If You Have A Tool, You'll Probably Use it:
On the Evolution of Tax-Supported Schools in Certain Parts of the United States
By Carl Watner
2008, I discovered a two-volume set of books entitled UNIVERSAL EDUCATION
IN THE SOUTH (1936) by Charles Dabney. The author was the son of Reverend
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820- 1898), who had been a professor at the Union
Theological Seminary in Richmond and was especially well-known for his
attacks on government education in 1876. Volume I, which covered "From
the Beginning to 1900," was so fascinating that I purchased my
own used copy and began research on the rise of tax-supported schooling.
As the sub-title of this article indicates, it does not relate to the
activities of such people as Horace Mann, Calvin Stowe, and others who
"imported' the Prussian model of government schools into other
parts of the United States. That has been dealt with elsewhere, such
as in Samuel L. Blumenfeld's IS PUBLIC EDUCATION NECESSARY? (1981).
Dabney points out, "the idea of free universal education was practically
unknown in the countries from which the early settlers came, and it
developed very slowly in America."  Where did this idea that
schools should be funded by the government (in the Southern states)
originate, and how did local Southern governments overcome their citizenry's
natural reluctance to pay taxes to support them? The purpose of this
article is to shed some light on the answers to these questions, and
to quote some of the rhetoric used to convince Southerners that taxation
was in their best interests, and that they should rely upon governments,
rather than voluntaryism, to direct the education of their children.
early American colonial history, the formal provision of education was
primarily a function reserved to the wealthy and upper classes of society.
Among the lower classes, it was common for parents and ministers to
supply the rudiments of learning. It was not until after the Revolutionary
War that a major societal concern surfaced regarding education. Among
the constitutions of the original thirteen states, only North Carolina's
and Pennsylvania's mentioned the subject, authorizing the establishment
of at least one school in each county, "with such salaries to the
masters, paid by the public." At that time, education was certainly
not considered a function of the national government. There was no mention
of the subject in either the Declaration of Independence or the federal
Constitution. Here was an opportunity for voluntaryism to have flourished.
As Dabney wrote:
A great advance in educational
enterprises of a private and ecclesiastical character followed [the
Revolution]. The wealthy established private schools. Academies and
colleges were started wherever a few pupils could be gathered together
and teachers found. A new ideal of education was in the making, but
universal education at public cost, as a practical possibility, was
still undreamed of. 
the first well-known personage in this country to broach the idea of
"free" government-provided schooling for all students was
Thomas Jefferson. In 1779, he presented his "Bill for the More
General Diffusion of Knowledge" to the Virginia Legislature. The
bill provided for three years of elementary school training for all
children, rich and poor (though slave children would have been excluded).
Although Massachusetts claims to have enacted the first public school
law in America in 1647, in New England public education was considered
a function of the church, while in Virginia and the rest of the South
it was considered a function of the state.  Jefferson's view was
that "The state must provide for the education of all its citizens
and this it should do through local agencies." 
show the progression of this idea of "universal education at state
expense for all" over the next one hundred years, we need to look
no further than John B. Minor's INSTITUTES OF COMMON AND STATUTE LAW,
published in 1876. According to Minor,
There are but four modes of
general education possible - namely:
1. Every parent may be left
to provide for his children such instruction as he can, without the
government concerning itself therewith.
2. The government may undertake
to assist the indigent alone, leaving the rest of the community
to shift for themselves.
3. The government may give
partial aid to all, leaving each some additional expense, much or
little, to bear, in the shape of tuition fee, or otherwise.
4. The government may provide,
at the common expense, for the complete elementary instruction
of all classes, just as it provides for the protection of all. 
The two basic assumptions embraced by the idea of universal public schools
were: 1) "that education is a function of the State rather than
a family or parental obligation;" and 2) "that the Sate has
the right and power to raise by taxation" the funds required to
adequately support the schools.  Some of the principal impediments
to the implementation of these ideas were 1) the general public's dislike
of taxation; 2) parental rejection of the idea that the State should
be responsible for their offspring; and 3) the humiliation attached
to the idea that their children would be attending "free"
public schools. (Hitherto, only the poorest of the poor would accept
government handouts.) 
analysis reveals that the opening wedge of government involvement in
education was legislation regarding orphans and indigent children. Although
in both England and its colonies it was common for wealthy benefactors
to endow charity schools for the poor, government legislation required
that the overseers of the poor obtain an order from their county court
to place those children likely to become a burden to the parish (such
as beggars, orphans, paupers, and illegitimate children) into apprenticeships.
