Junius Unmasked Part 28

2. Eleven years afterward, when in Paris, he writes to the editor of the _Journal de Paris_ as follows, in regard to the history of the Declaration: "I was on the spot and can relate to you this transaction with precision. On the 7th of June, 1776, the delegates from Virginia moved, in obedience to instructions from their const.i.tuents, that Congress shall declare the thirteen united colonies to be independent of Great Britain, and a confederation should be formed to bind them together, and measures be taken to procure the a.s.sistance of foreign powers. The House ordered a punctual attendance of all their members the next day at ten o'clock, and then resolved themselves into a committee of the whole and entered on the discussion. It appeared in the course of the debate that seven states, viz., New Hampshire, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, were decided for a separation; but that six others still hesitated, to-wit: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina. Congress desirous of unanimity, and seeing that the public mind was advancing rapidly to it, referred the further discussion to the first of July, appointing in the meantime, a committee to prepare a Declaration of Independence; a second, to form articles for the confederation of the states; and a third, to prepare measures for obtaining foreign aid. On the 28th of June, the Declaration of Independence was reported to the House, and was laid on the table."--Works, vol. ix, pp. 310, 311.

There is no acknowledgment that he was the author of it yet. This is August, 1787. Mr. Paine is in Paris, just on the eve of starting for London. Jefferson is forty-four years old.

3. In September, 1809, in answer to a proposition to publish his writings, after mentioning many of them, he says: "I say nothing of numerous drafts of reports, resolutions, declarations, etc., drawn as a member of Congress, or of the legislature of Virginia, such as the Declaration of Independence, Report on the Money Mint of the United States, the Act of Religious Freedom, etc., etc.

These having become the acts of public bodies, there can be no personal claim to them." This is nearly three months after the death of Mr. Paine.--Works, vol. v, p. 466. And here he says he makes no personal claim to it. He is now sixty-six years old.

4. In May, 1819, he gives the same account as first above given.

Mr. Paine has been dead about ten years. He makes no acknowledgment yet that he was the author of it, but in the same account pledges himself to Heaven and earth for the truth of the statement.--Works, vol. vii, page 123. He is now seventy-six years old.

5. In January, 1821, he indirectly acknowledges himself to be the author, but with a great deal of ambiguity. He takes the same account as given first and third above, but interpolates into it a clause, which I have placed in brackets in the pa.s.sage which I give, as follows: "It appearing, in the course of these debates, that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina were not yet matured for falling into the parent stem, but that they were fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait awhile for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1st; but, that this might occasion as little delay as possible, a committee was appointed to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The committee were John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and myself. [Committees were also appointed at the same time to prepare a plan of confederation for the colonies, and to state the terms proper to be proposed for foreign alliance. The committee for drawing the Declaration 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."--Works, vol. i, pages 17 and 18. This is the first insinuation. I say insinuation, for the sentence, "_It_ was accordingly done, and I reported it," is not frank and outspoken, as it ought to be, if he meant to say he drafted it. Mr. Paine has been dead almost twelve years, but Mr.

Jefferson has dropped the pledge to Heaven and earth for the truth of it, which he has heretofore been careful to put in. He is now seventy-eight years old.

6. In August, 1823, he now comes forward, and says: "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."--Works, vol. vii, page 304. John Adams had said there was a sub-committee of two, viz., Jefferson and himself, appointed by the other three. But Jefferson says there was not--"that John Adams had forgotten about it." Query: Can a person forget about something which never was? To this statement there is no "pledge to Heaven and earth." He is eighty years old.

7. In the year 1825 he says once that he wrote it, and once that he drafted it; but no "pledge to Heaven and earth" as before.

