Popular Education / For the use of Parents and Teachers, and for Young Persons of Both Sexes

by Ira Mayhew

The first duty of government, and the surest evidence of good government, is the encouragement of education. A general diffusion of knowledge is the precursor and protector of republican institutions; and in it we must confide, as the conservative power that will watch our liberties, and guard against fraud, intrigue, corruption, and violence.—De Witt Clinton's Message to the New York Legislature, 1826.

If good is to be done, we must bring our minds, as soon as possible, to the confession of the truth, that the education of the people, to be effectual, must here, as elsewhere, to a great extent, be the work of the state; and that an expense, of which all should feel the necessity, and all will share the benefit, must, in a just proportion, be borne by all.—John Duer.

The desirableness of national or universal education is now generally admitted in all enlightened communities; but there are some who, honestly no doubt, question its practicability. If they provide for the education of their own children, they claim that they have done all that duty or interest requires them to do. They even aver that there is absolute injustice in compelling them to contribute toward the education of the children of others. Now these very persons, when called upon annually by the tax-gatherer to contribute their proportion for the support of paupers—made so by idleness, intemperance, and other vices, which, as we have already seen, result from ignorance—do so cheerfully and ungrudgingly, and without complaining that they support themselves and their families, and that neither duty nor interest requires them to aid in the maintenance of indigent persons in the community.

The Poor Laws of our country, in the case of adults who are unable to support themselves, require merely their maintenance. But with reference to their children, more, from the very nature of the case, is needed. Their situation imperatively demands not only a sustenance, but an education that shall enable them in future years to provide for themselves. The same humane reasons which lead civilized communities to provide for the maintenance of indigent adults by legal enactments, bear even more strongly in the case of their children. These require sustenance in common with their parents. But their wants, their necessities, stop not here; neither does the well-being of society with reference to them. Both alike require that such children, in common with all others, be so trained as to be enabled not only to provide for themselves when they arrive at mature years, but as shall be necessary to qualify them for the discharge of the duties of citizenship. Then, instead of taxing society for a support, as their parents now do, they will contribute to the elevation of all around, even more largely than society has contributed to their elevation.

Let the necessary provision be made for the education of the children of the poor, in common with all others, and successive generations of the sons of men will steadily progress in knowledge and virtue, and in all that has a tendency to elevate and ennoble human kind. But let their education be neglected, and their rank in society will of necessity be lower, when compared with the better educated and more favored classes, than it would have been only two or three centuries ago, even since the invention of the art of printing in 1440. The reasons are evident. Until after the invention of printing and the multiplication of books, all ranks were, in relation to education, nearly upon a level. But, in the language of the adage, "Knowledge is power;" and, since "knowledge has been increased," those who possess it are elevated, relatively and absolutely, while those who remain in the ignorance of former generations, although their absolute condition in the scale of being is unchanged, occupy, nevertheless, relatively, a lower place in society than they would have done had they lived in the midst of the Dark Ages.

Wherever improved free schools have been maintained, not only are the children of the poor in attendance upon them elevated in the scale of intellectual, social, and moral being, but, through their irresistible influence, their degraded and besotted parents have been reformed and become law-abiding subjects, when all other means had failed to reach and influence them. Of the truth of this statement I am well persuaded from my own observation. I have also in my possession an abundance of unquestionable testimony to this effect, gathered in cities, towns, and villages which have become celebrated for the maintenance of a high order of public schools. The public, then, on many accounts, are more interested in the right education of poor children than in the preservation of their lives! The latter is carefully provided for. But if this only is done; if their bodies are fed and clothed, without providing for the sustenance of their minds; if we provide for their wants as helpless young animals merely, but neglect to provide for their necessities as spiritual and immortal beings, the probabilities are that such children will become a pest to society, while, in providing for their proper education, we are sure of making them good citizens, of constituting them a blessing to the world that now is, and of brightening their prospects for a blessed immortality in that which is to come.

Bishop Butler, in a sermon preached in Christ Church, London, on charity schools, May 9th, 1745, recognizes the principle that the property of the state should educate the children of the state. "Formerly," says he, "not only the education of poor children, but also their maintenance, with that of the other poor, were left to voluntary charities. But great changes of different sorts happening over the nation, and charity becoming more cold, or the poor more numerous, it was found necessary to make some legal provision for them. This might, much more properly than charity schools, be called a new scheme;[65] for, without question, the education of poor children was all along taken care of by voluntary charities, more or less, but obliging us by law to maintain the poor was new in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Yet, because a change of circumstances made it necessary, its novelty was no reason against it. Now, in that legal provision for the maintenance of the poor, poor children must doubtless have had a part in common with grown people. But this could never be sufficient for children, because their case always requires more than mere maintenance; it requires that they be educated in some proper manner. Wherever there are poor who want to be maintained by charity, there must be poor children, who, besides this, want to be educated by charity; and whenever there began to be need of legal provision for the maintenance of the poor, there must immediately have been need also of some particular legal provision in behalf of poor children for their education, this not being included in what we call their maintenance."

Not only is it the duty of society to provide food for the minds as well as sustenance for the bodies of poor children, but their pecuniary interests equally require it; for, as Butler remarks, "if they are not trained up in the way they should go, they will certainly be trained up in the way they should not go, and in all probability will persevere in it, and become miserable themselves and mischievous to society, which, in event, is worse, upon account of both, than if they had been exposed to perish in their infancy."

I have already shown, by unquestionable testimony, that persons who possess the greatest share in the stock of worldly goods are deeply interested in the subject of popular education, as one of mere insurance; "that the most effectual way of making insurance upon their property would be to contribute from it enough to sustain an efficient system of common school education, thereby educating the whole mass of mind, and constituting it a police more effective than peace officers or prisons." I might elucidate this subject by illustrations.

It has been estimated that a quarter of a million of dollars has been expended in the county of Philadelphia since 1836 for the suppression of riots occurring within its limits, and in damages occasioned by their outrages and violence, to say nothing of personal injuries and deaths arising from the same cause. Now it will be readily conceded by most persons that half of this sum judiciously expended in organizing and supporting a sufficient police, and in giving the leaders and gangs engaged in those riots an early and suitable education, whereby they would have been taught to think, and feel, and act as rational, moral, and accountable beings, would have prevented the commission of such crimes, together with the sufferings and losses resulting therefrom, and the reproach thus brought upon public and individual character.