Textbook Revisions in the Sixties
by Juel Janis - 1970
The problem at this point is that so few schools, especially those in urban areas, have the money for the more recent texts and therefore continue to use the older books. It is difficult to speculate on the potential damage of these distortions—in particular, what effect they might have on the formation of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs.
Most Americans view the practice of rewriting history to suit current ideology as a uniquely non-Western phenomenon. But little attention has been paid to the adeptness with which American textbook writers have also engaged in this practice. A careful examination of high school social studies texts written during the past fifteen years reveals that in coverage of such topics as slavery, the Reconstruction Era, and the Civil Rights movement, historical rewriting has been the rule rather than the exception. In fact, the differences between textbooks written during the fifties and early sixties and those written in the late sixties led one perceptive critic to conclude that we who "tittered over the revisions of Russian history to discredit Stalin and then Khrushchev, have perhaps a little housecleaning to do at home."1
But there is more at stake here than an ideal of historical truth. To the student unaware of a concern so esoteric as "historical truth," a textbook is history. And because he regards it as such, his view of the past and the present is influenced by the positions espoused by textbook authors. Students exposed to the historical "facts" presented in the texts of the 1950's and the early 1960's learned a very different sort of history from those who obtained their "facts" from texts written in the middle and late sixties.
A glimpse at the types of historical facts presented in older texts as compared with more recent texts is instructive. Typically the older books present material which many historians have described as both distorted and factually inaccurate. An awareness of the failings of these older texts is of particular relevance for educators in school systems still using these texts.* For those schools using the newer texts, an awareness of the differences between these texts and the older ones can provide a timely lesson in historiography as well as allow the student to examine some of the "historical truths" taught in this country only a few short years ago.
In the early 1960's, high school students studying American history were typically presented with material which glossed over the hardships of slavery, ignored the positive gains achieved during the Reconstruction Era, included pictures of blacks only in slave surroundings, and omitted any discussion of the problems of discrimination encountered by blacks over the last half century.
Canfield and Wilder, 1962 Take, for example, the treatment of the abolitionists in a 1962 text by L. H. Canfield and H. B. Wilder.2 Despite the fact that contemporary scholarship indicates that the abolitionists were neither "fanatical" nor "incendiaries,"3 the authors of this text, by their use of loaded words, insinuate a different picture: the Southerners argued for their cause, while the abolitionists hurled defiance at people who wanted gradual emancipation (italics added).4
Throughout the discussion of the Civil War period, the Southern viewpoint is continually espoused and defended. For example, in speaking of the Black Codes, while the authors note that many "Northerners considered these Black Codes a clear attempt to make the Negro a slave in everything but name," they also offer the following Southern justification of these laws: Because of the number of "wandering and unemployed freedmen," it was necessary to pass these laws "to keep the freedmen at work and to maintain stable conditions in the South."5
The importance of "interpretation" becomes very clear when we contrast this presentation with a 1967 description from an American history text by Shafer, et al. of the Black Codes: "Black Codes took away the rights of Negroes, denied their dream of freedom ... again making them little better than slaves."6
Perhaps nowhere is the authors' sympathy for the Southern landowners more obvious than in their description of the planters' problems following the Civil War compared to the problems of the freedmen:
The planter class was ruined. "God only knows the full tide of misery which has set in on these people," an observer wrote of the planters around, Charleston. The plantation owner's money and his Confederate bonds were worthless.
His slaves were gone. He had nothing left but his ravaged lands, which were of little value without workers to cultivate them....
The freedmen, of course, faced severe handicaps. But they started to make progress. Some remained in their cabins and worked as free laborers on the plantation.7
Their treatment of the black in the twentieth century shows a similar influence. Although there are two paragraphs devoted to the 1954 Supreme Court decision on segregation in the public schools, the brief discussion seems unduly optimistic. The student is told that although there was some "resistance" in the South, still each "fall... saw more school systems, even in the deep South, beginning to put the Court's order into effect" (italics added).8 It is difficult to detect what the authors mean by "more," since as a 1966 history text by Wade, et al. pointed out, an examination of the school desegregation figures in the South reveals that "nine years after the Supreme Court decision ... only one percent of the Negro children in the South were attending integrated schools."9
This failure to present the student with a more realistic explanation of school desegregation is accompanied by a negative reference to civil rights activists. The last reference to blacks in Canfield and Wilder's text appears under the caption: "Freedom Riders defy segregation." According to the authors, the freedom riders' activities resulted in "bus-burnings, arrests, federal intervention, and wide publicity both at home and abroad... ."10 For the student, the association between civil rights activities and violence is unmistakable.
