amended by inserting under Vice-Presidents, “Australia, Mr. Frank
Coffey.” Mr. Coffey is a native of New York, who emigrated to Australia
thirty-five years ago and makes a pilgrimage here every two years. He is
one of the leading merchants of Australia, and I proposed him at his own
request. Since his election, he has sent in the names of two others,
accompanied by his check for their dues. I think a man who takes an
interest of that kind is entitled to some recognition of it.
DR. QUINLAN: Vice-Presidents are provided for in the different States of
the Union. May I ask if the constitution provides for or permits a
Vice-President in the country suggested? I think, if the constitution
does not so provide, it ought to. Mr. O’Brien, will you kindly inform
us?
MR. O’BRIEN: I believe it is only so provided in the cases of Canada and
Ireland.
DR. QUINLAN: The motion of Mr. Joyce is in order and has been duly
seconded. All in favor of the same signify by saying “aye,” those
opposed “no.” It is carried.
MR. T. VINCENT BUTLER: Before we proceed, Mr. President, to the
intellectual treat, may I be permitted to relieve myself of a very
perplexing pecuniary situation. As the treasurer of the New York State
Chapter of the American-Irish Historical Society, in connection with the
Hudson-Fulton Celebration, I would like to make my final report to
somebody.
Question as to whether or not the speaker was in order was raised and
discussed, whereupon Dr. Quinlan remarked:
The chair will listen to Mr. Butler, but we will ask him to come to the
point quickly because our time is short.
MR. BUTLER: Gentlemen, this is simply a brief report of what became of a
contribution of $126 from twenty-seven of our members.
At a special meeting held in Delmonico’s in May, 1909, the suggestion
was made that the American-Irish Historical Society should interest
themselves by coöperating with the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick in
properly celebrating the Hudson-Fulton celebration. As an evidence of
the appreciation of our members in that direction we received at that
meeting contributions of five dollars each from the following gentlemen:
J. I. C. Clarke $5.00
Dr. Quinlan 5.00
J. O’Sullivan 5.00
Mr. McKenna 5.00
F. X. Curry 5.00
F. X. Butler 5.00
E. J. McGuire 5.00
Richard Donovan 5.00
M. J. Mulqueen 5.00
Patrick McGowan 5.00
William J. Delany 5.00
Mr. Joyce 5.00
William J. Farrell 5.00
Philip Kearns 5.00
William M. Byrne 5.00
A. J. Talley 5.00
J. J. Boyle 5.00
Dr. Mooney 5.00
Mr. O. J. Brady 5.00
Mr. O’Brien 5.00
T. V. Butler 5.00
J. J. Falahee 5.00
BY CHECK.
J. J. Rooney 5.00
D. Healy 5.00
D. Spellisy 5.00
———————
$125.00
Contribution 1.00
———————
$126.00
And $1.00 from some modest individual who didn’t give his name, making a
total of $126.00.
The disbursements are:
May 10. For printing $14.49
Delmonico’s 21.50
June 11. Delmonico’s 7.33
Oct. 6. By check to President of the State Chapter, 75.00
Mr. Clarke, for pamphlets distributed on
boat
—————— $118.32
Leaving a balance of $7.68 in the treasury for your action.
DR. QUINLAN: This is really a part of the business of the State Chapter,
and the report should be accepted through the Vice-President. I will ask
Mr. Clarke to receive the same.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. President, I think it is also eminently proper that we
recognize our obligation to the members of our Society who guaranteed
fifty dollars each towards expenses. The amount is small, but let it be
recognized as a liability.
MR. JOSEPH I. C. CLARKE: The matter that Mr. Butler has brought before
the meeting is really a matter belonging to the New York Chapter, and I
don’t think it is pertinent with this meeting at all. I shall be very
glad at a subsequent meeting of the chapter to take up this matter. The
money that was collected has been expended, and I believe there is still
a balance. I would like to see the meeting proceed to the literary end
of it.
DR. QUINLAN: The next order of proceedings will be the presentation of
scientific papers. The first to have been read was by Hon. Joseph F.
O’Connell, member of Congress from Massachusetts. Unfortunately, Mr.
O’Connell is detained unavoidably at Boston on account of a hotly
contested municipal election, and has notified us of his inability to be
present. He will, however, submit his paper to the Secretary-General
later, which, after approval by the Executive Council, will be ordered
printed.
The next is an article on Stonewall Jackson by John Louis Sheehan, LL.
D., Professor at Boston University School of Law.
DR. SHEEHAN: Mr. President-General, Officers and Members of the American
Irish Historical Society, it gives me great pleasure today to pay
tribute to the memory of that hero of the South, Thomas “Stonewall”
Jackson.
Doctor Sheehan then read his paper, which is printed in full elsewhere
in this volume.
DR. QUINLAN: As these papers are published in full in the Journal of the
Society, and as our time is getting so short, I will ask, if it be
consistent, that the readers give them in abstract.
The next article is by Mr. Joseph I. C. Clarke, Vice-President of the
Society for New York, on the Hudson-Fulton Celebration. This paper is of
great length and has been prepared with the utmost care and painstaking
effort by Vice-President Clarke, complying with a vote of the Society
requesting the same, passed October 1, 1909, at an informal meeting of
the Society on board the “Asbury Park.” The introduction to this article
not being complete at this time, the reading will be omitted, but the
paper ordered printed in its entirety in Volume IX.
The next is by Hon. James Fitzgerald, Justice of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, on the Sixty-Ninth Regiment.
JUDGE FITZGERALD: Mr. President and Gentlemen: I felt honored by the
request to prepare a paper for this interesting meeting and was
particularly pleased that the subject suggested was one very near to my
heart as it is to the hearts of all men of Irish blood in America. We
have just listened to the splendid eulogy by the gentleman from Boston
of a great soldier who fell in the Civil War battling for the lost
cause. My paper deals with the record of the gallant 69th Regiment,
which fought so valiantly for the Union, and it is a high tribute to the
nature of our institutions and the character of our people to be able to
say that an eulogy of this regiment delivered in Charleston, Savannah or
Richmond would be as enthusiastically received as the address on
Stonewall Jackson has been received in New York.
I have prepared a paper and hold it in my hand as we say in the courts
as “the best evidence” that I have performed the work. The story of the
Sixty-ninth is, however, necessarily a long one; it involves a recital
of many glorious events, and its reading, even in the condensed form of
my paper, would, in view of the many matters to be disposed of at this
gathering, occupy too much of your time. I will, therefore, only tell
you about it in the abstract, requesting, as is frequently done in
Congress, “leave to print.”
The Sixty-ninth has existed as a regiment for nearly sixty years, and
throughout all that period, in peace and in war, its ranks have
practically been made up of men of Irish blood; it is the typical
Irish-American regiment, and its record is a source of pride and
pleasure, not only to Irishmen and their descendants, but to all
Americans. You may call us Irish-Americans or American-Irish, but we
are, nevertheless, Americans of the American. We were among the earliest
settlers upon the Continent; we kept on coming steadily from those early
times in large numbers, and under existing conditions upon the other
side of the Atlantic, it is fair to predict that the flow of Irish
emigration to the United States is liable to continue in the future. The
expressions, “Irish-American” or “American-Irish,” in their real
significance, mean intense, true Americans. We love the Union, we are
devoted to the principles of the Constitution; we are obedient to the
law; we are peaceable, industrious and loyal. For all our fellow
Americans, no matter what their national origin, we entertain a spirit
of fraternity and are bound to them by the ties of common brotherhood;
the flag of the Republic is for us the symbol of a sovereignty under
which we are proud and happy to live, and in defense of which we are at
all times ready to take up arms.
In 1861, the prompt response of Corcoran to the call of President
Lincoln sounded a bugle note of readiness electric in its effect. Nearly
forty years thereafter, upon the breaking out of the Spanish War, the
Government was desirous of obtaining exact information as to the extent
the organized militia of all the different states could be depended
upon. Major-General Roe, at that time the commander of the National
Guard of the State of New York, communicated with the different
regimental commanders, inquiring what number of men belonging to the
militia would volunteer to serve the Government beyond the territorial
limits of the state. The answer of Colonel Duffy, in 1898, rang true as
the answer from Corcoran in ’61:
“Every officer and every enlisted man of the 69th volunteers to defend
the flag in any part of the world the government may require their
services.”
When a French delegation was sent here a few years ago to participate in
the ceremonies connected with the unveiling of the Statue of Rochambeau
at Washington, its members were entertained in this city by The Friendly
Sons of St. Patrick; their escort to the banquet at Delmonico’s was the
69th Regiment, and General Brugere and Admiral Fournier were warm in
their praise of the appearance of the regiment; and later, when
President Roosevelt was the guest of the same Society at its 121st
Annual Dinner on St. Patrick’s Day, 1905, the regiment again acted as
escort to the distinguished guest of the Society.
Colonel Duffy, who served in the regiment for a period of over forty
years and commanded it during the Spanish War, has recently resigned
with the rank of brigadier-general. Lieutenant-Colonel Conley has since
been in command, and it was only last night that I received a most
interesting item of news from him. In the office of the adjutant-general
of the State at Albany, the reports contain practically no record of the
war services of the 69th, the reason being, it is presumed, that during
that time it was out of the service of the State and constituted part of
the National armed force known as United States Volunteers. Every
regiment of the National Guard is entitled to have a silver ring upon
its lances for each engagement in which it participated and for other
meritorious service rendered in times of danger. Owing to the defective
state records, the 69th, after participating in all of the battles of
the war, from Bull Run to Appomattox, has been denied the privilege of
placing these commemorative rings upon its lances. Colonel Conley
informed me last evening, and I am happy to be able to announce to you
today, that this inexcusable error is about being redressed, and in the
next report of the adjutant-general, the full record of the regiment in
the Civil War will be published, and the lance of the National
Regimental Color will for the future be practically covered with
inscribed rings bearing the name and date of the hundred battles in
which it has participated.
All these matters will be found more fully set forth in this paper which
I have prepared, and I can only express in conclusion the assurance that
as long as the spirit which animated the 69th Regiment in the past
continues to inspire the manhood of America, we need have little fear of
attempted domestic revolution or of the perils of foreign war.
Judge Fitzgerald’s paper is printed in full elsewhere in this volume.
DR. QUINLAN: The next paper is by Michael X. Sullivan, Ph. D., formerly
of the faculty of Brown University and now of the Bureau of Soil,
Washington, D. C.
Doctor Sullivan read his paper, which is printed in full elsewhere in
this volume.
DR. QUINLAN: Before we proceed to the next paper, I would like to
introduce to you the vice-president-general of our Society, Mr. Thomas
B. Fitzpatrick of Boston.
MR. FITZPATRICK: I am very glad to meet the members of the
American-Irish Historical Society here today. It has been of special
interest to listen to the excellent papers read and the speeches
delivered by some of our worthy representatives. The facts referred to
concerning the proud position held by our race in the past and in the
present, are a valuable asset of information to every man and woman of
Irish blood.
[Illustration:
THOMAS M. MULVY, ESQ.,
President of the Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank of New York.
A Member of the Society.
]
I was very much impressed by the last speaker, Judge Fitzgerald, when he
emphasized the fact that whether we are Irish-Americans or
American-Irish, we are part and parcel of this great country. It
reminded me of what I had heard a great thinker in our own city say a
few years ago (the late Mr. Edward Atkinson) upon the subject of
restricted immigration. He, with two other very representative men,
discussed this question of restricted immigration before the Beacon
Society of Boston. His opening salutation was: “Fellow Immigrants, the
Beacon Society of Boston.” It is needless to say they were surprised at
this unexpected and novel introduction. It was sufficiently explained,
however, when he said: “Some of your forefathers may have come over in
the ‘Mayflower,’ some of them fifteen generations ago, some of them ten,
some of them perhaps not more than three or four; but you must remember
that the space of time between the landing of the first immigrant and
those of today marks but a short period in the lifetime of a nation, and
therefore we are a nation of immigrants. We have no more right to say
today to the immigrant landing on our shores that he must not land, than
your forefathers and mine had to forbid the landing of the immigrants of
their day.”
I believe, Mr. President, that it would be well for us to appreciate Mr.
Atkinson’s statement that this is virtually a new country, a land of
immigrants, and that we are all Americans. As Americans, we are
interested in everything that concerns the well-being of this great and
glorious republic, being mindful at the same time of the priceless
inheritance it is to every man of our blood to sacredly treasure what
has been accomplished by the people of our race in the history and
development of this new world. I am glad that these papers are to be
published in order that they may be preserved as a fruitful means of
inspiration for future generations. It shows the great field of endeavor
that is open to this worthy association.
MR. MARTIN I. J. GRIFFIN: Mr. President, as these papers are to be
published, it is essential that no known errors should appear in them,
that is, in the papers published in the name of the Society.
