In 1626, Dutchman Peter Minuit purchased Manhattan from a group of local Indians for 60 guiders worth of goods, or what has widely been reported as equal to $24. In The Island at the Center of the World, Russell Shorto explained why the Manhattan transaction was extremely equitable to the Indians.
1) It is not clear by what authority the Indians claimed legal title to all of Manhattan. At the time, they were not the only ones living in Manhattan. Further, it is not clear why some proponents believe that Indians are the only peoples entitled to ownership of land through which they pass.
2) The $24 dollar value was calculated in the 1800s, and would have certainly been worth much more in 1626.
3) When contemplating the consideration given for other real estate during the 1600s, the Manhattan purchase seems extremely equitable. For example, in 1630, Peter Minuit, on behalf of the West India Company, bought Staten Island from the Tappans for "Duffels, Kittles, Axes, Hoes, Wampum, Drilling Awls, Jew Harps, and diverse other small wares." In 1664 three Englishmen purchased a vast tract of farmland in New Jersey from Indians for two coats, two guns, two kettles, ten bars of lead, twenty handfuls of gunpowder, four hundred fathoms of wampum and twenty fathoms of cloth. In 1638, Andries Hudde sold Gerrit Wolphertsen one hundred acres on Long Island for fifty-two guilders.
4) The Indians who "sold" Manhattan fully intended to continue to use the land, and they did. Indians expected, and were, to be hosted by the Dutch living in Manhattan for years. They stayed in Dutch homes and were fed by the Dutch as part of this arrangement. This arrangement could have lasted as long as 35 to 40 years.
5) Most importantly, the Indians viewed land sales as part of alliances with others. Indians were eager to grant access to others in return for military alliances with other peoples.
6) At the time, there was little historical precedent for purchasing land from militarily weaker peoples. Up to the 1620s and beyond, conquest trumped currency or other consideration in the pursuit of rights to land.
Comments