(This article appeared initially in our Camp newsletter substantially as follows in the 4 October 2007 hard copy issue).
The question must be asked: “Was secession treasonous, and were our
forefathers who undertook to implement secession traitorous?” Frankly, I believe that we must ask the same
question in this manner: “Is secession
treasonous today, and are those who desire to secede to be considered
traitors?” If secession was a principle
of right in 1860, it must be considered a principle of right today. Principles do not have funerals; they do not
die.
The right to secede at will was based upon
the fact that each State was sovereign, becoming so by a successful prior
secession from Great Britain. The Treaty
of Paris of 1783 recognized the colonies as free, sovereign, and independent
States. This sovereignty was also
recognized in the Articles of Confederation and under the United States
Constitution.
If you suggest that secession was and is
treason, and those who undertook to implement it were traitorous, we must ask,
“When did secession become traitorous, and when did those who undertook to
implement it become traitors?” Was it
treason in 1776, when we seceded from Great Britain? Were our forefathers wrong when they wrote
the following? “When in the Course of
human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of
the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and
Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever
any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of
the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of
Independence, 1776).
If you are one of those few who believe
that America should never have seceded from Great Britain, may I refer you to
the Fairfax Resolves? The Fairfax
Resolves were written in 1774 by George Washington, George Mason, and Charles
Broadwater, and they were an attempt to head off secession and ultimately the
war, by encouraging George III to keep his end of the covenantal agreement
between Great Britain and her colonies.
The Declaration of Independence is an open
indictment of George III for his multitudinous covenantal violations. The Fairfax Resolves stated that the
colonists were willing to be his subjects, but they were not willing to be his slaves. America was left with the choices of enslavement or secession. America was
founded upon the principle of secession.
If secession is not a right and a principle, we were, and still are in
rebellion to Great Britain. Revolutions
seek to replace current governments, while secession movements merely seek
separation from current governments.
If secession is treasonous, when did it become
treasonous? Was it treasonous in 1794
when New York Senator Rufus King and Connecticut Senator Oliver Ellsworth
cornered Virginia Senator John Taylor and advocated a peaceful dissolution of
the United States? The Yankee senators
said that “it was utterly impossible for the Union to continue,” and that North
and South would never agree on public policy and that it would be better to
renegotiate the Union than to have a forced separation later. (Taking A Stand, by Walter Brian Cisco).
Was secession considered treasonous in
1803, when the New England States threatened to secede over the acquisition of
the Louisiana Purchase? A group of
Federalists led by Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering went so far as to
plan a separate Northern Confederacy, offering Vice President Aaron Burr the
Presidency of the proposed new country, if he persuaded New York to join. Pickering and his fellows wanted a “new
confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence of the
aristocratic Democrats of the South.”
Pickering wrote: “The principles
of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation. That this can be accomplished, without spilling
one drop of blood, I have little doubt.
I do not believe in the practicality of a long-continued union. A Northern Confederacy would unite congenial
characters and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the
Southern States, having a similarity of habits, might be left to manage their
own affairs in their own way.” (Letter to George Cabot).
Was secession considered treasonous in 1808 when it was threatened by
the New England States over the embargo of British trade?
Secession was again threatened in 1811 on
account of the proposed admission of Louisiana as a State. On January 14, 1811, a portion of the
Louisiana Purchase tract, calling itself Louisiana, made application for
statehood and admission to the Union. It
was evident that new States would form – increasing the Southern lands’ power
in Congress. Josiah Quincy, a
Massachusetts Representative, said: “It
is my deliberate opinion that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are
virtually dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral
obligations; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of
some, definitely to prepare for a separation, - amicably, if they can, -
violently, if they must.”
We must also ask: was secession considered treasonous in 1814
when the New England States met in Hartford, Conn., and were planning to secede
from the Union over the War of 1812.
Delegates from Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,
and Vermont attended the meeting.
Opposition to the war reached the point where secession from the United
States was discussed as an option.
Again, we must ask: was secession
considered to be treasonous in 1825, when William Rawle’s
book, A View of the Constitution,
was published? His book was used as
a text book at West Point in the United States Military Academy. His book taught the right of secession
clearly and distinctly. Consider the
following quote.
“The principle of representation, although
certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but
to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore, the
guarantee must be so construed. It
depends on the State itself to retain or abolish the principle of
representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member
of the Union. To deny this right would
be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are
founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how
they will be governed. This right must
be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general
government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the
doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible
nature of personal allegiance, in so far qualified in respect to allegiance to
the United States. It was observed, that
it was competent for a State to make a compact with its citizens, that the
reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain
events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on
the dissolution of the society to which it was due. The States, then, may wholly withdraw from
the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of
representative republics.”
The right of secession was enunciated by
US Congressman Abraham Lincoln in 1848, when he said: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and
having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing
government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate
the world. Nor is this right confined to
cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to
exercise it. Any portion of such people,
that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much territory as they
inhabit.” (Speech in
Congress, 1848).
If secession was considered an inherent
right of sovereign States from 1776 through 1848, how could it become unlawful
and treasonous in 1860? What happened? If it was treasonous in 1860, why did many
Northerner’s continue to say it was not treasonous? Consider the following: “Only a
despotic and imperial government can coerce seceding States.” (US Secretary of State
William Seward to Charles Francis Adams, Minister to Great Britain, 10 April
1861).
“We do heartily accept this doctrine,
believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one
that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of
blood. And, if it justified the
secession from the British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do
not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” (The New York Daily Tribune, 17 Dec 1860). We must understand that secession is not only
a Constitutional right;
it is also a Biblical right.
There are numerous examples of secession in the Bible. The ten northern tribes seceded from King Rehoboam, when his tyranny and treachery gave no other
option. In the New Testament we are
commanded to withdraw or secede from ungodly alliances. (See 2 Corinth. 6:14-18). The Book of Proverbs warns, concerning
“yoking up with the ungodly” in any enterprise.
(Prov. 1:10-16).
However, rather than simply listing the
references from Scripture, let me take one simple truth and enlarge upon it, in
order to demonstrate the right of secession.
In order to understand this right, we must grasp the reality of the
covenantal nature of government. The
Bible speaks of two distinct covenants in civil government. The first covenant is between God and the
ruler and the people. In this covenant
the king or ruler agrees to be God’s ruler.
He recognizes God’s sovereignty, bows to His authority and confesses
himself to be God’s vassal. The second
covenant is between the ruler and the people.
In this covenant, the ruler agrees to rule justly, faithfully, and Biblically. The people agree to obey, submit to, and
honor their ruler, as he honors and obeys God.
Notice
carefully how Scripture both distinguishes and emphasizes each covenant. In II Kings 11:17 the Word of God reveals,
“And Jehoiada [the High Priest] made a covenant
between the LORD and the king and the people, that they should be the LORD’s
people; between the king also and the people.”
Please note that there are two covenants mentioned. The first is between the LORD and the king
and the people. That is, the king was to
be God’s king; the people were to be God’s people. The second covenant was between the king and
the people. The king covenantally
agreed to rule according to the Word of God.
You will find the same truth taught in II Chron. 23:2-3, 16.
I Samuel 12:24-25 teaches us very clearly
that both the rulers and the people are responsible to, and obligated to obey
God. If each, in their respective
capacities, do not render the obedience to the
sovereign God who established them, judgment will fall. Samuel warns:
“Only fear the
LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart; for consider
how great things He hath done for you. But
if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your
king.” This responsibility and accountability
stems from the covenantal nature of government.
In II Samuel 5:3 and I Chron. 11:3 we see that a covenant was made
between David and the people. “Therefore
came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant
with them in Hebron before the LORD; and
they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by
Samuel.”
David was chosen to be king by God
Himself. David knew that God had
anointed him to be king. In fact, David
is most often described as a “man after God’s own heart.” All of this did not negate the fact that David
was chosen mediately, that is, through the will and
choice of the people. David and the
people had made a covenant with God. Now
they were making a covenant with each other “before the LORD.” David was not only accountable to the LORD,
who had chosen him, but also to the people with whom he had made a
covenant. It is important to grasp the
fact that both parties entered into the covenant. It was not simply the king’s covenant or the
people’s covenant; it was their
covenant, that is, one between the king and the people. Both parties were answerable, accountable,
and responsible unto the LORD before whom they made the covenant.
We have lost sight of the fact that
government is not God! Government cannot
do as it pleases; only as it pleases; and, always as it pleases! Since government is answerable, accountable,
and responsible to God, He sets the limits and boundaries for government. God instituted civil government to be His
deacon, that is, His “exacter of righteousness” and His public worship. (See Romans 13:3-6). When civil government rebels against God and
becomes a law unto itself, it places itself not only at enmity with God, but
also with the people. In fact, in such a
situation, rebellious civil government becomes idolatrous and sets itself
against God! “Shall the throne of
iniquity have fellowship with Thee, which frameth
mischief by a law?” (Psalms 94:20) Think about the implications of this!
First, observe that it is government which
is in view – a throne. Second, it is a
wicked civil government, because it is called a throne of iniquity. Third, it is a wicked civil government making
sin legal – it frames mischief (sin) by a law.
Now the question is: shall a
wicked civil government, one that makes sin legal, or contrary to God’s Law,
have fellowship with God? The answer is
a resounding, NO! Such a government is
not only in opposition to God, and in no way in fellowship with him, it is a
government in rebellion towards God. God
never instituted a wicked tyrannical government. Thus, such a government is not God’s
ordinance, and may be lawfully
resisted! We must remember that
rebellion is only to lawful authority.
If authority is not lawful it may be resisted, and resisted with God’s blessings. Moses resisted Pharoah
and his tyrannical kingdom. Rahab resisted her ruler and civil government when she
protected the spies, and by helping overthrow Jericho. There are numerous examples in Scripture
where tyrannical rulers have been lawfully resisted.
All government is covenantal in
nature. Family, ecclesiastical, and
civil government are all covenantal.
Consequently, in Biblical covenants when one party violates or breaks
the covenant, it looses the other party from obedience. This simple truth operates in every sphere of
life. It was true in Bible times, and is
today. First of all, this truth is
applicable in covenants or contracts between men. In Courts of Equity when one party violates
the contract, the aggrieved party sues for breach of contract. If you and I covenant together in a business
venture, and you do not keep your part of the agreement, then legally speaking,
I’m not obligated to fulfill my part of the contract. I must either drop the agreement or sue, in
order to force you to perform according to the agreement.
In Scripture covenants of this nature were
common. Consider the covenant (with its
stipulations) made between the spies and Rahab. (See Joshua 2:17-21). It was simple. There were two parties: the spies and Rahab. The stipulations were as follows: First, Rahab must
get her family into her house and display the scarlet cord in order to escape
from destruction. Second, Rahab and her family must remain in her house during the
battle. Third, if anyone ventured out of
her house, the Israelites were not to be held accountable, and that person’s
blood would be upon his own head.
Fourth, if anyone in Rahab’s house was harmed,
the Israelites would be held accountable, for they would’ve violated the agreement
to spare all who were in her house.
Fifth, if Rahab uttered or made known any
secrets, then the Israelites would be free to destroy those of Rahab’s house.
It’s evident that the operating principle
is that if one party violates or breaks the covenant, then the other party is
loosed from their obligations. Not only
is this principle true in the least of the covenants, that is, between men,
it’s also true in the greatest of the covenants, namely, those between God and
men. Biblically, when God entered into
covenant with men, and those men violated the covenant, this loosed God from
performing His part of the covenant.
Deuteronomy 28 is an excellent illustration of the principles involved. There God lists the blessings following
obedience, and the curses, following disobedience. II Kings 17 also demonstrates this
truth. God entered into a covenant with Israel, however, she repeatedly violated that covenant. God sent prophet after prophet, but Israel
would not repent.
Thus, was God obligated to continue to
bless, in view of this clear renunciation of his covenant? Israel’s violation of the covenant loosed God
from His obligations to perform. The
operating principle is this: when one party violates the covenant, it frees the
other from obligations to perform.
Samuel Rutherford, in his book Lex Rex,
enunciates this principle very plainly.
He writes, “…When the king defendeth not true
religion, but presseth upon the people a false and
idolatrous religion, in that they are not under the king, but are presumed to
have no king, so far, and are presumed to have the power in themselves, as if
they had not appointed any king at all;
as if we presume the body had given the right hand a power to ward off
strokes and to defend the body; if the
right hand should, by a palsy or some disease, become impotent and be withered
up, when ill is coming on the body, it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand, and to the rest of
the body to defend itself in this case, as if the body had no right hand, and
had never commissioned any power to the right hand….If therefore, he (the civil
ruler) defend not religion for the salvation of the souls in his public and
royal way, it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God, who by the law
of nature are to care for their own souls, are to defend in their way, true
religion, which so nearly concerneth them and their
eternal happiness.”
When the king, the one who has been set up
to defend and bless the people, turns upon the people, and presses upon them a
false and idolatrous religion, such as humanism, when he harasses them and
endeavors to force them to go contrary to God’s Word, it is presumed that the
people have no king or government. It is
as if there was no established government.
The power of government then reverts back to the governed. They must exercise a special form of
self-government. Rutherford emphasizes
the right of the body to defend itself.
Consider his illustration. If
your body has given power to the right hand to defend the body, and that right
hand becomes impotent or paralyzed, when harm is coming to the body, the left
hand rises to fulfill this need. Why is
this valid? Because,
all governmental power is derived from the consent of the governed. If the people have given power to the
government to defend them, and the government refuses to rightly use it in
their defense, then it reverts back to the people. Thus, they defend themselves the best way
they can.
Our country was founded on this very principle. When the colonies were established, each had
a covenant with George III of England.
He was king of Georgia, of Virginia, and of all the colonies. The colonies were self-governing, each with
their own law-making body. They were
self-governing under the king. One of
their concerns was “no taxation without representation.” The British Parliament was trying to impose
taxes on the colonists, who were properly self-governing entities under the
king, without a lawful right. They refused
to pay the taxes. Pastor Samuel West, in
his annual election sermon of 1776, said, “Reason and equity require that no
one be obligated to pay the tax that he has never consented to.” King George, in allowing the Parliament to
impose the taxes, in essence, abdicated his position as king over the colonies,
and he violated the covenant he had entered into with them. He was acting as a tyrant and reducing the
colonies to slavery.
Our founding fathers recognized and
understood tyranny and despotism. They
perceived the ultimate end of the king’s actions. Thus, they besought George III to relent by
their remonstrations in the Fairfax Resolves.
Ponder for a moment Resolves 5 and 6:
“Resolved, that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British
Parliament, of making all such laws as they think fit, to govern the people of
these colonies, and to extort from us our money without our consent, is not
only diametrically contrary to the first principles of the constitution
[referring to the unwritten British constitution], and the original compacts by
which we are dependent upon the British Crown and government; but is totally
incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural rights of
mankind; will render our own legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is
calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and
misery.”
“Resolved, that
taxation and representation are in their nature inseparable; that the right of
withholding, or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual
security to a free people, against the encroachments of despotism and tyranny;
and, that whenever they yield the one, they must quickly fall prey to the
other.”
All of the resolves are loaded with
bullets that explode against a tyrannical and despotic government. The shot that was heard around the world was
loaded with the Fairfax Resolves. This
is made plain in Resolve 23: “Resolved,
that it be recommended to the deputies in the general Congress to draw up and
transmit an humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to his majesty,
asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional rights and
privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into
measures disgusting to his majesty and his parliament, or injurious to our
fellow subjects in Great Britain; declaring in the strongest terms our duty and
affection to his majesty’s person, family, and government, and our desire to
continue our dependence….; and most humbly conjuring and beseeching his majesty,
not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation, and
to reflect, that from our sovereign there can be but one appeal.”
In simple terms, the Resolves offered
George III two obvious choices: fulfill
his covenantal obligations, and be the king he agreed to be, or second, prepare
for war. May God once again allow the
fires of freedom to burn in our hearts as in the days of old! May the words of Patrick Henry, “Give me
liberty or give me death,” become our watchword!
One might ask, “Where did such
revolutionary thinking come from?” The
answer is simple: first, from the Bible,
second, from the Declaration of Independence, and third, from the US
Constitution. Our founding fathers
understood covenantal principles.
America exists today because of their understanding. If our forefathers had not believed that when
one party of the covenant violated his part of the agreement, that it freed the
other party from obedience to the covenant, we would
not have an America today. These
principles are enunciated in Scripture and in our nation’s founding
documents. These principles are both
true and applicable today.
We the people have the right, and the
duty, to alter, abolish, change, or overthrow any tyrannical, despotic, or
apostate government, and to institute a government that will secure our safety,
establish our freedom, and one that will carry out the divine purposes for
which God instituted and ordained government.
When our government ceases to be Biblical and constitutional, we the
people, as God’s stewards, are loosed from obedience to our government. Secession is not now, and never has been
treasonous. It is mandated in
Scripture. Those who undertook to
rectify tyranny and injustice during the Revolutionary War were not traitors,
but patriots of the highest order. Thus,
the love of one’s State is not treason.
Belief in the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, reserving
to the people, all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government,
or to the States, is not treason.
Tyranny, oppression, and the usurping of our compact, and the sacred
rights acknowledged therein, is
treason! “The constitution is not an
instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to
dominate our lives and interests.”
(Patrick Henry).
Our thanks and appreciation to Pastor John Weaver, Past Chaplain-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A thoughtful reading of his article will help any enquirer to understand why the South took the actions it did during the War for Southern Independence. One of the Reformers said: “….[I]n that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The LORD, therefore, is the King of kings. When He opens His sacred mouth, He alone is to be heard instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the LORD. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as Magistrates – a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.” (John Calvin).