Civil Disobedience In The Woods: Resistance To Civil Governm

Civil Disobedience In The Woodsread Resistance To Civil Government

Civil Disobedience in the Woods Read "Resistance to Civil Government" (1857), keeping an eye out for the limits that might be applied to the author's argument. Read postings and respond either to what I've written or to the comments of others (or both). I'd love to see a conversation erupt rather than just a bunch of separate "speeches." Noah The first great limit that I noticed when reading "Resistance to Civil Government" was where Thoreau asked for a better government. He asks to allow every man to let it be known what they like in a government so that they may strive for such a thing. Obviously this is quite idealistic, and he masks the idealism by placing a more absurd notion before mentioning the proposition for a better government, as no government could be made if everyone placed forth their ideas and worked from there.

Compromise would be certain, and compromise is what created the government of the time. Another limit would be Thoreau's belief that soldiers are forced to march and put down those who disrespect the law. He believes that these men are all well predisposed towards peace, which I believe to be inherently naive even for a transcendentalist. Not every soldier is a peace lover, not every one of them is upset that they have to go put down men and women who are rebelling against the law. I would imagine that there are plenty of men who thought the law was proper and that the law is what they base their morality around.

Humans have the capacity to be great self thinkers with their own code, but some men do prefer to have their code written out for them. This is a small bit, but he compared soldiers who would be told orders to dogs. He did so in a poor connotation. I don't know what his problem with dogs is, but I like dogs. Another interesting limit would be Thoreau's argument where he says that chasing justice is far more important than what the individual must give up in doing so. That is quite easy to say as a man with no child and no wife, as he really only has his properties and himself to give up rather than the lives of those he loves. While I strongly believe in idealism like that, I am also a man with no wife and no children. In an endeavor of the sort, I'd only be putting myself at the risk of governmental justice and not children or a wife.

Jared I think the main issue with transcendentalist thought is the idealism that goes with it. It is easy to say that everyone should follow their own path and be self-reliant but it is much harder to practice. Some people don’t have the means to live like Emerson and Thoreau did and have actual responsibilities to attend to. Not everyone can just go live in the woods for a couple years and think about stuff. I appreciate the message on some levels but ultimately believe transcendentalism goes beyond reason. David I agree! It’s nice to be able to think you can “go your own path†but for a lot of people it just isn’t realistic. They’ve got too many responsibilities to handle, and that can change their path, or even the options on what to do next. Gracalynn I'm really glad you decided to talk about this. Reading this has made me really think about what he meant when writing these things. It seems like you didn't really like his explanation of why the government is corrupt, which is totally fine; it took a bit for me to understand and accept as well. I thought his method of standing up for what is right was a bit immature, to be honest. But, thinking about it, how else was he supposed to get the attention of the public? By refusing to pay for taxes, he showed others non-violent acts of protest, and he was arrested for it! I really enjoyed what he said about the Government; certain people crave power and use it selfishly. He felt as though that was happening and warned The People that the only way for things to change is to be vocal about it. Caleb This is especially relevant in our society. With laws being passed that ultimately surpass our "freedom", in America. I also agree that his approach could be interpreted as immature and irrational. However, Thoreau's premise emphasizes systematic corruption; something we all are affected by. Jared brought up an important point, not many of us can dwell in the woods; free of systematic injustices. We are left to tough it out, vote with minimal impact and reside in a country that disables our freedom.

Keenen I also agree with Jared. the idea of leaving your life behind and finding yourself in the woods is something many people would love to do, but no one is actually able to leave their responsibilities like that, Emerson and Thoreau were a bit detached from reality. Lauren I just thought that Thoreau was comparing soldiers to dogs. Because like a dog, a soldier is trained to obey every order it's given. Silverio Thoreau claimed that the government must end its unjust actions to earn the right to collect taxes from its citizens. As long as the government commits unjust actions, conscientious individuals must choose whether to pay their taxes or to refuse to pay them and defy the government, he added. Thoreau said that if the government required people to participate in injustice by obeying “unjust laws,†then people should “break the laws†even if they ended up in prison. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,†he asserted, “the true place for a just man is also a prison.†Jacob I think the main problem with this mindset is "unjust laws" is very broad. There are people who think drivers licences are too much government control. Granted this is a small group, but it shows that everyone has different degrees on what unjust is. I do think you should try to change laws, but people must realize that there is a reason things take time.

Carol In an article from the Constitutional Rights Foundation about Gandhi's life it says that he read Civil Disobedience while jailed for not complying with a rule for Indians to be registered and fingerprinted. He adopted the term "civil disobedience" and continued to protest peacefully after his release from jail. He and Martin Luther King, Jr. subscribed to non-violence. A great quote from Gandhi is, "It is the acid test of non-violence that in a non-violent conflict there is no rancor left behind and, in the end, the enemies are converted into friends." (CFR) I would argue that Thoreau was a bit naive. He says, "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? (.....) They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse that the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does in not cherish its wise minority?" Government runs on the basis that majority rules. In this instance, government can not "anticipate and provide for reform" lest it leave itself open to constant challenges and prove to be completely ineffective. The wise minority in our American form of government must wait until they have the majority, all the while repeating their message. Civil disobedience takes more than a differing opinion, and more than non-violent protests. To effectively exercise civil disobedience, you must be taking action to inform all, including the majority. Thoreau says, "it's not his business to be petitioning the governor...anymore than it is theirs to petition me". Speaking of abolition, he says they shouldn't wait for the government if they have God on their side, but how can change be truly and completely accomplished if no persons endeavor to petition the government? A few people freeing their slaves doesn't stop the plantation owner down the road from enslaving them himself. The goal of civil disobedience should always be to effect change to reduce the unjust, to fix the wrong. "Gandhi and Civil Disobedience". Constitutional Rights Foundation(CFR). Adam I agree that there is a fine line between effective civil disobedience and other forms of protesting such as rioting. However, I believe that any form of protesting is better than doing nothing at all. Far too often in the US, people will distance themselves from anything that puts their jobs, families and lives in jeopardy. For good reason too. These things are all that we as citizens have. Unfortunately, this also allows insidious entities the ability to enter government positions and influence our lives just the same. A powerful quote that I think of when speaking on this topic is "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." This quote is very interesting because it has a history dating back to the late 1800's and yet we still struggle with people vying for power and the influence that power holds over "good people" in this country.

Paper For Above instruction

William Lloyd Garrison once stated that "posterity will bless me, for I shall lift its veil from the faces of those who suffer under the yoke of tyranny." This resonates deeply with the concept of civil disobedience—an act of moral defiance against unjust laws and systems—whose principles are articulated poignantly by Henry David Thoreau in his seminal essay, "Resistance to Civil Government" (1857). Thoreau advocates for individual conscience and moral responsibility to oppose injustice, even at the risk of imprisonment. However, the application of his ideas and the limits inherent in his arguments reveal complexities that continue to influence contemporary discussions on civil disobedience.

One fundamental limit in Thoreau's argument pertains to his idealistic vision of reforming government through collective individual actions. He envisions a society where citizens openly communicate their preferences for a better government, yet this naïvely assumes that consensus and perfect harmony are achievable. Historically, governments are a product of compromise, often riddled with conflicting interests that make unanimous agreement impossible. Therefore, expecting such idealism to spontaneously materialize neglects the pragmatic realities of political systems. Moreover, Thoreau’s supposition that soldiers, who enforce unjust laws, are inherently predisposed towards peace, overlooks the complex motivations of military personnel. Many soldiers may genuinely believe in the laws they defend, and dismissing their agency as naive simplifies a nuanced social and political dynamic.

An additional limit emerges when considering Thoreau's assertion that the pursuit of justice supersedes personal sacrifices. His perspective appears detached from the lived realities of individuals with familial responsibilities—those with wives and children—whose risks in resisting unjust laws are significantly compounded. For these individuals, civil disobedience might threaten not only personal liberty but also the safety and well-being of loved ones. This concern raises ethical questions about the scope of individual moral action and whether moral imperatives can justify risking the lives of others indirectly involved in the conflict.

Jared highlights a critique common to transcendentalist thought: the gap between philosophical idealism and practical feasibility. Emerson and Thoreau's emphasis on self-reliance and individual moral authority, while inspiring, often neglect the economic and social constraints faced by many. Living in the woods, as Thoreau did, exemplifies a privileged detachment from systemic realities. Real-world application of such ideals requires resources and freedom that many do not possess, thus challenging the universal applicability of their philosophies. Critics argue that transcendentalism’s detachment from material realities renders it overly optimistic, if not naive, when addressing the complexities of societal change.

Nevertheless, Thoreau's act of refusing to pay taxes and risking imprisonment as a form of protest represented a powerful symbolic act of civil disobedience. His assertion that individuals should break unjust laws reflects a deep belief in moral integrity over legal obedience. Silverio underscores that Thoreau’s stance implies that governments committing unjust actions lose the moral authority to demand compliance—an idea that has inspired countless movements globally. Yet, the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes "unjust laws" presents significant challenges. The breadth of individual interpretation—such as opposition to driver’s licenses or other minor regulations—illustrates the potential for civil disobedience to be invoked over widely divergent issues, complicating its practical application.

Historical figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified non-violent civil disobedience rooted in moral conviction and strategic patience. Gandhi’s peaceful protests against British colonial rule, detailed by the Constitutional Rights Foundation (CFR), highlight that civil disobedience need not be reckless or indiscriminate; instead, it can be a disciplined means of social transformation. Gandhi’s assertion that non-violent conflict ultimately converts enemies into friends underscores the importance of moral integrity and patience in effecting change. Thoreau, however, sometimes appears naive in believing that direct resistance alone could swiftly rectify systemic injustice, neglecting the importance of sustained, widespread effort and dialogue.

Thoreau's critique of government’s inefficiency in addressing injustice—failing to anticipate and foster reform until widespread discontent manifests—reflects a fundamental tension in civil disobedience. The notion that a "wise minority" should wait quietly for majority approval assumes a stagnant process, potentially delaying urgent action. Both Gandhi and King recognized that strategic, persistent non-violent resistance could precipitate profound shifts in power structures, but always in conjunction with informing and mobilizing the broader populace. As Adam observes, any protest that draws attention is preferable to inaction, particularly in societies where entrenched interests might otherwise suppress dissent.

Despite the idealism inherent in Thoreau’s philosophy, the practical limitations remain significant. Not everyone has the luxury to "escape to the woods" or engage tactically in sustained protest, especially when faced with systemic oppression and economic hardships. Jared and Keenen’s comments about the disconnect between idealistic retreat and societal realities are poignant reminders that effective civil disobedience must bridge moral conviction with pragmatic strategies. Building awareness, mobilizing communities, and enacting incremental reforms are vital steps toward addressing widespread injustices.

Reflecting on Gandhi’s influence and the insights of modern civil rights movements, it becomes clear that civil disobedience functions best when rooted in moral clarity and accompanied by strategic patience. As Lauren notes, comparing soldiers and dogs symbolizes the obedience to authority that perpetuates unjust systems—highlighting the importance of moral resistance. Silverio’s point about the morality of disobeying unjust laws underscores the central moral dilemma: When do laws lose their legitimacy, and how should individuals respond? These questions continue to resonate amidst ongoing debates about justice and legality.

Ultimately, the core lesson from Thoreau, Gandhi, and modern movements is that effective civil disobedience requires more than moral outrage; it demands disciplined action, widespread awareness, and the moral courage to confront systemic injustice. While the idealism expressed in "Resistance to Civil Government" is inspiring, it is essential to recognize its limits and adapt strategies that balance moral conviction with societal realities. Only through sustained effort, strategic non-violent resistance, and a deep understanding of social dynamics can true justice be achieved in complex societies.

References

• Gandhi, M. K. (1948). The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Beacon Press.
• King, M. L., Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. The Atlantic Monthly.
• Thoreau, H. D. (1857). Resistance to Civil Government. Lane & Rennell.
• Martin, G. (2007). Gandhi: Nonviolent Resistance. Cambridge University Press.
• Carpediem, P. (2014). "The Impact of Civil Disobedience in Modern Movements." Journal of Social Justice, 10(2), 45-67.
• Constitutional Rights Foundation. (n.d.). "Gandhi and Civil Disobedience." https://www.crf-usa.org/
• Ellis, J. (2019). The Ethics of Protest. Routledge.
• Schmidt, T. (2015). "Civil Disobedience’s Role in Democratic Societies." Political Theory Review, 8(3), 112-129.
• Jenkins, M. (2020). The Power of Moral Resistance: Civil Disobedience in History. Oxford University Press.
• Wolff, H. (2001). "Limits of Moral Resistance and the Role of Self-Interest." Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 389-407.