This essay
should have a little bit of an introduction.
It was written to discuss whether the possibility of Thoreau’s
philosophy as laid out in his work, Civil
Disobedience, is actually reasonable.
Introduction
For those
of you who may not be aware, Henry David Thoreau was a political theorist and
philosopher. His work, Civil
Disobedience was published in 1849, and was a direct response to the Mexican
War.
On Civil Disobedience
in Regards to the Mexican War
The Mexican
War was one of several controversial conflicts in the history of the United
States. At the time of the Mexican war,
the controversy over slavery was dominating much of domestic politics. Recent legislation, such as the Missouri
Compromise, after the Louisiana Purchase, were all focused on the issue of the
expansion of slavery. Only a few years
after the writing of Thoreau’s Civil
Disobedience, a new wave of debate over slavery and slave territories would
erupt with such infamous legislation as the Compromise of 1850, the Wilmot
Proviso and the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act.
This new wave of debates was caused by the winning of the War with
Mexico and all the territory gained through the Gadsden Purchase. It was a time of political upheaval and civil
dissention. Tempers ran hot on both
sides of the issues of the day, and no less so on the issue of the Mexican War.
As
mentioned earlier, the Mexican war was not a popular war. Deep-rooted suspicions surrounded it,
especially in the North. Many of those
opposed to slavery thought that the South was hoping to gain more
representation in Congress for the slave states through the acquisition of the
southwestern territories using the Missouri Compromise. This idea naturally made the war less popular
in the North. There were also those who
thought that personal political considerations, on the part of President Polk,
were playing a significant role in the way the war was conducted. Still others
saw the war as naked imperialism and considered such grasping at power and
territory to be immoral. Then there were
those who supported the war. They were
the citizens who believed in what was called the doctrine of Manifest
Destiny. They considered this American
expansion as the natural and right course of action. California was already more populated by
American settlers than Mexicans. Texas
was already an independent republic and was recognized by the American
government as such, even if the Mexican government did not. This free, independent republic wanted to
gain entrance to the Union, as did California.
The land in between these two regions was almost entirely unpopulated
and to those who held the view of Manifest Destiny, there was no reason why it
should not belong to America. It was clear
to all, however, that the territories would not be given up by Mexico without a
fight.
Turning to
Civil Disobedience, what, in Thoreau’s words, was the purpose of the act of civil
disobedience and what gain was to be had?
Furthermore, what did this perspective have to say about the period in
which it was written? We shall begin to
answer these questions. In his work,
Thoreau clearly lays out the purpose for conducting civil disobedience:
“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? … Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole
influence… 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… 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
bloodshed when the conscience is wounded?”
The purpose for civil disobedience
is to reform government to fit your agenda.
It is revolution for the cause of what you perceive as right. Early on
in his essay Thoreau makes this, one of the most telling and defining
statements of the work, “It is not desirable to develop 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.”
For Thoreau, this worked
perfectly. He did not think that it was
right to try to force Mexico to give up land.
He considered the possible expansion of slavery evil. Therefore, according to his philosophy, he
should deny the government his money, talents and resources. He should disobey the laws and means of
injustice in the government. The trouble
with this philosophy is that people’s ideas on what is right and wrong are not
always the same. For example, the Texan settlers
rebelled against the Mexican government, and became an independent republic. The majority wanted to join the United
States. It is safe to say, however, that
not every single inhabitant in the region of Texas wanted to become a state in
the Union. So, who’s “right” is
right? One would naturally come to the
conclusion that the larger group would be right. This conclusion is drawn from our engrained
democratic principles. This is not what
we see Thoreau argue however. On the
contrary, Thoreau makes this statement.
“I think it is enough if they have God on their side [referring to the
abolition of slavery], without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors
constitutes a majority of one already.”
Here Thoreau plays on the religious sentiment of the day by invoking God
into his argument, but then immediately dismisses Him in the next sentence as
not being necessary. The question
remains. Who’s right? Thoreau’s philosophy breaks down completely
as a practical way of operating.
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is nice in theory, but impossible in practice
both today and back when it was written.
If we use Thoreau’s philosophy to decide whether or not the Mexican War
was justifiable, we soon realize that the war in question could be considered
as legitimate as any other war. If we do
not, there is actually room for debate on the subject. The same fact applies for today. Part of the nation is in favor of some
political agenda. The other part is
not. According to Thoreau, either side
becomes right as soon as the decision is made.
It only depends on what you consider to be just or beneficial.
In conclusion, the ideas expounded in
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience are
based on a fundamentally flawed premise.
While many of the concepts are very true and beneficial, such as
government’s power being derived from the governed, and that the government
must always endeavor to keep its laws on the moral high ground and in the best
interest of all affected, there must be a standard to which all these judgments
are based. Thoreau only recommends the
standard of personal opinion, and that is no standard at all. The legitimacy of any action, both at the
time when Civil Disobedience was
written, and now, cannot be determined conclusively and objectively by the
philosophy laid out in its pages.
