Thoreaus Justifications for Breaking the Law - Essay Example

Thoreau’s Justifications for Breaking the Law Henry David Thoreau is typically associated with his deeply philosophical work Walden, but his influence in the world was arguably made to a greater extent through his essay entitled “Civil Disobedience” published in 1849. The essay was the result of Thoreau’s brief stay in a Concord jail after refusing to pay his poll tax. “It is Thoreau’s extremely personal response to being imprisoned for breaking the law. Because he detested slavery and because tax revenues contributed to the support of it, Thoreau decided to become a tax rebel” (McElroy, 2005). According to the general story, Thoreau refused to pay his tax and was subsequently arrested. Declining to pay the fine associated with his arrest, Thoreau was willing to spend as long as it took to get the government to leave him alone on the fine, to draw attention to the reasons he was refusing to pay the fine or to gain greater support for others who had also tried to protest civil projects funded by public taxes. However, his friends, unwilling to allow him to sit in jail for long, without his knowledge, permission or convictions, paid the fines for him, getting him sprung from the cell the day after he was arrested. Although he was only there for a single night, the insights he gained into the process were deepened and expanded, working themselves out in the essay. Unsurprisingly, Thoreau offered three primary justifications for breaking the law: to raise awareness of an unjust law, to demonstrate solidarity with others who share the same principles, and to retain a sense of personal integrity. To build his case, Thoreau justifies breaking the law as a means of raising public awareness that a particular law is unjust or immoral. Blindly obeying the law, he says, is dangerous. “A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart” (Thoreau, 1849). Thus, blind conformance to the law does not necessary make a good man and can lead a good man astray, leading him against what he knows is good, purposely to invoke damage or death upon others and detrimental to his health even before he reaches the battlefield, yet men continue to blindly obey the law anyway. “Whatever his position on government, one point is clear: Thoreau denies the right of any government to automatic and unthinking obedience. Obedience should be earned and it should be withheld from an unjust government” (McElroy, 2005). Throughout the essay, Thoreau continues to use the Founding Fathers’ fight against oppressive government to prove his point, as well as to illustrate how a dedication to justice is a goal shared by many people. A second goal of Thoreau’s in his actions as well as in his deeds is to show support for others who had been arrested or suffered as a result of protesting, to some degree or another, an unjust law. He associates himself quickly with those who are protesting against slavery, stating: “When a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize” (Thoreau, 1849). Rosenwald (2000) suggests “associating his resistance with particular evils puts him nearer to more combative traditions. Barbara Andrews … links him to the Algonquin Indians who refused to pay taxes to the Dutch for strengthening Fort Amsterdam, and to the American Revolutionists who refused to pay the Stamp Tax to the British in the 1760s.” In addition, Rosenwald points out Thoreau’s early identification with Bronson Alcott who was arrested for refusing to pay the same tax two years earlier. “Alcott was arrested on January 17th, 1843; he was brought to the town jail that Thoreau was later to spend a night in, held there for two hours, then released when Samuel Hoar paid his tax for him” (Rosenwald, 2000). In providing a rationale for his friend’s action, Charles Lane indicated Alcott’s decision was based on a dedication to peace and love. Although this position differed somewhat from the actions of Thoreau, who did have political motives for his actions, Thoreau’s earliest drafts for “Civil Disobedience” included references to Alcott’s stand. The underlying message throughout all of his rationalizations, though, is a dedication to one’s personal integrity. “Thoreau was against using violence to solve problems, but was willing to go to jail to protest something he didn’t think was right … He believed in following his conscience, or ‘inner voice’ to tell him what was right and what was wrong. If the government law and his idea of higher law did not agree, he felt it was his duty to ‘deliberately violate the law of the land’ and be willing to go to jail for his actions” (Kroll, 2005). Comparing human government to the workings of a machine, Thoreau illustrates how government is not as good as man’s natural state, frequently grinding and rattling, requiring springs and gears for no apparent reason other than for its own purposes and having no inherent morality or ethics of its own. Despite the fact that laws are created with little to no consideration of human morals or ethics, it is nevertheless considered moral and right that a man follow the letter of the law. Thoreau took exception to this thinking, saying, “but if it [the law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn” (Thoreau, 1849). In Thoreau’s view, it is precisely through the actions of numerous individuals, all standing up for the common good regardless of the dictates of the law, that unjust and unfair laws are changed. While people’s definitions of what is ‘good’ might change from one individual to another, Thoreau illustrates how blind obedience to law without questioning whether it is good or not certainly cannot be itself the definition of good. Throughout his essay, Thoreau suggests that individuals should break the law anytime they perceive it to be unjust as a matter of social responsibility. A man acting against his conscience or will is a man who cannot claim to be truly a man but must instead consider himself little more than the tool of government. Standing against such a law is necessary not only for the individual, but also for the public as any resulting trouble serves as a means by which the public can be made more aware of any injustices the law introduces into society. Finally, by associating himself with other men, all standing for a common purpose against a particular law, the protest against these laws becomes larger, bringing greater attention to the issue and forcing increased questioning of the laws. It is only in this way that society is then able to adjust, becoming by degrees more humane. Works Cited Kroll, Rebecca Anne. “Can Something ‘Wrong’ Really be Something ‘Right’?” The Odyssey. (2005). November 10, 2007 McElroy, Wendy. Henry Thoreau and ‘Civil Disobedience’. (2005). Future of Freedom Foundation. November 10, 2007 < http://thoreau.eserver.org/wendy.html> Rosenwald, Lawrence. “The Theory, Practice & Influence of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience.” The Oxford Historical Companion to Thoreau. William Cain (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” (1849). November 10, 2007 Read More