Defence of the Mecklenburg declaration of independence; an exhaustive review of and answer to all attacks on the declaration

Front matter

Beservei S-torags

DEFENCE

OF THE

Preface

In the pages to follow an attempt will be made not so much to present new facts as to marshal the old and new undisputed facts in logical order. The present phase of the Mecklenburg controversy may be compressed into very small compass. It is no longer disputed that a convention was held in May, 1775, which adopted a paper concerning independence. The enemies of the Declaration say that the May 31st Resolves was that paper; that the "'convention" and the "committee" that ordered the "Resolves" signed were the same. An analysis is here made of the "Resolves" to show that these systematically and throughout distinguished between the "convention" and the "committee" and designated them as distinct bodies. It is pointed out that Dr. Ephraim Brevard, the admitted author of the paper adopted by the convention, and a practicing physician, could not have produced the May 31st Resolves, which were the work of a lawyer drilled in the details of the practice. The May 20 Declaration is shown to bear the ear-marks of Brevard throughout, while the May 31st Resolves have not one of them. It is shown by contemporaneous record evidence and oral testimony, both of the most positive character, that the Mecklenburgers did declare their independence as claimed. Aside from the positive testimony of witnesses directly and consciously interested in maintaining the truth of the Declaration, the positive and collateral evidences unearthed in the hundred years of the controversy have been most remarkable. The positive testimony of Traugott Bagge in the Moravian record is literally that of one rising from the dead. But it is in the study of such fragments as Brevard's "Instructions," September, 1776 ; "The Mecklenburg Censor," 1777, and the May 31st Resolves, for the collateral bearings on the question they dis-

VI PREFACE.

close, that the student, keen after' the truth of the matter beyond the scant records preserved, will find a lead of absorbing interest and something tinged with the glamour of romance. In the "Instructions" Brevard names the "Convention" in four different paragraphs as the familiar term for the body through which the people conducted their political legislation. He referred to the "committee" in one paragraph only, as a body to pass on claims against the public, which, he urged, should consist "of not less than nine men," the inference being conveyed that he was displeased with the existing committee, of which he was clerk, because of the smallness of its membership. "The Mecklenburg Censor" also mentions the "Convention" and "the assembly," describing them as being "harangued" by Hezekiah Alexander and Waightstill Avery, but he nowhere refers to the "committee," which evidently had not yet developed the importance it subsequently attained as the provisional government of the county while the war continued.

Dr. Brevard was the intellectual and popular leader of the county at the opening of this ]3eriod. College-bred and talented, he was strongly imbued with the Scotch-Irish Presbyterianism that formed the religion of the settlers. To him they naturally turned to express their views. He wrote their populai- ]:»apers. The witnesses all agree that he was the author of the Declaration, or of the chief paper adopted by the convention. The "Instructions," conceded to have been written by him, breathe throughout the spirit and employ repeatedly the marked popular phrases of the Declaration as preser^^ed to us by John McKnitt Alexander. On the other hand, there is not a sentence of the May 31st Eesolves that suggests the author of the "Instructions."

The "Instructions" bids the county's representatives vote that ""N"orth Carolina is, and of right ought to he, a free and i^^i»f€ AH! l! ^i t State, is vested with the powers of legislation.

PREFACE. • Vll

capable of making laws to regulate all the internal police" etc. The Declaration says, "We do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people, are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing Association/' etc.

The ^"Iiistrnctions" say, "You are instructed to vote * * * for the future security of all the Rights, Privileges and Prerogatives of the State and the private, natural and unalienable Rights of the constituent members," etc. And again, "You are instructed to assent and consent to the establishment of the Christian religion * * '"^ and that the full and peaceable enjoyment thereof be secured, to all and every constituent member of the State as their unalienable Rigid as Freemen," etc. The Declaration says, ''That whosoever directly or indirectly abetted * * * the * * * dangerous invasion of our rights * * * is an enemy to this County — to America — and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.'' And again, "We do hereby ordain and adopt * " ^ all, each and every of our former laws, wherein, nevertheless, the Crowa of Great Britain never can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities or authority therein." And again, "It is also further decreed, that all, each and every military officer," etc. And again, "To the maintenance of Avhich independence, civil & religious," etc.

Not only do the two papers employ the same marked phrases, but they are informed throughout with the same fierce spirit of civil and religious liberty.

Treating of determining the genuineness of an author's writings by internal evidence merely, Hugh Miller says: "We know, for instance, that the Doctor [Dr. Johnson] wrote the English Dictionary, not only because no other man in the world at the time could have written it, but because he affixed his name to the title page. We know, too, that he wrote some of the best of Lord Chatham's earlier speeches, just because he said so, and pointed out the very garret in Fleet -street in

Vlll PREFACE.

which thej had been written. But it is from other data we conclude that, during his period of obscurity and distress, he wrote prefaces for the Gentlemen's Magazine, for some six or seven years together, — data derived exclusively from a discriminating criticism ; and his claim to the authorship of Taylor's Sermons rests solely on the vigorous character of the thinking displayed in these compositions, and the marked peculiarities of their style."

In the same way we may be morally certain that Waightstill Avery wrote the May 31st Resolves, because there was no other man in Mecklenburg County qualified to write them, and that Dr. Brevard wrote the Declaration not only because the witnesses said he wrote it, but because of "the marked peculiarities" of its "style" and the identity of its temper with that of his other known writings.

If there is anything in internal evidence the author of the "Instructions" wrote the Declaration, and Waightstill Avery, the lawyer, who, "The Censor" said, "any law can quickly make," wrote the May 31st memorial to congress and the digest of laws for the county's government that was incorporated in it. In the popular assembly Brevard was supreme ; but when it came to framing the civil code, resort was inevitably had to one skilled in the law. There was but one such person in the county. Waightstill Avery was distrusted as a popular leader because of his profession. "The Censor" and "The Editor," both of whom make manifest their intimate acquaintance with the people of Mecklenburg, abundantly voice this prejudice. Brevard himself, in the "Instructions," recommends that "no practising lawyer * * * shall be a representative of the people in Congress or Convention." But Avery, the lawyer, was indispensable in framing the county government. He drew up the May 31st Resolves, beginning the paper with a preamble, as he begun his draft of the charter for Queen's college, and as his professional cus-

PREFACE. IX

torn was. The teehnique of the lawyer is evident in every line. There is none of the crudeness in his legal diction, such as marks the layman in Brevard's "Instructions." The paper is a smooth, cold, clear-cut, unimpassioned statement of the situation in the country, giving rise to the necessity for providing a form of government to fit the conditions. In the entire document there is no suggestion of the fierce personal ardor for civil and religious liberty that admittedly animated this Scotch-Irish Presbyterian settlement beyond any other in the colony or the country, and which pervaded both the Declaration and the "Instructions." Even the express reference to the county's independent status in Resolve XVI deals with it as a fact accomplished, the only concern of the draftsman being to draw a statutoiy enactment providing a method of procedure and imposing a penalty for the violation of the will of the people.

It is impossible that Avery could have been the leader and exponent of the liberty party in Mecklenburg in 1775, which he must have been if the May olst Resolves were the "true Declaration." The genuine exju-ession of the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian spirit is found in the Declaration, the "Instructions," and in Judge Alexander Martin's charge to the grand jury at Salisbury, June 1, 1775. Avery was of Hungarian origin and of immediate English descent. He could not have inherited the Scotch-Irish prejudices that animated his fellow citizens like a second nature. It is very evident that he was not an enthusiastic liberty advocate in the early '70s of the Revolutionary period, if even his judgment approved of the movement. Lyman Draper says: "In 1771 he [Avery] was made a prisoner by the Regulators at Yadkin Ferry, and carried to their camp in the woods. They gave him a flogging and soon set him at liberty. When the great war came he was prepared to meet it. In such an atmosphere as Mecklenburg, he could only learn to breathe the purest sentiments of patriotism."

PKEFACE.

But despite his lack of congenital sympathy with the mass of his fellow citizens, his practical mind and training, together with his talent for diplomacy, placed him in a position, after the white heat of patriotic fervor had somewhat spent itself, to fashion the metal in the shape, to some degree, his judgment dictated. That this served his purposes the sequel shows, but that it did not please Dr. Brevard and those he represented, and ''The Mecklenburg Censor" and "The Editor" and those for whom they spoke, as well, is easily to be gleaned by a critical study of their productions.

"The Mecklenburg Censor," which will be found in the appendix, affords us an intimate introduction to the Mecklenburgers, for which a more dignified and stated history of them could have given us no compensatory substitute. Of course, the colors of the clever poetaster are laid on with poetic license and exaggeration, but we recognize through his extravagance a realistic flesh and blood folk, with internal bickerings and jealousies, and not the ideal people the critics would have us believe them, incapable of perpetrating an inconsistency, in order to strip them of the credit of having made the first formal declaration of independence. After the failure of Captain Jack's mission to congress, they so far yielded to the pressure brought to whip them into line with the prevailing policy both in the colony and in the country to formally open and close their court in the king's name. This was equally inconsistent whether it was the Declaration or the May 31st Resolves that was adopted by the May convention. But only the most trivial matters, and few of them were entertained in the court, while affairs of moment, such as the case of Dunn and Boote, were heard by ''The Committee," in its politicojudicial capacity prescribed for it in the May 31st Resolves as a revolutionary tribunal. "The Committee" did not sit in the court-house, but held its meetings, Alexander tells 'us, "at Charlotte, at Col. James Harris's, at Colonel Phifer's, alter-

PREFACE. XI nately, one week at each place. It was a civil court founded on military process. Before this judicature all suspicious persons were made to appear, were formally tried and banished, or continued under guard." The records of this, the real court in 1775, were not kept in the court-house, but were among the Revolutionary minutes which were burned with Alexander's house in 1800.

Aside from such corroborative details as these, it is shown in the pages that follow, by positive contemporaneous record evidence and oral testimony, as before stated, that the Mecklenburgers did declare their independence. Every argument brought by the enemies of the Declaration to throw discredit on the document handed down by the Mecklenburg fathers as the true paper is met fully and exhaustively, and the author trusts as satisfactorily to others as to himself.

The writer is especially desirous to do full justice to Mr. William Henry Hoyt, in answer to whose work on the Mecklenburg Declaration the following chapters are so largely devoted, and whose facts, as far as they go, are accepted in every instance. Mr. Hoyt has done the friends of the Declaration more service by the presentation of many facts and documents hitherto unknown or neglected than he has damaged their cause by his argument. The balance of obligation is in liis favor. With the facts before him the reader can judge for himself. James H. Moore.

Macon, Ga., November 28, 1907.

Chapter I. The Mecklenburg Controversy

Story of the independence convention retold. News of the Lexington battle had arrived. The county resolves on independence. Dr. Ephraim Brevard, chairman of the committee that drafted the resolutions. ''But in a few days, (after cooling)" a select committee met and memoralized Congress. Captain James Jack goes express to Philadelphia with all the papers. Congress deep in the "Olive Branch" petition repudiating the charge that the colonies are aiming at independence. Jack's mission and papers suppressed. He returned with the message that they were ''premature." He probably carried back with him Caswell's circular letter bidding the people "look to the reigning monarch of Britain as your rightful and laAvful sovereign." Mecklenburgers charged with inconsistency for modifying their course. John McKnitt Alexander made copies of the proceedings. Records burned in 1800. Alexander left two copies of the Declaration. The Declaration published in the Raleigh Register in 1819. The controversy begins. Discovery of the May 31st Resolves. Claimed to be the "true Declaration." Present phase of the controversy. \Miat will be shown. Pages, 1-15.

Chapter II. Who First Set The Ball Rolling ?

Jealous contention as to the first movement for independence (1818-19). Mecklenburg's claims advanced. Nathaniel Macon writes for information. Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander, in a letter to Congressman Davidson, furnished an account of the event "copied from papers left by his father." His account published in The Raleigh Register. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, denounced it as "spurious" and "fictitious." Jefferson's letter not made public until 1829. The Legislature, (1830-31) investigated the event and declared its authenticity established. Pages, 16-25.

XIV CONTENTS.

Chapter III. Internal Evidences Of The May 31st Resolves

ColoBtel Thomas Polk called the convention. Inference: the committee of safety had not yet been created to perform this duty. The Declaration was drafted by Dr. Ephraim Brevard, a physician, without legal education or experience. The May 3Ist Resolves were written by a lawyer familiar with the practice. This paper contains a masterly code of the civil procedure. Dr. Brevard could not have produced it. The Resolves expressly testify to the "convention" system in the county. They clearly define the distinction between the "convention" and the "committee." The "convention" was a representative and judicial body, and the 'committee" was the administrative and executive head of the government, with extra-judicial discretion over political offenders. The jurisdiction of each body is accurately stated and its respective powers and functions assigned. Only a lawyer could have drafted the May 31st Resolves. Not the paper drafted by Dr. Brevard and adopted by the May convention. Waightstill Avery the probable author. Pages, 26-40.

Chapter IV. Question Of Plagiarism

All the words and phrases used by the National Declaration and the Mecklenburg Declaration in common shown to have been employed in state papers of the Revolutionary period before the National Declaration was written. They were hackneyed expressions, most of which were used by Dr. Brevard, without quotation marks, in his "Instructions," September, 1776, a paper of undisputed authenticity. Pages, 41-53.

Chapter V. Charge Of Inconsistency

Course of the Mecklenburgers subsequent to the Declaration made clear by a study of their environments and the history of the period. Pages, 54-73.

CHAPTER VI. JOHN McIOsTITT ALEXANDER'S ROUGH NOTES

Alexander's statements verified by every item of material evidence that has been brought to light in the nearly hundred years of the controversy. Pages, 74-91.

CONTENTS. XV

Chapter VII. Internal Evidences Of The May 20 Declaration

The Declaration is strongly marked with verbiage and sentiment peculiar to 1775 which no mere forger of 1800 could have reproduced. Its language is not the language of Jefferson's paper, except in a few phrases in common use at the period. Ear-marks of Brevard are written through and through it as compared with his "Instructions," produced a year later. The May 31st Resolves have none of the Brevard ear-marks, but show ear-marks ot Waightstill Avery. Pages, 92-107.

Chapter VIII. Davie Copy And Charges Of Forgery

The "Davie Copy" was in the handwriting of John McKnitt Alexander. It was the same with the paper in the unknown handwriting from which Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander copied his account. Governor Stokes, Governor Swain and the legislative committee vouched for this in 1831 and challenged the world to witness it. Governor Swain in 1858 again said, "'the paper is unquestionably genuine. I have it before me, in the well-known handwriting of John McKnitt Alexander." Prof. Phillips, who charged Dr. Alexander with introducing the "Alexandrian measure," said the two papers were identical with respect to the resolutions. Hoyt says Phillips's case against Dr. Alexander is based on "flimsy evidence." Charge of forgery renewed by Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr. Studies in garbling and groundless abuse. Pages, 108-120.

Chapter IX. The Record Evidences

These are of two classes: direct and indirect. May 20 Declaration. May 31st Resolves. Dr. Ephraim Brevard's "Instructions," 1776. "The Mecklenburg Censor" and "The Editor's" commentaries, 1777. Traugott Bagge's MS., buried in the Moravian records, 1783, brought to light in 1904. In 1783 he recorded the story of the Declaration in precisely the same words that Alexander stated it in 1800. Jos. Pearson's toast, Raleigh Register, 1808. Schoolboy's declamation, printed in The Minerva, Raleigh, N. C, 1809. The fact of the Declaration was not disputed prior to 1819. Governor Josiah Martin's dispatches, addresses and proclamation. Pages, 121-137.

XVI CONTENTS.

Chapter X. Testimony Of The Witnesses

Fourteen reputable witnesses certified to having been present at the convention that declared independence. General Joseph Graham's recollection of the abdication argument claimed to be peculiar to the May 31st Resolves. The argument was made in the convention after the committee on resolutions had retired and was triumphantly answered before it returned. The argument had weight with the committee of safety at the May 31st meeting in shaping the memorial to Congress. The May 31st paper was a mere sequence to the May 20 Declaration, and the recalling of the features of both papers establishes the reliability of the testimony. Simeson's reference to the appointment of the committe on military stores the only other point of apparent difficulty. After the lapse of forty-four years he confused the reading of two papers. Pages, 138-146.

Appendix

The Mecklenburg Censor. Pages, 147-167.

DEFENCE OF THE Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.

Chapter I. The Mecklenburg Controversy

"Och, aye, Tarn Polk declared independence lang before anybody else."

