Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

Civil Disobedience

In Henry Thoreau’s essay, “Civil Disobedience”, he argues that the government is drivel. Thoreau is not convinced that the government is a utile source. Even though the government has the strongest group, he argues that it does not mean that their laws are inevitably persuasive or utile. He believes and argues that one needs to prioritize their conscience over the dictates of the law.

Civil disobedience: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government. (Merriam) Henry perceives that if the law is of discretion, then the people should not subside. Henry chose to not participate in such evils, that he even failed to pay his taxes and was jailed for a night. He substantially argues that the United States government fits the profile of an unjust government. He appeals the support of slavery, and practice of war. Thoreau believes that one cannot see government for what it is if

when one is working in it. He has concluded that even form of protest, petitions, and voting has a little result. Thoreau suggest that the government does not win but still receive a boundless amount of credit. Society would be more successful if more citizens were to avoid credit. Thoreau writes; "Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?” He is portraying in this that why should we resign our feelings, and our beliefs to the government. Subsiding our beliefs and molding them to what the government says is what the world has become.
There is no man according to Thoreau. (Biography) Thoreau portrays that voting is a ridicule way of deciding what is best for the government. His complaints conclude that citizens prop up and sit back and let the government decide due to a ranking or a poll. Henry explains that he will subside from wrong doings. He has washed his hands. Society should not be dictated on wrong doings but avoid them. He feels very passionate about this in his essay. "For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once done well is done forever." Thoreau explains that he interacts with America’s government one every 365 days involving taxes. He proclaims that it would cost him less to defy by the law, than to abide by it. He proclaims that if he were to forgo his integrity he would become short of a man.
"I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to break through, before they could get to be as free as I was." He goes in to speaking of experience.

In this statement he is referring to when he was jailed for a night regarding disobedience of paying taxes. To be a “good neighbor” he choses to pay the highway tax. "I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases." He proclaims the need to respect his neighbors because good people are surfaced. Thoreau goes into how he believes that lawyers and legislators because they do not reform. No one with the smarts for legislation has stepped foot on American soil he says. He hopes for a state that is respectful to its citizens, and a state that respects if individuals chose to not abide by the works of the government. He believes that would make a perfect and glorious

state.

As he argues that the government is a rigid atmosphere he officially washed his hands from participation. Thoreau argues that all governments are unjust, but makes specific points of the United States Government. The essay is passionate and very persuasive. His work opens eyes to readers. It can be sensed that Henry truly feels aghast. By his examples, his experiences, and the tone he presents in his essay, concludes a thorough and divine argument.