"How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also."
". . . I say, let us now have such a machine any longer. In other words, 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. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army." (referring to the Mexican-American war)
"If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth,-certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it 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.
As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
"I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moroever, any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one already."
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also prison. . . 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 mroe free and honorable ground, where
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Reading this essay, I found myself caught in a position that I do not normally occupy: that of defending the institution of government. At least for the first few pages of the reading, Thoreau laments about how government dehumanizes people, is slow and ineffectual, and creates a machination as substitute for itself, making injustice difficult to face/see/overcome. I think all of this is true, but where Thoreau gets into his solution for the faults in the American government, the main one being slavery, is where I disagree. American government may be ineffectual but it still works(sometimes). Thoreau states of injustice in law, "break the law," and of the ways government provides for remedying injustice, "It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me." His position goes too far for me and, even though it has some merits to it, like taking personal responsibility for your governments wrongdoings and standing up in the most individual way possible, I don't think his way is the most effectual. Keeping your individual conscience clean by means of separation from the government (through non-payment of taxes and imprisonment) may make you feel better, but sitting in a jail cell won't effect change the way social reform and political activism will. In other words, what I'm trying to say is, that Thoreau needs to be willing to "play the game." Organize! Protest! Vote! A just minority will overcome an unjust majority as is evidenced through the years passed since the 1800s. A great example of Thoreau's advice to break the law if it is unjust combined with a greater, incorporated movement that took place within the confines of government is that of the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. People didn't refuse to pay their taxes, but they did refuse to follow the specific, unjust laws that were enforced upon them. In this way, I think that on the whole, Thoreau is correct when he calls out those who admonish bad laws without action or feign support when they offer none. Act your conscience, and do it to effect change. But, when acting your conscience, remember that keeping your hands clean by no means cleans those of the government and its people. If you really want to change things for the better, go to your state legislature with a bar of sap and start scrubbing.
This is for an APlang essay But basically I was wondering what y’all would think his stance would be. For background the abortion law, which is going to the Supreme Court, would require all abortion clinics to gain “admitting privileges,” or the right to admit patients to hospitals in order to function. Problem is that if this law were in place, many hospitals would only allow admitting privileges if the clinics provided them with a constant stream of patients, which, since abortion has an accident rate of less then 1%, would not be the case. So basically what I’m arguing now is that Thoreau would be against it because it would hinder women’s ability to access abortion and therefore hurt their individual freedom. I’m at a loss for what else to argue and if my argument is accurate. Wondering if u guys could provide some insight, thanks!
)