Chapter M: J. Harson, (2)

The question whether such an investigation should be begun and
carried on through existing historical societies and agencies, or
through the organization of a new society specifically for this
object, is one regarding which my opinion would be of little value.
My life has not been mainly devoted to historical investigation;
and, even where I have worked by myself in this field, I have, I
fear, been a very poor member of the several historical societies to
which I belong.

I am, dear Sir, Faithfully yours,
FRANCIS A. WALKER.

_From Rev. J. Gray Bolton, D. D._

1906 Pine Street, PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 16, 1897.

MY DEAR SIR:—I regret that other duties will prevent me from being
with you on Wednesday, January 20, 1897. I assure you that I am in
hearty accord with the purpose of your organization. The Irish race
owe it to themselves and their successors to leave a united history
of an undivided people in America. One of the noblest
characteristics of the Irishman is that he is religious, and has
enough of religion to be willing to fight for it. But God forbid
that this should in any way hinder in telling the united story of
our people. The Irish Catholic and the Irish Presbyterian have more
than once stood together for liberal government in Ireland. And the
Irish Presbyterian and Irish Catholic stood together here when
Washington was leading the people from under the yoke of oppressive
taxation without representation. The Irish-American has a place and
a name in this glorious country of ours, and as we fought for our
freedom and then for the Union we will live—and, if need be, fight
side by side to maintain it.

I am truly yours,
J. GRAY BOLTON, D. D.

_From Rev. John J. McCoy, P. R._

CHICOPEE, Mass., Jan. 3, 1897.

DEAR SIR:—For some twelve years and more I have been doing some work
in looking up the records of our people here in New England,
especially the records of their church building. During that time I
felt the great need of some such society as you now have in
intention, and I hail your work as most opportune and useful. Make
me one of you and kindly tell me what is to be done to have active
participation in the society’s work.

Truly yours,
(REV.) JNO. J. MCCOY, P. R.

The second meeting of the society was held in accordance with the following invitation:

DEAR SIR:—You are hereby notified that the second meeting of the
American-Irish Historical Society will be held at the Revere House
in Boston, Mass., Monday evening, April 19, 1897 (the anniversary of
the battle of Lexington, Concord, and Cambridge).

There will be a business session of the society at 6.30 P.M.,
followed, at 7 o’clock, by a dinner and post-prandial exercises
appropriate to the anniversary.

At the business session, action will be taken on the completion of
the constitution and by-laws, the admission of new members, and on
such other business as may properly come before the meeting.

The price of dinner tickets has been placed at $1.50 each. They are
now ready.

The after-dinner features will include:

(1) A reading, “Paul Revere’s Ride,” by Mr. Thomas A. Santry, of
Lawrence, Mass.

(2) A paper by the Secretary-General on “The Irish Bacons who
Settled at Dedham, Mass., in 1640,” one of whose descendants, John
Bacon, was killed April 19, 1775, in the fight at West Cambridge
(battle of Lexington).

(3) An address by the Treasurer-General, Hon. John C. Linehan, of
New Hampshire, on “The Seizure of the Powder at Fort William and
Mary,” by Maj. John Sullivan and his associates, some of which
powder was later dealt out to the patriots at Bunker Hill.

(4) Address by Mr. Edward J. Brandon, city clerk of Cambridge,
Mass., during which he will read a list of Irish names borne by
minutemen or militia in the battle of the nineteenth of April,
when the shot was fired “Heard Round the World.”

(5) A brief essay by Mr. Joseph Smith, of Lowell, Mass., on “The
Irishman, Ethnologically Considered.”

Invitations to attend the dinner have been sent to the town clerks
and selectmen of Lexington and Concord; also to descendants of the
patriots who stood on the green at Lexington when Captain Parker
exclaimed, “Don’t fire unless fired upon.”

It is earnestly desired that every member of the society who can
possibly be present at the coming meeting will attend and help make
the event the great success this patriotic anniversary so richly
deserves.

If each member attending the dinner will bring with him at least one
gentleman as his personal guest, it will add _éclat_ to the occasion
and may be the means of acquiring a large number of very desirable
new members for the society.

Fraternally, and in behalf of the
Executive Council of the Society,
THOMAS HAMILTON MURRAY,
Secretary-General.

In response to the foregoing call, some thirty-five or forty gentlemen assembled at the time and place mentioned. The business meeting was dispensed with, and the time that would have been so occupied was devoted to introductions and general conversation.

About 8 o’clock the company proceeded to dinner. Hon. Thomas J. Gargan, of Boston, presided. Among those present were: John C. Linehan, State Insurance Commissioner of New Hampshire; Joseph Smith, Secretary of the Police Commission, Lowell, Mass.; Rev. John J. McCoy, Chicopee, Mass.; James Jeffrey Roche, Boston, Mass.; Thomas B. Lawler, Worcester, Mass.; Charles A. De Courcey, Lawrence, Mass.; Rev. George F. Marshall, Milford, N. H.; Daniel Donovan, Lynn, Mass.; Lawrence J. Smith, Lowell, Mass.; Thomas Hamilton Murray, Editor of the _Daily Sun_, Lawrence, Mass.; Edward J. Brandon, City Clerk, Cambridge, Mass.; Thomas A. Santry, Lawrence, Mass.; P. J. Flatley, Boston, Mass.; Robert A. Woods, Boston, Mass.; John A. Callahan, Holyoke, Mass.; M. A. Toland, Boston, Mass.; Dr. Eugene McCarthy, Cambridge, Mass.; Dr. M. F. Sullivan, Lawrence, Mass.; Edward Arundel, Lawrence, Mass.; Dr. George A. Leahey, Lowell, Mass.; Capt. P. S. Curry, Lynn, Mass.; E. B. Newhall, Lynn, Mass.; and several other gentlemen.

In opening the after-dinner exercises, Mr. Gargan referred to the anniversary on which this meeting is held, and read the following communication from Rear-Admiral Meade, U. S. N.:

220 Winona Ave., GERMANTOWN, Pa.,
Jan. 26, 1897.

MY DEAR SIR:—Your note of the 23d informing me that I have been
unanimously chosen for the office of President-General of the
American-Irish Historical Society, found me confined to my bed,
where I have been since the 8th, with a severe attack of grippe. The
hardships of a long naval career are beginning now to revenge
themselves on me, and I have to take great care of my health.

I am, of course, deeply sensible of the honor your society confers
upon me and shall accept the office with pleasure if you think the
duties will not try me physically beyond my strength. I am vigorous
enough for my years, but I am peculiarly sensitive to cold, having
spent a great part of my naval life in the tropics, and I cannot
travel about in winter without serious risk to my health.

I am ready to work in the ranks for the good of the new society as
cheerfully as at the top. No organization is more needed than the
one you have completed, and you can count on me to further its
success.

Very truly yours,
R. W. MEADE, 3d.

MR. THOMAS H. MURRAY,
Secretary-General, etc.

Letters of regret at inability to attend the meeting were received from the selectmen of Concord, Mass.; the town clerk of Lexington, Mass.; and from Governor Hastings, of Pennsylvania; Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, of New York; Osborne Howes, of Boston; Hon. William McAdoo, of Washington, D. C.; Augustus St. Gaudens, of New York; Patrick Donahoe, of Boston; the Very Rev. John Hogan, D. D., president of St. John’s Seminary, Brighton, Mass.; J. D. O’Connell, of Washington, D. C.; Robert Ellis Thompson, of Philadelphia; and others.

The addresses mentioned in the call for the meeting were delivered, and were appreciatively received.

Mr. Murray, in his paper on “The Irish Bacons,” noted that the family has reflected honor on both Dedham and Needham, as it has on other towns where representatives of it have resided.

Hon. John C. Linehan read the following paper:

JOHN SULLIVAN AND THE CAPTURE OF THE POWDER AT NEWCASTLE.

The province of New Hampshire was among the first to resist the
unjust exactions of the British government, and, on the authority of
one of the Royal Councillors, her sons were the very first to commit
an overt act against it. From the time of its early settlement,
under the proprietorship of Capt. John Mason, her sturdy colonists
were bound to appropriate to their own use the first fruits of their
labors, and, regardless of act of parliament or magisterial edict,
they were able to accomplish their purpose. Owing to the civil
dissensions in England between 1640 and 1700, the little band of
adventurers who had established themselves at “Old Strawberry Bank,”
as well as their descendants who came after them, were practically,
so far as the home government was concerned, left to their own
resources, and obliged to defend themselves as best they could
against the French and Indians, who were ever on the alert to harass
and annoy them. The establishment of William of Orange on the
English throne, and the complete subjugation of those who supported
the unfortunate James, changed matters, however, and gave the new
ruler an opportunity to bestow a little of his paternal care on the
colonists who had so long prospered greatly without it.

One of his very first acts was to appoint, as governor of New York,
the Earl of Bellmont, who was a native of Ireland, and a son of Sir
Charles Coote, who earned an Irish estate fighting for Cromwell.

Under his administration the heirs of Captain Mason, fortified by a
proclamation from the king and parliament, endeavored to establish
their ownership to the property left them in New Hampshire, and,
although not authorized by the act mentioned to collect arrearages
of rent from the descendants of the original settlers, little
progress was made in the collection of any. The men, and the
children of the men who had for half a century contested every inch
of New Hampshire soil with the elements, the wild beasts, the
Indians, and their white allies from Quebec, did not propose to pay
tribute to the grandchildren of the man whose name was but a
tradition. The result was the creation of a period in the records of
New Hampshire, whose history reads strangely like a page from
Ireland’s annals describing landlord rule.

For in all parts of the province, and among all classes of people,
the most determined efforts were made to prevent the impositions of
the new proprietors. The sheriff and his officers, while engaged in
the performance of their duties, were often confronted with the axe
and the musket, and when opportunity offered, the women took a hand
and tested the efficacy of hot water. The sacred person of the
governor even was not exempt from insult and assault, for on at
least one occasion, while endeavoring to shield Captain Mason, the
grandson of the original proprietor, from one of his irate tenants,
he was thrown into the fireplace on the burning coals, sat upon,
three of his ribs broken, two teeth knocked out, and his body
severely burned.

William Vaughan, one of the Royal Councillors, and among the most
influential men in the colony, for an assault upon one of the
officers of the king, was arrested, and for several years kept in
confinement.

The records of the province during this period, as printed in the
state papers, make very interesting reading. The little rock-ribbed
province was the northern picket line of New England, and in
consequence her sons were equally expert with the musket, the axe,
and the spade.

That these traits had been transmitted to their descendants is very
clear, for the construction of the grapevine bridge across the
Chickahominy in 1862, by the boys of the 5th New Hampshire, as well
as the record made by the same regiment during the Civil War, is the
evidence; the axe, the spade, and the rifle figuring in both, as
they had in the hands of their ancestors at Bunker Hill and
Bennington nearly a century before. But the demands of Captain Mason
were not the only grievances. The government was bound to suppress
any industry in the colonies which would in any way interfere with
those already in operation at home. An elaborate project had been
already planned by the Earl of Bellmont, for the production of tar
and pitch in New Hampshire.

The home government was paying Denmark one hundred thousand pounds
annually for these two articles. Both could, with a little
perseverance and care, be produced on this side of the water, and be
paid for, not in cash, but in the products of the English mills and
shops, and in this manner saving the money and finding a new market
for goods.

To this end, pine trees were selected and stripped, but before the
scheme had matured, and the first step taken, the wicked New
Hampshire men set fire to the trees, and this, with the Indian
troubles, which were endless, put an end to the tar and pitch
arrangement. This was not all they did, however. The governor
claimed that not only did these lawless men of “Old Strawberry Bank”
cut down the king’s timber which had been reserved for the Royal
Navy, but that they had sawn it up into deals, and actually sold it
to the enemies of the government, in the French and Spanish West
Indies; and that no less a person than the Lieutenant-Governor of
New Hampshire was engaged in the business, and not only engaged in
it, but had boasted of his profits, and thus incited others to go
and do likewise. He next tried to introduce the cultivation of flax,
but this was a failure, labor costing three times here what it would
in Ireland. This paternal care of the government continued under
William’s successors. In 1749 an act of parliament, while
encouraging the production of pig and bar iron, absolutely forbade
its manufacture, and to carry its terms into effect, proclamation
was made by the provincial sheriffs, and an inquiry as to the number
of mills and forges in the province was instituted by the governor,
to the end that steps might be taken to have them discontinued. With
such an experience as this extending over three-quarters of a
century, the people of New Hampshire were not only in sympathy with
their fellow-countrymen in the other colonies, but stood ready as
well to coöperate in any movement having for its object the welfare
of the people as against the government.

THOMAS DUNN ENGLISH
NEWARK, N. J.
]

ROBERT ELLIS THOMPSON
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
]

FRANCIS C. TRAVERS
NEW YORK CITY
]

T. RUSSELL SULLIVAN
BOSTON, MASS.
]

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

At a meeting held in Portsmouth on Dec. 16, 1773, one of the
resolutions adopted was, “That every virtuous and public-spirited
freeman ought to oppose, to the utmost of his ability, every attack
of the ministry to enslave the Americans.” Five months later, on May
19, 1774, a committee of the town of Portsmouth sent their
sympathies to the people of Boston on the closing of their port, and
for their fellow-townsmen, promised to exert themselves to carry
into effect any plan which might be concerted by the colonies for
the general relief, and that the interests of the people of Boston
would be considered as their own.

From this time to the departure of the royal governor forever, it
was a game of battledoor and shuttlecock between his excellency and
the general assembly; the latter energetic and firm; the former
diplomatic, but cautious and watchful, and ever on the alert to
subserve the interest of the home government.

To this end he refused at first to adjourn the assembly in May,
1774, but finally acceded to the request of the members, and an
adjournment was made to June 12 of the same year. Meantime the
excitement increased; events at home and abroad intensifying the
feeling against the government.

At the adjourned meeting in May, the House of Representatives, in
common with the assemblies of the other colonies, had appointed a
committee of correspondence. This Governor Wentworth tried to
prevent, and when he dissolved the assembly he was fain to believe
the committee of correspondence would disappear with it.

In this he was disappointed, for its very first act after the
dissolution of the assembly was to issue a summons to the
representatives, who again met in their own chamber. The governor,
attended by the sheriff of the county, entered, and in accordance
with custom they rose when he presented himself. He addressed them,
declaring the meeting illegal, and directed the sheriff to make
proclamation accordingly, ordering all to disperse. He then retired,
but they resumed their seats.

On further consideration they adjourned to another house, where it
was resolved to hold a convention at Exeter, which should choose
delegates to the General Congress to meet in Philadelphia, and to
that end, letters were sent to each town and parish in the colony,
inviting the people therein to send deputies to the Provincial
Congress. The last business transacted by the representatives was to
recommend a day of fasting and prayer to be observed by the people
of the province. According to Belknap, this was observed with
religious solemnity. A request was made at the same time for funds
to defray the expenses of the delegates to the Continental Congress,
and this was promptly responded to.

The convention called at Exeter assembled on July 21, 1774, and is
now known in history as the “First Provincial Congress” of New
Hampshire. There were eighty-five members present, with the speaker
of the assembly, Hon. John Wentworth, a relative of the governor in
the chair.

This distinguished body, composed of the best men in the province,
many of whom had seen service in the French and Indian wars, and who
can justly be styled the founders of the state, chose for their
first representatives to the Continental Congress Maj. John Sullivan
and Col. Nathaniel Folsom; and for the first time in the history of
his native state does the name of John Sullivan officially make its
appearance in its legislative records. It is evident to any one who
has read closely the history of the stirring events of the period
that some master hand was at work directing all the movements, civil
and military, occurring at the time; and that this was the hand of
John Sullivan later events prove clearly. The son of an Irish exile,
and the grandson of one of the ill-fated defenders of Limerick, he
was born in Somersworth, N. H., at a point opposite Berwick, Me., on
February 18, 1740.

He was educated by his father, who had himself enjoyed the benefits
of a liberal and thorough training before he settled in America, and
who, through a long life, extending to his one hundred and fifth
year, was diligently employed in the education of youth. After a
voyage to the West Indies he became a member of the family of Hon.
Isaac Livermore, a lawyer of Portsmouth having an extensive
practice, and under his instruction prepared himself for his
profession. He early exhibited ability of a high order, gained the
respect and encouragement of his instructor, and soon acquired a
distinguished position at the bar of New Hampshire. Just before
reaching his majority he located in the town of Durham, purchased a
handsome residence, which is still in existence, and in which he
lived up to the time of his death. Such was his professional
success, that he married at the age of twenty, and for ten years
later he was constantly employed in the most lucrative causes,
thereby incurring the resentment of sundry persons in Durham and
elsewhere, who petitioned the executive council in 1766, complaining
of him for evil practices as attorney-at-law. This trouble, whatever
its nature may have been, existed even to the end of his days, and
was doubtless at the bottom of the scheme to injure his reputation
years after his death; for to this day there are some who would rob
him of the credit given him in the state records for planning the
capture of the powder at Newcastle and leading the party that
effected it.

In eloquence as an advocate he won a place in the front rank, and
earned the reputation of being a sound lawyer and a judicious
counsellor. This character was not confined to his native state, for
in addition to the friendship of men like the Wentworths and
Langdons in New Hampshire, he had secured the esteem and respect of
Lowell, Adams, Otis, and other well-known legal lights in
Massachusetts. Although attached to his profession, he found time to
devote to agriculture and manufactures, being one of the early
promoters of the latter, establishing cloth and fulling mills in
Durham, and succeeding so well that on the authority of John Adams
he was worth ten thousand pounds before the Revolution broke out.
From his father and mother he inherited a robust constitution, and
was blessed with an active, lively disposition. He had a natural
taste for military life, but except an occasional bout with the
Indians, generally on the defensive, he had, before the
Revolutionary War, no actual experience in warfare; but all around
him were the veterans of the Indian and French wars, whose
descriptions of the campaigns of Louisburg and Quebec aroused all
the martial spirit in his fiery nature.

To his historical studies, especially those relating to military
movements, he was greatly devoted; and read them to such good
purpose that he was able accurately to describe nearly all of the
great battles of the world. It was natural, therefore, for him to
seek the exercise of arms early; so at the age of thirty-one he held
the commission of major in the Colonial militia, and spared no pains
to make himself familiar with the duties connected with the
position. From the first rumble of discontent, down to the actual
outbreak of hostilities, he was one of the most active men engaged
in the cause of liberty. His nature and his abhorrence of
oppression, two traits transmitted by generations of heroic
ancestors, marked his career from the beginning, and his extended
influence and popularity marked him early as a leader in the coming
contest. With a full realization of what was before him he organized
a company numbering eighty-three men in Durham, and associated with
him was the gallant young Scammell, who was then a law student in
his office. With a knowledge of these facts it is not too much to
say, especially when comparing them with the events occurring
afterwards, that the “hidden hand” which directed the movements of
the patriots in New Hampshire, down to the convening of the First
Provincial Congress in July, 1774, was that of the grandson of the
Limerick soldier, who, in little less than a century from the broken
treaty, was paying with interest the debt due the government which
had driven his father to the wilds of America. He was chosen by the
First Provincial Congress to represent his province in the
Continental Congress, being the first person to represent New
Hampshire in that body. Two instances will be sufficient to show his
energy and usefulness in that assemblage. On qualifying, he was at
once placed on two of the most important committees, of one of
which, that upon the grievances of the people, he was chairman.

“The committee of violation of rights,” says John Adams in his
diary, “reported a set of articles which were drawn by John
Sullivan, of New Hampshire; and these two declarations, the one of
rights and the other of violations, which are printed in the
journals of Congress for 1774, were two years afterwards
recapitulated in the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July,
1776.”

“New Hampshire has perhaps not remembered that the bold hand and the
legal training of John Sullivan are in the immortal Declaration of
Independence.”

On the adjournment of Congress, Sullivan returned to New Hampshire.
During his absence the agitation had increased; nearly every town
had its committee of safety, and many persons of note, suspected of
a leaning towards the government, placed under arrest and kept in
confinement, or sent out of the state, unless they took the test
oath prescribed by the Assembly. Steps were also taken to prevent
the sending of carpenters and other mechanics to Boston to build
barracks for the royal troops, as men could not be secured there for
that purpose. In one instance a man suspected of procuring workmen
for General Gage, was waited on, and the charge being proven, he was
obliged to go on his knees, as nothing less would be satisfactory,
and make the following confession and promise:

“Before this company I confess I have been aiding and assisting in
sending men to Boston to build barracks for the soldiers to live in,
at which you have reason to be justly offended, which I am sorry for
and humbly ask your forgiveness. And I do affirm that for the future
I never will be aiding or assisting in any wise whatever, in act or
deed contrary to the constitution of the country, as witness my
hand.”

The military stores in Fort William and Mary at Newcastle were a
constant source of anxiety to the governor, but he felt confident
that no lawless act would be committed by the people without
provocation, and as he was cautious in his course, no pretext could
be found in that direction, but the inevitable was to happen. A
report was circulated that General Gage was to send a body of troops
to secure the ammunition.

The arrival of Paul Revere from Boston gave color to the rumor, and
on the day following, armed men from the surrounding towns assembled
in Portsmouth, and after effecting an organization and choosing
their leaders, marched in broad daylight, to the number of four
hundred, for Newcastle. On arriving at the fort the commander bade
them to enter at their peril. No heed being paid to his words, one
volley was fired from the three-pounders in position, but before the
guns could be reloaded the walls were scaled and the fort captured
at three o’clock P.M. on Dec. 14, 1774. The result was the
possession of one hundred barrels of powder, sixty muskets, sixteen
cannon, and other valuable stores.

In his letter to General Gage informing him of the event, Governor
Wentworth said, “The principal persons in this enormity are well
known.”

