Voltaire, the cynic, maintained that “history did not _always_ lie,”
which statement, though somewhat exaggerated, contains the proverbial
exception which often proves the rule. The collector who adds to his
store such autographs as are held for their historical value, soon
realizes that writers of history often fail in their work, through
ignorance of their subject, or from prejudice against giving the truth
and nothing but the truth. History repeats itself, and at all times
truth has been so warped, to serve one purpose or another, that the
historical student, especially, rarely fails to become the confirmed
skeptic in his branch of knowledge. But the subject of historical
accuracy, even in relation to American history, is too extensive a one
to be treated of by a single individual or encompassed within the space
which could be allotted to an article of this character. The author,
therefore, proposes to confine himself to the presentation of some of
the historical material which is or has been in his own collection.
The people of New England have, from their earliest settlement, been as
noted for the care with which they have preserved their records as the
people of the other Colonies for their indifference in this regard. It
should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that in consequence of
the great wealth of this material in New England, the greater portion of
our writers on American history and the compilers of our school books
have been, until within a comparatively recent period, of New England
birth or residence. The presence herein of a great temptation and of a
great danger to historical accuracy are immediately seen, and the author
believes that a just criticism of the works on Colonial and
Revolutionary history, especially those written prior to five-and-twenty
years ago, would involve the accusation of a general lack of fairness
toward the other Colonies. This unfairness consisted in giving undue
prominence to the acts of the New England people, both individually and
collectively, at the expense of the full credit due to others, and this
has been done, not infrequently, when this recognition might have been
given without in any degree lessening that justly due to their own
people. But apart from this want of fairness, or at least indifference,
in the treatment of the deeds of others, foreign to their own territory,
the manuscript material itself was sometimes falsified, as for example,
it is believed Sparks did in the matter of Washington’s letters. General
Washington was a man of very strong passions and was undoubtedly
prejudiced against many of the peculiarities of the New Englanders of
his day. And although few men held themselves in better restraint than
he, he would nevertheless, at times, express himself very freely in
regard to the men and measures of New England.
It is said that Sparks manipulated Washington’s correspondence by
striking out every reflection made against the New England people and by
suppressing many letters. Both of these charges the author believes to
be true from his own observation. It has also been charged that in other
instances, Sparks made such interpolations of his own as entirely to
change the original meaning, but of this the writer has no personal
knowledge.
That the full significance and effect of the spirit of unfairness
pervading these writers of history, may be fully appreciated by the
reader, it must be borne in mind that they had access at one time to an
immense mass of material which was not available outside of New England.
Moreover, the New England authorities were in such frequent
communication with all other portions of the country, that the mass of
correspondence, thus gained and preserved, offered the means of doing
fullest justice to the other Colonies, which were afterwards found to be
themselves often without proof necessary to establish their just claims.
The following examples are now offered as evidences of one-sided history
making: