D2.His.13.9-12: Critiquing the Sources Behind Two Histories of the Mecklenburg Declaration

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-85 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure10-15 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A school's 75th-anniversary booklet (an invented example) says: 'The debate team won the state title in 1985.' Its notes cite (a) a 2024 interview with the retired coach, (b) the 1985 state association results printed in a local paper, (c) a trophy in the hall marked 'State Champions' with no year, and (d) the school's own 2010 booklet, which says the same thing. Which note best supports the claim as written? Which notes would support only a smaller claim?"

   Take answers. Most students choose (b), because it was printed that year by a body that kept the results. Push on the others: the trophy shows the team won a title but not which year; the 2010 booklet may simply repeat the coach; the interview is honest but forty years late. Name the skill: an interpretation is only as strong as the fit between each claim and the source behind it.

2. Direct Instruction25 minutes

   Introduce the vocabulary. A claim is a statement an interpretation makes about the past. A source is appropriate for a claim when its closeness, chain and independence are strong enough to carry that claim; a source can be appropriate with limits, or not appropriate at all. A recollection is a memory written down later; a record is made at the time. Corroboration means agreement between sources that come from separate origins; agreement between sources that copy one another is only an echo. In the 1770s, Whigs were colonists who resisted British policies and Tories were those loyal to the Crown; resolves are formal decisions of a meeting.

   The Appropriateness Test (an SVHS teaching tool): five questions for each source an interpretation cites

   Question	Ask	Warning signs
   1. Claim	What exact claim does the interpreter use this source to support? A date, a wording, an event, a mood?	A broad source stretched to cover a narrow claim
   2. Closeness	How near in time and place was the maker to the event?	Decades between event and source; a maker who was elsewhere
   3. Chain	Is it an original record, a copy, a copy of a copy, a recollection, or a report of what someone else said?	Lost originals; editors who "condensed" or changed a text; unknown origin
   4. Independence	Does it come from a separate origin, or does it repeat another source on the list?	Witnesses who first read the disputed text; several sources tracing to one person
   5. Interest	What did the maker, and the interpreter, hope the source would show?	Family or local pride, a reputation to defend, a cause to win
   Verdict	Appropriate, Appropriate with limits, or Not appropriate, for this claim	A verdict on the source in general instead of on the source-claim pair

   Give the background from the sources themselves. The text of a declaration said to have been adopted at Charlotte on May 20, 1775, was "first brought to the attention of the general public in the year 1819" (Source 3, paragraph 1). Jefferson doubted it that summer (Source 7). In 1830 the Legislature of North Carolina gathered testimony and "affirmed the Mecklenburg Declaration to be genuine and authentic" (Source 3). A different set of Mecklenburg resolves, dated May 31, 1775, had been printed in newspapers in June 1775 (Source 6). Then read Interpretation A: C. L. Hunter's account of the meeting (Source 1) and his evidence (Source 2). Ask students to mark, in one color, every source Hunter names.

   1[...] Upon the return of the committee, the chairman proceeded to submit the resolutions of independence to the vote of the convention. All was silence and stillness around (intentique ora tenebant). The question was then put, "Are you all agreed." The response was one universal "aye," not one dissenting voice in that immense assemblage. It was then agreed that the proceedings should be read to the whole multitude. Accordingly at noon, on the 20th of May, 1775, Colonel Thomas Polk ascended the steps of the old court house, and read, in clear and distinct tones, the following patriotic resolutions, constituting, THE MECKLENBURG DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

   2"Resolved, 1. That whoever directly or indirectly abetted, or in any way, form or manner, countenanced the unchartered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by Great Britain, is an enemy to this country, to America, and to the inherent, and inalienable rights of man.

   3"Resolved, 2. That we, the citizens of Mecklenburg county, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the mother country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown and abjure all political connection, contract, or association with that nation, who have wantonly trampled on our rights and liberties, and inhumanly shed the blood of American patriots at Lexington.

   4"Resolved, 3. That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be a sovereign, and self-governing association, under the control of no power, other than that of our God, and the general government of the congress; to the maintenance of which independence, we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual co-operation, our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.

   [...]

   5After the reading of these resolutions, a voice from the crowd called out for "three cheers," and soon the welkin rang with corresponding shouts of applause. The resolutions were read again and again during the day to different parties, desirous of retaining in their memories sentiments of patriotism so congenial to their feelings.

   6A copy of the proceedings of the convention was then drawn off, and sent by express to the members of congress from North Carolina, at that time in session at Philadelphia. Captain James Jack, a worthy and intelligent citizen of Charlotte, was chosen as the bearer; [...]

   1[...] Adam Brevard was a younger brother of Dr. Ephraim Brevard, the reputed author of these resolutions, frequently performed his brother's writing during the active discharge of his professional duties, and was himself, a man of cultivated intellect, and christian integrity. [...] This venerable patriot, in a manuscript account of a celebration in Iredell county on the 4th of July, 1824, in discoursing on a variety of revolutionary matters, says among other things, he was in Salisbury in June 1775, attending to his professional duties as a lawyer, and that during the sessions of the General Court in that place, the bearer of the Mecklenburg Declaration arrived on his way to Philadelphia. [...]

   [...]

   2This important and additional testimony, here slightly condensed, but facts not changed, is extracted from a communication in the Southern Home, by Dr. J.M. Davidson, of Florida, a gentleman of great moral worth and christian integrity, and grandson of Adam Brevard, a brother of Dr. Ephraim Brevard, the reputed author of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.

   3A brief extract from Governor Martin's dispatch to the British Secretary of State, dated 30th of June, 1775, as found in Wheeler's "Historical Sketches," will now be given, which cannot be viewed in any other light than that of disinterested evidence. The Governor proceeds by saying, "[...] The resolves of the Committee of Mecklenburg, which your Lordship will find in the enclosed newspaper, surpass all the horrid and treasonable publications that the inflammatory spirits of the continent have yet produced; and your Lordship may depend, its authors and abettors will not escape, when my hands are sufficiently strengthened to attempt the recovery of the lost authority of the Government. A copy of these resolves was sent off, I am informed, by express, to the Congress at Philadelphia, as soon as they were passed in the committee."

   4The reader will mark, in particular, the closing sentence of this extract, as confirmatory of what actually took place on the 20th of May, 1775. Captain James Jack, then of Charlotte, a worthy and patriotic citizen, did set out a few days after the Convention adjourned, on horse back, as the "express" to Congress at Philadelphia, and faithfully executed the object of his mission. [...]

   5The resolutions passed by the county committee of safety on the 31st of May following, and which some have erroneously confounded with those of the 20th of May, were a necessary consequence, embracing simply "rules and regulations" for the internal government of the county, and hence needed no "express" to Congress.

   6The preceding testimony, conjoined with that of Gen. Joseph Graham, Rev. Humphrey Hunter, Captain James Jack, the hearer of the Mecklenburg Declaration to Congress, Rev. Francis Cummins, Major John Davidson, Isaac Alexander and others, previously referred to in the State pamphlet of 1831, and the exhaustive "Memoir" of the late Ex-Governor Graham--all men of exalted worth and Christian integrity, ought to be "sufficient to satisfy incredulity itself," as to the genuineness of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, and of its promulgation to the world on the 20th of May, 1775. And yet, in the face of this strong phalanx of unimpeachable testimony, there are a few who have attempted to rob North Carolina of this brightest gem in the crown of her early political history, and tarnish, by base and insidious cavils the fair name and reputation of a band of Revolutionary patriots, whose memories and heroic deeds the present generation and posterity will ever delight to honor.

   • Testing a source Hunter cites: the Brevard testimony

     Hunter's claim: in June 1775 "the bearer of the Mecklenburg Declaration arrived" in Salisbury on his way to Philadelphia (Source 2, paragraph 1). His source is Adam Brevard's manuscript, as reported by a grandson.

     Result: Closeness: the manuscript is "a manuscript account of a celebration in Iredell county on the 4th of July, 1824" (paragraph 1), 49 years after the event. Chain: Adam Brevard's manuscript, then a grandson's "communication in the Southern Home," then Hunter, who gives it "here slightly condensed" (paragraph 2). Three hands stand between the reader and the original. Independence and interest: the writer was the brother of Dr. Ephraim Brevard, "the reputed author" of the resolutions, and the account comes down through the family. Verdict: appropriate with serious limits. It is fair evidence of a family memory of a messenger in Salisbury; it cannot by itself show which resolutions he carried or when they were adopted.

   • Testing a source Hunter cites: the governor's dispatch

     Hunter offers Governor Martin's dispatch of June 30, 1775, as "disinterested evidence" for the declaration of May 20 (Source 2, paragraphs 3-4).

     Result: Closeness: written by the royal governor about a month after the events. Interest: Martin opposed the patriots, so he had no reason to invent their boldness; Hunter's point is fair. Claim: but the dispatch speaks only of "The resolves of the Committee of Mecklenburg, which your Lordship will find in the enclosed newspaper" (paragraph 3). It gives no date and no wording, so any Mecklenburg resolves printed in a newspaper before June 30 would fit it. Verdict: appropriate for the claim that a Mecklenburg committee adopted resolves in the spring of 1775 that the governor thought treasonable; not appropriate, by itself, for the claim that they were adopted on May 20 in the words of Source 1.

   • Testing how Hunter weighs his witnesses

     Hunter calls the testimony of his witnesses "unimpeachable" because they were "all men of exalted worth and Christian integrity" (Source 2, paragraph 6).

     Result: Character speaks to honesty, but the test asks about closeness, chain and independence, and character answers none of them: an honest witness can still misplace a date or a wording after many years. Hunter's own interest also shows: he writes against those who would "rob North Carolina of this brightest gem in the crown of her early political history." Verdict: the appeal to character is not an appropriate basis for accepting a date and a wording. Each witness must be tested on what he could know and when he wrote.

   • Testing the text itself

     Hunter prints the resolutions (Source 1, paragraphs 2-4) as the words Colonel Polk read "at noon, on the 20th of May, 1775" (paragraph 1).

     Result: In these passages Hunter does not tell the reader where his copy of the words came from, so its chain cannot be tested from them. The words also share striking expressions with the Declaration of Independence of 1776: Hoyt notes that if the text is genuine, "some of the most striking expressions of Jefferson's immortal document of thirteen months later were borrowed from the Mecklenburg manifesto" (Source 3, paragraph 1). A text cannot prove its own date. Verdict: until its chain is shown, the printed text is not appropriate evidence for the exact words adopted in May 1775.

   Now read Interpretation B, Hoyt's preface (Source 3). Ask: What sources does Hoyt say both sides cite? What does he say he set out to do, and what does that tell a critic about him? Students will test Hoyt's sources in Guided and Independent Practice.

   1Since it was first brought to the attention of the general public in the year 1819, the declaration of independence which is alleged to have been issued on May 20, 1775, by a convention held in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has been the subject of the most mooted question and acrimonious controversy of the history of the American Revolution. Evidences dating from 1775 and onward of a document of this nature, copies of doubtful origin of the document in question, a copy written from memory in 1800, testimony of reliable persons who stated between 1819 and 1830 that they had been spectators and participants at a meeting which adopted it, and traditions are cited to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. In 1830, after the publication of the trenchant letter of Thomas Jefferson expressing his belief that the paper was a fabrication, the Legislature of North Carolina took up the matter, and affirmed the Mecklenburg Declaration to be genuine and authentic. [...] The consensus of opinion of critical students of American history is opposed to its authenticity; but from the beginning of the controversy there have been two hostile camps, each fortified by what are regarded as unanswerable arguments. If this verdict be reversed, we must conclude, contrary to long-accepted views, and with the older British historians, that before May, 1775, there was a conscious movement in the colonies having independence as its aim, and we must admit that some of the most striking expressions of Jefferson's immortal document of thirteen months later were borrowed from the Mecklenburg manifesto. Herein lies the chief historical importance of the question.

   [...]

   2The purpose of this monograph is to show that all the evidence, new and old, which is cited in support of the genuineness and authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration, should be understood as relating to a series of resolves of similar import, which were adopted in Mecklenburg County May 31, 1775, and that the several versions of the supposititious paper of May 20, 1775, trace their origin to rough notes written from memory in 1800 by John McKnitt Alexander, who believed those resolves to be a declaration of independence and attempted to set forth their substance. In preparing the work I have gone to original sources of information wherever it has been possible. Hitherto inaccessible manuscripts are adduced to demonstrate the origin of the famous resolutions of May 20, 1775, and the successive stages of their construction.

   3[...] In discharging my ungrateful office, I write simply as a student of history, inspired with a special love for the history of the “Old North State,” and with a profound veneration for the Mecklenburg patriots of 1775. I came to my subject before Dr. George W. Graham's book was announced with the intention of writing a defence of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration, but the irresistible logic of facts drove me to my present position. [...]

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Source 6, the resolves of May 31, 1775, as Hoyt prints them from a 1775 newspaper, and his defense of that newspaper. They apply the Appropriateness Test to Hoyt's use of the two 1775 newspapers for one claim: these resolves are genuine, and were adopted in this form (paragraph 9). Then share the key.

   1The Mecklenburg resolves of May 31, 1775, appeared in the South-Carolina Gazette; And Country Journal of Tuesday, June 13, 1775, published in “Charles-Town,” South Carolina, as follows:

   2Charlotte-Town, Mecklenburg County, May 31, 1775.
   This day the Committee of this county met, and passed the following Resolves:

   3WHEREAS by an Address presented to his Majesty by both Houses of Parliament, in February last, the American colonies are declared to be in a state of actual rebellion, we conceive, that all laws and commissions confirmed by, or derived from the authority of the King or Parliament, are annulled and vacated, and the former civil constitution of these colonies, for the present, wholly suspended. To provide, in some degree, for the exigencies of this county, in the present alarming period, we deem it proper and necessary to pass the following Resolves, viz.

   4I. That all commissions, civil and military, heretofore granted by the Crown, to be exercised in these colonies, are null and void, and the constitution of each particular colony wholly suspended.

   5II. That the Provincial Congress of each province, under the direction of the great Continental Congress, is invested with all legislative and executive powers within their respective provinces; and that no other legislative or executive power, does, or can exist, at this time, in any of these colonies.

   [...]

   6XVIII. That these Resolves be in full force and virtue, until instructions from the Provincial Congress, regulating the jurisprudence of the province, shall provide otherwise, or the legislative body of Great-Britain, resign its unjust and arbitrary pretentions with respect to America.

   [...]

   7XX. That the Committee appoint Colonel Thomas Polk, and Doctor Joseph Kenedy, to purchase 300 lb. of powder, 600 lb. of lead, 1000 flints, for the use of the militia of this county, and deposit the same in such place as the Committee may hereafter direct.
   Signed by order of the Committee,
   EPH. BREVARD, Clerk of the Committee.

   8The fact that these resolves were adopted in Mecklenburg County in May, 1775, which is the foundation of the argument against the alleged declaration of independence of the twentieth of the same month, has been denied by those who find them more or less incompatible with the declaration which they uphold, on the ground that it rests solely on the authority of a Charleston newspaper, and that, although the editor was a Tory, he printed them without remark, thereby showing that he was unwilling to vouch for their having been adopted on the date and in the form published. This contention arises partly from a lack of information concerning Charleston printers and American newspapers of 1775. The South-Carolina Gazette; And Country Journal, which printed the Mecklenburg resolves, was conducted by Charles Crouch, a sound Whig, and the one other Charleston newspaper published in June, 1775, also supported the cause of the colonies. [...]

   9But another contemporary newspaper has been brought to light which confirms the genuineness and authenticity of the Mecklenburg resolves of May 31, 1775. On Friday, June 16, 1775, three days after the resolves were published in Charleston, they appeared in the North-Carolina Gazette, printed weekly at New-Bern, two hundred miles away. With the exception of a few words, mostly misprinted, no doubt, the two series of resolves and their headings are identical in form. [...]

   Key for the teacher.

   1. Closeness. The Charleston paper printed the resolves on June 13, 1775 (paragraph 1), and a New-Bern paper on June 16 (paragraph 9): 13 and 16 days after the date they bear. These are printings made at the time, not recollections.
   2. Chain. Hoyt prints the newspaper's own text, with its heading and the clerk's signature, "EPH. BREVARD, Clerk of the Committee" (paragraph 7).
   3. Independence. Two papers in two different cities carried the resolves within three days, and the two texts "are identical in form" (paragraph 9). That shows the text was in circulation in June 1775; because the texts match so closely, they probably came from the same original, so they confirm the text more than they confirm the meeting.
   4. Interest. Defenders of May 20 argued that the Charleston editor "was a Tory" who printed the resolves "without remark"; Hoyt answers that he was "a sound Whig" (paragraph 8). Students should notice that the dispute over the editor's politics does not change the date of printing.
   5. Verdict. Appropriate for the claim that a Mecklenburg committee issued these resolves, in this form, by early June 1775.
4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Students read Sources 4 and 5 on their own and write two short critiques (one paragraph each) and a comparison:

   1. Hoyt uses John McKnitt Alexander's certificate of 1800 (Source 4) for the claim that the May 20 text was "conceived in the imperfect memory of John McKnitt Alexander, and written twenty-five years after its alleged date" (Source 4, paragraph 5). Apply the five tests and give a verdict.
   2. Hunter rests the date "the 20th of May, 1775" on witnesses like those in Source 5. Choose one certificate, apply the five tests and give a verdict.
   3. Which of the two uses of sources is more appropriate for its claim? Explain in two or three sentences.

   1[...] The age and trustworthiness of the Davie paper and of its counterpart in the unknown handwriting are fixed by the conclusion to the former:

   2It may be worthy of notice here to observe that the foregoing statement, though fundamentally correct, yet may not literally correspond with the original record of the transactions of said delegation and court of enquiry, as all those records and papers were burnt with the house on April 6th, 1800; but previous to that time of 1800, a full copy of said records, at the request of Doctor Hugh Williamson, then of New York, but formerly a representative in Congress from this State, was forwarded to him by Col. Wm. Polk, in order that those early transactions might fill their proper place in a history of this State then writing by said Doctor Williamson in New York.

   3Certified to the best of my recollection and belief, this 3d day of September, 1800, by
   J. McK. Alexander.
   Mecklenburg County, N. C.

   4This certificate of John McKnitt Alexander remained unknown to the world until the Rev. Charles Phillips, D.D., professor of mathematics at the University of North Carolina, and secretary of the Historical Society of the University, copied it from the original Davie paper placed in his hands by Governor Swain, and published it in an elaborate article contributed by him to the North Carolina University Magazine of May, 1853. [...]

   [...]

   5The certificate of the Davie copy constitutes the last link in the chain of documentary evidence, all proceeding from John McKnitt Alexander, which proves that the “Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence” is a distorted record of a true manifesto of Mecklenburg county, clothed in language wholly different from that of the true manifesto, conceived in the imperfect memory of John McKnitt Alexander, and written twenty-five years after its alleged date. Alexander professed to be only “fundamentally correct” in his “statement,” which included the declaration and his history of it. He said that it might not “literally correspond” with the original records, “as all those records and papers” had been burnt; and he mentions no memoranda that had been preserved. As if these caveats were not enough to prevent misconstruction, he was careful to certify only according to his best “recollection and belief.” [...]

   1CERTIFICATE OF ISAAC ALEXANDER.

   2I hereby certify that I was present in Charlotte on the 19th and 20th days of May, 1775, when a regular deputation from all the Captains' companies of militia in the county of Mecklenburg, to wit: Col. Thomas Polk, Adam Alexander, Lieut. Col. Abram Alexander, John M'Knitt Alexander, Hezekiah Alexander, Ephraim Brevard and a number of others, who met to consult and take measures for the peace and tranquillity of the citizens of said county, and who appointed Abraham Alexander their Chairman, and Doctor Ephraim Brevard Secretary; who, after due consultation, declared themselves absolved from their allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and drew up a Declaration of their Independence, which was unanimously adopted; and employed Capt. James Jack to carry copies thereof to Congress, who accordingly went. These are a part of the transactions that took place at that time, as far as my recollection serves me.
   ISAAC ALEXANDER.
   October 8, 1830.

   3CERTIFICATE OF SAM'L WILSON.

   4STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Mecklenburg County.
   I do hereby certify, that in May, 1775, a committee or delegation from the different militia companies in this county, met in Charlotte; and after consulting together, they publicly declared their independence on Great Britain, and on her Government. This was done before a large collection of people, who highly approved of it. I was then and there present, and heard it read from the Court House door. Certified by me.
   SAM'L WILSON.

   5CERTIFICATE OF JOHN DAVIDSON.

