The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-08

the North Carolina disputants have ohertd
their arguments pro and con. we shall cal
into the field scholars Of diligent research ana
great critical acumen, whose views are moi
colored by local feeling. But we pay
North Carolina the compliment OF letting
her speak first through such OF hei
own citizens as possess the highest claima
to attention on such subject. Let the facts
and reasoning of Ex-Governor Graham, which
we printed last Wednesday, be weighed against
those Of Mr.. Goodloe, which we print to-day.
But as the subject is to be further handled by
other Investigators who are free from any
local bias we reserve our judgment and
advise our readers to do likewise. The final
summing up will come more fifty from writer's
outside the State. Whether we shall at last
feel moved to declare our own judgment We
cannot say. For the present we prefer to act
the part of what in New England town meet
ings is called moderator, awarding the floor
impartially to speakers on both sides, but
exempt, we are happy to think, from the
duty Of enforcing courtesy and decorum, be-
cause oil the writers we have invited ara
scholars and gentlemen.
For the acerbity of feeling displayed by
some of the Southern journals we cannot ba
held responsible. But we think it quite I'M
called for. Nothing could be more incon-
siderate than the imputation that we wish to
deprive the South Of any part Of the honor
which belongs to it for the noble and spirited
part it acted in the American Revolu-
ton. So far as pride of priority is concerned
this is question between North Carolina and
Virginia-two Southern States which border
upon each other. II historical justice re-
quires that any laurels be stripped from thu
brow of Jefferson and restored to the heroes
of Mecklenburg even Virginians must bow to
the majesty of truth; but, let the controversy
end as it will, it does not relate to distribu-
ton of Revolutionary honors between the
North and the South, but between contesting
Southern claimants.
1t seems to US that the disputants on both
sides are confounding two questions which
ought to be kept distinct One is, whether
there was declaration of independence ct
Meclxlenburg on May 90 and the other,
whether the McKnitt resolutions are the text
of that document? II the first of these cues.
tons be decided in the negative there is,
OF course, no place for 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 document was produced from memory
twenty-five years after the event,
and its textual accuracy cannot be
sustained. But while no human men,
DRY can be depended on for the phrase
ology of paper after SO long period it il
difficult TO suppose that the participants could
be mistaken as TO the fact whether indepen-
dence was actually declared. To prove the
document apocryphal does not overthrow the
fact The resolutions of May 81 are undoubt-
edly genuine, but that is no proof that other
resolutions were not adopted eleven days be-
fore. The resolutions of May 81 were not o
declaration of, independence, and as many
citizens who were present testified on oath
that such declaration was made the ques-
ton is reduced to ths-whether it be mora
probable that they were mistaken or that the
meeting on May 81 was preceded by another.
There is nothing improbable in the SUPPOSE
ton that an old man who had distinct recol-
lection of the great fact of the Mecklenburg
Declaration should unconsciously use some of
Jefferson's familiar phrases in trying to repro
duce il from memory.