Texas Governor Abbot’s Statement and Covenantal Political Theory

27 January 2024

 There is currently a standoff between the Federal government of the United States and the state government of Texas. Because the Federal government purposefully refuses to protect the country’s borders and the American people, the state of Texas has taken matters into its own hands by putting up additional border fences with razor wire in order to enforce the immigration laws of the land so as to protect the livelihoods and property of the citizens of Texas threatened by the ongoing invasion from the south. Furthermore, despite the Supreme Court ruling that Texas should allow Federal border patrol agents to take down the razor wire, Texas has refused to grant Federal agents access to these border areas.

In his statement, Texas governor Abbot highlights the fact that the Federal government has broken its compact (or covenant/pactum) with the state and the people of Texas and as such he as governor of Texas has a duty to protect his people against the “unprecedented harm [inflicted] on the People all across the United States” by the diabolical actions of the Federal government.

Abbot appeals to founding fathers such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton who, like most founding fathers were greatly influenced by the Federalist or Covenantal theory of politics embodied in the writings of Althusius as well as famous works such as Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579). Indeed, a study of the sources clearly indicate that Abbot’s actions are firmly in line with classical Protestant political theory. Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, in highlighting the covenantal principle that the parts constitute the whole and that the whole is dependent upon the parts and not vice versa, notes that 

If an official or an emperor or a king acts rebelliously against the authority [of God] over him, then he ought not to be obeyed, regardless of the authority he may have exercised previously. If he were to come to our city we would arrest him to be handed over, as he would have to be resisted ... If one were to object, claiming that “cities belong to princes, and therefore it would be unlawful to refuse the prince entry into the city,” I would counter by pointing out that cities do not consist of bricks, but of peoples, and every people belongs to God, to whom they owe loyalty above anyone else, even more than the king. Kings certainly have the right to call cities to arms when needed, but the city itself belongs to its citizens.1 

The Pactum Institute applauds governor Abbot and the state of Texas for acting in the interest of the Texan people, but also in accordance with the historic and biblical principles of Christian political theory. However, it must be remembered that if recent history is anything to go by, the Federal government, with the aid of the Supreme Court, will eventually get their way, and even if Texas were to hold firm in this particular instance, the globalist forces in Washington will simply keep pushing their agenda. Ultimately, therefore, given the fact that governer Abbot himself has rightly noted that the Federal government has long exhibited an open disregard for their covenant with the states, the only long-term solution is ultimately secession from the Federal government. 

1 Itaque ut Vice Rege, adyersus Imperatotem Regemve suum coniuranti, quantumvis magnam ante authoritatem accepisset, si in urbe nostra obsessum dedi posceret, paredum non foret, imo exipsa fidelitatis formula omni modo resistendum ... dices tu forte: Verum urbes ad Principem pertinent, itaque aditum iure denegare non possis. At, ipquam ego, urbes non consistunt in lapidum coaceruatione, fed in Populo. Populus vero, eft Populus Dei, qui deo primum, dein Regi tenetur. Quantum vero ad ipsas urbe pertinet, etsi ad Reges urbium potestas, ad municipes tamen pertinet dominium.