Henry David Thoreau's Principles Of Civil Disobedience
“It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics). Although civil disobedience may cause divisive rhetoric and chaos, nonviolent resistance positively impacts a free society by providing an impetus for progress and starting a dialogue about injustice.
Our nation was founded on principles of civil disobedience. In Federalist #51, James Madison proclaimed, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Instead, it is up to humankind to ensure that our government protects the rights of all people. Since the time of the Boston Tea Party, countless acts of peaceful resistance have moved our society toward greater freedom and enfranchisement …show more content…
for all. When Rosa Parks would not give up her seat, when Freedom Riders rode segregated buses together, when black students in Greensboro, North Carolina refused to leave a whites-only lunch counter, that was civil disobedience. When Susan B. Anthony voted illegally, when suffragists in the National Women’s Party were arrested and beaten and force-fed, that was civil disobedience. Their actions brought the strength of their convictions into national limelight and forced change that is crucial in a free society. Weathering vitriol and violence, these American heroes fell on the wrong side of the law – but on the right side of history.
Standing up for a just cause can have consequential effects for years.
When Henry David Thoreau refused to pay poll taxes in protest of slavery and the Mexican-American War, he did not end slavery or stop the war. However, no one can deny the rippling effects he had on culture and the course of history. Thoreau inspired great leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to practice peaceful resistance. In addition, his actions remain relevant today. The Mexican-American War began after an imperialist President invaded a foreign country based off unsubstantiated evidence and with possible ulterior motives. If that sounds familiar, it is due to the parallels with the Iraq War of 2003. Sure enough, that conflict also galvanized an antiwar movement, resulting in numerous protesters being imprisoned, much like Thoreau 200 years ago. Similarly, regardless of whether we agree with extensive government surveillance, Edward Snowden exposed information that allowed us to decide for ourselves. I predict that government transparency will become a prevailing issue of the 21st …show more content…
century.
I believe civil disobedience comprises an integral part of our society even when I personally disagree with the cause. For example, I find the actions of county clerk Kim Davis, who defied a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despicable, but I believe in her right to stand up for her beliefs and peacefully accept the consequences. Only then can a society be truly free.
Those who oppose civil disobedience object because it disturbs order in society.
However, if we consider civil disobedience to negatively impact a free society, only two options remain: bitter violence or acceptance of the status quo. The premise that violence is worse than pacifism is easy to accept. People who attempt to evoke social or political change through violence are not revered; they are called terrorists, and they shut down the conversation about whatever injustice they are protesting. For every Martin Luther King, there will be a Malcolm X; for every Mohandas Gandhi, there exists a Rash Behari Bose. Although all four contributed to their cause, only two left behind a legacy of hope that carries on to this day. And although a martyr can strike the match of revolution, it takes a peaceful leader to feed the flames, to effect real
change.
If we rule out resistance, peaceful or otherwise, the only remaining recourse is accepting the status quo. This option, while certainly the easiest, is in fact the most dangerous. If it were not for civil disobedience, for example, the majority of people born in the United States would not be permitted to vote today. Only through nonviolent resistance did we accomplish these reforms, but we still have work to do. Unjust laws continue to pervade our society, from inflexible mandatory minimums that have caused mass incarceration rates to skyrocket, to a proposed North Dakota bill legally protecting drivers who run over pedestrians blocking traffic. These issues do not affect everyone, but “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). In a free society, we not only have the right but also the sacred responsibility to peacefully disobey unjust laws.
Our nation was founded on principles of civil disobedience. In Federalist #51, James Madison proclaimed, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Instead, it is up to humankind to ensure that our government protects the rights of all people. Since the time of the Boston Tea Party, countless acts of peaceful resistance have moved our society toward greater freedom and enfranchisement …show more content…
for all. When Rosa Parks would not give up her seat, when Freedom Riders rode segregated buses together, when black students in Greensboro, North Carolina refused to leave a whites-only lunch counter, that was civil disobedience. When Susan B. Anthony voted illegally, when suffragists in the National Women’s Party were arrested and beaten and force-fed, that was civil disobedience. Their actions brought the strength of their convictions into national limelight and forced change that is crucial in a free society. Weathering vitriol and violence, these American heroes fell on the wrong side of the law – but on the right side of history.
Standing up for a just cause can have consequential effects for years.
When Henry David Thoreau refused to pay poll taxes in protest of slavery and the Mexican-American War, he did not end slavery or stop the war. However, no one can deny the rippling effects he had on culture and the course of history. Thoreau inspired great leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to practice peaceful resistance. In addition, his actions remain relevant today. The Mexican-American War began after an imperialist President invaded a foreign country based off unsubstantiated evidence and with possible ulterior motives. If that sounds familiar, it is due to the parallels with the Iraq War of 2003. Sure enough, that conflict also galvanized an antiwar movement, resulting in numerous protesters being imprisoned, much like Thoreau 200 years ago. Similarly, regardless of whether we agree with extensive government surveillance, Edward Snowden exposed information that allowed us to decide for ourselves. I predict that government transparency will become a prevailing issue of the 21st …show more content…
century.
I believe civil disobedience comprises an integral part of our society even when I personally disagree with the cause. For example, I find the actions of county clerk Kim Davis, who defied a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despicable, but I believe in her right to stand up for her beliefs and peacefully accept the consequences. Only then can a society be truly free.
Those who oppose civil disobedience object because it disturbs order in society.
However, if we consider civil disobedience to negatively impact a free society, only two options remain: bitter violence or acceptance of the status quo. The premise that violence is worse than pacifism is easy to accept. People who attempt to evoke social or political change through violence are not revered; they are called terrorists, and they shut down the conversation about whatever injustice they are protesting. For every Martin Luther King, there will be a Malcolm X; for every Mohandas Gandhi, there exists a Rash Behari Bose. Although all four contributed to their cause, only two left behind a legacy of hope that carries on to this day. And although a martyr can strike the match of revolution, it takes a peaceful leader to feed the flames, to effect real
change.
If we rule out resistance, peaceful or otherwise, the only remaining recourse is accepting the status quo. This option, while certainly the easiest, is in fact the most dangerous. If it were not for civil disobedience, for example, the majority of people born in the United States would not be permitted to vote today. Only through nonviolent resistance did we accomplish these reforms, but we still have work to do. Unjust laws continue to pervade our society, from inflexible mandatory minimums that have caused mass incarceration rates to skyrocket, to a proposed North Dakota bill legally protecting drivers who run over pedestrians blocking traffic. These issues do not affect everyone, but “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). In a free society, we not only have the right but also the sacred responsibility to peacefully disobey unjust laws.