Charles A. Hammond to Frederick Douglass, March 20, 1852
Letter from Charles A. Hammond.
Dear Douglass:—I have read your remarks in your paper, entitled "Perplexities of an Editor," and, though not an editor myself, I think I can appropriate, to some extent, the ideas therein contained. I do not send this article with any accompanying threat, and leave you to act your own judgment, in regard to its publication, although the subject upon which I propose to make a few remarks, is not one frequently discussed in your columns, and is, moreover, in my opinion, one vitally connected with the cause of a Righteous Civil Government.
The subject upon which I propose to remark, is that of schools. The doctrine is received and taught by some reformers, that civil government may rightfully, and in the discharge of its appropriate functions, take upon itself the superintendence of the education of the people.
Now it is of the utmost importance, that we have right ideas of civil government, and its legitimate sphere. For if we are to seek the establishment of a righteous civil government, we ought to get clear ideas in our minds, of what it is for which we are seeking, otherwise, our efforts may be productive of little good, not having a zeal according to knowledge.
To protect the rights of the people, will be universally admitted to be the proper province of civil government. But some may contend for a more enlarged sphere than this. Many professed reformers are not contented with a range so narrow, for civil government to operate in. They insist that it shall, to a certain extent, control and regulate and direct the energies and activities of the people. Thus in one of the South American states it is held and practiced upon, that government shall direct the industrial affairs of the people, prescribe how they shall do their work, &c., &c. And even in this country, which boasts of more correct views of its province than others, it is held that civil government may direct and superinted the education of the people; while widening its sphere still more in England, and other countries, on civil government, is permitted to intrude itself within the precincts of the religion of its subjects, and regulate modes and forms of worship.
Now it appears plain to my mind that civil government has, happily, nothing to do except to see to it that every man is permitted to pursue his own course, unmolested and uninterrupted by his fellow. If we admit the principle that it has any other business than this, there is no place where we may stop; but we may go on and say that the majority shall control and direct the minority, anywhere, and at all times. Again, the province of civil government is not reformation, simply, nor mainly protection.
This, and this alone, in my view, at least, is all that it owes to its subjects. This done, and its duty is done and it must leave the work of development to the people themselves, rather to each individual himself, aided as he may be, if he need such aid, from his older, and abler, and wiser fellows.
But if this view be correct, then has civil government naught to do with establishing schools for the education and development of the people. No more so, than with the mechanic shops, to learn them trades, or model farms, to teach them the science of agriculture, or theological institutions, to teach them morals and religion.
When it takes upon itself the work of the people, as it manifestly does when it attempts to superintend their education, it is extremely liable to oppress, instead of protecting its subjects. It can hardly fail to step across the rights of some one. For instance, I know an individual in this vicinity, who stoutly resists the Copernican idea of the revolution of the earth on its axis. He denies that this great world turns over every day, and insists that the water would all be spilled out of his well, if such a monstrous event should happen. Now, absurd and ludicrous as this idea may seem to intelligent persons, he ought, nevertheless, to be allowed the privilege of maintaining it, and of acting in harmony therewith, until he is enlightened and convinced of his error. But he has property, and this property is taxed, to sustain the teaching of the opposite theory thus he is made to contribute to the propagation and inculcation of a theory which he regards as false.
Nor is this the only, or the worst evil of the idea of the majority ruling the minority, and binding them to the support of their own views. The people are taxed, also, to purchase libraries for the use of the districts. Now the trustees may select such books as they choose, being restricted to those of an unsectarian character, which restriction, however, is exceedingly liable to be misinterpreted, and reject such as they choose.—It is easy to conceive of oppression of the minority of a district, in this way.—Gerrit Smith, in his excellent work on Civil Government, mentions an instance in which an anti-slavery book was rejected from a district library, and also of another, in which the presence of Jay's History of the Mexican War produced great dissatisfaction in a district. I have, myself, known an instance, in which Wm. Goodell's Democracy of Christianity was refused by a trustee, on the ground, not of anti-slavery, but that it taught the doctrine of "future rewards and punishments." Thus, are the character of libraries, for the purchase of which, all are obliged to contribute, made dependent upon the judgment or caprice of the person or persons who may happen to hold the office of trustee. For instance, Gerrit Smith was taxed, in proportion to the large property in
his possession, to purchase a book to [illegible] the trustees, or the district who would not endure an anti-slavery book in their library.—What can be plainer than that there is a departure from the legitimate sphere of civil government in such governments?
Again, all are taxed to support the regularly licensed teacher, and thus a monopoly of teaching is given to the licensed, to the detriment of the unlicensed teacher.
If the parent thinks the character of the teacher such that he prefers not to patronize him, he is, nevertheless, taxed all the same. If he thinks the school a curse, instead of a blessing to the community in which it is established, it is all the same; he is literally robbed to support it: and not only so, but his rights of conscience are trampled in the dust, and the robbed property is taken to support that which he loathes and abhors. It may perhaps be said, that no such case would occur. I reply, "but such cases do occur: that multitudes of parents, and those who have been educated, or trained rather, in the schools of this country, will bear me witness that the shools are, as a general thing, sadly deficient in moral and religious character. Indeed, the very idea of the common school system, is, that religion shall not be taught in schools; and the teacher is thought to be stepping beyond his or her province when he or she attempts to introduce a hearty and thorough and honest religion into his or her school. Under the plea of sectarianism, the Bible, even, has been objected to. If a parent see fit to employ a private teacher, at his own expense, it is all the same. The public school must be supported at his expense.
Again, the present school system throws the responsibility of selecting teachers mainly upon one person in each town. The town superintendent holds in his hands the "keys of the kingdom," of school-teaching. Whomsoever he chooses, he licenses; and whomsoever he pleases, he refuses, and a door is closed upon their prospects for teaching, in that town, at least. Or if he licences a teacher, if he possess a narrow and proscriptive spirit, he may, at any time, annul that license, and throw the teacher out of the school and deprive the district of the public money, if they retain him in the school. When we remember that so large a part of the public officers of this country, are mere tools in the hands of the giant and popular sins and crimes of the land, we can easily conceive oppression in this manner.
Why it is not long since, I heard a town superintendent contend for obedience to the God-defying and man-crushing Fugitive Slave Bill, and pour contempt and reproach upon the higher law, and me, its humble advocate. But were I to wish to engage in a district school in the town which appointed him to examine and license its teachers, I should need his certificate, much as my sensibilities might revolt from the idea of seeking liberty from such a creature to instruct the young.
Your for restricting government to its legitimate province.
Charles A. Hammond.
Homer, N.Y., March 20, 185[2].