Thoreau and Disobedience
Reading: Henry David Thoreau, “Resistance to Civil Government,” in The American Transcendentalists: Essential Writings, ed. Lawrence Buell (New York: Modern Library, 2006), 257-77.
Writing in the late 1840s of his experience of being jailed overnight in 1846 for his failure to pay a small state poll tax, Henry David Thoreau declared that the American government was disgraceful, not only for its protection of slavery but also for its invasion of Mexico (presumably on behalf of slaveholder interests). In “Resistance to Civil Government” and (and a decade later in his “Plea for Captain John Brown”), Thoreau honored the memory of the American Revolution and the “right to revolution” (261), but he refused to show respect for the American constitutional order that he deemed “evil” (266). Like his mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thoreau felt no responsibility to right every wrong in the world; unlike Emerson, however, he felt a duty to at least “wash his hands of it,” — “it” being in this case his allegiance and support of the abusive state (263). One might say, then, that Thoreau here protested against slavery and state power only insofar as they besmirched his personal sense of moral purity. But to so conclude would be to miss Thoreau’s critique of majoritarian government and its coercive machinery.
Discussion Questions
- How did Thoreau use the “machine” metaphor to describe the state?
- What criticisms did Thoreau make of electoral democracy? What alternatives did he offer?
- Did Thoreau have any real chance of lodging an effective protest — simply by refusing to pay his tax and by publishing this essay?
- How does this essay cast light on Thoreau’s 1859 plea for John Brown?
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Once again as described in class last week, we once again must question when is something moral, if it is of something of a higher good depspite, if it may be against the law. Such as HDT’s arrest for not paying a pole tax, (which i presume in the south) there are certain unalienable rights which some people base there entire being upon. So when a government is repressing that of which one believes rights are god given. Is it right to rebel against the government which is oppressive?
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Somethings Thoreau makes me laugh. When people read Civil Disobedience, they get the jist that he didn’t pay taxes because he didn’t support the war, and I think that many of his readers then and now can agree with that. However, he then become extremely dramatic writing, in my opinion, quite a bit a lot about is ONE NIGHT STAY IN JAIL. He wasn’t enough to really do anything. Another thing that makes me laugh is Thoreau doesn’t want to support the war through his tax dollars, however, he will let our society support him through their tax dollars. Thats right. Even though he was in jail for one day, it was still long enough for society to pay for him.
I applaud him for taking action and not supporting a cause he didn’t believe in, and I applaud him for trying to bring honor to Captain John Brown, but I feel that if Thoreau was truly dissatisfied by our society that he would have done more and rallied more people up against this war and against slavery.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Erica makes an interesting critique of Thoreau. His protest was in a sense quite meek. I suspect that he’d respond by saying that his reason for writing the essay was less to trumpet the fact that he spent one night in jail and more to criticize the basic functioning of a state that would jail him in the first place.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Like in Thoreau’s “A Plea for Captain John Brown,” I view “Civil Disobedience” to be as much of a critique of the people who tolerated the system which Throeau loathed as much as the system itself. In Thoreau’s view, it was the people who were closest to him that were the real obstacles to reform, not those who were far away where the problems were. It was the Massachusetts businessman whom was the real obstacle to reform, not the southern politician. And like in “John Brown,” Throeau argues this is because of the people’s general unwillingness to sacrifice their saftey and security for something greater than themselves.
As for the change in focus and tone between “Civil Disobedience” and “John Brown,” I can only guess that the years that passed between these two pieces may have, and the continuing injustices of that time, hardened Thoreau’s opinions, resulting in the angrier “John Brown.”
October 24th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Thoreau dislike for the government of course would include a dislike for the election system, it interesting to try and understand Thoreau’s dislike of the election process because voting is one of the best ways for each citizen to partake in politics. Thoreau argues that each voter’s vote is not as equal as most people would think. He feels that votes can be bought and also that voting is a waste because the candidates are pre-picked therefore he argues that citizens technically don’t really pick a true representative. Thoreau’s argument is understandable but his solution is not very productive. He suggests that people should not vote a boycott of the government in away. This seems like a childish strategy, I feel that if people want change especially in the government the one thing that people must do is participate more. People should vote more, get involved in campaigns, write to their representative and other things in order to create and demand change.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:34 am
In Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience he makes interesting comments on how government that is best doesn’t govern at all. How would the nation run without government? I can’t imagine what would happen if we didn’t have government. Thoreau points out that government can to abuse their power and uses the Mexican war and protection of slavery as example. It’s hard to say when the government uses its power too much or not enough. The government it set up to be run by the people in elections. Thoreau may not have liked the idea of the majority because it’s run by the strong, but the majority is where the battle is won. For many people voting is a way to get what view points they want into power, in the hopes of changing things in their favor. Thoreau brings many interesting points in Civil Disobedience, but he had no real support to help his ideas become bigger issues in 1849.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I have to agree with Tania. Everybody complains about the Government, but no one wants to do something about it. If you complain to your neighbors and friends, but not to your representative. How do you expect a change. You have to let them know how you feel. Speak up, let your voice be heard. If not shut up and go along for the ride. This is a free country.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The fact that Thoreau’s writings inspired leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. shows just how powerful his ideas were. Thoreau makes a strong case for people to obey their moral conscious and not that of the status quo. Standing up against the majority is never an easy task. Having the courage to follow your own principles will always be the right choice.
I’ve been thinking about Bartleby after reading about Transcendentalism. He certainly seemed to be following a Transcendentalist school of thought by resisting what others wanted him to do.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I think William makes a very true point of our society. I can not go one day without hearing some one cut down the current administration and say we need a change. I think that these people I hear saying these things need to stand up and be counted. Sometimes all it takes is one person to get the ball rolling and things can start to change.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Throughout his essay, “Resististance to Civil Government”, Thoreau condemns the idea of an electoral democracy. This electoral democracy was percieved as destroying the rights of the individual. This, according to Thoreau, was morally unacceptable. The fact that a majority rules during elections is not morally consistent what is actually “right”. As Thoreau points out, ” After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest.”
Instead, Thoreau advocated following ones own conscience. Following ones own personal divine conscience was the only way to gain true knowlege and understanding. It was the only way to let divinity flow through the self. Majoritarianism, he argues, completely stifled this effort. As Thoreau explains, “Can there be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?” Instead of relying on the majority each should rely on their own personal moral conscience. For this is the only path in determining what is right or wrong.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I would have to agree with Jan, the story of Bartleby seems an awful lot like the transcendentalists, especially Henry David Thoreau. No one could get Thoreau to pay his taxes, he was simply going to stay in jail until the government decided to let him out. The only reason he was let out of jail was because some unknown woman let him out of jail by paying his taxes for him. This greatly angered Thoreau as large amounts of charity seemed to have angered Bartleby.