A hidden phase of American history : Ireland's part in America's struggle for liberty

Front matter

°o

^bv'

< O

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Introduction . . . . J. I. C. Clarke xi I Attitude of the People of Ireland Toward THE American Colonists ... 1 II Benjamin Franklin's Visits to Ireland ' . 25 m Irish Sympathy for the Revolting Colonies 38

rV Efforts to Conciliate the Irish Catholics 54

Introduction

IT has fallen to the lot of the author of this research into the quality and volume of Irish participation in the struggle for American Independence to accomplish more at a stroke than all who have preceded him. Mr. O'Brien has indeed vindicated his title as Historiographer of the American Irish Historical Society in putting forth a work so clear, so luminous, so convincing that it may be said to be the last word on the subject, save as he himself may choose to add to it.

In boldly traversing the statements of such American historians as George Bancroft and Henry Cabot Lodge, he has in all cases quoted their own words on the related points, and proceeded therefrom to the utter demolition of their premises and conclusions with a crushing weight of evidence, marshalled with care, argued with acumen, and presented in admirable order. These statements derogatory to the part played by the Irish race in Ireland and America during the War of the Revolution, although frequently challenged, have long stood without conclusive answer. Mr. O'Brien has found the answer absolute. In this matter rhetoric has been set against rhetoric times out of mind. For the first time, an indisputable array of cogent facts, stated without flourish, points to inevitable conclusions fatal to the misstatements of the historians named. This might be glory enough for the author, but he does not halt there.

xii INTRODUCTION

The real value of the triumph lies in the constructive and demonstrative nature of the work. Valuable as it might be in its phase of convicting certain widely accepted writers of misinformation, unfairness, injustice, or prejudice, as the case may be, its importance inheres in establishing certain standards of fact concerning the part played by the Irish in the ranks of the Continental army which must stand for all time. Intensive research may add corroboration to Mr. O'Brien's averments ; the Irish race may rest assured that nothing discoverable will shake his conclusions. The reason for this sweeping substantiation of our Historiographer's argument resides in the method with which he has wrought. It is simplicity itself, but it involves such close, persistent, patient, indefatigable examination and study of the records that the conclusions reached are patent. I may say he establishes unequivocally that thirty-eight per cent, of the Revolutionary army that won American independence was Irish! And it is a fascinating story. His massing of fact upon fact, and record upon record, is as surprising as it is masterly. Anyone, of whatever race, who loves a brilliant argument deftly driven home will rejoice in the reading of it.

The work divides itself easily into three parts — one devoted to laying bare the heart of the Irish race in Ireland during the War for Independence as beating in sympathy with the revolted Colonies in America, and therein refuting the statements of Bancroft founded upon one-sided quotation and misread information, and involving suppression of important historical facts. In its way it is as conclusive as the other parts of the work,

INTRODUCTION xiii

and will be read by the Irish-born and Irish-descended with real gusto. The second part of the work is devoted to the Irish in the Revolutionary army, to whom I have already referred.

The third part deals most importantly with the early Irish immigration into the American Colonies, evolving remarkable conclusions based on attainable facts. While these facts are spread out to the confusion of ignorant or prejudiced historians, they mightily contribute to the self-respect and add to the knowledge of the American Irish. We are no new-comers in these United States, as is well proven in this book. Not the least engaging portion of this section of the book is the author's caustic treatment of the use of the absurd term "Scotch-Irish." So often applied by callow ethnologists, the lamentable fact is that it has constituted the last resort of snobbery, an apology by a snob for what indicated his real claim to consideration — his Irish blood. Of great cogency and sharp interest also is Chapter XXIII, in its remorseless exposure of the erroneous figures relating to the Irish in America in 1790, as set forth in a certain United States Government publication. Ilomer nodded badly that time, and Mr. O'Brien prods him with the point of Achilles' sword — more, however, in sorrow than in anger, and without a trace of the mode of Thersites.

Here, then, are the credentials of the Irish for a high place in the American Pantheon, for a continuing station of prominence among the stalwart builders of the Republic, those intrepid men who cemented the foundations xiv INTRODUCTION

of its structure with their blood and laid its stones with their brain and brawn.

