Civil Disobedience

Ahmed Syed Professor Ravy Eng 112-536 04/27/2010 Civil Disobedience in an Unjust America According to the infamous essay by Henry David Thoreau, civil disobedience is the conscious and intentional disobeying of a law to advance a moral principle or change government policy. Throughout the essay, Thoreau urges the need for individuals to put their personal and social consciousness before their allegiance to their government and its range of policies. Thoreau believed that if a government is unjust, citizens should simply refuse to follow the law and eventually begin to distance themselves from their government in a variety of ways.

Although published 105 years one of the most turbulent and crucial times in American history, the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement saw the congruence between their plight and the teachings in Civil Disobedience. The protests led by legendary activist Martin Luther King and the watershed event of Rosa Park’s infamous bus ride were just two instances in which civil disobedience came to fruition in modern day America. The following quote by Thoreau laid the groundwork for the basis of the actions of many civil rights activists, King and Parks included, “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward…

The only obligation which I have is the right to do what I think right. ” (Civil Disobedience 475). The aforementioned quote reveals Thoreau’s belief that it was a citizen’s obligation to withdraw from participating in an unjust and evil government and gives support to future opposition to the American Government as scene during the 1950s and 1960s. Thoreau argues on several issues throughout his essay which include disassociation and reform, however one overarching and undeniable argument that is present throughout his essay is that the American government is an unjust government that must be corrected.

This belief was also held by civil rights activists. Through this research paper, the foundation of Thoreau’s ideas and their penetration into modern American history will be explored. The social context surrounding Thoreau and his work includes two prevalent issues: slavery and The Mexican-American War. During the 1840s, when Civil Disobedience was published, the North and South were at odds over the issue of slavery. During the same time, many Americans also believed it was their “manifest destiny” to claim parts of Mexico as the United States.

Based on these two issues, Thoreau argues that the United States is an evil and unjust government. Thoreau and Paul Power’s Civil Disobedience as Functional Opposition both argue that if the government were not evil in its objectives and agenda then the idea and practice of civil disobedience would not have been needed nor created. According to Powers, “due the established evil of our government, there are both moral and ideological grounds for justifying civil disobedience,” (Powers 37). This is because civil disobedience is a reaction to unjust government.

Although many argue against civil disobedience by saying unjust laws made by a democratic legislature can be changed by a democratic legislature and that the existence of lawful channels of change make civil disobedience unnecessary, Thoreau and Powers would argue that the constitution and said laws are the problem, not the solution. According to Thoreau, governments are often “abused and perverted” (Civil Disobedience 249) so that they no longer reflect the needs and opinions of the common people.

The American government showcased the aforementioned abuse and perversion during Thoreau’s time in their partaking in the Mexican-American War. The main objective of the war was the take land from Mexico in order to create a larger and more powerful America. According to Thoreau, the American government achieved these objectives through an unfair armed conflict that was reminiscent of the long arm of European monarchies Thoreau also argued that the American government was unjust in its total support of slavery.

Thoreau believed that citizens of the United States must stop slavery and the war with Mexico, even if it costs them their existence as a people. In order to truly make his arguments effective, Thoreau used ethos and pathos to persuade the people of his era. His use of ethos is evident throughout the entire essay. Thoreau establishes that he is a credible source as he himself has practiced civil disobedience and has been imprisoned for doing so. Thoreau says, “I have paid no poll-tax for six years.

I was put into jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone…I cold not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution” (Civil Disobedience 249). In the aforementioned quote, not only does he build his own credibility as a sort of martyr for his cause, but he discredits the opposition, the government. Thoreau engages the audience by way of pathos as he speaks on such an emotional level about pressing issues that almost every American had an opinion on, the war and slavery (Civil Disobedience 243. Thoreau’s use of ethos and pathos was so successful and convincing that that it resonated with Americans over 100 years later. Thoreau’s teachings helped to form and energize the American civil rights movement. His ideas and teachings were applied to sit-ins at lunch counters, the freedom ride to Mississippi, peaceful protests in Georgia, and the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama. All of these defining moments were the outcome of Thoreau’s insistence that “evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice” (Thoreau 244).

Thoreau also uses sensory imagery to convince and reach his audience in the following quote: “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…Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine” (Civil Disobedience 248). This quote applies Thoreau’s somewhat abstract theories and ideas about evil and injustice to tangible and common objects, allowing all members of his audience to understand the major arguments of his essay.

The use of the concrete words machine, spring, pulley, rope, and crank allow Thoreau’s audience to take what he is saying and apply it to common processes and mages that they understand because they are parts of their common and everyday lives. Columnist Bob Herbert, of the New York Times, recently wrote an article about Martin Luther King’s opposition to the Vietnam War, which can be compared with Thoreau’s thoughts on the Mexican-American War. Herbert cited King as saying the United States Government, in regards to their war efforts was, “Corrupt, inept, and without popular support,” (Herbert 2010).

Herbert went on to further to say, “Dr. King spoke about the damage the Vietnam War was doing to America’s war on poverty, and the way it was undermining other important domestic initiatives. What he wanted from the U. S. was not warfare overseas but a renewed commitment to economic and social justice at home. As he put it: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death,” (Herbert 2010). Not only did King agree with Thoreau on the social, piritual, and moral wrongs of war, but he also practiced civil disobedience and was sent to jail just as Thoreau was. In April of 1963, King was imprisoned in Birmingham, Alabama for his participation and leadership of the Birmingham campaign, a planned non-violent protest conducted by the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights and King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference against racial segregation (King). While imprisoned, King wrote a Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which is equivalent to Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience in that he demonstrated that he was in Birmingham in the first place because injustice resided there.

Within the letter he also stated the sole reason for his imprisonment was for protesting those injustices. Letter from a Birmingham Jail was the root of King’s views on civil disobedience. As the primary leader the Civil Rights Movement, King was known for his views on the value of civil disobedience as a way to achieve political attention and change, similar to Thoreau. Specifically, King studied and used methods of Thoreau’s civil disobedience to combat and change segregation laws.

King’s thoughts on civil disobedience raised similar theoretical questions to Thoreau’s about the relationship between an individual, their government, and one’s moral and political duties in upholding their personal social contract with the US government (Melendez). Within the letter, King utilizes the same ethos and pathos that Thoreau used 100 years earlier. King builds his credibility and rapport by explaining himself as a reliable, competent, activist who has the utmost respect for his audience’s ideas and values. This can be seen as he writes, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B. C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid” (Letter from a Birmingham Jail 207). In conclusion, while Thoreau and his disciple Martin Luther King Jr. ncourage the need for individuals to correctly and justly prioritize their individual conscious and the laws of their government, they essentially argue that the reason for the institution of civil disobedience is because the American government is and will always be an unjust government. Thoreau believes this is true not only because of their involvement in the Mexican-American War and their firm support of slavery, but because the American government’s actions are derived from the needs, opinions, and desires of a small group of citizens who fail to represent the majority.

The Need to Disobey Both Antigone by Sophocles and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (“LBJ”) by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) are stories which portray the theme of civil disobedience. Antigone is a play written by Sophocles that takes place in Thebes, Greece. Antigone arrives in Thebes and learns that both of her brothers died in war. Her brother Etocles has been given a proper burial while Creon, the King of Thebes, refuses to bury her other brother Polynices because he was a traitor. Antigone chooses to break the law and buries her brother, and gets caught.

Despite the pleas of Antigone and Haemon, Creon’s son and Antigone’s fiance, Creon sentences Antigone to death by live burial and starvation. Feeling that it is a better option than taking the sentence, Antigone hangs herself, and when Haemon finds her, he kills himself out of despair. Queen Eurydice, Haemon’s mother and Creon’s wife, kills herself with a sharp knife. Creon is left in sorrow and distress when he too late finds that he has made a fatal mistake. On the other hand, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is an essay written by MLK that he wrote in the city jail in Birmingham, Alabama.

He had been arrested for parading without a permit during his non-violent protest against racial segregation. His letter is addressed to the “fellow clergymen” who criticized his work. Both writings have a character who defies the civil law because it breaks the moral law. However, the writings are also different in many ways. Overall, MLK’s “LBJ” is better than Sophocles’ Antigone. Firstly, “LBJ” is better than Antigone because the theme is portrayed in a more positive and successful way.

