Henry David Thoreau was an individualist.

He avoided groups in general and

organized reform movements in particular. Yet his philosophical views made joining
the abolition movement a moral imperative. Although he ascribed to the principles
of 19th Century Transcendentalism, he never joined a particular group espousing
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience:
this school of thought. Misty A. Adams
Missouri University of Science & Technology
“Transcendentalism can be seen as the religious and intellectual expression of
American democracy: all men have an equal chance of experiencing and
expressing divinity directly, regardless of wealth, social status, or politics.”
(Witherell, 1995)

This is a fairly accurate description of not only Thoreau’s life but his writings, as
well. In his essay Civil Disobedience, these transcendentalist ideals are clarified via
Thoreau’s personal philosophy and become the core point of the speech: it is the
duty of the individual to remedy the inexpediency of government. A night in jail is
oft-times a powerful inspiration, and Thoreau’s night of incarceration (for not
paying a poll tax intended to fund war with Mexico) is no different. His struggle to
do right and be heard resulted in his penning Civil Disobedience, first as a speech and
then later as an essay.

This paper will analyze the rhetorical structure of Thoreau’s Civil

Disobedience through the classical arrangement form. It will not analyze each
paragraph, but focus on two—very important—sections of the essay. Combined,
sections 2 and 3 make up a complete oratory within the overall speech.

It is important to note here that Thoreau does not strictly adhere to classical
oratorical arrangement; in fact, he seems to toss it about like so much salad.
However, upon close reading, it can be argued that he does, in fact, employ a micro-
arrangement technique within particular sections of the essay. Thoreau employs
this micro-arrangement technique much in the way a boxer weaves and slips in a
match. The back-and-forth structure of the essay moves the audience in close to
Thoreau’s true point, yet pulls safely away at the last moment to avoid damning
confrontation. The essay’s structure and its argument against inexpedient
government simultaneously obscure and reveal Thoreau’s implicit thesis, his attack
upon the audience themselves.

About the Essay

Thoreau delivered the speech, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, to the

Concord Lyceum in Concord, MA in 1848. A year later, after revising the speech, it
was published in Aesthetic Papers in 1849 under the title Resistance to Civil
Government. (Mott, 2009) In its time, the essay went relatively unnoticed, despite
being described by the Boston press, when it was first published, as “crazy”. (Levin,
2003, p. xxix) It was not until the 20th Century that Civil Disobedience is said to have
been truly discovered. Political reformers such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin
Luther King, Jr. have both credited Thoreau’s essay as pivotal inspiration. (Levin,
2003, p. xxix)

Theses

The explicit thesis of Civil Disobedience is simple. It is the duty of the people
to act when government has become inexpedient. This is made plain in the
introductory paragraph. “Government is at best but an expedient; but most
governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient…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.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶1)

The implicit thesis, however, seems to be this: Government is but a machine

created “by the People”. If this is, in fact, true, if the actions of Government are
immoral and unethical then any and all actions and inactions of the People to
maintain such a Government make them equally immoral and unethical. Therefore,
the only way to alter the machine is for the People to cease their immoral actions by
ceasing to support the machine.

2
 Had Thoreau announced this outright in a lyceum full of colleagues,
neighbors, and friends, he most likely would have been tossed out on his ear. Most
people do not take kindly to being told they are not only unethical, but are also
immoral cogs in a machine of their own making. “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.” (Thoreau,
1993/1894,  ¶ 1) This idea explains why the original title of the speech is ‘On the
Duty of Civil Disobedience’ and not ‘the really good idea of Civil Disobedience’.
Paragraph 18 seems to state this idea most clearly:

“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.” (Thoreau,
1993/1894,  ¶ 18)

Essay Analysis

Thoreau begins the essay by stating, “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.” (Thoreau, 1849/1993,  ¶ 1) It is a shout to his
audience, a request that they sit up and pay careful attention to what he is about to
discuss.

Thoreau alludes to his implicit thesis throughout Civil Disobedience, at times

using himself as an example of how the People should act: when to pay and when
not to pay their taxes.

3
 “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…[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.” (Thoreau, 1849/1993,  ¶
36)

“I have paid no poll tax for six years…[The State] 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.” (Thoreau, 1849/1993,  ¶ 26)

Thoreau continues to shout his explicit thesis in his conclusion, stating:

“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…
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.” (Thoreau,
1849/1993,  ¶ 45)

Thoreau is clearly concerned with justice and injustice, especially that

administered by government at the will of the people; this focus results in Civil
Disobedience being an obvious example of judicial discourse.

“Under a government which imprisons 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 despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put
out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put

4
 themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the
Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his
race should find them; on that separate but more free and honorable ground,
where the State places those who are not with her, but against her—the only
house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think
that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the
ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do
not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more
eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little
in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your
whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is
not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.
If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery,
the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay
their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it
would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed
innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any
such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one
has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do
anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the
officer has resigned from 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.” (Thoreau, 1849/1993,  ¶ 22)

Yet, just as we will see how he ignores the strict rules of classical oratorical
arrangement, he also disregards the strict rules of rhetorical discourse. His speech is
judicial, deliberative, and ceremonial by turns. One moment he is exhorting the
immorality of inexpedient government, the next he is epideictic, discussing a
pastoral huckleberry hunt and providing a poignant counterpoint to his night in jail.

5
 “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.”
(Thoreau, 1849/1993,  ¶ 34)

Section Analysis

Civil Disobedience, the version we are now most familiar with (Thoreau,
1849/1993), is an essay consisting of 45 paragraphs. For this paper, the essay has
been divided into eight sections, excluding Thoreau’s introduction and conclusion:

1. 2-7 Government vs. the Individual—Gov’t is a machine created by the people,

it is only as expedient, moral, or ethical as the people themselves.
2. 8-9 Resistance—the Individual’s moral obligation to resist.
3. 10-16 Local government and attack on the People—why YOU are immoral.
4. 17-22 Individual resolution—individual actions, an overall call to action.
5. 23-35 Illustration of personal action—Thoreau’s jail experience.
6. 36-38 Explanation—of Thoreau’s actions.
7. 39-41 Resignation—at the inaction of the People.
8. 42-44 Attack on Politicians—their inaction and immorality.

For this rhetorical structural analysis, we will focus on sections 2 and 3.

It cannot be said that Thoreau is unaware of his micro-organizational

technique; it cannot be accidental. He was classically educated at Harvard, although
he expressed dissatisfaction with the college’s teaching methods. Ralph Waldo
Emerson is supposed to have remarked that most of the branches of learning were
taught at Harvard and Thoreau is said to have replied, “Yes, indeed, all the branches
and none of the roots”. (Witherell, 1995) One as individual as Thoreau most likely
spent a great deal of time paddling against Harvard’s methodical educational

6
current, and yet his obstinate personal sense of right and wrong eventually results
in the effective breaking of classical rules.

Classical oratorical arrangement consists of the following:

 Exordium – announces subject and purpose of the discourse.

 Narratio – explains the nature of the case.
 Partitio – points at the issue in the case.
 Confirmatio – offers logical arguments as proof, appeal to logos.
 Refutatio – answers opponent’s counterarguments.
 Peroratio – employs appeal through pathos, often includes a summation.

Sections 2 and 3 employ all of the above oratorical tools but they are not
arranged in the classical order. Combined, these two sections make up a complete
oratory within the overall speech due to Thoreau’s micro-arrangement of the
classical oratorical tools. Section 2 discusses Resistance—the Individual’s moral
obligation to resist an unjust government and section 3 addresses Thoreau’s attack
upon government and upon the People—why they are both immoral.

When sections 2 and 3 are read closely they are found to begin and end in the
classical tradition, beginning with exordium and concluding with peroratio.
However, it is how Thoreau realigns the other classical oratorical tools within this
structure that is interesting. When the paragraphs of the sections are broken down,
the following sectional structure is found:

Section 2
¶ 8 Exordium
 narratio
 confirmatio

¶ 9 Refutatio
Section 3

¶ 10 Narratio
¶ 11 Confirmatio
¶ 12 Partitio

7
 ¶ 13 Confirmatio
¶ 14 Partitio
¶ 15 Peroratio
¶ 16 Peroratio
This structure lends to Thoreau’s approach to both of the essay’s theses, leading the
audience to one, then backing away and diverting their attention to the other. In this
way he is able to overtly express the problem of government and subtly express the
true cause of inexpedient government: the People or, more exactly, the actions and
inactions of the Individual.

Section 2 begins with paragraph 8 and exhibits micro-arrangement within

the paragraph itself:

“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.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 8)

8
 The first sentence of paragraph 8 is the exordium of sections 2 and 3. “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.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 8) But paragraph 8 also includes confirmatio
and peroratio.

“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.”
(Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 8)

Here Thoreau is offering up a logical argument, the confirmatio, “it is a great evil
make a stir about it.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 8) He is pointedly saying that the
current government is just as inexpedient as the government Americans rebelled
against in 1775. He then states a peroratio, issuing a call to action and an appeal
through pathos:

“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.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶
8)

Paragraph 9 is these sections’ refutatio, out of place in that it immediately

follows the exordium rather than, more classically, preceding the peroratio. Thoreau
introduces William Paley’s “Duty of Submission to Civil Government“ as a
counterargument to his own. (Paley, a late 18th Century British Christian apologist,

9
philosopher, and utilitarian, is best known for his God as a Watchmaker analogy.
(William Paley)) Paley’s counter is, “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 inconvenience, it is the will of God . . . that the established
government be obeyed...” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 9) and effectively stating that cost
analysis is the proper measure for contemplating the value of obeying government.
Thoreau counters with a demand for justice, “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. “ (Thoreau,
1993/1849, ¶ 9) Thoreau intimates that the Individual’s duty of obtaining justice
cannot be ignored because of perceived “ public inconvenience”.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 are narratio and confirmatio, respectively. Normally,

partitio is placed between these but Thoreau places it after them in paragraph 12.
This order brings the audience into contact with Thoreau’s implicit thesis:

“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…They hesitate, and they regret,
and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect….
At most, they give up only a cheap vote…” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 10)

“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.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 11)

10
 “[The respectable man] 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.
(Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 12)

These paragraphs are stating that the individual makes himself submissive to
government through both inaction (not voting) and action (voting). Yet Thoreau
provides the individual with what he announces as the only redemptive action,
available and reminds him of his moral duty to take on this recommended action in
the confirmatio of paragraph 13:

“It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the

eradication of any, even to 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...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.“
(Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 13)

Thoreau again uses partitio in paragraph 14, again stating the point at issue,
“The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to
sustain it.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 14)

Paragraphs 15 and 16 move on to peroratio. Thoreau is summing up the

arguments of sections 2 and 3 and appealing to his audiences’ sense of justice.

“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 to it 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

11
 with anything which was. It not only divided States and churches, it divides
families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the
divine.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 15)

Section 3 ends with paragraph 16:

“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 put 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?”
(Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 16)

Paragraph 16 contains the overall peroratio for sections 2 and 3. “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.“ (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 16)
When combined, the exordium and peroratio form a complete argument:

“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…[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.

12
 But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the
evil. It makes it worse.“ (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 8, 16)

This, then, establishes the overall argument expressed within sections 2 and
3, which is Thoreau’s explicit thesis. However, Thoreau’s micro-arrangement
method also brings to light his implicit thesis: the People must cease their immoral
actions by ceasing to support the machine. “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.” (Thoreau, 1993/1849, ¶ 18)

In Conclusion

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience strikes as much of a chord today as it did in the

last century for Gandhi and MLK. But we should not walk away from the essay only
appreciating the value of resisting that which we find morally wrong, we should also
appreciate Thoreau’s liberal, yet effective, use of classical oratorical rhetoric. Rather
than directly insult his audience, he uses classical tools to carefully craft his speech
around two distinct theses, one hinged upon the other. Thoreau seems to have had
faith that those who were willing to truly listen would grasp his true meaning and
act from it.

13
References

Levin, J. (2003). Introduction. In G. Stade (Ed.), Walden and Civil Disobedience (pp.
xii-xxxiv). New York: Barnes & Noble Books.

Mott, W. (2009). Civil disobedience. The Walden Woods Project. Retrieved October
12, 2010 from
http://www.walden.org/Library/About_Thoreau's_Life_and_Writings:_The_Researc
h_Collections/Civil_Disobedience

Thoreau, H. D. (1993). Civil disobedience. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 10,

2010 from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71 (Original work published 1849)

The Thoreau Reader. Retrieved October 13, 2010 from

http://thoreau.eserver.org/default.html

William Paley. Retrieved, October 26, 2010 from

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html

Witherell, E., Dubrulle, E. (1995). Life and times of Henry David Thoreau. The
Writings of Henry D. Thoreau. Retrieved October 13, 2010 from
http://www.library.ucsb.edu_thoreau_thoreau_life.html.html?
s=9ca9170a0ca10d1cc52b14861abbe7b5

14