Evening star., 1922-06-04


high schools. DIR. David S. Muzzey.
the author. last night opened a fight
on his critics.
In an exclusive statement to The
Star DR.. Muzzey refuted the charges
made against his book by the Piney
Branch Association and declared that
those who's criticised it are misrepre-
senting, garbling and slandering him
without conscience. Some Of the
charges of the association the his
torian described as deliberate false
hoods"
Until the present time DIR. Muzzey
has made no attempt to answer his
critics. pointing out that he has been
too busy writing a college history.
The renewal Of the movement of the
Piney Branch Association, however.
aroused his ire to such an extent that
he deemed it necessary to reply to
the charges.
Associations Resolutions.
The resolutions Of the Piney Branch
Association condemning the book are
four in number. According to them
the book is
1. inaccurate to a degree not to
be tolerated in a school history.
| 2. Almost wholly lacking in Incl
dents calculated to inspire patriotism
in students.
3. AN attempt to spread class
hatred by arraying the poor against
the rich.
/ 4. "A vehicle for making partisan n
unsound. unDatriotic and wholly unfit
for school children to learn
DIR. Muzzey's Reply.
In answer to these charges Prof.
Muzzey said:
The charge Of gross inaccuracy is
one that can be answered by appeal
to facts. Five examples of inaccuracy
are mentioned in the report.
Il am accused of error in saying
that volley of musket shots .ap-
parently without the Majors (Pit-
cairn's) orders opened the battle of
Lexington. ! am native of Lexing-
ton, born within a few rods of the
battle green. l have studied numerous
special histories of the battle, and
monographs of local scholars like
Hudson. Porter, Staples. 1 have found
no scrap of evidence that Pitcairn
gave any orders before the firing eX-
cept his summons to the rebel Min
ute Men to disperse.
! The report quotes against my
statement Ridpath. the author of A
popular history. who seized on any
picturesque event. without very care
full criticism. to make his history in
teresting. No scholar would accept a
statement of Ridpath in refutation of
| DN SpeCidi ol
American history. My statement doe S
not teach children that the British
attack at Lexington was an accident,
nor has II any remotest bearing on
Americans forgetting the fresh
graves made on that day Tn, simple
fact is that Pitcairns objective was
the stores at Concord. He found The
little group of Minute Men confront
ing him on Lexington green, and
wanted them to stand aside and let
hi trfa arfo ntET no
had orders not to precioitate an
armed conflict.
Meets Another Accusation.
II am accused of error in saying
that the cause of the revolution was
| a difference of opinion as to the ma
ture Of the British empire This
statement is absolutely correct and is
revolution. Pamphlets like Jeffer-
sons Summary View or Otis Vim
dication. to name but two out of
scores. amply prove this. There We're
two opinions. in both England and
! America. as even mediocre students
of American history know. Will the
| Piney Branch Association deny the
presence here of majority of tories
| in many parts of the colonies? l do
not anywhere say or hint that think
wrong. and 1 quite English histo--
rians like Trevelyan, Lecky. May and
Green to the effect that Britain was
| in the wrong. l challenge the Piney
Branch Association to find a single
sentence in my book which would
give a fair-minded person the i'm
preston that / favor the British side.
In this connection / suggest that the
critics read such passages as page 3.
page 90. section 112: page 100, sec
ton ia; page 103, section 116: page
los, section 1913. l am constantly ac-
cused of 'suppressing' facts for fear
of offending England Cor Lord North =
clifte), but it seems to me that my
critics advocate suppressing any epin--
ions on the revolution that differed
from Patrick Henry's or Samuel Ad-
ans. for fear Of destroying the pa
triotism of highschool seniors. l
have not SO poor an opinion OF my
young fellow citizens.
Takes Up "separate Peace" Charge.
"I am accused of error in stating
that we made a separate peace with
England and that our commissioners
| violated the treaty of alliance with
France and concluded the peace with
England alone, thereby securing the
| whole territory from the Atlantlc 10
the Mississippi
This is very complicated Ques-
ton to discuss in a short space. The
Piney Branch Association devotes
two pages to prove that every clause
of my statement is wrong. The whole
Of the Importance of the provisional
articles of peace which we arranged
with England alone in 1882. Techni-
cally speaking. peace was not con-
cluded until France had accepted
these articles and both countries had
concluded an armistice with England.
and / will acknowledge that the word
concluded had better not have been
used in describing the separate terms
we made with England. But this is a
minor point. The treaty in all it's i'm
portant provisions acknowledgment
sippi. fisheries, loyalists, debts)' was
agreed upon by representatives of
England and the United States in
1852, without any participation of
France, and much to the vexatlon of
fVergennes, whom Franklin had to
append quotations from careful Amer
lean historians in support of the
truth of my statement that we made
a separate peace with England, in
! spite of the instructions of Congress
to our negotiators.
1.-The thereby in my sentence refers
to the. noun peace as its antecedent,
| as any fair person would assume, and
| not to the adjective alone The fact
| is that these critics are not fair. They
| misrepresent me and garble me and
| slander me without conscience.
| Other Points Discussed.
1T am censured for saying that Eu-
rope was amazed at England's gen.
erosity' in the articles Of peace. l
state only fact. VergenneS sald
The English buy the peace they do
not make 1t.
Il am accused of inaccuracy for not
inserting in the brief statement of