   6Beaver Dam, October 5, 1830.
   Dear Sir,—I received your note of the 25th of last month, requiring information relative to the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. As I am, perhaps, the only person living, who was a member of that Convention, and being far advanced in years, and not having my mind frequently directed to that circumstance for some years, I can give you but a very succinct history of that transaction. There were two men chosen from each Captain's company, to meet in Charlotte, to take the subject into consideration. John M'Knitt Alexander and myself were chosen from one company; and many other members were there that I now recollect, whose names I deem unnecessary to mention. When the members met, and were perfectly organized for business, a motion was made to declare ourselves independent of the Crown of Great Britain, which was carried by a large majority. Dr. Ephraim Brevard was then appointed to give us a sketch of the Declaration of Independence, which he did. James Jack was appointed to take it on to the American Congress, then sitting in Philadelphia, with particular instructions to deliver it to the North Carolina Delegation in Congress, (Hooper and Caswell.) When Jack returned, he stated that the Declaration was presented to Congress, and the reply was, that they highly esteemed the patriotism of the citizens of Mecklenburg; but they thought the measure too premature.

   7I am confident that the Declaration of Independence by the people of Mecklenburg was made public at least twelve months before that of the Congress of the United States. [...]

   What to look for. Strong critiques quote the source with a paragraph number for each test, compute the gap in years between event and source, and name who stands in the chain between the event and the words on the page. Strong verdicts are about the source-claim pair ("appropriate with limits for this claim because..."), and the comparison weighs both interpretations by the same tests.

5. Closure10-15 minutes

   Read Source 7, Thomas Jefferson's letter of July 9, 1819, written after John Adams sent him the newly printed paper. Students will use it in the quiz. Sources 8 and 9 are for homework.

   1But what has attracted my peculiar notice, is the paper from Mecklenburg county, of North Carolina, published in the Essex Register, which you were so kind as to enclose in your last, of June the 22nd. And you seem to think it genuine. I believe it spurious. I deem it to be a very unjustifiable quiz, like that of the volcano, so minutely related to us as having broken out in North Carolina, some half dozen years ago, in that part of the country, and perhaps in that very county of Mecklenburg, for I do not remember its precise locality. If this paper be really taken from the Raleigh Register, as quoted, I wonder it should have escaped Ritchie, who culls what is good from every paper, as the bee from every flower; and the National Intelligencer, too, which is edited by a North-Carolinian: and that the fire should blaze out all at once in Essex, one thousand miles from where the spark is said to have fallen. But if really taken from the Raleigh Register, who is the narrator, and is the name subscribed real, or is it as fictitious as the paper itself? It appeals, too, to an original book, which is burnt, to Mr. Alexander, who is dead, to a joint letter from Caswell, Hughes, and Hooper, all dead, to a copy sent to the dead Caswell, and another sent to Doctor Williamson, now probably dead, whose memory did not recollect, in the history he has written of North Carolina, this gigantic step of its county of Mecklenburg. Horry, too, is silent in his history of Marion, whose scene of action was the country bordering On Mecklenburg. Ramsay, Marshall, Jones, Girardin, Wirt, historians of the adjacent States, all silent. When Mr. Henry’s resolutions, far short of independence, flew like lightning through every paper, and kindled both sides of the Atlantic, this flaming declaration of the same date, of the independence of Mecklenburg county, of North Carolina, absolving it from the British allegiance, and abjuring all political connection with that nation, although sent to Congress, too, is never heard of. [...] I must not be understood as suggesting any doubtfulness in the State of North Carolina. No State was more fixed or forward. Nor do I affirm, positively, that this paper is a fabrication: because the proof of a negative can only be presumptive. But I shall believe it such until positive and solemn proof of its authenticity shall be produced. And if the name of McKnitt be real, and not a part of the fabrication, it needs a vindication by the production of such proof. For the present, I must be an unbeliever in the apocryphal gospel.

   1The testimony of John Simeson is not less significant than General Graham's. Simeson was twenty-one years old when the event of which he wrote occurred. After conversing, he said, “with many old friends and others,” and evidently after his mind was preoccupied by the publications made on the subject, he wrote from his home in Mecklenberg county, January 20, 1820: “As to the names of those who drew up the Declaration, I am inclined to think Doctor Brevard was the principal, from his known talents in composition. It was, however, in substance and form, like that great national act agreed on thirteen months after. Ours was towards the close of May, 1775. In addition to what I have said, the same committee appointed three men to secure all the military stores for the county's use—Thomas Polk, John Phifer and Joseph Kennedy. I was under arms near the head of the line, near Col. Polk, and heard him distinctly read a long string of Grievances, the Declaration and Military Order above.” John Simeson recollected nearly the precise terms of the military order which forms the last of the “long string” of resolutions which he was struggling to recall. The true “Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence” concludes as follows: [...]

