Civil Disobedience

Henry David Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” more commonly known as “Civil Disobedience,” originated as a Concord Lyceum lecture given in January 1848 as the Mexican-American War was winding down. The essay and its central thesis—that following one’s conscience trumps the need to follow the law—have profoundly impacted global history, political philosophy, and American thought, notably influencing both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

The text was originally published in an 1849 essay collection titled Resistance to Civil Government edited by Transcendental writer and educator Elizabeth Peabody. The essay’s final form was published in 1866 under the title “Civil Disobedience” in a posthumous collection of Thoreau’s work. Today it can be found in the public domain. This guide utilizes the version found at ibiblio.org (https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Thoreau/Civil%20Disobedience.pdf).

The essay opens with Thoreau declaring that he believes in the adage “that government is best which governs least,” which he says amounts to “that government is best which governs not at all” (3). This is because the government often does not serve the public’s interest and can be “abused and perverted before the people can act through it” (3). Government is often not beneficial, as has been proven in the Mexican-American War, the work of a small group of people who have used the government as their tool despite public dissent. Thoreau also argues that government is harmful because it can be bent to the will of one person, though it was established to serve the will of the collective people.

Thoreau clarifies that he does not mean to get rid of government altogether, since people must have some entity—he uses the metaphor of the government as a machine—to hear their voices. However, he notes the US government really does not do anything the people do not do themselves: “It does not keep the country free,” “settle the West,” or “educate,” as these achievements stem from the “character inherent” to the American people, who would have accomplished even more if the government had not slowed their progress (4). Instead, Thoreau advocates not for no government but for a “better government” (4).

This is difficult to achieve in a democracy because democracies are dominated by the majority. The majority is not always morally right but often merely stronger than the minority, so a “government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice” (4). As such, Thoreau argues that laws created by the majority do not need to be followed if they go against a person’s conscience. It is better that a person do what is right than what is lawful.

Laws do not make a person more morally sound; in fact, following some laws actually makes a human less morally sound, as “even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice” (5). Thoreau brings up the example of a soldier who fights a war, since most soldiers know that war by its nature is unjust. Those soldiers become tools of the state who cannot really be thought of as men but as “small moveable forts and magazines” who serve “some unscrupulous man in power” since they lose their humanity when they cannot follow their own consciences (5). Thoreau argues that soldiers serve the government with their bodies while politicians and legislators serve with their heads. But because legislators do not usually make “moral distinctions,” they “are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God” (6). There are leaders who do challenge the government or prioritize their moral principles, but they are few and are treated as traitors or enemies by the government.

Thoreau then asks how a person should behave toward the US government, especially given the moral injustices of the Mexican-American War and slavery. He argues that a moral person cannot “be associated with” the US government, as that person’s government cannot naturally be the “slave’s government also” (6). As such, he argues that Americans have a duty to rebel against the government. The reason there has not been a revolution against slavery is not because of the Southerners but because Thoreau’s neighbors in Massachusetts “are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity” and would rather wait passively for someone else to solve the problem (8). Thoreau says the cause of building a moral government and eradicating slavery from the United States is paramount. To be a good citizen, one must follow their conscience and promote justice, even if the actions of individuals tear the nation itself apart.

Thoreau dismisses those who say they do not like the government but do nothing about it; he is especially vehement that voting is not a strong enough action to make the government just. Voting for the right thing does not do anything beyond telling the powers that be that you hope what you vote for prevails. The majority can choose whether to hear it, and regardless, the majority will always do whatever is in its own interest. Thus, the majority will only vote for the abolition of slavery, for instance, when there either are so few slaves left that the vote makes no difference or when the cause of slavery itself no longer benefits the majority’s interest. Worse, there are few independent voters left in America, as most are beholden to political party elites and vote for whomever the party places on the ballot.

However, Thoreau clarifies that a person has no obligation to eliminate the wrongs the government reinforces. A person may be busy living their own life or have other goals or interests than justice, but each person has a moral duty to “wash his hands” of injustices perpetrated by the government (10). Thoreau describes the hypocrites in his town who announce that they would not put down a slave insurrection or fight in Mexico if the government demanded it, but who still provide money to the government to support those actions.

Since everyone agrees that there are unjust laws, Thoreau asks whether people should “be content to obey” them, try to “amend them” but obey them until they are amended, or “transgress them all at once” (12). He states that most people will choose the second course of action, thinking that the cure of injustice is worse than the disease. This may be so, but this rationale is the fault of the government, as the State does not encourage dissent. Laws are set up to protect the State, and the State cannot fathom that a citizen might deny its authority. Thoreau revisits the metaphor of the machine to describe times when citizens need to rebel. If the injustice is necessary for the “machine of government” to function, it should be left alone as it will likely sort itself out (12). If the injustice has a part of the machine devoted exclusively to the injustice, it might need to be left alone as well, as it may be that the “remedy” may be “worse than the evil” (12). But if the injustice requires a citizen to be “the agent of injustice to another,” then Thoreau argues a citizen should “break the law” (12). That is, if a law requires one to live immorally and to harm another, the law must not be followed.

Breaking the law is the preferred action because the government cannot easily amend laws. In fact, the Constitution itself is “evil” as it sets up unjust laws (13). Thoreau states that his place in the world is simply to live in it, not to improve it. Besides, one person cannot do everything necessary to eliminate injustice. Rather, the preferred action is simply to withdraw support for the government. Abolitionists should stop providing their property or bodies to support the government of Massachusetts, as God would be on their side, and as each person is a “majority of one” who does not need to wait for the government to change (13).

Thoreau discusses his own actions, describing his interactions with the tax collector. Thoreau always makes sure to argue with the tax collector because he has voluntarily chosen to represent the unjust government and because Thoreau’s disagreement is with the men who make the laws, not the law itself. These conversations are small acts of rebellion, but Thoreau argues that small protests are important, as they are permanent and can combine to effect change. The tax collector, for instance, could be convinced to resign his office and, thus, slow the government. However, Thoreau laments that most men are too timid to act or risk being jailed for what they believe.

But prison is actually a freer place than society, as the prisoner can live an honorable life since they have been placed there for opposing the unjust State. Prison can also make a person more devoted to fighting injustice, since the imprisoned experience injustice firsthand rather than vicariously through the experience of the slave or the soldier.

Thoreau urges all those who stand against injustice to combine their weight against the State, since a minority that “clogs” the government can make the government change (15). After all, the State cannot imprison everyone and will choose to end a war or abolish slavery rather than arrest the masses. Additionally, Thoreau suggests that not paying taxes is preferred to letting the State use those tax dollars to cause violence and bloodshed. In fact, if enough people did not pay taxes, it would be “the definition of a peaceable revolution” (15). And even if there were to be some bloodshed in that revolution, it would be blood shed from a wounded conscience, blood Thoreau says he sees now.

Thoreau mostly focuses on prison as a consequence because the alternative—having property or goods taken—largely does not apply to the people who are most interested in ending injustice. Such people are not likely to have much property or wealth, as the wealthy are “sold to the institution”—the State—that made them wealthy (16). And wealth comes with a decreasing sense of virtue or morality. Should a person become rich, the best thing they can do is maintain the lifestyle they had before accumulating wealth. Thoreau also anticipates a criticism of his argument—that acting against the State will erode the State’s protections or, worse, that the State will come after that person’s property or family. Thoreau suggests that this quagmire is exactly why one should not attempt to accumulate wealth and should instead live with their own means, as it is impossible to live both morally and comfortably. Thoreau does not consider himself dependent on the State for anything, and because he is not rich, it costs him less to disobey the State than it would cost his soul, his humanity, and his integrity to obey it.

Thoreau then recounts his own acts of disobedience. He once refused to pay money to a church his father attended but that he did not. To avoid paying, he wrote to a town clerk that he did not wish to be viewed as a member of that church, and he has not gotten a bill since. However, he regrets that there is no way to write a similar letter for every society he wishes to divest himself from. He then states that he has not paid a poll tax in six years, and even spent one night in jail as a result, but he felt free in that jail. The wall that separated him from his town actually lifted his spirits, as he felt threatened not by the prisoners but by the world outside the prison walls. He learned to feel bad for the State because it does “not know its friends from its foes,” while he only has to answer to a higher power and obey his own laws (19). He recognized in jail that he was not part of the machinery of government and that the State could only ever take his body, not his mind.

Thoreau describes his night in prison as a trip to another country. He felt as though he was seeing his native village through the eyes of the past, as though he had entered the Middle Ages. He feels that he had never gotten a look at his town’s inner workings or institutions, especially the peculiar institution of prison, which contains perfectly formed holes for giving inmates food and open windows that let the town be heard and seen at all times. He is fascinated by how it functions, the gossip the inmates tell, and the verses they write. His roommate is a man accused of burning his barn, but Thoreau wonders if he accidentally lit a fire after passing out drunk. The cellmate shows him how the prison works and even offers friendly advice on saving his bread for later meals.

The next morning Thoreau is released because someone has paid his tax for him, against his wishes. After leaving prison, Thoreau feels changed, like he can see his city and its people more clearly. He recognizes that they are friends in “summer weather only” and that they cannot be counted on to effect change (21). He notes that none of them understand that an institution like the jail even exists. Thoreau leaves town and is no longer under the State’s oversight.

Out of town, he announces that he refuses allegiance to the State as a whole. He pays for the highway tax because it benefits his neighbors but refuses all other taxes. Thoreau admits that his neighbors probably mean well, and he wishes he could respect their wishes. However, he knows that supporting their wishes and paying all taxes would hurt others who do not live in his community. He criticizes the person who anonymously paid his taxes as being either supporting injustice (if the person paid the bill out of solidarity with the State) or interfering with the public good (if the person paid it to help him), as Thoreau’s actions (or inactions) are for the public good of change.

Despite his stances, Thoreau admits that he wants to follow the law, as he does not want conflict with anyone. He argues that the Constitution looks like it should deserve obeisance and respect from one point of view. However, when he looks at those laws from “a little higher,” they appear less moral, and he wonders if the laws are worth thinking about at all (24). He admits that most people disagree with him, but he is discontented by legislators and politicians. They are part of the unjust institutions and, therefore, cannot see how or why to change them. He argues that they may have made some useful systems, but they cannot see the inherent injustice in the law as a whole. Thoreau singles out Daniel Webster, the famous US congressman and diplomat, as a politician who will not reform government because he follows the institution and law as a whole. Webster supports slavery, for instance, not because he thinks slavery is just but because slavery is part of the original Constitution. Thus, to Thoreau, Webster has rightly been called the “Defender of the Constitution,” but that honor makes him prudent, not wise (25).

Thoreau concludes the essay by calling the authority of government “impure,” as a government cannot be just if it lacks the “sanction and consent of the governed” (27). Democracy is a step in the right direction for the power of the individual, but it does not go far enough. Thoreau imagines a State that would fully respect an individual and not mind if a few people chose to live completely free of the State altogether, “not meddling with it, nor embraced by it” (27-28). If such a State could exist, then an even “more perfect and glorious” State could follow (28).