Rhetorical Analysis Essay- “Civil Disobedience” The public should not obey and respect a faulty, harmful or malfunctioned government. The essay “Civil disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau alerts the public of that idea and expounds upon it in a variety of ways. With his authorative, rebellious and mainly condescending tone, compelling point of view and diction he inspires the readers to espouse his distaste for the U.S. government and their unjust treatment of the American public. Why follow and associate yourself with a stronger, more powerful institution then yourself that is impure, less than perfect and abuses their powers? With that idea implanted into the audience’s mind, Thoreau proceeds to exercise diction while fully getting his point across.
Civil Disobedience In Civil Disobedience Thoreau is talking about the purpose of the American government and its citizen’s role in the government. Thoreau starts with the faults of the government and how it is bent to the will of specific people. Then Thoreau talks about the rights and duties of the citizen. He finishes with his own act against the government and how it turned out. In this essay Thoreau makes the points that the government does not keep the country free, doesn’t settle the west, and doesn’t educate.
Thomas Jefferson’s ideology of a thriving Republic was that in order for the country to be successful and complete, all the Americans had to share the same values and beliefs. Thomas Jefferson felt that the Blacks and Indians were problematic in the success of a Republic because of their different culture, values, and beliefs. This is what I found to be the main purpose of the secondary source of Hollitz book, “Within the Bowels of the Republic” by Takaki. How can a Republic thrive if there are different races and cultures mixed within a nation without a sense of accepting the American customs and believe? This is the issue that mostly bothered Jefferson, since he wanted the creation of a perfect society.
At the end of the American Revolution the Articles of Confederation established an Anti-Federalist paradise in the United States. A weak league of friendship was formed between each state, angering Federalists who sought a stronger central government and causing political, economic and social problems. Shay’s Rebellion, inability to collect taxes and the worthless state currency were all problems that lead to the formation of a new constitution. After becoming free from the tyrannical rule of the British crown the Anti-Federalists were hesitant to establish a strong central government. This set into motion the forming of the Articles of Confederation which created a weak bond between states and a congress with essentially no power to put any law into motion.
However, even though the parties’ beliefs greatly differed there were some similarities between them. The Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs had varying political platforms which appealed to different people. The Jacksonian Democrats believed that the powers of the federal government had to be limited. Similar to the Jeffersonians they followed a strict view of the constitution believing that state rights were more important than federal rights. The Whig Party on the other hand opposed the ideology of the Jackson Democrats and wanted more federal power.
Abraham Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth This reaction paper is on Abraham Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth by H. Herndon. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States. I learnt that he had an immense moral vision of where his country must go to protect and enlarge the rights of all citizens. He loathed war but it turned out that war broke out over his ideas to abolish slavery (making all citizens equal). Lincoln's formal education was limited and irregular.
Another evidence that supports Thoreau’s belief of the government is the government’s power itself. Thoreau believed that way the government obtains its power is from the majority which is the strongest group, and because they are stronger they when because of their power, not moral or best solutions. He goes on to say people should put what they morally think is right before what the law says. Though the government is powerful, Thoreau believed that they are not ethically right in which they should govern. Another example of Thoreau’s beliefs is his opinion on the duty’s of the individual.
‘Liberal Democrats are suspicious of state power, yet support big government in the pursuit of economic management and social reform’ The liberal democrats were formed in 1988 from The Social Democrat party, set up by four ex labour members. Currently the liberal democrats have formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. Classical liberals traditionally believe in negative liberty when it comes to state power (The idea that the state should have as little intervention as possible, socially and economically to enhance the freedom and innovation of the individual, therefore not infringing basic, natural rights). Classical Liberals prefer to keep the state to a minimum however with enough framework to provide basic laws prohibiting other regarding actions and to regulate government power. These views where portrayed by many liberal philosophers such as Adam Smith, in regards to economic management; he believed that free trade and free markets where fundamental to successful economic growth, as individuals, consumers and business would create competition and feel confident within the economy.
Lack of democracy In many ways the US Constitution is an undemocratic document. Many of the founders were scared of democracy because they believed in bad human nature: people are both virtue and self-interest, so simple democracy can’t work (Federalist #55). In general, the constitution was created to protect the minority from the majority. In order to prevent over use of power, faction (#10) and tyranny a separation of power complex structure (also known as “checks and balances” #51) was built (based upon the philosophy of Montesquieu), under which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are kept distinct. Philosophers, such as John Locke, supported the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as
America’s Rise to World Dominance This chapter of American history states a very important turning point in American government and power not of its own nation but over nations oceans away. This made a a clear representation of American force not ‘to’ but ‘over’ others that are not Anglo-Saxon or have something that America simply demands. Reading this today, subjectively, I understand this to be an unruly act of oppression, more surprisingly from a nation that understood what it meant to be oppressed yet imposed imposed it over others seemingly without mercy. In the textbook it notes that many people opposing such imperialism had a strong foothold in the politics but in the end they simply did not have enough people to support the claim