Principles of Justifiable Governmental Secession
1.0 Introduction: Defining the Scope and Purpose
This memorandum establishes a coherent framework for evaluating the legitimacy of a government and the conditions under which secession becomes a justifiable action. This analysis is derived from an examination of foundational biblical principles of governance and their clear expression in American constitutional history. It seeks to provide clear, principled criteria for determining when a governing authority has forfeited its right to rule, thereby warranting a formal withdrawal by the governed.
It is critical to define secession precisely. The term is derived from the Latin root cedere, meaning “to withdraw.” Secession is therefore an act of withdrawal; it is explicitly distinct from anarchy or revolution. It is not an act to destroy all government, but rather a withdrawal from one union in order to establish another. Historically, this principle has been acknowledged even by political opponents of the act. As Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, wrote on February 23, 1861, after the formation of the Confederacy:
We have repeatedly said that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed is sound and just and that if the cotton states or the Gulf States choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so.
This understanding of legitimate governance, rooted in the consent of the governed, flows from the foundational concept of covenant, which underpins this entire framework.
2.0 The Covenantal Nature of Legitimate Government
To properly evaluate the legitimacy of any government, one must first understand its covenantal nature. All legitimate authority—whether civil, ecclesiastic, or familial—is based on a covenantal structure of mutual obligations between the rulers and the ruled. When this covenant is honored, the government has a right to expect obedience; when it is violated by the ruler, that legitimacy is compromised.
This principle is firmly established in biblical precedent. King David, for example, was chosen directly by God. Yet, his authority over the people was not imposed by divine fiat alone. Before he was anointed, David made a formal covenant with the elders of Israel at Hebron (1 Chronicles 11:3). This act demonstrates a foundational principle: legitimate rule is established not only by divine appointment but also through the consent of the governed, formalized in a covenant of mutual responsibility.
Within this covenant, the ruler’s purpose is explicitly defined. A ruler’s authority is not granted for personal aggrandizement, party loyalty, or a political program. Rather, as King David himself perceived, God had exalted his kingdom “for his people Israel’s sake” (2 Samuel 5:12). For as God admonished the judges of Israel, “you judge not for man, but for the Lord” (2 Chronicles 19:6). Scripture is unequivocal: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Samuel 23:3). This establishes the ruler’s proper role as a “public servant,” governing for the benefit and well-being of the people.
The New Testament further clarifies the delegated and conditional nature of civil authority. In Romans 13, God establishes the arrangement (Gk. ordinance) for civil governance and ordains its jurisdictions (Gk. exusia). The civil ruler is designated as a “minister of God.” The primary Greek word used is diakonos, the root of the English word “deacon,” which means a servant. A second term, liturggos, is also used, from which “liturgy” is derived, signifying a public worshiper or public servant to God. The authority granted to the state is not absolute; it is a delegated authority to serve God’s purposes. These duties include being a “revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” The term “revenger” here derives from the Greek for an “exactor of righteousness” (ekdikos).
Therefore, the obedience required of citizens in Romans 13:1-2 is entirely conditional upon the government fulfilling its God-ordained purpose as described in Romans 13:3-4. The authority granted to government is predicated upon its fulfillment of these duties: to be God’s servant (diakonos), to act as His public worshiper (liturggos), to exact His righteousness, and to serve for the good of the people.
It is the consistent and unrepentant violation of these covenantal duties that creates the conditions under which secession becomes a justifiable remedy.
3.0 A Framework for Justifiable Secession: Four Core Conditions
The following four conditions, derived from the biblical account of Israel’s secession from King Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12 and reinforced by historical precedent, provide the central framework for determining when a government has become illegitimate and secession is warranted.
3.1.1 Condition One: Governance by Ungodly and Tyrannical Rulers
Secession is justified when a nation is governed by wicked, ungodly, and tyrannical rulers who have forsaken God’s law as the basis for their authority. Tyranny emerges when rulers set aside divine and constitutional law to govern by their own will. As the English statesman William Pitt stated, “where law ends, their tyranny begins.”
Such power is inherently illegitimate because it subverts the God-ordained purpose of government. A legitimate ruler, according to Romans 13:3, is to be “a terror… to the evil,” not to the good. When a government becomes a terror to the law-abiding and a protector of the wicked, it has become tyrannical. This was precisely the path Rehoboam chose when he rejected wise counsel and declared his intent to rule more harshly than his father.
3.1.2 Condition Two: Consistent Violation of Covenantal Obligations
When rulers consistently and repeatedly violate their covenantal and constitutional oaths, secession becomes a valid consideration. This is a foundational legal principle: when one party to a covenant or contract violates its terms, the other party is released from its obligations.
This principle of covenantal release is illustrated in the agreement between the Israelite spies and Rahab. The spies made clear that their oath to protect her would be void if she violated her end of the agreement: “if thou utter any of this our business, then we will be quit of the oath which thou hast made us to swear” (Joshua 2:20).
In the American context, the U.S. Constitution is an “express powers” or “limited powers” document. It was created not to empower the government to restrain the people, but, in the words of Patrick Henry, as “an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” When the federal government usurps powers not expressly granted to it by the states and the people, it is violating its covenant. Such consistent and uncorrected violations legally release the other parties from their obligations. As Confederate President Jefferson Davis articulated, the act of secession was intended not to destroy the covenant, but to preserve it from federal usurpation:
I love the Union, but I had rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without the Constitution.
3.1.3 Condition Three: Governance by Force Instead of Consent
Legitimate governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed,” as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. When a government abandons consent and begins to rule primarily by force, coercion, and fear, it forfeits its moral authority.
This shift is clearly demonstrated in Rehoboam’s response to the people of Israel. He rejected the counsel of the elders, who advised him to be a “servant unto this people.” Theirs was the wisdom of age, which seeks resolution through covenantal faithfulness. Instead, he adopted the advice of the young men, whose counsel reflected an inclination toward force and aggression. He threatened to add to their yoke and chastise them not with “whips” but with “scorpions.” This was a declaration that he intended to rule by brute force, not by covenantal agreement. This dynamic is captured perfectly in Thomas Jefferson’s axiom:
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
3.1.4 Condition Four: The Usurpation of Wealth to Fund Illegitimate Rule
Secession is warranted when rulers seek to confiscate the wealth of the people through taxation without their consent, particularly to fund a government that operates contrary to the people’s will and well-being.
After the ten northern tribes of Israel seceded, King Rehoboam sent his chief tax collector, Adoram, to extract tribute from them. The people’s response was decisive: they stoned him to death (1 Kings 12:18). This act was a rejection of the king’s illegitimate claim to their property after he had violated the governing covenant.
This principle was central to the American colonial experience. The 1774 Fairfax Resolves articulated this idea with profound clarity in Resolve #6, stating that “taxation and representation are in their nature inseparable” and that the right to withhold money is the “only effectual security to a free people against the encroachments of despotism and tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson sharpened this point with theological precision, stating:
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and of hordes of whores is sinful and tyrannical.
When a government funds its own tyrannical actions with the stolen wealth of its citizens, the covenant is broken.
These four conditions establish a clear, principled basis for evaluating governmental legitimacy, leading to the final validation found in scripture.
4.0 Divine Sanction for Secession
Beyond meeting the conditions of this ethical framework, the act of seceding from a tyrannical government can receive direct divine sanction. The separation of the ten tribes of Israel from Rehoboam was not merely a political act; it was an event ordained by God Himself.
Scripture provides explicit evidence for this. First, describing Rehoboam’s tyrannical decision, the Bible states, “…the cause was from the LORD” (1 Kings 12:15). God used the king’s arrogance to bring about a predetermined outcome. Second, when Rehoboam assembled an army to forcibly reclaim the seceded kingdom, God sent a prophet with a direct command: “You shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren… for this thing is from me” (1 Kings 12:24). God explicitly claimed authorship of the secession and forbade any attempt to reverse it by force.
Furthermore, the term “rebelled” used in 1 Kings 12:19 to describe Israel’s action requires careful interpretation. The root word literally means “to step away” or “march away.” This aligns perfectly with the definition of secession as a formal, organized withdrawal rather than a chaotic uprising.
Ultimately, God may use the wickedness, stubbornness, and foolishness of rulers to bring about a separation of His people from a government that has become tyrannical and illegitimate.
5.0 Conclusion: The Strategic Imperative for a Righteous Foundation
This analysis has established that a government’s legitimacy is conditional, resting upon its faithful adherence to its covenantal duties to rule justly, for the good of the people, and by their consent. When a government becomes tyrannical, consistently violates its covenant, rules by force, and funds its despotism with the people’s wealth, secession becomes a biblically and constitutionally justifiable course of action.
However, a crucial strategic warning must be issued: secession is a means, not an end. It is imperative that those who withdraw from one union do not “trade a bad for a worse” by replacing one humanistic, tyrannical government with another.
The history of Israel provides a cautionary tale. The people rightly seceded from the tyrant Rehoboam, but they immediately made the idolater Jeroboam their king. They escaped one form of ungodliness only to embrace another, failing to establish a better, more righteous society. This demonstrates that simply changing rulers is insufficient.
Any new government established after an act of secession must be built upon the enduring foundation of divine law to secure true and lasting liberty. To do otherwise is to guarantee an eventual return to servitude. As the early American leader John Winthrop observed, humanity faces a stark choice:
Men… must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet.