The President From Canada?
According to official birth records, Chester Alan Arthur was born in Fairfield, Vermont on October 5, 1830, the son of Reverend William and Malvina (Stone) Arthur. This date appears on Arthur's gravestone. Arthur's leading biographer, Thomas C. Reeves, concludes at page 5 of his book Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester Alan Arthur that Arthur was actually born a year earlier, on October 5, 1829 and that Arthur changed the date, in the author's words, "no doubt out of simple vanity."
Arthur's critics wondered if Arthur not only lied about his age, but about his place of birth too. The leading proponent of this theory was Arthur P. Hinman, a New York lawyer. Hinman wrote a letter to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in August, 1880, while Arthur was a candidate for Vice-President, running on the Republican ticket with James Garfield.
Hinman first theorized that General was born "in Belfast or Aberdeen," before his parents emigrated to America. Arthur could easily disprove this theory. His father emigrated at eighteen years of age, before he married and had children. When that didn't fly, Hinman didn't give up. Following is a story which appeared in the New York Times on December 22, 1880:
MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIE
ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.
Hinman would later publish a book entitled "How A British Subject Became President of the United States". (I've looked for a copy, without success). The book was reviewed in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article dated June 2, 1884:
The main charge of the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada, on [sic] March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was henceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Reeves dismissed Hinman's theory, although he agreed that Arthur lied about his age. He cited the Arthur family Bible, now at the Library of Congress, which gives the President's year of birth as 1829, and makes no mention of a child named "Chester Abell."
Was Arthur deceptive about his birthplace, or was this a case of political opponents stooping to obfuscation and outight lies to discredit a President? A reputable historian has concluded that it was the latter. The trail has likely grown cold now, but it makes for interesting political intrigue.
Arthur's critics wondered if Arthur not only lied about his age, but about his place of birth too. The leading proponent of this theory was Arthur P. Hinman, a New York lawyer. Hinman wrote a letter to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in August, 1880, while Arthur was a candidate for Vice-President, running on the Republican ticket with James Garfield.
Hinman first theorized that General was born "in Belfast or Aberdeen," before his parents emigrated to America. Arthur could easily disprove this theory. His father emigrated at eighteen years of age, before he married and had children. When that didn't fly, Hinman didn't give up. Following is a story which appeared in the New York Times on December 22, 1880:
MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIE
ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.
Hinman would later publish a book entitled "How A British Subject Became President of the United States". (I've looked for a copy, without success). The book was reviewed in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article dated June 2, 1884:
The main charge of the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada, on [sic] March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was henceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Reeves dismissed Hinman's theory, although he agreed that Arthur lied about his age. He cited the Arthur family Bible, now at the Library of Congress, which gives the President's year of birth as 1829, and makes no mention of a child named "Chester Abell."
Was Arthur deceptive about his birthplace, or was this a case of political opponents stooping to obfuscation and outight lies to discredit a President? A reputable historian has concluded that it was the latter. The trail has likely grown cold now, but it makes for interesting political intrigue.