"12th. That all receivers and collectors of quit-rents, public and county taxes, do pay the same into the hands of the chairman of this Committee, to be by them disbursed, as the public exigencies may require; and that such receivers and collectors proceed no further in their office, until they be approved of by, and have given to this Committee good and sufficient security for a faithful return of such moneys when collected.

"13th. That the Committee be accountable to the County for the application of all moneys received from such public officers.

"14th. That all these officers hold their commissions during the pleasure of their several constituents.

"15th. That this Committee will sustain all damages that hereafter may accrue to all or any of these officers thus appointed and thus acting, on account of their obedience and conformity to these Resolves.

"16th. That whatsoever person shall hereafter receive a Commission from the Crown, or attempt to exercise any such Commission heretofore received, shall be deemed an enemy to his country; and upon information being made to the Captain of the Company in which he resides, the said Company shall cause him to be apprehended, and conveyed before the two select men of the said Company, who, upon proof of the fact, shall commit him, the said offender, to safe custody until the next sitting of the Committee, who shall deal with him as prudence may direct.

"17th. That any person refusing to yield obedience to the above Resolves shall be considered equally criminal, and liable to the same punishment as the offenders last above mentioned.

18th. That these Resolves be in full force and virtue until instructions from the Provincial Congress, regulating the jurisprudence of the Province, shall provide otherwise, or the legislative body of Great Britain resign its unjust and arbitrary pretensions with respect to America.

"19th. That the eight militia companies in the County provide themselves with proper arms and accoutrements, and hold themselves in readiness to execute the commands and directions of the General Congress of this Province and of this Committee.

"20th. That the Committee appoint Colonel Thomas Polk and Dr. Joseph Kennedy to purchase 300 lbs. of powder, 600 lbs. of lead, and 1000 flints for the use of the militia of this County, and deposit the same in such place as the Committee may hereafter direct.

"Signed by order of the Committee,
"EPHRAIM BRevard,

"Clerk of Committee."

This document, it will be observed, is dated eleven days later than Mr. Alexander's copy of the resolutions, and this has given rise to the hypothesis that two separate declarations or manifestos of independence were issued by the Mecklenburg Committee-the one on the 20th, and the other on the 31st of the same month.

In favor of this view is the testimony of some of the witnesses published by the North Carolina Legislature in the "State pamphlet." But out of nearly twenty of these persons less than half mention the date of the meeting, and among those who omit it are Captain Jack, who bore the resolutions to Congress, and John Davidson, the last surviving member of the Committee who issued the manifestos. Of those who name the date of the 20th, nearly all add something which shows that they felt

1 We take our copy of this paper from N. C. University Magazine, May, 1858.

the uncertainty which we should expect credible men to feel in testifying to such a fact after the lapse of half a century. Thus General Graham says, "as well as he can recollect after the lapse of fifty-five years." George Graham, William Hutchinson, Jonas Clark, and Robert Robinson (all inhabitants of Mecklenburg county) say "to the best of their recollection and belief." Rev. H. Hunter rests his recollection on a circumstance which, by his own showing, would bring the date of the declaration nearer to the 31st than the 20th-but on neither day. None of the witnesses remember two declarations. One of them (John Simeson) states that the resolutions contained an order that Colonel Polk, John Phifer, and Joseph Kennedy should secure military stores, etc. The resolutions of the 31st contain such an order to Colonel Polk and Joseph Kennedy; those of the 20th contain nothing of the kind. The North Carolina University Magazine says (while enumerating the argu ments of objectors to the resolutions of the 20th), "We have not the letters which asked for the recollections of these gentlemen [the witnesses whose testimony is given in the State pamphlet]. Perhaps they contained leading questions and suggested dates, events, names, etc., etc." There is a more general, and it seems to us a very obvious solution, however, which puts the fairness not only of the witnesses but of the questioners beyond necessary suspicion. When these interrogatories were made and answered, there was no controversy as to the precise date of the Mecklenburg resolutions. The real question then was, were such resolutions passed a year or more anterior to the National Declaration of Independence. If so, all parties then naturally took it for granted that Mr. Alexander's copy gave the correct date.

It is not necessary to comment on the degree of actual identification which a particular paper can derive from recollections of so old date, and drawn out under such circumstances, as those given in the testimony published in the North Carolina State pamphlet, with a single exception. That exception is the declaration of Governor Montfort Stokes, already mentioned, that in 1793 he saw a copy of the resolutions of the 20th, in the hands of Dr. Williamson.

