States Senator, expressed his views of the duties of an historian.

“If in anything the love of country or a lofty enthusiasm may have led him to paint her in too favorable colors," he said, "the sober judgment of time will correct the mistake. No serious harm will have been done. It is surely better to err on the side of ennobling the country's history than to err on the side of degrading it. It is the memory of virtue that should be immortal, and it is best that the memory and example of evil should perish. I do not see how the love of country can long abide toward a country which is altogether unlovely. No man can feel a noble pride in a base history."

After reading these words it is a little confusing to find the orator, in the same speech, declaring that he is “pleading for no departure from absolute verity," and that "the first duty of the historian is to absolute truth." It would seem the gentleman protests too much.

But there is no mistaking his meaning. In a few words, it is that truth should be sacrificed on the altar of patriotism so that its devotees may grow great and multiply. No Jesuit was ever accused of the promulgation of a doctrine more false and mischievous. It would seem that the learned orator needs to be informed that there is nothing more "unlovely" and "base" than falsehood, and that it is powerless to "ennoble" anything. Were the annals of nations to be registered in this spirit, the historic tomes would stand like headstones on the grave of truth.

Nor is it less absurd than false. Suppose, for example, that British historians, led by "lofty enthusiasm," had painted their country's history "in too favorable colors," had "ennobled" it by "immortalizing" all that was virtuous therein, and making to

*Inaugural address of Hon. George F. Hoar, Dec. 27th, 1895. +Ibid.

perish all that was evil, so that their countrymen might be brought to "feel a noble pride" in it! Then it might have been recorded of England that her "pilgrim fathers," the Saxons, came to Britain on a mission of amity and good-will; that her early Williams, Henrys and Edwards were consistent members of the Peace Society and never coveted that which was not their own; that her eighth Henry was a faithful and indulgent husband, on principle a strict monogamist, his eldest daughter renowned for religious tolerance and tenderness of heart; that her Charleses were men of high honor and fidelity; that Chief Justice Jeffreys was an impartial and merciful judge, and Kirke's "Lambs" lambs indeed with the whitest of fleeces! Then it might have been boasted that the British people had never sought aggrandisement, and had ever been eager to uphold the independence and welfare of other races; that their mission in India was solely to give peace to native jarring factions, and their restrictions on the trade of Ireland were but for the purpose of fostering its infant industries. These, and many other such "absolute truths," might have become articles of faith to every Englishman, and their history rendered delightful and inspiring reading.

Of course, too, the British historian would have seen his duty in denying every allegation of wrong-doing made against his country by American writers, in the matter of their Revolution, without being at any pains to inquire into their truth or falsity, since it would behoove him to see that all memory of evil in the history of his country should perish-just as the American historian would see his duty in insisting upon their truth-otherwise, how could he "ennoble "his country's history? Thus would ensue a maze of absurdities and contradictions without a clue. It would be to dress history in cap and bells, like a medieval jester, with a bauble for a stylus.

But is it true that faithfully to chronicle the history of the great Republic would annihilate or impair the

spirit of patriotism in her sons? If their faith in the immaculate virtue of their fathers of Revolutionary days and the goodness of their cause were disturbed, would their patriotism sicken and die for want of needful stimulant? I do not believe that true patriotism is so anæmic as this! Can patriotism find no food to feed on save ancestor-worship? When first were promulgated the speculations of the Evolutionists, it was objected by the old school of orthodoxy that the destruction of the people's belief in special creations would result in the degradation of mankind in its own eyes. To this Thomas Huxley replied that, in his opinion, it was far more degrading to humanity to have fallen from the estate of angels than to have risen from the status of the brute. As with the Eden story so might it be with the American Revolutionary Myth. Surely the American people should feel more degradation in having fallen from the lofty plane of virtue, wisdom and morality upon which their forefathers are supposed to have stood, than to be able, truthfully, to boast that they have maintained or advanced their standard of virtue, and so have not fallen at all.

Besides, why should it be assumed that they have no ancestry of which they may be justly proud except the "Revolutionary Fathers" and their adherents? Though we may disregard the fact that by far the greater number of the progenitors of the present generation of Americans living at the time of the Revolution first saw the light in alien lands-not a few in the country of their cherished enemy-still it should be remembered that a very large number of these progenitors, native to the soil, were opposed to the claims and acts of the revolutionists, and testified to the sincerity of their convictions by the sacrifice of their freedom and their lives. When the truth is acknowledged, why may not patriotic Americans feel proud of their Loyalist ancestors, who thus suffered persecution "for conscience' sake"? That this is possible is proven by an analogous fact. In the Northern States, a generation

1

since, the names of the constructors and defenders of the Southern Confederacy were never mentioned but in terms of hatred and obloquy as malefactors and traitors to their country. Now many of them are honored as heroic sons of a reunited nation. If, from having obtained a more just view of the objects of these men, and having found them not altogether evil, the men of the North to-day can thus look with pride upon the achievements of their Southern brethren, though they attempted to disrupt the Commonwealth, were as full a light thrown upon their actions might they not honor the motives of those who opposed its formation? For then it would be found that the intent of these men was but to prevent the disruption of the Empire to which all Americans then owed allegiance, and that their patriotism perhaps was as pure as, and certainly was more unselfish than, that of their detractors and per

secutors.

The life-blood of these men, so long despised and vilified, mingles with the best blood of the Republic. Their steadfastness of character, their patience and courage under the infliction of cruel and undeserved persecution, has been transmitted to its citizens, and has helped to raise higher its character among the nations of the earth. They cannot be ignored, and to condemn them is to attaint the blood of the whole nation.

Surely it is time that the citizens of the great Republic should more closely scan the records of its foundation, and no longer remain complacently content with fairy tales in the guise of history, vicariously flattering to their vanity If it be true, as Cicero has declared, that a people who know not their own history are children, babes in arms must be those who know it wrongly. The facts once learned, both branches of the Anglo-Britannic race will be the gainers. To Americans the British will no longer appear, as for generations they have, their "cruel and unrelenting enemies," and, to the British, Americans will appear as just and generous friends. Above all, Americans will have the inestimable satis

faction of knowing that their historic records are free from falsehood and vainglory.

For these reasons, in accordance with the precept of Mr. Bryce, I have "spoken my mind freely." Or, more accurately, I have suppressed no fact appearing on record, and spared no comment thereon, because of the tendency of either to show to the disadvantage of the instigators of the American Revolution, or to prove the falsity of the received version of its history. For this I have no apology to make, and no comment, save in the words of the Apostle: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"*

It may be that because of this, and because in the following pages there is found no detailed account of the sins of commission and omission of the British Government from the time of the voyage of the Mayflower to that of the tea-ships, I shall be accused of a lack of the "historic spirit," and thus of being guilty of the very faults of which I have ventured to accuse others. But I do not think such an accusation would be a just one. I have denied none of these sins charged against it, except such as I hold not to have been sustained by a particle of evidence; and have avowed all in any way relating to the American Revolution that are so sustained. That these are singularly few may be a matter for surprise, but it is also a matter of fact.

This little book makes no pretension to being a history. It is solely what it purports to be, a refutation of the American Revolutionary Myth. As such it is not within the province of the writer to go out of his way to demonstrate that the Government of Great Britain (like other governments) has not been immaculate, and her people (like other peoples) have not been animated solely by sentiments of benevolence and disinterestedness.

To revert to American histories. One is inclined to suggest that there be prefixed to such of them as treat

*Galatians iv. 16.