|
LITR 4328: American Renaissance .png){kind=small} |
Model
Assignments |
 |
Kristina Koontz
I Don’t Take Orders from You:
Civil Disobedience in the American Renaissance
I have no desire to be overtly political
if I can avoid it, but when discussing the idea of civil disobedience (or
passive resistance) one has to acknowledge those words are couched in political
terms and always have been. Civil disobedience at its most basic definition
involves refusing to follow laws set by one’s government in a passive or
peaceful manner. Within a democratic system like the United States that is
hugely important and yet lately, with an administration passing laws that a
large chunk of the country dislikes, it hasn’t gotten the spotlight it deserves.
There is a difference, I should note, between
challenging a law and
disobeying it. Right now, people who
dislike laws are challenging them in courts of law, not necessarily refusing to
comply with them altogether. And this is a shame in hindsight because civil
disobedience has a long history in America that seems to be criminally
overlooked in favor of splashier, violent disobedience – i.e. rebellions or
revolutions. The American Renaissance had a few key moments where civil
disobedience was brought up as a possible solution or actually enacted.
I don’t remember learning about Thoreau
in my American History courses at any point in high school despite learning of
Texas history and government. I don’t think he was even brought up in my Texas
Government course at this university. He offers one of the most upfront examples
of civil disobedience in his essay “Resistance to Civil Government”. In it, he
says the following: “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 [Mexico] 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.” This is direct
commentary on both the issue of slavery in America, and also Americas
land-robbery of Mexico in the Mexican-American War. Once again, I never learned
a ton about this, and when it was brought up, Texas was made to seem one of the
victories and good guys. But, as Thoreau argues, if you look at the actions
taken without any kind of partisan filter, is was quite literally robbery from
another nation. He even says at the beginning that, had the people known this
for what it was, “the people would not have consented to their [the
government’s] measure.”
Of course, Thoreau’s suggestion is not civil disobedience
in the “passive resistance” lens that others took to grievances, or at least he
doesn’t word it that way. Thoreau never actually uses the term “civil
disobedience” directly in his essay. What he seems to be in favor of is
political uprising, and that is not always peaceful. On the other hand, he does
provide an example of true civil disobedience. “…ay, if one honest man, in this
State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from
this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be
the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning
may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever.” Even if one person
disobeys an unjust law, that’s a good start, because it could inspire others to
follow their lead. Yes, disobeying subsequently means getting arrested, because
if you disobey the law that technically means you are also breaking it, i.e. you
are not following it like you are supposed to. But a lot of people Americans
admire have wound up in prison for exactly that reason. The law might say you
are doing something wrong by disobeying, but it is an American’s civic duty to
be involved in the government – and sometimes, you won’t be heard the ordinary
way, through protests or petitions or any of the “official” spectrums, so you
have to get creative. Sometimes, breaking the law is one of the few ways for
people who make said laws to notice.
In fact, civil disobedience doesn’t have to tie directly
into the government. Fredrick Douglas has a good example of truly small scale
resistance. During an interaction with a Mr. Covey in “The Narrative of the Life
and Times of Fredrick Douglas, a man, Covey, orders
him to take his clothes off, presumably to be whipped for prior clumsiness with
some oxen. Douglass doesn’t even say “No” to Covey – he just refuses to comply
altogether (10.5). It should be noted now that Thoreau, unlike Douglas, had
inherent privilege when it came to civil disobedience in this era. If a slave
like Douglas refused to comply with an order, they aren’t just shoved into a
jail cell. They’re physically abused. Civil disobedience is tainted by racial
bias. Thoreau is on one end while Douglas is on the other. Douglas gives another
prime example of this bias much later in his story. For a while, Douglas works
in a ship-yard under a Mr. Gardener. For a while, nobody sees the racial mixing
as a problem. Then “All at once, the white carpenters knocked off [went on
strike], and said they would not work with free colored workmen. Their reason
for this, as alleged, was, that if free colored carpenters were encouraged, they
would soon take the trade into their own hands, and poor white men would be
thrown out of employment.” (10i.3) They even threatened to quit unless Mr.
Gardener “discharge[d] his black carpenters.” (10i.3)
The white workmen here are employing civil disobedience.
Why they suddenly raise an issue about this so suddenly isn’t clear, but the
idea that black carpenters were “going to take their jobs” is ringing a
depressing bell of familiarity. We’re seeing a similar protest today when it
comes to Latinos and whites concerning jobs – regardless of the fact that the
jobs Latinos are “taking” are not the jobs white Americans are afraid of losing.
But this instance proves that civil disobedience is also subject to perspective.
Both Douglas and the white ship-yard workers are performing civil disobedience
in their respective ways, and both parties don’t see what they are doing as
wrong. Yet, from a liberal democrat’s hindsight perspective, what the white
workers are doing is clearly wrong. Douglas was a free man at that point, so he
was just as much a human being and a fellow worker as they were, so what they
were doing was disguising racism as civil disobedience.
I think civil disobedience thus can some in two different
varieties. The first kind would be a large political uprising like Thoreau
suggests about slavery and the Mexican-American War, that may or may not end up
breaking into actual conflict. The other kind would be small scale resistance
like the kind Douglas and the white carpenters employ. Both men wound up
supporting both kinds of disobedience. But it should be noted that large
disobedience can only start when individuals stand up alone to protest an act,
or a law, or a policy they deem unjust. Once you have enough people disobeying,
whether individually or as a group, then the government is forced to take
notice. I further believe we need to teach what civil disobedience is in schools
– not just as a historical topic but as a concept in it of itself, because it is
a vital function of a democratic nation. Voting is something we’re all taught is
good and should be done. If we study civil disobedience through history, why not
as a topic the same way we teach things like home economics, music, or science
classes? It would (I hope) be one of those classes where no one has to raise
their hand and go “When are we ever going to use this?” Because I think now is
one of those times in history when we really need to get our collective “civil
rebel” on.
