engaged in it。
179。 Secondly； 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； such as is to
make an unjust war （for they never had such a power in themselves）；
they ought not to be charged as guilty of the violence and injustice
that is committed in an unjust war any farther than they actually abet
it； no more than they are to be thought guilty of any violence or
oppression their governors should use upon the people themselves or
any part of their fellow…subjects； they having empowered them no
more to the one than to the other。 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 conqueror's 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 force； 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。
180。 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 I doubt not but at first sight will seem a strange
doctrine； it being so quite contrary to the practice of the world；
there being nothing more familiar in speaking of the dominion of
countries than to say such an one conquered it； as if conquest；
without any more ado； conveyed a right of possession。 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 swords。
181。 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。 For
whether by force he begins the injury； or else having quietly and by
fraud done the injury； he refuses to make reparation； and by force
maintains it； which is the same thing as at first to have done it by
force； 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
thing； supposing we are in such a state that we have no common judge
on earth whom I may appeal to； and to whom we are both obliged to
submit； for of such I am now speaking。 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。
182。 But because the miscarriages of the father are no faults of the
children； who 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； and
involves not his children in his guilt or destruction。 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 through infancy or
choice； they have done nothing to forfeit them； nor has the
conqueror any right to take them away by the bare right of having
subdued him that by force attempted his destruction； though；
perhaps； he may have some right to them to repair the damages he has
sustained by the war； and the defence of his own right； which how
far it reaches to the possessions of the conquered we shall see
by…and…by； 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 noxious creature； 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。 His force； and the state of war he put
himself in； made him forfeit his life； but gave me no title to his
goods。 The right； then； of conquest extends only to the lives of those
who joined in the war； but 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。
183。 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 to make himself reparation； but he cannot
take the goods of his wife and children； they too had a title to the
goods he enjoyed； and their shares in the estate he possessed。 For
example； I in the state of Nature （and all commonwealths are in the
state of Nature one with another） have injured another man； and
refusing to give satisfaction； it is come to a state of war wherein my
defending by force what I had gotten unjustly makes me the
aggressor。 I am conquered； my life； it is true； as forfeit； is at
mercy； but not my wife's and children's。 They made not the war； nor
assisted in it。 I could not forfeit their lives； they were not mine to
forfeit。 My wife had a share in my estate； that neither could I
forfeit。 And my children also； being born of me； had a right to be
maintained out of my labour or substance。 Here then is the case： The
conqueror has a title to reparation for damages received； and the
children have a title to their father's estate for their
subsistence。 For as to the wife's share； whether her own labour or
compact gave her a title to it； it is plain her husband could not
forfeit what was hers。 What must be done in the case？ I answer： The
fundamental law of Nature being that all； as much as may be； should be
preserved； it follows that if there be not enough fully to satisfy
both… viz。； for the conqueror's losses and children's maintenance；
he that hath and to spare must remit something of his full
satisfaction； and give way to the pressing and preferable title of
those who are in danger to perish without it。
184。 But supposing the charge and damages of the war are to be
made up to the conqueror to the utmost farthing； and that the children
of the vanquished； spoiled of all their father's goods； are to be left
to starve and perish； yet the satisfying of what shall； on this score；
be due to the conqueror will scarce give him a title to any country he
shall conquer。 For the damages of war can scarce amount to the value
of any considerable tract of land in any part of the world； where
all the land is possessed； and none lies waste。 And if I have not
taken away the conqueror's land which； being vanquished； it is
impossible I should； scarce any other spoil I have done him can amount
to the value of mine； supposing it of an extent any way coming near
what I had overrun of his； and equally cultivated too。 The destruction
of a year's product or two （for it seldom reaches four or five） is the
utmost spoil that usually can be done。 For as to money； and such
riches and treasure taken away； these are none of Nature's goods； they
have but a phantastical imaginary value； Nature has put no such upon
them。 They are of no more account by her standard than the
Wampompeke of the Americans to an European prince； or the silver money
of Europe would have been formerly to an American。 And five years'
product is not worth the perpetual inheritance of land； where all is
possessed and none remains waste； to be taken up by him that is
disseised； which will be easily granted； if one do but take away the
imaginary value of money； the disproportion being more than between
five and five thousand； though； at the same time； half a year's
product is more worth than the inheritance where； there being more
land than the inhabitants possess and make use of； any one has liberty
to make use of the waste。 But their conquerors take little care to
possess themselves of the lands of the vanquished。 No damage therefore
that men in the state of Nature （as all princes and governments are in
reference to one another） suffer from one another can give a conqueror
power to dispossess the posterity of the vanquished； and turn them out
of that inheritance which ought to be the possession of them and their
descendants to all generations。 The conqueror indeed will be apt to
think himself master； and it is the very condition of the subdued
not to be able to dispute their right。 But； if that be all； it gives
no other title than what bare force gives to the stronger over the
weaker； and； by this reason； he that is strongest will have a right to
whatever he pleases to seize on。
185。 Over those； then； that joined with him in the war； and over
those of the subdued country that opposed him not； and the posterity
even of those that did； the conqueror； even in a just war； hath； by
his conquest； no right of dominion。 They are free from any
subjection to him； and if