Part 24

They were in no sense “Irish Scots” or “Scotch-Irish,” but Irishmen pure and simple; Irishmen to the manor born; Irishmen by origin, ancestry, sentiment, names, education and tradition; Irishmen with all the manners, traits and characteristics of the Irish. This name “Scotch-Irish” is of modern invention. Why did it not exist in writings of years ago? Simply because these Irishmen claimed no Scotch relationship.

I verily believe that if a person had called one of these hardy Irishmen a Scotch-Irishman, he would have received the same treatment Rev. James McGregor dealt out, when an impertinent fellow replied to the parson, that “Nothing saved him but his cloth,” he immediately threw off his coat and squared himself for action, saying, “It shall not protect you, sir,” and gave the fellow a thrashing.

In these latter days, as the late lamented Col. John C. Linehan well said, a new school of writers has sprung up, whose pride of ancestry outstrips their knowledge, and whose prejudices blind their love of truth. With the difference in religion between certain sections of the Irish people as a basis, they are bent on creating a new race, christening it “Scotch-Irish,” laboring hard to prove that it is a “brand” superior to either of the two old types, and while clinging to the Scotch root, claim that their ancestors were different from the Irish in blood, morals, language and religion.

This is a question not difficult to settle for those who are disposed to treat it honestly, but, as a rule, the writers who are the most prolific, as well as the speakers who are the most eloquent, appear to know the least about the subject, and care less, if they can only succeed in having their theories accepted.

The Irish origin of the Scots[18] is studiously avoided by nearly all the “Scotch-Irish” writers, or, if mentioned at all, is spoken of in a manner which leaves the reader to infer that the Scots had made mistakes in selecting their ancestors, and it was the duty of their descendants, so far as it lay in their power, to rectify the error.

These old settlers possessed the energy, faith and cheerful nature that could make life endurable under the hardships and privations of their situation on the frontier of civilized society. They had brought with them the manners, customs and habits of the Ireland of the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth century. I need not repeat examples of their quaint humor and queer stories, or of their use of the ardent spirits on public occasions, church-raising, trainings, dancing parties, weddings and funerals. They believed in ghosts and witches and of course the devil; indeed, the devil was seen in person, if old Fiddler Baker told the truth, at the fork of the road, with horns and cloven foot, spitting fire.[19]

Under the conditions of this early time we need not wonder that when the admission of a new member to the church was in question and objection was raised that he made too free use of the bottle, “Well,” said the grave elder, “if the Lord may have a church in Peterborough He must take such as there be.”

Nearly all of the schoolmasters of these early times were Irishmen from the central and southern counties of Ireland, but their history has been suppressed by modern writers, to the extent, indeed, in some instances, of omitting altogether the mention even of their Irish names.

Rev. John H. Morison, a Unitarian minister, wrote in 1845 a history of Judge Jeremiah Smith,—before this system of suppressing and falsifying history had reached its present perfection—and in recording the facts of Smith’s boyhood of about 1771, on page 14, stated: “He began to study Latin, when about twelve years old, with Rudolphus Greene, an Irishman, employed by the town to keep school a quarter of the year in each of the four quarters of the town. While he was hearing a boy recite he usually held a stick in his hand, on which he cut a notch for every mistake, and, after the recitation was ended, another stick was employed to give a blow for every notch that had been cut.” On page 16 it is recorded that “he was sent for a short time to New Boston, to be under the instruction of an Irishman, named Donovan.”

[Illustration:

VERY REVEREND ANDREW MORRISSEY, C. S. C., D. D., LL. D.,

University of Notre Dame.

Vice-President of the Society for Indiana. ]

Some of the more recent histories, however, neglect to state that these men were Irish. For instance, in the biographical sketch of this same Judge Smith, the Peterborough History (1876), page 288, states: “At the age of twelve he began to study Latin at the public school, which was then kept in the old meeting house, by Master Rudolphus Greene. After this he studied for a short time with a Mr. Donovan at New Boston,” quoted, with the word “Irishman” stricken out.

It is strange what an aversion some of the recent town historians have had to telling the truth about these Irishmen, and with what studied efforts they have suppressed facts.

The Antrim (N. H.) Town History—which, in its dealings with the early Irish settlers of that town, presents the work of an expert in this perversion—in recording, on page 215, the services of that old Irish schoolmaster, Tobias Butler, makes no mention whatever of his nationality.

The seeker of exact truth and complete historical data will, however, hardly consult histories written by narrow men, whose paramount idea apparently was to twist the actual facts to conform to the way they would have wished those facts to have been.

