SOME RECENT SCHOOL BOOKS

In 1872, Dr. S. A. Green, in the American Educational Monthly, described some errors in our school histories. Since then Colonel Higginson has given us "The Young Folks' History;" Mr. Arthur Gilman has turned out his "American People; " Mr. Horace E. Scudder has produced "A History of the United States;" and Mr. Tillinghast, in his translation and enlargement of Carl Ploetz's "Auszug," has endeavored to do for our country what the German teacher so admirably did for his. These books are undoubtedly a vast improvement upon the past generation of text-books which the learned doctor so gently criticised. haps there is no better way of showing this than by applying his canons of criticism to the new candidates for favor.

Per

In the first place, Dr. Green declared that in the old books too much space had been given to battles and wars. This has been reformed. In Mr. Scudder's book least of all. Why, by the way, did he write De Kalb, Kalb, and not write La Fayette, Fayette? Colonel Higginson devoted the larger portion of his volume to times of peace, which, as the proverb says, have few historians. But then, as Colonel Higginson points out, "this may be more the fault of the historians than of the times." Mr. Gilman not only paid no attention to detail in the matter of wars and battles, but he carefully avoided illustrations of carnage and human suffering. In this both Mr. Scudder and Colonel Higginson (in his last edition) might have followed him. Then we should have been spared the pictures of the "embattled farmers" firing at the fleeing British from behind stone walls. Pictures that convey no very exalted idea of the heroism of the "fathers" to the youthful intellect.

To the historical mind of Dr. Green-and we agree with him-the essential points of a good history for the school-room are: "A careful selection of important events and their narration in a direct, simple, but not childish style." The story," he adds, "should be told in an interesting manner, but concisely, and should be strictly accurate." Colonel Higginson, it is needless to say, has left nothing to be desired in the matter of style, and when necessary he is wonderfully concise. Mr. Gilman and Mr. Scudder come not far behind, except that Mr. Scudder is not always concise, and is often not clear, and Mr. Tillinghast has done as well as the nature of his work would permit. All of the first three are interesting. But are they accurate? Have the old errors been repeated?

Nearly all of the old books gave 1620 as the date of the introduction of negro slavery into the British North American colonies. Every one of our new books has this date right. But as to Sir Walter Raleigh, who, as Dr. Green points out, "never came to or saw any part of what is now the United States," Mr. Gilman speaks of Gosnold as "one of those who had accompanied Raleigh to Virginia." Colonel Higginson, although he does not say in so may words that Raleigh ever was here, yet he gives one to understand that such was the case, in the following

unguarded statement: "They [potatoes and tobacco] are both said to have been made known through Sir Walter Raleigh; and it is said that when, after one of his voyages, he sat smoking," etc. Dr. Green pointed out many other errors, but as they have nearly all been corrected in these new books, they need not detain us here.

Let us now strike out for ourselves and see how these later historical writers have described two of the most wrongly described events in American history : the Landing of the Pilgrims, and the Signing of the Declaration of Independ

ence.

On the 21st day of December, in the year of our Lord 1620, one or more of an exploring party that had left the Mayflower safe at anchor in or near Provincetown harbor, set foot on terra firma inside Plymouth harbor. This event our pious grandfathers began some time in the last century to celebrate as the “Landing of the Pilgrims." Unfortunately, the founders of "Forefathers' Day" made some mistake in their mathematical calculations, and celebrated the 22d, a day on which the movements of the forefathers are absolutely unknown, instead of the 21st, as they had intended. These are the plain unvarnished facts. How are they served up for the instruction of youth? Colonel Higginson says: "They [the pilgrims] fixed on this as a good place for their settlement, and on the 21st of December, 1620, they landed. A young girl named Mary Chilton is said to have been the very first to step on Plymouth Rock. But, before landing, they had held a meeting in the cabin of the Mayflower." As to Mary Chilton we do not deny that she was the first to step on the "Rock," but she didn't do it on the 21st of December, 1620, unless she could take a stride of more than twenty-four miles in length. Mr. Scudder's account is too long to quote entire, but here is a fair, un-garbled extract: "Parties were sent out to explore the coast and the bay. The reports which they brought back led the whole company to return to the Mayflower and sail along the inside of the bay to a sheltered harbor, where they cast anchor. * Plymouth, therefore, was the name which they gave to the settlement now formed. A large rock *** is pointed out as the spot upon which they are said to have landed. For more than a hundred years people have observed the twenty-second day of December as the Landing of the Pilgrims; of late the twentyfirst has been the day. The year of the landing was 1620." If this should convey any impression to the childish mind it would be that the Mayflower was inside. Plymouth harbor on the day of the "landing." She arrived just five days later. Mr. Gilman has given the facts correctly enough, but Mr. Tillinghast has outdone even Dr. Green's victims, as the following note to the first edition of "Ploetz " will show. He says: "It is difficult to decide on the actual day of landing, as larger and smaller bands were coming and going from the ship for several days. The conventional date, Dec. 11, 0. s., or Dec. 21 (22), N. S., has been much disputed.” Some one pointed out the absurdity of this statement, which appeared in the second edition, as follows: "The date is disputed; that of the whole body can hardly be

*

ascertained; the landing of the first exploring party seems to have taken place on Dec. 11, 0. S., or Dec. 21 (22), N. S. (confusion here also)."

A vastly more important event in our history was the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Here are the facts-The Declaration was adopted on the 4th of July, 1776. It was published with the authentication of the president and secretary. For some reason, not now known, it seemed desirable that the Declaration should be signed by all the members of Congress. This determination was taken on July 19, of the same year, when a copy was ordered to be fairly engraved on parchment. This copy was signed on August 2, by fifty-four of the fifty-six persons whose names are now appended to it. Matthew Thornton, of New Hampshire, took his seat on the following November, and obtained permission to sign it; and in 1781, the fifty-sixth signer-Thomas McKean, of Delaware-was given leave to affix his name to the precious document. Colonel Higginson, with his inimitable elegance of precision, says: "It was adopted July 4, 1776, though it was not signed until some weeks later." Mr. Tillinghast, too, makes no mistakes. Mr. Gilman gives a sufficiently correct account of its adoption; but also gives one to believe that the determination that all should sign it was then taken. In a "Chronological Table" on page 237 of Mr. Scudder's book, we find these ominous words: "Declaration of Independence signed July 4, 1776." In order to make sure we turned to the text, and here is what was discovered: "The Declaration was signed by John Hancock, of Massachusetts, President of Congress, and by fifty-five delegates from the thirteen colonies. Every man who signed it knew that if independence was not secured he was in peril of being hung as a rebel and traitor. * A great crowd was gathered before the State House in Philadelphia * * From the balcony the Declaration of Independence was read. * The 4th of July has ever since been celebrated as the birthday of the nation."

* *

*

Thus there has been considerable improvement since 1872, but, as may be seen, there is still room for amendment so far as accuracy is concerned. And what is not as strictly accurate as the knowledge of the time permits, is surely not history, however clear, readable and attractive it may be.

HARVARD COLLEGE, Jan. 13, 1885

EDWARD CHANNING

ALEXANDER WILLIAM DONIPHAN

In 1790, two years before Kentucky was severed from Virginia and admitted into the Union as a separate State, Joseph Doniphan and his wife migrated thither from Eastern Virginia and made for themselves a home in Mason County, on the

banks of the Ohio, and there, on the 9th of July, 1808, was born Alexander William, the youngest of their ten children.

Joseph Doniphan died in 1813, and the boy fell to the sole care of his mother. In due time he was sent to the school of Richard Keene, a scholarly but eccentric Irishman, who prepared him for Augusta College, where, under the teachings of those eminent divines, Dr. Darbin and Dr. Bascom, he learned rapidly, and graduated with distinction at the age of eighteen.

He devoted the next year to miscellaneous reading, and then began the study of law. On being admitted to the bar in 1830, he moved to Lexington, Missouri, and began the practice of his profession there. In 1833 he removed still farther west, to the village of Liberty, in Clay County, on the then verge of civilization, and there he continued to reside for thirty years, quickly winning for himself a foremost place among the lawyers of Missouri, by his eloquence, his forensic ability, and his exalted character.

