On Nonviolent Resistance Summary

In the articles: “Resistance to Civil Government” by Henry David Thoreau, “On Nonviolent Resistance” by Gandhi, and “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” by Martin Luther King, each makes a strong case for civil disobedience. The term “civil disobedience” refers to any nonviolent resistance to a governing authority on moral grounds. Thoreau, Gandhi, and King each argues in his own way that when the rights of a minority or an individual are ignored by any government, it is incumbent upon all who recognize this injustice to defy any laws instituted by that government which contribute to the resulting inequality. Thoreau’s argument is more philosophical; he posits more generally that governmental laws lull individuals into a kind of moral apathy, and that any rule of government is a poor substitute for individual conscience. The stance of Gandhi and King rises out of
their more specific experiences as minority recipients of violent injustices perpetrated on behalf of an oppressive government using the rule of law. They therefore argue that since the governmental laws in place in their respective countries are immoral by design their only recourse is, according to Gandhi, to withdraw from participating in the requirements of government altogether, and thus, according to King, to break the law. All three men use several persuasive methods in making their case, appealing to logic, ethics and emotionality. The appeal to logic can be seen by Thoreau when he states the following as he argues against allowing the government to act in a moral fashion on behalf of everyone:
The government itself… is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure (236).
Gandhi’s argument also hits on the same ideas while appealing to logic when he states, “No clapping is possible without two hands to do it, and no quarrel without two persons to make it. Similarly, no State is possible without two entities, the rulers and the ruled (244).” While the following statement by King also appeals to logic, it touches on a very different topic concerning the physical laws he is being asked to abide by. King states:
Throughout the state of Alabama all types of conniving methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote despite the fact that the Negro constitutes a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured (246)?
The three of these quotes are all examples of logical appeal in the three articles.
They all contain facts from the time period and persuade you to believe what they are supporting. The second type of appeal used in all three articles is ethical. Thoreau touches on the moral standard of watching out for himself and not others when he argues:
If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations (besides the eradication of enormous wrongs), I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too (237).
While Thoreau discusses a more vague value, Gandhi explains the concept of satyagraha. He says, “One who resorts to (satyagraha) does not have to break another’s head; he may merely have his own head broken. He has to be prepared to die himself suffering all the pain (244).”
Lastly, King argues the spirituality of just and unjust laws. He states, “A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law…
(246)” The last type of persuasive technique seen in these articles is emotional appeal. All three authors have vivid arguments when it comes to this because they all have very personal experiences regarding civil obedience. Thoreau uses emotional appeal when talking about being confined in jail. He states:
If one… were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: What is once well done is done forever….(237)
Next is Gandhi’s seemingly tangible description of how life should be lived. He says, “Send us to prison and we will live there as in paradise. Ask us to mount the scaffold and we will do so laughing. Shower what sufferings you like upon us; we will calmly endure all and not hurt a hair of your body (244).” King makes a strong argument in referencing the women of New Orleans to argue the importance of understand just and unjust laws. He says, “One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly (not hatefully as the whit mothers did in New Orleans when there were seen on television screaming, “nigger, nigger, nigger”), and with a willingness to accept the penalty (246)”. All three men exercised what they saw to be their unalienable rights. In all three cases this meant standing up against the law and ultimately being imprisoned. Because of their sacrifice on the behalf of society, these three men are seen as more than authors and intelligent people; they are seen as heroes. Thoreau went to jail for refusing to pay his taxes because he didn’t want to support the government; Gandhi went to jail for supporting what he believed in and was charged for sedition; and King went to jail for peacefully protesting the segregation laws in Alabama. Standing up for what one believes in can go a long way, and that is ultimately what makes one a hero. Heroes never back down, they are always courageous, and they know right from wrong and aren’t afraid to express that belief. These men truly were heroes.