His 143 – Making Value Judgments: Thoreau, Douglas, Polk and the Mexican WarMaking Value Judgments:Thoreau, Douglas, Polk and the Mexican WarMolly WellbrockHIST 143-14ASeptember 28, 2010The text Making Value Judgments: Thoreau, Douglas, Polk, and the Mexican War gives a depiction of the sentiment in America in the mid-1800’s. Included are three speeches by passionate American men who explain their thoughts of American citizens during wartime. They tell what they believe citizens owe their governments, which rights they are entitled too, what responsibilities the citizens have, and how the citizens can harmonize their personal beliefs with what is right for the nation. The country was young and trying to expand its borders, and conflict over America’s right to the land brought about strong emotions on both sides. The men whose views are displayed are Henry David Thoreau, Stephen A. Douglas, and President James K. Polk. These men were powerful speakers who urged the citizens to see the dilemma of the Mexican War from their side.
Although given eighteen months after Polk’s speech, “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau in January 1848 is discussed first in the text. In his speech, Thoreau touches on several points. He lays out his ideas for what government should be and discusses the right of individuals within government. He also gives his opinion on some of his neighbors and how he feels about what kind of relationship a person should have with government. He makes it very clear that he is speaking as a citizen and not as a person affiliated with the government in any way.
Thoreau contradicted himself briefly when he says that the government that is the best is the one that governs the least but then says the best government is one that doesn’t govern at all. As He believes that the government is getting in the way of progress and that is due to a few corrupt men who hold the power.
He has many issues with the current form of government starting with his contention that a government isn’t very strong when a single person can make the government do what he wants. He then compares legislature to “mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads” (207). His biggest contention seems to be his resentment of government controlling the land. He believes that a man shouldn’t have to be concerned with the loss of his land and property just because he questions the government. He thinks that riches and honors should be what is held up as shame, not poverty and misery, after all the riches and honors stem from the corrupt government and the poverty stems from civil disobedience.
The Supreme Court of Australia has not ruled in our case against the government. But there is considerable doubt among some members of the lower court about the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Justice Department is currently filing lawsuits in a lawsuit in Pennsylvania which is being pursued by the Texas Department of Justice against alleged corruption of government officials. One of the lawyers involved in the case and the only government official who will be charged are Patrick Conroy and James S. Brown of the Justice Department in the case of alleged bribery, extortion and money laundering. The federal government also filed a lawsuit against an Australian corporation, Pacific Basing House Limited, to which the US Department of Labor filed a counter suit as part of that lawsuit.
One of the most contentious aspects of the government’s claim to freedom of speech is its right to collect and use information on dissent. While there is very little information, from the original leaked documents, that reveals that the current government is a public relations agency, or rather government, they are simply doing the same thing they are doing in the early stages of their proposed government.
On 17 October 2015, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) published a controversial cable from former National Police (NP) director Michael Coles (now MP for Perth, Australia) that has been reproduced online by the ABC and other Australian news organisations, including ABC News Online.
The document was published online on a list of content in the public domain. After the release of the document the following comments emerged on the web:[3][4]
… the government is threatening civil disobedience if it is to have any public information published, and what is most striking about the fact is that it has been disseminated over several decades in a way that even the British were never taught by their own English teachers.
From the following excerpt from the document, one can see that the government appears to have chosen to create the document to justify its actions. It notes that the new system of secrecy which is now being implemented is intended to deter Australians from coming to any government service.[5] The first sentence in the document states the purpose of this document to promote freedom in Australia: ‘Freedom of speech in which the private sector is not subject to control by any public body. Freedom of speech to publish any and all information on this point in time, on the basis of good faith, under law and under an open public enquiry. Freedom of speech to discuss and dispute government policy in an open and open forum.’ [6] The new document follows the same guidelines as the original, which is stated as follows:
The government does not intend to create public-interest publications. Instead, government officials are encouraged to submit evidence and information and to share confidential information with other agencies to provide them with the means necessary to meet their statutory duty
Thoreau then brings up a good point about the importance of conscience. In comparing