on the stage of the fourteenth century, there are several important
and interesting phases of this period which have much to do with the
development of the English nation. The growth of trade, the development
of national spirit, and, above all, the breaking up of villeinage and
the social and religious unrest of the last half of the century are
all signs of the times well worth noting. So far as I know there is no
illuminating fiction to help the laggard imagination to picture the
days of Wat Tyler, John Ball and John Wyclif. But there is Langland’s
“Piers the Plowman’s Dream,” there are Chaucer’s vivid word pictures
of the life of his day, and there is much about the life and work of
Wyclif. On this last subject the quotation in Beard’s “Introduction,”
pp. 221-230, is very full, but contains too much detail for the average
school boy or girl. Green, pp. 235-244, contains much that may be used
in notes. The close connection between Lollardry and the prevailing
social unrest is well brought out by Green.
Care must be taken, however, not to attribute the root of this social
unrest to the religious teachings of Wyclif. Undoubtedly the shortage
of laborers produced by the great plague, and the unsettled political
conditions of the time were more important factors in the breaking up
of villeinage and the shifting of the lower strata of society than the
preaching of the Lollards. The causes of the peasant revolt and of the
upheaval of ancient custom are discussed very lucidly by Green, pp.
244-255 and pp. 255-260.
The points to be emphasized, it seems to me, are the great facts of
the overturning of the old system of employing labor, and the fact
of the brief Protestant movement. The former was a permanent change,
wrought by the currents which move slowly, but mightily, in the history
of every nation; the latter was the blazing up of a light that was to
die back into darkness, that was only a forerunner of the Reformation
of the future. The emancipation of the serfs has no parallel in any
modern emancipation of slaves. It was not brought about _by_ acts of
parliament, but rather _in spite of them_. The old system was outworn
and was sloughed off amid the throes of natural development. Feudalism,
like Charles II, was an “unconscionable time a-dying,” but, like
Charles, too, it died a natural, not a violent, death.
One other phase of the fourteenth century not to be forgotten is the
beginning of the English language in anything like its modern form,
and the beginning of English literature with Chaucer. Out of the
conflict between French and Anglo-Saxon which set in with the Norman
Conquest there at last emerged, two hundred years later, the new
English language, with its Teutonic foundations and its Latin-Gallic
adornments. From this time on the English language, ever growing, but
always English, is the general language of England.
The Fifteenth Century.
There is little in England’s story during the fifteenth century which
is memorable or striking. The brief glories of Agincourt, to be sure,
inflated the national pride, but whatever the splendors of Henry
V’s reign, they were swallowed up in the gloom and disaster of the
following decades--the loss of French possessions, the helplessness of
the crown, the turbulence of the nobles, the cruel strife of the Roses,
the selfish reign of Edward IV, and the monstrosity of Richard III. No
new light in literature or religion, no really great name in statecraft
appears--nothing until the end of the century, when the first rays of
the renaissance were beginning to lighten the horizon, to relieve the
dullness and darkness of this profitless century. It has always seemed
to me the proverbial dark hour before the dawn.
The Wars of the Roses.
In spite of their inglorious and useless character, the Wars of the
Roses have, undoubtedly, considerable historical significance. The
comparative situation of the crown and of the nobility before and
after this strife is very striking. In the forties we find the king
financially and politically weak, the barons wealthy from the spoils
of France, strong in their armed retainers, and unbridled in their
turbulence and arrogance. In the eighties all this is changed; the king
is supreme, the baronage at his mercy. The change is easy to account
for--the contrast in character between Henry VI and Henry VII accounts
in part for it; but the bloody struggle which decimated the ranks and
exhausted the resources of the nobility was evidently the main cause of
their humiliation.
As to the Wars of the Roses themselves, I think many text-books lack
clarity in bringing out the fact that rather than a straggling war
there was a distinct _series_ of conflicts, which makes this peculiar
civil strife not _a war_, but literally _the Wars_ of the Roses. Some
such outline as follows is of practical use in bringing out this fact
in the class-room:
First--Beginning of the wars, 1455. First battle of St. Albans,
Richard of York triumphant. Armed truce of five years.
