The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-07-06
THE TAR HEEL DECLARATION
QUESTION OF DATE IS IT A FORGERY
Strong Reasons Given
for Deciding in the
Negative.

To the Editor:-In common with
other North Carolinians l am much
interested in the discovery of the copy
Of the Cape Fear Mercury, which, if
authentic, establishes beyond question
the Mecklenburg Declaration of indie
pendence. Now this copy of the Mer
curry is either authentic or it is a down.
right forgery gotten up by some one,
not ignorant of history, for purposes of
gain or notoriety, or both. 1t is clearly
one or the other and cannot be any
thing between.
The fact that the paper is dated
Friday, June Bird, 1875, while the
3rd of June, 1875, really fell on Satur
day has been noted by Mr.. r. w. ID.
COnnor after his usual thorough and
scholarly habit But to my mind this
error in the day of the week seems
to makes rather for than against the
genuineness of the paper. L have in
my desk three different tables for
finding out on what day of the week
any past date falls. There are doubt
less various other methods, some or
probabl-- all of which would be known
to any one of sufficient information to
attempt q forgery of the above mag
nitude. And knowing the scrutiny
which his forgery must invite the first
thought of the forger would have been
to be posted right as to dates. Is it
not more natural to aScribe this error
in substituting Friday for Saturday in
the heading of the paper to the blum
der of a careless printer. Those were
days of much rum, and printers were
printers.
The chief obstacle to accepting the
Mecklenburg Declaration, as written
off by Alexander from memory, has
always been its close verbal resem-
blance to the Philadelphia Declaration
written by jefferson. 1t being most
improbable that Jefferson, statesman,
scholar and honest man that he was,
should openly plagiariZe the Mecklen
burg utterance and then deny ever
having heard of it, the reasonable in
ference was that Alexander in his old
age had not only Numbered as to the
exact wording but also as to the spirit
and date of the instrument. In snort
that what he asserted and doubtless
believed to have been a Declaration of
Independence passed May goth, 1775,
was simply the bold resolution passed
eleven DAYS later, on May 31St, 1875.
The fact that these eleven days marked
the exact difference between the old
and new style the old style having
been changed only in 1852, seemed to
confirm this theory. For there must
have been a good many people who
We're slow to accept the new calendar.
All of the SignerS of the Mecklenburg
paper must have been born prior to
1852 and probably had not adjusted
their birthdays and other dates prior
to 1852 to the new system. In this
confusion it was likely that the old
style of reckoning might have been
applied by accident to matters happen
ing subsequent to 1852, especially
when seen through the age of a quar-
ter of a century, which was the term
that elapsed from the passing of the
resolution in 1875 to their writing
down by Alexander in 1900 from
memory after their destruction in the
burning of his house in that year
1t makes strongly for the verify of
the resolutions as given in this newly
found Mercury that the close tentual
resemblance to the Philadelphia Dec
laration disappears, showing that JEFF
fersOn did not plagarize, but that both
writer's used the stock political eX-
preston of the day: Jefferson with
ander.
1t was exceedingly probable that
Alexander on attempting to reproduce
from memory the Mecklenburg Dec
laration twenty-five years afterwards
should have uncOnSciouSly cast it
somewhat in the mold of the Phila-
delphia Declaration which had be-
come part of the mental formation of
all Americans. 1t was exceedingly i'm
probable that Jefferson writing less
than fourteen months after the pro-
mitigation of the Mecklenburg should
have plagiariZed it without comment
from the North Carolina members,
who at least, were cOgniZant of it's
existence and more or less familiar
with its wording.
| do not think that the fact that
this copy of the Mercury is smaller
than the usual and the contract size,
counts much AGAINST it. Paper was
high and often scarce in those days
and a newspaper doubtless had to
make many shifts, as our Confederate
papers did l remember seeing or
hearing of one of the war newspapers
that changed its size several times in a
very short while, probably a fortnight,
using the back of wall paper in at
least one issue.
OF course all that | have had to say
anent this important find is mere sur
mise, proving nothing save that your
humble correspondent is much inter-
ested in the matter
| will add that all agree with Capt.
AShe that the paper in question must
be closely scrutiniZed by our best
scholars before the State ventures to
place upon it the seal of its sanction.
o. w. BLACKNALL.
Kittrell, n. c., July 5.