Impact: Second Treatise of Government

The Man Behind the Curtain

John Locke was not a pamphleteer or a firebrand. He was a physician, a secretary, a careful man who kept his more dangerous opinions close. Born in 1632 to a Somerset lawyer who fought for Parliament in the English Civil War, Locke was shaped early by the idea that political authority was not a fact of nature but a question to be answered. He studied medicine at Oxford, became the personal doctor and intellectual confidant of Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first Earl of Shaftesbury, and through that connection found himself at the center of English political intrigue during one of its most volatile periods.

When Shaftesbury's faction lost power and began plotting against King Charles II, Locke — who had been helping draft constitutional documents for the Carolina colony and thinking hard about the nature of government — suddenly found himself in real danger. He fled to the Netherlands in 1683, where he spent five years in exile, meeting other political refugees and finishing the work he had been quietly assembling for years. The Second Treatise of Government was written, at least in significant part, during this period of exile and uncertainty. Locke knew what it meant to live under a government that could destroy you. He was not writing theory in a vacuum.

A Book Born in Exile, Published in Revolution

The Second Treatise was published in 1689, just after the Glorious Revolution had expelled the Catholic King James II and installed William of Orange on the English throne. Locke's own preface is bracingly direct about the occasion: the book was written, he says, to 'establish the throne of our great restorer, our present King William' and to 'justify to the world the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very brink of slavery and ruin.' He is not shy about what he is doing. This is a book written to legitimate a revolution that had already happened.

But what is remarkable is how far the book outran its immediate occasion. The Glorious Revolution was a fairly conservative affair — a Protestant elite replacing one king with another, keeping the basic structures of English society intact. Locke's argument went much further than the revolution it was ostensibly defending. He had quietly assembled something more radical than a royalist pamphlet dressed in Whig clothing. The ideas he planted would take another century to fully flower, and they would do so not in England but across the Atlantic.

What the Book Actually Argues

Strip away the seventeenth-century prose and the Second Treatise makes a sequence of claims that still feel sharp. Human beings, Locke argues, exist first in a 'state of nature' — not the brutal war of all against all that Hobbes imagined, but a condition of equality and freedom governed by natural law. People are not born into political obligation. They enter governments by consent, trading some of their natural freedom for the protection of what Locke calls their 'lives, liberties, and estates' — a phrase Jefferson would compress into 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

Government, on this account, is a trust. It exists to protect rights that exist independently of any king or parliament. When government violates that trust — when it becomes tyrannical, when it threatens rather than protects — the people have not merely a right but a duty to dissolve it and constitute something better. This was the argument that made the book dangerous. It did not just criticize bad kings; it provided a philosophical mechanism for replacing them. Locke also included, almost in passing, a labor theory of property that would go on to influence both capitalism and, through a strange historical detour, Karl Marx.

The book's preface is also notable for what it reveals about the intellectual combat of the era. Locke is at pains to demolish Sir Robert Filmer, a royalist theorist who had argued in his Patriarcha that kings derived their authority directly from Adam — that political power was essentially inherited parental authority, stretched across all of human history. Locke is scathing. He calls Filmer's system 'glib nonsense put together in well-sounding English' and accuses the clergymen who preached Filmer's doctrine of dangerously misleading their flocks. The polite surface of seventeenth-century philosophical debate barely conceals his contempt.

The Revolution It Launched an Ocean Away

Locke died in 1704, more than seventy years before the American Revolution. He did not live to see his ideas become the operating system of a new republic. But the founders knew exactly where they were drawing from. Jefferson owned multiple copies of Locke's works. James Madison studied him closely when designing the constitutional framework. Benjamin Franklin quoted him. The Declaration of Independence does not cite Locke by name, but it does not need to — the argument is structurally his, from the state of nature to the right of revolution.

What Locke gave the founders was not just a set of ideas but a vocabulary and a logic. He showed them how to argue that their rebellion was not lawlessness but the restoration of legitimate order — that the colonists, not the Crown, were acting in accordance with the principles of proper government. This was enormously useful. Revolutions need philosophers as much as they need soldiers. Locke was the philosopher the American Revolution needed, and the founders used him accordingly.

The Second Treatise also shaped, more indirectly, the French Revolution and the broader tradition of liberal constitutionalism that swept through Europe in the nineteenth century. Every time a constitution declares that government exists to protect individual rights, every time a bill of rights is invoked against state power, the conceptual architecture goes back to Locke.

The Complications the Book Carries

Reading Locke today means reading him with full knowledge of the contradictions his era could not resolve and that his ideas helped paper over. The man who wrote that all men possess natural rights to liberty was personally involved in drafting the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, a document that accommodated slavery. His labor theory of property was used — not always fairly to Locke's own intentions — to justify the dispossession of Indigenous peoples from land they had not 'improved' in the European agrarian sense. The universal language of natural rights arrived in practice wrapped in very particular exclusions.

These are not reasons to dismiss the Second Treatise but reasons to read it carefully. The book's own logic, the argument that all human beings possess inherent rights by nature, became the weapon that later movements — abolitionists, suffragists, anti-colonial independence movements — used to demand that the promise be kept. Frederick Douglass knew Locke's tradition well when he argued that the Constitution contained the seeds of slavery's destruction. The Second Treatise is a book whose implications its author did not fully reckon with, and whose readers have been reckoning with them ever since.

Why It Still Reads

Political philosophy has a reputation for being unreadable, and some of it deserves that reputation. The Second Treatise is more accessible than its reputation suggests. Locke writes with directness and occasional flashes of combative wit — the preface alone, with its contemptuous dismissal of Filmer's 'wonderful system,' shows a writer who is enjoying himself. The core arguments are organized and cumulative rather than labyrinthine. A careful reader can follow the logic from the state of nature through to the right of revolution in a single sustained sitting.

What the book offers a modern reader is something surprisingly rare: the chance to watch the foundational assumptions of liberal democracy being assembled in real time, by someone who needed them to be true urgently, for reasons that were not merely academic. Locke was writing in the shadow of civil war, in exile, under the threat of prosecution. The Second Treatise is not a detached philosophical exercise. It is a argument made under pressure, and that pressure gives it a quality that purely academic philosophy rarely achieves. You can feel, beneath the careful prose, a man who has thought hard about what makes power legitimate because he has lived through what happens when it isn't.

Further Reading & Resources

Related Works in Our Library