HENRY RUFFNER, 19TH CENTURY EDUCATOR
Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Britt, Samuel Skinner, 1921-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 04/10/2021 12:18:32
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290173 This dissertation has been 62-6573 microfilmed exactly as received
BRITT, Jr., Samuel Skinner, 1921— HENRY RUFFNER, 19TH CENTURY EDUCATOR.
University of Arizona, Ed.D., 1962 Education, history
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan HENRY RUFFNER, 19TH CENTURY EDUCATOR
by Samuel S. Britt, Jr.
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
COLLEGE OP EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1962 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my
direction by Samuel S. Britt. Jr.
entitled Henry Ruffrmr, IQth Century 'Rriu nr
be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the
degree of Dor,tor nf Erinnntlnn
K Tko/L-, ** ^SislserjB&tionr Director Date
After inspection of the dissertation, the following members
of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and
recommend its acceptance:*
^^ 1 /c ~ m,Lt /<-/ *This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination. STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted ill partial • • fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in The University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library® Brief quotations from this dissertation are allow able without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manu script in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED T / Foreword The development and Improvement of education pro ceed from what have been invented and adopted in the past. Understanding of the past is helpful in comprehending the patterns of the present and the modifications in the future must proceed from both. These assumptions underscore the importance of the history of education. Present day interpretation effects the future development of educational institutions and practices. A study of the contributions of individual educators to the history of education in this country gives both depth and scope to the exposition of educational history. Henry Ruffner was one such educator. The present study is concerned with an analysis of Ruffner's contributions to public education in Virginia, his relationship to the expanding ideas about education throughout the country and his contributions to evolving educational thought. lii Acknowledgment The author wishes to express hia grateful ap preciation to all who have assisted him in the preparation of this study. A special expression of gratitude is due Dr. Lloyd E. McCann, the sponsor of this study, for his patient assistance in carrying out the study and his suggestions In clarifying it, and to the author's Faculty Committee for their helpful comments on the final report* Thanks are due Dr. Pendleton Gaines, Dean of Continuing Education and the Summer Session, for valuable suggestions in planning the study, and to Miss Carolyn Stell, who typed the dissertation. iv Contents Foreword ill Acknowle dgment iv Chapter I Career of Henry Ruffner 1 Introduction The Ruffner Family Si Joseph Ruffner 7 David Ruffner 10 Henry Ruffner 12 Education 13 Appointment as Professor at Washington College 19 Curriculum Changes at Washington College 22 Administrative Duties and College Discipline 26 Control of the Collegiate Societies 29 Other Disciplinary Problems 3h President Marshall 37 Appointment as President of Washington College and Inaugural Address Resignation of Ruffner as kz President of Washington College 52 Travels aid Writings 56 Death 58 Summary 58 Chapter II The Public School Idea in Virginia 60 Introduction 60 Education in Colonial Virginia 61 The Parson Schools 68 Public Education 70 Jefferson's Educational Bill 70 First Virginia Educational Bill Separation Acts The Literary Fund 75 The Secular Sunday School Movement 75 Central College Opposition to Jefferson's Plan 11 • Ideas of Mercer and Jefferson Concerning Education 83 School Bill of 1818 85 School Bill of 1819 88 Public Sentiment Concerning Education 89 The District Free School Act of 1829 93 Public Education in the late 1820«s and I83O's 97 The Census of 18^0 and Public Education 98 Chapter III The Ruf fner Proposals 100 The Literary. Conventions 100 Ruffner1s Plan 106 The State Educational Convention of l8ij.l 119 Education Bill of l8l|.2 12k Teacher Training 12l|. State Education Convention of 181+5 125 The Three School Acts of l8i|.6 128 Interest in Public Education Declines 13ij- Summary 135 Chapter IV The Closing Yeara 347 Introduction llj.7 Public Education in Virginia Uj.8 Resignation 11^9 Travels and Writings 150 Death 153 Ruffner and the Slavery Controversy 153 Opposition to Slavery in Western Virginia I5i|. Opinions upon the Speech 159 Union Speech 160 Bibliography 16k •1 Chapter I Career of Henry Ruffner Public education in America did not spring, like Athena, full blown from any Zeus1 brow. It stems from many sources and is a result of the interaction of varied forces. No clearly defined national pattern has developed steadily and constantly. The emergent system of education 0 in America comes from many wellsprings. In fact, its great strength arises from this diversity. The free schools of New England and the educational provisions of the Northwest Ordinance are rightly considered to be significant precursors of our national educational development. Yet the contributions of both the free and parochial schools of the Middle Colonies are no less real. Educational events in the nineteenth century South and even in those territories which were to become the newest states of the Union, made themselves felt in the crystallizing national pattern. Thus the shape education was taking in Virginia, as well as in other states contributed to the entire national educational system. Public education in America today is the distillation of that which has been proven best and most successful in the individual states* But it 1 2 Is even more than that* Great individuals have also shaped the educational destiny of this country. Although Thomas Carlyle's dictum of history being largely the result of actions of great men may not be the entire truth, there is no gainsaying the effect of certain individuals as a powerful factor in forcing historical events. Social, political, economic and cultural factors are of course important also, but the influence of great individuals is not to be denied. Where would American education be without its Thomas Jeffersons, Horace Manns, Charles Eliots and John Deweys, and the host of lesser lights whose contributions, perhaps not as great as the educational giants mentioned, have nonetheless emblazoned and illumined our educational pathway? One of these distinguished educators, Henry Ruffner of Virginia, is the subject of this present study. Ruffner, a mathematics teacher, college president and educational philosopher, found himself in a nineteenth century Virginia sharply divided along sectional lines. Although numerically smaller, the wealthy landowners of the Tidewater dominated and controlled the Virginia legis lature during the first half of the century. The small farmers of the Valley and Trans-montane West were unable to make their voices heard in state councils. Along with the growing clamor in western Virginia for universal man- 3 hood suffrage, equalization of representation, local govern ment reforms and internal improvements, was an increasing demand for public education, Henry Ruffner was a leader in formulating these western proposals for educating all the people. Even his earlier fellow Virginian, Jefferson, had envisioned a scheme of public education, designed along European lines, which would train only the intellectually elite. Not so with Ruffnerc His detailed plan of 181^1 was for the education of all Virginians. The proposal of Ruffner in l8i|l offered a detailed plan for the establishment of a public school system in Virginia. This plan of Ruffner's was in fact the basis of the actual establishment in 1870 of Virginia's first such system. This dissertation attempts to examine in some de tail the life of its author, Henry Ruffner and the plan of l8ij.l which he devised. A work of this kind is valuable because it gives depth and breadth to the study of the history of education. This is possible in this instance because the private papers of the Ruffner family, on deposit at the Montreat College Library, Montreat, North Carolina were accessible to the writer. In addition to the family papers, other pertinent manuscripts, as well as newspapers, magazines, articles, and secondary sources dealing with the subject were available* k Introduction People too often accept great developments In his tory without giving due consideration to their background. When one does take the time to look back over the history of a development, usually the names of only a few well- known individuals are recorded in the pages of history. Many of those who played an important part are passed over. One such great development in hlstoxy is the public school system and one of the forgotten contributors is Henry Ruffner. Ruffner was descended of German stock that settled "in the Valley of Virginia and later moved across the moun tains into the present state of West Virginia. His immediate family were pioneers in the Charleston area and in salt min ing. He received his early education in a private school and later graduated from Washington College. After grad uation he entered the ministry and founded the First Pres byterian Church in Charleston. Some years later he moved to Lexington to become a teacher at Washington College. In the role of teacher be Instituted changes in the curriculum and the miles governing the College. After becoming pres ident he continued the reforms. He served the College as teacher and president from 1819 to I8J4.8. Unlike many college people, he did not follow tradition, but looked directly at the college problem. Besides revising the curriculum 5 and discipline of the College, he participated in public school conventions and took an active part in politics and the slavery controversy. He constantly worked for what he termed good Christian education for the young men of the nation. It has traditionally been stated that the Ruffners came to America first as Hessian soldiers during the Amer ican Revolution and remained after the war# However, this cannot be true because it is known that Peter came to Amer ica as a young man with his only sister who later married Abraham Strickler.^ The Ruffner Family The first Ruffner, Peter, arrived in America in 1732, at the age of twenty. He came directly from the German border of Switzerland and settled in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Peter lived in Pennsylvania for seven years, dur ing which time he married Mary Steinman, daughter of a wealthy landowner of German origin. Mr. Steinman gave Peter a patent, obtained from King George II, for a large tract of land in Virginia. The land covered by this patent 1. W. S. Laidly, His tory of Charleston and Kanawha County West Virginia and Representative Citizens, Chicagoi 2. W. H, Ruffner says that Peter Ruffner was not the son of a German baron as has been claimed by some. 6 was located in what is now Page County,, Virginia. This estate started at Hawkesbill Creek near present-day Luray, Virginia, and followed both branches of the creek for a distance of eight miles. He eventually extended his hold ings an additional four miles on each branch of the creek. He later constructed his home at the "Big Spring" on the edge of present-day Luray.3 in 1761, Peter again enlarged his holdings along the Hawkesbill, this time with a purchase of 196 acres from Lord Fairfax.*•) Peter Ruffner, who was a Mennonite,^ stood six feet three inches in height and was described by his contempo raries as a fine looking man with great energy and fine char acter. He was a man of mark and of much influence in his neighborhood and country.^ Peter died in 1788, at the age of 76. His wife lived ten years longer and died at the age of 8J4.. They were survived by four sons and one daughter."^ « 3. Wm. Henry Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1901, t, PP. 31-32 and 35. I4-. Ibid,, p. 3I4.. 5. J. W. Wayland, A History of Shenandoah County Virginia, Strasburg, Va.: ShenandoaE-Publishing House, 192?, P. 637. 6. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1901, I, p. 33* 7. Ibid., p. 35. 7 Joseph Ruf fner The eldest of the four sons, Joseph, was horn in O I7I4.O in Shenandoah County, Virginia. In 176J4., he married Ann Heistand, daughter of Henry Heistand of Shenandoah Coun- -ty. They had eight children,9 one of whom, David, was the father of Henry Ruffner. Joseph's farm abutted his father's and contained 1200 acres. He erected a grist mill and a saw mill and is re ported to have dealt in bear skins for the French Army. It is known that he hauled bear skins to Fredericksburg, the chief market town for the people of the neighborhood.-'-® The community in which Joseph lived, generally speak ing, did not desire any innovation of language or usages that could be avoided. 'The people were content with their Germanic language and customs; however, Joseph Ruffner's road-wagon plying between Shenandoah and Fredericksburg had a somewhat liberalizing effect, especially upon Joseph and his family.^ In 179if, fire destroyed Joseph's barn, which was 8. This is now Page County, Virginia 9. Billy Marye (husband of Peter's daughter) said the Ruffners were "great breeders." W. H. Ruffner to Children, Nov. 25, l897« Ruf fner Papers. 10. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Vlrglnla Historical Magazine Quarterly, July, 1901, I, pp. 11. Ibid., October, 1901, I, p. 1+7. 8 filled with the harvest, and his live stock. Shortly after this another of his stables was burned. 1 P Both fires were believed to have been started by a free Negro named Gowen who had shortly before been convicted of stealing from Joseph and had been publicly flogged. Because of fear of additional retaliation, Joseph moved, In 179if, he bought 502 acres of land, including a salt spring,^- for six hundred pounds sterling from Colonel 12, Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, July, 1901, I, p, 35, 13, Reminiscences of childhood, Ruffner Papers, lif, Joseph died before he was able to develop the salt spring. His two sons, David and Joseph, started the well in 1806. "That well, drilled for brine, at the mouth of Campbell Creek became the first oil well west of the Alleghenies, It reached a depth of fifty-eight feet despite constant difficulties.11 "The goal of the Ruffner Brothers was the vein of salty water which made the quagmire saline. Therefore, they first constructed a sycamore gum, the original counterpart of the oil industry's casing. This gum, or casing, permitted a man inside to dig. A bucket, made of half a whisky barrel, was lowered to bail out the mud and water. At the depth of thirteen feet the Ruffners had lost much of the initial salt but had gained more water. Profiting from the first failure, the brothers continued. In their third well, still using the casing, a small flow of very salty water was found at about seventeen feet. The casing was resting on an uneven stone surface from which the brine appeared to come. With the crude tools and facilities available, they sealed out the mud and water at the base of the casing. Wedges and other packing were used in performing this operation, a fore runner of the cementing that was to be so common in the later petroleum industry." 9 Dickinson."^ Under the terms of the sale, if the production of salt reached fifty barrels a day, the price was to be in creased to 10,000 pounds In the autumn of 1795, he moved his whole family, with the exception of his eldest son David, to Kanawha "The Ruffners, like many present day oil men, wanted a large production, and therefore, they decided to go deeper. Blasting was obviously out of the question. The resulting solution was the construction of a simple drill, the fore runner of another tool of the oil industry. This drill was constructed by securing a large steel chisel to a long pole. Above the well a strong young tree, or spring pole, was placed at a forty-five degree angle. Loops of rope on the sapling formed stirrups which enabled two men to jerk the tree downward with the weight of their bodies. Thus, with the drill pole attached to the end of the springy timber, the drillers were able to give the stone at the bottom of the casing a series of sharp blows. This was truly the an cestor of the present day cable and bit. Finally, early in 1'608, the Ruffners had drilled a hole two and one-half in ches in diameter through seventy-eight feet of stone. Prom that hole came the desired salt brine." "Still the enterprising and persistent salt producers were not satisfied. They were faced with the problem of bringing the undiluted salt water to the surface, and for that they devised another tool - known later to oilmen as tubing. The Ruffner brothers needed a pipe, or tube. They acquired their pipe in the simplest manner possible - by making it of wood. Large slots were cut in two long poles, which were fitted together and bound with strong twine, re sulting in a wooden pipe. The tube then was placed snugly into the hole inside the casing. ... The significance of the Ruffner well is in the development of essential tools and methods which were the background for the approaching petroleum industry." Gerald Forbes, "The Civil War and the Beginning of the Oil Industry in West Virginia," West Virginia History, July, 19U-7, VIII, pp. 383-381).. 15. His holdings included part of present-day Charles ton, West Virginia. 16. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, October, 1901, I, p. 3&• 10 County, He died in March, 1803, at the age of 63. His wife lived until 1820. David Ruf fher David, the eldest son of Joseph, was born in 1767» on the Ruffner farm near Luray.^® At an early age he broke away from the established customs and prejudices of an old- fashioned German community. David was a lover of books and sought greater knowledge than could be obtained in the neigh borhood German schools which were kept for only the three winter months,, By the time he was eighteen, he had an Eng lish library consisting of Bailey's English Dictionary, a spelling book, a New Testament, and Aesop's Fables. He also subscribed to the Fredericksburg Herald. Before reaching the age of twenty-three, he had been appointed Justice of the Peace of Shenandoah County. In 1789, he married Ann Brumbach, daughter of Henry Brumbach, a Mennonlte minister living near Harrisonburg.-^ On January 16th of the follow- 17. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The We3t Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, October, 1901, I, pp. 38, 3^, and i^.0. 18. In 1793# one of Joseph's sons discovered a cav ern in the same hill in which Luray Cavern is located today. J. W. Wayland, _A History of Shenandoah County, Virginia, Strasburg, Va. : Shenandoah Publishing House, 192/, pp. 10 and 679. 19. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, October, 1901, p. 4.7. 11 ing year, Henry was born.^® When his father moved to Kanawha County, David re mained in Shenandoah County for a year running the Ruffner Mill* He moved to Kanawha County in 1796 and lived in the Clendennin blockhouse.^ Joseph died in 1803, and under the terms of his will David received "The lower third of the Charleston bottom, lots in the town, and one-fifth undivided interest in the front bottom of the Dickinson survey, on which part was the Sftlt Springs."22 David and his brother Joseph bought their brother's interest in the salt springs and on February 17, 1808, made their first lifting of salt. By 18II4., David had bought Joseph's interest and had becorae the sole owner of the salt works. In 1817, he began using coal instead of wood in his salt works but soon ran into difficulty in removing the cin ders. His son, Henry, thought of the idea of throwing a small jet of steam under the grate bars. This caused the cinders to form into a "sort of gravel," making it easy to rake them out. 20. Dumas Malone, editor, Dictionary of American Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1^35* XVI, 21. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, October, 1901, I, p. Ij.7. 22. Ibid,, p» 1+8. 23. Ibid., January, 1902, II, p. ij.8. 12 David was elected to the House of Delegates of Virginia in 1799, 1301, 1802, l80lj., and 1811. He served as magistrate for six years in Shenandoah County and for forty- seven years in Kanawha County. He died February 1, I8I4.3> at the age of 77. Henry Ruffner Henry Ruffner, the eldest son of David, was born in Shenandoah County, Virginia, January 16, 1790. His birth place was a house that stood near the Willow Grove Mill on the Hawkesbill Creek, about a mile north of Luray, Virginia. In 1796, at the age of six, he moved with his fam ily to the Clendennin Blockhouse. Little is known of his life from 1796 to 1805. However, it may be assumed that there was a primary school in Charleston and that Henry at tended. It is reported that he sometimes rode through the streets of Charleston on a wagon loaded with bags of corn with a copy of Hume *s England lying open before him, so ab sorbed in reading that he was oblivious to everything about him.2-' He was an omnivorous reader from early youth. As a boy he went fishing, swimming, and raccoon hunting, and took part in many other childhood activities, but not with the 2ij.. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, January, 1902, II, pp. lj.9-53* 25. Ibid., April, 1902, II, pp. 60-61. 13 usual boyish enthusiasm. He was regarded an an extremely serious-minded youth; he was an able worker, both on the farm and at the salt works.26 Before leaving Charleston Henry formed a close friendship with Samuel Williams, whose family was one of the early Methodist families in the region. In later years, Mr. Williams, writing about this friendship, said that although Henry was some four years younger, this difference in age seemed to be overcome by his sober-mindedness and steady habits, his love of books, and the pursuit of knowledge.^ Education - Early in life, Henry showed that he was not interested in farming or salt-making. He entered the classical school of Dr. Joseph McElhenney^® in Lewisburg at the age of nineteen, and remained for three years. While attending Dr. McElhenney's school Henry united with the church and made the decision to prepare for the ministry.^ Dr. McElhenney, through his preaching and teaching, 26. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, p. 61. 27. Ibid., p. 66. 28. Dr. McElhenney was a South Carolinian. He was educated at Washington College and was sent by tiae Lexington Presbytery to Greenbrier and Monroe Counties. He settled in Lewisburg in 1808, and served his congregation for sixty years, beginning in 1808. This school developed Into Lewis burg Academy. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia His torlcal Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, ll, pp. 67-68. 29. Rose W. Fry, Recollections of Rev® McElhenney, Richmond: Whittet and Shepperson, 1^93, p. 133» Inl and with the force of a magnetic personality, exerted a tre mendous influence on Henry as well as on others with whom he came in contact.30 Henry mastered the classical and mathematical studies taught in the Lewisburg school and entered Washington Col lege in Lexington, Virginia, in 1812.3-*- He completed the four-year course in a year and a half, receiving hi3 B. A. degree in 1813.3^ Most of the students carried on the stud ies of two years at once so as to finish the course in half the time.33 Henry's accomplishment stood out from the oth ers not so much because he finished in such a short time, but because he taught some classes in the grammar school at the same t ime•^ Freshmen at Washington College spent the first year studying Latin and Greek. They read in Horace and Cicero's Orations for the first five month term, and in the second term they read Lucian, Xenophon, and Homer. 30. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Vlrginla Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, p. 68, 31. The tuition fee was $15 per five-month session and in addition a fee of $6.67 was paid to each professor. 32. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The_Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, p.. 68. 33* Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1893* No. ij., p. 97. 3i(.. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia His torleal Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, p. 68. 15 The second year was spent wholly In the study of mathematics. The class studied arithmetic, algebra in an English text-book that explained no principles, Euclid's Geometry, and Gibson's Surveying, said to be the worst text book on the subject. Trigonometry was listed, but studied only in connection with Gibson's Surveying. Spherical trig onometry was wholly omitted. Navigation was listed but not generally taught. Conic sections was also listed, but like navigation not generally taught.-^ In the third year the student spent the first five months studying geography and the second term studying nat ural philosophy and astronomy. The fourth year requirements consisted of finishing the course for a degree with Blain's Lectures and Logic. The c ourse in logic was touched only lightly in the second term. In addition Burlemague's Natural Law with parts of Locke, Reid, and Stewart were studied.^ The student could substitute a study of French for the five-month session of Greek.^ A fellow student, William Alexander Caruthers, de scribed his education this way: 35* Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Mtirphy and Co., 1893, No. ij., p. 96» 36. Ibid., p. 96. 37. Ibid., p. 96.' 16 We got a little Latin and less Greek. Mathemat ics of which the measure would be the even root of a negative quantity. Physics, on the homeopath ic principle. Text-book Belles Lettres, and super ficial Philosophies. Yet the libraries of the Literary Societies provided good reading to occupy the leisure afforded by the curriculum; and some young men gained, by practice in the weekly debates, a mastery of speech which all the rules of Blair and Campbell never could have conferred.3" In a letter written June 7> 1812, to his friend Sam uel Williams, Henry Ruffner referred to his school work in this manner: "While drinking at the Gastalion fount, I al most forgot to raise my head, and view the passing scenes of real life."39 In his examination before the Board of Trustees, Henry received optimus and in addition was awarded a special prize as the best scholar.^ The graduating class of 1813 was composed of the following: Samuel H. Lewis, Fleming Bowyer Miller, Henry Ruffner, and John R. Fitzhugh.^ After completing his college course, Ruffner spent 38. R. P. Allen, "Notes on William Alexander Caruthers," William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, October, 19^9, IX, 2nd. Series, pp. 29^.-295• 39. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, ll, p. 68. I4.O, The grading system at Washington College at this time was 0ptimus(best), Bonus(good), and Melior(better). Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, p. 68. ijJ.. Washington and Lee Unlver3lty Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1093* No. I4., p. 53* 17 a year studying theology with Dr. George Baxter, president of Washington College. A part of this year was occupied in teaching classes for Mr. Blain, the professor of language, who was ill. Actually he had charge of the language depart ment during Mr. Blain's long illness.^ In the fall of l8lij. Ruffner left Lexington for a year of travel. His travels took him over large areas of the eastern and western sections of the United States. He did not record how he travelled, but all his life he was fond of long horseback rides, and this may have been his means of transportation. He returned to Lexington by the fall of 1815 and on October 8th he was licensed to preach by the Presbytery,^ after which he immediately left for the Kanawha Valley. The destitute circumstances that existed among the population there, more than anything else, had led him into the ministry. The character of the population which had gathered about the salt works was described as wretched. While Ruffner felt that the character of the residents else where in the valley was a little better than that displayed by the residents near the salt works, there was almost equal poverty all through the valley. There were no religious lj.2. Washington and Lee University Historical Pap era, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1893* No. l±t p. 43» Wm. H, Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, p. 69. 18 societies or church buildings in Charleston or beyond the salt works in the valley.^ His first sermons were given in the court house in Charleston and in his father's house at the saltworks. In March, 1819, he organized two churches, one of which was the Charleston Presbyterian Church. The other was located in Teazes Valley about eighteen miles from Charleston. He or ganized Mercer Academy, a classical school in Charleston, during the second year of his ministry. The backers des erted him before the building was completed. He consented, at the request of the patrons, to continue the academy and paid the construction cost himself. At the end of the first session he had five dollars left from the tuition fees as his share. He continued the school for three half-yearly sessions. For the three and one-half years that he served the area around Charleston, Ruffner received no regular pay, but only the contributions of the various communities visited. This amounted to around six or seven hundred dollars.^ In later life Ruffner noted three things in his J4I1.. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Company, 190L|., No. 6, pp. 105-106# Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffner s," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, pp. 69-72. 19 early ministry that he regretted: (1) That he had not confined his labors to three principal points where he felt that strong churches could have been founded instead of scattering his efforts among destitute neighborhoods where less could be done in the long run, (2) that he had not procured ordination a year sooner, so that he could have formed a church at the community of Pocotalico, and (3) that teaching school in the academy had taken too much time from his ministerial work. In addition to these three things, he thought that perhaps he should regret also that he was induced to leave Kanawha to become professor in Washington College and pastor of an old church near Lexington. Appointment as Professor at Washington College During the winter of 1818-1819, Henry Ruffner re ceived an invitation to take the chair of Ancient Languages in Washington College.^ He gave the question deep thought and consideration before making any decision, and concluded that he should go for several reasons. The college was his alma mater, was near the home of his wife, and was he felt in a poor state of affairs. He also felt that it was being ij.6. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, ll, p. 73. 1+7. The salary of a professor at Washington College at the time of Ruffner's appointment was $550 a year plus $6.67 from each student. 20 threatened almost with extinction by the new university going into operation at Charlottesville. These, plus the fact that people thought that Ruffner's talents and atti tudes fitted him for the duties of a college professorship, affected his decision.^® On February 16, 1819, Dr. Baxter, president of Washington College, reported to the Board of Trustees that the special committee of the Board appointed for the pur pose of securing a professor of languages had recommended Rev. Henry Ruffner, and that he had been offered the posi tion and had accepted. Immediately opposition to the appointment developed from other members of the Board. On March 12, 1819, the Board of Trustees was called together at the request of three members, James McDowell, Andrew Moore, and Andrew B. Davidson, to reconsider the appointment of Ruffner. McDowell, Moore, and Davidson believed that the appointment was unpopular, felt that it had been made by too small a membership of the Board, and considered that the powers intrusted to the special committee were improper. The debate concerning Ruffner's appointment was not recorded; however, it was decided that the Board was out of order in expressing its opinions because a contract 48. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, April, 1902, II, p. 73» 21 with Ruffner had already been signed.^ Ruffner arrived in Lexington a few days after the Board meeting of March 12th and heard the facts. He was mortified, but after considering the matter he decided to remain and let time decide whether or not the committee had acted wisely in inviting him to take the position.^® After taking the chair of languages in the spring of 1819, Professor Ruffner noted a decrease instead of an increase in the demands on the students as compared with conditions five years before. A number of minor studies had been completely dropped from the course of study. The language department now gave no attention to prosody, antiquities, or ancient geography. A small portion of Xenophon's Cryopoedla and Homer's Iliad were still read but with translations on the opposite page to 3ave study, and as if to make the student's knowledge rather super ficial. Since Washington College had adopted this curriculum, other colleges had been enlarging theirs in conformity with the progressive demand for an enlarged curriculum and a more thorough teaching job. The faculty was not ignorant of the existing state of affairs, but lj.9. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1593# No. ij., pp. 53~5k» 5°. Ibid., p. Sk* 22 seemed to fear the consequences of any movement which would result in the raising of the requirements for either the number of studies or the grade of class wor*.^- Curriculum Changes at Washington College Ruffner, although newly appointed to the faculty, ventured to draw up a paper which presented the defects, as he saw them, of the classification and content of the curriculum as they existed then, and at the same time pro posed additions and changes. Although his colleagues were for a moment surprised at what seemed to be undue freedom on the part of the young professor, they were soon convinced that his criticisms were just and his suggestions wise. Probably a contributing factor in the acceptance of the criticism by the other faculty members was that Ruffner proposed a much greater change in his own department than in any other, a change which would increase his duties many times. A difference of opinion existed as to how far the changes should be carried. As a result, Professor Ruffner drew up two schemes and submitted them to the faculty. No objections were voiced by the faculty, and the schemes were submitted to the Board. The plan preferred by Ruffner was promptly and unanimously adopted. At this time Colonel James McDowell and General Andrew Moore, Board 51. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1593 » No. \\.9 p. 97• 23 members, openly supported the views of the professor whose appointment they had opposed only two years earlier. The new program, in the opinion of Ruffner and other faculty members, brought the college up to the level of the best colleges in the land. The number of courses on the whole was doubled, and the work of each professor greatly increased, especially in Greek. Formerly an ability to translate St. John13 Gospel was about the only requirement for entrance into the freshman class. Besides this Professor Heron, instead of using Lucian, had required the students to read some dialogues of Lucian and other extracts from the Graeca Minora. In the new course the whole of the Graeca Minora was added to the New Testa ment. The whole Graeca Majora in addition to Xenophon now constituted the Greek course in the college, making a total of about 1,000 pages. In Latin, in addition to added requirements in the Grammar School, Livy and Tacitus were added to the college course. These changes were not of the paper variety, but were required rigidly by the pro fessor. Latin and Greek Prosody and Antiquities with ancient geography, all formerly neglected, were now regularly studied by the classes. Instead of the irregu larity which had grown up under the old system of some 52. Washington and Lea University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and ?/o,, 1(393» No. ij., p. 9tJ. 2k students having only one dally recitation and other students at their option, the new curriculum provided for daily recitations in each subject for each student.-^ Ruffner felt that a great stride in the progress of education had been made, but that other problems re mained which needed correction. His success in dealing with these problems was not as fast coming as it had been in dealing with the curriculum problem. He considered the lack of control over the habits of the students and the loss of two whole days each week, Saturday and Sunday, as the greatest problem confronting the school at the time. The week-end was taken as a holiday by students and fac ulty alike. These two days were classified by Ruffner as a period of idleness and often misconduct. As a result of the holiday, the assignments for Monday were seldom well prepared, a most deplorable state of affairs in the opinion of Ruffner. A provision was introduced into the new schedule that required study and recitation until noon on Saturday. The new schedule also required the lower classes to recite their lessons in the Bible on Sunday instead of Monday morning as had been the practice. The upper classes were required to recite in the Greek Testament and in evidences of Christianity on Sunday. 53- Washington and Lee University Historical Papers. Baltimore: John MurpViy and Co., 1093* No. 4, p. 9^*99• This new arrangement was an attempt to decrease the amount of time spent away from school work and at the same time meet the existing public demand for positive religious instruction as a part of education. Needless to say, these changes were not cordially received by either the students or the faculty. The Saturday classes were continued for a time but finally yielded to pressure and were discontinued. Professor Ruffner undertook the Sunday classes in scripture study and continued them regularly. No mention is made of how long the study of evidences of Christianity was continued.^ Beginning with the 1829 session the Grammar School was separated from the college. This was a result of the efforts of Ruffner, who had maintained for years that the mixing of small boys and older students served only as an obstruction to order, progress, and intellectual develop ment, and was equally bad for both classes.^ In the autumn of 1829, the Board of Trustees re quired each member of the faculty to give up any pastoral charge or any other part-time job and devote full time to school duties. Professor Ruffner, who had been reappointed to the chair of languages, resigned his charge at the Timber Ridge and Fairfield Churches. He approved the Washington and Lee University Historical Pap era, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1893, No# ij., p. 99# 55. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co#, 1095# fro* PP* ^-5• 26 action of the Board even though it meant a loss of income,^ Admlnlstrative Duties and College Discipline Dr. Philip Lindsey of Tennessee was appointed president of the college for the 1829-30 session. In October, just after the opening of school, a letter was read from Dr. Lindsey declining the presidency, whereupon the Board placed Professor Ruffner in charge of the school, .For teaching he received a salary of $800 and one-third of all the tuition fees. When he became acting head of the college he received another third of the tuition fees.^7 At a meeting of the trustees on October 21, l829» Ruffner presented the following list of rules for the better government of the college. They were immediately adopted by the Board. 1. That all students who roomed in the college should rise at $:Q0 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the signal should be given, and assemble for prayer, after which they would immediately begin their daily work. There had been no rule on this subject before. The college day ran from nine in the morning until four or five in the afternoon. During the remainder of the day, and all night, students were left to themselves except 56. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers Baltimore: John Murphy and"do», 1095* No. 5» P• 3• 57• Washington and Lee University Historlcal Papers Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1&93# No. 14., pp. 101-103* 27 occasionally when a college official visited the school. It was not an uncommon practice for many of the students to spend a great part of the night in idle amusement, walking, or dissipation, and to lie in bed until time for breakfast 2. During the hours of the day assigned to study no one wauld be permitted to visit the library without special permission, officers of the college being exceptions. Professor Ruffner claimed that the library rooms had become loitering places for parties of students and young men of the town. They sometimes locked themselves in and were known to have played cards on occasion. 3. The students should attend exercises in compo sition on Saturday morning and such other classes as the faculty might direct. These Saturday recitations had been prescribed in the course of study adopted in 1821, but had for years been wholly omitted.^® I4.. Each Sunday students in college should attend exercises of a religious nature, such as a study of the Holy Scriptures. £8. Washington and Lee University Historleal Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Clo., ltJ95» No. 5, p# 6. 59. Ibid., p. 6. 60. Ibid., p. 6. 28 This had also been included in the course of study adopted in 1821, but had never been enforced.^ 5. The faculty should be authorized to admit poor young men of promising talents and good moral character to matriculate without paying fees. The college laws had previously required all students, without exception, to matriculate and pay the fees* This rule had not been strictly enforced and stu dents matriculated or not as they pleased. The practice prior to this time had been to pro duce the matriculation book for two or three mornings in succession and invite the students to sign their name and pay their fees. Some did; however, others held back for a few days and usually escaped notice. All then attended classes and nothing more was said about fees. Ruffner •showed that a study of the number that signed the matricu lation book revealed that only about one-half of the students paid their fees.^2 The student was more concerned with gaining knowl edge than earning a degree. The lax matriculation procedure allowed the student to learn without paying. The new rule instituted by Ruffner reduced the problem. 6. The faculty should require a strict obedience 61. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1895» No. 5> P« 6. 62. Ibid., p. 7. 29 to the college laws of the students, and should dismiss any student who, after being admonished for an offence, continued to manifest a spirit of insubordination or neg ligence in the same or similar way. This was intended to serve notice to the students of what would not be acceptable practices on their part.^3 Control of the Collegiate Societies These rules did not correct all of what Ruffner termed evils. One prolific source of disorder remained. This was the night meeting of the Graham and the Washington Literary Societies. If college students had composed the whole membership, the Friday night meetings might have been more orderly, but young men from the town had been admitted to membership. The rivalry between the societies led them to compete in membership races and some of the most dissipated youths of the town were taken in as mem bers. Their meetings often lasted until after midnight, after which they frequently indulged in some boisterous yelling and a trip through the town to play some sort of noisy or mischievous pranks. In the spring of 1830, Professor Ruffner decided to attempt some reform of the society evil because he felt 63. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1095, No. 5, p. 7. 6I4.. Ibid., p. 9. 30 that if it were allowed to continue it would have a tend ency to frustrate every effort to maintain an efficient system of college discipline His first proposal was to change the time of the meeting from Friday night to Saturday morning. He first tried what he termed "moral suasion," which many inexpe rienced in school management felt to be all-sufficient. He might have been successful if it had not been for the non-college membership. The proposed change in the meet ing time would prevent the town members from attending because of their jobs. This brought immediate opposition. The idea that the societies were independent of the school, and therefore did not come under the juris diction of the faculty or Board, soon spread. This argument was eagerly taken up by the town students. The members compared their case with that of the American colonies contending for their independence against British oppression, and thought resistance as necessary and as glorious in the one case as the other. Both societies vetoed the change of meeting time.^6 Ruffner presented this problem along with some additional recommendations to the spring meeting of the trustees. They approved the recommendations, the main one 65. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers. Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1895» No. 5» P« 9. 66. Ibid., p. 10. 31 being that students should, when there was no steward, board only at approved private houses, that they should spend their time on their studies and exercises from morn ing roll-call until bedtime, except at certain prescribed hours of intermission. Graduates of the college could continue to reside and study in it for a year free of charge, and the societies should meet only on Saturday morning. They should admit to membership only persons who were or had been students, were graduates of other colleges, or were officers of Washington College.^7 Another subject that came up for discussion was the marking system. Six degrees of scholarship were denoted by the terms bonus, melior, or optimus to indi cate approval, and malus, pejor, and pessimus to signify disapproval. The professors conducted the examination of the students, and such members of the Board as were pres ent judged the students' scholarship. Some of them judged by sound, that is, by the readiness and fluency of the answers to the questions of the professors. Whether these answers exhibited an accurate knowledge of the sub ject or not was immaterial. The members of the Board tended to overrate the students' proficiency and as a result optimus (best) was awarded to almost everyone who 67. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers. Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1&95* 5* P» 10. 32 was ready and fluent, and bonus (good) became the usual mark of the poor scholar; a lower mark was exceedingly rare. To do away with the evils of this system and to raise the standard of scholarship, Professor Ruffner pro posed to the Board that they should adopt a plan of having but three degrees of scholarship: disapproved, approved, and distinguished -- the latter being reserved for those who had shown extraordinary proficiency. This corrected the evils of the old system for a few years, but then the new system became as inefficient as the old. If a student did well at his examination he was apt to get a mark of distinction and sometimes whole classes became "distinguished" when they were in fact not extraordinary.^® After the Board meeting Ruffner informed each society of the new regulation concerning the hour of meeting and requested that each take the necessary steps to comply with it. The Washington Society, the weaker of the two, decided to make no resistance to the regulation except by petition to the Board. On the other hand, the members of the Graham Society, which had more town members, reached a decision to defy the authority of the Board and to maintain its independence. 68. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1595» No. 5» PP» 10-11. 33 Professor Ruffner, present as a member of the Society, attempted to persuade the other members to comply with the regulation but was defeated. He then announced that be cause of their violation of the college laws they would not be allowed to meet again on college property. This announcement drew from some of the town members hissing and remarks of defiance. They decided to meet in a school house off college property and present a paper setting forth their claims to the trustees at their next meeting.^ The next meeting of the Board was held on the seventeenth of July, at which time it was informed of these facts by Ruffner. The committee for the Society appeared also with its prepared speech. In this speech the Society spokesman, denied that the college had any authority over them. The Board approved the action taken by Ruffner, and emphasized the fact that they (the Board) had the right to exercise a general control over the soci eties of the college. The town members continued to hold meetings in the school house, but the college authorities ignored them. Finally they bowed to what seemed to them the inevitable and passed a resolution to comply with the college regulation. Thus, in the eyes of Ruffner, another 69. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1895* No. 5> PP* 11-12# 31*. Important reform was effected and a claim of Independence on the part of the student body was put down.?0 The Board then removed the restriction against admitting town members, feeling that since night meetings had been abolished the more objectionable sort of town member would be automatically ruled out. Also with the increase in the size of the student body there was less desire on the part of the students to admit town members.7^ Other Disciplinary Problems Another source of irritation to Ruffner was the practice of town boys visiting the college students in their rooms during study hours. He felt that this pre vented many from properly preparing their assignments. This practice was soon broken up by frequent visits to the students' rooms by Ruffner.?^ Another bad practice was the extension of sympathy by the townspeople to every s txident dismissed from school for disorderly conduct. The sympathy usually took the form of an outcry against the faculty. A large number of the town's people had a very erroneous notion of college discipline, yet fancied that they were very wise on that 70. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers. Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., ltJ95» 5» P* 71. Ibid., p. 12. 72. Ibid., pp. 12, 13. 35 subject. It was obvious that many were interested because of the money spent by the students. These were among the mo3t vociferous when a student was dismissed. The more understanding citizens rarely voiced an opinion.?3 Ruffner bore the brunt of the criticism leveled at the college by the irate students and townspeople. He was accused by 3ome of rashness in his measures, by some of harshness in the manner of -their execution, and by some who assailed his motives, charging him with a selfish desire to pass for a reformer or with an ambitious design to work himself into the presidential chair. He also was criticized by some of the citizens and by some of the trustees for his actions. They thought that he was guilty of pushing his measures too fast and too far. His critics felt that he did too little by what they termed "moral suasion" and too much by undisguised force. However, he was not deterred by the opposition to his reforms. He desired the establishment of a steady and efficient government for the college that would include the habit of obedience to law and the observance of order. Moral suasion, so much talked of by his critics, could not, in his opinion, keep a college in order. Ruffner knew 73* Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Baltimore: John Murphy and do.7 1^95» No. 5» P* 13* that Jefferson had tried it in the form of "honor" at the University of Virginia, and that Dr. Bishop had tried it in the form of religious urbanity in the Miami University, and he felt that in these forms it had resulted in failure. It was his opinion that in order to produce any better re sults it must be fortified and regulated by legal adminis tration and a scale of moral punishments adjusted to the various degrees of of fence. Professor Ruffner assumed that government and law must be established; then observance of it must grow into a habit. After this its severity might be relaxed and moral suasion be used to some extent to maintain order. It was his belief that education failed if it did not teach obedience to law. None the less, Ruffner always attempted to treat the students with personal kindness and with a due regard for their feelings. In I83O, Ruffner introduced the practice of invit ing the students to his house for parties. He also encouraged the more cultured citizens of the town to do the same. This resulted in a much better faculty-student relationship, and an improvement in the manners and spirit of the students. This type of moral suasion was more 7I4.. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers Baltimore: John Murphy and Uo., 1895 > No. 5, pp. l£ and llj. 37 productive of good results than a daily moral lecture an hour long. Ruffner worked excessively that year. He taught French, Latin, and Greek, together with the studies of the senior class. He was at the college every morning by five and remained except for time off for meals and exercise until nine, ten, or eleven at night. Classes and police duties consumed much of his time because Ruffner felt that constant vigilance was necessary to establish his new system of discipline.^ President Marshall Dr. Louis Marshall became president of Washington College in I83O. Since he was a language professor, he requested Ruffner to give up his language classes and teach mathematics, a request with which Ruffner readily compiled. Marshall proposed a new scheme of instruction and government which Ruffner did not approve. They both pres ented their views to the trustees.77 Marshall's idea was to do away with the whole curriculum arrangement and make each department a separate school. Under this scheme 75. Washington and Lee Unlveralty Historical Papers. Baltimore: John Murphy and Co., 1095» No. 5, p. 15. 76. Ibid.» pp. 6-9. 77. Washington and Lee University Hlsto-rlcal Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 1901)., tfo. 6,pp. 1-3* 38 there would be no classes unless two or more young men voluntarily associated themselves for study and recitation* They could end this association at any time. Certain attainments were still to be required for the degree, but each student could choose his own route and speed to .this goal. The professor was to be at the service of the stu dent at all hours in order to assist in the preparation of his lessons or to hear recitations singly or in groups. In presenting his case before the trustees on March 21, I83I, President Marshall held up to ridicule the common methods of teaching and government and those who practiced them. He stated that nothing had ever been properly taught in Washington College and singled out languages for special criticism. He argued that since the professors were not scholars and used poor methods they could not hope to turn out scholars. He pointed out that one of the common failings of teachers was to group stu dents in classes and not allow them to advance by them selves. He believed that absolute and untrammelled individualism was the philosopher's stone in education# This was the vital principle — the glory of his system of education.^ 79. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers. Lynchburg: J. P. Bell T^7,"T?0i;, Ho. 6,vTTl 79. Ibid., pp. I4.-5. 39 He classified college discipline as "mere medieval humbuggery,w which in his opinion made boys worse instead of better. Marshall believed that all that the boys desired was good treatment and advocated the humoring of students in order to obtain the desired results.^ President Marshall announced his views with force and sometimes appeared to be contemptuous of his colleagues. However, the Board was Impressed by the force of his pres- Q i entations and the strength of his convictions. Ruffner opposed the views held by the president. He pointed out that the methods in use were time tested and, though they were not perfect in respect to either theory or practice, no institution could afford to cast them all out at one time and follow new procedures that had never been successfully employed in any college. These proposed methods could be found only in the old field school. Ruffner believed that the use of classes for instruction was the best possible system, and that individual instruction was practicable only in very small schools* He believed that the number of college students who would voluntarily devote themselves to systematic study was small, and that solitary study belonged to a more developed condition of the human mind. In his 80. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers. Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 190ij., No. 6, p. 5* 81. Ibid., pp. I4.-5. k.0 opinion, youth required the pressure of authority and other stimulating influences which came from a community of feeling, from the clash of wits, and the spirit of competition growing out of class study and recitation. He was of the opinion that to allow a student to go as fast as he pleased and to order a professor to allow his pupils to scatter themselves over their studies would be destruc tive to good scholarship Ruffner told the Board that he did not object if other professors desired to try the new scheme as long as it was not forced on him. He pointed out that while the scheme might be applicable to the study of language it could not work in mathematics, *Aiich must be pursued with systematic regularity.