Would Thoreau be a suicide bomber?
That’s a rather startling title to a post. But I have to ponder the weird connection between today’s class and the deliberate plane crash this morning in Austin, TX.
The pilot of the plane was angry at the government and its historic inability or reluctance to treat its citizens fairly. You may read his letter, apparently meant to be his suicide note, here. It’s six pages but is not rambling. Don’t get me wrong: Mr. Stack rants. I’m sure those in the class will have the same experience that I have had: I could not help but think of Thoreau again when I was reading Stack’s letter. This morning I had just led the class through a careful consideration of the last few paragraphs of Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience.
Paragraph 52
No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak, who i capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the sasonable experience and the effectual complains of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations.
Paragraph 53
…There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived…
No, I don’t think Thoreau would be a suicide bomber, which is what I’m calling Joe Stack. But I can imagine Thoreau listening to Mr. Stack. I can imagine him as an FBI negotiator talking to Joe Stack. Thoreau doesn’t seem to be the kind of guy who would resort to endangering other individual’s lives to make his moral and political point. But it’s pretty hard not to imagine vast areas of agreement between these two men.
Maybe that’s what’s creeping me out.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. 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 (2) and Luther,(3) and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?