John Winthrop’s Justification for Taking Native American Land: A Flawed Argument

John Winthrop, a Puritan leader, used a flawed argument centered on European ideas of land ownership and religious beliefs to justify taking Native American land in his sermon “A Model of Christian Charity” (1630). Here’s a breakdown of his key points:

• Unimproved Land: Winthrop argued that since Native Americans didn’t cultivate the land extensively or build permanent structures, they only had a “natural right” to it, not ownership in the European sense. Europeans, who practiced agriculture and built settlements, had a superior right based on their “improvement” of the land.

• Biblical Justification: Winthrop twisted scripture, claiming the diseases that had swept through Native American populations before European arrival were a sign of God’s approval for English settlement. He saw the land as “waste” and believed the Puritans, as God’s chosen people, had a duty to “improve” it.

• Social Contract Theory: Winthrop also alluded to the concept of social contract, arguing that just as individuals give up some freedoms for the benefit of society, Native Americans should cede their land for the establishment of a “city upon a hill,” a model Christian community.

Why this Argument is Flawed:

• Ignoring Existing Systems: This justification ignored the complex social structures and land management practices of Native American tribes. They had established ways of utilizing the land sustainably without permanent structures.

• Selective Morality: Winthrop’s use of the Bible was self-serving. The concept of “chosen people” doesn’t justify dispossession of others.

• Unfair Social Contract: The social contract argument was disingenuous. Native Americans weren’t offered a fair exchange or a say in the matter.

Looking Back:

John Winthrop’s arguments reflected the prevailing European attitudes of the time. However, from a modern perspective, they are seen as flawed justifications for colonialism and the displacement of indigenous peoples.