Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

school use. There are two popular histories of The Louisiana Purchase," of the sort that Professor Violette thinks ought to be provided for high school use, one by James K. Hosmer (New York, Appleton, 1902), and the other by Ripley Hitchcock (Boston, Ginn & Co., 1904). There is some interesting matter and a considerable number of errors in Binger Herman's "Louisiana Purchase," published in 1898 by the United States Government, and obtainable from the Superintendent of Documents for 65 cents. A collection of "The State Papers and Correspondence Bearing Upon the Purchase of the Territory of Louisiana was printed by the Government as House document 431 for the second session of the 57th Congress, which is obtainable from the Superintendent of Documents for 25 cents. An important source of information is “The History of Louisiana, particularly

[ocr errors]

of the Cession of that Colony to the United States," by Barbé Marbois, the French negotiator of the treaty, which was published in an English translation in Philadelphia in 1830. The book has been long out of print, but copies are not uncommon in secondhand catalogues, although they are usually priced rather high. Marbois tells the story by putting speeches into the mouths of the chief actors, after the manner of the ancients, and these speeches are not to be taken too seriously. There is an interesting summary of "The World Aspects of the Louisiana Purchase," by Wm. M. Sloane, in the "American Historical Review," Vol. IX, pp. 505-21. References already cited in the footnotes are not repeated. The present writer has emphasized the least interesting phase of the Louisiana purchase for the reason that it is the one that is commonly least understood.

A Canadian Port in War Time

BY B. H. NYE, M.A., YONKERS, N. Y.

To the average American citizen the great European war seems quite remote unless it happens that his business has suffered, or that he still has relatives on the other side engaged in the fighting. A visit to one of our great ports shows nothing unusual to the casual observer, although a number of German ocean liners are interned in several of our harbors. Many steamers of the North German Lloyd and the Hamburg American Line, lie idle at their New York piers. Now and then a vessel can be seen arriving or leaving with her national flag flying, her name and nationality painted in large letters on her side. There is, however, no unwonted activity on the part of the military and naval authorities; they may be a little more watchful than in the past, but it is done quietly and without attracting attention.

On the other hand, when approaching the Canadian port of Halifax, before the steamer reaches the twenty-eight mile buoy, a small schooner comes along side and a pilot is taken on to guide the steamer into the one narrow, circuitous channel left open for navigation through the mine fields.

The shore about the harbor is exceedingly attractive. To the southward the coast rises abruptly and is quite rocky; from the north a long sand bar or point juts out towards the south, between these lies the entrance to the harbor. The top of the rocks to the south is thick with pines, while the northerly point, sloping back from the water, is covered with scattered groups of pines.

On passing the buoy and proceeding further up the bay, the southern shore loses its bluff aspect and both shores present a similar appearance. Coming up slowly through the mine fields a submarine pops up off to the northward, looks the steamer over and sinks out of sight again. The steamer is British and evidently known, otherwise the buoy could not have been passed without a challenge.

That point under those pines would be an ideal place for a picnic. But hold! On closer inspection the glasses show a small cabin painted green so that it would blend with the foliage, and just outside stand two men in khaki watching the steamer through glasses. Doubtless there are many of these concealed observation stations about the harbor. What a queer sensation to suddenly discover that a spy system is being carried on along the shore.

The hillside also holds surprises; guns were poking out over the top of nearly every green bank and from among the pines, some high up on the hillside making silhouettes against the sky, others close to the water's edge; sentries also could be seen pacing back and forth near other embankments, which, without doubt, concealed more guns.

Near the lighthouse the vessel stops while the guard-ship comes out for inspection and passes the boat. One of the guard-boats was a decided freak; she was only as large as a fair-sized tug, yet she had a ram bow which looked big enough to sink a battleship. Her stack slanted well aft as did her pilot house. She was built to " look smart," as the Canadians put it, but she does not exactly look it.

After being passed by the boarding officer, the captain is ordered to hoist a certain signal and proceed. As the vessel moves on, a series of toots arises; this is the guard-ship telegraphing to the fort on the hill that the steamer is all right and may proceed. The news of the steamer's approach is quickly sent ahead to the inner batteries. This notice, together with the signal hoist, which must be kept up until the dock is reached, prevents the forts from firing on the coming guests.

It is said that Halifax harbor is impregnable. This must be true. The distance from shore to shore at the entrance is not much over half a mile and there are guns placed behind every clump of trees.