To Michael Joseph O'Brien, the Irish race in America will forever be a debtor. It is not in the curriculum of his school of effort to consider for a moment the personal equation. Without other thought, he has worked in sincerity for the good name of his race on the American continent. The publication of this, his latest complete effort, is his great compensation. It is the apex of much work on similar lines which has brought him high consideration among historical writers and his countrymen, and it is something more than usual, too, from the fact that all this and other historical research has been carried on in the time that means leisure to others circumstanced like himself.

What can and should be done concerning this by his compatriots is a question well worth consideration, but one thing should be done eagerly and at once, and that is to see to the circulation in large successive editions of this book. There are at least five thousand libraries in the United States in which it should be placed for continued reference by students, and there are many thousands of Irish homes in which it should be a treasured possession. Those fortunate enough to get it in their hands should promote its circulation by all means in their power; for, besides being an historical work of capital importance, based upon data gathered with prodigious labor from unimpeachable sources, it is such an inspiring record of heroic deeds and sacrifices by the high-souled men of an earlier day, gloriously crowned by the establishment of free government upon this continent, that

INTRODUCTION xv

it will fill with a just pride the heart of every true American and of every Irishman in the liberty-loving little nation beyond the sea.

Joseph I. C. Clarke, President-General, American Irish Historical Society, December, 1918.

Chapter I Attitude Of The People Of Ireland Toward The American Colonists

How Bancroft misstated the facts. The "Address to the King" forced through Parliament at the command of the Lord Lieutenant. Resultant anger of the people. How the Irish patriot leaders opposed the address. Burke, Barre, and Conolly among the staunchest friends of America in the English Parliament. Lord Chatham declared that "the whole Irish nation favour the Americans." Barre's famous speech characterizing the revolting Colonists as "Sons of Liberty." The Stamp Act. Rejoicings in Ireland over its repeal.

HISTORY is the high court of humanity," wrote Bancroft, "where truth must be heard and justice must be pronounced." But, in so far as the history of the War of the Revolution is concerned, much of it has been written by one-sided practitioners in that "court" ; the testimony which they offered has not been analyzed by the jury, nor adjudicated upon by impartial judges; so that an unbiased verdict has never been rendered, the result being that much ignorance prevails as to certain details of the history of that eventful period.

It cannot be said that even Bancroft himself, in all cases, observed the strictest nicety in adhering to the spirit of his own aphorism, for there are many statements in his work which, when compared with the authentic records, are irreconcilably at variance therewith, and for these inaccuracies he has been criticized severely by other historians. Of course, no man is infallible, nor are historians exempt from the possibility of error ; and while George Bancroft proved no exception to that rule, he has also been charged with "suppression of facts," "misrepresentation," and the creation of "false impressions." And there is one feature of his work wherein, either bywithholding from his readers a full narration of the facts, or through his lack of knowledge of the facts, he has not afforded them the means of testing the accuracy of his assertions or the justice of his judgments. By this I mean his animadversions upon the attitude of the people of Ireland toward the American Colonists during the War of the Revolution.

In 'BamcToft'sHistorT/ of the UnitedStates, the author says: "When the news from Lexington and Bunker Hill arrived, the Irish Parliament voted that it heard of the rebellion with abhorrence and was ready to show to the world its attachment to the sacred person of the King." And further, "the people [of Ireland] sent against them [the Americans] some of their best troops and their ablest men." ^

These statements do not enhance the reputation for impartiality which Bancroft has enjoyed. In fact, there are three distinct reasons for saying that they are misstatements of fact, because ( 1 ) the Irish Parliament did not vote as Bancroft said; (2) it took no action whatever on American aifairs until November, 1775, which was several months after "the news from Lexington and Bunker Hill" was known in Ireland; and (3) not only did "the people of Ireland" not send troops against

^ History of the United States, Vol. V, pp. 474, 504.

the Americans, but throughout the war they remained the steadfast friends of the American cause. The precise facts, as furnished by the records of the time, are as follows:

The inspiring news from Lexington had reached Ireland as early as the last week of May, 1775, and not only was the fact also known in that country that America had struck a blow for freedom six months before the battle of Lexington, when Sullivan and his fellow patriots seized the guns and ammunition at Fort William and Mary,^ but the press of Dublin in the summer of 1775 rang with the praises of the valiant sons of Morris O'Brien ^ for winning "the Lexington of the Seas." * On the 11th of October, 1775, a proposed "Address to the King" by the Irish Parliament stated they had "heard with abhorrence and feel with indignation of the Rebellion existing in a part of your American Dominions"; but, corrupt and slavish though that Parliament was, this language was found to be objectionable and, after debate, it was stricken from the Address before the question was put to a final vote. In the seventeenth volume of the Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, published at Dublin in 1776,

''In September, 1774.

^ Morris O'Brien was a native of Dublin.

* The first naval battle of the American Revolution, fought off Machias, Maine, on June 12, 1775. Cooper, in his History of the United States Navy, calls it "the Lexington of the Seas." For a full account of the remarkable exploit of the O'Briens, see Life of Captain Jeremiah O'Brien, Commander of the First Flying Squadron of the American Revolution, by Dr. Andrew M. Sherman, Morristown, New Jersey, 1902.

it is shown that the "Address to the King," as originally framed, was rejected by ninety- two "noes" to fifty-two "ayes." The language quoted was used in the third paragraph of the Address, but an amendment was proposed "to read the third paragraph a second time," and, on the vote on "the question," the record shows "the House divided" and the amendment was passed in the following month by a vote of ninety to fifty-four.^ The words "we hear with abhorrence and feel with indignation of the Rebellion existing in a part of your American Dominions" were changed by the amendment to read:

"It is with the deepest Concern, that we hear of the Dissensions that have unfortunately arisen between Great Britain and her Colonies, and we beg Leave to assure your Majesty that we shall at all times be ready to manifest our Zeal and attachment to your Majesty's Person and Government, relying upon the Wisdom, Justice and Mercy of your Majesty's Councils for terminating those Dissensions in the Manner most advantageous for every part of the British Empire."

So, after all, the Irish Parliament did not vote as Bancroft said; they did not view the rebellion "with abhorrence," and I leave it to the judgment of impartial readers to say whether Bancroft had some ulterior motive in omitting all reference to the amendment, or

^ As a matter of fact, the opposition to the "Address to the King" was greater than the vote indicates. Lecky remarks upon "the abstention of more than one-half the members of the House of Commons on a question so vitally important," and states that "it was probably in some degree due to the American sympathies of many members who owed their seats to great borough-owners now in alliance with the government, and who were, therefore, according to the received code of parliamentary honour, precluded from voting against the Ministers." (History of Ireland during the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II, London, 1892.)

REP/iODaC£D BV /iiVAM /'j9A/VC£S l£V//VS

MAJOR GENERAli JOHN SULLIVAN

OF THE CONTINENTAL AR MX SON OF JOHN SULLIVAN OF LIMERICK AND MARJEF^V SULLIVAN OF CORK. IRELAND.

whether it was simply because this part of the record escaped his notice. Standing alone and without qualification, the language used by Bancroft in describing the action of the Irish Parliament was utterly unworthy of a great historian, for if he had only explained the status of the Irish Parliament as a legislative body, or its relationship to the people of Ireland, the "sting" might have been removed. His chapter on the Penal Laws, and their resultant misery and injustice to the Irish people, clearly indicates that he was thoroughly conversant with the situation in Ireland, and by no stretch of the imagination can we suppose that when examining the proceedings of the House of Commons, he failed to notice the record of the above quoted amendment to the Address to the King, which made a very material change in its original language.

As Lecky says, "Usually, such addresses passed unopposed, but on this occasion a most earnest and persistent opposition was made," and Earl Harcourt, who "had no illusions about the strength of American feeling in Ireland," wrote that "the debate was conducted with great violence on the part of the Opposition." "It was in this manner," declares Lecky, "and to the bitter indignation of the small group of independent members, that Ireland was coromitted to the American struggle." *

But Bancroft committed an even more serious error, or, rather, it might be said he brought a more serious charge against the Irish people, in his statement relative to the troops sent from Ireland to fight the Ameri-

^ W, E. H. Lecky, History of Ireland during the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II, p. l60.

cans, and this portion of his history may, in truth, be described as "the writing of history by suppression."