Second--Outbreak brought on by intrigues of Queen Margaret,
1460-1461; battles of Northampton, Wakefield (only Lancastrian
success; Richard killed), second St. Albans, and Towton. Triumph of
the new Duke of York, Richard’s son, Edward, now crowned Edward IV.
Third--After nearly decade of peace, revolt headed by Warwick.
Brief restoration of throne to poor Henry VI; battles of Barnet and
Tewkesbury. Return of Edward IV.
Fourth--Final struggle, victory of Henry Tudor, 1485, Bosworth Field.
Such an outline brings out plainly the intermissions in the wars, and
the happenings during these considerable stretches of time (much longer
than the periods of fighting) can be filled in very easily.
Foundations of the Tudor Absolutism.
In the opening chapter of James Gairdner’s “Henry the Seventh”
(Macmillan), the author gives a brief and interesting account of the
early life of Henry VII which brings out both the uses of adversity
which moulded his character, and the pedigree which, if heredity means
anything, must have been one of the causes of the Tudor personality.
The facts that Henry’s grandmother, Katharine, widow of Henry V, was a
French princess, that his grandfather was a Welsh knight, and that his
mother was lineally descended through John of Gaunt from Edward III are
both interesting in themselves and of importance in connection with
his claims to the throne. Finally his marriage with Elizabeth of York,
daughter of Edward IV, was of vast importance in helping to end the
long feud and to establish beyond all question the royal supremacy of
subsequent kings.
The structure of the Tudor absolutism, then, so carefully reared by
Henry VII, had two very substantial foundations, first in the king’s
own position by heredity, marriage and character; second, in the
demoralization of the barons. On those foundations the new king began
building after 1485 according to methods of his own, or by means
already invented. By shrewd economy and rather unregal thrift; by the
heavy fines for which the Court of the Star Chamber was so useful; by
following Edward IV’s illustrious example in levying benevolences,
with the expert help of Cardinal Morton; by politic relations at home
and abroad, Henry built financial power and made himself master of the
barons.
General Notes.
The pathetic figure of Henry VI, such a contrast to his immediate
successors, is portrayed with simplicity and charm, pp. 296-297 of
Cheyney’s “Readings.” Speaking of Henry VI naturally suggests the close
of the Hundred Years’ War, and tempts me to refer again to Joan of Arc.
There is a particularly sympathetic and charming account of her in the
November (1909) “St. Nicholas”--an account which more than one “grown
up” must have read with delight.
It is well to make clearer than most text-books do just what
“benevolences” were. This may be done by making them concrete rather
than by definition. The extract from Fabyan’s “Chronicle” in the
“Readings,” pp. 300-301, does this excellently. For concreteness, too,
Henry VII’s diary quoted at some length in the “Readings” gives an
intimate view of Henry, one would hardly expect of a mere account book.
It contains a quaint mingling of expenditures of state and the smallest
items, from £12,000 “for the king’s wars,” to 2s. “to a woman for a
rede rosae.”
The beginnings of printing, and especially the pioneer work of Caxton,
are not only of immense interest as an invention, but of immense
importance as one of the great mediums of spreading abroad the new
ideas which were about to flood Europe. Green, as usual, is very full
of interesting information, the gist of which is useful for notes on
this subject, pp. 295-299.
History in the Grades
ARMAND J. GERSON, Editor.
THE JAY TREATY. A TYPE LESSON.
Since treaties, unlike explorers and land-claims, are not peculiar to
any one period of our history, the selection of a particular treaty for
our type-lesson presents more difficulty than we met in the case of our
earlier lessons on Columbus and the Spanish claim. At first glance the
mere matter of priority in time might seem to decide the question for
us. Why not take the first treaty that comes into our story and use it
as the topic of our treaty lesson?
