Compare and Contrast in Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”
And
Thoreau and King were two famous writers and speakers who lothe injustice. They were not content to wait around for the conditions of the Negroes to change, theybelieved in action and both ended up in jail defending their cause. King’s “Letter From Burmingham Jail,” and Thoreau’ “Civil Disobedience,” clarifing their stance are alike in many ways and differ in few.
Martin Luther King Jr. was first introduced to Thoreau’s writings as a student; he was so fascinated with “Civil Disobedience” that he read it several times. More and more as he became active in the cause of his race, he refers to Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and refuses to express his disapproval of injustice with violent and encouraged his his fellow citizens to follow his lead. His actions were emulating the admonitions of Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.” Thoreau was one of America’s transcendentalist who did not believe in the Mexican war or slavery and he urged Americans to show their disapproval by not supporting the government with their taxes. Thoreau believes that voting will change the government, however he feels that some issues like slavery and the Mexican war need immediate attention. To demonstrate his conviction he refused to pay taxes to the government; an action which landed him in jail. Jail did not suppress his passion to eradicate injustice. Thoreau would have been happy to know that his essay impacted at least one person; and he would have hailed King a man of conscience.
King begins his letter with a salutation to his fellow clergy, explaining to them the reasons why he is in jail and why he thought their actions were necessary. He tells them that ordinarily he does not pay attention to negative correspondence, however he feels that their letter needed attention especially since they disagree with the cruelty measure out to them as much as he. The thing that makes him different from them is his decision to take action. Considering that Birmingham was one of the most exploited city in the south this was an ideal place to demonstrate and show their repulsion. Unlike King, Thoreau greets no one, he hits the nail on its head. “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). Suely Thoreau would not have been as polite King if he were addressing these clergies.
As King argues his position, he seems to exercise patience, his tone is like one explaining a completed situation to a child. He tells them “since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms” (King 1963). As King continues to explain his presence in Birmingham, his tone implies that he is annoyed by the pettiness of these clergies. His manner is disbelief that they concern themselves with his presence rather than his cause in Birmingham. It sounds like King is condescending or irritated by their pettiness, it is like King is saying “shame on you,” being so trifle, nonetheless I am going to tell why I feel I must be in Birmingham and anywhere else that needs me. “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea” (King 1963). King defends his actions in hopes of setting his fellow clergies squabble to rest.
Thoreau does not care who is offended by his essay; he feels it is his duty to speak. His tone is accusatory and loathing he says to the government you are unjust and you ignore the fact that “all men are created equal.” All you are good at is exploiting your people and lowering your integrity in the process. Thoreau is angry and he does not understand why more people are not showing the same emotion like he. As far as Thoreau is concerned the law is not law until it is a just law and no one has the right to adhere to a law that is unfair. Thoreau switches from the government as he describes who is a real man, a real man will follow the dictates of his conscience. “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” (Thoreau 1849).
As King writes there is a tinge of anger; incredibly these clergies are isolating themselves from the rest of the Negroes; it is as if they are not affected by what is happening around them. According to King’s answer, they have the audacity to accuse him of infringing on others territory. It seems that there is a little jealousy on the part of the inquiring clergy. The more King writes is the more annoys he gets. He realizes that his colleagues are jealous. How could they make such an emotion develop in them; more so, how could they dare to articulate it. Definitely, Thoreau would not have been so gracious; boldly he would have addressed them with disdain With his usual aplomb King seeks not to defend himself but to show up their feckless ignorance. He says that they are concerned with the demonstration and have totally not seen the conditions that brought them to Birmingham in the first place. “You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations” (King 163).
King tells his colleagues that it is time for action. Accepting Thoreau’s council, King thinks he has waited long enough for the rulers of Birmingham to fulfil the promises that were made to them more than a year ago. They were insulting in that they tried to pacify the Negroes by pretending that they would yield to their requests. King waited patiently for the execution of these promises and now he decides that it is time for action. King was fulfilling Thoreau’s advice he had to follow his conscience. He must sleep well at nights, he does not want not spend sleepless nights chastising himself for not doing what he knows is right; because he fears the reaction from the leaders. He must make his stand and maintain his honor in the process. He embraces Thoreau’s claim that: “The right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable” (Thoreau 1949). King feels that as long as he does not become violent his demonstrations are necessary.
Thoreau wants to hold taxes from the government to show his displeasure with its injustice, but he is just one man who would hardly make a dent in the government’s revenue. King on the other plans strategically; making the actions effective, hurting the leaders of Birmingham where it matters most—in their pockets. The message that King is sending is loud and clear.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by
the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed For years now I have
heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity.
This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of
our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied" (King
1963).
Little did Thoreau know that almost a century after his death a descendant of the very people for whom he wrote the essay “Civil Disobedience” adhered to the voice of his conscience, stood up, spoke up, and was hailed the forerunner of the Negroes’ deliverance. Scarcely is there any difference between the two writings and that is a foregone conclusion sine King’s biggest mentor was Thoreau.
