It is the duty of the people to change the government when it
no longer reflects the interests of the people. A good citizen follows the
laws, but following laws blindly is not a characteristic of a responsible
citizen. There is a fine line between disobeying laws illegally and doing so
illegally for righteous causes. In fact, it is the responsibility of a citizen
to protest a law with which they disagree, providing they accept the
consequences. Conversely, it is the right and the responsibility of the government
to enforce laws, whether broken for moral reasons or not.
It is the responsibility of every citizen to protest laws
they feel unjust. As Martin Luther King outlines in his Letter from Birmingham
Jail, one must always try to protest via the law, through proper means as a
first strategy. Stanton tries thus to protest passionately and vocally at her
conference for women at Seneca Falls. Although looked down upon by men at the
time, this action was completely legal. She states her cause to be the equality
of women, because they, “…being invested by the Creator
with the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of responsibility for
their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with
man, to promote every righteous cause, by every righteous means…” (Stanton).
Stanton, as a respected white woman in well-off household was more likely to be
heard than King as her position in society was much higher. This unjust climate
in the country made it necessary for demonstrators who were not being heard,
such as King, to take action in addition to speaking on the faults of the
government.
MLK was willing to take on the consequences of his
demonstrations because he truly believed that “Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” (Letter from Birmingham Jail,
King). He saw his demonstrations as an alternative to speaking that, though it
may have been illegal, was preferable to waiting for equal rights. He made sure
to state, however, that one must take the consequences of a broken law. Similar
to Socrates, King accepted his incarceration because he believed so strongly in
his cause and believed it was his duty to disobey laws that were not morally
correct. King accepted his punishment because he believed in society’s right to
punish criminals as well. King put his faith in the country by disobeying its
laws.
It is the right of any government to enforce laws created
legally. So, did the south have the right to secede in the case of the civil
war? As there was armed conflict and no acceptance of punishments, the south
did not have the right to nullify their participation in the union. In this
way, Lincoln’s position was correct in his Gettysburg Address. Lincoln states,
“...that we
here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this
nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom --and
that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth,” (Lincoln). Their participation in
the Civil War makes their disobedience wrong, no matter the purpose of their
cause. The government in this case, even though it may have been infringing on
the southerner’s freedom, was correct in punishing the proliferation on
violence. It is the foremost duty of the government to keep its citizens safe,
while it is the duty of the citizens to shape the government to their design.