It is my understanding that book concerned Arthur’s birthplace, not his father’s naturalization. When I get a copy, I will see if your claim holds up or if it as bogus as your claims concerning Calhoun.
I found the book in my documents folder - I have in scanned in pdf. If you give me your email address, I’ll send it on over to you.
Your characterization of the book is correct - he felt that Arthur was Canadian - but the content of the book has numerous sections that support my point.
As to hiding it - I am not sure where you are getting that from. A.P. Hinton was a contemporary who wrote numerous letters to numerous officials on this issue - they are published in the book.
Since the book is a scan - I can’t cut and paste text. But just searching on the books titles includes these excerpts:
PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
(By cable to the Herald.)
London, December 12, 1881.
…Arthur even refrains from making comments
on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
also born Irishmen like the President.
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.
I can’t find references on any credible site that talks about Arthur hiding that his father was naturilized - except on sites bent on hiding that precedent to strengthen the argument that Obama is not natural born. Hinton’s book provides all the details you need to see that it was talked about, on a pretty constant basis, at the time.