The Significance and History of Civil DisobedienceJoin now to read essay The Significance and History of Civil DisobedienceIntroductionCivil disobedience has always been a debated and polar opinionated topic since the first days that it was presented. Whenever it comes to going against a law that is set in stone as something to abide by in a society, some controversial actions are going to follow. The person who played the role as somewhat of a backbone in this movement was Henry Thoreau. In 1849, when Henry Thoreau re-iterated the idea of civil disobedience to the people of American following the Mexican war, it was viewed by some as extremely controversial, some viewed it as treason, and then there were the followers that were completely accepting of it and felt it necessary. This is why, when the idea came of mixing this idea of civil disobedience that was already controversial, with the slavery and whether it should be used against the fugitive slave act, was a real catalyst for uproar and praise. The uproar clearly came from some people with high positions in the United States. Two advocates for the compromise of 1850 and the fugitive slave laws were two candidates for president of the United States, Franklin Pierce from the democratic party and Winfield Scott. Although Franklin Pierce, the eventual winner of the election, wasn’t as candid about his beliefs regarding slavery, he was definitely opposed to civil disobedience against the fugitive slave laws. These supporters generally included northern democrats and southern Whigs. The opposition to the compromise of 1850 and the fugitive slave act consisted mainly of abolitionists of slavery at the time. The most powerful and effective users of their rights to civilly disobey usually came from the north mainly because they had the opportunity. The fugitive slave act caused citizens living in the north were required to return escaped slaves if they found them. If they were not to return the slaves, they were lawful to pay a $1,000 fine. Some abolitionists that did not abide these rules and rather than returning slaves, they took them in and gave them extra opportunities to stay free. The Underground Railroad could also be looked to as a manner of civilly disobeying against the fugitive slave laws that were in affect at the time. (Bailey)
EvidenceFor my topic regarding the upcoming paper for this class, I chose the topic, idea and belief of civil disobedience. This topic has proven to be very interesting to me because it seems controversial yet still accepted in society. From my previous knowledge after briefly discussing this in class, the right of civil disobedience gives citizens the right to civilly disobey and revolt against something maybe of the government that they feel is unjust. This idea of civil disobedience was extremely prevalent throughout the civil war and more specifically when the law of the fugitive slave act was passed. I feel as if there is a lot more to it and much more for me to comprehend about the topic so it should be a very interesting experience researching and finding more information about this idea of civil disobedience.
One of the first and probably most renowned practices of civil disobedience was happened in 1846 when Henry Thoreau refused to pay his taxes and spent a night in jail. Although he was unfortunately let out the next morning due to someone paying his debt, he set an example that would be used by many for years to come. Obviously this idea of going against something unjust caused by the government had been an idea stirring around the minds of citizens at the time but Henry Thoreau’s experience was one of the more publicized and famous examples of this type of rebellion at the time however there were some very specific types of this to occur as well. In 1841 free blacks in free black territories led a tax refusal protest in Massachusetts. They felt that if they did not receive equal treatment as other normal citizens then they shouldn’t have to pay their normal taxes. They were willing to go to jail rather than put up with this. Why pay money to institutions that treated them unfairly? Their slogan behind this act was “No privileges – no pay.”
Close to this time, radical abolitionists in the United States were disagreeing with the constitution. They felt that because it supported slavery, that it should be considered an invalid document and with Henry Thoreau’s idea of civil disobedience, this is a legitimate thought. An interesting parallel between these instances is that after Henry Thoreau’s stay in jail, he became an abolitionist from then on. Once slavery got worse and worse, Henry Thoreau’s intentions got worse and worse, he went from sitting a night in jail, to wanting to use violence to get his point across, along with many of the other abolitionists at the time because there comes a time, even with civil disobedience where the government may only respond to things as
The Civil War is actually one of the few major American history events in which one of the most significant moments of this period came shortly after the Civil War. When the Confederacy and a group of Southern states marched through the streets of Washington to seize the White House, which was a mere two weeks after the Civil War, Washington was furious at the Civil War and wanted to move on and stop the secession. Meanwhile, Jefferson Davis, a radical abolitionist from the North, had been working in the South from 1861 to the end of July to prepare a paper to fight for freedom in both North and South. Jefferson Davis, in his “Letter to the Convention of the State of New York” (1868) wrote that he, along with other moderate abolitionists (including John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, William Howard Taft, John Wilkes Booth, George Mason, James Madison, Robert E. Lee and John Marshall, Joseph Rote, David A. Contreras, William S. Phelps and others), was opposed to the proposed “Constitution” as a whole. Jefferson Davis’ letter to an assembled meeting of those members came about as a form of political retribution to him and to the state of the Union from which the Civil War came to fruition, to the extreme disappointment of Jefferson Davis. The letter was sent at the head of a crowd of abolitionists, including the abolitionist delegates, who went around the country protesting against the proposed constitution in opposition to the Constitution and a constitutional convention.Â
To this day, abolitionists around the country say that their belief that if Jefferson Davis was being assassinated, there’s a possibility that the Constitutional Convention would not have met in the first place. And the same would not be true for political threats made in opposition to the proposed Constitution. This belief is based on a common misunderstanding about the nature of the Constitution, which exists at any time of the year within the boundaries of the United States. It’s that there might be something like a political threat on April 14, 1964, against the constitutional amendment to the Constitution. It’s that there might be something like a national election, some kind of an event (such as a National Thanksgiving Day, for example) to vote upon the election of Governor and the other major political actors in that state to replace the existing State Supreme Judicial Council in the current state. And many other things, which are based on similar beliefs, may happen as the American Constitution was being changed. The truth has to be recognized for what it is, something akin to what it really is—the power and power of the state to enforce the law.
If the Supreme Court of the United States were to be abolished, the Constitution on its face, of course, would be completely obliterated–except, of course, for the very fact that it is currently standing on the Court’s desk, almost in all of those states