 Masters were not only responsible for teaching their charges a trade,
but were obligated to instruct their apprentices in reading, writing,
and common arithmetic.  The humanitarian movement, which advocated
giving poor children an opportunity for education, supported the idea
that the State was responsible for the education of those children whose
parents were not likely to attend to the matter themselves.  As
Edgar Knight, another historian of public schools in the South, observed:
By the time of the American Revolution, "the theory was gaining
that caring for and educating and training poor children were functions
of the State." 
Jefferson, however, approached universal education from another point
of view. His belief was that it was the business of the State to educate
because a free country required an intelligent citizenry. 
"Enlighten the people generally and tyranny and oppressions ...
will vanish ...." "If a nation expects to be ignorant and
free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never
will be."  According to Jefferson, "schools ...
must be provided by the state" because to give "information
to the people ... is the most certain, and the most legitimate engine
of government." 
Jefferson was elected governor of Virginia in 1776, he became personally
involved in the revision of the state's laws. In June 1779, the
committee of revision presented the legislature with one hundred and
twenty-six bills, among which were some Jefferson himself had
principally written. The two most germane to our discussion here are
his "Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" and
"A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." In the former
he proposed three years of government-paid elementary schooling for
all children, rich and poor alike; college (high schools) for those
requiring a middle level of instruction; and finally a state-sponsored
university and library to complete the educational edifice. Each county
was to be divided into wards or districts, and the voters of each ward
were to tax themselves in order to support their own local schools.
This thoroughly socialist plan is what Dabney described as "the
first proposal ever made for local taxation for public schools"
in America.  Another interesting aspect of Jefferson's advocacy
was his belief that those who could neither read nor write should be
denied state citizenship and the right to vote.  Although
Jefferson supported compulsory taxation to provide public schools, "he
took a moderate position on compulsory education."  Jefferson
did not believe it was proper to force a parent to educate his child.
As Jefferson wrote:
It is better to
tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be
educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the [felonious
removal of the child from the parent's custody] and [by the] education
of the infant against the will of the father. 
contrast, in his bill for establishing religious freedom Jefferson took
a very libertarian position against all the elements of a state religion.
He rejected state-licensed clergy, he refused to endorse state-approved
prayer, curriculum, textbooks, compulsory attendance laws, and state-compelled
financing. One wonders why Jefferson did not realize that the same principles
that apply to state religious establishments apply to state educational
establishments.  For example, Jefferson held that religion was a
natural right of mankind, just as he supported the "unalienable
rights of parents to direct the education of their children." 
However, on the issue of public taxation to support the church and the
school, Jefferson took contradictory positions. "He declared that
'to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical' and 'that
even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious
persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his
contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his
pattern,' ..."  Despite his realization that coercion was wrong
in the case of religion, Jefferson did not recognize that it was "unjust
to take the property of one man to educate the children of another.
... In essence Jefferson didn't apply his own professed principles against
coercive financing" of religion when it came "to education
like he [sh]ould have."  This error, from its small beginnings
in Jefferson's legislative bill, has led to massive state-run educational
establishments all across the United States.
legislation on the subject of the poor and of apprentices was based
on several questionable assumptions. The first assumption was that such
children were entitled to the basics of an education. If they were,
then such a service must be provided by their parents, the government,
or some charitable institution.  Most proponents of an educational
entitlement thought that it should be the responsibility of the State
to provide children with schooling. Finally, it was assumed that no
other means of accomplishing this goal existed, even though there was
plenty of evidence that various types of education were being
provided under voluntaryism.
Jefferson and others after him extended the first assumption by claiming
that all children had a right to an education. The only question to
be answered was: At whose expense? Jefferson's answer was that the citizens
of the county or ward should be taxed to provide all the children in
their local jurisdiction with schools. Why didn't the church reformers,
Jefferson, and others of the time eschew the State and depend upon voluntary
efforts? The only answer I have is this: the State was there. The human
tendency is to take the easy way out. If the State had not been there,
those advocating schooling for the uneducated poor would have had to
1) either organize the State from scratch; 2) dig into their own pockets
and help fund that which they were advocating; or 3) organize (themselves
and in concert with others who shared their idea) the necessary number
of charity schools to provide education for the poor. Given the existence
of the State, its prior concern with the indigent and their education,
they took the easy way out: they advocated taxation. Why Jefferson couldn't
see the parallels between state provision of religion and state provision
of education is an unexplainable anomaly. It is comparable to his being
an owner of slaves when writing that "all men are created equal"
in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson's advocacy of public schools, the idea of universal, state-paid
education did not come about quickly. Educational historians of the
South, time and time again, repeat that many Southerners had a "natural
reluctance to being taxed." Furthermore, the historians note that
many Southerners held to the idea that it was not the function of the
State to educate; that education was not conducive to good citizenship,
that State instruction was a usurpation of parental rights, and that
Negroes should never be educated. . Here are some additional commentaries:
Local taxation of property
for the support of community schools, entirely free and open to rich
and poor alike, was not a popular measure. Two centuries of apprenticeship
and poor laws had not developed a strong enough demand for the new type
of education to overcome the dread of cost in taxes or to enforce the
acceptance of the principle that the [S]tate should compel a man to
tax himself for the education of his neighbor’s children. 
"The traditional hatred
of taxes was universal in the South." The planters "looked
upon internal improvements [roads] as they did upon education, as mere
excuses for taxation, and all taxation to them was evil. 
All taxes were an abomination
to early Americans and taxation for schools was unthinkable for the
old Virginians. If there were to be schools and institutions for learning,
the funds for them must be provided in some other way than through taxes
on property. 
The provision of education
by the state to paupers "expressed the prevailing idea of the people
that a man's children should be educated by himself in his own social
status, if possible, and that only the poor should be provided
with the elements of an education at the expense of the [S]tate. The
ruling class believed that any extended education of the masses would
lead to unrest, to disappointment and to what the aristocrats called
"leveling." Their view was that the [S]tate should not interfere
in the education of the children except when charity absolutely demanded
In 1872, James Killebrew was
appointed assistant superintendent of schools in Tennessee. His salary
was paid by the Peabody Education Fund . "The greatest obstacle
to the establishment of a real system of schools, declared Killebrew,
was the old idea that education should be left to private enterprise;
that it was wrong to tax the rich for the education of the poor; that
the [S]tate had no right to compel a father to educate his children,
much less those of his neighbor; that such procedure would tend to destroy
the sense of obligation of the citizens to the discharge of their duty
to their children and those of their fellow citizens." 
Aversion to taxation has been
the great obstacle to the schools in the Southern States. Taxes are
simply money paid for civilized government. The savage alone is exempt
from taxation. We were formerly taught that the best government was
that which levied the smallest taxes. The future will teach that liberal
taxation, fairly levied and properly applied, is the chief mark of a
civilized people. In the old days we heard that it was robbery to tax
Brown’s property to educate Jones' children. In the new day no one
will question the right of the [S]tate to tax both Brown and Jones to
develop the [S]tate through its children. 
has often been said that one government intervention leads to another.
In the historical case being examined here, we find this happening.
When supporters of State education of the indigent discovered that “the
poor would rather keep their children at home [rather] than to send
them to free [State] schools where they were branded [as] paupers,”
they argued that ALL children, not just poor children should be educated
at the expense of the State. "The true policy of the State is to
recognize no distinction betwixt the rich and the poor; to put them
all upon the same footing; ... .”  In other words, if children
of poor parents will not attend State schools, force everyone to attend
State schools in order to avoid the stigma of ‘pauper’ schools.
supporters of State-provided education had another way of defusing the
objection to 'pauper' schools. As John Minor observed: "the government
may give partial aid to all" via general taxation but still make
every able-bodied father pay some of the additional cost of educating
his children. This mixed method of local taxation and family contributions
was known as the rate-bill system. Here is how it worked. Local school
trustees contracted with a teacher for a term of teaching. At the end
of the term, "they g[a]ve him an order upon the town superintendent
for such portion of money as may have been voted by the district. ...
If the public money [wa]s not sufficient to pay the teacher's wages,
the trustees proceeded to make out a rate-bill for the residue, charging
each parent or guardian, according to the number of days' attendance
of his children."  Indigent families were exempt from such
additional taxation. In New York State, during the late 1840s, "something
like 40 per cent of the resources of the schools came from rates charged
struggle for and against the rate-bill system ran in two directions.
Parents who were assessed the extra charges wanted to foist those expenses
upon the State in the form of general taxation upon everyone. On the
other hand, the general taxpayers, especially those without children,
wanted the families of students to pay as much as they could. Furthermore,
since the rate-bill system required every family to pay in proportion
to the attendance of their children, there was a great inducement for
many parents to wink at the absence and truancy of their children from
school.  The final outcome of the struggle against the rate-bill
system was decided by the immigrants who crowded into the large cities,
such as New York. "They were without property to be taxed, but
many of them had a vote, and they demanded education."  The
preponderance of the citizenry was in favor of "free elementary
schools for all" and the last state to use the rate-bill system
abandoned this method in 1871. 
who agitated to eliminate the rate-bill system advocated what they called
"the free school" idea. This was the principle "that
the schools should be absolutely free to all and supported at public
and general expense."  No longer would individual parents be
assessed for sending their children to a local government school. Taxpayers
who had no children would be forced to bear part of the expense of paying
for the education of children via general taxation.
of the rhetoric to bring about this change is very interesting. In North
Carolina, Calvin Henderson Wiley was "one of the most devoted champions
of universal education our country has ever produced."  He
promoted state legislation which authorized the formation of districts
permitting the people to tax themselves for their local schools if they
desired to have them. He also assisted in founding "Library Associations"
to help teachers collect books and establish circulating libraries.
"Out of them grew county associations to improve the teachers,
to diffuse knowledge on educational subjects, to overcome the prejudices
against public schools, and to educate the public to tax themselves."
 State officials and school superintendents were also notorious
for wanting to expand the role of their states in educational endeavors.
As one commentator noted: "One of the duties of ... school officials
was to create a public sentiment in favor of public schools." 
For example, we find in Gov. Reuben Chapman's message to the Alabama
legislature of November 18, 1849 the following:
The subject of the common schools
deserves all the consideration and encouragement it is in the power
of the assembly to bestow. The whole theory of our form of Government
is based upon the capacity of the people. Without a general diffusion
of intelligence among them, the machinery of a Government thus constituted
can not be expected to move on successfully. The highest and most important
of all the duties of a free Government is to advance the cause of education,
and guard against that decline of liberty which results from neglecting
the minds of the people. 
Fifty years later, State School
Superintendent John W. Abercromie of Alabama speaking in 1900 said
[I]f we would properly qualify
our people for citizenship [we must] give to counties, townships, districts,
and municipalities the power of taxation for educational purposes. If
the people of any county, township, district, city or town desire to
levy a tax upon their property to build a schoolhouse, or to supplement
the State fund, for the purposes of educating their children, they should
have the ... power to do it. ...There should be no limit ... to
the power of the people who own property to tax themselves for the purpose
of fitting the children of the State for intelligent and patriotic citizenship.
organization that played a significant part in the expansion of government
schools in the South was a charitable trust founded in 1867, by George
Peabody (1795-1869), a wealthy Baltimore businessman.  The purpose
of the Peabody trust was to encourage and promote schools in "those
portions of our beloved and common country which ... suffered
... the destructive ravages ... of civil war."  Although there
was no stipulation in the original bequest of one million dollars, the
trustees of the George Peabody Educational Fund made the decision that
they would disburse funds only to those communities which would help
themselves by raising matching funds through taxation. The Peabody Fund
did not give aid to private or religious schools, or to any schools
not affiliated with their State’s system.  The Reverend Barnas
Sears was named general agent of the fund and he became one of the leading
agitators for free public elementary schools in the South after the
Civil War. "Free schools for the whole people" became his
motto.  According to Dabney. Dr. Sears "preached free public
schools as a necessity in a democratic government."  His stated
goal was to teach the taxpayers of the South "that there is no
more legitimate tax that can be levied on property than that for the
education of the masses."  Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry succeeded
Sears in 1881. "When told that 'the state had no right to tax one
man to educate another man's children, that it was dangerous to educate
the masses, or that to educate a poor white or a Negro meant to make
a criminal or to spoil a laborer'," Curry's reply was that "Ignorance
is no remedy for anything. If the State has a right to live at all,
it has a right to educate." 
State's right to exist was certainly never called into question by any
Southerners, even those who supported secession from the North. The
idea of "educating men for the service of the [S]tate traces back
to Plato."  Karl Marx embraced the idea in the tenth plank
of The Communist Manifesto, which he and Engels published 1848: "Free
education for all children in public schools." In 1855, William
Henry Ruffner, a Virginian, pointed out that "state education
is but educational communism," but even he and other opponents
of government-run education never objected on general principles to
the concept of taxation.  For example, Herbert Spencer in his 1842
series of articles "On the Proper Sphere of Government" never
once questioned the propriety or morality of forcing people to contribute
funds to a government which would then "administer justice."
Coming from a dissenting family, Spencer did recognize "the injustice
of expecting men to assist in the maintenance of a plan of instruction
which they do not approve; and forcing them to pay towards the expences
[sic] of teaching, from which neither they nor their children derive
any benefit."  But apparently Spencer had no problem with forcing
men to pay for police protection, defense from foreign enemies, and
the settlement of legal disputes. In short, he did not object to taxation
when it was used to support some function of government which he thought
necessary or of which he approved.
the voluntaryist, on the other hand, the very concept of taxation is
morally wrong. Taxation is theft. Government agents must initiate force,
or the threat of force, upon those who refuse to pay. R. C. Hoiles,
founder of the Freedom Newspapers, was probably the first libertarian
in the 20th Century to oppose government schools on the basis that they
were tax-supported. He used to argue: if it is morally wrong for A to
take money from B against B's will, then it is wrong for A and C to
take money from B. It is still wrong if A and C associate with hundreds
of thousands of others to rob B. As he used to ask, at what point
does the number of people involved in an act of thievery turn it into
a morally proper activity? The answer should be obvious: a wrong is
a wrong even if everyone supports it. 
an exchange of letters on "Why Homeschool" in 1993, I wrote
that the only consistent way to oppose government schools is to oppose
them because they are tax-supported.  That means opposing every
service government provides because everything the government does -
from police protection, roads, courts, defense against foreign enemies
to schools - is paid for via taxation. In short, that means opposing
the very concept of government itself because government could not exist
without taxation. Government violates the property rights of all those
from whom it collects taxes. If it gave people the choice to pay for
a service, or order less of it, or decline its services altogether,
without suffering any punishment, then there would be no difference
in principle between such a government and a voluntary organization.
People could shop for educational services wherever and however they
chose. Yes, some people would remain unable to read or write, if they
were not forced to attend schools, and if their parents were not forced
to pay for their schooling. However, it is interesting to note that
we have not overcome the problem of illiteracy even after a century
and a half of educational coercion and government schools. On the other
hand, we would have avoided all the ill-fated consequences of
government in our lives and schooling.
voluntaryists are opposed to the use of coercion to support governments,
the question of how government should spend its tax revenues disappears.
Most voluntaryists support education, roads, and protection services.
It is not these ends which they call into question, but rather the coercive
means used by the State to provide them. Since taxation is theft, taxation
cannot legitimately be used to attain any ends. And of one thing we
can be certain: If you take care of the means, the end will take care
of itself. And another: if you try to force the end, the means will
destroy and vitiate whatever good intentions you start out with.
is only one way to freedom and that is by voluntary means. All else
will fail. But neither is there any guarantee that voluntaryism will
succeed, but if it does, or at least to the extent that it does, we
can be assured that it will depend on obtaining people's willing cooperation.
Compelling them to "cooperate" is not only contradictory,
but it will never work.
 Charles William Dabney,
UNIVERSAL EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH In Two Volumes. All citations are to
Volume I: From the Beginnings to 1900, Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina Press, 1936, p. 3. On the influence of the Prussian educational
system in Virginia in the late 1830s, see Charles William Dabney, "Dr.
Benjamin M. Smith's Report on the Prussian Primary School System,"
in four installments beginning in XVI THE VIRGINIA TEACHER (September
1935), pp. 117-124.
 ibid., p. 4.
 ibid., p. 5.
 ibid., p. 8.
 John B. Minor, INSTITUTES
OF COMMON AND STATUTE LAW, Volume I, Second Edition, Richmond: Printed
for the Author, 1876, Book I, Chapter XVI, p. 384. It is interesting
to note how governments expanded Jefferson's idea of three months of
schooling per year for three years to nine or ten months of government
education per year for twelve years. Give governments an inch and they
will take a mile!
 Edgar W. Knight, PUBLIC
EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH, Boston: Ginn and Company, 1922, p. 161.
 ibid., p. 146.
 ibid., pp. 48-50 and p.
 Minor, op. cit., p. 396.
 Marcus W. Jernegan, "Compulsory
Education in the Southern Colonies, XXVII THE SCHOOL REVIEW (June 1919),
pp. 405-425 at p. 414 and p. 422.
 Knight, op. cit., p. 56.
 John C. Henderson, THOMAS
JEFFERSON'S VIEW ON PUBLIC EDUCATION, New York: AMS Press, 1970 (originally
published 1890), p. 35.
 Dabney, op. cit., p. 5.
 ibid., pp. 19-20.
 ibid., p. 10.
 Henderson, op. cit., pp.
 Dabney, op. cit., p. 13.
 Kerry L. Morgan, REAL
CHOICE REAL FREEDOM IN AMERICAN EDUCATION, Lanham: University Press
of America, 1997, p. 107 and p. 120 (Note 5).
 ibid., p. 106.
 ibid., p. 107.
 ibid., pp. 107-108.
 Dabney, op. cit., p. 27.
 John Furman Thomason,
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia: The
State Company, 1925, p. 223.
 William Arthur Maddox,
THE FREE SCHOOL IDEA IN VIRGINIA BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, New York: Teacher's
College, Columbia University, 1918. Reprint edition by Arno Press and
the New York Times, 1969, p. 16.
 Dabney, op. cit., p. 30
and p. 31.
 ibid., p. 35.
 ibid., p. 40.
 ibid., p. 302.
 ibid., p. 204. This is
a direct quote from Charles Duncan McIver, an agitator for public schools
in North Carolina throughout the 1890s.
 ibid., pp. 228-229.
 James B. Conant, THOMAS
JEFFERSON AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1962, pp. 33-34.
 ibid., p. 35
 ibid., p. 34.
 ibid., p. 36.
 Andrew Sloan Draper, ORIGIN
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Syracuse: C. W. Bardeen, Publisher, 1903, p. 52.
 Dabney, op. cit., p. 168.
 ibid., p. 170.
 Cornelius J. Heatwole,
A HISTORY OF EDUCATION IN VIRGINIA, New York: The Macmillan Company,
1916, p. 228.
 Stephen B. Weeks, HISTORY
OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION IN ALABAMA, Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1915. Reprinted by Negro Universities Press, Westport,
Connecticut, 1971, pp. 51-52.
 ibid., pp. 135-136. Also
cited in Knight, op. cit., pp. 423-424.
 Dabney, op. cit., p. 106.
 Knight, op. cit., p. 384.
 Dabney, op. cit, p. 111
and p. 116.
 Knight, op. cit., p. 386.
Barnas Sears (1802-1880) had been "the successor to Horace Mann
in the office of the Board of Education of Massachusetts" (Dabney,
op. cit., p. 111).
 Dabney, op. cit., p. 421.
 ibid., p. 119.
 ibid., p. 123 and p. 128.
 ibid., p. 13.
 William Henry Ruffner,
"State Education Radically Wrong," forthcoming in THE VOLUNTARYIST.
Originally written and published anonymously in the PRESBYTERIAN CRITIC
(1855) and reprinted 40 SOUTHERN PLANTER AND FARMER (April 1879).
 Herbert Spencer, THE PROPER
SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT, with an Introduction by George H. Smith. Special
reprint from RAMPART INDIVIDUALIST: A JOURNAL OF FREE MARKET SCHOLARSHIP,
Vol. I, No. 1 & 2 (no date), p. 85. "The Proper Sphere of Government"
was originally published in Edward Miall's THE NONCONFORMIST in twelve
parts, beginning in June 1842.
 "R. C. Hoiles Revisited,"
forthcoming in THE VOLUNTARYIST. Originally printed in the Colorado
Springs GAZETTE-TELEGRAPH, July 11, 1972, p. 6-A.
 "Why Homeschool?",
Excerpts of Correspondence between Helen Hegener and Carl Watner, Whole
No. 65, THE VOLUNTARYIST, December 1993, and reprinted in Carl Watner,
editor, I MUST SPEAK OUT, San Francisco: Fox and Wilkes, 1999, pp. 177-181.
Boxed quote to accompany this
There can be no
greater stretch of arbitrary power than is required to seize children
from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they
shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for
the procedure. ... "Free education" [is] the most absolute
contradiction of facts by terminology of which the language is capable.
Everything about such schools is compulsory, not free; ... . A tax-supported,
compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian
- Isabel Paterson, THE GOD OF THE MACHINE (1943),
from Chapter XXI, "Our Japanized Educational System."
[Note: Ms. Paterson failed to observe that the expropriation
was from all taxpayers, not just the parents.]