How does it become a man to behave toward this American government
to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with
it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as
my government which is the slave's government also.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. But almost all say that
such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the
Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad
government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its
ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for
I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly
this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a
great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to
have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let
us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of
the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of
liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and
conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think
that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.
What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so
overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
How can I paraphrase this sentence? The sentence comes from On the Duty of Civil Disobedience Para. 8.
If "this" refers to friction, friction has a useful effect on counterbalancing the evil, what does counterbalance mean in this sentence? But if friction means disagreement or tension between people or groups of people, isn't it the same as evil? Then why does he say "it is a great evil" and "make a stir"?
Best Answer
Let's start from the top. Thoreau asserts that it's man's duty to disobey/protest/resist the government "when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable." He believed that 1849 was such a time when the government's tyranny had reached an unendurable level, but nobody else seemed to care. Those who disagreed with Thoreau argued that 1775 (right before the American revolution) was a true state of oppression, and that American in 1849 was not in a state of oppression worth starting a revolution over. Thoreau sets out to make this claim look foolish.
Now, for your question. When Thoreau says...
...he's saying that all machines have a weak point (friction) - something that counteracts their evil and works against their success. When the solution (friction) to the machine's oppression is simple, there's no need to have a revolution - no need to "make a stir." Specifically, Thoreau is saying that revolution in 1776 may have been a bit of an overreaction to taxation of imports. Instead, a solution would have been to simply to stop buying the imported products, since they could easily be lived without.
Thoreau continues on in hopes of demonstrating why 1849 is exactly the time to start a revolution. He argues that, when the "friction comes to have its machine" (i.e. when the solution to the problem of oppression/tyranny is itself a system of oppression/tyranny), something needs to change. This, says Thoreau, is exactly what was happening in 1849 America. We had founded the country on principles idea of liberty and freedom, yet one sixth of the country's population was enslaved and we had just finished (unjustly, according to Thoreau) invading Mexico.