The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-05-26

+ suppose that Davie read the paper mus gN-
on to him; that he deemed 1t valuable IS
| proyed by the fact that he carefully preser-
we'd it. We must also suppose, that as ne
| perused it, it necessarily must nave pre-
| scented to his mind either something OF which
| he had heard before, or something that was
| entirely nesc 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
| nrompted him to an examination OF the orr
9inal of so remarkable historical novelty
| And when he thus inquired, if the whole
| story were fabrication he must have dis
| covered the fact and consequent baseness or
Alexander. But Dayie keeps the paper, and
after his death it is found treasured up a
mong 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) knew 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.
5. The next fact is that Alexander said
he had also giUen copy to DR.. Hugh Wtt-
hanson. Governor Stokes testihes that In
1898, he saw copy i'll the hands OF VII
hanson. together with a letter to him, both
in the hand writing of Alexander, which he
knew and that be conversed with William
son on the subject of the letter and copy en-
closed. But as Williamson made no use of
1t in his book which he miscalled "a Histo
ry of North Carolina" it has been insinuat-
ed that he never had such document. We
| might DIS well infer that he never had the
printed resolutions of May Both. for he does
not mention that meeting. In fact he dis
poses of the whole revolutionary history of
| the State in two short sentences. His work
| does not deserve the name of history.
g. But further confirmation of Alexan
der's perfect truth and honesty is furnished
! by facts connected aOtth the copy he said he
| had giren to Darie, and chich was found
among Darie'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 Goth, or those adopted at the meeting
| on the Both, 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 emphaticaiiy, but THE DOCU-
MENr rs SAFE" What document! He
| explains; the Declaration; for, adds he, 81
gave Duvie a copy which know to be cor
| rect No copy of the resolves IF the Both
! in Alexander's handwriting that of any
one else, was ever found among Davies
papers. Besides, he would not have said
| so emphatically of the resolves of the Both,
| = the document is safe,' for those resolves
! as he well knew were to be found IN print
| in divers publications. They consequently
were safe enough.
7.But the proof ofAlexanders truthfuness
still accumulates-for the next fact affirm
ed by DR.. III. was, that a copy substantially
the same as Davies was in the hands of
Martin, of Louisiana, and was published by
him in 1929. DIR. HI. 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, mot from
Alexander but from some one in the
Western part of the State prior to loOO.-
Here then was a copy substantially agree
ing with Davies, which, before 1900, was
by some means or other, in existence III this
part of the world, and not traced to Alex
ander. As to the fact of substantial agree
ment, the DIR. remarked that as some had
been pleased to say there were ''materiaL
differences of phraseology in each rcsolu-
tion,' he begged indulgence while he exam
ined that point. He then showed that 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 DIR. Bre-
ward 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 infer
ence, that the very differences showed there
had been no forgery of the paper; for had
1t been forged there nerer rouLd hare been
found dtsagrceing copies at all. The fraud
ulent fabricator would have taken pains to
make all copies alike.
8. He then brought forward another fact
hitherto unnoticed, viz: the first publication
Of a copy Of the resolutions IN the form IN
aohich Martin presents them. This was in
the I'd volume of Major Gardens revolu-
tionary anecdotes and "reminiscences. They
are there accompanied by history of the
proceedings at Charlotte on the Goth of
May, and statement that the transaction
SO creditable to North Carolina was not
known Us generally as it should be to the
citizens of the U. States. He then discuss
ed the question, ''whence did Garden OBJ
tain his copy p He first showed that it
could not have been from Martins book,
for Gardens was published in 1923, while
Martins did not appear until the end of
1929. He testified from his own communi-
cations with Judge Martin that the latter
had never given Garden 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 obtain
ed them from Alexander's copy !; because
lst, they did not agree with Alexander's
copy exactly. and I'd. the pamphlet put
forth by the State containing Alexander's
copy, found among Davies papers, was not
published until the winter of 183O-'3I-
neither could they have been obtained from
the publication of Col Polk in the Raleigh
Register of 1919, for the resolutions as set
forth there agree with Alexander's, and not
with Martins or Gardens copies. He was
in possession then of totally distinct copy
from any heretofore noticed. He next
showed that Major Garden was, during the
revolution, in Lees legion, and during part
of the time. one of Gen. Greene's military
family; that in both of these situations his
duties brought him into constant communi-
cation withMecklenburg and all the country