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.