This essay explores the differences in the views of Henry David Thoreau and Benjamin Franklin with regard to individual or personal freedoms. The views expressed here are derived principally from the specified readings provided in the Coursepack:
1. Henry David Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
2. Benjamin Franklin: The Autobiography (selections)
These two men had very different ways of expressing their views and beliefs. I intend to describe their separate approaches to freedom, beginning with Thoreau, then finally to highlight the clear differences between the outlooks and philosophies of Thoreau and Franklin.
In the opening paragraph of his essay, Thoreau declares his intrinsic opposition to government and cites the Mexican War (1846-1848) as an example of the government going to war to satisfy the demands of an influential few. The footnote on that page suggests that the war was – in the view of the abolitionists – merely a campaign designed to extend slavery into the contested territories. He goes on to state how, in his view, trade and commerce succeed only by circumventing legislation that serves in most cases only to impede their business. Thus he is offering further implicit criticism of the workings of government, in respect of restricting personal freedom. Then he introduces a voice of moderation, perhaps to defend himself against those who would accuse him of being an anarchist. He says: “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.”
However, he then returns to the attack by stating that in his opinion the reason a majority government continues to rule for a long term is not because they are in the right, but because they are strongest. Clearly objecting to that state of affairs, Thoreau makes a key statement: “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.” He follows that with another major plank in his concept of personal freedom, when he asserts that: “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right”.
He contrasts that ideal of freedom of thought and action, with an army that marches under orders from their government, whilst – according to Thoreau at least – they are as individuals peaceable by nature, and at heart go to war against their will. He also avers that with few exceptions, those who serve the government “are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God” and that those who resist the government are likely to find themselves treated as enemies of the state. He refines his generally hostile views towards government in general, by stating that one cannot be associated with the present American government without being disgraced by that association. And his concluding thought on the topic which gives an insight to the basis of much of his hostility towards the government is that “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.” In other words, by accepting slavery in America the government is unacceptable to him.
His rebellious attitudes and ideas continue in his essay when he comments on perceived injustices (of the government) and how to deal with them. In his view, if an injustice requires that an individual perpetrates that injustice to another, then it is right to break the law to avoid doing so. Then, returning again to the subject of slavery, Thoreau declares: “those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts”. Also on the same subject, later in his essay, Thoreau suggests that if even one honest man were to be imprisoned for withdrawing “from this copartnership”, then slavery in America would be abolished. He may have been alluding to his own example of submitting to (brief) imprisonment for refusing to pay a tax bill.
Finally, towards the end of the essay, Thoreau returns to the basic concept of individual freedom, when he says that: “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.”
In contrast to Thoreau, Benjamin Franklin – at least during the part of his life (childhood to age 20 years) covered by the reading listed at the beginning of this essay – does not come over as an outspoken campaigner for personal freedom in the way that Thoreau does. He does however go on to greater things later in public life, as documented by Lemay (1997) in his work: Benjamin Franklin: A Documentary History.
In the opening paragraphs of the reading described here, he portrays himself as a child with “a thirst for knowledge”. He loved reading and mentions a book by Dr Mather called Essays to Do Good, which he says affected his ideas and from those, his future life. Indeed, Dobkin Hall (2003) in his work: Documentary History of Philanthropy and Voluntarism in America, refers to Franklin subsequently corresponding with Mather’s son about the book and how it had influenced him, claiming it was responsible for making him into a “useful citizen”.
Although a naturally independent person at heart, and with half an idea to go to sea to make his fortune, Franklin was pressed into working in his brother’s printing business in Boston at the age of 12. Though capable and competent in his work, he continued his reading and thereby his learning at every opportunity, soon able to join in debates with his friends on issues such as education for women. Around the age of 16, he demonstrated his individualism by deciding to become a vegetarian and used the money saved by his now cheaper diet to buy yet more books. Those included a book on mathematics which he studied and mastered alone, compensating for his earlier failure in the subject at school. His reading also helped him to further develop his debating and arguing skills, and to speak in a less dogmatic manner, using more subtle techniques to win an argument. He considers this to have been extremely useful to him in later life when had the need to persuade others to his way of thinking.
It was that skill with words that led him into writing and to having his writings published, though initially under a pseudonym in his brother’s newspaper. Although those writings occasionally expressed sentiments against the authorities, his brother was not averse to that. However, the relationship with his brother was far from smooth, and Franklin soon realized he wanted to be freed from his indentured position in the family printing business. His brother objected, and to make sure Franklin could not work for any other printer in Boston, visited them all so that they would all refuse to employ the younger brother. Undaunted, Franklin sold some of his books to raise money, and slipped away to New York at the age of 17, to find work there.
Unfortunately, he could find no work in New York, but was recommended to try a contact in Philadelphia, to where he travelled with not a little difficulty and hardly any money in his pockets. However, he was determined and did find work there, though it was occasional work only and for two printers that he considered ill-equipped and of a poor standard. Then the Governor of the province took a liking to Franklin and promised to set him up in business and to see that he would get all the public printing work. This eventually resulted in the Governor persuading Franklin to travel to London, England to buy all the equipment for the new business, but unfortunately, as it transpired, without the letters of credit, etc that the Governor had always promised him but at the last moment had not provided. So, he found himself en route to England, but arrived there with no letter of credit, nor letters of introduction. However, enterprising character that he was, he secured work at a well-known printers and soon became noticed outside of his work for his writing, too. He was also promoted in his work, but after about 18 months was persuaded to return to Philadelphia as a clerk in the employ of a Mr Denham.
Having read the two documents mentioned at the beginning of this essay, it is apparent that Thoreau constantly and forcefully articulates and emphasizes what he sees as the God-given rights and freedoms of the individual, to the extent of questioning the right of the established government to rule the country. He comes over as a “political animal”, yet has no time for professional politicians. His fervour for individual freedom goes so far as to flout the law if he believes he is in the right, and encourages others to do the same in the same situation.
In contrast, Franklin – no less an individual in his outlook and an independent thinker like Thoreau – does not consciously express personal freedom in those same terms, apart from the occasional anti-government writings done under a pseudonym, whilst working for his brother’s newspaper. In his account, he instead demonstrates his individualism by his independence and freedom of action, rather than by his words. Unwilling to be tied down to years of a junior role in the brother’s business, he strikes out to find his own fortune elsewhere, showing himself as an ambitious man but also a free spirit. In the accounts of his wanderings during this period, he comes across as a good, fundamentally honest man – ambitious, though not yet finding success.
Summarizing, I think it can fairly be said that both Thoreau and Franklin value personal freedom, but view and express that freedom in quite different ways. Whereas Thoreau’s view is vocal and extreme, and he is prepared to flout the law in pursuit of his beliefs, Franklin appears a much more moderate and tolerant character, and for the most part lives by his beliefs, but does not try to impose them on others.
Works Cited
Coursepack. CORE 2002 / English 3386. Summer 2012. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience. Franklin: The Autobiography (selections).
Dobkin Hall, Peter. Documentary History of Philanthropy and Voluntarism in America. Harvard Kennedy School. Web. 30 May 2012.
Lemay, J. A. Leo. Benjamin Franklin: A Documentary History. (1997). Delaware University. Web. 30 May 2012.
