purpose to teach patriotism is that in view in Bosanquet’s lecture on the subject.[42] An example of the kind which is likely not to be so temperate and well-considered is that which grows out of the demand for the teaching of patriotism which arises under the stimulus of war. On May 17, 1917, there appeared in a small-town newspaper[43] an article dated from New York City, and which was evidently furnished by some news association. The headlines were as follows: “College Course in Patriotism. Chicago’s Mayor Starts Chair in Lincoln University. Students True Americans.” The opening paragraph ran thus: “For the first time in the history of American education a chair has been established for the teaching of American Patriotism. Inspired by the work being done by the Lincoln Memorial University, William Hale Thompson, Mayor of Chicago, will provide $25,000 for this purpose.” A little further on occurred the sentence, “Plans have already been made for the opening of the Patriotism Department.” These plans may not have been actually carried out, and if they were, may have obtained solid results, but the sound of the article was such as would lead one to suspect that what was accomplished would rather prove to be superficial and sensational. This whole attempt has been cited here not because it is an isolated incident, but for the reason that it is an illustration, extreme though it may be, of a tendency. The public schools have textbooks for the purpose of training in patriotic loyalty, books which tell of the duties of citizens, and are replete with songs and poems to illustrate the points brought out.[44] The schools of our land make it a part of their chief business to teach loyalty to the country. For this business history is plastic material. “History, in every country, is so taught as to magnify that country: children learn to believe that their own country has always been in the right and almost always victorious, that it has produced almost all the great men, and that it is in all respects superior to all other countries. Since these beliefs are flattering, they are easily absorbed, and hardly ever dislodged from instinct by later knowledge.”[45] The unpleasant facts are not brought out. Americans, for example, do not usually have it called to their attention that in the War of 1812, most of their vessels were tied up in port at the end of the war, their national capital was captured by the enemy, they won only one important land battle and that after the war was over, and that their representatives in the peace negotiations had to surrender the principle for which the war was fought. The war ended because both sides were willing to return to the _status quo ante_. The patriotic bias dominates even the historian himself. “No historian ever gets out of the mores of his own society of origin.... Even if he rises above the limitations of party, he does not get outside the patriotic and