Escaping Tyranny

In Nullifying Tyranny the Kennedy brothers spend some time on the idea of “consent of the governed.” I never spent a lot of time thinking about that before. I always pinned it generally to democracy as opposed to monarchy, but the Kennedys go farther, and rightfully so.

They point to John Locke, Patrick Henry, and James Madison, all of whom argued that liberty takes precedence over government. As the Kennedys note, Locke argued that “when faced with a government that has overstepped its legitimately entrusted power, people of a sovereign community have a duty to withdraw from that threatening community.”

Locke feels that “the right of a people to withdraw from a threatening government, i.e., to secede, is a simple act of self-protection and of preservation of unalienable rights” (NT). he wrote, "Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it."

Is it not constitutional that, if a sovereign state of states, a republic of republics (a phrase the Kennedys use and one I like for its accuracy) feels threatened, and does not consent to continued governance by a threatening government, the sovereign state has the right to remove consent and remove itself from the threat to liberty?

Do you see why Abraham Lincoln was wrong? Do you see why the south was right?