civil disobedience essay summary

• Ask LitCharts AI
• Discussion Question Generator
• Essay Prompt Generator
• Quiz Question Generator

• Literature Guides
• Poetry Guides
• Shakespeare Translations
• Literary Terms

Civil Disobedience

Henry david thoreau.

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.

• Quizzes, saving guides, requests, plus so much more.

Civil Disobedience

51 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

Summary: “civil disobedience”.

Henry David Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” more commonly known as “Civil Disobedience,” originated as a Concord Lyceum lecture given in January 1848 as the Mexican-American War was winding down. The essay and its central thesis—that following one’s conscience trumps the need to follow the law—have profoundly impacted global history, political philosophy, and American thought, notably influencing both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

The text was originally published in an 1849 essay collection titled Resistance to Civil Government edited by Transcendental writer and educator Elizabeth Peabody. The essay’s final form was published in 1866 under the title “Civil Disobedience” in a posthumous collection of Thoreau’s work. Today it can be found in the public domain. This guide utilizes the version found at ibiblio.org ( https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Thoreau/Civil%20Disobedience.pdf ).

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

• 8,600+ In-Depth Study Guides
• 4,700+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
• Downloadable PDFs

The essay opens with Thoreau declaring that he believes in the adage “that government is best which governs least,” which he says amounts to “that government is best which governs not at all” (3). This is because the government often does not serve the public’s interest and can be “abused and perverted before the people can act through it” (3). Government is often not beneficial, as has been proven in the Mexican-American War, the work of a small group of people who have used the government as their tool despite public dissent. Thoreau also argues that government is harmful because it can be bent to the will of one person, though it was established to serve the will of the collective people.

Thoreau clarifies that he does not mean to get rid of government altogether, since people must have some entity—he uses the metaphor of the government as a machine—to hear their voices. However, he notes the US government really does not do anything the people do not do themselves: “It does not keep the country free,” “settle the West,” or “educate,” as these achievements stem from the “character inherent” to the American people, who would have accomplished even more if the government had not slowed their progress (4). Instead, Thoreau advocates not for no government but for a “better government” (4).

The SuperSummary difference

• 8x more resources than SparkNotes and CliffsNotes combined
• Study Guides you won’t find anywhere else
• 175 + fresh titles added every month

This is difficult to achieve in a democracy because democracies are dominated by the majority. The majority is not always morally right but often merely stronger than the minority, so a “government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice” (4). As such, Thoreau argues that laws created by the majority do not need to be followed if they go against a person’s conscience. It is better that a person do what is right than what is lawful.

Laws do not make a person more morally sound; in fact, following some laws actually makes a human less morally sound, as “even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice” (5). Thoreau brings up the example of a soldier who fights a war, since most soldiers know that war by its nature is unjust. Those soldiers become tools of the state who cannot really be thought of as men but as “small moveable forts and magazines” who serve “some unscrupulous man in power” since they lose their humanity when they cannot follow their own consciences (5). Thoreau argues that soldiers serve the government with their bodies while politicians and legislators serve with their heads. But because legislators do not usually make “moral distinctions,” they “are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it , as God” (6). There are leaders who do challenge the government or prioritize their moral principles, but they are few and are treated as traitors or enemies by the government.

Thoreau then asks how a person should behave toward the US government, especially given the moral injustices of the Mexican-American War and slavery . He argues that a moral person cannot “be associated with” the US government, as that person’s government cannot naturally be the “slave’s government also” (6). As such, he argues that Americans have a duty to rebel against the government. The reason there has not been a revolution against slavery is not because of the Southerners but because Thoreau’s neighbors in Massachusetts “are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity” and would rather wait passively for someone else to solve the problem (8). Thoreau says the cause of building a moral government and eradicating slavery from the United States is paramount. To be a good citizen, one must follow their conscience and promote justice, even if the actions of individuals tear the nation itself apart.

