Anticipating that his critics will accuse him of undermining the government and the nation in advocating for civil disobedience, Thoreau counters this charge, arguing that the government itself does little to ensure its own survival. In the course of his argument, he alludes to various figures who were persecuted by the government under which they lived:
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?
Thoreau begins with a series of questions, asking why the government does not do more to provide legal avenues for reform. Any government, he suggests, would rather silence its critics than take criticism seriously and learn from it. He then makes a quick list of allusions to figures who are associated with government persecution. First, he notes that it was the Roman government that crucified Christ. Then, he alludes to the astronomer Copernicus, who received criticism for his theories from the religious authorities of his time, and the Protestant reformer Martin Luther, who was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Finally, he turns to American history, alluding to “founding fathers” George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, who were declared “rebels” by Great Britain. Thoreau suggests that governments are, by their nature, quick to condemn but slow to accept reform.
Though many of Thoreau’s ideas regarding civil disobedience were radical for the time, he maintains that his argument against state tyranny is animated by the rebellious spirit that established the United States. Alluding to the American Revolution, Thoreau writes that:
All men recognize the right of revolution [...] 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 [...] 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.
By “the Revolution of ‘75,” Thoreau references the American Revolution of the 18th century which led to the independence of the United States from Great Britain. In alluding to this foundational event in American history, Thoreau highlights what he considers to be a contradiction in the nation’s culture: the United States was founded with an act of revolution, but Americans regard revolutionary politics with great suspicion, as either unrealistic or treasonous. Further, he argues that the government of Great Britain, considered tyrannical by the American revolutionaries, was more tolerable than the American government of his own time. Here, Thoreau does not mean to defend British colonial rule over the American colonies, but rather to suggest that Americans should continue to resist any oppressive government, including their own.
