The implication is that without withdrawing one's financial support from the government, one is not a true abolitionist. For Thoreau, political action as such may generate problems for conscientious participants quite similar to those raised by the implication of the citizen in the acts of the democratic state. The demands of solidarity with the victims of injustice, or with one's own group as it asserts its common claims, may conflict with the integrity of the 'majority of one'. This is Thoreau's call for every man, even one man, to withdraw support from the government. A very transcendental philosophy is at work in this statement.
Transcendentalists believe that there is no end to a question, the door can never be closed.
In this way, one man who withdraws his support is the beginning of an endless cycle. Thoreau certainly believed this, and he used this essay as a chance to point out that he actually spent a night in prison in an effort to remain faithful to his conscience. Thoreau wrote a great deal about the Indians. For Thoreau, honor is associating with acting upon ones own beliefs, following one's intuitive sense of conscience. Consider how that theme is at work in this essay.