Слике страница

We also want text books that shall be free from foreign or sectional prejudice. Professor Morse Stephens, in the address from which I have quoted already, states that “Americans are taught from childhood to hate Britishers by the study of American history and not only the descendants of the men who made the Revolution, but every newly arrived immigrant child imbibes the hatred of Great Britain of to-day from the patriotic ceremonies of the public schools.” An alumnus in a recent number of the University of Pennsylvania Alumni Register,” declares that “It is most unfortunate that our first glimpse of patriotism as little children is through the pages of absurd school histories. Nor is the misfortune diminished by the failure of the average teacher to interpret an unintelligent flag worship into an inspiration of vital moral significance. So our early environment creates for us an imaginary world of bloodthirsty enemies and in our souls an antipathy to foreigners, which leads us to apply to them such appellations as “dagoes,’ ‘sheenies,’ ‘chinks, or the infinity of contempt involved in ‘Dutch.” ”

The fault is not alone with the text book. The teacher of history too frequently is unenlightened and continues to present, for example, the history of the American Revolution from a provincial and partisan viewpoint. In spite of popular prejudice to the contrary, it is high time that we should cease to implant a spirit of hatred of England, which is sufficiently fostered in this country by various anti-British organizations. Let us teach that the American patriots in fighting for what they regarded as their inalienable rights were fighting for the rights of mankind in general. Lincoln gave expression to this thought in the speech which he delivered at Independence Hall on Washington's Birthday, 1861, when he called attention to the significant point that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed “liberty not alone to the people of this country but hope to all the world throughout all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.” Modern Englishmen, indeed, have recognized that in fighting for their liberties Americans were fighting for the liberties of England and the world. Tennyson expresses this thought in his poem on England and America:

“Strong Mother of a Lion-line,
Be proud of these strong sons of thine
Who wrenched their rights from thee.”

Sectional history that still flourishes in this country should be superseded as it is a means of perpetuating old animosities and divisions among a people that should be united in mutual sympathy, regard and admiration. Yet more than half a century after the close of the civil war, many of the large publishers of text books on American history find it necessary to have different series of texts for the North and the South. Let us hope that the day will soon come when this will no longer be true, and we shall be one people

united by sentiment as well as by political geography and the constitution. Passing from these general considerations, let us consider the practical phase of the topic, namely, what share shall the school system have in the making and training of citizens? At the outset we should recognize that in many cases the schools must do the entire work, owing to the absence of proper home and other influences and agencies. They must lay the foundations for an intelligent patriotism and an enlightened public opinion. The whole educational system, therefore, should be designed to the great end of making good citizens, but it is the especial province of the teachers of history and civics to train for citizenship. Everything that promotes good citizenship will contribute to patriotism, as the one comprehends the other. Mr. Frederick Winsor, a Concord (Mass.) Headmaster, presented a very suggestive paper at the Congress of Constructive Patriotism held in Washington last January, to which I am indebted for some of the points I shall present. Mr. Winsor truly stated that “the most important obligation implied by citizenship in a democracy is service; service of the country in time of peace by an active participation in the political life of the community, state and nation; service in time of war, either as part of the armed forces or as part of the still larger organization of agriculture and industry which support the armed forces.” The first duty of patriotic education is to teach this lesson that the citizen has duties as well as rights, and that the most important duty is service to others, to the family, the community, the State and the Nation. The efforts should be directed to create a sense of obligation to others and greatest of all to God and Country. The chief aim of our schools and colleges should be directed to prepare the youth for citizenship, so that they shall be ready and eager to fulfill all the duties which citizenship implies. They should be inspired by the principles of unselfish patriotism, so that their attitude should not be that so frequently found in some adults, whose inquiry is, “What can my country do for me,” not “What can I do for my country.” Training in the history and the traditions of the country is particularly important in our public schools, owing to the large number of children of foreign birth or parentage in our cities, as in many instances, in the very nature of the case, that is the only opportunity for them to obtain the same. And there are many striking examples of the manner in which they respond to this influence, and frequently they show a much greater enthusiasm and loyalty than some of the native born, who have inherited all their advantages and who frequently fail to value them because everything has come to them without that sacrifice and labor that it has cost the immigrant and his children. For a constructive program to this end, I can suggest in its main features nothing better than the curriculum and method that is being followed in some