In the last paper read, it was stated that James Logan was more tolerant
than William Penn in the matter of the celebration of Mass in
Philadelphia. I know that not to be a fact. The speaker has
misinterpreted what he alleges to be a fact. William Penn did not object
to Mass being celebrated in Philadelphia, and therefore James Logan was
not more tolerant in allowing it.
The Episcopalians objected to the public celebration of Mass in
Philadelphia. William Penn was in London at the time, and was notified
by the English government of the fact that Mass had been celebrated.
Thereupon Penn wrote to James Logan, his agent, to send him the fact of
the matter. He did not say anything about the “scandal of the Mass,” but
that Mass was celebrated in a “scandalous manner.”
William Penn was the Father of Religious Liberty in America, and it was
founded in Philadelphia, not elsewhere.
But a more important statement which is common belief among us Irish and
is constantly repeated, but which has no foundation in fact, is that
one-half of the Revolutionary Army was Irish, and Joseph Galloway is
quoted as proof of that.
Dr. Sullivan has only to go to the library and get a copy of the
Examination of Joseph Galloway by a Committee of the House of Commons,
and he will find that, upon his making the statement the Doctor has
recited, Galloway was asked how he knew that. His reply was, “By the
deserters that came in.”
I might state that previous to the Revolutionary War, Joseph Galloway
had been Speaker in the Assembly. When Sir William Howe took possession
of the city of Philadelphia, Joseph Galloway, having gone over to the
British side, was appointed Superintendent of the City by him.
And I would say that, if the question as to what proportion of the
Revolutionary Army was made up of men of our race is to be asked, we are
the ones who should answer it, and not let our enemies do it. Therefore,
I have always objected to that statement of Joseph Galloway’s. It is not
exactly true, for I secured his report giving figures of deserters of
Washington’s army at Valley Forge, and the galleys in the Delaware
River. It was about forty-five per cent., not fifty.
But I ask the members not to have that statement published. Joseph
Galloway was a deserter from the cause of Liberty and went over to the
British. When he was before the committee of the House of Commons he
made that statement; but we do not give the answer he made when
questioned as to how he knew. It is unfair to have that answer produced
against us when we make the statement that one-half of the Revolutionary
Army was Irish.
While all the State forces and the Continental Army were largely Irish,
I have no belief whatever that one-half of the Revolutionary Army was at
any time composed of natives of Ireland. We ought not to assert that it
was because we cannot prove it. Nothing should appear in our official
proceedings but what we can prove if called upon to do so.
That is why I speak for accuracy in all statements. I would ask that
those two, with any others that may be found, be stricken out or
revised, and that all the papers be submitted for criticism so that
nothing will appear in the records of the American-Irish Historical
Society but what we can submit to the country as well-founded. But those
statements relative to Joseph Galloway and William Penn and James Logan
ought to be revised.
DR. QUINLAN: I think it is certainly befitting that we should go before
the world as correct historians, and not state facts unless
well-founded.
DR. SULLIVAN: I don’t think there is any controversy about the matters
suggested. My research has been an entirely scientific one, and we never
let anything go out of our department unless we have good evidence to
base it upon. Before the paper goes out, those remarks will all be
verified. I see no reason for any controversy.
DR. QUINLAN: I thought the subject might be discussed. Perhaps it would
be well for you and Mr. Griffin to take it up together.
MR. RYAN: I think Mr. Talley’s point is admirably taken. There is one
thing I would like to mention that has just come to my notice. One of
the professors of Harvard University died within a very short time, and
it is interesting to know that at the time of his death he was engaged
in writing an article on the life and doings of Daniel Shay. At a recent
meeting of an historical society here, the sentiment was expressed that
the manuscript was in such shape that it would be a valuable
contribution to American history if it should be published by somebody
who would take an interest in the work.
DR. QUINLAN: We have additional papers to be submitted. At the close of
the reading of these, I shall be very happy to receive what suggestions
you may have to offer in that regard.
The next article is by Rev. Cornelius F. O’Leary of Wellston, Mo.
REV. CORNELIUS F. O’LEARY: I will follow the good example of others and
merely submit it to the Society for publication. I may give you a
preface though, showing forth the reason that led me, for I was in
harmony with the great object of this Society, to trace the footsteps,
of the Irish in America, and, as I am a resident of St. Louis, thought
well to bring forward the early history of St. Louis.
