ANALYSIS.

  I. Introduction, viz:—Paragraph 1.

 II. Bill of Rights—Paragraph 2.

III. Indictment—under three general charges: Usurpation, Abdication, and War, as follows:

IV. Peaceful Method of Redress, viz: Petitioning—Paragraph 23.

 V. Necessity of Separation—declared in Paragraphs 24, 25.

VI. Powers of an Independent State Declared To the World—in Paragraph 26.

ARGUMENT.

II. "The peaceful methods which we have ineffectually used for redress; [This is Art. IV of the Declaration.]

III. "Declaring at the same time that, not being able any longer to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connection with her; [This is Art. V of the Declaration.]

IV. "At the same time assuring all courts of our peaceful disposition toward them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them." [This is Art. VI of the Declaration.]

Here are, in their order, the directions for producing the four last articles of the famous document, and which constitute, as a special instrument, all there is of it. Did Mr. Jefferson study this production of Thomas Paine's so closely as to get the exact order, without transposing an article? A cursory reading would not do this, and if he did not study it for this purpose, then the same peculiar mind belonged to Jefferson that belonged to Thomas Paine; and in writing the Declaration a greater special miracle was performed than any recorded of Jesus of Nazareth.

In the above there is a striking coincidence of documentary facts, in the same order, and it is safe to say there is not one man in a million who, in reading Common Sense, would remember this order, unless he read it with such special purpose. But it is known Jefferson never consulted a book or paper upon the subject, nor for the purpose of producing it. Here is what Bancroft says, and I have found him to be a truthful historian as to current facts touching on the subject:

"From the fullness of his own mind, without consulting one single book, Jefferson drafted the Declaration; he submitted it separately to Franklin and John Adams, accepted from each of them one or two verbal unimportant corrections," etc.—Hist., vol. viii, p. 465.

The above history is doubtless taken from the reply of Mr. Jefferson to attacks on the originality of the Declaration, which is as follows: "Pickering's observations and Mr. Adams' in addition, 'that it contained no new ideas; that it is a common-place compilation; its sentiments hackneyed in Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in Otis' pamphlet,' may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge. Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's Treatise on Government. Otis' pamphlet I never saw; and whether I had gathered my ideas from reading, I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it."—Works, vol. vii, p. 305.

This was written when he was eighty years old.

But it seems that Mr. Jefferson had never read the pamphlet, Common Sense, as the following gross error in regard to it will show. Speaking of Mr. Paine, he says: "Indeed, his Common Sense was for awhile believed to have been written by Dr. Franklin, and published under the borrowed name of Paine, who had come over with him from England."—Works, vol. vii., p. 198.

In the above sentence there are two historic errors. First, Common Sense was not published under the name of Paine; and, second, Mr. Paine did not come over with Franklin from England. He preceded Franklin six months.

That Mr. Paine did not attach his name to the pamphlet, Common Sense, there is abundance of evidence to prove. The author of a pamphlet, subscribed Rationalis, in answer to Common Sense, says: "I know not the author, nor am I anxious to learn his name or character, for the book, and not the writer of it, is to be the subject of my animadversions."

But we have Mr. Paine's own testimony, in the second edition of Common Sense, direct to the point. In a postscript to the Introduction, he says: "Who the author of this production is, is wholly unnecessary to the public, as the object for attention is the doctrine, not the man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say that he is unconnected with any party, and under no sort of influence, public or private, but the influence of reason and principle."

An examination of all the earliest editions which can be seen in the Congressional Library at Washington will satisfy any one on this subject.

If Mr. Jefferson had read Common Sense before the writing of the Declaration, he would never have erred so in regard to this fact. This goes to show he had not even read it, much less studied it. How, then, was the exact order followed, in writing the Declaration, which Mr. Paine laid down in Common Sense?

My first proposition, then, I have proven, namely: that Thomas Paine wrote a work for the sole purpose of bringing about a separation and making a Declaration of Independence. I have proven, also, that he therein submitted the subject-matter in the order in which it was afterwards put. This much on the positive side. On the negative side, I have shown that Mr. Jefferson did none of these things, for it was produced from "the fullness of his own mind, without consulting one single book."