He mentioned no names, but a little over two years later Peter
Livius, who was at the time of the capture, one of the Provincial
Councillors, wrote thus to John Sullivan in June, 1777: “You were
the first man in active rebellion, and drew with you the province
you live in. You will be one of the first sacrifices to the
resentment and justice of government; your family will be ruined and
you must die with ignominy.”

Belknap wrote that “Maj. John Sullivan and John Langdon
distinguished themselves as leaders in this affair.” Adams, in his
annals of Portsmouth, said it occurred “under the direction of Maj.
John Sullivan and Capt. John Langdon.”

Sullivan himself said: “When I returned from Congress in 1774, and
saw the order of the British king and council prohibiting military
stores being sent to this country, I took alarm, clearly perceiving
the designs of the British ministry, and wrote several pieces upon
the necessity of securing military stores, which pieces were
published in several papers.” Quint said: “Sullivan, bold and
daring, then an active member of the Continental Congress, and well
known throughout the province by his leadership at the bar, had
great influence. The seizure of the munitions at the fort, though
sudden at last, was doubtless not without previous thought. The
result of this act was momentous. It was the first act of armed
rebellion. It preceded Concord and Lexington by four months of time.
The captors of the fort entered it against the fire of fieldpieces
and muskets openly, and in daylight they pulled down the royal flag,
the first time in American history. They gave three cheers in honor
of their success. They carried off a hundred barrels of gunpowder,
some light guns and small arms which, under the care of Sullivan,
were taken up the river, which was at that time covered with thick
ice, through which a channel had to be cut.”

This bold and audacious act was deeply felt in Great Britain.
Conciliation was now out of the question. The king’s anger was
aroused. It was already bitter enough on account of the
Massachusetts troubles. Governor Wentworth issued threatening
proclamations.

He dismissed the offending major and captain from their posts in the
militia. In answer to his edict all persons in Durham holding civil
or military positions under the governor, headed by Sullivan,
assembled at the tavern on the green, and there publicly burned
their commissions and insignia of office. There was no further need
of secrecy. The die was cast and the leaders were well known. The
official positions, civil or military, held by many of those who
were principals in the affair, obliged them, up to this time, to act
with caution. After the burning, not of his ships, but of his
commission, Sullivan boldly stepped to the front. The very next day
after the capture of the powder he headed a body of men numbering
between three and four hundred from Durham and the adjoining towns,
and, marching to the Council Chamber, demanded an answer to the
question as to whether or not there were any ships or troops
expected here, or if the governor had written for any.

His excellency meekly answered: “I know of none.”

The greater part of the powder was stored in the basement of the
meeting-house in Durham. The balance, for safety, was distributed in
several places, some of it going to Exeter. That stored at Durham,
as well as another portion placed with Capt. John Demerritt, was
taken by the latter in his own ox-cart, under Sullivan’s direction,
to Cambridge, where it arrived barely in time to be dealt out to the
troops at Bunker Hill. Of how much value it was there and how badly
it was needed, is too well known to bear repetition. Without it and
lacking the men from the old Granite State accompanying it, Bunker
Hill would not have been such a serious affair for the British army.

In claiming the leadership for Sullivan in this affair there is no
desire to extol him at the expense of those with whom he was
associated,—men like Langdon, Weare, Bartlett, Thornton, Scammell,
Thompson, Folsom, Wentworth, Gilman, and others whose names are now
household words. The position was freely conceded by them at the
time, and acknowledged by the best informed to-day. After the
Lexington fight, and while Sullivan was in attendance at the Second
Continental Congress, the gallant young Scammell, who was in his
office in Durham, wrote him that, “when the horrid din of civil
carnage surprised us on the 20th of April, the universal cry was
‘Oh, if Major Sullivan was here!’ ‘I wish to God Major Sullivan was
here!’ ran through the distressed multitude.”

Capt. Eleazer Bennett, who died in Durham in 1852, at the age of one
hundred and one, said “that at the time of the capture of the powder
he was in the employment of General Sullivan, at his mill at
Packer’s Falls, when word was brought in to come down to Durham, to
go to Portsmouth, and to get anybody else he could to come with
him.” So far as he could remember, the following persons were with
him: Maj. John Sullivan, Capt. Winborn Adams, Ebenezer Thompson,
John Demerritt, Alpheus and Jonathan Chesley, John Spencer, Micah
Davis, Isaac and Benjamin Small, Alexander Scammell, John Griffin,
James Underwood, and Eben Sullivan, the major’s brother.

On arriving at Portsmouth they were joined by John Langdon with
another party. They captured the fort, took the captain and bound
him, and frightened away the soldiers. In the fort they found one
hundred casks of powder and one hundred small arms. A portion of
the powder was taken by Major Demerritt to his house in Madbury,
but most of it was stored under the pulpit of the meeting-house in
Durham. On July 19, 1775, as a final proof of Sullivan’s
leadership in this movement, Matthew Patten, chairman of the
committee of safety for the county of Hillsborough, wrote to
General Sullivan congratulating him on his appointment to the rank
of Brigadier-General, in which he said: “An appointment which, as
it distinguishes your merit, so at the same time it reflects honor
upon, and shows the penetrating discernment of those truly eminent
patriots from whom you received it; nor are we less sanguine in
our expectations of the high advantages which must result under
God to the public by your military skill and courage, as you have
been indefatigable in attaining the first, and have given a recent
instance of the latter, to your great honor and reputation, in
depriving our enemies of the means of annoying us at Castle
William and Mary, and at the same time furnishing us with
materials to defend our invaluable rights and privileges. This,
sir, must ever be had in remembrance, and (amongst the actions of
others, our heroes of 1775) handed to the latest posterity. That
the Almighty may direct your counsels, be with you in the day of
battle, and that you may be preserved as a pattern to this people
for many years to come, is our frequent prayer.” In Sullivan’s
reply he said: “It gives me great pleasure to find so respectable
a number of the worthy sons of freedom, in the colony to which I
belong, have so publicly given their approbation of my conduct in
assisting to secure the warlike stores at Fort William and Mary,
and thereby preventing these evils which must have resulted from
our enemies having possession of them.”

