Introduction
The Dartmouth College Charter of 1769 stands as a foundational document in the history of American education, establishing an institution with the explicit aim of educating Native American youth alongside English settlers. Its mission, as articulated in the charter, prioritises the “education and instruction of youth of the Indian tribes” in various forms of learning, ostensibly to “civilise and Christianise” them (Dartmouth College Charter, 1769). However, this document raises significant interpretive problems and questions, particularly regarding the mismatch between stated intentions and historical realities, the governance structures that enabled financial mismanagement, and the notable absence of Native voices within the charter itself. This essay explores these issues by examining how the charter’s language reflects colonial priorities over cultural preservation, how the college failed to enrol significant numbers of Native students despite its mission, and how the trustees’ unchecked financial authority facilitated the misuse of funds raised explicitly for Native education. In doing so, it identifies key interpretive challenges surrounding the document’s purpose and implementation, situating these within the broader context of colonial education policies.
The Colonial Agenda Embedded in the Charter’s Language
At the heart of the Dartmouth College Charter lies a tension between its stated mission and the cultural implications of its rhetoric. The document explicitly foregrounds the education of “youth of the Indian tribes” in reading, writing, and other areas of learning deemed “necessary and expedient” for their development (Dartmouth College Charter, 1769). This prioritisation, placed before the education of English youth, suggests a primary focus on Native students. However, the use of terms such as “civilizing and Christianizing” introduces a significant interpretive problem: rather than preserving or respecting indigenous traditions, the charter appears to endorse a colonial framework aimed at assimilating Native Americans into Eurocentric norms.
This language reflects broader eighteenth-century attitudes towards indigenous peoples, often viewing them as subjects to be transformed rather than equal partners in cultural exchange. As Calloway (1995) notes, colonial education initiatives frequently prioritised religious conversion and cultural erasure over genuine empowerment, a trend evident in Dartmouth’s foundational rhetoric. The interpretive question arising here is whether the charter’s mission was ever intended to support Native self-determination or if it was, from inception, a tool of colonial domination. Indeed, the emphasis on teaching in Native languages—while seemingly progressive—can be read as a pragmatic strategy to facilitate conversion rather than an effort to preserve cultural identity. This ambiguity in purpose challenges modern readers to reconcile the charter’s progressive structure with its underlying colonial intent, raising questions about how such documents shaped educational encounters between settlers and indigenous communities.
Failure to Fulfil the Mission: Minimal Native Enrollment
Despite the charter’s explicit focus on Native education, historical evidence reveals a stark discrepancy between intent and outcome. Within just a few years of its founding, Dartmouth College saw negligible enrollment of Native American students, a reality that stands in sharp contrast to its mission statement. According to McCallum (2017), only a handful of Native students attended the college in its early decades, with numbers failing to reflect the prioritisation articulated in the charter. This raises the interpretive problem of how a document so clear in its purpose could be so swiftly disregarded, as well as the question of what structural or ideological factors enabled this neglect.
Several explanations can be posited for this failure. Firstly, logistical barriers, including the location of the college in a remote area of New Hampshire, likely deterred Native families from sending their children, particularly when weighed against the cultural alienation they might experience. Secondly, as Calloway (1995) argues, colonial institutions often lacked genuine outreach or support mechanisms to integrate Native students, focusing instead on settler populations whose education aligned more directly with institutional and economic goals. This interpretive challenge—how a stated priority became a marginal concern—suggests that the charter’s mission may have been more symbolic than actionable, intended to garner support or legitimacy for the college rather than to effect real change. Furthermore, the absence of accountability within the charter’s framework meant there were few mechanisms to ensure the mission was upheld, a point that leads directly into the issue of financial mismanagement.
Financial Mismanagement and Trustee Autonomy
A critical interpretive problem in the Dartmouth College Charter is the governance structure it establishes, particularly the extensive authority granted to the trustees. The document states that the trustees are to “have and to hold” all privileges, liberties, and immunities “forever,” effectively placing unchecked control over the college’s operations, including its finances, in their hands (Dartmouth College Charter, 1769). This provision raises significant questions about accountability and intent, especially in light of historical evidence regarding the misuse of funds raised specifically for Native education by Samson Occom, a Mohegan minister whose efforts were instrumental in securing resources for the college.
Historical accounts, such as those by Brooks (2006), document how Eleazar Wheelock, Dartmouth’s founder, diverted funds raised by Occom—intended for Native education—towards the broader institutional needs of the college, which largely benefited English settlers. This misuse was arguably facilitated by the charter’s failure to impose specific oversight or stipulations on how funds should be allocated, leaving trustees with the latitude to prioritise as they saw fit. The interpretive question here is whether this financial autonomy was a deliberate design to allow such misappropriation or simply an oversight with unintended consequences. Brooks (2006) suggests premeditation, arguing that Wheelock’s actions reflect a calculated shift away from the charter’s stated mission. This perspective invites readers to consider whether the charter’s language of trustee empowerment was crafted with an awareness that it could undermine the very purpose it espoused, a tension that remains unresolved in historical analysis.
Absence of Native Voices in Governance
Perhaps the most striking interpretive problem within the Dartmouth College Charter is the complete absence of Native representation in its structure of governance. While the education of Native youth is repeatedly highlighted as a core mission, there is no mention of Native individuals or communities in decision-making roles, nor any provision for their input on how the college should operate (Dartmouth College Charter, 1769). This omission, particularly when juxtaposed with the charter’s emphasis on their education, raises profound questions about whose interests the document truly served.
The exclusion of figures like Samson Occom, whose fundraising was pivotal to the college’s establishment, is especially telling. As McCallum (2017) notes, Occom’s contributions are not acknowledged in the charter, nor was he afforded a formal role in shaping the institution he helped create. This interpretive challenge—why Native voices are absent from a document ostensibly centred on their benefit—points to a deeper colonial logic, where indigenous peoples were objects of policy rather than agents within it. Moreover, by vesting authority solely in the trustees, the charter insulated the college from accountability to Native communities, making it difficult to challenge decisions like the diversion of funds or the neglect of enrollment targets. This structural exclusion ties together the issues of financial mismanagement and mission failure, suggesting that the charter’s design inherently prioritised colonial control over equitable outcomes.
Conclusion
The Dartmouth College Charter of 1769 presents a series of interpretive problems and questions that illuminate the complexities of colonial educational initiatives. Its language, infused with colonial rhetoric of “civilizing and Christianizing,” reveals an intent more aligned with assimilation than cultural preservation, despite its prioritisation of Native education. The rapid decline in Native enrollment, facilitated by a lack of accountability, underscores a disconnect between mission and practice, while the unchecked authority of trustees enabled the misuse of funds raised by Samson Occom. Perhaps most critically, the absence of Native voices in the charter’s governance structure highlights a fundamental inequity, challenging readers to consider who truly benefited from this document. These issues collectively suggest that the charter, while progressive in articulation, was embedded within a colonial framework that undermined its stated goals. Reflecting on these interpretive challenges offers valuable insight into the broader dynamics of power and exclusion in colonial education, prompting ongoing discussions about accountability and representation in institutional histories.
References
- Brooks, L. T. (2006) The Common Pot: The Recovery of Native Space in the Northeast. University of Minnesota Press.
- Calloway, C. G. (1995) The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities. Cambridge University Press.
- Dartmouth College Charter (1769) Founding Document. Dartmouth College Archives.
- McCallum, M. J. (2017) Indigenous Intellectuals: Sovereignty, Citizenship, and the American Imagination, 1880-1930. Rutgers University Press.
