Public opinion and the teaching of history in the United States Bessie Louise Pierce 930 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Public opinion and the
teaching of history in the United States
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Public opinion and the teaching of history in the United States

Author: Bessie Louise Pierce

Release date: April 23, 2023 [eBook #70630]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70630

Credits: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PUBLIC
OPINION AND THE TEACHING OF HISTORY IN THE UNITED
STATES ***

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE
TEACHING OF HISTORY

SOME RECENT BORZOI TEXTS

THE HISTORY AND PROSPECTS OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
edited by Harry Elmer Barnes

A GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF ENGLISH HISTORY
by William T. Morgan

HISTORY AND SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
by Harry Elmer Barnes

FACTORS IN MODERN HISTORY
by A. F. Pollard

A HISTORY OF RUSSIA
by Sir Bernard Pares

Public Opinion and
The Teaching of History
in the United States
BY
BESSIE LOUISE PIERCE, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of History, University of Iowa
Head of the Department of Social Studies
University High School

NEW YORK
ALFRED A. KNOPF
1926

COPYRIGHT, 1926, BY ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC.
SET UP, ELECTROTYPED, PRINTED AND BOUND
BY THE PLIMPTON PRESS, NORWOOD, MASS.
PAPER SUPPLIED BY S. D. WARREN & CO.
BOSTON, MASS.

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TO
ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER
IN GRATITUDE

PREFACE
Many influences have conditioned the teaching of history in the public
schools—local and national, statutory and constitutional, ephemeral and
enduring, religious, educational, racial and patriotic.
It is the purpose of this study to give an historical account of some of the
attempts to control the teaching of history in the public schools. The first
four chapters trace the legislative control that has been exerted in all periods
of our history, beginning with the educational enactments of the early
colonies and following the development of the curriculum to the present
time.
Such statutory control falls into fairly definite periods. The first embraces
the earliest statutes relating to public education. During this period history
was introduced into the school curriculum as a separate subject specified by
law. The next stage, 1860 to 1900, was characterized by the influences set
in motion by the Civil War and the Economic Revolution. In the years from
1900 to 1917, the history curriculum reflected the new interest of the
American people in the social and economic conditions that had developed.
From 1917 to the present, the dominant note has been a dynamic patriotism
growing out of the World War.
Besides the legislative aspects of the subject, I have endeavored to set
forth the propagandist influences on textbook-making exerted by religious,
patriotic, racial and other organized groups. Within the last five years
attention to an unprecedented degree has been focused upon history and its
allied subjects. Although much interest has been attached to the agitation
carried on since the World War, similar movements marked earlier periods.
A chapter on Disloyalty Charges against Teachers since 1917 has been
included as pertinent to the discussion in general.
Because of their kinship with history, the other social studies have been
considered. The term social studies has been used to embrace history,
economics, government and sociology. Geography has not been included,
because it but recently acquired a place in the curriculum as a social study.
More attention, furthermore, has been paid to the subject of history, since it

has been the chief social study in the public school curriculum. There has
been no attempt to portray the extent to which laws have been enforced.
Throughout it has been my desire to narrate without partiality or prejudice
the facts relating to the subject under discussion.
In the preparation of this volume I am indebted to many friends for
advice and coöperation in obtaining material. In the search for present-day
conditions I have drawn heavily upon many correspondents including
school superintendents, textbook authors and publishers, as well as those
engaged in criticising school histories. To all who have aided, I would here
express my sincere gratitude. I have particularly profited by the guidance
and constructive criticism of Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger of Harvard
University, who first called the subject to my attention, and who is chiefly
responsible for whatever merit there is in this study. I am indebted for many
helpful suggestions to Professor Ernest Horn of the University of Iowa, to
Professor Carl Wittke of Ohio State University, and to Dr. Richard J. Purcell
of the Catholic University of America. These acknowledgments would not
be complete without mentioning my obligation to my sister, Anne E. Pierce,
for assistance at all stages in the preparation of the manuscript, and to my
mother, whose spirit of coöperation has proved a constant source of
inspiration.
B. L. P.

CONTENTS
PART I
STATUTORY REGULATION OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
I. The Periods of Beginnings 3
II. Nationalism and Localism in History Legislation, 1860- 12
1900
III. Laws for the Expansion of the History Curriculum, 1900- 43
1917
IV. The Effect of the World War on Laws for Teaching 70
History
V. Disloyalty Charges Against Teachers Since 1917 111
PART II
THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES
VI. Attempts to Control Textbooks 135
VII. The Attack on History Textbooks Since 1917 206
Appendices 301
Bibliography 339
Index 355

PART I
STATUTORY REGULATION OF THE TEACHING OF
HISTORY

“The law is only a memorandum ... and as fast as the public mind
is opened to more intelligence, the code is seen to be brute and
stammering. It speaks not articulately and must be made to.... The
history of the State sketches in coarse outline the progress of
thought, and follows at a distance the delicacy of culture and of
aspiration.”
Emerson, Essays and English Traits.

PART I
STATUTORY REGULATION OF THE TEACHING OF HISTORY

CHAPTER I
The Period of Beginnings

Statutory prescriptions of history as a specific subject in the American
public school had their beginning in the years between 1827 and 1860; yet
the way for such enactments had been charted by earlier educational
legislation. For example, in 1642 the Massachusetts Puritans provided that
every child be taught enough “to read and understand the principles of
religion and the capital laws of the country,”[1] and returning to the subject
in 1647, expressed their belief that education would serve to “thwart that
auld deluder Sathan” whose “cheife project [was] to keep men from ye
knowledge of ye Scriptures.”[2]
In the course of time it was natural that the function of education should
enlarge. From the religious conception inevitably sprang a belief in
education as a means of imparting an understanding of the principles of
“right living.” The individual as a virtuous, polite, and exemplary force in
the community became the objective of the lawmaker. Closely allied with
this conviction was a faith in education as an instrument for teaching
patriotism and for training in the fundamentals of government. Thus, in
1732, New York justified the establishment of her schools on the ground
that “good Learning is not only a very great Accomplishment but the
properest Means to Attain Knowledge, Improve the Mind, Morality and
good Manners and to make Men better, wiser and more useful to their
Country as well as to themselves.”[3]
In 1780 Massachusetts took a similar stand,[4] perceiving in her schools a
method of directing the masses in the great undertaking of self-government,
—a function recognized by Washington, John Adams, Jefferson and other
men of the day.[5] Other commonwealths also accepted education as a
means to “preserve and perfect a Republican Constitution” and to “secure
the blessings of liberty.”[6]
These early laws thus paved the way for those of a later time. They laid
the foundation of an education directed toward the development of civic
efficiency. Yet their influence was circumscribed by the virtual absence of
free, public schools. This lack, however, the second quarter of the

nineteenth century was destined to remedy; for such was the democratic
awakening of the ’twenties and ’thirties that nearly every field of human
activity was transformed. Trade associations attested a quickened
consciousness in the laboring man; reform movements bore testimony to a
new social point of view; and an aroused electorate chose for the highest
office of the land that exponent of democracy, Andrew Jackson.[7]
In the states outside of New England little had been accomplished in the
early years of the century toward the establishment of tax-supported
schools. With the extension of manhood suffrage, however, came the
realization that the functions of government were safe only in the hands of
an enlightened electorate—a conviction which had come only after much
agitation and bitter argument. Gradually and inevitably the public school,
supported by public funds, became the embodiment of the democratic ideal
in which “intelligence is the grand condition.”[8]
The year 1827 signalized the entrance of United States history into the
school curriculum as a study required by law. At this time both
Massachusetts and Vermont made the teaching of national history
compulsory. The Massachusetts law provided that “every town, containing
five hundred families or householders, shall maintain a school to be kept by
a master of competent ability and good morals, who shall ... give instruction
in the history of the United States, book-keeping, surveying, geometry, and
algebra; and such last mentioned school shall be kept for the benefit of all
the inhabitants of the town, ten months at least, exclusive of vacations each
year ...; and in every town containing four thousand inhabitants, the said
master shall, in addition to all the branches of instruction before required in
this chapter be competent to instruct in the Latin and Greek languages, and
history, rhetoric and logic.”[9] The Vermont statute, designed for the
elementary school, required that “each organized town in this state shall
keep and support a school or schools, provided with a teacher or teachers,
of good morals, for the instruction of youths in ... the history of the United
States, and good behavior.”[10]
Counterparts of these laws presently appeared in other states. In 1846
New Hampshire prescribed history as a subject in high schools,[11] and
shortly after it was sanctioned by Rhode Island.[12] In 1857 the
Massachusetts legislature placed United States history in her elementary

schools, and added general history, the “civil polity” of the commonwealth
and political economy to the required subjects for high schools.[13] Three
years later, she again committed herself in favor of the social studies in the
curriculum. “In every town,” the law read, “there shall be kept for at least
six months in each year, a sufficient number of schools for the instruction of
all the children ... in orthography, reading, writing, English grammar,
geography, arithmetic, the history of the United States and good
behavior....” This law further required in every town of five hundred
families or householders the maintenance of a school in which instruction in
general history and the “civil polity” of the commonwealth and of the
United States should be given,[14] and also permitted the teaching of
political economy.[15]
The South did not awaken to the needs of public education at this early
period because of its institutional and economic development. Virginia was
the only state of that section to enact legislation relating to the teaching of
history before the Civil War. In 1849 she provided that in district schools
“shall be thoroughly taught, ... history, especially that of the United States
and of Virginia.”[16]
None of the states of the Middle West followed the example set by
Massachusetts and Vermont in 1827; but California, still in a pioneer stage
of development, required instruction in the federal and state constitutions in
her grammar schools, as well as political economy in the high schools.[17]
This provision constitutes one of the first attempts by statute to place the
subject of government in the curriculum, although several of the older states
had at an early time emphasized the necessity of a knowledge of the state
law.[18] In fact, such was the lack of systematic instruction in “political
morals” at this time, that foreign travelers commented upon it, and Harriet
Martineau stigmatized it as “an enormous deficiency in a republic,” where
participation in government was a birthright of all.[19]
By 1860, only six states had passed laws requiring the teaching of the
social studies. To the east lay Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire,
and Rhode Island; to the south, Virginia; and to the far west, California. To
the first requirement of United States history had been added provisions
necessitating the presentation of general history, political economy and civil
government, and Virginia had prescribed a study of the history of the state.

[20]
It was not until after the Civil War that history acquired a real place in
the public school curriculum.

THE CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS

The interest awakened in public education led also to the passage of laws
for the certification of teachers. Often legislation of this type indirectly
describes the character of the curriculum, for, in general, the teacher was
examined in those subjects which he was expected to teach. At an early
time, the chief qualifications for teachers seemed to be “good morals” and
“competency,” but with the expansion of the curriculum, there were added,
in many cases, specifically named subjects.[21]
Thus a Connecticut law of 1841 provided that “the board of visitors [of
the schools] ... shall ... examine all candidates for teachers ... and shall give
to these persons with whose moral character, literary attainments, and
ability to teach, they are satisfied, a certificate, setting forth the branches he
or she is found capable of teaching; provided that no certificate shall be
given to any person not found qualified to teach reading, writing,
arithmetic, and grammar, thoroughly, and the rudiments of geography and
history.”[22] In 1857 in the Revisions of their laws, Maine and Rhode Island
specified a knowledge of history as a necessary qualification for a teacher.
[23]
Illinois, in her Revised Statutes of 1845, included a law which made it
the duty of the school commissioner to examine “any persons proposing to
teach a common school, in any township in his county,” on the candidate’s
ability to teach the usual branches, including “the history of the United
States.”[24]
In 1846, during the period of her earliest legislation, Iowa prescribed the
history of the United States as a requirement for a teacher’s license. This
state is an example of those states which have passed little legislation
defining the content of the curriculum, but have secured the same end by
specifying subjects for the examination of their teachers. The law appeared
again in the Code of 1851, but history was dropped from the required list of
subjects in 1858.[25] Legislation in Nebraska took much the same course as
had that in Iowa. In 1855, the territorial laws placed United States history

among the subjects required in a teacher’s examination, but the laws of
1856 ignored it as a prescribed subject.[26]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Shurtleff, N. B., ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the
Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 v. (Boston, 1853), Vol. II, p. 6.
[2] Ibid., p. 203. Connecticut in 1650 expressed a similar purpose for the
establishment of her schools. The Code of Connecticut, 1650, p. 90.
[3] Laws of the Colony of New York, 1720-1737, Vol. II, p. 813.
[4] “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the
body of the people being necessary for the preservation of their rights and
liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of
education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of
the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future
periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the
sciences, and all seminaries of them; ... especially public schools and grammar
schools in towns; ...” Thorpe, Francis Newton, editor, The Federal and State
Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the States,
Territories, Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America. 7 v.
(Government Printing Office, Washington, 1909), Vol. II, p. 1907. Similar
statements were placed in the constitutions of neighboring New Hampshire,
Vermont and Maine. Indiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas and North Dakota have likewise pinned their
faith to “knowledge and learning” as an agent for democratizing the government
as well as for the encouragement of “the principles of humanity, industry, and
morality.” Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 2487; Vol. II, pp. 1069, 1086; Vol. I, pp. 283, 322,
353; Vol. IV, p. 2080; p. 2212; Vol. VI, p. 3233; p. 3373; p. 3469; Vol. II, p.
1232; Vol. V, p. 2872. In constitutions adopted at a much later time the same
purposes of education are often expressed. In 1789 a Massachusetts law charged
“instructors of youth” that they should “take diligent care, and to exert their best
endeavors to impress on the minds of children and youth committed to their care
and instruction, the principles of piety, justice, and a sacred regard to truth, love
to their country, humanity, and universal benevolence, sobriety, industry, and
frugality, chastity, moderation and temperance, and those other virtues which are
the ornament of human society, and the basis upon which the Republican
Constitution is structured. And it shall be the duty of such instructors to
endeavor to lead those under their care (as their ages and capacities will admit)
into a particular understanding of the tendency of the above mentioned virtues,
to preserve and perfect a Republican Constitution, and to secure the blessings of
liberty, as well as to promote their future happiness; and the tendency of the
opposite vices to slavery and ruin.” Statutes of Massachusetts, 1780-1807, sec.
4, Vol. I, pp. 470-471. On the statute books in 1823. Also Statutes, 1826, ch. 143,
p. 180; also General Statutes, 1860, ch. 38, sec. 10, p. 216; also Public Statutes,
1882, ch. 44, sec. 16. This law became the source of many similar in character.

[5] In 1784, Jefferson took occasion to declare, “In every government on earth
is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy,
which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and
improve. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people
alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories; and to render even
them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.” Jefferson,
Thomas, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul Leicester Ford, ed. (New York,
1894), Vol. III, p. 254.
[6] See footnote 4 for the Massachusetts law of 1789. Statutes of New
Hampshire, 1830, title XCII, ch. 1, sec. 8, p. 431; also Compiled Statutes, 1853,
sec. 20, p. 179. Statutes of Maine, 1821, Vol. II, sec. 2, p. 504, also Revised
Statutes, 1840, ch. 17, p. 170. Supplement to Revised Statutes, 1885-1895, ch.
11, sec. 91; Acts and Resolves, 1917, ch. 228, p. 263. Revised Code of
Mississippi, 1824, ch. 82, sec. 14, p. 407; Ibid., 1840, ch. 9, sec. 12, p. 124.
Statutes of Indiana, 1806, p. 17. Revised Statutes of Illinois, 1833, p. 556.
[7] An illuminating discussion of “Jacksonian Democracy” is found in Arthur
M. Schlesinger’s New Viewpoints in American History (New York, 1922).
[8] Mann, Horace, Annual Reports on Education (Boston, 1868), pp. 523-558.
[9] Laws of Massachusetts, 1827, ch. 148, p. 180; also Revised Statutes, 1836,
ch. 23, p. 218. In the Revised Statutes “general history,” not “history,” is
required.
[10] Laws of Vermont ... to 1834, ch. 50 (1827), sec. 1, p. 136; also Revised
Statutes, 1840, ch. XVIII, sec. 1, p. 111; also Compiled Statutes, 1851, p. 144.
[11] Laws of New Hampshire, 1845, ch. 220, sec. 6; also Compiled Statutes,
1853, ch. 79, sec. 6, p. 183. This law was retained in 1863.
[12] Revised Statutes of Rhode Island, 1857, ch. 67, sec. 3, p. 173.
[13] Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1857, ch. 206, sec. 1, p. 542.
[14] General Statutes of Massachusetts, 1860, ch. 38, sec. 1, p. 215; Public
Statutes, 1882, ch. 44, sec. 1, p. 299. According to a table in ‘A. J. Inglis’ The
Rise of the High School in Massachusetts (Columbia University, New York,
1911), p. 90, history was offered in six out of seven towns in 1860, with a per
cent of 200 with algebra as a base of 100 per cent. This would indicate an
interest in history to a considerable extent.
[15] Political economy as a term included political science as we understand it
today. Cf. Inglis, op. cit., p. 141.
[16] Laws of Virginia, 1848-49, ch. 110. An act establishing free schools in the
county of Albemarle, p. 60.
[17] Laws of California, 1851, ch. 126, art. VII, sec. 2, p. 499.
[18] Connecticut, as early as 1796, had emphasized the necessity of
inculcating a knowledge of the state law, prescribing that “all parents and
masters of children, shall by themselves or others teach and instruct ..., all such
children as are under their care and government, according to their ability, and to
read the English tongue well, and to know the laws against capital offenses....”
Statutes of Connecticut, 1796, p. 60. The law further stated that in case it was

impossible to comply with the statement quoted above the children should at
least be instructed to answer certain parts of the catechism. To enforce the law, a
fine of $3.34 to be used for the poor of the town was imposed upon all parents
who failed in compliance. Also cf. law of Massachusetts of 1642, page 3.
Massachusetts also in 1789 had emphasized the necessity of training the youth
of the commonwealth “to preserve and perfect a Republican Constitution and to
secure the blessings of liberty as well as to promote their future happiness.”
Laws of Massachusetts, 1780-1807, sec. 4, Vol. I, pp. 470-471. Again in 1826,
ch. 143, p. 180.
[19] Martineau, Harriet, Society in America (London, 1837), Vol. III, p. 165.
[20] The year in which the Virginia law was passed, 1849, was a time of
sectional discord. Sectional interest may have entered into the passage of the
law.
[21] In the discussion of the qualifications of teachers, in each period there is
a neglect of all laws in which history or some other social study is not
specifically named. Regulations often are quite definite regarding the
qualifications of teachers in rural and elementary schools, with no statement or
with no definitely named qualifications for high school teachers. In some states
the superintendent of public instruction or some other official prescribes the
subjects in which the examination is held. The tendency of recent legislation has
been to accept graduation from reputable colleges or universities giving training
in methods of teaching, in lieu of examination.
[22] Acts of Connecticut, 1841, p. 47; Revised Statutes, 1849, sec. 22, p. 300;
Statutes, 1854, p. 414; General Statutes, 1866, p. 132; ibid., 1875, ch. 4, sec. 1;
ibid., 1888, sec. 2135, p. 466; ibid., 1902, par. 2245, p. 584; ibid., 1918, ch. 56,
par. 1007, Vol. I, p. 349. Additions and slight changes have been made in the
regulations for the social studies. With modifications the law has been on the
statute books from 1841 to the present.
[23] Revised Statutes of Maine, 1857, sec. 49; ibid., 1871, ch. 11, sec. 54; Acts
and Resolves, 1873, ch. 120, p. 76; ibid., 1891, ch. 32, p. 20; ibid., 1895, ch.
155, p. 173. Revised Statutes of Rhode Island, 1857, ch. 67, sec. 3, p. 173.
[24] In 1845 the law was slightly modified to distinguish between grades of
certificates, but in all cases United States history was prerequisite to
certification, and in 1905, Illinois history was added to the qualifications
necessary for a license. In 1913, in the requirements for a state certificate she
included sociology among the subjects for examination, and for the first, second
and third grade certificates, United States history, civics and the history of
Illinois. Revised Statutes of Illinois, 1845, ch. XCVIII, sec. 12, p. 498. The law
is substantially the same, Statutes, 1856, ch. 198, sec. XLVI, Vol. II, p. 1098;
ibid., 1858, sec. 50, p. 449. Laws, 1865, sec. 19, p. 119; Revised Statutes, 1874,
ch. 122, 51, p. 963; Annotated Statutes, 1885, ch. 122, sec. 51, p. 2229; Revised
Statutes, 1903, ch. 122, 187, par. 3, p. 1683; ibid., 1906, 187, par. 3, p. 1820.
During this period these subjects were to be taught in the schools. Revised
Statutes of Illinois, 1913, ch. 122, 541, par. 2, p. 2270; Laws, 1913, p. 588
(Senate Bill No. 355, approved June 28, 1913); the same for the social studies in
the laws of 1903 and 1905, also in 1917 and in 1919. See Revised Statutes, 1917,
ch. 122, p. 2216; and Laws, 1919, ch. 122, p. 900.

[25] Acts of Iowa, 1846, sec. 72, p. 105; Code of Iowa, 1851, sec. 1148, p.
181; Acts, 1858, p. 72; Code, 1873, sec. 1766, p. 325; Acts, 1878, ch. 143, p.
130. In 1882, regulatory provision requiring for a state certificate a knowledge
of civil government, the constitution and laws of Iowa, besides history of the
United States, passed the legislature, and economics and civics were added to
the subjects required for certification in 1896; Acts, 1882, ch. 167, sec. 4, p. 153.
Acts, 1896, ch. 39 (H. F. 135), p. 44. Supplement to Code, 1902, sec. 2736, p.
315, for first grade certificate, civics, elementary economics besides the
requirements of second grade, which included history of the United States; also
Acts, 1906, ch. 122, sec. 4, p. 88.
[26] Laws of Nebraska, 1855, par. 61, p. 220; ibid., 1858, p. 292; ibid., 1872,
p. 55; ibid., 1881, sec. 5, pp. 359, 366; ibid., 1885, sec. 5, p. 327. The same
subjects as in 1881 in Laws, 1901, ch. 66, p. 448; ibid., 1903, ch. 135, p. 559.
Also Consolidated Statutes, 1891, ch. 44, 3624, p. 792; ibid., 1903, 5542, sec. 5.
In 1891, there is a distinction made in the grades of certificates, requiring civil
government and United States history in all but the lowest grade, Revised
Statutes, 1913, ch. 71, art. XIII, 6857, sec. 158, p. 1913, 6859, sec. 160, p. 1914.
In 1881 United States history and civics were added to the prescribed subjects
for a second grade certificate, and for a professional state certificate general
history, political economy, civil government and American history were
required. In the forty years intervening between 1881 and 1921, there is no
change in the prerequisites for county certificates, state certificates, and the
additional certificates of more recent origin—city certificates—so far as the
social studies are concerned, with the exception of the dropping of political
economy from the required list by 1919. Laws of Nebraska, 1919, 1921, ch. 70,
sec. 2, p. 262.

CHAPTER II
Nationalism and Localism in History Legislation, 1860-1900

THE CURRICULUM

The Civil War marked a turning point in American history. Forces
undreamed of before 1860 conspired to change the whole tenor of American
life. From isolated rural communities of simple tastes and unexploited
resources, the United States emerged into a growing urbanization of
multifarious activities. Prior to 1860 there had been little change from the
days of George Washington, when nine-tenths of the people had been
engaged in agriculture; by 1890, however, the population had so shifted that
more than one-third dwelt in towns of over two thousand inhabitants.
These vast and far-reaching changes were brought about by an expansion
particularly in the fields of transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing.
Steam, electricity, progress in invention, the growth of an immigrant
population, and the opening of new lands to settlement, all served as
contributing factors. It was a period characterized by a strong national
sentiment. The theory of state rights had been settled forever by the victory
of the Union in 1865, and a realization of the great opportunities of America
bore the fruit of patriotic fervor. Nationalism expressed itself in the
nationalization of industry, in the organization of national labor units, in the
nationalization of the financial resources of the country, and in a deepened
interest in the public school system. It led inevitably to a new appreciation
of the distinctive contributions of local communities to the new national
spirit, and was, in a sense, responsible for a strong reaction toward deep-
seated local interests in the ’nineties.
These vast changes necessitated new aims and purposes in education.
The preceding period had witnessed the educational system transformed
from an instrument of the church into one of the state. By 1860 the theory
of tax-supported schools had become established, and most states provided
at least elementary instruction. By 1880, legal and legislative objections to
the establishment of high schools had succumbed to the conviction that
education was essential in the new social and industrial order. There came
to be an abiding faith in the power of education to regenerate society. The

“knowledge aim” of the preceding decades was followed by the desire for a
citizenship trained to active participation in the society of which it was the
warp and woof. As a result, those subjects in the curriculum tending to
promote patriotism and good citizenship received the sanction of the
educator.
Although history had been found to some extent in the school curriculum
before the Civil War, there had been no general acceptance of it as a
required study.[27] Now in the form of United States history it was received
with widespread approval. A gradual extension of the requirements grew
out of the spirit of the times, and to American history was added the study
of the constitution of the nation and of the state, as well as the study of state
history. Twenty-three states, during the four decades following 1860, placed
upon their statute books laws requiring the teaching of history in the public
schools. Over one-fourth of these commonwealths lay below the Mason and
Dixon line, the states of the Middle and Far West becoming the most active
after 1880.
In 1862, Vermont, in a law dealing with “the instruction of the young,”
prescribed history and the constitution of the United States, and special
instruction in “the geography, and history, constitution and principles of
government of the state of Vermont” as a part of the school curriculum.[28]
A later law extended the social studies curriculum, for towns of twenty-five
hundred inhabitants, to embrace political economy, general history, and
civil government in the high school course.[29] The nearby state of
Connecticut included in her law, regarding the branches to be taught in her
schools, the subject of “history,” later specifying “United States history.”[30]
During the early years of the period Southern legislatures were
particularly active, both in the border states and in the Confederacy. In each
case the legislation was responsive to the nationalistic tendencies of the
time; and, in the states of the Confederacy, the study of national history and
of the federal constitution were for the first time required by law.[31] Such
statutes, sometimes enacted before the restoration of home rule and under
the influence of Reconstruction agencies, sought, through the public
schools, to overcome the intensified sectionalism of the post-war South.
Laws making it a duty of the teacher to inculcate a proper attitude toward
“the laws and government of the country” had much the same purpose as

those requiring specifically the study of United States history and
government. Thus a law of the first legislative assembly of West Virginia,
passed December 10, 1863, made it the duty of all public school teachers
“to inculcate the duties of piety, morality and respect for the laws and
government of their country.” All teachers and boards of education were
expressly “charged with the duty of providing that moral training for the
youth of this state which shall contribute to securing good behavior and
virtuous conduct, and to furnishing the state with exemplary citizens.” In
1874, a statute designed for the primary schools of the state prescribed the
teaching of the common school subjects including geography and history.
[32]

Similar enactments were passed by Missouri and Maryland in 1865. In
Missouri, it was provided that “all teachers, when employed shall be
required to instruct their pupils in the fundamental principles of the
Government of the United States and of the State of Missouri, and the
duties of loyal citizens thereto.”[33] Maryland, in 1865, made it a duty of her
teachers to train their pupils in piety and justice, loyalty and sacred regard
for truth, and in love of country; and to lead them into a clear understanding
of the virtues which were the basis upon which was founded a republican
constitution; “to preserve the blessings of liberty, promote temporal
happiness and advance the greatness of the American Nation.”[34] The study
of United States history was likewise required, followed in 1868 by the
subject of government, both federal and state. It was not until a few years
later that state history was added to the prescribed list.[35]
Among the first of the states of the Confederacy to enact laws requiring
the teaching of United States history were Arkansas, South Carolina and
Mississippi.[36] Passed during the period of carpet-bag control, their statutes
show plainly the effects of reconstruction influences. The Arkansas law of
1868 and South Carolina’s law of 1870 prescribed not only the study of
national history but also required a knowledge of the principles of the
federal and state constitutions. In 1881, North Carolina enacted a statute for
the teaching of both national and state history, and Tennessee, in 1873,
accorded a place to United States history among the subjects required in her
schools.[37] It was not until later that the Alabama Code records similar
action by the legislature of that state in prescribing instruction in “the

Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
Alabama” for “all pupils in all schools and colleges supported, in whole or
in part, by public money, or under state control.”[38]
Among the border states, Kentucky, as well as West Virginia, called for
the teaching of history, to which was added the study of civil government
after “July 1, 1889.”[39]
Florida reverted to a form of the morality laws for the promotion of
citizenship through the public schools. In 1881, she directed and authorized
each teacher “to labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of pupils
in their studies, deportment and morals, and to embrace every opportunity
to inculcate by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty,
patriotism, and the practice of every Christian virtue; to require the pupils to
observe personal cleanliness, neatness, order, promptness, and gentility of
manners, to avoid vulgarity and profanity, and to cultivate in them habits of
industry and economy, a regard for the rights and feelings of others, and
their own responsibilities and duties as citizens.”[40] In 1889 there was
added another duty to the list enumerated above: that of “reading at least
once a month the Declaration of Rights as set forth by the constitution of
the state of Florida.”[41]
The states of the Middle West also desired to inculcate patriotism in the
youth of that section and to emphasize the accomplishments of America. In
a series of laws, beginning in 1861, Minnesota prescribed the study of the
“history of the United States.”[42] In 1878, she sought to carry out the desire
for an exemplary citizenry in “An Act to introduce Moral and Social
Science in the Public Schools of the State,” in which was reëchoed the
sentiment of the morality laws of a former time.[43]
By 1876, Wisconsin had allied herself with those endorsing the study of
government, by prescribing that “the constitution of the United States and
of this state shall be taught in every district school.”[44] By later laws the
study of United States history and civil government was required.[45]
Among the subjects prescribed in Indiana and Missouri was United
States history, the latter state directing that elementary school pupils before
entering the high school must have completed the subject.[46] South Dakota,
in 1895, made United States history a requirement of her common school

curriculum,[47] and North Dakota by a series of laws sanctioned both United
States history and civil government.[48] Before statehood had been
achieved, the territory of Dakota had prescribed, in 1883, that “the highest
standard of morals shall be taught, and industry, truthfulness, integrity, and
self-respect inculcated, obedience to law enjoined, and the aims of an
upright and useful life cultivated.”[49] The same purpose was evident in
North Dakota’s law of 1890 and that of South Dakota of 1893, which
provided for “moral instruction tending to impress upon the minds of pupils
the importance of truthfulness, temperance, purity, public spirit, patriotism,
and respect for honest labor, obedience to parents and due deference for old
age, shall be given by each teacher in the public schools.”[50]
The states of the Far West were likewise active. They followed in the
wake of the older states by prescribing, in most cases, the teaching of
United States history, and in some instances the study of government. In
addition, they reverted to the type of law found at an early time in the
Eastern states, which required a teacher to instruct in the principles of a free
government “to train them [the pupils] up to a true comprehension of the
rights, duties, and dignity of American citizenship.” Both types of law are
found in the legislation of Washington,[51] Montana,[52] California,[53] and
Arizona.[54] Nevada and New Mexico allied themselves with the movement
to teach United States history in the public schools.[55]
Utah also prescribed United States history as a part of the school
curriculum and included in another law an admonition for instruction in
patriotism.[56] This statute is a good example of the evolutionary stage
through which most states passed in the making of laws, and shows the
tendency of the newer states to revert to the old type of laws in the early
period of statehood. In Idaho no content subject was prescribed by law, but
the teacher was held responsible for inculcating the “principles of morality,
truth, justice, and patriotism.”[57]
The place of history in the school curriculum was thus thoroughly
established by law at the close of the nineteenth century. United States
history was required in more statutes than any other field of history,
although, in some instances, political economy and general history found a
place in the high school program. Frequently added to the requirement of

national history, was the study of civil government, both federal and state,
and occasionally local or state history.
During the period one-third of the legislatures enacting social study laws
prescribed the teaching of the federal constitution. A knowledge of the state
constitution was required in Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri,
and Arkansas; and North Carolina and Maryland, besides Vermont,
prescribed the teaching of state history. The emphasis placed upon a
knowledge of state institutions was but the reaction from the intense
nationalism of the years immediately following the Civil War. It was
especially evident toward the close of the century and during the early years
following 1900. Indeed, from 1880 to 1900 local pride evinced a quickened
consciousness in the organization of such groups as the Sons of Veterans in
1881, the United Confederate Veterans and the Sons of the American
Revolution in 1889, the Daughters of the American Revolution in 1890, and
the Sons of Confederate Veterans in 1896. In literature, writers like Cable,
Eggleston, Harte and Stockton glorified the characteristics peculiar to their
localities; and laws relating to the public school curriculum reflected
precisely the same temper.[58]
Educational and learned societies likewise bore testimony to the interest
in the study of history. In 1876, a committee of the National Education
Association recommended United States history for the elementary school
and a study of “universal history and the Constitution of the United States
for high schools.”[59] In 1892, the Committee of Ten was created by the
same organization to consider “programs of the secondary schools in the
United States and ... the requirements for admission to college.”[60] Eight
years of history were asked by this committee, four for the high school and
four for the elementary.[61] In 1896, the Committee of Seven of the
American Historical Association was appointed, and in 1899 recommended
a four years’ course in history.[62] During this time colleges also extended
their entrance credits to include more history, which, with the committee
reports, aided much in increasing the offerings in the public school
curriculum. These activities are an indication of the place that history was
coming to hold in the education of the young. They are added proof of the
attention which the public was giving to the social studies in a period in

which twenty-five states passed laws to include them in a required course of
study.[63]

CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS

During the decade of the ’sixties laws regarding the certification of
teachers were passed by New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota,
Maryland, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and California.
“History” was a requirement of New Hampshire, Minnesota and Maryland,
[64]
and “United States history” received mention in the laws of
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and California.[65]
To the requirement of United States history, California added that of the
“Constitution and Government of the United States,” which was further
amplified by a requirement for the teaching of the constitution of
California, in an amendment of 1874.
From 1870 to 1880 there was little departure from the subjects required
in the preceding period, “history” being considered essential in Idaho by a
law of 1870, by Arkansas, in 1873 and in 1875, and by West Virginia in
1874 and in 1879 for primary school certificates.[66] In Texas, Washington,
Kansas, Colorado, and Delaware, the law specified United States history,
and in Oregon, modern history.[67] Besides history being required in the
statute of Arkansas, an applicant for a state certificate was required to have
a knowledge of the constitution of the state and nation, an innovation in the
required list of subjects.[68] In Wisconsin, the law pertaining to the
certification of teachers was revised in 1879 for the express purpose of
examining persons in the federal and state constitutions, and was carried
over in the statutes of the next thirty years.[69]
In the decade following 1880, New York, Michigan, the Dakotas,
Alabama, Arizona, Ohio, and Montana joined the states which had
prescribed certification requirements in the previous decade.[70] Upon the
statute books of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Indiana, California, and Washington were continued laws
previously enacted.[71] To her requirement of United States history,
Colorado prescribed a knowledge of the federal constitution.[72] Civil
government, as well as United States history, was required for licensing in

New York, Ohio, Michigan, the Dakotas, Alabama, Montana, and Arizona.
In Idaho, by a law of 1884, territorial certificates could be secured only by
those showing proficiency not only in United States history, but in general
history, political economy, and civil government as well.[73] Oregon also
extended her requirements beyond those commonly found, to include
modern history.[74]
From 1890 to 1900 only four states passed laws of this character for the
first time. All other legislation of the period was enacted by states which
had previously prescribed the subjects prerequisite for a teacher’s license.
In those commonwealths where there had been statutes enacted, the list of
required subjects was frequently extended to include political economy.
Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, in prescribing that their teachers
must show a satisfactory knowledge of United States history, followed the
usual practice, although acting for the first time. To this requirement was
added also that of a knowledge of civil government, a common prerequisite
whose popularity had been established in the ’eighties.[75] Florida, however,
for the third and second grade certificates did not require a knowledge of
civil government, reserving that only for the first grade and state licenses.
For the latter, a knowledge of general history was required by the law of
1893.[76] Wyoming required not only United States history and civil
government, but for a first grade certificate added political economy.[77]
From 1890 to 1900 Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Kansas,
Mississippi, Texas, Idaho, Washington, Utah, California, and Wyoming
required proficiency in United States history and civil government for some
grade of teacher’s license.[78]
In 1891, Alabama added to the requirement of United States history for a
first grade license, the constitution of the state of Alabama and of the
United States, thereby conforming to the popular tendency.[79] A knowledge
of state history was required in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, South Dakota
and Texas; and Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Minnesota, Texas, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming required general history for the higher grade of
certification.[80] Political economy became a prerequisite for a professional

state certificate in Minnesota by the laws of 1893, in Iowa in 1896, and in
Wyoming in 1899 for a first grade license.[81]
United States history only was required in Utah for county certificates of
the grammar and primary grades, in Kansas for the second and third grade
certificates, in Indiana for common school licenses, and in Arkansas for
county certificates.[82]
During the period from 1860 to 1900 thirty-six states enacted laws
relating to the certification of teachers. Of this number, only six states had
passed laws prior to 1860.[83] In all states a knowledge of United States
history was a prerequisite for licensing throughout the period, and, in most
cases, civil government was required.[84]

TEACHERS’ QUALIFICATIONS: OATHS OF LOYALTY

The fear of an apostacy on the part of the teaching craft led legislatures in
this period to impose other than scholastic requirements upon those who
would teach in the public schools. These regulations, indicating a distrust of
the loyalty of teachers, have required oaths of allegiance from all who
would qualify as teachers.
Legislation of this character was originally an outgrowth of the Civil
War, the first laws being passed in 1862.[85] And it is not strange that the
border state Kentucky was a pioneer in statutes of this character. Here the
law was made to apply to all school commissioners, examiners of teachers
for the common schools, and school trustees and teachers elected to teach in
the common schools, all presidents, professors and teachers in colleges, and
high schools incorporated by legislative enactment. It pledged loyalty to the
Union and denounced the tenets of the Confederacy.
“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United
States, and the Constitution of Kentucky,” vowed the applicant, “and be
true and faithful to the commonwealth as long as I remain a citizen thereof.
That I recognize the binding obligations of the Constitution of the United
States and the duty of every citizen to submit thereto as the supreme law of
the land. That I will not give aid to the rebellion against the government of
the United States, nor give aid to the so-called provisional government of

Kentucky, either directly or indirectly, so long as I remain a citizen of or
reside in Kentucky, and that this oath is taken by me without any mental
reservation—so help me God.” This oath, given in writing, was kept at the
county court office where the school was located, and a violation of the oath
or false swearing upon conviction, led to the imposition of a penalty.
Evasion of the law, too, was subject to punishment through a fine of not less
than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars.[86] In 1889 it
was made incumbent upon the county superintendent to administer such
oaths.
Similar laws appeared on the statute books of West Virginia and
Missouri, where, like Kentucky, these border states felt a pressing need for
a loyal citizenry. On December 10, 1863, the former commonwealth
declared that no applicant should be admitted to an examination for a
teacher’s license unless the county superintendent had reasonable evidence
that the candidate was not only “of good moral character and temperate
habits,” but that he was “loyal to the government of the United States and of
West Virginia.”[87] To buttress this law it was prescribed that all teachers
should take the oath of loyalty required of all state officers. The latter
regulation was operative after November 16, 1863, but no specific mention
was made of teachers subscribing to such an oath until 1867. However, it
seems probable that they, as well as state officers, affirmed their loyalty at
the earliest period of statehood, since it is recorded that two teachers, J. B.
Soloman and C. T. Wilson, in 1869, were exempted from subscribing to the
oath prescribed in the act of 1863.
A statute, moreover, directly prescribed for teachers in 1867 the taking of
the following oath: “I, A. A. B., do solemnly swear that I will support the
constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of West
Virginia, that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States,
that I have voluntarily given no aid or comfort to persons engaged in armed
hostility thereto, by countenancing, counseling or encouraging them in the
same, that I have not sought, accepted, nor attempted to exercise the
functions of any office whatever under any authority in hostility to the
United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended
government, authority, power or constitution within the United States,
hostile or inimical thereto; and that I take this obligation freely, without any
mental reservations or purpose of evasion.”[88]

The cessation of armed hostilities between the North and the South
induced Missouri to require an avowal of loyalty on the part of her teachers.
On March 29, 1866, there was approved a law by which “all teachers before
entering upon the discharge of their duties should take and subscribe to the
oath of loyalty prescribed by the constitution.”[89]
Regarding the lessons of the War, Arkansas, in 1866, believed there
should be no disagreement. Here not only did the applicant for a teacher’s
certificate swear to support the constitution and laws of the United States
and Arkansas, but he also promised that he would encourage all others to do
likewise. “... I will never countenance or aid in the secession of this state
from the United States,” the affirmant declared, and added his pledge “to
inculcate in the minds of youth sentiments of patriotism and loyalty.”[90]
Oregon also required a pledge of her teachers by legislation in 1862.
Before the county superintendent of schools, disloyalty to the state and
nation must be forsworn by the applicant for a certificate, who promised
“without any mental reservation or evasion whatever,” that he would “bear
true allegiance and fidelity to the same against all enemies, foreign or
domestic.”[91]
Dissentient opinions received scant courtesy in Rhode Island at the time
of the Civil War although no law forbade them. However, a warning from
the state commissioner of education to the general assembly at the January
session of 1865 undoubtedly evoked the same response as the enactment of
a law. Here, too, there was to be no tolerance for a passive loyalty. “The war
tocsin has sounded,” the report declared, “our country is convulsed in
mighty conflict, our friends are in the contesting field, their blood has been
made to redden and fertilize the rebel soil.... Traitors and rebel sympathizers
are among us, rendering every available assistance and using every means
within their power to further the rebel cause and aid them in the
accomplishment of their hellish design. Therefore, let us be on our guard,
lest some of them unawares be ushered into our schools as teachers. For if
the teacher be a traitor, his actions will correspond therewith, and by
example, if not by precept, he will be sowing the seeds of rebellion in the
susceptible hearts of our children. Should the pure minds of our little ones
be poisoned with the damnable principles of rebellion, or be led astray by
the pernicious examples of rebel sympathizers? Shall the hand already

stained with the blood of the murdered father, be employed to guide his
orphan child?—the hand that applied the lighted torch, and made the orphan
a homeless wanderer, shall that be the hand to trace the chart by which his
little bark is to be guided to its destined haven? No, most assuredly, no.
Better by far remain as he is, his untutored mind wrapped up in ignorance,
than to be thus guided and piloted by the vile traitor, only to be finally
dashed against the rocks and engulfed in the waves of rebellion. But let our
teachers be noble, loyal sons and daughters of America—those who, while
instructing our little ones in the sciences that pertain to the secular concerns
of life, will also teach them their obligations to their country, and at the
same time will point them to that never fading star by which their frail
barks may be safely guided over life’s treacherous seas to the port of eternal
rest, to gain that blood-washed throng who chant the praises of God and the
Lamb from Mount Zion’s balmy top.”[92]
As a survival of the legislation regarding teachers’ qualifications, which
had been brought about by the period of Reconstruction, were the statutes
of Arizona of 1883 and 1885. By these laws it was made a duty of the
superintendent of public instruction and the county superintendents of
schools to administer oaths and affirmations of loyalty to teachers.[93]

CITIZENSHIP AS A QUALIFICATION FOR TEACHERS

Beginning in 1899 came legislation eliminating from the teaching
profession those who were not American citizens. North Dakota was the
pioneer in this movement in a statute prohibiting the issuance of certificates
or permits to teach to persons not citizens of the United States, unless they
had resided in the United States “for at least one year prior to the time of
such applications or permit.”[94] The same year Idaho adopted a similar
restriction, by forbidding the granting of certificates or the employment of
any teacher in the public schools, “not a citizen of the United States.”[95] A
decade later (1907) Nevada attempted to promote patriotism by requiring an
oath of all public officials including teachers in schools and university
professors. In this was affirmed the dominance of the national over the state
government and an abjuration of duelling, a relic of frontier conditions.

“I, ——, do solemnly swear,” declared the official, or teacher, “that I will
support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United
States and the Constitution and Government of the State of Nevada against
all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith,
allegiance and loyalty to the same, any state convention or legislature to the
contrary notwithstanding; and further that I do this, with a full
determination, pledge and purpose, without any mental reservation or
evasion whatsoever. And I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have
not fought a duel, nor sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel, nor been
a second to either party, nor in any manner aided or assisted in such a duel,
nor been knowingly the bearer of such challenge or acceptance, since the
adoption of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, and that I will not be so
engaged or concerned directly or indirectly in or about any such duel,
during my continuance in office....”[96]

TEXTBOOK LEGISLATION

Substantially all legislation regarding history textbooks has developed
since the Civil War, only three states passing statutes of this character
before 1860.[97] This form of regulation falls, in general, into laws in which
certain textbooks are named as suitable for use or are definitely prescribed,
laws in which the subjects of the curriculum are enumerated by a statement
concerning textbooks, enactments limiting the price of books, statutes by
which books of a partisan or political bias are forbidden, and laws
prescribing the character of the content for history textbooks, whose source
is a sectional or partisan animus.
In 1862, the state of Vermont passed An Act directing the Board of
Education to select a Textbook of the Geography and History of Vermont
which was to be used in all district schools of the state for a period of five
years.[98] Ten years later Hall’s Geography and History of Vermont, which
was then in use by sanction of the law, was continued as a textbook until
1878.[99] In Rhode Island, the report of the Superintendent of Public
Education, in 1865, named the histories written by Berard and Goodrich as
those commonly used in the public schools.[100] By legislative enactment,
North Carolina in 1879, designated Moore’s History of North Carolina for
use in her public schools.[101]

Of the textbooks prescribed in West Virginia, Goodrich’s Common
School History, Quackenbos’ History of the United States, and Holmes’
History of the United States were named by laws in 1868 and 1873. Later
the price of Myers’ General History, Montgomery’s General History and
Montgomery’s Beginner’s American History were regulated by law.[102] In
Virginia “the two works of John Esten Cooke, entitled respectively
‘Virginia: A History of Her People,’ and ‘Stories of the Old Dominion,’”
were included in the list of textbooks selected.[103] In Indiana, in 1889, the
state board of education was directed to choose a history equal to
Thalheimer’s History of the United States,[104] and two years later it was
enacted that the price of the textbook on the history of the United States
should not exceed 65 cents a volume.[105]
Minnesota, Kansas, and Montana insisted that their histories be the equal
of Barnes’ School Histories.[106] In Kansas the law also made it conditional
that the civil government textbook be equal to Thummel’s Government of
the United States with the Kansas addendum,[107] and that among the
textbooks selected by the state commission should be included books on
general history, history of Kansas and English history.[108] A Montana law
also limited the price to be paid for books: Barnes’ Brief History of the
United States, retail price $1.20; Barnes’ Primary History of the United
States, retail price 70 cents; and Lovell’s Civics for Young People (also a
prescribed textbook), retail price 50 cents.[109] In South Dakota the
maximum price for a textbook on the history of the United States was fixed
at 80 cents by a law of 1891.[110]
The duty of choosing textbooks was delegated to various officials in the
different states. Missouri directed, in 1897, that a state commission should
select the textbooks in United States history and civil government.[111]
Arkansas delegated the task of choosing a history of the United States to the
state superintendent of public instruction,[112] as well as providing, in 1899,
that there be included among the textbooks of the schools, the history and
civil government of the state and nation.[113] In Idaho, the county
superintendent selected the textbooks in “history,” and in California the
duty devolved upon the state board of education.[114]

Among the branches of study in Texas and Alabama for which law
prescribed that there should be a uniform series of books was United States
history, and in Alabama was added the history and constitution of the state.
[115]

The most common regulation regarding textbooks pertained to the
prohibition of books showing partisan, political or sectarian bias.[116] In the
South, particularly, were such laws enacted. In February, 1890, a joint
resolution “in relation to histories to be taught in the public schools of
Mississippi” passed the legislature of that state. It urged “the utmost care in
the selection and introduction of school histories,” in order to eliminate
those considered “biased, prejudiced and unfair,” or that suppressed a “full,
free and candid presentation of questions upon which the American people”
had been “honestly divided,” and in the maintenance of which they had
acted “according to the promptings of courage and honor.”[117]
Precisely the same motive actuated the lawmakers of Alabama later in
establishing county school boards to select uniform series of textbooks for
the public schools. These boards were instructed to avoid “textbooks
containing anything partisan, prejudicial or inimical to the interests of the
people of the State” or which would “cast a reflection on their past
history.”[118]
Endorsement of history books favorable to the South was the burden of a
resolution of Georgia, in 1866, which commended the Southern University
series of school textbooks under the auspices of the University of Virginia
from the pens of Captain M. F. Maury, Gilmore Simms, Honorable Charles
Gayarre, Judge B. F. Porter, Professors Le Compte, Holmes, Venable,
Schele, Devere, because they expressed a “correct sentiment.”[119] This
particularism became more evident toward the close of the period as
Southern legislatures threw off the influence of carpet-bag domination.
Maryland’s legislation of 1868 and South Carolina’s of 1870 declared
that “school books shall contain nothing of a sectarian or partisan
character.”[120] Virginia as early as 1849 had subscribed to a similar
statement,[121] and in 1872 both North Carolina and Georgia forbade the use
of books in the public schools which might partake of a “political” or
“sectional” bias.[122]

In Georgia, the county boards were not permitted “to introduce into the
schools any textbook or miscellaneous book of a sectarian or sectional
character.”[123] A South Carolina law, pertaining to the general duties of the
state superintendent of education, accepted the phraseology common to
many laws regarding textbooks in forbidding “partisan” books or
instruction.[124]
Partisan textbooks were also excluded from the schools of Alabama,
Kansas, Arizona, Washington, and California.[125] In Idaho and Montana
legislation stipulated the rejection of all books which would propagate
“political” doctrines, and in Texas it provided that nothing of a sectional or
partisan character should be included in the uniform series of textbooks
selected.[126] In Kentucky the county board of examiners was given the task
of selecting a uniform series of textbooks for the county providing that the
selection did not include any books of “an immoral, sectional or sectarian
character.”[127] The territory of Dakota legislating regarding school libraries
forbade not only books unsuited “to the cultivation of good character and
good morals and manners,” but all “partisan political pamphlets and
books.”[128]
The evolution of laws respecting textbooks in this period indicated the
tendency toward a spirit of localism. The South seized upon another
opportunity in her legislation for textbooks to prohibit the teaching of a
Northern viewpoint; nine states of the Confederacy passed laws prohibiting
the use of “partisan” histories in their schools. The border state of Kentucky
also forbade “sectional” textbooks, whereas the West attempted to exclude
“partisan, political books.”[129] The laws passed by the North during the
period dealt largely with the naming of textbooks to be used in the public
schools.

FOOTNOTES:

[27] Cf. Johnson, Henry, Teaching of History in Elementary and Secondary
Schools (New York, 1915), ch. v; Russell, W. F., The Early Teaching of History
in the Secondary Schools of New York and Massachusetts (Philadelphia, 1915).
History was offered in states where there were not statutory requirements. The
enumeration of these laws does not, moreover, indicate the amount of history
studied.