Wainger Text, 1951 The American Adventure, a text by B. M. Wainger, published in 1957, reflects a similar approach.11 In a discussion of slave life, while the author notes that "Negro slaves did not, of course, share in the luxurious living and merry parties on the plantation..." he, nevertheless, describes them as living "in small one- and two-family cabins ... [where] each family had a small piece of land assigned to it on which the men could work on Sundays to grow vegetables."12 Not only is this presentation distorted in the rather idyllic picture it presents of slave life, but in omitting any reference to the fact that slave marriages were not legally recognized and that families were often separated, the author obscures the fact that establishment of any kind of a stable family life under slavery was extremely difficult. Although two-hundred pages later the author remarks that "one of the saddest features of slavery was the selling of slaves, especially when families had to be broken up...." (italics added),13 it is unlikely that the student would connect this comment with the earlier one, nor would he believe, as a result of this latter account, that family breakups were actually the rule rather than the exception. Wainger's description of slave life differs markedly from that of noted historians who have described the slave as often ill-housed, "clothed and fed at only subsistence level."14
Nowhere in the Wainger text is there any reference to slave revolts, the problems of enforced segregation in the South accompanied by equivalent forms of discrimination in the North, or the efforts of different Negro organizations to improve the conditions of the black in America. Furthermore, there is only one sentence devoted to the United States Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation in the public schools.
Only two pictures in this text include blacks—one is a picture of two students at Tuskegee Institute; the other, a photograph of William Hastie with the Undersecretary of War. Hastie is so light-skinned, however, that his identification as a black is difficult. There are also two drawings of blacks in addition to the two pictures. The first depicts them picking cotton, while the second shows fugitive slaves being helped by a white woman. (No reference is made in the text to the important role blacks played in the Underground Railroad, and this picture serves to reinforce the idea that it was solely a white project.)
The historical inaccuracies noted in the preceding two texts are not atypical. They represent the standard treatment of these topics during that period. To be sure, none of the material in these texts is quite so blatant as one classic "work" problem found in an old Confederate text—"If 5 white men can do as much work as 7 negroes (sic), how many days of 10 hours each will be required for 25 negroes (sic) to do a piece of work which 30 white men can do in 10 days of 9 hours each?"16—yet most of them include material significantly different from that found in texts written in the late 1960's.
Revisions of the Sixties
The social ferment of the late 1950's and early 1960's began to have its effect on publishers and textbook writers by the middle of the 1960's. By the end of the decade, as a result of studies on the treatment of minority groups in textbooks,16 and assorted Congressional hearings,17 and as a result of the pressure exerted by civil rights groups and black representatives on textbook selection committees, textbook authors had made significant revisions in their treatment of the history of the black man in America. While these changes are laudable, it is unfortunate that they were made not because textbook authors gained new information on these subjects but because recent political and social events signaled revisions.
Today, students who use the 1963 or 1964 editions of a particular text will learn a set of historical facts quite different from those presented in the same text published only two to three years later. The following examination and analysis of three of the most widely used American history textbooks published in 1963 and 1964 with their 1966 editions highlight some of these differences.
