1857 - Oration on the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence

On Wednesday last, May 20th, 1857, the Anniversary of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence of May 20th, 1775, was duly celebrated in Charlotte according to previous announcement. Before we commence an account of the proceedings, we must ask that all imperfections or omissions be attributed to indisposition on our part, caused by an attack of chills and fever. We turned out with a fever on us, for the purpose of reporting the transactions of the occasion in order that our readers might have an opportunity of knowing what was said and done.

The weather for some days previous was very disagreeable. It rained from Sunday afternoon til 12 o’clock Tuesday night almost incessantly, thus preventing and discouraging thousands from attending who would have done so had the weather been more favorable. But the morning of the 20th dawned with a clear sky, and a bright sun revived the anticipations of the thousands of North Carolinians, with many patriotic citizens from other States, who had assembled for the purpose of participating in the festivities of the day. Every portion of North Carolina was represented-the extreme East and the extreme West were here collected for the purpose of commemorating a great and noble event in the history of the State.

At 12 o’clock, a procession was formed at Public Square under the direction of Gen. John A. Young, Marshal of the Day, and Messrs. Gillespie, Torrence, Grier and Gen. Walkup assistant Marshals, and marched to the Presbyterian Church Groves, preceded by the splendid Saxe-Horn Band of Charlotte, which enlivened the proceedings throughout the day with skillful and animating strains.

The stand was occupied by Chief Justice Nash and other officers of the day, together with the Orator and Reader, His Excellency Gov. Bragg, and the Rev. Dr. Lacy.
The Marshal announced the Order of Proceedings, which commenced with a fervent, eloquent and patriotic prayer by the Rev. Dr. Lacy.

James W. Osborne, Esq. then arose for the purpose of reading the Mecklenburg Declaration, which he did in a clear and distinct tone, prefacing it with some highly patriotic and appropriate remarks. (We intended to publish Mr. Osborne’s remarks, but he left town before we could see him and procure a copy.)

THE ADDRESS.

Dr. Hawks was introduced to the audience in a brief and appropriate manner by the venerable Chief Justice Nash.

Dr. Hawks’s exordium was a beautiful and most touching enforcement of the idea of veneration with which we look upon places, by which either our patriotism or our affections are stirred. He applied this thought, this feeling, to the present occasion, in the following eloquent passage:

“When, therefore, in the distant home where I dwell, an unwilling exile from the land of my fathers, I was honored with a summons to meet you here to-day. I felt that the only appropriate time is NOW; the only proper place is HERE, for the commemoration of the events we would recall. For on this day, fourscore and two years ago, and on this spot, our fathers wrote their part of a large chapter in history, in the brave, but when perilous word –INDEPENDENCE.”

He next passed to the consideration of the American Revolution, that “spectacle of unequalled moral sublimity,” which, “whether considered with reference to the motive that prompted it, the men who led it, the patient self-denial, and the cheerfully borne sacrifices involved in it, or the incredibly marvelous consequences which have flowed from it, looms up before us in colossal proportions, and stands unequalled in its magnificent grandeur.” From the Revolution generally, he passed on to a delineation of the character of the people of this part of North Carolina, their origin, training, and the principles of civil and religious liberty which were instilled into their mines, more than in any other parts of the colony, from their youth on up.

We pass over, as having neither time nor room for them, brilliant passages relating to the Union, to northern fanaticism, to the southern duty of calm watchfulness, preparation for whatever may happen, and a determination to stand by the Constitution. “Develop your resources,” said he. “God has made them surpassingly great.” Open communication by railroads, allowing no local rivalries to interfere. The interest of each section of the State is the interest of all.

Of the closing and historical part of the address, we add the following carefully prepared synopsis, in which we do not pretend to completeness, but merely to give a general idea of the very interesting facts and arguments. And we will here remark that we are indebted to our old friend E. J. Hale, Esq. of the Fayetteville Observer, for valuable assistance in preparing the abstract below, and thus enabling us to place before the public so much important and interesting testimony on the subject under consideration.

STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION.

There are those who assert that no meeting was held in Charlotte on the 19th and 20th of May, 1775, and no Declaration of Independence then and there made; but that a meeting was held on the 30th of May in that year, in which certain resolutions were adopted, and that this constitutions the only action of the people of Mecklenburg during May, 1775.

On the other hand the Legislature of N. Carolina has affirmed, and the people of the State have concurred in that affirmation, that there was a meeting held in charlotte on the 19th and 20th days of May, 1775; that certain resolutions declaring independence, abjuring allegiance to the British crown, and claiming the right of self-government, were then and there adopted; North Carolina further affirms that there was also a meeting of a committee on this 30th of May, 1775, by virtue of their appointment at the meeting of the 20th; that their meeting was founded on the previous action of that day (the 20th,) and that its end and object was to improvise a temporary system of government for Mecklenburg, inasmuch as it had been declared in rebellion and out of the protection of the laws of the British crown.

PRESUMPTIVE PROOF.

Dr. H. stated that there were certain facts connected with the paper made in Mecklenburg, whether on the 20th or 30th, and irrespective of its contents, which were established beyond dispute, and had not been controverted. These were the following:

Whatever paper was prepared was made when the news had just been received in Charlotte of the battle of Lexington and the people assembled in the town were greatly excited by the intelligence.
Whatever paper was made was prepared upon a call of the people here assembled, crying out, “let us be independent.”
The document was made when there was an assemblage at Charlotte of the larger part of the residents of the country; that assemblage lasted part of two days, and some of the work was done in the intervening night.
The document, after having been prepared, was read from the steps of the court House by Col. Thomas Polk.
The contents of the paper were preserved at the time, both in memory and by means of writing, on the part of some of those then present.
The document has been repeatedly declared by several of those who heard it read, to have renounced allegiance, declared independence, and affirmed the right of self-government. These were facts connected with the making of the paper, no matter whether prepared on the 20th or the 30th.

From these facts, Dr. H. proceeded to show that the paper of the 30th could not have been the only document prepared in Mecklenburg in May, 1775, for that in many particulars, that document was utterly irreconcilable with the foregoing facts.

News was received of the battle of Lexington the day the paper was made.— Dr. H. then proceeded to show from Drayton’s memoirs of South Carolina, and from Gibb’s Revolutionary documents of the same State, the printed copy from the letter of intelligence of the battle of Lexington that was sent South, showing the day and the hour endorsed on it, as it passed through the hands of every Vigilance Committee from Connecticut to Charleston: and conclusively established the fact that the news of the battle of Lexington reached Charlotte on the night of the 18th of May, or rather early in the morning of the 19th of that month, in 1775. This fact, therefore did not harmonize with the claim made for the document of the 30th.
The paper was made in response to the people’s call, “let us be independent.”— Dr. H. argued on the improbability that in answer to such a call made by an excited multitude, a paper would be prepared which should contain nothing about independence, and yet that the people should be satisfied with it as a Declaration of Independence. This fact, therefore, did not seem to agree with the claim made for the document of the 30th, which was just such as is above described.
There was a large assembly of the people of the county in Charlotte when the paper was prepared, and this assemblage continued for part of two days, some of the work having been done in the intervening night. Dr. H. then asked what there was in the document of the 30th, or what evidence had been produced from any source to show that the meeting of the 30th sat also on either the 29th or 31st of May? What proof that any work was done at night? What proof that there was any assemblage of the people of the county at all on or about the 30th? What evidence from the document itself, or from any other source, that any gentlemen of the county met in Charlotte on that day, except the gentlemen of the Committee? The answer was, that on all those points not a particle of testimony had ever been produced to sustain them.—This fact, therefore, seemed inconsistent with the claim made for the document of the 30th.
5. [sic] The next known facts were, the document prepared was publicly read by Col. Thomas Polk, and that its contents were preserved at the time, both in writing and in memory by some of those present who heard it. Now, Gen. Graham, Rev. H. Hunter and col. William Polk, of Raleigh, (three more respectable and credible witnesses never lived any where,) were all present, all heard the paper read, all remembered its substance, and one reduced to writing the date as the 20th and copied the paper read at the time; and what they remembered and what they copied, did not contain one particle of the document of the 30th; but a totally different paper. Nor, of all those present who heard the paper read, was there ever found one who retained in memory as what he then heard, the paper of the 30th; while a great many did remember a totally different document as what they then heard. This fact, therefore, does not agree with the claim set up for the paper of the 30th.
The last fact alluded to was that the document read, according to the testimony of some twenty witnesses, did contain three most important particulars, expressly and unequivocally announced; these were, 1st, renunciation of allegiance; 2d, a declaration of independence; and 3d, the right of self-government. Now, an inspection of the document of the 30th will show, that in it, the two particulars first named are not explicitly declared, and the last is not named at all. But it declares its object to be simply “regulating the jurisprudence of the province.”

From the inconsistency of all these facts with the paper of the 30th, Dr. H. inferred that if the case stopped here, if there were no further proof behind, one would be justified in saying that the paper of the 30th could not be the document referred to in the facts above stated; and therefore, we might safely lay it aside.

DIRECT PROOF

Having thus removed for the present the document of the 30th out of his path, to return hereafter to an analysis of it, Dr. H. entered on the direct affirmative testimony which went to show what was the document put forth by the Mecklenburg men as a declaration of independence that deserved the name, and what the date at which they issued it. In this part of his argument, he took up the following facts, adding the proof for each as he proceeded.

