Ohio History Journal

A STUDY OF NOTABLE OHIOANS

 

By HARRY R. STEVENS

 

In the past three or four years there have been published

many social studies of genius. Data have been accumulated, ana-

lyzed, and interpreted; problems have been defined; and some

answers attempted.¹ Underlying much of this seems to be the

criticism formulated a century ago by De Tocqueville, that Amer-

ican society, being a democracy, naturally tended to inhibit the

development of genius, individuality, and leadership.

That challenge has long since been proved unsubstantial in

fact; but the theoretical arguments are still cogent, and many

efforts have been made to resolve the paradox. In the study of

a comparatively small subject--those notable persons born within

the present boundaries of Ohio--some contribution can be made.

The size of the subject should forestall efforts to jump at con-

clusions; yet it may provide sufficient detail at least to pose new

questions.

Following the conventional procedure, a list has been made

of the persons to be included; and for convenience, it has been

taken from   the Dictionary of American Biography (New       York,

1928-1937). The thirteen thousand biographies in the Dictionary

are the epitome of American leadership. Of these, the 475 per-

sons included who were born in Ohio constitute a group accept-

able as the most eminent from the State; and probably as free

from selection as any list could be.

Who were these 475 persons of whom the study is to be

made? Although there is inevitably a certain amount of over-

 

1 For example, Ellery Sedgwick, "Perspectives," Atlantic Monthly (Boston),

CLI (1933), 1-11; Dumas Malone, "The Geography of American Achievement,"

Atlantic Monthly, CLIV (1934), 669-79; A. Wyatt Tilby, "The Distribution of Eng-

lish Genius Overseas," Nineteenth Century and After (London), CXVIII (1935),

77-91; Mapheus Smith, "Racial Origins of Eminent Personages," Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology (Boston; Albany), XXXII (1937), 63-73; Stephen S. Visher,

"Where Our Notables Came From," Scientific Monthly (New York), August, 1937,

p. 172-7

(159)

• 1
 

160     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

lapping, they may be arranged in certain natural groupings. The

groups which suggest themselves from the biographies, and their

numerical importance are:

(1)         political     figures...........................                                                      68

(2)        writers        and  editors.......................                                                 56

(3)        scholars and educators.................... 49

(4)        scientists and physicians.................. 48

(5)        military       figures...........................                                                      45

(6)        religious    figures..........................                                                       44

(7)        artists, actors, musicians..................                                                   39

(8)        lawyers       and  judges.......................                                                 36

(9)        business     men .............................                                                         34

(10)        social reformers, philanthropists........... 13

(11)        engineers and  inventors...................                                                  7

(12) miscellaneous ............................                                                                   36

This distribution may be compared with that in Appletons'

Cyclopaedia of American Biography (New          York,   1900), where,

of the 406 Ohioans among some 23,000 persons entered, the

groups are (roughly):

(1)        military  figures...........................                                                           103

(2)        political figures...........................                                                          62

(3) writers and editors....................... 52

(4)        scientists and  physicians...................                                               45

(5)        religious  figures..........................                                                         37

(6)        scholars and  educators....................                                                   26

(7)        artists          ...................................                                                           25

(8)        lawyers       and  judges.......................                                                 24

That numerical weight is partly a product of editorial bias

may be seen from these lists, in one of which the Civil War looms

so vast. But that it is not wholly so may be seen from the names

most prominent in each list. In the Dictionary, those to whom

the greatest amount of space has been devoted are U. S. Grant,

W. H. Taft, W. G. Harding, W. R. Harper, R. B. Hayes, W. D.

Howells, J. A. Garfield, W. T. Sherman, Benjamin Harrison,

William McKinley, John Sherman, Whitelaw Reid, Edwin Stan-

ton, and M. A. Hanna. Only Harper and Howells of this group

achieved note clearly outside politics and war. In Appletons', the

leading biographies are those of Grant, Hayes, Garfield, McKin-

ley, Harrison, W. T. Sherman, John Sherman and W. S. Rose-

crans--a list exclusively political and military. The poverty of

outstanding names in more divergent fields is remarkable. Aside

from the combinations presented by Grant, Taft, and Reid,

• 2
 

STUDY OF OHIO NOTABLES                   161

 

Howells is the only outstanding writer, and Harper the only emi-

nent educator. Among thirty leading names there are, however,

four artists: John Ward, G. W. Bellows, R. F. Blum, and J.

