First Kings 12:13-15 says, "And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him; And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat"
And then in verse twenty,
"And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only."
So when God established the nation of Israel, the nation was divided into twelve tribes, much like in the early days of this nation, our country was divided into thirteen colonies. Israel was divided into twelve tribes, and of course Israel had a king, who was Solomon, and Solomon died and his son Rehoboam became king.
When Solomon died and Rehoboam became king, the first thing he did was bring in two groups of advisers. "Okay, now I am king. The people are complaining. Apparently they don't like some of the policies of my father. What should I do?" Well, the old men of the nation, the elders of Israel, they advised Rehoboam and said, "Rehoboam, your dad toward the latter years of his life was a little hard on the people. He raised the taxes a little too high and his policies were a little oppressive. What you need to do is lower the taxes, lighten the burden of the people, and the people will love you." So then Rehoboam brought in the young men and asked them, "What should I do?" And they said, "You know, the problem with your dad was that he was too soft. If the people start to complain, you should just come down on them harder. They didn't know how good they had it. What you need to do is raise taxes. You need to draft some of these young men into the Army. You need to be so much harder on these people than your dad ever was, to show them who is king." Well, Rehoboam made the mistake of following the young men instead of the old men, so following the advise of the young men, he overworked the people, he overtaxed the people, he oppressed the people, so eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel voted to impeach Rehoboam as king. Those eleven tribes, what they did was to impeach Rehoboam as king and chose to elect in his place Jeroboam, son of Nebat. However, there was one tribe of those twelve tribes, Judah, liked Rehoboam and said, "The throne has to be occupied by a son or descendent of David, and Jeroboam is the son of Nebat, Rehoboam is the son of Solomon. The throne is Rehoboam's by right, so we will continue to recognize Rehoboam as king."
So the tribe of Judah seceded from the nation of Israel. Jeroboam was the king of Israel and Rehoboam was the king of the new nation that was formed, the nation of Judah. Now Jerusalem, the capitol of Israel, just happened to be located in that territorial body, that area of plane that belonged to the tribe of Judah. So when Judah became a separate and independent nation, when Judah seceded from Israel, did the other eleven tribes of the nation of Israel send an Army into Judah to invade Judah and say, "No, you cannot leave our union. Our capitol is in your state or tribe and we have to have it. You are just going to have to tow the line to save the union"? No. That did not happen at all. Instead, what did the nation of Israel do? Jeroboam built a new capitol for Israel in Secham and then Penuel. So he built them and they became the capitol, and then he built another capitol and moved it, then finally a new seat of worship was built in Bethel and the seat of national power in Israel and it became the final capitol of the nation of Israel, while Jerusalem remained the capitol of this new nation of Judah.
For those who have attended church or heard a preacher preach about the northern kingdom of Israel or the southern kingdom, that is why they refer to that, because there was a secession movement and there was a successful secession movement in the Bible. But not only did this secession take place in the Bible, and there were a lot of things that are in the Bible that were not ordained of God and were sinful, but in this particular case, this secession of Judah from the nation of Israel, First Kings 12:24 says that it was done"according to the word of the LORD."
Back in First Kings 11:31-32, it says,"for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel"
So not only the secession Scriptural, but God had actually willed this secession and God had actually given secession as a recourse to His people as a means to regress grievances of a tyrannical government.
So we come to the question, is secession lawful? So the answer I am giving you is yes, and the reason I am going to give is not the reason you are going to expect.
James 4:12 says,"There is one lawgiver," and according to Isaiah 33:22, that one lawgiver is God. So God gives the law, so it is impossible for man to create law. This will go against everything you have probably ever learned in your entire life in government classes, but according to the Bible, the job of the Congress of the United States is not to create law. Laws cannot be created by Congress. They cannot be created by Knesset, parliament, polit-bureaus, city councils, because there is one lawgiver, and that is God. In fact, God ordained government according to Romans chapter thirteen. It was God who ordained government. According to Romans chapter thirteen, it was God who ordained government, so the only thing that the governments of man can do, they cannot pass law, they cannot create laws, because the law has already been given. The law was given and written down thousands of years ago. All they can do, according as God has ordained the purposes on it, is codify the law, which God has already given. So if one of the governments of the world passes a law, they do something more than the codification of the law that has already been given by God, then guess what? According to Scripture it is not a law. It can be an ordinance. It can be a statute. But it is not a law. So was the secession lawful? Yes. Why? Because the law was given by God and in the law given by God, secession was given as a means for addressing grievances against a tyrannical government.
So the next question is this: how does all that relate to the secession of the southern states in 1861? Well, the southern states seceded and the subsequent war of aggression commencing lasted eighty years after the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and most of the leaders of the Southern Confederacy had fathers who had fought in the Revolution. So how was the United States formed? You know the story. King George III of England was a tyrant. And when the grievances of the people against him and the English government in general became so great, they determined they could no longer bear the oppression of the tyranny of the Continental Congress, which was the body elected by the people of the Colony as their representatives, the Continental Congress met and several solutions were proposed. The only problem was, they had exhausted all the proposed solutions. They tried petitions. They tried protests. They tried resolutions. They tried sending delegations across the water to England, and none of them worked. Then finally, in the midst of one of the meetings, one of the congressmen picked up a Bible (I know, a radical thought of Congress picking up a Bible), opened it up and read First Kings chapters eleven and twelve, and proposed that the thirteen colonies of the American continent secede from the British crown.
So then the question came up about the legality of secession, the legality of doing such a thing, according to the English "law." And of course, that debate continued for the next several weeks and months, and the founding fathers made some startling conclusions. First of all, they came to the conclusion that secession was ordained by God and the means by which God gave His people to free themselves from a tyrannical and oppressive king who was much less their own king. Secondly, they came to the conclusion that since God ordained secession and gave it to His people, it must be a good thing. Thirdly, they came to the conclusion as I have mentioned earlier, that there is but one lawgiver, and that is God, so therefore the law is ultimately determined by God. So the founding fathers came to the conclusion that it didn't matter what the English law had to say on the subject, because they were subject to a far higher law than the law of the king of England, and that is why throughout the writings of the founding fathers, you will see an appeal to the natural law, or the higher law of God. Finally, the Declaration of Independence was drafted, and the Declaration of Independence does three things. First of all, it stated the grievances of the people against the king. Secondly, it declared the secession of the thirteen colonies from the crown and it cited the law of God as their authority for that secession. Then thirdly, there was the appeal to the God of Heaven to bless their active secession and establish the colonies as separate and independent governments. That voluntary confederacy of states known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and the Declaration of Independence in 1776 is at it states, a secessionist document.
So I am going to ask the question, "How can secession be called un-American, considering it is the very means by which America as a nation was founded?" Here is another question I would like to ask. "Was the Revolutionary secession of 1776 the only secession that ever happened on American soil?" No. And the follow-up question would be, was the southern secession of 1861 the second secession movement to take place on American soil? The answer to that question is again, no.
After the Revolution, the thirteen colonies formed a union of states under a document called the Articles of Confederation, and in order to unite under the Articles of Confederation each of the thirteen colonies had to have a convention in their state, and the people of their representatives assembled in conventions. Each of the thirteen states or colonies had an election, and one-by-one, they individually ratified the Articles of Confederation and entered into this confederacy of states, or this United States.
Just a few years later, some proposals were made by the Federal Congress to make drastic changes to the Articles of Confederation, and the changes were so drastic that the Congress finally decided that the changes were beyond amendment, therefore what they needed to do was to crash the Articles of Confederation and write a whole new document. Well that created a problem. The Articles of Confederation were set aside and a new document was written, and that document was the Constitution of the United States of America. But the problem was this; the states were united in compact under the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, each of the states, having just finished their convention to ratify the Articles of Confederation, they had to call a new convention and the people of the states had to reassemble, bring the matter back up to debate and to vote, then they each individually had to vote to secede from the United States as formed under the Articles of Confederation. Then when all the states had successfully seceded from the Articles of Confederation, they then had to have yet another set of conventions and state-by-state, they ratified the Constitution and one-by-one, they reformed a new union under the Constitution of the United States.
Now that union formed under the Constitution of the United States was originally called the thirteen United States of America. Of course, the number is more than thirteen now, but you will notice that phrase "United" does not say consolidated states of America. In other words, thirteen separate states did not consolidate into one big state. But they are still United States, in other words, separate bodies, more than one entity all formed together under one loose umbrella, but yet still separate states, yet United States. And that word "states" is in the plural. You will notice it is not United State, singular. It is not one big government, but rather United States, plural. That term United States is a plural noun, therefore if you are going to use it in a sentence and be grammatically correct, you would have to say, "the United States are..." not "the United States is..." If you will read old textbooks, you will find they always say, "the United States are," and when you use the word "are," you are obviously recognizing the plural noun and the fact that there are more than one state and each state had its own individual capacity. When you say, "the United States is," not only are you grammatically incorrect, but you are implying of course that there is just one big conglomeration and one big body, but that would not be United States. It would be United State. But notice that they formed thirteen independent and sovereign states, and the sovereignty of those states was not given up when they ratified the Constitution. In fact, just the opposite happened. You see, then the states ratified the Constitution, each state reserved for themselves in their ratification document the right to secede from the Constitution, should they ever find it necessary. There was a reason for that, and that was because the Articles of Confederation had this phrase in it that said the Union should be perpetual; in other words, it would never end but keep going. The founding fathers said that was no good, because obviously they had all seceded from this thing and had to abolish it and not put themselves in that position in the future. So number one, they never used the phrase "perpetual union," in the Constitution. Lincoln used that phrase, perpetual union. Other radical Republicans used that phrase, but it didn't come from the Constitution. It came from the Articles of Confederation, and apparently each individual state had no problem from seceding, even from the perpetual union of the Articles of Confederation. But they put no such word in the new Constitution about a perpetual union, and further, to take it a step further, each state put a clause in its document, ratifying the Constitution, saying, "We are ratifying this, but we can withdraw from it at any time, if we see fit."
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, "It is certainly true that the state legislators, by forbearing the appointment of senators may destroy the national government." So Alexander Hamilton recognized that there was a need possible for states to secede. Also, if you will read the ratification document that was given by the state of New York, when they ratified the Constitution, they said in their ratification statement, "The powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it should become necessary to their happiness, that every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or the department of government thereof, remains to the people of the several states or their respective state government to whom they may have granted the same." On other words, New York was saying, "We are entering into this Constitution, but we can pull out of it at any time." If the people aren't satisfied that it works for them anymore, if this government should not work for me under this Constitution and should overstep its bounds and oppress the people of our state, they can exercise their right to get out just like they got in.
Patrick Henry said this, as they were ratifying the Virginia ratification of the Constitution. "The powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted through injury or oppression, and every power thereby not granted remains with them and after their will." In other words, he said the people of Virginia are ratifying the Constitution, but reserve the right to "get off the ship" any time they want to.
Ultimately of course, when the Constitution took its final form, the Bill of Rights was attached and the tenth amendment clearly reserved the right of secession to the states respectively.
Let me throw out another question. Was the southern secession of 1861 the third secession movement that took place on America soil? No, it wasn't. In 1803, 1807, 1814 and in 1844 and 1845, New England states actually held secession conventions. At one point in the New England states, such as Massachusetts, wanted to secede over the Louisiana Purchase. Then again they wanted to secede over the admission of Louisiana into the Union as an actual state and not a territory. The state of Massachusetts, what they said in their secession document at that time was that they were not going to be in union with pagan Creoles and half-breeds. In 1844 and 1845, there was another secession movement and there was the Hartford convention and several of the New England states got together at that time and they had a convention to set before them a separate Union. During all of that, at no time did the southern states or any of any of the non-seceding states ever say that what they were doing was unconstitutional. They never said what they were doing was treasonous or traitorous. They simply accepted the fact, although they may have disagreed with the reasoning, that these states were exercising their rights under the law of God and under the Constitution.
