Henry David Thoreau, like the majority of his fellow transcendentalist peers, abhorred slavery and took a strong stance against it. He also, however, was notable for his relatively pacifist approach to resistance. Civil Disobedience did not involve armed attack against unjust government forces, but instead a refusal to obey unjust laws with a following acceptance of punishment. These two facets of Thoreau and other transcendentalists create intrigue regarding how they would react to an action that was ideologically in favor of their beliefs, but starkly in contrast when it came to methods. Ultimately, perhaps because of this, Henry David Thoreau largely meanders around John Brown’s violent methods when discussing his actions. Henry David Thoreau’s
…show more content…
Instead, Thoreau sets out to largely acquit Brown of slander by insisting upon the importance of him having taken any action at all. Even if Brown’s methods both did not ultimately succeed (in the short-term at least) and were also evidently violent, they were nonetheless action. As opposed to simply holding an ideology and speaking of an ideology, such as those of educated background from highly regarded universities (Earle 111), Brown lived by and acted on his beliefs. He had less opportunities, less means, but the will to push on the fight against slavery, wherever it took him, including the poorly trodden, dangerous regions of Kansas (Earle 112). Through emphasis of how he acted, Thoreau appears to emphasize the old idea that a man who does nothing is in no place to question the tactics of one who actually does something. Such is also emphasized through discussion of how scarce the ability to actually act actually is during this contemporary period (Earle 120). Thus, Thoreau stresses, that it does not matter whether John Brown’s actions deserve to be classified as “terrorist”, but instead that John Brown acted at all. The only thing more important than the fact that John Brown acted at all, according to Thoreau at least, is the cause for which he …show more content…
Although there are some notable exceptions, specifically those who fall into certain religious sects, this is generally applicable to the majority of “pacifists”, including, it appears, Thoreau. Although Thoreau himself was not a man willing to resort to violence or arms, as he himself typically protested through and publicly discussed the importance of protesting through Civil Disobedience, the violence of John Brown does not cause him aversion. This is because what causes Thoreau the most aversion is the very system that Brown was attempting to kill. Thoreau follows up discussion of how Brown’s actions were crazy and his reaction to slavery was outrageous with vivid discussion of the crazy, horrific system, of the horrific fatalities, that are persisting so long as slavery persists (Earle 116-117). Such placement sets forth the idea that whatever horrors or insanity one associates with Brown’s actions are in no manner comparable to those of the system he was trying to attack. Such is similar to the recurrent discussion of the horrors of the enemy in relation to fears of war or aggressive military action. All prompt the same argument: although one may not like violence, sometimes there is a system so horrific, so in need of being stopped, that violence is the only solution. Thoreau only furthers this argument through
Instead, Thoreau sets out to largely acquit Brown of slander by insisting upon the importance of him having taken any action at all. Even if Brown’s methods both did not ultimately succeed (in the short-term at least) and were also evidently violent, they were nonetheless action. As opposed to simply holding an ideology and speaking of an ideology, such as those of educated background from highly regarded universities (Earle 111), Brown lived by and acted on his beliefs. He had less opportunities, less means, but the will to push on the fight against slavery, wherever it took him, including the poorly trodden, dangerous regions of Kansas (Earle 112). Through emphasis of how he acted, Thoreau appears to emphasize the old idea that a man who does nothing is in no place to question the tactics of one who actually does something. Such is also emphasized through discussion of how scarce the ability to actually act actually is during this contemporary period (Earle 120). Thus, Thoreau stresses, that it does not matter whether John Brown’s actions deserve to be classified as “terrorist”, but instead that John Brown acted at all. The only thing more important than the fact that John Brown acted at all, according to Thoreau at least, is the cause for which he …show more content…
Although there are some notable exceptions, specifically those who fall into certain religious sects, this is generally applicable to the majority of “pacifists”, including, it appears, Thoreau. Although Thoreau himself was not a man willing to resort to violence or arms, as he himself typically protested through and publicly discussed the importance of protesting through Civil Disobedience, the violence of John Brown does not cause him aversion. This is because what causes Thoreau the most aversion is the very system that Brown was attempting to kill. Thoreau follows up discussion of how Brown’s actions were crazy and his reaction to slavery was outrageous with vivid discussion of the crazy, horrific system, of the horrific fatalities, that are persisting so long as slavery persists (Earle 116-117). Such placement sets forth the idea that whatever horrors or insanity one associates with Brown’s actions are in no manner comparable to those of the system he was trying to attack. Such is similar to the recurrent discussion of the horrors of the enemy in relation to fears of war or aggressive military action. All prompt the same argument: although one may not like violence, sometimes there is a system so horrific, so in need of being stopped, that violence is the only solution. Thoreau only furthers this argument through