The Agricultural Argument and Original Appropriation

Indian Lands and Political Philosophy

Datos Bibliográficos

ID6236935
AutoresThomas Flanagan (University of Calgary, autor de correspondencia)
Año1989
Volumen22
Número3
Páginas589-602
Fecha de publicación1989-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaCanadian Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0008-4239 • E-ISSN: 1744-9324
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0008423900010969
OpenAlexW2153534177
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas14
Referencias citadas10

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'sSecond 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

Appropriation · Argument (complex analysis · Epistemology · Political philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Law · Philosophy