Comparing Thoreau And King's On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience

From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights movement, civil disobedience has played a key role in social reforms throughout United States history. Key advocates, such as Thoreau and King, supported civil disobedience as a way to disobey laws and protest injustices based on moral principles. While Thoreau advocates for individualism, King asserts that mobilization and nonviolent protests are necessary means to justify civil disobedience. Furthermore, King’s response to Malcolm X’s appeal to necessity furthers his position about bringing positive peace to the world.

In On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, Thoreau encourages civil disobedience as a way to express one’s personal beliefs and opinions because the government should reflect one’s conscience. He believed that people should follow their conscience when there was a clash between conscience and the law. Thoreau would argue that voting and petitioning would insight little change, but instead to disassociate from it completely to ensure change. On the other hand, King characterizes civil

Thoreau was not calling for the mobilization of others, rather for others to consider the injustices of the government in hopes that it will begin to recognize individuality. He wanted citizens to be compelled to implement his or her own act of resistance without coordination with someone else. On the other hand, King wanted immediate government reform through participation and direct action. King furthered Thoreau’s definition of civil disobedience as an individualistic process by examining one’s conscience and values, thereby allowing them to act. He called for the masses to come together in solidarity to create tension against the government because the oppressed are tired of waiting for lawful