®-^ As for discipline, Ruffner believed in kind treat ment based on a background of law. He felt that good fellowship had its uses, but that good fellowship alone would end in anarchy.®^- The Board adopted the president's plan, an action which Ruffner felt definitely called for his resignation# He was prepared to resign, but postponed his action for two reasons: 82. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 1904, No. 6, pp. 83. Ibid., p. 6. QI4.. Ibid., p. 7. kl (1) Professor Garland offered to relieve the Mathematics Department of the subject of natural philosophy, and (2) Captain Robert White, a Board member, appealed to Ruffner to remain for the sake of peace and to give the new scheme a fair trial. Ruffner agreed to continue at the college and carry out hi3 part of the new scheme to the best of his ability. He predicted that the experiment would not last long, a prediction that came true.®^ Lack of cooperation might have added to the success pf the prediction. Dr. Marshall did not return in September, 1834, and from this date until February 1, 1835', the management of the college again fell upon Ruffner. He attempted no changes in the system which had been adopted.^ When the new president, Dr. Velkake, arrived, Ruffner returned to the Language Department. The rela tionship between Velkake and Ruffner was a very cordial one, probably because Ruffner was allowed to make his own rules for his department. President Velkake did not re turn for the 1836-37 session, and once again the duties of the president fell to Ruffner. 85. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 19014., No; 6, p. 7. 86. Ibid., pp. 22-23. 87. Ibid., pp. 23-2I4.. k2 Appointment as President of Washington College and Inaugural Address In October, 1836, the Board elected Ruffner presi dent of the college. His first act was to move out of his home and into the president's home even though tnat old house was uncomfortable. No president had occupied it for seventeen years. Ruffner's move was motivated by the QQ desire to be nearer the student body and his work.00 Ruffner's lengthy inaugural address contained his views on education and religion. A careful study of this speech not only points up Ruffner's views on religion and education but indicates these views were well ahead of their times. He opened his address with an expression of appre ciation for the honor bestowed upon him. He said that he realized that the office of president would require a great deal of hard work, but promised to give it his best. He asked for help from the faculty, trustees, and the citizens in the carrying out of the duties of his office, and stated that no one could appreciate the difficulties of the situation unless he had had some previous experi ence in the management of a public school. Even though the business of educating youth was 88. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers> Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., "T^Olj., No. 6, pp. 25 and 31. 1+3 often laborious, he felt that it was still delightful• He pointed out the difficulties of governing a student body, observing that if parents had trouble with their own small families what trouble a college must have with its large number of students. He felt that the school occupied the place of parents, but had neither the legal nor the moral weight of parental authority. The action of students in some instances necessitated dismissal, an unhappy event for both the parent and the school. The actions of the stu dent were usually justified by parents and the actions of the school were usually condemned. Such action, in his opinion, tended to foster the spirit of insubordination in colleges. Too often people expressed a willingness to condemn the action of the faculty without a real knowledge of the facts or of the college laws. A college, to proceed smoothly, must operate on the principle that prevention brings better results than cure after the deed has been committed. In his opin ion, evils if allowed to grow would become unmanageable and result in the disastrous consequences, both to the student and to the college. Ruffner pointed out that these remarks were in no way meant to shield the teacher, but only to show some of the difficulties he operated under so that his conduct might be judged in * clearer light. He pointed out some of the other difficulties kh facing the schools. First, many students entered college ill prepared in regard to proper use of free time and discipline — a weakness which hindered the proper acquisition of knowledge on their part. Some students of this type could be saved by a patient faculty, but the majority were lost and in too many cases this type cor rupted his associates and annoyed the faculty. The school would have no recourse under such conditions but to send the student home. A second fault was the failure of many students to show proper respect for older people and those in posi tions of authority. Ruffner referred to it as "that levelling spirit of corrupt democracy; which in its mad ness, would obliterate all distinctions of person, destroy all subordination, and introduce universal anarchy*" He believed that if it were not soon stopped it would result in an overthrow of the discipline in the schools. This, in his opinion, would result in disruption of government and the rule of tyranny. The third difficulty was the separation of students from the common mass of society. This separation was favorable to learning, but it generated moral evils which were difficult to correct. This situation, he admitted, could be found among any group separated from society. He felt that it was only by the intermixture of ages and sexes and the influence of family relations that human society bS could be purified and refined. Inexperienced and suscep tible youth were the worst offenders and these would be the first to neglect neatness and cleanliness in their private habits and conversations. They often resented the efforts of an older person to correct them and instead were led astray by fellow students. He added that students at Washington College had the opportunity to mingle daily with the town people, something many schools could not offer. He pointed out that even though the town corrected some evils it made the preservation of order and good morals more difficult. Ruffner thought that discipline should be main tained at any price. He pointed out that when a young boy left home for college he missed parental control, and if the school did not look out for his well-being, he would soon degenerate into a public nuisance. He believed that the cardinal point in the management of a college was the securing of order, industry, and good morals at any sacri fice. He added that a college should be a well-regulated state in miniature in which the youth who in the future were to occupy positions of leadership in the country should be trained under laws of good government and impregnated with the principles and habits that would qualify them to disseminate a healthful influence through out the whole community. He explained that his idea of maintaining 1^6 discipline did not require a mass of arbitrary restric tions that would result in despotic rule, but only such rules as were necessary to make the college run smoothly and guard the morals of the students. He believed that much depended on the spirit with which the faculty should think of themselves as parents, and expressed the feeling that as a faithful and affectionate father trained his son in knowledge and virtue, so should the teacher his pupil. The teacher should be found watching over his conduct with parental solicitude, advising, admonishing, and rebuking even with sharpness when necessary, yet still with a father's heart. The student should be aware of the rela tionship, and respect and obey the authority of the college. Ruffner deemed the Christian religion not only important, but all important among the means of forming such character. He knew that many objected to the intro duction of religion in a public institution; however, he believed that a youth's conduct must be governed by some definite rules, either of religion, philosophy, or honor. Philosophy unsupported by religion was not thought by Ruffner to be a sufficient guide, and in his opinion honor was haz*d to define. He was sure that thousands worshipped the spirit of revenge, lu3t, and atheism under the false name of honor and that the Christian religion was the best safeguard of virtue and the only sure guide that youth k7 could follow through life and death to a happy immortality. His definition of Christian religion did not include the dogmas of any sect or school of theology and no sectarian creed or catechism was used in the religious services of the school or in classes in religion. He pointed out that the college was not established as a theological school but to teach literature and science. He went on at great length to point out the importance of studying language. He agreed with other scholars of his day that the study of Latin and Greek was the best prepa ration for a successful study of the English language. The accepted reason for this was that the ancient lan guages and literature were so interwoven with English that a knowledge of them was indispensable to a well-educated man. Even though the study of the languages was impor tant, the student spent a great deal of time on science. It was generally felt that sciences had reached an extent which made it impossible within the few years allotted to academic studies for a student to learn even the rudiments of all. The college, therefore, selected those which were most general in their nature and application and best fitted to exercise and Improve the mental faculties. He used mathematics to illustrate and talked about its impor tance and uses. He believed that mathematics furnished an excellent discipline for the intellectual powers, trained the mind to habits of studious attention and accurate M3 thought, and offered a logical method of investigating the truth. Other important courses taught in the college were mental philosophy, which was meant to examine the faculties and operations of the mind; moral philosophy, which attempted to consider the moral nature and relations of man with the rights and duties which spring from them; political philosophy, which was a branch of moral philoso phy and treated civil government and public affairs generally; and political economy, Which was a branch of political philosophy and which investigated the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. History, considered as philosophical teaching by example, was also included in the list of moral sciences. He approved of the study of the moral sciences because in his opinion they helped exercise the rational faculty of the student. Their study would take the youth out of the mathematical province of necessary truth and incontrovertible proof and introduce him into a new field of rational investigation. He believed that people must look to the moral sciences for the deliverance of mankind from the moral evils which afflict them in both their public and private relations. In America, where suffrage was universal and all power was in the hands of the majority, Ruffner felt it was of especial importance that moral and political 49 science should be extensively disseminated. He believed that all schools should have as their purpose the raising of virtuous and intelligent citizens and wise and patriotic statesmen# Knowledge must be spread to all citizens and everyone should be on the lookout for vice and ignorance. Unfortunate for the public welfare was the fact that few students could be induced to give a sufficient amount of time to their studies. The study of another class of sciences, the physi cal or natural sciences, would also improve the student. Most of these sciences were excluded from the course be cause it was felt that they did not stimulate the mind and because they did not prepare the student for his future life. In summarizing his talk, Ruffner pointed out that the curriculum of Washington College contained all the subjects considered fundamental and preparatory for ad vanced study in the liberal arts and sciences. The course of study had been so arranged that it would develop the mental faculties of the students by progressive exercises increasing in difficulty as the student's mind was sup posed to increase in strength. It would be of advantage to students to take the courses in order even though many were handicapped by inadequate training prior to entering college. Pilling the mind with valuable 50 knowledge and disciplining Its faculties for subsequent exertions were two great ends that were always in some degree attainable by means of a liberal education. Some valued education only because it furnished a student with knowledge that might be turned to some lucrative account# All knowledge that could not be turned into dollars and cents was frequently cast aside by this type of student# Ruffner expressed the hope that the genial current of man's soul had not yet been reduced to such a "sordid mudhole" as this manner of estimating the value of education would imply. Ruffner did not agree with those advocates who did not care what one learned so long as his mental faculties were exercised. Those who regarded mental exercise as the chief, or even the sole end of education, resisted all changes in the business of teaching languages and sciences. They adhered to old textbooks and old methods of conducting the studies of youth regardless of how tedious and labori ous it might be to the student, claiming that this toilsome work on the part of the student was in itself the very thing that would do them the most good.®^ Ruffner's point of view was in direct contrast with the prevailing thought of the leading academicians of the 19th century. In the Yale faculty report of 1828, 89. Henry Ruffner, Inaugural Address Delivered on the Twenty-second of February lo37»Lexington: C. C. Baldwin,. 1857, PP.~3-27T —^ 51 President Jeremiah Day stated that "the discipline and the furniture of the mind" were the two points to be gained ip. the educational experience. He felt that discipline was perhaps the more important of the two, and that the cur riculum should contain subjects that would give the faculties of the students a good workout. The faculty psychology idea prevailed until well after Ruffner's time. In concluding his address, Ruffner stated that all higher institutions of learning were a great blessing to society and expressed the feeling that the people owed it to their posterity, to their race, and to their Creator who had endowed them with improvable faculties to be ever mindful of institutions of higher learning and to contrib ute to their support. He closed by pointing out that the college was located in an ideal spot and that all students of the surrounding area should take advantage of this. He also pointed out that Washington had left a gift to the school and that it was truly his school.^ In reviewing Ruffner's speech, the North American 90. R. Freeman Butts and Lawrence A. Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture, New York: Henry Holt andTTompany, 19517 p. 178-179: 91. Henry Ruffner, Inaugural Address Delivered on the Twenty-second of February lo37»~"Lexington! C. C. Baldwin, 1037* p. <• 22. Review said that it unfolded a aeries of views on college government and education that were remarkable for their soundness, clearness, and a certain practical tact -- all of which indicated a vigorous understanding exercised by much experience in the conduct of affairs. The writer complimented Ruffner on his plain style and his lack of showy eloquence and added that the public stood in great need of instruction of this type. The reviewer said that everyone considered himself competent to pass judgment on everyone and everything including education, but that the public mind had been overburdened x-/ith an infinite deal of nothing on the subject. He thought that a speech of this ' type should greatly relieve as well as enlighten the public mind. The reviewer expressed the hope that every one would read with a greet deal of serious thought the profound words of President Ruffner's speech.92 In I8J4.O, President Ruffner started the system of regular faculty meetings with recorded minutes. The first such meeting was taken up with the adoption of resolutions for the guidance of the faculty.^3 Resignation of Ruffner as President of Washington College President Ruffner notified the Board of Trustees 92. Anon., North American Review, XGVI, July, 1837 > pp. 250-251. 93* Washington and Lee University Historical Paperg, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., l90i+, No. 6, p. i|9. 53 at their meeting held on January 2, 1814-1, that he would resign at the close of the session.^ He stated orally that there were two principal reasons for his resignation. First his nervous system was giving way under the strain of twenty-two years of service, and he could not ask for a reduction in his duties. On the contrary, the load of the president was increasing. Hi3 ideals of organization and scholarship were undergoing increasing criticism, and the difficulties of enforcing them were increasing. He also foresaw the need for enlarging the physi cal accommodations of the school. This he feared would embarrass the funds of the school and might result in the diversion of the mind away from the noble purpose which he had constantly had in view, namely, the enlargement and improvement of the scholastic character and the literary and scientific resources of the institution. He also ex pressed a fear of the new university at Chai'lottesville, saying that it would be a source of trouble with which he did not wish to contend. Because of his health he felt himself unequal to the struggle.^ His second reason concerned his financial resources He owned salt and coal property in Kanawha county, from 94. Minutes of the Board of Trustees of Washing ton College. January 2, I8I4.I. 95* Washington and Lee University Historical Papers Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 190i|, No. 6, pp. 55-56* 5k which he had collected dead rent from the Kanawha Salt Company. The company had gone out of business, and his land was now unproductive. In order to start operation again he would have to install a new furnace, and he felt that it would be a hazardous undertaking for a non resident to hire an agent to operate the company without close supervision. His income from the salt property would greatly exceed his college salary and since his family expenses were increasing beyond his annual resources he felt that he could no longer put off his resignation. Common sense now dictated it.^^ The Board of Trustees at a meeting held February 22, l8lj.l, passed a resolution which expressed their ap preciation for his faithful and laborious services and requested that he withdraw his resignation because they feared that his leaving would tend to check and perhaps injure the brightening prospects of the college.^ It increased his salary by $200, sent a committee to report the action to Ruffner, and received from him a promise to consider the resolution.98 Between the February meeting of the trustees and the scheduled meeting in April, members of the Board 96. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers Lynchburg: J1. P. Bell Co., 190/j., No. 6, pp. 56-57. 97. Ibid., pp. 57-58. 98. Ibid., p. 58. 55 appealed privately to Ruffner to reconsider. They claimed that his departure at this point would probably result in serious injury to what they felt was the ever-increasing improvement of the college. Social influences were also brought to bear upon him. Mrs. Ruffner had become a helpless rheumatic, which complicated the question of moving her. These things, though not convincing him, did affect his feelings, and he yielded to the extent of with drawing his resignation and agreeing to remain one more year.9977 When the student body heard of Ruffner*s proposed resignation, they called a meeting and addressed a letter to him expressing their desire that he reconsider and remain as president of the college. Ruffner entered his duties in the autumn of I8J4.I with some misgivings. He had lost $5*000 in his salt works and was forced to close it until it could be re opened by his son. He was bothered by a nervous condition which, in addition to his family trouble, made it obvious to all that he was not his old self.^® However, there was a bright side. The institution was at its highest point, and he had the confidence of the 99• Washington and Lee University Historical Papers Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 1901j., No. 6, p.-59. 100. Ibid., p. 63. trustees, the cooperation of the faculty, and the good will of the students. After carefully considering the question, he decided to remain.^''" Ruffner!s final resignation came in June, 181^.8. At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on June 21, lSij.8, Dr. McFarland, a trustee, read the resolution which was adopted. It expressed the appreciation of the trustees for the services rendered the college by Ruffner. It ex pressed regret at his resignation, but wished him and his family good health and happiness Ruffner remained in Lexington until after the death of his wife in January, 1814.9.^°^ Travels and Writings Henry Ruffner's first move was to Kentucky in response to a request for his assistance in the struggle for emancipation then raging in the state. Prom Kentucky he went to Cincinnati, where he consulted "some rare old tomes" in the library of the Lane Theological Seminary. Here he found material useful in the preparation of a History of Monkery, a topic which had held his interest 101. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Boll' Co., 190^, No. 6, p. feij.. 102. Ibid., p. 106. 103. A copy signed by Samuel McD. Reid, Sec., W. H. Ruffner Papers, MOntreat, North Carolina. 101^. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Sell Co., 190^., No. 6, p. 106. 57 for some time.^®^ Ruffner had sold his salt and coal property to Jacob Darneale in I8J4.5 and bought land around the head waters of Blue Creek, Campbells Creek, Mill Creek, and Indian Creek near Charleston.In l8£0, he returned to this property with his second wife, the former Laura J. Kirby,^^ and his oldest daughter to begin the operation of a farm. However, he soon became dissatisfied and re turned to the Presbyterian Church in Maiden which had been established by his father.^®® While at Montovis, his mountain home, he published a two-volume defense of Calvinistic theology. He also published a novel, Judith Bensaddi,^0^ and numerous sermons and addresses.HO In the decade preceding the Civil War, Ruffner 10$. Washington and Lee University Historlcal Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Sell Co., 19No« 6, p. 106. 106. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Ills torlcal Quarterly, July, 1902, II, p. I4.I. 107. Harry M. Strickler, A Short History of Page County Virginia, Richmond: Thf! DTetz Press, 1952, p. 361. 108. Washington and Lee Urliverslty Historical Papers, Lynchbxirg: J. P." Sell Co., 1901)., No. 6, pp. 106- TvT. 109. This novel first appeared in the Southern Llterarj Messenger. xxO. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers. Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 190i|, No. 6, p. 107. 58 foresaw the approaching conflict as is clearly shown in his Union Speech delivered during this period. The thought of war depressed him and at the time of secession his nervous system broke completely; he was no longer able to preach, though his mind remained clear until his death, Death Henry Ruffner died December 17# 1861. Dabney says that Ruffner had much native ability and that through private study he became distinguished for his eloquence, literary talent, and scholarship. He states that Ruffner in his educational and social views was far in advance of the people of his time. Many people at the time considered him a radical, and some felt that he was dangerous; however, Dabney believes that time has proved that he was both wise and patriotic. Summary Ruffner as a youth worked around the salt works and on the family farm, and at an early age showed an avid 111. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 190ij., No. 6, pp. 107- Vfcl 112. Ibid., p. 110. 113. C. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South. Chapel Hill: University of rforth Carolina Press, I, pp. 81-82. 59 interest in books. At the age of nineteen he was allowed to attend a classical school conducted by Dr. McElhenney. He took the classical course which was prerequisite for college entrance. Three years later he entered Washington College and made a distinguished record. While in Dr. McElhenney's school he had decided upon the ministry as a life pursuit and followed that profession for a period of five years, after which he returned to Washington College as a language professoro Shortly after his return to his alma mater in 1819, he proposed several changes in the curriculum and in the discipline of the student body.' Some of the older faculty members and students thought him to be a young upstart, but in time all accepted his pro posed changes. He served as acting president for varying intervals from 1829 until 1836, at which time the Board of Trustees appointed him president. He resigned in I8I4.8 primarily because of poor health and spent the remaining years of his life traveling, writing, and preaching. Chapter II JEfeg Public School Idea In Virginia Introduction Elementary and secondary education during Henry Ruffner18 lifetime left much to be desired. Ruffner took a great deal of interest in the poor state of affairs and proposed certain changes in the educational practice pre vailing at the time. His ideas were the result of experi ence and study in the field of education. At the time that his plan for a system of public education crystalized, Ruffner had spent twenty-two year3 as a teacher and admin istrator. He attempted to eliminate the inequalities of educational opportunity that had appeared in the educa tional plans presented by Jefferson, Mercer, and others# Ruffner was not Interested in creating an educationally elite group in the state but instead was more concerned with raising the educational level of the entire population. He followed with mixed emotions the feeble attempts of the General Assembly to enact some type of educational legislation. . Ruffner deplored the supremacy of the tide-water delegation in the legislative body because they possessed a different educational philosophy 60 61 from that found west of the mountains. In order to get some idea of the setting in which his opinions on the subject of education were developed, it will be necessary to outline briefly the development of public education in Virginia from colonial times to 18^1, the year in which Ruffner presented his plan for public education* Education in Colonial Virginia The English colonists1 educational ideals and practices were only slightly changed by the move to America. The phase of Southern life reflected more truly than any other its English origin. The church was looked upon as an agency that should assume responsibility for establishing, controlling, and maintaining the educational program. The demand for education by the militant middle class reflected the growing importance of this class rather than any marked democratic or liberal tendencies. The idea of every man educating his own children according to his own ability appeared to be an entirely satisfactory program. The development of education in the South cannot be entirely explained in terras of the ideas, ways of thinking, and patterns of behavior which went into making up the cultural heritage of the colonists. "In time, a distinctive social order was to emerge in the South, and it was this peculiar type of social organization that gave education it3 bent and direction ..." In matters of education both the rich and poor were in about the same position with the exception of a few who had sufficient wealth to purchase indentured tutors or send their sons to England for their education. "The colonial stock tended for a time to be less educated than their immigrant parents had been."^ Sir William Berkeley, an early colonial governor, stated that the people of Vii'ginia followed about the same course in elementary instruction as was followed by the towns in England: every man instructed his children according to his financial ability. If he had sufficient funds, a tutor was hired, but if he was not financially able the only education the child received was what little his parents could impart to him.^ Governor Berkeley in replying to the Lords Com missioners of Foreign Plantations on the progress of 1. Ulrich B. Phillips, Life and Labor in the Old South, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 19ij.5T p. 33. 2. W. Gordon McCabe, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution with a Sketcn of Frederlck~Wllllam Coleman, M. A. and Lewis MTnor Coleman, M. A., Charlottes ville: Chronicle Steam Book and Job Office, 1890, p. 12. Hereafter cited as W. Gordon McCabe, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution. 63 learning in the colony made the following statement: "I thank God there are no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have (them) these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy, and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libels against the best government. God keep us from them both.This reply by Berkeley may have been an effort on his part to gain favor with the restored Stuarts. Because of Berkeley's answer, many have assumed falsely that the colony had no public schools• But free schools had existed in the colony almost from the begin ning; in fact Berkeley himself had sanctioned private bequests for free schools when he approved the Act of 16lj.2 which incorporated the Benjamin Symmes1 School.^ The granting of bequests for free schools became popular in the early years of the colony and following the gift by Symmes in 163^ many others followed.' Among the donors was Henry Peasley, who in 1675 left, his holdings including land, ten cows, and a breeding mare for the 3« W. W. Henning, The Statutes at Large Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia',~Prom fche~~First Session of tKe Legislature TEL the Year 1619, Richmond: Samuel Pleasants, Printer, T5l6, 2, p. 517. Hereafter cited as W. W. Henning, Statutes at Large. I).. Ibid., I, Act XVIII, Richmond: Samuel Pleasants, Printer, 1809, p. 256. 5. W. G. McCabe, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution, pp. 12-ll|.. 614- maintenance of a free school* In this particular case because of the inconvenience of the location (marsh area) the Gener&l Assembly appointed a commission to rent the property and use the proceeds to establish a free school In a more convenient placeRecords show that at the time of Berkeley's statement there were at least seven free or charity schools established to supplement the apprenticeship acts.7 All of the Stuart governors were hostile to the development of education in the colony* An idea of their attitude can be deduced from Attorney-General Seymour's reply to Mr. James Blair.® Mr. Blair, who was pressing 6. W. W. Henning, Statutes at Large, Richmond: Samuel Pleasants, Printer, 7> pp* 7. Philip A. Bruce, Institutio nal History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, New York: G.^". Putnam * s Sons, 1916, I, pp. 357-61. 8. James Blair (1655--April 18, 17l|3), founder and first president of William and Mary College. Born in Scotland, educated at the University of Edinburgh. Ordained in the Church of England. He reached Virginia in 1685 as a missionary and accepted the rectorship of the Varina Parish. In 1689, the Bishop of London appointed Blair his deputy<> One of his duties was to call the clergy of the colony together occasionally in conventions. It was at the first such convention in 1690 that he urged the clergy to take the initiative in the establishment of a college. Dumas Malone, editor, Dictionary of American Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935» H> P. 335- 65 for the issuance of the charter for William and Mary College, stated that a school was needed to train minis ters of the gospel to save souls. Seymour replied, "Souls! ... Damn your souls1 Make tobaccol"^ On May 29, 1660, the Virginia Legislature passed an act that provided for the advancement of the education of youth, the increase of the number of trained ministers, and the "promotion of piety." For this purpose land was to be purchased for a college and free schools. The act further specified that the purchase of land plu3 the erection of housing be done with as much speed as possible.Another act passed the same day asked the king for letters patent "to collect and gather the charity of well disposed people in England" for the purpose of erecting colleges and schools in the Virginia Colony.^ These acts, like many others, were allowed to slumber in the statute books. The poor had few educational opportunities in the colony of Virginia. However, the ruling class from the beginning was keenly aware of the importance of securing 9. W. G. McCabe, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution, Charlottesville: Chronicle Steam Book and Job Office, 1590, pp. 7-8. 10. W. W. Henning, Statutes at Large, Richmond: Samuel Pleasants Printer, 1510, 2, p. 25• 11. Ibid., p. 3°« 66 a thorough education for their children. The great fami lies hired a parson-tutor for secondary instruction, while the elementary instruction was looked after by the mother. On occasions some of the white indentured servants on the plantation were found to have an aptitude for books and were given the privilege of attending the parson's school. Some of these later taught in what became known as Old Field Schools.12 This name came into use because these schools, which were erected at convenient points in the neighbor hood, were frequently built in some abandoned field. The teachers were usually local ministers or lay readers of the Anglican Church. If the school was recognized by the Established Church the teacher held a license from the Bishop of London or from the governor. In 1686 the Virginia General Assembly passed a law requiring certifi cation of all teachers. There was no system of elementary or secondary education in the Virginia Colony due to a great degree to geographical reasons,1^ Within a few years after the 12. W. G. McCabe, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution, Charlottesville: Chronicle and Steam Book Job Office, 1890, pp. 11+-15. 13. Newton Edwards and Herman G. Richey, The School in the American Social Order, New York: Houghton rtittlirnJoTTity?, p. 1W.— llj.. W. G. McCabe, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution, Charlottesville: Chronicle and Steam Book 7o5 Office, 1890, pp. 6-7. 67 first settlement an agricultural society developed in Virginia and the population spread out in an attempt to secure large tracts of land for the purpose of cultivating tobacco. Transportation difficulties further isolated the planter and schools remained rare in Virginia. In contrast, geographical conditions favored the establish ment of a school system in the New England colonies. There the inhabitants were usually grouped together in a village where group meetings could be held without causing the settler to travel long distances. The fact that the New Englanders took advantage of this situation and established a school system well before Virginia has added to the false impression that Virginians were not interested in education. For many years Virginia was dependent on English schools for the education of professionally trained men. If one came to Virginia poor, ignorant, and dependent, he had scant opportunity to elevate himself. In the year 1723, the Bishop of London sent a circular to the clergy of Virginia inquiring as to the conditions in the parishes. One of the questions in the circular was, "Are there any schools in your parish?" The answer with but few excep tions was No. Educational opportunity in the early years of the colony was confined to the sons of those who could afford to employ private teachers for their children, or 68 could send their sons to school in England and pay for the schooling with tobacco.^ The Parson Schools Education in Virginia in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was for the most part in the hands of the Episcopal clergy, and by the eighteenth century these "parsons" had steadily declined in character. Bishop Meade stated that they were men of "most- evil living.'1^ Latin and Greek were the chief subjects taught in the Parson Schools; however, some gave instruction in algebra, land surveying, French, and Spanish. Following the prevailing educational theory of the time, discipline was the strong point of the school.^ There was virtually no coordination between the various Parson Schools, and as a result the students ware poorly prepared to advance to college training. The college failed to prepare any stu dent adequately for a profession, except perhaps the 18 ministry. Maddox says that education "in colonial Virginia 1$. Bishop Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, Philadelphia: 3". P. Lippincott and Company, IH72, I, pp. 190-91. 16. W. G. McCabe, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution, Charlottesville: Chronicle and Steam Book Job Office, 1890, p. 10. 17. Ibid., p. 11. 18. R. J. Honeywell, The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1931, 16, p. 16. 69 reflected the social philosophy and safeguarded the eco nomic social interests upon which the plantation system was built. The established Church of England and the Colonial Assembly administered the educational and civil affairs of the colony."^ As mentioned before, those families that could afford it hired private txitors. This was the approved practice until the Revolution. Some parishes under church patronage supported Latin grammar schools, but the tuto rial system and the great distances between plantations combined to make this type of institution impracticable. Children of indigent families and orphans left without property were given a practical education appropriate to their social station through the system of apprenticeship. The colony gave little concern to the qualifications of teachers; in fact only two qualifications were required: first, that all teachers should be sound in the doctrines of the Church; and second, that they be trustworthy subjects of the Crown.^0 All teachers were licensed by the Bishop of London, 19. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, p. 6. 20* H. A. Washington, "Social System of Virginia," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, January lbi^tJ, XIV, p. 106. 70 or by the governor on recommendation of the county court. Their sole support came from fees arranged between teacher and parent, and the supervision consisted of the attention, if any, given by the county justice.PI Public Education The American Revolution marked the beginning of the fight for free public education in Virginia. This Revolution was as much social and economic as political. It was launched by a minority group who sought equality with the privileged class. The Revolution all but eliminated the Parson schools because the Episcopal clergy, who for the most part were loyal to the crown, made their way to the British lines and returned to England. Their place in education was taken by Scotch and Irish clergymen, grad uates of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Trinity Colleges, who came to Virginia in large numbers after the American Revolution.^ Jefferson's Educational Bill On June 8, 1779, Jefferson submitted "The Virginia Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" as a 21. R. J. Honeywell, The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931, PTT. 22. Ibid., p. 7. 71 part of the Report of the Revision of the State Code.^3 This bill is generally accepted as the first American pro posal for a modern state school system. The report was not acted upon until after the close of the Revolutionary War, when fifty-six of the one hundred twenty-six provi sions were written into the state code.-^- The bill provided for the education of all free men. Every child would be assured three years of primary schooling free, the money coming from the school district or "hundred" taxes.^5 The bill further provided that a group of the more intelligent boys would be sent to the grammar schools free, and the more intelligent of these would continue their studies at William and Mary College.^ The bill proposed three distinct grades of educa tion which would reach all classes. First was the elementary school for both rich and poor; second, the colleges, which were in reality secondary schools, for a middle grade of instruction; and third, an "ultimate 23. Thomas Jefferson and George Wythe, "Report of the Committee of Revi3ors," Chap. LXXXIX, Paul L. Ford, editor, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, New York: G. P. Putnam's Son3, 190lj., TT, p. 220. 2ij.. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York! teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, p. 12. 25. A hundred was a small political division. 26. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia. New York: Furman and Loudoun, 1801, pp. 216-221. 72 grada," or univarsity, for teaching the sciences "in their highest degree," The bill also called for the establish ment of a library. Jefferson had this to say concerning his bill: It was a bill for the more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive, at the public expense, a higher degree of education at the district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at an university, where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts. • . . this on education would have raised the mass of the people to the high ground of moral respectability necessary tofltheir own safety, and to orderly government.2o Mr. Dabney in his book Universal Education in the South states that with the introduction of his bill, Jefferson became the first person in America to express pa the idea that education was a duty of the state. The 27. Paul L. Ford, editor, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1790» New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1914 p. 66. 28. Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, October 28, 1813, in Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Wlemorial Association, 1904, XIII, pp. 399-Jj.OO. 29. C. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1936 I, p. 4. 73 state of Massachusetts, however, had provided for tax- supported schools in the fourth decade of the seventeenth century. Many of the members of the Virginia Legislature felt a need for a systematic provision for general educa tion; nevertheless, Jefferson's bill was defeated by the Legislature under the influence of the objections which James Madison listed in a letter to Jefferson. First, the expense was alleged to exceed the ability of the people to meet. Second, there would be great difficulty in exe cuting it in the sparse settlements of the country. Third, the western members contested the inequality of the district division. Firat Virginia Educational Bill In 1796, the Virginia Legislature enacted a bill similar to the first section of Jefferson's defeated bill. It included the following provisions: that in the counties, three Aldermen were to be elected ... these Aldermen to determine whether it would be expedient to assemble the householders interested in primary schools; if the householders assembled proved to be inter ested, there was to be primary schooling for three years gratis for all the male and female children in the district assigned, a tax to be 30. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, February 15# 17&7» in Gaillare Hunt, editor, The Writings of James Madison, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901, II, p. 30B. 7ij- laid on the inhabitants. But the county court was to determine.when the election for Aldermen was to be held.-* Jefferson did not think that this plan would work. He wrote that: experience . • • has proved that no court will ever begin it. The reason is obvious. The mem bers of the Court are the wealthy members of the counties; and as the expenses of the schools are to be defrayed by a contribution proportional to the aggregate of other taxes which every one pays, they consider it as a plan to educate the poor at the expense of the rich.32 Separation Acts In 1802, under the provisions of the Separation Acts the Episcopal Church was separated from any direct or indirect control in the state and from any advantage over the other sects. Under the provisions of this act the Glebe lands (church-owned land) were taken over by the state and sold for the benefit of the poor. Virginia thus laid the foundations of a state school system, because the assumption from the beginning was that this confiscated church property and other 31. William Strickland, "Report on the United States to the British Board of Agriculture, 1796," Farmer1 s Register, September, 1835, III, pp. 261j.-268. 3 The Literary Fund A special committee of the Virginia House of Delegates in the fall of 1809 offered a bill to appro priate certain escheats, confiscated, and forfeited lands "to the encouragement of learning." This bill was passed February 8, 1810, and the fund esteblished under this bill became known as the Literary Fund. The authorship of this bill was claimed by James M. Barbour, who was a friend of common schools and a leader in many progressive movements, and by Charles Fenton Mercer, who was an ardent champion of popular education and a staunch Federalist.^" The Secular Sunday School Movement In 1780, Robert Raikes initiated the Sunday School Movement In an effort to awaken public opinion to the need for education among the children who worked in factories* The three R's and the catechism were taught on Sunday.^ 33. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New YorkT Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, pp. i+2—i|_3• 3l+. Edmund Ruffin, editor, Farmer1 s Register, January, 1836, III, p. 685. 35. R. Freeman Butts, A Cultural History of Western Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 195/» p. 4-07. It is claimed that Bishop Asbury organized such a school in Hanover County, Virginia in 1783 and the records show that a Sunday School was in operation in that county in 1786.36 By 1818, it was being hailed as a possible sub stitute for the common school idea, which had suffered reverses at the hands of the Legislature since Jefferson introduced his first bill. One school day a week could hardly have taken the place of a five-day school, but there were some enthusiasts who claimed that Sunday School pupils made more progress than children in the private English schools. The Secular Sunday School did make a contribution to education in Virginia by introducing an improved method of discipline which replaced flogging and fools caps. Mechanical memory was replaced with a higher appeal to children's interests. However, the main contribution of the Sunday Schools was the relationship fostered between 36. Newton Edwards and Herman G. Richey, The School in the American Social Order, New York: Houghton Miff lirflTo., 19^7, p. 2W. 37. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York": Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, p. 31* 77 poor and rich. It was the only common school of the time in which the sting of pauperism was not felt by the poor.^® Central College In l8lij., Jefferson was elected to the Board of Trustees of Albemarle Academy and was requested to draw up plans for the establishment and organization of their long- projected school. Jefferson sent his proposals to the legislature requesting certain appropriations and a re organization of the institution as Central College and the drafting of a bill to make these changes. He included an amendment to the law of 1796 transferring the authority to establish elementary schools in the county from the court of Albemarle to the trustees or visitors of Central College.39 Jefferson stated that the change from his previous proposal was necessary because experience had proven that no court would authorize a ward school. In a letter to Peter Carr Jefferson repeated a statement he had made previously: The reason i3 obvious: The members of the court are the wealthy members of the counties; 38. A Friend to Learning, "Remarks on a School Commissioner," The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine, 1825,"Wll, p. 5¥>. * 39. Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, September 7, l8lij., in N. P. Cabell, Early History of the University of Virginia As Contalned in the Letters oT Thomas Jefferson and JosepE~Cabell, Richmond: J. W. Randolph,1556, pp. 3814.-85* Hereafter cited as N. P. Cabell, Early History of the University of Virginia. 78 and as the expenses of the schools are to be defrayed by a contribution proportionate to the aggregate of other taxes which everyone pays, they consider it as a plan to educate the poor at the expense of the rich.4° Jefferson felt that the Literary Fund was a sound idea unless lost in what he called the "impending bankruptcy." He thought that the legislature should add a perpetual tax of one cent a head on the population of the state and that the revenue thus raised should be placed in the Literary Fund. He felt that such an act would insure forever a system of primary, or ward, schools, and a university where every branch of science might be taught. Jefferson stated that, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. . . . Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is sp.f e. Jefferson's plan provided fori (1) an elementary school in each county which would place every householder within three miles of a school and be free to all. The elementary school would provide instruc tion in reading, writing, arithmetic, and a beginning I4.O. Thomas Jefferson to J. C. Cabell, January 2L 1816, in N. F. Cabell, Early History of the University of Virginia, Richmond: J. W. Randolph, T856, p. ij.1. Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816. Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial-Association, 1901+, XLV, p. 38I4.. 79 course in geography, (2) District secondary schools, or colleges, which would place every student within a day's ride of a source of a more advanced education. The secondary school would pro vide instruction in ancient and modern languages, geog raphy, advanced arithmetic, mensuration, and the elemen tary principles of navigation. (3) A university which would provide instruction in all of the useful sciences. Included in this plan was a provision retained from his old plan which provided for the education of the talented students who were too poor to pay at state expense.^ The section of this bill which applied to primary schools did not differ radically from his bill of 1779. In the 1817 bill the Superior Court was required to appoint three visitors for the county. These in turn were to choose and supervise the teachers, subject to an appeal to the judge. An elected warden was to have charge of erecting and repairing the schoolhouse and the collection of taxes for school purposes. Ministers were excluded from serving as visitors and illiterates were to be denied citizenship.^ 1|.2. Thomas Jefferson to J. Carrea de Serra, Novem ber 25, 1817» Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 190i|., XV, p. 156. I4.3. R. J. Honeywell, The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931,p. 19• 80 Opposition to Jefferson13 Plan Charles P. Mercer,^ a Federalist, opposed Jeffer son's plan for local taxation. He xvanted central adminis tration of the income from the Literary FundJ^ His bill passed the House of Delegates In 1817 but failed to pass the Senate. It provided for: (1) A Board of Public Instruction consisting of ten men who would be elected each year by a joint ballot of the Senate and House of Delegates. They were to put into effect a system of public education. (2) The governor was to be an ex-officio member of the Board. The Board was to be composed to two members from west of the Alleghany Mountains, two from between the Alleghani©3 and the Blue Ridge, and foiir from between the Blue Ridge and the Great Po3t Road. The Board would have the power to elect its own officials. Mercer was born in Fredericksburg, June 6, 1778> of a distinguished family. He was graduated from Princeton in 1797* spent a year in Europe, and studied law. He was a member of the Virginia legislature from 1810 to 1817, and during the War of 1812 was a brigadier general in command of the defense of Norfolk. He was a strong protectionist and an opponent of slavery. He served in Congress continuously from 1816 to l8i|0. In 1853, he visited Europe to confer with influential men in the interest of the abolition of slavery throughout the world. C. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South, Chapel Hill: The University of North CaroTIna Press, 1936, I, p. 36. 1+5. C. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1936, I, p. 37. 81 (3) The Board would have the power to establish a univer sity and examine and appoint professors. They were to make some provision for the education of the indigent# They were forbidden to take any money from the Literary Fund for a university if any of the lower schools were in need. (Ij.) They were to establish as many primary schools as would tend to promote the easy diffusion of knowledge among the youth of all classes of society. The state was to be divided into townships and wards. No township was to contain more than thirty square miles. (5) Each ward and township was to elect five trustees for the government of the school. (6) All free white children were to be educated free# The trustees could charge a tuition fee to parents of children able to pay0 (7) The Literary Fund was to furnish $200 salary a year for the primary teacher. (8) The Board of Public Instruction was to divide the state into forty-eight academical districts. (9) Academy trustees could recommend teachers to the Board of Public Instruction. If the teacher could pass the examination he was appointed. (10) One-fourth of the academy's teacher's salary was to be paid from the Literary Fund. 82 (11) There was a provision for the establishment of academies for girls# (12) The Board was to establish three colleges — two west of the Alleghany Mountains and the third below the Blue Ridge. A fourth college, to be named Jefferson College, was to be established on the south side of the James. (13) One-fifth of the professors1 salaries was to be paid out of the Literary Fund0 (lij.) All trustees were to report conditions of their schools once a year to the Board of Public Instruction. Prom these reports, the Board was to make a yearly report to the General Assembly.'^ This bill wa3 defeated in the Senate by friends of Jefferson. On February 16, 1817, Mercer offered a substi tute bill which was opposed by Cabell and other friends of Jefferson because it called for the location of the univer sity in the Valley of Virginia. Such a location would have given the western counties a disproportionate influ ence in the State Board of Public Instruction. Mercer included a modification of some of Jefferson's principles, but the bill was defeated in the Senate by a tie vote 1+6. Sundry Documents on the Subject of a System of Public Education for~the State of Virginia, Richmond: Superintendent of Public Printing," 1017, pp. 35-1^9. 83 mainly because Cabell did not amend it to name Charlottes ville as the site of the university, Honeywell says: n3y 1817, Mercer was recognized as the champion of the West, advocating centralized control and indirect support, while Jefferson through his supporters in the legislature, was equally recognized as the foremost advocate of local con trol and support,"^7 Jefferson's proposals, with only slight modifica tions, were included in the "Bill for Establishing a System of Public Education#" This bill opposed the Mercer Plan. Jefferson declared that the Literary Fund could not meet the requirements of the Mercer bill despite the increase in the fund.^"® In l8l£, Mercer brought about a great increase in the Literary Fund by obtaining the appropriation to the fund of a large sum owed to Virginia by the federal government.^ Ideas of Mercer and Jefferson Concerning Education Mercer and Jefferson were in accord as to the fundamental necessity of popular education, but differed JL4.7• R* J. Honeywell, The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. I93TTPP. lB-19. I4.8. Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, October 2ij., 1817. N. F. Cabell, Early History of the University of Virginia, Richmond: J. W. Randolph,"T856, p. 50» lj.9. Joseph C. Cabell to Thomas Jefferson, February 26, 1816. Ibid., pp. 60-61. Sit- radically concerning the method of achieving it, Jeffer son insisted that the maintenance and conduct of schools be left entirely to local initiative. Mercer argued that the state should support them to obviate the burden of local taxes, and for some degree of state control and direction without which local apathy could never be over come. Mercer was convinced that state subsidy would, if all the Literary Fund were devoted to common schools, create a complete school system in fifty years without the c^O local taxes called for by Jefferson. Jefferson was strongly opposed to the idea that education was a function of the state. He desired to bring the school system nearer to the people in the various communities and to place the control of the system beyond the interference of the state, church, William and Mary College, or any other type of centralized power.