27 January 1841, Wednesday; 7:00 p.m.
Concord, Massachusetts; Masonic Hall
Debate: "Is It Ever Proper to Offer Forcible Resistance?"

[Back to Calendar of Lectures]
                Having no speaker for its meeting of 13 January 1841, the Concord Lyceum passed the evening by debating the propriety of forcible resistance. The evening’s record, kept by secretary John C. Nourse, states: "The Curators having been unable to procure a lecturer, the following question was discussed. Is it ever proper to offer forcible resistance? Rev B. Frost Hon S. Hoar in the affirmative; Mr. A. B. Alcott in the negative. On motion, voted that Mr. Alcott be admitted a member of the Lyceum without the payment of the usual fee. The question was postponed for farther consideration until some evening when we should be unprovided with a lecture; and the Lyceum adjourned" (MassLyc, p. 155).
        The following week, on 20 January, the Reverend John Russell of Chelmsford (later to become Thoreau’s friend and an eminent botanist) lectured "On the Science of Geology in Its Economical and Topographical Characters" (MassLyc, p. 155), but on 27 January 1841, apparently once again lacking a speaker, the debate over forcible resistance was resumed, with both Thoreau brothers arguing in the affirmative against Bronson Alcott’s negative. This was the seventh in a course of thirteen Lyceum meetings that season (MassLyc, pp. 155-56). Secretary Nourse reported: "The Lyceum, having been called to order by the President [Timothy Prescott], proceeded to the discussion of the following question: Is it ever proper to offer forcible resistance? Mr. J. Thoreau Jr. and Mr D. H. Thoreau in the affirmative; Mr A. B. Alcott in the negative. On motion of Mr J. Thoreau Jr, Ordered, that this question lie over for farther discussion till some evening when the Lyceum is unprovided with a lecturer. Adjourned" (MassLyc, p. 155). The next day, 28 January, Thoreau wrote in his journal, "Resistance is a very wholesome and delicious morsel at times" (PEJ1, p. 233). In the days following the debate he added several journal comments about resistance, often employing martial images. He remarked as well about the hurt feelings of friends and about dispensing with apologies—indications, presumably, that the debate with Alcott had touched nerves (PEJ1, pp. 233ff).
        A week later, on 5 February, the continuing debate over forcible resistance ended, apparently without an audience vote to determine the question. On this occasion there was also a speaker, and a most appropriate one. The Reverend Adin Ballou was for many years the principal propagandist for—and may even have begun—the non-resistance movement in the United States. John Nourse reported on the evening’s activities: "The Lyceum was called to order by the President. On motion of Mr. [John?] Thoreau— Voted—that, after the lecture, the Lyceum discuss the question of Non-Resistance. A lecture was then delivered by Rev. Mr. Ballou of Mendon on Non-Resistance. This question was then discussed by Mr. Ballou, Mr. S. Hoar, Mr. Alcott, Mr. Jenkins & the President. The Lyceum adjourned, without taking the question" (MassLyc, p. 155). The next day Thoreau wrote in his journal a comment on the daunting responsibility of rising to perform in public, a comment that, even if a response to Ballou’s lecture, perhaps suggests both the significance Thoreau attached to lecturing and the self-conscious trepidation he experienced upon mounting the lecture platform: "In a public performer, the simplest actions—which at other times are left to unconscious nature—as the ascending a few steps in front of an audience—acquire a fatal importance—and become arduous deeds" (PEJ1, p. 253).