There was a meeting at Charlotte, of the larger part of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg county, held on the 19th and 20th days of May, 1775. To prove this he added no less than fourteen witnesses, men in their day well known in Mecklenburg and of irreproachable characters, who all testify that they were all present at such a meeting. Seven positively name the date (the 19th and 20th days of May 1775.) and one of the seven testifies from a written memorandum, still in existence, and made at the time, as to the date. The other seven, without expressly naming the day of the month, testify to incidents and occurrences at the meeting precisely the same as those deposed to by the witnesses who do name the exact day of the month; thus identifying the meeting as the same. We are bound therefore to believe there was such a meeting. Now if this be so, it must inevitably follow that if any paper was prepared and read at that meeting it could not have been one which by its own date (May 30) shows it must have been made ten days afterwards. The only issue then to which we are brought in this stage of the discussion is raised by the question: was any paper prepared and adopted at the meeting of the 20th? If there was, it puts an end at once and forever to the hypothesis that the document of the 30th is the only one that was put forth in Mecklenburg in May 1775.
Dr. H. then proceeded to the issue thus made, and affirmed as a fact susceptible of proof, that at the meeting on the 20th a paper was prepared by Dr. Ephraim Brevard and presented by a committee appointed for that purpose; that such paper was publicly read by Col. Thomas Polk; that it unequivocally declared independence, ipso verbo; and that its contents when read were assented to by the people present. As to the first particular, the preparation of the paper by Dr. Brevard, he adduced the testimony of nine witnesses, some of whom were of the committee who reported it. As to the second, the public reading, he proved it by eight witnesses, all of whom that specify the reader, name Col. Thomas Polk as the individual. As to the third particular, that the paper explicitly declared Independence, he quoted the very words of no less than fourteen witnesses who heard the paper read, every one of whom distinctly called it a declaration of Independence. We give the language of some: One calls it “the declaration of Independence made in Charlotte, on the 20th day of May, 1775.” Another says of the people of Mecklenburg, that “met on a certain day in Charlotte, and from the head of the Court house stairs, proclaimed Independence of English government by Col. Thomas Polk.” Four other thus speak: “they formed several resolves which were read, and which went to declare themselves and the people of Mecklenburg County free and Independent of the King and parliament of Great Britain.” Another thus speaks “it was however {the declaration made} in substance and form, like that great national act, agreed on thirteen months after.” The testimony of the whole fourteen, whom, by the way, the people between the Yadkin and Catawba know to have been men of unimpeachable integrity, was remarkable in the particular that every one used the word “Independence,” or “Independent” in describing the charter of the declaration. From this testimony, which, he said, strangers who know nothing of the character of the witnesses might question, but those who lived in North Carolina never would, the speaker drew two inferences, viz: 1st, that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what the contents of the paper of the 20th were; and 2d, there could not be any difficulty in identifying it by those contents. He then took the next step for which he had thus prepared the way, and produced the well known document of the 20th, showing that “in substance and in form” it does agree with the national declaration; that it does expressly renounce allegiance and declare Independence; that it does meet specifically the call provided to have been made by the excited multitude for Independence; and that it does allude to the blood events at Lexington, the news of which had just reached them, and thus excited them.
The next fact he affirmed and proceeded to prove, was, that the paper then read passed into the hands of its proper custodian, the Secretary of the meeting; and he stated that this was important, because he meant to trace it step by step from his hands into honorable publicity. It was important too because it involved the reputation for integrity of a man who lived with unblemished character for more than four score years in this country, and who is now in his grave. He said that either John McKnitt Alexander, the Secretary of the meeting, had in his possession honorable and honestly such a paper as that which bears the date of May 20th 1775, and it was a true part of the proceedings of that day; or-John McKnitt Alexander was guilty of fraud and falsehood by forging such a paper. There is no escape from one or the other of these alternatives. Dr. H. then affirmed what all Mecklenburg knows to be true, that no man now living or that ever did live has or had any right to cast such an imputation on John McKnitt Alexander. He was as honest a man as any who have ever assailed our declaration of independence, be they high or low.
But, as Dr. H. proceeded to remark, Providence has in a striking manner taken care of a worthy Christian man thus cruelly assailed; and thus the speaker made appear by a succession of facts which he established by incontrovertible testimony.
Alexander declared, while yet alive, that he had given copies of that paper to two men, both of whom lived for nearly twenty years after his declaration. These men were Gen. William Richardson Davie and Dr. Hugh Williamson. He had given these copies prior to the year 1800. He never made a secret of having furnished these copies; nothing therefore was easier than to disprove the authenticity of these papers by a comparison of them with the original, prior to 1800, when Alexander’s house was burned and many of his papers destroyed, the original Declaration among the rest. If therefore we was wicked enough to forge the papers he gave Davie and Williamson before 1800, he was silly enough to afford the means of his own detection by so readily and frequently telling to others in whose possession these pretended copies might be found.