Thoreau dismisses those who say they do not like the government but do nothing about it; he is especially vehement that voting is not a strong enough action to make the government just. Voting for the right thing does not do anything beyond telling the powers that be that you hope what you vote for prevails. The majority can choose whether to hear it, and regardless, the majority will always do whatever is in its own interest. Thus, the majority will only vote for the abolition of slavery, for instance, when there either are so few slaves left that the vote makes no difference or when the cause of slavery itself no longer benefits the majority’s interest. Worse, there are few independent voters left in America, as most are beholden to political party elites and vote for whomever the party places on the ballot.

However, Thoreau clarifies that a person has no obligation to eliminate the wrongs the government reinforces. A person may be busy living their own life or have other goals or interests than justice, but each person has a moral duty to “wash his hands” of injustices perpetrated by the government (10). Thoreau describes the hypocrites in his town who announce that they would not put down a slave insurrection or fight in Mexico if the government demanded it, but who still provide money to the government to support those actions.

Since everyone agrees that there are unjust laws, Thoreau asks whether people should “be content to obey” them, try to “amend them” but obey them until they are amended, or “transgress them all at once” (12). He states that most people will choose the second course of action, thinking that the cure of injustice is worse than the disease. This may be so, but this rationale is the fault of the government, as the State does not encourage dissent. Laws are set up to protect the State, and the State cannot fathom that a citizen might deny its authority. Thoreau revisits the metaphor of the machine to describe times when citizens need to rebel. If the injustice is necessary for the “machine of government” to function, it should be left alone as it will likely sort itself out (12). If the injustice has a part of the machine devoted exclusively to the injustice, it might need to be left alone as well, as it may be that the “remedy” may be “worse than the evil” (12). But if the injustice requires a citizen to be “the agent of injustice to another,” then Thoreau argues a citizen should “break the law” (12). That is, if a law requires one to live immorally and to harm another, the law must not be followed.

Breaking the law is the preferred action because the government cannot easily amend laws. In fact, the Constitution itself is “evil” as it sets up unjust laws (13). Thoreau states that his place in the world is simply to live in it, not to improve it. Besides, one person cannot do everything necessary to eliminate injustice. Rather, the preferred action is simply to withdraw support for the government. Abolitionists should stop providing their property or bodies to support the government of Massachusetts, as God would be on their side, and as each person is a “majority of one” who does not need to wait for the government to change (13).

Thoreau discusses his own actions, describing his interactions with the tax collector. Thoreau always makes sure to argue with the tax collector because he has voluntarily chosen to represent the unjust government and because Thoreau’s disagreement is with the men who make the laws, not the law itself. These conversations are small acts of rebellion, but Thoreau argues that small protests are important, as they are permanent and can combine to effect change. The tax collector, for instance, could be convinced to resign his office and, thus, slow the government. However, Thoreau laments that most men are too timid to act or risk being jailed for what they believe.

But prison is actually a freer place than society, as the prisoner can live an honorable life since they have been placed there for opposing the unjust State. Prison can also make a person more devoted to fighting injustice, since the imprisoned experience injustice firsthand rather than vicariously through the experience of the slave or the soldier.

Thoreau urges all those who stand against injustice to combine their weight against the State, since a minority that “clogs” the government can make the government change (15). After all, the State cannot imprison everyone and will choose to end a war or abolish slavery rather than arrest the masses. Additionally, Thoreau suggests that not paying taxes is preferred to letting the State use those tax dollars to cause violence and bloodshed. In fact, if enough people did not pay taxes, it would be “the definition of a peaceable revolution” (15). And even if there were to be some bloodshed in that revolution, it would be blood shed from a wounded conscience, blood Thoreau says he sees now.

Thoreau mostly focuses on prison as a consequence because the alternative—having property or goods taken—largely does not apply to the people who are most interested in ending injustice. Such people are not likely to have much property or wealth, as the wealthy are “sold to the institution”—the State—that made them wealthy (16). And wealth comes with a decreasing sense of virtue or morality. Should a person become rich, the best thing they can do is maintain the lifestyle they had before accumulating wealth. Thoreau also anticipates a criticism of his argument—that acting against the State will erode the State’s protections or, worse, that the State will come after that person’s property or family. Thoreau suggests that this quagmire is exactly why one should not attempt to accumulate wealth and should instead live with their own means, as it is impossible to live both morally and comfortably. Thoreau does not consider himself dependent on the State for anything, and because he is not rich, it costs him less to disobey the State than it would cost his soul, his humanity, and his integrity to obey it.