In 1848, Abraham Lincoln stood on the floor of Congress and acknowledged the right of Texas to secede from Mexico. At that time, the United States Congress also formerly recognized the secession of Texas from Mexico. So when the southern states seceded in 1861, they had every reason to believe that what they were doing was Biblical, lawfully and Constitutional. So when a number of southern states seceded in 1861 and Lincoln and the Republican party went to war to prevent that secession, that forced unity of the states if you will, basically what Lincoln did was to set the Constitution aside and accepted the unity of the states over and above the Constitution, and literally committed an action that turned him in opposition to the principles of the founding fathers of this country.
Secession was even taught at West Point. Most of all the southern generals were educated at the United States Military Academy of West Point, and from 1825 onward, the textbook that was used in the constitutional law class taught at West Point was written by William Rawl of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A Yankee had written the book, and the book was titled, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. And guess what Rawl, a Yankee from Philadelphia and a Philadelphia lawyer taught in the textbook that was used at West Point to teach Constitutional law. He said, "The people may on the same principle at any time alter or abolish the Constitution they have formed." He went on to say, "To deny this right of secession from the Union would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded, which is, the people in all cases have a right to determine how they will be governed." He also said, "The secession of the states from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, have the power to alter their Constitution. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place in that even. But in either case, the people are the only moving power." In other words, in clear, unmistakable language of Mr. Rawl in his textbook on the American Constitution that was used at West Point, taught his readers that the state has the right to secede from the Union.
Now there are some Yankee historians who will say, "Ah, that textbook was only used for a couple of years at West Point," but that simply is not true. A General made the following statement about Rawl's textbook. "My recollection is that Rawl's view of the Constitution was the legal textbook at West Point when Generals Lee, Joseph E. Johnson and Stonewall Jackson were cadets there, and later on was the textbook when I was a cadet there." The use of Rawl's book continued at West Point until 1886, when it was replaced by T. M. Cooley with The General Principle of Constitutional Law in the United States. In other words, West Point continued to teach its military cadets that secession was a Constitutional right, not only up until the time of the war, but for another twenty-one years after Appomattox. There was a process of secession. Rawl, in his textbook not only did he say that secession was constitutional, but he also said there was a process to be taken by the state to secede from the Union. He said, "Just as there was a process of ratifying the Constitution by each state, each state would form a convention of the people of their elected representatives, and in their convention, they would secede in the same manner that they entered into the Union," and that is exactly how each of the southern states seceded from the Union, according to the formula that was outlined in Rawl's textbook, and in according to the same message they used to get into the Union to begin with.
You look at the history of Texas, listed under January 28, 1861, in referring to Sam Houston, it says, "Houston's views however carried little weight among the secessionists in the state, who were clearly in the majority, but by refusing to call the legislature into session, the increasingly unpopular Houston temporarily blocked the opponents from any official action. The secessionists countered Houston's maneuvers by calling on the people from Texas to elect delegates to the secession convention to meet in Austin. Their purpose was to consider what action Texas should take on the secessionist issue in light of the recent sequence of events and the result of a total of 177 delegates were elected, representing two members for almost every county. The convention met on January 28, 1861. Four days later, on February 1st, its members voted by a margin of 166 to 8 to secede. They drafted and signed an Ordinance of Secession, which was repealed and annulled the Texas annexation laws of 1845. The ordinance of succession was subsequently approved by a popular vote in a state-wide election." So how did Texas secede? The people of each individual county held election and they elected two representatives to go to a convention. Once the convention was convened, the delegates who were elected by the people to go to the convention, they debated things back and forth, and they finally drafted the document of secession, or as it was called, the Ordinance of Secession, and then that ordinance was put up for a statewide voter referendum and every qualified voter in the state of Texas went to a ballot back somewhere or either voted yes or no. So the decision of the secession was literally made by the people of Texas. It wasn't made by politicians in a smoke filled room. It wasn't made in the Governor's office somewhere. It wasn't made in the back room of a meeting of the unknown power elite of the state, but literally the people of the state of Texas held a statewide election and voted yes or no for secession. And each of the other southern states seceded in exactly the same way. This secession was not made suddenly and it was not done in secret. You see, one full year before the southern states seceded, the following appeared in the New York Times. The answer of the New York Times, the Yankee newspaper said, "We agree with Jefferson in the rights of community to alter and abolish forms of government that have become oppressive and injurious. And if the cotton state should decide they could do better by going out of the Union than by staying in it, we should insist in letting them go in peace." The right to secede may be a revolutionary right, but it exists nonetheless. So at least one full year before the first state seceded, apparently there was enough talk about it around the country that the editor of the New York Times decided it was appropriate for him to comment on the subject and of course what he said was that he did not think it was wise for the southern states to secede, but it was their right to do so, and if they chose to exercise their right, well, then may they go in peace.
The Confederate money that was used by the Confederate government was printed in New York City over a year before the first state seceded from the Union. The uniforms that were originally used by the Confederate Army were originally manufactured in Pennsylvania, over a year before the first southern state seceded, and they were made in the exact same factory that made the uniform for the United States Army and they were identical, except for the color.
When secession finally came, Jefferson Davis gave a speech on the floor of the Senate, announcing the secession of Mississippi. No one stood up to declare him a traitor. He was not arrested. In fact, after the speech, he lingered in the chamber, he shook hands, he hugged friends and told Lincoln goodbye. Then he made his way home, totally un-accosted. It would be some time before Lincoln would raise an Army and actually invade the southern states. So secession was Biblical and God ordained. It was a means God gave to His people in aggressive resistance against a tyrannical government.
The founding fathers exercised that right against King George of England, and that is how the American nation was born. Of course, various states at various times attempted to secede from that Union. In any case, they at least held conventions to do so, and when that happened, none of the other states rose up and said, "You can't do that. That is not legal or that is not constitutional." The right of secession was always right and always acknowledged. In fact, it was even taught in the United States Military Academy.
When the southern states began to talk of secession, they didn't do it in a closet. They didn't do it in secret. It didn't sneak up on anyone. The whole world saw it coming long before it did, and during the whole time they were talking about it, no one was rising up and saying, "Hey, you can't do that!" In fact, I'll tell you that the only mistake that the southern states made in their secession was this. When they were talking about secession, they weren't listening to the Republicans, because were the Republicans of the time, when the Confederate uniforms were being made, were the Republicans saying, "We are not going to let them do that"? No. Were the Republicans at the time when the Confederate money was being printed in New York, were they saying, "That is not constitutional. We need to maintain the Union"? No. Let me tell you what the Yankees were saying. Let me tell you what the Republican leadership was saying while the southern states were discussing secession. Wendell Phillips, one of the founders of the Republican Party, said this, and it was before the war, "The Constitution of our fathers was a mistake. Tear it to pieces. Our aim is this Union breaking up the states. Ours is the first sectional party ever organized in the country. It does not know its own fate. It calls itself national, but it is not national. It is sectional. The Republican Party is the Party of the north, pledged against the south." At another time before the war, he wrote in a newspaper article, "The Republican Party is in no sense a national party. It is a party pledged to work for the downfall of democracy, the downfall of the Union and the destruction of the United States Constitution. The religious creed of the party is hatred of democracy, hatred of the Union, hatred of the Constitution and hatred of the southern people."
In another article, Phillips wrote, "The Republican Party is the first sectional party ever organized in this country. It does not know its own fate. It calls itself national, but it is sectional. It is the party of the north pledged against the south. It was organized with the hatred of the Constitution. The Republican Party that elected Abraham Lincoln is pledged to the downfall of the Union and to the destruction of the United States."
Wendell Phillips again wrote in another article. "The Republican Party is the party of the north, pledged against the south. I have labored nineteen years to take fifteen states out of the Union, and if I have spent nineteen years to the satisfaction of my Puritan conscience, it was those nineteen years." In other words, what did Wendell Phillips say? "We are organizing this Republican Party to kick those southerners out of our Union." At the very time the southerners were talking secession, the Yankees were talking about kicking them out anyway.
