This article is continued by the author’s “Compulsory Education in the Southern Colonies.”

360

THE EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SOUTHERN COLONIES

MARCUS W. JERNEGAN
University of Chicago

INTRODUCTION

From the founding of the American colonies until the present time, education has not been in the hands of the central government. During the colonial period of our history each colony acted independently in this matter, and when our constitution was formed the states retained the power to regulate education. Moreover, during the colonial period and until the second quarter of the nineteenth century, with few exceptions, both colonies and states left the subject almost wholly in the power of the local units of government—the town, district, county, or parish—or entrusted education to private or other agencies. This led to extreme variation in educational ideals, institutions, and practices, many of which have persisted to this day.

It has not been sufficiently emphasized that the same great underlying forces which have, to a large extent, determined the origin and development of American institutions of a political, social, and religious character have also determined those relating to education. These forces have had their basis in specific geographical areas, or sections, such as New England, the South, and the West. In these sections the people enacted legislation to establish and control types of institutions, the form and development of which tended to become closely adjusted to the needs and desires of the people. These were determined by inherited ideals and institutions, by environment, and by other factors, previously mentioned in a general way and discussed with respect to New England.¹

361

Perhaps even more strikingly than was the case in New England, the southern group of colonies reflected in their educational legislation and institutions their conditions of life and environment and their unique political, social, and economic system. Some of these original forces have continued to influence the educational progress of the South even to the present time. These facts well illustrate the reason why the American public-school system is an ideal rather than a fact; why we have forty-eight systems rather than one national system; why such important variations in the state systems persist, and why they continue to be the despair of those who wish to remodel our whole educational system in order that the efficient educational practices discovered and proved to be desirable in the more progressive may replace those which are inefficient in the less progressive states.

One who is seeking specific and easily accessible information respecting the more important forces that controlled the development of education in the sections mentioned will find little to enlighten him in our general or special histories of education. And yet this is one kind of information greatly needed if new forces and agencies are to be set up to overcome those that have been responsible for our failure to develop a national type of democratic education. The study and writing of the history of American education is of most value when it presents the past in a way that will throw the greatest possible light on present problems. It is obvious that criticism of the present status of education, and especially the preparation of plans for reconstruction, can be made more intelligently and with greater hope of success if we have accurate knowledge of how the present developed out of the past. A great deal of the kind of information we need is not accessible, and much of what is accessible is untrustworthy. This is due, first to an unfortunate conception of what should constitute the principal

362

subject-matter of the history of American education, and, secondly, to the method of writing such history.

Specifically there are three regrettable tendencies which have in the past prevented the subject from being of the greatest possible value to an understanding of our educational history and throwing light on present problems. The first is a wrong point of view. There has been a marked tendency to consider educational theory and method as educational history, as the principal subject-matter, rather than the history of the institutions themselves—the systems of education established, public or private, their origin, evolution, workings, and results. One might as well try to write an economic history of England from the writings of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mill, and other authors who have set forth their theories of political economy. How much would a history constructed from such material tell us of England's actual economic development, the history of her manufactures, trade and commerce, banking, etc.? No more should we make the principal subject-matter of the history of education consist of the philosophy or methods of individuals, groups, or schools and falsely call such accounts educational history instead of what it is—chiefly the history of educational theory.

This is a peculiarly unfortunate point of view to adopt in writing the early history of American education; for the elements of American life have not been mixed in the same proportion as in the European world—a difference which has affected our development, though it has not been recognized by many who have tried to write or interpret the history of various phases of American life. The influence of great individuals or leaders has been much less extensive upon our general life, and particularly on its educational side, than has been the case in Europe. It is also likely that the influence of European educational leaders and movements on our early educational history has been overemphasized. The problems

363

of the colonial period and of our early national life were principally material. The main effort was to subdue nature and make her yield her fruits to the labors of man. This view has been well stated by one who was considering the question particularly in its political aspect; but the principle holds true even to a greater degree for our early educational history.

They do not properly reflect the life that they seek to reflect if they write solely of individual persons or groups of persons and their conscious efforts; they must cease blindly to follow European schemes, and study economic and natural conditions and developments, the unintended growth of institutions and modes of life, the unconscious movements and changes of masses of men.¹

The second regrettable tendency is one that leads writers to undertake the impossible task of presenting educational history apart from those other phases of history with which it is so intimately connected—political, social, religious, and economic; in other words, the tendency to ignore some of the most important forces that account for the progress of education. To unravel the motives and to interpret the inner causes for the complex and varied series of laws, agencies, and methods adopted to promote education is not possible, if only those facts are considered which we call educational facts in the narrow sense of the word.²

The third tendency is the failure to apply effectively the historical method to the writing of educational history. By this is meant, first, the use of bibliographical knowledge for locating all of the important sources of information; secondly, the use of approved methods for criticizing and discovering the value of these sources; thirdly, the determination of the amount and character of the evidence needed to warrant generalizations

364

and conclusions; and fourthly, the use of an appropriate method of indicating where in the sources the evidence can be found for the important statements of fact.

A very cursory examination of our general and special histories of education will convince one that the tendencies specified are quite general, and that little further progress can be made in this field without a new point of view and a new method of presentation. If these problems could be solved, we might expect that our educational history would not only become a better guide in planning for future development, but would also contribute data of great importance to. the student of the general history of the United States or the individual states, as well as to special students of our social, religious, economic, and political history. It is due largely to the unfortunate attitude, conception, and methods adopted in the past that not only do we lack satisfactory general and special histories of education, but that even the general and special histories of education in the fields mentioned above are incomplete, because of the difficulty of showing how education affected such phases of our history. Some attempts have been made to summarize the influence of education on our political, social, economic, and religious history; but in many cases we find inadequate and inaccurate accounts, even in the large general histories, the work of acknowledged scholars. A stream can rise no higher than its source, and if the writers of our educational history furnish only philosophical interpretations of the history of education, histories of educational theories or methods, or present only a series of broad generalizations with a meager amount of evidence, then we cannot expect great additions to our knowledge of the facts nor any new and vital interpretations.

A recent analysis of the functions of the historian will bear quoting at this point, for it is applicable to the writing of American educational history.

365

May we not say that there are three classes of historians? First, those who fix their attention on externals, that is, on deeds and events which are visible to everyone; next, those who search for the inner motive, the operation of the will behind the outward acts; and finally, those who, through their description of the outer, interpret the inner causes. . . . .  It is easy enough to epitomize or paraphrase a file of consecutive documents; the real task is to search out the motives which gave rise to them. These are often unrecorded, or elusive, needing to be deduced or divined by some special instinct in the historian. This power of divination distinguishes the physician, who is a master in diagnosis, from his fellows who may be even more learned than he, but who lack it; this truth applies to historians also.¹

We may note that some recent studies of American educational history belong to the first class. We have had an “epitome” or “paraphrase” of “a file of consecutive documents,” more or less accurately performed, but little of the second or third class of writing. We have also had combinations of the second and third class—explanations of motives or interpretations of movements, without an adequate presentation of the facts or evidence on which the interpretation is based. It is the belief of the writer that the only hope of obtaining a much-needed resurvey and rewriting of our educational history is to recognize, first, that educational theory is not educational history, but that these two subjects bear much the same relation to each other as the history of economic theory bears to economic history, or the history of theology to religious history; secondly, that the facts must be presented in sufficient quantity and quality to form the basis of valid generalizations; thirdly, that a historical method must be applied in the presentation of the facts; fourthly, that the ideal presentation must include, as far as possible, the facts, the motives, and the interpretation of causes; fifthly, that the sectional basis of our history, and even the smaller areas—state, county, and township—must be taken into account, as

366

well as the interrelations of political, social, economic, and religious history as they influenced education. To account for the evolution of American education, to interpret its meaning, one must use such sources, for motives and inner causes often “unrecorded or elusive” are more likely to be divined or discovered if such methods and material are used.

Let us now consider what were some of the forces and influences which determined the educational development of the southern colonies. One of the striking facts of American colonial history is the contrast in the institutional development of the southern as compared with the New England colonies. This was due to the varying influence of those factors which account for the origin and development of all our institutions. Habits of mind, and the political, social, and religious practices and institutions of the Old World, which the colonist inherited and largely reproduced in the New World, were of most importance. Educational development was determined directly by the inheritance of the classical culture of the ancient world, the influence of religion as a motive for education, and the belief that the church should have a large part in establishing, controlling, and operating the agencies of education. It was also determined by those inherited theories, forms, practices, and machinery connected with the various agencies and processes of education. These influences were an inheritance of the upper class who emigrated to Virginia not less than of many who emigrated to New England, and constitute the background of the educational development of the South. But they did not produce the same results as in New England with respect to the kind, quality, distribution, and effectiveness of the schools and other agencies established to promote education. A study of some of the factors which account for the variation will enable us better to understand educational development in this section. The factors considered relate specifically to Virginia, though the account of the general

367

characteristics of this colony will serve for a description of the general characteristics of all the colonies in this group.