To this basis of selection there are two serious objections. In the
first place, treaties find their way into our history narrative at an
early stage of the child’s mental development, at a time, that is to
say, when he is neither best fitted for, nor most interested in, the
constitutional points involved in a real understanding of the making
of a treaty. The study of the treaties that closed the inter-colonial
wars, for example, would constitute an unwarranted interruption of the
narrative which at that time should be occupying the pupil’s whole
attention.
A still graver objection, however, to the use of any of these early
treaties for our type-lesson lies in the fact that they are in no sense
typical. While they, of course, concerned the colonists very directly,
they were nevertheless treaties between foreign nations; our country
was not a party to them. Neither can we consider as typical the early
treaties into which we entered in the first days of our national
existence,--that with France in 1778, and that with England in 1783.
Both of these were negotiated under authority of a constitution widely
different from that which prescribes the treaty-making process in our
nation to-day.
Our treaty with England in 1794 was the first important treaty
(important, that is, from the point of view of our elementary course of
study) to which the American nation in the present significance of that
term was a party. It answers admirably the purpose of a type-lesson.
Here are to be found all the important elements necessary for the
proper grasp of later treaties. Moreover, the history work in most of
our elementary schools is so graded that pupils come to the study of
the post-Revolutionary period with sufficient maturity of mind to grasp
and to enjoy the international and constitutional questions around
which the story of the Jay Treaty develops.
The topic of our type-lesson having been selected, the mode of
presentation next demands the teacher’s attention. We must keep
clearly in mind that our purpose is the development of a type-idea,
a regulating concept which will help in the firm and instant
comprehension of later treaties when they shall find their way into our
story. It becomes necessary, therefore, to select with great care and
present with special emphasis those elements which have most real and
far-reaching significance. The following questions may help us in our
selection: What should the pupil’s notion of a treaty include when he
leaves the elementary school? How much of this desired understanding
can be developed by means of our lesson on the Jay Treaty? In a word,
what are the type-elements of our lesson?
The essential elements of the idea we are striving to develop through
our type-lesson fall naturally under two heads:
1. The pupil should receive from the study of the Jay Treaty a clear
notion of the treaty-making process as prescribed by the Constitution.
He should further have some idea of the way in which the constitutional
provision has worked out in practice.
2. The pupil should gain from the lesson a definite knowledge of the
essential, significant, or typical parts of a treaty. This knowledge
should include some idea of the general form and arrangement of the
document.
Our type-lesson should be developed with the purpose of impressing
these two type-elements.
A lesson, however, which concerned itself exclusively with
type-elements would be a very dull and lifeless affair. In fact,
the events which make up the greater part of the story of the Jay
Treaty are by no means typical of treaties in general. It must be
borne in mind, however, that to them attach a value and an interest
of their own. Local color, objective reality, in a word, everything
which makes history actual and living depends on the proper use of
specific, characteristic, but not necessarily typical, details. The
teacher’s task is to make such use of this auxiliary material as will
bring into strong relief the type-elements. He must strive to effect
a combination of the typical and the specific, the general and the
particular, so that in the end he shall have developed in his pupil’s
mind a consistent and complete type-idea, vivified and enriched by a
wealth of local incident and illuminating detail. The introductory
stage of the Jay Treaty lesson should consist of a brief review of our
relations with Great Britain since the Revolutionary War. The treaty
which closed that war, besides recognizing the independence of the
United States, had placed both countries under certain definite mutual
obligations. There is no real inconsistency in this reference to the
treaty of 1783 before the full development of our type-lesson on the
Jay Treaty. We are not assuming that the pupil has the sort of grasp
which the type-lesson aims to secure; we are simply taking for granted
his general understanding of a treaty as a formal agreement between
nations, a simple enough notion and one which can hardly fail to have
been developed incidentally in the earlier course of the work. To
return, then, to our preparatory consideration of the treaty of 1783,
it should be pointed out that certain articles of that treaty[7] had
provided for the payment of debts contracted before the war, for the
restitution of all confiscated Tory estates, and, on the other side,
for the withdrawal of English troops from United States territory.
