Henry David Thoreau's On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience
Civil Disobedience is the act of disobeying a law on grounds of moral or political principle. It is an attempt to influence society to accept a dissenting point of view. Although it usually uses tactics of nonviolence, it is more than mere passive resistance since it often takes active forms such as illegal street demonstrations or peaceful occupations of premises. The classic treatise on this topic is Henry David Thoreau's "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," which states that when a person's conscience and the laws clash, that person must follow his or her conscience. The stress on personal conscience and on the need to act now rather than to wait for legal change are recurring elements in civil disobedience movements. The U.S. Bill of Rights
…show more content…
asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it.
Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. (i.e. moral reform)[1]
Moral Reform, a women’s crusade, erupted in the 1830s and early 1840s, with a cast of thousands. Moral reformers intended not only to abate social ills through charitable works but also to make changes in thoughts and behavior, primarily men. The movement was a benevolent, fundraising one and a militant pressure group. Within its ranks, urban and rural women united to extend their moral superiority beyond the home with vigor and aggression. Their platform was to erase the double standard of sexual morality and impose a single standard or moral purity on all Americans, male and female. This involved a gamut of subsidiary planks. Within the home, children were given a pious up-bringing and moral education. Outside it, moral reformers harbored ambitious goals. They wanted to end prostitution and to punish and ostracize seducers, adulterers, and lechers. They also intended to reform fallen women, to give them support, employment, and moral uplift, and to prevent the downfall of others. The movement began in New York City in 1834, at a church meeting of middle class women, following a five year siege of Finney revivals. It also came on the heels of the Magdalen Society, a brief and abortive attempt by young divinity student, John MacDowell, to reform New York prostitutes and save young men from corruption. The New York Female Moral Reform Society, with Mrs. Finney as its first president, picked up where MacDowell had left off. The society hired him as an agent. But the female society altered the tenor of his cause. It was now fallen women who were to be saved. Although the moral reform movement began with clerical endorsements and help, as did all the evangelical groups this was no ladies’ auxiliary. It was a women’s campaign. Significantly, by the late 1830s, moral reform societies only hired women as their agents, bookkeepers, and institutional staff. Moral reform was also a specifically female reaction to urbanization and the perils of migration. Moral authority was one that women were ready to fill. The cause attracted a range of activists: well-off church-going matron who had long resided in a city or town; the migrant mother who had just moved in and feared for the welfare of her children; the rural correspondent of the advocate, ever on the lookout for abuse. Moral reform was distinguished not only but its widespread appeal but innovative tactics. At the onset, the New York society hired male agents to proselytize among fallen women in almshouses and jails. But the members of the executive committee soon took over the “visiting” themselves. AT first, activist tried to reform prostitutes through prayer, conversion, moral education, and location of alternative employment. Then they founded homes and refuges to redeem the fallen and protect the helpless. Finally, the executive committees of moral reform societies actively investigated alleged instances of immorality, or sought them out. Visiting took and new and aggressive dimension. Overall, moral reformers battled the enemy on a number of fronts: in brothels, in sate legislatures, and in the courts, in their own homes, in the other people’s homes, and in the “homes” the established themselves (although the last had a meager clientele). [2]
As for today many relentless women have paved the way for other equality seeking women to continue to educate and over come sexiest societies through civil disobedience.
We are all taught right and wrong from a young age but as these women have shown sometimes you have to step out of the norm to gain what should be rightfully owned. Fair treatment was not automatically given to everyone and they fought until someone realized that. Also these women demonstrated that the use of nonviolence runs throughout history. There have been numerous instances of people courageously and nonviolently refusing cooperation with injustice. Power itself is not derived through violence, though in governmental form it is usually violent in nature. Governmental power is often maintained through oppression and the tacit compliance of the majority of the governed. Any significant withdrawal of that compliance will restrict or dissolve governmental control. Apathy in the face of injustice is a form of violence. Conflict and struggle are often necessary to correct injustice. Our struggle is not easy, and we must not think of nonviolence as a "safe" way to fight oppression. The strength of nonviolence comes from our willingness to take personal risk without threatening other people. It is essential that we separate the individual from the role she/he plays. The "enemy" is the system that casts people in oppressive roles.
[3]
Civil Disobedience has helped us come up with laws in the best interest of the majority. (I.e. smoking band) I believe that Civil Disobedience is necessary for a free society. Without the oppositions and inquires people would be able to command useless and immoral laws form the government. We have the right under the constitution to fare treatment. So being able to speak up for what we believe in is important and I believe Civil Disobedience give us a nonviolent way of doing so in a respectful disagreement.
