Thoreau's Civil Disobedience: Idealism and Its Limits

Introduction: Thoreau's Legacy and Central Argument

Henry David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience" inspired many leaders — from Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr. — to use nonviolent resistance to enact change. King wrote: "I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau" ("Civil Disobedience," Introduction). In Thoreau's own case, the Transcendentalist author of Walden refused to pay taxes to support what he considered an unjust conflict: the Mexican-American War. However, his essay carries far greater implications than a single war. Thoreau argues that all forms of collective representation — including democratic ones — are fundamentally less just and valid than the individual conscience: "This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will" (I.2).

In terms of political resistance, Thoreau's nonviolence is laudable. Yet his idea that every person must individually decide what constitutes a "good" law would make it impossible to govern a modern nation if taken fully to heart.

Majority Rule as 'Might Makes Right'

Rather than viewing the American republic as an ideal example of government "for the people, by the people," Thoreau argued that the real engine behind democracy was merely another form of the ideology of "might makes right": "After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (I.4). Simply because the elected representatives of the American people had decided to go to war with Mexico, Thoreau argued, did not mean that this action was moral or even truly endorsed by "the people."

Disenfranchisement, Slavery, and the Limits of Voting

Thoreau's view of the illegitimacy of the American government was partially grounded in the fact that large populations were prevented from voting — most notably enslaved people. He rejected the idea that the courts and elected forms of governance were adequate means of changing society: "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" (II.6). Thoreau pointed out that those whom the government profits from yet refuses to help — such as slaves — are denied the ability to use democratic methods of change because they are politically disenfranchised.

Going along with slow-moving (or entirely unmoving) institutions like voting does not change the system. A more meaningful action is withholding the funds that allow the government to function: "I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name — if ten honest men only — ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America" (II.8).

Subjects must refuse allegiance when a government is unjust — by refusing to pay taxes, refusing to hold office, and opting out of the system rather than relying upon the vote, which merely perpetuates it. "Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence" (II.9). In a nation that enslaves other people and goes to war for territorial gain, Thoreau suggests the only places to find truly just men are in prison.

Thoreau's expression of frustration is frequently echoed today, when people complain of having to choose between the "lesser of two evils" at the ballot box rather than being able to select a candidate they genuinely support. Although there is universal suffrage for all legal citizens in America, many Americans feel shut out of the political system because of the enormous sums of money required to run for office. However, this anti-government sentiment often turns into a distrust of all government, and has paradoxically caused many very wealthy individuals to be elected to office simply because they proclaim that government is a problem rather than a solution. Thoreau writes at the beginning of his essay that "that government is best which governs not at all," which sounds like a prescription for anarchism — though he does clarify later that he wants a better government, not a nonexistent one (I.1). Nevertheless, the sentiment that all governments are illegitimate and all cooperative organizations are fundamentally less valid than the individual will often causes people to opt out of voting and other legal means that might produce some positive effects.

Conclusion: Paradox of a Transformative but Flawed Essay

While nonviolent resistance to unjust laws may be justified when all legitimate channels have been exhausted, in the case of Thoreau the refusal to pay the Massachusetts poll tax seems more like a confused effort by a vaguely anarchist philosopher rather than a calculated action designed to right specific wrongs. Thoreau's essay emerges as a paradox: it may not have been inspired by an earth-shaking political act founded in carefully crafted strategy, yet it gave rise to some of the most important political changes of the twentieth century.

If all readers were to behave like Thoreau — using individual conscience alone to dictate behavior, refusing to participate in government institutions, and employing civil disobedience in an emotional rather than carefully calculated fashion — the result would be anarchy rather than a better society. Almost everyone pays taxes and dislikes some of the expenditures to which those taxes are directed, but this is broadly accepted as the cost of collective governance. Government could not function if, say, every pacifist refused to pay taxes because some funds went to weapons, or if every opponent of welfare refused to pay because some money went to unemployment benefits. We admire Thoreau because his causes seem just, but his particular form of civil disobedience did little to advance those causes directly. As the civil rights movement demonstrated, it is organized, disciplined, and goal-oriented civil disobedience — not the individualistic variety Thoreau practiced — that can transform society for the better. If everyone engaged in civil disobedience on a purely personal level rather than as part of a specific and controlled movement, much of the good that government can do would become impossible to realize.

Works Cited

Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." E-text. 7 Nov. 2012.

Rosenwald, Lawrence. "The Theory, Practice & Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience." From William Cain, ed., The Oxford Historical Companion to Thoreau. 7 Nov. 2012.