Thursday, October 30, 2014

Differences of Temperament - Julius Seelye

The different temperaments among men have from ancient times, with great unanimity, been classified as four...

A predominant energy and activity given to the nervous system induces the sanguine temperament.  In the nervous system provision is made for animal sensibility and motion; and where this is preeminently vigorous, the individual is prompt to respond to every excitement.  In this is the peculiarity of the sanguine, or, as sometimes called, the nervous, temperament.  Such a constitution will readily wake in sudden emotions, and be characterized by ardent felling, quick passions, impetuous desires, and lively transient affections.  There is a strong propensity to mirth and sport, and it easily habituates itself to a life of levity and gaiety.  If sudden calamities occur, the sanguine temperament is readily overwhelmed in excessive grief, and melts in floods of tears for every affliction; but soon loses the deep sense of its sorrows, and springs again buoyant to new scenes of pleasure....

... There is a perpetual propensity in all its exercises to excess and exaggeration, to intense feeling and passionate excitement.  The action is impulsive; the resolutions suddenly taken, and immediately executed, before unexpected difficulties, or long-resisting obstacles, are easily disconcerted and turned off in other directions.

This temperament is often found strongly marked in individual cases, and sometimes gives its controlling peculiarities to national character.  It is the temperament widely prevalent in the French nation; and, though much modified in the form of its action, is still also the prevalent temperament of the Irish people.

Empirical Psychology -- Laurens Hickok, Julius Seelye

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Letters on Irish Emigration

Letters on Irish Emigration

EDWARD E. HALE

Worcester, Massachusetts, Jan. 30, 1852.

He [The Irishman] travels little there; when he labors, it is in a most uneventful way, —and, apparently, he is very idle most of the time.

p51  - The good part

As to its nature [Irish immigration], there needs here to be said only this, -- that the Irish emigration, as we see it, —the Celtic Exodus, as it has been called, — seems clearly to belong to the established, uninterrupted fortune of the Celitic race, as if it had been the immediate result of battle and bloody defeat. It will be remembered that within the scope of written history; this Celtic race, —speaking, a language of kin to its language of today, marked with the same sign of physical conformation, -- held without intermixture of foreign races, all Western Europe, including parts even of Italy. Since that period of wide extent, its fortunes are dark in parts; but this much is clear, that the clans which composed it have been perpetually divided among themselves, and in contest against Gothic or other waves of population, pressing upon them from the East, that they have constantly lost ground. Whether it is defeat by Camillus or by Caesar, or by the Ostogoths or the Danes, or the Saxons or Cromwell, defeat is their history, not, of course, in every battle, but certainly in the experience of each single generation. Such defeats have driven them further and further
westward, and have absorbed more and more of their race, either to enrich the battle-fields, or to serve as the slaves or as the wives of the conquerors, — until the last two centuries have seen it pure only in its western fastnesses.  Through those centuries it has stood at bay on the headlands of western England and France, and, I suppose, Spain; it  has had full inhabitability, though not government, of most of Ireland and northern Scotland. Those points of the world are to be looked upon just like the "Indian Leap,’ or the Mount Kinneo of our own Legends ; they are the last resting places where a great gallant race has been driven in by its conquerors, before their last destructive attack upon it.
 

This last attack the conquerors have now made; —not intentionally,
but because they did not know how to resist their destiny; not as Cromwell destroyed the Irish at Drogheda, or as Caesar attacked the Treviri, but in the more destructive, though more kindly meant, invasion, of modern systems of agriculture, manufactures and commerce. The untaught and wretched Irish Celt, of the pure blood, could no more stand the competition of the well-compacted English social system than could his progenitors or their kinsmen stand the close-knit discipline of Caesar’s legions.  
 
p 52

In the effort to stand it poor Ireland counts her millions of slain. They have died of deaths more terrible than battle, and the rest conscious of their last defeat have nothing left for it but to flee farther yet westward and leave their old homes to this invasion which will not end
 
p 53  

'That inefficiency of the pure Celiic race furnishes the answer to the question.  How much use are the Irish to use in America. The Native American answer is, “None at all.”  And the Native American policy is to keep them  away. 

