Name: __________________________________ Date: ________ Period:____
Making Predictions: What Happened Next Chart
Directions:
Recall the Articles of Confederation and its weaknesses. Then list some of your own
political and economic predictions if the weaknesses are not addressed. During the
video, identify and record what actually did take place
Post-War Predictions
Your Predictions
Actual Effects
Your Notes
Classmates’ Predictions
Classmates’ Notes
William Manning, “A Laborer,” Explains Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts: “In as Plain a
Manner as I Am Capable”
The end of the War of Independence in 1783 curtailed wartime loss of life and destruction of property.
However, peace also brought economic distress through cycles of depression and glut. These cycles
were exacerbated when Massachusetts authorities pursued strict policies on money and debt and
British creditors called in their debts during the post-Revolutionary depression. When merchants
turned to already pressured farmers and rural traders who had no cash to pay their debts or taxes,
courts and jails filled with debtors. In protest, Daniel Shays, a former captain in the revolutionary
militia, led an uprising in western and central Massachusetts to close the courts and prevent the
seizure of property for unpaid debts. Massachusetts Governor Bowdoin sent a military force that
scattered the rebels. In his 1799 treatise to his fellow working men and women, William Manning
offered a history of Shay’s Rebellion along with his prescription for avoiding such insurrections in the
future by an organization of working people.
What most establishes me in the opinion that this plan will answer comes from my own observations
of the operation of these causes in our own government, especially the causes, conduct, and final issue
of the insurrection that happened in Massachusetts in 1785 and 1786. As I lived near the scene of
action and received frowns from both sides for being opposed to their measures, it drew my closest
attention and observation. And though I have been too lengthy already, yet I must here give a short
history of it.
ON THE SHAYS AFFAIR IN MASSACHUSETTS
At the close of the British war, although our paper money died away and left the people greatly in debt
by it, and a great public debt was on us by the war, yet there was a large quantity of hard money
among us sufficient for a medium. But for want of the proper regulation of trade and with the prices of
labor and produce being higher here than in other countries, our merchants shipped the hard money
off, load after load, by the hundred thousand dollars together to Britain for trifling gewgaws and things
that were of no service to us, until there was but little left. Taxes were extremely high. Some counties
were two or three years behind. And with the prices of labor and produce falling very fast, creditors
began calling for old debts and saying that they would not take payment in paper money. Those who
had money demanded forty or fifty percent for it. And fee office officers demanded three or four times
so much fees as the law a1lowed them, and were so crowded with business that sometimes it was hard
to get any done. Property was selling almost every day by execution for less than half its value. The
jails were crowded with debtors. And with the people being ignorant that all their help lay in being
fully and fairly represented in the legislature, many small towns neglected to send representatives in
order to save the cost—so that the Few only were represented at court [that is, the Massachusetts state
legislature, known as the General Court], with an aristocratic Bowdoin as governor at their head.
Under all these circumstances, the people were driven to the greatest extremity. Many counties took to
conventions remonstrances, and petitions to a court where they were not half represented. But not
being heard, and in some instances charged with seditious meetings and intentions, under all these
circumstances, some counties were so foolish as to stop the courts of justice by force of arms. This
shook the government to its foundation. For instead of fatherly counsels and admonitions, the dog of
war let loose upon them, and they were declared in a state of insurrection and rebellion.
In these circumstances, the Few were all alive for the support of the government, and all those who
would not be continually crying, “Government, Government,” or who dared to say a word against their
measures, were called Shaysites and rebels threatened with prosecutions, etc. But with a large majority
of the people thinking that there was blame on both sides, or viewing one side as knaves and the other
as fools, it was with great difficulty and delay before a sufficient number could be raised and sent to
suppress those who had closed the courts.
But the suppression was done with the loss of but few lives. This put the people in the most zealous
searches after a remedy for their grievances. Thousands and thousands of miles were ridden to consult
each other on the affair, and they happily effected it in a few months only by using their privileges as
electors. Bowdoin was turned out from being governor and Hancock wasalmost unanimously elected
in his place. Many of the old representatives shared the same fate, and a full representation was from
every part of the state, which soon found out means redress the grievances of the people, though they
were attended with the most difficult circumstances, so that everything appeared like the clear and
pleasant sunshine after a most tremendous storm.
This is a striking demonstration of the advantages of an elective government and shows how a people
may run themselves into the greatest difficulties by inattention in elections, and how they can retrieve
their circumstances by attending to them again. This Shays affair never would have happened if there
had then been such a society as I now propose. Many people then would have sacrificed half their
interest to have been possessed of such means of knowledge.
This affair, too, is a striking demonstration of the madness and folly of rising up against a government
of our own choice when we have constitutional means of redress in our own hands. For although it
was supposed by many that if Hancock had been governor at that time—even after the courts were
stopped—that the whole affair might have been settled with less than a thousand dollars cost; yet it
was so managed that it cost the state (in time and money) near a million dollars, and it almost entirely
ruined hundreds of honest, well-meaning men that only needed the means of knowledge I have
described.
