to create a new, a pro-British legend, and then by those who wished to do away with all legends and to tell the truth which objective research had found.

After the war was over, after the peace treaty had been rejected, after the country had violently reverted to normalcy, the popular reaction against the revision of the patriotic legends got under way. No distinction was made, of course, between the revision carried out as propaganda in the interest of the Allies, and the revision carried out by scholars in the interest of the truth. In 1921 the whole heresy was set forth in a series of syndicated articles written by Mr. Charles Grant Miller. He exposed what he described as the "organized policy of propitiation toward Great Britain," and his exposure was widely circulated as a pamphlet under the title Treason to American Tradition: the Spirit of Benedict Arnold Reincarnated. This was the clarion call of patriotic fundamentalism.

There was a rally at once not only by those who had a single-hearted devotion to the American tradition, but also by those who might reasonably be described as having a single-hearted dislike of Great Britain. The charges against the new textbooks were taken

up by such diverse organizations as the Sons of the American Revolution, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Knights of Columbus, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the New Jersey Council of the Junior Order of United Mechanics, the American Legion, the Knights of Pythias, the German societies and the American Federation of Labor. In New York City the Board of Education investigated its textbooks, and Mayor John F. Hylan of New York had another uproarious investigation of his own. The same proceedings in one form or another were gone through in cities as far apart as Boston, Mass., and Portland, Oregon. Several states, New York, Wisconsin and Oregon, passed laws designed to do for patriotic fundamentalism what the Tennessee statute had been designed to do for religious fundamentalism.

By this time the situation had become very much confused. There were the old-fashioned textbooks which without self-consciousness set forth the old legends. There were the new propagandist books written to cement the friendship of the English-speaking peoples. There were the self-conscious and synthetic books written to restore the old traditions.

There were the new objective, critical books written by men with no axe to grind. And then on top of all this came the new bold school of debunking historians who exploited what the scholars had discovered and created out of it a cult of irreverence. They wrote elaborate treatises about the clay feet of the idols.

Amidst all these attacks and counter-attacks, the Council of the American Historical Association recently set forth its position in resolutions which state that

genuine and intelligent patriotism, no less than the requirement of honest and sound scholarship, demand that textbook writers and teachers should strive to present a truthful picture of past and present, with due regard to the different purposes and possibilities of elementary, secondary and advanced instruction; that criticism of history textbooks should, therefore, be based not upon grounds of patriotism, but only upon grounds of faithfulness to fact as determined by specialists, or tested by consideration of the evidence. [Italics mine.]

This is the ideal of the critical scholar. It is in conflict with the ideal of many important sections of the American people. The Ameri

can Legion, for example, in a very moderate report, says that the proper school history not only must be truthful but must "Speak Warmly .. Have Enthusiasm. Preserve the Legends. Praise Noble Deeds

Encour

age Faith.. Build High Self Respect Emphasize Effort and Success, not Failure." Plainly there are here two different conceptions of the teaching of history in the schools. The scholars stand squarely upon the principle that history books are to be judged "not upon grounds of patriotism, but only upon grounds of faithfulness to fact." The Legion, which stands for the popular belief, insists that the truth be taught with primary regard for its effect upon the morals and patriotism of the pupils.

5. DIALOGUE AT CHICAGO

AMERICANIST: I don't care for these isms. Couldn't I be called a plain one-hundred percent American?

SCHOLAR: I'm afraid not. That would be begging the question we are here to discuss. AMERICANIST: And that question is what? SCHOLAR: Whether as Archbishop Whately once remarked truth is to be put in the first place or in the second. I maintain that a sound patri

otism must rest upon truthful history, and you maintain, I believe, that only a sound patriotism can determine what is true history.

AMERICANIST: That's about it. I don't believe the historians know what they mean when they say the criticism of history textbooks should be based only upon grounds of faithfulness to fact. What facts, for example, ought they to be faithful to?

SCHOLAR: Those which are determined by specialists and tested by the consideration of evidence.

AMERICANIST: The facts about any historical event are very numerous, are they not?

SCHOLAR: Very numerous indeed.

AMERICANIST: All the facts about George Washington, for example, would include the facts about his ancestry, his education, his character, his social position, his income, his political connections, his personal relations, as well as the chronicle of public events in which he participated. His conduct at any particular juncture must have been the resultant of very complex forces. Do you describe all these forces in your textbooks?

SCHOLAR: That is obviously impossible. There are too many, and some are obscure. It is necessary to select the significant ones.