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)
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,
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,
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.
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-
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
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
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-
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.
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)