I interpreted Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience as Thoreau’s ideas and opinions on how citizens should interact with an unjust government. It is clear that Thoreau feels the American government is not working for the people the way that it should, and that many people are not doing what they should to change their government. Thoreau uses topics such as slavery and the Mexican-American War as examples of why America’s government is unjust. He also discusses the fact that citizens, even those that claim to be against practices such as slavery and imperialism, support these government activities in many ways, but especially by paying taxes.
In the first section Thoreau states, “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.” It is at this point that I make the distinction between Thoreau’s ideas and Anarchy. Thoreau does not want men to remain ungoverned by anyone. He believes that men can form a collective conscience group to do what is right. He goes on to explain that if each individual citizen used their conscience to create a just government, then America would have a just government.
Thoreau himself chooses to separate himself as much as possible from the government, and even states that the only time he faces it is when the tax collector visits him annually. It is clear that he even fights these encounters, and was put in prison once for not paying his taxes. My favorite quote from this reading is when Thoreau says “I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man or a musket to shoot one with…” Here he clearly illustrates how even something as simple as paying taxes can lead to an increased support of the unfair actions of a government.
It seems to me Thoreau is arguing that Americans are all to willing to go along with things because their government tells them to. Instead, we should be using our individual perceptions of right and wrong to determine what our government does. This again brings up the argument of that fine line between right and wrong. Will humans do what is right even though we all appear to have such differing perspectives on the matter? After reading this I am not entirely sure what Thoreau would say.
i agree serenity, in your second paragraph i was going to put that same line in my blog but i didn't. its a really good one. Also in agreement with the last paragraph, but we cant have a government that is made up of every american trying to take into a account everyone's feelings on the matter. we have to elect people to send to Washington that we hope will be our voice in matters. and look out for us in the long run
ReplyDeleteThanks Keith. It is hard to say how well our current government works. Especially when we elect politicians that say one thing and then do another. This really connects to our conversation in class about how much we as Americans are willing to do to change things.
ReplyDeleteAfter Class-
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed our class discussion about this work. Thoreau and Emerson really connected in my mind, and I see the arguments they were making about Natural laws.
One thing I had not considered before our discussion is how much more freedom Thoreau actually had then than we do today. He decided he was simply not going to pay the poll tax, and didn't. Today it is much more difficult for us to make decisions like that. Our taxes come directly out of our paychecks often before we ever even look at them. I know that in some of the jobs I've had in the past I couldn't start work unless I'd filed all of my appropriate tax paperwork.