Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T05:31:04.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Agricultural Argument and Original Appropriation: Indian Lands and Political Philosophy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Thomas Flanagan
Thomas Flanagan
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The European appropriation of Indian land in North America has often been justified through versions of the “agricultural argument” to the effect that the Indians did not need the land and did not really own it because they did not permanently enclose and farm it. Thus the European settlers could resort to original appropriation as described in Locke's Second Treatise. This article examines the agricultural argument as exemplified in the writings of John Winthrop, John Locke and Emer de Vattel. Analysis shows that the argument is formally consistent with the premises of natural rights philosophy because it assumes the equal right of both Indians and Europeans to engage in original appropriation. But the historical record shows that the argument actually applied to only a small portion of the land acquired by the Europeans. Sovereignty is the issue that should receive further inquiry.

Résumé

L'appropriation des terres des Amérindiens par les Européens a été souvent justifiée par la thèse que les Amérindiens n'avaient pas besoin des ces terres et ne les possédaient pas vraiment parce qu'ils n'y posaient ni clôture ni culture. Par conséquent, les colons européens avaient le droit de s'approprier les terres incultes conformément à la théorie de John Locke. Cet article examine la théorie de l'appropriation basée sur l'agriculture, théorie derivée des écrits de John Winthrop, de John Locke et d'Emer de Vattel. L'analyse démontre que la thèse s'accord formellement avec la philosophie des droits de la nature, parce qu'elle affirme le droit égal des Amérindiens et des Européens de s'approprier les terres incultivées. Mais l'histoire suggère que la thèse n'est applicable qu'à une portion mineure des terres acquises par les Européens. En fin de compte, la souveraineté constitue la question fondamentale qu'on doit d'abord considérer.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 589 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 240 (1823), at 259–60.

2 Trudeau, Pierre, speech of August 8, 1969, in Cumming, Peter A. and Mickenberg, Neil H. (eds.), Native Rights in Canada (2nd ed.; Toronto: General Publishing, 1972), 332.Google Scholar

3 More, Thomas, Utopia, trans, by Turner, Paul (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965), 79–80.Google Scholar Shadia Drury pointed out this reference to me.

4 See Washburn, Wilcomb E., “The Moral and Legal Justifications for Dispossessing the Indians,” in Smith, James Morton (ed.), Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1959), 15–32Google Scholar; and Weinberg, Albert K., Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1963; 1st ed., 1935)Google Scholar, chap. 3, “The Destined Use of the Soil,” 72–99.

5 Young, Alexander (ed.), Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay 1623–1636 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970Google Scholar; reprint of 1846 ed.), 272.

6 Ibid., 276.

7 Ibid., 277.

8 Locke, John, The Second Treatise of Government (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1952), 17.Google Scholar

9 Drury, S. B., “Locke and Nozick on Property,” Political Studies 30 (1982), 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Olivecrona, Karl, “Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property,” Journal of the History of Ideas 35 (1974), 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Locke, Second Treatise, 4.

11 Ibid., 17.

12 Ibid., 22.

13 Ibid., 29.

14 Ibid., 22–23.

15 Ibid., 29.

16 Ibid., 61.

17 Ibid., 18.

18 Ibid., 19.

19 Ibid., 25.

20 de Vattel, E., The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns (New York: Oceana, 1964Google Scholar reprint in the series The Classics of International Law).

21 Weinberg, Manifest Destiny, chap. 3.

22 Vattel, The Law of Nations, 37.

23 Ibid., 38.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., 85–86.

26 Gauthier, David, book review in Dialogue 18 (1979), 435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGauthier, was commenting on McDonald, Michael, “Aboriginal Rights,” in Shea, William R. and King-Farlow, John (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Political Philosophy (New York: Science History Publications, 1976), 27–48.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., 435.

28 Griffin, Nicholas, “Aboriginal Rights: Gauthier's Arguments for Despoilation [sic],” Dialogue 20 (1981), 690–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Ibid., 691; emphasis in the original.

30 Ibid., 693; emphasis in the original.

31 Jenness, Diamond, The Indians of Canada (5th ed.; Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1960).Google Scholar For the Assiniboine, see 308; for the Cree, 316–17; for the Kootenay, 358–59.

32 Blake, Nelson Manfred, A History of American Life and Thought (New York: McGraw Hill, 1963), 19.Google Scholar

33 Pearce, Roy Harvey, Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the American Mind (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988Google Scholar); first published 1953 as The Savages of America: A Study of the Indian and the Idea of Civilization.

34 Griffin, “Aboriginal Rights,” 692.

35 On Vitoria's attempt to wrestle with this problem, see Flanagan, Thomas, “Francisco de Vitoria and the Meaning of Aboriginal Rights,” Queen's Quarterly 95 (1988), 421–30.Google Scholar

36 For Indian agriculture in New England, see Cronon, William, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983), 34–53.Google Scholar

37 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1; Woodward, Grace Steele, The Cherokees (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963).Google Scholar

38 Cronon, Changes in the Land, 60–66.

39 Ibid., 68.