Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

reasonable time. Some interesting light is thrown upon plans for colonization of confederates and of French-speaking people from California, and upon the vague ambitions of Gwin under the favor of Napoleon.

For the first time Señor García gives his readers, in the ninth volume, a brief explanation of his editorial method in marking his own additions to documents, the lacunae in the originals, etc. The information is belated but welcome. Why may he not give similar explanations on other points previously noted in these reviews?

C. A. DUNIWAY.

TEXT-BOOKS

Reading References for English History. By Henry Lewin Cannon, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History, Leland Stanford Junior University. (Boston, Ginn and Company, 1910, pp. xv, 559.) Mr. Cannon assumed a tremendously difficult task when he undertook to write this book, and it must be said that he has accomplished it surprisingly well. He has furnished a bibliography of English history which is indispensable for the teacher of English history both in school and in college. The method he has followed, though at first sight apparently confusing, is an excellent one. He has done a service of great value in giving a bibliography not only of English historical works but of poems and novels bearing on English history. Especially commendable are his references to maps in the books mentioned in the second part of his work, which is given up to topics and references.

Opinions will differ as to the writer's duty to give some critical appreciation of the books included in his bibliography. In my own. opinion, he should have done this, at least to the extent of starring those books which in his judgment were the best. Opinions will differ, too, about the value of the books in this list. On the whole, the selection is excellent, but I should not have included Hume's History of England in six volumes, while I should have mentioned Brewer's onevolume edition of Hume. I should omit Wishart's Monck, Palgrave's Cromwell, Smyth's Lectures, Duruy's Modern Times, and Häusser's Reformation. On the other hand, the following books ought to be included: Vinogradoff's Growth of the Manor, Mrs. Lomas's edition of Carlyle's Cromwell, Stainer's Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, Foxcroft's Life and Letters of Sir George Savile, Tout's Advanced History of Great Britain, and there should be a mention of the last editions of Dahlmann-Waitz and of Taswell-Langmead.

The work has been done with unusual accuracy. There are a few errors, for the most part typographical. It is Putzger and not "Putzgers", Hassall and not “Hassal” (p. 75), Montalembert and not "Montlembert" (p. 175). Let me add that in my opinion initials should be given in addition to the authors' names in the reference lists, or, if this is not practicable, they should at least be given when the name is RALPH C. H. CATTERALL.

a common one.

American Government and Politics. By Charles A. Beard, Associate Professor of Politics in Columbia University. (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1910, pp. viii, 772.) With his own untiring industry, and with the earnest co-operation of almost a dozen of his colleagues and friends, Professor Beard has very capably accomplished his purpose of a compilation from "the best authorities of recent times" for giving an exposition of our public life. For the enormous masses of facts and figures he has gathered, he has relied on secondary aids, as it would have been physically impossible to go to the original sources himself, and unnecessary to do so as he has chosen the safest guides, such as Wilson, Goodnow, Moore, Reinsch, Foster, Bryce, Cooley, and others. He has been impartial, rarely injecting his own views into the text, so no one need look here for striking comments or for innovating suggestions. Occasionally he inclines very gently from his balance as when he condemns our complicated system of officers and elections.

[ocr errors]

Although "designed for college students", it is rather hard to see how the book can be very useful pedagogically. It is crowded with too many details to serve as a continuous text-book, while many of the laws and statistics are too quickly superseded for the volume to be satisfactory as a reference repository for more than a brief period. For the latter object, too, the index should be much longer. In spite of the author's care there are also some shortcomings of statement: water carriage" (p. 415) in this country is not "much cheaper than transportation by rail" except for a few heavy, bulky articles. The two meanings of "impeachment" in the United States Constitution are not sufficiently contrasted (p. 264). In many cases he has failed to state how statutes have been modified or even nullified by the courts. The law limiting hours of labor (p. 734) for women is a case in point, being both in force and not in force at present in this land. But for a rapid summary of past conditions and for a flash-light picture of the present chaos of our governmental machinery, the work is unsurpassed.

