Henry Thoreaus Civil Disobedience and Martin Luther King Jr. :: Henry Thoreau, Martin Luther King

Henry David Thoreaus Civil Disobedience took the original idea of transcendentalism and put it into action. His civil acts of defiance were revolutionary as he endorsed a form of protest that did not incorporate strength or fear. Thoreaus initial actions involving the protest of many g overnmental issues, including slavery, landed him in jail as he refused to pay taxes or to run away. Ironically, more than one hundred years later, the same issue of equal rights was tearing the United States apart. Yet African Americans, like Martin Luther King Jr., followed in Thoreaus footsteps by partaking in acts of civil disobedience. Sit-ins and peaceful rallies drew attention to the issue while keeping it from escalating into a much(prenominal) more violent problem. Thoreaus ideas were becoming prevalent as they were used by Civil Rights Activists and the Supreme Court, in such cases as Brown v. gameboard of Education. The ideology that was created by Thoreau aided the activists and the government in their quest for equality and a more just system of law. The main goal of the Civil Rights case was to instate equality under the law. King was a figurehead for the Civil Rights Movement. Kings ability to organize factions into a force that was unaffected by violence greatly contributed to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. In a letter he wrote from a Birmingham jail, King describes the four steps to non-violent protest. The first step is collection of the facts to train whether an injustice exists.i This relates to Thoreaus critique of an unjust government. Thoreau believed that every machine had friction, yet when the friction comes to develop its machinelet us not have such a machine any longer.ii In the case of civil rights, the government has the friction of racial inequalities. That friction had several machines which enables whites to prevail over African Americans. Kings second step was negation. Thoreau lived during a time when negotiati on was non-existent. He met the government once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer this is the only elan in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it.iii In the case of Thoreau and King, their struggle could not be decide by simple negotiation. The third step, as King calls it, was self purification.