It would be impossible for any ship to live if all

[graphic]

the batteries should open on her. Farther up the bay an island is seen in the middle of the entrance. This is entirely covered with fortifications, which, with those on the mainland completely control both entrances to the harbor.

There is a lighthouse on this island, and the keeper and his family are the only civilians allowed here. At night strong searchlights, placed on the island, pour a fixed light on both shores of the mainland, so that any boat entering must pass through these beams of light.

Behind the island lies the real harbor and the city of Halifax. The former is large enough to hold the entire British navy and has a depth of sixty feet at the piers. The harbor presents a very interesting sight; there are more sailing ships to be seen here than in any large American port. Many of the barques and barkentines are from Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and have their national flag painted twice on each side, once near the bow and once near the stern, while in between the two the ship's name and her country appear in large letters, a reminder that liners are not the only ones that suffer from German submarines. Near the north shore, out of the way of the shipping, lie a number of steamers "under orders to the Admiralty." They carry oil and other supplies for the English navy. Farther up the H. M. C. S. Niobe, Canada's navy, can be seen, while nearer, towering above the other ships, lies the Caronia, now painted slate gray from funnel to water line with guns mounted forward, aft and at intervals along the promenade decks that formerly resounded to the tramp of Americans going across "to do" Europe or returning home with empty pockets. Now and then a small tug steams by; every space on her is filled by men in khaki, so that from a distance she has a brownish tinge. It is the ferry which carries the officers and men from the forts down the harbor to the city on leave.

In walking about the town the number of men in khaki attracts the attention; almost every other man is a soldier. Now and then a group salute another figure in brown, an officer on his way to some one of the numerous military offices that are scattered about the city. The sailors seem more sociable than the soldiers as they usually travel in pairs or groups of three or four.

A look into the shop windows is sufficient to tell the tourist that Canada is at war. The boot and shoe shops display "regulation boots;" men's furnishing stores have bundles of "putties," officers' handkerchiefs and patriotic hat bands. But it is in the jewelry stores that patriotism runs riot; the national flag is used in a hundred different ways, in pins, belt buckles and the like. Then, too, the leaders of the army and the navy have not escaped; their faces decorate spoons, trays, pins and other objects. No doubt the purchase of any of these articles shows patriotism, but with few exceptions the pleasure of owning one would be fleeting.

On blank walls and billboards throughout the town are notices that men are wanted for that bat

talion or that regiment; the navy also has room for new recruits; the daily papers of course are filled with appeals to the male populace to enlist and help the Empire. Many promenades along the fortifications that once were open to the public are now closed to all but sentries.

Upon the hill back of the town the old Citadel is alive with men, and the near-by barracks and officers' quarters are all filled. A barbed wire fence encircles the Citadel and sentries walk back and forth on top of the great wall. A double guard is posted at the gateway and none but those having military business and showing proper credentials may enter. On the embankment near the semaphore and signal hoist there is always a group of men in brown, one or more of whom are constantly watching the bay through glasses; sometimes a submarine is seen going by, for there are a number stationed here, and a destroyer or two lie at anchor together with several cruisers; these have their funnels painted in great grey and white triangles, semicircles and curves, and a great white wave at the bow, all done to deceive the enemy. With stacks painted in this manner the range finder on the enemy's ships cannot get a straight line and so cannot estimate the distance correctly. The great bow wave also has its purpose, for at sea and looking through the glasses, the observer on another vessel would suppose the cruiser to be going much faster than was really the case.

Music of a military kind which is so stimulating was most noticeably absent; a few bugle calls now and then, and those rather faint, are all that furnishes audible reminder that the country is at war. Down the bay the guns at target practice can be heard. This usually consists in having a tug, towing a couple of small rafts with screens at the end of a long cable, steam rapidly past a battery. Then for a few minutes there is a noise as the guns open on the floats. The drilling of the troops goes on at quite a distance from the city, a company marching under arms is rarely seen.

In

A feeling of earnestness pervades the city. The people realize that war is a serious business. An early cessation of hostilities is not looked for, but a confidence of ultimate victory is manifest. England itself there seems to be a spirit of indifference to the war, but this cannot be said of Halifax, and what is true of the one city is true of all Canada. Everyone seems to be trying to do his share to help the "Empire" win, for they have a broader view of the situation, broader possibly than even that held in England. The Canadians are not concerned so much with England itself as with the "Empire" and that means Australia, South Africa, India and all British possessions.

Paul Mijouef discusses the "Influences of the War on Education in Russia" in the "Educational Review" for April, in an unexpectedly optimistic way.

[ocr errors]

The Definition of the Field of Secondary School History

The ineffectiveness of history teaching in secondary schools has been attributed to many causes. It has been blamed upon text-books, low salaries, absence of history equipment, and other material deficiencies. It has been charged that history teachers are not as well prepared to teach their subject as are teachers of other subjects. And then the normal schools, colleges and universities have been held responsible for placing poor history teachers in the schools.

For some time there has been a feeling that the difficulty lies not only in the materials or in the teach1 ers, but also in the way history is organized for school purposes. This view was expressed in the pages of the MAGAZINE as early as February, 1910, and has recently received considerable support. It was discussed at the December, 1915, meeting of the American Historical Association, in a joint session with members of the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland, and of the Mis1sissippi Valley Historical Association. It was also taken up at the joint meeting of the American Historical Association and the California History Teachers' Association held at Berkeley, July 22, 1915. The papers which follow are those presented at these meetings. It is interesting to note that the sentiment of the December meeting-attended largely by eastern teachers-was overwhelmingly in favor of a definition of the fields of history; while the July meeting, composed principally of western teachers, was not so favorably inclined to the plan.

The papers at Oakland discussed the desirability of the suggested two-year course in ancient, medieval and modern history, while this subject was scarcely touched upon at the Washington meeting.

The December conference passed a resolution requesting the Committee on History in Schools to proceed to a definition of a list of topics for each of the I periods of secondary school history. This committee, of which Prof. W. S. Ferguson, of Harvard University, is chairman, has already started upon this work. Discussion at the Washington Conference

1 REMARKS BY PROF. HERBERT D. FOSTER, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE.

I. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT. For some years there has been a growing feeling that the fields of history taught in schools were so wide that it was almost impossible to teach them well, and that there was grave danger of superficiality and vagueness. Especially was this felt in connection with ancient history with its Oriental connections and i its extension to about 800 A. D., as recommended by the Committee of Seven of the American Historical Association in 1899, and re-affirmed by a Committee of Five of that Association in 1911. The Committee of Five suggested a way of relief through omission of unessentials and emphasis of essentials giving a few helpful illustrations of what it meant (pages 2629). Some of that committee felt, and many others

expressed a desire, that the helpful step there begun or suggested of indicating essential things should be carried further.

In 1911 at the Conference of Teachers of History in Secondary Schools, held in connection with the Charleston meeting of the American Historical Association, on motion of Principal James Sullivan, of the Boys' High School, Brooklyn, it was voted to suggest to the American Historical Association the desirability of attempting to define the fields of history taught in the schools. At this meeting it was further suggested that the various history teachers' associations consider this matter, and bring it before the American Historical Association, and be ready to co-operate with the latter. In pursuance of that suggestion the councils of the New England History Teachers' Association and of the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association transmitted such formal requests to the American Historical Association. The matter was more or less formally advocated by other history teachers' associations. Among other requests to the American Historical Association there came at the suggestion of both school and college teachers a petition from the College Entrance Examination Board. The Council of the American Historical Association, therefore, in view of these various requests, appointed a year ago at the Chicago meeting, December, 1914, a Committee on History in Schools, and referred to that committee a request for a fuller definition of the fields of history.

So far it had been quite clear that the desire for a fuller definition was shared by both school and college. The hope was that such a definition would be of service to all the pupils in schools and to all the teachers, and not merely to those pupils preparing for college or to those teachers interested in college entrance examinations. Somewhat unfortunately, the phrase used in referring the question to the Committee on History in Schools and the phrase therefore reproduced in the questionnaire sent out to about 4,000 members of various historical associations, contained the words which indicated only one phase of the problem. These words which seemed to arouse misunderstanding and some wholesome strength of feeling were: “A fuller definition of the history requirement for entrance to college, showing especially the points to be emphasized and those to be more lightly treated,' as requested by the College Entrance Examination Board." Perhaps it was natural enough, since some of the requests from the conferences and the History Teachers' Associations or their committees had been more or less informal, or had not been transmitted officially to the Council of the American Historical Association, and since these associations were local while the College Entrance Board was not, that the Council quoted the form of the request from the College Entrance Board.

[ocr errors]

The nature of the Committee on History in Schools and of its work may possibly be further clarified by calling attention to two facts. First, the committee

[graphic]

is made up of teachers in both school and college from all sections of the country with a chairman who has knowledge of teaching conditions in both school and college in California and New England, and under quite different circumstances. Second, it is distinctly stated in the questionnaire, as it has been understood from the beginning, that: "It is assumed that the committee will be assisted in this work by committees of the New England History Teachers' Association, the Association of the History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland, the Mississippi Valley Historical Society, the Commission on Accredited Schools of the Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools of the Southern States, the California History Teachers' Association, and other similar associations."

It is to be feared that some of the points just mentioned were not understood or taken into account by those who answered the questionnaire. If the broader scope of the origin and purpose of the Committee on History in Schools be understood, there will be little apprehension of any dictation or interference with the liberties of the teachers, or of the imperiling of the interests of the mass of secondary pupils for the advantage of those preparing for college.

II. REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

With these friendly preliminary handshakes, let us plunge into the arena of figures and more or less reliable statistics. To change the figure for a more homely one, familiar to any one who has lived in the pie belt, you may have found at Thanksgiving that it is well to get the core of your apple out before you peel by hand. In this way you may be relieved of some unnecessary peeling. The core of our apple is the clear mandate demanding a fuller definition of history. Out of 402 replies to this question, only 50 were opposed to or doubtful about the desirability of the fuller definition. That is, 88 per cent. of those who replied to the first question favored a fuller definition. It may be interesting to look at the inside of our core and find that the majority of the small number who opposed the definition were not school but college teachers.

An even larger proportion, 92 per cent. of those who answered Question II, favored the specific plan of dividing the content of each field by including the essential main topics with little or no sub-division, which certainly ought to be included and empha

sized."

It appears, therefore, very clear that the replies give the committee a mandate to define the content of each field of history, and that this definition should be based at least upon the topics to be included and emphasized.

Not so large a majority, but still about 73 per cent., of those who answered the question favored including in this definition "topics which should probably be omitted or else lightly treated." A smaller majority of those answering, but still a majority amounting to about 68 per cent., favored including also "topics which certainly should be omitted."

It is almost impossible to express in figures the re

sults of answers to Question III: "Or do you think it wise to limit the definition, for the present at least, to the collateral reading, in such a way that the definition would involve the preparation of a list of topics on which collateral reading in each subject should be required, and which should be made the basis of examination?' As an exclusive alternative, a majority did not favor this plan of a list of topics for collateral reading and examinaion. The somewhat unfortunate wording of this question necessitated a choice between this and the plan of list of essential topics. In spite of this a surprising number-83-insisted on rejecting the form of the question and asking for both Plan II and Plan III (that is, for both a list of essential topics and also a list of topics for collateral reading). Some went further and asked also for list of books. Moreover, some misunderstood the question and thought the list of topics for collateral reading, rather than the matter in text-books or the list of essential topics, was intended to be the basis of examination. If it would be fair to include the replies which indicated a desire for both Plan II and Plan III, and also some expressing a qualified assent to the plan of topics for collateral reading, then a little over one-half the replies to Question III would be regarded as favorable to the inclusion of topics for collateral reading. It is certain that the replies, in view of the somewhat unsatisfactory wording of the last question, exhibited a widespread desire for some further statement or recommendation regarding collateral reading. This conclusion would also be substantiated by the Remarks" appended to the questionnaire, and by the common knowledge among all teachers of a desire for some clarification of the situation as to collateral reading.

There were, of course, many qualifications in the answers to various questions so that the tabulation necessitated some discretion; but in general these qualifications did not appear so numerous or fundamental as to vitiate the result. A good many, for example, expressed the qualification that the definition should be made by a committee including both school and college teachers, and representing various parts of the country; or that the definition should not be made the matter of dictation, but of recommendation self-evident and certain to be met. by this association. Such qualifications seemed pretty A more serious point arises, however, in connection with this fundamental question. Are the courses to be defined the four courses recommended by the previous committees of the American Historical Association or the tentative propositions of the National Educational Association for only three courses? This question was noted in only 16 replies. It would be logical to expect a committee of the American Historical Association in defining the fields of history to define them in accordance with the courses already laid down by committees of that association. It is perhaps necessary to call attention to the fact that the Committee of Five did not recommend three courses, but did recommend four courses in history.

[graphic]

1

III. QUERIES. Certain questions naturally suggest themselves as the result of an examination of the replies.

courses

It

1. Can we help to harmonize the four recommended by the Committee of Seven with the four courses recommended by the Committee of Five? The replies to a questionnaire recently sent out by the Bureau of Education indicate, according to the statement of Professor Johnson, of Teachers' College, that the great majority of the schools are following the courses recommended by the Committee of Seven. is possible that the present committee met the situation by defining in addition to the four courses of the Committee of Seven the course recommended on modern European history since the early part of the eighteenth century recommended as Block C by the Committee of Five. This plan of adding the modern European history to the four courses of the Committee of Five has already been adopted in the comprehensive scheme of examinations followed by Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

2. How can we carry out the happy suggestion of one of the veteran friends of good teaching and the liberty of the teacher, the President of the American Historical Association, Professor Burr, of Cornell, as reproduced in the words of the chairman of this committee: "Give teachers greater liberty to develop the subject according to their own individuality and interest, by defining a minimum of essential topics, which so long as a minimum is not indicated they could less easily do?" This is a somewhat new and fruitful point of view. Perhaps it would help in clarifying the next two questions.

3. Would it seem less like dictation or would it seem a relief, if, after actual experimentation in the schools and mature consideration by representative bodies and teachers in both school and college, the list of essential topics to be emphasized should be accepted by examining bodies as forming a substantial part of the basis for examination?

4. How can we avoid playing into the hands of cram schools and coaches in the matter of entrance examinations? A suggestion that seems logical may help to answer both this and the previous query, or at least to elicit discussion. Why not utilize any minimum of essential topics to give the teacher greater freedom and teacher and pupil = greater security in regard to a substantial proportion of the examinations? This could be secured by utilizing the minimum list of topics as an essential, if you please the major part, but not as the whole basis of examination, and then by giving as wide a range as feasible of other topics on which the student might show his power. This plan would seem to be given increased value if it included among this large range some topics suitable for collateral reading. Still greater would be its value if the Committee on History in Schools proceeds to draw up such a list of topics for collateral reading. Of course, such questions might be grouped in various ways in the examination paper. Do the foregoing suggestions offer a possible solution of the following question?

5. How can a fuller definition of each course, through essential topics to be emphasized, be brought into relation with a reasonable program as to collateral reading? One possible answer to this in the case of the difficult course in ancient history would be the following plan: Let the list of essential topics for everybody drawn up by this committee serve as the basis so far as proves practicable for the beginner's course in ancient history given to children of fourteen the first year in the high school. Then let the list of topics for collateral reading be drawn upon in such varied ways as may be possible under different circumstances in different schools where it is desirable to make this course in ancient history of character suitable for preparing students for entrance to college.

6. Finally, how can we make it evident in intent and result that the American Historical Association and the Committee on History in Schools are true to the larger purposes of the teaching and study of history, and do not have in mind merely the interests of any special class like college preparatory students, but rather the more fundamental interests of the whole body of pupils and teachers in secondary schools and of our own citizenship?

Perhaps it ought to be said that in the estimates given above there have been included those replies to precisely the same questions which were sent out at the request of the chairman of the committee in October directly through the New England History Teachers' Association. Of course, duplicates have been excluded; and the results would not materially affect our mandate, for instance a change of 1 per cent. in the favorable answer to Question I.

It seems reasonably clear from the 412 replies from all sections of the country that, to quote the words of another member of the committee who has read the replies: "We have a clear mandate to proceed on the method indicated in Question II (c), viz., essential topics to be included and emphasized;" and to quote further from the same member with whom in both cases the tabulator would agree, that the answers indicate a widespread desire that something be done to indicate more precisely a reasonable demand in the matter of collateral reading."

[ocr errors]

It was in accordance with the conclusions drawn

from both the replies and the discussion at the conference at Washington, December 31, 1915, that the conference unanimously passed the following vote, That the Committee on History in Schools be instructed by this conference to make a fuller definition of the field of history on the basis of topics to be emphasized and topics for collateral reading." 1

1 Copy of vote passed by the Conference on History in Schools of the American Historical Association.

That the Committee on History in Schools be authorized to prepare a more precise definition of the fields of history on the basis of a list of essential topics to be emphasized, and a list of topics for collateral reading.

That the Committee on History in Schools of the American Historical Association be requested to co-operate, or correspond, with the similar committee of the National Education Association.

Х

« PreviousContinue »