The only explanation or excuse for this condition is, that town histories have to be written by persons familiar with the locality, hence the writer could be chosen only from a comparatively small number, and the selection, unfortunately, of men of contracted ideas sometimes becomes unavoidable; but these writings relative to these Irishmen and their achievements, will never be accepted by the future seeker of truth; it remains for the present generation, advanced beyond the prejudices of the past, to write the true history of these Irish settlers.

THE CARROLL FAMILY IN MARYLAND.

BY MICHAEL P. KEHOE, ESQ., VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY FOR MARYLAND.

[The Material from which this Article is taken on the Carroll Family in Maryland was gathered together by the late Mr. D. J. Scully, who had compiled a great mass of material for the purpose of publishing a History of the Irish in Maryland, when he was unfortunately stricken down with a fatal illness. This material has been placed at my disposal by Mr. Peter J. Scully, who is a brother of the late Mr. D. J. Scully and his Executor. I want to offer my thanks to Mr. Scully for so kindly tendering the material collected by his late brother at a great sacrifice of time.]

The Carroll family of Maryland has been for three centuries a prominent one in the Province and the State, and may be said to have left an indelible impress upon the history of the Commonwealth. It would be gratifying to members of the Irish race to know that the family is distinctively a Gaelic one and occupied for centuries a high position in Ireland, being one of royal origin. The Carrolls are descended from Cian, the youngest brother of Eoghan (Owen or Eugene “Mor” great) and son of Olioll Olum, first king of Munsters, who was the ancestor of O’Cearbhaill (Cearball)—Irish for massacre or slaughter—referring to some incident possibly of the bearer’s life, Anglicized O’Carroll Ely, Karwell, Carroll, Gervil and McCarrell. It is therefore not to be wondered at that the descendants of this knightly race achieved equally knightly distinction in America. There were several different branches of the O’Carroll family all from the same parent stock, the principal one of which was that of the princess of Ely O’Carroll, territory which comprised the barony of Lower Ormond in Tipperary, with the barony of Clonlisk and part of Ballybut in the kings county, extending to the Slieve Bloom Mountains, in the Queens County.

[Illustration:

MICHAEL P. KEHOE, ESQ.,

Baltimore, Md.

Vice-President of the Society for Maryland. ]

The title “Ely” as prefixed to the O’Carrolls is derived from Eile, a prince of the fifth century. Cearbhaill or Carroll was also the last king of Leinster who lived in Naas, the capitol in the County of Kildare. He died in 909 and was a noted warrior, his sword being treasured for centuries as a precious relic by fighting men. It is evident from what is known of this sword of Carroll that sword-making was a fine art in Ireland in those days. There is extant an ancient poem in the Gaelic dedicated to the sword of Carroll which was recently translated by Prof. Kuno Meyer of the Liverpool University, who is a noted Gaelic scholar. The poem is addressed to the famous blade and is taken from the “Book of Leinster.” It is written in that intricate metre known as “Derbhde” which it is impossible to reproduce in English on account of its difficulty and has long ceased to be practised by the Gaelic poets. Its opening lines are as follows:

“Hail, sword of Carroll. Oft hast thou been in the great woof of war, Oft giving battle, beheading great princes. Oft hast thou gave a raiding in the hands of kings of high judgment. Oft hast thou divided the spoil when with a king worthy of thee. Oft hast thou been among kings, oft among great hands. Many were the kings with whom thou hast been when thou madest fight. Many a shield hast thou cleft in battle, many a head, many a chest, many a fair skin.”

The O’Carrolls belonged to the second order of the Irish royal line that is the provincial kings, of whose ancestors sat on the imperial throne, although in the later days of the kingdom, since the dawn of the Christian era, the Ard Righs were chosen from the four great families of O’Melaghlin of Meath, O’Neill of Tyrone, O’Brien of Thomond and O’Loghlin of Tirconnell and O’Connor of Connaught.

ARCHBISHOP JOHN CARROLL.

