and spent a night in jail because he persistently refused to pay his state tax. This occurrence, like many another incidental to his character-unfolding, was wholly misconstrued. It was regarded as a deed of silly, affected defiance to custom, whereas it was one of the most simple and consistent expressions of his firm, basal principles. Eight years before he had refused to pay the church tax and had seceded quietly but firmly from church attendance, though Emerson, in his journal, speaks of him as an occasional attendant. He was then teaching, and he saw no logic for payment of a tax to support the minister unless the minister should pay a sum for the support of the teacher. He was no anarchist in his refusal to meet the demands of state, but he was a radical, bold reformer. His demand was for "a government which establishes justice in the land," and he was averse to recognizing any claims of a government which violated its foundation stone of liberty.
The abolition element was coming to the fore in subtle channels. Thoreau's was not the only refusal to support a government which had acquiesced in the Mexican War and was willing to pamper slave-owners. Often Thoreau seemed to follow the example of his friends or, rather, to carry their ideas to some extreme issue. In writing Emerson in
