Analysis Of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” inspired a revolution of men to do what is right. His term: civil disobedience, refers to people protesting unjust laws by refusing to comply with them. This process is not just for any laws and practices but ones that cannot be resolved by the Democratic process. In his time, Thoreau referred to slavery and the Mexican-American War. Thoreau found both of these pieces of history to be hypocritical of the United States moral values. The United States stands for the home of the free when, in fact, they enslaved people. He refused to be a part of the government and He showed his civil disobedience by not paying taxes. He was put in jail for this, saying: “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,
By the peak of the Civil Rights Movement, King had already been arrested numerous times, along with his supporters. Many government officials, including the President John F. Kennedy, either did not know what to do with him, or resented him for disrupting the hierarchy that America had worked so hard to achieve. One source of opposition came from a letter sent from the eight clergymen of Alabama. The letter stated how much they did not want King to come to Alabama because he would cause social unrest among the people. It states in the letter, “We are confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders…. We believe this kind of facing of our issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area” meaning that the Clergymen believed that King had no right to interfere with their business because he was not from the area. They go on further to say that his peaceful demonstrations can result in violence and hatred. King replied to this letter in his “from Letter from Birmingham Jail”. In this he says, “Actually we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.” This shows that King disagreed with their idea that peaceful demonstrations brought unrest but rather a light for humanity. He goes onto say “In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?” Which makes their argument