The writer recently had some controversy in the columns of The Macon, Ga., Telegraph concerning the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence with Mr. William Henry Hoyt, A.M., author of the latest and completest work on this most famous of American historical controversies. The writer had published a "reply" to the critics generally of the Mecklenburg Declaration and Mr. Hoyt made rejoinder thereto. Mr. Hoyt has returned again to the attack in The Telegraph's collunns with a further answer. In the meantime he has favored the writer with a copy of his work which the latter had not yet seen and which he has read with unmeasured delight. It is a volume of 284 pages, replete with interest from cover to cover to such as have followed or who may be interested in following this nearly century old dispute. There are eleven chapters, exclusive of preface and appendix, beginning with "The History of the Controversy," and dealing in turn with "The May 31st Resolves," which the author styles "The True Declaration;" a comparison of "The Rival Declarations," "The Lost Cape Fear Mercury," "Capt. Jack's Mission to Philadelphia," "The Salisbury Records," "An Accumulation of Miracles," dealing critically with the alleged inconsistent conduct of some of the leading Mecklenburg actors after the May 20 Declaration ; "Origin of the Myth," by which term the author designates the May 20 Declaration; "The Davie Copy," wherein he makes a critical study of the copy of the May 20 Declaration and statement concerning it in John Mo-

Knitt Alexander's well known handwriting, which the old secretary deposited with Gen. William E.. Davie; "The Martin and Garden Copies," and finally "The Testimony of the Witnesses" of the Mecklenburg convention which adopted and promulgated the Declaration.

Mr. Hoyt collates and places in interesting juxtaposition some original papers and exhibits hitherto inaccessible, together with many other material documents, and he adduces all the evidence, new and old, pro and con bearing on the subject. Especially is this noteworthy of the reproduction in fac simile of John McKnitt Alexander's rough notes, copy of Declaration and statment of the events leading up to its adoption. Mr. Hoyt states the history of the dispute and the known facts bearing upon it justly, fairly and, we believe, fully. Had the author contented himself with this, leaving the reader to weigh and decide for himself, uninfluenced by the argument of the narrator, his would have been a most admirable work in all respects as it is a most admirable work in many respects.

As it is Mr. Hoyt at the outset designates the May 31st Resolves the "The True Declaration" and dubs the May 20 Declaration a "myth", and while nothing is overlooked or hidden that can throw light on the controversy, inevitably the circumstances which give color to his theory are stressed and emphasized to that end and all testimony of a doubtful character is resolved in its favor. The "overwhelming" testimony of the eyewitnesses to the fact of the mass meeting of the Mecklenburgers and of their declaration of their independence amid the shouts, huzzas and hat-throwing of half the men of the county is met with the argument that the May 31st Resolves are so much like a declaration of independence, constituting, in fact, a "virtual declaration of independence," the author says, (p 28) that these good people whose honesty no one dreams of impeaching, mistook the "Resolves" for a declaration.

Not only were they deceived, we are told, but Governor Martin, Mr. Peter Force and many other "intelligent critics" called the "Resolves" a declaration of independence. Later on, however, the author tells us, (p. 104) the belief that the Resolves "constituted a declaration of independence" was "erroneous." This reversible action of the argument is rendered necessary to sustain the "myth" hypothesis and to support the proposition that there was not a "conscious movement in the colonies having independence as its aim," as early as May, 1775, which the author, in his preface, says is one of the matters of "chief historical importance" concerned. For it is plain if the "Resolves" constitute a virtual declaration of independence," as the author says (p. 28) he gives away his case at the outset.

The author's leaning in favor of his theory does not betray him into injustice of statement, and despite the trend of his argument which does betray him into contradictions throughout, the book is one which the believer in the May 20 Declaration will pursue to the end with delight.

Reading there all the known facts of the controversy, in the light of the history of the period as we now know it, we see the story of the Declaration unfold in its true relations to the times, and many circumstances that perplexed true believers of the event as handed down by their fathers become readily decipherable and understood. We observe that the researches of the antiquarians cannot disturb the dust gathered upon this originally neglected event without bringing more and more to view the large and significant character and certainty of the deed of the Mecklenburgers. We see unfold a story of absorbing pathetic and patriotic interest. How completely every part of it dovetails with the rest !

We see the Mecklenburgers stirred with excitement during the winter and spring of 1774-75, holding a number of public meetings and discussing several different papers. We see the scholars and more learned meet first in the classic "Queen's Museum" academy and debate the merits of Great Britain's tyranny. We see later the Mecklenhurgers called to meet in their several military districts to choose and send each company two delegates to a general meeting to be held on the 19th of May. We see the delegates assemble on the day fixed in larger numbers than anticipated and half the men of the county beside, attracted doubtless by the stirring news from Lexington which is now generally known in the colony.

We see them put aside the more moderate papers looking to an independent plan of government framed before the news ai*rived from Lexington, and adopting a more drastic and ringing declaration, drafted by Dr. Ephraim Brevard, renouncing absolutely allegiance to the monarch who has wantonly shed the blood of his subjects. "But in a few days," May 31st obviously, "(after cooling)" in the language of John McKnitt Alexander's rough but illuminating notes, we seje "a considerable part of the committeemen convened" again. We see them in this cooled state reflecting that their step is a bold one. Reflecting that as so small an integral portion not only of the country, but of the province, they are dependent on the sympathy and co-operation of others in what they have done. We see the more astute and politic suggesting that they must address themselves to the provincial and general Congresses with arguments that will commend themselves to these bodies, that are far from being so forward in this matter of independence. We see them address themselves to the delicate task of presenting it in such shape to the general Congress as to win the sanction of that body.

They adopt the arguments which were used to meet the objections of the more conservative before the news from Lexington precipitated their "rash act" as some of the recalcitrants had already called it, according to Alexander's notes.

The king, they argued, had abdicated. He had "declared the colonies out of his protection" and therefore they were absolved from allegiance. "When protection was withdrawn allegiance ceased." This line of argument the committeemen now adopted in their memorial to Congi'ess. And so they framed a preamble, that, "Whereas, by an address presented to his majesty * * * the American colonies are declared to be in a state of actual rebellion we conceive that all laws and commissions * * * ai"e annulled and vacated, therefore, (1) that all such granted by the Crown are null and void; (2) that all legislative and executive powers are vested in the Continental and Provincial Congresses, and none other does or can exist, and, (3) that as Congress has not yet provided laws, (4) the inhabitants of this county meet and elect their own officers who shall exercise their offices INDEPEIsT- DENT OF THE CROWN OF GREAT BRITAIN, and, until other laws are made for us by the Continental and Provincial Congresses, to which alone we owe allegiance, this county will be governed by the following by-laws and regulations — And then followed sixteen additional resolves, comprising an admirable plan of internal government for the county, to which all are in terms obligated on the penalty that any who shall liereafter receive a commission from the Crown, or attempt to exercise any such, shall be deemed an enemy to his country and dealt with as provided in Resolve XVI.

We see them after having executed this wonderfully clever state paper to fit the situation, order it signed by the clerk, Ephraim Brevard, for the committee, combining it in a roll with "a Copy of all resolutions and sd Laws," including the declaration made by the people of the county on the 20th of May, "and a letter to our 3 members there," as Alexander tells us in his crude but enlightening notes, and preparing the whole to go express to Philadelphia by the hand of Ci\]^f.

Jack, who has been engaged in the meantime to be the bearer of these to Congress.

We see Capt. Jack after making preparations for his long journey, "set out the following month," on his embassy, "say about June," as he tells us in his certificate. We see him reach Salisbury, 44 miles away, when the "general court" is in session, and we find by the records that the court sat from the 1st to the 6th in the month of June, 1775. We see the court suspend its proceedings to hear the papers Capt. Jack is carrying read publicly. We follow the messenger to Philadelphia, where he places his papers in the hands of the North Carolina delegates. We place him there on the day that Gen. Washington left to take command of the Northern army, which was the 23d of June.

And now commences the century-long pathos and tragedy of this over true story. We see Capt. Jack the herald of independence — the trumpeter of one of the greatest epochal movements of the ages — the first storm bird flying before the mighty upheaval of liberty that is brewing in the bosom of the American wilds wandering about Philadelphia doubtless neglected and alone. He had come on a high mission from his people bearing the tidings of the deed on which they had so generously, rashly staked their fate and fortunes and invoking the Congress's sanction of that deed. What was the reception of the messenger and what was the Congress's answer ? What, in fact, was the tone and temper of the body to which he presented himself on such a mission ?