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Cronysim: Times Covers Up McPherson's Academic Fraud

The Book Review's interview (10/2/2014) with James McPherson neglected to ask if he regretted anything he's written.

Andrew Greely, the Jesuit sociologist and author,  once remarked to me about James McPherson:  "Why is such an otherwise fine historian so anti-Catholic."  The following raise that question.

"Immigrants were proportionally under-represented in the Union’s armed services...Despite the fighting reputation of the Irish Brigade, the Irish were the most under-represented group in proportion to population, followed by  German Catholics."
       - James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p 606, 1988

 "The under-representation of Catholic immigrants can be explained in part by Democratic allegiance of these groups and their opposition to Republican war aims, especially emancipation...Although this group furnished a large number of substitutes and bounty men during the final year of the war — thereby achieving an inglorious visibility — they also furnished a large number of deserters and bounty jumpers."
     - James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 607, 1988

The problem with Professor McPherson's remarks start with the Union army never recording the religion of its soldiers.   Who could possibly know how many were, in fact, Catholic.

The second problem is that there are no census records available telling us exactly how many Catholics, or even Irish, were available for military service during America's Civil War.

The last and most egregious problem is that historians including McPherson confuse the Sanitary Commission Report estimate for the number of Irish born soldiers serving in state volunteer units with the number of Irish serving with Union forces.  The Sanitary Commission Report estimate did not include soldiers in regular army units, nor most from the territories, nor militia units and excluded all the marines and sailors.  Moreover, as acknowledged in the Sanitary Commission report the Union army did not record place of birth for 43 percent of the soldiers.  Not surprisingly, the highest levels of failure to record were in states with the highest concentration of immigrants: Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.
(http://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-unions-irish-soldiers-and-sailors.html)

At the University of Virginia, for example, misrepresenting a source is considered academic fraud:
    False Citation: False citation is falsely citing a source or attributing work
    to a source from which the referenced material was not obtained.  
    A simple example   of this would be footnoting a paragraph and citing a work
    that did not support the author's assertion.

Estimates adjusting for Sanitary Commission omissions and separately on Medal of Honor data put the number of Irish born serving with the Union army and navy at over 200,000, at least 50 percent higher than the uncorrected Sanitary Commission estimate.

Why did Professor McPherson make such an egregious mistake?   Inherited prejudice.

"I share [with my cousin] a great-great-grandfather who fought in the Civil War.  This man, Jesse Beecher, emigrated from England in 1857 and became a prosperous wheelwright in an upstate New York village....Another clue [to why he served] is provided by the name he bestowed on his first child born in the United States: Henry Ward Beecher, after the famous antislavery clergyman."
       - James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, p 4, 1997

While fans of the Beechers like to remember Harriet and Henry Ward as abolitionists, they avoid mentioning that others in the family were among America's most prominent and rabid anti-Catholics.  Their father Lyman was the author of the widely read anti-Catholic diatribe A Plea for the West, whose fiery sermons instigated the Ursuline Convent Riots in 1834.  In 1855, Beecher's son Edward authored The Papal Conspiracy Exposed,  of which Orestes Brownson observed: "Dr. Beecher is haunted by strange visions of a papal conspiracy against American Protestantism and American liberty, and in his agitated dreams he calls out upon his countrymen to put an extinguisher upon Catholicity."

http://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-generals-and-small-catholic-church.html

http://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-norths-greatest-hispanic-general.html

http://hidden-civil-war.blogspot.com/2013/08/nessun-dorma-fighting-irish-assault.html

That the history profession accepted McPherson's egregious canards without objection can be summed up in The New York Times choice of reviewer for the book:  Hugh Brogan, a British historian, whose only objection was to the grey background of the book's maps.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/mcpherson-freedom.html

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

No Irish Need Vote - NYC not an American City

Strange, but true.  The New York Times once argued that New York City was not an American city since it was way too Irish and should be denied home rule.   Moreover,  as Sven Beckert notes in The Monied Metropolis, The Times supported an amendment to the New York State constitution, which would disenfranchise non-taxpayers (aka poor Irish, NYT 3/29/1875).