Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and Its Influence on MLK

Introduction: Thoreau as a Harbinger of Peaceful Protest

A century before Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. made their marks on history, Henry David Thoreau promoted civil disobedience. In fact, both Gandhi and King paid tribute to Thoreau as a harbinger of twentieth-century peaceful protesting. In his autobiography, Martin Luther King Jr. 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. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest" (cited by Lenat).

Thoreau's Resistance to Civil Government, known today as "Civil Disobedience," outlines the reasons for and the importance of refusing to obey unjust laws. At times Thoreau comes across as an anti-government anarchist. He begins his treatise by stating, "That government is best which governs not at all" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 1).

Core Philosophy: Majority Rule, Individualism, and Moral Conscience

Thoreau clarifies his opening statement by noting that the total absence of government is unfeasible, and therefore, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 1). Civil disobedience is part of the process by which citizens obtain a better government.

Civil disobedience is based on several core philosophies. First, Thoreau alludes to the tyranny of the majority: "a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 1). The rule of the majority will surely stamp out the rights of the minority. Martin Luther King Jr. drew directly from this core point in his civil rights struggle.

Second, Thoreau advocates individualism and independent thought: "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 1). It is more important to act according to one's conscience than to follow any law. In fact, Thoreau notes that laws are often not designed according to what is right but only according to what those in power deem effective for their needs. McElroy describes Thoreau's essay as "an analysis of the individual's relationship to the state that focuses on why men obey governmental law even when they believe it to be unjust." King's entire civil rights campaign was predicated on the fact that the laws themselves were unjust and discriminatory — making it squarely the individual's responsibility to take a stance.

The Urgency of Breaking Unjust Laws

Finally, Thoreau takes a deontological ethical position when he states, "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." King's historic March on Washington was a demonstration that exemplified moral righteousness. In his "I Have a Dream" speech, King declared, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Any American who supported the "separate but equal" clauses in federal legislation or the Jim Crow laws in state and local legislation can be defined as law-abiding yet inherently immoral. Writing from an antebellum perspective, Thoreau commented directly on the fact that the American government was itself immoral because of slavery, noting, "I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 1).

Thoreau stated plainly, "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?" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 2, para. 3). For both Thoreau and King, the matter of unjust laws was urgent. In his speech delivered during the March on Washington, King stated, "It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality" ("I Have a Dream"). A century earlier, Thoreau had advocated the expedient breaking of an unjust law: "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" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 2, para. 5).

King draws directly from Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," pointing to the urgency of breaking unjust laws in order to transform the very ethical foundations of society. "And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges" ("I Have a Dream"). King's "whirlwinds of revolt" are precisely what Thoreau called the "counter friction to stop the machine" ("Civil Disobedience" Part 2, para. 5). Thoreau would have commended the March on Washington as a large-scale method of invigorating the social order and creating a "more perfect union."

Conclusion

Both Thoreau and King understood that civil disobedience was not a rejection of government but a demand for a more just one. Thoreau's personal act of refusing to pay a poll tax and King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" are expressions of the same moral imperative. Thoreau's vision of a citizenry that places conscience above compliance found its fullest historical expression in King's civil rights movement — a movement that forever altered the ethical and legal landscape of the United States.