the 7th of June by the Virginia delegates that Congress should declare the colonies independant.] Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of Independance which had been reported and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a Committee of the whole. the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. for this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. - the debates having taken up the greater parts of the 2d 3d and 4th days of July, were, in the evening of the last, closed: the Declaration was reported by the Committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every

present

member except mr Dickinson.' so far my notes.

Governor McKean 35, in his letter 36 to McCorkle of July [June] 16. 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 which was voted on that day, of June 7. to declare independance, and 2. the actual Declaration, its matter and form. thus he states the question on

then

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 Pensylvania 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 2 of July that the Declaration itself was taken up; nor till the 4th that it was decided; and it was signed by every 37 member present 38, 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 N. York and Pensylvania. N. York 9 did not sign till the 15th 40 because it was not till the 9th 41 (5.days after the general signature) that their Convention authorised them to do so. the Convention of Pensylvania, learning that it had been signed by a minority 42 only of their delegates, named a new delegation 43 on the 20th leaving out 44 mr Dickinson who had refused 45 to sign, Willing 46 & Humphreys who had withdrawn, reappointing the 3. members who had signed, Morris who had not been present, & 5 new ones, to wit, Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor & Ross: and Morris and the 5 new members were permitted to sign 48, 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 49 of Thornton of New Hampshire was permitted so late as the 4th of November, I cannot now say; but undoubtedly for some particular reason 50, which we should find to have been good had it been expressed. these were the only 51 post-signers, and you see, Sir, that there were solid reasons for receiving those of N. York and Pensylvania, and this circumstance, in no wise affects the faith of this Declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.

that

Λ

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.

Wells writes again, June 2d: "[S] The information which you were so kind as to communicate to me. has explained some circumstances that were confused and mysterious; among them is the fact that mr R. R. Livingston who was one of the committee selected to draft the declaration, was not among the number of its signers; and it is still rather a singular occurrence, that he should

have consented to be one of a Committee, whose proceedings he did not conceive that the instructions of his constituents would authorize him to approve of. The error into which governor McKean had fallen on this subject, may also have been, in part, that of mr Galloway. viz. the confounding of the declaration, with the motion for independence. Your letter informs me, that in the course of the debates this motion that six Colonies 'were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but as they were fast advancing to that state, it was thought prudent to wait awhile for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1. Although it does not appear by this, that a vote was taken upon the question at this time yet, I conclude there must have been as I cannot see how the state of opinion could otherwise be accurately obtained. . . If this be fact, it must be true, that the motion for independence was passed by a majority of one vote only. Before I had seen the statement of mr Galloway, I had been informed by many persons who yet live, of some remarks that were made by the late Judges Paine and Chase of nearly the same import, as it regarded my grandfather, and I concluded that mr Galloway had nearly given the particulars of the case. But he was evidently wrong in stating that the vote which was determined in favor of the question, was that of Pennsylvania. It may have been Georgia, or North Carolina. If, therefore, this question in its first stage, was determined by the vote of one Colony, it may have been effected by the vote of one delegate of any particular Colony that may have been equally divided, and this vote obtained as he states, by the exertions of some member, who was par

53

ticularly ardent in its favor. If, then, either Georgia, or North Carolina, which are the only two Colonies that I can think it probable any division of sentiment existed [in 52] had been named instead of Pennsylvania, mr Galloways statement could then have been reconciled to yours, which must be considered the only standard . . . The painting executed by col. Trumbull, representing the Congress at the declaration of independence, will, I fear, have a tendency to obscure the history of the event which it is designed to commemorate I confess, that I am not a little surprised at the favorable reception, which this badly executed performance has met, from the public. I will frankly avow that I was much disappointed at not finding it (according to my idea) executed in a style worthy of the subject. I expressed my opinions with freedom on the work, through the medium of the newspapers under the signature of Historicus . . . It was by investigating this subject, that I discovered the discrepancies in the printed journals, of Congress on this memorable event

To this, Jefferson responds, June 23d: "[P] you suppose that the fact that six colonies were not yet matured for a separation from the parent stock could not have been known unless a vote had been taken, yet nothing easier, for the opinion of every individual was known to every one who had anxiety enough on the subject to scrutinise and calculate. there was neither concealment nor reserve on the subject on either side; and how the vote of each colony would be, if then pushed to a vote was exactly ascertainable . I certainly will not, on the authority of memory alone affirm facts in opposition

to mr Galloway, judge M:Kain, or any one else. but what I wrote on the paper from which I sent extracts to you, was written on the spot, in the moment, and is true; and all that remains is to reconcile to that the contradictions of others. . . Galloway can be no better authority than the common herd of passengers in the streets. he knew nothing but the rumors of hearsay: for he had quitted us long before, and mr M:Kain was very old, and his memory much decayed when he gave his statement. The painting lately executed by Col: Trumbull, I have never seen

On August 6, 1822, he adds to the copy of his first letter to Wells the following:

1822

[S] P. S. Aug. 6. since the date of this letter, to wit this day Aug. 6. 22 I receive the new publication of the Secret

of July 19. 1776

Journals of Congress, wherein is stated a Resolñ that the Declaration passed on the 4th be fairly engrossed on parchment, and when engrossed, be signed by every member, and another of Aug. 2. 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 54 as before stated 55. 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.

--

These contradictory statements of M:Kean and Jefferson - both of whom were present in Congress on July 4th - have very naturally given rise to much dispute and many lengthy arguments.56

Our own opinion is that Jefferson is mistaken.