Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s justification for defying unjust laws contrast
Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s justification for defying unjust laws contrast
Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s justification for defying unjust laws contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s justification for defying unjust laws contrast
Martin Luther King Jr. versus Henry David Thoreau
*Works Cited Not Included
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. Two such cases occurred during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau. Both men courageously confronted the mighty us government; both spent time in jail as a result of their defiant actions; both men stood for a belief in a better future, and both presented their dreams through non-violent protest and civil disobedience. The similarities in their course of action are undeniable, but each man used different terms on which they based their arguments. Martin Luther King Junior's appeal through the human conscience, and Henry Thoreau's excellent use of patriotism, present similar issues in very dissimilar ways.
King's letter, written while in jail, is in direct response to a letter written by a group of "fellow clergymen". His letter clearly and effectively responds to each of the five examples given by the clergymen. He opens his letter by recognizing that he believes their complaints to be "sincere" and of "genuine goodwill". The respect given to these men in the first few sentences immediately present King as a man of equal standards and beliefs. It also has a subtle and maybe subconscious affect as he asks for the same respect in return. The letter is noticeably divided into 6 major components. The first five sections are in direct response to the letter from the clergymen, and the last is his final plea for justice. He opens each section by conceding to the clergymen, and uses direct quotes from their letter to support is argument. Following this opening, he uses a...
... middle of paper ...
...remely convincing support, and each piece is successful in achieving their goal; but should we follow Thoreau and let the building turmoil lead to revolution? Or should we hearken to King and let it guide us to a better understanding of each other? Through our differences we can find a unity that is present among us all, but who will lead us to that glorious day?
"I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State…"
History has encountered many different individuals whom have each impacted the 21 in one way or another; two important men whom have revolted against the government in order to achieve justice are Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both men impacted numerous individuals with their powerful words, their words carried the ability to inspire both men and women to do right by their morality and not follow unjust laws. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by David Henry Thoreau along with King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, allow the audience to understand what it means to protest for what is moral.
The two essays, "Civil Disobedience," by Henry David Thoreau, and "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," by Martin Luther King, Jr., effectively illustrate the authors' opinions of justice. Each author has his main point; Thoreau, in dealing with justice as it relates to government, asks for "not at once no government, but at once a better government. King contends that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Both essays offer a complete argument for justice, but, given the conditions, King's essay remains more effective, in that its persuasive techniques have more practical application. Both essays extensively implement both emotional and ethical appeal to give their respective ideas validity.
on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.
Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau each write exemplary persuasive essays that depict social injustice and discuss civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with the law in order to prove a point. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King speaks to a specific audience: the African Americans, and discusses why he feels they should bring an end to segregation. Thoreau on the other hand, in “Civil Disobedience,” speaks to a broader, non-addressed audience as he largely expresses his feelings towards what he feels is an unjust government. Both essays however, focus on the mutual topics of morality and justice and use these topics to inform and motivate their audience to, at times, defy the government in order to establish the necessary justice.
This letter was primarily written towards the clergymen, but is viewed by the the entire nation. King was sent to jail for parading around town without a permit. The eight days spent in jail allowed him to develop this letter to refute the clergymen. In his letter, King’s heart and soul was poured into this letter which can be seen through the length and the way he articulated himself towards the issue of segregation and racial injustice.
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, when there was unfair discrimination against the Afro-American community and Americans refusing to pay poll taxes to support the Mexican War. They used civil disobedience to eventually get legislation to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation. Civil disobedience is defined as refusal to obey civil laws or decrees, which usually takes the form of passive resistance. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider the law unjust, and want to call attention to its injustice, hoping to bring about its withdrawal.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attention than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, are present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose. To begin with, Thoreau expresses that civil disobedience should be more implemented when the just resistance of the minority is seen legally unjust to the structure conformed by the majority. Supporting his position, Thoreau utilizes the role of the national tax in his time; its use which demoralizes the foreign relationship of the U.S.; its use which “enables the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood”; its use which supports “the present Mexican War” (Thoreau 948, 940).
In his famous essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,’’ Martin Luther King, Jr. cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and not obey unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal of ethos.
U.S. you are never considered an outsider. King also believes that no one is weak and
Even though it passed more that a hundred of years after Thoreau posted his essay, his ideas are still germane today. I can relate Thoreau’s concept not only to American government, but also to authorities all over the world. It doesn’t seem that the people rule the country anymore; the authorities are led by few individuals who have the most influence. Even though this is very visible, people don’t do anything about that, they are just some marionettes in the hands of the ones who rule the system. Many parliaments from the world lost the notion about making the laws to protect the people, but not themselves as the higher class of the country.
“Civil Disobedience,” written by Henry David Thoreau – originally published as “Resistance to Civil Government” in Aesthetic Papers (1849) and motivated by slavery and the Mexican-American War – discusses the hold government has on individuals in a society and the potential risks, as well as solutions, to overcoming the majority consciousness. Thoreau opens his essay with words he believes every government should live by: “That government is best which governs least.” Thoreau expresses that traditional government is often an inhibitor to the fluidity of justice and the desires of the majority, as well as the minority. As detailed, the American people have established a desire for some complicated concept to derive their government in order
Throughout this letter, King uses elaborate diction and complex rhetorical strategies. He addresses his audience directly; makes frequent use of balance and parallelism, understatement, and metaphor; and makes many historical and religious allusions. What effect do you think King intended these rhetorical strategies to have on the letter’s original audience of clergymen? Does King’s elaborate style enhance his argument, or does it just get in the way?
Henry David Thoreau in his 1849 essay, “Civil Disobedience” claims that our top priority is to do the things that we think is right, and our second priority is to do what the government thinks is right. However, I believe this order that Thoreau suggest we follow is very disagreeable, and our political obligations should be prioritized in comparison to the other things we do.
The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro.” This quote directly supports civil disobedience leading to successful change. On the other hand, while MLK calls for civil disobedience, Thoreau explains why it is useful. To make sure his point is clear, he explains how civil disobedience is only beneficial when it is necessary as he says ““I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land.” By saying this he shows that he believes in civil defence only when there is an injustice in the system that calls for it. More specifically, to explain how the people have the right to disobey a system in order to make change Thoreau says “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable?” With this being said, he is saying that the people who are being oppressed have every right to stand up and make change even by being
----- "Civil Disobedience" from A World of Ideas - Essential Readings for College Readers, Lee A. Jacobus, Bedford Books, 1998, 1849(123 -146)