1896

Below is an article detailing the history of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence documents and written in support of its authenticity.

The Charlotte Observer Women’s Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence Edition, 5/20/1896 p. 2

 

THE MECKLENBURG DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.May 20th, 1775. 

 

Of all the points of historic interest which cluster around North Carolina—and she is rich in these—a greater share belongs to Mecklenburg as a county, and to Charlotte as a city, than to any other portion of our state.  And of all the historic associations which centre about Mecklenburg county and the city of Charlotte, whether they be of ante or post Revolutionary interest, none have been the occasion of so much discussion, debate and thought, as the event which we commemorate to-day in the issue of this paper—The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence at Charlotte, on May 20, 1775.

 It is the purpose of this article to present a few clear cut reasons and facts on which we, of the Woman’s Edition of the Observer, base our belief, especially upon two points in the connection: 

“(1) That there was a declaration of independence at Charlotte, North Carolina, on May 20th, 1775.

 “(2) That the Davie copy of that declaration is not needed to establish its authenticity.”

 The Editor of this paper is not a North Carolinian, has spent very little time within the bounds of this state, and has made no special study of the history of North Carolina; hence not much originality is claimed for the matter contained in this article. 

The Editor is under obligation to a copy of the “New York Herald,” of May 20, 1875, and to the “Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence,” by Dr. George W. and Prof. Alexander Graham of this city, for most of the facts herein presented. 

As we understand it the point of discussion has not been between two parties, one of whom affirms there was a Mecklenburg Declaration, and one of whom denies that there was such a Declaration; the fact that there was a Mecklenburg Declaration seems to be generally conceded by all parties, and the point of discussion is regarding the date of this Declaration; one party affirming it to be May 20, while the other as strongly adheres to the belief that May 31st is the date of that occurrence.  The articles now in print regarding this point of difference number nearly one hundred, and interest in the subject seems unabated. 

An account of the meeting of the representatives of the people of Mecklenburg in General Committee at Charlotte on May 19-20, 1775, will not be given here as a full description of this meeting will be found in another column of this paper. 

Of this committee, John McKnitt Alexander was Secretary, and he was custodian of the records of this meeting until the year 1800, when his house was destroyed by fire and the records burned with it.  After this, in the same year, he prepared what is known as the “Davie Copy” of the Declaration, from memory, for Gen. W. R. Davie.  Of this copy we learn that “it is written in the past tense instead of the present, contains mistakes in the text and omits the sixth resolution.  He added a certificate, however, dated Sept. 3d, 1800, saying ‘that the foregoing statement though fundamentally correct, may not literally correspond with the original record of the transactions of said delegation, etc.’” 

A fac simile of this Davie copy appeared in the Raleigh Register in 1819, two years after the death of Mr. Alexander, and to this the following note was appended:  “The foregoing is a true copy of the papers on the above subject, left in my hands by John McKnitt Alexander, dec’d.”  (Signed) “J. McKnitt.” 

Those who oppose the 20th of May Declaration claim that it would have been impossible for John McKnitt to have reproduced this document from memory, and they also claim that in his endeavor to reproduce it he has confused it with the National Declaration of the following year. 

But it must be remembered that the “Davie Copy” was not the only source upon which the Mecklenburg Declaration depended for its authenticity.  Had the Davie copy never been written the Declaration would have been preserved. 

Judge Martin began a history of North Carolina during the last century and he tells us that he had “procured copies of the original paper from the records, magazines and gazettes of that time.”  His history was not published until 1829, and on this account it has been undervalued because the discussion of this subject began in 1819.  This history covers the period down to 1776, and in it we find the Mecklenburg Declaration in full and, also, the circumstances connected with its adoption.  From the preface to this history we learn that the first and second volumes were prepared between 1791 and 1809 which was years before the discussion regarding the Mecklenburg Declaration began—the first doubt with reference to its authenticity being raised in 1819—hince it seems to us unjust to rule this evidence out of the discussion. 

The Mecklenburg Declaration appears in the final chapter of Martin’s History, and on this account many have claimed that it is merely an addition written after the book was finished.  This plea, however, cannot be sustained as the copy of the Declaration contained in this history is not a “Davie” copy, and with this it does not agree. 

Another contradiction that the Mecklenburg Declaration is a supplement to this book is found in the arrangements of the history, which we learn is as follows: 

“Chapter X, of the second volume, is filled with transactions of 1774-‘75, and chapter XI with those of 1775-’76.  The Mecklenburg Declaration is recorded under the year 1775 and followed by other incidents in their chronological order down to August 1776, including the adoption of the National Declaration of Independence; and in the preface Judge Martin says that he had arranged all those (materials) that related to transactions anterior to the Declaration of Independence.” 

His reference here to Declaration must necessarily refer to the Declaration of 1776, as Judge Martin always refers to the Mecklenburg proceedings as “Resolutions” and never as a Declaration. 

INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS. 

From an address by ex-Gov. W. A. Graham, which was published in 1875, by E. G. Hale & Son of New York, we cull the following concise statements which clearly add weight to the evidence establishing the 20th of May as the date of the Mecklenburg Declaration.  He says, under the head of The Claim of Mecklenburg: 

“The position we maintain is very readily stated.  It is that the resistance to British authority which assumed the form of war in 1775, was not begun or waged on the part of the colonies generally, or the Congress which represented them, with any view to a severance of the Empire before late in the spring of 1776.  Like the risings against King John, Charles I and James II, it contemplated only a reformation of abuses and redress of grievances as British subjects under the crown of the monarch, but did not contemplate a change of government, or freedom from the dominion of their king and country beyond the sea; that North Carolina, and especially the people of Mecklenburg, formed an exception to this general sentiment of loyalty.  The leading spirits, in that country and elsewhere, were ripe for revolution from the beginning.  They were opposed to monarchy, had little or no attachment for the mother country, were chafed by recent provocations in the actual operations of the government, and were ready to throw it off at any favorable opportunity.  Hence their decided and manly action in proclaiming independence on the 20th of May, 1775, in advance of all the other colonies.” 

He makes the following statements of 

WHAT NOBODY CAN DENY. 

“1.  No one, I presume, doubts that the men of Mecklenburg, who were old enough to remember the events of 1775 and survived till 1819 and 1820 and 1830, believed there had been a Declaration of Independence at Charlotte on the 20th of May in the year first mentioned, and that they themselves witnessed its promulgation. 

“2.  That not only was this conviction prevalent among those who had remained in that county in the interim, but was shared by those who had emigrated to Georgia, Tennessee and elsewhere. 

“3.  That the whole people from Mecklenburg, without distinction from difference in religious opinion, political parties or personal antipathies, or rivalries, were likewise impressed with this conviction, and from early after the year 1820 onward united in celebrating the anniversary of the day of the Declaration at Charlotte, with all the demonstrations tending to commemorate a great event.” 

The reasons given by ex-Governor Vance in support of the 20th of May Declaration are clear cut and to the point.  He says: 

“We believe in the validity of the 20th of May, because— 

First—It is asserted by tradition unbroken by a single contradiction. 

Second—Because it is proven by the positive testimony of eye-witnesses, men of more than ordinary intellect and of most exalted personal character, who say they saw and heard the transaction. 

Third—To this it is objected that they intended to speak of the action of the 31st of May instead of the 20th. 

Fourth—That they may have been mistaken in reproducing from memory the precise words of the Declaration on the 20th is probable, and is a fair subject of critical inference; but that they should have mistaken absolutely its substance and purport is not fairly to be supposed, and to demand belief in its spurious character on such frail grounds is an absurdity such as the integrity of history does not require.” 

General Johnson was a staunch believer in the 20th of May Declaration, and he wrote as follows regarding it from Richmond, Va., in 1875: 

“It seems to me the evidence proves a revolutionary meeting at Charlotte on May 20, which declared independence.  The witnesses swear that a meeting was held in May, at which independence was discussed, and the question as to how they were to be absolved from the oath of allegiance forced on them after the battle of Alamance. 

Now no such question or debate could have occurred at the meeting of the 31st, which was a regular meeting of the Committee of Safety.  The people of Mecklenburg had always been revolutionary.  The battle of Alamance did not crush the Regulators.  As Mr. Bancroft said, the Behemoth shook the bolt from his forehead and crossed the mountains.  The royal government had been dissolved by dissolution of the General Assembly on the 8th of April, 1775, and I can well understand how the descendants of Scotch whigs and Irish exiles should have been impatient at the slow progress made.  * * *  As for the identity of the language of the declaration as preserved by John McKnitt Alexander, that is not established.  He gave one copy to Dr. Williamson and six months after the original was destroyed gave another from recollection to General Davie.  This last one we have.  It may or may not contain the exact language of the original declaration  The fact that the language is the same, in part, as that of Mr. Jefferson’s declaration of July 4, proves nothing either way.  It is suspicious, but it does not follow that one must have been the copy of the other.  Such language was common at every vestry meeting, and in every town during 1774-75 and ’76.” 

Opinions from other noted men might be added to these, but it seems to us unnecessary to lengthen this list in an attempt to more firmly establish a fact which is so well authenticated already. 

That historians have sustained the 20th of May declaration we need but to note the following works: 

David Martin’s “History of North Carolina”—1829.Joseph Seawell Jones’ “Defence of North Carolina”—1834.Rev. Dr. William H. Foote’s “Sketches of North Carolina”—1844.J. H. Wheeler’s  “Sketches of the History of North Carolina”—1851. 

This Declaration is also sustained by Pitkins “Political and Civil History of the United States” and by the works of Rev. Dr. Hawks and Rev. Dr. Augustine T. Smythe. 

We believe evidence fully sustains us in our affirmation that the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence antedates from ten to forty years the discovery of the Davie paper of 1819 in the following order: 

(1.)  “The Mecklenburg Censor” of March 18, 1777.  (2.)  Davidson birthday, May 20, 1787.  (3.)  The deeds of Mecklenburg and adjoining counties made during and immediately after the Revolutionary war.  (4.)  The proceedings in Martin’s History of North Carolina, which, the author states, were taken from the “records, magazines and gazettes,” and prepared between 1791 and 1809.  (5.)  The declamation of the school boy delivered on June 1, 1809.” 

In this connection we append the fac simile of the signatures to the 20th May Mecklenburg Declaration which have been preserved. 

[copies of signatures were inserted here] After having given careful attention to the foregoing evidence we believe the following facts to be fully established: 

“(1)  That there was a declaration of independence at Charlotte, North Carolina, on May 20th, 1775. 

(2)  That the resolutions were sent to the Continental Congress and suppressed by the president because he feared the publication would defeat a certain petition to the King. 

(3)  That the declaration would have been preserved without John McKnitt Alexander’s writing what is known as the Davie copy, as Judge Martin had procured, for his history, a transcript of the proceedings of the convention from the records, magazines and gazettes of the last century. 

(4)  That the evidence of the declaration antedates the discovery of the “Davie Copy” more than forty years, and consists of the Mecklenburg Censor, March 18, 1777, the revolutionary deeds, the birth of Benjamin Wilson Davidson, May 20, 1787, Martin’s History prepared between 1791 and 1809, and the declamation of the school boy June 1, 1809. 

(5)  That North Carolinians will not surrender their faith in the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration of May 20th, 1775, until the advocates of the so-called “Resolves of the 31st,” prove that the preface of Martin’s History is untrue, the “Mecklenburg Censor” a myth; the date of the birth of Benjamin Wilson Davidson an error; the deeds, forgeries; the declamation of the school boy a fiction; and that the Davie copy is not ‘fundamentally correct.”—[The Editor.]