Junius Unmasked Part 27

Let us now take the sentence: "This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain."

The ant.i.thesis above between infidel and Christian, falls upon the mind with such stunning weight; with such boldness of religious sentiment; with such emphasis in expression, and with such withering sarcasm toward the king, that it becomes an epitome of Mr. Paine himself, and a concise record of his whole life, up to that period. The reader can not fail here to see the pen of Junius, and to recall the great power of ant.i.thesis in all his Letters. This peculiarity of style is _absolutely wanting_ in Jefferson.

The first sentence in the paragraph, is in every phrase so like Mr.

Paine, the reader must think it superfluous to comment upon it. The expressions, "cruel war," "against human nature," "sacred rights," "life and liberty," "in the persons of," and especially "_prost.i.tuted_," are all to be found in Common Sense and Junius. For the phrase "in the persons of," see it repeated three times on page 22 of Common Sense.

Thus ends the indictment. It is Article I, of Mr. Paine's Manifesto, heretofore pointed out. I now proceed with Article II of the Manifesto, which he states to be "the peaceful methods which we have ineffectually used for redress." See Common Sense, p. 56. It is as follows:

Paragraph 23. "In every stage of these oppressions we have pet.i.tioned in the most humble terms; our _repeated pet.i.tions_ have been answered by repeated injuries." Compare Common Sense, pp. 39-40, as follows: "Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers hath been rejected with disdain, and only tended to convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in kings more than in _repeated pet.i.tioning_."

Paragraph 24. "A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe, that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compa.s.s of twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad and so undisguised for tyranny over a people fostered and fixed in principles of freedom."

The first sentence p.r.o.nounces the king a tyrant, and is so often repeated heretofore by Mr. Paine, it is useless to cite any thing in proof. The second sentence was stricken out of the Declaration by Congress, and contains new matter which must be attended to. And,

First, "_Future ages will scarcely believe that_." This phrase is peculiar to Mr. Paine, for his mind was continually dwelling on the future. So Junius says: "_Posterity will scarce believe that_."--Let.

48. And Mr. Paine says: "_Mankind will scarcely believe that_."--Rights of Man, p. 94.

I parallel this phrase not so much to show a verbal construction as to show a mental characteristic which must express itself in the same language.

Second, "That the hardiness of one man adventured." Compare with this from Common Sense, page 41: "No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775; but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the _hardened_, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England forever," etc. How different is this language in the Declaration, from that used by Mr.

Jefferson in the "Summary View," when speaking of the king. Jefferson used the word majesty, as though he was speaking to a G.o.d; and seems to delight in the repet.i.tion of it. See p. 236.

Third, "Within the short compa.s.s of twelve years only." The Declaration was dated July 4th, 1776. Twelve years would take it back to 1764. This was the year the stamp act pa.s.sed, and made an era in colonial troubles.

Now, if Mr. Paine had been speaking of the troubles of the English people, he would have used the same expression, with the exception of adding a year; for, as before stated in the first part of this work, Mr.

Paine dated the miseries, oppressions, and invasions on the rights of the English people from the close of the Seven Years' War, or the beginning of 1763. And the time was estimated in round numbers as follows:

Junius says, in the beginning of 1769: "Outraged and oppressed as we are, this nation will not bear after a _six years' peace_," etc.; and, also, in the beginning of 1770: "At the _end of seven years_ we are loaded," etc. Mr. Paine, at the close of the year 1778, says to the English people: "A period of sixteen years of misconduct and misfortune," etc. These round numbers all refer back to the beginning of 1763, and the expression in the Declaration, "within the short compa.s.s of _twelve years only_," is not, as it appears, inconsistent with this peculiarity, for the English era with him was 1763, and the American 1764. Nowhere do I find this mental characteristic in Jefferson. This is strong proof--it goes beyond proof, it is demonstration. Mr. Jefferson, nor any man living, could steal this fact; it is one of mental const.i.tution, stamped there and pointing with fingers of truth both backward and forward to Thomas Paine, and at right angles to the character of Thomas Jefferson.

The figure "compa.s.s" is often found in Mr. Paine's writings, as "compa.s.s a plan," and the like. But I call attention to the perfect similarity in style between the Declaration and every pa.s.sage from Common Sense.

Paragraph 25. "Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have _warned_ them from time to time," etc. It is the peculiarity of Mr. Paine to hold up a warning to the sense. See on this point, page 103 of this work.

"We have reminded them of the circ.u.mstances of our emigration and settlement here." Compare Common Sense, p. 35, as follows: "This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from _every part_ of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster, and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home pursues their descendants still."

Thus, also, says the Declaration (and note the style): "These were affected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, una.s.sisted by the wealth or strength of Great Britain; that in const.i.tuting indeed our several forms of government we had adopted one _common king_."

I call attention to the phrases, "_common king_," "_common blood_," and "_common kindred_," in the same paragraph. Mr. Paine was never guilty of calling England the "parent" or "mother" country, but the "common"

country. (See Common Sense, p. 36.) Junius in Let. 1 says: "A series of inconsistent measures has alienated the Colonies from their duty as subjects, and from their _natural affection_ to their _common country_."

Jefferson uses "parent" and "mother" country, both before and after the writing of the Declaration.

In connection with the above sentence from Junius, I subjoin the same sentiment in regard to _natural affection_ from the Declaration a few sentences further on, as follows: "These facts have given the last stab to agonizing _affection_, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends." Compare with this, Common Sense, p. 47, as follows: "To talk of friends.h.i.+p with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our _affections_ wounded through a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them." In regard to the phrase "_renounce forever_" above, as quoted from the Declaration, compare Common Sense, p. 38, as follows: "That seat of wretchedness [speaking of Boston] will teach us wisdom and instruct us to _forever renounce_ a power in whom we can have no trust." See also Common Sense, p. 37, as follows: "And our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instructs us _to_ renounce the alliance."

The expression "forever" will not be mistaken, for it runs through Junius' and all of Mr. Paine's writings as a common expression.

The figure "to stab" is one which Mr. Paine adopted in Junius and carried through his whole life. Thus he talks about "stabbing the Const.i.tution," and "to stab the character of the nation." The former is found in Junius, the latter in his Letter to the Abbe Raynal.

The italicised phrases in the following expression, "_These facts_ have given the _last stab_ to _agonizing affection_, and _manly spirit bids_ us to _renounce forever_," etc., are so very like Mr. Paine, and so entirely unlike Mr. Jefferson, that the cursory reader, with the commonest understanding, would not fail to p.r.o.nounce in favor of the former being the author.

I now call attention to a striking peculiarity in regard to the mention of the Scotch. It is found in the same paragraph, and is as follows: "At this very time, too, they [our British brethren] are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our _common blood_, but _Scotch_ and foreign _mercenaries_, to invade and destroy us." The word mercenaries is used once before in the Declaration.

The writer of the Declaration is speaking of the "British brethren,"

whom he designates as "of our common blood," but excludes the _Scotch_ therefrom. Now, we know Mr. Paine to have been an Englishman, and that in Junius he often inveighed bitterly against the _Scotch_. The reader will remember what he said of Mr. Wedderburn, on page 195 of this work.

Mansfield was a Scotchman, and this fact embitters Junius. He speaks of the Scotch "cunning," "treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the characteristic prudence, the selfish nationality, the indefatigable smile, the persevering a.s.siduity, the everlasting profession of a discreet and moderate resentment." It is quite evident that the writer of the Declaration did not consider the Scotch as included in the term "British brethren," whom he warned, as he called them "_mercenaries_;"

nor as having the like origin, nor as being of the same race as the term "common blood" indicates. These are facts which speak out of the Declaration, and as such Jefferson could not have written them, for two reasons:

1. He had no antipathy to the Scotch, but rather a liking. This is seen in the selection of his teachers, both by his parents and himself. At nine years of age he studies Latin, Greek, and French under the Rev. Mr. Douglas, a Scotchman, living with the minister at the same time. At fourteen, and after his father's death, he goes away to attend the school of Mr. Murray, a Scotchman; and when he goes to college at Williamsburg, being then a young man grown, he becomes strongly attached to one Professor Small, a Scotchman. In short, Jefferson was peculiarly attached to the Scotch, and why?

2. Because he was nearer related to them by "_common blood_" than to the English. He was of Welsh origin--a perfect Celt, and not a Briton. Now, the Cimbri of Wales and the Gael of Scotland are of the same blood, build, habits, and instincts. Jefferson, on Scotch soil, would have been taken, from personal appearance, to be a red-headed Scotchman, and a fine specimen at that. From "_common blood_," then, he could not consistently have written it, if he knew any thing about his origin, or comprehended what he was writing.

