Voltaire, the cynic, maintained that “history did not always lie,” which statement, though somewhat exaggerated, contains the proverbial exception which often proves the rule. The collector who adds to his store such autographs as are held for their historical value, soon realizes that writers of history often fail in their work, through ignorance of their subject, or from prejudice against giving the truth and nothing but the truth. History repeats itself, and at all times truth has been so warped, to serve one purpose or another, that the historical student, especially, rarely fails to become the confirmed skeptic in his branch of knowledge. But the subject of historical accuracy, even in relation to American history, is too extensive a one to be treated of by a single individual or encompassed within the space which could be allotted to an article of this character. The author, therefore, proposes to confine himself to the presentation of some of the historical material which is or has been in his own collection.
The people of New England have, from their earliest settlement, been as noted for the care with which they have preserved their records as the people of the other Colonies for their indifference in this regard. It should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that in consequence of the great wealth of this material in New England, the greater portion of our writers on American history and the compilers of our school books have been, until within a comparatively recent period, of New England birth or residence. The presence herein of a great temptation and of a great danger to historical accuracy are immediately seen, and the author believes that a just criticism of the works on Colonial and Revolutionary history, especially those written prior to five-and-twenty years ago, would involve the accusation of a general lack of fairness toward the other Colonies. This unfairness consisted in giving undue prominence to the acts of the New England people, both individually and collectively, at the expense of the full credit due to others, and this has been done, not infrequently, when this recognition might have been given without in any degree lessening that justly due to their own people. But apart from this want of fairness, or at least indifference, in the treatment of the deeds of others, foreign to their own territory, the manuscript material itself was sometimes falsified, as for example, it is believed Sparks did in the matter of Washington’s letters. General Washington was a man of very strong passions and was undoubtedly prejudiced against many of the peculiarities of the New Englanders of his day. And although few men held themselves in better restraint than he, he would nevertheless, at times, express himself very freely in regard to the men and measures of New England.
It is said that Sparks manipulated Washington’s correspondence by striking out every reflection made against the New England people and by suppressing many letters. Both of these charges the author believes to be true from his own observation. It has also been charged that in other instances, Sparks made such interpolations of his own as entirely to change the original meaning, but of this the writer has no personal knowledge.
That the full significance and effect of the spirit of unfairness pervading these writers of history, may be fully appreciated by the reader, it must be borne in mind that they had access at one time to an immense mass of material which was not available outside of New England. Moreover, the New England authorities were in such frequent communication with all other portions of the country, that the mass of correspondence, thus gained and preserved, offered the means of doing fullest justice to the other Colonies, which were afterwards found to be themselves often without proof necessary to establish their just claims.
The following examples are now offered as evidences of one-sided history making:
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL
One of the first claims made to the credit of New England was the early attention paid to public education. It is strictly true that, next to building a meeting house in a new settlement, a school was put up. But thorough investigation of this subject furnishes evidence that the chief purpose, at least, of these schools was to fit young men for the ministry and that they were not based, either in scope or object, upon the plan of the public school of the present day. The evidence of this lies in the fact that Latin, Greek and Hebrew were chiefly taught, as though to aid the study of the Scriptures in the original texts, and although boys and girls were doubtless also taught at these schools, to a limited number, previous to the Revolution, the salary of the schoolmaster was as a rule, if indeed the rule were not without exception, paid by division among the pupils themselves and not by the town. The famous Latin School of Boston, which is often held up to our admiration as the beginning of the public school system, was chiefly noted for its Latin course, and each scholar paid about five dollars a term.
Granting, however, full measure of praise to New England and with no desire to minimize the credit due her for her work in this cause, it is still in order for us to ask when has credit ever been given by any writer to South Carolina for the establishment in Charleston, about twenty years before the founding of the Latin School in Boston, of the first school approaching in character the public schools of to-day? The accompanying illustration is taken from a volume of the Charleston Gazette for the year 1743, once owned by the author but now in the possession of the Lenox Library of this city, showing the fac-simile of an account for building a negro free school house. Some years ago the author had in his possession a memorandum which stated that this school house, built in 1742–3, was the second which had been erected by the city of Charleston for the education of negro children, whose parents indeed represented the only portion of the community unable to educate itself. In these schools the pupils received gratuitous instruction and were obliged to attend regularly until the age of twelve years. If the difference in money value, then and now, be considered, it will be found that the cost of this building could not have fallen much below five thousand dollars.
It is evident, therefore, that the first public school, in the accepted sense, existed in Charleston, at least as early as 1743, and not in New England.