part19-第3节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



think；　while　the　House　of　Burgesses　was　in　session　in　March；　1773；

but　a　few　days　after　we　rose；　and　were　probably　what　was　sent　by　the

messenger　who　crossed　ours　by　the　way。　　They　may；　however；　have　been

still　different。　　I　must　therefore　have　been　mistaken　in　supposing

and　stating　to　Mr。　Wirt；　that　the　proposition　of　a　committee　for

national　correspondence　was　nearly　simultaneous　in　Virginia　and

Massachusetts。




　　　　　　　　A　similar　misapprehension　of　another　passage　in　Mr。　Wirt's

book；　for　which　I　am　also　quoted；　has　produced　a　similar　reclamation

of　the　part　of　Massachusetts　by　some　of　her　most　distinguished　and

estimable　citizens。　　I　had　been　applied　to　by　Mr。　Wirt　for　such　facts

respecting　Mr。　Henry；　as　my　intimacy　with　him；　and　participation　in

the　transactions　of　the　day；　might　have　placed　within　my　knowledge。

I　accordingly　committed　them　to　paper；　and　Virginia　being　the　theatre

of　his　action；　was　the　only　subject　within　my　contemplation；　while

speaking　of　him。　　Of　the　resolutions　and　measures　here；　in　which　he

had　the　acknowledged　lead；　I　used　the　expression　that　〃Mr。　Henry

certainly　gave　the　first　impulse　to　the　ball　of　revolution。〃　＇Wirt；

p。　41。＇　The　expression　is　indeed　general；　and　in　all　its　extension

would　comprehend　all　the　sister　States。　　But　indulgent　construction

would　restrain　it；　as　was　really　meant；　to　the　subject　matter　under

contemplation；　which　was　Virginia　alone；　according　to　the　rule　of　the

lawyers；　and　a　fair　canon　of　general　criticism；　that　every　expression

should　be　construed　_secundum　subjectam　materiem_。　　Where　the　first

attack　was　made；　there　must　have　been　of　course；　the　first　act　of

resistance；　and　that　was　of　Massachusetts。　　Our　first　overt　act　of

war　was　Mr。　Henry's　embodying　a　force　of　militia　from　several

counties；　regularly　armed　and　organized；　marching　them　in　military

array；　and　making　reprisal　on　the　King's　treasury　at　the　seat　of

government　for　the　public　powder　taken　away　by　his　Governor。　　This

was　on　the　last　days　of　April；　1775。　　Your　formal　battle　of　Lexington

was　ten　or　twelve　days　before　that；　which　greatly　overshadowed　in

importance；　as　it　preceded　in　time　our　little　affray；　which　merely

amounted　to　a　levying　of　arms　against　the　King；　and　very　possibly　you

had　had　military　affrays　before　the　regular　battle　of　Lexington。




　　　　　　　　These　explanations　will；　I　hope；　assure　you；　Sir；　that　so　far

as　either　facts　or　opinions　have　been　truly　quoted　from　me　they　have

never　been　meant　to　intercept　the　just　fame　of　Massachusetts；　for　the

promptitude　and　perseverance　of　her　early　resistance。　　We　willingly

cede　to　her　the　laud　of　having　been　（although　not　exclusively）　〃the

cradle　of　sound　principles；〃　and　if　some　of　us　believe　she　has

deflected　from　them　in　her　course；　we　retain　full　confidence　in　her

ultimate　return　to　them。




　　　　　　　　I　will　now　proceed　to　your　quotation　from　Mr。　Galloway's

statements　of　what　passed　in　Congress　on　their　declaration　of

independence；　in　which　statement　there　is　not　one　word　of　truth；　and

where；　bearing　some　resemblance　to　truth；　it　is　an　entire　perversion

of　it。　　I　do　not　charge　this　on　Mr。　Galloway　himself；　his　desertion

having　taken　place　long　before　these　measures；　he　doubtless　received

his　information　from　some　of　the　loyal　friends　whom　he　left　behind

him。　　But　as　yourself；　as　well　as　others；　appear　embarrassed　by

inconsistent　accounts　of　the　proceedings　on　that　memorable　occasion；

and　as　those　who　have　endeavored　to　restore　the　truth　have　themselves

committed　some　errors；　I　will　give　you　some　extracts　from　a　written

document　on　that　subject；　for　the　truth　of　which　I　pledge　myself　to

heaven　and　earth；　having；　while　the　question　of　independence　was

under　consideration　before　Congress；　taken　written　notes；　in　my　seat；

of　what　was　passing；　and　reduced　them　to　form　on　the　final

conclusion。　　I　have　now　before　me　that　paper；　from　which　the

following　are　extracts：　*　*　*




　　　　　　　　Governor　McKean；　in　his　letter　to　McCorkle　of　July　16th；　1817；

has　thrown　some　lights　on　the　transactions　of　that　day；　but　trusting

to　his　memory　chiefly　at　an　age　when　our　memories　are　not　to　be

trusted；　he　has　confounded　two　questions；　and　ascribed　proceedings　to

one　which　belonged　to　the　other。　　These　two　questions　were；　1。　The

Virginia　motion　of　June　7th　to　declare　independence；　and　2。　The

actual　declaration；　its　matter　and　form。　　Thus　he　states　the　question

