though he had 
 not seen that plan for years. 
 
 But the enlistment of Sears and Minor, complimentary as it 
 was to the discretion and good standing of Mr. Ruffner, did 
 
10 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 not relieve him of the burden of the work nor of the responsi- 
 bility for its quality. Elected March 2, by March 25 he had 
 prepared a general outline or "Report," thus satisfying the 
 constitutional requirement. "The main features," he said in 
 presenting this document, "are either such as the constitution 
 requires, or such as have been favorably tested by long ex- 
 perience in other states and countries. Doubtful questions have, 
 as far as possible, been postponed to future considerations." 
 Between March 30 and April 18 he drafted the law at his home, 
 then took it to Minor "who during all this week. . . . 
 devoted all possible time to the work of revisal." On April 24 
 Rufrrier wrote his wife that he and Minor finished the "re- 
 drafting at half past two. And as we were so pleased with 
 our work, and so with each other, we chatted on until 4. 
 Had it not been Sunday morning we should have continued until 
 breakfast time. Tomorrow I go to Richmond with the best 
 and most finished school law in America and I shall see that 
 it is not butchered by the Legislature." From May 13 to 
 July 8 the bill was before the Legislature. Fortunately mem- 
 bers were much interested in other things. The House made 
 few changes. The Senate cut the pay of county superintendents 
 and "otherwise mutilated the system," Ruffner reported in tem- 
 porary disgust. At the critical moment Governor Walker 
 threatened not to sign because he understood prepayment of 
 poll taxes was required of parents ; but, wrote Ruffner in glee, 
 "it wasn't there !" 
 
 II 
 
 Among the excellencies of the Virginia constitution of 
 1869 was the flexibility of its school provisions. Taking ad- 
 vantage of this Dr. Ruffner so drew the school law and its 
 early amendments that the new system was in line with the best 
 ante helium practices and tendencies and yet presented the 
 fundamental features of the system as it is today under another 
 constitution. 1 There were to be schools in all the counties and 
 these schools were to be free to all — subject, of course, to age 
 qualifications which were made quite elastic in view of the 
 
 1 Knight, "Reconstruction and Education in Virginia" in South Atlantic 
 Quarterly, January and April, 1916. A similar conclusion, reached independently, 
 is expressed in Pearson, "Readjuster Movement in Virginia." 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 11 
 
 unusually wide-spread illiteracy. These schools were to be 
 financed by the fruitful combination of state and local taxation 
 in addition to the income from the old Literary Fund. Local 
 control was to be exercised through boards of district trustees, 
 local supervision through county superintendents, who also 
 licensed teachers. Special districts were not encouraged, ex- 
 cept in the case of towns and cities : an effort to subdivide the 
 districts (which coincided with the "townships," or magisterial 
 districts) was vigorously combatted some years later on the 
 ground that this attempt at popularizing would result in dis- 
 organization and demoralization. The appointment of county 
 superintendents and district trustees rested with the state board 
 of education, which consisted of the governor, attorney-general, 
 and state superintendent. To the latter board was also given 
 an important ordinance-making power. The subjects to be 
 taught were the usual elementary ones of the day: secondary 
 studies in the elementary schools and secondary schools in the 
 towns and cities were permitted, but were not encouraged in 
 the counties as the supply of private academies was quite ade- 
 quate for the elementary school output. 2 There were separate 
 schools, of course, for the whites and the negroes, but both 
 were supported by the joint contribution (through taxation) 
 of the two races, and control over both was vested in a single 
 set of officers in whose selection race played no legal part. 
 
 As a model for a country just beginning its free school 
 system, this law was sent by the United States Commissioner of 
 Education to the government of Chile ; and from that govern- 
 ment Dr. Ruffner received a much prized medal. More im- 
 portant, perhaps, as evidence of contemporary expert opinion 
 are the Commissioner's specific recommendation in his report 
 for 1872 that other Southern states study the Virginia program 
 and the definite statement of Dr. Sears in 1873 that Virginia 
 led the South in respect to systems of public education. Yet 
 in one respect the law proved bad: however useful the con- 
 centration of power in the state board might be in the begin- 
 ning, such a policy thrust too heavy a burden upon the central 
 office, it continually subjected the system to the dangers of po- 
 litical interference, and it did not foster public interest locally. 
 
 2 Cf. U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1872. 
 
12 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 The advantages of decentralization, however, do not appear 
 to have impressed Dr. RufTner until general criticism of his 
 power (though not of its use) appeared in 1873. 3 Then, ex- 
 pressing pleasure at being "relieved" from the work and worry 
 involved, he prepared a bill transferring the appointment of 
 trustees to local boards, which became a law in 1874. This 
 was followed by another law "restoring to local authorities 
 power which should never have been taken from them" in the 
 selection of text-books. And by 1881 he was convinced that 
 the appointment of county superintendents should be transferred 
 to local boards. In no other important respects, however, did 
 it prove desirable in the opinion either of Dr. RufTner or of 
 the legislature to change the law as originally drafted. Ad- 
 ditions were made from time to time — providing for the train- 
 ing of teachers, for example — and other additions would have 
 been made had the superintendent been able to secure requisite 
 funds. 
 
 In his "suggestions for my family" Dr. RufTner set down 
 as a conclusion of his mature years : "There is more in the 
 right execution of any plan than in the plan itself." Perhaps 
 he was thinking of why his school plan did not go the way of 
 Jefferson's and Henry RufTner's. Here was his second test. 
 Recognizing that promptness was vital, he nominated superin- 
 tendents for the hundred counties and secured their appoint- 
 ment before the Senate adjourned, forced his dilatory col- 
 leagues on the state board to elect nearly thirteen hundred dis- 
 trict trustees by the end of the year, got some of the sphools 
 open during the fall of 1869, and by the spring of 1870 he had 
 in operation more than 2,900 schools, enrolling 130,000 pupils 
 and taught by 3,084 teachers, distributed among all the counties. 
 This was a showing at least fifty per cent better than that of 
 any previous year in the state's experience. 
 
 The momentum of this initial success was, of course) great. 
 The doubtful and hostile were now confronted by an accom- 
 plished fact. But speed had not been achieved at the expense 
 of thoroughness. With great energy Dr. RufTner combined 
 shrewdness and sound judgment. In making appointments he 
 sought advice through circulars sent to prominent citizens in 
 
 3 See Richmond Whig, May, 1873, and Richmond Dispatch, January, (1874. 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 13 
 
 the several counties. "A perfect county superintendent of 
 schools," he wrote, "would be a young man or middle aged 
 man of successful experience as a teacher, pleasant in manners, 
 irreproachable character, good speaking abilities, architectural 
 taste, energy, talent, prudence, sound opinions, public spirit, 
 zeal for education of the people and faith in the public school 
 system." But as if doubtful of his ability to secure such a 
 one for the average salary of two hundred and seventeen dol- 
 lars, he added : "The man recommended for the office should 
 be the one who combines the most of these qualities." In 
 actual practice he sought men whose education and character 
 would tend to remove the stigma of "common", which the 
 schools at first bore. Insisting that their duties were "profes- 
 sional in character," he sought to render them expert through 
 uninterrupted service. But although in 1880 nearly one half 
 were original appointees, few were efficient according to modern 
 standards. This deficiency, however, should not be charged 
 against Dr. Ruffner: none of his successors for a generation 
 was able to fill the positions more satisfactorily and none has 
 set a higher standard of qualifications. In the selection of 
 trustees he was more successful. For this office he sought 
 especially "young men with families," whose direct personal 
 interest would supplement their scanty experience in the un- 
 remunerated and thankless task of selecting teachers and man- 
 aging school property. Of them he could write in 1880 that, 
 despite the millions of dollars that had passed through their 
 hands, none of them had been "even charged with malfeasance 
 in office." 
 