But if Mr. Bancroft be a truthful historian, there is already great doubt thrown on Jefferson's authorship of it, and it would have been better to have made Jefferson a close student and thorough reader for this special purpose. This is the view, in fact, taken of the question of authorship in the New American Cyclopedia (article Thomas Jefferson), and I will give an extract therefrom, to show how historians differ. Speaking of the Declaration, the Cyclopedia says: "Two questions have, however, arisen as to its originality: the first, a general one upon the substance of the document; the second, in regard to its phraseology in connection with the alleged Mecklenburg declaration of May, 1775. It is more than probable that Jefferson made use of some of the ideas expressed in newspapers at the time, and that his study of the great English writers upon constitutional freedom was of service to him. But an impartial criticism will not base upon this fact a charge of want of originality. It should rather be regarded as the peculiar merit of the writer that he thus collected and embodied the conclusions upon government of the leading thinkers of the age in Europe and America, rejecting what was false, and combining his material into a production of so much eloquence and dignity."

This does not sound much like Bancroft. The two historians have placed Mr. Jefferson in a sad dilemma. The one, to make him an original in the production of the Declaration, says he did not consult one single book, but produced it from the fullness of his own mind. The other, to defend him from the charge of want of originality, says he made use of the newspapers, collected and embodied, etc. But the single fact which I have brought from the conclusion of Common Sense destroys the first hypothesis, and the last hypothesis, in being contradictory in itself destroys itself. How the reader will fathom this labyrinth of contradictions, and reconcile this conflict of historic opinion, is a question which does not trouble me, and I pass on to something more important.

STYLE.

Junius wrote two declarations, or rather pieces, after the very same style and manner, namely, the first and the thirty-fifth Letters. They can be thrown into the same synoptical form in which I have put the Declaration. But to show the rythm, and alliteration, and peculiar style, I give the following:

The above three extracts are from the Declaration, Junius, and Crisis, viii. There is in them the same stately measure or tread; the same harmony of sounds; the same gravity of sentiment; the same clearness of diction; the same boldness of utterance; the same beauty and vivacity; in short, the same spirit and the same hand.

Now an extract from Jefferson will be in place, and I give it from one of his most impassioned pieces, the "Summary View." I do this for two reasons: first, because it is the only piece, up to the writing of the Declaration, which he ever produced worthy of note; and second, because it is his best. I give also the best of this piece, the exordium:

It will be observed in the above extract from Mr. Jefferson, that there is no proportion between the members of the sentences. We have them of all lengths, interlarded with phrases, and thrown into a confused mass. Hence, there is no harmony. Mr. Paine's periods are almost faultless in this regard; the members of the periods follow each other like the waves of the ocean, which gives evenness of "tread" and majesty of expression. While the style of Mr. Jefferson is absolutely devoid of all harmony, for the members of the periods move on like the rumbling of a government wagon over a rough and stony road.

This peculiarity of style is one of mental constitution. It is an effect of nature which education can never remedy. No art can reach it, for no mental training can annul a law of nature. It may be said of the writer in this regard as of the poet: "He is born, not made." It is herein nature made these two men entirely unlike. Paine was a poet; Jefferson was not. The former had the most lively imagination; the latter had none at all. It is this quality of the mind—imagination—which adorns language with the figure.

In the proper use of the figure Mr. Paine can not be excelled. Mr. Jefferson makes but infrequent use of figures of speech, and when he goes out of the ruts of custom, he almost always fails in his efforts. Two or three examples will suffice. In vol. i, p. 58, he says: "I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main point which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves." In this men are arguing the points of a question. But Mr. Jefferson says they "laid their shoulders" to them, instead of their tongues. In vol. i, p. 358, he says: "The Emperor, to satisfy this tinsel passion, plants a dagger in the heart of every Dutchman, which no time will extract." Perhaps these planted daggers will take root. He speaks also about "confabs" and "swallowing opinions."

Let us look now, for a moment, at the grand requisites of style, Precision, Unity, and Strength.

Of the first, I would say, I have never yet seen an ambiguous sentence in Paine's works. Mr. Jefferson's style is confused, labored, and prolix. There is no paragraph he ever wrote, especially in the first half of his life, but will bear me out in the assertion, that he uses a great many words to express a few ideas. The above quotation I cite on this point. It could all have been put into one-fourth of the space, and thus have been rendered clear and distinct. His style, however, grew better as he grew older. He is diffuse, which at once destroys Unity of expression. He puts subject after subject into one period, often into one sentence. The consequence is, there is no order in his style, and his ideas tumble over each other in the greatest confusion; and the consequence of this is, there is no Strength to his style.

