162

FOLLY OF DISGUISING FAULTS.

[CHAP. IV.

it knows it to be false; and, moreover, we are not quite certain that beings

"Not too pure and good

For human nature's daily food,"

are not more agreeable per se-for common humanity likes to be kept in countenance by knowing that if it errs daily, all err sometimes. A perfect human being, could such an one be found, would move like a lone planet in a distant sphere-its solitary heaven not irradiated by another star!

On the score of character, we will not say we regret Mr. Jefferson's scrupulousness of demeanor down to trifles, but we regard it as a serious misfortune to the writer of his life! The relish of the most exquisite biographies in our language (we do not speak of mere histories sometimes called biographies) depends upon their freely narrating personal incidents illustrative of character, and recording little faults and foibles, absurdities, blunders, and even, on occasion, serious errors, as frankly as specimens of nun-like fastidiousness of deportment. Who would strike the perverse and unappeasable bearishness of Johnson from the pages of Boswell? Who laments the sharp, clear, dissecting exposure of every one of Sir Walter Scott's pet foibles and melancholy misjudgments, by the pen of his profound admirer and son-in-law, Lockhart? And who, let us ask, in these and parallel cases, regrets such revelations on account of the real reputation of the subject of them? Who whines about violating the grave? Do the great masters of fiction, untrammelled by the biographer's facts, free to choose both their traits and their incidents, represent their favorite characters-those they mean to render most attractive to their readers-either as icicles or prudes? Would any one have the gallant, sparkling Mercutio transformed into a hum-drum gentleman, too precise to take snuff and sneeze for fear of violating decorum? Would anybody mercilessly stretch or cut off Uncle Toby by the Procrustean bed of a very different class of deacons, from what we suspect to have been "my father the deacon?" Would any person make the inimitable Antiquary freër in the article of expense-less liable to be taken in by a Prætorium-or more lenient to "woman-kind" and dogs? Finally (and that is going the whole length), let us ask, who

CHAP. IV.]

SHADOWS NECESSARY TO THE PICTURE.

163

would venture to strip Falstaff of his vices, for fear of spoiling one of the most consummate and favorite delineations of dramatic literature?

In a word, we all love better a character on paper, if not in actual life, which has a seasoning of piquant faults. For instance, there is not a more thoroughly jumbled mixture of good and bad qualities in any hero of the National pantheon than in John Adams. Yet we predict the Alleghanies will disappear before the name of old "Sink or Swim " will cease to be a household word, or will cease among liberal men to be loved wherever it is pronounced.

And another paramount advantage had by the biographer of a man out of the "Goody-two-Shoes" line, is, that he can cheaply win the credit of candor. A face viewed in a level front light has no shadows, and thus Elizabeth wished to be painted. The artist knows that shadows are necessary to throw out what should be prominent and give expression to his picture; and, consequently, he throws the light so on his subject as to make shadows. Without this all is flat and tame. Minor faults, in biography, are the painter's shadows! But what might well be only the result of pure art, in this particular, is regarded as such extraordinary candor, that the biographer, after dashing on a shadow or two, might (if he desired) purposely exaggerate in important particulars without bringing his sincerity under suspicion. We suppose every lawyer has heard sharp and finessing witnesses on the stand, ostensibly lean, in the unimportant details, strongly against the very man whom they have ascended the witness-stand to swear safely through thick and thin! This is a wonderfully plausible way of enlisting credulity for the lie which is to follow! If some such admissions will win credence for falsehood, it is a pity, when they can be truthfully made, that their corroboration of an honest intention to tell the whole truth should ever be thrown away; for we take it that the good sense of mankind generally, in the long run, will distinguish between the biographical witness who will not see faults, or will intentionally suppress them-the artful one who will give a penny and ask back a pound in change-and the fair one who will tell his story rose-colored or sable, straight or crooked, just as he finds it. But it is time we drop a digression, which has wandered wide of the precise question from which it started.

CHAPTER V.

1776.

Jefferson desired by Colleagues to draft Declaration-J. Adams's Statement of a SubCommittee Jefferson's Correction-His Contemporaneous Notes-Sustained by the Original Draught-Adams's Inaccuracy as a Writer-Jefferson's Habitual Accuracy in Facts-Authorship of Declaration undisputed-C. F. Adams's extraordinary Comments -Proceedings in Congress on Independence Resolution-Proceedings on the Declaration Jefferson's Remarks on the Amendments-Lord John Russell's-The Declaration adopted-Signing the Declaration-Fac-simile of the Draught-The Draught and Amendments-Where the Declaration was written-The Writing Desk-Jefferson during the Debate-John Thompson, the Hatter-The Entries in the Account BookMeteorological Register-J. Adams, the Champion of Declaration-Jefferson's Commemoration of it-J. Adams's great Speech-This not preserved-Webster's "Restoraration" of it-Webster's and Wirt's "Restorations" unequal to Originals The Meagre History of the Debates-The probable Speakers-Jefferson's Description of S. Adams -Nelson, Harrison, and McKean-Gerry, Sherman, and others-Franklin's Influence on the Question-Jefferson's-Declaration as a Literary and Political Production-Its Originality examined-J. Adams's and R. H. Lee's Views J. Adams's Assertion that it repeats a Report of his Unfortunateness of the Claim-How far it was borrowed from Otis or Locke-Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence-Contemporaneous Reception of National Declaration-Effects on the Public Mind-Effects on the Loyalists -On the Whigs-Reception in Southern and Middle States-In New England-Jefferson's Appointments in Congress after the 4th of July-Letters.

THE Committee to prepare a Declaration of Independence "unanimously pressed" Mr. Jefferson "to undertake the draft." He did so, but before submitting the paper to the full Committee, communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections, "which were two or three only, and merely verbal." The report was then laid before the entire Committee, which made no amendments; and on the 28th of June it was presented in Congress by its author. It was immediately read, and ordered to lie on the table.

In the often-quoted letter of John Adams to Timothy Pickering, in 1822, a somewhat different version of this affair is given. He says:

CHAP V.] JEFFERSON DESIRED TO DRAFT DECLARATION.

165

"The Committee met, discussed the subject, and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draft, I suppose because we were the two first on the list. The sub-committee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said, 'I will not.' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not? You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be your reasons?' 'Reason first-You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second-I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third-You can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.' 'Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have meeting.' A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. [After stating what he really liked and disliked in it, Mr. Adams proceeds:] I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration. We reported it to the Committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticised anything. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson's handwriting, as he first drew it."

This statement was published in 1823, and Jefferson soon after (August 30th), wrote Mr. Madison:

** "Mr. Adams's memory has led him into unquestionable error. At the age of eighty-eight, and forty-seven years after the transactions of Independence, this is not wonderful. Nor should I, at the age of eighty, on the small advantage of that difference only, venture to oppose my memory to his, were it not supported by written notes, taken by myself at the moment and on the spot." [After giving the substance of Mr. Adams's statement, he continues :] "Now these details are quite incorrect. The Committee of five met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draft. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the Committee, I communicated it separately to Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections, because they were the two members of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have the benefit, before presenting it to the Committee: and you have seen the original paper now in my hands, with the corrections of Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams interlined in their own hand-writings. Their alterations were two or three only, and merely verbal. I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the Committee, and from them, unaltered, to Congress. This personal communication and consultation with Mr. Adams, he has misremembered into the actings of a subcommittee."

The notes "taken by himself at the moment," which Mr. Jefferson refers to as "supporting" his memory, contained the following passages:

"The Committee were John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and myself. The Committee for drawing the Declara

1 Mr. Adams's " reason second' and " reason third" go very distinctly to corro borate the "reasons' we gave in the last chapter for Mr. Jefferson's being made chairman of the Committee.

166

HIS AND ADAMS'S VERSION OF THE AFFAIR. [CHAP. V.

tion of Independence desired me to do it. It was accordingly done, and being approved by them, I reported it to the House on Friday, the 28th of June, when it was read and ordered to lie on the table."

And the "original paper" transferred from Mr. Jefferson's "hands" to the State Department, in Washington (a fac-simile of which will presently appear in this work), exhibits the interlineations mentioned, supporting the accuracy of Mr. Jefferson's narration down to details; and, on the other hand, showing how vague and loose must have been the minute recollections of a man who did not even remember whether he "made or suggested a single alteration!"

It is due to Mr. Adams to say that he inserted substantially the same version of the affair in his Autobiography, written about eighteen years earlier than his letter to Pickering, and about twenty-eight years after the occurrences took place, whereas Mr. Jefferson's statement to Mr. Madison, above given, was not written until forty-seven years afterwards. But independently of the testimony of the contemporaneous notes, which ought to be considered as settling the question (unless some one is prepared to say that Mr. Jefferson falsely entered in those notes, "the Committee desired me to do it-it was accordingly done"-when, in truth, the Committee desired two men to do it, and it was accordingly done by two); indepen dently of the corroboration of Mr. Jefferson's version offered on the face of the interlined draft, and notwithstanding the difference of time intervening between the facts and respective statements, we should feel justly authorized to pronounce Jefferson's recollections by far the most reliable.

We have already mentioned that Mr. Adams was a signally inaccurate writer; and, in this respect, it did not make a very great difference whether he gave recollections five or fifty years after the event. It is hardly necessary to repeat that we regard nis integrity and veracity as wholly above suspicion. But he was careless, impetuous, and unstudied in his statements, following the drift of the impression and the feeling of the moment, without stopping for investigation, or minding whom he rar against. It was his misfortune to run oftener against John Adams than any other man! But little cared he. Conscious integrity, overweening self-esteem, and an utter want of that sensitive delicacy which generally influences high-toned and (in