On November 23, 1775, as stated in the Journals of the House of Commons^ Earl Harcourt, "Lord-Lieutenant-General and Governor-General of Ireland," appeared before the Irish Parliament at the express command of the King and said :

"I have His Majesty's Commands to acquaint you that the Situation of Affairs in Part of His American Dominions is such aa makes it necessary for the Honour and Safety of the British Empire, and for the support of His Majesty's Just Rights, to desire the Concurrence of His Faithful Parliament of Ireland in sending out of this Kingdom a Force not exceeding Four Thousand Men, Part of the Number of Troops upon this establishment, appointed to remain in this Kingdom, for its Defence, and to declare to you His Majesty's Most Gracious Intention, that such Part of his Army as shall be spared out of this Kingdom, to Answer the present Exigency of Affairs, is not to be continued a Charge upon this Establishment, so long as they shall remain out of the Kingdom. I am further commanded to inform you, that as His Majesty hath nothing more at Heart, than the Security and Protection of His People of Ireland, it is His Intention, if it shall be the desire of Parliament, to replace such Forces as may be sent out of this Kingdom, by an equal Number of Foreign Protestant Troops, as soon as His Majesty shall be enabled so to do, the Charge for such Troops to be defrayed without any Expense to this Kingdom."

Unthinking persons, or those unacquainted with the true status of the Irish Parliament as then constituted, would naturally conclude, on reading Bancroft, that the Irish people willingly sent troops to fight against American liberty. In fact, Bancroft leaves no room for doubt on that score when he says: "The cause of the United States was the cause of Ireland. Among the fruits of their battles was the recovery for the Irish of her equal rights in trade and legislation. Yet such is the complication in human affairs, that the people who of all others should have been found taking part with America sent against them some of their best troops and their ablest men." That statement is not only misleading, but the facts on record show it to be utterly false, for the people of Ireland had neither hand, act nor part in sending troops out of Ireland. The despatches published in the newspapers of the time and the proceedings of the English Parliament clearly indicate that all official orders relating to the troops in Ireland destined for America, even such relatively unimportant orders as those concerning the transfer of troops from one military station to another within the British Isles, emanated from London, and that no orders concerning movements of troops originated with the Irish Parliament or with the military authorities in Ireland.

From the official reports of the incident the inference is plain that the British government, before the appearance in Parliament of the King's emissary, had already determined to send troops from Ireland to America, and although they asked for the formal "concurrence" of the Irish Parliament, it is perfectly obvious, in case that concurrence was not forthcoming, they would have carried out their intention in any event. In a speech in the English Parliament on February 15, 1776, the Secretary of War, Lord George Germain, stated that the request to the Irish Parliament was merely "a formality," saying: "His Majesty might have ordered the whole or any part of the troops in Ireland to any part of the British Dominions he pleased without applying to the Parliament of either Kingdom." ' For under the operation of "Poynings' Law" the British crown and Parliament had absolute control over the Irish Parhament in all matters affecting "the Empire." As a matter of fact, the Irish Parliament, constituted as it was, could not be expected to vote otherwise than as the King conmianded ; but notwithstanding this, we find that on many occasions some of its intrepid spirits manifested a sturdy independence, and on the question of sending troops to America they registered their solemn "no" ; for of the one hundred and sixty-one members who voted on the proposition, no less than fifty-eight "noes" were recorded against it.^

As soon as the people of Dublin began to realize what the action of Parliament meant, a deep sense of ignominy took possession of them; an angry mob stormed the House, and the residence of the Lord Lieutenant was attacked and was saved only by the timely interference of the soldiers. The city was stirred to its depths, and we read in the despatches how "the coffee houses of Dublin abound with the most violent abuse against the Ministerial favourites"; and after some representative citizens had signed a call for a public meeting of protest, a multitude of people met in Phoenix Park and expressed themselves in no uncertain tones as to how they felt toward the American revolt. A concrete instance of the manifestation of this feeling is re-

' Parliamentary Register, Vol. Ill, p. 323.

* Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, Vol. XVII, p. 208; Dublin, 1776.

ported in the Pennsylvania Gazette of June 5, 1776, in a despatch from London dated March 14th, reading: "Advices from Dublin say this capital will soon be too hot for the Viceroy to remain much longer, so that another must speedily be appointed in his room."

"There were great numbers of people in Ireland," says Lecky, "who regarded the American cause as their own. Already the many disastrous circumstances of Irish history had driven great bodies of Irishmen to seek a home in the more distant dominions of the Crown, and few classes were so largely represented in the American army as Irish emigrants." ^ It is not surprising, then, to learn that when the news of the action of Parliament reached the country, the indignation of the populace could not be restrained; riots broke out all over Ireland, attacks were made on many of the members on their return home, and in the Journals of the House of Commons, under date of April 4, 1776, may be read references by the Lord Lieutenant to "those atrocious offenders who have committed such barbarous outrages in some of the Counties" and who had been "effectually intimidated and restrained." In fact, these riots developed into serious proportions, and in the Pennsylvania Gazette of November 15, 1775, I find among the news from London an item reading: "Insurrections of a very alarming and dangerous nature are dreaded in Ireland in the course of the ensuing spring, if troops be not sent over from this country to replace the Irish regiments serving in America." And in the same paper

^ W. E. H. Lecky, History of Ireland during the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II, p. l60.

of November 27, 1775, in the news from London under date of August 15th, we read how "Orders have been despatched to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and to the Commander-in-Chief there to put that Kingdom in the best posture of defence without delay and to execute the Laws for disarming the Roman Catholics with great strictness." It made not the slightest difference, therefore, how the Irish Parliament voted on this question, for it is the will of the Irish people that should be considered, not that of a corrupt and venal Parliament, the same which, twenty years later, bartered away for a price the last shred of Irish liberty.

The racial composition of the Irish Parliament, at that time, in itself shows that it was in no way representative of the Irish people. On the roster of its three hundred and seven members in the year 1775 only fortyfour Irish names appear, the remainder being English "nobles," place-hunters, and other descendants of the Cromwellian soldiers and adventurers who had planted themselves in Ireland only a century before, and they were as alien to the native Irish as were their hated ancestors. Only seventy-two of the three hundred and seven members were elected by the people, the others being appointed by the English Lord Lieutenant. More than three of the four millions constituting the population of the island were Roman Catholics, and, as such, had no more voice in elections or appointments than had the natives of the Fiji Islands; and of the remaining twenty-five per cent, of the people, not less than one-half, under the operation of the "Test Act," were also excluded from the privilege of the franchise. So that the Irish people were in no way represented, and were not responsible for any act of the so-called "Irish" Parliament, for the ruling powers in that body stood in the same relationship to the people of Ireland that the historically clownish triumvirate known as "the Three Tailors of Tooley Street" bore to "the People of England."

But that the little handful of Irishmen in that Parliament stood by their own people and on many occasions expressed their unalterable sympathy with the American Colonists, abundant testimony is afforded by the records, some of which has been furnished by no less an authority than Benjamin Franklin. The leaders of the patriot party are all on record in strong speeches opposed to the British government sending troops out of Ireland "to suppress the cause of American independence." "In the Irish Parliament," says John Mitchel, "most of the leading men of the Opposition opposed the war upon principle; they inveighed against the unconstitutional exactions of the Ministry, and in their debates went very little short of formally justifying the American Rebellion. The analogy between America and Ireland was too close to pass unnoticed, and the defection of the American Colonies produced a strong effect upon Ireland." ^° Especially did "the incorruptible Grattan," after his entry into Parliament in the winter of 1775, denounce the proposition in one of his

^^ History of Ireland, by John Mitchel, p. 114; Glasgow, 1866. In his Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation, Sir Jonah Barrington, who lived in Ireland during the American Revolution, also testifies to the natural sympathies of the Irish toward the struggling Colonists.

most impassioned speeches, and his terrible arraignment of Flood for his craven conduct on that occasion was one of the most brilliant and fiery addresses ever delivered by the great orator. America he described as "the only hope of Ireland and the only refuge of the liberties of mankind."

The Journals of the House of Commons show that the sessions of the Irish Parliament in the spring and autumn of 1775 were wholly spent in a vigorous struggle between a minority, supported by the almost unanimous voice of the Irish nation, and a corrupt majority which held itself in readiness to carry out every whim and mandate of the English ministry, in reckless disregard of national feeling in Ireland. Among the leading spirits of the small but active body of Irish patriots who voiced the true sentiments of the people on the subject of "the American war," were such men as Yelverton, Bushe, Hussey Burgh, Ponsonby, Ogle, Conolly, and Daly, historic figures who are mentioned in Irish annals of the period with the same reverence as Grattan and Charlemont.

Dr. MacNevin, himself a witness to the events of the time, in his history of the Irish Volunteers, speaks authoritatively of "the analogies which existed between the case of America and Ireland," and in referring to the formative period of Irish public opinion which resulted in the organization of the famous Irish military body, he says: "We have now arrived at the period of the American Revolution, the giant-birth of a new world of liberty. The great questions involved in the dispute between England and her colonies were also the subject of discussion between England and Ireland. It is not, therefore, at all surprising that the development and progress of the Revolution were watched with great anxiety by the Irish people, and that they desired to view the triumph of their own principles in the success of the American arms, and to read the final issue of their own efforts in the establishment of a free government on the other side of the Atlantic. The example of America was contagious, and Ireland was not long without showing some of the symptoms of the Revolution." ^^ When the question of raising troops in Ireland for the American service was first broached in Parliament, the proposition was met with vehement resistance. Under the head of "Parliamentary Intelligence" in the Pennsylvania Gazette of January 17, 1776, there is a despatch dated "Dublin, October 14th," paraphrasing the debate in the Irish Parliament, during which one of the members repeated a statement of Lord Chatham in the British Parliament that "Ireland to a man is in favour of the Americans." He said it was "the general sense of the Irish Nation, expressed by their representatives, that the present dispute is not between Ireland and the Colonies, with whom she hath no connection, but between Great Britain and her Colonies, and it would be as absurd to take part as it would be if they were told a rebellion was broke out in the East Indies. It was indeed an important subject, as great as came before any Senate, and it would be highly imprudent to interfere. It was not the business of this House to decide that the Americans

^^ History of the Volunteers of 1782, by Thomas MacNevin; Dublin, 1853.

are rebels, without any means of judging that they are so, that they had a perfect right to resist an unjust tax." Barry Yelverton, one of the most powerful speakers in the House, delivered a bold and eloquent speech against sending troops out of Ireland. He justified fully the revolt of the Colonists, declaring "no slavery could be more perfect than where men were taxed without being represented," that "the Ministry had cut off the rights of Thirteen Colonies at once, that Ireland would be next, and then, when Liberty had but one neck, that too would be lopped off at one stroke."

In a fiercely conducted debate, Irish Commoners asserted that "Ireland had neither dispute with nor grievance against the Americans," that "the question was solely between Britain and her Colonies, and that Ireland should not interfere." The speech of John Fitzgibbon is thus summarized in Force's American Archives: "Before we took any part in the war we should examine whether it was just. He then entered into a recapitulation of all that had passed between Great Britain and her Colonies from the last war to the present time, and concluded that the war was unjust and that Ireland had no reason to be a party therein." He was followed by Newenham, who declared that "he could not agree to send troops to butcher men who were fighting for their liberty," that "though America might be conquered, the spirit of Liberty there could never be subdued." Hussey Burgh said that "if America were brought to her knees Ireland too would be enslaved," and he declared himself "wholly opposed to taxing the Americans without their consent." He condemned all aggression against the Americans as "a violation of the law of nations, the law of the land, the law of humanity, the law of nature ; and he would not vote a single sword against them." Ponsonby said "if troops are sent abroad without our consent we should not be made parties to the quarrel," and he warned his colleagues that "if we give our consent, we take part against the Americans, but to do this would be unjust." George Ogle, a staunch patriot, in the course of a fiery speech shouted: "We shall not be intimidated by threats, we shall not send men to cut the throats of the Americans. ... If men must be sent to America, let them send their foreign mercenaries, not the brave sons of Ireland." ^^