This is a modern-English version of On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, originally written by Thoreau, Henry David. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

by Henry David Thoreau

1849, original title: Resistance to Civil Government


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. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. 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. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

I fully embrace the motto, “The best government is the one that governs least,” and I would like to see it implemented faster and more systematically. When fully realized, it leads to this belief, which I also hold—“The best government is the one that doesn’t govern at all;” and when people are ready for it, that’s the kind of government they will have. Government is, at best, just a necessary measure; however, most governments are often, and all governments can sometimes be, counterproductive. The many solid objections raised against a standing army, which should be given serious consideration, can also ultimately be applied to a standing government. The standing army is just an extension of the standing government. The government itself, which is merely the way the people have chosen to carry out their will, is equally vulnerable to misuse and distortion before the people can act through it. Just look at the current Mexican war, which is the result of a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; at the beginning, the people would not have agreed to this action.

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; and, if ever they should use it in earnest as a real one against each other, it will surely split. 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 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.

This American government—what is it really but a tradition, albeit a recent one, trying to pass itself down to future generations while losing some of its integrity with each moment? It doesn’t have the vitality and power of a single living person; a single individual can manipulate it to their will. It's like a wooden gun to the people; and if they ever tried to use it seriously like a real one against each other, it would definitely break apart. But that doesn’t make it any less necessary; people need some complicated system or another, and they want to hear its noise to satisfy their idea of government. Governments show how effectively people can be misled, even deceive themselves, for their own benefit. We must all agree it’s impressive; yet this government has never really advanced any cause except by the ease with which it steps aside. It doesn't keep the country free. It doesn't settle the West. It doesn't educate. The inherent character of the American people has achieved everything that has been accomplished; and it would have done even more if the government hadn’t sometimes obstructed them. Government is a means by which people try to let each other be; and, as mentioned, when it’s most effective, the governed are left alone the most. Trade and commerce, if they weren’t made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles that legislators continuously throw in their path; and if we were to judge these people entirely by the outcomes of their actions, rather than by their intentions, they would deserve to be treated like the disruptive individuals who place obstacles 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.

But, to be practical and as a citizen, unlike those who claim to be against government, I’m not asking for no government right now, but for right now a better government. Let everyone express what kind of government they would respect, and that will be a step toward achieving 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 can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the 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 the 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, aye, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts, a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be

After all, the practical reason why, when power is in the hands of the people, the majority is allowed to rule, often for extended periods, isn’t because they’re most likely to be correct or because it seems fair to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. However, a government where the majority always rules cannot be based on justice as we understand it. Is there not a government where it’s not the majority that decides right and wrong, but rather individual conscience?—where majorities only address those issues that fall under the rule of what’s practical? Must a citizen ever for even a moment, or to any degree, surrender his conscience to the lawmaker? Why does every person have a conscience, then? I believe we should be individuals first, and citizens second. It’s more important to cultivate respect for what is right than for the law. The only obligation I have a right to assume is to do what I believe is right at any moment. It’s often said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation made up of conscientious individuals is a corporation with a conscience. Law doesn’t make people any more just; and because of their respect for it, even well-meaning individuals often become agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an excessive respect for the law is that you can see a group of soldiers—colonel, captain, corporal, privates, and all—marching in perfect formation over hills and valleys to war against their will, against their common sense and conscience, which makes it extremely difficult to march and causes a heavy heart. They’re well aware that what they’re doing is wrong; they all prefer peace. Now, what are they? Are they truly men? Or just small mobile forts and ammunition supplies, at the service of some unscrupulous person in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and see a marine, the kind of person an American government can create, or the kind it can construct a person into with its dark methods—a mere shadow of humanity, a person laid out alive and standing, who is already, in a sense, buried under arms with a funeral atmosphere, even though it may be

“Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
    As his corpse to the ramparts we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
    O’er the grave where our hero we buried.”

“Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
    As we rushed his body to the ramparts;
Not a soldier fired a farewell shot
    Over the grave where we buried our hero.”

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, &c. 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 by it as enemies. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least:

Most people serve the State not really as individuals, but more like machines, using their bodies. They are the standing army, the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases, they have no free exercise of judgment or moral sense; they place themselves on the same level as wood, earth, and stones. It’s likely that wooden figures could be created to do the same job just as well. Such figures earn no more respect than straw men or a clump of dirt. Their value is similar to that of horses and dogs. Yet even these people are often seen as good citizens. Others, like most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the State mainly with their intellect; and since they rarely make moral distinctions, they’re just as likely to serve the devil, without meaning to, as they are to serve God. A very few—those who are heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the truest sense, and truly *men*—serve the State with their consciences too, and as a result, they often resist it; they are typically treated as enemies. A wise person will be useful as a human being and won’t accept being “clay” or merely “plugging a hole to keep the wind out,” but will let that role be filled by their dust at least:

“I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world.”

“I’m too well-born to be owned,
To play a minor role in control,
Or be a useful servant and tool
For any ruling power around the world.”

He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.

Someone who completely dedicates themselves to others may seem useless and selfish to them, while someone who only gives a part of themselves is seen as a benefactor and philanthropist.

How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? 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.

How should a man act towards the American government today? I say he cannot be involved with it without shame. I can't even for a moment see that political organization as my government if it is also the slave’s government.

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 counter-balance 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 that fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

All people recognize the right to revolt; that is, the right to refuse loyalty to and resist a government when its tyranny or inefficiency becomes unbearable. But almost everyone claims that this isn’t the case today. However, they believe it was in the Revolution of ’75. If someone were to tell me that this government is bad because it taxes certain foreign goods brought to its ports, I would probably not make a fuss about it, since I can do without them: all systems have their problems; and this might do enough good to outweigh the bad. Either way, it’s a huge mistake to make a scene over it. But when the problems become systemic, and oppression and theft are organized, I say we should not tolerate such a system any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation that claims to be a refuge of freedom are slaves, and an entire country is unjustly invaded and conquered by a foreign army and subjected to military law, I think it’s high time for decent people to rebel and create change. What makes this duty even more pressing is the fact that the country being invaded is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,” resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say, “that so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God that the established government be obeyed, and no longer.”—“This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other.” Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

Paley, a widely respected authority on moral issues, in his chapter on “The Duty of Submission to Civil Government,” reduces all civil obligations to matters of practicality. He goes on to state that “as long as the interests of society as a whole require it—meaning that the established government cannot be resisted or changed without causing public trouble—it is God’s will that the established government should be obeyed, and no longer.” Once this principle is accepted, the fairness of each case of resistance comes down to weighing the level of danger and grievance on one side against the likelihood and cost of addressing it on the other. He claims that each individual should make this judgment for themselves. However, Paley seems not to have considered situations where the principle of practicality does not apply, where a society, just like an individual, must pursue justice regardless of the cost. If I have wrongfully taken a plank from a drowning person, I must return it to them even if it means risking my own life. According to Paley, this would be inconvenient. But in such a scenario, someone who chooses to save themselves will ultimately lose their life. This society must end slavery and stop waging war on Mexico, even if it threatens their existence as a people.

In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?

In their actions, nations align with Paley; but does anyone believe that Massachusetts is handling things correctly in the current situation?

“A drab of state, a cloth-o’-silver slut,
To have her train borne up, and her soul trail in the dirt.”

“A dull state, a silver-cloth slut,
To have her train lifted up while her spirit drags in the dirt.”

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

Practically speaking, the opponents of reform in Massachusetts aren't a hundred thousand politicians down South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers right here who care more about business and farming than about people. They're not ready to treat the slave and Mexico justly, no matter the cost. I don't argue with distant enemies but with those close to home who work with and follow the orders of those far away, and without whom the latter would be powerless. We often say that most people aren't ready; however, progress is slow because the few aren't significantly wiser or better than the many. It matters less that many are as good as you and more that there's some absolute goodness somewhere because that will uplift everyone. There are thousands who are against slavery and the war in theory, yet they do nothing to stop them; they see themselves as heirs of Washington and Franklin, sitting idly with their hands in their pockets, claiming they don’t know what to do while they do nothing. They even push the issue of freedom aside for the issue of free trade, casually checking price updates alongside the latest news from Mexico after dinner, maybe even dozing off over both. What’s the value of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, express regret, and sometimes petition, but they don’t act seriously or effectively. They'll wait, feeling good about it, for others to fix the problem so they won’t have to feel bad about it anymore. At best, they merely cast a half-hearted vote and offer weak support to the right as it passes by. There are nine hundred ninety-nine supporters of virtue for every one virtuous person, but dealing with the true owner of something is much easier than dealing with its temporary caretaker.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers 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. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

All voting is kind of like a game, similar to checkers or backgammon, but with a slight moral aspect, involving right and wrong and moral issues; and betting naturally goes along with it. The character of the voters isn’t at stake. I cast my vote based on what I believe is right; however, I’m not deeply concerned about whether that right wins. I’m okay with leaving it to the majority. So, its obligation never goes beyond something practical. Even voting for the right is not really doing anything for it. It merely weakly shows others your desire for it to win. A wise person won’t leave what’s right up to chance, nor will they hope it wins through majority power. There’s very little virtue in the actions of large groups of people. When the majority finally votes to end slavery, it’ll be because they don’t care about slavery or because there’s hardly any slavery left to get rid of with their vote. They will then be the only ones enslaved. Only his vote can speed up the end of slavery for someone who affirms their own freedom by voting.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to, shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow,—one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the alms-houses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

I hear there’s going to be a convention in Baltimore, or somewhere else, to choose a Presidential candidate, mostly made up of editors and professional politicians. But I think, what does it matter to any independent, smart, and respectable person what decision they come to? Aren’t we still going to benefit from their wisdom and integrity? Can we not count on some independent votes? Aren’t there many people in the country who don’t go to conventions? But no: I see that the so-called respectable person quickly abandons his stance and gives up on his country, when it’s really his country that has more reasons to give up on him. He just adopts one of the candidates they’ve picked as the only viable choice, which shows he is himself viable for any demagogue’s purposes. His vote isn’t worth any more than that of any unprincipled foreigner or paid local, who might have been bribed. Oh for a real man, and, as my neighbor says, one who has a backbone that you can’t just push your hand through! Our statistics are off: the population count is too high. How many men are there per square thousand miles in this country? Hardly one. Does America even offer anything to entice men to settle here? The American has shrunk into just a socialite—someone recognizable by his gregariousness and obvious lack of intelligence and self-reliance; whose main concern when entering the world is to make sure the poorhouses are well-maintained; and who, before he even legally becomes a man, collects money to support any widows and orphans that might be; who, in short, only dares to live thanks to the Mutual Insurance company that promises to give him a decent burial.

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, “I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico,—see if I would go;” and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the State were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin, comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.

It’s not a man’s responsibility, as a standard practice, to dedicate himself to getting rid of any, even the biggest injustice; he can still rightly have other things to focus on. But at the very least, it’s his duty to distance himself from it, and if he chooses not to think about it anymore, he shouldn't actively support it. If I decide to pursue other interests and thoughts, I must first ensure that I’m not doing so while standing on someone else's back. I need to get off him first so he can pursue his own thoughts too. Look at the obvious hypocrisy we accept. I’ve heard some people in my town say, “I’d like to see them order me out to help suppress a slave uprising, or to march to Mexico—let’s see if I’d go;” but these same men have all, through their loyalty, and indirectly through their money, provided a substitute. The soldier who refuses to fight in an unjust war is praised by those who don’t refuse to support the unjust government that creates the war; he’s applauded by those whose own actions and authority he ignores and dismisses; as if the State were so regretful that it hired someone to punish it while it continues to sin, but not so regretful that it stops sinning for even a moment. Thus, under the guise of Order and Civil Government, we all end up paying tribute to and supporting our own disgrace. After the initial acknowledgment of sin comes a sense of indifference; and what was once immoral becomes, in a way, unmoral, and not entirely unnecessary to the life we’ve created.

The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves,—the union between themselves and the State,—and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union, which have prevented them from resisting the State?

The biggest and most common mistake requires the most selfless virtue to maintain it. The small criticism that comes with patriotism is often faced by the noblest individuals. Those who, while disagreeing with the character and actions of a government, still give it their loyalty and support, are undoubtedly its most sincere supporters, and often the biggest barriers to reform. Some people are asking the State to break up the Union and ignore the President's demands. Why don’t they break up their own connection to the State and stop paying their share into its treasury? Don’t they have the same relationship with the State that the State has with the Union? And haven’t the same reasons that stop the State from resisting the Union also prevented them from resisting the State?

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 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 divided states and churches, it divides families; aye, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.

How can a person be satisfied just to hold an opinion and enjoy it? Is there any real enjoyment in that if their opinion is that they’ve been wronged? If your neighbor cheats you out of a single dollar, you don’t just feel cheated, talk about it, or even ask him to give you what he owes; you take decisive action right away to get the full amount back and make sure you’re never cheated again. Acting on principle—the understanding and doing what's right—changes situations and relationships; it’s fundamentally revolutionary and doesn’t fit with everything that came before. It doesn’t just divide nations and churches; it splits families too; yes, it even divides the individual, separating the evil within from the good.

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?

Unjust laws exist: should we just obey them, or should we try to change them and obey them until we succeed, or should we break them right away? Usually, in a government like this, people think they should wait until they convince the majority to change them. They believe that if they resist, the solution will be worse than the problem. But it's the government's fault that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why isn’t it more likely to anticipate and prepare for reform? Why doesn’t it value its wise minority? Why does it react and resist before being hurt? Why doesn’t it encourage its citizens to be proactive in pointing out its flaws and do better than it expects? Why does it always persecute Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and label Washington and Franklin as rebels?

One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offence never contemplated by government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who placed him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.

One would assume that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority is the only offense the government never considered; otherwise, why hasn’t it established a clear, appropriate penalty for it? If a person with no property refuses even once to earn nine shillings for the State, they can be imprisoned for an indefinite period determined only by those who put them there, with no legal limit that I know of. Yet, if that person were to steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, they would quickly be allowed to go free again.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth,—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

If the injustice is just part of the necessary friction in the government system, then let it be; maybe it will smooth out eventually—though the system will definitely wear down. If the injustice has its own mechanism, like a spring or a pulley or a rope or a crank, solely for itself, then you might want to think about whether the solution could be worse than the problem. But if it requires you to act unjustly toward someone else, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counterforce against the system. What matters most is that I don’t contribute to the wrong I speak out against.

As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not every thing to do, but something; and because he cannot do every thing, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. 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. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death which convulse the body.

I don’t see any effective ways the State has offered to fix the problem. They take too long, and by the time you’re done, a person’s life could be over. I have my own things to handle. I came into this world not just to improve it, but to live in it, whether it’s good or bad. A person can’t do everything, but they can do something; and just because they can’t do everything doesn’t mean they should do something wrong. It’s not my job to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me. If they ignore my petition, what can I do about it? In this case, the State hasn’t offered any solution: its very Constitution is the problem. This might seem harsh and stubborn, but it’s actually about treating with the utmost kindness and respect the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So, all change for the better, just like birth and death, can be chaotic.

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.

I don't hesitate to say that those who call themselves abolitionists should immediately pull their support, both personal and financial, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait until they have a majority of one before they let the right prevail through them. I believe it's enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for anyone else. Additionally, any person who is more right than their neighbors is already a majority of one.

I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year, no more, in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with,—for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel,—and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well what he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he shall treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborliness without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action? I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name,—if ten honest men only,—aye, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done for ever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State’s ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister,—though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her,—the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.

I encounter this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly and face-to-face once a year, and no more, through its tax collector; this is the only way someone in my position meets it, and it clearly demands that I recognize it. The simplest, most effective, and absolutely necessary way to respond to it in this situation, to express my discontent and lack of affection for it, is to refuse it then. My neighbor, the tax collector, is the exact person I need to deal with—after all, my issue is with people and not with paperwork—and he has willingly chosen to be an agent of the government. How will he ever truly understand his role as a government officer or as a person unless he has to think about whether he will treat me, his neighbor, whom he respects, as a good neighbor or as a troublemaker, and figure out if he can overcome this barrier to being neighborly without resorting to rudeness or anger that matches his actions? I know this well: if one thousand, or even just ten people I could name—if ten honest men only—yes, if just one HONEST man in Massachusetts stopped holding slaves and actually withdrew from this partnership and ended up locked in the county jail for it, that would abolish slavery in America. Because it doesn’t matter how small the start may seem: what is done well once is done forever. But we prefer to talk about it; we claim that is our purpose. Reform has countless newspapers in its service, but not a single real person. If my respected neighbor, the State’s representative, who spends his days in the Council Chamber working on human rights issues, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to become a prisoner in Massachusetts—the very state that tries to shift the guilt of slavery onto its neighbor—though currently, it can only find an act of unfriendliness to quarrel about—the Legislature wouldn’t completely ignore the topic the following winter.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, 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 any thing, 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.

Under a government that wrongly imprisons people, the right place for a just person is also a prison. Right now, the only place Massachusetts provides for its freer and more hopeful citizens is in her prisons, where they are pushed out and locked out by her own actions, just as they have set themselves apart by their beliefs. It’s there that the runaway slave, the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian pleading for the injustices faced by his people should find sanctuary; on that separate yet more free and honorable ground where the State puts those who are not with her but against her— the only place in a slave state where a free person can live with honor. If some think their influence would fade in there and their voices would no longer reach the State’s ears, that they wouldn’t be seen as an enemy within its walls, they don’t realize how much stronger truth is than error, nor how much more powerfully and effectively someone who has felt injustice can fight against it. Cast your entire vote, not just a piece of paper, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it goes along with the majority; it's not even a minority then; but it becomes unstoppable when it weighs down with its full force. If the choice is to keep all just men in prison or to end war and slavery, the State will not hesitate about which to choose. If a thousand men don’t pay their tax bills this year, that wouldn’t be a violent and bloody act, as it would be to pay them, allowing the State to commit violence and spill innocent blood. This is essentially the definition of a peaceful revolution, if such a thing is possible. If the tax collector, or any other public official, asks me, as one has, “But what should I do?” my answer is, “If you really want to do something, resign your position.” When the citizen has refused to pledge allegiance, and the officer has resigned his position, then the revolution is complete. But even if blood were to be shed, isn’t there a kind of bloodshed when the conscience is hurt? Through this wound, a person’s true manhood and immortality drain away, and he bleeds to an eternal death. I see this blood flowing now.

I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods,—though both will serve the same purpose,—because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man—not to make any invidious comparison—is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the “means” are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. “Show me the tribute-money,” said he;—and one took a penny out of his pocket;—if you use money which has the image of Cæsar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Cæsar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; “Render therefore to Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s and to God those things which are God’s,”—leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.

I've thought about imprisoning the offender instead of seizing his belongings—though both would achieve the same goal—because those who claim the purest rights, and are thus most threatening to a corrupt government, usually haven't spent much time building up wealth. For them, the government provides relatively little benefit, and even a small tax can seem outrageous, especially if they have to earn it through hard manual work. If someone lived entirely without money, the government would likely hesitate to ask anything of him. But the wealthy person—not to make unfair comparisons—often feels tied to the system that has made him rich. Generally speaking, the more money one has, the less virtue there is; money acts as a barrier between a person and their desires, and it secures those desires for them—it certainly isn't a sign of great virtue to acquire it. It answers many questions that others would struggle with, while the only new question it raises is the difficult but pointless one of how to spend it. In this way, a person's moral foundation is undermined. The chances for living the good life diminish as what are called "means" increase. The best thing a wealthy person can do for their personal growth is to pursue the dreams they had when they were poor. Christ answered the Herodians based on their situation. "Show me the tribute-money," he said; and one of them pulled out a penny from his pocket. If you're using money that has Caesar's image on it, which he has made valuable and acceptable—essentially, if you're part of the State and enjoy the benefits of Caesar's governance—then give him back some of what is his when he asks for it; “Render therefore to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,”—leaving them no clearer than before about which is which, because they didn't want to know.

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences of disobedience to it to their property and families. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly and at the same time comfortably in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself, always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said,—“If a State is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a State is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame.” No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.

When I talk with the most free-spirited of my neighbors, I realize that no matter how much they talk about the importance of the issue and their concern for public peace, the bottom line is that they can't do without the protection of the current government, and they fear what might happen to their property and families if they don't obey it. Personally, I wouldn’t want to rely on the protection of the State. But if I reject the State's authority when it comes to paying taxes, it won't be long before they take away all my property and relentlessly persecute me and my children. That’s tough. It makes it impossible for someone to live honestly while also being comfortable in a visible way. It wouldn’t be worth it to accumulate wealth because it would just be taken away. You have to find a place to rent or squat and grow a tiny crop that you’ll eat quickly. You have to be self-sufficient, always ready to move, and keep your life simple. A person can even get rich in Turkey if they are a good citizen of the Turkish government. Confucius said, “If a State is governed by reason, poverty and misery are a shame; if a State is not governed by reason, wealth and honors are a shame.” No, unless I need the protection of Massachusetts in some far-off southern port where my freedom is threatened, or unless I’m focused entirely on building a business at home through peaceful means, I can afford to refuse to pledge allegiance to Massachusetts and her claim over my property and life. It costs me less in every way to face the consequences of disobeying the State than it would to comply. In that case, I would feel like I’m worth less.

Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. “Pay it,” it said, “or be locked up in the jail.” I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster; for I was not the State’s schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax-bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the church. However, at the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing:—“Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined.” This I gave to the town-clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find such a complete list.

Several years ago, the State approached me on behalf of the church and ordered me to pay a specific amount to support a clergyman whose sermons my father attended, but that I never did. "Pay it," they said, "or you'll be thrown in jail." I refused to pay. Unfortunately, another individual decided to cover the cost. I didn’t understand why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, rather than the priest supporting the schoolmaster; after all, I was not the State’s appointed schoolmaster, but supported myself through voluntary donations. I saw no reason why the lyceum shouldn’t submit its tax request and have the State back it up, just like the church. However, at the selectmen's request, I agreed to provide a written statement similar to this: “Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be considered a member of any incorporated society that I have not joined.” I submitted this to the town clerk, and he has it on file. After learning that I didn’t want to be recognized as a member of that church, the State hasn’t made a similar demand of me since, although they insisted on maintaining their original assumption at that time. If I had known how to specify them, I would have formally opted out of all the societies I never joined; however, I didn’t know where to find such a comprehensive list.

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 solid 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 nor 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.

I haven’t paid a poll tax in six years. I was thrown in jail once because of this, for just one night; as I stood there looking at the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the wooden and iron door that was a foot thick, and the iron bars that filtered the light, I couldn't help but think how ridiculous that system was for treating me like just flesh, blood, and bones to be locked away. I was amazed that it thought this was its best use for me and never considered how to make use of my abilities in a better way. I realized that if there was a stone wall between me and my fellow townspeople, there was an even tougher barrier for them to climb or break through before they could be as free as I was. I didn’t feel imprisoned for a second; the walls felt like a massive waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townspeople had paid my tax. They clearly didn’t know how to deal with me, acting like people who lack good manners. In every threat and compliment, there was a mistake; they believed my main desire was to be on the other side of that stone wall. I couldn’t help but smile at how hard they tried to lock me out of my thoughts, which followed them out freely, and *they* were truly the only danger. Since they couldn’t reach me, they decided to punish my body, just like kids who can't get at someone they dislike will take it out on their dog. I saw that the State was foolish, scared like a woman alone with her silver spoons, and it couldn’t tell its friends from its enemies, so I lost all respect for it and felt sorry for 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.

Thus, the state never deliberately challenges a person's intellect or morals, but only their body and senses. It doesn't rely on being smarter or more honest, but rather on having more physical power. I wasn't born to be forced into submission. I will live my life on my own terms. Let's see who is stronger. What kind of force does a crowd have? Only those who follow a higher law than I can compel me. They want to make me conform to their way. I don't hear about people being forced to live one way or another by groups of people. What kind of life would that be? When I encounter a government that says to me, “Your money or your life,” why should I rush to hand over my money? It might be in a tough situation and not know what to do; that’s not my problem. It needs to take care of itself; it should act as I do. It's not worth whining about. I'm not responsible for making society's machinery run smoothly. I’m not the engineer's child. I notice that when an acorn and a chestnut fall next to each other, one doesn’t just sit there waiting for the other to go ahead; both follow their own paths and grow as best they can until one, perhaps, overshadows and overtakes the other. If a plant can't grow according to its nature, it dies; the same goes for a person.

The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirt-sleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the door-way, when I entered. But the jailer said, “Come, boys, it is time to lock up;” and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as “a first-rate fellow and a clever man.” When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably the neatest apartment in town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest man, of course; and, as the world goes, I believe he was. “Why,” said he, “they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it.” As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.

The night in jail was pretty new and interesting. The inmates, in their shirt sleeves, were chatting and enjoying the evening air in the doorway when I arrived. But the jailer said, “Alright, guys, it’s time to lock up,” and they scattered, with their footsteps echoing back into the empty cells. The jailer introduced my roommate as “a great guy and smart.” Once the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat and how things worked there. The rooms were painted once a month, and this one, at least, was the whitest, simplest, and probably the cleanest place in town. Naturally, he wanted to know where I was from and what brought me there; after I told him, I asked him how he ended up there, assuming he was honest, and I think he was. “Well,” he said, “they claim I burned down a barn, but I didn’t do it.” From what I could gather, he had likely passed out in a barn while drunk and smoked his pipe there, which led to the barn catching fire. He was known to be a smart guy, had been there about three months waiting for his trial, and would have to wait about the same amount of time longer; but he seemed pretty comfortable and content since his meals were free, and he thought he was treated well.

He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw, that, if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even here there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of verses which were composed by some young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.

He took one window, and I took the other; and I noticed that if someone stayed there for a while, their main activity would be looking out the window. I quickly read all the pamphlets left there and checked where former prisoners had made their escapes, where a grate had been sawed off, and learned the stories of the different people who had occupied that room; because I discovered that even in this place, there was a history and gossip that never went beyond the jail walls. This is probably the only place in town where poems are made that later get printed in a circular form but aren’t actually published. I was shown quite a long list of poems created by some young men who had been caught trying to escape, and they took revenge by singing them.

I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.

I drained my fellow prisoner as much as I could, worried that I might never see him again; but eventually, he pointed out which bed was mine and left me to blow out the lamp.

It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town-clock strike before, nor the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village-inn—a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.

It felt like traveling to a distant place that I never expected to see, just to spend one night there. It seemed like I had never heard the town clock chime before, nor the evening sounds of the village; we slept with the windows open, secured by grating. It was like seeing my hometown through the lens of the Middle Ages, and our Concord turned into a Rhine river, with visions of knights and castles passing by. I heard the voices of old townspeople in the streets. I was an unwilling witness to everything happening and being said in the kitchen of the nearby village inn—a completely new and rare experience for me. It gave me an up-close view of my hometown. I was right inside it. I had never seen its institutions before. This is one of its unique features, as it is a county seat. I started to understand what the people living there were up to.

In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left; but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after, he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good-day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.

In the morning, our breakfasts were passed through the slot in the door, in small rectangular tin pans designed to fit, each containing a pint of chocolate, some brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they came back to collect the dishes, I was naive enough to return the leftover bread I had, but my friend grabbed it and told me to save it for lunch or dinner. Shortly after, he was allowed to go work in a nearby field doing hay, where he went every day and wouldn't be back until noon; so he said goodbye, mentioning that he wasn't sure if he'd see me again.

When I came out of prison,—for some one interfered, and paid the tax,—I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth, and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene,—the town, and State, and country,—greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly purpose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are; that, in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that, after all, they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight though useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that most of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.

When I got out of prison—thanks to someone who stepped in and paid the tax—I didn’t realize how much had changed in the common, like someone who went in as a young man and came out gray-haired; but still, I noticed a change in the scene—the town, the state, and the country—that was greater than what mere time could bring about. I saw more clearly the state I lived in. I recognized how much I could trust the people around me as neighbors and friends; their friendship was only for good times. They didn’t seem very committed to doing the right thing; their prejudices and superstitions made them feel like a different race to me, like the Chinese and Malays. In their sacrifices for humanity, they took no risks, not even to their own property. In the end, they weren’t so noble; they treated the thief just as he treated them and hoped that by following certain rituals, saying a few prayers, and occasionally walking a specific pointless path, they could save their souls. I might be judging my neighbors too harshly since I believe most of them don’t even realize there’s a jail in their village.