Different Editions, Different Facts
In Bragdon and McCutcheon's 1964 text, the authors note: "Once slaves had been put to work on American plantations they were seldom cruelly treated, since it was to the interest of the master to keep them healthy and contented. They had little protection, however, from the occasional vicious owner."18 In the 1967 edition, the authors substituted the following paragraph:
The laws of the southern colonies declared the Negroes to be slaves for life... they even forbade masters to teach Negroes to read for fear that they might acquire dangerous ideas. Whereas in the Spanish colonies slaves were obliged to marry and the integrity of the family was protected, in the English plantation colonies slave marriages had no standing in law and children might be sold away from their mothers. Slaves could own no property and had slight legal protection against irresponsible or cruel masters. In brief, Negroes were treated as cattle. Their only protection was that they were such a valuable commodity that it was tp the interest of the master to keep them reasonably healthy and reasonably provided with food, clothing, and shelter.19
Similar changes on this same subject can be seen in both Platt and Drum-mond's Our Nation From Its Creation,20 and Todd and Curti's The Rise of the American Nation.21 In both instances textual material was added in the 1966 editions which gives the student a much broader understanding of slave life than could be found in the 1964 texts. While the 1964 Todd and Curti did not include any information on the middle passage, the 1966 edition noted:
Probably no other immigrants to America were ever so completely separated from their past. Driven at the crack of whips onto slave ships lying along the African coast, these desperate men, women, and children were forced to leave behind them all that they held dear in the land of their birth.22
Following this last paragraph is almost a page of discussion of the early African civilizations in which the authors carefully point out the "well-organized society" and "elaborate social life" which typified these societies.23 Obviously, the 1966 text presents a very different perspective from the earlier edition. Along these same lines, Todd and Curti make the following comment in their 1964 edition regarding social groups in the early 1800's: "Except for the Negroes, energetic and ambitious men were continually moving from lower to higher economic groups."24 Contrast this sentence with one found in the 1966 edition: "Except for the slaves who,had no opportunity to better their lot, energetic and ambitious men were continually moving from lower to higher economic groups" (italics added).25 While the earlier comment suggests that the Negroes' failure to move from a "lower to higher economic" group was due to a lack of energy and ambition, the revision gives the student a more realistic appreciation of the serious restrictions imposed by slavery.
These kinds of changes are also found in the 1964 and 1966 editions of Platt and Drummond. While the earlier version did include material on the skilled work performed by slaves as well as an acknowledgement of the fact that "some" slaves were descendents of ancestors from well-developed civilizations in Africa,2'1 the 1966 edition added four additional paragraphs to this particular section including a detailed explanation of the slave codes of the Southern states. In addition, while both editions noted that "many planters and some historians too, have asserted that, in spite of the codes, many slaves were treated fairly well," the later edition added the following observation: "But more and more historians challenge this view. To justify their stand that slaves were not contented, they give as evidence the many runaway slaves, the slave suicides, the slave uprisings, and the fact that slave parents sometimes murdered their children to save them from a life of slavery."27 The 1966 text also described the active part played by blacks in the Underground Railway and in the abolitionist movement, but the 1964 edition failed to include any of this information.
Errors of Commission
While the preceding excerpts are all examples of errors of omission, another equally common and perhaps more serious charge in terms of contributing to the "historical inaccuracy" of these earlier texts is the error of commission. The following selections from Bragdon and McCutcheon's History of a Free People, published in 1964, present an example of this type of error. These selections are particularly interesting when compared with the way these authors treated these same subjects only three years later.
On the subject of the Freedmen's Bureaus, the 1964 edition stated: In addition to providing by law for Negro suffrage, the Radicals sent agents to the South to encourage the Negroes to vote. To care for the wants of former slaves, Congress in 1865 had set up the Freedmen's Bur-reau.... It was not difficult for agents of the Freedmen's Bureau to persuade the Negroes whom they fed and clothed to vote for the Republican party (italics added).28
In this version the Freedmen's Bureau is viewed as a political tool of the Republican party. This interpretation is quite different from the one offered by the authors in their 1967 edition, in which the Freedmen's Bureau is described as "providing permanent constitutional protection for the rights of Negroes, [whereby] Congress made a temporary effort to provide for their economic and educational needs."29 Furthermore, in the later edition, following this last paragraph, the authors included examples of the services provided by the Freedmen's Bureau and omitted the last sentence of the paragraph used in the earlier edition. In the preceding example, note how "Radicals sent agents..." changed in the later edition to "Congress made a temporary effort..."
Bragdon and McCutcheon's treatment of both the carpetbag governments and the Reconstruction Era reflects similar changes between their 1964 and 1967 texts. While the 1964 edition stated: "The carpetbag governments were inefficient and corrupt,"30 the 1967 edition modified this to read: "Many of the carpetbag governments were corrupt (italics added)."31 And, while the 1964 text stated, "No matter what can be said in their favor... the carpetbag governments caused such resentment that they were often kept in power only with the protection of federal troops,"32 the 1967 edition omitted this last sentence and, in accord with recent historical scholarship on this subject, noted: "... the carpetbag governments were not unique in being graft-ridden. Unfortunately, political corruption was characteristic of politics all over the United States in the period after the Civil War."33
Similar changes occurred in the authors' discussion of the Reconstruction Era. The 1964 edition reads:
Although Radical reconstruction had disappointing results for the Negroes, now at least there was an opportunity for them to advance which had been wholly denied under slavery. Although social custom kept them in an inferior position, the laws no longer denied them the chance for education and advancement.34
This paragraph was omitted in the 1967 edition, and a passage quite different in tone replaced it:
... as the Black Codes revealed, without federal intervention emancipation for southern (sic) Negroes meant merely a change from slavery to peonage. Although immediate efforts to aid the Negroes failed, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments wrote the principle of equality for all men into the Constitution of the United States. For many years they remained almost a dead letter, but in the twentieth century these constitutional provisions provide the legal basis and part of the inspiration for positive efforts to bring the Negro at long last into full enjoyment of his rights as a citizen.35
Perhaps the most interesting observation on the preceding comparisons is that while all of these changes relate to subjects which are one-hundred-years old, and deal with material in which the more modern interpretations have been supported by historians for some time, the inclusion of these interpretations in high school history books has only occurred within the past few years.
In a recent, surprisingly candid article on the "Dilemmas of a Textbook Writer," Bragdon acknowledged that "it would be disingenuous of me to maintain that I was not influenced by certain unspoken barriers."36 And while he stated that he could not "remember offhand" any barriers which influenced him in writing History of a Free People, he concludes by noting that "one cannot get away from the Confucian proverb that: 'The superior man knows what is right; the inferior man knows what will sell.' I'd be happier about History of a Free People if it were not so obviously designed as an article of commerce."37 It is apparent from the preceding excerpts that History of a Free People was "obviously designed as an article of commerce" and that it was quite specifically influenced by a recognition of "what will sell" rather than by "what is right."
The newer edition of the Bragdon and McCutcheon text presents a picture of slave life, the carpetbag governments, and the Reconstruction Era which is clearly more in keeping with modern historical scholarship.38 This change of emphasis is also reflected in the material on contemporary civil rights problems. Here Bragdon and McCutcheon include several new pages of material omitted from the earlier editions, including a discussion of such topics as "The Negroes in the North," "Truman and Civil Rights," "Jim Crowism," "The N.A.A.C.P.," and "The Negro Revolution." The Todd and Curti and the Platt and Drummond texts also have made similar changes in these areas.
Questionable Revised Editions
While the preceding material illustrates the kinds of significant alterations made by many textbook authors during the past few years, not all revisions are quite so dramatic. In fact, some of the changes are often innocuous and hardly justify the publisher's reference to the newer text as a "revised" edition. An example can be seen in the following excerpt from the 1964 edition of Eibling, King and Harlow's History of Our United States.36 Since a 1966 House Hearing on the treatment of minorities in textbooks had produced evidence which indicated that the 1960 edition of this text presented the Reconstruction Era in a totally unfavorable light,40 the 1964 edition apparently attempted to offset this criticism by the ubiquitous insertion of the word "some" at every opportunity in its discussion of this period. The resulting effect would be comical if it were not truly sad:
Besides the carpetbaggers and scalawags the new legislatures had many Negroes. Some of these were educated freemen; some were ex-slaves who had never had an opportunity to learn to read or to write or to study government. Some of the carpetbaggers and scalawags influenced their fellow legislators to spend state money unwisely, and in some cases fraudulently, piling up huge state debts. Some of the new state governments did pass good laws. In same of the Southern states the legislators voted to restore or to establish public school systems, to build hospitals, schools, roads, and railroads, and to found orphan asylums (italics added).41
Apparently, all of these qualifying "some's" were too much for the authors to swallow, and in the very next sentence following the preceding paragraph, they are more direct in their assessment of these Reconstruction governments:
Southerners soon looked for a way to rid themselves of corrupt politicians. ...42
These changes in historical interpretation are not confined to history textbooks. In the case of government texts, the older editions typically failed to mention the fact that devices such as the grandfather clause, poll taxes, and literacy tests were established primarily to prevent the black from voting. The Supreme Court school desegregation decision, as well as the recent Civil Rights Acts, are either omitted or dismissed in one or two sentences. Most of the earlier texts contain no pictures of blacks, and the few books which do, depict them as slum dwellers, welfare recipients, or unskilled laborers.
In Brown and Peltier's Government in Our Republic, published in 1960, the authors make the following observations under the heading "Some Problems of Civil Rights" in reference to the poll tax:
If a poor Negro cannot pay a poll tax, he is in no different condition from a poor white who cannot pay it. If a Negro businessman loses customers by going to the polls, it cannot be said that a state has denied him his voting privilege.43
Contrast this approach with the 1967 edition of McClenaghan's Magru-der's American Government, which describes the poll tax as a device that was "part of the concerted effort to disfranchise the Negro."44 Obviously, this latter explanation presents a more realistic interpretation of the poll tax than the former. However, it is interesting to compare this later explanation of the poll tax taken from McClenaghan's 1967 edition with the 1960 version of the same text. While the later edition describes the poll tax as "part of a concerted effort to disfranchise the Negro" the 1960 version merely notes that the purpose of the poll tax was "to discourage voting by Negroes who could pass the education test...." (italics added).45
The context in which Brown and Peltier discuss "discrimination" makes it appear that discrimination is actually both a right and a privilege. The authors state:
... if a private employer refuses to give Negroes (or Jews or Protestants or anyone else) equal opportunity for a job, it cannot be said that either a state or the federal government is denying anyone his right to a job. There is, as a matter of fact, no federal law requiring employers to hire anybody.46
These authors devote exactly two sentences to the 1954 Supreme Court decision—exactly two sentences more than that contained in a 1956 government text by Flick and Smith. This latter text, in fact, has the distinction of making absolutely no references to blacks throughout the entire book. Clearly, space limitations almost always constitute a serious problem for the textbook author who is required to cover a great deal of material. Yet these authors were able to devote seven full pages to the topic "Our Flag," including such information as "How to Respect the Flag," "How to Display the Flag," and "How to Salute the Flag";47 and it is, therefore, not unreasonable to expect them to have made some small inclusion on as equally an important issue of American government as the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision.
Bruntz and Bremer's American Government** published in 1965 is a revision of Bruntz's 1963 text, Understanding Our Government.*® The changes made in the 1965 edition are equally as radical as those found in many of those already noted. Compare several differences between the 1963 and the 1965 editions of this text:
1963 The Fifteenth Amendment... provides that no state shall deny the right to vote to anyone because of race, color or previous condition of servitude.50
1965 (The preceding sentence from the 1963 edition is now followed by this notation:) In spite of this clear bar against racial discrimination in suffrage, Negroes in some states and localities must overcome almost impossible obstacles to become registered to vote.51
1963 The purpose of this [voting requirement] is to keep the ignorant from voting.52
1965 (The preceding sentence is omitted. Instead the authors have substituted this explanation:) The literacy test can be defended as a legitimate device to sort out potential voters who are uninformed.... Yet very often these tests have been used to disqualify Negroes. In some cases trivial errors by whites pass unnoticed, while similar errors keep Negroes from qualifying.53
It is apparent, then, from the preceding examples that the social studies textbooks written in the late sixties present a dramatically different set of facts from texts written only several years earlier. The newer texts include many of the less palatable facts about the hardships of slave life, and thereby give students a better, more realistic understanding of the physical and psychological meanings of slavery as an institution. Discussions of the Re-48 George G. Bruntz and John Bremer. American Government. Boston: Ginn and Co., construction Era have been revised to reflect the most recent findings of modern American historians on this subject. The "amoral optimism" found in the earlier texts, which implied that discrimination was not really a problem in this country, has been modified to include an admission that indeed there is much still to be done in this area. And recent gains in civil rights have been given a much more comprehensive treatment.
Obviously, textbook authors and publishers are influenced by their environment. What is disconcerting is the fact that many authors and publishers of social studies texts remained insensitive to the changes in their social environment for so long. And while "historical truth" is, after all, an elusive thing where (as one historian recently noted) "one man's truth is another man's bias,"54 it seems that the challenge for the history textbook writers of the early 1960's was to include only those "truths" which offended as few people as possible.
The problem at this point is that so few schools, especially those in urban areas, have the money for the more recent texts and therefore continue to use the older books. It is difficult to speculate on the potential damage of these distortions—in particular, what effect they might have on the formation of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs. There is no clear answer, since to date there appears to have been no empirical study of the psychological effects of using this type of material. For whites, however, it seems clear that such material would infect them with the virus of racism, while to the black man it would seem to say: "You don't count! Who you are, what you have been, and who you will become is not a part of American history. White America is not concerned with you."
