Thoreau: Right or Wrong?

Webster's dictionary defines civil disobedience as "refusal to obey governmental demands esp. as a nonviolent and usu. collective means of forcing concessions from the government." Henry Thoreau wrote an essay titled Civil Disobedience that has through the years become the authoritative argument on the subject. People as distinguished as Martin Luther King and Gandhi have used this essay as a cornerstone in their respective movements. However, I see Thoreau more as a hypocrite and an anarchist. While his goals might have been noble, like most theorists, he does not take into account the realities of the world we live in. I will convince you in this essay that Thoreau's argument was not valid for several reasons, but mainly due to his logos and ethos.

Thoreau and Webster both defined civil disobedience as a nonviolent action. Thoreau was a fervent abolitionist and rumored to have been a conductor in the Underground Railroad. John Brown was also an abolitionist, but of a more violent persuasion. John Brown ended up getting arrested for one of his crimes, and who comes to his defense but Thoreau. This fact bothers me. If you are nonviolent to the point that you make rude comments about soldiers going to war (Mexican War), then you need to hold true to that philosophy. To me it is hypocritical to advocate nonviolence in one situation, and defend it in another. How about the subject of paying taxes? Thoreau walked on roads that taxes paid to build, yet he refuses to help pay for these roads via taxation. He then has the gall to state "I quietly declare war with the state though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can." That is like the person who shows up in an Emergency Department with no medical i...

... middle of paper ...

...efore people became impressed with his writing. Only when the man himself was forgotten did the people begin to appreciate his musings.

In this essay I discuss Thoreau's essay Civil Disobedience. I took a counterargument approach. I found his argument to be flawed and his character lacking. I do not think there is any one answer to the big questions of the day, but advice is hard to follow from a man who lived like a hermit and did not appear to contribute to society during his time. What is amazing is that his writings did inspire some great moments in history. Martin Luther King and Gandhi both effectively used his philosophy to affect some profound changes in our society. For that we owe the man a debt of gratitude. Writing is a form of art, and the art he left behind is something people will always appreciate, even if we do not agree with the man himself.