Nothing further need be said regarding the value of the powder
captured on this occasion, or the boldness of the act itself. At
Lexington and Concord the British were the aggressors, the Americans
acting on the defensive; but at Newcastle the Americans were the
aggressors, made the attack boldly in the open day, and as Quint
said, “for the first time in American history the British flag was
torn down by men in armed rebellion.” John Sullivan’s history is
well known. He and his three brothers gave their best services to
the land of their birth, and in memory of those services the state
of New Hampshire erected a monument of Concord granite on the site
of the church in Durham, under which was stored the powder, and in
the presence of the governor, council, and other officials, state
and national, and a large concourse of people on Thursday, Sept. 27,
1894, the one hundredth anniversary of his death, dedicated it with
appropriate exercises. The inscription reads:

IN MEMORY OF
JOHN SULLIVAN.

_Born Feb. 17, 1740._
_Died Jan. 23, 1795._

Erected by the State of New Hampshire upon the
site of the Meeting-house under which was
stored the gunpowder taken from
Fort William and Mary.

The tributes paid to Sullivan’s worth on this occasion by every one
of the speakers were ungrudging and hearty. Professor Murkland said:
“This may never become a large community, but it will always be
exalted by its association with John Sullivan, lawyer, soldier,
statesman, and judge.

“The plain granite shaft, inadequate as it may appear, will yet
serve, when we shall have been forgotten, to recall the life of one
who served his country so bravely and so well that he made slander
dumb and malice impotent.”

Gov. John B. Smith said: “It is no invidious distinction to say that
of all the New Hampshire men of the Revolutionary period Sullivan
was not only peer, he was preëminently chief. His life is a part of
the country’s history, and now, by virtue of my office (an office I
am all the more proud to hold because John Sullivan filled and
honored it), I accept these grounds from the town of Durham, and
this monument from the committee in behalf of the state.”

O’Meara said:

“Your deeds for all the land that hold your fame
Shall link you now to love New Hampshire’s name,
While throbs high manhood round her glistening hills—
While patriot gleam or pristine glory thrills.”

Dr. Quint said: “To John Sullivan, the man who in all the American
provinces was the first to take up arms against the king, New
Hampshire erects this monument of native granite.”

Professor Hadley said: “Washington’s never-failing trust and
ever-affectionate respect are of themselves sufficient to prove
their possessor’s title clear to proud historic praise; and
Sullivan’s name does belong of right to that choice list of eminent
commanders which bears such other names as Greene and Knox, Steuben
and Stark.”

Senator Chandler said: “John Sullivan was one of the finest
characters of the Revolution. A great general, and as a lawyer, a
legislator, a statesman, a governor, and a judge, ranked among the
very greatest men of the Revolutionary period. The luster in our
annals of the gift to our early glories, bestowed by Ireland in
sending to us the family of Sullivan, will never be obliterated or
forgotten.”

Senator Blair said: “There is no sphere of public life in which he
was not eminent, nor of private life in which he was not influential
and beloved. The whole list of Revolutionary worthies does not
furnish one name which, on the whole, shines more resplendently in
all the great department of public service than that of John
Sullivan.”

Hon. Henry M. Baker said: “The influence of such a life never dies.
Seldom is it the fortune of any one to serve his country in such
diverse yet responsible positions as General Sullivan held and
honored. Still more rare to discharge every duty with such great
energy and ability.”

Gov. Frederick Smythe said: “Wherever the rights of man are
recognized, and so long as government by the people shall endure,
the name of John Sullivan must be one of the imperishable, of those
who were not born to die.”

Col. Daniel Hall said: “Sullivan is worthy of lasting commemoration
as one of the most serviceable of the men it was New Hampshire’s
great honor to contribute to the cause of American Independence.”

Secretary of State Stearns wrote: “Sullivan was a born leader of
men, and preëminently a man for Revolutionary times. He was not a
slave to ancient forms and customs, ruthlessly trampling upon the
traditions of his time. He boldly assaulted the conservative
barriers that confined the people of New Hampshire within the pale
of accustomed usage.

“He early declared for a free government for a free people. In the
march of events, when the people reached his early standpoint, the
Constitution of 1776 was drafted on the line of his suggestions.”

“It is a century since the life of Sullivan was ended, and the
qualities of his character and the magnitude of his work were
submitted to the generous estimate of his fellow-men. His fame with
the lapse of time suffers no impairment. A brilliant and an
accomplished civilian, a distinguished lawyer, a matchless orator, a
brave and an able general, a senator, a magistrate, and a governor,
he bore his accumulating honors with modesty, and served the state
which he loved with the restless power of a vigorous and versatile
mind. The study of his life is instructive. Through the vista,
obscured by a century, we read the story of his time in the light of
the undimmed luster of his achievements.”

REV. GEORGE W. PEPPER
OHIO
]

VERY REV. ANDREW MORRISSEY
INDIANA
]

COL. O’BRIEN MOORE
WEST VIRGINIA
]

JOSEPH T. LAWLESS
VIRGINIA
]

VICE-PRESIDENTS

With tributes like these from the men who were associated with John
Sullivan in the struggle for independence, as well as from their
descendants who participated in the dedication of the monument to
his memory, we, who are members of the American-Irish Historical
Society, can well be proud of the character and the services of
Maj.-Gen. John Sullivan.

