American society has often been regarded as an example of democratic values. Americans are proud of the societal system where the rights of people are respected and secured by the government. However, American history includes a variety of controversial periods.
The first part of the nineteenth century is an illustration of one of the most controversial periods in the history of the USA. On the one hand, people’s rights were secured by the government and constitution of the country. On the other hand, slavery (which can hardly exist in a democratic society) was a legalized part of the state’s economy.
Of course, many people understood that slavery could not exist any longer. Many strived for abolition of slavery. Some even called for civil disobedience or even revolution to change the situation. Henry David Thoreau was one of such people and he revealed his viewpoints in his famous essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”.[1] However, Thoreau’s opinion concerning justification of violence and certain forms of civil disobedience is unacceptable as civil disobedience can result in many deaths and devastation.
Notably, Thoreau reveals many wrongs of the American society in his essay and he claims that the major vice of the society was slavery which could not exist in the industrialized and democratic society.[2] Thoreau stressed that it was a complete guilt of the US government which was totally responsible for injustice in the society, “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also”.[3] The author accused politicians of abusing power and simply focusing on other issues.
Thoreau also believed it was impossible to achieve the major goal and make politicians abolish slavery by constitutional ways. He claimed that only drastic changes in the society could lead to a better state. For instance, he justified such means as refusal to pay taxes[4]. Thoreau claimed that it was inappropriate to support the state where slavery is the basis of economy. He also noted that revolution could be necessary to stop the wrongs of the American society.
Admittedly, Thoreau’s viewpoint concerning the vicious ways of the American society was correct, but he was too radical when he considered the possibility to use violence to fight the wrongs. Thus, he stressed that revolution was acceptable in the society where slavery was constitutional.
He noted that violence could be acceptable if the government as well as the society accepted slavery as a norm. In other words, he stated that violence caused by revolution was justified by the violence associated with slavery.[5] Nonetheless, revolution was still a very radical tool to use. Cleves analyzes the outcomes of the French Revolution and notes that it caused a lot of destruction which was difficult to surmount.[6]
The French Revolution did bring a lot of changes for better. However, it also made people forget about peaceful ways of struggle. The French Revolution cannot be regarded as an event that happened in 1793.[7] France was in a great turmoil for years to come. It caused a lot of devastation. This was a very high price to pay for the new order.
Thoreau claimed that constitutional tools were ineffective as the government was quite corrupted. The only way to change the government’s ways was to destroy the order established which could result in the creation of a new better government.[8] Again, the price is too high.
Thousands should not die to make politicians think differently and try to address really important issues. Violence always leads to more violence. Therefore, even if people had managed to use violence against the government, it would have led to a revolution and bloodsheds.
Thoreau also suggested that people did not pay taxes and in that way expressed their protest.[9] Nonetheless, this could have led to violence against citizens. Refusal to pay taxes is regarded as a crime against the state itself. Of course, refusal to pay taxes inevitably leads to revolution or war as the government has the army that could be used against people. Again, this type of civil disobedience suggested by Thoreau could have led to revolution.
However, constitutional means are not that ineffective. Of course, they require more time and more effort. Nonetheless, trying to persuade people to see the wrongs is not such an impossible affair. Dedicated people can start campaigns and speak to different people.
There are many ways to speak to people’s hearts. Even slavery could have been abolished without bloodsheds if people had been more patient. Constitutional tools could have been effective. First, even though some people did not want to think of the ethical and moral sides of the issue, people could have considered economic benefits of slavery abolition. Besides, the US government could have raised taxes for slaveholders. Admittedly, industrial society could not ‘co-exist’ with slavery.
To sum up, it is possible to note that Thoreau’s opinion that violent measures could be the only tools to fight the wrongs in the society is quite wrongful as constitutional ways can also be efficient. Thus, even if the government is corrupted people can choose new representatives and people’s will triumph.
Bibliography
Cleves, Rachel Hope. “On Writing the History of Violence.” Journal of the Early Republic 24, no. 4 (2004): 641-665.
Thoreau, Henry David. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.” The Project Gutenberg. Web.
Footnotes
- Henry David Thoreau, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” The Project Gutenberg.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Henry David Thoreau, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” The Project Gutenberg.
- Ibid.
- Rachel Hope Cleves, “On Writing the History of Violence,” Journal of the Early Republic 24, no. 4 (2004): 642.
- Ibid.
- Henry David Thoreau, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” The Project Gutenberg.
- Henry David Thoreau, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” The Project Gutenberg.