Civil Disobedience

“The government itself, which 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.” 

The government is created by the people and derives all its power from the will of the people. However, Thoreau argues that the will of the people can easily be corrupted by a powerful few, as has been the case with the Mexican-American War, which was created by a few people using the government as its tool. The people’s will is not reflected in all that the government does, and so the people must no longer support the corrupt and perverted aspects of government (or potentially the government as a whole).

“But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.”

Thoreau argues that a government by the people necessitates a majority rule but that the majority is not always right. Often, the majority is simply stronger than the minority, meaning the majority will not be in the right so much as merely in power. Such a system is by its nature unjust, even should the government actually advocate the morally right position. The alternative to such a government is one in which the citizens let their consciences dictate their lives and decisions rather than having the majority decide right and wrong.

“I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” 

Thoreau argues that humans give up some of their humanity by participating in the corruption of government. He states that too many people have been taught to respect the law and follow it for the sake of the law and not for the sake of what is actually right. Instead, he advocates for individuals to decide what is right for themselves and follow that rather than pledging blind obeisance to the law.

“How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.” 

The crux of Thoreau’s argument is that slavery is such an abomination that any government that supports it is by definition amoral. In the case of the United States, its entire law system is based on the institution of slavery, with the Constitution counting slaves as three-fifths of a person. Worse, the government drags citizens into working against their own virtue and conscience by supporting slavery through taxes and other means. Since the government derives its power from the people, if enough people stop associating with the government, the government will either lose its power or have to change its position on the issue of slavery. Thoreau thus argues that humans (or at least he) should divest themselves of the government and ignore the laws that go against virtue.

“Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless.” 

Thoreau notes that slavery exists not purely because of the Southerners who own slaves but also because of the tacit support of the institution from Northerners who wait idly by hoping change will come on its own. This is a powerful abolition message that suggests if the institution exists anywhere in the country, it is not enough to say that it doesn’t exist in one’s neighborhood and is therefore not a problem. This is the position Abraham Lincoln would eventually endorse (stating that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”) nearly a decade after Thoreau made the argument. Prescience aside, Thoreau also wants to clarify that his argument is purely for his neighbors and those he actually can influence. “Civil Disobedience” is, remember, a lecture given in his hometown and a call to action (or inaction) for his neighbors.

“If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth,—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” 

Thoreau frequently refers to the government as a machine and notes that the machine creates and is fueled by injustice. With such knowledge, one must ask what role the injustice plays in the machine. If the injustice is an essential part of the government itself, one may be able to let it run its course, as eventually the machine will cease to function. If, however, the injustice has its own device altogether, trying to right the wrong might be worse. But the third option absolutely requires action. If the machine requires one citizen to inflict something wrong on another—such as supporting the enslavement of someone else—then the law itself must be broken. For Thoreau, the individual always matters more than the State. It may not matter to him as much if the State does harm, but it absolutely matters if the State engulfs him in doing harm. This kind of logical assessment of the issue is common throughout the essay, as Thoreau offers and eliminates alternatives to better clarify his own position.

“For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done for ever.” 

Thoreau argues that even small acts of disobedience can have a profound impact. For one thing, they build on each other. If enough people do enough small acts, then the State will change. For another, even small acts have permanence. Thoreau specifically cites his quarrels with the tax collector as ones that matter, for he hopes his complaints will cause the tax collector to quit his job. If nothing else, he knows the tax collector will permanently remember his complaints and might question his own role in the moral rot of government.

“Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” 

Paradoxically, Thoreau felt most free when he was imprisoned for breaking the law. Since prison is a place where the State puts those who are against it, and since the State is corrupt and unjust, being a prisoner must by definition make one against corruption. Prison also allows Thoreau to examine the lengths of injustice created by the State, as he recognizes it as a place someone designed to be unjust. Nevertheless, he learns to pity the State in prison, because he feels bad that the government does not understand that it is not a punishment for him to be separated from society by the prison wall.

“You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself, always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs.” 

Like many of Thoreau’s works, “Civil Disobedience” advocates for self-reliance. He lived for years in a small cabin at Walden Pond, and he believes that such a lifestyle makes him more virtuous for two reasons. One, by seeking comfort or wealth, people become dependent on the State for protection. Two, if Thoreau had a more complicated lifestyle, he would have more to lose in going against the corrupt State. By being independent and following the life within himself, he can transcend the unjust society and stand on higher moral footing. Thus, he urges others to live like he does to improve society as a whole.

“Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I.” 

In prison Thoreau learns that the State cannot take a person’s mind or soul, only their body. As a result, he recognizes that the only threat the State offers is a physical one and that a person like himself who follows a higher law than the State’s cannot really be threatened. Thoreau also argues that life is meant to be lived and that the State cannot change the purpose of a person’s life so long as they do not let themselves become forced. In other words, the government lacks any real power over an individual.

“It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.” 

Prison is a transformative experience for Thoreau, who compares it to visiting a foreign land or a town in the Middle Ages. In prison he learns to see his country town with a new set of eyes; he recognizes firstly that he, unlike most of his neighbors, is now aware of the institution of prison. But he can also hear the sounds of his neighbors in a way that he never has before. Ironically, after getting so close to his town, he leaves it, recognizing that those neighbors whom he now understands better will never challenge the State the way he wants them to.

“It is for no particular item in the tax-bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. 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,—the dollar is innocent,—but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance.” 

Thoreau seems to anticipate a possible compromise to his position that taxes should not to be paid due to the government’s impurity. Why not simply hold on to the taxes that would buy a human being or support the war effort? Thoreau argues that it is not really about the money. The dollar itself is not the problem, and tax is not problematic on its surface. For instance, he pays the highway tax because it supports his neighbors. But the State’s tax represents his loyalty to the State, and that he cannot abide. As in other parts of “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau equates the practical—paying taxes—with the theoretical—the duties of a citizen—to make both a specific call to action for his contemporaries and a universal message that is applicable to all eras.

“Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; but seen from a point of view a little higher, they are what I have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?” 

Thoreau considers the Constitution evil because slavery is encoded into its foundation, but he appreciates the complicated work that went into it. Thus, if one looks at it from a purely logical or practical perspective, the Constitution seems good. Thoreau, however, prefers to look at it from a spiritual perspective and concludes that the Constitution is not even important to consider. Once again, he advocates for his own individual law over that of the State.