The Two Treatises of Government (1689) is John Locke's work of political philosophy arguing that government originates in a social contract to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property) and that people may overthrow a ruler who violates that contract, directly challenging divine-right absolutism.
The Two Treatises of Government is John Locke's 1689 argument that political power doesn't come from God or tradition. It comes from the people. Locke claimed humans are born with natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that they create governments through a social contract specifically to protect those rights. If a ruler breaks that contract, say, by seizing property or ruling arbitrarily, the people have the right to resist and replace the government.
The timing matters as much as the ideas. Locke published the Treatises right after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when Parliament removed James II and installed William and Mary under conditions that limited royal power. The book reads like a philosophical defense of what England had just done. The CED captures Locke's core claim in KC-2.3.III.A, which says political theories like Locke's argued the state originated in the consent of the governed rather than in divine right or tradition. That one sentence is basically the thesis of the Two Treatises.
This term lives at the intersection of Unit 3 (Absolutism and Constitutionalism) and Unit 4 (Scientific, Philosophical, and Political Developments). In Topic 3.2, it supports AP Euro 3.2.A by explaining the consequences of the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution, since Locke gave constitutionalism its intellectual justification. In Topic 4.3, it supports AP Euro 4.3.A and 4.3.B, where the CED names Locke explicitly (KC-2.3.I.B and KC-2.3.III.A) as a developer of natural rights and social contract theory. It also feeds AP Euro 4.7.A, because applying reason and observation to politics is exactly how the Enlightenment challenged the existing European order. If you're comparing forms of political power for 3.8.A, the Two Treatises is your go-to evidence for why constitutionalism developed in England while absolutism dominated France. Few single texts connect this many learning objectives.
Keep studying AP Euro Unit 3
Social Contract and Natural Rights (Unit 4)
The Two Treatises is where these two concepts get their classic statement. If an MCQ asks which work articulated the social contract or natural rights, Locke's Treatises is the answer the CED points to in KC-2.3.I.B.
The Glorious Revolution (Unit 3)
Locke published in 1689, one year after Parliament deposed James II. The Treatises essentially says the revolution was legitimate because James broke the contract. Event and theory justify each other, which is why the 2017 DBQ asked whether the Glorious Revolution counts as part of the Enlightenment.
Absolutism vs. Constitutionalism (Unit 3)
While Louis XIV claimed power came from God, Locke argued it came from the governed. The Treatises is your sharpest piece of evidence for the comparison skill in Topic 3.8, showing why sovereignty got distributed so differently across European states.
The American and French Revolutions (Unit 5)
Locke's right of revolution gave later revolutionaries a ready-made argument. The Declaration of Independence's 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is Locke with one word swapped, which makes the Treatises great continuity evidence across periods.
Multiple-choice questions love pairing the Two Treatises with a stimulus excerpt and asking you to identify the argument (consent of the governed, right of revolution) or to contrast it with Hobbes' Leviathan. Released practice questions ask exactly this, including which Locke work argued a government violating the social contract could be overthrown. On the free-response side, the 2017 DBQ asked whether the Glorious Revolution of 1688 can be considered part of the Enlightenment, and Locke's Treatises is the bridge document for that argument. Use it as evidence in essays comparing absolutism and constitutionalism, or in causation arguments about how Enlightenment thought challenged the old order (4.7.A). Don't just name-drop the title. Strong answers explain the mechanism, which is that legitimacy flows from consent, so a ruler who violates rights loses the right to rule.
Both Hobbes and Locke use social contract theory, which is why the exam loves contrasting them. Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651) wrote during the chaos of the English Civil War and concluded people surrender their rights to an absolute sovereign permanently, because the alternative is anarchy. Locke (Two Treatises, 1689) wrote after the Glorious Revolution and concluded the contract is conditional. People keep their natural rights, and a ruler who violates them can be overthrown. Same starting concept, opposite conclusions about sovereign authority.
John Locke published the Two Treatises of Government in 1689 to argue that government rests on the consent of the governed, not divine right or tradition.
Locke claimed people have natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that governments exist through a social contract to protect those rights.
If a ruler violates the social contract, Locke argued the people have the legitimate right to overthrow that government.
The Treatises served as a philosophical justification for the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and for English constitutionalism over French-style absolutism.
The CED names Locke directly in KC-2.3.I.B and KC-2.3.III.A, making the Two Treatises core evidence for Topics 3.2, 3.8, and 4.3.
Locke and Hobbes both used social contract theory, but Hobbes defended absolute sovereignty while Locke defended limited government and the right of revolution.
It's John Locke's 1689 work arguing that government originates in a social contract to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property) and that people can overthrow a ruler who violates it. The CED cites it as the foundation of consent-based political theory in KC-2.3.III.A.
No. The Glorious Revolution happened in 1688 and the Treatises was published in 1689, so the book justified the revolution after the fact rather than sparking it. That sequence is exactly what the 2017 DBQ probed when it asked whether the Glorious Revolution can be considered part of the Enlightenment.
Hobbes (1651) argued people permanently surrender their rights to an absolute sovereign to escape chaos, while Locke (1689) argued the contract is conditional and a rights-violating ruler can be overthrown. Both use social contract theory but reach opposite conclusions about absolutism.
It applied reason to politics the way the Scientific Revolution applied it to nature, which is the core move of the Enlightenment per learning objective 4.7.A. Later thinkers like Rousseau built on Locke's natural rights and social contract framework (KC-2.3.I.B).
Mainly Unit 3 (English Civil War, Glorious Revolution, and the absolutism vs. constitutionalism comparison) and Unit 4 (the Enlightenment). It also resurfaces as influence evidence for the American and French Revolutions in Unit 5.