To justify violent resistance to the laws,
it is not enough that the government is unjust and its laws
unrighteous; it is necessary also, that there should be no good
ground to hope for a cessation of that unrighteousness in some
peaceful way, and that there should be a prospect of some good to be
gained by the resistance, which good shall be worth more than all
the labor, and treasure, and strife, and blood, which the revolution
shall cost. Let it be carefully remembered, too, that violent
resistance on any one point is rebellion on every point, for "he
that offendeth in one point is guilty of all:" such resistance is
opposition by force to one entire government--is just a conflict
with the powers that be; so that any resisting individual or number
of individuals who commence a violent resistance on any one point,
have cast off their allegiance to the entire government, and stand
in the attitude of open and hostile rebellion.
It may not be an easy thing to settle the right of rebellion--to
determine the question, when a people have a right forcibly to
resist the execution of regularly enacted Law. But we _can_ tell
_something_ about it. There are some things perfectly clear on this
point.
1. To justify rebellion, (or what is the same thing, forcible
resistance of the laws,) a government must be so bad, as to fail
manifestly of its just end, that is, to promote the happiness of the
people.
Pages:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26