An Apology for Henry

When the subject has refused his allegiance, and the officer resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished.” That was the quixotic code of Henry Thoreau’s private rebellion, too romantic, it seemed, for anyone but the author of Walden. Yet recently, Professor Frederick K. Sanders (NR, June 4) has argued that that same sentiment, as detailed in the essay “Civil Disobedience,” now serves as source and precedent for the growing rejection of authority and government. Further, by Professor Sanders’ analysis, the premises Thoreau advanced radically deny the philosophy that underlies and sustains America’s political structure. If both assertions are so, then perhaps a truly basic challenge really does lie in the new apotheosis of Henry David Thoreau.

But in defense of Thoreau, I believe at least three crucial points of this analysis can be disputed: 1) that in assigning final moral authority to the isolated individual, Thoreau varied radically from previous American philosophy, 2) that only this isolation of morality from community makes the theory of civil disobedience possible, and 3) that Thoreau’s doctrine also hides latent justification for a kind of anarchic warfare fought over conflicting moralities.

JL

About the Author

James Lundquist

Featured Tags

When the subject has refused his allegiance, and the officer resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished.” That was the quixotic code of Henry Thoreau’s private rebellion, too romantic, it seemed, for anyone but the author of Walden. Yet recently, Professor Frederick K. Sanders (NR, June 4) has argued that that same sentiment, as detailed in the essay “Civil Disobedience,” now serves as source and precedent for the growing rejection of authority and government. Further, by Professor Sanders’ analysis, the premises Thoreau advanced radically deny the philosophy that underlies and sustains America’s political structure. If both assertions are so, then perhaps a truly basic challenge really does lie in the new apotheosis of Henry David Thoreau.

But in defense of Thoreau, I believe at least three crucial points of this analysis can be disputed: 1) that in assigning final moral authority to the isolated individual, Thoreau varied radically from previous American philosophy, 2) that only this isolation of morality from community makes the theory of civil disobedience possible, and 3) that Thoreau’s doctrine also hides latent justification for a kind of anarchic warfare fought over conflicting moralities.