But who was William Richardson Davie? Reared in this country, at College in 1775, he left in 1776, and in 1777 was here at home fighting the battles of freedom. Ever good whig in both Carolinas knew him as a true man, even as he knew them. He knew, too, all the past history of his country; and to crown all, he was an intellectual, high-toned, honorable, brave gentleman. Well, it is to this man, of all others, that Alexander gives a copy of a document most remarkable for the distinct boldness of the language in which it renounces allegiance and asserts independence. Now we must suppose that Davie read the paper thus given to him; that he deemed it valuable is provided by the fact that he carefully preserved it. We must also suppose that as he perused it, it necessarily must have presented to his mind either something of which he had heard before, or something that was entirely new to him. If the latter were the case, then it must have led to inquiries which he would make of his old companions and fellow patriots, and it would especially have prompted him to an examination of the original of so remarkable a historical novelty. And when he thus inquired, if the whole story were a fabrication he must have discovered the fact and consequently baseness of Alexander. But Davie keeps the paper, and after his death it is found treasured up among his most precious manuscripts, and he retains his respect and confidence for the man from whom he received it, as long as that man lived. Can any other inference be drawn than that Davie knew the paper to be authentic? Some of you (said the speaker) know Gen. Davie, and you know he was just the man who would indignantly have spurned Alexander from his presence forever, if he had found himself deceived by him.
The next fact is that Alexander said he had also given a copy to Dr. Hugh Williamson. Governor Stokes testifies that in 1793, he saw a copy in the hands of Williamson, together with a letter to him, both in the handwriting of Alexander, which he knew, and that he conversed with Williamson on the subject of the letter and copy enclosed. But as Williamson made no use of it in his book which he miscalled “a History of North Carolina,” it has been insinuated that he never had such a document. We might as well infer that he never had the printed resolutions of May 30th, for he does not mention that meeting. In fact he disposes of the whole revolutionary history of the State in two short sentences. His work does not deserve the name of a history.
But further confirmation of Alexander’s perfect truth and honesty is furnished by facts connected with the copies he said he had given to Davie, and which was found among Davie’s papers. Alexander must have known the contents of the paper he gave Davie; he therefore must have known whether they were resolves of a meeting on the 20th, or those adopted at the meeting on the 30th, for he was at both. After his house was consumed, talking with his old friend, Judge Cameron, lamenting the loss of the original Declaration, he remarked to the judge emphatically, “BUT THE DOCUMENT IS SAFE.” What document? He explains the Declaration; for, adds he, “I gave Davie a copy which I now to be correct.” No copy of the resolves of the 30th in Alexander’s handwriting or that of any one else, was ever found among Davie’s papers. Besides, he would not have said so emphatically of the resolves of the 20th, “the document is safe,” for those resolves he knew well were to be found in print in divers publications. They consequently were safe enough.
But the proof of Alexander’s truthfulness still accumulates-for the next fact affirmed by Dr. H. was, that a copy substantially the same as Davie’s was in the hands of Martin, of Louisiana, and was published by him in 1829. Dr. H. then stated that he himself had particularly questioned Judge Martin in person, not long before his death, as to the source whence he had derived his copy. The Judge said expressly, “not from Alexander,” but from some one in the Western part of the State, prior to 1800.- Here then was a copy substantially agreeing with Davie’s, which, before 1800, was by some means or other, in existence in this part of the world, not traced to Alexander. As to the fact of substantial agreement, the Dr. remarked that some and [had] been pleased to say there were material differences of phraseology in each resolution of the series containing the declaration,” he begged indulgence while he examined that point. He then showed but there really was no difference in sense; in a single resolution of either of the copies-that the one was the first draft as made by Dr. Brevard at the request of the Committee, and the other that draft with the corrections of the Committee. From the fact of the slight disagreement, however, he drew the inference, that the very differences showed there had been no forgery of the paper; for had it been forged there never would have been found disagreeing copies at all. The fraudulent fabricator would have taken pains to make all copies alike.
He then brought forward another fact hitherto unnoticed, viz: the first publication of a copy of resolutions in the form in which Martin presents them. This was in the 2d volume of Major Garden’s revolutionary anecdotes and reminiscences. They are there accompanied by a history of the proceedings at Charlotte on the 20th of May, and a statement that the translation so creditable to North Carolina was not known as generally as it should be to the citizens of the U. States. He then discussed the question, “whence did Garden obtain his copy?” He first showed that it could not have been from Martin’s book, for Garden’s was published in 1828 while Martin’s did not appear until the end of 1829. He testified from his own communications with Judge Martin that the latter had never given Garden a copy, for he did not even know in the last year of his life that Garden had ever printed them. He next showed that he could not have obtained them from Alexander’s copy; because 1st they did, not agree with Alexander’s copy exactly, and 2d. the pamphlet put forth by the State containing Alexander’s copy, found among Davie’s papers, was not published until the winter of 1930-’31 – neither could they have been obtained from the publication of Col. Polk in the “Raleigh Register” of 1819, for the resolution as set forth here agree with Alexander’s, and not with Martin’s or Garden’s copies. He was in possession then of a totally distinct copy from any heretofore noticed. He next showed that Major Garden was, during the revolution, in Lee’s legion, and during part of the time, one of the Gen. Greene’s military family; that in both of these situations his duties brought him into constant communication with Mecklenburg and all the country round about, and hence concluded that he must have obtained them from some of his fellow soldiers and companions, who were numerous enough in all this region of country, and familiar enough with all the doings in Mecklenburg.
Another, and the last fact adduced by the speaker in this part of the case was that another copy of the document not emanating from Alexander, and never under his control, though agreeing with Davie’s copy verbatim, was made at the time of the meeting by one present, who kept a diary in which he inserted the copy, and stated the date, May 20th, 1775. This diary was preserved in the family of the Rev. H. Humphrey, who made it, and is yet in existence.

