Three Approaches to Locke and the Slave Trade

Many problems of the modern world and several solutions related to it can be posted in the context of popular sovereignty theory. The Locke concept of political society offers the base for questioning political legitimacy (Robert and Thompson 2009). The question here is what constitutes delegate legislative powers, and how many powers could be transferred? In an article “Three Approaches to Locke and the Slave Trade”, Wayne (1990) discusses the theories of Locke and his perception towards the slave trade. The concepts of Locke also provides the base for questions related to economic justice and to what extent labour power should be regulated?

In this article Wayne (1990) argued on the concept of property and political society and had even mispresented political issues like issues related to aboriginal self-government as well as ecology (Robert and Thompson 2009). The article mentions that the struggles of indigenous people to be recognised as the self-governing nation are not only their struggle towards rights and injustice that is going since the era of European expansion (Robert and Thompson 2009). It had happened as different political societies were tied with their traditional lands (Gough 1950). These people had also struggled to reclaim their traditional lands and had worked towards practising the conventional types of land use. These factors had come into direct conflict with the modern forms of land usage, and the same had pose threat to the environment (Ian 1994).

Locke concepts about the political society and property are not appropriate in presenting the issues, as Locke had constructed these concepts in contrast to the Amerindian types and property was given in such a way that it downgrades the different features of politic and property of America (Ian 1994). It's reviewed from the article state Locke had defined about political society in the way that government of America is show as not eligible for the legitimate type in the political society (Robert and Thompson 2009). Rather it’s presented as historically less developed and not included in the formation of modern European politics (Benjamin 2007). Locke also explains property as the Amerindian customary land use, which is not a legal property. Locke had intervened major ideological and political contests related to seventeen century (Wayne 1990).

Locke’s theory based on political society and the property got disseminated in the 18th century and woven with theories based on development, progress, and statehood (Benjamin 2007). Along with that, Locke had conducted a debate on free traders, socialist, capitalist, and humanists, over the question of economic and political justice. In every manner, Locke had mentioned about both jurisdiction and power for governing the action (Benjamin 2007). The self-governing system is also explained with the help of an example taken in the American context (Robert and Thompson 2009). In this individuals gave their natural power to communities, and even set up the law and jurisdiction to appeal with authority to make decisions on controversies (Benjamin 2007).

The article even mentions the second aspects of life-related to America, whose definitive state of nature is exclusive and individual rights over the labour and products (Robert and Thompson 2009). Everyone was given the right to exercise their labour according to the natural law for the sake of protecting and not consenting with others (Matthew 2004). In the political society, the property is explained in the clear contrast to the natural way of labour based property, in which products are highly regulated through government and laws (Matthew 2004).

Two results were derived from the article, mentioning that America is a state of nature. Firstly, it was given that Locke had claimed in his first treatise that European planters hold a right towards wage war that goes against Indians (Robert and Thompson 2009). In such case, European planters in West Indies exercise their right to execute the law of nature and try to seek towards reparations, as mentioned in the second treatise (Matthew 2004). When the person attempts to violate the natural law, they start losing their natural rights, and they are killed for that. Locke’s theory had assumed that this concept is termed as black slavery. Among all the English colonies, Carolina had the highest slave trade (Robert and Thompson 2009). It’s analysed from the article that in 1663, around eight proprietors were given the title of the area, which includes North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia (Matthew 2004). The proprietors are over there set up a system of property, for the purpose of recruiting settlers to get involved in agriculture for supplying planters (Robert and Thompson 2009). Locke had assumed leadership in 1669, and they had planned to make profits through renting land and trade of agricultural items (Matthew 2004). The English colonies turned into more lucrative slave trade with Amerindians, even though they were forbidden as per the article 112 of the constitution (Herman 1991).

Locke had also introduced temporary laws in the year 1672, to prohibit the Amerindian slavery and even provided native peoples with individual’s lands under the proprietary government. Colonist tried to ignore such laws, and after the peace treaty signed in 1674 with western nations against the Spanish, they increased their trade (Ramon 1991). It was noted from the article that lord’s proprietor came with an unsuccessful proposal for settling the planters at Locke Island and tried to control Indian trade, by declaring monopoly in the year 1677. The article also mentioned that the second result drawn from Locke was taken from the premise, indicating America as a state of nature (Ramon 1991). It suggests that in America most of the land was made without taking anyone’s consent. Locke took extra care while presenting arguments related to basic principles of Western law (Levin 2001).

Wayne (1990) had mentioned that Locke had speculated the slave trade by investing in Royal African Company, which was a famous slave trading company, and Locke even suggested Lord Proprietor of Carolina contribute towards slave provisions of Carolina fundamental constitution. Wayne (1990) had also mentioned that the main charge imposed against the Locke was of hypocrisy, that he got through slavery, and while making theoretical arguments against it.  Robert and Thompson (2009) believes that all these arguments against Locke were not that important. Even though these charges were true, Locke failed to live upon his principles, and merely said anything true about a human being (Robert and Thompson 2009). Further, his personal actions hold no bearing on his arguments. Regardless of Locke individual actions, his arguments were defended human equality, liberty and condemn towards slavery (Robert and Thompson 2009).

Locke argues by mentioning that; an appropriator should never waste their property or take more than, what they can use (Robert and Thompson 2009). In the American state of nature, all these provisoes make sure that substantial equality by reducing the size of holding can work directly for an individual person. It’s not easy to understand why Locke had emphasised on proviso (Robert and Thompson 2009). The main motivation behind it was that, if people waste, then it might not be good to take them around, but this argument might make no-waste proviso as an instrument for maintaining the concept “enough as real proviso” (Robert and Thompson 2009). It seems to attribute the single values and fundamental significance towards no-waste proviso. The unique description related with proviso is that God gives command to people for making use of nature (Robert and Thompson 2009). If the same might not have happened, then there would be secular equivalent (Robert and Thompson 2009).

         Instead of protecting the people, who had no property from the upper class, various researchers explains that proviso is helpful in the expansion of property rights of an upper class, by undertaking the enclosure movement held in UK and colonisation practices took place in other countries (Robert and Thompson 2009). Locke had argued that technologically embryonic individuals often try to violate the proviso of no-waste through failing to make use of land. British proprietors, who are having industries, justify in grabbing it (Robert and Thompson 2009). If such clarification is rights, then the Locke theory aspects are unappealing (Robert and Thompson 2009).

The article had reformulated the arguments of Locke and the new world of slavery, by mentioning about natural law, Indians as well as reception of Locke (Robert and Thompson 2009). This article also discusses Grotian natural law, which was constructed in the slavery just for theory (Robert and Thompson 2009). Locke made this theory inapplicable in America, but the same fit the resistance in the absolute power going in England. The article mentions that Locke was an agent of the British colonialism that have instructions about slavery (Robert and Thompson 2009). This didn’t inform in theory, and this lead to hermeneutical issues and even increase racism charges (Robert and Thompson 2009). If Locke deserves to be racist, it doesn’t give him a racial doctrine, which justifies slavery. The reputation of Locke was that of champion of liberty, and the same didn’t survive the contradictions in the new era of slavery (Robert and Thompson 2009).

References

Benjamin, K. A. 2007. Can the Prince Really Be Tamed? Executive Prerogative, Popular Apathy, and the Constitutional Frame in Locke’s Second Treatise. American Political Science Review, 101 (2), pp. 209-22.

Gough, J. W. 1950. John Locke’s Political Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Herman, L. 1991. The Uses of America in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. In John Locke: Critical Assessments, ed. Richard Ashcraft, 254-84. New York: Routledge.

Ian, H. 1994. The Mind of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Levin, D. 2001. When Good Lockeans Go Bad: Common Law Courts, the Classical Liberal Tradition, and Resistance to the Modern Administrative State. Polity, 34, pp. 141-62.

Matthew, K. H. 2004. John Locke and the Origins of Private Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ramon, L. M. 1991. Locke’s Theory of Property. In John Locke: Critical Assessments, ed. Richard Ashcraft, 343-61. New York: Routledge.

Robert, L., and Thompson, B. 2009. The Meaning of Charity in Locke’s Political Thought. European Journal of Political Theory, 8, pp. 229-52

Wayne, G. 1990. Three Approaches to Locke and the Slave Trade. Journal of the History of Ideas, 51 (2), pp. 199-216