-THOUGH governments can originally have no other rise than that before mentioned, nor
polities be founded on anything but the consent of the people; yet such have been the disorders
ambition has filled the world with, that in the noise of war, which makes so great a part of the
history of mankind,
All humanity really does is go to war
But conquest is as far from setting up any government, as demolishing an house is from building
a new one in the place. Indeed, it 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.
In order to go to war, they need the American people to agree that fighting in the
war is justifiable. Well, that is what they did for 9/11
That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades
another man’s right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered,
will be easily agreed by all men, who will not think, that robbers and pyrates have a right of
empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master; or that men are bound by promises,
which unlawful force extorts from them.
During war, people will destroy stuff belonging to the innocent. The people in the
war will think it is justifiable.
Should a robber break into my house, and with a dagger at my throat make me seal deeds to
convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title, by his sword, has an
unjust conqueror, who forces me into submission.
That what dictators do in order to gain the submission of the people if they do try
to revolt. They take away your stuff and threaten to kill you
The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown, or some petty
villain. The title of the offender, and the number of his followers, make no difference in the
offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones, to
keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs,
because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world
-What is my remedy against a robber, that so broke into my house? Appeal to the law for justice.
But perhaps justice is denied, or I am crippled and cannot stir, robbed and have not the means
to do it.
Usually robbers go after the weak ones cause they know no one will take them
But the conquered, or their children, have no court, no arbitrator on earth to appeal to. Then
they may appeal, as lephtha did, to heaven, and repeat their appeal till they have recovered the
native right of their ancestors, which was, to have such a legislative over them, as the majority
should approve, and freely acquiesce in.
The life/history of minority groups. The only thing we can seem to do is pray to
God for our rights.
He that troubles his neighbour without a cause, is punished for it by the justice of the court he
appeals to: and he that appeals to heaven must be sure he has right on his side; and a right too
that is worth the trouble and cost of the appeal
-First, It is plain he gets no power by his conquest over those that conquered with him. They that
fought on his side cannot suffer by the conquest, but must at least be as much freemen as they
were before. That most likely happened with minority groups when going to war with others.
Minority groups team up with the ones who oppressed them so they may receive
And the conquering people are not, I hope, to be slaves by conquest, and wear their laurels only
to shew they are sacrifices to their leaders triumph.
Don’t be a soldier that simply falls in line
-And if 1, or any body else, shall claim freedom, as derived from them, it will be very hard to
prove the contrary: and it is plain, the law, that has made no distinction between the one and the
other, intends not there should be any difference in their freedom or privileges.
White people have more privilege than other minority groups in the US
But supposing, which seldom happens, that the conquerors and conquered never incorporate
into one people, under the same laws and freedom;...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.
-I say then the conqueror gets no power but only over those who have actually assisted,
concurred, or consented to that unjust force that is used against him: for the people having given
to their governors no power to do an unjust thing,
The rulers are powerful if we allow them to have enough power
-Conquerors, it is true, seldom trouble themselves to make the distinction, but they willingly
permit the confusion of war to sweep all together: but yet this alters not the right; for the
conquerors power over the lives of the conquered, being only because they have used force to do,
or maintain an injustice, he can have that power only over those who have concurred in that
-all the rest are innocent; and he has no more title over the people of that country, who have
done him no injury, and so have made no forfeiture of their lives, than he has over any other,
who, without any injuries or provocations, have lived upon fair terms with him.
-Thirdly, The power a conqueror gets over those he overcomes in a just war, is perfectly
despotical: he has an absolute power over the lives of those, who, by putting themselves in a
state of war, have forfeited them; but he has not thereby a right and title to their possessions.
This sounds like a peaceful treaty
-But when we consider, that the practice of the strong and powerful, how universal soever it may
be, is seldom the rule of right, however it be one part of the subjection of the conquered, not to
argue against the conditions cut out to them by the conquering sword.
-Though in all war there be usually a complication of force and damage, and the aggressor
seldom fails to harm the estate, when he uses force against the persons of those he makes war
upon; yet it is the use of force only that puts a man into the state of war:
Is it really force, because some go to war in order to gain someone’s resources
-it is the unjust use of force that makes the war: for he that breaks open my house, and violently
turns me out of doors; or having peaceably got in, by force keeps me out, does in effect the same
-It is the unjust use of force then, that puts a man into the state of war with another; and thereby
he that is guilty of it makes a forfeiture of his life: for quitting reason, which is the rule given
between man and man, and using force, the way of beasts, he becomes liable to be destroyed by
him he uses force against, as any savage ravenous beast, that is dangerous to his being. -But because the miscarriages of the father are no faults of the children, and they may be
rational and peaceable, notwithstanding the brutishness and injustice of the father; the father,
by his miscarriages and violence, can forfeit but his own life, but involves not his children in his
guilt or destruction.
Children should not be blamed for the wrongdoing of the parents
-His goods, which nature, that willeth the preservation of all mankind as much as is possible,
hath made to belong to the children to keep them from perishing, do still continue to belong to
his children: for supposing them not to have joined in the war, either thro’ infancy, absence, or
choice, they have done nothing to forfeit them: nor has the conqueror any right to take them
The spoils of the war still go to the children because they didn’t take part in it and
they need to survive
So that he that by conquest has a right over a man’s person to destroy him if he pleases, has not
thereby a right over his estate to possess and enjoy it: for it is the brutal force the aggressor has
used, that gives his adversary a right to take away his life, and destroy him if he pleases, as a
- but it is damage sustained that alone gives him title to another man’s goods: for though I may
kill a thief that sets on me in the highway, yet I may not (which seems less) take away his money,
and let him go: this would be robbery on my side.
-The right then of conquest extends only to the lives of those who joined in the war, not to their
estates, but only in order to make reparation for the damages received, and the charges of the
war, and that too with reservation of the right of the innocent wife and children.
-Let the conqueror have as much justice on his side, as could be supposed, he has no right to
seize more than the vanquished could forfeit: his life is at the victor’s mercy; and his service and
goods he may appropriate