civil disobedience by henry david thoreau thesis

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Walden ; and, Civil disobedience : complete texts with introduction, historical contexts, critical essays

Available online, at the library.

Green Library

More options.

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• A Note on the Text and Title of "Civil Disobedience" and the Text of Walden I. Civil Disobedience II. Walden 1. Economy 2. Where I Lived, and What I Lived For 3. Reading 4. Sounds 5. Solitude 6. Visitors 7. The Bean-Field 8. The Village 9. The Ponds 10. Baker Farm 11. Higher Laws 12. Brute Neighbors 13. House-Warming 14. Former Inhabitants
• and Winter Visitors 15. Winter Animals 16. The Pond in Winter 17. Spring Conclusion III. Contexts and Comments Angelina E. Grimke, from "Appeal to the Christian Women of the South" (1836) William Whipper, from Speech Delivered at the First African Presbyterian Church (1837) William Lloyd Garrison, "Declaration of Sentiments" (1838) Orestes A. Brownson, from "The Labroring Classes" (1840) Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Man the Reformer" (1841) Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, from "Plan of the West Roxbury Community" (1842) Charles Lane and A. Bronson Alcott, from Letter to A. Brooke (1843) Henry Highland Garnet, "Address to the Slaves of the United States of America" (1843) George Ripley, "Life in Association" (1845) William Henry Channing, "To the Associationists of the United States" (1846) Louisa May Alcott, "Transcendental Wild Oats" (1873) Mary Wilkins Freman, "A Church Mouse" (1891) Leo Tolstoy, Letter to Dr. Eugen Heinrich Schmitt (n.d., c. 1895) Leo Tolstoy, "The Beginning of the End" John Albert Macy, "Thoreau" (1908) Mohandas K. Gandhi, A Selection from His Writings, 1919-1940 Martin Luther King, Jr., from Stride Toward Freedom (1958) Martin Luther King, Jr., "A Legacy of Creative Protest" (1962) Works Cited For Futher Reading.
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Henry David Thoreau online

Civil disobedience.

by Henry D. Thoreau

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

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. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. _It_ does not keep the country free. _It_ does not settle the West. _It_ does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, 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.

• Early American Literature

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau (review)

• Laura Dassow Walls
• The University of North Carolina Press
• Volume 53, Number 1, 2018
• pp. 220-222
• 10.1353/eal.2018.0014
• View Citation

Additional Information

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

Henry David Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience Essay (Review)

Individualism is a moral, social and political view that stresses self-reliance and independence and promotes the furtherance of one’s goals and desires. It also goes against some of society and the state’s outlook and is opposed to statism and collectivism which is that of conforming to the community and national goals.

To that effect, it also opposes tradition and religion or any kind of moral standard that is coming from the external environment that limits and restricts an individual’s freedom of choice (Individualism). This paper looks at Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience from an individualist viewpoint and sees the extent to which he adapts this in this work as related with other pieces of works also taking the same stance.

This is a relevant topic because Thoreau was such a complex writer whose works gave us a better understanding of the nuances of his character. Here was a man who thought deeply about a lot of things and related everyday life to the furtherance of truth and justice. Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience lets each individual speak as to “what kind of government would command his respect and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” Thoreau has the notion that the government values men not as creative individuals but as objects of their whims and caprices. Thoreau “believed that man should go one step further by voicing openly his disdain for injustice and intolerance.” (L’Herrou, Paul 1998).

In fact, Thoreau went a step ahead by not only expounding on the political issues and relating them to the issues of his time. He declares unabashedly, “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.” Here he is bordering on developing a respect for the right of individuals rather than that of law, arguing that it is people’s obligation to do what is right.

Thoreau begins this early on in Civil Disobedience as he agrees with the motto, “That government is best which governs least.” One surmises then that the government and all its powers are often abused and no longer represent the will of the people. (Sparknotes). Thoreau believes that changes come from the character of the people and this is where his ideas point to the individualist perspective – the looking at oneself – the working on the self so that changes will naturally flow out to one’s environment.

Henry David Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” to justify the actions he took against the government that spent him in jail and the moral reasoning behind his logic. “The more money, the less virtue.”(Thoreau, David Henry) For Thoreau, breaking unjust laws and being independent are precedents in transforming America into a better place. Thoreau’s call for change is by spreading his ideas and influencing others to refuse to surrender to the consciousness of the majority and the state and instead, break the unjust laws that the majority supports.

The important thing is to act independently: “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think… the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” Here Emerson contrasts the individual to society—”the crowd.” Thoreau fought for the rights of the individual and his right to be heard.

He ends “civil disobedience” by saying. “There will never be a free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” (Thoreau, Henry David, Walden, and Other Writings. “Civil Disobedience,” Bantam: New York, 1984. P. 104). Indeed, while Emerson urged Americans to be unfettered by traditions, “to have an original relationship to the universe”, Henry David Thoreau went a step further in his advocacy of the individual conscience. He thus began the modern tradition of civil disobedience.

The case of Gandhi comes to mind. He was most understood by the higher officials of his land, yet he was great in his people’s minds and hearts. That is what constitutes a true leader. Leaders can motivate, inspire, be led, and lead while making the environment safe from risks and mistakes. Leaders also demonstrate the ability to lead by example, ethically, morally, and purposefully. Leaders regularly communicate the vision and empower the culture within the organization.

They continue to build trust and lead the challenges of a constantly changing workplace and society. And most of the time, great leaders are indeed misunderstood. Leaders understand that it is necessary to incorporate balance not only in the lives of others but their own as well. This encourages leaders to think about life and work differently.