   [...]

   2Simeson erred only in adding the name of John Phifer to the number of those mentioned in the military order. But his error was a likely one, for it appears that John Phifer actually received the military stores purchased under the order. On December 22, 1775, the Provincial Council of North Carolina resolved that Jeremiah McCaffety be paid for “two hundred and ninety-seven pounds and three-quarters of a pound of Gun powder taken and received by Colonel Thomas Polk and Major John Phifer.” [...]

   1The Mecklenburg Declaration was read aloud from the courthouse door in Charlotte to a large crowd, which cheered it.(a) Historians have since proved that no declaration of independence was made in Mecklenburg on May 20, 1775.(b) What the county committee did adopt, on May 31, was a set of resolves that it sent to the newspapers itself, which is why they appeared in Charleston and New-Bern within days.(c)

   2Notes: (a) Certificate of Sam'l Wilson, 1830 (Source 5, paragraph 4). (b) William Henry Hoyt, preface, 1907 (Source 3, paragraph 1). (c) Hoyt, chapter II, on the North-Carolina Gazette (Source 6, paragraph 9).

   Exit ticket: "Name one source from today, one claim it is appropriate for, and one claim it is not appropriate for. Give a reason from the five tests."

   Teacher notes. (1) The dispute is historical, not partisan, but it touches state and local pride: Hoyt calls the May 20 declaration "the proudest page in the history of North Carolina" in a sentence cut from Source 3. Grade the reasoning, never the side. (2) Hunter's phrase "Christian integrity" describes the witnesses' reputation; discuss what character can and cannot show about memory without judging anyone's beliefs. (3) Background for the teacher, not for grading: most historians since Hoyt have accepted that the May 31 resolves are documented in 1775 newspapers and that the May 20 text cannot be traced to a 1775 original, while defenders of May 20 have continued to argue their case; North Carolina's state flag and seal still carry the date May 20, 1775. (4) Source 9 is SVHS-written for practice, not a published history. (5) Every cut is marked [...]; Sources 1-8 leave out passages on other topics, other witnesses and other copies of the resolutions. (6) Spelling and punctuation are the authors' own, for example "pretentions" in resolve XVIII and "Kenedy" in resolve XX of the 1775 resolves.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   A historian writes, "The town council voted unanimously on May 20." Which source (imagined for this question) is most appropriate for that claim?

   AA councilman's memoir written forty years after the meeting BThe council's minute book, kept by its clerk at the meeting CA newspaper story printed a year later, quoting "old residents" DA painting of the meeting made for the town's centennial

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which words in Source 7 show that Jefferson knew the limit of his own kind of evidence?

   A"I believe it spurious" B"a very unjustifiable quiz, like that of the volcano" C"the proof of a negative can only be presumptive" D"Ramsay, Marshall, Jones, Girardin, Wirt, historians of the adjacent States, all silent"

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Jefferson writes that the paper "appeals, too, to an original book, which is burnt, to Mr. Alexander, who is dead" and to others "all dead" (Source 7). What is his point about the paper's sources?

   ANone of the paper's named sources could be checked BThe witnesses who signed it in 1830 were dishonest men CThe British army burned the original book during the war DAlexander himself wrote the Declaration of Independence

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which words in John McKnitt Alexander's certificate (Source 4) most directly limit its use as evidence for the exact wording of the May 20 text?

   A"though fundamentally correct" B"forwarded to him by Col. Wm. Polk" C"may not literally correspond" D"this 3d day of September, 1800"

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 4 says Alexander's certificate "remained unknown to the world until" 1853. Why does this matter when you weigh the 1830 decision by North Carolina's Legislature (Source 3, paragraph 1)?

   AIt proves the Legislature knew the text was false and hid it BIt shows the 1830 witnesses had read Alexander's certificate CIt means the May 31 resolves were not yet printed in 1830 DNo one in 1830 could weigh Alexander's own warning

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Of the three certificates in Source 5, which detail gives the strongest support to the specific date of May 20, 1775?

