Analysis Of Civil Disobedience

“Civil Disobedience" is an essay written by Henry David Thoreau who was an “American transcendentalist society in 1849” (“Give Me Liberty”, chap 9). In this essay Thoreau argued that people should not allow their government to override or weaken their consciences because they have a duty to avoid allowing any agreement to authorize the government to make them the proper workers of discrimination. An evidence that gives us this form of information is “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it” (“Civil Disobedience”, par 1, pg 1). Thoreau meant that the government sometimes proves itself useful and that it

This thesis idea means that government will often times be addressed as useful but other times any form of government would be considered as unsuitable. In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau analyzes the federal government very critically, claiming that it’s a fake institution created by the most powerful people while admitting that it serves a sort of purpose and is likely to remain a trait of in the American life. Thoreau uses one important inspirational quote “every man make known what kind of government would command his respect one step toward obtaining it” (“Civil Disobedience”, par 3, pg 1). This means that if you want to say something then you should speak up and to let it be known, keeping in mind that you will most likely receive it’s benefits. Thoreau describes civil disobedience by clarifying thoughts and emotions that should be able to guide it including having a sense of rightness and noble

With the help of Thoreau’s arguments it will influence people by convincing them into believing that the government is corrupted because they abuse their power. Analyzing Thoreau’s essay, in the American tradition most men identify and value the right of “mutiny”, in which Thoreau extracts the concept of civil disobedience pertaining the government. Thoreau argues that any movement of opposition to government must stabilize the huge injustice to designate the "probability and expense" of redressing the proper meaning of civil disobedience. In the values of today people oftentimes engage in any form of civil disobedience to bring out a much larger attention to serious social problems that would cause a mass debate, especially in our recent presidential election. Because of the negative things people say about President Donald Trump others are rebelling in obeying government laws saying “if he got elected with no work experience then why should I be asked the same question at work interviews?” or “he’s an American who hates Latinos so us Latinos must not obey his laws”. I think the difference between the values in Thoreau’s time and ours is the lack of care for our consequences which brings us back to what Thoreau said in the beginning that because the government proves itself not useful citizens will take matter into