PUBLIC OPINION
AND THE
TEACHING OF HISTORY
_SOME RECENT BORZOI TEXTS_
THE HISTORY AND PROSPECTS OF THE
SOCIAL SCIENCES
_edited by Harry Elmer Barnes_
A GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF ENGLISH
HISTORY
_by William T. Morgan_
HISTORY AND SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
_by Harry Elmer Barnes_
FACTORS IN MODERN HISTORY
_by A. F. Pollard_
A HISTORY OF RUSSIA
_by Sir Bernard Pares_
Public Opinion and
The Teaching of History
in the United States
BY
BESSIE LOUISE PIERCE, PH.D.
_Associate Professor of History, University of Iowa_
_Head of the Department of Social Studies
University High School_
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
ALFRED A. KNOPF
1926
COPYRIGHT, 1926, BY ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC.
SET UP, ELECTROTYPED, PRINTED AND BOUND
BY THE PLIMPTON PRESS, NORWOOD, MASS.
PAPER SUPPLIED BY S. D. WARREN & CO.
BOSTON, MASS.
MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TO
ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER
IN GRATITUDE
PREFACE
Many influences have conditioned the teaching of history in the public
schools--local and national, statutory and constitutional, ephemeral
and enduring, religious, educational, racial and patriotic.
It is the purpose of this study to give an historical account of some
of the attempts to control the teaching of history in the public
schools. The first four chapters trace the legislative control that
has been exerted in all periods of our history, beginning with the
educational enactments of the early colonies and following the
development of the curriculum to the present time.
Such statutory control falls into fairly definite periods. The first
embraces the earliest statutes relating to public education. During
this period history was introduced into the school curriculum as a
separate subject specified by law. The next stage, 1860 to 1900, was
characterized by the influences set in motion by the Civil War and
the Economic Revolution. In the years from 1900 to 1917, the history
curriculum reflected the new interest of the American people in the
social and economic conditions that had developed. From 1917 to the
present, the dominant note has been a dynamic patriotism growing out of
the World War.
Besides the legislative aspects of the subject, I have endeavored to
set forth the propagandist influences on textbook-making exerted by
religious, patriotic, racial and other organized groups. Within the
last five years attention to an unprecedented degree has been focused
upon history and its allied subjects. Although much interest has been
attached to the agitation carried on since the World War, similar
movements marked earlier periods. A chapter on Disloyalty Charges
against Teachers since 1917 has been included as pertinent to the
discussion in general.
Because of their kinship with history, the other social studies have
been considered. The term _social studies_ has been used to embrace
history, economics, government and sociology. Geography has not been
included, because it but recently acquired a place in the curriculum
as a social study. More attention, furthermore, has been paid to the
subject of history, since it has been the chief social study in the
public school curriculum. There has been no attempt to portray the
extent to which laws have been enforced. Throughout it has been my
desire to narrate without partiality or prejudice the facts relating to
the subject under discussion.
In the preparation of this volume I am indebted to many friends for
advice and coöperation in obtaining material. In the search for
present-day conditions I have drawn heavily upon many correspondents
including school superintendents, textbook authors and publishers, as
well as those engaged in criticising school histories. To all who have
aided, I would here express my sincere gratitude. I have particularly
profited by the guidance and constructive criticism of Professor Arthur
M. Schlesinger of Harvard University, who first called the subject
to my attention, and who is chiefly responsible for whatever merit
there is in this study. I am indebted for many helpful suggestions to
Professor Ernest Horn of the University of Iowa, to Professor Carl
Wittke of Ohio State University, and to Dr. Richard J. Purcell of the
Catholic University of America. These acknowledgments would not be
complete without mentioning my obligation to my sister, Anne E. Pierce,
for assistance at all stages in the preparation of the manuscript, and
to my mother, whose spirit of coöperation has proved a constant source
of inspiration.
B. L. P.
CONTENTS
PART I
STATUTORY REGULATION OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
I. The Periods of Beginnings 3
II. Nationalism and Localism in History Legislation, 1860-1900 12
III. Laws for the Expansion of the History Curriculum, 1900-1917 43
IV. The Effect of the World War on Laws for Teaching History 70
V. Disloyalty Charges Against Teachers Since 1917 111
PART II
THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES
VI. Attempts to Control Textbooks 135
VII. The Attack on History Textbooks Since 1917 206
Appendices 301
Bibliography 339
Index 355
PART I
STATUTORY REGULATION OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
“The law is only a memorandum ... and as fast as the public mind
is opened to more intelligence, the code is seen to be brute and
stammering. It speaks not articulately and must be made to.... The
history of the State sketches in coarse outline the progress of
thought, and follows at a distance the delicacy of culture and of
aspiration.”
EMERSON, _Essays and English Traits_.
PART I
STATUTORY REGULATION OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
CHAPTER I
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS
Statutory prescriptions of history as a specific subject in the
American public school had their beginning in the years between 1827
and 1860; yet the way for such enactments had been charted by earlier
educational legislation. For example, in 1642 the Massachusetts
Puritans provided that every child be taught enough “to read and
understand the principles of religion and the capital laws of the
country,”[1] and returning to the subject in 1647, expressed their
belief that education would serve to “thwart that auld deluder Sathan”
whose “cheife project [was] to keep men from ye knowledge of ye
Scriptures.”[2]
In the course of time it was natural that the function of education
should enlarge. From the religious conception inevitably sprang a
belief in education as a means of imparting an understanding of the
principles of “right living.” The individual as a virtuous, polite, and
exemplary force in the community became the objective of the lawmaker.
Closely allied with this conviction was a faith in education as an
instrument for teaching patriotism and for training in the fundamentals
of government. Thus, in 1732, New York justified the establishment of
her schools on the ground that “good Learning is not only a very great
Accomplishment but the properest Means to Attain Knowledge, Improve the
Mind, Morality and good Manners and to make Men better, wiser and more
useful to their Country as well as to themselves.”[3]
In 1780 Massachusetts took a similar stand,[4] perceiving in her
schools a method of directing the masses in the great undertaking of
self-government,--a function recognized by Washington, John Adams,
Jefferson and other men of the day.[5] Other commonwealths also
accepted education as a means to “preserve and perfect a Republican
Constitution” and to “secure the blessings of liberty.”[6]
These early laws thus paved the way for those of a later time. They
laid the foundation of an education directed toward the development of
civic efficiency. Yet their influence was circumscribed by the virtual
absence of free, public schools. This lack, however, the second quarter
of the nineteenth century was destined to remedy; for such was the
democratic awakening of the ’twenties and ’thirties that nearly every
field of human activity was transformed. Trade associations attested
a quickened consciousness in the laboring man; reform movements bore
testimony to a new social point of view; and an aroused electorate
chose for the highest office of the land that exponent of democracy,
Andrew Jackson.[7]
In the states outside of New England little had been accomplished
in the early years of the century toward the establishment of
tax-supported schools. With the extension of manhood suffrage, however,
came the realization that the functions of government were safe only
in the hands of an enlightened electorate--a conviction which had come
only after much agitation and bitter argument. Gradually and inevitably
the public school, supported by public funds, became the embodiment of
the democratic ideal in which “intelligence is the grand condition.”[8]
The year 1827 signalized the entrance of United States history into
the school curriculum as a study required by law. At this time both
Massachusetts and Vermont made the teaching of national history
compulsory. The Massachusetts law provided that “every town, containing
five hundred families or householders, shall maintain a school to be
kept by a master of competent ability and good morals, who shall ...
give instruction in the history of the United States, book-keeping,
surveying, geometry, and algebra; and such last mentioned school
shall be kept for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the town, ten
months at least, exclusive of vacations each year ...; and in every
town containing four thousand inhabitants, the said master shall, in
addition to all the branches of instruction before required in this
chapter be competent to instruct in the Latin and Greek languages, and
history, rhetoric and logic.”[9] The Vermont statute, designed for the
elementary school, required that “each organized town in this state
shall keep and support a school or schools, provided with a teacher
or teachers, of good morals, for the instruction of youths in ... the
history of the United States, and good behavior.”[10]
Counterparts of these laws presently appeared in other states. In 1846
New Hampshire prescribed history as a subject in high schools,[11]
and shortly after it was sanctioned by Rhode Island.[12] In 1857
the Massachusetts legislature placed United States history in her
elementary schools, and added general history, the “civil polity” of
the commonwealth and political economy to the required subjects for
high schools.[13] Three years later, she again committed herself in
favor of the social studies in the curriculum. “In every town,” the
law read, “there shall be kept for at least six months in each year, a
sufficient number of schools for the instruction of all the children
... in orthography, reading, writing, English grammar, geography,
arithmetic, the history of the United States and good behavior....”
This law further required in every town of five hundred families or
householders the maintenance of a school in which instruction in
general history and the “civil polity” of the commonwealth and of the
United States should be given,[14] and also permitted the teaching of
political economy.[15]
The South did not awaken to the needs of public education at this
early period because of its institutional and economic development.
Virginia was the only state of that section to enact legislation
relating to the teaching of history before the Civil War. In 1849 she
provided that in district schools “shall be thoroughly taught, ...
history, especially that of the United States and of Virginia.”[16]
None of the states of the Middle West followed the example set by
Massachusetts and Vermont in 1827; but California, still in a pioneer
stage of development, required instruction in the federal and state
constitutions in her grammar schools, as well as political economy
in the high schools.[17] This provision constitutes one of the
first attempts by statute to place the subject of government in the
curriculum, although several of the older states had at an early time
emphasized the necessity of a knowledge of the state law.[18] In fact,
such was the lack of systematic instruction in “political morals”
at this time, that foreign travelers commented upon it, and Harriet
Martineau stigmatized it as “an enormous deficiency in a republic,”
where participation in government was a birthright of all.[19]
By 1860, only six states had passed laws requiring the teaching of the
social studies. To the east lay Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire,
and Rhode Island; to the south, Virginia; and to the far west,
California. To the first requirement of United States history had been
added provisions necessitating the presentation of general history,
political economy and civil government, and Virginia had prescribed a
study of the history of the state.[20] It was not until after the Civil
War that history acquired a real place in the public school curriculum.
THE CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS
The interest awakened in public education led also to the passage of
laws for the certification of teachers. Often legislation of this type
indirectly describes the character of the curriculum, for, in general,
the teacher was examined in those subjects which he was expected to
teach. At an early time, the chief qualifications for teachers seemed
to be “good morals” and “competency,” but with the expansion of the
curriculum, there were added, in many cases, specifically named
subjects.[21]
Thus a Connecticut law of 1841 provided that “the board of visitors
[of the schools] ... shall ... examine all candidates for teachers
... and shall give to these persons with whose moral character,
literary attainments, and ability to teach, they are satisfied, a
certificate, setting forth the branches he or she is found capable of
teaching; provided that no certificate shall be given to any person not
found qualified to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and grammar,
thoroughly, and the rudiments of geography and history.”[22] In 1857
in the _Revisions_ of their laws, Maine and Rhode Island specified a
knowledge of history as a necessary qualification for a teacher.[23]
Illinois, in her _Revised Statutes_ of 1845, included a law which
made it the duty of the school commissioner to examine “any persons
proposing to teach a common school, in any township in his county,” on
the candidate’s ability to teach the usual branches, including “the
history of the United States.”[24]
In 1846, during the period of her earliest legislation, Iowa
prescribed the history of the United States as a requirement for a
teacher’s license. This state is an example of those states which have
passed little legislation defining the content of the curriculum, but
have secured the same end by specifying subjects for the examination
of their teachers. The law appeared again in the _Code_ of 1851, but
history was dropped from the required list of subjects in 1858.[25]
Legislation in Nebraska took much the same course as had that in Iowa.
In 1855, the territorial laws placed United States history among the
subjects required in a teacher’s examination, but the laws of 1856
ignored it as a prescribed subject.[26]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Shurtleff, N. B., ed., _Records of the Governor and Company of the
Massachusetts Bay in New England_, 5 v. (Boston, 1853), Vol. II, p. 6.
[2] _Ibid._, p. 203. Connecticut in 1650 expressed a similar purpose
for the establishment of her schools. _The Code of Connecticut_, 1650,
p. 90.
[3] _Laws of the Colony of New York, 1720-1737_, Vol. II, p. 813.
[4] “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally
among the body of the people being necessary for the preservation
of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the
opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the
country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the
duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this
commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences,
and all seminaries of them; ... especially public schools and grammar
schools in towns; ...” Thorpe, Francis Newton, editor, _The Federal
and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of
the States, Territories, Now or Heretofore Forming the United States
of America_. 7 v. (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1909),
Vol. II, p. 1907. Similar statements were placed in the constitutions
of neighboring New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. Indiana, Arkansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas
and North Dakota have likewise pinned their faith to “knowledge and
learning” as an agent for democratizing the government as well as
for the encouragement of “the principles of humanity, industry, and
morality.” _Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 2487; Vol. II, pp. 1069, 1086; Vol.
I, pp. 283, 322, 353; Vol. IV, p. 2080; p. 2212; Vol. VI, p. 3233; p.
3373; p. 3469; Vol. II, p. 1232; Vol. V, p. 2872. In constitutions
adopted at a much later time the same purposes of education are often
expressed. In 1789 a Massachusetts law charged “instructors of youth”
that they should “take diligent care, and to exert their best endeavors
to impress on the minds of children and youth committed to their care
and instruction, the principles of piety, justice, and a sacred regard
to truth, love to their country, humanity, and universal benevolence,
sobriety, industry, and frugality, chastity, moderation and temperance,
and those other virtues which are the ornament of human society, and
the basis upon which the Republican Constitution is structured. And it
shall be the duty of such instructors to endeavor to lead those under
their care (as their ages and capacities will admit) into a particular
understanding of the tendency of the above mentioned virtues, to
preserve and perfect a Republican Constitution, and to secure the
blessings of liberty, as well as to promote their future happiness; and
the tendency of the opposite vices to slavery and ruin.” _Statutes_ of
Massachusetts, 1780-1807, sec. 4, Vol. I, pp. 470-471. On the statute
books in 1823. Also _Statutes_, 1826, ch. 143, p. 180; also _General
Statutes_, 1860, ch. 38, sec. 10, p. 216; also _Public Statutes_,
1882, ch. 44, sec. 16. This law became the source of many similar in
character.
[5] In 1784, Jefferson took occasion to declare, “In every government
on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and
degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly
open, cultivate and improve. Every government degenerates when trusted
to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only
safe depositories; and to render even them safe, their minds must be
improved to a certain degree.” Jefferson, Thomas, _The Writings of
Thomas Jefferson_. Paul Leicester Ford, ed. (New York, 1894), Vol. III,
p. 254.
[6] See footnote 4 for the Massachusetts law of 1789. _Statutes_ of
New Hampshire, 1830, title XCII, ch. 1, sec. 8, p. 431; also _Compiled
Statutes_, 1853, sec. 20, p. 179. _Statutes_ of Maine, 1821, Vol.
II, sec. 2, p. 504, also _Revised Statutes_, 1840, ch. 17, p. 170.
_Supplement to Revised Statutes_, 1885-1895, ch. 11, sec. 91; _Acts
and Resolves_, 1917, ch. 228, p. 263. _Revised Code_ of Mississippi,
1824, ch. 82, sec. 14, p. 407; _Ibid._, 1840, ch. 9, sec. 12, p. 124.
_Statutes_ of Indiana, 1806, p. 17. _Revised Statutes_ of Illinois,
1833, p. 556.
[7] An illuminating discussion of “Jacksonian Democracy” is found in
Arthur M. Schlesinger’s _New Viewpoints in American History_ (New York,
1922).
[8] Mann, Horace, _Annual Reports on Education_ (Boston, 1868), pp.
523-558.
[9] _Laws of Massachusetts_, 1827, ch. 148, p. 180; also _Revised
Statutes_, 1836, ch. 23, p. 218. In the _Revised Statutes_ “general
history,” not “history,” is required.
[10] _Laws of Vermont_ ... to 1834, ch. 50 (1827), sec. 1, p. 136; also
_Revised Statutes_, 1840, ch. XVIII, sec. 1, p. 111; also _Compiled
Statutes_, 1851, p. 144.
[11] _Laws of New Hampshire_, 1845, ch. 220, sec. 6; also _Compiled
Statutes_, 1853, ch. 79, sec. 6, p. 183. This law was retained in 1863.
[12] _Revised Statutes_ of Rhode Island, 1857, ch. 67, sec. 3, p. 173.
[13] _Acts and Resolves_ of Massachusetts, 1857, ch. 206, sec. 1, p.
542.
[14] _General Statutes of Massachusetts_, 1860, ch. 38, sec. 1, p.
215; _Public Statutes_, 1882, ch. 44, sec. 1, p. 299. According to a
table in ‘A. J. Inglis’ _The Rise of the High School in Massachusetts_
(Columbia University, New York, 1911), p. 90, history was offered in
six out of seven towns in 1860, with a per cent of 200 with algebra as
a base of 100 per cent. This would indicate an interest in history to a
considerable extent.
[15] _Political economy_ as a term included _political science_ as we
understand it today. _Cf._ Inglis, _op. cit._, p. 141.
[16] _Laws of Virginia_, 1848-49, ch. 110. An act establishing free
schools in the county of Albemarle, p. 60.
[17] _Laws of California_, 1851, ch. 126, art. VII, sec. 2, p. 499.
[18] Connecticut, as early as 1796, had emphasized the necessity
of inculcating a knowledge of the state law, prescribing that “all
parents and masters of children, shall by themselves or others teach
and instruct ..., all such children as are under their care and
government, according to their ability, and to read the English tongue
well, and to know the laws against capital offenses....” _Statutes_
of Connecticut, 1796, p. 60. The law further stated that in case it
was impossible to comply with the statement quoted above the children
should at least be instructed to answer certain parts of the catechism.
To enforce the law, a fine of $3.34 to be used for the poor of the
town was imposed upon all parents who failed in compliance. Also _cf._
law of Massachusetts of 1642, page 3. Massachusetts also in 1789 had
emphasized the necessity of training the youth of the commonwealth
“to preserve and perfect a Republican Constitution and to secure the
blessings of liberty as well as to promote their future happiness.”
_Laws_ of Massachusetts, 1780-1807, sec. 4, Vol. I, pp. 470-471. Again
in 1826, ch. 143, p. 180.
[19] Martineau, Harriet, _Society in America_ (London, 1837), Vol. III,
p. 165.
[20] The year in which the Virginia law was passed, 1849, was a time of
sectional discord. Sectional interest may have entered into the passage
of the law.
[21] In the discussion of the qualifications of teachers, in each
period there is a neglect of all laws in which history or some
other social study is not specifically named. Regulations often are
quite definite regarding the qualifications of teachers in rural
and elementary schools, with no statement or with no definitely
named qualifications for high school teachers. In some states the
superintendent of public instruction or some other official prescribes
the subjects in which the examination is held. The tendency of recent
legislation has been to accept graduation from reputable colleges
or universities giving training in methods of teaching, in lieu of
examination.
[22] _Acts_ of Connecticut, 1841, p. 47; _Revised Statutes_, 1849, sec.
22, p. 300; _Statutes_, 1854, p. 414; _General Statutes_, 1866, p.
132; _ibid._, 1875, ch. 4, sec. 1; _ibid._, 1888, sec. 2135, p. 466;
_ibid._, 1902, par. 2245, p. 584; _ibid._, 1918, ch. 56, par. 1007,
Vol. I, p. 349. Additions and slight changes have been made in the
regulations for the social studies. With modifications the law has been
on the statute books from 1841 to the present.
[23] _Revised Statutes_ of Maine, 1857, sec. 49; _ibid._, 1871, ch. 11,
sec. 54; _Acts and Resolves_, 1873, ch. 120, p. 76; _ibid._, 1891, ch.
32, p. 20; _ibid._, 1895, ch. 155, p. 173. _Revised Statutes_ of Rhode
Island, 1857, ch. 67, sec. 3, p. 173.
[24] In 1845 the law was slightly modified to distinguish between
grades of certificates, but in all cases United States history was
prerequisite to certification, and in 1905, Illinois history was
added to the qualifications necessary for a license. In 1913, in the
requirements for a state certificate she included sociology among
the subjects for examination, and for the first, second and third
grade certificates, United States history, civics and the history of
Illinois. _Revised Statutes_ of Illinois, 1845, ch. XCVIII, sec. 12,
p. 498. The law is substantially the same, _Statutes_, 1856, ch. 198,
sec. XLVI, Vol. II, p. 1098; _ibid._, 1858, sec. 50, p. 449. _Laws_,
1865, sec. 19, p. 119; _Revised Statutes_, 1874, ch. 122, 51, p.
963; _Annotated Statutes_, 1885, ch. 122, sec. 51, p. 2229; _Revised
Statutes_, 1903, ch. 122, 187, par. 3, p. 1683; _ibid._, 1906, 187,
par. 3, p. 1820. During this period these subjects were to be taught
in the schools. _Revised Statutes_ of Illinois, 1913, ch. 122, 541,
par. 2, p. 2270; _Laws_, 1913, p. 588 (Senate Bill No. 355, approved
June 28, 1913); the same for the social studies in the laws of 1903 and
1905, also in 1917 and in 1919. See _Revised Statutes_, 1917, ch. 122,
p. 2216; and _Laws_, 1919, ch. 122, p. 900.
[25] _Acts_ of Iowa, 1846, sec. 72, p. 105; _Code_ of Iowa, 1851,
sec. 1148, p. 181; _Acts_, 1858, p. 72; _Code_, 1873, sec. 1766, p.
325; _Acts_, 1878, ch. 143, p. 130. In 1882, regulatory provision
requiring for a state certificate a knowledge of civil government, the
constitution and laws of Iowa, besides history of the United States,
passed the legislature, and economics and civics were added to the
subjects required for certification in 1896; _Acts_, 1882, ch. 167,
sec. 4, p. 153. _Acts_, 1896, ch. 39 (H. F. 135), p. 44. _Supplement to
Code_, 1902, sec. 2736, p. 315, for first grade certificate, civics,
elementary economics besides the requirements of second grade, which
included history of the United States; also _Acts_, 1906, ch. 122, sec.
4, p. 88.
[26] _Laws_ of Nebraska, 1855, par. 61, p. 220; _ibid._, 1858, p. 292;
_ibid._, 1872, p. 55; _ibid._, 1881, sec. 5, pp. 359, 366; _ibid._,
1885, sec. 5, p. 327. The same subjects as in 1881 in _Laws_, 1901,
ch. 66, p. 448; _ibid._, 1903, ch. 135, p. 559. Also _Consolidated
Statutes_, 1891, ch. 44, 3624, p. 792; _ibid._, 1903, 5542, sec. 5.
In 1891, there is a distinction made in the grades of certificates,
requiring civil government and United States history in all but the
lowest grade, _Revised Statutes_, 1913, ch. 71, art. XIII, 6857,
sec. 158, p. 1913, 6859, sec. 160, p. 1914. In 1881 United States
history and civics were added to the prescribed subjects for a second
grade certificate, and for a professional state certificate general
history, political economy, civil government and American history
were required. In the forty years intervening between 1881 and 1921,
there is no change in the prerequisites for county certificates,
state certificates, and the additional certificates of more recent
origin--city certificates--so far as the social studies are concerned,
with the exception of the dropping of political economy from the
required list by 1919. _Laws_ of Nebraska, 1919, 1921, ch. 70, sec. 2,
p. 262.
CHAPTER II
NATIONALISM AND LOCALISM IN HISTORY LEGISLATION, 1860-1900
THE CURRICULUM
The Civil War marked a turning point in American history. Forces
undreamed of before 1860 conspired to change the whole tenor of
American life. From isolated rural communities of simple tastes and
unexploited resources, the United States emerged into a growing
urbanization of multifarious activities. Prior to 1860 there had been
little change from the days of George Washington, when nine-tenths
of the people had been engaged in agriculture; by 1890, however, the
population had so shifted that more than one-third dwelt in towns of
over two thousand inhabitants.
These vast and far-reaching changes were brought about by an expansion
particularly in the fields of transportation, agriculture, and
manufacturing. Steam, electricity, progress in invention, the growth of
an immigrant population, and the opening of new lands to settlement,
all served as contributing factors. It was a period characterized by a
strong national sentiment. The theory of state rights had been settled
forever by the victory of the Union in 1865, and a realization of the
great opportunities of America bore the fruit of patriotic fervor.
Nationalism expressed itself in the nationalization of industry, in
the organization of national labor units, in the nationalization of
the financial resources of the country, and in a deepened interest in
the public school system. It led inevitably to a new appreciation of
the distinctive contributions of local communities to the new national
spirit, and was, in a sense, responsible for a strong reaction toward
deep-seated local interests in the ’nineties.
These vast changes necessitated new aims and purposes in education.
The preceding period had witnessed the educational system transformed
from an instrument of the church into one of the state. By 1860 the
theory of tax-supported schools had become established, and most
states provided at least elementary instruction. By 1880, legal and
legislative objections to the establishment of high schools had
succumbed to the conviction that education was essential in the new
social and industrial order. There came to be an abiding faith in the
power of education to regenerate society. The “knowledge aim” of the
preceding decades was followed by the desire for a citizenship trained
to active participation in the society of which it was the warp and
woof. As a result, those subjects in the curriculum tending to promote
patriotism and good citizenship received the sanction of the educator.
Although history had been found to some extent in the school curriculum
before the Civil War, there had been no general acceptance of it as
a required study.[27] Now in the form of United States history it
was received with widespread approval. A gradual extension of the
requirements grew out of the spirit of the times, and to American
history was added the study of the constitution of the nation and of
the state, as well as the study of state history. Twenty-three states,
during the four decades following 1860, placed upon their statute books
laws requiring the teaching of history in the public schools. Over
one-fourth of these commonwealths lay below the Mason and Dixon line,
the states of the Middle and Far West becoming the most active after
1880.
In 1862, Vermont, in a law dealing with “the instruction of the
young,” prescribed history and the constitution of the United States,
and special instruction in “the geography, and history, constitution
and principles of government of the state of Vermont” as a part of
the school curriculum.[28] A later law extended the social studies
curriculum, for towns of twenty-five hundred inhabitants, to embrace
political economy, general history, and civil government in the high
school course.[29] The nearby state of Connecticut included in her law,
regarding the branches to be taught in her schools, the subject of
“history,” later specifying “United States history.”[30]
During the early years of the period Southern legislatures were
particularly active, both in the border states and in the Confederacy.
In each case the legislation was responsive to the nationalistic
tendencies of the time; and, in the states of the Confederacy, the
study of national history and of the federal constitution were
for the first time required by law.[31] Such statutes, sometimes
enacted before the restoration of home rule and under the influence
of Reconstruction agencies, sought, through the public schools, to
overcome the intensified sectionalism of the post-war South. Laws
making it a duty of the teacher to inculcate a proper attitude toward
“the laws and government of the country” had much the same purpose
as those requiring specifically the study of United States history
and government. Thus a law of the first legislative assembly of West
Virginia, passed December 10, 1863, made it the duty of all public
school teachers “to inculcate the duties of piety, morality and respect
for the laws and government of their country.” All teachers and boards
of education were expressly “charged with the duty of providing that
moral training for the youth of this state which shall contribute to
securing good behavior and virtuous conduct, and to furnishing the
state with exemplary citizens.” In 1874, a statute designed for the
primary schools of the state prescribed the teaching of the common
school subjects including geography and history.[32]
Similar enactments were passed by Missouri and Maryland in 1865. In
Missouri, it was provided that “all teachers, when employed shall be
required to instruct their pupils in the fundamental principles of
the Government of the United States and of the State of Missouri, and
the duties of loyal citizens thereto.”[33] Maryland, in 1865, made it
a duty of her teachers to train their pupils in piety and justice,
loyalty and sacred regard for truth, and in love of country; and to
lead them into a clear understanding of the virtues which were the
basis upon which was founded a republican constitution; “to preserve
the blessings of liberty, promote temporal happiness and advance the
greatness of the American Nation.”[34] The study of United States
history was likewise required, followed in 1868 by the subject of
government, both federal and state. It was not until a few years later
that state history was added to the prescribed list.[35]
Among the first of the states of the Confederacy to enact laws
requiring the teaching of United States history were Arkansas, South
Carolina and Mississippi.[36] Passed during the period of carpet-bag
control, their statutes show plainly the effects of reconstruction
influences. The Arkansas law of 1868 and South Carolina’s law of 1870
prescribed not only the study of national history but also required a
knowledge of the principles of the federal and state constitutions.
In 1881, North Carolina enacted a statute for the teaching of both
national and state history, and Tennessee, in 1873, accorded a place to
United States history among the subjects required in her schools.[37]
It was not until later that the Alabama _Code_ records similar action
by the legislature of that state in prescribing instruction in “the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State
of Alabama” for “all pupils in all schools and colleges supported, in
whole or in part, by public money, or under state control.”[38]
Among the border states, Kentucky, as well as West Virginia, called
for the teaching of history, to which was added the study of civil
government after “July 1, 1889.”[39]
Florida reverted to a form of the morality laws for the promotion of
citizenship through the public schools. In 1881, she directed and
authorized each teacher “to labor faithfully and earnestly for the
advancement of pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and
to embrace every opportunity to inculcate by precept and example,
the principles of truth, honesty, patriotism, and the practice of
every Christian virtue; to require the pupils to observe personal
cleanliness, neatness, order, promptness, and gentility of manners,
to avoid vulgarity and profanity, and to cultivate in them habits of
industry and economy, a regard for the rights and feelings of others,
and their own responsibilities and duties as citizens.”[40] In 1889
there was added another duty to the list enumerated above: that of
“reading at least once a month the Declaration of Rights as set forth
by the constitution of the state of Florida.”[41]
The states of the Middle West also desired to inculcate patriotism
in the youth of that section and to emphasize the accomplishments of
America. In a series of laws, beginning in 1861, Minnesota prescribed
the study of the “history of the United States.”[42] In 1878, she
sought to carry out the desire for an exemplary citizenry in “An Act to
introduce Moral and Social Science in the Public Schools of the State,”
in which was reëchoed the sentiment of the morality laws of a former
time.[43]
By 1876, Wisconsin had allied herself with those endorsing the study of
government, by prescribing that “the constitution of the United States
and of this state shall be taught in every district school.”[44] By
later laws the study of United States history and civil government was
required.[45]
Among the subjects prescribed in Indiana and Missouri was United
States history, the latter state directing that elementary school
pupils before entering the high school must have completed the
subject.[46] South Dakota, in 1895, made United States history a
requirement of her common school curriculum,[47] and North Dakota
by a series of laws sanctioned both United States history and civil
government.[48] Before statehood had been achieved, the territory
of Dakota had prescribed, in 1883, that “the highest standard of
morals shall be taught, and industry, truthfulness, integrity, and
self-respect inculcated, obedience to law enjoined, and the aims of an
upright and useful life cultivated.”[49] The same purpose was evident
in North Dakota’s law of 1890 and that of South Dakota of 1893, which
provided for “moral instruction tending to impress upon the minds of
pupils the importance of truthfulness, temperance, purity, public
spirit, patriotism, and respect for honest labor, obedience to parents
and due deference for old age, shall be given by each teacher in the
public schools.”[50]
The states of the Far West were likewise active. They followed in the
wake of the older states by prescribing, in most cases, the teaching of
United States history, and in some instances the study of government.
In addition, they reverted to the type of law found at an early time
in the Eastern states, which required a teacher to instruct in the
principles of a free government “to train them [the pupils] up to a
true comprehension of the rights, duties, and dignity of American
citizenship.” Both types of law are found in the legislation of
Washington,[51] Montana,[52] California,[53] and Arizona.[54] Nevada
and New Mexico allied themselves with the movement to teach United
States history in the public schools.[55]
Utah also prescribed United States history as a part of the school
curriculum and included in another law an admonition for instruction
in patriotism.[56] This statute is a good example of the evolutionary
stage through which most states passed in the making of laws, and
shows the tendency of the newer states to revert to the old type of
laws in the early period of statehood. In Idaho no content subject was
prescribed by law, but the teacher was held responsible for inculcating
the “principles of morality, truth, justice, and patriotism.”[57]
The place of history in the school curriculum was thus thoroughly
established by law at the close of the nineteenth century. United
States history was required in more statutes than any other field of
history, although, in some instances, political economy and general
history found a place in the high school program. Frequently added
to the requirement of national history, was the study of civil
government, both federal and state, and occasionally local or state
history.
During the period one-third of the legislatures enacting social study
laws prescribed the teaching of the federal constitution. A knowledge
of the state constitution was required in Maryland, South Carolina,
Alabama, Missouri, and Arkansas; and North Carolina and Maryland,
besides Vermont, prescribed the teaching of state history. The emphasis
placed upon a knowledge of state institutions was but the reaction from
the intense nationalism of the years immediately following the Civil
War. It was especially evident toward the close of the century and
during the early years following 1900. Indeed, from 1880 to 1900 local
pride evinced a quickened consciousness in the organization of such
groups as the Sons of Veterans in 1881, the United Confederate Veterans
and the Sons of the American Revolution in 1889, the Daughters of the
American Revolution in 1890, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in
1896. In literature, writers like Cable, Eggleston, Harte and Stockton
glorified the characteristics peculiar to their localities; and laws
relating to the public school curriculum reflected precisely the same
temper.[58]
Educational and learned societies likewise bore testimony to the
interest in the study of history. In 1876, a committee of the
National Education Association recommended United States history
for the elementary school and a study of “universal history and the
Constitution of the United States for high schools.”[59] In 1892, the
Committee of Ten was created by the same organization to consider
“programs of the secondary schools in the United States and ... the
requirements for admission to college.”[60] Eight years of history
were asked by this committee, four for the high school and four for
the elementary.[61] In 1896, the Committee of Seven of the American
Historical Association was appointed, and in 1899 recommended a four
years’ course in history.[62] During this time colleges also extended
their entrance credits to include more history, which, with the
committee reports, aided much in increasing the offerings in the public
school curriculum. These activities are an indication of the place that
history was coming to hold in the education of the young. They are
added proof of the attention which the public was giving to the social
studies in a period in which twenty-five states passed laws to include
them in a required course of study.[63]
CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS
During the decade of the ’sixties laws regarding the certification
of teachers were passed by New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota,
Maryland, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and California.
“History” was a requirement of New Hampshire, Minnesota and
Maryland,[64] and “United States history” received mention in the
laws of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and
California.[65] To the requirement of United States history, California
added that of the “Constitution and Government of the United States,”
which was further amplified by a requirement for the teaching of the
constitution of California, in an amendment of 1874.
From 1870 to 1880 there was little departure from the subjects required
in the preceding period, “history” being considered essential in
Idaho by a law of 1870, by Arkansas, in 1873 and in 1875, and by West
Virginia in 1874 and in 1879 for primary school certificates.[66] In
Texas, Washington, Kansas, Colorado, and Delaware, the law specified
United States history, and in Oregon, modern history.[67] Besides
history being required in the statute of Arkansas, an applicant for a
state certificate was required to have a knowledge of the constitution
of the state and nation, an innovation in the required list of
subjects.[68] In Wisconsin, the law pertaining to the certification
of teachers was revised in 1879 for the express purpose of examining
persons in the federal and state constitutions, and was carried over in
the statutes of the next thirty years.[69]
In the decade following 1880, New York, Michigan, the Dakotas, Alabama,
Arizona, Ohio, and Montana joined the states which had prescribed
certification requirements in the previous decade.[70] Upon the
statute books of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Indiana, California, and Washington were continued laws
previously enacted.[71] To her requirement of United States history,
Colorado prescribed a knowledge of the federal constitution.[72]
Civil government, as well as United States history, was required for
licensing in New York, Ohio, Michigan, the Dakotas, Alabama, Montana,
and Arizona. In Idaho, by a law of 1884, territorial certificates
could be secured only by those showing proficiency not only in United
States history, but in general history, political economy, and civil
government as well.[73] Oregon also extended her requirements beyond
those commonly found, to include modern history.[74]
From 1890 to 1900 only four states passed laws of this character for
the first time. All other legislation of the period was enacted by
states which had previously prescribed the subjects prerequisite for a
teacher’s license. In those commonwealths where there had been statutes
enacted, the list of required subjects was frequently extended to
include political economy.
Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, in prescribing that their
teachers must show a satisfactory knowledge of United States history,
followed the usual practice, although acting for the first time.
To this requirement was added also that of a knowledge of civil
government, a common prerequisite whose popularity had been established
in the ’eighties.[75] Florida, however, for the third and second grade
certificates did not require a knowledge of civil government, reserving
that only for the first grade and state licenses. For the latter, a
knowledge of general history was required by the law of 1893.[76]
Wyoming required not only United States history and civil government,
but for a first grade certificate added political economy.[77]
From 1890 to 1900 Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Kansas,
Mississippi, Texas, Idaho, Washington, Utah, California, and Wyoming
required proficiency in United States history and civil government for
some grade of teacher’s license.[78]
In 1891, Alabama added to the requirement of United States history for
a first grade license, the constitution of the state of Alabama and of
the United States, thereby conforming to the popular tendency.[79] A
knowledge of state history was required in Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
South Dakota and Texas; and Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Minnesota,
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming required general history for
the higher grade of certification.[80] Political economy became a
prerequisite for a professional state certificate in Minnesota by the
laws of 1893, in Iowa in 1896, and in Wyoming in 1899 for a first grade
license.[81]
United States history only was required in Utah for county certificates
of the grammar and primary grades, in Kansas for the second and third
grade certificates, in Indiana for common school licenses, and in
Arkansas for county certificates.[82]
During the period from 1860 to 1900 thirty-six states enacted laws
relating to the certification of teachers. Of this number, only six
states had passed laws prior to 1860.[83] In all states a knowledge of
United States history was a prerequisite for licensing throughout the
period, and, in most cases, civil government was required.[84]
TEACHERS’ QUALIFICATIONS: OATHS OF LOYALTY
The fear of an apostacy on the part of the teaching craft led
legislatures in this period to impose other than scholastic
requirements upon those who would teach in the public schools. These
regulations, indicating a distrust of the loyalty of teachers, have
required oaths of allegiance from all who would qualify as teachers.
Legislation of this character was originally an outgrowth of the Civil
War, the first laws being passed in 1862.[85] And it is not strange
that the border state Kentucky was a pioneer in statutes of this
character. Here the law was made to apply to all school commissioners,
examiners of teachers for the common schools, and school trustees
and teachers elected to teach in the common schools, all presidents,
professors and teachers in colleges, and high schools incorporated by
legislative enactment. It pledged loyalty to the Union and denounced
the tenets of the Confederacy.
“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the
United States, and the Constitution of Kentucky,” vowed the applicant,
“and be true and faithful to the commonwealth as long as I remain
a citizen thereof. That I recognize the binding obligations of the
Constitution of the United States and the duty of every citizen to
submit thereto as the supreme law of the land. That I will not give
aid to the rebellion against the government of the United States, nor
give aid to the so-called provisional government of Kentucky, either
directly or indirectly, so long as I remain a citizen of or reside
in Kentucky, and that this oath is taken by me without any mental
reservation--so help me God.” This oath, given in writing, was kept at
the county court office where the school was located, and a violation
of the oath or false swearing upon conviction, led to the imposition
of a penalty. Evasion of the law, too, was subject to punishment
through a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two
hundred dollars.[86] In 1889 it was made incumbent upon the county
superintendent to administer such oaths.
Similar laws appeared on the statute books of West Virginia and
Missouri, where, like Kentucky, these border states felt a pressing
need for a loyal citizenry. On December 10, 1863, the former
commonwealth declared that no applicant should be admitted to an
examination for a teacher’s license unless the county superintendent
had reasonable evidence that the candidate was not only “of good
moral character and temperate habits,” but that he was “loyal to the
government of the United States and of West Virginia.”[87] To buttress
this law it was prescribed that all teachers should take the oath of
loyalty required of all state officers. The latter regulation was
operative after November 16, 1863, but no specific mention was made
of teachers subscribing to such an oath until 1867. However, it seems
probable that they, as well as state officers, affirmed their loyalty
at the earliest period of statehood, since it is recorded that two
teachers, J. B. Soloman and C. T. Wilson, in 1869, were exempted from
subscribing to the oath prescribed in the act of 1863.
A statute, moreover, directly prescribed for teachers in 1867 the
taking of the following oath: “I, A. A. B., do solemnly swear that I
will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution
of the state of West Virginia, that I have never voluntarily borne
arms against the United States, that I have voluntarily given no
aid or comfort to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto, by
countenancing, counseling or encouraging them in the same, that I
have not sought, accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of
any office whatever under any authority in hostility to the United
States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended
government, authority, power or constitution within the United States,
hostile or inimical thereto; and that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.”[88]
The cessation of armed hostilities between the North and the South
induced Missouri to require an avowal of loyalty on the part of
her teachers. On March 29, 1866, there was approved a law by which
“all teachers before entering upon the discharge of their duties
should take and subscribe to the oath of loyalty prescribed by the
constitution.”[89]
Regarding the lessons of the War, Arkansas, in 1866, believed there
should be no disagreement. Here not only did the applicant for a
teacher’s certificate swear to support the constitution and laws of
the United States and Arkansas, but he also promised that he would
encourage all others to do likewise. “... I will never countenance
or aid in the secession of this state from the United States,” the
affirmant declared, and added his pledge “to inculcate in the minds of
youth sentiments of patriotism and loyalty.”[90]
Oregon also required a pledge of her teachers by legislation in 1862.
Before the county superintendent of schools, disloyalty to the state
and nation must be forsworn by the applicant for a certificate, who
promised “without any mental reservation or evasion whatever,” that
he would “bear true allegiance and fidelity to the same against all
enemies, foreign or domestic.”[91]
Dissentient opinions received scant courtesy in Rhode Island at the
time of the Civil War although no law forbade them. However, a warning
from the state commissioner of education to the general assembly at
the January session of 1865 undoubtedly evoked the same response as
the enactment of a law. Here, too, there was to be no tolerance for a
passive loyalty. “The war tocsin has sounded,” the report declared,
“our country is convulsed in mighty conflict, our friends are in the
contesting field, their blood has been made to redden and fertilize
the rebel soil.... Traitors and rebel sympathizers are _among us_,
rendering every available assistance and using every means within their
power to further the rebel cause and aid them in the accomplishment
of their hellish design. Therefore, let us be on our guard, lest some
of them unawares be ushered into our schools as teachers. For if the
teacher be a traitor, his actions will correspond therewith, and by
example, if not by precept, he will be sowing the seeds of rebellion in
the susceptible hearts of our children. Should the pure minds of our
little ones be poisoned with the damnable principles of rebellion, or
be led astray by the pernicious examples of rebel sympathizers? Shall
the hand already stained with the blood of the murdered father, be
employed to guide his orphan child?--the hand that applied the lighted
torch, and made the orphan a homeless wanderer, shall that be the hand
to trace the chart by which his little bark is to be guided to its
destined haven? _No, most assuredly, no._ Better by far remain as he
is, his untutored mind wrapped up in ignorance, than to be thus guided
and piloted by the vile traitor, only to be finally dashed against the
rocks and engulfed in the waves of rebellion. But let our teachers
be noble, loyal sons and daughters of America--those who, while
instructing our little ones in the sciences that pertain to the secular
concerns of life, will also teach them their obligations to their
country, and at the same time will point them to that _never fading
star_ by which their frail barks may be safely guided over life’s
treacherous seas to the port of eternal rest, to gain that blood-washed
throng who chant the praises of God and the Lamb from Mount Zion’s
balmy top.”[92]
As a survival of the legislation regarding teachers’ qualifications,
which had been brought about by the period of Reconstruction, were
the statutes of Arizona of 1883 and 1885. By these laws it was made
a duty of the superintendent of public instruction and the county
superintendents of schools to administer oaths and affirmations of
loyalty to teachers.[93]
CITIZENSHIP AS A QUALIFICATION FOR TEACHERS
Beginning in 1899 came legislation eliminating from the teaching
profession those who were not American citizens. North Dakota was the
pioneer in this movement in a statute prohibiting the issuance of
certificates or permits to teach to persons not citizens of the United
States, unless they had resided in the United States “for at least one
year prior to the time of such applications or permit.”[94] The same
year Idaho adopted a similar restriction, by forbidding the granting
of certificates or the employment of any teacher in the public
schools, “not a citizen of the United States.”[95] A decade later
(1907) Nevada attempted to promote patriotism by requiring an oath
of all public officials including teachers in schools and university
professors. In this was affirmed the dominance of the national over the
state government and an abjuration of duelling, a relic of frontier
conditions.
“I, ----, do solemnly swear,” declared the official, or teacher, “that
I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of
the United States and the Constitution and Government of the State of
Nevada against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I
will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any state
convention or legislature to the contrary notwithstanding; and further
that I do this, with a full determination, pledge and purpose, without
any mental reservation or evasion whatsoever. And I do further solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I have not fought a duel, nor sent or accepted
a challenge to fight a duel, nor been a second to either party, nor
in any manner aided or assisted in such a duel, nor been knowingly
the bearer of such challenge or acceptance, since the adoption of the
Constitution of the State of Nevada, and that I will not be so engaged
or concerned directly or indirectly in or about any such duel, during
my continuance in office....”[96]
TEXTBOOK LEGISLATION
Substantially all legislation regarding history textbooks has developed
since the Civil War, only three states passing statutes of this
character before 1860.[97] This form of regulation falls, in general,
into laws in which certain textbooks are named as suitable for use or
are definitely prescribed, laws in which the subjects of the curriculum
are enumerated by a statement concerning textbooks, enactments limiting
the price of books, statutes by which books of a partisan or political
bias are forbidden, and laws prescribing the character of the content
for history textbooks, whose source is a sectional or partisan animus.
In 1862, the state of Vermont passed _An Act directing the Board
of Education to select a Textbook of the Geography and History of
Vermont_ which was to be used in all district schools of the state
for a period of five years.[98] Ten years later Hall’s _Geography and
History of Vermont_, which was then in use by sanction of the law, was
continued as a textbook until 1878.[99] In Rhode Island, the report of
the Superintendent of Public Education, in 1865, named the histories
written by Berard and Goodrich as those commonly used in the public
schools.[100] By legislative enactment, North Carolina in 1879,
designated Moore’s _History of North Carolina_ for use in her public
schools.[101]
Of the textbooks prescribed in West Virginia, Goodrich’s _Common School
History_, Quackenbos’ _History of the United States_, and Holmes’
_History of the United States_ were named by laws in 1868 and 1873.
Later the price of Myers’ _General History_, Montgomery’s _General
History_ and Montgomery’s _Beginner’s American History_ were regulated
by law.[102] In Virginia “the two works of John Esten Cooke, entitled
respectively ‘Virginia: A History of Her People,’ and ‘Stories of the
Old Dominion,’” were included in the list of textbooks selected.[103]
In Indiana, in 1889, the state board of education was directed
to choose a history equal to Thalheimer’s _History of the United
States_,[104] and two years later it was enacted that the price of the
textbook on the history of the United States should not exceed 65 cents
a volume.[105]
Minnesota, Kansas, and Montana insisted that their histories be the
equal of Barnes’ _School Histories_.[106] In Kansas the law also made
it conditional that the civil government textbook be equal to Thummel’s
_Government of the United States with the Kansas addendum_,[107] and
that among the textbooks selected by the state commission should be
included books on general history, history of Kansas and English
history.[108] A Montana law also limited the price to be paid for
books: Barnes’ _Brief History of the United States_, retail price
$1.20; Barnes’ _Primary History of the United States_, retail price
70 cents; and Lovell’s _Civics for Young People_ (also a prescribed
textbook), retail price 50 cents.[109] In South Dakota the maximum
price for a textbook on the history of the United States was fixed at
80 cents by a law of 1891.[110]
The duty of choosing textbooks was delegated to various officials
in the different states. Missouri directed, in 1897, that a state
commission should select the textbooks in United States history and
civil government.[111] Arkansas delegated the task of choosing a
history of the United States to the state superintendent of public
instruction,[112] as well as providing, in 1899, that there be included
among the textbooks of the schools, the history and civil government of
the state and nation.[113] In Idaho, the county superintendent selected
the textbooks in “history,” and in California the duty devolved upon
the state board of education.[114]
Among the branches of study in Texas and Alabama for which law
prescribed that there should be a uniform series of books was United
States history, and in Alabama was added the history and constitution
of the state.[115]
The most common regulation regarding textbooks pertained to the
prohibition of books showing partisan, political or sectarian
bias.[116] In the South, particularly, were such laws enacted. In
February, 1890, a joint resolution “in relation to histories to be
taught in the public schools of Mississippi” passed the legislature of
that state. It urged “the utmost care in the selection and introduction
of school histories,” in order to eliminate those considered “biased,
prejudiced and unfair,” or that suppressed a “full, free and candid
presentation of questions upon which the American people” had been
“honestly divided,” and in the maintenance of which they had acted
“according to the promptings of courage and honor.”[117]
Precisely the same motive actuated the lawmakers of Alabama later
in establishing county school boards to select uniform series of
textbooks for the public schools. These boards were instructed to avoid
“textbooks containing anything partisan, prejudicial or inimical to the
interests of the people of the State” or which would “cast a reflection
on their past history.”[118]
Endorsement of history books favorable to the South was the burden
of a resolution of Georgia, in 1866, which commended the Southern
University series of school textbooks under the auspices of the
University of Virginia from the pens of Captain M. F. Maury, Gilmore
Simms, Honorable Charles Gayarre, Judge B. F. Porter, Professors
Le Compte, Holmes, Venable, Schele, Devere, because they expressed
a “correct sentiment.”[119] This particularism became more evident
toward the close of the period as Southern legislatures threw off the
influence of carpet-bag domination.
Maryland’s legislation of 1868 and South Carolina’s of 1870 declared
that “school books shall contain nothing of a sectarian or partisan
character.”[120] Virginia as early as 1849 had subscribed to a similar
statement,[121] and in 1872 both North Carolina and Georgia forbade the
use of books in the public schools which might partake of a “political”
or “sectional” bias.[122]
In Georgia, the county boards were not permitted “to introduce into the
schools any textbook or miscellaneous book of a sectarian or sectional
character.”[123] A South Carolina law, pertaining to the general duties
of the state superintendent of education, accepted the phraseology
common to many laws regarding textbooks in forbidding “partisan” books
or instruction.[124]
Partisan textbooks were also excluded from the schools of Alabama,
Kansas, Arizona, Washington, and California.[125] In Idaho and Montana
legislation stipulated the rejection of all books which would propagate
“political” doctrines, and in Texas it provided that nothing of a
sectional or partisan character should be included in the uniform
series of textbooks selected.[126] In Kentucky the county board of
examiners was given the task of selecting a uniform series of textbooks
for the county providing that the selection did not include any books
of “an immoral, sectional or sectarian character.”[127] The territory
of Dakota legislating regarding school libraries forbade not only books
unsuited “to the cultivation of good character and good morals and
manners,” but all “partisan political pamphlets and books.”[128]
The evolution of laws respecting textbooks in this period indicated the
tendency toward a spirit of localism. The South seized upon another
opportunity in her legislation for textbooks to prohibit the teaching
of a Northern viewpoint; nine states of the Confederacy passed laws
prohibiting the use of “partisan” histories in their schools. The
border state of Kentucky also forbade “sectional” textbooks, whereas
the West attempted to exclude “partisan, political books.”[129] The
laws passed by the North during the period dealt largely with the
naming of textbooks to be used in the public schools.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] _Cf._ Johnson, Henry, _Teaching of History in Elementary and
Secondary Schools_ (New York, 1915), ch. v; Russell, W. F., _The
Early Teaching of History in the Secondary Schools of New York and
Massachusetts_ (Philadelphia, 1915). History was offered in states
where there were not statutory requirements. The enumeration of these
laws does not, moreover, indicate the amount of history studied.
[28] _General Statutes_ of Vermont, 1862, ch. 22, sec. 19, p. 151.
[29] _Ibid._, 1894, sec. 700, p. 189. Similar laws had been passed by
Massachusetts in 1860. See page 7.
[30] _Laws_ of Connecticut, 1883, ch. LXXIV, p. 264. Laws of successive
years carried on substantially the same requirements. In 1902 the law
appeared with slight modifications, having been accepted in 1868, 1870,
1884, 1888, 1889, 1895, 1897, 1899. _General Statutes_ of Connecticut,
1902, ch. 131, par. 2130, p. 561, cites _Revision_, 1888, par. 2118,
ch. 6; 1895, ch. 119; 1897, ch. 101; 1899, ch. 54.
[31] Virginia in 1849 had prescribed United States history. This state
did not enact a law during this period.
[32] _Acts_ of West Virginia, 1863, ch. 137, 16, p. 250. Again _Acts_,
1866, ch. 74, 29, p. 62; and _Code_, 1868, ch. 45, 35, p. 300; _Acts_,
1873, ch. 123, 32, p. 403; _Acts_, 1881, p. 185; _Acts_, 1874, ch. 123,
11, p. 388; _ibid._, p. 173. This law was reënacted in 1881.
[33] _General Statutes_ of Missouri, 1864-65, sec. 4, p. 128. Approved
February 10, 1865.
[34] _Laws_ of Maryland, 1865, ch. 5, sec. 4, p. 284.
[35] _Ibid._, ch. IV, sec. 2, p. 282; _ibid._, 1868, ch. VI, sec. 2, p.
754; _ibid._, 1870, ch. VII, sec. 3, p. 540; _ibid._, 1872, ch. 7, sec.
3, p. 638; _Revised Code_, 1879, art. XXVII, 39, Vol. I, p. 255.
[36] Virginia had passed such a law in 1849. See page 8. _Laws_ of
South Carolina, 1870, sec. 24, p. 344; _Revised Statutes_, 1872, ch.
XXXVIII, sec. 4, p. 246; _General Statutes_, 1881-1882, sec. 1004, p.
300. _Revised Statutes_, 1893, sec. 1058, Vol. I, p. 368, repeat the
law. _Laws_ of Arkansas, 1868, sec. 65, p. 184; _Laws_, 1875, sec. 45,
p. 68; again in _Acts_, 1913, sec. 62, p. 410. _Laws_ of Mississippi,
1873, ch. 1, sec. 23, p. 13.
[37] _Laws_ of North Carolina, 1881, ch. 200, sec. 38, p. 383. _Laws_
of Tennessee, 1873, ch. XXV, sec. 31, p. 46; _Laws_, 1879, ch. 187,
sec. 31.
[38] _Code_ of Alabama, 1897, art. 3, 3456, 4, Vol. 1, p. 998; _ibid._,
1907, 1685, 4, Vol. 1, p. 741. The _Code_ of a decade later repeated
the same statute indicating that it was still a law.
[39] _Laws_ of Kentucky, 1888, par. 6, Vol. 1, p. 157. _General
Statutes_, 1873, p. 212. The latter refers to the law for history. For
West Virginia see page 15.
[40] _Digest_ of Florida, 1822-1881, sec. 36, p. 910; _Revised
Statutes_, 1892, sec. 253, p. 184; _Compiled Laws_, 1914, Vol. I, p.
139.
[41] _Acts_ of Florida, 1889, ch. 3872, sec. 31, p. 82. Approved June
8, 1889. A law pertaining to the teaching of citizenship had been
passed in Florida on January 24, 1851, and is unique in its period. By
this law, two seminaries of learning were established upon the east and
west sides of the Suwanee River. The first purpose of these seminaries
was to be the instruction of persons in “all the various branches that
pertain to a good common school education; and next to give instruction
in the mechanic arts, in husbandry and agricultural chemistry, in
the fundamental laws, and in what regards the rights and duties of
citizens.” _Acts_ of Florida, 1850-1861, ch. 337 (no. 26), p. 97;
also _Digest_, 1822-1881 inclusive, ch. 178, sec. 1, p. 916; _Revised
Statutes_, 1892, ch. V, par. 301, p. 192.
[42] _Laws_ of Minnesota, 1861, sec. 22, p. 60; 1862, sec. 29, p. 26;
1864, sec. 29, p. 23; 1873, sec. 64, p. 21. Successive laws do not
necessarily mean reënactments, but other subjects have been added with
the social studies remaining the same and reappearing in the laws.
[43] _General Statutes_ of Minnesota, 1881 (including _Statutes_,
1878), ch. 36, sec. 178, Vol. II; _General Statutes_, 1894, ch. 36
(Title 5), sec. 3889, sec. 3890, sec. 3891, p. 1053. The law provided
“that all school officers in the state may introduce, as part of the
daily exercises of each school in their jurisdiction, instruction
in the elements of social and moral science, including industry,
order, economy, punctuality, patience, self-denial, health, purity,
temperance, cleanliness, honesty, truth, justice, politeness, peace,
fidelity, philanthropy, patriotism, self-respect, hope, perseverance,
cheerfulness, courage, self-reliance, gratitude, pity, mercy, kindness,
conscience, reflection, and the will.” Further provisions suggested the
mode for carrying out the law. “That it may be the duty of the teachers
to give a short oral lesson every day upon one of the topics mentioned
..., and to require the pupils to furnish illustrations of the same
upon the following morning.” If only one lesson were given and only one
topic discussed daily by the teacher, a full calendar month would have
been spent in the carrying out of this law.
[44] _Revised Statutes_ of Wisconsin, 1878, ch. 27, sec. 447, p. 173.
[45] _Laws_ of Wisconsin, 1887, ch. 79, p. 77; _ibid._, 1898, ch. 27,
sec. 447, p. 363; _Statutes_, 1913, ch. 27, sec. 447, p. 258.
[46] _Revised Statutes_ of Indiana, 1881, 4497, p. 978; _Laws of
Missouri_, 1895, p. 267; _Revised Statutes_, 1899, sec. 988, Vol. I, p.
2270; _ibid._, 1909, sec. 10852; _ibid._, 1919, sec. 11218. See page 15
for other Missouri laws.
[47] _Laws_ of South Dakota, 1895, sec. 13, p. 142.
[48] _Laws_ of North Dakota, 1895, ch. 56, p. 79; _ibid._, 1897, sec.
741, p. 108; 1905, sec. 750, p. 202; 1909, sec. 833, p. 302. Dakota
Territory, _Compiled Laws_, 1887, sec. 1770, p. 395. This shows that
United States history was required in the common schools, as early as
1883, _Session Laws_ of Dakota Territory, 1883, ch. 44, par. 83.
[49] _Revised Code_ of Dakota Territory, 1883, sec. 91, p. 585.
[50] _Laws_ of North Dakota, 1889-90, sec. 134, p. 211; _Revised Code_,
1895, sec. 754; _ibid._, 1909, sec. 889, p. 184; _ibid._, 1913, sec.
1389, Vol. I, p. 333. _Laws_ of South Dakota, 1893, sec. 6, p. 126;
_ibid._, 1895, sec. 6, p. 138; _ibid._, 1901, sec. 6, p. 173; _Compiled
Laws_, 1903, sec. 2358, p. 429; _ibid._, 1913, sec. 143, Vol. I, p. 591.
[51] _Code_ of Washington, 1881, sec. 3205, p. 558; _General Statutes_,
1890, ch. VIII, sec. 810, Vol. I, p. 300. Similar laws, _Laws_, 1890,
sec. 45, p. 372; _Laws_, 1895, sec. 1, p. 8; _Laws_, 1897, sec. 65, p.
384; _Laws_, 1909, sec. 2, p. 262; also _Laws_, 1877, sec. 5, p. 274,
for the law prescribing teaching of patriotism. Washington required
United States history.
[52] _Revised Statutes_ of Montana, 1879, sec. 1119, p. 646, prescribed
United States history. _Laws_ of Montana, 1871-72, p. 630; _Revised
Statutes_, 1879, sec. 1128, p. 648; again on statute books, _Laws_,
1874, sec. 41, p. 132; _Compiled Statutes_, 1887, sec. 1900, p. 1187;
_Revised Code_, 1907 (see act of March 11, 1895); _Laws_, 1913, ch.
VI, 802, pt. 4, p. 245, for prescribing teaching of patriotism. This
law was carried by Montana on her statute books for fifty years. In
Washington it passed through a similar experience, being found in the
_Code_ of 1910. See Remington and Ballinger’s _Code_, 1910, sec. 4550,
Vol. II, p. 490.
[53] _Statutes_ of California, 1863-4, sec. 6, p. 211; _ibid._, 1865-6,
sec. 55, p. 398; _Codes and Statutes of California_, 1885, sec. 1665,
Vol. I, p. 290; _ibid._, 1905, sec. 1874, 2, Vol. I, p. 451. Same law
(1885) on statute books in 1905. _Code_, 1905, 1665, Vol. I, p. 391.
Civil government was added, 1889. _Laws_ of California, 1891, 1665,
p. 161; again in _Laws_, 1893, p. 254; _Laws_ of California, 1903,
1874, 2, p. 195; _Codes_, 1905, 1665, Vol. I, p. 391; _Laws_, 1907, p.
947. The laws respecting the teaching of patriotism and training for
citizenship are found in _Statutes_ of California, 1865-86, sec. 70, p.
400; _Codes and Statutes_, 1885, sec. 1702, Vol. I, p. 293; _Codes and
Statutes_, 1905, sec. 1701, Vol. I, p. 420.
[54] _Laws_ of Arizona, 1883, sec. 59, p. 49; _Laws_, 1885, p. 157;
_Revised Statutes_, 1887, p. 284; _Revised Laws of the Territory of
Arizona_, 1901, 2214, sec. 85, p. 602. The study of United States
history required. _Revised Statutes_ of Arizona, 1887, 1566 (sec. 94),
p. 285; _Laws_, 1885, p. 160; _Revised Laws of Territory_, 1901, 2243
(sec. 113), p. 608. The law prescribed that a teacher instruct in the
principles of “morality, truth, justice, and patriotism ... to train
them [pupils] up to a true comprehension of the rights, duties, and
dignity of American citizenship.”
[55] _Statutes of Nevada_, 1864-5, sec. 42, p. 424. Also _General
Statutes_, 1861-1885, 1330, sec. 42, p. 384. This last would indicate
the inclusion of the law in the statutes to 1885. _Compiled Laws of
Nevada_, 1861-1900, 1346, sec. 4. _Compiled Laws of New Mexico_, 1884,
sec. 1101, p. 548; _ibid._, 1897, sec. 1529, p. 425.
[56] Utah’s law regarding the teaching of patriotism came under a
statute regarding “Prohibited Doctrines. Moral Instruction.” It
prescribed that “no atheistic, infidel, sectarian, religious, or
denominational doctrine shall be taught in any of the district schools
of this state. Moral instruction tending to impress on the minds of
the pupils the importance of good manners, truthfulness, temperance,
purity, patriotism, and industry, shall be given, ... and all such
schools shall be free from sectarian control.” The law prescribing the
study of United States history is found in _Laws_ of Utah, 1896, p.
486; _ibid._, 1897, p. 131. _Revised Statutes_, 1898, p. 441; _Compiled
Laws_, 1907, sec. 1848, p. 704.
[57] _Laws_ of Idaho, 1884, sec. 34, p. 193; _Revised Statutes_, 1887,
ch. VII, sec. 687, p. 134; _Laws_, 1899, sec. 48, p. 97; _Political
Code_, 1901, ch. XL, sec. 1067, Vol. I, p. 329; _Compiled Statutes_,
1919, sec. 944, p. 269. This last citation would indicate the
permanence of the law.
[58] This is especially evident in the legislation affecting textbooks
in history. See page 36 _et seq._ A knowledge of state history was
required for teacher certification in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, South
Dakota, and Texas.
[59] Johnson, _op. cit._, p. 133.
[60] _Ibid._, p. 134.
[61] _Ibid._, pp. 134-135. 1st and 2d years, biography and mythology;
3d year, American history, the elements of civil government; 4th year,
Greek and Roman history; 5th year (high school), French history; 6th
year, English history; 7th year, American history; 8th year, a special
period for intensive study and civil government.
[62] _Ibid._, p. 143. 1st year, Ancient history to 800 A.D., 814 A.D.,
or 843 A.D.; 2d year, Medieval and Modern European history; 3d year,
English history, and 4th year, American history and civil government.
[63] This includes Massachusetts whose law was discussed in chapter I.
See page 7. Florida and Idaho did not name any social studies; hence
they are not included in this number.
[64] Connecticut, 1866, and Maine, 1873, still required “history.”
_General Statutes_ of New Hampshire, 1867, ch. LXXXI, sec. 4, p. 169;
_Laws of Minnesota_, 1861, sec. 22, p. 60; _Code of Public Laws_ of
Maryland, 1903, art. 77, 70, Vol. II, p. 1472. The source of the law is
from _Laws_, 1868, title II, ch. 1, sec. 2, p. 757.
[65] _Digest of Laws_ of Pennsylvania, 1883, 173, p. 308, in which is
source of law from _Public Laws_, 1867, par. II (April 9, 1867). _Laws_
of Wisconsin, 1861, ch. 176, sec. 4, p. 100; _Laws_ of Indiana, 1865,
sec. 34, p. 13. _Statutes_ of Missouri, 1870, ch. 123, Vol. II, p.
1260, containing source from _General Statutes_, 1865, sec. 90, p. 273.
_Laws_ of Arkansas, 1868, sec. 60, p. 181. _Statutes_ of California,
1865-6, sec. 87, p. 404, first and second grade certificates. These
laws are continued by the following in successive legislation;
Minnesota _Laws_, 1862, sec. 29, p. 26; _ibid._, 1864, sec. 29, p.
23; _ibid._, 1873, sec. 64, p. 71; _General Laws_, 1881, sec. 66, p.
480; _ibid._, 1894, sec. 3750, p. 1022; _Laws_ of Wisconsin, 1868, ch.
109, sec. 4, p. 110; _Revised Statutes_ of Indiana, 1881, 4425, p.
957, _Laws_, 1889, ch. LV, p. 85; _ibid._, 1899, ch. CCXIV, p. 489;
_Revised Statutes_ of Missouri, 1879, sec. 7077, Vol. II, p. 1394,
which contains amendment of 1874 when civil government was added. These
successive laws remained unchanged for the social sciences except where
noted. _Digest of Laws_ of Pennsylvania, 1894, p. 815; _ibid._, 1901,
p. 859; in 1901, civil government, both state and local, were added.
_Acts_ of Arkansas, 1873, sec. 62, p. 40. _Codes and Statutes_ of
California, 1876, sec. 1748, Vol. I, p. 242.
[66] _Laws_ of Idaho, 1870-71, sec. 12, p. 10; _Laws_ of Arkansas,
1875, sec. 33, p. 65; _Laws_ of West Virginia, 1874, ch. 123, sec. 28,
p. 399; also _ibid._, 1879, ch. 74, sec. 28, p. 143.
[67] _Laws_ of Texas, 1871-73, sec. 15, Vol. VII, p. 540; _Code_ of
Washington, 1881, sec. 3240, p. 564, _Laws_, 1871, sec. 6, p. 17,
_ibid._, 1877, sec. 6, p. 424; _Compiled Laws_ of Kansas, 1879, sec. 6,
par. 81 (5181), p. 834; _Laws_, 1876, ch. 122, art. 6, par. 6; _Laws_
of Colorado, 1870-72, sec. 10, p. 134, _ibid._, 1876, sec. 15, 2461, p.
811; _Laws_ of Delaware, 1879, p. 52; _Laws_ of Oregon, 1872, par. 25,
p. 507.
[68] _Laws_ of Arkansas, 1875, sec. 33, p. 65, also _ibid._, 1868, sec.
60, p. 181, _ibid._, 1873, sec. 62, p. 410. Laws of New Hampshire,
Minnesota, Missouri, Maryland, Maine, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois and
California were discussed in connection with the passage of earlier
laws in the preceding chapter.
[69] _Laws_ of Wisconsin, 1879, ch. 237, p. 346; _Laws_, 1887, ch. 79,
p. 77.
[70] _Laws_ of New York, 1882, ch. 318, p. 382, certificate for
prospective teachers; _Laws_ of Ohio, 1882, p. 70. “An act to amend
section 4074 of the _Revised Statutes_ of Ohio relating to teachers’
certificates, making an examination in United States history
essential.” _General Statutes_ of Michigan, 1883, par. 5153, Vol. II,
p. 1356 (a compilation of laws); _Public Acts_, 1887, ch. XII, sec.
4, p. 890, left unchanged the social studies by law of 1887, ch. 196,
sec. 5153, p. 3539; _Laws_ of Dakota Territory, 1883, ch. 44, par.
16. _Revised Code_, 1883, par. 16, p. 558, first and second grade
certificates; _Compiled Laws_, 1887, par. 1770, p. 395; for first grade
certificate, Dakota added civil government. _Acts_ of Alabama, 1880-81,
p. 75, first and second grade certificates, _Code_ of Alabama, 1887,
ch. 3, 984, Vol. I, p. 269, same certificates; _Laws_ of Arizona, 1885,
p. 140, _Revised Statutes_, 1887, ch. 2, 1485 (sec. 13), p. 272, first
and second grade territorial certificates. _Laws_ of Montana, 1883,
sec. 1149, p. 57, for county certificates.
[71] _General Statutes_ of Connecticut, 1888, sec. 2135, p. 466;
_Digest of Laws_ of Pennsylvania, 1883, 173, p. 308; required United
States history from a law of 1867; _Laws_ of Delaware, 1887, sec. 4,
p. 120, United States history. _Laws_ of West Virginia, 1881, sec.
28, p. 182, “history” required for primary school certificates; see
_Laws_, 1874, p. 399; _Revised Statutes_ of Indiana, 1881, 4425, p.
957, _Laws_ of 1889, ch. LV, p. 85, for common schools, United States
history was required; Supplement to _Revised Statutes_ of Wisconsin,
1878, required United States history, federal and state constitutions
for the first, second, third grade certificates, also _Laws_, 1887, ch.
79, p. 77; _General Statutes_ of Kansas, 1889, 5651, par. 90, p. 1831.
United States history was required for first, second, and third grade
certificates; also _Laws_, 1881, ch. 151, par. 6, amended by _Laws_,
1885, ch. 170, par. 1, p. 274; _Revised Statutes_ of Idaho Territory,
1887, ch. VII, sec. 680, county certificates with the requirement of
United States history; _Code_ of Washington, 1881, sec. 3240, p. 564,
United States history was required, from _Laws_, 1871, also _Laws_,
1885, p. 27; _Codes and Statutes_ of California, 1885, par. 1772, Vol.
I, p. 298, which was the same as in 1876; for county certificates
United States history was prescribed.
[72] _General Statutes_ of Colorado, 1883, ch. XCVII, 3010, sec. 15, p.
883. This amended _General Laws_, 1879, p. 162, by adding “constitution
of the United States”; _Laws_, 1889, sec. 4, p. 381.
[73] _Laws_ of Idaho, 1884, sec. 30, p. 192; also _Revised Statutes_,
1887, ch. VII, secs. 682, 683, p. 133. See chapter 1 for requirements
in Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Connecticut, and Maine.
[74] _Laws_ of Oregon, 1885, p. 44, also _Laws_, 1872, sec. 25, p. 507.
[75] _Statutes_ of Oklahoma, 1893 (compilation), ch. 73, art. 5, p.
1094, for first and second grade certificates, also _Laws_, 1897,
ch. 34, art. 6, p. 273. _Revised Statutes_ of Wyoming, 1899, sec.
627, p. 228; _Laws_, 1899, ch. 70, p. 136, for second and third grade
certificates. _Laws_ of Florida, 1893, ch. 4192, p. 125, also _Compiled
Laws_, 1914, 365, Vol. I, p. 136, for first grade certificates. See
footnote, page 86.
[76] _Compiled Laws_ of Florida, 1914, 365, Vol. I, p. 136.
[77] _Laws_ of Wyoming, 1899, ch. 70, p. 136, also _Revised Statutes_,
1899, sec. 627, p. 228.
[78] _Laws_ of Pennsylvania, 1895, 41, p. 155, for high schools
demanded general history and civics, but no mention was made of
United States history. In _Digest_, 1894, p. 815, United States
history was required for certificate from any county, borough, or its
superintendent. _Laws_ of Delaware, 1893, sec. 5, p. 691, professional
certificates; _ibid._, 1898, sec. 24, p. 198, professional, first,
second, and third grade certificates. _Acts_ of West Virginia,
1891, ch. 64, p. 169, “history” and civil government for primary
certificates; also _Acts_, 1895, ch. 26, 28, p. 81, for first, second
and third grade certificates; adding general history in first grade
certificate, see _ibid._, p. 82, also _Code_, 1899, ch. 45, 28, 29.
_Public Acts_ of Michigan, 1893, sec. 5, p. 35, also in _Compiled
Laws_, 1915 (5881), sec. 5, Vol. II, p. 2213. _Statutes_ of Wisconsin,
1898, ch. 27, sec. 447, p. 363, for all grades of licenses. _General
Statutes_ of Minnesota, 1894, ch. 36, par. 3749, par. 3750, Vol. I,
p. 1022, for professional state certificate by law of 1893 approved
April 18, 1893. _Laws_ of North Dakota, 1895, 52, p. 27, for all
certificates, _ibid._, 1897, par. 741, p. 108. _Laws_ of South Dakota,
1891, ch. 56, par. 4, p. 119, _ibid._, 1893, ch. 78, 105, _ibid._,
1895, ch. 78, p. 83, in _Compiled Laws_, 1913, par. 55, Vol. I, p. 572.
_Revised Statutes_ of Missouri, 1899, sec. 9798, Vol. II, p. 2277, any
certificates. _General Statutes_ of Kansas, 1897, ch. 63, par. 200,
p. 671, first grade certificate, but second and third grade required
only United States history. _Annotated Code of General Statute Laws_ of
Mississippi, 1892, 4022, p. 889, first grade license; professional and
state in 1896, _Laws_, 1896, p. III, secs. 6 and 7. _Laws_ of Texas,
1822-1897, sec. 65, first, second grades and permanent certificates
(23d legislature, 1893); by laws of 1891, state certificate general
history and civil government; _Revised Statutes_, 1895, art. 3979, p.
787. _Laws_ of Idaho, 1897, sec. 7, p. 75, _ibid._, 1899, sec. 17, p.
310. _Laws_ of Washington, 1891, ch. XCVII, sec. 4, p. 244, _Code_,
1891, par. 773, Vol. I, p. 281, state certificate, _ibid._, par. 777,
p. 285, first grade certificate. _Revised Statutes_ of Utah, 1898,
1767, p. 425, state professional certificate, _ibid._, 1923, p. 455,
for primary and grammar certificates, United States history only, but
_ibid._, 1924, high school certificates; both United States history
and civics for territorial certificate of first grade in 1890, civics
and United States history, _Laws_, 1890, sec. 23, p. 115; _Revised
Statutes_, _op. cit._, 1767, p. 425, state professional diploma of high
school grade, general history, civil government, United States history.
_Statutes_ of California, 1893, p. 260, primary county certificates.
_Revised Statutes_ of Wyoming, 1899, sec. 627, p. 228, first, second,
and third grade licenses, with political economy required for first
grade.
[79] _Acts_ of Alabama, 1891, par. 2, p. 250. Approved February 4,
1891; also in _Code_, 1897, art. 6, Vol. I, p. 1007.
[80] See citations in footnote 52.
[81] Citation of reference in footnote 52. Also _Acts_ of Iowa, 1896,
ch. 39, p. 44, amends 1766 of _Code_.
[82] _Digest of Statutes_ of Arkansas, 1894, ch. 139, sec. 7010, p.
1523, Act of April 14, 1893; _Laws_ of Indiana, 1899, ch. CCXIV, p.
489; _General Statutes_ of Kansas, 1897, ch. 63, par. 201, 202, p. 671;
_Revised Statutes_ of Utah, 1898, 1796, p. 432.
[83] Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska.
[84] Connecticut, Illinois, Montana, Ohio, Oregon being the states
which required only history. Oregon’s requirement was modern history.
[85] Kentucky and Oregon passed laws this year.
[86] _Laws_ of Kentucky, 1862, ch. 636, p. 265. Approved August 30,
1862. _Laws_, 1889, Vol. I, p. 169, par. 15. In the law for the
qualifications of teachers, however, the taking of the oath was not
mentioned.
[87] _Acts_ of West Virginia, 1863, ch. 137, 35, p. 255; also _Code_,
1868, ch. 45, 31. p. 298; again _Acts_, 1866, ch. 74, 37, p. 65.
[88] _Acts_ of West Virginia, 1869, pp. 56, 104. For the law
prescribing the oath, _Code_ of West Virginia, 1868, ch. 45, 32, p.
299; _Acts_, 1863, ch. 106, p. 138. Constitution, _ibid._, ch. IX, p.
76. On February 7, 1870, this law was reënacted and amended. _Code_,
_op. cit._, ch. 14, 32, p. 739 of Appendix.
[89] _Laws_ of Missouri, 1865-6, par. 89, p. 189.
[90] _Acts_ of Arkansas, 1868, sec. 61, p. 182. Again in _Acts_, 1873,
sec. 64, p. 412. Repealed by an act of 1875.
[91] _Code_ of Oregon, 1862, sec. 9, p. 40.
[92] _Acts and Resolves_ of Rhode Island, 1865, pp. 126-127. _The
Twentieth Annual Report on the Public Schools in Rhode Island made to
the General Assembly at the January Session, A.D. 1865._
[93] _Laws_ of Arizona, 1883, pp. 41 and 157, _ibid._, 1885, p. 146.
The law made it a duty of superintendents of public instruction or
county superintendents of schools to administer the following oath, but
there was no separate law prescribing that a teacher take such an oath:
“I, ----, do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the
United States and the laws of the territory of Arizona; that I will
true faith and allegiance bear to the same, and defend them against
all enemies whatsoever, and that I will faithfully and impartially
discharge the duties of the office (name of office) according to the
best of my ability, so help me God.”
[94] _Laws_ of North Dakota, 1897, par. 742, p. 109; _ibid._, 1901,
p. 99; _ibid._, 1905, p. 206. This statute was in the _School Laws_
published in 1923. In 1900, North Dakota’s total population was 319,146
with a foreign population of 113,091.
[95] _Laws_ of Idaho, 1897, sec. 17, p. 85, _ibid._, 1899, p. 310;
_Code_, 1901, ch. XL, Vol. I, p. 330. This law is found as late as
1921. Also _Compiled Statutes_, 1919, par. 946, Vol. I, p. 270. In
1900, Idaho’s population was 161,772, of which 24,604 were foreigners.
[96] _Laws_ of Nevada, 1907, ch. CLXXXII, sec. 30, p. 386; also
_Revised Statutes_, 1912, sec. 3277, also _Revised Laws_, 1861-1912,
370, sec. 2, Vol. I, p. 113. Out of a total population, in 1900, of
42,335 Nevada’s foreign population was 10,093.
[97] New Hampshire, Virginia and Louisiana.
[98] _General Statutes_ of Vermont, 1862, ch. 22, sec. 1, p. 169. The
selection of the book was to be made as soon as possible, and was to be
binding upon all teachers and boards of education until January, 1867.
The law appeared in later statute books. _Revised Laws_ of Vermont,
1880, ch. 33, sec. 558, p. 169; _Vermont Statutes_, 1894, sec. 700, p.
189.
[99] _Laws_ of Vermont, 1872, no. 14, sec. 1, p. 54. “Hall’s _Geography
and History of Vermont_ now in use by the authority of law, in the
schools of Vermont, or such revised editions of the same as may be
issued, shall be continued as a textbook for the term of five years
from the first day of November, A.D., 1873.” Approved November 26,
1872. Legislation of this character is found also in 1888 and in 1890.
_Laws_, 1888, no. 9, sec. 171, and 172, _ibid._, 1890, no. 7, p. 25.
[100] _Acts and Resolves_ of Rhode Island, 1865, p. 153. Report of the
Superintendent of Public Education.
[101] _Laws_ of North Carolina, 1879, ch. 93, p. 177. Approved March 1,
1879. John W. Moore, author of textbook.
[102] _Code_ of West Virginia, 1868, 55, p. 308. For Holmes’ _History
of the United States_, _Laws_, 1873, 58, p. 419. For geography, Knote’s
_Geography of West Virginia_, Mitchell’s _New Revised Geographies_,
Macy-Howe-Smith’s _Lessons on the Globe_, by laws of 1873 and again in
1891. _Laws_, 1891, p. 313. _Laws_ of West Virginia, 1895, ch. 37, p.
63. For the _General History_ by Myers, contract price $1.10, contract
exchange price 82 cents; for the _Leading Facts of American History_,
contract price 65 cents, exchange price 50 cents; _Beginner’s American
History_, contract price 43 cents, exchange price 35 cents. Lewis’
_History and Government of West Virginia_, in fixing 80 cents as the
contract price, and Dole’s _The American Citizen_ with 65 cents as the
exchange price were likewise named in the law.
[103] _Code_ of Virginia, 1887, sec. 1501, p. 404. By a law of 1883-4.
[104] _Laws_ of Indiana, 1889, ch. L, sec. 1, p. 75.
[105] _Ibid._, 1891, ch. LXXX, sec. 1, p. 100.
[106] _General Statutes_ of Minnesota, 1881, ch. 36, par. 156, 157,
p. 498. Contract for books let to D. D. Merrill, St. Paul. _Laws_ of
Kansas, 1897, ch. 179, sec. 4, p. 378. _Laws_ of Montana, 1889, sec. 4,
p. 211.
[107] _Laws_ of Kansas, _op. cit._
[108] _Laws_ of Kansas, 1899, ch. 176, p. 357. It was required that the
general history textbook must equal Myers’ _General History_ and the
English history must equal Montgomery’s _English History_.
[109] _Laws_ of Montana, _op. cit._
[110] _Laws_ of South Dakota, 1891, par. 11, p. 239.
[111] _Laws_ of Missouri, 1897, sec. 5, p. 23. Approved March 31, 1897.
[112] _Digest of the Statutes_ of Arkansas, 1894, ch. 139, sec. 6975,
p. 1519. Act of December 7, 1875. Also in _Digest_, 1904, sec. 7531, p.
1543; _ibid._, 1916, sec. 9379, p. 2132.
[113] _Laws_ of Arkansas, 1899, sec. 5, p. 148.
[114] _Laws_ of Idaho, 1884-85, p. 185; _Laws_ of California, 1883-84,
ch. VIII, sec. 1, p. 6.
[115] _Laws_ of Texas, 1822-1897, sec. 1, Vol. X, p. 145; _Code_ of
Alabama, 1897, art. 18, 1810.
[116] Indeed, as early as 1842, New Hampshire had prescribed that “no
book shall be directed to be used as a school book which is calculated
to favor any particular religious or political sect or tenet.” _Revised
Statutes_ of New Hampshire, 1842, ch. 73, sec. 12, p. 151; _Compiled
Statutes_, 1853, sec. 13, p. 178; _General Laws_, 1878, ch. 89, sec.
12, p. 217.
[117] _Laws_ of Mississippi, 1890, ch. 74, p. 88. The state
superintendent, governor, and attorney-general were made a committee
“to examine the various textbooks upon United States history and
recommend with their approval such works as accord with their best
judgment.”
[118] _Acts_ of Alabama, 1896-7, p. 204. _County School Book Board_ for
the county of Winston; _ibid._, for the county of Limestone; _ibid._,
p. 637, for the counties of Sumter and Madison.
[119] _Acts_ of Georgia, 1866, p. 222. The same series were endorsed by
Mississippi.
[120] _Laws_ of Maryland, 1868, ch. IX, sec. 1, p. 756; _ibid._, 1870,
ch. 10, sec. 1, p. 547; _Laws_ of South Carolina, 1870, sec. 10, p. 341.
[121] _Laws_ of Virginia, 1849, ch. 113, p. 66.
[122] _Revised Statutes_ of North Carolina, 1872-3, sec. 59, p. 583.
This provided that “no sectarian or political textbooks or influences
shall be used in any public school.” In Georgia the law prescribed that
“the county board of education shall not be permitted to introduce
into the schools any text-book or miscellaneous books of a sectarian
or sectional character.” _Code_ of Georgia, 1882, part 1, title XIII,
ch. V, par. 1274, p. 270; also _Acts_ of 1872, sec. XXXIII, p. 75; also
_Laws_, 1887, sec. XXIII, p. 74.
[123] _Code_ of Georgia, 1895, sec. 5, par. 1365, Vol. I, p. 376.
Legislation continued from 1872. _Acts_, 1872, sec. XXXIII, p. 75; also
_Code_, 1882, part I, title XIII, ch. V, par. 1274, p. 270.
[124] _General Statutes_ of South Carolina, 1881-82, sec. 987, p. 294.
Also _Laws_, 1870, sec. 10, p. 341. _Code_, 1902, sec. 1175, p. 452;
_Code_, 1912, sec. 1699, Vol. I, p. 472.
[125] _Code_ of Alabama, 1897, art. 18, 1811; _ibid._, 1907; _Session
Laws_ of Kansas, 1897, ch. 179, sec. 4, p. 378; _Revised Statutes_ of
Arizona, 1887, 1530, sec. 58, p. 281, _Laws_, 1885, p. 153; _Code_ of
Washington, 1891, par. 791, 10, Vol. I, p. 292; _Laws_, 1883, p. 13;
_Codes and Statutes_ of California, 1876, sec. 1672, Vol. I, p. 235;
_ibid._, 1905, Vol. I, p. 408.
[126] _Revised Statutes_ of Idaho Territory, 1887, ch. IX, sec. 705,
p. 135. Also _Laws_, 1866, p. 27; _Laws_, 1870, p. 13; _Laws_, 1879,
p. 24; _Laws_, 1890, p. 148; _Laws_, 1893, p. 211; _Code_, 1908,
sec. 668, Vol. I, p. 406. This last forbade “sectarian and partisan
instruction.” _Compiled Statutes_ of Montana, 1885, sec. 1893, p. 1185.
The term “partisan” in some states may have referred to the teaching of
religious or political doctrines. _Laws_ of Texas, 1822-1897, sec. 1,
Vol. X, p. 145. Passed in 1891.
[127] _Acts_ of Kentucky, 1893, art. VI, par. 61, p. 1439. Approved
July 13, 1893.
[128] _Compiled Laws_ of Dakota Territory, 1887, par. 1798, p. 401;
_Revised Code_, 1883, p. 597, _Session Laws_, 1883, ch. 44, par. 130.
[129] Dakota Territory, Montana, Idaho, Washington excluded from their
schools “partisan” textbooks.
CHAPTER III
LAWS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE HISTORY CURRICULUM
1900-1917
The twentieth century did not usher in unexpected developments in the
American educational system, for the school had begun to experience a
transformation of purpose in the period following the Civil War. It was
not, however, until after 1900 that the forces aroused by the Economic
Revolution began to assert themselves to a marked degree and to seek
means to equip the individual for the complex responsibilities of his
social relationships. The early years of the new century saw a tidal
wave of reform sweep into all phases of American life. Agitation for
the recall of judicial decisions and the introduction of such measures
as the initiative and referendum attested new convictions in the
realm of politics. The reform spirit found expression in muck-raking
literature, movements for the betterment of dependents on society,
legislation to alleviate unfortunate industrial conditions, and schemes
of coöperation between employer and employee bore testimony to a new
social consciousness and national morality.
The public school also gave evidence of the spirit of the new era
through the changed character of its instruction.[130]
“Preparation for citizenship” became the keynote of the period,
perhaps better expressed by John Dewey’s definition of education as
“The process of remaking experience, giving it a more socialized value
through increased individual experience by giving the individual
better control over his powers.” History and the other social studies
gained in popularity as especially adapted to implant the right social
attitude.
This wider outlook on life did not confine itself solely to an interest
in domestic affairs, for the Spanish-American War had banished the
long-cherished theory of national isolation. The international
viewpoint was encouraged further by the fact that by 1900 the United
States had achieved second place as an exporting nation. As a result,
the study of foreign history gained in popularity, and increased
offerings in the social studies curriculum evinced the growing favor in
which these subjects were held.
In planning the course of study, educational associations showed much
activity in committee reports. The report of the Committee of Seven
of the American Historical Association doubtless had a pronounced
influence in the curriculum making of the greater part of this period.
In 1907, it was followed by the report of the Committee of Five, who
made slight changes in the list of studies recommended by the Committee
of Seven. However, modern European history received greater emphasis
than in the first report, a tangible expression of the expanding
horizon of the time. In 1909, the Committee of Eight attempted to
standardize a course in history for the elementary schools, in which
was included not only United States history but a study of European
history.[131]
From 1900 to the year of our entrance into the World War, thirty-two
states approved laws incorporating history and other social studies
in the curriculum of the public schools, approximately twice as many
as had legislated from 1860 to 1900.[132] The importance placed upon
the study of United States history, federal and local civics and state
history in the previous period persisted. The early years of the
century were characterized also by laws pertaining to the teaching of
patriotism through the celebration of historic events, by statutes
to inspire reverence for the flag, and by enactments indicative of
sectional interest.[133]
In 1900, Vermont amended her law prescribing the high school course
of study, and designated political economy, civil government and
general history among the branches to be taught.[134] Other enactments,
enumerating the prerequisites for a high school, included thirty-three
weeks of history and the natural, political, social, moral and
industrial sciences.[135] In 1906, there was provided instruction for
elementary pupils in the history and constitution of the United States
and the history, constitution and principles of the government of
Vermont.[136] In 1915, the teaching of “citizenship” was approved for
all rural schools of a six year course, and for elementary schools of
eight years.[137]
The tendency to emphasize a study of the Constitution has no better
illustration than in the laws of New Hampshire, where, in 1901, it was
made compulsory for every high school to give “reasonable instruction
in the constitution of the United States and in the constitution of
New Hampshire.”[138] Later enactments further stressed the importance
of a knowledge of the state and federal constitutions by prescribing
that “in all mixed schools and in all grades above the primary, the
constitution of the United States and of the state of New Hampshire be
read aloud by the scholars at least once during the last year of the
course below the high school.”[139] The teaching of citizenship was the
purpose of a Connecticut law of 1903 and of 1915, prescribing regular
instruction for all pupils above the fourth grade in “the duties of
citizenship, including the knowledge of the form of national, state,
and local government.”[140]
Training in citizenship was the purpose of a Delaware law of 1911,
which prescribed that teachers train their pupils in “honesty,
kindness, justice, and moral courage ... for the purpose of lessening
crime and raising the standard of good citizenship.” Four years later
it was followed by an enactment requiring the teaching of United States
history and instruction in “the general principles of the constitution
of the United States” and of the state.[141]
In 1911 Pennsylvania prescribed for the elementary schools the
teaching of United States history, history of the state and civil
government.[142] These subjects received the statutory endorsement of
Kentucky in 1904, Virginia in 1904 and 1906, North Carolina in 1901,
1905, 1907, 1908 and 1913.[143] South Carolina in several laws from
1892 required for schools under the direction of boards of trustees and
of county boards of education, the “history of the United States and of
this state, the principles of the constitution of the United States and
of this state, morals and good behavior.”[144]
Texas gave her sanction to the same subjects in 1905,[145] and Alabama
prescribed that in all schools and colleges supported in whole or
in part by public money, or under state control, there should be
instruction in the constitution of the United States and of the
state of Alabama.[146] In Georgia, the law prescribed as part of
the curriculum for the common schools that “the elements of civil
government shall be included in the branches of study taught in the
common or public schools, and shall be studied and taught as thoroughly
and in the same manner as other like required branches are studied
and taught in said public schools.”[147] West Virginia attained some
individuality in adding to state and national history and civil
government, “general and West Virginia geography.”[148]
In the schools of Florida instruction in “history” was required for
the intermediate grades, and in the grammar grades the “history and
civil government of Florida and of the United States.”[149] Additional
emphasis was placed upon the teaching of civics in 1909 when an act
provided that the “elements of civil government be taught in the common
and public schools of the state, ... to be studied and taught as
thoroughly and in the same manner as any other required subjects.”[150]
Louisiana committed herself to the teaching of United States history in
every school district as an elementary branch by an act of 1902;[151]
and Mississippi, in 1916, prescribed for the “curriculum of the free
public schools,” civil government with special reference to local and
state government, the history of the nation and of the state.[152]
In 1904, Ohio established civil government and the history of
the United States as required subjects for an elementary school
education.[153] In 1910, it was made obligatory upon each county board
of school examiners to examine pupils of township schools in civil
government and United States history.[154] In the _Code_ of 1910, there
were included, in both the elementary and high school courses of
study, the history of the United States and civil government, and in
the high school the history of “other countries” as well.[155] By an
act approved May 18, 1911, but repealed in 1914, teachers in elementary
schools were required to qualify in the history of the United States,
including civil government, and in the high school in general history,
with an election of civil government.[156] An Illinois law of this
period was similar to that of Delaware in phraseology and spirit,
and prescribed the teaching of “honesty, kindness, justice and moral
courage” to lessen crime and develop a good citizenship.[157]
Wisconsin, as early as 1865, had required as essential for a district
school education, United States history and civil government, local
history and government, a practice continued through 1917. In schools
offering industrial education, citizenship became an obligatory study
by the statutes of 1913.[158] Minnesota made a knowledge of United
States history prerequisite for entrance into high schools,[159]
and Indiana expanded her list of the required number of studies to
include, in all commissioned high schools, civil government, general
and state, ancient, medieval or modern history and the history of the
United States.[160] For the curriculum of the common schools, there
was required in Indiana the study of United States history, a practice
developed from a law first in force in August 1869.[161]
South Dakota,[162] North Dakota,[163] and Kansas[164] also committed
themselves to the subjects popular in this period. In Nebraska, “a
study of American history for at least one semester in the eleventh
and twelfth grades,” became a requirement for normal training courses
in the high school.[165] Missouri made a knowledge of United States
history essential for entrance into the high schools, as well as
prescribing that no school could be classed as a high school which did
not include a four years’ course in history.[166]
Oklahoma, in 1905, illustrated well the social viewpoint characteristic
of the time in her law requiring “in each and every public school it
should be the duty of each and every teacher to teach morality in the
broadest meaning of the word, for the purpose of elevating and refining
the character of school children up to the highest plane of life; that
they may know how to conduct themselves as social beings in relation
to each other, as respects right and wrong and rectitude of life,
and thereby lessen wrong doing and crime.”[167] In 1907, another law
prescribed “the elements of economics” for all public schools receiving
support from the state.[168]
A place of prominence in the normal training curriculum was accorded
United States history by Oregon in 1911.[169] In 1913, Wyoming enacted
a law requiring of her superintendent of public instruction the
preparation of a course of study for the elementary schools in the
usual subjects, including United States history and the history and
civil government of Wyoming,[170] and by an act of 1917 history and
civics were required in the teacher training departments of the high
school.[171] California, too, succumbed to the trend of the times,
and in 1903 and in succeeding years prescribed the teaching of United
States history and civil government for a public school education.[172]
In the revision of her territorial laws in 1901, Arizona again included
United States history as a school subject;[173] and by legislation in
1912, New Mexico showed her approval of the social studies in “An Act
to Encourage the Instruction in the History and Civics of the State of
New Mexico.” This law forbade any person to teach in the public schools
unless he had passed a satisfactory examination in the history and
civics of the United States as well as in the history and civics of the
state. “It shall be the duty of the teachers in the public schools of
the state,” the law read, “to give such instruction as is practicable
in the history and civics of the United States with special reference
to the history and civics of the state of New Mexico; which said
instruction may be given orally or by study of textbooks covering the
subject and which said textbooks shall have been adopted by the State
Board of Education.” The statute specified that the textbook in state
history and civics must be prepared “by a known historian of the state”
and “be sold at a price to be fixed by the State Board of Education not
to exceed one dollar per volume.”[174]
Of the thirty-two states which had enacted laws during this period for
the teaching of the social studies, substantially all required United
States history, federal and local civics. State history, which had
attained some popularity in the preceding period, received attention in
many statutes. Laws requiring the teaching of European history in some
form were found in Vermont, Indiana, Ohio and Missouri, and economics
was prescribed in the laws of Oklahoma and Vermont.
CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS
The tendency to enlarge and enrich the social studies curriculum was
more evident in the requirements for teachers’ certificates than in the
courses of study prescribed by law. These requirements, in general,
included ancient, medieval and modern history, general history,
English history, economics and sociology, besides civil government,
state history and history of the United States. Especially was there
an increased offering of subjects for high school teachers. In the
elementary and county licenses only civics and United States history
were required with the greatest frequency. Among those states which
passed new laws or reënacted old legislation offering ancient, medieval
or modern history were California, Idaho, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Ohio, Missouri, and Texas.[175] English history appeared among the
subjects in the laws of Idaho, Nevada, Kansas, and Wisconsin;[176]
general history was one of the requirements for certification in the
laws of West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Illinois,
Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Nevada, Washington, and
Idaho.[177]
Economics, or, as it was more commonly known, political economy, was
prescribed in Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming.[178] South Dakota permitted
for examination either sociology or economics,[179] and Wisconsin and
Arkansas insisted upon a knowledge of “rural economics.”[180] “Current
events” or “current history” were among the requirements of South
Dakota in her law of 1919, and of Nevada, in 1907, and in 1921, for
certification of primary, grammar and high school classes.[181]
State history and the study of the state constitution received
recognition in the requirements of Pennsylvania, Delaware, West
Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin,
South Dakota, Illinois, Kansas, and New Mexico.[182]
Of all of the social studies required for certification, however,
United States history and civil government were the most popular, being
prescribed in some law in every state excepting Arizona.[183] In some
of the states where there was no special enactment prescribing United
States history or civics, the examining board may have been given the
privilege of naming the subjects for examining the candidates, or,
through custom, they may have become a part of the subjects in which
examinations were held. It is also true that colleges and normal
schools have taken over the preparation of teachers in the subjects
which they are to teach, making unnecessary many of the examinations
previously held.
FLAG LEGISLATION AND OBSERVANCE DAYS
A means of implanting patriotism in the pupils of the public schools
has been legislation pertaining to the display of the American flag,
the development of a proper attitude toward it, and the singing of the
national anthem. Ten states gave expression to this form of training
for patriotism in this period. Similar to such enactments was the legal
provision made for the observance of the birthdays of great men and the
commemoration of historic events by classroom exercises. In addition,
there was a constantly growing number of legal holidays upon which no
school was in session.[184]
Laws respecting the flag were, and are, of three general kinds: (1)
that each school must possess a flag for display in a conspicuous
place, (2) that proper respect for the flag be taught, and (3) that
suitable exercises be engaged in at definitely stated intervals. This
last type of law often proves the occasion for the reciting in unison
of the salute to the flag, the so-called “American Creed,” or the
preamble to the Constitution. In the second variety of law a pledge
of allegiance is the keynote of the sentiment expressed, such as: “I
pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands;
one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”; or, “We give
our hearts and our hands to God and our Country; one country, one flag,
and one language.”[185]
In 1898, New York enacted “flag” legislation which had the three-fold
characteristics of such laws. Within the next few years this law was
followed by statutes of like kind in Massachusetts, Indiana, Iowa,
and Arizona. However, as later legislation appeared, it took on a
more elaborate phraseology, with a more open avowal of patriotic
purpose.[186] This is well illustrated by an act of 1909 in Indiana,
which ordered that “the state board of education shall require the
singing of the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ in its entirety in the schools
of the state of Indiana, upon all patriotic occasions,” with the
necessary admonition “that the said board of education shall arrange
to supply the words in sufficient quantity for the purposes indicated
therein.”[187]
“An Act to provide for the display of the United States flag on the
school houses of the state, in connection with the public schools,
and to encourage patriotic exercises in such schools,” became a law
in Kansas, March 7, 1907. By this act the state superintendent was
instructed to prepare a program for the salute to the flag at the
opening of each day of school, as well as “such other patriotic
exercises as may be deemed by him to be expedient.”[188]
Relying upon the governor’s proclamation, New Jersey, in 1915, set
aside the week of September sixth to thirteenth for appropriate
exercises to be held, at least one day in the interval named, by
schools and churches in commemoration of the one hundredth birthday of
the national anthem.[189]
In her _Revised Statutes_ which took effect on January 1, 1917, Maine
incorporated a flag law evolved from enactments of 1907 and 1915,
whereby superintendents of schools were directed to display the
flag from public school buildings on suitable occasions. Towns were
directed to appropriate annually “a sufficient amount to defray the
necessary cost of the display of the flag,” and it was made “the duty
of instructors to impress upon the youth by suitable references and
observances the significance of the flag, to teach them the cost, the
object and principles of our government, the great sacrifices of our
forefathers, the important part taken by the Union army in the war of
eighteen hundred sixty-one to eighteen hundred sixty-five, to teach
them to love, honor and respect the flag of our country that cost so
much and is so dear to every true American citizen.”[190]
Closely akin to the enactments respecting the flag and patriotic
exercises were those designating days for special patriotic
observance.[191] Laws providing for the establishment of Memorial
Day are of such a character. In general, Memorial Day legislation was
sectional in character and acclaimed the results of the Civil War from
the Northerner’s standpoint. In 1886, the Kansas legislature, moved by
patriotic feeling, had resolved to observe the day in fitting manner,
inasmuch as “during the past ten or twelve years the loyal people of
the United States, inspired by a sentiment of reverent respect for
the memory of our heroic dead, have by spontaneous consent, dedicated
the thirtieth day of May of each year to ceremonies in honor of the
soldiers who cheerfully sacrificed their own lives to save the life of
the republic. ‘They need no praise whose deeds are eulogy,’ and nothing
that we can now say or do will add to the glory or brighten the fame of
the gallant host who, a quarter of a century ago, came thronging from
farms, workshops, offices and schools, to fight, to suffer and die for
the Union and freedom. But the story of their sublime self-sacrifice,
and their dauntless courage, should be kept forever fresh and fair in
the hearts and minds of the young, until the end of recorded time. So
long as men and women teach their children to revere the memory of
patriot heroes, so long as the peaceful present honors and emulates
the example of the war-worn past, there need be no fear that the dead
have died in vain, or that ‘a government of the people, by the people,
for the people,’ will perish from the earth. The steadily growing
popularity of Memorial Day, and the universal interest taken in its
beautiful ceremonies, is one of the most hopeful developments of
American sentiments.”[192]
Conceding the importance of a proper recognition of Memorial Day,
Vermont in 1894 appointed the last half day’s session before May the
thirtieth for exercises “commemorative of the history of the nation
during the war of the Rebellion, and to patriotic instruction in the
principles of liberty and the equal rights of man.” The popularity of
this law is attested by its continuance on the Vermont statute books in
her _Compilation_ of 1917.[193]
In 1890, Massachusetts, and in 1897, New Hampshire established in these
commonwealths the custom of observing May the thirtieth by exercises
of a patriotic nature in the schools.[194] New York, in 1898, Arizona
in 1903, and Kansas in 1907, also subscribed to the sentiment which
dictated that Memorial Day be given special recognition.[195]
The birthdays of Lincoln and Washington were also given recognition by
New York in 1898, Arizona in 1903, and Kansas in 19O7.[196] The year
1909 witnessed an expression of patriotic enthusiasm over Lincoln’s
contribution to the American nation, awakened, no doubt, by the
centenary of his birth. During this year California, Maine, and New
Mexico prescribed special observance of February the twelfth. Rhode
Island followed in 1910, West Virginia in 1911, with Vermont in 1912
and in 1917.
“February 12, the birthday of Abraham Lincoln is hereby declared a
legal holiday,” stated the law of California, which is typical of
others of this group, “_provided, however_, that all public schools
throughout the state shall hold sessions in the forenoon of that day
in order to allow the customary exercises in memory of Lincoln; and
_provided further_, that when February 12 falls on Sunday, then the
Monday following, shall be a legal holiday and shall be so observed;
and _provided still further_, that when February 12 falls on Saturday
such exercises in the public schools shall take place on the Friday
afternoon preceding.”[197] In Rhode Island, the day was called “Grand
Army Flag Day,” and was, in 1914, still one of those days upon which
special exercises were held.[198]
Michigan prescribed the reading of the Declaration of Independence
to all pupils in the public schools above the fifth grade upon the
twelfth and twenty-second of February, and upon the twelfth of October,
with an obviously patriotic intent, in her legislation of 1911.[199]
Washington’s birthday occasioned legislation in Maryland in 1904 and in
Maine in 1913, as a day suitable for the propagation of patriotism.[200]
In the latter state Columbus Day, October 12, was included in those
observance days upon which exercises should “aim to impress on the
minds of the youth the important lessons of character and good
citizenship to be learned from the lives of American leaders and heroes
and from a contemplation of their own duties and obligations to the
community, state, and nation of which they constituted a part.”[201]
Columbus Day received the recognition of several other state
legislatures, Michigan, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Oregon especially
setting it aside for patriotic purposes.[202]
Flag Day, likewise, was deemed worthy of observance. New York in her
legislation of 1898, Arizona in 1903, and Kansas in 1907 included it
among those days set aside for special exercises in the schools.[203]
Connecticut decreed, in 1905, that the governor, annually in the
spring, should designate by official proclamation the fourteenth day of
June as Flag Day, upon which “suitable exercises, having reference to
the adoption of the national flag be held in the public schools.”[204]
In 1906, a proclamation of the governor of New Jersey, couched in
grandiloquent phraseology, recommended that suitable exercises be held
in the public schools for commemorating the birthday of the American
flag. It urged a more extended knowledge of the flag’s history. “The
history of our flag is the history of the growth of our nation,” he
proclaimed, “and the celebration of the anniversary of its birth is
not only a patriotic duty but an educational privilege. On the day
of its inception it stood as an emblem of the unity of a few modest
little colonies. To-day it is the symbol of a mighty nation. It has
floated over many a battlefield, inspiring the sons of patriotism with
a courage and strength that made possible the triumph of the right and
the preservation of the Union. It has been carried to far distant lands
and has aroused the enthusiasm of thousands to whom its advent meant
emancipation from cruelty and oppression.”[205]
Reminiscent of the local history movement of the decades following
the Civil War was legislation prescribing the celebration of days of
interest peculiar to different states. In 1897, Massachusetts passed a
resolution recommending to the governor that he issue a proclamation
to public school teachers suggesting commemorative exercises for the
centennial of the inauguration of “John Adams of Massachusetts,”
in order “to impress upon their pupils the significance of the
inauguration of the president of the United States and the importance
of the part sustained by the commonwealth in American history.”[206]
“Rhode Island Independence Day” was acclaimed in 1909, for May the
fourth. At this time, so the statute read, the celebration of the
“first official act of its kind by any of the thirteen American
colonies” in a declaration of sovereignty and independence took place.
From the date of the passage of the law, every fourth of May in the
future, it was determined, should become the occasion for the salute
of thirteen guns by detachments of the state artillery, at all places
in the state where artillery was stationed, besides a display of state
and national flags, as well as patriotic exercises in the public
schools.[207]
March the eighteenth assumed a distinctive place in the school
calendar of South Carolina by a law enacted in 1906, being known as
“South Carolina Day.” The selection of this date sprang from a desire
to honor John C. Calhoun, and from the hope that an observance of
this day would “conduce to a more general knowledge and appreciation
of the history, resources and possibilities of the State.”[208] In
like spirit Georgia, in 1909, endeavored to awaken local pride in the
pupils of the public schools by a celebration of “Georgia Day” on
February twelfth, “as the landing of the first colonists in Georgia
under Oglethorpe.”[209] Confederate heroes received special tribute
by patriotic exercises on January nineteenth, the birthday of Robert
E. Lee, through a law of Arkansas. The program of exercises, the law
prescribed, should deal with events connected with the life of General
Lee and “other distinguished Southern men” with attention to those men
of renown in civil and military life.[210] In Maryland, the state board
of education, by a law of 1904, was given the privilege of naming a
time suitable for the observance of “Maryland Day.”[211]
“The geography, history, industries and resources” of Minnesota,
through a law of 1911, received especial attention in the public
schools on “Minnesota Day.”[212] Montana, through a celebration of
“Pioneer Day” endeavored to instruct in the pioneer history of the
region.[213] Missouri paid homage to her state history in a law of
1915 through observance by teachers and pupils on the first Monday in
October. At this time, the law prescribed the “methodical consideration
of the products of the mine, field and forest of the state” and
the “consideration of the achievements of the sons and daughters
of Missouri in commerce, literature, statesmanship and art, and in
other departments of activity in which the state has rendered service
to mankind.”[214] The American Indians, through a law of 1919, in
Illinois, were likewise deemed worthy of commemorative exercises.[215]
The persisting desire of the lawmaker to instil patriotism, either
local or national, in pupils in the public schools has been the
incentive for laws respecting the flag and observance days. Local pride
is evident in the Northern laws for the observance of Memorial Day and
the birthday of Lincoln; whereas in the South a sectional interest is
shown in days memorializing the heroes of their section. The Middle
and Far West have also attempted to inculcate local pride. There is a
dearth of legislation in the Southern states for the commemoration of
Flag Day by special exercises, but Washington and Columbus have been
accorded homage by both the North and the South.
TEXTBOOK LEGISLATION
Textbook legislation from 1900 to 1917 followed the trend of other
legislation of the time. As the curriculum of the social studies
expanded, laws dealing with textbooks were made to include more
subjects for which there was to be a uniform series selected. State
history and civil government, both local and national, as well as
foreign history and other social studies, were found more frequently
among the subjects enumerated. The reaction which had set in against
the enforced nationalism of the Reconstruction period in the South
continued to express itself in those states in which there had hitherto
been no open remonstrance.
In 1904, the Mississippi legislature instructed the textbook commission
to select a uniform series of textbooks in United States history, civil
government, state history and other subjects, and took occasion to
prescribe that “no history in relation to the late civil war between
the states shall be used in the schools in this state unless it be fair
and impartial,....”[216]
Presumably of like character was the action of North Carolina in
1905. In “An Act to Promote the Production and Publication of School
Books relating to the History, Literature or Government of North
Carolina for use in the Public Schools,” there was appropriated $5,000
for the years of 1905 and 1906 for the state board of education “to
encourage, stimulate and promote the production and to procure the
control and publication of such books as in the judgment of the board
properly relate to the history, literature and government of North
Carolina.”[217]
Florida’s sectionalism was openly avowed in her “Act for Providing a
Method of Securing a Correct History of the United States, Including
a True and Correct History of the Confederacy, and Making an
Appropriation for such Purpose.” The act declared: “Whereas, no book
called History, which does not tell the truth or withholds it, is
worthy of the name or should be taught in public schools; and,
“Whereas, the South is rich in historical facts that are either ignored
or never mentioned in the so-called histories taught in our schools;
and,
“Whereas, the Southern States have been derelict in their duty to
posterity in not having provided for past and future generations a
history that is fair, just and impartial to all sections”; therefore it
was enacted that Florida appropriate $1500 as her share toward a fund
of $16,500 to be offered as a prize to the person writing the “best
history of the United States in which the truth about the participation
of the eleven states” be told.[218]
In the creation of a textbook board in 1907, Texas regarded it
essential that a uniform series of books be selected among which
there should be textbooks on the history of Texas, civil government
and United States history, in which “the construction placed on the
federal constitution by the Fathers of the Confederacy shall be fairly
presented.”[219]
A uniform series of textbooks not of a partisan character were
prescribed by laws in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas,
and included the subjects of United States history, state history,
and civil government.[220] Louisiana, Indiana, and Kansas added
ancient, medieval and modern history textbooks to others previously
prescribed.[221] In 1901 Nevada included the history of the United
States among the textbooks to be prescribed by the state board of
education,[222] and Idaho, in 1907, imposed the choice of a civil
government textbook and one in United States history upon her State
Board of Textbook Commissioners and the superintendent of public
instruction.[223] In 1913, California directed her state board of
education to revise the state series of textbooks which included United
States history.[224]
Three states, Ohio, New Mexico, and West Virginia placed laws upon
their statute books regarding state history, Ohio accepting Howe’s
_Historical Collections of Ohio_ as a reference book,[225] and New
Mexico limiting to one dollar a volume the price of a state history
which was to be prepared by a “known historian of the state.”[226]
Davies’ _Facts in Civil_ _Government_, by an act of 1901 of West
Virginia was again endorsed and the price fixed at 55 cents.[227]
Four states, during the period, in addition to three commonwealths
which named “partisan” textbooks, enacted laws to exclude histories
held to be sectional in spirit. Legislation in all other cases dealt
with provisions for a uniform series of textbooks. The statutes of
Louisiana, Indiana, and Kansas showed the expansion of the social
study curriculum in providing for textbooks in ancient, medieval and
modern history. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Kansas regulated the
purchase of textbooks in state and national history and in civics. In
California, Ohio, New Mexico and West Virginia provisions were made
relative to state history textbooks, and Idaho and Nevada in their laws
recognized a need for textbooks in civil government or United States
history.
FOOTNOTES:
[130] This period recognized the importance of vocational training as
an important function of the public school, and developed an interest
in other “expression subjects.” The content subjects were also expanded
and liberalized. According to Cubberley, “The modern school aims to
train pupils for greater social usefulness and to give them a more
intelligent grasp of the social and industrial, as well as the moral
and civic structure of our modern democratic life.” Cubberley, Ellwood
P., _Public Education in the United States_ (Boston, 1919), p. 370.
[131] Only the outstanding committee reports are mentioned. _Cf._
Johnson, _op. cit._ An N. E. A. committee report appeared in 1916 but
played no part in the social studies curriculum of the period. It
expressed, however, the practical and social viewpoint of the time.
[132] Eighteen states.
[133] See chapter VI for a discussion of the activities of the G. A.
R. in the North and of pro-Southern groups in the South to direct the
content of history textbooks.
[134] _Laws_ of Vermont, 1900, no. 25, p. 19. The law of 1912 was
substantially the same as that of 1900. _Laws_, 1912, sec. 1016, p. 68.
[135] _Laws_ of Vermont, 1902, no. 27, sec. 3, p. 39; _ibid._, 1904,
no. 137, sec. 4, p. 62; _Public Statutes_, 1906, ch. 47, sec. 1016, p.
277.
[136] _Public Statutes_ of Vermont, 1906, ch. 46, sec. 1003, p. 275.
_Cf._ _Laws_, 1888, ch. 5, sec. 95, p. 24.
[137] _Public Acts_ of Vermont, 1915, sec. 44, p. 131.
[138] _Supplement to the Public Statutes of New Hampshire_, 1901-1913,
p. 17 (1901, ch. 96, sec. 4, 1903, 31:1; 1903, 118:2; 1905, 19:1).
[139] _Supplement to the Public Statutes of New Hampshire_, 1901-1913,
ch. 92, sec. 6, p. 172. (_Laws_, 1903, 31:2; 1909, 49:1; 1911, 136:2.)
[140] _Public Acts_ of Connecticut, 1903, ch. 96, p. 65; _General
Statutes_, 1918, ch. 45, sec. 852, Vol. I, p. 312.
[141] _Laws_ of Delaware, 1911, p. 197; _Revised Statutes_, 1915, ch.
71, 2289, sec. 17, p. 1102; _ibid._, ch. 71, 2288, sec. 16, p. 1100.
[142] _Laws_ of Pennsylvania, 1911, sec. 1607, p. 394.
[143] _Kentucky Statutes_, 1909, ch. 113, par. 4421a (2), p. 1765; also
_Acts_, 1904, p. 11. This law was on the statute books in 1909; also
_Acts_, 1916, ch. 24, art. III, par. 24, p. 173. _Code_ of Virginia,
1904, ch. 66, sec. 1497, p. 810; _Acts_, 1906, par. 1497, p. 443.
_Public Laws_ of North Carolina, 1901, ch. 4, sec. 37; 1905, ch. 533,
s9; 1907, ch. 641, s853, 957; _Revised Code_, 1908, ch. 89, par. 4060,
Vol. II, p. 2049; _ibid._, 1913, par. 1383, Vol. I, p. 332.
[144] _Code_ of South Carolina, 1902, sec. 1201, Vol. I, p. 462;
_ibid._, 1912, sec. 1731, Vol. I, p. 480. _Cf._ page 16.
[145] _General Laws_ of Texas, 1905, sec. 100, p. 289; McEachon’s
_Annotated Civil Statutes_, 1913, art. 2783, Vol. II, p. 1114. The same
subjects are required through 1913.
[146] _Code_ of Alabama, 1907, 1685 (4), Vol. I, p. 741 See page 17 for
the same law in the Code of 1897.
[147] _Code_ of Georgia, 1910, ch. 4, art. 4, sec. 3, par. 1464, Vol.
I, p. 376. The law was passed in 1903.
[148] _Code_ of West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45, par. 78, p. 578;
substantially the same in _Acts_, 1872, ch. 123; 1881, ch. 15; 1887,
ch. 3; 1891, ch. 63; 1895, ch. 36; 1908, ch. 27; 1915, ch. 56.
[149] _Compiled Laws_ of Florida, 1914, 390, art. 4, Vol. I, p. 141;
_Laws_, 1905, ch. 5382, sec. 6, p. 34, also _Laws_, 1903, p. 180.
[150] _Laws_ of Florida, 1909, ch. 5938, p. 126 (No. 69).
[151] _Constitution and Revised Laws of Louisiana_, 1876 to 1902 (Act
214, 1902), sec. 23, p. 612; again _ibid._, 1908, p. 45; _Annotated
Revision_, 1915, 2532, sec. 16, Vol. I, p. 846. The law was unchanged
in the _Revisions_ of 1908 and of 1915.
[152] _Laws_ of Mississippi, 1916, ch. 187 (4540), p. 277.
[153] _General and Local Acts_ of Ohio, 1904, sec. 4007-1, p. 359.
[154] _Ibid._, 1910, p. 103.
[155] _Code_ of Ohio, 1910, sec. 7648, sec. 7649, p. 1622.
[156] _General and Local Acts_ of Ohio, 1911, sec. 7830, p. 130.
Repealed February 17, 1914. _Ibid._, 1914, p. 109.
[157] _Revised Statutes_ of Illinois, 1913, ch. 122, 509, p. 2267. In
force July 1, 1909. Again found, _Revised Statutes_, 1917, ch. 122,
509, p. 2736.
[158] _Statutes_ of Wisconsin, 1917, 40, 30, p. 375; _ibid._, 1915, ch.
27s. 447 (1863, c155 s55; 1866, c111 s6; 1869, c50 s1; 1871, c14 s1;
R. S. 1878, s447; _Suppl._, 1906, s447; 1907, c118, 200; 1911, c409).
_Statutes_ of Wisconsin, 1913, ch. 27 s553 p-5, p. 335; _ibid._, 1917,
s41.17 (1), p. 411. This law was repealed in 1917. The requirement was
the same in 1915. _Ibid._, 1915, c275, s553, p-5, p. 335. In Wisconsin,
in normal training courses in the high school, American history was
required for at least one semester in the eleventh and twelfth grades.
[159] _Revised Laws_ of Minnesota, 1915, ch. 14, 1340, p. 273. _General
Statutes_, 1913, 2299, p. 629; _General Laws_, 1895, ch. 17, sec. 2,
p. 138. This legislation had been preceded by legislation of 1895,
prescribing civil government for county schools.
[160] _Laws_ of Indiana, 1907, ch. 192, p. 324. Burns’ _Annotated
Statutes_, 1914, 6582 (5984), Vol. III, p. 384, and 6584, p. 385.
[161] _Ibid._
[162] _Compiled Laws_ of South Dakota, 1903, 2378, p. 432. The teaching
of civil government and United States history in the common schools.
[163] _Revised Code_ of North Dakota, 1913, par. 1383, Vol. I, p. 332.
The requirement included American history and civil government.
[164] _Laws_ of Kansas, 1903, ch. 435, p. 672. History of United
States and Kansas history. _Laws_, 1913, ch. 271, p. 454, added civil
government. _General Statutes_, 1915, ch. 105, art. 5, par. 8985, p.
1818, for district schools, history of the United States and of Kansas.
[165] _Revised Statutes_ of Nebraska, 1913, ch. 71, art. X, 6839, sec.
140, p. 1907.
[166] _Revised Statutes_ of Missouri, 1909, par. 10852, and _ibid._,
1919, par. 11218, and _ibid._, 1909, par. 10923, Vol. III, p. 3400
respectively. The last law is also in _Session Laws_, 1903, p. 264;
_ibid._, 1909, p. 770.
[167] _Laws_ of Oklahoma, 1905, p. 378; _Compiled Laws_, 1909, sec.
8233, p. 1664.
[168] _Revised Laws_ of Oklahoma, 1910, art. III, 7667, Vol. II, p.
2084; _Session Laws_, 1907-8, p. 14.
[169] _Session Laws_ of Oregon, 1911, ch. 58, sec. 59, p. 96.
[170] _Session Laws_ of Wyoming, 1913, Senate File No. 41, p. 45.
[171] _Ibid._, 1917, ch. 123, p. 215.
[172] _Statutes_ of California, 1903, par. 1874: 2, p. 195; _Codes and
Statutes_, 1905, par. 1874: 2, Vol. I, p. 451, _Statutes_, 1907, p. 70;
_Consolidated Supplement to Kerr’s Cyclopedia_, 1913, par. 1665, p.
194. _Cf._ page 20.
[173] _Revised Laws of the Territory of Arizona_, 1901, 2214 (sec.
85), p. 602. This is the same as _Laws_ of 1885, p. 157, also _Revised
Statutes_, 1887, 1553, sec. 81, p. 284.
[174] _Laws_ of New Mexico, 1911, ch. 41, p. 68. Approved June 8, 1912.
Also _Annotated Statutes_, 1915, par. 4958, sec. 152, Vol. II, p. 1429.
[175] _Codes_ of California, 1905, 1772, Vol. I, p. 426, grammar school
certificates; United States history and civil government were also
required for this certificate. _Compiled Statutes_ of Idaho, 1919, par.
986, Vol. I, p. 276; first grade certificate, with a choice of medieval
and modern history or English history added to American history and
civics required for other certificates. _Session Laws_, 1911, p. 448;
_ibid._, 1915, p. 333; repealed in session 1921, _Laws_, 1921, p.
473. _General Laws_ of Oregon, 1911, ch. 58, sec. 9, p. 89; for state
certificate, general history was required. _Revised Laws_ of Minnesota,
1905, ch. 14, 1354, p. 275, for professional certificates, ancient,
medieval, English, and American history. _General Laws_ of Wisconsin,
1919, ch. 601, first grade, modern history and United States history,
history of Wisconsin, rural economics. _Laws_ of Ohio, 1919, sec.
7831-2, p. 685, modern history, general history, economics, sociology,
civics, among sixteen branches from which five were to be chosen for
high school certificates. _Laws_ of Missouri, 1911, sec. 10939, p. 408,
first grade certificate, giving a choice of ancient, medieval or modern
or English history for examination. _Laws_ of Texas, 1921, ch. 129,
sec. 108a, p. 243, high school certificate civil government, ancient
and modern history, and for elementary certificate of second class,
United States history and Texas history.
[176] _Compiled Statutes of Idaho_, _op. cit._ _Statutes_ of Nevada,
1912, ch. 114, p. 156, also _Revised Laws_, 1912, sec. 3263, Vol. I, p.
947, general history, United States history, civil government, current
events for the first and second grade elementary certificates; sec.
3262, high school certificates; civil government, general history,
United States history, with a selection of English history out of a
group of subjects. _Laws_ of Kansas, 1915, ch. 298, sec. 14, p. 392,
first grade certificate, also in _Laws_, 1911, ch. 277, sec. 2, p.
506; _ibid._, 1913, ch. 268, p. 450. _Statutes_ of Wisconsin, 1913,
sec. 450-3, first grade certificate required English history, history
of United States, civil government, local and national; for the third
grade, the latter two were required.
[177] _Code_ of West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45, par. 87, elementary
certificates, _Laws_, 1919, p. 87. _Annotated Revision_ of Louisiana,
1915, 2572 (sec. 1, art. 55, 1906, Vol. I, p. 88), state teachers’
certificate. _Laws_ of Texas, 1905, sec. 118, p. 293, permanent
certificate and first grade. _Revised Statutes_ of Illinois, 1913, ch.
122, 541, third to first grade elementary certificate, also _ibid._,
1917, ch. 122, 541, _Laws_, 1919, p. 900. _Revised Laws_ of Minnesota,
1905, ch. 14, 1354, p. 275, professional state certificates. _Laws_ of
Nebraska, 1919, ch. 70, sec. 3, p. 262, professional state and high
school certificate; also _Revised Statutes_, 1913, ch. 71, art. XIII,
6859, sec. 158, professional state certificate (_Laws_, 1905, p. 559).
_Laws_ of South Dakota, 1919, p. 169, repeals provisions of _Revised
Code_, 1919, sec. 3; for a life diploma, general history, economics or
sociology; also general history, United States history, South Dakota
history and civil government in a state certificate; _Laws_ of 1905,
sec. 2286, p. 136, and _ibid._, 1911, p. 170. _Compiled Laws_ of Utah,
1907, par. 1767, pp. 684-685, and _ibid._, 1917, par. 4509, p. 914,
state professional certificates for grammar grades and high school.
_Statutes_ of Nevada, 1912, ch. 80, p. 157, first grade elementary
school certificate; ch. 114, sec. 24, high school certificates
(approved bill March 17, 1913); also _Statutes_, 1912, high school and
elementary school certificates; _General Laws_, 1914, sec. 7831, high
school certificate general history and a choice in elective history.
_Session Laws_ of Washington, 1909, sec. 4644, p. 516, first grade
elementary certificates and life certificates; _ibid._, 1911, ch. 16,
sec. 4, p. 51, life certificates. _Political Code_ of Idaho, 1901,
ch. XXXVI, sec. 1028, Vol. I, p. 311, first, second and third grade
certificates.
[178] _Supplement to the Code_ of Iowa, 1902, sec. 2736, p. 315.
_Acts_, 1906, ch. 122, sec. 4, p. 88, first grade certificate had been
found as early as 1882. _Laws_ of Nebraska, 1903, par. 5542, sec. 5;
in 1919, political economy is not mentioned. _Revised Statutes_ of
Wyoming, 1899, sec. 627, p. 228; also _Laws_, 1901, ch. 57, p. 60.
[179] _Compiled Laws_ of South Dakota, 1913, par. 13, Vol. I, p. 565,
for life certificates.
[180] _Statutes_ of Wisconsin, 1915, ch. 27s. 450-2, p. 272. _Digest
of Statutes_ of Arkansas, 1921, par. 9022, rural teachers’ certificate
(Act of March 28, 1917).
[181] _Compiled Laws_ of South Dakota, 1913, par. 55, Vol. I, p. 572;
_ibid._, 1911, p. 413; _Revised Statutes_, 1919, par. 7392, p. 1847,
for first grade certificate; also _Laws_, 1919, p. 170. _Laws_ of
Nevada, 1907, secs. 15, 16, 17, p. 383, “current news”; _Statutes_,
1921, ch. 208, sec. 25, elementary school certificate, first grade,
“current events.”
[182] _Statute Law_ of Pennsylvania, 1920, 5003, p. 462, professional
and provisional certificates. _Laws_ of Delaware, 1919, 2326-118, sec.
118, elementary school certificate; _ibid._, 1920, sec. 170, p. 190.
_Code_ of West Virginia, 1916 (all statutes in force), ch. 45, par. 87,
p. 580, for elementary and first three grades of certificates; again in
_Laws_, 1919, p. 87, _ibid._, 1921, sec. 104, elementary certificate.
_Statutes_ of Kentucky, 1918, ch. 113, art. XI, par. 4501, p. 941,
for all certificates. _Laws_ of Mississippi, 1916, ch. 188, 4543, p.
278, first and second grade licenses; also state licenses, _Laws_,
1908, p. 209. _Code_ of Alabama, 1907, 1734, Vol. I, p. 757, the first
three grades of certificates. _Revised Laws_ of Oklahoma, 1910, 7923,
Vol. II, p. 2153, the first three grades of licenses. McEachin’s
_Civil Statutes_ of Texas, 1913, articles 2799-2802, Vol. II, p. 1117,
permanent certificates (also Sayles’ _Civil Statutes_, art. 3974, pp.
1419-20) and first, second, third grade certificates, and _Laws_,
1905, sec. 118, p. 293; _ibid._, 1921, p. 243. _Laws_ of Wisconsin,
1919, ch. 601, 39.18 (1), 39.19 (1), and 39.20 (1), for first, second,
and third grade certificates. _Laws_ of South Dakota, 1919, p. 169,
_Compiled Laws_ of South Dakota, 1913, secs. 13 and 14, Vol. I, p.
565, life diploma, state, first, second, third grade certificates, and
primary. _Revised Statutes_ of Illinois, 1913, ch. 122, p. 2271, county
certificates; _ibid._, 1917, ch. 122; _Laws_, 1919, p. 900, as well as
_Laws_ of 1903 and 1905. _Laws_ of Kansas, 1915, ch. 298, p. 392, for
the first, second and third grade certificates; _ibid._, 1913, ch. 268,
p. 450; _ibid._, 1911, ch. 277, p. 506. _Statutes_ of New Mexico, 1915,
par. 4957, Vol. II, p. 1429, first and second grade certificates.
[183] Arizona prescribed for first and second grade certificates,
civics and “history,” which probably meant American history. See
_Revised Laws_, 1901, 2142 (sec. 13), p. 584.
[184] In Florida, for example, June 3 was made a holiday to “perpetuate
in the minds of the people the purity of life, the intellectual
ability, the heroic fortitude, and the patriotic character of Jefferson
Davis.” _Laws_ of Florida, 1891, ch. 4058, p. 99.
[185] See _American History and Patriotic Program for all Schools of
Oklahoma_, issued by the State Department of Education, 1921, p. 7.
[186] _Laws_ of New York, 1898, secs. 1, 2, 3, Vol. III, p. 1191;
_Revised Laws_ of Massachusetts, 1902, ch. 42, sec. 50, Vol. I, p. 474;
_Laws_ of Indiana, 1907, ch. 253, p. 537; _Acts_ of Iowa, 1913, ch.
245, sec. 2, p. 264; _Laws_ of Arizona, 1903, no. 19, p. 25.
[187] Burns’ _Annotated Statutes_ of Indiana, 1914, 5852a, Vol. III, p.
385.
[188] _Laws_ of Kansas, 1907, ch. 319, p. 493. The Iowa law, 1913, is
much like this law. See _Acts_ of Iowa, 1913, p. 264. The Grand Army
of the Republic and the Woman’s Relief Corps were actively engaged in
supplying schools with flags for the purpose of inculcating patriotism
throughout this period.
[189] _Acts_ of New Jersey, 1915, p. 904.
[190] _Revised Statutes_ of Maine, 1916, ch. 16, sec. 52; _Laws_, 1907,
ch. 182, p. 199; _ibid._, 1915, ch. 176.
[191] No attempt is made to treat legal holidays where the law requires
observance by simply specifying the dates of such days. They are
discussed only when the enactments indicate patriotic exercises to
be held within the public schools, or where the purpose of teaching
history through the observance of such days is stated.
[192] _Laws_ of Kansas, 1886, ch. CXXV, p. 167. Approved February 18,
1886. Especially active in their desire for a proper observance of
Memorial Day were the G. A. R., who in annual encampments frequently
expressed a faith in it as a means for promoting patriotism as well as
for memorializing the deeds of their comrades.
[193] _Statutes_ of Vermont, 1894, no. 25, par. 685, p. 21; _Public
Statutes_, 1906, ch. 46, sec. 1005, p. 275; _General Laws_, 1917, ch.
57, sec. 1240.
[194] _Acts and Resolves_ of Massachusetts, 1890, ch. III, sec. 1,
p. 94; _Laws_ of New Hampshire, 1897, ch. 14, p. 16; also _Laws_,
1921, ch. 85, sec. 23, p. 127. The latter date in New Hampshire might
indicate a reënactment. South Dakota, in 1921, specially designated
Memorial Day as “Citizenship Day.” See page 98.
[195] _Laws_ of New York, 1898, ch. 481, Vol. II, p. 1191. _Laws_ of
Arizona, 1903, no. 19, p. 25. _Laws_ of Kansas, 1907, ch. 319, p. 493.
[196] _Laws_ of New York, _op. cit._ _Laws_ of Arizona, _op. cit._
_Laws_ of Kansas, _op. cit._
[197] _Statutes_ of California, 1909, ch. 527, p. 861, approved April
13, 1909. _Acts and Resolves_ of Maine, 1909, ch. 190, sec. 1, p. 190.
_Acts_ of New Mexico, 1909, ch. 121, sec. 7, p. 342. _Acts_ of West
Virginia, 1911, ch. 40, p. 117. Also in West Virginia _Code_, 1916, ch.
15, par. 1, p. 246. _General Laws_ of Vermont, 1917, ch. 57, sec. 1241,
p. 295.
[198] _Acts and Resolves_ of Rhode Island, 1914, ch. 1071, sec. 2, p.
110; also _Acts_, 1901, ch. 818, p. 55.
[199] This law was passed in 1911. _Compiled Laws_ of Michigan, 1915,
ch. 108 (5823), sec. 1, Vol. II, p. 2198. Non-compliance might cause
the revocation of the teacher’s certificate by the county commissioner
of schools or by the superintendent of public instruction.
[200] _Laws_ of Maryland, 1904, sec. 47, p. 991. _Acts and Resolves_ of
Maine, 1913, ch. 195, sec. 88, p. 240.
[201] _Ibid._
[202] _Compiled Laws_ of Michigan, 1915, _op. cit._ _General Laws_
of Oregon, 1921, ch. 41, p. 62. This law, although coming in 1921,
possesses the characteristics of those of the earlier period. See page
93. _Annotated Revision of Statutes of Louisiana_, 1915, 2659, 2660,
secs. 1, 2, Vol. I, p. 893. (Act 56, 1919, p. 92.) West Virginia in
1911, also, set aside October 12 for celebration in the common and
graded schools. _Laws_, 1911, ch. 40, p. 117.
[203] _Laws_ of New York, _op. cit._ _Laws_ of Arizona, _op. cit._
_Laws_ of Kansas, _op. cit._
[204] _Public Acts_ of Connecticut, 1905, ch. 146, p. 355. Approved
June 16, 1905. This amended 2140 of the _General Statutes_.
[205] Proclamation of the Governor of New Jersey (E. C. Stokes).
_Laws_, 1906, p. 787.
[206] _Acts and Resolves_ of Massachusetts, 1897, p.628. This bill
passed the Senate February 3, 1897, and the House on February 8, 1897.
[207] _General Laws_ of Rhode Island, 1909, title X, ch. 64, sec. 8, p.
267.
[208] _Code_ of South Carolina, 1912, par. 1810, Vol. I, p. 496.
_Laws_, 1906, XXIII, 22; approved February 17, 1906.
[209] _Code_ of Georgia, 1910, art. 7, par. 1528, Vol. I, p. 395. See
page 96 for North Carolina’s law setting aside October twelfth for
commemoration. The next chapter continues the discussion for laws
passed after 1917.
[210] _Digest_ of Arkansas Statutes, 1916, sec. 9654, p. 2166.
[211] _Laws_ of Maryland, 1904, sec. 47, p. 991.
[212] _Laws_ of Minnesota, 1911, ch. 81, sec. 1, p. 97. The day known
as Minnesota Day was designated by the superintendent of public
instruction by proclamation, the governor concurring.
[213] _Laws_ of Montana, 1913, ch. XIV, 1400, p. 263. In this year the
first Monday in November was named. A previous law, 1903, provided for
an observance on the last Friday in May. (_Laws_, 1903, ch. LXXXVIII,
p. 161.)
[214] _Laws_ of Missouri, 1915, p. 301.
[215] _Laws_ of Illinois, 1919, Sen. Bill, no. 238, p. 894. In a
case such as this the law has been discussed here rather than in the
following chapter. The chronological limits of the chapters have not
always been strictly adhered to.
[216] Approved March 11, 1904. The law also prohibited “partisan”
books. _Laws_ of Mississippi, 1904, ch. 86 (S. B. no. 51), p. 116.
Also _Code_, 1906, ch. 125, 4595, p. 1246. _Cf._ chapter VI for the
activities of pro-Southern groups in this period.
[217] Ratified March 4, 1905, _Laws_ of North Carolina, 1905, ch. 707,
p. 863.
[218] _Laws_ of Florida, 1915, ch. 6939 (no. 133), Vol. I, p. 311.
Approved June 3, 1915. The appropriation was not available until each
of eleven ex-Confederate states, or a majority of them, did likewise.
The governor of Florida was appointed to communicate with other
Southern governors about carrying out the act.
[219] _Laws_ of Texas, 1907, ch. IX, p. 449. Approved May 14, 1907. The
law of 1911 added general history to the list of books. _Laws_, 1911,
ch. 11, sec. 4, p. 90.
[220] _Code_ of Georgia, 1910, art. 1, sec. 2, par. 1439, Vol. I, p.
367. Also _Laws_, 1903, sec. 2, p. 54. _Laws_ of Alabama, 1903, sec. 1,
p. 167. _Code_ of Mississippi, 1906, ch. 125, 4595, p. 1246. _Laws_ of
Kansas, 1915, ch. 297, p. 383.
[221] _Annotated Revision of the Statutes_ of Louisiana, 1915, 2519,
Vol. I, p. 841 (sec. 3, act 214, 1912, p. 465). The books were to
remain unchanged for a period of six years. _Laws_ of Indiana, 1913,
ch. 58, p. 115. _Laws_ of Kansas, 1915, ch. 297, p. 383. In Indiana,
the price of the history of the United States to be used in the common
schools, could not exceed 65 cents. Burns’ _Annotated Statutes_ of
Indiana, 1914, 6338 (5867), Vol. III, p. 253.
[222] _Laws_ of Nevada, 1901, p. 50. Approved March 8, 1901.
[223] _Revised Code_ of Idaho, 1908, sec. 574, Vol. I, p. 370; _Laws_
of 1907, sec. 3, p. 477. (Sen. Bill no. 84. Approved March 14, 1907.)
There was also found on the statute books Idaho’s previous stipulation
prohibiting political documents in the schools. _Compiled Statutes_,
1919, Vol. I, p. 297.
[224] _General Laws_ of California, 1913, ch. 482, art. 4542, p. 1713.
[225] _Laws_ of Ohio, 1892, p. 241; also _Code_, 1910, sec. 7719, p.
1635.
[226] _Statutes_ of New Mexico, 1915, par. 4959, sec. 153, Vol. II, p.
1429. Act of June 8, 1912. Legislation in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin included the stereotyped restriction regarding “matter of a
partisan character.” See _Laws_ of West Virginia, 1909, ch. 23, sec.
4, p. 346; _General Statutes_ of Oklahoma, 1908, sec. 6324, p. 1313,
_Laws_ of 1907, ch. 77, p. 681; _Statutes_ of Wisconsin, 1913, ch. 27,
sec. 553m-12, p. 319, _ibid._, 1915, ch. 27 s 553m-12, p. 330.
[227] _Code_ of West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45, par. 165a, p. 599 (Acts
of 1901, ch. 141).
CHAPTER IV
THE EFFECT OF THE WORLD WAR ON LAWS FOR TEACHING HISTORY
THE CURRICULUM
When the Fathers of New England adopted the famous laws of 1642 and
1647, they acted on the belief that by the school the character of the
nation can be moulded. Throughout nearly three centuries of development
the confidence of the American people in the regenerating power of the
public school has grown. They have come to hold high faith in education
as an effective tool for the conservation and promotion of national
well-being. In each epoch, the school has attempted to accommodate its
offerings to the demands of the time, thereby reflecting the needs of a
people whose point of view is constantly changing. First conceived as
a force in the religious life of the people, the school soon became an
instrument for the development of “morality, virtue and good behavior.”
The latter eighteenth century captured the vision of a people fired
with patriotism and service to the state, and then by a citizenry
trained to “preserve and perfect a republican constitution.” The
occasion of a diverse and scattered electorate caused by the democratic
awakening of the Jacksonian era compelled acceptance of the theory
that it was a duty of the state to provide education for all. After
the Civil War, a renewed faith in nationality and a realization of the
economic and social demands of the time left their imprint upon the
public school curriculum.
The opening of the twentieth century witnessed the expansion of the
“citizenship aim” to include training for efficient participation in
a complex social and industrial life. Since then, many traditional
subjects of the previous period have been superseded by those tending
to give point to the new aims in education; and of the traditional
subjects retained many have been refashioned to fit a new and
present-day point of view.
This wider horizon has tended to encourage to a greater degree than
hitherto the introduction of many social studies, including economics,
sociology and foreign history. Although encumbered with survivals, the
history curriculum of the twentieth century has sought independence of
purely political and military events and has striven for a scientific
presentation of historical truths which should fit for “complete
living.” This new viewpoint was well exemplified in the report of
a committee of the National Education Association in 1916, which
proposed a six year course in the social studies from the seventh to
the twelfth grades, stressing the teaching of practical and present-day
problems.[228]
Shortly thereafter the United States entered the World War. America
at once faced not only the necessity of mobilizing the economic and
military resources of a country unprepared for war, but also that
still more difficult problem--the consolidation of public opinion.
Various agencies were created for the express purpose of coördinating
the spiritual resources of the country. Such was the design of the
Committee on Public Information. Speakers and writers gave freely of
their talents, and “hyphenism” and pacifism were driven to cover. The
Espionage Law betrayed the apprehension of the federal government
regarding unbridled speech and writing, and sedition laws in different
commonwealths served to arrest an open opposition to the War.
Following the War the fear of radicalism and disloyalty to the
established institutions of the country continued to express itself
in drastic legislation. In the public schools, the desire to develop
an unalloyed patriotism proved the motive for the passage of statutes
to promote a dynamic loyalty. In general, these laws relate to
the teaching of patriotism through instruction in the history and
government of the United States, open affirmations of loyalty by the
teaching personnel, the exclusion of alien teachers from the public
schools, flag legislation and observance days, enactments regarding
textbooks, and the Americanization of foreigners. Practically all
legislation since 1917 dealing with the curriculum contains provisions
pertaining to the social studies, and the greater amount reflects the
wartime glow of patriotic enthusiasm.[229]
In 1917 three states passed regulatory provisions respecting the
curriculum. Vermont’s legislation dealt with four-year high schools
and required the teaching of the political and social sciences.[230]
On February 17, Montana approved a law which called for instruction in
United States history, the history of Montana, and state and federal
civics among other required subjects for the elementary school, and
three days later Arkansas approved a similar law.[231] New Hampshire,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Texas continued laws enacted at
a previous time,[232] and Delaware, through legislation in 1919 gained
the unique distinction of prescribing “community civics” besides the
history of the nation and of the state.[233] Alabama and Georgia under
laws designed primarily to prescribe a uniform series of textbooks
included in the list of studies for which textbooks were mentioned, the
history of the state embracing the constitution of the state, and the
history of the United States with the constitution.[234] In Tennessee,
to the requirement of United States history for the elementary schools,
was added in 1917 the study of the federal constitution in the
secondary school curriculum.[235] Texas placed distinct emphasis upon
the teaching of state history through a regulation insisting that this
“history be taught in the history course in all public schools” and
“in this course only.”[236] The popularity of civil government, state
history, and United States history is further proved by South Dakota’s
prescription in 1919.[237]
Laws for dynamic patriotism were initiated by a statute of California
in 1917. One of the mildest of the laws of this type, its chief
purpose was training in the duties of citizenship through the study of
United States history, with special reference to the history of the
Constitution and the reasons for the adoption of each constitutional
provision. Instruction in local civil government was provided for as
well, with a specific statement regarding instruction in the duties of
citizenship.[238]
In 1918, South Dakota, Texas and New York placed upon their statute
books laws that were likewise a direct outgrowth of the war spirit. In
the first two states, patriotism, the laws declared, should spring from
lessons of “intelligent patriotism” inculcated by special exercises.
The South Dakota law specified an hour a week in the aggregate, to be
devoted in both public and private institutions “to the teaching of
patriotism, the singing of patriotic songs, the reading of patriotic
addresses and a study of the lives and history of American patriots.”
Should an instructor, school officer or superintendent fail to enforce
obedience to the law the statute provided for a fine of not less than
five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisonment in
the county jail from five to thirty days, or both. In the case of the
malfeasance of a teacher, the superintendent of public instruction had
the power to revoke his certificate.[239]
In Texas, the law declared that “the daily program of every public
school should be so formulated that it includes at least ten minutes
for the teaching of lessons of intelligent patriotism, including the
needs of the State and Federal Governments, the duty of the citizens to
the State, and the obligation of the State to the citizen.”[240] The
statute concluded with this statement: “The fact that this nation is
now at war with a foreign foe, and that the strength of a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people must necessarily come
of its citizenship, creates an emergency and an imperative public
necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on
three several days be suspended and that this act shall be in force
from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.”[241]
New York’s statute, known as the Lusk Law, is the most conspicuous
of all of the laws of this period because of its drastic character
and its later applications. This law became effective September 1,
1918. The phase of the law relating to instruction had two parts: one
prescribing courses of instruction in patriotism and citizenship, the
other specifying rules for inspection, supervision, and enforcement of
the law.
“In order to promote a spirit of patriotic and civic service and
obligation and to foster in the children of the state moral and
intellectual qualities which are essential in preparing to meet the
obligations of citizenship in peace or in war,” the law declared, “the
regents of the university of the state of New York shall prescribe
courses of instruction in patriotism and citizenship to be maintained
and followed in the schools of the state. The boards of education
and trustees of the several cities and school districts of the state
shall require instruction to be given in such courses, by the teachers
employed in the schools therein. All pupils attending such schools,
over the age of eight years, shall attend upon such instruction.”
The statute further prescribed similar courses of instruction for
private schools, and was required of all pupils over eight years of
age. In case such courses were not maintained in the private school,
attendance upon instruction in such school was not deemed equivalent to
instruction given to pupils of like age in the public schools.
The law empowered the regents of the University of the State of New
York to determine the subjects to be included in courses in patriotism
and citizenship, and to arrange such other matters as were required
for carrying into effect the objects and purposes of the law. The
commissioner of education was made responsible for its enforcement, and
to him fell the supervision and inspection of instruction. He was given
authority at his discretion to withhold, from a school district or
city, school money, if the authorities neglected such courses or failed
to compel attendance upon such instruction.[242]
In 1918, Massachusetts subscribed to training in the duties of
citizenship, including United States history, civil government, and
thrift in her public schools; and two years later, in a statute
relating to all elementary and secondary schools, she prescribed
“courses in American history and civics for the purpose of promoting
civic service and a greater knowledge of American history and of
fitting the pupils, morally and intellectually, for the duties of
citizenship.”[243]
In 1919, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas and Washington
passed laws of like character. Although each embodies certain
distinctive features, yet all assert a belief in the study of American
history and government as a preparation for a patriotic citizenship.
The New Jersey law contains concrete requirements. In each high school,
courses of study in “Community Civics” and in “Problems in American
Democracy” were prescribed through the agency of the Commissioner of
Education, with the approval of the State Board of Education. The law
required that “Community Civics” be completed not later than the end of
the second year, and the course in “Problems of American Democracy” be
commenced not later than the beginning of the third year. Sixty full
periods of not less than forty minutes each were specified for the
teaching of these subjects. For the elementary grades, the geography,
history and civics of New Jersey were prescribed. These courses of
study, the law provided, “shall be given together with instruction as
to the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship as they relate to
community and national welfare with the object of producing the highest
type of patriotic citizenship.”[244]
In Pennsylvania, too, it has become a duty of the state superintendent
of public instruction to prescribe “a course of study conducive to the
spirit of loyalty and devotion to the state and national governments,”
and for all elementary public schools instruction in the history of
the state and nation, including the elements of civil government.[245]
For the seventh and eighth grades Ohio prescribed civil government
and United States history; and Iowa, as a prerequisite to graduation
from any high school, required a course in United States history and
civil government for one year, as well as the offering of a semester of
social problems and economics in a four-year high school. In Kansas,
where the course in civil government and United States history was
designed for the elementary grades, provision was made, in the case
of noncompliance with the law, for the closing of the school by the
action of the county attorney or the attorney-general. It was in a like
spirit with other commonwealths that Washington declared the “study
of American history and American government” to be “indispensable to
good citizenship and an accurate appreciation of national ideals.”[246]
A similar provision, with the aim of promoting “Americanism” and in
training in the “ideals and principles underlying the government of
the United States,” met defeat in Maryland in 1920 by the veto of the
governor.[247]
The year 1921 was particularly prolific in legislation of a wartime
character. A variety of expression but a unity of purpose continued to
be in evidence. Laws were enacted in Maine, New Hampshire, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Arizona,
Nevada, New Mexico, and California.
The Maine statute prescribed the teaching of American history and civil
government in all elementary and high school grades, both private and
public, and made these subjects a requirement for graduation from
all grammar schools.[248] The law of her neighbor, New Hampshire,
required the reading of the constitution of the United States and of
New Hampshire “at least once a year in the last grade below the high
school.”[249]
In line with the other states Michigan declared, by a statute of
May 17, 1921, that the study of the state and federal constitutions
should begin not later than the eighth grade and continue throughout
the high school course to an extent to be decided upon by the state
superintendent of public instruction.[250] In Wisconsin, provision was
made for instruction in the history and civil government of the United
States and of Wisconsin, and in citizenship,[251] and Illinois, on
June 21, 1921, passed “An Act to make the teaching of representative
government in the public schools and other educational institutions in
the State of Illinois compulsory.”[252] This law endorsed the teaching
of patriotism through a knowledge of “the principles of representative
government, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State
of Illinois,” and was required in all schools maintained in whole or
in part by state funds. The law provided, also, for one hour of such
instruction each week in the seventh and eighth grades, with an equal
amount of time in the high school.
On March 31, 1921, Iowa added to her requirements a provision that all
public and private schools should give regular courses of instruction
in the constitution of the state and nation, beginning not later
than the eighth grade and continuing in the high school to an extent
to be determined by the superintendent of public instruction. A
Nebraska statute of that year established for all schools courses in
American history and civil government to give “a thorough knowledge
of the history of our country and its institutions and of our form of
government.”[253]
In Oklahoma, instruction in American history must commence in the
primary grades of all schools, both public and private, beginning
with the lowest and continuing through all primary years, with the
privilege of substituting state history in one of the grades. For this
instruction, there should be allotted at least one hour each week. It
was specifically stated that the purpose of the statute was to instil
in the hearts of the pupils “an understanding of the United States
and of a love of country and devotion to the principles of American
government,” and that “such instruction ... shall avoid, as far as
possible, being a mere recital of dates and events.” For the high
school, at least one full year’s work in American history and civics
was required, and no college, normal school, university or chartered
institution of learning in the state was allowed to confer a degree
until a student had passed a course in American history and civil
government.[254]
The social study requirement of Colorado for her public schools
consisted of the history and civil government of the state,[255] and
Arizona in her law specified that not less than two years’ instruction
in civics, economics, and American political history and government
be provided for all common schools, high schools, normal schools and
universities.[256] Nevada, in her enactment of February 24, compelled
all schools including colleges, save exclusively scientific schools,
to teach American history, history of the state, and American civil
government.[257] Included as a part of this law was a provision for
patriotic exercises for at least an hour in each school week. New
Mexico, declaring that the passage of a law prescribing the teaching of
national and state history and government was “necessary for the public
peace and safety,” made the statute effective immediately,[258] and
California again essayed an endorsement of the history of the state and
nation with emphasis upon the adoption of the Constitution.[259]
In 1922 the commonwealth of Virginia enacted a law similar to those
passed the previous year in fourteen other states. By this statute,
pupils enrolled in the public free schools are taught civil government,
history of the United States and the history of Virginia. The 1922
session of the Rhode Island legislature adopted much the same kind of a
provision for all public and private schools by making obligatory the
teaching of the principles of popular and representative government and
the history of Rhode Island.[260]
An adherence to the early method of endorsing the teaching of
patriotism characterized enactments in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. In
the last state, instruction “tending to impress upon the minds of the
pupils the importance and necessity of good manners, truthfulness,
temperance, purity, patriotism, and industry,” was prescribed in
connection with the regular school work.[261] Nevada, four years
before the passage of Utah’s law, provided for civic training in her
high schools, whose purpose was to “inculcate a love of country and
a disposition to serve the country effectively and loyally,” both in
times of peace and of war.[262]
Idaho, through the office of the teacher, continued the practice of
prescribing the teaching of patriotism as a duty of the teacher through
that intangible method of impressing upon the minds of the pupils
“the principles of truth, justice, morality, and patriotism.”[263]
Wisconsin, also, sanctioned moral instruction through training by the
teacher.[264]
Since 1923, nineteen states have passed laws affecting the social study
curriculum. In general, their purpose is to instil “into the hearts
of the various pupils ... an understanding of the United States, ... a
love of country, and ... a devotion to the principles of the American
Government.”[265]
Through statutes passed in 1923, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee
and West Virginia require the teaching of United States history and the
Constitution; and Kansas adopted the same requirement in 1925.[266]
Instruction in the federal constitution is prescribed in Alabama,
Idaho, New Jersey, Oregon and Utah by enactments in 1923, and in New
York by a law of 1924. Statutes in Delaware and North Carolina[267]
require the study of the constitutions of the nation and the state, and
Texas adds to that regulation a recommendation that special emphasis
be placed on “the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.”[268]
The Minnesota law prescribes for all schools “regular courses in
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States, to an extent to be determined by the State Commissioner
of Education.”[269] In New Mexico a similar enactment requires an
understanding of the Declaration of Independence, as well as a
knowledge of state and national history and government.[270]
For her schools California establishes “regular courses of instruction
in the constitution of the United States, including the study of
American institutions and ideals,” and Georgia adopts a similar
requirement adding the study of state government. In both states it
is provided that no pupil shall receive a certificate of graduation
who has not passed satisfactorily examinations in the required
subjects.[271]
Substantially all these enactments provide that instruction in the
required subjects shall begin in the elementary grades, continue in
the high school and in courses in state colleges, universities and
educational departments of state and municipal institutions to an
extent to be determined by the superintendent of public instruction or
by the state board of education.[272]
Endorsement of the study of the Constitution was given by Congress in
March, 1925, when the Senate passed a House resolution expressing “the
earnest hope and desire that every educational institution, whether
public or private, will provide and maintain as a part of the required
curriculum, a course for the study of the Constitution of the United
States....”
The many laws enacted during the years following the World War are
indicative of the high value placed upon the social studies as an
essential part of education. Besides laws requiring the teaching of
these subjects purely for their content, many enactments express a high
faith that the social studies will serve to inculcate patriotism and
to train for citizenship. Forty-three commonwealths have engaged in
legislation of this character since 1917, and all states have at some
time endorsed history as a required subject in the public schools.[273]
OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND CITIZENSHIP FOR TEACHERS
Few laws requiring American citizenship and oaths of allegiance, in
the case of teachers, appeared on the statute books prior to 1914. The
World War precipitated the movement for enactments which insist upon an
openly avowed loyalty, as well as upon a teaching personnel consisting
of citizens only.[274]
In 1915, three states enacted anti-alien laws for teaching. A Michigan
statute required a teacher, if twenty-one years of age, to be a
citizen of the United States.[275] Nevada directed the superintendent
of public instruction, the regents of the state university and school
trustees to dismiss “any teacher, ..., professor or president employed
by the educational department of this state who is not a citizen of
the United States; or who has not declared his or her intention to
become a citizen.” The law forbade any state controller or county
auditor to issue salary warrants to the persons mentioned, in case of
non-citizenship.[276]
In California a law of 1915 prescribed that “no person except a
native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States, should be
employed in any department of the state, county, city and county
or city-government of this state.” An exception, however, was made
in favor of teachers who had declared their intention to become
naturalized and of any native-born wife of a foreigner.[277]
In 1917, the one hundred and fortieth session of the New York
legislature gave its assent to a bill which has become known as
one of the Lusk laws. This law reflects precisely the same sort of
apprehension which moved some of the legislators of the Civil War
period. It became the precursor of three others of a like nature, one
in 1918, one in 1919, and one in 1921. The law of 1917 related to
treasonable or seditious utterances by teachers, the second and third
to the granting of teachers’ licenses to citizens only, and the fourth
to the employment of teachers who have criticized the government of the
United States.
The law of 1917 relating to freedom of speech prescribed that “a
person employed as superintendent of schools, teacher or employee in
the public schools, ... shall be removed from such position for the
utterance of any treasonable or seditious act, or acts, while holding
such position.”[278] The laws of 1918 and 1919 made citizenship an
essential qualification for becoming a teacher. Any person employed as
a teacher on April 4, 1918, however, who was not naturalized, was given
permission to remain in his position provided he, within a year, should
make application for citizenship. The law of 1919 exempted from the
foregoing requirement teachers who were citizens of the Allied Powers
in the World War, and who had been employed as teachers in the New York
schools on or prior to April 4, 1918, provided that “such teacher make
application to become a citizen before the first day of September,
1920, and within the time thereafter prescribed by law shall become
such citizen.”[279]
The third link in the chain of constraint was an enactment which
declared that an applicant, even though a citizen, must be “a person
of good moral character” and must be “loyal and obedient to the
government of this state and of the United States,” in order to obtain
a license to teach. For “no such certificate shall be issued to any
person who, while a citizen of the United States, has advocated either
by word of mouth or in writing, a change in the form of government
of the United States or of this state, by force, violence or any
unlawful means.” The statute provided that the discovery that a
teacher were guilty of any of the prohibitions mentioned, made him
liable to a revocation of his certificate through the commissioner of
education.[280] The sum of $15,000 was appropriated to carry the act
into effect.[281]
Much discussion and agitation attended the Lusk laws after their
passage and in the attempts at their enforcement, for many believed
that the right of free speech was endangered by such measures. In 1923,
under considerable pressure, the legislature revoked the statute, and
Governor Alfred E. Smith affixed his signature to the repeal.
Laws similar to the statutes passed by New York are found in Ohio,
Michigan, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota,
Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. In 1919, Michigan, Nebraska,
Tennessee, Montana, and Washington enacted statutes requiring that all
teachers of the public schools must be citizens of the United States,
and Idaho retained upon her statute books a law of 1897 which had
the same intent. The same action was taken by North Dakota in 1921.
In addition to those engaged as instructors in the public schools,
Nebraska included teachers in private and parochial institutions.
In Washington, California and Michigan the privilege of a license
was granted to those aliens who declared their intention of becoming
citizens, and in Washington, there were added to the proscribed
group, those teachers whose certificates or diplomas had been revoked
on account of a failure to impress upon the minds of the pupils “the
principles of patriotism or to train them up to a true comprehension of
the rights, duty, and dignity of American citizenship.”[282]
An open declaration of loyalty and of an intention to inculcate
patriotism in their pupils was required of all teachers by Ohio in
a law of 1919, by Colorado, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South
Dakota in 1921. Ohio, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Dakota
made it incumbent upon teachers not only in the public schools, but
in private and parochial schools, to take an oath to support the
constitution of the state and of the United States and to obey their
laws. Ohio insisted upon an “undivided allegiance to the government of
one country, the United States of America,” and Colorado and Oregon
sanctioned the same form.[283] Nevada required of teachers the oath in
her constitution, prescribed for all public officers.[284] In Oklahoma,
any teacher violating the law, or any person or officer paying out any
school funds to a person teaching without subscribing to the oath,
was deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction such a person was
penalized by a fine of not less than one hundred or more than five
hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail from sixty days to
six months, or both.[285] Oregon, upon conviction, prescribed a maximum
fine of one hundred dollars for non-enforcement of the law.
In West Virginia, a law of 1923 has enjoined upon all teachers, at the
time of signing a yearly contract, an oath to support the constitution
of the United States and West Virginia.[286]
In addition to the regulations imposing an oath of allegiance on
teachers, South Dakota, like Washington, in her law included a
prohibition of treasonable utterances. “Any teacher,” the law declared,
“who shall have publicly reviled, ridiculed or otherwise spoken or
acted with disrespect and contumacy towards the flag of the United
States or its official uniforms or insignia, or towards the system of
government of the United States, and its Constitution, or shall refuse
to take and subscribe to the oath of allegiance hereinbefore required,
shall thereafter forever be disqualified to teach in any public or
private school within this state, and the certificate of any such
teacher shall be revoked by the superintendent of public instruction
upon satisfactory proof of the commission of any such offense.”[287]
An Oklahoma statute has excluded from all public and private schools
of that state persons “guilty of teaching or inculcating disloyalty
to the United States or of publicly reviling the flag, or the system
of government of the United States.” Yet the statute prescribed that
“criticism of any public official shall not be construed as within the
purview” of this regulation. California, in a bill relating to American
histories and other textbooks which passed the Assembly in 1923, would
have leashed her teachers in much the same way. But the bill failed of
passage in the Senate.[288]
The appropriation bill passed by the Sixty-Eighth Congress for the
District of Columbia, in 1925, provided that no money should be
available “for the payment of the salary of any superintendent,
assistant superintendent, director of intermediate instruction, or
supervising principal who permits the teaching of partisan politics,
disrespect for the Holy Bible or that ours is an inferior form of
government.” A similar provision relates to teachers.[289]
Two states, on the other hand, have passed laws emphasizing a
faith in the integrity and patriotism of their teachers. Although
their action preceded the legislation of the World War, yet it is
significant that there have been no restrictive laws since then in
these commonwealths. In 1911, Pennsylvania sanctioned a policy of
freedom of thought for her teachers by declaring that “no religious or
political test or qualification” should be required of “any director,
visitor, superintendent, teacher, or other official, appointee, or
employee, in the public schools of this commonwealth.”[290] In 1913,
the General Court of Massachusetts forbade any school committee, by
rule, regulation or other means to restrain or penalize any teacher for
“exercising his right of suffrage, the signing of nomination papers,
and the petitioning or appearing before committees of the legislature”;
but it permitted school committees to forbid a teacher to exercise any
of the aforesaid rights, suffrage excepted, on school premises during
school hours or where the exercise interfered with the performance of
school duties.[291] Of great significance was the Massachusetts law of
March 17, 1917, which expressly prohibited inquiries relative to the
religious or political belief of applicants for positions in the public
schools and forbade the rejection or selection of the applicant on such
grounds.[292]
Many commonwealths, however, like New Jersey, have enacted laws
pertinent to teachers as citizens, but not openly and avowedly
“teacher” legislation. Such a law was approved February 13, 1918, by
the governor of New Jersey. It provided that “any person who shall
advocate, in public or private, by speech, writing, printing, or by any
other means, the subversion or destruction by force of the government
of the United States, or of the State of New Jersey, or attempt by
speech, writing, printing, or in any other way whatsoever to incite or
abet, promote or encourage hostility or opposition to the government of
the United States, or of the State of New Jersey, shall be guilty of a
high misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by imprisonment
for a term not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding two
thousand dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion
of the court.”[293]
Of all legislation dealing with the teaching craft, that which has
attempted to control and direct the speech of the teacher has provoked
the greatest protest. Our political development has been such that an
interference with the free expression of opinion creates the impression
that a jealously guarded right has been invaded. It is this feeling
which has led to an agitation against such laws, although the fear
that a teacher may be an instrument for corrupting his pupils is not a
product of recent times either in this country or in world history.[294]
FLAG LEGISLATION AND OBSERVANCE DAYS
Legislation concerning the flag and special observance days takes on
the characteristics of other laws passed since 1917. One of the first
“flag laws” was passed in 1918 by Maryland. This law declared as the
purpose of its enactment that “the love of liberty and democracy,
signified in the devotion of all true and patriotic Americans to
their flag and to their country, shall be instilled in the hearts and
minds of the youth of America.”[295] Two years later, when the tide
of legislation for encouraging patriotism was at full flood, a law
embracing all schools through institutions of higher learning passed
the legislature. By this statute all public and private schools,
with the exception of professional schools, were required to open
their exercises “on at least one day of each school week, whether
morning, afternoon, or evening, with the singing of the ‘Star Spangled
Banner.’”[296]
Reverence and respect for the flag was the purpose of Oklahoma’s
statute in 1921. To insure obedience to the law, which was applicable
to all public, private, parochial and denominational schools, the
penalty of imprisonment or a fine could be imposed upon an offender.
“Any teacher,” affirmed the law, “neglecting to display said flag or
carry out said ceremonial, or any person forbidding or hindering the
display of said flag or the carrying out of said ceremonial shall be
subject to discharge or removal and shall also be punished by a fine of
not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars, or
by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than sixty days and not
more than six months, or both.”[297]
Minnesota, in passing “An act to provide for the teaching in all the
common, graded, and high schools of this state of exercises tending to
promote and inculcate patriotism,” was actuated by a like motive in
1917. Here a half hour daily must be devoted to patriotic exercises
in all public schools, and every teacher should, by special exercises
and by the teaching of subjects especially suitable, encourage and
inculcate the spirit of patriotism. Such exercises were to consist of
the singing of patriotic songs, readings from American history and from
the biographies of American statesmen and patriots.[298]
Of slightly different character was the agency for propagating
patriotism devised by the Alabama legislature in 1919, by which was
established the “Alabama Patriotic Society.” This organization,
non-political and non-sectarian, essayed as its objects “to stimulate
patriotism among the people; to teach the fundamental principles
of American institutions, or free government; to develop in the
hearts and minds of Alabamans a deeper love of country and reverence
for the American flag; to expound the underlying principle of
self-determination; to immortalize the heroes who have brought fame and
renown to Alabama by reason of their courage and leadership in all the
great wars, in which Alabamans have engaged; to teach the people to
love their State, to respect her laws and to support the Constitution
of both the State and Federal Government; to bring the people together
to the end that unity of purpose and solidarity may be promoted; to
hold discussions of patriotic and political questions affecting the
general welfare of the whole people, and to issue educational pamphlets
and matter to aid in carrying the purpose of the society fully into
effect.”[299]
In North Carolina, October twelfth has been set aside for appropriate
exercises in the public schools “to the consideration of some topic
or topics” of state history.[300] In Oklahoma, November sixteenth has
been designated for a like purpose in order to teach “loyalty and
patriotism” to state and Union.[301]
Since 1918, the date November eleventh has become the occasion for a
commemoration of the general rejoicing which was caused by the signing
of the Armistice. In the state of Washington, the law has ordained that
it shall be “the duty of each teacher in the public schools ..., or
principal in charge of the school building, to ... present a program of
exercises of at least sixty minutes in length, setting forth the part
taken by the United States and the state of Washington in the world
war for the years 1917-1918, and the principles for which the allied
nations fought, and the heroic deeds of American soldiers and sailors,
the leading events in the history of our state and of Washington
Territory, the character and struggles of the pioneers, and other
topics tending to instill a loyalty and devotion to the institutions
and laws of our state.” West Virginia also has recognized Armistice Day
as a time fitting for “appropriate ceremonies.”[302]
A joint resolution of the legislature of Maryland in 1920 memorialized
the President of the United States to designate November eleventh of
each year as a day for national thanksgiving. This day, the General
Assembly believed, had been “made sacred to the hearts of the American
people, in that it was the day on which the world’s greatest tragedy
was arrested and the awful pull at the people’s heart strings relaxed,”
and on which “there terminated that war which overthrew the inhuman
monster who laid blood-hands upon nearly every home of a peace-blest
earth.” The world was further assured on this day, the lawmakers
declared, that “the struggle of democratic nations for liberty and
for righteousness had triumphed over the kultur and the crime of the
scientific barbarians, and that autocracy and diabolical tyranny lay
defeated and crushed behind the long rows of white crosses which
stretch across Europe....” The legislators desired that the day
should be the occasion for “strengthening of those noble sentiments
of patriotism common to the American people, and to the love for the
cause for which the sons of Maryland fought and gave their lives in the
World War,” and it was recommended that the schools observe the day in
a “fitting and impressive manner.”[303]
An act amending the law relating to holidays in Wisconsin, in 1923 set
aside Lincoln’s and Washington’s birthdays for commemorative exercises
in the public schools of that state.[304] North Dakota took similar
action, adding October twelfth and November eleventh for observance
except in communities where special exercises were held.[305] In
Michigan, in addition to observance days previously prescribed,
Roosevelt’s birthday, October twenty-seventh, and “Liberty Day,”
November eleventh, have been designated for “proper and appropriate
commemorative ceremonies.”[306]
South Dakota, in 1921, declared that Memorial Day should also be
known as “Citizenship Day” in that state, at which time each citizen
who had become twenty-one years of age during the year, or who had
been admitted into full citizenship of the United States during that
period, should receive a “citizenship certificate signed by the
Governor, attested by the Secretary of State, and countersigned by the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of the County in which
such citizen resides.” The certificate included the name, age, and
residence of the citizen, who also received a “manual of citizenship”
containing “the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution of the United States and of South Dakota,” and
“non-political axioms and discussions of the principles of popular
citizenship.”[307]
Such laws were but the outpouring of a dynamic and enthusiastic
patriotism, and were considered by the legislator another means of
awakening and encouraging a love of country.
TEXTBOOK LEGISLATION
Few states since 1917 have passed laws requiring a uniform series
of textbooks: North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas,
Tennessee, and West Virginia. In all of these states, except North
Carolina, textbooks in local history and in local and national civics
were added to the uniform series in United States history.[308] In
North Carolina the state textbook commission was empowered to select
histories for the elementary grades.
The only other legislation of this period, except that designed to
censor the content of history textbooks, was the resolution of the
Georgia legislature of 1918. This resolution endorsed the preparation
of a suitable textbook in civil government. It came from the State
Board of Education, who, in 1913, had condemned the textbook then in
use and had suggested the readoption of Peterman’s _Civil Government_,
temporarily, until one which would be satisfactory could be prepared.
From the action of the legislature in 1918, it is evident that no
book had been written which met the approval of the State School Book
Commission. The restatement of the resolve of 1913 merely sought to
call attention to the need for such a book.[309]
The outstanding legislation of the period, which deals with history
textbooks, results from opening the flood-gates of apprehension
regarding the content of school histories. It is the same misgiving
which prompted restrictive legislation regarding the speech of the
teacher and required an open avowal of allegiance to the government
of the United States. Here, again, the vital thing in the mind of the
lawmaker is to repress any statements considered by him as likely to
undermine American patriotism.
In 1918, New York approved another Lusk law prohibiting the use of any
textbook which contained statements seditious in character, disloyal to
the United States or favorable to the cause of any enemy country. The
law created a commission composed of the commissioner of education and
two persons designated by the Regents of the University of the State
of New York. To this body any person might present written complaints
against textbooks in “civics, economics, English, history, language
and literature,” which were then to be examined “for the purpose of
determining whether such textbooks contain any matter or statements
of any kind which are seditious in character, disloyal to the United
States or favorable to the cause of any foreign country with which the
United States is now at war.”[310] In case the commission disapproved
of the book after examination, the law prescribed that the reasons
be forwarded to all boards of education, who then must abandon the
use of the book. It was further provided that any person in authority
continuing to use a condemned book would be considered guilty of a
misdemeanor.
Less drastic legislation than the New York law was passed in New
Hampshire in 1921, declaring that “no book shall be introduced into the
public schools calculated to favor any particular religious sect or
political party.”[311] Other legislation which can be considered in the
same category was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and California,
in their prohibition of “partisan and sectarian” books.[312]
During the years of 1922 and 1923, systematic efforts were made by
private organizations to control the content of history textbooks. In
general, the criticisms against the histories then in use were directed
by patriotic and racial organizations seeking to revive the traditional
treatment of relations with Great Britain, particularly during the
American Revolution and the War of 1812.[313]
An outgrowth of this agitation against school histories was the law
of Wisconsin approved April 5, 1923. This statute has prescribed that
“no history or other textbook shall be adopted for use or be used in
any district school, city school, vocational school or high school,
which falsifies the facts regarding the war of independence, or the
war of 1812 or which defames our nation’s founders or misrepresents
the ideals and causes for which they struggled and sacrificed, or
which contains propaganda favorable to any foreign government.” The
law has also provided that a complaint against any textbook filed
by any five citizens with the superintendent of public instruction,
must be heard within thirty days at the county seat of the county in
which the complainants reside. The statute has made it the duty of the
superintendent to pass upon the case ten days following the hearing
and to exclude from the schools any book found to contain statements
prohibited by the enactment. In 1925, a bill embodying substantially
the same spirit and phraseology was presented to the Massachusetts
House by Mr. Garrity of Boston, but was not enacted into law.[314]
Oregon has a similar law. The use of any textbook has been prohibited
which “speaks slightingly of the founders of the republic, or of the
men who preserved the Union, or which belittles or undervalues their
work.”[315]
In the spring of 1923, the Assembly of the state of California passed
a bill excluding from the schools of the state any history or other
textbook “which falsifies the facts regarding the war of independence,
the war of 1812, or any other war of this country, or which defames our
nation’s founders, defenders, heroes or patriots, or misrepresents the
ideals and causes for which they struggled and sacrificed, or misleads
by stating but partial facts, or which contains propaganda that is
unfavorable to this country and government, and favorable to any other
government or other type of government.” The bill met defeat in the
Senate.[316]
In the spring of 1923 a bill of like nature passed the Senate of New
York but failed in the Lower House. By this proposal, known as the
Higgins Bill, any American history was prohibited in the primary or
secondary schools of the state, “which falsifies, distorts or denies
the acts of oppression recited in the Declaration of Independence, or
which, if a textbook dealing with the period immediately preceding
the Declaration of Independence, fails to refer, ... to the principal
acts of oppression as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.”
It further forbade the use of any history which “belittles, ridicules,
doubts or denies the services and sacrifices of American patriots,” or
which “emphasizes and enlarges upon the possible human failings or
shortcomings of such patriots without giving at least equal prominence
to their virtues or merits.” The bill prescribed for primary schools
the presentation of episodes calculated “to arouse in children a
justifiable pride” in the winning of “our national independence.” It
further placed under ban any textbook which “misrepresents” or “fails
to mention ... the compelling causes of the respective wars waged ...
against foreign interference, aggression or encroachment, or which ...
fails to emphasize ... the final victory of the United States in any
war it prosecuted to a successful conclusion,” or which “belittles
or ridicules ... American soldiers, sailors or marines in our wars
against foreign nations ... as to leave ... a contempt” for them or “an
unwarranted skepticism regarding their successes under arms.”[317]
A bill of like import was introduced in the New York Senate in 1924.
It included a provision for the training of teachers in the best
methods of teaching American history, as well as the requirement that
American history textbooks include the Declaration of Independence
“in its entirety,” if dealing with the American Revolution.[318]
Senator Higgins was also responsible for a resolution instructing
the Commissioner of Education to investigate the history textbooks
used in the schools of New York to ascertain whether any contained
matter misrepresenting events of the Revolution or ridiculing the
Revolutionary patriots.[319]
In January, 1924, a bill relating to the selection of American
histories as textbooks and reference books in the public schools was
introduced into the Assembly of New Jersey. It was designed to exclude
any history which “belittles, falsifies, misrepresents, distorts,
doubts or denies the events leading up to the Declaration of American
Independence or any other war in which this country has been engaged,
or which belittles, falsifies, misrepresents, distorts, doubts or
denies the deeds and accomplishments of noted American patriots, or
which questions the worthiness of their motives or casts aspersions
upon their lives.”[320]
A spirited protest against the bill as introduced in the New Jersey
Assembly came from the faculty of Princeton University who resolved
that “such legislation is in direct contravention of the fundamental
principles of freedom of speech and of the press, and calculated to
impair the integrity of education in both the public and private
institutions in the State of New Jersey.”[321]
_The New York Times_ also objected to the censorship proposed in that
state, declaring that it was not conceivable that “any honest man would
wish to write textbooks in history for children under such statutory
prescription,” and _The Freeman_, in an article regarding the Wisconsin
law, pointed out that “historians sometimes find it a difficult matter
to get at the truth in regard to the past, but for the superintendent
of schools in the state of Wisconsin it is no job at all....”[322]
AMERICANIZATION OF FOREIGNERS
The desire to instil a knowledge of American institutions has led
to much legislation for the education of the foreign element in our
population. Some states have attempted to eliminate illiteracy by
evening classes for adults, by continuation schools and like means.
In all cases, the teaching of the English language has been a primary
purpose, as well as training in a knowledge of American institutions.
However, not all Americanization laws have definitely stated the
purpose of training in citizenship, and therefore do not come properly
into this discussion.
Since 1917 more than one-third of the states have enacted legislation
for the purpose of developing a love for this country in the foreign
born.[323] In that year, California inaugurated the policy of “home
teachers” to visit the homes of pupils instructing both children and
adults in matters pertaining to “school attendance, sanitation, the
English language, and in the fundamental principles of the American
system of government and the rights and duties of citizenship.”[324]
Two years later, this enactment was followed by another law for the
teaching of civic and vocational subjects in evening classes, in
which instruction was provided in the “duties and responsibilities of
citizenship” for those unable to speak or read the English language to
the proficiency of the sixth grade.[325] In 1921, California continued
her Americanization program by approving a law to provide for the
establishment of classes for training in citizenship for applicants
who had filed their declaration of intention to become citizens of the
United States and for other persons desiring such instruction. The
course of study includes the teaching of United States history, state
and community civics, the “constitution of the United States with
special reference to those sections in the constitution which relate
directly to the duties, privileges and rights of the individuals, and
such allied subjects ... as shall properly prepare such applicants to
understand and assume the responsibilities of citizenship.”[326]
In 1918, New York passed a law necessitating the attendance of all
non-English speaking and illiterate minors at school or at classes
established by employers in shops, stores, factories, or plants in
which were taught English and civics.[327] In 1921, it became a duty
of the commissioner of education to see that schools for the education
of these illiterate groups be established, in which should be taught
“English, history, civics, and other subjects tending to promote good
citizenship and increase vocational efficiency....”[328]
In Massachusetts, power has been granted to the director of the
division of immigration and Americanization, with the approval of an
advisory board, to employ methods which will develop in the foreign
born “an understanding of American government, institutions and
ideals.”[329]
Arizona’s law of 1918 permitted the establishment of night schools
in school districts for those over sixteen who were unable to read or
write the English language, in which there was to be instruction in
“American ideals” and an “understanding of American institutions.”[330]
The year 1919 saw the adoption of Americanization programs by the
legislatures of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Utah, Montana and California in which
the purpose of teaching American ideals and institutions received
express mention.
Maine’s statute, designed for those persons “of normal mentality over
eighteen years of age who are unable to read, to write, and to speak
the English language to a reasonable degree of efficiency,” prescribed
the teaching of “the duties of citizens in a democracy” and of “such
other subjects as will increase their civic intelligence.”[331] In her
legislation, New Hampshire called for “the abolition of illiteracy and
the instruction of illiterates over sixteen years of age in the common
school branches and in the privileges, duties and responsibilities of
citizenship.” Immigrants over sixteen years of age were to be taught
“to appreciate and respect the civic and social institutions of the
United States,” and to be instructed “in the duties of citizenship,”
which are “an essential part of public school education.”[332] In Rhode
Island, people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years of
age, unable to read and write English or to speak it with reasonable
facility, have been given the privilege of a continuation school
held for the purpose of teaching the English language and American
citizenship.[333] Pennsylvania’s attempt to cope with the problem has
led to the passage of an act “to provide instruction in citizenship
and the principles of the government of the United States of America
and of this commonwealth to foreign-born residents of the state of
Pennsylvania, in the several counties thereof, who are not required to
attend the public schools of this commonwealth.”[334]
The Delaware law was designed for the foreign-born over sixteen years
of age not able to speak English, but who, through evening classes,
might be instructed in that language and “in the institutions and forms
of government of the United States and the State of Delaware.”[335]
An appropriation of the Minnesota legislature of 1919, to carry out a
provision of an Americanization law of 1917, became available for work
providing for instruction in English for those whose knowledge is too
limited to carry on business or to read intelligently periodicals and
newspapers, and in the essential and vital facts of American history,
American government and ideals, and the duties and obligations of
citizenship.[336]
By a joint resolution of 1919 the Oklahoma legislature created a
committee on Americanization and made it incumbent upon public school
officials to organize classes in English and in citizenship instruction
wherever a petition signed by ten residents of foreign birth over
sixteen years of age was presented to them.[337] A minimum of two
hundred hours of instruction during the school year aided Utah in her
Americanization program which included classes in the “fundamental
principles of the Constitution of the United States, American history,
and such other subjects as bear on Americanization.”[338] Montana’s
legislation, designed for those over sixteen years of age who were
not familiar with the English language, provided for instruction in
“American history and the Principles of Citizenship and any other
school subjects which the school trustees deem necessary for the
Americanization of the students enrolled.”[339]
The Americanization movement was further aided by a law approved April
19, 1920, in which New Jersey provided instruction for the foreign
born residents of her state, over fourteen years of age, in English
and “in the form of government and the laws of this State and of
the United States.”[340] American history, the Constitution of the
United States, with an exposition of the privileges and the duties
of American citizenship tending to produce a spirit of loyalty, were
phases of the Americanization programs of Ohio, Idaho, Wyoming, and
Oregon in 1921.[341] In the last state, “home teachers,” whose duty it
is to instruct in the fundamental principles of the American system of
government and the rights and duties of citizenship, were named as an
aid in carrying on the work of Americanization.[342] In Michigan, the
superintendent of public instruction has been given power to provide
for the education of aliens and of native illiterates over eighteen
years of age who are unable “to read, write and speak the English
language and who are unlearned in the principles of government” of
Michigan and of the United States.[343]
In general, the most popular means for educating the alien population
is by attendance at a night school, where, through evening classes,
teachers regularly employed in the public schools seek to instruct in
the English language and in an appreciation of and respect for “the
civic and social institutions of the United States.” New York has
tried the employers’ school to effect the same purpose, whereas “home
teachers” are endorsed by California and Oregon. In the four years
preceding the outbreak of the World War, 5,174,701 immigrants came
to the United States, of whom 22.1 were unable to read and write any
language. In 1920, nearly one and a half million, or 11 per cent, of
the foreign-born whites in this country could not speak English. For
this group, even more than for the native element, has it seemed wise
to encourage education, because it has become a common belief that a
lack of education endangers the well-being of the state.
FOOTNOTES:
[228] _Report of the Committee on Social Studies of the Commission on
the Reorganization of Secondary Education of the National Education
Association_, “The Social Studies in Secondary Education,” Bulletin,
1916, No. 28, Department of the Interior (Washington, 1916).
[229] According to a statement in _The New York Times_, March 30, 1924,
the National Security League has been partly responsible for many
enactments requiring the teaching of the federal constitution.
[230] _General Laws_ of Vermont, 1917, ch. 60, sec. 1277, p. 301.
[231] _Laws_ of Montana, 1917, ch. 128, par. 601, p. 309; _Digest of
the Statutes of Arkansas_, 1919, ch. 158, par. 9066, p. 547. Accepted
February 20, 1917.
[232] In 1921, New Hampshire included in her curriculum the study of
history and civil government in a law to reinstate foreign languages as
a study in the public schools. In 1919 history and civics were required
for all schools. _Laws_ of New Hampshire, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 10(3), p.
125; _ibid._, 1919, ch. 106, sec. 13(1). In 1918, Connecticut carried
over a law from the _Revision_ of 1902 prescribing United States
history, _General Statutes_ of Connecticut, 1918, ch. 44, sec. 835,
Vol. I, p. 308. Pennsylvania incorporated a law of 1911 prescribing
instruction in general history and civil government in her _Statute
Law_ of 1920, _Digest of the Statute Law_ of Pennsylvania, 1920, par.
5102, p. 470. In Kentucky, United States history, state history and
civil government were required in 1918, carried over from a law of
1893. _Statutes_ of Kentucky, 1918, art. III, par. 4383, Vol. III, p.
866; _Laws_, 1916, ch. 24, art. III, sec. 24, p. 162. In Texas in the
_Compiled Statutes_ of 1920, was again included a law requiring the
teaching of civil government and state and national history. _Statutes_
of Texas, 1920, art. 2783, p. 467.
[233] _Laws_ of Delaware, 1919, 2283, sec. 11, p. 356. This is found
also in _Laws_, Special Session, 1920, 97th Assembly, sec. 12, Vol.
XXXI, p. 113.
[234] _General Laws_ of Alabama, 1919, art. 3, p. 571; _Acts_ of
Georgia, 1919, sec. 18, p. 295.
[235] _Compilation of the Statutes of Tennessee_, 1917, art. XV, 1453,
Vol. I, p. 983, _ibid._, 1454.
[236] _Statutes_ of Texas, _op. cit._
[237] _Laws_ of South Dakota, 1919, sec. 7511, p. 154.
[238] _Laws_ of California, 1917, ch. 549, p. 728. Approved May 18,
1917. It was the same for the social studies for the elementary schools
in 1921. _Statutes_, 1921, ch. 486, p. 739. A law of Illinois in
which instruction was to be devoted to “raising the standard of good
citizenship” was passed in 1909, and was still on the statute books in
1917. _Revised Statutes_, 1917, p. 273.
[239] _Revised Code_ of South Dakota, 1919, par. 7660, p. 1917. Source
1918, ch. 39.
[240] _Statutes_ of Texas, 1920, art. 2904, aa, p. 492. _Acts_, 1918,
ch. 17, sec. 1, p. 29.
[241] _Ibid._, approved March 20, 1918.
[242] _Laws_ of New York, 1918, ch. 241, art. XXVI-C, secs. 705, 706,
pp. 886-887. See the discussion under Oaths of Allegiance as Teacher
Requirement for a statement regarding the repeal of the Lusk Law.
[243] _General Acts_ of Massachusetts, 1918, pp. 294-295; _Acts_,
1920, ch. 411, p. 418. _General Statutes_ of Connecticut, 1918, ch.
45, sec. 852, Vol. I, p. 312. In 1903, Connecticut was a pioneer in
this form of law, which was slightly changed in 1915. At this time it
was prescribed that normal schools and teacher training schools should
give instruction concerning methods of teaching citizenship, including
the knowledge of the form of the national and local governments.
Connecticut left her law of 1915 unchanged in her _General Statutes_ of
1918.
[244] _Acts_ of New Jersey, 1919, ch. 125, p. 304.
[245] _Laws_ of Pennsylvania, 1919, sec. 1607, pp. 544-545. Amends an
act of May 18, 1911. In 1921 the law relating to courses of instruction
for public and private elementary schools was amended but carried with
it the requirement of United States history, history of Pennsylvania,
and civics including “loyalty to the state and national government.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Instruction, _The
School Law_ ... 1921, sec. 1607, p. 116.
[246] _Laws_ of Ohio, 1919, secs. 7645 and 7762, p. 542. Approved
June 6, 1919. _Acts_ of Iowa, 1919, ch. 406, p. 535. Approved April
25, 1919. Private as well as public schools were included. _Laws_
of Kansas, 1919, ch. 257, secs. 2 and 3, p. 352; _Session Laws_ of
Washington, 1919, p. 50. Alabama in 1919 added community civics to
her elementary school curriculum but merely enumerated her subjects.
_General Laws_ of Alabama, 1919, art. 3, sec. 7, p. 571.
[247] _Laws_ of Maryland, 1920, ch. 656, p. 1248.
[248] _Resolves_ of Maine, 1921, ch. 25, p. 27.
[249] _Laws_ of New Hampshire, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 5(3), p. 114.
[250] _Acts_ of Michigan, 1921, no. 209, secs. 1, 2. _Cf._ Iowa’s law
of 1921, page 80.
[251] _Wisconsin Session Laws_, 1921, ch. 81, p. 152. Amends sec. 40.
30.
[252] _Laws_ of Illinois, 1921 (House Bill, no. 483), pp. 820-821.
[253] _Acts_ of Iowa, 1921 (S. F. 770), pp. 81-82; _Laws_ of Nebraska,
1921, ch. 53, sec. 6924, p. 230.
[254] _Acts_ of Oklahoma, 1921, ch. 112, secs. 1, 2, 3, 4. The state
superintendent of instruction had power of enforcement. In case of
a violation a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 or
imprisonment in the county jail for not less than thirty days nor more
than six months, or both, may be the penalty. A teacher is subject to
discharge or removal in case of malfeasance and a college (corporation)
is liable to a revocation of its charter.
[255] _Laws_ of Colorado, 1921, ch. 216, p. 728. Approved April 5, 1921.
[256] _Acts_ of Arizona, 1921, ch. 140, sec. 1, p. 312.
[257] _Statutes_ of Nevada, 1921, p. 28 (Senate Bill No. 43).
[258] _Laws_ of New Mexico, 1921, ch. 172, p. 364. See law of 1912,
page 52.
[259] _Statutes_ of California, 1921, ch. 486, p. 739. See page 43.
[260] _Acts_ of Virginia, 1922, p. 69 (amending section 702 of the
_Code_). _Virginia School Laws_, 1923, p. 41; _Public Laws_ of Rhode
Island, 1922, ch. 2195, sec. 17.
[261] _Laws_ of Utah, 1921, ch. 95, p. 284. Approved March 5, 1921.
[262] _Laws_ of Nevada, 1917, ch. 146, p. 245. Approved March 21, 1917.
This was less than one month before the United States entered the World
War, and the avowal of service in peace or in war, therefore, acquires
a peculiar significance. See page 81 for Nevada’s law of 1921.
[263] _Compiled Statutes_ of Idaho, 1919, p. 269, par. 944. From the
_Political Code_, 1901, sec. 1067, Vol. I, p. 329. See page 21 for the
first discussion of the law.
[264] “In all public schools of this state it shall be the duty of each
and every teacher to teach morality, for the purpose of elevating and
refining the character of school children up to the highest plane of
life; that they may know how to conduct themselves as social beings in
relation to each other, as respects right and wrong and rectitude of
life, ...” _Statutes_ of Wisconsin, 1917, 40. 30 (5), p. 376.
[265] Statement of the Arkansas law. _Cf._ Oklahoma law passed in 1921,
page 80.
[266] _Digest of School Laws ... of Arkansas_ ... 1923, p. 166.
Approved March 23, 1923, this law provides that no person can graduate
from high school without at least one full year’s work in American
history and civics. _School Laws of Mississippi_, 1924, ch. 283, p. 3;
_School Laws of Ohio_, 1923, p. 41; _Public School Laws of Tennessee_
... 1923, p. 35; _Acts of West Virginia_, 1923, ch. 10, sec. 92, p.
40; State of Kansas, Senate Bill No. 13, repealing Sec. 72-1103 of the
_Revised Statutes_ of Kansas, 1923.
[267] _Laws_ of Alabama, 1923, p. 87, approved July 27, 1923; _School
Laws of the State of Idaho_ (1923), p. 57; _Acts_ of New Jersey, 1923,
ch. 17, p. 17; _Laws_ of Oregon, 1923, ch. 7, sec. 102; _Laws_ of Utah,
1923, ch. 4, approved January 27, 1923; _Laws_ of New York, 1924, ch.
64, article 26-d, sec. 707, approved March 24, 1924. _School Laws of
Delaware_, 1923, pp. 62-63. _The Public School Law of North Carolina
Codification_ of 1923, p. 120.
[268] _School Legislation of the Thirty-Eighth Legislature_ (of Texas),
pp. 36-37. The Texas requirement comes through a resolution of the
Senate of the state with the House of Representatives concurring,
because “the American Bar Association, the Texas Bar Association, the
bar associations of various other states, as well as other patriotic
societies, are advocating the teaching of the Constitutions of the
United States and of the several states in the public schools.”
[269] _Laws_ of Minnesota, 1923, ch. 291, p. 388. Approved April 17,
1923.
[270] _Laws_ of New Mexico, 1923, ch. 148, sec. 1417, p. 325; also _New
Mexico School Code_, 1923, p. 34.
[271] _Statutes_ of California, 1923, ch. 176, secs. 1 and 2. _Georgia
School Code_ ... 1923, p. 70, approved August 20, 1923.
[272] The following provide that the course start not later than the
eighth grade: _Statutes_ of California, 1923, ch. 176; _Laws_ of
Alabama, 1923, p. 87, law approved July 27, 1923; _School Laws of
Delaware_, 1923, pp. 62-63, approved March 14, 1923; _School Laws of
the State of Idaho_ (1923), p. 57; _Laws_ of Minnesota, 1923, ch. 291,
p. 388, approved April 17, 1923; _Oregon School Laws_, 1923, p. 39,
_Laws_, 1923, ch. 7, sec. 102; _Public School Laws_ of Tennessee, 1923,
p. 35, _Laws_ of Tennessee, 1923, ch. 17, sec. 1, pp. 61-62. In New
Jersey, the seventh grade is prescribed for the beginning of the study.
_Acts_ of New Jersey, 1923, ch. 17, p. 17. In Arkansas, it is required
that “such teaching shall commence in the lowest primary grade,” but
Arkansas history may be substituted for American history in one of the
grades. _Digest of School Laws of Arkansas_, _op. cit._
[273] _Congressional Record_, 68th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. LXVI, No.
77, pp. 5396-5398. The five states not enacting social study laws for
the curriculum (1917 to 1924) are Florida, Maryland, Missouri, North
Dakota, and South Carolina.
[274] Few states during this period have enacted new laws requiring
the examination of teachers in the social studies. Nevada, by a law of
1921, has required United States history, civics and current events for
elementary school certificates. _Laws_ of Nevada, 1921, ch. 208, sec.
25, p. 302. In 1923, Tennessee prescribed that all persons applying
for a certificate to become teachers or superintendents in the public
schools must pass a satisfactory examination upon the provisions
and the principles of the Constitution of the United States. _Laws_
of Tennessee, 1923, ch. 17, sec. 2. Washington, likewise, by an
enactment of 1923, has prescribed United States history for a standard
elementary certificate. _Laws_ of Washington, 1923, p. 579. Florida, in
1923, enacted legislation requiring United States history, including
the Constitution of the United States for primary and third grade
certificates, civics for second grade, and general history, in addition
to the other social studies for a first grade license. _Compilation
of School Laws of Florida_, 1923, _Supplement_, pp. 4-5. Maryland, in
1922, required United States and Maryland history and community civics
for elementary school certificates. _Maryland Public School Laws_,
1922, p. 40. See pages 52-56. Iowa, in 1924, made mandatory a knowledge
of “the fundamental principles of a republican form of government and
the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Iowa.” _Code_
of Iowa, 1924, ch. 193, sec. 3862. Kansas, in 1925, prescribed United
States history and civil government for certification. See Senate Bill
No. 13, 1925.
[275] _Public Acts_ of Michigan, 1915, p. 13.
[276] _Statutes of Nevada_, 1915, ch. 274, secs. 1, 2, 3, 4. Approved
March 26, 1915.
[277] _Statutes_ of California, 1915, approved May 20, 1915. _School
Laws_ of California, 1921, p. 203. This law does not forbid aliens to
teach in colleges and universities.
[278] See page 76. _Laws_ of New York, 1917, ch. 416, par. 568, Vol.
II, p. 1280.
[279] _Ibid._, 1919, ch. 120, 3, p. 218. Law, March 31, 1919. _Ibid._,
1918, ch. 158, par. 550, p. 749. Approved April 4, 1918.
[280] _Ibid._, 1921, par. 555a, Vol. III, p. 2048.
[281] _Ibid._
[282] _Laws_ of Washington, 1919, sec. 1, p. 82; _Laws_ of Nebraska,
1919, ch. 250, sec. 1, p. 1020; _Acts_ of Michigan, 1919 (no. 220),
sec. 1, p. 392; _Laws_ of Tennessee, 1919, ch. 91, p. 223; _Compiled
Statutes_ of Idaho, 1919, par. 946, Vol. I, p. 270. Idaho, in her
_Laws_ of 1921, has another enactment, but it has the same purpose;
_Laws_ of 1921, sec. 77, p. 464. _Laws_ of Montana, 1919, ch. 196,
sec. 18, p. 429, amending law of 1905, by which any teacher holding a
certificate and not a citizen was given time (six months) to declare
his intention. _Political Code_, ch. 77, sec. 1912, p. 167. For
California’s law see _School Law of California_, 1921, p. 203. North
Dakota’s previous citizenship requirement is discussed on page 34. See
_Laws_ of North Dakota, 1921, ch. 111, p. 90. According to letters
received from the state superintendents of Mississippi and Maryland,
aliens are not permitted to teach in those states.
[283] _Laws_ of Ohio, 1919, supplements 7852 of _General Code_, sec.
7852-1, p. 514. _Laws_ of Colorado, 1921, ch. 213, sec. 1, p. 719.
_Laws_ of Oregon, 1921, ch. 115, p. 226, approved February 18, 1921.
[284] _Statutes_ of Nevada, 1921, sec. 38, p. 303. Approved March 22,
1921. This was required of all teachers paid by the state, even those
in the University.
[285] _Acts_ of Oklahoma, 1921, ch. 15, p. 141. Approved March 24, 1921.
[286] _The School Law of West Virginia_, 1923, p. 44. According to the
superintendents of public instruction in Rhode Island and Kansas a
pledge to support the national and state constitutions is a requirement
in those states for all teachers. See _Teachers’ Pledge of Loyalty_,
Rhode Island Public Education Service, and _Teachers Contract_, State
of Kansas.
[287] _Laws_ of South Dakota, 1921, ch. 210, p. 317. Approved February
1, 1921. This law became effective at once, because it was “necessary
for the immediate preservation of the public safety and for the support
of the state government and its existing public institutions.”
[288] _Oklahoma School Laws_, 1923, p. 18; _Acts_ of Oklahoma, 1921,
ch. 15, sec. 2, p. 141. California _Assembly Bill_, No. 1329, 1923,
sec. 6. “Any teacher or official of any educational institution in
California who shall teach or speak before his or her pupils or public
gatherings of an educational nature, or publicly, slightingly or
contemptuously of the Constitution of the United States, or of the
framers thereof, or of the men who founded this republic, or helped
preserve and defend it, or its heroes and patriots, or shall teach
un-American principles, or fail to carry out and support the spirit of
this act according to its true intent and meaning, shall be deemed to
have voluntarily violated his or her contract or oath of office and
shall be automatically removed if the charges are proven....” See page
102 for the section of the bill relating to textbooks.
[289] 68th Congress, Public--No. 595--_H. R. 12033_. An act making
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of
such District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, and for other
purposes. According to _The World Tomorrow_, “Missouri attached a rider
to its last appropriation bill forbidding State colleges and schools to
employ any person ‘who teaches, or advocates in public and private that
the citizens of this State should not protect the government of the
United States from aggression by other nations.’” _The World Tomorrow_,
Vol. VIII (June, 1925), p. 186.
[290] _Statute Law_ of Pennsylvania, 1920, art. XXVIII, par. 5393,
p. 494. _Public Laws_, 1911, art. XXVIII, par. 2801, p. 309, May 18.
This is quite the opposite of Arkansas’ law which prescribed that all
teachers must believe in a “Supreme Being.”
[291] _General Acts_ of Massachusetts, 1913, ch. 628, p. 556. Approved
May 8, 1913.
[292] _Ibid._, 1917, ch. 84, p. 76. A fine of no more than fifty
dollars could be imposed for violation of this law.
[293] _Laws_ of New Jersey, 1918, ch. 44, sec. 2, p. 131. Laws have
been passed in California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Mississippi,
and West Virginia.
[294] Socrates is an example of one who, in ancient times, was
penalized for holding doctrines then unacceptable.
[295] _Laws_ of Maryland, 1918, ch. 75, sec. 1, 176a, p. 121. Approved
April 10, 1918.
[296] _Ibid._, 1920, ch. 381, sec. 1, p. 665. Approved April 16,
1920. In Michigan all applicants for an eighth grade diploma have
been required to pass an examination on “the first verse of the Star
Spangled Banner and the words of America.” _General School Laws of
Michigan_, 1923, p. 107, am. 1919, act 72 (275), par. 5824, sec. 2.
[297] _Acts_ of Oklahoma, 1921, ch. III, p. 137. Approved March 24,
1921.
[298] _Laws_ of Minnesota, 1917, ch. 108, sec. 1, p. 135. Approved
March 26, 1917.
[299] _General Laws_ of Alabama, 1919, no. 733, p. 1083. See page 62
for a law of Oregon passed in 1921.
[300] _Public School Law of North Carolina_, pt. XIII, art. 38, sec.
367.
[301] _School Laws of Oklahoma_, 1923, p. 69; _Session Laws_, 1921,
sec. 342.
[302] _Laws_ of Washington, 1921, ch. 56, p. 171. “Victory and
Admission Day.” California added Armistice Day to her legal holidays in
1921, likewise including “Admission Day” on September ninth. _Statutes_
of California, 1921, ch. 350, p. 481. _School Law_ of West Virginia,
1923, p. 32.
[303] _Laws_ of Maryland, 1920, pp. 1448-1449.
[304] _Laws_ of Wisconsin, 1923, ch. 337, amending section 40.28 of the
statutes.
[305] _Educational Laws_ of North Dakota, 1923, ch. 282, p. 45. See
page 62 for Oregon’s law of 1921 setting aside Columbus Day for
observance.
[306] _General School Laws of Michigan_, 1923, p. 107.
[307] _Laws_ of South Dakota, 1921, ch. 144, secs. 1, 2, pp. 235-236.
The certificates were to be presented with proper ceremony at some
place where there were patriotic addresses and music. Approved March 8,
1921. In South Dakota an observance of “Frances Willard Day,” besides
the recognition of the benefits of prohibition, had the additional duty
of stimulating “patriotism and civic improvements.” _Revised Code_,
1919, par. 7662. Washington set aside January sixteenth as “Temperance
and Good Citizenship Day” for studying the biographies of great leaders
in “temperance and good citizenship.” _Session Laws_ of Washington,
1923, ch. 76, p. 236.
[308] _Acts_ of Georgia, 1919, sec. 18, p. 295; _Laws_ of Florida,
1917, ch. 7374 (no. 116), p. 230, added to United States history,
history of the state and civil government, _Laws_ of 1911-12, for high
schools American history and civil government, English history, and
general history; _General Laws_ of Alabama, 1919, art. 23, p. 634;
_Digest of the Statutes_ of Arkansas, 1921, par. 9066, p. 2330, also
_Laws_, 1921, act 285, p. 328 for regular grade work; _Compilation of
Laws_ of Tennessee, 1917, art. XVII, 1461a 24, Vol. I, p. 993, also
_Laws_, 1919, ch. 142, sec. 3, p. 525, Sen. Bill no. 506; _Code_ of
West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45, par. 155a, p. 594. General history was
also included. _Public School Law of North Carolina_, 1923, p. 87, art.
30, sec. 322.
[309] _Laws_ of Georgia, 1918, p. 919 (no. 60). This is probably an
outgrowth of the movement found in the previous period to teach history
and government from a pro-Southern viewpoint.
[310] _Laws_ of New York, 1918, 674, p. 892, approved April 17, 1918.
[311] _Laws_ of New Hampshire, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 13, p. 125.
[312] _Acts_ of Georgia, 1919, p. 295; _General Laws_ of Alabama, 1919,
p. 634; _Compilation of Laws_ of Tennessee, 1917, 1461a 24, Vol. I, p.
993; _Statutes and Amendments_ Code of California, 1917, ch. 552, 1607,
p. 736.
[313] For a full discussion see chapter VII.
[314] “..., the state superintendent shall fix a time for a public
hearing upon such a complaint, which shall not be more than thirty
days from the date of filing said complaint, and shall be conducted
by the state superintendent or the assistant state superintendent, or
by one of the state inspectors of schools, to be designated by the
superintendent, and which hearing shall be held at the county seat
of the county where the complainants reside. Notice of such hearing
shall be given at least ten days prior to the date thereof through the
public press and by registered mail to the complainants, the school
board interested and to the publishers of such textbooks.” _Laws_ of
Wisconsin, 1923, ch. 21, sec. 40.30. Massachusetts House Bill No. 718.
“An Act relative to Certain Textbooks in the Public Schools.”
[315] _Oregon School Laws_, 1923, ch. III, sec. 571, p. 169.
[316] Assembly Bill (California) No. 1329, introduced by Mr. Ball.
[317] State of New York, 3d Rdg. 652, Nos. 602, 1781, 1997, Int. 581.
In Senate, February 7, 1923.
[318] State of New York: No. 1186, Int. 1086. In Senate, March 5, 1924.
Introduced by Mr. Higgins.
[319] _The New York Times_, March 19, 1924.
[320] _Assembly, No. 14 (with Amendments), State of New Jersey._
Introduced January 8, 1924, by Mr. Williams. (For the Speaker.) The
bill provided also that any forty citizens of a school district could
file complaints against histories and a public hearing should be held
within thirty days.
[321] _The New York Times_, February 12, 1924. The endorsement given
this bill by patriotic and fraternal groups is treated on pages 275-276.
[322] _Ibid._, April 19, 1923, _The Freeman_, Vol. VII (May 2, 1923),
p. 170. The Oklahoma legislature of 1923 forbade the use of textbooks
teaching the “‘Materialistic Conception of History’ (_i.e._) The
Darwinian Theory of Creation vs. the Bible Account of Creation.”
Approved March 24, 1923. House Bill No. 197. The use of the term
“materialistic conception of history” is interesting in this connection.
[323] Among the states which have Americanization laws that have no
specific statement prescribing the teaching of American citizenship are
Alabama, Connecticut, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia. Most of these laws
were enacted in 1919, some prescribing the establishment of classes
for uneducated adults, others specifying Americanization courses. In
North Carolina, there is a law to remove illiteracy, and in New Mexico
the schools are to give “nocturnal courses of instruction.” These laws
are not discussed because they do not provide for the teaching of
citizenship. One of the earliest evening schools was in Massachusetts,
1886, where United States history was one of the prescribed subjects.
_Supplement to Public Statutes of Massachusetts_, 1882-1888, ch. 174,
p. 117, “An Act for the Establishment and Maintenance of Evening
Schools.”
[324] _Statutes_ of California, 1917, ch. 552, p. 742.
[325] _Ibid._, 1919, ch. 605, sec. 4, p. 1049.
[326] _Ibid._, 1921, ch. 489, p. 742. Approved May 27, 1921.
[327] _Laws_ of New York, 1918, ch. 415, pp. 1257-1258.
[328] _Ibid._, 1921, ch. 327, Vol. II, p. 1037.
[329] _General Laws Relating to Education, Massachusetts_, 1923, p. 18.
“Education and Protection of Aliens,” 1917, 321, par. 2; 1919, 350,
par. 59; 1920, 72.
[330] _Acts_ of Arizona, 1918, ch. 10, sec. 1, p. 29 (Sen. Bill No.
19). In 1921 a bill for the education of foreigners in the public
schools was passed.
[331] _Laws_ of Maine, 1919, ch. 148, p. 148. Revision of ch. 116, sec.
137. Approved April 1, 1919.
[332] _Laws_ of New Hampshire, 1919, ch. 106, secs. 5 and 30, pp. 157,
165. Also _Laws_, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 5, p. 113.
[333] _Acts and Resolves_ of Rhode Island, 1919, ch. 1802, sec. 2, p.
212.
[334] _Laws_ of Pennsylvania, 1919, no. 311.
[335] _Laws_ of Delaware, 1919, ch. 158, sec. 1, p. 452; also by a
similar law approved April 7, 1921, _Laws_, 1921, ch. 165, p. 550. For
California, see page 106.
[336] _General Laws_ of Minnesota, 1919, for ch. 356 of _General Laws_,
1917.
[337] _Session Laws_ of Oklahoma, 1919, ch. 135, p. 467. Approved March
10, 1919.
[338] _Laws_ of Utah, 1919, ch. 93, sec. 4, p. 285. Approved March 20,
1919. This law was added to in 1921 with a provision for fees.
[339] _Laws_ of Montana, 1919, ch. 38, sec. 1, p. 91. Approved February
21, 1919.
[340] _Acts_ of New Jersey, 1920, ch. 197, p. 387.
[341] _General Laws_ of Ohio, 1921, sec. 7761-3, p. 101; _General Laws_
of Idaho, 1921, p. 418; _Session Laws_ of Wyoming, ch. 127, sec. 1, p.
188; _General Laws_ of Oregon, 1921, ch. 87, sec. 1, p. 139 (S. B. 171).
[342] _Ibid._ New York and Arizona also have laws in 1921. See page 106.
[343] State of Michigan, Department of Public Instruction,
_Explanation of School Laws of Michigan_, Supplement to Bulletin No.
13. Published 1921, p. 7.
CHAPTER V
DISLOYALTY CHARGES AGAINST TEACHERS SINCE 1917
Great events occasion diverse opinions, and it is not strange that the
World War and its aftermath often tempted public school teachers to
enter the area of controversial issues. Thus the question of whether
the teacher should be permitted free and open expression of opinion
became a point of contention between the upholders and opponents of
unrestricted speech. It became a matter of considerable concern whether
the teacher be allowed to sow the seed of an idea alien to that held
by the child’s parents, or, perhaps, in disagreement with that of the
school’s administrators. It was not a new question nor unexpected.
The great mass of public school teachers were conscious of the
censorious eye fixed upon them and realized that “the wise man
foreseeth the evil and hideth himself, but the foolish pass on and
are punished.” Diligent search in public records and through personal
inquiry reveals few occasions where actual charges of disloyalty
were lodged against teachers in the public schools. Indeed, the
superintendents of public instruction in thirty-two states report
that from 1917 to 1924 no accusations involving the loyalty of
teachers were brought to the attention of their offices.[344] One is
disposed to concur in a statement made by the Lusk Committee of New
York investigating seditious activities that “on the whole, it may
safely be said that our public school system is comparatively free
from the taint of revolutionary teaching.”[345] Yet some teachers
faced accusations impugning loyalty. Doubtless there were others whose
utterances were considered disloyal or ill-advised, but who escaped
with little or no publicity attending their dismissal from service.
In the city of New York, the trials of teachers for disloyalty were
most numerous, for it was here that legislation to restrain the speech
of the teacher was most rigorously applied. Under the Lusk Law persons
failing to secure a certificate of loyalty were forbidden to teach in
the schools of New York, the Commissioner of Education having the sole
right to refuse such a certificate.[346]
In general, charges of disloyalty were preferred against six groups
of teachers: those objecting to sign the pledge of loyalty, those
whose sympathies in the War were pro-German, the pacifists, those
whose speech was considered disloyal, those who opposed and obstructed
the draft, and those who held membership in a political party which
advocated a change in the established form of government.[347]
In the eyes of the school administrators an unwillingness to sign
pledges of loyalty without qualification was but the evidence of
a hybrid patriotism. In no other light did they believe could be
considered the objection to a pledge which declared an “unqualified
allegiance to the Government of the United States,” and which promised
by “word and example” to “teach and impress” upon “the pupils the
duty of loyal obedience and patriotic service as the highest ideal of
American citizenship.”[348]
Opposition to signing the pledges under compulsion was led by the
Teachers’ Union, and their protest against an implication of disloyalty
was endorsed by eighty-seven teachers.[349] Among those refusing at
first to sign a pledge were Miss Isabel Davenport of the New York
Training School for Teachers and Harrison C. Thomas of the De Witt
Clinton High School. The examination started to determine their fitness
to teach was discontinued when they agreed to sign the pledge.[350]
In March, 1918, the charge of pro-Germanism was lodged against Miss
Gertrude A. M. Pignol, a teacher in the Manual Training High School in
Brooklyn, and her suspension was asked by the Board of Superintendents.
Miss Pignol, a native of Berlin, had been a resident of the United
States since 1905. In 1911 she had taken out citizenship papers.[351]
When questioned by secret service agents, it developed that, although
her sympathies were with Germany, she had in no way been connected
with German activities in this country. In the hope that her views
might undergo a change Miss Pignol was given a leave of absence for
three months. In May, 1918, however, Associate Superintendent Tildsley
preferred the following charges against her before a committee of the
Board of Education: that she did not believe in war, that she was under
the impression that it was not necessary for the United States to be
engaged in the War, that she would not pledge her coöperation in every
way in her power to the United States government in its measures for
the prosecution of the War against Germany.[352]
In Miss Pignol’s trial, statements from fellow-teachers were cited
as proof of her pro-German bias. A remark, alleged to have been made
eleven years prior, that she would be ashamed to be an American
citizen, was adduced as evidence. Further proof was found in a
statement that she doubted the accuracy of the accounts regarding
German outrages; that she had attempted to dissuade a German woman
from returning to Germany because she would eat food needed by the
Germans; that she objected to the posting of a food card by the school
librarian; and that she was deeply touched by the slaughter of the War.
The possession of a locket, engraved by her father and carrying the
picture of the Kaiser’s grandfather on one side and the cornflower on
the other, was put in evidence as additional proof of her hostility to
the cause of the United States.[353] Although she asserted her desire
for an American victory, the confession that she did not want her
native land crushed militated against her.[354] On June 26, she was
dismissed from service by the Board of Education.[355]
On October 24, 1918, Fritz A. E. Leuchs was suspended from duty in the
schools, charged with “conduct unbecoming a teacher.” His suspension
was confirmed on October 30 by the Board of Education. According to
his own testimony, he had tried for four years to enlist in the German
army, but on October 25 had entered upon military service in this
country. Under the circumstances the Board of Education resorted to
suspension in order that he could not claim the difference in pay as a
teacher and a soldier.[356]
Similar treatment was accorded pacifists serving in the schools. In
this group was Miss Mary McDowell, a Quakeress, employed in the schools
of Brooklyn, who was suspended from duty on March 12, 1918. She based
her defense in the unrestricted exercise of religious faith as a
birthright, her previous contributions to relief for American sufferers
to the Red Cross and other charitable projects, as well as the
distribution of thrift stamp circulars in the schools. Miss McDowell’s
retention as a public school teacher was opposed on the ground that
her pacifist views were ill-advised at a time when patriotism should
be taught in act as well as in speech.[357] On June 19, 1918, she was
dismissed from service by the Board of Education.[358] Following the
close of the War Miss McDowell’s case was reopened, which resulted
in her reinstatement on July 11, 1923. On reviewing the causes for
Miss McDowell’s dismissal, Commissioner Bowe declared: “After full
consideration of the case, the committee has decided that the
punishment meted out to Miss McDowell was too severe. She was tried
at a time of great public excitement. Since then public feeling has
undergone considerable modification. For thirteen years she had done
excellent work as a teacher....”[359]
An unwillingness to engage in active service resulted likewise in the
suspension of Louis H. Blumenthal, a teacher of history and civics in
Public School 148, Brooklyn, on June 19, 1918.
Nor were all teachers willing to obey a law precluding criticism of the
government. To secure permanency of tenure through silent assent was
to some but a bribe against their convictions. And not all were agreed
that it was wise to refrain from teaching what they held true because
others saw in the same belief the germs of disloyalty.
Such a disagreement as to how freely a teacher could express opinions
led to investigations of the loyalty of Florence Levine, Samuel D.
Schmalhausen, Thomas Mufson, and A. Henry Schneer. In the case of
Miss Levine, a teacher in Public School 168, Brooklyn, the Teachers’
Council, to whom the case had been referred, recommended that she be
admonished by the Acting Superintendent of Schools so that thereafter
she be careful in her public utterances, but no charges were preferred
against her.[360]
It was quite different in the cases of Mr. Schmalhausen, Mr. Mufson,
and Mr. Schneer. On November 13, 1917, they were suspended from the
faculty of the De Witt Clinton High School for holding views considered
not only subversive to discipline in the schools but injurious to good
citizenship.[361] Their trials took place before a committee of the
Board of Education on December third, at which they were represented by
counsel. The charges against Mr. Schmalhausen involved the writing of
essays by his students, in which, it was said, an unpatriotic attitude
was permitted to pass unchallenged by the teacher. According to the
testimony, the pupils were directed to write “An open letter to the
President” commenting frankly within the limits of their knowledge
upon his conduct of the War against the German Government.[362] Mr.
Schmalhausen was also accused of asserting that he did not consider
it his duty “to develop in the students under his control instinctive
respect for the President of the United States as such, for the
Governor of the State of New York as such, and other Federal, State and
Municipal officers as such.”[363]
One of the themes, upon which attention at the trial was focused, had
been written by Hyman Herman, a Jewish student sixteen years of age. It
was addressed “to the Defender of Humanity and Champion of Democracy,
Woodrow Wilson.” In his testimony Mr. Schmalhausen asserted complete
ignorance of this essay until it was called to his attention in an
interview with Associate Superintendent Tildsley two weeks after it had
been written.[364]
In the theme the writer propounded such questions as the following:
“But how is it that the United States, a country far from democratic
(and daily proving itself to be such) and England, the imperial and
selfish (and we exclude all minor participants) undertake to slam
democracy upon a nation whether it likes it or not? What unparalleled
audacity to attempt to force 70,000,000 people to adopt a certain kind
of government. If we mean their benefit, then the Germans surely know
what they want and need us not....
“... Finally if our aim be the annihilation of Prussianism, then why in
the name of Heaven have you refused the offer made by Germany, which
included the evacuation of Belgium, disarmament of nations and freedom
of the seas? Surely then your purpose is to get supreme domination
and to crush Germany for no reason it seems, except a mad desire for
murder, meanwhile making us the goats.”[365]
Mr. Schmalhausen had annotated the theme, after it had been placed in
his hands by Dr. Tildsley, with such statements as “irrelevant,” “not
accurately presented,” and “for a thoughtful student this statement
sounds irrational.”[366] The defense contended that such annotations
were sufficient to prove Mr. Schmalhausen’s disapproval of the
sentiments expressed, but the prosecution argued that his failure to
denounce them openly indicated his lack of loyalty.
As a witness for Mr. Schmalhausen, Herman, the author of the theme,
testified that he had not received his impressions of this country’s
attitude toward war questions in any sense from Mr. Schmalhausen,
although since the time of writing the theme he had changed his
attitude due to a study of his history textbook[367] and the attitude
of his history teacher.[368]
In turn, Mr. Schmalhausen, defending his own patriotism, declared that
President Wilson’s “interpretation, his attitude, his points of view in
relation to the war for democracy” met with his “complete intellectual
approval,” and that, although he had opposed the policy of conscription
instead of a volunteer system, when adopted, he had complied with the
request of the Government, as did others within the proper ages.[369]
The second instructor in the De Witt Clinton High School who was
arraigned before the Board of Education on December third was Thomas
Mufson, charged with thinking it proper to be neutral while his class
debated such subjects as the purchase of Liberty Bonds, the active
support of the Government in various measures for carrying on the War,
the wisdom of an early peace, and the relative merits of anarchism and
the form of the government of the United States.[370]
Mr. Mufson defended himself against these charges on the ground that
he was not justified in imposing personal views upon his classes on
controversial subjects. Furthermore, he said that he would not permit
a discussion of anarchism in his classroom, a topic he held far too
difficult for immature minds.[371]
The specific charges brought against Mr. Schneer arose from statements
it was alleged he had made regarding patriotism and the wearing of the
uniform of the United States army. It was held that he was opposed to
discussing patriotism in the schoolroom and that he objected to persons
wearing the uniform when speaking before the school, because it tended
to encourage militarism.[372] All of the charges Mr. Schneer denied,
protesting his loyalty to school and national authorities, and citing
as proof, among other things, the signing of the loyalty pledge of the
Board of Education.
Considerable discussion by the public and by teachers attended
these trials. Among those commending the Board of Education for
their vigilance were the Schoolmasters’ Association of New York and
Vicinity, who adopted a resolution expressing the hope that efforts
to suppress disloyal influences in the schools would be energetically
sustained.[373] On the other hand, the Teachers’ Union voted to give
the teachers on trial their “legal, moral and financial support,”[374]
and eleven college teachers requested that the decision against them
be delayed for further investigation.[375] Professor John Dewey was
reported to have likened the trial to “the Inquisition,”[376] and the
New York _Evening Post_ editorially declared that “the case not only
was prejudiced from the beginning, but was disingenuous in inception,
unfair in method and un-American in spirit.”[377] On December 19,
1917, these teachers were dismissed by the Board of Education.[378]
Later their appeal for reinstatement was denied by the Commissioner of
Education.[379]
In November, 1917, six other teachers of the De Witt Clinton
High School were transferred to other schools because lacking a
positive loyalty. Friends of the teachers ascribed their transfer
to their “independence” and not to a lack of loyalty.[380] The
absence of academic freedom and democracy in school organization, an
indefiniteness in the charges preferred against them, were all advanced
by the teachers themselves in extenuation of their acts.[381] According
to a statement of _The New York Times_, in the inquiry to determine
their fitness to teach, the teachers declared they had been asked such
questions as the following: “Should not a teacher inculcate instinctive
obedience to supervisors, no matter what the acts of the superior
officers may be? What is your opinion of the Bolsheviki? Do you believe
in revolution? Are teachers qualified to criticise superiors? Do you
believe in internationalism? Do you think a teacher ought to impose
his views on pupils? Is there not a presumption that whatever is, is
right? Would you rather have Hillquit or Roosevelt for mayor? What
would you do if a boy called President Wilson a murderer? Do you accept
Hillquit’s treasonable utterances? Does not the critical attitude in
children need suppression? Would you be willing for the boys in your
class to discuss Liberty Bonds pro and con? In the matter of the longer
day should the teachers have been consulted?”[382] That the teachers
were asked these questions was stoutly denied by Superintendent William
L. Ettinger.[383]
Closely allied with charges of disloyal speech were those growing out
of attempts to obstruct the government in its prosecution of the War.
Of such a nature was the charge brought against Miss Fannie Ross, a
teacher in Public School 88, Brooklyn, who, while acting as a registrar
in the state census, was reported to have expressed opposition to the
draft, to have given advice outside her line of duty, and to have gone
so far as to influence a man to claim exemption.[384] On December 26,
1917, Miss Ross was suspended from service for six months because of
“conduct unbecoming a teacher,” due “to tactless remarks.”[385]
The apprehension of the school authorities of New York City was further
reflected in the trial of teachers who were suspected of radical views.
This anxiety expressed itself in the withholding of certificates of
loyalty and morality at least during the investigation. Following the
War, membership in the Socialist Party, advocacy of Communism, and a
sympathetic attitude toward the Bolshevist program of Russia were the
chief charges preferred in the trials.
Among the first teachers summoned before the high school committee
of the Board of Education because of radical views was Harrison C.
Thomas, a teacher in the De Witt Clinton High School. Mr. Thomas was an
advocate of internationalism and of socialism, a conscientious objector
who had been excused from the draft, and avowedly not enthusiastic
over wartime enterprises like Liberty Bonds. When questioned regarding
his attitude in the classroom, he confessed that he would not conceal
the fact that he was an objector; that he believed resistance to
aggressiveness by force wrong; and that if Germany wanted to rule
this country submission would be better than forceful resistance.
Yet he declared that he had tried to get into reconstruction work in
France and that he would do anything except fight. As a result, his
certificate of morality and loyalty was withheld.[386] Similar action
was taken in the case of Bernard M. Parelhoff, of the George Washington
High School, who maintained that a nation which “teaches patriotism in
its schools is merely driving nails into its own coffin,” and because
he believed there should be no reverence for the uniform as such.[387]
Licenses were likewise withheld from other teachers, among whom were
Eugene Jackson, Austin M. Works, Garibaldi Lapolla, Abraham Lefkowitz,
Edward Delaney, and Wilmer T. Stone of the De Witt Clinton High School;
Ruth G. Hardy of the Girls’ Commercial High School; John J. Donohue,
Louis A. Goldman, Felix Sper and John J. Shipley of the Stuyvesant High
School; Max Rosenhaus of the Bushwick High School; Alexander Fichlander
of Public School 165, Brooklyn; and Henrietta Rodman, Benjamin
Gruenberg, and Benjamin Mandel of the Julia Richman High School.[388]
The action of the authorities in withholding certificates of
loyalty from some of these teachers called forth a protest from
Dr. Henry Linville of the Teachers’ Union, of which many of the
accused were members. Dr. Linville assailed the methods employed
in the investigations and the reasons for which certificates were
being withheld. He asserted that during the War these teachers had
been unmolested by the federal government and had not been summoned
to face charges of disloyalty by the school authorities. Although
non-conformists in relation “to static views of society and politics,”
he declared that “most of them actively supported all war enterprises,
a minority only being pacifist in belief and action.”[389] Moreover,
in denial of the charge that teachers of alleged radical views were
indoctrinating their pupils with minority and undesirable opinions, he
declared that none of these teachers had ever maintained the right of
a teacher to press upon the pupils the political views that he himself
held.[390]
But the authorities throughout were insistent in their desire to rid
the schools of all teachers holding a political belief which to them
was anathema. To this end in November, 1919, a permanent license was
denied Miss Sonia Ginsberg, of Public School 170, because she admitted
membership in the Communist Party;[391] for the same reason action was
taken against Miss Rachel (Ray) Ragozin, in February, 1921;[392] and
in February, 1922, resolutions were adopted by the Board of Education
directing the Superintendent of Schools to reprimand Miss Sarah Hyams
for signing the membership card of the Left Wing of the Socialist
Party.[393] For advocating the reading of an article on Bolshevism, in
November, 1919, Associate Superintendent Tildsley recommended that a
permanent license be refused Benjamin Horwitz, a teacher of English in
the De Witt Clinton High School.[394]
The suspicion that Benjamin Glassberg, a teacher of history in the
Brooklyn Commercial High School, was preaching the doctrines of
Bolshevism led to his suspension from service in January, 1919.
Among the objections raised against Mr. Glassberg as a teacher were
statements alleged to have been made by him to the effect that a
teacher in the public schools was not allowed to tell the truth, that
the State Department did not permit true reports to be given about
conditions in Russia, and that Red Cross workers were forbidden to
express true opinions regarding that country.[395]
At his trial before the Board of Education on May 9, 1919, Mr.
Glassberg confessed that he had quoted from several noted Bolshevists
in reply to a question whether Lenine and Trotsky were German spies. He
declared that the statements with which he was charged were in answer
to questions asked by his class and not as “a lecture laudatory of
the Bolsheviki and severely critical of the Government of the United
States.” In regard to the remark about freedom of speech in the public
schools he asserted complete innocence.[396] On May 29, 1919, Mr.
Glassberg was dismissed from service.[397]
Considerable discussion attended the trials of the New York City
teachers. To some there was no substantial foundation upon which to
base charges of disloyalty, and the question resolved itself into
whether a teacher need forfeit his rights to a political faith in which
he believed. The answer of the school authorities came in the statement
of Dr. John L. Tildsley, Associate Superintendent of Schools: “No
person who adheres to the Marxian program, the program of the Left Wing
of the Socialist Party in this country, should be allowed to become a
teacher in the public school system, and if discovered to be a teacher,
should be compelled to sever his connection with the school system,
for it is impossible for such a person to carry out the purpose of the
public schools ... [the purpose] that the public schools of any country
should be the expression of the country’s ideals, the purpose of its
institutions, and the philosophy of its life and government.”[398]
But even in the eyes of the New York City school authorities the great
mass of public school teachers were loyal, for out of approximately
twenty-five thousand employed in the system less than half a hundred
were called to account for the views they held.[399]
Outside of the city of New York other cases of alleged infringement
of the Lusk Law occurred. Among these was that of P. Hiram Mattingly,
of Poughkeepsie, dismissed from the schools because at a Socialist
meeting he characterized the Espionage Law as a measure of despotism,
and declared that it was time that the republic be restored to this
country, a first step toward which would be the acceptance of a
Socialist administration in that city.[400]
Membership in the Communist Party cost Miss Julia D. Pratt her
position as a music teacher in Buffalo in 1921. In passing upon her
case, Frank B. Gilbert, deputy commissioner and counsel of the State
Department of Education, set forth the opinion of those with whom final
judgment rested when he declared: “A teacher in the public schools is
a member of a state system and a servant of the people of the state.
A teacher cannot properly perform the duties of her position and give
expression, either verbally or by affiliation with any political or
other organization, to her belief that our present government should be
overthrown by revolution or by force and violence through direct action
by any group or class....”[401]
Teachers beyond the confines of New York suffered similar penalties,
although the hand of the law did not press so heavily upon them. They,
too, found it necessary to guard their speech and to abstain from
proscribed political tenets, or else pay the price of reprimand or
dismissal. Precisely this kind of a condition was brought forcibly upon
the teachers of Washington, D. C., in the spring of 1919, when one
of their members--Miss Alice Wood--was suspended for a week without a
hearing, charged with discussing “Bolshevism and other heresies” in her
classroom. Among the topics which Miss Wood later found forbidden was
that of the League of Nations.[402]
The suggestion made by a supervisor of primary education in Des Moines,
Iowa, that a blind patriotism might be fostered through the selection
of songs and poems narrowly patriotic led to an investigation of her
Americanism by the commander of the Sons of Veterans.[403]
Since 1917, however, in only twelve states besides New York cases
involving disloyalty charges have been brought before the office of
the state department of education. In Delaware, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Montana, Nevada, North Carolina and South Dakota the charges resulted
in the dismissal of teachers. In California, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Hampshire, North Dakota and South Dakota, although charges were
preferred against teachers the cases were dismissed for insufficient
evidence.[404]
In Montana, school authorities in some cases failed to reappoint
teachers at the end of the year because of alleged objectionable
“utterances,” although “no proof of disloyalty was ever made
positive.” The Department of Public Instruction of Indiana reported
“a few instances” in that state where positions were lost because of
disloyalty charges.[405]
In Louisiana, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction reported
the revocation of a man’s certificate because “he capitalized the
patriotism which ran high in his community, to lend money to a number
of small farmers in the community for use in purchasing War Savings
Stamps and Liberty Bonds, and for the use of which he charged an
exorbitant rate of interest.” The teacher was said to have bought
“no stamps or Liberty Bonds,” and boasted that he could make more
money by lending to “the suckers in the community than by buying the
low-interest paying Federal obligations.” This state also revoked the
certificate of a woman whose religious scruples forbade her endorsement
of the War and whose zeal led her to advise against the purchase of
Liberty Bonds.[406]
North Carolina’s case of dismissal was that of a county superintendent
charged with pro-Germanism shortly after the entrance of the United
States into the War. Although most of the pro-German utterances of this
man had been made prior to the declaration of war by the United States,
the County Board of Education held that his influence and usefulness
had been lessened and therefore asked his resignation.[407]
In Rhode Island “disclosures of thoroughly organized preparation
to cultivate in the United States a public opinion favorable to
Pan-Germanic aspirations for world empire led, during the War, to
several investigations for the purpose of determining to what extent
and through what agencies propaganda either hostile to America and
to American ideals, or tending insidiously to undermine democratic
institutions, had been conducted.”[408] At the request of the Governor,
the Commissioner of the Public Schools undertook an investigation of
the loyalty of public and private school teachers. Questionnaires
containing the following questions were dispatched to the proper
authorities:
“To what extent, if any, have teachers under your observation, in the
classroom or out of it, been
(_a_) Active in promoting German propaganda?
(_b_) Active in promoting anti-American propaganda?
(_c_) Disloyal in word, deed, or manner to nation or state?
(_d_) Disrespectful of law and public authority?
(_e_) Passive or indifferent with reference to patriotism?
(_f_) Cynical in their discussion of democracy, or in their
discussions of history, or in their general attitude toward American
public probity?
(_g_) Teaching that democracy and democratic institutions are crude
and inefficient?”
In turn, the Commissioner of the Public Schools pointed out that “while
a few teachers have not fully recognized their civic obligations in
giving instruction, or have failed to realize the relation of public
education to loyal citizenship, or have been remiss in upholding
American ideals, the ardent patriotism of the many and their larger
activities as noted by the committee of inquiry attest the civic
loyalty of our teachers in our schools.” He assured the public that “no
disloyal teacher” would “be suffered to teach.”[409]
This insistence upon conformity among teachers bounded on all sides
their freedom of speech. It was readily and unquestioningly accepted by
the great majority. It sprang from the belief that the teacher as an
employee of the government should always agree with the government. The
advocate of repression and control held that the public school should
never be a haven where personal opinions could leaven the book-lore
which was prescribed by authority. Others agreed with Zechariah
Chafee that there was not only an individual but a social interest
in free speech, that between that individual interest and the social
interest, the former should always give way, that freedom of speech
meant liberty, not license; but that freedom of speech in itself was
a social interest, and that one of the purposes for the existence of
society was the discovery and spread of truth, a purpose which could be
accomplished only by permitting teachers to think for themselves.[410]
FOOTNOTES:
[344] Personal letters to the author under the date of December, 1923,
and January, 1924. All states but Ohio and Illinois responded to the
inquiry of the author. The Superintendent of Public Instruction in
Washington (Mrs. Josephine C. Preston) refused to furnish information
for that state.
[345] _Revolutionary Radicalism_, Vol. I, p. 1118.
[346] At the suggestion of the Teachers’ Council, an advisory committee
to sift charges was appointed who reported cases to the Commissioner
of Education should they need his attention. The investigations of
this committee aroused much criticism, especially from the Teachers’
Union, whose members were frequently the principals in the trials
conducted. The advisory committee was composed of Condé Pallen, editor
of the _Catholic Encyclopedia_, Olivia Leventritt, a former member of
the Board of Education, Hugh Frayne, New York representative of the
American Federation of Labor, Archibald Stevenson, counsel of the Lusk
Committee, and Finley J. Shepard as chairman. _The New York Times_, May
17, 1922; _ibid._, May 25, 1922; _ibid._, June 4, 1922.
[347] Instances of local friction tending to obscure the issues alleged
to be involved frequently entered into the evidence presented in some
of the trials. This was true in the trials of Schmalhausen, Schneer,
and Mufson (see pages 116-120), where opposition to the so-called
Whalen resolution for longer school hours was alleged by the defense to
be a cause for their dismissal.
[348] The pledge of the Board of Education. Other pledges, including
that of Mayor John Puroy Mitchell, also were presented for signing. See
_Toward the New Education: The Case Against Autocracy in Our Public
Schools_ (The Teachers’ Union of the City of New York), p. 23.
[349] _Ibid._ The Teachers’ Union charged that the loyalty pledges
were introduced for political purposes into a controversy between the
Board of Education and the teaching staff. The Teachers’ Union wrote
President Wilson asking him to frame a pledge which teachers could sign
“without violating their consciences.” _The New York Times_, December
2, 1917.
[350] See page 122 for a further discussion of the loyalty of Mr.
Thomas.
[351] _The New York Times_, May 18, 1918.
[352] “More Educational Inquisition,” _The New Republic_, Vol. XVII
(January 11, 1919), pp. 305-307.
[353] _Ibid._
[354] _The New York Times_, _loc. cit._
[355] _Ibid._, June 27, 1919.
[356] _Ibid._, October 31, 1918.
[357] _Ibid._, May 16, 1918.
[358] _Ibid._, June 20, 1918.
[359] _Ibid._, July 12, 1923.
[360] _Ibid._, March 16, 1918.
[361] _Ibid._, November 14, 1917.
[362] _The Trial of the Three Suspended Teachers of the De Witt Clinton
High School_ (New York), p. 26.
[363] _Ibid._, p. 64; _The New York Times_, December 4, 1917.
[364] The theme (in the form of a letter) had been collected by Miss
Ellen Garrigues, head of the English Department, in a visit to Mr.
Schmalhausen’s class. During her visit, Miss Garrigues became angry
at the “lack of spirit of love of country among the boys who had read
themes,” and asked that the themes be handed to her. _The Trial of the
Three Suspended Teachers of the De Witt Clinton High School_, p. 22.
[365] _The Trial_, pp. 42-43; Dotey, Aaron I., _The Exploitation of the
Public School System of New York_ (Teachers’ Council, New York), LXXXV.
[366] _The Trial_, pp. 46-47.
[367] Robinson and Beard’s history. See _Toward the New Education_, p.
72.
[368] _The Trial_, pp. 135, 141.
[369] _Ibid._, pp. 119-120.
[370] _Ibid._, p. 158. Mr. Mufson was a teacher of English.
[371] _Ibid._, pp. 174-175.
[372] _The New York Times_, November 20, 1917. _The Trial_, p. 200. In
addition to these charges a bibliography on recent literature compiled
by Mr. Schneer was introduced as evidence of his unfitness to teach.
The “characterizations” of books in the bibliography, read at the
trial, in general pertained to the relations of the sexes. See _ibid._,
pp. 203-204.
[373] _Ibid._, November 17, 1917; also “New York’s Disloyal School
Teachers,” _Literary Digest_, Vol. LV (December 8, 1917), pp. 32-33.
[374] _The New York Times_, _loc. cit._
[375] _Ibid._, December 20, 1917. Among these were John Dewey, James
Harvey Robinson, David Snedden, Carlton J. H. Hayes, H. A. Overstreet,
W. P. Montague, Thomas Reed Powell, M. R. Cohen, A. J. Goldfort, N. P.
Mead, and J. P. Turner.
[376] “Charges against New York City Teachers,” _School and Society_,
Vol. VI (December 22, 1917), p. 733.
[377] The New York _Evening Post_ quoted in _School and Society_, _loc.
cit._
[378] _The New York Times_, December 20, 1917.
[379] _Ibid._, November 5, 1918. In reviewing their cases, _Toward the
New Education_, a publication of the Teachers’ Union, ascribed the
dismissal of these teachers not to disloyalty, but to their opposition
to the “autocracy” of superior officials and to an anti-Semitic bias of
these officials. All three teachers were Russian Jews.
[380] _Ibid._, December 1, 1917. Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXXVI; _The New
York Times_, November 15, 1917.
[381] The Central Federated Union, November 17, 1917, resolved “in the
interest of justice and of the schools that the charges made against
the teachers be definitely formulated by a committee of responsible
officials, and that a copy of the charges be given to each of the
teachers transferred or suspended and that the charges be heard in
public.” _Ibid._
[382] _Ibid._, November 15, 1917.
[383] _Ibid._, November 16, 1917.
[384] _Ibid._, November 29, 1917; _ibid._, December 25, 1917.
[385] _Ibid._, December 27, 1917.
[386] Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXVIII, XCVII. Mr. Thomas was called in
November, 1917.
[387] _Ibid._, LXXVIII. Mr. Parelhoff was questioned regarding his
opinions in November, 1917.
[388] According to Dr. Henry Linville of the Teachers’ Union. _The
New York Times_ of January 24, 1918, reported that twenty-four
teachers in School 62 of New York had been questioned about their
war views. Although assurances had been given the teachers that no
charges against them were contemplated, the Teachers’ Union called it
a “fishing expedition” to obtain evidence against Philip Perlstein, a
teacher who had been suspended two weeks before. In November, 1919,
sixteen “radical” teachers were reported to have been called by Deputy
Attorney-General Samuel A. Berger, because of their connection with
radical propaganda. _The New York Times_, November 20, 1919.
[389] _The New York Times_, October 23, 1922. The teachers whom Dr.
Linville was reported to have mentioned were Austin M. Works, Eugene
Jackson, Wilmer T. Stone, John F. Donohue, Louis Goldman, Joseph J.
Shipley, Felix Sper, Ruth Hardy, Henrietta Rodman, Jessie Hughan,
Abraham Lefkowitz, and Max Rosenhaus.
[390] _Ibid._
[391] Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXXVIII; also _The New York Times_, November
18, 1919.
[392] Dotey, _op. cit._
[393] _Ibid._
[394] _Ibid._, CXII. Mr. Horwitz resigned his position in 1920.
[395] “Freedom of Teaching in the New York City Schools,” _School and
Society_, Vol. IX (February 1, 1919), pp. 142-143; also Dotey, _op.
cit._, LXXXVII.
[396] _The New York Times_, January 19, 1919. Also Department of
Education of the City of New York, _In the Matter of the Trial of
Charges of Conduct Unbecoming a teacher and to the prejudice of
good order, efficiency and discipline preferred against Benjamin
Glassberg.... Brief and Argument of Gilbert E. Roe in Behalf of
Benjamin Glassberg, Teacher_ (New York), pp. 7-8.
[397] _Ibid._ Mr. Gilbert E. Roe, counsel for Mr. Glassberg, intimated
that the boys who had been selected to testify against Mr. Glassberg
had been chosen “according to race and religion,” that Mr. Glassberg,
a Socialist and a Jew, had “guided his classes along the road of true
Americanism” during the War and had received from his superiors “the
highest ratings possible for his work.” See also Dotey, _op. cit._,
LXXXVII.
[398] Trachtenberg, Alexander, ed., _The American Labor Year Book
1919-1920_ (New York, 1920), Vol. III, p. 89.
[399] _The New York Times_, May 25, 1922. According to a statement of
Superintendent William L. Ettinger.
[400] Trachtenberg, _op. cit._, p. 88.
[401] _The New York Times_, January 19, 1921.
[402] Trachtenberg, _op. cit._, p. 88; also “Other Heresies,” _The New
Republic_, Vol. XVIII (April 12, 1919), pp. 330-331; also McAndrew,
William, “American Liberty More or Less,” _The World’s Work_, Vol.
XLVII (December, 1923), p. 180. Miss Wood declared that she gave
definitions only, and referred to current magazine literature when
questions were raised by a pupil concerning Bolshevism and anarchism.
She also asserted that she had not discussed the Russian situation, nor
had she defended Bolshevism.
[403] “The War is Over in Iowa,” _The Survey_, Vol. XLVIII (September
15, 1922), p. 712; also _The Des Moines Register_, April 6, 1922. The
name of the teacher was Miss Kate Kelly. She was completely exonerated
of “anti-Americanism.”
[404] Personal letters from the Superintendents of Public Instruction:
Delaware, under date of January 30, 1924; Louisiana, December 6,
1923; Minnesota, December 1, 1923; Montana, December 3, 1923; Nevada,
December 3, 1923; North Carolina, December 3, 1923; South Dakota,
December 5, 1923; California, December 8, 1923; Maine, December 1,
1923; New Hampshire, December 5, 1923; North Dakota, December 20, 1923.
[405] Letter from the Department of Public Instruction, December 7,
1923.
[406] Letters from the Department of Education, November 30, 1923, and
December 6, 1923.
[407] Letter from State Superintendent of Public Instruction, December
11, 1923.
[408] _Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the State Board of Education ... of
Rhode Island_, January, 1919, p. 75.
[409] _Ibid._, pp. 78-79.
[410] See Chafee, Zechariah, “Freedom and Initiative in the Schools,”
_The Public and the Schools_ (New York, 1919).
PART II
THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES
“... for it is the business and duty of historians to be exact,
truthful, and wholly free from passion, and neither interest nor fear,
hatred nor love, should make them swerve from the path of truth, whose
mother is history, rival of time, storehouse of deeds, witness for the
past, example and counsel for the present, and warning for the future.”
CERVANTES, _Don Quixote_.
PART II
THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES
CHAPTER VI
ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL TEXTBOOKS
The public school deals with that period of life in which strong
impressions find easy lodgment in the child’s memory. Altruism,
glorification of national achievements, hero worship, and other
emotions are excited by contacts with teachers and books. It is the
age in which the child’s ideals can be fired by the sayings of famous
men and in which the story of valorous deeds stirs a responsive
enthusiasm. Indeed, it is a common belief that the influences of these
early associations and impressions persist far into maturity, for “as
the twig is bent, so the tree is inclined.” With a keen appreciation
of the possibilities of this plastic period of child life, authors of
textbooks in history and the other social studies, obedient to the
spirit of their times, have exalted and condemned as the prevailing
temper has dictated.
History for the sake of propaganda is not a unique possession of any
one country. It has been employed in the name of “patriotism” by many
nations. Livy extolled Rome, Green exalted England, Bancroft eulogized
the exploits of the founders of America, and Treitschke and Nietzsche
pictured the glories of an imperialist régime in Germany. As a result,
there has developed an overweening pride in national and racial
attributes and achievements. From such a source has sprung much of the
hereditary enmity between France and Germany. Indeed, it has been
said that an analogous situation exists in the United States, and a
well-known writer recently declared that, through the study of American
history, “Americans are taught to hate Britishers, ... and not only
descendants of the men who made the Revolution, but every newly arrived
immigrant child imbibes the hatred of Great Britain of today from the
patriotic ceremonies of the public schools.”[411]
Propagandist history, however, is not merely an instrument of the
ultra-nationalist. By the pacifist it may be employed to depict with
a vivid gruesomeness the horrors of war; by it the militarist may
demonstrate the advantages of preparedness; the racially conscious
may narrate, in their history, achievements of their heroes to the
exclusion or derogation of those of other groups; the religious
enthusiasts may commend the contributions of their sect to the neglect
of others; and economic and social organizations may seek to serve
their particular purposes. Demands for revised history textbooks, such
as emanated during the World War, to teach the point of view then
current, are but a recent instance of a practice as old as the teaching
of history.
HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN THE SOUTH
In the United States, as well as elsewhere, propagandist influences
have played their part in shaping the content of history textbooks.
The South, in particular, has shown such tendencies, attempting
in the _ante-bellum_ days to propagate a history favorable to the
slave-holding interests, and since that time endeavoring to justify
the past in the eyes of posterity. The desire to depict events from
a sectional point of view was especially apparent in the decade
preceding the Civil War when a concerted effort to prescribe the
content of history textbooks expressed itself in frequent agitations
against the use of Northern textbooks. By the Southerner was raised the
same query which has been raised in our own time--whether the author
of a textbook has a right “to step aside from his proper course to
drag in his own private views on vexed questions of national import”
about which a writer should “maintain an impartial stand.”[412] Such
criticisms were directed against Northern textbook writers; for
Southerners were agreed that an author would not be guilty of a heinous
offense if he should “step aside ... to drag in” views favorable to the
institution of slavery. Indeed, a sectional presentation of history
was deemed a necessity; and a movement for “home education” to combat
the teachings of the “abolitionist North” attained considerable vigor
in the ’fifties. To the Southerner, “home education” meant Southern
trained teachers and textbooks filled with the convictions of the
slave-holding South. Through such agencies it was hoped to expel from
their midst “the wandering incendiary Yankee school-master” with “his
incendiary school books”[413] parading under “the black piratical
ensign of abolitionism.”[414]
Even prior to the ’fifties, the South had realized the value of
a propagandist literature, for Duff Green, a relative of John C.
Calhoun, had secured a charter from South Carolina for a Southern
Literary Company for the purpose of publishing school books adapted
to his section.[415] Green’s efforts must have proved unsuccessful,
for it was followed by much newspaper discussion of the situation,
which gained in asperity as the South became more belligerent in the
assertion of her rights.
Writing in _De Bow’s Review_ of 1855, one alarmist declared: “Our
text-books are abolition works. They are so to the extent of their
capacity, and though the poison of anti-slavery dogmas has not found
its way into arithmetic and mixed mathematics, yet we should not be
surprised to find that some work is now in progress in which the young
learner will find his sums stated in abolition phrases, and perhaps be
required to tell how many more sinners might have gone to Heaven if
Abraham, the ‘father of the faithful and the friend of God’ had not
been a slave holder and a dealer in human chattels; ... and so long
as we use such work as Wayland’s _Moral Science_ and the abolition
geographies, readers and histories, overrunning as they do, with all
sorts of slanders, caricatures and blood-thirsty sentiments ... [they
will] array our children by false ideas, against the established
ordinances of God,....”[416]
Another writer could not condone the indifference of his section to the
existence of such conditions. “When the public mind of our section was
divided as to the justice and propriety of this institution [slavery]
...,” he remarked, “it was not then to be wondered at that we should
remain indifferent to the views presented to our youth on the subject,
and that we should carelessly allow them to peruse, even in their
tender years, works in which slavery was denounced as an unmitigated
evil, and the universal race of Ham’s descendants were blazoned forth
as a set of dusky angels and martyrs. Such a course may have been
defensible at that period, but tell me, what show of propriety is
there in its continuance at the present day? We have become awake
to the rightfulness and justice of our stand; we have come to know
that we are more sinned against than sinning; and we have witnessed
the complete failure of many quixotic attempts to transform negroes
into prosperous and thriving freemen. Why then should we wish that
the rising generation, who are to frame and control public opinion,
after we have passed from being, should be on this question of vital
importance taught doctrines which are in direct conflict with what we
now believe?”[417]
Because “southern life, habits, thoughts, and aims” were “so
essentially different from those of the North,” another protagonist
of “home education” maintained that a different character of books
and training was required to “bring up the boy to manhood with his
faculties fully developed.”[418] Nor could this “true man” be developed
if he must sit “at the feet of some abolition Gamaliel of the North,”
but he must have “books and teachers of history from the South who
should point out the destiny of the South.”[419]
As a result of the agitation of the press, the commercial conventions,
which met during the years from 1853 to 1860, committed themselves
with one accord, to the Southern educational program. The Memphis
Convention of 1853 demanded the employment of native teachers, the
encouragement of a home press, and the publication of books adapted to
the educational wants and the social conditions of the section.[420]
The following year, the Charleston Convention passed a resolution
which urged the production of textbooks by Southern men “with express
reference to the proper education of the Southern youth.”[421] The
resolution declared that “this Convention earnestly recommends all
parents and guardians within these states, to consider well, that to
neglect the claims of their own seminaries and colleges, and patronize
and enrich those of remote states, is fraught with peril to our sacred
interests, perpetuating our dependence on those who do not understand
and cannot appreciate our necessities and responsibilities; and at the
same time fixing a lasting reproach upon our institutions, teachers and
people.”[422]
In 1856, the Savannah Convention issued to “The People of the
Slaveholding States” an address advocating joint action on the part
of the Southern legislatures. “It will be well, at least, to look
to our school books,” they declared. “Can the making of these be
entrusted exclusively to those, who by instilling an occasional heresy,
dangerous to our repose, imagine that they serve at the same time God
and Mammon--their consciences and their pocket? The State Legislatures
at the South alone are competent to heal this mischief. Property will
submit to any amount of taxation for such a purpose. A system can and
ought to be matured at the South by which the most ample encouragement
shall be given to its educational system and its press. Withdraw at
once the contributions which are returned too often to us now in
contumely and insult.”[423]
At the same convention the committee upon the subject of “Text Books
for Southern Schools and Colleges” reported that “the books rapidly
coming into use in our schools and colleges at the South are not only
polluted with opinions adverse to our institutions, and hostile to our
constitutional views, but are inferior in every respect, as books
of instruction to those which might be produced amongst ourselves,
or procured from Europe....”[424] The Committee proposed that the
convention take the matter “under their auspices and select or prepare
such a series of books, in every department of study, from the earliest
primer to the highest grade of literature and science, as shall seem
to them best qualified to elevate and purify the education of the
South.”[425] The Committee further recommended that “when this series
of books shall have been prepared, the Legislatures of the Southern
States be requested to adopt them as text-books.”[426]
The committees appointed at the Southern conventions evidently failed
to obtain results, for _De Bow’s Review_ of 1858 querulously remarked
that the committees seemed to have dropped into repose after their
appointments.[427] Newspaper agitation, however, continued without
abatement, _The Constitutionalist_ suggesting, in 1858, that Georgia
by law should compel her schools to use Georgia school books in which
information was given regarding the early history of the state, and
which contained “eloquent and patriotic emanations from the gifted
pens” of some of their “ablest writers.”[428]
History textbooks held a conspicuous place in most of the discussions.
Peter Parley’s _History_, extensively used at this time, came in for
much adverse criticism because, in the opinion of the Southerner, it
“insulted” and “misrepresented” the institutions of the South.[429]
“If it is important for us to have a home literature of our own in the
lighter departments of reading and knowledge,” one critic remarked,
“how much more vitally essential it is to our best interests that
the books from which our children imbibe their earliest lessons in
history and political economy should be written by those who are able
to expound and vindicate, instead of misrepresenting and defaming the
institutions under which they are to live and be educated.”[430]
Further criticism of the same textbook is found in an article on
“Wants of the South” in _De Bow’s Review_ for 1860. “Our schools have
long been groaning under the burden of questionable orthodoxy, and in
some instances decided hostility to the institutions which her public
instructors, of all others, may reasonably be expected to advocate and
defend,” said one writer. “... no teacher or pupil who has used Peter
Parley’s Histories, or any of the popular ‘Readers’ and ‘Orators’ from
which juvenile disciples of Demosthenes have learned to spout so glibly
eloquent invectives against slavery, the slave trade, will fail to
recognize the long-deplored existence of this deadly evil.”[431]
Other books of an historical nature, which were especially obnoxious
to the South, were Gilbert’s _Atlas_ and Appleton’s _Complete Guide
of the World_, which contained “hidden lessons of the most fiendish
and murderous character that enraged fanaticism could conceive or
indite.”[432] “This book and many other northern school books scattered
over the country come within range of the Statutes of this State
[Louisiana], which provide for the imprisonment for life or the
infliction of a penalty of death upon any person who shall publish or
distribute such works ...,” declared one writer.[433]
Whelpley’s _Compend of History_ was also considered heretical in
nature because of its discussion of slavery, which inculcated
“improper precepts in the minds of our children.”[434] The writer
in his diatribe against this book quoted the following passage from
Whelpley to prove his point: “But for what purpose was he [the slave]
brought from his country? Why was he forced from the scenes of his
youth, and the cool retreats of his native mountains? Was it, that
he might witness the saving knowledge of the gospel?... No. He was
deprived of his _freedom_, the dearest pledge of his existence. _His
mind was not cultivated and improved by science!... He is detested for
his complexion, and ranked among the brutes for his stupidity._ His
laborious exertions are extorted from him to enrich his purchasers,
and _his scanty allowance is furnished, only that he may endure his
sufferings for their aggrandizement_.”[435]
The discussion of slavery in the Northern textbooks was not the only
cause for irritation. Equally distasteful to the Southerner were the
invidious comparisons made between North and South.[436] The histories
produced by the North, one writer pointed out, “are filled with praise
and glorification of the New England and Northern states generally,
as a set of incorruptible patriots, irreproachable moralists, and
most exemplary models for future imitation, and their descendants
are depicted as fully equalling the standard set for them by their
distinguished ancestors, of unexceptionable demeanor. On the other
hand, the individuals who organized society in the Southern States are
pictured as a race of immoral reprobates, who have handed down all of
their vices and evil habits to their descendants of this day. While the
institution of slavery and its introduction into our country are made
the occasion of much violent invective, there is but a slight effort at
rebuke, and a large amount of apology is offered, for the amusements of
burning witches, hanging Quakers, and banishing Baptists, formerly so
very popular in New England. While we, who now support and defend the
institution of slavery, are either denounced or pitied, the residents
of the Northern States, who have always been the chief prosecutors of
the slave trade are allowed to pass uncensured. Such is the state of
the histories.”[437]
To Willson’s _Historical Series_ objection was raised because “the
author has elected to make himself sectional and therefore must expect
sectional support.” “Why say of the odious Hartford Convention,” a
critic remarked, “‘Its proceedings were not as objectionable as many
anticipated,’ or why use comparisons between the different sections
as invidious, and as we believe and know, as false as these: ‘In
Virginia and the southern colonies, where the inhabitants guided in
the selection of their dwelling places chiefly by consideration of
agricultural conveniences, dispersed themselves over the face of the
country, often at considerable distances from each other, schools and
churches were necessarily rare, and social intercourse but little
known. The evils of the state of society thus produced still exist
to a considerable extent in the southern portions of the Union. The
colonization of New England was more favorable to the improvement of
human character and morals.’” Further cause for complaint lay in the
following passage: “Of the state of manners and morals in Maryland,
Virginia and the southern colonies generally, we cannot give so
gratifying an account. While the upper classes of inhabitants among
the southern people were distinguished for a luxurious and expensive
hospitality, they were too generally addicted to the vices of card
playing, gambling and intemperance, while hunting and cock-fighting
were favorite amusements of persons of all ranks.... It cannot be
denied, however, that New England colonial history furnishes, on the
whole, the most agreeable reminiscences, as well as the most abundant
materials for the historian.”[438]
So common was a biased presentation of controversial questions in the
books of the time that William Howard Russell, _The_ [London] _Times_
correspondent during the Civil War, declared that he was unable to
obtain “a single solid, substantial work” on the controversy between
the North and the South, for there was not one published which was
“worth a cent.”[439]
Little response to the exponents of “home education” seems to have
been made at this time by the state legislatures, although, in 1859,
the Louisiana legislature adopted a resolution endorsing the movement
“to encourage the production of and introduction into the schools
of Louisiana of a series of school books written by citizens of the
State, published in the South, not contaminated by the fanaticism of
Northern authors.”[440] Other Southern states since the Civil War have
prescribed the type of histories to be used in their schools, but they
have had for their chief intent a “proper presentation of the War of
the States.”
Since the Civil War the most active exponents of a pro-Southern
history have been Southern veterans’ associations and kindred groups.
Especially vigilant have been the United Confederate Veterans who,
since 1892, with few exceptions have announced in annual convention
their advocacy of “a true and reliable history.” In 1892, the first
historical committee, composed of “comrades skilled and experienced
in such matters,” was appointed to “select proper and truthful
histories of the United States to recommend for use in the public and
private schools of the South.”[441] No meeting of the Veterans was
held in 1893, but the following year the Historical Committee offered
an extensive and elaborate report.[442] This report suggested the
establishment of a chair of American history in Southern universities
with time for research; that the Association recommend to the
legislatures of Southern states that provision be made in the public
school course for the teaching of history of the native state for one
year, and for the establishment and support of a chair of American
history in the state university or some suitable state institution, and
that the preparation of school histories of the state be encouraged;
that all private schools and academies teach the history of the state
one year and devote the same amount of time to United States history;
and that state legislatures be memorialized in order to gain their
coöperation in securing “a different presentation of the narrative of
facts for the truth of history of our common country.”[443]
The Committee, besides their recommendations, classified school
histories in three groups. In the first class were those issued in the
first ten or fifteen years following the close of the War, “dictated
by prejudice and prompted by the evil passion that time had not then
softened.” Secondly came those Northern histories apparently fair,
either through a revision of an earlier edition or emasculation, in an
“effort to curry favor with the text-book patrons of both sections”;
also those histories with separate editions for North and South,
as well as those “written and published at the North in which an
honest effort is made to do justice to the South” but which failed
to emphasize the distinctive features of the South or to emphasize
the place of the South in the history of the Union. The third group
contained a list of text-books acceptable to the Veterans, including
_Hansell’s Histories_ by H. E. Chambers of Louisiana, _History of the
American People_ by J. H. Shinn of Arkansas, _History of the United
States_ by Alexander Stephens of Georgia, _History of the United
States_ by George F. Holmes of Virginia, _History of the United States_
by Blackburn and McDonald of Maryland, _Grammar School History_ by L.
A. Field of Georgia, and _History of the United States_ by J. T. Terry
of Georgia.
The report of the Committee of 1894 was accepted unanimously and
the resolution, passed to continue the committee, urged that it “do
everything in its power to encourage the preparation of suitable
school histories and especially to encourage their publication by the
building up of Southern publishing houses....”[444]
The Reports of 1895 and of 1896 manifested the same spirit and offered
substantially the same recommendations as those made by the Committee
of 1894. Both desired a “vindication for the Southern people and a
refutation of the slanders, the misrepresentations and the imputations”
which they had “so long and patiently borne.”[445] The Report of 1895
pointed out that “while the South has always been prominent in making
history, she has left the writing of history to New England historians”
whose chief defect was “lack of catholic sympathy for all sections
of the country.”[446] The importance of the work of the Historical
Committee was recognized in 1895 by increasing its membership from
seven to fifteen to include a representative from each Southern
state.[447]
By 1897 the agitation for sectional histories had become so stormy that
the Nashville reunion took under advisement a suggestion of the Grand
Army of the Republic of Wisconsin, which proposed the appointment of a
“commission of distinguished educators from the ranks of the contending
armies” who should write a history of the period 1861 to 1865 which
should be satisfactory to both sections.[448] The Historical
Committee of the Confederate Veterans, however, deemed it inadvisable
to undertake such a project, believing that a history textbook could
not be written as well by a commission as by one person. However, the
Committee pointed out that “the destiny of the South is now inseparably
bound up with that of this great republic and that it is to the
interest of the whole nation and its citizens everywhere that coming
generations of Southern men should give to the Union the same love and
devotion which their fathers gave to the United States and then to the
ill-starred Confederacy;....”[449] And, although they realized that “no
sectional history is wanted in the schools of this country,” yet the
Southern people desired in their histories “to retain from the wreck
in which their constitutional views, their domestic institutions, the
mass of their property, and the lives of their best and bravest were
lost, the knowledge that their conduct was honorable throughout, and
that their submission at last ... in no way blackened their motives or
established the wrong of the cause for which they fought.”[450]
Among the points at issue in the adoption of Northern textbooks was
the use of certain opprobrious terms. At the Atlanta reunion in 1898,
a resolution was adopted which gave voice to such objections. It
requested the substitution of the term “the civil war between the
States” for “the war of the Rebellion,” because such an expression
reflected “on the patriotism of the Southern people and the cause for
which they so heroically fought....”[451] The Historical Committee at
the same time indicated their aversion to other “offensive epithets”
in Northern histories, such as “rebels” and “arch-traitors.”[452]
They recommended, among other things, that “Boards of Education and
all others having charge of the selection of histories, geographies,
speeches, readers, etc., be careful to exclude works that show the
partisan, sectional and unpatriotic spirit.”[453]
Yet the need of a “broad American patriotism” was recognized by the
United Confederate Veterans regardless of their attacks on Northern
produced histories. Such an attitude manifested itself in the committee
report of the reunion of 1898 which quoted with favorable comment an
extract from an address of Commander John W. Frazier of the Fred Taylor
Post, G. A. R., of Philadelphia. The Confederate Veterans especially
approved the spirit of Mr. Frazier when he declared: “We must under
the blending influence exerted by the new order of things, undo that
which sectional feelings led both North and South to do in regard to
the publication of public school histories--certain to create and
foster lasting and bitter prejudices--and use our influence in behalf
of a public school history of the late war and the causes leading
to it, that will be used in common in all the public schools of the
country,....”[454]
The suggestion of Mr. Frazier reflected the welding influence of
the Spanish-American War upon all factions in America. In 1899, the
Historical Committee of the Confederate Veterans announced that its
duty was “little more than to keep watch upon the histories of the day”
for “the prospect for fairness and candor in historical writing” seemed
“much improved since the Spanish War,” because “a new perspective,”
had been afforded the historian.[455] Yet the same report evidenced
a watchfulness on the part of the Southerner to prevent the use of
books which “either pervert or fail to do justice to the history of
the people of this section.”[456] The reunion further endorsed the
recommendation of the Historical Committee for the appointment in each
state of a sub-committee of three to examine “every history taught
in the schools of the state with especial reference to ascertaining
whether said books contain incorrect or inaccurate statements or
make important omissions of facts, or inculcate narrow or partisan
sentiments.”[457] In the event that any defects were found in any
of the histories used in the schools, the Committee suggested that
each sub-committee should “enter into friendly correspondence with
the authors and publishers of such books, with a view to correcting
such errors, or supplying such omissions.” In addition, it became the
duty of each sub-committee “annually, one month before each reunion
to make a report” to the Historical Committee, showing what histories
of the state and of the United States were used in the schools of the
state; and further “to make such suggestions with regard to school
histories and with regard to the teaching of history” as might seem
appropriate.[458]
The reports of the next few years show a slackening vigilance on the
part of the historical committees. At each meeting of the Veterans a
report and suggestions as to the improvement of historical instruction
in the South were offered, but much of the recriminatory tone of the
reports of the ’nineties had disappeared. In 1900, the Committee
recommended again that the term “the war between the states” be
substituted for other terms, and that money be appropriated in order
that the Historical Committee could carry on their campaign, through
the press and public meetings, for the use of histories doing “full
justice” both to the South and the North.[459] The Reunion of 1902
sanctioned the suggestion of the Historical Committee dealing with the
preparation of a source book portraying the “character, the ideals and
the leadership of the South,” and called favorable attention to Thomas
Dixon’s novel _The Leopard’s Spots_.[460]
The historical reports presented to the reunions held in 1908, 1909 and
1910 still discussed the need for “true history” although commending
the fairness of most historians. Yet the Committee hesitated to relax
its watchfulness because “the history of the Confederate period as it
is told in many books that may be used in our schools, ... demands and
deserves undiminished vigilance.”[461]
The Report of 1910 expressed, however, a sanguine satisfaction in the
condition resulting from the agitation about history textbooks. “We do
not fear the bookmaker now,” the Veterans declared. “Southern schools
and Southern teachers have prepared books which Southern children may
read without insult or traduction of their fathers. Printing presses
all over the Southland--and all over the Northland--are sending forth
by thousands ones which tell the true character of the heroic struggle.
The influence and wealth of the South forbid longer the perversion of
truth and the falsification of history.”[462]
In the reports of the historical committees two history textbooks
received specific criticism for their treatment of Southern
institutions and life. In 1903, attention was called to a paragraph
in _The Young People’s Story of the Great Republic_ by Ella Hines
Stratton, in which “a most false and misleading account” was given of
the capture of Fort Pillow by General N. B. Forrest.[463] The Report of
1911 devoted considerable space to an attack on Elson’s _History of the
United States_. “One of the most extraordinary happenings in regard to
the history of the South occurred in Virginia in the last few weeks,”
chronicled the Report. “Elson’s History of the United States had been
selected as a textbook by Roanoke College. Miss Sarah Moffett, one of
the students of the college, refused to attend the history class or use
this history where it referred to the South and its people. For this
she suffered reprimand.”[464] The Southern Cross Chapter of the United
Daughters of the Confederacy thereupon undertook an investigation and
issued a circular which was “widely distributed.”[465] The circular
was addressed: “To the Daughters of the Confederacy, the Camps of the
Confederate Veterans, the Sons of Veterans, and to all Who are Loyal to
the Southland, and Love Her Traditions and Desire a truthful History of
Her Social and Political Life.”[466]
The charges brought against Mr. Elson rested upon “the partisan spirit
that prompted the writer to slander a people who had reached the
pinnacle of high ideals, refinement and culture, and to which it has
never been the fortune of many to attain.”[467] To the Southerner was
especially abhorrent the portrayal of slave life in the South in which
it was said: “‘Often the attractive slave woman was a prostitute to
her master,’” “‘an evil’” that “‘was widespread at the South.’”[468]
Further objections arose to the statement: “‘A sister of President
Madison declared that though the Southern ladies were complimented with
the name of wife they were only the mistresses of Seraglios’”; and
that “‘a leading Southern lady declared to Harriet Martineau that the
wife of many a planter was but the chief slave of his harem.’”[469]
Mr. Elson was also regarded as misrepresenting the cause of the Civil
War, which he attributed “to slavery and slavery alone” and not to
state rights, which he declared “in the abstract had nothing to do with
bringing on the war.”[470]
In response to the circular of the United Daughters of the Confederacy,
the Veterans adopted a resolution indicating that it could not be
“too earnestly pressed upon the attention of those in charge of our
educational institutions the supreme importance of excluding from our
schools and colleges all histories that do not in their reports of the
great struggle for constitutional liberty ... fairly and impartially
represent the facts.” The Reunion further resolved that there be used
“only such histories as will recognize the justice of that cause [of
1861-1865] in support of which so many of our brave comrades shed their
blood and gave their lives.”[471]
In 1912 the agitation regarding history textbooks had lost much of its
bitterness and the line of cleavage between the Northerner’s history
and that of the Southerner seemed less apparent. Under the fusing
influence of the World War, the Confederate Veterans held their reunion
in 1917 in the city of Washington where Confederate and Union flags
waved together.[472] But the spirit of sectional interest had too long
enslaved them and, in 1921, the Reunion favorably adopted a report of
the Rutherford Committee. Chief among the achievements for a “true
history” which the Committee were able to report was the adoption of
satisfactory histories in the states of Mississippi and Texas. The
Committee predicted similar action in North Carolina where there were
“true histories by Southern authors and published by a home house,”
thereby eliminating any necessity for even considering “any Yankee
books.”[473]
A revival of propaganda for sectional histories since 1921 is due in
some degree to the appearance of two pamphlets which set forth the need
of a distinct type of history for the South: _The Truth of the War
Conspiracy of 1861_, by H. W. Johnstone, and _Truths of History_, by
Mildred Lewis Rutherford, state historian for the United Daughters of
the Confederacy. These pamphlets received the unanimous endorsement of
the United Confederate Veterans at their meeting in Richmond, Virginia,
June, 1922, in a resolution recommending their use in the public
schools.[474] Among other things, these writings purported to establish
the fact that Lincoln began the Civil War. The committee report
declared: “This [_The Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861_] presents
the official evidence gathered principally from the United States
Government archives, which proves the Confederate War was deliberately
and personally conceived and its inauguration made by Abraham Lincoln,
and that he was personally responsible for forcing the war upon the
South.”[475]
The endorsement of this ultra-Southern viewpoint caused a storm of
protest, particularly in the North. Under the caption “The Confederate
Veterans’ New Glands,” the _Chicago Daily Tribune_ observed: “We are
moved to wonder, ‘What is history?’ The Standard Dictionary defines it
as ‘a systematic record of past events.’ No better definition in six
words occurs to us. But more or less recent events in world politics,
coupled with the current action of the Confederate Veterans, indicates
[_sic_] that that definition is in error. History is becoming, if
it has not already reached that stage, a medium of propaganda. That
became evident in the world war, when European histories were combed
for evidence of the innate barbarity of the German people. It was more
evident in the efforts to arouse the American people to the point of
intervention and actual warfare to free Ireland. It is now emphasized
through the efforts of the Confederate Veterans to impose upon the
children of the south their own interpretation of the Civil War,
regardless of accuracy or the effect upon the nation. The Veterans are
attempting to pass on their old hates and rancors to their descendants.
They have not yet surrendered to Grant. They are a trifle feeble, to
be sure, but apparently becoming less so. They are busily engaged in
swapping their old glands for new.”[476]
_The New York Times_ expressed equally strong disapproval of an effort
to revive the bitterness of the past and attempt “a revocation of
beatification or canonization” of Lincoln.[477]
No less resentful at the attempted disparagement of Lincoln’s services
were the officers of the Grand Army of the Republic, who assailed Miss
Rutherford’s statement that Lincoln began the war as a “lie.”[478] Mrs.
John A. Logan, representing the Dames of the Loyal Legion, also offered
objections to such “a perversion of facts,” and declared that all
patriotic societies would be urged to seek the suppression of any such
histories.[479]
Protests against this revival of sectional animosity were not localized
in the North. _The Macon_ [Georgia] _Telegraph_ suggested to Miss
Rutherford that she would find better employment were she to bring
to public view the virtues, the generosities and heroisms which were
in the Old South and should be carried over in the New South. The
_Telegraph_ also believed that it would prove fruitful of good were she
to dwell on the cordial tributes paid by the North to Lee as a man and
as a general; and as for Lincoln, with much less research than she used
in unearthing dubious evidences of his antagonism to the Southerners,
she could find almost innumerable and indubitable proofs of his
good-will. The _Telegraph_ concluded that “the whole nation looks upon
its Lincolns and its Lees as Americans, and humanity looks upon them as
its own.”[480]
Beside the allegation that Lincoln began the Civil War, Miss
Rutherford, following the impulse given her by the Johnstone pamphlet,
_Truths of the War Conspiracy of 1861_,[481] offered quotations to
show that Lincoln was not a fit example for children, nor was he given
his rightful place in history. Such quotations as the following are
indicative of the character of her remarks: “People found in Lincoln
before his death nothing remarkably good or great, but on the contrary,
found in him the reverse of goodness or greatness. Lincoln as one of
Fame’s immortals does not appear in the Lincoln of 1861 (Schouler’s
_History of the United States_, Vol. VI, p. 21).”[482] “Lincoln signed
the liquor revenue bill and turned the saloon loose on the country,
thus undoing the previous temperance work of the churches.”[483]
“Mr. Lincoln went to church, but he went to mock and came away to
mimic.”[484] “The people all drank, and Abe was for doing what the
people did, right or wrong.”[485] Miss Rutherford also presented
evidence designed to prove that Lincoln was a tricky politician,[486]
and that the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.[487]
In contrast with these characterizations of Lincoln are the “spotless
integrity, controlling conscience” and “sincere religious convictions”
ascribed to Davis. Even a Northern historian, Ridpath, according to
Miss Rutherford, testified that Davis had bitterness toward no man.[488]
Eighty-one per cent of the schools and colleges in the South, according
to Miss Rutherford, were using, in 1921, “text-books untrue to the
South,” and “seventeen per cent” were “using histories omitting most
important facts concerning the South.”[489] As written, the histories
“magnify and exalt the New England colonies and the Mayflower
crew, with bare mention of the Jamestown Colony, thirteen years
older, and the crews of the _Susan Constant_, the _Discovery_, and
the _Goodspeed_.”[490] Other objectionable features in most school
histories were the “extended account” generally given to the “religious
faith and practice” of New England with no mention of Sir Thomas Dale’s
Code in the Jamestown Colony, “which enforced daily attendance upon
Divine worship, penalty for absence, penalty for blasphemy, penalty for
speaking evil of the Church, and refusing to answer the Catechism, and
for neglecting work.”[491]
Other Southerners than Miss Rutherford have criticized the customary
presentation of history. “We owe it to our dead, to our living, and to
our children, to preserve the truth and repel the falsehoods, so that
we may secure just judgment from the only tribunal before which we may
appear and be fully and fairly heard, and that tribunal is the bar of
history,” asserted Benjamin H. Hill.[492] Likewise Thomas Nelson Page
declared: “In a few years there will be no South to demand a history
if we have history as it is now written. How do we stand today in
the eyes of the world? We are esteemed ‘ignorant, illiterate, cruel,
semi-barbarous, a race sunken in brutality and vice, a race of slave
drivers who disrupted the Union in order to perpetuate human slavery
and who as a people have contributed nothing to the advancement of
mankind.’”[493]
Among the textbooks designated by Miss Rutherford for special
criticism were Davidson’s _History of the United States_, Montgomery’s
_Beginner’s American History_, and Muzzey’s _An American History_.[494]
Davidson was criticized because he asserted that “the Jamestown
colonists were vicious idlers and jail birds picked up on the streets
of London,” and because of the statement that “side by side the two
civilizations had grown up in America--the one dedicated to progress
and kept up with the spirit of the age--the other a landed aristocracy
with slavery as the chief excuse for its existence.”[495]
Condemnation was meted out to Muzzey’s textbook because it was alleged
that he said, “The cause for which the Confederate soldiers fought was
an unworthy cause and should have been defeated,” and because “it is
impossible for the student of history today to feel otherwise than that
the cause for which the South fought was unworthy.”[496] Montgomery was
placed in the objectionable group because he described the settlers of
Georgia as “filthy, ragged, dirty prisoners taken from the ‘Debtor’s
Prison’ by Oglethorpe.”[497]
On the other hand, R. G. Horton’s _A Youth’s History of the Civil War_
presents a point of view acceptable to Miss Rutherford, for it declares
that “the withdrawal of the Southern States from the Union was in no
sense a declaration of war upon the Federal government but the Federal
government declared war on them, as history will show.”[498]
Doubtless the most prejudiced discussion of mooted questions since the
Civil War appears in the textbooks produced before the opening of the
twentieth century. This period, in general, characterized by a spirit
of intense local patriotism, reflected itself clearly in the history
textbooks. During this period were published such Southern textbooks
as Venable, _A School History of the United States_, Lee, _New School
History of the United States_, Chambers, _A School History of the
United States_, and Taylor, _Model School History_.
Susan Pendleton Lee’s _New School History of the United States_ can be
quoted as typical. “The Constitution of the United States recognized
slavery.... The opinion that it was a moral wrong did not prevail
before the days of Garrison and his followers who pronounced it to be
the sum of all ‘iniquity.’... The outcry against slavery had made the
Southern people study the subject, and they had reached the conclusion
that the evils connected with it were less than those of any other
system of labor. Hundreds of thousands of African savages had been
Christianized under its influence. The kindest relations existed
between the slaves and their owners.... The bondage in which the
negroes were held was not thought a wrong to them, because they were
better off than any other menial class in the world.”[499] The same
author justified the Ku Klux Klan because “no high spirited, courageous
people could patiently submit to such a government.” “As open
resistance was impossible,” she declares, “they, too, had recourse to
secret organizations. They were at first local, and were intended for
self-protection against the barn burnings and worse outrages committed
by misguided negroes.”[500]
As a result of this desire to present the history of their section in
terms of their own convictions, the Southerners have always agitated
for textbooks different from those used in Northern schools. Northern
textbook companies whose enterprise was much condemned during the
_ante-bellum_ period have capitalized this sectional preference and
produced for Southern consumption, among others, Evans’ _The Essential
Facts of American History_, Chambers’ A _School History of the United
States_, and Stephenson’s _An American History_.[501] On the other
hand, for the North, the same book companies have published textbooks
satisfactory to that section. Today, in substantially all of the
states which formed the Confederacy, specific textbooks in American
history are prescribed, a practice not so universal in the North,
where local adoption is sometimes found.[502] An analysis of these
Southern textbooks, however, discloses a very temperate presentation
of controversial questions. Upon the points of contention between the
North and the South, there is a natural bias in favor of the South,
a tendency to attempt justification and exoneration. Evans, in _The
Essential Facts of American History_, for example, in discussing
“reasons for secession,” lays greater stress than the textbooks of
the North on the right of secession, a “right which had been asserted
by other than the Southern States.”[503] Stephenson, in _An American
History_, dubs John Brown as “that terrible John Brown,”[504] and
characterizes the carpet-bag governments as insolent, dishonest and
violent.[505] The terms “rebellion” and “civil war” are employed by
Northern, not Southern, histories, the “war of the states” and the “war
of secession” being used in the South.
ATTEMPTS OF THE GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC TO CONTROL HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
Six years before the Confederate Veterans in reunion accepted the
report of their first historical committee regarding the “false”
histories used in Southern schools, the Grand Army of the Republic
learned through a similar channel that the history textbooks of the
North “signally” failed “to comprehend the causes that resulted in the
war of the rebellion.”[506] Much cause for complaint arose from the
fact that textbooks were “compiled for a national system of education,
South as well as North,”--a condition held sadly unacceptable, it would
seem, by the patriotic organizations of this period.[507]
In the Report of 1888, the G. A. R. undertook to point out statements
in textbooks used in the South which appealed to them as indicative
of “a thoroughly studied, rank, partisan system of sectional
education.”[508] As a case in point Davidson’s _School History of
South Carolina_, “published at Columbia, South Carolina, by one W. J.
Duffie, copyrighted in 1869,” was examined. This history, so the Report
declared, in Chapter 195 ascribed “the cause of secession, which was
the cause of the war,” to the fact that “Congress kept passing laws
which it had no right to pass according to the Constitution.”[509]
Further, in speaking of the withdrawal of South Carolina from the Union
the author asserted that “she had a right to do this; that is, if the
States rights party of the South was correct in its doctrine.”[510]
The Report condemned another history textbook, written by Blackburn
and McDonald, because of the following passage: “The second year of
the war now commenced; it found each section preparing with terrible
earnestness for the conflict. The South was straining every nerve to
resist the Northern multitudes; ... To fill her armies the North had a
better and more successful mode, she offered immense bounties and high
pay. Induced by these, thousands of European mercenaries enlisted. The
South had nothing but her gallant children to put in the field and thus
she was condemned to stake her most precious jewels against the trash
of Europe.”[511]
Other grounds for criticism were found in Alexander Stephens’ common
school history which was guilty of an effort “to indoctrinate the
youth” of the South with the “monstrous heresy” of state rights and
secession.[512]
“These Southern histories do not fail to make known their side of this
question. They are full of it,” concluded the Committee. “What we deem
treason is there made respectable. While our histories on the same
subject are comparatively silent, indeed are so lamentably deficient
upon this question that it were far better to discard all history
of our country during the epoch of 1860-5 than to admit them to our
schools as now compiled. It is indeed time to cease toying with treason
for policy, and to cease illustrating rebels as heroes, as in the case
of some of our school histories.”[513]
The Report of 1888 inaugurated a practice extending over a period of
more than twenty years. The Report of 1892 laid its emphasis upon the
fact that the textbooks in history “slandered the North and the cause
of the Union, ... depreciated the value of our troops, and represented
that the South was in the right, and that the army which saved the
Union was a wicked aggressor....”[514]
In 1895 the Encampment, meeting at Louisville, had its attention called
by the Department of Indiana to the character of history textbooks
used in Northern schools. In that state alarm had been excited by
Montgomery’s _Leading Facts of American History_, “the authorized
history” for the public schools of the state. Under the auspices of the
local G. A. R. an investigation of this book had been conducted. As a
result, seven charges were presented against it, the indictment stating
that Ellis’ _Eclectic Primary History_ and Barnes’ _History_ were
believed to be “equally objectionable.”[515]
The objections of the Indiana G. A. R. received the endorsement of the
national encampment, and Montgomery’s history was found guilty on the
following counts: first, it contained “no suggestion or intimation
that the men who fought for the preservation of the Union were right”;
second, there was “a general unfairness of treatment of the people of
the North, of the officers and soldiers of the Union armies and the
battles fought by them”; third, it was “calculated to give the student
false impressions as to the relative courage, heroism and achievements
of the contending armies, and of the endurance, devotion and sacrifices
of the people of the two sections of the country engaged in the
conflict”; fourth, “the accounts of the victories of the Confederates”
were “exaggerated, while those of the Union armies” were “dwarfed and
made insignificant by comparison”; in the fifth place, “all statements
of a commendatory and eulogistic character” were “reserved for the
Confederates, while nothing of like character” was said “in favor of
the Union soldiers or people”; sixth, that it was “unpatriotic and
partisan in statement, tone and sentiment”; and seventh, that it was
“unreliable in its statement of facts.”[516]
Among objectionable history textbooks “written by Southern authors,
for the avowed purpose of giving a history of the War of the Rebellion
from a Southern standpoint,” was that of “Reverend Dr. D. W. Jones,
published in 1896.”[517] This book was taken “as a fair sample of its
class” by the Committee on School Histories reporting in 1897. The
Veterans rested their case upon such a statement as: “The seceding
states not only had a perfect right to withdraw from the Union but they
had amply sufficient cause for doing so.”[518]
In the “careful examination” to which the school histories of the
North were subjected by the Committee of 1897 no book was found which
deserved “unqualified endorsement.”[519] This was due to the “one vital
defect” common to all the histories--that all of them treated the War
“as a contest between the sections of the country ... and not as a
war waged by the Government for the suppression of rebellion against
National authority and meant to destroy National existence.”[520]
Indeed, the Committee had reached their conclusions regarding the
“histories in general use in all sections” after “two days of
examination.”[521] During this time they had found in “many of these
works extravagant expressions as ‘this crushing defeat’” in speaking
of the Northern army, and such a statement as “‘the Confederates could
not be conquered until they were destroyed,’”--all equally obnoxious
and uncomplimentary to the North.[522] Such a condition, the Committee
felt, arose from “a commercial spirit” which “largely controls and
inspires these publications.”[523]
In view of the situation as it then existed, the Committee asked that
the “Encampment record a solemn and emphatic protest against the
further use of any history of the Civil War in the public schools
of this country which does not teach that this war was a war waged
by the National Government for the suppression of rebellion and the
preservation of National existence; that there was a right side and a
wrong side, ... that in the decision of this question the victors were
right and the vanquished wrong.”[524] They further recommended that
the agitation for “improved text-books” be continued, that a permanent
committee on the teaching of patriotism in the schools be appointed,
and that the Grand Army of the Republic and its allied organizations
“give direct and persistent attention to the removal and exclusion of
improper histories ... in use.”[525]
The results of the agitation for “unbiased” histories which the
Confederate Veterans felt had been achieved by 1896 in the South, the
G. A. R. through their activities failed to accomplish in the North
before 1898. However, at that time they felt “justified to report
substantial improvement in the tone and sentiment” of textbooks,
particularly in “the more recent publications.”[526] Yet they urged “a
continuance of effort ... to place before the children of the Republic
truthful and patriotic histories” of the Civil War, and registered a
“solemn and emphatic protest” against the proposal that the struggle of
1861 to 1865 be called “the Civil War between the States.”[527]
The following year the Committee report rang with a spirit of optimism
because of the changed character of history writing and instruction
brought about by “our organization.” As proof for their gratification
they pointed out that “in one of the leading works in use more than
fifty substantial changes of the text have been made in that portion
presenting the history of the rebellion.”[528] Yet regret was expressed
that no history known to them made “it clear in statement that the war
for the preservation of the Union was prosecuted on the one side by
the National Government and on the other by those in armed rebellion
against its authority.”[529] To insure continued vigilance the
Encampment approved the appointment of an “aide” to each department to
keep in touch with the school histories in his state, and to “confer
with school authorities and endeavor through them to secure the best
obtainable school histories in the schools and the exclusion of such as
are unfit.”[530]
The satisfaction expressed by the Committee of 1900 was reiterated
at the encampment the following year. But the Committee were robbed
of much of their gratification when they considered the “avowedly
sectional standpoint” of histories in the South, where it was still
taught that the Confederate States were “a lawful government.”[531]
The agitation to investigate history textbooks lost much of its vigor
and aggressive anxiety with the opening of the twentieth century. In
1904 the chairman of the school history committee suggested “in view of
the utter want of interest exhibited throughout the whole country in
regard to this matter” that the committee “be abolished.”[532] Warren
Lee Goss, national patriotic instructor, reporting at the forty-first
encampment in 1907 declared it his belief that the G. A. R. were “not
called upon to interfere in any way with the regular instruction in
the schools in United States history, but rather to supplement that
instruction by special observances.”[533] Two years later the portion
of the report on patriotic instruction devoted to “histories” merely
listed the textbooks most commonly used,[534] and in 1910 a similar
report eulogized “the loyalty and patriotism of the majority [of those
living] who wore the gray.”[535] This sympathetic and tolerant attitude
seems to have remained unchallenged in the successive encampments of
the G. A. R., and unlike the Confederate Veterans of the last few
reunions, the Grand Army of the Republic have not sought to rekindle
old animosities.
TEXTBOOKS FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS
As early as 1834 the Roman Catholics of New York urged upon the schools
textbooks which would show agreement with their point of view. In 1828
the Public School Society, an organization designed to educate poor
children not provided for by any religious society, was allowed to
levy a local tax for its support. To this the Roman Catholics raised
objections, since they were permitted to dictate neither the kind of
instruction offered nor the textbooks adopted. Among the points in
controversy was the request of the Catholic clergy that no book should
be used but such as had been submitted to the Bishop and declared “free
from sectarian principles or calumnies against his religion.”[536]
In those books where objectionable statements were found, it was
suggested “that such passages be expunged or left out in binding.”[537]
The censorship requested was not granted, and in 1840 the agitation
regarding textbooks was renewed. Again it was charged that some books
contained passages not merely displeasing to the Roman Catholics, but
hostile to their faith; whereas others indulged in statements which
were both “defamatory” and “false.”
The trustees of the Public School Society, avowedly anxious to
dissipate these objections, took measures to secure information from
various sources, including both laymen and clergy, with the hope that a
removal of the complaint might be effected. They adopted a resolution
declaring that they would submit for examination, to the Reverend Felix
Varela, some textbooks used in Public School Number 5. As further proof
of their desire for harmony, the trustees appointed a committee of
five to see whether the books in the schools or libraries contained
passages derogatory to the Roman Catholics.[538] Following their action
Reverend Mr. Varela pointed out certain objectionable features in some
of the textbooks. In one geography he discovered a passage in which
the Catholic clergy were characterized as having great influence but
being opposed to the diffusion of knowledge. He also disapproved of
the description of Italy in which were statements which would “tend to
diminish the consideration that a Catholic child has for the Catholic
Church.”[539] In another textbook, the discussion of the character
of Luther proved objectionable, for, although it might please the
Protestants, he felt that there was implied an attack on the Catholic
Church.
On July 9, 1840, John Power, vice-general of the diocese of New York,
wrote a letter to the editor of _Freeman’s Journal_, in which he
voiced his disapproval of the textbooks employed to instruct children.
Odium, he felt, was attached to the Catholic clergy because they were
represented as keeping the people in ignorance to promote their own
interests, and libraries contained books with “most malevolent and foul
attacks on their religion ... no doubt with the very laudable purpose
of teaching them [Catholic children] to abhor and despise that monster
called popery.”[540]
With failure attending their efforts at censorship, the Roman Catholics
resorted to an address to their “fellow citizens of the city and
state of New York” in which they appealed for a redress of their
grievances. “We are Americans and American citizens. If some of us are
foreigners,” they declared, “it is only by the accident of birth,....
But our children, for whose rights as well as our own we contend in
this matter, are Americans by nativity.”[541] Repeating the assertions
of the priests, the address remonstrated against the false “historical
statements respecting the men and things of past times, calculated to
fill the minds of our children with errors of fact and at the same time
to excite in them prejudice against the religion of their parents and
guardians.”[542]
In answer to the exceptions raised by the Catholics, the trustees
of the Public School Society expressed doubt as to the wisdom of
expurgation, for they believed “nothing of a mere negative character”
would be acceptable. “The books selected for the children,” they
stated, “have, from the first, been those used and most highly
esteemed as school-books. The passages objected to, or nearly all of
them, are historical, and relate to what is generally called the
Reformation. The writers were Protestants, and took a view of the men
and incidents of that excited and eventful period directly opposed
to those entertained by the members of the Roman Catholic Church.
These portions, must, of course, be offensive to Catholics, and they
furnish just cause for complaint.... The objectionable passages are
not numerous, but the books are not to be found without them.... The
difficulty of procuring books entirely exempt from objection cannot
perhaps be more forcibly illustrated than by the fact that one work
containing passages as liable to objection as almost any other, is now
used as a class-book even in the Catholic schools. It is the intention
of the trustees, nevertheless, to prosecute the work of expurgation
until every just cause of complaint is removed.”[543]
As a result of the agitation, revised and expurgated books appeared;
in some instances the objectionable passages were stamped out with ink
from a wooden block or the leaves pasted together or removed. In some
cases the books under criticism were prohibited in the libraries and
the schools. Yet this failed to satisfy the Roman Catholics. When the
expurgated editions were worn out, they were replaced by new books
without changes, and gradually this discussion over textbooks subsided.
During the ’eighties it again became a matter of speculation with the
Roman Catholics whether they should be taxed to support schools from
which their children got “no benefit,” or, if attending, suffered
“positive injury and injustice.”[544] They were indeed skeptical as to
the merits of a non-sectarian education which they held “professedly
non-Christian,”--a system that occupied itself “as little with the
mission, history, and teachings of the divine Founder of Christianity”
as it did “with the life and doctrines of Confucius or Buddha.”[545]
A storm center of the agitation was Boston, where the Catholics formed
a considerable number of the population. Here a denunciation of public
school instruction included both teachers and textbooks, resulting
in the removal of Swinton’s _History_ and the dismissal of a teacher
(a Mr. Travis) for “erroneous and misleading” statements about the
granting of indulgences.
“It is very hard,” declared one writer on the controversy, “that a
young man who teaches only what he has been taught himself, only what
thousands of young men and women have been taught and are teaching,
should be singled out and set aside for penalty while others go scot
free.... While the Roman Catholics were weak they could not help
themselves, and we went on saying what we pleased. Now they are
numerous enough in some places to hold the balance of power, and they
hold it with a mighty grasp....”[546]
In an effort to prevent the exclusion of the textbook from the schools,
the Protestants advanced various arguments: that it had been in use
ten years without protest, that “the outcry” was not “honest,” and
that the agitation was “simply the opening wedge for riving our school
system and dividing the public school money between Catholics and
Protestants.”[547]
Other histories than Swinton’s were in like manner placed by the
Catholics in the objectionable list. It was alleged that Prescott’s
works “swarm[ed] with Puritan prejudice against all things Catholic”
and that Macaulay’s _History of England_ emphasized the worst traits
of Catholic personages and gave little credit to the Jesuits.[548] So
far as Macaulay was concerned, one Catholic objected to sending his
children to school to study history from a book acknowledged by the
Protestants to be “a gloriously Protestant book,” by which his children
would be “gloriously indoctrinated into Protestantism and a hatred of
their parents’ religion.”[549]
As a means of settling the controversy it was suggested that all
history or the parts relating to the Protestant and Catholic churches
be omitted from the curriculum. This could be done, one writer
maintained, “without missing anything of value to our common school
system or to our other cherished institutions.” Moreover, it was also
held that there were “plenty of undisputed topics” to be studied in the
schools which were looked upon with “entire unanimity” by “all creeds,”
such as two and two make four. For “nothing should ever be taught in
schools supported by common funds except that which is accepted by the
common faith.”[550]
With the great expansion of the Catholic Church in the United States
since the Civil War and the growth of parochial schools in all parts
of the country, the particular needs of the Catholics have been met by
the enterprise of publishers in supplying special textbooks for their
use.[551] As a result today there are found in parochial schools such
social study textbooks as McCarthy’s _History of the United States_,
O’Hara’s _A History of the United States_, _A History of the United
States for Catholic Schools_ by the Franciscan Sisters of the Perpetual
Adoration of St. Rose Convent, La Crosse, Wisconsin, Lawler’s
_Essentials of American History_, Betten’s _The Ancient World_, Betten
and Kaufman’s _The Modern World_, and Burke’s _Political Economy_.[552]
The desire to present events in American history in such a way as to
show the importance of the Catholic Church has led to the preparation
of textbooks like McCarthy’s _History of the United States._ In this
book it has been “made clear that Catholics discovered, and in a large
way, explored these continents, that Catholics transferred civilization
hither, that they opened to the commerce of Europe the trade of the
Pacific, and that they undertook the conversion of multitudes of dusky
natives, of whom few had risen to the upper stages of barbarism.”[553]
Although the “war for independence” was begun largely by Protestants,
the author avers the help of Catholic nations like France and Spain
gave “undoubted assistance to the New Republic.” Norse settlement and
discovery are treated extensively, and Columbus’ missionary spirit
receives considerable attention. Catholic notables like Governor
Dongan, the Calverts, Captain John Barry, and Thomas Macdonough are
given more space than ordinarily allotted in school histories. “The
winning of the West, in which Catholics acted an important part,” the
war on the sea in which are enumerated “the exploits of the O’Briens of
Machias, Maine,” “the beginnings of the Catholic Church in America”
and “Washington’s patriotic letter to his Catholic countrymen” are
other unique features.[554]
Similar in point of view is the textbook written by the Franciscan
Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration. Its contents, announces the
_Foreword_, are not immured within the bounds of “the usually taught
historical facts,” but include “the too often forgotten efforts of the
Church in American History.” Not only is the story of “the venturesome
explorer, the intrepid colonizer, the hardy pioneer, the noble warrior,
the eloquent statesman” narrated, but there is also depicted “the
quiet heroism of the loyal sons and daughters of the Catholic Church.”
“Our country is justly proud of the liberty she offers to all her
children,” affirm the authors, “but these children are many in faith,
and diversified in race peculiarities. Common interests may seem to
unite them from time to time, but there can be no true, permanent union
except where the spirit and the faith are dominating forces. But where
is such a bond of unity except in the Catholic Church? Mother Church
folds her arms about all her children and questions not their color or
their race.”[555]
To the teachers, the authors offer certain aids and directions. The
importance of a “proper setting of United States history with a
knowledge of the threefold chronological divisions of world history”
and an insight into the “difference between Sacred history and Profane,
or Secular history” are indicated. In the period of colonization,
teachers are urged to make clear, among other things, “how the Catholic
Church, like the mustard seed of the Gospel, has flourished and grown,
as it were, into a mighty tree.” The Sisters urge, also, a thorough
delineation of the growth of the educational system of the United
States including an understanding of “how our cherished parochial
schools grew from humble beginnings into the splendid system which now
labors so zealously for the spiritual and intellectual welfare of our
country.”[556]
The Betten-Kaufman histories, _The Ancient World_ and _The Modern
World_, are typical of Roman Catholic textbooks in the field of
European history. Based upon West’s _Ancient World_ and his _Modern
World_, the authors have introduced changes desirable for the purpose
of “promoting the great cause of Catholic education.”[557] The chief
departure from the traditional European history textbook used in the
public schools is in the discussion of Luther and the Reformation.
Although Tetzel’s use of the theory of indulgences is criticized in the
Betten and Kaufman textbook as “ill advised,”[558] Luther’s theories
regarding the remission of sins are characterized as “monstrous.”[559]
The Church as an agency for good and for promoting the civilization of
the world is given significant attention; the “Catholic view” of social
evils is set forth in opposition to other theories, and a discussion
of “harmonious coöperation” between church and state is intended to
disclose the influence of the Church in the solution of the world’s
evils.[560]
In an allied field Father Burke has written his _Political Economy
designed for use in Catholic Colleges, High Schools, and Academies_.
Here political economy is discussed not only from the standpoint of
“the merely concrete, material things that enter into the science, but
also with reference to the personalities of the members of society
whose activity is exercised on these concrete, material things.”[561]
Father Burke’s book is divided into twenty-three chapters with titles
common to the usual economics textbook. Its unique feature lies in
the treatment of various economic theories from the point of view of
the “Catholic School.” The doctrine of Malthus is rejected for moral
and economic reasons, which take their course in “human injustice and
selfishness in the spirit of greed that closes the hearts of men to the
dictates of charity and fairness,” and which lead to “improper methods
of the distribution of wealth.”[562] The author expresses a belief in
the inequality of man, through which comes inequality of distribution.
Such a hardship is due, in no small degree, Father Burke declares, to
the “fallen state” of man. Because of the sin of his first parents he
is “subject to death, to sufferings, to misery, and to labor.” This can
be proved, it is averred, by the Book of Revelation. “Hence,” asserts
Father Burke, “evils may exist in this world, injustice and oppression
may go on, and the equilibration of things may never take place here;
the wicked may prosper and the honest and just may be oppressed, and
no adequate remedy may appear; yet the moment of compensation, of
perfect justice, will come, if not in this life, then in the life of
eternity.”[563]
Such a presentation of economic theories has been acclaimed highly
satisfactory in Catholic reviews, for, “since ethics as a science
directing human actions according to right reason embraces of necessity
all of man’s activities, it follows that political economy is rightly
subject to the laws of ethics.”[564] “This clear understanding of the
state of the question ... enables us at once to detect the errors and
dangers of many of the high sounding economic theories which occupy so
much space in the literature of the day,” declares one reviewer.[565]
Another reviewer in _Extension_ believes that an accurate knowledge
of economic principles is impossible “from an examination of the
text-books used in some of the secular colleges and universities” in
which not only are “some of the so-called principles false, but the
resultant deductions, where they are not entirely fallacious, are
frequently misleading.”[566] _The Pilot_ offers its endorsement of the
textbook because “in these days of industrial and economic unrest,
when so much that is false and misleading is written on political and
social problems, a book on political economy for Catholic schools is
most welcome. Catholic philosophy sets forth sound and unimpeachable
principles bearing upon the rights of the individual and of the family,
and upon the powers and functions of ‘the State.’”[567]
The purpose of these books is to place emphasis upon Catholic
contributions and the power of the Church. As indicated in a textbook
written in the later nineteenth century, whose content is much the
same as the more recent Catholic textbooks, it is “the manifest
duty of those who are entrusted with the education of our children
to see that in learning the history of the country they do not lose
sight of the rise, progress, and social influences of the Church in
the United States....[568] And finally, as religion is always the
sweetest inspiration and support of patriotism, the breaking down of
religious beliefs in various modern nations, and notably in our own,
is accompanied by a loss of patriotism.... Reverence for authority is
lost, and society, in order to protect itself, is driven to appeal
to force. Nothing can avert the danger but the influence of a great
moral power endorsed with all the attributes which create respect and
encourage obedience. The Catholic Church is this power....”[569]
In turn, these textbooks have been criticised because of the amount of
space given to the Catholic Church in comparison with that allotted
other churches. One critic has asserted that the history by the
Franciscan Sisters does not mention a single Protestant body after
the period of the Revolution, and that “one ignorant of the true
situation and reading this particular history would imagine that the
United States was a Catholic nation.”[570] Further criticism has arisen
because, in the critic’s mind, facts of history are mixed with “acts
of Catholic piety.” As proof of this objection is cited an excerpt from
a Catholic textbook in which is given a description of the death of
Pizarro: “Just before he died he called upon his Redeemer and tracing
with his bloody finger a cross upon the floor, he kissed the sacred
symbol and expired.”[571]
Further evidence of this is seen by the same writer in the statement
that “as the missionaries made their way westward, the worship of St.
Mary marked their path till the great Mississippi, the River of the
Immaculate Conception, bore them [down] toward those Spanish realms
where every officer swore to defend the Immaculate Conception.”[572] To
this objector of a separate history for Catholic schools, “it is the
very evident purpose of these texts ... to propagate Catholic ideas and
not to give a true picture of the development of America.”[573]
TEXTBOOKS IN CIVICS, ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Criticism of public school textbooks and teaching is not confined
solely to the subject of history but includes in its ever-widening
circle books in the allied fields of civics, economics and sociology.
Especially is this true of those in government or civics. Since the
close of the World War a movement for the teaching of the Constitution
has closely paralleled that for the study of American history.
Organizations and individuals with the avowed purpose of inculcating
patriotism have urged that more attention than formerly be given the
study of the machinery of government. To this end influence has been
exerted for the passage of laws requiring the subject of civics in the
schools, and many books on the Constitution have appeared to meet an
increased demand.
Among the organizations which have sponsored the movement for
instruction in the Constitution have been the American Bar Association,
the National Security League, The Constitution Anniversary Association,
and the Better America Federation. Organizations such as the Sentinels
of the Republic are engaged in a similar program in adult education.
In 1922 in pursuance of a resolution adopted by the executive committee
at Tampa, Florida, the American Bar Association appointed a Committee
on American Citizenship “to devise ways for promoting the study of and
devotion to American institutions and ideals.” This resolution was
interpreted as laying upon the Committee “the duty to prepare a program
under which the lawyers of the United States, coöperating with every
patriotic society and organization, and with every true American man
and woman, shall be urged to join in an earnest effort to stem the tide
of radical, and often treasonable, attacks upon our Constitution, our
laws, our courts, our law-making bodies, our executives and our flag,
to arouse to action our dormant citizenship, to abolish ignorance,
and crush falsehood, and to bring truth into the hearts of our
citizenship.”[574]
The Committee recommended the appointment of a standing committee on
American Citizenship, the appointment of local committees “to see that
the Constitution of the United States is taught in every school ... to
report to the bureau the courses in each state, the textbooks used,
and the qualifications of teachers for teaching American citizenship.”
In addition it was suggested that the coöperation of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws be enlisted “in an effort to have enacted in
each state suitable laws making a course each year in the study of and
devotion to American institutions and ideals part of the curriculum in
all schools and colleges sustained or in any manner supported by public
funds.”[575]
The Reports of 1923 and 1924 again envisaged “the need of activity”
because of “the socialistic doctrines ... taught in many of our schools
and colleges,” and pointed out that efforts of the Bar toward laws
requiring the teaching of the Constitution had received encouragement
from legislators and the public in general.[576] In 1923, according
to the Report of that year, twenty-four states had definite laws, in
five states laws had been introduced and in nineteen states there
was no such statute. The principal difficulty which the Committee
had encountered in having such a law passed had arisen out of “the
conservatism of school authorities,” who appeared “fearful that the
mere requirement” would “not necessarily be the best means of promoting
the teaching of the Constitution,” and who were “slow to change from
long established methods that had been used in connection with the
school curriculum.”
In their advocacy for a wider-spread knowledge of the Constitution
the American Bar Association received the coöperation of other
organizations interested in the same work, such as the American
Legion, patriotic societies, women’s organizations, the Masonic
Service Association, the Knights of Columbus, Chambers of Commerce,
the Rotary, Lions, and Kiwanis. Yet they felt that “the most powerful
influence” that they could evoke “undoubtedly would be the association
of teachers,” for they wished “to reach the mind of the child while it
is still plastic.” They affirmed as their “ultimate aim” that “no child
should leave even the common schools without an elementary knowledge
and appreciation of our Constitution and what it means to every
individual.”[577]
By 1924, the Committee reported the existence of a law requiring
the teaching of the Constitution in thirty-one states, and in other
commonwealths regulations of the state department of education
effecting the same purpose.[578] One of the aspects of the situation
which appeared to the Committee as more important even than properly
qualified teachers was “the proper attitude toward our government and
the spirit in which the teaching is performed”--a teaching which should
be grounded “on bed-rock Americanism” and “imbued with a desire to
communicate such spirit to their pupils.”[579] Indeed, it was held that
“the schools of America should no more consider graduating a student
who lacks faith in our government than a school of theology should
graduate a minister who lacks faith in God.”[580]
According to the Report the educational activities of the Committee
were many, “even going so far as to suggest to the ministers
appropriate texts for Thanksgiving Day which should call attention
to the blessing of our form of government.”[581] Members of the
Bar had written special articles for several periodicals on good
citizenship as well as furnishing cartoons for the press of the
country. The Committee had aided in the display and sale of books on
the Constitution, they had sponsored “a nation-wide celebration of
Constitution week,” they had appeared as speakers on community programs
and otherwise had helped in the celebration of national holidays. In
addition they had prepared a “citizenship creed.” This creed stressed
the obligations of citizenship and a faith in the American government,
“the best government that has ever been created--the freest and most
just for all the people.” To uphold and defend the government was
at all times a duty of the citizen. “Just as the ‘Minute Man of the
Revolution’ was ready upon a moment’s notice to defend his rights
against foreign usurpation” so it was the citizen’s duty “as a
patriotic American to be a ‘Minute Man of the Constitution’ ready at
all times to defend the long-established and cherished institutions of
our government against attack, either from within or with out,” and
to do his “part in preserving the blessings of liberty” for which his
“Revolutionary forefathers fought and died.”[582]
The National Security League is likewise engaged in the movement for
teaching the Constitution in the schools. Through the Committee on
Constitution Instruction and its Civic Department, the League has
campaigned “for over three years” to have passed a bill requiring
definite courses in the Constitution in all public schools.[583]
According to literature circulated by the League, the Committee was
rewarded by the passage of such a requirement in thirty-six states, in
most cases the legislatures taking over verbatim the bill drafted by
them.[584]
To the League’s program opposition to a mandatory legislative control
of education occasionally arose from educational authorities in states
where the bill had been introduced. But the chairman of the Committee
was “glad to say that state legislators generally, representatives
of the public will, have not agreed with these gentlemen and their
arguments, and have looked upon a knowledge of the Constitution as an
essential in citizen making.”[585]
In addition to legislation which requires the study of the
Constitution, thirty-three states by May, 1925, made mandatory a
teacher’s examination on the Constitution.[586] So far-reaching
were the results of their activities, that the League’s Committee
on Constitutional Instruction estimated that 200,500 teachers were
required to teach the Constitution of the United States to a total of
over 4,000,000 school children.[587]
To find suitable textbooks became a problem, for the Committee held
that “while there are many books which satisfactorily explain the
Constitution to advanced students and adults, there is practically
nothing which suitably transmits the basic principles of our government
to the minds of children.” For this “short stories” on the Constitution
were necessary in order that facts concerning the history of the
document would be “readily understood by the average child,” because
when “eloquently taught and interpreted in story form by a teacher who
knows it and reverences its provisions, it will rouse any class to
enthusiasm.”[588]
Besides the “nation-wide popularization of the Constitution” through
the distribution of almost a million copies of a “Catechism of the
Constitution,” the National Security League endeavors to assist
teachers in passing their examinations for licenses by publishing a
Course on the Constitution for Normal Schools.[589] Its literature on
the Constitution has been sent by request to 2038 teachers, to whom was
also made available Dr. Jean Broadhurst’s book, _Verse for Patriots
to Encourage Good Citizenship_, “of special value in teaching English
literature and patriotism” and for holiday program materials.[590] In
the campaign for education, Beck’s _The Constitution of the United
States: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow_ was also sent “to the governors
of all the States where the bill requiring the compulsory teaching
of the Constitution has become a law, ... with the advice that the
book is available for all teachers and instructors in their states
upon application.”[591] A teachers’ manual “which is attracting
wide attention under the title ‘Our Constitution in My Town and My
Life’ which contains 115 questions and answers on the Constitution
for classroom use” has been written by Miss Etta V. Leighton, Civic
Secretary.[592]
As an “evidence of the value” and of the influence of the Security
League’s educational program, the “Report” for November 15, 1925,
recounted “that the Professor of Political Science in a large western
university will use our suggestions in revising her text book on the
State and National Constitution.”[593]
The Constitution Anniversary Association, incorporated March,
1923, is another organization engaged in promoting a study of
the Constitution in order to familiarize to a greater degree the
people of this generation with “those historic days incident to
the writing of the Constitution,” that they may “recognize their
value” and understand “the danger of our drifting during recent
years away from representative government toward direct action;
from individual property rights to socialism; from individual
responsibility for individual conduct toward class consciousness, class
agitation and class legislation,....” A purpose of the Association
is “to arouse interest in the men who wrote the Constitution ...
to make clear that they were governmentally-minded as Edison
and Marconi are electrically-minded; as Emerson and Socrates
were philosophically-minded; as Shakespeare and Longfellow were
literary-minded; as Mozart and Mendelssohn were musically-minded; and
that in the light of all that history and experience could teach, they
were making a contribution as important to the science of government
as was [_sic_] the ten digits to the science of mathematics, the scale
to music, or the alphabet to language.”[594] A further aim of the
organization is “to urge upon educational institutions that in the
teaching of History, Civics and Political Science the Constitution be
given the place of prominence and importance which it deserves.”[595]
The observance of Constitution Week, as the name of the Association
attests, is of primary interest to the organization.
Harry F. Atwood, author of _Back to the Republic_, _Safeguarding
American Ideals_ and _Keep God in American History_, directs the
activities of the Constitution Anniversary Association. Since 1918 Mr.
Atwood “has spoken in all parts of the country to various types of
audiences on the Constitution.”[596] While addressing a Los Angeles
gathering under the auspices of the Better America Federation in May,
1922, Mr. Atwood sowed the seed for the National Oratorical Contest on
the Constitution. It was at this meeting that Mr. Harry Chandler, of
the _Los Angeles Times_, conceived the idea “of developing interest
in the Constitution” by conducting such a contest in the schools of
the state. As a result, “the school year of 1922-23 witnessed the
preparation of over 8000 orations,” and “the final contest was held
in Los Angeles where prizes aggregating $5000 were awarded.”[597]
This led to similar contests in other states, supported by “the
American Bar Association, the Constitution Anniversary Association and
other patriotic organizations.”[598] The contest became nation-wide,
the final meeting being held at Washington. In the second contest
(1924-1925) over 18,000 schools entered; the awards amounted to
$45,600, and 1,500,000 high school students competed. Twenty-eight
daily newspapers across the continent conducted this contest.[599]
Mr. Atwood carries his advocacy of a knowledge of the Constitution
and of representative government to the people not only through his
addresses delivered throughout the country but also by means of his
writings. It is his belief that “we have drifted from the _republic_
toward democracy; from statesmanship to demagogism” in “an age of
retrogressive tendencies.”[600] He holds that a republic provides
the “golden mean” of government, autocracy and democracy offering
“undesirable extremes.” To make clear his meaning parallels are drawn
between “the realm of nature and of human activity” and the realm of
government, attributing to each “two extremes and the golden mean.” For
instance, he believes that “what thirst is to the individual, autocracy
is to government; what drunkenness is to the individual, democracy is
to government; what temperance is to the individual, the _republic_ is
to government.”[601]
According to Mr. Atwood “the most defective portion of our thinking and
teaching in the schools is that phase of education which pertains to
civics, economics and history.”[602] So far as textbooks are concerned,
Mr. Atwood was convinced that “there are comparatively few who will
contend that there has ever been written a good history of the United
States of America.” The same statement holds true for textbooks in
civil government, for none makes clear “to the average student the form
of government that was established here under the Constitution.”[603]
Mr. Atwood was concerned still more with the fact that so few students
had read the Constitution,--students who had received from twelve to
sixteen years’ education at the expense of the state. “So long as the
expense of the public schools and State universities is paid by the
government,” Mr. Atwood declared, “one object at least should be to
turn out well informed and patriotic citizens, and the best possible
way to do that is to give them an understanding of the meaning of the
Constitution and a high regard for its wise provisions.” Mr. Atwood is,
moreover, sympathetic with those who maintain that “teachers in the
public schools should be impressed with the fact that their salaries
are paid at public expense.”[604]
The sentiment of the Better America Federation of California regarding
the study of the Constitution in the schools is not unlike that of the
Constitution Anniversary Association. Mr. Woodworth Clum in “America
is Calling,” a pamphlet to the students in high schools and colleges,
sets forth the tenets of his organization, in his declaration that he
would like to see “every school and college student in America not only
learn the _Preamble_ to the Constitution so that they could repeat it
verbatim at any time or any place, but ... also have them know its
_meaning_ so well that when they repeat it they would recall the entire
philosophy of the American government.”[605] Much apprehension was felt
by the Better America Federation because of “groups of free thinkers or
radicals” agitating for some other form of government under which there
would be “no profits ... in business.”[606]
In accord with an interest in education evident in its earliest
meetings, the American Federation of Labor has carried on
investigations as to the character of teaching and the content of
textbooks in the social studies. In 1903, the Executive Council was
directed “to secure the introduction of textbooks that will be more in
accord with modern thought upon social and political economy, books
that will teach the dignity of manual labor, give due importance to the
service that the laborer renders to society, and that will not teach
the harmful doctrine that the wage-workers should be content with their
lot, because of the opportunity that may be afforded a few of their
number rising out of their class, instead of teaching that the wage
earners should base their hopes upon the elevation of the conditions of
the working people.”[607]
In 1919, the Executive Council was instructed “to appoint a committee
to investigate the matter of selecting, or of preparing and publishing
textbooks appropriate for classes of workers,” because the convention
found “one of the chief difficulties in securing appropriate classes
for the workers is the dearth of unbiased and suitable textbooks.”[608]
The committee thus appointed reported in 1920 an insufficient and
inaccurate teaching of industrial growth and of the trade union
movement. The responsibility for this condition was assessed upon the
economists of the past “whose teachings still largely dominate in the
educational institutions of our time,”--teachings “which have failed
to stand the test of experience and of unbiased investigation.” Ideas
held faulty were thought, furthermore, to be in no small measure the
outgrowth of ideas gained from books failing to “state accurately
and interpret correctly economic laws and their application to our
modern industrial society.”[609] The Committee therefore recommended
the preparation of a textbook by a competent trade unionist under the
direction of the executive officers of the American Federation of
Labor with a special committee for this purpose, and “the teaching of
unemasculated industrial history embracing an accurate account of the
organization of the workers and of the results thereof, the teaching
of principles underlying industrial activities and relations, and a
summary of legislation, state and federal, affecting industry.”[610]
The attention of the convention was focussed in its educational
program the following year upon a proposed investigation of textbooks
in civics, economics and history. The committee to whom this task
was delegated reported in 1922. Their report, published in 1923,
pointed out the importance of “instruction in social and economic
studies,” because such studies are “vitally concerned with wide-spread
understanding of our social and economic institutions and forces.”[611]
Yet the American Federation of Labor expressly denied a desire to have
their point of view “stressed to the exclusion of all others.” They
wanted merely “an emphasis commensurate with its significance.” Nor did
they wish “public education to be influenced by partisan bodies of any
kind.” For they esteemed “the persons most competent to judge in detail
what should be taught and how it should be taught ... those who are
themselves engaged in the educational profession.”[612]
Inasmuch as “there are no more important determining factors than the
economic fabric to which the majority of citizens contribute the larger
share of their creative energy” the Federation considered essential
a knowledge of the trade-union movement and “of all other social
problems having to do with the welfare of the working people.”[613] The
information held important for the worker they felt should be taught
in the junior as well as in the senior high school, in order to reach
those students who leave school early.[614]
In the consideration of the textbooks most commonly used in the
public schools, the Federation’s committee held it “obvious that
old-fashioned didactic methods of teaching are not suitable to the
new treatment,” that “subjects should be presented not in the form of
finished judgments and dogmatic rules ... but rather as observations
of the world about us, concerning which the pupil must to a great
extent exercise his own judgments;” and that “in the case of highly
controversial subjects, important dissenting views should be fairly and
adequately presented.”[615] Although special pleaders for some change
in common educational practice, they asserted that “the labor movement,
unlike selfish interests, does not and cannot depend for public favor
upon narrow propaganda; what it wants and needs is the light of day
and freedom of opinion. The more people know, and the more they think,
the better in the long run for working men and women, and for all our
citizenship.”
As a consequence of their premises, the Committee applied to the
textbooks considered the following tests: “In the first place, is the
book of old, narrow type, or of the newer and broader type? In the
second place, is its general method that which inculcates certain fixed
principles which may have been acceptable some time in the past, or,
on the other hand, that which portrays society as a group of growing
and changing institutions? In the third place, does it include adequate
information about important subjects, particularly subjects of concern
to the wage-earning population, such as trade-unionism, collective
bargaining, standards of living, hours of work, safety and sanitation,
housing, unemployment, civil liberty, and the judicial power? And in
its treatment of these subjects, does it fairly present labor’s point
of view as well as that of others?”[616]
The application of these tests to one hundred twenty-three
textbooks--forty-seven histories, forty-seven civics, twenty-five
economics, and four sociologies, revealed that fifty-five per cent were
of “the newer type dealing with the broader aspects of government, and
the social and industrial life of the people rather than with forms of
organization, military events and abstract themes.” Sixty per cent were
found to be “dynamic rather than static in their method of treatment”
in that they recognized “to a greater or less degree the power for
growth in our institutions.”
On the other hand, the Committee decided that “a majority of texts
fell short of the standards in one or more important respects,”[617]
although, on the whole, “the newer type of text” attempted “to give
the labor movement in the problem of industry adequate and just
consideration.”[618] Failure to do so the Committee attributed either
“to ignorance of the author or to a hesitancy to deal with this
difficult subject, rather than to a deliberate attempt to keep the
facts of industry out of the schools.” The survey found “no evidence
that text books are being used for propaganda purposes.”[619]
The Public Service Institute through its chairman also has urged a
more extensive study of “labor civics,” and commended the New York
course in civics for older grammar grade children and first year high
school pupils.[620]
Still others have become censors of the character of social study
instruction in the public schools. Books treating the modern problems
of race, labor and capital, immigration, private property, and topics
of like nature have been examined with a critical eye. The portrayal
of facts relating to races and nationalities in the United States has
proved a fruitful source of attack. Authors have been asked to omit or
make colorless references to controversial topics in the preparation or
the revision of textbooks which would discuss, for example, the Chinese
and Japanese in America, the Italians and the Jews. In one city the
negroes protested the use of a textbook because of a statement to the
effect that the Southern white man tried to keep the negro from voting,
the protest carrying enough weight to cause a special edition of the
book to be printed for use in that city.
Its presentation of the subject of private property was the source of
an attack upon Berry and Howe’s _Actual Democracy_, “an elementary
discussion” of present-day problems in America. Exception was taken to
children being taught that “private property is one of the fundamental
institutions of American democracy ... an unmistakable index of social
progress ... [which] cannot be destroyed without destroying also the
ideals of liberty and democracy in which Americans believe.”[621]
Its method of discussing trade-unionism[622] and immigration likewise
met disfavor. In the case of the latter subject, the critics were
disturbed because, among other things, the authors concluded “that
the immigration situation has rendered necessary a profound change
in the very structure of our government. [For] in order to control
the turbulent non-American elements, we have been compelled to modify
many of our earlier democratic ideals and to adopt centralization of
authority, which is far different in spirit from American traditions
... [and] that [due to immigration] American democracy is facing a life
and death struggle with Marxian socialism.”[623]
In treating freedom of speech the author of the secondary school
textbook is to no less degree upon slippery ground, for here again
critics have acclaimed partisanship and bias evident in discussions.
On this charge A. T. Southworth has been adjudged guilty in his _The
Common Sense of the Constitution of the United States_ in that he says,
“This amendment [the first amendment] also guarantees the right of
free speech. There can, of course, be no such thing as absolute free
speech. The only persons who say exactly what they think every minute
of the day are babies and fools.... There is reason in all things,
and on general principles a person may say in this country anything
he pleases, provided what he says is not libelous or slanderous, or
contrary to the public morals; and provided that he does not advocate
the overthrow of the government by force. In this country where we
have a government, not of men but of laws, it is not reasonable that
anyone should preach the overthrow of the government by force. If B
says, ‘Murder A, throw him out of office, and let me rule,’ then it is
perfectly logical for C to advocate the murder of B after B has set
himself up as a ruler. This is anarchy.”[624]
The allegation that textbook-making has been directed by “Big Business”
has also been made. As a case in point, Hughes’s _Text-Book in
Citizenship_ has been cited as one which carries many illustrations
printed “by courtesy” of such corporations as the Carnegie Steel
Company, the International Harvester Company and the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad.[625] “And,” according to the critic, “it is not pictures of
blast furnaces with sweating men ... but pictures of Americanization
schools ... factory gardens ... model factory buildings ... and a
group of twenty-four elderly men, who having labored for thirty-five
years each in the employ of the Carnegie Steel Company are posed at
the annual picnic given to the employees as a reward for services
rendered.”[626] A section in the same textbook, “Employers of the
Right Sort,” in which is discussed profit sharing by the employees of
the United States Steel Company, also met with disapproval. Equally
disliked was Mr. Hughes’s discussion of the I. W. W. because he said:
“It is hard to see how a right-thinking American can possibly indulge
in such performances or hold such theories. A decent man finds it
difficult to sympathize with even oppressed people who use any such
means to have their grievances corrected.”[627] The textbook was
further adjudged biased in its discussion of Lenin and Trotsky as “two
able and unscrupulous leaders” and of the anarchists whom “no civilized
people can tolerate.”[628] On the other hand, the same author’s book
_Economic Civics_ was attacked by a member of the American Car Company
of Berwick, Pennsylvania, on the ground of being “Bolshevistic.”
Other books have incurred the disapproval of business interests.
_American Economic Life_ by Henry Reed Burch has been charged with
being “unfair” in its treatment of monopolies for saying: “Trolley
lines, subways and ’bus companies often possess great monopoly power.
For example, in a city of one million and a half the competitive
cost of transportation perhaps does not exceed three or four cents a
passenger, yet the actual price paid by the passenger is usually from
five to eight cents. This difference between the price paid and the
competitive price represents the extent of the monopoly power.”[629]
Many business organizations have interested themselves in a program
for education not only among their own employees but among the people
in general. Pamphlets and other published materials have in this way
been distributed to set forth the point of view held desirable. Such a
motive doubtless led to a survey of books dealing with the subject of
banking in 1919 by the American Bankers Association. The examination
of the books induced the Association through their Public Education
Commission to publish and distribute a series of talks to be given in
the schools, since the books examined were, on the whole, found to
be “prepared from the standpoint of bankers, and not the standpoint
of the mass of students who attend high school.”[630] The talks were
designed to be delivered by bankers to pupils in the eighth grade, the
senior year of the high school, and to civic, business and fraternal
organizations in order to acquaint people more thoroughly with methods
of banking.[631]
During the World War the preparation of a series of lessons entitled
_Lessons in Community and National Life_ under the auspices of the
Bureau of Education and the Food Administration provoked adverse
criticism from the National Industrial Conference Board. In the lessons
topics pertinent to a study of community civics were treated, and
included discussions on international trade relations, manufacturing
methods, labor organizations and similar subjects. To these, exception
was taken, and it was asserted that “opinions on controversial subjects
are frequently introduced into the Lessons by suggestion rather than
by direct statement, and through the whole fabric is woven a thread of
propaganda in favor of the eight-hour day, old age pensions, social
insurance, trade-unionism, the minimum wage and similar issues.”[632]
A “partisan” attitude was said to be expressed in such a statement
as: “We are told that in the United States somebody is injured while
at work every fifteen seconds, and somebody is killed every fifteen
minutes. We cannot wonder at this when we realize how many dangers
there are in modern industry.”[633] According to _The_ [New York]
_World_, Magnus N. Alexander, managing director of the National
Industrial Conference Board, alarmed a convention of the National
Boot and Shoe Manufacturers’ Association when he told them that these
lessons were spreading “insidious, unwarranted propaganda, particularly
injurious for reading by youth in the plastic age when youth is
inclined to take for granted and as proved all that is said through the
medium of the books in his classroom.”[634]
These criticisms caused editorial comment in different periodicals
throughout the country. _The Capital Daily Press_ of Bismarck, North
Dakota, declaring that “for generations the reactionaries have
maintained their grip on the control of our educational institutions,
and from the kindergarten to college the ‘plastic minds of our youth’
have been sedulously taught the superior sacredness of private property
and the supremacy of dollar rights over human rights. This is one thing
which has made political and industrial progress so slow.”[635]
To the editor of _The School Review_ the whole discussion furnished “a
legitimate opportunity to call attention to the fact that the schools
have been very deficient in times past in their treatment of social
problems.” He felt that the time had come “when there ought to be a
very clear and explicit assertion on the part of educational people
that they will not be dominated by such criticism as here presented,”
for he believed “the schools of a democracy have a right to discuss
democratic and popular matters.”[636]
FOOTNOTES:
[411] Stephens, H. Morse, “Nationality and History,” _The American
Historical Review_, Vol. XXI (January, 1916), pp. 225-237.
[412] “Our School Books,” _De Bow’s Review_, Vol. XXVIII (1860), p. 435
_et seq._
[413] _Ibid._, p. 439.
[414] _Ibid._, p. 437.
[415] _The United States Telegraph_, October 5, 1836, in which appeared
Duff Green’s prospectus for the American Literary Company, which was to
have a capital of $500,000 to print the _Telegraph_, manufacture paper,
publish books, prepare a new series of elementary school textbooks,
elevate the general standing of literature, and “render the South
independent of Northern fanatics.”
[416] _De Bow’s Review_, Vol. XVIII (1855), pp. 660-661.
[417] _De Bow’s Review_, Vol. XXVIII (1860), p. 435 _et seq._
[418] “Southern School Books,” _De Bow’s Review_, Vol. XIII (1852), pp.
258-266.
[419] _Ibid._, p. 265.
[420] _Ibid._, Vol. XV (1853), p. 268.
[421] _Ibid._, Vol. XVII (1854), p. 508.
[422] _Ibid._
[423] _Ibid._, Vol. XXI (1856), p. 553.
[424] _Ibid._, Vol. XXII (1857), p. 104. Committee was composed of
J. D. S. De Bow, of Louisiana; H. Gourdin, of South Carolina; and D.
McRae, of North Carolina.
[425] _Ibid._
[426] _Ibid._
[427] _Ibid._, Vol. XXV (1856), p. 117. Article on “Southern School
Books.”
[428] _Ibid._, p. 597.
[429] Peter Parley was the pen-name of S. G. Goodrich.
[430] “Education at the South,” by “A South Carolinian,” _ibid._, Vol.
XXI (1856), pp. 651-652. Peter Parley’s (Goodrich’s) _Pictorial History
of the United States_ was also criticized. _Ibid._, p. 657.
[431] _Ibid._, Vol. XXIX (1860), p. 219.
[432] _Ibid._, Vol. XVIII (1855), p. 661.
[433] _Ibid._, p. 663.
[434] _Ibid._, Vol. XXI (1856), p. 653.
[435] _Ibid._, p. 653. The italics are supplied by the transcriber.
[436] _Ibid._, Vol. XXII (1857), P. 557. Criticism of Willson’s
_Outlines of History_ and his _American History_.
[437] _Ibid._, Vol. XXVIII (1860), p. 438. “Our School Books.”
[438] _Ibid._, Vol. XXII (1857), p. 557. Again in an article on
“Southern School Books,” Vol. XXV (1858), p. 117. Geographies and
readers received similar criticism, because they, too, contained
“invidious” comparisons or sought to “inculcate improper precepts” in
the minds of the children on the subject of slavery. In 1868 Willson’s
_Intermediate Readers_ were condemned because the fourth of the series
declared: “The Great Rebellion was a war set on foot for the purpose of
destroying the government of the United States.”
[439] Russell, William Howard, _My Diary North and South_ (Boston,
1863), p. 25. “Mr. Appleton sells no less than one million and a half
of Webster’s spelling-books a year; his tables are covered with a flood
of pamphlets, some for, others against coercion; some for, others
opposed to slavery,--but when I asked for a single solid, substantial
work on the present difficulty, I was told there was not one published
worth a cent.”
[440] _Acts_ of Louisiana, 1859, No. 244, p. 190.
[441] _Minutes of the Third Annual Meeting and Reunion of the
Confederate Veterans_ ... 1892, pp. 98-99.
[442] _Minutes of the Fourth Annual Meeting and Reunion of the United
Confederate Veterans_ ... 1894, pp. 3-12.
[443] _Ibid._
[444] _Ibid._ The meeting of the Veterans was at Birmingham, Alabama.
[445] _Minutes of the Fifth Annual Meeting and Reunion of the
Confederate Veterans_ ... 1895, p. 13.
[446] _Ibid._, p. 15. The Committee of 1895 added to the list of
acceptable textbooks drawn up in 1894 the _History of the United
States_ by Susan P. Lee.
[447] In the meeting held in 1896 the following histories received
endorsement: _School History of the United States_, by J. William
Jones, D. D. of Virginia, _Brief History of the United States_, by
Susan Pendleton Lee of Virginia, _Our Country, A History of the
States_, by Oscar H. Cooper and others of Texas. _Minutes ... of the
United Confederate Veterans_, ... 1896, pp. 28-50.
[448] _Minutes ... of the United Confederate Veterans_ ... 1897, p. 49.
See also _Journal ... of the Grand Army of the Republic_ ... 1897, p.
233. The activities of the G. A. R. are discussed later.
[449] _Minutes ... of the United Confederate Veterans_ ..., _op. cit._,
p. 46.
[450] _Ibid._
[451] _Minutes ... of the United Confederate Veterans_ ... 1898, p. 87.
[452] _Ibid._, pp. 44-52.
[453] _Ibid._
[454] _Ibid._
[455] _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1898, pp. 144-154.
[456] _Ibid._, p. 147.
[457] _Ibid._, p. 152.
[458] _Ibid._
[459] _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1900, pp. 78, 80.
[460] _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1902, pp. 54-59.
The Report of 1901 pointed out that “one of the most favorable omens
of our times is the catholicity with which thoughtful men, both North
and South, now speak and write of the issues of the war between the
States.” _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1901, p. 61. A
similar sentiment was expressed at the Reunion of 1904. _Minutes ... of
the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1904, pp. 32-33.
[461] _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1909, pp. 30-38.
[462] _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1910, p. 101.
[463] _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1903, p. 164.
The Southerners felt that Northern histories failed to recognize any
successes of the Confederate forces. The objectionable points in
Stratton’s book were found on pages 257-258, according to the _Minutes_.
[464] _Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans_ ... 1911, p. 11.
[465] _Ibid._
[466] _Ibid._ This appeared in large black-faced type in the _Report_.
[467] _Ibid._, p. 12.
[468] _Ibid._, p. 13.
[469] _Ibid._
[470] _Ibid._
[471] _Ibid._
[472] _Reunion of the United Confederate Veterans Proceedings of the
Twenty-Seventh Annual Reunion._
[473] _Minutes ... United Confederate Veterans_, 1921, p. 11. Report of
the Rutherford Committee, October 24, 1921, C. Irvine Walker, general
chairman.
[474] _The New York Times_, June 21, 1922. Miss Rutherford’s ideas had
been endorsed by the United Confederate Veterans in Atlanta, October
7-11, 1919. See _A Measuring Rod for Text-Books_ prepared by Miss
Rutherford (Athens, Georgia). This pamphlet sought to establish some of
the facts later brought out in _Truths of History_.
[475] _Ibid._
[476] _Chicago Daily Tribune_, June 23, 1922, editorial.
[477] _The New York Times_, June 23, 1922, editorial. The _Times_ felt
that “quite the gravest of Miss Rutherford’s charges against Lincoln,
... is that he wanted a civil war and forced the South to begin one
that inevitably would end in her defeat and ruin.” Objection was also
raised to Miss Rutherford’s charge that Lincoln’s Gettysburg address
was worthless. Rutherford, Mildred, _Truths of History_ (Athens,
Georgia, 1921).
[478] _The New York Times_, June 28, 1922.
[479] _Ibid._, June 24, 1922.
[480] _Ibid._, November 4, 1922.
[481] Written in 1917 and sent to Miss Rutherford who added to the
contents and produced her _Truths of History_.
[482] Rutherford, _op. cit._
[483] _Ibid._, p. 64. Miss Rutherford gave no source for this quotation.
[484] _Ibid._, p. 70. Miss Rutherford ascribed this quotation to
Lamon’s _Life of Lincoln_.
[485] _Ibid._, from Lamon’s _Life of Lincoln_.
[486] _Ibid._, pp. 77-78. Quoted from Charles Francis Adams, Lamon’s
_Recollections of Lincoln_, Mr. Everett, and Mr. Seward.
[487] _Ibid._, p. 71.
[488] _Ibid._, p. 57.
[489] _Ibid._, p. 1.
[490] _Ibid._, p. 11.
[491] _Ibid._
[492] _Ibid._
[493] _Ibid._, p. v.
[494] Davidson, William M., _History of the United States_ (Chicago,
1903); Montgomery, David, _The Beginner’s American History_ (Boston,
1899, 1920); Muzzey, D. S., _An American History_ (Boston, 1920).
[495] Rutherford, _op. cit._, p. 104.
[496] _Ibid._, p. 110. This quotation from Muzzey’s is incorrect in
_Truths of History_. Muzzey, eulogizing the Southern women, adds this
statement: “It is impossible for the student of history today to feel
otherwise than that the victory of the South in 1861-1865 would have
been a calamity for every section of our country. But the indomitable
valor and utter self-sacrifice with which the South defended her cause
both at home and in the field must always arouse our admiration.”
Muzzey, _An American History_, pp. 372-373.
[497] Rutherford, _op. cit._, p. 104. In her chapter entitled
“Reconstruction was not just to the South. This injustice made the Ku
Klux Klan a necessity,” Miss Rutherford, pursuing a policy peculiarly
inharmonious for a writer of _Truths of History_, allowed herself
again to become negligent as to the accuracy of her quotations.
Citing Muzzey as one authority for the title of her chapter, she
ascribed the following statement to him: “The rules of these negro
governments of 1868 was an indescribable orgy of extravagance, fraud
and disgusting incompetence--a travesty on government. Unprincipled
politicians dominated the States’ government and plunged the States
further and further into debt by voting themselves enormous salaries,
and reaping in many ways hundreds of thousands of dollars in graft.
In South Carolina $200,000 were spent in furnishing the State Capitol
with costly plate glass mirrors, lounges, armchairs, a free bar and
other luxurious appointments for the use of the negro and scalawag
legislators. It took the South nine years to get rid of these
governments.” In reading Muzzey’s book, the reader cannot but wonder at
the reason for the inaccuracy of the quotation, for precisely the same
end would have been accomplished had Miss Rutherford quoted verbatim:
“The Reconstruction governments of the South were sorry affairs. For
the exhausted states, already amply ‘punished’ by the desolation of
war, the rule of the negro and his unscrupulous carpetbagger patron
was an indescribable orgy of extravagance, fraud, and disgusting
incompetence,--a travesty on government. Instead of seeking to build up
the shattered resources of the South by economy and industry, the new
legislators plunged the states further and further into debt by voting
themselves enormous salaries and by spending lavish sums of money on
railroads, canals, and public buildings and works, for which they
reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in graft.” In a footnote Muzzey
adds the following from which Miss Rutherford has culled the idea for
part of her quotation: “The economic evils and social humiliation
brought on the South by the Reconstruction governments are almost
beyond description. South Carolina, for example, had a legislature in
which 98 of the 155 members were negroes ...; in one year $200,000
was spent in furnishing the state capitol with costly plate-glass
mirrors, lounges, desks, armchairs, and other luxurious appointments,
including a free bar for the use of the negro and scalawag legislators.
It took the Southern states from two to nine years to get rid of these
governments.” See Rutherford, _op. cit._, p. 87; Muzzey, _op. cit._,
pp. 387-388.
[498] Horton, Rushmore G., _A Youth’s History of the Great Civil War in
the United States from 1861-1865_ (New York, 1866).
[499] Lee, _New School History of the United States_, p. 261.
[500] _Ibid._, p. 357.
[501] Evans, Lawton B., _The Essential Facts of American History_
(Benjamin H. Sanborn and Company, 1920); Evans is from Augusta,
Georgia. Thompson, Waddy, _History of the People of the United States_
(D. C. Heath and Co., 1919); Chambers, Henry Edward, _A School History
of the United States_ (American Book Co., 1895); Stephenson, Nathaniel
Wright, _An American History_ (Ginn and Co., 1913, 1921); Estill, Harry
F., _The Beginner’s History of Our Country_ (Southern Publishing Co.,
Dallas, Texas, 1919).
[502] Alabama, James and Sanford’s _American History_; Arkansas, Evans’
_The Essential Facts of American History_; Florida, Stephenson’s
_An American History_; Georgia, Evans’ _First Lessons in American
History_ and Evans’ _Essential Facts of Lessons in American History_;
Louisiana, Estill’s _Beginner’s History of Our Country_, Evans’
_Essential Facts of American History_ and Stephenson’s _An American
History_; Mississippi, Estill’s _Beginner’s History of Our Country_
and Mace-Petrie’s _History of the People of the United States_; Texas,
Cousin and Hill’s _American History_; Virginia, Andrew’s _United States
History_. These data were secured from a questionnaire. North Carolina
reported state adopted textbooks but did not name them; South Carolina
failed to report.
[503] Evans, _The Essential Facts of American History_, p. 364.
[504] Stephenson, _An American History_, p. 399.
[505] _Ibid._, p. 486. However _cf._ Muzzey, _op. cit._, p. 387 _et
seq._; Guitteau, William S., _Our United States_ (Boston, 1919), p. 47
_et seq._; West, Willis M., _American History and Government_ (Boston,
1913), p. 627.
[506] _Journal of the Twenty-Second Annual ... Encampment Grand Army of
the Republic_, 1888, pp. 210-217. The U. C. V. Committee first reported
in 1894, no reunion being held in 1893.
[507] _Journal_ ... _op. cit._, p. 210.
[508] _Ibid._
[509] _Ibid._
[510] _Ibid._
[511] _Ibid._, pp. 212-213. Criticism of a history “By J. S. Blackburn,
Principal of the Potomac Academy, Alexandria, Virginia, and W. N.
McDonald, A. M., Principal of the Male High School, Louisville,
Kentucky, Twelfth Edition Revised.”
[512] _Ibid._
[513] _Ibid._, p. 215.
[514] _Journal of the Twenty-Sixth National Encampment Grand Army of
the Republic_ ... 1892, p. 207.
[515] _Journal of the Twenty-Ninth National Encampment Grand Army of
the Republic_, ... 1895, p. 230.
[516] _Ibid._, p. 331. Montgomery’s books were disapproved by the
South. _Cf._ page 159.
[517] _Journal of the Thirty-First National Encampment of the Grand
Army of the Republic_ ... 1897, p. 233. This book was endorsed by the
Confederate Veterans in 1896, but the author’s name is given as J. W.
Jones. _Minutes ... of the Reunion of Confederate Veterans_ ... 1898,
p. 31.
[518] _Journal_, _op. cit._
[519] _Ibid._, p. 234.
[520] _Ibid._
[521] _Ibid._
[522] _Ibid._ The books in which the quotations appeared were not named.
[523] _Ibid._
[524] _Ibid._
[525] _Ibid._, p. 238.
[526] _Journal of the Thirty-Second National Encampment of the Grand
Army of the Republic_ ... 1898, p. 192.