It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the grating of a jail window, “How do ye do?” My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker’s to get a shoe which was mended. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour,—for the horse was soon tackled,—was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off; and then the State was nowhere to be seen.

It used to be a tradition in our village that when a poor debtor came out of jail, his friends would greet him by looking through their fingers, crossed to mimic the bars of a jail window, and say, “How do you do?” My neighbors didn’t greet me this way; instead, they looked at me and then at each other, as if I had just returned from a long trip. I was thrown in jail while I was on my way to the shoemaker’s to pick up a repaired shoe. When I got out the next morning, I finished my errand, put on my mended shoe, and joined a huckleberry picking group that was eager for me to lead them. Within half an hour—because the horse was quickly hitched up—I found myself in the middle of a huckleberry field on one of our highest hills, two miles away, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.

This is the whole history of “My Prisons.”

This is the complete story of “My Prisons.”

I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and, as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow-countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax-bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man, or a musket to shoot one with,—the dollar is innocent,—but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.

I’ve never refused to pay the highway tax because I want to be a good neighbor just as much as I want to be a bad citizen. As for supporting schools, I’m doing my part to educate my fellow citizens already. It’s not any specific item in the tax bill that I’m refusing to pay. I simply want to reject my loyalty to the State, to distance myself from it completely. I’m not interested in following my dollar’s journey, even if I could, until it supports someone or buys a gun to shoot someone with—the dollar itself is innocent—but I care about the impact of my loyalty. In fact, I quietly declare war against the State in my own way, even though I’ll still take advantage of whatever benefits it offers me, as is common in these situations.

If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.

If others pay the tax that I’m being asked to pay out of sympathy for the State, they’re only doing what they’ve already done for themselves, or they’re actually supporting injustice even more than the State demands. If they pay the tax out of a misguided concern for the individual being taxed, to protect his property or keep him out of jail, it’s because they haven’t thought carefully about how much they’re allowing their personal feelings to get in the way of the greater good.

This, then, is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his actions be biassed by obstinacy, or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.

This, then, is my position right now. But one has to be cautious in this situation to avoid letting stubbornness or excessive concern for what others think influence their actions. It’s important to focus on what truly matters to oneself and what is relevant to the moment.

I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well; they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think, again, this is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill-will, without personal feeling of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But, if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker of fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.

I sometimes think, "Well, these people mean well; they're just not aware. They would act better if they understood how. So why cause your neighbors this discomfort by expecting them to behave differently?" But then I remind myself that doesn't mean I should follow their lead or let others endure a much greater kind of pain. I also tell myself, when countless people, without hostility or personal feelings, ask you for just a few coins, and it's impossible for them to take back or change this request, and you can't appeal to other people for support, why subject yourself to this overwhelming pressure? You don't fight against cold and hunger, the wind and the waves, with stubbornness; you resign yourself to a thousand similar necessities. You wouldn't stick your head in the fire. However, as I see this not entirely as brute force but partly as human force, and recognize my connection to these millions as fellow human beings rather than just lifeless objects, I realize that I can appeal, first and foremost, to their creator and, secondly, to them as individuals. But if I deliberately put my head in the fire, there’s no way to appeal to the fire or its creator, and I can only blame myself. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be okay with people as they are and treat them accordingly, instead of based on what I think they and I should be, then, like a good Muslim who accepts fate, I would try to be content with things as they are and say it's God's will. Moreover, there's a key difference between resisting this situation and a purely natural force: I can push back against this with some effect; but I can't expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of rocks, trees, and animals.

I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and state governments, and the spirit of the people to discover a pretext for conformity.

I don't want to argue with anyone or any country. I don't want to nitpick, make complicated distinctions, or think of myself as better than my neighbors. Instead, I’m looking for a reason to follow the laws of the land. I'm more than willing to do so. In fact, I often question myself about this; and each year, when the tax collector arrives, I feel inclined to examine the actions and roles of the federal and state governments, as well as the attitudes of the people, to find a reason to comply.

“We must affect our country as our parents,
And if at any time we alienate
Out love of industry from doing it honor,
We must respect effects and teach the soul
Matter of conscience and religion,
And not desire of rule or benefit.”

“We need to impact our country like our parents did,
And if we ever distance ourselves
From honoring our hard work,
We should value the consequences and educate our spirit
About matters of conscience and faith,
Not for the sake of power or gain.”

I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable, and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?

I believe that the government will soon be able to take all my work like this out of my hands, and then I won’t be any better a patriot than my fellow citizens. From a more basic perspective, the Constitution, despite its flaws, is quite good; the law and the courts are quite respectable; even this state and this American government have many admirable qualities and are rare things to be thankful for, as many have described them. But from an even higher perspective, who can really say what they are, or if they’re even worth considering at all?

However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.

However, the government doesn’t bother me much, and I’ll give it the least amount of thought possible. I don’t spend a lot of time living under a government, even in this world. If a person is free from thoughts, free from fantasies, and free from imagination, then what is not rarely seems to be for them; foolish leaders or reformers can’t seriously disrupt their life.

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 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,—what, for instance, it behoves a man to do here in America today with regard to slavery, but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer as the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man,—from which what new and singular code of social duties might be inferred?—“The manner,” says he, “in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it, is for their own consideration, under the responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me and they never will.” [These extracts have been inserted since the Lecture was read —HDT]

I know that most men think differently than I do; but those who dedicate their lives to studying these or similar subjects don't satisfy me at all. Statesmen and lawmakers, being so deeply entrenched in the system, never truly see it clearly. They talk about changing society, but they have no foundation without it. They may have some experience and understanding, and they've certainly come up with clever and useful systems, for which we genuinely appreciate them; but all their cleverness and usefulness fall within quite narrow limits. They tend to forget that the world isn't run by just strategy and pragmatism. Webster never looks beyond government, so he can't speak with authority about it. His words carry wisdom for those legislators who don't envision any fundamental reform in the current government; but for thinkers and those who legislate for the long term, he never touches on the topic. There are people whose calm and insightful speculations on this subject would quickly showcase the limitations of his mindset and openness. Still, when compared to the hollow claims of most reformers and the even more superficial wisdom and rhetoric of politicians in general, his words are nearly the only sensible and valuable ones, and we're grateful for him. In comparison, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Yet his quality isn't wisdom but rather prudence. The attorney's truth isn't Truth, but rather consistency or a consistent practicality. Truth is always in harmony with itself and isn't primarily concerned with revealing the justice that could accompany wrongdoing. He rightfully earns the title, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. He really only delivers defensive blows. He isn't a leader but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87. "I've never made an effort," he says, "and I don't plan to; I've never supported any effort, and I never intend to support any effort, to disturb the original arrangement through which the various States joined the Union." Still thinking of the approval the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was part of the original compact—let it remain." Despite his sharpness and skill, he can't take a fact out of its purely political context and see it as it can be analyzed intellectually—such as what, for example, one should do here in America today regarding slavery. Instead, he resorts to some desperate response like this, while claiming to speak in absolute terms and as a private individual—what new and unique code of social duties could be inferred from this?—“The way the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for them to decide, under their accountability to their constituents, their general sense of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, driven by a sense of humanity or for any other reason, have nothing to do with it. They have never had my support, and they never will.” [These extracts have been inserted since the Lecture was read —HDT]

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

Those who are unaware of any truer sources of truth, who haven’t traced its origins further back, wisely remain loyal to the Bible and the Constitution, and approach them with respect and compassion; but those who see where it flows into this lake or that pool, prepare themselves again and keep moving towards its source.

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.

No one with a gift for creating laws has emerged in America. Such individuals are rare throughout history. There are countless orators, politicians, and articulate speakers, but none have yet stepped forward who can effectively address the pressing issues of our time. We appreciate eloquence for its own sake, not for any truth it might convey or any inspiration it might stir. Our lawmakers haven't grasped the relative importance of free trade, personal freedom, unity, and integrity for a nation. They lack the genius or skills needed to tackle the practical matters of taxes, finance, trade, manufacturing, and agriculture. If we relied only on the flowery speeches of our legislators in Congress, without the timely insights and genuine concerns of the people, America wouldn't maintain its position among the nations for long. For eighteen hundred years, although I may not have the right to say this, the New Testament has existed; yet where is the lawmaker who has the wisdom and practical skill to utilize the guidance it offers on the art of legislation?

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.

The authority of government, even the kind I'm okay with submitting to—because I’ll gladly follow those who know more and can do better than I can, and in many cases even those who know less—still isn’t completely pure: to truly be just, it needs the approval and consent of the people it governs. It has no legitimate right over my body and property except what I give it. The move from an absolute monarchy to a limited monarchy, and then from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is progress toward genuinely respecting the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher wisely viewed the individual as the foundation of the empire. Is democracy, as we understand it, the ultimate improvement in government? Isn’t it possible to go even further in recognizing and organizing human rights? There will never be a truly free and enlightened State until it acknowledges the individual as a higher and independent force, from which all its own power and authority come, and treats them accordingly. I like to imagine a State that can be fair to everyone and treat individuals with respect as neighbors; a State that wouldn’t even think it’s a problem if a few people choose to live separately, not interfering with it or being drawn into it, who still fulfill all their responsibilities as neighbors and fellow humans. A State that produced this kind of environment, and let it thrive as it emerged, would pave the way for an even more perfect and glorious State, which I have also envisioned, but haven’t seen anywhere yet.


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!