e, _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.