Commenting period (October 20, 2020 17:30 – December 30, 2020 06:59) is closed
7* Excerpt from Civil Disobedience
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Resistance to Civil Government, called Civil Disobedience for short, is an essay by American Transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War (1846–1848).
Excerpt from Civil Disobedience By Henry David Thoreau
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted upon more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. 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. 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.
I think the whole spiel about a government that doesn’t govern shows the Romantic views perfectly. It shows how if a government were merely a figurehead, we as the individual could focus more on ourselves. This is of course in line with how they thought. To look a little deeper, it would be similar to communism. Under communism, people work together for a common good, but in this case, it would allow people to work with who they wanted to. Yet another choice of individuality. Finally, without a government, there would be no rules. Rules are fundamentally anti-romantic when you think about it, as they limit expression. Thats why this is the best and simplest way to show how his views line of with those.
The first portion which says “That government is best which governs least” is a good example of Transcendentalists. The idea that Transcendentalists believe that as an individual you are fully capable of making your own coherent thoughts without teachings from past masters relates to this. With less involvement of the government, they believe that people are truly best when less self-reliant. When tying this into a larger idea (analysis level 3) because they believe that individuals are born pure. Society as a whole are the ones that corrupt those individuals making them far less self-reliant. With a government that isn’t as powerful, that ‘corrupted’ society would be drawn to self-reliance. The core idea.
Thoreau’s radical idea, “that government is best which governs least,” is probably my favorite line in the text. To me, it means that Thoreau prefers a government which does not meddle with his life in order to do horrible things that he doesn’t approve of. For example, in this piece, Thoreau coined the term “civil disobedience” which could possibly refer to his refusal to pay taxes in protest of slavery and the Mexican-American war. His willingness to dissent during the time further highlights his transcendentalist values. This quote is important to me because it applies now just as much as it did then – the government meddles in our lives to an extent that I find unnecessary, and it seems that if the people disagree with anything and protest, they’re typically punished. This reflects the fundamental wrongness of our government – like Thoreau criticizes later in the essay, there is little focus on the individual but rather a focus on the (privileged) majority. This can function to marginalize the minority’s ideas.
I agree with what you said. But I also wanted to add on about this line, to me Thoreau is saying that the government is better when it’s less involved with people’s lives. To me I feel like Thoreau is saying that the government steals the right of people’s lives. And obviously the people should do something about that but I feel like they don’t care enough. And Thoreau is basically wanting the people to care more, in my opinion. But I do agree with everything else you said in this.
This sentence connects with the idea of Transcendentalism because it focuses on an individual group of people which are men to prepare to run a government.The idea of having the free thought that men had to run the government really connects with the universe because it puts that self-reliance trait on men showing the dependence of running the government.
the government and those groups of people are in one pile. Although they have different thoughts they all can agree to one thing after a while. I can agree with what you said about “showing dependence of running the government” as a whole group of people. They can build off of each other which benefits the government as well.
I took this statement to refer to something close to an anarchy or at least a lack of rules and rulers. I think the connection you mentioned to individualism is interesting – if an individual group of men are running the government, are the people they govern truly “individual”? Or are they just followers? (which would contradict the romantic movement’s ideals). Just something I was thinking about :)
This to me feels like its a connection to Transcendentalist, and although it’s not the best example but it is an example. This sentence to me is basically saying that the people should think for themselves. And what I mean by that is that the people should know right from wrong. And that the people should have their own opinions and views on things, instead of just agreeing with everything the government says and does. And that the people should respect what is right rather than what is the law. And that respecting the law too much can cause people to do the wrong thing.
This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads… But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
“let every man known…” this can be individualism. It is saying people around the world think on their own about what the government would command in. It is like the people can join in and agree with one thing together. It can also be free thought, where everyone can think about the government. Therefore, can make the whole process of choosing one thing more efficient for everyone to be “one step toward obtaining it”. It is a free thought but can then be put into one opinion.
So, I think it’s good that you brought this up. I take this to mean after looking at it the way you showed, that maybe there is some middle ground. For example, a true republic lets the people govern, and it makes me wonder if this could be a good middle ground. Would any government at all be bad, or is this at the very least, an okay compromise?
This text definitely represents individualism and free thought.But which one does it represent the most?In my opinion,individualism is being shown better in there because he pointing out men to individually think about how much respect they would gain.I also agree with the agreement part.It could make better agreement.Free-thought is shown by the writer because he talks about individual men gaining his respect from what they do.That brings out his own opinion.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? 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. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. ...
This is the best line in the text for me because it really pushes toward that trait of individualism.When the writer said"when the power comes in the hands of the people"that’s where the writer makes a reader think about people in a individual way.It makes the people think about how how strong they are to continue to rule.A little bit of self thought is being shown also because he thinks that the government can only be ran by the strongest which could be the strongest statement in the text.This connects with the whole essay because it’s pushing toward what the writer is trying to explain throughout his whole essay.It’s showing that free-thought and making people think about individualism.
This to me is the best line because it closely relates to our “democratic” system and today’s present. In short, despite what politicians may say, our system isn’t very democratic, and there are many anti-majority checks. A good example would be the electoral college or the supreme court. They were made originally in order to prevent the people as a whole to lead the country astray. The sentence highlighted states that a majority in all cases isn’t always based on justice, nor is right. While this is very objective, and we’re currently living in a government that is abusing their anti-majority powers. This could also be taken with their argument of the majority ruling in all cases could be lead through emotionalism and not clear-headed thoughts. To be clear and end this thread, I liked this sentence because it had multiple ways to perceive it, and it connects to the present in many different ways.
What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it…
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, 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. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. … The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made….
“If I devote myself to others pursuits and contemplations…I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders”. Throughout the whole reading Thoreau mostly talks about the government and laws. Which would make him devote towards something one way or another. The thing that he watches is if there is another person that has the same devotion as himself. If so then he got to make sure the other guy gets off of that shoulder so then he can fully commit to one thing. If they both contemplate about one thing together they most likely wont find something out of it together. Instead one can find out and have that free thought that comes out of devotion and contemplations.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? …
This is the best line of the text because I think it really encapsulates what Thoreau is trying to say. The government is corrupt and needs to change. He’s not trying to say destroy the government but change the things that make it wrong. The only problem is he really doesn’t say how to fix them.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her — the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now…
This is my favorite line, because in my opinion, he’s just so stupid for saying it. I know it lines up with the typical views, but it’s basically him throwing a hissy fit about not getting to do anything he wants. When you look deeper at the line, it suggests that being just is doing what you want, as you are being true to yourself. This is all well and good, until you realize that it means he might want to murder people because he “Feels it is just”. Overall, I just find this line humorous.
Thoreau seems to be complaining about how the government is too harsh. And if you were truly living life you’d be in jail. Which is pretty funny, but he is more attacking the governments over-governing than telling people to do whatever they want. Thoreau isn’t trying to get people to do crimes but saying that some of the things that qualify as crimes are unnecessary.
“A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority ; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight” that is my favorite line because I agree with this. To me this sentence is saying that we should not always agree with the government view. And the people needs to do something about it. And more specifically the government view on slavery. And David Thoreau is basically protesting to end slavery. And that is why this is my favorite line in the whole text.
The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
This is what the romantic movement wants, more freedom and expression. The eventual dissolving of the strict monarchies to more progressive democracies. Thoreau states “from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual”, This is exactly what the romantic movement is about
General Document Comments 0
Read the entire text
Make one substantial comment on the text that focuses on the way in which this text demonstrates Romantic and/or Transcendentalist ideals.
Make one substantial comment discussing the best line in the text.
Make one substantial reply to someone else’s ideas.
Include ALL THREE levels of analysis in your comments. This means that they will each be 6+ lines long, at least.
Due by next Wednesday at 10:30am (though the quicker you finish, the less overwhelmed you’ll be…).
Transcendentalism is an intellectual and spiritual movement in which the individual is encouraged to stress their personal connections with the universe, and this involves the concept of non-conformity (which should strengthen the feelings of individuality) and can be extended to apply to radical and unique ideas, such as those that Thoreau is stating here. His essay is essentially a criticism of the government, and I’d particularly like to note his dislike for slavery, since transcendentalism ties into early ideas of abolitionism, which likely were far and few between during the time. Thoreau’s confident criticism shows his value for his individual ideals, and thus connects to the Romantic movement.
I agree with this statement of transcendetlism. It discorugages any comforimity to society in order to better strengthen your individualism. With this in mind, when using your own thoughts, you should be able to create your own insights with little attention to others. This creates self-reliance, and although I don’t think his whole argument throughout the essay was perfect, his dislike for slavery reflects upon those unique ideas that are encouraged. This is super interesting because at the time, society mostly wasn’t actively trying to abolish slavery until a certain era came. Because he conssitlenty strived to be different from society and reinforce his invidulaism. He was able to create his own moral coherent thoughts on this matter. Something far off of the norm of society, and really brings light to some strengths of this ideology.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments