More handpicked essays just for you.
Henry David Thoreau resistance to government
Comments And Questions About Civil Disobedience By Henry David Thoreau
Henry David Thoreau resistance to government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Henry David Thoreau resistance to government
Peaceful resistance to war can both positively and negatively affect a free society. In many different ways, though, the right type of civil disobedience can greatly change the outcome of the society in a positive manner. Henry David Thoreau, in a brief summary, states that American's can be great if they choose to be with the government, as well as by realizing that governments are best if they don't put extremely strict guidelines on people. He also believes that every man should clearly state what they believe should be done throughout the government in order to restore peace. Similarly, John Cassidy explains how it was right for the runaway criminal Edward Snowden to break the law by leaking top secret information because of how much the …show more content…
Politics today have made many people hate the idea of the government and have also made us understand how corrupt our nation has become. Those that underwent the process of campaigning for pro-life, women's rights, immigrants, disability, respect, and many other causes all believed that protesting was the best way to get the point across that people do have a say and the government shouldn't be able to walk all over our ideas or views. President Trump was just inducted and already has a ban on immigration and is trying to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Is this really what we want our nation to be known for? Most people's answers to this would be no because we are going backward as a nation not forwards. This is why there are so many uprisings and protests going on right now, this is also why celebrities, politicians, and journalists have begun to speak out for their personal beliefs. Everyone has a right to their own opinion which is due in part to the great people that have come before us speaking out for what they believed in. Civil disobedience could be a considered a bad thing since it can lead to deaths, fights, wars, and even returning back to the ways of past generations. But, with these few examples and the many more that are out there, we can begin to understand that disobeying the government, in the right ways, can lead to new discoveries as well as ways to continue making America a trusted
In Henry Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government, the harmless actions he takes to rebel against the government are considered acts of civil disobedience. He talks about how the government acts wrongful such as, slavery and the Mexican-American war. This writing persuades Nathaniel Heatwole, a twenty-year-old college student studying at Guildford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, to take matters into his own hands, by smuggling illegal items on multiple Southwest airplanes. The reason in that being, is to show the people that our nation is unsafe and dangerous. In doing this, he takes his rebellion one step too far, by not only jeopardizing his life, but as well as many other innocent lives.
When a citizen abides by the social contract, they initially agree to enter and be a participant of a civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. When a person wants to be a member of civil society, they sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Citizens have what is called prima facie obligation to obey the laws of a relatively just state. A prima facie duty is an obligation that we should try to satisfy but that can be overridden on occasion by another, stronger duty. When it comes to prima facie duty, this duty can be outweighed by a higher order obligation or
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
Civil Disobedience makes governments more accountable for their actions and has been an important catalyst for overcoming unpopular government policies. To voice his disgust with slavery, in 1849 Henry David Thoreau published his essay, Civil Disobedience, arguing that citizens must not allow their government to override their principles and have a civic duty to prevent their government from using unjust means to ends. The basis for Thoreau’s monumental essay was his refusal to pay a poll tax, which subsequently landed him a night in county jail. In his passage: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine...
This is a reason why most people believe that civil disobedience is bad. Civil disobedience is not dangerous because once someone breaks a law and harms others then it is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience will be peaceful and will not intentionally harm anyone. Thoreau explained in his essay that he “asked for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.” This shows that in civil disobedience is only used to change government laws for the benefit of the people. Thoreau also says “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.” He believes the law made them subjects and he wanted all men to truly be free, so with civil disobedience he did show he disagreed with the law. With civil disobedience people may show how unjust the laws are because people were being arrested for not
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
In 1968, Martin Luther King Jr passed away from a sniper’s bullet. He gave us thirteen years of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. Before I can give my opinion on the history of race relations in the United States since King’s assassination in 1968 strengthened or weakened his arguments on the necessity and value of civil disobedience? You should know the meaning of civil disobedience. The word civil has several definitions. “The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay (by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849) is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance”.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi. From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an increase in inequality.
Thoreau explains “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin” (Thoreau 3). George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are two prominent figures of American nationalism and independence, and many American citizens regard them as idols. Thoreau exploits their credential to motivate people to take actions against an ineffective government and oppose the war and slavery in the U.S. Thoreau also questions citizens by explaining what is ethical as a citizen. Thoreau states “but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret” (Thoreau 4). Thoreau explains that people of the U.S. do not put in their efforts to change such as voting or protesting, yet they still expect other people to discard evils such as corruption, slavery, and government tyranny. Thoreau justifies the uselessness as unethical and condemns the citizens. By using the word such as evil, Thoreau wants people to fight against the evil, government tyranny, and express the true American nationalism. The author employs ethos throughout Civil Disobedience to make the people of the U.S. ethical and become more involved with the problems about the
Civil Disobedience is a deliberate violation against the law in order to invoke change against a government policy. Civil disobedience can come in the form of running a red light or j-walking, or in more noticeable methods such as riots. Coined by American author and poet Henry David Thoreau, the term has developed to define the act of disobeying a law one sees as unfit or unjust. Usually the purpose of civil disobedience is to gain public attention to a perceived injustice and appeal to or gain support from the public in a non-violent way. The idea is to force the government to negotiate or else continue with the unwanted behavior; or in simpler terms, to “clog the machine” (“Civil Disobedience”). It is believed by many that the act of civil disobedience is justifiable in a democratic government like that of the United States. A Democracy is defined as a form of government controlled by elected representatives or by the people themselves. However, in order to have a stable government, it must be built on a stable society. Societal welfare is the general good for the public and how its members take action to provide opportunities and minimum standards. According to societal welfare, which is the sake of the emotional and physical well-being of the community, the laws must be abided and civil disobedience is morally unjust in our society. Once any member of the society questions the affairs of the state, the state may be given up for lost (“Jean Jacques Rousseau”).
When nonviolent civil disobedience occurs, the participating citizens are attempting to bring about positive change to the system--change which has not (and may not have) been brought about by words alone. Given that this constitutional republic is intended to be representative of its citizens in accordance with its fundamental laws, citizens are undoubtedly justified in striving for representation for the public will. This is put succinctly by David Thoreau in the poem Civil Disobedience: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” The government should enact the will of its people, and where people see a law as being unjust this disposition is voided. A purportedly representative governing body should be brought to consider the will of its people in earnest, and peaceful demonstration is the next step where words alone
(An analysis of how Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau has impacted people through time.)
Throughout history, there are always laws and rules; however, these rules wouldn’t evolve and progress in a government if it weren’t for civil disobedience. Throughout the course of history, especially in democracies, civil disobedience has been used to change unright laws, and it gives people the freedom to stand for what they believe in. There are countless examples of people who have protested and changed the world. In a way, it also lets people stay true to what they believe is right, whether it be for religious reasons or just because of their ethics. Civil disobedience is, and always has been, a part of society; it is not only a part of government, but it is also necessary in a democracy where people have freedom of speech and other similar rights.
Henry David Thoreau's essay entitled, "Resistance to Civil Government," (better known as "Civil Disobedience") has had a wide-reaching effect on prominent leaders in the United States (Riley). Written in 1849, Thoreau rebelled against the government by refusing to pay a tax. He describes, "... [The State] is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced... What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves... What sort of life were that to live?" (Thoreau) In this statement, Thoreau makes a valid point. The State can enforce change, but it cannot really alter people's mentalities. Therefore, in order to create change in the world, we must first change people's hearts through peaceful protests. Other noble leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony have patterned their lives after this idea. In this essay, I will argue the necessity of civil rather than violent protest as a means to evoke change in the world. I will also use
It is something that is extremely variable as its results are not always predictable, and it is possible that civil disobedience will worsen the cause. During the inauguration of Donald Trump, there were a series of riots to protest his election. While their cause was against the negative qualities of Trump, such as his racist, sexist remarks, the protests did not do much. They only caused thousands of dollars in property damage as during these riots it was common to deface public property, and caused aspersions from immutable citizens who did not agree with their actions. Their actions also tended to undermine the fact that civil disobedience is supposed to be peaceful, and there was violence against property and other people. Also, the leaders of the causes being run have to be great; however, this is not always the case. Not everyone can be a Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. For example, John Brown was a man outraged by slavery and with his megalomania contrived a way to change it in a horrifying, bizzare way. With his heart in the right place to eradicate it, he went out and slaughtered slavery supporters in an extremely heinous way; he used machetes. This was an extremely violent action and deemed too harsh. He led his followers into the situation with him as well, and his followers were castigated. This shows the negatives of following morals above law as they are not always the right actions to