be saved and better results obtained if History and Civil Government be studied in large measure together, as one subject rather than as two distinct subjects. What we desire to emphasize is the fact that the two subjects are in some respects one, and that there is a distinct loss of energy in studying a small book on American History and afterwards a small book on Civil Government, or vice versa, when by combining the two a substantial course may be given." (Report on "The Study of History in Schools," 1898.)* The plan of the book is simple and, we think, logical. The essential facts of American history, from the period of the discovery to the close of the Revolution, are set forth together with their meaning. The causes of the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the necessity for a stronger form of government are then explained. The work of the Constitutional Convention is then briefly reviewed, after which a study is made of national and local government. The historical narrative is then resumed at the beginning of the national period (1789) and brought down to the present time. The pupil is thus made to see in a logical order the failure of the old form of government and the making of the new. He also studies the character of the new Constitution and notes its actual operation after 1789. He is shown that the Nation and its Constitution are a growth, not a creation; they are studied and explained in the light of their development and in a form simple enough to appeal to the interest and understanding of pupils. The making, the nature, and the operation of the Constitution thus follow each other in natural sequence, and the study of American government is placed where it should logically come. It is placed where it grew. It appears in its natural setting. Many other phases of civil government are discussed here and there throughout the book, where they form a natural part of the narrative. Great national movements and questions have been emphasized, while unimportant details and non-essentials have been reduced to a minimum, or omitted altogether. The space usually given to military history has been greatly reduced. The causes and results of our national wars have been fully explained, but the details of marches and counter marches have been reduced to their lowest terms. While the patriotism of war is recognized, the spirit of war is not exalted. An attempt has been made to give the pupil a clear idea of the plan of the campaign without burdening his mind and wearying his brain with the minute details of military maneuvers. Some school histories devote much valuable space to the Johnstown flood, the Charleston earthquake, the Boston fire, Western blizzards, and topics of a similar character. These we have eliminated. Vivid accounts of such matters may be interesting, but they do not lead to an understanding of the salient features of our political and industrial development. They are matters of journalism rather than of history and have had no influence upon the trend of national life. In dealing with disputed questions an effort has been made to be fair to both sides. In discussing the American Revolution we have made an honest endeavor to do full justice to the British as well as to the American cause; and in the treatment of the problems of the Civil War we have sought to recognize the merits of both North and South. It is the duty of the historical writer to ascertain and to set forth the truth without partiality. We have also sought to tell the story without imposing our opinions upon the reader. We believe that the pupils, in the light of the story, may be left to exercise their own judgment on questions of right and wrong. We have not deemed it a part of our duty to assert that certain men were good and others bad; that some were "noble patriots," while their opponents were "rebels," "traitors," and "villains." Epithets of denunciation are out of place in the young student's historical vocabulary. To tell the facts with a fair statement of opposing views, to tell what men did, to explain their motives and convictions this has been our purpose. But as impartiality does not involve indifference, approval is not withheld from the recognized characters and achievements in our history. Morals and patriotism will follow in the wake of truth. We are indebted to a large number of teachers for valuable suggestions and criticisms in connection with the preparation of the manuscript and the reading of the proof. We would acknowledge our special obligation, however, to Professor Edward G. Bourne of Yale University; to Professor E. W. Dow of the University of Michigan; to Professor C. R. Fish of the University of Wisconsin; to Professor Andrew Stephenson of De Pauw University; to Miss Effa L. Horn of the Centennial School, Lafayette, Indiana; to Mr. and Mrs. Otis Johnson of the schools of Tippecanoe County, Indiana; to Mr. Edward H. Davis and Dr. W. R. Manning of Purdue University; and to Professor W. A. Rawles of Indiana University. JAMES ALBERT WOODBURN. |