H. Twachtman.

An   interesting correlation appears between the field of

achievement and the date of birth. In Appletons', while the mili-

tary figures rank first over the whole period, if the decades are

taken separately, a different order is evident.  Of the persons

born in the decade 181O-1819, politicians were most numerous,

and clergy next; in the decade 1850-1859, writers and editors

were the largest single group. Taking each decade of the half

century, the ranks were:

1810-19: (1) politicians, (2) clergy, (3) military

1820-29: (1) military, (2) politicians, (3) writers

1830-39: (1) military, (2) writers, (3) politicians

1840-49: (1) and (2) scientists, military, (3) writers

1850-59: (1) writers, (2) educators, (3) scientists

Moreover, though the clergy in no decade outnumbered any

other group, almost one-third of their whole number were born

in the single decade 181O-1819, about one-fourth in the years

1820-1829, and a steadily diminishing proportion in each subse-

quent interval.  The military figures, on the other hand, came

almost exclusively from  the period 1820-1839, when 40%      of

their number were born in each decade.   These two trends sug-

gest, in one case the tremendous directive influence of the Civil

War on the ability of men, in the other case an often overlooked

secular trend in American culture.   The other groups wander

up and down in the scale of importance with puzzling freedom.

Concerning the question of racial and national stock in the

production of notable persons, little can safely be said.  In spite

of the vast energies devoted to genealogy, the national origins of

considerably less than one fourth of these 475 persons have been

traced as much as two generations. Even the most careful search

often fails to reveal the stock of more than two grandparents of

any of these notables.  The ignorance must be confessed.   But

assuming the grandparents to have contributed to each person

one fourth of his national stock, of the 19OO strains thus existing,

• 3
 

162    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

slightly more than half of those which are known are English.

Four other strains, almost equal among one another, follow at

a considerable distance: German, Scotch-Irish, Scotch, and Irish.

These are the major contributions, as they were in approximately

the same proportions the major stocks in the United States in the

early nineteenth century.

Among the minor stocks, Indians number five (or twenty

"strains"), and Negroes three (presumably twelve "strains").

The European strains which have been traced contributed, Jewish

(German, Polish, Russian), forty-one; Dutch, thirty-one; Welsh,

twenty-one; French, twenty; Swiss, thirteen.  At the end of

the list appear four exotics--Flemish, Italian, Norwegian, and

Spanish.  Thus many, though not all national stocks have con-

tributed to the group.  Except for the Negro, who produced

Ohio's greatest poet, and possibly the Indian, it has been in a

rough proportion to their rank in the whole population.  Ap-

parently national origins have had little to do in the production

of eminent persons in Ohio.

Perhaps then geography has something to do with success

or failure to reach eminence? Ellsworth Huntington and others

probably would not admit a sufficient variety in the topography

or climate of Ohio, or a sufficient importance in the accident of

birthplace to show any great variations in the production of

leadership.  If the birthplaces of the 475 persons are marked

on the map, however, they show some interesting concentra-

tions. Almost all of them fall into one of six pretty clearly marked

districts. By far the heaviest grouping is in the Miami Valley.

The Western Reserve, in particular Cuyahoga, Trumbull, and

Portage counties, make up a second great district. Third may be

noticed a group of central counties, Licking preeminent, and

around it Franklin, Muskingum, Delaware, Morrow, and Fair-

field. Fourth is the section which grew from the early upper

Ohio Valley settlements: Jefferson, Belmont, Columbiana, Har-

rison, and Stark counties. Fifth is the old Virginia Military Dis-

trict, centered in Ross and Highland counties. Last is the unique

experiment in New England colonization, Washington County.

• 4
 

STUDY OF OHIO NOTABLES                    163

 

In these six regions, comprising just three-eighths of the

counties in the State, are the birthplaces of more than three-

fourths of the notables from  Ohio.   The remaining 102 persons

were born at various points throughout forty-one of the remain-

ing fifty-five counties, or unlocated; only fourteen of the counties

apparently have not yet made a contribution, and those mainly in

the northwestern part of the State, which was last to be settled.

The numbers born in each of the leading counties are:

Hamilton ......... 67    Muskingum ....... 12

Cuyahoga ........ 26     Portage .......... 11

Licking  .......... 22     W arren  .......... 10

Jefferson ......... 16     Washington ...... 10

Butler ........... 14        Montgomery ...... 10

Franklin  .........          14                 Clark   ............            9

Belmont ..........         13                 Ross    .............           8

Trumbull ......... 12     Medina          .......... 8

Columbiana ....... 12   Ashtabula ........ 8

The most conspicuous feature is one which does not appear

on the map at all. There is no Ohio Valley district. At either

end, around Hamilton and Columbiana counties, are distinct

groups.   In between are two isolated communities, around Ma-

rietta and Gallipolis. The intervening counties have only a dearth

of notables to show. If the productivity of eminent persons may

be taken as one criterion of a regional culture, the conception of

an Ohio Valley region may need some redefinition. That the

criterion may have some validity is suggested by its correlation

to the established cultural provinces of the Western Reserve and

the Virginia Military District.

As the distribution of population within the State shifted,

the relative importance of the counties was changed. Appletons',

drawing most heavily from the 1820's, indicates as the most pro-

ductive counties:

Hamilton ........ 47     Licking .......... 11

Jefferson ......... 17     Muskingum ...... 11

Butler  ........... 17      Portage  ..........  11

Columbiana  ....... 14 Ross ............. 11

Franklin ......... 13     Warren .......... 11

Erie ............. 12        Cuyahoga ........ 10

Harrison ........ 10

That is simply, in the earlier decades those parts of the State

first settled--the two centers in the Ohio Valley--were most pro-

• 5
 

164    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

ductive. The rank of counties in the Dictionary, which drew most

from the 1830's, has already been given, with Hamilton first and

Cuyahoga a very poor second. Passing over half a century to

a list drawn chiefly from the 1880's, with over three-fourths of its

members born between 1870 and 1899, Cuyahoga County almost

ties Hamilton for first place, with Franklin and Licking stand-

ing together as a very poor third and fourth, and after them

Montgomery, Ashtabula, Lorain, and Wayne. The list is taken

from  J. M. Cattell's American Men of Science (New       York,

1927).

The question may be raised by reliance on this check from

a specialist's dictionary as to just what correlations may exist

between field of achievement, and geographical or other distribu-

tion. The number of persons included in the original list from

the Dictionary is too small for any given group to yield statistically

satisfactory results; but other sources are available. For scien-

tists, a sample of 360 persons from American Men of Science

shows the following distribution:

Hamilton  ......... 29                        Lorain  ..........             7

Cuyahoga  ........ 23                         Wayne  ...........            7

Franklin    ......... 11     Summit ..........          6

Licking     ..........         10                Huron  ...........             5

Montgomery ......        8                              Medina ..........   5

Ashtabula  ........          7                  Shelby  ..........             5

Muskingum ...... 5

Most of the fifty-five musicians from Ohio who are included

in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, American Sup-

plement (New York, 1928) were born between 1845 and 1875,

just covering the gap between the Dictionary and American Men

of Science. They represent thirty-one counties, the chief being:

Cuyahoga  ........ 11      Lorain         ..........   5

Hamilton  .........          7                  Erie      ............           4

Franklin    .........          5                  Trumbull  ........           3

Washington ..... 3

The results may be a bit disconcerting to those who boast Cincin-

nati's preeminence in music.  A closer inspection points to the

role of music schools such as that of Oberlin; but the results as

they stand are inconclusive.

Jewish persons eminent in almost every field are included in

• 6
 

STUDY OF OHIO NOTABLES                  165

the Biographical Encyclopaedia of American Jews (New York,

1935). A sample of somewhat more than half shows forty-eight

persons born in Cincinnati, thirteen in Cleveland, and thirteen

elsewhere, including two each from Toledo, Columbus, Dayton,

and Canton. That is, about two-thirds of the total are from

Hamilton County, and half the remainder from Cuyahoga. Some

obvious conclusions might be drawn from this; but it would be

well to bear in mind the original caution.

Not all decades of national life have been equally productive

of notables. In some states, such as Virginia and Massachusetts,

the variations are attached to basic social changes. What about

Ohio? Aside from the five Indians born in the region, all persons

in the Dictionary were born within less than nine decades.

Though the first white child was born in Ohio in Tuscarawas

County, July 4, 1773, it was not until the last year of the century

that one rose to sufficient eminence for inclusion in the Dictionary.

In the first decade, from 1800 through 1809, twenty-one persons

were born who found their way to this list of notables. The num-

ber gradually increased to a maximum in the 1830's. Then, as

the rule of excluding living persons from the Dictionary came

into operation (e. g., Thomas Edison), the number irregularly

declines. However, in proportion to other states in the Union,

Ohio's contribution continues to rise, until by the 1860's her rank

is third, below only New York and Pennsylvania, and ahead of

Massachusetts. The following list shows the number of those

in the Dictionary who were born in each decade:

Before 1800 ........ 5                           1840-1849 ........ 81

1800-1809 ........ 21                       1850-1859 ........ 66

1810-1819 ........ 51                       1860-1869 ........ 48

1820-1829  ........ 93                      1870-1879  ........ 11

1830-1839 ........ 95                       1880-1889 ........ 4

Aside from the earliest and later years, the proportion of per-

sons who achieved eminence to the total population remained

fairly constant at about 1 to 11,000. The ratios of the number

of notables born in each decade to the population of the State at

the end of the decade are:

1800-1809   1: 11,000                    1830-1839   1: 16,000

1810-1819  1: 11,600                    1840-1849   1: 24,500

1820-1829   1: 10,200                    1850-1859   1: 37,000

• 7
 

166    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

Irregularities which appear from a closer inspection do not

seem to have any special significance. For interest, it may be

noted that in the Dictionary, there are rather sharp fallings-off

in 1832-1835 and 1839-1845. Other dictionaries however, show

no weaknesses there, but deficiencies elsewhere, e. g., for 1816-

181₉, 1829-1831, and 1838-1840 in Appletons'; for 1820-1827 and

I836-1839 in Herringshaw's Encyclopedia of American Biography

of the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, 1898); and for 1875-1884

in American Men of Science. There do not seem to be any sub-

stantial grounds for supposing that one decade has been more

favorable than another in Ohio.

A surprisingly high proportion of the 475 notables are blood

relatives of others of the 13,000 persons in the Dictionary.

Altogether, 114 of them are so related. The proportion, however,

has been gradually decreasing. Among the five Indians born in

the eighteenth century, four were related to one another.   In

the first decade of the nineteenth century, seven of the twenty-one

white persons were related to other notables in the Dictionary.

The proportion thereafter decreased:

Before 1800 ...... 80%                                                 1840-1849 ...... 30%

1800-1809 ...... 33%                                             1850-1859 ...... 15%

1810-1819 ...... 25%                                           1860-1869 ...... 12%

1820-1829 ...... 28%                                             1870-1879 ......                  9%

1830-1839 ...... 23%                                             1880-1889 ......                  0

The relationship varied from such close and striking kinship

as the famous McCooks, five of whom are in the Dictionary, to

products of great families like Kenyon Cox, Eli Tappan, and

Bellamy Storer at the one extreme; and distant relatives of the

great like S. V. Clevenger at the other.

Finally, a remarkable social factor demands attention. An

unusually large number of the 475 notables were either partly or

wholly orphans. The relation between this and the development

of personal initiative, self-reliance, and leadership is a problem

for the psychologist. Undoubtedly it has a greater bearing on

the general problem of leadership than has generally been recog-

nized in social studies of eminent persons; and for the historian

who wishes to study the influence of great men in shaping his-

• 8
 

STUDY OF OHIO NOTABLES                167

 

tory, a study of the role of family life in determining greatness

must take on somewhat more importance.

By way of tentative conclusions, since they may be expected,

the findings of the whole study may be summarized. Racial and

national stock seems to have had little direct connection with

recognized eminence, except in the case of the Negro. An out-

standingly large proportion of Ohio's notables have been in the

field of politics, but not for any reason which has been dealt

with here. Variations in the proportion of eminent men in each

field of activity vary with the decade of birth for the State as a

whole, but not with sectional or national origins. The part played

by the family as an American institution in shaping national

psychology, having been long almost completely ignored by his-

torians, is sharply brought into focus by the consequences of its

disruption. If the study points to anything, it is the need of

exploring the frontier between history and psychology.

• 9