The Charlotte Democrat., 1891-05-08
The Cald we'll NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.


began. That controversy has unfortu-
nately degenerated into mere squabble
over date, and is as follows:
In 1919 paper was published (for the
first time) purporting to be a "Declara-,
tion of Independence" made by the pa
triots of Mecklenburg here in Charlotte
May 20, 1875. 1t turned out to be only
a copy of the alleged Declaration SO
claimed to be made; and the fact of Inde-
pendence, the genuineness of the copy
published, and the reliability of the testi-
mony offered, was alike called in question.
No genuine document of this sort bearing
that date, May 20, 1775, ever was, or is
| now likely ever will be found, although
there was ample evidence that such
document, in writing, had once existed.
But opinions differed widely as to both
the validity and the accuracy of the copy
then published. This document consists
of FIVE Resolutions, and is what is called
the Mecklenburg Declaration of Lnde-
pendence. IF genuine, or founded on fact,
the patriots of Mecklenburg meant Inde-
pendence and nothing else. But the fact
itself is still often doubted and some times
confused and confounded with another
fact and date of somewhat similar import.
| This is as follows:
About 1880 there was found in both
this country and England, series Of
"Resolves of date May 81, i775, adopted
by the Committee of Mecklenburg county
at Charlotte-town on that day" Those
May 31st "Resolves" do not name inde-
pendence, but they do in fact recognize
| separation" from Great Britain and
proceed to give all the details "for the In
| ternal Government of this county until
laws shall be provided for by Congress-"
These "Resoves' number twenty, and are
signed "by order of the Committee" a
very different sort of document from five
short "Resolutions of May 2Oth," pur
porting Independence.
Now it may we'll be asked: Did the
Mecklenburg men Of May, 1775, actually
mean Independence, or did they only
indulge in vapor and hot talk and if the
former, how can the document of May
20 be reconciled with the term "Resolves
of May 31st"
| The most plausible theory of explana-
tion is this: That on the former date,
May 20, there was popular meeting and
independence boldly but hastily and in
formally declared. Then a committee
was appointed to draw up a sort of Pro
visional system of Government to take
the place of the crown machinery-pro-
vided the ball thus set in motion should
continue to roll on, and acquire a safe
momentum.
But the Revolution did not "forge
ahead" as doubtless expected and ardently
desired by the patriotic men Of old Neck
lenburg, and they were too wise and
prudent not to recognize the importance
of "waiting and watching" So the
courts went on as usual here in Charlotte
as elsewhere;> all in the name of His
Majesty, King George the Ill. Waight-
still Avery, one of the supposed signers, -
went right off to the Court at Salisbury
and there took the oath and prosecuted
as the "King's Counsel" And in August
erwards-l775-the same attorney,
Avery, and his "signer associates" Thos.
Polk, Jno McKnitt Alexander and John
Phifer, went to the Colonial Congress at
Hillsboro as delegates from Mecklenburg
and took the test oath of allegiance to
the King and his Government.
But Revolution and blood-shed ever
made "strange bed fellows" The ap.
parent conflict of the Resolutions Of
May 20, 1775," and the "Resolves Of
May 81, 1775," and the subsequent action
of the public authorities of Mecklenburg
and her leading men, as referred to, be
} came web hard to unravel. And what
we want and must have, TO turn the
scale, is fair proportion of unbiased
disinterested evidence that independence
was intended and that the people so un
!, derstood it, in their ultimate aim.
This is supplied, we think, in part al
least, by the autobiography of DR.. Charles
Caldwell, as heretofore referred to anc
quoted. Nearly all the doubts as to thu
fact of Independence here in MayS 1775
j. have arisen out of the angry controver
; sizes over the seeming discrepancies be
tween the "Resolutions" of May 20 ano
the "Resolves of May 81" and after tht
year 1919, when the former were frs
published. But as far back as 1871
when there was no controversy on the
| subject, DR.. Caldwell told Gen. Georgt
Washington, here in Charlotte, thai
; "Independence was declared about yeal
before its declaration by Congress. This
testimony is all-important and should
have great weight. But one Of our city
papers has discovered some apparent dis
crepancies between the statements of DR.
Caldwell. and the diary of Gen. Washing
ton as lately published by DR.. Carlisle Of
south Carolina, and particularly noting
a supposed mistake as to Washington
visiting the Guiford battle ground or
hiS Sont how, to., Tbo =