Thoreau then recounts his own acts of disobedience. He once refused to pay money to a church his father attended but that he did not. To avoid paying, he wrote to a town clerk that he did not wish to be viewed as a member of that church, and he has not gotten a bill since. However, he regrets that there is no way to write a similar letter for every society he wishes to divest himself from. He then states that he has not paid a poll tax in six years, and even spent one night in jail as a result, but he felt free in that jail. The wall that separated him from his town actually lifted his spirits, as he felt threatened not by the prisoners but by the world outside the prison walls. He learned to feel bad for the State because it does “not know its friends from its foes,” while he only has to answer to a higher power and obey his own laws (19). He recognized in jail that he was not part of the machinery of government and that the State could only ever take his body, not his mind.

Thoreau describes his night in prison as a trip to another country. He felt as though he was seeing his native village through the eyes of the past, as though he had entered the Middle Ages. He feels that he had never gotten a look at his town’s inner workings or institutions, especially the peculiar institution of prison, which contains perfectly formed holes for giving inmates food and open windows that let the town be heard and seen at all times. He is fascinated by how it functions, the gossip the inmates tell, and the verses they write. His roommate is a man accused of burning his barn, but Thoreau wonders if he accidentally lit a fire after passing out drunk. The cellmate shows him how the prison works and even offers friendly advice on saving his bread for later meals.

The next morning Thoreau is released because someone has paid his tax for him, against his wishes. After leaving prison, Thoreau feels changed, like he can see his city and its people more clearly. He recognizes that they are friends in “summer weather only” and that they cannot be counted on to effect change (21). He notes that none of them understand that an institution like the jail even exists. Thoreau leaves town and is no longer under the State’s oversight.

Out of town, he announces that he refuses allegiance to the State as a whole. He pays for the highway tax because it benefits his neighbors but refuses all other taxes. Thoreau admits that his neighbors probably mean well, and he wishes he could respect their wishes. However, he knows that supporting their wishes and paying all taxes would hurt others who do not live in his community. He criticizes the person who anonymously paid his taxes as being either supporting injustice (if the person paid the bill out of solidarity with the State) or interfering with the public good (if the person paid it to help him), as Thoreau’s actions (or inactions) are for the public good of change.

Despite his stances, Thoreau admits that he wants to follow the law, as he does not want conflict with anyone. He argues that the Constitution looks like it should deserve obeisance and respect from one point of view . However, when he looks at those laws from “a little higher,” they appear less moral, and he wonders if the laws are worth thinking about at all (24). He admits that most people disagree with him, but he is discontented by legislators and politicians. They are part of the unjust institutions and, therefore, cannot see how or why to change them. He argues that they may have made some useful systems, but they cannot see the inherent injustice in the law as a whole. Thoreau singles out Daniel Webster, the famous US congressman and diplomat, as a politician who will not reform government because he follows the institution and law as a whole. Webster supports slavery, for instance, not because he thinks slavery is just but because slavery is part of the original Constitution. Thus, to Thoreau, Webster has rightly been called the “Defender of the Constitution,” but that honor makes him prudent, not wise (25).

Thoreau concludes the essay by calling the authority of government “impure,” as a government cannot be just if it lacks the “sanction and consent of the governed” (27). Democracy is a step in the right direction for the power of the individual, but it does not go far enough. Thoreau imagines a State that would fully respect an individual and not mind if a few people chose to live completely free of the State altogether, “not meddling with it, nor embraced by it” (27-28). If such a State could exist, then an even “more perfect and glorious” State could follow (28).

Other works by this author include A Plea for Captain John Brown , A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers , and Walden .

Plus, gain access to 8,600+ more expert-written Study Guides.