These provisions had not been carried out. Hard feeling between the
two countries was further aggravated by England’s serious interference
with our commerce. Her vessels persisted in searching our ships and
impressing our seamen. The limit of patient endurance seemed reached
when in 1793 the English government ordered the seizure of all neutral
vessels carrying provisions to French ports. What was to be done?
Clearly either one of two things: resort to war or enter into a new
agreement. The class is presumably familiar with the fact that in
spite of the advocacy of an alliance with France by certain of our
leaders and their insistence on a renewal of the war with England,
our government had definitely decided on a policy of neutrality and
peace. Since we were not to fight England, it remained to settle our
difficulties by means of a new treaty.
How can our government make a treaty with a foreign nation? With this
question we bring our pupils face to face with the first type-element
in the Jay Treaty lesson. The class has not long since taken up the
story of the making of our Constitution, and may be assumed to realize
its significance as the “fundamental law.” What has the Constitution to
say on the subject of treaty-making? The President “shall have power,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,
provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” The significance
of this provision can easily be cleared up by a brief explanation of
the organization of Congress, the chief general powers of that body,
and the most important points of difference between the functions of
the two houses.
We are now ready to resume consideration of the situation in 1794.
Washington’s policy of peace necessitated definite negotiations with
England. He accordingly looked about for an agent specially fitted
to carry on the difficult task. He decided upon John Jay, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Washington’s choice was approved by the
Senate, and Jay set sail for England as envoy extraordinary of the
United States. It is important that the class should realize that
this sending of a special ambassador is not necessarily typical of
treaty-making. Washington might have used as his agent our regular
minister to England. On the other hand, the negotiations might have
taken place in Philadelphia, our Secretary of State taking up the
matter with the English minister to this country. In other words, the
selection of Jay is not a type-element, and must not be so regarded by
our pupils.
The details of Jay’s negotiations in London should not be presented to
an elementary class. They are of little value or interest for young
pupils and have practically no bearing on the treaty-making process.
Suffice it to say that Great Britain was represented by Lord Grenville
(“His Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,”
and son of the Grenville of pre-Revolutionary notoriety), and that
Jay found it impossible to secure all the concessions he desired. On
November 19, 1794, after five months of negotiation, the articles were
signed by the two plenipotentiaries.
The class is now ready to give some time and attention to the treaty
itself with a view to noting its typical or significant parts.[8]
Attention should first be directed to the preamble, which, as typical
of modern treaties, should receive considerable emphasis. It should
be read at length (it is not very long), and the wording carefully
noted. The preamble serves three purposes: (1) It names the contracting
parties, (2) it specifies the object of the negotiations, and (3)
it names the agents of both countries and indicates their mode of
appointment.
The general arrangement of the document, that is to say, the division
into articles taking up the special points covered by the treaty,
should next be pointed out. The teacher might rapidly run through
some of the chief topics considered, in the twenty-eight articles of
the treaty. Finally, the formal dating and signing at the end of the
document should receive passing notice.
The special provisions, in so far as they need be taken up in an
elementary treatment of our topic, next call for attention. In no
sense do these constitute a type-element. They should be given to the
class in their simplest form and without any undue detail. The general
statement that most of the difficulties between the two nations were
adjusted by the treaty of 1794, but that nothing was settled on the
disturbing question of impressment, comprises about all that we can
expect an elementary pupil to retain concerning the special provisions
of this treaty.
When, however, we come to the subsequent history of the treaty in the
Senate, we reach a more essential part of the story. Ratification by
the Senate has already been pointed out as part of the constitutional
provision on treaty-making, and here we come upon our first typical
instance of its application. The Senate was called into special
session, and took up the matter of the treaty on June 8, 1795. The
two-thirds vote is both interesting and important as typical of the
treaty-making process. The teacher should impress it by reviewing the
number of states in the Union at the time, the consequent membership of
the Senate, and the vote necessary for the ratification of the treaty.
It is well here to work with actual numbers so as to lend vividness to
the presentation. The final ratification took place June 24, 1795.
The reservation in regard to Article XII, which the Senate refused
to confirm, and the later struggle for an appropriation in the House
obviously will find no place in an elementary lesson. They are in
themselves far too complicated for the purpose of history teaching in
the grades. Moreover, they are in no sense typical of treaties in
general and would tend to confuse rather than clarify the notion we are
seeking to develop.
Having taken the class through the process of treaty-making as
exemplified in the Jay Treaty, and having developed an adequate notion
of the nature of a treaty, it will be advisable for the teacher to
formulate with his pupils an outline or synopsis of the most important
points of the lesson. This type-lesson is different in character from
the lessons we have previously considered on explorers and claims in
that it does not typify an epoch. As before mentioned, treaties are
not peculiar to any one period of our history. It is, therefore, of
importance that the results of the lesson should be put into some
concise, permanent form to which the pupil may easily refer when, now
and again in the course of his history work, various treaties are under
discussion. While the lesson as here outlined may seem to enter into
an undue amount of detail, it is our thought that the effort expended
will be more than repaid by the definiteness of the notion which we
have developed and by the greater ease of comprehension with which our
pupils will approach the treaties lying in wait for them later in the
course.
FOOTNOTES:
[7] Articles IV, V and VI, MacDonald’s “Select Documents,” pp. 19-20.
[8] The text of the treaty can be found in convenient form in
MacDonald’s “Select Documents,” pp. 114-180.
Reports from the Historical Field
WALTER H. CUSHING, Editor.
HISTORY TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATIONS.
For the convenience of its readers and to stimulate the work of
organization, THE MAGAZINE will print each month a list of the
associations, with the names and addresses of the secretaries. The
following list is admittedly incomplete. Will our readers help us fill
in the gaps, and keep us informed of changes in the secretarial offices?
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.--W. G. Leland, Carnegie Institution,
Washington, D. C., secretary.
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, PACIFIC COAST BRANCH.--J. N. Bowman,
University of California, Berkeley, secretary.
CALIFORNIA.--Professor J. N. Bowman, Berkeley, secretary.
INDIANA.--Professor Harriet Palmer, Franklin, secretary.
MARYLAND.--Mr. Robert H. Wright, Baltimore, secretary.
MIDDLE STATES.--Professor Henry Johnson, Teachers’ College, New York
City, secretary.
MISSISSIPPI.--Mr. H. M. Ivy, Flora, secretary.
MISSOURI.--Professor Eugene Fair, Kirksville, secretary.
NEBRASKA.--Professor C. N. Anderson, Kearney, president.
NEW ENGLAND.--Mr. W. H. Cushing, South Framingham, Mass., secretary.
NEW YORK (N. Y.) CONFERENCE.--L. R. Schuyler, City College, New York,
secretary.
NORTH CENTRAL.--Mr. G. H. Gaston. Wendell Phillips High School,
Chicago, secretary.
TRENTON (N. J.) CONFERENCE.--Sarah A. Dynes, State Normal School,
secretary.
WISCONSIN.--Gertrude Hull, West Division High School, Milwaukee,
chairman.
In Colorado, Professor James G. Willard is chairman of the Committee
on Organization. In Louisiana, Professor Walter L. Fleming is most in
touch with the movement. In North Dakota, Professor John M. Gillette,
of the University of North Dakota, writes of steps taken to organize.
The Washington teachers will organize at their next annual meeting.
WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION.
At the meeting of the Wisconsin State Teachers’ Association, held at
Milwaukee on November 4, 5, 6, it was voted to organize a Wisconsin
History Teachers’ Association, to meet at the same time and city as the
State Teachers’ Association. The following committee was appointed to
draw up a plan for the organization and to prepare the programme for
the next meeting: