Chapter VII: The Attack on History Textbooks Since 1917 (3)

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.