At another time, Phillips wrote, "The Union and the Constitution should have never existed, at which all laws of humanity should be in their presence once and forever overthrown."
Another founder of the Republican Party was William Lloyd Garretson. And before the war, he was also president of the anti-slavery league. He was doing the circuit in the northern states, preaching exactly the same message. In fact, in one speech, he said, "The Union is a lie. The American Union is an imposition, a covenant with death and in agreement with Hell. I enforce overthrow. Up with the flag of this Union that we may have a free and glorious Republic of our own." In other words, kick those southerners out and let's start a new country without them.
During another speech, Garretson actually burned a copy of the Constitution and declared that it was a compact with death and a league with Hell. The newspaper, The Liberator, of which Garretson was editor, he wrote, "I say again, in proportion to the growth of this Union will be the growth of the Republican Party. The Union is a lie. The American Union is an imposter, a covenant with death and in agreement with Hell. I am for its overthrow. Up with this flag of this Union that we may have a free and glorious Union of our own."
There was another Republican by the name of Thaddeus Stevens, a member of Congress, who said, "The Union as it is and the Constitution as it is, God forbid it." The Republican Governor of New York, on August 6, 1860, well before the first state seceded said, "The Republican Party is a conspiracy under the form but in violation of the spirit of the Constitution." What were they conspiring to do? They were conspiring to break up the Union. They weren't hiding that fact. They were saying it. "Up with the flag of this Union."
May 15, 1857, there was a Republican meeting in New York. The speaker was a Unitarian minister, Reverend Andrew G. Forbes, and this is what he said: "There has never been an hour when this blasphemous and infamous Union should have been ever made. And now the hour must be prayed for when it shall be dashed to pieces forever. I hate the Union."
Republican Senator, Charles Sumner from Boston, wrote a pamphlet just before the war broke out, and this is what he said: "How dare anyone pray for the preservation of that sin and shame, the Union. The unity of the states is a crime. May the sun wither that prayed for the preservation of that festering shame, the Union."
Before the first southern state ever seceded, before the firth southern state ever had a convention, before Abraham Lincoln was ever nominated as President under the Republican ticket, the Republican Party in 1860 held their convention in Boston, Massachusetts, and they adopted their platform. Do you want to know what was they were trying for under the Republican platform of 1860, the platform under which Abraham Lincoln ran for President? "We seek a dissolution of the Union and resolve that we do hereby declare ourselves the enemies of the Constitution of the Union and of the government of the United States and resolve that we proclaim it as our unalterable purpose the determination to live and linger for the dissolution of the present Union." In other words, the radicals in the Republican Party, they literally had a campaign platform under which Lincoln wrote, and under which he ran in 1860, and they said, "We are going to dissolve the American Union, and we are going to kick the cotton states, the southern states or the slave holding states out. We don't want to be in the same country with them anymore. And if we can win this Presidential election and get enough of our people in Congress, this is what we are going to do. We are going to kick them out." Well guess what folks? The Republicans won the election. They got Mr. Lincoln in the Whitehouse. They got their people in Congress. So what was the mistake of the southern leaders in their secession? It was simply this. They got out too soon. They should have just waited and let the Yankees kick them out. I honestly believe that if the southern states had waited, they would not have had to secede. I believe the Yankees would have kicked them out of the Union and there wouldn't have been a war, because when they left the Union, of course there were some war mongers in the north who, in order to maintain that perpetual union and everything, they justified the invasion of the south. They could not have done that had they been the ones to kick the south out. So rather than wait for the southern leaders to blame, they wanted to kick them outside the league. Of course, that hurt the pride of the Yankees. They said, "Hey, wait a second! You can't leave. We haven't kicked you out yet. No one leaves us." So they went out and fought. You see, the southern leaders should have just humbled themselves, took the bullet and waited to be humiliated. Everything would have been okay.
What is the conclusion of all of this? I know, you all want to have a business meeting. I've pastured Baptist churches and been a Baptist preacher for fifteen years now, and I know that Baptists would much rather have a business meeting than to hear a sermon. So I'm sure you are all the same way. What is the conclusion of the matter? Historians of course as early as 1857 said, "I will stress that this war was not waged by the north to preserve the Union or to maintain Republican institution, but to destroy both. It will be seen as the war changes, the entire character and system of our government the overthrow of the states and the rights of the government against the wishes of the people." And that is truly what happened. The whole fate and character of this nation was changed, because the truth of the matter is, as I've said before, secession was Biblical. Secession was given of God. Secession was the means by which the United States of America was formed. And secession was the right to preserve the particular or the individual states of that Union. So when the right of secession was denied the states, and the states basically allowed the Federal Government to forbid their exercise of the right of secession, in giving up that right by default, they gave up all their other rights and their sovereignty as well. So in essence, the result of the war and the failed effort of the secession was the fact that states rights perhaps have forever died in this country.
Did the southern cause ever receive any vindication? Did the right of secession receive any vindication? Yes it did. Jefferson Davis was of course a recluse and traitor after the war. He was imprisoned in a fortress in Monroe. He begged and pleaded for his day in court. He wanted to make his case before all the other southern leaders, at least before most of them. He had taken the royalty oath and had accepted the amnesty. He said, "I am not going to accept a pardon. I'm not going to accept amnesty, because I committed no crime." They in essence said, "Well, we beg to differ, so if you won't accept a pardon, we will throw you in jail," and Jefferson Davis said, "That's fine, but we are still under the American system. I'm innocent until proven guilty and I will be looking forward to my day in court." And the Yankees thought, "No, we are not going to allow him his day in court, because legally, he is right. God forbid some judge might actually rule according to the law. Then the southern states might want to secede all over again and we won't be able to justify war the second time around." So what did they do at that point? They just decided to free Jefferson Davis from jail without a trial. So that was the great factor. The Yankees wouldn't take their position into a court of law, with justification for the southern cause and secession. But the United States Congress, several years later in March 2, 1928, they did even better. They passed secession resolution number forty-one, which said, "A war was waged from 1861 to 1865 between two organized governments, the United States of America and the Confederate States of America." These were the official titles of the contending parties. It was not a civil war, as it was not fought between two parties within the same government. It was not a war of secession, for the southern states seceded without a thought of war. The right of the states to secede has never been questioned. It was not a rebellion, for sovereign, independent states, co-equal, and cannot rebel against each other. It was a war between the states, because twenty-two non-seceding states made war upon eleven seceding states to force them back into the Union of States.
So finally, all those years later, in 1928, even the United States Congress came around and said, "You know what? Those southerners were right. They did have the right to secede. Hey guys, we are sorry." It finally happened.
We talked about the secession of Judah from Israel. You know, there were parties of the north that opposed Lincoln's war and of course their whole point was that the southern states did have the right to secede if they wanted to. That was their right. If you don't agree with them, that is terrible, but that is their right and they can decide it. We have no business going down there and invading their states to force them into not exercising their right that they certainly have.
Do you know what one of the Biblical justifications was of those who supported the southern secession from the northerners was? Not only did First Kings chapter eleven and twelve come before the Continental Congress when they decided to secede from Great Britain, once again those two great chapters of the Bible came into the halls of the Unite States Congress and they said, "Wait a second, Israel didn't invade Judah when they seceded." And of course, as time has gone on, the arguments have been made and books have been written, and it has come to right, this secession was Biblical and Constitutional, and indeed it was right and a noble thing in that situation.
But now for the radical ending. Lincoln's victory in 1865 just marked the end of true Constitutional government in America. In its place he created an American empire that now defines the limits of its own power without serious regard to the Constitution. Formerly free and sovereign states have become little more than administrative provinces of an all powerful central government in Washington, D.C., without the right of secession, which, by the way, the people of the states still possess. We have no remedy for encroaching tyrannies on either a national or global scale. The "New World Order" is, after all, the last result of Lincoln's assault on the south and its guiding principle of state sovereignty. People can truly free without the means of withdrawing from the illicit and deep regime, in the destruction of life, liberty and property. Our forbearers in 1787 and 1788 understood that at some time in the future, there descendents might find it necessary and profitable to dissolve the political bonds of joining the states together in voluntary union. That time came in 1860 and 1861, and indeed, it may be proven again in the twenty-first century, if we are to be a free people.
In other words, "Preacher, what are you telling us?" You all know the age old saying, "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again."
FROM THE EDITOR OF THE BIBLICAL RECORDER
Wednesday I received an eMail from the editor of the Biblical Recorder, the Southern Baptist paper for North Carolina, apologizing for their not having published my response to the attack against Southern heritage by denominational leaders Russel Moore and Al Mohler. He told me the following:
- At the exact time your email arrived in my inbox, I was in the emergency room at a local hospital. Before the day was over I was taken in surgery for an emergency appendectomy. Needless to say, was "out of pocket" for a few weeks.
- Our content editor received your email, but was not comfortable moving ahead with it apart from my permission.
- As you know, on Friday, June 26 the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage dominated the news, so our staff was completely focused on that. Other items took a back seat at the time.
The editor, Allen Blume, tells me that he has recovered about 98% from his surgery. Pray for his continued recovery.
The word is slowly getting out in Southern Baptist circles and those who still honor and cherish our heritage are beginning to speak out.
THIS WEEK IN THE WBTS
Friday - July 17, 1863
It wasn't called Oklahoma yet anyway. The only major battle fought in what was just known as "Indian Territory" took place today. On the Union side was the command of Gen. James G. Blount. His men proceeded to Elk Creek. The Confederates, under the direction of Gen. Douglas H. Cooper, fought bravely for as long as they could, but were finally compelled to withdraw due to a lack of ammunition. Interestingly enough, a good number of the Union troops were black, and a high percentage of the forces in gray were themselves Indians.
Sunday July 17 1864
The long-expected axe fell on the career of Joseph Eggleston Johnston. His tenure as head of the Army (and Department) of Tennessee was officially ended by President Jefferson Davis. Johnston had been in many ways one of the great Confederate generals since the days of First Manassas. But Sherman had been besting him for several months. What had finally sunk Johnston's job was the fateful act of telling the truth to his Commander in Chief: that it was not possible for him to prevent Sherman from taking Atlanta. Davis wrote today that "...as you failed to arrest the advance of the enemy to the vicinity of Atlanta, far in the interior of Georgia, and express no confidence that you can defeat or repel him, you are hereby relieved from command..." Appointed to replace him was Gen. John Bell Hood.
FREE SUTTLERY TENT
And I still have the suttlery wall tent. Still waiting for a taker. Free to a good home if you can pick it up in Ocala, Florida. eMail me if you are interested!
On July 7 the Memphis City Council voted unanimously to exhume the body of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest from its 110 year resting place and move it to another location. They are also offering to sell the Forrest Statue to the highest bidder.
SCALLYWAGS IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE
Below are the names of the 20 Republican members of the South Carolina legislature who voted to remove the Confederate Flag. As you know, this was a close vote. Had just a few of these 20 men and women voted to keep the flag it would still be flying. Here are the Republicans in South Carolina who voted AGAINST the flag:
- Thomas C. Alexander
- Larry A. Martin
- Kevin L. Bryant
- Michael L. Fair
- Ross Turner
- Shane Martin
- Robert W. Hayes, Jr.
- Ronnie W. Cromer
- John E. Courson
- Katrina Frye Shealy
- Tom Young, Jr.
- Greg Hembree
- Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.
- Luke A. Rankin
- Lawrence K. Grooms
- Sean Bennett
- Paul Thurmond
- George E. Campsen III
- Paul G. Campbell, Jr.
- Tom Davis
SECESSION AND THE LAW OF GOD - DVD PRESENTATION
Back about 10 years ago I did a DVD presentation going into great detail on Secession and the Law of God. I will gladly mail a copy to anywhere in the US or Canada for just $10. Click below:
Secession and the Law of God DVD
VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
YES, we are still giving a FREE copy of the Book The Truth About the Confederate Flag to everyone who visits the website - so tell your friends - and your enemies!
Until next week,