On the other hand, Modern History, by Hayes and Moon, is given a clean bill of health because of its treatment of this controversial subject. The critic, however, pointed out, in fairness to the other writers criticized, that “in the interval that has elapsed since the appearance of the other texts ..., certain new items of evidence had been brought forward and the general war-fever had abated somewhat. The authors of the new book therefore enjoyed certain special advantages, which help, no doubt, to explain the novel tone....”[772]
Not only has the treatment of the origin of the War been a source of criticism but also the divergent points of view regarding German atrocities, reparations and the Treaty of Versailles. On these points Professor Donald Taft in his study “Historical Textbooks and International Differences” has declared that American pupils are taught from two kinds of textbooks, one group being “bitterly anti-German” and the other attempting a fairness of judgment. Of this he cites Guitteau’s Our United States and Long’s America as examples.[773] Much the same point of view is held by Isabel Kendig-Gill in a pamphlet “War and Peace in United States History Text-Books,” in which, in addition, she declares that “nowhere is there any fundamental analysis either of the political and economic situation out of which the war grew or of its spiritual and moral costs to the world.”[774]
Following the close of the World War, the place of prominence held by the histories of Europe in the critic’s eye was eclipsed by American histories. A desire to depict events favorable to the Allies was superseded by the apprehension that such a narrative would prove the undoing of American patriotism. This apprehension was mingled in the minds of many with the fear that the solid pillars of society were being threatened with radicalism and socialism. In this spirit, for example, attacks on history textbooks were inaugurated by the editor of The Daily Courier of Ottumwa, Iowa. On March 2, 1919, under the caption, “Get a New History,” appeared an editorial attacking Muzzey’s An American History because of its “socialistic trend” and its treatment of the period since the Civil War.[775] Two years later, due to the energy of the editor of the Ottumwa Daily Courier, Governor Nate Kendall of Iowa was asked by the joint committee on Americanism of various patriotic and civic organizations to appoint a commission “to investigate anti-American and radical teaching in state owned institutions and the public schools.” The action of the committee was prompted by the information “that there were good reasons to believe that some of the textbooks on American History used in our schools were wanting in national and patriotic spirit and sentiment; that they failed to instil devotion to American ideals, and pass[ed] over lightly events in American history which should ... stimulate pride of country, patriotism and devotion to our institutions.”[776] No action was taken by the Governor.
One of the most active organizations in the present-day movement to remodel the content of history textbooks has been the Sons of the American Revolution. In 1917 at the instigation of the Executive Committee of the National Society an examination of Muzzey’s An American History was undertaken by Judge Wallace McCamant, later president-general of this organization. His verdict was unfavorable; and as a result the book was excluded from the public schools of Portland, Oregon, and Evanston, Illinois. Although a revised edition later appeared, this critic still believed Muzzey a “political partisan” and his history unsuitable for use in the public schools.[777] One of the most “grievous faults” which Muzzey committed, in the opinion of Judge McCamant, was in his discussion of the American Revolution, wherein he spoke “contemptuously of Hancock, Warren, Otis and the Adamses” in calling them “patriots” with quotation marks attached to the word.[778] He was held equally culpable because the Revolutionary dispute is said to have involved “a debatable question,” a statement, which, in the critic’s mind, should disqualify him from writing a school history.[779] Yet a reading of the statement in its context conveys a different meaning from that suggested by Judge McCamant, for Muzzey declares: “Until the Declaration was published the Tories and Loyalists, of whom there were tens of thousands in the American colonies, were champions of one side of a debatable question, namely, whether the abuses of the King’s ministers justified resistance; but after the Declaration loyalty to the King of Great Britain became treason to their country.” The reviewer found other grievous faults in that “the author contemptuously refers to the speeches and papers of Henry and the Adamses as ‘their rhetorical warnings’ against being ‘reduced to slavery’”; that only one sentence is devoted to Bunker Hill; that there is “no mention of the death of Joseph Warren”; that there is “no reference to the gallantry with which the Americans defended the rail fence and the redoubt”; and only a brief mention of Lexington and Ticonderoga. “Aside from four sentences,” only “seven pages” are devoted “to the Revolutionary War,” when the “students in our public schools should be taught that our free institutions were won by heroism and sacrifice.”[780] Other omissions of “essential” facts were the failure to describe the work of Marion, Sumter, Pickens and Williams; no mention being made of Gansevoort, Anthony Wayne or Stony Point, Light Horse Harry Lee or Paulus Hook, Bennington or John Stark.
Carrying the criticisms further, it was alleged that this history contains inaccuracies and unfair statements; that it is full of partisanship of a political character; that it gives a biased treatment of controversial subjects; and is pro-British.[781] It was the belief of the reviewer, moreover, that controversial subjects like the tariff have no place in a high school textbook, for “whatever the views of a citizen may be on this subject he should be permitted to send his children to school without having them taught that his own views on this question are unsound.” Characterization of Mr. Wilson’s policies, “particularly as set forth in his ‘New Freedom’ as an economic Declaration of Independence,” also struck a discordant note. Class distinctions are also made conspicuous, the reviewer declared, as in such a statement as “Federalism, which stood in John Adams’ phrase, for government by ‘the rich, the well-born and the able’”; and in “The failure of the South to get rid of slavery in the early decades of the nineteenth century must be set down to the domination of a class of rich, aristocratic planters.”[782]
During the year 1923 the activities of the Sons of the American Revolution became diversified to the extent that their report on Patriotic Education dealt with several American histories. This report was actuated by the interest that had been shown in the “National Congress” meeting at Springfield in May, 1922, when that body expressed a deep interest in “the subject of American history textbooks” and resolved that the Committee on Patriotic Education “take needful measures to eliminate from our schools” all objectionable textbooks.[783]
In their review of American histories, the Committee found “a great deal of inaccuracy and considerable propaganda bearing on political questions which still divide the people.”[784] They held as “fundamental defects and those which are most clearly subject to criticism at the hands of a patriotic society ... inadequate and unsympathetic treatment of the American Revolution and a treatment of events in our recent history in such a manner as to inculcate loyalty to class rather than to country.”[785] The Committee, furthermore, emphasized the importance of a study of an untainted American history, one teaching “a veneration of the great men of our past” as “the best antidote for radical and disintegrating propaganda.” They maintained that “the chief purpose to be subserved in teaching American history is the inculcation of patriotism.”[786] To devote only ten pages out of five hundred to a discussion of the Revolutionary War laid the author open to criticism by patriotic groups; and such inadequate treatment could not be excused on the ground that the book was written for advanced students who have gathered the necessary details in the elementary grades. The works of Fiske, Schouler, Trevelyan, and Lodge, although written for adults, discussed these details, which, in itself, was proof of their value to the Committee who were considering textbooks.
In the examination of history textbooks the Committee found “the McLaughlin and Van Tyne, O’Hara, Everett Barnes, Hart, James and Sanford, Muzzey and West histories objectionable in the treatment of the American Revolution.”[787] The Muzzey, West and Burnham histories were described also as “open to criticism on the ground of class hatred.” Because the objections to Muzzey’s and West’s books were based on more than one ground for complaint, separate criticisms were published by the Committee, which were “widely circulated.”[788]
On the other hand, endorsement was accorded to Gordy’s textbook and the Thwaites and Kendall history for grammar school use. For the high school the Committee recommended the amended edition of Guitteau’s book and the Halleck history.[789]
As a result of their agitation, according to the Report, the Everett Barnes history had been amended and the author had removed from it the aspersions on John Hancock. The Committee wished to distinguish sharply, however, between this Barnes and “the old Barnes history which has always been sound in its Americanism.”[790] They desired also to recommend “without qualification” the history of Dr. Edward Channing, who at their request had signified his willingness to make suggested changes in his textbook. With evident approval they quoted the following statement from William J. Long, “author of the latest history published by Ginn and Company” in which he said: “What I missed in our histories, especially those of recent date, was the spirit of devotion without which the mere facts of history have little interest or consequence to my boy and your boy.”[791]