American People vs. The American Government Theme Analysis

Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” critiques the American government’s behavior during the second half of the 19^th century. Writing in 1849, a year after the end of the Mexican-American war and during a time of increasingly bitter political division over slavery, Thoreau poses a simple question to his readers: What, if any, of America’s few triumphs can be attributed to the government, given its role in travesties such as slavery and the Mexican-American war? His answer is simple: none. All of America’s successes, in his opinion, come from the nation’s people, whose singular character is much more deserving of recognition than the government is. Thoreau not only posits that the American people have achieved all of America’s successes, but he even says that the American people would have accomplished more, “had [the government] not sometimes got in its way.” Thus, Thoreau establishes an antagonistic relationship between the American government and the American people, arguing that the current government hinders the people’s natural leanings towards moral decisions. What’s more, it is the people’s responsibility to reject this status quo and take action to reestablish the nation’s integrity.

For Thoreau, the problem is not that the American government exists; his problem is with the form in which it exists. His displeasure stems in large part from how the government has abused its power without the consent of the American people. Citing examples of the government’s recent transgressions, Thoreau makes a searing case against the government, saying that it ignores the people’s wishes in favor of its own questionable goals. This claim sets the stage for his later calls for a new political order that prioritizes the American people’s moral leanings over the government’s appetite for war and slavery. One of Thoreau’s most frequent examples of the government’s infidelity to the American people is the Mexican-American war, which he sees as a hijacking of the people’s will for the benefit of a few: “Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.” His argument is simple: a government that pursues a war with the vigor that the American government has pursued the Mexican-American War is failing to represent the people’s (peaceful) will. Thoreau’s choice to cite the Mexican-American War repeatedly throughout his essay is strategic. He refuses to let the still-fresh war fade from the collective consciousness of the American public, in order to galvanize them to act.

Furthermore, Thoreau argues that the American government isn’t just failing to represent the American people; it’s behaving in a completely immoral fashion. In his opinion, the government’s lack of integrity has created a moral vacuum in the nation. Thoreau reasons that it is the government’s pursuit of greatness that has created this loss of integrity: “This American government, --what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity?” Here, Thoreau cheekily asks if the country’s pursuit of greatness and longevity is a good enough reason to erode its own integrity. But to Thoreau, no amount of greatness is worth the disgrace of the American government’s actions—particularly the moral abomination of slavery. As he puts it simply, a man “cannot for an instant recognize [this] political organization as [his] government which is the slave’s government also.” In other words, perpetuating something as immoral as slavery means that the American government shouldn’t actually be recognized as a government at all. Thoreau frames this immorality as so pervasive that the American people should “recognize the right of revolution.” That is, in a choice between moral action or bowing to the American government’s authority, Thoreau tells the people to choose morality and reject the government.

To Thoreau, revolting against the government’s immorality is necessary to return power back to the people, who he believes will make better decisions than the government. Thus, the potential of the American people is Thoreau’s silver lining in all of this. The government’s pursuit of greatness over integrity has left a moral vacuum, but this regrettable situation does, at least, force the American people to step up and fill in where the government has failed. For example, Thoreau reminds us that, contrary to popular belief, the government “does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate.” Rather, “the character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished.” In other words, Thoreau attributes all of the good things that have come from the nation to the people, while attributing all the negative things to the government. However, Thoreau also argues that this dichotomy cannot continue to exist. For it to change, the American people must step up (like he has by writing this scathing essay) and make it their duty to reject moral transgressions like Mexican-American war and slavery, so that the country can regain its integrity.

It is no surprise that Thoreau uses the final paragraph of the essay to once again call attention to the fact that “the authority of government […] is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed.” Thoreau’s words function as a final rallying call for the people, and a way of reminding them to be wary of the government’s current trajectory. Thoreau entreats them to act because only they, the people, can save the republic and keep tragedies like war and slavery from happening again.