But there is an argument in this connection, which goes toward the whole instrument, showing that Mr. Jefferson could not possibly be the author of it. In a special commentary of Mr. Jefferson's on this phrase, "_Scotch and foreign mercenaries_," he misquotes the Declaration, which he would not be likely to do if he wrote it. In volume viii, page 500, of his works, he says: "When the Declaration of Independence was under the consideration of Congress, there were two or three _unlucky_ expressions in it, which gave offense to some members. The words, '_Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries_' excited the ire of a gentleman or two of that country." In the phrase "Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries," Jefferson is trying to quote the words "Scotch and foreign _mercenaries_." There is a vast difference between the two words "auxiliaries" and "mercenaries." But the former expresses the real spirit of Jefferson, the latter of Paine. Entirely different sentiments produced the two expressions. The style, also, is changed from Paine's to Jefferson's, by putting in the word "other." It is thus changed from the concise to the diffuse. Mr. Jefferson says this expression was "unlucky;" and it still proves to be, near the close of a century.

Now, the word mercenaries, which, with the author of the Declaration, means prost.i.tuted hirelings, is used twice in the instrument, but auxiliaries, which would mean honorable allies, _is not used once_. It is not strange that he should forget, for the sentiment is foreign to his own character; and I had written my argument, and given my reasons above why Mr. Jefferson could not possibly be the author of that sentiment, a month before I found that Jefferson had misquoted the Declaration. I reason from first principles, which rest on established facts, the _silent language of nature_, compared with which the vain babblings of men amount to nothing. For example, John Adams says that he and Mr. Jefferson met as a sub-committee to draft the Declaration; that he urged Jefferson to do it; that afterward they both met, and conned it over, and he does not remember of making or suggesting a single alteration. This Mr. Jefferson denies. He says there was _no_ sub-committee; that Adams has forgotten about it; that he [Jefferson]

drew it, and turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it, and that Adams _did_ correct it.--Jefferson's Works, vol. vii, pages 304, 305. Here are two men, one eighty and the other eighty-eight, on whose words history rests, differing materially about historic facts. The one who can not quote an important pa.s.sage correctly, as to fact or language which he says he wrote himself, accuses the other of _forgetting_ about a committee _which never existed_. _The reader must judge._

"Be it so." Let us find the feeling which produced this expression. It is peculiar to Junius. See Letters 18, 34, and 44, where the sentence is used. And now let me remark, _that the reader may be led to a just criticism, and not ramble after vague and unmeaning expressions_, the spirit of the writer must be found, the prominent sentiment of the heart must _be felt_, the cause must be seen which shall give utterance to the expression, "Be it so." How trifling it appears to the cursory reader!

But let me arrest your attention. Junius uses the expression three times, and every time in connection with the sentiment of _dignity_. So, also, in the Declaration. It is only produced in him by a feeling, and the peculiar and particular feeling of _dignity_, in ant.i.thesis to contempt, littleness, disrepute, or meanness. I will now give the context. In Let. 18 he says: "You seem to think the channel of a pamphlet more respectable, and better suited to the _dignity_ of your cause, than a newspaper. Be it so."

In Let. 34 he says: "We are told by the highest judicial authority that Mr. Vaughan's offer to purchase the reversion of a patent place in Jamaica amounts to a _high misdemeanor_. Be it so; and if he deserves it, let him be punished. _But_ the learned judge might have had a fairer opportunity of displaying the powers of his eloquence. Having delivered himself with so much energy upon the criminal nature and dangerous consequences of any attempt to corrupt a man in your _grace's station_, what would he have said to the minister himself, to that very privy counselor, to that first commissioner of the treasury, who does not wait for, but impatiently solicits the touch of corruption, who employs the meanest of his creatures in these honorable services, and forgetting the genius and fidelity of the secretary, _descends to_ apply to his housebuilder for a.s.sistance?"

In Let. 44 he says: "There may be instances of contempt and insult to the House of Commons, which do not fall within my own exceptions, yet, in regard to the _dignity_ of the house, ought not to pa.s.s unpunished.

Be it so."

In the Declaration, paragraph 25, we read: "We might have been a free and a great people together, but a communication of grandeur and freedom, it seems, is below their _dignity_. Be it so, since they will have it."

So much for the trifling little trinity of words made up of six letters, when traced to their mental origin. The reader will see an aura of _dignity_ always darting out from the sentence when used by Mr. Paine.

It might never have this connection in the soul of any other man. This closes paragraph 25, and I proceed to the conclusion.

Paragraph 26. Here the nation is named. "The United States of America,"

are declared "free and independent States." ... "And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Compare Common Sense, conclusion, as follows: "Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us _hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friends.h.i.+p_, and unite in drawing a line which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the name of whig and tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us than those of _a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the_ RIGHTS OF MANKIND, _and of the_ FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA."

I have now gone through with the Declaration, both in a general and special manner. In the former regard I have found it to be the soul's image of Mr. Paine, in style, _order_, and construction, and, in the latter, a complete synopsis of Common Sense. I have fully and conclusively shown that the substance of _every paragraph_ is found in Common Sense, with much of the language the same, and also that many special, mental peculiarities, common to Mr. Paine, and wanting in Mr.

Jefferson, are found there. Now, Mr. Jefferson never before, nor since, ever produced any thing like it in any of these particulars. If we take a hasty review, we will find that in as many particulars as the Declaration has, in just so many there is a reproduction of Mr. Paine.

In no single fact does the Declaration disagree with Mr. Paine. It does with Mr. Jefferson in very many. I have shown also that it would be impossible for Mr. Jefferson to steal it, for he would have to steal the very soul of Mr. Paine, and write under its influence. This is above proof, it is demonstration.

But I will hold the reader to history. It is a fact, well established, _that he did not consult one single author thereon_. He says so himself.

Mr. Bancroft, the great American historian, says so. If I had found him mistaken in this statement, I would have shown wherein. He is correct, and it is unnecessary for me to add any thing to support his fame. But will he change his conclusions, and will he re-write his own history to support the statement that Mr. Jefferson produced it, not from "the fullness of his own mind," but from the fullness of Common Sense? I would not cast an aspersion, by the remotest insinuation, upon the faithfulness of Mr. Bancroft as a historian. He penned the truth in regard to a historic fact, but founded a conclusion thereon not warranted by the fact. This will prove a lesson to the historian, and, therefore, I will further remark, that a scientific method has also dawned upon history. Voltaire struck the principle when he brought history within the realm of natural causes, and Mr. Buckle began to develop the method in an able manner, but his life was too short to complete it. That he has erred in some particulars, may be true, but he has traveled far out on the highways of nature, and, in the main, he is right. In this age the historian has no business to write unless he travels the same road. In fact, he would not be a _historian_, unless he did, but merely the _chronicler_ of events. There is a vast distance in the realm of mind between the high station of a historian, and the low office of a chronicler. But, with this remark I pa.s.s on with my argument.

Is it at variance with nature and the general order of things that Mr.

Jefferson should reproduce Common Sense, in all its small particulars, as well as grand outlines, observing the same order in its construction, a perfect epitome thereof, without studying it. But if he did study it, and thus reproduce it, the theft would be too monstrous, and there is not in human nature an impudence so audacious as to do such a thing under the very eye of its author. It would have been a literary piracy too disgraceful for human nature to commit or to endure. It would have been a robbery too easy of detection by Mr. Paine, and there could not be found on earth a man so devoid of shame, or of all personal honor, or of self-respect as to have committed it. Now if Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, never was man more disgraced in the literary world. But on the other hand, as chairman of a committee of five to whom collectively belong the duty to produce it or procure it, and who collectively shall share its honor, for him as such chairman, to receive from the hand of Mr. Paine, as a gift to the nation, the doc.u.ment which the country needed, there would be no dishonor connected with it. It was n.o.body's business who wrote it. Mr. Paine and Jefferson understood it, and none but themselves could be wronged. History records that Mr. Paine and Jefferson were ever after bound heart and hand together. Jefferson confided in the most faithful heart of the world.

But after Mr. Paine died, it was wrong for Mr. Jefferson to take advantage of the silence of death and claim the doc.u.ment. It was the wickedness of vanity and a narrow mind that would direct to be carved on his tombstone, "_The author of the Declaration of Independence_." For his own name's sake, it ought to be struck out with some friendly chisel. It is as painful for me to write this as it would be to receive the news of the death of a dear friend, who had died with some curse upon his character. But while we look with compa.s.sion, let us tell the truth.

At first, Mr. Jefferson did not write himself down the author of the Declaration, and there seems to be a growth in this like all other things. Here are the different stages:

1. Notes written on the spot, as events were pa.s.sing, for the truth of which he pledges himself to Heaven and earth. He writes 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. This was reported to the House on Friday, the 28th of June, when it was read and ordered to lie on the table." Works, vol. i, page 118.

There is no acknowledgment at this time. This is July, 1776. Mr.

Paine is in Philadelphia. Had Mr. Jefferson been the author, this would have been the time for him to have recorded it, as he has not failed to record all his other public acts. He is now thirty-three years old.