These qualities, enhanced as they were by a singular charm of manner, made him very popular wherever he was known, and the pathway to political distinction and power lay temptingly before him; but office-holding had no attraction for Doniphan; the dull routine of legislation was always unspeakably irksome to him, and the devious ways of politicians he abhorred. It was, therefore, only during the exciting presidential canvass of 1836, and when the political storm of 1840 was sweeping over the country, and once again in the baleful year of 1854, when the borderland of Missouri was agitated by the passions provoked by the fierce conflict then waging between freedom and slavery for the possession of Kansas and the control of the Union-that bloody prelude to the War of the Rebellion—that he ever consented to be a candidate before the people for a political office. On each of these occasions he was chosen, almost without opposition, to represent the people of Clay County in the General Assembly of Missouri.

When Doniphan first went to Liberty, and for many years afterward, the neighboring post, Ft. Leavenworth, was an important military station, occupied by a considerable body of troops, whose officers were wont to make frequent visits to the hospitable homes of Clay County. Among these officers were Riley, Kearny, and Albert Sidney Johnston, with all of whom Doniphan formed friendly relations; and it is, perhaps, to this fact, that he owed the early development of that martial disposition, which afterwards made him so conspicuous a figure in the war with Mexico.

Men were indeed quick to recognize his soldierly qualities, and he was already a brigadier-general in command of the 1st brigade of the State militia, when, in 1838, the Governor of Missouri ordered out the militia of the western counties to drive the Mormons out of the State. In obedience to these orders, Doniphan marched with a part of his brigade to Far West, where the main body of the Mormons lay encamped under the command of Joe Smith, in person. The Mormon Prophet, seeing that resistance would be useless, acceded to Doniphan's terms,

which were that the Mormons should give up their arms, surrender their leaders for trial, and quit the State forever.

How ruthlessly these terms were enforced; with what wanton cruelty the unhappy outcasts were driven from the land which they had subdued by their labors and made fruitful by their toil, and what terrible scenes were enacted, Missourians blush to relate. In none of this shameful work, however, did Doniphan take part, but soldier-like he used all his influence as a man, and all his skill as a lawyer, to protect not only the misguided followers of the Prophet, but the Prophet himself, whose counsel he was, from the fury of foes whose religious zeal and virtuous indignation were greatly intensified by a very human desire to possess themselves without cost of the cultivated fields, with which the hard-working Mormons had gardened the prairie wilderness of Western Missouri.

When, in 1846, war with Mexico was brought on by the annexation of Texas, the President of the United States at once decided, with statesmanlike prevision, to send into Northern Mexico a force competent to conquer and hold all that part of the Republic, while three armies under Wool, Taylor and Scott, were to approach the City of Mexico by converging lines, and there dictate the terms of peace.

To carry this decision into effect, the President called upon Missouri for volunteers, to rendezvous at Ft. Leavenworth, where Col. Stephen W. Kearny, who was already there with six companies of his regiment (the 1st Dragoons), would organize, and take command of the expedition.

The hardy and adventurous young men of the Missouri frontier responded so eagerly to their country's call, that within barely a month (on the 18th of June, 1846) the 1st Regiment of Missouri Mounted Volunteers was organized at Ft. Leavenworth, with Doniphan as its colonel.

This regiment, together with two companies of Missouri Infantry, one company of Missouri Rangers, a battalion of Missouri Artillery, and six troops of United States Dragoons, aggregating 1,658 men, constituted "The Army of the West," under command of Col. Stephen W. Kearny, U. S. Army.

Orders to move were given without delay, and on the 26th of June the army took up its line of march. For nearly 900 miles it moved under a summer sun, first through a treeless desert, and then over lofty mountain ranges, and then dispersing the troops that had been gathered for the defence of Santa Fé, entered that ancient city and took peaceable possession of all New Mexico.

On the 25th of September, Gen. Kearny, having turned over the command of the U. S. forces in New Mexico to Col. Doniphan, himself set out for California with several companies of his dragoons. Before leaving, however, he ordered Doniphan, at the urgent request of the latter, to move with his own regiment, and such other troops as could be spared from New Mexico, to the city of Chihuahua, and report there to Gen. Wool, as soon as Col. Sterling Price, then on the march to New Mexico with another regiment of Missourians, should reach Santa Fé and relieve him (Doniphan).