Thus, my friends, I have freely given you my opinion of the causes that destroy free governments and
of a remedy against them, not in the language and style of the learned (for I am not able), but in as
plain a manner as I am capable. And I have done it from a conviction that it was my duty, and for the
happiness of mankind. If I have misrepresented anything or used any unbecoming language, it is for
the want of knowledge and learning. For I am a true friend to all orders of men and individuals I are
friends to true liberty and the rights of man. The remedy I have described is not a costly one, for
confident I am that penny laid out in it would soon save pounds in other needless expenses. Therefore,
unless you see more difficulty in applying it, or less need of it than I do, you will immediately put it on
foot and never give over until such a society is established on such a lasting foundation that the gates
of hell will not prevail against it—which may the Almighty grant is the sincere desire of a
Laborer
Source: William Manning, The key of libberty, shewing the causes why a free government has
always failed, and a remidy against it; written in the year 1798, by William Manning with notes and
a foreword by Samuel Eliot Morison (Billerica, Mass., Manning Assoc., 1922), 52–54.
College Board: Connect to College Success
Primary Source Strategies
Cora Greer
I. APPARTS
The acronym APPARTS provides students with prompts that gives them a format for dissecting and
analyzing primary sources. Once students are comfortable using this strategy they will have a valuable
analytical tool.
Author: Who created the source? What do you know about the author? What is the author's point of
view?
Place and time: Where and when was the source produced? How might this affect the meaning of
the source?
Prior knowledge: Beyond information about the author and the context of its creation, what do you
know that would help you further understand the primary source? For example, do you recognize any
symbols and recall what they represent?
Audience: For whom was the source created and how might this affect the reliability of the source?
Reason: Why was this source produced, and how might this affect the reliability of the source?
The main idea: What point is the source is trying to convey?
Significance: Why is this source important? Ask yourself "So what?" in relation to the question
asked.
Name: __________________________________ Date: ________ Period:____
Type II: The Aftermath of Shays’ Rebellion
Directions/Prompt:
Based on the video and the primary source titled “"A Laborer," Explains Shays Rebellion
in Massachusetts: "In as Plain a Manner as I Am Capable"", explain 3 effects of the
Rebellion. Were these actions justified? Is Shays’ Rebellion deserving of the spot in
the Ten Days That Unexpectedly Changed America series? Support your answers with
specific examples from both sources.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Name: __________________________________ Date: ________ Period:____
Poor Citizens: Villains or Victims?
Introduction/Directions:
After reading the excerpts from Brutus I and Federal Farmer III of the AntiFederalist Papers, reflect on the harsh criticism shown by the nation’s famous
revolutionaries (ex. Samuel Adams, Abigail Adams, Alexander Hamilton, etc.). While
many viewed Shays’ Rebellion as treason and all the more reason to form a stronger
central government, many believed that a strong unified republic would only strip the
states of their liberties and wage war between the powerful and the powerless. Your
assignment is to create a clever and historically accurate political cartoon either
opposing Shays’ Rebellion OR opposing a strong federal government.
FCAs
1. Must include a relevant caption and other supporting text
2. Must portray a strong bias
3. Must demonstrate effort and creativity
Total: ____/20 points
____/8
____/8
____/4
Brutus I
October 18, 1787
TeachingAmericanHistory.org
The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance - there is
nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has
authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United
States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and
complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises; - there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which
directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this
is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and
provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have
authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide
for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power
therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their
pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is
perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the
state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has
to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of
confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper here to remark,
that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted; it
connects with it almost all other powers, or at least will in process of time draw all other after it; it is
the great mean of protection, security, and defence, in a good government, and the great engine of
oppression and tyranny in a bad one. This cannot fail of being the case, if we consider the contracted
limits which are set by this constitution, to the late [state?] governments, on this article of raising
money. No state can emit paper money - lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by
consent of the Congress; and then the net produce shall be for the benefit of the United States: the only
mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct
taxation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please. Every
one who has thought on the subject, must be convinced that but small sums of money can be collected
in any country, by direct taxe[s], when the foederal government begins to exercise the right of taxation
in all its parts, the legislatures of the several states will find it impossible to raise monies to support
their governments. Without money they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away, and, as
before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.
Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States
should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that
whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the
liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation
of the people. The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such
principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?
If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on
the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed
over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encreasing
in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities
which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is the
baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. "It is natural to a republic to have
only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large
fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single
subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious,
by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country.
In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions,
and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better
understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less
protected." Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari.
History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The
Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in
process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was,
that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that
ever existed in the world.
Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an
extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against
it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme
authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive
territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared
by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of
government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be
confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently
assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion
concerning it.
In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not
declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are
supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.
In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed.
This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the
will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few.
If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner
of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently
qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak
the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large
extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity,
to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in
great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is
capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large
and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments,
without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is
not.
