Public opinion and the teaching of history in the United States

by Bessie Louise Pierce

Whelpley’s Compend of History was also considered heretical in nature because of its discussion of slavery, which inculcated “improper precepts in the minds of our children.”[434] The writer in his diatribe against this book quoted the following passage from Whelpley to prove his point: “But for what purpose was he [the slave] brought from his country? Why was he forced from the scenes of his youth, and the cool retreats of his native mountains? Was it, that he might witness the saving knowledge of the gospel?... No. He was deprived of his freedom, the dearest pledge of his existence. His mind was not cultivated and improved by science!... He is detested for his complexion, and ranked among the brutes for his stupidity. His laborious exertions are extorted from him to enrich his purchasers, and his scanty allowance is furnished, only that he may endure his sufferings for their aggrandizement.”[435]

The discussion of slavery in the Northern textbooks was not the only cause for irritation. Equally distasteful to the Southerner were the invidious comparisons made between North and South.[436] The histories produced by the North, one writer pointed out, “are filled with praise and glorification of the New England and Northern states generally, as a set of incorruptible patriots, irreproachable moralists, and most exemplary models for future imitation, and their descendants are depicted as fully equalling the standard set for them by their distinguished ancestors, of unexceptionable demeanor. On the other hand, the individuals who organized society in the Southern States are pictured as a race of immoral reprobates, who have handed down all of their vices and evil habits to their descendants of this day. While the institution of slavery and its introduction into our country are made the occasion of much violent invective, there is but a slight effort at rebuke, and a large amount of apology is offered, for the amusements of burning witches, hanging Quakers, and banishing Baptists, formerly so very popular in New England. While we, who now support and defend the institution of slavery, are either denounced or pitied, the residents of the Northern States, who have always been the chief prosecutors of the slave trade are allowed to pass uncensured. Such is the state of the histories.”[437]

To Willson’s Historical Series objection was raised because “the author has elected to make himself sectional and therefore must expect sectional support.” “Why say of the odious Hartford Convention,” a critic remarked, “‘Its proceedings were not as objectionable as many anticipated,’ or why use comparisons between the different sections as invidious, and as we believe and know, as false as these: ‘In Virginia and the southern colonies, where the inhabitants guided in the selection of their dwelling places chiefly by consideration of agricultural conveniences, dispersed themselves over the face of the country, often at considerable distances from each other, schools and churches were necessarily rare, and social intercourse but little known. The evils of the state of society thus produced still exist to a considerable extent in the southern portions of the Union. The colonization of New England was more favorable to the improvement of human character and morals.’” Further cause for complaint lay in the following passage: “Of the state of manners and morals in Maryland, Virginia and the southern colonies generally, we cannot give so gratifying an account. While the upper classes of inhabitants among the southern people were distinguished for a luxurious and expensive hospitality, they were too generally addicted to the vices of card playing, gambling and intemperance, while hunting and cock-fighting were favorite amusements of persons of all ranks.... It cannot be denied, however, that New England colonial history furnishes, on the whole, the most agreeable reminiscences, as well as the most abundant materials for the historian.”[438]

So common was a biased presentation of controversial questions in the books of the time that William Howard Russell, The [London] Times correspondent during the Civil War, declared that he was unable to obtain “a single solid, substantial work” on the controversy between the North and the South, for there was not one published which was “worth a cent.”[439]

Little response to the exponents of “home education” seems to have been made at this time by the state legislatures, although, in 1859, the Louisiana legislature adopted a resolution endorsing the movement “to encourage the production of and introduction into the schools of Louisiana of a series of school books written by citizens of the State, published in the South, not contaminated by the fanaticism of Northern authors.”[440] Other Southern states since the Civil War have prescribed the type of histories to be used in their schools, but they have had for their chief intent a “proper presentation of the War of the States.”

Since the Civil War the most active exponents of a pro-Southern history have been Southern veterans’ associations and kindred groups. Especially vigilant have been the United Confederate Veterans who, since 1892, with few exceptions have announced in annual convention their advocacy of “a true and reliable history.” In 1892, the first historical committee, composed of “comrades skilled and experienced in such matters,” was appointed to “select proper and truthful histories of the United States to recommend for use in the public and private schools of the South.”[441] No meeting of the Veterans was held in 1893, but the following year the Historical Committee offered an extensive and elaborate report.[442] This report suggested the establishment of a chair of American history in Southern universities with time for research; that the Association recommend to the legislatures of Southern states that provision be made in the public school course for the teaching of history of the native state for one year, and for the establishment and support of a chair of American history in the state university or some suitable state institution, and that the preparation of school histories of the state be encouraged; that all private schools and academies teach the history of the state one year and devote the same amount of time to United States history; and that state legislatures be memorialized in order to gain their coöperation in securing “a different presentation of the narrative of facts for the truth of history of our common country.”[443]

The Committee, besides their recommendations, classified school histories in three groups. In the first class were those issued in the first ten or fifteen years following the close of the War, “dictated by prejudice and prompted by the evil passion that time had not then softened.” Secondly came those Northern histories apparently fair, either through a revision of an earlier edition or emasculation, in an “effort to curry favor with the text-book patrons of both sections”; also those histories with separate editions for North and South, as well as those “written and published at the North in which an honest effort is made to do justice to the South” but which failed to emphasize the distinctive features of the South or to emphasize the place of the South in the history of the Union. The third group contained a list of text-books acceptable to the Veterans, including Hansell’s Histories by H. E. Chambers of Louisiana, History of the American People by J. H. Shinn of Arkansas, History of the United States by Alexander Stephens of Georgia, History of the United States by George F. Holmes of Virginia, History of the United States by Blackburn and McDonald of Maryland, Grammar School History by L. A. Field of Georgia, and History of the United States by J. T. Terry of Georgia.

The report of the Committee of 1894 was accepted unanimously and the resolution, passed to continue the committee, urged that it “do everything in its power to encourage the preparation of suitable school histories and especially to encourage their publication by the building up of Southern publishing houses....”[444]

The Reports of 1895 and of 1896 manifested the same spirit and offered substantially the same recommendations as those made by the Committee of 1894. Both desired a “vindication for the Southern people and a refutation of the slanders, the misrepresentations and the imputations” which they had “so long and patiently borne.”[445] The Report of 1895 pointed out that “while the South has always been prominent in making history, she has left the writing of history to New England historians” whose chief defect was “lack of catholic sympathy for all sections of the country.”[446] The importance of the work of the Historical Committee was recognized in 1895 by increasing its membership from seven to fifteen to include a representative from each Southern state.[447]

By 1897 the agitation for sectional histories had become so stormy that the Nashville reunion took under advisement a suggestion of the Grand Army of the Republic of Wisconsin, which proposed the appointment of a “commission of distinguished educators from the ranks of the contending armies” who should write a history of the period 1861 to 1865 which should be satisfactory to both sections.[448] The Historical Committee of the Confederate Veterans, however, deemed it inadvisable to undertake such a project, believing that a history textbook could not be written as well by a commission as by one person. However, the Committee pointed out that “the destiny of the South is now inseparably bound up with that of this great republic and that it is to the interest of the whole nation and its citizens everywhere that coming generations of Southern men should give to the Union the same love and devotion which their fathers gave to the United States and then to the ill-starred Confederacy;....”[449] And, although they realized that “no sectional history is wanted in the schools of this country,” yet the Southern people desired in their histories “to retain from the wreck in which their constitutional views, their domestic institutions, the mass of their property, and the lives of their best and bravest were lost, the knowledge that their conduct was honorable throughout, and that their submission at last ... in no way blackened their motives or established the wrong of the cause for which they fought.”[450]