Desobedientzia zibila - 4

Süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 4445
Unikal süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 1759
17.3 süzlär 2000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
23.0 süzlär 5000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
26.8 süzlär 8000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
Härber sızık iñ yış oçrıy torgan 1000 süzlärneñ protsentnı kürsätä.
ads place
basati edo natural bati aurre egiterakoan dagoen aldea honakoa da:
lehenari aurre egiterik badudala hein handi batean, baina ezin dut
espero, harri, zuhaitz eta piztien izaera aldatzea, Orfeok18 aldatzen
zituen bezala.
Ez dut inongo gizon edo naziorekin ika-mikatan ibili nahi. Ez dut
txikikeriatan ibili nahi, bereizketa sotilak egiten edota neure burua
auzoen gainetik jarri. Haatik, herrialdearen legeen menpean jartzeko
aitzakia baten bila nabilela esan dezaket. Horien menpean jartzeko
prestuegi ere banago. Are gehiago, hori dela eta neure burua susmagarritzat jotzeko arrazoirik badut; urtero, zerga-biltzailea hurbiltzen
zaidanean, gobernu orokorra eta Estatuko gobernuaren ekintzak eta
jarrera zein herriaren izpiritua berriz aztertzeko prest aurkitzen dut
neure burua, men egiteko aitzakia bat aurkitzearren.
Gurasoak adina maite behar dugu herria;
eta, sekula ere, gure maitasun edo ekintzak
hari ohore egitetik urruntzen baditugu,
ondorioak onartu behar ditugu eta arimari irakatsi
kontzientziaren eta erlijioaren ikasgaia,
ez eta aginte edo etekin nahia19
18 Greziako mitologian, poeten eta musikarien burua zen Orfeo. Musika eta kantuaren bidez,
txoriak, arrainak eta basapiztiak lilura zitzakeen, zuhaitzak zein harkaitzak dantzan jarri eta ibaien
ibilbidea aldatu.
19 George Peele, ‘The Battle of Alcazar’ (1594).

Estatuak aurki lan hori guztia eskuetatik kenduko didala uste dut,
eta orduan ez naiz nire herrikideak baino abertzaleagoa izango.
Ikuspuntu baxuago batetik ikusita, Konstituzioa, dituen akats guztiak
izanda ere, oso ona da; legeak eta auzitegiak errespetagarriak ditugu
oso; Estatu hau eta Ameriketako gobernu hau ere, hein handi batean,
gauza miresgarri eta bitxiak ditugu oso; eskertzeko modukoak,
askotxok deskribatu dituzten bezala. Baina ikuspuntu zertxobait
garaiago batetik ikusita, nik deskribatu bezalakoak dira, eta ikuspuntu
are garaiagotik, eta garaienetik, ikusita, nork esango luke zer diren,
edota merezi ote duten aztertzea edo gogoan ibiltzea ere?
Dena dela, ez nau gobernuak asko kezkatzen, eta ahal bezain gutxi ibiliko dut hura gogoan. Gobernuaren pean bizi ditudan uneak ez
dira asko, mundu honetan ere. Gizon bat pentsaera askekoa, irudimen librekoa, bada, ez dena ez bazaio luzaroan badela iruditzen, ez
dute inoiz gelditzerik izango agintari edo erreformatzaile okerrek.
Badakit gizon gehienek nik ez bezala pentsatzen dutela; baina gai
hau edo antzekoak aztertzea lanbide dutenek beste inork bezain gutxi
konbentzitzen naute. Estatu-gizonei eta legegileei, erakundeen baitan
erabat murgilduta egonik, ezinezkoa zaie hura argi eta garbi ikustea.
Gizartea mugiarazteaz mintzo dira, baina handik at ez dute aterperik.
Baliteke eskarmentu eta adimen handiko gizonak izatea, eta zalantzarik gabe sistema burutsuak eta erabilgarriak ere asmatu izan dituzte.
Eskerrak ematen dizkiegu, bihotzez, horien guztiengatik. Baina gizon
horien agudezia eta balioa oso zabalak ez diren mugen artean daude.
Joera dute ahazteko mundua ez dutela politikak eta komenigarritasunak gobernatzen. Websterrek20 ez du sekula gobernuaren atzetik
dagoena ikusi, eta hori dela-eta, ez du hartaz autoritatez mintzatzerik. Haren hitzak jakinduriaz beterikoak dira soilik dagoen gobernuan
funtsezko aldaketa beharrik ikusten ez duten legegileentzat. Pentsalariarentzat, eta betiko legeak sortzen dituztenentzat, berriz, hark ez dio
inoiz gaiaren funtsari heldu. Ezagutzen ditut gai hauei buruzko espekulazio bare eta argien bidez luze gabe Websterren adimenaren eta
20 Daniel Webster (1782-1852), Massachusettsko Senatuko kidea. Esklabotza abolitzearen aldeko
muturrekoen zein sezesionisten kontra mintzatu zen.

ahalmenaren mugak agerian utziko lituzketenak. Halere, erreformatzaile gehienen jardun merkeekin parekatuz gero, eta, oro har, politikarien jakintasun eta hitz-jario are merkeagoekin, Websterrenak ditugu
hitz zuhur eta baliotsu bakarrak, eta eskerrak ematen dizkiogu Zeruari
harengatik. Alderatuz gero, hura beti da indartsua, originala eta, batez
ere, praktikoa. Halere, haren bereizgarria ez da jakintasuna, zuhurtzia baizik. Legegilearen egia ez da Egia, baizik eta koherentzia, edota
komenientzia koherentea. Egia beti dator bat bere buruarekin, eta ez
da nagusiki kezkatzen argitzeaz zer justizia izan daitekeen koherente
oker jokatzearekin. Konstituzioaren Defendatzaile izena ongi merezi
du hark, eta hala esan diote. Ukabilkadarik jotzen badu, defentsarako
izango da. Ez da aitzindaria, jarraitzailea baizik. Haren aitzindariak
87ko gizonak21 dira. “Ez naiz sekula saiatu”, dio, “ezta saiatuko ere,
ez dut inoiz saiorik babestu, ezta babestuko ere, Estatuak Batasunera
ekarri zituen jatorrizko akordioa nahasteko”. Konstituzioak esklabotza legeztatzen duela gogoan duelarik, zera dio: “Jatorrizko itunaren
atal bat denez, gorde dezagun”. Zorroztasun eta gaitasun berezia izan
arren, ez da gai datu bat bere testuinguru politikotik ateratzeko eta
adimenaren aurrean biluzik datzala aztertzeko: esaterako, egungo
Amerika honetan gizon bati nola dagokion jokatzea, esklabotza dela
eta. Hori egin beharrean, absolutuki eta gizabanako gisa mintzo dela
adierazten badu ere, funsgabeko erantzuna ematera ausartzen da, edo
horretara bultzatzen dute –eta, horretatik, zer nolako betebehar kode
berria atera daiteke gizarterako? “Esklabotza nola arautu behar den”,
dio, “hura ametitzen duten Estatuetako Gobernuen kontua da, boto-emaileen aurrean, jabegoaren, gizatasunaren eta zuzentasunaren
lege orokorren aurrean eta Jainkoaren aitzinean erantzule direlarik.
Gizatasun sentipenak edota beste edozein arrazoik bultzatuta beste
inon sorturiko elkarteek ez dute horretan zeresanik. Niregandik ez
dute inongo sostengurik jaso, ezta jasoko ere”.
Egiaren iturbegi garbiagorik ezagutzen ez duten horiek, haren isuria gorago bilatu ez dutenek, alegia, Biblia eta Konstituzioan gelditu
21 Ameriketako Estatu Batuetako Konstituzioa idazteko Konbentzioa 1787. urtean egin zuten, Philadelphian

dira, zuhurki gelditu ere, eta errespetuz zein apaltasunez, handik edaten dute; baina ur xirripa aintzira honetara edo putzu hartara nondik
heltzen den ikusten dutenek, kemena bildu eta erromesaldia jarraitzen dute iturbegirantz.
Ameriketan ez da legegintzarako jeinuz jantziriko gizonik agertu.
Urri dira munduaren historian. Badira milaka hizlari, politikari eta
hitz ederreko gizon; baina gaur egungo arazo gatazkatsuak konpontzeko gai den mintzalari batek ere ez du oraindik ahoa zabaldu. Elokuentzia elokuentziarengatik maite dugu eta ez, adieraz dezakeen
egiagatik edota susta dezakeen heroitasunagatik. Gure legegileek ez
dute oraindik ikasi librekanbioa eta askatasuna, batasuna eta zuzentasuna zein baliotsuak diren nazio batentzat. Ez dute jeinu edota talenturik konparazioz apalak diren gaientzako: zerga eta Änantzarako,
merkataritzarako, industria eta nekazaritzarako. Kongresuko legegileen mintzatzeko trebetasuna izango balitz gure gidaritza bakarra, eta
herriaren eskarmentu egokiaren eta kexu eraginkorrek zuzenduko ez
balute, Amerikak ez lioke luzaroan eutsiko nazioen artean duen postuari. Orain dela mila eta zortziehun urte idatzi zuten Testamendu
Berria, beharbada esateko eskubiderik ez badut ere; non da, ordea,
legegintzaren zientziarako isurtzen duen argiaz baliatzeko behar adinako jakituria eta trebetasun praktikoa duen legegilea?
Neure burua Gobernuaren autoritatearen menpean jartzeko irrikan naiz, nik baino gehiago dakiten eta trebeago diren horiek gogotsu obedituko baititut, eta, gauza askotan, hainbeste ez dakiten edo
horren iaio ez diren beste horiek ere bai. Autoritate hori, ordea, ez
da garbia oraindik: guztiz zuzena izateko, gobernatuen baimena eta
onarpena behar du. Nire pertsona eta ondasunen gain ezin du hark
inongo eskubiderik izan, nik emandakoaz aparte. Monarkia absolututik mugatura dagoen aurrerapena, eta monarkia mugatutik demokraziara, gizabanakoarekiko zinezko errespeturantz eginiko aurrerapena
da. Filosofo txinatarra ere behar bezain jakintsua izan zen gizabanakoa inperioaren oinarritzat hartzeko. Demokrazia al da, ezagutzen
dugun moduko demokrazia, alegia, gobernugintzan egin daitekeen
azken hobekuntza? Ezin al da giza eskubideen ezagupen zein antolaketarantz beste aurrerapausorik egin? Estatu zinez aske eta ilustraturik
ez da izango harik eta Estatuak gizabanakoa indar garaiagotzat eta
independentetzat onartzen eta gizabanakoarengandik indar eta autoritate oro datozkiola ametitzen eta horren arabera tratatzen duen
arte. Plazer hartzen dut irudikatzen azkenean gizon guztiekiko zuzen
izaten lortuko lukeen Estatua, gizabanakoa auzo gisa, begirunez, tratatuko duena; bere lasaitasunaren kontrakotzat hartuko ez lukeena
gizon bakan batzuk harengandik aparte, harekin nahastu gabe, haren
baitatik at bizitzea, betiere, auzoen eta hurkoen betebehar guztiak
konplituko zituzketen gizonak. Halako fruiturik eman eta heldu ahala
erortzen utziko zukeen Estatuak bidea prestatuko zion Estatu are perfektuago eta bikainago bati. Azken hau ere imajinatu dut, baina ez
dut inon ikusi oraindik.

Desobedientzia Zibila
haurrei azalduta

Donald B. Johnsonen marrazkiak
Thoreauren inguruan

D.

B. Johnson ilustratzaile estatubatuarra Thoreauren idazkiekin liluratuta dabil gaztetatik.
Pentsalariaren bizitzako hainbat pasarte
haurrentzako liburu bihurtu ditu, eta horiekin arrakasta
handia izan du AEBetan. Tartean dago Heny mendira
igotzen da (Henry Climbs a Mountain), Thoreauren kartzelaldia kontatzen duena.
Lan horretarako egin zituen hainbat zirriborro berreskuratu ditu, liburu honetan argitaratzeko.
Istorioa osorik irakurri edo egileaz gehiago jakin nahi
duenarentzat:


Henry mendira igotzen da

Henry zapatariarengana zihoan,
baina Max zerga-biltzaileak gelditu egin zuen:
“Henry -esan zion- ez dituzu zergak ordaindu”.
“Nekazariei esklaboak izaten uzten dien estatu
bati ordaintzea? Bai zera!”, esan zuen Henryk.

“Ordaindu beharko duzu, edo kartzelara joan”,
esan zuen Samek.
“Eraman nazazu bada kartzelara”, esan zuen
Henryk.
Eta Samek espetxera eraman zuen.

Danba! itxi zen atea. Henry ohean etzan zen eta horma zuriei zein sabai zuriari begiratu zien.
Zapatarik gabeko oina hormaren aurka jarri zuen. “Beste oinetakoa izan nahiko nuke”, pentsatu
zuen.

Arkatzak atera zituen poltsikotik eta txoriak
zein zuhaitzak marrazten hasi zen.

Zuhaitzaren azpian, bide bat marraztu zuen;
erreka gurutzatzen eta mendira igotzen zuen
bidexka. Marrazturiko botak busti zituen Henryk.

Orduan atea ireki egin zen. Sam zen.

“Norbaitek zure zerga ordaindu du”, esan zuen
Samek. “Zer moduzkoa da aske izatea?”

Henryk irribarre egin zuen. “Mendi oso garai
baten tontorrean egotea bezalakoa da!”

Eta zapatariarengana joan zen, zapata pare
berria erostera.

Civil
Disobedience
Henry David Thoreau

I

heartily accept the motto, “That
government is best which governs
least”; and I should like to see it acted
up to more rapidly and systematically.
Carried out, it Ànally amounts to this,
which also I believe--”That government is
best which governs not at all”; and when
men are prepared for it, that will be the
kind of government which the will have.
Government is at best but an expedient;
but most governments are usually, and all
governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
The objections which have been brought
against a standing army, and they are many
and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may
also at last be brought against a standing
government. The standing army is only
an arm of the standing government. The
government itself, which is only the mode
which the people have chosen to execute
their will, is equally liable to be abused and
perverted before the people can act through
it. Witness the present Mexican war, the
work of comparatively a few individuals
using the standing government as their tool;

for in the outset, the people would not have
consented to this measure.
This American government--what is it but a
tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring
to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity,
but each instant losing some of its integrity?
It has not the vitality and force of a single
living man; for a single man can bend it to
his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the
people themselves. But it is not the less
necessary for this; for the people must
have some complicated machinery or other,
and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of
government which they have. Governments
show thus how successfully men can be
imposed upon, even impose on themselves,
for their own advantage. It is excellent, we
must all allow. Yet this government never
of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the
alacrity with which it got out of its way. It
does not keep the country free. It does not
settle the West. It does not educate. The
character inherent in the American people
has done all that has been accomplished;
and it would have done somewhat more, if
the government had not sometimes got in
its way. For government is an expedient,

by which men would fain succeed in letting
one another alone; and, as has been said,
when it is most expedient, the governed are
most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if
they were not made of india-rubber, would
never manage to bounce over obstacles
which legislators are continually putting in
their way; and if one were to judge these
men wholly by the effects of their actions
and not partly by their intentions, they
would deserve to be classed and punished
with those mischievious persons who put
obstructions on the railroads.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen,
unlike those who call themselves nogovernment men, I ask for, not at one
no government, but at once a better
government. Let every man make known
what kind of government would command
his respect, and that will be one step toward
obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the
power is once in the hands of the people, a
majority are permitted, and for a long period
continue, to rule is not because they are
most likely to be in the right, nor because
this seems fairest to the minority, but
because they are physically the strongest.
But a government in which the majority
rule in all cases can not be based on justice,
even as far as men understand it. Can there
not be a government in which the majorities
do not virtually decide right and wrong, but
conscience?--in which majorities decide
only those questions to which the rule of
expediency is applicable? Must the citizen
ever for a moment, or in the least degree,
resign his conscience to the legislator? Why
has every man a conscience then? I think
that we should be men Àrst, and subjects
afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a
respect for the law, so much as for the right.

The only obligation which I have a right to
assume is to do at any time what I think right.
It is truly enough said that a corporation
has no conscience; but a corporation on
conscientious men is a corporation with a
conscience. Law never made men a whit
more just; and, by means of their respect for
it, even the well-disposed are daily made
the agents on injustice. A common and
natural result of an undue respect for the
law is, that you may see a Àle of soldiers,
colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powdermonkeys, and all, marching in admirable
order over hill and dale to the wars, against
their wills, ay, against their common sense
and consciences, which makes it very steep
marching indeed, and produces a palpitation
of the heart. They have no doubt that it is
a damnable business in which they are
concerned; they are all peaceably inclined.
Now, what are they? Men at all? or small
movable forts and magazines, at the service
of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit
the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a
man as an American government can make,
or such as it can make a man with its black
arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of
humanity, a man laid out alive and standing,
and already, as one may say, buried under
arms with funeral accompaniment, though
it may be,
“Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O’er the grave where out hero was buried.”
The mass of men serve the state thus, not
as men mainly, but as machines, with their
bodies. They are the standing army, and the
militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,
etc. In most cases there is no free exercise
whatever of the judgement or of the moral
sense; but they put themselves on a level

with wood and earth and stones; and wooden
men can perhaps be manufactured that will
serve the purpose as well. Such command
no more respect than men of straw or a lump
of dirt. They have the same sort of worth
only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these
even are commonly esteemed good citizens.
Others--as most legislators, politicians,
lawyers, ministers, and ofÀce-holders-serve the state chieÁy with their heads; and,
as the rarely make any moral distinctions,
they are as likely to serve the devil, without
intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes,
patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great
sense, and men--serve the state with their
consciences also, and so necessarily resist
it for the most part; and they are commonly
treated as enemies by it. A wise man will
only be useful as a man, and will not submit
to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the
wind away,” but leave that ofÀce to his dust
at least:
“I am too high born to be propertied,
To be a second at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the
world.”
He who gives himself entirely to his
fellow men appears to them useless and
selÀsh; but he who gives himself partially
to them in pronounced a benefactor and
philanthropist.
How does it become a man to behave toward
the American government today? I answer,
that he cannot without disgrace be associated
with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that
political organization as my government
which is the slave’s government also.
All men recognize the right of revolution;
that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and
to resist, the government, when its tyranny
or its inefÀciency are great and unendurable.

But almost all say that such is not the case
now. But such was the case, they think, in
the Revolution of ‘75. If one were to tell me
that this was a bad government because it
taxed certain foreign commodities brought
to its ports, it is most probable that I should
not make an ado about it, for I can do without
them. All machines have their friction; and
possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil
to make a stir about it. But when the friction
comes to have its machine, and oppression
and robbery are organized, I say, let us not
have such a machine any longer. In other
words, when a sixth of the population of
a nation which has undertaken to be the
refuge of liberty are slaves, and 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. What makes
this duty the more urgent is that fact that the
country so overrun is not our own, but ours
is the invading army.
Paley, a common authority with many
on moral questions, in his chapter on the
“Duty of Submission to Civil Government,”
resolves all civil obligation into expediency;
and he proceeds to say that “so long as the
interest of the whole society requires it, that
it, so long as the established government
cannot be resisted or changed without public
inconveniencey, it is the will of God. . .that
the established government be obeyed--and
no longer. This principle being admitted, the
justice of every particular case of resistance
is reduced to a computation of the quantity
of the danger and grievance on the one
side, and of the probability and expense
of redressing it on the other.” Of this, he
says, every man shall judge for himself. But
Paley appears never to have contemplated

those cases to which the rule of expediency
does not apply, in which a people, as well
and an individual, must do justice, cost what
it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank
from a drowning man, I must restore it to
him though I drown myself. This, according
to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that
would save his life, in such a case, shall lose
it. This people must cease to hold slaves,
and to make war on Mexico, though it cost
them their existence as a people.
In their practice, nations agree with Paley;
but does anyone think that Massachusetts
does exactly what is right at the present
crisis?
“A drab of stat,
a cloth-o’-silver slut,
To have her train borne up,
and her soul trail in the dirt.”
Practically speaking, the opponents to a
reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred
thousand politicians at the South, but a
hundred thousand merchants and farmers
here, who are more interested in commerce
and agriculture than they are in humanity,
and are not prepared to do justice to the slave
and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not
with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at
home, co-operate with, and do the bidding
of, those far away, and without whom the
latter would be harmless. We are accustomed
to say, that the mass of men are unprepared;
but improvement is slow, because the few
are not as materially wiser or better than
the many. It is not so important that many
should be good as you, as that there be some
absolute goodness somewhere; for that will
leaven the whole lump. There are thousands
who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to
the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put
an end to them; who, esteeming themselves
children of Washington and Franklin, sit

down with their hands in their pockets, and
say that they know not what to do, and do
nothing; who even postpone the question of
freedom to the question of free trade, and
quietly read the prices-current along with
the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner,
and, it may be, fall asleep over them both.
What is the price-current of an honest man
and patriot today? They hesitate, and they
regret, and sometimes they petition; but
they do nothing in earnest and with effect.
They will wait, well disposed, for other to
remedy the evil, that they may no longer
have it to regret. At most, they give up only
a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and
Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them.
There are nine hundred and ninety-nine
patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But
it is easier to deal with the real possessor
of a thing than with the temporary guardian
of it.
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers
or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge
to it, a playing with right and wrong, with
moral questions; and betting naturally
accompanies it. The character of the voters
is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as
I think right; but I am not vitally concerned
that that right should prevail. I am willing
to leave it to the majority. Its obligation,
therefore, never exceeds that of expediency.
Even voting for the right is doing nothing
for it. It is only expressing to men feebly
your desire that it should prevail. A wise
man will not leave the right to the mercy of
chance, nor wish it to prevail through the
power of the majority. There is but little
virtue in the action of masses of men. When
the majority shall at length vote for the
abolition of slavery, it will be because they
are indifferent to slavery, or because there is

but little slavery left to be abolished by their
vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only
his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery
who asserts his own freedom by his vote.
I hear of a convention to be held at
Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection
of a candidate for the Presidency, made
up chieÁy of editors, and men who are
politicians by profession; but I think, what
is it to any independent, intelligent, and
respectable man what decision they may
come to? Shall we not have the advantage
of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless?
Can we not count upon some independent
votes? Are there not many individuals in the
country who do not attend conventions? But
no: I Ànd that the respectable man, so called,
has immediately drifted from his position,
and despairs of his country, when his
country has more reasons to despair of him.
He forthwith adopts one of the candidates
thus selected as the only available one, thus
proving that he is himself available for any
purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of
no more worth than that of any unprincipled
foreigner or hireling native, who may have
been bought. O for a man who is a man, and,
and my neighbor says, has a bone is his back
which you cannot pass your hand through!
Our statistics are at fault: the population has
been returned too large. How many men
are there to a square thousand miles in the
country? Hardly one. Does not America
offer any inducement for men to settle
here? The American has dwindled into an
Odd Fellow--one who may be known by the
development of his organ of gregariousness,
and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful
self-reliance; whose Àrst and chief concern,
on coming into the world, is to see that
the almshouses are in good repair; and,
before yet he has lawfully donned the virile

garb, to collect a fund to the support of the
widows and orphans that may be; who, in
short, ventures to live only by the aid of
the Mutual Insurance company, which has
promised to bury him decently.
It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course,
to devote himself to the eradication of any,
even to most enormous, wrong; he may still
properly have other concerns to engage
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 practically his support.
If I devote myself to other pursuits and
contemplations, I must Àrst see, at least, that
I do not pursue them sitting upon another
man’s shoulders. I must get off him Àrst, that
he may pursue his contemplations too. See
what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have
heard some of my townsmen say, “I should
like to have them order me out to help put
down an insurrection of the slaves, or to
march to Mexico--see if I would go”; and
yet these very men have each, directly by
their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least,
by their money, furnished a substitute. The
soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in
an unjust war by those who do not refuse to
sustain the unjust government which makes
the war; is applauded by those whose own
act and authority he disregards and sets at
naught; as if the state were penitent to that
degree that it hired one to scourge it while
it sinned, but not to that degree that it left
off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the
name of Order and Civil Government, we
are all made at last to pay homage to and
support our own meanness. After the Àrst
blush of sin comes its indifference; and from
immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral,
and not quite unnecessary to that life which
we have made.

The broadest and most prevalent error
requires the most disinterested virtue to
sustain it. The slight reproach to which the
virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the
noble are most likely to incur. Those who,
while they disapprove of the character and
measures of a government, yield to it their
allegiance and support are undoubtedly
its most conscientious supporters, and so
frequently the most serious obstacles to
reform. Some are petitioning the State
to dissolve the Union, to disregard the
requisitions of the President. Why do
they not dissolve it themselves--the union
between themselves and the State--and
refuse to pay their quota into its treasury?
Do not they stand in same relation to the
State that the State does to the Union? And
have not the same reasons prevented the
State from resisting the Union which have
Sez Bask ädäbiyättän 1 tekst ukıdıgız.
Çirattagı - Desobedientzia zibila - 5
  • Büleklär
  • Desobedientzia zibila - 1
    Süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 3638
    Unikal süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 1990
    25.2 süzlär 2000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    37.1 süzlär 5000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    43.2 süzlär 8000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    Härber sızık iñ yış oçrıy torgan 1000 süzlärneñ protsentnı kürsätä.
  • Desobedientzia zibila - 2
    Süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 3703
    Unikal süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 1935
    26.6 süzlär 2000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    37.6 süzlär 5000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    44.8 süzlär 8000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    Härber sızık iñ yış oçrıy torgan 1000 süzlärneñ protsentnı kürsätä.
  • Desobedientzia zibila - 3
    Süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 3843
    Unikal süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 1901
    30.5 süzlär 2000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    43.4 süzlär 5000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    51.8 süzlär 8000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    Härber sızık iñ yış oçrıy torgan 1000 süzlärneñ protsentnı kürsätä.
  • Desobedientzia zibila - 4
    Süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 4445
    Unikal süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 1759
    17.3 süzlär 2000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    23.0 süzlär 5000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    26.8 süzlär 8000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    Härber sızık iñ yış oçrıy torgan 1000 süzlärneñ protsentnı kürsätä.
  • Desobedientzia zibila - 5
    Süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 5144
    Unikal süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 1306
    1.6 süzlär 2000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    2.2 süzlär 5000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    3.3 süzlär 8000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    Härber sızık iñ yış oçrıy torgan 1000 süzlärneñ protsentnı kürsätä.
  • Desobedientzia zibila - 6
    Süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 1236
    Unikal süzlärneñ gomumi sanı 571
    8.7 süzlär 2000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    11.7 süzlär 5000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    14.7 süzlär 8000 iñ yış oçrıy torgan süzlärgä kerä.
    Härber sızık iñ yış oçrıy torgan 1000 süzlärneñ protsentnı kürsätä.