^^1 He did not think that school attendance should be compulsory; however, he did not think it unreasonable to take away some of the privileges of citizenship from those vjho had neglected their opportu ne? nities to learn how to exercise them wisely,' 50. W. A. Faddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, pp. 59-60. 51. Charles A. Beard, Economic Origins of Jeffer- sonlan Democracy, New York: Macmillan Company, 1915* p. 22. 52. R. J. Honeywell, The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson, Cambridge:. Harvard University Press, 1931, P. 35o 85 Virginia did not adopt a public school system at this time because a strong demand for free schooling opened to rich and poor alike and supported by local and state funds had not developed. Virginians, in general, did not accept the principle that a man should tax himself in order to educate his neighbor's children. The isola tion that is developed by an agrarian society proved to be a stumbling block to any school legislation. Unlike the New England states, Virginia lacked the popular assemblies by which the people could be informed and stirred to con certed action. School Bill of 1818 On February 21, l8lS, the Virginia Legislature passed a school bill which appropriated $1|.5,000 annually from the Literary Fund for the education of poor children and $15,000 for the university. Under the provisions of the bill, from five to fifteen commissioners were to be appointed by the court iri each county and these would con- trol the schools.-^ This law represented a triumph for Jefferson's plan for primary schools only in that it took from the courts the discretion left them by the law of 1796 and made the appointment of commissioners compulsoryo 53® Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia, February 21, 1818, Richmond: Superintendent of~Public Printing, 1818. Hereafter cited as House Journal. 86 Jefferson's friends in the Legislature accepted a system of schools for the poor in which they did not believe so that they could get the university established."^ The Education Act of l8l8 did not establish a state system of free schools for all classes; nevertheless, a second step had been taken in the evolution of public education. The state thus assumed, in principle, the control of schools and pupils by accepting the provisions of the new act. Virginia had launched what could be called a quasi-system of primary free schools. A strong dislike for the Educational Act of l8l8 arose among the poorer classes and the great middle class, who were practically excluded from participation in the appropriation. There were too many parents just able to feed and clothe their children, but unable to send them to the private schools of the neighborhood or to pay their board in a neighboring community when there were no schools at home. The act made no provision for such families, and as a result they were deprived of state aid.^ The act of 1818 made primary education free to the destitute and to all of those willing to accept the brand N. P. Cabell, Early History of the University of Virginia, Richmond: J. W. Randolph, TB'56, p. xxxiii. 55* House Journal, 1820, Richmond: Superintendent of Public Printing, 1020, p. 7« of pauperism in a social system based 011 wealth and caste* The state university, though still in its infancy, was already looked upon as an institution for the privileged classes. The intermediate schools which were necessary to bridge the gap between the primary schools and the univer sity had not been subsidized. The large group of small tax payers was still struggling with the problem of providing education for their children. If there were no endowed academy or clas sical school in the neighborhood, there were only two ways to reach the university: the family must either employ a tutor or cooperate with several families in employing one in common. Because of the sparse population in many sec tions or the lack of neighborhood cooperation, the more ambitious farmers, in order to maintain a school at all, were frequently compelled to subscribe several times over the usual tuition fees. Hence elementary education was beyond the means of a large number of families. Before it could be made accessible to the people, the indifferent and the unwilling citizen had to be aroused and educated to the necessity of public education and shown the way to pay for it without too great a sacrifice on his part. This way must ultimately be taxation, which could become popular only by reduction, through state subsidy, of the cost of private education 88 in all grades of schools. Then more of the small free holders would patronize them and finally come to accept public taxation supplemented by state moneys as more economical than the indirect tax of the fee or subscription system. School Bill of 1819 In 1819, a bill was proposed in the House of Delegates to abolish the Boards of School Commissioners and place the funds for primary schools under the direc tion of the overseers of the poor. The bill also con tained a provision that would permit girls to attend the schools. This bill was defeated.^ Although Jefferson recognized the need for the education of girls, he did not intend the university or academies to be open to them. His theories on the subject of the education of girls were not significantly different from the generally accepted ideas of the time. His plan called for the attendance of girls only in the ward schools By 1822, Jefferson had decided that the school system was a failure and must be discontinued. He said 56. House Journal, December 29, 1819, Richmond: Superintendent of Public Printing, 1820, p. 83. 57. Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, in JulTan P. 5oyd, editor, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Princeton: Princeton Univer sity Press, 1950, 2, pp. 526-35. 89 that it cost too much and in a letter to Mr. William T. Barry stated that M. . • if a single boy has received the elements of a common education, it must be in some part of the country not known to me."^® By 1823, Jefferson had decided that if the state had to abandon either the primary schools or the university it should be the latter because he felt that it was safer to have a large percentage of the population partially enlightened than to have a few with a high degree of edu cation and the majority in ignorance,-^ However, a short time later he agreed with Joseph Cabell that since the funds were low and the primary schools were in disfavor they should take advantage of the opportunity and get money for the university. Public Sentiment Concerning Education There was a general dissatisfaction with the state 58. Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, July 2, 1822, in Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 190i|., V, p. 390. 59. Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, January 13> 1823. N. P. Cabell, Early History of the University of Virginia, Richmond: J. W. Randolph,"T85&, p. 267. 60. Joseph C. Cabell to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1823, and Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, January 28, 1823, P. Cabell, Early History of the University of Virginia, Richmond: J7w7~Han5olpH,™T556, pp. 268-71. 90 policy. The main complaint was that enough money had already been expended to have achieved more than an orna mental top and a very insecure foundation of a state school system. The leaders of the school party were largely responsible for this condition. Maddox in his book The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War states: ...while the progressive leaders were bungling over the details of educational administration,—Jefferson endeavoring to create a state university and force an indifferent people to initiate their own local schools, and Mercer, on the experience of Connecticut and Massachusetts, trying to entice the people into taxation by liberal state subsidy—customary thinking had prevailed in the mere extension of the colonial provision for the education of the poor, and the almost complete neglect of the middle or higher elementary schools."-*- A bitter fight was waged by the friends of the middle schools for recognition and a participation in state funds. Thomas Ritchie, editor of the Richmond Enquirer, had consistently advocated subsidizing the intermediate schools. The Enquirer was perhaps the most powerful influence in securing the Act3 of 1821 and l83i|-, which permitted the secondary schools to participate in the state fund when the income should exceed $60,000. In I836, it was discovered that the revenue of the Literary Fund exceeded $60,000; but instead of abiding by the Acts 61. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York! Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918* p. 91. of 1821 and I83J4. and giving the surplus to the colleges, academies, and secondary schools, the state gave the sur- plus to the commissioners for primary schools. 62 The Evangelical and Literary Magazine, a Presby terian church magazine edited by Dr. John Holt Rice, was another strong agency promoting reform. Dr. Rice in several open letters to the president of the Literary Fund stressed the fact that misdirected energy and bad policy had dissipated the dream of popular education in Virginia. He pointed out that in ten years one million dollars had been spent on primary schools and the University and it all added up to an incomplete system. Over one-half mil lion dollars had already been spent on the University alone. This sum did not include the average cost of six hundred dollars per 3tudent per year and the additional sum of one hundred fifty dollars per student per year that the state paid. Dr. Rice concluded by saying that he was by no means an enemy of the University but "should that institution turn out to be one for the benefit of the few, my friendship will be changed into something more than indifference."^3 62. George E. Dabney, "Speech," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, November 18^1, VII, p. 633. 63. John H. Rice, editor, The Virginia Evangel ical and Literary Magazine, January 1826, IX,pp. 83-86, 92 The people in the western part of the state looked upon the University as the main obstacle to the establish ment of common schools and state appropriations for their support. Their representatives in the legislature had opposed the acts of 1815-16 which established the Univer sity. Judge E. S. Duncan stated in I8I4.2 that the West had feared that the University would be too aristocratic and would absorb all the revenue of the Literary Fund. He believed that only the powerful influence of Jefferson could convince the westerner that the university party waa 61l able to begin at both ends at once. h The western counties had a long-standing grievance against the eastern counties over their alleged failure to gain their share in the Literary Fund, discrimination against them in the matter of internal improvements, and their failure to obtain a redistribution of representatives in the General Assembly, These disputes were the foundation for the controversy between the two sections.^ February 1826, IX, pp. 133-137, March 1826, IX, pp. 196- 210, and April 1826, IX, pp. 315-318 and pp. 350-35^. See also volumes I, V, VI, and VII. 6I4.. House Journal, I8I1I-lj.2, Richmond: Superin tendent of Public Printing, loij.2, Document No. 7* P* 8. 65. A. J. Morrison, The Beginnings of Public Education in Virginia, 1776-1860, Richmond: Superintend ent of Public Printing, 1917, PP» 53-5^* 93 The District Free School Act of 1829 After the reverses of the 1818 school act the fr«e school party passed the District Free School Act of 1829. Under this act the coxinties were given optional authority to use a portion of their Literary Fund quota, whenever supplemented by a specified local subscription, to erect permanent schoolhouses for common use. This law avoided the issue of compulsory taxation for state school purposes.66 Under the District Free School Act of 1829 the state adopted a policy of permissive rather than compulsory 67 school legislation. Centralized power in taxation for schools was feared by both democracy and aristocracy. They feared that it might be put into the wrong hands. The act of 1829 was not unlike the "dormant aldermanic law of 1796," except that the voter's of the counties in stead of the county courts had the right of decision. It more nearly resembled the Mercer proposals in the General Education Bill of 1817. The law was an attempt to 66. A. J. Morrison, The Beginnings of Public Edu cation in Virginia, 1776-1860, Richmond: Superintendent of Public Printing, 1917, pp. 53-514-. 67. "An Act to Reduce into One Act the Several Acts Concerning the -Literary Fund," Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, 1525-2^7 Richmond: The Superintendent of Public" Printing, 1029, Chap. XII, p. 12. 914- convert the primary schools of I8l8 into a common school system which would include the middle class and avoid the declaration of poverty.^® Under the new act the schools were to be directed by the Second Auditor, who was designated the Superin tendent of the Literary Fund. The school system was made to depend upon neighborhood assessments rather than upon a compulsory county school tax. The chief objects of this bill were: (1) To improve the efficiency of the state appropriation of $45,000 and make better provisions for schools and teachers by affording opportunity for local financial cooperation, and (2) to attempt to remove the odious distinction between the rich and the poor. The provisions of the Act, though optional, were: (1) Each county was to be divided into districts from three to seven miles square and at the most convenient point a school was to be erected, (2) At such time as the inhabitants of such a district would contribute three-fifths of a sum necessary to pro vide a school house the school commissioners were author ized to supply the remaining two-fifths from their annual 68. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil Mar, New York! Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, p. 97« 95 quota of the Literary Fund provided that it did not exceed ten per cent of their county quota and provided that one acre of land, at least, was set aside forever for school purposes. (3) The county school commissioners were authorized to give one hundred dollars out of the Literary Fund quota toward the salary of a teacher at such time as the com munity would supplement it with a like sum. (lj.) Schools were made free to all and were to be con trolled by three district trustees--two elected by the annual contributors and one by the county school commis sioners• (5) The Second Auditor was granted greater administrative powers and the Board of Directors of the Literary Fund- now consisting of the Governor, Treasurer, and Second Auditor—was granted general supervision of the state system. This latter may be regarded as a step in the differentiation of a special department of education from the general officers of the state. Because the Second Auditor was designated superintendent some have construed this to indicate the beginning of the office of State Superintendent of Schools.^9 69. "An Act to Reduce into One Act the Several Acts Concerning the Literary Fund," Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, ltJ2g-2^7 Richmond: The Superinteri3ent of PublTc Printing, 1829, Chap. XII, p. 12• 96 The plan received scant support in the counties. The Superintendent of the Literary Fund in his first re port expressed the opinion that it was destined to failure because it did not compel local taxation of property,'70 Three counties tried the District Free School System of 1829 with varying success. They were Franklin and Washington counties in the present state of Virginia, and Monroe county in the state of West Virginia.'71 In analyzing this failure Maddox cited three reasons: (1) Under it local initiative and cooperation were a necessity; however, democracy had not yet been affected. (2) It made no provision for a state system of public taxation or school administration. (3) The scheme was ill adapted to such a sparsely set tled county. The West failed to embrace this system which its enthusiasm had helped to write into law. This would seem to indicate that the section had not gone far enough ahead of the older settlements to offset the political disadvantages of county government. Another great 70. "Report of Second Auditor, Cumberland County, H l830, House Journalt 1830* Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, I83O. 71. "Report of Second Auditor, Franklin County, I83O," House Journal, 1830* Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, 18^0. 97 obstruction to the consolidation of schools was transportation. Public Education in the Late 1820's and 1830*s Education was but a secondary issue in the reform movement of the late l820's. In the 1829-30 constitu tional convention, Alexander Campbell, founder of Bethany College, made several fruitless efforts to secure a more efficient free school system. A bill to increase the annual appropriation to primary schools for the poor was defeated again in the I83O-3I session of the legislature by a sectional vote.^ The migration of New Englanders and foreigners into western Virginia in the 1820's placed a burden on the free common school because of the dearth of good private schools. As a result of these conditions the western delegates fought for an increase in the annual appropriation to the Literary Fund and opposed the demands of the state univer sity and other colleges and academies for a greater share in the fund. They also opposed the establishment of a 72. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York! feachers College, Columbia University, 1918, pp. 103-10i4-. 73* C. H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861, Chicago: The University o? dhlcago Press. 1910, p.~273. 71+. Ibid., p. 273. 98 state military school and fought for the return of the revenue from the sale of forfeited lands to the counties in which the land lay, which was the chief source of in come for the Literary Pund.^5 The Census of 1814.0 and Public Education The census of 181^0 showed a great increase in Illiteracy in Virginia, a revelation that stunned the pride of the 3tate at once. The lack of schools was the largest single contributor to the increase in illiteracy* The church and the General Assembly immediately renewed their activities for the improvement of the state educa tional system. On March 20, l8lj.l, the General Assembly requested the president and the directors of the Literary Fund to submit a plan for a school system that would best secure the benefits of education to the people of the commonwealth."^ The educational statistics of the United States Census of l8L(.0 3tir-red in Virginia a new and greater effort for common school legislation of the character that 75. C. H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, mo, pp. 271^-75. 76. C. H. Ambler. "The Clarksburg Educational Convention of September o-9, l81p.,n West Virginia History, October 19i+3* V, p. 6. 99 all the northern and western states were then contending. The leadership in this movement was taken by the trans- Allegheny section, but the impulse was felt throughout the state.77 In all discussions on education in the state the feeling ran high between the eastern and western sections of Virginia. Everything connected with the University was opposed by the western counties while the eastern section ignored the increasing illiteracy in the western counties. The economic and political differences which were soon to divide the whole nation into two armed camps were becoming apparent.7® 77» George E. Dabney, "Speech," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, November lbij.1, VII, pp. 631-37. 78. R. V. Merry and P. K, Merry, "The Literary Fund of Virginia; Its Relation to Sectionalism in Educa tion," West Virginia History, April I9I4.I, II, p. 188. Chapter III The Ruffner Proposals The Literary Convent Ions During this period when educational policy was a matter of great public interest in Virginia many proposals for major changes In public policy with regard to schools were considered. Conventions to consider educational change Occurred one after the other, Henry Ruffner participated in some of these. The first of these conventions of any size convened at Clarksburg. One hundred fourteen delegates from sixteen counties attended, ueorge Hay Lee, a distin guished barrister of the city, presided.-^ A communication from the Rev. Alexander Campbell was the principal address. Campbell began his address with a comparison of the needs of the aristocratic and plebian societies and followed by stating the case for western Virginia. He stated that poor schools for poor scholars and gratuitous instruction for paupers were not 1. The propaganda of the Western Literary Insti tute of Cincinnati and the College of Professional Teachers reached every Southern state before l8ij.O. No doubt the Institute inspired the educational conventions held in western Virginia in 181}.1 and at Richmond in I8J4.5. Henry Ruffner was active in Virginia, Calvin Wiley in North Carolina and Robert Breckenridge in Kentucky. Stuart G. Noble, A History of American Education. Nev York: Rinehart and Co., Inc., 1951+» PP* lt52-&3. 100 101 the wishes of the people but rather schools for all at the expense of all. He felt that theory might have taught what experience had already proved; that few of the worthy poor who most desired education would have accepted it under the humiliating conditions under which it had been tendered (declaring oneself to be a pauper), or on any plan that had been attempted which provided two classes of pupils in the same school. Under this procedure one class was educated at the public expense and the other at their own,^ Of the many proposals made at the convention only one was adopted. Ambler quotes this resolution as follows: "Resolved, That the principle of direct taxation for the support of primary schools to supply any defi ciency which may not exist in the funds of the common wealth devoted to education, meets with the entire approbation of this convention. The Clarksburg Educational Convention of September 8-9, l8lj.l, was mainly the result of a sectarian movement interested in maintaining religious influence in educa tion; but according to Mr. Ambler, it was also a product 2. C. H. Ambler, "The Clarksburg Educational Convention of September 8-9, 181|.1,B West Virginia History, October 19^3# V, p, 7* 3, Ibid., p. 8, 102 of the public free school movement launched in 1779 by Thomas Jeff er son J"* The convention emphasized the differences between eastern and western Virginia. Under the leadership of Henry Ruffner and Rev. Campbell the delegates generally condemned the University. It was described in the minutes of the convention as: "... a gilded dome of an educa tional structure lacking a necessary foundation in effi cient public schools and supporting sidewalls in high standard, functioning academies."^ Judge Duncan, a delegate to the convention, stated that the Literary Fund had failed miserably to accomplish the objectives of its creation. In his opinion appro priations had been frittered away on an institution whose interests were essentially for the very rich, while the Literary Fund primary schools were intended exclusively for the very poor. He felt that the men of small fortunes were left to their own means, which meant that the back bone of the state, the men who paid the taxes, were left out. The great majority of the people of Virginia and the ij.. C. H. Amblsr, "The Clarksburg Educational Convention of September 8-9, 1841," West Virginia History, October 19^3> V, p. 5» 5>o Ibid,, p. 10. 103 entire population in the Northwest were being deprived of all participation in the Literary Fund. They were unable to send their children to the University and at the s ame time prohibited, if they would, from joining in the scramble for the annual donation for primary schools.^ In presenting his school plan to the Clarksburg Convention in lQi+l, Ruffner called attention to the latest report of the state auditor showing that only one-half of the enrolled poor children went to school at all and then only for a few weeks in the year. He insisted that there was but one effective remedy: a system of district schools supported by a tax within the district. He said that if the public schools were not good enough for the rich, they would not be good enough for the poor.^ Ruffner continued by pointing out that if the "rulers" of Virginia had taken the $8 00,000 spent on the University and established a system of well-regulated academies they could then have gone on to build toward a university at some future date. The University had, he felt, for want of such a foundation been forced to take in 6. Anon., "Educational Conventions," The American Journal of Education, Fegruary 1866, XVI, pp. l?^-l76« 7# "Proceedings of the Educational Convention," House Journal, l8i|.l-ii.2t Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, I8I4.2, Document No. 35* 1014- boys who would have profited more at a good grammar school or academy. He drew an analogy between this and the placing of a fine curved and gilded top to a house with a foundation o.f dirt and walls of rough logs poorly put together. All that Virginia could do would be to endeavour to mend the foundation and walls, which could have been more easily done if the roof had not cost so much. In his opinion good government was necessary to the protection of all property and rights, and he added that good government could not be secured in a democracy where the people were poorly educated and where great Q numbers did not vote at elections. Although Ruffner's educational plan was not acted on by the convention it was published as a part of the convention proceedings. Of all the proposals placed before the convention, Mr. Ambler states that the one by Dr. Ruffner, although conservative, was the most construc tive. Most of the state funds then spent for the education of poor children were, according to Ruffner, wasted through their inadequacy and their use to employ masters who were in no way qualified to teach. He felt that 8. "Proceedings of the Educational Convention,n House Journal, 18U1-14-2, Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, lbij.2, Document No. 35> 10£ these Incompetent teachers deserved to be shipped them selves Instead of being entrusted with the whipping of the poor children in their schools.9 The Clarksburg Convention appointed a committee which drew up the following recommendations which were passed by the convention. They were as follows: (1) -A district school system requiring the erection of suitable school houses in central, healthful, and pleasant localities; (2) A local school tax to supplement state appropriation; (3) the creation of the office of state superintendent of common schools and county superintendents subordinate to him; (I4.) schools free to all white children . • • ; (5) the establishment of really efficient schools • • • ; (6) the publication of a common school journal • .. ; (7) division inspection. These proposals were recommended to the Virginia Legis lature.10 Representatives of the counties of Augusta, Botetourt, Bath, and Rockbridge met at Lexington on 9. C. H. Ambler, "The Clarksburg Educational Convention of September 8-9# l824_l,tt Vest Virginia History» October 19i+3, V, pp. 8—9. 10. Ibid., p. 11. 106 October 26, 1814-1, under the leadership of James McDowell, who had been a delegate to the Clarksburg Convention. At the request of the convention, Henry Ruffner wrote out a plan for the organization and support of a system of public schools. This plan was presented to the legislature during the I8ij.l4j.2 session.1* Ruffner1s Plan The fundamental principles of the Ruffner Plan were, first, the organization of a system of district schools under proper supervision, and second, the support of these schools, in great part out of the Literary Fund supplemented by sufficient amount derived from a tax on property. Ruffner deemed these principles essential to any successful scheme for the dissemination of common learning through all parts of the commonwealth of Virginia and all classes of citizens. He indicated that he felt that many of the details of the plan were susceptible of variation without injury to the result and possibly with benefit to the cause of popular education. He pointed out that the primary form of his proposed system had been sanctioned by experience in other countries. Ruffner indicated that with some amendments to fit local situations the system as outlined in fifteen parts would 11. Anon., "Educational Conventions," The American Journal of Education, February 1866, XVI, pp. 173-17&* 107 improve public education in Virginia. Step one: The School District. His plan proposed that counties and town.3 be organized into school districts with definite boundaries, omitting the sparsely populated. sections. He felt that twenty-five children in an area were a sufficient number for the organization of a school district. In localities where means of transportation were poor he believed that parents might exert some effort to improve travel in order to facilitate the child's passage to school. In his opinion cities should constitute one school district with the number and variety of schools determined by the demand. He stated that the advantage of having schools adopted to age and acquirements was so great that rural districts 3hould have two schools where possible, one for beginners and one for advanced stxidents# He thought that the districts could be laid off by the county superintendents assisted by commissioners appointed by the county courts. He pointed out that they should keep in mind the probable increase of population and the possible necessity of changing the location of the school 12 buildings. Horace Mann's Fourth Report (I8J4.O) is concerned • Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year l899-i90Q>~Washlngton£ Government Printing Office, 1901, pp. 381-382. 