Now, he never acknowledged that he was the author of it in any of his works before the death of Mr. Paine. He gave several full accounts of the whole transaction, and calls on Heaven and earth to witness the truth of his statements. About the time Mr. Paine dies he says he can make no personal claim to it. Ten years after Mr. Paine's death, he very ambiguously claims it, as if his pen refused to write it, and drops his oath. But twelve years after Mr. Paine's death, and he now in his eightieth year, he first says he drew it. Was he too _modest_ to affirm it till he had got into his dotage? The reader must answer. It is with painful feelings I record the above facts. "But they are too true, and the more is the pity." But to proceed.

Mr. Jefferson could not have followed so closely Common Sense in the production of the Declaration of Independence, if he had studied it for a whole year with this special purpose in view. For, the style he could not have imitated; the figures of speech he could not have adopted; the impa.s.sioned eloquence would have stuck to the dry leaves; the exact order would have been missed; the fine shades of sentiment would have been blotted out; the complex ideas he would have failed to grasp; its architectural plan he could not have idealized; and its construction would never have arisen from the chaos of scattered materials which he would have gleaned. And, above all, the personal character of Mr. Paine would have been left out. He would have failed in every one of these things. And why? Want of mental similarity thereto. This, and nothing else.

I will sum up his mentality as I find it in his writings. I have given you Mr. Paine's already. In this I shall be brief, speaking only of those powers which would be incompatible with, or necessary to, the production of the Declaration.

Mr. Jefferson was a zealous partisan. Mr. Paine was a consummate statesman. Here was the great difference between the two men. Those qualities of the mind which produce the former are very unlike those which produce the latter. The former mind must be narrow and selfish, the latter broad and generous. This will take in the whole world, that but a small portion of it. The partisan has an understanding subject to the vice and discipline of cunning; the statesman has an understanding subject to the n.o.blest and most generous affections. It was this which made Mr. Jefferson such a grand success as a party leader, and that, too, which perhaps saved the nation from pa.s.sing into the hands of the monarchists. Without these consummate powers of the partisan, it would have been impossible for Mr. Jefferson to have taken command of the people, to have organized his party, to have marshaled his forces, and with his army of followers to have put royalty under his heel. How unlike Washington and John Adams, who preceded him. Hamilton, who would toast a president of America and give three cheers for George the Third of England, ruled Washington and governed the nation. John Adams, who was so beguiled with royalty and the British const.i.tution, could not heartily sympathize with the people; the dupe of his own pa.s.sions, he was unfit to be the ruler of a free people. But Jefferson, while secretary under Washington, began to form his party and draw his party lines. Through Freneau he drove Washington to cry out: "By G.o.d, I had rather be in my grave than in my present situation!" And, afterward, the party he was marshaling made John Adams, then president of the United States, desert his post for seven months, at the most trying crisis of this government. But the cold, unfeeling partisanship of the great democrat saved the nation.

The other crowning difference between the two men is, Mr. Paine had extraordinary genius, Mr. Jefferson had not; and by genius I mean a lively constructive and comprehensive mind, one that can generalize facts and deduce principles therefrom, one that can idealize and build in the imagination what it would put into material shape or on paper. If this comparison be true (and the reader is at liberty to bring facts to contradict it), then Mr. Jefferson could not produce the Declaration for want of capacity.

The Declaration is the work of a master. It is the work of one with _great experience_ in the art of composition, one who produced the whole in the ideal before he touched pen to paper, and one who followed plan and specifications with unerring precision. It is a work of the most finished rhetoric, and produced with such skill as to defy adverse criticism. It shows vast labor and time bestowed upon its execution. In its mechanism I have never seen its equal in all my reading and study.

It is the most masterly work of genius I ever saw in composition. It stands alone in the world of letters. There is nothing its equal which has come down to us from the ages, and I know of no one save Thomas Paine capable of producing it. That he was a master in the art of composition, no one can dispute, and he frequently takes pains to give the principles which reveal his success; here is one of them, to be found in his Letter to the Abbe Raynal: "To fit the powers of thinking and the turn of language to the subject, so as to bring out a clear conclusion that shall hit the point in question, and nothing else, is the true criterion of writing," See a fine pa.s.sage on this point in the introduction to the same letter. Now Jefferson had not the genius to produce the Declaration.

If we look also at several pa.s.sages in the Declaration we can only feel their full force after knowing the previous career of Mr. Paine as Junius in England. Take for example the two paragraphs, 24 and 25, the one of the king and the other of the "British brethren." We see in the one the proud disdain and haughty contempt for the tyrant; in the other that tender sympathy for the English people, with a sly thrust at the Scotch, and then the wounded affection which comes from betrayal of friendship--"the last stab to agonizing affection." And then regathering himself from the affliction of a broken heart, he exclaims, "Manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren." But _no_, this can not be done, and in the next breath he says, "we must endeavor to forget our former love for them;" and then comes the wail of anguish in the loss of his native country, "We might have been a great and a free people together, but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it so." He now bends beneath the hand of fate and cries out, "I acquiesce in our eternal separation," but persist in denouncing it. This is the very picture of Mr. Paine's own heart. It is a pitch of enthusiasm and anguish which Mr. Jefferson had neither circ.u.mstance in his life nor capacity in his soul to work himself up to. It is neither art nor contrivance, it is the recorded beating of his own heart, the sequel to his previous life.

Take again the pa.s.sage on human slavery. "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself." It is well known that Mr. Paine, before he wrote Common Sense, attracted the eyes of the world to him by denouncing human slavery in the most impa.s.sioned eloquence. This piece he termed "Serious Thoughts," etc. Herein he hopes when the Declaration is made that "our first grat.i.tude to the Almighty may be shown by an act of Continental legislation, which shall put a stop to the importation of negroes, soften the hard fate of those already here, and in time procure their freedom." And he says, long afterward, to the French inhabitants of Louisiana who wished the power to import and enslave Africans, "Dare you put up a pet.i.tion to Heaven for such a power without fearing to be struck from the earth by its justice?" But the person who wrote the pa.s.sage on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration could never have kept a slave in bondage, if any thing can be gathered from the n.o.bility, the manliness, the justice, and the philanthropy of its spirit. But Jefferson, while he has left on record his opposition _in words_ to slavery, has left also on record his acts to contradict both them and the Declaration. I here draw the veil over Jefferson as a slaveholder.

While Mr. Jefferson was far above the average mind, yet from his mental make-up, either in his head, heart, character, or capacity, he could not be the author of the Declaration of Independence. Neither in the circ.u.mstances of his previous life nor personal history, neither in the heart nor the head, can we find a foundation for the famous doc.u.ment. I know of but one man American born, at that day, with sufficient genius to write it--Benjamin Franklin--and he would have failed in the style and language, and especially in those fine strokes of the affection.[A]

For Mr. Paine to write the Declaration and be ready to hand it to the chairman of the committee, is characteristic of the man. He did the same thing at the "Thatched House" tavern meeting in England in 1791. Mr.

Horne Tooke who signed the Address and Declaration as chairman of the meeting, received the doc.u.ment privately from the hand of Mr. Paine, and had Mr. Tooke not afterward disclaimed the authorship of it when charged upon him, Mr. Paine would never have revealed the secret. It was revealed in this manner: Mr. Tooke having spoken in commendation of the Declaration which he signed "was jocularly accused of praising his own work, and to free him from this embarra.s.sment [says Mr. Paine], and the repeated trouble of mentioning the author, _as he has not failed to do_, I make no hesitation in saying, I drew up the publication," etc. Now, Mr. Paine was never guilty of _praising his own work_, and nowhere can I find that he ever praised the Declaration of Independence as a work, or that he ever mentioned Junius but once. [B]Had Mr. Jefferson been the author of the Declaration, Mr. Paine no doubt would have called it "_A masterly performance_."

And thus it is, his hand is seen, though not publicly acknowledged, in all those first principles upon which the fabric of our government rests. And it was the peculiarity of this great man _to do the work, and let others carry off the honors_.

"But truth shall conquer at the last; For round and round we run, And ever the right comes uppermost, And ever is justice done."

NOTE A.

Truly speaking, there is no original Declaration in existence. There are several "original" Declarations extant, all differing somewhat. John Adams had one, Benjamin Franklin, it is said, had one in England.

Richard Henry Lee and others had "originals," all in ma.n.u.script. The one I have followed may be found in Marshall's Life of Washington, and does not differ, only in a few minor respects, from the one in Jefferson's works, Washington edition. The real _original_ was destroyed as soon as copied, and we have only nature to guide us in the study of one which is almost a faithful copy.

NOTE B.

In 1787, with regard to the Scotch and the Hanover succession, Paine says: "The present reign, by embracing the Scotch, has tranquillized and conciliated the spirit that disturbed the two former reigns.

_Accusations were not wanting at that time to reprobate the policy as tinctured with ingrat.i.tude toward those who were the immediate means of the Hanover succession._" This _policy_ is what so embittered _Junius_ toward the Scotch. See his letter to the king (No. 35), in which he says: "Nor do I mean to condemn the policy of giving _some_ encouragement to the novelty of their affections for the House of Hanover." Now, Paine says, in connection with the above quotation, which parallels with Junius: "The brilliant pen of Junius was drawn forth, but in vain. It enraptured without convincing; and though in the plent.i.tude of its rage it might be said to give elegance to bitterness, yet the policy survived the blast." Fifteen years had obliterated the prejudice of Paine toward the Scotch.

For this mention of the Scotch by Mr. Paine, in his Prospects on the Rubicon, which had escaped my notice, I am indebted to the critical eye of Wm. Henry Burr, of Washington City.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] Since writing the above criticism, I sent for and obtained Theodore Parker's work ent.i.tled Historic Sketches. Previous to this I had not read a word of the work. With this explanation I will give two extracts from the work, pp. 281, 282: "Mr. Jefferson had intellectual talents greatly superior to the common ma.s.s of men, and for the times his opportunities of culture in youth, were admirable."

"But I can not think his mind a great one. I can not point out any name of those times, which may stand in the long interval [of capacity]

between the names of Franklin and John Adams. In the shorter s.p.a.ce between Adams and Jefferson there were many. There was a certain lack of solidity; his intellect was not very profound, not very comprehensive.

Intelligent, able, adroit as he was, his success as an intellectual man was far from being entire or complete. He exhibited no spark of genius, nor any remarkable degree of original, natural talent."

This so coincides with what I had written, I add it to excite the reader to an investigation, for I know full well, the intellectual fame of Mr.

Jefferson will not bear looking into.

[B] See Note B.

GRAND OUTLINES OF THOMAS PAINE'S LIFE.

Were I to write the biography of Thomas Paine, I should, with a bold hand, transcend the low office of a chronicler, and hand him down in history thus:

Thomas Paine was of Quaker origin. In this he inherited more than paternal flesh and blood, more than family form and feature: he had transmitted to him the principles of George Fox--principles which were, when Mr. Paine was born, more than a hundred years old. These were a reliance on the internal evidences of the conscience, prompting to moral action and to the love of G.o.d. In this the shadow of Fox fell athwart the Scriptures. The internal light was with him greater than that which shone down on the centuries from Jesus of Nazareth. The religions, and creeds, and opinions of the world were to be brought to the bar of conscience for trial, and "the motions of the spirit"--not the teachings of the Bible--were to be taken in evidence. His principles were universal in the heart of man--not particular in any special book.

To these religious principles was added simplicity of conduct in all the ways of life. In religious or civil affairs, whether at home or abroad, with his fellow-man or his G.o.d, he was to obey the behests of nature, and not of man. To avoid the extravagance of dress, to walk with dignity and grace, to deal uprightly, to love mercy, to rely on the light within, to train the heart to courage and the head to understanding, became the chief aim of all the followers of Fox. The consequence was, they never bent the knee to the forms of worship, nor uncovered the head to the forms of fashion. To the Quaker, a virtuous, upright, and honorable laborer was of as much consequence, in the line of respect and the eyes of G.o.d, as the n.o.blest lord of the realm. No outward show, no pageantry of church or court, could awaken him to respect. He looked within: there he felt the movings of the spirit, there he saw the image of his G.o.d, there he went in to worship.

What must be the result of this religion? It must transmit self-reliance, fort.i.tude, courage, and morality to the individual, and a sympathy for mankind which will grant the equality of rights, and produce a contempt for outward show, for outward forms and ceremonies.

These characteristics will be transmitted to children's children, and democracy is born into a race of men before they know it, or before they know how or why. But here an effect must not be taken for a cause. It was the democratic principle abroad in the world which produced the Quaker religion, not this religion which produced it, and this religion became afterward an engine for thrusting democracy more deeply into the const.i.tution of man. It had a work to do, and it did it by inheritance.

It was the democracy of Cromwell, "that accomplished President of England," which could sympathize with the religion of Fox, which could see no wrong in the man, and which could protect him from persecution.

On the other hand, it was the religion of Penn, which would insult the pride of n.o.bles by not uncovering itself, and bowing in the presence of royalty.

Now, every religion has a birth, growth, culmination, and subsequent decay. It culminates in the production of some great man, who represents, and at the same time transcends, the causes which produced him, and who afterward abandons the religion which gave him birth. It has then fulfilled its work, and will eventually die. Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of the Jewish religion; Luther, of the Catholic. The minor religions obey the same law. Unitarianism culminated in Theodore Parker; Quakerism, in Thomas Paine. At the culminating point, the typical child which is born, grows up, and comes out from or tramples upon the religion which produced him, and is called a "come-outer," a "protester," an "image-breaker," or an "infidel." But he has been produced by causes over which he had no control, and is the result for which they existed. With him the religion declines, and eventually will expire.

The Quaker religion culminated on the 29th of January, 1737, in the little town of Thetford, and county of Norfolk, England, in the birth of Thomas Paine. Here Nature deserted her connection with the meeting, and took up her abode in the soul of the child. She has concentrated herein the democracy of centuries, and the special forces of a hundred years.

The great principles of democracy have all been gathered here, and organized into a power which will move the world.

Nature has also given a hardy physical const.i.tution, without corruption of blood or bodily disease, and this health of body shall carry him safe through the three-score and ten, with a fraction of years to spare. Let us now follow the lines of his life.

A religious antagonism between father and mother, both before and after his birth, strengthened the child's mind, for we grow strong only through antagonism. But he inclined to the Quaker principles of the father, who had him privately named, and did not suffer him to be baptized, though he was afterward confirmed by a bishop, through the influence of an aunt. But the outward acts of omission or commission, by priest or parent, counted nothing in the life of the child; for he had thoughts of his own as soon as old enough to reflect, and he had great gifts of inspiration, for there came to him thoughts "which would bolt into the mind of their own accord." Of this intuition or inspiration he says: "I have always made it a rule to treat those voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to examine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining, and it is from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have." Here those inherited principles, the result of previous ages of thought, concentrated within the child's mind, began to teach him, and he listened to their instruction at an early age. "I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age," says he, "hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the _church_ [not of the Quaker meeting], upon the subject of what is called _redemption by the death of the son of G.o.d_. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps, for I perfectly recollect the spot, I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making G.o.d Almighty act like a pa.s.sionate man, that killed his son when he could not revenge himself in any other way; and, as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons." Here the young child's mind was shocked, and the "voice of G.o.d" within taught him much wisdom--more than he could get in all the sermons of the bishops.

His father, from Quaker principles, gave him moral instruction which never left him in after life. He sent him also, to a grammar school, where he learned some Latin and became acquainted with the subject matter of all the Latin books used in school; but this was clandestinely done, as the Quakers were opposed to the books in which the language was taught. He says he did not study Latin for the above reason, and because he had no taste for it. But at school and at home he gained a useful stock of learning, "the bent of his mind being to science."