Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” is an essay about the relationships between individual citizens and their government, and about the role of such issues as slavery, ethics, the US-Mexican War, and majority vs. minority in a democratic nation. His prose eloquently puts forth that he believes all of a country’s citizens should keep their eyes on their government, lest its purpose be warped and twisted as unethical or immoral behaviors and ideas corrupt the system.

Published in 1866, after the US-Mexican War, Thoreau’s essay often hints at Thoreau’s dislike of the government’s motives in starting the war with Mexico. Usually Mexico is not actually spoken of directly, but the time in which the essay circulated among the masses was only a few years after the end of the war, and many then could see in Thoreau’s words that he had been against the war. For example, in the first few paragraphs of his essay, Thoreau says: “the standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it”(455). By mentioning the military, which first conflicted with Mexico’s army rather than through any other means of communication, Thoreau has established that it and the government that controls it are both “equally liable” to be corrupt. It is here, though, that he deems to outright accuse the government and military of starting the war against the will of the people: “Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure”(455). He justifies his right to reproach the United States in saying “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right”(456). Thoreau has stated that it’s his right to petition the government about its motives in commencing with the US-Mexican War. He believes it is only moral and just that someone speak up about it. His main problem with the war was that its commencement and continuation meant that slavery might extend to other territories.

On government in general, Thoreau discusses the relationship between individuals and the State. To him, his only relationship with the state is the tax collector that comes annually to collect his taxes. Though today many people have a broader view of their relationships with the State, including infrastructure, education, and law enforcement, Thoreau didn’t agree with funding a government that supported a war that may have extended slavery to other territories. For this reason, he didn’t pay his taxes for six years and was sent to prison. Though someone bailed him out the next morning, he was willing to sit in prison so that his views about his relationship with the government could reach fruition. “[T]hey thought that my chief desire was to stand [on] the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out against without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous”(469). In Laymen’s terms, Thoreau means to say that his revolutionary ideas, the only thing dangerous about him, could not be locked up in a prison, though his body could. As for the relationship between individuals and democracy itself, Thoreau’s views about voting are very clear. He believes that voting is only a lottery: “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men”(460). In this last sentence, Thoreau is asserting that the popular opinion is not always the right one. It is also reflected in his discussion about the “democracy of one.” In the following quotes Thoreau is lamenting the part of democracy that has allowed a majority, no matter if they’re right or wrong, to have the last say and force any minorities to conform to its wishes. “…[A]ny man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one”(464), and a “…minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority”(466). His view against “majority rules” gives way to another of his arguments: since the majority always has its way, even if its way is unethical or immoral, or both, such institutions as slavery will exist longer (though by 1866, slavery had been abolished). “When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote”(460). He also sarcastically adds later, “it is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong”(461). To galvanize the reader, he poses the question then, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once”(462). In this not entirely rhetorical question, Thoreau is asking his reader if it is right to let someone suffer under a law, or to even obey an unjust law while waiting for change.

Thoreau wrote this work in protest of the government, which included him without his consent, and as such he has several pejorative things to say about it. He whole-heartedly supports and promotes a reduction in the size of the government around him, and this in a period far prior to social security or welfare. He believes that the American people themselves are responsible for the country’s success, and that they shouldn’t rely upon a government to take care of their own business. In addition, there are some government programs and projects, like the WPA Public Works during the Great Depression, that have proven to be very beneficial in promoting prosperity, and we feel that they shouldn’t be ignored when pondering arguments for reducing government services. It should also be noted, too, that though Thoreau says he is basically in favor of a smaller government eventually (he’ll take a better one for now—page 456), he doesn’t trust the majority of the people to vote for the more moral and ethical choice. Thoreau argues that a simple majority is not the best means to govern a body, but that it will always win out due to its pure strength and dominance over any opposition. To this end he promotes individual thought and expression, with the hopes that the citizens under said government could make it somewhat better. We agree that people should make their voices heard in government however they can, but at this point in our country’s history it’s doubtful that any change could be enacted without acknowledging the majority and its influence. Thoreau chose not to ally with his local government, but continued to criticize it for its treatment of slavery. Our group agrees with the anti-slavery mentality that Thoreau took, but is critical of his suggestions for change. Thoreau hinted at revolution and rebellion as means to rectify this problem, but this (obviously) was and is a severe measure. There were abolitionists present in his time working for an end to slavery, and they did help to abolish slavery. While Thoreau might be correct in stating that the constitution slows change down to a glacial pace, those measures for preventing rapid change are in place for a reason, and we feel that they are necessary to prevent other unexamined changes that could hurt our nation greatly.

I like Thoreau’s attempts at promoting individuality and personal expression of beliefs in society, and I agree that the government should be scrutinized carefully, but our nation has done well and is doing well under moderate circumstances, and I don’t think we should set things back through attempts at revolution or rebellion.