This essay examines five major historical figures who challenged authority to advance their agendas and foster change: George Washington, who defied British rule and the Articles of Confederation; Franklin D. Roosevelt, who expanded executive power during the Great Depression; Napoleon Bonaparte, who repeatedly violated diplomatic agreements; Eleanor Roosevelt, who championed civil rights; and civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King Jr., David Walker, and Harriet Tubman. The paper traces philosophical foundations for justified resistance to unjust authority, drawing on Thoreau's civil disobedience and Duplessis-Mornay's theory of popular sovereignty, and concludes that challenging authority through revolution, war, civil disobedience, and critical analysis remains essential for social progress.
In different historical contexts, many types of leaders have challenged authority and pushed the limits of their power to further their agendas and those of their followers. Philippe Duplessis-Mornay explains that because no one was born with a crown, a king is not truly king without people to rule or their support. Although people can exist without a king—as they did before kingdoms were established—kings are instituted by the people. The dependents of the throne may inherit it, but in some nations not without an election or the people's approval (Wren, Hicks, and Price, 2006).
According to this theory, a king whose will is unjust should not be followed. The king's will does not make something that is wrong right, and subjects are entitled to revolt because the people are above the king. This foundational principle appears throughout history as leaders, reformers, and common citizens resist unjust authority. Understanding when and how authority is challenged illuminates how societies progress and how leaders come to power through defiance of existing systems.
George Washington was a military leader who defied British rule by taking an active role in the Revolutionary War and the creation of the new nation. His intention was independence for the colonies and the formation of a new government that would not heavily tax its residents or issue unfair edicts. The people wanted a government where they could give input and impact how it was run.
Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention, acting illegally pursuant to the amended Articles of Confederation, thus challenging existing authority. The specifics were kept secret to prevent discovery of the divergence from the Articles. Washington's challenges to authority were evident in his roles in the Revolutionary War and his leadership in founding the nation. By defying both British sovereignty and the legal framework of the Articles, Washington demonstrated that authority itself could be reconstituted when the will of the people demanded it.
Throughout time, several leaders have challenged authority to further their causes, often to ameliorate conditions and circumstances. One vital historical context warranting change was the time during which Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president of the United States. FDR made several challenges to authority during his tenure as head of state. He chose to provide bank regulation, money control, and manipulation of farm prices—powers traditionally reserved for Congress. FDR wanted to pick up the pieces and make the United States whole again, knowing that success might require unorthodox methods given the country's desperate condition.
Rampant homelessness, severe economic downturn from the Great Depression, and low agricultural production caused widespread poverty and starvation. Individuals could not find work. FDR reasoned that these conditions necessitated stretching the boundaries of the Constitution—a move some thought unconstitutional. He closed unhealthy and insolvent banks while implementing regulations to fix economic conditions and stem panic. FDR also created work for the unemployed, a resuscitative method for the economy.
Roosevelt created social service programs called the New Deal, which gave Americans relief for food and housing. His legislation was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, so he attempted to add more judges to secure a favorable outcome. FDR used his position as president to push his legislation, challenging authority by extending beyond the limits of his formal power. Through the social contract, it is government's responsibility to protect its citizens. FDR stretched his power to protect the American people, justifying his actions by appealing to this fundamental duty.
"Military emperor's unchecked power leads to defeat and abdication"
As Napoleon was highly confident and dominant in manner, he would always make some type of challenge to authority due to self-interest and his addiction to the adrenaline of war. He defied being confined to laws and diplomacy. Napoleon violated peacekeeping agreements with neighboring nations, creating animosity and prompting war while establishing tyrannical behavior. This justified his forced abdication in accordance with Duplessis-Mornay's perspective on resistance to unjust kings—his constant initiation of war made him unfit to rule. Unlike leaders who challenged authority to improve conditions for their people, Napoleon's challenges served primarily his own ambitions.
Early civil rights attempts made little impact before the formal civil rights movement. Eleanor Roosevelt made challenges to authority by bridging the gap between FDR's New Deal programs and civil rights for African Americans. FDR's administration did not address the plight of African Americans, so Eleanor Roosevelt decided to tackle the injustices herself, pushing her husband to receive visitors from the NAACP in the White House. As a member of the Daughters of the Revolution, Mrs. Roosevelt was upset when the organization did not allow contralto Marian Anderson to sing in their hall, so she renounced her membership.
She spoke against the lynchings taking place in the South. When told that she could not sit by law in the section with African Americans, Mrs. Roosevelt moved her chair to the middle of the aisle, unconcerned with others' opinions. While opposing discrimination, she recognized the rights of African Americans that required addressing and pursued them actively. She practiced civil disobedience mildly, but her efforts eventually led others to join the fight for equality.
W.E.B. Du Bois thought that educated representation would bring reform and gradual changes. Andrew Young and Martin Luther King Jr. were also pioneers of civil rights. King used his rhetorical oratory, and Young used diplomacy in challenging authority. Both men, through organization and participation in the Montgomery Bus Boycott and using other civil disobedience tactics, were able to gain additional rights during the civil rights movement.
Many methods were employed, including boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, and marches to allow African Americans to have equal rights in accord with white Americans. Dr. King was arrested many times for involvement in these activities but always held his ground and continued challenging authority while trying to rid the United States of injustices suffered by African Americans. His work with the NAACP and SCLC used civil disobedience and nonviolent strategies for achieving civil rights goals. He and Andrew Young furthered this cause and cultivated followers to create unity for the betterment of the cause and the quality of life for people of color. King and Young believed civil disobedience was the key to making the government recognize the importance of civil rights for African Americans.
These notions had relevance to Henry David Thoreau's writing on civil disobedience. Thoreau's contention was that an individual's primary responsibility is doing what is right, not following laws mandated by the majority. He thought that unjust laws by unjust governments required distancing from them. King and Young fought to improve society's evils by using boycotts—a form of distancing—in relation to Thoreau's ideas. These challenges to authority employed by King influenced the outcome of the court case Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956), which found that enforcing segregation on Alabama buses is constitutionally invalid and denies passengers equal protection under the law.
"Slave rebels and freedom seekers challenge the institution of slavery"
"Ancient philosopher questions authority through dialectical reasoning"
Over diverse time spans, many leaders challenged authority through revolutions, wars, civil disobedience, and critical analysis. Challenging authority is a way changes are enacted for the betterment of a corporation, government, and social movement. Without challenges to authority, conditions may not change for leaders and followers. The historical examples examined in this essay—from George Washington's founding of a nation to Martin Luther King Jr.'s struggle for equal rights—demonstrate that progress requires courage to question and resist unjust systems, whether through legal innovation, nonviolent protest, or philosophical inquiry.
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.