Excellent Essay: Civil Disobedience by Thoreau

[tremendoustie]

You'll never guess it was written in 1849!

http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil1.html (links to parts 2 and 3 can be found here).

Endorsements:

"Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable." - Mahatma Gandhi


"During my student days I read Henry David Thoreau’s essay On Civil Disobedience for the first time. Here, in this courageous New Englander's refusal to pay his taxes and his choice of jail rather than support a war that would spread slavery’s territory into Mexico, I made my first contact with the theory of nonviolent resistance. Fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system, I was so deeply moved that I reread the work several times.

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau’s insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Truth Warrior]

"Civil Disobedience" By Henry David Thoreau - 1849 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161872&highlight=Thoreau)

[mediahasyou]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/header.gif
http://www.strike-the-root.com/

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You'll never guess it was written in 1849!

http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil1.html (links to parts 2 and 3 can be found here).

Endorsements:

"Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable." - Mahatma Gandhi


"During my student days I read Henry David Thoreau’s essay On Civil Disobedience for the first time. Here, in this courageous New Englander's refusal to pay his taxes and his choice of jail rather than support a war that would spread slavery’s territory into Mexico, I made my first contact with the theory of nonviolent resistance. Fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system, I was so deeply moved that I reread the work several times.

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau’s insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

But his philosophy, measures which were palatible for his time, have now become like out-of-date can-of-worm legal precedents that no longer aid mankind but add further weight onto his and her burden.

[Truth Warrior]

But his philosophy, measures which were palatible for his time, have now become like out-of-date can-of-worm legal precedents that no longer aid mankind but add further weight onto his and her burden. I was not aware that philosophy had a "shelf life". What's relevant and appropriate for a past date cutoff?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I was not aware that philosophy had a "shelf life". What's relevant and appropriate for a past date cutoff?

Well, gee, wouldn't it be nice if rich people would be American enough to give up there European lifestyles from time to time to live in tents as our forefathers once did? Rather than go camping, they could just pitch the camp where the homeless generally congregate. While they themselves play the part of the homeless for awhile, they could in turn allow the homeless to borrow their houses to live in. Now, this would be quite effective, yes, and would be along the lines of what Henry Thoreau meant. But we need to move on as this noble idea has been effectively countered with tasers and pepper spray.
We need to declare all U.S. citizens as legally homeful by providing them with a mailing address and all illegals as legally homeless.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, gee, wouldn't it be nice if rich people would be American enough to give up there European lifestyles from time to time to live in tents as our forefathers once did? Rather than go camping, they could just pitch the camp where the homeless generally congregate. While they themselves play the part of the homeless for awhile, they could in turn allow the homeless to borrow their houses to live in. Now, this would be quite effective, yes, and would be along the lines of what Henry Thoreau meant. But we need to move on as this noble idea has been effectively countered with tasers and pepper spray.
We need to declare all U.S. citizens as legally homeful by providing them with a mailing address and all illegals as legally homeless.

What's relevant and appropriate for a past date cutoff?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What's relevant and appropriate for a past date cutoff?

What is relevant is the purpose. A political method that was once good to the taste will always quickly become can-of-worm legal precedents. One is appropriate when one differentiates between the "campaign" and the "movement" where tyranny always wins whether or not it wins or loses in the political campaign; while, much to the contrary, the people only win outside of the boundaries of winning and losing when they are engaged in political movements towards the Civil-Purpose set forth by our Founding-Fathers in The Declaration of Independence, our formal divorce from tyranny, and in The U.S. Constitution, our new formal marriage to a more perfect government.

[Truth Warrior]

What is relevant is the purpose. A political method that was once good to the taste will always quickly become can-of-worm legal precedents. One is appropriate when one differentiates between the "campaign" and the "movement" where tyranny always wins whether or not it wins or loses in the political campaign; while, much to the contrary, the people only win outside of the boundaries of winning and losing when they are engaged in political movements towards the Civil-Purpose set forth by our Founding-Fathers in The Declaration of Independence, our formal divorce from tyranny, and in The U.S. Constitution, our new formal marriage to a more perfect government.

What's relevant and appropriate for a past date cutoff?

[Carole]

Thanks for the post.

I thoroughly enjoyed being reminded of Thoreau and re-reading his essay on Civil Disobedience. :)

[Xenophage]

What is relevant is the purpose. A political method that was once good to the taste will always quickly become can-of-worm legal precedents. One is appropriate when one differentiates between the "campaign" and the "movement" where tyranny always wins whether or not it wins or loses in the political campaign; while, much to the contrary, the people only win outside of the boundaries of winning and losing when they are engaged in political movements towards the Civil-Purpose set forth by our Founding-Fathers in The Declaration of Independence, our formal divorce from tyranny, and in The U.S. Constitution, our new formal marriage to a more perfect government.

You sound like a god damn lawyer! Shut up!

My favorite Thoreau quote (had to hunt for it on google): "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 on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we all must 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. 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 left alone by it."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What's relevant and appropriate for a past date cutoff?

What is relevant is the purpose. A political method that was once good to the taste will always quickly become can-of-worm legal precedents. One is appropriate when one differentiates between the "campaign" and the "movement" where tyranny always wins whether or not it wins or loses in the political campaign; while, much to the contrary, the people only win outside of the boundaries of winning and losing when they are engaged in political movements towards the Civil-Purpose set forth by our Founding-Fathers in The Declaration of Independence, our formal divorce from tyranny, and in The U.S. Constitution, our new formal marriage to a more perfect government.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You sound like a god damn lawyer! Shut up!

My favorite Thoreau quote (had to hunt for it on google): "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 on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we all must 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. 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 left alone by it."

You blinked.

[Xenophage]

You blinked.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

[Truth Warrior]

What is relevant is the purpose. A political method that was once good to the taste will always quickly become can-of-worm legal precedents. One is appropriate when one differentiates between the "campaign" and the "movement" where tyranny always wins whether or not it wins or loses in the political campaign; while, much to the contrary, the people only win outside of the boundaries of winning and losing when they are engaged in political movements towards the Civil-Purpose set forth by our Founding-Fathers in The Declaration of Independence, our formal divorce from tyranny, and in The U.S. Constitution, our new formal marriage to a more perfect government.

What's relevant and appropriate for a past date cutoff?

[Theocrat]

This is where we need to be cautious of our meaning behind "civil disobedience." It depends on the context of society in which that disobedience takes place, the reasons and methodology of that disobedience, and the direction or ends of that disobedience. Civil disobedience in and of itself does not automatically make it a good thing. I know because most of us here have an "affinity for disobedience" (to quote Morpheus from The Matrix Reloaded), especially when our federal government acts outside of its Constitutional boundaries, we like to hear when others act in rebellion to our civil authorities. However, I would like to suggest that sometimes civil disobedience can be wrong.

For example, there are many citizens in our nation who believe the Constitution is a document which hinders the U.S. government from acting in a more proficient way towards its constituents. Instead of publicly burning copies of the Constitution, they will simply cast a vote for a candidate whom they know will not perform his or her duties under the "strict rule of law" by means of looking to the Constitution. To them, this is an act of civil disobedience, and I've talked to a few people who believe this way. Some have even expressed that because the Constitution "oppresses Black people" in its "Three-Fifths Clause" we have an obligation to disobey the Constitution, in the same way that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. went against the racism of his day. We would certainly not agree with the disobedience of such an individual, but from his perspective, he is doing an honorable deed as his civil duty against "tyranny."

My point is that civil disobedience needs a standard or reason by which it is justified as a righteous and suitable act within a civilized society. Otherwise, it becomes arbitrary, and any action (whether it's from a ballot box or an ammo box) could be equally justified as an honorable act of civil disobedience.

[Ex Post Facto]

It today's society, any form of civil disobedience is subjected to stiff penal penalties. (Punn Intended)

[Truth Warrior]

It today's society, any form of civil disobedience is subjected to stiff penal penalties. (Punn Intended) Thoreau wrote his essay while in jail. ;)

[Ex Post Facto]

Thoreau wrote his essay while in jail. ;)

Was his cell mate named Bubba?

[Xenophage]

This is where we need to be cautious of our meaning behind "civil disobedience." It depends on the context of society in which that disobedience takes place, the reasons and methodology of that disobedience, and the direction or ends of that disobedience. Civil disobedience in and of itself does not automatically make it a good thing. I know because most of us here have an "affinity for disobedience" (to quote Morpheus from The Matrix Reloaded), especially when our federal government acts outside of its Constitutional boundaries, we like to hear when others act in rebellion to our civil authorities. However, I would like to suggest that sometimes civil disobedience can be wrong.

For example, there are many citizens in our nation who believe the Constitution is a document which hinders the U.S. government from acting in a more proficient way towards its constituents. Instead of publicly burning copies of the Constitution, they will simply cast a vote for a candidate whom they know will not perform his or her duties under the "strict rule of law" by means of looking to the Constitution. To them, this is an act of civil disobedience, and I've talked to a few people who believe this way. Some have even expressed that because the Constitution "oppresses Black people" in its "Three-Fifths Clause" we have an obligation to disobey the Constitution, in the same way that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. went against the racism of his day. We would certainly not agree with the disobedience of such an individual, but from his perspective, he is doing an honorable deed as his civil duty against "tyranny."

My point is that civil disobedience needs a standard or reason by which it is justified as a righteous and suitable act within a civilized society. Otherwise, it becomes arbitrary, and any action (whether it's from a ballot box or an ammo box) could be equally justified as an honorable act of civil disobedience.

What if you engage in civil disobedience consistently and without prejudice, rather than selectively?

[Truth Warrior]

Was his cell mate named Bubba? I don't know, he didn't say.

[Theocrat]

What if you engage in civil disobedience consistently and without prejudice, rather than selectively?

It depends on the nature of the society in which you're living in to determine whether your disobedience is good or evil.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What if you engage in civil disobedience consistently and without prejudice, rather than selectively?

So, rather than sit in pretending to be the victimized, one would sit in as the victimized on a full time basis? Or the notion that the Native Americans weren't really poor and savage because they didn't think of themselves as such? Native Americans didn't own any land while they lived in tents as the homeless don't own any land and they live in tents

[Truth Warrior]

This is where we need to be cautious of our meaning behind "civil disobedience." It depends on the context of society in which that disobedience takes place, the reasons and methodology of that disobedience, and the direction or ends of that disobedience. Civil disobedience in and of itself does not automatically make it a good thing. I know because most of us here have an "affinity for disobedience" (to quote Morpheus from The Matrix Reloaded), especially when our federal government acts outside of its Constitutional boundaries, we like to hear when others act in rebellion to our civil authorities. However, I would like to suggest that sometimes civil disobedience can be wrong.

For example, there are many citizens in our nation who believe the Constitution is a document which hinders the U.S. government from acting in a more proficient way towards its constituents. Instead of publicly burning copies of the Constitution, they will simply cast a vote for a candidate whom they know will not perform his or her duties under the "strict rule of law" by means of looking to the Constitution. To them, this is an act of civil disobedience, and I've talked to a few people who believe this way. Some have even expressed that because the Constitution "oppresses Black people" in its "Three-Fifths Clause" we have an obligation to disobey the Constitution, in the same way that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. went against the racism of his day. We would certainly not agree with the disobedience of such an individual, but from his perspective, he is doing an honorable deed as his civil duty against "tyranny."

My point is that civil disobedience needs a standard or reason by which it is justified as a righteous and suitable act within a civilized society. Otherwise, it becomes arbitrary, and any action (whether it's from a ballot box or an ammo box) could be equally justified as an honorable act of civil disobedience. Did Thoreau have one? I think that he did.<IMHO> :)

[Xenophage]

It depends on the nature of the society in which you're living in to determine whether your disobedience is good or evil.

To be "disobedient" requires an authority to be present and demanding obedience. "Civil Disobedience," as a pacifist philosophy, precludes any notion of committing violent acts. So, under what sort of society would civil disobedience be evil?

[Theocrat]

To be "disobedient" requires an authority to be present and demanding obedience. "Civil Disobedience," as a pacifist philosophy, precludes any notion of committing violent acts. So, under what sort of society would civil disobedience be evil?

Obviously, civil disobedience is evil whenever a society and its laws are righteous, as it was in the early days of our republic. An example of civil disobedience being evil in our day is the outcry from the homosexual community that the government support their disgusting lifestyle.

[Xenophage]

Obviously, civil disobedience is evil whenever a society and its laws are righteous, as it was in the early days of our republic. An example of civil disobedience being evil in our day is the outcry from the homosexual community that the government support their disgusting lifestyle.

What laws are righteous? You can't engage in civil disobedience to protest laws against murder, rape, or theft. You'd have to murder, rape, and steal to do that - definitely not pacifist! Laws against homosexual marriage? To engage in civil disobedience there, I guess you have to get married! Oh, the horror!

I guess that's a good litmus test on whether or not a law is righteous: if you can engage in some form of pacifist civil disobedience against the law, the law isn't righteous.

[Athan]

You can tell when TW gets mad. He gets repetitive. Like dubbya.

[Truth Warrior]

You can tell when TW gets mad. He gets repetitive. Like dubbya. I'd not call it mad, simply tenacious. :) You don't want to see me mad. It's NOT pretty. ;) BTW, I'm two days older than dubya, FWIW.