For some, the individualist viewpoint is most apparent. For example, the issues of forming one’s own opinions in light of the social events came into existence as he encouraged people to stand up for their principles and what they believe to be true.

Another writer, Emerson, exhibited these viewpoint pens, “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist… It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own, but the great man (or woman) is one who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” (L’Herrou, Paul 1998). The same kind of individualist viewpoint came in “Self-Reliance,” Emerson writes, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines…

Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradicts everything you said today… The voyage of the best ship is a zigzag line of a hundred tacks. (Those were the days of sailing ships.) See the line from a sufficient distance, and it straightens itself to the average tendency. Your genuine action will explain itself and will explain your other genuine actions. Your conformity explains nothing.” (L’Herrou, Paul 1998). Emerson does not advocate complacency and passivity here. The consistency can even be a disadvantage according to him, issues which Thoreau shares with him in his work.

In recent years, many analysts, inspired by post-structuralism and postmodern arguments and insights, have begun to argue that individualism itself is a construction, that, indeed, the human self is in many ways nothing more than a fiction, and that it is above all what might be called the Renaissance representations of the self as an individual, expressive subject that requires explanation. (The Discovery of the Individual)

Some scholars have offered tormenting insights into the play of social forces and ideological currents on Renaissance texts and Renaissance selves. While others have argued that the accounts of these scholars are paradoxically and profoundly historical. Further, it was argued that the analytical strategies tend to view the formation of the Renaissance self from within a synchronic framework, one frozen in time, with little sense of the operation of more slowly developing historical –or diachronic– forces on the process of what has come to be called “Renaissance self-fashioning.” On the other hand, their analyses also tend to be based on a totalizing view of politics and power in the Renaissance world –a view that leaves little room for oppositional or dissenting voices. (The Discovery of the Individual)

Accordingly, some scholars try to correct such a notion by offering an alternative approach to a salient aspect of the history of the formation of Renaissance selves. In particular, it is suggested to examine the effort on both theoretical and practical levels during the Renaissance period to redefine certain moral categories relating to sincerity and prudence and the relation of these redefinitions to the formation of an increased sense of subjectivity and individualism in the Renaissance. (The Discovery of the Individual)

The study self in the seventeenth-century England cautioned that ‘individualism is a multidimensional phenomenon, an amalgam of practices and values with no discernible center. A variety of forces –social, economic, political, intellectual– contributed to its making, each one of which was paramount at some time or another, either separately or jointly with others. Thus a single account of individualism cannot possibly represent its development, its contours, and its functions. Nonetheless, the evidence gathered does suggest a shift in moral vocabulary played a significant role in the construction of new notions of individualism in the Renaissance world. (The Discovery of the Individual)

Oversimplified as it is, it is nevertheless true to the idea that Renaissance Humanists placed immense emphasis upon the dignity of man and upon the prolonged possibilities of human life in this world. For the most part, it regarded human beings as social creatures who could create meaningful lives only in association with other social beings. (General Characteristics of the Renaissance)

In the Renaissance, the main cultural values were usually associated with active involvement in public life, in moral, political, and military action, and in service to the state. Some of the most important Humanists, like Erasmus, were Churchmen. Also, individual achievement, breadth of knowledge, and personal aspiration (as personified by Doctor Faustus) were valued. The concept of the “Renaissance Man” refers to an individual who, in addition to participating actively in the affairs of public life, possesses knowledge of and skill in many subject areas. Such figures included Leonardo Da Vinci and John Milton, as well as Francis Bacon, who had declared, “I have taken all knowledge to be my province.” (General Characteristics of the Renaissance)

Two of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s most famous sayings are “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” and “to be great is to be misunderstood”. The ideas about the individual expressed in the statement “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” In this saying from Self-Reliance Emerson posits that one has to live in the present and not always look at the past.

In effect, he is saying that when there is a regularity to things, then that is the work of little creativity. As in almost all of his work, he promotes individual experience over the knowledge gained from books: “To believe that what is true in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius.” The person who scorns personal intuition and, instead, chooses to rely on others’ opinions lacks the creative power necessary for robust, bold individualism. (Cliffnotes). What he is also saying is that there must be a little inconsistency, and in this context, a little departure from the usual way one does things. It is creativity that he wants to be accomplished.

Thoreau’s individualism emerges as he invites us to be creative individuals and fulfill the mission we are destined to do such as contributing our own share of talents and creativity to the world. Different kinds of leadership are required at different times, but at all times it is a combination of character and competence that is needed. This integrated blend of character and competence is often evident by its absence more than its presence. It is rare, and like most rare things, it is extremely valuable. The leader who exercises power will work from the inside out, starting with himself.

Civil Disobedience

51 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

Summary: “civil disobedience”.

Henry David Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” more commonly known as “Civil Disobedience,” originated as a Concord Lyceum lecture given in January 1848 as the Mexican-American War was winding down. The essay and its central thesis—that following one’s conscience trumps the need to follow the law—have profoundly impacted global history, political philosophy, and American thought, notably influencing both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

The text was originally published in an 1849 essay collection titled Resistance to Civil Government edited by Transcendental writer and educator Elizabeth Peabody. The essay’s final form was published in 1866 under the title “Civil Disobedience” in a posthumous collection of Thoreau’s work. Today it can be found in the public domain. This guide utilizes the version found at ibiblio.org ( https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Thoreau/Civil%20Disobedience.pdf ).

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

• 7,350+ In-Depth Study Guides
• 4,950+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
• Downloadable PDFs

The essay opens with Thoreau declaring that he believes in the adage “that government is best which governs least,” which he says amounts to “that government is best which governs not at all” (3). This is because the government often does not serve the public’s interest and can be “abused and perverted before the people can act through it” (3). Government is often not beneficial, as has been proven in the Mexican-American War, the work of a small group of people who have used the government as their tool despite public dissent. Thoreau also argues that government is harmful because it can be bent to the will of one person, though it was established to serve the will of the collective people.

Thoreau clarifies that he does not mean to get rid of government altogether, since people must have some entity—he uses the metaphor of the government as a machine—to hear their voices. However, he notes the US government really does not do anything the people do not do themselves: “It does not keep the country free,” “settle the West,” or “educate,” as these achievements stem from the “character inherent” to the American people, who would have accomplished even more if the government had not slowed their progress (4). Instead, Thoreau advocates not for no government but for a “better government” (4).

The SuperSummary difference

• 8x more resources than SparkNotes and CliffsNotes combined
• Study Guides you won ' t find anywhere else
• 100+ new titles every month

This is difficult to achieve in a democracy because democracies are dominated by the majority. The majority is not always morally right but often merely stronger than the minority, so a “government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice” (4). As such, Thoreau argues that laws created by the majority do not need to be followed if they go against a person’s conscience. It is better that a person do what is right than what is lawful.

Laws do not make a person more morally sound; in fact, following some laws actually makes a human less morally sound, as “even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice” (5). Thoreau brings up the example of a soldier who fights a war, since most soldiers know that war by its nature is unjust. Those soldiers become tools of the state who cannot really be thought of as men but as “small moveable forts and magazines” who serve “some unscrupulous man in power” since they lose their humanity when they cannot follow their own consciences (5). Thoreau argues that soldiers serve the government with their bodies while politicians and legislators serve with their heads. But because legislators do not usually make “moral distinctions,” they “are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it , as God” (6). There are leaders who do challenge the government or prioritize their moral principles, but they are few and are treated as traitors or enemies by the government.

Thoreau then asks how a person should behave toward the US government, especially given the moral injustices of the Mexican-American War and slavery . He argues that a moral person cannot “be associated with” the US government, as that person’s government cannot naturally be the “slave’s government also” (6). As such, he argues that Americans have a duty to rebel against the government. The reason there has not been a revolution against slavery is not because of the Southerners but because Thoreau’s neighbors in Massachusetts “are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity” and would rather wait passively for someone else to solve the problem (8). Thoreau says the cause of building a moral government and eradicating slavery from the United States is paramount. To be a good citizen, one must follow their conscience and promote justice, even if the actions of individuals tear the nation itself apart.

Thoreau dismisses those who say they do not like the government but do nothing about it; he is especially vehement that voting is not a strong enough action to make the government just. Voting for the right thing does not do anything beyond telling the powers that be that you hope what you vote for prevails. The majority can choose whether to hear it, and regardless, the majority will always do whatever is in its own interest. Thus, the majority will only vote for the abolition of slavery, for instance, when there either are so few slaves left that the vote makes no difference or when the cause of slavery itself no longer benefits the majority’s interest. Worse, there are few independent voters left in America, as most are beholden to political party elites and vote for whomever the party places on the ballot.

However, Thoreau clarifies that a person has no obligation to eliminate the wrongs the government reinforces. A person may be busy living their own life or have other goals or interests than justice, but each person has a moral duty to “wash his hands” of injustices perpetrated by the government (10). Thoreau describes the hypocrites in his town who announce that they would not put down a slave insurrection or fight in Mexico if the government demanded it, but who still provide money to the government to support those actions.

Since everyone agrees that there are unjust laws, Thoreau asks whether people should “be content to obey” them, try to “amend them” but obey them until they are amended, or “transgress them all at once” (12). He states that most people will choose the second course of action, thinking that the cure of injustice is worse than the disease. This may be so, but this rationale is the fault of the government, as the State does not encourage dissent. Laws are set up to protect the State, and the State cannot fathom that a citizen might deny its authority. Thoreau revisits the metaphor of the machine to describe times when citizens need to rebel. If the injustice is necessary for the “machine of government” to function, it should be left alone as it will likely sort itself out (12). If the injustice has a part of the machine devoted exclusively to the injustice, it might need to be left alone as well, as it may be that the “remedy” may be “worse than the evil” (12). But if the injustice requires a citizen to be “the agent of injustice to another,” then Thoreau argues a citizen should “break the law” (12). That is, if a law requires one to live immorally and to harm another, the law must not be followed.

Breaking the law is the preferred action because the government cannot easily amend laws. In fact, the Constitution itself is “evil” as it sets up unjust laws (13). Thoreau states that his place in the world is simply to live in it, not to improve it. Besides, one person cannot do everything necessary to eliminate injustice. Rather, the preferred action is simply to withdraw support for the government. Abolitionists should stop providing their property or bodies to support the government of Massachusetts, as God would be on their side, and as each person is a “majority of one” who does not need to wait for the government to change (13).

Thoreau discusses his own actions, describing his interactions with the tax collector. Thoreau always makes sure to argue with the tax collector because he has voluntarily chosen to represent the unjust government and because Thoreau’s disagreement is with the men who make the laws, not the law itself. These conversations are small acts of rebellion, but Thoreau argues that small protests are important, as they are permanent and can combine to effect change. The tax collector, for instance, could be convinced to resign his office and, thus, slow the government. However, Thoreau laments that most men are too timid to act or risk being jailed for what they believe.

But prison is actually a freer place than society, as the prisoner can live an honorable life since they have been placed there for opposing the unjust State. Prison can also make a person more devoted to fighting injustice, since the imprisoned experience injustice firsthand rather than vicariously through the experience of the slave or the soldier.

Thoreau urges all those who stand against injustice to combine their weight against the State, since a minority that “clogs” the government can make the government change (15). After all, the State cannot imprison everyone and will choose to end a war or abolish slavery rather than arrest the masses. Additionally, Thoreau suggests that not paying taxes is preferred to letting the State use those tax dollars to cause violence and bloodshed. In fact, if enough people did not pay taxes, it would be “the definition of a peaceable revolution” (15). And even if there were to be some bloodshed in that revolution, it would be blood shed from a wounded conscience, blood Thoreau says he sees now.

Thoreau mostly focuses on prison as a consequence because the alternative—having property or goods taken—largely does not apply to the people who are most interested in ending injustice. Such people are not likely to have much property or wealth, as the wealthy are “sold to the institution”—the State—that made them wealthy (16). And wealth comes with a decreasing sense of virtue or morality. Should a person become rich, the best thing they can do is maintain the lifestyle they had before accumulating wealth. Thoreau also anticipates a criticism of his argument—that acting against the State will erode the State’s protections or, worse, that the State will come after that person’s property or family. Thoreau suggests that this quagmire is exactly why one should not attempt to accumulate wealth and should instead live with their own means, as it is impossible to live both morally and comfortably. Thoreau does not consider himself dependent on the State for anything, and because he is not rich, it costs him less to disobey the State than it would cost his soul, his humanity, and his integrity to obey it.

Thoreau then recounts his own acts of disobedience. He once refused to pay money to a church his father attended but that he did not. To avoid paying, he wrote to a town clerk that he did not wish to be viewed as a member of that church, and he has not gotten a bill since. However, he regrets that there is no way to write a similar letter for every society he wishes to divest himself from. He then states that he has not paid a poll tax in six years, and even spent one night in jail as a result, but he felt free in that jail. The wall that separated him from his town actually lifted his spirits, as he felt threatened not by the prisoners but by the world outside the prison walls. He learned to feel bad for the State because it does “not know its friends from its foes,” while he only has to answer to a higher power and obey his own laws (19). He recognized in jail that he was not part of the machinery of government and that the State could only ever take his body, not his mind.

Thoreau describes his night in prison as a trip to another country. He felt as though he was seeing his native village through the eyes of the past, as though he had entered the Middle Ages. He feels that he had never gotten a look at his town’s inner workings or institutions, especially the peculiar institution of prison, which contains perfectly formed holes for giving inmates food and open windows that let the town be heard and seen at all times. He is fascinated by how it functions, the gossip the inmates tell, and the verses they write. His roommate is a man accused of burning his barn, but Thoreau wonders if he accidentally lit a fire after passing out drunk. The cellmate shows him how the prison works and even offers friendly advice on saving his bread for later meals.

The next morning Thoreau is released because someone has paid his tax for him, against his wishes. After leaving prison, Thoreau feels changed, like he can see his city and its people more clearly. He recognizes that they are friends in “summer weather only” and that they cannot be counted on to effect change (21). He notes that none of them understand that an institution like the jail even exists. Thoreau leaves town and is no longer under the State’s oversight.

Out of town, he announces that he refuses allegiance to the State as a whole. He pays for the highway tax because it benefits his neighbors but refuses all other taxes. Thoreau admits that his neighbors probably mean well, and he wishes he could respect their wishes. However, he knows that supporting their wishes and paying all taxes would hurt others who do not live in his community. He criticizes the person who anonymously paid his taxes as being either supporting injustice (if the person paid the bill out of solidarity with the State) or interfering with the public good (if the person paid it to help him), as Thoreau’s actions (or inactions) are for the public good of change.

Despite his stances, Thoreau admits that he wants to follow the law, as he does not want conflict with anyone. He argues that the Constitution looks like it should deserve obeisance and respect from one point of view . However, when he looks at those laws from “a little higher,” they appear less moral, and he wonders if the laws are worth thinking about at all (24). He admits that most people disagree with him, but he is discontented by legislators and politicians. They are part of the unjust institutions and, therefore, cannot see how or why to change them. He argues that they may have made some useful systems, but they cannot see the inherent injustice in the law as a whole. Thoreau singles out Daniel Webster, the famous US congressman and diplomat, as a politician who will not reform government because he follows the institution and law as a whole. Webster supports slavery, for instance, not because he thinks slavery is just but because slavery is part of the original Constitution. Thus, to Thoreau, Webster has rightly been called the “Defender of the Constitution,” but that honor makes him prudent, not wise (25).

Thoreau concludes the essay by calling the authority of government “impure,” as a government cannot be just if it lacks the “sanction and consent of the governed” (27). Democracy is a step in the right direction for the power of the individual, but it does not go far enough. Thoreau imagines a State that would fully respect an individual and not mind if a few people chose to live completely free of the State altogether, “not meddling with it, nor embraced by it” (27-28). If such a State could exist, then an even “more perfect and glorious” State could follow (28).

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By Henry David Thoreau

A Plea for Captain John Brown

Henry David Thoreau

A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers

Featured Collections

Essays & speeches.

View Collection

Political Science Texts

Politics & government, transcendentalism.

Civil Disobedience

Henry david thoreau, everything you need for every book you read..