on　the　declaration　itself　as　decided　on　the　1st　of　July。　　But　it　was

the　Virginia　motion　which　was　voted　on　that　day　in　committee　of　the

whole；　South　Carolina；　as　well　as　Pennsylvania；　then　voting　against

it。　　But　the　ultimate　decision　in　_the　House_　on　the　report　of　the

committee　being　by　request　postponed　to　the　next　morning；　all　the

States　voted　for　it；　except　New　York；　whose　vote　was　delayed　for　the

reason　before　stated。　　It　was　not　till　the　2d　of　July　that　the

declaration　itself　was　taken　up；　nor　till　the　4th　that　it　was

decided；　and　it　was　signed　by　every　member　present；　except　Mr。

Dickinson。




　　　　　　　　The　subsequent　signatures　of　members　who　were　not　then　present；

and　some　of　them　not　yet　in　office；　is　easily　explained；　if　we

observe　who　they　were；　to　wit；　that　they　were　of　New　York　and

Pennsylvania。　　New　York　did　not　sign　till　the　15th；　because　it　was

not　till　the　9th；　（five　days　after　the　general　signature；）　that　their

convention　authorized　them　to　do　so。　　The　convention　of　Pennsylvania；

learning　that　it　had　been　signed　by　a　minority　only　of　their

delegates；　named　a　new　delegation　on　the　20th；　leaving　out　Mr。

Dickinson；　who　had　refused　to　sign；　Willing　and　Humphreys　who　had

withdrawn；　reappointing　the　three　members　who　had　signed；　Morris　who

had　not　been　present；　and　five　new　ones；　to　wit；　Rush；　Clymer；　Smith；

Taylor　and　Ross；　and　Morris　and　the　five　new　members　were　permitted

to　sign；　because　it　manifested　the　assent　of　their　full　delegation；

and　the　express　will　of　their　convention；　which　might　have　been

doubted　on　the　former　signature　of　a　minority　only。　　Why　the

signature　of　Thornton　of　New　Hampshire　was　permitted　so　late　as　the

4th　of　November；　I　cannot　now　say；　but　undoubtedly　for　some

particular　reason　which　we　should　find　to　have　been　good；　had　it　been

expressed。　　These　were　the　only　post…signers；　and　you　see；　Sir；　that

there　were　solid　reasons　for　receiving　those　of　New　York　and

Pennsylvania；　and　that　this　circumstance　in　no　wise　affects　the　faith

of　this　declaratory　charter　of　our　rights　and　of　the　rights　of　man。




　　　　　　　　With　a　view　to　correct　errors　of　fact　before　they　become

inveterate　by　repetition；　I　have　stated　what　I　find　essentially

material　in　my　papers；　but　with　that　brevity　which　the　labor　of

writing　constrains　me　to　use。




　　　　　　　　On　the　fourth　particular　articles　of　inquiry　in　your　letter；

respecting　your　grandfather；　the　venerable　Samuel　Adams；　neither

memory　nor　memorandums　enable　me　to　give　any　information。　　I　can　say

that　he　was　truly　a　great　man；　wise　in　council；　fertile　in　resources；

immovable　in　his　purposes；　and　had；　I　think；　a　greater　share　than　any

other　member；　in　advising　and　directing　our　measures；　in　the　northern

war　especially。　　As　a　speaker　he　could　not　be　compared　with　his

living　colleague　and　namesake；　whose　deep　conceptions；　nervous　style；

and　undaunted　firmness；　made　him　truly　our　bulwark　in　debate。　　But

Mr。　Samuel　Adams；　although　not　of　fluent　elocution；　was　so　rigorously

logical；　so　clear　in　his　views；　abundant　in　good　sense；　and　master

always　of　his　subject；　that　he　commanded　the　most　profound　attention

whenever　he　rose　in　an　assembly　by　which　the　froth　of　declamation　was

heard　with　the　most　sovereign　contempt。　　I　sincerely　rejoice　that　the

record　of　his　worth　is　to　be　undertaken　by　one　so　much　disposed　as

you　will　be　to　hand　him　down　fairly　to　that　posterity　for　whose

liberty　and　happiness　he　was　so　zealous　a　laborer。




　　　　　　　　With　sentiments　of　sincere　veneration　for　his　memory；　accept

yourself　this　tribute　to　it　with　the　assurances　of　my　great　respect。




　　　　　　　　P。　S。　August　6th；　1822；　since　the　date　of　this　letter；　to　wit；

this　day；　August　6th；　'22；　I　received　the　new　publication　of　the

secret　Journals　of　Congress；　wherein　is　stated　a　resolution；　July

19th；　1776；　that　the　declaration　passed　on　the　4th　be　fairly

engrossed　on　parchment；　and　when　engrossed；　be　signed　by　every

member；　and　another　of　August　2d；　that　being　engrossed　and　compared

at　the　table；　was　signed　by　the　members。　　That　is　to　say　the　copy

engrossed　on　parchment　（for　durability）　was　signed　by　the　members

after　being　compared　at　the　table　with　the　original　one；　signed　on

paper　as　before　stated。　　I　add　this　P。S。　to　the　copy　of　my　letter　to

Mr。　Wells；　to　prevent　confounding　the　signature　of　the　original　with

that　of　the　copy　engrossed　on　parchment。







　　　　　　　　THE　VALUE　OF　CLASSICAL　LEARNING




　　　　　　　　_To　John　Brazier_

　　　　　　　　_Poplar　Forest；　August　24；　1819_