I have had the honor to receive your letter dated the 12 ultimo.1 The information you have given yourself the trouble therein to communicate, demands and receives my warmest acknowledgments.

The observations, which I took the liberty to make in my former letter to you on the subject of committees of correspondence, related to those which were instituted in Massachusetts and Virginia, in the years 1772 and 1773: similar legislative committees had been previously appointed. Mr Wirt is certainly incorrect in his remark “that the house of burgesses in Virginia had the merit of originating that powerful engine of resistance, corresponding committees between the legislatures of the different colonies,” if the measure had not been adopted by Virginia prior to the year 1773. The Massachusetts house of assembly in the month of June 1771: resolved “that a committee of correspondence consisting of five (of its) members be chosen to communicate such intelligence as may be necessary to the agent and others in Great Britain, and also to the speakers of the several assemblies, or to such committees as they have, or may appoint.” Agreeably to this resolve, the speaker (Mr Cushing) S. Adams, James Otis, John Hancock, and William Heath were chosen. The want of this information justifies the opinion of mr Wirt on this subject. I believe, that the resolve was not published, except in the journals of the Massachusetts house of assembly, although, if I rightly remember, Marshall in his life of Washington has alluded to the fact. I have not discovered that similar committees were appointed in any other colony prior to that of Virginia in 1773. In fact, the Massachusetts circular letter dated February 11. 1768, which was written by Samuel Adams, the original of which I have in my possession, is a proceedure precisely of the same character as those which grew out of that institution.

The information which you were so kind as to communicate to me in your letter, relative to the proceedings of congress on the memorable question of independence, has thrown light upon a very dark subject. It has explained some circumstances that were confused and mysterious; among them is the fact that mr R. R. Livingston who was one of the committee selected to draft the declaration, was not among the number of its signers: and it is still rather a singular occurrence, that he should have consented to be one of a committee, whose proceedings he did not conceive that the instructions of his constituents would authorize him to approve of. The error into which governor McKean had fallen on this subject, may also have been, in part, that of mr Galloway, viz, the confounding of the declaration, with the motion for independence. Your letter informs me, that in the course of the debates on this motion that six colonies “were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but as they were fast advancing to that state, it was thought prudent to wait awhile for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1.” Although it does not appear by this, that a vote was taken upon the question at this time, yet, I conclude there must have been as I cannot see how the state of opinion could otherwise be accurately obtained, and further, because congress on the 12 June resolved, “to choose a committee to prepare and digest a form of confederation to be entered into between the colonies.” and accordingly one member from each of the thirteen colonies was chosen to form that committee. This is a proceedure which, I should think, would have been adopted only upon an actual decision by a majority declaring in favor of the motion, and that the minority in this, as in all preceding questions, considered that they were bound by that decision. If this be fact, it must be true, that the motion for independence was passed by a majority of one vote only. Before I had seen the statement of mr Galloway, I had been informed by many persons, who yet live, of some remarks that were made by the late Judges Paine and Chase of nearly the same import, as it regarded my grandfather; and I concluded that mr Galloway had merely given the particulars of the case. But he was evidently wrong in stating that the vote which was determined in favor of the question, was that of Pennsylvania. It may have been Georgia, or North Carolina. If, therefore, this question in its first stage, was determined by the vote of one colony, it may have been effected by the vote of one delegate of any particular colony that may have been equally divided, and this vote obtained, as he states, by the exertions of some member, who was particularly ardent in its favor. If, then, either Georgia, or North Carolina, which are the only two Colonies that I can think it probable any division of sentiment existed had been named instead of Pennsylvania, mr Galloways statement could then have been reconciled to yours, which must be considered the only standard.

As I have inserted some original letters of my grandfather’s which relate to this great subject, some of which are prior, and others subsequent to its final adoption, that I have deemed it necessary on these accounts, as well as the great agency he had in producing that result, to give a particular relation of it. It has been my wish to state it as correctly as the nature of the subject would admit, and with the information contained in your letter a better narrative can be given, than has yet been published. But I do not feel authorized to make use of any circumstances you have had the goodness to relate to me, without first obtaining your permission, and if it be agreeable to you to grant this indulgence, it will be a very acceptable favor. The work on which I am employed, will not to me2 be of any pecuniary advantage, this I relinquish entirely to the printer. I am desirous to preserve those facts, that will be more interesting probably to future generations, than they are to the present. Fame becomes venerable with its antiquity. The civil history of the revolution is, it appears to me, very imperfectly understood; and a work on that subject is very much wanted.

The painting executed by col. Trumbull, representing3 the congress at the declaration of independence, will, I fear, have a tendency to obscure the history of the event which it is designed to commemorate. Nor will it give a very favorable impression of the genius of the artist, nor of the state of the fine arts. I confess, that I am not a little surprised at the favorable reception, which this badly executed performance has met from the public. I will frankly avow that I was much disappointed at not finding it (according to my idea) executed in a style worthy of the subject. I expressed my opinions with freedom on the work, through the medium of the newspapers under the signature of Historicus. I do myself the pleasure to transmit to you the papers that contain those remarks. It was by investigating this subject, that I discovered the discrepancies in the printed journal, of congress on this memorable event. & in this and others connected with it I have fully realized the antient, maxim that: “truth lies in a well.”4 But I hope we shall eventually obtain it, that we may not “canonize error, nor venerate delusion.”

I hope you will excuse the freedom with which I have written. I should not again have troubled you if it were not from an impression of the importance of some of the points of this letter. The difficulties which were encountered in accomplishing the question for independence, certainly adds to the glory of the principal actors in that great scene: and the final success of it I am led to believe must be attributed to that union and harmony which always subsisted between the delegates of Virginia and those of Massachusetts. If the same spirit existed then which has shewn itself since, I strongly suspect, that union of the colonies which has been the source of our present greatness, and is the bulwark of our future safety and felicity had never been effected. It is a degrading fact that Massachusetts has deflected in her course. Virginia has the advantage of us. She has been true to first principles, and has steadily moved in her original orbit. But we hope that Massachusetts is fast returning to her proper position in the political system and that harmony which once so happily subsisted in the confederacy will again be restored.

Permit me, sir, to add, with strict truth, my sincere wishes that your retirement may be as happy, as your public services, have been beneficial.   With great veneration and respect, I have the honor to be.   Your most Obedient Servant.