2 April, 1917, 502-503.

3 “Proceedings of the Congress of Constructive Patriot- . ism,” Washington, D. C., January 25-27, 1917, 248.

of our public schools, for example in Philadelphia, in history and particularly the new course in community civics. In history the program lays cmphasis on biography in the lower grades. There is ample material in American history for teaching patriotism through the examples of men and women who have served their country in both times of war and of peace—by devoting their energy, talents, time, fortune, and even life to the unselfish service of their fellow men. Such pictures and tales of heroism and faithful service will make an ineffaceable impression on the young pupil's mind and will awaken a desire to render similar service when the opportunity offers. Indeed, biography is so valuable in stimulating patriotism that I would constantly make provision for it as well in the higher grades of the school.

In the narrative history that comes in the higher grades, the teaching of history should be permeated with the patriotic spirit. Emphasis should be placed on our wonderful heritage, the result of long centuries of stress and struggle. In American history, opportunity is especially afforded to trace the growth of the movement for political independence, national unity and democracy. The teacher can point out that American citizenship at the time the Constitution was adopted did not comprehend what it does to-day. That although the Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal and have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” these principles were far from being carried out in actual practice. It was only gradually, after long struggles and strenuous opposition, that one by one they were fully secured. Thus religious tolera

27 tion, the extension of the suffrage, free public education itself, the establishment of freedom for all, the achievement of democracy and national unity, one by one were realized, and are now the common heritage of all citizens.

Such a presentation of the subject should be designed to emphasize the value of citizenship, and the importance and duty that these democratic institutions should be preserved and strengthened. Whenever possible, pilgrimages to historic sites should be made. We here in the east are particularly fortunate in this respect. Let us make more of our opportunities to vitalize and make real to our pupils past events by visits to historic places.

The teaching of the history of Europe is also important not only for itself but also to broaden their horizon, afford a basis for comparison and an antidote to a narrow and provincial spirit, to enlarge their sympathies and to give them an interest in mankind that they may realize that above "all nations is humanity," thus implanting the great truth which lies at the foundation of modern society, that of the community of nations. “For mankind are one in spirit, and one instinct bears

along, Round the earth's electric circle the swift flash of right

or wrong.

Whether conscious or unconscious, yet humanity's vast

frame Through its ocean-sundered fibres feels the gush of joy

or shame In the gain or loss of one race all the rest have equal

claim." The recognition of this interdependence breeds a sense of common interests and of the brotherhood of man and is a corrective to the blatant and jingoistic type of nationalism. .

Possibly greater opportunity for training in good citizenship and hence true patriotism is afforded through the proper teaching of civics, or as it is now called “Community Civics.” The new program of civic training which recently has been inaugurated in the public schools of Philadelphia, as described in the new syllabus and as presented in Dr. Barnard's article in the “Annals," appears to me so admirable that I would commend its general acceptance. This program has three notable features; first, it begins the study in the lowest grades and continues it throughout the eight years of the elementary school, as well as in at least one year of the high school. Secondly, one of its unique and most commendable features is its adaptation of the French system of formal instruction in morals, by introducing in the early years instruction in the fundamental civic virtues, such as obedience, helpfulness, courtesy, punctuality and the like, in all of which as is generally recognized the average American child is sadly deficient. This instruction is premised on the idea that "underlying good citizenship is good morality,” and that “the practice of the civic virtues is the basis for all acts of good citizens,” example being taken from the social group with which the child is familiar, the family, the school, the local community and the various individuals that serve it. Here the third feature of the course is met with. “From this point on," as the syllabus states, “a dominant note of the course is service. A most important element of good citizenship is faithful, willing, efficient service.”

Next the governmental side of civic instruction is followed in the higher grades with a study of the various public and private agencies of community welfare, supplemented by trips to see some of these agencies and governmental departments at work. The two objects to be kept in mind throughout this course, the syllabus states, are “first, the development of ideals of good citizenship; and, secondly, training in such habits of right social conduct as will make the individual a desirable member of the various communities to which he belongs.” In such a course the opportunity is afforded of inculcating ideals of justice, liberty, and those other moral virtues that make for good citizenship, and to make it evident that patriotism is synonymous with good citizenship. If instruction of this character becomes general, may we not hope in the future for a great quickening in the interest of the citizen in civic affairs of the community,

Annals of the American Academy of Political and So. cial Science, September, 1916.

state and nation which will make for a higher type of patriotism, and which will give an impetus to civic righteousness throughout the land? Let us bear in mind, as some one has said, that “patriotism is not an end but a means to the end which is universal righteousness.”

