Civil Disobedience Summary

Henry David Thoreau begins “Civil Disobedience” by reflecting on the best form of government. He admits that he believes that the best government is one that governs “not at all.” From there, he asks his readers to reflect on the purpose of a standing government such as the one the United States has currently. He argues that like a standing army, a standing government can be perverted and corrupted to serve the ambitions of a few powerful people instead of all the American people.

Thoreau goes on to critique the American government and its role in furthering injustice and its limited success in governing so far. He argues that all of America’s successes have been the result of the American people instead of the American government. Thoreau then makes his first plea to readers, calling for a “better government,” instead of the faulty government he and his fellow citizens currently have. He argues that the power of governing is with the people and therefore the American people must take back their ability to think and act for themselves “as men first and subjects afterwards.” Thoreau implores his audience to think carefully about the law and its capacity to promote injustice, arguing that his fellow citizens must risk breaking the law and becoming “bad” citizens in the pursuit of justice. Though the state may treat them as enemies as a result, Thoreau argues that there is no other way forward. That is, the state’s abuse of power is so great that one cannot in good conscience recognize this government, especially because it also protects the institution of slavery.

Thoreau reminds his audience of their right to revolt against a tyrannical government, arguing that it is right and just to do away with the “machine” of any government that oppresses, robs, and practices slavery. Though Thoreau brings up William Paley’s writings in “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,” as a counter opinion to his argument, he ultimately debunks Paley’s idea that one should not resist a government if it will be an “inconvenience” to the public. Thoreau’s dissenting response is short: the people should always pursue justice, as inconvenient and risky as it may be. He argues that the people must reject slavery and halt the war in Mexico, even if doing so tears the nation apart.

From there, Thoreau turns his attention to Massachusetts its residents, who, in his opinion, are not ready to shoulder the costs of justice. He critiques his fellow Massachusetts residents for being more interested in commerce and agriculture and for failing to do anything to stop the Mexican-American war and end slavery. Thoreau also criticizes them for petitioning the state or voting as their primary ways of bringing about change. He notes that none of these official channels is effective for ending slavery and the war. He emphasizes that voting is simply a way to express one’s feeble desire for an outcome. That people find these channels of change worthwhile worries Thoreau; he wonders about the passive and “odd” character of the American citizen.

Though Thoreau admits that he does not think people should make it their goal in life to abolish all of the world’s wrongs, he continues to argue that people have the duty to at least reject an institution that practices immoral acts. This point brings him to double down on his critiques of petitioning the government. Thoreau wonders why people are petitioning the state to dissolve the union, when they have the power to dissolve it themselves. He argues that men should not simply have an opinion (by petitioning). Rather, they must take practical steps to make that opinion a reality.

Thoreau reminds his audience of the stakes of the situation, arguing that they must try to amend the unjust laws because, contrary to popular opinion, remedying any evil is better than continuing to perpetuate that evil in the name of patriotism. He argues that breaking the law is the only way not to avoid enabling the evil that one condemns. Thoreau notes again that these efforts cannot occur through state-run channels. Instead, he implores the Massachusetts people to withdraw their support in “person” and “property” from the Massachusetts government. He argues that if only a few “honest” men withdrew from supporting the state (by refusing to pay taxes and going to jail), slavery would cease to exist. Refusing allegiance to the state as a tax-payer, as a tax-gatherer, and as a public official are all ways to achieve the revolution that Thoreau calls for.

Thoreau also points out how difficult it is for the rich to practice civil disobedience. He notes that people with a lot of wealth and property to lose will always be more allegiant to the institution that protects them and their property. This causes Thoreau to reflect on the difficulties and risks associated with practicing civil disobedience, such as jail time, the loss of property, and the loss of state protection. However, he suggests that one must avoid this bind by depending on oneself while shunning wealth.

Thoreau goes on to give examples of his own efforts to practice civil disobedience. He describes how he has refused to pay taxes towards a church congregation and refused to pay a poll tax. He was imprisoned for not paying the poll tax and spent a night in prison with a fellow Prisoner, who had been imprisoned for allegedly burning a barn. The experience was disorienting to Thoreau, and he reflects on the new insight the experience brought him. He sees his surroundings with a clearer perspective and walks away with a deeper understanding of the place he has lived for most of his life. After his imprisonment, he begins to look at his neighbors skeptically; they seem like weak men and women who are so averse to risk that they don’t care about doing what is right.

Thoreau turns back to the matter of civil disobedience, saying that refusing to pay one’s taxes is akin to refusing allegiance to the state. As a citizen, he argues that it is his right to review the actions of the state when the tax-gatherers come to him, and, based on the morality of the state’s actions, refuse or consent to paying what they demand.

Thoreau argues that citizens must look at the state’s actions from a higher point of view, one that allows them to stand a bit apart from the state so that they can “nakedly behold it.” He states, for example, that people must not align themselves with the Constitution simply because it is the original law of the land. Rather, they should look for “purer sources of truth,” in order to answer the pressing moral questions of their day.

Thoreau ends by reminding his audience that the government—to rule justly—must have the consent of the people it governs and recognize the individual as a “higher and independent power.” According to him, this is the key to a free, enlightened, and glorious state, one that treats all men justly and with respect.