Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

Henry David Thoreau, author of “Civil Disobedience”, is arguably the first person who coined that term. It was done as a result of his anger at American slavery and the Mexican war, and called people to commit actions above the law to make changes they deemed necessary. His statement that conscience trumps one’s duty to external authorities is both true and inaccurate. The truth is in that there are necessary situations that require civil disobedience and they have had successful outcomes. The issue with following consciousness is that the results are extremely variable and can make the situation worse. To argue the positive, civil disobedience is always necessary in situations where the issue is in the law or society itself. Particularly,

He states, “But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice…” (Thoreau). His argument is that what the largest majority rules is not, if at all, the moral decision. It is only based on those who are in control and the decisions made are only to the benefit of those making them. This is a strong point in why breaking laws are okay as those making them do not have what’s best for everyone in mind, but only for themselves. The author also explains his own acts of illegality when he had not paid poll-tax and was put in jail as a result of it. He explains,” As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body…” (Thoreau). His own beliefs conquered any acts of the law trying to and crush them as they were extremely strong and he understood the necessity of them against the injustices of his home. Henry David Thoreau practiced what he preached, and made the argument of the issues in the legal system that proved that one had the moral obligation to fight against anything that went against their

It is something that is extremely variable as its results are not always predictable, and it is possible that civil disobedience will worsen the cause. During the inauguration of Donald Trump, there were a series of riots to protest his election. While their cause was against the negative qualities of Trump, such as his racist, sexist remarks, the protests did not do much. They only caused thousands of dollars in property damage as during these riots it was common to deface public property, and caused aspersions from immutable citizens who did not agree with their actions. Their actions also tended to undermine the fact that civil disobedience is supposed to be peaceful, and there was violence against property and other people. Also, the leaders of the causes being run have to be great; however, this is not always the case. Not everyone can be a Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. For example, John Brown was a man outraged by slavery and with his megalomania contrived a way to change it in a horrifying, bizzare way. With his heart in the right place to eradicate it, he went out and slaughtered slavery supporters in an extremely heinous way; he used machetes. This was an extremely violent action and deemed too harsh. He led his followers into the situation with him as well, and his followers were castigated. This shows the negatives of following morals above law as they are not always the right actions to