[28] General Statutes of Vermont, 1862, ch. 22, sec. 19, p. 151.
[29] Ibid., 1894, sec. 700, p. 189. Similar laws had been passed by
Massachusetts in 1860. See page 7.
[30] Laws of Connecticut, 1883, ch. LXXIV, p. 264. Laws of successive years
carried on substantially the same requirements. In 1902 the law appeared with
slight modifications, having been accepted in 1868, 1870, 1884, 1888, 1889,
1895, 1897, 1899. General Statutes of Connecticut, 1902, ch. 131, par. 2130, p.
561, cites Revision, 1888, par. 2118, ch. 6; 1895, ch. 119; 1897, ch. 101; 1899,
ch. 54.
[31] Virginia in 1849 had prescribed United States history. This state did not
enact a law during this period.
[32] Acts of West Virginia, 1863, ch. 137, 16, p. 250. Again Acts, 1866, ch. 74,
29, p. 62; and Code, 1868, ch. 45, 35, p. 300; Acts, 1873, ch. 123, 32, p. 403;
Acts, 1881, p. 185; Acts, 1874, ch. 123, 11, p. 388; ibid., p. 173. This law was
reënacted in 1881.
[33] General Statutes of Missouri, 1864-65, sec. 4, p. 128. Approved February
10, 1865.
[34] Laws of Maryland, 1865, ch. 5, sec. 4, p. 284.
[35] Ibid., ch. IV, sec. 2, p. 282; ibid., 1868, ch. VI, sec. 2, p. 754; ibid., 1870,
ch. VII, sec. 3, p. 540; ibid., 1872, ch. 7, sec. 3, p. 638; Revised Code, 1879, art.
XXVII, 39, Vol. I, p. 255.
[36] Virginia had passed such a law in 1849. See page 8. Laws of South
Carolina, 1870, sec. 24, p. 344; Revised Statutes, 1872, ch. XXXVIII, sec. 4, p.
246; General Statutes, 1881-1882, sec. 1004, p. 300. Revised Statutes, 1893, sec.
1058, Vol. I, p. 368, repeat the law. Laws of Arkansas, 1868, sec. 65, p. 184;
Laws, 1875, sec. 45, p. 68; again in Acts, 1913, sec. 62, p. 410. Laws of
Mississippi, 1873, ch. 1, sec. 23, p. 13.
[37] Laws of North Carolina, 1881, ch. 200, sec. 38, p. 383. Laws of
Tennessee, 1873, ch. XXV, sec. 31, p. 46; Laws, 1879, ch. 187, sec. 31.
[38] Code of Alabama, 1897, art. 3, 3456, 4, Vol. 1, p. 998; ibid., 1907, 1685,
4, Vol. 1, p. 741. The Code of a decade later repeated the same statute indicating
that it was still a law.
[39] Laws of Kentucky, 1888, par. 6, Vol. 1, p. 157. General Statutes, 1873, p.
212. The latter refers to the law for history. For West Virginia see page 15.
[40] Digest of Florida, 1822-1881, sec. 36, p. 910; Revised Statutes, 1892, sec.
253, p. 184; Compiled Laws, 1914, Vol. I, p. 139.
[41] Acts of Florida, 1889, ch. 3872, sec. 31, p. 82. Approved June 8, 1889. A
law pertaining to the teaching of citizenship had been passed in Florida on
January 24, 1851, and is unique in its period. By this law, two seminaries of
learning were established upon the east and west sides of the Suwanee River.
The first purpose of these seminaries was to be the instruction of persons in “all
the various branches that pertain to a good common school education; and next
to give instruction in the mechanic arts, in husbandry and agricultural chemistry,
in the fundamental laws, and in what regards the rights and duties of citizens.”

Acts of Florida, 1850-1861, ch. 337 (no. 26), p. 97; also Digest, 1822-1881
inclusive, ch. 178, sec. 1, p. 916; Revised Statutes, 1892, ch. V, par. 301, p. 192.
[42] Laws of Minnesota, 1861, sec. 22, p. 60; 1862, sec. 29, p. 26; 1864, sec.
29, p. 23; 1873, sec. 64, p. 21. Successive laws do not necessarily mean
reënactments, but other subjects have been added with the social studies
remaining the same and reappearing in the laws.
[43] General Statutes of Minnesota, 1881 (including Statutes, 1878), ch. 36,
sec. 178, Vol. II; General Statutes, 1894, ch. 36 (Title 5), sec. 3889, sec. 3890,
sec. 3891, p. 1053. The law provided “that all school officers in the state may
introduce, as part of the daily exercises of each school in their jurisdiction,
instruction in the elements of social and moral science, including industry, order,
economy, punctuality, patience, self-denial, health, purity, temperance,
cleanliness, honesty, truth, justice, politeness, peace, fidelity, philanthropy,
patriotism, self-respect, hope, perseverance, cheerfulness, courage, self-reliance,
gratitude, pity, mercy, kindness, conscience, reflection, and the will.” Further
provisions suggested the mode for carrying out the law. “That it may be the duty
of the teachers to give a short oral lesson every day upon one of the topics
mentioned ..., and to require the pupils to furnish illustrations of the same upon
the following morning.” If only one lesson were given and only one topic
discussed daily by the teacher, a full calendar month would have been spent in
the carrying out of this law.
[44] Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, 1878, ch. 27, sec. 447, p. 173.
[45] Laws of Wisconsin, 1887, ch. 79, p. 77; ibid., 1898, ch. 27, sec. 447, p.
363; Statutes, 1913, ch. 27, sec. 447, p. 258.
[46] Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1881, 4497, p. 978; Laws of Missouri, 1895,
p. 267; Revised Statutes, 1899, sec. 988, Vol. I, p. 2270; ibid., 1909, sec. 10852;
ibid., 1919, sec. 11218. See page 15 for other Missouri laws.
[47] Laws of South Dakota, 1895, sec. 13, p. 142.
[48] Laws of North Dakota, 1895, ch. 56, p. 79; ibid., 1897, sec. 741, p. 108;
1905, sec. 750, p. 202; 1909, sec. 833, p. 302. Dakota Territory, Compiled Laws,
1887, sec. 1770, p. 395. This shows that United States history was required in
the common schools, as early as 1883, Session Laws of Dakota Territory, 1883,
ch. 44, par. 83.
[49] Revised Code of Dakota Territory, 1883, sec. 91, p. 585.
[50] Laws of North Dakota, 1889-90, sec. 134, p. 211; Revised Code, 1895,
sec. 754; ibid., 1909, sec. 889, p. 184; ibid., 1913, sec. 1389, Vol. I, p. 333. Laws
of South Dakota, 1893, sec. 6, p. 126; ibid., 1895, sec. 6, p. 138; ibid., 1901, sec.
6, p. 173; Compiled Laws, 1903, sec. 2358, p. 429; ibid., 1913, sec. 143, Vol. I,
p. 591.
[51] Code of Washington, 1881, sec. 3205, p. 558; General Statutes, 1890, ch.
VIII, sec. 810, Vol. I, p. 300. Similar laws, Laws, 1890, sec. 45, p. 372; Laws,
1895, sec. 1, p. 8; Laws, 1897, sec. 65, p. 384; Laws, 1909, sec. 2, p. 262; also
Laws, 1877, sec. 5, p. 274, for the law prescribing teaching of patriotism.
Washington required United States history.

[52] Revised Statutes of Montana, 1879, sec. 1119, p. 646, prescribed United
States history. Laws of Montana, 1871-72, p. 630; Revised Statutes, 1879, sec.
1128, p. 648; again on statute books, Laws, 1874, sec. 41, p. 132; Compiled
Statutes, 1887, sec. 1900, p. 1187; Revised Code, 1907 (see act of March 11,
1895); Laws, 1913, ch. VI, 802, pt. 4, p. 245, for prescribing teaching of
patriotism. This law was carried by Montana on her statute books for fifty years.
In Washington it passed through a similar experience, being found in the Code of
1910. See Remington and Ballinger’s Code, 1910, sec. 4550, Vol. II, p. 490.
[53] Statutes of California, 1863-4, sec. 6, p. 211; ibid., 1865-6, sec. 55, p.
398; Codes and Statutes of California, 1885, sec. 1665, Vol. I, p. 290; ibid.,
1905, sec. 1874, 2, Vol. I, p. 451. Same law (1885) on statute books in 1905.
Code, 1905, 1665, Vol. I, p. 391. Civil government was added, 1889. Laws of
California, 1891, 1665, p. 161; again in Laws, 1893, p. 254; Laws of California,
1903, 1874, 2, p. 195; Codes, 1905, 1665, Vol. I, p. 391; Laws, 1907, p. 947. The
laws respecting the teaching of patriotism and training for citizenship are found
in Statutes of California, 1865-86, sec. 70, p. 400; Codes and Statutes, 1885, sec.
1702, Vol. I, p. 293; Codes and Statutes, 1905, sec. 1701, Vol. I, p. 420.
[54] Laws of Arizona, 1883, sec. 59, p. 49; Laws, 1885, p. 157; Revised
Statutes, 1887, p. 284; Revised Laws of the Territory of Arizona, 1901, 2214, sec.
85, p. 602. The study of United States history required. Revised Statutes of
Arizona, 1887, 1566 (sec. 94), p. 285; Laws, 1885, p. 160; Revised Laws of
Territory, 1901, 2243 (sec. 113), p. 608. The law prescribed that a teacher
instruct in the principles of “morality, truth, justice, and patriotism ... to train
them [pupils] up to a true comprehension of the rights, duties, and dignity of
American citizenship.”
[55] Statutes of Nevada, 1864-5, sec. 42, p. 424. Also General Statutes, 1861-
1885, 1330, sec. 42, p. 384. This last would indicate the inclusion of the law in
the statutes to 1885. Compiled Laws of Nevada, 1861-1900, 1346, sec. 4.
Compiled Laws of New Mexico, 1884, sec. 1101, p. 548; ibid., 1897, sec. 1529,
p. 425.
[56] Utah’s law regarding the teaching of patriotism came under a statute
regarding “Prohibited Doctrines. Moral Instruction.” It prescribed that “no
atheistic, infidel, sectarian, religious, or denominational doctrine shall be taught
in any of the district schools of this state. Moral instruction tending to impress
on the minds of the pupils the importance of good manners, truthfulness,
temperance, purity, patriotism, and industry, shall be given, ... and all such
schools shall be free from sectarian control.” The law prescribing the study of
United States history is found in Laws of Utah, 1896, p. 486; ibid., 1897, p. 131.
Revised Statutes, 1898, p. 441; Compiled Laws, 1907, sec. 1848, p. 704.
[57] Laws of Idaho, 1884, sec. 34, p. 193; Revised Statutes, 1887, ch. VII, sec.
687, p. 134; Laws, 1899, sec. 48, p. 97; Political Code, 1901, ch. XL, sec. 1067,
Vol. I, p. 329; Compiled Statutes, 1919, sec. 944, p. 269. This last citation would
indicate the permanence of the law.
[58] This is especially evident in the legislation affecting textbooks in history.
See page 36 et seq. A knowledge of state history was required for teacher
certification in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Texas.
[59] Johnson, op. cit., p. 133.

[60] Ibid., p. 134.
[61] Ibid., pp. 134-135. 1st and 2d years, biography and mythology; 3d year,
American history, the elements of civil government; 4th year, Greek and Roman
history; 5th year (high school), French history; 6th year, English history; 7th
year, American history; 8th year, a special period for intensive study and civil
government.
[62] Ibid., p. 143. 1st year, Ancient history to 800 a.d., 814 a.d., or 843 a.d.;
2d year, Medieval and Modern European history; 3d year, English history, and
4th year, American history and civil government.
[63] This includes Massachusetts whose law was discussed in chapter I. See
page 7. Florida and Idaho did not name any social studies; hence they are not
included in this number.
[64] Connecticut, 1866, and Maine, 1873, still required “history.” General
Statutes of New Hampshire, 1867, ch. LXXXI, sec. 4, p. 169; Laws of
Minnesota, 1861, sec. 22, p. 60; Code of Public Laws of Maryland, 1903, art. 77,
70, Vol. II, p. 1472. The source of the law is from Laws, 1868, title II, ch. 1, sec.
2, p. 757.
[65] Digest of Laws of Pennsylvania, 1883, 173, p. 308, in which is source of
law from Public Laws, 1867, par. II (April 9, 1867). Laws of Wisconsin, 1861,
ch. 176, sec. 4, p. 100; Laws of Indiana, 1865, sec. 34, p. 13. Statutes of
Missouri, 1870, ch. 123, Vol. II, p. 1260, containing source from General
Statutes, 1865, sec. 90, p. 273. Laws of Arkansas, 1868, sec. 60, p. 181. Statutes
of California, 1865-6, sec. 87, p. 404, first and second grade certificates. These
laws are continued by the following in successive legislation; Minnesota Laws,
1862, sec. 29, p. 26; ibid., 1864, sec. 29, p. 23; ibid., 1873, sec. 64, p. 71;
General Laws, 1881, sec. 66, p. 480; ibid., 1894, sec. 3750, p. 1022; Laws of
Wisconsin, 1868, ch. 109, sec. 4, p. 110; Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1881,
4425, p. 957, Laws, 1889, ch. LV, p. 85; ibid., 1899, ch. CCXIV, p. 489; Revised
Statutes of Missouri, 1879, sec. 7077, Vol. II, p. 1394, which contains
amendment of 1874 when civil government was added. These successive laws
remained unchanged for the social sciences except where noted. Digest of Laws
of Pennsylvania, 1894, p. 815; ibid., 1901, p. 859; in 1901, civil government,
both state and local, were added. Acts of Arkansas, 1873, sec. 62, p. 40. Codes
and Statutes of California, 1876, sec. 1748, Vol. I, p. 242.
[66] Laws of Idaho, 1870-71, sec. 12, p. 10; Laws of Arkansas, 1875, sec. 33,
p. 65; Laws of West Virginia, 1874, ch. 123, sec. 28, p. 399; also ibid., 1879, ch.
74, sec. 28, p. 143.
[67] Laws of Texas, 1871-73, sec. 15, Vol. VII, p. 540; Code of Washington,
1881, sec. 3240, p. 564, Laws, 1871, sec. 6, p. 17, ibid., 1877, sec. 6, p. 424;
Compiled Laws of Kansas, 1879, sec. 6, par. 81 (5181), p. 834; Laws, 1876, ch.
122, art. 6, par. 6; Laws of Colorado, 1870-72, sec. 10, p. 134, ibid., 1876, sec.
15, 2461, p. 811; Laws of Delaware, 1879, p. 52; Laws of Oregon, 1872, par. 25,
p. 507.
[68] Laws of Arkansas, 1875, sec. 33, p. 65, also ibid., 1868, sec. 60, p. 181,
ibid., 1873, sec. 62, p. 410. Laws of New Hampshire, Minnesota, Missouri,
Maryland, Maine, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois and California were discussed in
connection with the passage of earlier laws in the preceding chapter.

[69] Laws of Wisconsin, 1879, ch. 237, p. 346; Laws, 1887, ch. 79, p. 77.
[70] Laws of New York, 1882, ch. 318, p. 382, certificate for prospective
teachers; Laws of Ohio, 1882, p. 70. “An act to amend section 4074 of the
Revised Statutes of Ohio relating to teachers’ certificates, making an
examination in United States history essential.” General Statutes of Michigan,
1883, par. 5153, Vol. II, p. 1356 (a compilation of laws); Public Acts, 1887, ch.
XII, sec. 4, p. 890, left unchanged the social studies by law of 1887, ch. 196, sec.
5153, p. 3539; Laws of Dakota Territory, 1883, ch. 44, par. 16. Revised Code,
1883, par. 16, p. 558, first and second grade certificates; Compiled Laws, 1887,
par. 1770, p. 395; for first grade certificate, Dakota added civil government. Acts
of Alabama, 1880-81, p. 75, first and second grade certificates, Code of
Alabama, 1887, ch. 3, 984, Vol. I, p. 269, same certificates; Laws of Arizona,
1885, p. 140, Revised Statutes, 1887, ch. 2, 1485 (sec. 13), p. 272, first and
second grade territorial certificates. Laws of Montana, 1883, sec. 1149, p. 57, for
county certificates.
[71] General Statutes of Connecticut, 1888, sec. 2135, p. 466; Digest of Laws
of Pennsylvania, 1883, 173, p. 308; required United States history from a law of
1867; Laws of Delaware, 1887, sec. 4, p. 120, United States history. Laws of
West Virginia, 1881, sec. 28, p. 182, “history” required for primary school
certificates; see Laws, 1874, p. 399; Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1881, 4425, p.
957, Laws of 1889, ch. LV, p. 85, for common schools, United States history was
required; Supplement to Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, 1878, required United
States history, federal and state constitutions for the first, second, third grade
certificates, also Laws, 1887, ch. 79, p. 77; General Statutes of Kansas, 1889,
5651, par. 90, p. 1831. United States history was required for first, second, and
third grade certificates; also Laws, 1881, ch. 151, par. 6, amended by Laws,
1885, ch. 170, par. 1, p. 274; Revised Statutes of Idaho Territory, 1887, ch. VII,
sec. 680, county certificates with the requirement of United States history; Code
of Washington, 1881, sec. 3240, p. 564, United States history was required, from
Laws, 1871, also Laws, 1885, p. 27; Codes and Statutes of California, 1885, par.
1772, Vol. I, p. 298, which was the same as in 1876; for county certificates
United States history was prescribed.
[72] General Statutes of Colorado, 1883, ch. XCVII, 3010, sec. 15, p. 883.
This amended General Laws, 1879, p. 162, by adding “constitution of the United
States”; Laws, 1889, sec. 4, p. 381.
[73] Laws of Idaho, 1884, sec. 30, p. 192; also Revised Statutes, 1887, ch. VII,
secs. 682, 683, p. 133. See chapter 1 for requirements in Nebraska, Iowa,
Illinois, Connecticut, and Maine.
[74] Laws of Oregon, 1885, p. 44, also Laws, 1872, sec. 25, p. 507.
[75] Statutes of Oklahoma, 1893 (compilation), ch. 73, art. 5, p. 1094, for first
and second grade certificates, also Laws, 1897, ch. 34, art. 6, p. 273. Revised
Statutes of Wyoming, 1899, sec. 627, p. 228; Laws, 1899, ch. 70, p. 136, for
second and third grade certificates. Laws of Florida, 1893, ch. 4192, p. 125, also
Compiled Laws, 1914, 365, Vol. I, p. 136, for first grade certificates. See
footnote, page 86.
[76] Compiled Laws of Florida, 1914, 365, Vol. I, p. 136.

[77] Laws of Wyoming, 1899, ch. 70, p. 136, also Revised Statutes, 1899, sec.
627, p. 228.
[78] Laws of Pennsylvania, 1895, 41, p. 155, for high schools demanded
general history and civics, but no mention was made of United States history. In
Digest, 1894, p. 815, United States history was required for certificate from any
county, borough, or its superintendent. Laws of Delaware, 1893, sec. 5, p. 691,
professional certificates; ibid., 1898, sec. 24, p. 198, professional, first, second,
and third grade certificates. Acts of West Virginia, 1891, ch. 64, p. 169, “history”
and civil government for primary certificates; also Acts, 1895, ch. 26, 28, p. 81,
for first, second and third grade certificates; adding general history in first grade
certificate, see ibid., p. 82, also Code, 1899, ch. 45, 28, 29. Public Acts of
Michigan, 1893, sec. 5, p. 35, also in Compiled Laws, 1915 (5881), sec. 5, Vol.
II, p. 2213. Statutes of Wisconsin, 1898, ch. 27, sec. 447, p. 363, for all grades of
licenses. General Statutes of Minnesota, 1894, ch. 36, par. 3749, par. 3750, Vol.
I, p. 1022, for professional state certificate by law of 1893 approved April 18,
1893. Laws of North Dakota, 1895, 52, p. 27, for all certificates, ibid., 1897, par.
741, p. 108. Laws of South Dakota, 1891, ch. 56, par. 4, p. 119, ibid., 1893, ch.
78, 105, ibid., 1895, ch. 78, p. 83, in Compiled Laws, 1913, par. 55, Vol. I, p.
572. Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1899, sec. 9798, Vol. II, p. 2277, any
certificates. General Statutes of Kansas, 1897, ch. 63, par. 200, p. 671, first
grade certificate, but second and third grade required only United States history.
Annotated Code of General Statute Laws of Mississippi, 1892, 4022, p. 889, first
grade license; professional and state in 1896, Laws, 1896, p. III, secs. 6 and 7.
Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, sec. 65, first, second grades and permanent
certificates (23d legislature, 1893); by laws of 1891, state certificate general
history and civil government; Revised Statutes, 1895, art. 3979, p. 787. Laws of
Idaho, 1897, sec. 7, p. 75, ibid., 1899, sec. 17, p. 310. Laws of Washington,
1891, ch. XCVII, sec. 4, p. 244, Code, 1891, par. 773, Vol. I, p. 281, state
certificate, ibid., par. 777, p. 285, first grade certificate. Revised Statutes of Utah,
1898, 1767, p. 425, state professional certificate, ibid., 1923, p. 455, for primary
and grammar certificates, United States history only, but ibid., 1924, high school
certificates; both United States history and civics for territorial certificate of first
grade in 1890, civics and United States history, Laws, 1890, sec. 23, p. 115;
Revised Statutes, op. cit., 1767, p. 425, state professional diploma of high school
grade, general history, civil government, United States history. Statutes of
California, 1893, p. 260, primary county certificates. Revised Statutes of
Wyoming, 1899, sec. 627, p. 228, first, second, and third grade licenses, with
political economy required for first grade.
[79] Acts of Alabama, 1891, par. 2, p. 250. Approved February 4, 1891; also
in Code, 1897, art. 6, Vol. I, p. 1007.
[80] See citations in footnote 52.
[81] Citation of reference in footnote 52. Also Acts of Iowa, 1896, ch. 39, p.
44, amends 1766 of Code.
[82] Digest of Statutes of Arkansas, 1894, ch. 139, sec. 7010, p. 1523, Act of
April 14, 1893; Laws of Indiana, 1899, ch. CCXIV, p. 489; General Statutes of
Kansas, 1897, ch. 63, par. 201, 202, p. 671; Revised Statutes of Utah, 1898,
1796, p. 432.
[83] Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska.

[84] Connecticut, Illinois, Montana, Ohio, Oregon being the states which
required only history. Oregon’s requirement was modern history.
[85] Kentucky and Oregon passed laws this year.
[86] Laws of Kentucky, 1862, ch. 636, p. 265. Approved August 30, 1862.
Laws, 1889, Vol. I, p. 169, par. 15. In the law for the qualifications of teachers,
however, the taking of the oath was not mentioned.
[87] Acts of West Virginia, 1863, ch. 137, 35, p. 255; also Code, 1868, ch. 45,
31. p. 298; again Acts, 1866, ch. 74, 37, p. 65.
[88] Acts of West Virginia, 1869, pp. 56, 104. For the law prescribing the oath,
Code of West Virginia, 1868, ch. 45, 32, p. 299; Acts, 1863, ch. 106, p. 138.
Constitution, ibid., ch. IX, p. 76. On February 7, 1870, this law was reënacted
and amended. Code, op. cit., ch. 14, 32, p. 739 of Appendix.
[89] Laws of Missouri, 1865-6, par. 89, p. 189.
[90] Acts of Arkansas, 1868, sec. 61, p. 182. Again in Acts, 1873, sec. 64, p.
412. Repealed by an act of 1875.
[91] Code of Oregon, 1862, sec. 9, p. 40.
[92] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1865, pp. 126-127. The Twentieth
Annual Report on the Public Schools in Rhode Island made to the General
Assembly at the January Session, a.d. 1865.
[93] Laws of Arizona, 1883, pp. 41 and 157, ibid., 1885, p. 146. The law made
it a duty of superintendents of public instruction or county superintendents of
schools to administer the following oath, but there was no separate law
prescribing that a teacher take such an oath: “I, ——, do solemnly swear that I
will support the constitution of the United States and the laws of the territory of
Arizona; that I will true faith and allegiance bear to the same, and defend them
against all enemies whatsoever, and that I will faithfully and impartially
discharge the duties of the office (name of office) according to the best of my
ability, so help me God.”
[94] Laws of North Dakota, 1897, par. 742, p. 109; ibid., 1901, p. 99; ibid.,
1905, p. 206. This statute was in the School Laws published in 1923. In 1900,
North Dakota’s total population was 319,146 with a foreign population of
113,091.
[95] Laws of Idaho, 1897, sec. 17, p. 85, ibid., 1899, p. 310; Code, 1901, ch.
XL, Vol. I, p. 330. This law is found as late as 1921. Also Compiled Statutes,
1919, par. 946, Vol. I, p. 270. In 1900, Idaho’s population was 161,772, of which
24,604 were foreigners.
[96] Laws of Nevada, 1907, ch. CLXXXII, sec. 30, p. 386; also Revised
Statutes, 1912, sec. 3277, also Revised Laws, 1861-1912, 370, sec. 2, Vol. I, p.
113. Out of a total population, in 1900, of 42,335 Nevada’s foreign population
was 10,093.
[97] New Hampshire, Virginia and Louisiana.
[98] General Statutes of Vermont, 1862, ch. 22, sec. 1, p. 169. The selection
of the book was to be made as soon as possible, and was to be binding upon all
teachers and boards of education until January, 1867. The law appeared in later

statute books. Revised Laws of Vermont, 1880, ch. 33, sec. 558, p. 169; Vermont
Statutes, 1894, sec. 700, p. 189.
[99] Laws of Vermont, 1872, no. 14, sec. 1, p. 54. “Hall’s Geography and
History of Vermont now in use by the authority of law, in the schools of
Vermont, or such revised editions of the same as may be issued, shall be
continued as a textbook for the term of five years from the first day of
November, a.d., 1873.” Approved November 26, 1872. Legislation of this
character is found also in 1888 and in 1890. Laws, 1888, no. 9, sec. 171, and
172, ibid., 1890, no. 7, p. 25.
[100] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1865, p. 153. Report of the
Superintendent of Public Education.
[101] Laws of North Carolina, 1879, ch. 93, p. 177. Approved March 1, 1879.
John W. Moore, author of textbook.
[102] Code of West Virginia, 1868, 55, p. 308. For Holmes’ History of the
United States, Laws, 1873, 58, p. 419. For geography, Knote’s Geography of
West Virginia, Mitchell’s New Revised Geographies, Macy-Howe-Smith’s
Lessons on the Globe, by laws of 1873 and again in 1891. Laws, 1891, p. 313.
Laws of West Virginia, 1895, ch. 37, p. 63. For the General History by Myers,
contract price $1.10, contract exchange price 82 cents; for the Leading Facts of
American History, contract price 65 cents, exchange price 50 cents; Beginner’s
American History, contract price 43 cents, exchange price 35 cents. Lewis’
History and Government of West Virginia, in fixing 80 cents as the contract
price, and Dole’s The American Citizen with 65 cents as the exchange price were
likewise named in the law.
[103] Code of Virginia, 1887, sec. 1501, p. 404. By a law of 1883-4.
[104] Laws of Indiana, 1889, ch. L, sec. 1, p. 75.
[105] Ibid., 1891, ch. LXXX, sec. 1, p. 100.
[106] General Statutes of Minnesota, 1881, ch. 36, par. 156, 157, p. 498.
Contract for books let to D. D. Merrill, St. Paul. Laws of Kansas, 1897, ch. 179,
sec. 4, p. 378. Laws of Montana, 1889, sec. 4, p. 211.
[107] Laws of Kansas, op. cit.
[108] Laws of Kansas, 1899, ch. 176, p. 357. It was required that the general
history textbook must equal Myers’ General History and the English history
must equal Montgomery’s English History.
[109] Laws of Montana, op. cit.
[110] Laws of South Dakota, 1891, par. 11, p. 239.
[111] Laws of Missouri, 1897, sec. 5, p. 23. Approved March 31, 1897.
[112] Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, 1894, ch. 139, sec. 6975, p. 1519.
Act of December 7, 1875. Also in Digest, 1904, sec. 7531, p. 1543; ibid., 1916,
sec. 9379, p. 2132.
[113] Laws of Arkansas, 1899, sec. 5, p. 148.
[114] Laws of Idaho, 1884-85, p. 185; Laws of California, 1883-84, ch. VIII,
sec. 1, p. 6.

[115] Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, sec. 1, Vol. X, p. 145; Code of Alabama,
1897, art. 18, 1810.
[116] Indeed, as early as 1842, New Hampshire had prescribed that “no book
shall be directed to be used as a school book which is calculated to favor any
particular religious or political sect or tenet.” Revised Statutes of New
Hampshire, 1842, ch. 73, sec. 12, p. 151; Compiled Statutes, 1853, sec. 13, p.
178; General Laws, 1878, ch. 89, sec. 12, p. 217.
[117] Laws of Mississippi, 1890, ch. 74, p. 88. The state superintendent,
governor, and attorney-general were made a committee “to examine the various
textbooks upon United States history and recommend with their approval such
works as accord with their best judgment.”
[118] Acts of Alabama, 1896-7, p. 204. County School Book Board for the
county of Winston; ibid., for the county of Limestone; ibid., p. 637, for the
counties of Sumter and Madison.
[119] Acts of Georgia, 1866, p. 222. The same series were endorsed by
Mississippi.
[120] Laws of Maryland, 1868, ch. IX, sec. 1, p. 756; ibid., 1870, ch. 10, sec.
1, p. 547; Laws of South Carolina, 1870, sec. 10, p. 341.
[121] Laws of Virginia, 1849, ch. 113, p. 66.
[122] Revised Statutes of North Carolina, 1872-3, sec. 59, p. 583. This
provided that “no sectarian or political textbooks or influences shall be used in
any public school.” In Georgia the law prescribed that “the county board of
education shall not be permitted to introduce into the schools any text-book or
miscellaneous books of a sectarian or sectional character.” Code of Georgia,
1882, part 1, title XIII, ch. V, par. 1274, p. 270; also Acts of 1872, sec. XXXIII,
p. 75; also Laws, 1887, sec. XXIII, p. 74.
[123] Code of Georgia, 1895, sec. 5, par. 1365, Vol. I, p. 376. Legislation
continued from 1872. Acts, 1872, sec. XXXIII, p. 75; also Code, 1882, part I,
title XIII, ch. V, par. 1274, p. 270.
[124] General Statutes of South Carolina, 1881-82, sec. 987, p. 294. Also
Laws, 1870, sec. 10, p. 341. Code, 1902, sec. 1175, p. 452; Code, 1912, sec.
1699, Vol. I, p. 472.
[125] Code of Alabama, 1897, art. 18, 1811; ibid., 1907; Session Laws of
Kansas, 1897, ch. 179, sec. 4, p. 378; Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1887, 1530,
sec. 58, p. 281, Laws, 1885, p. 153; Code of Washington, 1891, par. 791, 10, Vol.
I, p. 292; Laws, 1883, p. 13; Codes and Statutes of California, 1876, sec. 1672,
Vol. I, p. 235; ibid., 1905, Vol. I, p. 408.
[126] Revised Statutes of Idaho Territory, 1887, ch. IX, sec. 705, p. 135. Also
Laws, 1866, p. 27; Laws, 1870, p. 13; Laws, 1879, p. 24; Laws, 1890, p. 148;
Laws, 1893, p. 211; Code, 1908, sec. 668, Vol. I, p. 406. This last forbade
“sectarian and partisan instruction.” Compiled Statutes of Montana, 1885, sec.
1893, p. 1185. The term “partisan” in some states may have referred to the
teaching of religious or political doctrines. Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, sec. 1,
Vol. X, p. 145. Passed in 1891.

[127] Acts of Kentucky, 1893, art. VI, par. 61, p. 1439. Approved July 13,
1893.
[128] Compiled Laws of Dakota Territory, 1887, par. 1798, p. 401; Revised
Code, 1883, p. 597, Session Laws, 1883, ch. 44, par. 130.
[129] Dakota Territory, Montana, Idaho, Washington excluded from their
schools “partisan” textbooks.

CHAPTER III
Laws for the Expansion of the History Curriculum
1900-1917

The twentieth century did not usher in unexpected developments in the
American educational system, for the school had begun to experience a
transformation of purpose in the period following the Civil War. It was not,
however, until after 1900 that the forces aroused by the Economic
Revolution began to assert themselves to a marked degree and to seek
means to equip the individual for the complex responsibilities of his social
relationships. The early years of the new century saw a tidal wave of reform
sweep into all phases of American life. Agitation for the recall of judicial
decisions and the introduction of such measures as the initiative and
referendum attested new convictions in the realm of politics. The reform
spirit found expression in muck-raking literature, movements for the
betterment of dependents on society, legislation to alleviate unfortunate
industrial conditions, and schemes of coöperation between employer and
employee bore testimony to a new social consciousness and national
morality.
The public school also gave evidence of the spirit of the new era through
the changed character of its instruction.[130]
“Preparation for citizenship” became the keynote of the period, perhaps
better expressed by John Dewey’s definition of education as “The process
of remaking experience, giving it a more socialized value through increased
individual experience by giving the individual better control over his
powers.” History and the other social studies gained in popularity as
especially adapted to implant the right social attitude.
This wider outlook on life did not confine itself solely to an interest in
domestic affairs, for the Spanish-American War had banished the long-
cherished theory of national isolation. The international viewpoint was
encouraged further by the fact that by 1900 the United States had achieved
second place as an exporting nation. As a result, the study of foreign history
gained in popularity, and increased offerings in the social studies
curriculum evinced the growing favor in which these subjects were held.

In planning the course of study, educational associations showed much
activity in committee reports. The report of the Committee of Seven of the
American Historical Association doubtless had a pronounced influence in
the curriculum making of the greater part of this period. In 1907, it was
followed by the report of the Committee of Five, who made slight changes
in the list of studies recommended by the Committee of Seven. However,
modern European history received greater emphasis than in the first report,
a tangible expression of the expanding horizon of the time. In 1909, the
Committee of Eight attempted to standardize a course in history for the
elementary schools, in which was included not only United States history
but a study of European history.[131]
From 1900 to the year of our entrance into the World War, thirty-two
states approved laws incorporating history and other social studies in the
curriculum of the public schools, approximately twice as many as had
legislated from 1860 to 1900.[132] The importance placed upon the study of
United States history, federal and local civics and state history in the
previous period persisted. The early years of the century were characterized
also by laws pertaining to the teaching of patriotism through the celebration
of historic events, by statutes to inspire reverence for the flag, and by
enactments indicative of sectional interest.[133]
In 1900, Vermont amended her law prescribing the high school course of
study, and designated political economy, civil government and general
history among the branches to be taught.[134] Other enactments,
enumerating the prerequisites for a high school, included thirty-three weeks
of history and the natural, political, social, moral and industrial sciences.
[135]
In 1906, there was provided instruction for elementary pupils in the
history and constitution of the United States and the history, constitution
and principles of the government of Vermont.[136] In 1915, the teaching of
“citizenship” was approved for all rural schools of a six year course, and for
elementary schools of eight years.[137]
The tendency to emphasize a study of the Constitution has no better
illustration than in the laws of New Hampshire, where, in 1901, it was made
compulsory for every high school to give “reasonable instruction in the
constitution of the United States and in the constitution of New
Hampshire.”[138] Later enactments further stressed the importance of a

knowledge of the state and federal constitutions by prescribing that “in all
mixed schools and in all grades above the primary, the constitution of the
United States and of the state of New Hampshire be read aloud by the
scholars at least once during the last year of the course below the high
school.”[139] The teaching of citizenship was the purpose of a Connecticut
law of 1903 and of 1915, prescribing regular instruction for all pupils above
the fourth grade in “the duties of citizenship, including the knowledge of
the form of national, state, and local government.”[140]
Training in citizenship was the purpose of a Delaware law of 1911, which
prescribed that teachers train their pupils in “honesty, kindness, justice, and
moral courage ... for the purpose of lessening crime and raising the standard
of good citizenship.” Four years later it was followed by an enactment
requiring the teaching of United States history and instruction in “the
general principles of the constitution of the United States” and of the state.
[141]

In 1911 Pennsylvania prescribed for the elementary schools the teaching
of United States history, history of the state and civil government.[142]
These subjects received the statutory endorsement of Kentucky in 1904,
Virginia in 1904 and 1906, North Carolina in 1901, 1905, 1907, 1908 and
1913.[143] South Carolina in several laws from 1892 required for schools
under the direction of boards of trustees and of county boards of education,
the “history of the United States and of this state, the principles of the
constitution of the United States and of this state, morals and good
behavior.”[144]
Texas gave her sanction to the same subjects in 1905,[145] and Alabama
prescribed that in all schools and colleges supported in whole or in part by
public money, or under state control, there should be instruction in the
constitution of the United States and of the state of Alabama.[146] In
Georgia, the law prescribed as part of the curriculum for the common
schools that “the elements of civil government shall be included in the
branches of study taught in the common or public schools, and shall be
studied and taught as thoroughly and in the same manner as other like
required branches are studied and taught in said public schools.”[147] West
Virginia attained some individuality in adding to state and national history
and civil government, “general and West Virginia geography.”[148]

In the schools of Florida instruction in “history” was required for the
intermediate grades, and in the grammar grades the “history and civil
government of Florida and of the United States.”[149] Additional emphasis
was placed upon the teaching of civics in 1909 when an act provided that
the “elements of civil government be taught in the common and public
schools of the state, ... to be studied and taught as thoroughly and in the
same manner as any other required subjects.”[150]
Louisiana committed herself to the teaching of United States history in
every school district as an elementary branch by an act of 1902;[151] and
Mississippi, in 1916, prescribed for the “curriculum of the free public
schools,” civil government with special reference to local and state
government, the history of the nation and of the state.[152]
In 1904, Ohio established civil government and the history of the United
States as required subjects for an elementary school education.[153] In 1910,
it was made obligatory upon each county board of school examiners to
examine pupils of township schools in civil government and United States
history.[154] In the Code of 1910, there were included, in both the
elementary and high school courses of study, the history of the United
States and civil government, and in the high school the history of “other
countries” as well.[155] By an act approved May 18, 1911, but repealed in
1914, teachers in elementary schools were required to qualify in the history
of the United States, including civil government, and in the high school in
general history, with an election of civil government.[156] An Illinois law of
this period was similar to that of Delaware in phraseology and spirit, and
prescribed the teaching of “honesty, kindness, justice and moral courage” to
lessen crime and develop a good citizenship.[157]
Wisconsin, as early as 1865, had required as essential for a district school
education, United States history and civil government, local history and
government, a practice continued through 1917. In schools offering
industrial education, citizenship became an obligatory study by the statutes
of 1913.[158] Minnesota made a knowledge of United States history
prerequisite for entrance into high schools,[159] and Indiana expanded her
list of the required number of studies to include, in all commissioned high
schools, civil government, general and state, ancient, medieval or modern

history and the history of the United States.[160] For the curriculum of the
common schools, there was required in Indiana the study of United States
history, a practice developed from a law first in force in August 1869.[161]
South Dakota,[162] North Dakota,[163] and Kansas[164] also committed
themselves to the subjects popular in this period. In Nebraska, “a study of
American history for at least one semester in the eleventh and twelfth
grades,” became a requirement for normal training courses in the high
school.[165] Missouri made a knowledge of United States history essential
for entrance into the high schools, as well as prescribing that no school
could be classed as a high school which did not include a four years’ course
in history.[166]
Oklahoma, in 1905, illustrated well the social viewpoint characteristic of
the time in her law requiring “in each and every public school it should be
the duty of each and every teacher to teach morality in the broadest
meaning of the word, for the purpose of elevating and refining the character
of school children up to the highest plane of life; that they may know how
to conduct themselves as social beings in relation to each other, as respects
right and wrong and rectitude of life, and thereby lessen wrong doing and
crime.”[167] In 1907, another law prescribed “the elements of economics”
for all public schools receiving support from the state.[168]
A place of prominence in the normal training curriculum was accorded
United States history by Oregon in 1911.[169] In 1913, Wyoming enacted a
law requiring of her superintendent of public instruction the preparation of a
course of study for the elementary schools in the usual subjects, including
United States history and the history and civil government of Wyoming,[170]
and by an act of 1917 history and civics were required in the teacher
training departments of the high school.[171] California, too, succumbed to
the trend of the times, and in 1903 and in succeeding years prescribed the
teaching of United States history and civil government for a public school
education.[172]
In the revision of her territorial laws in 1901, Arizona again included
United States history as a school subject;[173] and by legislation in 1912,
New Mexico showed her approval of the social studies in “An Act to
Encourage the Instruction in the History and Civics of the State of New

Mexico.” This law forbade any person to teach in the public schools unless
he had passed a satisfactory examination in the history and civics of the
United States as well as in the history and civics of the state. “It shall be the
duty of the teachers in the public schools of the state,” the law read, “to give
such instruction as is practicable in the history and civics of the United
States with special reference to the history and civics of the state of New
Mexico; which said instruction may be given orally or by study of
textbooks covering the subject and which said textbooks shall have been
adopted by the State Board of Education.” The statute specified that the
textbook in state history and civics must be prepared “by a known historian
of the state” and “be sold at a price to be fixed by the State Board of
Education not to exceed one dollar per volume.”[174]
Of the thirty-two states which had enacted laws during this period for the
teaching of the social studies, substantially all required United States
history, federal and local civics. State history, which had attained some
popularity in the preceding period, received attention in many statutes.
Laws requiring the teaching of European history in some form were found
in Vermont, Indiana, Ohio and Missouri, and economics was prescribed in
the laws of Oklahoma and Vermont.

CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS

The tendency to enlarge and enrich the social studies curriculum was
more evident in the requirements for teachers’ certificates than in the
courses of study prescribed by law. These requirements, in general,
included ancient, medieval and modern history, general history, English
history, economics and sociology, besides civil government, state history
and history of the United States. Especially was there an increased offering
of subjects for high school teachers. In the elementary and county licenses
only civics and United States history were required with the greatest
frequency. Among those states which passed new laws or reënacted old
legislation offering ancient, medieval or modern history were California,
Idaho, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri, and Texas.[175]
English history appeared among the subjects in the laws of Idaho, Nevada,
Kansas, and Wisconsin;[176] general history was one of the requirements for
certification in the laws of West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas,

Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Nevada, Washington,
and Idaho.[177]
Economics, or, as it was more commonly known, political economy, was
prescribed in Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming.[178] South Dakota permitted
for examination either sociology or economics,[179] and Wisconsin and
Arkansas insisted upon a knowledge of “rural economics.”[180] “Current
events” or “current history” were among the requirements of South Dakota
in her law of 1919, and of Nevada, in 1907, and in 1921, for certification of
primary, grammar and high school classes.[181]
State history and the study of the state constitution received recognition
in the requirements of Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Illinois,
Kansas, and New Mexico.[182]
Of all of the social studies required for certification, however, United
States history and civil government were the most popular, being prescribed
in some law in every state excepting Arizona.[183] In some of the states
where there was no special enactment prescribing United States history or
civics, the examining board may have been given the privilege of naming
the subjects for examining the candidates, or, through custom, they may
have become a part of the subjects in which examinations were held. It is
also true that colleges and normal schools have taken over the preparation
of teachers in the subjects which they are to teach, making unnecessary
many of the examinations previously held.

FLAG LEGISLATION AND OBSERVANCE DAYS

A means of implanting patriotism in the pupils of the public schools has
been legislation pertaining to the display of the American flag, the
development of a proper attitude toward it, and the singing of the national
anthem. Ten states gave expression to this form of training for patriotism in
this period. Similar to such enactments was the legal provision made for the
observance of the birthdays of great men and the commemoration of
historic events by classroom exercises. In addition, there was a constantly
growing number of legal holidays upon which no school was in session.[184]

Laws respecting the flag were, and are, of three general kinds: (1) that
each school must possess a flag for display in a conspicuous place, (2) that
proper respect for the flag be taught, and (3) that suitable exercises be
engaged in at definitely stated intervals. This last type of law often proves
the occasion for the reciting in unison of the salute to the flag, the so-called
“American Creed,” or the preamble to the Constitution. In the second
variety of law a pledge of allegiance is the keynote of the sentiment
expressed, such as: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for
which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”; or,
“We give our hearts and our hands to God and our Country; one country,
one flag, and one language.”[185]
In 1898, New York enacted “flag” legislation which had the three-fold
characteristics of such laws. Within the next few years this law was
followed by statutes of like kind in Massachusetts, Indiana, Iowa, and
Arizona. However, as later legislation appeared, it took on a more elaborate
phraseology, with a more open avowal of patriotic purpose.[186] This is well
illustrated by an act of 1909 in Indiana, which ordered that “the state board
of education shall require the singing of the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ in its
entirety in the schools of the state of Indiana, upon all patriotic occasions,”
with the necessary admonition “that the said board of education shall
arrange to supply the words in sufficient quantity for the purposes indicated
therein.”[187]
“An Act to provide for the display of the United States flag on the school
houses of the state, in connection with the public schools, and to encourage
patriotic exercises in such schools,” became a law in Kansas, March 7,
1907. By this act the state superintendent was instructed to prepare a
program for the salute to the flag at the opening of each day of school, as
well as “such other patriotic exercises as may be deemed by him to be
expedient.”[188]
Relying upon the governor’s proclamation, New Jersey, in 1915, set aside
the week of September sixth to thirteenth for appropriate exercises to be
held, at least one day in the interval named, by schools and churches in
commemoration of the one hundredth birthday of the national anthem.[189]
In her Revised Statutes which took effect on January 1, 1917, Maine
incorporated a flag law evolved from enactments of 1907 and 1915,

whereby superintendents of schools were directed to display the flag from
public school buildings on suitable occasions. Towns were directed to
appropriate annually “a sufficient amount to defray the necessary cost of the
display of the flag,” and it was made “the duty of instructors to impress
upon the youth by suitable references and observances the significance of
the flag, to teach them the cost, the object and principles of our government,
the great sacrifices of our forefathers, the important part taken by the Union
army in the war of eighteen hundred sixty-one to eighteen hundred sixty-
five, to teach them to love, honor and respect the flag of our country that
cost so much and is so dear to every true American citizen.”[190]
Closely akin to the enactments respecting the flag and patriotic exercises
were those designating days for special patriotic observance.[191] Laws
providing for the establishment of Memorial Day are of such a character. In
general, Memorial Day legislation was sectional in character and acclaimed
the results of the Civil War from the Northerner’s standpoint. In 1886, the
Kansas legislature, moved by patriotic feeling, had resolved to observe the
day in fitting manner, inasmuch as “during the past ten or twelve years the
loyal people of the United States, inspired by a sentiment of reverent
respect for the memory of our heroic dead, have by spontaneous consent,
dedicated the thirtieth day of May of each year to ceremonies in honor of
the soldiers who cheerfully sacrificed their own lives to save the life of the
republic. ‘They need no praise whose deeds are eulogy,’ and nothing that
we can now say or do will add to the glory or brighten the fame of the
gallant host who, a quarter of a century ago, came thronging from farms,
workshops, offices and schools, to fight, to suffer and die for the Union and
freedom. But the story of their sublime self-sacrifice, and their dauntless
courage, should be kept forever fresh and fair in the hearts and minds of the
young, until the end of recorded time. So long as men and women teach
their children to revere the memory of patriot heroes, so long as the
peaceful present honors and emulates the example of the war-worn past,
there need be no fear that the dead have died in vain, or that ‘a government
of the people, by the people, for the people,’ will perish from the earth. The
steadily growing popularity of Memorial Day, and the universal interest
taken in its beautiful ceremonies, is one of the most hopeful developments
of American sentiments.”[192]

Conceding the importance of a proper recognition of Memorial Day,
Vermont in 1894 appointed the last half day’s session before May the
thirtieth for exercises “commemorative of the history of the nation during
the war of the Rebellion, and to patriotic instruction in the principles of
liberty and the equal rights of man.” The popularity of this law is attested
by its continuance on the Vermont statute books in her Compilation of
1917.[193]
In 1890, Massachusetts, and in 1897, New Hampshire established in
these commonwealths the custom of observing May the thirtieth by
exercises of a patriotic nature in the schools.[194] New York, in 1898,
Arizona in 1903, and Kansas in 1907, also subscribed to the sentiment
which dictated that Memorial Day be given special recognition.[195]
The birthdays of Lincoln and Washington were also given recognition by
New York in 1898, Arizona in 1903, and Kansas in 19O7.[196] The year
1909 witnessed an expression of patriotic enthusiasm over Lincoln’s
contribution to the American nation, awakened, no doubt, by the centenary
of his birth. During this year California, Maine, and New Mexico
prescribed special observance of February the twelfth. Rhode Island
followed in 1910, West Virginia in 1911, with Vermont in 1912 and in 1917.
“February 12, the birthday of Abraham Lincoln is hereby declared a legal
holiday,” stated the law of California, which is typical of others of this
group, “provided, however, that all public schools throughout the state shall
hold sessions in the forenoon of that day in order to allow the customary
exercises in memory of Lincoln; and provided further, that when February
12 falls on Sunday, then the Monday following, shall be a legal holiday and
shall be so observed; and provided still further, that when February 12 falls
on Saturday such exercises in the public schools shall take place on the
Friday afternoon preceding.”[197] In Rhode Island, the day was called
“Grand Army Flag Day,” and was, in 1914, still one of those days upon
which special exercises were held.[198]
Michigan prescribed the reading of the Declaration of Independence to
all pupils in the public schools above the fifth grade upon the twelfth and
twenty-second of February, and upon the twelfth of October, with an
obviously patriotic intent, in her legislation of 1911.[199] Washington’s

birthday occasioned legislation in Maryland in 1904 and in Maine in 1913,
as a day suitable for the propagation of patriotism.[200]
In the latter state Columbus Day, October 12, was included in those
observance days upon which exercises should “aim to impress on the minds
of the youth the important lessons of character and good citizenship to be
learned from the lives of American leaders and heroes and from a
contemplation of their own duties and obligations to the community, state,
and nation of which they constituted a part.”[201] Columbus Day received
the recognition of several other state legislatures, Michigan, West Virginia,
Louisiana, and Oregon especially setting it aside for patriotic purposes.[202]
Flag Day, likewise, was deemed worthy of observance. New York in her
legislation of 1898, Arizona in 1903, and Kansas in 1907 included it among
those days set aside for special exercises in the schools.[203] Connecticut
decreed, in 1905, that the governor, annually in the spring, should designate
by official proclamation the fourteenth day of June as Flag Day, upon which
“suitable exercises, having reference to the adoption of the national flag be
held in the public schools.”[204]
In 1906, a proclamation of the governor of New Jersey, couched in
grandiloquent phraseology, recommended that suitable exercises be held in
the public schools for commemorating the birthday of the American flag. It
urged a more extended knowledge of the flag’s history. “The history of our
flag is the history of the growth of our nation,” he proclaimed, “and the
celebration of the anniversary of its birth is not only a patriotic duty but an
educational privilege. On the day of its inception it stood as an emblem of
the unity of a few modest little colonies. To-day it is the symbol of a mighty
nation. It has floated over many a battlefield, inspiring the sons of
patriotism with a courage and strength that made possible the triumph of the
right and the preservation of the Union. It has been carried to far distant
lands and has aroused the enthusiasm of thousands to whom its advent
meant emancipation from cruelty and oppression.”[205]
Reminiscent of the local history movement of the decades following the
Civil War was legislation prescribing the celebration of days of interest
peculiar to different states. In 1897, Massachusetts passed a resolution
recommending to the governor that he issue a proclamation to public school
teachers suggesting commemorative exercises for the centennial of the

inauguration of “John Adams of Massachusetts,” in order “to impress upon
their pupils the significance of the inauguration of the president of the
United States and the importance of the part sustained by the
commonwealth in American history.”[206]
“Rhode Island Independence Day” was acclaimed in 1909, for May the
fourth. At this time, so the statute read, the celebration of the “first official
act of its kind by any of the thirteen American colonies” in a declaration of
sovereignty and independence took place. From the date of the passage of
the law, every fourth of May in the future, it was determined, should
become the occasion for the salute of thirteen guns by detachments of the
state artillery, at all places in the state where artillery was stationed, besides
a display of state and national flags, as well as patriotic exercises in the
public schools.[207]
March the eighteenth assumed a distinctive place in the school calendar
of South Carolina by a law enacted in 1906, being known as “South
Carolina Day.” The selection of this date sprang from a desire to honor John
C. Calhoun, and from the hope that an observance of this day would
“conduce to a more general knowledge and appreciation of the history,
resources and possibilities of the State.”[208] In like spirit Georgia, in 1909,
endeavored to awaken local pride in the pupils of the public schools by a
celebration of “Georgia Day” on February twelfth, “as the landing of the
first colonists in Georgia under Oglethorpe.”[209] Confederate heroes
received special tribute by patriotic exercises on January nineteenth, the
birthday of Robert E. Lee, through a law of Arkansas. The program of
exercises, the law prescribed, should deal with events connected with the
life of General Lee and “other distinguished Southern men” with attention
to those men of renown in civil and military life.[210] In Maryland, the state
board of education, by a law of 1904, was given the privilege of naming a
time suitable for the observance of “Maryland Day.”[211]
“The geography, history, industries and resources” of Minnesota, through
a law of 1911, received especial attention in the public schools on
“Minnesota Day.”[212] Montana, through a celebration of “Pioneer Day”
endeavored to instruct in the pioneer history of the region.[213] Missouri
paid homage to her state history in a law of 1915 through observance by
teachers and pupils on the first Monday in October. At this time, the law

prescribed the “methodical consideration of the products of the mine, field
and forest of the state” and the “consideration of the achievements of the
sons and daughters of Missouri in commerce, literature, statesmanship and
art, and in other departments of activity in which the state has rendered
service to mankind.”[214] The American Indians, through a law of 1919, in
Illinois, were likewise deemed worthy of commemorative exercises.[215]
The persisting desire of the lawmaker to instil patriotism, either local or
national, in pupils in the public schools has been the incentive for laws
respecting the flag and observance days. Local pride is evident in the
Northern laws for the observance of Memorial Day and the birthday of
Lincoln; whereas in the South a sectional interest is shown in days
memorializing the heroes of their section. The Middle and Far West have
also attempted to inculcate local pride. There is a dearth of legislation in the
Southern states for the commemoration of Flag Day by special exercises,
but Washington and Columbus have been accorded homage by both the
North and the South.

TEXTBOOK LEGISLATION

Textbook legislation from 1900 to 1917 followed the trend of other
legislation of the time. As the curriculum of the social studies expanded,
laws dealing with textbooks were made to include more subjects for which
there was to be a uniform series selected. State history and civil
government, both local and national, as well as foreign history and other
social studies, were found more frequently among the subjects enumerated.
The reaction which had set in against the enforced nationalism of the
Reconstruction period in the South continued to express itself in those states
in which there had hitherto been no open remonstrance.
In 1904, the Mississippi legislature instructed the textbook commission
to select a uniform series of textbooks in United States history, civil
government, state history and other subjects, and took occasion to prescribe
that “no history in relation to the late civil war between the states shall be
used in the schools in this state unless it be fair and impartial,....”[216]
Presumably of like character was the action of North Carolina in 1905. In
“An Act to Promote the Production and Publication of School Books

relating to the History, Literature or Government of North Carolina for use
in the Public Schools,” there was appropriated $5,000 for the years of 1905
and 1906 for the state board of education “to encourage, stimulate and
promote the production and to procure the control and publication of such
books as in the judgment of the board properly relate to the history,
literature and government of North Carolina.”[217]
Florida’s sectionalism was openly avowed in her “Act for Providing a
Method of Securing a Correct History of the United States, Including a True
and Correct History of the Confederacy, and Making an Appropriation for
such Purpose.” The act declared: “Whereas, no book called History, which
does not tell the truth or withholds it, is worthy of the name or should be
taught in public schools; and,
“Whereas, the South is rich in historical facts that are either ignored or
never mentioned in the so-called histories taught in our schools; and,
“Whereas, the Southern States have been derelict in their duty to
posterity in not having provided for past and future generations a history
that is fair, just and impartial to all sections”; therefore it was enacted that
Florida appropriate $1500 as her share toward a fund of $16,500 to be
offered as a prize to the person writing the “best history of the United States
in which the truth about the participation of the eleven states” be told.[218]
In the creation of a textbook board in 1907, Texas regarded it essential
that a uniform series of books be selected among which there should be
textbooks on the history of Texas, civil government and United States
history, in which “the construction placed on the federal constitution by the
Fathers of the Confederacy shall be fairly presented.”[219]
A uniform series of textbooks not of a partisan character were prescribed
by laws in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas, and included the
subjects of United States history, state history, and civil government.[220]
Louisiana, Indiana, and Kansas added ancient, medieval and modern history
textbooks to others previously prescribed.[221] In 1901 Nevada included the
history of the United States among the textbooks to be prescribed by the
state board of education,[222] and Idaho, in 1907, imposed the choice of a
civil government textbook and one in United States history upon her State
Board of Textbook Commissioners and the superintendent of public

instruction.[223] In 1913, California directed her state board of education to
revise the state series of textbooks which included United States history.[224]
Three states, Ohio, New Mexico, and West Virginia placed laws upon
their statute books regarding state history, Ohio accepting Howe’s
Historical Collections of Ohio as a reference book,[225] and New Mexico
limiting to one dollar a volume the price of a state history which was to be
prepared by a “known historian of the state.”[226] Davies’ Facts in Civil
Government, by an act of 1901 of West Virginia was again endorsed and the
price fixed at 55 cents.[227]
Four states, during the period, in addition to three commonwealths which
named “partisan” textbooks, enacted laws to exclude histories held to be
sectional in spirit. Legislation in all other cases dealt with provisions for a
uniform series of textbooks. The statutes of Louisiana, Indiana, and Kansas
showed the expansion of the social study curriculum in providing for
textbooks in ancient, medieval and modern history. Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi and Kansas regulated the purchase of textbooks in state and
national history and in civics. In California, Ohio, New Mexico and West
Virginia provisions were made relative to state history textbooks, and Idaho
and Nevada in their laws recognized a need for textbooks in civil
government or United States history.

FOOTNOTES:

[130] This period recognized the importance of vocational training as an
important function of the public school, and developed an interest in other
“expression subjects.” The content subjects were also expanded and liberalized.
According to Cubberley, “The modern school aims to train pupils for greater
social usefulness and to give them a more intelligent grasp of the social and
industrial, as well as the moral and civic structure of our modern democratic
life.” Cubberley, Ellwood P., Public Education in the United States (Boston,
1919), p. 370.
[131] Only the outstanding committee reports are mentioned. Cf. Johnson, op.
cit. An N. E. A. committee report appeared in 1916 but played no part in the
social studies curriculum of the period. It expressed, however, the practical and
social viewpoint of the time.
[132] Eighteen states.

[133] See chapter VI for a discussion of the activities of the G. A. R. in the
North and of pro-Southern groups in the South to direct the content of history
textbooks.
[134] Laws of Vermont, 1900, no. 25, p. 19. The law of 1912 was substantially
the same as that of 1900. Laws, 1912, sec. 1016, p. 68.
[135] Laws of Vermont, 1902, no. 27, sec. 3, p. 39; ibid., 1904, no. 137, sec. 4,
p. 62; Public Statutes, 1906, ch. 47, sec. 1016, p. 277.
[136] Public Statutes of Vermont, 1906, ch. 46, sec. 1003, p. 275. Cf. Laws,
1888, ch. 5, sec. 95, p. 24.
[137] Public Acts of Vermont, 1915, sec. 44, p. 131.
[138] Supplement to the Public Statutes of New Hampshire, 1901-1913, p. 17
(1901, ch. 96, sec. 4, 1903, 31:1; 1903, 118:2; 1905, 19:1).
[139] Supplement to the Public Statutes of New Hampshire, 1901-1913, ch.
92, sec. 6, p. 172. (Laws, 1903, 31:2; 1909, 49:1; 1911, 136:2.)
[140] Public Acts of Connecticut, 1903, ch. 96, p. 65; General Statutes, 1918,
ch. 45, sec. 852, Vol. I, p. 312.
[141] Laws of Delaware, 1911, p. 197; Revised Statutes, 1915, ch. 71, 2289,
sec. 17, p. 1102; ibid., ch. 71, 2288, sec. 16, p. 1100.
[142] Laws of Pennsylvania, 1911, sec. 1607, p. 394.
[143] Kentucky Statutes, 1909, ch. 113, par. 4421a (2), p. 1765; also Acts,
1904, p. 11. This law was on the statute books in 1909; also Acts, 1916, ch. 24,
art. III, par. 24, p. 173. Code of Virginia, 1904, ch. 66, sec. 1497, p. 810; Acts,
1906, par. 1497, p. 443. Public Laws of North Carolina, 1901, ch. 4, sec. 37;
1905, ch. 533, s9; 1907, ch. 641, s853, 957; Revised Code, 1908, ch. 89, par.
4060, Vol. II, p. 2049; ibid., 1913, par. 1383, Vol. I, p. 332.
[144] Code of South Carolina, 1902, sec. 1201, Vol. I, p. 462; ibid., 1912, sec.
1731, Vol. I, p. 480. Cf. page 16.
[145] General Laws of Texas, 1905, sec. 100, p. 289; McEachon’s Annotated
Civil Statutes, 1913, art. 2783, Vol. II, p. 1114. The same subjects are required
through 1913.
[146] Code of Alabama, 1907, 1685 (4), Vol. I, p. 741 See page 17 for the
same law in the Code of 1897.
[147] Code of Georgia, 1910, ch. 4, art. 4, sec. 3, par. 1464, Vol. I, p. 376. The
law was passed in 1903.
[148] Code of West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45, par. 78, p. 578; substantially the
same in Acts, 1872, ch. 123; 1881, ch. 15; 1887, ch. 3; 1891, ch. 63; 1895, ch.
36; 1908, ch. 27; 1915, ch. 56.
[149] Compiled Laws of Florida, 1914, 390, art. 4, Vol. I, p. 141; Laws, 1905,
ch. 5382, sec. 6, p. 34, also Laws, 1903, p. 180.
[150] Laws of Florida, 1909, ch. 5938, p. 126 (No. 69).
[151] Constitution and Revised Laws of Louisiana, 1876 to 1902 (Act 214,
1902), sec. 23, p. 612; again ibid., 1908, p. 45; Annotated Revision, 1915, 2532,

sec. 16, Vol. I, p. 846. The law was unchanged in the Revisions of 1908 and of
1915.
[152] Laws of Mississippi, 1916, ch. 187 (4540), p. 277.
[153] General and Local Acts of Ohio, 1904, sec. 4007-1, p. 359.
[154] Ibid., 1910, p. 103.
[155] Code of Ohio, 1910, sec. 7648, sec. 7649, p. 1622.
[156] General and Local Acts of Ohio, 1911, sec. 7830, p. 130. Repealed
February 17, 1914. Ibid., 1914, p. 109.
[157] Revised Statutes of Illinois, 1913, ch. 122, 509, p. 2267. In force July 1,
1909. Again found, Revised Statutes, 1917, ch. 122, 509, p. 2736.
[158] Statutes of Wisconsin, 1917, 40, 30, p. 375; ibid., 1915, ch. 27s. 447
(1863, c155 s55; 1866, c111 s6; 1869, c50 s1; 1871, c14 s1; R. S. 1878, s447;
Suppl., 1906, s447; 1907, c118, 200; 1911, c409). Statutes of Wisconsin, 1913,
ch. 27 s553 p-5, p. 335; ibid., 1917, s41.17 (1), p. 411. This law was repealed in
1917. The requirement was the same in 1915. Ibid., 1915, c275, s553, p-5, p.
335. In Wisconsin, in normal training courses in the high school, American
history was required for at least one semester in the eleventh and twelfth grades.
[159] Revised Laws of Minnesota, 1915, ch. 14, 1340, p. 273. General
Statutes, 1913, 2299, p. 629; General Laws, 1895, ch. 17, sec. 2, p. 138. This
legislation had been preceded by legislation of 1895, prescribing civil
government for county schools.
[160] Laws of Indiana, 1907, ch. 192, p. 324. Burns’ Annotated Statutes,
1914, 6582 (5984), Vol. III, p. 384, and 6584, p. 385.
[161] Ibid.
[162] Compiled Laws of South Dakota, 1903, 2378, p. 432. The teaching of
civil government and United States history in the common schools.
[163] Revised Code of North Dakota, 1913, par. 1383, Vol. I, p. 332. The
requirement included American history and civil government.
[164] Laws of Kansas, 1903, ch. 435, p. 672. History of United States and
Kansas history. Laws, 1913, ch. 271, p. 454, added civil government. General
Statutes, 1915, ch. 105, art. 5, par. 8985, p. 1818, for district schools, history of
the United States and of Kansas.
[165] Revised Statutes of Nebraska, 1913, ch. 71, art. X, 6839, sec. 140, p.
1907.
[166] Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1909, par. 10852, and ibid., 1919, par.
11218, and ibid., 1909, par. 10923, Vol. III, p. 3400 respectively. The last law is
also in Session Laws, 1903, p. 264; ibid., 1909, p. 770.
[167] Laws of Oklahoma, 1905, p. 378; Compiled Laws, 1909, sec. 8233, p.
1664.
[168] Revised Laws of Oklahoma, 1910, art. III, 7667, Vol. II, p. 2084;
Session Laws, 1907-8, p. 14.
[169] Session Laws of Oregon, 1911, ch. 58, sec. 59, p. 96.

[170] Session Laws of Wyoming, 1913, Senate File No. 41, p. 45.
[171] Ibid., 1917, ch. 123, p. 215.
[172] Statutes of California, 1903, par. 1874: 2, p. 195; Codes and Statutes,
1905, par. 1874: 2, Vol. I, p. 451, Statutes, 1907, p. 70; Consolidated Supplement
to Kerr’s Cyclopedia, 1913, par. 1665, p. 194. Cf. page 20.
[173] Revised Laws of the Territory of Arizona, 1901, 2214 (sec. 85), p. 602.
This is the same as Laws of 1885, p. 157, also Revised Statutes, 1887, 1553, sec.
81, p. 284.
[174] Laws of New Mexico, 1911, ch. 41, p. 68. Approved June 8, 1912. Also
Annotated Statutes, 1915, par. 4958, sec. 152, Vol. II, p. 1429.
[175] Codes of California, 1905, 1772, Vol. I, p. 426, grammar school
certificates; United States history and civil government were also required for
this certificate. Compiled Statutes of Idaho, 1919, par. 986, Vol. I, p. 276; first
grade certificate, with a choice of medieval and modern history or English
history added to American history and civics required for other certificates.
Session Laws, 1911, p. 448; ibid., 1915, p. 333; repealed in session 1921, Laws,
1921, p. 473. General Laws of Oregon, 1911, ch. 58, sec. 9, p. 89; for state
certificate, general history was required. Revised Laws of Minnesota, 1905, ch.
14, 1354, p. 275, for professional certificates, ancient, medieval, English, and
American history. General Laws of Wisconsin, 1919, ch. 601, first grade,
modern history and United States history, history of Wisconsin, rural economics.
Laws of Ohio, 1919, sec. 7831-2, p. 685, modern history, general history,
economics, sociology, civics, among sixteen branches from which five were to
be chosen for high school certificates. Laws of Missouri, 1911, sec. 10939, p.
408, first grade certificate, giving a choice of ancient, medieval or modern or
English history for examination. Laws of Texas, 1921, ch. 129, sec. 108a, p. 243,
high school certificate civil government, ancient and modern history, and for
elementary certificate of second class, United States history and Texas history.
[176] Compiled Statutes of Idaho, op. cit. Statutes of Nevada, 1912, ch. 114,
p. 156, also Revised Laws, 1912, sec. 3263, Vol. I, p. 947, general history, United
States history, civil government, current events for the first and second grade
elementary certificates; sec. 3262, high school certificates; civil government,
general history, United States history, with a selection of English history out of a
group of subjects. Laws of Kansas, 1915, ch. 298, sec. 14, p. 392, first grade
certificate, also in Laws, 1911, ch. 277, sec. 2, p. 506; ibid., 1913, ch. 268, p.
450. Statutes of Wisconsin, 1913, sec. 450-3, first grade certificate required
English history, history of United States, civil government, local and national;
for the third grade, the latter two were required.
[177] Code of West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45, par. 87, elementary certificates,
Laws, 1919, p. 87. Annotated Revision of Louisiana, 1915, 2572 (sec. 1, art. 55,
1906, Vol. I, p. 88), state teachers’ certificate. Laws of Texas, 1905, sec. 118, p.
293, permanent certificate and first grade. Revised Statutes of Illinois, 1913, ch.
122, 541, third to first grade elementary certificate, also ibid., 1917, ch. 122,
541, Laws, 1919, p. 900. Revised Laws of Minnesota, 1905, ch. 14, 1354, p. 275,
professional state certificates. Laws of Nebraska, 1919, ch. 70, sec. 3, p. 262,
professional state and high school certificate; also Revised Statutes, 1913, ch. 71,
art. XIII, 6859, sec. 158, professional state certificate (Laws, 1905, p. 559). Laws

of South Dakota, 1919, p. 169, repeals provisions of Revised Code, 1919, sec. 3;
for a life diploma, general history, economics or sociology; also general history,
United States history, South Dakota history and civil government in a state
certificate; Laws of 1905, sec. 2286, p. 136, and ibid., 1911, p. 170. Compiled
Laws of Utah, 1907, par. 1767, pp. 684-685, and ibid., 1917, par. 4509, p. 914,
state professional certificates for grammar grades and high school. Statutes of
Nevada, 1912, ch. 80, p. 157, first grade elementary school certificate; ch. 114,
sec. 24, high school certificates (approved bill March 17, 1913); also Statutes,
1912, high school and elementary school certificates; General Laws, 1914, sec.
7831, high school certificate general history and a choice in elective history.
Session Laws of Washington, 1909, sec. 4644, p. 516, first grade elementary
certificates and life certificates; ibid., 1911, ch. 16, sec. 4, p. 51, life certificates.
Political Code of Idaho, 1901, ch. XXXVI, sec. 1028, Vol. I, p. 311, first, second
and third grade certificates.
[178] Supplement to the Code of Iowa, 1902, sec. 2736, p. 315. Acts, 1906,
ch. 122, sec. 4, p. 88, first grade certificate had been found as early as 1882.
Laws of Nebraska, 1903, par. 5542, sec. 5; in 1919, political economy is not
mentioned. Revised Statutes of Wyoming, 1899, sec. 627, p. 228; also Laws,
1901, ch. 57, p. 60.
[179] Compiled Laws of South Dakota, 1913, par. 13, Vol. I, p. 565, for life
certificates.
[180] Statutes of Wisconsin, 1915, ch. 27s. 450-2, p. 272. Digest of Statutes of
Arkansas, 1921, par. 9022, rural teachers’ certificate (Act of March 28, 1917).
[181] Compiled Laws of South Dakota, 1913, par. 55, Vol. I, p. 572; ibid.,
1911, p. 413; Revised Statutes, 1919, par. 7392, p. 1847, for first grade
certificate; also Laws, 1919, p. 170. Laws of Nevada, 1907, secs. 15, 16, 17, p.
383, “current news”; Statutes, 1921, ch. 208, sec. 25, elementary school
certificate, first grade, “current events.”
[182] Statute Law of Pennsylvania, 1920, 5003, p. 462, professional and
provisional certificates. Laws of Delaware, 1919, 2326-118, sec. 118, elementary
school certificate; ibid., 1920, sec. 170, p. 190. Code of West Virginia, 1916 (all
statutes in force), ch. 45, par. 87, p. 580, for elementary and first three grades of
certificates; again in Laws, 1919, p. 87, ibid., 1921, sec. 104, elementary
certificate. Statutes of Kentucky, 1918, ch. 113, art. XI, par. 4501, p. 941, for all
certificates. Laws of Mississippi, 1916, ch. 188, 4543, p. 278, first and second
grade licenses; also state licenses, Laws, 1908, p. 209. Code of Alabama, 1907,
1734, Vol. I, p. 757, the first three grades of certificates. Revised Laws of
Oklahoma, 1910, 7923, Vol. II, p. 2153, the first three grades of licenses.
McEachin’s Civil Statutes of Texas, 1913, articles 2799-2802, Vol. II, p. 1117,
permanent certificates (also Sayles’ Civil Statutes, art. 3974, pp. 1419-20) and
first, second, third grade certificates, and Laws, 1905, sec. 118, p. 293; ibid.,
1921, p. 243. Laws of Wisconsin, 1919, ch. 601, 39.18 (1), 39.19 (1), and 39.20
(1), for first, second, and third grade certificates. Laws of South Dakota, 1919, p.
169, Compiled Laws of South Dakota, 1913, secs. 13 and 14, Vol. I, p. 565, life
diploma, state, first, second, third grade certificates, and primary. Revised
Statutes of Illinois, 1913, ch. 122, p. 2271, county certificates; ibid., 1917, ch.
122; Laws, 1919, p. 900, as well as Laws of 1903 and 1905. Laws of Kansas,
1915, ch. 298, p. 392, for the first, second and third grade certificates; ibid.,

1913, ch. 268, p. 450; ibid., 1911, ch. 277, p. 506. Statutes of New Mexico,
1915, par. 4957, Vol. II, p. 1429, first and second grade certificates.
[183] Arizona prescribed for first and second grade certificates, civics and
“history,” which probably meant American history. See Revised Laws, 1901,
2142 (sec. 13), p. 584.
[184] In Florida, for example, June 3 was made a holiday to “perpetuate in the
minds of the people the purity of life, the intellectual ability, the heroic fortitude,
and the patriotic character of Jefferson Davis.” Laws of Florida, 1891, ch. 4058,
p. 99.
[185] See American History and Patriotic Program for all Schools of
Oklahoma, issued by the State Department of Education, 1921, p. 7.
[186] Laws of New York, 1898, secs. 1, 2, 3, Vol. III, p. 1191; Revised Laws
of Massachusetts, 1902, ch. 42, sec. 50, Vol. I, p. 474; Laws of Indiana, 1907, ch.
253, p. 537; Acts of Iowa, 1913, ch. 245, sec. 2, p. 264; Laws of Arizona, 1903,
no. 19, p. 25.
[187] Burns’ Annotated Statutes of Indiana, 1914, 5852a, Vol. III, p. 385.
[188] Laws of Kansas, 1907, ch. 319, p. 493. The Iowa law, 1913, is much
like this law. See Acts of Iowa, 1913, p. 264. The Grand Army of the Republic
and the Woman’s Relief Corps were actively engaged in supplying schools with
flags for the purpose of inculcating patriotism throughout this period.
[189] Acts of New Jersey, 1915, p. 904.
[190] Revised Statutes of Maine, 1916, ch. 16, sec. 52; Laws, 1907, ch. 182, p.
199; ibid., 1915, ch. 176.
[191] No attempt is made to treat legal holidays where the law requires
observance by simply specifying the dates of such days. They are discussed only
when the enactments indicate patriotic exercises to be held within the public
schools, or where the purpose of teaching history through the observance of such
days is stated.
[192] Laws of Kansas, 1886, ch. CXXV, p. 167. Approved February 18, 1886.
Especially active in their desire for a proper observance of Memorial Day were
the G. A. R., who in annual encampments frequently expressed a faith in it as a
means for promoting patriotism as well as for memorializing the deeds of their
comrades.
[193] Statutes of Vermont, 1894, no. 25, par. 685, p. 21; Public Statutes, 1906,
ch. 46, sec. 1005, p. 275; General Laws, 1917, ch. 57, sec. 1240.
[194] Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1890, ch. III, sec. 1, p. 94; Laws of
New Hampshire, 1897, ch. 14, p. 16; also Laws, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 23, p. 127.
The latter date in New Hampshire might indicate a reënactment. South Dakota,
in 1921, specially designated Memorial Day as “Citizenship Day.” See page 98.
[195] Laws of New York, 1898, ch. 481, Vol. II, p. 1191. Laws of Arizona,
1903, no. 19, p. 25. Laws of Kansas, 1907, ch. 319, p. 493.
[196] Laws of New York, op. cit. Laws of Arizona, op. cit. Laws of Kansas,
op. cit.

[197] Statutes of California, 1909, ch. 527, p. 861, approved April 13, 1909.
Acts and Resolves of Maine, 1909, ch. 190, sec. 1, p. 190. Acts of New Mexico,
1909, ch. 121, sec. 7, p. 342. Acts of West Virginia, 1911, ch. 40, p. 117. Also in
West Virginia Code, 1916, ch. 15, par. 1, p. 246. General Laws of Vermont,
1917, ch. 57, sec. 1241, p. 295.
[198] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1914, ch. 1071, sec. 2, p. 110; also
Acts, 1901, ch. 818, p. 55.
[199] This law was passed in 1911. Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1915, ch.
108 (5823), sec. 1, Vol. II, p. 2198. Non-compliance might cause the revocation
of the teacher’s certificate by the county commissioner of schools or by the
superintendent of public instruction.
[200] Laws of Maryland, 1904, sec. 47, p. 991. Acts and Resolves of Maine,
1913, ch. 195, sec. 88, p. 240.
[201] Ibid.
[202] Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1915, op. cit. General Laws of Oregon,
1921, ch. 41, p. 62. This law, although coming in 1921, possesses the
characteristics of those of the earlier period. See page 93. Annotated Revision of
Statutes of Louisiana, 1915, 2659, 2660, secs. 1, 2, Vol. I, p. 893. (Act 56, 1919,
p. 92.) West Virginia in 1911, also, set aside October 12 for celebration in the
common and graded schools. Laws, 1911, ch. 40, p. 117.
[203] Laws of New York, op. cit. Laws of Arizona, op. cit. Laws of Kansas,
op. cit.
[204] Public Acts of Connecticut, 1905, ch. 146, p. 355. Approved June 16,
1905. This amended 2140 of the General Statutes.
[205] Proclamation of the Governor of New Jersey (E. C. Stokes). Laws,
1906, p. 787.
[206] Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1897, p.628. This bill passed the
Senate February 3, 1897, and the House on February 8, 1897.
[207] General Laws of Rhode Island, 1909, title X, ch. 64, sec. 8, p. 267.
[208] Code of South Carolina, 1912, par. 1810, Vol. I, p. 496. Laws, 1906,
XXIII, 22; approved February 17, 1906.
[209] Code of Georgia, 1910, art. 7, par. 1528, Vol. I, p. 395. See page 96 for
North Carolina’s law setting aside October twelfth for commemoration. The next
chapter continues the discussion for laws passed after 1917.
[210] Digest of Arkansas Statutes, 1916, sec. 9654, p. 2166.
[211] Laws of Maryland, 1904, sec. 47, p. 991.
[212] Laws of Minnesota, 1911, ch. 81, sec. 1, p. 97. The day known as
Minnesota Day was designated by the superintendent of public instruction by
proclamation, the governor concurring.
[213] Laws of Montana, 1913, ch. XIV, 1400, p. 263. In this year the first
Monday in November was named. A previous law, 1903, provided for an
observance on the last Friday in May. (Laws, 1903, ch. LXXXVIII, p. 161.)
[214] Laws of Missouri, 1915, p. 301.

[215] Laws of Illinois, 1919, Sen. Bill, no. 238, p. 894. In a case such as this
the law has been discussed here rather than in the following chapter. The
chronological limits of the chapters have not always been strictly adhered to.
[216] Approved March 11, 1904. The law also prohibited “partisan” books.
Laws of Mississippi, 1904, ch. 86 (S. B. no. 51), p. 116. Also Code, 1906, ch.
125, 4595, p. 1246. Cf. chapter VI for the activities of pro-Southern groups in
this period.
[217] Ratified March 4, 1905, Laws of North Carolina, 1905, ch. 707, p. 863.
[218] Laws of Florida, 1915, ch. 6939 (no. 133), Vol. I, p. 311. Approved June
3, 1915. The appropriation was not available until each of eleven ex-Confederate
states, or a majority of them, did likewise. The governor of Florida was
appointed to communicate with other Southern governors about carrying out the
act.
[219] Laws of Texas, 1907, ch. IX, p. 449. Approved May 14, 1907. The law
of 1911 added general history to the list of books. Laws, 1911, ch. 11, sec. 4, p.
90.
[220] Code of Georgia, 1910, art. 1, sec. 2, par. 1439, Vol. I, p. 367. Also
Laws, 1903, sec. 2, p. 54. Laws of Alabama, 1903, sec. 1, p. 167. Code of
Mississippi, 1906, ch. 125, 4595, p. 1246. Laws of Kansas, 1915, ch. 297, p.
383.
[221] Annotated Revision of the Statutes of Louisiana, 1915, 2519, Vol. I, p.
841 (sec. 3, act 214, 1912, p. 465). The books were to remain unchanged for a
period of six years. Laws of Indiana, 1913, ch. 58, p. 115. Laws of Kansas, 1915,
ch. 297, p. 383. In Indiana, the price of the history of the United States to be
used in the common schools, could not exceed 65 cents. Burns’ Annotated
Statutes of Indiana, 1914, 6338 (5867), Vol. III, p. 253.
[222] Laws of Nevada, 1901, p. 50. Approved March 8, 1901.
[223] Revised Code of Idaho, 1908, sec. 574, Vol. I, p. 370; Laws of 1907, sec.
3, p. 477. (Sen. Bill no. 84. Approved March 14, 1907.) There was also found on
the statute books Idaho’s previous stipulation prohibiting political documents in
the schools. Compiled Statutes, 1919, Vol. I, p. 297.
[224] General Laws of California, 1913, ch. 482, art. 4542, p. 1713.
[225] Laws of Ohio, 1892, p. 241; also Code, 1910, sec. 7719, p. 1635.
[226] Statutes of New Mexico, 1915, par. 4959, sec. 153, Vol. II, p. 1429. Act
of June 8, 1912. Legislation in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin
included the stereotyped restriction regarding “matter of a partisan character.”
See Laws of West Virginia, 1909, ch. 23, sec. 4, p. 346; General Statutes of
Oklahoma, 1908, sec. 6324, p. 1313, Laws of 1907, ch. 77, p. 681; Statutes of
Wisconsin, 1913, ch. 27, sec. 553m-12, p. 319, ibid., 1915, ch. 27 s 553m-12, p.
330.
[227] Code of West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45, par. 165a, p. 599 (Acts of 1901, ch.
141).

CHAPTER IV
The Effect of the World War on Laws for Teaching History

THE CURRICULUM

When the Fathers of New England adopted the famous laws of 1642 and
1647, they acted on the belief that by the school the character of the nation
can be moulded. Throughout nearly three centuries of development the
confidence of the American people in the regenerating power of the public
school has grown. They have come to hold high faith in education as an
effective tool for the conservation and promotion of national well-being. In
each epoch, the school has attempted to accommodate its offerings to the
demands of the time, thereby reflecting the needs of a people whose point
of view is constantly changing. First conceived as a force in the religious
life of the people, the school soon became an instrument for the
development of “morality, virtue and good behavior.” The latter eighteenth
century captured the vision of a people fired with patriotism and service to
the state, and then by a citizenry trained to “preserve and perfect a
republican constitution.” The occasion of a diverse and scattered electorate
caused by the democratic awakening of the Jacksonian era compelled
acceptance of the theory that it was a duty of the state to provide education
for all. After the Civil War, a renewed faith in nationality and a realization
of the economic and social demands of the time left their imprint upon the
public school curriculum.
The opening of the twentieth century witnessed the expansion of the
“citizenship aim” to include training for efficient participation in a complex
social and industrial life. Since then, many traditional subjects of the
previous period have been superseded by those tending to give point to the
new aims in education; and of the traditional subjects retained many have
been refashioned to fit a new and present-day point of view.
This wider horizon has tended to encourage to a greater degree than
hitherto the introduction of many social studies, including economics,
sociology and foreign history. Although encumbered with survivals, the
history curriculum of the twentieth century has sought independence of
purely political and military events and has striven for a scientific

presentation of historical truths which should fit for “complete living.” This
new viewpoint was well exemplified in the report of a committee of the
National Education Association in 1916, which proposed a six year course
in the social studies from the seventh to the twelfth grades, stressing the
teaching of practical and present-day problems.[228]
Shortly thereafter the United States entered the World War. America at
once faced not only the necessity of mobilizing the economic and military
resources of a country unprepared for war, but also that still more difficult
problem—the consolidation of public opinion. Various agencies were
created for the express purpose of coördinating the spiritual resources of the
country. Such was the design of the Committee on Public Information.
Speakers and writers gave freely of their talents, and “hyphenism” and
pacifism were driven to cover. The Espionage Law betrayed the
apprehension of the federal government regarding unbridled speech and
writing, and sedition laws in different commonwealths served to arrest an
open opposition to the War.
Following the War the fear of radicalism and disloyalty to the established
institutions of the country continued to express itself in drastic legislation.
In the public schools, the desire to develop an unalloyed patriotism proved
the motive for the passage of statutes to promote a dynamic loyalty. In
general, these laws relate to the teaching of patriotism through instruction in
the history and government of the United States, open affirmations of
loyalty by the teaching personnel, the exclusion of alien teachers from the
public schools, flag legislation and observance days, enactments regarding
textbooks, and the Americanization of foreigners. Practically all legislation
since 1917 dealing with the curriculum contains provisions pertaining to the
social studies, and the greater amount reflects the wartime glow of patriotic
enthusiasm.[229]
In 1917 three states passed regulatory provisions respecting the
curriculum. Vermont’s legislation dealt with four-year high schools and
required the teaching of the political and social sciences.[230] On February
17, Montana approved a law which called for instruction in United States
history, the history of Montana, and state and federal civics among other
required subjects for the elementary school, and three days later Arkansas
approved a similar law.[231] New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania,

Kentucky and Texas continued laws enacted at a previous time,[232] and
Delaware, through legislation in 1919 gained the unique distinction of
prescribing “community civics” besides the history of the nation and of the
state.[233] Alabama and Georgia under laws designed primarily to prescribe
a uniform series of textbooks included in the list of studies for which
textbooks were mentioned, the history of the state embracing the
constitution of the state, and the history of the United States with the
constitution.[234] In Tennessee, to the requirement of United States history
for the elementary schools, was added in 1917 the study of the federal
constitution in the secondary school curriculum.[235] Texas placed distinct
emphasis upon the teaching of state history through a regulation insisting
that this “history be taught in the history course in all public schools” and
“in this course only.”[236] The popularity of civil government, state history,
and United States history is further proved by South Dakota’s prescription
in 1919.[237]
Laws for dynamic patriotism were initiated by a statute of California in
1917. One of the mildest of the laws of this type, its chief purpose was
training in the duties of citizenship through the study of United States
history, with special reference to the history of the Constitution and the
reasons for the adoption of each constitutional provision. Instruction in
local civil government was provided for as well, with a specific statement
regarding instruction in the duties of citizenship.[238]
In 1918, South Dakota, Texas and New York placed upon their statute
books laws that were likewise a direct outgrowth of the war spirit. In the
first two states, patriotism, the laws declared, should spring from lessons of
“intelligent patriotism” inculcated by special exercises. The South Dakota
law specified an hour a week in the aggregate, to be devoted in both public
and private institutions “to the teaching of patriotism, the singing of
patriotic songs, the reading of patriotic addresses and a study of the lives
and history of American patriots.” Should an instructor, school officer or
superintendent fail to enforce obedience to the law the statute provided for a
fine of not less than five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or
imprisonment in the county jail from five to thirty days, or both. In the case
of the malfeasance of a teacher, the superintendent of public instruction had
the power to revoke his certificate.[239]

In Texas, the law declared that “the daily program of every public school
should be so formulated that it includes at least ten minutes for the teaching
of lessons of intelligent patriotism, including the needs of the State and
Federal Governments, the duty of the citizens to the State, and the
obligation of the State to the citizen.”[240] The statute concluded with this
statement: “The fact that this nation is now at war with a foreign foe, and
that the strength of a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people must necessarily come of its citizenship, creates an emergency and
an imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to
be read on three several days be suspended and that this act shall be in force
from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.”[241]
New York’s statute, known as the Lusk Law, is the most conspicuous of
all of the laws of this period because of its drastic character and its later
applications. This law became effective September 1, 1918. The phase of
the law relating to instruction had two parts: one prescribing courses of
instruction in patriotism and citizenship, the other specifying rules for
inspection, supervision, and enforcement of the law.
“In order to promote a spirit of patriotic and civic service and obligation
and to foster in the children of the state moral and intellectual qualities
which are essential in preparing to meet the obligations of citizenship in
peace or in war,” the law declared, “the regents of the university of the state
of New York shall prescribe courses of instruction in patriotism and
citizenship to be maintained and followed in the schools of the state. The
boards of education and trustees of the several cities and school districts of
the state shall require instruction to be given in such courses, by the
teachers employed in the schools therein. All pupils attending such schools,
over the age of eight years, shall attend upon such instruction.”
The statute further prescribed similar courses of instruction for private
schools, and was required of all pupils over eight years of age. In case such
courses were not maintained in the private school, attendance upon
instruction in such school was not deemed equivalent to instruction given to
pupils of like age in the public schools.
The law empowered the regents of the University of the State of New
York to determine the subjects to be included in courses in patriotism and
citizenship, and to arrange such other matters as were required for carrying

into effect the objects and purposes of the law. The commissioner of
education was made responsible for its enforcement, and to him fell the
supervision and inspection of instruction. He was given authority at his
discretion to withhold, from a school district or city, school money, if the
authorities neglected such courses or failed to compel attendance upon such
instruction.[242]
In 1918, Massachusetts subscribed to training in the duties of citizenship,
including United States history, civil government, and thrift in her public
schools; and two years later, in a statute relating to all elementary and
secondary schools, she prescribed “courses in American history and civics
for the purpose of promoting civic service and a greater knowledge of
American history and of fitting the pupils, morally and intellectually, for the
duties of citizenship.”[243]
In 1919, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas and Washington
passed laws of like character. Although each embodies certain distinctive
features, yet all assert a belief in the study of American history and
government as a preparation for a patriotic citizenship.
The New Jersey law contains concrete requirements. In each high school,
courses of study in “Community Civics” and in “Problems in American
Democracy” were prescribed through the agency of the Commissioner of
Education, with the approval of the State Board of Education. The law
required that “Community Civics” be completed not later than the end of
the second year, and the course in “Problems of American Democracy” be
commenced not later than the beginning of the third year. Sixty full periods
of not less than forty minutes each were specified for the teaching of these
subjects. For the elementary grades, the geography, history and civics of
New Jersey were prescribed. These courses of study, the law provided,
“shall be given together with instruction as to the privileges and
responsibilities of citizenship as they relate to community and national
welfare with the object of producing the highest type of patriotic
citizenship.”[244]
In Pennsylvania, too, it has become a duty of the state superintendent of
public instruction to prescribe “a course of study conducive to the spirit of
loyalty and devotion to the state and national governments,” and for all
elementary public schools instruction in the history of the state and nation,

including the elements of civil government.[245] For the seventh and eighth
grades Ohio prescribed civil government and United States history; and
Iowa, as a prerequisite to graduation from any high school, required a
course in United States history and civil government for one year, as well as
the offering of a semester of social problems and economics in a four-year
high school. In Kansas, where the course in civil government and United
States history was designed for the elementary grades, provision was made,
in the case of noncompliance with the law, for the closing of the school by
the action of the county attorney or the attorney-general. It was in a like
spirit with other commonwealths that Washington declared the “study of
American history and American government” to be “indispensable to good
citizenship and an accurate appreciation of national ideals.”[246] A similar
provision, with the aim of promoting “Americanism” and in training in the
“ideals and principles underlying the government of the United States,” met
defeat in Maryland in 1920 by the veto of the governor.[247]
The year 1921 was particularly prolific in legislation of a wartime
character. A variety of expression but a unity of purpose continued to be in
evidence. Laws were enacted in Maine, New Hampshire, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Arizona,
Nevada, New Mexico, and California.
The Maine statute prescribed the teaching of American history and civil
government in all elementary and high school grades, both private and
public, and made these subjects a requirement for graduation from all
grammar schools.[248] The law of her neighbor, New Hampshire, required
the reading of the constitution of the United States and of New Hampshire
“at least once a year in the last grade below the high school.”[249]
In line with the other states Michigan declared, by a statute of May 17,
1921, that the study of the state and federal constitutions should begin not
later than the eighth grade and continue throughout the high school course
to an extent to be decided upon by the state superintendent of public
instruction.[250] In Wisconsin, provision was made for instruction in the
history and civil government of the United States and of Wisconsin, and in
citizenship,[251] and Illinois, on June 21, 1921, passed “An Act to make the
teaching of representative government in the public schools and other
educational institutions in the State of Illinois compulsory.”[252] This law

endorsed the teaching of patriotism through a knowledge of “the principles
of representative government, as enumerated in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
of the State of Illinois,” and was required in all schools maintained in whole
or in part by state funds. The law provided, also, for one hour of such
instruction each week in the seventh and eighth grades, with an equal
amount of time in the high school.
On March 31, 1921, Iowa added to her requirements a provision that all
public and private schools should give regular courses of instruction in the
constitution of the state and nation, beginning not later than the eighth grade
and continuing in the high school to an extent to be determined by the
superintendent of public instruction. A Nebraska statute of that year
established for all schools courses in American history and civil
government to give “a thorough knowledge of the history of our country
and its institutions and of our form of government.”[253]
In Oklahoma, instruction in American history must commence in the
primary grades of all schools, both public and private, beginning with the
lowest and continuing through all primary years, with the privilege of
substituting state history in one of the grades. For this instruction, there
should be allotted at least one hour each week. It was specifically stated that
the purpose of the statute was to instil in the hearts of the pupils “an
understanding of the United States and of a love of country and devotion to
the principles of American government,” and that “such instruction ... shall
avoid, as far as possible, being a mere recital of dates and events.” For the
high school, at least one full year’s work in American history and civics was
required, and no college, normal school, university or chartered institution
of learning in the state was allowed to confer a degree until a student had
passed a course in American history and civil government.[254]
The social study requirement of Colorado for her public schools
consisted of the history and civil government of the state,[255] and Arizona
in her law specified that not less than two years’ instruction in civics,
economics, and American political history and government be provided for
all common schools, high schools, normal schools and universities.[256]
Nevada, in her enactment of February 24, compelled all schools including
colleges, save exclusively scientific schools, to teach American history,

history of the state, and American civil government.[257] Included as a part
of this law was a provision for patriotic exercises for at least an hour in each
school week. New Mexico, declaring that the passage of a law prescribing
the teaching of national and state history and government was “necessary
for the public peace and safety,” made the statute effective immediately,[258]
and California again essayed an endorsement of the history of the state and
nation with emphasis upon the adoption of the Constitution.[259]
In 1922 the commonwealth of Virginia enacted a law similar to those
passed the previous year in fourteen other states. By this statute, pupils
enrolled in the public free schools are taught civil government, history of
the United States and the history of Virginia. The 1922 session of the Rhode
Island legislature adopted much the same kind of a provision for all public
and private schools by making obligatory the teaching of the principles of
popular and representative government and the history of Rhode Island.[260]
An adherence to the early method of endorsing the teaching of patriotism
characterized enactments in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. In the last state,
instruction “tending to impress upon the minds of the pupils the importance
and necessity of good manners, truthfulness, temperance, purity, patriotism,
and industry,” was prescribed in connection with the regular school work.
[261]
Nevada, four years before the passage of Utah’s law, provided for civic
training in her high schools, whose purpose was to “inculcate a love of
country and a disposition to serve the country effectively and loyally,” both
in times of peace and of war.[262]
Idaho, through the office of the teacher, continued the practice of
prescribing the teaching of patriotism as a duty of the teacher through that
intangible method of impressing upon the minds of the pupils “the
principles of truth, justice, morality, and patriotism.”[263] Wisconsin, also,
sanctioned moral instruction through training by the teacher.[264]
Since 1923, nineteen states have passed laws affecting the social study
curriculum. In general, their purpose is to instil “into the hearts of the
various pupils ... an understanding of the United States, ... a love of country,
and ... a devotion to the principles of the American Government.”[265]
Through statutes passed in 1923, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee
and West Virginia require the teaching of United States history and the

Constitution; and Kansas adopted the same requirement in 1925.[266]
Instruction in the federal constitution is prescribed in Alabama, Idaho, New
Jersey, Oregon and Utah by enactments in 1923, and in New York by a law
of 1924. Statutes in Delaware and North Carolina[267] require the study of
the constitutions of the nation and the state, and Texas adds to that
regulation a recommendation that special emphasis be placed on “the
guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.”[268] The Minnesota law
prescribes for all schools “regular courses in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States, to an extent to be
determined by the State Commissioner of Education.”[269] In New Mexico a
similar enactment requires an understanding of the Declaration of
Independence, as well as a knowledge of state and national history and
government.[270]
For her schools California establishes “regular courses of instruction in
the constitution of the United States, including the study of American
institutions and ideals,” and Georgia adopts a similar requirement adding
the study of state government. In both states it is provided that no pupil
shall receive a certificate of graduation who has not passed satisfactorily
examinations in the required subjects.[271]
Substantially all these enactments provide that instruction in the required
subjects shall begin in the elementary grades, continue in the high school
and in courses in state colleges, universities and educational departments of
state and municipal institutions to an extent to be determined by the
superintendent of public instruction or by the state board of education.[272]
Endorsement of the study of the Constitution was given by Congress in
March, 1925, when the Senate passed a House resolution expressing “the
earnest hope and desire that every educational institution, whether public or
private, will provide and maintain as a part of the required curriculum, a
course for the study of the Constitution of the United States....”
The many laws enacted during the years following the World War are
indicative of the high value placed upon the social studies as an essential
part of education. Besides laws requiring the teaching of these subjects
purely for their content, many enactments express a high faith that the
social studies will serve to inculcate patriotism and to train for citizenship.

Forty-three commonwealths have engaged in legislation of this character
since 1917, and all states have at some time endorsed history as a required
subject in the public schools.[273]

OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND CITIZENSHIP FOR TEACHERS

Few laws requiring American citizenship and oaths of allegiance, in the
case of teachers, appeared on the statute books prior to 1914. The World
War precipitated the movement for enactments which insist upon an openly
avowed loyalty, as well as upon a teaching personnel consisting of citizens
only.[274]
In 1915, three states enacted anti-alien laws for teaching. A Michigan
statute required a teacher, if twenty-one years of age, to be a citizen of the
United States.[275] Nevada directed the superintendent of public instruction,
the regents of the state university and school trustees to dismiss “any
teacher, ..., professor or president employed by the educational department
of this state who is not a citizen of the United States; or who has not
declared his or her intention to become a citizen.” The law forbade any state
controller or county auditor to issue salary warrants to the persons
mentioned, in case of non-citizenship.[276]
In California a law of 1915 prescribed that “no person except a native-
born or naturalized citizen of the United States, should be employed in any
department of the state, county, city and county or city-government of this
state.” An exception, however, was made in favor of teachers who had
declared their intention to become naturalized and of any native-born wife
of a foreigner.[277]
In 1917, the one hundred and fortieth session of the New York legislature
gave its assent to a bill which has become known as one of the Lusk laws.
This law reflects precisely the same sort of apprehension which moved
some of the legislators of the Civil War period. It became the precursor of
three others of a like nature, one in 1918, one in 1919, and one in 1921. The
law of 1917 related to treasonable or seditious utterances by teachers, the
second and third to the granting of teachers’ licenses to citizens only, and
the fourth to the employment of teachers who have criticized the
government of the United States.

The law of 1917 relating to freedom of speech prescribed that “a person
employed as superintendent of schools, teacher or employee in the public
schools, ... shall be removed from such position for the utterance of any
treasonable or seditious act, or acts, while holding such position.”[278] The
laws of 1918 and 1919 made citizenship an essential qualification for
becoming a teacher. Any person employed as a teacher on April 4, 1918,
however, who was not naturalized, was given permission to remain in his
position provided he, within a year, should make application for citizenship.
The law of 1919 exempted from the foregoing requirement teachers who
were citizens of the Allied Powers in the World War, and who had been
employed as teachers in the New York schools on or prior to April 4, 1918,
provided that “such teacher make application to become a citizen before the
first day of September, 1920, and within the time thereafter prescribed by
law shall become such citizen.”[279]
The third link in the chain of constraint was an enactment which declared
that an applicant, even though a citizen, must be “a person of good moral
character” and must be “loyal and obedient to the government of this state
and of the United States,” in order to obtain a license to teach. For “no such
certificate shall be issued to any person who, while a citizen of the United
States, has advocated either by word of mouth or in writing, a change in the
form of government of the United States or of this state, by force, violence
or any unlawful means.” The statute provided that the discovery that a
teacher were guilty of any of the prohibitions mentioned, made him liable to
a revocation of his certificate through the commissioner of education.[280]
The sum of $15,000 was appropriated to carry the act into effect.[281]
Much discussion and agitation attended the Lusk laws after their passage
and in the attempts at their enforcement, for many believed that the right of
free speech was endangered by such measures. In 1923, under considerable
pressure, the legislature revoked the statute, and Governor Alfred E. Smith
affixed his signature to the repeal.
Laws similar to the statutes passed by New York are found in Ohio,
Michigan, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota,
Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. In 1919, Michigan, Nebraska,
Tennessee, Montana, and Washington enacted statutes requiring that all
teachers of the public schools must be citizens of the United States, and

Idaho retained upon her statute books a law of 1897 which had the same
intent. The same action was taken by North Dakota in 1921. In addition to
those engaged as instructors in the public schools, Nebraska included
teachers in private and parochial institutions. In Washington, California and
Michigan the privilege of a license was granted to those aliens who
declared their intention of becoming citizens, and in Washington, there were
added to the proscribed group, those teachers whose certificates or diplomas
had been revoked on account of a failure to impress upon the minds of the
pupils “the principles of patriotism or to train them up to a true
comprehension of the rights, duty, and dignity of American
citizenship.”[282]
An open declaration of loyalty and of an intention to inculcate patriotism
in their pupils was required of all teachers by Ohio in a law of 1919, by
Colorado, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota in 1921. Ohio,
Colorado, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Dakota made it incumbent upon
teachers not only in the public schools, but in private and parochial schools,
to take an oath to support the constitution of the state and of the United
States and to obey their laws. Ohio insisted upon an “undivided allegiance
to the government of one country, the United States of America,” and
Colorado and Oregon sanctioned the same form.[283] Nevada required of
teachers the oath in her constitution, prescribed for all public officers.[284]
In Oklahoma, any teacher violating the law, or any person or officer paying
out any school funds to a person teaching without subscribing to the oath,
was deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction such a person was
penalized by a fine of not less than one hundred or more than five hundred
dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail from sixty days to six months, or
both.[285] Oregon, upon conviction, prescribed a maximum fine of one
hundred dollars for non-enforcement of the law.
In West Virginia, a law of 1923 has enjoined upon all teachers, at the time
of signing a yearly contract, an oath to support the constitution of the
United States and West Virginia.[286]
In addition to the regulations imposing an oath of allegiance on teachers,
South Dakota, like Washington, in her law included a prohibition of
treasonable utterances. “Any teacher,” the law declared, “who shall have
publicly reviled, ridiculed or otherwise spoken or acted with disrespect and

contumacy towards the flag of the United States or its official uniforms or
insignia, or towards the system of government of the United States, and its
Constitution, or shall refuse to take and subscribe to the oath of allegiance
hereinbefore required, shall thereafter forever be disqualified to teach in any
public or private school within this state, and the certificate of any such
teacher shall be revoked by the superintendent of public instruction upon
satisfactory proof of the commission of any such offense.”[287]
An Oklahoma statute has excluded from all public and private schools of
that state persons “guilty of teaching or inculcating disloyalty to the United
States or of publicly reviling the flag, or the system of government of the
United States.” Yet the statute prescribed that “criticism of any public
official shall not be construed as within the purview” of this regulation.
California, in a bill relating to American histories and other textbooks
which passed the Assembly in 1923, would have leashed her teachers in
much the same way. But the bill failed of passage in the Senate.[288]
The appropriation bill passed by the Sixty-Eighth Congress for the
District of Columbia, in 1925, provided that no money should be available
“for the payment of the salary of any superintendent, assistant
superintendent, director of intermediate instruction, or supervising principal
who permits the teaching of partisan politics, disrespect for the Holy Bible
or that ours is an inferior form of government.” A similar provision relates
to teachers.[289]
Two states, on the other hand, have passed laws emphasizing a faith in
the integrity and patriotism of their teachers. Although their action preceded
the legislation of the World War, yet it is significant that there have been no
restrictive laws since then in these commonwealths. In 1911, Pennsylvania
sanctioned a policy of freedom of thought for her teachers by declaring that
“no religious or political test or qualification” should be required of “any
director, visitor, superintendent, teacher, or other official, appointee, or
employee, in the public schools of this commonwealth.”[290] In 1913, the
General Court of Massachusetts forbade any school committee, by rule,
regulation or other means to restrain or penalize any teacher for “exercising
his right of suffrage, the signing of nomination papers, and the petitioning
or appearing before committees of the legislature”; but it permitted school
committees to forbid a teacher to exercise any of the aforesaid rights,

suffrage excepted, on school premises during school hours or where the
exercise interfered with the performance of school duties.[291] Of great
significance was the Massachusetts law of March 17, 1917, which expressly
prohibited inquiries relative to the religious or political belief of applicants
for positions in the public schools and forbade the rejection or selection of
the applicant on such grounds.[292]
Many commonwealths, however, like New Jersey, have enacted laws
pertinent to teachers as citizens, but not openly and avowedly “teacher”
legislation. Such a law was approved February 13, 1918, by the governor of
New Jersey. It provided that “any person who shall advocate, in public or
private, by speech, writing, printing, or by any other means, the subversion
or destruction by force of the government of the United States, or of the
State of New Jersey, or attempt by speech, writing, printing, or in any other
way whatsoever to incite or abet, promote or encourage hostility or
opposition to the government of the United States, or of the State of New
Jersey, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be
punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or by a fine
not exceeding two thousand dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment, in
the discretion of the court.”[293]
Of all legislation dealing with the teaching craft, that which has
attempted to control and direct the speech of the teacher has provoked the
greatest protest. Our political development has been such that an
interference with the free expression of opinion creates the impression that
a jealously guarded right has been invaded. It is this feeling which has led
to an agitation against such laws, although the fear that a teacher may be an
instrument for corrupting his pupils is not a product of recent times either in
this country or in world history.[294]

FLAG LEGISLATION AND OBSERVANCE DAYS

Legislation concerning the flag and special observance days takes on the
characteristics of other laws passed since 1917. One of the first “flag laws”
was passed in 1918 by Maryland. This law declared as the purpose of its
enactment that “the love of liberty and democracy, signified in the devotion
of all true and patriotic Americans to their flag and to their country, shall be

instilled in the hearts and minds of the youth of America.”[295] Two years
later, when the tide of legislation for encouraging patriotism was at full
flood, a law embracing all schools through institutions of higher learning
passed the legislature. By this statute all public and private schools, with the
exception of professional schools, were required to open their exercises “on
at least one day of each school week, whether morning, afternoon, or
evening, with the singing of the ‘Star Spangled Banner.’”[296]
Reverence and respect for the flag was the purpose of Oklahoma’s statute
in 1921. To insure obedience to the law, which was applicable to all public,
private, parochial and denominational schools, the penalty of imprisonment
or a fine could be imposed upon an offender. “Any teacher,” affirmed the
law, “neglecting to display said flag or carry out said ceremonial, or any
person forbidding or hindering the display of said flag or the carrying out of
said ceremonial shall be subject to discharge or removal and shall also be
punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five
hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than sixty
days and not more than six months, or both.”[297]
Minnesota, in passing “An act to provide for the teaching in all the
common, graded, and high schools of this state of exercises tending to
promote and inculcate patriotism,” was actuated by a like motive in 1917.
Here a half hour daily must be devoted to patriotic exercises in all public
schools, and every teacher should, by special exercises and by the teaching
of subjects especially suitable, encourage and inculcate the spirit of
patriotism. Such exercises were to consist of the singing of patriotic songs,
readings from American history and from the biographies of American
statesmen and patriots.[298]
Of slightly different character was the agency for propagating patriotism
devised by the Alabama legislature in 1919, by which was established the
“Alabama Patriotic Society.” This organization, non-political and non-
sectarian, essayed as its objects “to stimulate patriotism among the people;
to teach the fundamental principles of American institutions, or free
government; to develop in the hearts and minds of Alabamans a deeper love
of country and reverence for the American flag; to expound the underlying
principle of self-determination; to immortalize the heroes who have brought
fame and renown to Alabama by reason of their courage and leadership in

all the great wars, in which Alabamans have engaged; to teach the people to
love their State, to respect her laws and to support the Constitution of both
the State and Federal Government; to bring the people together to the end
that unity of purpose and solidarity may be promoted; to hold discussions of
patriotic and political questions affecting the general welfare of the whole
people, and to issue educational pamphlets and matter to aid in carrying the
purpose of the society fully into effect.”[299]
In North Carolina, October twelfth has been set aside for appropriate
exercises in the public schools “to the consideration of some topic or
topics” of state history.[300] In Oklahoma, November sixteenth has been
designated for a like purpose in order to teach “loyalty and patriotism” to
state and Union.[301]
Since 1918, the date November eleventh has become the occasion for a
commemoration of the general rejoicing which was caused by the signing
of the Armistice. In the state of Washington, the law has ordained that it
shall be “the duty of each teacher in the public schools ..., or principal in
charge of the school building, to ... present a program of exercises of at least
sixty minutes in length, setting forth the part taken by the United States and
the state of Washington in the world war for the years 1917-1918, and the
principles for which the allied nations fought, and the heroic deeds of
American soldiers and sailors, the leading events in the history of our state
and of Washington Territory, the character and struggles of the pioneers,
and other topics tending to instill a loyalty and devotion to the institutions
and laws of our state.” West Virginia also has recognized Armistice Day as
a time fitting for “appropriate ceremonies.”[302]
A joint resolution of the legislature of Maryland in 1920 memorialized
the President of the United States to designate November eleventh of each
year as a day for national thanksgiving. This day, the General Assembly
believed, had been “made sacred to the hearts of the American people, in
that it was the day on which the world’s greatest tragedy was arrested and
the awful pull at the people’s heart strings relaxed,” and on which “there
terminated that war which overthrew the inhuman monster who laid blood-
hands upon nearly every home of a peace-blest earth.” The world was
further assured on this day, the lawmakers declared, that “the struggle of
democratic nations for liberty and for righteousness had triumphed over the

kultur and the crime of the scientific barbarians, and that autocracy and
diabolical tyranny lay defeated and crushed behind the long rows of white
crosses which stretch across Europe....” The legislators desired that the day
should be the occasion for “strengthening of those noble sentiments of
patriotism common to the American people, and to the love for the cause
for which the sons of Maryland fought and gave their lives in the World
War,” and it was recommended that the schools observe the day in a “fitting
and impressive manner.”[303]
An act amending the law relating to holidays in Wisconsin, in 1923 set
aside Lincoln’s and Washington’s birthdays for commemorative exercises in
the public schools of that state.[304] North Dakota took similar action,
adding October twelfth and November eleventh for observance except in
communities where special exercises were held.[305] In Michigan, in
addition to observance days previously prescribed, Roosevelt’s birthday,
October twenty-seventh, and “Liberty Day,” November eleventh, have been
designated for “proper and appropriate commemorative ceremonies.”[306]
South Dakota, in 1921, declared that Memorial Day should also be
known as “Citizenship Day” in that state, at which time each citizen who
had become twenty-one years of age during the year, or who had been
admitted into full citizenship of the United States during that period, should
receive a “citizenship certificate signed by the Governor, attested by the
Secretary of State, and countersigned by the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners of the County in which such citizen resides.” The
certificate included the name, age, and residence of the citizen, who also
received a “manual of citizenship” containing “the Mayflower Compact, the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and of
South Dakota,” and “non-political axioms and discussions of the principles
of popular citizenship.”[307]
Such laws were but the outpouring of a dynamic and enthusiastic
patriotism, and were considered by the legislator another means of
awakening and encouraging a love of country.

TEXTBOOK LEGISLATION

Few states since 1917 have passed laws requiring a uniform series of
textbooks: North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas,
Tennessee, and West Virginia. In all of these states, except North Carolina,
textbooks in local history and in local and national civics were added to the
uniform series in United States history.[308] In North Carolina the state
textbook commission was empowered to select histories for the elementary
grades.
The only other legislation of this period, except that designed to censor
the content of history textbooks, was the resolution of the Georgia
legislature of 1918. This resolution endorsed the preparation of a suitable
textbook in civil government. It came from the State Board of Education,
who, in 1913, had condemned the textbook then in use and had suggested
the readoption of Peterman’s Civil Government, temporarily, until one
which would be satisfactory could be prepared. From the action of the
legislature in 1918, it is evident that no book had been written which met
the approval of the State School Book Commission. The restatement of the
resolve of 1913 merely sought to call attention to the need for such a book.
[309]

The outstanding legislation of the period, which deals with history
textbooks, results from opening the flood-gates of apprehension regarding
the content of school histories. It is the same misgiving which prompted
restrictive legislation regarding the speech of the teacher and required an
open avowal of allegiance to the government of the United States. Here,
again, the vital thing in the mind of the lawmaker is to repress any
statements considered by him as likely to undermine American patriotism.
In 1918, New York approved another Lusk law prohibiting the use of any
textbook which contained statements seditious in character, disloyal to the
United States or favorable to the cause of any enemy country. The law
created a commission composed of the commissioner of education and two
persons designated by the Regents of the University of the State of New
York. To this body any person might present written complaints against
textbooks in “civics, economics, English, history, language and literature,”
which were then to be examined “for the purpose of determining whether
such textbooks contain any matter or statements of any kind which are
seditious in character, disloyal to the United States or favorable to the cause

of any foreign country with which the United States is now at war.”[310] In
case the commission disapproved of the book after examination, the law
prescribed that the reasons be forwarded to all boards of education, who
then must abandon the use of the book. It was further provided that any
person in authority continuing to use a condemned book would be
considered guilty of a misdemeanor.
Less drastic legislation than the New York law was passed in New
Hampshire in 1921, declaring that “no book shall be introduced into the
public schools calculated to favor any particular religious sect or political
party.”[311] Other legislation which can be considered in the same category
was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and California, in their
prohibition of “partisan and sectarian” books.[312]
During the years of 1922 and 1923, systematic efforts were made by
private organizations to control the content of history textbooks. In general,
the criticisms against the histories then in use were directed by patriotic and
racial organizations seeking to revive the traditional treatment of relations
with Great Britain, particularly during the American Revolution and the
War of 1812.[313]
An outgrowth of this agitation against school histories was the law of
Wisconsin approved April 5, 1923. This statute has prescribed that “no
history or other textbook shall be adopted for use or be used in any district
school, city school, vocational school or high school, which falsifies the
facts regarding the war of independence, or the war of 1812 or which
defames our nation’s founders or misrepresents the ideals and causes for
which they struggled and sacrificed, or which contains propaganda
favorable to any foreign government.” The law has also provided that a
complaint against any textbook filed by any five citizens with the
superintendent of public instruction, must be heard within thirty days at the
county seat of the county in which the complainants reside. The statute has
made it the duty of the superintendent to pass upon the case ten days
following the hearing and to exclude from the schools any book found to
contain statements prohibited by the enactment. In 1925, a bill embodying
substantially the same spirit and phraseology was presented to the
Massachusetts House by Mr. Garrity of Boston, but was not enacted into
law.[314]

Oregon has a similar law. The use of any textbook has been prohibited
which “speaks slightingly of the founders of the republic, or of the men
who preserved the Union, or which belittles or undervalues their work.”[315]
In the spring of 1923, the Assembly of the state of California passed a bill
excluding from the schools of the state any history or other textbook “which
falsifies the facts regarding the war of independence, the war of 1812, or
any other war of this country, or which defames our nation’s founders,
defenders, heroes or patriots, or misrepresents the ideals and causes for
which they struggled and sacrificed, or misleads by stating but partial facts,
or which contains propaganda that is unfavorable to this country and
government, and favorable to any other government or other type of
government.” The bill met defeat in the Senate.[316]
In the spring of 1923 a bill of like nature passed the Senate of New York
but failed in the Lower House. By this proposal, known as the Higgins Bill,
any American history was prohibited in the primary or secondary schools of
the state, “which falsifies, distorts or denies the acts of oppression recited in
the Declaration of Independence, or which, if a textbook dealing with the
period immediately preceding the Declaration of Independence, fails to
refer, ... to the principal acts of oppression as set forth in the Declaration of
Independence.” It further forbade the use of any history which “belittles,
ridicules, doubts or denies the services and sacrifices of American patriots,”
or which “emphasizes and enlarges upon the possible human failings or
shortcomings of such patriots without giving at least equal prominence to
their virtues or merits.” The bill prescribed for primary schools the
presentation of episodes calculated “to arouse in children a justifiable
pride” in the winning of “our national independence.” It further placed
under ban any textbook which “misrepresents” or “fails to mention ... the
compelling causes of the respective wars waged ... against foreign
interference, aggression or encroachment, or which ... fails to emphasize ...
the final victory of the United States in any war it prosecuted to a successful
conclusion,” or which “belittles or ridicules ... American soldiers, sailors or
marines in our wars against foreign nations ... as to leave ... a contempt” for
them or “an unwarranted skepticism regarding their successes under
arms.”[317]

A bill of like import was introduced in the New York Senate in 1924. It
included a provision for the training of teachers in the best methods of
teaching American history, as well as the requirement that American history
textbooks include the Declaration of Independence “in its entirety,” if
dealing with the American Revolution.[318] Senator Higgins was also
responsible for a resolution instructing the Commissioner of Education to
investigate the history textbooks used in the schools of New York to
ascertain whether any contained matter misrepresenting events of the
Revolution or ridiculing the Revolutionary patriots.[319]
In January, 1924, a bill relating to the selection of American histories as
textbooks and reference books in the public schools was introduced into the
Assembly of New Jersey. It was designed to exclude any history which
“belittles, falsifies, misrepresents, distorts, doubts or denies the events
leading up to the Declaration of American Independence or any other war in
which this country has been engaged, or which belittles, falsifies,
misrepresents, distorts, doubts or denies the deeds and accomplishments of
noted American patriots, or which questions the worthiness of their motives
or casts aspersions upon their lives.”[320]
A spirited protest against the bill as introduced in the New Jersey
Assembly came from the faculty of Princeton University who resolved that
“such legislation is in direct contravention of the fundamental principles of
freedom of speech and of the press, and calculated to impair the integrity of
education in both the public and private institutions in the State of New
Jersey.”[321]
The New York Times also objected to the censorship proposed in that
state, declaring that it was not conceivable that “any honest man would
wish to write textbooks in history for children under such statutory
prescription,” and The Freeman, in an article regarding the Wisconsin law,
pointed out that “historians sometimes find it a difficult matter to get at the
truth in regard to the past, but for the superintendent of schools in the state
of Wisconsin it is no job at all....”[322]
AMERICANIZATION OF FOREIGNERS
The desire to instil a knowledge of American institutions has led to much
legislation for the education of the foreign element in our population. Some

states have attempted to eliminate illiteracy by evening classes for adults,
by continuation schools and like means. In all cases, the teaching of the
English language has been a primary purpose, as well as training in a
knowledge of American institutions. However, not all Americanization laws
have definitely stated the purpose of training in citizenship, and therefore
do not come properly into this discussion.
Since 1917 more than one-third of the states have enacted legislation for
the purpose of developing a love for this country in the foreign born.[323] In
that year, California inaugurated the policy of “home teachers” to visit the
homes of pupils instructing both children and adults in matters pertaining to
“school attendance, sanitation, the English language, and in the
fundamental principles of the American system of government and the
rights and duties of citizenship.”[324] Two years later, this enactment was
followed by another law for the teaching of civic and vocational subjects in
evening classes, in which instruction was provided in the “duties and
responsibilities of citizenship” for those unable to speak or read the English
language to the proficiency of the sixth grade.[325] In 1921, California
continued her Americanization program by approving a law to provide for
the establishment of classes for training in citizenship for applicants who
had filed their declaration of intention to become citizens of the United
States and for other persons desiring such instruction. The course of study
includes the teaching of United States history, state and community civics,
the “constitution of the United States with special reference to those
sections in the constitution which relate directly to the duties, privileges and
rights of the individuals, and such allied subjects ... as shall properly
prepare such applicants to understand and assume the responsibilities of
citizenship.”[326]
In 1918, New York passed a law necessitating the attendance of all non-
English speaking and illiterate minors at school or at classes established by
employers in shops, stores, factories, or plants in which were taught English
and civics.[327] In 1921, it became a duty of the commissioner of education
to see that schools for the education of these illiterate groups be established,
in which should be taught “English, history, civics, and other subjects
tending to promote good citizenship and increase vocational
efficiency....”[328]

In Massachusetts, power has been granted to the director of the division
of immigration and Americanization, with the approval of an advisory
board, to employ methods which will develop in the foreign born “an
understanding of American government, institutions and ideals.”[329]
Arizona’s law of 1918 permitted the establishment of night schools in
school districts for those over sixteen who were unable to read or write the
English language, in which there was to be instruction in “American ideals”
and an “understanding of American institutions.”[330]
The year 1919 saw the adoption of Americanization programs by the
legislatures of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Utah, Montana and California in which
the purpose of teaching American ideals and institutions received express
mention.
Maine’s statute, designed for those persons “of normal mentality over
eighteen years of age who are unable to read, to write, and to speak the
English language to a reasonable degree of efficiency,” prescribed the
teaching of “the duties of citizens in a democracy” and of “such other
subjects as will increase their civic intelligence.”[331] In her legislation,
New Hampshire called for “the abolition of illiteracy and the instruction of
illiterates over sixteen years of age in the common school branches and in
the privileges, duties and responsibilities of citizenship.” Immigrants over
sixteen years of age were to be taught “to appreciate and respect the civic
and social institutions of the United States,” and to be instructed “in the
duties of citizenship,” which are “an essential part of public school
education.”[332] In Rhode Island, people between the ages of sixteen and
twenty-one years of age, unable to read and write English or to speak it with
reasonable facility, have been given the privilege of a continuation school
held for the purpose of teaching the English language and American
citizenship.[333] Pennsylvania’s attempt to cope with the problem has led to
the passage of an act “to provide instruction in citizenship and the
principles of the government of the United States of America and of this
commonwealth to foreign-born residents of the state of Pennsylvania, in the
several counties thereof, who are not required to attend the public schools
of this commonwealth.”[334]

The Delaware law was designed for the foreign-born over sixteen years
of age not able to speak English, but who, through evening classes, might
be instructed in that language and “in the institutions and forms of
government of the United States and the State of Delaware.”[335]
An appropriation of the Minnesota legislature of 1919, to carry out a
provision of an Americanization law of 1917, became available for work
providing for instruction in English for those whose knowledge is too
limited to carry on business or to read intelligently periodicals and
newspapers, and in the essential and vital facts of American history,
American government and ideals, and the duties and obligations of
citizenship.[336]
By a joint resolution of 1919 the Oklahoma legislature created a
committee on Americanization and made it incumbent upon public school
officials to organize classes in English and in citizenship instruction
wherever a petition signed by ten residents of foreign birth over sixteen
years of age was presented to them.[337] A minimum of two hundred hours
of instruction during the school year aided Utah in her Americanization
program which included classes in the “fundamental principles of the
Constitution of the United States, American history, and such other subjects
as bear on Americanization.”[338] Montana’s legislation, designed for those
over sixteen years of age who were not familiar with the English language,
provided for instruction in “American history and the Principles of
Citizenship and any other school subjects which the school trustees deem
necessary for the Americanization of the students enrolled.”[339]
The Americanization movement was further aided by a law approved
April 19, 1920, in which New Jersey provided instruction for the foreign
born residents of her state, over fourteen years of age, in English and “in the
form of government and the laws of this State and of the United States.”[340]
American history, the Constitution of the United States, with an exposition
of the privileges and the duties of American citizenship tending to produce
a spirit of loyalty, were phases of the Americanization programs of Ohio,
Idaho, Wyoming, and Oregon in 1921.[341] In the last state, “home
teachers,” whose duty it is to instruct in the fundamental principles of the
American system of government and the rights and duties of citizenship,
were named as an aid in carrying on the work of Americanization.[342] In

Michigan, the superintendent of public instruction has been given power to
provide for the education of aliens and of native illiterates over eighteen
years of age who are unable “to read, write and speak the English language
and who are unlearned in the principles of government” of Michigan and of
the United States.[343]
In general, the most popular means for educating the alien population is
by attendance at a night school, where, through evening classes, teachers
regularly employed in the public schools seek to instruct in the English
language and in an appreciation of and respect for “the civic and social
institutions of the United States.” New York has tried the employers’ school
to effect the same purpose, whereas “home teachers” are endorsed by
California and Oregon. In the four years preceding the outbreak of the
World War, 5,174,701 immigrants came to the United States, of whom 22.1
were unable to read and write any language. In 1920, nearly one and a half
million, or 11 per cent, of the foreign-born whites in this country could not
speak English. For this group, even more than for the native element, has it
seemed wise to encourage education, because it has become a common
belief that a lack of education endangers the well-being of the state.

FOOTNOTES:

[228] Report of the Committee on Social Studies of the Commission on the
Reorganization of Secondary Education of the National Education Association,
“The Social Studies in Secondary Education,” Bulletin, 1916, No. 28,
Department of the Interior (Washington, 1916).
[229] According to a statement in The New York Times, March 30, 1924, the
National Security League has been partly responsible for many enactments
requiring the teaching of the federal constitution.
[230] General Laws of Vermont, 1917, ch. 60, sec. 1277, p. 301.
[231] Laws of Montana, 1917, ch. 128, par. 601, p. 309; Digest of the Statutes
of Arkansas, 1919, ch. 158, par. 9066, p. 547. Accepted February 20, 1917.
[232] In 1921, New Hampshire included in her curriculum the study of history
and civil government in a law to reinstate foreign languages as a study in the
public schools. In 1919 history and civics were required for all schools. Laws of
New Hampshire, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 10(3), p. 125; ibid., 1919, ch. 106, sec. 13(1).
In 1918, Connecticut carried over a law from the Revision of 1902 prescribing
United States history, General Statutes of Connecticut, 1918, ch. 44, sec. 835,
Vol. I, p. 308. Pennsylvania incorporated a law of 1911 prescribing instruction in
general history and civil government in her Statute Law of 1920, Digest of the

Statute Law of Pennsylvania, 1920, par. 5102, p. 470. In Kentucky, United States
history, state history and civil government were required in 1918, carried over
from a law of 1893. Statutes of Kentucky, 1918, art. III, par. 4383, Vol. III, p.
866; Laws, 1916, ch. 24, art. III, sec. 24, p. 162. In Texas in the Compiled
Statutes of 1920, was again included a law requiring the teaching of civil
government and state and national history. Statutes of Texas, 1920, art. 2783, p.
467.
[233] Laws of Delaware, 1919, 2283, sec. 11, p. 356. This is found also in
Laws, Special Session, 1920, 97th Assembly, sec. 12, Vol. XXXI, p. 113.
[234] General Laws of Alabama, 1919, art. 3, p. 571; Acts of Georgia, 1919,
sec. 18, p. 295.
[235] Compilation of the Statutes of Tennessee, 1917, art. XV, 1453, Vol. I, p.
983, ibid., 1454.
[236] Statutes of Texas, op. cit.
[237] Laws of South Dakota, 1919, sec. 7511, p. 154.
[238] Laws of California, 1917, ch. 549, p. 728. Approved May 18, 1917. It
was the same for the social studies for the elementary schools in 1921. Statutes,
1921, ch. 486, p. 739. A law of Illinois in which instruction was to be devoted to
“raising the standard of good citizenship” was passed in 1909, and was still on
the statute books in 1917. Revised Statutes, 1917, p. 273.
[239] Revised Code of South Dakota, 1919, par. 7660, p. 1917. Source 1918,
ch. 39.
[240] Statutes of Texas, 1920, art. 2904, aa, p. 492. Acts, 1918, ch. 17, sec. 1,
p. 29.
[241] Ibid., approved March 20, 1918.
[242] Laws of New York, 1918, ch. 241, art. XXVI-C, secs. 705, 706, pp. 886-
887. See the discussion under Oaths of Allegiance as Teacher Requirement for a
statement regarding the repeal of the Lusk Law.
[243] General Acts of Massachusetts, 1918, pp. 294-295; Acts, 1920, ch. 411,
p. 418. General Statutes of Connecticut, 1918, ch. 45, sec. 852, Vol. I, p. 312. In
1903, Connecticut was a pioneer in this form of law, which was slightly changed
in 1915. At this time it was prescribed that normal schools and teacher training
schools should give instruction concerning methods of teaching citizenship,
including the knowledge of the form of the national and local governments.
Connecticut left her law of 1915 unchanged in her General Statutes of 1918.
[244] Acts of New Jersey, 1919, ch. 125, p. 304.
[245] Laws of Pennsylvania, 1919, sec. 1607, pp. 544-545. Amends an act of
May 18, 1911. In 1921 the law relating to courses of instruction for public and
private elementary schools was amended but carried with it the requirement of
United States history, history of Pennsylvania, and civics including “loyalty to
the state and national government.” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Public Instruction, The School Law ... 1921, sec. 1607, p. 116.
[246] Laws of Ohio, 1919, secs. 7645 and 7762, p. 542. Approved June 6,
1919. Acts of Iowa, 1919, ch. 406, p. 535. Approved April 25, 1919. Private as

well as public schools were included. Laws of Kansas, 1919, ch. 257, secs. 2 and
3, p. 352; Session Laws of Washington, 1919, p. 50. Alabama in 1919 added
community civics to her elementary school curriculum but merely enumerated
her subjects. General Laws of Alabama, 1919, art. 3, sec. 7, p. 571.
[247] Laws of Maryland, 1920, ch. 656, p. 1248.
[248] Resolves of Maine, 1921, ch. 25, p. 27.
[249] Laws of New Hampshire, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 5(3), p. 114.
[250] Acts of Michigan, 1921, no. 209, secs. 1, 2. Cf. Iowa’s law of 1921,
page 80.
[251] Wisconsin Session Laws, 1921, ch. 81, p. 152. Amends sec. 40. 30.
[252] Laws of Illinois, 1921 (House Bill, no. 483), pp. 820-821.
[253] Acts of Iowa, 1921 (S. F. 770), pp. 81-82; Laws of Nebraska, 1921, ch.
53, sec. 6924, p. 230.
[254] Acts of Oklahoma, 1921, ch. 112, secs. 1, 2, 3, 4. The state
superintendent of instruction had power of enforcement. In case of a violation a
fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 or imprisonment in the county
jail for not less than thirty days nor more than six months, or both, may be the
penalty. A teacher is subject to discharge or removal in case of malfeasance and
a college (corporation) is liable to a revocation of its charter.
[255] Laws of Colorado, 1921, ch. 216, p. 728. Approved April 5, 1921.
[256] Acts of Arizona, 1921, ch. 140, sec. 1, p. 312.
[257] Statutes of Nevada, 1921, p. 28 (Senate Bill No. 43).
[258] Laws of New Mexico, 1921, ch. 172, p. 364. See law of 1912, page 52.
[259] Statutes of California, 1921, ch. 486, p. 739. See page 43.
[260] Acts of Virginia, 1922, p. 69 (amending section 702 of the Code).
Virginia School Laws, 1923, p. 41; Public Laws of Rhode Island, 1922, ch. 2195,
sec. 17.
[261] Laws of Utah, 1921, ch. 95, p. 284. Approved March 5, 1921.
[262] Laws of Nevada, 1917, ch. 146, p. 245. Approved March 21, 1917. This
was less than one month before the United States entered the World War, and the
avowal of service in peace or in war, therefore, acquires a peculiar significance.
See page 81 for Nevada’s law of 1921.
[263] Compiled Statutes of Idaho, 1919, p. 269, par. 944. From the Political
Code, 1901, sec. 1067, Vol. I, p. 329. See page 21 for the first discussion of the
law.
[264] “In all public schools of this state it shall be the duty of each and every
teacher to teach morality, for the purpose of elevating and refining the character
of school children up to the highest plane of life; that they may know how to
conduct themselves as social beings in relation to each other, as respects right
and wrong and rectitude of life, ...” Statutes of Wisconsin, 1917, 40. 30 (5), p.
376.

[265] Statement of the Arkansas law. Cf. Oklahoma law passed in 1921, page
80.
[266] Digest of School Laws ... of Arkansas ... 1923, p. 166. Approved March
23, 1923, this law provides that no person can graduate from high school
without at least one full year’s work in American history and civics. School
Laws of Mississippi, 1924, ch. 283, p. 3; School Laws of Ohio, 1923, p. 41;
Public School Laws of Tennessee ... 1923, p. 35; Acts of West Virginia, 1923, ch.
10, sec. 92, p. 40; State of Kansas, Senate Bill No. 13, repealing Sec. 72-1103 of
the Revised Statutes of Kansas, 1923.
[267] Laws of Alabama, 1923, p. 87, approved July 27, 1923; School Laws of
the State of Idaho (1923), p. 57; Acts of New Jersey, 1923, ch. 17, p. 17; Laws of
Oregon, 1923, ch. 7, sec. 102; Laws of Utah, 1923, ch. 4, approved January 27,
1923; Laws of New York, 1924, ch. 64, article 26-d, sec. 707, approved March
24, 1924. School Laws of Delaware, 1923, pp. 62-63. The Public School Law of
North Carolina Codification of 1923, p. 120.
[268] School Legislation of the Thirty-Eighth Legislature (of Texas), pp. 36-
37. The Texas requirement comes through a resolution of the Senate of the state
with the House of Representatives concurring, because “the American Bar
Association, the Texas Bar Association, the bar associations of various other
states, as well as other patriotic societies, are advocating the teaching of the
Constitutions of the United States and of the several states in the public
schools.”
[269] Laws of Minnesota, 1923, ch. 291, p. 388. Approved April 17, 1923.
[270] Laws of New Mexico, 1923, ch. 148, sec. 1417, p. 325; also New
Mexico School Code, 1923, p. 34.
[271] Statutes of California, 1923, ch. 176, secs. 1 and 2. Georgia School
Code ... 1923, p. 70, approved August 20, 1923.
[272] The following provide that the course start not later than the eighth
grade: Statutes of California, 1923, ch. 176; Laws of Alabama, 1923, p. 87, law
approved July 27, 1923; School Laws of Delaware, 1923, pp. 62-63, approved
March 14, 1923; School Laws of the State of Idaho (1923), p. 57; Laws of
Minnesota, 1923, ch. 291, p. 388, approved April 17, 1923; Oregon School
Laws, 1923, p. 39, Laws, 1923, ch. 7, sec. 102; Public School Laws of
Tennessee, 1923, p. 35, Laws of Tennessee, 1923, ch. 17, sec. 1, pp. 61-62. In
New Jersey, the seventh grade is prescribed for the beginning of the study. Acts
of New Jersey, 1923, ch. 17, p. 17. In Arkansas, it is required that “such teaching
shall commence in the lowest primary grade,” but Arkansas history may be
substituted for American history in one of the grades. Digest of School Laws of
Arkansas, op. cit.
[273] Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. LXVI, No. 77, pp.
5396-5398. The five states not enacting social study laws for the curriculum
(1917 to 1924) are Florida, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota, and South
Carolina.
[274] Few states during this period have enacted new laws requiring the
examination of teachers in the social studies. Nevada, by a law of 1921, has
required United States history, civics and current events for elementary school

certificates. Laws of Nevada, 1921, ch. 208, sec. 25, p. 302. In 1923, Tennessee
prescribed that all persons applying for a certificate to become teachers or
superintendents in the public schools must pass a satisfactory examination upon
the provisions and the principles of the Constitution of the United States. Laws
of Tennessee, 1923, ch. 17, sec. 2. Washington, likewise, by an enactment of
1923, has prescribed United States history for a standard elementary certificate.
Laws of Washington, 1923, p. 579. Florida, in 1923, enacted legislation
requiring United States history, including the Constitution of the United States
for primary and third grade certificates, civics for second grade, and general
history, in addition to the other social studies for a first grade license.
Compilation of School Laws of Florida, 1923, Supplement, pp. 4-5. Maryland, in
1922, required United States and Maryland history and community civics for
elementary school certificates. Maryland Public School Laws, 1922, p. 40. See
pages 52-56. Iowa, in 1924, made mandatory a knowledge of “the fundamental
principles of a republican form of government and the Constitution of the United
States and of the State of Iowa.” Code of Iowa, 1924, ch. 193, sec. 3862.
Kansas, in 1925, prescribed United States history and civil government for
certification. See Senate Bill No. 13, 1925.
[275] Public Acts of Michigan, 1915, p. 13.
[276] Statutes of Nevada, 1915, ch. 274, secs. 1, 2, 3, 4. Approved March 26,
1915.
[277] Statutes of California, 1915, approved May 20, 1915. School Laws of
California, 1921, p. 203. This law does not forbid aliens to teach in colleges and
universities.
[278] See page 76. Laws of New York, 1917, ch. 416, par. 568, Vol. II, p.
1280.
[279] Ibid., 1919, ch. 120, 3, p. 218. Law, March 31, 1919. Ibid., 1918, ch.
158, par. 550, p. 749. Approved April 4, 1918.
[280] Ibid., 1921, par. 555a, Vol. III, p. 2048.
[281] Ibid.
[282] Laws of Washington, 1919, sec. 1, p. 82; Laws of Nebraska, 1919, ch.
250, sec. 1, p. 1020; Acts of Michigan, 1919 (no. 220), sec. 1, p. 392; Laws of
Tennessee, 1919, ch. 91, p. 223; Compiled Statutes of Idaho, 1919, par. 946, Vol.
I, p. 270. Idaho, in her Laws of 1921, has another enactment, but it has the same
purpose; Laws of 1921, sec. 77, p. 464. Laws of Montana, 1919, ch. 196, sec. 18,
p. 429, amending law of 1905, by which any teacher holding a certificate and not
a citizen was given time (six months) to declare his intention. Political Code, ch.
77, sec. 1912, p. 167. For California’s law see School Law of California, 1921,
p. 203. North Dakota’s previous citizenship requirement is discussed on page 34.
See Laws of North Dakota, 1921, ch. 111, p. 90. According to letters received
from the state superintendents of Mississippi and Maryland, aliens are not
permitted to teach in those states.
[283] Laws of Ohio, 1919, supplements 7852 of General Code, sec. 7852-1, p.
514. Laws of Colorado, 1921, ch. 213, sec. 1, p. 719. Laws of Oregon, 1921, ch.
115, p. 226, approved February 18, 1921.

[284] Statutes of Nevada, 1921, sec. 38, p. 303. Approved March 22, 1921.
This was required of all teachers paid by the state, even those in the University.
[285] Acts of Oklahoma, 1921, ch. 15, p. 141. Approved March 24, 1921.
[286] The School Law of West Virginia, 1923, p. 44. According to the
superintendents of public instruction in Rhode Island and Kansas a pledge to
support the national and state constitutions is a requirement in those states for all
teachers. See Teachers’ Pledge of Loyalty, Rhode Island Public Education
Service, and Teachers Contract, State of Kansas.
[287] Laws of South Dakota, 1921, ch. 210, p. 317. Approved February 1,
1921. This law became effective at once, because it was “necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public safety and for the support of the state
government and its existing public institutions.”
[288] Oklahoma School Laws, 1923, p. 18; Acts of Oklahoma, 1921, ch. 15,
sec. 2, p. 141. California Assembly Bill, No. 1329, 1923, sec. 6. “Any teacher or
official of any educational institution in California who shall teach or speak
before his or her pupils or public gatherings of an educational nature, or publicly,
slightingly or contemptuously of the Constitution of the United States, or of the
framers thereof, or of the men who founded this republic, or helped preserve and
defend it, or its heroes and patriots, or shall teach un-American principles, or fail
to carry out and support the spirit of this act according to its true intent and
meaning, shall be deemed to have voluntarily violated his or her contract or oath
of office and shall be automatically removed if the charges are proven....” See
page 102 for the section of the bill relating to textbooks.
[289] 68th Congress, Public—No. 595—H. R. 12033. An act making
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such District for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, and for other purposes. According to The
World Tomorrow, “Missouri attached a rider to its last appropriation bill
forbidding State colleges and schools to employ any person ‘who teaches, or
advocates in public and private that the citizens of this State should not protect
the government of the United States from aggression by other nations.’” The
World Tomorrow, Vol. VIII (June, 1925), p. 186.
[290] Statute Law of Pennsylvania, 1920, art. XXVIII, par. 5393, p. 494.
Public Laws, 1911, art. XXVIII, par. 2801, p. 309, May 18. This is quite the
opposite of Arkansas’ law which prescribed that all teachers must believe in a
“Supreme Being.”
[291] General Acts of Massachusetts, 1913, ch. 628, p. 556. Approved May 8,
1913.
[292] Ibid., 1917, ch. 84, p. 76. A fine of no more than fifty dollars could be
imposed for violation of this law.
[293] Laws of New Jersey, 1918, ch. 44, sec. 2, p. 131. Laws have been
passed in California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Mississippi, and West Virginia.
[294] Socrates is an example of one who, in ancient times, was penalized for
holding doctrines then unacceptable.

[295] Laws of Maryland, 1918, ch. 75, sec. 1, 176a, p. 121. Approved April
10, 1918.
[296] Ibid., 1920, ch. 381, sec. 1, p. 665. Approved April 16, 1920. In
Michigan all applicants for an eighth grade diploma have been required to pass
an examination on “the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner and the words of
America.” General School Laws of Michigan, 1923, p. 107, am. 1919, act 72
(275), par. 5824, sec. 2.
[297] Acts of Oklahoma, 1921, ch. III, p. 137. Approved March 24, 1921.
[298] Laws of Minnesota, 1917, ch. 108, sec. 1, p. 135. Approved March 26,
1917.
[299] General Laws of Alabama, 1919, no. 733, p. 1083. See page 62 for a
law of Oregon passed in 1921.
[300] Public School Law of North Carolina, pt. XIII, art. 38, sec. 367.
[301] School Laws of Oklahoma, 1923, p. 69; Session Laws, 1921, sec. 342.
[302] Laws of Washington, 1921, ch. 56, p. 171. “Victory and Admission
Day.” California added Armistice Day to her legal holidays in 1921, likewise
including “Admission Day” on September ninth. Statutes of California, 1921,
ch. 350, p. 481. School Law of West Virginia, 1923, p. 32.
[303] Laws of Maryland, 1920, pp. 1448-1449.
[304] Laws of Wisconsin, 1923, ch. 337, amending section 40.28 of the
statutes.
[305] Educational Laws of North Dakota, 1923, ch. 282, p. 45. See page 62
for Oregon’s law of 1921 setting aside Columbus Day for observance.
[306] General School Laws of Michigan, 1923, p. 107.
[307] Laws of South Dakota, 1921, ch. 144, secs. 1, 2, pp. 235-236. The
certificates were to be presented with proper ceremony at some place where
there were patriotic addresses and music. Approved March 8, 1921. In South
Dakota an observance of “Frances Willard Day,” besides the recognition of the
benefits of prohibition, had the additional duty of stimulating “patriotism and
civic improvements.” Revised Code, 1919, par. 7662. Washington set aside
January sixteenth as “Temperance and Good Citizenship Day” for studying the
biographies of great leaders in “temperance and good citizenship.” Session Laws
of Washington, 1923, ch. 76, p. 236.
[308] Acts of Georgia, 1919, sec. 18, p. 295; Laws of Florida, 1917, ch. 7374
(no. 116), p. 230, added to United States history, history of the state and civil
government, Laws of 1911-12, for high schools American history and civil
government, English history, and general history; General Laws of Alabama,
1919, art. 23, p. 634; Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, 1921, par. 9066, p.
2330, also Laws, 1921, act 285, p. 328 for regular grade work; Compilation of
Laws of Tennessee, 1917, art. XVII, 1461a 24, Vol. I, p. 993, also Laws, 1919,
ch. 142, sec. 3, p. 525, Sen. Bill no. 506; Code of West Virginia, 1916, ch. 45,
par. 155a, p. 594. General history was also included. Public School Law of North
Carolina, 1923, p. 87, art. 30, sec. 322.

[309] Laws of Georgia, 1918, p. 919 (no. 60). This is probably an outgrowth
of the movement found in the previous period to teach history and government
from a pro-Southern viewpoint.
[310] Laws of New York, 1918, 674, p. 892, approved April 17, 1918.
[311] Laws of New Hampshire, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 13, p. 125.
[312] Acts of Georgia, 1919, p. 295; General Laws of Alabama, 1919, p. 634;
Compilation of Laws of Tennessee, 1917, 1461a 24, Vol. I, p. 993; Statutes and
Amendments Code of California, 1917, ch. 552, 1607, p. 736.
[313] For a full discussion see chapter VII.
[314] “..., the state superintendent shall fix a time for a public hearing upon
such a complaint, which shall not be more than thirty days from the date of filing
said complaint, and shall be conducted by the state superintendent or the
assistant state superintendent, or by one of the state inspectors of schools, to be
designated by the superintendent, and which hearing shall be held at the county
seat of the county where the complainants reside. Notice of such hearing shall be
given at least ten days prior to the date thereof through the public press and by
registered mail to the complainants, the school board interested and to the
publishers of such textbooks.” Laws of Wisconsin, 1923, ch. 21, sec. 40.30.
Massachusetts House Bill No. 718. “An Act relative to Certain Textbooks in the
Public Schools.”
[315] Oregon School Laws, 1923, ch. III, sec. 571, p. 169.
[316] Assembly Bill (California) No. 1329, introduced by Mr. Ball.
[317] State of New York, 3d Rdg. 652, Nos. 602, 1781, 1997, Int. 581. In
Senate, February 7, 1923.
[318] State of New York: No. 1186, Int. 1086. In Senate, March 5, 1924.
Introduced by Mr. Higgins.
[319] The New York Times, March 19, 1924.
[320] Assembly, No. 14 (with Amendments), State of New Jersey. Introduced
January 8, 1924, by Mr. Williams. (For the Speaker.) The bill provided also that
any forty citizens of a school district could file complaints against histories and a
public hearing should be held within thirty days.
[321] The New York Times, February 12, 1924. The endorsement given this
bill by patriotic and fraternal groups is treated on pages 275-276.
[322] Ibid., April 19, 1923, The Freeman, Vol. VII (May 2, 1923), p. 170. The
Oklahoma legislature of 1923 forbade the use of textbooks teaching the
“‘Materialistic Conception of History’ (i.e.) The Darwinian Theory of Creation
vs. the Bible Account of Creation.” Approved March 24, 1923. House Bill No.
197. The use of the term “materialistic conception of history” is interesting in
this connection.
[323] Among the states which have Americanization laws that have no
specific statement prescribing the teaching of American citizenship are Alabama,
Connecticut, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia. Most of these laws were enacted in
1919, some prescribing the establishment of classes for uneducated adults,

others specifying Americanization courses. In North Carolina, there is a law to
remove illiteracy, and in New Mexico the schools are to give “nocturnal courses
of instruction.” These laws are not discussed because they do not provide for the
teaching of citizenship. One of the earliest evening schools was in
Massachusetts, 1886, where United States history was one of the prescribed
subjects. Supplement to Public Statutes of Massachusetts, 1882-1888, ch. 174, p.
117, “An Act for the Establishment and Maintenance of Evening Schools.”
[324] Statutes of California, 1917, ch. 552, p. 742.
[325] Ibid., 1919, ch. 605, sec. 4, p. 1049.
[326] Ibid., 1921, ch. 489, p. 742. Approved May 27, 1921.
[327] Laws of New York, 1918, ch. 415, pp. 1257-1258.
[328] Ibid., 1921, ch. 327, Vol. II, p. 1037.
[329] General Laws Relating to Education, Massachusetts, 1923, p. 18.
“Education and Protection of Aliens,” 1917, 321, par. 2; 1919, 350, par. 59;
1920, 72.
[330] Acts of Arizona, 1918, ch. 10, sec. 1, p. 29 (Sen. Bill No. 19). In 1921 a
bill for the education of foreigners in the public schools was passed.
[331] Laws of Maine, 1919, ch. 148, p. 148. Revision of ch. 116, sec. 137.
Approved April 1, 1919.
[332] Laws of New Hampshire, 1919, ch. 106, secs. 5 and 30, pp. 157, 165.
Also Laws, 1921, ch. 85, sec. 5, p. 113.
[333] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1919, ch. 1802, sec. 2, p. 212.
[334] Laws of Pennsylvania, 1919, no. 311.
[335] Laws of Delaware, 1919, ch. 158, sec. 1, p. 452; also by a similar law
approved April 7, 1921, Laws, 1921, ch. 165, p. 550. For California, see page
106.
[336] General Laws of Minnesota, 1919, for ch. 356 of General Laws, 1917.
[337] Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1919, ch. 135, p. 467. Approved March 10,
1919.
[338] Laws of Utah, 1919, ch. 93, sec. 4, p. 285. Approved March 20, 1919.
This law was added to in 1921 with a provision for fees.
[339] Laws of Montana, 1919, ch. 38, sec. 1, p. 91. Approved February 21,
1919.
[340] Acts of New Jersey, 1920, ch. 197, p. 387.
[341] General Laws of Ohio, 1921, sec. 7761-3, p. 101; General Laws of
Idaho, 1921, p. 418; Session Laws of Wyoming, ch. 127, sec. 1, p. 188; General
Laws of Oregon, 1921, ch. 87, sec. 1, p. 139 (S. B. 171).
[342] Ibid. New York and Arizona also have laws in 1921. See page 106.
[343] State of Michigan, Department of Public Instruction, Explanation of
School Laws of Michigan, Supplement to Bulletin No. 13. Published 1921, p. 7.