[1]http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html
[2]Roseboom, Eugene H. The Civil War Era: 1850-1873. Columbus: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944. Wiesenberger, Francis P. The Passing of the Frontier: 1825-1850. Columbus: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1941
[3] NONVIOLENT WAYS PROJECT http://www.spanweb.org mailto:nonviolence@spanweb.org
Rev. Wes Rehberg Ph.D.
asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it.
Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. (i.e. moral reform)[1]
Moral Reform, a women’s crusade, erupted in the 1830s and early 1840s, with a cast of thousands. Moral reformers intended not only to abate social ills through charitable works but also to make changes in thoughts and behavior, primarily men. The movement was a benevolent, fundraising one and a militant pressure group. Within its ranks, urban and rural women united to extend their moral superiority beyond the home with vigor and aggression. Their platform was to erase the double standard of sexual morality and impose a single standard or moral purity on all Americans, male and female. This involved a gamut of subsidiary planks. Within the home, children were given a pious up-bringing and moral education. Outside it, moral reformers harbored ambitious goals. They wanted to end prostitution and to punish and ostracize seducers, adulterers, and lechers. They also intended to reform fallen women, to give them support, employment, and moral uplift, and to prevent the downfall of others. The movement began in New York City in 1834, at a church meeting of middle class women, following a five year siege of Finney revivals. It also came on the heels of the Magdalen Society, a brief and abortive attempt by young divinity student, John MacDowell, to reform New York prostitutes and save young men from corruption. The New York Female Moral Reform Society, with Mrs. Finney as its first president, picked up where MacDowell had left off. The society hired him as an agent. But the female society altered the tenor of his cause. It was now fallen women who were to be saved. Although the moral reform movement began with clerical endorsements and help, as did all the evangelical groups this was no ladies’ auxiliary. It was a women’s campaign. Significantly, by the late 1830s, moral reform societies only hired women as their agents, bookkeepers, and institutional staff. Moral reform was also a specifically female reaction to urbanization and the perils of migration. Moral authority was one that women were ready to fill. The cause attracted a range of activists: well-off church-going matron who had long resided in a city or town; the migrant mother who had just moved in and feared for the welfare of her children; the rural correspondent of the advocate, ever on the lookout for abuse. Moral reform was distinguished not only but its widespread appeal but innovative tactics. At the onset, the New York society hired male agents to proselytize among fallen women in almshouses and jails. But the members of the executive committee soon took over the “visiting” themselves. AT first, activist tried to reform prostitutes through prayer, conversion, moral education, and location of alternative employment. Then they founded homes and refuges to redeem the fallen and protect the helpless. Finally, the executive committees of moral reform societies actively investigated alleged instances of immorality, or sought them out. Visiting took and new and aggressive dimension. Overall, moral reformers battled the enemy on a number of fronts: in brothels, in sate legislatures, and in the courts, in their own homes, in the other people’s homes, and in the “homes” the established themselves (although the last had a meager clientele). [2]
As for today many relentless women have paved the way for other equality seeking women to continue to educate and over come sexiest societies through civil disobedience.
We are all taught right and wrong from a young age but as these women have shown sometimes you have to step out of the norm to gain what should be rightfully owned. Fair treatment was not automatically given to everyone and they fought until someone realized that. Also these women demonstrated that the use of nonviolence runs throughout history. There have been numerous instances of people courageously and nonviolently refusing cooperation with injustice. Power itself is not derived through violence, though in governmental form it is usually violent in nature. Governmental power is often maintained through oppression and the tacit compliance of the majority of the governed. Any significant withdrawal of that compliance will restrict or dissolve governmental control. Apathy in the face of injustice is a form of violence. Conflict and struggle are often necessary to correct injustice. Our struggle is not easy, and we must not think of nonviolence as a "safe" way to fight oppression. The strength of nonviolence comes from our willingness to take personal risk without threatening other people. It is essential that we separate the individual from the role she/he plays. The "enemy" is the system that casts people in oppressive roles.
[3]
Civil Disobedience has helped us come up with laws in the best interest of the majority. (I.e. smoking band) I believe that Civil Disobedience is necessary for a free society. Without the oppositions and inquires people would be able to command useless and immoral laws form the government. We have the right under the constitution to fare treatment. So being able to speak up for what we believe in is important and I believe Civil Disobedience give us a nonviolent way of doing so in a respectful disagreement.
[1]http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html
[2]Roseboom, Eugene H. The Civil War Era: 1850-1873. Columbus: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944. Wiesenberger, Francis P. The Passing of the Frontier: 1825-1850. Columbus: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1941
[3] NONVIOLENT WAYS PROJECT http://www.spanweb.org mailto:nonviolence@spanweb.org
Rev. Wes Rehberg Ph.D.