COLYER MERIWETHER.

A History of the United States for Schools. By S. E. Forman. (New York, The Century Company, 1910, pp. xiii, 419, lxxi.) Mr. Forman has the rare courage of breaking away from routine so as to give us a volume developing, in the main, one conception. Instead of trying to summarize all our past, he presents us as an expanding organism germinating on the Atlantic and spreading westward to the Philippines. He attempts to set out in proper perspective the chief steps in in our progress. His pages teem with those forms and results of action that make for growth, industrial, social, intellectual, not the details of military campaigns. Of his forty-five chapters, nearly every heading carries the idea of vivid human movement. For arousing the interest of his audience, young people in school, no purpose could be wiser for that age. From the pedagogical standpoint they are also furnished. a thread on which to string the pearls they find in their journey. Start

ing of course with the discovery of America, the author devotes over a hundred pages, or about one-fourth of the whole, to the colonies to 1776, then two hundred down to the Civil War, with the remaining hundred to the present. Certainly this is all the familiar ground covered by dozens of other school texts, but there is the difference of treatment. Leaving out the usual mass of facts, names, and dates, he clings to his main thesis, choosing the things that best strengthen and illustrate it, all expressed in a very clear, simple, attractive style.

66

But there are some defects to be noted. At times he weakens in his own faith, and frankly admits that he digresses from "the subject of the Westward Movement" in order to relate the story of national affairs" (p. 221), wandering into political struggles that he could have linked with his central topic but does not. Again he seems unaware of the geographical influences shaping our destinies. Even on such a cogent example as the Erie Canal, he says not one word about the natural advantages of the route selected. He should have made some explanation of the excess of exports over imports (p. 413). Instead of the fourteen pages of Great Subjects, he should let the students work out such matters from the index themselves. The Roman pagination for seventy-one pages, at the end, is to be unqualifiedly condemned for a class-room work. But all in all, with the fine maps and pictures, if not the best United States school history, there is surely none better. COLYER MERIWETHER.

The History of Political Theory and Party Organization in the United States. By Simeon D. Fess, LL.D., President of Antioch College. (Boston and New York, Ginn and Company, 1910, pp. vi, 451.) Dr. Fess bases his work on the thesis that political parties and political theories in this country rest on the very elements of human nature. There have been, he maintains, many kaleidoscopic changes of garb and nomenclature but at bottom there have been only two contesting principles in our public struggles, whether we call them radicalism and conservatism, strict construction and lose construction, liberty and authority, states' rights and nationalism, centralization and decentralization. Similarly, though names have changed, platforms have been modified, utterances have been revised and attitudes have been reversed, we have had but two parties throughout our life of one hundred and twenty years. Still more remarkable, these two foes have equally divided that stretch of time. "The old Republican and the modern Democratic party" are one and the same, while "the Federalist, the National Republican, the Whig, and the Republican" (of to-day), differ only in title (p. 437).

For developing his theme, the author skilfully pilots us through the mazes of enunciations and deliverances of individuals and groups, from the formation of the Union down, sticking logically to his subject all the time. The great figures in this long drama pass before us, the per

formances of each being succinctly reviewed, the whole furnishing a very handy, compact narrative of our political life. Some of the best parts of the book are those dealing with the philosophical relations between politics and natural conditions, as in the differences of view between the up-country and low-country in South Carolina (p. 108).

But Benton did not get the resolution of censure of Jackson expunged in one year (p. 157), it took him three years. Johnson could hardly be called "extravagant" in the use of the veto (p. 382) when we recall Cleveland's prodigality with that weapon.

COLYER MERIWETHER.

COMMUNICATIONS

TO THE EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW:
My dear Sir:

ON October 18, after reading Mr. J. H. Smith's criticism (in the October number of the REVIEW) of my book, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 1838–1846, I addressed to you a letter of protest. In your reply of October 27, you state that "the pages of the REVIEW are always open to writers of books who wish to reply to reviews of their volumes, provided they confine themselves, as you would be disposed to do, to questions of fact."

After considerable hesitation I have concluded to avail myself of this privilege, as I believe Mr. Smith's review should not pass without comment. My book is not an important one. It merely presents the lectures delivered at Johns Hopkins University, and is no doubt deficient in literary form. But Mr. Smith's review is important, if open-minded justice is still requisite to a fair review. As a preliminary to an examination of the review it should be stated that, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Smith and I are the only students who have read and made transcripts from the manuscript material on Texas, in the British Public Record Office.

Mr. Smith writes that my book " contains numerous errors", and cites twenty-one such "simple cases". Two are absolute errors. Of the nineteen other alleged errors, not differentiated, and so stated as to appear of equal gravity and to reflect equally upon the author, three are instances of carelessness of statement; e. g., Mr. Smith writes: “On page 61 the signing of the Anglo-Texan treaties is correctly stated to have taken place in 1840, but on page 93 this is placed among the events of 1842." It is true that on page 93, near the bottom, signing" is inaccurately and carelessly used for ratification. In the sentence immediately preceding, however, ratification is used, and on pages 67, 72, 75, 76, 78, 85, 86, the narrative is plainly occupied with the preparations. for ratification and the correct word is used, and on page 87 is the following: ". . . on June 28 those treaties were finally ratified. . . .” On

66

page 93 the word "signing" is regrettable, but a misunderstanding of fact is impossible, and the review is clearly misleading..

To sixteen of the twenty-one allegations of error I object. Six of them are really differences between Mr. Smith and myself as to the meaning of certain documents. They are differences of interpretationneither errors nor contradictions. Most of these refer to documents in the British Public Record Office (known apparently only to Mr. Smith and myself) and obviously impossible to quote at length in illustration of my objection. But, fortunately, Mr. Smith catalogues one such "error", the bearing of which and the document will be well known to every student of American history. He says, "Page 13: 'at the time there was little question, save in extreme abolition circles, that the allegations of Calhoun [in his correspondence with Pakenham, touching British interference in Texas] had some foundation in fact'; but, as Calhoun merely asserted on that subject what Aberdeen had avowed, the foundation of his allegations' was beyond question (Sen. Doc. No. 341, 28 Cong., I sess., pp. 50, 65)." Everyone knows this document and is aware that Calhoun attributed certain objects and a certain plan to Great Britain, and offered Aberdeen's words to support his allegations. They also know that Aberdeen denied Calhoun's interpretation. Mr. Smith accepts the latter. Indeed, he outdoes Calhoun, who writes, in this document, that he "infers" from Aberdeen's avowal a certain line of diplomacy. Here, Mr. Smith catalogues as an "error" (and without explanation or qualification) what is really a difference of interpretation, and then cites in support of his accusation the very document which we interpret differently.

Another of Mr. Smith's cases of error, not a matter of interpretation, is the following: "Page 145: Aberdeen's note to Ashbel Smith 'disclaimed any intention of interfering in Texan affairs'; but the note added the qualification improperly', on which a world of meaning could hang." The charge here is of incorrect citation, and consequent wrong conclusion-a serious charge, and based wholly upon the correctness of Mr. Smith's own notes. I had felt reasonably confident of my own accuracy, but for convincing proof, wrote immediately to my copyist in London for another transcript of Aberdeen's note to Ashbel Smith of September 11, 1843. This transcript reached me on the 15th inst., and is exactly as I have given it on pages 144-145 of the book. The word "improperly" does not appear in the note. (Transcript certified by W. H. Powell, 1 Arkell's Villas, Washington Road, Worcester Park, Surrey, England, November 3, 1910.) Now, in fact, the word "improper", or "improperly", in this connection occurs once on it is each time in reference to communications from Ashbel Smith to Aberdeen or to Jones, not from Aberdeen to Ashbel Smith. It does not appear in the note from Aberdeen to Ashbel Smith.

The remaining nine alleged errors are misrepresentations.

To illus

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »