Locke And Hobbes Views On Conquest And Independence

The question has been posed on whether Native Americans have the right to overthrow/rebel the current government. While some may readily agree with this statement on the basis of the mistreatment Native Americans have and continue to face, others disagree for reasons ranging from the disruption of our current society to the Natives never having any right over the land to begin with. By combining both Locke and Hobbes views on conquest/sovereignty by acquisition, an answered can formed on this issue.

To create a legitimate government, Locke believes that people must consent to its formation. This is because no polities nor government can arise without consent. However, in times of war and chaos, this consent is often not taken into account,

He defines this commonwealth as being an institution acquired through fear. This definition is similar to sovereignty by institution since both are formed in fear, however, acquisition is formed in fear of the conquering force while institution is formed in fear of man in the state of nature. (4) Once in power, the conqueror’s dominion after war is despotical, like Locke. This new relationship is that of a master and servant. Hobbes points out that this power is not acquired once the war is over but when the vanquished have surrendered to the conqueror. The conquered are then obliged to stay under the conqueror’s rule because they submitted themselves to it. Contrasting with Locke’s view of conquest, Hobbes believes that the conqueror becomes master of all, this includes those who resisted and those who did not. This is significant because the relationship presented in Locke is shifted; everyone is under the same rule; no one receives harder living arrangements based off their actions prior to surrendering to the conqueror. In the end, Hobbes summarizes sovereignty by acquisition as acquiring land through

This argument is significant, especially in connection to Locke, because owning property is important. Locke describes property as a mixture of land and labor. A plot of land becomes someone’s property after they have toiled over it, and not by merely harvesting the fruits from the ground. The belief that Native Americans did not cultivate the land, as Locke would like to believe in regards to his view on property, should not hold any merit in this debate. One can argue that the worth added to the land after European settlement, e.g., transcontinental trading, and cash crops, both which introduced new international currency and markets, was greater than what was already there. However, that is not substantial enough to claim that the land was not their property. Labor is labor and should be seen as such. Just because Europeans utilized the land in a more “efficient” way does not justify them in removing Natives from the land. And while one can argue that majority did not believe in permanent land ownership, they did still practice communal living. The land that they lived on, created communities, e.g., Mississippians, and developed respective lifestyles should be seen as their property, even if they did not legally. With that being said, if the Europeans were just in conquering the Natives, the children of the fighters are still