Henry David Thoreau was an American philosopher who lived in the 19th century, when the young and weak American society was not as powerful as it is today. His illustrious work called “Civil Disobedience” demonstrated his polar view towards unjust government. Objecting to paying taxes, protesting, following one's conscience are just some of the methods of disobedience. His main point is that every man, who considers himself a man of conscience, should differentiate laws to determine which law is right or wrong, and consequently not obey that unjust law. I basically agree with this statement, and this essay will show how he reaches that conclusion and provide arguments for and against this statement. The situation in America in the 19th century was significantly different from the situation today. For example, in the 19th century slavery and the slave trade were commonplace, and nearly one in six Americans was a slave. Thoreau was not simply a citizen who lived for his own interests and was indifferent to politics, he was an opposite citizen. He could not ignore unjust issues, such as slavery, the Mexican War, deception, and unjust taxes. In the United States, slavery flourished and became a profitable way of merchandising by capturing Africans and shipping them to America. Drawing conclusions here, it can be said that there was no one who would disapprove of it. However, Thoreau thought of this with disdain and it was one of the reasons for coming to that conclusion. Another thing that worried him was the Mexican War, which Thoreau said was unjust because the U.S. government was acting as an aggressor against its neighbors and had just annexed Texas. Some soldiers seem to despise their government, but... in the middle of the paper... he refers to the Semey range. This kind of thing makes a liberal man reject such government. Another point proposed by Thoreau is that the attempt to have a better government must be made because there is nothing to lose here. This is because the people have nothing with this type of government. They don't have freedom, respect and anything like that. Finally, Thoreau's principles of civil disobedience were successful in the movements of Gandhi and King, which bring freedom and hope for a bright future to a certain group of people. In conclusion, although Thoreau's conclusion has several opposing views such as the possibility of chaos, punishment for disobedience and difference in levels of consciousness, one should disobey the unjust law, because it is unjust to humanity, and people they should have better governance through civil disobedience and develop politically.