The very instinct of self-preservation should lead us as a people to awaken to the importance, aye, the absolute necessity of preparation for good citizenship. Further, our duty to mankind imperiously demands it. Freedom and democracy are on trial before the world. It is our task as well as our privilege to demonstrate the permanent success of a Democratic Republic. If the effort here to maintain popular government fails, it may be that the failure will be final and irretrievable.

Professor Arlo Bates has expressed this thought in his matchless poem “America.” " “Here has the battle its last vantage ground; Here all is won, or here must all be lost, Here freedom's trumpets one last rally sound; Here to the breeze its blood-stained flag is tossed. America, last hope of man and truth, Thy name must through all coming ages be The badge unspeakable of shame and ruth, Or glorious pledge that man through truth is free. This is thy destiny! the choice is thine To lead all nations and outshine them all; But if thou failest, deeper shame is thine, And none shall spare to mock thee in thy fall.”

In what respect should the war influence the teaching of patriotism? Those of you who have read Dr. McKinley's paper on the effect of the war on teaching in European countries" are familiar with the fact that it has affected not only the teaching of history, but nearly all subjects in the curriculum, and doubtJess if the war continues for some time, it will have a somewhat similar effect here. In England an editorial in the “New Statesman” objected to using the war to teach patriotism. It said in part, “To love it [one's country] is as natural as to be happy. To serve it as natural—and as difficult—as to be honest or gentle or agreeable and virtuous. But to schoolmaster small boys and girls into this love and service is almost as superfluous as to hector them into loving a perfect mother, or to lecture them into a taste for honey or wild strawberries.”

But an opposite point of view has been gradually growing in favor there. A number of prominent statesmen and men of letters have written articles calling attention to the importance of England's taking proper steps to train the children of the masses in the duties of patriotism and in the lessons of the war. An interesting volume by Stephen Paget entitled, “Essays for Boys and Girls: A First Guide towards the Study of the War,” which has recently reached

5 E. C. Stedman, “An American Anthology,” 533.

6 History TEACHER's MAGAZINE, VIII, pp. 143-147 (May, 1917).

7 Macmillan Company, London, 1915.

this country shows what is being done in this direction.”

I am fully persuaded that it is the duty of the teacher of history and civics to seize the wonderful opportunity afforded by the war to aid in promoting an intelligent and patriotic public opinion in support of the government in these critical times. Let the teachers explain to the pupils why we are at war, and what they can do to help. Call attention to the reasons presented by the President in his notable message—and emphasize “our objects” in the war which have been stated so clearly by him, quoting those remarkable and eloquent passages in which he presents our aims and ideals. Let them quote and explain such declarations as these, “It is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world against selfish and autocratic power;” and again those significant phrases when he declares, “The world must be made safe for democracy;” and “Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty.” Thus we can point out that the issue is one between democracy and autocracy, between the rule of the people and the rule of the autocrat, that it is liberty arrayed against absolutism and reaction; that the United States is championing “the rights and liberties of small nations,” the rights of self-government, and is fighting “to establish the peace and safety of all nations and make the world itself at last free.”

Let the teacher also call attention to the fact that we have no selfish ends to serve, for the President disclaims all desire for the spoils of war when he proclaimed, “We desire no conquests, no dominions, no indemnity for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make.” “To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have.” We should call attention to the fact that for “the first time in history a nation has gone to war for a purely ideal end.” We should point out that instead of accepting “Peace at any price,” we have substituted “Righteousness at any cost,” as Dr. Manning has happily phrased it.

Indeed, as it has been so truly said by Dr. Kirchway, “We have entered upon the war with the loftiest ideals that ever inspired a nation' in arms.” God grant that we remain true to them | Let us, as teachers responding to the call of liberty and humanity, devote our talents to the service of a cause so noble and unselfish as the one in which we are now embarked. May the same spirit of loyalty to country and devotion to those high ideals for which our forefathers sacrificed, fought and died, namely, liberty, righteousness and justice, inspire us.

But while we are striving for justice and democracy abroad, let us see to it that we conserve and strengthen both at home. The true patriot should be on guard against the dangers that threaten our land and its institutions. How are these endangered? Not only

s See page 181 of this issue of the MAGAZINE.

from the recognized enemy from without, but also from those insidious foes from within. We cannot close our eyes to some of the evils that threaten the land, such as abuses in public office, the presence of brazen-faced wrong in the marts of trade, the worship of the almighty dollar instead of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, the friction and increasing antagonism between capital and labor, the disregard for law, the danger which threatens family life, the growing lack of democracy in our social life, “our unpardonable fault of wastefulness and extravagance,” the problem of Americanizing the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that have entered our ports. In the settling of these and other questions, ample opportunity will be presented for the exercise of true patriotism. Fidelity to civic duty will ofttimes demand as great courage, self-sacrifice, zeal and loyal devotion as that exhibited by the heroes of past wars or the present conflict. Never was the battlefield of government for the people more deeply in need of loyal soldiers than to-day and never were the opportunities for glorious

achievement brighter than in the present hour. Let each of us as patriots remain true to the highest ideals and play our part like true men and women, for it is such that constitute the real strength of the State. This thought is expressed in the lines of Sir William Jones, the famous English scholar and poet of more than a century ago.

“What constitutes a State? Not high raised battlement or labored mound, Thick wall or moated gate; Nor cities proud with spires and turrets crowned; Nor bays and broad armed ports, Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride; Nor starred and spangled courts, Where low browed baseness wafts perfume to pride. No;—men, high-minded men, Men who their duties know, But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain; Prevent the long-aimed blow, And crush the tyrant, while they rend their chain: These constitute a State.”

The Passing of Splendid Isolation'


[ocr errors]

The phrase “splendid isolation " was used to describe the position of Great Britain in international affairs during the last half of the nineteenth century; but it so exactly describes the conscious national policy of the United States for the first century of our independence that one feels justified in borrowing it.

When President Wilson declared (in his Cincinnati speech of Oct. 26, 1916) that “This is the last war . . . that involves the world that the United States can keep out of,” most of those who had studied the sweep of world affairs during the last generation agreed with him. But our actual entrance into this present war has come to many as something of a surprise. We are asking ourselves why this has come about. Is it the fault of blundering diplomacy, or of military unpreparedness which caused our warnings to be despised, or of an unreasonable insistence on rights of travel on the high seas which we might better have yielded, under protest, as we acquiesced in the British blockade? Or is it the result of great forces largely beyond our control? I believe that, in the main the latter is a truer explanation.

In any large perspective of history, the development of the United States constitutes only one chapter in the great movement we call the Expansion of Europe. That movement, which began on a large scale with the discoveries of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, has resulted in the transplanting of European populations to every temperate quarter of the globe, of an even wider extension of European political control, and of a still greater diffusion of

A public lecture delivered at the University of Chicago, April 27, 1917.

events in Europe.

European ideas, ideals, and institutions. Three fifths of the land surface of the globe is now under the flag of European nations, or of nations of European stock; and those peoples who remain independent, such as China, Japan, Persia, and Turkey, have been more or less deeply affected by European culture, and are directly and vitally concerned with the course of In such a situation, a distinction between the affairs of Europe and the concerns of mankind becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. The independent nations of North and South America, including the United States, owe their discovery, colonization, and early development to Europe. In language, institutions and fundamental ideas they are still European. We ourselves were colonies of England for a longer period than we have been independent. During that colonial period, our forefathers knew what it was to be directly involved in the affairs of Europe. Four times between 1689 and 1763 they were dragged into hostilities because England was at war on the continent. It is true that England's participation was in large part due to her world-wide colonial and commercial rivalry with France. It is also true that the colonists were directly interested in the struggle with the French for the possession of the Mississippi valley. But after England with their help, had finally driven France from North America, the colonists lost interest in European quarrels. During the Revolutionary War we were, of course, glad of help from France, Spain and Hollond; but once we became independent, we drew a deep breath of relief, and resolved to keep as free as possible from the internal affairs of Europe. We knew by long experience what it meant to be involved in European disputes about which we knew little and cared less, and we wished to have nothing more to do with the dynastic struggles and court intrigues of the Old World. Still further, we distrusted European interference in the New World. back over our early history, summed the whole matter up when he said in 1828, “Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle in cis-Atlantic affairs.” Our position during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic struggles was a difficult one, suggesting interesting parallels with the last three years. At home, pro-British and pro-French parties were berating Washington for remaining neutral. On the high seas, France and England were both interfering with what we regarded as our undoubted rights of trade and travel. In 1799 we engaged in a modified naval war with France. After that difficulty was in part arranged, we drifted on into the war of 1812 with Great Britain, a war primarily in defence of our rights as neutrals, and in vindication of our dignity as an independent state. Meanwhile the colonies of Spain began to detach themselves from the control of the mother country, and to declare their independence, a process which the restored Spanish Bourbons could not arrest. In 1822 we recognized the independence of several of these colonies. Europe meantime was in the grip of reactionary forces, bitterly hostile to liberalism in all its forms. Austria, Prussia, Russia and later France with support at first from England, made a business of suppressing revolutions by force of arms wherever they appeared. In 1823 a liberal movement in Spain was crushed by French troops, acting as the agents of European reaction. Everyone expected that the next vindication of the principle of divine right would involve European aid to Spain in reconquering her rebellious colonies. England, already somewhat ashamed of her connection with earlier interventions, and (what was more to the point) greatly preferring an independent Spanish-America for commercial reasons, proposed to the United States a joint protest against intervention. On the insistence of John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, President Monroe chose instead to make a separate statement of American policy, declaring that any attempt on the part of the European powers to extend their “system ’’ in the Western Hemisphere was dangerous to our peace and safety. At the same time we were apprehensive that Russia would extend her Alaskan settlements far to the south, and the President took the occasion to announce that “ The American continents . . . are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by European powers.” The difficulty with Russia was soon adjusted, and as a matter of fact all real danger of European intervention in Latin America had already passed, owing to the determined opposition of England. But our attitude had been made clear, and our national policy, long foreshadowed, had been clearly formulated. By 1825, then, the two cardinal principles of American

Jefferson, looking.

policy had been settled. The first, our avoidance of entangling alliances or interference in European affairs, received its classic expression in Washington's Farewell Address. The second, opposition to European interference in the New World, became famous as the Monroe Doctrine. It is obvious that underlying both these principles is the assumption that the two hemispheres constitute separate entities, capable of an existence largely independent of one another. The Atlantic has been regarded as a barrier, providentially setting us apart from the turmoils of Europe, in which we had been so long involved, and from which we so gladly became free. A century ago there was, however, another line of demarcation than that of geography, that of political institutions and ideals. The “political system " of the Old World, which was not to be extended here, stood for despotism, reaction, conservatism, divine right, for everything that we had fought against in the Revolution. When the colonies of Spain revolted and set up governments that were patterned after our own republic, we rejoiced at the triumph of those principles of freedom and selfgovernment for which we ourselves stood. It was obviously to our interest that Europe should be kept from getting any firmer hold in North or South America. But mingled with concern for our own tranquillity was a generous and unselfish enthusiasm for republican institutions, and a glowing hope that the whole New World might become a great example of free government, where on a tremendous scale the inspiring ideals of the rights of man and the consent of the governed might be worked out to their fullest expression. For three quarters of a century after Monroe we managed to maintain our early principles. While we never attempted to conceal our sympathies with movements in Europe intended to promote the cause of human freedom, we did not actually intervene. The earlier phases of the French Revolution, and the struggles of Poles, Greeks and Hungarians for freedom were applauded; the efforts of Germans and Italians to secure unification and freedom from foreign influence in the main met our approval. On the other hand, massacres of Armenians in Turkey or of Jews in Russia or the extinction of local liberties in Finland were unpopular with us; but our approval or disapproval did not go beyond unofficial expression of opinions. We signed the Hague Conventions with the reservation that nothing was to require us to depart from our “traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling ourself in the political questions of policy or internal administration of any foreign state,” or to relinquish our “traditional attitude toward purely American questions.” In 1906 we took an important part in the Algeciras Conference to settle the affairs of Morocco; but we signed the agreement “without assuming obligation or responsibility for the enforcement thereof.” On the Western Continents, our policy developed along the general lines enunciated by Monroe. Since we have never regarded the Monroe Doctrine as

« ПретходнаНастави »