Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
henry david thoreaus idea of freedom walden
Character analysis of the narrator in Bartleby the Scrivener
thoreau at walden and freedom
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: henry david thoreaus idea of freedom walden
Bartleby: the Example of Thoreau’s Idealism
Christie Watson once said, “…there are two possible endings to every story” (Watson 432) in her novel, Tiny Sunbirds, Far Away. If two people were placed in the same situation, it is possible, maybe even fact, that each individual will have a different experience or overall outcome. In “Resistance to Civil Government,” Henry David Thoreau writes about his confinements after being arrested. Thoreau also mentions his reasoning for resisting the civil government, mainly because of its flaws. His essay gained a lot of acclaim in America because of his views of possible liberation. However, taking into consideration Ms. Watson’s words, liberation may not be the case for everyone who follows similar
…show more content…
Thoreau decided to resist authority by not paying his taxes, due to that fact that he did not like the way the government worked. When explaining why he did not pay his taxes, Thoreau says, “I meet this American government… once a year, no more, in the person of its tax gatherer… and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, most effectual… [mode] of expressing your little satisfaction with it and love for it, is to deny it then… I have paid no poll tax for six years” (Thoreau 213-4). The poll tax was a tax that would be a requirement for a citizen to vote, which is no longer enforced because it was deemed as unconstitutional. Thoreau felt as though the government should represent and take care of the people. He finds it insulting that the only time he “meets” the government is through the tax collector trying to take Thoreau’s money. In the eyes of Thoreau, the government is not doing its job when they only use their citizens as a source of money, especially in the form of the poll tax. Thoreau provided a valid reason for his resistance, passionate about the subject. However, Bartleby does the opposite. When being asked to review his work, Bartleby would refuse by using the phrase “I would prefer not to” and never provided a reason for this action. Whenever Bartleby was given a job, he always resisted. The Narrator gets …show more content…
After spending his night in jail, he “pitied” the government for what it has become. However, he ends his essay on a positive note by saying, “There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the state comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” (Thoreau 216). Although Thoreau does not like the current state of the government, he has faith in the American people by saying “A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen” (216). Thoreau, throughout the duration of his essay, expressed how the current authority is unlawful. Despite his concerns, he is able to come to the conclusion that America, with the right people, has the ability to fix itself and be a “glorious” country. However, not everyone can have the same ending. After Bartleby was sent to prison, the Narrator often visited the odd inmate. One day, on a visit, the Narrator found him “strangely huddled at the base of the wall, his knees drawn up and lying on his side, his head touching the cold stones, I saw the wasted Bartleby. But nothing stirred. I paused, then went up close to him, stooped
Thoreau talks about the politics, power and civil disobedience in his works. He believed that when many thought alike, the power was stronger within that minority. I think that Thoreau's intention was to point out that those people who dare to go against what seems to be unjust and go against the majority, and stand erect, are the people who transform society as a whole.
In Henry Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government, the harmless actions he takes to rebel against the government are considered acts of civil disobedience. He talks about how the government acts wrongful such as, slavery and the Mexican-American war. This writing persuades Nathaniel Heatwole, a twenty-year-old college student studying at Guildford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, to take matters into his own hands, by smuggling illegal items on multiple Southwest airplanes. The reason in that being, is to show the people that our nation is unsafe and dangerous. In doing this, he takes his rebellion one step too far, by not only jeopardizing his life, but as well as many other innocent lives.
In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau claims that men should act from their conscience. Thoreau believed it was the duty of a person to disobey the law if his conscience says that the law is unjust. He believed this even if the law was made by a democratic process. Thoreau wrote that a law is not just, only because the majority votes for it. He wrote, “Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?” (Thoreau, P. 4). Thoreau wanted a government in the United States that would make the just laws based on conscience, because the people of the country would not let the elected representatives be unfair. Thoreau did not think people can disobey any law when they want to. He believed that people should obey just laws; however, Thoreau thought that not all laws were right, and he wrote that a man must obey what is right, not what is the law: “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, P. 4).
In the article “Thoreau’s Case for Political Disengagement,” the author, Carl Bankston, examines Thoreau’s portrayal of having a moral conscience while being controlled by society. The author distinctly explains Thoreau’s ideas, while also giving his own opinion on the subject.
Henry David Thoreau was a mid-nineteenth century transcendentalist philosopher and writer. Thoreau is best remembered for his book “Walden”, detailing his simple life living by Walden Pond. His other most well-known work is “Civil Disobedience”, a philosophical, political piece concerning his views on 19th century America. A fervent pacifist, humanitarian and abolitionist, Thoreau stopped paying his poll taxes (a tax levied on all adults in a community) as a form of protest towards the government for the Mexican American War and slavery. After being imprisoned in July 1846 for not paying his taxes, Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience in response. The two main things that Thoreau argues for in “Civil Disobedience” are the idea of a limited government
His ideas of taking action against government corruption instead of just shyly agreeing or sinking into the shadows of the societal majority is a universal message that can apply to anyone at anytime. Like his revolutionary predecessors, Thoreau establishes a compelling argument that resonates in the hearts of man and pushes them to rise up. America is founded upon the ideals of democracy and being governed by the people. Thoreau, almost a century after America gained its independence, reestablishes these importance of these principles in our society through his essay. He is not only a Transcendentalist, but also a
For Thoreau’s arrest to be an act of civil disobedience, it has to be publicized. Being publicized distinguishes his arrest as civil disobedience rather than being criminal (7). Thoreau had many people offering to pay his taxes but refused to take them. His refusal made his arrest publicized enough for someone to pay his taxes to release him from jail. Civil disobedient acts need to be publicized to show the participant is against the political system. Thoreau showed he was against paying taxes by wanting to stay in jail and arguing that he should be the only person to pay his own taxes. This indicates he wanted his disobedience justified.
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. Two such cases occurred during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau. Both men courageously confronted the mighty us government; both spent time in jail as a result of their defiant actions; both men stood for a belief in a better future, and both presented their dreams through non-violent protest and civil disobedience. The similarities in their course of action are undeniable, but each man used different terms on which they based their arguments. Martin Luther King Junior's appeal through the human conscience, and Henry Thoreau's excellent use of patriotism, present similar issues in very dissimilar ways.
When Thoreau returned home his family noticed a change in his personality. He was no longer accepting people’s opinions as facts but would shock people with his own independent and unconventional opinions. He desired to live his life with the freedom to think and act as he wished. He obtained a local teaching job and refused to Flog children as punishment. Instead he would give moral lectures. The community objected to this method of punishment and forced Thoreau to flog his incorrigible children. That day Thoreau flogged six students and then turned in his resignation. He did so believing that physical punishment should have no place in education.
As he concludes his essay, Thoreau's main point is that individual power should be greater than that of the government. Thoreau's observation, "That government is best which governs least" continues to be as true today as the day it was written.
Even though it passed more that a hundred of years after Thoreau posted his essay, his ideas are still germane today. I can relate Thoreau’s concept not only to American government, but also to authorities all over the world. It doesn’t seem that the people rule the country anymore; the authorities are led by few individuals who have the most influence. Even though this is very visible, people don’t do anything about that, they are just some marionettes in the hands of the ones who rule the system. Many parliaments from the world lost the notion about making the laws to protect the people, but not themselves as the higher class of the country.
While Emerson and Thoreau certainly have difference of opinions, they recognize the need for public discussion and discourse. Emerson declares “a foolish consistency” to be “the hobgoblin of little minds” (Emerson 367). This is shown in their essays “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” in which they support individuality and personal expression. Despite their contrasting views of society and government, the two most prominent transcendentalists in literary history share a passionate belief in the necessity that every American must exercise their constitutional rights and make known their views even and especially if it challenges the status quo.
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a piece that denounces the role of government and promotes the individuality of man. He argues that government rarely proves itself to be useful, and that anything achieved under the influence of that government could have been even greater had the system not been involved, evident in paragraph 2, “Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” (Thoreau, lines 12-16) He states that the American government derives its power from the majority, not the strongest group, and not necessarily the most moral. Thoreau wants us to believe that we the people should follow what we think to be ethically just, not what the government and the majority force upon us. In my opinion, I agree with Thoreau in the aspect that we need a more improved form of government, however I disagree with the type of government that Thoreau wishes for. He believes we work better without restraint and that we must command our individual respect, but I heartily argue the opposite; a society must have order and an infrastructure, we need a system to oversee the problems that we cannot solve as humans with individual mindsets. I do not believe that the government should have the right to pry into our lives without solid evidence, but I do believe that we need a fair and balanced administration that is required to look after its’ peoples’ well being.
You can see just how important non-conformity is in Thoreau’s life because he is willing to be thrown in jail for it. In act one whilst Thoreau and Bailey are discussing why they are in jail Thoreau says this, “But we’ve got a President who went out and boomed up a war all by himself – with no help from Congress and less help from me.” (pg. 11) What Henry is referring to here is the fact that he did not pay his taxes to help support a war he does not support himself. Everyone else in society is paying their taxes, but Henry will not conform to that. Thoreau is not refusing to pay taxes
In my first analysis of Thoreau's essay, one of my strengths was being able to identify Thoreau's use of logos, or reasoning. In this instance, Thoreau draws from an example of a popular scholar, Paley, who argues: "'So long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God'" (Thoreau). In my analysis, I acknowledged Thoreau's citing of this quote and then demonstrated how he flipped Paley's argument. He reasons with the audience that doing the right thing, though sometimes unpleasant, will yield greater rewards in the long run.