|
The
Individual Must Be Recognized as a Higher and
Independent Power
by Henry David Thoreau
I heartily accept the motto. That government is
best which governs least'; 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. Government is at best but an expedient; but
most governments are usually, and all governments
are sometimes, inexpedient. . .
This American government, -- what is it but a
tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to
transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each
instant losing some of its integrity? It has not
the vitality and force of a single living man; for
a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort
of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is
not the less necessary for this; for the people
must have some complicated machinery or other, and
hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government
which they have. Governments show thus how
successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on
themselves, for their own advantage. It is
excellent, we must all allow. 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. For government is
an expedient by which men would fain succeed in
letting one another alone; and, as has been said,
when it is most expedient, the governed are most
let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were
not made of india-rubber, would never manage to
bounce over the obstacles which legislators are
continually putting in their way; and, if one were
to judge these men wholly by the effects of their
actions and not partly by their intentions, they
would deserve to be classed and punished with those
mischievous persons who put obstructions on the
railroads.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen,
unlike those who call themselves no-government men,
I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a
better government. Let every man make known what
kind of government would command his respect, and
that will be one step toward obtaining it.
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? I
think that we should be men first, and subjects
afterward. 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. It is truly
enough said that a corporation has no conscience;
but a corporation of conscientious men is a
corporation with a conscience. 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. A common and natural
result of an undue respect for law is, that you may
see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal,
privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in
admirable order over hill and dale to the wars,
against their wills, ay, against their common sense
and consciences, which makes it very steep marching
indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. .
.
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men
mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They
are the standing army, and the militia, jailers,
constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most
cases there is no free exercise whatever of the
judgment or of the moral sense; but they put
themselves on a level with wood and earth and
stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured
that will serve the purpose as well. Such command
no more respect than men of straw or a lump of
dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as
horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are
commonly esteemed good citizens. Others -- as most
legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and
office-holders -- serve the state chiefly with
their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral
distinctions, they are as likely to serve the
devil, without intending it, as God. A very few --
as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the
great sense, and men -- serve the state with their
consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for
the most part; and they are commonly treated as
enemies by it. . .
How does it become a man to behave toward this
American government to-day? I answer, that he
cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I
cannot for an instant recognize that political
organization as my government which is the slave's
government also.
All men recognize the right of revolution; that
is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to
resist, the government, when its tyranny or its
inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost
all say that such is not the case now. But such was
the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If
one were to tell me that this was a bad government
because it taxed certain foreign commodities
brought to its ports, it is most probable that I
should not make an ado about it, for I can do
without them. All machines have their friction; and
possibly this does enough good to counterbalance
the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a
stir about it. But when the friction comes to have
its machine, and oppression and robbery are
organized, I say, let us not have such a machine
any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the
population of a nation which has undertaken to be
the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole
country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a
foreign army, and subjected to military law, I
think that it is not too soon for honest men to
rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the
more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun
is not our own, but ours is the invading army. .
.
How can a man be satisfied to entertain an
opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any
enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is
aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single
dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied
with knowing that you are cheated, or with saying
that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him
to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps
at once to obtain the full amount, and see that you
are never cheated again. Action from principle, the
perception and the performance of right, changes
things and relations; it is essentially
revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with
anything which was. It not only divides States and
churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the
individual, separating the diabolical in him
from the divine.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey
them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey
them until we have succeeded, or shall we
transgress them at once? Men generally, under such
a government as this, think that they ought to wait
until they have persuaded the majority to alter
them. They think that, if they should resist, the
remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the
fault of the government itself that the remedy
is worse than the evil. It makes it
worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and
provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its
wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it
is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to
be on the alert to point out its faults, and do
better than it would have them? Why does it always
crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and
Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin
rebels? . .
I do not hesitate to say, that those who call
themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually
withdraw their support, both in person and
property, from the government of Massachusetts, and
not wait till they constitute a majority of one,
before they suffer the right to prevail through
them. I think that it is enough if they have God on
their side, without waiting for that other one.
Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors
constitutes a majority of one already. . .