Baltimore and Maryland have had no citizen more distinguished or generally respected than the Most Reverend John Carroll, first Archbishop of Baltimore and first Primate of the United States. He was universally beloved while living and generally regretted at his decease. Dr. Carroll was born in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, in 1735, and was a kinsman of Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Charles Carroll, Barrister, springing from the same noble stock. He was the son of Daniel and Eleanor Carroll and first saw the light within a few miles of the birthplace of Thomas Clagget, the first bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Maryland, and the first one of that Church consecrated in the United States. The little old-fashioned house in which he was born is still standing. In his veins ran the blood of two old Maryland families, his mother being a woman of many accomplishments and one who left a deep impress upon the mind and habits of her distinguished son. Dr. Carroll’s early training was directed by her. As a youth of eleven years, he entered the Jesuit School at Bohemia Manor, named St. Xaverius, where he spent one year as a preparation for entrance into the school at St. Omers, in French Flanders. After six years of study at St. Omers, he entered in 1753 the novitiate of the Jesuits at Watton, where he spent two years in preparation for an ecclesiastical career and four years later at the college of the Society at Liege. On February 2, 1771, he was ordained a Priest and a member of the Society of Jesus. He surrendered his patrimonial fortune to the Jesuits under the laws of the Order. The agitation against the Jesuits being then under way in France, and the Government having suppressed the Order, Dr. Carroll with his colleagues was expelled from St. Omers and fled to Bruges in Belgium. He was later chosen by the Order in France to act as Secretary in correspondence with the French Court. His correspondence with the Government was extensive, but was without avail as far as causing the prohibition against the Society to be removed, yet he created a favorable impression on both sides by his thorough knowledge of French and Latin, and the manner in which he handled the situation. Pope Clement XIV finally on August 16, 1773, promulgated his famous Brief, which he had signed a month before, suppressing the Society of Jesus, and Dr. Carroll, having shared the prosecutions and brief captivity of his colleagues, sought and found refuge in England, where he was selected by Lord Houston, a Roman Catholic nobleman, to be tutor to his son and in that capacity made a tour of Europe with his pupil.

On the breaking out of the American Revolution, Father Carroll returned to Maryland to share the fortunes of his native land, his experiences in England having by no means created within his breast respect or love for her much vaunted institutions. He rejected many solicitations to remain in England, preferring to cast his lot with his own countrymen in what appeared at that time to be a struggle to the death. He secured faculties as a secular Priest from the Vicar Apostolic of London “in

## partibus infidelium” as it was then known in the annals of the Vatican,

and landed in Virginia on June 27, 1774. Passing over into Maryland he took up his abode with his mother, on Rock Creek, and having placed himself under the direction of the Vicar General, in Maryland, Rev. John Lewis, he carried on mission work from Rock Creek to Aquia Creek, in Virginia. The congregation gathered in a small room in his mother’s mansion. It soon grew so large that St. John’s Church was built with Dr. Carroll as pastor. The Revolution when it broke found the old Catholic families in Maryland on the side of the colonists and Dr. Carroll naturally was one of the most ardent adherents of the patriot cause. During the Revolution he established himself near Baltimore, where he became the assistant to the Rev. John Ashton, a zealous priest, who had the honor of celebrating the first mass ever said in Baltimore. Father Carroll’s talent as a Pulpit Orator soon attracted attention even from non-catholics. St. Peter’s Church was often thronged with persons of many religious faiths, who came to hear his sermons. Because of the fact that his reputation for piety, learning and eloquence became so extensive and that through his long sojourn in France, he had become thoroughly familiarized not only with the French language but with the French people, he was appointed in February, 1776, by the Continental Congress, in company with Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Dr. Benjamin Franklin and Judge Samuel Chase, on a commission to proceed to Canada in behalf of the patriot cause. The object of the journey was to create sympathy in Canada among the French Canadians in particular, with the American cause and to induce them to revolt against Great Britain. However, the Canadians proved indifferent; a survival of the intense hatred which had existed for generations previous between the French Catholic Colonists of Canada and the Protestant Colonists of the Colonies, who were prior to the Revolution pro-English and anti-French in sympathies. Therefore all hopes were disappointed and the mission failed. This refusal to throw off the yoke of the oppressor was a decision which it is but reasonable to suppose that the French Canadians have long regretted, as their present unrest and discontent illustrates they have not, even today, succeeded in securing happiness under the rule of the English and are still an alien people in Canada. The defeat of Montgomery before Quebec and the strong opposition of the Canadians to union with the Colonies rendered all efforts toward inciting revolt during the Revolution unavailing. Father Carroll and Judge Chase finally gave up the undertaking in disgust and returned home, leaving Franklin and Charles Carroll to continue the negotiations, which, however, proved fruitless.

After the American Revolution was begun, the Catholics within the several states, and they were most numerous in Maryland, became anxious for a separation from England. Many attempts had been made to give the Colonies now embraced in the United States a bishop of their own, as it had been deemed impossible for them to live under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Quebec, who was under English rule, and the Archbishop of Mexico, who was under Spanish rule. As political reasons had kept a Protestant Episcopal bishop or church of England bishop from the Colonies, so State reasons had also made the Catholics Colonists unwilling to accept an English prelate to govern them spiritually. The Revolution precipitated many things and solved many problems concerning the Colonies and their inhabitants. The year of 1783 for instance after liberty had been established found both the Catholic and the Anglican churches in the United States both considering the question of having bishops of their own who would be Americans and the founders of American hierarchies. As is known, the efforts of the Protestant Episcopal churches or Anglican, as they were then termed in Maryland and later of those in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Virginia, resulted in the consecration of Bishop Seabury of Connecticut, by the Scotch non-jurors in 1784, and of Bishop White of Pennsylvania and Samuel Prevost of New York in 1787 by English prelates. Father Carroll, while he did not engage actively in the War of the Revolution, was an ardent and active patriot, the more so because the Bill of Rights adopted by the First Assembly of Maryland held under the free Government, had bestowed full citizenship upon him and all Catholics and he was therefore in an unfettered position to work for the cause.

A portion of what Father Carroll did for the patriot cause was told in an interesting article published in the Catholic Mirror of February 10, 1900, which is quoted: “A century ago, on February 16, 1801, it was publicly announced that the sleeplessness of George IV. was occasioning extreme anxiety to the British royal family. On that day William Pitt resigned, because of the king’s refusal to give effect to the spirit of the recent union of Great Britain and Ireland by removing the disabilities of his Catholic subjects. It is interesting to note that an American bishop, as recalled in the following paragraphs, was responsible in part for the King’s insomnia: Benjamin Franklin was sent by Congress to France to intercede with the King in behalf of the Colonies. He was not successful. One bright morning he was sitting in the waiting room of the King’s palace for an audience, looking downhearted and forsaken, for he had received a letter from Washington, saying: ‘If France did not send over her army, the cause must fail, for his troops were commencing to mutiny and he could not raise funds to pay them; they had no rations, their feet were on the ground and cut and bleeding from the cold.’ Franklin, looking downcast and woebegone, as he was revolving Washington’s letter in his philosophical mind, was aroused from his melancholy stupor by a voice calling: ‘Mr. Franklin! Oh, Mr. Franklin!’ Franklin jumped up and rubbed his eyes. It was the Pope’s nuncio. ‘I have good news for you,’ he said. ‘I have just got consent of the King to send over a French army and navy to aid your countrymen.’ Franklin, astonished, threw himself on his knees and clasped the hand of the nuncio, kissing it several times. ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘Rome has saved my country. America will never forget it for Rome! The Catholics shall have all the rights the Protestants have. Convey to his Holiness the Pope my thanks for all the American people. We shall never, no never, forget it for Rome.’ The nuncio said: ‘Mr. Franklin, you must thank Father Carroll (Bishop Carroll) for it was he who induced the Pope of Rome to send me here in the interest of the American people. His letters in favor of your cause were laid by me before the French King and Cabinet, and success has crowned his efforts.’”

So, readers, if you want to learn something of the man who next to Almighty God and Washington gave your flag and country, turn to the Catholic Cathedral at Baltimore and see his tomb. Washington himself said: “Of all men whose influence was most potent in securing the success of the Revolution, Bishop Carroll of Baltimore was the man.” The English King called him “the rebel bishop, Washington’s Richelieu, the prime minister and adviser of Congress, the man who got the Pope of Rome to use his influence at the French Court for the Americans.” “No, no, sir,” he said, turning to Mr. Pitt, the prime minister of England, “I shall never sign a bill granting Catholic emancipation after the action taken by the rebel Catholic Bishop of Baltimore. He had America detached from my dominions by the aid of the French army and navy and by the force of Irish Catholics. No, no, Mr. Pitt, you need not stop to argue the question with me, my mind is made up on that question.” “Then,” said Mr. Pitt, “if that’s your majesty’s determination, I cannot remain in office, for I am pledged in one of the articles of union between England and Ireland to grant Catholic emancipation. It is necessary to save the union of the British empire. I must resign.” “Then,” said the King, “do so, do so.” So Pitt resigned like a man and Catholic emancipation was not granted for twenty years after this.

This shows what Ireland suffered for American independence. It also shows that Bishop Carroll’s influence was instrumental in securing our independence. The people of Boston turned out to receive the French army, which was led by a Catholic priest, with a crucifix in his hand, through the streets of Boston. All the ancient burgesses of Boston turned out and went to the Catholic Church in compliment to the French and all the old English statutes against the Catholics were repealed.