Previous
Summary
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Civil Disobedience, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
American People vs. The American Government
Justice vs. Law
State Submission as a Pretense for Patriotism
Civil Disobedience
Summary
Analysis
Thoreau begins his essay by admitting that he believes that the best governments are the ones that “govern least.” He follows up by arguing that, unfortunately, most governments are “inexpedient,” and that in many cases a standing government is just as objectionable as a standing army because it is “equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.”
Thoreau begins by reflecting on the role of the government. This reflection is deliberately abstract, not taking any particular government to task yet. Rather, Thoreau simply asks his readers, the American people, to consider why a standing government could and should be thought of as impractical or even dangerous. Thoreau is intent to establish the connection between a standing army and a standing government so that his readers can have it at the back of their minds as he launches into a more specific critique of the American government.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau argues that the American government has become so corrupted that it is now being used to wage an unjust war (the Mexican-American war), to which the American people did not consent.
Here Thoreau bluntly sets up a rift between the American People and the American Government. He hints that the government shouldn’t have been able to declare war—especially an unjust one—without the People’s consent. Thus, he fuels the idea among his readers that the American government has done a grave offence against the very people it claims to represent.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau maintains that the American government has lost much of its integrity, which has made it weak enough “for a single man [to] bend it to his will.” He compares the government to a wooden gun, saying that it is so fragile that if the people ever used it in “earnest,” it would split. He asserts that the government continues to serve its purpose, though it is ineffectual, because it simply satisfies the American people’s idea of government.
The image of a wooden gun is meant to illuminate Thoreau’s point about the weakness of the government, as well as its fraudulent nature. It is a phony government, because it is only a government in the minds of the people; its actions, on the other hand, don’t represent a true government. As a result, Thoreau hints to his readers that they should begin to question why they are satisfied with a government as fragile and prone to “splitting” as the one they have.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau states that the American government, in direct violation of the American people’s will, is not only waging an unjust war but has also failed to achieve the things it boasts of, such as keeping the country free and settling the west. Thoreau maintains that it is the “character” inherent in the American people that has accomplished these great feats; in fact, he argues that the people would have accomplished more had the government not got in their way.
Thoreau asks his readers to reconcile the government’s noble ideas with its terrible actions, in the process widening the divide further between the People and the Government. He then twists the knife by suggesting that the government takes credit for accomplishments that properly belong to the American people. In some sense, Thoreau is stroking the reader’s ego, trying to get readers to see themselves as full of a greatness that government doesn’t cultivate, but rather represses.
Themes
Literary Devices
Get the entire Civil Disobedience LitChart as a printable PDF.
Thoreau also argues that if one were to judge the people in government on their actions, not their intentions, they would be “classed and punished.”
Thoreau is interested in actions more than words and intentions. He believes that one should be judged by what one does not what one intends to do because actions, rather than words, come with consequences. Therefore, people acting under the government’s name who continue to practice slavery and wage an unjust war are committing acts worthy of punishment, despite their “intentions.” This further adds to Thoreau’s claim that the government is really just a tool for powerful people to use for their own interests with no consideration of the ethics of their choices.
Themes
This leads Thoreau to call for a better and more responsible American government, one in which the majority “do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience [does].” He follows up by calling for a government that does not depend on its citizens to resign their consciousness to the legislator, and for a government that “decide[s] only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable.” Thoreau pleads for a government that allows the people to be “men first, and subjects afterwards,” so that they always have the freedom to do what is right instead of what is simply lawful.
Thoreau makes his calls for a better government on behalf of the American people. His concern for his fellow citizens is palpable here. He attempts to illuminate what the abusive government has done to them—how it has made them resign their ability to think for themselves—and why that must stop. This leads him to make one of his most central claims yet in the essay: the government does not have a right to decide on every issue; that right, he suggests, belongs to his fellow citizens. As a result, he urges them to be independent of the government by questioning whether what is right always means doing what is lawful.
Themes
Developing this distinction between justice and law, Thoreau argues that the law does not make men more just, because in many cases those who respect the law are “agents of injustice.”
Thoreau’s distinction between justice and law is meant to further stoke rebellion among his readers by getting them to question the basis of some of the laws that they follow. He makes the case that it is possible to be an “agent of injustice” by following the law. In other words, there is nothing inherently ethical about the laws of the land.
Themes
To Thoreau, an undue respect for the law instead of for what is right often makes soldiers march into wars and conflicts against their will, and against their “common sense, and consciences.” He questions whether these people are men at all because, for them to serve the state, they must give up their agency and their ability to think, until they are reduced to little more than bare resources or domesticated animals that command little to no respect from the state. However, these are the people whom the government often hails as good citizens and “patriots.” Meanwhile, the people who dare to rightfully challenge the state are called enemies of the state.
The topic of the government’s toxic effects on its citizens comes up again, as Thoreau argues that the government actually dehumanizes those willing to serve it, such as soldiers. He questions if one can serve the state and be a man, which is his way of suggesting that the state is degrading because it reduces one to a tool or an animal, a thing that is simply useful for labor and not for its intelligence. Thoreau points out the problem of bestowing the title of “patriots” to men like this, suggesting it is absurd that one should be required to give up their freedom of thought and all the respect that comes with being a human being to be a “good citizen.”
Themes
Literary Devices
This situation leads Thoreau to argue that it is impossible for a person to be associated with the American government “without disgrace.” In particular, he refuses to recognize the government as his because it is also the “slave’s government.”
Thoreau’s decision to refuse to recognize the government as his because of its connection to slavery is meant to once again fan the flames of rebellion in his readers. It is also meant as a sign of solidarity, a way for Thoreau to say that he also practices what he preaches and is not proud of the American government’s actions, which are in some ways committed in his name (as a white man).
Themes
Thoreau then reminds his fellow citizens to recognize their right of revolution. He brings up the American Revolution as an example of the American people exercising their right to revolt. Nevertheless, he admits that, while he could do without the taxed foreign goods that caused the uproar that led to the “Revolution of ’75,” he cannot continue with a government “machine,” in which “oppression and robbery are organized” and slavery continues to be practiced. He emphasizes again that honest men have the “duty” to rebel and revolutionize.
Thoreau brings up the American Revolution as a way of connecting his argument with the larger American narrative of colonists rebelling against gross injustices of power to gain independence. Thoreau’s message to his readers is this: just like in 1775, America now faces an unjust threat that is just as serious, if not more serious, than the Revolution of ’75. Consequently, Thoreau suggests that stopping the American Government’s practice of slavery and War is also a fight for the independence of his fellow citizens to be able to think, act, and decide for themselves what is right. Thoreau urges his readers not to settle for the “machine” they currently have because it is simply a means to promote injustices like slavery with little social benefit to them. He urges his readers to rebel, as a commitment to the ongoing fight for freedom that began with the Revolution of ‘75.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau then addresses an argument that William Paley makes in “Duty of Submission to Civil Government.” Paley argues that one should not do away with a government if changing it will be an inconvenience to the public. Thoreau disagrees, however, and accuses Paley of being more concerned with the cost of “redressing” a “grievance” instead of the injustice underlying that grievance. This prompts Thoreau to urge his audience to “do justice,” regardless of the inconvenience—"cost what it may.”
Thoreau once again undermines the argument—this time made by William Paley—that the existence of government is more important than doing justice. Thoreau’s message to the reader is that justice must be the first consideration above everything else, whether it’s an inconvenience to the public or not. Besides, he suggests that the cost of not doing justice is perpetuating injustice—which he hints would be costlier in the long run because of the misery it would spread.
Themes
Thoreau uses Massachusetts residents as an example of a population that is unwilling to do justice, “cost what it may.” He blames this on their interest in commerce and agriculture. Although he notes that many think of themselves as opponents to slavery and the war, he argues that, in reality, they “do nothing to put an end to them.”
Thoreau’s engagement with Massachusetts politics shows that he is both interested in the larger politics of the country and with the local minutiae of state politics that defined the pre-civil war era he is writing in. He once against points to the discrepancy between intentions and actions, noting that although some citizens intend to be opponents to slavery, their actions show that their interests in commerce and agriculture come first, limiting their ability to actually mobilize, practice civil disobedience, and do something useful to put an end to slavery.
Themes
Thoreau emphasizes the passiveness of his fellow Massachusetts residents, though they consider themselves to be the children of revolutionary icons like Washington and Franklin. He accuses them of “[postponing] the question of freedom” in favor of “questions of free-trade.” He also argues that they “hesitate, regret, and sometimes petition” the actions of the government with little sincerity and impact. Instead of taking real action, the residents wait for others to “remedy the evil [so…] they may no longer have to regret it.”
Thoreau suggests that the people of Massachusetts should not consider themselves related to revolutionary icons like Washington and Franklin if they rank issues of commerce over issues of freedom. Once again, he suggests that this is an inacceptable way to be a good citizen in a nation as unjust as America. To him, freedom must always come first. Thoreau also begins to unravel the logic of using government approved measures to seek large scale changes. To Thoreau, these actions are useless in the long run, because they are slow to work, lack sincerity because of the proximity to the government (the very thing these actions seek to change), and are done purely for the residents to feel good about themselves.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau notes that “at most” these residents give a “cheap vote” as their way of objecting to the war and slavery. To him, however, voting is like betting, because one casts their vote for what is right but leaves it to the majority of voters to determine the outcome. Thus, he argues that voting—even when it is “for the right”—is not only ineffective but is actually akin to doing nothing, because one is only expressing a desire for one’s ideas to succeed. Thoreau argues that a “wise man” would not leave justice to chance.
One particular government-approved measure for bringing about change is voting. To Thoreau, though, the act of voting is a cheap way for one to claim distant interest in an issue all the while remaining content to leave the outcome of the issue to the masses. Even if the masses share the same sentiment, and the vote works out in the favor of freedom, Thoreau is still bewildered by the people who would leave the outcome to the chance that the majority will be correct. That is, he is unsure how people can claim to stand for freedom by only voting, knowing that there was a chance they would have to live with unjust results. To Thoreau, a “wise man” must take deliberate action to make freedom uncontestable.
Themes
Thoreau claims that the masses would only vote for abolition if it is convenient or when there is “little slavery left to be abolished.” To truly bring about abolition, Thoreau argues, one must “assert his own freedom” and act against slavery in a context in which it isn’t convenient to do so or in which the majority of people are not yet indifferent to slavery.
Thoreau criticizes voting for being a convenient measure for people who do not want to take risks for freedom. To really do justice, Thoreau argues, people must be prepared to take effective action when it isn’t convenient or when it is still a divisive issue among people. In short, standing for freedom when it is risky, makes one’s actions mean something.
Themes
Thoreau then critiques the upcoming Baltimore convention “for the selection of a candidate for presidency” by a group of “editors” and career politicians. He questions the fairness of the selection process and the absence of “independent votes,” and asks why a “respectable man [would…] adopt one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one.”
Thoreau points to the unfairness of the political process for prioritizing the decisions and votes of powerful people in society. This further illuminates his earlier point that the government’s actions are the result of a handful of powerful men in society and not the people at large. He suggests that no respectable man—no man who exercises his right to think for himself—would be satisfied with the limited options for president provided by the government.
Themes
Thoreau states that voting in such a system is worthless, and that men who cast their votes for candidates provided by this system are spineless. This leads him to wonder about the character of “the American,” whom he believes has dwindled into an “Odd Fellow,” that lacks “intellect” and “self-reliance.”
Thoreau makes one of his most important critiques of Americans, calling them an “Odd Fellow” that is lacking in important traits and skills. Yet it is a constructive critique because he appears to be challenging his readers to prove to him that they are capable of acting with intellect and self-reliance and do something to bring about change within the government.
Themes
Though Thoreau concedes that it is impossible for a man to strive towards eradicating every evil in the world, he continues to argue that one must at the very least “wash his hands” of supporting injustice. One is free to live their life pursuing other things, according to Thoreau, but it is one’s duty not to “pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders.”
Thoreau challenges his audience to make sure their actions do not at the very least promote injustice. This is the bare minimum requirement that Thoreau believes people should use to live their lives. Although he is still advocating for the people to break from the government and its actions, he is arguing that this is not a huge or ambitious request given that one’s life should be spent avoiding committing injustice. Thus, if that means disobeying the government, then one must disobey.
Themes
Thoreau then exposes the concepts of “order” and “civil government” as ways for the American government to make the American people “pay homage to and support [their] own meanness.” He claims that this support for order and civil government has embedded injustice so thoroughly in society that it has caused one to feel indifferent to it. That is, this injustice has become necessary “to that life which [one has] made” as an American.
Thoreau argues that the government manipulates the people into following its rules for the sake of maintaining “order” and the longevity of the government. In other words, it is a way for the government to convince the people that its laws must be followed at all times, which has effectively made it hard for the people to question the ethics of the laws they follow. As a result, the American people unknowingly build a life within an unjust structure. Even worse, the continuity of the lives they build depend on them continuing to follow those unjust laws. Thus, the people are stuck in a bind: to do justice they must risk everything.
Themes
Thoreau criticizes those who disapprove of the American government’s actions but continue to serve it dutifully. He argues that these alleged reformers are serious obstacles to reform. He also notes that these reformers have recently petitioned the State to dissolve the Union, even though they have the power to dissolve the Union themselves. This leads him to conclude that the act of petitioning the state is ineffectual.
Thoreau is unimpressed by reformists, those who claim to disapprove of slavery and the war but continue to swear allegiance to the government. These reformers are dangerous because they limit the people’s capacity to demand deep rooted change. Instead they fall victim to superficial calls for change that come through government-approved measures. Another issue he has with these reformers is their inability to act on their inherent power as the people the government should serve. He argues that petitioning the government to dissolve the union is ineffectual because it is asking the government to do something these reformers, as people of the union, already have the power to do.
Themes
Thoreau again asks his audience about the purpose of simply “entertain[ing] an opinion” especially if one is aggrieved by having that opinion. He uses the example of a person being cheated out of a “single dollar by [one’s] neighbor” to make the case that anyone in that situation would “take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount,” and “see that [one] is never cheated again.” Thoreau then suggests that action and principle must always go together in this way, whether in money disputes between neighbors or in civil disputes between a country and its citizens.
Thoreau challenges his readers to dare to have more than an opinion; he challenges them to act when they witness injustice, whether it is after they have been cheated out of a dollar or when they face an abusive government. To Thoreau, as people with agency, it is their duty to act whenever they witness a violation against themselves or their fellow citizens. Again, Thoreau is interested in building solidary among his readers so that they can take on the government as one united body of people.
Themes
Literary Devices
Because unjust laws continue to exist, Thoreau rhetorically asks his audience if they are content obeying them or should “transgress them at once?” He attempts once again to dissuade his audience from thinking of the remedy to injustice as being worse than the injustice. He claims that the American government is responsible for making radical change so difficult and making the American people think that change is bad, because it does not support reform or “encourage its citizens” to hold the government itself accountable. Thoreau argues that this is the case because the government sees itself as infallible.
Again, Thoreau makes the case that there is nothing costlier than injustice, not even the clashes that may result from making an unjust system fairer. He makes this case to incite the people act, to convince them that their transgressions against the government are worth it so long as they are for justice. However, he does show that he understands the people’s hesitation to remedy injustice, admitting that the government makes it hard for people to hold it accountable. This leads him to comment on the power imbalance within the nation: the government is allowed to act however it wants while it encourages the people to ignore the consequences of those actions.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau notes that if injustice is the price for having a government, it is not a good enough price. He implores his audience to “let [the government] go” instead, to “break the law” if necessary, and to live one’s life as a “counter friction to stop the machine.”
Thoreau notes that, if the choice came down to having a government and doing justice, one must under every circumstance choose justice, even if it breaks the law. One’s life should be dedicated to standing outside of any system or “machine” that is built on rampant human rights abuse.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau also notes that he has no interest in following the state-approved ways of bringing about reform; to him, they are time-consuming and ineffective, especially given a human’s short life span. He reminds his audience that there really is no way to bring about change through the state because “its very constitution is the evil.”
Again, Thoreau includes himself in the debates about the best way to stop the government’s abuses of power. He reveals that he would never follow the state-approved ways of bringing about reform because, given the short time span of human life, one should do something that is effective and hastens change. Besides, he notes that the very foundation of the country, the constitution, is evil, making it hard to trust the whole structure. Here Thoreau again suggests that a full-scale revolution is necessary, not just petty changes (reforms).
Themes
Instead, he argues that those who call themselves abolitionists in Massachusetts should bring about reform by “withdrawing their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts.” Thoreau argues that this is the right thing to do because, even if they don’t have the government on their side, they will have God on their side, and that is more important.
He turns his attention again to Massachusetts to advocate for a different type of reform, one that is riskier and more effective. “Withdrawing [one’s] support” for the government by withdrawing one’s property (in other words, not paying taxes) is a way of taking action that would minimize the government’s financial resources and thus its ability to continue its rampant abuses of power. Just like people must strive to do justice by any means, Thoreau argues that they must also strive to align themselves with God first before anything else. Thus, if the People’s actions are in line with God, it does not matter if they go against the government.
Themes
Thoreau reminds his readers that the moment he decides to refuse to pay the tax-gatherer, he is giving the tax-gatherer a chance to decide who he is as a person. The tax-gatherer then has the choice to respect his wishes or he can treat Thoreau as an “obstruction.”
Thoreau argues that when one refuses to pay taxes, the moment isn’t only important for the person who refuses, but for the tax-gatherer as well. In other words, the tax-gatherer can use it as an opportunity to dissent, too, and join the movement or they can continue to be a “good citizen” and see the dissenter’s actions as an unfair challenge to the government they serve.
Themes
He also makes the claim that if “one HONEST man,” in Massachusetts stopped holding slaves, and were put in jail, “it would be the abolition of slavery in America.” To Thoreau, the smallness of the act matters less than how well it is executed. He maintains, however, that people “love” to only talk about the issue of slavery in newspapers and the Council Chamber, instead of acting.
Thoreau reminds his audience again of the power they hold even in small numbers. He argues that, if one person were to take a stand, their actions would be enough to stop slavery. In other words, no act is too small as long as it is executed well enough and hastens justice. Anything is better than simply talking or desiring change without the necessary action it takes to make it happen.
Themes
Literary Devices
He notes that, if an act of civil disobedience ends in jail time, then all the better, because “the true place of a just man is also a prison.” Just men belong there because their moral principles have already made them outsiders to the state, just like Native Americans, Mexicans, and the enslaved population. Thus, it is “on that separate, but more free and honorable ground [..] in which a free man can abide with honor.” He adds that the imprisoned person will only be equipped to “more eloquently and effectively […] combat injustice” because of the time spent in jail. Thoreau also reminds the audience that the state would not hesitate to “keep all just men in prison” if that were the price for war and slavery.
Again, Thoreau concerns himself with the risk that civil disobedience brings, arguing that people’s pursuit for justice in the form of civil disobedience should not be thwarted by the risk of jail time. He urges his audience to see prison as not just a price but as a reward for being a good person, attempting to minimize the negative connotations of prison. He brings up other unfairly treated groups in America, urging his readers to align themselves with these groups, for the purpose of building solidarity and to get his readers to understand how much of an honor it is to live one’s life in a way that promotes freedom for oneself and those around him. To Thoreau, prison is like the school one must go through to prepare oneself to see injustice more clearly so that one can stop it. The state, on the other hand, sees prison as a way of controlling its dissenters, a way to quarter them off, while it continues to abuse its power.
Themes
Thoreau states that a peaceable revolution would be possible “if a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year,” because it would stop the American government from being able to “commit violence and shed innocent blood.” He then goes even further to advise those in power, particularly the tax-gatherers and public officials, to resign their allegiance and their “office” and join the American people in achieving the peaceable revolution he is advocating for. However, Thoreau states that if some blood is shed in the course of revolution, it is no different from the “blood shed when the conscience is wounded,” when people willingly serve an immoral government.
Thoreau draws a connection between refusing to pay taxes and minimizing the government’s resources. Refusing to pay taxes directly limits the government’s ability to kill innocent people, making it more useful than any petition or vote. If everyone were to do this, including those who work for the state as public officials, Thoreau argues, the people would be able to achieve the wide scale revolution they seek without any blood. Nevertheless, Thoreau is not averse to shedding blood should it be necessary, as he also argues that the blood from a “wounded” conscience is no different than the blood from battle. They are one in the same to Thoreau, which suggests that he thinks the People are already being wounded by the government’s actions even if they don’t see the wounds.
Themes
Thoreau notes, however, that those with wealth and much to lose may find it difficult to practice civil disobedience. He claims that more money equates to less virtue, which leads in turn to “superfluous” concerns. Thus Thoreau argues that the best thing for someone to do is “carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor.”
Thoreau argues that those with wealth are more likely averse to risking their wealth and property to disobey the government, not because they can’t, but because their wealth makes life more comfortable so that they think less about issues of freedom and justice. For this reason, he argues that one must look at society as if he were poor to see everything more clearly, especially its contradictions.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau goes into more detail about why the loss of property and the government’s protection of one’s life are big enough risks to deter “the freest of [his] neighbors” from practicing civil disobedience. He concedes that if he were in their shoes, he would also find it difficult to “deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill,” and force the state to “take and waste all [his] property and […] harass [him] and [his] children without end.” For this reason, he implores his readers to live self-sufficient lives and avoid amassing wealth, by living and depending on themselves and not “having many affairs.” This is the key to practicing civil disobedience because, given his small wealth, he “can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts,” so that it “costs [him] less” to disobey “than it would to obey.”
Thoreau, however, does not mean to disparage his wealthy neighbors; he reveals that he would find it difficult to give up his wealth if he were in their shoes, as well—especially when, in addition to the loss of wealth, disobeying the state comes with making life more insecure for one’s family. Thoreau’s solution to this, however, is that people must live self-sufficiently outside of the protection of the state so that they are freed from this conflict of interest. Having a life outside of the state gives one the agency to protest and resist the state. They become free from the anxiety of worrying about their family and their survival should they go to jail. Civil disobedience is already a risky endeavor, so Thoreau aims to make it easier for his readers to practice by advocating for this responsible way of practicing it. Thoreau’s way limits the harm that would fall on one’s family and dependents.
Themes
Thoreau provides examples of his own acts of civil disobedience. First, he recounts how he refused to pay a tax to the church, though someone else eventually paid on his behalf. Then he shares that he also did not pay a poll tax for six years, for which he was eventually imprisoned. During his time as a prisoner, Thoreau realizes that the American government “resolved to punish [his] body” because “they could not reach [him].” This makes him realize that the state is “half-witted” and “timid,” which prompts him to lose all his respect for it and pity it instead.
Again, Thoreau takes a moment to show that he is also involved in the fight for freedom—that is, he practices what he preaches. He uses two examples of himself refusing to pay taxes to the church and the state, the second of which led to his imprisonment, to show that he is not just advocating for his readers to take risks that he isn’t prepared to take himself. Thoreau also reflects on the importance the state places on punishing one’s body because it doesn’t have the capacity to challenge dissenting ideas and critiques. Thoreau believes it hides behind physical power because it lacks intellectual power. Thus, prison time is the state’s way of hiding its fragility.
Themes
Thoreau goes into greater detail about his night in jail. He discusses his relationship with a fellow prisoner, “a first-rate fellow and a clever man,” who has been jailed for allegedly setting a barn on fire. Thoreau examines every aspect of the jail cell and occupies his time by talking to this other prisoner. However, he finds the whole experience disorienting and likens his time in the jail to “travelling into a far country.”
During Thoreau’s time in prison, his fellow prisoner acts as his guide. Thoreau spends time learning about the man and adjusting to the nuances of life in jail, a life that seems to exist apart from the world and society they live in. Thoreau’s world in jail is a world that feels like he and his fellow prisoner are its only inhabitants at times. Thoreau likens it to being in a different country to show the extent of the alienation he feels from the society he has called home all his life. It is as if he no longer belongs to America and, for those reasons, can no longer call its laws, customs, or government his.
Themes
Literary Devices
When he comes out of jail the next day (after someone pays on his behalf), Thoreau looks at his community and surroundings with new and distrusting eyes. He finds that he now understands how little he can trust his neighbors and friends: “They did not greatly propose to do right [and] that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions.” He claims that they are risk-averse, especially when it comes to their property, and are more concerned with following a “particular straight though useless path […] to save their souls.” He realizes that he has become disillusioned by his fellow citizens, even though most of them do not realize the change that has taken place and look at him as if he has just finished running an errand.
Thoreau’s feelings of alienation become only more pronounced once he leaves jail. A change has taken place and his post-jail eyes begin to pick up on the antipathy of his neighbors and friends, their general passiveness and incapacity to make society a better and more just place. Not only does Thoreau not feel any form of solidarity with them, he finds it hard to see them as Americans, fellow citizens, or even part of the human race because of their ambivalence about the unjust state of the country. He critiques them for following useless rules to “save their souls” while living comfortably within an immoral structure as if God won’t notice. Thoreau notes, however, that while jail was a critical experience for him, the rest of the world continues to operate as it had before he was imprisoned.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau notes that he does not believe in disobeying all of the nation’s laws, only the unjust ones. As a result, he declares war against the State because he refuses to continue the violent “effects of [his] allegiance.” Moreover, he criticizes those who continue to pay their taxes because of “a sympathy with the State,” or “to save [their] property,” because they have failed to realize how they “abet injustice” with their actions or wrongfully put “their private feelings” over the “public good.”
Thoreau argues that just like there is nothing inherently good about the government’s laws, there is nothing inherently bad about them either. He provides room for nuance by arguing that not every law is unethical. Nevertheless, he notes that this does not make his declaration of war against the government any less necessary because the good laws do not hinder the violent effects of the bad ones. Again, he challenges those sympathetic to the state to put justice and the “public good” over their desire to be good citizens and patriots.
Themes
Thoreau does, however, concede that the American people “mean well” but are just ignorant of the American government’s sins. He claims, “they would do better if they knew how.” However, Thoreau argues that ignorance is not a good enough reason to allow others to suffer. He maintains that one must treat their fellow humans how they think they “ought to be” treated instead of maintaining how they are currently being treated, while wrongly claiming that this treatment is the “will of God.”
Thoreau portrays the American people sympathetically, arguing that because the American government makes it hard for them to criticize its actions, they know no better. He shows that he continues to believe in them, however, by insisting that the People would do better if they knew how. His writing about the government’s actions, in fact, is meant to expose some of the government’s abuses so that the People are better informed. Yet Thoreau continues to argue that, while the people may be ignorant, they should still act in line with God’s will. Thoreau brings up God to appeal to his audience’s Christian ethics to get them to put it over the laws of the government. Consequently, if God wills the People to disobey the government, they should and must.
Themes
Literary Devices
Thoreau says that, although he would prefer not to “quarrel with any man or nation […and] conform to [the State’s laws],” he nevertheless must review the American government’s actions and positions whenever the tax-gatherer demands he pay taxes each year, in order to see if the State is worth supporting.
Thoreau argues that it is his right and duty to review the government’s actions and decide for himself, regardless of any law, if he supports what the government will use his taxes for. Again, Thoreau believes that the People hold the power within the nation to make these critical decisions. Therefore, they must reclaim this right and act on it.
Themes
Thoreau argues that while the State, the courts, and even the Constitution may seem “very respectable” from a “lower point of view,” he implores his audience to look at the country from a “higher” vantage point to better see the American government’s failures. He also wonders what the government must look like from God’s vantage point, the “highest” vantage point.
Again, Thoreau criticizes the constitution for being the root of America’s problems. Although it may seem respectable to those who are content to look at the country with uncritical and passive eyes, Thoreau argues that, for one to see the government for what it is, it is necessary to look at the document and government institutions from God’s perspective. This perspective, according to Thoreau, allows one to leave their desires to be good citizens behind and see the country for what it is without earthly conflicts of interest.
Themes
Yet Thoreau then admits that he would rather not waste all of his concerns and thoughts on the government, because he is distrustful of those who dedicate all their studies to understanding it. He notes that those who stand too close to it, like statesmen and legislators, will never “distinctly and nakedly behold [the government].” Thoreau maintains that these people’s capacity for bringing about change is limited. Likewise, he critiques defenders of the Constitution as well for failing to note the document’s shortcomings, especially where slavery is concerned.
Thoreau here argues that he is not focusing on the government just for the sake of studying it alone, like so many other statesmen and legislators. To Thoreau, to truly understand the government, one must have some distance from it and look at it outside of one’s political ambitions and one’s role within it. Being too close to the government makes it hard for people to take risks in their calls for change. In other words, they become reformers rather than radicals. According to Thoreau, one cannot be a true abolitionist and defend the constitution; both things are incompatible.
Themes
He brings up Daniel Webster as an example of a politician whose words are “wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government.” Thoreau critiques Webster for practicing “prudence” in his ideas instead of “wisdom.” He argues that Webster’s words aren’t about truth but are rather about “consistency,” which has earned him the title of the “Defender of the Constitution.” After all, as Thoreau notes, Webster has never done anything “to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union.” Thoreau reminds his readers that Webster has even advocated for letting slavery stand as it is because it was part of the “original compact” of the American government’s founding.
Daniel Webster is Thoreau’s example of a politician who does not advocate for any useful reforms. Webster is cautious in his calls for change: to him, the constitution and the endurance of the government must be protected above everything else. Webster is unwilling to distance himself from the very root of America’s problems—its practice of slavery—because of his fears of what this would mean for the country’s longevity. As a result, Webster’s ideas for the nation are limited by his unbreakable allegiance to the Constitution. He is so preoccupied by threats to the still-new country, that he is willing to look the other way at the country’s abuses of power as long as it means America will remain a nation.
Themes
Thoreau states that Webster should think of slavery as a separate issue from the Constitution, and not just allow the states in which slavery is practiced to regulate it in whatever way they deem best according to the constitution, “laws of propriety, humanity, justice, and to God.” He critiques those “who know of no purer sources of truth” and stand stubbornly “by the Bible and the Constitution,” and he differentiates these people from those who actively continue to search for truth beyond the laws.
Thoreau undermines Webster’s logic, urging him to look at the issue of slavery from a higher vantage point, separate from the constitution, and do what is ethical according to God and not the government. Again, Thoreau’s claim is that justice and God’s will must trump any government’s laws. People must actively look outside the law for the best ways to act. In other words, God’s laws on what is right must take precedent over the Constitution and a faulty interpretation of the Bible.
Themes
Thoreau wonders why “no man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America,” even though there are plenty of “orators, politicians, and eloquent men.” He argues that the eloquence of these men lacks truth and heroism, which forces him to conclude that the “wordy wit” of the legislator will not help America to “retain her rank among the nations.” He also critiques legislators for not using the New Testament to shed light on the “science of legislation.”
Thoreau does not believe well-spoken politicians make good legislators because, while there is an abundance of eloquent men in the nation, American laws currently lack truth and heroism. In other words, the laws fail to adequately make the nation a more just and fair place. This forces Thoreau to conclude that, in the end, eloquent words won’t save America. This can only be done by actions that remake America into a more just country. Moreover, Thoreau advocates for using God and the Bible responsibly, particularly the New Testament, for an ethical compass on how legislators should lead.
Themes
Thoreau begins his conclusion by reminding his audience that the “authority of [their] government is still an impure one,” because a just government must have the “consent of the governed” in order to rule. He argues that any transition to a democracy must mean “a true respect for the individual.” He urges his audience to think about how they can take the country a “step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man.”
Thoreau begins his conclusion as a call to arms, reminding the American People that they hold the power to change the trajectory of the nation because the government’s power is derived from theirs. Although Thoreau promotes solidarity among his readers and urges them to think of themselves as a nation of freedom fighters, he also reminds them that they are acting on behalf of the individual, as well. They must act to promote justice so that the nation, as well as the individual, is worthy of respect.
Themes
Thoreau ends by arguing that “a free and enlightened State [must…] recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived.” He imagines an idealized State in which the government fulfils this function, while respecting and allowing those who want to stand outside of its authority to do so unbothered. He dreams of this government as the catalyst to a “still more perfect and glorious State, which […] [he has] imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.”
Thoreau ends by challenging his audience to work towards making their country better than it is by returning power to the individuals that make up the nation. Though most of Thoreau’s writing has been critical, he shows at the end that he still has hope for an idealized version of America. This America would be a state that wouldn’t make conformity a necessity for someone to live within its borders. Thoreau admits that, while this state would not be perfect, it would be a good and promising beginning of what’s to come. This is Thoreau’s ultimate hope for the nation in advocating for civil disobedience.
Themes
Literary Devices
