In the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” When that consent is withdrawn—when the government becomes the destroyer, rather than the protector, of life, liberty, and property—then the people retain the right, indeed the duty, to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to the abusers.
This principle, declared boldly in 1776 by the representatives of thirteen united colonies, was neither novel nor radical. It was a reaffirmation of the ancient, natural right of self-government, the right of any political society to withdraw from a union that tramples its liberties and violates the very trust upon which it was founded. The colonies exercised that right against the British Crown, and the Southern states, three generations later, claimed no less a right when faced with the same overbearing, unconstitutional usurpations from the federal government.
As but one representative example—drawn from the rich storehouse of pre-Revolutionary thought affirming the unquestionable legality and moral legitimacy of secession from a union of equals—consider these words from Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government, penned nearly a century before our own Declaration and published in 1689:
“[I]t cannot be believed that rational creatures would advance one or a few of their equals above themselves, unless in consideration of their own good; and then I find no inconvenience in leaving to them a right of judging, whether this be duly performed or not. We say in general, he that institutes, may also abrogate, (Cujus est instituere, ejus est abrogare) most especially when the institution is not only by, but for himself. If the multitude therefore do institute, the multitude may abrogate; and they themselves, or those who succeed in the same right, can only be fit judges of the performance of the ends of the institution.” (Discourses, Chapter 1, Section 6)
I. Consent of the Governed: The Cornerstone of Legitimate Government
The American republic was founded on the principle that government is the servant, not the master, of the people. James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 39, declared that the Constitution rests on “the consent of the people.” Without consent, government becomes illegitimate.
When the Southern states ratified the Constitution, they did so as sovereign entities, retaining every right and power not expressly delegated to the federal government. This is not idle speculation; it is confirmed by the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Secession, therefore, is not treason but the ultimate expression of the consent of the governed. If a state no longer consents to be governed by a federal authority that has become destructive of its rights, it retains the natural right to withdraw from that authority.
II. The Declaration of Independence: A Precedent for Secession
The Declaration of Independence is not merely a historical document; it is the philosophical foundation of the American political order. It states plainly:
“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
This is not a conditional right, nor one subject to the whims of a central authority. It is the self-evident, natural right of every people.
When the federal government trampled the Southern states with tariffs that enriched the North at the expense of the South, when it threatened the institution of slavery that—however morally contentious—was recognized by the Constitution itself, and when it turned a deaf ear to repeated Southern protests and petitions, it became “destructive of these ends.” The Southern states were morally and constitutionally justified in withdrawing their consent to that government and forming a new one.
III. The Federal Government’s Unconstitutional Aggressions
The history of the antebellum period is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations by the federal government—policies aimed squarely at subjugating the Southern states and transferring wealth and power to the Northern interests.
- Tariff Exploitation: The so-called “Tariff of Abominations” of 1828 and its successors were designed to enrich Northern manufacturers at the expense of the Southern agrarian economy, violating the constitutional principle of equal treatment and fair taxation.
- Unbalanced Representation: The relentless expansion of federal authority—through banking, internal improvements, and the collusion of the Supreme Court—steadily eroded the constitutional compact between the states.
- Violation of Sovereignty: Federal interference in the institution of slavery—an institution recognized and protected by the Constitution itself—represented a direct assault on the sovereignty of the Southern states.
The federal government, far from being a protector of liberty, had become the very tyrant the Founders warned against.
IV. The Constitutional Compact: A Voluntary Union of States
The Constitution is a compact among sovereign states, each entering freely and retaining the right to judge for itself when the compact has been broken. Madison himself, in Federalist No. 39, confirmed this when he wrote that in ratifying the Constitution, the states acted “as independent and sovereign states.” Each state, in other words, exercised its own independent will to join the Union.
If a state cannot withdraw from the union it freely joined, then it is not a union of consent but a prison of compulsion. And if secession is forbidden, then the very principle of self-government—on which the entire American Revolution was built—has been betrayed.
V. The Verdict of History and Principle
Let it be said plainly: Secession is not rebellion. It is the exercise of the most sacred right of self-determination, the very right the Founders invoked to cast off the British yoke. To condemn the secession of the Southern states is to condemn the Revolution itself.
The Southern states, faced with an unconstitutional, unbalanced, and aggressive federal government, invoked the same principles the Founders held dear: the consent of the governed, the compact nature of the Constitution, and the right to withdraw from a union that had become an engine of oppression.
VI. Conclusion
No honest reading of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the writings of the Founders can deny that the states possess the right to secede. This right stands at the core of the American political tradition—a bulwark against tyranny, a shield for liberty, and the ultimate expression of the people’s sovereign will.
Let no one—no central authority, no apologist for empire, no self-congratulating carpetbagger—deny that right without also denying the very legitimacy of the American experiment.
It is time to restore this fundamental truth to its rightful place in our national discourse: that the states, and the people who compose them, retain the inalienable right to leave a union that destroys rather than defends their life, liberty, and property.
Because liberty is not a gift from government—it is a divine birthright, and it is ours to defend.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily the views of the Abbeville Institute.
“Let it be said plainly: Secession is not rebellion.”
Right now, I think I can agree with that, as far as it concerns the South in the mid 19th century.
“It is the exercise of the most sacred right of self-determination, the very right the Founders invoked to cast off the British yoke.”
Whether they did or not, within the last 1 1/2 years, I’ve been persuaded the Loyalists arguments against the Revolution were sound and correct.
“To condemn the secession of the Southern states is to condemn the Revolution itself.”
The attempt by the South to secede wasn’t rebellion.The Revolution, though, I think was rebellion. So, these are separate matters.
“The Southern states…invoked the same principles the Founders held dear: the consent of the governed…”
I don’t think the Founders were correct on that point, regarding “the consent of the governed.”
“Authority and submission were established by God for His purposes. They are not rooted in inherent superiority or superior might; nor are they rooted in consent. Boucher further says that this also proves ‘that it (government) may and must be submitted to by a fallen creature, even when exercised by a fallen creature, lost both to wisdom and goodness.’ The fact that rulers are fallible, unwise, and bad does not remove the responsibility to be subject.”
“As a Lockean notion of consent by equals, Boucher asserts: ‘The equality of nature…was superceded by the actual interference of the Almighty, to whom alone the original underived power can be said to belong.’ The original power belongs to God, not to ‘the people.” From “God Against the Revolution,” by Gregg L. Frazer
“ Tis hard to comprehend how one man can come to be master of many,
equal to himself in right, unless it be by consent or by force. If by consent, we are at
an end of our controversies: Governments, and the magistrates that execute them, are
created by man. They who give a being to them, cannot but have a right of regulating,
limiting and directing them as best pleaseth themselves; and all our author’s assertions
concerning the absolute power of one man, fall to the ground: If by force, we are to
examine how it can be possible or justifiable. This subduing by force we call
conquest; but as he that forceth must be stronger than those that are forced, to talk of
one man who in strength exceeds many millions of men, is to go beyond the
extravagance of fables and romances.”
— Sidney, Discourses, Chapter I, Section 11
The so-called ‘word of god’ as reveled (sic) to men was authored by other men and for the purpose of justifying their rulership over other men.
“Man cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen.”
— Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
No Rulers !
You’re kidding yourself.
Romans 1:19-20 “…that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
Excellent! Here in Chicago City, the governed have been so neutered that they can barely imagine themselves with any voice whatsoever. So it follows that it is a violent city
“Defiance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
-John Knox
Knox was wrong. Nero was a tyrant, but the apostle Paul, your apostle by the way, did not come close to suggesting defiance against him. Nor did the Saviour teach the little flock (Israel) to defy Rome.
Samuel Adams said it was the crown and Parliament who rebelled (against the English constitution), not the Americans. He said the term “rebel” should be applied not to those trying to protect the ancient constitution, but to those violating it. I agree with regard to the South in 1861.
Frazer’s book gives props to Adams: “The Whigs clearly won the rhetorical and propaganda battle. They won in large part because they shut down and literally destroyed Tory avenues of communication…they also won because they had ‘talented’ propagandists such as Samuel Adams…keeping the passions of the people inflamed, and because they had a more exciting message. The Tory message was…to obey the law and the rather ‘humiliating idea’ of subordination…The Whig message of independence…’flattered the people’…”
“(Adams) said the term “rebel” should be applied not to those trying to protect the ancient constitution, but to those violating it.”
I understand anger against a “rebel” government, but I still think what was stated previously holds. (Government) “must be submitted to by a fallen creature, even when exercised by a fallen creature, lost both to wisdom and goodness.’ The fact that rulers are fallible, unwise, and bad does not remove the responsibility to be subject.”
“God Against the Revolution” stated a point Samuel Seabury made: “…it is invalid for the Patriots to claim allegiance to the King while denying the legitimacy of laws passed by Parliament.”
“…Loyalist ministers were also outspoken critics of some of the early acts of Parliament. However…they could not make the jump to justifying rebellion.”
The book quotes Boucher: “That some of the measures of the British Parliament have been injudicious, and perhaps injurious…(nevertheless) we have been taught to magnify their errors, and to exaggerate our wrongs; and to seek redress, not as heretofore by petitioning and remonstrating, but by resisting and rebellion. No government on earth is infallible. Perfection…should no more be expected from aggregate bodies, than from individuals.”
And the book quotes Lawrence Leder: “If government was God’s ordinance to man, little more need be said. Disagreement with government became rebellion against authority and, in turn, opposition to God…Only when the clergy accepted the idea that government originated not in a divine decree but by compact or agreement among the people could Americans explore possible limits upon political power. Having done that, they moved easily to the thesis that rulers were bound by law, and transgression of those limits released the people from further obedience.”
What Leder wrote, to me, is unassailable. The South had an “out” because it was written in the Constitution. But, the Colonies, per Rom 13, government theory, legal points, and reason, had not a justifiable way out, in my view.
The US military officer’s oath from 1830 until 1862 required the officer to defend the United States and protect THEM from THEIR enemies…this is all you need to know about the legality of secession. See the current US Army website and search history of oaths.
The yankees changed THEIR oath in 1862 to require allegiance to the Constitution of the US…this is the smoking gun. Run with it.
The people today who shout out that secession is treason or a ploy to preserve slavery are liars or fools. There is no third way. I do not care if is Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh (may he rest in peace) or the unread, untutored squabble-squealers at Fox News.
Personal opinion: The Republicans are liars. The Democrats are fools. Fox? Clowns who make a lot of money.
Truly, well said. Consent of the governed is *the* American founding principle.
When one considers that Lincoln responded to to Thirteen US states exercising (or seeking to exercise) this principle in the same way as King George did, that is by declaring a no-holds-barred war on these States, it is plain that Lincoln betrayed the very most fundamental elements of American Constitutionalism.