We think this is not a correct historical statement to make. True, reliable statistics are, of course, hard to obtain, but it is surely not correct to say that the only way to find what races composed the white population at that time is to examine the family names. For instance, the names of two hundred members of the Charitable Irish Society of this city, a society formed in 1737, have been called to our attention, who were members of that society prior to 1790 and most of them prior to 1770, and who would not, if Professor Hart’s standard obtained of judging from names alone, very likely be considered by him as Irish.
In the course of the hearing irrelevant and extraneous matters were brought to the attention of the School Committee to which it listened with scant patience. The question at issue was the fitness or the unfitness of two books for use in the public schools. In the course of the hearing, what the School Committee regards as unwarranted and ill-founded attacks were made upon the authors of these books. The life of Professor Hart, the service of his two sons in the World War, and his ancestry forbid any suspicion of his loyalty and patriotism. The life of Professor Muzzey and his ancestry, with its record of honorable service in the Civil War, in the War of 1812, and at Lexington, equally forbid any belief that he would be subservient to foreign influence. Any hint or suggestion that either of these gentlemen was influenced to promote British propaganda especially by pecuniary recompense is unthinkable. Nor is their reputation and standing as reliable historians to be impugned by such criticism as is now levelled against them.
The real and only question at issue is whether their histories contain material to which reasonable and proper objection may be made. It goes without saying that no historian has 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. One history may deal mainly with the social and economic growth of a nation; another with its military or naval exploits; another may dwell at length upon the personal achievements of its great figures; another upon its political development. 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. Therefore, the list authorized for use in the public schools contains not merely a single book, but many histories all differing in their treatment of the subject, and these books are, of course, largely supplemented by the personal instruction and guidance of the teacher.
If the books in question contain so much that is objectionable and unpatriotic, it is singular that some of our great body of intelligent and patriotic teachers have failed to discover these grave defects, and that the books have had so little apparent effect upon the loyalty of the pupils who have had access to them.
The School Committee also deplores 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. The critic who pursues such a course may easily find opportunity for criticism of any book that ever has been written on the subject of history, and indeed on many other subjects as well.
In the course of the hearing certain passages in these books were attacked on the ground that they gave an unfavorable impression concerning the character and actions of a few of the great party leaders of the time; but it must not be forgotten that in such instances the authors have merely noted the opinions of opposing party leaders.
Unquestionably, the pupils in our schools are perfectly well aware of the severe, pointed and frequently virulent criticism that is constantly being directed against men now in public life. Acquainted with this criticism, is it reasonable to expect them to believe that the leaders of our country in past years were really super-men or demi-gods, and not equally subject to the weaknesses and frailties that surround human life today? Even the revered Abraham Lincoln was the target, in his time, of abuse and vilification. Nor did Washington himself escape the calumnies of some of his contemporaries.
As to the omission of what the critics regard as adequate mention of former national heroes, such as Nathan Hale, Anthony Wayne, Putnam, Sumter, Pickens, Marion, Stark, Sullivan, Knox, Commodore Barry, Sergt. Jasper, Light Horse Harry Lee, Molly Pitcher and Betsy Ross: It should not be forgotten that the exploits of these patriots, important, brilliant and picturesque as they were have been repeatedly emphasized in the course in history during the earlier years of the pupils’ school life while these two books are adapted to use of older pupils.
The School Committee would gladly express its opinion item by item on the various specific criticisms that have been made against these books were it not for the fact that to do so would unduly lengthen this report. They are covered in detail in the accompanying review.[921]
The main and controlling question at present issue is this: Does either of these books contain matter which is unpatriotic, disloyal or calculated to falsely impress the minds of the pupils to whom they are made accessible? If they do, their further use in the schools should not be permitted. If they do not, there is not good and sufficient reason to justify their exclusion and the consequent reflection upon the sincerity and good faith of their authors.