 Appointments, however, consumed only a small part of 
 the third of his time that Dr. Rufrner assigned to office work. 
 Besides "the matter of text-books which worked and worried 
 the Board onerously for the .first six or seven years," there 
 were blank forms to be designed, instructions to be formulated, 
 a large correspondence to be handled, and accounts to be kept. 
 It was not the custom then, even in the wealthy states, to main- 
 tain a large office force ; Dr. Ruffner's usually consisted of one 
 or two clerks. With assistance from the Peabody Fund he 
 leased space in the Educational Journal of Virginia and had the 
 superintendents and trustees supplied with copies. "No part 
 
14 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 of my work tells better on the efficiency of the system," he 
 said in 1874. But political Solons did not much like the idea 
 and grew irate at a whisper that teachers were being urged to 
 subscribe. A committee appointed to investigate the office in 
 1879 found nothing to report except evidence of impatience at 
 petty bookkeeping. It was probably debarred from criticising 
 the office as inadequate and unworthy of the system by the 
 knowledge that the expense of a more elaborate office would 
 have been difficult to meet and could never have been explained 
 satisfactorily. And it must be set down as another testimony 
 to Dr. Ruftner's grasp of the situation that he endured this 
 waste of his time without complaint. 
 
 In fact the school revenues .were continuously inadequate 
 and precarious. At first the local tax levy gave trouble, but 
 this quickly disappeared under skillful management. Then came 
 the difficulty of securing the schools' quota of the state taxes. 4 
 The root of this trouble lay in the fact that the constitution 
 guaranteed both the state debt and the school funds and there 
 was not money enough for both. In the contest Dr. Ruffner 
 displayed his wonted foresight and energy. For example, when 
 the taxes began to be paid very largely in depreciated coupons, 
 he was able to produce a law, whose passage he had previously 
 secured, requiring the auditor to turn over to the schools their 
 quota in money. In the debate which ensued over this matter of 
 "diversion" he quite unhorsed the auditor, who. however, con- 
 tinued to discriminate in favor of the state's creditors and the 
 other governmental agencies until the matter was settled by 
 compromises to be noted later. This contest was of the utmost 
 importance. From the standpoint of public education the 
 principle involved was the right of the schools to be deemed a 
 permanent governmental agency entitled to support equally 
 with other governmental agencies. 5 This phase may be re- 
 served, along with the effect upon Ruffner's personal fortunes, 
 for later discussion. Fiscally, the net result was a total expen- 
 diture annually of considerably more than in any other state of 
 the South proper — fourteen per cent, more than in Mississippi, 
 
 4 See Pearson, op ext., ch. 3, ff. and Knight, op. cit. 
 
 5 Cf. Heatwole, History of Education in Virginia, p. 223. I think, however, 
 Dr. Heatwole is wrong in his suggestion that the chief motive of the state auditoi 
 (not "treasurer") was "to weaken and ultimately defeat the public school system." 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 15 
 
 twenty-five per cent, more than in Texas, and more than double 
 the amounts in Georgia and Louisiana. At the same time ex- 
 penses were kept down, and the report of 1880 disclosed that 
 there had been "almost no increase in the cost of administration, 
 and a decided reduction in the cost of education per pupil." 
 Despite this comparative success, however, Dr. Ruffner was at 
 all times impressed with the advisability of having a separate 
 source of revenue for the schools, and so, at one time or an- 
 other, he advocated a special tax on polls, a tax on dogs, and a 
 consumption tax on liquors. Crude as these suggestions sounded 
 then, they represent a point of view that may yet find legisla- 
 tive sanction. 
 
 One third of his time Dr. Ruffner spent in the field, travel- 
 ing 55,657 miles, perhaps half of it in a buggy, and delivering 
 three hundred and twenty-six formal addresses. Here was a 
 test of physical endurance as well as of energy, of tactfulness as 
 well as of judgment. But in no other way could the local forces 
 have been kept in touch with the central office — even thirty 
 years later there was much grumbling and wagging of heads 
 when inspectors were introduced. How many heart-to-heart 
 talks about buildings and teachers and text -books and grading 
 and methods he had, we can not even estimate. These trips to 
 the schools enabled Dr. Ruffner to test out his theoretical 
 reading and thinking. They gave him a check on the reports 
 of his subordinates. And they probably account in large meas- 
 ure for the affection with which he came to be regarded among 
 the rank and file. Most important was his insistence that 
 teachers attain "professional ability" through definite training 
 in methods of teaching. 6 By 1880 he was able to report that 
 teachers' institutes were "becoming general, having been held 
 the past year in all but eleven of the hundred counties." The 
 immediate value of these was probably not great. But they so 
 served to advertise the idea that it crystallized into an institu- 
 tion : in 1880 the first state summer normal schools were opened, 
 and in 1885 the first full time state normal institute was estab- 
 lished under the presidency of Dr. Ruffner. One may perhaps 
 be pardoned the comment that however we may estimate the 
 efficiency of these institutions as regards imparting "profes- 
 
 6 Cf. Heatwole, op. ext., pp. 235, 236. 
 
16 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 sional ability," this much can not be gainsaid : they have 
 proven veritable intellectual and cultural life-savers to thou- 
 sands of the state's almost despairing young women. 
 
 Upon Dr. Ruffner fell also the burden of developing a 
 body of sound public opinion behind the school system. Pecul- 
 iar circumstances rendered this task heavier, perhaps, than that 
 borne by any other superintendent of his day. It will be remem- 
 bered that the acceptance of public education in Virginia had 
 been rather tentative. About 1875 the philosophy of education 
 to which most of the older leaders subscribed began to at- 
 tain formulation. Any extension of the functions of govern- 
 ment beyond "the protection of individuals in all their just 
 rights of person and property," -it was said, tends to "relax 
 individual energy and debauch private morality." For those 
 engaged in menial duties, upon which society reposes, educa- 
 tion is neither necessary nor wise : the exceptional child of 
 unworthy parents can be taken care of by private charity. 
 Uniformity in education is "utterly antagonistic to that individ- 
 ualism which it is the function of education to develop" ; for 
 "the law of nature is inequality, diversity." Moreover, the 
 "public school is atheism or infidelity" because it substitutes 
 state control over the child for the parents', which is a "nega- 
 tion of God's authority." Thus ran the argument of Professor 
 B. Puryear. of Richmond College ; 7 that of Dr. R. L. Dabney, 
 of Union Theological Seminary, was quite similar. According 
 to Dr. Ruffner these views grew largely out of the old contro- 
 versy over slavery, which had driven men "into a depreciation 
 of the claims of working people, and a denial of the power of 
 common schools to improve this class." 8 This fact, of course, 
 gave to such views a more cordial reception than was accorded 
 elsewhere to the attack on the schools — an attack which some 
 thought to be concerted and nation-wide. Moreover, the finan- 
 cial situation was acute and a general conservative reaction 
 was under way in Virginia. Accordingly this philosophy, given 
 wide publicity through the state press from 1875 to 1880, fur- 
 nished a theoretic foundation for a rather definite movement in 
 behalf of a cheaper and less comprehensive system of education. 
 
 7 Religious Herald, January and February, 1875. 
 
 8 Educational Journal of Virginia, March, 1880. 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 17 
 
 To the task of formulating the argument for public educa- 
 tion Dr. Ruffner set himself with zeal and zest. The report 
 which he presented to the legislature along with his "outline," 
 early in 1870, was his brief. To the amplification and defense 
 of this he devoted the greater part of the third of his time 
 which he set aside for "study and writing." His appearance 
 before the State Educational Association in the summer of 
 1870 marks the beginning of more than three hundred formal 
 addresses in the state. And the beginning was propitious ; for 
 from this group of college teachers, writers and students he 
 obtained an endorsement, albeit a qualified one, of the new 
 system. His carefully prepared addresses before the National 
 Educational Association and at Hampton Institute were re- 
 ported promptly and fully in the state press. They reveal him 
 as a thinker, liberal and progressive, yet balanced and practical. 
 The number of his contributions to the press was probably 
 known to few of his contemporaries. For, acting on Profes- 
 sor Minor's suggestion, he refused to let pass attacks on the 
 system or any part of it, and he could not, or would not, "in- 
 spire" others to do the work for him, as Minor advised. He 
 contributed frequently to the New England Journal of Educa- 
 tion and occasionally to other magazines of wide circulation. 
 He met the redoubtable Dr. R. L. Dabney in a newspaper de- 
 bate that outlasted the patience of several editors, and came 
 out without loss of honors. 9 But most effective were his an- 
 nual Reports. These he prepared with great care — reading 
 widely, digging deeply into records, summarizing reports of sub- 
 ordinates, adjusting and readjusting his notes until there were 
 developed arguments that were models of accuracy and dignity 
 and yet permeated with the white heat of conviction. 
 
 To summarize the arguments of twenty years in a single 
 paragraph is, of course, impossible ; we may hope only to illus- 
 trate their variety and their direction. Seeking to offset the 
 objection — with some serious, with others demagogic — that pub- 
 lic education was peculiarly a New England idea. Dr. Ruffner 
 endeavored to show historically that "the duty of providing 
 
 9 See Richmond Enquirer, July 29, 1876. Dr. Dabney began in the Southern 
 Planter, February 21, 1876; Dr. Ruffner in the Richmond Dispatch. A good deal 
 of acerbity lay behind this debate. Dr. Ruffner thought of Dr. Dabney as having 
 turned against him for an unworthy reason and Dr. Dabney impugned Dr. 
 Ruffner's sincerity on account of an early anonymous article. 
 
18 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 means of education from public funds has never been seriously- 
 questioned in our state." The right of the state to do this he 
 based primarily on the profitableness of the "systematic pro- 
 duction of the most valuable commodity which can be possessed 
 by a state or offered in the markets of the world — namely, 
 trained mind." Education, he continued, both saved expense 
 and increased the production of wealth "by drying up the 
 sources of crime and pauperism and by quickening the mind 
 and guiding the hand of every worker in the land." From the 
 political viewpoint, universal suffrage simply necessitates uni- 
 versal education. But that "private enterprise never did, and 
 never can, educate a whole people," he maintained was proven, 
 first by the census statistics on. illiteracy, and second by its 
 excessive cost. While the schools were of "various degrees of 
 excellence," they were "always equal to and often superior 
 to those which had previously existed," in proof of which he 
 sketched the old-time school and schoolmaster and pointed to 
 the rapid disappearance of the private schools in the face of 
 competition, even in the rural districts. Far from admitting 
 the religious and moral objections, he claimed that "free schools 
 do not diminish parental responsibility; on the contrary, they 
 awaken it; they stimulate it to an ardent glowing zeal; and 
 they supply the means to make it achieve the most valuable re- 
 sults." To the "graver objection — that the free school system 
 inclines the people to religious error and impiety," he replied, 
 "Is ignorance the mother of devotion? Moreover, the moral 
 influence pervading every school will be just the influence per- 
 vading the neighborhood in which it is carried on. Every prop- 
 erly conducted school, itself, furnishes an admirable moral as 
 well as intellectual discipline." 
 
 In his attitude toward the negro Dr. Ruffner combined 
 breadth of view with definite, practicable policy. Arguing from 
 the experience of Europe with the emancipated serfs, he be- 
 lieved that the "momentum in the direction of industry, order 
 and docility, which slavery imparted," must be supplemented by 
 Christianity and education. He had no illusions as to the morals 
 of the negroes and their proneness to superstition and their 
 credulity, "which may easily bring them under influences of 
 all sorts." But he asserted their improvability, citing ancient 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 19 
 
 African history, the observations and opinions of Jefferson, 
 the experience of the Freedmen's Bureau, and their Sunday 
 dress, which he considered "evidence of thrift and aspiring 
 taste." Like his father, he was at all times fond of collecting 
 information as to exceptional negroes, the last being Booker 
 Washington. As to the kind of education, he thought it should 
 be "special and peculiar in its character — not substantially dif- 
 ferent" but with "an adaption in the selection and arrangement 
 of studies and in the method of instruction to the character and 
 wants of the people." The duty of the state in the matter he 
 grounded upon the perils of neglect, as well as upon the ad- 
 vantages of negro improvement. In administering the laws he 
 instructed his subordinates to be scrupulously fair, and he com- 
 pletely overwhelmed with the facts in the case a specific charge 
 of unfairness to which the Nation gave prominence. While 
 the results of the experiment in Virginia appeared encouraging, 
 in supporting a resolution for federal aid which, as chairman of 
 the committee on national legislation, he presented to the de- 
 partment of superintendents of the National Educational As- 
 sociation, he did not hesitate to say: "The kind and amount of 
 education they are receiving, or can receive with our present 
 means, is wholly inadequate to the great work of fitting them as 
 a race for the duties laid upon them by the Federal Govern- 
 ment." 10 But assistance was not desired at the price of con- 
 trol. On this point he was very clear. The southern man, he 
 pointed out, had studied the negro as no one else. He believed, 
 as had his father, that interference from without had nipped 
 in the bud very hopeful beginnings in ante helium days: 11 
 this must not happen again. When Summer's Civil Rights Bill, 
 which required mixed schools, was pending in 1874, he wrote 
 in Scribner's Magazine that although history seemed to fore- 
 tell a gradual diminution of race friction, for the present 
 "unless there is a due recognition of caste in public education at 
 the South, the common school education in fifteen states will 
 be a failure." Speaking at the commencement of Hampton 
 Institute the same year, he drew a parallel between the negroes 
 and Israel after the bondage and urged his hearers on to a 
 consciousness and pride of race. Leaders of their own they 
 must develop, especially teachers and farmers ; but for these 
 
20 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 "to take possession and to occupy positions, in advance of their 
 personal fitness therefor," would be contrary to the "sound 
 development of the race." 12 Two expressions in one of his 
 last letters probably summed up his final views : disfranchise- 
 ment through constitutional devices could not safely be avoided ; 
 and, "What a work Hampton is doing!" 
 
 In estimating the influence of these writings and speeches we 
 must consider them as part of a general policy directed toward 
 the formation of a sound public opinion in the matter of public 
 education. Important men read the Reports and wrote of them 
 with enthusiasm. "The most valuable volume ever published 
 . . . in our state" and "an argument . . . which is 
 unanswerable," were the comments made respectively by 
 Robert W. Hughes and John W. Daniels, Republican and 
 Conservative leaders. "Your report," said Minor, "is 
 calculated to illustrate the immense value of a depart- 
 ment of education even though there were nothing but a 
 head to it." From the viewpoint of the General Agent 
 of the Peabody Fund, Dr. Sears wrote in 1872 and 1873 
 that the Reports were in constant demand, were contributing a 
 "powerful influence, especially among the conservative states of 
 the South," that the one of 1873 was "the educational document 
 for all the South," and that the Virginia system was constantly 
 being studied and copied. From this viewpoint omissions, too, 
 become eloquent. Thus Dr. RufTner could not plead for the 
 unfortunate because every friend of the new system earnestly 
 desired that the stigma which had done so much to spoil the 
 old system should not attach to the new. He did not use 
 the doctrine of individual rights, probably because that doctrine 
 had been over-worked during Reconstruction. The extensive 
 and very important private and denominational interests he 
 treated with the greatest discretion. Though he argued for 
 the superiority of public over private elementary and secondary 
 schools, he treated the latter as important auxiliaries, not en- 
 emies, of the former. As between state and denominational 
 institutions of higher learning, his position was one of neutral- 
 
 10 Educational Journal of Virginia, March, 1880. 
 
 11 Among his newspaper clippings is one describing a Lexington school which 
 children of both races had attended. 
 
 12 Richmond Dispatch, June 11, 1874. 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 21 
 
 ity. He did, indeed, once incorporate an article descriptive of 
 the University of Virginia which Professor Minor had writ- 
 ten ; but this he regretted, and University friends found it dif- 
 ficult to induce him even to appear at their commencement. By 
 command of the legislature he served for a time on the board 
 of trustees of the state's new agricultural and mechanical col- 
 lege. The technical side of the school's work interested him: 
 it was he that labored most earnestly to make it a real technical 
 school and not just another college, and he once thought se- 
 riously of becoming its president. But the politics which at- 
 tended the institution from its inception disgusted him and he 
 eagerly sought relief from his trusteeship. Whatever may be 
 the correct educational theory of the relations between the 
 state's higher and its lower educational institutions today, the 
 attitude of Dr. Ruffner was certainly correct in his time. Its 
 significance was seen when the important Dover Baptist As- 
 sociation went squarely on record as favoring public schools 
 and when influential journals like the Methodist Christian 
 Advocate and the Baptist Religious Herald committed them- 
 selves to the new undertaking. Similarly, when the cry was 
 raised that Catholic influences were behind a nation-wide at- 
 tack on public education, he was quick to point out that some 
 of the schools' best friends in Virginia were Catholics. Thus 
 the wisdom of his policy found fruitage in the gradual disap- 
 pearance of opposition from political and denominational inter- 
 ests. As for the masses of the people, the success of the system 
 converted them to its support so that in 1877 it was accounted 
 death for a public man to put himself in open opposition. 
 
 Politics was Mr. RufTner's bete noir. Early in his superin- 
 tendency he suggested through the Educational Journal "the 
 propriety of endeavoring to secure supervisors who would pro- 
 vide the necessary accommodations for the schools." But 
 warning came quick and sharp, and he heeded it. He even 
 prepared a bill requiring the state and county superintendents 
 to keep out of politics, but later became convinced that "the 
 best law is a stern public sentiment." Politicians, however, 
 would not let him and the schools alone. The Conservative 
 party tried to make political capital out of the growing popular- 
 ity of the system ; the Republicans sought to drive a wedge be- 
 
22 
 
 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 tween the superintendent and the Conservative party. At- 
 tracted by the possibilities of his office, a factional group that 
 at one time included a member of the Board of Education, 
 sought to prevent his re-election in 1874 by the action of a 
 "snap"' caucus and were defeated only by a filibuster of Wil- 
 liam E. Massey, who later succeeded to the superintendency. 
 Repeatedly he headed off attacks on the system made under the 
 guise of friendliness, or saved it from its politically ambitious 
 friends. Irritated by such attacks, he laid himself open to 
 charges of "bruskness" ; it was in meeting such attacks that he 
 printed anonymous newspaper articles, which of course returned 
 to plague him. It was probably on account of disgust with 
 this phase of his office that in 1874 he sought and obtained 
 from the Lexington Presbytery an honorable demission from 
 the ministry. ; 
 
 And politics were in the ^end to prove his undoing. 
 About 1877 reaction against ^radicalism" of all sorts, including 
 the schools, was at its height. With the elimination of the 
 negro voter the carpet-bagger and the scalawag had fallen, 
 and then the compromiser. The offices were now held, and the 
 dominant party's policies determined, by men of long estab- 
 lished reputations for loyalty and stability. The sympathy of 
 these later leaders went out strongly to the state's creditors 
 who, long put off with partial payments, were organizing and 
 pressing for their interest. On the other hand, the schools had 
 become popular. Under these circumstances a new group, call- 
 ing itself ''Readjuster,'" was formed within the Conservative 
 party, beginning about 1877. It sought to put the old leaders 
 out, to liberalize party politics, break the bondage of the debt 
 through partial repudiation, and develop the state's institu- 
 tions in the interests of the common man. In this group were 
 some of Dr. Ruffner's political pests, notably H. H. Riddle- 
 berger. But it also included important friends of the schools, 
 among them John E. Massey and, especially, Elam of the 
 Richmond Whig, of whom Dr. Ruffner said, "a better school 
 man never put pen to paper." In the legislative elections of 
 1877 this group, aided by Dr. Ruffner's powerful arguments 
 against "diversion" and by the pitiable plight of the schools, 
 seemed to win an important advantage. They quickly passed 
 
Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia 23 
 
 the "Barbour Bill" under which the schools' quota of state 
 taxes was definitely apportioned to them, but which met a 
 prompt veto. In the passage of this bill Dr. RufTner cooperated. 
 He soon saw, however, that public education could not afford 
 to become tainted with repudiation or drawn into factional 
 politics. Besides, he was too nearly an aristocrat and too much 
 of a gentleman for permanent alliance with the "New Move- 
 ment." Therefore, when the older group and the creditors, 
 after a fight which at one time threatened the very existence 
 of the school system, proposed concessions under which the 
 interests of the schools appeared to be safeguarded and per- 
 haps improved, Dr. RufTner, in company with some of the more 
 moderate Readjusters, declared in favor of the new arrange- 
 ment, which thereupon was enacted into the law known as the 
 "McColloch Bill." 13 This concession was of the utmost im- 
 portance; for it marked the final recognition of the schools as 
 an agency of the state entitled to financial support. But Dr. 
 Ruffner's support of the McCulloch Bill had another conse- 
 quence. This bill was the Readjusters' specific point of attack 
 during the ensuing campaign of 1879. By his endorsement of 
 it he incurred their hostility. In the elections they won a sweep- 
 ing victory. Still Dr. Ruffner seemed to think that in view of 
 his record and his effort at keeping the schools out of politics, 
 he might be reelected in 1882. Important influences were 
 exerted in his behalf. Thus General S. C. Armstrong, of 
 Hampton, wrote that he could "do more than any other man as 
 superintendent," and from the United States Bureau of Educa- 
 tion came word that the retirement of Dr. Ruffner would be a 
 "calamity." These endorsements should have carried weight, 
 as the Readjusters had come into power largely because of their 
 advocacy of better treatment for the schools and were now 
 about to unite formally with the national party to which Gen- 
 eral Armstrong and the Commissioner of Education belonged. 
 But General William Mahone, the strategist of the Read- 
 justers, was forming a new pofttical machine, and Dr. Ruffner's 
 office and its patronage were needed. 14 
 
 13 Pearson, op. ext., pp. 87, 123. 
 
 14 Heatwole, op. cit., p. 225, :s curiously wrong in his facts. I am indebted to 
 him, however, for the clearness with which he points cut the importance of the 
 contest. 
 
/ 
 
 r 
 
 ■ 
 
 24 The South Atlantic Quarterly 
 
 With his retirement from the superintendency Dr. Ruff- 
 ner's constructive work came to an end. He had seen his peo- 
 ple's needs with a clear eye, and in universal public education 
 he had discerned the best way of meeting those, needs. Time 
 has proven his vision correct. To him had been entrusted, the 
 creation of the school system : contemporaries approved his. 
 work and the succeeding generation only increased the super- 
 structure. Without the gifts that make men popular, he. had 
 been able to undermine dema'gogues as well as reactionaries and 
 make his work so popular that the schocls survived when 
 weaker and less disinterested hands assumed their; direction. 
 The solution of the negro's primary problem he had seen to 
 lie in education of the Hampton type ; the solution 1 which he 
 advocated for the problem of race relations anticipated that of 
 Hampton's most famous alumnus. To what extent he had in- 
 fluenced northern attitude toward the South we can not tell ; 
 but it seems worthy of record that he had been a pioneer among 
 southern educators in meeting northern educators and philan- 
 thropists on a footing of- mutual respect. j. 
 
 After a brief period as first president of the State Female 
 Normal School, he devoted his working time to geology and 
 historical writing, with headquarters at Asheville, N. C. But 
 when leaders of the coming educational renaissance in Virginia 
 turned to him fo^ advice, they found his vision still clear and 
 his interest unabated. Through them the educational states- 
 man of Reconstruction days projected himself into the new 
 century. 
 
 V o\