History has proven time after time that certain laws are unjust. The Salt March of 1930 led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956) are both prime examples of a populace protesting the laws instituted by a higher power. The Salt March had a defined purpose. The British government instituted legislation that restricted native Indians from collecting or selling salt; a mineral that was vital to their livelihood (Andrews). This restriction justified a revolt. A higher power was enacting policies that degraded the lifeline of its population. Similarly, the Montgomery Bus Boycott proved to be a necessary means of action. This movement was crucial to desegregating the Southern transportation systems and planting the seed for desegregation to become the norm. As Dr. Martin Luther King stated in his letter from Birmingham Jail: “My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure” (King). It is crucial to note that the act of civil disobedience is often the only response to tyrannical or overbearing legislation and societal criterion. It is this act of disobedience that instigates progressive change. It takes a movement, sometimes an uprising, to alter the course of oppressive wrongdoings. As Henry David Thoreau stated in Civil Disobedience: “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable”