Lawful Authority, Liberty, and the Duty to Stand

 

There is a word that has been attached to Southerners for generations: rebel. The War Between the States has often been called the “War of the Rebellion,” and Southern soldiers have repeatedly been described as men who rose against lawful authority. But before we accept a label simply because history books repeat it, we ought to ask a more basic question: What is rebellion, and who actually has the authority against which rebellion can be committed?

First Samuel 12 gives us a biblical foundation for answering that question. Samuel told Israel, “If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God.” But he also warned, “If ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your king.”

Notice carefully that God held both the people and the king accountable. The people could rebel, but the king could rebel as well. Civil rulers are not above God’s law. They are not the source of absolute authority. They themselves remain under authority.

That principle changes the way we must think about rebellion.

Rebellion Requires Lawful Authority

We often speak as though resistance to government is automatically rebellion. That is not so. Rebellion can only exist where lawful authority exists.

If one man walks up to another man’s wife and begins ordering her around as though he were her husband, her refusal to obey him is not rebellion. He possesses no lawful authority over her. Her resistance is simply resistance to an unlawful claim of authority.

The same principle applies to civil government.

Government is covenantal in nature. Scripture repeatedly gives us examples of covenants involving rulers and people. In II Samuel 5, the elders of Israel came to David, and David made a league with them before the Lord. First Chronicles 11 describes the same arrangement as a covenant. II Kings 11 speaks of a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people.

Government, then, involves obligations. The people have obligations to lawful rulers, but rulers have obligations as well. A ruler does not suddenly become unlimited simply because he holds an office. He is bound by the law under which he governs.

Ultimately, all legitimate authority comes from God. Romans 13 teaches us that civil authority is ordained by Him. But because God institutes government, government is therefore accountable to Him. Civil rulers are not free to disregard God’s law simply because they possess political power.

The final authority is not the king, the president, Congress, or the courts. The final authority is God.

The American Revolution and the Charge of Rebellion

This principle helps us understand the American Revolution.

The men whom we now call patriots were called rebels by the British government. George Washington himself was treated as an arch-rebel. Men such as Samuel Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and many others were branded traitors.

But were the colonies rebelling against lawful authority, or were they resisting unlawful claims?

The American colonists argued that the British Parliament was exercising authority it did not possess over them. The colonies had their own legislatures, charters, and established political arrangements. Their complaint was that Parliament was taxing them and legislating for them without lawful representation or constitutional authority.

This is why “taxation without representation” mattered so deeply. The issue was not merely a few pennies on tea or paper. The issue was authority.

The Fairfax Resolves of 1774 illustrate this argument. The colonists insisted that Parliament’s attempt to legislate for the colonies and take their money without their consent was contrary to the principles of their constitution and to the rights of a free people. At that time, they were not even demanding complete separation from Great Britain. They repeatedly expressed a desire to remain connected to the British government, provided their rights were respected.

They were essentially saying, “We are willing to be subjects, but we will not become slaves.”

Their resistance was directed against what they believed to be an unlawful extension of governmental power.

If that reasoning is accepted in 1776, then the same fundamental question must be asked of every later conflict: Who possessed lawful authority, and who violated it?

The Constitution as the Civil Covenant

When we come to the United States, we have a written standard defining the authority of the federal government: the Constitution.

The president is not the supreme law of the land.

Congress is not the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land.

Article VI identifies the Constitution, along with laws made in pursuance of it and valid treaties, as the supreme law of the land. Government officials therefore derive their authority from the Constitution rather than possessing authority independent of it.

That distinction is crucial.

The Constitution was not written primarily to restrain the people or the states. It was designed to restrain the federal government by defining and limiting its powers. If the federal government moves outside those powers, the mere fact that officials approved an action does not make the action constitutional.

A ruler may occupy a lawful office while nevertheless acting unlawfully.

A legislature may be legitimate while passing an illegitimate law.

A government may possess authority in one sphere while attempting to exercise authority it was never given in another.

Once again, rebellion must be measured against lawful authority—not merely against whoever possesses the greatest military power.

Who Violated the Covenant?

One of the great constitutional controversies leading into the War Between the States concerned the nature of the Union itself. Southern political thought generally emphasized strict construction, limited federal power, the sovereignty of the states, and the compact nature of the Constitution. The argument was that the federal government existed because the states had entered into a constitutional agreement and delegated particular powers to it.

The question, then, is not simply whether Southern states withdrew from the Union. The deeper question is whether such withdrawal constituted rebellion against lawful constitutional authority.

Those who defended Southern secession argued that the federal government itself had repeatedly violated the constitutional compact and had assumed powers never granted to it. From that point of view, secession was not an attempt to overthrow the Constitution but an attempt to withdraw from a government that had departed from constitutional limitations.

This is the central argument we must understand.

Throughout the antebellum period, fierce disputes arose over tariffs, slavery in the territories, fugitive slave laws, federal coercion, the balance between state and federal authority, and the power of the central government. By the time Abraham Lincoln became president, these disagreements had become explosive.

The position presented here is that the South sought to preserve a strict understanding of the constitutional system while the federal government increasingly embraced a nationalist and centralized view.

Whether modern historians agree with that interpretation or not, we must understand the constitutional argument rather than dismissing it with a label.

Calling someone a “rebel” does not settle the question.

When Government Itself Rebels

First Samuel 12 makes something clear that modern political thinking often forgets: rulers themselves can rebel.

If the king refuses God’s commands, he is accountable.

If rulers violate the law that governs their office, they are accountable.

If a civil government possesses limited authority and begins exercising powers outside those limits, the problem does not disappear simply because the government claims necessity.

This principle is especially important because political leaders have always been tempted to argue that emergencies justify expanded power. They say the nation is in danger. They say ordinary legal restraints are inconvenient. They say constitutional limitations must yield to necessity.

But if a constitution only restrains government when government finds those restraints convenient, it does not restrain government at all.

The whole purpose of written law is to bind authority precisely when those exercising authority would prefer to act without restraint.

Our liberty depends upon that principle.

The Difference Between Resistance and Rebellion

We must therefore recover an important distinction: resistance is not always rebellion.

If authority is lawful and commands what it has a right to command, disobedience may indeed be rebellion.

But when a government exceeds its lawful jurisdiction, resistance to that usurpation cannot automatically be dismissed as rebellion.

The apostles themselves illustrated the principle when human authority came into conflict with divine authority. “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

That does not mean Christians should be lawless. Far from it. Christians should respect lawful authority. We should be among the most orderly people in society. We should honor rulers, obey just laws, fulfill our duties, keep our word, and avoid needless conflict.

But Christian obedience to government is never absolute because government itself is not absolute.

Only God is absolute.

Every human authority has limits.

We Need Courage Again

The great danger in every generation is that people become accustomed to surrendering their responsibilities to those in power. Eventually, citizens stop asking whether something is lawful or righteous and begin asking only whether government has ordered it.

That is not the spirit of liberty.

Our forefathers understood that freedom requires responsibility, courage, and a willingness to resist unlawful encroachments. They did not risk their lives and fortunes over trivial taxes. They understood that a principle was at stake. If a government could take a little without lawful authority, eventually it could take much more.

We need that kind of constitutional and biblical understanding again.

If standing for truth is called rebellion, then we should stand for truth.

If defending liberty is called rebellion, then we should defend liberty.

If insisting upon limited government is called rebellion, then we should insist upon limited government.

If believing that rulers must remain accountable to law is called rebellion, then we should accept whatever label men choose to place upon us.

But we must be certain about one thing: our loyalty must be to lawful authority, and above every earthly authority stands the authority of Almighty God.

The real rebel is not simply the man who resists power. The real rebel is the one who rejects rightful authority.

That can be a citizen.

It can also be a ruler.

So before we allow history, government, or popular opinion to decide who deserves the name “rebel,” let us return to the proper standard. Let us ask whether authority was lawful, whether covenants were kept, whether constitutional limits were honored, and above all, whether men submitted themselves to the law of God.

May God give us the wisdom to understand the difference between lawful obedience and cowardly submission, between wicked rebellion and righteous resistance. And may He give us the courage to stand for truth, liberty, righteousness, and lawful authority regardless of what names the world chooses to call us.