Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

662 Words2 Pages

In Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 essay, Civil Disobedience, he argues the necessity of resistance to an unintentional evil, a political organization of the free, who of which are free to own slaves. In the essay, Thoreau stated that the best government is one that doesn’t governs at all. In a free society, a government is meant to protect its citizens from any blockade that prevents its citizens from equality among men. Without equality, and a government that acts in favor of removing the socio political disadvantages of the minority, beneficial change is destined to fail. An effective government is free society once it allows all of its citizens an equal chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So in a truly free society, there would be no need for any sort of resistance. So if there is any form of oppression instituted by a political organization that is met with resistance by any portion of the population, the only impact it could have on a free society would be positive since a free society …show more content…

In a statement made by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience, he states that “...when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say let us not have a machine any longer.” By this he means to remove those in power, not by force, but through votes. Within the past years, we have seen many brave individuals risk their freedoms in attempt to protect us from the damaging actions that could be taken against our environment such as, among most, the protesting of the Keystone Pipeline. It is our job to be aware of the legal corruption that allows companies to buy legislators that will vote against the environment in which we live and through the ultimate act of civil disobedience, it is our job to inform those who are

Open Document