FSO é. tne, “/ “ig. 2 Vy —_f- Err Ge < . de y ea . SCHOOL HISTORIES SOME ERRORS IN THEM. BY SAMUEL A. GREEN, M.D. £ oe ' a Wo. y fi _ Rue 4) é ] Ps ‘ae ae is . ‘ ‘ ” =< = 3 . : : SCHOOL HISTORIES SOME ERRORS IN THEM. BY SAMUEL A. GREEN, M.D. BOSTON: FOR PRIVATE DISTRIBUTION. 1872. can Edueéational Monthly,” for June, copies are now reprinted. SCHOOL HISTORIES AND SOME ERRORS IN THEM. THE number of School Histories of the United States has been increased within a short time by the publication of several new works. Each one doubtless has its own peculiar merit, and we think that any one of them is better than the histories of earlier days. Most of those books entered largely into details. They faithfully recorded every minor conflict, and delighted especially in the description of battles. We were told what the right wing of the army did and what happened to the left wing. The number of men engaged on each side was given, and the number of killed, wounded, and captured, was carefully recorded. Old histories delighted too in a formidable array of dates. Our latest writers have not altogether reformed these errors, but they have taken some steps in the right direction. ‘l'oo much space is yet given to battles and wars. Instead of naming every engagement, and giving the date of its occurrence, we should often prefer to say briefly, “after several battles,” or “after much fighting the decisive battle of the war was fought,” or the like. By such conciseness we should gain room for something vastly more useful to the scholar. The essential points of a good history for the school-room are, we think, a careful selection of important events and their narration in a direct, simple, but not childish style. The story should be told in an interesting manner, but concisely, and should be strictly accurate. Me . , ip + For a long time we have felt impelled to correct certain errors in fact, which have found place in our school histories, and have ~ been handed down, some of them, for generations. We shall take the present opportunity to point out very briefly several of these errors. All, or nearly all, the histories give 1620 as the year when negro slavery was introduced into Virginia. The correct date of its introduction is 1619. The original account, and the basis of all our information on the subject, is found in “A Relation from Master John Rolfe,’’ which is contained in “ The Generall Historie of Virginia,” by John Smith, first published in 1624. Rolfe, after speaking of events that occurred earlier in the year 1619, says (p. 126), “ About the last of August came in a dutch man of warre that sold us twenty negars.” The mistake of putting the date one year later was first made by Beverley, who wrote a history of Virginia, which was published in London, in 1705, and succeeding authors have copied the error. Mr. Bancroft, in the last edition of his history, has made the proper correction. : The story of Captain John Smith and Pocahontas is now ’ regarded as a fabrication, by all who have closely examined the subject. It was, without doubt, the invention of the great adventurer and story-teller Smith himself, made at the time Pocahontas was in England, and an object of great interest and curiosity to the English people. Recent investigations place Edward Maria Winefield, the first president of the Virginia colonists at Jamestown, in a dif- ferent light from that in which he has generally been considered by historians. They have almost without exception called him hard names, —a knave, an embezzler of the public stores, &e. He has, in truth, been condemned upon the evidence of his enemies. Wingfield himself wrote an account of the first doings at Jamestown, but the narrative was never published till it was edited a few years since by an able historical critic, Charles Deane, LL.D., who came to the conclusion that Wingfield was, at least, as unselfish as any one of the Council. This body 5 had dwindled down till it consisted of only three members be- sides himself, — Smith, Martynn, and Ratcliffe. These three came one day to the President’s tent with “a warrant subscribed under their hands, to depose the President.” They did depose him and kept him a prisoner on board of the pinnace. Ratcliffe was made president. ‘The charges that were brought against Wingfield were exceedingly frivolous. The following is a specimen : — ‘“¢ First Master President [ Ratcliffe] said that I had denyed him a penny whitle [small pocket-knife], a chickyn, a spoonful of beere, and serued him with foule corne.” . . . Answer of Wingfield: “ No penny whitle was asked me, but a knife, whereof I had none to spare. The Indyans had long before stoallen my knife. Of chickins I never did eat but one, and that in my sickness. Mr. Ratcliffe had before that time tasted of 4 or 5. I never denyed him (or any other) beare, when I had it. The corne was of the same w* wee all liued vpon.” In Worcester’s