"Declaration" is spurious; that it was constructed from John McKnitt Alexander's rough notes, although not adhering to the statements therein made in certain particulars and actually changing them in others; that the first version published was not adhered to in subsequent publications thereof emanating from the same source from which that first version emanated; that the testimony of eyewitnesses to the passage of the traditionary declaration contradicted many of the statements therein made and induced the General Assembly to declare as genuine a revised version of what Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander had given to the world as a copy of the original and subsequently reiterated to be such-all of which proves that neither the original nor an authentic copy of the original was ever in evidence—he does not offer a suggestion as to who was the manufacturer of that spurious paper. He accepts in good faith Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander's irreconcilable statements that the paper had been "left in my hands by John M'Knitt Alexander dec'd" and that it had been "found after the death of Jno. McKnitt Alexander in his old mansion house in the centre of a roll of old pamphlets ". But we think that he has himself published enough evidence to at least create a suspicion against the honesty of Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander in connection with that paper, and when we add to that evidence certain information gathered by this reviewer and hereafter submitted, the evidence appears to be convincing that Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander was himself the author of that spurious "Declaration".

In the first paper which he gave to the world Dr. Alexander carefully avoided acknowledging that John McKnitt Alexander was his father; hid his identity under the signature "J. McKnitt "; mentioned "papers " left in his hands by "John M'Knitt Alexander dec'd", although he produced only one paper and did not say how many more there were or what their import was; and did not say that John McKnitt Alexander was the author of the paper or tell how the latter came into possession of it, or in what shape it was. He was evidently leaving loop-holes to escape in the event that he was "cornered". He stated that he had found it "on file that the original book was burned April, 1800. That a copy of the proceedings was sent to Hugh Williamson in New York, then writing a History of North-Carolina, and that a copy was sent to Gen. W. R. Davie ". When we compare certificates we are forced to the conclusion that he was then cognizant of the contents of the certificate his father had put to the Davie copy and knew that the paper he had was a concoction and not a genuine record. Hence this vague

ness. In his article in the Yadkin and Catawba Journal he stated that there was "an authentic copy of these resolves and bye-laws mentioned in so many of the certificates, in the handwriting of John McKnitt Alexander, and certified by him as Clerk which had been by him deposited with Gen. Wm. R. Davie, for the use of some future historian ". He knew that this was false, for the Davie "copy" contained the father's certificate that that paper was not taken from an original record but was prepared from memory and was only true to the best of his belief, and there was nothing thereon to show that he claimed to have been clerk of the body that passed the "Declaration" which he saw voted. He made it further appear that he had the "whole proceedings of the delegation" which, "though interesting", were "too long for this publication". He forgot that at the outset of the very same article he had said that it was difficult to prove a thing after fifty-five years "when no record of the transaction could be officially kept; when a long Revolutionary war supervened; the place of its occurrence, for a season, being in the occupation of the enemy; when all the delegates are in the silent grave". As a matter of fact, he never did have a single original record and all that he was ever able to produce was the rough summary prepared by his father, the paper of doubtful origin and the Davie "copy" made and certified by his father as a record from memory, and of that only the last two resolutions and the certificate were left. At the outset of his communication he gave the impression that no records of the convention had been kept, yet at a later point stated that he had in his possession a paper "written and signed by J. M. Alexander, and purports to be extracted from the old minutes". If no official records were kept, whence these minutes and when did his father take the notes from them? The Bancroft copy of these notes, which Mr. Hoyt has reproduced, shows that they bear on their face the evidence that they were written in 1800, and the Davie "copy", which was most likely a polished edition of those notes, was written some months after the burning of the house, and the certificate thereon stated that all had been lost therein. This proves that nothing came from original sources.

We might excuse Dr. Alexander's failure to see that the paper in the unknown hand contained statements contradictory of the rough notes in his father's hand and language stolen from Jefferson's immortal production, on the ground of lack of critical discernment, but for the fact that even after he got the Davie copy" which should have set him straight he even more than before tried to keep up the deception. It will be seen in his certificate of Novem

66

ber 25, 1830, to the rough notes and the anonymous paper, that Dr. Alexander still maintained that the latter paper and the Davie "copy" had both been copied from "the original record" despite the certificate by his father to the "Davie " copy. Again, the wording of this last certificate arouses suspicion: "As to the full sheet being in an unknown handwrite, it matters not who may have thus copyed the original record." But an examination of the anonymous paper, as shown by the Bancroft copy reproduced by Mr. Hoyt, reveals the fact that that paper was not copied from any other paper but was roughly constructed from the rough notes of the elder Alexander. There are too many blunders thereon that no copyist could have committed, however indifferent. Several times when the constructor of that paper followed too closely the rough notes and ran into matter that did not harmonize with statements previously made he scratched out the words and changed the construction. Notably is that the case in the paragraph referring to the "Court of Inquiry". The elder Alexander wrote: "And the first Court held in Charlotte after Cornwallis retreated retrograded or run away from Charlotte, the Court adjourned or rather appointed a Special Court of Enquiry". The person constructing from the rough notes started to put in something about Cornwallis but seeing that it would not harmonize with what had already been said about the import of the "Declaration" struck it out, constructing that paragraph as we see it in the Raleigh Register. Dr. Alexander certainly was intelligent enough to have seen upon comparing the two papers that the anonymous paper was simply an altered and enlarged version of the rough notes and not a copy of a record or minutes made in 1775, which could not have contained a reference to an event that occurred in 1780. And the following extracts from the minutes of the county court of Mecklenburg not only bear out the elder Alexander's reference in the rough notes to the Court of Enquiry, but show that the court was organized after Cornwallis's visit to Charlotte; that it had no connection with any action taken prior to the adoption of the North Carolina constitution of 1776, under which a county court had been established in Mecklenburg; and, finally, furnish us a clue to the origin of the tradition that John McKnitt Alexander was secretary of the body that passed the "Declaration":

January Session 1782.

Present: Abraham Alexander, Hezekiah Alexander, Robert Irwin, Edward Giles, William Wilson, John Flannikin, William Scott, Thomas Harris, and Samuel Blythe, Esquires.

The court, consisting of 11 members, unanimously agreed to meet at the dwelling house of Major James Harris on Thursday the 7th day of Febr'y next, then and there to sit as a Court of Enquiry etc. and that they in their respective districts (especially in said Enterim do exert themselves to summon all persons therein whom they suspect to have forfeited their rites as citizens by joining, aiding or assisting our common enemy-or any person whom they know or suspect to have secreted any confiscated property, and that they likewise summon all evidences who they judge may be able to prove said crimes, and that each Justice apply to the militia officer for information etc. etc.

Ordered that the Clerk do immediately send at the expenses of the county to the absent justices in that quarter notifying them of the last mentioned resolutions etc. Viz. Robert Harris, junr. Dd. Reese, Martin Phifer, Danl. Jarret and Adam Alexander, Esqrs. and to Mr, James Reese, Commissioner.

JNO. M'K. ALEXANDER
Clerk pro tem.

In the rough summary made by the elder Alexander in 1800 he made no reference to Cabarrus County as formerly a part of Mecklenburg. It is perfectly plain that either the author of the Sugar Creek valedictory made use of the narrative which was subsequently published in the Raleigh Register or the narrative was prepared after the valedictory was published and the valedictory was used by the author of the narrative. The similarity of expressions and the similarly injected extraneous matter about Cabarrus County seem to fix that beyond question. But, if the author of the valedictory had had access in 1809 to the document which appeared in the Raleigh Register in 1819, would he not have been more specific in his statements? Would he not have mentioned the personages referred to in that narrative? Would he not have quoted some of the very patriotic sentiments of the "Declaration"? Would he not have given the date 1775 instead of 1776? It is evident that the author of the narrative in the Raleigh Register drew on the Sugar Creek valedictory, and as a confirmation of that statement it will be observed that in his certificate to the manuscripts that he claimed to have found stitched together Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander refers to that Sugar Creek valedictory.

The only evidences to connect John McKnitt Alexander with the paper published in the Raleigh Register in 1819, are (a) Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander's statements in his unpublished certificate to the two papers he claimed to have found in his father's old mansion, that the paper in the unknown hand had two corrections in his father's handwriting (only one is so marked on the paper itself) and that it was "perfectly the same" as the Davie "copy",

and (b) the fragment of the Davie "copy ", declared by Henderson to be in his handwriting.

If John McKnitt Alexander had had the paper in the unknown hand in his possession and had made two corrections thereon, it is strange that he failed to correct other statements thereon that were in conflict with the paper which he had himself written. Why did he not change "convention" to "committee" as he had it on his paper? Why did he not correct the statement that he was the secretary of the "convention"? Surely his memory was not so poor that he had forgotten that he had not held that position, which we are now able to prove that Brevard held? Is it likely that John McKnitt Alexander would have given his silent approval to a paper so totally at variance with the truth and with what he himself had written on another paper, and then have left the two papers to posterity without a word of comment as to the source of the paper which differed so much from that in his own handwriting? The certificate which he attached to the Davie "copy" discloses the fact that he was too careful and too honest a man to do any such thing. It is very doubtful if he ever saw that paper in the unknown hand, of which his son gave a copy to Davidson in 1819.

Henderson did not certify that the Davie "copy was "perfectly the same" as the publication in the Raleigh Register, nor did anyone else who saw it before or after it fell into the hands of Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander so certify, and there is ample ground for the belief that Dr. Alexander tried to make the two resolutions that were left conform to the Raleigh Register publication after he got it. And notwithstanding his certificate that it was "perfectly the same" as the publication in the Raleigh Register, which he had been trying to impose upon the world as a genuine copy of the "Declaration", he nowhere mentioned or quoted the certificate which his father had placed upon it to show that it was not a genuine copy of the "Declaration" but an imperfect copy made from memory. Moreover, the Bancroft copy of the anonymous paper shows that it did differ from that in the Raleigh Register, though the Davie paper is asserted to be a twin copy of the original of the latter.

About 1853, ex-Governor D. L. Swain, who had been appointed historical agent of North Carolina, removed the Davie "copy" with other papers relating to the Mecklenburg "Declaration" from the state archives to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Whether he got the rough summary by John McKnitt Alexander and the paper in the unknown hand is not shown, but, fortunately for the truth of history, copies of these were made for Bancroft