Edward J. Brandon, Esq., city clerk of Cambridge, read the following paper:

On a certain April morning, one hundred and twenty-two years ago,
Samuel Adams prophetically remarked, “What a glorious morning is
this!” and, as I stand here, I cannot restrain the feeling that the
shade of that illustrious and honored American makes use of the
expression with much greater emphasis to-day.

For the accomplishments of his country during the past four
generations, her marvelous strides in acquiring and attaining a
potent position among the world’s nations, the tremendous
development of her magnificent natural resources, the genius and
perseverance displayed by her children, the prosperity and
importance of her institutions, the advance of her people in
culture, the triumph of her principles of democracy, with its lesson
to the world that “the people can be trusted with their own,” are
surely causes for congratulation and satisfaction. And all this
reality dates from an incident comparatively slight in the world’s
history, but which is an important epoch in the story of America.

The period of resistance by the Colonies to British tyranny
antedates April 19, 1775, by many years, but the culmination of a
series of oppressive acts was realized on that day, and in the
exciting events preceding and following the fight at Concord and
Lexington, the town of Cambridge acted well its part, and
contributed its blood and treasure to the common weal.

All Cambridge knows and feels a glow of patriot’s pride in the
Declaration of Independence of the people of Cambridge, made months
in advance of the Declaration of the Continental Congress, when the
town instructed its representative that if the Provincial Congress
should for the safety of the Colonies declare them independent of
the Kingdom of Great Britain, “we, the said inhabitants, will
solemnly engage with our lives and fortunes to support them in the
measure.”

In all the preliminary work of the period Cambridge was active and
conspicuous, and the animosity aroused by the opposition of her
citizens doubtless inspired the hatred of the retreating soldiery of
Britain, and caused the shocking brutality which has been told and
so often retold. But the history of the time records all these
events, and it is needless for me to recite them.

The British troops landed at Lechmere Point on the night of April
18, and marched across the marshes to the Milk Row Road in
Charlestown, now Somerville, thence by Beech Street and the present
Massachusetts Avenue to Menotomy, Lexington, and Concord. Captain
Thatcher and his Cambridge men were among the first to rally for the
public safety, and the militia of Cambridge improved the opportunity
to attest its loyalty to principle. The muster roll shows that they
marched on the alarm, and did service as far as Concord.

Paige, Cambridge’s historian, tells us that from Lexington line to
Beech Street the passage of the British troops in retreat was
“through a flame of fire.” Despite the fact that the conflict of
this day is generally known as Concord Fight or Lexington Battle,
the carnage in Cambridge was greater than in any other place,
greater than in all others combined; for, according to Rev. Samuel
Abbott Smith, in his address at West Cambridge, “at least twenty-two
of the Americans, and more than twice that number of the British,
fell at West Cambridge.”

Of the fierceness of the conflict we can to-day present ocular
proof. The large number of bullet holes in the house then owned by
Jacob Watson, some of which may be seen at this time, is one
indication of the amount of fighting done in Cambridge; while the
spoliation of Cooper’s Tavern in Menotomy and the Memorial stones
all along the line of march teach the heat and bitterness of the
strife. In our ancient burial ground, by which Lord Percy’s
battalion marched to the relief, will be found a neat granite
monument over the remains of John Hicks, William Marcy, and Moses
Richardson, and in memory of these and of Jason Russell, Jabez
Wyman, Jason Winship, buried at Menotomy—men of Cambridge who fell
in defense of the liberty of the people.

These things are the inspiration which the Cambridge boy and girl
breathe at every step, impelling influences to love of country and
fearlessness in her defense.

The _Journal of the Provincial Congress_ estimates the loss of
property in Lexington at £1761, in Cambridge at £1202, and in
Concord at £274.

But when we consider these exciting events of that memorable day and
read the stories of individual heroism, we feel a particular pride
that our race was permitted to be a factor in the great result. It
would be to us a matter of sincere regret if Ireland, who had
contributed so much that was noble and sublime to the military
history of other nations, had been deprived of the opportunity to
manifest her sympathy by active participation in the “Lexington
Fight.” More especially as the feeling of the people of Ireland was
well known to Britain and Britain’s rulers, as is evident from the
records of the House of Parliament in 1775, where it is of record
that Governor Johnstone, in the debate at the opening of the session
used these words:

“I maintain that the sense of the best and wisest men of the country
is on the side of the Americans; that three to one of the people of
Ireland are on their side; that the soldiers and sailors feel an
unwillingness to service; that you will never find the same exertion
of spirit in this as in other wars. I am well informed that the four
field officers in the four regiments now going from Ireland have
desired leave to retire or sell out.”

Again, Mr. George Washington Parke Custis, the adopted son of
Washington, says that Ireland contributed men to the Continental
Army at the rate of 100 to 1 of any nation before the coming of the
French. General Lee—Light Horse Harry—said that one-half of the
Continental Army was derived from Ireland. It is an undoubted fact
that two hundred and fifty soldiers served in the Revolutionary War
who bore the Christian name of Patrick. It is also undoubted that
the rolls of the soldiers who served at Bunker Hill contained over
one hundred and fifty typical Irish names. Verplank referred to the
services of Irishmen in the Revolutionary War in these words: “Both
in that glorious struggle for independence and in our more recent
contest for American rights, England’s penal laws gave to America
the support of hundreds of thousands of brave hearts and strong
arms.” I might repeat many more instances did the time permit.
Sufficient to say that the opportunity was accorded to Ireland’s
sons to do glorious work in the first conflict of the Revolution.