School History the following statement is made: “In 1584, the celebrated Sir Walter Raleigh, under a commission from Queen Elizabeth, to discover, occupy, and govern remote, heathen, and barbarous countries, . , . arrived in America, entered Pamlico Sound, and proceeded to Roanoke Island,” &c. (p. 259). ‘This paragraph has been taught for more than twenty years. Sir Walter Raleigh never came to or saw any part of what is now the United States, and at the time mentioned he was in England, dancing attendance upon the Queen. One history, lately published, which we have at our hand, says in regard to the Maryland Charter, that “by it equality in religious rights and civil freedom was [stc] guaranteed to all emigrants; ” all of which is untrue. The Charter made no provision for religious liberty or civil freedom. The school histories inform us that in 1622 a grant of the land between the rivers Merrimack and Kennebec was made to Gorges and Mason, and called Laconia. ‘The Laconia grant was not made in 1622, but in 1629, and Laconia in the writing ” 6 was described as “all those lands and countries bordering upon the great lake, or lakes and rivers known by the name-of the ~ River and Lakes, or Rivers and Lakes of the Iroquois,” mean- ing thereby Lake Champlain. It turned out to be an imaginary province. The agents of Gorges who came over returned to England with a non est znventa provincia. The territory ceded by the grant of 1622 was, according to the charter, to be called the Province of Maine. In Swinton’s Condensed School History (p. 7), we are informed: that John and Sebastian Cabot discovered the Amer- _ ican continent at Cape Breton, in 1494. A few pages further on (p. 16), we read that “the North American Continent was first discovered by the Cabots sailing under the English flag in 1493,” and again, on page 22, that “In 1494 (or 1497), the Cabots discovered North America at Cape Breton.” Here we certainly can take our choice. The true statement is that the Cabots discovered the Conti- nent in 1497. It is uncertain whether their first land-fall was on the coast of Labrador or Cape Breton Island. Mr. Swinton relies upon a map discovered a few years ago in Germany, and said to. have been made by Sebastian Cabot himself. It is asserted in the map that Sebastian Cabot made it in 15443; that is, about fifty years after the voyage. Who makes the assertion is not known. We have space only to say that any one who will read Dr. John G. Kohl’s remarks in relation to this map must regard it as of no authority whatever in settling the date of the discovery of the Continent. Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a Venetian merchant in London, wrote to his brothers in Venice, the letter bearing date August 23, 1497, that “The Venetian, our countryman, who went with a ship from Bristol in quest of new islands, is returned, and says that seven hundred leagues hence he discovered land, the ter- ritory of the Grand Cham. He coasted for 300 leagues, and landed ; saw no human beings. . . . He was three months on the voyage. . . . The King of England is much pleased with this intelligence. ‘The King has promised that in the spring [of e 7 1498] our countryman shall have ten ships. . . . His name is Juan Cabot . . . these English run after him like mad people.” Rainiondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of Milan to Henry’s Court in London, writes to his government, August 24, 1497, that “some months ago, His Majesty [Henry VII.] sent out a Venetian who is a very good mariner, and has good skill in dis- covering new Islands ; and he has returned safe.” Do not these letters show very conclusively that the Cabots made their first voyage in 1497? And this is but a small part of the evidence we could give in favor of that date. In no less than three places in Anderson’s Grammar School History of the United States, we are informed that on the 19th of July, 1779, Major Lee surprised the British post at Paulus Hook (now Jersey City), and captured the garrison, consisting of 150 men. This gallant exploit did not take place on the 19th of July, but just one month later, on the 19th of August. Congress ordered a gold medal to be struck and given to Lee in honor of this daring deed. On this medal is a Latin inscription which closes thus: “In memory of the conflict at Paulus’s Hook, Nineteenth of August, 1779.” A full account of this mistake is found in the Historical Magazine for December, 1868. We might keep on, but our space will not permit. These errors which we have indicated should be weeded out of the text-books. Historians should rely upon the best authorities and take care to represent them correctly. In this way alone can we hope to make of history something else than a “huge Mississippi of lies.” It has been said that history is a censpir- acy against truth, and sometimes it seems as if the assertion is not wholly without foundation. %