In 1849, in the midst of the Mexican war, Henry David Thoreau wrote his essay Civil Disobedience following a night in jail for refusing to pay his taxes. In this essay Thoreau discussed his opinions on the Government of the United States of America at the time. Thoreau felt that majority rule ignores the conscience of the individual, making voting a bet on the end result of the ballot. He called for citizens to take a stand for themselves outside of the government, to finally do what is just. The basis for majority rule is that the group with the greatest number of votes decides the outcome. Thoreau believed that this method caused individuals to think with their minds and ignore their morals. They became like machinery, falling into line with each other, as Army men are intentionally trained to do. The worst …show more content…
When a person casts a vote they are taking the chance that enough people will vote the same way as them in order to accomplish their goal. The problem with this is that “Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it,” (Thoreau 430), when they are on the side of the minority. Thoreau believed that because of this people should do more than vote and take a stand. In order to show his objection to the war for instance, he decided not to pay taxes that would go to fund it, and encouraged others to do that same. Furthermore, I am partly in agreement with Thoreau, “… I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government,” (Thoreau 425). The majority rule is not the most just way to govern for those in the minority, but it is the way to satisfy the majority of the country. The problem lies in getting that majority’s beliefs in line with the minority, which can be done by doing something outside of voting, like with Thoreau and his taxes. Hence, I believe that the minority rule is not inherently unjust like Thoreau thought, but I do believe that other things should be done because of
Throughout all of time, people have needed to live according to their own agendas. Being forced to live a certain way has only caused trouble. That is why Henry David Thoreau supported civil disobedience to help people live according to their own beliefs. In the essay “On Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, the author defined and explained the effect of civil disobedience. Thoreau defined it as, civil disobedience is any peaceful action that demonstrates the disagreement of a person or persons with their government.
A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism” (Basler,
It can do this by giving the us citizens the opportunity to voice their opinion to political officials through email, phone, fax and letter even. A full on democracy tries to make everything set and stone. With a representative, we as people, even in the minority, can still have the power to influence the representative to have our desires heard, which is fairly significant. 51% majority rule can absolutely be detrimental to someone of the lowest minority. With majority rule there can be power over the lowest class.
Brettschneider argues that judicial review can often enhance democracy by protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that the majority does not overstep its bounds. He notes that democracy is not just about majority rule, but also about protecting the rights of individuals and minorities. Judicial review, he says, can help to ensure that these rights are not violated by the majority, and can help to prevent the tyranny of the majority that was feared by many of the framers of the US Constitution. Brettschneider also argues that judicial review can be seen as an extension of the principle of popular sovereignty, since it allows the people to hold their elected officials accountable by giving them the power to strike down laws that are deemed
Madison rhapsodizes at length about the dangers of factionalism under majority rule; he claims that “popular government [...] enables [the majority] to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens”, thus insinuating that popular rule in a system where “the causes of factionalism cannot be prevented” will ultimately devastate both the working class’s public good and the elite class’s private right (10). This fear mongering over majority rule acts as a ringing endorsement of the alternative: minority, or elite, political dominance. To ease the minds of his readers, Madison then declares that the working class of the new republic will be too spread out and otherwise divided to oppose the just government established by the upper class–or, in his words, lower classes will be “rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression” against the elite (10). In this way, Madison promotes upper class rule as a means to protect American liberty, believing that the people at large were unfit to establish this protection themselves–and that they had neither the intelligence nor the unity to carry out their corrupt schemes under properly conducted elite
Thoreau starts his essay by condemning his fellow countrymen’s actions, or rather, inaction. They and Thoreau share similar moral beliefs, but they refuse to take any action towards them. “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or
The main similarity in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Henry David Thoreau is the idea of revolution against an abusive government. The main difference is the context in which each document was written, the Declaration of Independence as the colonies were rebelling against Great Britain and forming their own government, and Civil Disobedience as criticisms of the government developed within nearly seventy-five years after the signing of the Declaration. Both Jefferson and Thoreau share ideas of revolution, although overthrowing the government is seen in many cases as illegal. Both documents share a common theme of revolution, and both authors believe the best way to move toward a better government is civil disobedience. Jefferson and Thoreau believe that whether it is the struggle for independence or being freed from injustices of the government, civil disobedience and revolution are necessary in order to live in a society based on freedom.
Throughout history there have been many political changes that are either supported, or not, by citizens. In the given passage from, "Civil Disobedience," by Thoreau, a perspective of disagreeing with the government ways, is provided. Thoreau explains how a government should be in comparison to how it really is by utilizing his words to set the tone and mode, imagery to achieve his audience's understanding, and diction to make his writing scholarly. Although tone and mode are not directly stated, you can infer that Thoreau meant for his writing to be taken as serious and powerful. His implementation of words such as, "inexpedient," "execute," " integrity," and "command," makes one think about their lawful rights and reflect on what rights are supported or
Throughout the writing of “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau often referred back to his idea that he supported which was “That government is best which governs not at all.” (Thoreau) In the passage, Thoreau believed that the government does not have a conscience. He talked about not wanting to pay the government poll tax, which in result, caused him to be thrown into jail. A poll tax is just a tax on a person for existing, therefore, everyone had to pay the same amount regardless of the value of their possessions.
What makes a government and society moral and just has been a reoccurring question and issue throughout time. Henry David Thoreau, an American transcendentalist, stressed civil disobedience and greatly showed his disbeliefs on the Mexican-American War in his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government.” Through comparing the nation's political authority to a machine and not paying his taxes as a method of protest, Thoreau manages to coax the “true citizen” to stand up against unjust government. Martin Luther King, an American Baptist minister and activist, was a leader and an important part of the African-American Civil rights movement. He fought for black rights and stood up against authorities unjust treatment of his fellow black brothers and sisters.
In the first paragraph of the Federalist Paper 10, Madison explains what he is trying to do with the constitution. His main concerns were to establish a government that was capable of controlling violence and damage caused by factions. He believes that as long as men have different opinions, different amounts of property and wealth, then there will always be factions. When Madison says faction, he means a group of people that have some strong common passion or interest.
What Thoreau means by the Civil Disobedience is that every person should be govern more by his own moral compass that gives him much clearer answer to his deeds, rather than some laws of a government. “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” (1)
The theme of the essay “Self Reliance” written by Emerson is for beings to not focus on those of others or subside his/her values to fit in with our society, for true geniuses comes from within and are made with their own heart and mind. His idea of self-reliance differs from that of the norm in that he doesn’t encourage those to mix into selfish ways but to be open and proud of their own individuality for that is the true key to life itself. Emerson’s idea is similar to the common use in that he encourages those to not depend on others to define his/her identity. 2. Emerson’s use of figurative language encourages his readers to view his ideas in a clearer and more emphasized perspective.
Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is a dissertation written by American abolitionist, author and philosopher Henry David Thoreau published by Elizabeth Peabody in the Aesthetic Papers in 1849. Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was born and lived almost his life in Concord, Massachusetts. After finishing public and private school in Concord he attended the prestige Harvard University. He excelled at Harvard despite leaving school for several months due to health and financial setbacks. Mr. Thoreau graduated in the top half of his class in 1837.
In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau questions, “must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward”, indicating that man should take more focus on standing up for what is right instead of conforming to what the majority is thinking or what people are being told to think by the government (Thoreau). Thoreau explains that every man has a conscience for a reason, all men are able to generate an opinion on what is right and what is wrong and that men should in a sense “man up” and fight instead of backing down to become slaves to the legislative government. Thoreau gives an example of his non-conformity in Civil Disobedience when he writes about how he stood up against the government by withholding money to pay his taxes.