In Antigone, it is clear that civil disobedience brought Antigone to an untimely death as Creon finds out, “Too late, too late you see what justice means” (p. 124, l. 1400-1401). Though Antigone fully disobeys Creon’s law by burying her brother, her actions are not successful and lead to her death instead of her triumph. Only after she dies, Creon realizes that she did it for a just cause, but he is unable to turn back time and is left in despair. However, MLK is more successful in addressing the problem before it is too late, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (pp. , p. 1). MLK explains that the injustice of racial prejudice he sees in the South cannot be ignored because, even if one is not part of it, it is morally wrong and unacceptable. MLK makes a more direct point that civil disobedience is necessary, and he is more effective in directly influencing the people around him, while in the play Antigone, Antigone is unable to influence Creon. “LBJ” is not only more successful in carrying out the theme, but is also more credible than Antigone. Since it is more credible, “LBJ” is better than Antigone.

Antigone is a play that takes place in Ancient Greece, “Land of Thebes, city of all my fathers –” (p. 107, l. 1027). Though Antigone has had a tremendous impact on society, the play itself is undeniably fictional and the events in it did not actually take place. The main character, Antigone, is also fictional and was made up by Sophocles to show his point on civil disobedience. On the other hand, “LBJ” is an essay written about true events by someone who was experiencing the injustice firsthand, “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here” (pp. 3, p. ). MLK’s “LBJ” is clearly a nonfictional writing and is therefore much more credible and can be referenced to as a primary source in history. MLK himself is still known to be one of the most important figures in American history and his writings are a very credible source as to why he took part in civil disobedience. “LBJ” is not only more credible, but is also does a better job in persuading the reader. The writing style of “LBJ” makes it easier to understand and therefore better than Antigone because it uses more logos rather than pathos arguments.

When Antigone appeals to Creon, she uses the argument “I was born to join in love, not hate – that is my nature” (p. 86, l. 590 – 591). Though this argument is not completely invalid, it is weak because it cannot help Antigone when it comes to the law, which does not change because of people’s emotional natures. Her pathos arguments did not appeal to Creon, who insists she disobeyed the law and should receive just punishment. Another factor of the play is that it is written in dialogue which is sometimes difficult to understand and follow Antigone and Haemon’s arguments.

However, MLK is much more logical in his approach to the issue he is dealing with, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps…” (pp. 2, p. 2). By explaining the steps to his campaign, MLK shows that the actions he took were perfectly necessary and logical. After going into detail about each of the four steps, MLK proves that what he did was justified by logos arguments. Additionally, the writing style of MLK’s essay is very methodical and is written in modern English. However, when examining the impact of each of these works, another very important point puts “LBJ” above Antigone. LBJ” is more relatable to modern society than Antigone, which makes it better. Some of the ideas used in Antigone are no longer relevant to modern society, which is evident when Antigone speaks about her brother’s burial rites, “Hasn’t Creon graced one with all the rites, disgraced the other? ” (p. 60, l. 27). Though burial is still important in modern times, it had a bigger significance in Ancient Greece because they believed that not being buried meant that the person would be in eternal unrest instead of being allowed into Hades.

Therefore, the reason for Antigone’s disobedience is more difficult to understand for modern people. However, MLK says, “Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow…” (pp. 4, p. 12). The reason for MLK’s disobedience is much easier to understand as the issue of racial segregation is still present in modern society. It is easier to see MLK’s direct impact on modern society than Sophocles’ indirect way of impacting society.

This is evident as MLK writes about a “not too distant tomorrow”, which is now because the essay was written in 1963. In these ways, “LBJ” is more relatable to modern society. Therefore, since it portrays the theme better, is more credible, is easier to understand, and more relatable in modern times, MLK’s “LBJ” is better than Sophocle’s Antigone. Another example of civil disobedience in history was in Mahatma Gandhi. Just like Antigone and King, he used nonviolent protest in an attempt to liberate the Indian people from British control.

He first led peaceful protests against excessive land taxes and reached out to including all religious groups. Later, his success was evident after he assumed leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921 and led nationwide campaigns for many national issues. Above all, his main goal and reason for his peaceful protest was to achieve independence of India from British domination, which was against the law and a great example of civil disobedience. His actions resemble those of MLK and Antigone, and he was even looked up to by MLK as a role model in peaceful protest, making him the prime example of civil disobedience.

Civil Disobedience was written by Henry David Thoreau. The Letter From A Birmingham Jail was written by Martin Luther King Jr. They both had similarities and differences. There were injustices that were done wrong to each of them by others in the society in which they both lived. The injustices and civil disobedience they incurred should never happen to anyone. Henry David Thoreau spoke in an emotional tone in his essay “Civil Disobedience. ” The emotional part of his essay of Civil Disobedience is that he wants the people to speak up about what type of government they would want to have.

Another emotional part was when he started to tell the people to stop paying their taxes so that if the government doesn’t get what they want then maybe they will reform and change their ways. Most of the people are afraid of the government and what the government will do to them and their property if someone disobeys their orders. The government has the right to take their property away from them. The government lets them keep their property if the people listen and obey what they say. The people feel that the government is protecting their rights.

Thoreau want the people to rebel against the government and revolutionize together because they are treated like slaves and subjected to military law. People want a better government but they won’t do anything to correct the situation. They always think someone else will do something but no one ever does so nothing ever changes. It is very hard to change the minds of people who support the government the way it is. Men are afraid it will make things much worse for them if they go against the government even if they know they are right and the government is wrong.

Thoreau says, “If you think you are right in your opinion then you are the majority and stand up for your rights against the government. Stop giving the government what it wants and maybe the government will reform to what the people want. ” He wants people to stand up for their rights and risk being put in jail. People should join together as one to put an end to the injustices they have had to deal with from the government. People need to elect the right person to make changes in the government. In Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, he makes an ethical appeal to he people because he thinks it is better not to have a government at all and that the American government makes more problems instead of making things better. Although not all is wrong, certain things need changing. The government doesn’t care about the people, it just wants them to do what they tell you to do, like to go to war and serve in the army whether you want to or not and pay taxes to the church whether you attend church or not. If the laws are not obeyed by the people and the people don’t do as the government tells them to do then the government would put you in jail for an undetermined amount of time.

Thoreau thinks the constitution is evil and wants to make things better by petitioning the people because he wants to have a better place to live in. He also is saying that being in jail is better than obeying the government and paying taxes and going to war. When you are in jail you get everything you need like free room and board and three meals a day, but it would all just be a waste of time because nothing would change. People need to stand up for their rights and what they believe in if they want things to change.

Martin Luther King Jr wrote the “Letter From A Birmingham Jail”. In his essay he said many strongly spoken emotional appeals. He tries to appeal to the people about the segregation of black people when he says, “When you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year old daughter why she can’t go the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Fun-town is closed to colored children. ” This quote has a lot of meaning to the colored people.

This is racism and it is wrong and it is an injustice that the colored people had to face and deal with for many, many years. Martin Luther King Jr loves the church and wants the blacks to be included in everything that white people are. He was grateful to one reverend for including the black people in a Sunday service in a non-segregated way because it was the right thing to do. Segregation has been an injustice that many people have had to deal with for too many years. An ethical appeal that Martin Luther King Jr. was arguing about were the injustices that colored people face each day of their lives.

He was arguing about what was right and what was wrong. He wanted people to realize that they were “victims of a broken promise”. They were promised that racial signs would be removed but they were not. He was using a non-violent direct action protest and got arrested for it because the whites kept the black people out of everything. The black people were being segregated and not allowed the same rights and courtesies as the white people. Colored people had a separate bathroom than the white people. Colored people couldn’t sit at the lunch counter or ride in the front of a bus.

Rosa Parks took a stand and protested in a non-violent way. She decided one day to sit in the front of the bus and was arrested. Martin Luther King Jr. says that “non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue”. Negro leaders have tried to speak about these issues with white officials but nothing has changed. This is why Rosa Parks took a stand for what she believed in and also why Martin Luther King Jr. ook a stand for his rights by going on a march from Montgomery to Birmingham, Alabama. Martin Luther King Jr. also states that “A just law is a man-made code that squares with moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law”. In his essay he thanks one Reverend for allowing black people into his church on a non-segregated basis. This was just a small step in their actions to change the way people think because they have suffered these injustices for way too many years. Both Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. ave made excellent points in their essays about the injustices that have been inflicted upon them in their society. They both have had to deal with many injustices and a lot of people whose wrong doings toward them have made their society a bad place in which to live. Each person was seeking ways to make their society a better place to live in, now and in the future. They both hope that people will see that they way they are being treated is wrong and will stand up for what is right instead of going along with what is wrong.