John Locke Defines Rebellion

As someone who is fascinated by international politics, as well as by the American Revolution, I find the topic of rebellion to be extremely important. John Locke, whose ideas undoubtedly shaped American political though, was a brilliant political thinker of the late 17th century. However, in addition to providing the Founders with some of the most essential tools for creating a new country, Locke also left a wonderful definition of what constitutes rebellion.

Let me give the condensed definition so that his words make more sense. In Locke's words, "...rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded only in the constitutions and laws of the government; those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels: for...those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare, that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels."

This definition of "rebellion" is monumentally important. First of all, it lays out, in no uncertain terms, what constitutes "rebellion." More importantly, however, these same words were written by the man who was so highly esteemed by the Founding Fathers. So my question is : did they not see this part? Or did they just ignore it?

If one were to look at the actions of the "patriots," it would be quite clear that the Americans were indeed rebels, as Locke has defined the word. The very nature of the American Revolution was not an attempt to protest against the person of King George, as much as it was to protest against, and to challenge the authority, of Parliament. By challenging the authority of Parliament, and thus the Constitution of England, and by resorting to violence, the American protesters were, indeed, rebels, in every sense of the word.