1 Jean D. Grambs, "On the Writing of Non-History for Children," Harvard Educational Review, Summer 1968, p. 611. ' To cite but one example: In the spring of 1968 ten out of the eleven high schools in the District of Columbia were using social studies texts that were five years old or older, and almost a quarter of these schools were using texts which were ten to twelve years old.
2 Leon H. Canfield and Howard B. Wilder. The Making of Modem America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962.
3 Patrick Groff, "The Abolitionist Movement in High School Texts," Journal of Negro History, Vol. 32,1963, p. 45.
4 Canfield and Wilder, op. c'tt.
6 Boyd C. Shafer, Everett Augsburger, Richard A. McLemore, and Milton Finkelstein. A High School History of Modern America. Illinois: Laidlaw Brothers, 1967.
7 Canfield and Wilder, op. cit.
9 Richard C. Wade, Howard B. Wilder, and Louise B. Wade. A History of the United States. Boston: Houghton MifHin Co., 1966.
10 Canfield and Wilder, op. cit.
11 Bertrand M. Wainger. The American Adventure. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.
14 Kenneth Stampp, et al. The Negro in American History Textbooks. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, June 1964.
15 Hillel Black. The American Schoolbook. New York: Wm. Morrow and Co., Inc. 1967.
16 The American Council on Education. Intergroup Relations in Teaching Materials, Washington: American Council on Education, 1949; Lloyd Marcus. The Treatment of Minorities in Secondary School Textbooks. New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1961; Irving Sloan. The Negro in Modern American History Textbooks. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, 1966; Kenneth Stampp, et al., op. cit.; A Report on the Treatment of Minorities in American History Textbooks. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1968 (mimeographed).
17 Books for Schools and the Treatment of Minorities. Hearings before the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Defacto School Segregation of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives 89th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
18 Henry W. Bragdon and Samuel P. McCutcheon. History of a Free People. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1964.
19 Bragdon and McCutcheon, op. cit., 1967 ed.
20 Nathaniel Platt and Muriel Jean Drummond. Our Nation From Its Creation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1964, 1966.
21 Lewis Paul Todd and Merle Curti. The Rise of the American Nation. New York: Har-court, Brace and World, Inc., 1964, 1966.
22 Ibid., 1966 ed.
24 Ibid., 1964 ed.
25 Ibid., 1966 ed.
26 Platt and Drummond, op. cit., 1964 ed.
27 Ibid., 1966 ed.
28 Bragdon and McCutcheon, op. cit., 1964 ed.
29 Ibid., 1967 ed.
30 Ibid., 1964 ed.
31 Ibid., 1967 ed.
32 Ibid., 1964 ed.
33 Ibid., 1967 ed.
34 Ibid., 1964 ed.
35 Ibid., 1967 ed.
36 Henry W. Bragdon, "Dilemmas of a Textbook Writer," Social Education, Vol. 33, March 1969, p. 293.
38 Harold M. Hyman, ed. The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction 1861-1870. New York: The Bobbs Merrill Co., Inc. 1967; Mark M. Krug, "On Rewriting of the Story of Reconstruction in the U.S. History Textbooks," Journal of Negro History, Vol. 46, 1961, pp. 133-153.
39 Harold H. Eibling, Fred M. King, and James Harlow. History of Our United States. Illinois: Laidlaw Bros., 1964.
40 Books for Schools and..., op. cit.
41 Eibling, King and Harlow, op. cit.
43 Stuart Gerry Brown and Charles L. Peltier. Government in Our Republic. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960.
44 William A. McClenaghan. Magruder's American Government. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1967.
45 Ibid., 1960 ed.
46 Brown and Peltier, op. cit.
47 Oka Stanton Flick and Henry L. Smith. Government in the United States. Illinois: Laidlaw Brothers, 1956.
49 George G. Bruntz. Understanding Our Government. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1963.
51 Bruntz and Bremer, op. cit.
52 Bruntz, op. cit.
53 Bruntz and Bremer, op. cit.
54 Ray Alien Billington. The Historians' Contribution to Anglo-American Misunderstanding. New York: Hobbs, Dorman and Co., 1966.