108 with the evils of the district system. He expresses the view that the tendency to establish a school at the door step of each pupil had resulted in so many schools that none could receive proper support or render proper services.-^ Step two: The Location and Construction of School Buildings. Ruffner said that school buildings should, as far as possible, be placed in a locality that would have both convenience and pleasantness. He realized that in some cases one or the other would have to be sacrificed but felt that in sc far as possible the location should be dry, healthy, near a good source of water, and remote from bad moral influences. Sufficient land should be acquired in order that there would be ample playground apace. Space was the first requirement in construction^+ and other factors to be considered important were warmth in winter, healthful ventilation at all times, proper 13. Ellwood P. Cubberley, Readings in Public Education in the United States, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 193^»p. 197. lij.. Before Henry Barnard began to write on school- house construction no one had given any particular atten tion to the subject* Ellwood P. Cubberley, Readings in Public Education in the United States, New York: SougEton Mifflin Company, 1^31}., p. 320. 109 distribution of windows, and cleanliness within and out. Besides all of these things, the building should be pleasing to the eye. He felt that this would inspire stu dents and keep down mischief. He referred to the school buildings of the day as "hog-stye-looking." He felt that this had a bad effect on learning. Step three; The District Officers. It was Ruffner's plan to have the householders and parents in each district elect a number of school trustees annually# These would in turn appoint a treasurer and a collector for the district, and any other officers deemed necessary. The duties of the trustees should include the selection and purchase of the building sites. They should have the authority to exercise the right of eminent domain if necessary. They should also be charged with keeping the building in good repair after construction. They would also have the authority to disburse school funds, employ school masters, and admit indigent children. The trustees would be required to report quarterly to the county superintendent on local school affair's, especially on local taxes and the disbursement of school funds, the condition of the building, the teacher or teachers employed, and the number and classification of pupils attending. Once a year they were to report on the number of children in the district between the ages of six and eleven and between eleven and sixteen years. 110 The trustees would be required to visit the school often and feel themselves as guardians of the welfare of the children. They also were to encourage children to attend school regularly. Step four: The County Superintendents. Ruffner's idea was to*have a superintendent for each large county and one for each two or three small adjacent counties. The superintendent's duties would be to assist in laying off the school districts and locating the school buildings. He would be required to visit each school in his system at least twice a year for supervising purposes» He would have to receive, disburse, and keep an accurate record of the school funds turned over to him. His report would be made every six months to the general superintendent. He was to report also the statistics of the schools under his supervision twice a year. If he failed to do this the district would forfeit part of its claim on the public funds. For his work, he would receive a small salary and travel expenses. The plan called for hl3 annual appoint ment by the board of education. Step five: A provision was made to divide the state into four equal sections with a superintendent in charge of each. His duties would be to visit the c unties and inspect local school conditions. He would be appointed by the legislature for three years on good behavior. Ill Step six: Duties of the General Superintendent# The person holding this position was to be appointed by the legislature for three years. He would be charged with the duty of supervising every phase of the state school system. This was the first office in which full-time employment was suggested and a salary of $2,500 was named. Step seven: The Board of Education. The general superintendent and the sectional superintendents were to compose the Board of Education. They were to meet in December of each year in Richmond. It was to be their duty to prepare a report on the schools in the state for the legislature and to include recommendations for legis lative aid. They would also appoint county superintend ents and frame general regulations and instructions for governing school officers and the management of schools. They were charged with the duty of printing and distrib uting text books. It would also be their responsibility to divide the school fund among the districts. Step eight: The Schoolmasters. Ruffner said that the state would never be supplied with a sufficient num ber of good schoolmasters. In his opinion the children of Virginia would never be properly educated without good teachers. He listed the following as indispensable qualifications for teachers. First, each should have,am unblemished moral character and sound principles of 112 Christian piety# Second, he should be a competent scholar. Third, he should be able to teach and govern the pupils without unnecessary harshness. And fourth, he should pos sess habits of regularity and industry in the management of his business. . Step nine: An Attempt to Solve the Teacher Shortage. Ruffner suggested that state funds be given to private colleges for the purpose of educating poor young men who would promise to teach a number of years in the state school system. He further proposed the establish ment of a Normal School^ for the sole purpose of educat ing teachers. His plan called for locating the Normal School in a large city in order that the student could get experience in the local public schools. This idea is in keeping with present-day courses in practice or directed teaching. Ruffner said that the job of teaching was too humble and too little lucrative to induce many except poor young men to seek it. Step ten: The Division of Schools. Ruffner felt 15. The first public normal school in the United States began operation in Lexington, Massachusetts in July 1839. Ro Freeman Butts and Lawrence A. Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1953» P« 2B"7~« Ruffner1 s proposal was made in l8lj.l which would indicate that even though the idea was not original with Ruffner, he had synthesized and coordi nated them into a workable plan. 113 that in poor districts only one teacher could be hired. However, in richer ones two or more might be employed and the school then divided into two departments, one for beginners and one for the advanced student. A separation of sexes was thought to be desirable when possible. A complete system of education would include (1) a grammar school which would train the student for college; (2) academies for males which would correspond to the present-day vocational school; and (3) academies for females which would help them become better homemakers. There should be at least one academy in each large county. Step eleven: The School Library. Ruffner felt- that a library would be of great value to the people served by the school. One of the fix'st items that Ruffner advocated placing in the schools was library facilities. He believed that these libraries would not educate the whole population but would benefit some. Some tax money was to be used for this purpose. He felt that provision should be rns.de for a Lyceum, mechanics institutes, and a library association. In his opinion these would help In th? general diffusion of knowledge. They should not be under the control of the school officials, but be encouraged by them. In communities where there was no regular Sunday Ilk School, one should be provided by the school trustees and the schoolmaster. Step twelve: The Admission of Poor Children. The schools should be open to all white children upon such terms as their parents could afford. Ruffner felt that the operation of the school fund would reduce tuition fees to such a low amount that nearly all parents would be able to s end their children. For those that could not pay the required amount, provisions would be made whereby they could pay in proportion to their ability. The rest could go as paupers. Ruffner did not feel that there was any solution to this problem. The people were not ready to accept the principle of free education that would be state supported. Step thirteen: Public School Funds. According to Ruffner, when education was left to the people it was neglected. Regardless of the law that had been passed, in his opinion education had failed because of the failure of the state to provide a fund for the support of the schools. He advocated the use of the money received from the federal government from the sale of public lands be devoted entirely to education. In addition to this he advocated the levying of a special tax for educational purposes. This tax should be a state tax and not a county tax. 115 Under Ruffner's plan the amount received from the school fund should be sufficient to pay about one-half of the schoolmaster's salary and the other expenses of the system.. The remainder of the salary would cone from tuition fee3 and in some cases from local taxes. Step fourteen: Distribution of the School Fund. The fund was to be distributed by the Board of Education on a basis of equity and utility, Ruffner's plan for the distribution of the funds was as follows: (1) Two-fifths was to be distributed to all districts in the ratio of their contribution to the general school fund. (2) Two-fifths more were allocated on a ratio of average daily attendance. (3) The remaining fifth was to be divided equally among all districts. Since two-fifths of the fund was proposed to be distributed according to the number of actual enrollees in the district, which would include poor students, Ruffner felt that this would stimulate the districts to get as many children as possible to attend school. The more stu dents per district, the less the sum necessary to be raised by tuition fees. In order to be eligible for its quota a district would have to maintain a school for a minimuin number of days of the year. It was recommended that districts be 116 classified according to population and wealth. There would be three classes; the lowest class would have school for at least four months and the others for a longer period of time. Ruffner recommended eight months of con tinual instruction in a period of two years as preferable for the poorer to broken terms of four months in each year. Step fifteen: Miscellaneous matters. Ruffner felt that the district system had many obvious advantages and no disadvantages. He defended it as a workable system even though Virginia was irregularly inhabited and cut .into narrow strips of peopled territory. He felt that these conditions only proved the necessity of calling forth all possible aids in order to overcome the natural and unavoidable difficulties that stood in the way of dif fusing knowledge to the people. It was his opinion that the district system so grouped and organized the popula tion as to make the most of whatever means were at hand. Even though no parent was to be compelled by law to send his child to school, Ruffner felt that the inducements would be so great that ultimately all would participate. The reason that no compulsory legislation was requested was the fear of making the ignorant and blindly parsimo nious angry. If this were done, Ruffner feared that thay would use their vote to wreck the school plan. Another reason for preference for the district 117 system was the belief that it would organize the popula tion into small communities corresponding to the townships in New England. He felt that the want of communities smaller than counties had retarded the social improvement in Virginia, For an additional argument in favor of the district system, he used the returns of the latest census. This showed that 58*000 adult whites were unable to read or write. He felt that this was too low a number and pointed out how some counties that were not noted for their in tellectual accomplishments had reported no illiterates. He ventured to state that multitudes were reported as able to read vho could only labor through a printed page but were in no sense of the word readers of books or news papers. He concluded that only approximately one-third of the total population of Virginia could read. As for expenses of the district system, Ruffner felt that the administrative set-up of the general super intendent, four district superintendents, and eighty county superintendents could be financed for fl3,000 per year. This sum would include salaries and other expenses. He felt that a Normal School could be constructed and necessary equipment purchased for a total of #18,000, and that the school could be operated for approximately $10,000 per year. In his opinion these were the only 118 rightful charges that could be made against the system that he proposed. He suggested that the collection of the tax be done along with other taxes and that the disburse ment be made in the same manner as the Literary Fund, Ruffner felt that the cost of such a system would be repaid five-fold by the extension of education and the improved quality of the schools. The proposed system would not cost over $14.0,000 a year and many families would have the benefits of good schools; and it would prevent the raising of children in ignorance as was the case at the time. He estimated from the census that each district would have about seventy-five children between the ages of five and fifteen, A tax that would produce a revenue of from $200,000 to $250,000 would put the system into operation. This sum, along with the proceeds of the Literary Fund, would give each district sufficient funds to operate the school system,^ In drawing up his plan for the organization of a state-supported school system, Ruffner emphasized the great necessity of preventing the education of the youth from falling into the hands of incompetent or immoral men. He believed that unblemished moral character and 16. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1899-1900,"Washington: Gl-overnment Printing STFice, 1901, pp. 381-397. 119 sound principles of Christian piety were indispensable qualifications in a school teacher. He went on further to state that if the teacher was not in full communion with a Christian Church he should at least be free from religious infidelity and profaneness of language or sentiment, and be well acquainted with the holy scriptures. As an added qualification he listed prudence, which should keep the teacher from intermeddling with religious, political, or personal disputes among his employers Henry Ruffner believed that Sunday Schools were of great importance from a moral and religious point of view. Although he did not advocate the inclusion of religiou3 training in a public school because of the varying denomi national connections, he did believe that the public school should take over this ta3k in localities that did not provide any religious instruction on Sunday for the children. He said that this type of instruction would prevent the youth from falling into any idle and corrupt- ing practices.18 ' The State Education Convention of 1814.1 After the Lexington Convention had adopted the 17. House Journal, 1814.1 -1l2, Richmond: The Super intendent of Public Printing, loij.2, Document No. 35, pp. 5-6. 18. Ibid., p. 8. 120 Ruffner Plan, the alumni of Hampden-Sidney College joined in calling a state educational convention at Richmond. The hope of the convention was to win the support of the people in the eastern part of the state in the fight for an improved public school system.^ This convention, which met in Richmond on December 9, l8ij.l, was composed of a most distinguished and repre- sentatlve group of men from eastern Virginia.?0 Their report to the legislature contained recommendations re garding all types of schools in the state with a special emphasis on the lower schools. It has been called one of the atlest documents ever issued on this subject in the state The primary school report of the committee appointed at the Richmond Convention of December 9, l8i}.l, was prepared by Thomas Ritchie, R. G. Scott, and 5. M. Smith. They reported in part as follows: 19. Richmond Enquirer, November 22, I8I4.2. 20. The officers of the Convention were: James M. Garnett, President; Edward Watts, Vice-president; Robert N. Carter, John W. Peyton, Nathaniel Venable, Secretaries; Robert Powler, Edward G. Baldwin, Judge John B. Clapton, Briscoe G. Baldwin, Thomas Ritchie, Robert G. Scott, and Thomas Mitchel. 21. C. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina-Fress, 1936, I, p. 85. 121 We solicit not your sympathies in behalf of of the poor ... nor wish to excite in your minds any prejudice against the rich. We address our selves to all in behalf of all. . . . One county of Virginia, and that one of the most intelligent and wealthy, exceeds by one-half the whole number in a like state of ignorance in Connecticut. ... In the above state the work ing classes are all included while in Virginia our largest class of working operatives— nearly one-half the entire population—is ex cluded. ... We confess the present primary system has done some good ... we confess owing to sparseness of population ... an effective system cannot be instantaneously introduced ... but do these present any reason why we should not energetically attempt ... a more efficient system?22 The members of the committee felt that the reason for the failure of the primary education system was that education had been represented as a gratuity and that men were not accustomed to attaching much value to something that was cheap. The committee felt also that since only the poor and ignorant had been interested in the schools that took indigent children then they must be poorly operated. They suggested that another reason for failure had been the lack of systematic supervision and rcareful selection of teachers by competent authorities. 2> The committee made the following suggestions: (1) That primary schools be made accessible, without 22. Richmond Enquirer, November 22, l8i|.2» 23. Ibid., December 8, l81f.2» 122 cost, to every white child of proper age and that they be maintained at all practicable points at public expense. (2) That the procurement of competent teachers was indis pensable; thu3 instruction and preparation for the position of teacher was necessary. Nothing in the way of expense or examinations 3hould outweigh the importance of the preparation of teachers. The committee felt that teachers trained in the state and accustomed to the habits and institutions of the people would be better suited for the job. (3) That vigilant and constant supervision of the schools would be absolutely necessary in order to maintain a good system. (1^.) That the principle of taxation should be adopted as the only practicable means of supporting a school system. The committee felt that since primary education would benefit all it should constitute a common burden on the entire population. They pointed out that the countries of Europe that had relied on private enterprise or government support alone had failed in imparting education to the people.^" The plan of this committee presupposed small, permanent school districts, commissioned with power to 21+. Richmond Enquirer, December 8, l81j.2. 123 determine the amount of levy from a property and poll tax imposed by the county court. The plan provided that no district should share in the state funds until it had erected a school house and until a school kept by a qualified teacher had been open for four months. The teachers would be examined by the county commissioners, who would also detei'mine the course of study. The course of study, as outlined by the committee, would consist of courses in reading and writing correctly, practical arithmetic, English grammar, general, United States, and Virginia history, United States and Virginia Constitutions, pel and the general elements of physical science. ^ The plan pointed out that the primary system at the time cost $950,000 and yet 22,000 poor children and an indefinite number of other children not classified as poor did not attend school at all. Some of the buildings used for schools were described as being in poorer condition than the buildings provided for cattle. It was proposed to place a school house and a competent teacher within the reach of nearly every child. The expense of this type of system would e?uceed the old system by seven thousand dol lars. Of this seven thousand, four was to be used to pay / the salaryand expenses of the state superintendent. He 25« Richmond Snquirer, December 8, 181|.2. 12k would be required to address the people in an attempt to enlist their support in behalf of public education. This support would consist of their contributions and their aid in the raising of county levies. The committee felt that the success of the schools rested upon the character of this leadership. The number of teachers was to be re duced nearly one-third and their salaries increased in an P A attempt to gain efficiency. Education Bill of 1814-2 A bill incorporating the proposals of the Richmond Convention of December I8I4.I was submitted to the legis lature on February 21, 181+2, by William Cabell Rives.^ The bill was passed by the House on March 17* 18^1-2, by a large majority; however, the Senate rejected it on March 22, I8I4.2. It was defeated by the eastern aristocrats who controlled the Senate.^® Teacher' Training Because of the various educational conventions of l8i|.l, all of which emphasized the necessity for improving the qualifications of teachers, the denominational 26. Richmond Enquirer, December 8, I8J4.2. 27. Richmond Enquirer, February 22, I8I4.2• 28. C. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, I, p. 86. 125 colleges of the state saw an opportunity of being of serv ice to the state and at the same time of building their institutions. Representatives of William and Mary, Hampden-Si&ney, Richmond Medical College, Washington College, Randolph-Macon, Emory and Henry, Bethany, Rich mond College, and Rector College met in January l8i|lj.# Henry Ruffner presided over the meeting and a memorandum was forwarded to the legislature which asked for an appropriation from the Literary Fund. For the sum of #1500 each, the schools proposed to educate gratis a certain number of students to be selected in such ways as the state should indicate. These students were to be re quired to engage in teaching in the state for a period of two years. Nothing ever developed from this proposal.^9 State Educatl on Convention of I81i5 Following the defeat of the school b5„ll of lQl±2 by the Senate, agitation for improved schools continued. Finally on December 10, l8i|5» the second state educational convention met in Richmond. There were one hundred and thirteen delegates representing fifty-one counties present. Less than one-third of these delegates were 29. Anon., "Educational Meeting," The Southern and Western Literary Messenpcer and Review, February ltJUii., ~X, p. 121. 126 from the present state of West Virginia. The convention report on schools declared that even though the relations of the parent and child were so sacred that under a free government no authoritative inter ference with the mode of the child's education should ever be contemplated, nevertheless it felt that it was no less the duty than the interest of the Commonwealth to make such provision as would furnish every practicable facility for promoting the thorough education of every child. However, the delegates from the eastern part of the state, representing the prominent families, captured control of the convention and proceeded to criticize the old system, urging the establishment of an Association of Friends of Education which would be connected with the University. This association was to act as an unofficial state, board of education which tvould collect and diffuse information on the subject of public education. They felt that the general system of education in the primary schools at the time contained the elements of the only system that was suited to the finances and public temper of the Commonwealth. This group felt that the state 30. B. B. Minor, "Education in the Southern and Western States," The Southern and Western Literary Messen ger and Review, October XI, pp. 603-605. Also James McftoweH"^ "Address to the People of Virginia," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, October 1BIJ3, XI, pp. 605-607. 127 should empower each county to adopt such a system of •n schools as the majority of the people preferred. The minority report of the convention stated that in addition to its defective financial aspect the educa tional system in Virginia was radically defective in sev eral particulars. Among these were: (1) It definitely created class distinction between rich and poor, (2) There was no provision for the examination of teachers as to their moral character and qualifications, (3) No authority was granted to school commissioners for the selection of school books, (Ij.) It contained no provision for the education of teachers. The minority felt that the educational system then in operation impaired the standing and self-respect of the poor children among thfiir associates, e fact which fre quently prevented their parents from accepting a gift which to them was coupled xvith an invidious distinction. A common school system which would place all classes on one level would be more conducive to equality of feeling 31. 0. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, I, p. 86. 128 and appropriate to republican institutions of the nation.3^ The Throe School Acts of 1814.6 Three separate acts, each attempting to satisfy particular sections and interests, were passed by the legislature as a result of the educational conventions. These acts were enacted on March 5» I8I4.6. The first, "The Act to Amend the Present Primary System," represented in the main the conclusions of the majority report of the 181+5 convention,^ The second, "An Act for the Establishment of a District System," included the minority report of the 1814.5 convention.^i- The third, "The Special Act of February 25 > l8l|.6," was designed for a few counties whose representatives were ready to carry the question of taxa tion immediately to their constituents.35 The first act was largely obligatory, the second largely permissive, and all three acts left the matter of 32. House Journal, 181^5-14-6, Richmond: The Super intendent of Public Printing, iyij.6, Document No. 16, pp. 7-8. 33. "A Bill Amending the Present Primary School System," House Journal, 1814.5-U-6, Richmond: The Superin tendent of Public Printing, I0I4.6, Bill No. 263. 3I4-. "A Bill for the Establishment of a District Public School System," House Journal, 1845-^6, Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, loq.6, Bill No. 266. 35* "T'le Special Act of February 25, I8I4.6," House Journal, l81i5-l4-6t Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, lolj.6, Bili No. 258. 129 public taxation for schools wholly to the counties. Under the first two acta, the property owner was protected by a provision which ruled that a petition signed by one-third of the qualified voters of each county was required before a local election could be called on the adoption of either of the twin acts. Such an obstacle doomed these acts to failure from their passage. The friends of free schools anticipated this defeat and passed a special act, that of February 2$, l8lj.6. This act gave the eastern counties of Lancaster, Westmoreland, Richmond, King George, Northumberland, Laudon, Henry, Prince William, James City, Fairfax, and Williamsburg and the present West Virginia counties of Kanawha and Brooks statutory permission to lay a levy for the maintenance of a common school system without the difficult preliminary step of a petition calling for an election. The first of these act3, "An Act to Amend the Present Primary School System," proposed to amend the act then in effect in its obligatory sections and is frequently recognized as one of the first great 3teps in the evolu tion of a state public school system. By the passage of this act Virginia inaugurated a system of county superin tendents to be elected by the county boards of school 36. Bills No. 263, 266, and 25$, House Journal, l8l4.5-.U-6* Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, 1014.6. 130 commissioners. The county superintendent had the author ity under this act to perform in the capacity of clerk and treasurer of the board and was enjoined to require strict accounting of finance and school attendance from the individual district commissioner. He could, moreover, re quire from teachers accepting state pupils information re garding their curriculum and method. It was part of his duty to visit and supervise the schools of the county, and he received an allowance of two and one-half per cent of all money expended for education the previous year as compensation. Under the provisions of the act, the county must be subdivided into districts, the size of which should in each case be determined with due regard to population# The trustees, one elected from each district, would consti tute a corporate county board of education. It would be the duty of the trustees to provide for the enumeration and registration of all poor children in their district who under previous enactments were entitled to free tuition.37 The friends of a district system were able to add the following permissive section to this act: 37. "A Bill Amending the Present Primary School System," House Journal, I81j5-ii.6, Richmond: The Superin tendent of Public Printing, loij.6, Bill No, 263. 131 Be it further provided that if the provisions of this act shall fail to meet the needs of any counties or be disapproved by them . • • on the question of adopting a system of district free schools;—that is, any system that had been provided by the state or established in any of the counties within the commonwealth. If two thirds of the voters of a county decided at the polls to create a tax for free school purposes, it must be binding on all parts of the county alike.3° Tho second act, "An Act for the Establishment of a District Public School System," passed on March 5th, left to the option of the county whether or not it would accept or reject the system at the polls. The act provided that all white children, male and female residents of the dis tricts, would be entitled to receive tuition at said schools free of charge. The act provided for the permanent laying off of single-school districts, a district being defined as a section containing sufficient children for a school. A specific course of study was outlined. County superintendents were not mentioned, but each district was required to elect three trustees who were to assume very detailed responsibilities as to buildings, sites, repairs, furniture, discipline of pupils, financial statements, appointment, and removal of teachers. Provision was made for a fine of ten dollars for all trustees who were found 38. "A Bill Amending the Present Primary School System," House Journal, 18115-11.6, Richmond: The Superin tendent of Public Printing, loij.6, Bill No. 263. 132 negligent in the examination and certification of teachers. Under this act state funds could go only to teachers1 salaries with each district being responsible for the erection and maintenance of proper school buildings.39 The concluding clause of this act was similar to its sister act and reminiscent of the Act of 1796. It read as follows; The counties who may not choose to adopt the foregoing provisions for the establishment of free schools may call a meeting of their county magistrates to determine a proper course. These magistrates were authorized through the county court to divide the county Into districts under the Acts of February 25, 1829, and March 30, 1837, and to lay a district levy to cover the total cost of free education of all children whose parents are willing to send them. The Special Act of February 25, l81j.6, was an effort to establish directly by statute a complete dis trict free school system in certain counties which had already indicated by voluntary citizens petitions a favorable attitude toward local taxation for education. This act did neet with immediate favor in the counties involved when the rate of the levy became generally known. The population of these counties was composed of two groups of citizens: those opposed to the 39. "A Bill for the Establishment of a District Public School System," House Journal. I8li.5-k6, Richmondi The Superintendent of Public Printing, lolf.6. Bill No.. 266. 1+.0. Ibid. 133 common school principle of taxation, and those willing to submit to it* Protests of requests for amendment were re ceived at Richmond from angry citizens of practically all the counties concerned. These preterits were against the increase in taxes alone.^ None of the three school acts of 181)6 made any mention of either a state superintendent or of a state board of education with power and obligations beyond those of the officers of the. Literary Fund Board. The 1814.6 con vention appointed a Central Committee of Education which attempted to serve the purposes of a state board. Without such a central guide or unifying force the state labored under a confusion of school systems* The Act of I8l8 finally evolved into the Amended Primary System of 184.6 without the aid of any local taxation to develop its possibilities. The Act of 1829 and the de feated proposals of 1778, 1796, and 1817 evolved into the District System of IQI4.6 and a series of minor acts for several counties adopting phases of the district free school system. An attempt was made in the Revised State Code of I8I4.9 to provide every county at once with some, system of free schools by offering the option of adopting I4.I. "The Special Act of February 25, l8ij.6,u House Journal, 181+5-U6, Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, loij.6, Bill No. 258* 13k any one of the several district systems already authorized in the past# This choice had to be made before July 1, 18^0, when the code was to become- effective. Interest in Public Education Declines The Superintendent of Lewis County (in the present state of West Virginia) probably stated the situation for the whole state when he placed the blame for the failure of the primary schools not on the legislature but squarely on the poorer people who refused to patronize the schools. This failure was not caused by any repugnance for free education but by the fact that they cared too little for the education of their children to spare them from work at home,b2 An unknown author writing in The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review in I8I4.7 wrote as follows: The interest that a few months ago seemed to be awakened on the subject of education, appears again to be dying away and losing itself amidst the din of party politics and military movements. This interest seems never to have been a very general feeling, but rather one that was fanned into existence by a set of philanthropists, who hoped by their own unwanted exertions on the subject to arouse the people to a sense of their wants. But these efforts I fear have failed to ij.2. "Auditors Report, Lewis County, l8i).9," House Journal, l8L9» Richmond: The Superintendent of Public Printing, 1850. 135 effect any important change in Virginia in our system of public education.43 By 1850 it must have begun to be evident to the friends of education that for their; to secure compulsory taxation for common schools was all but impossible. Summary Following the Revolutionary War it was possible to get an education in Virginia, but it was not until 1818 that a minimum system of public education, although not tax supported, came into existence in the state. There was no desire on the part of the people to be taxed for the purposes of beginning schools. Governor John Tyler, as had his predecessors Governors James Monroe and William Henry Cabell, pointed out the effects of no system of education in messages to the General Assembly. In 1810, the act establishing the Literary Fund was passed. In 1816, the Literary Fund was greatly increased. This increase permitted the establishment of a system of public education without reliance on a school tax. The president and directors of the Fund submitted a plan of public education which provided for primary schools, academies, and a university. They made it plain that they I4.3. Anon., "On Public Education in Virginia," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, November TB1+7, XIII, p. 685• 136 were mainly interested in the establishment of primary schools. In 1818, the General Assembly passed a bill estab lishing a system of public schools and a university. The second quarter of the nineteenth century marked the beginning in the United States of a period in educa tional development which was characterized by a growing tendency toward democratization. The so-called religious and educational awakening or revival so frequently asso ciated with New England was also felt in the South. How ever, slavery and its natural hinderances to a rapid development of public education and the absence of a strong middle class in the South delayed the revival of education in that region. Regardless of this fact, the ground for a reorgan ization of educational effort was being properly prepared, public opinion was being educated, statesmen of vision and broad educational traditions were eager to enlarge and extend educational facilities, and a general movement for free school systems was gaining momentum on the eve of the Civil War.^ The various voluntary movements to give the poor kk. E. W. Knight, "Reconstruction and Education in Virginia," The South Atlantic Quarterly. January 1916, XV, P. 25. 137 the power to read and write and to redeem them from the isolation and moral depravity of the new settlements gave the impetus for public elementary schools in Virginia# Thus any study of the free school movement must take into account the enthusiasm of private enterprise and religious zeal. The gradual development of these cooperative efforts to carry benefits of "English" education to the lower and middle classes of the state brought about the Virginia free school system before the Civil War,^ It appears from a study of the facts presented in the initial efforts to bring education under civil control that the mass of the people were still too much dominated by the ancient conception that education was primarily the concern of the Church to understand the implications in volved for education in the new political principle of separation of Church and State. This principle had been put forth by the Anabaptists in the seventeenth century, but had not been accepted by any of the European states. An anonymous author in Barnard's Journal wrote that he believed that, even though such factors as scat tered population and taxation entered into the defeat of the repeated efforts to establish a free public school W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York! Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, p. 25. 138 system, the real cause was the idea that education must be founded on a basic Christian conception of life. This idea tended to throw the direction of education into de nominational hands and hampered the realization of the efforts of such leaders as Jefferson and Tyler, who thought of education as an instrument of the state,. The chief difficulty then was one of integrat ion-- integrating religious instruction with those forms of education which concerned the training of the individual for economic and political life for a new type of citizen ship in a government which was legally divorced from all concern for religion. Jefferson put forward the concept that the state should take over education yet take no responsibility for religious training, leaving that to the home and the church. But it was a far simpler matter to adjust the social-political life of the state on the principle of separation of Church and State than to adjust the religious- educational life. For centuries the conception that edu cation must be based on a religious foundation not only for the welfare of the individual concerned but also for the group as represented in the state had been building up. This new conception of education required a com pletely new teaching force. None of the existing educational institutions were turning out teachers who' 39 o cone ve of education in terms of citizenship or the state who ly divorced from a concern for the sp itu 1 0 1 e. Unti t e Civ 1 ar in Virginia twas easier for he re g ous gro p to ga n control of schools because o the conf nee nspi e b a tio that x sted to b ck t 0 he c il n er st had to win e ople o er to ne\-J po nt o v e • .t-6 In one s ect the w s a e resente 0 orce , t e s t e a t c c , ac ntens y interest d n educatin for t e bet erment of soc ety, and the per action o the indiv dua as a a tor in consQmmating the p rfection of society. Becau e of its ·newness he stat was supreme consciou of i s miss on; th church beeaus o its tradition was inseparably boun up with education nd felt its very existence dependent upon ma ntaining i . stor cal funct on. The ch rch d d not des e to su - ren er it po tion)+7 Fo low ng the e co t dec _on an th Kan troub e , he question of slavery again became a sectional one. campa gn a~ started by comuercial inte ests and 1mivers ty men t .o make the University of Virg n the a die Bell, The Chu ~~--~a~ , hil d p 930, pp. 203-204 47. Ib d., Pe 204. 340 intellectual center of the South. They also wanted to do away with the Yankee teachers in the free schools and with textbooks written by northerners;. The campaign was suc cessful excejjt that the region vest of the mountains sent only a small number of men to the University, kept their Yankee teachers, and continued to call for more state sup port of public 3chool3• When the war came and western Virginia separated from the state, among the charges brought by the western ers against the east was that they had been denied common free schools and that their taxes had been taken to main tain a University for aristocrats.^"® Jefferson's original plan for the University helped to bring about this widening gap between the Univ ersity Party and the classes, particularly in the West, where the University offered no boon. Jefferson's plan stressed the "General School" and gave a very small place to elementary education.^ Before the Civil War discrimination between the children of the relatively rich and poor in the northern i|8. Charles H. Ambler, Sectionalism In Virginia from 1776 to 1861, Chicago; The University of Chicago Press, 1^1^57 pp« 279-282. ij.9. W. A. Maddox, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1918, p. 53° 11+1 states was almost universally maintained by the so-called "rate" bill. In the South, the distinction was maintained by the English "charity1' school system.^® A major factor which led to the eventual with drawal of the western part of the state was the contro versy over education which raged for more than half a century between the eastern and western counties of the ante-bellum Virginia,, This controversy over education should not be considered as distinct from other sources of conflict. Quite to the contrary: it was perhaps the best single illustration of the basic social, political, and economic differences between the two sections.^ Henry Ruffner was acutely aware of the possible consequences of the differences that existed between the eastern and western sections of Virginia. He sided with 50. W. A. Maddox, The Frfee School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War, New York": Treachers College, Columbia University, 1918, p. 23. The Virginia town "charity" school was much like its English prototype. It was generally supported by private subscription, sometimes by municipal endowment or small appropriation. Quite frequently it was aided by lotteries. Beyond sanctioning their incorporation, the state contributed nothing to the success of these schools until l8l8, when they were sub sidized as part of the new state "poor" school system established under the school statutes that year. Ibid., p• 25 ® 51. R. V. Merry and P. K„ Merry, "The Literary Fund of Virginia Its Relation to Sectionalism in Educa tion," West Virginia History, April 19/Lj.l, II, p. 179« 11*2 the western section and in fact might be considered the voice of the people across the mountains. As an educator, he knew the value of education for a people if they were to govern and live properly. The difficulty lay in the different educational philosophy held by the two sections# The western people were more democratic than their eastern brethren; and Ruffner's Plan, which was more democratic than any offered prior to the Civil War, em phasised the desire on the part of the western population to break the back of the control that the eastern aristo crats had in the state of Virginia. Public opinion east of the mountains was dominated by the attitudes of the planter class. Even though the planter class represented a minority of the population, they controlled the govern ment and thereby the laws of the state. This group fol lowed the English philosophy of education, which taught that the education of children was the responsibility of the parents and church and not of the state. The people of western Virginia felt that education was a function of the state because the state would benefit from an en lightened population. A comparison of Ruffner's Plan with Jefferson's Bill will illustrate its comprehensiveness and its similarity to present-day school organization. Ruffner's Plan called for the division of each 343 county into districts while Jefferson's Bill used the term wards. However, Ruffner suggested the creation of the office of county superintendent as an administrative offi cer rather than the elected aldermen as suggested by Jefferson. Some states today use the administrative org anization as suggested by Ruffner. He also reminded the administrative officials to be ever mindful of population increases and the shifting of the centers of population in any planning. Step two of his Plan goes into greater detail con cerning the location and construction of school buildings than does Jefferson's Bill. Ruffner expressed the feeling that an attractive environment is conducive to good learning, Ruffner introduced the idea of having each dis trict elect a group of trustees or board to serve as the administrative body of the district. This plan is also followed in some states today. Ruffner1s Plan provided for a county superinten dent who would act as the administrative head of the county division. His duties were outlined and his appoint ment was to be made by the trustees. Jefferson's Plan had no provision for a superintendent. Ruffner proposed that the state be divided into four sections and that the legislature appoint a superintendent for each section who IMk would serve as a general supervisor for the area. These section superintendents in addition to the general super intendent were to form the State Board of Education and administer the school system on a state level, Jefferson included no similar plan. Ruffner vas greatly concerned over the quality of the teacher. He felt that the school system would be only as good as the teaching, and he outlined the qualifications for teaching. Jefferson made no mention of the quality of teaching. Ruffner was also concerned over the teacher shortage and made suggestions for alleviation of the situa tion. In his plan Jefferson had expressed no concern over the shortage of teachers. Ruffner felt that a complete school system should include a grammar school which would train the student for college; academies for males which would correspond to the present-day vocation;'! school; and academies for females which would help them become better homemakers. Jefferson's idea was to give all the rudiments of an education but beyond that he desired to create an intellectual elite. Ruffner proposed that each school have a library; in fact one of the first items that he felt should be in cluded in a school building was a library. It was his opinion that the educational level of a community could be raised by the proper use of a library and the incor U|5 poration of some form of a lecture program such as the lyceum program. He also felt that the school trustees should make provisions for a Sunday School if one did not exist. Jefferson's Bill had no such provisions. Ruffner felt, that the people were not ready to accept the principle of free education that would be state supported. For that reason he proposed that a low tuition fee be charged, with the poor children being admitted free. The tuition fee would be supplemented by state funds to provide the sum necessary for the operation of the school. The state funds should be composed of money collected from the sale of public lands and from a special tax for educational purposes which Ruffner felt should be a state tax and not a county tax. His plan for the dis- tribution of the state funds was as follows: (1) Two-fifths was to be distributed to all districts in the ratio of their contribution to the general school fund. (2) Two-fifths more would be allocated on a ratio of average daily attendance. (3) The remaining fifth was to be divided equally among all districts. In order to be eligible for its quota, a district would have to maintain a school for a certain part of the year. Jefferson's Bill called for state-supported 1^6 education free to all for a certain number of years. He made no provision for distribution* Ruffner also proposed the establishment of a Normal School for the training of teachers. In his opinion the cost for such an institution would be repaid many times by the education of young men in the proper teaching methods. It is interesting to note the emphasis that Ruffner placed on the proper training of teachers# One explanation could be that his many years in college teaching had shown him the product of poor teaching and the handicap that It placed on the student. Ruffner!s Plan did not call for the establishment of a university. As a representative of a pi'ivate col lege it Is doubtful whether he could have advocated the founding of a atate university even if he had believed in it. Ruffner deplored ignorance and believed strongly that the best way to improve mankind was through educa tion. He could not rest while the people of his region were denied the benefits of education by the Tidewater majority in the legislature. He remains a forgotten man in the educational history of Virginia, overshadowed by Jefferson, Mercer, and others; yet his plan was far in advance of theirs. Chapter IV The Closing Years Introduction By the middle of the nineteenth century many loading Americans advocated some fom of universal educa tion; Thomas Jefferson of Virginia was one of these. A contributing factor in the increased support for public- supported education was the fact that political power began to -slip from the hands of the upper class. This pointed up the fact that the people who governed should be educated if government was to be efficient. Ruffner and other educators of the west felt, that education was essen tial if society was to advance rather than regress, or at best stand still. The plan for public education proposed by Ruffner met the same fate that others hod suffered at the hands of the state legislature because Virginia was not ready for state-supported free schools. Apparently too much of the English school philosophy 3till existed. If a man wanted his child educated he paid for it. Dating back at least to the times of the passage of the Poor Laws by Parliament in 1601, the English people had conceived free public 11+7 114-8 education to be a charity extended by the state or commu nity and not a natural right of the child. This philoso phy had been accepted by the Virginia colony and continued to thrive in the Commonwealth during Ruffner1 s life. Public Education in Virginia Virginia accordingly had to wait until after the Civil War for its public school system# The son of Henry Ruffner, YJilliam Henry Ruffner, was named the first super intendent of schools and granted a period of thirty days following hi3 appointment- in which to present a workable plan for a uniform system of public free schools. He re ceived aid from Dr. Barnas Sears and Professor John L» Minor of the University of Virginia. Dr. C. C. Pearson, biographer of William Henry Ruffner, expressed the belief that Dr. Sesrs was perhaps the author of the educational provisions of Ruffner'3 program. Dr. Pearson also sug gests that Ruffner might have unconsciously been aided by impressions derived from his father's plan. The plan submitted by Superintendent Ruffner was not unlike other plans that had been submitted previously by advocates of a free public school systm, including the one submitted by his father.^" Pearson added, however, that Superintendent 1. C. C. Pearson, "William Henry Ruffner; Recon struction Statesman of Virginia," The South Atlantic Quarterly, January 1921, XX, p. 31* Uj.9 Ruffner had not seen his father's plan for years.^ Finally, Superintendent Ruffner himself said that he could not have been influenced by his father's plan because he did not see it until 1876.3 If the last statement is true, then the similarity between the two plans might be explained by the fact that Dr. Sears and Professor Minor, who aided Superintendent Ruffner, might have been familiar with the plan. It seems plausible that killiam Henry Ruffner in his youth had heard his father discussing education in general and his plan in particular; and even though he did not see the plan in written form until l8?6 his mind may have been impregnated with his father's ideas on public education. Resignation Ruffner'3 final resignation was presented to the Board in a letter on June 21, I8I4.8. The letter of resignation was referred to Drs. McFarland and D. E. Moore for consideration and recommendation. Ruffner was absent from the meeting. The committee recommended that the Board accept the resignation. The Board then passed a 2. C. C. Pearson, "William Henry Ruffner; Reconstruction Statesman of Virginia," The South Atlantic Quarterly, January 1921, XX, p. 31. 3* Sixth Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for the Year Ending""July 31, 1876, Richmond! Commonwealth of Virginia, I076, p. x5. 150 resolution expressing the appreciation of the trustees for the services which Ruffner had rendered the college. The resolution read in part as follows: "While the board thus promptly accepted the resignation of their President be lieving that he desires it and that it is proper to do so, they regard it as due to him and to truth and justice to express on their records, their deep conviction of the great obligation to him under which this college lies, for his long continued laborious, faithful and valuable services." The Board wished him and his family good health and happiness and gave him permission to remain in the President's home until he found it convenient, to move.^ No mention of Ruffner's resignation can be found in the Faculty Minutes.^ Travels and Writings Ruffner remained in Lexington until after the death of his wife in January, I8I4.9. His first move was to Kentucky in response to a request for his assistance in the struggle for emancipation then raging in the state. Prom Kentucky he went to Cincinnati, via ere he consulted ij.. Minutes of the Board of Trustees of Washington College, June 21, I8I4.8<, S« Records of the Faculty of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, September 3, 18ijij. - February 21, 1857. l£l "some rare old tomes" in the library of the Lane Theo logical Seminary. Here he found material useful in the preparation of a history of Monkery which he published in 1850 under the title of The Fathers of the Desert.^ The two volume book contains an account of the origin and practice of monkery among heathen nations; its passage into the church; and some stories of the fathers con cerning the primitive monks and hermits.7 Meanwhile Ruffner had sold his salt and coal property to Jacob Darneale in l8l).5 and bought land arotuid the headwaters of Blue Creek, Campbells Greek, Hill Creek, 8 and Indian Creek near Charleston* In 1850, he returned to thi» property >/it:n hi3 second v/ife, tho former Laura J, Kirby,'9 and his ol'loal daughter to begin the operation of a farm. However, he soon became dissat!s.fied and returned 6. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J.~TT Bell" Co•, 190Lj., No. 6, p. 106. 7. Henry .Ruffner, The Fathers of the Desert, New York: Baker and Scribner, lb^O^ 2 V0I3. 8. Wm. H. Ruffner, "The Ruffner3,M The "dct Virginia Historical Quarterly, July, 1?02, II," p0 !|1. 9. Harry M. Strickier, A Shorfc History of Page County Virginia, Richmond: The Dietz Press, 1952, p. 361. No mention of the name of Ruffner's second wife is made in any of the family correspondence or records. The date and place of the marriage could not be located. 152 to the Presbyterian Church in Maiden which had been established by his father In the decade preceeding the Civil War, Ruffner clearly foresaw the approaching conflict as is shown in his Union Speech^'"1 1 delivered during this period. The thought of war depressed him, and at the time of secession his nervous system broke completely; he was no longer able to preach, though his mind remained clear until his death.^ Of Ruffner1s life, Dabney concludes that he had much native ability and that through private study he be came distinguished for his eloquence, literary talent, and scholarship. He considers that in his educational and social views Ruffner was far in advance of the people of his time. Many indeed at the time considered him a radical, and some felt that he wa.3 dangerous; however, Dabney believes that time has proved that he was both wise and patriotic. J 10. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers., Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 1901+, No. 6, pp. 106- 11. See Chapter IV .. 12. Washington and Lee University Historical Pager3, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell (Jo., 1901)., No. 6, pp. 107- 13. C. W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South, Chapel Hill: University of North CarolTna Press, 1936, I, PPo 81-82. 153 Death Henry Ruffner died December 17» 1861, at the age of seventy-one and was buried in the family burying lot in the rear of the Ruffner home in Charleston,^ No mention is made of the death of Ruffner in either the minutes of the Board of Trustees or the Facility of Washington College Ruffner and the SIavery Controversy Ruffner, as did many others of the period, became involved in the slavery controversy. To his mind, such evils as backwardness, ignorance, and poverty could be traced to this institution# Also, it stood as the one issue that separated eastern and western Virginia. In Ruffner's opinion, only after the removal of this monster could progress begin. Money for schools and other im provements would not be forthcoming as long as such a society existed. He was equally concerned about the fur ther spread of slavery and the effect it had on areas where it existed. He did not favor dissolution of the union under any circumstances, but did feel that advance- 14• Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P, Bell do,, 1901^, No, 6, p, 110, 15. Minutes of the Board of Trustees of Washington College, 177^-1873• Records of the Faculty of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, September 3» 18^4 - February ZL, 1857. 1& ment would come only through abolition. He was opposed to slavery primarily on economic grounds and felt that the institution of slavery was drag ging Virginia and the South toward economic ruin. He feared that the slave population would increase west of the mountains and change the region into a planter society. He proposed a plan for the freeing of the slaves, but interestingly enough he retained his own slaves until his death. Many in Virginia followed the same pattern. Opposition to Slavery in Western Virginia While the Virginia congressmen were uniting to oppose the Wilmot Proviso, the abolition of the 3lave trade, and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, leading citizens of western Virginia were at the same time trying to devise means to rid that portion of *1 £ the state of Negro slavery. The year I8I4.7 marked the beginning of debates in 17 the Franklin Society on the division of the State of Virginia. The culmination of these debates was the "Ruffner Pamphlet."18 16. Charles H. Ambler, Sectionalism, in Virginia from 1776 to 1861, Chicago: The University "of Chicago Pres3, 191TT7 p. 21+1+. 17. Debating and literary society of Lexington, Virginia. Membership was composed of townspeople as well as students. 18. Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, Lynchburg: J. P. Bell Co., 1904, No. 6, p0 77, 155 Samuel McDowell Moore was the leader of the Franklin Society movement. He wished to bring to his aid all possible influence, and finally induced Henry Ruffner to attend the meetings of the Society where the subject was under discussion and present the anti-3lavery aspect of the movement. Ruffner had always considered slavery as bad economy in Ameri ca and also as bad socially and politically. In this view he did not differ from most of the leading men of Rockbridge County, or from any other of the moat prominent Virginia slaveholders and statesmen. In 1832, the State was very near the point of abolishing the institution of slavery on a gradual system,^ John Letcher, later governor of Virginia, favored taking steps to bring about the division of the state for the purpose of freeing the slaves. He spoke on this sub ject three times, along wi th Ruffner, before the Franklin Society in Lexington in 1814.7.'^ The "Ruffner Pamphlet," a printed pamphlet of his slavery speech, pointed out that the time had come for the people of West Virginia to review their public affairs and to consider measures necessary and expedient to promote 19• Washington and Lee University Historical Papers , Lynchburg, 190ij., Nol 5", p~I 78• 20. Anon., To the People of Virginial John Letcher and Antecedents, Richmond: The Whip; Book and Job Office. to^9_ 1$6 their own welfare. He predicted that the next census, to betaken in lB^O, would show the citizens of western Virginia to be in a majority, and that they should be able then to control the legislature. The eastern majority in the legislature had used its power to make all the com plaints of the western population fruitless and to retain the ascendency when they actually represented a minority of the people. This situation seemed unfair to Ruffner as it did to many others. He felt that the people of the West had submitted patiently to the refusal of the East to let western Vir ginia grow in political power as that section had grown in population arid wealth. The next census, according to Ruffner, would furnish the argument that would gain for western Virginia control of the government. He discussed the effects of slavery on political, economic and financial institutions in Virginia and the South. The next remarks in his speech were directed to the subject of the effects of slavery upon the common schools and popular education. He pointed out that the l8lj.O census estimated the degree of general education and intelligence among the people by counting the number of children attending school and the number of adults who were unable to read or write. The following facts were 157 gleaned from the census, 1. The number of scholars that attended school during some part of the year in New England and New York was one in every four and a half white persons; in New Jersey and Pennsylvania one in every nine; in Maryland one in every nineteen; in Virginia one in every twenty-one; and in the Carolinas one in every twenty-seven. 2. In regard to the number of white adults unable to read or write the returns of the census for all the states were somewhat defective, especially for the southern states. Ruffner felt that there was a reluctance on the part of many to confess their ignorance. The school systems in the North had made the number very small, ex cepting the foreign immigrants who had brought their ignorance with them. In the South not only wa3 the number known to be very large, but they were chiefly natives. In the returns for Virginia there were eight or ten counties in which few or none of this class were returned, and in many other counties the numbers returned were evidently far short of the truth. The number returned for Virginia who could not read or write was ^8,787; however, Ruffner felt that the actual number could not have been under •80,000. He also put North Carolina at 60,000 and South Carolina at 21)-,000, which exceeded the returns; but he felt that they certainly fell short of the actual numbers# 158 The census indicated that the adult part of the population was about one-half of the whole. By comparing the number of white adults who could not read with the total number in each state, he reached the following con clusions. In New England the illiterates were one in every onehundred and seventy; in New York one in fifty- three; in New Jersey one in fifty-five; in Pennsylvania one in forty-nine; in Maryland one in twenty-five; in Virginia one in five and a half; in North Carolina one in four and a half; and in South Carolina one in five and a half. Ruffner remarked that these figures were approxi mations, but that they were sufficiently near* to show that slavery exerted a most pernicious influence on the cause of education. This it did by keeping the white population thinly scattered and poor, and by making the poorer.part of then generally indifferent about the educa tion of their children. A similar difference between the free states and slave states appeared in the west when a comparison between Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee was made. Four times as large a proportion of children attended school in Ohio as in the other two states while the proportion of illiterates was only one-fourth as great. The people in the slave states were not, and could not be, half as 159 well accommodated with schools as In the free states, and slavery inflicted on multitudes of thera the curse of ignorance and mental degradation throughout life. He desired to call the people's attention to"the fact that western Virginia had suffered a great deal educationally speaking from the effects of slavery. He pointed out tnut western Virginia wa3 almost, as large as the state of Ohio; and taking everything except slavery into consideration he thought that western Virginia should at that time have had more than two-thirds as much popu lation and wealth as Ohio. However, instead of this western Virginia had no more than one-fourth of her population and wealth.*"* Opinions Upon the Speech Ruffner's speech was free from religion, fanaticism, and sentiment; it was a dispassionate, economic analysis of a system to which he himself belonged. 22 Ambler com pared it with the contemporary writings of Cassiua N. Clay and Thomas P. Marshall, both of Kentucky. Ruffner's 21. Henry Ruffner, An Address to the People of Vest Virginia. Lexington, Va.l R. C. Noel, 1 8I4.7, pp. 1 -i{.0. 22. Co W. Dabney, Universal Education in the South, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1936, I, p. 82c 160 speech, like their writings, made slavery an economic evil. At a later time Ruffner pointed out that no one, to his knowledge, took the abolitionist ground that slaveholding way e s in and that it should be abolished for that reason. With the people of the time it was merely a question of expediency and was argued with special reference to the interest of western Virginia.^ Union Speech Nine years after his slavery speech, Ruffner spoke at an Independence Day celebration and begged the people to do everything in their power to prevent the politi cians from dissolving the union. In this speech he ex pressed for the first time the idea that the Negro was different by the will of God. He had not expressed this idea in his slavery speech nor did he express it in his discussion with Letcher concerning the publication of the Ruffner Pamphlet. On Jaly Ij., l8£6, Ruffner delivered a speech in which he pointed out the benefits of union and the evils of disunion. He began with a sketch of the history and 23. Co H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1910, p. 2i|4. 24. Ibid., p. 2k5. 161 growth of the United States. In his opinion the success of the country had been due to the union and coimnon bond of all sections. He pointed out that regardless of the origin of those who composed the native population, all had been cast in the American mold and conformed to the national character. Accordingly, he felt that only the African race, bond and free, were so different a type that they .could not incorporate with the masses# They had to remain distinct "not by the will of men, but of God who made us all.™M ,2^' He went on to predict that America would multiply many times in the next fifty years in both size and industry. However, he cautioned the people to be careful of reckless men who 3poke of separation - even those who talked of peaceful separation. He strongly believed that no separation, peaceful or otherwise, was possible. How ever, he reassured his audience that because of his strong faith in the intelligence and patriotism of his countrymen he could predict that dissolution of the Union wa3 impossible, since the peaceful voters would 25. Henry Ruffner, Union Speech; delivered at Kanawha Salines, Va., on the Fourth of July, 1^56,~7Tin- cinnati: Applegate an"3~Co., 1856, pp. 3-11 • It is interesting to note that Ruffner did not express this point of view in his speech before the Franklin Society in 1847 or in his discussion with Mr. Letcher in 1858. 162 be able to control the hotheaded politicians. He did how ever point out that the agitators were gaining grovind and that unless their efforts were stopped they could very well lead tiie country Into trouble, He observed that the people possessed the remedy in the vote and ur^d them to remove from office these hotheads who would dissolve the union,^ Ruffner'r life spanned a period of seventy-one years, a'time marked by great changes in the way of life in America. Ruffner, an inhabitant of the area west of the Blue Ridge d:'d not a^ree with the thinking of the leaders east of the Blue Ridge„ He fought for free schooling for all at state expense, and even though he lost, his thinking was felt when a state system of public education was finally instituted. Although he wae an educator, he openly expressed himself aa being opposed to slavery. This action rr.sy have cost him support in his fight for free schools, Ruffner sought progress even at the expense of cherished traditions and customs. He was able to see the need for education, the economic, evil of slavery, and the 26, Henry Ruffner, Union Speech; delivered at Kanawha Salines, Va,, on the Fourth of""July, lt5f>b, Cin cinnati: Applegate and Co,, 1856, pp, 11-16. 163 a injustice of the legislation passed by the eastern-dominated legislature. BIBLIOGRAPHY 165 BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Manuscripts Jefferson Papers. Alderman Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. James Madison Papers. Alderman Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Minutes of the Board of Trustees of Washington College, 177i|.-l873. Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia. Proceedings of the Alumni Association of Washington College, l8l|0-l|.5» Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia. Thomas Mann Randolph Papers. Duke University Library, Durham, North Carolina. Records of the Faculty of Washington College, l8[j.O-57- Washington and Lee University, Lexington Virginia. William Henry Ruffner.Papers. Montreat Historical Foundation, Montreat, North Carolina. II. Public Documents Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, Superintendent of Public Printing, Richmond, 1829. Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, 151iO-U-l. Superintendent of Public Printing, Richmond, I8I4.I. 166 Acts of the General Aaaembly of the State of Virginia, ldliii-liS. Superintendent of Public Printing, Richmond, 181^5. Acta of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, l'6LjS-l\.6, Superintendent of Public Printing, Richmond, 18)4.6. Henning, William Walter, The Statutes at Large Being _a Colle ction of All the Lavs of Virginia, From the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 161?. Samuel Pleasants, Printer, Richmond, 1810. Journal of the House of Delete.tea of Virginia, 1817-1816. Superint endent of Public Printing, Richmond, lold. Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia, 1819-1320. Sup e r i n t e nd e n t of Public PrlntingJ Richmond, 1020• Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia, IS30. Supe r i n t e'ncl e n t of Public Printing, Richmond, I83O. Journal of the House of Delegatea of Virginia, I8J4I —ij-2. Super Int enden t o f Public Printing J Richmond, IcJi|.2. Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia, l3lt-5~U6. Superintendent of Public Printing, Richmond, I8I4.6. Journal of the Hous e of Delegates of Vlrginia, 1814-9» Superintendent of Public Printing, Richmond, ' I3fp0. Morrison, Alfred J., The Beginnings of Public Education i Virgini9, 1776-1 860. Superintendent of Public Printing, Richmond, 1917. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year TH99-1900» Superintendent of Public" Printing, Washington, 1901. Sundry Documents on the Subject of a. System of Public Education for the State of Virginia. Superin tendent of Public Printing, Richmond, 1817. III. Newspapers Richmond, Virginia, Enquirer, 1807-1358. Spartanburg, South Carolina, Heraid-Journal, 1962. Washington, D.C., Daily National Intelligencer, 1816-1920 167 IV. Periodicals The Farmers' Register, edited by Edmund Ruffin. Vols. 1-10, 1933-1^2. Petersburg, Virginia. The Weekly Register, edited by H. Niles. Vols. I-XVIII, ltill-lo20. Baltimore, Maryland. V. Books Anon., To the People of VirginiaI John Letcher and His Antecedents. The Whig Book and Job Office, Richmond, 1859. Ambler, Charles Henry, A History of West Virginia. Prentice-Hall, New York, 1933* Ambler, Charles Henry, Sectional ism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861« The University of CKicago Press, Chicago, 19107" Ambler, Charles Henry, West Virginia The Mountain State. Prentice-Hall, Now York, 19I(-9 Beard, Charles A., Economic Origin of Jeffersonlan Democracy. Macmillan Company, New York, 1915* Bell, Saddle, The Church, The State, and Education in Virginia. The Scieme Press Printing Company, Philadelphia, 1930* Brown, E. E., The Making of our Middle Schools. Longman's Green and Co., New York, 1903- Bruce, Philip Alexander, Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 2 vols., G.~~F. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1910. Buck, J. L0 Blair, The Development of Public Schools in Virginia 1607-19^2. Commonwealth of Virginia, State Board of Education, Richmond, 1952. Butts, R. Freeman, A Cultural History of vJestern Educa tion. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1957. Cabell, Nathaniel P., Early History of the University of Virginia as Contained in the Letters of Thomas Jefferson and Joseph C. CabelTT J.' W. Randolph, Richmond, 1056. 168 Cubberley, Ellwood P», Public Education in the United States. Houghton Mifflin GonpanyT"^ew York, 19^4-7• Cubberley, Ellwood P., Readings in Public Education in the United Stat ea . Houghton Mifflin Company,"TTew York, 193k• Dabney, Charles W., Universal Education in the South, 2 vols. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1936. Dew, Thomas R., An Es3ay on Slavery, J. W. Randolph, Richmond,"T814.9. Dodd, William E., Statesmen of the Old South. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1^11. Edwards, Newton and Richey, Herman G«, The School in the American Social Order. Houghton Mifflin Co,, New York, 19J+T: ' Poote, William Henry, Sketches of Virginia Historical and Biographical. William S. Martin, Philadelphia, 1550. Pishwick, Marshall W., Virginia; A New Lock at the Old Dominion. Harper end Brothers, New YorK, 1959. Pry, Rose W., Recollections o f the Rev. John McElhenney, P.P. Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond, 1093. Hale, John P., Trans-Allegheny Fioneers. The Graphic Press, Cincinuati,1btio. Heatwole., Cornelius J., A_ His tory of Edu cation in Virginia Macmillan Co., New York, 19T5, Honeywell, Roy J. The Educational Work of Thomaa Jefferson (vol. 16 of the Harvard Studies in Education), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1931. Irving, Washington, Life of George Washington, 5 vols,, G, P. Putnam, New YOTTT, lo59• Jefferson, Thomas, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Paul L, Ford. G, P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 191J-1-• Jefferson, Thomas, Notes on Virginia, Furman and Loudoun, New York, l80l« 169 Jefferson, Thomas, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd. 16 vols. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1950- • Jefferson, Thomas, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Paul L. Ford. 20 vols., G, P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 19014.. Jefferson, Thomas, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. tips comb" 20 vols., The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington, 190ij.. Knight, Edgar W., The Academy Movement in the South. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Sill, 1919. Knight, Edgar ¥., Education in the United States. Ginn and Company, New York, 1929 * Knight, Edgar W., Public Education in the South, Ginn and Company, New York, 1922. Knight, Edgar ¥., (editor), A Documentary Historv of Education in the ^out5 Before ltt60. 5 vols., The University of NortTi Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1950. Knight, Edgar VI. and Hall, Clifton L., Readings in American Educational History. An p 1 e ton - C enturv-Crof t s, Inc., New Tfork, . ' Laidley, William S., His tory o f Chax'les ton and Kanawha County West Virginia and Representative Citizens. Richmond- Little, John P., His tory of Richmond. The Dietz Printing Company, Rlchinond, 1933* This book war. published under the title of "Richmond the Capital of Virginia" in the Southern Literary Messenger in 1851- Lodge, Henry Cabot, A Short History of the English Colonies. Harper & Brothers, New York,1by1. McCabe, W. Gordon, Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution, with a "Sketch of Frederick William Coleman, ?4»A., ancT Lewis MTnor Coleman,~M.A. Chronicle Steam Boole and Job Office, Charlottes- ville, 1890. 170 Maddox, William Arthur, The Free School Idea in Virginia Before the Civil War (No. 93 °f Teachers College, Columbia University Contributions to Education). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1918. Madi son, James, The Writing a of J ame s Madison. Edited by Gaillard Hunt"! 9 vols., G. P. Putnam1 s Sons, New York, 190]. Meade, Bishop William, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia. 2 vols., J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1872. Meyer, Adolphe E., An Educational His tory of the American People. McGraw-Hi11 Book Co., Inc., New York, 1957. Munford, Beverley Bc, Virginia's A t tltude Toward Slavery and Secession. L. H. Jenkins, Richmond,1909• Noble, Stuart G., A History of Amei»ican Education. Binehart and ' Co., Trie., New York, 195^4-• Phillips, Ulrich B., Life and Labor in the Old South. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 191+6. Ruffin, Edmund, Slavery and Free Labor Described and Compared. Publisher and date of publication unknown. Ruffner, Henry, An Address to the Feople of West Virginia. R. C. NoeT7 Lexington, mx. — Ruffner, Henry, Inaugural Address by Henry Ruffner, President of Washington College, Virginia, Delivered on the Twenty-second of February, IS37. C. C. Baldwii~~Texirgton, l'J37. Ruffner, Henry, The Fathers of the Desert. Balcer and Sci.'lbner, New' York. Ruffner, Henry, History of Washington College. Unpublished Shanks, Henry T., The Secession Movement in Virginia I8i4.7-l86l. Garrett and Massie, Richmond, 193i|.. Strickler, Harry M., A Short His tory of Page County, The Dietz Press, Richmond, 1952. 171 Washington and Lee University His torlcal Papers, No. 1+. John Murphy & <3o., Baltimore, 1393* Washington and Lee University Historical Papers, No. 5» John Murphy & Co., Baltimore, 1895* Washington and Lee Univorai ty His torlcal Papers, No. 6. J. P. Bell Company, Printers, Lynchburg, 190l]. Wayland, John W., A His tory of Shenandoah Countg Virginia Shenandoah Publi shirig~7Iou3 e, Strasburg, Va., 19^7 Wayland, John W«, Virginia Valley Records. Shenandoah. Publishing House, Strasburg, Va0, 1930* Wayland, John W., The German Element of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia,, The Michle'T'ompany, Charlottes ville, 13*07 0 VI. Articles A Friend to Learning, "Remarks on a School Commissioner," The Virglnla Evangelical and Literary Magazine, VIII (November, Allan, Elizabeth Preston, "Notes on William Alexander Ceruthers," William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, IX, Second Series (October, 1929), 29Ij-297. Ambler, Charles H., "The Clarksburg Educational Conven tion of September 8-9, 181+1," We3t Virginia History, V (October, 191+3), 5-54 • Anon., "Educational Conventions," The American Journal of Eduoation. XVI (February, l866), 173-176. Anon., "Cn Public Education in Virginia," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, XIII (November, 181+7), 685-689. Barnard, Henry, "Virginia Educational Conventions," American Journal of Education, XVI, (1.866), 173- Campbell, Helen Jones, "The Syms and Eaton Schools and Their Successors," William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, XV, (January, 191+0), 172 Dabney, George E., "Speech," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, VII (November, 18I4.I) 633-634.. Davis, Charles E. (Mrs.), "Cannons of a Schools," William and Mary College Quarterly Hiatorical Magazine, XXIII, Second Series (July, 19^3), 285-286. Eaves, Robert Wendell, "A History of the Educational Developments of Alexander, Virginia, Prior to i860, William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, XVI, Second Series (April, 1936), 111-161 Forbes, Gerald, "The Civil War and the Beginning of the Oil Industry in West Virginia," West Virginia History, VIII (July, 1947), 382-391. Knight, Edgar W#, "Reconstruction and Education in Virginia, " 'The South Atlantic Quarterly, XV (January, 1916)"^ 25-i+O. Knight, Edgar W., "The Evolution of Public Education in Virginia," The Sewanee Re view Quarterly, XXIV (Jan uary, 1916), 2)4.-14.1. McDowell, James, "Address to the People of Virginia," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, XI (Octobsr, 181;5T> 60^-607^ McGroarty, William Bucloie 1, "Alexander* Academy," William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, XX, Second Series (April, 192+0J, 253-250. Merry, Ralph V., and Merry, Frieda R., "The Literary Fund of Virginia Its Relation to Sectionalism in Education," West Virginia History, II (Ar?rll, 1914-1) 179-19T: Minor, B. B. "Education in the Southern and Western States," The Southern and. Western Literary Messen ger and Review, XI (October, 181+5). 603-6057 Morrison, Alfred J., "Virginia Patents," William and Mary College Historical Magazine, II, Second Series (July? 19^2), 114.9-156V Worth Amerlcan Review, XC7I (July, 1837), 250-251. Rice, John H., editor, The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine, IX ( January, lo26), 83-86. 173 Rice, John H., editor, The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine. IX (February, 1526), 133-137. Rice, John H., editor*, The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine, IX (March, 1826), 196-210, Rice, John H., editor, The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine, IX (April, 1626), yT^-yTE. Ruffin, Edmund, editor, Farmer's Register, III (January, 1836), 683-685. Ruffner, Henry, "Notes of a Tour," Southern Literary Messenger, V (January, 1839), 1^4-—J4ti• Ruffner, William H., "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Hlstorioal Magazine Quarterly, I (AprilT 1901), 31-38o Ruffner, Willism H«, "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, I (July, 1901), 33-i|l. Ruffner, William H,, "The Ruffners," The Wesfc Virginia Historical Magazine Quar l;erly, I ( Oc tober, 1901), J+6-54. Ruffner, William H., "The Ruffners," The 'West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, II (January, 1902), 45-53. Ruffner, William H», "The Ruffners," The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, II (April" 1902). 60-71|. Ruffner, William H,, "The Iluffners, " The West Virginia Historical Magazine Quarterly, II (July, 1902). 36-44. Shepard, William, "Buckingham Female Collegiate Insti tute," William and Mary College Quarterly His torical Magazine, XX, Second Series (April. 19l.|.b}, l6t-193. Shepard, William, "Buckingham Female Collegiate Insti tute," VJilliam and Mary College Quarterly His torical Magazine, XX, Second Series (June, 1940), 345-36b. Strickland, William, "Report on the United States to the British Board of Agriculture, 1796," Farmer13 Register, III (September, 1835), 264-268. m Swem, Earl G#, "The Lee Free School and the College of William and Mary," William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, XVI, Third Series I April, "9539;, 207-2lTr^ Washington, Henry A., "Social Systein of Virginia," The Southern and Western Literary Messenger and Review, XIV (January, 105-107. Way land, John W., "The Germans of the Valley," The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, X (July, 1902), 33-^57