History, Rome, and the Government
By L. A. S.
A ROMAN Catholic journal, The New World, publishes in a recent issue notices of two books, one of which it approves, while the other is declared to be “inaccurate and offensive.” Of the latter, which is a history of the Philippines written by David P. Barrows, for use in the Philippine schools, a Catholic correspondent writes:— The book was published and made its due appearance at Manila. A protest was immediately entered by the Catholic authorities against its use, and the papers forwarded to the War Department. After a careful investigation of the case, the department prohibited the use of the book in the Philippine schools. This was done on the ground that it was not good policy to allow the use of books published by school officials, and the department wanted to avoid even the appearance of “graft” in the public schools. The American Book Company, which had published the book and was financially interested in its sale, called the attention of the War Department to a parallel case in Cuba, where a geography was allowed to be sold of which the superintendent of Cuban schools was the author. “Then,” says the correspondent,5“the department of war informed the book company that the history contained statements offensive to Catholics, and would not be, on that account, introduced in the Philippine schools. That decision is final, and the prospects of the future use of the history are not worth considering.” Of the other book, “Lawler’s Essentials of American History,” The New World says that it “is a well-balanced book,” whose “author shows a scholarly mind and a desire to be fair and unbiased in his presentation of facts. The missionaries of early days are given credit for their heroic and self-sacrificing acts—for their devotion even unto martyrdom for the cause of religion and Holy Mother Church.” “Professor Lawler’s statement of fact is convincing to the most skeptical,” says The New World, “that the Catholic Church through her ministers was the civilizing power that founded, peacefully conquered, and civilized the Western hemisphere. . . . The duplicity of England in our times of peril and the persecution of the Catholics under English regime are fittingly emphasized. The book is a good specimen of historical writing, and no one can read it without concluding that by every right of justice, the founding, the civilizing, and in a great measure the preservation of the American republic are due to the Catholic Church.” America was discovered at a time when the Old World was almost wholly Catholic, and it is not surprising that Christopher Columbus, its discoverer, should have been of that religion. But the statement that America was discovered by a Catholic, brings us to the end of all that can be truthfully said to the credit of the Catholic Church in connection with American history. American history, as regards all that which gave character to the nation, began with the landing of the Protestant Pilgrims on the shores of New England. All the early colonies, with one exception (Maryland), were Protestant. The men who fought the Revolutionary War were almost wholly Protestants. Washington was a Protestant. So was Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. The men who framed the Constitution were Protestants. Lincoln, Madison, Andrew Jackson, all the great Americans who left their impress upon the history of their times, were Protestants. The principles of the national Constitution and of the State constitutions are Protestant. The educational system of the country is Protestant—anathematized by the Catholic Church. So much for the claim that this republic is mainly indebted to the Catholic Church for its present greatness. It is wholly untruthful. Yet Rome demands that American histories should make such claims. Only histories of this kind, which will ascribe to Rome the credit for the world’s mental, moral, and material progress, will have her approval. The whole issue between Romanism and Protestantism is involved in the controversy. Rome’s claim to be the dispenser of all that is most valuable in political, social, and religious life is a denial of every claim of Protestantism, and governmental sanction of books making such claims or setting forth the Catholic Church in such a light, is governmental opposition to Protestantism. Whether it is true or not that the War Department prohibited Barrows’s Philippine history in the islands because it “contained statements offensive to Catholics,” we do not know. But if it is true, the prohibition rested upon a basis which afforded it no justification whatever. In writing history, the truth of a statement is the whole question to be considered; no other is of any importance. That is all history pretends to be, and all that real history can be,—a chronicle of facts stated just as they occurred, without reference to either praise or discredit which they may cast upon any person or organization of people. Any other kind of history is worse than useless. It is an interesting question for Protestants whether or not the Catholic Church, notwithstanding its numerical inferiority in this country, is to be able to control the government in so important a matter as the teaching of history. The attempt to do this will certainly not be confined to the Philippines.