Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Civil Disobedience
Henry David Thoreau effectively portrays his disagreement with the government. He formally points out and describes the shortcomings of the government of his time; as well as, he describes the so called benefits of the governing body. In his work, Civil Disobedience, even the title speaks out on his position with the government. He provides a very clear stand on his argument and provides very valid points which, to this day, still hold true.
Thoreau starts off his argument by describing the government as “expedient,” but at the same time “inexpedient.” Now, the obvious question is why the word choice? He is targeting the more educated side of society because they are more accustomed to understanding the political woes

of the government. Choosing to describe the government as immoral but practical shows his stance on the government. He describes the objection of a standing army of the current standing government as being just an arm of it. Furthermore, he comment’s saying, “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” Meaning that the people running the government have the ability to abuse the power even if the people have power over them.
Thoreau does a decent job at portraying his disagreement with the democratic government of his time. However, he does lack solid evidence to exploit the misuse of the standing army. He merely mentions this war going on in Mexico, but he fails to elaborate and explain the misuse of the army. He goes on to call the government a “wooden gun” portraying that it looks like they have power, but in reality the government is just a façade and has no true power over the people. He describes the government as being powerless against the people who aren’t willing to submit themselves like clay. Thoreau states, “A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay” and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least...” To this day the government is forever changing policies and laws and producing the “model” citizen. In Thoreau’s writing he effectively points out that a wise man is only useful when he is his own man; not whenever the governing body is trying to reshape the person for its own gain. His use of calling the people whom devoutly follow the government clay because they are constantly reshaping themselves to fit the perfect citizen the government is looking for.
He continues on to recognize that the American people have the right to revolutionize and not hold allegiance to the government.

Thoreau bring states these rights so the average person knows that they do not have to obey the government; that it is their American right to revolutionize and resist the very government controlling them.
Thoreau is very adamant on the abolition of slavery. He describes the voting like, “a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it…” Telling the audience that you can’t leave it up to chance because the majority doesn’t always agree with your own political views. However, he describes that there is very little virtue in the “action of the masses;” frankly, because the masses are going to abolish slavery because there are hardly any slaves anymore, not because of how inhumane it

is.
Later on in the selection he starts talking about the morality of the democratic government.

He starts asking rhetorical questions that hold the government accountable for the frailty of its people. Asking why the government does this and that before it takes action or feels an impact on society. He is using these questions to call upon the democratic governments shortcomings and point out its lack of morality. He states, “Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?” By asking this question he points out that the government thinks that rising up and holding your ground against a government is more wrong than a political injustice. The government believes Washington and Franklin were rebels because they had what it took to stand up to the foreign government and fight against them. The government of Thoreau’s era was doing everything in its power to demoralize a revolution because the leaders knew a revolution would tear apart the United States. He starts talking about the government using a metaphor with the injustice being the “necessary friction” of the “machine government.” Later calling upon the audience to be a part of the “counter friction” of the political machine to not participate in all that is

wrong.
Thoreau’s use of pathos in his plea for the audience to not participate in the wrong is strong. His diction and placement just draws the audience in and shows his emotional attachment to this part of the text. He displays very knowledgeable use of Pathos, Ethos, and Logos throughout his entire work; this use once again shows his audience was mostly the middle to upper class whom could read and write and make a difference in society.

Thoreau has been calling for a change in government throughout his whole work. However, he does state that humans are just in the world to live and not to devote their life to making it a good. He tries to portray the American Constitution as being evil. That the people do not have time to do all that is good, however, the government still shames them for all the bad no matter how much good they do. At this point in the selection Thoreau gets vague in his descriptions of the government. He lacks the proper evidence to call the Constitution itself evil; unlike the democratic government which he has been calling evil and immoral throughout the literary work.
Lastly, Thoreau uses his personal experiences to discuss his disobedience of the government. He explains he hasn’t paid a poll tax in six years which resulted in a night in jail. His brief stay was eye opening for Thoreau, but not in the way anyone anticipated. He described it as somewhat pleasant and he learned a lot about the history of the jail. His time in jail was brief due to a person interfering and paying the poll tax for him. Afterwards, Thoreau realized change was not going to happen in this town because people were not willing to take risk and didn’t care about proper justice. He soon left and was out of the view of his once friends and the State as well.
Thoreau wages a quite war against the State remarking, "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 avoids all taxes and by doing so he is refusing allegiance to the government. He does not condone what the governing body is doing and is quite literally civilly disobeying the government. Thoreau does a fantastic job at showing how to protest against the government without resorting to violence and ignorance.

Violent and Ignorant. That’s how many describe the American society today. Granted it is a different time than Thoreau’s, Unfortunately, Thoreau’s work did not make a big impact on society and the governing body. To this day the political officials are corrupt and solely search for their own personal gain; while society awaits the next candidate to “choose” the better of the two evils.
Thoreau presents his ideas in a pretty roundabout manner. His arguments are reasonably constructed with background information. However, he could help readers understand what he is trying to teach in a more concise manner. He tends to jump from topic to topic sometimes back and forth while others just a completely new one. He does stick to one main theme and that’s his distrust and distaste of the governing body. He does explain how he civilly disobeys the government without resorting to political violence or action. In his way he takes action and holds his ground. Much unlike today where violence seems to be the answer for everything that doesn’t go our way. Taking a page out of Thoreau’s work I found myself in aw to his audacity to formally stand against the government. His lack of violence shows his character and his integrity as a person. He made it clear whom he was speaking to throughout his entire work; his syntax proved to his readers that this man was well educated and knew what he was talking about. He managed to effectively persuade readers and even myself to not trust the government. Throughout his work he held true to his theme and did not stray from it. If more people would read this literary work Thoreau’s story would help millions of people understand their rights and freedom to disagree with what is going on in society. If Thoreau’s work, was more popular, we would no longer have a “model” citizen for no citizen would go back to being clay.