Cullen says: “The Irish came into the full light of colonial history
at Lexington and Concord. The cry of Paul Revere roused them to take
their share in the defense of the common cause. Among them was Hugh
Cargill, the Ballyshannon man. To his prompt response Concord owed
the safety of her records.”

Rev. Mr. Maccarty is heard from in Worcester on that eventful
morning of April 19, 1775. Lincoln’s history of Worcester states
that as the minutemen were paraded on the green, under Capt. Timothy
Bigelow, a fervent prayer was offered up by Rev. Mr. Maccarty, after
which they took up their line of march.

“Another prominent name in the accounts of Concord and Lexington is
Dr. Thomas Welsh, who was army surgeon to the patriots. He it was
who met brave Dr. Joseph Warren as he rode through Charlestown at
about 10 o’clock on the morning of that April day.”

With the evidence of participation indisputable, cannot we of Irish
lineage feel the glory of this day as our own right, purchased by
the self-sacrificing effort of our predecessors?

And can we not, in fullest measure, in dwelling on the great and
famous events of April 19, 1775, exclaim with America’s noble son,
“Thank God, I also am an American!”

Cullen (pp. 86, 88) gives the following names found on the rolls of
minutemen at that period:

Joseph Burke,
Richard Burke,
Daniel Carey,
Joseph Carey,
Peter Carey,
Patrick Carroll,
Joseph Carroll,
Cornelius Cockran,
Daniel Connors,
William Connors,
James Dempsey,
Philip Donahue,
Joseph Donnell,
John Donnelly,
Andrew Dunnigan,
John Farley,
Michael Farley,
John Flood,
William Flood,
John Foley,
Matthew Gilligen,
Richard Gilpatrick,
James Gleason,
Daniel Griffin,
Joseph Griffin,
John Hacket,
Joseph Hacket,
John Haley,
John Kelly,
Patrick Kelly,
Peter Kelly,
Richard Kelly,
Stephen Kelly,
Daniel Lary,
John McCarty,
Michael McDonnell,
Henry McGonegal,
John McGrah,
Daniel McGuire,
Patrick McKeen,
John McMullen,
John Madden,
Daniel Mahon,
James Mallone,
John Mahoney,
John Murphy,
Patrick Newjent,
Patrick O’Brien,
Richard O’Brien,
Daniel Shay,
John Shea,
John Walsh,
Joseph Walsh.

Joseph Smith, Esq., of Lowell, read the following paper on “The Irishman Ethnologically Considered.”

It is almost as hopeless a task to define an Irishman as it is to
give the dimensions of a perfume; for the Irishman is as evasive and
delusive, as pervasive and variable in type and character as the
sweetness rising from the glowing bed of flowers.

If this society is to have a logical and reasonable plea for
existence, if its title of American-Irish is to mean anything, we
must reach some solid basis upon which to build our fabric; we must
agree upon an acceptable definition of what is an Irishman.

This is what I shall try to do rather than attempt to show the
ethnical components that enter into the Irishman. I have gone past
the point in my speculations and theories on the Irishman where I
place much stress upon the racial elements that go to make the Irish
nation. We must start with these facts—the race and the nation are
two distinctly different things; the terms Celtic and Irish are not
synonymous.

I will state, so as to avoid the polemics of ethnology, just a few
facts upon which all people are agreed, to explain why I attach so
little importance to the merely racial elements that go to make up a
nation. The islands of Ireland and Great Britain were at one time
peopled by the one race which was known variously as the Celtic,
Cymric, and Gaelic. By emigration, conquest, settlement, slavery,
and intermarriage, and all those causes that mix races, Dane, Norse,
German, Norman-French, Dutch, French, Walloon, and Flemish were
mingled and intermingled with the original race, the constituent
elements varying with time, place, and circumstances. So we have
to-day in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England four distinct
peoples different in characteristics, temperaments, thought, and
methods, peoples made up practically from the very same elements. As
the different sections of Great Britain are separated by purely
artificial frontiers, they do not differ as profoundly as do the
people of Ireland from those of the neighboring island. We observe
in this republic people who claim a direct descent from English and
other stocks producing a people as widely separated in thought,
ideals, and physical appearance, and other distinctive features from
the stock of the old countries as the Russian is from the Spaniard.

It is clear to me that there are other and more potent elements that
make and differentiate peoples than mere racial admixtures.

The Irish, though speaking the English tongue and living under laws
foreign to the instincts of the people, are a nation apart from the
English, hating intensely the tie that binds them, out of sympathy
with English ideas, ambitions, religions, and methods; and yet they
are both the product of the same racial elements, the alleged
preponderance of the Celt in the Irish being largely a matter of
doubt and speculation.

What is it, then, that makes this tremendous difference in the two
nations? What were the forces that were at work to produce from the
same ingredients such profoundly different results? That is the
question we must answer; and in answering it we will reach the basic
idea of this society. Let me try and answer it in my way, and
endeavor to show as simply as possible what an Irishman is.

There are in England as well as in America, among that class that
for lack of a better term we must call Celtophobes, those who have
an original if unsatisfactory and unscientific way of answering this
question which adds to the accumulation of their stolen laurels and
seems to afford them much satisfaction. If an Irishman break the
record in science, art, literature, or any department of human
activity, he is at once classed as an Englishman in England, an
American in America; if, however, he merely break the Decalogue, the
law, a bank, or his mother’s heart, he must perforce be an Irishman.
This differentiation will not do for us, however.

There are some things we must remember, for our work has to bear the
closest scrutiny and the most searching criticism.