[527] _Ibid._, p. 194.
[528] _Journal of the Thirty-Third National Encampment of the Grand
Army of the Republic_ ... 1899, pp. 244-246. The textbook was not named.
[529] _Ibid._
[530] _Ibid._
[531] _Journal of the Thirty-Fourth National Encampment of the Grand
Army of the Republic_ ... 1900, p. 145.
[532] _Journal of the Thirty-Eighth National Encampment of the Grand
Army of the Republic_ ... 1904, pp. 244-246.
[533] _Journal of the Forty-First National Encampment of the Grand Army
of the Republic_ ... 1907, p. 173.
[534] _Journal of the Forty-Third National Encampment of the Grand
Army of the Republic_ ... 1909, p. 164. The list included McLaughlin’s
_History of the American Nation_, Montgomery’s _Leading Facts of
American History_, Mace’s _School History of the United States_,
McMaster’s _History of the United States_, Gordy’s _History of the
United States_, Eggleston’s “_History_,” Johnson’s “_History_,” Barnes’
“_History_,” Fiske’s “_History_,” Scudder’s “_History_,” Anderson’s
“_History_,” and in the South “Waddy Thompson’s _United States
History_, revised and improved by the late General John B. Gordon.”
[535] _Journal of the Forty-Fourth National Encampment of the Grand
Army of the Republic_ ... 1910, p. 219. The Phil Sheridan Post No. 4,
G. A. R., joined with the Sons of the American Revolution in 1922 in
an effort to eliminate West’s _History of the American People_ from
the acceptable textbooks of the Boise, Idaho, schools. In addition to
criticisms regarding West’s discussion of the American Revolution and
the War of 1812, the Veterans objected to the treatment of the Civil
War period. See p. 265 and the _Idaho Statesman_, December 9, 1922.
[536] The controversy related to Public School Number 5. The Public
School Society was organized in 1805 and gradually extended its
activities until 1853, when it gave its buildings and property to the
City Board of Education. See Bourne, William Oland, _History of the
Public School Society of the City of New York_ (New York, 1870), p. 324
_et seq._
[537] _Ibid._, p. 324. No action was taken at that time, but a Roman
Catholic teacher was employed for Public School Number 5.
[538] _Ibid._, p. 325.
[539] _Ibid._, p. 328.
[540] _Ibid._
[541] _Ibid._, p. 331.
[542] _Ibid._
[543] _Ibid._, p. 342.
[544] Deshon, George, “A Novel Defence of the Public School,” _The
Catholic World_, Vol. L (February, 1890), pp. 677-687.
[545] _Ibid._
[546] Hamilton, Gail, “Catholicism and Public Schools,” _North American
Review_, Vol. CXLVII (1888), pp. 572-580.
[547] _Ibid._
[548] “The Anti-Catholic Spirit of Certain Writers,” _The Catholic
World_, Vol. XXXVI (February, 1883), pp. 658-667.
[549] Deshon, _loc. cit._
[550] Hamilton, _loc. cit._
[551] In 1815 there were “about 70,000 Catholics to be found in the
United States,.... In 1918, ... its Catholic population had increased
to 17,416,303,....” McCarthy, Charles H., _The History of the United
States for Catholic Schools_ (New York, 1919), p. 421.
[552] McCarthy, Charles H., _The History of the United States for
Catholic Schools_ (American Book Co., 1919); O’Hara, John P., _A
History of the United States_ (The Macmillan Company, 1919); _A History
of the United States for Catholic Schools_ prepared and arranged by
the Franciscan Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration (Scott, Foresman and
Company, 1914); Lawler, Thomas B., _Essentials of American History_
(Ginn and Company, 1918); Betten, Francis S., _The Ancient World_
(Allyn and Bacon, 1916); Betten, Francis S., and Kaufman, Alfred,
_The Modern World_ (Allyn and Bacon, 1919); Burke, E. J., _Political
Economy, designed for use in Catholic Colleges, High Schools and
Academies_ (American Book Company, 1913).
[553] McCarthy, _op. cit._, preface, p. iii. Professor McCarthy is
Knights of Columbus Professor of American History at the Catholic
University of America.
[554] _Ibid._, preface, p. iv.
[555] The Franciscan Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration, _A History of
the United States for Catholic Schools_ (Chicago, 1914), pp. 3-4.
[556] _Ibid._, pp. 5-6.
[557] Betten, _The Ancient World_, preface.
[558] “This much maligned priest [John Tetzel], personally of blameless
character, undoubtedly went too far in his endeavors to procure
financial success. He insisted indeed on the necessity of contrition
and confession for all those who wished to obtain the remission of
temporal punishment for themselves; but his teaching concerning the
indulgence for the dead was not free from serious errors. To secure
this benefit for a soul which has, of course, departed this life in the
state of grace, nothing, according to him, is required but the alms.
This doctrine, though at his time actually taught by some irresponsible
preachers, has never been supported by ecclesiastical authority.
Tetzel’s own brethren in religion openly reproached him for his
ill-advised tactics, which soon became the talk of the whole country.”
Betten and Kaufman, _The Modern World_, p. 376.
[559] “At least he [Martin Luther] imagined that he had made the
discovery that the doctrine of the Church concerning the remission of
sins was altogether wrong. He thereby implied that Christ, contrary
to His solemn promise, had allowed the Church to fall into a most
disastrous error. The new system, which gradually developed in Luther’s
mind, confused the nature of sin with concupiscence, which is a
consequence of original sin, and while it makes man inclined to sin
is no sin in itself. By the sin of Adam, he thought human nature was
corrupted beyond recovery; man’s acts can only be bad; but Jesus Christ
covers the soul with His infinite merits, which, as it were, conceal
all trespasses from the eye of the just God; if sinful man expresses
his firm ‘belief’ in this merciful dispensation, God will not punish
him, though the sin is not taken away, but merely covered; the sinner
therefore remains a sinner;.... It is evident that such a justification
is no justification at all, and it will always remain a riddle how
Luther could maintain that he had found such a monstrous doctrine in
the Bible.” _Ibid._, pp. 377-378.
[560] “The causes of the social evils are _not only economic, but moral
and religious as well_. It is true that present economic conditions
are far from satisfactory. Though production, on account of the
introduction of machinery, has increased enormously, wages have not
kept pace with that increase.... But the moral and religious causes are
not to be overlooked. The breaking loose from practical Christianity,
so characteristic of the last two centuries, has developed an intense
selfishness, a struggle for wealth in which each one seeks his own
material advantage at the expense of his neighbor.... What, then, are
the remedies proposed by Catholics? Certainly not the adoption of
Socialist views.... The Socialists deliberately ignore, yea exclude,
religion from coöperation in the solution of the great social problem.
They forget that man’s happiness here below is not his ultimate
end, that the Creator did not want equal wealth and equal material
advantages for all.... The state having at heart the temporal welfare
of its citizens, should by wise legislation protect the workers, their
health, and morals, and that of their family. But the change of hearts
which is so necessary for the cure of modern evils is the principal
task of religion. Hence the Church should be free to carry out her
mission.” _Ibid._, pp. 630-641.
[561] Burke, E. J., _Political Economy designed for use in Catholic
Colleges, High Schools, and Academies_ (New York, 1913), p. 1.
According to Bullock’s _Elements of Economics_, one textbook used in
the public schools, “Economics is the science which deals with the
efforts of mankind to secure the material commodities and personal
services which are needed to support life and to make a civilized
existence possible.” Bullock, Charles J., _Elements of Economics_
(Boston, 1913), p. 4.
[562] Burke, _op. cit._, p. 57.
[563] Burke, _op. cit._, p. 386. Although “followers of the Catholic
School do not deny that much of the evil existing in society is due to
defective methods of distribution, they suggest no such drastic action
as the Socialists.... They appeal to the influence of the Church’s
teaching and the power of Christian doctrine to bring about a spirit of
charity and justice in the mutual dealings of capitalists and labor.”
_Ibid._, p. 392.
[564] Advertising pamphlet entitled “The Hospitality given Father
Burke’s Political Economy.”
[565] _Ibid._, p. 6.
[566] _Ibid._
[567] _Ibid._, p. 4.
[568] Hassard, John R. G., _A History of the United States of America_
(New York, 1878), p. vi.
[569] _Ibid._
The National Lutheran Council had, in 1923, a committee on history
textbooks, whose purpose was to make known any “flagrant or actual
misrepresentations” of their church in history textbooks used in the
United States. Letter from Lauritz Larsen, President of the National
Lutheran Council to the author under date of January 13, 1923. No
report of the committee was given. The writer of the letter also
stated that there had been no “organized effort to suggest the content
of history textbooks in the public schools, not even as this might
pertain to the teaching of the history of the Reformation in the public
schools.”
According to Werner, Brigham Young “insisted that the school-books
should be published in Utah, and written there if possible, rather than
imported at unnecessary expense from the East. The teachers, too, he
wrote should be Latter-day Saints, so that the children might learn
only what they ought to know.” Werner, M. R., _Brigham Young_ (New
York, 1925), p. 451.
[570] Sweet, W. W., “Religion in Our School Histories,” _The Christian
Century_, Vol. XLI (November 20, 1924), pp. 1502-1504.
[571] The textbook is not named in the article.
[572] The title of this book is not given in the article but such a
statement appears in _A History of the United States_ by the Franciscan
Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration, p. 68.
[573] _Ibid._
[574] _Report of the American Bar Association_, Vol. XLVII (1922), pp.
416-423.
[575] _Ibid._
[576] _Report of the American Bar Association_, Vol. XLVIII (1923), pp.
442-451. The committee was composed of R. E. L. Saner, chairman, Walter
George Smith, Andrew A. Brice, Wallace McCamant, John Ford O’Brien.
[577] _Report of the American Bar Association_, Vol. XLIX (1924), pp.
255-269.
[578] _Ibid._ Chapter IV discusses laws since 1917.
[579] _Ibid._
[580] _Ibid._ The Reports of 1923 and 1924 are similar.
[581] _Ibid._, pp. 262-263.
[582] _Ibid._, p. 271. The entire creed appears in the Appendix.
[583] Printed statement from the National Security League, 25 West 43d
Street, New York.
[584] For the statement of the American Bar Association as to their
activities see page 187.
[585] _Ibid._
[586] _The National Security League_, “Report to Members for the Month
Ending May 15, 1925.”
[587] Printed statement quoted previously.
[588] _Ibid._
[589] _The National Security League_, “Report to Members for the Month
Ending May 15, 1925.”
[590] _Ibid._, October 15, 1925.
[591] _Ibid._, May 15, 1925.
[592] Printed statement quoted previously.
[593] _The National Security League_, “Report to Members for the Month
Ending November 15, 1925.”
[594] _Constitution Anniversary Association_, “A Statement of the
Expanding Activities.”
[595] _Ibid._
[596] _Ibid._
[597] _Constitution Anniversary Association_, “Bulletin Number 10.”
[598] _Ibid._
[599] _Constitution Anniversary Association_, “Bulletin Number 9.” The
first prize in the Second Annual Contest was $2000, and was awarded to
Robert Sessions of Birmingham, Alabama, a boy of fifteen years. See
_Constitution Anniversary Association_, “Bulletin Number 10.”
[600] Atwood, Harry F., _Back to the Republic, the Golden Mean: the
Standard Form of Government_ (Chicago, 1918), p. 20. The italics are in
the original.
[601] _Ibid._, pp. 36-40. Mr. Atwood draws ten parallels to autocracy,
democracy and the republic from religion, domestic life, food, drink,
music, thought, sleep, light, moisture, and the number of wheels most
serviceable on vehicles.
[602] Atwood, Harry F., _Safeguarding American Ideals_ (Chicago, 1921),
p. 34.
[603] _Ibid._, pp. 29-32.
[604] _Ibid._
[605] Clum, Woodworth, “America is Calling,” The Better America
Federation of California, Los Angeles.
[606] _Ibid._
[607] “Education for All,” _Official Record of the American Federation
of Labor in the Struggle to Bring Knowledge to the Masses_ (American
Federation of Labor, Washington, 1922), p. 4.
[608] _Ibid._
[609] _Ibid._
[610] _Ibid._, p. 5.
[611] _Report of the Proceedings of the Convention of the American
Federation of Labor at Cincinnati, June, 1922._ Eighth Day Proceedings.
_Report of the American Federation of Labor_, Committee on Education
on Social Studies in the Public Schools, “Labor and Education” (The
American Federation of Labor, Washington, 1923), pp. 1-13.
[612] _Ibid._, pp. 3-4, 7. _The New York Times_, August 25, 1921.
[613] _Report of the American Federation of Labor_, _op. cit._, pp.
3-4, 9.
[614] _Ibid._, p. 21.
[615] _Ibid._, p. 23.
[616] _Ibid._
[617] _Ibid._
[618] _Report of Proceedings_, Eighth Day (1922), p. 356.
[619] _Ibid._ According to the Committee the “modern textbooks in most
frequent use are: civics, Ashley’s _The New Civics_, Beard’s _American
Citizenship_, Dunn’s _The Community and the Citizen_, Forman’s _The
American Democracy_, Hill’s _Community Life and Civic Problems_,
Hughes’ _Community Civics_, Magruder’s _American Government in 1921_,
and Reed’s _Forms and Functions of American Government_; in economics,
Burch’s _American Economic Life_, Burch and Patterson’s _American
Social Problems_, Hughes’ _Economic Civics_, Laing’s _An Introduction
to Economics_, Marshall and Lyon’s _Our Economic Organization_, and
Thompson’s _Elementary Economics_; in sociology, Burch and Patterson’s
_American Social Problems_, Ellwood’s _Sociology and Modern Problems_
[_sic_], Towne’s _Social Problems_, and Tuft’s _The Real Business of
Living_; in history, Ashley’s _American History_, Beard and Bagley’s
_A First Book in American History_, Beard’s _History of the United
States_, Bourne and Benton’s _History of the United States_, Cousins
and Hills’ [_sic_] _American History_, Evans’ _The Essential Facts
of American History_, Forman’s _A History of the United States for
Schools_, and _Advanced American History_, James and Sanford’s
_American History_, Mace’s _School History of the United States_,
Muzzey’s _American History_, Thompson’s _History of the United States,
Political, Industrial and Social_, and West’s _History of the American
People_. “Labor and Education,” p. 28.
[620] _The New York Times_, September 3, 1923.
[621] Herskovitz, Melville J., and Willey, Malcolm M., “What Your Child
Learns,” _The Nation_, Vol. CXIX (September 17, 1924), pp. 282-284. The
book referred to is Berry, Margaret K., and Howe, Samuel B., _Actual
Democracy_ (New York, 1923). The quotation is found on page 63.
[622] In the discussion of trade-unionism objection was raised to
the classification of unions as “business unionism--which is trade
conscious but not class conscious, ... the friendly or uplift union
which may be either trade or class conscious, and is conservative, ...
‘predatory unionism’ ... secret, either radical or conservative, class
or trade conscious, and has two wings; ‘hold-up unionism,’ the corrupt
type recently exposed in our great cities, and ‘guerrilla unionism’
which never combines with employers, but engages in a secret and
violent warfare with capital ... a fourth and more objectionable type
of unionism ... calls itself ‘revolutionary unionism.’ It may be either
socialistic as was the Western Federation of Miners, or anarchistic
like the Industrial Workers of the World....” Berry and Howe, _op.
cit._, pp. 73-74.
[623] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._ The quotation which was objectionable
to the writers of the article was found on pages 167-169 of the
textbook.
[624] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._ See Southworth, A. T., _The Common
Sense of the Constitution of the United States_ (Boston, 1924), pp.
91-92.
[625] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._ Hughes, R. O., _Text-Book in
Citizenship_ (Boston, 1923).
[626] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._
[627] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._ Hughes, _op. cit._, pp. 510-511.
[628] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._ Hughes, _op. cit._, pp. 510-511.
[629] Letter under date of December 7, 1925, from the editor of
“Service Talks,” published by the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
Burch, Henry Reed, _American Economic Life_ (New York, 1921), p. 330.
[630] American Bankers Association, “Books devoted wholly or in part to
the subject of Banking.” The books mentioned were not all social study
books, arithmetic and bookkeeping textbooks being included.
[631] “Talks on Banking and Elementary Economics,” prepared by the
Public Education Commission, American Bankers Association, New York.
[632] Educational News and Editorial Comment, “Social Studies in
Public Schools,” _The School Review_, Vol. XXVII (1919), pp. 205-212.
National Industrial Conference Board, _A Case of Federal Propaganda in
Our Public Schools_, pp. 4, 11. The lessons were prepared under the
direction of Charles H. Judd, Director of the School of Education of
the University of Chicago, and Leon C. Marshall, Dean of the School of
Commerce and Administration in the same university.
[633] The National Industrial Conference Board in connection with this
remarked: “Such a statement indicates a studied effort to present to
the immature mind an exceedingly distorted picture of factory life.
It suggests an almost constant maiming and mangling of industrial
workers, whereas, as a matter of fact, most industrial accidents are
of a minor character such as slight cuts, scratches and slivers. Take,
however, at its face value the statement that somebody is killed every
fifteen minutes while at work. On the basis of a 54-hour work-week,
approximately the average in this country, this means a total of 11,250
deaths in industry per year ... the scholar should also be given
an idea of the millions of workers to whom this total of deaths is
related. He should in fairness also have pointed out to him the hazards
of non-industrial pursuits which cause annually more fatal accidents
than occur in industry.” The National Industrial Conference Board, _op.
cit._, p. 11.
[634] _The School Review_, _loc. cit._
[635] Quoted in _The School Review_, _loc. cit._
[636] _The School Review_, _loc. cit._ Instances of criticism of
textbooks might be multiplied. Authors have met objections to their
works because there were no “Republican illustrations in the book,”
because of quotations from Münsterberg and other Germans, and because
of the discussion devoted to prohibition. In this last case a member of
the Board of Education of Chicago is reported to have criticised the
use of an arithmetic as looking like “a bartender’s friend” in that
it was full of problems of “how much did this wine merchant order his
sherry or how many barrels of whiskey could the man purchase for such
an amount.” _Iowa City_ [Iowa] _Press-Citizen_, November 13, 1924.
CHAPTER VII
THE ATTACK ON HISTORY TEXTBOOKS SINCE 1917
Since the World War, an ardent patriotism has swept the country,
resulting in a widespread investigation of the teaching and writing
of history. Sponsored by various groups, the movement has gained
considerable momentum, until history teaching and history textbooks
are in danger of being an expression of certain religious, racial or
other partisan opinions. These groups hold, in common, that American
histories, as now written, neglect heroic characters in American
history, especially in the Revolutionary War, and that they are
distorted by a pro-British bias. Propaganda, indeed, makes strange
bed-fellows. In this new praetorian guard of the temple of American
patriotism are found the Hearst newspapers, an element of the Knights
of Columbus and of the Irish-Americans, the German-Americans, and
finally patriotic societies of this country.
The charge of “Anglicization,” usually enlivened by mysterious
references to “British gold,” arises in part from the new trend
of American historical scholarship in the last twenty-five years.
Historians employing scientific methods have done much to revise
the traditional ideas concerning our relations with Great Britain.
Important contributions of this character have been made, for instance,
by such historians as George Louis Beer, Charles M. Andrews, Herbert L.
Osgood, Sydney George Fisher, and Claude H. Van Tyne.
These investigations were going forward at the same time that conscious
efforts were being made by the publicists of the two countries to
reveal to the two English-speaking peoples their common ties and
responsibilities in the world today. Many books were printed and
organizations formed to promote Anglo-American concord; among the
latter, such bodies as the Sulgrave Institute, the Anglo-American
League and the English-Speaking Union.
To suspicious onlookers the work of the historians in their cloisters
took on the appearance of deliberate propaganda favorable to Great
Britain--a suspicion, it need hardly be said, entirely unwarranted. It
needed only an appeal such as that of Herbert Adams Gibbons that we
solidify an amicable relationship with Great Britain through our common
language, common ideals and common interests, to confirm the credulous
in their suspicions.[637] Furthermore, suggestions from men like Albert
Bushnell Hart that our history text-books be rewritten to encourage
better international relations seemed to afford additional proof
that pro-British agencies were in control of history textbooks.[638]
The writings of special pleaders like Owen Wister strengthened this
impression.[639] Indeed, Charles Edward Russell has gone so far as to
declare that definitely planned attempts to rewrite American history
textbooks, for the purpose of encouraging better Anglo-American
relations, were launched as early as 1896, and have been carefully
carried on since then.[640]
On the other hand, the proponents of revision, conscious of an
“agitation for the reintroduction of parochial patriotism into the
schools and colleges,” have entered a plea for “the truth” in school
histories and for the writing and teaching of history by scholars
unaffected by the demands of “politicians.”[641] To them, the true
fount of patriotism does not arise from textbooks of history which are
“nationalistic rather than impartial.”[642] They would seek, rather, to
depict events not as “partisans” but in a “scientific spirit, with the
desire to understand rather than to justify.”[643]
ATTACKS ON HISTORY TEXTBOOKS BY THE HEARST NEWSPAPERS AND CHARLES GRANT
MILLER
In 1921 the Hearst newspapers began the publication of a series
of articles designed to arouse “patriotic American parents” to a
realization that “the school histories now being taught to their
children have been revised and in some instances wholly rewritten in a
new and propitiatory spirit toward England.”[644] Since that time these
articles have appeared at irregular intervals from the pen of Charles
Grant Miller. There has been yeast in his statements, and to them may
be attributed the origin of much of the criticism directed against
history textbooks by individuals and organized groups. With titles set
up in large black-faced type these articles captured the eye of those
who, consciously or unconsciously, were giving heed to the feverish
propaganda which has flourished since the World War. In his articles,
Mr. Miller proceeded from the discussion of “United States History
Revised in School Books, Belittles Revolution and Thanks England for
Bestowing Liberty on America” to a treatment of “Propaganda seeks to
Distort American History, British Workers are Being Backed by a Heavily
Financed Machine....”[645]
Chief among the historians whom Mr. Miller would characterize as
“Anglicized” are found Albert Bushnell Hart, John P. O’Hara, Everett
Barnes, A. C. McLaughlin, C. H. Van Tyne, William B. Guitteau, and
Willis Mason West. Charges of “Anglicization” have been brought also
against C. H. Ward for his edition of Burke’s _Speech on Conciliation
with America_ and upon Helen Nicolay for her _Book of American Wars_.
The pro-British point of view which Mr. Miller found expressed has
been brought about by “intrigue and treason” and the American school
histories which portray it “must be cast out if America is to remain
America.”[646]
Substantially all of the criticisms of history textbooks in which
Mr. Miller has indulged have related to statements regarding the
Revolutionary War. He found it especially objectionable when a history
like John P. O’Hara’s gives “the impression” that “the American
Revolution originated not in the colonies themselves, but among the
devoted friends of liberty in England,” and when “more quotation is
given from Pitt than from Patrick Henry.”[647] A “wholesome desire for
increased friendship and coöperation between the United States and
Great Britain,” declared Mr. Miller, “creates no justification for the
policy of propitiation of England through defamation of America, which
offers as sacrifice upon the altar of international comity immortelles
snatched from the monuments of our nation’s heroic founders.... In
our own heroes and history our nation has been exceptionally blessed.
They have proved unfailing sources of pride and inspiration that have
prompted us as a people to stanch character, high endeavor, noble
achievements and unparalleled progress.”[648]
The second article in the Chicago _Herald and Examiner_ lay bare the
alleged defects in Barnes’ textbook, where the author plays “the part
of a flunky apologist to England for the independence established
by our fathers,” and in which he “burlesques its world affecting
results.”[649] Barnes, furthermore, Mr. Miller pointed out, ignores
such patriots as “Nathan Hale, whose only regret on the British
scaffold was that he had but one life to give to his country, ...
Ethan Allen, Mad Anthony Wayne and the battle of Stony Point,” while,
on the other hand, “there is a full page of praise for the traitor
Benedict Arnold whom ‘Congress had treated unfairly.’”[650] In addition
to other faults, Mr. Miller cited the statements that “the first
signer of the Declaration of Independence was a smuggler,” “that the
Continental Congress ‘was a scene of petty bickerings and schemings’
among ‘selfish, unworthy, short-sighted, narrow-minded, office-seeking
and office-trading plotters,’ that ‘half the colonists were loyal to
England’; that the rest were united in resistance only ‘because they
dared not be otherwise,’ and that if in England the wise course had
only prevailed against the ‘foolish’ King, ‘this great country would
probably now have been a great branch of the British empire.’”[651]
Barnes was also condemned because he calls the War of 1812 “a mistake,”
the burning of Washington “an act of reprisal” for the burning of
buildings in Canada, and Jackson’s victory at New Orleans “a wasted
battle; a needless victory.”[652] How different to Mr. Miller was “this
new Barnes” from the Barnes’ _Brief History of the United States_ which
spoke “always from the American viewpoint, with American interests and
sympathies at heart!”[653]
The next authors to arouse his ire were McLaughlin and Van Tyne, who
with other historians were “reshaping” American history “to serve
international interests under whose hypnotism of propaganda American
public opinion has been goose-stepping for five years in the direction
of a return to English subjection.”[654] Charged with omitting Hale,
Decatur, Faneuil Hall, the Green Mountain Boys, Betsy Ross and the
flag, the quartering of troops and “the British attempts to bribe,”
they were declared guilty also of “strictly minimizing the patriot
valor at Lexington, Bunker Hill and New Orleans.” Such omission in
the school histories Mr. Miller compared with “an ancient custom to
remove the viscera and brain before embalming a body.” Indeed, Mr.
Miller found it extremely objectionable that the “leading founders of
our liberties are characterized by McLaughlin and Van Tyne as follows:
‘It is hard to realize how ignorant and superstitious were most of the
colonists of America’--p. 134; ‘Patrick Henry, a gay, unprosperous and
hitherto unknown country lawyer’--p. 141; ‘Smuggling was so common
that even a leading Boston merchant was known as ‘the Prince of
Smugglers’’--p. 140; ... and ‘Adams and Hancock stole away across the
fields’--p. 153.”[655]
Besides these grievances the Hearst papers objected to the omission
of “such famous slogans as ‘We have met the enemy and they are ours’
and ‘Don’t give up the ship’”; and McLaughlin and Van Tyne “go further
[even] than their fellows and seek to destroy these inspiring slogans
by disputing their authenticity.”[656]
This attack on the McLaughlin and Van Tyne textbook provoked a protest
from C. H. Ward, whose edition of Burke’s _Speech on Conciliation with
America_ the Hearst papers also had criticized. “Mr. Miller,” declared
Ward, “skillfully quotes with a sneer from the McLaughlin and Van Tyne
book” (regarding Patrick Henry). “Yet this book,” he asserted, “does
in fact give more than usual prominence and praise to Patrick Henry:
‘Who declared with marvelous eloquence’ (p. 141); ‘With burning words
he denounced the tyranny’ (p. 142); ‘Patrick Henry again electrified
the Virginia leaders by his daring prophecy’ (p. 150); ‘Securing a
commission and money from the Governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry’
(p. 182).” Notwithstanding this treatment of Henry, Mr. Ward averred
that “Mr. Miller so quotes as to imply that the authors have slandered
Henry; but the two adjectives ‘gay and unknown’ are the only two words
that convey aught but praise.”[657] Further, Mr. Ward showed that, in
the account of Lexington, the statement that “Adams and Hancock stole
away” is taken out of its context. Ward, likewise, found that Miller
has “misrepresented” Hart’s history, for he was unable to discover some
of the statements attributed to that author.[658]
On November 20, 1921, the Chicago _Herald and Examiner_ devoted an
article to an attack not only upon Barnes, Hart, McLaughlin and Van
Tyne, but also upon William B. Guitteau, who, too, had fallen victim to
“the snobbish spirit of apology and subserviency to England.”[659] This
attitude, according to Mr. Miller, “the publishers, Silver, Burdett
and Company, boldly proclaim in their advertisements” in saying: “This
book has been written in the light of recent events in which a new
atmosphere has been created for the study of our national life.... The
revolutionary war and subsequent Anglo-American difficulties hitherto
distorted in our school books through an unthinking adherence to
traditional prejudice, have been restated by Dr. Guitteau in their true
light.”[660]
One of the objectionable points urged against Guitteau and other
historians was the ignoring of Irish patriots. In large, bold-faced
type Mr. Miller called attention to “the elimination of German and
Irish assistance to the colonists in the Revolution, as well as the
Dutch of New York and Pennsylvania, the French of Carolina and the
Swedes of New Jersey and Delaware, while the help given by France
is minimized and charged to selfish, scheming motives.”[661] In
his earlier editions, declared Mr. Miller, Professor Hart had the
“frankness to say ‘Germans, Irish, Scotch-Irish, French, Dutch, Negroes
and Englishmen stood side by side in the ranks,’” but in the revised
edition of 1920 “he has magically transformed so eminent a hero as
Baron De Kalb from a German to a Frenchman.”[662]
“Home grown motives might be imagined for carrying back a century and
a half the cancellation of friendly relations with the Germans,” was
Mr. Miller’s observation, “but whence comes the motive for a sudden
change in attitude toward Irish heroes of the Revolution?” Such a
situation revealed to Miller a significant animus, for certainly “it
is not our own country that has had the trouble with the Irish.” To
him it was conceivable that hidden forces were actuating the “recent
revisions,” for “by the early historians” the high regard in which
George Washington held Irishmen was “glowingly recognized.”[663]
The publication of this “series of articles written for the Hearst
newspapers by Charles Grant Miller ... aroused a wave of indignation
all over the country,” according to the Chicago _Herald and Examiner_
for May 14, 1922. As a result, “patriotic societies have taken up
the battle and various organizations have started movements to stop
such perversion of American traditions.” As an example of one who was
aroused to the situation described in the articles, the _Herald and
Examiner_ published a letter from Senator William E. Borah, “who raises
a clarion voice against the insidious effort to falsify the glorious
story of the American fight for independence and to cheat the youth of
this day of the heroic inspiration and sturdy manhood of the days of
the Revolution.”[664]
Although Senator Borah did not desire “to have our histories do any
injustice to Great Britain,” yet he did not want “facts concealed
nor events ignored in order to satisfy those who now seem to regret
that their ancestors ever came to this country.”[665] He presumed that
the next step would be “an expurgated edition” of the Declaration of
Independence, which would be read “with appropriate apology” on the
Fourth of July “should that continue to be observed.” All of this
led him to remark that in “due time some sycophantic intellectual
interloper will feel constrained to urge that we withhold from
our young men and women the unjust attack so long made upon the
American-English gentleman known as Benedict Arnold.”[666]
Under the caption “Let United States History Teach Patriotism,” Wallace
McCamant, one-time president of the Sons of the American Revolution,
announced his approval of the stand taken by Charles Grant Miller.
“What think you of a school history,” queried Judge McCamant, “which
begins the story of the American Revolution with this sentence? ‘There
is little use trying to learn whose fault it was that the war began,
for, as we have seen, such a long train of events led to disagreement
between England and America, that we should have to go back and back in
the very founding of the colonies. As in most quarrels, the blame is
laid by each party on the other.’”[667] When an author, in discussing
taxation without representation declares that “there was here an honest
difference of opinion,” it was evident to Judge McCamant that he “has
certainly not been called of God to write American history.”[668]
To those “who say that history should not stress war,” Judge McCamant
admitted that “there are important chapters in our peace history which
should be adequately covered,” but he suggested that there is “nothing
else” which “will grip the imagination of the young like the story of
the soldier or the sailor who fights and dies that his country may be
free.”[669] The inculcation of patriotism, which is the chief value in
the teaching of American history in Mr. McCamant’s mind, can best be
attained in setting forth “sacrifices in winning freedom.”[670]
The next angle from which Mr. Miller criticized American school
histories is in “the magical transformation of King George III from
a born Briton into a German.”[671] Such, he asserted appears in the
1916-17 edition of the school history by Hart, a plain evidence of “the
forces of British propaganda” which “were increasing their influences
to quicken an American hatred of Germany and to hurry us into war and
into permanent alliance....”[672] To prove his contention regarding
the nationality of King George III, he quoted the “English historical
authority, Macaulay,” thus: “‘The young King was a born Englishman. All
his tastes and habits, good and bad were English.’”[673]
As a result of the “many forces actively at work” Mr. Miller observed
that the “Anglicized revisionists, like ten automatons worked by one
will, begin to teach American school children: ‘that the American
revolution was made in Germany; ...’ that ‘the American revolution was
a contest between German tyranny and English freedom, although neither
party in the struggle knew that this was the issue’; ....”[674] On
the other hand, Mr. Miller found in John Bach McMaster’s history “an
excellent summary” where “the venomous quality of English comments upon
America is vividly described.”[675]
Another victim of “Anglicization” Mr. Miller held to be Matthew
Page Andrews, “director of the English-Speaking Union and Anglicized
author of three American school histories” whose source of information
was Greg’s _History of the United States_, published in London in
1887.[676] It was the belief of Mr. Miller that it was Greg’s _History_
from which Mr. Andrews adduced the conclusion that “Lincoln was
controlled by fanatics and through perfidy and broken pledges forced
our Civil War.”[677] In his discussion of Greg’s book, Mr. Miller
failed to mention Greg’s characterization of Townshend’s work. In this
latter case it would seem that Greg ought to have met with approval,
for he described Townshend’s part in the Revolution as “folly,” as well
as saying that Townshend “pledged himself to a series of petty customs
imposts.”[678] Furthermore, he mentions Ethan Allen, Stark, Wayne,
St. Clair, Putnam, Sumter and Marion, and in that regard should prove
acceptable to those desiring the inclusion of heroic characters in
textbooks.[679]
On October 15, 1922, the Chicago _Herald and Examiner_ sought to expose
the agencies which ranged “all the way from the cultivation of ‘more
friendly relations’ to the fulfillment of the Carnegie prophecy of
the Reunited States, the British-American Union and the Cecil Rhodes
Design,”[680] and which were responsible for textbook revision.
Besides the “elaborate and well-oiled British propaganda machine
established by Sir Gilbert Parker and the late Lord Northcliffe,” Mr.
Miller had discovered “at least a full half dozen of strong propaganda
organizations” all of whose methods were “sinister and to the one
end.” Among these were the “Sons of St. George, an old organization
of British-born residents of this country” who, “within the last few
years,” had “emerged from obscurity through a hard drive for increased
membership and vigorous assertion of British spirit,” and who had
offered “the only open opposition which the Sons of the Revolution in
California have encountered in their winning fight against Anglicized
school histories....” In the California case, the opposition was
directed by “the American-born wife of a son of St. George and
from a daughter of the American Revolution who is a member of the
English-Speaking Union,” which exemplified “the favorite policy of all
of these British propaganda organizations” in which they “push their
American-born women to the front to do their open fighting.”[681]
The English-Speaking Union is another of the organizations of which Mr.
Miller spoke. Its magazine, _The Landmark_, has “bitterly attacked as
‘demagogic’ and ‘narrow-minded’ the movement to restore true American
history to our public schools”;--and “it arranges for the granting of
degrees by English universities to American collegiates who teach to
our youth the imperialistic interests of Great Britain.”[682]
The third agency for Anglicization, according to Mr. Miller, is the
Sulgrave Institute “founded upon the idea that George Washington has
loomed too large throughout the world ever to be belittled, and so must
be claimed as an Englishman, who established in this western world
English freedom.” A like fate Mr. Miller prophesied for Lincoln “for
whom there is now being provided an English lineage and an English
ancestral home, as a shrine where expatriate Americans may bend the
sycophantic knee in foolish worship of supposed English influences that
are said to have freed our slaves and saved our Union.”[683]
Other forces of like design Mr. Miller found in the “Cecil Rhodes
Scholarship, the Cecil Rhodes Secret Society and the Rhodes Scholarship
Alumni Association of America,” all influences for Rhodes’ dream--“the
ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part
of the British Empire.”[684] Of like character are “the multiform
Carnegie institutions, supported by the $200,000,000 fund of the
Carnegie Corporation, and designed to influence and direct the spirit
and methods of the scholastic, public school and library forces of
the country,” as well as the religious through the “Church Peace
Union.”[685] The World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship
through the Churches and The American Association for International
Coöperation are among the various influences named by Mr. Miller, which
seek to “Briticize” America.
One of the chief endeavors of “all of the propaganda organizations,”
according to Mr. Miller, is the substitution of the observance of
Magna Charta Day, June 15, for that of July the fourth. Such an
effort led him to conclude that “the international mind is a British
mind throughout. While insidiously seeking to denationalize America,
it is insistently striving to strengthen the nationalism of Great
Britain.”[686] Mr. Miller held as chiefly responsible for “this
de-Americanizing ‘dope’” Nicholas Murray Butler and “more than a score
of college presidents and professors, other educators and preachers,
who readily are traced into other British propaganda organizations
and are officially identified with various British secret services
in this country”; who through a system of pensions are “securely
subsidized into keen sympathy with the Carnegie design of ‘the Reunited
States--the British-American Union.’”[687]
The inclusion in American history textbooks of statements designed
to show that American constitutional practices had their source in
English institutions caused Mr. Miller to criticize not only Barnes,
O’Hara, McLaughlin and Van Tyne, against whom he had other grievances,
but also David Saville Muzzey and Willis Mason West. “Such is not
American history,” he declared, “it is British propaganda,” for even an
Englishman, Gladstone, has said, “The American Constitution is the most
wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose
of man.”[688] “Such disparagement in revised school history is not
mere unintentional error,” asserted Mr. Miller. “..., these and other
gross alterations recently made in ten of our school histories, are a
direct result of definite design and organized propaganda” conducted
by “propaganda associations pussyfooting among us ... to deaden our
respect for our own birthright, inoculate us with contempt for our free
institutions and fit us for coercion of re-colonization.”[689]
On November 4, 1923, however, the _New York American_ carried a
retraction of an attack on West’s _History of the_ _American People_
which “was printed in such a way as to lead readers to believe ...
that the statements [objected to by the Hearst papers] ... were made
without qualification.” The _American_ apologized for “inadvertently”
publishing part of a discussion in such a way as to distort “the
meaning of both paragraphs when read together.”[690]
As a result of the agitation of the Hearst newspapers the “treason
texts” were being revised, according to the Chicago _Herald and
Examiner_ of April 20, 1924. Among the authors attempting to
“re-Americanize” their histories were David S. Muzzey, who already had
made “three mincing revisions,” Andrew C. McLaughlin and C. H. Van Tyne
who have “at last submitted to the irresistible force of nation-wide
protest against treason texts and have strikingly reversed their
views....”[691]
However, Mr. Miller has not confined his activities solely to the
publication of articles in the Hearst newspapers, but has resorted
to other means for preaching his gospel. Through the agency of an
organization called the Patriot League for the Preservation of American
History he has endeavored to carry on his war against the “British
propagandists” and “to purge the public schools of the Anglicized
school histories and establish in their stead textbooks that teach the
true American annals and inculcate the true American spirit.”[692] The
slogan for the Patriot League is taken from Washington’s _Farewell
Address_: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure
you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican
government.”[693] Charges against “ten” Anglicized school histories
reincarnating “the spirit of Benedict Arnold” have been made by
the Patriot League in a pamphlet entitled “_Treason to American
Tradition_.” These charges have been indorsed and the accused books
condemned, in formal resolutions unanimously adopted in their national
conventions by the American Legion, the Descendants of the Signers
of the Declaration of Independence, the Grand Army of the Republic,
the Knights of Columbus, the Sons of the American Revolution, and
the United Spanish War Veterans.[694] The proscribed list includes
books under the authorship of Matthew Page Andrews, Albert Bushnell
Hart, John P. O’Hara, C. R. Ward, David Saville Muzzey, Willis Mason
West, William B. Guitteau, A. C. McLaughlin and C. H. Van Tyne,
Everett Barnes, and Edwin Greenlaw. The Patriot League concludes that
“the heroic history of a nation is the drum and fife music to which
it marches,” and that “it makes a mighty difference whether America
continues to quickstep to ‘Yankee Doodle’ or takes to marking time to
‘God Save the King.’”[695]
In commenting upon Mr. Miller’s pamphlet _The New York Times_ declared:
“Mr. Miller attempts in this pamphlet, through the quotation of
isolated sentences and passages, to prove that the authors whom he
criticized have no reverence for the Revolutionary leaders, preach the
doctrine that the colonists had no grievance against England, suppress
all the thrilling stories of valorous achievement on which our youth
used to be nourished, and make no use of authorities other than British
in commenting on the Revolution.
“What Mr. Miller does prove by all his toil is quite different, namely,
the undenied fact that our recent textbooks dealing with the early days
of the Republic have been compiled by men whose purpose, so far as they
had a purpose in addition to that of supplying accurate information,
has been to promote friendship between Great Britain and the United
States rather than to perpetuate their ancient animosities. That is a
crime in Mr. Miller’s eyes, for he holds and avows the strange belief
that school histories should be different for the children of different
countries....
“To argue with an upholder of that grotesque theory would be worse
than waste of time. Fortunately, Mr. Miller is alone in holding it,
except, perhaps, for the company of those whose hatred of England is so
fierce that for them any stone is good enough to throw at her....”[696]
AGITATION BY CATHOLICS AND IRISH
A desire to combat the tendency of recent textbooks to depict our
relations with England from a viewpoint not violently anti-British has
led an element of the Knights of Columbus to join in the movement for
expurgating textbooks. Their chief cause for complaint lies in the
narration of events of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and
in England’s attitude toward the Federal Government during the Civil
War. Joseph T. Griffin, in a pamphlet, _American History Must It Be
Rewritten to Preserve Our Foreign Friendships?_ regretfully remarks
that with the present-day presentation of the Revolutionary War in our
histories, “it will soon require more courage for Americans to believe
the Declaration of Independence than it did for Jefferson to write
it.”[697] Such a condition has arisen, according to Mr. Griffin because
of the fear of exciting antagonism toward Great Britain, whereas “the
only consideration which should guide the American writer of a history
text-book is whether the material he is to present ... is true as to
facts, ennobling as to sentiment, and stimulating to the morale of the
nation; and that while we are eager to preserve friendly relationships
with other nations, we are not willing to forego one iota of our
national glory or consign to oblivion any part of our historical
traditions.”[698]
The charge that a definite campaign of British propaganda had been
carefully inaugurated, Edward F. McSweeney, one-time head of the
Knights of Columbus Historical Commission, set forth in a pamphlet
entitled _America First_.[699] “According to our modern Tories in their
propaganda Campaign,” declared Mr. McSweeney, “Washington and his
colleagues were wrong, and only the leaders of an ignorant, criminal,
and cruel mob. American independence was only a sudden thought, and not
the result of long growth and development.”
In proof of the conspiracy charge the author showed by actual figures
the increase in the area of the English dominions during the past
three hundred years. This expansion he ascribed to the wrecking “of
every nation that aspired to be her competitor for any considerable
share of the world’s commerce or for equality of political power among
the States of the world”; for by “intrigue, propaganda and alliance”
Great Britain has “destroyed the commercial power of Spain, Holland,
Denmark, France, and as a result of the great world-war, of Russia,
Austria-Hungary and Germany.” Today, Mr. McSweeney pointed out, there
remain only two nations “which are real competitors of England--Japan
and the United States,” the former annexed by secret treaties and
alliances, the latter, in reality, being the sole competitor.[700]
It was Mr. McSweeney’s belief that the first effort of the pro-British
propagandists “_to undermine the foundations of our national life_”
was “_by tampering with the children in_ _the public schools_”; a
movement which had “made substantial progress,” for “the history of the
Revolution has been re-written to make it appear that the objections to
a connection with England, so important a hundred years ago, have been
to a large extent set aside, and that the time may come when through
some application of the Federal principle ... [the English-speaking
people] may come together into a vaster United States, the pathways to
whose scattered parts shall be the SUBJECTED seas.”[701]
This movement, he held, had been aided by some of the great publishing
houses of the United States, citing the words of George Haven Putnam,
“the head of one of the largest publishing houses in the country,” in a
Fourth of July speech made in London: “The feelings and prejudices of
Americans concerning their trans-Atlantic kinfolk were shaped for my
generation as for the boys of every generation that had grown up since
1775 on textbooks and histories that presented unhistorical, partisan
and often distorted views of the history of the first English colonies,
of the events of the Revolution, of the issue that brought about the
war of 1812-15, and the grievances of 1861-65.... Textbooks are now
being prepared which will present a juster historical account of events
of 1775-83, 1812-15, and 1861-65.... It is in order now to admit that
the loyalists had a fair cause to defend, and it was not to be wondered
at that many men of the more conservative way of thinking should have
convinced themselves that the cause of good government for the colonies
_would be better served by maintaining the royal authority and by
improving the royal methods, than by breaking away into the all-dubious
possibilities of independence_.”[702]
Some of the British proselytism, Mr. McSweeney attributed to a
propagandist campaign inaugurated by Lord Northcliffe, who left “one
hundred and fifty million dollars” and “ten thousand agents” in this
country.[703] “Local societies should be formed in every center to
foster British-American good-will, in close coöperation with an
administrative committee,” Lord Northcliffe is alleged to have said.
“_Important articles_ should be broken up into _mouthfuls_ for _popular
consumption_, and booklets, cards, pamphlets, etc., distributed through
organized channels to the public. Advertising space should be taken
in the press, on the hoardings, and in the street cars for steadily
presenting terse, easily read and remembered mind-compelling phrases
and easily grasped cartoons _that the public may subconsciously_ absorb
the fundamentals of a complete mutual understanding.” According to
Mr. McSweeney, the influence of this campaign is already evident in
textbooks for primary grades “in which more than ninety per cent of
the pupils are children of foreign born parents, or are themselves
foreign born.”[704] Authors of such textbooks, writers like Owen
Wister, Ex-President Taft, George Haven Putnam, Professor William L.
Cheney, Albert Shaw, President Judson of the University of Chicago,
Admiral Sims, and others are arraigned by McSweeney and charged with
un-Americanism.[705] The condemnation of Wister is based, in part,
on his statement that our school histories have been responsible for
keeping George III’s memory green, but that “A movement to correct the
school books has been started and will go on.”[706]
Of all the propagandist arguments set forth by England “the most
dangerous and un-American” in the opinion of the writer is that about
“Anglo-Saxon civilization.” “By dint of iteration and reiteration,”
declared Mr. McSweeney, “this uncontradicted falsehood has actually
brought about in the United States the subconscious acceptance of a
misleading idea, which during the last fifty years has grown, until
it is commonly used, yet nobody even knows what it means.... The
Anglo-Saxon tradition is a pure myth. To verify it is like looking at
midnight in a dark cellar for a black cat that isn’t there.” Nor did he
believe “the Anglo-Saxon impulse ... in the least responsible for the
progress of the United States. It had nothing to do with the Spanish
in Florida; the Huguenots in Virginia; the Swedes in Delaware and
New Jersey; the Dutch in New York and Pennsylvania, and the Celts in
Maryland and Pennsylvania.”[707]
Furthermore, this antagonist of Great Britain sought to controvert some
of the statements which would show that American institutions sprang
largely from England. He contended that never was there “a greater
falsehood” than the claim that the English were the founders of the
New England town meeting, for it arose from the Teutonic “folk mote”;
that it was unquestionably true that there is in the United States
scarcely a political or legal institution of English origin; that the
doctrine of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created
equal” was of Roman not English law; that the United States could not
get religious liberty from England, “because religious liberty did
not exist there”; that popular education, freedom of the press, the
secret ballot, the vast machinery of public charitable, reformatory and
poor administration were derived from other than English sources.[708]
With such an exposition, Mr. McSweeney arrived at the conclusion that
the part of “our legal system which is consistent with natural justice
comes from Rome; the incongruous, absurd and unjust features” from
England.[709]
The place of the Irish race in the making of America, Michael J.
O’Brien, chief historiographer for the American Irish Historical
Society, sought to establish in _A Hidden Phase of American History_.
It proposes to set forth “Ireland’s Part in America’s Struggle for
Liberty” and to lay bare “the heart of the Irish race in Ireland during
the War of Independence as beating in sympathy with the revolted
colonies in America,” to narrate the story of Irish contributions to
the Revolutionary army, and to establish a place of preëminence for the
Irish in the building of the Republic.[710] It runs, in its twenty-four
chapters, the gamut of the history of most of the colonies, depicting
the part played by the Irish. It is offered as an antidote to Bancroft,
Henry Cabot Lodge, and other American historians, and concludes its
narrative with a chapter on “America’s Debt to Ireland” in which is
set forth the plea for American aid for Ireland in her struggle for
independence.[711]
Of this book the _Irish World_ speaks with enthusiasm: “The most
repulsive snake in popular opinion is the cobra, famous in stories of
East Indian life.... Yet a little animal of the ferret type can kill
him in a brief fight, ... a frail but daring creature known as the
mongoose.... In the historical order we have the cobra, the repulsive
serpent who makes history a fountain of lies, whose fangs poison the
human race for centuries, whose history of the so-called Reformation
is the cobra of the past four centuries. The Anglo-Saxon history of
this continent is a cobra of the same species. It has poisoned the life
of the American people.... All the Anglo-Saxon writers from Bancroft
on, suppressed, ridiculed where they could not suppress, mutilated
where they could neither suppress nor ridicule, everything Irish in
American history. The Universities of Harvard, Yale and Columbia
have been conspicuous in spreading the poison, for that matter in
cultivating and intensifying its virulence, as their historians are
the best illustrations of the cobra’s viciousness and malignity. The
Catholic faith at this moment cannot get a hearing from them.... It is
pleasant to announce that the mongoose has arrived and is already at
work. His name is Michael J. O’Brien ... [who] has brought out a book
... called ‘A Hidden Phase of American History.’” His first battle is
with George Bancroft, “looked upon as our great historian, our most
dignified, honest and truthful writer.... Saturated with the poison of
the cobra George Bancroft could no more see and tell the truth about
the Catholics and the Irish than Sir Edward Carson or Tom Watson,” but
O’Brien “will kill the Anglo-Saxon cobra in this country. He is more
important than twenty cathedrals and one million orators. He should be
provided with a pension of one hundred dollars a week and let loose
upon the libraries and records of the Anglo-Saxon....”[712]
During 1921 and 1922 the Knights of Columbus, acting through an
Historical Commission, promoted a movement for original studies in
American history by offering prizes for original research. The purpose
of the society was “to encourage investigation into the origins and
achievements and the problems of the United States, to interpret and
perpetuate the American impulse, the impulse of the patriots who
founded and who through their successors, have preserved the Republic;
to promote American solidarity; and to exalt the American ideal.”[713]
The session of the Supreme Assembly which launched this project was
held May 28, 1921, at Chicago. According to John H. Reddin, Supreme
Master, it was their “aim to enlist a commission of leading historians
of diverse racial extraction and religious denominations” to prepare
twenty-four pamphlets “covering critical periods in the nation’s
history; the matter to be written direct from original sources,” and
the pamphlets to be distributed “in millions of copies to schools and
colleges, legislators and newspapers throughout the country.”[714]
The Thirty-Ninth International Convention of the Knights of Columbus,
with twenty thousand delegates in attendance, met at San Francisco
on August first. Among the activities which were endorsed was the
movement for a “propaganda proof” history at the cost of one million
dollars,[715] by which, if necessity demanded, every town in the
country could be flooded with pamphlets telling “the true tale of
America’s great origin and America’s greatness” and “stripped of all
manner of European or Asiatic coloring.”[716]
Shortly following this announcement of the plan of the Knights of
Columbus, Edward F. McSweeney, Chairman of the Historical Commission,
issued the following statement: “The Knights of Columbus history
movement aims at only one thing--the preservation of truth in the
writing of American history. Many of the textbooks used in our schools
are utterly unreliable on important phases of the nation’s story and
totally disregard many cardinal events and personages. The Knights of
Columbus oppose the cause of no other nation, they are simply aligning
the 800,000 members of the order in the production and distribution of
a straight-forward story, free from propaganda of any kind as to the
origin and development of this country.”
“An attempt is even now being made,” continues the statement, “and Dr.
Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, announced
his advocacy of it recently in London, to promote the celebration of
the signing of the Magna Charta in English-speaking countries. The
anniversary of the Magna Charta coming late in June, and being the
object of the celebration as the basis of liberty, which it is not,
would necessarily eclipse our own Independence Day, which, I believe,
is the ultimate object of the movement.... The Knights of Columbus
believe that the Declaration of Independence is an infinitely more
important and conclusive document than the Magna Charta.” Under the
compulsion of this belief they registered their opposition to “this and
other forms of un-American propaganda.”[717]
In December the movement for “Americanized” histories was furthered at
a meeting held at Washington, D. C., and the announcement was again
made that the Knights of Columbus would offer $7500 in prizes for
monographs in American history, the first prize to be $3000.[718]
According to _Columbia_, the organ of the Knights of Columbus,
their history program was attacked with “virulence” by “certain
organizations, dedicated to creating better Anglo-American relations.”
Thus, from the Loyal Coalition of Boston emanated the following
protest: “The obvious intention of a certain group, with the approval
of the French ambassador, to rewrite the history of the United States,
is an issue of the hour. Our whole educational system is seriously
menaced because of the influence of certain instructors who react to
aliens of hyphenated influence.”[719] The British-American Association
also showed their opposition by offering “a prize to be known as
the John Adams Gold Medal for the essay best setting forth the most
instances of the friendship of Great Britain toward America from 1600
to 1920.” This hostility was clearly evident to the Knights in the
statement of the organization: “To offset the work of the Fourth Degree
Knights of Columbus Historical Commission, whose Chairman, Edward F.
McSweeney, has declared that the English people, so far as they had any
voice, were substantially unanimous in their attitude, opposing the
aspirations of the Colonists for freedom and backed up by the King and
Parliament in continuing the fight for Colonial Liberty.”[720]
Yet not all Catholics gave unqualified endorsement to the Commission’s
activities. January 1, 1924, Mr. McSweeney’s chairmanship ceased.
In commenting upon the changed personnel of the Commission, _The
Fortnightly Review_, a Roman Catholic periodical, expressed the hope
that reorganization would “result in a more economical programme and
one that will really advance the cause of history.”[721]
“The organization of this Commission in the first place was a most
extraordinary procedure,” stated the _Review_. “A man whose work and
training had never been in the field of history, was chosen before the
members of the Commission were selected, and was given a salary that
amounted to more than twice the pay of a full professor of history in
our larger universities![722] When the personnel of the Commission was
announced, it was found to contain the name of but one professional
historian....[723] Unfortunately, the early statements appearing under
the imprint of the Commission, some utterances of the Chairman, and
some articles published in _Columbia_, were not calculated to remove
the existing impression that the Commission had no constructive
programme, ... and that the Chairman at least was willing to follow
‘the historical expert’ of the Hearst syndicate in the unjust, unfair,
unmerited, and uncalled for attack on certain history textbooks.”[724]
In the course of setting forth their arguments the pro-Irish criticized
certain textbooks in common use in the public schools. Albert Bushnell
Hart’s _School History of the United States_ was attacked because it
“attempts to show that the American Revolution was not justified” by
the following statements: “They [the colonists] were as well off as any
other people in the world. They were not desperately oppressed,”[725]
and “they enjoyed more freedom and self-government than the people in
England.”[726] And again, “Thousands of good people sincerely loved
Great Britain and were loyal to King George. The loyalists were harshly
put down.”[727] Hart, moreover, includes statements whose effect may
be “unquestionably bad” upon “the impressionable minds of the young,”
according to one critic.[728]
It was also held that the “National spirit” of the pupils will suffer
inevitably from such expressions of a “propaganda of palliation” as
appear in McLaughlin’s _History of the American Nation_. “And all this
means that while we speak, we shall probably always speak, of the
struggle between England and America, the war that ensued had many
of the features and many of the deplorable effects of a civil war.”
Besides, an attempt to abase the motives of the Revolutionary patriots
was plainly evident to objectors in the assertion that “Trivial
offenses on the part of governments cannot justify revolution. Only
oppression and serious danger can justify war. It cannot be said that
the Colonies had actually suffered much. It might be even seen that
the mother country was not at all tyrannical in taxing the Colonies to
pay for defending them, and beyond question George III and his pliant
ministers had no interest in treating the Colonies with cruelty.”[729]
Everett Barnes, too, was found culpable in assuming an “apologetic
attitude” toward the Revolution in his statement: “The disputes that
brought about the War were not between the Colonists and all the
English at home. They were rather between the Tories and the Whigs on
both sides of the sea, neighbor against neighbor. Had the great Whig
party in England been in power with Edmund Burke as its leader, it
would have checked the King in his foolish course.... Had there been no
war, this great country would probably now be a great branch of the
British Empire.”[730] Another occasion for grievance was discovered in
teaching that the War of 1812 was “a mistake,” and “a case in which
righteous anger overcame judgment,” when, in reality, “the events which
preceded the declaration of war were infinitely more humiliating to the
young nation than those which caused us to enter the World War.”[731]
When “Faneuil Hall, the cradle of liberty,” Nathan Hale, the Swedes
of New Jersey and Delaware, the Dutch of New York, the Germans of
Pennsylvania, the French of South Carolina, the Irish both North and
South are not mentioned as a part of the Revolution or are practically
ignored in the struggle for American independence, the would-be
revisionists feel there is just cause for remonstrance.[732] Therefore,
the Irish “solemnly protest” at “the diluted historical fluid served by
Barnes, Van Tyne, McLaughlin, Hart, and others,”[733] for “Americans
are not yet ready to accept a King.”[734]
GERMAN-AMERICAN AGITATION
Of similar purport has been the movement to disparage “denatured”
histories instituted by the Steuben Society, the successor of the
German-American Alliance. This organization has taken its name from
“the man that forged the tool which overthrew British tyranny.” Its
avowed purpose is to battle against “the sinister efforts that threaten
to pervert historical truth and independence of thought in this fair
country of ours.”[735] The membership is composed of men and women of
the German race who are citizens of the United States, excluding those
who were “shifters and trimmers during the War,” and “who are known to
possess no race pride.”[736] The chief medium for the dissemination of
information is the _S. S. Bulletin_. An article appearing in the issue
of February 15, 1922, set forth the attitude of the Steubenites toward
history textbooks, and acknowledged the indebtedness of the Society to
the Hearst newspapers for exposing “the conspiracy secretly to alter
United States school histories, so as to promote a British-American
union.”[737] In commenting upon the charge that school histories were
being edited by British propagandists, the _Bulletin_ pointed out that
“the public school is the fountain head of future citizenship. History
teaching is the chief source of patriotic spirit and purpose.... A
nation’s history is to its own people an essential force for national
pride, morale and solidarity.”[738]
Much of the irritation of the Germans toward “de-Americanized”
histories arose from the same source from which sprang the
dissatisfaction of the Knights of Columbus. Their chief causes for
complaint lay in the “defamation” of the nation’s “heroic characters,”
the “misrepresentation” of “the just causes of the American Revolution”
and of “the basic principles of the Republic,” besides “innumerable
inspiring episodes in our history [being] belittled or entirely
omitted” because of “the professed interest of Anglo-American
amity.”[739]
“Every true American,” asserted the Steubenites, “naturally resents
and resists the teachings in these books to our children that ‘the
President of the Continental Congress and first signer of the
Declaration of Independence was a smuggler, with no other mention
of Hancock from cover to cover,’ that Jefferson was ‘deserving of
a halter,’ and that Hamilton declared that ‘the people are a great
beast.’”[740] And although “nine revisionists give nine different
sets of causes for the American Revolution,” which are mutually
contradictory and contrary to the causes stated in the Declaration of
Independence, yet the Declaration continues to be “immortal” and “gives
the lie to all these anglicized revisions.”[741]
In addition to the “emasculation” of many intrinsically essential
historical “truths,” the pro-German controversialists found cause
for complaint in “the attempt to envelop the America of today in the
myth of Anglo-Saxon origin and kinship.” Such a procedure “wrongs the
colonial Germans and Dutch of Pennsylvania and New York, the Swedes of
New Jersey and Maryland, the French Huguenots of Carolina, the Irish of
all the colonies, [and] the Jews from every clime.”[742]
A confession of kinship of interest with the Knights of Columbus
movement is freely made in the acceptance of quotations demonstrating
the “baleful propaganda.”[743] The German-Americans are one with the
Irish-Americans in their feeling of humiliation at the thought of
having “the history of our national life for one hundred and forty-four
years declared a forgery,” and in seeing “it rewritten at the dictation
of the champions of a foreign power who repudiates the stand of their
forefathers.”[744]
It is precisely such a sentiment that influenced the American
Turner-Bund, formerly the American Gymnastic Union and made up
of Germans, at their annual convention in June, 1923, to endorse
the movement of the Sons of the American Revolution,--a movement
inaugurated “to revise history textbooks, ... with a view to
eliminating or correcting alleged distortion of facts.”[745] The
resolution of the Turner-Bund alleged that “many textbooks now in use
contain distinctly pro-French and pro-British statements, neglecting
throughout American history the work of the German people in its
development.”[746] The resolution further carried the indictment of a
school history which states that “Alsace-Lorraine was stolen in 1871
from France by Germany,” whereas, it was asserted, “France stole it
from Germany two hundred years before.”[747]
Besides the effort of the German-Americans “to put a stop to the
prevailing tendency to misuse our public schools for undermining
American sentiment in favor of British colonialism,” the Steuben
Society avowed as one of its purposes the desire to “foster in American
children of German blood a proper pride of ancestry as a necessary
basis of true American patriotism.”[748] Such is the intent of
Frederick Franklin Schrader in his book “_1683-1920_.” His purpose is
made clear by the following statement found in the preface:
“A blanket indictment has been found against a whole race. That race
comprises upward of 25 per cent of the American people and has been a
stalwart factor in American life since the middle of the seventeenth
century. This indictment has been founded upon tainted evidence. As
is shown in the following pages, a widespread propaganda has been,
and is still, at work to sow the seeds of discord and sedition in
order to reconcile us to a pre-Revolutionary political condition.
This propaganda has invaded our public schools, and cannot be more
effectively combatted than by education.” The assertion that a charge
of “German propaganda has no terrors for the author,” is also included
in the preface, for “statements of fact may be controverted; they
cannot be disproved by an Espionage Act, however repugnant their
telling may sound to the stagnant brains of those who have been
uninterruptedly happy because they were spared the laborious process of
thinking for themselves throughout the war, or that no inconsiderable
host which derives pleasure and profit from keeping alive the hope
of one day seeing their country reincorporated with ‘the mother
country’--the mother country of 30 per cent of the American people. It
is to arouse the patriotic consciousness of a part of the remaining 70
per cent that this compilation of political and historical data has
been undertaken.”[749]
To insure this “proper pride of ancestry” it is the opinion of
the author that there should be given greater publicity to German
contributions in the making of the United States. Among these
contributions, the Germans would have it a matter of more general
knowledge that the first iron works in this country were established
by a German (Thomas Reuter in 1716); that the first American-printed
Bible was printed by a German (Christopher Sauer in 1743); that the
first paper to print the Declaration of Independence in America was the
_Pennsylvania Staatsboten_ of July 5, 1776; that it was the Germans
who first called Washington “the father of his country”; that General
Herkimer of Oriskany was of German extraction; that Steuben formulated
the principles and regulations that governed the American army when
it was created; that Germans have contributed valuable inventions;
that Lincoln was of German descent; that Molly Pitcher was a German;
and that of the ideals of liberty and of education the Germans were
conspicuous creators.[750]
Nor would the Germans have the Americans forget such incidents as the
saving by Germans of American refugees from a “bloodthirsty mob of
Mexicans at the Southern Hotel, Tampico, Mexico,” through their aid in
1914,[751] the help of Germans in holding Fort McHenry in the War of
1812,[752] and that “the German element furnished nearly 200,000 men,
natives of Germany” for the Northern army in the Civil War.[753]
THE CENSORSHIP OF PATRIOTIC GROUPS, FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS
Other agencies than the Hearst newspapers and those groups united by
religious and racial bonds have interested themselves in attacking the
histories used in the public schools. Most active among these censors
are various patriotic organizations and individuals, notably newspaper
editors. Through such forces many investigations of textbooks have been
undertaken, resulting, at times, in the exclusion of the books under
criticism from the public schools.
During the World War, European history textbooks bore the brunt of
attack. Discussions tending to bestow praise upon the Central Powers,
or in any way to disparage the institutions or prowess of the Allies,
were deemed disloyal to the cause in which the United States was
engaged. Not only were history textbooks condemned but also textbooks
in foreign language, particularly in German. The same spirit showed
itself in many avenues through which public opinion could be affected.
Thus a federal judge enjoined the production of “The Spirit of ’76,” a
film depicting the Wyoming Massacre and Paul Revere’s ride, because it
tended “to make us a little bit slack in our loyalty to Great Britain
in this great emergency.”[754]
To those who feared a diluted Americanism, it seemed quite apparent
that sinister forces were abroad, and in the attacks made upon authors
of history textbooks, it was frequently charged that the preparation
of school histories was in the hands of German paid agents. Indeed,
the activities of pro-German forces to control the content of history
textbooks, it was alleged, had been operating for some time, and since
1915 had been directed by Dr. Dernburg, under whom definitely made
plans had been perfected.[755] This conclusion was reached by the
skeptical when to one of his agents was attributed this statement: “The
Americans do not love the British, and they are inclined to like the
Germans. By controlling the preparation of school histories, we can
begin to make Americans from the time they are children see the German
point of view.”[756]
Among the organizations which feared the inculcation of disloyalty
through a study of history as commonly written was the Fathers of
Soldiers and Sailors League. It was through their influence that the
James Harvey Robinson histories were excluded from the schools of Des
Moines, Iowa, because of the statement regarding Germany contained
in these books.[757] Among the objections raised against Robinson’s
_Medieval and Modern Times_ were the characterization of the German
government, the failure to fix the responsibility upon Germany for
bringing about the World War, and the discussion of the violation of
“all laws of humanity as well as of international law” by Germany. In
addition to criticisms directed against the 1916 edition of this book,
the Des Moines objectors felt that there was a pro-German bias evident
in the 1918 Supplement in such a statement as the following: “So while
Germany was able, as we shall see, to conquer important portions of
Central Europe as the war proceeded, she lost all her colonies. The
question whether she is to have them back or not will be one of the
great problems to adjust at the end of the war.”[758]
The same organization identified itself with a movement in California
to investigate the content of history textbooks. In July, 1918, the
State Board of Education directed that all textbooks in American and
European history appearing upon the official list of high school
textbooks be submitted to a committee of expert historians for review,
to determine whether such textbooks were objectionable on the ground
of being pro-German or containing matter which might be offensive to
the American allies in the World War. On September 18, the committee
reported, and the following books were stricken from the official
list: Botsford, _A Brief History of the World_, Myers, _Mediaeval and
Modern History_, and Myers, _General History_. Robinson’s _Medieval and
Modern Times_, edition of 1916, was also eliminated from the official
list, but the edition with the supplement of 1918 was substituted upon
condition that the publishers make certain changes in the revised
edition. Robinson and Beard, _Outlines of European History, Part II_,
was banned until a specified revision should take place. Of the books
examined, the committee found no important objections to Andrews,
_Short History of England_, Ashley, _Early European Civilization_,
Cheyney, _Short History of England_, Harding, _New Mediaeval and
Modern History_ (edition of 1918), Robinson and Breasted, _Outlines
of European History, Part I_, Webster, _Early European History_, and
West, _Modern World_. The committee rendered decisions against the
Myers histories because they represented a viewpoint opposed to that
of the time. Botsford’s textbook was found objectionable because it
was “favorable to the acts of Germany and critical to an unjust degree
of the acts of the ... allied nations,” and because it presented the
causes of the American Revolution in a “bald form.”[759]
Other places, actuated by similar sentiments, interested themselves
in the character of history instruction. Seattle, Washington, became
the center of a controversy between the school superintendent and the
teachers on the one hand, and two of the school directors on the other,
regarding Robinson and Beard’s _Outlines of European History_.[760]
As a result of the discussion, the book was thrown out of the Seattle
schools until the expurgation and revision should occur.[761]
In Montana, the State Council of Defense ordered the withdrawal
of West’s _Ancient World_ from circulation in all public and
school libraries, because they objected, among other things, to an
introductory statement that “the settlement of the Teutonic tribes was
not merely the introduction of a new set of ideas and institutions ...
it was also the introduction of fresh blood and youthful minds--the
muscle and brain which in the future were to do the larger share of the
world’s work.”[762]
Due to the same point of view and under the same compulsion, the
Commissioner of Education of Rhode Island in 1918 undertook an
investigation of the textbooks in use in that state, and found
objectionable “various text-books designed for sixth grade history
according to the report of the committee of eight.” In a large number
of books [were found] ... “various references to the Germans which, in
the light of recent developments, are to be regarded as incorrect or
exaggerated statements....” And it was considered “objectionable to
place before the children of America statements which are, or which
will appear to them to be, laudatory of the people with whom we are
at war or adversely critical of our own people.”[763] The use of
histories considered “offensive” was also discontinued in the states
of Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, and Oklahoma, either through the action of
the office of the state superintendent or some other official.[764]
Doubtless in other states the action of local boards brought about the
same result.
New textbooks, syllabi and other teaching aids appeared. Superintendent
William L. Ettinger of the New York City schools, for example, in 1918
issued a syllabus on the War designed to aid teachers in “imparting a
correct intellectual understanding of the causes, events and issues of
the war,” as well as to help them in inspiring “the pupils with a love
for the ideals and an appreciation of the sacrifices of our country.”
For, he held that “the American Army of the future, both men and women,
are in our schools today.” Dr. Ettinger’s letter to the Principals of
High Schools declared that “History should be taught so that a deep
emotional appeal” should be made in all topics; that “a lasting effect”
could “be produced on the ideals, purposes and emotions of the child
only by arousing deep feeling in connection with the presentation of
the subject matter.” In the event of adding new material as the War
progressed, it was required that “all such material ... be approved by
the Principal of the School before ... used in the classroom.”[765]
As in all books which were meeting the popular demand of the time,
the _Syllabus_ made Germany “the only country in the world that was
prepared and anxious for war” because of her autocratic government,
the character of the Kaiser, militarism and navalism, Germany’s desire
for world domination, and the insidious inculcation of loyalty in the
German people through the Prussian system of education.
The insistence of the American people that histories in the schools
should not be in any degree “laudatory” of the enemy peoples nor
“unfavorable” to our allies in arms led to the revision of many
textbooks after April, 1917. Since 1923 these revisions, in turn,
have been criticized in the light of recently published documents
relating to the origin of the War. Although the question of war guilt
is still held by many historians as debatable, it is pointed out in
_The Freeman_ for June, 1923, that probably “children have already been
indoctrinated with a theory that leaves no excuse for uncertainty, no
opening for new evidence and no stimulus to free thought.”[766]
With this condition in mind, critics have assembled their arguments
against certain textbooks in European history found in the public
schools. Because it made Germany primarily responsible for the
World War objection was raised to _The Story of Human Progress_ by
Willis Mason West, an author but a short time before criticized for
pro-Germanism.[767] Roscoe Lewis Ashley is challenged for saying in his
_Modern European Civilization_ that “Germany wanted war and determined
to rule or ruin ... and a war which in the true sense had been made
‘in Germany’ was a reality”; while Webster, in his _Modern European
History_, is criticized for the statement that “There is no longer any
need to fix the responsibility for the World War. That the German
government planned it and precipitated it has been made evident by the
avowal of the Germans themselves.”[768]
The interpretation placed upon the causes leading to the War by Charles
Downer Hazen in his _Modern Europe_ has likewise been condemned. For
Hazen “summarizes the case as follows: ‘The world was stunned by the
criminal levity with which Austria-Hungary and Germany had created this
hideous situation. The sinister and brutal challenge was, however,
accepted immediately and with iron resolution by those who had done
their utmost during those twelve days to avert the catastrophe.’”[769]
A criticism by Professor Harry E. Barnes directed for the same reason
at the textbooks of this author provoked a spirited exchange of opinion
in the spring of 1924. Professor Hazen upheld his interpretation as to
Germany’s guilt, while Professor Barnes asserted that such a point of
view was untenable in the light of official documents made known since
the War.[770]
Other writers of European histories used in the schools have not
escaped. According to _The Freeman_, Robinson and Beard, in their
_History of Europe Our Own Times_, seem to have been “more or less
taken” with the plan of leaving the “readers to draw their own
conclusions” in their chapter on the origin of the War. Disapproval
arose out of the statement that “the assertions of the German leaders
that England desired war and was responsible for it are, of course, as
the rest of the world knows, wholly without foundation in fact,” and
because of the quotation from Prince Lichnowsky indicting Germany.[771]
On the other hand, _Modern History_, by Hayes and Moon, is given a
clean bill of health because of its treatment of this controversial
subject. The critic, however, pointed out, in fairness to the other
writers criticized, that “in the interval that has elapsed since the
appearance of the other texts ..., certain new items of evidence had
been brought forward and the general war-fever had abated somewhat. The
authors of the new book therefore enjoyed certain special advantages,
which help, no doubt, to explain the novel tone....”[772]
Not only has the treatment of the origin of the War been a source
of criticism but also the divergent points of view regarding German
atrocities, reparations and the Treaty of Versailles. On these
points Professor Donald Taft in his study “Historical Textbooks and
International Differences” has declared that American pupils are taught
from two kinds of textbooks, one group being “bitterly anti-German”
and the other attempting a fairness of judgment. Of this he cites
Guitteau’s _Our United States_ and Long’s _America_ as examples.[773]
Much the same point of view is held by Isabel Kendig-Gill in a
pamphlet “War and Peace in United States History Text-Books,” in which,
in addition, she declares that “nowhere is there any fundamental
analysis either of the political and economic situation out of which
the war grew or of its spiritual and moral costs to the world.”[774]
Following the close of the World War, the place of prominence held by
the histories of Europe in the critic’s eye was eclipsed by American
histories. A desire to depict events favorable to the Allies was
superseded by the apprehension that such a narrative would prove the
undoing of American patriotism. This apprehension was mingled in the
minds of many with the fear that the solid pillars of society were
being threatened with radicalism and socialism. In this spirit, for
example, attacks on history textbooks were inaugurated by the editor
of _The Daily Courier_ of Ottumwa, Iowa. On March 2, 1919, under the
caption, “Get a New History,” appeared an editorial attacking Muzzey’s
_An American History_ because of its “socialistic trend” and its
treatment of the period since the Civil War.[775] Two years later, due
to the energy of the editor of the Ottumwa _Daily Courier_, Governor
Nate Kendall of Iowa was asked by the joint committee on Americanism
of various patriotic and civic organizations to appoint a commission
“to investigate anti-American and radical teaching in state owned
institutions and the public schools.” The action of the committee was
prompted by the information “that there were good reasons to believe
that some of the textbooks on American History used in our schools
were wanting in national and patriotic spirit and sentiment; that they
failed to instil devotion to American ideals, and pass[ed] over lightly
events in American history which should ... stimulate pride of country,
patriotism and devotion to our institutions.”[776] No action was taken
by the Governor.
One of the most active organizations in the present-day movement to
remodel the content of history textbooks has been the Sons of the
American Revolution. In 1917 at the instigation of the Executive
Committee of the National Society an examination of Muzzey’s
_An American History_ was undertaken by Judge Wallace McCamant,
later president-general of this organization. His verdict was
unfavorable; and as a result the book was excluded from the public
schools of Portland, Oregon, and Evanston, Illinois. Although a
revised edition later appeared, this critic still believed Muzzey a
“political partisan” and his history unsuitable for use in the public
schools.[777] One of the most “grievous faults” which Muzzey committed,
in the opinion of Judge McCamant, was in his discussion of the American
Revolution, wherein he spoke “contemptuously of Hancock, Warren, Otis
and the Adamses” in calling them “patriots” with quotation marks
attached to the word.[778] He was held equally culpable because the
Revolutionary dispute is said to have involved “a debatable question,”
a statement, which, in the critic’s mind, should disqualify him from
writing a school history.[779] Yet a reading of the statement in its
context conveys a different meaning from that suggested by Judge
McCamant, for Muzzey declares: “Until the Declaration was published
the Tories and Loyalists, of whom there were tens of thousands in
the American colonies, were champions of one side of a debatable
question, namely, whether the abuses of the King’s ministers justified
resistance; but after the Declaration loyalty to the King of Great
Britain became treason to their country.” The reviewer found other
grievous faults in that “the author contemptuously refers to the
speeches and papers of Henry and the Adamses as ‘their rhetorical
warnings’ against being ‘reduced to slavery’”; that only one sentence
is devoted to Bunker Hill; that there is “no mention of the death of
Joseph Warren”; that there is “no reference to the gallantry with
which the Americans defended the rail fence and the redoubt”; and
only a brief mention of Lexington and Ticonderoga. “Aside from four
sentences,” only “seven pages” are devoted “to the Revolutionary War,”
when the “students in our public schools should be taught that our free
institutions were won by heroism and sacrifice.”[780] Other omissions
of “essential” facts were the failure to describe the work of Marion,
Sumter, Pickens and Williams; no mention being made of Gansevoort,
Anthony Wayne or Stony Point, Light Horse Harry Lee or Paulus Hook,
Bennington or John Stark.
Carrying the criticisms further, it was alleged that this history
contains inaccuracies and unfair statements; that it is full of
partisanship of a political character; that it gives a biased treatment
of controversial subjects; and is pro-British.[781] It was the belief
of the reviewer, moreover, that controversial subjects like the tariff
have no place in a high school textbook, for “whatever the views of
a citizen may be on this subject he should be permitted to send his
children to school without having them taught that his own views on
this question are unsound.” Characterization of Mr. Wilson’s policies,
“particularly as set forth in his ‘New Freedom’ as an economic
Declaration of Independence,” also struck a discordant note. Class
distinctions are also made conspicuous, the reviewer declared, as in
such a statement as “Federalism, which stood in John Adams’ phrase,
for government by ‘the rich, the well-born and the able’”; and in “The
failure of the South to get rid of slavery in the early decades of the
nineteenth century must be set down to the domination of a class of
rich, aristocratic planters.”[782]
During the year 1923 the activities of the Sons of the American
Revolution became diversified to the extent that their report on
Patriotic Education dealt with several American histories. This
report was actuated by the interest that had been shown in the
“National Congress” meeting at Springfield in May, 1922, when that
body expressed a deep interest in “the subject of American history
textbooks” and resolved that the Committee on Patriotic Education “take
needful measures to eliminate from our schools” all objectionable
textbooks.[783]
In their review of American histories, the Committee found “a
great deal of inaccuracy and considerable propaganda bearing on
political questions which still divide the people.”[784] They held
as “fundamental defects and those which are most clearly subject to
criticism at the hands of a patriotic society ... inadequate and
unsympathetic treatment of the American Revolution and a treatment of
events in our recent history in such a manner as to inculcate loyalty
to class rather than to country.”[785] The Committee, furthermore,
emphasized the importance of a study of an untainted American history,
one teaching “a veneration of the great men of our past” as “the best
antidote for radical and disintegrating propaganda.” They maintained
that “the chief purpose to be subserved in teaching American history
is the inculcation of patriotism.”[786] To devote only ten pages out
of five hundred to a discussion of the Revolutionary War laid the
author open to criticism by patriotic groups; and such inadequate
treatment could not be excused on the ground that the book was written
for advanced students who have gathered the necessary details in
the elementary grades. The works of Fiske, Schouler, Trevelyan, and
Lodge, although written for adults, discussed these details, which, in
itself, was proof of their value to the Committee who were considering
textbooks.
In the examination of history textbooks the Committee found “the
McLaughlin and Van Tyne, O’Hara, Everett Barnes, Hart, James and
Sanford, Muzzey and West histories objectionable in the treatment of
the American Revolution.”[787] The Muzzey, West and Burnham histories
were described also as “open to criticism on the ground of class
hatred.” Because the objections to Muzzey’s and West’s books were
based on more than one ground for complaint, separate criticisms were
published by the Committee, which were “widely circulated.”[788]
On the other hand, endorsement was accorded to Gordy’s textbook and
the Thwaites and Kendall history for grammar school use. For the high
school the Committee recommended the amended edition of Guitteau’s book
and the Halleck history.[789]
As a result of their agitation, according to the Report, the Everett
Barnes history had been amended and the author had removed from it
the aspersions on John Hancock. The Committee wished to distinguish
sharply, however, between this Barnes and “the old Barnes history
which has always been sound in its Americanism.”[790] They desired
also to recommend “without qualification” the history of Dr. Edward
Channing, who at their request had signified his willingness to make
suggested changes in his textbook. With evident approval they quoted
the following statement from William J. Long, “author of the latest
history published by Ginn and Company” in which he said: “What I missed
in our histories, especially those of recent date, was the spirit of
devotion without which the mere facts of history have little interest
or consequence to my boy and your boy.”[791]
The efforts of the national group received the active support of many
local units. Under the direction of “Compatriot S. T. Cameron of the
District of Columbia Society” the Piney Branch Citizens’ Association of
Washington, D. C., opened fire on Muzzey’s _An American History_ for
the reasons frequently assigned, and circulated, according to Judge
McCamant, “a scholarly brief” that proved this textbook “hopelessly
unfit for school use.”[792]
Among the standards which the Piney Branch Citizens’ Association set
up for a textbook in American history were: that it should assume “an
unquestioning attitude toward the sincerity, the aims or the purpose
of the founders of this Republic or of those who have guided its
destinies; that it should contain no material that tends to arouse
political, racial, or religious controversy or hatred”; that it should
“emphasize the principles and motives that were of the greatest
influence in the formation and development” of the government; that
“it must incite in the pupil ideals of patriotic and civic duty,” as
well as cultivating “an appreciation of the hardships endured and the
sacrifices made in establishing and defending American ideals.”[793]
No success attending their efforts to eliminate this textbook from the
acceptable list in the Washington schools, the Piney Branch Association
continued their attack. On April 25, 1923, a public hearing was given
Professor Muzzey and his critics, at which “more than one hundred
persons, including school officials, teachers, civic leaders and
interested students ... listened attentively to the arguments pro and
con which continued for nearly four hours.”[794] In defending himself,
Professor Muzzey declared that Mr. Cameron had “garbled the facts and
twisted phrases in a way” that was “absolutely unfair”; that he had
taken “certain words and sentences and read them without the complete
section,” which, in many cases, put “an entirely different aspect upon
them.”[795] With Mr. Cameron, in criticizing adversely this American
history, was Charles Edward Russell of the “Patriot League for the
Preservation of American History.” He regarded the book as “‘a grave
public menace,’” and declared that “the school children in the heart
of China” were being taught “a more accurate account of the American
revolution than those in the Washington schools.”[796]
On the other hand, unqualified endorsement was given the textbook by
Superintendent of Schools Frank W. Ballou. George J. Jones, head of
the history department of the Washington high schools, emphasized “the
destructive nature” of the attack and “pointed out that all of the
teachers of American history in the local high schools vouch[ed] for
its patriotism....”[797] In support of Mr. Jones were Dr. George M.
Churchill and Elmer L. Kayser, professors of American history at George
Washington University, Dr. Charles E. Hill, professor of political
science at the same university, Dr. Leo F. Stock, professor of history
at the Catholic University, and Rear Admiral George W. Baird, former
president of the Board of Education.[798]
In commenting upon this and other attacks directed against this
textbook, Carson C. Hathaway in _The Dearborn Independent_ for October
23, 1923, declared: “To Muzzey, history is a review of _what_ happened
and an important analysis of _why_ it happened. To those who desire to
be thrilled by the familiar stories of our national heroes, the text
may not be satisfying. But perhaps there is enough thrill in even an
unbiased treatment of American history to satisfy any thoughtful and
patriotic American.”[799]
In November, 1922, the Kentucky branch of the Sons of the American
Revolution addressed a communication to nine educational institutions
requesting the exclusion of Muzzey’s _An American History_ from the
lists of approved textbooks, because of its “flippant, inaccurate and
unsympathetic” content-matter.[800] Failure to inculcate “reverence
for our Revolutionary fathers and their ideals” besides its “callous
indifference” in the treatment of battles and heroes appeared to the
Kentucky Sons characteristic of this book.
As a comment on their action, the _Louisville Times_ editorially
remarked:
“If the Sons of the American Revolution in Kentucky have discovered
a public school text-book of history that is unfair to the national
record that book is lonesome. The _Times_ is not familiar with the
work of Professor Muzzey of New York, which the society at its meeting
last night denounced as ‘unpatriotic, unfair, inaccurate, partisan,
closely bordering on the socialistic and lacking in Americanism.’ But
for many years in the public schools of the United States courses
have been full of text-books on history which committed most of these
crimes in reverse order, by misstating all facts relating to the
foreign controversies of the United States and the wars fought by this
nation.
“The Muzzey book may be all that is charged against it. If so, it
is remarkable that it was adopted in the Kentucky schools after
considerable investigation; that it was not complained of during the
inquiry into history text-books in New York; that the University of
Kentucky recommended it....
“But unless the book is unfair and inaccurate it should be defended
against attack. The valor of ignorance is asserting itself in all
quarters of America. Calmly content for several generations to study
histories that were grossly unfair to every other nation in the world,
some portion of the American public have lately gotten into the
book-censoring business....
“... The ancestors of the gentlemen who sat last night resented
nothing more than censorship of all kinds. They wanted to settle for
themselves what they should read, eat, drink, wear and do. The era of
Jefferson and Franklin and Samuel Adams was not the era of excision
and paternalism.”[801]
The _Courier-Journal_ also, in an editorial on “Writing History,”
stressed the new values which have developed in the scientific
presentation of history, causing “a fresh and clarified perspective.”
To the _Courier-Journal_ Muzzey’s textbook represented “the newer
tendencies in historical writing,” and aimed wisely “to give the
emphasis to those factors in our national development, which appeal
to us as the most vital from the standpoint of today.” The editorial
commended it for omission of facts which could easily be found
elsewhere, and because of its non-sectionalism.[802]
Action similar to that taken by the Kentucky chapter occurred in
California, where not only the Sons of the American Revolution but
the Sons of the Revolution instituted a search for “anti-American”
histories. Here the latter organization, under the leadership of Frank
H. Pettingell, in an effort to gain converts to their point of view,
distributed to all school districts Charles Grant Miller’s pamphlet
_Treason to American Tradition_.[803] By the former organization
two detailed reports regarding Muzzey’s _An American History_ were
issued, the one expressing the opinion of a majority of a committee
to investigate this book, and the other setting forth the views of a
dissenting member.
The majority report revealed no criticisms which had not been presented
in the National Report.[804] On the other hand, the minority statement
included four points: first, that “fairness requires that if we are
to pass upon the histories used in the schools, there should be an
examination of those in general use, not merely one; second, if there
is to be a critical examination of histories in use in the schools
of this country, it should be by a committee composed of members
sufficiently acquainted with the writing and teaching of history, that
their report may be comprehensive and scientific, as well as patriotic;
third, the majority report fails to consider thoroughly the purpose
for which this history was written; and fourth, the history should be
judged by its whole tone and spirit and purpose, and not by words and
sentences isolated from their context.”[805]
In analyzing the textbook and comparing statements with those cited in
the majority report as reprehensible, the minority report accepted the
principle adopted by some textbook writers, namely, that biographical
history should be left to the elementary grades and the study of
institutional development to the secondary school.
As a result of this agitation, the Commissioner of Secondary Schools
of California appointed a committee to investigate history textbooks.
They reported that none of the books examined were found tainted by
disloyal or unpatriotic sentiments, and that the attacks against
history textbooks were due to a “revival of pro-German sentiment,” to
“an ineradicable Irish anti-British sentiment,” to a “journalistic
opposition to Great Britain,” and “to an element of political reaction
against the domestic legislation of recent years.”[806]
In Ohio, also, the Sons of the American Revolution at their state
convention in Cleveland in May, 1923, condemned Muzzey’s _An American
History_ and adopted a resolution that no textbook should be used
in the schools “which belittles the founders of our government or
minimizes their achievements.”[807]
During Education Week in 1922, the Idaho Society Sons of the American
Revolution, under the leadership of Captain A. H. Conner, started an
agitation against the _History of the American People_ by Willis Mason
West, resulting in the exclusion of this book from the Boise schools.
Criticized in much the same manner as Muzzey’s _An American History_,
this textbook was held unfit to “be found in a single school in the
United States of America.”[808] To Captain Conner, the treatment of
historical incidents, not only in the Revolutionary period and in the
War of 1812, but in the Civil War and recent period, deserved severe
condemnation.
Objection was raised to the treatment accorded battles in the American
Revolution and in the War of 1812, as well as that of controversial
questions which have “no place in a history.”[809] From the latter,
Captain Conner adduced that “the author of this book is quite evidently
a free trader.” The discussion of the labor question, socialism, the
direct primary, the initiative, the referendum, the League of Nations
and other “controversial subjects,” such as were found in this book
“are out of place in a school history.” Furthermore, it was charged
that the book “excuses the South for its disgraceful treatment of Union
soldiers in military prisons, (p. 566), states that Robert E. Lee ranks
among the noblest figures in American history and practically accuses
Grant of being in collusion with the ‘Whiskey Ring.’”[810]
Captain Conner’s criticism of West’s discussion of the Civil War period
gained ready converts to his point of view, and the Phil Sheridan Post
Number 4 of the Grand Army of the Republic issued a denunciation of the
textbook as “worse than a travesty on justice, and a slam in the face
of true Americans.”[811]
These and other efforts of the Sons of the American Revolution to
censor history textbooks have resulted in their elimination from
many lists of approved textbooks. According to F. W. Millspaugh,
vice-president of the Tennessee chapter, “efforts to have certain
books withdrawn from public schools in Tennessee and Alabama have been
unvaryingly successful.”[812] Muzzey’s history, according to Judge
Wallace McCamant, was excluded from the schools of Adrian, Michigan,
Murfreesboro and Nashville, Tennessee, Florence, Alabama, and a number
of schools in Kentucky, and “all of the objectionable histories ...
from the schools of Indiana on a hearing before the textbook commission
and as a result of the attack made upon them by the Sons of the
American Revolution.”[813] According to Captain Conner, “Muzzey’s
history has been taken out of the schools of Burley, Coeur d’Alene,
Idaho Falls, Nampa and Pocatello, and West’s history has been taken out
of Boise as a result of the activities of the National Society acting
through the Idaho Society.”[814]
Although many places have barred the books under suspicion, success
has not everywhere attended the efforts of the Sons of the American
Revolution. This is accounted for by Judge Wallace McCamant because
of “the attempt made by the educators responsible for its [a book’s]
presence to defend their action,” and because “the publishers of
these objectionable books are strongly entrenched in educational
circles....”[815]
But others than “the educators” and “the publishers” have opposed
the efforts of the Sons of the American Revolution in their attempts
at textbook censorship. “Individual members” of the organization “in
Rhode Island, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Ohio, South Dakota
and California have taken issue publicly with the work of ... the
[national] Committee.”[816] For example, the historian of the Passaic
Valley (New Jersey) chapter, in reviewing Muzzey’s textbook, asserted
that “the whole trend of the book is to tell the logical course of
events, and to explain the causes of events,” and that there was “no
ground” for Judge McCamant’s observation that “the author has ‘no
abiding conviction in American fundamentals; no enthusiastic veneration
for the great men who founded the Republic.’”[817]
Other dissenters from Judge McCamant’s opinion were in general
agreement with this statement, another member of the Sons of the
American Revolution suggesting that “one must surmise that Judge
McCamant came to the book determined to be displeased.”[818]
A mutuality of interest with the Sons of the American Revolution
in censoring school histories is seen in the action of the Sons of
the Revolution at St. Louis in December, 1922. Aroused by an address
of Roy F. Britton, president of the local chapter, a resolution to
investigate history text-books used in the St. Louis schools was
unanimously adopted. In Major Britton’s report to the local chapter
he expressed disapproval of Muzzey’s _An American History_ and Hart’s
_School History of the United States_, books which he himself had
examined, as well as condemning Ward’s edition of Burke’s _Speech on
Conciliation with America_ and Guitteau’s _Our United States_, which
he had not examined. The last two books used in the St. Louis schools
were also classed with the “de-Americanized” histories because “several
men of prominence, apparently speaking with authority, as well as
certain patriotic societies and newspapers have denounced” them.[819]
McLaughlin and Van Tyne’s _A History of the United States for Schools_
and West’s _History of the American People_ were cited likewise as
examples of the “revisionists’ methods” according to men like Charles
Grant Miller and Charles Edward Russell.[820] Major Britton’s efforts
received the approval of some of the newspapers of St. Louis for the
“real service” he had rendered,[821] one editorial remarking that
school histories should set forth that the American Revolution was “a
tremendous exhibit of resolution and courage to set at naught the most
powerful military and naval country of the time.”[822]
Other patriotic organizations have likewise attested their interest in
the status of present-day history instruction. The Descendants of the
Signers of the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1922, at their
national convention, asserted an aversion to public school histories
which would “misinterpret the men and measures, manners and methods and
the great events of the Revolution and the subsequent periods leading
up to the Constitution of 1787.”[823] The Veterans of Foreign Wars
in National Encampment on August 24, 1922, “indignantly” protested
against the alleged un-American histories, and commended Charles Grant
Miller for his “patriotic service” in exposing and checking “a sinister
attempt to degrade our country’s history.”[824]
Similar action was taken by the New York State Department, Grand Army
of the Republic, in 1923, in demanding the presentation of “true
American history,”[825] and by the National Society Daughters of the
American Revolution in 1923.[826] The United Spanish War Veterans
in annual convention deplored the “British propaganda” found in a
school history,[827] and the Veterans of the Seventy-Eighth Division
of the American Legion at Atlantic City, in September, 1923, passed
resolutions for the suppression and removal from the schools of all
unpatriotic textbooks and “particularly history books.”[828]
These criticisms upon history textbooks impelled the American Legion
to undertake, in 1922, the writing of an American history. This
project received the endorsement of more than fifty national patriotic
societies, but the preparation of the textbook was first entrusted to
Charles F. Horne, professor of English in the College of the City of
New York and editorial director of the American Legion. According to
Mr. Horne, the Legion had as a purpose “an absolutely honest history
... in no sense boastful or extravagant.”[829] In the statement of
their principles, the Legion expressed a desire that their history
“speak the truth, so that no child learns afterwards to distrust
it. But in telling the truth it must be careful to tell the truth
optimistically. It will mention the blunders of the past so that the
child learns to be careful; but it must dwell on failure only for its
value as a moral lesson, must speak chiefly of success....”[830]
The Legion, among other things, likewise set up as a principle for
their textbook the inspiration of patriotism. Upon “every page a vivid
love of America” must be preached. It was their conviction that such
a book should “encourage patriotism, strengthen character, stimulate
thought and impress the worth of Truth.”[831]
In 1925, _The Story of Our American People_ expressed in a tangible
form the aims of the Legion. Two volumes offer solace to those whose
sensibilities have been wounded by the treatment accorded events in
the American histories most commonly used in the public schools. For
the pupil is taught that “this is the land of hope,” a land that “even
strangers love,”--looked upon by “the poor folk and oppressed of other
lands ... as a kind of paradise, ... where work brings its best reward,
the one region where Peace seems assured, the land of Opportunity
...” to which even “the leaders of other countries” turn “as a land of
Power, able to help them in their political troubles, yet not grasping
at their rights.”[832]
To the pupil is revealed “a Divine Purpose” controlling the history
of America for, although “perhaps the oldest continent in the world,”
America lay “unused” until the time when “civilization should prove
worthy of it.” It was “by natural processes” that “the world of Europe
was sifted and sorted that there might be planted here some of its
richest seed,” a people who might well be “called a ‘chosen race’ of
Europeans.” Among this number were some “made desperate by Europe’s
dreary lack of opportunity”; sometimes there were “folk convicted as
criminals, but laws have not always judged men as God judges them, and
the governments of those days were apt to be harsh and narrow.”[833]
Many of the points “omitted” from other school histories are found
here. Not a few of our heroic characters such as Betsy Ross, Nathan
Hale, Molly Pitcher, “Mad Anthony” Wayne, John Paul Jones, and Haym
Salomon are given recognition. Nor are there missing such slogans as
“Don’t give up the ship.”[834]
The pupil is led through “the Second War for Independence, a story of
outworn patience and of mistakes which ended in unexpected fortune;”
through the war with Spain, “a people’s war”; and finally through the
World War, in which we were “no feeble foe to match even the terrible
German colossus.”[835]
In a letter to _The New York Times_ Professor Claude H. Van Tyne,
under the caption “A Questionable History,” declares the title of this
history to be “so bombastic that it might as well be ‘The Marvelous
Story of Us.’” He points out that the pamphlet which accompanies the
book lists not only the organizations which are said to have gone over
the material and to have given it their approval, but also schoolmen
and historians “of wide repute.” “I will not say as to the schoolmen,”
said Professor Van Tyne, “but as to historians I have looked over the
entire list which is given and I find not one historian of repute in
it.... There is also added an imposing array of senators ... some
chairmen of great national political parties, who, of course, endorse
the scheme out of pure policy.... That which was a cloud no bigger than
a man’s hand when Charles Grant Miller began his infamous attack upon
the histories written by men who really knew the facts has become a
menacing storm, threatening truth wherever it is found.”[836]
According to Frank C. Cross, National Director of the Americanism
Commission in 1925, the American Legion believed that “much of the
agitation and complaint regarding school textbooks in history has
apparently come from prejudiced sources--from men and institutions
that are themselves propagandists....” The Legion, furthermore, he
declared, do not believe that the authors who have been generally
attacked are “unpatriotic or that their books are written as the result
of organized propaganda.” Yet they felt that some of the authors had
“laid themselves open to just criticism because they have sometimes
made statements from the point of view of a critic or investigator
rather than from that of a teacher,” that “some of these authors are
at fault in placing before immature pupils the blunders, foibles and
frailties of prominent heroes and patriots of our Nation.” The Legion
also took exception to the introduction of “matters of controversial
nature without giving adequate space ... for presentations of the
essential facts on both sides.”[837]
Through the activities of such patriotic groups have arisen agitations
similar to that in Dubuque, Iowa, where the local post of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars sponsored a history textbook attack.[838] Under the
direction of a committee composed of a representative of the Ladies’
Grand Army of the Republic, the American Legion, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, the Spanish-American War Veterans, the Parent-Teacher
Association, and the Superintendent of Schools, McLaughlin and Van
Tyne’s _A History of the United States for Schools_ was cast out of the
public schools.
Still others than the patriotic societies of the United States have
censored the content of history textbooks. Among these are the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who have advocated
the inclusion in all school histories of some account of the place
and achievement of the negro in this country’s development.[839]
The Ethical Society of Davenport, Iowa, would seek a substitute for
West’s _History of the American People_ because it does not depict
sufficiently the contributions of countries like Germany to the United
States.[840]
The New Jersey State Council of the Junior Order of United American
Mechanics, “representing 80,000 members in its 1922 Convention”
endorsed the work of the Patriot League for the Preservation of
American History and demanded an “unimpaired” American history.[841]
Similar action was taken by the Knights of Pythias in their Grand Lodge
meeting in Trenton, New Jersey, in September, 1923, in unanimously
accepting a report on history textbooks used in the New Jersey schools
and adopting a resolution condemning “_A School History of the United
States_ by Albert Bushnell Hart; _A History of the United States_
(1919) by John F. O’Hara; Burke’s _Speech on Conciliation with America_
(1919) by C. H. Ward; _An American History_ Revised (1920) by D. S.
Muzzey; _Builders of Democracy_ by Edwin Greenlaw; _Our United States_
(1919) by William Backus Guitteau; McLaughlin and Van Tyne’s _History
of the United States for Schools_, revised 1919; _History of the
American People_ (1918) by Willis Mason West; _Short American History
by Grades_ and later condensed into one volume and _American History
for Grammar Grades_ (1920) by Everett Barnes.”
They further pledged their “unflagging support to the Patriot League
for the preservation of American History in its plans to drive from
our schools all treason texts that have a tendency to deprive the
generations yet to come of the sacred heritages that were won by the
unmatchable sacrifices of our forefathers.” The Committee recommended
also a campaign of publicity against the condemned histories and the
appointment of committees in each “subordinate Lodge” through whom
these books were to be “thrown out and their use prohibited.”[842]
In March, 1923, _The New Age_ called the attention of Masons to the
criticisms raised by patriotic organizations and by Charles Grant
Miller against American histories. Since most of the “distinguished
patriots,” who were either omitted from the textbooks or who were
slightly mentioned “with some slurring or critical allusion,” were
“Masons,” _The New Age_ urged parents to look into the kind of
histories their children were using.[843]
In 1924 “forty-three” patriotic and fraternal organizations of New
Jersey united in endorsing the Williams school history bill, designed
to legalize the censorship of histories in that state. These included
the American Legion, the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration
of Independence, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Steuben
Society of America, the Grand Army of the Republic, the United Spanish
War Veterans, the Knights of Columbus, the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Junior Order United
American Mechanics, the Knights of Pythias, and the Patriotic Order
Sons of America.[844] An exhaustive discussion of the text books
commonly attacked was issued by the New Jersey Unit of the Patriot
League in February, 1924. According to this pamphlet the Guitteau, the
Muzzey, the Barnes, the McLaughlin and Van Tyne histories had been
revised to meet the objections raised against them, but not to the
entire satisfaction of their critics.[845]
Set off against the advocates of a highly nationalized history are
those interested in promoting the spirit of internationalism. With
this desire Robert Andrews Milliken suggested the re-writing of
history through the Committee of the League of Nations on Intellectual
Coöperation. The work as projected purported not to be an attempt
to reform each nation’s textbooks but to present an impartial world
history, neither neglecting nor overestimating the achievements of
distinct national groups.[846] The same sentiment is responsible for
the advocacy of an abolition of partisan textbooks tending to foster
bitterness and hostility among nations, which was sanctioned in June,
1923, by the Federation of the League of Nations Society.[847]
INVESTIGATIONS BY MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AUTHORITIES
The endeavors of those who have constituted themselves textbook censors
have borne fruit in many towns and cities of the United States. They
are the source of the well-known New York City investigation of history
textbooks. In October, 1920, Superintendent William L. Ettinger
appointed Associate Superintendent Edgar D. Shimer and a committee
to investigate attacks made on histories used in the public schools.
In November, 1921, the Committee presented a unanimous report on the
fundamental principles that should govern the preparation of textbooks
on history for the city schools. During November and December, 1921,
and into January, 1922, the Committee held open session weekly to
listen to charges against histories, at which L. R. MacEagain of the
Irish Patriotic League, Charles Grant Miller, Patrick J. Lang, Mrs.
E. J. Cramer of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Mrs. M. R.
Jacobs, Abraham Wakeman,[848] and Edward F. McSweeney of the Knights of
Columbus appeared.[849]
On May 12, 1922, the comprehensive report of the Committee was adopted
by the Board of Education. This document is concerned chiefly with
three matters: the establishment of a set of fundamental principles and
reasonable standards for the writing of school histories, a detailed
consideration of the charges made against textbooks, and certain
conclusions reached as a result of the inquiry.
In the formulation of the “General Principles” by which a history
textbook should be written, the Committee was doubtless guided by a
letter of October 28, 1920, from Superintendent Ettinger, in which he
suggested that “a distinction should be drawn between the obligation to
cleave closely to the line of historical truth, such as is incumbent
upon the historian writing for adult readers and the discretion
properly conceded to an author of school texts who writes for immature
minds incapable of and disinclined to make fine distinctions but
instinctively inclined to worship at the shrine of all that is loyal,
heroic, and self-sacrificing.” Mr. Ettinger believed it unwise to
present to children facts concerning the infirmities of men who had
been inspirational forces in national life. He objected, furthermore,
to forces which tended to destroy a reverence for the institutional
life of the country.[850]
In setting forth the “General Principles” for guidance in writing
history textbooks, the Committee denied to the author “absolute freedom
in the selection or in the interpretation of historical material”
because “predetermined aims and standards predetermine selection and
interpretation.” Furthermore, the Committee felt there should not be
included in a textbook statements of a derogatory character concerning
American heroes. Material which would tend to “arouse political,
racial, or religious controversy, misunderstanding, or hatred” they
also wished excluded.[851]
In the investigation, examination was made of many of the best known
textbooks in American history and government including those by
Barnes, Guitteau, Hart, Magruder, McLaughlin and Van Tyne, Morris
and West. In all of these books the Committee found statements which
were objectionable to them, their chief disapproval arising from
the discussions of our relationship with England, especially in
the American Revolution and in the War of 1812; the incorporation
of controversial topics in the textbook; the failure to inculcate
patriotism; the emasculation of accounts of wars for the purpose of
encouraging peace; and derogatory statements concerning our national
heroes.
In speaking of the American Revolution, the _Report_ declared:
“Throughout ... there should be but one aim: to impress upon the pupils
the sublime spectacle of thirteen weak colonies spread along fifteen
hundred miles of sea coast, poorly equipped and poorly disciplined,
giving battle to the strongest military and naval power in the world.
In addition the Colonists were surrounded by hostile Indians and in
their midst was a large body of Tories working at times openly, at
times secretly, but, at all times against them.... The pupil must be
taught that if liberty is to continue ‘to dwell in our midst’ he must
be prepared, should occasion arise, to make similar sacrifices.”[852]
Authors of textbooks, the _Report_ indicated, should “refrain from
such characterizations as ‘War Hawks’ or from cynical, sarcastic or
sneering remarks concerning the prosecution of the war.” It was also
felt that such a statement as Barnes made--“The war was a mistake. It
was a case in which anger overcame judgment”--would be the generator of
an unfortunate attitude in the pupils.[853] Nor should writers indulge
in controversial discussions because “The public schools are maintained
by the public funds. The taxpayers are of various creeds and political
beliefs” and it is necessary to respect their feelings.[854]
Criticism was directed toward several textbooks because they failed
“to inculcate patriotism by bringing to the attention of the
pupils the best in the lives, words and deeds of our patriots.”
According to the Committee too much attention was given “to the
utterance and achievements of the heroes of other countries.” To
those who would offer disagreement to such a statement because it
meant a “narrow-visioned patriotism” tending to accentuate racial
consciousness, they offered the suggestion that “in the elementary
grades, our primary concern is to acquaint the pupils with the deeds
and words of our own heroes, and the traditions of our own land.”[855]
Even though derogatory statements regarding our national heroes might
be statements of fact, they asserted that “truth is no defense to the
charge of impropriety,” for it “is a solemn and sacred obligation” to
preserve “unsullied the name and fame of those who have battled that we
might enjoy the blessings of liberty.”[856]
The conclusion of the Committee included, besides the criticism
indicated in the discussion of the _Report_ given above, the statement
that no evidence of intentional disloyalty had been found on the part
of the authors of the textbooks although their attitude toward the
founders of the Republic in some cases was “entirely reprehensible.”
Nor was there evidence to support the charge that the textbooks had
been written as “a result of unwholesome propaganda” although some of
the writers frankly stated that they believed “there ought to be more
friendly relations between Great Britain and the United States, and
that they had written their histories from that standpoint.”[857]
Another investigation of the history textbooks used in the New York
City schools was projected in December, 1921, under the auspices of
the Hylan city administration. On December sixth, Mayor John F. Hylan
instructed David Hirshfield, Commissioner of Accounts, to make “a
thorough investigation ... with regard to the new history readers and
text-books alleged to contain anti-American propaganda, which have
been introduced into the schools of this city.”[858] To the Mayor
it was a matter of considerable concern that the school children of
that city should be “inoculated with the poisonous virus of foreign
propaganda which seeks to belittle American patriots.”[859]
The inquiry was begun December tenth, at which time J. J. Shields,
an insurance agent, and Charles Grant Miller were consulted by Mr.
Hirshfield.[860] According to _The New York Times_, Mr. Hirshfield did
not wish to employ experts in his investigation, preferring men of
“sound judgment” who were “open to conviction.”[861]
In the course of the examination of the books under criticism, Mr.
Hirshfield held “five public hearings during the period from February
3 to April 18, 1922, to which all those interested were invited.”[862]
Among those who spoke were Alvin E. Owsley, National Commander of the
American Legion, who raised objections to history teaching in which
“children do not understand the facts” of American history; Joseph
T. Griffin;[863] Colonel H. B. Fairfax, representing the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, who was surprised at the intimation in school textbooks
that Paul Revere’s ride was a myth; Julius Hyman, who felt that Jewish
heroes like Haym Salomon and Aser Levi should be given a place in
histories;[864] and William Pickens, a negro, who wished history
textbooks to record the fact that the first man killed in the Boston
riot was Christmas Adams [Crispus Attucks] a negro, that 5,000 negroes
fought in Washington’s army, 250,000 in the Civil War and 400,000 in
the World War.[865]
On the other hand, Mr. Francis M. Kinnicut of the English-Speaking
World and Mr. Telfair Minton of the Loyal Coalition spoke in defense
of the histories under attack.[866] According to Mr. Hirshfield,
“representatives of the text book publishers” were also present but
“none spoke” in defense of their books.[867]
In his investigation, Mr. Hirshfield examined Muzzey’s _An American
History_, West’s _History of the American People_, Hart’s _School
History of the United States_, McLaughlin and Van Tyne’s _A History
of the United States for Schools_, Guitteau’s _Our United States_,
Barnes’ _Short American History by Grades_, and Barnes’ _American
History for Grammar Grades_.[868] All of the books were found guilty
of “promoting more friendly relations and mutual understanding with
Great Britain” to the extent that the “school children are now being
taught not the consecrated maxim, ‘Taxation without representation is
tyranny,’ but, quite to the contrary, that ‘in England’s taxation of
the colonies there was no injustice or oppression,’ and that the real
reason independence was sought, was because after England had at great
cost crushed out autocracy in the Western Hemisphere, the colonists no
longer needed the protection of the mother country, and were unwilling
to pay their fair share of the costs incurred.”[869]
Mr. Hirshfield’s appraisal is not unlike that of all other critics
who allege that pro-British agencies are in control of the writing of
American history. “A determined purpose to disregard the Declaration
of Independence, breed disrespect for the Constitution of the United
States and American institutions and belittle the great men and women
responsible for the establishing of the United States of America”
is seen in the writings of many educators who are charged with a
willingness “to be subsidized into sympathy with the Carnegie design of
‘the reunited states, the British-American Union.’”[870]
In addition to the grievances urged against the historians in their
treatment of Anglo-American relations, Mr. Hirshfield objected to the
characterization accorded such “great leaders” as Jackson, Monroe and
Clay by McLaughlin and Van Tyne, who with “other history revisionists
show a peculiar fondness for this unfair method of estimating
the characters of American leaders.”[871] Among other criticisms
directed against Muzzey’s history was that of inaccuracy,[872] and
West’s textbook was condemned because it was written by an “outright
propagandist endeavoring zealously to promote the British design of an
Anglo-American union.”[873]
In the discussion allotted by the Report to Guitteau’s _Our United
States_ and the Barnes histories, Mr. Hirshfield pointed out changes
made by these authors in revisions which have appeared since these
books were first criticized. These changes led Mr. Hirshfield to
remark that “the promptness with which ‘modern historical scholarship’
may shift itself to any attitude required is truly amazing.”[874]
Mr. Barnes, especially, he charged with “mobility” of judgment,
but declared that Barnes “is only a Brooklyn school principal and
is not considered in scholastic circles of colleges and historical
associations, like some of the other complained-of historians, who have
been seduced into a sycophantic acceptance of English authority on all
things American.”[875]
The statements in the Hirshfield Report regarding school histories bear
a striking similarity to those of Charles Grant Miller. Indeed, with
but insignificant exceptions the Hirshfield attacks on McLaughlin and
Van Tyne’s _A History of the United States for Schools_, Guitteau’s
_Our United States_, Barnes’ _Short American History by Grades_ and his
_American History for Grammar Grades_ are couched in the same language
as that employed by Charles Grant Miller in his articles in the Hearst
newspapers. Furthermore, the section of the Report devoted to “British
Propaganda Agencies are Active in America” is substantially a verbatim
re-publication of an article which appeared October 15, 1922, in the
Chicago _Herald and Examiner_.[876] A comparison of the statements
under the name of David Hirshfield and those under that of Charles
Grant Miller tends to verify a statement in the _New York Tribune_
which ascribes the authorship of the Hirshfield Report to Charles
Grant Miller.[877] Indeed, the _Tribune_ in a series of articles
beginning November 5, 1923, discussed in detail the Hirshfield Report
and asserted that it is “a substitute paper for a document turned in
by a reputable scholar and expert who had been expressly commissioned
at considerable expense to the city to make a thorough survey of the
books in question.”[878] According to the _Tribune_, “coincident with
holding some public hearings” the Commissioner of Accounts “employed
Joseph Devlin, a recognized lecturer and writer on historical and
educational subjects, to examine the complained-of histories.”[879]
Mr. Devlin, “a staunch supporter of Tammany” and of Mayor Hylan, is
said to have included in his report on history textbooks an exoneration
of the “Briticized” historians, characterizing them as one hundred
per cent American whose loyalty to the United States could not be
questioned.[880] Although better compilations of American history could
be imagined by Mr. Devlin, he asserted that the historians were not
guilty of the charges made,--charges designed “to help keep bigotry,
dissension and distrust between this country and England.”[881]
Besides the books which the Hirshfield Report condemned as lacking
in Americanism, Mr. Devlin examined _A History of the United States_
by John P. O’Hara, _A History of the United States of America_ by
Charles Morris, _American Government_ by Frank A. Magruder, _Builders
of Democracy_ by Edwin Greenlaw, _History of the United States_ by
Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, and _The Making of Our Country_ by
Smith Burnham.[882] The Magruder and Greenlaw textbooks, Mr. Devlin
pointed out, were not histories, and the only cause for complaint which
he could find against the latter was the inclusion of “Hymn of Love
for England.” The former was described as a “plain work on civics and
government, not dealing with history at all and free from one-sided
opinion.” Regarding the Morris and Burnham histories, Mr. Devlin found
no objection. The authors of the Beard textbook, however, he felt
should be asked to “cut out all apologies for the conduct of England,”
and the O’Hara volume, although “very well compiled,” was open to
charges of bias and a pro-Catholic viewpoint.[883]
Of those histories which the Hirshfield Report had condemned, Mr.
Devlin found only one which justified the charge of a pro-British
point of view. This textbook--_The History of the American People_ by
Willis Mason West--had been banned from the New York City schools. The
McLaughlin and Van Tyne history, the Devlin Report declared, should
be revised in such a way that it would arouse more “pride in American
breasts for the part the forefathers of our country played in freeing
it from England,” but it was not found culpable in many of the respects
commonly alleged.
The employment of Mr. Devlin for the purpose of investigating history
textbooks was denied by Mr. Hirshfield. The only connection which Mr.
Devlin had with the history inquiry, according to Mr. Hirshfield, was
to “list all the textbooks, particularly as to authorship and the
number of textbooks by different authors used in the same grade of
work.” Later when “Mr. Devlin took it upon himself to write a history
report and had the audacity to submit same to me, I dismissed him at
once,” declared the Commissioner of Accounts.[884]
In refutation of Mr. Hirshfield’s denial regarding his part in the
history inquiry, Mr. Devlin asserted that he began his investigation
of history textbooks on December 21, 1921, as “an expert” through the
direction of Mr. James McGinley, Hirshfield’s “chief of staff,” and
continued the work for seven months when “the investigation was brought
to a close” due to lack of funds.[885] “Nearly a year after these
opinions had been submitted by Mr. Devlin and shelved,” stated the
_Tribune_, “the Hirshfield-Miller version appeared....”[886]
The Devlin Report “being the opposite of what his employers wanted,”
remarked _The New York Times_, “... the job was turned over to one
Charles Grant Miller, who joyously and promptly turned out, and in,
a report of just the right--meaning the desired--kind, and that is
the one, says the Tribune, which Mr. Hirshfield signed and published,
greatly horrifying a part of the metropolitan population and as much
amusing the rest of it.”[887]
The Hirshfield Report stimulated much discussion throughout the
country. In New York, Superintendent of Schools William L. Ettinger
declared “that the very idea of the Commissioner of Accounts
investigating such a subject as the teaching of history in the public
schools was highly amusing,” and that the Report was “belated and
unnecessary inasmuch as the school authorities had already condemned
seven of the eight histories condemned by Hirshfield.”[888]
The press in all sections of the United States devoted their columns
to the Report and to the teaching and writing of history. The _Atlanta
Journal_, under the caption of “Politician vs. Historian,” remarked
that “Mr. Hirshfield’s views ... are of no consequence. But the general
reaction to his ganderish expression of them is highly interesting
and altogether wholesome.” The _New York World_, according to the
_Journal_, suggested that “‘the standing of the historians whom he
attacks is better than his own’; while the Buffalo News comments:
‘Instead of leaving history to educators who are reputed to know
something about it, the politicians are arrogating to themselves the
right to determine what texts shall, and what texts shall not, be
used.’”[889]
“The New England view is well reflected by the Hartford Times,”
declared _The Journal_, in saying that “‘if we are teaching history
and not mythology we want our children to acquire a critical capacity
which shall enable them to appraise the world they live in by an
intelligent application of the knowledge of the past ... if a child
has been trained to believe that between the years 1776 and 1885 all
Americans were supermen, the appearance of a Hirshfield must come with
something of a shock.’”[890] Similar sentiment was expressed by the
_Baltimore Sun_ which asserted that Mr. Hirshfield’s “jazzy little
turn on the public stage would hardly deserve notice at all if it were
not for the lamentable tendency of a few excitable citizens whom it
represents.”[891]
To the [Fort Wayne, Indiana] _News Sentinel_ “there is something
in that name Hirshfield that sounds significant,”[892] and to the
_Milwaukee Journal_ “the very intemperance” of Mr. Hirshfield’s
charges suggested that he was “not without his own prejudices.”[893]
The _Dubuque Telegraph-Herald_ ascribed Mr. Hirshfield’s fears to “an
over-stimulated imagination” or to “the close connection of his chief,
Mr. Hylan, with William Randolph Hearst,” who “is doing his best to
stir up ill-feeling between the United States and Great Britain.”[894]
The reaction of historians was reflected by James Truslow Adams in his
article “History and the Lower Criticism” in _The Atlantic Monthly_ for
September, 1923, in which he described the advance made in historical
scholarship during the generation before the War. “Since then,
however,” he declared, “the forces of reaction and obscurantism seem
to have been let loose and to have gathered fresh strength.... Partly
because it [history] uses the language of the common man, the common
man constitutes himself a judge of its truth, and we have the spectacle
of a municipal commissioner of accounts attacking the validity of the
scholar’s work while a town chamber of commerce defends it.”
“What then of the future?” queried Mr. Adams. “Is the writing of
popular history to be an effort to discover and to disseminate among
the people the true story of mankind in the past, or is it to be
written as an ethical or political tract, to further the passionate
conflicts of the present?” The desire of the historian to portray the
truth and to be just in his estimates, is to Mr. Adams a surety that
“the patriot need fear no danger to the ideals and inspiration to be
derived from an ever more painstaking scrutiny of the history of the
colonies and of the nation. The historian who most loves truth is most
likely to love his country.”[895]
Other cities have passed through experiences similar to that of New
York, but less publicity has attended the investigations. On October
23, 1922, the City Council of Boston “unanimously passed an order
requesting the School Committee to give a hearing for the consideration
of certain objections made to the use in the public schools ... of
‘School History of the United States,’ revised 1920, by Albert Bushnell
Hart; Burke’s ‘Speech on Conciliation,’ edited by C. H. Ward 1919, and
‘American History,’ by D. S. Muzzey.”[896]
In compliance with this request the School Committee “personally
examined the books under discussion with considerable care....”
They also had prepared “a careful and dispassionate review under
the direction of all of the Board of Superintendents of all or
substantially all of the criticisms made against these books and
brought to their attention, and a refutation of these criticisms which,
in the opinion of the Committee, justice to the authors demands.”[897]
Although the Committee were not “in entire sympathy and agreement with
all the statements which the books contain,” nor in complete accord
regarding the emphasis placed upon “certain events in our national
history,” yet they felt that “such differences” were not “sufficient
to warrant the condemnation of the books nor the impeachment of the
sincerity and good faith of the authors.”[898]
A “hearing” regarding the textbooks under examination was arranged
for and held by the School Committee and the City Council on November
15, the latter being represented by one member. “In the course of
the hearing,” stated the Report, “irrelevant and extraneous matters
were brought to the attention of the School Committee to which it
listened with scant patience.” What the School Committee regarded as
“unwarranted and ill-founded attacks were made upon the authors of
these books,” whereas to the Committee “the real and only question
at issue” was whether their [Muzzey’s and Hart’s] histories contain
material to which reasonable and proper objection may be made.[899]
In the opinion of the Committee “no historian had ever succeeded in
writing a book which met satisfactorily every point of view, nor does
any history place an equal amount of emphasis upon all the topics which
it discusses.” Besides, “it is clearly impossible that one brief
volume should give adequate treatment to all the steps incident to the
origin and growth of a great nation.”[900]
The Committee also deplored “the course pursued by the critics of these
books in tearing from their context detached sentences and omitting
explanations and summaries which are essential to a grasp of the
authors’ real meaning.” Such a procedure, they believed, would permit
a critic to find an “opportunity for criticism of any book that ever
has been written on the subject of history, and indeed on many other
subjects as well.”[901]
After having given “due consideration to the matter,” the School
Committee therefore were of the opinion “that the criticisms against
these two books” did not justify “their exclusion from the Authorized
List.”[902] A dissenting opinion, however, was issued, which, “while in
agreement” with the Report, nevertheless set forth the view that the
Board of Superintendents should ask for certain changes in the books
when they were revised.[903]
In the comprehensive reviews of Hart’s _School History of the United
States_ and Muzzey’s _An American History_, the Committee pointed
out that the chief sources of the criticisms were taken from “Mr.
Charles Grant Miller,--Treason to American Tradition; Mr. Wallace
McCamant,--Review of Muzzey’s American History; Mr. James A.
Watson,--Speech before the Boston City Council and interview reported
in the Boston Globe of October 24, 1922, ... and from the ‘Report on
History Text Books used in public schools of the City of New York,
1922.’”
In examining each statement which had been quoted to prove that these
textbooks were Anglicized editions, the Committee showed that the
“apologetic attitude toward England” charged by the critics could not
be so considered when quotations were taken in their entirety.
In concluding their reviews, the Committee declared, “Both writers have
shown a striking sense of proportion, great skill in focusing attention
upon what is vital, and commendable courage in calling attention to
weaknesses and mistakes in our history, some of which still need to be
corrected. The few defects of these books are insignificant as compared
with their many excellencies. Both books mark an advance in the writing
of history texts for school use. Both are worthy contributions to the
study and teaching of American history. Neither of them should be
excluded from our schools.”[904]
Because of alleged un-Americanism West’s _History of the American
People_ was banned from the approved lists of text books in Alta,
Iowa, and Jackson, Minnesota.[905] The McLaughlin and Van Tyne
history received like treatment in Battle Creek, Michigan.[906] From
the San José (California) Carnegie Library Hart’s _Formation of the
Union_, his _National Ideals Historically Traced_, and Van Tyne’s
_American Revolution_ were removed by orders of the library board,
who declared them “un-American and unfit for reading, particularly by
school children.”[907] _The Study of the Nations_ by Harriet Tuell was
prohibited in the schools of Somerville, Massachusetts, because of
alleged pro-British leanings. The attacks against this book culminated
in a bill in the Massachusetts Senate, in 1921, forbidding its use in
any school of the commonwealth, but the bill died in committee.
PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING THE CENSORSHIP OF HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
These endeavors to censor history textbooks have occasioned much
discussion by the press, by educators and others. To _The New York
Times_ “however commendable these efforts to find and set forth the
historical truth may be, and however honorable and sincere the motive,
it must be admitted by all that this is not the way to ‘rewrite
history.’”[908]
To the [New York] _Evening Globe_ “the controversy over school
histories is largely between defenders of doctrine and defenders of
free inquiry, between those who do not believe that children can be
trusted with the truth and those who believe that they can. Most of
the modern histories have been written by scholars inspired by the
scientific spirit and, therefore, no more tender with myths about
history than a modern bacteriologist with myths about disease.... A
true American history need not rob us of the story of Paul Revere or
the reverence for George Washington, but it will teach that personal
anecdotes are not the life of a nation, that great men as well as mean
men flourish in every generation....”[909]
The reaction of teachers engaged in the public schools is much the
same as that of the press. The continued agitation regarding histories
carried on in Washington, D. C., led the High School Teachers’
Association to adopt the following resolutions:
“It is resolved that the questioning of the Americanism of teachers of
history in American schools is resented, that the teachers themselves
should be the judges of the content of the courses, and that the
object of teaching history is to give the truthful picture of the
past, with due regard to the age of the pupil for whom the work is
intended, and therefore the truth should not be distorted for any
purpose whatever; both sides of a controversial question should be
presented from an academic point of view so that the students of
history shall be trained in habits of open-minded tolerance.”[910]
Further evidence of a rebellion against the censorship attempted
over history textbooks was manifested at the annual meeting of the
Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland
in May, 1923, when a series of resolutions was unanimously adopted
“deploring an agitation based on either ignorance or malice, or which
has for its object the promotion of animosities between classes of
nations; ...”[911] In October, 1923, the Washington State Teachers’
Association resolved:
“1. That decisions regarding textbooks should be made by those
scientifically trained; 2. That teachers who show a lack of judgment
in the interpretation of texts, or whose loyalty is questioned,
should be disciplined, or dismissed by their own school board.
There should be no blanket charge against the whole corps. 3.
That no unbiased committee of examiners has, on investigation,
substantiated the attacks made on History teaching in American
schools. 4. That examination will show that the groups making these
attacks have no understanding of the distinction between grade and
high school history, no conception of the methods of teaching, nor
of the necessary content of an American history. 5. That a cursory
examination of the attacks appearing in newspapers and originating
with organizations prove much of their charge is based on half
quotations and a wrenching of sentences from their context. These
display an entire lack of the American quality of fair play.”[912]
The objection of historical scholars toward present-day censorship of
history textbooks voiced itself at a meeting of the American Historical
Association in December, 1923, when the following resolutions were
adopted:
“_Whereas_, there has been in progress for several years an agitation
conducted by certain newspapers, patriotic societies, fraternal
orders, and others, against a number of school text-books in history
and in favor of official censorship, and
“_Whereas_, this propaganda has met with sufficient success to bring
about not only acute controversy in many cities but the passage of
censorship laws in several states, therefore
“_Be it resolved_ by the American Historical Association, upon the
recommendation of its Committee on History Teaching in the Schools and
of its Executive Council, that genuine and intelligent patriotism, no
less than the requirement of honesty and sound scholarship, demand
that text-book writers and teachers should strive to present a
truthful picture of past and present, with due regard to the different
purposes and possibilities of elementary, secondary and advanced
instruction;--that criticism of history text-books should therefore
be based not upon grounds of patriotism but only upon grounds of
faithfulness to fact as determined by specialists or tested by
consideration of the evidence;--that the cultivation in pupils of a
scientific temper in history and the related social sciences, of a
spirit of inquiry and a willingness to face unpleasant facts, are far
more important objectives than the teaching of special interpretations
of particular events;--and that attempts, however well meant,
to foster national arrogance and boastfulness and indiscriminate
worship of national ‘heroes’ can only tend to promote a harmful
pseudo-patriotism; and
“_Be it further resolved_, that in the opinion of this Association the
clearly implied charges that many of our leading scholars are engaged
in treasonable propaganda and that tens of thousands of American
school teachers and officials are so stupid or disloyal as to place
treasonable text-books in the hands of children is inherently and
obviously absurd;--and
“_Be it further resolved_, that the successful continuance of such an
agitation must inevitably bring about a ruinous deterioration both
of text-books and of teaching, since self-respecting scholars and
teachers will not stoop to the methods advocated.”[913]
The sentiment of other educators is much the same as that of writers
of history and the history teacher. Professor William C. Bagley has
declared that “an official public or governmental censorship over
history text-books would be a calamity of the first magnitude.”[914]
To Dean Percy R. Boynton “the hue and cry about American histories for
schools is a piece of post-war hysteria.”[915] In general, the attitude
of educators can be summarized in the words of Dr. Payson Smith of
Massachusetts: “The public school does not owe to business interests
or to special interests or to labor interests of any kind that there
shall be constructed in the minds of the young people attitudes and
opinions designed to be definitely and specifically helpful to those
interests.... It is not a legitimate part of the public school program
to deal in any phase of propaganda. Let the doors of the school-house
once be opened to the appeals of those who want ... any subject taught
from the special viewpoint of a group of people and they must remain
open until the schools will be so crowded with the teachings of the
propagandists that there will be no time or opportunity left for doing
the work which is the primary responsibility of the schools.”[916]
FOOTNOTES:
[637] In an article, “The Anger of the Anglophiles,” Edward F.
McSweeney of the Knights of Columbus Historical Commission discussed
the “Anglo-Saxon myth.” In his discussion he ascribes to Gibbons the
point of view that an “over emphasis upon Anglo-Saxonism is positively
harmful to Anglo-Saxon solidarity, that it is a stimulus to the enemies
among Americans of friendship with Great Britain,” [and] “that the
idea that a better understanding with Great Britain can be effected by
rewriting our history textbooks be abandoned.” Gibbons, however, points
out means of bringing about “the better understanding” by “creating an
irresistible public opinion.” _Columbia_, April, 1922, p. 10.
[638] Hart, Albert Bushnell, _School Books and International
Prejudices_ (International Conciliation Bulletin, January, 1911, No.
32). Professor Hart points out that a more favorable attitude toward
Great Britain developed in the United States about the time of the
Spanish-American War, and urges that the American Revolution be taught
American and British youth as “a deep and broad Anglo-Saxon movement in
which both sides had some rights and both had some wrong.”
[639] A study of the presentation of the American Revolution in history
textbooks was made by Charles Altschul in 1917. See Altschul, Charles,
_The American Revolution in Our School Text-Books_ (New York, 1917).
Also see Wister, Owen, _A Straight Deal or the Ancient Grudge_ (New
York, 1920).
[640] Russell, Charles Edward, “Behind the Propaganda Scenes,”
_Columbia_, September, 1922, p. 5 _et seq._ Mr. Russell declares that
the undertaking was financed by Andrew Carnegie.
[641] William Allen Neilson, president of Smith College, in an address
before the English-Speaking Union, May 16, 1920. _The Christian
Science Monitor_, May 17, 1920; also Bulletin No. 7, June, 1923, of
the English-Speaking Union (345 Madison Avenue, New York). Agencies
for Anglo-American friendship assert they have made no attempts to
combat present-day efforts of anti-English groups. (Letters to the
author under date of June 26, 1923, from the Secretary of the Sulgrave
Institution, and under date of July 6, 1923, from the Secretary of the
English-Speaking Union.)
[642] Eagleton, Clyde, “The Attitude of Our Textbooks Toward England,”
_Educational Review_, Vol. LVI (December, 1918), pp. 424-429.
[643] Schuyler, Robert Livingston, “History and Public Opinion,”
_Educational Review_, Vol. LV (March, 1918), pp. 181-190.
[644] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, July 3, 1921.
[645] In Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, July 3, 1921, and October 15,
1922. The latter was not the last article written, however.
[646] _Ibid._, January 14, 1923.
[647] _Ibid._, July 3, 1921. In O’Hara’s _History of the United
States_, thirteen lines are given to Patrick Henry’s opposition to
the Stamp Act, over four of which are devoted to the words by Henry:
“‘Tarquin and Caesar each had his Brutus; Charles I his Cromwell; and
George III--(here cries of “Treason! Treason!” from the Speaker and
others were heard)--may profit by their example. If this be treason
make the most of it.’” pp. 124-125. On the other hand, six lines are
allotted to a discussion of Pitt’s reaction toward the repeal of the
Stamp Act, and approximately three lines to direct quotation from him.
(“When the question of repeal came up in the House of Commons, Pitt
‘rejoiced that America had resisted.’ He was glad that Americans were
not ‘so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to
be slaves.’”) p. 126. (O’Hara, John P., _History of the United States_,
New York, 1919). There has been only one edition of this history
textbook.
[648] _Ibid._
[649] _Ibid._, July 17, 1921.
[650] _Ibid._
[651] _Ibid._
[652] _Ibid._
[653] _Ibid._
[654] _Ibid._, July 24, 1921. The article is entitled “Declaration of
Independence is Censored: England’s Guilt for Revolution Disputed in
New United States Histories.”
[655] _Ibid._ This characterization of the colonials as “ignorant
and superstitious” is in a chapter devoted to “Life in the Colonies”
in which are discussed, among other things, “Colonial Ignorance and
Superstition” and “The Salem Witchcraft.” In the paragraph on “Colonial
Ignorance and Superstition,” the following sentence is indicative of
the trend: “Hornets were thought to come from the decaying bodies of
horses, and honey bees from cattle.” The quotation regarding Henry
is as follows: “... Patrick Henry, a gay, unprosperous, and hitherto
unknown country lawyer, who made his reputation by declaring with
marvelous eloquence that there was a limit to the legal control which
the King might exert over Colonial law-making,” page 141. McLaughlin,
Andrew C., and Van Tyne, Claude Halstead, _A History of the United
States for Schools_ (New York, 1911).
[656] _Ibid._ In the 1911 edition of McLaughlin and Van Tyne’s
textbook, “We have met the enemy and they are ours” appears on page
247. The quotation “Don’t give up the ship” is on page 248, but a
footnote suggests that Lawrence’s real words seem to have been, “Fight
the ship until she is sunk,” while those usually given are the words of
the boy who took the message on deck.
[657] _The New York Times_, September 28, 1921.
[658] _Ibid._
[659] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, November 20, 1921.
[660] _Ibid._
[661] _Ibid._
[662] _Ibid._ Mr. Miller quotes thus: “France shut her eyes when some
gallant French officers, especially Marquis De Lafayette and Baron De
Kalb, went to America as volunteers, p. 136.” In Professor Hart’s book
the quotation is as follows: “Agents were sent to Paris to ask help;
the French secretly gave them military supplies and money and shut
their eyes when some gallant young French officers, especially Marquis
de Lafayette and De Kalb, went to America as volunteers.” (Hart, Albert
Bushnell, _School History of the United States_, New York, 1920, p.
136.)
[663] _Ibid._
[664] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, May 14, 1922. Letter from William
E. Borah to P. B. Arnell, Manager _Oregon Teacher’s Monthly_, Salem,
Oregon.
[665] _Ibid._
[666] _Ibid._
[667] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, May 21, 1922.
[668] _Ibid._
[669] _Ibid._
[670] _Ibid._
[671] _Ibid._, September 10, 1922.
[672] _Ibid._
[673] _Ibid._
[674] _Ibid._
[675] _Ibid._
[676] _Ibid._
[677] _Ibid._
[678] Greg, Percy, _History of the United States from the Foundation of
Virginia to the Reconstruction of the Union_. 2 v. (London, 1887), Vol.
I, p. 134.
[679] _Ibid._, pp. 165, 168.
[680] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, October 15, 1922.
[681] _Ibid._ According to a pamphlet of the English-Speaking Union “it
is an organization based on individual membership, and is non-political
and non-sectarian. It aims at no alliance, and is not connected with
governments. It takes for granted that the growth of friendship between
English-speaking peoples in no way implies or produces unfriendly
relations between English-speaking peoples and those of other lands and
tongues.”
[682] _Ibid._
[683] _Ibid._
[684] _Ibid._
[685] _Ibid._
[686] _Ibid._
[687] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, January 14, 1923. This article
names others than educators as open to the charges of “Anglicization.”
Among these are Rev. Dr. James E. Barton, George E. Roberts, a
Magna Charta Day Committeeman, vice-president and publicity manager
of the National City Bank, New York and “propaganda expert of the
International Banking Corporation,” who, with “Henry S. Pritchett,
president of the Carnegie Foundation, conducts a correspondence school
in ‘Economics for Business Executives,’ another spacious channel for
special privilege.”
[688] _Ibid._ Edwin Greenlaw’s book, _Problems of Democracy_, was
condemned also by Mr. Miller. It is not a history textbook, however.
[689] _Ibid._
[690] The _New York American_, November 4, 1923. The article for
which apology was offered appeared in the issue of April 1, 1923,
under the caption of “U. S. Histories made up of British Slanders.”
The article criticized certain characterizations of heroic characters
in American history as: “Englishmen of that day believed sincerely
that the Revolution was the work of a group of ‘soreheads.’ George
Washington, as a youth, had been refused a coveted commission in the
British Army. Sam Adams’ father had been ruined by the wise British
veto of a Massachusetts ‘Land Bank.’ The older Otis had failed to
secure an appointment on the Massachusetts bench. Alexander Hamilton
was a penniless and briefless law student with no chance for special
advancement unless by fishing in troubled water.” The statement of the
_American_ follows in part: “The fact is, that the paragraph referred
to immediately preceded the following qualifying paragraph: ‘All this
of course as an explanation of the part played by Washington, Adams,
Otis and Hamilton, was as absurd as was the view of many Americans
that high-minded men like Chief Justice Oliver and Governor Hutchinson
of Massachusetts were loyalists simply to cling to office and salary.
But had the British charge been true, what greater condemnation could
be devised for the old colonial system than that under it George
Washington could not get a petty lieutenant’s appointment and that a
genius like Hamilton had practically no chance for advancement unless
taken up by some great gentlemen.’” West, Willis Mason, _History of the
American People_ (Boston, 1918).
[691] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, April 20, 1924. According to Mr.
Miller the McLaughlin and Van Tyne textbook, among other “corrections”
made, included in the latest edition “Nathan Hale, who had been omitted
entirely ... as one who ‘risked all for his country’s cause.’” These
authors also have, according to Mr. Miller, “improved the picture of
Patrick Henry” by describing him thus: “A hitherto unknown country
lawyer, but a sincere lover of liberty.” “Such corrections and many
others in this one book and all the innumerable corrections that have
been made in five other texts can have but one significance,” concluded
Mr. Miller. “The Anglicized authors have come to realize that the
American people will not tolerate Anglicized histories in our public
schools.”
[692] _Bulletin of the Patriot League_ (Charles Grant Miller,
Organizing Director, Rosebank, New York City, 1922).
[693] _Ibid._
[694] _Ibid._
[695] Miller, Charles Grant, _Treason to American Tradition_ (New
York), p. 6. The books by Ward and Greenlaw are literature textbooks.
West’s _History of the American People_ was attacked on much the same
basis as other histories in the Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, March 5,
1922.
[696] _The New York Times_, November 26, 1921. Editorial “Appealing Now
to Teachers.” The editorial first discussed the mailing of the pamphlet
to many teachers in New York’s public schools.
[697] Griffin, Joseph T., _American History Must It Be Rewritten to
Preserve Our Foreign Friendships?_ (Knights of Columbus Historical
Commission, Boston, 1922), p. 4.
[698] _Ibid._, p. 3.
[699] McSweeney, Edward F., _America First_ (Boston, Mass.).
[700] _Ibid._, p. 4-5.
[701] _Ibid._, p. 5. He cites Hosmer, _Samuel Adams_, p. 263.
[702] _Ibid._, pp. 5-6.
[703] _Ibid._, p. 5.
[704] _Ibid._, pp. 6-7.
[705] These men, with the exception possibly of one, have written no
history textbooks although they may have written books and articles for
the general reader favorable to an Anglo-American understanding.
[706] _Ibid._, p. 9. Quoted from _The_ [London] _Times_, July 4, 1919.
Many of the “reformed” school-books, according to Mr. McSweeney,
attempt to picture George III as a German monarch, and “consequently
the fight of the colonials was against Germany,” thereby leaving an
erroneous impression. _Ibid._, p. 10.
[707] _Ibid._, pp. 11-12.
[708] _Ibid._, p. 12.
[709] _Ibid._, pp. 12-13.
[710] O’Brien, Michael J., _A Hidden Phase of American History_.
Published by Dodd, Mead and Company, 1919.
[711] O’Brien, _op. cit._ The chapters are entitled: Attitude of the
People of Ireland toward the American Colonists, Benjamin Franklin’s
Visits to Ireland, Irish Sympathy for the Revolting Colonies, Efforts
to Conciliate the Irish Catholics, History by Suppression, Ireland’s
Share in America’s Fight for Freedom, False Statements Refuted,
Irish Names in American Muster-Rolls, The Friendly Sons of Saint
Patrick, “The Line of Ireland,” More History by Suppression, Marion,
Lacey, and McClure, Irishmen Flock to the Standard of Washington,
Irish Immigration Prior to the Revolution, Vast Irish Immigrations
to Pennsylvania, The “Scotch-Irish” Myth, Early Irish Settlements in
New York, The “Irish Donation,” Early Irish Settlers in Virginia,
More Light on the “Scotch-Irish” Myth, Early Irish Settlers in the
Carolinas, Pre-Revolutionary Irish in Georgia, The First Census of the
United States, America’s Debt to Ireland. The obscurity which envelops
the Irish in American history, Mr. O’Brien believes, is because of
the “premeditated suppression of facts” due to the influence of the
“Anglo-Saxon cult.” _Ibid._, pp. 241-242.
[712] McClure, S. S., “Some Delusions about Ireland,” _McClure’s
Magazine_, Vol. LII (June, 1922), pp. 93-103. Quoted from the _Irish
World_, August 23, 1919.
[713] Reddin, John H., “The American History Contest,” _Columbia_,
September, 1921, p. 12.
[714] _The New York Times_, May 29, 1921.
[715] _The New York Times_, August 1, 1921.
[716] _Ibid._, August 4, 1921. Remarks of Supreme Master John H.
Reddin, of Denver. According to Charles Grant Miller, the Knights of
Columbus took the matter up after “my first series of exposures of
Anglicized alteration” proposing “to produce a new school history.”
Opposition led them “to withdraw from this project,” but to issue
“historical brochures to the general public.” Letter, under date of
November 23, 1922, from C. G. Miller to the author.
[717] _The New York Times_, September 8, 1921. According to the _Times_
other members of the Commission besides McSweeney, who were present
at the meeting, were Rear Admiral William Benson, Maurice Francis
Egan, Professor George Derry of Union College, and Professor Charles
H. McCarthy of the Catholic University of America. All signed the
statement, the _Times_ reported. A trustworthy Catholic authority
informed the author that Henry Jones Ford of Princeton and Hannis
Taylor, former minister to Spain, were on the Commission. At Taylor’s
death Dr. Dunne succeeded. Egan early resigned, it is said, due to his
fear of anti-British tendencies.
[718] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, January 1, 1922. The amount of
the first prize was $2500, according to an announcement in _Columbia_,
September, 1921, p. 12. This prize was awarded to Samuel F. Bemis, a
Protestant, of Whitman College, Walla Walla, Washington. According to
_The Fortnightly Review_ this work was not inspired by the Commission,
for “it was practically completed when the prize was announced and
would have been published this year anyhow.” The _Review_ also states
that it was “the only scientific study submitted.” _The Fortnightly
Review_, Vol. XXX (November 1, 1923), p. 422.
[719] McSweeney, Edward F., “The Anger of the Anglophiles,” _Columbia_,
April 1, 1922, p. 10.
[720] _Ibid._
[721] “The K. of C. Historical Commission,” _The Fortnightly Review_,
Vol. XXX (December 1, 1923), pp. 457-458. The Commission is reported to
have spent between $80,000 and $90,000.
[722] According to a reputable Catholic authority, Mr. McSweeney’s
salary was $12,000 and expenses.
[723] _The Fortnightly Review_, _loc. cit._ The writer of the article
was of the opinion that “with Catholic laymen filling chairs of
history and political science at Harvard, Columbia, Bryn Mawr, the
Catholic University, and elsewhere, and with other Catholics engaged in
library and archival work of importance, it is small wonder that the
Commission, containing the name of but one engaged in the profession of
history, failed to win the confidence of those interested in history.”
[724] _Ibid._
[725] Hart, Albert Bushnell, _op. cit._, p. 120.
[726] _Ibid._, p. 126.
[727] _Ibid._, p. 145. These attacks are found in Griffin, _op. cit._
[728] Griffin, _op. cit._, p. 5. “Others were drawn into the army
by money, bounties and promise of land.” Hart, _op. cit._, p. 134.
Mr. Griffin asks: “Is this building up or breaking down the morale
of a nation? The consideration of such statements may be a painless
intellectual question for the adult--but to the impressionable minds of
the young the effect is unquestionably bad.”
[729] _Ibid._, p. 6. Quotation from McLaughlin, Andrew C., _History of
the American Nation_ (New York, 1919), p. 152. McLaughlin goes on to
say that the “Revolution was justifiable because the colonists stood
for certain fundamental principles that were woven into the very fabric
of their lives.”
[730] _Ibid._, p. 7. Barnes, Everett, _American History for Grammar
Grades_ (New York, 1920).
[731] Griffin, _op. cit._, p. 9.
[732] _Ibid_., p. 11.
[733] _Ibid._, p. 8. Objections were lodged against John P. O’Hara’s
history although he is a Catholic. In _The Fortnightly Review_, April
15, 1924, Mr. O’Hara protests against the criticisms directed against
him: “As long as the criticisms were confined to the Hearst press
and similar secular mediums of publicity I was able to follow the
discussion without being greatly disturbed; but when with the blessing
of the K. of C. Historical Commission the Hearst ‘authority’ was
allowed a page in _Columbia_, the official K. C. organ, on which to
spread his charge that I, among others, was a Benedict Arnold who had
sold his country for British gold, and when, in addition, his stuff
was widely reprinted in the Catholic press, a different situation was
created.... I received letters from various persons complaining ...
that a man of my name should have fallen a victim to British agencies
of corruption. One such letter put me in distinguished company in this
fashion:
“‘Judas, 30 pieces of silver;
Benedict Arnold, 10,000 pounds and a coronet:
O’Hara???’”
_The Fortnightly Review_, Vol. XXXI (April 15, 1924), pp. 156-157.
[734] _The Gaelic American_, March 11, 1922, p. 6. “McSweeney on the
Schools.” The pamphlet by Mr. Griffin, from which the author has
quoted, was published by the Hudson County Federation of the Holy
Name Society (1922) “as a guide to RED-BLOODED AMERICANS with the
moral fibre strong enough to believe and insist that American History,
crimsoned with the blood of our martyrs, shall be maintained in its
entirety and shall be elaborated upon by those authors alone, who,
as Americans, still believe IN THE MAGNIFICENT STRUCTURE WHICH THE
FOREFATHERS OF THIS REPUBLIC HAVE REARED AND WHICH MUST ENDURE.”
[735] Jaegers, Albert, _A Brief Sketch of the Life and Character of
Baron von Steuben_ (Steuben Society Publication, Jacob Leisler Unit),
p. 5.
In the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee to repeal the
charter of the German-American Alliance in 1918, it was revealed that
this organization had endeavored to control history textbooks. In
conjunction with the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America in 1907,
the Alliance had resolved “to recommend a systematic investigation of
the share all races have had in the development of our country, in war
and in peace, from the earliest days, as the basis for the founding
and continuance of an unbiased American history.” In the testimony it
was declared that it was their purpose “to give credit where credit is
due” because “in all of our current school histories, and most others,
... the Anglo-Saxon has been glorified and exalted to the exclusion of
those others who did so much for this country, like the Irish and the
Germans and the other countries.” “Hearings before the Subcommittee of
the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,” 65th Congress,
2d Session, _Senate Report_ 3529, p. 645 _et seq._ At the same time
Professor Samuel B. Harding testified that in 1915 objection was raised
to a chapter on the World War which he had written for a high school
textbook and that his publishers (the American Book Company) had
been warned that such would be “considered obnoxious,” and that “the
organization no doubt would feel itself obliged to actively oppose the
use of such a book in any school anywhere in any state.” _Ibid._, pp.
619-620.
[736] _S. S. Bulletin_, Vol. I, No. 13 (February 1, 1922), p. 1.
[737] _Ibid._, No. 14 (February 15, 1922).
[738] _Ibid._
[739] _Ibid._
[740] _Ibid._
[741] _Ibid._
[742] _Ibid._
[743] Schrader, Frederick Franklin, “_1683-1920_” (New York, 1920),
pp. 22-25. There are the same quotations from George Haven Putnam,
Owen Wister, and Lord Northcliffe as found in the Knights of Columbus
pamphlets. See page 227.
[744] _Ibid._, p. 25.
[745] _The St. Louis Star_, June 27, 1923. The resolution was adopted
June 26. It is stated that three hundred delegates were present at the
convention.
[746] _Ibid._
[747] _Ibid._
[748] _S. S. Bulletin_, _loc. cit._
[749] Schrader, _op. cit._, pp. 9-10. The place of the German element
in American history had been treated by Faust ten years prior to
Schrader’s book. Faust, Albert B., _The German Element in the United
States with especial reference to its political, social and educational
influence_ (Boston, 1909).
[750] Schrader, _op. cit._ Ridder, Victor, _The Germans in America_
(New York, 1922), and Jaegers, _op. cit._
[751] Schrader, _op. cit._, p. 19.
[752] _Ibid._, p. 10.
[753] Ridder, _op. cit._, p. 14.
In 1917, an investigation of the most commonly used textbooks in
history was made by Timothy T. Lew to determine the treatment given
Chinese-American relations. Mr. Lew’s conclusion was that the attitude
of Americans toward the Chinese was likely to be one of indifference
or prejudice because of the lack of attention given in textbooks,
or because many events which would show cordial relations had been
overlooked. Lew, Timothy T., “China in American School Text-Books,”
Spl. Suppl. to _The Chinese Social and Political Science Review_, Vol.
VI-VII (July, 1923).
[754] Chafee, Zechariah, “Freedom of Speech,” _The New Republic_,
Vol. XVII (November 16, 1918), p. 67. Also _Espionage Act Cases with
Certain Others on Related Points_, compiled and edited by Walter Nelles
(New York, 1918), pp. 33-35. The case is listed as The United States
_vs_ Motion Picture Film “The Spirit of ’76.” Southern District of
California, Southern Division, November 30, 1917, under Judge Bledsoe.
[755] Harré, T. Everett, “Shadow Huns and Others,” _The National Civic
Federation Review_, Vol. IV (February 15, 1919), pp. 12-16.
[756] _Ibid._
[757] _Report of the Committee from the Fathers of Soldiers’ League to
the Board of Education, Des Moines, Iowa, 1918._ (In manuscript.)
[758] Quoted from Robinson, James Harvey, _Medieval and Modern Times_
(New York, 1918). The committee who investigated the textbook hazarded
this remark upon the excerpt quoted: “It would seem to your committee
that the historian has another guess coming, and that Germany is not
liable to get her colonies back or any indemnities.” _Report_, _loc.
cit._
[759] _California State Board of Education, Special Bulletin No. 4._
Series of 1918. The committee included E. D. Adams, Arley B. Show, W.
A. Morris, E. I. McCormac, W. J. Cooper.
[760] _The Seattle Star_, September 30, 1918, Editorial.
[761] Harré, _loc. cit._
[762] _Bulletin of the Montana State Council of Defense_, April 22,
1918. West, _Ancient World_ (Boston, 1913), p. 570.
[763] _Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the State Board of Education ... of
Rhode Island_, January, 1919, pp. 77, 81. The history textbooks were
not named.
[764] Information gained through a questionnaire sent to the
superintendent of public instruction in each state. All states but
South Carolina replied.
[765] _A Syllabus of the World War for Use in the High Schools of The
City of New York_ adopted by the Board of Superintendents (Department
of Education of the City of New York, 1918), p. 5.
[766] “Accepted Fable,” _The Freeman_, Vol. VII (June 27, 1923), pp.
366-367.
[767] See page 248. Professor West is author of _Modern Progress_
(Boston, 1920) but not of _The Story of Human Progress_. The quotation
was not verified.
[768] “War in the Textbooks,” _The Nation_, Vol. CXIX (Sept. 17, 1924),
p. 277.
[769] _Ibid._ See Hazen, Charles Downer, _Modern Europe_ (New York,
1920), p. 690.
[770] Barnes, Harry Elmer, “Seven Books of History against the
Germans,” _The New Republic_, Vol. XXXVIII (March 19, 1924), part II,
pp. 10-15. Also see Professor Hazen’s letter in _The New Republic_,
Vol. XXXVIII (May 7, 1924), pp. 284-285. On the question of the origin
of the War a series of articles by Professor Barnes appeared in _The
Christian Century_ for October, November, December, 1925. See also
Barnes, Harry Elmer, in _Current History_, Vol. XXII (May, 1924),
on the origin of the War; also Fay, Sidney B., “New Light on the
Origins of the World War,” _The American Historical Review_, Vol. XXVI
(October, 1920), pp. 37-53; Fay, Sidney Bradshaw, “The Black Hand Plot
that led to the World War,” _Current History_, Vol. XXIII (November,
1925), pp. 196-207.
[771] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._ Robinson, James Harvey, and Beard,
Charles A., _History of Europe Our Own Times_ (Boston, 1921), pp.
543-544.
[772] _The Nation_, _loc. cit._ See Hayes, Carlton J. H., and Moon,
Thomas Parker, _Modern History_ (New York, 1923).
[773] Taft, Donald R., “Historical Textbooks and International
Differences” (Chicago, 1925). Guitteau, William Backus, _Our United
States_ (New York, 1923). Long, William J., _America_ (Boston, 1923).
[774] Kendig-Gill, Isabel, “War and Peace in United States History
Text-Books,” National Council for Prevention of War, Washington, p.
10. The author quotes passages to prove her contention from Mace’s
_Beginner’s History_, Muzzey’s _An American History_, and Guitteau’s
_Our United States_. Also “Drugging the Young Idea,” _The Freeman_,
Vol. VII (August 22, 1923), pp. 556-557.
[775] _The_ [Ottumwa, Iowa] _Daily Courier_, March 2, 1919, “With the
persistency of a fanatic and the illogical deduction of a demagogue,
Professor Muzzey makes the tariff and the trusts the principal
defendants in the case which he brings against the United States of
America.... His book is a clearly conceived and a closely written
argument for socialism treating the various steps in the country’s
history from the standpoint of the socialist instead of the unbiased
historian....” As a result of this opposition, Muzzey’s textbook was
excluded from the Ottumwa schools. For the same reason the use of this
history was discontinued in Leonia, New Jersey.
[776] _Iowa Legionnaire_, April 15, 1921.
[777] A pamphlet entitled _Muzzey’s School History_ written by Wallace
McCamant, Chairman of the Committee on Patriotic Education of the
National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, July 27, 1922.
See also _Official Bulletin of the National Society of the Sons of the
American Revolution_, Vol. XVII (October, 1922), Washington, D. C.
[778] _Ibid._, p. 1. An examination of the textbook reveals the
distasteful quotation marks in the following passage: “Letters,
pamphlets, petitions, came in an uninterrupted stream from the
Massachusetts ‘patriots,’ Hancock, Warren, Otis, and the Adamses.”
[779] Pamphlet, _op. cit._, p. 2. See Muzzey, _op. cit._, p. 115.
[780] Pamphlet, _op. cit._
[781] _Ibid._, pp. 5-16.
[782] _Ibid._, p. 13.
[783] Pamphlet entitled “The Sons of the American Revolution and the
Histories in Use in Our Schools,” p. 8.
[784] _Ibid._, p. 1. Also “Report of Committee on Patriotic Education”
published separately and obtained from Judge Wallace McCamant,
Portland, Oregon.
[785] _Ibid._
[786] _Ibid._, pp. 2-3.
[787] _Ibid._, p. 3.
[788] _Ibid._
[789] _Ibid._, p. 6. Guitteau’s _Our United States_ and Halleck’s
_History of Our Country_ are designed primarily for the junior high
school, and not for the senior high school.
[790] _Ibid._, p. 5. Cf. statement of Charles Grant Miller, page 211.
[791] Pamphlet, “The Sons of the American Revolution and the Histories
in Use in Our Schools,” p. 7. At their meeting at Swampscott,
Massachusetts, in May, 1925, Judge McCamant again called the attention
of the Sons of the American Revolution to the textbook situation, and
urged them to use pressure to have the right kind of textbooks in the
schools of their states. _Boston Herald_, May 19, 1925.
[792] _Ibid._, p. 3.
[793] District of Columbia Board of Education Piney Branch Citizens’
Association against Muzzey’s School History (Washington, D. C., April
25, 1923), p. 2. [Washington, D. C.] _Sunday Star_, June 4, 1922.
Muzzey’s defense is criticized by the chairman of the Piney Branch
Historical Committee in an issue of the _Star_, June 18, 1922.
[794] _The_ [Washington, D. C.] _Star_, April 26, 1923.
[795] _Ibid._
[796] _Ibid._ The activities of the _Patriot League for the
Preservation of American History_ are treated in the section devoted to
Charles Grant Miller and the Hearst newspapers.
[797] _Ibid._
[798] _Ibid._
[799] Hathaway, Carson C., “Is Muzzey’s American History
Revolutionary?” _The Dearborn Independent_, October 20, 1923, p. 2.
[800] _Louisville Times_, November 9, 1922. Institutions to which the
request was sent were the high schools of Owensboro, Ashland, Dayton,
Maysville, Louisville, Collegiate School, Bowling Green, Kentucky State
University, Hamilton College, Lexington, and Berea College, Berea.
[801] _Ibid._
[802] Louisville _Courier-Journal_, November 12, 1922.
[803] This is the statement of Charles Grant Miller in the Chicago
_Herald and Examiner_, March 5, 1922.
[804] The report is signed “September 8, 1922.” The investigating
committee were George Clark Sargent, E. L. Magee, E. J. Mott, W. P.
Humphreys and Donozel Stoney. The adoption of the report “engendered
a heated discussion” according to the _San Francisco Chronicle_ of
November 24, 1922.
[805] “Minority Report upon Muzzey’s History of the United States to
the Board of Managers of the California Society of the Sons of the
American Revolution.” (In manuscript.)
[806] _Report of the Committee of Five on American History Text-Books
now in Use in California High Schools_ (Sacramento, 1922). (In
manuscript.) The committee appointed in April, 1922, reported in
June. It was made up of E. D. Adams (chairman), Professor of American
History, Stanford University; E. I. McCormac, Professor of American
History, University of California; J. A. Nowell, Head of the History
Department, Fresno Teachers’ College; W. W. Mather, Head of the History
Department, Ontario; A. H. Abbott, Professor of History, College of the
Pacific, San José. They examined many of the commonly used American
history textbooks.
[807] The _Cleveland Plain Dealer_, May 2, 1923.
[808] Pamphlet “Should the ‘History of the American People’ by Willis
Mason West be used as a School Text Book?” p. 4. (Obtained by the
author from A. H. Conner, Attorney-General of Idaho.) This attack of
West’s textbook was first published in the _Idaho Statesman_.
[809] _Ibid._, pp. 3-4.
[810] _Ibid._
[811] _Idaho Statesman_, December 9, 1922.
[812] Letter under date of July 20, 1923, to the author. However,
textbooks in Tennessee are selected by a board appointed by the
governor.
[813] Letter under date of August 20, 1923, from Judge Wallace
McCamant. A letter under date of July 11, 1923, from H. C. Weber,
Superintendent of Schools at Nashville, Tennessee, stated that he
was not informed regarding the results of a complaint against a
textbook used in the Nashville schools which had been presented to
the legislature. In Nashville, Tennessee, the High School used James
and Sanford’s _American History_ for the past two years according to
a statement from the Superintendent of Schools. In Adrian, Michigan,
West’s _History of the American People_ was the textbook according
to a “Directory of Adrian Public Schools, 1923-1924.” W. F. Weisand,
Superintendent of Schools of Nampa, Idaho, informed the author in a
letter of November 19, 1923, that for the years 1923 and 1924, Beard
and Bagley, _History of the American People_ and Beard, _History of
the United States_ were used. Muzzey’s history was still in use in
November, 1923, according to the superintendents of schools at Burley,
Idaho, and in Idaho Falls, Idaho. This information was obtained in
personal letters from the Superintendent of Schools. It does not agree
with Captain Conner’s statement.
[814] Letter under date of September 8, 1923, from A. H. Conner.
[815] Letter under date of August 20, 1923, from Judge Wallace McCamant.
[816] _Report of Committee on Patriotic Education_ (S. A. R.), _op.
cit._, p. 7.
[817] Report of the Historian of Passaic Valley Chapter, S. A. R.,
on Muzzey’s _American History_, December 15, 1922. (In manuscript.)
Schuyler M. Cady historian. The report was approved by the chapter,
February 12, 1923.
[818] _Official Bulletin of the National Society of the Sons of the
American Revolution_, December, 1922.
[819] _Report of Roy F. Britton to St. Louis Society of Sons of
Revolution on American History Text-Books Used in St. Louis Schools_,
December 16, 1922. (In manuscript.) Major Britton quoted from Charles
Edward Russell’s article “Behind the Propaganda Scenes” which appeared
in _Columbia_, September, 1922.
[820] _Ibid._
[821] _St. Louis Times_, December 18, 1922.
[822] _St. Louis Daily Globe Democrat_, December 18, 1922.
[823] Quoted in a pamphlet of _The Patriot League for the Preservation
of American History_.
[824] Hirshfield, David, _Report on Investigation of Pro-British
History Text-Books in Use in the Public Schools of the City of New
York_ (N. P.), p. 71.
[825] _Ibid._, p. 72.
[826] _Ibid._
[827] _The New York Times_, September 15, 1921. The “school history” is
not named.
[828] _Ibid._, October 1, 1923. The unity of opinion of various
patriotic organizations was discussed in the _New York American_,
November 4, 1923.
[829] Statement obtained from Charles F. Horne, New York City,
December, 1923. See Appendix for complete statement of principles.
[830] _Ibid._
[831] _Ibid._
[832] Horne, Charles F., _The Story of Our American People_ (2 v., New
York, 1925), p. 1. The work is not issued for general publication as
yet, according to a foreword.
[833] _Ibid._, Chapter I. In connection with this last statement
the text-book adds that “some of the convicts sent here were indeed
evil-minded rascals; but many were men we would have applauded for
their so-called crimes.” _Ibid._, p. 10. Illustrations of a “Divine
Purpose” in American events are found elsewhere, for example Burgoyne’s
surrender, 1777, “brought to our people a sense of awe, of direct aid
from Heaven.” (Vol. I, p. 377.) See also Vol. I, p. 439.
[834] _Ibid._, pp. 365, 371, 390, 394, 396, 404, Vol. II, p. 94.
[835] _Ibid._, Vol. II, pp. 80-118; 348-358; 415-444.
[836] _The New York Times_, July 24, 1925. Professor Van Tyne also
said: “I have noticed many manifest errors and dubious statements as I
ran hastily over the part devoted to the American Revolution, but the
main trouble is in its organization, and its sense of proportion....
One virtue it has which I had not expected. It is not bitterly
anti-British.”
[837] Personal correspondence, December, 1925, with Frank C. Cross,
National Director of the Americanism Commission, American Legion. Mr.
Cross gave this information because of an inquiry as to the extent and
manner in which the Legion had become interested in the teaching of
American history and the Constitution. See Appendix.
[838] _The Des Moines Register_, February 27, 1923.
[839] _The Christian Science Monitor_, August 31, 1923.
[840] Communication of the Ethical Society to the School Board,
Davenport, Iowa, May 24, 1923. (In manuscript.) The communication
refers to Charles Grant Miller’s pamphlet _Treason to American
Tradition_ for details.
[841] Hirshfield, _Report_, p. 74.
[842] _Report of Special Committee on School Histories and Text Books
Adopted by Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias September 20, 1923._ It was
also recommended that a copy be sent to the State Board of Education
and that the Supreme Representatives be instructed to present the
matter before the Supreme Lodge.
[843] “Concerning School Histories,” _The New Age_, March, 1923, pp.
156-157.
[844] This bill is discussed on page 104.
[845] “Patriotic Organizations Appeal for School History Bill,” The
New Jersey Unit, The Patriot League (Newark, New Jersey, February 22,
1924), p. 12. This pamphlet sets forth the criticisms commonly raised
against the histories.
[846] _The Des Moines Register_, April 24, 1923.
[847] _The Christian Science Monitor_, June 27, 1923.
[848] _The New York Times_, December 3, 1921. Charles Grant Miller at
this time is reported by the _Times_ to have said that Hart’s history
contained nothing objectionable to Americans, but that the preface was
bad.
[849] _Ibid._, December 10, 1921. In this section not all the places in
which history investigations have been carried on have been mentioned.
Only typical and outstanding cases are given. See pages 253, 259, 265,
273.
[850] _Report on History Text-Books used in the Public Schools of
the City of New York_, p. 6. An abbreviated form of this report was
published in _The Historical Outlook_, Vol. XIII (October, 1922), pp.
250-255.
[851] _Report_, _op. cit._, p. 14. The “General Principles” are set
forth in more detail in the Appendix of this study.
[852] _Ibid._, p. 20.
[853] _Ibid._, p. 25.
[854] _Ibid._, p. 25.
[855] _Ibid._, p. 26.
[856] _Ibid._, p. 23.
[857] _Ibid._, p. 170. Willis Mason West is mentioned. _Ibid._, p. 160.
[858] _The New York Times_, December 7, 1921. Hirshfield, _op. cit._,
p. 7.
[859] _Ibid._, p. 8.
[860] _The New York Times_, December 11, 1921.
[861] _Ibid._, December 8, 1921. Mr. Hirshfield is alleged to have said
that the investigation had been planned for several months but had been
“postponed to forestall the cry that it was to get Irish votes.” _Ibid._
[862] Hirshfield, _op. cit._
[863] Joseph T. Griffin, the author of _American History Must It be
Rewritten to Preserve Our Foreign Friendships?_ Cited in the discussion
of the Knights of Columbus movement.
[864] Haym Salomon, mentioned in the diary of Robert Morris as “my
little Jew friend on Front Street,” is credited with lending $400,000
to the colonists, becoming bankrupt. Aser Levi, a Dutch Jew, was not
permitted by Peter Stuyvesant to serve in the militia, but by an appeal
to Holland finally, was able to do so. _The New York Times_, February
4, 1922.
[865] _Ibid._; also _The Standard Union_ [Brooklyn, New York], February
3, 1922. The negro killed in the Boston riot was Crispus Attucks.
Among others who appeared at the hearings were Charles Grant Miller,
Charles Edward Russell, Warren B. Fisher of the United American War
Veterans, Thomas P. Tuite of the Vanderbilt Post G. A. R. and of the
Star Spangled Banner Association, Judge Wallace McCamant, Mrs. Marie
J. Stuart of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, and Major David Banks of the Military Order of Foreign Wars.
[866] Hirshfield, _op. cit._, p. 9.
[867] _Ibid._, p. 10.
[868] Ward’s edition of Burke’s _Speech on Conciliation with America_
was also examined. The latest editions of the textbooks were reviewed.
[869] _Ibid._
[870] _Ibid._, p. 67. Mr. Hirshfield charged certain financial leaders
of the country like George E. Roberts and Frank A. Vanderlip with
abetting movements for Anglo-American concord. The National Security
League in its program for “‘the special training of school teachers to
interpret the United States Constitution in the public schools’” and to
“secure legislation in the various states which will make this teaching
compulsory throughout the country” was described as another agency
under pro-British influence.
[871] Hirshfield, _op. cit._, pp. 38-40.
[872] _Ibid._, pp. 18-19.
[873] _Ibid._, p. 20.
[874] _Ibid._, p. 44. Guitteau’s history was criticized for his
discussion of the League of Nations in addition to other points
objectionable to Mr. Hirshfield. It was held that such discussions
are inappropriate, inasmuch as it is still an “unsettled political
question” which will be “an issue in some form or other in the coming
presidential campaign.” _Ibid._, p. 47.
[875] _Ibid._, pp. 57-58.
[876] This is entitled “Propaganda seeks to Distort American History.
British Workers are Being Backed by a Heavily Financed Machine. Purpose
of the Changes in Textbooks Range All the Way from Cultivation of ‘More
Friendly Relations’ to the Fulfillment of the Carnegie Prophecy of
the Reunited States, the British-American Union and the Cecil Rhodes
Design.” The articles in the Chicago _Herald and Examiner_ in which
the McLaughlin and Van Tyne history was criticized appeared July 24,
1921, and January 14, 1923. The Hirshfield report adopts the same
phraseology. Guitteau’s textbook was attacked in an article of November
20, 1921, and the Barnes histories in an article of July 17, 1921.
[877] _New York Tribune_, November 5, 1923. The _Tribune_ published
this statement from Miller: “The printed Hirshfield report is
substantially as I wrote it except for illiteracies and pictures.” The
_Tribune_ asserted that it had possession of fac-similes of special pay
roll vouchers signed “David Hirshfield, Commissioner of Accounts” for
Charles Grant Miller and Joseph Devlin, for expert work.
[878] _Ibid._
[879] _Ibid._
[880] _Ibid._, November 6, 1923.
[881] _Ibid._
[882] _Ibid._, November 11, 1923. The O’Hara history was criticized
in an article by Charles Grant Miller in the Chicago _Herald and
Examiner_, July 3, 1921. See page 210.
[883] _Ibid._ These histories, according to the _Tribune_, were not on
the authorized list for use in the New York City schools.
[884] _Ibid._, November 5, 1923.
[885] _Ibid._, November 23, 1923.
[886] _Ibid._, November 5, 1923. Devlin was paid $2000 for his work,
and Miller received $562.50 for his work from February to May, 1923, as
a “special expert in history text-book investigation,” according to the
_Tribune_.
[887] _The New York Times_, November 6, 1923.
[888] _Ibid._, June 5, 1923. _An American History_ by David S. Muzzey
was the eighth history in the Hirshfield list. At the time of the
investigation under the auspices of the schools there had been no
complaint against this book according to Superintendent Ettinger.
[889] _The Atlanta Journal_, June 27, 1923.
[890] _Ibid._
[891] _Ibid._ The _Baltimore Sun_ is also quoted by _The Atlanta
Journal_.
[892] _The News Sentinel_, June 6, 1923. Editorial.
[893] _The Milwaukee Journal_, June 9, 1923. Editorial.
[894] _Dubuque Telegraph-Herald_, June 14, 1923.
[895] Adams, James Truslow, “History and the Lower Criticism,” _The
Atlantic Monthly_, Vol. CXXXII (September, 1923), pp. 308-317.
[896] _City of Boston, Proceedings of School Committee_, December 18,
1922, p. 180.
[897] _Ibid._
[898] _Ibid._
[899] _Ibid._
[900] _Ibid._
[901] _Ibid._
[902] _Ibid._, p. 181. Signed by David D. Scannell and Frances G.
Curtis.
[903] _Ibid._ Signed by Richard J. Lane.
[904] _Ibid._, p. 191. The Report is given in part in the Appendix.
[905] Letter from S. G. Reinertson, Superintendent of Schools, Jackson,
Minnesota, and formerly Superintendent at Alta, Iowa, under date of
March 25, 1923.
[906] Chicago _Herald and Examiner_, March 5, 1922.
[907] _The New York Times_, May 1, 1923. Also _The Survey_, Vol. L
(April 15, 1923), p. 68.
[908] _The New York Times_, September 12, 1921.
[909] The [New York] _Evening Globe_, February 22, 1922.
[910] _The Dearborn Independent_, October 20, 1923.
[911] Adopted May 5, 1923. Columbia University, New York.
[912] Adopted October 25, 1925.
[913] _The American Historical Review_, Vol. XXIX (April, 1924), p. 428.
[914] Giddings, Franklin, “Are we getting better text-books?” _The
Independent_, Vol. I (June 3, 1922), pp. 5-9.
[915] _Ibid._ The following comment on the attitude of historians and
educators toward the censorship of histories appeared in the _New
York American_, November 4, 1923: “It has been insolently asserted by
speakers for foreign propaganda agencies and by some college professors
and school men that the interpretation of American patriotism should
be left to ‘higher historical scholarship’ and that ‘ignorant’ and
narrowly nationalistic American patriotic organizations should keep
their hands off. We contend, on the contrary, that we who have followed
the flag for American ideals know what these ideals are; we cherish
them for what they are and will maintain them in our schools as
zealously as we have maintained them in battle-line.”
[916] Dr. Payson Smith in an address on “Schools should be
Uninfluenced,” _The Christian Science Monitor_, November 2, 1921.
Doubtless it is pertinent to call attention to the work of peace
organizations in the analyses of history textbooks by which it has been
shown that heroes and achievements of war have received much more space
than heroes and achievements of peace. See _War and Peace in United
States History Text-Books_ by the National Council for Prevention of
War, Washington, D. C., and _An Analysis of the Emphasis upon War
in Our Elementary School Histories_, by the Association for Peace
Education, Chicago.
APPENDICES
A. The Lusk Laws of New York regarding Instruction in Patriotism and
Citizenship, the Flag, Text-Books, and Qualifications for Teachers.
B. _Report of Committee of Five on American History Textbooks Now in
Use in California High Schools._
C. New York City--Board of Education, _Report of the Committee to
Investigate ... History Textbooks in Use in the Public Schools of the
City of New York_....
D. City of Boston, Proceedings of School Committee, _Report of and
Review on Certain Text Books in History Used in the Schools, and Order
Relating Thereto_.
E. _Report of the Proceedings of the Convention of the American
Federation of Labor_, Cincinnati, June, 1922, “Investigation of Text
Books.”
F. Wisconsin Law of 1923 affecting History Textbooks.
G. (Statement regarding Principles) _The American Legion School
History_.
H. _Report of the American Bar Association_, Vol. XXIX (1924),
_Committee on American Citizenship_, “Our Citizenship Creed.”
_A._ THE LUSK LAWS OF NEW YORK REGARDING INSTRUCTION IN PATRIOTISM AND
CITIZENSHIP, THE FLAG, TEXTBOOKS, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS[917]
4. PATRIOTISM
_Article 26-C_
_Instruction in Patriotism and Citizenship_
Section 705. Courses of instruction in patriotism and citizenship. In
order to promote a spirit of patriotic and civic service and obligation
and to foster in the children of the state moral and intellectual
qualities which are essential in preparing to meet the obligations of
citizenship in peace or in war, the regents of the university of the
state of New York shall prescribe courses of instruction in patriotism
and citizenship, to be maintained and followed in all the schools of
the state. The boards of education and trustees of the several cities
and school districts of the state shall require instruction to be given
in such courses, by the teachers employed in the schools therein. All
pupils attending such schools, over the age of eight years, shall
attend upon such instruction.
Similar courses of instruction shall be prescribed and maintained in
private schools in the state, and all pupils in such schools over eight
years of age shall attend upon such courses. If such courses are not
so established and maintained in a private school, attendance upon
instruction in such school shall not be deemed substantially equivalent
to instruction given to pupils of like age in the public schools of
the city or district in which such pupils reside. (Added by L. 1918,
ch. 241, in effect April 17, 1918.)
706. Rules prescribing courses; inspection and supervision;
enforcement. The regents of the university of the state of New
York shall determine the subjects to be included in such courses
of instruction in patriotism and citizenship, and the period of
instruction in each of the grades in such subjects. They shall adopt
rules providing for attendance upon such instruction and for such
other matters as are required for carrying into effect the objects and
purposes of this article....
5. THE FLAG
_Article 27_
_The flag_
710. Purchase and display of flag. It shall be the duty of the school
authorities of every public school in the several cities and school
districts of the state to purchase a United States flag, flag staff and
the necessary appliances therefor, and to display such flag upon or
near the public school building during school hours, and at such other
times as such school authorities may direct.
711. Rules and regulations. The said school authorities shall establish
rules and regulations for the proper custody, care and display of
the flag, and when the weather will not permit it to be otherwise
displayed, it shall be placed conspicuously in the principal room in
the school house.
712. Commissioner of Education shall prepare program. 1. It shall be
the duty of the Commissioner of Education to prepare, for the use of
the public schools of the state, a program providing for a salute to
the flag and such other patriotic exercises as may be deemed by him to
be expedient, under such regulations and instructions as may best meet
the varied requirements of the different grades in such schools.
2. It shall also be his duty to make special provision for the
observance in the public schools of Lincoln’s birthday, Washington’s
birthday, Memorial day and Flag day, and such other legal holidays
of like character as may be hereafter designated by law when the
Legislature makes an appropriation therefor.
713. Military drill excluded. Nothing herein contained shall be
construed to authorize military instruction or drill in the public
schools during school hours.
6. TEXTBOOKS
_Article 25_, Section 674. Textbooks containing seditious or disloyal
matter. No textbook in any subject used in the public schools in this
state shall contain any matter or statements of any kind which are
seditious in character, disloyal to the United States or favorable to
the cause of any foreign country with which the United States is now
at war. A commission is hereby created, consisting of the commissioner
of education and of two persons to be designated by the regents of
the university of the state of New York, whose duty it shall be on
complaint to examine textbooks used in the public schools of the state,
in the subjects of civics, economics, English, history, language and
literature, for the purpose of determining whether such textbooks
contain any matter or statements of any kind which are seditious in
character, disloyal to the United States or favorable to the cause
of any foreign country with which the United States is now at war.
Any person may present a written complaint to such commission that
a textbook in any of the aforesaid subjects for use in the public
schools of this state or offered for sale for use in the public
schools of this state contains matter or statements in violation of
this section, specifying such matter or statements in detail. If the
commission determine that the textbook against which complaint is made
contains any such matter or statements, it shall issue a certificate
disapproving the use of such textbook in the public schools of this
state, together with a statement of the reasons for its disapproval,
specifying the matter found unlawful. Such certificate of disapproval
of a textbook, with a detailed statement of the reasons for its
disapproval, shall be duly forwarded to the boards of education or
other boards or authorities having jurisdiction of the public schools
of the cities, towns or school districts of this state, and after the
receipt of such certificate the use of a textbook so disapproved shall
be discontinued in such city, town or school district.
Any contract hereafter made by any such board of education or other
school authorities for the purchase of a textbook in any of such
subjects, which has been so disapproved, shall be void. Any school
officer or teacher who permits a textbook in any of such subjects,
which has been so disapproved, to be used in the public schools of the
state, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Added by L. 1918, ch. 246, in
effect April 17, 1918.)
7. QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS
_Article 20_, Section 550. Qualifications of teachers. No person shall
be employed or authorized to teach in the public schools of the state
who is
1. Under the age of eighteen years.
2. Not in possession of a teacher’s certificate issued under the
authority of this chapter or a diploma issued on the completion of a
course in a state normal school of this state or in the state normal
college.
3. Not a citizen. A person employed as a teacher on April 4, 1918,
who was not a citizen, may continue in such employment provided he
or she, within one year from such date, shall make application to
become a citizen and within the time thereafter prescribed by law
shall become a citizen. The provisions of this subdivision shall not
apply to alien teachers who are citizens of countries that were allied
with this country in the prosecution of the war with Germany and who
were employed as teachers in this state on or prior to April 4, 1918,
provided such teacher make application to become a citizen before the
first day of September, 1920, and within the time thereafter prescribed
by law shall become such citizen. (Amended by L. 1918, ch. 158, and L.
1919, ch. 120, in effect March 31, 1919.)
551. Minimum qualifications of teachers in primary and grammar schools.
No person shall hereafter be employed or licensed to teach in the
primary and grammar schools of any city or school district authorized
by law to employ a superintendent of schools who has not had successful
experience in teaching for at least three years, or in lieu thereof has
not completed:
1. A course in one of the state normal schools of this state or in
any approved college, prescribed by the commissioner of education.
(Subdivision 1 amended by L. 1920, ch. 155, in effect April 5, 1920.)
2. An examination for and received a life state certificate issued
in this state by a superintendent of public instruction or the
commissioner of education.
3. A course of study in a high school or academy of not less than
three years approved by the commissioner of education or from some
institution of learning of equal or higher rank approved by the same
authority, and who subsequently to the completion of such course
has not graduated from a school for the professional training of
teachers having a course of not less than two years approved by the
commissioner of education or its equivalent.
568. Removal of superintendents, teachers and employees for treasonable
or seditious acts or utterances. A person employed as superintendent
of schools, teacher or employee in the public schools, in any city or
school district of the state, shall be removed from such position for
the utterance of any treasonable or seditious word or words or the
doing of any treasonable or seditious act or acts while holding such
position. (Added by L. 1917, ch. 416, in effect May 8, 1917.)
FOOTNOTES:
[917] _Revolutionary Radicalism Its History, Purpose, and Tactics with
an Exposition and Discussion of the Steps Being Taken and Required to
Curb It_, Vol. III, pp. 2430-2434.
_B._ REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF FIVE ON AMERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS NOW IN
USE IN CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS[918]
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA,
June, 1922.
MR. A. C. OLNEY,
_Commissioner of Secondary Schools_,
_State Board of Education_,
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.
DEAR SIR: In April, 1922, you were directed by the State Board of
Education to appoint a Committee of five educators with instructions
“to examine the textbooks on American History in use in the Junior
High Schools, High Schools, and Junior Colleges of California and to
report on those, if any, which treat any part of American history in a
disloyal or unpatriotic manner or which minimize the best patriotism of
American tradition.”
The committee appointed consisted of E. D. Adams (Chairman), Professor
of American History, Stanford University; E. I. McCormac, Professor
of American History, University of California; J. A. Nowell, Head of
History Department, Fresno Teachers’ College; W. W. Mather, Head of
History Department, Ontario; and A. H. Abbott, Professor of History,
College of the Pacific, San José. The textbooks examined were:
West, _History of the American People_, 1918, Rev. 1920. Allyn & Bacon.
Hart, _New American History_, 1921. American Book Company.
Fish, _The Development of American Nationality_, 1919. American Book
Company.
McLaughlin, _A History of the American Nation_, 1919. D. Appleton &
Company.
Forman, _Advanced American History_, 1922. The Century Company.
Muzzey, _An American History_, 1920. Ginn & Company.
Fite, _History of the United States_, 1919. Henry Holt & Company.
Becker, _Beginnings of the American People_, 1915. Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Dodd, _Expansion and Conflict_, 1915. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Johnson, _Union and Democracy_, 1915. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Paxson, _The New Nation_, 1915. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ashley, _American History_, 1921. Macmillan Company.
Bassett, _Short History of the United States_, 1921. Macmillan Company.
Beard, _History of the United States_, 1921. Macmillan Company.
Channing, _Students’ History of the United States_, 1915. Macmillan
Company.
Thompson, _History of the United States_, 1917. B. H. Sanborn &
Company.
Haworth, _The United States in Our Own Times_, 1920. Scribner’s Sons.
REPORT
In the opinion of your Committee none of these texts treat “any part
of American history in a disloyal or unpatriotic manner.” All of the
authors may be credited with a desire to assist in inculcating a
loyal and patriotic Americanism.... Before attempting that judgment
it has seemed necessary to agree upon a statement setting forth what
we consider to be the essentials of “the best patriotism of American
tradition....”
Possibly our effort to summarize and state these essentials has
no place in this report, since it was in effect but a preliminary
step necessary to a common point of view in examining the texts.
Nevertheless our summary is here offered both as an indication of our
procedure and as containing the points upon which the texts were judged.
In our opinion the “best patriotism of American tradition,” when
conveyed by history textbooks should directly aid in establishing
certain principles and ideals in the pupil’s mind. The more important
of these we will list as follows:
(1) Pride in America and a Sense of Nationality.
A belief that America has developed a high type of political and
social organization. But recognition that these are not now and never
have been perfect and that they are a result of growth, largely
anticipated by the framers of our government, to meet changing
conditions. This requires a critical treatment of history, pointing
out both excellencies and defects, whether in men or in events. It
should help the pupil to develop a habit of just criticism, but also,
what is equally important, a habit of giving high approval where
merited.
(2) A Sense of Individual Liberty.
The recognition that America has contributed to world development the
theory that human happiness is best secured by guarding individual
liberty and by seeking to provide in the highest degree possible an
equal opportunity to win that happiness. The history text should
develop the origins with us of this ideal, in religious controversies,
political quarrels with the mother country in colonial times,
industrial development, and in political and social changes at home.
(3) A Respect for Private Property.
Inherited from old world institutions but emphasized more than by
other nations from our earliest times. This is a bed-rock American
principle, but as developed in the United States emphasis always
has been placed on the opportunity to acquire property as essential
to individual liberty seeking happiness, not alone on the right to
defend and to protect it. It is a principle essential to the American
conception of, and contribution to, a progressive betterment of
Society....
(4) A Belief in Democratic Self-Government by Majority Rule.
This asserts the Jeffersonian doctrine that rule by the majority,
while not insuring perfection, is more likely to approach it than any
other form of rule, and more likely to preserve individual happiness
under law. America, more than any other nation, made the contribution
of the ideal of democracy by majority rule to the theory of political
government....
(5) Obedience to Law.
Since it has its sanction in majority rule, thus providing a
reasonable limitation on individual liberty.
(6) A Desire for Justice.
It has long been, and still is, a marked attribute of America, and
history texts should expound it. They should show its manifestations
(or at times the lack of it), (a) in the spirit of compromise that
minorities may not be oppressed by majorities; (b) in our relations
with other countries; (c) in our industrial disputes. Especially in
foreign relations the text should seek to present fairly the view
opposed to American contention in order that the justice of our action
may be weighed.
(7) A Will to Defend these Principles.
This is an essential result of American history teaching which should
bring out the sacrifice, devotion and patriotism of Americans in the
past as regards: (a) our relations with other nations; and (b) our
domestic relations, either political, religious or social. But in
neither field should old and dead controversy be treated in such a way
as to perpetuate animosities....
Finally, the text should seek to be strictly unbiased as regards both
expression and content. It should narrate truthfully the important
facts of American history in such a way as to make clear the principles
and ideals which have been developed in America and for which she
stands.
Examining the texts submitted, it can not be said that any one of them
neglects, absolutely, these principles of “the best patriotism of
American tradition.”...
Your committee wishes further to point out the progressive nature of
history teaching in the schools of California. The high school does
not attempt to cover the same ground in American History courses as
the elementary, nor in the same manner. It is left to the elementary
schools to emphasize especially the biographical element, while the
high school texts develop the institutional side of our nation’s
growth. Hence we commend the omission by some authors of many names
of those who have contributed something worth while to American
progress, but whose deeds and significance can best be presented by
the elementary school text. This leaves room for the high school text
to include those matters of social and economic development which are
essential to give our young people the proper historical background for
understanding our present complex problems.
Your committee finds no text wholly objectionable under the
instructions of the State Board of Education. This is not to say,
however, that in our opinion the texts are equally worthy. They vary
in exactness of statement, in clearness of presentation, in grasp of
principles, and, what is more serious, in fairness of language and
view....
With this report approving all of the texts submitted to us, further
comment may be regarded as superfluous. It seems to us, however, that
we have a duty in directing your attention to the apparent sources of
some of the attacks on various texts. During the recent World War you
appointed a committee (upon which two of the members of your present
committee also served) to examine all history texts in use in the
California schools with instructions to report whether they “were
pro-German or were unduly friendly to our allies.” All of the American
history texts then reviewed were reported as approved, but with some
minor criticisms made privately to the publishing firms or authors. It
appears to your present committee that many of the attacks now being
made on certain texts are emanating from persons or organizations
dissatisfied with the friendly relations established between America
and our allies in the great war, and desirous of destroying that
better understanding created by the war. Some of the attacks appear to
be due to a revival of pro-German sentiment; some to an ineradicable
Irish anti-British sentiment; some to an element of political reaction
against the domestic legislation of recent years; some of journalistic
opposition to Great Britain. Generally the method used in such attacks
is to print sentences objected to without including the context. This
deprives the reader of the opportunity to judge whether the criticism
is just or not. Such criticism is in itself unfair and unscientific.
A book must be judged by its general tone and spirit rather than by
isolating words or phrases from their context and thus conveying a
false impression of the author’s meaning.
The point which we would make is, that attacks of this nature, though
requiring consideration, are not worthy of serious respect, since
usually they conceal real motives under the mantle of “traditional
American patriotism.” It is an age of propaganda and in substance
most of these attacks are propaganda, having an ulterior purpose.
Honest criticism by one who sincerely feels that a text fails to teach
American patriotism should always be listened to and his criticisms
weighed. But propaganda criticism deserves no respect either by school
boards or the authors of texts. As to such propaganda assertion that
any American history text now in use in California high schools and
junior colleges “treats any part of the American history in a disloyal
or unpatriotic manner, or minimizes the best patriotism of American
tradition,” your committee reports in the negative.
(_Signed_) E. D. ADAMS, _Chairman_
E. I. MCCORMAC
A. H. ABBOTT
J. A. NOWELL
W. W. MATHER
FOOTNOTES:
[918] _Report of the Committee of Five on American History Textbooks
Now in Use in California High Schools_ (Sacramento, 1922).
_C._ REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ... HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,[919] 1922
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The formulation of aims and standards by the Commissioner of Education
denies, by necessary implication, that the writer of a textbook for use
in the public schools has absolute freedom in the selection or in the
interpretation of historical material. Predetermined aims and standards
predetermine selection and interpretation.
The textbook must contain no statement in derogation or in
disparagement of the achievements of American heroes. It must not
question the sincerity of the aims and purposes of the founders of the
Republic or of those who have guided its destinies.
The textbook must contain no material which tends to arouse political,
racial, or religious controversy, misunderstanding or hatred.
The textbook must contain no material tending to arouse misunderstanding
or hatred between the United States and any other nation.
The selection of material must be restricted to that which contributes
most directly and essentially to the attainment of the legitimate
objectives of the public school system as formulated by the State
Commissioner of Education.
_The writer must be prepared at all times to “come out in the open and
cheerfully and unhesitatingly stand up and make known to the entire
community,” the aims and the ideals, the purposes and the motives,
which actuated him in the selection of his material and in his
interpretation thereof._
SPECIFIC AIMS
1. To acquaint the pupils with the basic facts and movements,
political, industrial, and social, of American history.
2. To emphasize the principles and motives that were of greatest
influence in the formation and development of our government.
3. To establish ideals of patriotic and civic duty.
4. To awaken in the pupil a desire to emulate all praiseworthy endeavor.
5. To emphasize the importance of weighing permissible evidence in
forming judgments.
6. To present the ethical and moral principles exemplified in the lives
of patriotic leaders.
7. To inspire in the pupil an appreciation of the hardships endured and
the sacrifices made in establishing and defending American ideals.
8. To develop in the pupil a love for American institutions and the
determination to maintain and defend them.
9. To bring the light of reason and experience to bear on radical or
alien theories of economic and political systems.
10. To enable the pupil to interpret the present in terms of the past
and to view intelligently the functions and the value of existing
institutions.
DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND SPECIAL AIMS
In order to give a clearer and more definite idea of the scope and
intent of the general principles and special aims formulated by the
Committee we submit herewith a discussion of said general principles
and special aims.
A. _The Primary Problem in Writing a History Textbook Is Propriety Of
Selection of Material_
... As the pages of a textbook are limited, no material should be used
unless it is essential and of the highest educational value. The
child’s time must not be taken up with facts which do not measure up to
this standard.
B. _The Textbook Writer Is Not A Historian_
Strictly speaking the textbook writer is not a historian. The historian
writes for the open market. He has the privilege of selecting and
organizing his material in accordance with his own views. He may be
an impartial writer or he may be a partisan. The textbook writer has
not this freedom. He is subject to the limitations imposed upon the
teacher....
It is for the teacher to determine what material is needed. It is for
the textbook writer to supply it. Unfortunately, an examination of the
prefaces in various textbooks shows that some textbook writers do not
take this view....
We believe that a textbook writer who seeks to influence our
international relations is a propagandist. Under our constitution it
is for the federal government, in the first instance, to determine
what our foreign relations shall be. The children in attendance in our
public schools must not be used directly or indirectly to influence
official action in such matters.
C. _The Burden Of Proof Rests Upon Him Who Makes A Derogatory Statement_
As a rule derogatory statements have little or no educational value....
Only when a man has been guilty of an act of great moral turpitude is a
discussion of his act likely to lead to beneficial consequences. Nero’s
cruelty and Arnold’s treason are illustrations....
D. _Probable Reason For The Presence Of Much Of The Material To Which
Objections Have Been Made_
Probably the factor principally responsible for the presence of
objectionable material in the textbooks under investigation is that the
writers have not divided their material into topic-units, and have not
formulated aims, sufficiently extensive in scope to permit marshalling
the facts in due subordination....
E. _Emasculated Accounts Of Wars In Order To Encourage Peace_
Objection has been made to the treatment in some of the textbooks of
the wars in which we have been engaged. The objections are to the
effect that the accounts are emasculated. In reply it is strenuously
urged that “the surest way to end war, is to sing the praises of peace
and to say little of war and the heroes of war.”...
War in defense of freedom or in vindication of righteousness, justice
and equity should be vividly portrayed, and the praises of its heroes
should be joyously sung. Thus only can we raise a citizenry willing to
die for the country.
F. _Our Heroes_
Objection has been made that some of the textbooks contain statements
in derogation of our national heroes. In reply it has been urged that
the statements are true, and that attention should be called to the
weaknesses of our heroes or we will esteem them too highly.
Truth is no defense to the charge of impropriety....
The assurance that posterity will hold our heroes in grateful
remembrance is one of the most powerful incentives to heroic
achievement. To preserve unsullied the name and fame of those who have
battled that we might enjoy the blessings of liberty, is a solemn and
sacred obligation....
G. _Propaganda_
It has been charged that some textbooks contain propaganda. In reply
some have alleged that all who make the charge are persons opposed to
friendly relations with Great Britain. The reply cannot be sustained,
as appears from the following editorial in “_The American Legion
Weekly_” of October 7, 1921:
“The country has known for some time that school textbooks
on American history are being revised on the theory that the
elimination or correction of obvious untruths or distorted truths
concerning England’s relations with this country, notably during
the Revolutionary War, would promote the cause of international
friendship.... If the purpose of some of the authors was not to give
the lasting impression to the school children of this country that the
Revolutionary War was an unjustifiable war, that is likely to be the
effect of their work.... It will be regretted if what appeared to be a
meritorious undertaking has been exploited with propaganda which every
fair-minded American must resent.”...
H. _Controversial Topics_
As far as possible, the writer of a textbook should avoid controversial
topics. The public schools are maintained by the public funds. The
taxpayers are of various creeds and political beliefs. Their feelings
must be respected....
I. _Patriotism_
It is objected that some of the textbooks make no attempt to inculcate
patriotism by bringing to the attention of pupils the best in the
lives, words, and deeds of our patriots; and that in some of the books,
too much attention is given to the utterances and achievements of the
heroes of other countries.
In reply, it is urged that true patriotism does not require that we
magnify our country at the expense of others; that a “narrow-visioned”
patriotism means that the Englishman will become more English, the
German, more German; and the American, more American.... Patriotism is
not “egotism.” To make certain that the pupils in the elementary grades
are thoroughly familiar with our own heroes before we introduce them to
the heroes of other lands is neither “narrow-visioned” nor evidence of
“international hatred.”...
FOOTNOTES:
[919] New York City Board of Education, Report on _History Textbooks
used in the Public Schools of the City of New York_ (New York, 1922).
_D._ REPORT OF AND REVIEW ON CERTAIN TEXT BOOKS IN HISTORY USED IN THE
SCHOOLS, AND ORDER RELATING THERETO [City of Boston][920]
The following was presented:
On October 23, [1922] the City Council unanimously passed an order
requesting the School Committee to give a hearing for the consideration
of certain objections made to the use in the public schools of this
city of “School History of the United States,” revised 1920, by Albert
Bushnell Hart; Burke’s “Speech on Conciliation,” edited by C. H. Ward
1919; and “American History,” by D. S. Muzzey. The preface to the Ward
edition of Burke’s “Speech on Conciliation” was found to be in certain
respects objectionable, and the book therefore has been dropped from
the list.
In compliance with this request the School Committee appointed for a
hearing the late afternoon of Wednesday, November 15, and in response
to a further request that the hearing be in the evening rather than in
the afternoon in order to meet the convenience of the members of the
City Council, the hour was changed to 8 o’clock P.M. on that day. The
City Council was represented at the hearing by one of its members.
The School Committee believes that extreme care is taken to avoid the
inclusion upon the so-called Authorized List of any unfit or improper
books for use in the public schools, and whenever in the past it has
appeared that any books to which reasonable objections may be made have
been so included prompt steps have been taken to discontinue the use of
such books. This course will be followed in the future as carefully as
in the past.
The School Committee welcomes all honest and fair-minded criticism
of any of its acts, and particularly when such criticism is helpful
and constructive. It does not welcome criticism that seeks merely to
tear down or destroy and does not substitute for the object of attack
something that is better and more useful.
The members of the Committee have personally examined the books under
discussion, with considerable care, both before and after the hearing.
They feel, therefore, that they are reasonably well acquainted with
the contents of the books and with the objections that have been urged
against them. They have also had prepared a careful and dispassionate
review under the direction of the Board of Superintendents of all
or substantially all of the criticisms made against these books and
brought to their attention, and a refutation of these criticisms which,
in the opinion of the Committee, justice to the authors demands. The
review is hereto appended.
Neither this report, nor the accompanying review should be construed
as indicating that the members of the Committee are in entire sympathy
and agreement with all the statements which the books contain, nor
that proper and balanced emphasis has been placed in all instances
upon certain events in our national history. Opinions on this point
must necessarily and widely differ and cannot be brought into absolute
reconcilement, but such differences certainly are not sufficient to
warrant the condemnation of the books nor the impeachment of the
sincerity and good faith of the authors.
In the opinion of the Committee, also, there are in the books examples
of what might be called “loose writing,” one single instance of which
must suffice.
Professor Hart says “the only way to find out what races composed the
white population (in 1790) is to examine the family names and they
show that about five-sixths were descended from English ancestors;
one-twelfth were Scotch, Scotch-Irish, and Irish; ...; [_sic_] about
one-twentieth were Germans, and about one-fiftieth were Dutch.”
We think this is not a correct historical statement to make. True,
reliable statistics are, of course, hard to obtain, but it is surely
not correct to say that the only way to find what races composed the
white population at that time is to examine the family names. For
instance, the names of two hundred members of the Charitable Irish
Society of this city, a society formed in 1737, have been called to
our attention, who were members of that society prior to 1790 and most
of them prior to 1770, and who would not, if Professor Hart’s standard
obtained of judging from names alone, very likely be considered by him
as Irish.
In the course of the hearing irrelevant and extraneous matters were
brought to the attention of the School Committee to which it listened
with scant patience. The question at issue was the fitness or the
unfitness of two books for use in the public schools. In the course
of the hearing, what the School Committee regards as unwarranted and
ill-founded attacks were made upon the authors of these books. The life
of Professor Hart, the service of his two sons in the World War, and
his ancestry forbid any suspicion of his loyalty and patriotism. The
life of Professor Muzzey and his ancestry, with its record of honorable
service in the Civil War, in the War of 1812, and at Lexington, equally
forbid any belief that he would be subservient to foreign influence.
Any hint or suggestion that either of these gentlemen was influenced
to promote British propaganda especially by pecuniary recompense
is unthinkable. Nor is their reputation and standing as reliable
historians to be impugned by such criticism as is now levelled against
them.
The real and only question at issue is whether their histories contain
material to which reasonable and proper objection may be made. It
goes without saying that no historian has ever succeeded in writing
a book which met satisfactorily every point of view, nor does any
history place an equal amount of emphasis upon all the topics which it
discusses. One history may deal mainly with the social and economic
growth of a nation; another with its military or naval exploits;
another may dwell at length upon the personal achievements of its
great figures; another upon its political development. It is clearly
impossible that one brief volume should give adequate treatment to
all the steps incident to the origin and growth of a great nation.
Therefore, the list authorized for use in the public schools contains
not merely a single book, but many histories all differing in their
treatment of the subject, and these books are, of course, largely
supplemented by the personal instruction and guidance of the teacher.
If the books in question contain so much that is objectionable and
unpatriotic, it is singular that some of our great body of intelligent
and patriotic teachers have failed to discover these grave defects, and
that the books have had so little apparent effect upon the loyalty of
the pupils who have had access to them.
The School Committee also deplores the course pursued by the critics
of these books in tearing from their context detached sentences and
omitting explanations and summaries which are essential to a grasp of
the authors’ real meaning. The critic who pursues such a course may
easily find opportunity for criticism of any book that ever has been
written on the subject of history, and indeed on many other subjects as
well.
In the course of the hearing certain passages in these books were
attacked on the ground that they gave an unfavorable impression
concerning the character and actions of a few of the great party
leaders of the time; but it must not be forgotten that in such
instances the authors have merely noted the opinions of opposing party
leaders.
Unquestionably, the pupils in our schools are perfectly well aware
of the severe, pointed and frequently virulent criticism that is
constantly being directed against men now in public life. Acquainted
with this criticism, is it reasonable to expect them to believe that
the leaders of our country in past years were really super-men or
demi-gods, and not equally subject to the weaknesses and frailties
that surround human life today? Even the revered Abraham Lincoln was
the target, in his time, of abuse and vilification. Nor did Washington
himself escape the calumnies of some of his contemporaries.
As to the omission of what the critics regard as adequate mention of
former national heroes, such as Nathan Hale, Anthony Wayne, Putnam,
Sumter, Pickens, Marion, Stark, Sullivan, Knox, Commodore Barry,
Sergt. Jasper, Light Horse Harry Lee, Molly Pitcher and Betsy Ross: It
should not be forgotten that the exploits of these patriots, important,
brilliant and picturesque as they were have been repeatedly emphasized
in the course in history during the earlier years of the pupils’ school
life while these two books are adapted to use of older pupils.
The School Committee would gladly express its opinion item by item
on the various specific criticisms that have been made against these
books were it not for the fact that to do so would unduly lengthen this
report. They are covered in detail in the accompanying review.[921]
The main and controlling question at present issue is this: Does
either of these books contain matter which is unpatriotic, disloyal or
calculated to falsely impress the minds of the pupils to whom they are
made accessible? If they do, their further use in the schools should
not be permitted. If they do not, there is not good and sufficient
reason to justify their exclusion and the consequent reflection upon
the sincerity and good faith of their authors.
It should not be forgotten moreover that these books are in constant
process of revision and correction as errors and misstatements are
discovered, and this is true probably of the works of all historians of
standing and repute.
It may be pointed out also that those who advance these criticisms
do not suggest the titles of other books which they would regard as
unobjectionable. On this point they are absolutely silent.
The School Committee, therefore, having given due consideration to the
matter, is of the opinion that the criticisms against these two books
are not sufficient to justify their exclusion from the Authorized List,
and directs that the City Council be so informed.
DAVID D. SCANNELL.
FRANCES G. CURTIS.
The undersigned, while in agreement with the foregoing report, is,
nevertheless, of the opinion that the Board of Superintendents should
see that in any future revision of these two books certain statements
therein contained, which this report and the accompanying review do not
approve, are omitted or modified by the authors or publishers.
RICHARD J. LANE.
FOOTNOTES:
[920] City of Boston, _Proceedings of School Committee_, December 18,
1922.
[921] The review is not included in this Appendix.
_E._ REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, CINCINNATI, JUNE, 1922. EIGHTH DAY
PROCEEDINGS[922]
_“Investigation of Text Books” under the Committee on Education and the
Executive Council_
The committee is exceedingly glad to report the completion of the
survey of text books and social studies under the direction of the
permanent Committee on Education and the Executive Council by O. S.
Beyer, Jr. This significant piece of work is now in the hands of that
committee. Its scope is indicated by the title, “Social Studies in the
Public Schools.”
The report is divided into six sections and a supplement, as follows:
PART I--_Influences at Work in Public Education_:
1. The Threat to Public Education.
2. Who is Responsible?
3. Safeguards and Remedies.