Federal Farmer III
October 10, 1787
TeachingAmericanHistory.org
A power to lay and collect taxes at discretion, is, in itself, of very great importance. By means of taxes,
the government may command the whole or any part of the subject’s property. Taxes may be of
various kinds; but there is a strong distinction between external and internal taxes. External taxes are
impost duties, which are laid on imported goods; they may usually be collected in a few seaport towns,
and of a few individuals, though ultimately paid by the consumer; a few officers can collect them, and
they can be carried no higher than trade will bear, or smuggling permits that in the very nature of
commerce, bounds are set to them. But internal taxes, as poll and land taxes, excises, duties on all
written instruments, &c. may fix themselves on every person and species of property in the
community; they may be carried to any lengths, and in proportion as they are extended, numerous
officers must be employed to assess them, and to enforce the collection of them. In the United
Netherlands the general government has compleat powers, as to external taxation; but as to internal
taxes, it makes requisitions on the provinces. Internal taxation in this country is more important, as the
country is so very extensive. As many assessors and collectors of federal taxes will be above three
hundred miles from the seat of the federal government as will be less. B congressional ordinances,
immediately operating upon the body of the people; these must continually interfere with the state
laws, and thereby produce disorder and general dissatisfaction, till the one system of laws or the other,
operating upon the same subjects, shall be abolished. These ordinances alone, to say nothing of those
respecting the militia, coin, commerce, federal judiciary, &. &amp. will probably soon defeat the
operations of the state laws and governments.
Should the general government think it politic, as some administrations (if not all) probably will, to
look for a support in a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws,
and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary props for its own support.
Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably,
be wanted to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving any thing for
the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation then must be called into operation, and internal
tax laws and federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country. All these
circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and collecting
internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate; and to trust to
amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose? It is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge
power in a government before it is fitted to receive it? It is confessed that this power and
representation ought to go together. Why give the power first? Why give the power to the few, who,
when possessed of it, may have address enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not
keep the power, and, when necessary, amend the constitution, and add to its other parts this power, and
a proper increase of representation at the same time? Then men who may want the power will be under
strong inducements to let in the people, by their representatives, into the government, to hold their due
proportion of this power. If a proper representation be impracticable, then we shall see this power
resting in the states, where it at present ought to be, and not inconsiderately given up.
When I recollect how lately congress, conventions, legislatures, and people contended in the cause of
liberty, and carefully weighed the importance of taxation, I can scarcely believe we are serious in
proposing to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in a government so imperfectly
organized for such purposes. Should the United States be taxed by a house of representatives of two
hundred members, which would be about fifteen members for Connecticut, twenty-five for
Massachusetts, &ampc. still the middle and lower classes of people could have no great share, in fact,
in taxation. I am aware it is said, that the representation proposed by the new constitution is
sufficiently numerous; it may be for many purposes; but to suppose that this branch is sufficiently
numerous to guard the rights of the people in the administration of the government, in which the purse
and sword is placed, seems to argue that we have forgot what the true meaning of representation is. I
am sensible also, that it is said that congress will not attempt to lay and collect internal taxes; that it is
necessary for them to have the power, though it cannot probably be exercised. I admit that it is not
probable that any prudent congress will attempt to lay and collect internal taxes, especially direct
taxes: but this only proves, that the power would be improperly lodged in congress, and that it might
be abused by imprudent and designing men.
I have heard several gentlemen, to get rid of objections to this part of the constitution, attempt to
construe the powers relative to direct taxes, as those who object to it would have them; as to these, it is
said, that congress will only have power to make requisitions, leaving it to the states to lay and collect
them. I see but very little colour for this construction, and the attempt only proves that this part of the
plan cannot be defended. By this plan there can be no doubt, but that the powers of congress will be
complete as to all kinds of taxes whatever further, as to internal taxes, the state governments will have
concurrent powers with the general government, and both may tax the same objects in the same year;
and the objection that the general government may suspend a state tax, as a necessary measure for the
promoting the collection of a federal tax, is not without foundation. As the states owe large debts, and
have large demands upon them individually, there clearly would be a propriety in leaving in their
possession exclusively, some of the internal sources of taxation, at least until the federal representation
shall be properly encreased.
Name: __________________________________ Date: ________ Period:____
Education as the Keystone to the New Democracy
Directions:
The following reading is from the National Parks Services. After reading and
annotating, answer the questions fully.
Thomas Jefferson believed that the young nation's survival as an independent
democracy absolutely depended upon its success in educating the people. His
experiences in Europe as Minister to France (1784-1789) allowed Jefferson to draw
direct comparisons between his new country and "the old world" of Europe. Writing
from Paris in 1786 to George Wythe, his former law professor at the College of William
and Mary, he described America's unique social and political setting and outlined the
importance of public education to America's future.
. . . If all the sovereigns of Europe were to set themselves to work to emancipate the
minds of their subjects from their present ignorance and prejudices . . . a thousand
years would not place them on that high ground on which our common people are now
setting out. [Our people] could not have been so fairly put into the hands of their own
common sense, had they not been separated from their own parent stock and been kept
from contamination, either from them, or the other people of the old world, by the
intervention of so wide an ocean. To know the worth of this, one must see the want of it
here. I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion
of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the
preservation of freedom, and happiness. If any body thinks that kings, nobles or priests
are good conservators of the public happiness, send them here. It is the best school in
the universe to cure them of that folly. ...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against
ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our
countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the
tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will
be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in
ignorance. . . .1
Thomas Jefferson understood "that knowledge is power, that knowledge is safety, that
knowledge is happiness."2 However, it is important to remember that in Thomas
Jefferson's lifetime, there was no system of public education like we have today. Only
the children of wealthy families could receive the tutoring required to attend a
university. This limitation of educational opportunities meant that only the wealthier
members of society could achieve positions of leadership. Jefferson felt strongly that
the control of power by the wealthy posed a threat to America's democracy. This larger
issue was a topic of heated debates chiefly between Jefferson--who felt that the
government should be composed of the most virtuous and talented citizens, rich or
poor--and Alexander Hamilton--who felt only the wealthy, and therefore educated, elite
should rule on behalf of the common people. In a letter to John Adams written in 1813,
Jefferson described how a public education system would contribute toward replacing
"artificial aristocracy," or leadership based on wealth, for "a natural aristocracy" based
on merit:
. . . I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this
are virtue and talents. . . . There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and
birth without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class.
The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the
instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been
inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have
provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of society. . . .3
In the same letter, Jefferson described a public education bill he submitted in 1779:
And had another which I prepared been adopted by the legislature, our work would have
been complete. 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 a 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 and birth for public trusts.
Although Jefferson's bill for a system of public education was not voted into law by the
Virginia legislature, he remained committed to these ideas. In 1796, he submitted a
similar bill, achieving only limited success. The legislature agreed only to the
establishment of elementary schools, subject to each county's discretion. Jefferson
lamented the fact that even this action was ineffective due to the funding provisions:
One provision of the bill was that the expenses of these schools should be borne by the
inhabitants of the county, everyone in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would
throw on wealth the education of the poor; and the justices, being generally of the
more wealthy class, were unwilling to incur that burden, and I believe it was not
suffered to commence in a single county.4
In a letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko from 1810, Jefferson expressed his continued hopes
for a system of public education:
I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain its
strength. 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what
will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such
size that all the children of each will be in reach of a central school in it.5
Additional years passed by before sufficient legislative interest in higher education
allowed Jefferson to use his political skills to press, once again, for establishment of a
public university in Virginia. On February 21, 1818, a year after the bill had been
introduced, the Virginia Legislature finally passed the law to establish a public
university. Recalling that 39 years had passed since the introduction of his first more
comprehensive public education bill, Jefferson nonetheless celebrated the law
establishing the university as "a bantling [baby] of forty years birth and nursing."6
http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/92uva/92facts1.htm
Reading 1 was compiled from Bernard Mayo, ed., Jefferson Himself: The Personal Narrative of a ManySided American (Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1942); Merrill D. Peterson, ed., The
Portable Thomas Jefferson (New York: Penguin Books, 1975); and Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh,
editors, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 Volumes, (Washington, D.C.: 1903-1904).
1
Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh, editors, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 Volumes,
(Washington, D.C.: 1903-1904), 5:396.
2
Bernard Mayo, ed., Jefferson Himself: The Personal Narrative of a Many-Sided American
(Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1942), 324.
3
Lipscomb, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 13:399.
4
Ibid., 1:70.
5
Ibid., 12:369.
Mayo, Jefferson Himself, 326.
6
Questions:
1. Why is it significant that Jefferson wrote his letter to George Wythe from Paris in
1786?
2. In his letter to George Wythe, Jefferson drew some comparisons between America
with Europe. What did he feel were the advantages of being an American citizen?
3. What were the dangers Jefferson associated with an uneducated nation?
4. What were the components to the system of public education that Jefferson
proposed? What inequalities was it meant to address?
5. Why did the established aristocracy resist Jefferson's attempts to create a public
school system?
6. Explain Jefferson's beliefs about the relationship between education and democracy.
Robert A. Peterson
Education in Colonial America
September 1983 • Volume: 33 • Issue: 9 • Print This Post • 16 comments
Mr. Peterson is Headmaster of The Pilgrim Academy, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey. He teaches
economics and is constantly in search of ways to support and defend the principle of voluntarism in
education.
One of the main objections people have to getting government out of the education business and
turning it over to the free market is that “it simply would not get the job done.” This type of thinking is
due, in large measure, to what one historian called “a parochialism in time,”[1] i.e., a limited view of
an issue for lack of historical perspective. Having served the twelve-year sentence in governmentcontrolled schools, most Americans view our present public school system as the measure of all things
in education. Yet for two hundred years in American history, from the mid-1600s to the mid-1800s,
public schools as we know them to day were virtually non-existent, and the educational needs of
America were met by the free market. In these two centuries, America produced several generations of
highly skilled and literate men and women who laid the foundation for a nation dedicated to the
principles of freedom and self-government.
The private system of education in which our forefathers were educated included home, school,
church, voluntary associations such as library companies and philosophical societies, circulating
libraries, apprenticeships, and private study. It was a system supported primarily by those who bought
the services of education, and by private benefactors. All was done without compulsion. Although
there was a veneer of government involvement in some colo nies, such as in Puritan Massachusetts,
early American education was essentially based on the principle of voluntarism.[2]
Dr. Lawrence A. Cremin, distinguished scholar in the field of education, has said that during the
colonial period the Bible was “the single most important cultural influence in the lives of AngloAmericans.”[3]
Thus, the cornerstone of early American education was the belief that “children are an heritage from
the Lord.”[4] Parents believed that it was their responsibility to not only teach them how to make a
living, but also how to live. As our forefathers searched their Bibles, they found that the function of
government was to protect life and property.[5] Education was not a responsibility of the civil
government.
Education Began in the Home and the Fields
Education in early America began in the home at the mother’s knee, and often ended in the cornfield
or barn by the father’s side. The task of teaching reading usually fell to the mother, and since paper
was in short supply, she would trace the letters of the alphabet in the ashes and dust by the
fireplace.[6] The child learned the alphabet and then how to sound out words. Then a book was placed
in the child’s hands, usually the Bible. As many passages were familiar to him, having heard them at
church or at family devotions, he would soon master the skill of reading. The Bible was supplemented
by other good books such as Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, The New England Primer, and Isaac
Watt’s Divine Songs. From volumes like these, our founding fathers and their generation learned the
values that laid the foundation for free enterprise. In “Against Idleness and Mischief,” for example,
they learned individual responsibility before God in the realm of work and learning.[7]
How doth the busy little bee
Improve each shining hour,
And gather honey all the day
From every opening flower.
How skillfully she builds her cell,
How neat she spreads the wax
And labours hard to store it well
With the sweet food she makes.
In works of labour, or of skill,
I would be busy too;
For Satan finds some mischief still
For idle hands to do.
In books, or work, or healthful play
Let my first years be passed;
That I may give for every day
Some good account at last.
Armed with love, common sense, and a nearby woodshed, colonial mothers often achieved more than
our modern-day elementary schools with their federally-funded programs and education specialists.
These colonial mothers used simple, time-tested methods of instruction mixed with plain, oldfashioned hard work. Children were not ruined by educational experiments developed in the ivory
towers of academe. The introduction to a reading primer from the early 19th century testifies to the
importance of home instruction.[8] It says: “The author cannot but hope that this book will enable
many a mother or aunt, or elder brother or sister, or perhaps a beloved grandmother, by the family
fireside, to go through in a pleasant and sure way with the art of preparing the child for his first school
days.”
Home education was so common in America that most children knew how to read before they entered
school. As Ralph Walker has pointed out, “Children were often taught to read at home before they
were subjected to the rigours of school. In middle-class families, where the mother would be expected
to be literate, this was considered part of her duties.[9]
Without ever spending a dime of tax money, or without ever consulting a host of bureaucrats,
psychologists, and specialists, children in early America learned the basic academic skills of reading,
writing, and ciphering necessary for getting along in society. Even in Boston, the capital city of the
colony in which the government had the greatest hand, children were taught to read at home. Samuel
Eliot Morison, in his excellent study on education in colonial New England, says:[10]
Boston offers a curious problem. The grammar (Boston Latin) school was the only public school down
to 1684, when a writing school was established; and it is probable that only children who already read
were admitted to that . . . . they must have learned to read somehow, since there is no evidence of
unusual illiteracy in the town. And a Boston bookseller’s stock in 1700 includes no less than eleven
dozen spellers and sixty-one dozen primers.
The answer to this supposed problem is simple. The books were bought by parents, and illiteracy was
absent because parents taught their children how to read outside of a formal school setting. Coupled
with the vocational skills children learned from their parents, home education met the demands of the
free market. For many, formal schooling was simply unnecessary. The fine education they received at
home and on the farm held them in good stead for the rest of their lives, and was supplemented with
Bible reading and almanacs like Franklin’s Poor Richard’s.
Some of our forefathers desired more education than they could receive at home. Thus, grammar and
secondary schools grew up all along the Atlantic seaboard, particularly near the centers of population,
such as Boston and Philadelphia. In New England, many of these schools were started by colonial
governments, but were supported and controlled by the local townspeople.
In the Middle Colonies there was even less government intervention. In Pennsylvania, a compulsory
education law was passed in 1683, but it was never strictly enforced.[11] Nevertheless, many schools
were set up simply as a response to consumer demand. Philadelphia, which by 1776 had become
second only to London as the chief city in the British Empire, had a school for every need and interest.
Quakers, Philadelphia’s first inhabitants, laid the foundation for an educational system that still thrives
in America. Because of their emphasis on learning, an illiterate Quaker child was a contradiction in
terms. Other religious groups set up schools in the Middle Colonies. The Scottish Presbyterians, the
Moravians, the Lutherans, and Anglicans all had their own schools. In addition to these church-related
schools, private schoolmasters, entrepreneurs in their own right, established hundreds of schools.
Historical records, which are by no means complete, reveal that over one hundred and twenty-five
private schoolmasters advertised their services in Philadelphia newspapers between 1740 and 1776.
Instruction was offered in Latin, Greek, mathematics, surveying, navigation, accounting, bookkeeping,
science, English, and contemporary foreign languages.[12] Incompetent and inefficient teachers were
soon eliminated, since they were not subsidized by the State or protected by a guild or union. Teachers
who satisfied their customers by providing good services prospered. One schoolmaster, Andrew
Porter, a mathematics teacher, had over one hundred students enrolled in 1776. The fees the students
paid enabled him to provide for a family of seven.[13]
In the Philadelphia Area
Philadelphia also had many fine evening schools. In 1767, there were at least sixteen evening schools,
catering mostly to the needs of Philadelphia’s hard-working German population. For the most part, the
curriculum of these schools was confined to the teaching of English and vocations.[14] There were
also schools for women, blacks, and the poor. Anthony Benezet, a leader in colonial educational
thought, pioneered in the education for women and Negroes. The provision of education for the poor
was a favorite Quaker philanthropy. As one historian has pointed out, “the poor, both Quaker and nonQuaker, were allowed to attend without paying fees.”[15]
In the countryside around Philadelphia, German immigrants maintained many of their own schools. By
1776, at least sixteen schools were being conducted by the Mennonites in Eastern Pennsylvania.
Christopher Dock, who made several notable contributions to the science of pedagogy, taught in one
of these schools for many years. Eastern Pennsylvanians, as well as New Jerseyans and Marylanders,
sometimes sent their children to Philadelphia to further their education, where there were several
boarding schools, both for girls and boys.
In the Southern colonies, government had, for all practical purposes, no hand at all in education. In
Virginia, education was considered to be no business of the State. The educational needs of the young
in the South were taken care of in “old-field” schools. “Old-field” schools were buildings erected in
abandoned fields that were too full of rocks or too overcultivated for farm use. It was in such a school
that George Washington received his early education. The Southern Colonies’ educational needs were
also taken care of by using private tutors, or by sending their sons north or across the Atlantic to the
mother country.
Colonial Colleges
A college education is something that very few of our forefathers wanted or needed. As a matter of
fact, most of them were unimpressed by degrees or a university accent. They judged men by their
character and by their experience. Moreover, many of our founding ‘fathers, such as George
Washington, Patrick Henry, and Ben Franklin, did quite well without a college education. Yet for
those who so desired it, usually young men aspiring to enter the ministry, university training was
available. Unlike England, where the government had given Cambridge and Oxford a monopoly on
the granting of degrees,[16] there were nine colleges from which to choose.
Although some of the colonial colleges were started by colonial governments, it would be misleading
to think of them as statist institutions in the modern sense.[17] Once chartered, the colleges were
neither funded nor supported by the State. Harvard was established with a grant from the
Massachusetts General Court, yet voluntary contributions took over to keep the institution alive. John
Harvard left the college a legacy of 800 pounds and his library of 400 books. “College corn,” donated
by the people of the Bay Colony, maintained the young scholars for many years.[18] Provision was
also made for poor students, as Harvard developed one of the first work-study programs.[19] And
when Harvard sought to build a new building in 1674, donations were solicited from the people of
Massachusetts. Despite the delays caused by King Philip’s War, the hall was completed in 1677 at
almost no cost to the taxpayer.[20]
New Jersey was the only colony that had two colleges, the College of New Jersey (Princeton) and
Queens (Rutgers). The Log College, the predecessor of Princeton, was founded when Nathaniel Irwin
left one thousand dollars to William Tennant to found a seminary.[21] Queens grew out of a small
class held by the Dutch revivalist, John Frelinghuyson.[22] Despite occasional hard times, neither
college bowed to civil government for financial assistance. As Frederick Rudolph has observed,
“neither the college at Princeton nor its later rival at New Brunswick ever received any financial
support from the state.”[23] Indeed, John Witherspoon, Princeton’s sixth president, was apparently
proud of the fact that his institution was independent of government control. In an advertisement
addressed to the British settlers in the West Indies, Witherspoon wrote:[24] “The College of New
Jersey is altogether independent. It hath received no favor from Government but the charter, by the
particular friendship of a person now deceased.”
Based on the principle of freedom, Princeton under Witherspoon produced some of America’s most
“animated Sons of Liberty.” Many of Princeton’s graduates, standing firmly in the Whig tradition of
limited government, helped lay the legal and constitutional foundations for our Republic. James
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was a Princeton graduate.
Libraries
In addition to formal schooling in elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities, early
America had many other institutions that made it possible for people to either get an education or
supplement their previous training. Conceivably, an individual who never attended school could
receive an excellent education by using libraries, building and consulting his own library, and by
joining a society for mutual improvement. In colonial America, all of these were possible.
Consumer demand brought into existence a large number of libraries. Unlike anything in the Old
Country, where libraries were open only to scholars, churchmen, or government officials, these
libraries were rarely supported by government funds. In Europe, church libraries were supported by
tax money as well, for they were a part of an established church. In America, church libraries, like the
churches themselves, were supported primarily by voluntarism.
The first non-private, non-church libraries in America were maintained by membership fees, called
subscriptions or shares, and by gifts of books and money from private benefactors interested in
education. The most famous of these libraries was Franklin and Logan’s Library Company in
Philadelphia, which set the pattern and provided much of the inspiration for libraries throughout the
colonies.[25] The membership fee for these subscription libraries varied from twenty or thirty pounds
to as little as fifteen shillings a year. The Association Library, a library formed by a group of Quaker
artisans, cost twenty shillings to join.[26]
Soon libraries became the objects of private philanthropy, and it became possible for even the poorest
citizens to borrow books. Sometimes the membership fee was completely waived for an individual if
he showed intellectual promise and character.[27]
Entrepreneurs, seeing an opportunity to make a profit from colonial Americans’ desire for selfimprovement, provided new services and innovative ways to sell or rent printed matter. One new
business that developed was that of the circulating library. In 1767, Lewis Nicola established one of
the first such businesses in the City of Brotherly Love. The library was open daily, and customers, by
depositing five pounds and paying three dollars a year, could withdraw one book at a time. Nicola
apparently prospered, for two years later he moved his business to Society Hill, enlarged his library,
and reduced his prices to compete with other circulating libraries.[28] Judging from the titles in these
libraries,[29] colonial Americans could receive an excellent education completely outside of the
schoolroom. For colonial Americans who believed in individual responsibility, self-government, and
self-improvement, this was not an uncommon course of study. Most lawyers, for example, were selfeducated.
Sermons as Educational Tools
The sermon was also an excellent educational experience for our colonial forefathers. Sunday morning
was a time to hear the latest news and see old friends and neighbors. But it was also an opportunity for
many to sit under a man of God who had spent many hours preparing for a two, three, or even four
hour sermon. Many a colonial pastor, such as Jonathan Edwards, spent eight to twelve hours daily
studying, praying over, and researching his sermon. Unlike sermons on the frontier in the mid-19th
century, colonial sermons were filled with the fruits of years of study. They were geared not only to
the emotions and will, but also to the intellect.
As Daniel Boorstin has pointed out, the sermon was one of the chief literary forms in colonial
America.[30] Realizing this, listeners followed sermons closely, took mental notes, and usually
discussed the sermon with the family on Sunday afternoon. Anne Hutchinson’s discussions, which
later resulted in the Antinomian Controversy, were merely typical of thousands of discussions which
took place in the homes of colonial America. Most discussions, however, were not as controversial as
those which took place in the Hutchinson home.
Thus, without ever attending a college or seminary, a church-goer in colonial America could gain an
intimate knowledge of Bible doctrine, church history, and classical literature. Questions raised by the
sermon could be answered by the pastor or by the books in the church libraries that were springing up
all over America. Often a sermon was later published and listeners could review what they had heard
on Sunday morning.
The first Sunday Schools also developed in this period. Unlike their modern-day counterparts, colonial
Sunday Schools not only taught Bible but also the rudiments of reading and writing. These Sunday
Schools often catered to the poorest members of society.
Modern historians have discounted the importance of the colonial church as an educational institution,
citing the low percentage of colonial Americans on surviving church membership rolls. What these
historians fail to realize, however, is that unlike most churches today, colonial churches took
membership seriously. Requirements for becoming a church member were much higher in those days,
and many people attended church without officially joining. Other sources indicate that church
attendance was high in the colonial period. Thus, many of our forefathers partook not only of the
spiritual blessing of their local churches, but the educational blessings as well.
Philosophical Societies
Another educational institution that developed in colonial America was the philosophical society. One
of the most famous of these was Franklin’s Junto, where men would gather to read and discuss papers
they had written on all sorts of topics and issues.[31] Another society was called The Literary
Republic. This society opened in the bookbindery of George Rineholt in 1764 in Philadelphia. Here,
artisans, tradesmen, and common laborers met to discuss logic, jurisprudence, religion, science, and
moral philosophy (economics).[32]
Itinerant lecturers, not unlike the Greek philosophers of the Hellenistic period, rented halls and
advertised their lectures in local papers. One such lecturer, Joseph Cunningham, offered a series of
lectures on the “History and Laws of England” for a little over a pound.[33]
By 1776, when America finally declared its independence, a tradition had been established and
voluntarism in education was the rule. Our founding fathers, who had been educated in this tradition,
did not think in terms of government-controlled education. Accordingly, when the delegates gathered
in Philadelphia to write a Constitution for the new nation, education was considered to be outside the
jurisdiction of the civil government, particularly the national government. Madison, in his notes on the
Convention, recorded that there was some talk of giving the Federal legislature the power to establish
a national university at the future capital. But the proposal was easily defeated, for as Boorstin has
pointed out, “the Founding Fathers supported the local institutions which had sprung up all over the
country.”[34] A principle had been established in America that was not to be deviated from until the
mid-nineteenth century. Even as late as 1860, there were only 300 public schools, as compared to
6,000 private academies.[35]
A Highly Literate Populace
The results of colonial America’s free market system of education were impressive indeed. Almost no
tax money was spent on education, yet education was available to almost anyone who wanted it,
including the poor. No government subsidies were given, and inefficient institutions either improved
or went out of business. Competition guaranteed that scarce educational resources would be allocated
properly. The educational institutions that prospered produced a generation of articulate Americans
who could grapple with the complex problems of self-government. The Federalist Papers, which are
seldom read or understood today, even in our universities, were written for and read by the common
man. Literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today.[36] A study conducted in 1800 by
DuPont de Nemours revealed that only four in a thousand Americans were unable to read and write
legibly.[37] Various accounts from colonial America support these statistics. In 1772, Jacob Duche,
the Chaplain of Congress, later turned Tory, wrote:[38]
The poorest labourer upon the shore of Delaware thinks himself entitled to deliver his sentiments in
matters of religion or politics with as much freedom as the gentleman or scholar . . . . Such is the
prevailing taste for books of every kind, that almost every man is a reader; and by pronouncing
sentence, right or wrong, upon the various publications that come in his way, puts himself upon a
level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors.
Franklin, too, testified to the efficiency of the colonial educational system. According to Franklin, the
North American libraries alone “have improved the general conversation of Americans, made the
common tradesmen and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries, and perhaps
have contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the colonies in defense of
their privileges.”[39]
The experience of colonial America clearly supports the idea that the market, if allowed to operate
freely, could meet the educational needs of modern-day America. In the nineteenth century, the Duke
of Wellington remarked that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton and
Cambridge.” Today, the battle between freedom and statism is being fought in America’s schools.
Those of us who believe in Constitutional government would do well to promote the principle of
competition, pluralism, and government non-intervention in education. Years ago, Abraham Lincoln
said, “The philosophy of the classroom will be the philosophy of the government in the next
generation.”
Reading Review
1. Identify and explain in detail the education options for the three colonial regions.
•
New England:
•
Middle:
•
South
2. What factors contribute to these educational options?
3. How does social class produce a gap between the educated and the uneducated within and across
the regions?
4. Brainstorm with a partner on how education opportunities can be limited today. What are the
consequences of primary, secondary, and higher educational institutions not being available to all
people?
Name: ______________________________ Date: ________ Period:____
18th Century Voting Requirements
18th Century
Requirement
Free
Gender
Religion
Property
Ownership
Age
Race
Why might this
have been a
requirement?
How did it limit
democratic
rights?
How has this
requirement
changed over
time?
Name: __________________________________ Date: ________ Period:____
Type III: A Rebel Farmer’s Journal (40 points)
Directions:
Reflect on the past few days. Using the sources and your writing assignments, finalize
your conclusions about whether or not the early American Democracy failed to include
all people. Then adopt a historical identity as a farmer in Massachusetts during the
tumultuous years following the American Revolution. Write a creative, descriptive, and
historically accurate account of your life experiences, challenges, and level of access to
political, educational, and economical opportunities.
FCAs:
1. Must include a historically accurate background of farmer:
___/5
2. Must include relevant comments about the right to vote, receive an education,
and prosper economically.
___/15
3. Must effectively use the following terms: democracy, taxes, Daniel Shays,
Continental Congress, war debt
___/15
4. Must be free of spelling and grammar errors.
___/5
Total: ______/40
points
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
JOHN COLLINS WRITING PROGRAM
FIVE TYPES OF WRITING
TYPE ONE: CAPTURE IDEAS
Type One writing gets ideas on paper — it's brainstorming. Type One is timed and requires a minimum
number of items or lines to be generated. Questions and/or guesses are permitted.
• One draft
• Outcomes are evaluated with a check (√) or minus (-)
TYPE TWO: RESPOND CORRECTLY
Type Two writing shows that the writer knows something about a topic or has thought about the topic. It
is a correct answer to a specific question.
• One draft
• Graded as a quiz
TYPE THREE: EDIT FOR FOCUS CORRECTION AREAS
Type Three writing has substantive content and meets up to three specific standards called Focus
Correction AreasSM (FCAs). Revision and editing are done on the original.
• One draft (saved)
• Read out loud and reviewed to see if the draft completes the assignment, is easy to read, and
meets standards set for the focus correction areas.
TYPE FOUR: EDIT FOR FOCUS CORRECTION AREAS
Type Four writing is Type Three writing that is read aloud by someone else.
• Two drafts (saved)
• Writing is critiqued by a peer and revised by the author
TYPE FIVE: PUBLISH
Type Five writing is error free and of publishable quality.
• Multiple drafts (saved)
• Published work
http://www.collinsed.com/five_types_of_writing.htm
11/18/05