By Bruce R. Lively Los ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY TOWARD 1756: THE POLITICAL GENESIS OF JOSEPH GALLOWAY T HE PARTNERSHIP formed in 1756 by Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Galloway dominated assembly politics in pre-Revolu- tionary Pennsylvania and influenced both of their careers. Together they transformed a weak association of Quaker representatives into the most powerful assembly party in America, challenged the pro- prietors with a sophisticated campaign for royal government, and offered daring solutions for the turbulent problems of Anglo- American relations. But their association has perplexed scholars because Franklin's voluminous papers, personal charm and staunch patriotism seem to overshadow the accomplishments of his younger partner. Galloway's sparse correspondence, abrasive ways, and eventual flight as a Tory also detract from his importance as a leader in his own right. Galloway emerges in Pennsylvania politics as an inexperienced newcomer who admired Franklin and matured only under his tutelage. Most historians view him as a "bland" or "narrow" intellect and see little need for examining his origins to determine what assets he contributed to the powerful alliance.' This is unfor- tunate because Galloway was an independent thinker of exceptional 1. Benjamin H. Newcomb, Franklin and Galloway: A Political Partnership (New Haven, 1972), pp. 7-8; William S. Hanna, Benjamin Franklin and Pennsylvania Politics (Stan- ford, 1964), p. 104; John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution (Boston, 1943), pp. 136-37. Julian P. Boyd, Anglo-American Union: Joseph Galloway's Plans to Preserve the British Empire, 1774-1788 (Philadelphia, 1941); William H. Nelson, The American Toly (Oxford, 1961); and David L. Jacobson, "John Dickinson and Joseph Galloway, 1764-1776: A Study in Contrasts" (Ph.D. Diss., Princeton, 1959) are typical of larger studies that contain good brief summaries of Galloway's career. But outside of an old dissertation by Raymond C. Werner, "Joseph Galloway, His Life and Times" (Iowa State, 1927), there is no complete biography. Hopefully, John E. Ferling, The Mind of the Loyalist: Joseph Galloway and the American Revolution (University Park, Pa., 1977) will help to remedy this problem. 117 118 BRUCE R. LIVELY ability. By the 17 7 0s contemporaries considered him the undisputed spokesman of the Pennsylvania Assembly, a key personality at the First Continental Congress, and the leading Tory in the middle colonies. A fresh look at his background to 1756 reveals much about the turbulent society that fostered his rise and what he did to change it.2 This discussion, based upon substantial new research, redefines the assets that Galloway brought to the assembly in 1756 and places Franklin's influence on his career into clearer perspective. Other factors of the contemporary political situation then take on new significance. As Galloway's origins, estates, and professional associations are examined in some depth, he rises from a much broader political base and offers much more to his partnership with Franklin than was previously assumed. In his early twenties, Galloway used a strong family background and education to establish a thriving law practice, marry the daughter of a wealthy future Executive Councilor, and make connections in virtually every political faction of the colony. Before Franklin made any existing record of knowing Galloway, the young lawyer had won the admiration of several leading Quakers as a helpful counselor, personal friend, and valuable political writer. He also played a critical role in what Speaker Isaac Norris called the assembly transformation from a vehicle of Quaker policy before the French and Indian War to the popular voice of all Pennsylvania freemen thereafter. An unusual blend of events placed Galloway within reach of immense power in 1756. A rare combination of family connections, education, and ability enabled him to capitalize on his good fortune. The family background which eventually proved so important in the political genesis of Joseph Galloway had an inauspicious beginning. Whether his forebears could afford their own transpor- tation to America is uncertain, but they were people of modest means who made the best of their advantages. In 1638 one John Ashcomb received fifty acres for bringing great-grandfather Richard Galloway from England to Virginia, where he chafed as a Quaker under the intolerance of an Anglican establishment. 2. William Thompson to George Read, 7 January 1774, Read Papers, Histor- ical Society of Pennsylvania [HSP]; Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography [PMHB], 19 (1895): 186; James H. Hutson, Pennsylvania Politics, 1746-1770 (Princeton, 1972), p. 126. JOSEPH GALLOWAY 119 JOSFrPH (GALLOWAY IN His L4TF FootTIFs. Courtim ol fmnrm E Hluntigton .h1brarv 120 BRUCE R. LIVELY Relief came eleven years later when Richard claimed 200 acres for transmitting three settlers into Maryland. 3 There Richard Galloway's fortune improved, and his sons, Samuel (1659-1720) and Richard (1664-1736), became men of prominence in the Meeting and in their communities. Their children increased the household wealth and status by marrying into elite families like the Pacas and Chews. Most third generation Galloways were at least as well-connected in business and local affairs as Joseph Galloway's father, Peter Bines Galloway (1696-1752).4 As the eighth child of Samuel Galloway, he enjoyed all the advantages of an upper- class Quaker home, including a moderate inheritance and marriage to Elizabeth Rigbie, the orphaned heir of the Rigbie estate and that of her mother's first husband, John Gassoway. Their fifth child was Joseph, who was born in the winter of 1730-31.5 Peter Galloway's inheritance and marriage insured a comfortable upbringing for Joseph and the other children. But, at forty years of age, he had yet to attain an office of trust. The handicap of being a Quaker younger son diminished his chances for recognition in a province where proprietary Anglicans controlled the patronage. He decided about 1735, perhaps in light of his situation, to join his friend Samuel Chew of Maidenstone and the many Quakers then leaving Maryland for the Lower Countries on the Delaware River. They were among the first men of stature 3. Probably the best work on the impact of family on success in Pennsylvania society is Raymond S. Klein's Portraitof an Early American Family: The Shippens Across Five Generations (Philadelphia, 1975). Although the Shippen and Galloway families differed greatly, many of Klein's findings prove useful here. For example, he has discovered sociological data indicating that most early converts to the Society of Friends were younger sons of mobile families who experienced substantial dis- continuities in growing up and choosing an occupation or religious belief. This theory is intriguing when applied to the first three generations of the Galloway and Growdon families in America (p. 227n). See also Nell M. Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers, Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants (5 vols., Richmond, 1934), 1:165; J. R. Kelly, Quakers in the Founding of Anne Arundel County (Baltimore, 1963), pp. 41-59; L. Morris Leisenring, "Tulip Hill, Anne Arundel County," Maryland Historical Maga- zine, 47 (1952): 188-96. 4. "Proceedings of the Maryland Council," Maryland Archives (65 vols., Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1952), 25 (1905): 82; 28 (1908): 313, 343, 347; Jane Baldwin, ed., Maryland Calendar of Wills . .. (8 vols., Baltimore, 1904-38), 5: 49, 133, 145. 5. Harry W. Newman, Anne Arundel Genty (Annapolis, 1970), p. 38; Baldwin, Mayland Wills, 7: 72. The best estimates of Galloway's birth date are backdated from Galloway to Thomas Nickelson, I July 1774, Galloway Collection [GC], Library of Congress [LC]; and Galloway, Examination ... Before the House of Commons (London, 1779 ed.), p. 1. JOSEPH GALLOWAY 121 to settle in Delaware, where Peter Galloway became a successful landowner and a local justice of the peace. Yet no member of his family profited more from the move than Joseph, who was placed within reach of all the advantages offered by the thriving Philadelphia metropolis.' The original Galloway family in Maryland evolved more as the political allies of the Penn family than of the Quaker doctrinaires. As William Penn's son Thomas abandoned Quaker simplicity for worldly attainments, the Maryland Gallowaysjoined his Pennsylvania allies to do likewise. 7 A few remained devout Friends until the Revolu- tion, but more of them ignored the strictures of the Society to join in such irreverent activities as military service, theatre atten- dance, and horse racing. Members of the proprietary Allen, Burd, Willing, Chew, and Shippen families could be found among the closest business associates and social companions of Maryland's third generation Galloways.8 Peter Galloway and young Joseph did not fall easily into the doctrinaire or proprietary factions of the family. His household remained nominal Friends though their names do not appear in any meeting records, and he allowed his son to become a lawyer in direct violation of Quaker restrictions against the swearing of oaths. Politically, Peter Galloway seems to have followed John Kinsey and the opponents of Thomas Penn in Pennsylvania. Kinsey "in- terested himself for Mr. Galloway" in a land suit against the Penns, while anti-proprietary stalwart, Abel James, was a close business associate of the justice. Letters from Richard Peters, a leading follower of the Penns, indicate that the proprietors knew