Civil Disobedience and Democracy
In Lancaster, Massachusetts, the sit-in on the steps of the Rowlandson house may not have been justified by the law of the land, but it was indeed justified by fundamental law, and within the Constitution, which specifies our basic rights. In 1856, a time before slavery was outlawed throughout the United States, the Northern states and the Southern states differed on their opinions of slavery in that the North was free and the South practiced slavery. It should be, that every resident of the North is granted the right to live free from the bounds of slavery, whether or not they had been a slave in the South. Fundamental life rights rule above and beyond any bureaucratic statement of law. In essence, the laws and rights that are supposed to govern the land where we live were not created by a free hand, but rather based on ideas that have been in place in governments for hundreds of years prior.
In the case of Jim, the slave who ran away from the plantation to where he was unwillingly bound, civil disobedience is justifiable. Law exists reportedly to maintain an appearance of routine and order amidst the possibility of disorganization, mayhem, and chaos. The law often does very well what is expected to do. However, there are certain cases in which disobedience of such law is permissible. The key in any defiance of the law, though, is not to do so in a violent or threatening manner. Now some people may
2
interpret an act of civ ...