On the Duty of Civil DisobedienceThoreau, Henry David
Philosophy
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
Thoreau, Henry David
Civil disobedience; Government, Resistance to
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?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account