Justice vs. Law Theme Analysis

In “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau addresses the failures of the American government as it existed in 1849, specifically the government’s enabling of slavery and its waging of the Mexican-American War (which Thoreau saw as an immoral land grab). To Thoreau, the fact that such immoral behavior could be legally justified points to a disconnect between what is simply legal and what is actually just. Thoreau goes further than simply suggesting that law and justice are different concepts; rather, he argues that the law often hinders the pursuit of true justice. Faced with a choice between law and justice, he tells readers, one must choose justice. In other words, it’s the obligation of every moral person to break the law when the law is immoral.

To Thoreau, a truly moral government is “just to all men” and “treat[s] the individual with respect as a neighbor.” Such a government would never participate in the Mexican-American war or authorize the owning of slaves. Yet, he points out, the American government willingly promotes such injustices every day. He asserts that “if the alternative is to keep all just men in prison or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose.” In other words, the state is deeply aware of its unethical actions, yet it remains set on continuing on its immoral path and viewing anyone who stands in its way as a threat. Thoreau, however, believes that the true threat is the state rather than the American people who challenge it. For example, he makes the case that the government’s actions even threaten God: “For eighteen hundred years […] the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.” Here, Thoreau appeals to Christian ideas of morality, imploring readers to see the government’s actions as an affront not only to justice but also to God, whose code of morality and justice should come before any country’s law.

Thoreau argues that because the government’s priorities are so unjust, people should not follow the government’s laws without questioning whether such laws actually serve a just purpose. In particular, Thoreau criticizes those who work for the government to wage war: “Soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powdermonkeys and all.” According to Thoreau, these men participate in war “against their wills, aye, against their common sense and consciences,” simply because they have “undue respect for law.” In other words, Thoreau sees wagers of war as “peaceably inclined” men who simply confuse the law with genuine justice. To Thoreau, people who participate in wars like this assume that justice and law mean the same thing when, in reality, they are sometimes mutually exclusive. Observing such people leads Thoreau to ask why it is that citizens allow government to think and act for them, when the government’s laws have nothing to do with true justice. Thoreau wants his fellow citizens to reclaim some of their authority from the government and begin to think for themselves. Thus, he entreats his readers to be “men first and subjects afterwards.” Because American law is immoral, it is only right that the people use their judgement and decide for themselves what is just.

What’s more, Thoreau argues that it is not enough that people simply decide for themselves what is just. They must also “do justice, cost what it may,” Thoreau wants his audience to read his essay and be moved to put justice first in their actions, even when it means breaking the law. He argues: “It is not desirable to cultivate 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.” Thoreau’s changing use of the word “right” is tricky to understand at first, but to put it simply, he is saying that respecting the law should not come at the price of ignoring what one knows to be good and ethical. Choosing the ethical course of action should be readers’ first priority—if following the law means doing what’s wrong, then people must break the law. Thoreau also acknowledges the risks associated with pursuing justice in spite of the law, noting that “the true place for a just man is also prison.” Thoreau is still asking his audience to break the law if need be, in the pursuit of justice, but he is also reminding them to be prepared to face the consequences of this pursuit. While Thoreau’s demands may seem harsh, he argues that there is no other solution for a system that “requires [one] to be the agent of injustice to another.” To escape this trap of participating in an unfair legal system, Thoreau calls on his audience to accept the high costs of true justice.

Ultimately, Thoreau challenges the idea that the laws of the land are based on justice. He argues that, since laws can directly create injustice, people should not be blindly loyal to the nation’s laws, but rather serve their own internal sense of right and wrong. Thoreau asks his readers to do what is just rather than what is legal, no matter the consequences.