In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau makes two large claims. He starts by saying that he believes the government should do less, decrease itself to allow the people to prevail. He moves on to say that it is the responsibility of the people to know what government works for themselves and to enact the change to get it. In the world Thoreau lived in, these claims were valid and held deep meaning to the signs of that time, however, they do not remain true today. Thoreau bases his claim on the lessening of government on the belief that the people are the ones allowing and creating this change. The people are the ones building education the country's youth, expanding Westward, and all the other of claimed accomplishments. Thoreau is technically correct in saying that, being that government is not anyone single, entity which can accomplish such things but also correct in theory; had citizens not agreed with the government's wishes, they did not need to follow its command, just how Americans disobeyed British rule and created that same government. It was never meant to be a commanding for; it is the will an expression of the people. Thoreau is …show more content…
The government has evolved how to essentially work for people, with social programs enacted after Thoreau’s time. Things such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and unemployment programs all support the American citizens to promote citizens progressing society. Rather than take credit and claim progress, the government now supports citizens and encourages them to make their own progress. Other government actions such as the Equal Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 19th Amendment have shown the government's participation in allowing citizens to progress societally as well. For these reasons Thoreau’s claim, while relevant at the time it was written, has been outgrown in terms of American
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience took the original idea of transcendentalism and put it into action. His civil acts of defiance were revolutionary as he endorsed a form of protest that did not incorporate violence or fear. Thoreau’s initial actions involving the protest of many governmental issues, including slavery, landed him in jail as he refused to pay taxes or to run away. Ironically, more than one hundred years later, the same issue of equal rights was tearing the United States apart. Yet African Americans, like Martin Luther King Jr., followed in Thoreau’s footsteps by partaking in acts of civil disobedience. Sit-ins and peaceful rallies drew attention to the issue while keeping it from escalating into a much more violent problem. Thoreau’s ideas were becoming prevalent as they were used by Civil Rights Activists and the Supreme Court, in such cases as Brown v. Board of Education. The ideology that was created by Thoreau aided the activists and the government in their quest for equality and a more just system of law.
As I've studied Henry David Thoreau's essay "Resistance to Civil Government," I've identified the persuasive elements and analyzed a specific portion of the text to create my own argument. In this essay, I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses found throughout both responses through the lens of persuasive analysis in order to prove my ability to utilize rhetorical strategies.
In Thoreau’s view, he felt that the government was insufficient. At times such as these, government may not always be the best way to turn, yet it provides guidelines. This theme in his essay is just another opinion. Justice cannot be fully defined in one sentence by every person. It depends on the background and the experiences one has had.
Many throughout history shared Thoreau’s opinion, especially those who were on the receiving end of the government’s unjust practices. Thoreau felt that a better government was needed and I would argue, that his words are still relevant today. There is always room for the government to improve. Thoreau wanted a government that didn’t just look to the interests of the powerful majority, one in which individuals with consciences lead, instead of a collective power making decisions for the individuals. The people have the right to resist a government that isn’t serving them properly or is treating them unjustly, or is using their funding for immoral causes; in fact, it is the people’s duty to do so, for only through civil disobedience can the people simulate change. Only through a changed government, a better government, will the American people experience true
Thoreau, Henry. "Civil Disobedience." Elements of Argument: A text and Reader. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000.
In his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” often times dubbed, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) argues against abiding by one’s State, in protest to the unjust laws within its government. Among many things, Thoreau was an American author, poet, and philosopher. He was a firm believer in the idea of civil disobedience, the act of refusing to obey certain laws of a government that are felt to be unjust. He opposed the laws regarding slavery, and did not support the Mexican-American war, believing it to be a tactic by the Southerners to spread slavery to the Southwest. To show his lack of support for the American government, he refused to pay his taxes.
According to the American heritage dictionary “Civil Disobedience” is refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau stated “That government is best which governs least, and I would like to see it acted up more rapidly and systematically” (pg227). Thoreau did not believe that the government should have the final say on everything. The citizens of this country should have rights in the decision making process and the opportunity to think for themselves also. Thoreau says that government does not, in fact, achieve that with which we credit it: it does not keep the country free, settle the West, or educate. Rather, these achievements come from the character of the American people, and they would have been even more successful in these endeavors had government been even less involved.
It does not settle in the west. It does not educate. " This defiant tone builds the reader's anger toward a useless government, that as Thoreau says, "is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. " Thoreau's main purpose for writing Civil Disobedience is to promote resistance against the current government system, so it is local that a government that does not help the people, should not have control over the people.
- Thoreau criticizes the idea that government should be obeyed just to preserve the services we enjoy
In this short story Thoreau plays the protagonist as well as a pacifist. He continually reiterates his beliefs of law and conscience. Thoreau believes we have a conscience to determine right and wrong and views the government, at a state level at least, as useless. He gives the reader several examples of things the government does that would be against most conscious decisions. Such as: The listing of accomplishments the “government” made possible, included in this list is the repetition of the word “It” referring to the government. “It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished”(221).
Not only does reality disprove Thoreau’s theology, but his own words contradict him. He proclaimed “the government that governs least is the best,” (Civil Disobedience pg. 222 paragraph 1) and then says that, “We have had to agree on a certain set of rules… to make this frequent meeting tolerable…” (Solitude pg. 95 paragraph 3). His contradiction is evident, what is government but on how the people conduct their meetings, lacking the laws of the government, the society would collapse.
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was a philosopher and writer who is well known for his criticism of the American government during the time. During Thoreau’s life, there were two major issues being debated in the United States: slavery and the Mexican-American War. Both issues greatly influenced his essay, as he actually practiced civil disobedience in his own life by refusing to pay taxes in protest of the Mexican War. He states that the government should be based on conscience and that citizens should refuse to follow the law and has the duty not to participate and stay as a member of an unjust institution like the government. I argue that the notion of individualism and skepticism toward government is essential in the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society.
Thoreau claims the government has failed to bring any development in the country. For instance, it has failed in keeping the country free, has not educated the nation or settled the west. But he claims the American citizens are the one who have done what the nation has accomplished. Thoreau states that he calls for at once better government, but not for at once no government. To get an ideal government according to Thoreau, the citizens should be asked what kind of government that commands their
Henry David Thoreau was an American philosopher lived in 19th century, when young and feeble American society was not powerful as nowadays. His illustrious work called as “Civil disobedience” demonstrated his polar point of view towards unjust government. Objection to pay taxes, protests, follow own conscience are only some of the methods of disobeying. His main point is that any man, who treats himself as a conscience man, should differentiate laws in order to determine which law is right or wrong, and consequently no to obey that unjust law. I mostly agree with this statement, and this essay will show how does he reach such conclusion and will provide arguments for and against to this statement.