Thoreau: A virtuous example?

[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.

[mft112345]

You might expect a Nazi to call the constitution evil, spout anti-democratic rhetoric, and endorse violence against the U.S. government, but how many Americans know the revered Henry David Thoreau voiced these same sentiments?

Like the men who blow up federal buildings, kill abortion providers, or blow themselves up at Israeli public gatherings, Thoreau was wrong to support violent revolutionary means to secure political ends.
We don't ignore the anti-democratic tendencies of Nietzsche, Hobbes or Machiavelli just because they were good writers.

[Borges]

Where does Thoreau support ‘violent revolutionary means to secure political ends’?