CHAPTER V
Disloyalty Charges Against Teachers Since 1917

Great events occasion diverse opinions, and it is not strange that the
World War and its aftermath often tempted public school teachers to enter
the area of controversial issues. Thus the question of whether the teacher
should be permitted free and open expression of opinion became a point of
contention between the upholders and opponents of unrestricted speech. It
became a matter of considerable concern whether the teacher be allowed to
sow the seed of an idea alien to that held by the child’s parents, or, perhaps,
in disagreement with that of the school’s administrators. It was not a new
question nor unexpected.
The great mass of public school teachers were conscious of the
censorious eye fixed upon them and realized that “the wise man foreseeth
the evil and hideth himself, but the foolish pass on and are punished.”
Diligent search in public records and through personal inquiry reveals few
occasions where actual charges of disloyalty were lodged against teachers
in the public schools. Indeed, the superintendents of public instruction in
thirty-two states report that from 1917 to 1924 no accusations involving the
loyalty of teachers were brought to the attention of their offices.[344] One is
disposed to concur in a statement made by the Lusk Committee of New
York investigating seditious activities that “on the whole, it may safely be
said that our public school system is comparatively free from the taint of
revolutionary teaching.”[345] Yet some teachers faced accusations
impugning loyalty. Doubtless there were others whose utterances were
considered disloyal or ill-advised, but who escaped with little or no
publicity attending their dismissal from service.
In the city of New York, the trials of teachers for disloyalty were most
numerous, for it was here that legislation to restrain the speech of the
teacher was most rigorously applied. Under the Lusk Law persons failing to
secure a certificate of loyalty were forbidden to teach in the schools of New
York, the Commissioner of Education having the sole right to refuse such a
certificate.[346]

In general, charges of disloyalty were preferred against six groups of
teachers: those objecting to sign the pledge of loyalty, those whose
sympathies in the War were pro-German, the pacifists, those whose speech
was considered disloyal, those who opposed and obstructed the draft, and
those who held membership in a political party which advocated a change
in the established form of government.[347]
In the eyes of the school administrators an unwillingness to sign pledges
of loyalty without qualification was but the evidence of a hybrid patriotism.
In no other light did they believe could be considered the objection to a
pledge which declared an “unqualified allegiance to the Government of the
United States,” and which promised by “word and example” to “teach and
impress” upon “the pupils the duty of loyal obedience and patriotic service
as the highest ideal of American citizenship.”[348]
Opposition to signing the pledges under compulsion was led by the
Teachers’ Union, and their protest against an implication of disloyalty was
endorsed by eighty-seven teachers.[349] Among those refusing at first to sign
a pledge were Miss Isabel Davenport of the New York Training School for
Teachers and Harrison C. Thomas of the De Witt Clinton High School. The
examination started to determine their fitness to teach was discontinued
when they agreed to sign the pledge.[350]
In March, 1918, the charge of pro-Germanism was lodged against Miss
Gertrude A. M. Pignol, a teacher in the Manual Training High School in
Brooklyn, and her suspension was asked by the Board of Superintendents.
Miss Pignol, a native of Berlin, had been a resident of the United States
since 1905. In 1911 she had taken out citizenship papers.[351] When
questioned by secret service agents, it developed that, although her
sympathies were with Germany, she had in no way been connected with
German activities in this country. In the hope that her views might undergo
a change Miss Pignol was given a leave of absence for three months. In
May, 1918, however, Associate Superintendent Tildsley preferred the
following charges against her before a committee of the Board of
Education: that she did not believe in war, that she was under the
impression that it was not necessary for the United States to be engaged in
the War, that she would not pledge her coöperation in every way in her

power to the United States government in its measures for the prosecution
of the War against Germany.[352]
In Miss Pignol’s trial, statements from fellow-teachers were cited as
proof of her pro-German bias. A remark, alleged to have been made eleven
years prior, that she would be ashamed to be an American citizen, was
adduced as evidence. Further proof was found in a statement that she
doubted the accuracy of the accounts regarding German outrages; that she
had attempted to dissuade a German woman from returning to Germany
because she would eat food needed by the Germans; that she objected to the
posting of a food card by the school librarian; and that she was deeply
touched by the slaughter of the War. The possession of a locket, engraved
by her father and carrying the picture of the Kaiser’s grandfather on one
side and the cornflower on the other, was put in evidence as additional
proof of her hostility to the cause of the United States.[353] Although she
asserted her desire for an American victory, the confession that she did not
want her native land crushed militated against her.[354] On June 26, she was
dismissed from service by the Board of Education.[355]
On October 24, 1918, Fritz A. E. Leuchs was suspended from duty in the
schools, charged with “conduct unbecoming a teacher.” His suspension was
confirmed on October 30 by the Board of Education. According to his own
testimony, he had tried for four years to enlist in the German army, but on
October 25 had entered upon military service in this country. Under the
circumstances the Board of Education resorted to suspension in order that
he could not claim the difference in pay as a teacher and a soldier.[356]
Similar treatment was accorded pacifists serving in the schools. In this
group was Miss Mary McDowell, a Quakeress, employed in the schools of
Brooklyn, who was suspended from duty on March 12, 1918. She based her
defense in the unrestricted exercise of religious faith as a birthright, her
previous contributions to relief for American sufferers to the Red Cross and
other charitable projects, as well as the distribution of thrift stamp circulars
in the schools. Miss McDowell’s retention as a public school teacher was
opposed on the ground that her pacifist views were ill-advised at a time
when patriotism should be taught in act as well as in speech.[357] On June
19, 1918, she was dismissed from service by the Board of Education.[358]
Following the close of the War Miss McDowell’s case was reopened, which

resulted in her reinstatement on July 11, 1923. On reviewing the causes for
Miss McDowell’s dismissal, Commissioner Bowe declared: “After full
consideration of the case, the committee has decided that the punishment
meted out to Miss McDowell was too severe. She was tried at a time of
great public excitement. Since then public feeling has undergone
considerable modification. For thirteen years she had done excellent work
as a teacher....”[359]
An unwillingness to engage in active service resulted likewise in the
suspension of Louis H. Blumenthal, a teacher of history and civics in Public
School 148, Brooklyn, on June 19, 1918.
Nor were all teachers willing to obey a law precluding criticism of the
government. To secure permanency of tenure through silent assent was to
some but a bribe against their convictions. And not all were agreed that it
was wise to refrain from teaching what they held true because others saw in
the same belief the germs of disloyalty.
Such a disagreement as to how freely a teacher could express opinions
led to investigations of the loyalty of Florence Levine, Samuel D.
Schmalhausen, Thomas Mufson, and A. Henry Schneer. In the case of Miss
Levine, a teacher in Public School 168, Brooklyn, the Teachers’ Council, to
whom the case had been referred, recommended that she be admonished by
the Acting Superintendent of Schools so that thereafter she be careful in her
public utterances, but no charges were preferred against her.[360]
It was quite different in the cases of Mr. Schmalhausen, Mr. Mufson, and
Mr. Schneer. On November 13, 1917, they were suspended from the faculty
of the De Witt Clinton High School for holding views considered not only
subversive to discipline in the schools but injurious to good citizenship.[361]
Their trials took place before a committee of the Board of Education on
December third, at which they were represented by counsel. The charges
against Mr. Schmalhausen involved the writing of essays by his students, in
which, it was said, an unpatriotic attitude was permitted to pass
unchallenged by the teacher. According to the testimony, the pupils were
directed to write “An open letter to the President” commenting frankly
within the limits of their knowledge upon his conduct of the War against the
German Government.[362] Mr. Schmalhausen was also accused of asserting
that he did not consider it his duty “to develop in the students under his

control instinctive respect for the President of the United States as such, for
the Governor of the State of New York as such, and other Federal, State and
Municipal officers as such.”[363]
One of the themes, upon which attention at the trial was focused, had
been written by Hyman Herman, a Jewish student sixteen years of age. It
was addressed “to the Defender of Humanity and Champion of Democracy,
Woodrow Wilson.” In his testimony Mr. Schmalhausen asserted complete
ignorance of this essay until it was called to his attention in an interview
with Associate Superintendent Tildsley two weeks after it had been written.
[364]

In the theme the writer propounded such questions as the following: “But
how is it that the United States, a country far from democratic (and daily
proving itself to be such) and England, the imperial and selfish (and we
exclude all minor participants) undertake to slam democracy upon a nation
whether it likes it or not? What unparalleled audacity to attempt to force
70,000,000 people to adopt a certain kind of government. If we mean their
benefit, then the Germans surely know what they want and need us not....
“... Finally if our aim be the annihilation of Prussianism, then why in the
name of Heaven have you refused the offer made by Germany, which
included the evacuation of Belgium, disarmament of nations and freedom of
the seas? Surely then your purpose is to get supreme domination and to
crush Germany for no reason it seems, except a mad desire for murder,
meanwhile making us the goats.”[365]
Mr. Schmalhausen had annotated the theme, after it had been placed in
his hands by Dr. Tildsley, with such statements as “irrelevant,” “not
accurately presented,” and “for a thoughtful student this statement sounds
irrational.”[366] The defense contended that such annotations were sufficient
to prove Mr. Schmalhausen’s disapproval of the sentiments expressed, but
the prosecution argued that his failure to denounce them openly indicated
his lack of loyalty.
As a witness for Mr. Schmalhausen, Herman, the author of the theme,
testified that he had not received his impressions of this country’s attitude
toward war questions in any sense from Mr. Schmalhausen, although since

the time of writing the theme he had changed his attitude due to a study of
his history textbook[367] and the attitude of his history teacher.[368]
In turn, Mr. Schmalhausen, defending his own patriotism, declared that
President Wilson’s “interpretation, his attitude, his points of view in relation
to the war for democracy” met with his “complete intellectual approval,”
and that, although he had opposed the policy of conscription instead of a
volunteer system, when adopted, he had complied with the request of the
Government, as did others within the proper ages.[369]
The second instructor in the De Witt Clinton High School who was
arraigned before the Board of Education on December third was Thomas
Mufson, charged with thinking it proper to be neutral while his class
debated such subjects as the purchase of Liberty Bonds, the active support
of the Government in various measures for carrying on the War, the wisdom
of an early peace, and the relative merits of anarchism and the form of the
government of the United States.[370]
Mr. Mufson defended himself against these charges on the ground that he
was not justified in imposing personal views upon his classes on
controversial subjects. Furthermore, he said that he would not permit a
discussion of anarchism in his classroom, a topic he held far too difficult for
immature minds.[371]
The specific charges brought against Mr. Schneer arose from statements
it was alleged he had made regarding patriotism and the wearing of the
uniform of the United States army. It was held that he was opposed to
discussing patriotism in the schoolroom and that he objected to persons
wearing the uniform when speaking before the school, because it tended to
encourage militarism.[372] All of the charges Mr. Schneer denied, protesting
his loyalty to school and national authorities, and citing as proof, among
other things, the signing of the loyalty pledge of the Board of Education.
Considerable discussion by the public and by teachers attended these
trials. Among those commending the Board of Education for their vigilance
were the Schoolmasters’ Association of New York and Vicinity, who
adopted a resolution expressing the hope that efforts to suppress disloyal
influences in the schools would be energetically sustained.[373] On the other
hand, the Teachers’ Union voted to give the teachers on trial their “legal,

moral and financial support,”[374] and eleven college teachers requested that
the decision against them be delayed for further investigation.[375] Professor
John Dewey was reported to have likened the trial to “the Inquisition,”[376]
and the New York Evening Post editorially declared that “the case not only
was prejudiced from the beginning, but was disingenuous in inception,
unfair in method and un-American in spirit.”[377] On December 19, 1917,
these teachers were dismissed by the Board of Education.[378] Later their
appeal for reinstatement was denied by the Commissioner of Education.[379]
In November, 1917, six other teachers of the De Witt Clinton High
School were transferred to other schools because lacking a positive loyalty.
Friends of the teachers ascribed their transfer to their “independence” and
not to a lack of loyalty.[380] The absence of academic freedom and
democracy in school organization, an indefiniteness in the charges preferred
against them, were all advanced by the teachers themselves in extenuation
of their acts.[381] According to a statement of The New York Times, in the
inquiry to determine their fitness to teach, the teachers declared they had
been asked such questions as the following: “Should not a teacher inculcate
instinctive obedience to supervisors, no matter what the acts of the superior
officers may be? What is your opinion of the Bolsheviki? Do you believe in
revolution? Are teachers qualified to criticise superiors? Do you believe in
internationalism? Do you think a teacher ought to impose his views on
pupils? Is there not a presumption that whatever is, is right? Would you
rather have Hillquit or Roosevelt for mayor? What would you do if a boy
called President Wilson a murderer? Do you accept Hillquit’s treasonable
utterances? Does not the critical attitude in children need suppression?
Would you be willing for the boys in your class to discuss Liberty Bonds
pro and con? In the matter of the longer day should the teachers have been
consulted?”[382] That the teachers were asked these questions was stoutly
denied by Superintendent William L. Ettinger.[383]
Closely allied with charges of disloyal speech were those growing out of
attempts to obstruct the government in its prosecution of the War. Of such a
nature was the charge brought against Miss Fannie Ross, a teacher in Public
School 88, Brooklyn, who, while acting as a registrar in the state census,
was reported to have expressed opposition to the draft, to have given advice
outside her line of duty, and to have gone so far as to influence a man to

claim exemption.[384] On December 26, 1917, Miss Ross was suspended
from service for six months because of “conduct unbecoming a teacher,”
due “to tactless remarks.”[385]
The apprehension of the school authorities of New York City was further
reflected in the trial of teachers who were suspected of radical views. This
anxiety expressed itself in the withholding of certificates of loyalty and
morality at least during the investigation. Following the War, membership
in the Socialist Party, advocacy of Communism, and a sympathetic attitude
toward the Bolshevist program of Russia were the chief charges preferred in
the trials.
Among the first teachers summoned before the high school committee of
the Board of Education because of radical views was Harrison C. Thomas, a
teacher in the De Witt Clinton High School. Mr. Thomas was an advocate
of internationalism and of socialism, a conscientious objector who had been
excused from the draft, and avowedly not enthusiastic over wartime
enterprises like Liberty Bonds. When questioned regarding his attitude in
the classroom, he confessed that he would not conceal the fact that he was
an objector; that he believed resistance to aggressiveness by force wrong;
and that if Germany wanted to rule this country submission would be better
than forceful resistance. Yet he declared that he had tried to get into
reconstruction work in France and that he would do anything except fight.
As a result, his certificate of morality and loyalty was withheld.[386] Similar
action was taken in the case of Bernard M. Parelhoff, of the George
Washington High School, who maintained that a nation which “teaches
patriotism in its schools is merely driving nails into its own coffin,” and
because he believed there should be no reverence for the uniform as such.
[387]

Licenses were likewise withheld from other teachers, among whom were
Eugene Jackson, Austin M. Works, Garibaldi Lapolla, Abraham Lefkowitz,
Edward Delaney, and Wilmer T. Stone of the De Witt Clinton High School;
Ruth G. Hardy of the Girls’ Commercial High School; John J. Donohue,
Louis A. Goldman, Felix Sper and John J. Shipley of the Stuyvesant High
School; Max Rosenhaus of the Bushwick High School; Alexander
Fichlander of Public School 165, Brooklyn; and Henrietta Rodman,

Benjamin Gruenberg, and Benjamin Mandel of the Julia Richman High
School.[388]
The action of the authorities in withholding certificates of loyalty from
some of these teachers called forth a protest from Dr. Henry Linville of the
Teachers’ Union, of which many of the accused were members. Dr. Linville
assailed the methods employed in the investigations and the reasons for
which certificates were being withheld. He asserted that during the War
these teachers had been unmolested by the federal government and had not
been summoned to face charges of disloyalty by the school authorities.
Although non-conformists in relation “to static views of society and
politics,” he declared that “most of them actively supported all war
enterprises, a minority only being pacifist in belief and action.”[389]
Moreover, in denial of the charge that teachers of alleged radical views
were indoctrinating their pupils with minority and undesirable opinions, he
declared that none of these teachers had ever maintained the right of a
teacher to press upon the pupils the political views that he himself held.[390]
But the authorities throughout were insistent in their desire to rid the
schools of all teachers holding a political belief which to them was
anathema. To this end in November, 1919, a permanent license was denied
Miss Sonia Ginsberg, of Public School 170, because she admitted
membership in the Communist Party;[391] for the same reason action was
taken against Miss Rachel (Ray) Ragozin, in February, 1921;[392] and in
February, 1922, resolutions were adopted by the Board of Education
directing the Superintendent of Schools to reprimand Miss Sarah Hyams for
signing the membership card of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party.[393] For
advocating the reading of an article on Bolshevism, in November, 1919,
Associate Superintendent Tildsley recommended that a permanent license
be refused Benjamin Horwitz, a teacher of English in the De Witt Clinton
High School.[394]
The suspicion that Benjamin Glassberg, a teacher of history in the
Brooklyn Commercial High School, was preaching the doctrines of
Bolshevism led to his suspension from service in January, 1919. Among the
objections raised against Mr. Glassberg as a teacher were statements alleged
to have been made by him to the effect that a teacher in the public schools
was not allowed to tell the truth, that the State Department did not permit

true reports to be given about conditions in Russia, and that Red Cross
workers were forbidden to express true opinions regarding that country.[395]
At his trial before the Board of Education on May 9, 1919, Mr. Glassberg
confessed that he had quoted from several noted Bolshevists in reply to a
question whether Lenine and Trotsky were German spies. He declared that
the statements with which he was charged were in answer to questions
asked by his class and not as “a lecture laudatory of the Bolsheviki and
severely critical of the Government of the United States.” In regard to the
remark about freedom of speech in the public schools he asserted complete
innocence.[396] On May 29, 1919, Mr. Glassberg was dismissed from
service.[397]
Considerable discussion attended the trials of the New York City
teachers. To some there was no substantial foundation upon which to base
charges of disloyalty, and the question resolved itself into whether a teacher
need forfeit his rights to a political faith in which he believed. The answer
of the school authorities came in the statement of Dr. John L. Tildsley,
Associate Superintendent of Schools: “No person who adheres to the
Marxian program, the program of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party in
this country, should be allowed to become a teacher in the public school
system, and if discovered to be a teacher, should be compelled to sever his
connection with the school system, for it is impossible for such a person to
carry out the purpose of the public schools ... [the purpose] that the public
schools of any country should be the expression of the country’s ideals, the
purpose of its institutions, and the philosophy of its life and
government.”[398]
But even in the eyes of the New York City school authorities the great
mass of public school teachers were loyal, for out of approximately twenty-
five thousand employed in the system less than half a hundred were called
to account for the views they held.[399]
Outside of the city of New York other cases of alleged infringement of
the Lusk Law occurred. Among these was that of P. Hiram Mattingly, of
Poughkeepsie, dismissed from the schools because at a Socialist meeting he
characterized the Espionage Law as a measure of despotism, and declared
that it was time that the republic be restored to this country, a first step

toward which would be the acceptance of a Socialist administration in that
city.[400]
Membership in the Communist Party cost Miss Julia D. Pratt her position
as a music teacher in Buffalo in 1921. In passing upon her case, Frank B.
Gilbert, deputy commissioner and counsel of the State Department of
Education, set forth the opinion of those with whom final judgment rested
when he declared: “A teacher in the public schools is a member of a state
system and a servant of the people of the state. A teacher cannot properly
perform the duties of her position and give expression, either verbally or by
affiliation with any political or other organization, to her belief that our
present government should be overthrown by revolution or by force and
violence through direct action by any group or class....”[401]
Teachers beyond the confines of New York suffered similar penalties,
although the hand of the law did not press so heavily upon them. They, too,
found it necessary to guard their speech and to abstain from proscribed
political tenets, or else pay the price of reprimand or dismissal. Precisely
this kind of a condition was brought forcibly upon the teachers of
Washington, D. C., in the spring of 1919, when one of their members—
Miss Alice Wood—was suspended for a week without a hearing, charged
with discussing “Bolshevism and other heresies” in her classroom. Among
the topics which Miss Wood later found forbidden was that of the League of
Nations.[402]
The suggestion made by a supervisor of primary education in Des
Moines, Iowa, that a blind patriotism might be fostered through the
selection of songs and poems narrowly patriotic led to an investigation of
her Americanism by the commander of the Sons of Veterans.[403]
Since 1917, however, in only twelve states besides New York cases
involving disloyalty charges have been brought before the office of the state
department of education. In Delaware, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana,
Nevada, North Carolina and South Dakota the charges resulted in the
dismissal of teachers. In California, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Dakota and South Dakota, although charges were
preferred against teachers the cases were dismissed for insufficient
evidence.[404]

In Montana, school authorities in some cases failed to reappoint teachers
at the end of the year because of alleged objectionable “utterances,”
although “no proof of disloyalty was ever made positive.” The Department
of Public Instruction of Indiana reported “a few instances” in that state
where positions were lost because of disloyalty charges.[405]
In Louisiana, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction reported the
revocation of a man’s certificate because “he capitalized the patriotism
which ran high in his community, to lend money to a number of small
farmers in the community for use in purchasing War Savings Stamps and
Liberty Bonds, and for the use of which he charged an exorbitant rate of
interest.” The teacher was said to have bought “no stamps or Liberty
Bonds,” and boasted that he could make more money by lending to “the
suckers in the community than by buying the low-interest paying Federal
obligations.” This state also revoked the certificate of a woman whose
religious scruples forbade her endorsement of the War and whose zeal led
her to advise against the purchase of Liberty Bonds.[406]
North Carolina’s case of dismissal was that of a county superintendent
charged with pro-Germanism shortly after the entrance of the United States
into the War. Although most of the pro-German utterances of this man had
been made prior to the declaration of war by the United States, the County
Board of Education held that his influence and usefulness had been lessened
and therefore asked his resignation.[407]
In Rhode Island “disclosures of thoroughly organized preparation to
cultivate in the United States a public opinion favorable to Pan-Germanic
aspirations for world empire led, during the War, to several investigations
for the purpose of determining to what extent and through what agencies
propaganda either hostile to America and to American ideals, or tending
insidiously to undermine democratic institutions, had been conducted.”[408]
At the request of the Governor, the Commissioner of the Public Schools
undertook an investigation of the loyalty of public and private school
teachers. Questionnaires containing the following questions were
dispatched to the proper authorities:
“To what extent, if any, have teachers under your observation, in
the classroom or out of it, been

(a) Active in promoting German propaganda?
(b) Active in promoting anti-American propaganda?
(c) Disloyal in word, deed, or manner to nation or state?
(d) Disrespectful of law and public authority?
(e) Passive or indifferent with reference to patriotism?
(f) Cynical in their discussion of democracy, or in their
discussions of history, or in their general attitude toward American
public probity?
(g) Teaching that democracy and democratic institutions are crude
and inefficient?”
In turn, the Commissioner of the Public Schools pointed out that “while a
few teachers have not fully recognized their civic obligations in giving
instruction, or have failed to realize the relation of public education to loyal
citizenship, or have been remiss in upholding American ideals, the ardent
patriotism of the many and their larger activities as noted by the committee
of inquiry attest the civic loyalty of our teachers in our schools.” He assured
the public that “no disloyal teacher” would “be suffered to teach.”[409]
This insistence upon conformity among teachers bounded on all sides
their freedom of speech. It was readily and unquestioningly accepted by the
great majority. It sprang from the belief that the teacher as an employee of
the government should always agree with the government. The advocate of
repression and control held that the public school should never be a haven
where personal opinions could leaven the book-lore which was prescribed
by authority. Others agreed with Zechariah Chafee that there was not only
an individual but a social interest in free speech, that between that
individual interest and the social interest, the former should always give
way, that freedom of speech meant liberty, not license; but that freedom of
speech in itself was a social interest, and that one of the purposes for the
existence of society was the discovery and spread of truth, a purpose which
could be accomplished only by permitting teachers to think for themselves.
[410]

FOOTNOTES:

[344] Personal letters to the author under the date of December, 1923, and
January, 1924. All states but Ohio and Illinois responded to the inquiry of the
author. The Superintendent of Public Instruction in Washington (Mrs. Josephine
C. Preston) refused to furnish information for that state.
[345] Revolutionary Radicalism, Vol. I, p. 1118.
[346] At the suggestion of the Teachers’ Council, an advisory committee to
sift charges was appointed who reported cases to the Commissioner of Education
should they need his attention. The investigations of this committee aroused
much criticism, especially from the Teachers’ Union, whose members were
frequently the principals in the trials conducted. The advisory committee was
composed of Condé Pallen, editor of the Catholic Encyclopedia, Olivia
Leventritt, a former member of the Board of Education, Hugh Frayne, New York
representative of the American Federation of Labor, Archibald Stevenson,
counsel of the Lusk Committee, and Finley J. Shepard as chairman. The New
York Times, May 17, 1922; ibid., May 25, 1922; ibid., June 4, 1922.
[347] Instances of local friction tending to obscure the issues alleged to be
involved frequently entered into the evidence presented in some of the trials.
This was true in the trials of Schmalhausen, Schneer, and Mufson (see pages
116-120), where opposition to the so-called Whalen resolution for longer school
hours was alleged by the defense to be a cause for their dismissal.
[348] The pledge of the Board of Education. Other pledges, including that of
Mayor John Puroy Mitchell, also were presented for signing. See Toward the
New Education: The Case Against Autocracy in Our Public Schools (The
Teachers’ Union of the City of New York), p. 23.
[349] Ibid. The Teachers’ Union charged that the loyalty pledges were
introduced for political purposes into a controversy between the Board of
Education and the teaching staff. The Teachers’ Union wrote President Wilson
asking him to frame a pledge which teachers could sign “without violating their
consciences.” The New York Times, December 2, 1917.
[350] See page 122 for a further discussion of the loyalty of Mr. Thomas.
[351] The New York Times, May 18, 1918.
[352] “More Educational Inquisition,” The New Republic, Vol. XVII (January
11, 1919), pp. 305-307.
[353] Ibid.
[354] The New York Times, loc. cit.
[355] Ibid., June 27, 1919.
[356] Ibid., October 31, 1918.
[357] Ibid., May 16, 1918.
[358] Ibid., June 20, 1918.

[359] Ibid., July 12, 1923.
[360] Ibid., March 16, 1918.
[361] Ibid., November 14, 1917.
[362] The Trial of the Three Suspended Teachers of the De Witt Clinton High
School (New York), p. 26.
[363] Ibid., p. 64; The New York Times, December 4, 1917.
[364] The theme (in the form of a letter) had been collected by Miss Ellen
Garrigues, head of the English Department, in a visit to Mr. Schmalhausen’s
class. During her visit, Miss Garrigues became angry at the “lack of spirit of
love of country among the boys who had read themes,” and asked that the
themes be handed to her. The Trial of the Three Suspended Teachers of the De
Witt Clinton High School, p. 22.
[365] The Trial, pp. 42-43; Dotey, Aaron I., The Exploitation of the Public
School System of New York (Teachers’ Council, New York), LXXXV.
[366] The Trial, pp. 46-47.
[367] Robinson and Beard’s history. See Toward the New Education, p. 72.
[368] The Trial, pp. 135, 141.
[369] Ibid., pp. 119-120.
[370] Ibid., p. 158. Mr. Mufson was a teacher of English.
[371] Ibid., pp. 174-175.
[372] The New York Times, November 20, 1917. The Trial, p. 200. In addition
to these charges a bibliography on recent literature compiled by Mr. Schneer was
introduced as evidence of his unfitness to teach. The “characterizations” of
books in the bibliography, read at the trial, in general pertained to the relations of
the sexes. See ibid., pp. 203-204.
[373] Ibid., November 17, 1917; also “New York’s Disloyal School Teachers,”
Literary Digest, Vol. LV (December 8, 1917), pp. 32-33.
[374] The New York Times, loc. cit.
[375] Ibid., December 20, 1917. Among these were John Dewey, James
Harvey Robinson, David Snedden, Carlton J. H. Hayes, H. A. Overstreet, W. P.
Montague, Thomas Reed Powell, M. R. Cohen, A. J. Goldfort, N. P. Mead, and
J. P. Turner.
[376] “Charges against New York City Teachers,” School and Society, Vol. VI
(December 22, 1917), p. 733.
[377] The New York Evening Post quoted in School and Society, loc. cit.
[378] The New York Times, December 20, 1917.
[379] Ibid., November 5, 1918. In reviewing their cases, Toward the New
Education, a publication of the Teachers’ Union, ascribed the dismissal of these
teachers not to disloyalty, but to their opposition to the “autocracy” of superior
officials and to an anti-Semitic bias of these officials. All three teachers were
Russian Jews.

[380] Ibid., December 1, 1917. Dotey, op. cit., LXXXVI; The New York
Times, November 15, 1917.
[381] The Central Federated Union, November 17, 1917, resolved “in the
interest of justice and of the schools that the charges made against the teachers
be definitely formulated by a committee of responsible officials, and that a copy
of the charges be given to each of the teachers transferred or suspended and that
the charges be heard in public.” Ibid.
[382] Ibid., November 15, 1917.
[383] Ibid., November 16, 1917.
[384] Ibid., November 29, 1917; ibid., December 25, 1917.
[385] Ibid., December 27, 1917.
[386] Dotey, op. cit., LXXVIII, XCVII. Mr. Thomas was called in November,
1917.
[387] Ibid., LXXVIII. Mr. Parelhoff was questioned regarding his opinions in
November, 1917.
[388] According to Dr. Henry Linville of the Teachers’ Union. The New York
Times of January 24, 1918, reported that twenty-four teachers in School 62 of
New York had been questioned about their war views. Although assurances had
been given the teachers that no charges against them were contemplated, the
Teachers’ Union called it a “fishing expedition” to obtain evidence against Philip
Perlstein, a teacher who had been suspended two weeks before. In November,
1919, sixteen “radical” teachers were reported to have been called by Deputy
Attorney-General Samuel A. Berger, because of their connection with radical
propaganda. The New York Times, November 20, 1919.
[389] The New York Times, October 23, 1922. The teachers whom Dr. Linville
was reported to have mentioned were Austin M. Works, Eugene Jackson, Wilmer
T. Stone, John F. Donohue, Louis Goldman, Joseph J. Shipley, Felix Sper, Ruth
Hardy, Henrietta Rodman, Jessie Hughan, Abraham Lefkowitz, and Max
Rosenhaus.
[390] Ibid.
[391] Dotey, op. cit., LXXXVIII; also The New York Times, November 18,
1919.
[392] Dotey, op. cit.
[393] Ibid.
[394] Ibid., CXII. Mr. Horwitz resigned his position in 1920.
[395] “Freedom of Teaching in the New York City Schools,” School and
Society, Vol. IX (February 1, 1919), pp. 142-143; also Dotey, op. cit., LXXXVII.
[396] The New York Times, January 19, 1919. Also Department of Education
of the City of New York, In the Matter of the Trial of Charges of Conduct
Unbecoming a teacher and to the prejudice of good order, efficiency and
discipline preferred against Benjamin Glassberg.... Brief and Argument of
Gilbert E. Roe in Behalf of Benjamin Glassberg, Teacher (New York), pp. 7-8.

[397] Ibid. Mr. Gilbert E. Roe, counsel for Mr. Glassberg, intimated that the
boys who had been selected to testify against Mr. Glassberg had been chosen
“according to race and religion,” that Mr. Glassberg, a Socialist and a Jew, had
“guided his classes along the road of true Americanism” during the War and had
received from his superiors “the highest ratings possible for his work.” See also
Dotey, op. cit., LXXXVII.
[398] Trachtenberg, Alexander, ed., The American Labor Year Book 1919-
1920 (New York, 1920), Vol. III, p. 89.
[399] The New York Times, May 25, 1922. According to a statement of
Superintendent William L. Ettinger.
[400] Trachtenberg, op. cit., p. 88.
[401] The New York Times, January 19, 1921.
[402] Trachtenberg, op. cit., p. 88; also “Other Heresies,” The New Republic,
Vol. XVIII (April 12, 1919), pp. 330-331; also McAndrew, William, “American
Liberty More or Less,” The World’s Work, Vol. XLVII (December, 1923), p. 180.
Miss Wood declared that she gave definitions only, and referred to current
magazine literature when questions were raised by a pupil concerning
Bolshevism and anarchism. She also asserted that she had not discussed the
Russian situation, nor had she defended Bolshevism.
[403] “The War is Over in Iowa,” The Survey, Vol. XLVIII (September 15,
1922), p. 712; also The Des Moines Register, April 6, 1922. The name of the
teacher was Miss Kate Kelly. She was completely exonerated of “anti-
Americanism.”
[404] Personal letters from the Superintendents of Public Instruction:
Delaware, under date of January 30, 1924; Louisiana, December 6, 1923;
Minnesota, December 1, 1923; Montana, December 3, 1923; Nevada, December
3, 1923; North Carolina, December 3, 1923; South Dakota, December 5, 1923;
California, December 8, 1923; Maine, December 1, 1923; New Hampshire,
December 5, 1923; North Dakota, December 20, 1923.
[405] Letter from the Department of Public Instruction, December 7, 1923.
[406] Letters from the Department of Education, November 30, 1923, and
December 6, 1923.
[407] Letter from State Superintendent of Public Instruction, December 11,
1923.
[408] Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the State Board of Education ... of Rhode
Island, January, 1919, p. 75.
[409] Ibid., pp. 78-79.
[410] See Chafee, Zechariah, “Freedom and Initiative in the Schools,” The
Public and the Schools (New York, 1919).

PART II
THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES

“... for it is the business and duty of historians to be exact,
truthful, and wholly free from passion, and neither interest nor fear,
hatred nor love, should make them swerve from the path of truth,
whose mother is history, rival of time, storehouse of deeds, witness
for the past, example and counsel for the present, and warning for
the future.”
Cervantes, Don Quixote.

PART II
THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES

CHAPTER VI
Attempts to Control Textbooks

The public school deals with that period of life in which strong
impressions find easy lodgment in the child’s memory. Altruism,
glorification of national achievements, hero worship, and other emotions
are excited by contacts with teachers and books. It is the age in which the
child’s ideals can be fired by the sayings of famous men and in which the
story of valorous deeds stirs a responsive enthusiasm. Indeed, it is a
common belief that the influences of these early associations and
impressions persist far into maturity, for “as the twig is bent, so the tree is
inclined.” With a keen appreciation of the possibilities of this plastic period
of child life, authors of textbooks in history and the other social studies,
obedient to the spirit of their times, have exalted and condemned as the
prevailing temper has dictated.
History for the sake of propaganda is not a unique possession of any one
country. It has been employed in the name of “patriotism” by many nations.
Livy extolled Rome, Green exalted England, Bancroft eulogized the
exploits of the founders of America, and Treitschke and Nietzsche pictured
the glories of an imperialist régime in Germany. As a result, there has
developed an overweening pride in national and racial attributes and
achievements. From such a source has sprung much of the hereditary
enmity between France and Germany. Indeed, it has been said that an
analogous situation exists in the United States, and a well-known writer
recently declared that, through the study of American history, “Americans
are taught to hate Britishers, ... and not only descendants of the men who
made the Revolution, but every newly arrived immigrant child imbibes the
hatred of Great Britain of today from the patriotic ceremonies of the public
schools.”[411]
Propagandist history, however, is not merely an instrument of the ultra-
nationalist. By the pacifist it may be employed to depict with a vivid
gruesomeness the horrors of war; by it the militarist may demonstrate the
advantages of preparedness; the racially conscious may narrate, in their
history, achievements of their heroes to the exclusion or derogation of those
of other groups; the religious enthusiasts may commend the contributions of

their sect to the neglect of others; and economic and social organizations
may seek to serve their particular purposes. Demands for revised history
textbooks, such as emanated during the World War, to teach the point of
view then current, are but a recent instance of a practice as old as the
teaching of history.

HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN THE SOUTH

In the United States, as well as elsewhere, propagandist influences have
played their part in shaping the content of history textbooks. The South, in
particular, has shown such tendencies, attempting in the ante-bellum days to
propagate a history favorable to the slave-holding interests, and since that
time endeavoring to justify the past in the eyes of posterity. The desire to
depict events from a sectional point of view was especially apparent in the
decade preceding the Civil War when a concerted effort to prescribe the
content of history textbooks expressed itself in frequent agitations against
the use of Northern textbooks. By the Southerner was raised the same query
which has been raised in our own time—whether the author of a textbook
has a right “to step aside from his proper course to drag in his own private
views on vexed questions of national import” about which a writer should
“maintain an impartial stand.”[412] Such criticisms were directed against
Northern textbook writers; for Southerners were agreed that an author
would not be guilty of a heinous offense if he should “step aside ... to drag
in” views favorable to the institution of slavery. Indeed, a sectional
presentation of history was deemed a necessity; and a movement for “home
education” to combat the teachings of the “abolitionist North” attained
considerable vigor in the ’fifties. To the Southerner, “home education”
meant Southern trained teachers and textbooks filled with the convictions of
the slave-holding South. Through such agencies it was hoped to expel from
their midst “the wandering incendiary Yankee school-master” with “his
incendiary school books”[413] parading under “the black piratical ensign of
abolitionism.”[414]
Even prior to the ’fifties, the South had realized the value of a
propagandist literature, for Duff Green, a relative of John C. Calhoun, had
secured a charter from South Carolina for a Southern Literary Company for
the purpose of publishing school books adapted to his section.[415] Green’s

efforts must have proved unsuccessful, for it was followed by much
newspaper discussion of the situation, which gained in asperity as the South
became more belligerent in the assertion of her rights.
Writing in De Bow’s Review of 1855, one alarmist declared: “Our text-
books are abolition works. They are so to the extent of their capacity, and
though the poison of anti-slavery dogmas has not found its way into
arithmetic and mixed mathematics, yet we should not be surprised to find
that some work is now in progress in which the young learner will find his
sums stated in abolition phrases, and perhaps be required to tell how many
more sinners might have gone to Heaven if Abraham, the ‘father of the
faithful and the friend of God’ had not been a slave holder and a dealer in
human chattels; ... and so long as we use such work as Wayland’s Moral
Science and the abolition geographies, readers and histories, overrunning as
they do, with all sorts of slanders, caricatures and blood-thirsty sentiments
... [they will] array our children by false ideas, against the established
ordinances of God,....”[416]
Another writer could not condone the indifference of his section to the
existence of such conditions. “When the public mind of our section was
divided as to the justice and propriety of this institution [slavery] ...,” he
remarked, “it was not then to be wondered at that we should remain
indifferent to the views presented to our youth on the subject, and that we
should carelessly allow them to peruse, even in their tender years, works in
which slavery was denounced as an unmitigated evil, and the universal race
of Ham’s descendants were blazoned forth as a set of dusky angels and
martyrs. Such a course may have been defensible at that period, but tell me,
what show of propriety is there in its continuance at the present day? We
have become awake to the rightfulness and justice of our stand; we have
come to know that we are more sinned against than sinning; and we have
witnessed the complete failure of many quixotic attempts to transform
negroes into prosperous and thriving freemen. Why then should we wish
that the rising generation, who are to frame and control public opinion, after
we have passed from being, should be on this question of vital importance
taught doctrines which are in direct conflict with what we now
believe?”[417]
Because “southern life, habits, thoughts, and aims” were “so essentially
different from those of the North,” another protagonist of “home education”

maintained that a different character of books and training was required to
“bring up the boy to manhood with his faculties fully developed.”[418] Nor
could this “true man” be developed if he must sit “at the feet of some
abolition Gamaliel of the North,” but he must have “books and teachers of
history from the South who should point out the destiny of the South.”[419]
As a result of the agitation of the press, the commercial conventions,
which met during the years from 1853 to 1860, committed themselves with
one accord, to the Southern educational program. The Memphis Convention
of 1853 demanded the employment of native teachers, the encouragement
of a home press, and the publication of books adapted to the educational
wants and the social conditions of the section.[420] The following year, the
Charleston Convention passed a resolution which urged the production of
textbooks by Southern men “with express reference to the proper education
of the Southern youth.”[421] The resolution declared that “this Convention
earnestly recommends all parents and guardians within these states, to
consider well, that to neglect the claims of their own seminaries and
colleges, and patronize and enrich those of remote states, is fraught with
peril to our sacred interests, perpetuating our dependence on those who do
not understand and cannot appreciate our necessities and responsibilities;
and at the same time fixing a lasting reproach upon our institutions, teachers
and people.”[422]
In 1856, the Savannah Convention issued to “The People of the
Slaveholding States” an address advocating joint action on the part of the
Southern legislatures. “It will be well, at least, to look to our school books,”
they declared. “Can the making of these be entrusted exclusively to those,
who by instilling an occasional heresy, dangerous to our repose, imagine
that they serve at the same time God and Mammon—their consciences and
their pocket? The State Legislatures at the South alone are competent to
heal this mischief. Property will submit to any amount of taxation for such a
purpose. A system can and ought to be matured at the South by which the
most ample encouragement shall be given to its educational system and its
press. Withdraw at once the contributions which are returned too often to us
now in contumely and insult.”[423]
At the same convention the committee upon the subject of “Text Books
for Southern Schools and Colleges” reported that “the books rapidly

coming into use in our schools and colleges at the South are not only
polluted with opinions adverse to our institutions, and hostile to our
constitutional views, but are inferior in every respect, as books of
instruction to those which might be produced amongst ourselves, or
procured from Europe....”[424] The Committee proposed that the convention
take the matter “under their auspices and select or prepare such a series of
books, in every department of study, from the earliest primer to the highest
grade of literature and science, as shall seem to them best qualified to
elevate and purify the education of the South.”[425] The Committee further
recommended that “when this series of books shall have been prepared, the
Legislatures of the Southern States be requested to adopt them as text-
books.”[426]
The committees appointed at the Southern conventions evidently failed to
obtain results, for De Bow’s Review of 1858 querulously remarked that the
committees seemed to have dropped into repose after their appointments.
[427]
Newspaper agitation, however, continued without abatement, The
Constitutionalist suggesting, in 1858, that Georgia by law should compel
her schools to use Georgia school books in which information was given
regarding the early history of the state, and which contained “eloquent and
patriotic emanations from the gifted pens” of some of their “ablest
writers.”[428]
History textbooks held a conspicuous place in most of the discussions.
Peter Parley’s History, extensively used at this time, came in for much
adverse criticism because, in the opinion of the Southerner, it “insulted” and
“misrepresented” the institutions of the South.[429] “If it is important for us
to have a home literature of our own in the lighter departments of reading
and knowledge,” one critic remarked, “how much more vitally essential it is
to our best interests that the books from which our children imbibe their
earliest lessons in history and political economy should be written by those
who are able to expound and vindicate, instead of misrepresenting and
defaming the institutions under which they are to live and be educated.”[430]
Further criticism of the same textbook is found in an article on “Wants of
the South” in De Bow’s Review for 1860. “Our schools have long been
groaning under the burden of questionable orthodoxy, and in some instances
decided hostility to the institutions which her public instructors, of all

others, may reasonably be expected to advocate and defend,” said one
writer. “... no teacher or pupil who has used Peter Parley’s Histories, or any
of the popular ‘Readers’ and ‘Orators’ from which juvenile disciples of
Demosthenes have learned to spout so glibly eloquent invectives against
slavery, the slave trade, will fail to recognize the long-deplored existence of
this deadly evil.”[431]
Other books of an historical nature, which were especially obnoxious to
the South, were Gilbert’s Atlas and Appleton’s Complete Guide of the
World, which contained “hidden lessons of the most fiendish and murderous
character that enraged fanaticism could conceive or indite.”[432] “This book
and many other northern school books scattered over the country come
within range of the Statutes of this State [Louisiana], which provide for the
imprisonment for life or the infliction of a penalty of death upon any person
who shall publish or distribute such works ...,” declared one writer.[433]
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]
Among the points at issue in the adoption of Northern textbooks was the
use of certain opprobrious terms. At the Atlanta reunion in 1898, a
resolution was adopted which gave voice to such objections. It requested
the substitution of the term “the civil war between the States” for “the war
of the Rebellion,” because such an expression reflected “on the patriotism
of the Southern people and the cause for which they so heroically
fought....”[451] The Historical Committee at the same time indicated their
aversion to other “offensive epithets” in Northern histories, such as “rebels”
and “arch-traitors.”[452] They recommended, among other things, that
“Boards of Education and all others having charge of the selection of
histories, geographies, speeches, readers, etc., be careful to exclude works
that show the partisan, sectional and unpatriotic spirit.”[453]
Yet the need of a “broad American patriotism” was recognized by the
United Confederate Veterans regardless of their attacks on Northern
produced histories. Such an attitude manifested itself in the committee
report of the reunion of 1898 which quoted with favorable comment an
extract from an address of Commander John W. Frazier of the Fred Taylor

Post, G. A. R., of Philadelphia. The Confederate Veterans especially
approved the spirit of Mr. Frazier when he declared: “We must under the
blending influence exerted by the new order of things, undo that which
sectional feelings led both North and South to do in regard to the
publication of public school histories—certain to create and foster lasting
and bitter prejudices—and use our influence in behalf of a public school
history of the late war and the causes leading to it, that will be used in
common in all the public schools of the country,....”[454]
The suggestion of Mr. Frazier reflected the welding influence of the
Spanish-American War upon all factions in America. In 1899, the Historical
Committee of the Confederate Veterans announced that its duty was “little
more than to keep watch upon the histories of the day” for “the prospect for
fairness and candor in historical writing” seemed “much improved since the
Spanish War,” because “a new perspective,” had been afforded the
historian.[455] Yet the same report evidenced a watchfulness on the part of
the Southerner to prevent the use of books which “either pervert or fail to
do justice to the history of the people of this section.”[456] The reunion
further endorsed the recommendation of the Historical Committee for the
appointment in each state of a sub-committee of three to examine “every
history taught in the schools of the state with especial reference to
ascertaining whether said books contain incorrect or inaccurate statements
or make important omissions of facts, or inculcate narrow or partisan
sentiments.”[457] In the event that any defects were found in any of the
histories used in the schools, the Committee suggested that each sub-
committee should “enter into friendly correspondence with the authors and
publishers of such books, with a view to correcting such errors, or
supplying such omissions.” In addition, it became the duty of each sub-
committee “annually, one month before each reunion to make a report” to
the Historical Committee, showing what histories of the state and of the
United States were used in the schools of the state; and further “to make
such suggestions with regard to school histories and with regard to the
teaching of history” as might seem appropriate.[458]
The reports of the next few years show a slackening vigilance on the part
of the historical committees. At each meeting of the Veterans a report and
suggestions as to the improvement of historical instruction in the South
were offered, but much of the recriminatory tone of the reports of the

’nineties had disappeared. In 1900, the Committee recommended again that
the term “the war between the states” be substituted for other terms, and
that money be appropriated in order that the Historical Committee could
carry on their campaign, through the press and public meetings, for the use
of histories doing “full justice” both to the South and the North.[459] The
Reunion of 1902 sanctioned the suggestion of the Historical Committee
dealing with the preparation of a source book portraying the “character, the
ideals and the leadership of the South,” and called favorable attention to
Thomas Dixon’s novel The Leopard’s Spots.[460]
The historical reports presented to the reunions held in 1908, 1909 and
1910 still discussed the need for “true history” although commending the
fairness of most historians. Yet the Committee hesitated to relax its
watchfulness because “the history of the Confederate period as it is told in
many books that may be used in our schools, ... demands and deserves
undiminished vigilance.”[461]
The Report of 1910 expressed, however, a sanguine satisfaction in the
condition resulting from the agitation about history textbooks. “We do not
fear the bookmaker now,” the Veterans declared. “Southern schools and
Southern teachers have prepared books which Southern children may read
without insult or traduction of their fathers. Printing presses all over the
Southland—and all over the Northland—are sending forth by thousands
ones which tell the true character of the heroic struggle. The influence and
wealth of the South forbid longer the perversion of truth and the
falsification of history.”[462]
In the reports of the historical committees two history textbooks received
specific criticism for their treatment of Southern institutions and life. In
1903, attention was called to a paragraph in The Young People’s Story of the
Great Republic by Ella Hines Stratton, in which “a most false and
misleading account” was given of the capture of Fort Pillow by General N.
B. Forrest.[463] The Report of 1911 devoted considerable space to an attack
on Elson’s History of the United States. “One of the most extraordinary
happenings in regard to the history of the South occurred in Virginia in the
last few weeks,” chronicled the Report. “Elson’s History of the United
States had been selected as a textbook by Roanoke College. Miss Sarah
Moffett, one of the students of the college, refused to attend the history

class or use this history where it referred to the South and its people. For
this she suffered reprimand.”[464] The Southern Cross Chapter of the United
Daughters of the Confederacy thereupon undertook an investigation and
issued a circular which was “widely distributed.”[465] The circular was
addressed: “To the Daughters of the Confederacy, the Camps of the
Confederate Veterans, the Sons of Veterans, and to all Who are Loyal to the
Southland, and Love Her Traditions and Desire a truthful History of Her
Social and Political Life.”[466]
The charges brought against Mr. Elson rested upon “the partisan spirit
that prompted the writer to slander a people who had reached the pinnacle
of high ideals, refinement and culture, and to which it has never been the
fortune of many to attain.”[467] To the Southerner was especially abhorrent
the portrayal of slave life in the South in which it was said: “‘Often the
attractive slave woman was a prostitute to her master,’” “‘an evil’” that
“‘was widespread at the South.’”[468] Further objections arose to the
statement: “‘A sister of President Madison declared that though the
Southern ladies were complimented with the name of wife they were only
the mistresses of Seraglios’”; and that “‘a leading Southern lady declared to
Harriet Martineau that the wife of many a planter was but the chief slave of
his harem.’”[469] Mr. Elson was also regarded as misrepresenting the cause
of the Civil War, which he attributed “to slavery and slavery alone” and not
to state rights, which he declared “in the abstract had nothing to do with
bringing on the war.”[470]
In response to the circular of the United Daughters of the Confederacy,
the Veterans adopted a resolution indicating that it could not be “too
earnestly pressed upon the attention of those in charge of our educational
institutions the supreme importance of excluding from our schools and
colleges all histories that do not in their reports of the great struggle for
constitutional liberty ... fairly and impartially represent the facts.” The
Reunion further resolved that there be used “only such histories as will
recognize the justice of that cause [of 1861-1865] in support of which so
many of our brave comrades shed their blood and gave their lives.”[471]
In 1912 the agitation regarding history textbooks had lost much of its
bitterness and the line of cleavage between the Northerner’s history and that
of the Southerner seemed less apparent. Under the fusing influence of the

World War, the Confederate Veterans held their reunion in 1917 in the city
of Washington where Confederate and Union flags waved together.[472] But
the spirit of sectional interest had too long enslaved them and, in 1921, the
Reunion favorably adopted a report of the Rutherford Committee. Chief
among the achievements for a “true history” which the Committee were
able to report was the adoption of satisfactory histories in the states of
Mississippi and Texas. The Committee predicted similar action in North
Carolina where there were “true histories by Southern authors and
published by a home house,” thereby eliminating any necessity for even
considering “any Yankee books.”[473]
A revival of propaganda for sectional histories since 1921 is due in some
degree to the appearance of two pamphlets which set forth the need of a
distinct type of history for the South: The Truth of the War Conspiracy of
1861, by H. W. Johnstone, and Truths of History, by Mildred Lewis
Rutherford, state historian for the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
These pamphlets received the unanimous endorsement of the United
Confederate Veterans at their meeting in Richmond, Virginia, June, 1922, in
a resolution recommending their use in the public schools.[474] Among other
things, these writings purported to establish the fact that Lincoln began the
Civil War. The committee report declared: “This [The Truth of the War
Conspiracy of 1861] presents the official evidence gathered principally
from the United States Government archives, which proves the Confederate
War was deliberately and personally conceived and its inauguration made
by Abraham Lincoln, and that he was personally responsible for forcing the
war upon the South.”[475]
The endorsement of this ultra-Southern viewpoint caused a storm of
protest, particularly in the North. Under the caption “The Confederate
Veterans’ New Glands,” the Chicago Daily Tribune observed: “We are
moved to wonder, ‘What is history?’ The Standard Dictionary defines it as
‘a systematic record of past events.’ No better definition in six words occurs
to us. But more or less recent events in world politics, coupled with the
current action of the Confederate Veterans, indicates [sic] that that
definition is in error. History is becoming, if it has not already reached that
stage, a medium of propaganda. That became evident in the world war,
when European histories were combed for evidence of the innate barbarity
of the German people. It was more evident in the efforts to arouse the

American people to the point of intervention and actual warfare to free
Ireland. It is now emphasized through the efforts of the Confederate
Veterans to impose upon the children of the south their own interpretation
of the Civil War, regardless of accuracy or the effect upon the nation. The
Veterans are attempting to pass on their old hates and rancors to their
descendants. They have not yet surrendered to Grant. They are a trifle
feeble, to be sure, but apparently becoming less so. They are busily engaged
in swapping their old glands for new.”[476]
The New York Times expressed equally strong disapproval of an effort to
revive the bitterness of the past and attempt “a revocation of beatification or
canonization” of Lincoln.[477]
No less resentful at the attempted disparagement of Lincoln’s services
were the officers of the Grand Army of the Republic, who assailed Miss
Rutherford’s statement that Lincoln began the war as a “lie.”[478] Mrs. John
A. Logan, representing the Dames of the Loyal Legion, also offered
objections to such “a perversion of facts,” and declared that all patriotic
societies would be urged to seek the suppression of any such histories.[479]
Protests against this revival of sectional animosity were not localized in
the North. The Macon [Georgia] Telegraph suggested to Miss Rutherford
that she would find better employment were she to bring to public view the
virtues, the generosities and heroisms which were in the Old South and
should be carried over in the New South. The Telegraph also believed that it
would prove fruitful of good were she to dwell on the cordial tributes paid
by the North to Lee as a man and as a general; and as for Lincoln, with
much less research than she used in unearthing dubious evidences of his
antagonism to the Southerners, she could find almost innumerable and
indubitable proofs of his good-will. The Telegraph concluded that “the
whole nation looks upon its Lincolns and its Lees as Americans, and
humanity looks upon them as its own.”[480]
Beside the allegation that Lincoln began the Civil War, Miss Rutherford,
following the impulse given her by the Johnstone pamphlet, Truths of the
War Conspiracy of 1861,[481] offered quotations to show that Lincoln was
not a fit example for children, nor was he given his rightful place in history.
Such quotations as the following are indicative of the character of her
remarks: “People found in Lincoln before his death nothing remarkably

good or great, but on the contrary, found in him the reverse of goodness or
greatness. Lincoln as one of Fame’s immortals does not appear in the
Lincoln of 1861 (Schouler’s History of the United States, Vol. VI, p.
21).”[482] “Lincoln signed the liquor revenue bill and turned the saloon
loose on the country, thus undoing the previous temperance work of the
churches.”[483] “Mr. Lincoln went to church, but he went to mock and came
away to mimic.”[484] “The people all drank, and Abe was for doing what the
people did, right or wrong.”[485] Miss Rutherford also presented evidence
designed to prove that Lincoln was a tricky politician,[486] and that the
Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.[487]
In contrast with these characterizations of Lincoln are the “spotless
integrity, controlling conscience” and “sincere religious convictions”
ascribed to Davis. Even a Northern historian, Ridpath, according to Miss
Rutherford, testified that Davis had bitterness toward no man.[488]
Eighty-one per cent of the schools and colleges in the South, according to
Miss Rutherford, were using, in 1921, “text-books untrue to the South,” and
“seventeen per cent” were “using histories omitting most important facts
concerning the South.”[489] As written, the histories “magnify and exalt the
New England colonies and the Mayflower crew, with bare mention of the
Jamestown Colony, thirteen years older, and the crews of the Susan
Constant, the Discovery, and the Goodspeed.”[490] Other objectionable
features in most school histories were the “extended account” generally
given to the “religious faith and practice” of New England with no mention
of Sir Thomas Dale’s Code in the Jamestown Colony, “which enforced
daily attendance upon Divine worship, penalty for absence, penalty for
blasphemy, penalty for speaking evil of the Church, and refusing to answer
the Catechism, and for neglecting work.”[491]
Other Southerners than Miss Rutherford have criticized the customary
presentation of history. “We owe it to our dead, to our living, and to our
children, to preserve the truth and repel the falsehoods, so that we may
secure just judgment from the only tribunal before which we may appear
and be fully and fairly heard, and that tribunal is the bar of history,”
asserted Benjamin H. Hill.[492] Likewise Thomas Nelson Page declared: “In
a few years there will be no South to demand a history if we have history as

it is now written. How do we stand today in the eyes of the world? We are
esteemed ‘ignorant, illiterate, cruel, semi-barbarous, a race sunken in
brutality and vice, a race of slave drivers who disrupted the Union in order
to perpetuate human slavery and who as a people have contributed nothing
to the advancement of mankind.’”[493]
Among the textbooks designated by Miss Rutherford for special criticism
were Davidson’s History of the United States, Montgomery’s Beginner’s
American History, and Muzzey’s An American History.[494] Davidson was
criticized because he asserted that “the Jamestown colonists were vicious
idlers and jail birds picked up on the streets of London,” and because of the
statement that “side by side the two civilizations had grown up in America
—the one dedicated to progress and kept up with the spirit of the age—the
other a landed aristocracy with slavery as the chief excuse for its
existence.”[495]
Condemnation was meted out to Muzzey’s textbook because it was
alleged that he said, “The cause for which the Confederate soldiers fought
was an unworthy cause and should have been defeated,” and because “it is
impossible for the student of history today to feel otherwise than that the
cause for which the South fought was unworthy.”[496] Montgomery was
placed in the objectionable group because he described the settlers of
Georgia as “filthy, ragged, dirty prisoners taken from the ‘Debtor’s Prison’
by Oglethorpe.”[497]
On the other hand, R. G. Horton’s A Youth’s History of the Civil War
presents a point of view acceptable to Miss Rutherford, for it declares that
“the withdrawal of the Southern States from the Union was in no sense a
declaration of war upon the Federal government but the Federal
government declared war on them, as history will show.”[498]
Doubtless the most prejudiced discussion of mooted questions since the
Civil War appears in the textbooks produced before the opening of the
twentieth century. This period, in general, characterized by a spirit of
intense local patriotism, reflected itself clearly in the history textbooks.
During this period were published such Southern textbooks as Venable, A
School History of the United States, Lee, New School History of the United
States, Chambers, A School History of the United States, and Taylor, Model
School History.

