The several newspaper essays signed “Massachusettensis” are attributed without dispute to Daniel Leonard, a prominent Massachusetts lawyer who divided his time between the county of his birth (Bristol, adjoining Rhode Island) and Boston. Leonard was the son of well-to-do parents, attended Harvard College, and, after the customary period of reading law with a prominent attorney, set up practice in his hometown of Norton. From the beginning he exploited his political connections and before the age of thirty had been elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and was serving as the King’s Attorney for his county. At this stage of his life he stood with the Whigs in opposition to London’s policies and the governor who attempted to enforce them. As late as 1773 Leonard was serving on the Boston Committee of Correspondence, waging a campaign to alert the several colonies to British oppression and ready them for common action if grievances turned into intolerable offenses. By August of 1774 it was clear that he had been converted; he was now a staunch supporter of the newly appointed governor and no longer disposed to join in the clamor about British invasions of American rights. During the fall and winter of 1773-1774, the Massachusettensis letters appeared, and Daniel Leonard found himself irrevocably classified as a Tory. The day after the battle of Concord Bridge he signed up in the British Army, and a month after the Declaration of Independence he was in exile, an American Tory-Loyalist emigré in London. Although unusual in its discussion of Tories, this piece is typical of a large number of newspaper articles in the 1770s drawing upon Locke, Vatel, Burlamaqui, and other Whig theorists, although the notions of a state of nature, etc., were often subtly altered to bring them in line with American political principles. This essay appeared in the November 18, 1773 edition of the Massachusetts Spy, published in Boston.
To all Nations of Men, dwelling upon the face of the whole Earth, especially those of GREAT-BRITAIN and Ireland, more especially the Inhabitants of British North-America, and particularly those of the Massachusetts-Bay in New England.
MEN, BRETHREN and FATHERS,
It is indispensable to the well-being of civil society that every member thereof should have a sure and righteous rule of action in every occurence of life; and also that upon the observance of this rule he should be happy and secure from the molestation and disturbance of all men; municipal law, which is no more than the law of nature applied to man in society, having for its principal objects, the freedom of the person, conscience, and security of the subject in his property. And men enter into society for no other end than to place the execution of those laws in the hands of such as they esteem worthy to be entrusted with them; and to defend themselves, their laws and properties against foreign invasions. They do this in the first place to prevent that confusion and bloodshed which would inevitably take place were each individual left to judge in his own case and take by the strong hand what should appear to him satisfactory. Civil society then (to use the words of a celebrated author*) is nothing more than the union of a multitude of people who agree to live in subjection to a sovereign (i.e. any power having legislative authority) in order to find through his protection and care that happiness to which they NATURALLY ASPIRE. This is equally true whatever self governing community it is applied to, whether to the smallest principality in Germany, the weakest colony in America or the Kingdom of Great-Britain, France or Muscovy. Thus we see what forms a state and can easily perceive what are the duties both of rulers and people; viz. rulers must afford them that protection whereby they may surely attain that felicity they naturally aspire to—The people then should take care not to transgress the laws of society, which being formed by the wisest and best of their own body, must undoubtedly be intended at least, for the promotion and security of the public happiness.
Separate states (all self-governing communities) stand in the same relation to one another as individuals do when out of society; or to use the more common phrase, in a state of nature. And it is necessary says the same learned author that there should be some law among nations to serve as a rule of mutual commerce. This law can be no other than the law of nature, which is distinguished by the name of the law of nations. Mr. Hobbes says “natural law is divided into natural law of man, and natural law of states.” The latter is what we call the law of nations. The laws both of nature and nations, as well as those of every free state, indeed of every lawful government under heaven are extremely watchful in ascertaining and protecting the right of private property. So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it, unless applied to the detriment of the Society.—That men have a natural right to retain their justly acquired property, or dispose of it as they please without injuring others, is a proposition that has never been controverted to my knowledge: That they should lose this right by entering society is repugnant to common sense and the united voice of every writer of reputation upon the subject. All agree that no man can be justly deprived of his property without his consent in person or by his representative, unless he has forfeited it by the breach of the laws of his country to the enaction of which he consented.
All demands upon our purse, on other terms, are illegal; and put into execution robbery; if the demand be made sword in hand, the crime is till more attrocious; “it is robbery with murderous intention!” Can any one dispute the justice of one sentence of the above propositions? or admitting them, can they excuse the British parliament, from the violation of these most sacred bonds of human society? Have they not actually invaded the freedom of our persons pretending to bind us by laws to which our consent was never so much as asked? Have they not demanded our money at the point of the bayonet and mouth of the cannon? Have they not utterly subverted the free constitution of our state by making our extreme magistrate a mere dependent on the minister of Great Britain, and thus destroyed all confidence of the body politic in the head? Have they not further interfered with our civil policy and intruded a set of officers upon us, entirely independent of the supreme power of the province constituting that most dangerous and intolerable evil that ever was felt by a people; that source of civil discord, treasons and murders an imperium in imperio, which constitutes the house whose fate the breath of conscience has pronounced, viz. “it cannot stand!” Have they not further, to defeat all prospect of our relieving ourselves by the free course of the laws of the land, held out a bribe to our supreme executive, and doubly corrupted the council, whose duty it is to see the commonwealth suffer no injury? Are we not by these several most intolerable encroachments, these injurious interferences into the civil polity of our state, cut off from all hopes of relief from courts of law, and even from our high court of parliament, which the aforesaid omnipotent parliament of Great-Britain have by a late resolve, rendered, or endeavored to render as useless as a King of the Romans? For if one supreme legislative body, in which the whole continent of America have not a single voice, have power to make laws which shall be binding upon us in all cases whatsoever, rights, liberties, legislative powers, under such absolute suspending, dispensing, establishing annihilating power as this, are meer shadows, Jack o’lanterns serving only to mislead and engulph us.
There can be no doubt but it is fit, and perfectly consistent with the principle of all laws human and divine, to resist robbers, murderers and subverters of the government of free states, whether these crimes are committed by individuals or nations, or more properly a despotism endeavouring to establish itself over the most free and happy nation on the globe. The only question is, whether it be prudent to risque resistance.
To this I answer we must be sure that we have a good cause; and I think of this we are certain. We may then safely venture it with that God who loves righteousness and hates oppression; who has made it our indispensable duty to preserve our own lives and the lives of others, more especially our brethren of the same community. Under his protection we shall be safe while we walk in his commandments, and