Peaceful Resistance To Law In The 19th Century

Peaceful resistance to laws is essential in the progress of a free society and promotes responsibility among citizens to uphold their rights and beliefs. In many instances where desired civil, reproductive, or other rights are in question, the legal route of seeking change in our laws has been unproductive or seemingly impossible. This frustration is beyond an American dilemma or a 19th century issue, but rather spans many forms of government over time. It has been and will always be the duty of citizens to challenge a lack of response from the government which works to serve them. It is understood there exist many routes to seeking long term change or considerations against laws. To citizens who have been unsuccessful in drawing concern from lawmakers regarding their rights, civil disobedience is preferred over the threat to their moral standing or well-being. Ieshia Evans, a nurse and mother, stood still calmly and peacefully in front of two police officers who were dressed in riot gear during the summer of 2016. Evans, who had previously never been arrested, chose to take this stance during a protest in which the protesters were told to disband. Evans did not struggle when arrested and the image of her arrest has encouraged others to
peacefully resist the law to defend the civil rights of African Americans who are disproportionately treated with aggression by law enforcement and unfairly in the court system. This has been emphasized by video footage and complaints have been made against police departments throughout the U.S, but citizens have yet to see large scale changes in police training and through laws to combat these issues of aggression and abuses of power. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov is a prime example of the positive results of peaceful resistance in a society.
Sakharov was a Russian physicist during the cold war and became a soviet dissident which led him to humanitarian efforts in standing against the USSR. Sakharov was arrested for unlawfully and publicly protesting the soviet interference Afghanistan in 1979 and prior to this incident was forced to remain in internal exile for his work on peaceful coexistence. Sakharov came to be a leader in the democratic opposition movement in the USSR and was a voice for many seeking greater rights to freedom of speech from the government. Sakharov’s civil disobedience caused a lasting impact on the human rights movement during the
1980’s.

In the case of Edward Snowden classified knowledge of the NSA programs were leaked concerning the invasion of privacy on law-abiding U.S citizens and persons from countries allied with the U.S along with persons from countries the U.S is not allied with. While it is believed by some Snowden rightfully broke the law and his commitment to the U.S intelligence community to alert the public of misdeeds, it is also important to acknowledge there are legal routes Snowden could have pursued that would not have conflicted American relations such as reporting his concerns to an inspector general who is meant to be semi-independent of any government agency or to congress. These avenues would not have been speedy but would have given aid to Snowden’s argument that his actions were necessary and well intended. Snowden did not accept the consequences of his actions and does not represent civil disobedience as described and therefore is a testament to the negative impacts of civil disobedience if not applied appropriately to the right situation.
As Henry D. Thoreau pointed out “[The government] is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” If the government neglects to tend to the reasonable and heavy concerns of its citizens, what is the value in having representation? Civil disobedience bridges the gap between what the laws allow and what the people feel is right. Through peaceful resistance we foster a free society with changing circumstances and standards.