John Locke supplied the most important philosophical vocabulary for the American independence argument: natural rights, consent, government understood as a trust, and resistance to sustained arbitrary rule. The next lesson develops that mechanism in full. Here, the essential point is comparative. Locke used political authority to secure rights without making rulers absolute, while other social-contract writers could assign far more weight to order and sovereign power.

Thomas Hobbes used social-contract reasoning but reached a different conclusion. Fear, insecurity, and the danger of violent conflict led him to emphasize a powerful sovereign capable of maintaining peace. His argument shows why "social contract" does not automatically mean limited government or a continuing right of revolution. Montesquieu focused more directly on institutional design. His analysis of legislative, executive, and judicial functions helped Americans think about how divided power could check ambition and reduce the danger of arbitrary rule. Locke is most closely associated with natural rights and government as a trust; Hobbes with security and strong sovereignty; Montesquieu with the problem of concentrated governmental functions.

Use the thinker named in a question only after identifying the mechanism in the facts. A claim about prepolitical rights, consent, or forfeited trust points toward Locke. A claim that order requires an undivided and commanding sovereign points toward Hobbes. A proposal to distribute governmental functions so that power restrains power points toward Montesquieu. Avoid two common errors: treating every Enlightenment writer as a Lockean liberal and assuming philosophical influence creates a present legal rule. These ideas help explain why Americans justified and designed institutions as they did; the Constitution and valid law determine the authority of those institutions today.

Video lesson: Natural rights, social contract, democracy, republicanism and limited government