John Locke and America

The ideas of the philosopher John Locke were to have a profound influence on American thought and politics. The political theory of this great Enlightenment thinker would be sown into the fabric of American institutions and would be studied by generations of scholars interested in the ideological roots of the American project. Yet equally important was the way in which America would serve an ideological function in Locke’s body of work. But to understand the ways in which Locke influenced American society, and conversely how America shaped his thought, one must get a detailed understanding of the social conditions and intellectual atmosphere that was so conducive to this intellectual borrowing. For Locke not only gave impetus to the formal nation building of the Founding Fathers, but he gave license to some of the more intimate American activities such as the dealings with Native Americans, the politics of early Carolina, or what was being preached in church on Sunday. In return he would invoke America as a realized version of his imagined political world.

In 1680, Sir Robert Filmer would publish his work Patriarcha, in which he defended the divine right of kings as being the basis of their rule and hence of society. Filmer suggests that God gave the world to Adam, and since patriarchy implies authority, the descendants of Adam would successively have a divinely ordained right to rule. John Locke disagreed, and the first half of his Two Treatises of Government, published anonymously in 1689, is devoted to refuting Filmer’s thesis. He argues that Filmer’s biblical argument is untenable, for the hereditary link would be very contentious and it would be difficult for anyone to claim to be the direct heir to Adam. In short, Filmer’s thesis leads to certain absurdities. (According to this view, isn’t everyone, or at least every male, in some sense supposed to be an heir of Adam?). A preface to another one of Locke’s other works says:

“That paternal authority is no absolute authority, and that Adam had no such authority. That there neither is or can be any absolute government de jure, and that all such pretended government is void.”

Locke’s iconoclastic work stripped away the religious basis of kings’ proclaimed divine right to rule.

Once Filmer’s argument is rejected, the way is cleared for Locke to develop his own ideas, which he does throughout the second half of the Two Treatises of Government. Locke draws on the idea of the state of nature, one that Thomas Hobbes used, to show how men are initially equals and live in an anarchic state, with their only superior being God. Although unlike Hobbes, he doesn’t fully condemn this state of nature as nasty, brutish, and short, but rather sees it as a state of freedom, and where everything is held in common, until a form of government or property developed. There was a similar view in this period that at one point after creation, everything was held in common by all men. John Winthrop proclaims:

“For God hath given to the sons of men a twofold right to the earth; there is a natural right and a civil right. The first right was natural when men held the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where he pleased: The, as men and cattle increased, they appropriated some parcels of ground by enclosing and peculiar manurance, and this in time got them a civil right.”

Nevertheless, Locke recognizes that this world would lead to certain dangers, and then asks why men would give up some of this liberty. They would because their untainted freedom would constantly be encroached upon by the invasions of others. The state of nature is one of freedom, but it is equally one of lawlessness and vulnerability. Therefore, it the contract between them, being equals, that forms the basis of society. He strategically, and anonymously, presented these ideas about the development of a social order, which went against the monarchical grain of some of his contemporaries, like Filmer.

The individualist and egalitarian foundation of Locke’s ideas are to be expected by anyone familiar with the Enlightenment and classical liberal traditions. But in Locke resided certain notions that, to a modern reader, may be considered backward or inconsistent with other parts of his thought. This peculiarity would manifest in other writers and thinkers, including the Founding Fathers, who espoused Enlightenment ideals, yet sometimes had questionable views on issues such as race, gender, or slavery. It may be that these Enlightenment ideals were really far too progressive to be either actualized at the time, or even fully accepted by their proponents. Rather they were latent ideals, maybe even utopian ones that in countless ways have not been fully realized even in the most advanced societies today. Yet, at the time of Locke and of early colonial America, they formed an absolutely crucial turn in the history of ideas, which would lend themselves to and interplay with equally crucial shifts in social reality.

One notorious way in which Locke would directly manifest himself in the New World was through his involvement, with the Earl of Shaftesbury, in writing the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. Being the Earl’s secretary, it is believed that Locke played a key role in designing this document. An agreement between eight proprietors of the Province of Carolina, it included the types of dissonant elements as mentioned above. One the one hand, particularly Enlightenment oriented or liberal policies were called for, such as the involvement of the land-owning populace in something of a participatory government system, and the provisions for religious diversity and tolerance. An interesting clause contains the rule that after being enacted for one hundred years, all the acts passed by the Carolina parliament shall become null and void, so as to avoid the survival of outdated laws:

“To avoid multiplicity of Laws, which by degrees always change the right Foundations of the original Government, all of Acts of Parliament whatsoever, in whatsoever form passed or enacted, shall at the end of a hundred years after their enacting, respectively cease and determine of themselves, and without any repeal become null and void, as if no such Acts or Laws had ever been made.”

Yet despite seemingly progressive provisions, the constitution included certain prescriptions for a type of wealthy, elite who owned great amounts of land, to occupy the highest positions. Furthermore, it aimed to retain a type of slavery or serfdom, with a lower class of workers that would be under the rule of the elites in power. Needless to say, this was quite unpopular with many of the colonists, and it was never ratified, and quickly fell out of favor and dispensed with. It certainly didn’t go along well with Locke’s ideas about liberty or men’s basic egalitarian relationship with one another.

Besides this direct involvement in the political process in American, his ideas would by far outreach any personal involvement he could have. One rather interesting case is the relationship between his thought and the issue of the Native Americans. Indeed, here Locke’s ideas would come into full contact with their reflection in the real world. His state of nature argument and the conclusions that he drew from it would play right into the situation that the European colonists found themselves in with the native population.

It is important here to note that Locke is considered to be the first of the British empiricists. This school of thought believed that all knowledge was gained from experience. Indeed one of Locke’s main criticisms of Filmer is that he does not provide any empirical evidence for his claims. Locke considered the state of nature to be an actual existing state, and Locke’s library was full of travel books, which he used selectively to support these ideas. He consistently refers to the Indian in America as representing his natural state.

Interestingly, some contemporary anthropological studies have presented themselves as full refutations of Locke’s ideas about the natural state. It is claimed that Locke himself should have known better than this idealization because of his knowledge of Native Americans. In any case, the state of nature merely serves as something of an abstract, metaphysical background and an alternative to notions of divine origins. It is an ontological placeholder that Locke constructs from which the more important ideas of man’s social order are established. Although a supposed empiricist and stickler for evidence, Locke may not have been so concerned with such details, especially ones that refuted the foundations of his thesis.

Locke was also working in a tradition of natural law. This is important to his state of nature ideas because its sets the initially limitations or constraints on man in nature, and therefore implies the ways in which man must rise from this by the use of reason to develop a civil society. The idea of natural law was important for private property as well and Locke had drawn on his predecessors heavily for this bit. A group of thinkers felt intellectually obligated to work within natural law in the 17th century because of growing European colonialism and the need to understand and manage new types of situations that they were finding themselves in all over the world. Here the figure of Hugo Grotius was particularly important for Locke. Grotius made the distinction between movable and immovable objects, which Locke would borrow. Private property can be made of movable objects essentially by appropriation. But immovable objects could not be taken in the same manner. For this one would need a process such as enclosure. The clear delineation of boundaries is what is needed to make immovable objects property. Locke’s

It is agreed upon by scholars that the European settlers used Locke’s ideas to justify their taking of Native land. Locke’s emphasis on private property and the way in which an individual investing his labor or creativity into it creates it out of a state of nature, made this legitimate to such European practices. Locke emphasizes labor when he says:

“…when anyone hath computed, he will then see how much labour makes the far greatest part of the value of things we enjoy in this world…no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste.”

And ideas about the lawlessness of the state of nature and the need for some civil society (although not too much!) were invoked to contrast settlers with Indians, and hence justifying some actions by the former on the latter. Jonathan Mayhew says in a sermon:

“As it (government) is God’s ordinance, it is designed for a blessing to the world. It is instituted for the preservation of mens persons, properties & various rights, against fraud and lawless violence; and that, by means of it, we may both procure, and quietly enjoy, those numerous blessings and advantages, which are unattainable out of society, and being unconnected by the bonds of it.”

Therefore the exchange here is mutual. Locke gets to idealize Native Americans for empirical evidence for his arguments, and his arguments get used to support the practice of taking Native lands. It’s a win-win for the Europeans. They seem to excel in both thought and practice.

Locke’s ideas would find themselves cropping up in sermons across North America throughout the 18th century. Many religious speakers invoke clearly Lockean values to justify particular points to their congregations. Certainly the legacy of Puritanism and its disdain for certain British institutions, particularly religious ones, would be wholly significant. Locke’s refutation of Filmer’s biblical arguments for divine rule definitely caught the attention of certain American religious figures. And it is important to remember that although we may consider Locke an Enlightenment figure, his work was not lacking in religious references. Rather his work is full of God. He was doing much of the dirty work for the closet radicals and revolutionaries in the pulpits. Reverend Simeon Howard echoes Locke when he says:

“In a state of nature, or where men are under no civil government, God has given to every one liberty to pursue his own happiness in whatever way, and by whatever means he pleases, without asking the consent or consulting the inclination of any other man, provided he keeps within the bounds of the law of nature. Within these bounds, he may govern his actions, and dispose of his property and person, as he thinks proper.”

The intellectual development of many preachers was throughout this period absorbing more and more Lockean principles. These ideas were becoming something one would hear in churches throughout the colonies. Locke was definitely in step with the radical Protestant tradition in New England and the general individualism of life in the New World. It is very much in this way that Locke influenced the general atmosphere of thought in the colonies in the pre-Revolutionary era.

Getting closer to Revolutionary era Locke’s ideas had become quite widespread. Benjamin Franklin claims to have been reading Locke whilst self educating himself, working as a young printer. As what was to be deemed the Enlightenment progressed into the later 18th century, Locke was increasingly canonized as one of its pioneer thinkers and forerunners. His work would spread through Europe as well, no doubt inspiring soon to be French radicals and revolutionaries. And his words would appear only slightly changed in the American Declaration of Independence. Jefferson admitted his, claiming that the Declaration was not a work of originality but rather an expression of already shared ideals.

Although the manifestation of Locke’s ideas in the American Revolution and founding is clear, Locke’s with relationship with America went further back. Indeed by account of the Carolina endeavor, Locke was personally involved in America. And it is widely believed that he was always greatly interested in colonial matters. For it was what was happening out there in this untapped, mysterious, new world that fueled the thoughts of this English writer. In what was a quintessentially European world of ideas, these new places gave Locke the inspiration to break out of the norms of his time. And while he retained much that was of the status quo, his contemporary status as a great thinker vindicates his role as a very progressive voice for his period. But one mustn’t forget the connection he had with America. This is a great convergence of social and intellectual history. For the ideas of Locke and the reality of America intimately paralleled one another.

Arneil, Barbara. John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford. 1996

Howard, Simeon. A sermon preached to the Ancient and Honorable Artillery-Company, in Boston, New-England, June 7th, 1773. Being the anniversary of their election of officers. By Simeon Howard, A.M. of the West Church in Boston. Early American Imprints, Series 1:Evans. 1773.

Mayhew, Jonathan. A sermon preach’d in the audience of His Excellency William Shirley, Esq. Early American Imprints, Series 1: Evans. 1754.

Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government. Awnsham Churchill. 1689.

Locke, John. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. Early English Books Online. 1682.

Locke, John. Political aphorisms: or, The true maxims of government. Early English Books Online. 1691.

Winthrop, John. General Considerations for the Plantations in New England, with an Answer to Several Objections. Winthrop Papers, vol. II (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1931).