Final answer:
Colonists justified their land claims using John Locke's property rights, Puritan beliefs, and the ideology of Manifest Destiny. These justifications often ignored or dehumanized Native American perspectives on land and led to the violent displacement of indigenous peoples.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the white colonists had the right to claim it was their destiny and take the land from the Native Americans is rooted in a historical context that is complex and morally challenging. During the era of colonial expansion, various justifications were used by Europeans to legitimize their claims over Native American lands.
John Locke's concept of property rights was interpreted by American colonists in a way that, in their eyes, provided a rationale for taking lands they worked on, as long as others were not deprived of their right to utilize the commons. This ignored the fact that Native Americans had a completely different understanding of land stewardship, believing the land was to be used communally rather than owned individually.
The Puritan settlers, influenced by religious beliefs, claimed that since they were 'the Saints' and since Native Americans had no fixed settlements or domesticated animals to 'improve the land,' the settlers could justifiably claim the excess land. Figures such as John Winthrop and William Bradford expressed these beliefs, often dehumanizing Native Americans as 'savages' to justify these claims.
Manifest Destiny emerged as a powerful ideology in the 19th century, justifying the expansion of the United States across the North American continent. This concept was inexorably intertwined with the displacement and subordination of indigenous peoples and was used to rationalize conquest, framing it as a divine command for Caucasians to 'subdue and replenish' the earth.
However, it's important to note that historians and scholars today often view these justifications in a critical light, acknowledging the moral complexities and the violent consequences of expansionist policies.