Including features:

Related Titles

By Henry David Thoreau

A Plea for Captain John Brown

A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers

Featured Collections

Essays & Speeches

View Collection

Inspiring Biographies

Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics

Political Science Texts

Politics & Government

Science & Nature

Transcendentalism

• Civil Disobedience

by Henry David Thoreau

• Civil Disobedience Summary

Thoreau opens his essay with the motto "That government is best which governs least." His distrust of government stems from the tendency of the latter to be "perverted and abused" before the people can actually express their will through it. A case in point is the Mexican war (1846-1848, which extended slavery into new US territories), orchestrated by a small élite of individuals who have manipulated government to their advantage against popular will. Government inherently lends itself to oppressive and corrupt uses since it enables a few men to impose their moral will on the majority and to profit economically from their own position of authority. Thoreau views government as a fundamental hindrance to the creative enterprise of the people it purports to represent. He cites as a prime example the regulation of trade and commerce, and its negative effect on the forces of the free market.

A man has an obligation to act according to the dictates of his conscience, even if the latter goes against majority opinion, the presiding leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust or immoral laws, Thoreau's notion of service to one's country paradoxically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to subvert government but to build a better one in the long term. Along these lines, Thoreau does not advocate a wholesale rejection of government, but resistance to those specific features deemed to be unjust or immoral.

In the American tradition, men have a recognized and cherished right of revolution, from which Thoreau derives the concept of civil disobedience. A man disgraces himself by associating with a government that treats even some of its citizens unjustly, even if he is not the direct victim of its injustice. Thoreau takes issue with William Paley, an English theologian and philosopher, who argues that any movement of resistance to government must balance the enormity of the grievance to be redressed and the "probability and expense" of redressing it. It may not be convenient to resist, and the personal costs may be greater than the injustice to be remedied; however, Thoreau firmly asserts the primacy of individual conscience over collective pragmatism.

Thoreau turns to the issue of effecting change through democratic means. The position of the majority, however legitimate in the context of a democracy, is not tantamount to a moral position. Thoreau believes that the real obstacle to reform lies with those who disapprove of the measures of government while tacitly lending it their practical allegiance. At the very least, if an unjust government is not to be directly resisted, a man of true conviction should cease to lend it his indirect support in the form of taxes. Thoreau acknowledges that it is realistically impossible to deprive the government of tax dollars for the specific policies that one wishes to oppose. Still, complete payment of his taxes would be tantamount to expressing complete allegiance to the State. Thoreau calls on his fellow citizens to withdraw their support from the government of Massachusetts and risk being thrown in prison for their resistance. Forced to keep all men in prison or abolish slavery, the State would quickly exhaust its resources and choose the latter course of action. For Thoreau, out of these acts of conscience flow "a man's real manhood and immortality."

Money is a generally corrupting force because it binds men to the institutions and the government responsible for unjust practices and policies, such as the enslavement of black Americans and the pursuit of war with Mexico. Thoreau sees a paradoxically inverse relationship between money and freedom. The poor man has the greatest liberty to resist because he depends the least on the government for his own welfare and protection.

After refusing to pay the poll tax for six years, Thoreau is thrown into jail for one night. While in prison, Thoreau realizes that the only advantage of the State is "superior physical strength." Otherwise, it is completely devoid of moral or intellectual authority, and even with its brute force, cannot compel him to think a certain way.

Why submit other people to one's own moral standard? Thoreau meditates at length on this question. While seeing his neighbors as essentially well-intentioned and in some respects undeserving of any moral contempt for their apparent indifference to the State's injustice, Thoreau nonetheless concludes that he has a human relation to his neighbors, and through them, millions of other men. He does not expect his neighbors to conform to his own beliefs, nor does he endeavor to change the nature of men. On the other hand, he refuses to tolerate the status quo.

Despite his stance of civil disobedience on the questions of slavery and the Mexican war, Thoreau claims to have great respect and admiration for the ideals of American government and its institutions. Thoreau goes so far as to state that his first instinct has always been conformity. Statesmen, legislators, politicians--in short, any part of the machinery of state bureaucracy--are unable to scrutinize the government that lends them their authority. Thoreau values their contributions to society, their pragmatism and their diplomacy, but feels that only someone outside of government can speak the Truth about it.

The purest sources of truth are, in Thoreau's view, the Constitution and the Bible. Not surprisingly, Thoreau holds in low esteem the entire political class, which he considers incapable of devising the most basic forms of legislation. In his last paragraph, Thoreau comes full circle to discussing the authority and reach of government, which derives from the "sanction and consent of the governed." Democracy is not the last step in the evolution of government, as there is still greater room for the State to recognize the freedom and rights of the individual. Thoreau concludes on an utopic note, saying such a State is one he has imagined "but not yet anywhere seen."

Civil Disobedience Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Civil Disobedience is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

"Civil Disobedience" Which statement best describes Thoreau's views on petitioning the government to effect change?

Petitioning the government is useless because it does not always result in action.

"Civil Disobedience" PART A: Which statements best summarize the TWO main claims of the text?

Citizens must challenge and attempt to change the wrongs of the state; it is not enough to work within the system.

Individuals have a responsibility to disobey laws that are inherently unjust and in conflict with their morals.

What government does Thoreau say is best? Provide the quotation from Civil Disobedience that supports your answer.

From the text:

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe-- "That government is...

Study Guide for Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience study guide contains a biography of Henry David Thoreau, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Civil Disobedience
• Section I Summary and Analysis
• Related Links

Essays for Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience literature essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Civil Disobedience.

• Democracy in Question
• Comments on "Civil Disobedience"
• Society and Collectivism

Lesson Plan for Civil Disobedience

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to Civil Disobedience
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Civil Disobedience Bibliography

E-Text of Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience E-Text contains the full text of Civil Disobedience

Wikipedia Entries for Civil Disobedience

• Introduction

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Summary and Analysis of Henry David Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience’

David Henry Thoreau's essay Civil Disobedience argues that if a government is being unfair, it is an individual's duty to stand up against it. This Penlighten post briefs you on the Civil Disobedience summary for you in an effort to explain Thoreau's ideas better.

David Henry Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience argues that if a government is being unfair, it is an individual’s duty to stand up against it. This Penlighten post briefs you on the Civil Disobedience summary for you in an effort to explain Thoreau’s ideas better.

Inspirational

Henry David Thoreau’s thoughts in his essay inspired Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha or non-violent resistance against the British government.

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was an American writer, philosopher, abolitionist, and historian. He was outspoken against slavery and American imperialism. He was truly disgusted with the American government. As a result, he refused to pay his poll taxes in 1848. He had to spend a night in jail for his actions. However, he was released from jail the next morning when a friend paid his taxes.

In the same year, he gave lectures in schools in Concord, Massachusetts. The lectures were titled as The Rights and Duties of the Individual in relation to Government. These lectures formed the base of his 1849 published essay Resistance to Civil Government. The essay was published in an anthology called Æsthetic Papers. The word “Resistance” from the title was apt for Thoreau’s metaphor of comparing the government to a machine. According to him, if the machine is producing injustice, citizens should work as a resistance to stop the machine.

The essay was reprinted in 1866, four years after Thoreau’s death, in the collection of his work named A Yankee in Canada: With Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers. The essay was printed with a new title called Civil Disobedience. The essay appears under titles On the Duty of Civil Disobedience and On Civil Disobedience as well.

The essay primary deals with slavery crisis in America in the 1840s and 1850s. It also condemns the Mexican-American war. Let us find out more about it.

Summary and Analysis

► Thoreau opens his essay with a saying “That government is best which governs least,” which he believes to be true. He speaks favorably about a government that does not intrude in citizens’ lives. The government is chosen by people to achieve certain ends. According to Thoreau, it is in existence to execute citizens’ will. It exists to ensure an individual’s freedom. However, it is prone to be misused. Thoreau gives examples of slavery practice and the Mexican-American war to establish his point further. He asserts that the government itself becomes an obstacle between achieving its purpose, the purpose for which it was created.

► However, Thoreau makes it clear that he is against abolishing the government, but wished for a better one. He did not believe that there should be no government at all. He believed that if the government fails to improve, people should not support it. According to Thoreau, a person cannot accept the government’s authority unquestioningly.

► Thoreau introduces common people’s right to revolution against an unjust government. To establish this thought, he compares the government with a machine. As a machine, the government may not do a good job in producing justice. Instead, it might produce injustice only. He encourages people be a counter friction or a resistance to stop such a machine. He encourages rebellion. He believes that mere expression of objection is not enough; it requires action. Thoreau asserts that an individual must not support the government structure. An individual must act with principle and break the law if necessary.

► To establish this thought further, he gives his own example. He recalls the time when he was imprisoned for non-payment of taxes on his part. With his own example, he establishes that non-payment of taxes is a means to withdraw support from the government. It constitutes “peaceable revolution.” Thoreau also advocates a simple and self-reliant lifestyle to achieve individual freedom. He urges people to be free from the corrupting powers of money and property. He goes on to describe details about his stay in the jail and the treatment meted out to a person by the state as if he is only a physical entity and not an intellectual individual.

► Thoreau maintains that he does not want to quarrel. He says that he wants to honor the laws of the land. However, he states that the current laws are not honorable. He believes that the government is in transition from absolute monarchy to democracy. However, he also notes that democracy may not be the final stage of the process. In the end, he again lays emphasis on respecting an individual. A state cannot be absolutely free and enlightened until the government recognizes the importance of an individual.

Thoreau’s essay revolves around three main themes: (i) civil government vs. higher law, (ii) government vs. an individual, and (iii) materialism vs. simple life. He uses logos, ethos, and pathos to explain and peruse the readers to support his ideas of the government. The essay explains to us the intentions and principles of the government. However, the principles turned into actions, which are called laws, are often unjust. Unjust laws do not work for people, whether they are in majority or minority. To change unjust laws and the unjust government, people should stand up. It is every citizen’s duty to resist unfairness shown by the government.

Thoreau’s thoughts were never restricted to the Massachusetts area. They spread across the world, inspired several movements, and influenced leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, etc. Thoreau’s essay definitely brought about a change in the state of affairs to turn them into the world as we know it today.

Like it? Share it!

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Further insights.

Privacy Overview

Civil Disobedience Thoreau Summary

Summary & analysis of civil disobedience by henry david thoreau.

Henry David Thoreau ’s essay  Civil Disobedience  explores themes of individualism, resistance to unjust laws, and the role of government in society. Henry David Thoreau was a prominent figure of the transcendentalist movement, which emerged in the early 19th century as a reaction against societal conformity and materialism. 

Civil Disobedience  was published in 1849  after Thoreau  had to spend a night in jail for refusing to pay a poll tax in protest against the Mexican-American War and the institution of slavery,

Civil Disobedience | Summary & Analysis

Thoreau’s essay delves into his philosophy on government, individual rights, and the concept of civil disobedience. He begins by stating that he supports the motto ‘That government is best which governs least,’ and he believes that ideally, government should not govern at all. Thoreau sees government as an expedient tool that is often inefficient and can even be abusive. He argues that a standing government can be as problematic as a standing army, both prone to misuse by a few individuals. Thoreau criticizes the American government for its shortcomings, claiming it lacks vitality and integrity. He views the American government as a tradition attempting to preserve itself but losing its true essence over time. He argues that it does not actively promote positive change but rather obstructs the inherent progress and character of the American people.

The essay then delves into the idea of conscience and moral judgment. Thoreau contends that individuals should prioritize their personal principles over blind obedience to the government. He questions the legitimacy of a government that promotes policies that contradict one’s conscience. Thoreau proposes that people should be ‘men first, and subjects afterward,’ implying that individuals should prioritize their own moral judgment and principles over governmental authority. 

Thoreau goes on to explore the concept of voting and majority rule. He criticizes the idea that a majority should always decide what is right or wrong. He questions whether there can be a government where conscience, rather than majority rule, dictates decisions. Thoreau believes that citizens should not surrender their own moral judgment to legislators and emphasizes the importance of individual conscience. He argues that individuals have a duty to resist unjust laws and government actions. He discusses the duty of citizens to rebel and revolutionize when their government engages in tyranny or unjust behavior. Thoreau asserts that individuals should actively oppose immoral laws and policies, even if it means breaking the law.

He discusses his experience of being briefly imprisoned for his refusal to pay taxes as an act of protest against government actions he considers unjust. He addresses his dissatisfaction with the American government and its policies, particularly slavery and war, which he views as immoral. Thoreau argues that those who claim to be abolitionists should not wait to constitute a majority before acting against these injustices, but rather withdraw their support immediately. He presents the idea that a person who stands for what is right, even if in the minority, holds a significant moral influence. 

Thoreau reflects on his annual interaction with the government through a tax collector, seeing it as a direct confrontation with the state’s authority. He explores the moral dilemma faced by individuals who work for the government, suggesting that they must question their actions and their impact on fellow citizens.

Thoreau believes that if a single person, or a small group of honest individuals, were to resist and be imprisoned for their principles, it could lead to the abolition of slavery. He criticizes the tendency for people to talk about reform without taking substantial action. He also imagines a scenario where a state ambassador advocating for human rights in the Council Chamber is imprisoned by his own state for his beliefs, which he thinks could spark change. He contends that under an unjust government, the right place for a just person is in prison, rather than supporting a corrupt system. He discusses how imprisonment can lead to personal growth and a deeper understanding of one’s convictions. He encourages individuals to withhold support from an unjust government, even if it means facing consequences, and suggests that the government’s ability to function depends on the compliance of its citizens.

He emphasizes the importance of acting on one’s conscience, regardless of potential consequences. Thoreau recounts his time in prison, describing interactions with fellow inmates and observations about life in confinement. He reflects on the simplicity of life inside the prison and how it contrasts with the complex societal structures outside. Thoreau explores the limitations of societal norms, traditions, and institutions, advocating for individual autonomy and resistance against unjust authority. He argues that the government often relies on physical force rather than reason, and he expresses his determination to live according to his principles and not be coerced into submission. He concludes by asserting that he does not oppose taxes for specific reasons, but rather opposes his allegiance to a government that acts against his values.

He contemplates the actions of well-meaning but ignorant individuals who inadvertently cause pain. He questions the need to conform to demands imposed by those who lack the capacity to retract or alter their demands. Thoreau analyzes the concept of resistance against overwhelming force and ponders the potential for appeal to a higher authority or to the masses themselves. He discusses the possibility of conforming to laws and governments but expresses a reluctance to do so without just cause. Thoreau explores the idea that his relationship with the state might change as the government takes on more responsibilities. He reflects on the varying perspectives of the Constitution and the government, emphasizing that he lives mostly outside the scope of government control. Thoreau criticizes the limitations of statesmen and legislators who fail to truly understand the institutions they serve. He acknowledges their useful contributions within a limited framework but argues that they lack a deeper perspective. He highlights the difference between consistency and truth, and how politicians often focus on policy without addressing moral concerns. Thoreau advocates for recognizing the rights of the individual and imagines an ideal state that respects everyone’s autonomy.

Civil Disobedience | Background & Context 

Henry David Thoreau’s essay was written in the context of the  Mexican-American War  and the broader socio-political issues of his time. Thoreau’s views on civil disobedience were deeply influenced by his opposition to the war and his strong stance against what he saw as unjust government actions. The essay was published in 1849, a year after the war had ended and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had been signed. Thoreau’s criticism of the government’s involvement in the Mexican-American War is reflected in his essay’s emphasis on the individual’s moral responsibility to resist unjust laws and actions. He believed that individuals should not blindly follow government dictates but should instead use their conscience and reason to determine whether a law or action is morally right.

Thoreau’s refusal to pay a poll tax and his subsequent imprisonment were  acts of civil disobedience  aimed at protesting the war and the expansionist policies of the government. The war and its controversies also shaped Thoreau’s ideas about the relationship between the individual and the state. 

Thoreau was also a prominent figure in the  transcendentalist  movement, which emerged in the early to mid-19th century. Transcendentalism celebrates the uniqueness and individuality of each person. Transcendentalists believed that individuals should rely on their own intuition and beliefs rather than conforming to societal norms and conventions. This emphasis on individualism encouraged people to discover and express their true selves. The concept of self-reliance was central to Transcendentalist thought. Transcendentalists encouraged people to rely on their own inner resources and beliefs, rather than depending on external authorities or institutions. Transcendentalists were critical of organized religion, and established social norms, and institutions that they saw as stifling individual creativity and freedom. They believed in questioning authority and resisting conformity in favor of pursuing one’s own path. Many Transcendentalists were involved in social reform movements, such as abolitionism and women’s rights, viewing these causes as extensions of their principles.

During Thoreau’s time, the United States was grappling with the issue of slavery. The  abolitionist movement  was a significant social and political movement that aimed to end the institution of slavery in the United States. It gained momentum in the 19th century and played a crucial role in shaping the nation’s history. The abolitionist movement can be traced back to the late 18th century when various individuals and groups began to advocate for the abolition of slavery. The abolitionist movement faced strong opposition from pro-slavery advocates in both the North and the South. As anti-slavery sentiment grew, so did violent reactions from those who depended on the institution of slavery for economic and social reasons. It reflected a time of shifting social, political, and moral ideals. The essay touches on this theme, highlighting Thoreau’s refusal to support a government that condones slavery. His stance aligns with the growing abolitionist movement, which sought to end slavery and promote civil rights for all individuals.

Thoreau’s  concept of civil disobedience as a form of protest and resistance  was groundbreaking for its time. His essay laid the foundation for future nonviolent movements, such as the civil rights movement led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. The mid-19th century was a period of experimentation with democratic ideals. Thoreau’s critique of the government’s actions and his call for more just and accountable governance reflect broader debates about the proper role of government in a democracy. This era saw the rise of different models of democracy, constitutional frameworks, and political ideologies that aimed to redefine the relationship between government and citizens. In summary, Thoreau’s essay ‘Civil Disobedience’ emerged in a period marked by debates over slavery, expansionism, individualism, and the nature of democracy. His socio-historical context greatly influenced his views on individual conscience, government authority, and the importance of resisting unjust laws.

Civil Disobedience |   Literary Devices

Allusion  is a literary device that involves making a brief reference to a person, place, event, or work of literature or art. Henry David Thoreau uses allusions to draw upon familiar cultural and historical elements, enriching his arguments and helping readers understand his points on a deeper level. Thoreau alludes to Orpheus, a figure from Greek mythology known for his ability to enchant even inanimate objects with his music. By alluding to Orpheus’s inability to change the nature of rocks and trees, Thoreau illustrates the limits of an individual’s power to change certain circumstances. Thoreau also makes reference to the New Testament, stating, 

‘ For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, 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? ‘ 

This allusion highlights the contrast between the ethical and moral teachings of the New Testament and the shortcomings of legislators who fail to implement these teachings effectively in their governance.

Henry David Thoreau employs  rhetorical questions  to make his arguments more compelling and to encourage readers to consider the implications of his ideas. 

To quote a few instances, 

‘ Why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? ‘ ‘ Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? ‘ ‘ Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? ‘

Thoreau uses these rhetorical questions to challenge prevailing norms, prompt readers to reflect on the issues he presents, and invite them to consider alternative perspectives. 

Emotive language  is also used to evoke strong emotions and sentiments in the reader, helping to emphasize Thoreau’s views and create a more impactful reading experience. 

‘I think, again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind.’ ‘Why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force?’ ‘You do not put your head into the fire.’ 

These examples show how emotive language is strategically used throughout the essay to appeal to the reader’s emotions and values, encouraging them to empathize with Thoreau’s perspective and consider the importance of individual conscience and moral responsibility.

In ‘Civil Disobedience,’ Thoreau argues for nonviolent resistance to unjust laws and government actions that contradict an individual’s moral beliefs. He advocates for following one’s conscience and prioritizing personal integrity over compliance with laws that perpetuate injustice. The essay also delves into the limitations of government and the concept of democratic experimentation. Thoreau’s essay remains relevant today as a philosophical exploration of the balance between citizen responsibility, individual freedom, and the moral obligation to resist oppressive laws.

A Sound of Thunder Summary

The talented tenth summary, related articles, and of clay are we created summary, the great lawsuit summary, the feather pillow summary & analysis, exhalation ted chiang summary, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Araby Summary & Analysis December 18, 2023

Adblock Detected