Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Civil Disobedience (1849)by Henry David Thoreau
Loading...
Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. No current Talk conversations about this book. In principle I agree with everything Thoreau had to say in this work. But in practicality it probably wouldn't work. Thoreau was protesting against slavery and war, and in my opinion, was right on both points. But Thoreau also preached that anyone and everyone should disobey the government if there was anything at all in which they disagreed with it on. No government can act in a manner in which all it's citizens are always in agreement . Everyone has some difference of opinion with the government and if everyone refused to pay taxes and break whatever laws they chose to we'd wind up with chaos. ( ) A brilliant essay by Henry David Thoreau, and proof that the struggle to define the American destiny has been going on since its inception. 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? Thoreau was deeply aggrieved of the American government and its politicians, who were dancing about the issue of slavery. He states, and rightfully so, that a moral issue such as this cannot take a backseat to any political allegiance to a government, and that the individual must not bend to an immoral demand simply because it is exigent. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people. I can think of a number of issues on which I feel the moral position and the government position could not be further apart. Thoreau refused to pay his taxes in protest of being made to be party to the State’s position by doing so. I am not that brave, but I would often like to scream to the skies how can anyone believe in this position of government and still count themselves as a moral human being. I was taken by how much the political hypocrisy resembles some of what we encounter in our own political arena. And, the old adage that you must “follow the money” holds true then and now. 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. One last comment that impressed itself upon me was the following. 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. I’m afraid a “true respect for the individual” might be something our government has completely lost, but I hope it is not something we, the people, are willing to concede. Always amazing to read something written 171 years ago and find so much there that will apply to life in 2020. no reviews | add a review
Belongs to Publisher SeriesIs contained inIs abridged inHas as a student's study guide
Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience in 1849. It argues the superiority of the individual conscience over acquiescence to government. Thoreau was inspired to write in response to slavery and the Mexican-American war. He believed that people could not be made agents of injustice if they were governed by their own consciences. No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)123Philosophy and Psychology Philosophy Of Humanity Chance, Free Will, And NecessityLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |