Part 2 — CHAPTER VII The Attack on History Textbooks Since 1917 (continued 2)

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: