When a nation becomes involved in military conflict, questions arise as to what the rights and responsibilities of its citizens are during such a crisis. At the time of the Mexican-American War, these arguments dominated much of the political rhetoric in the United States, with dissenters like Henry David Thoreau questioning the need for a government if its actions were in direct contradiction to what individuals knew to be just. In such situations, Thoreau argued, a citizen was not obligated to follow the edicts of the government. There were those who supported the governmentÆs involvement in the war, however, and believed that citizens were obligated to support the actions of their government as fulfillment of their patriotic duty. This group included Congressman Stephen A. Douglas and President James K. Polk, who strongly criticized those Americans who opposed the war. But while a citizen is responsible to the government that provides him with protection and other services, it is unreasonable to expect a person to blindly support the governmentÆs actions, regardless of whether the individualÆs conscience believes the actions to be just. Indeed, while there are certain obligations that citizens must fulfill, they should not be forced to support a war that they believe is not justified.
For Thoreau, the government itself was a concern, both in times of war and of peace. He believed that ôGovernment is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedientö (Thoreau 206). In ThoreauÆs mind, men would eventually reach a state in which they did not need a government to run their lives because in the current system, ôThe 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 who can act through itö (Thoreau 206). Thoreau believed that that was what had occurred w...