Governor Stokes was a man of the highest integrity and honor, and we have a manuscript letter lying before us from one who knew him intimately, saying that he had a remarkably retentive memory. His testimony is certainly important in one view. It puts the good faith of John McNitt Alexander beyond all reasonable suspicion. But Governor Stokes's recollections are thirty-eight years old. He, like the other witnesses, was aware of no issue as to the paper, provided it could be shown that a paper of similar tenor was a genuine record of proceedings in Mecklenburg in May, 1775. But if it could be shown that Governor Stokes's memory was so remarkably retentive as to preserve for thirty-eight years the precise words of the document, does not his testimony prove too much? It proves that a document was, ipsissima verba, a copy of another, when the maker of it claimed no such thing-when he only claimed that it contained the same substance.1

The intrinsic evidence furnished by the two manifestos would of itself be conclusive on the question under discussion. We shall only rapidly allude to a few of the most prominent of these.

1. Both documents, if genuine records, give the resolutions of the same representative body, publicly assembled to act, and vested with unlimited authority. The resolutions of May 31st are conceded on all sides to be genuine records. If those of the 20th also are, it follows:

2. That the Mecklenburg committee at the first-named date, after a public

Of course this remark respecting Governor Stokes's testimony, would apply equally to the evidence of all the witnesses who testify to the identity of the papers.

discussion and two days sitting,' formally abrogated the British laws then in force in the county, vacated the offices held under the crown, and filled them by their own authority, organized a government, and made public proclamation of this fact before assembled thousands-and then met, eleven days afterward (functus officio so far as the same acts of sovereign authority were concerned) and did the whole thing over again! On the second occasion they abrogated laws which had been eleven days abrogated-vacated offices which had been eleven days vacated, and filled by a new appointment—and again organized an entire new government! No reasons for this unprecedented and anomalous second action are given; nor is the previous action even alluded to in the records kept on the occasion.

3. A cloud of witnesses remember the first proceedings (and some have thought, even the exact language and date of the manifesto then adopted), and have utterly forgotten the second proceedings, an account of which was contemporaneously printed and published in their State. And not the remotest contemporaneous allusion to those of the 20th, publicly proclaimed to assembled thousands, can be found in the newspapers which published those of the 31st.

4. The first document declares independence unconditionally-the second until "the legislative body of great Britain resign its unjust and arbitrary pretensions with respect to America." Did the committee, after incurring all the danger, recede to any extent from their previous action?

same.

5. The reasons assigned for independence in the two documents are not the Those in the resolutions of the 31st, conform better to circumstances known to have existed in Mecklenburg and to have operated on the minds of many of the most decided whigs."

6. The civil organizations effected, as already hinted, by the two manifestos, were different. By the first, all military officers who acquiesced in the proceedings were reinstated, and the committee declared themselves justices of the peace. By the second, without any reference being made to these new appointments, or any reasons assigned for, or mention made of vacating them, new elections were ordered, for filling all military and civil offices by a popular vote.

7. It has already been seen that John Simeson testifies to occurrences recorded in the second and not in the first resolutions. Indeed, it is believed that a critical analysis of all the testimony in the State pamphlet, considered in reference to facts now settled, would almost establish the conclusion, without other evidence, that the witnesses were speaking of events which took place later than May 20th. But we shall not stop to enter upon such an analysis.

8. It is claimed in all the accounts of both meetings, that Dr. Ephraim Brevard drafted the resolutions. Passing over the other discrepancies, there is a manifest and utter difference in their literary style. Did Doctor Brevard's whole style change in eleven days? He is admitted on all sides to have been a graduate of Princetonan elegant scholar-a man of talents. Did he who wrote with such nice propriety, both of construction and language, on the 31st, eleven days earlier, deliberately prepare for public proclamation a document of transcendent importance, into which he introduced such phraseology as an "unchartered invasion," an invasion "as claimed by Great Britain," "it is further decreed," etc., etc.-such a constructed

It appears from Mr. Alexander's manuscript accompanying his resolutions, and by the statements of the witnesses, that the meeting was for two days.

2 They had taken oaths during the Regulation troubles not to bear arms against his Majesty's government. It is in proof that this topic was discussed when the manifesto of Independence was under consideration, and that it was determined that inasmuch as his Majesty had declared the people out of his protection, allegiance ceased, and that their oaths were no longer binding. The resolutions of the 31st are obviously drawn to meet this view.

sentence as that which forms the fourth Alexander resolution-such an extravagant and bungling imitation throughout of the tautologies of legal instruments? And how happened he in the second paper to omit those collocations of words which were afterwards thought fine enough to be borrowed into the national Declaration of Independence!

9. And how came Dr. Brevard's style on the 20th, so unlike his own, to bear such a striking resemblance to J. McN. Alexander's; to exhibit the same method of frequently presenting several verbs and nouns to express the same action or thing; to give some of the same peculiar words; to present the same ambitious, forcible, but inaccurate diction; and in a word, to have the same ring throughout.'

The brave and true old man was graduated among battles and stirring events, instead of the classic halls of Princeton. He gave his recollections honestly, but he confounded the proceedings of different meetings, and his memory unconsciously blended the familiar phrases of a later declaration with that of Mecklenburg.

It is difficult for us, however, to believe that such a man would have fancied that he had been the secretary of a meeting on such a momentous subject, without some foundation for the belief. We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where discussion was had on the subject of independence, and probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at, which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st. If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary of that meeting. He probably, in that case, recorded the proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. It would be more natural to suppose that such a popular expression preceded the all-inportant and decisive action of the committee, than to suppose the latter acted without such an expression. The same men figured in both meetings. The Polks, the Alexanders, the Brevards, the Balches, the Averys, the Grahams, the Kennons, the Morrisons, etc.-all the leaders of the unflinching Scotch Whigs of Mecklenburgwere on the ground, and advocated their views. It was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting, destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man, fell into the errors we have named. Is this not a reasonable-the most reasonable-conjecture?

We have been favored by Mr. Bancroft with an inspection of the proof-sheets of his forthcoming volume of the History of the United States, where allusion is made to the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. It is known that he has carefully

1 For example, Mr. Alexander writes:

"Conformably to these principles, Colonel Thomas Polk, 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, and to secure unimpaired their inalienable rights, privileges, and liberties, from the dominant grasp of British imposition an'i tyranny.

"In conformity to said order, on the nineteenth of May, 1775, the 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 and importance of the prize, and the awful and 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 popu lar 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.

"A number of by-laws were also added, merely to protect the association from confusion, and to regulate their general conduct as citizens. After sitting in the court-house all night, neither sleepy, hungry, nor fatigued, and after discussing every paragraph, they were all passed, sano tioned, and decreed unanimously, about two o'clock, A. M., May 20th.

and specially investigated the subject. He makes no allusion to any other meeting or declaration than that of 31st of May.

Those who wish a fuller and much more convincing exposition of this subject than has here been given, will receive it when a recent lecture, delivered by Dr. Grigsby, at Richmond, shall be published.

APPENDIX NO. III.-VOL. I., p. 193.

Three Letters from Mr. Jefferson to Francis Eppes, between the Declaration of In/lependence and the resignation of his seat.

PHILADELPHIA, July 15th, 1776.

DEAR SIR: Yours of the 3d inst. came to hand to-day. I wish I could be better satisfied on the point of Patty's recovery. I had not heard from her at all for two posts before, and no letter from herself now. I wish it were in my power to return by way of the Forest, as you think it will be impracticable for Mrs. Eppes to travel to the mountains. However, it will be late in August before I can get home, and our Convention will call me down early in October. Till that time, therefore, I must defer the hope of seeing Mrs. Eppes and yourself. Admiral Howe is himself arrived at New York, and two or three vessels, supposed to be of his fleet, were coming in. The whole is expected daily.

Washington's numbers are greatly increased, but we do not know them exactly. I imagine he must have from 30 to 35,000 by this time. The enemy the other day ordered two of their men-of-war to hoist anchor and push by our batteries up the Hudson River. Both wind and tide were very fair. They passed all the batteries with ease, and, as far as is known, without receiving material damage; though there was an incessant fire kept up on them. This experiment of theirs, I suppose, is a prelude to the passage of their whole fleet, and seems to indicate an intention of landing above New York. I imagine General Washington, finding he cannot prevent their going up the river, will prepare to amuse them wherever they shall go.

Our army from Canada is now at Crown Point, but still one half down with the smallpox. You ask about Arnold's behavior at the Cedars. It was this. The scoundrel, Major Butterfield, having surrendered three hundred and ninety men, in a fort with twenty or thirty days' provision, and ammunition enough, to about forty regulars, one hundred Canadians, and five hundred Indians, before he had lost a single man-and Maj. Sherburne, who was coming to the relief of the fort with one hundred men, having, after bravely engaging the enemy an hour and forty minutes, killing twenty of them and losing twelve of his own, been surrounded by them, and taken prisoners also-Gen. Arnold appeared on the opposite side of the river and prepared to attack them. His numbers I know not, but believe they were about equal to the enemy. Capt. Foster, commander of the king's troops, sent over a flag to him, proposing an exchange of prisoners for as many of the king's in our possession, and, Laoreover, informed Arnold that if he should attack, the Indians would put every man of the prisoners to death. Arnold refused, called a council of war, and, it being now in the night, it was determined to attack next morning. A second flag came over; he again refused, though in an excruciating situation, as he saw the en