   ASamuel Wilson's "in May, 1775, a committee or delegation" BJohn Davidson's "two men chosen from each Captain's company" CDavidson's "at least twelve months before that of the Congress" DIsaac Alexander's "the 19th and 20th days of May, 1775"

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which phrase in John Davidson's letter (Source 5) is the writer's own warning about the limits of his memory?

   A"I am, perhaps, the only person living, who was a member" B"not having my mind frequently directed" C"a motion was made to declare ourselves independent" D"the reply was, that they highly esteemed the patriotism"

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Davidson writes, "When Jack returned, he stated that the Declaration was presented to Congress" (Source 5, paragraph 6). For the claim that Congress received the Declaration, this part of his letter is:

   Afirsthand: Davidson saw Congress receive the paper himself Ba record: it was written down in 1775 by Congress's clerk Csecondhand: Davidson repeats in 1830 what Jack told him Dindependent: it comes from a source other than the meeting

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Davidson's letter begins, "I received your note of the 25th of last month, requiring information relative to the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence." Which test does this sentence raise most directly?

   AIndependence: the request itself named the event BCloseness: the note was sent to him only a few weeks earlier CChain: the note proves the letter is a copy of a copy DClaim: the note shows that Davidson made up the meeting

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which of the May 31, 1775, resolves in Source 6 shows that the committee meant its measures to be temporary?

    APreamble: royal laws "are annulled and vacated" BXVIII: in force "until instructions from the Provincial Congress" CII: Congress "is invested with all legislative and executive powers" DXX: buying "300 lb. of powder, 600 lb. of lead, 1000 flints"

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Hunter says the May 31 resolves embraced "simply 'rules and regulations' for the internal government of the county" (Source 2, paragraph 5). Which words in Source 6 most challenge that description?

    A"Signed by order of the Committee" BResolve I: royal commissions "are null and void" C"printed weekly at New-Bern, two hundred miles away" D"With the exception of a few words, mostly misprinted"

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Hoyt writes that he began "with the intention of writing a defence of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration" (Source 3, paragraph 3). How should a critic use this statement?

    AAs a clue to his stance, while still testing each source he uses BAs proof that every source Hoyt cites is appropriate for its claim CAs proof that Hoyt is biased against North Carolina's patriots DAs a reason to ignore the preface and read only his chapters

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Isaac Alexander says the meeting "declared themselves absolved from their allegiance to the King of Great Britain" (Source 5, paragraph 2). Source 1's second resolution says "absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown" (paragraph 3). What does the match most likely tell a critic?

    AHis memory may echo the printed text, so it is not fully independent BIt proves he heard the very words read aloud in Charlotte in 1775 CIt proves that the printed text was invented by the witnesses in 1830 DIt shows the May 31 resolves and Source 1 are the same document

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which of these claims is Source 6 (the 1775 newspapers and Hoyt's comments on them) least appropriate to support?

    AA Mecklenburg committee adopted resolves dated May 31, 1775 BThe resolves called royal commissions "null and void" CThe resolves appeared in a Charleston paper on June 13, 1775 DNo meeting in Mecklenburg declared independence on May 20

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Critique the appropriateness of Isaac Alexander's certificate (Source 5) for Hunter's claim that the meeting declared independence "on the 20th of May, 1775." Use at least three of the five tests.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Hoyt lists the kinds of evidence that defenders cite for the May 20 declaration: "Evidences dating from 1775 and onward," "copies of doubtful origin," "a copy written from memory in 1800," "testimony of reliable persons" given between 1819 and 1830, and "traditions" (Source 3, paragraph 1). Rank them from most to least appropriate for the specific claim that the declaration was adopted on May 20, 1775, and justify your first and last choices with the tests.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Jefferson argues from silence: no newspaper, historian or member of Congress mentioned a Mecklenburg declaration in 1775-1776 (Source 7). How appropriate is this kind of evidence for the claim that no declaration was made on May 20, 1775?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare how Hunter (Source 2, paragraph 5) and Hoyt (Source 6, paragraphs 8-9) deal with evidence that seems to count against them. Which interpreter handles contrary evidence more appropriately? Explain.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Hoyt calls the 1819-1830 witnesses "reliable persons" (Source 3, paragraph 1), yet he rejects their date of May 20. Is that consistent? Explain using the five tests.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Describe one source, not on this page, that would be most appropriate for settling the date of the Mecklenburg action, and explain why, using two of the five tests.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.13.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.