On this mass of direct testimony, Dr. H. thought we might safely adopt two conclusions, viz: 1st, if there was a large meeting in Charlotte of the Mecklenburg men on the 19th and 20th days of May, 1775; if they were then and there greatly excited by the news of the affair at Lexington just received; if they resolved upon a public expression of their opposition to tyranny an called for independence eo nomine, and if they caused any paper at all to be prepared at the meeting and these things he submitted must be believed, or we must relinquish all faith in human testimony,) then it must follow that the attempt to make the document of the 30th of May the Mecklenburg declaration of independence utterly fails, and 2d, that all the particulars above named having occurred here on the 19th and 20th days of May, 1775, the document was now produce of that date is the declaration of independence that was then promulgated in this town.

THE DOCUMENT OF THE 30th OF MAY

The speaker then returning to this, subjected it to a minute searching analysis and conclusively showed that it was no more than a temporary body of laws, or, as they expressed it in the instrument, “certain rules and regulations for the internal government of this Country,” necessary as they judged, “for the better preservation of good order.” He showed from one of the witnesses of the meeting of the 20th that, at that meeting, a committee was appointed for that very purpose; that the meeting of the 30th was composed of the members of that committee; that they supposed themselves to be without laws, courts, or civil officers, because parliament in the preceding February had declared them to be in rebellion. They proceeded, therefore, under the name of resolves to make laws. The meeting of May 20th had done no more than assert, as a general principle, their voluntary adoption of the existing laws of the colony “as a rule of life,” with an express disclaimer of pay recognition thereby of the Crown or any of its officers. The committee was now to prescribe in detail measures which would carry out the general principle, with its disclaimer. Accordingly they passed twenty resolves. When we examine them we find that from the 3d to the 19th, they relate entirely to matters purely civil, in the administration of justice in the county; and in the 19th and 20th they put the military in a fit state for service, and provide a proper authority over them. Thus, they extemporize a species of court in each military company’s district, fix the extent of jurisdiction, provides officers to execute process, establish an appellate tribunal, regulate the duties of tax collectors and other accounting officers, and, incidentally, to insure the working of the system thus devised, and to prevent a conflict of authorities, they disallow the powers of the former crown officials of the county, and pledge themselves to save harmless their own officers whom they now appoint. As to the meeting, they had by their action on the 20th, continued in command all officers who would conform to the principles of the declaration; and they now give directions for providing the men with arms and ammunition, with instructions to hold themselves in readiness to execute the orders received from them or from the provincial Congress. This sketch embodies all the laws they made, and constitutes nearly the whole document of the 30th. The only other particular not yet named is the declaration that these laws are to be in force no longer than necessity absolutely demands; and this is made in these words, “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.” The latter clause of this passage has been urged as proof that they never made a previous declaration renouncing allegiance or they never would, as here, have implied a willingness to submit themselves again to British legislation.

Dr. H. remarked that had those who have thus interpreted this clause, been as well acquainted as Mecklenburg men are, with the then existing facts, they would scarcely have committed themselves to such a conclusion. But without this knowledge of facts, they might have seen the fallacy of their inference. Very slight critical acumen might have shown them that men in their senses would never have made the cessation of their laws depend upon the happening of either one of two contingencies, so utterly irreconcileable and inconsistent as legislative action by the provincial Congress, or similar action by the British Parliament. For this would be, in effect, to make them say, “our action shall cease when either of the two bodies now in a state of open antagonism and hostility shall act with reference to us; and as we are indifferent on the subject, we will yield at once to that body which acts first”: and this declaration, too, must be made in the face of their own positive assertion in the 2d resolve of the very same instrument, that the right to act was then in one of those antagonistic bodies only, viz the provincial congress and further that they meant their resolves to be a mere temporary substitute for laws, only until that congress did act.

It might have been seen too, without any extraordinary sagacity, that this supposed state of indifference as to which body should rule them. (contradicted as we know it to have been by all concurrent history) even if real, implied no acknowledgement of allegiance, inconsistent with a previous declaration of independence: for these interpreters had but to look for a moment to its practical working on the happening of one of the contingencies. Suppose, for instance, the first action to proceed from the provincial congress: what must follow? Why, on their hypothesis of an indifferent choice between the alternatives, the colonists would necessarily submit to the congress; and then, of course, as submission could be yielded to but one authority, and action of parliament afterwards, no matter what, would have been too late to induce obedience to it; and then, of course again, the colonists must have been in open opposition to the British government, refusing to acknowledge allegiance to it; though the very hypothesis which thus inevitably leads to this opposition and refusal of allegiance to G. Britain assumes the willingness of the colonists to submit to G. Britain.

He who would understand the action of the Mecklenburg men, must inform himself accurately of the facts which were then existing around them. A Knowledge of these will show why the clause was inserted, and what it meant; and will demonstrate the perfect consistency of the actors. What were the facts? Briefly these: The British parliament had a short time before declared these men to be in rebellion, out of the king’s protection. They conceived that the effect of this was to leave them without officers, civil or military, without law to govern them and without courts to administer law, even if they had it. There was consequently, in their view, nothing to oppose any restraint to the wildest anarchy. But they saw that this would very soon destroy the peace and quiet of the whole country, and accordingly, at their first meeting on the 20th of May, in the memorable document of that date, made primarily for another purpose, they attempted to provide a remedy, so far as their own country was concerned, by declaring in their 4th resolution, that as there was no law or legal officer in the county who could be recognised by men of any political opinion, loyalist or whig (for the whole country was proclaimed in rebellion,) they would ordain and adopt as a rule of life, each and every of their former laws already existing and known to all, saving only that they did not thereby mean to acknowledge the rights of the power that had thus wantonly and deliberately put them outside of the protection of those laws. They thus affirmed the general principle of adhering to the existing and well known laws, not because the crown had once sanctioned them, but simply because they chose to adopt them ‘as a rule of life.’ And they further declared that all existing officers in the county who chose to adopt the principles asserted on the 20^th of May, might continue to exercise their office under this temporary arrangement until – when? – “until (say they) a more general and organized government is established in the province.” And having done this, they appoint a committee of delegates to hold future meetings and arrange the details which would carry out these general principles.

Well, ten days afterward, these delegates convene to promulgate those details which they had by that time arranged; and on the 30^th, this work was done and sent to Wilmington to be printed, because it was to be a “rule of life” for every man in the county, that “peace and order might be preserved.” In arranging these details, the delegates had no difficulty in declaring for themselves and all other confirmed whigs, that they recognixed the provincial congress, and in shaping for themselves ordinances in harmony with such a recognition: - but there were others in the county, who, though not very numerous, were still influential, whose sympathies were not with the Whigs, who rather inclined to the crown. These men were however to be brought under the influence of the temporary laws, but they were not prepared to admit that these laws should cease upon the action a provincial congress, for they recognized no authority in such a congress. And the existence and opinions of these men form a most important historical fact which has been entirely overlooked by those who have undertaken to interpret the document of the 30^th. “What was to be done with those men?” was a question presented to the minds of the delegates. To have insisted on their obeying temporary laws and recognizing the provincial congress would, at once, have produced a forcible contest; civil strife would probably have then commenced. But this on every account was to be avoided, and not the least of the reasons why it should be avoided was, that many men who then wavered, would (as events afterward proved they did) find that their loyal hopes in the justice of the crown were doomed to disappointment, and that they must cast in their lot with the mass of their countrymen, or be the victims of a misplaced and unrequited loyalty.

While, therefore, it was declared that for the preservation of the peace and order, these men, like all others, must submit to the temporary ordinances of the 30^th; yet for their sakes it was also inserted that the moment the British legislature should, and the language is remarkably guarded, “resign its unjust and arbitrary pretensions with respect to America,” that is revoke their edict of a pretended rebellion which nullified all law; thus reviving the ancient laws of the colony; that then these men might obey these revived colonial laws, and no longer consider themselves bound by the temporary ordinances of the 30^th of May. This they could assent to with their existing loyalty unimpeached, for they did recognize the authority of the British legislature; and this the delegates also could permit in perfect harmony with their own declaration of the 20^th, because in that they “adopted and ordained” these very same laws “as a rule of life.” In framing the clause therefore which made the resolves of the 30^th obligatory upon all, except on the happening of one of two contingencies, the delegates took care so to frame the contingencies as to suit the prejudices of consciences of both classes in the community and thus insure peace and order by the temporary obedience of all.

As to the delegates themselves, they had already declared in the instrument itself that the only contingency which should release them was the action of a Provincial Congress. The other contingency was inserted to serve the scruples of wavering and uncertain whigs or avowed loyalists. If there had been no friends of the crown in Mecklenburg, it would not have been inserted at all. Doubtless the delegates expected the Provincial Congress to act first. Doubtless they were not so visionary as to entertain the hope that the British Parliament would ever undo its iniquity or revive the laws by revoking its wanton decree of rebellion. They saw what the end must be, and their minds were fully prepared for it; but there were others whose vision as yet reached not so far, and who still thought of the crow with lingerings of old habit and honest loyalty of affection. But these could be best cured of their delusion by the progress of fast ripening events; and in the meantime, they, as well as all others, must obey the temporary laws made to preserve peace and order.

And this is the true and simple explanation of this clause in the document of the 20^th, on which so much stress has been laid. Dr. H. then stated that without the previous declaration 20^th, that of the 30^th could not be made to appear appropriate and sensible. The two must be studied together as parts of one res gesta, and thus studied, that of the 20^th, instead of being contradicted by, or found inconsistent with the 30^th, receives from it the strongest corroboration.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS.

Dr. H. next proceeded to consider these:

1. It was said that the paper of the 20th was not printed at the time, nor alluded to in the proceedings of the 30th.

Directly alluded to it was not, though its existence shaped the course of action on the 30th. But the cause was the same that led to no direct allusion, and to not printing. It was because the pwper of the 20th asserted great governmental principles, involving great national questions, even independence; and though the men of Mecklenburg might entertain and avow what principles they liked for themselves on this subject, and though they might desire to influence the continental congress, if they could, to the adoption and expression of opinions like their own; yet they felt that independence was a national, not a county nor even a colony question. What they did was for the constitutional congress to judge of, not for the people of the colonies at large. Hence they would not print, for it might interfere with plans and purposes of the congress to do so, but they sent a special messenger to congress to lay their doings before that body, through their delegates, content to submit the great national matter to their judgment and abide by their decision, and on less than a question which they deemed national, they would never have sent a messenger to congress, on a journey which at that day was as long and laborious and almost as expensive as a voyage to Europe now is. At the meeting on the 30th, there was no need of allusion to the proceedings of the 20th, for the same individuals composed both meetings, and as the action of the 20th was a matter not for the people, but for the continental congress to determine, they preserved a silence on the subject which future events showed to have been discreet.

2. But they did publish the proceedings of the 30th. The reason was that they embodied laws for the people, a “rule of life” for the county. Hence, they printed that the people might know them. But does not the simple fact of their thus printing, show that they never sent a special messenger at great trouble and expense to carry to congress a document which they well knew congress would see in a few days in the public papers? Now, as a special messenger certainly was sent, and as certainly carried some document; must it not have been some other paper than that of the 30th, and as the messenger himself called the paper entrusted to him “a declaration of independence,” was it not probably that of the 20th already produced?

Dr. H. then proceeded to say, that as the document of the 30^th showed the men who made it not to have been fools, a question presented itself which it was difficult satisfactorily to answer on the part of those who affirmed the document of the 30^th to have been the only one made in Mecklenburg, in May, 1775. That question was this: how could men, not fools, suppose it was of the slightest moment to the continental congress of all the colonies in America to know how Mecklenburg county, in North Carolina, appointed her constables and justices of the peace, the extent of jurisdiction given to the latter, the mode of dealing with petty rogues and runaway debtors, with similar matters? What did the continental congress care for all these things?

It is indeed quite possible that the messenger may have had a copy of this paper of the 30^th, though there was no need of it, for before twenty days it was in print in Wilmington and in S. Carolina, and on the 20^th of June we know that Gov. Wright of Georgia sent a newspaper containing it to the British government. But it is remarkable that there is no resolve among those of the 30^th ordering that paper to be sent to Congress, while in Brevard’s first draught there is a resolution to send that paper and there was sense and reason in sending that, for on it was to be founded an application by our delegates to the general Congress to do for all the colonies what Mecklenburg had done for herself, viz: DECLARE INDEPENDENCE!

Well, the answer came back that it was deemed premature? What! the Continental Congress informing Mecklenburg county that it was premature to make Constables and Justices of the peace, and to catch thieves and runaway rogues away far off in a settlement in the wild woods, scattered around its flourishing capitol of twenty log houses! Why, what did the Continental Congress know or care about the temporary local arrangements on subjects of this kind? There were a hundred places in the country where that business was going on. Not a colony existed from South to North, where the people were not, in the beginning, obliged to take the business of government into their own hands, and extemporize some system of law. Whigs were to be protected and tories watched and made powerless for harm every where. The general Congress never said that work of this kind was premature.

But if this document of the 30^th showed such action in Mecklenburg as was deemed by the Continental Congress to be premature, Dr. H. next asked, in what was it premature? It must have been in one of but two things, either in the entertainment of such sentiments as it contained, or, in the public expression of them. Now we are told that the leading sentiment expressed in the document was a willingness, on a certain contingency, to return again under the dominion of England. How could this be deemed premature by the Continental Congress, when she had previously in her respectful remonstrances expressed the same thing? She had said to England, cease to tyrannize and we will be loyal subjects. Well was it premature to embody in writing the sentiments of the Mecklenburg men as to the best mode of improving a temporary government? Why every colony had done, or was doing the same thing; and the Continental Congress not only approved of it, but actually, within a few days after the paper reached them, advised the colonies to arm, and recommended to those parts of the county where the militia had already been organized by local authorities (Mecklenburg of course was included) to exercise their discretion either in adopting the Continental plan suggested, or by adhering to their own, according to circumstances.

There was nothing premature therefore in entertaining the sentiments of which the document of the 30^th was the exponent. Well then as to the other branch of the alternative, we ask, did they suppose it premature to publish it? How could this be when the Continental Congress knew full well that it had been already printed in Wilmington and Charleston before they ever saw it; that a printed copy of it was sent to the British government by Gov. Wright of Georgia, just 20 days after the document was made, and that it was reprinted in New York from the southern papers, at the very time the messenger from Mecklenburg was in Philadelphia? But now just suppose the unprinted declaration of the 20^th, which renounced allegiance and proclaimed independence, was in their hands, and we may soon see from their own language what it was they deemed premature. On the 8^th of July, 1775, the Continental Congress set forth a document which, from the date, must have been in preparation at or about the very time the messenger from Mecklenburg reached Philadelphia, for it is in proof that his countrymen met him there in the latter part of June. This document was entitled, “The twelve united Colonies, by their Delegates in Congress, to the inhabitants of Great Britain,” whom it addresses as “friends, countrymen, and brethren.” In this instrument they declare their hearty desire for reconciliation on equitable and honorable terms, and thus speak: “Our enemies charge us with sedition: in what does it consist? In our refusal to submit to unwarrantable acts of injustice and cruelty? If so, show us a period in your history in which you have not been equally seditious. We are accused of aiming at independence: but how is this accusation supported? By the allegagtion of your ministers, not by our actions. Abused, insulted and contemned, what steps have we pursued to obtain redress? We have carried our dutiful petitions to the throne; we have applied to your justice for relief; we have retrenched our luxury, and withheld our trade. The advantages of our commerce were designed as a compensation for your protection. –When you ceased to protect, for what were we to compensate? What has been the success of our endeavors? The clemency of our sovereign is unhappily diverted; our petitions are treated with indignity; our prayers answered by insults. Our application to you remains unnoticed, and leaves us the melancholy apprehension of your wanting either the will or the power to assist us. Even under these circumstances what measures have we taken that betray a desire for independence? Have we called in the aid of those foreign powers who are the rivals of your grandeur? When your troops were few and defenceless, did we take advantage of their distress and expel them from our towns? Or have we permitted them to fortify, to receive new aid, and to acquire additional defence?”

With this solemn and elaborate exculpation of themselves from a desire of independence, which they were just on the eve of ushering into the word, it is easy to see what the Continental Congress thought premature. It was not a few resolutions providing temporary laws merely to secure peace and order in Mecklenburg county: it was that sterner, stouter Declaration which was uttered in fearless tones on the twentieth that did, to use their language, “betray a desire for independence.” This was premature as long as the Congress indulged the slightest hope of reconciliation!

The distinguished Orator was frequently and enthusiastically applauded during the delivery of the Address, which was pronounced by all to be a masterly and successful effort. Its delivery occupied three hours and ten minutes.

Tags:

Celebrating the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence: Celebration Timeline

You are here

1857 - Oration on the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence

Have something to add to the story?