42 pages • 1-hour read
Second Treatise of Government
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Chapters 16-19Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Chapter 16 Summary: “Of Conquest”
This chapter concerns conquest, an aspect of both political and natural reality that Locke found necessary to include due to its overpowering influence on people regardless of their community or political system.
Locke notes that conquest is a powerful tool of subjugation, but he prefaces his discussion with a small warning, saying, “Indeed, [conquest] often makes way for a new frame of a common-wealth, by destroying the former; but, without the consent of the people, can never erect a new one” (91). The important takeaway from this is that Locke acknowledges that conquering a people is an effective means of gaining control over a territory, community, or political system—but he argues that this control will remain superficial so long as the people are denied an option to voluntarily consent to the imposed rule.
He explains that a conqueror has no conceivable right to the property of a conquered people; in fact, that conqueror only has right to those who voluntarily participated in the conflict against his side, and even then, he does not own their person or property, and is in a somewhat limited position regarding what he is within his rights to make them do. Locke writes, “He has an absolute power over the lives of those who by an unjust war have forfeited them; but not over the lives or fortunes of those who engaged not in the war, nor over the possessions even of those who were actually engaged in it” (93).
Again, he makes clear his position that a conqueror is allowed certain rights over those who actively participate in the opposition against him, but the conqueror’s rights do not extend to the lives of the citizens who chose not to engage or their property. Even the property of those who actively oppose him is not within his rights. An interesting subpoint is the qualifier of “those who by an unjust war” (93). One could interpret this to mean that those who oppose a conqueror through unjust or dirty-handed tactics are not victims of the conquest but rather men who engaged in deceitful or dishonorable action in the path of opposition.
Locke further extends this train of thought, writing, “For no government can have right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it” (98). This consistent insistence carries an implicit meaning that is made clearer in the following chapter: No conquering government in any form, foreign or domestic, can lay claim to the rights of a people if they have not entered into an agreement with that government regarding their political rights.
Chapter 17 Summary: “Of Usurpation”
This chapter follows the thread of conquerors and brings it home, literally. Locke even calls it usurpation, “a kind of domestic conquest” (100), and argues that while usurpation does not necessarily entail tyranny, the former is only a half-step away from the latter.
What’s more, the proclamation that a conqueror has no rights to a people unless an agreement is made between the two goes even further in the situation of usurpation, with Locke saying, “Nor can such a usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title, till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented to allow, and confirm him in the power he hath till then usurped” (101). This means that some rulers—even if they’ve been part of the existing political structure for many generations—cannot hold claim to their title, the people, or even the system they run, if they are appropriating it for means and ends not made clear to and agreed upon by the people through a public compact. So, theoretically, the lineage of a king stretching back centuries could be considered a lineage of usurpers, not the natural rulers of a political society, if the people were not allowed to agree to or made expressly aware of the purposes and ends for which the king uses his position of power.
Chapter 18 Summary: “Of Tyranny”
Locke declares that “tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right” (101). He clarifies that this means that anyone who uses their power to supersede or undermine the rights of their community, especially for their own ends, is exercising tyrannical power.
He argues that even powerful kings recognize their capacity for tyranny, quoting a speech by King James to parliament, in which the king stated, “The king binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect as well the people, as the laws of his kingdom” (102). This is an interesting excerpt for Locke to include, for while it obviously supports his overall argument, it also indicates that he did not immediately regard monarchs as tyrants or inherently ill-equipped leaders. Rather, it seems that Locke believes the station of power matters second compared to the disposition and actions of the leader who occupies it.
He also concludes that “in such cases, as the precedent, and consequences seem to threaten all; and they are persuaded in their consciences, that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too; how they will be hindered from resisting illegal force, used against them, I cannot tell” (106). This is somewhat of a somber statement, because Locke is admitting that there will come tyrants who use manners and means to oppress people that neither he, nor anyone in his day and age, can foresee. In the eventuality—or inevitability—that such a situation arises, it will be the people’s responsibility to discern what measures are necessary to restore their political system to its rightful state and secure themselves, their community, and their society against further encroachment from foreign or domestic abuse.
Chapter 19 Summary: “Of the Dissolution of Government”
Locke’s concluding chapter is one of the most potentially incendiary and powerful political tools ever written in theory. He advances the idea that, if a political society begins to fail the commonwealth, its community, and its people, then the people are within their rights to depose the failing government and install their own.
Regarding who should officiate such a deposition, and what capacity of authority they would hold, Locke writes, “I think the proper umpire, in such a case, should be the body of the people” (123). Not only does he advocate for a people’s right to revolt, but he also completely boxes out any potential for the government to claim a judicial or federative position for itself. When the chips fall, the only ones who can decide what happens to the political society are the people, and that’s that.
Chapters 16-19 Analysis
These final chapters could be called Locke’s “Abuses” section, as they are primarily concerned with addressing the various transgressions that foreign and domestic leaders can perform against a people.
Locke displays realism when addressing these delicate and violent situations. As adept as he was at describing idealistic potential political situations, he was also a realist, and here he acknowledges the innumerable and dangerous pitfalls a people and their community can encounter when political systems are wielded against them by a ruling entity with no concern or interest in their inherent rights. Whether it’s a foreign conqueror or a domestic usurper, Locke recognizes that threats to life, liberty, and happiness are numerous, unrelenting, and often closer to a people than they may realize. Consequently, it becomes crucial to remind the reader that subjugation at the hands of a tyrant is never tenable under the laws of nature, and that a people are absolutely within their rights to resist these threats by any means they deem necessary to secure their persons, property, and community.
The final chapter on the dissolution of government was, and arguably still is, one of the most radical political assertions advanced by a public intellectual. The idea that a people have a right to disagree with and even overthrow the established political order is, in the realm of political philosophy, almost equivalent to the invention of the atomic bomb. It gives a people, any people, a final alternative to insufferable political circumstances, such as when society has ceased functioning chiefly for their good and instead operates to enrich those in power. This idea formed the cornerstone of many of the rights established by the American Revolution; it is also the same idea that led to the violence and chaos that engulfed France during its own revolution. As such, it must be regarded carefully as a final alternative to the problem of a dysfunctional political society.
Unlock all 42 pages of this Study Guide
Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.
- Grasp challenging concepts with clear, comprehensive explanations
- Revisit key plot points and ideas without rereading the book
- Share impressive insights in classes and book clubs