Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-05-05
MR. ARNoLD's LATEST CRITIC.

General James B. Fry, in the North
american Reuieu takes the criticism of
Mathew Arnold to task that America is
given to excess Of Standardization and is
in danger from. selfdeception. General Fry
believes our selfglorifcation is more an
moving to others that dangerous to our
selves That is probably true, but it does
not answer Mr.. Arnold's criticism. That
Americans self-glorify beyond reason isnot
an idle charge, and the disposition to do so
is not helpful to any people. If by our
boasting we only annoy others, still no
good is conserved. 1t neither gives us
greater Importance than our merits de-
mand, nor does it awaken esteem for us
among our critics. On the contrary, it
tends TO make us ridiculous, and therefore
to lower America in foreign estimation. 1t
is better that others should discover our
good qualities, than that we should parade
them upon the highway and solicit atten-
ton to them. Worth and strength never
fail to command respect in the individual,
and it is equally as true of nations.
The truth is, that Americans are a boast
full class. The immensely of our territory;
the variety and grandeur of natural OBJ
jects in America the marvellous resources
and growth of the nation: the amazing
advance of invention with US; the aston
ishing development of wealth; our I'M
paralle!ed independence and opportunities
for individuals under free institutions our
successes in war, and the demonstrated
capacity of the Union to withstand in
ternal dlsrupting agencies; the freedom of
speech and press and the wonderful elias
ITCHY and self-preservative qualities of our
political system; the phenomenal growth
OF railroads; the immensely of our agri-
culture the devotion of the people to
educational causes-these are things of
which we have right to be proud, and Of
which we may honestly boast But we
understand Mr.. Arnold to have condemned
the excess not the normal of manifesto
lions of pride. That Americans indulge
in this excess we think will not be denied
seriously by those who reflect upon Amer
lean characteristics.
As to whether We are in danger from
self-deception, is distinct question. Mr..
Arnold says in "the predominance of the
common and ignoble" is our chief danger,
because they are the enemies of human
nature. But General Fry answers this
conclusively when he declares that while
the application of the axiom to a country
whose political institutions and social laws
provide for the survival of the unfttest
may be proper, it cannot be applied with
justice to system where distinction and
prodominance flow only from merit. This
is the one and only meaty and weighty
argument made by General Fry, whose at
tempts at wit by contortion of words and
at satire by indulgence in italics, are any
thing but creditable in a criticism of such
a thinker as was Mathew Arnold Does
not General Fry illustrate by his acrimony
and his often rude thrusts at the essayist,
that the charge Arnold laid against us has
much of force?
But, returning to the one sound retort
by the essayist; he should have carried
his response into analysis, and have proved
that it is absolutely and in specific detail
true. That while the sudden acquisition
of wealth by the Ignorant gives them
seeming prominence in social realms;
while political chicane frequently appears
to project the undeserving and ignoble
into public prominence; while brazen
effrontery and vulgar pretension often do
temporarily exalt, yet, in fact, the Ameri-
can social system in the totally of results |
sits out the chaff 1t recognizes and |
gives predominance and distinction to the |
merit of brain, the deserving of industry, |
the worth of business ability, and the fit
ness of scholarship and genuine refine
ment.