{"id":1424,"date":"2011-11-09T00:21:53","date_gmt":"2011-11-09T04:21:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=1424"},"modified":"2011-11-21T12:23:55","modified_gmt":"2011-11-21T16:23:55","slug":"an-angel-of-light","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=1424","title":{"rendered":"An Angel of Light"},"content":{"rendered":"
I spent the time I was going to use writing this post instead re-reading Henry David Thoreau’s A Plea for Captain John Brown<\/em>. Here’s an excerpt<\/a> that’s particularly interesting to me as a lawyer and that explains the nature of Thoreau’s “Plea,” but read the whole thing<\/a> and be reminded that great heroes have lived and died in America:<\/p>\n Any man knows when he is justified, and all the wits in the world cannot enlighten him on that point. The murderer always knows that he is justly punished; but when a government takes the life of a man without the consent of his conscience, it is an audacious government, and is taking a step towards its own dissolution. Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not<\/em> good? Is there any necessity for a man\u2019s being a tool to perform a deed of which his better nature disapproves? Is it the intention of law-makers that good<\/em> men shall be hung ever? Are judges to interpret the law according to the letter, and not the spirit? What right have you<\/em> to enter into a compact with yourself that you will<\/em> do thus or so, against the light within you? Is it for you<\/em> to make up<\/em> your mind, \u2014 to form any resolution whatever, \u2014 and not accept the convictions that are forced upon you, and which ever pass your understanding? I do not believe in lawyers, in that mode of attacking or defending a man, because you descend to meet the judge on his own ground, and, in cases of the highest importance, it is of no consequence whether a man breaks a human law or not. Let lawyers decide trivial cases. Business men may arrange that among themselves. If they were the interpreters of the everlasting laws which rightfully bind man, that would be another thing. A counterfeiting law-factory, standing half in a slave land and half in free! What kind of laws for free men can you expect from that?<\/p>\n I am here to plead his cause with you. I plead not for his life, but for his character, \u2014 his immortal life; and so it becomes your cause wholly, and is not his in the least. Some eighteen hundred years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a chain which is not without its links. He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel of light.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The post I was going to write, until I got sidetracked, would have been prompted by the piquant comments<\/a> IOZ incurred for declaring himself<\/a> a radical but not a revolutionary. It would have cited Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n It is not a man\u2019s duty, as a mat\u00adter of course, to de\u00advote him\u00adself to the erad\u00adi\u00adcat\u00adion of any, even the most enor\u00admous wrong; he may still prop\u00aderly have other con\u00adcerns to en\u00adgage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it prac\u00adti\u00adcally his sup\u00adport. If I de\u00advote my\u00adself to other pur\u00adsuits and con\u00adtem\u00adplat\u00adions, I must first see, at least, that I do not pur\u00adsue them sit\u00adting upon an\u00adother man\u2019s shoul\u00adders. I must get off him first, that he may pur\u00adsue his con\u00adtem\u00adplat\u00adions too. See what gross in\u00adcon\u00adsis\u00adtency is tol\u00ader\u00ada\u00adted. I have heard some of my towns\u00admen say, \u201cI should like to have them or\u00adder me out to help put down an in\u00adsur\u00adrec\u00adtion of the slaves, or to march to Mex\u00adico, \u2014 see if I would go;\u201d and yet these very men have each, di\u00adrectly by their al\u00adle\u00adgiance, and so in\u00addi\u00adrectly, at least, by their money, fur\u00adnished a sub\u00adsti\u00adtute.<\/p>\n . . .<\/p>\n As for adopt\u00ading the ways which the State has pro\u00advided for rem\u00adedy\u00ading the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man\u2019s life will be gone. I have other af\u00adfairs to at\u00adtend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not ev\u00adery thing to do, but some\u00adthing; and be\u00adcause he can\u00adnot do ev\u00adery thing<\/em>, it is not nec\u00ades\u00adsary that he should do some\u00adthing<\/em> wrong. It is not my busi\u00adness to be pe\u00adti\u00adtion\u00ading the governor or the legislature any more than it is theirs to pe\u00adti\u00adtion me; and, if they should not hear my pe\u00adti\u00adtion, what should I do then? But in this case the State has pro\u00advided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stub\u00adborn and un\u00adcon\u00adcil\u00adi\u00ada\u00adtory; but it is to treat with the ut\u00admost kind\u00adness and con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00adation the only spirit that can ap\u00adpre\u00adci\u00adate or de\u00adserves it. So is all change for the bet\u00adter, like birth and death which con\u00advulse the body.<\/p>\n . . .<\/p>\n How\u00adever, the gov\u00adern\u00adment does not con\u00adcern me much, and I shall be\u00adstow the few\u00adest pos\u00adsi\u00adble thoughts on it. It is not many mo\u00adments that I live un\u00adder a gov\u00adern\u00adment, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imag\u00adi\u00adna\u00adtion-free, that which is not<\/em> never for a long time ap\u00adpear\u00ading to be<\/em> to him, un\u00adwise rulers or re\u00adform\u00aders can\u00adnot fa\u00adtally in\u00adter\u00adrupt him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n