Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-05-11
KNOXVILLE, May 6, 1875.

Much Of the captious criticism to
which the Mecklenburg Declaration Of
May 20, us, has been subjected, arises
no doubt, from an impression that the
admission Of its authenticity would
convict Thomas Jefferson Of plagiar-
ism-an impression which the citations
Of our esteemed Knoxville correspond
ent viii 90 far toward dispelling. In
our first article upon the subject pub
Ished IN these columns the 9TH Of last
March, and suggested by the Iesolu-
ton then pending before the Legisla-
ture, that Tennessee should join her
mother State in Incoming celebration,
we said:
The more probable theory
is that Mr.. Alexander, endeavOring to
reproduce a document from memory in
1900. naturally let his mind drift into
the phrases of Jefferson publishedtwen-
ty-four previously.
No one questions the hon
csty or veracity of John McKnitt
Alexander; they impcach his memory
only. But he claims TO have been
Secretary IF the meeting Of May
%. while the document Of May 81, Is
signed by Ephraim BreyaTd as CLERK
Of the committee Memory could
hardly fail 50 far as to lead an old man
to think he was secretary Of a meeting
when he was not. Evidently there were
two meetings and two sets of Resolves,
though the exact text of the earlierO one
Is lost.
The NeU York Herald IS devoting
thousands Of dollars to the olucidation
of this question, employing the best
historical talent in North Carolina and
elsewhere. For ten days past it has
given four or five columns dailyto COM
m~unications and editorials upon the
subject. In the last number received,
that of Saturday, VIC find a four col
umn article from Prof. Daniel r.
Gaaffge. Of Warrenton, n. c., de-
nouncing the document Of May 20 as
spurious and elf-contradicbory. In its
editorial comment on Mr.. Goodloe's ar
rument. the Herald reaches conclusions
identical with ours, saying:
It seems to us that the disputants
IN both sides are confounding two
questions which ought TO be kept dis
tinct. One Is, whether there was a
8-a.iarati0n Of independence at Meek
Ianburpon May 20, andthe other, wheth-
qr the NcKnitt resolutions are the text
IF that document: If the first Of these
! Questions be decided IN the negative
there is. of course, no place Tor the
other. But the converse does not hold.
That if the document is not genuine
there could have been no declaration.
The proof is very strong that the dOCu-
ment was produced from memory
twenty-five years after the event, and
its teTtual accuracy can not be sustain
81 But while no human memory can
be depended on for the phraseOlogy Of
a papcr after so long a period 1t Is diff
6cuIt to suppose that the participants
eouId be mistaken as to the fact
whether independence vas actually de-
cIared. To prove the document
apocryphal does not overthrow the fact.
The resolutionsof May 81 are undOubt-
ed v genuine, but that is no proof that
o+ber resolutions were not adopted
eleven days before. The res
olufions Of May 81 were not a
declaration Of independence, and as
many citizens who were present testi-
fed on oath that such a declaration
was made the question is reduced to
tbis-whether It be more probable that
tbev were mistaken or that the meeting
! on MAY 81 was preceded by another.