The Connors, the McKnights and the Bradys, they were foremost in
everything. The first man to open a hotel in St. Louis was a man named
Brady. The first man to publish a newspaper west of the Mississippi was
an Irishman named Charless. The first man to open an English speaking
school in that French village was an Irishman. The Irishmen were
prominent in everything.
I hope you will find this paper interesting. I will not take the time to
read it now, but will submit it this evening to Judge Lee.[2]
DR. QUINLAN: The next paper is by M. R. F. McCarthy, Esq., of
Binghamton, N. Y., entitled “A Little Mosaic of the Life of Henry W.
Grady.”[3]
JUDGE LEE: Mr. McCarthy is not here, but has sent me his paper. I have
no authority from Mr. McCarthy to read the same, but, if agreeable to
yourself and the members of the Society, after approval by the Executive
Council, I move that it be printed.
DR. QUINLAN: Those in favor of the motion signify by saying “aye”; those
opposed “no.” The motion is carried.
DR. QUINLAN: I desire to make mention at this time of an article by Hon.
Joseph T. Lawless on Daniel Morgan of Cowpens. This article was prepared
after painstaking research by Judge Lawless, and should have been
published in the Journal of the Society of 1907. For some reason or
other, it was omitted, but will now be published in Volume IX. in
accordance with the desire of the Executive Council.
Scientific papers have already been received from Michael J. O’Brien,
Esq., Thomas S. Lonergan, Hon. William J. Onahan and Hon. Patrick T.
Barry, and papers are promised and now in process of preparation by Rev.
William J. McCoy, LL. D., Michael J. O’Brien, Esq., Hon. Michael P.
Kehoe, Hon. James F. Brennan (our Historiographer), Edgar Stanton
Maclay, Esq., Prof. Andrew J. Hogan, Martin I. J. Griffin, Esq., Dr. J.
Lawton Hiers, Col. Alfred Moore Waddell, and Frank M. Coffee, Jr.
You see, gentlemen, there is no paucity now of literary material. We
simply can’t stop the flood.
The next order of business is the reading of obituaries. The first is
that of Rev. Daniel H. O’Dwyer, by Chairman John J. Lenehan of the
Membership Committee. The same has been submitted and will be published
in Volume IX.
The next is that of Mr. Patrick O’Brien, which, after its reading by the
Secretary-General, will be ordered published.
The Secretary-General read the sketch.
DR. QUINLAN: The next is the obituary of Rev. Michael Aloysius McManus,
by James L. O’Neill, Esq.
JUDGE LEE: Doubtless many of us who were present at our annual meeting
in Washington last year will remember Father McManus. His soul was so in
the work that he didn’t wait to be proposed, but proposed himself at
that meeting. The obituary notice is here, and has been well prepared by
one of the members of the Executive Council, Mr. James L. O’Neill. With
your permission, we will follow the usual course and publish the same in
Volume IX.
DR. QUINLAN: Very well. The next is that of Mr. Philip C. Walsh by
Philip C. Walsh, Jr.
JUDGE LEE: Mr. Philip C. Walsh, Jr., is not a member of the Society, but
has sent me an obituary notice of his father which is quite complete.
The same will take the usual course.
DR. QUINLAN: The next is the obituary of Mr. James McGovern by John G.
O’Keefe. I understand the same is to be turned over to the
Secretary-General for publication.
The next order of business is the reading of letters of regret by the
Secretary-General.
Communications were then read by the Secretary-General from
Ex-President-General Edward A. Moseley, Hon. William A. Prendergast,
Rev. Dr. John J. McCoy, John F. Harty, Esq., Hon. Martin J. Wade, Dr. J.
Lawton Hiers, Hon. M. F. Kennedy, John Wood, Esq., James H. Devlin,
Esq., Thomas F. Kailkenny, Esq., John H. Maloney, Esq., Daniel Hanrahan,
Esq., Rev. Edmond Heelan, Anthony McOwen, Esq., Vice-President James
Thompson, Vice-President Thomas J. Lynch, Hon. Patrick T. Barry, Rt.
Rev. Phillip G. Garrigan, D. D., Hon. Patrick E. C. Lally, M. P. Tully,
Esq., Dr. George McAleer, Hon. T. P. Linehan and others.
DR. QUINLAN: The next in order, gentlemen, is the unfinished business.
JUDGE LEE: There is none.
DR. QUINLAN: Any new business?
JUDGE LEE: None.
DR. QUINLAN: There is a communication here that I would like you to take
home for consideration: