How Does Henry David Thoreau Use Rhetorical Devices

Phillip Vilensky
Professor Sadeghipour
ENG 1B
19 February 2016
Rhetorical Devices in Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” There have been many individuals in mankind's long history that have been characterized by unusual thought and foresight, and whose observations and theories could only be appreciated many decades, even centuries, later. But one of the individuals whose beliefs about ethics, philosophy, and politics must have struck his contemporaries as very odd, even bordering on insane was the great American author, poet, and philosopher Henry David Thoreau, who lived in 19th century Massachusetts. In the era of slavery, westward expansion, and imperialism, Thoreau espoused abolitionism, civil disobedience, conscientious objection, direct

He instills imagery that elicits feelings that may not have already resided in the reader. Quite disturbing by 1840’s standards, his vivid and descriptive language could be from 20th century modernism: “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies…they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones” By subjecting the audience to the forms of discomfort associated with dehumanization, they may feel like an outside observer of their own thoughts or body, and will realize what is really in control over their thoughts and actions. Readers become be more open to recognize that perhaps not all their decisions are freely willed, especially those related to civil responsibility. The author uses this as an opportunity to delve deeper into the possibilities of free will under nationalism. Thoreau makes the claim that virtuous actions are only made through free choice. Furthermore, all actions carried out under persuasion, coercion, and prohibition neither deserve credit nor blame. He points to the “standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables and [law officers]” who follow orders blindly. Thoreau’s previous use of pathos should make the reader predisposed to see these people as less human. Thoreau says these ‘good citizens’ cannot be culpable because they renounced the free will that makes them men.

Thoreau hopes that if he can sound earnest and intelligent, then the reader can view nationalism in an obsolete sense. Surprisingly, most of the logical conclusions within Civil Disobedience do not come from weighing facts and statistics, as what many modern academic papers rely on. Thoreau lived in a time when there was little mathematical discipline used for analysis. True statistics only emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because of the works of Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, and Ronald Fisher (Young). Henry David Thoreau finds ways to appeal to reason based on other forms of logic known to him, such as consistency and critical thinking. Thoreau is consistent when he identifies how governments overrule the conscience of the people, and in all cases suggests that the people should not support its injustices. Whether it is the State of Massachusetts’ “interest… in commerce and agriculture [over] humanity” or the “sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery,” Thoreau always urges one to fight for justice and never give injustice monetary or practical support (Thoreau 3, 6). Furthermore, Thoreau approaches every topic with a healthy amount of distrust of human sincerity and integrity. “No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America,” and, “I think th[ese] people mean well; they are only ignorant” are examples of his approach (Thoreau 12, 10). The