Rhetorical Analysis Of Civil Disobedience

In his essay, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau uses rhetorical questions and many dehumanizing analogies to elicit an emotional reaction from his readers and urge them to carefully consider their relationship with the law.
Firstly, he considers the correlation between man and law, and supplies the audience with many thought-provoking questions such as: “Why has every man a conscience, then?” The use of these questions inspires self-reflection within the reader and causes them to rethink their present beliefs. Because the questions primarily focus on the morals associated with lawmaking, Thoreau also adds an emotional appeal to his essay—everyone wants to do the right thing and will therefore be more connected to his argument. This dual use of both logical and emotional appeal strengthens Thoreau’s points and entices more readers to agree with him.

He begins by comparing those who respect the law as powder-monkeys—boys who had the job of carrying gunpowder to the military—who march in “against their common sense and conscience.” This analogy highlights the blind trust that Thoreau believes many people put in the government; and he then reasons that if that complete submission happens, are they even “men at all?” Thoreau then parallels these people to machines—who work without thought—wood, earth, stones, straw, and dirt—which are the lowest of the low—and horses and dogs—who, again, work for a higher power with no free thought or opinions. He reduces this majority of people to nothing but mindless followers. All of these comparisons help to dehumanize and belittle those that respect the law, and associate them with negative, inferior connotations, which then compels the reader to identify with the stronger