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,
the true place for a just man is also a prison. The
proper place to-day, the only place which
Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less
desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put
out and locked out of the State by her own act, as
they have already put themselves out by their
principles. It is there that the fugitive slave,
and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian
come to plead the wrongs of his race should find
them; on that separate, but more free and
honorable, ground, where the State places those who
are not with her, but against her, --
the only house in a slave State in which a free man
can abide with honor. If any think that their
influence would be lost there, and their voices no
longer afflict the ear of the State, that they
would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do
not know by how much truth is stronger than error,
nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can
combat injustice who has experienced a little in
his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip
of paper merely, but your whole influence. A
minority is powerless while it conforms to the
majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is
irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If
the alternative is to keep all just men in prison,
or give up war and slavery, the State will not
hesitate which to choose. 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. . .
I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put
into a jail once on this account, for one night;
and, as I stood considering the walls of stone, two
or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a
foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the
light, I could not help being struck with the
foolishness of that institution which treated me as
if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be
locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded
at length that this was the best use it could put
me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my
services in some way. I saw that, if there was a
wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was
a still more difficult one to climb or break
through before they could get to be as free as I
was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the
walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I
felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my
tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but
behaved like persons who are underbred. In every
threat and in every compliment there was a blunder;
for they thought that my chief desire was to stand
the other side of that stone wall. I could not but
smile to see how industriously they locked the door
on my meditations, which followed them out again
without let or hindrance, and they were really all
that was dangerous. As they could not reach me,
they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys,
if they cannot come at some person against whom
they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that
the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a
lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did
not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all
my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
Thus the State never intentionally confronts a
man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his
body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit
or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I
was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my
own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What
force has a multitude? They only can force me who
obey a higher law than I. They force me to become
like themselves. I do not hear of men being
forced to live this way or that by masses of
men. What sort of life were that to live? When I
meet a government which says to me, 'Your money or
your life,' why should I be in haste to give it my
money? It may be in a great strait, and not know
what to do: I cannot help that. It must help
itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to
snivel about it. I am not responsible for the
successful working of the machinery of society. I
am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that,
when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the
one does not remain inert to make way for the
other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and
grow and flourish as best they can, till one,
perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a
plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies;
and so a man. . .
I know that most men think differently from
myself; but those whose lives are by profession
devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects
content me as little as any. Statesmen and
legislators, standing so completely within the
institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold
it. They speak of moving society, but have no
resting-place without it. They may be men of a
certain experience and discrimination, and have no
doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems,
for which we sincerely thank them; but all their
wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide
limits. They are wont to forget that the world is
not governed by policy and expediency. Webster
never goes behind government, and so cannot speak
with authority about it. His words are wisdom to
those legislators who contemplate no essential
reform in the existing government; but for
thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he
never once glances at the subject. I know of those
whose serene and wise speculations on this theme
would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range
and hospitality, Yet, compared with the cheap
professions of most reformers, and the still
cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in
general, his are almost the only sensible and
valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him.
Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and,
above all, practical. Still, his quality is not
wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not
Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency.
Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not
concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may
consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be
called, as he has been called, the Defender of the
Constitution. There are really no blows to be given
by him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but
a follower. His leaders are the men of '87. 'I have
never made an effort,' he says, 'and never propose
to make an effort; I have never countenanced an
effort, and never mean to countenance an effort to
disturb the arrangement as originally made, by
which the various States came into the Union. Still
thinking of the sanction which the Constitution
gives to slavery he says. Because it was a part of
the original compact -- let it stand.'
Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability,
he is unable to take a fact out of its merely
political relations, and behold it as it lies
absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect. .
.
The authority of government, even such as I am
willing to submit to, -- for I will cheerfully obey
those who know and can do better than I and in many
things even those who neither know nor can do so
well -- is still an impure one: to be strictly
just, it must have the sanction and consent of the
governed. It can have no pure right over my person
and property but what I concede to it. The progress
from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a
limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress
toward a true respect for the individual. Even the
Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the
individual as the basis of the empire. Is a
democracy, such as we know it the last improvement
possible in government? Is it not possible to take
a step further towards recognizing and organizing
the rights of man? 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.
I please myself with imagining a State at last
which can afford to be just to all men, and to
treat the individual with respect as a neighbor;
which even would not think it inconsistent with its
own repose if a few were to live aloof from it not
meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled
all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. 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.
Excerpted from Civil
Disobedience (1849), by Henry David
Thoreau
|
Civil
Disobedience and Other Essays, by
Henry
David Thoreau
The
Cambridge Companion to Henry David
Thoreau
|