As in New England, one group of factors centers around the personality and motives of the settlers. There was a marked contrast between the migration from England to Virginia in the period 1607-40 and that to New England. Whether we consider the remark of the Rev. William Stoughton of Dorchester, Massachusetts, concerning the character of the immigrants to New England as an exaggeration or not, namely, “God sifted a whole Nation that he might send choice Grain over into this Wilderness,”¹ one could hardly maintain that such a description could be applied with equal truth to the early settlers of Virginia. Whatever else may be said with respect to the general character of the two groups of settlers, it is certain that the Virginia group was very different in one important respect. Its members were not actuated by as strong religious motives as the New England settlers. But the religious motive was the most important factor in the early colonial period both in perpetuating the inherited connection between religion and education and in providing a stimulus to establish and maintain schools. More important still, Virginia lacked educated leaders who might promote education. In the first fifteen years of Virginia's history we have record of only two or three men with university training who had settled within her borders. But in the first fifteen years of the history of Massachusetts at least fifty religious leaders with university training became pastors of her churches. Most of these men were graduates of Cambridge and Oxford. One can see from this comparison that Virginia was seriously handicapped by the absence of two important factors that promoted educational progress at this time.² The general plan of the Virginia Company

368

for the establishment and development of the colony, the method of colonization, the relation between the settlers and the company, all affected the progress of education. The early settlement of Virginia was not by families, neighborhood groups, or congregations, so characteristic of Massachusetts. On the contrary, for a considerable period the settlers were adult males originally, for the most part, unknown to each other. Up to 1619 most of the settlers were servants of the Company.¹ While Massachusetts in 1643, after fifteen years of settlement, had a population of at least 12,000, Virginia in 1628, after nearly twenty years of settlement, had only about 3,000, and even as late as 1635 only 5,119.² Not only was the settlement a feeble one in the early years, but the absence for a long period of any considerable number of women and children affected the progress of education adversely.

If we consider the general development of Virginia after 1625, through the seventeenth and on into the eighteenth century, we may note that the population became stratified, three main groups developing. The classes referred to are the planters, the white servants, and the negro slaves. The first class was divided into two groups: “the higher planter class,” owning a considerable quantity of land and slaves, and the lesser planters and small farmers, those with much less land, perhaps only a few acres, holding a few slaves or, as in many cases, none at all. It was that comparatively small group, the higher planter class, that controlled the political, economic, and social development in Virginia in this early period and hence was largely responsible for whatever educational legislation was passed.³

369

The white servant class¹ was called into being principally because of the economic conditions in England in the seventeenth century. There was first the theory of the economic relations between a colony and the mother country, involving the need of a large labor supply to clear the land and develop the agricultural resources of the colonies. England had a surplus of poor laborers, due to various causes, too poor to pay their passage to the New World and with little hope of bettering their economic condition in England. A large population was needed in the colonies in order that trade and commerce might develop rapidly; the greater the population and labor supply, the more raw materials could be shipped to England, made into finished products, and sold to the colonists. Thus settlers must be attracted to the new lands and an adequate labor supply provided. The economic basis of the system of white servitude was a grant of a tract of land, about fifty acres, a “head right” to anyone who would import a laborer or servant to the colonies, and a similar allotment to the servant after he had served his master a period of years—about five. Velasco, the Spanish minister to England in 1611, wrote: “Their principal reason for colonizing these parts [Virginia] is to give an outlet to so many idle and wretched people as they have in England, and thus to prevent the dangers that may be feared of them.”² Thus the custom arose for men and women and even children, in order to secure transportation to Virginia, to bind themselves by contract, called an indenture, to serve some person, a planter perhaps, for a term of years. The latter would advance the passage money and accept the labor of the servant for the terms of years specified in satisfaction. Thus an important element was introduced in the population of Virginia and other southern colonies. In fact,

370

in the latter colony, it constituted in 1671 nearly one-sixth of the white population.¹

With the opening of the eighteenth century the negro slave became more important than the white servant in the labor system of Virginia, though both continued to the Revolution and after. By 1754 negro slaves constituted about two-fifths of the total population.² The presence of these two elements in the southern colonies directly affected educational progress. They made possible the planter class, encouraged the concentration of large tracts of the best lands in a few hands, and led to a society with aristocratic institutions and tendencies. These were reflected in the agencies provided for education. Moreover, the presence of large groups with relatively low religious and moral standards reacted on the standards of the ruling classes in these respects and was another adverse factor in educational development.³ So much for those personal elements which were to influence the progress of education in this section.

Another group of factors hindered the development of public education even more, perhaps, than the personality and character of the settlers—namely, environment, economic organization and conditions, and distribution of the population. Nature has divided the Atlantic seaboard into sections which differ materially in area, configuration, climate, character of soil, and natural resources. These basic conditions in the southern colonies foreshadowed an agricultural land and labor system differing much from that of New England, particularly with respect to the distribution of the population, forms of local

371

government, and, in short, the whole social system; all this could not fail to influence educational development.

It must also be remembered that the physiography of Virginia, and the South as a whole, was such that in the colonial period it was divided into two distinct sections: the low country or tide-water region, a comparatively narrow strip of one hundred miles in width, more or less, and the back country or “up country,” so called. The former region was settled by the great planters, who monopolized most of the political power and wealth, the best lands, and the slaves. The latter region was peopled largely by the poorer class, in part by indented servants who had served their time, and, in the eighteenth century, by many Germans and Scotch-Irish. Much of the back country was unsuited to the slavery system and to the growing of the great staple crop of tobacco and, farther south, of rice and indigo. Moreover, the people inhabiting the back country were principally of a religious persuasion different from that of those in the tide-water region. Though, by the time of the Revolution, this region had a larger population than the tidewater area, the political power was retained by the coast group.¹ This fact had a bearing on the character of the educational laws which were enacted.

More in detail we may note the following contrasts: One of the chief motives of the Puritan migration was a religious one. Thus England had no need to stimulate settlement, for this motive was so strong that nearly 20,000 people emigrated to New England in the course of about twenty years, 1620-43.² But the situation in the southern colonies was quite different. Though people migrated to this section from different motives, that most predominant was economic rather than religious. The chief end in life of large numbers was material well-being. But if England expected a rapid settlement and development

372

of the southern colonies, some stimulus other than the religious would be necessary. To develop the resources of the South on a large scale there was need of both capital and labor. Fortunately nature had provided a substitute for religious motive in the large amount of rich land which England might offer gratis to settlers and laborers. The “head right” system already explained enabled an individual to secure large grants of land suitable for an extensive system of agriculture—the growing of the great staple crops and the use of a labor system based on low-priced unskilled labor. This had two important effects: First, it produced a tendency for the best lands to become concentrated in comparatively few hands and encouraged the development of the plantation system. The immediate effect was the creation of a landed aristocracy. Secondly, and perhaps more important still, from the standpoint of educational development, large land grants in connection with the extensive system of agriculture dispersed the population over a large area. The plantation with a single family became the unit of the social and economic life rather than the town—a community group made up of twenty, fifty, a hundred, or more families. Plantations might include from a few hundred to many thousands of acres. Moreover, since they were not necessarily contiguous—that is, large tracts of vacant lands might, and usually did, intervene they were commonly several miles distant from each other. Thus a few plantations with intervening unoccupied land might cover an area equal to that of a township in New England. But, whereas the township, perhaps thirty square miles in area on an average, would contain from twenty up to several hundred families, one hundred to one thousand people or more, the corresponding area in the South might have perhaps only ten families, seldom more, and these scattered over a large area.

This sparseness of population and lack of centers corresponding to towns or villages was one of the important factors

373

which helped to prevent the growth of the notion of public education. How sparse was the population of the southern colonies about 1724 may be realized by an examination of certain data available for this date. In this year the Bishop of London sent a list of queries to rectors of parishes in several colonies, including Virginia,¹ Maryland, and South Carolina. One of the questions was: “Of what extent is your parish and how many families are there in it?” In Virginia the replies show that the average area of twelve typical parishes was 545 square miles. Comparing the area of a parish, the smallest governmental unit, with the New England town, we note that it was nearly twenty times as large at this date. The average number of families (white) per parish was 372, considerably less than one family per square mile. It is clear that an act like that of Massachusetts in 1647 was impossible in Virginia, because within the area of land involved by the act, and the number of families mentioned, there were relatively few areas where a sufficient number of children lived within a reasonable distance of any place that might be chosen for the location of a school corresponding to a town school. Moreover, in comparing the town with the parish, we must remember that the bulk of the population in the former, during the seventeenth and the early eighteenth century, ordinarily lived in a compact village, within a mile or so of the church. It was in this area, near the church, that the school was located. In the parish, on the contrary, not only was there no village center in most cases, but even the best located parish churches were so situated that the majority of the people often had to travel from five to ten, or even more, miles to attend service.

The form of local government in New England—township government—promoted public schools. But in the South the system of local government harmonized with the land system and the distribution of population. The county was the unit

374

for both political and judicial purposes; but the justices, the governing body of the county, were appointed by the governor. The vestry, the governing body of the parish, with power over church affairs, the poor, and other matters, became a close corporation and self-perpetuating. Thus the people lacked the forms of democratic, direct, local self-government. The plantation system made the planter live a more or less isolated life, with less opportunity and inclination for uniting with his neighbors to promote the common good than was the case in a New England town. Neither the county nor the parish form of government allowed him to meet to express his will even for electing local officials, much less for voting on the multitudinous details of community life so characteristic of the town meeting. But the promotion of public education demanded just such opportunities. It demanded a social consciousness, an altruistic sentiment, a spirit of sacrifice for the common good which the economic, political, and social system of the South made difficult. Such a society was foredoomed to adopt private agencies as the principal method of promoting education.

We may note further that the plantation system did not effectively promote either widespread religious or secular culture. The main energies and thoughts of the planters were centered on material gains. Even where religion might have acted as an intellectual stimulus, the formalism of the established church, the character of many of the clergy, the influence of the slavery system, all tended to produce a low religious tension.¹ Even widespread secular culture was inhibited by such an environment. The intellectual development of a people as a whole depends, among other things, on the cultivation of certain habits, and the presence of the means whereby those habits. may be easily continued. Among these means are educated

375

leaders, a supply of books, private and public libraries, the reading and writing habit, interchange of thought through frequent and regular meetings of a social, political, or religious nature, and particularly the presence of public schools and institutions of higher learning for the training of leaders and teachers; but it is well known that the southern colonies were backward in these respects. Hugh Jones, a professor in William and Mary College, wrote a book in 1724 called The Present State of Virginia.¹ In this book he has an interesting passage commenting on the character of his countrymen, and throwing considerable light on the effect of the plantation system on the intellectual side of life. He says:

Thus they have good natural Notions, and will soon learn Arts and Sciences; but are generally diverted by Business or Inclination from profound Study, and prying into the Depth of Things; being ripe for Management of their Affairs, before they have laid so good a Foundation of Learning, and had Such Instructions, and acquired such Accomplishments, as might be instilled into such good natural Capacities. Nevertheless thro' their quick Apprehension, they have a Sufficiency of Knowledge, and Fluency of Tongue, tho' their Learning for the most Part be but superficial.

They are more inclined to read Men by Business and Conversation, than dive into Books, and are for the most Part only desirous of learning what is absolutely necessary, in the shortest and best Method.

It is apparent from this survey that adverse factors hindered educational development in the southern colonies, especially with respect to the maintenance of public schools, and even hindered in no small way private education. What was accomplished, therefore, was in spite of unfavorable factors and without the influence of many of the favoring factors which aided New England in solving her educational problems.

An examination of the educational legislation of the southern colonies shows that it was concerned with three main problems: First, the passing of laws which would safeguard the

376

educational rights of certain classes of children, such as orphans. Another problem was that of protecting the parishes from the burden of maintaining certain classes, such as the children of poor, idle, dissolute, or vagrant parents, or those of illegitimate birth. Of the latter there were, apparently, more in the South than in other sections. This was due to the presence of large numbers of white servants, negro slaves, mulatto servants, and free negroes, many having very low moral standards. Out of this situation there arose the demand, in part at least, for a system of education through apprenticeship. A third problem was that of providing facilities for a more advanced type of education, mainly for a limited number of boys drawn from the poor or middle classes, who could not afford to bear the cost of an entirely private education. The first two problems resulted in the passing of legislation which established a modified system of compulsory education, mainly through the system of apprenticeship. This will be the subject for discussion in the next article of this series.