That the reader may see all these faults, I will make a brief analysis of the Introduction to the "Summary View," quoted above:

This is the first sentence. In it he has put the Introduction, the Bill of Rights, the Indictment, a proposition to Congress to go a begging before his Majesty, and several other particulars. But let us continue with the next sentence:

Here there is no relation between the beginning of the sentence and the conclusion.

It is only necessary to remark on the above, that thirty or forty subjects can hardly be handled successfully in three periods. How different is this from the Declaration, or, in fact, from any production of Mr. Paine's.

In the three great requisites of style, Precision, Unity, and Strength, where Mr. Paine is so perfect, we see great defects in Jefferson; and in the fourth, Harmony, a complete failure.

If we now take the "Summary View," and submit it to the same critical analysis as I have the Declaration of Independence, we will find the same defects in it, as a whole, that we find in the first paragraph, which I have just analyzed. There is a complete mixture of all subjects. But this I leave to the reader, should he question the truth of my assertion.

If we now turn to the synopsis of the Declaration, we will find an exhibition of the most perfect order. The Introduction is short, to the point, and complete. The Bill of Rights contains the first principles. These apply to mankind universally. It then proceeds as a specialty. The Indictment is divided into three grand divisions, Usurpation, Abdication, and War, and the separate counts are stated, clearly containing but one subject. Nowhere do we find a mixing up of different subjects. We do not find a count of war under the head of usurpation, nor one of usurpation under the head of war.

There is also seen the passion for alliteration throughout the whole instrument, and especially in the following passages: "Fostered and fixed in principles of freedom." Paragraph 22 is filled with examples. But in paragraph 15 it seems he uses this power of the mind to aid him in itemizing counts. He takes t for the letter under which he marshals this army of charges: "Troops," "trial," "trade," "taxes," "trial," [No. 2,] "transportation," "tried." Here are seven words comprising as many charges following in succession. He follows it with others, but never uses the t again. This shows a passion for order and alliteration. I presume there is no other document in the world with these peculiarities so marked, and I presume there is no writer in the world who ever exhibited to such a remarkable degree these peculiarities of style, as did Thomas Paine. [See on this subject Junius Unmasked, p. 107.] Now, these peculiarities are almost entirely wanting in Thomas Jefferson, and without them it is absolutely impossible for him to be the author of the Declaration of Independence.

I wish now to call attention to the word "hath." It is found but once in the Declaration, and is in paragraph 2, in the following connection: "And accordingly all experience hath shown." It is put in here for the sake of harmony and force in sound, for if we substitute the word has, there will be a halting at shown, and a disagreeable hissing sound. At the time this was written Mr. Paine frequently used the word, and it may have slipped in unnoticed, on account of sound, or he may have put it in so that the critic could track him. I have never seen the word in any of Jefferson's writings.

SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS.

I have heretofore shown that Mr. Paine had the Declaration of Independence in view in the production of Common Sense, and that he sketched therein the outlines in the same order in which they afterward appeared. I have shown its architecture and plan, and also its style, to be that of Mr. Paine's, and not Mr. Jefferson's. I have shown this somewhat in detail, but not more than the subject demanded. Herein I have given the grand outlines and general features, but I shall now review the whole, to point out its special characteristics, that, in the multitude of small things all tending one way, it will be made conclusive to the mind of the reader that it is Mr. Paine's, and not Jefferson's. In this I shall be compelled, some times, to refer to propositions already proven in the first part of this work, to shorten the argument, not wishing to go over the same ground twice. In the demonstration of a theorem in geometry, what has been proven is made to aid what shall come after. I shall proceed with the same method, and not be guilty of taking any thing which Mr. Paine may have written afterward, to prove something which has gone before. But mental characteristics may be taken wherever we can find them. I am confined to Common Sense, and shall use also Junius as aiding, but never to entirely prove a point. In my references to Common Sense, I shall be compelled to refer to the page. I use the political works of Mr. Paine as published by J. P. Mendum, Boston, as they are most generally known and read in this country. With these explanations, the reader can not go wrong.

I now take up the original Declaration, beginning with the Introduction; and, as I have numbered its paragraphs, I shall use the figures to denote them, proceeding in their numerical order:

Paragraph 1. "Political bonds." The same figure is found on page 64, Common Sense.

"To assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them." Here the crowning thought is that God, through his natural laws, and by natural proofs, designed a separation. Thus Mr. Paine, in Common Sense, page 37, says: "The distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the one over the other was never the design of Heaven."... "Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation."

Note also above the phrase, "separate and equal station." The writer of the Declaration considered England and America equal, and thus Mr. Paine says, above: "It is proof that the authority of the one over the other was never the design of Heaven."

"A decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Note hereunder the phrase, "decent respect." Thus, in his introduction to his first Letter, which was an indictment and declaration of principles also, Junius says: "Let us enter into it [the inquiry] with candor and decency. Respect is due to the station of ministers, and, if a resolution must at last be taken, there is none so likely to be supported with firmness as that which has been adopted with moderation."

The above are perfect parallels in idea, and in the expression of the prominent thought, "decent respect." But the thought is expanded from the narrow confines of the British nation to the whole world, and if Mr. Paine wrote both, as they strongly indicate, to make the conclusion good we must find this change or mental growth in Mr. Paine to coincide therewith. Here it is: "In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England), and carry our friendship on a larger scale. We claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.

"It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount local prejudices as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England," etc. I wish the reader to read the whole of the paragraph I have begun. See Common Sense, pages 35 and 36. See also Crisis, viii, near its close; a noble passage on the same subject. Mr. Paine frequently takes the pains to tell us how he outgrew his local prejudices, and how he at last considered the "world his country." He undertook, also, for America what he calls "the business of a world."—Common Sense, page 63.

Paragraph 2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights." Compare from Common Sense, pages 24, 25, and 28, as follows: "Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could not be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance."... "The equal rights of nature." ... "For all men being originally equals," etc. So, also, Junius says: "In the rights of freedom we are all equal." ... "The first original rights of the people," etc. To show that he believes these rights to be inalienable, he says: "The equality can not be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance."

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Junius uses the terms, "Life, liberty, and fortune."—Let. 66. And Mr. Paine frequently, "Life, liberty, and property." But these terms were in quite common use with many writers.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." What is said on government in this paragraph is paraphrased or condensed from page 21, Common Sense. It is a concise repetition of Mr. Paine's pet theme and political principles, first given to the world in Junius, and then elaborated in Common Sense.

"Prudence indeed will dictate." This word prudence is ever flowing from the pen of Mr. Paine. See an example on page 21, Common Sense. It is quite common in Junius. The same may be said, also, of the word experience.

"And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Compare Common Sense, page 17, as follows: "As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, and in matters, too, which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated to the inquiry," etc.

"Forms." That is, the "forms of the constitution." See Junius, Let. 44, where he says: "I should be contented to renounce the forms of the Constitution once more, if there were no other way to obtain substantial justice for the people." And here the Declaration is renouncing the forms.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States." Paine says on tyranny: "Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do, ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government." ... "Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth." Common Sense, p. 47.

"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith, yet unsullied by falsehood." The above sentence is very peculiar, and I will show wherein. The last member of the sentence which I have italicised was stricken out of the original draft by Congress. The peculiarity in it is that "the truth of a fact" is affirmed, and its falsehood implied. Now a fact is always true. There can be no false facts. What is here meant, is, that we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood, that the statements are true. Not that the facts are true, but that they are facts. It is the passion (if I may so express it) for conciseness, to speak of facts being true or false. Now this is a peculiarity of Junius. In Let. 3 he says: "I am sorry to tell you, Sir William, that in this article your first fact is false." It is thus Mr. Paine frequently sacrifices both grammar and strict definition to conciseness; but never to obscure the sense. An example from the publicly acknowledged pen of Mr. Paine ought to be here produced; I, therefore, give one from his letter to the Abbe Raynal, which is as follows: "His facts are coldly and carelessly stated. They neither inform the reader, nor interest him. Many of them are erroneous, and most of them are defective and obscure." Here "erroneous facts," "false facts," and "facts for the truth of which we pledge a faith unsullied by falsehood," are evidence of the same head and hand. It is thus an author puts some peculiar feature of his soul on paper unwittingly; and it lies there a fossil, till the critic, following the lines of nature, gathers it up to classify, arrange, and combine with others, and then to put on canvas, or in marble bust. It may be well to remind the reader that the above peculiarity I can nowhere find in Jefferson's writings.

I now call attention to the sentence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations [begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

I have placed in brackets what has been interpolated by Jefferson. I conclude this from the following reasons:

In all of these particulars it is not like Mr. Paine, for he is never guilty of such a breach of rhetoric. But in all of the above particulars it is just like Mr. Jefferson.

The above two paragraphs comprise the Introduction and the Bill of Rights, and are the foundation of the Declaration. It is a basis fit and substantial, because one of universal principles, so that whatever special right may be enunciated, it will rest firmly on this foundation; or whatever special denunciation of wrongs, it will have its authority therein.

I now pass to consider the indictment under its three divisions—Usurpation, Abdication, and War.

If the reader will now turn back to page 223, he will find from paragraphs 3 to 15, inclusive, the whole charge of usurpation included therein. But, separately, we find paragraph 3 to be a charge of the abuse of the king's negative; and he concludes in paragraph 15 with the climax, "suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves [the king and parliament] invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." Now, if the reader will turn to page 41, Common Sense, which is page 213 of this book, he will find Mr. Paine beginning the first of his "several reasons" as follows:

"1. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole of this continent."

It will be observed, in a general view, that the reasons given by Mr. Paine cover the whole thirteen paragraphs; and it will be observed specially that he begins the reasons the same as he does the indictment—namely, with the king's negative. Mr. Paine was violently opposed to the king's negative, and all through life he never fails to attack it, when the opportunity offered itself. This would weigh most heavily on his mind, and be most naturally uttered first. On page 59 of Common Sense will also be found reasons for independence, which come within this part of the indictment. But pages 41, 42, 43 of Common Sense cover nearly, or quite all of it. But they are stated generally for the sake of argument—not specially for the sake of indictment.

Paragraph 16. "He has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection." Compare with this the following, to be found on page 61 of Common Sense: "The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled occurrence of sentiment, which is, nevertheless, subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition is legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, a constitution without a name."

I now take up the third part of the indictment—War.

Paragraph 17. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

Paragraph 18. "He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the head of a civilized nation."

On the above two counts, which charge war and invasion, I submit from Common Sense, page 62, as follows: "It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons, the destruction of our property by an armed force, the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms; and the instant in which such mode of defense became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased, and the independence of America should have been considered as dating its era from, and published by the first musket that was fired against her."

Under the above, also, may be classed paragraph 19.

Paragraph 20. "He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of existence." Compare Common Sense, page 47, as follows: "There are thousands and tens of thousands who would think it glorious to expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish power which hath stirred up the Indians and negroes to destroy us."

Paragraph 21. "He has excited treasonable insurrection," etc. Compare Common Sense, page 61, as follows: "The tories dared not have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the State. A line of distinction should be drawn between English soldiers taken in battle and inhabitants of America taken in arms: the first are prisoners, but the latter traitors—the one forfeits his liberty, the other his head."

The above paragraph and the following one, it will be remembered, were stricken out by Congress.

I now come to the closing paragraph of this part of the indictment, and, as it is the most important of all, the author kept it for a climax, and he throws his whole soul into it. I will transcribe it here:

Paragraph 22. "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of a distant people, who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and, that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them; thus paying off former crimes, committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another."

The capital words in the above are his own. Let us begin with the last sentence, and go backward. The substance of the last sentence is, that by exciting the negroes to rise on the people of this continent, the king was guilty of a double crime, both against the liberties of the negroes and the lives of the American people. Compare Common Sense, page 47, as follows: "He hath stirred up the Indians and negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guilt—it is dealing brutally by us and treacherously by them." This is the same complex idea, well reasoned out, and expressed almost in the same language—certainly in the same style. But Jefferson "never consulted a single book," so original was the Declaration to his own mind and habits of thought!

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 antithesis 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 antithesis 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 "prostituted," 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 petitioned in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions 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 petitioning."

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 compass 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 pronounces 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 god; and seems to delight in the repetition of it. See p. 236.

Third, "Within the short compass 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 passed, 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 compass 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 constitution, 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 "compass" is often found in Mr. Paine's writings, as "compass a plan," and the like. But I call attention to the perfect similarity in style between the Declaration and every passage 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 circumstances 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, unassisted by the wealth or strength of Great Britain; that in constituting 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 friendship 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 Constitution," 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 pronounce 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 assiduity, 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: