The Mecklenburg declaration of independence; a study of evidence showing that the alleged early declaration of independence by Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, on May 20th, 1775, is spurious

Preface

Since it was first brought to the attention of the general pubHc in the year 1819, the declaration of independence which is alleged to have been issued on May 20, 1775, by a convention held in Charlotte. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has been the subject of the most mooted question and acrimonious controversy of the history of the American Revolution. Evidences dating from 1775 and onward of a document of this nature, copies of doubtful origin of the document in question, a copy written from memory in 1800, testimony of reliable persons who stated between 18 19 and 1830 that they had been spectators and participants at a meeting which adopted it, and traditions are cited to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. In 1830, after the publication of the trenchant letter of Thomas Jefferson expressing his belief that the paper was a fabrication, the Legislature of North Carolina took up the matter, and affirmed the Mecklenburg Declaration to be genuine and authentic. To-day, in North Carolina, it is engrafted upon the statute books, the date it bears is emblazoned upon the great seal of the State, and the anniversary of its iv Preface

alleged promulgation is observed by legislative enactment. The consensus of opinion of critical students of American history is opposed to its authenticity ; but from the beginning of the controversy there have been two hostile camps, each fortified by what are regarded as unanswerable arguments. If this verdict be reversed, we must conclude, contrary to long-accepted views, and with the older British historians, that before May, i 775, there was a conscious movement in the colonies having independence as its aim, and we must admit that some of the most striking expressions of Jefferson's immortal document of thirteen months later were borrowed from the Mecklenburg manifesto. Herein lies the chief historical importance of the question.

Because of the absence of new evidence of importance there has been comparatively little discussion of the perplexing problem since the centennial celebration of the Mecklenburg Declaration at Charlotte in 1875. Renewed interest was awakened by the publication in July, 1905, of a facsimile of the disputed document as it appeared in what purported to be a long-lost copy of the Cape-Fear Mercury, a colonial newspaper in which it is said to have been printed. The paper was soon shown to be a forgery by the advocates as well as by the opponents of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration. Interest has been accentuated and general acceptance of the declaration rendered seemingly imminent by Dr. George W. Graham's elaborate presentation of the arguments for its authenticity

Preface v

and by new light of much significance which late researches by those wlio uphold the claims of Mecklenburg have brought to bear upon the subject.

The purpose of this monograph is to show that all the evidence, new and old, which is cited in support of the genuineness and authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration, should be understood as relating to a series of resolves of similar import, which were adopted in Mecklenburg County May 31, 1775, and that the several versions of the supposititious paper of May 20, 1775, trace their origin to rough notes written from memory in 1800 by John McKnitt Alexander, who believed those resolves to be a declaration of independence and attempted to set forth their substance. In preparing the work I have gone to original sources of information wherever it has been possible. Hitherto inaccessible manuscripts are adduced to demonstrate the oriijin of the famous resolutions of May 20, 1775, and the successive stages of their construction.

Unfortunately for the cause of historic truth, the enthusiasm of local pride and patriotism in North Carolina, where the Mecklenburg Declaration, vouched for, as it is, by the personal testimony of North Carolina patriots of the Revolution, has been regarded with peculiar veneration for close upon a hundred years ; the charges of plagiarism against Thomas Jefferson and of forgery against John Mc- Knitt Alexander ; the disappearance of the Cape- Fear Mercury from the British State Paper Office in 1837 under circumstances which would seem vi Preface

to indicate that Jefferson's defenders destroyed evidence of the Mecklenburg Declaration ; and, finally, the fact that the reputed signers of this declaration were all, or nearly all, members of one religious denomination, have each added fuel to the fires of controversy and contributed to produce an intolerant spirit which has been a bane to sober discussion. As it was in 1853 and in 1873, when Charles Phillips and Daniel R. Goodloe were the first North Carolinians since an unknown gladiator of 1830 who ventured to dispute the authenticity of the paper of May 20, 1775, it is inevitable to-day that a publication which discredits the proudest page in the history of North Carolina should engender in some quarters an unkindly feeling for its author. In discharging my ungrateful office, I write simply as a student of history, inspired with a special love for the history of the " Old North State," and with a profound veneration for the Mecklenburg patriots of 1775. I came to my subject before Dr. George W. Graham's book was announced with the intention of writing a defence of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration, but the irresistible logic of facts drove me to my present position.

For the first incentive to undertake this work and for advice and encouragement during its preparation, I am under an obligation to Prof. Samuel F. Emerson, of the University of Vermont, which it is a pleasure to acknowledge here. Some of the materials which I have used were unearthed by Mr. A. S. Salley,Jr.,Secretary of the Historical Commission

Preface vii

of South Carolina, and published during the past year in a series of articles contributed by him to the Charleston Neivs and Co7iricr. For courtesies extended to me while collecting materials my acknowledgments are due to Messrs. B. F. Stevens and Brown, of London, the Earl of Dartmouth, Dr. William C. Lane, Librarian of Harvard University, Dr. Kemp P. Battle, of the University of North Carolina, Dr. Reuben G. Thwaites, of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Dr. Stephen B. Weeks, of San Carlos, Arizona, Mr. Edward P. Moses, of Raleigh, N. C, Mr. Waldo G. Leland, of the Carnegie Institution, Mr. Victor H. Paltsitts, of the New York Public Library, and Mrs. C. S. Coles, of Washington, D. C. I have also to thank Mr. Salley for reading the proofs of the book and for many valuable suggestions.

W. H. H.

Burlington, Vt., September 2, 1906.

Chapter I Page

HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Causes that led to the exhuming of the Mecklenburg Declaration (i 817-19). Jefferson and Adams believe it to be spurious (1819). The incredulous are silenced by surviving witnesses. Jefferson's opinion becomes known (1829) and the Legislature of North Carolina publishes testimony (1830-31). Contemporaneous evidence of such a document discovered (1833). Jefferson openly accused of plagiarism (1837). May 31st resolves found (1838) after all survivors had passed away and said to be the ones they remembered. Dr. Hawks testifies (1852) that the Martin copy was obtained before 1800. It is learned (1853) that the Davie copy was written from memory in 1800. The fact long ignored. Dr. Graham argues (1895, 1905) that the May 31st resolves were never adopted 1-21

CHAPTER II THE TRUE "declaration."

Genuineness and authenticity of the May 31st resolves proved by their publication in Charleston and New-Bern newspapers. In effect, a declaration of independence, and might have been remembered as such . . . 22-31

Chapter III The Rival Declarations Compared

Both papers, if authentic, were adopted by the Committee of the County of Mecklenburg. The May 31st resolves ignored, annulled, and effected in a milder way all that

X Contents

PAGE

is alleged to have been done and unanimously approved eleven days earlier. Survivors remembered only one such document, which was not suppressed or superseded. 32-40

CHAPTER IV THE LOST "cape-fear MERCURY."

Gov. Martin's statements, the only records of 1775 that support the Declaration. Though well informed his proclamation of June 16, 1775, shows no knowledge of it. Ignorance of Whig leaders on June 21st and their loyalty revealed by the Wilmington "Association"' and reply to his proclamation. On June 30th he dispatched to England a newspaper containing Mecklenburg resolutions and the reply to his proclamation. Fallaciovis arguments to prove that Jefferson's defenders stole it in I S3 7. The May 31st resolves sent in the duplicate dispatch instead of the newspaper. Which was the Cape-Fear Mercury of June 23, 1775. The resolves positively identified and the Governor's ignorance of others ascertained by his subsequent statements. Tories of Mecklenburg protest against the May 31st resolves alone. Gov. Wright, Cogdell, and Johnston each leave records of the May 31st resolves alone .... 41-62

CHAPTER V CAPTAIN jack's MISSION TO PHILADELPHIA

Conflicting testimony of the witnesses and Gov. Martin as to which resolves were sent to Philadelphia. Gov. Martin sustained by the Salisbury records. Inconsistency of the answers of the Continental Congress and North Carolina delegates, if made to the Declaration, with their professions of allegiance. Impossibility of its concealment by the delegates, and Adams's and Jefferson's testimony. True story of Capt. Jack's mission disclosed by the important relation of the May 31st resolves to the political situation in the colonies. And by their suppression in Philadelphia 63—82

Chapter VI The Salisbury Records

The Declaration not known in Salisbury eleven days

Contents xi

PAGE

after its alleged promulgation. Other circumstances that can be explained only by connecting its story Vifith the May 31st resolves 83-87

CHAPTER VII "an accumulation of miracles."

Subsequent conduct of reputed "signers": Kennon practises in the King's courts; Avery appointed Attorney for the Crown ; Abraham, Hezekiah, and Adam Alexander, Irwin, Barry and Foard administer justice for Mecklenburg in the King's name; Polk, John Mc- Knitt Alexander, Phifer, Avery, and Kennon formally acknowledge allegiance in the Hillsboro Congress; every "true friend to Uberty" does so in Mecklenburg. Arguments answered: reconciliation the aim of the Hillsboro Congress ; membership in it not improper for the authors of the May 31st resolves; Whigs and Tories deny that the idea of independence took root in North Carolina before 1776. Summary of facts established by contemporaneous records S8-103

Chapter VIII Origin Of The Myth

Independent spirit of the May 31st resolves. Called a declaration of independence by many writers. Like measures looked upon before July 4, 1776, as equivalent to independence. How their provisional character was forgotten. Early evidence of the myth: "A Modem Poem" (1777) — the Swain copy probably fraudulent; the Moravian record {1783); Charlotte deeds which date independence from 1775 — uncertainty of their significance. Date of May 20, 1775, not part of the myth before 1800 104-124

Chapter IX The Davie Copy

Bancroft obtained reproductions of two papers certified by "J. McKnitt" to be those from which he copied in 1819. Their internal evidence shows that Alexander's notes were written from memory in 1800 or soon afterwards, and were the rudiments of the second paper.

xii Contents

PAGE

"J. McKnitt" certified the latter to be the same as the Davie copy, and Alexander certified the Davie copy to have been written from memory in 1800. Comparison of his notes with the May 31st resolves proves that he tried to write their substance. The Davie prototype partly, if not wholly, the work of the unknown writer. Answers to Prof. Phillips's charges of fraud against "J. McKnitt." Alexander told his story to many persons after 1800, and the date which he recollected thus became known 125-173

Chapter X The Martin And Garden Copies

Martin a voluminous writer, an unreliable historian, and in his dotage when he told Dr. Hawks that he obtained his copy prior to 1800. Internal evidence of his book shows that the resolutions and accompanying narrative were inserted after its completion. Col. Polk wrote for Judge Murphey in 1819 a narrative containing resolutions procured from "J. McKnitt."- Its publication by Murphey in amended form proved by the MS. and his correspondence. Its republication by Martin proved by comparing his narrative and resolutions with Polk's. The fact confirmed by the Garden, Murphey, and "Guilford" narratives. And by allusions to Murphey in Martin's preface 174-201

Chapter XI The Testimony Of Witnesses

Probable cause of the suppression of the certificate to the Davie paper. Difficulties and prepossessions under which the witnesses testified. Yet the majority remembered terms peculiar to the May 31st resolves. Their testimony to the date of May 20, 1775, of no value. Thev contradict Alexander's recollection as to who summoned the meeting and who acted as secretary. Unwarrantable alteration of the Alexander MSS. caused thereby. Story of the signing of the Declaration probably unfounded 202-221

Contents xiii

Appendix

PAGE

A. Colonel Polk's transcript of the document pre-

pared BY "J. McKnitt" from his father's papers

AND PUBLISHED WITH EMENDATIONS IN THE Raleigh

B. The State Pamphlet 230-270

C. The Mecklenburg Resolves as printed in the North-

CaroZina CascWf of June 16, 1775, NO. 323 271-275

D. Transcript of the Mecklenburg Resolves in the

Cape-Fear Mercury of June 23, 1775, sent in Governor Martin's duplicate letter of June 30, 1775 276-280

E. Colonel William Polk's account of first Revolu-

tionary movements in North Carolina . . 281-284

ILLUSTRATIONS

A fraudulent facsimile lithograph of the alleged original

declaration ........ Frontispiece

(Kindly lent by Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr.)

The spurious Cape-Fear Mercury, Friday, June 3rd,

1775 facing i^

(By permission of the Macmillan Co.)

Bancroft's copy of the " torn half sheet " in John McKnitt Ale.\ander's handwriting from which the Mecklenburg Declaration was constructed (6 plates)/art'K^ 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131

The Bancroft copyist's description of the "sheet" in an " unknown handwriting" from which the publication of 1S19 was copied (3 plates) .... facing 132, 133, 134

Copy of the certificate attached by Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander to the anonymous manuscript and his father's (2 plates) /ar»«^ 135, 136

The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence

Chapter I

The publication of William Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry in 1817, in which Wirt claimed that Patrick Henry "gave the first impulse to the ball of the Revolution," was followed by a discussion as to whether the earliest movements that led to American independence took place in Virginia or in Massachusetts. During the winter of 181 8-19, when the subject was a topic of conversation at Washington among members of Congress, the assertion was there made that the people of Mecklenburg county, in North Carolina, formally declared themselves independent of Great Britain before the 4th of July, 1776.^ The statement was

' C. Tait to Gen. P. Jack, January 25, 1819, in The Address of the Hon. Wm. A. Graham on the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, delivered at Charlotte, February 4, 1875 (cited hereafter as Gov. Graham's Address), 113-114 ; and correspondence of John Adams ( Works, x.) and of Thomas Jefferson {IVritings, Ford ed., x.) daring the year 1818.

I apparently received with incredulity. For satisfactory information relative to the matter two of the North Carolina members, Senator Nathaniel Macon and William Davidson, the representative from the Mecklenburg district, wrote to persons in that section of the country. Davidson, who had probably brought forward the claim for Mecklenburg, applied to Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander, and received from him a full account of the disputed event, which he said he had copied from papers left by his father, John McKnitt Alexander. Macon directed his inquiry to General Joseph Graham, who forwarded the letter to Dr. Alexander's brother, William B. Alexander, with a request that he furnish Macon with all information that his father's papers could supply. William B. Alexander wrote Macon on February 7, 18 19, that his brother had furnished William Davidson with all that could be found. " Nearly all of my father's papers," he said, "were burned in the spring of 1800, which destroyed the papers now wanted, as I believe he acted as secretary to the committee that declared independence for this county in

1 775-"

Macon endeavored to procure information to

verify statements in the document received by

Davidson, which had been placed in his hands

a month or more before William B. Alexander's

letter reached him, but was unsuccessful. He

appears not to have doubted its trustworthiness,

however, and he sent it with an old proclamation

that William B. Alexander had found among his father's papers to the editor of the Raleigh Register a7id North Carolina Gazette, published in Raleigh, North Carolina.' It appears in the issue of Friday, April 30, 181 9 (Vol. xx., No. 1023), as follows : '

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

It is not probably known to many of our readers, that the citizens of Mecklenburg County, in this State made a Declaration of Independence more than a year before Congress made theirs. The following Document on the subject has lately come to the hands of the Editor from unquestionable authority, and is published that it may go down to posterity.

North-Carolina, Meckhnburg County,

May 2o, ijjs

In the spring of 1775, the leading characters of Mecklenburg county, stimulated by that enthusiastic patriotism which elevates the mind above considerations of individual aggrandisement, and scorning to shelter themselves from the impending storm by submission to lawless power, &c. &c. held several detached meetings, in each of which the individual sentiments were " that the cause of Boston was the cause of all ; that their destinies were indissolubly connected with those of their Eastern fellow-citizens — and that they must either submit to all the impositions which an unprincipled, and to them an unrepresented parliament might impose — or support their brethren who were doomed to sustain the first shock

' Raleigh Register editorial, August 6, 1819 (reprinted in Niles : Principles and Acts of the Revolution, 135-136) ; and C. Tait to P. Jack, in Gov. Graham's Address, 11 3-1 14.

' From the file in the Library of Congress. A proclamation of Gov. Martin of North Carolina, dated Charlotte-Town, October 3, 1780, was printed in the same issue, " as a curiosity." A copy of the original MS., sent by Dr. J. McKnitt Alexander to Wm. Davidson, made by Col. Wm. Polk in 1819, and now in the New York Public Library, will be found in the Appendix.

of that power, which, if successful there, would ultimately overwhelm all in the common calamity. Conformably to these principles. Col. Adam Alexander, through solicitation, issued an order to each Captain's Company in the county of Mecklenburg, (then comprising the present county of Cabarrus) directing each militia company to elect two persons, and delegate to them ample power to devise ways and means to aid and assist their suffering brethren in Boston, and also generally to adopt measures to extricate themselves from the impending storm, & to secure unimpaired their inalienable rights, privileges and liberties from the dominant grasp of British imposition and tyranny.

In conforming to said Order, on the 19th of May, 1775, ^^^ said delegation met in Charlotte, vested with unlimited powers ; at which time official news, by express, arrived of the Battle of Lexington on that day of the preceding month. Every delegate felt the value & importance of the prize, & the awful & solemn crisis which had arrived — every bosom swelled with indignation at the malice, inveteracy and insatiable revenge developed in the late attack at Lexington. The universal sentiment was: let us not flatter ourselves that popular harangues — or resolves ; that popular vapor will avert the storm, or vanquish our common enemy — let us deliberate — let us calculate the issue — the probable result ; and then let us act with energy as brethren leagued to preserve our property — our lives, — and what is still more endearing, the liberties of America. Abraham Alexander was then elected Chairman, and John M'Ktiitt Alexander, Clerk. After a free and full discussion of the various objects for which the delegation had been convened, it was unanimously Ordained —

1. Resolved, That whosoever directly or indirectly abetted, or in any way, form or manner countenanced the unchartered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by Great- Britain, is an enemy to this Country, — to America, — and to the inherant and inalienable rights of man.

2. Resolved, That we the citizens of Mecklenburg County, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the Mother Country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown, and abjure all political connection, contract or association with that Nation, who have wantonly trampled on our rights and liberties — and inhumanly shed the innocent blood of American patriots at Lexington.

3. Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent People, are a,nd of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing Association, under the control of no power other than that of our God and the General Government of the Congress ; to the maintenance of which independence, we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation, our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.

4. Resolved, That as we now acknowledge the existence and control of no law or legal officer, civil or military, within this County, We do hereby ordain and adopt, as a rule of life, all, each and every of our former laws, — wherein, nevertheless, the Crown of Great-Britain never can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities or authority therein.

5. Resolved, That it is also further decreed, that all, each and every military officer in this county is hereby reinstated to his former command and authority, he acting conformably to these regulations. And that every member present of this delegation shall henceforth be a civil officer, viz: a Justice of the Peace, in the character of a "'''Committee fnan," to issue process, hear and determine all matters of controversy, according to said adopted laws, and to preserve peace, and union, and harmony in said County, — and to use every exertion to spread the love of country and fire of freedom throughout America, until a more general and organized government be established in this province.

A number of bye-laws were also added, merely to protect the association from confusion and to regulate their general conduct as citizens. After sitting in the Courthouse all night, neither sleepy, hungry, or fatigued, and after discussing every paragraph, they were all passed, sanctioned and declared unanimously, about 2 o'clock, A. M. May 20. In a few days a deputation of said delegation convened, when Capt. James Jack of Charlotte was deputed as express to the Congress at

Philadelphia, with a copy of said Resolves and Proceedings, together with a letter addressed to our three Representatives there, viz : Richard Caswell, Win. Hooper and jfoseph Hughes — under express injunction, personally, and through the state representation, to use all possible means to have said proceedings sanctioned and approved by the General Congress. On the return of Capt. Jack, the delegation learned that their proceedings were individually approved by the members of Congress, but that it was deemed premature to lay them before the House. A joint letter from said three members of Congress was also received, complimentary of the zeal in the common cause, and recommending perseverance, order and energy.

The subsequent harmony, unanimity and exertion in the cause of liberty and independence, evidently resulting from these regulations, and the continued exertion of said delegation, apparently tranquilised this section of the State, and met with the concurrence and high approbation of the Council of Safety, who held their sessions at Newbern and Wilmington alternately, and who confirmed the nomination and acts of the delegation in their official capacity.

From this delegation originated the Court of Enquiry of this County, who constituted and held their first session in Charlotte — they then held their meetings regularly at Charlotte, at Col. James Harris's and at Col. Phifer"s alternately one week at each place. It was a civil Court founded on military process. Before this judicature all suspicious persons were made to appear, who were formally tried and banished, or continued under guard. Its jurisdiction was as unlimited as toryism, and its decrees as final as the confidence and patriotism of the County. Several were arrested and brought before them from Lincoln, Rowan and the adjacent counties —

[The foregoing is a true copy of the papers on the above subject, left in my hands by John M'Knitt Alexander, dec'd ; I find it mentioned on file that the original book was burned April, 1800. That a copy of the proceedings was sent to Hugh Williamson in New York, then writing a History of

North-Carolina, and that a copy was sent to Gen. W. R. Davie. J. M'KNITT.J'

This article was extensively copied by the newspapers of the country," and came to the notice of the venerable John Adams in the Essex Register of June 5, 1819, published in Salem, Massachusetts. Adams sent a copy of the newspaper to Thomas Jefferson as containing "one of the greatest curiositj^s and one of the deepest Mysterys " that ever occurred to him.'' He wrote thus of it :

How is it possible that this paper should have been concealed from me to this day ? had it been communicated to me in the time of it, I know, if you do not know, that it would have been printed in every Whig newspaper upon this Continent, you know if I had possessed it, I would have made the Hall of Congress Echo and re-echo with it fifteen mongths before your Declaration of Independence. — What a poor, ignorant, malicious, short-sighted, Crapulous Mass is Tom Pain's Common Sense, in comparison with this paper, had I known it, I would have commented upon it from the day you entered Congress till the fourth of July, 1776. — The genuine sense of America at that moment was never so well expressed before, nor since.

Adams evidently dictated this letter ciirrente calamo. A little reflection would have told him that the " genuine sense of America at that moment "

' Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander usually omitted his surname in his signature because of the commonness of the name Alexander in Mecklenburg, and was frequently spoken of and addressed as "J. McKnitt." — Gov. Graham'' s Addrtss, 29-30. The writer has seen several of his private letters, all bearing this signature.

^ Raleigh Register, August 6, 18 19.

' June 22, 1819. From the original letter, written by an amanuensis and signed by Adams, in the Jefferson M.SS. in the Library of Congress. It is printed in the Works of Adams, x., 380-381.

was opposed to independence. Even he and Jefferson still desired reconciliation with Great Britain in May, 1775, and few men then dared to openly advocate independence. Mindful of their former bitter political rivalry, which had given way, in the evening of life, to the friendship of earlier days, he probably wrote with some satisfaction in the thought that his successful rival would wince under his lavish praises of the new-found declaration of independence and the implied charge of plagiarism which they conveyed ; for Adams was convinced that either the Mecklenburg Declaration or Jefferson's Declaration borrowed one from the other. Before he received Jefferson's reply, Adams wrote one of his correspondents :'

I was struck with so much astonishment on reading this document that I could not help inclosing it immediately to Mr. Jefferson, who must have seen it, in the time of it, for he has copied the spirit, the sense, and the expressions of it verbatim into his Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776. . . . That paper must be more universally made known to the present and future generation.

Unlike Adams, Jefferson was not ready to accept the paper of Mecklenburg. He was doubtless as much annoyed as Adams anticipated. " And you seem to think it genuine," he wrote Adams.^ " I believe it spurious. I deem it to be a very unjustifiable quiz, like that of the volcano, so minutely related to us as having broken out in North Carolina,

' Adams to William Bentley, July, 15, 1819, Works, x., 381. 'Jefferson to Adams, July 9,1819, Writings (Ford ed.), x., 136-139. This letter fonns a part of the "State Pamphlet", reprinted in the Appendix, some half a dozen years ago, . . ." It is not remarkable that his inability to find any notice of the publication of the resolutions by the Raleigh Register, after a lapse of two months, in Thomas Ritchie's newspaper at Richmond and in the Natiotial Intelligencer of Washington, the leading journal of the country and edited by a son of the editor of the Raleigh Register, should have led Jefferson to express his doubt whether they were really copied from that paper by the Essex Register, and to deem them to be one of the hoaxes frequently published in the newspapers of the day — the work, perhaps, of the " Essex Junto" class of statesmen, ever ready to traduce his reputation. But the tone of Adams's letter seems to have so disturbed his equanimity that in attempting to point out the marks of spuriousness he mistook the name of Richard Caswell, who had been dead many years, for that of William R. Davie, then living, as the person mentioned in the certificate accompanying the resolutions to whom John McKnitt Alexander had given a copy of them ; and, confounding the " delegation " of Mecklenburg county, to whose continued "exertion in the cause of liberty and independence " the paper referred, with the North Carolina delegates in the Continental Congress, who were said to have approved the resolutions, he rashly said that "we had not a greater tory in Congress than Hooper; that Hughes was very wavering, sometimes firm, sometimes feeble, according as the day was clear or cloudy ; that Caswell, indeed, was a good whig, and kept these lo The Mecklenburg Declaration

gentlemen to the notch, while he was present ; but that he left us soon, and their line of conduct became uncertain until Penn came, who fixed Hughes and the vote of the State." In saying that there was " not a greater tory " in the Continental Congress than William Hooper, Jefferson clearly did not mean that he was a loyalist : he rightly placed Hooper and Hewes, both North Carolina signers of the Declaration of Independence, among the number of those sturdy patriots who hesitated to the last to break off all political connection with the mother country, and who had a majority In the Continental Congress until June, 1776.^ "I must not be understood," said Jefferson, "as suggesting any doubtfulness In the State of North Carolina. No State was more fixed or forward. Nor do I affirm, positively, that this paper Is a fabrication ; because the proof of a negative can only be presumptive. But I shall believe it such until positive and solemn proof of Its authenticity shall be produced." Jefferson based his opinion on the utter lack of contemporary evidence of " this flaming declaration," although sent to the Continental Congress, and the silence of historians,