Compare And Contrast Thoreau And Martin Luther King

Comparison Essay

Injustice must be discussed, it is constantly seen throughout history and continues to occur today. Many people have stood for the idea of what makes a law just and makes it unjust, including the most familiar like Martin Luther King and Thoreau. These men obtained similar ideas of what is right in a society and how to confront their situations successfully. Although originated from different backgrounds, Thoreau an American transcendentalist philosopher, and King an African American activist; both about 114 years, with the same mentality on the similar issues. In both “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “ On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” King and Thoreau

defend their positions against the injustice ingrained into the law and applied but their government to achieve individual freedom.
Although Thoreau appears to stand as an individual , while King on the other hand has a group of protesters behind him.

In their articles they both seek to involve and encourage their audiences to join them. Their ideal society is one where the individual and his brothers are treated as an equal. Thoreau demonstrates, “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all it's own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” ( Thoreau 14). The State will not understand the potential of each individual if the State keeps overpowering the citizens. In all truth the government gains power by threats of taking away the people’s most valued possessions; but if one by one start rebelling the State as Thoreau intends, then not only will the State recognize the citizens, the individual will too. This, “we must respect effects and teach the soul. Matter of conscience and religion, And not desire of rule or benefit” (Thoreau 12). Thoreau portrays that the people should have no concern over what benefits them and what is moral. He implies that by showing one's inner strength by understanding the injustice in society, one does not contribute to the state. Likewise, King says,” one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is

imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” (King 5). King is agreeing with what Thoreau has mentioned throughout his letter that when do right by your soul and do not focus on the consequences, that individual is free. Breaking the “law” and going to jail is something these two have in common, although they we sent to prison on the account of different methods of peaceful protest. King feels, “ I am here because I have organized ties here. But more basically I am here because injustice is here” (King 2). It is his duty to imp owner the people to stand for what is morally right, to encourage them as a whole, to take direct action to cause the change people deserve. King and Thoreau are willing to sacrifice anything even themselves for justice to be accomplished.
Thoreau and King’s methods of approaching the government are different time wise, but essentially both include a peaceful protest. In this case King,” In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action” ( King 2). King believes in fast acting peaceful protest after attempting negotiations fails. His form of direct action includes sit ins and marches to make a broad statement to the public eye. Before taking direct action, they must prepare by resisting to anything that comes their way. Thoreau’s method, “ I saw, that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get as free as I was” (Thoreau 9). By Thoreau's experience paying taxes, he felt liberated from his conscience by doing morally right. His approach in making a change for just reasons is a slower way to take action, after all his method has influenced generations and will continue to. He mentions, quietly declaring war with the State on his part, because he is not obeying the law by not contributing to pay his taxes. Thoreau is defending what he strongly believes by not supporting the government. King and Thoreau are both addressed as “ disturbers of the peace” for embracing the truth and going against the injustice caused by the law, that is anything but just to their morals.
Although King and Thoreau write to address different audiences in their own styles. Thoreau appears more critical because he is a white educated man that has never been discriminated as King has for being a man of color. When, “ they have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will” (Thoreau 13). He directly states this towards the government, his opinion says true about the State. This comes from his transcendentalist mindset in non conformity, self reliance, and free taught. As an individual he feels confined to do by his believes, In other words what is of true importance to oneself. In contrast King approaches the government in a more constructive and critical manner because being an educated man of color during this hour he was treated like the rest of his brothers, otherwise he would not be taken into consideration. This is demonstrated, “ But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest” (King 5). King calls out the clergymen to point out how these amendments embedded in the constitution by the Bill of Rights made to protect the individuals, and how they are manipulated. Even Though, the freedom to protest and form assembly exists, the government finds a way to overpower it with a false accusation.
In the process of protesting to achieve justice, the government needs to treat and recognize the citizens as individual, which King and Thoreau proceed through their challenges created. Thoreau had an easier time because of his ideas, “ I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But if I deny authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly and at the same time comfortably” ( Thoreau 8). From Thoreau's perspective, giving up everything he owns to the State does not concern him at all, but he acknowledges that when it involves family it becomes a difficult choice. Being involved with peaceful protests and having a family can be conflicting when choosing over protecting or defending your morals. When mentioned, “ It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State it would to obey” ( Thoreau 8). He did not mind being a prisoner, paying the price of internal satisfaction, knowing he proved what the individual's abilities are, although he had only been in prison for a night. As for King, the process in peaceful protesting he had more difficulties along the way and the penalty lasted a while. As stated, “ Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue “( King 3). After a while of waiting and attempting to negotiate with the clergymen , it's unfortunate to say their was no choice to portray how truly invested these protesters present themselves. They all prepared for the worst and are ready to confront the government. By King writing this letter behind the prison walls, he makes sure to notify the clergymen that as long as the people allow him to speak on their account, he will be their voice no matter his challenges. He will rise up on his feet until injustice is abolished and all brotherhood gains acceptance.
Initially, King and Thoreau hoped to accomplish an end to social injustice.

They were both visionaries of a futuristic outcome that would commence with the human acceptance to the individual. As mentioned, “ Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not to distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine scintillating beauty” ( King 10). Not only was King seeking to overpass the injustice that sets people apart, but for the makers of this injustice not to only c them, but to finally accept them as an equal to society. To place laws that are morally fit for everyone and not simply accommodate those in power. Comparable to King’s textual evidence, “ I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and treat the individual with respect as a neighbor” ( Thoreau 14). Thoreau states, “ treat the individual with respect as a neighbor” ( Thoreau 14). this is similar to the way King hopes to see all brotherhood and love, he hopes it will light the skies. When the government begins to treat every human equally, just, like a there is not an overpowering body then that is when everyone becomes a brother and a neighbor. In order to achieve a society where injustice is no longer a problem, as mentioned throughout their articles to influence the encouragement and state what they aim

for through peaceful protest.
Thoreau and King have been introduced to everyone at some point in their years of being educated, specifically for taking part in peaceful protest. We encounter that throughout history it appears to repeat itself, part of this is influenced by people who are known to take place in life changing events. Even now in the 21st century we witness traits continuing to occur after past historians. For example, when the government appears at extreme or unreasonable stakes, the citizens rebel by peacefully protesting since it has succeeded in the past. I believe that sure all of these ideas have impacted the world we live in today and will continue to. We have noticed and understood each writer's message, methods, purposes, their process, and their aspirations from taking action. In “ Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “ On the Duty of Civil Diobidience” their intent was to address and defend their positions against the injustice ingrained into the law and applied by their government to achieve individual freedom. In conclusion, they both created a new perspective of the government and influenced the citizens to conquer the moral right we as humans deserve.