President Coolidge saying goodbye to his father, John. Courtesy of the Leslie Jones Collection.

Reflecting deeply on the man whom he sought to make proud all of his life, the man who was closest to him from the beginning, the “Colonel” who took him along as a young boy in the performance of the older man’s official responsibilities throughout Plymouth and the surrounding area, the President writes a very touching passage in his Autobiography. The man who trained, disciplined and loved him – Calvin’s father – summoned an especially poignant tribute from the President, whose eloquence pervades his memoirs. Coolidge writes, “At his advanced age he had overtaxed his strength receiving the thousands of visitors who went to my old home at Plymouth. It was all a great satisfaction to him and he would not have had it otherwise. When I was there and visitors were kept from the house for a short period, he would be really distressed in the thought that they could not see all they wished and he would go out where they were himself and mingle among them. I knew for some weeks that he was passing his last days. I sent to bring him to Washington, but he clung to his old home. It was a sore trial not to be able to be with him, but I had to leave him where he most wished to be. When his doctors advised me that he could survive only a short time I started to visit him, but he sank to rest while I was on my way. For my personal contact with him during his last months I had to resort to the poor substitute of the telephone. When I reached home he was gone. It costs a great deal to be President.”¹

In Memory of Danny Laverne Wright (February 8, 1955-January 18, 2015)

1 The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge, New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, 1929, pp.192,194.

“Our country has many elements in its population, many different modes of thinking and living, all of which are striving in their own way to be loyal to the high ideals worthy of the crown of American citizenship. It is fundamental of our institutions that they seek to guarantee to all our inhabitants the right to live their own lives under the protection of the public law. This does not include any license to injure others materially, physically, morally, to incite revolution, or to violate the established customs which have long had the sanction of enlightened society.

But it does mean the full right to liberty and equality before the law without distinction of race or creed. This condition can not be granted to others, or enjoyed by ourselves, except by the application of the principle of broadest tolerance. Bigotry is only another name for slavery. It reduces to serfdom not only those against whom it is directed, but also those who seek to apply it. An enlarged freedom can only be secured by the application of the golden rule. No other utterance ever presented such a practical rule of life” — President Calvin Coolidge, Third Annual Message, December 8, 1925 (Supplement to The Messages and Papers of the Presidents, p.9537).

News piece appearing in the Lynn Telegraph-News from the same year as Coolidge’s words above. Courtesy of the Catholic University of America.

Calvin Coolidge, November 1921

It is interesting to note that a number of states are considering a significant, and I would add, overdue change to the funding of education — giving the funds to parents. This raises the question of what would Coolidge think? We do not have to wonder very much, he told us.

When President Coolidge took up his predecessor’s call for a Cabinet-level Department of Education, he did not envision the pervasive reach of Washington into the daily operation, assignment of students, selection of curricula or the countless ways in which dollars from the Public Treasury purchase increasingly centralized control. In fact, he made it clear he opposed such a development. All these concerns were the responsibility of each state and local district unhampered to innovate, tailor its work to the needs of the students, parents and neighborhood, freed to not simply relate trivia but instill character and what made good citizenship. What he had in mind was not the current federal Department of Education, but rather a kind of information desk, where Americans all across the country could go to learn better methods, teaching techniques, and obtain help through the insight of others’ experiences in order to facilitate not the needs of Government but for Government to serve the needs of its employers, the American citizen and payer of taxes. This dovetailed with his belief in a Constitutional amendment to restrict child labor which, after approval by the Congress, fell short of the necessary two thirds of the states for ratification. Coolidge was not endorsing indolence among children, he pressed for both measures so that kids would not be forced to work the factories, mills and offices for their families, when they could instead be capitalizing on opportunities to educate themselves and thereby become better men and women, improved employers and employed, and more prepared for the work of tomorrow. While most of the country did not agree with either of his positions, however prescient his proposals were, most saw little harm coming from children learning a work ethic from early age, as his own boys did, Coolidge had a principled basis for his position.

He explained his views this way before the Convention of the National Education Association as it met in Washington, July 4, 1924,

“The encouragement and support of education is peculiarly the function of the several states. While the political units of the district, the township, and the county should not fail to make whatever contribution they are able, nevertheless, since the wealth and resources of the different communities vary, while the needs of the youth for education in the rich city and in the poor country are exactly the same, and the obligations of society toward them are exactly the same, it is proper that the state treasury should be called on to supply the needed deficiency. The state must contribute, set the standard, and provide supervision, if society is to discharge its full duty, not only to the youth of the country, but even to itself.

     “The cause of education has long had the thoughtful solicitude of the National Government. While it is realized that it is a state affair rather than a national affair, nevertheless, it has provided by law, a Bureau of Education. It has not been thought wise to undertake to collect money from the various states into the National Treasury and distribute it again among the various states for the direct support of education. It seemed a better policy to leave their taxable resources to the states, and permit them to make their own assessments for the support of their own schools in their own way. But for a long time the cause of education has been regarded as so important and so preeminently an American cause, that the National Government has sought to encourage it, scientifically to investigate its needs, and furnish information and advice for its constant advancement. Pending before the Congress is the report of a committee which proposes to establish a Department of Education and Relief, to be presided over by a cabinet officer. Bearing in mind that this does not mean any interference with the local control, but is rather an attempt to recognize and dignify the importance of educational effort, such proposal has my hearty endorsement and support…

     “While I believe that educators are under obligation to expend public funds economically, it seems obvious that the recent increase in expenses for this purpose is a most wise investment. It is impossible to conceive that there should be any increase in agricultural products in the production of manufactures, or any other increase in our material wealth, through ignorance. The reaction to using the resources of the country to develop the brains of the country through education has always been greatly to stimulate and increase the power of the people to produce.”

Outlining his thoughts before the Joint Session of Congress through his Annual Message the previous December, the President went further,

“Having in mind that education is peculiarly a local problem, and that it should always be pursued with the largest freedom of choice by students and parents, nevertheless, the Federal Government might well give the benefit of its counsel and encouragement more freely in this direction. If any one doubts the need of concerted action by the states of the nation for this purpose, it is only necessary to consider the appalling figures of illiteracy representing a condition which does not vary much in all parts of the Union. I do not favour the making of appropriations from the National Treasury to be expended directly on local education, but I do consider it a fundamental requirement of national activity which, accompanied by allied subjects of welfare, is worthy of a separate department and a place in the Cabinet. The humanitarian side of government should not be repressed, but should be cultivated.”

President Coolidge collaborating with Assistant Attorney General Mabel W. Willebrandt and Representative Israel M. Foster on child labor and education policy, June 7, 1924. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.