Thoreau's essay might have been a decent persuasion essay back in its time, but to me, I think it's no good. If he was to give some proof or some evidence, then MAYBE his claim that "that government is best which governs least" would persuade people better. Making claims about the way the government and society should be structured take evidence such as The American-Mexican war and the slavery issues, which are basically his only two warrants of proof that civil disobedience towards the government is acceptable. He not only writes about his theory of having no government, but he writes to his state of Massachusetts trying to persuade them to take action and stop obeying the corrupt government. This is where he uses his evidence of the war and slavery to help him.
Even though I do not think the essay has enough evidence to actually persuade someone to follow his claims and theories, doesn't mean his ideas really do not work. They do, just as he anticipated they would. In the 1940's, the essay was read by the resistance in Denmark, and in the 1950's it was taken into account by anyone who opposed McCarthyism. In the 1960's, it was cherished in the struggle against South African Apartheid, and in the 1970's it was read by a new generation of anti-war activists (eserver.org).
Thoreau does not give any credit to the government what so ever. He tells us that people would accomplish much more if it doesn't get in the way. Alls the government does is HELP keep our country free, HELP settle the West, and HELP educate. Yes of course the people have accomplished this, but it would be a lot harder with out the help of the government. And this help means in money support. He fails to recognize all the money the government gives to accomplish such things.
He speaks of how important it is for us to not be loyal to our government or "sacrifice and marginalize" our values, in other words the importance of individualism.