It is not a thing to be expected at all among mankind, that all laws
should be right, or "just and equal." Human legislation must be
expected to bear the marks of an imperfection, which attaches itself
to everything human. If obedience to government were obligatory,
only on the condition that all the laws of that government are just;
then, such obedience would mean nothing at all, and every man would
be absolved from all allegiance to the government, and from all
obligations to obey. Such is man, so limited his wisdom and so
imperfect his holiness, that human laws must necessarily be
imperfect, and must, therefore, necessarily operate hardly in some
instances, upon more or less of the people. It is impossible, that
the thing should be otherwise--in the very nature of the case, it is
impossible. And if every individual were allowed to be the judge in
his own case, whether or not the law operated so hardly upon him
that he might disobey; _then_ his _obligation_ to obedience would
mean just nothing at all, and Law would be nothing more to him than
mere advice. It might be very good advice, but he might spurn it, if
he chose. _I_ may think it hard and unjust upon myself, that, in the
great "Empire State," by a sort of "bill of attainder," (I know not
what else to call it,--I suppose I must not call it a _slave law_,)
I am prohibited from holding any "office of profit or trust,"
because I _will preach_ the gospel, and people will hear me;--but
notwithstanding this law, (which you will not allow me to call by
any hard name,) you think me under obligation to obey the
government,--and I think so too. I shall not rebel.

The _execution_ of the Law also, must necessarily be imperfect, for
the same great reason--human imperfection: judges and jurors are not
infallible. But, what then? _God knew all this_ when he ordained