Robert Treat Paine Papers, Volume 1
I recd. yr. favr., (for such I esteem all assistance to an unprejudiced Enquiry after Truth). As to yr. Queerys, if you have the copy, or remember them twill save me the trouble to transcribe.
1. Whether the Aboriginals of America are Proprietors by prior Possession? Prior possession by the Law of Nations is esteem'd a just Title to Propriety, of so much as is possess'd, & nothing appears but the Indians had it.
2. Whether the Posterity of the Europeans have a good Title &c.? Reprisals or agreemt. only give Title.
3. If the Natives may admit the French &c. yes surely, to their unimcumber'd Property.
4. If the English have no Title to Ohio, & the Native Propietors would intoduce the French who are disabled from rec eiving by the Treaty of Utretcht, how does this affect the Natives? No way immediately. They have a right of Conveyance, but the French have not a right of Acceptance; and can be no more benefited by the Natives Liberty, than the Natives are obliged by their Treaty of Utrecht. Ergo it does not as yet appear inconsistent wth. the Law of Nature & Nations for the English to hinder the French Settling Ohio even tho' the Natives have a Right to enfeoff them, unless you'll say it be inconsistent likewise to keep Treatys.
Please to correct Errors, & consider the following Queeres as further answers to yrs.
1. If there had been but one Man found in America, would he have been sole Proprietor? And whether his denying admission to the English (Europeans) would have been a Sufficient Barr?
2. How much Land does a Victory over the Indians give the Conqueror?
2533. Has not the Territorys of Ohio been purchased by the English, or at least the Refusal of them, or the Property Some Ways encumbred?
4. Allowing the Ohio no property of the English, & the Indians a Natural Right of Induction, yet Quere if the Encroachmt. of the French upon other Frontiers be not Sufficient breach of Peace to empower us hindring their fortifying a Bordering Land we have no Property in? If the Indians Ally wth. our Enemies, is not that Sufficient to declare them Enemies, & justify hostile proceedings in their Land? If they pretend to be Neutral, yet does not a fortress built on our Boundary Annoy us hience the destruction of it.
I must Confess myself one Letter in yr. debt, which had I had time I should have discharg'd before now but methinks 'tis too Cerimoniious to write by turns. Were I two Letters in yr. debt instead of one it is in my power to pay you (I mean by keeping pace with you in Number). I apprehend that the Value of our Letters, Consider'd only as tokens of friendship are Equal. If the most verbose were most Valuable the ballance would be in my favr. now, but if the most Sententious and Significant than I must confess I am now under double Obligation & so Expect forever to remain, and you have yr. reason at hand even tho' you write but one Letter in ten, but if Freindship be the word, than this Epistle will ballance our Accots. In yr. Last Lettr. to yr. Sister you were kind Eno. to take notice of our Children, for which I should do wrong not to Express my thanks. If you would in yr. next offer some directions for regulating the Love of Parents to Children you would do a most acceptable piece of Service. The Affections of a fond parent are apt to run to an Extravagant Length, Espescially if he have desirable Children, and we are so intent upon these kind gifts of Providence that we offten almost forget the donor. Not so in Common Cases, for we generally Value our benefactors in proportion to the tokens of their favour.
What can be the reason then, that the bestowing of Favours which should one wou'd think raise our affections to the authors of them, should have a Contrary tendency, when they are derived to us from the greatest254and best of beings? God is the only proper object of Love in the Supreme degree, and every inferiour Object of Love is the Effect of his goodness, and we may Lawfully bestow upon it a degree of Affection, And there seems to be no Inconsistancy, in Loving the Lord our God with all our heart &c. and at the same time Loving our Neighbour as ourselves. And we are under indispensible obligations to Love our Children. Love to them is a Duty which grows out of the relation we stand in to them, and this Love well regulated is the very Cement of Society, for if we Love not our Children 'tis impossible (in Natura rerum1) to have any Affection for any other person but our own dear Selves. But it seems absolutely impossible (as degenerate as men are Suposed to be) that they should be govern'd by this sort of self love. And would to God that true self Love had full possession of every mans heart then would our Love be regulated as to every object, God would have the Supreeme degree and our fellow Creatures their due proportion & society reap the Benefitt.
But where am I rambling? Directions for regulating the Love of Parents to their Children is the thing that I stand in need of, and Espescially at this time as my little son2 is now very ill & has had severall bad Fitts. The powerfull Rhetorick of Innocence in distress has given motion to all my Softer passions, and in my Love & pitty to my dear distres'd Infant Son, are Swallowed up (too much I fear) the Love that is due to the Author of this blessing, the bestower of this desirable Child.
Perhaps you may say that Our Love to the Proper Object of this Passion, naturally grow out of the respective Objects, & we must regulate our affections Accordingly, for Reason Nature are the same. For Instance as God is the fountain of Life & happiness, so this duty of Love to him must be in the Supreme degree and if any Inferiour Injoyment cause in us any dregree of happiness (as well govern'd Children often do) we must remember that they are only the Channell thro' which this degree of happiness derives to us, & that god is still the Author, and therefor we should Love them as his Gift and let our Love & Gratitude, in return for the happiness derived to us from him by their means, pass back thro' the same Channell & Center in God. But as we are often led astray by the misplacing our Affections, what I would desire of you is, to point out the Reasons why we are thus led astray, and lay down such rules for the regulating parents in the discharge of this duty, as Naturally arise out of it. The Answer to this I Expect as a gift to parents, and it very well follows after yr. Valuable gift bestow'd on their Children.
255You see I have wrote with the freedom of a friend, tho' perhaps not with that Correctness that would be agreeable to you, but I must pray you to read as a friend & not as a Critic, & you must not find fault if I pay you for yr. Gold in Lead, if I make up in Quantity what it falls short in Quality. I have not a word more to add, but that I am yr. hearty friend, and Loving brother,
In the nature of things.
Joseph Greenleaf (1754–1771), eldest son of Joseph and Abigail (Paine) Greenleaf, died in his 18th year (Boston Gazette, Nov. 18, 1771).