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. If it does promote that general happiness, it answers the
just end of government--it is a good government, and ought not to be
overthrown.

2. To justify rebellion, the injustice or failure of a government
must be so great, that it cannot be endured,--so great, that it will
manifestly be better on the whole, to run all the risks of a bloody
conflict, of civil war, than to endure the execution of the
governmental laws.

3. To justify rebellion, there must be little or no prospect that
the government can be peaceably altered, as ours may be, or that the
injustice or oppression of the government can be made to cease by
any peaceable means. Violence against government, rebellion, civil
war, are no small matters. They bring horrid evils along with them.
The injury of government must be very great to justify the
introduction of such evils; and if the injury can be made to cease,
by any peaceable means and within any reasonable time, it would be
better to bear the injury for a while, than to involve the nation in
confusion and blood, with uncertainty as to _the result_.--The last