To What Extent Did The American Colonists Refuse To Let The People Rule

The five acts referred to as the Coercive Acts or the Intolerable Acts were too oppressive for the mind of the colonists to endure. Observing the discipline issued by their mother country onto Massachusetts, the residents of all colonies began to fear the loss of their rights and liberties as a result of their protests. Britain had clearly gained control of Massachusetts for all the colonists to view. By changing the charter, suspending local government, establishing military rule, and allowing Catholic Quebec Colonist land, the Colonist were left to question what kind of autonomy was guaranteed. Even though these Acts only applying to Massachusetts, the other colonists assembled to take charge of their rights. Colonists did not take lightly

An idea from the Enlightenment was that there is a 'social contract' between a government and its people that claim the government should protect the people's rights, and if that contract is broken it is the people should revolt. Hence, if the colonists felt as if the several acts passed by Parliament took away their rights and that the British government did not uphold the 'social contract' between them, then in their opinion their rebellion was wholly justified. Additionally, why would the colonies stay with a government that killed its own people? The Boston Massacre, March 5th, 1770, was a small bloodshed that had an extensive impact. The "Boston Engravings" especially helped unite the colonies by depicting the Boston Massacre as a British slaughter of innocent, harmless colonists. During the Boston Massacre, the colonists were anything but harmless and innocent, however, the colonists would not have been protesting if it weren't for the heavy taxation levied by the Townshend Act. Let's not forget about the Olive Branch Petition of July 1775. The colonists sent the Olive Branch Petition, which reaffirmed the colonists' allegiance to the King but not to Parliament, to King George III, yet he rejected it and sent additional troops to the colonies. You can not say the colonists did not try to negotiate peace with the British and once the King denied their peace negotiation he

Civil disobedience, the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government, has proven in the past to be a very effective tool. In the case of civil disobedience the laws are being violated in order to change a law that is

From Cherokee Indians refusing to abandon their homes in 1838 to the Sit-ins of the civil rIghts movement in the early 1960s, people have been using acts of civil disobedience to stand against injustice they saw in their communities. Although there are many examples of people abusing this benefit and causing more grief and shame than progress, many have used it to their advantage to bring about positive change for the greater good of society, therefore acts of civil disobedience can positively impact a free society if they remain peaceful, respectful, and justified.

Civil disobedience is defined as the “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in government policy or legislation, characterized by nonviolent means”; theories on this topic have been debated for centuries. (American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition pg161) Henry David Thoreau was well known for his refusal to participate in the political systems or activities of his era, not only by refusing to pay his poll taxes for six consecutive years, but also by announcing that he did not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau stresses the need to prioritize one’s conscience over the dictates of laws. A person should not be obligated to devote his or her life to eliminating evils from the world, but is only obligated not to participate in such evils themselves. He argues that the government rarely proves itself useful and this derives from the power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they hold the most legitimate views. Justice is the quality of being just, impartial or fair. Thoreau doubted the effectiveness of reform within the government, and argued that voting and petitioning for change served useless. He felt that justice had different standards for each different group. Which raises the question, is justice fair for everyone? When a government is unjust, people should

From the time we are children and throughout the duration of our lives, we are told to abide by certain sets of rules. In most situations this is a perfectly acceptable expectation; speed limits, remaining quiet in libraries, and waiting until the age of twenty-one to drink are all reasonable things to ask of people. After all, these rules and laws are put in place to ensure a peaceful and safe society. However, when these rules begin to infringe upon the rights of certain groups, some citizens turn to civil disobedience as a form of protest. While some may argue that civil disobedience is nothing more than a violation of the law, it has also proven to have a positive impact on society, in more ways than one. Used by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin

The law is meant to preserve order, safety, and other aspects of society, and generally should not be disobeyed. However, civil disobedience is crucial to society. Civil disobedience improves society and keeps society and government accountable to their respective duties. Civil disobedience is a necessary civic duty, necessary to rein in government and society and keep them accountable to their respective duties. An example of this is the release of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg.

In this case, disenfranchised individuals have no other recourse than civil disobedience. But civil disobedience is not only a tool for those being oppressed, for it also serves as an avenue for secure individuals to object towards laws that they think are unjust. In committing acts of civil disobedience in free societies, individuals are attempting to change their society for the

Without this civil defiance, laws and government practices would not have undergone the necessary adjustments that have refined the legal structure followed today. Regarding political obligation, which is relative to the topic at hand, most arguments made favoring adherence to the regulations of the government still leave room for an individual to disagree with and even defy the law. In The Revised Definition of Civil Disobedience Due to the Effect of Social Networks, a book that talks about the constantly changing definition of civil disobedience, Sonia Shaikh says, “…utilitarianism states actions and decisions that produce the most utility or happiness are those one should follow. This belief may very well lead to an individual deciding his compliance with the political institution of his country is best, but it can also produce the opposite: an individual may come to realize that only by defying his government (or perhaps supporting the law of another country) will he be able to achieve a more beneficial state” (13). Shaikh clarifies political obligation and its underlying effects as well as the way individuals may believe that disobedience is the only way they can make a change for the better. She showcases the way one may have different understandings of the same law as well as the way one person’s right is another’s

Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? This moral question addresses what we commonly know as civil disobedience. In order to properly discuss civil disobedience and whether or not it is moral to disobey laws, we must first characterize civil disobedience. In Peter Singer's book, Practical Ethics he begins to characterize civil disobedience as arising from "ethical disagreement" and raising the question of whether "to uphold the law, even if the law protects and sanctions things we hold utterly wrong?" (Singer 292).

     Any one can say that a law is unfair and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against an unjust law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. Even though they shared many beliefs in many of the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience, they had many different

Disobedience has been a man’s virtue ever since laws have been constructed. As a progression that has developed in our society , it is safely to indicate that disobedience is morally acceptable by the common people. In order for change, people have demonstrated  disobedience successfully to promote social progress, change is impossible without disobedience.Our society has failed to realize that there is no such thing a “perfect society”. There are people in our society who agree with change and would sacrifice themselves for it through violence and multiple times of rejection. Many individuals known as the majority simply do not like change. This majority is the group that construct these laws that we must follow.  Thoreau states ,” A majority is permitted , and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are mostly likely right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority,  but because they are physically the strongest.” Although we do perceive the system as the strongest, citizens still use disobedience to challenge the system’s authority. Disobedience is a man’s virtue when our natural rights are being violated by the majority . In order for change to occur the common people must use disobedience to fight the injustice in their society to promote social progress.

According Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, he mentions that to require civil disobedience, the circumstances must be like America’s. Circumstances like practicing war, deriving power from the people, having unjust laws, and supporting slavery. Thoreau writes, “must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation?” (Thoreau ). He mentions how no man should be subdued to any government or institution, especially if it portrays unjust. Therefore he also implies that if a law exhibits unjust, the population should not follow the law with the knowledge of the consequence. Similarly, Thoreau establishes, “when . . . a whole country 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,” (Thoreau ). He explains how it expresses the duty of Americans to rebel and use civil disobedience, it is not just a right, but it drives Americans to be aware of and completely use for the advantage of society. Thoreau further explains the unlawful government by stating, “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which the slave's government also,” (Thoreau ). He describes the circumstance of America as a prejudiced institution, which rightfully allows citizens to use their duty of civil disobedience. A government should require unjust laws, slavery, aggressive law, and strength over intelligence to cause civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience a citizen’s duty and they must maintain it.

”Unjust law is no law at all.” In face of unjust laws, merely tolerance and obeying could be detrimental not only to personal rights but also to the well-being of the society. Therefore, it is indeed every people’s responsibility to disobey or even resist them. As we know during the sixties of America a number of citizens decided not to obey the law which itself is unjust and wrong any longer. Without their resistance, there wouldn’t have been the civil rights movement, anti-war

It is said that "when the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." Certainly, if an unjust law has been placed oppressively over the population by an unjust faction, it is the responsibility of any virtuous people to rise up and depose the said faction. Yet, it is equally important to distinguish between the laws being fought and laws as a whole. The common issue in our day and age, at least from my perspective, is the obfuscation of injustice and order, villainy and restriction. Of course, when referring to peaceful resistance, it is entirely acceptable, and rather enhances free society more than it detracts