Civil Disobedience By Henry David Thoreau

Historically speaking, the issue of protest--in all its many forms--has always one of the most disputed questions in any society. No matter how nonviolent, how gentle, how friendly a protest may be (whether it is a verbal objection or an organized march), it seems as though it must receive some kind of rebuff, some kind of deriding demurral from those in power. Civil disobedience, which involves the protester deliberately breaking (or ignoring) an unjust or oppressive law (or one that is intrinsically part of an unjust or oppressive system) is certainly no different, and receives its fair share of opposition and dismissal--for obvious reasons. The whole point of civil disobedience, after all, is to disobey--to disobey the laws of one’s country. This kind of disobedience, no matter how morally or ethically justified by the one committing it, is often seen as nothing more and nothing less than illegal--not to say disrespectful and unpatriotic.
The issue …show more content…
Thoreau published his essay in 1849, barely one year before the Fugitive Slave Act was passed--an act which divided an already-divided country. One of the most immediate consequences of the Act was the emergence of groups actively combating the “legal kidnappings” of ex-slaves. One example of this was Boston’s Vigilance Committee, whose actions included “paying the passage fees for fugitives traveling to Canada and other areas, boarding/hiding fugitives, providing legal defense for fugitives, writing/distributing petitions and warning the public of the arrival of slave catchers” (Woitunski). This was civil disobedience in its most essential, practical, form and ultimately directly helped the lives of numerous individuals, going beyond mere