Posted on 12/07/2004 1:20:26 PM PST by mft112345
In his Lives of Famous Greeks, Plutarch explains that he writes biography because virtue inspires imitation among other men. Today, I was reading about Henry David Thoreau, and I began to wonder whether he was truly virtuous and worthy of imitation.
Thoreau tells us, "Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." In July of 1846, this American voiced his opposition to slavery laws and war against Mexico by going to jail for refusing to pay a poll tax. Afterwards, he was invited to address the citizens of Concord, Massachusetts in a lecture on the event. This speech evolved into his essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.
This essay had a significant influence on Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. In his autobiography, King writes: "I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest."
Thoreau certainly deserves credit for his influence in the promotion of racial equality in America. That said, I also believe it's important to scrutinize some of his more controversial comments.
It's a bit naive to think that our homes would remain safe without a government to enforce the laws against violent crime or defend our borders against foreign occupiers. Yet, Thoreau expresses a preference for no U.S. government: "I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—'That government is best which governs least';(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
Thoreau also condemns the notion of rule by majority consent: "After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?" Majority decisions are prone to unjust and imperfect compromises, but a rigorous and wide-ranging debate of ideas can also lead to moral and ethical decisions. Ironically, such decisions, by our founding fathers, permitted Thoreau to criticize his government in the first place.
Thoreau also discourages voting in America:"All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men."
Thoreau also calls the constitution evil and discourages citizens from petitioning government officials for a redress of grievances: "It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way; its very Constitution is the evil."
By making this argument, Thoreau encorages ineffective moral leadership. If a moral leader works to understand the beliefs of the majority, he or she has a better opportunity to persuade that majority. Thoreau also overlooks many peaceful means to achieve reform. By voting, writing letters to the editor and to elected officials, asking questions at town halls, encouraging virtuous men and women to seek office, donating and volunteering for campaigns Americans can influence policy and defeat corrupt leaders.
Instead of advocating these peaceful means, Thoreau expresses sympathy towards violent revolution in the United States: "If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, 'But what shall I do?' my answer is, 'If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.' When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now."
Like Thoreau, several founding fathers also recognized that slavery is evil, however they realized that gradual change was less dangerous to the survival of the Republic than immediate revolution. Even Thomas Jefferson, who called for refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants,probably would have considered Thoreau's comments rash.
In his Plea for Captain John Brown, Thoreau writes: "It was his peculiar doctrine that a man has a perfect right to interfere by force with the slaveholder, in order to rescue the slave. I agree with him...I do not wish to kill nor to be killed, but I can foresee circumstances in which both these things would be by me unavoidable. We preserve the so-called peace of our community by deeds of petty violence every day...I think that for once the Sharp's rifles and the revolvers were employed in a righteous cause. The tools were in the hands of one who could use them...The same indignation that is said to have cleared the temple once will clear it again. The question is not about the weapon, but the spirit in which you use it."
Where would Thoreau draw the line when spilling the blood of evil doers? If government is useless, how should society resolve conflicts where both parties believe they are guided by conscience?
He writes: "Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
Would Thoreau advise modern Americans with strong convictions on social issues to break the law? What would he say to men like Eric Rudolph or Tim McVeigh? Hopefully, Thoreau would argue that crusaders won't advance their political cause by resorting to violent spectacles. Maybe, he would admit our Constitution is a national treasure, precisely because of its peaceful means for resolving differences. Anarchy is a weak weapon against injustice. Inciting anarchy or preaching revolution in the United States offers no virtuous example.
Many of the American literary canon held views that would seem radical today and it's best to admit it. Some of Mark Twain's views on American goverment are disquieting to say the least. Not to mention Dubois, Stienbeck, Wright...
Regardless, I wouldn't want to be on that proverbial island with the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or Walden.
"Thoreau also condemns the notion of rule by majority consent"
See Federalist #10 and #51
Should be WITHOUT of course. :-) And Steinbeck.
My favorite Thoreau quote, from "On Walden Pond," is one I say to my wife frequently as we're preparing to go somewhere:
"The man who goes alone can leave today."
Thoreau was a fraud.
Generations of American Lit. students think that he was living in the wilderness at Walden Pond, when in reality, the pond is only a mile from Concord town center.
He lived a very comfortable life while the women, servants, indentured servants, and slaves supplied him with worldly goods he did not refuse.
It was sort of like camping out in Emerson's backyard.
He was also a great prose stylist and wrote one of the geniunely great texts of the American 19th century.
Thoreau was the shiniest goldbrick in American history.
What I want to know is WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? Most of the ones I know are quite vocal about it. I wish they'd shut up and be quiet about it!
Steinbeck is the best. "Travels with Charley" is my all time favorite book.
You are entirely correct.
However, I still admire Thoreau's prose for one quote:
"Any man more right than his neighbor constitutes a majority of one."
It comes in handy if and when you're short on votes.
LOL
Quite true; he lived at Walden on property owned by Emerson. And when he wasn't at Walden, he was living rent free at Emerson's house and tending the garden. I don't think he ever went anywhere outside of Concord, except a brief, unsuccessful tutoring job in NYC and a boat ride on the Merrimack river with his brother. Concord, then and even now, is a quiet place, a small town where eccentric behavior can be charming. But transported to our century, faced with the demands of modern society and a world made small by innovation and technology, dear Thoreau would likely be one of those sad, mumbling people swept up in any city's 'help the homeless' campaign. :)
I suppose you can put Thoreau in the category of such anti-social thinkers as Chuang-tzu, Diogenes the Cynic, Rousseau, and the Beat generation of the 1950s -- none of them guides to good citizenship or responsible lives, but within that admittedly reckless company, Thoreau is one of the more benign and positive influences.
And indeed, Thoreau's books don't always cohere as unified wholes -- they're more like a set of smaller essays or insights or exhortations, rather than a doctrine or dogma or method. Take him for a meal, and you're bound to be disappointed, but as a spice or seasoning added to a more responsible or down-to-earth existence, Thoreau has much value.
Fraud. C'mon There were no "slaves" in Concord, Mass and Thoreau often noted that the pond was close to his home. He commented, for example, on the sound of trains in the background.
The Trancendentalist/Unitarian chattering classes at the time may have been good writers, but they were pompous snobs, all too willing to tell the working folks how they should live, especially from a comfortable distance. All talk, no action. Give me the guys from the previous century! (Jefferson, etc.)
The bunch of them (Nathaniel Hawthorne, Bronson Alcott, etc.) were big on theory but not much good at daily tasks (look at their failed agrarian communes - Fruitlands, Brook Farm, ...). Louisa recounts the time the women in the family tried to save some crops at Fruitlands when the weather turned bad, while dear old Dad - Bronson - was either yakking it up with his pals, or too incompetent to do much.
The hippie communes/anti-war stuff of the 60's/70's were inspired, in part, by the Trannies.
(I grew up near Brook Farm and Theodore Parker's Unitarian church.)
interesting....
"It's a bit naive to think that our homes would remain safe without a government to enforce the laws against violent crime or defend our borders against foreign occupiers. Yet, Thoreau expresses a preference for no U.S. government: "I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—'That government is best which governs least';(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
why do i suspect the author is one of those who only know half of the second amendment?
it may be naive now, but "when men are prepared for it" i suspect it will seem ignorant and barbarous that we ever needed it to be safe. because Henry saw further into an ideal vision of the future than the short sighted men who write about him today makes him less virtuous? Jesus is far from virtuous then, and Buddha a scoundrel.
"Thoreau also condemns the notion of rule by majority consent: "After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority,"
we can stop there. a true humanitarian government would be one in which the majority protect the rights of the minority because it is the right thing to do. in a government that did that, a majority consent would be acceptable. even HDT, who saw far enough ahead to hope for a day we needed no government, could not see a day the majority would grow up to that degree.
"But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? "
bingo.
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?" "
well.....
"As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-H. L. Mencken
prophetic words...
"Majority decisions are prone to unjust and imperfect compromises, but a rigorous and wide-ranging debate of ideas can also lead to moral and ethical decisions. Ironically, such decisions, by our founding fathers, permitted Thoreau to criticize his government in the first place."
and they were a majority? no, the founding fathers were not! they were however a small group that held "a rigorous and wide-ranging debate of ideas" that lead to an advance of morals and ethics, if not a full fruition.
Ironically, the author of this article seems not to have noticed.
interesting....
"It's a bit naive to think that our homes would remain safe without a government to enforce the laws against violent crime or defend our borders against foreign occupiers. Yet, Thoreau expresses a preference for no U.S. government: "I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—'That government is best which governs least';(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
why do i suspect the author is one of those who only know half of the second amendment?
it may be naive now, but "when men are prepared for it" i suspect it will seem ignorant and barbarous that we ever needed it to be safe. because Henry saw further into an ideal vision of the future than the short sighted men who write about him today makes him less virtuous? Jesus is far from virtuous then, and Buddha a scoundrel.
"Thoreau also condemns the notion of rule by majority consent: "After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority,"
we can stop there. a true humanitarian government would be one in which the majority protect the rights of the minority because it is the right thing to do. in a government that did that, a majority consent would be acceptable. even HDT, who saw far enough ahead to hope for a day we needed no government, could not see a day the majority would grow up to that degree.
"But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? "
bingo.
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?" "
well.....
"As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-H. L. Mencken
prophetic words...
"Majority decisions are prone to unjust and imperfect compromises, but a rigorous and wide-ranging debate of ideas can also lead to moral and ethical decisions. Ironically, such decisions, by our founding fathers, permitted Thoreau to criticize his government in the first place."
and they were a majority? no, the founding fathers were not! they were however a small group that held "a rigorous and wide-ranging debate of ideas" that lead to an advance of morals and ethics, if not a full fruition.
Ironically, the author of this article seems not to have noticed.
The Unibomber's shed was very similer to the shed on Walden Pond. I think Thoreau had an influence.
I have read On Walden Pond and think it is an important guide for learning to understand one's self. The disipline learned at Walden Pond led to all the rest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.