Susan Pendleton Lee’s New School History of the United States can be
quoted as typical. “The Constitution of the United States recognized
slavery.... The opinion that it was a moral wrong did not prevail before the
days of Garrison and his followers who pronounced it to be the sum of all
‘iniquity.’... The outcry against slavery had made the Southern people study
the subject, and they had reached the conclusion that the evils connected
with it were less than those of any other system of labor. Hundreds of
thousands of African savages had been Christianized under its influence.
The kindest relations existed between the slaves and their owners.... The
bondage in which the negroes were held was not thought a wrong to them,
because they were better off than any other menial class in the world.”[499]
The same author justified the Ku Klux Klan because “no high spirited,
courageous people could patiently submit to such a government.” “As open
resistance was impossible,” she declares, “they, too, had recourse to secret
organizations. They were at first local, and were intended for self-protection
against the barn burnings and worse outrages committed by misguided
negroes.”[500]
As a result of this desire to present the history of their section in terms of
their own convictions, the Southerners have always agitated for textbooks
different from those used in Northern schools. Northern textbook
companies whose enterprise was much condemned during the ante-bellum
period have capitalized this sectional preference and produced for Southern
consumption, among others, Evans’ The Essential Facts of American
History, Chambers’ A School History of the United States, and Stephenson’s
An American History.[501] On the other hand, for the North, the same book
companies have published textbooks satisfactory to that section. Today, in
substantially all of the states which formed the Confederacy, specific
textbooks in American history are prescribed, a practice not so universal in
the North, where local adoption is sometimes found.[502] An analysis of
these Southern textbooks, however, discloses a very temperate presentation
of controversial questions. Upon the points of contention between the North
and the South, there is a natural bias in favor of the South, a tendency to
attempt justification and exoneration. Evans, in The Essential Facts of
American History, for example, in discussing “reasons for secession,” lays
greater stress than the textbooks of the North on the right of secession, a
“right which had been asserted by other than the Southern States.”[503]

Stephenson, in An American History, dubs John Brown as “that terrible
John Brown,”[504] and characterizes the carpet-bag governments as insolent,
dishonest and violent.[505] The terms “rebellion” and “civil war” are
employed by Northern, not Southern, histories, the “war of the states” and
the “war of secession” being used in the South.

ATTEMPTS OF THE GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC TO
CONTROL HISTORY TEXTBOOKS

Six years before the Confederate Veterans in reunion accepted the report
of their first historical committee regarding the “false” histories used in
Southern schools, the Grand Army of the Republic learned through a
similar channel that the history textbooks of the North “signally” failed “to
comprehend the causes that resulted in the war of the rebellion.”[506] Much
cause for complaint arose from the fact that textbooks were “compiled for a
national system of education, South as well as North,”—a condition held
sadly unacceptable, it would seem, by the patriotic organizations of this
period.[507]
In the Report of 1888, the G. A. R. undertook to point out statements in
textbooks used in the South which appealed to them as indicative of “a
thoroughly studied, rank, partisan system of sectional education.”[508] As a
case in point Davidson’s School History of South Carolina, “published at
Columbia, South Carolina, by one W. J. Duffie, copyrighted in 1869,” was
examined. This history, so the Report declared, in Chapter 195 ascribed “the
cause of secession, which was the cause of the war,” to the fact that
“Congress kept passing laws which it had no right to pass according to the
Constitution.”[509] Further, in speaking of the withdrawal of South Carolina
from the Union the author asserted that “she had a right to do this; that is, if
the States rights party of the South was correct in its doctrine.”[510]
The Report condemned another history textbook, written by Blackburn
and McDonald, because of the following passage: “The second year of the
war now commenced; it found each section preparing with terrible
earnestness for the conflict. The South was straining every nerve to resist
the Northern multitudes; ... To fill her armies the North had a better and
more successful mode, she offered immense bounties and high pay. Induced

by these, thousands of European mercenaries enlisted. The South had
nothing but her gallant children to put in the field and thus she was
condemned to stake her most precious jewels against the trash of
Europe.”[511]
Other grounds for criticism were found in Alexander Stephens’ common
school history which was guilty of an effort “to indoctrinate the youth” of
the South with the “monstrous heresy” of state rights and secession.[512]
“These Southern histories do not fail to make known their side of this
question. They are full of it,” concluded the Committee. “What we deem
treason is there made respectable. While our histories on the same subject
are comparatively silent, indeed are so lamentably deficient upon this
question that it were far better to discard all history of our country during
the epoch of 1860-5 than to admit them to our schools as now compiled. It
is indeed time to cease toying with treason for policy, and to cease
illustrating rebels as heroes, as in the case of some of our school
histories.”[513]
The Report of 1888 inaugurated a practice extending over a period of
more than twenty years. The Report of 1892 laid its emphasis upon the fact
that the textbooks in history “slandered the North and the cause of the
Union, ... depreciated the value of our troops, and represented that the South
was in the right, and that the army which saved the Union was a wicked
aggressor....”[514]
In 1895 the Encampment, meeting at Louisville, had its attention called
by the Department of Indiana to the character of history textbooks used in
Northern schools. In that state alarm had been excited by Montgomery’s
Leading Facts of American History, “the authorized history” for the public
schools of the state. Under the auspices of the local G. A. R. an
investigation of this book had been conducted. As a result, seven charges
were presented against it, the indictment stating that Ellis’ Eclectic Primary
History and Barnes’ History were believed to be “equally
objectionable.”[515]
The objections of the Indiana G. A. R. received the endorsement of the
national encampment, and Montgomery’s history was found guilty on the
following counts: first, it contained “no suggestion or intimation that the

men who fought for the preservation of the Union were right”; second, there
was “a general unfairness of treatment of the people of the North, of the
officers and soldiers of the Union armies and the battles fought by them”;
third, it was “calculated to give the student false impressions as to the
relative courage, heroism and achievements of the contending armies, and
of the endurance, devotion and sacrifices of the people of the two sections
of the country engaged in the conflict”; fourth, “the accounts of the
victories of the Confederates” were “exaggerated, while those of the Union
armies” were “dwarfed and made insignificant by comparison”; in the fifth
place, “all statements of a commendatory and eulogistic character” were
“reserved for the Confederates, while nothing of like character” was said
“in favor of the Union soldiers or people”; sixth, that it was “unpatriotic and
partisan in statement, tone and sentiment”; and seventh, that it was
“unreliable in its statement of facts.”[516]
Among objectionable history textbooks “written by Southern authors, for
the avowed purpose of giving a history of the War of the Rebellion from a
Southern standpoint,” was that of “Reverend Dr. D. W. Jones, published in
1896.”[517] This book was taken “as a fair sample of its class” by the
Committee on School Histories reporting in 1897. The Veterans rested their
case upon such a statement as: “The seceding states not only had a perfect
right to withdraw from the Union but they had amply sufficient cause for
doing so.”[518]
In the “careful examination” to which the school histories of the North
were subjected by the Committee of 1897 no book was found which
deserved “unqualified endorsement.”[519] This was due to the “one vital
defect” common to all the histories—that all of them treated the War “as a
contest between the sections of the country ... and not as a war waged by
the Government for the suppression of rebellion against National authority
and meant to destroy National existence.”[520] Indeed, the Committee had
reached their conclusions regarding the “histories in general use in all
sections” after “two days of examination.”[521] During this time they had
found in “many of these works extravagant expressions as ‘this crushing
defeat’” in speaking of the Northern army, and such a statement as “‘the
Confederates could not be conquered until they were destroyed,’”—all
equally obnoxious and uncomplimentary to the North.[522] Such a

condition, the Committee felt, arose from “a commercial spirit” which
“largely controls and inspires these publications.”[523]
In view of the situation as it then existed, the Committee asked that the
“Encampment record a solemn and emphatic protest against the further use
of any history of the Civil War in the public schools of this country which
does not teach that this war was a war waged by the National Government
for the suppression of rebellion and the preservation of National existence;
that there was a right side and a wrong side, ... that in the decision of this
question the victors were right and the vanquished wrong.”[524] They further
recommended that the agitation for “improved text-books” be continued,
that a permanent committee on the teaching of patriotism in the schools be
appointed, and that the Grand Army of the Republic and its allied
organizations “give direct and persistent attention to the removal and
exclusion of improper histories ... in use.”[525]
The results of the agitation for “unbiased” histories which the
Confederate Veterans felt had been achieved by 1896 in the South, the G. A.
R. through their activities failed to accomplish in the North before 1898.
However, at that time they felt “justified to report substantial improvement
in the tone and sentiment” of textbooks, particularly in “the more recent
publications.”[526] Yet they urged “a continuance of effort ... to place before
the children of the Republic truthful and patriotic histories” of the Civil
War, and registered a “solemn and emphatic protest” against the proposal
that the struggle of 1861 to 1865 be called “the Civil War between the
States.”[527]
The following year the Committee report rang with a spirit of optimism
because of the changed character of history writing and instruction brought
about by “our organization.” As proof for their gratification they pointed out
that “in one of the leading works in use more than fifty substantial changes
of the text have been made in that portion presenting the history of the
rebellion.”[528] Yet regret was expressed that no history known to them
made “it clear in statement that the war for the preservation of the Union
was prosecuted on the one side by the National Government and on the
other by those in armed rebellion against its authority.”[529] To insure
continued vigilance the Encampment approved the appointment of an
“aide” to each department to keep in touch with the school histories in his

state, and to “confer with school authorities and endeavor through them to
secure the best obtainable school histories in the schools and the exclusion
of such as are unfit.”[530]
The satisfaction expressed by the Committee of 1900 was reiterated at
the encampment the following year. But the Committee were robbed of
much of their gratification when they considered the “avowedly sectional
standpoint” of histories in the South, where it was still taught that the
Confederate States were “a lawful government.”[531]
The agitation to investigate history textbooks lost much of its vigor and
aggressive anxiety with the opening of the twentieth century. In 1904 the
chairman of the school history committee suggested “in view of the utter
want of interest exhibited throughout the whole country in regard to this
matter” that the committee “be abolished.”[532] Warren Lee Goss, national
patriotic instructor, reporting at the forty-first encampment in 1907 declared
it his belief that the G. A. R. were “not called upon to interfere in any way
with the regular instruction in the schools in United States history, but
rather to supplement that instruction by special observances.”[533] Two
years later the portion of the report on patriotic instruction devoted to
“histories” merely listed the textbooks most commonly used,[534] and in
1910 a similar report eulogized “the loyalty and patriotism of the majority
[of those living] who wore the gray.”[535] This sympathetic and tolerant
attitude seems to have remained unchallenged in the successive
encampments of the G. A. R., and unlike the Confederate Veterans of the
last few reunions, the Grand Army of the Republic have not sought to
rekindle old animosities.

TEXTBOOKS FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS

As early as 1834 the Roman Catholics of New York urged upon the
schools textbooks which would show agreement with their point of view. In
1828 the Public School Society, an organization designed to educate poor
children not provided for by any religious society, was allowed to levy a
local tax for its support. To this the Roman Catholics raised objections,
since they were permitted to dictate neither the kind of instruction offered
nor the textbooks adopted. Among the points in controversy was the request

of the Catholic clergy that no book should be used but such as had been
submitted to the Bishop and declared “free from sectarian principles or
calumnies against his religion.”[536] In those books where objectionable
statements were found, it was suggested “that such passages be expunged or
left out in binding.”[537] The censorship requested was not granted, and in
1840 the agitation regarding textbooks was renewed. Again it was charged
that some books contained passages not merely displeasing to the Roman
Catholics, but hostile to their faith; whereas others indulged in statements
which were both “defamatory” and “false.”
The trustees of the Public School Society, avowedly anxious to dissipate
these objections, took measures to secure information from various sources,
including both laymen and clergy, with the hope that a removal of the
complaint might be effected. They adopted a resolution declaring that they
would submit for examination, to the Reverend Felix Varela, some
textbooks used in Public School Number 5. As further proof of their desire
for harmony, the trustees appointed a committee of five to see whether the
books in the schools or libraries contained passages derogatory to the
Roman Catholics.[538] Following their action Reverend Mr. Varela pointed
out certain objectionable features in some of the textbooks. In one
geography he discovered a passage in which the Catholic clergy were
characterized as having great influence but being opposed to the diffusion
of knowledge. He also disapproved of the description of Italy in which were
statements which would “tend to diminish the consideration that a Catholic
child has for the Catholic Church.”[539] In another textbook, the discussion
of the character of Luther proved objectionable, for, although it might
please the Protestants, he felt that there was implied an attack on the
Catholic Church.
On July 9, 1840, John Power, vice-general of the diocese of New York,
wrote a letter to the editor of Freeman’s Journal, in which he voiced his
disapproval of the textbooks employed to instruct children. Odium, he felt,
was attached to the Catholic clergy because they were represented as
keeping the people in ignorance to promote their own interests, and libraries
contained books with “most malevolent and foul attacks on their religion ...
no doubt with the very laudable purpose of teaching them [Catholic
children] to abhor and despise that monster called popery.”[540]

With failure attending their efforts at censorship, the Roman Catholics
resorted to an address to their “fellow citizens of the city and state of New
York” in which they appealed for a redress of their grievances. “We are
Americans and American citizens. If some of us are foreigners,” they
declared, “it is only by the accident of birth,.... But our children, for whose
rights as well as our own we contend in this matter, are Americans by
nativity.”[541] Repeating the assertions of the priests, the address
remonstrated against the false “historical statements respecting the men and
things of past times, calculated to fill the minds of our children with errors
of fact and at the same time to excite in them prejudice against the religion
of their parents and guardians.”[542]
In answer to the exceptions raised by the Catholics, the trustees of the
Public School Society expressed doubt as to the wisdom of expurgation, for
they believed “nothing of a mere negative character” would be acceptable.
“The books selected for the children,” they stated, “have, from the first,
been those used and most highly esteemed as school-books. The passages
objected to, or nearly all of them, are historical, and relate to what is
generally called the Reformation. The writers were Protestants, and took a
view of the men and incidents of that excited and eventful period directly
opposed to those entertained by the members of the Roman Catholic
Church. These portions, must, of course, be offensive to Catholics, and they
furnish just cause for complaint.... The objectionable passages are not
numerous, but the books are not to be found without them.... The difficulty
of procuring books entirely exempt from objection cannot perhaps be more
forcibly illustrated than by the fact that one work containing passages as
liable to objection as almost any other, is now used as a class-book even in
the Catholic schools. It is the intention of the trustees, nevertheless, to
prosecute the work of expurgation until every just cause of complaint is
removed.”[543]
As a result of the agitation, revised and expurgated books appeared; in
some instances the objectionable passages were stamped out with ink from
a wooden block or the leaves pasted together or removed. In some cases the
books under criticism were prohibited in the libraries and the schools. Yet
this failed to satisfy the Roman Catholics. When the expurgated editions
were worn out, they were replaced by new books without changes, and
gradually this discussion over textbooks subsided.

During the ’eighties it again became a matter of speculation with the
Roman Catholics whether they should be taxed to support schools from
which their children got “no benefit,” or, if attending, suffered “positive
injury and injustice.”[544] They were indeed skeptical as to the merits of a
non-sectarian education which they held “professedly non-Christian,”—a
system that occupied itself “as little with the mission, history, and teachings
of the divine Founder of Christianity” as it did “with the life and doctrines
of Confucius or Buddha.”[545]
A storm center of the agitation was Boston, where the Catholics formed a
considerable number of the population. Here a denunciation of public
school instruction included both teachers and textbooks, resulting in the
removal of Swinton’s History and the dismissal of a teacher (a Mr. Travis)
for “erroneous and misleading” statements about the granting of
indulgences.
“It is very hard,” declared one writer on the controversy, “that a young
man who teaches only what he has been taught himself, only what
thousands of young men and women have been taught and are teaching,
should be singled out and set aside for penalty while others go scot free....
While the Roman Catholics were weak they could not help themselves, and
we went on saying what we pleased. Now they are numerous enough in
some places to hold the balance of power, and they hold it with a mighty
grasp....”[546]
In an effort to prevent the exclusion of the textbook from the schools, the
Protestants advanced various arguments: that it had been in use ten years
without protest, that “the outcry” was not “honest,” and that the agitation
was “simply the opening wedge for riving our school system and dividing
the public school money between Catholics and Protestants.”[547]
Other histories than Swinton’s were in like manner placed by the
Catholics in the objectionable list. It was alleged that Prescott’s works
“swarm[ed] with Puritan prejudice against all things Catholic” and that
Macaulay’s History of England emphasized the worst traits of Catholic
personages and gave little credit to the Jesuits.[548] So far as Macaulay was
concerned, one Catholic objected to sending his children to school to study
history from a book acknowledged by the Protestants to be “a gloriously

Protestant book,” by which his children would be “gloriously indoctrinated
into Protestantism and a hatred of their parents’ religion.”[549]
As a means of settling the controversy it was suggested that all history or
the parts relating to the Protestant and Catholic churches be omitted from
the curriculum. This could be done, one writer maintained, “without
missing anything of value to our common school system or to our other
cherished institutions.” Moreover, it was also held that there were “plenty of
undisputed topics” to be studied in the schools which were looked upon
with “entire unanimity” by “all creeds,” such as two and two make four. For
“nothing should ever be taught in schools supported by common funds
except that which is accepted by the common faith.”[550]
With the great expansion of the Catholic Church in the United States
since the Civil War and the growth of parochial schools in all parts of the
country, the particular needs of the Catholics have been met by the
enterprise of publishers in supplying special textbooks for their use.[551] As
a result today there are found in parochial schools such social study
textbooks as McCarthy’s History of the United States, O’Hara’s A History
of the United States, A History of the United States for Catholic Schools by
the Franciscan Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration of St. Rose Convent, La
Crosse, Wisconsin, Lawler’s Essentials of American History, Betten’s The
Ancient World, Betten and Kaufman’s The Modern World, and Burke’s
Political Economy.[552]
The desire to present events in American history in such a way as to
show the importance of the Catholic Church has led to the preparation of
textbooks like McCarthy’s History of the United States. In this book it has
been “made clear that Catholics discovered, and in a large way, explored
these continents, that Catholics transferred civilization hither, that they
opened to the commerce of Europe the trade of the Pacific, and that they
undertook the conversion of multitudes of dusky natives, of whom few had
risen to the upper stages of barbarism.”[553] Although the “war for
independence” was begun largely by Protestants, the author avers the help
of Catholic nations like France and Spain gave “undoubted assistance to the
New Republic.” Norse settlement and discovery are treated extensively, and
Columbus’ missionary spirit receives considerable attention. Catholic
notables like Governor Dongan, the Calverts, Captain John Barry, and

Thomas Macdonough are given more space than ordinarily allotted in
school histories. “The winning of the West, in which Catholics acted an
important part,” the war on the sea in which are enumerated “the exploits of
the O’Briens of Machias, Maine,” “the beginnings of the Catholic Church
in America” and “Washington’s patriotic letter to his Catholic countrymen”
are other unique features.[554]
Similar in point of view is the textbook written by the Franciscan Sisters
of the Perpetual Adoration. Its contents, announces the Foreword, are not
immured within the bounds of “the usually taught historical facts,” but
include “the too often forgotten efforts of the Church in American History.”
Not only is the story of “the venturesome explorer, the intrepid colonizer,
the hardy pioneer, the noble warrior, the eloquent statesman” narrated, but
there is also depicted “the quiet heroism of the loyal sons and daughters of
the Catholic Church.” “Our country is justly proud of the liberty she offers
to all her children,” affirm the authors, “but these children are many in faith,
and diversified in race peculiarities. Common interests may seem to unite
them from time to time, but there can be no true, permanent union except
where the spirit and the faith are dominating forces. But where is such a
bond of unity except in the Catholic Church? Mother Church folds her arms
about all her children and questions not their color or their race.”[555]
To the teachers, the authors offer certain aids and directions. The
importance of a “proper setting of United States history with a knowledge
of the threefold chronological divisions of world history” and an insight
into the “difference between Sacred history and Profane, or Secular history”
are indicated. In the period of colonization, teachers are urged to make
clear, among other things, “how the Catholic Church, like the mustard seed
of the Gospel, has flourished and grown, as it were, into a mighty tree.” The
Sisters urge, also, a thorough delineation of the growth of the educational
system of the United States including an understanding of “how our
cherished parochial schools grew from humble beginnings into the splendid
system which now labors so zealously for the spiritual and intellectual
welfare of our country.”[556]
The Betten-Kaufman histories, The Ancient World and The Modern
World, are typical of Roman Catholic textbooks in the field of European
history. Based upon West’s Ancient World and his Modern World, the

authors have introduced changes desirable for the purpose of “promoting
the great cause of Catholic education.”[557] The chief departure from the
traditional European history textbook used in the public schools is in the
discussion of Luther and the Reformation. Although Tetzel’s use of the
theory of indulgences is criticized in the Betten and Kaufman textbook as
“ill advised,”[558] Luther’s theories regarding the remission of sins are
characterized as “monstrous.”[559] The Church as an agency for good and
for promoting the civilization of the world is given significant attention; the
“Catholic view” of social evils is set forth in opposition to other theories,
and a discussion of “harmonious coöperation” between church and state is
intended to disclose the influence of the Church in the solution of the
world’s evils.[560]
In an allied field Father Burke has written his Political Economy
designed for use in Catholic Colleges, High Schools, and Academies. Here
political economy is discussed not only from the standpoint of “the merely
concrete, material things that enter into the science, but also with reference
to the personalities of the members of society whose activity is exercised on
these concrete, material things.”[561]
Father Burke’s book is divided into twenty-three chapters with titles
common to the usual economics textbook. Its unique feature lies in the
treatment of various economic theories from the point of view of the
“Catholic School.” The doctrine of Malthus is rejected for moral and
economic reasons, which take their course in “human injustice and
selfishness in the spirit of greed that closes the hearts of men to the dictates
of charity and fairness,” and which lead to “improper methods of the
distribution of wealth.”[562] The author expresses a belief in the inequality
of man, through which comes inequality of distribution. Such a hardship is
due, in no small degree, Father Burke declares, to the “fallen state” of man.
Because of the sin of his first parents he is “subject to death, to sufferings,
to misery, and to labor.” This can be proved, it is averred, by the Book of
Revelation. “Hence,” asserts Father Burke, “evils may exist in this world,
injustice and oppression may go on, and the equilibration of things may
never take place here; the wicked may prosper and the honest and just may
be oppressed, and no adequate remedy may appear; yet the moment of

compensation, of perfect justice, will come, if not in this life, then in the life
of eternity.”[563]
Such a presentation of economic theories has been acclaimed highly
satisfactory in Catholic reviews, for, “since ethics as a science directing
human actions according to right reason embraces of necessity all of man’s
activities, it follows that political economy is rightly subject to the laws of
ethics.”[564] “This clear understanding of the state of the question ... enables
us at once to detect the errors and dangers of many of the high sounding
economic theories which occupy so much space in the literature of the day,”
declares one reviewer.[565] Another reviewer in Extension believes that an
accurate knowledge of economic principles is impossible “from an
examination of the text-books used in some of the secular colleges and
universities” in which not only are “some of the so-called principles false,
but the resultant deductions, where they are not entirely fallacious, are
frequently misleading.”[566] The Pilot offers its endorsement of the textbook
because “in these days of industrial and economic unrest, when so much
that is false and misleading is written on political and social problems, a
book on political economy for Catholic schools is most welcome. Catholic
philosophy sets forth sound and unimpeachable principles bearing upon the
rights of the individual and of the family, and upon the powers and
functions of ‘the State.’”[567]
The purpose of these books is to place emphasis upon Catholic
contributions and the power of the Church. As indicated in a textbook
written in the later nineteenth century, whose content is much the same as
the more recent Catholic textbooks, it is “the manifest duty of those who are
entrusted with the education of our children to see that in learning the
history of the country they do not lose sight of the rise, progress, and social
influences of the Church in the United States....[568] And finally, as religion
is always the sweetest inspiration and support of patriotism, the breaking
down of religious beliefs in various modern nations, and notably in our
own, is accompanied by a loss of patriotism.... Reverence for authority is
lost, and society, in order to protect itself, is driven to appeal to force.
Nothing can avert the danger but the influence of a great moral power
endorsed with all the attributes which create respect and encourage
obedience. The Catholic Church is this power....”[569]

In turn, these textbooks have been criticised because of the amount of
space given to the Catholic Church in comparison with that allotted other
churches. One critic has asserted that the history by the Franciscan Sisters
does not mention a single Protestant body after the period of the
Revolution, and that “one ignorant of the true situation and reading this
particular history would imagine that the United States was a Catholic
nation.”[570] Further criticism has arisen because, in the critic’s mind, facts
of history are mixed with “acts of Catholic piety.” As proof of this objection
is cited an excerpt from a Catholic textbook in which is given a description
of the death of Pizarro: “Just before he died he called upon his Redeemer
and tracing with his bloody finger a cross upon the floor, he kissed the
sacred symbol and expired.”[571]
Further evidence of this is seen by the same writer in the statement that
“as the missionaries made their way westward, the worship of St. Mary
marked their path till the great Mississippi, the River of the Immaculate
Conception, bore them [down] toward those Spanish realms where every
officer swore to defend the Immaculate Conception.”[572] To this objector of
a separate history for Catholic schools, “it is the very evident purpose of
these texts ... to propagate Catholic ideas and not to give a true picture of
the development of America.”[573]

TEXTBOOKS IN CIVICS, ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY

Criticism of public school textbooks and teaching is not confined solely
to the subject of history but includes in its ever-widening circle books in the
allied fields of civics, economics and sociology. Especially is this true of
those in government or civics. Since the close of the World War a
movement for the teaching of the Constitution has closely paralleled that for
the study of American history. Organizations and individuals with the
avowed purpose of inculcating patriotism have urged that more attention
than formerly be given the study of the machinery of government. To this
end influence has been exerted for the passage of laws requiring the subject
of civics in the schools, and many books on the Constitution have appeared
to meet an increased demand.

Among the organizations which have sponsored the movement for
instruction in the Constitution have been the American Bar Association, the
National Security League, The Constitution Anniversary Association, and
the Better America Federation. Organizations such as the Sentinels of the
Republic are engaged in a similar program in adult education.
In 1922 in pursuance of a resolution adopted by the executive committee
at Tampa, Florida, the American Bar Association appointed a Committee on
American Citizenship “to devise ways for promoting the study of and
devotion to American institutions and ideals.” This resolution was
interpreted as laying upon the Committee “the duty to prepare a program
under which the lawyers of the United States, coöperating with every
patriotic society and organization, and with every true American man and
woman, shall be urged to join in an earnest effort to stem the tide of radical,
and often treasonable, attacks upon our Constitution, our laws, our courts,
our law-making bodies, our executives and our flag, to arouse to action our
dormant citizenship, to abolish ignorance, and crush falsehood, and to bring
truth into the hearts of our citizenship.”[574]
The Committee recommended the appointment of a standing committee
on American Citizenship, the appointment of local committees “to see that
the Constitution of the United States is taught in every school ... to report to
the bureau the courses in each state, the textbooks used, and the
qualifications of teachers for teaching American citizenship.” In addition it
was suggested that the coöperation of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws be enlisted “in an effort to have enacted in each state suitable laws
making a course each year in the study of and devotion to American
institutions and ideals part of the curriculum in all schools and colleges
sustained or in any manner supported by public funds.”[575]
The Reports of 1923 and 1924 again envisaged “the need of activity”
because of “the socialistic doctrines ... taught in many of our schools and
colleges,” and pointed out that efforts of the Bar toward laws requiring the
teaching of the Constitution had received encouragement from legislators
and the public in general.[576] In 1923, according to the Report of that year,
twenty-four states had definite laws, in five states laws had been introduced
and in nineteen states there was no such statute. The principal difficulty
which the Committee had encountered in having such a law passed had

arisen out of “the conservatism of school authorities,” who appeared
“fearful that the mere requirement” would “not necessarily be the best
means of promoting the teaching of the Constitution,” and who were “slow
to change from long established methods that had been used in connection
with the school curriculum.”
In their advocacy for a wider-spread knowledge of the Constitution the
American Bar Association received the coöperation of other organizations
interested in the same work, such as the American Legion, patriotic
societies, women’s organizations, the Masonic Service Association, the
Knights of Columbus, Chambers of Commerce, the Rotary, Lions, and
Kiwanis. Yet they felt that “the most powerful influence” that they could
evoke “undoubtedly would be the association of teachers,” for they wished
“to reach the mind of the child while it is still plastic.” They affirmed as
their “ultimate aim” that “no child should leave even the common schools
without an elementary knowledge and appreciation of our Constitution and
what it means to every individual.”[577]
By 1924, the Committee reported the existence of a law requiring the
teaching of the Constitution in thirty-one states, and in other
commonwealths regulations of the state department of education effecting
the same purpose.[578] One of the aspects of the situation which appeared to
the Committee as more important even than properly qualified teachers was
“the proper attitude toward our government and the spirit in which the
teaching is performed”—a teaching which should be grounded “on bed-
rock Americanism” and “imbued with a desire to communicate such spirit
to their pupils.”[579] Indeed, it was held that “the schools of America should
no more consider graduating a student who lacks faith in our government
than a school of theology should graduate a minister who lacks faith in
God.”[580]
According to the Report the educational activities of the Committee were
many, “even going so far as to suggest to the ministers appropriate texts for
Thanksgiving Day which should call attention to the blessing of our form of
government.”[581] Members of the Bar had written special articles for
several periodicals on good citizenship as well as furnishing cartoons for
the press of the country. The Committee had aided in the display and sale of
books on the Constitution, they had sponsored “a nation-wide celebration of

Constitution week,” they had appeared as speakers on community programs
and otherwise had helped in the celebration of national holidays. In addition
they had prepared a “citizenship creed.” This creed stressed the obligations
of citizenship and a faith in the American government, “the best
government that has ever been created—the freest and most just for all the
people.” To uphold and defend the government was at all times a duty of
the citizen. “Just as the ‘Minute Man of the Revolution’ was ready upon a
moment’s notice to defend his rights against foreign usurpation” so it was
the citizen’s duty “as a patriotic American to be a ‘Minute Man of the
Constitution’ ready at all times to defend the long-established and cherished
institutions of our government against attack, either from within or with
out,” and to do his “part in preserving the blessings of liberty” for which his
“Revolutionary forefathers fought and died.”[582]
The National Security League is likewise engaged in the movement for
teaching the Constitution in the schools. Through the Committee on
Constitution Instruction and its Civic Department, the League has
campaigned “for over three years” to have passed a bill requiring definite
courses in the Constitution in all public schools.[583] According to literature
circulated by the League, the Committee was rewarded by the passage of
such a requirement in thirty-six states, in most cases the legislatures taking
over verbatim the bill drafted by them.[584]
To the League’s program opposition to a mandatory legislative control of
education occasionally arose from educational authorities in states where
the bill had been introduced. But the chairman of the Committee was “glad
to say that state legislators generally, representatives of the public will, have
not agreed with these gentlemen and their arguments, and have looked upon
a knowledge of the Constitution as an essential in citizen making.”[585]
In addition to legislation which requires the study of the Constitution,
thirty-three states by May, 1925, made mandatory a teacher’s examination
on the Constitution.[586] So far-reaching were the results of their activities,
that the League’s Committee on Constitutional Instruction estimated that
200,500 teachers were required to teach the Constitution of the United
States to a total of over 4,000,000 school children.[587]
To find suitable textbooks became a problem, for the Committee held that
“while there are many books which satisfactorily explain the Constitution to

advanced students and adults, there is practically nothing which suitably
transmits the basic principles of our government to the minds of children.”
For this “short stories” on the Constitution were necessary in order that
facts concerning the history of the document would be “readily understood
by the average child,” because when “eloquently taught and interpreted in
story form by a teacher who knows it and reverences its provisions, it will
rouse any class to enthusiasm.”[588]
Besides the “nation-wide popularization of the Constitution” through the
distribution of almost a million copies of a “Catechism of the Constitution,”
the National Security League endeavors to assist teachers in passing their
examinations for licenses by publishing a Course on the Constitution for
Normal Schools.[589] Its literature on the Constitution has been sent by
request to 2038 teachers, to whom was also made available Dr. Jean
Broadhurst’s book, Verse for Patriots to Encourage Good Citizenship, “of
special value in teaching English literature and patriotism” and for holiday
program materials.[590] In the campaign for education, Beck’s The
Constitution of the United States: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow was also
sent “to the governors of all the States where the bill requiring the
compulsory teaching of the Constitution has become a law, ... with the
advice that the book is available for all teachers and instructors in their
states upon application.”[591] A teachers’ manual “which is attracting wide
attention under the title ‘Our Constitution in My Town and My Life’ which
contains 115 questions and answers on the Constitution for classroom use”
has been written by Miss Etta V. Leighton, Civic Secretary.[592]
As an “evidence of the value” and of the influence of the Security
League’s educational program, the “Report” for November 15, 1925,
recounted “that the Professor of Political Science in a large western
university will use our suggestions in revising her text book on the State
and National Constitution.”[593]
The Constitution Anniversary Association, incorporated March, 1923, is
another organization engaged in promoting a study of the Constitution in
order to familiarize to a greater degree the people of this generation with
“those historic days incident to the writing of the Constitution,” that they
may “recognize their value” and understand “the danger of our drifting
during recent years away from representative government toward direct

action; from individual property rights to socialism; from individual
responsibility for individual conduct toward class consciousness, class
agitation and class legislation,....” A purpose of the Association is “to arouse
interest in the men who wrote the Constitution ... to make clear that they
were governmentally-minded as Edison and Marconi are electrically-
minded; as Emerson and Socrates were philosophically-minded; as
Shakespeare and Longfellow were literary-minded; as Mozart and
Mendelssohn were musically-minded; and that in the light of all that history
and experience could teach, they were making a contribution as important
to the science of government as was [sic] the ten digits to the science of
mathematics, the scale to music, or the alphabet to language.”[594] A further
aim of the organization is “to urge upon educational institutions that in the
teaching of History, Civics and Political Science the Constitution be given
the place of prominence and importance which it deserves.”[595] The
observance of Constitution Week, as the name of the Association attests, is
of primary interest to the organization.
Harry F. Atwood, author of Back to the Republic, Safeguarding American
Ideals and Keep God in American History, directs the activities of the
Constitution Anniversary Association. Since 1918 Mr. Atwood “has spoken
in all parts of the country to various types of audiences on the
Constitution.”[596] While addressing a Los Angeles gathering under the
auspices of the Better America Federation in May, 1922, Mr. Atwood sowed
the seed for the National Oratorical Contest on the Constitution. It was at
this meeting that Mr. Harry Chandler, of the Los Angeles Times, conceived
the idea “of developing interest in the Constitution” by conducting such a
contest in the schools of the state. As a result, “the school year of 1922-23
witnessed the preparation of over 8000 orations,” and “the final contest was
held in Los Angeles where prizes aggregating $5000 were awarded.”[597]
This led to similar contests in other states, supported by “the American Bar
Association, the Constitution Anniversary Association and other patriotic
organizations.”[598] The contest became nation-wide, the final meeting
being held at Washington. In the second contest (1924-1925) over 18,000
schools entered; the awards amounted to $45,600, and 1,500,000 high
school students competed. Twenty-eight daily newspapers across the
continent conducted this contest.[599]

Mr. Atwood carries his advocacy of a knowledge of the Constitution and
of representative government to the people not only through his addresses
delivered throughout the country but also by means of his writings. It is his
belief that “we have drifted from the republic toward democracy; from
statesmanship to demagogism” in “an age of retrogressive tendencies.”[600]
He holds that a republic provides the “golden mean” of government,
autocracy and democracy offering “undesirable extremes.” To make clear
his meaning parallels are drawn between “the realm of nature and of human
activity” and the realm of government, attributing to each “two extremes
and the golden mean.” For instance, he believes that “what thirst is to the
individual, autocracy is to government; what drunkenness is to the
individual, democracy is to government; what temperance is to the
individual, the republic is to government.”[601]
According to Mr. Atwood “the most defective portion of our thinking and
teaching in the schools is that phase of education which pertains to civics,
economics and history.”[602] So far as textbooks are concerned, Mr. Atwood
was convinced that “there are comparatively few who will contend that
there has ever been written a good history of the United States of America.”
The same statement holds true for textbooks in civil government, for none
makes clear “to the average student the form of government that was
established here under the Constitution.”[603] Mr. Atwood was concerned
still more with the fact that so few students had read the Constitution,—
students who had received from twelve to sixteen years’ education at the
expense of the state. “So long as the expense of the public schools and State
universities is paid by the government,” Mr. Atwood declared, “one object
at least should be to turn out well informed and patriotic citizens, and the
best possible way to do that is to give them an understanding of the
meaning of the Constitution and a high regard for its wise provisions.” Mr.
Atwood is, moreover, sympathetic with those who maintain that “teachers
in the public schools should be impressed with the fact that their salaries are
paid at public expense.”[604]
The sentiment of the Better America Federation of California regarding
the study of the Constitution in the schools is not unlike that of the
Constitution Anniversary Association. Mr. Woodworth Clum in “America is
Calling,” a pamphlet to the students in high schools and colleges, sets forth
the tenets of his organization, in his declaration that he would like to see

“every school and college student in America not only learn the Preamble
to the Constitution so that they could repeat it verbatim at any time or any
place, but ... also have them know its meaning so well that when they repeat
it they would recall the entire philosophy of the American government.”[605]
Much apprehension was felt by the Better America Federation because of
“groups of free thinkers or radicals” agitating for some other form of
government under which there would be “no profits ... in business.”[606]
In accord with an interest in education evident in its earliest meetings, the
American Federation of Labor has carried on investigations as to the
character of teaching and the content of textbooks in the social studies. In
1903, the Executive Council was directed “to secure the introduction of
textbooks that will be more in accord with modern thought upon social and
political economy, books that will teach the dignity of manual labor, give
due importance to the service that the laborer renders to society, and that
will not teach the harmful doctrine that the wage-workers should be content
with their lot, because of the opportunity that may be afforded a few of their
number rising out of their class, instead of teaching that the wage earners
should base their hopes upon the elevation of the conditions of the working
people.”[607]
In 1919, the Executive Council was instructed “to appoint a committee to
investigate the matter of selecting, or of preparing and publishing textbooks
appropriate for classes of workers,” because the convention found “one of
the chief difficulties in securing appropriate classes for the workers is the
dearth of unbiased and suitable textbooks.”[608]
The committee thus appointed reported in 1920 an insufficient and
inaccurate teaching of industrial growth and of the trade union movement.
The responsibility for this condition was assessed upon the economists of
the past “whose teachings still largely dominate in the educational
institutions of our time,”—teachings “which have failed to stand the test of
experience and of unbiased investigation.” Ideas held faulty were thought,
furthermore, to be in no small measure the outgrowth of ideas gained from
books failing to “state accurately and interpret correctly economic laws and
their application to our modern industrial society.”[609] The Committee
therefore recommended the preparation of a textbook by a competent trade
unionist under the direction of the executive officers of the American

Federation of Labor with a special committee for this purpose, and “the
teaching of unemasculated industrial history embracing an accurate account
of the organization of the workers and of the results thereof, the teaching of
principles underlying industrial activities and relations, and a summary of
legislation, state and federal, affecting industry.”[610]
The attention of the convention was focussed in its educational program
the following year upon a proposed investigation of textbooks in civics,
economics and history. The committee to whom this task was delegated
reported in 1922. Their report, published in 1923, pointed out the
importance of “instruction in social and economic studies,” because such
studies are “vitally concerned with wide-spread understanding of our social
and economic institutions and forces.”[611] Yet the American Federation of
Labor expressly denied a desire to have their point of view “stressed to the
exclusion of all others.” They wanted merely “an emphasis commensurate
with its significance.” Nor did they wish “public education to be influenced
by partisan bodies of any kind.” For they esteemed “the persons most
competent to judge in detail what should be taught and how it should be
taught ... those who are themselves engaged in the educational
profession.”[612]
Inasmuch as “there are no more important determining factors than the
economic fabric to which the majority of citizens contribute the larger share
of their creative energy” the Federation considered essential a knowledge of
the trade-union movement and “of all other social problems having to do
with the welfare of the working people.”[613] The information held
important for the worker they felt should be taught in the junior as well as
in the senior high school, in order to reach those students who leave school
early.[614]
In the consideration of the textbooks most commonly used in the public
schools, the Federation’s committee held it “obvious that old-fashioned
didactic methods of teaching are not suitable to the new treatment,” that
“subjects should be presented not in the form of finished judgments and
dogmatic rules ... but rather as observations of the world about us,
concerning which the pupil must to a great extent exercise his own
judgments;” and that “in the case of highly controversial subjects, important
dissenting views should be fairly and adequately presented.”[615] Although

special pleaders for some change in common educational practice, they
asserted that “the labor movement, unlike selfish interests, does not and
cannot depend for public favor upon narrow propaganda; what it wants and
needs is the light of day and freedom of opinion. The more people know,
and the more they think, the better in the long run for working men and
women, and for all our citizenship.”
As a consequence of their premises, the Committee applied to the
textbooks considered the following tests: “In the first place, is the book of
old, narrow type, or of the newer and broader type? In the second place, is
its general method that which inculcates certain fixed principles which may
have been acceptable some time in the past, or, on the other hand, that
which portrays society as a group of growing and changing institutions? In
the third place, does it include adequate information about important
subjects, particularly subjects of concern to the wage-earning population,
such as trade-unionism, collective bargaining, standards of living, hours of
work, safety and sanitation, housing, unemployment, civil liberty, and the
judicial power? And in its treatment of these subjects, does it fairly present
labor’s point of view as well as that of others?”[616]
The application of these tests to one hundred twenty-three textbooks—
forty-seven histories, forty-seven civics, twenty-five economics, and four
sociologies, revealed that fifty-five per cent were of “the newer type dealing
with the broader aspects of government, and the social and industrial life of
the people rather than with forms of organization, military events and
abstract themes.” Sixty per cent were found to be “dynamic rather than
static in their method of treatment” in that they recognized “to a greater or
less degree the power for growth in our institutions.”
On the other hand, the Committee decided that “a majority of texts fell
short of the standards in one or more important respects,”[617] although, on
the whole, “the newer type of text” attempted “to give the labor movement
in the problem of industry adequate and just consideration.”[618] Failure to
do so the Committee attributed either “to ignorance of the author or to a
hesitancy to deal with this difficult subject, rather than to a deliberate
attempt to keep the facts of industry out of the schools.” The survey found
“no evidence that text books are being used for propaganda purposes.”[619]

The Public Service Institute through its chairman also has urged a more
extensive study of “labor civics,” and commended the New York course in
civics for older grammar grade children and first year high school pupils.
[620]

Still others have become censors of the character of social study
instruction in the public schools. Books treating the modern problems of
race, labor and capital, immigration, private property, and topics of like
nature have been examined with a critical eye. The portrayal of facts
relating to races and nationalities in the United States has proved a fruitful
source of attack. Authors have been asked to omit or make colorless
references to controversial topics in the preparation or the revision of
textbooks which would discuss, for example, the Chinese and Japanese in
America, the Italians and the Jews. In one city the negroes protested the use
of a textbook because of a statement to the effect that the Southern white
man tried to keep the negro from voting, the protest carrying enough weight
to cause a special edition of the book to be printed for use in that city.
Its presentation of the subject of private property was the source of an
attack upon Berry and Howe’s Actual Democracy, “an elementary
discussion” of present-day problems in America. Exception was taken to
children being taught that “private property is one of the fundamental
institutions of American democracy ... an unmistakable index of social
progress ... [which] cannot be destroyed without destroying also the ideals
of liberty and democracy in which Americans believe.”[621]
Its method of discussing trade-unionism[622] and immigration likewise
met disfavor. In the case of the latter subject, the critics were disturbed
because, among other things, the authors concluded “that the immigration
situation has rendered necessary a profound change in the very structure of
our government. [For] in order to control the turbulent non-American
elements, we have been compelled to modify many of our earlier
democratic ideals and to adopt centralization of authority, which is far
different in spirit from American traditions ... [and] that [due to
immigration] American democracy is facing a life and death struggle with
Marxian socialism.”[623]
In treating freedom of speech the author of the secondary school textbook
is to no less degree upon slippery ground, for here again critics have

acclaimed partisanship and bias evident in discussions. On this charge A. T.
Southworth has been adjudged guilty in his The Common Sense of the
Constitution of the United States in that he says, “This amendment [the first
amendment] also guarantees the right of free speech. There can, of course,
be no such thing as absolute free speech. The only persons who say exactly
what they think every minute of the day are babies and fools.... There is
reason in all things, and on general principles a person may say in this
country anything he pleases, provided what he says is not libelous or
slanderous, or contrary to the public morals; and provided that he does not
advocate the overthrow of the government by force. In this country where
we have a government, not of men but of laws, it is not reasonable that
anyone should preach the overthrow of the government by force. If B says,
‘Murder A, throw him out of office, and let me rule,’ then it is perfectly
logical for C to advocate the murder of B after B has set himself up as a
ruler. This is anarchy.”[624]
The allegation that textbook-making has been directed by “Big Business”
has also been made. As a case in point, Hughes’s Text-Book in Citizenship
has been cited as one which carries many illustrations printed “by courtesy”
of such corporations as the Carnegie Steel Company, the International
Harvester Company and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.[625] “And,”
according to the critic, “it is not pictures of blast furnaces with sweating
men ... but pictures of Americanization schools ... factory gardens ... model
factory buildings ... and a group of twenty-four elderly men, who having
labored for thirty-five years each in the employ of the Carnegie Steel
Company are posed at the annual picnic given to the employees as a reward
for services rendered.”[626] A section in the same textbook, “Employers of
the Right Sort,” in which is discussed profit sharing by the employees of the
United States Steel Company, also met with disapproval. Equally disliked
was Mr. Hughes’s discussion of the I. W. W. because he said: “It is hard to
see how a right-thinking American can possibly indulge in such
performances or hold such theories. A decent man finds it difficult to
sympathize with even oppressed people who use any such means to have
their grievances corrected.”[627] The textbook was further adjudged biased
in its discussion of Lenin and Trotsky as “two able and unscrupulous
leaders” and of the anarchists whom “no civilized people can tolerate.”[628]
On the other hand, the same author’s book Economic Civics was attacked

by a member of the American Car Company of Berwick, Pennsylvania, on
the ground of being “Bolshevistic.”
Other books have incurred the disapproval of business interests.
American Economic Life by Henry Reed Burch has been charged with
being “unfair” in its treatment of monopolies for saying: “Trolley lines,
subways and ’bus companies often possess great monopoly power. For
example, in a city of one million and a half the competitive cost of
transportation perhaps does not exceed three or four cents a passenger, yet
the actual price paid by the passenger is usually from five to eight cents.
This difference between the price paid and the competitive price represents
the extent of the monopoly power.”[629]
Many business organizations have interested themselves in a program for
education not only among their own employees but among the people in
general. Pamphlets and other published materials have in this way been
distributed to set forth the point of view held desirable. Such a motive
doubtless led to a survey of books dealing with the subject of banking in
1919 by the American Bankers Association. The examination of the books
induced the Association through their Public Education Commission to
publish and distribute a series of talks to be given in the schools, since the
books examined were, on the whole, found to be “prepared from the
standpoint of bankers, and not the standpoint of the mass of students who
attend high school.”[630] The talks were designed to be delivered by bankers
to pupils in the eighth grade, the senior year of the high school, and to civic,
business and fraternal organizations in order to acquaint people more
thoroughly with methods of banking.[631]
During the World War the preparation of a series of lessons entitled
Lessons in Community and National Life under the auspices of the Bureau
of Education and the Food Administration provoked adverse criticism from
the National Industrial Conference Board. In the lessons topics pertinent to
a study of community civics were treated, and included discussions on
international trade relations, manufacturing methods, labor organizations
and similar subjects. To these, exception was taken, and it was asserted that
“opinions on controversial subjects are frequently introduced into the
Lessons by suggestion rather than by direct statement, and through the
whole fabric is woven a thread of propaganda in favor of the eight-hour day,

old age pensions, social insurance, trade-unionism, the minimum wage and
similar issues.”[632] A “partisan” attitude was said to be expressed in such a
statement as: “We are told that in the United States somebody is injured
while at work every fifteen seconds, and somebody is killed every fifteen
minutes. We cannot wonder at this when we realize how many dangers
there are in modern industry.”[633] According to The [New York] World,
Magnus N. Alexander, managing director of the National Industrial
Conference Board, alarmed a convention of the National Boot and Shoe
Manufacturers’ Association when he told them that these lessons were
spreading “insidious, unwarranted propaganda, particularly injurious for
reading by youth in the plastic age when youth is inclined to take for
granted and as proved all that is said through the medium of the books in
his classroom.”[634]
These criticisms caused editorial comment in different periodicals
throughout the country. The Capital Daily Press of Bismarck, North
Dakota, declaring that “for generations the reactionaries have maintained
their grip on the control of our educational institutions, and from the
kindergarten to college the ‘plastic minds of our youth’ have been
sedulously taught the superior sacredness of private property and the
supremacy of dollar rights over human rights. This is one thing which has
made political and industrial progress so slow.”[635]
To the editor of The School Review the whole discussion furnished “a
legitimate opportunity to call attention to the fact that the schools have been
very deficient in times past in their treatment of social problems.” He felt
that the time had come “when there ought to be a very clear and explicit
assertion on the part of educational people that they will not be dominated
by such criticism as here presented,” for he believed “the schools of a
democracy have a right to discuss democratic and popular matters.”[636]

FOOTNOTES:

[411] Stephens, H. Morse, “Nationality and History,” The American Historical
Review, Vol. XXI (January, 1916), pp. 225-237.
[412] “Our School Books,” De Bow’s Review, Vol. XXVIII (1860), p. 435 et
seq.
[413] Ibid., p. 439.
[414] Ibid., p. 437.
[415] The United States Telegraph, October 5, 1836, in which appeared Duff
Green’s prospectus for the American Literary Company, which was to have a
capital of $500,000 to print the Telegraph, manufacture paper, publish books,
prepare a new series of elementary school textbooks, elevate the general
standing of literature, and “render the South independent of Northern fanatics.”
[416] De Bow’s Review, Vol. XVIII (1855), pp. 660-661.
[417] De Bow’s Review, Vol. XXVIII (1860), p. 435 et seq.
[418] “Southern School Books,” De Bow’s Review, Vol. XIII (1852), pp. 258-
266.
[419] Ibid., p. 265.
[420] Ibid., Vol. XV (1853), p. 268.
[421] Ibid., Vol. XVII (1854), p. 508.
[422] Ibid.
[423] Ibid., Vol. XXI (1856), p. 553.
[424] Ibid., Vol. XXII (1857), p. 104. Committee was composed of J. D. S. De
Bow, of Louisiana; H. Gourdin, of South Carolina; and D. McRae, of North
Carolina.
[425] Ibid.
[426] Ibid.
[427] Ibid., Vol. XXV (1856), p. 117. Article on “Southern School Books.”
[428] Ibid., p. 597.
[429] Peter Parley was the pen-name of S. G. Goodrich.
[430] “Education at the South,” by “A South Carolinian,” ibid., Vol. XXI
(1856), pp. 651-652. Peter Parley’s (Goodrich’s) Pictorial History of the United
States was also criticized. Ibid., p. 657.
[431] Ibid., Vol. XXIX (1860), p. 219.
[432] Ibid., Vol. XVIII (1855), p. 661.
[433] Ibid., p. 663.

[434] Ibid., Vol. XXI (1856), p. 653.
[435] Ibid., p. 653. The italics are supplied by the transcriber.
[436] Ibid., Vol. XXII (1857), P. 557. Criticism of Willson’s Outlines of
History and his American History.
[437] Ibid., Vol. XXVIII (1860), p. 438. “Our School Books.”
[438] Ibid., Vol. XXII (1857), p. 557. Again in an article on “Southern School
Books,” Vol. XXV (1858), p. 117. Geographies and readers received similar
criticism, because they, too, contained “invidious” comparisons or sought to
“inculcate improper precepts” in the minds of the children on the subject of
slavery. In 1868 Willson’s Intermediate Readers were condemned because the
fourth of the series declared: “The Great Rebellion was a war set on foot for the
purpose of destroying the government of the United States.”
[439] Russell, William Howard, My Diary North and South (Boston, 1863), p.
25. “Mr. Appleton sells no less than one million and a half of Webster’s spelling-
books a year; his tables are covered with a flood of pamphlets, some for, others
against coercion; some for, others opposed to slavery,—but when I asked for a
single solid, substantial work on the present difficulty, I was told there was not
one published worth a cent.”
[440] Acts of Louisiana, 1859, No. 244, p. 190.
[441] Minutes of the Third Annual Meeting and Reunion of the Confederate
Veterans ... 1892, pp. 98-99.
[442] Minutes of the Fourth Annual Meeting and Reunion of the United
Confederate Veterans ... 1894, pp. 3-12.
[443] Ibid.
[444] Ibid. The meeting of the Veterans was at Birmingham, Alabama.
[445] Minutes of the Fifth Annual Meeting and Reunion of the Confederate
Veterans ... 1895, p. 13.
[446] Ibid., p. 15. The Committee of 1895 added to the list of acceptable
textbooks drawn up in 1894 the History of the United States by Susan P. Lee.
[447] In the meeting held in 1896 the following histories received
endorsement: School History of the United States, by J. William Jones, D. D. of
Virginia, Brief History of the United States, by Susan Pendleton Lee of Virginia,
Our Country, A History of the States, by Oscar H. Cooper and others of Texas.
Minutes ... of the United Confederate Veterans, ... 1896, pp. 28-50.
[448] Minutes ... of the United Confederate Veterans ... 1897, p. 49. See also
Journal ... of the Grand Army of the Republic ... 1897, p. 233. The activities of
the G. A. R. are discussed later.
[449] Minutes ... of the United Confederate Veterans ..., op. cit., p. 46.
[450] Ibid.
[451] Minutes ... of the United Confederate Veterans ... 1898, p. 87.
[452] Ibid., pp. 44-52.
[453] Ibid.

[454] Ibid.
[455] Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1898, pp. 144-154.
[456] Ibid., p. 147.
[457] Ibid., p. 152.
[458] Ibid.
[459] Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1900, pp. 78, 80.
[460] Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1902, pp. 54-59. The Report
of 1901 pointed out that “one of the most favorable omens of our times is the
catholicity with which thoughtful men, both North and South, now speak and
write of the issues of the war between the States.” Minutes ... of the Confederate
Veterans ... 1901, p. 61. A similar sentiment was expressed at the Reunion of
1904. Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1904, pp. 32-33.
[461] Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1909, pp. 30-38.
[462] Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1910, p. 101.
[463] Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1903, p. 164. The Southerners
felt that Northern histories failed to recognize any successes of the Confederate
forces. The objectionable points in Stratton’s book were found on pages 257-
258, according to the Minutes.
[464] Minutes ... of the Confederate Veterans ... 1911, p. 11.
[465] Ibid.
[466] Ibid. This appeared in large black-faced type in the Report.
[467] Ibid., p. 12.
[468] Ibid., p. 13.
[469] Ibid.
[470] Ibid.
[471] Ibid.
[472] Reunion of the United Confederate Veterans Proceedings of the Twenty-
Seventh Annual Reunion.
[473] Minutes ... United Confederate Veterans, 1921, p. 11. Report of the
Rutherford Committee, October 24, 1921, C. Irvine Walker, general chairman.
[474] The New York Times, June 21, 1922. Miss Rutherford’s ideas had been
endorsed by the United Confederate Veterans in Atlanta, October 7-11, 1919.
See A Measuring Rod for Text-Books prepared by Miss Rutherford (Athens,
Georgia). This pamphlet sought to establish some of the facts later brought out in
Truths of History.
[475] Ibid.
[476] Chicago Daily Tribune, June 23, 1922, editorial.
[477] The New York Times, June 23, 1922, editorial. The Times felt that “quite
the gravest of Miss Rutherford’s charges against Lincoln, ... is that he wanted a
civil war and forced the South to begin one that inevitably would end in her

defeat and ruin.” Objection was also raised to Miss Rutherford’s charge that
Lincoln’s Gettysburg address was worthless. Rutherford, Mildred, Truths of
History (Athens, Georgia, 1921).
[478] The New York Times, June 28, 1922.
[479] Ibid., June 24, 1922.
[480] Ibid., November 4, 1922.
[481] Written in 1917 and sent to Miss Rutherford who added to the contents
and produced her Truths of History.
[482] Rutherford, op. cit.
[483] Ibid., p. 64. Miss Rutherford gave no source for this quotation.
[484] Ibid., p. 70. Miss Rutherford ascribed this quotation to Lamon’s Life of
Lincoln.
[485] Ibid., from Lamon’s Life of Lincoln.
[486] Ibid., pp. 77-78. Quoted from Charles Francis Adams, Lamon’s
Recollections of Lincoln, Mr. Everett, and Mr. Seward.
[487] Ibid., p. 71.
[488] Ibid., p. 57.
[489] Ibid., p. 1.
[490] Ibid., p. 11.
[491] Ibid.
[492] Ibid.
[493] Ibid., p. v.
[494] Davidson, William M., History of the United States (Chicago, 1903);
Montgomery, David, The Beginner’s American History (Boston, 1899, 1920);
Muzzey, D. S., An American History (Boston, 1920).
[495] Rutherford, op. cit., p. 104.
[496] Ibid., p. 110. This quotation from Muzzey’s is incorrect in Truths of
History. Muzzey, eulogizing the Southern women, adds this statement: “It is
impossible for the student of history today to feel otherwise than that the victory
of the South in 1861-1865 would have been a calamity for every section of our
country. But the indomitable valor and utter self-sacrifice with which the South
defended her cause both at home and in the field must always arouse our
admiration.” Muzzey, An American History, pp. 372-373.
[497] Rutherford, op. cit., p. 104. In her chapter entitled “Reconstruction was
not just to the South. This injustice made the Ku Klux Klan a necessity,” Miss
Rutherford, pursuing a policy peculiarly inharmonious for a writer of Truths of
History, allowed herself again to become negligent as to the accuracy of her
quotations. Citing Muzzey as one authority for the title of her chapter, she
ascribed the following statement to him: “The rules of these negro governments
of 1868 was an indescribable orgy of extravagance, fraud and disgusting
incompetence—a travesty on government. Unprincipled politicians dominated

the States’ government and plunged the States further and further into debt by
voting themselves enormous salaries, and reaping in many ways hundreds of
thousands of dollars in graft. In South Carolina $200,000 were spent in
furnishing the State Capitol with costly plate glass mirrors, lounges, armchairs, a
free bar and other luxurious appointments for the use of the negro and scalawag
legislators. It took the South nine years to get rid of these governments.” In
reading Muzzey’s book, the reader cannot but wonder at the reason for the
inaccuracy of the quotation, for precisely the same end would have been
accomplished had Miss Rutherford quoted verbatim: “The Reconstruction
governments of the South were sorry affairs. For the exhausted states, already
amply ‘punished’ by the desolation of war, the rule of the negro and his
unscrupulous carpetbagger patron was an indescribable orgy of extravagance,
fraud, and disgusting incompetence,—a travesty on government. Instead of
seeking to build up the shattered resources of the South by economy and
industry, the new legislators plunged the states further and further into debt by
voting themselves enormous salaries and by spending lavish sums of money on
railroads, canals, and public buildings and works, for which they reaped
hundreds of thousands of dollars in graft.” In a footnote Muzzey adds the
following from which Miss Rutherford has culled the idea for part of her
quotation: “The economic evils and social humiliation brought on the South by
the Reconstruction governments are almost beyond description. South Carolina,
for example, had a legislature in which 98 of the 155 members were negroes ...;
in one year $200,000 was spent in furnishing the state capitol with costly plate-
glass mirrors, lounges, desks, armchairs, and other luxurious appointments,
including a free bar for the use of the negro and scalawag legislators. It took the
Southern states from two to nine years to get rid of these governments.” See
Rutherford, op. cit., p. 87; Muzzey, op. cit., pp. 387-388.
[498] Horton, Rushmore G., A Youth’s History of the Great Civil War in the
United States from 1861-1865 (New York, 1866).
[499] Lee, New School History of the United States, p. 261.
[500] Ibid., p. 357.
[501] Evans, Lawton B., The Essential Facts of American History (Benjamin
H. Sanborn and Company, 1920); Evans is from Augusta, Georgia. Thompson,
Waddy, History of the People of the United States (D. C. Heath and Co., 1919);
Chambers, Henry Edward, A School History of the United States (American
Book Co., 1895); Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright, An American History (Ginn
and Co., 1913, 1921); Estill, Harry F., The Beginner’s History of Our Country
(Southern Publishing Co., Dallas, Texas, 1919).
[502] Alabama, James and Sanford’s American History; Arkansas, Evans’ The
Essential Facts of American History; Florida, Stephenson’s An American
History; Georgia, Evans’ First Lessons in American History and Evans’
Essential Facts of Lessons in American History; Louisiana, Estill’s Beginner’s
History of Our Country, Evans’ Essential Facts of American History and
Stephenson’s An American History; Mississippi, Estill’s Beginner’s History of
Our Country and Mace-Petrie’s History of the People of the United States;
Texas, Cousin and Hill’s American History; Virginia, Andrew’s United States
History. These data were secured from a questionnaire. North Carolina reported
state adopted textbooks but did not name them; South Carolina failed to report.

[503] Evans, The Essential Facts of American History, p. 364.
[504] Stephenson, An American History, p. 399.
[505] Ibid., p. 486. However cf. Muzzey, op. cit., p. 387 et seq.; Guitteau,
William S., Our United States (Boston, 1919), p. 47 et seq.; West, Willis M.,
American History and Government (Boston, 1913), p. 627.
[506] Journal of the Twenty-Second Annual ... Encampment Grand Army of
the Republic, 1888, pp. 210-217. The U. C. V. Committee first reported in 1894,
no reunion being held in 1893.
[507] Journal ... op. cit., p. 210.
[508] Ibid.
[509] Ibid.
[510] Ibid.
[511] Ibid., pp. 212-213. Criticism of a history “By J. S. Blackburn, Principal
of the Potomac Academy, Alexandria, Virginia, and W. N. McDonald, A. M.,
Principal of the Male High School, Louisville, Kentucky, Twelfth Edition
Revised.”
[512] Ibid.
[513] Ibid., p. 215.
[514] Journal of the Twenty-Sixth National Encampment Grand Army of the
Republic ... 1892, p. 207.
[515] Journal of the Twenty-Ninth National Encampment Grand Army of the
Republic, ... 1895, p. 230.
[516] Ibid., p. 331. Montgomery’s books were disapproved by the South. Cf.
page 159.
[517] Journal of the Thirty-First National Encampment of the Grand Army of
the Republic ... 1897, p. 233. This book was endorsed by the Confederate
Veterans in 1896, but the author’s name is given as J. W. Jones. Minutes ... of the
Reunion of Confederate Veterans ... 1898, p. 31.
[518] Journal, op. cit.
[519] Ibid., p. 234.
[520] Ibid.
[521] Ibid.
[522] Ibid. The books in which the quotations appeared were not named.
[523] Ibid.
[524] Ibid.
[525] Ibid., p. 238.
[526] Journal of the Thirty-Second National Encampment of the Grand Army
of the Republic ... 1898, p. 192.
[527] Ibid., p. 194.

[528] Journal of the Thirty-Third National Encampment of the Grand Army of
the Republic ... 1899, pp. 244-246. The textbook was not named.
[529] Ibid.
[530] Ibid.
[531] Journal of the Thirty-Fourth National Encampment of the Grand Army
of the Republic ... 1900, p. 145.
[532] Journal of the Thirty-Eighth National Encampment of the Grand Army
of the Republic ... 1904, pp. 244-246.
[533] Journal of the Forty-First National Encampment of the Grand Army of
the Republic ... 1907, p. 173.
[534] Journal of the Forty-Third National Encampment of the Grand Army of
the Republic ... 1909, p. 164. The list included McLaughlin’s History of the
American Nation, Montgomery’s Leading Facts of American History, Mace’s
School History of the United States, McMaster’s History of the United States,
Gordy’s History of the United States, Eggleston’s “History,” Johnson’s
“History,” Barnes’ “History,” Fiske’s “History,” Scudder’s “History,”
Anderson’s “History,” and in the South “Waddy Thompson’s United States
History, revised and improved by the late General John B. Gordon.”
[535] Journal of the Forty-Fourth National Encampment of the Grand Army
of the Republic ... 1910, p. 219. The Phil Sheridan Post No. 4, G. A. R., joined
with the Sons of the American Revolution in 1922 in an effort to eliminate
West’s History of the American People from the acceptable textbooks of the
Boise, Idaho, schools. In addition to criticisms regarding West’s discussion of
the American Revolution and the War of 1812, the Veterans objected to the
treatment of the Civil War period. See p. 265 and the Idaho Statesman,
December 9, 1922.
[536] The controversy related to Public School Number 5. The Public School
Society was organized in 1805 and gradually extended its activities until 1853,
when it gave its buildings and property to the City Board of Education. See
Bourne, William Oland, History of the Public School Society of the City of New
York (New York, 1870), p. 324 et seq.
[537] Ibid., p. 324. No action was taken at that time, but a Roman Catholic
teacher was employed for Public School Number 5.
[538] Ibid., p. 325.
[539] Ibid., p. 328.
[540] Ibid.
[541] Ibid., p. 331.
[542] Ibid.
[543] Ibid., p. 342.
[544] Deshon, George, “A Novel Defence of the Public School,” The Catholic
World, Vol. L (February, 1890), pp. 677-687.
[545] Ibid.

[546] Hamilton, Gail, “Catholicism and Public Schools,” North American
Review, Vol. CXLVII (1888), pp. 572-580.
[547] Ibid.
[548] “The Anti-Catholic Spirit of Certain Writers,” The Catholic World, Vol.
XXXVI (February, 1883), pp. 658-667.
[549] Deshon, loc. cit.
[550] Hamilton, loc. cit.
[551] In 1815 there were “about 70,000 Catholics to be found in the United
States,.... In 1918, ... its Catholic population had increased to 17,416,303,....”
McCarthy, Charles H., The History of the United States for Catholic Schools
(New York, 1919), p. 421.
[552] McCarthy, Charles H., The History of the United States for Catholic
Schools (American Book Co., 1919); O’Hara, John P., A History of the United
States (The Macmillan Company, 1919); A History of the United States for
Catholic Schools prepared and arranged by the Franciscan Sisters of the
Perpetual Adoration (Scott, Foresman and Company, 1914); Lawler, Thomas B.,
Essentials of American History (Ginn and Company, 1918); Betten, Francis S.,
The Ancient World (Allyn and Bacon, 1916); Betten, Francis S., and Kaufman,
Alfred, The Modern World (Allyn and Bacon, 1919); Burke, E. J., Political
Economy, designed for use in Catholic Colleges, High Schools and Academies
(American Book Company, 1913).
[553] McCarthy, op. cit., preface, p. iii. Professor McCarthy is Knights of
Columbus Professor of American History at the Catholic University of America.
[554] Ibid., preface, p. iv.
[555] The Franciscan Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration, A History of the
United States for Catholic Schools (Chicago, 1914), pp. 3-4.
[556] Ibid., pp. 5-6.
[557] Betten, The Ancient World, preface.
[558] “This much maligned priest [John Tetzel], personally of blameless
character, undoubtedly went too far in his endeavors to procure financial
success. He insisted indeed on the necessity of contrition and confession for all
those who wished to obtain the remission of temporal punishment for
themselves; but his teaching concerning the indulgence for the dead was not free
from serious errors. To secure this benefit for a soul which has, of course,
departed this life in the state of grace, nothing, according to him, is required but
the alms. This doctrine, though at his time actually taught by some irresponsible
preachers, has never been supported by ecclesiastical authority. Tetzel’s own
brethren in religion openly reproached him for his ill-advised tactics, which soon
became the talk of the whole country.” Betten and Kaufman, The Modern World,
p. 376.
[559] “At least he [Martin Luther] imagined that he had made the discovery
that the doctrine of the Church concerning the remission of sins was altogether
wrong. He thereby implied that Christ, contrary to His solemn promise, had
allowed the Church to fall into a most disastrous error. The new system, which

gradually developed in Luther’s mind, confused the nature of sin with
concupiscence, which is a consequence of original sin, and while it makes man
inclined to sin is no sin in itself. By the sin of Adam, he thought human nature
was corrupted beyond recovery; man’s acts can only be bad; but Jesus Christ
covers the soul with His infinite merits, which, as it were, conceal all trespasses
from the eye of the just God; if sinful man expresses his firm ‘belief’ in this
merciful dispensation, God will not punish him, though the sin is not taken
away, but merely covered; the sinner therefore remains a sinner;.... It is evident
that such a justification is no justification at all, and it will always remain a
riddle how Luther could maintain that he had found such a monstrous doctrine in
the Bible.” Ibid., pp. 377-378.
[560] “The causes of the social evils are not only economic, but moral and
religious as well. It is true that present economic conditions are far from
satisfactory. Though production, on account of the introduction of machinery,
has increased enormously, wages have not kept pace with that increase.... But the
moral and religious causes are not to be overlooked. The breaking loose from
practical Christianity, so characteristic of the last two centuries, has developed
an intense selfishness, a struggle for wealth in which each one seeks his own
material advantage at the expense of his neighbor.... What, then, are the remedies
proposed by Catholics? Certainly not the adoption of Socialist views.... The
Socialists deliberately ignore, yea exclude, religion from coöperation in the
solution of the great social problem. They forget that man’s happiness here
below is not his ultimate end, that the Creator did not want equal wealth and
equal material advantages for all.... The state having at heart the temporal
welfare of its citizens, should by wise legislation protect the workers, their
health, and morals, and that of their family. But the change of hearts which is so
necessary for the cure of modern evils is the principal task of religion. Hence the
Church should be free to carry out her mission.” Ibid., pp. 630-641.
[561] Burke, E. J., Political Economy designed for use in Catholic Colleges,
High Schools, and Academies (New York, 1913), p. 1. According to Bullock’s
Elements of Economics, one textbook used in the public schools, “Economics is
the science which deals with the efforts of mankind to secure the material
commodities and personal services which are needed to support life and to make
a civilized existence possible.” Bullock, Charles J., Elements of Economics
(Boston, 1913), p. 4.
[562] Burke, op. cit., p. 57.
[563] Burke, op. cit., p. 386. Although “followers of the Catholic School do
not deny that much of the evil existing in society is due to defective methods of
distribution, they suggest no such drastic action as the Socialists.... They appeal
to the influence of the Church’s teaching and the power of Christian doctrine to
bring about a spirit of charity and justice in the mutual dealings of capitalists and
labor.” Ibid., p. 392.
[564] Advertising pamphlet entitled “The Hospitality given Father Burke’s
Political Economy.”
[565] Ibid., p. 6.
[566] Ibid.
[567] Ibid., p. 4.

[568] Hassard, John R. G., A History of the United States of America (New
York, 1878), p. vi.
[569] Ibid.
The National Lutheran Council had, in 1923, a committee on history
textbooks, whose purpose was to make known any “flagrant or actual
misrepresentations” of their church in history textbooks used in the United
States. Letter from Lauritz Larsen, President of the National Lutheran Council to
the author under date of January 13, 1923. No report of the committee was
given. The writer of the letter also stated that there had been no “organized effort
to suggest the content of history textbooks in the public schools, not even as this
might pertain to the teaching of the history of the Reformation in the public
schools.”
According to Werner, Brigham Young “insisted that the school-books should
be published in Utah, and written there if possible, rather than imported at
unnecessary expense from the East. The teachers, too, he wrote should be Latter-
day Saints, so that the children might learn only what they ought to know.”
Werner, M. R., Brigham Young (New York, 1925), p. 451.
[570] Sweet, W. W., “Religion in Our School Histories,” The Christian
Century, Vol. XLI (November 20, 1924), pp. 1502-1504.
[571] The textbook is not named in the article.
[572] The title of this book is not given in the article but such a statement
appears in A History of the United States by the Franciscan Sisters of the
Perpetual Adoration, p. 68.
[573] Ibid.
[574] Report of the American Bar Association, Vol. XLVII (1922), pp. 416-
423.
[575] Ibid.
[576] Report of the American Bar Association, Vol. XLVIII (1923), pp. 442-
451. The committee was composed of R. E. L. Saner, chairman, Walter George
Smith, Andrew A. Brice, Wallace McCamant, John Ford O’Brien.
[577] Report of the American Bar Association, Vol. XLIX (1924), pp. 255-
269.
[578] Ibid. Chapter IV discusses laws since 1917.
[579] Ibid.
[580] Ibid. The Reports of 1923 and 1924 are similar.
[581] Ibid., pp. 262-263.
[582] Ibid., p. 271. The entire creed appears in the Appendix.
[583] Printed statement from the National Security League, 25 West 43d
Street, New York.
[584] For the statement of the American Bar Association as to their activities
see page 187.
[585] Ibid.

[586] The National Security League, “Report to Members for the Month
Ending May 15, 1925.”
[587] Printed statement quoted previously.
[588] Ibid.
[589] The National Security League, “Report to Members for the Month
Ending May 15, 1925.”
[590] Ibid., October 15, 1925.
[591] Ibid., May 15, 1925.
[592] Printed statement quoted previously.
[593] The National Security League, “Report to Members for the Month
Ending November 15, 1925.”
[594] Constitution Anniversary Association, “A Statement of the Expanding
Activities.”
[595] Ibid.
[596] Ibid.
[597] Constitution Anniversary Association, “Bulletin Number 10.”
[598] Ibid.
[599] Constitution Anniversary Association, “Bulletin Number 9.” The first
prize in the Second Annual Contest was $2000, and was awarded to Robert
Sessions of Birmingham, Alabama, a boy of fifteen years. See Constitution
Anniversary Association, “Bulletin Number 10.”
[600] Atwood, Harry F., Back to the Republic, the Golden Mean: the Standard
Form of Government (Chicago, 1918), p. 20. The italics are in the original.
[601] Ibid., pp. 36-40. Mr. Atwood draws ten parallels to autocracy,
democracy and the republic from religion, domestic life, food, drink, music,
thought, sleep, light, moisture, and the number of wheels most serviceable on
vehicles.
[602] Atwood, Harry F., Safeguarding American Ideals (Chicago, 1921), p.
34.
[603] Ibid., pp. 29-32.
[604] Ibid.
[605] Clum, Woodworth, “America is Calling,” The Better America
Federation of California, Los Angeles.
[606] Ibid.
[607] “Education for All,” Official Record of the American Federation of
Labor in the Struggle to Bring Knowledge to the Masses (American Federation
of Labor, Washington, 1922), p. 4.
[608] Ibid.
[609] Ibid.
[610] Ibid., p. 5.

[611] Report of the Proceedings of the Convention of the American
Federation of Labor at Cincinnati, June, 1922. Eighth Day Proceedings. Report
of the American Federation of Labor, Committee on Education on Social
Studies in the Public Schools, “Labor and Education” (The American Federation
of Labor, Washington, 1923), pp. 1-13.
[612] Ibid., pp. 3-4, 7. The New York Times, August 25, 1921.
[613] Report of the American Federation of Labor, op. cit., pp. 3-4, 9.
[614] Ibid., p. 21.
[615] Ibid., p. 23.
[616] Ibid.
[617] Ibid.
[618] Report of Proceedings, Eighth Day (1922), p. 356.
[619] Ibid. According to the Committee the “modern textbooks in most
frequent use are: civics, Ashley’s The New Civics, Beard’s American Citizenship,
Dunn’s The Community and the Citizen, Forman’s The American Democracy,
Hill’s Community Life and Civic Problems, Hughes’ Community Civics,
Magruder’s American Government in 1921, and Reed’s Forms and Functions of
American Government; in economics, Burch’s American Economic Life, Burch
and Patterson’s American Social Problems, Hughes’ Economic Civics, Laing’s
An Introduction to Economics, Marshall and Lyon’s Our Economic
Organization, and Thompson’s Elementary Economics; in sociology, Burch and
Patterson’s American Social Problems, Ellwood’s Sociology and Modern
Problems [sic], Towne’s Social Problems, and Tuft’s The Real Business of
Living; in history, Ashley’s American History, Beard and Bagley’s A First Book
in American History, Beard’s History of the United States, Bourne and Benton’s
History of the United States, Cousins and Hills’ [sic] American History, Evans’
The Essential Facts of American History, Forman’s A History of the United
States for Schools, and Advanced American History, James and Sanford’s
American History, Mace’s School History of the United States, Muzzey’s
American History, Thompson’s History of the United States, Political, Industrial
and Social, and West’s History of the American People. “Labor and Education,”
p. 28.
[620] The New York Times, September 3, 1923.
[621] Herskovitz, Melville J., and Willey, Malcolm M., “What Your Child
Learns,” The Nation, Vol. CXIX (September 17, 1924), pp. 282-284. The book
referred to is Berry, Margaret K., and Howe, Samuel B., Actual Democracy
(New York, 1923). The quotation is found on page 63.
[622] In the discussion of trade-unionism objection was raised to the
classification of unions as “business unionism—which is trade conscious but not
class conscious, ... the friendly or uplift union which may be either trade or class
conscious, and is conservative, ... ‘predatory unionism’ ... secret, either radical or
conservative, class or trade conscious, and has two wings; ‘hold-up unionism,’
the corrupt type recently exposed in our great cities, and ‘guerrilla unionism’
which never combines with employers, but engages in a secret and violent
warfare with capital ... a fourth and more objectionable type of unionism ... calls

itself ‘revolutionary unionism.’ It may be either socialistic as was the Western
Federation of Miners, or anarchistic like the Industrial Workers of the World....”
Berry and Howe, op. cit., pp. 73-74.
[623] The Nation, loc. cit. The quotation which was objectionable to the
writers of the article was found on pages 167-169 of the textbook.
[624] The Nation, loc. cit. See Southworth, A. T., The Common Sense of the
Constitution of the United States (Boston, 1924), pp. 91-92.
[625] The Nation, loc. cit. Hughes, R. O., Text-Book in Citizenship (Boston,
1923).
[626] The Nation, loc. cit.
[627] The Nation, loc. cit. Hughes, op. cit., pp. 510-511.
[628] The Nation, loc. cit. Hughes, op. cit., pp. 510-511.
[629] Letter under date of December 7, 1925, from the editor of “Service
Talks,” published by the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Burch, Henry
Reed, American Economic Life (New York, 1921), p. 330.
[630] American Bankers Association, “Books devoted wholly or in part to the
subject of Banking.” The books mentioned were not all social study books,
arithmetic and bookkeeping textbooks being included.
[631] “Talks on Banking and Elementary Economics,” prepared by the Public
Education Commission, American Bankers Association, New York.
[632] Educational News and Editorial Comment, “Social Studies in Public
Schools,” The School Review, Vol. XXVII (1919), pp. 205-212. National
Industrial Conference Board, A Case of Federal Propaganda in Our Public
Schools, pp. 4, 11. The lessons were prepared under the direction of Charles H.
Judd, Director of the School of Education of the University of Chicago, and
Leon C. Marshall, Dean of the School of Commerce and Administration in the
same university.
[633] The National Industrial Conference Board in connection with this
remarked: “Such a statement indicates a studied effort to present to the immature
mind an exceedingly distorted picture of factory life. It suggests an almost
constant maiming and mangling of industrial workers, whereas, as a matter of
fact, most industrial accidents are of a minor character such as slight cuts,
scratches and slivers. Take, however, at its face value the statement that
somebody is killed every fifteen minutes while at work. On the basis of a 54-
hour work-week, approximately the average in this country, this means a total of
11,250 deaths in industry per year ... the scholar should also be given an idea of
the millions of workers to whom this total of deaths is related. He should in
fairness also have pointed out to him the hazards of non-industrial pursuits
which cause annually more fatal accidents than occur in industry.” The National
Industrial Conference Board, op. cit., p. 11.
[634] The School Review, loc. cit.
[635] Quoted in The School Review, loc. cit.
[636] The School Review, loc. cit. Instances of criticism of textbooks might be
multiplied. Authors have met objections to their works because there were no

“Republican illustrations in the book,” because of quotations from Münsterberg
and other Germans, and because of the discussion devoted to prohibition. In this
last case a member of the Board of Education of Chicago is reported to have
criticised the use of an arithmetic as looking like “a bartender’s friend” in that it
was full of problems of “how much did this wine merchant order his sherry or
how many barrels of whiskey could the man purchase for such an amount.” Iowa
City [Iowa] Press-Citizen, November 13, 1924.

CHAPTER VII
The Attack on History Textbooks Since 1917

Since the World War, an ardent patriotism has swept the country,
resulting in a widespread investigation of the teaching and writing of
history. Sponsored by various groups, the movement has gained
considerable momentum, until history teaching and history textbooks are in
danger of being an expression of certain religious, racial or other partisan
opinions. These groups hold, in common, that American histories, as now
written, neglect heroic characters in American history, especially in the
Revolutionary War, and that they are distorted by a pro-British bias.
Propaganda, indeed, makes strange bed-fellows. In this new praetorian
guard of the temple of American patriotism are found the Hearst
newspapers, an element of the Knights of Columbus and of the Irish-
Americans, the German-Americans, and finally patriotic societies of this
country.
The charge of “Anglicization,” usually enlivened by mysterious
references to “British gold,” arises in part from the new trend of American
historical scholarship in the last twenty-five years. Historians employing
scientific methods have done much to revise the traditional ideas
concerning our relations with Great Britain. Important contributions of this
character have been made, for instance, by such historians as George Louis
Beer, Charles M. Andrews, Herbert L. Osgood, Sydney George Fisher, and
Claude H. Van Tyne.
These investigations were going forward at the same time that conscious
efforts were being made by the publicists of the two countries to reveal to
the two English-speaking peoples their common ties and responsibilities in
the world today. Many books were printed and organizations formed to
promote Anglo-American concord; among the latter, such bodies as the
Sulgrave Institute, the Anglo-American League and the English-Speaking
Union.
To suspicious onlookers the work of the historians in their cloisters took
on the appearance of deliberate propaganda favorable to Great Britain—a
suspicion, it need hardly be said, entirely unwarranted. It needed only an

appeal such as that of Herbert Adams Gibbons that we solidify an amicable
relationship with Great Britain through our common language, common
ideals and common interests, to confirm the credulous in their suspicions.
[637]
Furthermore, suggestions from men like Albert Bushnell Hart that our
history text-books be rewritten to encourage better international relations
seemed to afford additional proof that pro-British agencies were in control
of history textbooks.[638] The writings of special pleaders like Owen Wister
strengthened this impression.[639] Indeed, Charles Edward Russell has gone
so far as to declare that definitely planned attempts to rewrite American
history textbooks, for the purpose of encouraging better Anglo-American
relations, were launched as early as 1896, and have been carefully carried
on since then.[640]
On the other hand, the proponents of revision, conscious of an “agitation
for the reintroduction of parochial patriotism into the schools and colleges,”
have entered a plea for “the truth” in school histories and for the writing
and teaching of history by scholars unaffected by the demands of
“politicians.”[641] To them, the true fount of patriotism does not arise from
textbooks of history which are “nationalistic rather than impartial.”[642]
They would seek, rather, to depict events not as “partisans” but in a
“scientific spirit, with the desire to understand rather than to justify.”[643]

ATTACKS ON HISTORY TEXTBOOKS BY THE HEARST
NEWSPAPERS AND CHARLES GRANT MILLER

In 1921 the Hearst newspapers began the publication of a series of
articles designed to arouse “patriotic American parents” to a realization that
“the school histories now being taught to their children have been revised
and in some instances wholly rewritten in a new and propitiatory spirit
toward England.”[644] Since that time these articles have appeared at
irregular intervals from the pen of Charles Grant Miller. There has been
yeast in his statements, and to them may be attributed the origin of much of
the criticism directed against history textbooks by individuals and organized
groups. With titles set up in large black-faced type these articles captured
the eye of those who, consciously or unconsciously, were giving heed to the
feverish propaganda which has flourished since the World War. In his

articles, Mr. Miller proceeded from the discussion of “United States History
Revised in School Books, Belittles Revolution and Thanks England for
Bestowing Liberty on America” to a treatment of “Propaganda seeks to
Distort American History, British Workers are Being Backed by a Heavily
Financed Machine....”[645]
Chief among the historians whom Mr. Miller would characterize as
“Anglicized” are found Albert Bushnell Hart, John P. O’Hara, Everett
Barnes, A. C. McLaughlin, C. H. Van Tyne, William B. Guitteau, and Willis
Mason West. Charges of “Anglicization” have been brought also against C.
H. Ward for his edition of Burke’s Speech on Conciliation with America and
upon Helen Nicolay for her Book of American Wars. The pro-British point
of view which Mr. Miller found expressed has been brought about by
“intrigue and treason” and the American school histories which portray it
“must be cast out if America is to remain America.”[646]
Substantially all of the criticisms of history textbooks in which Mr.
Miller has indulged have related to statements regarding the Revolutionary
War. He found it especially objectionable when a history like John P.
O’Hara’s gives “the impression” that “the American Revolution originated
not in the colonies themselves, but among the devoted friends of liberty in
England,” and when “more quotation is given from Pitt than from Patrick
Henry.”[647] A “wholesome desire for increased friendship and coöperation
between the United States and Great Britain,” declared Mr. Miller, “creates
no justification for the policy of propitiation of England through defamation
of America, which offers as sacrifice upon the altar of international comity
immortelles snatched from the monuments of our nation’s heroic
founders.... In our own heroes and history our nation has been exceptionally
blessed. They have proved unfailing sources of pride and inspiration that
have prompted us as a people to stanch character, high endeavor, noble
achievements and unparalleled progress.”[648]
The second article in the Chicago Herald and Examiner lay bare the
alleged defects in Barnes’ textbook, where the author plays “the part of a
flunky apologist to England for the independence established by our
fathers,” and in which he “burlesques its world affecting results.”[649]
Barnes, furthermore, Mr. Miller pointed out, ignores such patriots as
“Nathan Hale, whose only regret on the British scaffold was that he had but

one life to give to his country, ... Ethan Allen, Mad Anthony Wayne and the
battle of Stony Point,” while, on the other hand, “there is a full page of
praise for the traitor Benedict Arnold whom ‘Congress had treated
unfairly.’”[650] In addition to other faults, Mr. Miller cited the statements
that “the first signer of the Declaration of Independence was a smuggler,”
“that the Continental Congress ‘was a scene of petty bickerings and
schemings’ among ‘selfish, unworthy, short-sighted, narrow-minded, office-
seeking and office-trading plotters,’ that ‘half the colonists were loyal to
England’; that the rest were united in resistance only ‘because they dared
not be otherwise,’ and that if in England the wise course had only prevailed
against the ‘foolish’ King, ‘this great country would probably now have
been a great branch of the British empire.’”[651]
Barnes was also condemned because he calls the War of 1812 “a
mistake,” the burning of Washington “an act of reprisal” for the burning of
buildings in Canada, and Jackson’s victory at New Orleans “a wasted battle;
a needless victory.”[652] How different to Mr. Miller was “this new Barnes”
from the Barnes’ Brief History of the United States which spoke “always
from the American viewpoint, with American interests and sympathies at
heart!”[653]
The next authors to arouse his ire were McLaughlin and Van Tyne, who
with other historians were “reshaping” American history “to serve
international interests under whose hypnotism of propaganda American
public opinion has been goose-stepping for five years in the direction of a
return to English subjection.”[654] Charged with omitting Hale, Decatur,
Faneuil Hall, the Green Mountain Boys, Betsy Ross and the flag, the
quartering of troops and “the British attempts to bribe,” they were declared
guilty also of “strictly minimizing the patriot valor at Lexington, Bunker
Hill and New Orleans.” Such omission in the school histories Mr. Miller
compared with “an ancient custom to remove the viscera and brain before
embalming a body.” Indeed, Mr. Miller found it extremely objectionable
that the “leading founders of our liberties are characterized by McLaughlin
and Van Tyne as follows: ‘It is hard to realize how ignorant and
superstitious were most of the colonists of America’—p. 134; ‘Patrick
Henry, a gay, unprosperous and hitherto unknown country lawyer’—p. 141;
‘Smuggling was so common that even a leading Boston merchant was

known as ‘the Prince of Smugglers’’—p. 140; ... and ‘Adams and Hancock
stole away across the fields’—p. 153.”[655]
Besides these grievances the Hearst papers objected to the omission of
“such famous slogans as ‘We have met the enemy and they are ours’ and
‘Don’t give up the ship’”; and McLaughlin and Van Tyne “go further [even]
than their fellows and seek to destroy these inspiring slogans by disputing
their authenticity.”[656]
This attack on the McLaughlin and Van Tyne textbook provoked a protest
from C. H. Ward, whose edition of Burke’s Speech on Conciliation with
America the Hearst papers also had criticized. “Mr. Miller,” declared Ward,
“skillfully quotes with a sneer from the McLaughlin and Van Tyne book”
(regarding Patrick Henry). “Yet this book,” he asserted, “does in fact give
more than usual prominence and praise to Patrick Henry: ‘Who declared
with marvelous eloquence’ (p. 141); ‘With burning words he denounced the
tyranny’ (p. 142); ‘Patrick Henry again electrified the Virginia leaders by
his daring prophecy’ (p. 150); ‘Securing a commission and money from the
Governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry’ (p. 182).” Notwithstanding this
treatment of Henry, Mr. Ward averred that “Mr. Miller so quotes as to imply
that the authors have slandered Henry; but the two adjectives ‘gay and
unknown’ are the only two words that convey aught but praise.”[657]
Further, Mr. Ward showed that, in the account of Lexington, the statement
that “Adams and Hancock stole away” is taken out of its context. Ward,
likewise, found that Miller has “misrepresented” Hart’s history, for he was
unable to discover some of the statements attributed to that author.[658]
On November 20, 1921, the Chicago Herald and Examiner devoted an
article to an attack not only upon Barnes, Hart, McLaughlin and Van Tyne,
but also upon William B. Guitteau, who, too, had fallen victim to “the
snobbish spirit of apology and subserviency to England.”[659] This attitude,
according to Mr. Miller, “the publishers, Silver, Burdett and Company,
boldly proclaim in their advertisements” in saying: “This book has been
written in the light of recent events in which a new atmosphere has been
created for the study of our national life.... The revolutionary war and
subsequent Anglo-American difficulties hitherto distorted in our school
books through an unthinking adherence to traditional prejudice, have been
restated by Dr. Guitteau in their true light.”[660]

One of the objectionable points urged against Guitteau and other
historians was the ignoring of Irish patriots. In large, bold-faced type Mr.
Miller called attention to “the elimination of German and Irish assistance to
the colonists in the Revolution, as well as the Dutch of New York and
Pennsylvania, the French of Carolina and the Swedes of New Jersey and
Delaware, while the help given by France is minimized and charged to
selfish, scheming motives.”[661] In his earlier editions, declared Mr. Miller,
Professor Hart had the “frankness to say ‘Germans, Irish, Scotch-Irish,
French, Dutch, Negroes and Englishmen stood side by side in the ranks,’”
but in the revised edition of 1920 “he has magically transformed so eminent
a hero as Baron De Kalb from a German to a Frenchman.”[662]
“Home grown motives might be imagined for carrying back a century
and a half the cancellation of friendly relations with the Germans,” was Mr.
Miller’s observation, “but whence comes the motive for a sudden change in
attitude toward Irish heroes of the Revolution?” Such a situation revealed to
Miller a significant animus, for certainly “it is not our own country that has
had the trouble with the Irish.” To him it was conceivable that hidden forces
were actuating the “recent revisions,” for “by the early historians” the high
regard in which George Washington held Irishmen was “glowingly
recognized.”[663]
The publication of this “series of articles written for the Hearst
newspapers by Charles Grant Miller ... aroused a wave of indignation all
over the country,” according to the Chicago Herald and Examiner for May
14, 1922. As a result, “patriotic societies have taken up the battle and
various organizations have started movements to stop such perversion of
American traditions.” As an example of one who was aroused to the
situation described in the articles, the Herald and Examiner published a
letter from Senator William E. Borah, “who raises a clarion voice against
the insidious effort to falsify the glorious story of the American fight for
independence and to cheat the youth of this day of the heroic inspiration
and sturdy manhood of the days of the Revolution.”[664]
Although Senator Borah did not desire “to have our histories do any
injustice to Great Britain,” yet he did not want “facts concealed nor events
ignored in order to satisfy those who now seem to regret that their ancestors
ever came to this country.”[665] He presumed that the next step would be

“an expurgated edition” of the Declaration of Independence, which would
be read “with appropriate apology” on the Fourth of July “should that
continue to be observed.” All of this led him to remark that in “due time
some sycophantic intellectual interloper will feel constrained to urge that
we withhold from our young men and women the unjust attack so long
made upon the American-English gentleman known as Benedict
Arnold.”[666]
Under the caption “Let United States History Teach Patriotism,” Wallace
McCamant, one-time president of the Sons of the American Revolution,
announced his approval of the stand taken by Charles Grant Miller. “What
think you of a school history,” queried Judge McCamant, “which begins the
story of the American Revolution with this sentence? ‘There is little use
trying to learn whose fault it was that the war began, for, as we have seen,
such a long train of events led to disagreement between England and
America, that we should have to go back and back in the very founding of
the colonies. As in most quarrels, the blame is laid by each party on the
other.’”[667] When an author, in discussing taxation without representation
declares that “there was here an honest difference of opinion,” it was
evident to Judge McCamant that he “has certainly not been called of God to
write American history.”[668]
To those “who say that history should not stress war,” Judge McCamant
admitted that “there are important chapters in our peace history which
should be adequately covered,” but he suggested that there is “nothing else”
which “will grip the imagination of the young like the story of the soldier or
the sailor who fights and dies that his country may be free.”[669] The
inculcation of patriotism, which is the chief value in the teaching of
American history in Mr. McCamant’s mind, can best be attained in setting
forth “sacrifices in winning freedom.”[670]
The next angle from which Mr. Miller criticized American school
histories is in “the magical transformation of King George III from a born
Briton into a German.”[671] Such, he asserted appears in the 1916-17 edition
of the school history by Hart, a plain evidence of “the forces of British
propaganda” which “were increasing their influences to quicken an
American hatred of Germany and to hurry us into war and into permanent
alliance....”[672] To prove his contention regarding the nationality of King

George III, he quoted the “English historical authority, Macaulay,” thus:
“‘The young King was a born Englishman. All his tastes and habits, good
and bad were English.’”[673]
As a result of the “many forces actively at work” Mr. Miller observed
that the “Anglicized revisionists, like ten automatons worked by one will,
begin to teach American school children: ‘that the American revolution was
made in Germany; ...’ that ‘the American revolution was a contest between
German tyranny and English freedom, although neither party in the struggle
knew that this was the issue’; ....”[674] On the other hand, Mr. Miller found
in John Bach McMaster’s history “an excellent summary” where “the
venomous quality of English comments upon America is vividly
described.”[675]
Another victim of “Anglicization” Mr. Miller held to be Matthew Page
Andrews, “director of the English-Speaking Union and Anglicized author of
three American school histories” whose source of information was Greg’s
History of the United States, published in London in 1887.[676] It was the
belief of Mr. Miller that it was Greg’s History from which Mr. Andrews
adduced the conclusion that “Lincoln was controlled by fanatics and
through perfidy and broken pledges forced our Civil War.”[677] In his
discussion of Greg’s book, Mr. Miller failed to mention Greg’s
characterization of Townshend’s work. In this latter case it would seem that
Greg ought to have met with approval, for he described Townshend’s part in
the Revolution as “folly,” as well as saying that Townshend “pledged
himself to a series of petty customs imposts.”[678] Furthermore, he mentions
Ethan Allen, Stark, Wayne, St. Clair, Putnam, Sumter and Marion, and in
that regard should prove acceptable to those desiring the inclusion of heroic
characters in textbooks.[679]
On October 15, 1922, the Chicago Herald and Examiner sought to
expose the agencies which ranged “all the way from the cultivation of
‘more friendly relations’ to the fulfillment of the Carnegie prophecy of the
Reunited States, the British-American Union and the Cecil Rhodes
Design,”[680] and which were responsible for textbook revision. Besides the
“elaborate and well-oiled British propaganda machine established by Sir
Gilbert Parker and the late Lord Northcliffe,” Mr. Miller had discovered “at
least a full half dozen of strong propaganda organizations” all of whose

methods were “sinister and to the one end.” Among these were the “Sons of
St. George, an old organization of British-born residents of this country”
who, “within the last few years,” had “emerged from obscurity through a
hard drive for increased membership and vigorous assertion of British
spirit,” and who had offered “the only open opposition which the Sons of
the Revolution in California have encountered in their winning fight against
Anglicized school histories....” In the California case, the opposition was
directed by “the American-born wife of a son of St. George and from a
daughter of the American Revolution who is a member of the English-
Speaking Union,” which exemplified “the favorite policy of all of these
British propaganda organizations” in which they “push their American-born
women to the front to do their open fighting.”[681]
The English-Speaking Union is another of the organizations of which Mr.
Miller spoke. Its magazine, The Landmark, has “bitterly attacked as
‘demagogic’ and ‘narrow-minded’ the movement to restore true American
history to our public schools”;—and “it arranges for the granting of degrees
by English universities to American collegiates who teach to our youth the
imperialistic interests of Great Britain.”[682]
The third agency for Anglicization, according to Mr. Miller, is the
Sulgrave Institute “founded upon the idea that George Washington has
loomed too large throughout the world ever to be belittled, and so must be
claimed as an Englishman, who established in this western world English
freedom.” A like fate Mr. Miller prophesied for Lincoln “for whom there is
now being provided an English lineage and an English ancestral home, as a
shrine where expatriate Americans may bend the sycophantic knee in
foolish worship of supposed English influences that are said to have freed
our slaves and saved our Union.”[683]
Other forces of like design Mr. Miller found in the “Cecil Rhodes
Scholarship, the Cecil Rhodes Secret Society and the Rhodes Scholarship
Alumni Association of America,” all influences for Rhodes’ dream—“the
ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the
British Empire.”[684] Of like character are “the multiform Carnegie
institutions, supported by the $200,000,000 fund of the Carnegie
Corporation, and designed to influence and direct the spirit and methods of
the scholastic, public school and library forces of the country,” as well as

the religious through the “Church Peace Union.”[685] The World Alliance
for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches and The
American Association for International Coöperation are among the various
influences named by Mr. Miller, which seek to “Briticize” America.
One of the chief endeavors of “all of the propaganda organizations,”
according to Mr. Miller, is the substitution of the observance of Magna
Charta Day, June 15, for that of July the fourth. Such an effort led him to
conclude that “the international mind is a British mind throughout. While
insidiously seeking to denationalize America, it is insistently striving to
strengthen the nationalism of Great Britain.”[686] Mr. Miller held as chiefly
responsible for “this de-Americanizing ‘dope’” Nicholas Murray Butler and
“more than a score of college presidents and professors, other educators and
preachers, who readily are traced into other British propaganda
organizations and are officially identified with various British secret
services in this country”; who through a system of pensions are “securely
subsidized into keen sympathy with the Carnegie design of ‘the Reunited
States—the British-American Union.’”[687]
The inclusion in American history textbooks of statements designed to
show that American constitutional practices had their source in English
institutions caused Mr. Miller to criticize not only Barnes, O’Hara,
McLaughlin and Van Tyne, against whom he had other grievances, but also
David Saville Muzzey and Willis Mason West. “Such is not American
history,” he declared, “it is British propaganda,” for even an Englishman,
Gladstone, has said, “The American Constitution is the most wonderful
work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”[688]
“Such disparagement in revised school history is not mere unintentional
error,” asserted Mr. Miller. “..., these and other gross alterations recently
made in ten of our school histories, are a direct result of definite design and
organized propaganda” conducted by “propaganda associations
pussyfooting among us ... to deaden our respect for our own birthright,
inoculate us with contempt for our free institutions and fit us for coercion of
re-colonization.”[689]
On November 4, 1923, however, the New York American carried a
retraction of an attack on West’s History of the American People which
“was printed in such a way as to lead readers to believe ... that the

statements [objected to by the Hearst papers] ... were made without
qualification.” The American apologized for “inadvertently” publishing part
of a discussion in such a way as to distort “the meaning of both paragraphs
when read together.”[690]
As a result of the agitation of the Hearst newspapers the “treason texts”
were being revised, according to the Chicago Herald and Examiner of April
20, 1924. Among the authors attempting to “re-Americanize” their histories
were David S. Muzzey, who already had made “three mincing revisions,”
Andrew C. McLaughlin and C. H. Van Tyne who have “at last submitted to
the irresistible force of nation-wide protest against treason texts and have
strikingly reversed their views....”[691]
However, Mr. Miller has not confined his activities solely to the
publication of articles in the Hearst newspapers, but has resorted to other
means for preaching his gospel. Through the agency of an organization
called the Patriot League for the Preservation of American History he has
endeavored to carry on his war against the “British propagandists” and “to
purge the public schools of the Anglicized school histories and establish in
their stead textbooks that teach the true American annals and inculcate the
true American spirit.”[692] The slogan for the Patriot League is taken from
Washington’s Farewell Address: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign
influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free
people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican
government.”[693] Charges against “ten” Anglicized school histories
reincarnating “the spirit of Benedict Arnold” have been made by the Patriot
League in a pamphlet entitled “Treason to American Tradition.” These
charges have been indorsed and the accused books condemned, in formal
resolutions unanimously adopted in their national conventions by the
American Legion, the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of
Independence, the Grand Army of the Republic, the Knights of Columbus,
the Sons of the American Revolution, and the United Spanish War Veterans.
[694]
The proscribed list includes books under the authorship of Matthew
Page Andrews, Albert Bushnell Hart, John P. O’Hara, C. R. Ward, David
Saville Muzzey, Willis Mason West, William B. Guitteau, A. C.
McLaughlin and C. H. Van Tyne, Everett Barnes, and Edwin Greenlaw. The
Patriot League concludes that “the heroic history of a nation is the drum and

fife music to which it marches,” and that “it makes a mighty difference
whether America continues to quickstep to ‘Yankee Doodle’ or takes to
marking time to ‘God Save the King.’”[695]
In commenting upon Mr. Miller’s pamphlet The New York Times
declared: “Mr. Miller attempts in this pamphlet, through the quotation of
isolated sentences and passages, to prove that the authors whom he
criticized have no reverence for the Revolutionary leaders, preach the
doctrine that the colonists had no grievance against England, suppress all
the thrilling stories of valorous achievement on which our youth used to be
nourished, and make no use of authorities other than British in commenting
on the Revolution.
“What Mr. Miller does prove by all his toil is quite different, namely, the
undenied fact that our recent textbooks dealing with the early days of the
Republic have been compiled by men whose purpose, so far as they had a
purpose in addition to that of supplying accurate information, has been to
promote friendship between Great Britain and the United States rather than
to perpetuate their ancient animosities. That is a crime in Mr. Miller’s eyes,
for he holds and avows the strange belief that school histories should be
different for the children of different countries....
“To argue with an upholder of that grotesque theory would be worse than
waste of time. Fortunately, Mr. Miller is alone in holding it, except,
perhaps, for the company of those whose hatred of England is so fierce that
for them any stone is good enough to throw at her....”[696]

AGITATION BY CATHOLICS AND IRISH

A desire to combat the tendency of recent textbooks to depict our
relations with England from a viewpoint not violently anti-British has led
an element of the Knights of Columbus to join in the movement for
expurgating textbooks. Their chief cause for complaint lies in the narration
of events of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and in England’s
attitude toward the Federal Government during the Civil War. Joseph T.
Griffin, in a pamphlet, American History Must It Be Rewritten to Preserve
Our Foreign Friendships? regretfully remarks that with the present-day
presentation of the Revolutionary War in our histories, “it will soon require

more courage for Americans to believe the Declaration of Independence
than it did for Jefferson to write it.”[697] Such a condition has arisen,
according to Mr. Griffin because of the fear of exciting antagonism toward
Great Britain, whereas “the only consideration which should guide the
American writer of a history text-book is whether the material he is to
present ... is true as to facts, ennobling as to sentiment, and stimulating to
the morale of the nation; and that while we are eager to preserve friendly
relationships with other nations, we are not willing to forego one iota of our
national glory or consign to oblivion any part of our historical
traditions.”[698]
The charge that a definite campaign of British propaganda had been
carefully inaugurated, Edward F. McSweeney, one-time head of the Knights
of Columbus Historical Commission, set forth in a pamphlet entitled
America First.[699] “According to our modern Tories in their propaganda
Campaign,” declared Mr. McSweeney, “Washington and his colleagues
were wrong, and only the leaders of an ignorant, criminal, and cruel mob.
American independence was only a sudden thought, and not the result of
long growth and development.”
In proof of the conspiracy charge the author showed by actual figures the
increase in the area of the English dominions during the past three hundred
years. This expansion he ascribed to the wrecking “of every nation that
aspired to be her competitor for any considerable share of the world’s
commerce or for equality of political power among the States of the world”;
for by “intrigue, propaganda and alliance” Great Britain has “destroyed the
commercial power of Spain, Holland, Denmark, France, and as a result of
the great world-war, of Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany.” Today, Mr.
McSweeney pointed out, there remain only two nations “which are real
competitors of England—Japan and the United States,” the former annexed
by secret treaties and alliances, the latter, in reality, being the sole
competitor.[700]
It was Mr. McSweeney’s belief that the first effort of the pro-British
propagandists “to undermine the foundations of our national life” was “by
tampering with the children in the public schools”; a movement which had
“made substantial progress,” for “the history of the Revolution has been re-
written to make it appear that the objections to a connection with England,

so important a hundred years ago, have been to a large extent set aside, and
that the time may come when through some application of the Federal
principle ... [the English-speaking people] may come together into a vaster
United States, the pathways to whose scattered parts shall be the
SUBJECTED seas.”[701]
This movement, he held, had been aided by some of the great publishing
houses of the United States, citing the words of George Haven Putnam, “the
head of one of the largest publishing houses in the country,” in a Fourth of
July speech made in London: “The feelings and prejudices of Americans
concerning their trans-Atlantic kinfolk were shaped for my generation as
for the boys of every generation that had grown up since 1775 on textbooks
and histories that presented unhistorical, partisan and often distorted views
of the history of the first English colonies, of the events of the Revolution,
of the issue that brought about the war of 1812-15, and the grievances of
1861-65.... Textbooks are now being prepared which will present a juster
historical account of events of 1775-83, 1812-15, and 1861-65.... It is in
order now to admit that the loyalists had a fair cause to defend, and it was
not to be wondered at that many men of the more conservative way of
thinking should have convinced themselves that the cause of good
government for the colonies would be better served by maintaining the
royal authority and by improving the royal methods, than by breaking away
into the all-dubious possibilities of independence.”[702]
Some of the British proselytism, Mr. McSweeney attributed to a
propagandist campaign inaugurated by Lord Northcliffe, who left “one
hundred and fifty million dollars” and “ten thousand agents” in this country.
[703]
“Local societies should be formed in every center to foster British-
American good-will, in close coöperation with an administrative
committee,” Lord Northcliffe is alleged to have said. “Important articles
should be broken up into mouthfuls for popular consumption, and booklets,
cards, pamphlets, etc., distributed through organized channels to the public.
Advertising space should be taken in the press, on the hoardings, and in the
street cars for steadily presenting terse, easily read and remembered mind-
compelling phrases and easily grasped cartoons that the public may
subconsciously absorb the fundamentals of a complete mutual
understanding.” According to Mr. McSweeney, the influence of this
campaign is already evident in textbooks for primary grades “in which more

than ninety per cent of the pupils are children of foreign born parents, or are
themselves foreign born.”[704] Authors of such textbooks, writers like Owen
Wister, Ex-President Taft, George Haven Putnam, Professor William L.
Cheney, Albert Shaw, President Judson of the University of Chicago,
Admiral Sims, and others are arraigned by McSweeney and charged with
un-Americanism.[705] The condemnation of Wister is based, in part, on his
statement that our school histories have been responsible for keeping
George III’s memory green, but that “A movement to correct the school
books has been started and will go on.”[706]
Of all the propagandist arguments set forth by England “the most
dangerous and un-American” in the opinion of the writer is that about
“Anglo-Saxon civilization.” “By dint of iteration and reiteration,” declared
Mr. McSweeney, “this uncontradicted falsehood has actually brought about
in the United States the subconscious acceptance of a misleading idea,
which during the last fifty years has grown, until it is commonly used, yet
nobody even knows what it means.... The Anglo-Saxon tradition is a pure
myth. To verify it is like looking at midnight in a dark cellar for a black cat
that isn’t there.” Nor did he believe “the Anglo-Saxon impulse ... in the
least responsible for the progress of the United States. It had nothing to do
with the Spanish in Florida; the Huguenots in Virginia; the Swedes in
Delaware and New Jersey; the Dutch in New York and Pennsylvania, and
the Celts in Maryland and Pennsylvania.”[707]
Furthermore, this antagonist of Great Britain sought to controvert some
of the statements which would show that American institutions sprang
largely from England. He contended that never was there “a greater
falsehood” than the claim that the English were the founders of the New
England town meeting, for it arose from the Teutonic “folk mote”; that it
was unquestionably true that there is in the United States scarcely a political
or legal institution of English origin; that the doctrine of the Declaration of
Independence that “all men are created equal” was of Roman not English
law; that the United States could not get religious liberty from England,
“because religious liberty did not exist there”; that popular education,
freedom of the press, the secret ballot, the vast machinery of public
charitable, reformatory and poor administration were derived from other
than English sources.[708] With such an exposition, Mr. McSweeney arrived
at the conclusion that the part of “our legal system which is consistent with

natural justice comes from Rome; the incongruous, absurd and unjust
features” from England.[709]
The place of the Irish race in the making of America, Michael J. O’Brien,
chief historiographer for the American Irish Historical Society, sought to
establish in A Hidden Phase of American History. It proposes to set forth
“Ireland’s Part in America’s Struggle for Liberty” and to lay bare “the heart
of the Irish race in Ireland during the War of Independence as beating in
sympathy with the revolted colonies in America,” to narrate the story of
Irish contributions to the Revolutionary army, and to establish a place of
preëminence for the Irish in the building of the Republic.[710] It runs, in its
twenty-four chapters, the gamut of the history of most of the colonies,
depicting the part played by the Irish. It is offered as an antidote to
Bancroft, Henry Cabot Lodge, and other American historians, and
concludes its narrative with a chapter on “America’s Debt to Ireland” in
which is set forth the plea for American aid for Ireland in her struggle for
independence.[711]
Of this book the Irish World speaks with enthusiasm: “The most
repulsive snake in popular opinion is the cobra, famous in stories of East
Indian life.... Yet a little animal of the ferret type can kill him in a brief
fight, ... a frail but daring creature known as the mongoose.... In the
historical order we have the cobra, the repulsive serpent who makes history
a fountain of lies, whose fangs poison the human race for centuries, whose
history of the so-called Reformation is the cobra of the past four centuries.
The Anglo-Saxon history of this continent is a cobra of the same species. It
has poisoned the life of the American people.... All the Anglo-Saxon writers
from Bancroft on, suppressed, ridiculed where they could not suppress,
mutilated where they could neither suppress nor ridicule, everything Irish in
American history. The Universities of Harvard, Yale and Columbia have
been conspicuous in spreading the poison, for that matter in cultivating and
intensifying its virulence, as their historians are the best illustrations of the
cobra’s viciousness and malignity. The Catholic faith at this moment cannot
get a hearing from them.... It is pleasant to announce that the mongoose has
arrived and is already at work. His name is Michael J. O’Brien ... [who] has
brought out a book ... called ‘A Hidden Phase of American History.’” His
first battle is with George Bancroft, “looked upon as our great historian, our
most dignified, honest and truthful writer.... Saturated with the poison of the

cobra George Bancroft could no more see and tell the truth about the
Catholics and the Irish than Sir Edward Carson or Tom Watson,” but
O’Brien “will kill the Anglo-Saxon cobra in this country. He is more
important than twenty cathedrals and one million orators. He should be
provided with a pension of one hundred dollars a week and let loose upon
the libraries and records of the Anglo-Saxon....”[712]
During 1921 and 1922 the Knights of Columbus, acting through an
Historical Commission, promoted a movement for original studies in
American history by offering prizes for original research. The purpose of
the society was “to encourage investigation into the origins and
achievements and the problems of the United States, to interpret and
perpetuate the American impulse, the impulse of the patriots who founded
and who through their successors, have preserved the Republic; to promote
American solidarity; and to exalt the American ideal.”[713] The session of
the Supreme Assembly which launched this project was held May 28, 1921,
at Chicago. According to John H. Reddin, Supreme Master, it was their
“aim to enlist a commission of leading historians of diverse racial extraction
and religious denominations” to prepare twenty-four pamphlets “covering
critical periods in the nation’s history; the matter to be written direct from
original sources,” and the pamphlets to be distributed “in millions of copies
to schools and colleges, legislators and newspapers throughout the
country.”[714]
The Thirty-Ninth International Convention of the Knights of Columbus,
with twenty thousand delegates in attendance, met at San Francisco on
August first. Among the activities which were endorsed was the movement
for a “propaganda proof” history at the cost of one million dollars,[715] by
which, if necessity demanded, every town in the country could be flooded
with pamphlets telling “the true tale of America’s great origin and
America’s greatness” and “stripped of all manner of European or Asiatic
coloring.”[716]
Shortly following this announcement of the plan of the Knights of
Columbus, Edward F. McSweeney, Chairman of the Historical
Commission, issued the following statement: “The Knights of Columbus
history movement aims at only one thing—the preservation of truth in the
writing of American history. Many of the textbooks used in our schools are

utterly unreliable on important phases of the nation’s story and totally
disregard many cardinal events and personages. The Knights of Columbus
oppose the cause of no other nation, they are simply aligning the 800,000
members of the order in the production and distribution of a straight-
forward story, free from propaganda of any kind as to the origin and
development of this country.”
“An attempt is even now being made,” continues the statement, “and Dr.
Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, announced his
advocacy of it recently in London, to promote the celebration of the signing
of the Magna Charta in English-speaking countries. The anniversary of the
Magna Charta coming late in June, and being the object of the celebration
as the basis of liberty, which it is not, would necessarily eclipse our own
Independence Day, which, I believe, is the ultimate object of the
movement.... The Knights of Columbus believe that the Declaration of
Independence is an infinitely more important and conclusive document than
the Magna Charta.” Under the compulsion of this belief they registered
their opposition to “this and other forms of un-American propaganda.”[717]
In December the movement for “Americanized” histories was furthered
at a meeting held at Washington, D. C., and the announcement was again
made that the Knights of Columbus would offer $7500 in prizes for
monographs in American history, the first prize to be $3000.[718]
According to Columbia, the organ of the Knights of Columbus, their
history program was attacked with “virulence” by “certain organizations,
dedicated to creating better Anglo-American relations.” Thus, from the
Loyal Coalition of Boston emanated the following protest: “The obvious
intention of a certain group, with the approval of the French ambassador, to
rewrite the history of the United States, is an issue of the hour. Our whole
educational system is seriously menaced because of the influence of certain
instructors who react to aliens of hyphenated influence.”[719] The British-
American Association also showed their opposition by offering “a prize to
be known as the John Adams Gold Medal for the essay best setting forth the
most instances of the friendship of Great Britain toward America from 1600
to 1920.” This hostility was clearly evident to the Knights in the statement
of the organization: “To offset the work of the Fourth Degree Knights of
Columbus Historical Commission, whose Chairman, Edward F.

McSweeney, has declared that the English people, so far as they had any
voice, were substantially unanimous in their attitude, opposing the
aspirations of the Colonists for freedom and backed up by the King and
Parliament in continuing the fight for Colonial Liberty.”[720]
Yet not all Catholics gave unqualified endorsement to the Commission’s
activities. January 1, 1924, Mr. McSweeney’s chairmanship ceased. In
commenting upon the changed personnel of the Commission, The
Fortnightly Review, a Roman Catholic periodical, expressed the hope that
reorganization would “result in a more economical programme and one that
will really advance the cause of history.”[721]
“The organization of this Commission in the first place was a most
extraordinary procedure,” stated the Review. “A man whose work and
training had never been in the field of history, was chosen before the
members of the Commission were selected, and was given a salary that
amounted to more than twice the pay of a full professor of history in our
larger universities![722] When the personnel of the Commission was
announced, it was found to contain the name of but one professional
historian....[723] Unfortunately, the early statements appearing under the
imprint of the Commission, some utterances of the Chairman, and some
articles published in Columbia, were not calculated to remove the existing
impression that the Commission had no constructive programme, ... and
that the Chairman at least was willing to follow ‘the historical expert’ of the
Hearst syndicate in the unjust, unfair, unmerited, and uncalled for attack on
certain history textbooks.”[724]
In the course of setting forth their arguments the pro-Irish criticized
certain textbooks in common use in the public schools. Albert Bushnell
Hart’s School History of the United States was attacked because it “attempts
to show that the American Revolution was not justified” by the following
statements: “They [the colonists] were as well off as any other people in the
world. They were not desperately oppressed,”[725] and “they enjoyed more
freedom and self-government than the people in England.”[726] And again,
“Thousands of good people sincerely loved Great Britain and were loyal to
King George. The loyalists were harshly put down.”[727] Hart, moreover,
includes statements whose effect may be “unquestionably bad” upon “the
impressionable minds of the young,” according to one critic.[728]

It was also held that the “National spirit” of the pupils will suffer
inevitably from such expressions of a “propaganda of palliation” as appear
in McLaughlin’s History of the American Nation. “And all this means that
while we speak, we shall probably always speak, of the struggle between
England and America, the war that ensued had many of the features and
many of the deplorable effects of a civil war.” Besides, an attempt to abase
the motives of the Revolutionary patriots was plainly evident to objectors in
the assertion that “Trivial offenses on the part of governments cannot justify
revolution. Only oppression and serious danger can justify war. It cannot be
said that the Colonies had actually suffered much. It might be even seen that
the mother country was not at all tyrannical in taxing the Colonies to pay
for defending them, and beyond question George III and his pliant ministers
had no interest in treating the Colonies with cruelty.”[729]
Everett Barnes, too, was found culpable in assuming an “apologetic
attitude” toward the Revolution in his statement: “The disputes that brought
about the War were not between the Colonists and all the English at home.
They were rather between the Tories and the Whigs on both sides of the sea,
neighbor against neighbor. Had the great Whig party in England been in
power with Edmund Burke as its leader, it would have checked the King in
his foolish course.... Had there been no war, this great country would
probably now be a great branch of the British Empire.”[730] Another
occasion for grievance was discovered in teaching that the War of 1812 was
“a mistake,” and “a case in which righteous anger overcame judgment,”
when, in reality, “the events which preceded the declaration of war were
infinitely more humiliating to the young nation than those which caused us
to enter the World War.”[731]
When “Faneuil Hall, the cradle of liberty,” Nathan Hale, the Swedes of
New Jersey and Delaware, the Dutch of New York, the Germans of
Pennsylvania, the French of South Carolina, the Irish both North and South
are not mentioned as a part of the Revolution or are practically ignored in
the struggle for American independence, the would-be revisionists feel
there is just cause for remonstrance.[732] Therefore, the Irish “solemnly
protest” at “the diluted historical fluid served by Barnes, Van Tyne,
McLaughlin, Hart, and others,”[733] for “Americans are not yet ready to
accept a King.”[734]

GERMAN-AMERICAN AGITATION
Of similar purport has been the movement to disparage “denatured”
histories instituted by the Steuben Society, the successor of the German-
American Alliance. This organization has taken its name from “the man that
forged the tool which overthrew British tyranny.” Its avowed purpose is to
battle against “the sinister efforts that threaten to pervert historical truth and
independence of thought in this fair country of ours.”[735] The membership
is composed of men and women of the German race who are citizens of the
United States, excluding those who were “shifters and trimmers during the
War,” and “who are known to possess no race pride.”[736] The chief medium
for the dissemination of information is the S. S. Bulletin. An article
appearing in the issue of February 15, 1922, set forth the attitude of the
Steubenites toward history textbooks, and acknowledged the indebtedness
of the Society to the Hearst newspapers for exposing “the conspiracy
secretly to alter United States school histories, so as to promote a British-
American union.”[737] In commenting upon the charge that school histories
were being edited by British propagandists, the Bulletin pointed out that
“the public school is the fountain head of future citizenship. History
teaching is the chief source of patriotic spirit and purpose.... A nation’s
history is to its own people an essential force for national pride, morale and
solidarity.”[738]
Much of the irritation of the Germans toward “de-Americanized”
histories arose from the same source from which sprang the dissatisfaction
of the Knights of Columbus. Their chief causes for complaint lay in the
“defamation” of the nation’s “heroic characters,” the “misrepresentation” of
“the just causes of the American Revolution” and of “the basic principles of
the Republic,” besides “innumerable inspiring episodes in our history
[being] belittled or entirely omitted” because of “the professed interest of
Anglo-American amity.”[739]
“Every true American,” asserted the Steubenites, “naturally resents and
resists the teachings in these books to our children that ‘the President of the
Continental Congress and first signer of the Declaration of Independence
was a smuggler, with no other mention of Hancock from cover to cover,’
that Jefferson was ‘deserving of a halter,’ and that Hamilton declared that
‘the people are a great beast.’”[740] And although “nine revisionists give

nine different sets of causes for the American Revolution,” which are
mutually contradictory and contrary to the causes stated in the Declaration
of Independence, yet the Declaration continues to be “immortal” and “gives
the lie to all these anglicized revisions.”[741]
In addition to the “emasculation” of many intrinsically essential historical
“truths,” the pro-German controversialists found cause for complaint in “the
attempt to envelop the America of today in the myth of Anglo-Saxon origin
and kinship.” Such a procedure “wrongs the colonial Germans and Dutch of
Pennsylvania and New York, the Swedes of New Jersey and Maryland, the
French Huguenots of Carolina, the Irish of all the colonies, [and] the Jews
from every clime.”[742]
A confession of kinship of interest with the Knights of Columbus
movement is freely made in the acceptance of quotations demonstrating the
“baleful propaganda.”[743] The German-Americans are one with the Irish-
Americans in their feeling of humiliation at the thought of having “the
history of our national life for one hundred and forty-four years declared a
forgery,” and in seeing “it rewritten at the dictation of the champions of a
foreign power who repudiates the stand of their forefathers.”[744]
It is precisely such a sentiment that influenced the American Turner-
Bund, formerly the American Gymnastic Union and made up of Germans,
at their annual convention in June, 1923, to endorse the movement of the
Sons of the American Revolution,—a movement inaugurated “to revise
history textbooks, ... with a view to eliminating or correcting alleged
distortion of facts.”[745] The resolution of the Turner-Bund alleged that
“many textbooks now in use contain distinctly pro-French and pro-British
statements, neglecting throughout American history the work of the German
people in its development.”[746] The resolution further carried the
indictment of a school history which states that “Alsace-Lorraine was stolen
in 1871 from France by Germany,” whereas, it was asserted, “France stole it
from Germany two hundred years before.”[747]
Besides the effort of the German-Americans “to put a stop to the
prevailing tendency to misuse our public schools for undermining American
sentiment in favor of British colonialism,” the Steuben Society avowed as
one of its purposes the desire to “foster in American children of German

blood a proper pride of ancestry as a necessary basis of true American
patriotism.”[748] Such is the intent of Frederick Franklin Schrader in his
book “1683-1920.” His purpose is made clear by the following statement
found in the preface:
“A blanket indictment has been found against a whole race. That race
comprises upward of 25 per cent of the American people and has been a
stalwart factor in American life since the middle of the seventeenth century.
This indictment has been founded upon tainted evidence. As is shown in the
following pages, a widespread propaganda has been, and is still, at work to
sow the seeds of discord and sedition in order to reconcile us to a pre-
Revolutionary political condition. This propaganda has invaded our public
schools, and cannot be more effectively combatted than by education.” The
assertion that a charge of “German propaganda has no terrors for the
author,” is also included in the preface, for “statements of fact may be
controverted; they cannot be disproved by an Espionage Act, however
repugnant their telling may sound to the stagnant brains of those who have
been uninterruptedly happy because they were spared the laborious process
of thinking for themselves throughout the war, or that no inconsiderable
host which derives pleasure and profit from keeping alive the hope of one
day seeing their country reincorporated with ‘the mother country’—the
mother country of 30 per cent of the American people. It is to arouse the
patriotic consciousness of a part of the remaining 70 per cent that this
compilation of political and historical data has been undertaken.”[749]
To insure this “proper pride of ancestry” it is the opinion of the author
that there should be given greater publicity to German contributions in the
making of the United States. Among these contributions, the Germans
would have it a matter of more general knowledge that the first iron works
in this country were established by a German (Thomas Reuter in 1716); that
the first American-printed Bible was printed by a German (Christopher
Sauer in 1743); that the first paper to print the Declaration of Independence
in America was the Pennsylvania Staatsboten of July 5, 1776; that it was
the Germans who first called Washington “the father of his country”; that
General Herkimer of Oriskany was of German extraction; that Steuben
formulated the principles and regulations that governed the American army
when it was created; that Germans have contributed valuable inventions;
that Lincoln was of German descent; that Molly Pitcher was a German; and

that of the ideals of liberty and of education the Germans were conspicuous
creators.[750]
Nor would the Germans have the Americans forget such incidents as the
saving by Germans of American refugees from a “bloodthirsty mob of
Mexicans at the Southern Hotel, Tampico, Mexico,” through their aid in
1914,[751] the help of Germans in holding Fort McHenry in the War of
1812,[752] and that “the German element furnished nearly 200,000 men,
natives of Germany” for the Northern army in the Civil War.[753]

THE CENSORSHIP OF PATRIOTIC GROUPS, FRATERNAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS

Other agencies than the Hearst newspapers and those groups united by
religious and racial bonds have interested themselves in attacking the
histories used in the public schools. Most active among these censors are
various patriotic organizations and individuals, notably newspaper editors.
Through such forces many investigations of textbooks have been
undertaken, resulting, at times, in the exclusion of the books under criticism
from the public schools.
During the World War, European history textbooks bore the brunt of
attack. Discussions tending to bestow praise upon the Central Powers, or in
any way to disparage the institutions or prowess of the Allies, were deemed
disloyal to the cause in which the United States was engaged. Not only
were history textbooks condemned but also textbooks in foreign language,
particularly in German. The same spirit showed itself in many avenues
through which public opinion could be affected. Thus a federal judge
enjoined the production of “The Spirit of ’76,” a film depicting the
Wyoming Massacre and Paul Revere’s ride, because it tended “to make us a
little bit slack in our loyalty to Great Britain in this great emergency.”[754]
To those who feared a diluted Americanism, it seemed quite apparent that
sinister forces were abroad, and in the attacks made upon authors of history
textbooks, it was frequently charged that the preparation of school histories
was in the hands of German paid agents. Indeed, the activities of pro-
German forces to control the content of history textbooks, it was alleged,
had been operating for some time, and since 1915 had been directed by Dr.

Dernburg, under whom definitely made plans had been perfected.[755] This
conclusion was reached by the skeptical when to one of his agents was
attributed this statement: “The Americans do not love the British, and they
are inclined to like the Germans. By controlling the preparation of school
histories, we can begin to make Americans from the time they are children
see the German point of view.”[756]
Among the organizations which feared the inculcation of disloyalty
through a study of history as commonly written was the Fathers of Soldiers
and Sailors League. It was through their influence that the James Harvey
Robinson histories were excluded from the schools of Des Moines, Iowa,
because of the statement regarding Germany contained in these books.[757]
Among the objections raised against Robinson’s Medieval and Modern
Times were the characterization of the German government, the failure to
fix the responsibility upon Germany for bringing about the World War, and
the discussion of the violation of “all laws of humanity as well as of
international law” by Germany. In addition to criticisms directed against the
1916 edition of this book, the Des Moines objectors felt that there was a
pro-German bias evident in the 1918 Supplement in such a statement as the
following: “So while Germany was able, as we shall see, to conquer
important portions of Central Europe as the war proceeded, she lost all her
colonies. The question whether she is to have them back or not will be one
of the great problems to adjust at the end of the war.”[758]
The same organization identified itself with a movement in California to
investigate the content of history textbooks. In July, 1918, the State Board
of Education directed that all textbooks in American and European history
appearing upon the official list of high school textbooks be submitted to a
committee of expert historians for review, to determine whether such
textbooks were objectionable on the ground of being pro-German or
containing matter which might be offensive to the American allies in the
World War. On September 18, the committee reported, and the following
books were stricken from the official list: Botsford, A Brief History of the
World, Myers, Mediaeval and Modern History, and Myers, General
History. Robinson’s Medieval and Modern Times, edition of 1916, was also
eliminated from the official list, but the edition with the supplement of 1918
was substituted upon condition that the publishers make certain changes in
the revised edition. Robinson and Beard, Outlines of European History,

Part II, was banned until a specified revision should take place. Of the
books examined, the committee found no important objections to Andrews,
Short History of England, Ashley, Early European Civilization, Cheyney,
Short History of England, Harding, New Mediaeval and Modern History
(edition of 1918), Robinson and Breasted, Outlines of European History,
Part I, Webster, Early European History, and West, Modern World. The
committee rendered decisions against the Myers histories because they
represented a viewpoint opposed to that of the time. Botsford’s textbook
was found objectionable because it was “favorable to the acts of Germany
and critical to an unjust degree of the acts of the ... allied nations,” and
because it presented the causes of the American Revolution in a “bald
form.”[759]
Other places, actuated by similar sentiments, interested themselves in the
character of history instruction. Seattle, Washington, became the center of a
controversy between the school superintendent and the teachers on the one
hand, and two of the school directors on the other, regarding Robinson and
Beard’s Outlines of European History.[760] As a result of the discussion, the
book was thrown out of the Seattle schools until the expurgation and
revision should occur.[761]
In Montana, the State Council of Defense ordered the withdrawal of
West’s Ancient World from circulation in all public and school libraries,
because they objected, among other things, to an introductory statement that
“the settlement of the Teutonic tribes was not merely the introduction of a
new set of ideas and institutions ... it was also the introduction of fresh
blood and youthful minds—the muscle and brain which in the future were
to do the larger share of the world’s work.”[762]
Due to the same point of view and under the same compulsion, the
Commissioner of Education of Rhode Island in 1918 undertook an
investigation of the textbooks in use in that state, and found objectionable
“various text-books designed for sixth grade history according to the report
of the committee of eight.” In a large number of books [were found] ...
“various references to the Germans which, in the light of recent
developments, are to be regarded as incorrect or exaggerated statements....”
And it was considered “objectionable to place before the children of
America statements which are, or which will appear to them to be,

laudatory of the people with whom we are at war or adversely critical of our
own people.”[763] The use of histories considered “offensive” was also
discontinued in the states of Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, and Oklahoma, either
through the action of the office of the state superintendent or some other
official.[764] Doubtless in other states the action of local boards brought
about the same result.
New textbooks, syllabi and other teaching aids appeared. Superintendent
William L. Ettinger of the New York City schools, for example, in 1918
issued a syllabus on the War designed to aid teachers in “imparting a correct
intellectual understanding of the causes, events and issues of the war,” as
well as to help them in inspiring “the pupils with a love for the ideals and
an appreciation of the sacrifices of our country.” For, he held that “the
American Army of the future, both men and women, are in our schools
today.” Dr. Ettinger’s letter to the Principals of High Schools declared that
“History should be taught so that a deep emotional appeal” should be made
in all topics; that “a lasting effect” could “be produced on the ideals,
purposes and emotions of the child only by arousing deep feeling in
connection with the presentation of the subject matter.” In the event of
adding new material as the War progressed, it was required that “all such
material ... be approved by the Principal of the School before ... used in the
classroom.”[765]
As in all books which were meeting the popular demand of the time, the
Syllabus made Germany “the only country in the world that was prepared
and anxious for war” because of her autocratic government, the character of
the Kaiser, militarism and navalism, Germany’s desire for world
domination, and the insidious inculcation of loyalty in the German people
through the Prussian system of education.
The insistence of the American people that histories in the schools should
not be in any degree “laudatory” of the enemy peoples nor “unfavorable” to
our allies in arms led to the revision of many textbooks after April, 1917.
Since 1923 these revisions, in turn, have been criticized in the light of
recently published documents relating to the origin of the War. Although the
question of war guilt is still held by many historians as debatable, it is
pointed out in The Freeman for June, 1923, that probably “children have
already been indoctrinated with a theory that leaves no excuse for

uncertainty, no opening for new evidence and no stimulus to free
thought.”[766]
With this condition in mind, critics have assembled their arguments
against certain textbooks in European history found in the public schools.
Because it made Germany primarily responsible for the World War
objection was raised to The Story of Human Progress by Willis Mason
West, an author but a short time before criticized for pro-Germanism.[767]
Roscoe Lewis Ashley is challenged for saying in his Modern European
Civilization that “Germany wanted war and determined to rule or ruin ...
and a war which in the true sense had been made ‘in Germany’ was a
reality”; while Webster, in his Modern European History, is criticized for
the statement that “There is no longer any need to fix the responsibility for
the World War. That the German government planned it and precipitated it
has been made evident by the avowal of the Germans themselves.”[768]
The interpretation placed upon the causes leading to the War by Charles
Downer Hazen in his Modern Europe has likewise been condemned. For
Hazen “summarizes the case as follows: ‘The world was stunned by the
criminal levity with which Austria-Hungary and Germany had created this
hideous situation. The sinister and brutal challenge was, however, accepted
immediately and with iron resolution by those who had done their utmost
during those twelve days to avert the catastrophe.’”[769] A criticism by
Professor Harry E. Barnes directed for the same reason at the textbooks of
this author provoked a spirited exchange of opinion in the spring of 1924.
Professor Hazen upheld his interpretation as to Germany’s guilt, while
Professor Barnes asserted that such a point of view was untenable in the
light of official documents made known since the War.[770]
Other writers of European histories used in the schools have not escaped.
According to The Freeman, Robinson and Beard, in their History of Europe
Our Own Times, seem to have been “more or less taken” with the plan of
leaving the “readers to draw their own conclusions” in their chapter on the
origin of the War. Disapproval arose out of the statement that “the assertions
of the German leaders that England desired war and was responsible for it
are, of course, as the rest of the world knows, wholly without foundation in
fact,” and because of the quotation from Prince Lichnowsky indicting
Germany.[771]

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]
The efforts of the national group received the active support of many
local units. Under the direction of “Compatriot S. T. Cameron of the
District of Columbia Society” the Piney Branch Citizens’ Association of
Washington, D. C., opened fire on Muzzey’s An American History for the
reasons frequently assigned, and circulated, according to Judge McCamant,
“a scholarly brief” that proved this textbook “hopelessly unfit for school
use.”[792]
Among the standards which the Piney Branch Citizens’ Association set
up for a textbook in American history were: that it should assume “an
unquestioning attitude toward the sincerity, the aims or the purpose of the
founders of this Republic or of those who have guided its destinies; that it
should contain no material that tends to arouse political, racial, or religious
controversy or hatred”; that it should “emphasize the principles and motives
that were of the greatest influence in the formation and development” of the
government; that “it must incite in the pupil ideals of patriotic and civic
duty,” as well as cultivating “an appreciation of the hardships endured and
the sacrifices made in establishing and defending American ideals.”[793]
No success attending their efforts to eliminate this textbook from the
acceptable list in the Washington schools, the Piney Branch Association
continued their attack. On April 25, 1923, a public hearing was given
Professor Muzzey and his critics, at which “more than one hundred persons,
including school officials, teachers, civic leaders and interested students ...
listened attentively to the arguments pro and con which continued for nearly
four hours.”[794] In defending himself, Professor Muzzey declared that Mr.
Cameron had “garbled the facts and twisted phrases in a way” that was
“absolutely unfair”; that he had taken “certain words and sentences and read
them without the complete section,” which, in many cases, put “an entirely
different aspect upon them.”[795] With Mr. Cameron, in criticizing adversely
this American history, was Charles Edward Russell of the “Patriot League
for the Preservation of American History.” He regarded the book as “‘a
grave public menace,’” and declared that “the school children in the heart of

China” were being taught “a more accurate account of the American
revolution than those in the Washington schools.”[796]
On the other hand, unqualified endorsement was given the textbook by
Superintendent of Schools Frank W. Ballou. George J. Jones, head of the
history department of the Washington high schools, emphasized “the
destructive nature” of the attack and “pointed out that all of the teachers of
American history in the local high schools vouch[ed] for its
patriotism....”[797] In support of Mr. Jones were Dr. George M. Churchill
and Elmer L. Kayser, professors of American history at George Washington
University, Dr. Charles E. Hill, professor of political science at the same
university, Dr. Leo F. Stock, professor of history at the Catholic University,
and Rear Admiral George W. Baird, former president of the Board of
Education.[798]
In commenting upon this and other attacks directed against this textbook,
Carson C. Hathaway in The Dearborn Independent for October 23, 1923,
declared: “To Muzzey, history is a review of what happened and an
important analysis of why it happened. To those who desire to be thrilled by
the familiar stories of our national heroes, the text may not be satisfying.
But perhaps there is enough thrill in even an unbiased treatment of
American history to satisfy any thoughtful and patriotic American.”[799]
In November, 1922, the Kentucky branch of the Sons of the American
Revolution addressed a communication to nine educational institutions
requesting the exclusion of Muzzey’s An American History from the lists of
approved textbooks, because of its “flippant, inaccurate and unsympathetic”
content-matter.[800] Failure to inculcate “reverence for our Revolutionary
fathers and their ideals” besides its “callous indifference” in the treatment
of battles and heroes appeared to the Kentucky Sons characteristic of this
book.
As a comment on their action, the Louisville Times editorially remarked:
“If the Sons of the American Revolution in Kentucky have
discovered a public school text-book of history that is unfair to the
national record that book is lonesome. The Times is not familiar
with the work of Professor Muzzey of New York, which the society
at its meeting last night denounced as ‘unpatriotic, unfair,

inaccurate, partisan, closely bordering on the socialistic and lacking
in Americanism.’ But for many years in the public schools of the
United States courses have been full of text-books on history which
committed most of these crimes in reverse order, by misstating all
facts relating to the foreign controversies of the United States and
the wars fought by this nation.
“The Muzzey book may be all that is charged against it. If so, it is
remarkable that it was adopted in the Kentucky schools after
considerable investigation; that it was not complained of during the
inquiry into history text-books in New York; that the University of
Kentucky recommended it....
“But unless the book is unfair and inaccurate it should be
defended against attack. The valor of ignorance is asserting itself in
all quarters of America. Calmly content for several generations to
study histories that were grossly unfair to every other nation in the
world, some portion of the American public have lately gotten into
the book-censoring business....
“... The ancestors of the gentlemen who sat last night resented
nothing more than censorship of all kinds. They wanted to settle for
themselves what they should read, eat, drink, wear and do. The era
of Jefferson and Franklin and Samuel Adams was not the era of
excision and paternalism.”[801]
The Courier-Journal also, in an editorial on “Writing History,” stressed
the new values which have developed in the scientific presentation of
history, causing “a fresh and clarified perspective.” To the Courier-Journal
Muzzey’s textbook represented “the newer tendencies in historical writing,”
and aimed wisely “to give the emphasis to those factors in our national
development, which appeal to us as the most vital from the standpoint of
today.” The editorial commended it for omission of facts which could easily
be found elsewhere, and because of its non-sectionalism.[802]
Action similar to that taken by the Kentucky chapter occurred in
California, where not only the Sons of the American Revolution but the
Sons of the Revolution instituted a search for “anti-American” histories.
Here the latter organization, under the leadership of Frank H. Pettingell, in
an effort to gain converts to their point of view, distributed to all school

districts Charles Grant Miller’s pamphlet Treason to American Tradition.
[803]
By the former organization two detailed reports regarding Muzzey’s An
American History were issued, the one expressing the opinion of a majority
of a committee to investigate this book, and the other setting forth the views
of a dissenting member.
The majority report revealed no criticisms which had not been presented
in the National Report.[804] On the other hand, the minority statement
included four points: first, that “fairness requires that if we are to pass upon
the histories used in the schools, there should be an examination of those in
general use, not merely one; second, if there is to be a critical examination
of histories in use in the schools of this country, it should be by a committee
composed of members sufficiently acquainted with the writing and teaching
of history, that their report may be comprehensive and scientific, as well as
patriotic; third, the majority report fails to consider thoroughly the purpose
for which this history was written; and fourth, the history should be judged
by its whole tone and spirit and purpose, and not by words and sentences
isolated from their context.”[805]
In analyzing the textbook and comparing statements with those cited in
the majority report as reprehensible, the minority report accepted the
principle adopted by some textbook writers, namely, that biographical
history should be left to the elementary grades and the study of institutional
development to the secondary school.
As a result of this agitation, the Commissioner of Secondary Schools of
California appointed a committee to investigate history textbooks. They
reported that none of the books examined were found tainted by disloyal or
unpatriotic sentiments, and that the attacks against history textbooks were
due to a “revival of pro-German sentiment,” to “an ineradicable Irish anti-
British sentiment,” to a “journalistic opposition to Great Britain,” and “to an
element of political reaction against the domestic legislation of recent
years.”[806]
In Ohio, also, the Sons of the American Revolution at their state
convention in Cleveland in May, 1923, condemned Muzzey’s An American
History and adopted a resolution that no textbook should be used in the
schools “which belittles the founders of our government or minimizes their
achievements.”[807]

During Education Week in 1922, the Idaho Society Sons of the American
Revolution, under the leadership of Captain A. H. Conner, started an
agitation against the History of the American People by Willis Mason West,
resulting in the exclusion of this book from the Boise schools. Criticized in
much the same manner as Muzzey’s An American History, this textbook
was held unfit to “be found in a single school in the United States of
America.”[808] To Captain Conner, the treatment of historical incidents, not
only in the Revolutionary period and in the War of 1812, but in the Civil
War and recent period, deserved severe condemnation.
Objection was raised to the treatment accorded battles in the American
Revolution and in the War of 1812, as well as that of controversial
questions which have “no place in a history.”[809] From the latter, Captain
Conner adduced that “the author of this book is quite evidently a free
trader.” The discussion of the labor question, socialism, the direct primary,
the initiative, the referendum, the League of Nations and other
“controversial subjects,” such as were found in this book “are out of place
in a school history.” Furthermore, it was charged that the book “excuses the
South for its disgraceful treatment of Union soldiers in military prisons, (p.
566), states that Robert E. Lee ranks among the noblest figures in American
history and practically accuses Grant of being in collusion with the
‘Whiskey Ring.’”[810]
Captain Conner’s criticism of West’s discussion of the Civil War period
gained ready converts to his point of view, and the Phil Sheridan Post
Number 4 of the Grand Army of the Republic issued a denunciation of the
textbook as “worse than a travesty on justice, and a slam in the face of true
Americans.”[811]
These and other efforts of the Sons of the American Revolution to censor
history textbooks have resulted in their elimination from many lists of
approved textbooks. According to F. W. Millspaugh, vice-president of the
Tennessee chapter, “efforts to have certain books withdrawn from public
schools in Tennessee and Alabama have been unvaryingly successful.”[812]
Muzzey’s history, according to Judge Wallace McCamant, was excluded
from the schools of Adrian, Michigan, Murfreesboro and Nashville,
Tennessee, Florence, Alabama, and a number of schools in Kentucky, and
“all of the objectionable histories ... from the schools of Indiana on a

hearing before the textbook commission and as a result of the attack made
upon them by the Sons of the American Revolution.”[813] According to
Captain Conner, “Muzzey’s history has been taken out of the schools of
Burley, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho Falls, Nampa and Pocatello, and West’s
history has been taken out of Boise as a result of the activities of the
National Society acting through the Idaho Society.”[814]
Although many places have barred the books under suspicion, success
has not everywhere attended the efforts of the Sons of the American
Revolution. This is accounted for by Judge Wallace McCamant because of
“the attempt made by the educators responsible for its [a book’s] presence
to defend their action,” and because “the publishers of these objectionable
books are strongly entrenched in educational circles....”[815]
But others than “the educators” and “the publishers” have opposed the
efforts of the Sons of the American Revolution in their attempts at textbook
censorship. “Individual members” of the organization “in Rhode Island,
New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Ohio, South Dakota and California
have taken issue publicly with the work of ... the [national]
Committee.”[816] For example, the historian of the Passaic Valley (New
Jersey) chapter, in reviewing Muzzey’s textbook, asserted that “the whole
trend of the book is to tell the logical course of events, and to explain the
causes of events,” and that there was “no ground” for Judge McCamant’s
observation that “the author has ‘no abiding conviction in American
fundamentals; no enthusiastic veneration for the great men who founded the
Republic.’”[817]
Other dissenters from Judge McCamant’s opinion were in general
agreement with this statement, another member of the Sons of the American
Revolution suggesting that “one must surmise that Judge McCamant came
to the book determined to be displeased.”[818]
A mutuality of interest with the Sons of the American Revolution in
censoring school histories is seen in the action of the Sons of the Revolution
at St. Louis in December, 1922. Aroused by an address of Roy F. Britton,
president of the local chapter, a resolution to investigate history text-books
used in the St. Louis schools was unanimously adopted. In Major Britton’s
report to the local chapter he expressed disapproval of Muzzey’s An
American History and Hart’s School History of the United States, books

which he himself had examined, as well as condemning Ward’s edition of
Burke’s Speech on Conciliation with America and Guitteau’s Our United
States, which he had not examined. The last two books used in the St. Louis
schools were also classed with the “de-Americanized” histories because
“several men of prominence, apparently speaking with authority, as well as
certain patriotic societies and newspapers have denounced” them.[819]
McLaughlin and Van Tyne’s A History of the United States for Schools and
West’s History of the American People were cited likewise as examples of
the “revisionists’ methods” according to men like Charles Grant Miller and
Charles Edward Russell.[820] Major Britton’s efforts received the approval
of some of the newspapers of St. Louis for the “real service” he had
rendered,[821] one editorial remarking that school histories should set forth
that the American Revolution was “a tremendous exhibit of resolution and
courage to set at naught the most powerful military and naval country of the
time.”[822]
Other patriotic organizations have likewise attested their interest in the
status of present-day history instruction. The Descendants of the Signers of
the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1922, at their national
convention, asserted an aversion to public school histories which would
“misinterpret the men and measures, manners and methods and the great
events of the Revolution and the subsequent periods leading up to the
Constitution of 1787.”[823] The Veterans of Foreign Wars in National
Encampment on August 24, 1922, “indignantly” protested against the
alleged un-American histories, and commended Charles Grant Miller for
his “patriotic service” in exposing and checking “a sinister attempt to
degrade our country’s history.”[824]
Similar action was taken by the New York State Department, Grand
Army of the Republic, in 1923, in demanding the presentation of “true
American history,”[825] and by the National Society Daughters of the
American Revolution in 1923.[826] The United Spanish War Veterans in
annual convention deplored the “British propaganda” found in a school
history,[827] and the Veterans of the Seventy-Eighth Division of the
American Legion at Atlantic City, in September, 1923, passed resolutions
for the suppression and removal from the schools of all unpatriotic
textbooks and “particularly history books.”[828]