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]