Locke-d and Loaded for Civil War

John Locke believed that the natural state of man is of perfect freedom and equality within the bounds of the law of nature. The law of nature states that because we are equal, no one has the right to threaten a person's liberty, life, health, or possessions. However, EVERYONE has a right to punish any wrongdoers. Because of this equality among all peoples, the only way that a ruler can have any power is if he has the consent of the governed.

How this relates to the English Civil War:
Our good friend Chucky I was ruling as an absolutist king. And according to Locke, absolutist governments violate the law of nature because it violates people's individual liberties.
Charles had dissolved Parliament for years, until he needed them to grant him money to squash the Scottish revolt. Up until this point, he ruled without requiring any consent from Parliament or from his subjects. The law of nature was completely disregarded and this led to civil war. John Locke believed this was justified. He held that people had the right to revolt if their government was acting as a tyranny by violating the people's liberties.
Although the civil war had more political causes than religious, it was still partly instigated by religious issues. Under Charles, William Laud created a new prayer book and bishoprics. The Scots resented this and revolted, which caused good ole' Chucky to summon Parliament after YEARS of ignoring them….. SUCKS. This led to a disconnection between Parliament and Charles, which eventually led to arguments and conflict, causing people to choose sides, and eventually sending the country into war. When Charles lost, he was promptly beheaded and the kingship abolished.

However, Parliament was not of a one-track mind. Not all of them wanted to execute Charles. The Rump Parliament, wanted to negotiate with Charles instead of zooming right into war. This exemplifies the diversity of thought in Parliament at this time.

At first look, Locke and Hobbes look like they have totally opposite opinions on how a government should be run. Locke believes in equality for all peoples while Hobbes believes that equality among all men leads to war. However, they do agree on one thing- that a king can only rule with the consent of the governed. This means that "divine right" has nothing to do with it.

Would John Locke have liked Olly Cromwell?
After the civil war and Charles' execution, Cromwell, as the leader of the army that overtook the monarchy, became the "Protectorate". Although he fought on the side of Parliament in the civil war, after he came to power, he never called a single Parliament. He took advantage of his position and established a government similar to a military dictatorship. Locke would NOT have been a fan of this because Cromwell obviously was not respecting people's liberties by refusing to listen to anybody else's opinions but his own. The Irish for one hated him for crushing their rebellion, thereby crushing their hope of freedom and liberty.

In conclusion, John Locke didn't agree with Charles I's absolutist rule and he would't have agreed with Cromwell's military dictatorship. Locke would be a fan of constitutionalism, which requires the government to rule in line with the Constitution, thereby respecting the rights laid out for the people.