Henry David Thoreau begins “Civil Disobedience” by reflecting on the best form of government. He admits that he believes that the best government is one that governs “not at all.” From there, he asks his readers to reflect on the purpose of a standing government such as the one the United States has currently. He argues that like a standing army, a standing government can be perverted and corrupted to serve the ambitions of a few powerful people instead of all the American people.

Thoreau goes on to critique the American government and its role in furthering injustice and its limited success in governing so far. He argues that all of America’s successes have been the result of the American people instead of the American government. Thoreau then makes his first plea to readers, calling for a “better government,” instead of the faulty government he and his fellow citizens currently have. He argues that the power of governing is with the people and therefore the American people must take back their ability to think and act for themselves “as men first and subjects afterwards.” Thoreau implores his audience to think carefully about the law and its capacity to promote injustice, arguing that his fellow citizens must risk breaking the law and becoming “bad” citizens in the pursuit of justice. Though the state may treat them as enemies as a result, Thoreau argues that there is no other way forward. That is, the state’s abuse of power is so great that one cannot in good conscience recognize this government, especially because it also protects the institution of slavery.

Thoreau reminds his audience of their right to revolt against a tyrannical government, arguing that it is right and just to do away with the “machine” of any government that oppresses, robs, and practices slavery. Though Thoreau brings up William Paley’s writings in “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,” as a counter opinion to his argument, he ultimately debunks Paley’s idea that one should not resist a government if it will be an “inconvenience” to the public. Thoreau’s dissenting response is short: the people should always pursue justice, as inconvenient and risky as it may be. He argues that the people must reject slavery and halt the war in Mexico, even if doing so tears the nation apart.

From there, Thoreau turns his attention to Massachusetts its residents, who, in his opinion, are not ready to shoulder the costs of justice. He critiques his fellow Massachusetts residents for being more interested in commerce and agriculture and for failing to do anything to stop the Mexican-American war and end slavery. Thoreau also criticizes them for petitioning the state or voting as their primary ways of bringing about change. He notes that none of these official channels is effective for ending slavery and the war. He emphasizes that voting is simply a way to express one’s feeble desire for an outcome. That people find these channels of change worthwhile worries Thoreau; he wonders about the passive and “odd” character of the American citizen.

Though Thoreau admits that he does not think people should make it their goal in life to abolish all of the world’s wrongs, he continues to argue that people have the duty to at least reject an institution that practices immoral acts. This point brings him to double down on his critiques of petitioning the government. Thoreau wonders why people are petitioning the state to dissolve the union, when they have the power to dissolve it themselves. He argues that men should not simply have an opinion (by petitioning). Rather, they must take practical steps to make that opinion a reality.

Thoreau reminds his audience of the stakes of the situation, arguing that they must try to amend the unjust laws because, contrary to popular opinion, remedying any evil is better than continuing to perpetuate that evil in the name of patriotism. He argues that breaking the law is the only way not to avoid enabling the evil that one condemns. Thoreau notes again that these efforts cannot occur through state-run channels. Instead, he implores the Massachusetts people to withdraw their support in “person” and “property” from the Massachusetts government. He argues that if only a few “honest” men withdrew from supporting the state (by refusing to pay taxes and going to jail), slavery would cease to exist. Refusing allegiance to the state as a tax-payer, as a tax-gatherer, and as a public official are all ways to achieve the revolution that Thoreau calls for.

Thoreau also points out how difficult it is for the rich to practice civil disobedience . He notes that people with a lot of wealth and property to lose will always be more allegiant to the institution that protects them and their property. This causes Thoreau to reflect on the difficulties and risks associated with practicing civil disobedience, such as jail time, the loss of property, and the loss of state protection. However, he suggests that one must avoid this bind by depending on oneself while shunning wealth.

Thoreau goes on to give examples of his own efforts to practice civil disobedience. He describes how he has refused to pay taxes towards a church congregation and refused to pay a poll tax. He was imprisoned for not paying the poll tax and spent a night in prison with a fellow Prisoner , who had been imprisoned for allegedly burning a barn. The experience was disorienting to Thoreau, and he reflects on the new insight the experience brought him. He sees his surroundings with a clearer perspective and walks away with a deeper understanding of the place he has lived for most of his life. After his imprisonment, he begins to look at his neighbors skeptically; they seem like weak men and women who are so averse to risk that they don’t care about doing what is right.

Thoreau turns back to the matter of civil disobedience, saying that refusing to pay one’s taxes is akin to refusing allegiance to the state. As a citizen, he argues that it is his right to review the actions of the state when the tax-gatherers come to him, and, based on the morality of the state’s actions, refuse or consent to paying what they demand.

Thoreau argues that citizens must look at the state’s actions from a higher point of view, one that allows them to stand a bit apart from the state so that they can “nakedly behold it.” He states, for example, that people must not align themselves with the Constitution simply because it is the original law of the land. Rather, they should look for “purer sources of truth,” in order to answer the pressing moral questions of their day.

Thoreau ends by reminding his audience that the government—to rule justly—must have the consent of the people it governs and recognize the individual as a “higher and independent power.” According to him, this is the key to a free, enlightened, and glorious state, one that treats all men justly and with respect.

On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

By henry david thoreau, 1849, original title: resistance to civil government.

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

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. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves; and, if ever they should use it in earnest as a real one against each other, it will surely split. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow; yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, 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.

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. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? 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 that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, aye, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts, a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be

“Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,     As his corpse to the ramparts we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot     O’er the grave where our hero we buried.”

The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus , &c. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men , serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least:

“I am too high-born to be propertied, To be a secondary at control, Or useful serving-man and instrument To any sovereign state throughout the world.”

He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.

How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to and to resist the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of ’75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them: all machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,” resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say, “that so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God that the established government be obeyed, and no longer.”—“This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other.” Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?

“A drab of state, a cloth-o’-silver slut, To have her train borne up, and her soul trail in the dirt.”

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may . I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to, shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man , and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow,—one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the alms-houses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, “I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico,—see if I would go;” and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the State were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin, comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, un moral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.

The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves,—the union between themselves and the State,—and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union, which have prevented them from resisting the State?

How can a man be satisfied to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see that you are never cheated again. Action from principle,—the perception and the performance of right,—changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divided states and churches, it divides families; aye, it divides the individual , separating the diabolical in him from the divine.

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? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offence never contemplated by government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who placed him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth,—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but 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. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

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. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not every thing to do, but something; and because he cannot do every thing , it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and, if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death which convulse the body.

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.

I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year, no more, in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with,—for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel,—and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well what he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he shall treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborliness without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action? I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name,—if ten honest men only,—aye, 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. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done for ever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State’s ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister,—though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her,—the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,—the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do any thing, resign your office.” When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.

I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods,—though both will serve the same purpose,—because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man—not to make any invidious comparison—is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the “means” are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. “Show me the tribute-money,” said he;—and one took a penny out of his pocket;—if you use money which has the image of Cæsar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State , and gladly enjoy the advantages of Cæsar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; “Render therefore to Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s and to God those things which are God’s,”—leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences of disobedience to it to their property and families. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly and at the same time comfortably in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself, always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said,—“If a State is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a State is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame.” No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.

Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. “Pay it,” it said, “or be locked up in the jail.” I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster; for I was not the State’s schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax-bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the church. However, at the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing:—“Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined.” This I gave to the town-clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find such a complete list.

I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, “Your money or your life,” why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.

The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirt-sleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the door-way, when I entered. But the jailer said, “Come, boys, it is time to lock up;” and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as “a first-rate fellow and a clever man.” When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably the neatest apartment in town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest man, of course; and, as the world goes, I believe he was. “Why,” said he, “they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it.” As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.

He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw, that, if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even here there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of verses which were composed by some young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.

I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.

It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town-clock strike before, nor the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village-inn—a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.

In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left; but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after, he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good-day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.

When I came out of prison,—for some one interfered, and paid the tax,—I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth, and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene,—the town, and State, and country,—greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly purpose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are; that, in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that, after all, they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight though useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that most of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.

It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the grating of a jail window, “How do ye do?” My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker’s to get a shoe which was mended. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour,—for the horse was soon tackled,—was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off; and then the State was nowhere to be seen.

This is the whole history of “My Prisons.”

I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and, as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow-countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax-bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man, or a musket to shoot one with,—the dollar is innocent,—but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.

If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.

This, then, is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his actions be biassed by obstinacy, or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.

I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well; they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think, again, this is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill-will, without personal feeling of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But, if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker of fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.

I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and state governments, and the spirit of the people to discover a pretext for conformity.

“We must affect our country as our parents, And if at any time we alienate Out love of industry from doing it honor, We must respect effects and teach the soul Matter of conscience and religion, And not desire of rule or benefit.”

I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable, and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?

However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.

I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind’s range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given by him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of ’87. “I have never made an effort,” he says, “and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union.” Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, “Because it was part of the original compact,—let it stand.” Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect,—what, for instance, it behoves a man to do here in America today with regard to slavery, but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer as the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man,—from which what new and singular code of social duties might be inferred?—“The manner,” says he, “in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it, is for their own consideration, under the responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me and they never will.” [These extracts have been inserted since the Lecture was read —HDT]

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to,—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well,—is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose, if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org . If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

• Politics & Social Sciences
• Politics & Government

Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

• Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
• Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
• Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
• A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
• Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
• Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important:  Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Buy new: $8.00 $8.00 FREE delivery: Monday, April 8 on orders over $35.00 shipped by Amazon. Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com

Return this item for free.

Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges

• Go to your orders and start the return
• Select the return method

Buy used: $5.97

Other sellers on amazon.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Essays on Civil Disobedience: Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bertrand Russell, Aung San Suu Kyi & Nadezhda Tolokonnikova (Dover Thrift Editions: Literary Collections) Paperback – May 18, 2016

Purchase options and add-ons.

• Print length 192 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Dover Publications
• Publication date May 18, 2016
• Dimensions 4.75 x 0.5 x 7.75 inches
• ISBN-10 9780486793818
• ISBN-13 978-0486793818
• See all details

Frequently bought together

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

From the brand

Debuting in 1990, the Thrift Editions library of classic literature is a top choice for teachers, students, librarians, and recreational readers around the world. Dover’s longstanding mission of exceptional value has consistently offered excellence in classic fiction, nonfiction, plays, and poetry.

Dover Thrift Editions are low priced, compact (5"x8"), complete and unabridged.

Women's History Month

Visit the Store

Are there any collections of stories or poetry in the Dover Thrift Editions?

In addition to single title books, Dover offers books of anthologies in fiction, non-fiction and poetry. Check out our Thrift Editions of short stories, literary collections, poetry, gothic and horror, SciFi/Fantasy, crime/mystery/thrillers and more. Happy Reading!

What formats are the Thrift Editions available in?

All are available in an easy to carry paperback version and most titles are available for the Kindle e-reader.

American History/History

Black History

Biography and Autobiography

Classic Novels

Crime, Mystery and Thrillers

Literary Collections

Short Stories

Gothic and Horror

Political Science

SciFi and Fantasy

Speeches and Quotations

From the publisher.

Inexpensive but substantial collection of essays.

This anthology ranges from Henry David Thoreau's great nineteenth-century polemics "Civil Disobedience" and "Slavery in Massachusetts" to more recent writings by Aung San Suu Kyi as well as Nadezhda Tolokonnikova of the subversive Russian rock group Pussy Riot. Additional selections include Leo Tolstoy's denouncement of capital punishment, "I Cannot Be Silent"; Bertrand Russell's "Civil Disobedience and the Threat of Nuclear Warfare"; and "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience" and "Letter from Birmingham City Jail" by Martin Luther King, Jr. Other contributors include William Lloyd Garrison, Albert Einstein, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Editorial Reviews

About the author, excerpt. © reprinted by permission. all rights reserved., essays on civil disobedience, dover publications, inc..

WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON

The Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention (1838)

The Liberator, Vol. VIII. No. 39 (September 28, 1838)

Best known for his brave and relentless campaign for the abolition of slavery in the United States, William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879) also distinguished himself for his commitment to civil disobedience, or, in his terms, "nonresistance." Not only as an author but as a speaker, noted one of his contemporaries, he delivered "a rain of fire." The Peace Convention was a national political group committed to pacifism and based in Boston; "The Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention" was published in Garrison's abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, on September 28, 1838. The Russian novelist and peace activist Leo Tolstoy was inspired by Garrison's life and writings and remarked, "Garrison understood that which the most advanced among the fighters against slavery did not understand: that the only irrefutable argument against slavery is the denial of the right of any man over the liberty of another under any conditions whatsoever." Tolstoy concluded, "Therefore Garrison will forever remain one of the greatest reformers and promoters of true human progress."

Assembled in convention, from various sections of the American Union, for the promotion of peace on earth and good-will among men, we, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the cause which we love, to the country in which we live, and to the world, to publish a declaration, expressive of the principles we cherish, the purposes we aim to accomplish, and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward the work of peaceful, universal reformation.

We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government; neither can we oppose any such government by a resort to physical force. We recognize but one King and Lawgiver , one Judge and Ruler of mankind. We are bound by the laws of a kingdom which is not of this world; the subjects of which are forbidden to fight; in which Mercy and Truth are met together, and Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other; which has no state lines, no national partitions, no geographical boundaries; in which there is no distinction of rank, or division of caste, or inequality of sex; the officers of which are Peace , its extractors Righteousness , its walls Salvation , and its gates Praise ; and which is destined to break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms.

Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all other lands. The interests, rights, liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the whole human race. Hence, we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury. The Prince of Peace , under whose stainless banner we rally, came not to destroy, but to save, even the worst of enemies. He has left us an example, that we should follow his steps. God commandeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us .

We conceive, that if a nation has no right to defend itself against foreign enemies, or to punish its invaders, no individual possesses that right in his own case. The unit cannot be of greater importance than the aggregate. If one man may take life, to obtain or defend his rights, the same license must necessarily be granted to communities, states, and nations. If he may use a dagger or a pistol, they may employ cannon, bomb-shells, land and naval forces. The means of self-preservation must be in proportion to the magnitude of interests at stake and the number of lives exposed to destruction. But if a rapacious and bloodthirsty soldiery, thronging these shores from abroad, with intent to commit rapine and destroy life, may not be resisted by the people or magistracy, then ought no resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the public peace or of private security. No obligation can rest upon Americans to regard foreigners as more sacred in their persons than themselves, or to give them a monopoly of wrong-doing with impunity.

The dogma, that all the governments of the world are approvingly ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will, is not less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of human freedom and equality, unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the powers that be , in any nation, are actuated by the spirit or guided by the example of Christ, in the treatment of enemies; therefore, they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and therefore, their overthrow, by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects, is inevitable.

We register our testimony, not only against all wars, whether offensive or defensive, but all prepations for war; against every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification; against the militia system and a standing army; against all military chieftains and soldiers; against all monuments commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honor of military or naval exploits; against all appropriations for the defence of a nation by force and arms, on the part of any legislative body; against every edict of government requiring of its subjects military service. Hence, we deem it unlawful to bear arms, or to hold a military office.

As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet, we cannot hold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation to compel men to do right, on pain of imprisonent or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such capacity.

It follows, that we cannot sue any man at law, to compel him by force to restore anything which he may have wrongfully taken from us or others; but if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender up our cloak, rather than subject him to punishment.

We believe that the penal code of the old covenant, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth , has been abrogated by Jesus Christ ; and that, under the new covenant, the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined upon all his disciples, in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from his enemies, or set them upon a pillory, or cast them into prison, or hang them upon a gallows, is obviously not to forgive, but to take retribution. Vengeance is mine — I will repay, saith the Lord .

The history of mankind is crowded with evidence proving that physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the sinful disposition of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be exterminated from earth only by goodness; that it is not safe to rely on an arm of flesh, upon a man whose breath is in his nostrils, to preserve us from harm; that there is great security in being gentle, harmless, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the earth, for the violent who resort to the sword are destined to perish with the sword. Hence, as a measure of sound policy — of safety to property, life, and liberty — of public quietude and private enjoyment — as well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords , we cordially adopt the non-resistance principle; being confident that it provides for all possible consequences, will ensure all things needful to us, is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing force.

We advocate no jacobinical doctrine. The spirit of jacobinism is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of Christ. If we abide by our principles, it is impossible for us to be disorderly or plot treason, or participate in any evil work; we shall submit to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake ; obey all the requirements of Government, except such as we deem contrary to the commands of the gospel; and in no case resist the operation of the law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience.

But, while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of God; to assail iniquity, in high places and in low places; to apply our principles to all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions; and to hasten the time when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ , and he shall reign for ever.

It appears to us a self-evident truth, that, whatever the gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned. If, then, the time is predicted when swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, and spears into pruning-hooks, and men shall not learn the art of war any more, it follows that all who manufacture, sell or wield these deadly weapons, do thus array themselves against the peaceful dominion of the Son of God on earth.

Having thus briefly, but frankly, stated our principles and purposes, we proceed to specify the measures we propose to adopt, in carrying our object into effect.

We expect to prevail through the foolishness of preaching — striving to commend ourselves unto every man's conscience, in the sight of God . From the press, we shall promulgate our sentiments as widely as practicable. We shall endeavour to secure the cooperation of all persons, of whatever name or sect. The triumphant progress of the cause of Temperance and Abolition in our land, through the instrumentality of benevolent and voluntary associations, encourages us to combine our own means and efforts for the promotion of a still greater cause. Hence, we shall employ lecturers, circulate tracts and publications, form societies, and petition our State and national governments, in relation to the subject of Universal Peace . It will be our leading object to devise ways and means for effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and practices of society, respecting the sinfulness of war and the treatment of enemies.

In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful that, in its prosecution, we may be called to test our sincerity, even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage, suffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, calumny. Tumults may arise against us. The ongodly and violent, the pround and pharisaical, the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places, may combine to crush us. So they treated the Messiah , whose example we are humbly striving to imitate. If we suffer with him, we know that we shall reign with him. We shall not be so afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty , not in man. Having withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us but that faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, as though some strange thing had happened unto us; but rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings. Wherefore, we commit the keeping of our souls to God, in well-doing, as unto the faithful Creator. For every one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for Christ's sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable may be the opposition arrayed against them — in solemn testimony of our faith in their divine origin — we hereby affix our signatures to it; commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind, giving ourselves no anxiety as to what may befall us, and resolving in the strength of the Lord God calmly and meekly to abide the issue.

ADIN BALLOU

Non-Resistance in Relation to Human Governments (1839)

First Annual Meeting, Non-Resistance Society, Boston (September 25, 1839)

Adin Ballou (1803–1890) was a reverend who founded the utopian community at Hopedale in Massachusetts. There is less fierceness in Ballou's passionate writing than in Garrison's; he was equally insistent, however, in declaring his commitment to non-resistance and that its first and vital practitioner was Jesus Christ: "Hence he made himself the great Exemplar of non-resistants; and 'when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to Him that judgeth righteously'; enduring every insult, reproach, cruelty, and torture of his enemies with unprovokable patience and unconquerable love; forgiving his most deadly persecutors, and expiring with a prayer upon his lips for their salvation. Thus he overcame evil with good and, leaving behind him the Alexanders and Caesars of this world in their base murderous glory, earned for himself a name which is above every name, whether in this world or that to come ..." In advocating the conscientious use of civil disobedience (not so-called by him) Ballou reflects: "The conclusion is therefore unavoidable, that the will of man (human government) — whether in one, a thousand, or many millions — has no intrinsic authority, no moral supremacy, and no rightful claim to the allegiance of man. It has no original, inherent authority whatsoever over the conscience."

Friend President — "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." I feel that the Spirit of the Lord is in this meeting, and that all who participate in its discussions are at liberty to express their convictions and peculiar views in their own way, without fear of offending each other. We are of various religious connections, and have not only different opinions on many points, but different modes of thought and expression. Be it so, since we come together in love, for the consideration and promotion of that grand virtue of Christianity without which all others become practically unfruitful.

For my own part, I am not only not offended at hearing opinions and ideas expressed here contrary in some respects to my own, but I am happy to hear them delivered with that freedom and independence which evinces the absence of even a suspicion that anyone can take offence. This is a sure presage of the triumph of truth over all our errors, whatever they may be, or whoever may hold them.

My views of the subject presented in the resolution just submitted may not entirely coincide with those of my friends; but I offer them frankly, expecting that they will be accepted or rejected, as each individual may judge that they deserve.

I perceive with joy that a divine instinct, if so I may term it, actuates my brethren and sisters of this convention in favor of non-resistance. This instinct is as strong and true as the needle to the pole, while at the same time few of us clearly understand how a non-resistant should carry out his principles, especially with respect to human government. The heart is right, though the head may err. "We love the blessed principle of non-resistance, though perhaps we are not sufficiently acute and discriminating, either to state or defend it always correctly. Hence we are not to be argued down by polemic ingenuity and eloquence; which, however confounding, are yet unconvincing that on the whole we are not right. If I can contribute anything towards a better understanding of this important subject, so as to obviate any of its seeming difficulties, I shall deem myself happy in the privilege of being for a few moments a speaker.

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ 0486793818
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Dover Publications; First Edition, First (May 18, 2016)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 192 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 9780486793818
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0486793818
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 4.8 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 4.75 x 0.5 x 7.75 inches
• #1,337 in American Fiction Anthologies
• #1,424 in Civil Rights & Liberties (Books)
• #3,596 in Essays (Books)

About the author

Bob blaisdell.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Start Selling with Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!