Footnote 2:
This paper appeared originally in the Boston _Pilot_.
The Irish race, both here and in the old world, has suffered so much in
the way of misrepresentation at the hands of English and pro-English
writers, its merits have been so minimized and its defects so magnified,
that it is almost a hopeless task to attempt the refutation of even a
tithe of the falsehoods.
It is only when a writer offers an easily accessible authority for his
statements that the general reader can take the time and trouble, if so
disposed, to investigate the reference and verify the accuracy or
honesty of the author who professes to have quoted truly.
Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge has written, and the _Century Magazine_ has
published an article on “The Distribution of Ability in the United
States,” in which he exalts the English race at the expense of some
others, and depreciates the Irish race, with or without malice prepense,
in a manner which is, to say the least, remarkable.
Mr. Lodge deals in some general statements easily susceptible of
disproof, as when he says that “there was virtually no Irish immigration
during the colonial period, and indeed none of consequence until the
present century was well advanced.”
He offers no authority for this absurd statement; so it may be assumed
that he ignorantly believes it true. Perhaps he also honestly believes
in the race called “Scotch-Irish,” whom he defines as “descendants of
the Scotch _and English_ who settled in the North of Ireland.” Let these
things pass. We are concerned only with the accuracy and honesty of Mr.
Lodge’s quotations when he refers to a specific authority for facts and
figures and professes to be governed by that authority.
In order to classify the distribution of “ability,” Mr. Lodge says that
he “took _Appleton’s Encyclopedia of American Biography_ in six volumes,
one of the largest and most recent works upon the subject, and
classified the persons mentioned therein who were citizens of the United
States according to occupation, birthplace and race extraction.”
Mr. Lodge says that he found the work large and laborious. We can
confirm that statement; for we also have taken the six volumes of
_Appleton’s_ and have gone conscientiously through the 14,000 and odd
names therein recorded, to see if that otherwise valuable publication
had really given the Irish race such an astonishingly poor record as Mr.
Lodge’s tables show. We find that it has not. We find that Mr. Lodge and
his authority differ so astoundingly, on almost every point, that his
deductions are absolutely worthless because his statements are so
utterly untrue.
In the matter of quantity, _Appleton’s_ gives to the Irish race a list
nearly one hundred per cent greater than Mr. Lodge professes to have
found in its pages. On the score of quality, taking Mr. Lodge’s own test
of merit, _Appleton’s_ gives about 300 per cent more to the race than
Mr. Lodge accords it.
Mr. Lodge classifies race by the paternal side alone, which is probably
fair enough for practical purposes, and says:
“In a large number of cases, especially where the extraction is not
English, the race stock is given in the dictionary. In a still larger
number of instances the name and the place of birth furnish unmistakable
evidence as to race. That error should be avoided in this classification
is not to be expected, but I am perfectly satisfied that the race
distribution is in the main correct. Such errors as exist tend, I think,
here as elsewhere in these statistics, to balance one another, and the
net result is, I believe, so substantially accurate as to have very real
value, and to throw a great deal of light on what we owe in the way of
ability to each of the various races who settled the United States.”
He counts as original settlers all who came to this country before the
date of the adoption of the Constitution, A. D. 1789; those who came
after that date are classified as “immigrants.” Taking the
_Encyclopedia_ as his authority, he examines the birth or race
extraction of 14,243 persons therein named as having achieved sufficient
distinction to deserve mention. As a result he finds that over 10,000 of
the number should be credited to the “English” race.
It is not worth while to inquire into the accuracy of that estimate,
since Mr. Lodge’s treatment of another race sufficiently disproves his
claims to accuracy on any score.
In Tables “D” and “H,” covering respectively the original settlers and
the immigrants, he gives the number of men of the Irish race who have
achieved the distinction of a place in _Appleton’s_. Nowhere,
apparently, is any allowance made either for the distinguished
descendants of the original Irish settlers, distinguished or obscure
themselves, nor for the distinguished children of undistinguished
immigrants since 1789.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton is, we suppose, credited to the Irish of
pre-Constitution days, and Thomas Addis Emmet to the “immigrant” class,
but where does Mr. Lodge place the distinguished descendants of both?
Where does he place the distinguished sons of obscure fathers, such men
as Andrew Jackson and Robert Fulton? Certainly not among the race to
which, according to _Appleton_, they belong, for they have no
recognition in his “double star” table, to be described hereafter. Do
they go to swell the ranks of the 10,000 English or those of the mixed
and mythical “Scotch-Irish”?
What does he do with Philip Sheridan, who being neither an “immigrant”
nor descended from pre-Constitution ancestors, is in a worse case than
his namesake, Philip Nolan, being a “man without a race?” We cannot
believe that Mr. Lodge ever intended committing such a palpable
absurdity, because if carried to its logical conclusion, it would apply
equally to distinguished men of all races. Mr. Lodge himself, for all
that _Appleton’s_ tells us to the contrary, never had a pre-Constitution
ancestor, and has, therefore, no right to class himself among the 10,000
“English,” as he presumably does.
Mr. Lodge has a delightfully simple method of determining the relative
values of great men. It is by noting how much of pictorial glory is
awarded to each in the _Encyclopedia_. Persons whose biographical
sketches are not illustrated with a portrait are not counted in at all.
Those who have a vignette portrait are classified as “single stars.” The
truly great, who have full-page portraits, are called “double stars”—of
these there are 58 among the whole 14,243.
Mr. Lodge confesses that encyclopediac fame is hardly just in giving
double star honors to William Gilmore Simms and shutting out Hawthorne,
Poe and Lowell, but Fame is notoriously capricious of her favors; which
is why, perhaps, such authors as John Hay, T. W. Parsons, Theodore
Roosevelt and many others are sent pictureless to posterity, while Mrs.
E. D. E. N. Southworth and Mrs. Ann S. Stephens are immortalized in
becoming wood-cuts. Mr. Lodge himself shines as a “single-star,” as does
also Mr. E. P. Roe.
But even in his stellar classification Mr. Lodge makes a singular
mistake, again on the wrong side of the Irish account. His “totals by
race extraction” allow only one double star to “Irish.” Yet his
cyclopedic authority has full-page steel engravings of the following
six, all credited to the Irish race, without any hint of a mythical
Scotch mixture: Chester A. Arthur, son of Rev. William Arthur of Antrim;
John C. Calhoun, son of Patrick and grandson of James of Donegal; Robert
Fulton, son of a Kilkenny man; Andrew Jackson, son of Andrew of
Carrickfergus; James K. Polk, descendant of Irish Polk or “Pollock”;
Philip H. Sheridan, race not mentioned but pretty well known.
Mr. Lodge is equally reckless of fact when he attempts to count the
“single stars” of the Irish race. He finds only thirteen of these among
the early settler class and eleven among the “immigrants”—twenty-four in
all. Here are the names of sixty-five, given by _Appleton’s_, and not
including such men of the Irish race as Lawrence Barrett, Lawrence and
Philip Kearny, J. A. MacGahan, Commodore Macdonough and others, whose
race is not specified in the cyclopedia:
Francis Barber
John Barry
Jas. G. Birney
Johnston Blakeley
Wm. O. Butler
Henry C. Carey
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
John Carroll
Thomas Conway
Michael Corcoran
Michael A. Corrigan
David Crockett
Andrew G. Curtin
Charles P. Daly
Thomas Addis Emmet
James Gibbons
Edward Hand
Jas. Hillhouse
John H. Hopkins
John Hughes
John Ireland
Thomas Jones
F. P. Kenrick
John B. Kerfoot
John A. Logan
John J. Lynch
John McCloskey
Edward McGlynn
Jas. McHenry
Thomas McKean
Alex. Macomb
George G. Meade
Richard Montgomery
Alfred Moore
John Nixon
Fitz-James O’Brien
Michael O’Connor
Charles O’Conor
P. H. O’Rorke
Robert Patterson
Leonidas Polk
Andrew Porter
Tyrone Power
Wm. C. Preston
Wm. D. Preston
John Roach
Stephen C. Rowan
John Rutledge
Patrick J. Ryan
Jas. Shields
Jas. Smith
Samuel S. Smith
Charles F. Smith
Charles Stewart
John Sullivan
Jas. Sullivan
George Taylor
Hugh N. Thompson
Launt Thompson
Richard V. Whelan
George W. Whistler
J. A. MacN. Whistler
Wm. P. Whyte
Richard H. Wilde
Henry Wilson
Following is Mr. Lodge’s tabulated misrepresentation of Irish ability
according to his Tables “D” and “H,” but not according to the facts as
given by _Appleton’s_:
Before 1789. After 1789. Total.
Statesmen 9 13 22
Soldiers 18 19 37
Clergy 28 85 113
Lawyers 12 6 18
Physicians 2 2 4
Literature 17 22 39
Art 7 12 19
Science 3 6 9
Educators 0 7 7
Navy 4 4 8
Business 3 8 11
Philanthropy 4 4 8
Pioneers and Explorers 0 3 3
Inventors 0 0 0
Engineers 2 1 3
Architects 0 0 0
Musicians 0 1 1
Actors 0 7 7
——— ——— ———
Total 109 200 309
Under the first head, “Statesmen,” Mr. Lodge “includes not only persons
who have held public office, but all who as reformers, agitators, or in
any other capacity have distinguished themselves in public affairs.” He
allows nine statesmen to the Irish in his first list. His authority,
_Appleton’s Encyclopedia_, is more liberal, giving them no less than
thirty, including seven signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Not to answer assertion with mere counter-assertion, we have compiled
the following list, from _Appleton’s_, including only such names as are
specifically stated to belong to the Irish race, omitting all that are
claimed as “Scotch-Irish,” and not even counting men of known Irish
origin who are not so described in the cyclopedia.
In so doing we purposely leave out scores of Kellys, Butlers, Moores,
Barrys, Boyles, etc. We do not wish to claim anything beyond the strict
letter of Mr. Lodge’s authority, _Appleton’s Encyclopedia_. For every
name in the following lists given by _Appleton’s_ as Irish, but possibly
of remoter Scotch or English origin, there will be found half a dozen
other names in _Appleton’s_ of obvious Celtic Irish origin which are not
here included because not so specified in the cyclopedia. We are taking
Mr. Lodge’s authority as such, in order to show how wildly he has
departed from it. Following is the correct list compiled from
_Appleton’s_: